Thursday, February 07, 2008

The Archdhimmi Speaks Out

The Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of CanterburyAs a reluctant member of the Anglican Soviet Communion, I’ve been embarrassed more than once by the leaders of the hierarchy. The Most Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, and the Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, have given me ample reason over the last few years to wince and turn my head away. If it weren’t for the muscular evangelical version of Christianity that prevails in Africa and Asia, there would be no hope left for Anglicanism.

But Dr. Williams has hit a new low today. He has, in effect, announced the full dhimmitude of the Church of England:

Adoption of Islamic Sharia law in Britain is ‘unavoidable’, says Archbishop of Canterbury

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable” and that it would help maintain social cohesion.

Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4’s World At One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Dr Williams said there was a place for finding a “constructive accommodation” in areas such as marriage — allowing Muslim women to avoid Western divorce proceedings.

Other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, he pointed out, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual’s rights as a citizen.

“Other religions”? Which other religions, specifically? The Shia Muslims in the holy city of Qom? How about the Sunnis in Mecca?

He said it would also require a change in perception of what Sharia involved beyond the “inhumanity” of extreme punishments and attitudes to women seen in some Islamic states.

“Change of perception”, eh? Do you mean we should ignore the embarrassing details, and concentrate on the big picture? And the big picture consists of… what? The overall record of humane, tolerant, peaceful, and benevolent behavior by Muslims the world over throughout history, right?
- - - - - - - - -
Dr Williams said: “It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.

“We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances.”

Yes, we have. The enlightened British government did just that a few days ago, when it effectively legalized polygamy for persons of the Muslim persuasion.

Polygamy! They didn’t like it when the Mormons practiced it, did they? That was barbaric, but this… Well, this is multicultural.

He added: “There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.

“It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.

“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.

“In some cultural and religious settings, they would seem more appropriate.”

Oh yes, those other ways of looking at divorce. Talaq, talaq, talaq!

There’s more, much more, in the article. Read it and weep.

I’ve said repeatedly that things have to get worse before they can get better. And they do; they just keep getting worse and worse.

I’m still waiting for the last clause of that sentence to kick in.


Hat tip: Cimmerian.

48 comments:

Chalons said...

Whoever has the power to sack this guy is now officially derelict in their responsibility to do so!

spackle said...

Please someone help me!! I am in a nightmare and I cant seem to wake up!! It is akin to the first moments of being in an accident or some other traumatic episode. For the first few moments you look around in disbelief hoping someone or something will come along and fix the situation until you realize you have only yourself to save yourself.

AngleofRepose said...

He mights well just come out and tell people to convert to Islam because it's also "inevitable"...

*sigh*

SJ Reidhead said...

While I completely disagree with you about the Anglican Bishops of Africa (I think some are an absolute disgrace) I agree about Scolari and that loathsome priest in the UK. This morning I had the fleeting thought that "Where's Henry II when you need him?" because I have given up profanity for Lent.

I think the several of the Anglican Bishops in Africa are an abject disgrace and are the cause of many of our problems here in the US. If they had had the grace to 'butt out' (not profanity) several years ago, I think we could have avoided many of the problems we are having now.

From what I have been told the whole set up for Scolari and Gene Robinson took several years of plotting and planning. Things will eventually change.

But as to Rowan Williams - he is an abject disgrace. The man needs to be removed from his position.

SJR
The Pink Flamingo

Bo said...

Well this might be good news, or not.

Saw a report a couple of months ago that a group of Anglicans have approached the Vatican to start talks to come back into the fold. So looks like a schism is about to happen.

kyros said...

Hi, long time reader of GoV. I posted a couple of times before but nothing substantial. The reason why i'm posting is that I just created a new blog and I would like to get the word out. My new blog is at reportonarrakis.blogspot.com
Thank you very much.

p.s. I love your blog. I'm a daily reader

Englishsummer said...

"The people get the government they truly deserve".

Joseph De Maistre.

Now lets see!.

Gordon Brown - The Labour Party - and on ecumenical matters - Rowan Williams.

If these cretins, are what we the British people truly deserve - then stick us down alongside Iran and North Korea as the most pityful creatures on the face of planet!.

Dr.D said...

@ Bo
The group of Anglicans that have approached Rome are the TAC, the Traditional Anglican Communion, who are not connected to Canterbury at all. Thus what +++Rowan says and does has no impact on them nor they on him. That division has long since occurred.

Richard Lee said...

Before everyone gets into a real state about Rowan Williams effete comments; be aware that he has been roundly condemned and slapped down by all sides in parliment, the press and the general public. Also today we have witnessed the UK govt giving the go ahead for the extradition of that monster Abu Hamza to the US (hopefully to face a good lengthy sentence) and the rejection of a visa request by the psycho Al-Qawadawi. A pretty good day if you ask me.

Diamed said...

Is it just me or is the UK the most obnoxiously PC out of all Europe?

They allow polygamy, ban the 3 little pigs, and now the head of a Christian church is siding with Islamic law.

This despite the fact that there are relatively fewer muslims in the UK than France, Russia, etc--they're always at the leading edge of surrender. What is their secret?

Laine said...

It appears to be a race in Britain as to who can embrace abject dhimmitude and bow and scrape before their Muslim superiors the fastest.

The all time worst example is still this Orwellian nightmare as described by Mark Steyn: "Government Renames Islamic Terrorism As 'Anti-Islamic Activity' To Woo Muslims."

Her Majesty's Government is not alone in feeling it's not always helpful to link Islam and the, ah, various unpleasantnesses with suicide bombers and whatnot. Even in his cowboy Crusader heyday, President Bush liked to cool down the crowd with a lot of religion-of-peace stuff. But the British have now decided that kind of mealy-mouthed "respect" is no longer sufficient. So, henceforth, any terrorism perpetrated by persons of an Islamic persuasion will be designated "anti-Islamic activity." Britain's Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled the new brand name in a speech a few days ago. "There is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief," she told her audience. "Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."

...by insisting on re-labeling terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam as "anti-Islamic activity," Her Majesty's Government is engaging not merely in Orwellian Newspeak but in self-defeating Orwellian Newspeak. The broader message it sends is that ours is a weak culture so unconfident and insecure that if you bomb us and kill us our first urge is to find a way to flatter and apologize to you."

As Steyn goes on to point out, this is the equivalent of Winston Churchill getting up in Parliament and calling the London blitz "anti-German".

The assurance with which Western leaders declare that most Muslims do not approve of Muslim attacks on non-Muslims around the world flies against truckloads of evidence to the contrary including the Koran itself and demonstrates either sheer ignorance or bloody-minded suicidal masochism or cowardice at admitting that the enemy may number a billion.

If there are any wavering Muslims, they'd have to be fools to cast in their lot with this bunch of gutless morons.

PapaBear said...

re: sharia law:
The assumption by some is that Sharia would be a voluntary option for parties who mutually prefer it.

In common law, there is the concept of "undue influence". A Muslim who spurns a Sharia court where one is available would be branded an apostate, for which the penalty is death under Islam. No Muslim woman could appeal to a regular British court over a Sharia court, with any expectation that she would live to see the verdict

regarding why the British authorities seem to be such dhimmis: my suspicions turn to Prince Charles. Either that, or the Saudis have bought controlling interest in too many British corporations

Homophobic Horse said...

Here's what I believe is the crux of the problem:

We think that:

A. Muslims can practice the religion of Islam, it is their right within their individual freedom and liberty,

whilst,

B. Expecting Muslims to not act in an Islamic manner.

Make no mistake, the liberals (among whom we can include libertarians) are close minded and insular. They are backwards and old fashioned. They need to expand their minds to diversity.

We need to circumvent the whole problem with immigration restriction. But you wont like that because it infringes the right of the individual to go where they please. Which just goes to show that libertarianism is impotent as an ideology before Islam.

Michael said...

Un-be-lie-va-ble. What is WRONG with these people?????

Laine said...

Have you noticed that the people who sing the praises of multiculturalism are the same people who can't be bothered to find out anything about the cultures they promote, the laziest thinkers?

They make authoritative pronouncements that have more to do with their own wishful thinking than any factual knowledge. They have put in motion the death of European civilization from untrammeled immigration by intolerant cultures, so they need to believe their actions have been benign and will stubbornly maintain that belief right up to the point where the scimitar slices their neck or the burka makes them disappear.

the doctor said...

The inane comments of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury give rise to questions over his sanity and his ability to lead the Anglican Community .

Anonymousterry said...

Hey there Laine.....good comments!

Has anyone in authority bothered to seek Jaqui Smiths knowledge of Islam? It's obvious to me that she must be totally ignorant on that score which begs this question. How come people in positions such as this are not required to demonstrate thier knowledge of the subject matter that they make decisons on. Or is tunnel vision a requirement of good government these days! Terry

Joanne said...

This less-than-a-man is a coward - to the towers with him.

Afonso Henriques said...

Bron, you funny guy!

Of course this is an invention from your mid, isn't it? I can not believe it, you're joking with serious things you know.

How can the most nobel Nation of Europe which have leaded this all Civilisation for centuries, the Nation who fought almost alone all the Second World War, go so low...

That's when I am proud for having a cultural Catholic background as Italy or Spain, the essence of the Western Roman Empire.

Why couldn't you people adopt that Celtic Catholicism? With all the respect toward Protestants, Rome is the centre of Europe and I ain't even a religious man.

Where is King Arthur to fight this nonsense when it's needed?
Churchill.. Churchill... are you there, Churchill!!!!

Englishsummer said...

Re Afonso;

"Most nobel nation in europe".

Apparently, The British Empire was an "unfortunate period in our Countries shameful past".

As far as "my government" are concerned we are the scum of the earth, and our history is utterly deplorable.

Their only objective it seems, is to wipe my peoples from the face of humanity - then usher in, a more progressive and caring seventh century death cult.

Homophobic Horse said...

"Has anyone in authority bothered to seek Jaqui Smiths knowledge of Islam? It's obvious to me that she must be totally ignorant on that score which begs this question. How come people in positions such as this are not required to demonstrate thier knowledge of the subject matter that they make decisons on. Or is tunnel vision a requirement of good government these days! Terry"

PC has made thinking obsolete. Thinking is a discredited Bourgeois decadence. One does not need to learn about other cultures (though one may of course "experience" diversity), one instead learns recipes of thought. Oriana Fallaci describes this in the paranthesis of the epilogue to "The Force of Reason".

A Socialist society doesn't like facts. Facts have a certain value and thus can make people unequal. For that reason there shall be no facts.

nikolai said...

Diamed wrote

"Is it just me or is the UK the most obnoxiously PC out of all Europe?

This despite the fact that there are relatively fewer muslims in the UK than France, Russia, etc--they're always at the leading edge of surrender. What is their secret?"

One reason is the situation in Scotland where the growth of the Scottish Nationalists means the labour party is losing safe Labour seats. They're desperate to hold onto the muslim ones in England.

They lost a lot of the muslim voters because of Iraq and now they're bending over backwards to get them back. Personally I think it is likely to backfire on them in the English working class areas that haven't been ethnically cleansed yet. Time will tell.

I also wonder about all the Marxists that escaped to the UK and the US during WWII. A lot of the drivers behind PC here seem to be the children of those people.

I have no idea why the church is being so pathetic though. The relentless multi-cultural propaganda from the BBC for the last 40 years has rotted them maybe.

Gregory said...

Wait till that archbullship is all decked out in his church duds and doing a service in some church. Then ONE good man needs to go to the front, confront that weenie-whacker, and then rip off his bullship duds, then, kick his ass right down the church center-aisle and out the front door of the church all the while yelling: "you are fired, you are sacked, ya damn bum". then close the doors and lock him out, then have one of the laymen finish the service.
FIRE THAT DAMNEDABLE ARCHBULLSHIT.

kyros said...

Thanks dymphna! I just added the fold. Still trying to configure the blog to my liking. It's turning out to be more work than I thought!

1389 said...

I don't care what kind of hat Rowan is wearing - he's no Christian.

Gaeidhil said...

Re: PapaBear said...

"regarding why the British authorities seem to be such dhimmis"

I think it has more to do with "chronic lackey syndrome". The english have a strong tendency toward shoe shining there way up any perceived social hierarchy. They have found their new lords.

Yorkshireminer said...

Doesn't his yellow robes suit him? This man is so stupid he doesn't know the difference between kneeing down and bending over.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Steve said...

It turns out that the widely reported UFO over the Isle of Wight is the Archbishop's mother ship, and that happily he will soon be rejoining it and returning to his home planet.
So that's ok then...

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

The english have a strong tendency toward shoe shining there way up any perceived social hierarchy.

Uh... yes. Absolutely. That's how we took over half the planet, by being a bunch of lick spittles and arsekissers. You're exactly right.

History, my friend, has shown that we are a vicious and terrible people when roused. We are not an easy people to rouse, because we are very tolerant of others, which is probably a failing, but when we are provoked into action... well, get out of the way, that's all I can say. Forget all that rubbish about nobility in battle and chivalric attitudes, that's just propaganda and idealisation of the past. An englishman is a lout, a bastard, a man who'll punch you in the head, steal your shoes and then ask for the time of day as if that were perfectly normal. That's the england that fought both world wars, the england that Charles the Second knew he had to obey lest he lose his head. That's the england that currently releases its aggression in football hooliganism and binge drinking, and that's the england that will one day turn on the morons lording over us.

That fundamental element of the English character is why we try so very hard to appear civilised and why we're always so civil towards others. So quick to try and respect others, as if that would make up for our tendency to hit them alot. As a nation we know we're that mob, at heart, but we try to pretend otherwise by putting a veneer of respectability over the top. It always falls off, sooner or later.

Now if you had said politicians instead of the english I'd agree. A politician never saw an arse he wouldn't want to lick or a greasy pole he wouldn't try to climb, but that's politicians.

no2liberals said...

To put it simply: As it goes with American evangelicals, so it will go with western civilization.
It would appear that fight has been lost in the UK.
Christianity is the greatest of all bulwarks against islam.

Afonso Henriques said...

@ Englishsummer,

I have always admired the History of the "Nortwestern Isles", almost as much as I admire my own country's History.
For what I know about World History, I admire Italian History too. All the rest is good, but does not get close to it.
I always liked History and I thought that I had always liked politics.
Thought? Yes, because untill 9/11 I was a leftie, as I was raised, and I only turn explicity to the right when I went to London.
I am no racist, don't get me wrong, here in Lisbon we have a lot of "ethnics" and a lot of majesty too in the air but it is (was) tolerable.
I was shocked when I went to London. British people were, say, 30% of the people, and that time I stayed in Chelsea. It was awful to see all those great monuments representing "pure History" surrounded by "ethnics".
I am no racist but the "browning" of London disgusts me.
I felt like if that great city, a city in which you can small History and Nobility in the air, where you can see honour and pride in the monuments, was raped, as if it was stolen from their rightfully owners. A Nation that Civilised two continents (North America and Australia) may have some value, don't you think?
I became deeply worried about the future of Europe(an Civilisation). Now, it scares me to live in a country that was for centuries homogenious and that now people do not dare to ask for ethnicity in the census. My own estimative, here, 10% of the people are not Portuguese and where I live, it is some 30% and growing.

An insignificant detail I noticed was that, the majority of English people here are blond or light burnettes. In most part of (turistic) London I found less blondes than in Lisbon, Rome and other tipically burnette areas.

You British, are being replaced. And I wouldn't mind if you were to be replaced by something better, something superior, like angels or goddesses or whatever, but, why does the successfull insist of being replaced by the "inferiors"?
The Germanic tribes of the Vth and VIth centuries did not replaced Romanity because they knew it was something closer to the divine, to perfection, will this new barbarian vague do the same?



If they will, they are pretending very well.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Very distressing, but as Lawrence Auster has pointed out in the past this is the logical endpoint of this brand of liberalism - abject surrender to the other. Someone said "effete", very appropriate.

Archonix : The english a mob? :) Perhaps, but envisaging the establishment dropping its bundle and abandoning the barricades entirely - leaving only Millwall supporters as the last diehard defenders of civilization - is somewhat disturbing. Britain was still trying to civilize about 1/4 of the whole planet in its own image less than a century ago.

Anonymous said...

This is why I left the CoE for the Roman Catholic church. At least Benedict XVI knows what the Church should teach, even if some of his bishops don't seem to.

Afonso Henriques said...

Yes, yes, a Europe centred in Rome! That's where the European Union shoud be, Rome, not Brusels.

I do not trust a United Europe without tradition, one "United in Dieversity".

Aechonix, very, but really very good text.

David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 02/08/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Anonymous said...

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”

- St. John Chrysostom

http://countryparson.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/quote-for-today-3/

Simon de Montfort said...

Ah, a thread about The Anglish ( as me ma used to say ) and their Qualities. Can't resist.

That English-man who decried the Lack of Quality of his nation's politicians was unfortunately correct. You get the occasional Churchill or Thatcher, but as a rule English politicians and bureaucrats are sh+t--Tory or Labour.

Interesting point about Labour losing seats to the Scottish Nationalist Party, but the Scot-Nats seem all too willing to join a governing coalition with Labour, so............

Of course Muslims vote Labour; the link between those who use government services ( council flats & public transportation & the UB-40s, etc. ) was documented over a half-century ago by English political scientists. Another noteworthy study was the role of 'deference' in English politics a generation or two ago--which seems to have deteriorated into more and more English voters having a 'client mentality' and being dependent on government services ( and voting Labour out of an uninspiring mix of pure laziness and ultra-selfish self-interest.

Oh, and the Race Thing: England is a large nation, with the 'Greater London Metropolitan Area' having about as many people as Scotland and Wales combined. Trying to maintain some sort of 'racial identity' in any such large nation is probably doomed, but culture CAN be maintained--and defended.

You Anglish better wake up and......oh wait, you've heard this Warning before. oh, well

There are only 4 millions in "Eire" and another 1 i/2 millions in the Six Counties. Ireland, dispite its political division, has a distinct racial identity which I would like to preserve and protect

Call me whatever you want: I live in central Wicklow but am from Tipperary ( North Riding ). People in Wicklow used to regard me as a foreigner ( from 60-70 miles away ), but now there are Bosnian Muslims and Albanians and Poles and...........

I don't like it. This isn't Bosnia or Albania or Poland. Ireland fought The Anglish for 800 years to preverve what is essentially a racial identity, and I don't want it overwhelmed for the sake of continued Brussels subsidies

Dymphna said...

Ah, Simon de Montfort is here!

Of course Muslims vote Labour; the link between those who use government services ( council flats & public transportation & the UB-40s, etc. ) was documented over a half-century ago by English political scientists. Another noteworthy study was the role of 'deference' in English politics a generation or two ago--which seems to have deteriorated into more and more English voters having a 'client mentality' and being dependent on government services ( and voting Labour out of an uninspiring mix of pure laziness and ultra-selfish self-interest.

I think you'd enjoy a book by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Senator Clinton ran for his senatorial seat when he resigned. He is most famous for his totally non-p.c. book (back before the concept of p.c. was invented)

Here is a snip from a 2005 City Journal aricle on the issue:

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies

...So why does the Times, like so many who rail against inequality, fall silent on the relation between poverty and single-parent families? To answer that question—and to continue the confrontation with facts that Americans still prefer not to mention in polite company—you have to go back exactly 40 years. That was when a resounding cry of outrage echoed throughout Washington and the civil rights movement in reaction to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Department of Labor report warning that the ghetto family was in disarray. Entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” the prophetic report prompted civil rights leaders, academics, politicians, and pundits to make a momentous—and, as time has shown, tragically wrong—decision about how to frame the national discussion about poverty.

To go back to the political and social moment before the battle broke out over the Moynihan report is to return to a time before the country’s discussion of black poverty had hardened into fixed orthodoxies—before phrases like “blaming the victim,” “self-esteem,” “out-of-wedlock childbearing” (the term at the time was “illegitimacy”), and even “teen pregnancy” had become current. While solving the black poverty problem seemed an immense political challenge, as a conceptual matter it didn’t seem like rocket science. Most analysts assumed that once the nation removed discriminatory legal barriers and expanded employment opportunities, blacks would advance, just as poor immigrants had.


Black advancement didn't happen because of our move toward socialism in the guise of a "war" on poverty, launched by the Democrats.

Moynihan, a brilliant man, broke ranks with them to write his now historical and prophetic The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Every dolorous prediction he made came true.

But do the Dems learn from history at all? Sure do! They discovered that entitlements for the poor meant votes from the poor. Meanwhile, families tottered and broke.

The book is still around and can probably be purchased for very little. In it you will see the British situation written with an American accent.

You might also enjoy rreading the whole of the City Journal article linked above.

Simon de Montfort said...

I confess my occupationm D: political science professor, with enough graduate-level work in history and philosphy to teach those subjects at the 'community college' level.

These days, most of my classes are on-line, which allows me to be anywhere, and to wander about in the middle of semesters.

So yes, I have read through Professor Moynihan's several books. He's had the same basic idea since about 1965: the Welfare Bureaucracy is potentially good but even more potentially bad, with a tendency to harm those it tries hardest to help.

I'd agree that for poor families of all colors in all modern societies, the bureaucrats who are well-paid to help them have created Havoc: Oddly-- coincidently--drugs arrived at about the same time, accelerating and spreading the Misery.

Regarding what I said about Ireland, I suppose 'nationality' is a better term than 'race'--or the two are essentially the same.

It has been so terribly difficult to maintain an Irish nationality, so I don't want that fragile Thing to die

Baron Bodissey said...

Languille Lady --

Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.

Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.

--------------------------

Languille Lady said...

Thank you Baron for "As a reluctant member of the Anglican Soviet Communion, I’ve been embarrassed more than once by the leaders of the hierarchy. " It appears we have something else in common.

As an Anglican, formerly TEC (Episcopal),this has got to be the low of lows for the Communion. It is bad enough that the ABC is appointed, which might explain how this total idiot got where he did. However, if he was appointed, surely he can be unappointed. When I left TEC, I "thought" I was making a good move to an Anglican church with African oversight, but have watched the Anglican Communion literally disintegrating, and am totally ashamed, today, of being an Anglican, and being a part of an "organization" under this idiot.

Will the pandering to the Muslims in Britain ever end? What will it take? A nuclear something??

Let's just hope upon hope, and pray , that the ArchDruid's remarks cause such an outcry in the UK that he is fired, and the Brits, Anglican or not, will have some sort of wake-up. Of course there is the chance that if ABC RW is fired, he could be replaced with someone worse, like the American priestess who claimed to be both Christian and Muslim, Anne Holmes Redding (link)

nikolai said...

Simon de Montfort wrote

"Interesting point about Labour losing seats to the Scottish Nationalist Party, but the Scot-Nats seem all too willing to join a governing coalition with Labour, so............"

True but they have to hedge against the possibility of independence as well. That's a lot of safe seats to make up somewhere. Hence (imo) the current mad rush of immigration and the building of millions of new homes in what I expect will be marginal constituencies.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Oh, and the Race Thing: England is a large nation, with the 'Greater London Metropolitan Area' having about as many people as Scotland and Wales combined. Trying to maintain some sort of 'racial identity' in any such large nation is probably doomed"

Why is it doomed, Simon?
Racial/National (I think the last one is the apropriate) Identity/conscience/pride is always constructed in relation to the others.
If others are within our lands, those others will be (in a natural system) seen as bigger FOREIGNERS than others. Look at the gypsies in Southeastern Europe.
And, once you say that "it is too big" to keep a Racial/National Identity I'll give you the exemple of Adolf Hitler who constucter a strong Germanic National Identity from Carinthia in Southern Austria to Lapland in Nothern Sweden. The Racial thing was popular, the political domination otherwise... sometimes...

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I suppose it depends how you define these things. The traditional rivaly between the north and south of england actually extends back to the kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria, with some filtering through the Yorkists and the Lancastrians at a latter point. At that level it's an almost racial conflict, certainly a nationalist one, however attenuated it's become over the centuries. You can draw a line from somewhere on the coast of yorkshire to the bottom end of offa's dyke and be certain that most of the people above it are descended from danes and norwegians, whilst most of the people below it are saxon and norman french. These are fairly distinct nationalities that are subsumed within the more general identification of "English". We're not even touching the welsh, scots and other pre-roman natives yet, either... the English counties still broadly follow the lines of the kingdoms that used to exist prior to the unification of the country under Harold and then subsequently under the Normans and, even today, there are still traceable genetic and cultural differences between them. Just two hundred years ago most of the counties had their own distinct dialect of english, so distinct in fact that some of them were almost separate languages. Even fifty years ago you'd be likely to find people speaking distinct and barely understandable dialects in the more rural areas.

Nevertheless, we were and are all united as the "English race", in the much broader sense of the term as national, religious and cultural unity rather than simple genetics. All the nations of England shared common heritage. They had the same concept of law, representation, individuality and freedom that they inherited from the low german invaders, the angles, jutes, saxons, danes and so on. It was ultimately the railways that made us truly united. Even so, for the majority of the second millennium AD, england was a single nation as we understand the term. Our nationality is there. It's worth preserving.

All of which brings up an interesting question, actually. The Welsh are starting to show an increasing tendency toward nationalism. Wales is still highly homogenously welsh with very little saxon or danish influence apart from a few spots on the coast, which gives welsh nationalism a distinctly "racial" tone if you're willing to look at it that way. I suppose if ou want to be generous you could call it "culturalist" instead. Now this particular nationalism has fairly broad support amongst more than a few americans I've spoken to in the past, who think that the welsh have been "oppressed"... and, to be fair, in a lot of ways they have. Welsh was an illegal language at one point and it's still technically legal to shoot a welshman within the city walls of chester after sunset.

So what, then, is the difference between welsh nationalism and flemish? The comparisons are quite apt. Flemish was an oppressed language for most of Belgium's history, and the Flemish themselves were often treated as second-class citizens. What's the difference between that and wales? Wrong sort of white people? The fact that they have a germanic sounding accent? The more extreme welsh nationalists want to throw out the english for not being welsh. Is that racism?

thll said...

Yes - the worse it gets the better it gets.

The dozy archbishop confirmed his dozyness today when he expressed surprise at the reaction to his ramblings. Can you believe that? Just how out of touch is this guy?

But then he is one of them, a senior member of the liberal elite and thus inhabits a fantasy world.

What's good is the public reaction. It says to me that a growing number is becoming aware of the threat in our midst and *they are willing to voice their concerns*. How positive is that!

Let's have a lot more idiocies from the idiocracy.

SouthernFriedBear said...

So what, then, is the difference between welsh nationalism and flemish?

Romanticism.

Which excuses all sorts of bigotry apparently.

SouthernFriedBear said...

s/Romanticism/American Romanticism/

Need more coffee.

USpace said...

IMHO Dr. Williams is insane and/or evil. He should be put out to pasture ASAP. He is a traitor to England and to all Christians and freedom-loving people everywhere; and he deserves to be vilified for the rest of his life and beyond.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
the Archbishop is correct

little by little allow
mad mullahs to call the shots


absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
freedom is bollocks

dismantle your human rights
earned over centuries


absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never dethrone leaders

religious ones are special
give them lifetime positions


absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com
.