They believed us and perished for it. Our statecraft, our learning
Delivered them bound to the Pit and alive to the burning
Whither they mirthfully hastened as jostling for honour—
(from The Children by Rudyard Kipling)
Sadly these melancholy words penned for another tragic age resonate again today in the light of the terrorist atrocity in Manchester. Why did this tragedy happen? Why do we have terrorists in our midst in apparently ever increasing numbers (the security services watch list is currently 3000 with another 20000 identified)? Why do the political establishment and main stream media have difficulty describing the motivation and objectives for such barbarity whilst deprecating (typically with accusations of racism or ‘islamophobia’) the few commentators who attempt probing explanations?
There is some evidence that uncontrolled, and, therefore, unvetted immigration was politically motivated. According to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a “truly multicultural” society and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity“. Lord Mandelson said: “In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country”. Subsequent Conservative governments again failed to control immigration despite various election pledges. Peter Hitchens suggests that again this was politically motivated, in this case to keep wages low. Further afield, in Belgium, Sweden and Germany there are also examples of politicians encouraging unlimited immigration. Yet why change society and replace an existing strong successful cultural heritage with something else?
Professor Theodore (‘Ted’) Malloch in his book Hired, talks about the far-left for years adopting militant humanism and working to undermine the Judaeo -Christian heritage and secularise American society. They tolerate Islam because it helps to facilitate this process. There appears to be direct parallels with what is happening in Western Europe; including this member state of the secular/humanist-centric European Union (which is, typically, guided by its secular Lisbon Treaty and humanist anthem). Professor Malloch goes on to write about the secularisation of Western Europe. He states that Europe would not be Europe without its previously strong and now disappearing heritage. Clearly the left-liberal political and media consensus over the years has openly undermined and attacked visages of Christianity whilst ignoring affronts to Western cultural norms from imported cultures. Why practice double standards?
When using a religion, quasi-religion or ideology to undermine the incumbent heritage of another, it is usual to be in denial about any less savoury or undesirable aspects. Even today, Marxists and Communists don’t accept the harm caused by their ideology in places like the old Soviet Union. Yet the hostility to Judaeo -Christian tradition, for Professor Malloch, has far deeper origins traceable back to nominalism, which does not accept absolutes of truth or goodness, but merely uses these words to describe situations. Consequently a rich religious tradition and cultural heritageis on a par with every other culture, regardless of its achievements, or is even regarded as superstition and the people in need of being liberated from it. The Western post-modern philosophical trend has been towards severe scepticism exacerbating the situation; what went before is of no value, or at best the same value as anything else.
Destroying our Judaeo -Christian heritage creates a void to be filled by consumerism or a comfortable life and undermines the motivation to fight for anything of value in our wider heritage or culture. The preferred option is to be in denial and isolated. This is a double whammy because there is also less incentive for an alien culture to integrate – why integrate with apparent nothingness? Yet our rich wider heritage is a useful soft defence against extremism and enriches us all in subtle ways – man and woman does not live by bread alone. Trivialising everything (left-liberal ‘cool’) undermines our capabilities of appreciation, discernment, analysis and development of knowledge. To watch this dumbed down General Election unfold is to see in action vacuous, posturing politicians, superficial interviewers and largely uniformed partisan audiences. But we need alertand thoughtful eternal vigilance in order to remain a peaceful civilised society – if we can still call ourselves a civilised country.
Dominant cultures from East and West have a long history of conflict and conquest. Carrol Quigley in The Evolution of Civilisations, sees invasion as part of the decline and disappearance of civilisations. Samuel P. Huntington inThe Clash of Civilisations: and the remaking of the World Order (1993 original essay) predicted that post-Cold War conflict would be between cultures that base their traditions on religious faith and dogma. There would be increasing violence between the West and Islam. Conflict would be between states and at more localised levels where cultural fault lines and interactions occur. Neither ‘the West’ nor Islam are uniform blocks. There are internal variations and resulting rivalries, and in the worst cases hijacking by the inhumanely unscrupulous and internecine conflicts. Further, there is often a petty criminal, drug taking history to many terrorists which may reduce their theological intellectual capacity, make them more susceptible to extremely violent superficial ideologies and immune to compassion.
Robocops and the army protecting the ruling class is not the solution, but posturing sticking plaster. The most robust recent verbal responses (and actions) have come from inside the Trump Administration in America and the Visegrád Group of countries in Eastern Europe. They appear clear about: what they are protecting (the security and safety of their citizens and traditional Western, Christian, civilisation); the scale of the task (radical Islam is a worldwide serious threat); and the need for resolute action (to keep out existing and potential extremists). They have decided that ruined innocent lives and murder of their citizens is too high a price to pay. Yet our political establishment (to paraphrase George Orwell) have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
We cannot go on as we are, with the safety and security of our country and citizens getting worse. We cannot apply more Robocop sticking plaster. We cannot use strong words and weak actions. We cannot be a house divided by double or more standards in order to placate the fanatical or ideological few, where many are denied: justice under the rule of UK law; basic rights to freedom of conscience (and apostasy); freedom to live by Western mores; freedom of speech (including saying what is uncomfortable); and freedom from fear (in their daily lives). We cannot live at peaceful ease with those who would use violence to attack us and destroy our way of life. Finally, we cannot abandon two thousand years of rich cultural history, achievements and Judaeo -Christian heritage without paying a heavy price, including in the blood of our children.
“Our society can have no tolerance for this continuation of bloodshed; we cannot stand a moment longer for the slaughter of innocent people… The terrorists and extremists and those who give them aid and comfort must be driven out from our society for ever. This wicked ideology must be obliterated – and I mean completely obliterated – and the innocent life must be protected. All civilised nations must join together to protect human life and the sacred right of our citizens to live in safety and in peace.” US President Donald Trump, 23rd May 2017