Review & Analysis: ‘Londonistan’ by Melanie Phillips

  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. Recent comments“The terrorist lackeys must be really crazy to suggest that politicians like Blair are guilty of any offence. Why don’t they go for the real terrorists and murderers who are trying to infiltrate and change the enlightened western world as we know it?” and “The best there’s been since I grew up and I’m nearly 70 now. ‘Tis a pity that some have just never grown up at all.” and “Tony Blair was an excellent PM and the world holds him in high esteem.” and “You were a great Prime Minister, you did your best and a strong Ally of America.”
  • Comment at end

    28th June, 2010

    If you haven’t read Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan, I suggest you do. You can get it here –  Londonistan

    It is sub-titled “How Britain has created a terror state within”. You might expect me to agree with its slant since I have been saying much the same thing here for some time. For instance – GO! The Archbishop of Canterbury (April 2010) – The Press Enemy Within (May 2009) –  Courts on Sharia Law (April 2009 – [it WAS  ’12’ sharia courts, now reportedly over 80. No-one has officially informed us of ANY of these, or deigned to put the policy in  any manifesto.])


    Londonistan is draw-droppingly painful in places. Yet at the same time there are threads being drawn together into something resembling a familiar fabric. Sadly, it is the fabric of British society today.

    I could write a book on every chapter, on almost every page, were life interminable. As it isn’t, I will try to precis the book and concentrate on a few of the points Ms Phillips makes, and urge you again to read it for yourselves.

    As well as the Introduction, the Conclusion, an Afterword, and an extra chapter titled “The veil, the cross & a vital debate”, the book’s chapters work through these headings:

    The Growth of Londonistan/The Human Rights Jihad/ The Security Debacle/ Multicultural Paralysis/ Alienation of British Muslims/ Scapegoating the Jews/ The Red-Black Alliance/ On Their Knees Before Terror/ The Appeasement of Clerical Fascism.

    Each chapter and section links back to sources from many years back to support its positions as well as to recent and current events. It is not hierarchically time-sequenced. Ms Philips recognises and puts over clearly that all of these phases in the story of the Islamisation of Britain were and are interlinked and ongoing. The quotes from many within the Muslim world and within the British establishment are literally breathtaking. I haven’t gasped so much since, well… for some time.

    Her book is not just opinion, though it is that too. Through its evidence to named sources, quotations, events, political and societal, church and judicial positioning and laws (some used, some ignored) there is a melding into a cogent and credible account as to WHY we are where we are in Britain [capital city- Londonistan] today.


    I’ll lay my cards on the table. If Ms Phillips had at any time in her book blamed Tony Blair for the state of Islamisation denial that our country’s in, I’d have put the book down immediately.  I have read enough of such utter tripe to fill its own book. But she has done the opposite; she praises him. For instance, in her Introduction:

    “Despite Tony Blair’s brave stand on Iraq and his stern words against Islamist fanaticism, the fact is that the Labour party he leads does not follow him. Despite ministers’ awareness of the extent of Islamist extremism in Britain, the government’s response has been to appease it in the belief that by doing so it will draw the poison and transform Muslims into a model minority. If ministers are pusillanimous their officials are worse. Throughout the intelligence world, there are powerful voices seeking to downplay the influence of Islamist ideology on the London bombers and blame their actions instead largely on the war in Iraq.” (p 31)

    In her reference to the Lebanon/Israel conflict of summer 2006, she says:

    “Britain had become, in short, a modern version of Salem. Tony Blair was subjected to a political lynching. Labour MPs returned from their summer holidays determined to force him out of office early as punishment for the crime he had committed by refusing to pressure Israel into an almost immediate ceasefire in Lebanon – in other words, surrender to Hezbollah and Iran. The MPs succeeded and Blair was forced to announce his premature departure from office.” (p 311)

    I differ from her analysis here only in that I think Gordon Brown and cohorts used widespread press, and thus public disquiet over Israel’s action (of defending itself) against Lebanon. In the same way that the anti-Iraq war press also used Blair’s natural and politically right-minded refusal to leap to criticise Israel to accuse him of subservience to American and Israeli interests.  Old Labourites and Gordon Brown then used this perceived widespread unhappiness as a red herring for change at the top, even though they knew that they would have done the same faced with the facts.  This was an excuse to be rid of Blair and bring in someone who would be ‘less sympathetic to the USA and Israel’, more ‘socialist’ and ‘distanced’ in some way from the war in Iraq, which many of them had never accepted or understood. In the event, they got Brown in a coronation as expected, but unexpectedly no change in foreign policy.

    They had swapped a political genius whose instincts were right for a second-rater, whose agenda on anything much was never made clear, except that he wanted the job.

    Melanie Phillips’ work is jam-packed with startling arguments supporting her position. Her proposition amounts to this: [My own thoughts inside square brackets.]


    • Almost the entire world has bought into the Jewish conspiracy theory.
    • America is under the control of the Jewish lobby.
    • Tony Blair is under the control of America and Israel.
    • They were and are all out to “get” the Muslim world, its land and resources: neo-colonialism.


    • Guilty over past “imperialism”, and yet bereft of a new purpose, liberal moral relativism, believed to be “progressive”, filled the void.
    • This unrooted morality, personalised and removed from religion, moved from the intelligentsia through the whole of society [with the help of an unhinged and unbalanced press and broadcasters.] Thus, society’s liberal, informed, progressive thinkers in the press, civil service, the political world and even the established Church let loose their grip on care and common sense.


    • Twenty years ago the need for immigration, with the fond belief that our liberalism was so infectious that all would catch it, fuelled huge increases from the Asian sub-continent. [My thoughts: earlier immigration from the British West Indies and African former colonies had resulted in NO “rivers of blood” contrary to Enoch Powell’s prophesy. The reason he was wrong? West Indians and Africans were from Christian roots.]
    • The country’s elite and decision-makers since the 1980s encouraged immigration, as they had done from the 1950s, but this time mainly from a different part of the world. Governments and the security authorities fought hard to preclude civil unrest among the native population by citing the need for such immigrants to do jobs we wouldn’t do, and by reminding highly civilised Britons of their “liberal tolerism” and attachment to inclusivity and democracy.
    • In recent decades “Human Rights” became the cri-de-coeur. No matter what anyone had done or whatever they might threaten to do they were all human and had their rights. [Even the right to feel free to try to take our rights away.]
    • Anyone who raised cultural differences became a pariah. [Racism  deserved an even stronger description. It got it. Racism has been more or less eradicated from Britain, one of the few good side-effects from our acceptance of the “we’re all the same under the skin” doctrine. Today, ‘racist’ is the acceptable jibe to any who question Muslim agendas. This accusation emanates from native, caucasian Brits of the “civilised” kind as well as from any so-called “victimised” Muslims.]


    • For years, even decades, long before 9/11, blind eyes were turned to militant Islamic extremists. They were considered a tiny aberration; not normal. Not average or exemplifying any group. Anyway, they only threatened other countries, not civilised, liberal, tolerant Britain. These fundamentalist extremists realised that if they could wheedle their way into Britain to escape decapitation in their own lands for their crimes, which they could, they’d get a fairer trial here than in any other part of the world, thanks to our civil/human rights sympathetic courts. And they’d likely win on appeal if they lost the first time. In recent years the European Human Rights Courts have all but guaranteed that, especially if the threat to deport meant that the poor souls had to go back to somewhere nasty. Somewhere from whence they had come, purportedly to escape tyranny. [Third time lucky in British/European courts became the expected norm and the attraction. After all, we’re all human, aren’t we?]
    • The Iraq war added fuel to this fire, and began a press-led campaign against Blair the “war criminal” which continues to this day. [Since the Fourth Estate already “KNEW” that Blair had lied over WMD and the reasons for invading Iraq, HE, personally, was considered responsible for every death in that blighted land. It had escaped their tiny minds that this was a political decision, supported by parliament, not his own one-man expedition to murder. This accusation, despite the fact that Tony Blair’s name will go down in history for ending the decades-long conflict in Northern Ireland, the ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Christians in Kosovo, and the barbarity of rebels in Sierra Leone. And despite the fact that even today, when Britain has long left Iraq to the Americans to sort out, suicide car-bombers still kill their own, on average twice a week, in order that we can still blame Blair, Bush and the rest of the west. Personally I hold the press responsible for much of the “thinking” around Iraq, with a few honourable exceptions. Ms Phillips does criticise the BBC for its anti-war bias. [As do I for its constant listing of the names of dead soldiers, with limited counter-balancing as to the value-added that is being loaded onto both Iraq and Afghanistan by the west’s presence.]


    • Meanwhile, despite any amount of usually daily Islamist atrocities worldwide, the Muslim world is seen as the victim. [It is innocence personified, or at least understood as having “good reason” to react as it does. I am constantly amazed at how little analysis is ever made as suicide bombers strike. It is as though without western presence, fomenting uncharacteristic outrage, none of these attacks would be happening.]
    • The west is in deep denial, encouraged by the certainties of our opiners in the press. A denial which is leading to its own demise. [And Britain will be leading this demise, unless we understand it and deal with it.]
    • Phillips suggests that the British establishment, wishing to avoid civil unrest, has been terrified into taking the side of violent Islam and all Islam, and have accepted their analysis of where fault lies, because to do that is far less worrying or challenging than understanding or dealing with the truth.


    ‘Londonistan’ goes on in this analytical vein, at times in high dudgeon, true. It refers to our lack of history teaching in school and the resultant lack of understanding of the force for GOOD that Britain has been and still is worldwide.

    If reading this analysis doesn’t get you hyper-ventilating your dudgeon may need recalibrating. Ms Philips’ overall position is that Islamist terrorism IS a religious inspired terror. It is NOT, as we are asked to accept by the inverted arguments of terror perpetrators and their ‘apologists’, terror caused by the West due to its pursuit of Islam. Nor, more worryingly, is terrorism a method only favoured by a very few, as we have been led at times to believe. She uses polls to provide evidence of this.


    She insists that although political leaders KNOW that to be the case it is the terror that dares not speak its name. The fear of a clash of cultures or of religions limits open debate. Melanie Phillips says she is agnostic as to whether Islam has been hi-jacked and used and abused or whether it is intrinsically caliphate-led, as described in its scriptures. She frequently states that many British Muslims have no sympathy for terrorists practising their evil acts in the name of Islam.

    Her links, quotes and background information on many of those considered “moderate Muslims” and placed in positions of authority by the last Labour government to try to liaise in the community cast light on the reasons for her doubts.


    Highlighting religious differences has become a big no-no. This has been accepted by most, mainly because of the diminishing interest in any religion in Britain over the last 20 or 30 years. It became the normal thing never to mention anyone as being in any way different from you. After all, we had subsumed Judaism and were managing to knock along quite tidily with Sikhs and Buddhists, with no outbreak of hatred from any side. Why should Muslims be any different?


    The other area which has added to this immoral morality in recent years is the Iraq war decision. We know it was a controversial decision, as does Mr Blair and the Labour party. But it was nothing like as unpopular a decision as we are led to believe. Online, you’d be forgiven for believing no-one but no-one agreed with the decision, or has a mind that can be moved by argument. We all KNOW, don’t we?

    For any of us online it takes little searching to find out for sure and for certain that Tony Blair is a “war criminal” for whom hanging is too good. That kind of comment, for it is invariably comment at such as the Guardian CIF pages and at coarse-mouthed ignorant blogs, should tell the ‘civilised’ among us something about these people and their stance.

    I have long believed that many if not most of them are terror sympathisers, infiltrating our chat pages with aliases like Fred, Sheffield. I do not believe that they are mostly Freds, though some of them undoubtedly are. Fred in Sheffield was never brought up to talk of killing politicians, after he’d skinned them alive and eviscerated them. That is the language of a violent culture, not ours.  Not Britain’s.

    Unlike Ms Phillips, and perhaps I live in a more British part of the country and not in Londonistan any more, I do not accept that we are a decadent society. Most people in this country would be appalled and dismayed at what can be read on the internet.


    To ignore all she is saying because you conclude despite the evidence that Britain is not being quietly overrun by a foreign culture and religion whose strictures include severe punishments for women, juveniles, adulterers and homosexuals as well as thieves and greater or lesser criminals, is to deny that this country bears ANY responsiblity for the future we hand on to the next generation.

    There are a few areas which, although mentioned, are not looked at in as much depth as I’d have liked. For instance, the reasons for our unwillingness to criticise Islam, while we criticise Christianity and Judaism at the drop of a liberal-minded self-deprecating hat;  our inability to question how free ‘free speech’ is or should be. More free for some than for others, it would seem.  Our real willingness or even ability to understand the political reasons for the Iraq invasion: it was political, not because Blair wanted a good job after Number 10!

    I believe at least some of this may be looked at more deeply in her latest book – “The World Turned Upside Down”.

    Buy Londonistan here.

    If you have already read it, Melanie Phillips’ new book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power is now available online.

    You can also see her regularly updated website diary at and an archive of her other writing at

    Back to top

    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , ,

    3 Responses to “Review & Analysis: ‘Londonistan’ by Melanie Phillips”

    1. William Hague feels refreshed after meeting with Tony Blair « Tony Blair Says:

      […] Review & Analysis: ‘Londonistan’ by Melanie Phillips […]

    2. Chris Says:

      Now you can tell her about it

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s