The horror, seen with clarity and passion

Aditya B. writes:

With cold rage and quiet desperation, I forward more information documenting the death of Britain.

Both accounts are from the Telegraph which, rumor has it, is a “conservative” newspaper. The headline of the first story is:

100,000 British women mutilated

It pertains to the horrible practice of female genital mutilation, which the author describes in a detached and clinical fashion. Sub rosa video footage has been procured which shows medical professionals conspiring to provide this service in the UK, where its practice could result in fourteen years imprisonment.

By way of context, the article tells us:

Known as “cutting,” the procedure is traditionally carried out for cultural reasons and is widespread across Africa.

That is the article’s ONLY reference—as indirect as it is—to the fact that this practice has been brought into Britain from the Third World. The word “Africa” does not appear again in the article. The words “Islam,” “Muslims,” “immigration,” and “immigrants” do not appear even once in the article. It is as if the only reason the Telegraph informed its readers that the practice of female genital mutilation is widespread in Africa was that even the dullest and most credulous Briton would not believe that 100,000 white women have undergone this barbaric and savage practice. Other than that concession, the article contains not another word about the culture of the monsters in human form who slash away at the womanhood of helpless female children.

The most egregious part of the story is the headline itself. How are these women British in any meaningful sense of the word? If barbarians who hail from cultures where fathers and mothers participate in mutilating their daughters and robbing them of their very womanhood are now as British as the descendants of those who bequeathed us the English language, the Common Law, and modern finance and industry, then Britishness has ceased to exist. It is a meaningless concept. [LA replies: You are right. The headline shows that at the “conservative” Telegraph, Britain is already dead. It doesn’t exist any longer. There is probably not a single person working at that paper who would see why the headline is objectionable. And here’s another way of understanding the meaning of that headline. If the people at the Telegraph were conservatives, or even just consistent right-liberals, they would expect that African and Muslim immigrants are supposed to assimilate into Britain. They therefore would have described people in Britain who are following such alien and horrible practices as “African immigrants” or “Africans,” not as “British.” By doing so they would have maintained a distinction between Britain and people who obviously are not British or a part of Britain. The fact that they call these total aliens “British” shows that they no longer believe in a distinct Britain. Britain is simply whoever happens to be living on the meaningless territory called “Britain.” Britain is nothing but surrender to the Other, no matter how Other the Other is. Which is left-liberalism—unconditional cultural and demographic openness to the alien and the enemy.]

The second story is about forced child marriage, an almost exclusively Muslim practice. The continued mass importation of Muslims has necessitated the creation of a “Forced Marriage Unit” and the so-far youngest victim of this practice is a five year old. Would such a Unit be necessary if Muslims hadn’t been imported en masse into Britain? While the article mentions in passing that 65 percent of child marriage victims are Pakistani or Bangladeshi, it provides no context. Why are people from these countries disproportionately represented in forced child marriage? What is it about their culture that encourages and institutionalizes this practice? Could it be the fact that their pirate of a Prophet married a nine-year old? Could it be that they regard that man as the embodiment of virtue and strive to emulate him in every manner, shape, and form?

The same questions can be posed about the Africans who destroy their daughters’ womanhood. What is it about these people that makes them so blind to this evil? Why, in fact, do they regard this practice as a virtue? Why, after all the “awareness,” “education” and all the other gifts of the English welfare state, do they persist with this evil?

Could it be that men are not interchangeable like clothes and shoes? Is it possible that Western ideas and mores are, in fact, not universal, but particular, followed and practiced only in the West? That they resonate with men who share mystic chords of memory and ties of blood? That savages will remain savages and that civilization won’t make a dent in the impregnable armor of barbarism?

Britain is determined to do away with itself. “Conservatism” cannot prevent that. The semi-educated and barely civilized masses continue to enjoy the bread and circuses as their nation is swamped by wildebeests that are barely human. The tony set gets richer and more and more distant from the consequences of their crimes. The church pews are as empty as the wombs of British women.

Mr. Auster, this is the end of the line. This is a nation where there is nothing left to conserve.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 23, 2012 08:37 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):