Showing posts with label Melanie Phillips. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Melanie Phillips. Show all posts

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Apocalypse deferred

By Melanie Phillips
http://phillipsblog.dailymail.co.uk/
24 April 2012


The great grand-daddy of the man-made global warming scam, the fifth horseman of the eco-apocalypse James Lovelock (pictured above), has now recanted. Well, sort of. Don’t get too excited.

Lovelock now admits to having been ‘alarmist’ about climate change, and says other fanatics environmental commentators such as Al Gore were too alarmist as well.

You don’t say.

It’s only taken a quarter of a century. During that time, Professor Lovelock was the guru of man-made global warming theory. More than that, he was the prophet of a cult which turned the earth into a kind of god -- or more specifically a goddess called Gaia, investing it with anthropomorphic characteristics while his disciples demonised the human race itself as the destroyers of the planet.

Lovelock made one chilling prediction of planetary doom after another. In 2006, he warned that the earth might soon pass

‘“into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years....as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert... Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”’

Now, however, MSNBC reports Lovelock as saying:

‘“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.

‘“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.’

Indeed, there is no question about it. Not being able to tell what the climate is actually doing, let alone what it will do in the future, is in essence what climate sceptics have been saying consistently for the past 25 years or so. And so presumably we should now count Lovelock as one of their number? Er, not exactly:

‘Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”’

Good Lord, perish the thought! ‘Climate change deniers’ are nasty, vicious, imbecilic, rapacious neo-Nazis, aren’t they? No, Lovelock’s latest position is... ah, as sophisticated and, um, nuanced as we would expect from someone with such a solid and distinguished scientific track record:

‘He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought. “We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said.’

Of course! Even though

“we don’t know what the climate is doing”

and

“there’s nothing much really happening yet”

and

“it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising”

--- in other words, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the theory of man-made global warming, its baleful effects have only

“been deferred a bit”.

Isn’t the environmental movement wonderful? Even when they admit they’re totally wrong, they still insist they were right all along.

Professor Lovelock is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Some years back that august body, the embodiment of the scientific establishment and the custodians of scientific integrity, told us that on man-made global warming ‘the science is settled’. What will the Society now be saying to Professor Lovelock FRS, or he to it?

Meanwhile, although on April 4 it was reported that

‘David Cameron is set to end his long silence on green issues, with a major speech in front of the world’s key energy and climate figures’,

and that according to climate change minister Greg Barker this would be

“a major policy intervention by the Prime Minister... a major keynote on the green economy’,

it was reported yesterday that

‘David Cameron is no longer making a pro-environmental oration on Thursday during a gathering of 23 energy ministers from around the world’

because according to Number 10:

‘...while Cameron may have mulled a set-piece speech it was only ever considered’ (hat tip: Benny Peiser).

Ah. Might the Prime Minister finally have detected that the winds of climate change are being blown somewhat off course – and the reputations of all who promoted this, the greatest anti-scientific scam of all time, now risk being blown away with it?

Too late. The planet won't fry, but the warmists are toast.

Monday, December 12, 2011

The algorithm of malice

By Melanie Phillips
http://phillipsblog.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
9 December 2011


Absortion transit camp Haifa ( ma'abarot) 1950 - Robert Capa, Jews of Yemen

Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, has just released the third of his little information videos setting out certain essential facts about Israel and the Arabs to counter the lies of the delegitimisation campaign. You can watch it here.Those who dismiss this as just more Israeli propaganda should think again. For it states truths which are absolutely fundamental to the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, but which have been turned on their heads and replaced by equally fundamental lies.

There are two big and connected points made by this little video. The first is that the widely-held belief that the Arabs were the only refugees from the Arab war against the newly reconstituted country of Israel (a war which started in 1948 and continues to this day) -- is totally untrue. There were many more Jewish refugees from Arab countries. As a result of the 1948 war, some 500,000 Arabs left Palestine – most of them as a result of having been told to do so by Arab regimes certain of destroying the new Jewish state. But some 850,000 Jews were then attacked, stripped of their citizenship and ethnically cleansed from their homes in Arab states -- causing the destruction of ancient Jewish communities in those countries which had well predated the arrival of Islam in the Middle East. And what happened to those refugees? They were absorbed without fuss into Israel (picture above, 1950), where they form around half of the population, and into other countries.

The second point which is crucial to an understanding of this conflict is that the Palestinian refugee issue is entirely artificial and bogus. Not only were the Arabs from Palestine deliberately refused access to other Arab countries in order to turn them – as a UN refugee official admitted – into an open sore as a weapon to be used against Israel. Even more astonishingly, the UN itself was a party to this malevolent strategy.

For it chose to treat the Palestinian Arabs differently from any other refugee group. All other refugees are dealt with by the UN Refugee Agency, whose goal is to re-settle them. But for the Palestinian Arabs, the UN set up the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) – whose goal was to maintain the Palestinian Arabs as permanent refugees.

To that end, while in every other conflict refugees are defined merely as people who flee their homes, the UN decided that amongst the Palestinian Arabs refugee status would be transmitted from generation to generation. As a result, the number of Palestinian Arab ‘refugees’ has not diminished but risen over the years from 550,000 to 4.7 million. These are the people who are now said to deserve the ‘right of return’ to Israel.

Of course, the idea that 4.2 million of these people are actually refugees is totally absurd. If that standard was applied generally, the entire Jewish diaspora -- not to mention untold millions around the world who have been settled for generations - could suddenly claim refugee status. The UN bestowed this unique status upon the Palestinian Arabs for one reason only – to create an algorithm of malice that could be used as a weapon against the Jews.

Now at long last Israel has begun to realise that yes, incredible as it seems, sentient people do actually believe such lies -- – and that if the free world is to be restored to the axis of reason, they must be countered head-on by the true facts of history.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Hurrah for Philip! Wind power is the most ruinous folly of our age

By Melanie Phillips
The Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
21 November 2011
Outburst: Prince Philip has branded wind turbines 'absolutely useless' and said their supporters 'believe in fairytales'

Once again, Prince Philip has performed an invaluable national service by tilting at windmills — or to be more precise in this case, wind turbines.

In private remarks that found their way into the Press, he apparently said wind turbines were ‘absolutely useless’, completely reliant on subsidies and that those who claimed they were one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy believed in ‘fairytales’.

The Prince’s outburst may have been impolitic but many will be cheering his words. Indeed, he understated his case. For the Government’s promotion of wind-farms is simply off-the-wall crazy from every conceivable point of view.

Not only are these turbines hugely expensive to build and operate but also — surprise, surprise — they produce zero energy if the wind is not blowing.

Conversely, when the wind blows too hard they have to be shut down. So wind power has to be supplemented by gas-fired power stations — which push into the atmosphere yet more of the dreaded carbon dioxide that the turbines are meant to help diminish.

This supposedly green development is actually environmentally unfriendly. For the turbines are not just an eyesore, but on many wind-farms they have had to be turned off after locals complained that the noise they made left them unable to sleep and even needing to wear ear-defenders in their gardens.

For these and other miseries, the population is having to pay through the nose. Public subsidies make wind power three times more expensive than normal-tariff electricity. And since such subsidies drain investment away from new conventional power plants, the risk of power cuts grows greater.

Alarmist

Meanwhile, a government adviser has calculated that even if 10 per cent of the country were to be covered with wind turbines, they would still generate only one-sixth of the nation’s energy needs.

Does one laugh or weep at such a farce masquerading as government policy?

More ludicrous still, it is becoming clearer by the day that the premise upon which these wind-farms are based, that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are producing a catastrophic warming of the planet, has been shot to pieces.

Eyesore: Supposedly-green wind turbines are, in many ways, environmentally unfriendly

For years, the scientific and political establishment has claimed that there is a ‘consensus’ that ‘the science is settled’ and that man-made global warming is beyond challenge.

But now the organisation at the very heart of this claim has sidled out a tacit admission that this is untrue — while trying to conceal that this is not in fact the mother and father of U-turns.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC as it is known, is the body which has driven man-made global warming theory for more than 20 years.

Despite the fact that hundreds of eminent scientists have challenged this theory, with some who have worked for the IPCC even attesting to the errors, manipulation and downright fraud at the heart of its purported ‘research’, it has never deviated from its alarmist predictions.

Until now. Suddenly, according to leaks from a new report, it is saying that it is not possible to predict changes in the Earth’s weather systems for at least the next three decades because of ‘natural climate variability’.

In other words, it might get warmer — or it might get colder. The IPCC doesn’t know which because there are too many unknowns in nature.
Well might you scratch your head. For these are the same people who have told the world that the climate will without a shadow of a doubt get so hot that the planet will fry, drown, succumb to terrible diseases, hurricanes, extinction of species and a general environmental apocalypse.

So is there something special about the next three decades which has suddenly served to halt the apocalypse in its tracks?

Of course not. The unknowns about the climate have always been there, just as the sceptics have always said — and the warmists’ terrifying predictions were always no more than a load of hot air.

What’s changed is that they know the game is now up. For even though carbon dioxide levels have been increasing, there has been no increase in global temperature for the past decade or so.

And that destroys the entire theory of man-made global warming, which is that carbon emissions inevitably and inexorably drive up temperature.

So the people who have demonised climate-change sceptics as ‘climate change deniers’ or ‘flat-earthers’ are now telling us, in a coy and roundabout kind of way, that actually no one has a clue how the climate will turn out.

If man-made global warming were merely a nonsensical idea which had taken hold of the scientific establishment entailing fraud, deception and the wholesale bullying and intimidation of all who dared speak the truth — which is indeed what has taken place over the past two decades — that would be bad enough.

But this is far, far worse even than that. For the theory which this world scientific body is now quietly trying to slide away from has driven the politics and economies of the West off the axis of reason altogether.

In its core aim to reduce carbon emissions, it has done untold damage to western prosperity. And it is Britain that has taken a leading role in exporting this madness.

By the Government’s own estimate, it would cost £404 billion to implement its Climate Change Act — £760 per household every year for four decades.

The Act included a voluntary commitment to reduce Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent of their 1990 level by 2050 — a target generally acknowledged to be achievable only by shutting down most of the economy — in an effort to demonstrate ‘global leadership’.

This green zealotry has made the already grave economic crisis very much worse.

Not only are energy bills set to soar by some 60 per cent as a result, deepening fuel poverty for ordinary people, but green taxes are hampering the industrial progress on which Britain crucially depends for its economic recovery.

Closure

It has been estimated that Britain’s policy of setting a minimum price for carbon credits instead of allowing the market to decide will cost British industry at least £1 billion and drive manufacturers offshore as firms that cannot pass on their costs move abroad.

Indeed, only a few days ago, the mining giant Rio Tinto announced that new environmental taxes and red tape were partly to blame for the closure of its Lynemouth aluminium smelter in Northumberland, risking the loss of 600 jobs.

And for similar reasons, chemical multinationals are now looking to move their production to places such as South Africa, India and China.

Now Chancellor George Osborne has said he will reduce Britain’s carbon reduction target to the EU level of a mere 20 per cent cut in emissions. But in view of the lunacy of the whole policy, this is hardly an appropriate response.

For the climate change obsession of which the wind-farms are such an egregious example has been a weapon with which to sabotage the economy, vandalise the environment and drive politics to what would once have been considered the extreme of the anti-capitalist Left.

Don Quixote comically mistook the windmills at which he tilted for giant enemies. But as Prince Philip has helped us perceive, it is the wind turbines and the sham climate theory they represent which have tilted Britain and the Western world into a farce of truly lethal dimensions.

m.phillips@dailymail.co.uk

Read Melanie Phillips RightMinds blog here

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Another no-go area in Londonistan

By Melanie Phillips
http://phillipsblog.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
31 October 2011


Earlier this year in the east London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Newham, posters suddenly sprouted in the streets declaring: ‘You are entering a Sharia controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced.’ Underneath were images indicating that smoking, alcohol and music were banned. Also this year posters declaring Tower Hamlets a ‘gay-free zone’ were put up across the borough. Police and local councillors declared that they would take all such posters down.

Now, however, it seems that the threatening implications of self-declared ‘Muslim areas’ are spreading into the heart of our democracy.

Last Friday Mike Freer, MP for Finchley and Golders Green, was forced to abandon his constituency surgery at the North Finchley mosque and hide in a locked part of the building when a group of activists from the ‘Muslims against Crusades’ group forced their way in. The Daily Mail reported that Mr Freer, a gay man and a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, said he was called a ‘Jewish homosexual pig’.

In fact, Mr Freer said he only realised that the danger he was in possibly went beyond such abuse when was he made aware that ahead of this incident the group had posted up a reference to the attack last year on East Ham MP StephenTimms, who was stabbed by a Muslim woman while he too was holding a constituency surgery. This message warned

‘the attack on Mr Timms should serve as a “piercing reminder” to politicians that “their presence is no longer welcome in any Muslim area”’.

The message also stated that

'"as a member of the Conservative Party", Mr Freer "has the blood of thousands of Muslims on his hands".'

Mr Freer, who also happens to be a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia (the ironies attending politically-correct ideology are rich indeed) was apparently targeted because he had demanded that Palestinian extremist Sheikh Raed Salah be banned from Britain earlier this year.

Understandably, Mr Freer now wants the Home Office to investigate ‘Muslims against Crusades’. But rather more pertinently, shouldn’t some arrests have been made? For by any standards this was threatening behaviour which intimidated an MP into being unable to carry out his constituency duties.
Effectively, therefore, the North Finchley mosque became a no-go area for this MP. This surely represented not only a threat to Mr Freer as an individual but to parliamentary democracy itself. More chilling still, it would seem that for ‘Muslims Against Crusades’Finchley is now to be regarded as a Muslim area – presumably on the grounds that any area with a sizeable Muslim population is to be thus regarded -- and its inhabitants subjected as a result to Islamist intimidation.

Finchley happens to be home to a significant Jewish community which will now feel particularly vulnerable. But in fact everyone now comes under potential threat – including Muslims themselves -- as can be seen from what has taken place in east London. For the posters there did not represent empty threats. The process of Islamisation through intimidation is well under way.

Earlier this year, four Tower Hamlets Muslims were jailed for at least 19 years for attacking a local white teacher who gave religious studies lessons to Muslim girls. An Asian woman –not a practising Muslim -- who worked in a pharmacy was threatened with her life unless she wore a headscarf or veil. And as Andrew Gilligan has reported,many more such Islamist attacks are taking place – which he claims the police are downplaying for fear of being accused of racism:

‘The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered more than a dozen other cases in Tower Hamlets where both Muslims and non-Muslims have been threatened or beaten for behaviour deemed to breach fundamentalist “Islamic norms.”

‘One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, said he was left partially blind and with a dislocated shoulder after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan last year.

‘... Teachers in several local schools have told The Sunday Telegraph that they feel “under pressure”from local Muslim extremists, who have mounted campaigns through both parents and pupils – and, in one case, through another teacher - to enforce the compulsory wearing of the veil for Muslim girls.

‘... Tower Hamlets’ gay community has become a particular target of extremists. Homophobic crimes in the borough have risen by 80 per cent since 2007/8, and by 21 per cent over the last year, a period when there was a slight drop in London as a whole.’

Such reports are – to put it mildly -- deeply disturbing. Yet from the ‘progressive’ chattering class and the politicians (embattled Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick being a notable exception with his stark warning that Islamists wanting to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain have infiltrated the Labour party), the response has been...silence.

Thus -- unless the UK ruling class gets its act together pretty damn quick -- the Islamists will win.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Britain's liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value

By Melanie Phillips
The Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
11 August 2011


So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals, national identity, enforcement of the drugs laws and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.

Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as Right-wing nutters who wanted to turn the clock back to some mythical golden age.

Now we can see what they have brought about in the unprecedented and horrific scenes of mob violence, with homes and businesses going up in flames, and epidemic looting.

Clearly, there is some as yet unidentified direction and co-ordination behind the anarchy. But what is so notable and distressing is that, after the first day when adults were clearly involved, this mayhem has been carried out in the main by teenagers and children, some as young as eight.
The idea that they should not steal other people’s property, or beat up and rob passers-by, appears to be as weird and outlandish to them as the suggestion that they should fly to the moon.

These youths feel absolutely entitled to go ‘on the rob’ and steal whatever they want. Indeed, they are incredulous that anyone should suggest they might pass up such an opportunity.

What has been fuelling all this is not poverty, as has so predictably been claimed, but moral collapse. What we have been experiencing is a complete breakdown of civilised behaviour among children and young people straight out of William Golding’s seminal novel about childhood savagery, Lord Of The Flies.

There has been much bewildered talk about ‘feral’ children, and desperate calls upon their parents to keep them in at night and to ask them about any stolen goods they are bringing home.

As if there were responsible parents in such homes! We are not merely up against feral children, but feral parents.

Of course these parents know their children are out on the streets. Of course they see them staggering back with what they have looted. But either they are too drunk or drugged or otherwise out of it to care, or else they are helping themselves to the proceeds, too.

As David Cameron observed yesterday, there are clearly pockets of society that are not just broken, but sick.

The causes of this sickness are many and complex. But three things can be said with certainty: every one of them is the fault of the liberal intelligentsia; every one of them was instituted or exacerbated by the Labour government; and at the very heart of these problems lies the breakdown of the family.

For most of these children come from lone-mother households. And the single most crucial factor behind all this mayhem is the willed removal of the most important thing that socialises children and turns them from feral savages into civilised citizens: a father who is a fully committed member of the family unit.

Of course there are many lone parents who do a tremendous job. But we’re talking here about widespread social collapse. And there are whole areas of Britain, white as well as black, where committed fathers are a wholly unknown phenomenon.

In such areas, successive generations are being brought up only by mothers, through whose houses pass transitory males by whom these women have yet more children — and who inevitably repeat the pattern of lone and dysfunctional parenting.

The result is fatherless boys who are consumed by an existential rage and desperate emotional need, and who take out the damage done to them by lashing out from infancy at everyone around them. Such children inhabit what is effectively a different world from the rest of society. It’s a world without any boundaries or rules. A world of emotional and physical chaos.

A world where a child responds to the slightest setback or disagreement by resorting to violence. A world where the parent is unwilling or incapable of providing the loving and disciplined framework that a child needs in order to thrive.

Yet instead of lone parenthood being regarded as a tragedy for individuals, and a catastrophe for society, it has been redefined as a ‘right’.

When Labour came to power in 1997, it set about systematically destroying not just the traditional family but the very idea that married parents were better for children than any other arrangement.

Instead, it introduced the sexual free-for-all of ‘lifestyle choice’; claimed that the idea of the male breadwinner was a sexist anachronism; and told girls that they could, and should, go it alone as mothers.

This was the outcome of the shattering defeat of Tony Blair, in the two years or so after he came to power, at the hands of the ultra-feminists and apostles of non-judgmentalism in his Cabinet and party who were determined, above all, to destroy the traditional nuclear family.

Blair stood virtually alone against them, and lost.

One of these ultra-feminist wreckers was Harriet Harman. The other night, she was on TV preposterously suggesting that cuts in educational allowances or youth workers had something to do with young people torching and looting shops, robbing and leaving people for dead in the streets.

But Harman was one of the principal forces in the Labour government behind the promotion of lone parenthood and the marginalisation of fathers. If anyone should be blamed for bringing about the conditions which have led to these appalling scenes in our cities, it is surely Ms Harman.

And this breaking of the family was further condoned, rewarded and encouraged by the Welfare State, which conceives of need solely in terms of absence of money, and which accordingly subsidises lone parenthood and the destructive behaviour that fatherlessness brings in its train.

Welfare dependency further created the entitlement culture that the looters so egregiously display. It taught them that the world owed them a living. It taught them that their actions had no consequences. And it taught them that the world revolved around themselves.

The result of this toxic combination of welfare and non-judgmentalism was an explosion of elective lone parenthood and dysfunctional behaviour transmitted down through the generations at the very bottom of the social heap — creating, in effect, a class apart.

Once, children would have been rescued from their disadvantaged backgrounds by schools which gave them not just an education but structure and purpose to their lives.

But the liberal intelligentsia destroyed that escape route, too. For its onslaught upon marriage — the bedrock institution of society — with a tax system that penalises married couples with a wife who doesn’t work, was replicated by an onslaught upon the understanding and very identity of that society. Instead of transmitting knowledge to children, teaching was deemed to be an attack upon a child’s autonomy and self-esteem.

Thus it was that teachers adopted the ‘child-centred’ approach, which expected children not only to learn for themselves but also to decide for themselves about behaviour such as sexual morality or drug-taking.
The outcome was that children were left illiterate and innumerate and unable to think. Abandoned to wander through the world without any guidance, they predictably ended up without any moral compass.

All of this was compounded still further by the disaster of multiculturalism — the doctrine which held that no culture could be considered superior to any other because that was ‘racist’.

That meant children were no longer taught about the nation in which they lived, and about its culture. So not only were they left in ignorance of their own society, but any attachment to a shared and over-arching culture was deliberately shattered.

Instead of forging social bonds, multiculturalism dissolved them — and introduced instead a primitive war of all against all, in which the strongest groups would destroy the weak.

Closely related to this was ‘victim culture’, in which all minority groups were regarded as victims of the majority. So any bad behaviour by them was excused and blamed on the majority.

In similar vein, all criminal wrongdoing was excused on the basis that the criminal couldn’t help himself, as he was the victim of circumstances such as poverty, unemployment, or as yet illusory cuts in public spending. The human rights of the criminal became seen as more important than the safety and security of his victims. Punishment became a dirty word. So the entire criminal justice system turned into a sick joke, with young hoodlums walking off with community sentences or Asbos which they held in total contempt.

Mr Cameron has declared that all those convicted of violent disorder in these riots will go to prison.

Really? Isn’t it more likely that they will end up on some community penalty which will see them taken on trips to Alton Towers to make up for their disadvantaged upbringing? This is the normal response of our sentimentalised and addle-brained criminal justice officials.

In short, what we have seen unfolding before our horrified gaze over the past four days in Britain is the true legacy of the Labour years.

The social and moral breakdown behind the riots was deliberately willed upon Britain by Left-wing politicians and other middle-class ideologues who wrap their utter contempt for the poor in the mantle of ‘progressive’ non-judgmentalism.

These are the people who — against the evidence of a mountain of empirical research — hurl execrations at anyone who suggests that lone parenthood is, in general, a catastrophe for children (and a disaster for women); who promote drug liberalisation, oppose selective education (while paying for private tutors for their own children) and call those who oppose unlimited immigration and multiculturalism ‘racists’.

And the real victims of these people ‘who know best’ are always those at the bottom of the social heap, who possess neither the money nor the social or intellectual resources to cushion them against the most catastrophic effects of such nonsense.

Britain was once an ordered society that was the envy of the world — the most civilised, the most gentle and law-abiding.

Can Broken Britain be put together again? David Cameron is commendably talking tough: but will he have the stomach for tough action?

Will he, for example, remove the incentives to girls and women to have babies outside marriage? Will he dismantle the concept of entitlement from the Welfare State? Will he vigorously enforce the drug laws? Will he end the kid-glove treatment of ‘victim groups’, and hold them to account for their behaviour in exactly the same way as everyone else?

Repairing this terrible damage also means, dare I say it, a return to the energetic transmission of Biblical morality.

Anyone heard from the Archbishop of Canterbury about the riots? Anyone care to guess what he will eventually say about them? Quite.

When church leaders stop prattling like soft-headed social workers and start preaching, once again, the moral concepts that underlie our civilisation, and when our political leaders decide to oppose the culture war that has been waged against that civilisation rather than supinely acquiescing in its destruction, then — and only then — will we start to get to grips with this terrible problem.

Until then, within the smouldering embers of our smashed and burned-out cities, we can only look upon the ruins of the Britain we have so dearly loved; the Britain that once led the world towards civilisation, but is now so tragically leading the way out.

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Our police are not trusted any more. So why SHOULDN'T Dave ask America's top cop to run the Met?

By Melanie Phillips
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
8 August, 2011

Buildings ablaze: In Croydon, South London, police and firefighters had to tackle burning shops and properties (Picture: Getty Images)

Once again, police behaviour is coming under question after the weekend’s disgraceful riots in Tottenham, North London.

Some 26 Metropolitan officers were injured in violent mayhem during which police cars, a bus and a building were set alight and there was widespread hooliganism and looting.

The riots, which appeared to spark copy-cat disturbances last night, followed a protest against the fatal shooting by police officers last Thursday of 29-year-old Mark Duggan.

The precise circumstances in which he was shot dead remain unclear, in the swirl of rumour and unverified claims that invariably follow such an event.

The local MP David Lammy has asked thoughtful questions about why it took the police so long to respond to the disturbances and bring them under control.

Maybe all such concerns about the behaviour of the police will be shown in time to be unfair and unfounded.

The problem, however, is that the police are no longer trusted, neither in what they do nor in what they subsequently say about what they have done.

During the past three decades and more, there have been simply far too many examples within the Met of rank incompetence, tendentious self-justification and worse.

Take their failure to investigate adequately the murder in 1993 of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in South London — a failure not caused by ‘institutional racism’, as was later to be so damagingly claimed, but by institutional incompetence.

Or the murder in 2000 of ten-year-old Damilola Taylor, also in South London, where an elementary failure by the police to develop local contacts resulted in an abortive prosecution.

And, of course, there was the fatal shooting by counter-terrorism police on the Tube of the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, who was wrongly assumed to be a suicide bomber.

But concerns about the Met go far beyond incompetence. The phone-hacking scandal featured so far unsubstantiated claims that certain Met officers had been receiving back-handers from journalists in exchange for information.

And there were many other troubling revelations, such as top officers accepting a freebie at a health farm, being wined and dined by employees of a company the Met had been investigating or hiring a former executive of that company as a PR consultant.

These and other revelations of quite astounding breaches of accepted protocol led to the resignation of the Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, and the head of counter-terrorism, John Yates.

In the Commons debate on the scandal, David Cameron encouragingly signalled his understanding that the problem with the Met went very deep indeed.

Somewhat enigmatically, and largely overlooked at the time, he suggested that someone who had been a proven success overseas might be brought in to turn round the Met.

As it happens, I had written a few days previously that there was one outstanding candidate whom the Government should hire as the new Commissioner.

He is Bill Bratton, the genius American police chief who transformed policing when he halved New York’s murder rate and cut violent crime by half in Los Angeles.

It turns out that this was precisely who the Prime Minister had in mind. According to newspaper reports, Downing Street informally sounded out Bratton to see if he would be interested — and he was.

But remarkably, it appears Home Secretary Theresa May spiked Mr Cameron’s guns when the Home Office — which appoints the Met Commissioner in consultation with the Mayor of London — issued an advertisement for the post specifying ‘applicants must be British citizens’.

In normal circumstances, it would rightly be considered essential that a British citizen should run Britain’s most important police force. But current circumstances are far from normal.

There is a profound crisis in policing that goes far beyond the Met. It is not an exaggeration to say that — with honourable exceptions — the very ethic of policing in Britain has been systematically dismantled.

As a result, though there are able officers it is difficult to have any faith that any of them would be totally free of the systematic contagion that has brought the police so low.

This is a demoralisation — in every sense of the word — that can be traced back at least to the Eighties, when a number of convictions were overturned after the police were said to have played fast and loose with the rules.

Rather than getting the police to put their own house in order, the general consensus was that the police were intrinsically corrupt and had to be reined in by new checks and balances, such as the Crown Prosecution Service.

Repeatedly accused of racism or heavy-handedness towards black communities, the deeply demoralised police reacted defensively by effectively abandoning such communities to gang warfare.

With their own professional training bamboozling them into political correctness, they seemed rather keener to feel people’s collars over ‘hate crime’ than catch the burglars who had trashed their homes.

Retreating from the streets, the police abandoned the public to the scourge of anti-social behaviour and criminality.

A devastating report last year by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary revealed that the police are failing to respond to thousands of complaints about anti-social behaviour despite this blight affecting 14 million people a year.

Even when officers did investigate, it said, they were hindered because the majority of forces in England and Wales did not have systems that could adequately identify vulnerable victims.

Throughout all this calamitous decline in policing standards, more and more senior officers were being promoted not because of ‘boots on the ground’ experience, but because they had university degrees — which often merely qualified them in political correctness.

And the final coup de grace was the politicisation of the police under the Labour government, which turned an officer class that needed above all to be utterly independent into creatures of ministers upon whose preferment they came to depend and whose bidding they cravenly followed.

Given the depth and extent of this professional collapse, the idea that any British officer can be relied upon to cleanse the Augean stables of the Metropolitan Police seems distinctly unlikely.

If there is anyone who can perform this Herculean task, it is surely Bill Bratton. It was he who pioneered the ‘zero tolerance’ approach to policing, under which no crime was considered too small to be dealt with.

His approach built upon the ‘broken windows’ philosophy, which held that ignoring minor criminal damage or anti-social behaviour, such as graffiti, litter or hooliganism, led inevitably to an escalation in crime.

Maybe more important even than this, he also introduced management systems that ensured all his senior officers knew everything that was going on in their neighbourhoods.

He understood that without such detailed local intelligence, policing was impossible. And he also made sure that every week his senior officers were all held rigorously to account with the highest standards of professionalism and integrity for what they had or had not achieved.

What Bratton did in the U.S. was not rocket science. Indeed, it was all pretty obvious. But before he came on the scene, it had not been done. And it certainly isn’t being done in the Met.

For sure, there would be significant disadvantages in having someone who had not lived and worked in Britain running Britain’s most important and complex police force.

But given the scale of Britain’s policing crisis, hiring Bill Bratton is still the best idea the Prime Minister is apparently not being allowed to have.


The Chickens Come Frighteningly Home to Roost

By Melanie Phillips
Published in: Melanie's blog
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
9 August, 2011

LONDON, ENGLAND - AUGUST 09: Burnt out cars are left in Ealing Green following a night of rioting on August 9, 2011 in London, England. Sporadic looting, arson and clashes with police continued for a third day in parts of the capital, as well as in Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol. (Getty Images)

Glad to see others also realising that organised agitation as well as opportunistic anarchy has been fuelling the British riots, which have now spread from London to other cities.

The most frightening aspect of these events is clearly the fact that the Metropolitan Police has been so conspicuously unable to get on top of the criminality and restore order. Indeed, a significant fact behind the rioting, looting, torching of buildings and unprovoked attacks on passers-by has been the perceived weakness of the police and that the thugs thus realise that nothing can stop them smashing up whatever or whomever they choose and stealing whatever they want.

If these disorders continue to escalate, the government will have no option but to call the army onto the streets. That of course would be an appalling indictment of both police and government in allowing the capital city to degenerate into such chaos that the only way to restore order is to abandon the civilian framework and call instead upon forces trained to make war. But the dismaying fact is that the Metropolitan Police has been unable to cope with what has happened, from a failure of intelligence at the beginning to a failure of strategy and tactics on the ground, because it is quite simply a force in disarray.

I wrote in yesterday’s Daily Mail that I was disturbed to read that the Home Office was thwarting the Prime Minister’s wish to hire the iconic American ex-police chief Bill Bratton to run the Met. At Conservative Home, Tim Montgomerie agrees. The collapse of the professional ethic of policing which has brought the Met so low extends throughout the country. So despite the obvious disadvantages, hiring an outsider untainted by this culture would seem to be essential. And Bratton’s record in turning round an ineffectual and demoralised force and transforming a lawless city into a law-abiding one is second to none. If I was sure of this yesterday, I am even more sure of it today—and what's more, that he is needed in the UK right now.

I have written for more than two decades on the various elements that have contributed to this collapse of order: family breakdown and mass fatherlessness; the toleration and even encouragement of grossly inadequate parenting; educational collapse which damages most those at the bottom of the social heap; welfare dependency; political correctness and the vicious injustices and moral inversion of victim culture; the grossly irresponsible toleration of soft drug-taking; the shuddering distaste at the notion of punishment and the consequent collapse of authority in the entire criminal justice system; the implosion of the policing ethic and the police retreat from the streets; the increasing organisation and boldness of anarchist and left-wing subversive activity; and the growth of irrationality, narcissistic self-centredness and mob rule and the near-certainty of a fundamental breakdown of morality and order.

To every one of these arguments that I have made over the years, the left has responded with jeers and smears. Now, as terrified citizens see their homes and businesses torched, looters queue up in order more efficiently to steal from shattered shops and passing motor-cyclists are dragged off their machines and beaten up and robbed --all with near-total impunity -- we can see all these chickens coming so frighteningly home to roost.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Fanaticism, mass murder and the left

By Melanie Phillips
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
July 26, 2011

In the wake of the Norway atrocity and the reaction it has generated, I have been thinking some more about hatred, fanaticism and moral confusion.

This shouldn’t need saying, but it does: there can be no excuse, justification or rationale whatsoever for the atrocity perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik. The reason it unfortunately needs saying is that I have been reading too many weaselly equivocations about this, along the lines of ‘Yes, it was indeed a most terrible atrocity and one’s heart bleeds for those poor victims; but Norway’s politics towards Israel do stink/Norway’s Labour Party stinks/Quisling’s country, say no more/the Islamisation of Europe stinks/it was only a matter of time before someone was provoked by the railroading of public opinion into doing something like this’.

No, no, no! Any variety of such ‘yes-buttery' inescapably makes some kind of excuse for the atrocity, however dressed up it may be in suitably pious expressions of horror. There is never any justification for mass murder. None. Any concerns about the Norwegian ambassador to Israel’s disgusting comments or European Islamisation or anything else are a totally separate matter and must be addressed through the democratic process of argument, persuasion and public debate.

Not only can mass murder never be excused, but the notion that ‘it was only a matter of time before someone was provoked into doing something like this’ is itself as nonsensical as it is obscene. Yes, there are a lot of people in Europe who are angry -- very angry indeed -- about a whole host of things. Some of them are decent people who are boiling with rage at being disenfranchised by an entire political class which seems determined to destroy their civilisation. Some of them have deeply unpleasant or racist views about some of their fellow human beings. Some of them are so angry they may join political groupings which resort on occasion to thuggery and hooliganism (the BNP, EDL or the anti-globalisation riots all come to mind). But violent as some of their behaviour may be, they would not travel to a youth camp, invite the teenagers to gather round and then open fire on them all with dum-dum bullets.

The suggestion that Breivik’s behaviour resulted from political rage – let alone from reading thinkers such as John Locke, John Stuart Mill or Winston Churchill – is frankly itself an opinion in need of treatment. The man is either in the grip of a psychosis or he is a psychopath – in other words, a grossly abnormal personality incapable of human feelings of empathy (my money is on the latter). What he himself says about his own opinions or state of mind therefore does not bear examination. Yet throughout the west, apparently intelligent people have been not only ascribing to him rational thought processes but have been poring over his own words to extract clues about what made him do this.

Repeat after me very slowly: Breivik did not murder dozens of teenagers because he was ideologically opposed to cultural Marxism; he mowed them down because he was grossly mentally abnormal.
In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens makes a useful point – and also explains why the frenzy of demonisation being directed at writers and thinkers who were name-checked in Breivik’s ‘manifesto’is quite so vile, as well as deeply stupid. Observing that Breivik was neither Christian nor conservative but intended to detonate an apocalypse, Stephens writes about this particular pathology:

What it is is millennarian: the belief that all manner of redemptive possibilities lie on just the other side of a crucible of unspeakable chaos and suffering. At his arrest, Breivik called his acts ‘atrocious but necessary.’ Stalin and other Marxists so despised by Breivik might have said the same thing about party purges or the liquidation of the kulaks.
These are the politics that have largely defined our age and which conservatives have, for the most part, been foremost in opposing. To attempt to tar them with Breivik's name is worse than a slur; it's a concession to a killer with pretensions of intellectual sophistication. And it's a misunderstanding of what he was all about.
Indeed. That’s why the relationship between even ultra-nationalistic thinking and acts of terror is very different indeed from the relationship between Islamist radicalism and Islamic acts of terror. The former is characterised by terrorism perpetrated in pursuit of discrete and limited aims. The latter aims to effect an apocalypse in order to bring about the perfection of the world. The former may be appalling in its effects but is nevertheless fundamentally rational since its goal, however noxious, is achievable. The latter is fundamentally irrational since its goal is a utopian fantasy. Consequently those who are in the grip of millenarian apocalyptic fantasies tend to be lunatics or psychopaths; and so it is as ridiculous to ascribe the pathologically murderous behaviour of Breivik to political rage as it would be to do so in the case of Stalin, Hitler or Ahmadinejad.

There is however yet another aspect of the millenarian mindset which should not be overlooked. In my book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power I consider at some length the millenarian fantasies not just of modern-day Islamists but also of the modern left. (I owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Richard Landes, who generously talked me through millenarian theories when I was writing my book some two years ago and whose own magnificent book on the subject, Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of Millennial Experience, has just been published.)

All the totemic creeds of today’s ‘progressive’ classes -- environmentalism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, anti-Zionism and so on --- are millenarian, in that they all posit in their different ways the perfection of the world (just like, in their time, the Inquisition, Stalinism and fascism).

Consequently, today’s militantly secular leftists display some astonishing similarities to both modern-day Islamists and medieval Christian fanatics. There is the same belief in the Revealed Truth – Revealed, that is, to them alone – from which no-one is permitted to dissent. Anyone who denies it is a heretic and has to be destroyed. Because the left believes it embodies virtue -- on account of its desire to perfect the world – anyone who dissents or opposes it is evil. Because it is Manichean, all who are not left-wing are right-wing (even if they are in fact liberal). So all who oppose the left are evil right-wingers who must be destroyed. That to leftists is a moral project.

They are therefore in effect a modern secular Inquisition. They are in the same mould as the religious and political totalitarian tyrannies of the past; they make in this respect common cause with the Islamists whose agenda poses a mortal threat to their own lives and liberties and most cherished beliefs; and they share the characteristic of a closed thought system which is totally impervious to reason and destroys all who challenge it with the monsters of history and Anders Behring Breivik.

That is surely why the left seized upon the Norway atrocity with demented joy and detonated a terrifying eruption of distortion and demonisation, irrationality, hatred and sheer blood-lust as it saw in the ravings of Anders Behring Breivik the mother and father of all smears which it could use to crush those who refuse to surrender to cultural totalitarianism. So those of us who fight for life, liberty and western civilisation against their enemies found ourselves – and by implication, the many millions who share these mainstream views – grotesquely damned as accessories to mass murder by those who actually cheer on religious fascists and genocidal madmen and who are set upon silencing all who resist.

The appalling actions of a Norwegian psychopath tell us next to nothing about our society. But the reaction to that atrocity tells us a great deal more.


Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, ca. 1497–98
Albrecht Dürer (German, 1471–1528)
Woodcut

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Obama's achievement: the mouse that roared

By Melanie Phillips
22 May 2011
 
 
President Obama's Mideast speech set up an awkard meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

I don’t know what strategic purpose Obama had in mind for addressing the Middle East impasse when last Thursday he made the first of a series of speeches on the subject. Whatever this may have been, that speech produced one satisfactory result. The Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for once started to tell the west a few home truths about what it was doing.

With the world’s cameras trained upon him and looking Israel’s potential nemesis in the eye, Netanyahu at last did what he and other Israeli prime ministers should have done a long time ago. He seized the moment, and used the presence of the icily immobilised President to speak electrifyingly over his head to the American people and the world about the likely terrible consequences for Israel of the President’s policy. He began to strip away the pretence, to tear off the fig-leaf. This President’s stated policy would destroy Israel’s existential security. It’s a message the American people need to hear, over and over again.

This morning, the consequences were already plain. Obama had shifted his position. Not much, but enough to demonstrate one crucial fact: that Israel’s most potent weapon of all is the truth, and when it chooses to wield that weapon its tormentors begin to crumble.
This is what Obama said last Thursday:
‘The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.’
Here’s the thing. Obama spoke correctly when he referred to the ‘1967 lines’ rather than ‘borders’. There are no 1967 borders. Israel actually has no borders. All it has are the 1949 ceasefire lines, which is where Israel was left when it fought off the attempt by five Arab armies to exterminate it at birth. These lines were referred to as the ‘Auschwitz borders’ because within them no country could possibly defend itself against its enemies. They left Israel at its narrowest point a mere nine miles wide -- as Netanyahu said, less than the Washington Beltway. A return to the 1967 lines would mean exposing Israel once more to the likelihood of destruction, and such a proposal runs counter to the spirit and the letter of UN Resolution 242. True Obama added ‘with land swaps’. But no realistic land swaps could make up for this fatal vulnerability.

When Obama was interviewed by a star-struck Andrew Marr on BBC TV this morning, he said the ‘1967 lines’ formula had always been accepted as the basis for a solution. Not true, as Dore Gold and Robert Satloff explain here. Not true, as Glenn Kessler explains in the Washington Post. Successive administrations carefully stepped round this minefield in accordance with Resolution 242. It is the Palestinians who talk about returning to the ‘1967 borders’. The sting in what Obama did was to adopt the Palestinian position as US policy. Wrote Kessler:
He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a ‘Palestinian goal’ but as U.S. policy... for a U.S. president, the explicit reference to the 1967 lines represented crossing the Rubicon.
What’s more, he appears to have ambushed Netanyahu with it. So the Bibimouse finally roared.
By Marr’s interview this morning, Obama was signalling that he was shifting his position. Now the 1967 lines were to be not the basis of the solution but the basis for negotiations. In his speech to AIPAC today, although he reverted to his original formulation he did so to cover his tracks as he further finessed this shift in his position:
By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. (Applause.) That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. (Applause.) It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides.
So from being the basis for a solution, the 1967 lines had become 'a border that is different'. It was also notable that, on both occasions, Obama offered the Palestinians nothing. He said the Fatah/Hamas deal was not on. He said Israel couldn’t be expected to sit down with people who were intent on its destruction.

True, he didn’t say what he should have said: namely, that the US would now accordingly cut off the funding to the Hamas/Fatah alliance. Nor did he say that the PA could also not be a partner for peace until it too repudiated its refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state and stopped inciting its people to murder Jews. For the real problem, of course, is that Obama insists that Mahmoud Abbas is a true partner for peace, even though he is just as much of a rejectionist as is Hamas. As the Washington Post sternly observed:
The president appears to assume that Mr. Abbas is open to a peace deal despite growing evidence to the contrary.
And the paper suggested that the precondition for any diplomatic success by the President in the Middle East would be
restoring trust with Israel, rather than courting a feckless Palestinian leader.
Instead, Obama has adopted in these speeches what might be termed the Mafia Gambit: the implied threat to Israel that either it accepts the ‘1967 Auschwitz borders’ or runs the gauntlet of UN recognition and further western delegitimisation.

As a set of demonstrably meaningless and cynical platitudes, Obama’s speech to AIPAC today -- with all its ambiguities and narcissistic petulance skilfully captured here by the Telegraph's Toby Harnden -- was a corker. Try this for example:
And we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and for their rhetoric.
Hey, the man should go into vaudeville. So far, Abbas and co have had a laughably free pass despite their serial aggression, bad faith, reneging on treaties and repeated expressions of exterminatory aggression and incitement to hatred and murder of Jews. Yet it’s Israel alone upon which Obama has dumped, by expecting it to make suicidal concessions to its attackers. At best, Obama remains even-handed between Judeophobic exterminators and their victims; that puts him on the side of the exterminators.

The fact is that, for all his ludicrous protestations of friendship towards Israel, Obama believes the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance over the absence of their state. He thus believes their propaganda of historical falsehoods and murderous blood libels. He therefore believes it is a just solution to reward murderous aggression. And that makes Obama a threat not just to Israel but to free societies everywhere.

Nevertheless, it is a shocking fact that the British government‘s position is now even more hostile towards Israel than is Obama’s. For while Obama was very clear that the alliance between Hamas and Fatah was insupportable, the British Foreign Secretary William Hague actually expressed delight at this deal. As the Telegraph’s Benedict Brogan pointed out on his blog about Obama’s proposal:
William Hague on the Politics Show today backed the plan enthusiastically. ‘I hope Israel and the Palestinians will treat the whole change that is now going on in the Middle East as a case for the, the added urgency of the peace process rather than as an excuse not to engage in the peace process,’ he said. Asked by Jon Sopel whether it wasn’t a bit much for Israel to reduce itself to a 10m wide strip when Hamas and its state sponsors still work for its destruction, the Foreign Secretary sounded weirdly optimistic about what a Fatah/Hamas team up could achieve: ‘The reconciliation of the two Palestinian factions is something that is potentially an important step forward because it means there’s a united Palestinian entity for Israel to negotiate with, but it does require them to enter into negotiations in the right spirit and recognising Israel’s right to exist.’
To stretch an already tired metaphor beyond endurance: Obama threw Israel under the bus, but after cries of horror from passers-by stopped and offered the casualty a sip of water; the British, however, proceeded to kick the injured party’s head in.

Bottom line: Obama has started his re-election campaign. Nothing he says is to be taken more seriously than his need to whip the feeble American Jews back into line. And that’s not hard. The few crumbs he threw out to pacify them should do the trick, despite the unusually wary reception he seems to have received at AIPAC today.

Bottom bottom line: it’s all a pile of steaming irrelevance. The Arabs aren’t going to play anyway. The immediate reason for the nine-decade war thus remains firmly in place. The deeper reason, that the aggressor is indulged and rewarded by the west and thus has every incentive to ratchet up his rejectionism and aggression, also remains firmly in place.

That is what Netanyahu has to address. He has to tell America and Britain that this murderous impasse is their fault -- and that only they can end it by refusing for the first time to indulge and reward those committed to the destruction of Israel, the real cause of the continuation of this conflict. Netanyahu did well last Friday. Now he has to turn telling truth to power into a new strategic approach.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Sadly, I've been proved right. Britain IS a centre of terror. Tragically, our rulers can't see the truth

By Melanie Phillips
The Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
27th April 2011

Terror: Preachers like Abu Hamza helped spread the hated in London - and little was done to stop it.

So now we are all finally able to see just why Britain’s capital came to be known contemptuously as ‘Londonistan’.

Some five years ago, I wrote a book by that name which laid out the extent to which Britain had become the global hub of Islamic terrorism outside the Muslim world itself.

So bad was this phenomenon that the French secret service, which had tried in vain to alert Britain to the dangers, dubbed it ‘Londonistan’ in a sarcastic reference to the flow into London of Muslim extremists who had been radicalised in Afghanistan.

Worse still, I wrote, the British political, legal and security establishments were still refusing to get to grips with the threat posed to Britain by militant Muslims who wanted to conquer it for Islam.

At the time, such an analysis was considered pretty off the wall. I had a hard time getting the book published, and when it did appear I was called ‘mad’ by the Guardian, as well as ‘bonkers’, ‘alarmist’, ‘hysterical’ and, of course, ‘Islamophobic’.

Now, however, a new tranche of WikiLeaks documents, detailing the backgrounds of the inmates of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, confirms precisely what I wrote.

The UK, these papers reveal, furnished no fewer than 35 of the members of Al Qaeda — more than any other nation — who ended up in Guantanamo after having been indoctrinated by Islamic preachers in Britain into murderous hatred against the West.

The documents record how terrorist recruits from across Africa and the Middle East flocked to London to claim asylum.

As I wrote in my book, they were drawn like bees to a honeypot by Britain’s uniquely self-destructive combination of a generous welfare state, a long tradition of turning a blind eye to foreign political dissidents, and a judiciary and political class which had effectively decided to tear up Britain’s border controls in the cause of ‘universal human rights’.

The truly disturbing thing was not just that these characters were allowed into the country, but that it was in Britain itself where thousands of young Muslims were subsequently radicalised — a process that continues to accelerate.

And as these files state, this didn’t just take place in London’s notorious Finsbury Park mosque under those two key preachers and terrorist recruiters Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza.

It also occurred in self-styled moderate establishments such as the flagship Regent’s Park and East London mosques. Between them all, they dispatched dozens of extremists to be trained in terrorism against the West in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

One new and startling fact also thrown up by the WikiLeaks treasure trove is the possible part in this process played by the BBC. For, after several suspected terrorists were all found to possess a phone number at the BBC World Service, the U.S. government suspected the BBC of being a ‘possible propaganda media network’ for Al Qaeda.

It would doubtless be uncharitable to observe that, even without any knowledge of this entry in the Al Qaeda Rolodex, some of us have long thought the same thing.

Of course, it must not be forgotten that many hundreds of thousands of British Muslims shun violence or extremism. They want only to live peacefully and enjoy the benefits of Western democracy and human rights.

But an alarmingly high number do not. And this radicalisation has come about through a lethal cocktail of multiculturalism, welfarism and sheer spineless funk by the British authorities, laced with political correctness which turned right and wrong upside down.

What beggars belief even more is that the Government has been paying millions in compensation to some of these terrorists for having so inconsiderately deprived them of their ‘human rights’ by locking them up.

Even more ludicrously, we now learn that one Guantanamo inmate was paid more than £300,000 of British taxpayers’ money to eradicate his poppy crops in Afghanistan. But instead he allegedly supported Al Qaeda — while continuing to act as a major drugs trafficker.

It was, of course, under the previous government that all this madness took such hold. David Cameron, by contrast, has made excellent speeches condemning multiculturalism and promising a new approach.

Yet there are still signs of muddled thinking at the top. For example, Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones, who is drawing up the Government’s new counter-terrorism strategy, recently identified her task as ‘trying to convince minorities in this country that it’s their country as much as anybody else’s’.

But since the essence of the problem is that extremists in fact regard Britain as so much their own country they wish to turn it into an Islamic one, this is surely to miss the point spectacularly.

For it is not just terrorism that threatens Britain. It is also the steady incursion of Islamic sharia law, whose principles are inimical to Western values and human rights. This ‘sharia creep’ is now highly advanced in Britain. A parallel jurisdiction in Islamic family law has been allowed to develop in Muslim areas, turning British Muslim women into second-class citizens and worse.

There has been an enormous growth of Islamic banking — which, WikiLeaks says, the Americans feared might serve as an umbrella for the financing of Islamic terrorism.

Several education authorities have quietly taken to serving halal meat to all pupils. As TV programmes have shown, some Muslim schools and apparently ‘moderate mosques’ are teaching pupils and worshippers to hate ‘unbelievers’.

Islamic extremist speakers appear unchallenged regularly at British universities. Freely available in London are certain Muslim TV propaganda channels — one of which is owned and controlled by the fundamentalist Islamic state of Iran.

And the Government still hasn’t dealt with human rights law, which has driven our legal system so catastrophically off the rails and has come to act as the judicial weapon of the Islamic jihad.

The key problem I identified five years ago remains true today: that Britain’s ruling class even now does not want to acknowledge the true nature and scale of the threat that we face.

There remains a fixed belief within Whitehall that this is hardly more serious than, say, the threat once posed by Irish terrorism. But this is surely a terrible error.

Terrorism uses violence against civilians to force society to yield to its demands. The Islamic jihad, by contrast, is a world-wide war on many fronts to destroy a society altogether.

For heaven’s sake, as the WikiLeaks files reveal there has been much Al Qaeda ‘chatter’ that somewhere in Europe it has stowed away a nuclear weapon, to be detonated if Osama Bin Laden were ever to be killed or captured.

Whether or not that particular claim is true, there is no doubt that Al Qaeda is actively seeking nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in order to murder as many people as possible.

Yet although the British security service has warned repeatedly that it fears a dirty bomb in Britain is all but inevitable, people refuse to take this seriously.

So while the security people sweat over how to keep the British people safe from such a monstrous event, parliamentarians, human rights lawyers and civil liberties activists posture preposterously as defenders of western values protecting the ‘human rights’ of known terrorists, and by indulging in the lethal frivolity of trying to destroy control orders or detention before charge — on the grounds that all we are facing is just another type of crime to be dealt with in the normal way.

What the WikiLeaks files show us is that, on the contrary, a war is being waged against the free world. But unless Britain finally acknowledges this fact, it is a war we are destined to lose.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

On Egypt the Left are all neo-cons now

By Melanie Phillips
The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/
February 15, 2011

The future of Egypt following the departure of president Hosni Mubarak remains opaque.

No one can currently predict whether it will end up as a democracy with free elections, a military dictatorship, or an Islamic theocratic tyranny.

But the Western Left has known one thing for certain from the very start of the protests: that the tyrannical dictator Mubarak had to go, that the protesters in Tahrir Square were all on the side of freedom and that the convulsions presaged a joyous new dawn of democracy and human rights.

This was despite the serious risk of an Islamist takeover in Egypt, with the consequent extinction of human rights for the Egyptians worse than anything under Mubarak's clearly repressive regime. And it was also despite the fact that opinion polls have suggested that many, if not most Egyptians harbour Islamist, anti-Western and ferociously anti-Jewish ideas.

Nevertheless, Western progressives were shouting for regime change. At which point it began to seem that, like Alice, one had somehow been transported through the looking-glass.

For during the past seven years, Western liberals have fulminated without remission that George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair were criminally out to lunch to pretend that democracy could ever come to Iraq through ousting a dictator.

The neo-con article of faith, that the Arab or Islamic world, could or should embrace democracy and human rights, was held up as an example of cultural imperialism, racist bigotry or insanity, or all three.

But suddenly everyone in the bien-pensant world has apparently become a neo-con.

The US, they now fulminated, had been criminally obtuse in propping up the dictator Mubarak rather than helping turn Egypt into a democracy.

So what was the difference? Simple. Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the West; Mubarak was an ally. So progressives claimed that getting rid of the former was a crime against humanity, while not getting rid of the latter was a crime against humanity. Got that?

It would doubtless be uncharitable to add that, throughout this supposedly diabolical Mubarak presidency those same liberals saw no problem taking vacations rubber-necking round the Pyramids or steaming up the Nile. No boycott, divestment or sanctions movement there; such censure is never applied by the Left to any of the tyrannies of the Middle East, of course, only against the sole democracy in the region: Israel.

Nor do the double standards stop there. When the people of Lebanon made their pitch for democracy against the crushing oppression of Hezbollah, Western bien-pensants were totally indifferent. When the people of Iran made their pitch for democracy against the savage cruelties of the Islamic regime, the bien-pensants were totally indifferent. But when the Egyptians took to the streets, the bien-pensants all but wetted themselves with excitement.

What was the difference? If the Lebanese and Iranians had succeeded, the West would have been strengthened. But the risk still remains that the canny Muslim Brotherhood will bide their time before pouncing and coming to power in Egypt, which would of course furnish another major threat for the free world.

And this is the most frightening thing of all in this back-to-front universe: the way in which the West has sanitised the Muslim Brothers and even, in the case of the Obama administration, actually tried to push them into power.

When it wasn't flip-flopping over whether Mubarak should stay or go, the White House first said it wouldn't mind if the Muslim Brothers became part of the Egyptian government.

Then it urged the inclusion of "important non-secular actors" - code for the Muslim Brothers - in a "more democratic" Egypt. And then it was revealed that its proposal for the immediate transfer of power called for the transitional government to include the brotherhood.

What madness was this? The Muslim Brothers' goal is to Islamise the world. They are religious fascists. While certainly there are millions of Muslims around the world who do want to live under democracy, the Brothers are totally against any secular rule at all and stand for an extinction of human rights. They are fanatical Jew-haters. In the 1930s they were effectively created as a political force by the Nazi Party, with which they formulated a final solution for Palestine by ridding it of its Jews, an agenda continued today by their offshoot, Hamas.

Today, they are no less the mortal enemies of the free world. Their leaders have declared war on America, gloating that the US is "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise", and that "resistance is the only solution".

They support al-Qa'ida terrorism "against the Americans and the Zionists". They declared that after Mubarak they would dissolve the peace treaty with Israel.

They support Hezbollah, make overtures to Iran, and openly employ a strategy of simulating moderation to gain power though democratic means in order to destroy democracy.

If Egypt is eventually taken over by the brotherhood, Jordan will be next, and both will turn into Iran/Gaza in a matter of a few years. Oh, and the Brothers are also busy Islamising Britain and America. Yet on both sides of the pond, significant elements of the political and defence establishment have decided that the Muslim Brothers are basically peace-loving, sensible, pragmatic chaps who are useful allies against the men of violence.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the double standards of the Left result from its deep hatred of the Western society whose basic values they wish to overturn. Whether during the French Revolution or the Stalinist purges, the Left has repeatedly sided with the extinction of human freedom and refused to accept the monstrous evidence of its own credulousness.

Among political and defence elites, moreover, the stranglehold of multicultural victim culture, the influence of revisionist "scholars" such as John Esposito or Karen Armstrong who sanitise Islam, and the deep desire to take the path of least resistance - plus the reflexive view that the real threat to the world is not the Islamic jihad but the state of Israel - means that the establishment meets the Left on the same side of the looking-glass.

Has there ever been a civilisation more bent on collective suicide than the contemporary West?

- Melanie Phillips is the author of The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power, published by Encounter.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Denial is a river in Londonistan

By Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail, 14 December 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
http://www.melaniephillips.com/

Some four-and-a-half years ago, a book of mine was ­published that caused something of a sensation.

It was called Londonistan, and it was about the way in which — astoundingly — Britain had ­become the most ­important centre, outside the Islamic world itself, for the production and export of ­Islamic terrorism.

Worse yet, I wrote, even after the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 London Tube and bus bombings, the British political, legal and security establishments were still refusing to get to grips with the threat posed to Britain by militant Muslims who wanted to conquer it for Islam.

For my pains, I was called ‘mad’ by the Guardian, ‘bonkers’, ‘alarmist’, ‘­hysterical’ and, of course, ‘Islamophobic’.

Indeed, I had a hard time getting the book published at all. It was turned down by every mainstream London publisher because they regarded my views as dangerous extremism. One even remarked: ‘I’d rather take the ­poison ricin than publish this.’ Nice!

For a while it looked as if it would be ­published only in the U.S. — but a few weeks before publication in America, a tiny British publishing house bravely volunteered to ­publish it here.

Given the terrifying nature of what I wrote in that book, it really does give me no comfort to say this - but the fact is that, ever since it was published, a steady stream of revelations has proved that I was absolutely right.

This week, we learned that Taimour Abdulwahab Al-Abdaly, who blew himself up in a terrorist attack in Stockholm, was yet another radicalised British Muslim university graduate. He was but the latest in an ­unremitting procession of British Muslims who have committed terrorist attacks in other countries. And many have been ­educated to a high level in Britain.

Over the past decade, around 30 Muslim graduates or students at British universities have been involved in Islamic-inspired ­terrorism, including former University ­College London student Umar Farouk ­Abdulmutallab, who has been charged with trying to blow up a U.S. airliner with explosives hidden in his underpants.

As for Luton — where Abdulwahab lived and attended university — this has long been regarded as a hot-bed of Islamic extremism.

So why is it that, with the Security Service periodically issuing chilling warnings that it’s monitoring more than 2,000 dangerous ­Muslim fanatics and dozens of terrorist plots, Britain is still failing so dismally to curb its home-grown industry of Islamic terrorism and extremism?

As I pointed out in my book, most of the British establishment is in denial about what it is up against. Our leaders know there is a major threat of terrorism.

But they remain wilfully blind to the fact that the terrorists’ ultimate aim, the Islamisation of ­Britain and the West, is being pursued by Islamic groups that are not violent, as well as those that are.

Of course, millions of British ­Muslims shun violence or extremism. They want only to live peacefully and enjoy the benefits of Western democracy and human rights.

Moreover, since they and their children are themselves among the principal victims and targets of the Islamist fanatics, they beg the British Government to crack down on such extremism.

But here is the most astonishing thing I explored in my book. For the establishment is so heavily imbued by a deadly cocktail of political ­correctness, multiculturalism and ‘human rights’ law that, far from curbing Islamic extremism, it has actually fanned the flames.

Over the past decade and more, the judges have made it all but ­impossible to police Britain’s borders against undesirables or throw extremists out of the country.

Universities have shamefully refused to crack down on extremists on ­campus, even though countless ­Muslim students are being radicalised there by Islamist speakers — with no fewer than four university Islamic ­Society presidents having been involved in major acts of terrorism.

Idiotically, politicians cravenly attempting to defuse Islamic rage by appeasing the Muslim community have funded organisations that have turned out to be extreme.

Even more extraordinarily, to this day the Government is employing radical Islamists in Whitehall — as political advisers on curbing Islamic extremism.

The core reason for this supine approach is that the establishment refuses to acknowledge that Islamic terrorism is rooted in religious fanaticism — an extreme interpretation of the religion that dictates Muslims must impose Islamic law throughout the world.

While most British Muslims most certainly do not accept this interpretation, it is rooted in theology and history, and is supported by the major ­religious authorities in the Islamic world.

So truly moderate Muslims ­cannot make their voices heard. The extremists therefore have the whip hand. And the way they intend to achieve their ends is through a ­pincer movement comprising both terrorism and cultural infiltration to gain social, economic and political power.

The threat of violence makes it more likely they will succeed in infiltrating British institutions. And that in turn makes it ever harder to curb radicalisation. It also galvanises the extremists, who perceive correctly that the society they have in their sights has no stomach for the fight.

This is precisely what is ­happening in Britain. Because our political and security establishment has defined extremism as involving ­violence, it is blind to the steady process of Islamisation that is taking place.

Astonishingly, it is tolerating — and even encouraging — the relentless incursion of Islamic religious law. Yet this is inimical to British values - and not just because it denies the human rights of women, homosexuals or anyone who wants to renounce Islam.

Fundamentally, it does not ­recognise the superior authority of the law of the land, against which it therefore asserts itself.

But it is a fundamental principle of a democratic society that there must be only one law for all. And yet in ­Britain today, blind eyes are being turned to Sharia courts meting out not just family law judgments that oppress women, but even criminal sanctions, too.

In addition, there has been in this country an enormous growth of Islamic banking — despite the fact this serves as an umbrella for the financing of Islamic terrorism and is a vehicle for putting yet more pressure on British Muslims to subject themselves to Sharia law.

Almost every week, more examples surface of the way in which British culture is giving way to Islamic ­practices. As a recent BBC Panorama programme demonstrated, some Muslim schools are teaching their pupils to hate ‘unbelievers’ — all under the nose of Ofsted.

And a growing number of education authorities serve halal meat to all pupils — without even informing the public of this minority faith practice. London hosts three Muslim TV channels — all with ties to fanatical Islamic organisations or regimes.

In short, Britain is being steadily Islamiscised — and the establishment appears paralysed like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

Four years ago in my book, I ­delivered a warning. A country that can’t even bring itself to name the nature of the enemy it faces will be defeated by that enemy.

The Stockholm bomber is but the latest export from Londonistan — and unless the ­Government gets up off its knees and changes its disastrous strategy, I very much fear he will not be the last.