Et tu, David William Donald. Avantgarden ankommer som de sidste til festen, – 43 år hvis vi regner fra Enoch Powell – for nu er spørgmålet snarere om multikulturen nogensinde forlader ham. Man må antage at grunden er den forventede: kassen er ved at være tom. Der er snart ikke flere troende tilbage i kirken end Fredrik Reinfeldt og syvpartiet, “de sidste dages hellige” må være det rette navn nu. Det er ikke til at vide, om man skal lægge noget symbolsk i, at det kommer til at foregå netop i München, men vi må se hvad han vifter med, når han kommer hjem. – Update: Da det ikke er alle, der forstår hvad Cameron gør op med, er det denne oprindeligt canadiske multikulturdoktrin fra 1971, der snart spredte sig til Australien og Europa. (Tip fra vores ekstra to øjne, der begge hedder Victor) :
U.K. Prime Minister Cameron will tell the Munich Security Conference that governments should abandon multiculturalism and the tolerance of “unacceptable views and practices” within their societies and promote the benefits of western values, according to a text of the speech released by his office. Instead, governments should aim for “a clear sense of shared national identity.” Cameron Says Europe Must Wake Up to Homegrown Islamist Radicals
David Cameron launches a devastating attack today on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain, warning it is fostering extremist ideology and directly contributing to home-grown Islamic terrorism. Signalling a radical departure from the strategies of previous governments, Mr Cameron says that Britain must adopt a policy of “muscular liberalism” to enforce the values of equality, law and freedom of speech across all parts of society. He warns Muslim groups that if they fail to endorse women’s rights or promote integration, they will lose all government funding. All immigrants to Britain must speak English and schools will be expected to teach the country’s common culture. Cameron: My war on multiculturalism – No funding for Muslim groups that fail to back women’s rights, Multiculturalism has failed in Britain.
A Quick Mubarak Exit Is Too Risky
The Obama administration, like much of the world, is not reacting to the situation in Egypt—a mostly rural country populated mainly by poor peasants. It is reacting to the media spectacle in the center of Cairo, in which huge but largely middle-class crowds have gathered to demand President Hosni Mubarak’s removal.Interestingly, the few journalists who speak colloquial Egyptian Arabic report that among the poor majority of the population—those who wear the traditional robe (djellaba) and depend on bread subsidized by the state—many still support Mr. Mubarak. They know that Egypt is the world’s largest importer of wheat, and that part of it is paid for by U.S. aid. While market prices have increased by 17% since last October, the rationed bread of the poor remains very cheap.
The Obama administration and the governments of Europe would be wise to follow their lead, but of course they cannot. Elite opinion in the West is almost unanimous in its certitudes: Mubarak must go now! Fears of an Islamist takeover are overblown, they argue. The opposition in the streets is “moderate,” as is the Muslim Brotherhood, which would likely win at least a third of an immediate vote. It is not often recalled that Hamas is simply the Gaza branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which won power by election—and now refuses to hold more elections. [..]
If Mr. Mubarak leaves now, the result is likely to be an anarchical or Islamist Egypt, or some of both until another dictatorship emerges. It is not by accident that from Morocco to India there is no democracy except for the one built by the U.S. in Iraq: Mainstream Islam, not just Islamism, rejects the legitimacy of democratic legislation that could contradict Shariah law.[..]
But it is Europe that will suffer the greater consequences if the Mubarak regime is toppled and followed by the Muslim Brotherhood or anarchy. Aside from lost exports to Egypt, there will be lost domestic investments, not least in tourism (no more bikinis in Sharm El Sheikh with the Muslim Brotherhood in power), and more illegal immigrants trying to enter Europe…..As for Israel, it is likely to lose an ally in Egypt but unlikely to face a military threat any time soon: The U.S.-equipped Egyptian armed forces could not fight a war without U.S. supplies—and it would take at least $20 billion and 10 years to re-equip them with non-U.S. weapons.In any event, Egyptian democrats should not be denied eight months to build viable opposition parties before the next election. EDWARD N. LUTTWAK i WSJ log in.
Sverige og Luton: Medejerskab i nybyggerlandet
Kommende moskébygning i Nordwales brændes ned til grunden, tilsyneladende af pyromaner. Moskeplanerne har været omgærdet af protester. Det er drastisk, og signalet er ikke hyggeligt at afkode. I dag lørdag finder en anslået 7-10.000 deltagere stor English Defence League demonstration sted i Luton. EDL leder Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson, der altid bærer skudsikker vest, er blevet rådet til at forlade sit hjem af politiet, da der er konkrete dødstrusler mod ham og hans familie.
Det er ligegyldigt hvilke smædeord BBC og The Guardian finder på om EDL, de forsvinder ikke, de vokser og deres eksistens beror alt overvejende befolkningens udelukkelse fra det demokratiske forum hvad angik masseindvandringen. Når man følger England regelmæssigt, er indtrykket at man ikke ved hvilken gnist, der vil tænde et omfattende bål af etnisk vold, kun at den næppe kan undgå at springe. Det kan blive mordet på Lennon, det kan blive noget andet. EDL er symptomet, den etablerede politiske klasses arrogance og ligegyldighed overfor deres vælgere, er årsagen. Ikke videre overraskende får P 1 Orientering byttet om på årsagssammenhængen, så unge englændere af arbejderklassen uden videre gøres til selve “det højre-ekstreme” problem. Uanset hvad, så synes konflikten desværre sat på skinner nu, og leve sit eget liv upåagtet af hvad Niels Lindvig siger til de 6 % af danskerne, der hører P 1.
Den sociale ro i et demokrati bygger på at befolkningen føler et medejerskab for de beslutninger , der tages. Det gælder ikke for den førte fremmedpolitik noget sted i Europa. Selv i Danmark havde fremmedpolitikken fra 1983-2001 ikke på noget tidspunkt folkeligt flertal i følge samtlige Gallupper, det er et helt centralt faktum, som en del vælger at overse af bekvemmelighedsgrunde, men det betyder, at heller ikke i Danmark føler et flertal noget som helst medejerskab til de problemer, et udemokratisk, bedrevidende mindretal har installeret. Det skal man huske, hvis det går rigtig galt, hvad enten det først bliver i England, Sverige, Belgien eller Frankrig, alle kandidater til at blive ulykkes-zone nummer ét.
Læs mere »