Tag Archives: political correctness

RESTORE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Ed Murrow, the famous CBS reporter who broadcast nightly to the US from the London Blitz, wrote that the most remarkable fact of the war was that Britain kept its basic freedoms even in the face of defeat.   This included freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Both have been increasingly restricted in recent decades, not just in the United Kingdom, but in other western democracies.  Political correctness, together with new laws, have made it difficult for people to express themselves on issues that did not exist before the era of mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Boris Johnson’s comment this week about the burqa being like a “letter box” led to a round of condemnation, until an opinion poll showed he had the support of 60% of the British people, who support a ban on burqas.   At least half a dozen European countries have already imposed a ban on wearing a burqa in public.

The BBC’s John Simpson, reported from Afghanistan shortly after 9-11.   At the time the country was ruled by the Taliban.   The only way he and a colleague could get into the country was by wearing a burqa.   As deeply religious “women”, soldiers and police would not touch them.   They safely returned with excellent coverage on the state of the country, immediately prior to the US led invasion.

Mr. Simpson, without realizing it, showed the security risk posed by people in burqas.   It’s no wonder that 60% of British people want them banned.   And it’s not just security that is compromised by the wearing of the burqa.   Wearing the garment is a constant statement that the wearer has no intention of ever being assimilated into western society, any western society.

It’s likely that Mr. Johnson’s comment was not an error on his part.   He knew what he was saying.   Mr Johnson, a populist, is now leading the charge in defending traditional British values (freedom of speech) against the dictatorship of political correctness, enforced on the population by the liberal-leftist elite.

The liberal elite have only themselves to blame.   They are the ones who have forced multiculturalism on the English English, those who have lived in the country for generations, even centuries; it was forced on them against their will and without any vote by the people, who have seen their country hijacked since World War II.

The liberal elite are not going to give up easily, as we have seen by their under-handed efforts to stop Brexit, eager to overturn the will of the majority to pursue their own globalist dream, which would, in time, wipe out England and all its traditional values.   But their role, similar to that of the “thought police” in George Orwell’s “1984”, needs to end.   The British people need to be free to express themselves on any issue, without the fear of punishment or denigration.

Other prominent people, leaders in the community, need to show support for Mr. Johnson.   One famous person did, today.   His name is Rowan Atkinson, but he’s better known around the world as Mr. Bean or Black Adder.   He’s been making fun of religious beliefs, without prejudice, for decades.   He clearly sees the threat if you can’t describe the burqa as a “letter box.”   Good for you, Mr. Bean!

————————————————–

Viktor Orban:   The new EU leadership should punish those who let millions of migrants into Europe, by VOICE OF EUROPE, 28 July 2018

“Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister, says a new European Commission is needed with a new approach to migration policy, stating that the days of the current EU executive are “numbered” with its mandate expiring next May, Reuters reports.

“He made the comments Friday to state radio and said the next Commission should not punish countries that protect their borders from migrants.   Orban added that the new EU leadership should punish those who let millions of migrants into Europe in violation of the EU’s rules.

“The Hungarian Prime Minister is one of the strongest opponents of the EU’s migration policy.   The European Commission has stepped up a legal battle with Hungary over EU migration rules, claiming a new Hungarian law, criminalising support for asylum seekers, is illegal.

“Orban’s response is that the Commission’s decision was insignificant as its mandate is running out:   “We need a new Commission … with a new approach.”

“European Parliamentary elections will be in May 2019.   Orban’s nationalist Fidesz party polls strongly in the lead after a landslide win in the national election in April, re-elected for a third consecutive term.”

—————————————————-

CANADA’S AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA EXPELLED

“Saudi Arabia has given the Canadian ambassador to the kingdom 24 hours to leave after Ottawa criticised the arrest of women’s rights activists in the ultra-conservative country.   The Saudi foreign ministry also said it was freezing “all new business” between the two states.”  (Independent, 8/6) 

Note the following from today’s MEMRI (“The Middle East Media Research Institute”) (#7617):

“Canada’s crude stance on social issues in the [Saudi] kingdom is not new – rather, it has been ongoing for years, despite Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic attempts to act flexibly towards [this stance].   Canada’s actions are nothing but systematic and planned aggression that goes far beyond support for human rights or freedoms and constitutes an attempt to take over and to impose the values of the Canadian left.

“As the racist Canadian government sheds leftist crocodile tears over freedoms, it disregards the true suppression that it [itself] implements against Canada’s original inhabitants.”

————————————————————-

IRAN:   “It’s Trump, Netanyahu and Saudi prince who are ‘isolated,’ not us”

“Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Monday that the leaders of the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel were isolated in their hostility to Iran.

“Today, the entire world has declared they are not in line with US policies against Iran,” Zarif said in a speech, according to the semi-official ISNA news agency. (“The times of Israel”, 8/6)

——————————————————————

HAMAS CONTINUES DESTRUCTION OF LAND IN ISRAEL

Hamas Counts Rewards for Successful anti-Israel Terror Campaign, DEBKAfile Exclusive Report (8/10)

Hamas has burned to a cinder more than 35,000 dunams of flourishing Israeli land – half the area of Tel Aviv, the whole of Beersheba – since March 31.   But if the Palestinian terrorist rulers of Gaza walk off with the $650m aid package the UN, Egypt and Qatar are offering for a long-range truce accord with Israel – with applause from Washington – they will win the biggest prize ever awarded a serial arsonist.   Only a fraction of the billions of dollars of aid poured into Gaza since Hamas seized power 11 years ago ever reached the population; the lion’s share was grabbed by Hamas’ terrorist wing for funding for “resistance, i.e. violence against Israel.   Its arson campaign of incendiary kites and exploding balloons has been so successful that Hamas is being showered with perks, including the lifting of the Israeli and Egyptian blockades on Gaza, without having to reciprocate by, for example, dismantling its military (terror) arm and rocket arsenal, or even handing over the remains of the Israeli soldiers and hostages.

———————————————

Hamas launched multiple assault on Gaza-Israeli border amid truce talks

Friday saw a record 30 fires caused by Palestinian balloons from the Gaza Strip and mass riots pushing against the fence, while hurling fire bombs at Israeli troops.   A gang broke through and sabotaged IDF equipment before fleeing back.   The outbreak was quelled only after Israeli forces used tear gas, which left 80 rioters injured and one dead and a tank gun fired at a Hamas position.   Read DEBKA file’s Exclusive Analysis.

———————————————————

Africans take Germany to court in New York over ‘forgotten genocide’  – July 31, 2018 * USA Today

After people from the Herero and Nama tribes launched a rebellion in 1904 against German colonial settlers in South West Africa, German General Lothar von Trotha issued a written extermination order, saying:  “Within the German borders, every Herero, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot.”

For the last six decades, Germany has atoned and compensated for its historical role in the Holocaust of World War II, paying out an estimated $70 billion to survivors since 1952.   However, a group of determined activists from Namibia has been fighting for recognition of the extermination of their ancestors by the German government in what has been termed the first genocide of the 20th century.

Though often overshadowed by the subsequent Nazi crimes of World War II, Germany’s colonial-era atrocities have recently been put under the spotlight.   Between the 19th and 20th centuries, Imperial Germany administered several parts of Africa including modern-day Togo, Cameroon and Tanzania.   What was then known as German South West Africa (today’s Namibia) is where some of the darkest chapters of Germany’s colonial rule unfolded.   In October 1904, after people from the Herero and Nama tribes launched a rebellion against German colonial settlers in South West Africa, German General Lothar von Trotha issued a written extermination order, saying: “Within the German borders, every Herero, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot.”  The edict goes on to clarify that women and children would not be spared.  Tens of thousands of Herero and Nama were starved to death in concentration camps in the desert or were massacred between the years of 1904-1908.   It has been estimated that 80 percent of the Herero and Nama people were wiped out in the atrocities.

On July 31, representatives of the Nama and Herero people will descend on New York Southern District Court to see if their quest for retrospective justice will be successful.   In pursuing their case, the Namibians have invoked the Alien Tort Statute, which allows for non-US residents to make a claim in a US court for international law violations.

They call for a full, formal apology from the German government, and reparations that could stretch into the billions.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/07/31/africans-take-germany-court-new-york-over-forgotten-genocide/877191002/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

FOLLOW-UP

Hillary and donald

After my post “Hate will never win,” at least one website stated that I support guns in church.   This is not the case.   Jesus Christ said: “They that live by the sword shall die by the sword.”  (Matthew 26:52).  I do not feel it is appropriate for people to carry a weapon in church.  I will, however, add that I do feel this is a matter of personal conviction.

Forty years ago my wife and I lived in Rhodesia where I worked as a District Officer in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.  This meant that I worked in the administration of tribal areas under a District Commissioner.   Although the area we lived in was relatively peaceful, there was a civil war going on and we were allowed to carry guns to defend ourselves.   District Officers had the most dangerous job in the country – many were killed including my predecessor Ian Fyffe and a colleague Jimmy Souter.

I chose not to carry a gun, based on the scripture quoted above.

————————————————————————

On the same website, it was suggested that I support Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton.   For the record, I do not support either.

Mr. Trump sees Islam as the problem in the attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando.  Mrs. Clinton blames guns.   Note the following comment from Tuesday’s Wall St Journal:

The Choice 
“As the presidential campaign unfolds, Americans will get the chance to decide, in the wake of the Orlando shooting, what kind of approach they favor to combat jihadist terror.   This election’s two candidates, more than any other presidential contenders in the era of terrorism, present starkly different profiles on the subject, notes our Washington bureau chief Gerald F. Seib.   Donald Trump appeared to hint Monday that President Barack Obama may be sympathetic to radical Islamists he said inspired the gunman in the nightclub attack.  Mr. Trump also criticized both the president and Hillary Clinton for what he claims are lax immigration laws that contributed to the rampage.  Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, pushed for stricter gun laws, including the reinstatement of a ban on the sort of assault weapons used by the Florida gunman.  (WSJ “The 10-Point” by Gerard Baker, 6/14/16)

Why does it have to be one or the other?

I remember some years ago a Canadian MP (Member of Parliament) explaining to an American audience the difference between a republic and a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system.   In the United States, on every issue, he explained, the country quickly divides, with both sides running rapidly towards the barricades.   In the Canadian system, on the other hand, both sides start opposed, but gradually work toward the center to achieve a compromise.

America is the only country in the western world where parents and grandparents have to worry on a daily basis about their children and grandchildren going to school.   I called the school of one of my grandchildren recently, concerned about security. I was partially reassured, but only partially.   I do think more can be done, within the parameters of the Second Amendment, which reads:   “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  At the time this was written, the threats were both foreign and domestic.   That remains the case today and would include ISIS and those inspired by ISIS, like Omar Mateen.

The right to bear arms goes back a thousand years – it is not peculiarly American.

It was a medieval English king who first ordered that every male over the age of 14 carry a lethal weapon to defend himself against the French.   For centuries the law required that all males do four hours of archery practice after church on a Sunday.   Again, this was because of the threat from France.   English colonists had the right to bear arms before the American Revolution, which would not have happened if the people could not carry guns.   In the French and Indian Wars they had to protect themselves against the Indians – and the French!   Today, the threat is more from radical Islamists and domestic terrorists.   People need to be able to defend themselves, but a balance has to be struck.   Adam Lanza and Omar Mateen – and others — have shown the need for this.

Mrs. Clinton is right on this issue – and may win the election because of her stance.   People are scared and may think that banning assault weapons will stop terror attacks.

But, having said that, I believe that the greater problem lies in our immigration policies.   On this Trump is right.   Something needs to be done.   As if to emphasize this point, an ISIS terrorist went to the home of a French couple barely 24 hours after the attack in Florida, shot dead the man and stabbed his partner to death, all in the presence of their three-year-old son.   On the same day, a 54-year-old Muslim immigrant seized hostages at a Wal-Mart in Amarillo, Texas, holding them for two hours, before he was shot.  Together with the massacre in Florida, the only factor common to all three incidents was the Muslim factor; yet the public is being told the first was due to homophobia and the latter was a “work-related incident.” At least the French admitted the involvement of ISIS.   When are we in the US going to wake up?

When Mrs. Clinton and President Obama ridicule Trump for his stance on Muslim immigration, they are showing an appalling ignorance of history.   Islam tried to conquer the West a number of times in previous centuries.   We are now living through the latest Islamic expansion into the West, made possible by the naivety of political correctness.   The two liberal leaders are also hiding the fact that their best friend and closest advisor, respectively, are both Muslims and that the Clinton Foundation receives a lot of donations from the Middle East, surely a conflict of interest.

 

———————————————————————-

While we are on the subject of Muslim immigration, I mentioned in a recent blog, “Confusion Reigns,” that Japan has not got a problem with Islamic terrorism because they don’t allow Muslim immigration.

Within 24 hours of my posting the article, the BBC had a segment on Muslim immigrants to Japan.   The BBC was critical of the fact that Japan was not doing enough to help refugees by taking in Syrian and other immigrants.   It was mentioned that, in 2015, Japan only took in 24 Muslims.   I checked with another source that said it was 27.

It should be noted that Germany took in one million in the same year (not all Muslims), and is expected to take in a further half a million this year.   Additionally, Chancellor Merkel is ready to give 80 million Muslim Turks visa free travel within the EU.

So Japan has taken in some Muslims, but hardly enough to threaten the security of the country.  In fact, it’s hardly enough for a single mosque!

———————————————————————–

Since my last posting, it has been revealed that Omar Mateen was a “closet gay,” who regularly frequented the nightclub he attacked.   I am reminded of an article in “Science” magazine written in the late 90’s.   The article showed that scientific research done on heterosexual males showed that the more anti-gay men were, the more likely they were to have the problem themselves.   I have often thought of that article in the 17 years since I read it, as I’ve listened to religious leaders and others rant about homosexuals.   “Methinks they protest too much.”   My apologies to Shakespeare and Queen Gertrude (Hamlet, Act III, Scene II)!

 

FAREWELL TO WINSTON

Churchill

Today marks the 50th anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill’s funeral.   It is, quite correctly, being remembered in Great Britain for without him, the British people would likely still be a distant province of the Third Reich.   Some years ago, the British people voted for him as the greatest Englishman ever.

Churchill's coffin

At his funeral, the Queen’s wreath bore the words:  “From the nation and the Commonwealth, with grateful thanks.   Elizabeth R”

Queen's wreath

At his request, he was buried in the village of Bladon, close to Blenheim Palace, where he was born.

Even now, fifty years later, there are always people there, wanting to pay homage.

The last time I visited, a few years ago, a man in front of me put flowers on the grave, knelt down and cried.  We got to talking.  English was not his native language.  He was from the Netherlands.   Without Churchill, he said, his country would not be free.

The funeral was truly memorable.  His beloved Clemmie (his wife Clementine), after dinner that evening, said to his daughter Mary, “That wasn’t a funeral — that was a triumph.”

And so it was.  110 world leaders were there, plus many old friends and colleagues, including former US President Dwight Eisenhower.

Mindful that his mother was American and that he could just as easily have been a member of Congress as a member of the Commons, Churchill had requested that the Battle Hymn of the Republic be sung at his funeral, an unusual choice for a staunch monarchist.   Churchill believed absolutely that if the English-speaking countries stayed together, the world would be safe.

While people should pause to remember such a great man, they should also stop and think about what he stood for.   For the fact is that, for all the British people’s praise of Churchill, they have rejected all that he stood for!

This was the case immediately after World War II, after the defeat of Nazi Germany but before the defeat of Imperial Japan – Churchill lost the election, rejected by the British people.   It was often said that he was a great wartime leader but not the man for peace-time.  He was certainly not the man for the radical changes that were to come in the post war years.   Yet, time has showed that he was right.  The massive expansion of state ownership and control after 1945 was not something he wanted — in recent decades most of it has been reversed. Nor would he have wanted the welfare state that has been created.

Committed to the Empire and Commonwealth, Churchill would have opposed its dismantling and Britain turning its back on its former colonies to embrace Europe.

As is clear in his book “The River War,” Churchill did not think much of Islam and would not have supported the massive influx of Muslims into the UK that has taken place since his death.   Nor would he have been cowed by political correctness.

If he were alive today, he would have a clear vision of what is needed to defeat the Islamic extremism that now threatens the world.   He fought in the Sudan against the armies of Islamic extremism in what turned out to be the last cavalry charge in British history.

Churchill’s clear vision compared to what we have today, on both sides of the Atlantic, brings to mind these words from the Book of Isaiah.

“The whole head is sick, And the whole heart faints.   From the sole of the foot even to the head, There is no soundness in it.” (Isa 1:5b-6a)

MANDELA AND THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL

Mandela and Mugabe

The massive global adulation given to Nelson Mandela in the days following his death shows how much we are all influenced by the media and how brainwashed we have all become by political correctness.  George Orwell’s classic “1984” has come true – there seem to be few left who can think for themselves and not practice “new speak.”  Orwell preceded political correctness by over two decades, but saw it coming.

As I wrote Friday, most whites in South Africa think that Mandela helped avoid a bloodbath during and after the handover from white to black rule in 1994.

Now, having said that, let’s look at some other facts:

  1. While in office, Mandela turned a blind eye to the excesses of other African presidents.  South Africa’s geographic position and its economic might can be used to achieve political goals in the region.  The white National Party government of John Vorster brought down white-ruled Rhodesia.  Mandela and the African National Congress could easily have brought down Robert Mugabe, but neither he nor his successors have done so.  He even met with Mugabe and other despots and befriended them.
  2. Mandela was guilty of 156 acts of terrorism, resulting in the deaths of many people.  He pleaded guilty to these acts – there is no doubt he authorized them.  A century ago he would have been hanged for terrorism and never heard of again.
  3. In dismantling the white government, the result has been a 1,100% increase in the murder rate, the deaths of an estimated 68,000 whites including over 4,000 farmers, and a rise in crime that has everybody fearful.  When I first visited South Africa in 1974, people I stayed with did not lock their doors.  Now, they have bars on windows, high fences, electronic alarms, dogs and everything they can buy to protect them in their own homes.  It should also be remembered that there have been far more black deaths.  Black on black violence is a far greater problem and often goes unrecorded.
  4. Note the following list of Mandela’s accomplishments sent from a South African friend.  “The fruits of his takeover are mammoth unemployment; increased tension and conflict between the nine different black nations (each composed of several tribes); debasement of the currency by 700%; 8+ million illegal refugees from other African countries; an exploding crime rate; legalization of pornography, abortion, homosexual marriages, etc., which were previously banned by the white government … massive abuse of women and rape; break-down of law and order, and violence against farmers as happened in Rhodesia.”   All of these things would likely have happened with any African president, but there were clearly negative consequences when white rule ended, as there were everywhere else on the continent.

Additionally, there is great uncertainty about the future and has been for years.  If Mandela stopped a wholesale massacre of the whites, his successors may not be able to do so for long.  At some point, South Africa is likely to force land redistribution on the country in a bigger way, just as in Zimbabwe – more white farmers will lose their land.  When Zimbabwe did that, there were serious food shortages, eventually made up by the importation of food from South Africa.  When South Africa’s food production drops by 90% as a result of similar land thefts, where will the food come from to feed the people?   Whites are commercial farmers, while the native African population practice subsistence farming, growing only enough for their own needs.

The Wider Story

We need to understand the wider story here.

When I was in school, almost all of Africa was ruled by European powers, mostly the British and the French.  Only Ethiopia and Liberia were never colonized by Europeans, with the result they were the poorest and most backward countries on the continent.  That fact alone should make people take a second look at the colonial period.

The British Empire in Africa alone was bigger than the United States.  Every colony and the dominion known as the Union of South Africa, were food exporters.  Now, after five decades of independence, they are almost all food importers.

This was part of the blessings promised to the descendants of the patriarch Joseph, whose two sons were to “become a people” (the United States) and a “multitude of nations” (the British Empire and Commonwealth).  (Genesis 48:19)  The name Joseph means “God increases,” a promise of physical prosperity to the patriarch and his descendants.

Other blessings that followed these white settlers were basic freedoms like freedom of religion and freedom of the press; the Bible itself; property rights; relatively efficient and responsive administration; the rule of law and an independent judiciary; plus a political system copied on Great Britain, which gave the various colonies the stability they needed to prosper.  While these colonies existed they were a part of the western world, a major plus for the United States, which took over world leadership after World War II.

Decolonization ended all this.

It was followed by political instability, serious economic decline, a massive lowering of living standards for the ordinary people and a freefall in food production.  But nobody in the West could say anything, cowed by political correctness.

Note what Ghanaian author George Ayittey has to say on this:  “My criticisms of African governments were greeted with suspicion in North America and western Europe.  I quickly learned that, in the United States, African leaders, especially those from black Africa, were viewed almost as saints.  Blacks, having been enslaved and colonized in the past, could do no wrong.  Criticizing African leaders, especially in the North American media, is often regarded as ‘blaming the victim.’  To do so is not “politically correct.””  (Africa Betrayed, by George Ayittey, 1992, page xvi)  Do you see now why you’re not hearing anything negative about Nelson Mandela?

Political Correctness continues to this day.  Nelson Mandela is the hero of the western, progressive, left-wing elite.  No one from the present US Administration attended Mrs. Thatcher’s funeral.  No American president, either, attended Churchill’s funeral – four will be present at Mandela’s.  Conservative Churchill was a relic of the Victorian age to them; Mandela was the future, symbol of the new multicultural ‘rainbow’ world dreamt of by the Fabians, John Lennon, JFK, Lenin and other influential men and organizations.   Their dream is of one world government, where all races and all religions blend into one.

Of course, without Churchill, we would all be goose-stepping and speaking German.   Hitler was the greatest racist of all – the Africans would have had no chance if he had conquered their continent.  Churchill was the great imperialist – he inspired the peoples of the British Empire to fight as one against the Third Reich.  The Empire no longer exists – what will Britain do next time there is a major threat to world peace from the continent of Europe or anywhere else?

What will Africa do if western countries can no longer send them aid?  Having kicked out the white farmers, they will have serious food shortages.

Those of us who have lived in Africa have lived through the fall of the British Empire.   South Africa was the last part to fall, in 1994, to the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

This is a major reversal for the modern Israelites, but they cannot see it for what it is.  Political correctness and the cult of celebrity have, rather, made it all seem progressive for Africa and for the world.

But it’s the slow fulfillment of the curses to come upon Israel, prophesied in Deuteronomy chapter 28, for their rejection of God.  “You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but shall not gather its grapes … the alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower.”  (verses 30 & 43)

Africa has gone out from under Israelite domination.  So has Asia.  All that’s left  are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some north-west European nations – and they are all well down the road that will lead them to the same gentile domination that has befallen Africa!

APOLOGY, EMPIRE AND THE QUEEN

Diamond Jubilee - Carriage Procession And Balcony Appearance

A Service of Thanksgiving was held in Britain’s Westminster Abbey on Tuesday, June 4th, in commemoration of the Queen’s coronation, held sixty years earlier on June 2nd, 1953.  That wasn’t when she became queen – she ascended to the throne on the death of her father, King George VI, sixteen months earlier, on February 6th, 1952.

Interestingly, she was in Kenya Colony at the time she received the news of her father’s death.  From that very moment she was Queen over what was still the biggest empire in the world.

Kenya played a role again during the week of the sixtieth anniversary.  The same year that Queen Elizabeth II became the British monarch, the Mau Mau uprising began in the colony.  It was largely suppressed by British and Kenyan troops by 1956 but didn’t fully end until 1960.

The Mau Mau was a Kikuyu rebellion.  In other words, one tribe rebelled.  Even then, not all Kikuyu supported the uprising, as anti-Mau Mau elements amongst the Kikuyu helped the British suppress the revolt, a revolt that failed to gain popular support.

Almost sixty years later, when few people alive remember the events of the 1950’s, the British government has decided to apologize for British actions at the time and is to give 20 million pounds compensation to former Mau Mau fighters.  It’s highly likely that most of this money will be diverted by Kenyan government officials, as is usually the case in Kenya.

So, what next?  Should the British apologize for killing members of the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War?

There’s an American connection in the apology made last week – President Obama’s father was a Kenyan and also a member of the Mau Mau.  Apparently, pressure was applied from the other side of the Atlantic.

It’s amazing how our leaders are so ignorant of history, even fairly recent history.  In case one of them may stumble across this blog, let me make it clear – this was not a popular uprising.  There was no great suppression of freedom and there have been far worse abuses of human rights since independence in 1963.  It should be noted that the new President of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta, has been charged with human rights abuses by the International Court at The Hague.  This is Africa we’re talking about, not the English Home Counties!

This comes down to white guilt, the never-ending left-wing apologia for empire that goes back to the sixties.  Whereas Britons from previous generations lauded the accomplishments of the British Empire, the opposite has been the case since the advent of political correctness in the 1960’s.

I was thinking about this on Thursday evening, just two days after the Thanksgiving service was held.  My wife and I were watching a British movie on television called “Zarak,” made in 1957.  It was an awful movie, badly made, with a predictable plot.  But it was interesting from an historical perspective.  The movie was about a revolt against British colonial rule in India in the late 1800’s.  The movie was made ten years after India’s independence but it was still pro-British.  The rebels were the bad guys!

So, when did perceptions of Empire change?

At the Queen’s coronation, she was crowned as Queen of each of her dominions, the independent nations within the Empire – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Ceylon and Pakistan.  She was also given the title “Head of the Commonwealth” which included all the above nations and the Republic of India (India had become a republic three years earlier).  The rest of the empire was still ruled from London.  Her title to cover all those 50+ territories was “her other realms and territories,” almost all of which are now fully independent.

It was in the 1960’s that attitudes to Empire changed, though not amongst the ordinary people.  It became fashionable amongst academics and other intellectuals to bash the Empire, to make fun of it, to equate it with the crueler empires in history, even to boldly state the Empire was a bad thing.  After the death of Sir Winston Churchill, a great Empire loyalist, in 1965, there was no restraint.  Churchill and the Empire both played major roles in winning the Second World War, without which there would be no freedom for these people to even debate these issues.

In a brief televised debate after the decision to apologize to the Mau Mau, Sir Max Hastings, a prominent British military historian, pointed out the pitfalls of trying to determine anything after sixty years.  His Empire-bashing opponent on the program (whose name was unfamiliar) kept on rudely interrupting everything he said but, when asked what other “atrocities” Britain could be charged with, found it difficult to come up with anything specific, mumbling something about Aden and Diego Garcia.

This is not to say that Britain did not make mistakes but, compared to other nations, her record was a very good one.

Remembering the Mau Mau is also a reminder that Britain was once a great military power.  In fact, at the time of the Queen’s ascension, it was more than ten times the military power it is today.  Successive British governments have chosen to cut defense expenditure while increasing spending on public health care.  The present Conservative led coalition cut military expenditure by 8% in its recent austerity plan, while leaving healthcare and foreign aid alone.  This is a continuation of a policy that emphasizes “soft power” over military power.

Apologizing to Kenya and sending 20 million pounds ($30 million) their way is an example of this.  No doubt others will now start demanding apologies for perceived mistakes of the past.

It’s difficult to see how later generations can be held responsible for the supposed mistakes of their ancestors.  Perhaps the British can demand reparations from Rome? After all, they ruled England for almost 400 years, longer than Britain ruled any of her colonies!  But you can’t expect politicians to know that!

SOLDIER HACKED TO DEATH IN LONDON

lee-rigby-murdered-london-woolworth-lead1

A 25-year-old British soldier, father of a two-year-old boy, was repeatedly stabbed and decapitated in broad daylight in the Woolwich district of London, May 22nd.  The two perpetrators of this crime were not ashamed; they did not run away, rather they boasted to passersby that this will be the fate of many more British people – until the United Kingdom and other western nations remove their troops from Muslim lands.

Both of these men were British citizens, one the son of Nigerian immigrants who converted to Islam over ten years ago.  Both clearly felt a far greater loyalty to Islam than to the country that took them in and greatly increased their opportunities in life.

Once again, politicians and the media expressed incredulity that such a thing could happen.  The usual words were mouthed, words that people want to hear but words that sound increasingly hollow.  British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed the comment that this heinous crime was an insult to Islam.  Really?  It’s not as if this was the first such crime.  Nine years ago, the Dutch citizen Theo van Gogh was similarly killed on the streets of Amsterdam.  His crime was making a ten-minute documentary film on how the followers of Islam treat their women.

The bombings on the London Underground and on a bus in 2005 used a different methodology, but the perpetrators expressed similar sentiments – an intense hatred of the West, contempt for their adopted country and strong disagreement with British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Would all this animosity and the threats of violence change if Britain and the other allies removed all troops from Muslim lands?  Not likely.  For a major push is going on, something akin to what has happened in previous periods in history – the territorial expansion of Islam!  Western Europe, including Great Britain, is increasingly Islamic as immigration and a high birthrate have combined to project Islam to the forefront of national life.  As one London imam said some years ago, “We will not stop until the crescent moon flag flies on top of Buckingham Palace!”

The Islamic religion started with the prophet Mohammed in the third decade of the seventh century in the area of Mecca and Medina in what is now Saudi Arabia.  By the end of the same century Islamic military forces had spread the religion across the whole of North Africa and much of the Middle East, conquering Jerusalem, Egypt and other parts of the Byzantine Empire.  In 711 they landed in Gibraltar.  Only 21 years later, exactly 100 years after the death of the prophet, their advance was stopped just outside of Paris by French forces led by Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne.

Further expansion by Islamic forces led to the Crusades at the end of the eleventh century.  Encroachments upon Christian territories continued until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.  In the following century the island of Rhodes was conquered and an attempt was made to take Malta.  Later, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Islamic forces pushed right into the heart of Europe, reaching the gates of Vienna in 1529.  Vienna was attacked again in 1683.

A reversal took place during the period of European colonialism, when the British and the French dominated the Middle East.  The collapse of the Ottoman Empire less than a century ago led to further western involvement in the area and, in 1948, to the establishment of the nation of Israel.

Once again, Islamic imperialism threatens the West but political correctness obscures the reality.

After World War II, there were hardly any Muslims in western lands.  Today, there are millions, thanks to short-sighted immigration policies coupled with the push for diversity.  In the UK, the official figure is 1.6 million, but it’s likely much higher.  Even if only one percent are inclined to acts of violence like the ones already committed in London, that’s at least 16,000 terrorists within.

During the IRA’s terrorist campaign against the British, it was estimated that they only had 200 active terrorists at the most.  We’re talking here of multiple times that number.

Acts like the latest one in Woolwich are likely to become quite common as Islamic militants push for a greater say in Great Britain and other western countries. The bombings at the Boston Marathon indicate the US will experience similar acts. Remember, the ultimate goal is domination, to rule over the infidels, the non-believers for whom they have only contempt.

The problem of Islamic militancy will not be resolved by Britain pulling troops out of Afghanistan.  That’s a separate issue.  The real problem here is Islamic imperialism, the endless drive to impose Islam on the rest of the world.  The West’s open-door policy of the last few decades has allowed Muslims to make significant inroads into western countries.

Millions of people in Muslim lands believe the “Christian” West is at war with them.  The only way they can win the war is by bringing the conflict to western nations, so that people in the West experience the kind of violence seen daily in many Muslim lands.  Thanks to the changing demographics of the last few decades, western countries themselves have made this possible.  We can only expect more attacks like the one in London on May 22nd.