Saturday, February 05, 2011


So David Cameron has made a speech saying that multiculturalism has failed and we need a stronger sense of national identity. Well I could have told him that. In fact I would have shortened it to:

"Integrate and you're welcome- if not then B****r off!"

Which is probably why I'm not a politician.

Mind you I wish someone had made his speech when I was doing my PGCE so that I wouldn't have had to sit through endless lectures on the damn subject. 'Call me Dave' also promised a tougher stance on Islamic extremism. Thing is- will it just be a stance, or will we actually do anything before the next bomb goes off?

By the way, has anybody suggested that their school mark National Chip Week? (Feb 21st to 27th)


Brian, follower of Deornoth said...

Hmmm. So he says. When the current House of Commons repeals the law that makes it illegal to say anything about ethnic or religious minorities that those minorities disapprove of (provided, of course, that those minorities are politically correct minorities), I'll start attaching some credence to his words.

Jasper said...

The day that "Dave" (As most probably know, also a repetitive satellite comedy channel. Hmmnnn.) grows some b*lls (and I don't mean Ed) and stands up to extremists, yobs, pointless bureaucracy in education, social services and local government, etc., Satan will take up knitting scarves because he's feeling "a bit nippy"...

CDC said...

If only they had listened to the meaning of Enoch Powell's speech instead of raving about the words he used, then we would not be in this position now. Edward Heath sacked him from the cabinet instead of taking note of the warnings he was giving.

rippon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rippon said...

“'Call me Dave' also promised a tougher stance on Islamic extremism. … will we actually do anything before the next bomb goes off?” Frank Chalk asks.

If we renounced our own infinitely more deadly extremism, then that would be a vitally important step towards avoiding further revenge bombs like 7/7.

Renouncing our own extremism would include, for example:

* Prosecuting our own (infinitely more deadly) terrorists, e.g. Tony Blair.
* Prosecuting Margaret Thatcher and Douglas Hurd for enthusiastically arming Saddam in the eighties.
* Prosecuting BAE personnel for illegal bribes to sweeten the world’s biggest ever arms deal (Al-Yamamah) to the world’s most odious brutal dictatorial Islamic-fundamentalist regime, Saudi Arabia.

The ‘hostility’ of Muslims in Britain to western values is a cynical deceit, but, as Sayeeda Warsi (a leading Tory, no less) has observed, Islamaphobic propaganda is now so embedded in the culture that such comments are now acceptable even in polite society.

Muslims are hostile to our +hypocrisy+, not our values/culture. For example, we ‘condemn’ terrorism, whilst participating in the most terrorising acts of aggression on civilians around the world (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan).

This country’s ruling class has never had an ethical problem with radical Islam. This is well documented – by, for example, the historian Mark Curtis in his book, 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam'.

Dr Rick said...

National chip week is half-term. I don't believe this to be coincidence.

Anonymous said...

Frankly I have asked quite a few people I know of European descent if they support multiculturalism and most admit they do not, but they are scared of being labelled as "racist" if they say so.
Seems like a politician has succinctly reflected the electorates position; lets see if he can hold the course without inflaming the british extremists.

rippon said...

"Integrate and you're welcome- if not then B****r off!"

- another one of Frank Chalk’s puerile nuggets of ignorance.

Chalk has alluded to one example of what Muslims should do to “integrate”: stop bombing civilians.

But whenever any Muslim does that, s/he +is+ absorbing British values. The UK has a long history of bombing civilians, a history which continues right up to the present.

Given that Chalk’s ‘stop bombing’ example of integration fails, could he give any examples that do work of what Muslims could do to “integrate”?

Here’s some obvious examples, but I (and, I’m sure, many other Brits) would be glad to see Muslims +not+ integrate then:
Young Muslim women could start wearing miniskirts and jeans low enough to expose their thongs.
Muslim youths could abandon the Islamic ban on alcohol and become lager louts to “integrate” with the natives.
Muslims could abandon the languages they speak in the home and become monolingual like the natives.

Hideki said...

I'm with Frank on this one (Shockingly), pandering to their superstitions helps nobody.

This and the previous government have so far shown themselves to be totally gutless when it comes to dealing with Islam, from little girls who are sent to 'visit an uncle in Bradford' (Google it) through people preaching hate to our university students to a blind eye being turned to massive child abuse in Madrassas...

This is not a Muslim country, it's nominally a Christian country but actually a Secular country, if they don't like it, they're welcome to [depart] to Saudi Arabia where their bronze age and barbaric practices are welcomed.

(also, I'm too old for imaginary friends so not religious at all.)

Perhaps Cameron will do something but tbh I doubt it, I suspect he'll talk a lot but actually do nothing.

rippon said...


Can you give any examples of “their superstitions” and how we are “pandering” to those superstitions?

I googled 'visit an uncle in Bradford', as you suggested, but didn’t find anything relevant.

I also googled ‘Madrass child abuse’. Again: nothing. Can you cite some examples of this crime?

It looks like you’re simply recycling Daily-Mail-type myths and inventions (or, bluntly, lies).

What makes you think “they [Muslims] don’t like it [this country]”?

Can you give any examples of Muslim representatives saying they don’t like this country for its culture/values?

All I can think of is Muslims saying they don’t like our cowardly barbaric violence and war crimes in Muslim countries (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan).

“Hate” is not being preached to our university students. ‘Hatred of our foreign policy’ certainly is – and rightly so.

It seems Frank Chalk likes to spout ignoramus comments which catalyses equally ignorant sheep into parroting his ignorant sentiments.

Mr Natural said...

Multiculturalism is but one aspect of relativism: the pernicious notion that some primitive drum is the musical equal of an Amati cello; the scribblings of some crack-head are as worthy of study as the plays of Shakespeare or the daubings of a mediocre self-publicist have the same artistic merit as the works of Caravaggio. And by extension, of course, that the customs and beliefs that hold in rural Pakistan (say) can somehow be implanted and allowed to flourish in Luton, Blackburn or Bradford.

So while sharing Mr Cameron’s concern about the doctrine of multiculturalism, I do not see it as a problem exclusive to British Muslims.

rippon said...

More mythology borne of ignorance on display – from Mr Natural this time.

Can you, Mr Nitwit, provide examples (citing some school textbooks or council leaflets, say) of where any of those things are suggested?:
that “some primitive drum is the musical equal of an Amati cello”; that “the scribblings of some crack-head are as worthy of study as the plays of Shakespeare or the daubings of a mediocre self-publicist have the same artistic merit as the works of Caravaggio”?

Regarding the possibility of beliefs from rural far-away places being implanted and flourishing in British towns, isn’t that precisely what has happened with Christianity – beliefs from rural Galilee?

Frank Chalk and his herd continue to display laziness and bigotry, and to posit crass straw-man arguments: fabricate your own characterisation – according to your own (Daily-Mail-inspired) fantasies and delusions – of what ‘multiculturalism’ is, then proceed to criticise that invention.

Mr Natural said...

It would go completely against my sense of decency to describe my fellow man as an offensive, self-opinionated, ill-informed and overconfident little shite, so I shan’t.

Daily Mail? No; The Times, actually. Nitwit? Well, my colleagues would, I hope, tell you otherwise. Ignorant? I don’t think so: years of reading, studying, disbelieving what I read and re-checking the facts have led me to the opinions I now hold.
I could write a book on relativism and the destruction of Western culture, but people such as Roger Scruton have already done it so much better than I could. (Take a look at Piss Christ on this site for schools, if you can stomach it.)

What I do know from my forty years in teaching is that too many bright, sociable, vivacious Muslim girls, with the potential to develop an independent, successful career, have had their aspirations suffocated and their spirits crushed by an anachronistic, alien culture imported from rural Asia.

But as I tried to point out in my first comment, I do not blame the immigrants; far from it: the blame lies firmly with the destructive policies of successive governments since the 1960s.

Anonymous said...

comrade rippon. Life is not about dredging up stuff to prove you are right and they are wrong.
It is about liking what you like and that is the way of it.
People were content by and large with Britain when it was Britain. And there is an end to it.

rippon said...

Anonymous says, “It [life] is about liking what you like and that is the way of it.”

Thanks, comrade, for that profound insight.

However, I’m sure Frank Chalk’s original post was about cultural conflict (with Muslims), which is a far more substantial and important subject than ‘what you like’.

Chalk illustrated his point about this conflict by referring to bombs in this country detonated by Muslims. That is a very pertinent point to make, I feel. But it seems you regard that as Chalk “dredging up stuff” to prove his point. (I feel that “dredging” is an unfair characterisation of the practice of citing evidence to substantiate one’s argument.)

My point is that, whenever Muslims do detonate bombs amongst civilians, they actually are ‘integrating’ into our culture and values (but actually only making tiny progress in that direction because their bombs are pathetic home-made devices that kill handfuls of civilians; whereas we have a massive, sophisticated, taxpayer-funded, government-led system of killing hundreds of civilians at a stroke and terrorising whole countries).

To your mind, then, this is all too serious and too preoccupied with distasteful “dredging”. The debate is simply about “liking what you like”, “and there is an end to it.”

In that case, then, I apologise to any readers of this thread: I was too preoccupied with what lies behind our conflict with Muslims. But our anonymous comrade has reminded me that, actually, this thread is only for shallow puerile thinking (“liking what you like”), and can therefore be nutshelled thus: Frank Chalk et al dislikes Muslims and I, rippon, do not.

There; job done. “And there is an end to it.”

Hideki said...


"Visiting uncle in Bradford" is their euphemism for sending young girls to have their bits mutilated.

Child abuse in Madrassa:

I say they don't like it because they don't integrate, they form isolated communities preserving their own culture in this country and actually demand that we change to service them, they are the Borg of people!

Islamic extremism and hate are preached to our students, not by faculty but by on campus groups and visitors, heh, it was ever thus.

Iraq, Afghanistan, was against those, wrote to my MP about them, in particular pointing out that we should have given Bustani's independent weapons inspectors time to do the job (and was lied to as he said he wouldn't vote for it, then voted for it, go figure, heh)

Also, calling me a sheep is particularly comical as I don't agree with much of what has posted here and have I believe made the odd snipe about his obvious right wing-ness before although perhaps I spoke a bit too soon then...

Any other misconceptions about me I can dispell?

rippon said...

Thanks for providing that info, Hideki.

We can conclude this:
Some Muslims abuse children through genital mutilation and other methods, e.g. beatings by teachers in madrassas.

However, you extrapolate from that tiny minority to conclude that that is characteristic of the Muslim population (“they”).

Firstly, indulging in child abuse, like bombing civilians, does not make Muslims less like us, but, if anything, more like us. Secondly, it would be equally wrong to extrapolate from the abuses and cover-ups by the Catholic Church to the generalisation that child abuse was characteristic of the catholic community. Similarly, it would be wrong to extrapolate from the abuses in care homes and child detention facilities to the generalisation that abusing children is the norm amongst workers in those areas.

Forming homogenous/isolated communities, again, is not something special to Muslims. British expats have always done that all round the world. The Chinese are another obvious example – many world cities, e.g. London, have ‘China Towns’. Hindus are another obvious example.

You have conscientiously provided one piece of info that I requested. (I dispute the (prejudiced) conclusions that draw from it, though.)

So maybe you’ll be prepared to provide another bit of info:
Can you show examples of how Muslims “demand that we change to service them”?

I’m thinking Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) statements, say; or statements from any other representative body. Either that – or statements from any source that +you+ have in mind, which, presumably, led to your conclusion that Muslims are “demanding” acquiescence of the non-Muslim population.

Do you have any example statements that demonstrate that “Islamic extremism and hate are preached to our students … by on campus groups and visitors”?

Good to hear that you were opposed to our war crimes. The overwhelming majority of Muslims were too – again, making them more, not less, like the majority of us.

Sorry I suggested that your were a sheep. If you have sniped about some of Frank Chalk’s output, then clearly you are not. Chalk sometimes (maybe often – I haven’t tried to measure) sounds like a right-wing nutter (a la James Delingpole). To be fair to Chalk, though (and Delingpole, for that matter): he may not be a nutter; maybe his comments stem from his being simply be lazy, ignorant and stupid.

Dack said...

Maybe we should call it National Chip-on-the-shoulder Week.

Raja Karma said...

If we didn't have such a generous welfare state system, which is prepared to (a) give out free money to complete strangers and foreigners, and (b) impose no time limits on the handouts, then we wouldn't have such a 'multicultural' country.

Or is that too obvious for our politicians to see?

Anonymous said...

Look, I'm sorry to disappoint some of you 'multi-kulti' types, but I prefer to live in the UK, perhaps even Europe, alongside people who share a common culture, common language/s, and similar lifestyle. I reckon it all makes for a better environment and a more cohesive society.

I don't want to have to share my territory with people who kill their daughters when they 'shame' the family, who mutilate them in the name of God-knows-what, and who oppress them on a daily basis.

Is that asking too much? If I want to live with animals I would go to live in a zoo. I don't expect to have to cohabitate with primitives in my country!

rippon said...

Are you sure that’s correct, Raja Karma: are there really no time limits on the handouts to foreigners? And are you suggesting that, in contrast, handouts to natives +do+ have time or other limits that don’t apply to foreigners? I suspect that, like others on this thread, you are speaking from ignorance and prejudice against Muslims rather than from any base of real knowledge.

And where do “strangers” and “foreigners” come into this anyway. Frank Chalk has referred to Muslim bombers as examples of people who aren’t ‘integrating’. But those bombers were certainly not ‘strangers’; they were well known in their workplaces and neighbourhoods. And they weren’t ‘foreigners’; indeed, that is one of the things that the politicians (who you apparently consider yourself wiser than) often point out – the terrorism is ‘home-grown’.

Moreover, with a name like yours, ‘Raja Karma’, you are clearly contributing to the multiculturalism that you clearly feel has failed. So the best thing you could do, perhaps, is to go back to the country of your origins, which is what you’re suggesting that the Muslims you allude to should do.

rippon said...

“If I want to live with animals I would go to live in a zoo. I don't expect to have to cohabitate with primitives in my country!”

- see, David Cameron (and Frank Chalk) has set the mood music that enables the blatantly racist tones to start filling the auditorium.

Anonymous said...


The chief Troll on your blog has to be the articulate Rippon. What a twat.

Mr Natural said...

Multiculturalism is part of the wider European phenomenon of moral relativism, ………. But moral relativism is the death knell of a civilisation. In a relativist culture, there is no moral consensus, only a clash of conflicting views in which the loudest voice wins.

Lord Sacks in yesterday’s Times

Another nitwit, I suppose.

cheeky chappy said...


I absolutely agree with you about the need to renounce our own extremism and that it would be a huge step towards calming tensions.

I realise not every muslim person can be used as a stereotype and you can't just use the collective term of "they" when talking about people of islamic faith. However, I do not want those muslim people in my country who would seek to impose Sharia Law and who wish to live as their fathers and forefathers did in India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for example. I accept that my history and culture is by no means perfect, but it is far more progressive and democratic than the culture of those who cling on to the beliefs inherent with Sharia Law. I also accept that those ways are not the mainstream of the majority of muslim people. Having said that there are a significant minority who do wish to use Sharia Law and practice other more extreme sections/beliefs of the muslim faith.

If you move to another country then you should adopt that culture and way of living, not seek to carry on living as you did in your own homeland. When in Rome live as the Roman's do etc. That is how you intergrate into your new homeland/country/society. If I moved to a predominantly Muslim country, I would not expect to carry on living as I do here in Britain; I would seek to adopt the religion and culture of that country.

I live in a predominantly Asian area, and although I have been able to make a few asian friends, the majority of them have not wanted to know me, no matter how hard I try to extend the hand of friendship. When I've asked my asian friends about this, even they will tell you that muslim society is pretty much closed off to "outsiders" as they said. It is only the more liberal/modern muslims who have been willing to let me into their circle. Incidently, they are also the ones who share my views on intergrating into a new society. As one friend said: "I'm in your country I have to live by your rules and way of life, not the life my parents left back in Pakistan, that is only right and fair."

So I do not wish to label all muslims with the same stereotypes, because I know there are a great many very liberal and modern thinking muslims. However, the one who wish to cling to outdated and barbaric views and ways of life, those are the ones I wish to leave.

This is a secular, liberal/democratic country, if certain minorities don't like that, then they should go find somewhere that accepts that way of life. That is proper integration.

rippon said...

Mr Natural, your post (10:07, 8/2/11) is based on this premise: Multiculturalism is part of the wider European phenomenon of moral relativism

That premise is false. ‘Multiculturalism’ has a number of interpretations. Here is one: multiculturalism is respect for diversity.

Do you (or Lord Sacks) have a problem with that? (I suspect not.)

Moreover, where is the moral relativism and where is there “no moral consensus”? The moral consensus of this land is enshrined in its laws. Is the Muslim community +in particular+ pushing for any of our laws to be changed. (I say “in particular” because they may well be pushing for an end to detention-without-trial, for example, but that does not make them morally/culturally different to the natives.) Moral relativism: are you asserting, say, that genital mutilation of girls is part of their moral code and that any serious people in this country +accept+ that (in the spirit of multiculturalism)?

If you (and others, e.g. Frank Chalk, David Cameron) +are+ suggesting that, then that is part of the deceit that is being propagated, setting the mood that opens the gates for the blatant racists, e.g. EDL, (as opposed to the surreptitious racists, e.g. Cameron) to spew their bile. The cynical deceit is: take the +alleged+ (because there is no stream of cases of Muslims being charged with this crime) abuses of some religious extremists, and then slyly suggest that that is characteristic of the whole community.

Moreover, no serious person in this country states or believes that genital mutilation should be allowed ‘because that is their way and, in the spirit of multiculturalism, we should respect that.’ There is this lie put about by people on the right that lefties would allow child abuse if it is done on religious/cultural grounds.

Moreover, it’s not even clear what Lord Sacks’ position on multiculturalism/diversity is. Wikipedia attributes this to him: traditional Jewish sources do clearly deny that any one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth. Monopolistic and simplistic claims of universal truth he [Sacks] has characterized as imperialistic, pagan and Platonic, and not Jewish at all.

rippon said...

Cheeky Chappy,

You have fallen for another canard – the notion that any significant Muslims want to impose Sharia Law (which isn’t all bad, btw – the media only sensationally feeds us its repugnant aspects, which might be corruptions of true Islam anyway).

But let’s assume that there are some Muslims who +do+ want to impose it. Then so what? Lots of nutters +want+ to impose lots of things on our society. (Yet again, this shows that Muslims are like, not unlike, the rest of us: Muslims have their nutters too.) For example, very many natives want to impose capital punishment as an option within our justice system – but our parliament has the enough confidence and integrity to consistently vote it down. And suppose that the hang-em brigade or Sharia brigade ever managed to sway enough MPs to vote their desired way – then those pathetic MPs would be to blame, not the effective lobbyists.

You seem perturbed that many Muslims don’t want to be your friend. That’s a shame; it’s always nice to have more friends. Very many people don’t want to be friends with me either, e.g. teenagers. But I don’t draw any conclusions from that, e.g. ‘if those youths loitering on that corner don’t want to be friends with me then perhaps they don’t deserve to live in my neighbourhood.’

I agree that Muslims should live by our *rules* – because our laws are indeed intended for everyone. But I disagree that they should live by our *ways*. I’m thinking of the unlikeable youths in my neighbourhood again: I dislike their ways – the way they dress (e.g. menacing hoodies, trousers hanging around their arses, vulgar miniskirts), the way they talk (e.g. loud, vulgar), and the food they eat (e.g. rank fast-food). I dislike their ways (intensely), but, in a free society, I happily accept that they have a perfect right to their ways. (After all, for all I know, they may find +my+ ways repugnant.)

My fundamental point is this: there’s a multitude of groups (e.g. teenagers, bankers) that we could focus our ire on. The choice of Muslims, though, is disturbing because it has all the hallmarks of the focus applied to other groups (e.g. Roma, Jews) before the more chilling stuff (e.g. attacking them on the streets) and more horrific stuff (e.g. pogroms, genocide) came about. These groups were disliked intensely for the same reasons: they dressed weirdly; they had funny ways; they kept to themselves and didn’t mix; they weren’t like us.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about suppressing the cultures of people coming in, I say if they wanna live together and have a little piece of home-away-from-home then sure that's okay.

What I object to, however, is people apologising for being British. To be proud of a British nationality is akin to racism. And while I don't want Christian doctrine thrown at me, I don't want to abandon the Christian-based personality of the country.

France is the land of style, Germany the land of industry, Britain? We used to have industry, science, a roaring trade and top class navy, now we're just the land of rain and racism.