Theodore Dalrymple At The City Journal: ‘Thoughts On Woolwich’

Full piece here.

According to Dalrymple, it is South London that produced these men, desperate for something to believe in, seeking out group membership and meaning, moral certainty and a handbook for life.  The franchise of radical Islam will continue to provide answers in the minds of men moving in and out of a criminal subculture, not entirely without opportunity, but rootless, sometimes violent and aggressive.  While looking towards Islam, the Islamist agitators give structure to express some of what was already inside and part of the milieu in which they moved:

‘The hacking to death of Lee Rigby on a street in Woolwich tells us as much about the society that we have created, or allowed to develop, as it does about radical Islam preached by fat, middle-aged clerics.’

I can’t speak for the men, but clearly they had serious problems, and Dalrymple provides a little background on both.

There are other issues which the multicultural bien-pensant worldview simply hasn’t accounted for regarding Muslim immigration, including how to properly integrate Muslims into the British economy and civil society.  It ought to be made clear that there is a civil society with laws and rules governing it, and some pathway to join that civil society.

There has to be more than just signing arrivals up for benefits in a large Welfare State, piling them and their relatives into council houses and expecting job programs to do the trick.  You will breed the same pathologies as one finds in the homegrown wards of the State, but also manage to import native customs and sometimes barbaric native traditions, while keeping London neighborhoods, cultures, and religions toxically divided.  This creates a powder keg ready to blow, and the politicians ever more mealy-mouthed and full of half-empty promises and half-baked visions of civil society.

Of course, this is pretty much what many American progressives, Leftists, multiculturalists and non-classical liberals would do over here, but many Americans haven’t quite figured that out yet.

Here’s to hoping.  And here’s to letting the Woolwich killer speak for himself.  Violence begets violence.  Islamism and multiculturalism form an unholy marriage:


Related On This Site: A British neo-conservative type?:  Islamism, Immigration & Multiculturalism-Melanie Phillips Via Youtube

It’s the fierce critic of religion, new Atheist, and 68er Christopher Hitchens who has defended free speech most vigorously:  Repost-From Beautiful Horizons: ‘Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ramadan at the 92nd Street Y’

From YouTube: Roger Scruton On Religious Freedom, Islam & Atheism

A British Muslim tells his story, suggesting that classical liberalism wouldn’t be a bad idea…as a more entrenched radical British Left and Muslim immigration don’t mix too well: From ‘Introduction: How Salman Rushdie Changed My Life’… Via YouTube: ‘Christopher Hitchens Vs. Ahmed Younis On CNN (2005)’

Free speech (used both well and unwell) meets offended Muslims: Mohammad Cartoonist Lars Vilks HeadbuttedDuring Lecture’From The OC Jewish Experience: ‘UC Irvine Muslim Student Union Suspended’From Volokh: ‘”South Park” Creators Warned (Threatened) Over Mohammed’

Najat Fawzy Alsaeid At The Center For Islamic Pluralism: ‘The War Of Ideologies In The Arab World’

More On Lars Hedegaard Via the NY Times: Is Europe Waking Up?


Theodore Dalrymple At The City Journal: ‘What The New Atheists Don’t See’Theodore Dalrymple Still Attacking Multi-Culturalism In Britain…From The WSJ Weekend Journal-Theodore Dalrymple: “Man Vs. Mutt”

5 thoughts on “Theodore Dalrymple At The City Journal: ‘Thoughts On Woolwich’

  1. Two points:

    1. London’s politicians tend to be more mealy-mouthed. Not all of ours, just those who must defend the multiculti line and the conditions it creates.

    Politics follows culture, generally, and we are in a possible drift California-wards, towards greater multiculturalism, beyond the current administration.

    2. Pete King has to work with the incentives and the government he’s got. A huge Homeland Security State may not be the best way to allocate resources, and deal with this threat. Security and freedom are in tension.

    Some Federal authority may be necessary for the common defense, but the message above is as much for the culture, and everyday people.

    We can’t build a security apparatus atop a divided politics and expect maximum results, sending all the wrong incentives to our elected officials. It’s our problem to handle, not to outsource to Pete King and expect good results.

  2. Nice reading about you

    Thanks for visiting my blog. Be in touch. Browse through the category sections, I feel you may find something of your interest.

  3. Pingback: Steynian 471rd | Free Canuckistan!

Leave a Reply