So the targeting of Muslim communities and individuals rights and the likes in UK continues further and further unhindered; why should it, it is not our country; what the ‘white natives’ are telling us by these laws is simply this: learn to live by these repressive laws or f*** off from our country! (updated supporting calls, see below)
Rod Liddle writing in The Spectator (the neo-conservative UK magazine) says this in a very brief article titled ‘If Only More People Joined Islamic State”;
”Here’s the headline from the Daily Mail:
It undoubtedly says something about me that my first reaction upon reading the story was: yay – result! That’s saved us all quite a few bob, no? Carry on like this and we might clear the national debt.
I have no sympathy for, or empathy with, these people. Except a slight suspicion that by joining Islamic State, they are probably doing the right thing. By their own lights. Would that more might follow. These people have looked at Britain and thought – nah, don’t want that. So off they go to ally themselves with people more of their own frame of mind. Why is this not a good thing? Why should we try to stop it?”
Main link: If only more people joined Islamic State
The Guardian story piece on the new repressive laws: Jails and universities obliged to prevent radicalisation as new act becomes law | Politics | The Guardian
Simon Jenkins excellent commentary on these new repressive laws and their effect (on The Guardian; republished in full below after Frankie Boyle’s unmissable and must read article from same source): Why do we keep giving terrorists exactly what they want?
On The Daily Telegraph, a Home Office Minister calls for ”new debate” on a national ban on hijabs (Isis and so-called ”Islamists extremists” force a cover up, ”liberals” and ”democrats”, self-defined people of ”rule of law and liberties” call for ”cover down”; do you see any real differences?): Britain needs ‘national debate’ about banning Muslim girls from wearing veils in public – Telegraph
Two of the favoured articles and their perfect illustration of how western ”colonial and imperial victors” once they ”free you” they slowly via clever psychological and mind-brainwashing and propaganda tricks make you believe and accept (tacitly) that their ”ways of values, cultural lifestyles, identities” as ”better than yours” and slowly your ”freed children” shed away their traditions, customs and cherished identities for new ”cool lifestyles and the likes” (source: Washington Post):
the gallery (see the article link on the side): America’s cultural influence in Afghanistan – The Washington Post
Finally my personal favoured article by Frankie Boyle (all rights reserved to original author and publisher): (The Link, and for the full article see below): The west has normalised racist wars – but you can’t solve complex problems with 1,000lb bombs
Frankie Boyle Full Article:
I suppose that whether this article prompted by the Charleston shootings feels topical enough will depend on whether America has another mass shooting before it goes to print. If you’re in the US, there’s a fair chance it will seem dated because you are actually being gunned down as you read it, so I’ll try to get straight to the point. It’s surely worth wondering whether it’s time to retire the flag that has for so long been a rallying point for racists and murderers, the stars and stripes. There’s a genuine question to be asked here: what responsibility does the US state bear for the Charleston shootings when racist murder seems to be part of its policing strategy and most of its foreign policy?
Occasionally I wonder whether at some point in the past 100 years the US gave the rest of the world a safe word and we’ve simply forgotten it. Or maybe we’re just saying it wrong (Aluminium? I’m sure you said it was aluminium …) Hillary Clinton has been speaking out against the “racist terrorism” of Dylann Roof despite being the architect of the US military intervention in Libya. The US’s record of invasions, assassinations and government overthrows is racist, I think. Imagining that you can kill people and seize control of their resources without believing them to be inferior requires a certain amount of intellectual flexibility. The same sort of intellectual flexibility that allows people to express grief for the migrants who drown in the Mediterranean and hatred for the ones who survive.
Part of the American mindset comes from the fact that the US was formed through the racist murder of indigenous people. The reason that whole country is such a horror story is that the entire thing is built on an Old Indian Graveyard. I worry that perhaps white America wants to believe that its racial fault lines only run as deep as the Confederate flag. Hence the current uproar at names of southern civil-war generals being on street signs while the faces of slave owners are still on the currency.
Of course not everybody gets behind the US’s view of itself, which is why it is the world’s largest producer of propaganda. Last year’s biggest movie, American Sniper, was billed as the story of the US army’s deadliest soldier, which must have felt pretty galling for the guy who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. It was basically Star Wars from the point of view of one of the stormtroopers, and the director (Clint Eastwood – I’m not even joking) encouraged us to get behind the idea that you should take moral decisions when women and children are in your crosshairs, rather than long, long before. You got the feeling that the clunky scene explaining that sniper Chris Kyle’s unit painted skulls on their gear as a tribute to the Punisher was necessary in case viewers made the more logical supposition that it was a tribute to the Waffen-SS.
There are many indicators of advanced civilisations, but unthinking hero worship of the military isn’t one of them. The US, like the UK, has been forced to move away from a conscription army and now has a mercenary army. It’s the reason you don’t get war poets any more.
Indeed, before Britain feels too superior, we should perhaps remember that Roof’s main problem here would have been feeling torn between quite a few of the main parties at the last election. We live in a country where posting “Let’s riot or something bruv!” on Facebook will get you a couple of years in prison, while writing a column saying we should bomb Syria is practically an entrance exam for public intellectuals. Of course, it’s never phrased as a plea to kill shepherds in pursuit of our geopolitical interests. By the time it hits the broadsheets, it’s a plea to arm moderate rebels (they’ve got a moderate vision of the country’s future and they’re going to kill until they get it!). It’s a humanitarian intervention. We’re not fighting wars for control of resources. We’re not the aggressor in countries such as Iraq, we’re actually defending Iraq. From the Iraqis. The most obvious anti-war argument that none of this has ever worked just doesn’t seem to come up.
Of course our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Maybe I’ll even give them the benefit of the doubt and concede that they are just naive do-gooders trying to bring the world peace and stability through the medium of high explosives. What gets me is that the new dirty word in the west is “radicalisation”, as if radical change wasn’t obviously needed; as if the status quo has any decency, or is even survivable. It’s not actually difficult to see solutions to the US’s problems: children can do it, until we educate them out of it. Internationally, I propose the radical step of not trying to solve complex political problems with 1,000lb bombs; domestically, I propose they start addressing inequality by paying reparations for slavery. I’m well aware that in a society where war and discrimination are now almost entirely normalised, both options sound like madness.
Simon Jenkins Full Article
First question, what do terrorists want? Answer, they want massive publicity for their every outrage, followed by politicians and others generating hysteria, fear and repression. The UK response to the Tunisian massacre from David Cameron, his government and the media has granted that wish. The second question is whether granting that wish might still be worth it to secure eventual victory over terror?
There is little that any open society can do against the random killer. Police can be armed to the teeth. VIPs can travel in armoured cars. Concrete walls can be put up round official buildings. Train travellers can be told at every station to “report anything suspicious to the police”. Britain can be reduced to gibbering paranoia, and still the gunman and the bomber will get through.
Yet we feel obliged as if by some primal urge to “do something” in response to any outrage – rather than just show dignified sympathy for the dead. Prime minister, home secretary, headline writer and broadcaster alike scour the lexicon of damnation. The terrorist is not bad but “evil … vile … poisonous … monstrous … inhuman”. Cameron, master of hyperbolic cliche, demands a “full-spectrum response” to a “generational struggle” against an “existential threat”. This is pure Blairism. Can he not hear terror’s apologists cheering him on?
So where are the solutions to which this hysteria is meant to lead? We are told, yet again, we must tackle terrorism at its source so as to “drain the swamp of crocodiles”. Schools yet again are ordered to “counter extremism”. London’s police yet again promise an “SAS-style unit” to meet Tunisia-type situations. On the 10th anniversary of 7/7 they promise, yet again, to “be ready for an attack”. But we all know that nothing can stop a gunman running amok in London, so why give the idea such currency?
There is a clear danger in hyping events that should be sensibly seen for what they are: random individualised crimes. Doing so glamorises them and makes them ever more appealing to any misfit and incipient psychopath alienated by family or local community. Couching them in the language of national security only adds to that appeal. It fosters the psychosis it hopes to suppress.
When the politics of fear is used blatantly to add to the armoury of the state – as it has been by governments of both parties – it further weakens the supremacy of democratic values. It is this statist psychology that drove Tony Blair to war against the Islamist world, and a prime cause of the terrorist upsurge we now face.