Luton’s Muddy Message

Several minutes ago Dalrymple posted a comment on David Cameron’s recent speech in Luton on multiculturalism to National Review’s blog the Corner. While noting that “Much of what Mr. Cameron said was perfectly sensible, moderate, and self-evident”, he offers a few depressing facts the prime minister left out:

Britain has the highest crime rate in Western Europe, despite having a third of all the closed-circuit television cameras in the world to oversee the population, and despite having more or less abandoned a suspect’s right to silence. There are whole areas of the country in which the weight of the state in the economy is not far short of that of the state in Soviet Russia. Thanks to state-sponsored social pathology, more than a third of the population is entirely dependent on the state for its livelihood, and would starve without it. The last government created a new criminal offense every working day for ten years, such that no citizen can possibly know what is legal and what is not. Arbitrary and constantly changing regulation makes life a nightmare for anyone running a business or a service. While expenditure on education doubled between 2000 and 2007, the proportion of British children learning a foreign language declined by 75 percent. In short, the British state is a swamp of corruption, all the worse for being more intellectual and moral than straightforwardly financial.
Read the whole thing.

As an American I can tell you that almost no one in my country knows of the situation in Britain, a situation this recent story in Standpoint (h/t Gavin O.) makes infuriatingly clear. If they did know, many of them would mourn the decline of a dear friend.

12 thoughts on “Luton’s Muddy Message

  1. Gavin

    Dalrymple seems here to be calling attention to the other side of the coin in the UK – native decadence. We have two problems: rising Islam and native decadence. Unless the state does strongly intervene to correct both, one can only predict civil unrest in the future.

    People are starting to speak much more freely about their views (even the Prime Minister). Bloggers and commenters also – see here for example:

    http://bit.ly/dMvpJn

    With whole areas of the UK becoming Muslim, people are concerned that the UK has no clear identity now and that the vocal values of Islam conflict with traditional British values. I for one don’t feel at home there now. Also people do not buy the lie about “discrimination” any more – they can see that nobody discriminated and in most cases it is self-segregation.

    I would say watch from afar, Americans, look and learn, and try to save your own country. Keep making people sign up to allegiance to their country. Deny “special exceptions” for minorities (drip, drip effect). Ask yourself “What would Saudi Arabia do?”. Obviously I don’t mean adopt their exact policies, but where they would never compromise on their values neither should we on ours. If we do, we only have ourselves to blame as our culture becomes subdominant.

    Reply
  2. Clinton

    Gavin, I would say that the native decadence caused the rise of Islamism in Britain. It was the anti-Western ideology of the intelligentsia that eroded traditional notions of both personal behavior and also of patriotism, enabling the rise of Islamism in Britain.

    It is sad that you cannot feel at home in your own country. Another Englishman I know has said the same, albeit in much more direct and colorful language. Interestingly, his own family immigrated from Nigeria just before his birth. He lives in the US now.

    That Ed West piece you link to is, as usual, excellent. There is a great deal of analysis and wisdom embedded merely in the headline itself.

    The US seems to have done a much better job assimilating Muslims. Michigan has a very large population that is, by all accounts, both religiously Muslim and culturally American. I can’t say exactly how that has been done, except that in general Americans are much more patriotic than Europeans or Britons (as must have been obvious to anyone who watched the Super Bowl this past Sunday).

    Reply
  3. Andrew S

    I mostly agree with Dalrymple (as I usually do), although I think it’s important to point out that the problems with British society he refers to tend to be focused on specific areas. There are still large parts of the country where the problems he describes are nowhere near as bad as one might think. It’s mainly the inner city areas where these problems are concentrated. But they are spreading over time, there’s no denying that.

    Reply
  4. Gavin

    Hi Clinton, I agree with your analysis. We became weak, uncertain, relativistic. Feminism has been misunderstood as the right for women to dress like prostitutes, behave worse, and be proud of it (see any town centre at night). This has been an open goal for Islamists. We’ve been happy to turn a blind eye to the intolerable as long as it has been done quietly as “part of their culture” (female circumcision, forced marriage). Islam offers a sure, certain identity. Unfortunately it is one which alienates others on the basis of their metaphysical beliefs. Frankly we’ve been frightened, frightened mainly of being accused of racism, Islamophobia etc. and of asserting any values or any national pride post-Colonialism.

    How did this happen? Lots of books on the topic, as I’m sure you know.. Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, Christopher Caldwell.. Largely not obliging minority groups to sign up to any kind of identity, I think. Allowing them to be Muslim first, British second (or not at all) if that’s what they prefer (and paying them benefits at the same time). Natives not having children (or even functional relationships) – for which in part I blame feminism again for claiming that equality must equal identity. Partly perhaps, as Dalyrymple suggests, the decline of Christianity. I find it hard to say this as I am not a believer, but must concede the “transcendent” value it can have, and I cannot help wondering if it will be the Christians (Americans ones no doubt) who come and save us all eventually. Because we will probably be all down the pub getting drunk when it all kicks off, as a comedian recently joked at a secular event in the UK. He was trying to boast about laid back we all are by saying that but in fact he unwittingly put his finger on part of the cause of the problem.

    Reply
  5. Gavin

    p.s. Since you mentioned Americans generally have no idea what is going on in the UK and I gather they believe the “Notting Hill” type stuff they are fed in films, or that we are all still walking around in bowler hats, this video might be educational. Indeed some might barely believe it:



    I just found it linked to by a commenter on the Telegraph. What it shows is an area near Elephant & Castle in central London (zone 2) where I was actually working for several weeks recently. This is what we call a “mixed” part of London, it’s not heavily Islamified. Areas such as Whitechapel, Southall and Kilburn are more so.

    Reply
  6. David

    “Thanks to state-sponsored social pathology, more than a third of the population is entirely dependent on the state for its livelihood”

    Typical Dalyrmpian distortion. The vast majority of people dependent on the state are pensioners who have paid national insurance contributions for most of their working lives.

    Does Dalrymple think the old age pension is an example of “state sponsored pathology”? Presumably he thinks the elderly should be dumped in work houses.

    “such that no citizen can possibly know what is legal and what is not”

    I have a very good idea of what is legal and what is not. The murkiest area is “hate speech” legislation – something which virtually all Western countries now suffer from.

    Reply
  7. Clinton

    Andrew, you make a very good point. That had ocurred to me. It’s always difficult to understand how widespread these things are, both geographically and statistically, and we are usually left with anecdotal evidence. Short of a comprehensive survey (respondents to which may not necessarily be honest, of course) it’s hard to know how big the population described in the Standpoint piece is. But you say it is growing, and that is certainly a very bad sign.

    Reply
  8. Clinton

    I don’t know what to make of that video, Gavin. Obviously, all the people in it (save only 4 or 5) are black. They don’t appear particularly hostile or slovenly (although it is difficult to tell these things from a quick video, of course). In general I think multiracial societies with lots of immigration can be healthy if immigrants are expected to conform to the local culture (and sadly, it sounds like they are not in England). I think some degree of immigration is healthy, although obviously there is a point at which it becomes excessive. Maybe it’s just because of my experience as an American, but for me it’s not particularly shocking to see lots of non-whites in one area of a majority-white country. There are areas of New York City that appear far more foreign than the area displayed there (Chinatown, for example) and areas of many American cities and even small towns that appear much more obviously hostile and dangerous (largely poor black and Hispanic areas). I suppose my primary reaction would be that the kind of (voluntary) geographical segregation it shows is unfortunate and unhealthy for all concerned. Better that immigrants blend in with the general population, both geographically and culturally.

    But although I’m not sure whether that video demonstrates it, we agree on all the main points here.

    Reply
  9. Clinton

    David, having more than one-third of your population dependent on the state is a serious problem, individually, culturally and financially. The fact that they may have contributed taxes to fund the system may be a defense of the individuals themselves (proving they are not shirkers), but it still represents a disastrous outcome. Why would you think it is OK for people to be dependent on the state, or on anyone at all? Don’t you want them to have their own means, to be healthy and secure? Destitution is not a good thing.

    No one wants the elderly in workhouses. One would hope they would live happily, healthily and independently at home, free from dependence on others. It is strange that this does not even appear on your list of possible outcomes.

    Nevertheless, it is nice to have some disagreement on the blog. Please feel free to keep commenting. We are happy to have you here.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *