Feb 10, 2008

Britain's Archbishop of Panderbury

"Our modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul." so says Britain's leading Islamophile and closet druid Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Hopelessly naive, if not anachronistic it seems almost predictable that Rowan Williams, a pagan druid, completely devoid of any moral compass would seem to revere the austere primitive purity of Rousseau's "noble savage". But William's 'conflict of conscience' is more founded in what Ratzinger referred to as a "pathological self-hatred" rather than his own misguided philosophical beliefs.

Joseph Ratzinger's 2004 essay entitled "If Europe Hates Itself" gives a glimpse into the source of a faithless Archbishop's torment when he states that "The West reveals here a hatred of itself, which is strange and can be only considered pathological; the West is laudably trying to open itself, full of understanding, to external values, but it no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure."

The Constitutions of numerous nations, all with their emphasis on the principles of secularism, democracy, the rule of law and, above all, the equality of all human beings irrespective of caste, community, language or ethnicity are all derived from the British colonial legacy and Britain's gift to the world, the Magna Carta. There is a Commonwealth of Nations from Australia and New Zealand to India, Malaysia and Singapore who still value, cherish and respect their judiciary, legal system, bureaucracy and police. All cherished institutions, and all derived from British colonial administration.

There are millions of Singaporeans who see the statue of Sir Stamford Raffles on a daily basis as a warm reminder of their British colonial legacy. Millions of people around the globe who have been lifted from poverty to self-sustainability all thanks to the British. Having lived in Southeast Asia myself for over twenty years, the only thing that I think the British can justifiably be reviled for is their culinary legacy. Baked beans on toast and mushy peas. Vile and disgusting.

But as Joseph Ratzinger noted, none of this matters or is even seen by people like Rowan Williams, they are consumed with self-loathing and a "pathological self-hatred" and as Orwell stated in his 1941 essay entitled "England Your England", they are "unteachable", "only when their money and power are gone will the younger among them begin to grasp what century they are living in."

For Rowan Williams and the rest of his ilk, it is easy to place the blame on what they see to be an impersonal nation, they fail to realize that is not the nation, but themselves whom they hate. They hate themselves for what they have become. In Williams case, a faithless man of the cloth who has lost his way. This is not the first time Williams has found himself compelled to pee on the carpet and it won't be the last. Considering this, it should be obvious to all that William's would be best suited kicking around his misguided ideas on multiculturalism on some liberal university campus and not in his current position as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In his book Millennium, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto writes, "I find it hard to believe that this generation will be able to muster the courage to fight for the sort of imperfect humanity which is willing to abort innocent lives while sanctifying those of criminals, or which undermines it's own principles by banning moral absolutes as politically incorrect."

In an environment that eschews moral absolutism and embraces cultural relativism and the "diversity of opinions", it is almost to be expected that someone like Rowan Williams' or his liberal cohorts would make the mindless suggestion that Islamic law be introduced as some sort of "supplementary jurisdiction". In what Burke warned us against, William's suggestion is tantamount to simply dismissing the "rule of law" as nothing more than some sort of abstract universalism in which all individual identity is lost, stripped as Burke said, and standing "in the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction." What happens when the laws overlap as they often do in countries like Malaysia? Which law would supersede the other? One of the central themes of this blog has been the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism. Hopefully, this incident will serve as an example of how cultural relativism inevitably drags moral relativism in it's wake. If what is wrong for one society can somehow be right for another, then what is wrong for one generation can justifiably be right for the next.

Rowan Williams' reckless comments will not soon be forgotten, they will be seen as a sign of weakness and will continue to embolden extremist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and others who wish to see Islamic laws implemented. Only in September of last year, Malaysia's Chief Justice made the push for reforms to introduce hardline Islamic law here in Malaysia. Ironically his justification for change was very similar to Rowan Williams reasons, and that is the "us versus them" dichotomy, the post entitled "The Clutches of Colonialism" can be read here.

To paraphrase Orwell, "The intellectuals who hope to see England Islamicized will be disappointed. The gentleness, the hypocrisy, the thoughtlessness, the reverence for law and the hatred of uniforms will remain, along with the suet puddings and the misty skies. It needs some very great disaster, such as prolonged subjugation by a foreign enemy, to destroy a national culture."

Subjugation by way of multiculturalism is already underway. Today was the first strike on England's reverence for law.

Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury must either resign or be removed from office.


  1. The success of Singapore is not primarily due to the British colonial legacy, but due to the vision of Lee Kuan Yew.

    Infact, Britain stifled the progress of its South East Asian colonies. Rapid economic growth took place in Malaysia and Singapore only AFTER independence from Britain.

    Lee Kuan Yew also goes as far implying that shared Confucian values had a larger role to play in the rapid economic growth of Asian Tigers.

  2. Britain's colonial influence has played a major role in Singapore's success. Lee Kuan Yew himself is a product of the colonial legacy.

    Do you honestly think that Singapore would be where it is at today if it were not for the British?

  3. Lao,

    No one knows. Burma was also under the British but is now a basket case. Neither South Korea nor Taiwan nor even Thailand were under British rule, but they are doing pretty well.

    When the British left Singapore it was an extremely poor city state in danger of being swamped by the Malaysians. Lee Kuan Yew immediately understood that British norms of individualism and unhindered free speech would not help in the needed rapid economic transition. So he fell back on traditional confucian (Chinese) norms of community cohesion and hardwork.

    It was these norms (he has written severally about this) that led to the Singapore's economic development.

    This is not to say that British institutions like a common law based Judiciary did not help. But (like many Americans) you do not seem to understand that the British Empire was not a benign democratic force for good. It was a cynical and (essentially evil) affair. To its credit it was the "best of a bad thing" (empire).

    Some of the most serious problems that Lee (and many post-colonial) leaders had to deal with, was the legacy of "divide and rule". The British had policies that favoured the Malays over the ethnic Chinese and Indians (that still exist today in Malaysia). Lee had to deal with this in Singapore. The British created the first modern Islamic state in South Asia (in Pakistan). The Kenyan crisis stems from the British policy of pitting one ethnic group against another.

    Americans do not know that the British had little time for democracy. Lee Kuan Yew said that "the British never gave me democracy" - they merely organised quick elections on the eve of their departure (probably under American pressure).

    The British had to wait till the early 1990's to organise elections in Hong Kong. By doing that they lost the moral high ground, they lost the right to lecture Beijing on free elections in Hong Kong.

    That was a tragedy.

    They also abandoned Hong Kongers of Indian origin to an uncertain future (they did not take them as British citizens knowing full well that they had an uncertain future).

    Forget about the statue of Raffles, forget the fact that Singaporeans speak English.

    Singaporeans do not think in English, they think in Chinese.

    Singapore has more in common with Taiwan, South Korea and even Japan than it has with Britain.

    The Chinese Communist Party is modelling itself on Lee's benign authoritarianism. (Lee and top Singaporean officials are regulars at Beijing).

    Many of you think that Singapore is a card carrying member of the "Anglosphere". No they are quietly building up the "Sinosphere".

  4. "Many of you think that Singapore is a card carrying member of the "Anglosphere". No they are quietly building up the "Sinosphere"."

    Singapore is perhaps the closest ally to the West in Southeast Asia.

  5. Anonymous10:04 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Creative Commons License