Apologies for the oversimplistic and patronizing tone of my last post, it is for the magazine I write for in Jordan aimed at bored upper-middle class housewives who incidently have to be spoken to like that. The editor of coarse told me that I had to cut out all the "communist propoganda" so it would be nice to show people the whole undoctered version. Anyways, feel free to comment

If you haven't already been hit by the global economic crisis, the chances are you've been following it with huge anticipation and anxiety, as the world's leading economists and commentators predict an economic Armageddon, set to hit every family in the world, it might spark more than a few butterflies to set in your stomach. All that's missing from the present bleak and dire apocalyptic landscape are the four horsemen, but they may come in time. For now, it's probably a good idea to stock up on your fuul beans and rice, because if is all goes as predicted, then there's going to be some very tough days ahead.

Since the days of Thatcher and Reagan, much of the western world has been almost blindly committed to free-market capitalism, a set of economic policies which was widely considered to be behind the rapid growth of much of the world's economies in the past decade, despite a couple of hiccups. A dismantling of previous financial restrictions, regulations and market restraints in the eighties and nineties contributed to an unprecedented fiscal boom, with the financial sector in particular profiting substantially from this growth. A class of yuppies, the intelligent and entrepreneurial boys in pinstripe suits on New York?s Wall Street and in London's City district, were said to be the masterminds of this financial boom, leading to a general rise in wages ensuring most people now had enough disposable income to own their own homes, holiday abroad with the family and buy new cars. Wherever you went, economic growth seemed palpable, lining everyone's pockets.

However, in the past few months, reality kicked in. Although the I-pods and new mobile phones we bought during these years of prosperity may be quite real, the economic growth we thought we were witnessing was nothing more than smoke and mirrors, a mirage of opulence which city bankers exploited to the extreme, and now this bubble has burst. 'What went wrong?' seems to be the question on everyone's lips, 'how could my house price drop from a nice 6 figure sum, to the price of a Mars Bar?' The truth is that houses are worth little more the bricks and mortar they?re built from. House prices being vastly overvalued, and banks giving out mortgages to anyone who could sign their own name, regardless of their credit history were elementary behind the crash in the housing market. With increased liquidity and a property boom, banks and building societies were able offer 'sub-prime' mortgages to aspirational working classes and middle-classes, mostly figures which were considerably higher than their wages, or than they could realistically afford. The speculators gambled people's savings to for a bonus to buy a new Porsche and when it all went horribly wrong, they panicked.

Although it's too not helpful to compare modern events to that of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, economists have noticed some similarities in the culmination of economic crisis' hitting the world at today, with what could be end in situations similar to that of the Great Depression, with the Roaring Twenties ended on Black Tuesday and lead to the Great Depression. America too, since 1919, had been similarly enjoying an economic boom, sustained high levels of unemployment and banks with enough liquidity to offer loans and credit to individuals and big businesses alike. With the plummet in the price of stocks on Black Tuesday after mass, and then panic selling after collective recognition that stock prices were disproportionate to actual profits, shattering public confidence with $14 billion lost on that day. The result was nothing short of a catastrophe across the world, with millions of jobs lost, homes reprocessed and savings lost. Businessmen resorted to selling apples on street corners, proud homeowners forced to live in shacks and of coarse, huge political upheaval, with Fascism spreading in central and Eastern Europe, the catalyst for the world?s bloodiest war.

If it was to reach these levels today, the impact of globalization would make it much more far reaching, and certainly not limited to a European field. The lack of effectiveness of an increasingly desponded and divided EU to Russian encroachment on Eastern Europe would make huge changes on the current power-political landscape, with an increasingly confident and aggressive Russia bullying many smaller nations they feel are in their zone of influence. The USA will of coarse lose its influence and effectiveness on the global political scheme, which may not be a necessarily bad thing, but it will most likely mean a reduction in aid to developing nations such as Jordan, and pressure on human rights in certain developing countries will most likely take a back seat. Put into the put a reduction in demand for commodities and fall in the number of tourists from the developed to the developing world, the fall of Americana could contribute to a very dire situation for the whole world.

This crisis, if it hits the predicted depression levels will of course be very different in its impact and appearance, it most likely that not will just end in a recession and eventual rise in consumer and public confidence. There has, as of yet, been no mass panic selling of stock, but that could change at any time, but if it did happen, the results would be catastrophic and there has been much speculation about a financial meltdown and collapse of the fiscal system as we know it. Features of this depression would be high unemployment, mass closure of businesses, inflation or price deflation in some areas, such as houses and possibly repossession of homes. Indeed, even the Director General of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, for some the bastion of free-market capitalism, admitted that global financial systems have been pushed "to the brink of systematic meltdown"

What is almost certain is that for the majority of us, we will be slightly more out of pocket that in previous boom years. Major changes in our daily lives are certain to come about, credit will be much more difficult to obtain from banks, so most who of us will have to put off that dream car or home for the time being. Unemployment figures are already at record levels for decades in many countries across the world and are expected to get gloomy, with an expected increase of 350,000 more redundancies in the UK over the next year predicted by the CBI, and the largest trade union, the TUC, predicting figures closer to 700,000. New York alone is predicted to lose 165,000 jobs and two-thirds of the largest 381 metropolitan areas in the states already in recession, with many more on the brink. With banks reluctant, or unable, to provide short-term loans to businesses, a common business procedure, many enterprises will then have to cut personnel to balance the account sheets.

Politically, change is already about, with the once dirty words of 'nationalization', 'Marxism' and 'Socialism' being banded about everywhere from newspapers to the workers? floors and sending jitters down the spines of some. The once respected bankers of high-finance have been criticized en masse by the media, described as 'vampires', one commentator urging the government to ?walk them to the Wall Street roofs used in the 20s for suicide missions and play Van Halen's Jump? and even the British, ultra-conservative tabloid exclaiming 'the greed and stupidity of the spivs in high-finance' on its front-page. Indeed, the public appears to hold bankers and brokers, the chiefs of capitalism at this time in the same esteem as serial killers.

If the economic slump hits hard then it is likely that there will be a pronounced political shift to the left and far-right, with political discourse becoming much shriller. Obviously, many will blame the current laissez-faire capitalism for the job losses, wage cuts and shorter working hours, and back the re-nationalization of key industries, which will be a very appealing prospect to many in Europe. The far-right has traditionally benefited from increased popularity in times of economic woe, and the current situation has worried many centrist politicians across the world, especially with the prospect of gaining the support of the out-of-pocket middle-classes. The recent election triumphs of the far-right in Austria were largely put down to the worsening economic conditions in the country.

These prospects will assert new challenges for current governments, and many leaders it appear to recognize the will for change and become more attentive to the needs of voters, who will never tolerate the settings of malnutrition and unemployment which was so prevalent in the thirties. Ironically, it seems the public and politicians have been struck with a good deal of hindsight, as the ongoing US elections testify too. Perhaps due to collective blame of the current neo-conservative administration, or the sentimental impulse for a Democratic President of the same caliber as President Roosevelt who pulled the US out of the last major economic crisis, it seems highly probable that Barak Obama will be awarded the presidential title in November, after a recent surge in popularity.

The world has come to understand the need for drastic and immediate action will stave off a financial meltdown. One unlikely hero came into fruition. After consistent batterings on the domestic stage and repeated threats to his leadership, with a dour face and awkward posture, Flash Gordon stepped forward as the man with a plan to save the world's economy. With an uncharacteristic smile, Gordon Brown asked to be called 'just Gordon' when one reporter suggested he should adopt this superhuman title, and at present he seems to be the man in the know, with an economic initiative of visionary proportions, which world leaders from Washington to Tokyo have adopted. The plan itself was one not just of restoring public confidence but also of increasing the dependability of banks. In typical superhero style, inefficient and unpopular bank bosses (some world say crooks) were thrown out of their executive offices, with more than a little pressure from the government. The economic initiative included part-nationalization of these citadels of finance, restoring public confidence and relief, as a bank run by the government will think again before evicting potential voters from their homes because they missed a mortgage payment.

The economic scheme has seen a united effort from international community, at a time it would be extremely tempting for nations to squabble, initiating insular and conflicting economic policies. Britain has initially purchased a $63 billion share in struggling banks, the Eurozone paid out over $2 trillion and the USA announced a package worth $700 billion. Whatever happens now, it will almost certainly be nothing short of a revolution of the financial system and political landscape. Regulation and overview of the financial and banking sectors will be put firmly into place. It will probably not be enough to stave off a recession, but it will most likely be enough to avert a depression. It also looks like a time when the state gets more involved in business affairs, and I would predict the government to oversee a mass building of homes, along with eco-friendly power plants, which would not only create jobs but reduce the west's reliance on fossil fuels and oil, which had a hand in the current crisis. So as the stocks plummet, it could be a slightly better time for our environment.

Whatever happens now, of coarse nobody knows, but there will be changes which affect every one of us. The times of plenty have passed, and the days of tightening our belts are upon us. We may not be able to afford the latest technological gadgets and holidays to Mediterranean islands, but do we really need these things? Instead, we have a chance to build the world anew, to think about the wider impact of our actions on the planet, environment and people, to redress the problems that globalization brought too many in the third world and learn from our mistakes. It will be back to basics for the time being, banks will treat us as customers rather than their personal piggy banks, and even if not, at least we can sit back with smug smiles on our faces at the pictures of bankers and speculators who caused this crisis, with their office belongings in cardboard boxes as they join the lines of unemployed that they helped to create. We the people are in charge of your ivory towers of capital and we won't get fooled again.

Over the weekend, a jail in Khandahar City in Afghanistan was subject to an assault, leading to 400 of the most dangeroues and blood thirsty Taliban fighters escaping. The attack obviously included the obligitary suicide bombings, well two to be precise. One 'martyred' himself by blowing a hole in the prison's wall... not quite as spectacular as the Twin Towers, but he'll be living it up with his 72 virgins right now, so I suppose it's all the same to him... but I think a sledgehammer would do the trick.

Suicide bombings used to be one of the biggest fears of the West, but the overuse of them have left most of looking at them with a puzzling and almost comic curiosity about them. Afghanistan seems to be just one larger and dustier Brigend, with everyone running round like lemmings trying to kill themselves. The thought of martrying yourself and going to a cosmic all-girls, primary school (well, a kindergarten if the said virgins are from Birkenhead) seems to be big on most peoples' 'things to do' lists for the day. Personally, I don't think that it's any coincidence that the vast majority of suicide bombings occur in countries where the segregation of men and women are highest. Personally, if I was stuck in a mud-brick village in Afghanistan, with just a goat for sexual companionship, I would be strapping on a suicide bomb belt faster than you could say 'w'allah akbar'. Obviously without the virgins though... I've always though it would be a lot better to live for eternity with girls who knew what they were doing in the bedroom; who could teach me a thing or two. It would be like Alex Ferguson going to heaven to find that he was left in charge of Kiderminster Harriers... not that I'm the sexual equivelant of Ferguson of coarse.

With the number of teenage suicide bombers, it seems the bearded mullahs of the Taliban have wisely chosen horny 15 year olds as the most likely to kill themselves to get some action with women, which proves that even Islamic fundamentalists need some loving.

The jail break will be a major setback for the NATO forces who are already stretched and under-equipped, but these people will have to be caught, and with the level of tribalism in Afghanistan, that might prove to be a difficult task. I think they best bet for the Afghan National Army is to find the local blind-disabled orphanage, which always seems like a prime base for the Taliban to launch rocket attacks from. And although I am against capital punishment, in this case, I certainly wouldn't be against the army dragging out the said fundamentalists by their beard and administering some Pashtun justice with a bullet in the back of their head. Then again, might be a bad idea. Knowing the mentality of Taliban fighters, that moment before martyrdom would probally be the proadest of their lives... well maybe just behind when they first raped their 12-year old wife.

I remember, over 10 years ago, sitting by he computer listening to the saddest song I could find, trying to cry and wondering what was wrong with me that I was no gripped with the same grief seemingly shared by the rest of the nation. I was a pubescent teenager, and obviously any form or peer pressure tore at me and a need to conform was prevalent.

I look back to this time with pride in myself, and utter embarrassment of the images of Britain in the following days after Princess Diana's death. I cannot help but feel shamed by the flocks of people and sea of flowers in front of Buckingham Palace without feeling sick at the core. Men embracing their weeping partners, old women spending their last bit of pension money on a dead rich corpse, the whole idea seemed utterly surreal and incredibly un-British. The whole hysteria which gripped Britain made it seem that a third of the British population needed to be locked in a mental asylum. A frenzy over the death of someone people had never seen or spoke to or met would probably be seen by most psychologists as a form of madness. I see it as guilt, people who felt a connection with this woman, who read about her every day in the newspapers and was killed when being chased by paparazzi, in a way puts the whole readership of the tabloids to blame for her death.

With Mohammad Al Fayad's decision to go no further with then inquiry into her death is hopefully an end to the endless media attention of this woman, and every element about her final moments of life, the speeding, drunk driver and her no wearing a seat belt would appear to be conclusive evidence that her death was in no way suspicious. The problem with the media coverage of Diana after her death is the way they have created an image of an almost divine saintly figure, although the truth could not be further from the truth. Tony Blair's unashamedly used her death as a political football, and coining her as 'The People's Princess' is an oxymoron to say the least and sounds like some Victorian slogan for an undemocratic monarchy. It's uncannily close to comment in Monty Python about the Monarchy; "well I didn't vote for you".

The woman did highlight some important problems of the world, land mines, and who could no be touched by her stroking the arm of a man with Aids. However, the few hours of media attention she brought to these causes is a complete insult to the care workers and activists who slave endlessly for these causes. A five minute photo shoot at a mine clearing site completely overlooks the fact that most of he charity 'work' the Princess did was to attend functions and schmooze at thousand pound ticket parties with a dress costing well over the price it would cost to set up a school in Africa highlights the smoke and mirrors the monarchy in the UK have used to appear useful.

The people were hoodwinked by politicians and the media to make what the Princess stood for seem like something which was useful, and ironically strengthened the support for the Monarchy. She was born rich and died rich, and none of this was through any intellect or graft on her part. If a man is terminally unemployed in the UK he is forced into work or to do some form of community service, where the Royal Family are principally unemployed dole-scroungers, who or paid for by the people to attend banquets which cost tens of thousands of pounds, in the name of the people.

Stick the Princess in a council estate and she would be the target of the Daily Mail as a lazy adulteress unemployed bum, but money and family obviously still hold power in the UK today. Her obsession with media attention would probably mean she might be an early Jordan or some Pop Idol contestant who briefly makes it into The Sun and is quickly discarded as a useless fixture of our TV screens and be shown as the spoilt media whore she is. Not the demigod she has been made into.

Interracial relations are governed according to the social priorities and structure of the said culture. Both the Arab world and Europe have been exposed to different cultural and racial interaction and have both shown a hospitability and hostility to such relationships.

It needn’t be said that Europe has in the past shown some of the worst sides of humanity in history, in relation to how it has treated different ethnic minorities, such as the Jewish Genocide by Nazi Germany, whilst the Arab world has welcomed waves of Armenians, Circassians and Jews. However, Europe has revised its past horrors and now become home to people of different creeds, races, sexual and political beliefs, many of who fled persecution in their own countries. Different races are completely entwined, with the common belief in European values of humility and tolerance. It’s common to see mixed race relationships, people of all backgrounds cheer on their mixed-race football teams.

Despite its current unfavourable media-image, the Middle East shares a common principle of hospitality, although one unseen undercurrent is a fear of interracial and inter-sectarian relations, in the non-platonic sense. Although it’s quite acceptable for men to marry between religions and races, women are almost entirely exempt from such an option. Women who defy this often face social-ostracization, or worse, maybe a way of maintaining Arab-male dominance in society. The whole fabric of society is based on keeping this equilibrium, and the emancipation of women in certain areas of legal and political entities has largely failed to create a balance between male and female equality. Women are fully entitled to work, and many do, but the main leaders of industry and commerce remain male. Women may become MPs, but still there are no prominent women Ministers. Women may become lawyers, but there lies a real lack of women in powerful positions in the legal system.

It would be argued that although not perfect, Europe, due to feminism, Liberalism and Socialism, sees such a position to be inconceivable for Western women and abhorrent to Western values. It would be inconceivable for individuals in Europe to agree with seclusion of women or deny them the right who is their partner, except amongst certain sectors of society and the insane. The whole idea for the liberation of woman, and for them to be well and truly integrated into society is for a country to rid itself of outdated traditions and ideas. A central is the matter of marriage, and too many woman are forced into marriage to husbands who treat them like animals. A person who loses the right to choose their life and partner cedes to appear human, but as a sheep, of whom they have full control of.

Banish this idea, force through a law which states that couples choosing to marry must have independent witnesses who testify of a unity based purely on love and we have the start of the emancipation of women. Then in careers women will be judged on their brains rather than their breasts, girls will walk the streets without being hounded by slobbering wolves and women can live a life which is true to themselves rather than believe in continue an existence based on deception and lies.

The new tide of neo-Conservatism and Islamism has brought about a new splinter group in the already fragmented Left. It's characterised by being fierce Secular, anti-tyrannist and non-apologetic. Amongst its more vocal supporters come a who's who in the world of the old Left; Hitchens, Aaronovitch and Cohen. Whether they are new or continuation of the old standards of Socialism is for you to decide, but they stand firmly against the Stop The War coalition's most ardent supporters, and in most cases their old friends and allies..

What happened to turn one time comrades against one another is a little more complex. A simple explanation to be made for this new tide in politcs is the rise of Islamism, and one I will focus on in the course of this essay. Since the Soviets have packed up shop and turned into slightly more benevolent leaders of the old order, focus has firmly be squared at another threat, coming a little more East of Moscow. Al Qaeda sought and achieved a series of attacks on its new adversary, the USA and its Allies, and make its aims clear, the end of American influence in Muslim lands, and the return of the Caliphate (even in non-Muslim Spain and Portugal). In the areas it occupied, a regime of terror was established, with their Muhajadeen friends. Afghanistan was transformed from a moderately progressive country before Soviet intervention into a gruesome fairground attraction for all militant Islamists. Stoning, amputation and all the evils of Salafist interpretation of Sharia brought about a society living in fear, and a depressing blanket uniformity gripped the country. Women were forced to stay at home, and when they rarely did venture out were forced to wear the all covering burqa uniform. Homosexual men were stoned to death and worse, with a ban on such trivial pastimes as music and kite-flying, it bared all the hallmarks of everything the Left stood against.

At the same time in America, a new force bore fruit, neo-Conservatism, again a reactionary political force which aimed to use interventionism to fulfil its goals. Inside America in aimed to return to the glory days of Christian values, which was endemic in the 1950s, and aimed to undo much of, what some would say, failures of Liberalism, whilst still retaining the principles of freedom and democracy. Its foreign policy was one which was the most influential. Intervention when was needed, an end to tyranny, and unyielding support for democratic forces across the world. Eastern Europe, particulalry Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine became the poster children of what people could achieve without violence and stood against the values of cultural relativism which was endemic amongst Liberals at the time..

Europe was gripped by both of these ideologies. In many of the Mosques across Western European cities came the cry of Jihad, whilst many Leftists took up the gauntlet of no surrender against authoritarianism, no matter what mask it wears. Britain's mosques became a haven for Wahabbism and a breeding ground for Islamism, while the old Left made alliances with many of the Imams linked to radical interpretations of Islam, and lived up to the Arabic saying 'My enemy's enemy is my friend'.

It's interesting to point out that the new Left attached themselves to the principles of Socialism favourite son, George Orwell. From Orwell's literature and writings is an expression of all the qualities that the new Left came to associate themselves with: a hatred for dictatorships, violent targeting of civilians, economic inequality, racism, distrust of the clergy and the principles of Zionism, and when necessary fight for their beliefs.

It is quite ironic that they attached themselves to probably America's most right-wing and militantly Christian administration, but Bush's uncompromising stance on authoritarian figures was a policy to hard to ignore. After past genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, they saw a need for a democratic superpower to take a strong line against any other genocidal dictators, and when necessary use military action. The obvious link here is to the Iraq War were many were hoodwinked by fake intelligence reports and naive opinions of what a democratic Iraq would look like.

A further swing in popular opinion and of what many of the intellegisia wrote and fought ardently for was the ideology of atheism and secularism. A balanced attack of all religions followed from the likes of Hitchens, be they Muslim fanatics, Christian fundamentalists or Jewish settlers, a belief that religion and superstition were key to the problems today.

It is interesting in what direction the New Left will follow now. The Iraq war proved largely to be a largely disastrous expedition, and the threat of Iran and its nuclear weapons programme now constitutes to being one of the worlds biggest threats to world peace. A need to settling the wrongs in Palestine seems to be the obvious solution for the Left to pursue, to show the Arab world and moderate Muslims around the globe that the Iraq, although a disaster, was a misjudged plan to help the Arab world, not hinder it. A plan to spread democracy, not to create (what many Arabs see it as) a puppet government. And a plan to help to people of Iraq achieve unity and pride, not to create the catalyst for an inhumane and degrading Civil War. Once this is achieved America and the West will stand once again as the model of liberty and civil rights, and the political apparatus all will want to follow, slowly strangling fundamentalism and authoritarianism once and for all.

I am British. Although I have my fair share of Irish ancestry, in the modern sense of citizenship I believe I am British, and so do most people from these islands, whether they are first generation Brits or can trace their bloodline back to the Norman invasions. I do not need to have a Union Jack on my wall to believe I'm British, or the words of the National anthem, nor all the works of Shakespeare, which is essentially, well, a fairly healthy British trait of coyness and apathy towards patriotism.

Since New Labour's rise to power, national identity has become something of an obsession to this government and perhaps it could be something to do with Blair's intense admiration for our trans-Atlantic cousins. In the USA you see a genuine pride for their flag, a people who will give one of the most rousing renditions of their national anthems you're likely to hear since Nazi Germany and a fairly uniformed idea of what being an American is. When you live abroad and meet Americans, there is something which strikes a twinge of jealousy in you, that they are quite comfortable with their nationality and take great pride in it, and it is a fairly rare form of nationalism.

This is obviously the approach our government has long sought after since 1997, from New Labour must come a new Britain, and after the death of Cool Britannia Labour have looked for a new way of forging excitement and pride in our country. Unfortunately for them, the British have always been very much reluctant to become flag-waving, 'hip-hip-hooray' for the Queen, and anthem-belching robots, unless of coarse there is a new British musical movement, new youthful identity, a just war or Britain winning some major sporting event, but lets face it, none of them are likely to happen for a long time.

Blair's Britain, whether directly or indirectly, did create a new youthful social movement, the new identity for teenage, disillusioned teenagers: chavs/scallies/neds (delete as appropriate). Youth culture is not something new, and although this form maybe a major problem, the government obviously nurtures the age old image of what kids used to be like; always polite, respectful of bobbies and the most evil they would inflict is steal apples from Mrs. Dalloway's blooming big apple tree. Now look at them! When they're not mugging old ladies and burning down schools they're blowing themselves up on buses.

Their answer to cure Britain of these social ills is to make all school leavers pass a Citizenship Ceremony and swear allegiance to the Queen, because the decline in popularity of the Monarchy is obviously a link to the decline in youths' attitude to authority, not anything to do with the amount of scandals they've got themselves into and the drain it takes on taxpayers money when our NHS hospitals are going to the dogs. The idea is so ludicrous that it would appear they hired Alf Garnett as a researcher, but no, this is from Lord Goldsmith.

British youth obviously lack the loyalty to their country that our forefathers had, but the answer is a lot more complex than a lack of respect for the Monarchy. Thatcherism did create a society of greed. It dismantled the idea of civic pride and the privatisation of most Public industries, hand-in-hand with the insecurities that mass unemployment and the recession caused, that have created the first generation post-Thatcher kids who feel, quite frankly, lost. At first we were told that the Union Jack is a symbol of the National Front and colonialism, now we're told that we should be wrapping it round ourselved and pop down to the Proms with our multi-ethnic friends. We were brought up that greed is good, look after ourselves and nobody else, now that we should be engaging in community service and talking to our neighbours. There is little wonder that the dismantling of the few national institutions we felt pride in would create a community with complete apathy towards others. A Britain was created where lies are told by our government to invade another country, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of young British soldiers to die in and thousands more innocent men, women and children, with images beamed onto our Sky Television screens daily, as a constant reminder of what happens when we trust our government and send our soldiers into a seemingly just war.

New Labour took up the gauntlet of Thatcherism and the spirit of entrepreneurship, and ensured the rich get richer, whilst pandering to the timid Daily Mail readers by not increasing taxes to pay for the hundreds more schools and hospitals the 1997 manifesto promised. Instead billions were pumped into a pointless war, the privatisation of state schools looks under way and the founders of football are knocked out of the European Championship qualifiers. Is it any wonder that there is no sense of pride in Britain at the moment? There's a long way to go before we fix these wrongs but there is no simple solution to it, and a Citizenship ceremony is not going to turn potential suicide bombers into Boy Scouts. Neither is swearing allegiance to the half-German, half-Greek, inbred, obscenely rich, next heir to-the-throne, who's only achievement is that he happened to be born to Liz II. This paradox of the New Labour movement, which claims to be the party of social mobility (but not enough to be head of our own country), screams out all the ills of Britain. One which has created a complete apathy not only of our country but of politics, community and our neighbours. So fix the wrongs you've made Mr Brown, apologise to the parents of young British servicemen you sent into a needless war Mr Blair, and Mrs Thatcher, well, just die, then maybe our society can exorcise its demons and move into the 21st century like our continental neighbours.

Liberal democracy is a great thing. You can say what you want, act how you want, are protected by the state and when necessary are provided for by the state. One of the evils it has produced is hippy culture. Every idea produces some reactionary group, which is basically formulated out of the positive points of the political ideas, and taken a step to far. Hippies, take the idea of social democracy a marathon to far.

Social and liberal democracy is probally one of the least selfish and all encompasing ideas out there. You are expected to work hard and play hard, pay your taxes, and in return the money is usually spent for the betterment of the worse of classes in society, through free education, health care, a police force to ensure the streets are safe, well cared for roads etc. Hippies' ideas of social equality is to dismantle this well thought and and productive system, so the rich no longer pay taxes, the poor no longer have free access to health care, no police to make sure the streets are safe (and it's substanially the working classes rather than the upper ones who are the victims of crime).

Ideas of peace and unity are all too well in a world were everyone thinks the same way... but I'm afraid the organizers of Glastonbury don't think the same way as the organizers of concentration camps in North Korea, or the organizers of public beheadings in Saudi Arabia. And as long as people in the world who believe in either revolutionary political ideas or dogmatic theocratic ones, then the need for an army from Western nations continues. In fact, it's probally thanks to the British, French and American military superiority and influence in the UN that they're not living in a Gulag, being fed a bowl of rice a day, working a 15 hour shift in a field and being put against the wall and shot. Like it or lump it, George W Bush cares more about your right to live the way you do and say what you say than the juntas in North Korea or Syria.

And as for drugs, I'm sure most people who have read this have tried some form of soft drugs... but we quite rightly don't believe it to be a way of life or a constructive way to Saturday afternoon. There is a lot of injustices in the world, genocide in Darfur, suppression of democracy in Burma and Nickelback number 2 in the charts, when my band couldn't get a record deal, but these terrible evils will not be solved by taking so much acid you imagine fairies are cooking you dinner, nor will they.

The best way you can help the world is to put down the bong, trade in your VW camper van, don't believe in any form of religion and especially crazy Indian ones, work hard, pay taxes, give to charity, look after those in your community, start a pressure group, because no ammount of ganja you smoke is going to help your buddist monk friends in Tibet.

The claws of religion have been sunk into the body of modern Britain, and though bloodied there is still life in this animal yet. The time for idle pandering and rhetoric is over, no, its attacker will not be beaten by diplomacy and concessions.

For the first time in years, Dr. Rowan Williams' Anglican Church has finally hit the nail on the head concerning religion and culture and its place in modern Britain, despite it being a counter-productive one for the Bishop. His 'Sharia' comment is a valid one, and with endless appeasement and pampering to relgious minorities (I say minorities because Britain is now essentially non-religious) then it won't be long till Islam has a place in the British legal and political systems. And to be honest, who can blame some Muslims in Britain for wanting a way for Islamic Law to settle their social disputes, when Jews and Christians can do the same.

Since the end of The Second World War, and the defeat of facism is Western Europe, Britain, along with most of its European counterparts, have been dedicated to creating a system which no longer relies on doctrine, authoritarianism and prejudice. A society was created which destroyed traditional oppressive hierarchal structures of governance, and one placed its importance on the individual rather. One where an individual can live the life they choose, with freedom to practice what they think and believe, without state or society interference. The power of the once dominant Christian Churches fittered in away in Europe, as the populations became educated, and with the help of science, arts and reason, began to question, realising that life is one to live as we choose, with no constraints as long as others are not harmed. Europe became united on these principles of human respect, making nationalism moribund, and since The Second World war there have been no others in Western Europe.

The turn of the millenium a new wind of radicalism entered Europe, one which was largely unknown, but since the time of Christendom it was seen frequently as 'the other', Jihadism. After the fall of the Shah and establishment of a theocracy in Iran, the defeat of Arab Nationalism and the Muhajadeen kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan, Islamism has been an appealing political idea to many young, dissilusioned Muslims across the world, but nowhere was it as strong as oil-rich Saudi Arabia.

In Britain, Mosques built with tacit agreement from our governments, have been struck with the vile illness of Wahabbism, the Saudi doctrine of hatred and intolerance. It is one which leaves moderate Muslims and non-Muslims at risk, a doctrine which promotes, no, demands, a compulsary obligation to violently attack those who don't believe in the desert-based Medievil laws of Muhammad ibn Abd-Al-Wahab. Terrorism and violent attacks have become a daily threat for all people in Britain, regardless of age, race, gender or religious beliefs, since this idea took hold in certain areas of Britain.

This aggressive attack on our beliefs and ideas must be dealt with in a similar aggressive maner, but a purely European one of articlulate debate, gloves off no longer afraid of insulting the feelings of people because they believe in centuries old scriptures. Dawkins and Hitchens are correct in this arguement, and the more people who are exposed to such articulately put arguments, the weaker the case of radicalism stands.

Since Dr. Rowan William's speech we have seen Britain turn in this direction. Society and the media are not attacking individual Muslims for their beliefs, but turned their attention to why Sharia should not happen in Britain, as it would leave Muslim womens' rights in the hands of an un-elected and male-dominated ulama, acting on scriptures which makes a clear differenciation between the rights of man and women.One where a woman is worth less than a man, one where it is permissable to beat her for disobedience, one which shamlessly supresses the individual dreams and wishes for living the life, choosing the husband and following the career she wishes.

There will never be stoning of adulters on the streets of Burnley, and amputations of thieves' hands in Bradford, but the threat of extinguishing the flames of feminism (and one which was started by the suffragettes in Britain) is at threat. The idea of human liberty, which for decades Europe has pursued as the basis of which we live our lives, can be easily displaced due to cultural and relgious sensitivities. The time for action through debate is now, to keep the blood of liberty pumping through the veins of Britain once again.