It could have been so much worse. Another sunny day in London and another series of attacks. Mercifully, as far as I know, no-one has been killed. My fellow Pimlico friend, Andrew Ian Dodge has a good take on the details. Tim Worstall has views here, including ideas on what the motivation of the attacks were in this case.
It appears that at least one person involved in the attacks has been arrested. Perhaps CCTV recordings of the attacks could yield more evidence. What this latest incident suggests is that CCTV, long bemoaned by us libertarians, can certainly record valuable evidence after a crime has been committed but that is not much consolation to the victims. The outrages are certainly going to give further ammunition to the police in arguing that every cubic metre of London needs to have a camera in it. I think that in public spaces that are paid for by the public and clearly key potential targets for terror groups, CCTV has its uses and it is pretty silly to get oxidised about it. But, and it is a big but, such things are clearly no deterrent. (Thanks to U.S. libertarian blogger Jim Henley for prodding me to write about this).
I was in the Aldwych area of London – near the London School of Economics, when the attacks happened. I first heard by a mobile call from my fiancee. Walking back to the office, it was remarkable how relaxed everyone was. In fact, the strained looks on some people’s faces had more to do with the English batting implosion against Australia at the cricket.
Meanwhile, in reflecting on the cultural issues prompted by the current mayhem, go read this fine and no-holds-barred article in the Spectator.
I dunno. 21 for 5 is pretty bad.
EG
Is it possible that the bombs did not go off because an infiltrated agent in the murder cult made sure they weren’t made right? This would explain why they all were duds and would provide a lot of evidence and captives, which appears to have been the result.
Robert Spiers, mebbe, mebbe not. It is clear that the police have got lots of forensic evidence and leads which may also prove useful in connection with the mass murders. This appears a rather amateurish series of events.
Euan, you are right. I thought we had the Aussies cornered and then, normal service gets resumed. Bah.
Quote of the day has to be, “be on the look out for a 6’2″ black or Asian man with wires coming out of his head” – Metropolitan Police to University College Hospital staff.
Indeed, all out for 190 was an impressive start, but one can always rely upon England to do their patriotic duty and show Johnny Foreigner how to lose gracefully. Builds character, apparently. However, since the match is not yet lost, we might move with the times and call it deferred success.
Getting back to the bombs, though. One sees how assimilated these young men have become – heroically incompetent failure in the face of underwhelming odds, quite in keeping with the best traditions of these septic isles. Presumably they played cricket.
I think it highly likely that either this was a hideously incompetent planned raid or an unrelated copycat. Frankly, if this is the best they can do, I see little reason to worry unduly. I think much of the reaction to the earlier bombs and no doubt to this will be entirely unwarranted hysteria. If the terrorists were capable of launching a large scale attack with mass casualties, I see no reason why they would not have done so. And if you can’t do that in London, where the Hell can you do it?
I think this betrays the fact that the UK terrorist effort is amateurish, underfunded, underequipped and seriously lacking in the conspiratorial skill & expertise so often attributed to it.
EG
yeah EG, and people like you will be downplaying the threat to this country until the day your family gets blown to pieces.
If you multicultis wanted to live in the Balkans why don’t you just go their instead of trying to fk up this country (or making excuses for those who do).
Yes these young men should be caught as soon as possible and offered counselling. Possibly compensated too, for the non-delivery of promised virgins.
Dave,
Perhaps you could give some plausible reasons why the vast Islamofascist conspiracy has not, in fact, caused any significant terrorist outrage in UK territory at any time ever until July 7, and even when it did manage to do something the casualties were very light, the bombs tiny and the organisation somewhat amateurish?
Perhaps they are deviously trying to lull us into a true sense of security? Perhaps when the Moslems smoke, drink, take drugs and whore around they are only pretending? Not swallowing, possibly? Perhaps they are intentionally foiling the swinish plots of some to purify our vital bodily fluids by deporting those who are, conventiently, visibly different?
Do you know many Moslems? Ever worked with them? Socialised?
EG
The bomb in Bali came before any Australian troops deployed to Iraq and there have been Al Qaeda attacks for 12 years now. Anyone who thinks that this would stop if we pulled out of Iraq needs to seriously look at their world view.
As for the attacks today (which I got caught up in), it reminds me of the early IRA: a great many farcical “attacks” and own-goals mixed in with some “successes”. Like the IRA, if they do not all blow themselves up, they will learn to do it better next time or the time after that.
Although I live in the leafy shires, I don’t work there. I know lots of Muslims (I have employed several over the years). Some are quite assimilated and other not at all. If it was up to me, I would make those who are not a great deal less welcome here.
Uhh, because Blair, Bush et al, have seriously damaged the Islamofascist’s leadership and finacial infrastructure?
If it’s damaged to the extent that a couple of damp squibs on the Tube is their best shot, could YOU explain why we should worry any longer?
EG
I was conveying the events of today to someone who had been isolated by events by working in a Server room. He genuinely thought I was telling a joke and commented that it must have been the Irish wing of the Al Queda movement…
Euan Gray says:
Yes, sunshine. When you grow up in Walthamstow in east London, playing football with them, playing cricket with them, studying with them and yes, even drinking with them you develop some familiarity. I sat in a college class 16 years ago and was told by three young British born muslims that Britain is nothing, Islam everything.
I’ll be in a pub tomorrow night talking with the most western of muslims. Algerian born and raised in Marseille, he’s clean shaved, wears western clothes, drinks and smokes. He always has a smile on his face, a cheeky way with the ladies, everyone loves him. Except they wouldn’t if they knew his views on the west and Islam, on 9/11 and, in his view, on the eventual takeover of the west by Islam.
Don’t bother playing that game Euan, there’s always someone who’s better than you at it.
You also say:
On the contrary, it’s quite in keeping with their own backward homelands. 1500 hundred years and not a decent plumbing system in sight. We Britons can downplay our magnificence, be self-deprecating and hide our light. Our achievements are vast. Not the least of the weaknesses in the make up the average macho, mysoginistic Islamic male is penis envy towards us. Why do you think they like to wave those AK-47s about? Our achievements are vast, theirs puny. Their best efforts today are an embarrassment. We should all be on the lookout for a bunch of muslims with red faces. Our best efforts would obliterate the sands and they know it.
Oh, I almost forgot, Euan. The usual rule is in force: don’t bother replying, I’m not getting suckered in.
Firstly EG, it doesn’t matter how many Muslims I know, I never said all Muslims were the problem.
The problem isn’t Muslims its the whole idea of multi-culturalism, the idea that we can be a little bit of very country in the world all rolled (very loosely) into one.
As it happens I used to have a good Muslim friend, lost touch when he went to uni.
Plausible reasons why they only just started attacking? sure its because 10 years of New Labours lack of immigration controls, and the Tories weren’t much better previously. I know the actual attackers were British born but you know full well a lot of the racials have entered the country relatively recently.
Have I ever worked and socialised with Muslims? Erm, yes actually, having lived and worked in two Muslim countries.
I agree with Dave that this nightmareish multiculti imposition by a government that is hellbent on destroying everything Britain is about is the problem. And yes, almost 10 years of listening to Tony Blair berate the British for not being multiculti enough would certainly encourage stupid young Muslim men to believe they had the upper hand.
“If it’s damaged to the extent that a couple of damp squibs on the Tube is their best shot, could YOU explain why we should worry any longer?”
EG
Euen you should have been on the tube the other week!
The people who came close to blowing me up London while I was near the Israeli embassy were Islamists and that was way before 9/11. I am sick of this crap that this is first time there have been home grown bombers. What don’t we not care if Britons are off killing people in Israel, Iraq or Afganistan.
Dave,
Yes, I agree multiculturalism is a problem. Even Trevor Phillips has figured that one out. I think it’s a pretty small problem, though.
Britain has fewer Moslems as a percentage of total population than France and, IIRC, Germany. This is not the problem, or at least not until people start blowing up the Metro.
What, exactly, does race have to do with it? I’m assuming it’s a sloppy choice of word, but it does make you sound as if you think its a racial rather than cultural problem. Back to the old bodily fluids, sort of thing.
I sort of agree with the general thrust of the point both you and Verity make.
But is not the problem perhaps a weakness in western culture? I don’t mean by that our open acceptance of other peoples or our willingness to allow others to maintain their ways – we’ve always done that, and most confident cultures do.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I think modern secular western society has pretty much lost its nerve. Perhaps this is being seen through the wrong end of the telescope, and we are allowing ourselves to roll over because we no longer have any response we actually believe in? Hence multiculturalism, since we have no monoculturalism we think is any good.
Islam offers a definite moral and social point of view, indeed an uncompromising one in many ways. Whether you agree with it or not is unimportant, the fact is that it exists. What does the west have to offer in response? There is no moral point of view other than do what you want, all lifestyles equally valid. I think this is a profound turnoff to many, possibly even most people.
Looking briefly at other religions, it is instructive to note that although the established church and to a slightly lesser extent the Catholic church are both somewhat anaemic, the Orthodox and Pentecostalist churches seem to be doing well. Indeed, Orthodoxy is the fastest growing Christian denomination in Britain (even if that rate of growth is still low). Both Orthodoxy and (most of) the Pentecostalists offer a noticeably firmer moral line, which seems to attract people. It is my view that people in general WANT some form of moral guidance, and established culture in this country is not providing it. Would this not inevitably lead to a general loss of confidence? People aren’t on the whole half as individualistic as libertarians seem to assume, and they DO look to the formal institutions of their culture for guidance in such things.
Socially, the family is degraded almost to the point of irrelevance, thanks to a culture that values selfishness and individual gratification as well as a state policy intended to supplant it with public welfare – i.e. it is more than state welfarism that is the problem here. Again Islam offers an alternative in the form of a much stronger family culture (Orthodox Christian culture does too, interestingly enough).
A glance at history shows what happens when a culture loses confidence in its institutions and loses any pretence at meaningful morality. The classic (and classical) example is Rome just before the adoption of Christianity and again at the fall. I think there are sufficient parallels to conclude that we are approaching, if not already within, the process of collapse and reform. Naturally, this is not unavoidable, but no society has yet avoided it, so it is hard to be sanguine.
In sum, I think the problems are a lot deeper than either you or Verity suggest, although I think you’re both barking up the correct tree. Changing the government won’t change deep cultural failure, though.
EG
I’ve just read Euan’s first comment. Was it really 21 for five? Oh. My. God.
Back on topic – is there any chance that during this lifetime, Tony Blair can stop hissing into microphones, looking grave, and lecturing Londoners to “stay calm”? I swear to god, Tone, if you don’t STFU, there will be riots.
Please, please, please stop playing out your fantasy as “war leader”. Please, Tony Blair, as Noel Coward begged Mrs Worthington’s daughter – Get TF off the stage, there’s a good chap.
EG: sorry I made a mistake I ment to say Radicals, not racials.
I agree Islam is strong on tradition and that Christianity is taking a big risk as it steps away from that allowing gay preachers for example.
I know the problem is deep, but imo the best way to tackle it is to seriously reduce immigration to this country, and I mean all kinds not just asylum seeking. Integration takes time, its there is no magic solution but its not gonna happen when we have 200,000++ people streaming into the country every year, as well as 1million illegals already in the country.
.
I don’t think restricting immigration is in itself the solution. England has for centuries been a tolerant and open society which welcomes pretty much anyone. Quite a bit of this comes from the time of Cromwell, who had no objection to any particular group living in the country PROVIDED they obeyed the law, Catholic propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. Immigration restriction is a defensive reaction, it is not the action of a strong and confident culture but rather of one insecure and weak.
Historically, England has never compelled people to assimilate. The process takes place naturally, and both host and new cultures prosper from the exchange of ideas. This is proper multiculturalism, not the racist ghetto enforcement of the contemporary stuff. But why does the new multiculturalism work?
I think a large part of it is the existence of a lavish welfare system. Without this, it is necessary for newcomers to work in order to survive, which inevitably forces a degree of assimilation simply by compelling people to mix. With it, there is no need to work and it is quite possible for people to live in self-imposed ghettos. The ghetto culture is a natural part of humanity, since most people prefer to be with people similar to them. You see this is the western expatriate abroad, where many live in mainly expatriate communities and don’t mix with the host population all that much. In some cases this is because it is too dangerous or living conditions are awful, but the basic point is the same. The expatriate’s generally much higher income enables him to avoid assimilation, and so it is that the welfare system here does the same thing. It cannot be acceptable for us to do something in a given set of circumstances but not for others to do the same thing in the same circumstances.
However, the wholesale abolition of welfare is simply not going to happen. Anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves. Such a course would be politically deeply unpopular, as well as being economically unnecessary. Socially, however, something has to give. This is probably achievable by steps such as time limits on welfare, denial of benefits to non-citizens, shifting to a contributory insurance scheme, and so on. Exactly how that would be done is another matter. It is a tricky balance.
Education is another issue. Here, it will be unavoidably necessary to have state involvement in education to the extent that education is compulsory for all, including women, that religious schools might be prohibited or at least carefully monitored, that the wearing of religious type clothing might be prohibited perhaps by the enforcement of uniform, and so on. The libertarian idea of making education voluntary and the method a matter of complete free choice will only make the current situation worse, not better. Only coercion is going to do anything here.
EG
yes, restricting immigration is the answer, note I didn’t say stopping immigration.
We can’t have have an unlimited level, 200,000 , 400,000 , 1million etc, we must have a sensible level.
England might have had a lot of immigration before but not compared to whats happening now.
It would be possible to restrict welfare, give it to only people who have worked for a certain amount of time in this country etc, without doing away with it completely.
No, I can’t agree.
Immigration is not the problem. The problem is the combination of immigration and a lavish welfare system.
EG
Well ok then, we agree.
Immigration is a big part of the problem, I never said it was the only issue.
I don’t even think immigration is a problem at all, in itself. I don’t see any reason why people should not be allowed to come and go freely between states if they wish, provided of course that the states have the ability – if supported by evidence – to deny entry to specific undesirables. It is only in combination with welfare that immigration becomes a problem.
EG
Yes but as you previously said, welfare is here to stay. In which case immigration ‘is’ a problem.
Besides, any democracy needs to have controlled (restricted) immigration. A democracy is about the will of the people desiding what kind of government they want, but how many swing votes does it take to change the result? not a great deal. In your idea of anyone being able to freely move between countries as they please we could have a situation where maybe 1 million people come over and change the result of the election even if the people here previously didn’t want that. Thats hardly fair is it??
There are 6million people living in Scotland but what if 10million people from England desided to go there in order to vote against nationalistic plans? thats not fair is it? can it be called democracy?…
Ofcourse you are gonna say people need to be in a country for a certain about of time before getting voting rights, but then if a lot of people were moving around like you suggest that would be a lot of people in a country not taking part in democracy which also surely isnt a good thing… I mean how can you call it democracy if a huge amount of people are excluded.
Democracies need a certain amount of stability to work correctly, mass-immigration doesn’t give that.