One day, Britain as we knew it will be gone. Some may so, “Well that’s always the case; nations always change.” Perhaps so; but how did it change? According to what principles? Along what lines? Who gets to decide how it changes? If the Nazis had won the Second World War, would it have been right to simply accept the “change” that would have been wrought in Britain as a result? Would it not have resulted in a distinct loss of identity? “Don’t be absurd! That was different!” may be the reply. Perhaps. But if a government—whether your own or another nation’s—decides to do things which will drastically undo the foundations of what you believed your country stood for, and you essentially have no say in it, one may start to observe a few parallels.

For many people, home no longer feels like home. They do not know where or how they belong anymore. Such fragmentation did not happen by accident, but by policy. Those who disagreed with the mass renovations to their societal home were not consulted. There was no planning permission. No referendum. It just started to happen. And then it kept happening.
Those who opposed it too strongly were soon demonised as hateful and unwelcoming. It became increasingly inconvenient to oppose it, so most simply gave up. They opted to keep their heads down and try to live their lives as normal, as if the industrial diggers all around them were not really there, upturning the foundations they thought they knew.
The Rupturing of Foundations
As I write this, I can see literal diggers across the road from our house, tearing down hedgerows of what have been—for centuries—horse fields, paddocks, and woodland, in order to build 400 new houses.
Local residents here long before us had been fighting the “development” for over a decade, and finally lost on appeal last year. It has caused much sadness, even anger, in the area (there is a local Facebook group called “Rage” dedicated solely to the development, for example!).
Even knowing it was going to happen did not prepare many of the neighbours—even my own family—from visible upset at the physical destruction to the surrounding environment. This is natural greenery which many have known to be there for decades, something we can see being tangibly undone before our eyes.
Things like this are happening in similar places across the country. There are many reasons for the housing crisis but few can argue it is not determinatively exacerbated by the kind of mass scale immigration—undergirded by the doctrine of multiculturalism—which requires a country to need over two hundred thousand new houses per year.
But aside from the particular issue of the destruction of the English countryside, what is currently happening across the road is also an apt metaphor for what many people feel about what is happening across the nation. They are seeing their culture and traditions torn away before their eyes. They are feeling utterly helpless to do anything about it. They are worried they might be labelled “selfish” for wishing that it was not happening, let alone saying so out-loud.
Death By Ideology
The tensions borne from the rupturing of a culture can be made to sound sensible by the all-encompassing ideology of “multiculturalism” but they cannot be buried for long. They have a tendency to erupt. This is what we have seen in recent times, however regrettable the events have been.
Douglas Murray warned about this problem almost a decade ago in The Strange Death of Europe. At the time, Murray was deemed something of a pariah for talking about immigration in civilisational terms, especially for highlighting the particular danger of a culturally embedded religion like Islam taking root in Britain as a result.
Indeed, the infamous political spin-doctor of New Labour, Alastair Campbell, recently suggested that Douglas Murray be investigated by the police for writing such a book, arguing that it may have helped incite some of the recent riots. As Konstantin Kisin highlighted regarding Campbell’s accusation, you can tell something’s very wrong when people are castigated not for being proven wrong but for being proven right!
As Murray pointed out—and has continued to point out—multiculturalism is essentially an ideological myth. It is the idea that multiple divergent cultures and traditions can be peacefully imported into co-existence with a dominant and/or host culture without causing the kind of real-time aggravated tensions we have seen manifested in recent times.
One may always be able to point to positives here and there about the comingling of cultures, of course. There can indeed be moments of mutual appreciation and learning when different ways of life coalesce. Not only this, but there are also negative—often horrendous—examples in history of where dominant cultures have sought the kind of conformity that refuses to tolerate peoples different to them.
The fear of becoming—or seen to be becoming—anything like such negative examples is powerful. It is this fear that dupes so many British people today into believing that multiculturalism not only makes sense, but believing that to disagree that multiculturalism makes sense probably indicates a fascist, racist, or xenophobic trajectory.
This is why the ideology of multiculturalism is so dangerous, because it seems so unassuming, so virtuous, so “obviously” true, as though we shouldn’t even need to think about it. People who adopt it tend to see the world not with it but through it. This is why they often cannot see it as an ideology. Multiculturalism is seen as the fundamental solution to societal disharmony when, in fact, it has caused—and will continue to cause—major societal disharmony by ignoring the significance of what culture truly means to people.
This is the case not only in those cultures now being drastically altered by uncontrolled mass immigration, but even among migrant communities themselves. The desire of immigrant populations (especially Muslims) to cling to the cultural and religious moorings of their own families and traditions rather than assimilate under the multicultural banner is hardly surprising. No doubt, many will continue to make use of the multicultural vision, but only in order to assert their own cultural values.
It’s understandable that people from other cultures wish to preserve their own way of life when they come to a different place. It’s not a strange thing at all. What is strange—as Murray well observed—is that the host culture (western Europe and its anglophone siblings) does not seem to think there is anything particularly worth preserving. In fact, as was reemphasised to me on a trip to Washington earlier this year, we are increasingly taught to be embarrassed of our cultural heritage rather than proud of it.
The Melting Pot and Islam
The myth of multiculturalism is that everyone can put a little of their own cultural “spice” into the melting pot without fundamentally upsetting the overall flavour, consistency, and viability of the whole.
No doubt this is possible here or there. There are plenty of examples of mutual flourishing in the growth and development of cultures. All cultures have already done this in one way or another at some point in their formation, and will continue to do so. But cultures adapt best when they do so gradually, organically, and according to established principles, rather than via swift revolution (violent or bureaucratic).
Read More
Related Posts:

China and Russia, once rivals, have made formal alliances with each other.  Not only that, both countries have made formal alliances with Iran, drawing the explosive Middle East into the global political alignments.  In fact, these three countries are already being called “a new Axis.” 

World Wars often come as a surprise to the people who get dragged into them.
World War I came about when the Austrian arch-duke was assassinated by a Serbian radical.  Austria, which had a mutual defense treaty with Germany, went to war with Serbia, but Serbia had a mutual defense treaty with Russia, which had a mutual defense treaty with France and England.  Factor in these country’s world-spanning colonies, with the American ocean liner the Lusitania wandering into the crossfire, and the result was a world war that no one really intended or expected, but which would kill some 15 million people.

World War II was more intentional, but while Americans were concerned about Germany’s invasion of Poland and Japan’s invasion of China, those conflicts seemed far away.  Though the U.S. government sent much material support to Great Britain and slapped economic sanctions on Japan, few Americans expected the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, or, shortly afterwards, for Germany to declare war on us.  Some 60 million died in that war, which came, literally and figuratively, “out of the blue,” while Americans were preoccupied with other things.

Having been reading about those wars lately, I’m feeling nervous about what is happening today as we Americans are preoccupied with other things.
Russia has been massing some 100,000 troops plus logistics to support them in what looks like an impending invasion of Ukraine.  In response, President Biden is sending 3,000 American soldiers to Poland and Romania, which border Ukraine.
What would be the consequence if those Americans are fired upon?  What if Russia moves on the Baltic Republics, also the home of a large Russian minority with grievances?  They are members of NATO, in which an attack on one member nation is considered an attack on them all.  If the Russians move on Estonia, all of the European members and the United States would be obliged by treaty to go to war with Russia.  Most of the NATO nations have little military capabilities these days, trusting the United States to carry the weight, so any war with Russia would be mostly on us.  (Read this for the possible consequences on Europe of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.)

The global dimension is also worrisome.  China is a far more dangerous military opponent than Russia.  China’s threats against our ally Taiwan keep intensifying.  Its much-expanded navy, its cutting-edge military technology, and its saber-rattling incursions of intimidation into the waters of other Asian countries should alarm us.  The Chinese ambassador has explicitly threatened “military conflict” with the U.S. if Taiwan continues its claims of independence.

Read More

There are so many lies abroad about worship.  Here are some of the most popular, in no particular order…. Everyone else worships better than you; you’re the only one who gets bored, has trouble concentrating, and whose mind wanders during prayer. The small offerings you bring, the pitiful singing you give, your feeble attempts at praying, etc., are an insult to the Lord.  Better to stay away than offend the Lord with such. These are only a few of the thousands of lies about worship.

God is Spirit. And they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).
Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness; tremble before Him all the earth (Psalm 96:9).
If worship is powerful–that is, if kneeling before Almighty God in humility and rising to praise Him in gratitude and going forth to obey Him in faithfulness has power in the world to change lives and redirect society–then the enemy will be working to put a stop to it.
Count on that.
If God uses our worship to transform sinners, starting with us, then the enemy will do all in his power to neutralize it.
So–how is your worship these days?
Are you working at worship, at learning to humble yourself and praise Him more effectively?  Are you giving yourself anew to the Savior throughout the day, every day?
Notice the one question we did not ask: Are you getting anything out of your worship? Scripture does not allow us to ask that.  We are promised nothing from worship.  In worship, we do the giving. We give Him praise and prayers, offerings and love, our time and our attention, and ultimately ourselves.
Warren Wiersbe used to say, “Worship pays. But if you worship for the pay, it won’t pay.”
What has the evil advisor told you in the secret recesses of your mind and heart to dissuade you from worship?
There are so many lies abroad about worship.  Here are some of the most popular, in no particular order…
One. Worship is all about you.
You’ll need a worshipful setting, worshipful music, in a building with worshipful architecture.  The leaders of the worship service must do things just right, otherwise, if you do not worship, the fault is all theirs.
Two. You should be “getting something” out of worship.
If you leave the church campus unable to identify what you “got out” of the service, someone has failed you mightily.
Three.  Worship is irrelevant; it doesn’t matter.
Millions of Americans are buying into that lie.  All you have to do is see how most people skip church altogether on Sundays.
Four. Only exciting, emotional worship matters.
If it’s not loud, fast, and intense, it doesn’t count.
Listen to people put down the more traditional, more restrained, more formal type of worship and you will know that lie is being bought into.  We speak of worship services being dull, dead, sleep-inducing, and cold.  One wonders if it ever occurs to us that the Father in Heaven alone judges worship.
Five.   Boring worship does not count.
Six. Worship matters only inside the church building.
Seven. You can worship on the creek bank as well as you can in church.
Read More
Related Posts: