Listen to this, Marr’s ‘Start the Week’, and you will hear some outlandish stuff though standard fare for the BBC.
First an ‘ex-Muslim radical’, Maajid Nawaz, who helped found Quilliam along with also ex-Muslim radical Ed Husain….having read the books and heard them speak I conclude the ‘ex-radical’ may be a bit premature…they seem to still aim for the same ends just with a softly softly approach.
Then an Observer/Guardian journalist, Robert Chesshyre, who blames Thatcher for WWII, the Black Death and the end of the Roman Empire.
Then ex diplomat Christopher Meyer who tells us that East Europeans want a return to Communism because it was such a simple life style and so er ‘communal’.
Tory Liz Truss was also on but was far too polite to make any radical suggestions and catch anybodies interest.
Nawaz made some BBC pleasing noises….white racist thugs drove him to become a radical Islamist (and not a violent and empire building religious ideology)….he first thought he was targeted because of his race but when the Bosnian war began he realised that it was really his religion that was the problem.
He goes onto claim that it is a battle of ideas and not race that is now the driving force behind attacks…and that evidence of this is proven by Sikhs joining the EDL in an alliance against Muslims….a ‘new form of intolerance’.
One long practised by Muslims.
But he also upsets the BBC apple cart, though ignored by Marr….by saying that the EDL is not racist…it is fighting the ideology of Islam…a battle of ideas….and that in Islam Mosque and State are one body…there is no separation between them……both concepts apt to ruin the BBC’s day as the BBC presents the EDL and all ‘Islamophobes’ as purely racist without any reason for their dislike of Islam, and that radical Islamists have politicised Islam…when Islam has always been about politics.
I personally think people like Nawaz and Husain are merely conducting the ‘war’ in another form…the intent is to promote Islam and spread its influence and power by using willing, if naive, aides in the Establishment who channel money and give credibility to groups such as Quilliam….Nawaz and Co are following the injunction that ‘the ink of the pen is more powerful than the blood of the martyr’….a phrase Mehdi Hasan likes to use.
Everything Nawaz says has a hidden agenda.
Look at his response to Marr’s question….‘What do you make of people coming here and living in sub groups not speaking English and unable to communicate with the majority culture?’
Nawaz…‘Communities that are victimised respond in a way which is understandable…a siege mentality, they isolate themselves…they are victims and may become extremists…it is the majority society that has placed these limits on their aspirations and social mobility.’
The answer…not that they refuse to join in because of their religious convictions and social mores but that they hide from a racist wider society….they are victims….and then become radicalised.
Chesshyre pipes up…‘If Id been black or Asian I’d have been radicalised also…very dangerous to have isolated sub groups.’
He continues…‘…Christian evangelism is a political ideology dressed up as Christianity…and Islamism is a response to a very aggressive Western pro-Democracy Christian movement…if Christian evangelism were to diminish would Islamism diminish?’
Nawaz….‘Islamism emerged as a resistance movement against colonialism and attempts to merge mosque and state…a mirror image of the Reformation where Church and State were separated.’
Really? Self serving rubbish….Islamism began in the 7th century with the man who dreamt up the Koran….Mohammed…..Islam has always been a ‘complete way of life’ encompassing every single aspect of life from social, religious to political….there has never been a separation of mosque and State.
Nawaz at face value served Marr’s purpose…white Racists, police, secular society and Christians are to blame for the creation of Islamic radicals….it’s not their fault…and certainly not the fault of the religion of peace.
Let’s be clear….Islam is all about politics…in fact more politics than religion, it has always been violent and intent on converting the whole world to its ideology…and Muslim isolation has nothing to do with the rest of society shutting them out…they made that choice themselves due to culture and religion.
All of this was intended to serve the BBC narrative…however it backfired hugely as Nawaz undercut the fundamental BBC line about EDL racism by admitting it was a ‘battle of ideas’. The other pillar of the BBC Islamic narrative is that Islamists are ‘political’ Muslims, a new form of Islam which leads to violence …all other Muslims are non political ‘moderates’….but Nawaz admits that Islam has always been a union of Mosque and State….in other words if you get Islam you get the politics too…and the ‘Laws’ i.e. Sharia.
Chesshyre is another star performer straight out of the BBC ‘stable’ guaranteed to offer up the Party Line.
He claims Thatcher ‘shook us to our detriment…miners were no longer wanted, they were abandoned as have been the ‘underclass’ and problems we have today with the ‘underclass’ grow out of that abandonment…they are surplus to requirements.’
Marr jumps in and chunters on about the banks and the ‘loads a money’ culture apparently invented in the 1980’s.
Chesshyre goes onto say there are similarities between then and now…nothing has changed…the Big bang released the Bolinger culture.
When he returned to Britain in 1987 he claimed everything had changed in society because of Thatcher…we were less caring, less sympathetic, a less pleasant place to live, harsher.
Of course that is rubbish…what had changed was that people had become better off financially right throughout society…as income studies show…yes the rich got richer but so did everyone else….and the poor got more welfare.
Chesshyre made comparison with a book by J.B. Priestly, ‘English Journey’ in which he travelled throughout England in the 1930’s.
Chesshyre claims this showed us a Utopian England that was ruined by Thatcher and her industry destroying policies.
First off Thatcher didn’t destroy industry…the unions and bad management and cheap overseas competition did for that…when the Tories left Office manufacturing was around 22% of GDP, by the time Labour left Office it was 11%.
And was the past such a golden era…lets look at some quotes from the prefaces to that book:
1. ‘In the autumn of 1933 when Priestley made his rambling journey across England, the country was in the depth of the Great Depression. Things were as bad as they were because Britain had lost its mastery of world trade. The prosperity of the nineteenth and the first decade of the twentieth century, which stemmed from a tremendous increase in wealth from coal, cotton, iron and steel, as well as ship building and railways, was over. After the First World War, the world neither needed our products nor heeded our advice.
By 1933 half of Lancashire’s pre-war overseas trade in cottons had vanished, never to return. A similar shrinkage appeared in the overseas trade of other industrial products. We became bewitched as one foreign country after another became independent of our supplies. Step by step Blackburn, the thriving cotton town in which I grew up, became known as ‘dole town’.
As he made his way further north to the mining villages of the Durham coal pits, the situation became more desperate. County Durham, he called ‘a nightmare sprawling among the muck’. Northern shipyards and marine shops were empty; shipyards had been idle since the end of the war. Newcastle he thought might have been carved out of coal, a black steaming mass surrounded by people without work.’
2. The second England was a much grimmer place : ‘the nineteenth-century England, the industrial England of coal, iron, steel, cotton, wool, railways…slums…sooty dismal little towns, and still sootier grim fortress-like cities’. Finally, there was ‘the new post-war England…of arterial and by-pass roads, of filling stations…of giant cinemas and dance halls and cafes… But what Priestley identified most sharply of all was the ‘North-South Divide’ long before that term came into common use : in the South reasonably civilised and prosperous places in which to live; in the North places of wretchedness, decay and deprivation. And although there is bitter condemnation about this latter state of affairs the book is full of the common warp and weft of daily life, the determination of individual human beings to make the best of things, the diverse tapestry that was England in the 1930s.
3. In his fiction he was not good at inventing villains. In his non-fiction he had no hesitation in condemning the Nazis when the time came as out and out villains; but here he blames the baser aspects of human nature for the mess and squalor the Victorians created and left scarring the countryside – greed, selfishness, pomposity and hypocrisy. I have often felt we needed much of the 20th century to pass before we could escape from the cloying influence of the Victorians. And he looked back joyfully to the vigour and merriment of the 18th century, for all its faults. And this is another of his themes, that life should be enjoyed.
That final comment is of course the most telling…Priestley looked back to his own ‘golden age’…that of the 18th century….just as Chesshyre looks back to his own Utopia, but one built on dreams and half remembered ideas and memories…..it never existed….and ‘progress’ has brought enormous change and benefit.
Thatcher’s Big Bang brought enormous success to the City and huge rewards to all, ones that flowed into the Chancellor’s coffers…..by 2000 the economy was thriving and in ‘profit’…..it was not ‘Capitalism’ that ruined it all but greed and recklessness of a few and the tax and spend of the Labour government.
And what of Casino Banks so beloved of the BBC, Miliband and Vince Cable?….well it was high street banks making bad loans to people wanting mortgages essentially that pre-empted the crash not huge investment banks ‘going for broke’ so to speak. The investment banks then bet on those loans…in the US they knew some loans would be ‘bad’ but they ‘knew’ that only a proportion of the market would collapse…more than compensated for by the areas that didn’t….they judged wrongly…..the whole market collapse right across the US….maybe bad judgement….but based on previous experience…or recklessness with all their eggs in one basket….but some perspective is needed on this…..and more thought rather than knee jerk ‘populist’ soundbites and subsequent bad laws and regulations by equally craven politicians.
Lets not forget the role of the Trades Unions in the decline of British manufacturing.
I remember working in the yards on Clydeside in the 70’s at the time when the Japanese and Germans were racing ahead with modernisation and new working practices yet the Unions here refused to follow.
One incident I remember is not being able to do my job for four hours because there was an electrical cable in the way and I was not allowed to touch it. I had to wait for an electrician to come along and lift it up, a process which took all of three seconds.
The machinery we were working with was made in the 1800’s because the unions refused to modernise despite the management wanting to and the workforce also as they realised they had to compete or go under.
Of course the Labour party just stood by and let it all happen as they didn’t want to fall foul of their paymasters.
Standard liberal tripe. None of them have had to do a hard manual job that made men old before their time. Coal mining was a wretched business for the most part. Made tolerable by the camaraderie of the workers. I am glad it has nearly gone. Thatcher should be thanked for helping to bring about the end of using human beings as labouring brutes.
When I was young for some years I did my share of manual labour because I wanted to and I was young and strong( or I thought I was ). If I had had to continue into middle and old age it would have been a very different story and one I would not have relished at all. Marr has that soft look of a man who has never really had to use his hands or his strength. Come to think of it it applies to them all. Can anyone imagine Mark Thompson unloading 20 tons of potatoes before breakfast in the pouring February rain? They make me sick. Their obvious physical weakness is mirrored in their lack of conviction over anything other than a whimpering search for their unreal heaven on earth. Disliking themselves they dislike the country that made them.
That was an excellent post sir. I have been trying to understand why the country, not just Marr, the cosy darlings at the BBC, and the rest of the media has completely lost touch with reality, because it really is a country wide phenomenon.
The majority of the country now believe that utopia is achievable simply by; bashing politicians (who have always fiddled their expenses and had unscrupulous agendas) and by reforming bankers (who have always dipped into their customers cash with impunity).
The BBC’s socialist mantra is; ”life is just not fair, it is always someone else’s fault and lets spend a load more taxpayer cash to put it right”. Yet we all know that in their endeavour to “put things right” all that socialists do is replace one set of villains with another bunch of scoundrels.
You are right, the fact is that manual work has mostly gone now is the cause of this dreadful malaise that is destroying the country we knew. Like you, from a child, I have done my fair share of hard manual labour, in gardens, on farms, in factories and working in the timber trade. Hard labour brings a sense of perspective that is completely missing nowadays and not only at the BBC. There are times when I think that the only way that common sense will return is when the economies of the world finally collapse under the weight of bureaucracy and the costs of the bloated elite in their government palaces and in their shiny towers of Babel, then perhaps, when they all have to start digging their gardens and growing their own vegetables to survive, will they understand.
I can see now a wonderful vision of the Great Millibandwagon and Slick Cam the U-Turning Man in leaky wellies shovelling nice moist manure out of a cow shed at 5am in the morning saying to a BBC reporter “I am very worried about gay rights and racism at the moment”.
Islamism is caused by Christian evangelism? Madness. And Marr essentially condones it with his, “Mmmm…mmm”.
So really I’m supposed to take away from this whole thing that Thatcher is responsible for home-grown jihad, right?
Excellent blog again Alan.
What a complete and utter laughable load of ginormous cobblers! BritishBrainwashingCorporation’s as pathetically pussy footing (gutless!) and multi culti mental as ever when it comes to Muslims. See how ‘moderate’ Muslims are in a free and democratic country when one of their sisters or daughters dares to fall in love with Johnny next door or freely just fancies a bit of rumpo with him. Not only is any ‘tolerance’ by the most thoroughly backwardly intolerant fucktards that ever walked the planet then straight out the window but Johnny’s lucky if he isn’t AT LEAST attacked or has to very swiftly move away! – And God help the poor Muslim sister or daughter!!
No, THESE are the brave lot (why at all should they have to be though?) I take my hat off to… http://ex-muslim.org.uk/ …but who cowardly ignoramus Al-Beeb never has on its do-goody indoctrinating shows.
‘Moderate’ my arse!! lol It’s really just a nice and handy word and they fundamentally haven’t really got even the first clue of its proper true value and meaning.
You mean, like my friends? She’s a Muslim, he’s from a Christian background. Both are rightfully adored by each other’s families.
I realise Biased BBC commenters live in a world of their own, but it really would be a whole lot more honest if they didn’t try and make blanket pronouncements about the real one that the rest of us live in.
“I realise Biased BBC commenters live in a world of their own, but it really would be a whole lot more honest if they didn’t try and make blanket pronouncements about the real one that the rest of us live in.”
I am with you on the second part, Scott but, likewise, I’d ask you not to make blanket pronouncements about B-BBC commenters. We don’t all think alike.
And what religion is your friend from a ‘Christian background’ now….assuming they have married?
So what.
A good friend of my daughter-in-law (white, Christian, English) married a Muslim lad. The wedding ceremony, in a large marquee in a National trust park, separated the women from the men (the usual, as you will know if you’ve ever been to a Muslim wedding).
Since then she has been slowly annexed by her new ‘family’ and is now fully integrated into the Muslim way of life. She sees none of her old friends, and little of her close family.
Scott, you know perfectly damn well that in an overstuffed UK of now over 62 million, couples like your “friends” are about as fuckin rare as rocking horse shit!! Otherwise they usually end up as johnnythefish says, with the woman having to become Muslim.
People have their own eyes and ears, Sunshine. You’re the one living in Cuckooland and bullshitting your intelligence.
I think he’s just young, idealistic and naive – typical brainwashed product of the state education system. A few decades down the line he’ll be wondering why he supported so many country-wrecking policies – by which time it will be too late, of course.
In other words, a numb skulled young leftie – never seeing the wood for the trees and votes with his heart instead of his fuckin loaf! Don’t think “naive” really even comes close for such flower power brained dopey fools.
If she’s married to a Christian then she’s not a proper muslim, go check – it is specifically forbidden for a muslim woman to “marry out” (although not for a muslim man but there are other dodgy reasons why that is so).
The good old moderate Muslims… always blaming everyone but themselves… They can always rely on the BBC to do their bidding; Their nauseous groveling towards Islam is execrable.
Yes, on ISLAM, INBBC demonstrates:
1.) its fear of Islam;
2.) its ignorance of the violent tenets and imperial history of Islam;
3.) its deference to Muslims for explanations of Islam;
4.) its support for mass Islamic immigration into the West;
5.) its presumption without evidence that Islam will reform away from violence;
6.) its expectation that the Islamic world should politicaly ally with the political ‘left’.
For INBBC –
ISLAMIC ETHICS:-
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/ethics/
Marr’s question….‘What do you make of people coming here and living in sub groups not speaking English and unable to communicate with the majority culture?’
erm…how about asking why they come here !!!!
“[T]he ‘ex-radical’ may be a bit premature…they seem to still aim for the same ends just with a softly softly approach.”
I am curious as to what you mean by the “same ends”, Alan.
Quilliam is a not an Islamist front organisation – quite the opposite. It works to ‘de-radicalise’ and integrate Muslims into British society and counter the extremist filth peddled by Saudi-funded ‘scholars’ who regularly turn up on these shores. Its aim, primarily, is make British Muslims more comfortable, and more compatible, with their host society.
You may think Nawaz is a whiny liberal but his aims are, to my mind, honourable.
I would far prefer the likes of Nawaz and Husain to have the ear of government than H-u-T, MPAC, the MAB or the MCB.
When the likes of Yvonne Ridley, Anwar al-Awlaki and Seumas Milne attack Quilliam, you know it must be on the side of the angels. I only hope the organisation manages to gain a foothold in Muslim communities – I am not overly hopeful, however. I think its days may be numbered.
So how successful has Quilliam been? What objectives has it set for itself? For example, how many extremist Imams has it been instrumental in replacing? How many ‘hate crimes’ has it brought to the attention of the police? Or is it just another touchy-feely quango, accountable to nobody in particular, living the good life off taxpayers’ money?
William Henry – later changed to Abdullah – Quilliam was a late nineteenth century British lawyer who converted to Islam. Some of his attacks on European and Christian culture are still trotted out by Muslim apologists to this day. I’m sure it’s because of him that every Muslim blogger between Timbuctu and Kuala Lumpur seems to have heard of the Married Woman’s Property Act of 1884 (according to his utterly misleading arguments, it marked the first time British women obtained the same legal rights that Muslim women had enjoyed for 1300 years). Any foundation named after him tells you all you want to know about in which direction it would like Britain to head.
Nawaz….‘Islamism emerged as a resistance movement against colonialism and attempts to merge mosque and state…a mirror image of the Reformation where Church and State were separated.’
This bloke does not know what he is talking about. At the reformation Church and State became one. Henry VIII became head of the Church of England established by Law. Under Elizabeth I all the English had to attend an Anglican service by Law or be fined, thrown into prison or worse.
It was only in America after the Revolution do we get the modern idea of separation of Church and State. Because America was a haven for Congregationalists and dissenters like William Penn (of Quaker) they did not want a State Church like the Church of England. Hence the government was not allowed to pass Laws on religion for example forcing people to attend an Anglican service like in Elizabeth’s time.
I noticed this. I think he was confused by the Protestant resistance to Rome and assumed , as you say quite wrongly, that it was an assertion of secularism.
There is a woeful ignorance of history endemic to the liberal classes.
The Quillam foundation needs to be given a chance even if it’s spokesmen somtimes get the facts wrong.
In Britain, after the Civil War and Commonwealth the presence of a substantial section of the population who were outside the established church was tolerated. although they suffered legal disabilities .
This is all one way
Just see how BBC favourite Mehdi Hasan is treated by the BBC house journal:
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/07/09/quizblorg-vanishes-mehdi-hasan-at-cif/
I wonder how this sort of invective would be treated if it was uttered by (shock horror) the EDL?
And would the Grauniad delete such a good fisking if it was by one of their class enemies?
Got my Tolpuddle leaflet here.
The new Little and Large of British politic turn out to be Owen Jones and Paul Mason, who`ll be doing a double act on “protest”…bien sur,mes cheries.
Wonder if our Paul will let us meet his BBC chauffeur-the one used by Owen Jones on “This Week” a few weeks back?
Ah…the good rebellion….hating blood, but wanting the meat at low cost to themselves…we`ll do the sacrificing as ever eh lads!
Good section too on “what the unions have done for the country”….well turned it to the basket case that Healey began in the mid 70s-and has continued apace wherever Labour got into office