Wednesday, August 09, 2006

UK Under Threat - The Price of Immigration

In Britain, the dawning realization of the strategic peril into which Europeans blithely put their own countries and cultures is spawning endless hand-wringing and dire alarms, though even those sounding the alarms are unwilling to clearly state the nature of the problem and its solutions. Britain is a perfect example of a country whose leaders grasp the problem, but are unwilling to abandon the politically correct, multiculturalist fantasy, which caused them to blunder into this situation in the first place. Not every British politician can deny the awful truth, though. Some are speaking out, voicing stumbling, somewhat fuzzy, but increasingly-closer-to-the-truth, analyses of the crisis.

Islamic terrorism has put Britain in greater danger than at any time since the end of World War Two, John Reid claimed today.

In a speech, the embattled Home Secretary said that Al Qaeda and homegrown fundamentalists posed a greater danger than the IRA at the height of their bombing campaign, or even the threat of nuclear annihilation in the darkest days of the Cold War.

On its face, this statement sounds a little silly. Muslim terrorists cause terrible carnage, but hardly anything like the nuclear annihilation that an exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have wrought on Britain (twenty or more nuclear blasts on British soil). A Soviet nuclear strike would have obliterated Britain forever; Muslim terrorists simply do not possess the destructive arsenal of the USSR.

However, a deeper consideration of Mr. Reid’s claim reveals its surprising accuracy – provided one takes a broader view of the problem than just terrorism.

The USSR could have annihilated Britain, but it was effectively deterred by the threat of NATO (read: US) retaliation against the Russian homeland. Islamists do not believe that their attacks will result in devastating retribution against Muslim holy cities, and are not deterred by the thought of their own destruction. Still, Islamic terrorists cannot destroy Britain with bombs (though, admittedly, nuking London would cripple the country), but they do not need to do so.

Britain – and every other Western nation - can be destroyed from within, and without the need for nuclear weapons.

Mr Reid told his audience at the Demos think tank that Britain now faced a situation of fluid borders and mass migration, which had led to a more diverse and changing population.

Here, Mr. Reid finally puts his finger on the problem. Mass immigration of people from alien cultures, mostly Muslims, combined with the UK’s low native birthrate has put the country in a very perilous condition. The very nature of what it means to be British is under threat, and that threat grows with each Muslim immigrant, whether that immigrant ever engages in terrorist activities or not. The more Muslims there are in the UK, the greater their gravitational affect on British politics and culture. (The same situation pertains to Latino immigrants in the US.) As Muslim populations grow within the West, they dilute the cultural and racial identity, weakening the bonds that have held Western societies together and slowly eroding the cultural traditions and beliefs that are the foundation of the West. This effect can be already seen in the politically correct rhetoric of the Blair government, which evades ever mentioning Muslims or Islam as the source of the crisis. Blair has even gone so far as to champion “anti-racism” laws that would squelch free speech in the name of silencing any criticism or Muslims (or other foreigners). Racism, apparently now being defined as any objection to mass Muslim immigration or a desire to preserve Britain racial and cultural identity.

[Reid] admitted that despite the efforts of police and security services, he could not guarantee another terrror attack would be prevented and that the risk would only be minimised if all sections of the community joined in a national effort to beat extremism.

His claims come just days after he launched a bitter attack on senior judges who ruled that six terror suspects subjected to control orders in the UK deserved more lenient treatment under human rights laws.

Labour ministers have struggled to secure a range of new powers they claim are vital to tackle terrorism.
Controversial plans to allow police to detain suspects for 90 days without charge were watered down to 28 days in Parliament, while a new offence of glorifying terrorism was also watered down and powers to shut down extremist mosques were dropped.

Unfortunately for Mr. Reid, and for Britain, not “all sections of the community” wish to defeat Islamic extremism, especially not in the Muslim community, a significant percentage of whose members, according to recent polls, sympathize or openly support Islamic terrorists.

What Reid doesn’t say – because, in the PC environment the Blair government has fostered, it would be racist to say it – is that Britain faces this problem solely because it has allowed large numbers of Muslims to settle in Britain. Without those communities, and the political pressure they create, Britain would face little threat from Islamic terrorism. Few Muslims would be permitted to enter the country and their movements would be monitored.

If Britain had never tolerated the mass immigration of Muslims, it wouldn’t have to worry about “extremist mosques” because there wouldn’t be any one British soil, and the few extremist Muslims that had entered on tourist or educational visas could be rounded up and deported without any outcry from enraged, voting, Muslim communities.

According to MI5's newly-introduced system of published threat ratings Britain currently faces a 'severe' threat of terrorist attack.

The second highest alert level means an attack is officially considered 'highly likely' and the country faces a 'serious and sustained threat'.

Critics have accused Labour of weakening Britain's security through shambolic immigration policies which they claim have allowed unprecedented numbers of foreigners to enter the country with few effective controls.

Mr. Blair has been every bit the disaster for the United Kingdom that George Bush as been for the US. Both men like foreign adventures to promote democracy where it cannot flourish, but refuse to defend their homelands from foreign invasion and subversion. Both denounce those who disagree with their policies as “racists.”


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home