Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns


Cameron Displays British Backbone

Aside from the introductory blather differentiating peaceful Islam from militant Islamism, British Prime Minister Cameron gave a truly interesting, prudent and politically-incorrect speech before the Munich Security Conference. The Telegraph summed up the speech as:

British Muslims must subscribe to mainstream values of freedom and equality, David Cameron declared that the doctrine of multiculturalism has "failed" and will be abandoned.

Cameron is calling for an end to Britain's multicultural, "passive tolerance" of the segregated communities which breed Muslim terrorists. Rather, he seeks an "active, muscular liberalism" which promotes core British values at all levels of society. 

The relevant portion begins at 2:30.


How very lamentable that I must live vicariously through Britain for sensible, courageous leadership.

Categories > Conservatism

Discussions - 38 Comments

Check out this German town - they also have politically incorrect views on religious and ethnic minorities and won't put up with silly multicultural tolerance!

Perhaps you could live vicariously in Jamel?

Your point is precisely what?

He cannot get the difference between David Cameron and Hitler.

Or perhaps the article is meant to point up the problem with democracy, that when people with illiberal views gain demographic power, it makes life very difficult for everyone else in the vicinity.

Since when is it the definitional test of a liberal democracy its eagerness to tolerate within it those agitating for cultural and political totalitarianism?

Where is that stated within "the Great Charter?"

Or more recently, where exactly is that notion located within the Federalist, or for that matter, the anti-Federalist papers?

Moving on from that canard, ------------- what exactly does the Prime Minister propose doing with those that refuse to get with the program?

For over 15 years it's been crystal clear that the followers of Mohammad refuse to subscribe to Western values, even as they increasingly flock to Western shores and clamor unceasingly for Western handouts.

And in the face of this Western politicos have done nothing but pander to them for their votes.

So what now?

Oh, I get the difference, Kate - and it's a rather vast difference.

The problem with making useful and intelligent distinctions lies with the right-wing, as we can see from Justin's post, wherein he derisively dismisses as "blather" PM Cameron's "differentiating peaceful Islam from militant Islamism" - in other words, Cameron is wise (like a Tea Partier) only to the extent that he treats ALL Muslims as suspected terrorists and doesn't act "politically correct" by acknowledging the reality that only a tiny fraction of Muslims even support terrorism in theory, let alone play a part in terrorist acts. Even if his policies will be more extreme than his rhetoric, the mild rhetoric is problematic. This goes right along with the education offered at Glenn Beck University, wherein Beck proclaims that 10% of the world's Muslims are terrorists (which the probable terrorist sympathizer Fareed Zakaria handily deconstructed).

Further, the Tea Party right-wing can't seem to comprehend meaningful distinctions between the incredibly milquetoast man of "continuity" (see Cheney) that is Barack Obama and Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. That's why only the absolute wildest conspiracy theories are rejected by Republicans anymore. Birther loons are welcome in the party, just as long as they phrase their ludicrous "ideas" as "questions" - you know, I'm "just wondering" why Obama doesn't settle the matter (which has been settled, 100X over).

Well, let's see how well Zakaria is at "deconstructing" the political and cultural leadership in Gaza, or Egypt, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, ----------- or Kuwait.

Get the picture?

When are outside observers allowed to reach conclusions without accusations of racism thrown in their face, or ignorance for that matter?

Well, not all muslims, blah, blah, blah ......

Yeah, and not all Germans desired to overrun Poland in 1939, yet nonetheless Germany overran Poland.

And surely not all Japanese wanted to initiate war against the United States, Yammoto comes to mind, but nonetheless Japan did go to war with the United States.

So what exactly is the point of observing that not all followers of Mohammad are fully on board with shariaa.

What is the usefulness of so obvious an observation. Indeed so obvious as to be utterly irrelevant.

As always, Scanlon, your comments are snarky and irrelevant. Where's that fly paper when you need it?

A good talk, but far too much hand-wringing about devote peaceful Muslims. The fact is, these terrorist cells could not function without the protection of Muslim communities. I'm with the "hard right" on this one -- Europe has no place for Islam. That religion is incompatible with modern European governance, although I do think Muslims have a point to make about the decadence of Western society.

Western democracies need to learn this lesson -- not every group can be assimilated. Moreover, (and listen up, you libertarians) culture comes before polity, and in fact governance resets on culture. Every nation-state everywhere has to be somewhat "fascist" to retain its coherence and efficacy. This whole notion of a neutral-broker polity is just stupid as hell, verging on suicidal.

Again, I will pay for your one-way ticket to that German Town. You can then blog to us on a daily basis how great of a life you are living there. Liberals always point to how great some country is when defending their ridiculous factless opinions. The problem with their argument is that don't live there....

Did he just call David Cameron a Nazi?

He went on a tear about Glenn Beck, the Tea Parties, and Orly Taitz. It is all connected somehow, in his mind.

Here's a recap for those of you joining the conversation:

Paulette: Hooray for Cameron for saying that multiculturalism has failed.

Scanlon: There's a village in Germany that likes Nazis.

Art Deco, et al.: Are you suggesting some connection between Cameron and the Nazis?

Scanlon: No, of course not! It's conservatives who do that! Glenn Beck! Tea Parties! BOOGA-BOOGA-BOOGA!

Redwald: Contrary to what silly libertarians say, fascism has its good points.


Frankly, there is a huge difference between the strict rules of the Muslim countries and the rules of the Western world. I think the international community needs to instigate new measures in order to prevent the rising threat of extremism and the British PM has just outlined one of the possible ways.

You know, Moser, you are becoming more like Scanlon every day! I guess it comes with the (radical) territory, whether Leftist or Rightist.

My point about fascism is that any time a national government regulates its own culture (which is MUST do on occasion), Libertarians usually scream "fascism!' They are very wearisome in this regard, which often leads them into error (e.g., open borders, legalization of you name it, gay marriage). In terms of suicidal tendencies, I view them no differently from the multicultural left, the only difference being "the savior." For the Left, it's big centralized government, for the Libertarian, it's the Market (all praise be its name, world without end, Amen).

Conservatives understand the contradictory nature of human beings, thereby understanding that a balancing act is always called for. There is no single "fix" or "central principle" that will save us. To believe so is lazy thinking and rather childish.

You made me choke on my tea.

OK, but I don't know that I'd call what you are talking about "fascism" so much as a reverence for the ancestral/tradition.

...and in fact, I did not suggest a connection between Cameron and the Nazis (do conservatives suggest that? That'd be odd, indeed).

What I DID suggest was that, if Justin appreciates a politically incorrect rejection of multicultural tolerance, he just might like the bold, muscular approach taken by (most) residents of Jamel. Perhaps.

Further, my point about Glenn Beck wasn't "Booga-Booga-Booga" (??) but that this Ashbrook-honored blowhard also likes to paint (smear) Islam as a monolithic pseudo-religion of terror (not the One, True Religion, which I'm guessing for Justin would be Catholicism).

They're not always as open and forthright about it as Justin is (chalk it up to manliness, I suppose), but it seems clear enough to me that most of the bloggers here are at least a couple of clicks to the right of Cameron. He's obviously not a liberal, but I'd be curious to know the devilish details of how Cameron plans to put "an end to Britain's multicultural, 'passive tolerance' of the segregated communities which breed Muslim terrorists." Perhaps he's made a major shift in his views (reflecting either a genuine shift in his outlook, or perhaps political calculation was involved), but still, this is the same man who did write, less than 4 yrs. ago (after spending some time with a British Pakistani family), that:

"Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate."

"Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."

"If we want to remind ourselves of British values - hospitality, tolerance and generosity to name just three - there are plenty of British Muslims ready to show us what those things really mean." (Did he just say that TOLERANCE was a British value?)

[Amusingly, I note this from the same piece, and keep in mind Justin's use of "Islamism":
"We do need greater understanding of the true nature of the terrorist threat (...) But our efforts are not helped by lazy use of language. Indeed, by using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them..."]

[Egads!!! In that same piece he even quoted Edmund Burke to make a point that could be construed as something less than 100% love-it-or-leave-it patriotic! This:
"And the third step in promoting integration is to ensure there's something worth integrating into. 'To make men love their country,' said Edmund Burke, 'their country ought to be lovable.' Integration has to be about more than immigrant communities, 'their' responsibilities and 'their' duties. It has to be about 'us' too - the quality of life that we offer, our society and our values."]

All of those are thoughts that I can hardly fathom reading here at NLT, where "differentiating peaceful Islam from militant Islamism" is derided as "blather."

Kate - I wonder why you nearly choked on your tea. For starters, I can think of three separate episodes here at NLT where you were strikingly coy when given the chance to distance yourself from real Nazi/neo-Nazi sympathizers and sentiments (I can provide links):

1. Your refusal to see the problem with Glenn Beck's promotion of American Nazi sympathizer (and quite possible outright Nazi) Elizabeth Dilling.

2. Your weak attempt to trivialize Ohio congressional candidate Rich Iott's involvement with a WWII reenactment (dress-up) group that both badly distorted history and attempted to put an honorable sheen on a murderous division of the SS (Wiking).

3. Your agreement with Dain that [and this is quite pertinent to the issues of the original blog-post here] mass deportations of Muslims, including by putting them on trains, to "achieve some breathing space" (Dain's words) appealed to you:

(You said:)
"I confess to being frightened of Sharia and if a shifting demographic brings that closer, then dain’s trains have appeal to me."

So, again, I think most of NLT's bloggers (and many of their readers and commenters) are at least a couple clicks to the right of David Cameron.

Craig, countenancing you on this forum is proof enough that the NLT community is experienced in toleration.

You'd better provide the links, Craig. I believe you are misinterpreting by taking things I said out of the context of the arguments.

No. Never mind. We've been through this before. I never knew self-defense could be so boring.

I've not misinterpreted what you wrote. #1 and #3 are quite clear and don't really require any kind of interpretation. Of course you're free to try to slither out from under your own words, but I doubt that any attempts you might make at writing esoterically would fail the sniff test.

I'll provide the links (although anyone with a basic grasp of how to use Google could find them) if you can spare me the "I'm bored" schtick.

Since when is "self-defense" (oh no!! Are you under attack? Being victimized?!!?) supposed to be amusing or entertaining?

As long as you're going to claim that you're engaged in self-defense, I would also like to see you provide a shred of evidence - the tiniest shred - that I "have been so defensive of Al Qaeda and Taliban." - as you stated here:

(edit: I SUSPECT that any attempts you might make at writing esoterically would fail the sniff test.)

but I'd be curious to know the devilish details of how Cameron plans to put "an end to Britain's multicultural, 'passive tolerance' of the segregated communities which breed Muslim terrorists

1. Enforce the penal code (and that means crime results in imprisonment) without fear or favor.

2. Enforce and administer domestic relations law without fear or favor.

3. Require that immigrants pay taxes on earned income for an interim period of time before they and their dependents are eligible for public benefit programs.

4. Limit cash transfers to the elderly, the disabled, and the recently unemployed. Be very skeptical of applicants for disability benefits.

5. Place a time-limit of nine months on unemployment compensation.

6. Auction off the stock of public housing and remove any rent controls.

7. End a miscellany of preferences in immigration law, especially family preferences. Require at a minimum that aspirant immigrants and their adolescent children pass a written and oral examination in English before allowing them to immigrate.

8. Suspend the right of residency and deport (for a term of years or permanently) immigrants who have committed one of a menu of violations of the penal code or domestic relations code. Do so after they have served any sentence of imprisonment they are due. Do so also for immigrants who have been a public charge without justification.

9. Withdraw from the European Union and repudiate the whole body of Union legislation, incorporating by statute only portions which seem advisable to Parliament.

10. Scrap the British equivalent of American civil rights law and allow private parties discretion in contracts and and association. Have recruitment and promotion in the civil service done through competitive examination without fear or favor.

11. Add supplementary screens (up to and including outright prohibition) to immigration from a menu of problem countries. By way of example: refusal of entry to unmarried males in a certain age range.

12. Repudiate, publicly and frequently, the anti-Semites in the British chatterati.

AD, well done. That's a nice long list of very practical things that would get Britain (and the U.S.) moving in the right direction on cultural survival.

As for Scanlon, he has devolved into minutia.

Minerva, I too set a high bar for "real" fascism, but that's not the case for most people who use the term as a pejorative. Generally the term is used whenever the majority group moves to protect its hegemony in both civil society and the state, no matter how sensibly and legally. Libertarians are about as bad as Leftists in using the term this way, although I will say that at least the Libertarians are sincere in their distaste for government action. The Left simply uses the term to de-legitimate such protective actions so it can use the mechanism of government to destroy that cultural hegemony (hence the ongoing culture war).

I'm sorry if Professor Moser objects to my continued critique of libertarianism, but someone has to do it.

Interesting list - is it yours or Cameron's? (If Cameron's, can you provide a source/link, please?)

My unsolicited suggestions.

Craig, about your correction, I wouldn't have expected that you meant anything nice.

What I mean was that explaining ourselves is tedious. I have explained those things before, all of them. That was bad enough those times. I suppose, in a sense, it is flattering that you care that much about what I have said, but if you want to take me to task about do it in an email. You can probably track me down. Others have.

A.D, that is a good and thoughtful list and much of it relates to immigrant management in a more general way, too, doesn't it?

So, in other words, you haven't been able to find a shred of evidence to back up your earlier statement that I've been "defensive of Al Qaeda and Taliban" (other than "that's what Hal Holst told me") and you're looking to exit as gracefully as possible?

"I have explained those things before, all of them. That was bad enough those times."

You're quite right - your attempts at explanations were very bad.

Craig, I am not looking. I don't care enough. Even if I explain myself in depth, in a couple of months you will bring the whole thing up again. I don't know why you do this. What's your problem?

Not immigrant management, immigrant reception. Immigrants do not need managing. They will manage as well as anyone if we have correctly screened them and the incentives and social signals they are greeted with work to the mutual benefit of the immigrant and the host society. Manufacturing slums filled with public housing populated with alienated and idle young men is not in anyone's interest.

That's a good and useful correction. Thank you.

I'd love to see someone here address Glenn Beck's recent fearmongering spree about Egypt, the caliphate, and Islamism, and - in a related matter - the spat between Ashbrook board member Bill Kristol and (Ashbrook-honored) Beck.

Loyal NLT readers - whose side to take???

Good summary of the Beck v. Kristol situation thus far:

The speech was made in Munich, to please Merkel by taking her line - Cameron did used to be a shallow PR man, after all. Over here Cameron doesn't want to risk losing ANY Muslim votes. Nothing will change.

S.I. Hiyakawa was during his election campaign in 1976 asked a question about off-track betting and dog racing. His answer:

"I don't give a good goddamn about dog racing".

Beck and Kristol both agree on the most important thing, that your pro-Arab.

Who cares?

"Beck and Kristol both agree on the most important thing, that your pro-Arab."

My pro-Arab....what???

My pro-Arab dog, cat, friend, car, sweater??

And what about it?

You have this bad habit of not finishing your sentences, Hal.

I often read this blog and generally consider myself a moderate right of center type. I virtually never contribute to the discussion but am genuinely confused by Craig's participation over and over again. He clearly spends an enormous amount of his own time on this blog, and tracks the contributions of others with an accountant's meticulousness. But why? He clearly doesn't think he has anything to learn from anyone here-his mind is firmly made up when he arrives and has little respect for the other contributors. He also clearly doesn't believe has has any chance of convincing anyone of his point of view, not that anyone is ever opened up to persuasion by being scolded. Finally, he clearly doesn't like the other participants so it can't be here for the pleasure of their conversational company. So is he merely a very bitter and lonely person who feels the need to vent his frustration at others? I would never dream of frequenting a tavern populated by people I thought were evil idiots, too stupid to teach or learn from. That would be pathological. Why is this any different? As for the NLT crew, with only a few exceptions, you're remarkably tolerant given the acrimoniousness of his style (Kate, in particular, is quite the class act).

I received 1 st mortgage loans when I was 20 and that helped my relatives a lot. Nevertheless, I require the short term loan as well.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

1 TrackBack
TrackBack URL:

Autriastan from No Left Turns on February 15, 2011 3:30 PM

Austria is the latest European nation to fall prostrate before Islamic claims of supremacy. After speaking at a political event on women's rights and jihad in the Middle East, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff reasoned that Mohammed was a "pedophile" for havi... Read More

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2011/02/cameron-displays-british-backbone.php on line 1558

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2011/02/cameron-displays-british-backbone.php on line 1558