Waiting for Barbarians

Cropped from :Image:Cavafy1900.jpg

Cropped from :Image:Cavafy1900.jpg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Repairman Jack over at RedState has a post up on comprehensive immigration reform. It’s pretty good and worth your time.

 

America has a significant and over-arching problem. A problem that explains the flaccid economy and the dystopic dysfunction that is Bulletmore, Murderland or Chicago, ILLinois. It’s a problem that a very smart and evil man-spider named Charles Schumer has figured out and that a very ambitious and amoral man name Marco Rubio suffers from as he seeks to acquire more power and dominance. It’s a problem that arises when a civilization spends itself out and doesn’t understand and believe that it has a purpose beyond being a giant pez-dispenser of goodies to a clamoring populace. We are a nation that no longer believes that it holds any particular special moral high ground and the immigration debate in Congress is just another attempt to either fix this problem or make it go away.

 

Continue read Constance Cafavy And Comprehensive Amnesty Reform | RedState.

 

See that was pretty good wasn’t it. But what really struck me was how apt Cavafy’s poem is to our general malaise in this country. If you remember Jess’s co-author introduced him to us late last summer, so maybe we should review.

 

Waiting for the Barbarians
What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?

The barbarians are due here today.

Why isn’t anything happening in the senate?
Why do the senators sit there without legislating?

Because the barbarians are coming today.
What laws can the senators make now?
Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.

Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting at the city’s main gate
on his throne, in state, wearing the crown?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor is waiting to receive their leader.
He has even prepared a scroll to give him,
replete with titles, with imposing names.

Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.

Why don’t our distinguished orators come forward as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.

Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?
(How serious people’s faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home so lost in thought?

Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.
And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.

By Constantine Cavafy (1864-1933), translated by Edmund Keeley

 

Seems to fit quite a lot of our problems, doesn’t it

 

Shall we continue waiting, or start solving our own problems?

 

 

Wind; and Whirlwind

English: The drystone dyke boundary above the ...

English: The drystone dyke boundary above the old quarry at the Slough of Despond, Slough Burn, Dundonald, South Ayrshire, Scotland. A bluebell wood. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Well, another interesting week, isn’t it what with NSA whistleblowers/traitors, lung transplants over HHS objections, IRS scandals, Benghazi, Snowden in Hong Kong (or is it China) and all the others. My question is, “Why is anyone surprised?”

Long ago it was written “Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind”. For the best part of a century we have taught our kids that there are no immutable principles, that it’s all relative, his viewpoint is as valid as yours, good and evil don’t exist, and history doesn’t matter.

I was going to prattle on about this, as I have often done, and no doubt will continue to do so. But Jessica’s co-author Geoffrey’s posted  a piece that speaks to it far better than I do. And references to a superb article.

I love the remark made by one Oxford don about another: ‘On the surface, he’s profound, but deep down, he’s superficial.’ That sentence has more than once come to mind when reading the new atheists.

Future intellectual historians will look back with wonder at the strange phenomenon of seemingly intelligent secularists in the 21st century believing that if they could show that the first chapters of Genesis are not literally true, that the universe is more than 6,000 years old and there might be other explanations for rainbows than as a sign of God’s covenant after the flood, the whole of humanity’s religious beliefs would come tumbling down like a house of cards and we would be left with a serene world of rational non-believers getting on famously with one another.

Whatever happened to the intellectual depth of the serious atheists, the forcefulness of Hobbes, the passion of Spinoza, the wit of Voltaire, the world-shattering profundity of Nietzsche? Where is there the remotest sense that they have grappled with the real issues, which have nothing to do with science and the literal meaning of scripture and everything to do with the meaningfulness or otherwise of human life, the existence or non-existence of an objective moral order, the truth or falsity of the idea of human freedom, and the ability or inability of society to survive without the rituals, narratives and shared practices that create and sustain the social bond?

A significant area of intellectual discourse — the human condition sub specie aeternitatis — has been dumbed down to the level of a school debating society. Does it matter? Should we not simply accept that just as there are some people who are tone deaf and others who have no sense of humour, so there are some who simply do not understand what is going on in the Book of Psalms, who lack a sense of transcendence or the miracle of being, who fail to understand what it might be to see human life as a drama of love and forgiveness or be moved to pray in penitence or thanksgiving? Some people get religion; others don’t. Why not leave it at that?

Fair enough, perhaps. But not, I submit, for readers of The Spectator, because religion has social, cultural and political consequences, and you cannot expect the foundations of western civilisation to crumble and leave the rest of the building intact. That is what the greatest of all atheists, Nietzsche, understood with terrifying clarity and what his -latter-day successors fail to grasp at all.

Time and again in his later writings he tells us that losing Christian faith will mean abandoning Christian morality. No more ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’; instead the will to power. No more ‘Thou shalt not’; instead people would live by the law of nature, the strong dominating or eliminating the weak. ‘An act of injury, violence, exploitation or destruction cannot be “unjust” as such, because life functions essentially in an injurious, violent, exploitative and destructive manner.’ Nietzsche was not an anti-Semite, but there are passages in his writing that come close to justifying a Holocaust.

Continue reading Chief Rabbi: atheism has failed. Only religion can defeat the new barbarians

He (both Lord Sacks and Geoffrey Dr. Sales) is correct of course, it’s so obvious that we all know it without thinking, or do we? I was raised to understand cause and effect, and the chain was only as strong as its weakest link but, I and those like me are increasingly rare on the ground. One of the ways I can tell is that it seems like nobody any more understands a simple ‘if-then’ statement. You know like “‘If’ the sun is up: ‘then’ it is daytime”.

Is that important, in your life? It is, because that is the means that humans use to control the world. Everything from the light switch in the wall to a supercomputer is nothing more multiples of that statement, executed extremely quickly.

And I really like Geoffrey’s last paragraph, and so will share it with you.

Honour, now there’s a word you don’t hear much of nowadays – we’ve all become Falstaff. It is just a word. And there’s the rub, we have separated words out from the content of what they are meant to represent – we have made them into idols. Lord Sacks’ diagnosis and analysis are compelling – what’s less clear is how we get out of the Slough of Despond into which we have fallen.

 

Ataturk vs Erdogan

Seen this?

The following is from 3 June Daily Mail (UK)

The unrest initially erupted on Friday when trees were torn down at a park in Istanbul’s main Taksim Square under government plans to redevelop the area. But they have widened into a broad show of defiance against the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP).

Prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed the main secular opposition party for inciting the crowds, and said the protests were aimed at depriving his ruling AK Party of votes as elections begin next year.

Erdogan said the plans to remake the square, long an iconic rallying point for mass demonstrations, would go ahead, including the construction of a new mosque and the rebuilding of a replica Ottoman-era barracks.

TURKEY: Mangled vehicles on the streets following two nights of…

 And he said the protests – which were started by a small group of environmental campaigners but mushroomed when police used force to eject them from the park on Taksim Square – had nothing to do with the plans.

‘It’s entirely ideological,’ he told Turkish television. The demonstrations have since drawn in a wide range of people of all ages from across the political and social spectrum.

Protests yesterday were not as violent as the previous two days but police used tear gas to try to disperse hundreds of people in Ankara’s main Kizilay Square. There were similar clashes in Izmir and Adana, Turkey’s third and fourth-biggest cities.

In Taksim Square, the atmosphere was more festive with some chanting for Erdogan to resign and others singing and dancing. There were later clashes between police and protesters near Erdogan’s office in a former Ottoman palace in the city.

The main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) denied orchestrating the unrest.

‘Today the people on the street across Turkey are not exclusively from the CHP, but from all ideologies and from all parties,’ senior party member Mehmet Akif Hamzacebi said.

Culture Clash (Ataturk vs Erdogan) – Britons warned to steer clear of Turkey – Daily Mail Re-Blog.

And this is from the Telegraph UK last night

The governor of Istanbul went on television to declare that police operations would continue day and night until the square, focus of demonstrations against Prime Minister Erdogan, was cleared.

Police fired volleys of tear gas canisters into a crowd of thousands – people in office clothes as well as youths in masks who had fought skirmishes throughout the day – scattering them into side streets and nearby hotels. Water cannon swept across the square targeting stone-throwers in masks.

The protesters, who accuse Mr Erdogan of overreaching his authority after 10 years in power and three election victories, thronged the steep narrow lanes that lead down to the Bosporus waterway. Gradually, many began drifting back into the square as police withdrew, and gathered around a bonfire of rubbish.

Mr Erdogan had earlier called on protesters to stay out of Taksim, the centre of demonstrations triggered by a heavy-handed police crackdown on a rally against development of the small Gezi Park abutting the square.

Gezi Park has been turned into a ramshackle settlement of tents by leftists, environmentalists, liberals, students and professionals who see the development plan as symptomatic of overbearing government.

It looks like there are several things going on here. I think the most interesting is that the young people thing that Erdogan is becoming increasingly Islamist, and they are not interested in going there. Turkey since the days of Ataturk in the early twentieth century has been a secular society, and has integrated quite well into Europe. In fact, it is a provisional member of the European Community and has been a member of NATO more or less forever. As usual, the unrest is led by the young people, it always is, but in this case you are seeing a fair number of people in business clothing and a lot of women. Who have a lot to lose if Turkey goes Islamist, if you don’t believe that find some pictures of Afghanistan in the 1960s.

Some people are starting to think that Obama and company are midwifing the rebirth of the Ottoman Empire. I think that might be giving them more credit (or blame) than is their due, but intentions don’t count, and that is sort of what is happening.

NEW YORK – Is Obama helping advance a grand plan by Turkey, with the support of Germany, to restore the Ottoman Empire, the Islamic caliphate that controlled much of southeast Europe, Western Asia and North Africa for more than six centuries?

That is a question posed by historian Robert E. Kaplan in an article titled “The U.S. Helps Reconstruct the Ottoman Empire,” published this week by the international policy council and think tank Gatestone Institute.

Kaplan, a historian with a doctorate from Cornell University, specializing in modern Europe, says history suggests a possible partnership between Turkey and Germany, which has seen influence over Turkey as a means of influencing Muslims worldwide for its own interests.

He asks why the U.S. government “would actively promote German aims,” including the destruction of Yugoslavia in the 1990s and the re-creation of the Ottoman Empire through the “Arab Spring.”

Kaplan points to Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood, the ultimate victor in the “Arab Spring”; the U.S. backing of radical Islamic “rebel” groups in Libya with ties to al-Qaida; and current support for similarly constituted radical Islamic “rebel” groups in Syria aligned with al-Qaida.

Each of these U.S. military interventions occurred in areas that were under the Ottoman Empire.

Bring back the Ottoman Empire?

Kaplan sees a similarity between the Clinton-era attacks against the Serbs and the Obama administration hostility to well-established regimes in Libya and Syria.

He writes:

Since the mid-1990s the United States has intervened militarily in several internal armed conflicts in Europe and the Middle East: bombing Serbs and Serbia in support of Izetbegovic’s Moslem Regime in Bosnia in 1995, bombing Serbs and Serbia in support of KLA Moslems of Kosovo in 1999, bombing Libya’s Gaddafi regime in support of rebels in 2010. Each intervention was justified to Americans as motivated by humanitarian concerns: to protect Bosnian Moslems from genocidal Serbs, to protect Kosovo Moslems from genocidal Serbs, and to protect Libyans from their murderous dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Kaplan observes that neither President Clinton nor President Obama ever mentioned the reconstitution of the Ottoman Empire as a justification for U.S. military intervention.

The U.S. offered other reasons for intervening in Serbia, including a desire to gain a strategic foothold in the Balkans, to defeat communism in Yugoslavia, to demonstrate to the world’s Muslims that the U.S. is not anti-Muslim, and to redefine the role of NATO in the post-Cold War era.

Recurring pattern

At its height in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Ottoman Empire stretched from its capital in Turkey, through the Muslim-populated areas of North Africa, Iraq, the costal regions of the Arabian Peninsula and parts of the Balkans.

Kaplan points out that since the 1990s, “each European and Middle Eastern country that experienced American military intervention in an internal military conflict or an ‘Arab Spring’ has ended up with a government dominated by Islamists of the Moslem Brotherhood or al-Qaida variety fits nicely with the idea that these events represent a return to Ottoman rule.”

In these conflicts, Kaplan sees recurring patterns employed by Clinton and Obama to justify U.S. military intervention:

Each U. S. military action in Europe and the Middle East since 1990, however, with the exception of Iraq, has followed an overt pattern: First there is an armed conflict within the country where the intervention will take place. American news media heavily report this conflict. The “good guys” in the story are the rebels. The “bad guys,” to be attacked by American military force, are brutally anti-democratic, and committers of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Prestigious public figures, NGOs, judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and international organizations call for supporting the rebels and attacking the regime. Next, the American president orders American logistical support and arms supplies for the rebels. Finally the American president orders military attack under the auspices of NATO in support of the rebels. The attack usually consists of aerial bombing, today’s equivalent of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ gunboat which could attack coastal cities of militarily weak countries without fear of retaliation. The ultimate outcome of each American intervention is the replacement of a secular government with an Islamist regime in an area that had been part of the Ottoman Empire.

Kaplan cites a recent report published by John Rosenthal in the online Asian Times that discloses reports prepared by the German foreign intelligence service, the BND, attributing the massacre in the Syrian town of Houla on May 25, 2012, to the Syrian government.

Continue reading HISTORIAN: OBAMA HELPING RESURRECT OTTOMAN EMPIRE? | 1776 Nation.

Frankly I don’t know enough about this area to even have a valid opinion. But like I said intentions don’t really matter, and this (at least broadly) is about what appears to be happening. I think it

Bad for America and Western Civilization

 

The Mighty Endeavor

General Eisenhower speaks with members of the ...

General Eisenhower speaks with members of the 101st Airborne Division on the evening of 5 June 1944 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Prologue:

69 years ago, night before last a Royal Air Force Group Captain delivered a weather briefing to an obscure American general. The general had an operation planned and the weather was very iffy. But, that general, who was a staff major in 1940 said, “OK, let’s go”

And so after planning and deception efforts reaching back to before Pearl Harbor, an operation was launched. It would invade France’s Normandy peninsula. It’s name was OVERLORD.

It was a huge risk, and there was no ‘Plan B’. If it failed, obviously that general’s career would end, his name was Eisenhower, by the way, so would his boss’s General Marshall, and probably his boss Franklin Roosevelt, for this was 1944, and it was an election year. The Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and government, of the United Kingdom would fall.

But the real damage was none of these, these were individual men, and their fate, while important, was not critical. What was critical was that Central and Western Europe would become the prize of the war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. This was the very last chance for freedom in and of the west.

And so, in one of history’s momentous decisions GEN Eisenhower said, “OK, let’s go”.

For planning purposes, everything had been planned to happen so many days before or after the day of execution, which up till that time had always been called “D-Day“. It never would be again. Because it was a singular operation, unlike anything seen before, and never seen again.

Prelude

Starting at about 0200 on Tuesday, the sixth of June, 1944, forever afterward known as D-Day, the United States 82d Airborne Division, and the 101st Airborne Division, the British 6th Airborne Division, the Canadian 1st Parachute Battalion, and other attached units parachuted into Normandy, more than 13,000 paratroopers. carried by 925 C-47 aircraft. The drops were badly scattered by winds and flak but eventually the units were able to consolidate and achieve their objectives. They also demonstrated how disruptive “little groups of paratroopers” can be to an enemy. They were joined later in the day by another 4000 glider-borne troops.

Shortly after 0630 the American 2d Ranger Battalion landed at Pointe de Hoc to begin their epic, and costly battle to take the bluffs, which held 6 German 155 mm guns.

The Main Event

U.S. Army troops wade ashore on Omaha Beach on the morning of 6 June 1944, although planned for the morning of 5 June, but delayed one day due to weather in France.

Gold, Sword, Juno, Omaha, and Utah, are now names which will live for ever in the iconography of freemen, but on 6 June 1944 the were merely code names, for the five beaches. At early dawn Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsey, gave the order to launch the invasion, I like to think that he actually used the traditional naval command, “Land the Landing Party”. If so, what a landing party: From the United States: 1st Infantry Division, 4th Infantry Division, 29th Infantry Division. From the British Army: 3rd British Infantry Division,  50th British Infantry Division. From the Canadian Army the  3rd Canadian Infantry Division. They were supported by 12,000 aircraft under Air Marshall Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory, coming from the 8th United States Air Force, the 9th United States Air Force and the Royal Air Force’s 2d Tactical Air Force. The invasion fleet consisted of over 6,300 vessel ranging from battleships like the USS Texas to LCVPs that could land a squad of infantry.

It was a very near run event, as the current was high, the water was choppy, and the Germans had been reinforced. 12 Medals of Honor were won this day, including one by Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., (awarded posthumously) as well as a Victoria Cross. But the lodgment was secured and 11 months later Nazi Germany surrendered.

They went into battle with a prayer from America led by the President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas — whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them–help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.*

This is not meant to be a history of the operation, that would take several bookshelves and has been done, my purpose here is to commemorate these men and show how their achievement has altered history.

Aftermath

Most of you know the rough outlines of the story, the British stalled trying to take Caen. In fairness, the British could not afford to take casualties, remember they had lost almost an entire generation merely 26 years earlier. The Americans attacked into the bocage country of Normandy, which the American Army, as always designed for movement, found very difficult. The best explanation may well be that of “an irresistible force meeting an immovable object”.  Eventually, the force triumphed and 3d United States Army debouched onto the plains of France, stopping only when they ran out of gas in the approaches to Germany. As we have said, 11 months later, Nazi Germany surrendered.

Historical Consequences

But the invasion was a gamble, what would have happened if it failed? Undoubtedly, the Americans would have transferred whatever forces were left to the Mediterranean to be part of Operation Dragoon which landed in the south of France 2 weeks later. This could never have been a war winner though, the best it could have done is tied down some German forces from moving to the Eastern Front. So, the war in Europe would have ended with the Red Army conquering Germany, and who’s not to say they wouldn’t have come on through France as well. Simple prudence would seem to demand it, while the American emphasis would have been transferred to the war against Imperial Japan. The result is Europe from Portugal to the Urals, and from Lappland to Italy dominated by Moscow. But the Invasion succeeded due to the Valor of the English speaking peoples. There is a Churchill quote taken from his speech to the House of Commons on 18 May 1940 that comes to mind.

We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God’s good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old.

On Tuesday, 06 June 1944, the Americans and the Canadians, supported by the conquered people of Europe, in concert with the British Army, and guarded primarily by the British Fleet, made that promise good.

But it doesn’t end there either, for without this successful invasion, the Soviets would have controlled all of Europe, and probably still would. Would Britain have survived, for that matter would North America? It’s not for us to know, neither is it a sure thing.

But certainly, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact would not have fallen as soon as 1990, thus making Europe from Portugal to the Urals and the North Pole to Sicily free.

As he often did, President Reagan said it better than anyone, when addressing those American Rangers we spoke of earlier, at the 40th anniversary of D-Day he said.

…The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers — at the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.

Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe de Hoc.

These are the men who took the cliffs.

These are the champions who helped free a continent.

These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem. You are men who in your “lives fought for life…and left the vivid air signed with your honor….

This was the spirit that animated the entire force that conquered fascism, In the words of another great general, “They came, They saw, and They conquered”.

And so the lighted torch of freedom was maintained for another generation.

But the struggle continues.

* I note, in passing, without comment, that President Obama opposed, and opposes, this prayer being placed on the World War II Monument in Washington D.C.

 

Immigration: a Problem?

The distribution of the predominant Islamic ma...

The distribution of the predominant Islamic madhhab (school of law) followed in majority-Muslim countries and regions (English) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The other day over at the Watchtower we were discussing immigration, specifically Muslim immigration into Great Britain. In  his post Chalcedon made (as usual) several very cogent points .

In short, immigration has been sporadic and small scale. Since the 1950s in this country it has been on a larger scale and continuous; under the last Government it increased in pace. Large parts of some of our cities now resemble Pakistan, and nearly half the population of our capital city is not of native origin. It is hard to point to a parallel in modern times in England.

This places a considerable strain – on the immigrants. Emigrating is a hard thing, even when you do it in the hope of a better life. When the host community is, at best, neutral and at worst hostile, it makes it no easier. When you are a member of the next generation it can be even harder, not least if your family is telling you one set of values and your environment another. I cannot begin to imagine how it must be for a young Muslim boy whose home background is patriarchal where women are veiled and take a secondary role, and yet who walks the streets of his home town and sees white girls behaving with a freedom his mother and sisters do not have; what is he to conclude when conservative elements in his own domestic culture tell him these are bad women. How is he to learn to respect women he will meet in many contexts when they are so different from the ideal set before him?

The crying need here is for something which appears to be wanting – that is for the British-born Muslim community to produce its own teachers and leaders, men who will undertake the arduous but urgent task of helping Islam to adapt itself to the society in which British-born Muslims will be living.

There is no evidence that the Muslims in this country have any problem with expressions of Christian faith, and those fools who advise avoiding using the word Christmas for fear it will offend someone, can have only atheists in mind.

The entire article is well worth your time Islam: a problem?.

This is part of the comment I made

I think this is very true. We, of course, are a nation of immigrants, and we had the same problems, even with Christians it took roughly 2 generations to integrate, my family who came in the 1880-90s spoke Norwegian until World War I, especially the older generation, and it was the language in church, although not school, and as near as I can tell schools from the one-room school house to the university were the method of integration.

We quite often castigate the way Islamic immigrants treat our women but, I suspect our grandparents would look at the ways of young women today and be just as horrified, they certainly were in the 20s.

I also think a lot of the problem, here anyway, is the economy, you don’t have so much time to get radicalized if you’re busy trying to make a living. In some ways our failure proof systems work against assimilation because we’re not forcing people to work.

And that’s all true as well, nobody historically has done immigration as well as America, and the key has always been assimilation. But from the very beginning we have been a nation of immigrants following a dream, and it has worked well, as long as we assimilated the immigrants. It has always taken some time, as I said on average about two generations, sometimes less. For instance the Irish whose major immigration push came from the Potato Famine in the late 1840-early 1850s assimilated in the Civil War as did quite a number of German refugees from the Revolution of 1848. We’ve found blood to be thicker than water, if you’re willing to fight for the dream, you become worthy of the dream.

That has always worked on Christian and Jewish immigration streams, and a factor in that is that these faith traditions are the basis of America, so it was more a matter of getting to know one another, and overcoming some anti-Catholic prejudice, than anything else.

But are Muslims different? Yesterday Dr. Lipscomb told us that, “Everything we encounter in our lives, be it the boundaries between countries, enmities, territories, our ideas about things, the very concept of how we think, our superstitions – everything is a product of the past and our specific past.” And that is as true for Muslims as for anybody else, and their traditions are quite different.

azrzv123, a subscriber to this blog, a Muslim resident in the UK said this in comments on Jess’s post entitled Reflections on Terror,

Although the murderers highlighted that they wanted to take revenge for what is happening in other countries, I wholeheartedly believe that, that was an excuse to commit this disgusting, humiliating act. It saddens me, that what happened in Woolwich that people have started to generalise ALL muslims by labelling them as ‘terrorists’. Yes, what happened was unforgivable, however it does not give people the right to judge every other muslim out there. In the UK we have people like Anjem Choudary, who agree with these terrorist ideologies, and funnily, enough one of the murderers (Michael) was part of Anjem’s group. Anjem Choudary holds wahabbi/salafi ideologies. These ideologies do not reflect each and every muslim out there. There is a stark dichotomy between Wahhabis/Salafis and other muslims. We need to condemn Chourdary and his group who openly praise terrorists. In fact, it puts me to shame that the UK government have not tried to lock up Choudary seen as he promotes terorrism.

I personally don’t feel that Wahhabism and Salafism is part of Islam. These people damage the image of Islam and say they’re doing things for the sake of ‘Islam’ which in no means is this justifiable.

I completely agree with the fact that the death of muslims is due to other muslims. An example of this is Iraq. Yesterday 60 people were killed in Baghdad due to the intervention of people with Salafi beliefs. They entered a predominantly Shia district and killed innocent individuals. But was this on the news? No

[Slightly edited for the mistakes we all make in a commbox]

That, I believe is all true, and all germane as well. I discussed with this commenter a bit, I recommend that you read the post and comment stream. In many ways it reminds me of the feelings between the Catholics and Protestants shortly after the Thirty Years War. Is there enough inducement for them to assimilate? I don’t know but, I know that if they don’t, our countries are going to have problems we’ve never experienced to solve.

And I also think that our sluggish economies play a role in this, as do our welfare systems. When it’s hard to get a job, and easy to get on the dole, with little stigma attached, many will go on the dole, and have 24/7 to sit around watching TV and feeling aggrieved. In our traditional systems they would have been so busy hustling around trying to make enough to keep from starving (and very few did in America over the centuries, thanks to private charities and a strong work ethic) they wouldn’t have time for this nonsense. Maybe that’s part of the solution as well.

What do you think?

To the Slaughter | National Review Online

Cap badge of the Fusilier Brigade, now worn by...

Cap badge of the Fusilier Brigade, now worn by the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

From one of my very favorites authors, Mark Steyn, on the Woolwich atrocity, as Jess calls it. Mark’s subhead is classic:

 

British lions come up lambs in Woolwich

 

On Wednesday, Drummer Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, a man who had served Queen and country honorably in the hell of Helmand Province in Afghanistan, emerged from his barracks on Wellington Street, named after the Duke thereof, in southeast London. Minutes later, he was hacked to death in broad daylight and in full view of onlookers by two men with machetes who crowed “Allahu akbar!” as they dumped his carcass in the middle of the street like so much road kill.

As grotesque as this act of savagery was, the aftermath was even more unsettling. The perpetrators did not, as the Tsarnaev brothers did in Boston, attempt to escape. Instead, they held court in the street gloating over their trophy, and flagged down a London bus to demand the passengers record their triumph on film. As the crowd of bystanders swelled, the remarkably urbane savages posed for photographs with the remains of their victim while discoursing on the iniquities of Britain toward the Muslim world. Having killed Drummer Rigby, they were killing time: It took 20 minutes for the somnolent British constabulary to show up. And so television viewers were treated to the spectacle of a young man, speaking in the vowels of south London, chatting calmly with his “fellow Britons” about his geopolitical grievances and apologizing to the ladies present for any discomfort his beheading of Drummer Rigby might have caused them, all while drenched in blood and still wielding his cleaver.

If you’re thinking of getting steamed over all that, don’t. Simon Jenkins, the former editor of the Times of London, cautioned against “mass hysteria” over “mundane acts of violence.”

That’s easy for him to say. Woolwich is an unfashionable part of town, and Sir Simon is unlikely to find himself there of an afternoon stroll. Drummer Rigby had less choice in the matter. Being jumped by barbarians with machetes is certainly “mundane” in Somalia and Sudan, but it’s the sort of thing that would once have been considered somewhat unusual on a sunny afternoon in south London — at least as unusual as, say, blowing up eight-year-old boys at the Boston Marathon. It was “mundane” only in the sense that, as at weddings and kindergarten concerts, the reflexive reaction of everybody present was to get out their cell phones and start filming.

Once, long ago, I was in an altercation where someone pulled a switchblade, and ever since have been mindful of Jimmy Hoffa’s observation that he’d rather jump a gun than a knife. Nevertheless, there is a disturbing passivity to this scene: a street full of able-bodied citizens being lectured to by blood-soaked murderers who have no fear that anyone will be minded to interrupt their diatribes. In fairness to the people of Boston, they were ordered to “shelter in place” by the governor of Massachusetts. In Woolwich, a large crowd of Londoners apparently volunteered to “shelter in place,” instinctively. Consider how that will play when these guys’ jihadist snuff video is being hawked around the bazaars of the Muslim world. Behold the infidels, content to be bystanders in their own fate.

 

Continue reading To the Slaughter | National Review Online.