(See Ekklesia article after the dotted line.)
All is pretty mindless rhetoric. Claiming that the Conservative Party making this or that group an ‘enemy within’ is nothing new. But don’t these multiculturalists themselves believe that the real enemy within is, say, the EDL? Or the BNP? Or indeed the ‘Tory Party’ itself? Most political groups have enemies; it’s just that these academics, ‘religious figures’, etc. have very different enemies to most of us – certainly not the many Muslims who are quite obviously the enemies within.
Yes, here are all the usual suspects. Those who are ideologically - and career wise - committed, without any questions, to the Great Multicultural Experiment. They argue that Cameron was ‘confused’ and even vile when he said what he said. But make no mistake. These people have not a single word of criticism to make about their own inglorious experiment. They have never criticised their own brainchild. How could they? So all this talk of ‘confusion’ and ‘conceptual misplacement’ is but veneer above the absolute trust these people have in multiculturalism and all things multiculturalist.
With all those big names and special personages behind the document, do any represent the ethnic group that is the white working class? Indeed, does anyone of them represent the working class at all (no matter what colour it is)? Certainly not the trade unionists that have put their names to this pro-multiculturalism edict. They are much more likely to represent Trotsky and the Revolution than any member of the working class.
Let’s analyse the Dream of Multiculturalism. Are we really talking about a glorious ‘patchwork of interacting cultures’; or are we talking about how Muslim communities interact with non-Muslims? These multiculturalists will not, they cannot, even for a single moment, cogitate on even the mere possibility that Islam may be supremacist, self-segregating and ultimately very dangerous to all those on its outside. How can any monotheistic religion be bad? How can multiculturalism fail in any way? If Cameron’s speech was ‘one-sided’, I can guarantee that none of the signatories of this empty document has even faced these possibilities for one second. They have not done so. They cannot do so. They will not do so.
Of course none of these signatories actually live in a Muslim ghetto – or even near one. (Yes, they do exist! As a Bradfordian, I can take you at least five in that city alone.) That doesn’t matter because multiculturalism is the ideology of what should be, not of what actually is. The whole castle may be falling down, but they will still be remembering the old Dream of Multiculturalism. Experience and facts are irrelevant to these multiculturalist ideologues.
So Cameron’s statements are ‘confusing’ and ‘confused’. Yes, to these signatories they probably are. That’s because their dreams of multiculturalism are nothing like the reality of multiculturalism. And Cameron was not talking about the dream – or the ideology – of multiculturalism - he was largely talking about the reality. Thus these ideologues of multiculturalism cannot bare too much reality – theory, hopes and dreams will soon takeover.
We are told that there ‘is no singular British culture’. It depends what that statement means. Of course there is more than one British culture. There is the culture of the fox hunter or the culture of the miner. But if there is also a death-cult culture or a head-hunter culture, we must watch ourselves and not be completely tolerant. Same with jihadist cultures or the culture of female genital mutilation.
The rest of the shallow analysis of culture is basic Marxism, probably written by a vicar or a Methodist minister. In fact Simon Barrow, of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, is responsible for much of this Marxist stuff. Thus we have clichés about ‘people having a real stake in society’ – as if gaining a job will stop Muslims from becoming jihadists! In fact we know that analysis is wrong already if we consider how many home-grown jihadists have been students (or ex-students) and members of the middle classes. In fact this is almost exclusively the case. Is it odd that all these Christians analyse the rise of Islamism and British jihadism in purely Marxist terms. (Actually, it ain’t odd. Marxism controls whole swathes of contemporary thought and in fact infiltrated the Church decades ago. The Christians in the pews are being led by the Trotskyite Rev Ray Gastons of the world.) Do Christians adopt Christianity for economic reasons as well?
And there was bound to be talk of ‘scapegoats’ in this context – in this Marxist context. But can you ‘scapegoat’ Islamic bombers for bombing? Can you scapegoat imams for the obscene views they hold about Jews, gays and the kuffar? Can you scapegoat people who want to kill you? Can you really scapegoat a religion that wants to rule the entire world? Of course you can’t. Just as the multiculturalists cannot stop scapegoating alleged ‘racists’, ostensible ‘fascists’ and those many people who are just too damn working class – like the English Defence League.
By staff writers, 10 Feb 2011
Politicians, artists, academics, trade unionists and religious figures have strongly disputed UK Prime Minister David Cameron's declaration that multiculturalism has failed in Britain.
They accuse him of divisive and simplistic politics, treating Muslims as "the enemy within" and turning the clock back "to the days when it was acceptable, through ignorance and fear, for people with a different religion, culture or skin colour to be scapegoated and treated as inferior or outsiders."
Signatories of an open letter that appeared in the Guardian newspaper earlier this week include Bruce Kent from the Catholic peace agency Pax Christi; Rabbi Lee Wax from the Interreligious Conference for European Women Theologians; Shemiza Rashid of the Creative Muslim Network; Rob Berkeley, Director of the Runnymede Trust; and Professor Tariq Modood from the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship at the University of Bristol.
Critics of Mr Cameron's speech say that while the government may have failed in the way that is has engaged, or not succeeded in engaging, with particular communities, this is quite different from suggesting that the intention and practice of seeking to build a rich patchwork of interracting cultures is wrong or damaging.
Simon Barrow, co-director of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, which explores issues of religion and belief in a mixed society, and another signatory, added: "The Prime Minister's comments about 'multiculturalism' are confused and confusing."
"There is no singular British culture. The fabric of common identity and a shared ethos for living together is created by giving people a real stake in society and the economy, by building cultural bridges not political barriers, and by seeking to strengthen communities at all levels through drawing on the strengths of our different traditions -- while simultaneously calling each other to account (politically, culturally, socially and religiously) for our weaknesses and abuses of power. Scapegoating particular groups is part of the problem when it comes to social disaffection and the small number of people drawn to violent extremism. It is not the solution", added Barrow.