Sharing Fates
Martin Solomon argues that British PM Gordon Brown has surrendered in his own way following the attacks on London and Glasgow by banning ministers from using the word "Muslim" in connection with terrorism and dropping the use of the words "war on terror".
This is probably going be a very costly mistake for the Labor party in Britain. Tony Blair's great rhetorical skills allowed him to move like a blur and present a very vague emotional and political target. But Gordon Brown is incapable of such fancy footwork and has manacled the Left into becoming a political human shield for the Jihad in ways that Blair could deftly avoid. Even within the Muslim community -- especially within the Muslim community -- there is great awareness of how closely the terror attacks are linked to issues within Islam. To its sectarian conflicts, to doctrinal disputes that have haunted Islam for centuries, to theological interpretations of what the religion is and what it should aspire to be. Tony Blair could sound like Churchill and act like Brown; George Bush until his popularity collapsed, could sound like Roosevelt and act like Brown. Unfortunately Brown can only act like Brown and sound like himself and in so doing, joined the fortunes of his ideology to that of Islamism.
That conjoining may have the consequence of linking the resolution of global Jihadi problem to the fortunes of the Left. It is no accident that the upsurge of global terrorism has dragged into question the validity of the Left's most cherished shibboleths. Every bomb that goes off in the UK and the horror that follows it will be an implicit attack on the policies of mindless multiculturalism, pacifism and nanny statehood that lie at the foundation of the Labor party. Blair was clever enough to know this and protect his party's belief system from the backlash against terror. He did this by distancing, or appearing to distance, the two. But perhaps Brown is too honest, plain or stolid to pull of this act. More power to him.
Nothing follows.
posted by wretchardthecat at 7/03/2007 06:10:00 PM
8 Comments:
And Wretchard, just as I also predicted (that Brown would grovel and surrender), where will ordinary Britons look to for protection against Muslims engaged in conquest in every sphere? The terror IS the message: submit or die, and accompanied by aggressive posturing and screaming about alcohol, the burqa, women, pork, Korans, cartoons, etc.
The ordinary Briton will conclude the following:
1. Muslims are the enemy, intent on conquering them, and enslaving them.
2. The Labor/Left/BBC/Intelligentsia are fine with that outcome.
3. Only a Lord Protector, a Cromwell, will do.
Very likely, there will be at least one candidate for a new Cromwell. Someone from the BNP, or UKIP?
Power hates a vacuum. Someone will act as Briton's protector.
It is a mistake he can get away with for some time, because under "Dave" the Tories have been more-left-than-left in cheerleading these same orthodoxies. No major party offering a conservative alternative (I too hope for a UKIP breakthrough, but don't expect it), the more conservative personal aura of Brown (vs. "Dave") may in fact save him.
It will, I fear, be at least two elections before the British begin to recover.
Don't you think that Brown's instinctive first reaction was to simply do and be the anti-Blair? He's so focused on the person and the politics he's been appointed to replace that he didn't stop to think about how it would look.
I can't believe he's actually interested in protecting Britain's Muslims even more than they already are protected. Also, if he's an experienced politician, if he had stopped to think about it wouldn't he have instinctively understood that what he said would be taken by Real English-persons as throwing them under the bus?
In England's form of democracy, how much time needs to go by before a brand new Prime Minister is replaceable?
I'm not sure why my link to you didn't get established.
Here is the gist:
The weak of the Muslim community are put out of reach of the protection of the wider and more powerful UK justice system. And so are English patriots who happen to be Muslim.
England, in allowing multiculturalism to spread, is systematically delegitimizing itself even before it allows hostile forces to mount within it. In allowing them legally to cut the throats of those England has abandoned to it, the terrorists will find it easier to cut England's throat.
For my building the case, find it here: Sharing Fates, Indeed.
Every bomb that goes off in the UK and the horror that follows it will be an implicit attack on the policies of mindless multiculturalism, pacifism and nanny statehood that lie at the foundation of the Labor party.
Labour was none of that before the late 60s. Labour started as the party that spoke for the British working man and stood for fair wages and benefits with a scent of Marxism - against the centuries of exploitation by wealthy elites. Which was all quite justified.
Labour added the multiculti PC stuff later. They can jettison it all, and probably should. For now, the path is blocked by hardcore Lefties, mindless bean-counter feminists that waged a rear guard action against Blair's "New Labour" which frankly, once you got past continued privatization and tax reform was mostly hype. Hype in that Blair pretended he was on a new direction from the insipid hard left worship of multiculti, criminals, nanny rules, the transnationalist Jewish and hard Lefty lawyers&NGOs attempt to subjugate Britain to EU rules and UN control by "international laws and conventions" - when in truth Blair was still going along with much of it...
There is no way that the Tories will do anything. Along with Labor they have fallen into the elitist trap.
WHY do the anti-Semitic, feminist, gay-lobby, anti-nationalist, anti-working class, elitist-status oriented policies of the Labor-Tory party appeal so much?
It's the same appeal as the Priesthood, only the elites here are able to pass on their priesthood positions to descendants. Anything to do with ordinary people and defense-of-the-West and it's very rare ability to give the average joe a somewhat fair shake is detested. Because it threatens their hereditary sinecures.
The Anti-Semitism (pervasive in the BBC and other elitist institutions, and particularly gay, feminist, and other hard-left groups, therefore in Britain) is a feature, because of Israel. Israel stands as a rebuke that modern Western assumptions of nationalism, culture, language, egalitarianism, sacrifice, and trust can beat overwhelming superiority in numbers and their Communist-Hereditary Priesthood allies.
What Labor has done is turn the whole of Britain into a communist-light, hereditary nomenklatura. That explains the extraordinary resiliency of the priesthood, much of feminized or gay, that runs Britain.
But ... there is a very scary alternative. If you are a young man, or a ticked off older person, and want to get ahead, see Muslims parading around in your neighborhood telling you they'll cut off your head, and the Labor elite who look like transgendered clowns offer nothing but groveling submission, there is a party for you.
The BNP. Yes they get no coverage from the BBC. Given that the average joe can tell what the BBC is (a mostly gay/feminized upper class elite playground for the priesthood) that's probably a plus for the BNP's legitimacy. The BNP is scarily effective in my view in how they use British symbols that have been completely abandoned by the elites.
Plus, there really is an enemy engaged in a street-by-street fight for supremacy over the total way of life in Britain. One that the "transgendered" multi-culti elite has defined out of existence even if they are right there on your doorstep.
And who is there offering protection? Offering some form of law AND order against enemies who want to cut your head off and tell you this every day?
The BNP will not win tomorrow. Or next year. But five years from now? It's very possible. Because Labor-Tory (same party really) have joined the priesthood leaving no establishment soldiers left.
Power hates a vacuum.
re: Mr. Bush sounding like Roosevelt while acting like Brown.
I read it the other way 'round. At every instance Mr. Bush has chosen the harder path (and the higher road). In many ways he's acted like Roosevelt and sounded like Brown. A Mr. Brown would never had published a national security strategy that called for preemption of States that foster terror. A Mr. Roosevelt that relocated inland thousands of Japanese Nisei on the basis of stolen diplomatic messages detailing successful wide-spread espionage by same would certainly have (Japanese Navy war records show 1000s of ship sailing reports from west-coast ports, many by volunteer 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who would provide the information when asked, and never went to the FBI).
He's not an orator in Mr. Roosevelt league (or even Mr. Brown) but his conviction comes through in every word. Time will tell. But it won't be because a good and selfless man didn't make every effort in every waking hour - in the face of a determined enemy and an increasingly infantilized, self-centered and non-supportive electorate.
Surprising how many believe it’s the President’s fault that he hasn’t spent the time to convince, cajole or buy-off the electorate. Only a man who believes the electorate are his peers that he serves would treat them with the respect he has, and in doing so demand they do their own homework and decide for themselves.
The Brit elite, from Labor to the BBC to Prince Charles (remember him coming to WashDC to lecture the Pres that he should be nicer to Muslims?) seem completely locked into the multi-culti paradigm and refuse to notice that Muslims are initiating the violence.
This will not have a nice ending.
Post a Comment
<< Home