Friction can be a drag

In the interests of free speech…just make it interesting

Hearts and minds

with 6 comments

Demos will publish a paper today critiquing the government’s approach to dealing with relations with the ‘Muslim community’, and it’s inability to win hearts and minds within this community. What a phlegmatically libertarian way to discuss matters of the heart!

British society and culture today are a result of a very particular series of cultural, intellectual and EMPASSIONED history – for example, women have equal democratic rights because many fought and died for this cause; wealth is redistributed to the poor because citizens collectively evolved an affinity to utilitarianism and compassionate capitalism; universal education is available to all because we agreed as a nation that children have an explicit right to literacy and an expansive childhood; universal medical rights arose from a belief that every human life is valuable regardless of economics – for that matter, regardless of race, class, sexuality, gender.

Our society and all its material and political benefits are a result of the VALUES that we have developed over generations. It is the social manifestation of the very condition of the hearts and minds of British peoples.

The point to this observation is that when migrants enter the country for particular benefits including political/human rights, universal education, free healthcare, increased standard of living – and especially when they come from nations that have not themselves taken the long and painful road to achieving the values that induce said benefits, it is extremely important that they subscribe to these values if we want our nation to continue SUSTAINING these values! Sadly, government funded Demos-eqsue reports such as above make prostitutes of heart and mind, rather than salute them as the goddesses of nation building. Any prospective marauding infidels need to salute them too if they wish to share in our nationhood.

It is one thing for migrants to practice their imported cultures, activities, rituals et cetera, but when they criticise the society we have created, the values that Britain IS, is this not a substantially dangerous practice to merit more than a beleaguered public relations report? Think about it, when an entire ethnic minority community (please understand and excuse my generalisations for the sake of brevity) and in particular, Muslims, prevent their daughters from going to university, when they exclude women from politics, when they shun integration, when they sexually objectify women, when they refuse to learn the state language, when they segregate by caste and gender, when they reject our economic systems, when they promote xenophobia, when they refuse to vote; why can we not state clear and loud, these values and behaviours are not acceptable here? That this behaviour threatens what is in OUR hearts and minds and consequently, the very foundations of our nationhood?

Politicians and public figures need to stop pandering to these communities through some misguided notion of tolerance; a word which was already offensive and obsolete when I was still juvenile and seems to have got alarmingly back into fashion. How can the British government even negotiate with a community that has not a single woman diplomat within its primary representative body, that effete misogynist that is the apparent voice of Muslims? We need to say it as it is – if groups want to behave in a way that threatens our values, it is not only our right, it should be our CHERISHED civic duty to rescue our nation, by driving out the blighted nation-breakers.

Advertisements

Written by sanchezdemarcos

December 4, 2006 at 12:53 am

Posted in free speech, policy, rants

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Its difficult though – you are picking some fairly extreme Islamic characteristics. Are you suggesting that Muslims should not be allowed to follow any of their cultural traditions…or just ones that offend ours?
    Who decides?

    igotlife

    December 4, 2006 at 10:28 am

  2. This is an interesting argument.

    I think it begins with a lot of premises with which it is nearly impossible to disagree, and then concludes in an extreme way: “driving out the nation-breakers.”

    Premise 1) that there are many great and admirable qualities and values found in the British Nation can be accepted. Democracy, health, education….

    Premise 2) that there are individuals in society who do not embrace these values is also a fact.

    This is not simply, however, a visible minority, it is to be found in all walks of life. For instance, there will be 10th generation Brits born into slumming ignorance who do not vote, who have a mysogynistic approach to women, who don’t value any system of government, and who don’t value education etc. They could, by the standard definition you have set, also be considered “nation-breakers.”

    What about an American who despises the concept of free education and free health care as invasive state practices and akin to communism and who supports a republic with a strong president in a form of democracy which we don’t ascribe to, and who, perhaps, also views God as the ultimate authority? That would fit the description of “nation-breaker.”

    One aspect to be clear about in this dialogue is that one should judge immigrant communities by their second and third generations, not by the first generation.

    A further aspect is to identify the social circumstances which lead to a lot of the ignorant values being embraced. A lack of opportunity, of voice, and of money often leads people to join more extreme parties. It is the rich vein that the Nazi party, and other fascits parties developed their support. In this country there are some stirrings of this kind of political party, and it is equally deplorable.

    I would argue very strongly that many of these so called values are ones which are difficult to afford, and ones which, of course, lead to a richer society. It is a virtuous cycle. So where does it begin? I’d say Britain would never have evolved these values without the economic benefit of imperialism. Thankfully, today, economic growth is not driven through political imperialism but through free international trade.

    The question of “blighted nation-breakers” I would argue is less about culture and more about economics, education, and dialogue.

    Instead of threatening mass deportation of a particularly visible minority (which, to be done properly should be done against any and all who don’t agree, in which case you have a fascist state and are protecting nothing), one should be looking at the real causes. For instance, the governments decision, against the majority of the populace, to go to war against Iraq, or to support Israel. Policies which undermine the perspective of this country as Democractic, peacable, etc.

    Poxinfinite

    December 4, 2006 at 10:51 am

  3. Uhhhmmmm, interesting. I didn’t even know the Government were trying to win hearts and minds!!? Based on those generalisations it’s difficult to disagree. Nothing pisses me off more than intolerence dressed up as religion but I’m not feeling your proposed extreme solution. You are completely right in saying the Government should not pamper to them but our beloved Government does many things that leave me bewildered and scratching my head. What we have here is a Government that is not being honest with it’s self or one that is even sure what it truely believes to be right. Inconsistency is a clear indication of this failing. From imigration to the reasons for going to war after 9/11.
    On principle I do believe it’s right to try and win hearts and minds (but don’t buy into this nation building crap) as to initiate real change you must engage people with a common cause and to really achieve that you must have buy-in.
    How this crap Government are quite expected to win hearts and minds while occupying with force (under the facade of invitation by a bogus democratic system with a country in civil war) is beyond me. Until we sort out the mess we created or at least own up and prosecute those who took us to war (because believe me, if we dig deep enough, there’ll be enough short cuts taken to merit a case) there is no chance of winning anything. As for religion, I struggle to see it’s relevance in todays society full stop, but maybe that’s just me.
    When cultures criticise our society based on their religious rules etc I think “get out!” but if it’s critism say about our handling of international affairs, our inability to look at the root causes of drink and drug abuse amongst chilrdren the overall breakdown in the familiy unit and the effects this has on society as a whole I say “bring it on”.

    Chairmanofthebored

    December 4, 2006 at 10:58 pm

  4. Problem is that half of the acceptable criticisms that you talk about (war, drugs etc) will be made in religous/cultural terms. What about Jamaicans bringing their non-religous gun-culture over here?

    igotlife

    December 5, 2006 at 9:36 am

  5. Yes, what I propose is extreme, and see that it can be easily defined as fascism – but is there not indeed a fine line between fascism and nationalism..?

    As for your comments about the government’s actions in international affairs that exacerbates the integration issue, although they are quite correct, I deliberately intended to take this argument away from that – I believe that it is important to make these arguments separately from global events, as regardless of what governments do, the problem of conflicting values will still hold and so deserves to be discussed on its own merits. In truth, I think global events are used to skew reasoning and can be a distraction – for example, how come indigenous Brits do not become radicalised when the government is perceived to be going against the wishes of the populace? Does that not reflect a certain adherence to fundamental values? Does that not demonstrate that Other values are at work in certain communities that are prone to radicalisation?

    Another reason that we need to be careful about bringing up Iraq every time we talk about Muslims and national identity is that Iraq is but a chapter in a long history of disgruntlement amongst Muslims. Mainstream media and politics has been allowing Muslims to use Iraq as some form of justification of their uncivility – that is nonsense and we shouldn’t allow them to get away with it – I remember when East End rude boys first started talking about jihad during the break up of Yugoslavia, Bosnia all that ethnic cleansing horror or the 90s. Because of this, by the time we got to Iraq, jihad had become a respectable word and that’s the problem – it took 10 years for that to happen, and we allowed it by not paying much attention to the little brown boys back then. Boys aren’t suddenly becoming radicalised, boys are looking up to what their elder brothers did in Kosovo and thinking well, I can carry that banner onwards. Muslim disaffection is a process, not a result of any one event – we need to focus on that in order to deal with the root causes of ignorance, disaffection, politicisation and lack of integration, rather than blaming external or global events, which is in no way constructive.

    Bitingstardust

    December 6, 2006 at 11:01 pm

  6. Interesting one to wrestle with “Bitingstardust”.
    Your point about – “Politicians and public figures need to stop pandering to these communities through some misguided notion of tolerance;”, seems a little naive.

    Politicans need to be elected. To do this they need to take account of the demographic within their constituency. If their constituency contains a large number of ethnic minorities, they will always pander to these communities, and values that these communites hold dear.

    Unfortunately, the philosphy of intergration, adoption of British values and acceptance of those values in the building and history of this nation become irrelevant distractions when faced with the practicalities of entering and sustaining any position of power by those politicians you mention.
    Politics is governed by expediency, and not what is necessarily fair or just.

    Jack Straw recently broke the mould by criticising the veil worn by constituents who come to his surgeries. If it could be scientifically measured, it would be interesting to see by ho much it affects his majority. One thing I can tell you, is that he would certainly not have made any comments of that nature in the run up to a general election.

    The changes you hope for, I am certain will happen. But over generations. In the meantime, I hope your well meaning words are not hijacked by those who hijack this kind of liberal criticism to spread their dark and dangerous messages.

    Full-english

    December 7, 2006 at 5:42 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: