Candid Commentary: Quis
separabit ? Mortem ad Tempest ad Populusque Britanniae.
(Who shall separate ? Death and Time and the British people.)
Important; This document is the Copyright
of The Drive The Flag Campaign and must not be forwarded, distributed,
duplicated or published in whole or in part in any form, in any manner, be it
electronic communication or the printed page, without the prior written consent
of The Drive The Flag Campaign - that can be contacted via the e-mail link at
the bottom of this page.
One of the most disturbing
aspects of the Afghan conflict of 2001 was the reaction of the Islamic peoples
to the actions of Osama Bin Laden. Although many have rightly condemned the
outrage of September, 11th many have either voiced opinions ranging from
outright support to equivocation.
Politicians such as Blair and
Bush have strenuously sought to declare that their actions constitute a "war on
terror" and not a war on Islam. Both point out - correctly - that they
intervened militarily in Kosovo in support of the Islamic Kosovars against the
Orthodox Christian Serbs - to seemingly little effect for many Islamic people
regard their actions as a war on Islam.
Television pictures broadcast on
October 10th 2001 on the BBC television NEWS 24 service showed a crowd of
incensed Afghan refuges in the region of Quetta in Pakistan running towards a
Police convoy carrying western reporters - the viewers were told that these
people were looking to kill any American or British person - military or
civilian they could find.
To get an understanding of the
perception of these refugees, consider the following hypothetical scenario;
That this present real world and universe did not exist and instead there
existed a quite different world within a different universe where one could
travel through time from present day Britain to a Britain of the past - 446
years past in fact and vice versa - that this time travel was available to all
who could afford to purchase one ounce (Sorry! - 28.375 grams) of gold to put in
the slot of a magical machine that transported one from one time to another. Why
you may ask is the writer asking we readers to imagine such a piece of nonsense
?
To contrive an imaginary
situation where present day British society would be judged by members of the
England of 1555 AD in the reign of Queen Mary Tudor. Consider the England of
that period. Racked by religious dissent and turmoil. A harsh and intolerant
society that burned those they saw as heretics. A society where capital
punishment was dispensed for what could be called political crimes (of holding
the wrong views and advocating them) in a sadistic and brutal manner known as
hanging, drawing and quartering. This disgusting and hideously barbaric practise
involved castrating the victim, forcing him to swallow his severed genitals,
hanging him - in a manner to partially asphyxiate him and not to break his neck,
cutting him down and then disembowelling him.
One could well imagine the
righteous anger of those in our own time who would wish to change these things,
but imagine how someone from 1555 would view today's secular society, total lack
of respect (in their eyes) and deference to authority. Of a society where
plurality of religion is encouraged and lauded. Where one fifth of babies born
are illegitimate. A society where young women are empowered and fully
emancipated ?
There are those of our forebears
who would regard (would have regarded) our society as heretical and probably a
work of the Devil. There could be those who might even attempt to hijack (armed
with 16th century daggers - highly effective against an unarmed air stewardess)
an airliner and fly it into Canary Wharf ?
Now to return to the real world.
Let us consider how modern secular western society appears to those whose world
view is that of the Taliban ? Whilst the world remembers New York, consider
another American city; San Francisco. Not for nothing is San Francisco sometimes
referred to as the "Gay Capital of the world". Here we see a society that those
in the Taliban regard as blasphemous, heretical and probably a work of the
Devil.
Getting nearer home, we have in
our country a growing Islamic community. This community seems to hold onto much
of the views and the culture of their Asian homeland whilst the indigenous and
now largely secular European community is developing in its own ways with the
continuing process of women's emancipation, increase in vegetarianism, a
different way of looking at animals and their rights and a progressively more
tolerant attitude of those of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual.
There is in the future a significant danger of a culture clash.
There are those who may lay this
at the door of Islam. That would be incorrect. This paradoxically is not a
religious issue. It is a cultural and sociological issue. Consider another
hypothetical scenario. That instead of Christianity moving west and Islam moving
east from the Levant - it had been the other way round. That instead of a Europe
of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants there was a Europe of Sunni
and Shia Moslems and that the Middle East and Asia comprised not Sunni and Shia
Moslems but Orthodox and Catholic Christians. Given that other things in this
impossible hypothetical scenario remained more or less equal we would have
fundamentalist Christians (as there were in Puritan England for instance) and a
now largely secular Islamic Europe. There would still be the tension and the
conflict.
The reason for the tension is
this; Present day western society is the product of its history which includes
the industrial revolution, urbanisation, the emancipation of women following two
world wars and the secularisation due to a combination of public education, the
welfare state, television, scientific discovery, decrease in deference to
authority figures, social mobility and reduced infant mortality. Afghanistan and
other countries in the region have not undergone these social revolutions and
thus their citizens see the world very differently.
So far as the domestic situation
is concerned, unless something is done, the future is going to be very dangerous
and unstable, for what we have is two communities growing progressively further
apart;
- the indigenous British community is developing along a secular libertarian
lines.
- the Islamic community is becoming increasingly self confident and assertive of
its own culture and values.
The problem here is a clash of
basic beliefs and values. This is demonstrated in the way Islamic
fundamentalists openly despise Western lifestyle values in the present conflict.
The growing problem back home is
not helped by a stultifying and all pervasive political correctness where
commentaries such as this one will be declared as Islamophobic, xenophobic and
racist. In fact this only makes the problem worse for if one is not prepared to
defend one's culture and/or values against one who is attacking them it will
give succour to the attacker who will not unreasonably be of the opinion that
the argument has already been conceded. Examples are legion;
An example is where the NUT has declared that the words to Elgar's magnificent,
"Land of Hope and Glory" are politically unacceptable and new politically
correct words have to be written.
The politically correct white
liberal establishment are fond of talking about tolerance. Yet this tolerance is
very much one way;
It is for example perfectly acceptable in the minds of the politically correct
for Islamic women to wear the Veil and the Burkha in public - notwithstanding
the fact that these articles of clothing can be seen as being oppressive. These
individuals would not dream of criticising the culture that demands that women
cover themselves so.
It is not that they approve, but
that they feel constrained that they are not entitled to disapprove. Why ? You
may ask. A feeling of guilt is the answer.
At the heart of this problems is
the basic belief that this country and this culture are in the wrong. Our
Imperialist and Colonialist past they maintain was a deplorable period in our
history where this country and these peoples went forth to other parts of the
world and systematically exploited, abused and enslaved other peoples for their
own materialistic gain, that our present wealth and prosperity are built on
these foundations and that in effect the sins of the grandfathers have to be
visited on the grandchildren.
We are wrong to feel this way.
That is not to say that people from this country did no wrong. Of course they
did. But one cannot have successive generations feeling guilty and filled with a
need to continually perform some form of collective penance.
Why do so many of our liberal
and politically correct citizens feel this way ? You may ask.
The answer lies in the theology of the Protestant reformed churches - both
Church of England and the non conformist churches. It can be demonstrated by the
difference in the way the Roman Catholic country Spain has come to terms with
her Colonialist history (more bloody and more repressive that Britain's) and
Britain's guilt ridden example. The difference is in fact illustrated in the
aspect of Confession and Absolution. Confession - i.e.; visiting one's Priest,
confessing one's sins, undertaking to do penance and obtaining absolution - is a
basic aspect of a Roman Catholic's life. It can be for some a very healthy
course of action. The Protestant church does not deal with this aspect in the
same way. Thus there is an aspect to Protestant Anglo-Saxon culture that causes
well intentioned and concerned individuals to feel the need to continually do
penance for assumed or imagined sins.
Let us however review the
history of our country since the Second World War. 1945 left this country in a
parlous state. Britain had won the war - but at a huge cost in both human life
and money. In 1945 the British people demonstrated their freedom by voting in
the reforming Labour government of Clement Atlee and ousting the wartime leader
Winston Churchill. The U.S.A. by this time was rapidly entering the McCarthy era
of anti-communist witch hunts. Marshall Aid - the post war investment by the
U.S. largely bypassed Britain and went instead to her former enemies as well as
France. By the 1950's British industry was losing its competitiveness against
its European competitors. Industrialists - thinking no further ahead than the
next A.G.M. of their shareholders - opted for a novel solution. Import cheap
labour from the Asian sub-continent. This then was the start of Asian
immigration into Britain. British people who objected to this form of
undercutting their trades union negotiated pay and conditions were roundly
condemned as being racially prejudiced - by people who did not live anywhere
near these new arrivals to our shores. In fact the relative lack of racial
incidents and negative reaction is in fact remarkable and the British people can
be truly congratulated on their tolerance and maturity. Over the years the
growth of the multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-faith society that has
arisen in Britain has been the subject of clumsy and dishonest attempts to put
this development into a false historical perspective - attempts that Joseph
Goebells would have been proud - were it not to be precisely opposite to his own
racist prejudices! These authorities have sought to compare the post war influx
of New Commonwealth immigrants with historical migrations of such as the
Huguenots and more recently Jews in the 19th century. The scale and the ethnic,
cultural and religious differences were on an altogether different scale.
Statements along the lines of the indigenous population was historically
multi-racial being a mix of Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Celts are fundamentally
dishonest. The fact is that since the "swinging sixties" the British people have
been fed a consistent diet of propaganda in an attempt to intimidate any who
might have objected.
The British people now have as
part of their country a community which may have some of its members with
loyalties that may lie outside this country. With the spread of Islamic
fundamentalism across the globe the Asian chickens may well and truly becoming
to start coming home to roost in the lofts of those enthusiasts for our
multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-faith society. However it must be said
that many of those originally responsible to creating this disaster are
themselves now contributing again to the misery of ALL those who live in these
British Isles - namely, the capitalists who encouraged and arranged the
immigration from the Asian sub continent in the first place - for the
capitalists in their never ending quest to increase profits by lowering workers
wages are now relocating such as telephone call centres in cities such as
Bombay. Thus the sons and daughters of those who were brought to these shores
are now themselves made redundant with their jobs exported back to the lands of
their forefathers.
Sir Winston Churchill famously
said of those Battle of Britain pilots ; "Never in the field of human conflict
has so much been owed by so many to so few".
This can be paraphrased to;
"Never in the history of these islands have so few dropped such a clanger on so
many for so little gain".
To come back to the problem at
hand however - what are we going to do about it ?
Well the first aspect to
consider is the consequences of not doing anything about it. Of allowing the
status quo to continue unchecked. This will result in the growth of a divided
nation, of a community with a "western secular set of values" and a community
with an Asiatic Islamist set of values.
How then do we tackle this
problem ? In the traditional British ways of tolerance and getting "the
newcomers" - although most have been born here so the term is a misnomer - of
getting the Islamist and other communities to integrate fully into the British
way of life and for them to accept the dominant values and mores - which does
not been abandoning any particular religious faith .
What we must not do is to seek
to continue to tackle the problem the way we have in the past through the
passing of anti-discrimination legislation and the establishment of bodies such
as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission.
These bodies are in fact part of the problem and not part of the solution. This
fundamentally lies in the fact that these quangos and laws are by nature the
opposite of which they purport to be - for they are by nature discriminatory;
against the indigenous community. The premise that you can correct
discrimination against one group of people by practising discrimination
against another group is a non sequitur.
The first stage should be that
parliament should re-establish true and genuine equality by repealing ALL
anti-discrimination legislation. This would not be done as a signal that
discrimination is to be tolerated or even encouraged but to declare to all and
sundry that there is a true level playing field and that the indigenous
population of these islands need not feel that they are being given less
favourable treatment that the "ethnic minority communities" and other perceived
minority groups such as homosexuals.
The second stage should be a
radical "culture change" in the public sector which is the embodiment of the "we
are institutionally racist and homophobic" from this to the traditional culture
of the impartial civil service that existed in the early 1960's and before.
However, "should be" cannot be relied upon to be "would be" - for governments
can only do what is practically possible within the bounds of the constraints
imposed upon them - unfortunately, people have been digging in the politically
correct hole for forty years and it is mighty deep. To stop digging is one
thing. To seek to climb out of the hole and fill it in is quite another. No one
should be under any illusion what a difficult task this will be -and it could
not be done overnight.
The third stage will prove as
controversial as the second stage and should commence
in the schools and should inculcate the traditional English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish
Christian culture in children and should encourage and see to it that a positive
view of British history and institutions is inculcated in our children.
This will have a dramatic effect
on our country. One of the great strengths of the Great American Republic that
is the United States of America, is that the schools there actively encourage
and inculcate American children to feel good about their country and its
history.
This is no bad thing. It is a
good thing.
Critics will point out that in
the history of this country there have been horrendous human rights abuses such
as the hanging, drawing and quartering referred to earlier. However, the attempt
to present a critical view too early in a child's development will only prove to
be counter productive and corrosive. This is of course the aim of many who
inculcate these negative views at the present time. They see our country as
fundamentally racist, prejudiced, etc and are seeking to undermine its
traditional structure and institutions. This must be stopped.
Of course the "re-Anglicanisation"
of Britain must not mean removal of freedom of religion. Other faiths (i.e. non
Christian) must be allowed to continue, and this must mean the freedom to
promote their particular faith. However, the dominant culture and mores of the
country and the tenants by which the country is governed and administered must
be the traditional ones of these islands. A particular area where this policy
should be implemented is in the area of religion and the question of "faith
schools" needs to be addressed. The policy of re-Anglicanisation must mean that
not only should Christian "faith schools" should be allowed to continue but
these schools should do what is traditionally expected of them; to inculcate in
their pupils the values and the teachings of their particular Christian
denomination. The policy of re-Anglicanisation must also mean the abandonment of
state funded "faith schools" of faiths other than Christian - with the exception
of Jewish "faith schools" - these islands have been home to Jewish people since
medieval times and are part of our island history.
The inculcation of traditional
British mores and culture and history into their pupils will require pupils to
wear a school uniform of a traditional British style. This will mean that female
pupils will no longer be allowed to come to school wearing hijabs (headscarves).
We are in no doubt as to the
storm of protest these measures including the proscribing of the hijab for
school children will bring about. The French authorities have proscribed the
hijab and we would expect a far greater and broader opposition across the
community for vast numbers of the liberal politically correct would be enraged
about this and the dismantling of their cherished Equal Opportunities Commission
and "anti-discrimination laws." We saw the protests against the "poll tax" and
would expect at least this level of protest. However, it must be pointed out
that the hijab as well as the burkha and the niquab are not an expression of
Islam, for were it so Bosnian Moslem girls and women would wear hijabs, burhkas
and niquabs. These garments are manifestations of a cultural tradition imported
from Arabia and the Asian sub-Continent. Of course adult women (and girls
outside school) would be free to wear what garb they wish but it is important to
assert that the hijab can not be accepted as part of the British tradition and
as such cannot be permitted to be worn at school.
There are those who would
declare that this is anti-Islamic discrimination without any purpose.
We would refute that.
Firstly; it is not anti-Islamic
(see comments re Bosnian women).
Secondly, the purpose is to promote long term social harmony albeit at the cost
of short term social disharmony. The problem lies in the reasons behind the
wearing of these garments. If they were mere fashion accessories there would not
be a problem. The problem is that if a Moslem woman is seen in public without
such she is considered to be acting improperly. So what ? You might ask. The
answer to that question will be given by a Saudi Arabian police officer
apprehending a European woman unwise enough to walk down a street, uncovered and
without a male escort, in Riyadh. He would tell her that it was improper for any
woman - whatever her faith or racial origin - to be without such in public. In
this the police officer would not be acting unreasonably as a basic tenant of
good law is that it must be even handed and treat all equally - whatever their
faith or ethnic origin. The projected growth in the population of Moslems in the
U.K. and the demographic concentration thereof will give rise in the fairly near
future to areas where there is a majority Moslem population. When this occurs
things will begin to change in these areas. Some Moslem groups have already
stated that because they are a minority community they accept the dominance of
the culture and mores of the indigenous British culture; when they become the
majority community they will expect that it is the Moslem culture and social
traditions that will be dominant in those particular areas. This would mean for
instance that non Moslem women would have to conform to the dress codes for
Moslem women as happens today in counties such as Saudi Arabia.
It is our conviction that this
will represent an unacceptable change in the nature of our tolerant and secular
society. Tolerance has its limits. The U.K. is a modern secular European
country. It must remain so. Whatever demographic changes take place.
IMPORTANT NOTE; Many may ask
what should the policy towards Sikhs and the wearing of the Turban should be.
The answer is that it should be allowed for unlike the burkha, hijab or niquab,
the Turban and other headwear connected with Sikhism are an intrinsic part of
the Sikh's religious faith and religious expression and must not be interfered
with.
Furthermore, whilst the freedom
of religion should be guaranteed, all schoolchildren, whatever their faith
should be instructed in such basic aspects of the Christian faith that will
enable them to properly function in British society. This means - for non
Christian children - a basic explanation of the faith
(without any attempt to attract converts)
and an explanation as to why and when the various religious feasts are held.
There is no such need however to reciprocate by instructing children from the
majority indigenous community in the faiths of the "ethnic minorities".
Furthermore all pupils - other than non Christian children - should be required
to attend a school assembly that is in part an act of Christian worship.
Critics will also point out that
the "ethnic minority communities" will feel persecuted and threatened. Only
malicious and malevolent persons would encourage these communities to feel this
way. Most will accept that such reforms will achieve two things;
1. Far from feeling persecuted, the most mature and reasonable members of "the
ethic minorities" will recognise that a re-affirmation and re-establishment of
the traditional British culture, values and laws will give them the security
that are seeking for many of these persons came to this county precisely to live
in traditional Britain and wanting to escape from the repressive societies in
the lands of their births.
2. It will reassure the indigenous community that their country and culture is
not going to disappear and to be transformed into an alien society. This will
and must mean that the reforms must declare that whatever demographic changes
take place, these British islands will retain their traditional culture and
values centred on the Christian religion, in-perpetuity.
Of course it would be ridiculous
not to acknowledge that there would not be huge opposition to these reforms. So
much so that these policies are probably impossible to achieve and sadly history
will be written by the extremists.
COPYRIGHT 2004 - THE DRIVE THE FLAG
CAMPAIGN.
(Remove the "X's" that
are there as an Anti-Spam
defence)