In contrast to the fear and self-loathing at the New Yorker, The New York Post seems to get it: they're running an op-ed by British journalist Melanie Phillips explaining how London was transformed into Londonstan:

AFTER 9/11 plotter Zacarias Mous saoui was sentenced to life im prisonment, his family blamed - the British. Their son had had first arrived in London in the 1990s for an MA course in international business studies - and been radicalized and recruited for jihad at London's Finsbury Park mosque.

It was the British, his mother said, who turning a blind eye to the violence and spread of hate - and thus allowed this youth with a troubled and violent family background to be recruited to the cause of Islamist terrorism.

Leaving aside her complaint's self-serving aspect, she was undoubtedly correct.

Because British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been such a staunch friend to the United States, Americans assume that - unlike Europe - Britain generally is on side. They could not be more wrong. The dismaying truth is that Blair is an aberration in his own country. Instead of fighting radical Islamism, virtually the entire British political, intellectual and security establishment can't even bring themselves to name the threat.

BRITAIN is the mother-ship for American values and the brand leader of English-speaking culture. The Londonistan mindset is being replicated in America: on campus, in the media and in official circles. If Britain goes down under this assault, the forces in America now holding back the tide of cultural immolation will be immeasurably weakened.

"Londonistan" is a threat not just to Britain, but to the whole of the free world.

Excepting a certain "broad strata", of course.

Update: Just to further tie this post to the previous one, the BBC is running a gushing photo tribute to the fortunately very late Ayatollah Khomenei. In contrast, while meeting with Khomenei in 1979, Oriana Fallaci boldy and indignantly ripped off the chador she originally forced to wear in his presence, and told the New Yorker, "it did not take long to realize that in spite of his quiet appearance he represented the Robespierre or the Lenin of something which would go very far and would poison the world".

As I recall from the late '70s, the BBC, Reuters, the New Yorker, and the Washington Post and other liberal western media all seemed to have understood that at the time, but could use a refresher course these days.