|The Things They're Saying||Extracts from the mainstream media|
Shooting the messenger
Thank goodness for the British National Party! What would my friends of the liberal metropolitan elite - or their colleagues in the media do without it?
Those battles in Burnley, the arson in Acrington, trouble in Leeds, riots in Oldham?
Well, you see, the BNP is at work, stirring people up against the ethnic communities.
Then there are the comments of John Townend, the outgoing Tory MP for Bridlington (thank Goodness for him too!), with that awful speech about our culture being undermined by massive Commonwealth immigration and further threatened by bogus asylum-seekers. He just stirred the pot.
Perish the thought that these problems might stem from the metropolitan elite's readiness to permit, embrace and encourage mass Commonwealth immigration since the 1960's, despite the immense hostility to it among ordinary voters shown in poll after poll.
Andrew Alexander, Daily Mail (6.7.01)
In mainstream Israel these past months, the Palestinian dead have scarcely registered beside the far smaller number of Israeli fatalities. Photographs and biographical details of the two Israeli boys stoned to death last week, for instance, were broadcast around the world. Most Palestinian fatalities remain nameless and faceless.
Liz McGregor, The Guardian (17.5.01)
Oppression of Palestinians
Ian Katz explains Israel's dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians as a response to their experience and memory of the Holocaust, which took place over 50 years ago (Did we do this? G2 May 24). I hope he is similarly understanding of the Palestinians' hostility and militancy towards Israel in view of their ongoing experience of dispossession and oppression, which has lasted for over 50 years.
Iqbal Siddiqui, Letter in The Guardian (25.5.01)
Conservative policy contradictions
Like a brain-damaged boxer reeling about the ring, the Conservative Party appears to be bouncing from one place on the philosophical ropes to another.
Senior party panjandrums say their constituents' families are busy producing children out of wedlock, living with "partners" and taking drugs. This is presumably what Ken Clarke meant when he said: "Conservatives should all be social liberals, accepting personal liberty to choose different lifestyles and welcoming the cultural diversity of modern Britain."
That sentence encapsulates the destructive confusions of current thinking. This social liberalism is supposed to represent the centre ground of politics, that holy grail of electoral success, but it is nothing of the kind. Words such as "tolerant" and "moderate" have been turned inside out.
Social liberalism has come to mean instead an "anything goes" approach. This is not liberal and it is not social. It is in fact an anarchic, anti-social doctrine that does harm and creates victims. The "liberal" approach to drug-taking, ranging from turning a blind eye to cannabis and legalising hard drugs, means creating more addicts, more individual destruction and more harm to society, economy and culture. The "tolerant" approach to the dismembered family means more children with shattered emotional lives and poorer life chances, more ill-health, more child-abuse, more domestic violence between adults and more crime in general.
Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times (1.7.01)
Traditional family values upheld
Increasingly, evidence has shown that children who don't know their fathers feel rejected, abandoned and angry. Children need fathers because the two sexes bring totally different strengths to parenthood.
The feminists' belief that there are no differences between men and women has proved to be false.
The natural instinct of mothers is to protect, comfort and nurture. They want their children, above all, to he happy, often at the expense of discipline.
Traditionally, women spoil sons and this needs to be counter-balanced by less emotional and stricter fathers. Mothers yearn to be loved and fathers want to be obeyed. It's men who teach their sons to control their aggression and, in the end, to respect women.
Linda Lee Potter, Daily Mail (11.7.01)
A very "Illiberal" Conservative
"The Tories cannot continue as the nasty, exclusive, rather angry, backward-looking party," says Steven Norris, described as vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, in an interview he gave, suitably enough, to the New Statesman...
Norris is only one of a chorus of voices urging the Tories to seek "the centre ground" and fit in with "our tolerant, liberal, multi-cultural society." If the Tory party exists only to get elected to government by flattering and cajoling the more gullible electors and encouraging them in the fashionable opinions they have been brainwashed into holding, then this advice may be sound.
In that case, the Tory Party offers nothing the other two principal parties don't already offer. If it is to have any point it must appeal to something different and better. It must be "exclusive." There are a great many features of our society it ought to exclude.
It must be backward-looking too, learning from former times when things went better and how to make them go better in the future. It must be not so much "rather angry" as very angry at the tragic state of a country pervaded by desperate hedonism, vile entertainment, savagery, crime, and a demented lust for money. There is an old-fashioned word for this. It is decadence.
Peter Simple, Daily Telegraph (29.6.01)
How wonderful of Mark Steyn ("Tolerance means terror", 14th July) to speak up for the downtrodden masses - those of us who have seen our population bullied into the greatest social upheaval since the Norman Conquest - all in the vain pursuit of the "tolerance of diversity" image. In Northern Ireland we can't even organise just two diverse peoples to share the same territory in harmony. What chance have we when there are many?
I spend much time in America, where they have overturned their inspiring and powerful formula of "each individual equal in the eyes of the state" in favour of gender, racial and minority rights and preferences. As a result, the American population is splintering into competing ethnic groups. It has become balkanised, ill-at-ease society, suffering from multiple personality disorder.
Will the British population wake up in time to reverse the multi-cultural disaster that is being visited on the nation by the well-meaning, but hopelessly naive, liberal consensus?
Geoff Bond, Letter in The Spectator (21.7.01)
For our rulers, the small livestock farmers of England (as opposed to the large-scale arable farmers) are evidently expendable. After all, they tend to be conservative in the true sense; they are patriotic; they come from some of the best human stock in England, but they have got in the way of planned, multi-cultural Britain, of "Europe," of the future One-World Government....
Conspiracy theories may seem ridiculous. But it does not follow that there are no conspiracies.
Peter Simple, Daily Telegraph (20.7.01)