To:    Comment at the Guardian
Re:    Jonathan Freedland hits Britain's multi-culti madness on the head
 Date: Thursday 19 October 06

In response to the following article in yesterday's Guardian by Jonathan Freedland: "If this onslaught was about Jews . . "
 

"Multiculturalism means allowing every group its own distinct identity and, at the same time, seeking an integrated Britishness we all share".
 
With this sentence Jonathan Freedland touches the core of the MADNESS that is multi-culti Britain.
 
"Every group should be allowed its own distinct identity" - except the natives, that is, who like the body of a soup are expected and required to accept all the ingredients thrown into it, along with all the changes to flavour and consistency that brings with it. If those ingredients do not wish to dissolve into the body of the soup they are free to retain their separateness, swimming about in it enjoying the richness (and rottenness) of a stock that has developed and matured over centuries of European civilisation. If they choose to dissolve into the body of the soup they are free to do so, of course, and it (the natives) MUST accommodate and accept them. Any resistance on their part, any desire to retain and cultivate their OWN identity (as the native, European population of these islands), is condemned as xenophobia or "racism".
 
And what is this "integrated Britishness" we all share? It is a British passport with all the perks, privileges and advantages that go with it. It is a shared history and culture that goes all the way back to the day before yesterday (ONE whole generation of multi-culti, melting-pot Britain!). It is the freedom to exploit the most advanced socio-economic environment (artificial jungle) on Earth. More on that at http://www.spaceship-earth.org.
 
And more of my thoughts on this multi-culti MADNESS at http://www.spaceship-earth.org/Letters/Editor/Index-non-pc.htm
 

P.S. If anyone participating in the same thread is wondering how my post got to be right at the top, directly below Jonathan Freedland's article, all I can say to them is, so am I. There were quite a few posts already there when I first tried uploading mine, which I did two or three times, in vain. Each time I got an error message. I was feeling rather frustrated when I made a final attempt. This time it worked, only all the previous posts had disappeared and mine was the only one, at least, for a moment or two. I didn't rig it on purpose - honestly! If only I knew how . . . . . It brought more visiters to my homepage than I've ever had before.

Of all the posts which followed mine, I was particularly impressed by the following from

sutnar
 

October 18, 2006 11:06 AM

Is it really sensible to wonder what it would be like if the word "Muslim" was replaced by "Jew" in public debate? If Freedland wants to do that, he should remember that doing so would have to include imagining factual coverage like this:

--"Jewish extremists kill 52 in London,"
--"Four Jewish extremists arrested in London as their bombs fail to explode,"
--"Jewish extremist plots to blow up parliament,"
--"Jewish extremists arrested over plot to blow up 10 airliners,"
--"Majority of Jewish community sympathizes with terrorists."

And so on, and so on. Anxiety about Islam in Britain is not exactly irrational, and talking about the problems within the Islamic community should not be treated as a racist pathology. Let's recall that many Islamic radicals in Britain do actually want to kill a lot their fellow citizens, and have already started work on doing so. The general Islamic community, 40% of whom want Sharia law in the country, are alarmingly sympathetic towards the terrorists. Let's respond calmly and peacefully and within (and through) the law to all this. But let's not shut up about it.