I thought I’d create a special post to recognise something from the BBC website which is very interesting. Paul Reynolds has taken, in his opinion articles, to updating by means of clearly bracketed insertions into the main text. Further from stealth editing it would not be possible to get. This latest piece is currently featuring alongside the BBC’s top story, the cartoon controversy. I’m interested to know what people think of this, and no doubt Paul would be too. In principle I think it would be a massive step forward for BBConline if it became the norm and not the exception. The current article includes among its updates some of the things the internet has uncovered about the Danish Imams delegation, including the origin of the ‘Muhammed with a pig’s face’ cartoon- sourced back to one of France’s quainter traditions: the pig squealing competition.
Regarding the Reynolds analysis, I think that the BBC are still underplaying the role of the Danish Imams in conjunction with the diplomats of various Middle Eastern countries. It is, for Reynolds, only ‘one aspect’, and very much the fag end of his analysis. I was interested in this Winds of Change analysis, which went further even than I have in alleging conspiracy. One other thought: Reynolds says, regarding the fake cartoons, that ‘Western diplomats appear to have missed this entirely’. It is hard to apportion blame, but somewhere along the line governments depend on the media to pick up news and publicise it. The BBC should have been questioning their sources for a story that they’ve been covering on and off for five months. The BBC should have been looking in detail at the Danish cartoons: this was not a matter for intelligence, but media diligence and scepticism.
Last night on BBC Radio 4 TWT(10:15) we had an interesting sparring match A.Chaudery v Shahid(‘martyr’)Malik, the Labour MP and spokesperson for “mainstream”(sic) British Muslims”. Today it was about Abu Hamza, and he was confronting a Muslim Labour MP rather than a Muslim Tory MP. Chaudery, true to his performance on BBC2s Newsnight the night before (Islam in the West), was in top form, and raged that Malik was an “apostate” “What Shahid Malik is doing is anathema (sic)”, Malik was “a secularist & capitalist”, “You are not a Muslim…you will be raised on the day of judgement with those whom you like” (presumably Blair,Clarke & Straw? Somehow when I picture in my minds eye Mohammed riding on his horse with a mans head I always think of Neville Straws physiognomy).Once again a BBC journalist still apparently bitter about Griffen’s not guilty acquittal egged on Malik to denigrate the BNP and to compare a molehill of hate with a mountain of hate. His soundbite for the evening (20 minutes later repeated verbatim on BBC2 Newsnight) was “Abu Hamza did more damage to British Muslims than the BNP and NF ever could”.
Roger Knapman’s performance on bbc Newsnight was very poor,shame that he could not have said the following:
“It is impossible to imagine a group of ethnic Europeans going to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and starting up a “Christian Council”, replete with Christian law and demanding churches be built and space be allotted for special Christian schools. It is even more absurd to imagine the host countries allowing the new burgeoning immigrant class to join political structures at council level and to work themselves into parliament where they can join up with vociferous minority European sympathy groups and dictate to the indigenous populations of the host countries as to social and political policy and to write into this many protective clauses to their own benefit. Added to that it is equally incredible that the media of the host countries would constantly broadcast programmes and documentaries extolling the virtues of Christianity and teaching the people of the host country all about the wonders of mixed marriages and how to speak the language of the invader. If there were a riot by natives and the immigrants started getting bricks through their windows it would be amazing to see the host country’s police force out to arrest natives and haul them off to prison for incitement to racial hatred. This is only seen in the west.”
http://www.ukipforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=88670&sid=fe4e67ecd3c735499e307295e1f2f7ae#88670
OT, I have been reading an old article in The Register from 2003:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/28/bbc_news_site_facing_extinction/
(I was originally looking for information about Ceefax, which was THE FUTURE when I was very young. Ceefax is unofficially available online here:
http://www.ceefax.tv/
)
Anyway, the Register’s article starts off by praising the BBC’s news website, and reveals that back in 2003 the second most popular news website in the UK was that of the Guardian. Half-way through the article takes a negative turn:
QUOTE
Why is the BBC so reviled at the moment then? It is all simply a matter of envy? No. Everyone knows someone richer than themselves but if that person is polite, friendly or agreeable, it doesn’t bother you.
The problem is that the BBC of today is an incredibly arrogant organisation – and that gets people’s backs up. As the BBC has grown more and more out of touch with the world around it, it has desperately clung to its culture. And that refusal to change has seen it faced with frustration and anger, which in turn has seen it tighten up in indignation.
The National Union of Journalists recently revealed that the BBC was the worst media organisation in the UK for bullying. Numerous examples of blame culture have emerged in recent years. People from outside the organisation have been appalled by the politics and cliques within the BBC. Tales abound of petulant, unpleasant, even sadistic, producers and middle-managers lashing out to disguise their all-too-real fear of discovery.
Comic of the moment Ricky Gervais said on his radio show recently that he was amazed at the number of hopeless executives within the BBC that are highly paid but don’t appear to do anything. “It makes you want to wander up to them and say ‘What do you actually do?’,” he said.
The arrogance extends throughout the organisation. While the media feeds off itself and rarely attributes where the story originally came from, the BBC is almost legendary in its belief that if it wasn’t featured on the BBC no one would have heard about it and that it has no need to say where it came from.
Experts and specialists are regularly asked for the benefit of their experience but the very fact it is the BBC asking is supposed to be compensation enough for their time and effort. And in the ultimate act of arrogance, if someone isn’t prepared to drop everything, the BBC will remove them from a list of potential spokespeople.
Unfortunately, this has led in many cases to disparate news arms of the BBC using precisely the same contacts each time. The fact that the entirety of the BBC appeared to have only source regarding the Iraq war dossiers is testament to this self-defeating approach.
UNQUOTE
Crumbs, Ricky Gervais! I remember him. Remember that the article was written way back in 2003.
QUOTE
The Tories meanwhile, as the most technically inept political party, have not restricted themselves to BBC Online in their own review, headed by ex-head of Channel Five, David Elstein.
Mr Elstein is on record as saying the BBC licence fee is worse than the poll tax. He is joined by David Cox – an ex-LWT exec, friend of John Birt’s and a man who reportedly wrote “Fuck off Dyke and don’t come back” on the current BBC director-general’s leaving card when he left LWT in 1983.
UNQUOTE
deepdiver,
Write to the media telling them their sales will fall.
When the fall in sales happens, write again, and tell them why.
You might even get a job!
Only extortion funded institutions (like the bBC) are cut-off from financial feedback and can run roughshod over the feelings of the public.
Personally I think Newsnight and the BBC DID do a public service by giving Choudrey air time. He is an honest man of Faith who believes every word in the Koran is the ultimate word of God. He tells the truth when he says all the world is Allah’s because it is written in the Koran. How do we know this is true? Because the Koran says so. So un-believers go to Hell.
I am not impressed by the media scapegoating Abu Hamza, depicting him as an extremist, he too is a man of faith who is merely repeating the word of God.
charlie hebdo update: its sold out in paris. 20,000 up on normal circulation.
the charlie hebdo issue is buried in this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4691878.stm
“In France, a court threw out on technical grounds an application for an injunction against a satirical publication that planned to print the 12 caricatures in its Wednesday edition. ”
The editor of Charlie-Hebdo welcomed the ruling.
“Criticising religion is legitimate in a state of law and must remain so,” Philippe Val said.
Sarge – i agree. i find it entirely wrong that Abu Hamza went down merely for repeating what is in the Koran.
charge him on terrorist conspiracy if you must. but for just repeating whats in the koran? i would disagree with charging him over that.
ot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/46…/uk/ 4691958.stm
i think the BBC should be asking the govt, why it did nothing for 7 years?
appeasement? remember Hitler?
thank god we had a COnservative govt at the time who actually took action and confronted Hitler head on.
Instead of this wishy washy, lets stick our head in the sand and hope it goes away.
Like Cancer, its spreads, and doing nothing is simply not the answer.
ian -> its well known that the strategy was simply “dont bomb us – bomb somebody else”. The French security services came up with the “Londonistan” term, in despair at the lack of co-operation – the French were after Algerian and Morrocan extremists , based in London.
the belgians have persued a similar policy – the end result of which was that the first European female suicide bomber in Iraq – was a belgian woman.
Susan
“Another factoid about the Muslim population in Denmark: despite making up less than 5 percent of the population, they suck a whopping 40 percent of the country’s welfare benefits!”
Whose fault is that? The Danish Government and the Danish people who have repeatedly voted for a welfare state.
On my visit to Copenhagen I was mystified by the lack of small shops, until it dawned on me that you don’t have to work when the State pays you. Why start a business when you can sit at home and have the government top up your bank account.
The Scandinavian country’s give mega handouts and are truly nanny States.
The only reason more people don’t migrate there is because of the appalling weather. They wait nine months for the summer and spend three months being disappointed.
archduke, you are entirely right, the british govt is responsible and they know it.
The French cant believe our stupidity. In france they’d all be locked up by an independent judge and then deported. Short and sweet.
If there are any more bombings in london, the government will have a riot on its hands.
this is even more stupid:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=197482006
god knows what idiot thought this up
The Dutch Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonial_empire
Tranquebar was a Danish colony in India from 1620-1845, founded by the Danish East India Company.
The Nicobar islands colonised by the Danish East India Company in the 1750s;
Iceland through the Treaty of Kiel, which saw Norway being handed over to Sweden, Iceland became a Danish dependency.
The Virgin Islands The Danish West Indies (DWI, Dansk Vest Indien) are a former colony of Denmark in the Caribbean, now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Danish West India Company settled on Saint Thomas in 1672,
Danish India is a term for the former colonies of Denmark in India,founded by the Danish East India Company, which was active from the 17th to the 19th centuries.
Good on em, but it’s taken R4 ‘Today’ professional journos a couple of weeks to report what the blogsphere have known for some time. ‘Today’ visited Edinburgh University this morning where a picture of Muhamed hangs. Of course, Muhammed has been drawn & painted many times over the centuries, and the Quoran doesn’t specifically state ‘do not draw Muhammed’, it depends on your interpretation of text referring to his ‘image’. So why the major fuss now?
Muhammed Image Archive
http://bamapachyderm.com/wp-content/mohammedmirror.htm
ALso, far from being ‘bemused’ (as reported by the BBC), Danish cartoonists and other artists are having a ‘draw your best Muhammed’ competition. See the entries here:
http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C
Some are quite funny. Expect to see this reported in the BBC, oh in about 2-3 weeks time as ‘News’. Old news that is.
I owe a big hat-tip to USS Neverdock for their superb in-depth blogging (and regular BBC-fisking) on the Cartoon and related issues:
USS Neverdock
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/
that word is getting around a lot – “to fisk”.
that and “cartoon rage” are fast becoming the phrases of 2006.
guess what. the only segment of Today you cant listen to is the Hitchens V SWP debate at 08:22
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/index.shtml
Back to Paul Reynolds. People should realise that professional journalism can be either one of the easiest & cheapeast jobs in the world, or one of the most rigorous & demanding. I strongly suspect that Paul knows in his bones that the BBC’s newsgathering operations have morphed during his career there from one to the other, with the slide in standards being disguised by the (electronic equivalent of the)fact that prudent people don’t get into letter-writing arguments with people who buy ink by the ton.
One of the best aspects of the web is precisely that it potentially turns everyone into bulk ink-buyers. And as a result, it makes it increasingly difficult for the BBC to pretend not to be aware of its own decline as a news organisation.
Now, as to what he’s done – or more importantly, what he’s managed to persuade the editors and producers to allow him to do. By itself, it is, of course, a small thing. But winning the battle to do it is not unimportant, because the demonstration effect of it might be extremely powerful. Contrary to Gresham’s Law, bad money does not always drive out good: it drives it out only where you cannot tell the difference between the two. Where you can tell the difference, good money runs bad out of town at breakneck pace every time. And thus, I suspect, it may be if Reynolds continues to succeed in fighting his corner. If one part of the BBC is so publicly and clearly putting out a better journalistic product, then the internal and external acceptability of the usual shoddy rubbish is questioned all the time.
It’s a snowball effect. Consider, Jonathan Dimbleby is probably wondering right now who, if anyone, he should be kicking for leaving him so publicly ill-informed. A frightened silence, I’d bet, as neither he nor those near him dare acknowledge his public display of ignorance. However, he’ll know it happened, and we’ll know it happened, and he’ll know his career wouldn’t survive too many repeats. His options? His researchers will be asked not to rely solely on BBC sources. . . .
B-BBC has an important job. Paul Reynolds has an important fight. If the BBC survives as a news organisation, Reynolds’ willingness to put his head over the parapet will be seen as a key moment. Whether he’s a good journalist or not, I have no idea. I do think, however, that a) he’s honest and he’s trying hard and b) he’s no coward.
i dont speak Danish, but it looks as if the BBC has been fisked by Jylands Posten:
http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3545102/
Just for info…
The BEEB have now put up a “Have Your Say” page for Abu Hamza…
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=1023&edition=1
I sent Paul Reynolds an email encouraging him in this direction. I think it’s only fair to point out when they get it right, or at least are heading in the right direction.
damn fine post there Michael.
“Danish Muslims divided”
come on BBC – i would be interested in OVERALL Danish opinion. stuff like:
Has PM Rasmussen’s poll rating gone up or down?
Will the Danish Peoples Party get more votes at the next election – or will Danes revert to the left instead?
Are Danes scared/angry/indifferent?
“Former spin doctor and political commentator Peter Mogensen warned that if the violence does not stop soon, Mr Rasmussen could lose his job” – is Peter Mogensen a left or right wing spin doctor?
Where are the poll ratings that would indicate that the Danish people are turning against the Mr Rasmussen? Please BBC – could you back up such statements with some more hard facts.
dont worry bbc – i found the answer in about 10 seconds on google blogsearch:
“Peter Mogensen, der er tidligere spindoktor for Socialdemokratiet”
no need for translation. its quite obvious who Mr Mogensen spins for.
several minutes of searching, and i find a danish poll, which indicates that whopping 80 per cent of Danes support their PMs stance.
“A poll for Danish Radio by the Epinion research institute published Saturday showed that 79 percent of Danes surveyed said Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen should not apologize on Denmark?s behalf, 18 percent said he should and three percent were undecided.?
source:
http://democracyfrontline.org/blog/?p=224
Lose his job? Seems to me that if he backs down he’ll lose his job, which is the opposite of what the BBC appear to be saying.
O/T
Well, what do you know – considering the huge numbers of murders in South Africa every year, we have the BBC reporting prominently on one case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4692898.stm
Without looking, can you guess the colour of the victims and the alleged perpetrators?
Now, why do we not see a fuller reporting on the BBC of the brutal murder rates in South Africa including black-on-white murders?
http://www.genocidewatch.org/BoersSlain01.htm
Anonymous:
The BBC printed this with a straight face:
“There is still apartheid and racism and I will teach my children to hate white people,” said Dorothy Moeletsi, whose daughter, Constance, was among the victims.
That’s right up there with the “People are trying to portray us as extremists, so we must kill them all” quote recently (it’s not an exact quote, but it’s the gist of it)
after decades of getting away with shooting black people dead under the apartheid system, i’m afraid you’ll have very little sympathy for the plight of the Boers nowadays, unfortunate though that is. they made the mess, they’ll just have to deal with it or get the hell out of SA.
Archduke – you can listen to the Hitchens interview if you listen to the programme in full, and spin forward…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/today
The bit you want is at 2hrs:25mins:45secs (just click the >>15mins & >>1min buttons ’til you get there).
Gavrilo – by “you” you mean yourself, obviously. Racist killings are racist killings, both sides don’t have some sort of quota which has to be filled otherwise it’s “unfair”. Is this some sort of ‘affirmative action’ to even up the numbers of racist murders?
“Go on, you’ve had a rough time in the past, it’s only fair that you get to shoot them now”.
OT, but I think that “Afghan Cartoon Riot” would be a fantastic name for a rock band.
agreed Rob. good point. but the long shadow of apartheid still hangs over this, thats all.
I was wondering what has happened to “Private Eye” is that rag too going to go down the “respect” road, and going to refrain from offending the “sensibilities” of the Muslims- its usually full of cartoons? Saw their editor on BBC 2s Newsnight Review recently, chatting about flicks & plays, as the maelstrom unfolds itself. Peter Cook, in a TV studio would have launched into a Neville Chamberlain style speech brandishing a Mohammed Cartoon, I’m sure of it. Apart from Rowan Atkinson’s encouraging words, what are the BBC comedy mafia doing right now, it seems they are all afflicted by Omertà.
no sign of it on the private eye website. and the french satirists who run the “charlie hebdo” mag are now under police protection.
Well we now have the opportunity to see if the BBC can admit they are wrong and/or lying by omission. A few days ago I complained about this:
Q&A: THE MUHAMMED CARTOONS ROW
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4677976.stm
The complaint was that no mention is made of the various world-wide riots being instigated by a Danish Imam hawking three cartoons around the middle east and erroniously passing them off as those that had appeared in the Danish press. The piece is still unchanged, it still maintains that the publication of the original 12 cartoons provoked the demonstrations.
I just rang back and complained again. I was asked if I’d like to be put through to the News Desk. “Oh yes please” says I. So, I had a chat with a women on the Foreign Desk. I outlined my complaint again. She asks me where I get the information that an Imam had been passing off fake cartoons as those published in Jyllands Posten. “well” says I “apart from many other free and widely available sources, from a Mr Paul Reynolds, World Affairs Correspondent of the BBC, in a piece entitled A Clash of Rights and Responsibilities”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4686536.stm
Paul Reynolds poiece, by the way, is last updated nearly 24 hours before the still unchanged Q&A piece. The woman on the Foreign Desk had called up both pieces on her screen and she tells me she’s onto it …
about bloody time – the fake cartoon row has been going for months now!
The Dutch Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Dut…colonial_empire
Tranquebar was a Danish colony in India from 1620-1845, founded by the Danish East India Company.
I do not wish to be rude, but you do realize that Denmark and Holland are two totally different countries?
peter hitchens slugging it out with the SWP is now available on the today website (scroll down, 8:22, “left wing” hyperlink)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/index.shtml
“Danish Muslims Divided” quote:
Since the time when many Danes helped thousands of Jews to safety from German-occupied Denmark in World War II, the Scandinavian country has had a reputation for being peace-loving and harmless.
That might still be true. But the perception among millions of Muslims has changed. And that will take years to bring back to balance.
I forgot to add last night, that another thing that set many Danes against the Muslim immigrants was their hateful treatment of the country’s tiny Jewish population.
Of course you won’t see this mentioned on the Beeb, but they’ll use the Danish kindness toward Jews in WWII as a weapon with which to beat today’s Danes over the head in order to — as always — prime the ideological pump for submission to the ideology of their favorites — even if those favorites are themselves nasty toward Jews.
Do we live in an Orwellian world, or what?
“The Danes were nice to the Jews once, therefore they should be ashamed of themselves for not being nice to people who hate Jews.”
That is in essence what the BBC is saying here.
So Charlie-Hebdo in France has published cartoons and Titanic in Germany is about to
Since the time when many Danes helped thousands of Jews to safety from German-occupied Denmark in World War II, the Scandinavian country has had a reputation for being peace-loving and harmless.
Yes Danes risked their lives and those of their families to help Jews escape to Sweden; they did it because their country had been invaded by an evil, totalitarian dictatorship……………………….it is because of this experience that Danes value being able to decide what they do in their own country and not having foreigners dictate to them
“That is in essence what the BBC is saying here.”
unbelievable isnt it?
beeboid logic is so self-contradictory that its in danger of dissapearing up its own rear-end – much like an editorial from the Independent.
If only the BBC would disapeer!
“Since the time when many Danes helped thousands of Jews to safety from German-occupied Denmark in World War II, the Scandinavian country has had a reputation for being peace-loving and harmless.”
It’s easy for people to smear Denmark. It was occupied by the Nazis for five years, and it can only be a matter of time before we have a BBC report insinuating that those years of occupation have percolated into the nation’s moral fibre. Perhaps I am behind the curve with this one.
It would take a sentence or two along the lines of “The Danish resistance was noticeably less militant than similar movements in France and Yugoslavia” to plant the seed of Nazi-ness in people’s minds. “Although the people of Denmark resisted the Nazis, the government actively assisted Hitler’s murderous regime”. This is how the BBC could smear Denmark’s present government.
I am reminded of the situation in Orwell’s “1984” whereby yesterday’s friends become today’s enemies without anything changing except for the spin. I wonder what the BBC was like during the early years of WW2, when Russia had a pact with Germany and was technically one of the villains? Was the BBC working up a mountain of anti-Russian propaganda, in case the government decided that the Soviet Union was The Enemy rather than The Misguided Potential Friend?
in Orwell’s “1984” whereby yesterday’s friends become today’s enemies without anything changing except for the spin.
That is how the Serbs perceive matters having been Britain’s allies in two world wars……….
The matter is not what governments and the State Broadcasting Corporation think, they have lost the people – just as the USSR lost the people – matters are no so serious.
The purpose of a terrorist is to convince the public that The State cannot protect them; they then look to the terrorist.
The trouble is that Islam is so repulsive to most Westerners that they do not turn to it; but they are revolted by the ruling elites which fail to protect them or to stand up for the core values and heritage of the society.
Asking Labour to do that is problematic, whether Cameron believes in them is a moot point. We may be at a pre-revolutionary point in Europe with the return of nationalism which mght not be a bad thing as supra-nationalism has not done us a lot of good
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
Interesting updates in the US – First Amendment until you meet Mohammed
Pete_London:
I’m sure she is onto it…expect Paul Reynold’s article to be edited post haste! 😉
since you raise the issue of nationalism Rick, an interesting topic of a documentary would be the attitude of American Muslims versus British Muslims towards their home countries.
Its well documented that American Muslims fly the American flag in their lawns, like any other America.
Yet over in the UK we have stuff like the St. George cross not being flown over a prison lest it “offend” Muslims.
Could it be that the lack of a UK nationalism is pushing disaffected Muslim youth towards radicalism , as they dont see the British state as giving them any sense of national identity, in the name of political correctness. In other word P.C. is directly CAUSING islamic radicalism.
Compare that to the American situation. Admittedly the Yanks have Gitmo, and the CIA – but there definitely is a stronger sense of national identity amongst Americans in general. Most American muslims have read about have always said that they are American first, Muslim second – the complete opposite to what i hear from British Muslims.
Rick,Susan et al,
Before you all start recommending Denmark for the Nobel peace prize go back and look at your history books. Danish volunteers also made the highest contribution to SS (as a proportion of population) of all the occupied countries during the war and the Friekorps Danmark later formed the core of the 24th SS Regiment *Danmark” which fought with distnction on the Russian front.
In saying the above it’s not my intention to denigrate the Danish people, who I hold in high regard, but to point out that there was a great deal of convenient amnesia following the defeat of the Third Reich. All of the occupied countries made significant contributions to the German war effort and not always under duress. We kid ourselves if we think it wouldn’t have been any different had the UK fallen under Nazi domination.
Archduke:
That’s because the Americans adopted the ‘melting pot’ approach to integration. Whereas, Britain adopted ‘multiculturalism’.
The trouble is, not many people really understand what multiculturalism is. People think that being against racism means you have to be in favour of multiculturalism.
If you actually ask people about what they believe, they tend to believe in a multiracial society, but definitely not a multicultural society.
The melting-pot approach pushes people towards one shared culture. The extremes get watered down and everybody meets somewhere in the middle. The ‘French model’ demands that immigrants adopt the French way of life (equally valid. If you don’t like it, don’t move to France). Multiculturalism states that the immigrant doesn’t have to change, because all they have done is move to a new country. Instead, the host country should change to accommodate the newcomers.
I agree that the host country has an obligation to provide a framework where everybody is equal in law. There should be equal opportunities for all. However, why should 97% of the population change their way of life (e.g. free speech) to suit 3% of the population?
archduke
Could it be that the lack of a UK nationalism is pushing disaffected Muslim youth towards radicalism , as they dont see the British state as giving them any sense of national identity, in the name of political correctness. In other word P.C. is directly CAUSING islamic radicalism.
That’s exactly it. That’s why history is no longer a meaningful subject in schools. That’s why British/English nationalism has been so demonised that’s it’s now verboten in the eyes of many. A people with no cultural memory are far easier to manipulate and coerce than otherwise. Never forget, those who propogate what is known as PC (but which should be known as Frankfurt School Marxism) are not misguided, they know what thjey do and are enemies of our country and its heritage.
it is an interesting Grimer – its seems as if the american “melting pot” approach has worked. in that, there isnt a support network amongst American Muslims for a home grown Jihadi crowd to operate. we’ve yet to see a single American Muslim suicide bomber – and god knows, in the 9/11 backlash over there, they could have had plenty of reasons to turn Jihadi. But the sense of far bigger self-identity with “america” appears to have muted all that.
meanwhile, here in Britain, we have British born bombers, and Jihadists on the streets of London.