A story from IrishCentral.com illustrates one of the tricks played by the media, a practice which is helping to destroy the very concept of nationality, and the meaning of the words we use to describe ethnicity.
The headline warns that ‘British extremists may try to radicalize Irish Muslims.’ On first seeing the headline, the term ‘British extremists’ said something very different to me, and I couldn’t imagine why ‘British extremists’ would have any dealings with Irish moslems, especially to radicalize them. Usually the term ‘extremist’ is applied in the controlled media to right-wing or nationalistic groups. Granted, it’s a dishonest use of the term ‘extremist’ but we’ve come to expect it to be applied to anybody in the West not cheering for the destruction of his people and country.
But then the term ‘British’ cued me that the extremists in question were probably not ethnic English or any kind of indigenous British Isles folk. The term ‘British’ is now used for anybody inhabiting the territories of the United Kingdom, regardless of their ancestry or race or religion. Just as it’s been said for years that ”anybody can be an American”, now it’s said that anybody can be British.
In fact the term is a strictly ‘civic’ kind of identifier, or less than that: an address. You live in some part of Great Britain, even if you speak no English and have just slipped into the country via the Tunnel, and you are British.
This is why there is no longer any meaning in the term ‘British.’ One may be Scottish or Welsh or Manx or Cornish or Ulster-Irish, but ‘British’ tells us nothing about who you are. All the aforementioned ethnicities can and do claim their ancestral lineage but you will notice that the English are generally excluded. English identity is too exclusive, and so it’s discriminatory. Britain’s ‘huddled masses’ can never be English or Anglo-Saxon, and that’s racist. But all can claim to be British.
So we have ‘British extremists’ supposedly radicalizing ‘Irish‘ mohammedans, but the concealed fact is that both the aforementioned groups tend to have names like, oh, Mohammed.
The obvious intent with this obfuscation is to destroy the very notion of ethnicity being tied to a nation-state, or to stretch the meaning of terms like ‘British’ or ‘Irish’ or American until they are devoid of any information.
And the linked article tells us there are now 60,000 (count ’em) moslems in the “Irish Muslim Community. On such a small island. And I see that there are already firmly-entrenched moslem spokesmen practicing taqqiya, I mean, advocacy, lulling us into believing that there is no cause for concern. All is going according to plan, it seems.
As an outcome of the Paris attacks and the sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve, Dr. Al-Qadri believes there has been a rise in Islamophobia in Ireland, but that the Irish people’s own history makes them generally more tolerant.
“I think the Muslim community are feeling here what the Irish community was feeling in the UK 40 years ago when there were bomb attacks by the IRA. People are afraid,” he said.
“But I think Irish people, because of their own experience in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, understand the position of Muslims and know you cannot brush them all with the same comb.”
The message is that moslems are just like the Irish. Right.
As far as the Irish being ‘fearful’ of the British when the IRA was doing its violence, I never saw any of that. Anyone who was ‘fearful’ of the fabled ”backlash” from the bigoted native populations could always hop on the boat-train back to Ireland, or onto a plane, to be safe from the violent British. The fact that they still emigrated in large numbers to England does not indicate fear.
But this trick of encouraging the Irish to identify with immigrants and ‘victims’ seems to have worked like a charm. It does seem that there was far more opposition to British rule than there is to the incursion of moslems into Ireland.