Qadosh

There is something exhausting about talking with right-wingers. No, it's not that; one invariably comes out of the 'discussion' feeling somewhat dirty, tainted. There is, I suppose, a deeper question of how or to what extent there can be any genuine engagement with people who have such cold-hearted feelings, implacable faces.

In a recent discussion I was told "There are already too many Muslims" in this country. Replace those words with black people, Jews, gays, women and see how it sounds?

On a bit of probing (and one doesn't need to scratch the surface for very long) there was a lot of backtracking: I was only concerned about the integration of Muslims if we let in so many refugees (or words to that effect). Of course, he had earlier let the cat out of the bag by saying that he was worried about "values". 

So, this is what it's come down to. We can't let refugees in (refugees, not migrants, you fuckers) because their values are not kosher. "Two legs good..." Amongst those "already" in the country are members of my family (consultants, GPs, lawyers, businessmen, university lecturers, and pharmacists; if I include friends there are bankers in the city, hedge fund managers and accountants). But that's not the point. If they were taxi drivers, shopkeepers, unemployed they'd still be, y'know, like, human beings. 

Then this Australian woman chips in -I'm assuming she's Australian..there are far too many Australians in London! Doesn't sound very nice, does it?- and writes, "After the 9/11 atrocities we should think seriously about allowing so many people in of that faith" (more or less). 

"Right" (to quote Donald Trump).

And after Brighton and the IRA perhaps fewer Catholics? Where do you want to draw the line? Falluja, Gitmo (too many Americans?), The Welsh slaughtering the English in the rugger (too many Taffs?). So, there you have it, guilt by association. If an EDL thug had expressed similar views one wouldn't be surprised, but this is from those who think of themselves as being educated people, for Pete's sake! Crikey! If that's the state of the nation then pity the nation!

The question, she says: "Can we blame then for wanting to make up for their initial disadvantage?" Where's the problem with that, couldn't I explain instead of shutting down the conversation?

"The whole way through and I'm not doing it. I'm not doing it, darling."
---De Niro.

Hate to tell you this hon., but we're talking about refugees, not economic migrants. "Disadvantage"? We ain't talking about dis-fucking-advanatge. "Initial"? That's beautiful. Who are these pesky blighters on our shores anyway (we've got civilisation, roads, don't you know)?Er..as Fawlty would say: "Don't mention the war" !

And, ultimately, the question that will never be addressed because it would lead to a collapse of their shoddy and pathetic little (Englander) worldview: How do you explain that most of the appalling violence of the last century was committed by states and not radical groups? Sure, some of the violence came from states that were in some loose sense of the word Muslim (think East Pakistan, Timor, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds) but other instances of horrific violence (Vietnam, Hiroshima, The Camps, the Gulags, the Trenches, the Indians in occupied Kashmir) were obviously not.

Most of that violence was committed by men and still is to this very day ("too many men..."?). 

~ 
And since the question of what is a "true" Muslim was brought up in that nasty little discussion I had to return to one of my old posts or, more specifically, to the music on it. Today, if a Muslim was caught singing 'Let's dance together in a minefield' he'd be incarcerated! 


   

~
After all that it is a joy to return to Penelope Fitzgerald and hear an older, calmer voice from what now seems like a very, very distant and appreciably more civilized past. Note to self: Must return to her gem-like short stories as well.