Saturday, 10 January 2015

ARMING ROUSSEAU’S CHILDREN: WHY WE ARE NOT CHARLIE HEBDO




Who hath taught the use of the pen

Hath taught Man that which he knoweth not.

Nay, verily, Man is insolent…

 Koran, Sura XCVI
 

As societies become increasingly multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious, if we accept the idea that people have a right not to be offended, we will end up with a tyranny of silence, for almost any speech may be deemed offensive.

Flemming Rose, The Tyranny of Silence
 

 

Like many people interested in the coming clash of civilisations – to quote Samuel Huntington – I became aware of Charlie Hebdo in 2011, when their Paris offices were fire-bombed by Muslims in retaliation for the satirical paper’s decision to print cartoons originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. The next time I was in France, I bought a copy. Even with my limited French, the language was not too demanding, although the paper itself was rather childish, Leftist and unsophisticated. Private Eye, for all its goonery, is far more mature. But Charlie Hebdo has done what must be done with increasing frequency by dissidents everywhere; it has mocked Islam.

Our political class will oppose this ridicule using the strongest means at its disposal in order to maintain its apparent (although unreal) love affair with Muslims. As the supreme race-hustler and community activism pimp Barack Hussein Obama put it; the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But the future must belong there, or there will be no future.

It is no coincidence that the two foreign cultures most deleterious to the white West – Muslim and black – are also the two most sensitive to mockery, criticism and satire. It is acceptable for blacks to be ridiculed, for example, as long as it is Chris Rock who is doing it. If you can find Chris Morris’s spoof interview with the bumptious Darcus Howe many years ago, you will see a perfect example of a black man affronted by the japery of a white man, a light mockery neither accepted nor understood. Mocking Islam, however, as many others than just the decimated staff of Charlie Hebdo have discovered, may earn you more than just black looks from Diane Abbott.

It is a measure of a human being’s emotional maturity that he or she can accept criticism and mockery with good grace, dignity, and an eye to self-improvement lest the comments aimed at him or her contain truths. In cultural terms, it is a sure sign of the immaturity of a race or religion if it responds violently to ridicule or satire. Thus, we have to ape our political classes, benevolently racist as they are, and treat of Muslims as though they were particularly unpleasant children.

Watch the way children respond to being twitted and made to look silly in front of other people, particularly other children. They do not like it, and you are guaranteed a response. Thus it is with Islam. But where they differ from children – and we recall Rousseau’s observation that, if a child could, it would destroy the world – is the desired outcome of their aggravated effrontery; control.

Control is a fascinating and all-pervasive concept which will rise to the surface as the twilight of Western civilisation deepens and darkens. Along with its provisional wing in the offence industry, the race hustlers and civil rights organisers and social justice activists, the modern seekers of control have a sophisticated and nuanced grasp of just what control is.

The journalist kneeling in the desert in his orange jumpsuit – mocking Guantanamo as it does (never think Islam does not like to mock) – knows about control, about the boundaries of what one can and cannot achieve as set in place by others who do not share your goals or beliefs. The thousands of women, Muslimas mostly, raped in half by Boko Haram are aware of the niceties of control. Theo van Gogh, descendant of the painter and director of a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women – a treatment which produces a deafening silence from the disgraceful and pathetic sluts who nowadays call themselves feminists – was almost decapitated, and left with a warning note pinned to his body, during his masterclass in control, freely given by a Muslim of the Maghreb. Control, then.

Islam seeks to control the West by an attritional process of shutting off its freedoms, beginning with freedom of speech. Although not genuinely offended by images of the ‘prophet’, the paedophile warlord Mohammed, the maintenance of offence works on the Western Liberal conscience in a way that mere anger cannot. And Islam has a powerful fifth column active in the West, one which already controls the media, politics and, increasingly, the law of the land; our genuine enemy, the cultural Marxists of the Left.

Islam is not to blame for faux sensitivity to what it perceives as idolatry; the Left is. Muslims have merely reaped what the Liberal Left has sown. In a country with a rich satirical tradition, where clubs were threatened with closure if even a particular anti-establishment gag was repeated, the Left betrayed us. This betrayal is summarised by Humphrey Carpenter in his fabulous book That Was Satire That Was, as he considers the stand-up comedy boom of the 1980s;

‘It might seem [from Alexei Sayles’s act] that the motto of alternative comedy was “anything goes”. In fact it was always left-wing, and strictly governed by political correctness, with a particular ban on any material that might be thought racist or sexist.’

Is it acceptable to you that the great British tradition of political and social satire defeated the office of Lord Chamberlain, with his censorious green pen, only to have him replaced with a gaggle of low-IQ imams and their armed accomplices deciding what can and can’t be said? You are certainly not Charlie Hebdo. If you have children, and your liberal-left beliefs force you to believe that no one has the right to offend, your offspring are not going to thank you for the world they will have to live in.

Thursday, 1 January 2015

CERTAIN VIRTUES: NOTES ON THE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF THE LEFT (II)



I’ve always been right-wing. It’s difficult to say why, but not being a political thinker I suppose I identify the Right with certain virtues and the Left with certain vices. All very unfair no doubt.

From an interview with Philip Larkin
 

Soon it will not matter whether you are Right or Left, as long as you are part of the resistance.

Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism 

 

The central tableau of Raphael’s beautiful School of Athens shows a conflict in a detail. On the left, the aged Plato points to his heaven of ideal forms while, to the right, Aristotle (Plato’s Academy student whom he nicknamed nous, or ‘the Mind’) gestures that reality is bound to earth. In times which will never return, S. T. Coleridge was able to say that every man was born an Aristotelean or a Platonist, and that distinction would have had meaning for the cultured Westerner. Today, in the twilit West, this esoteric nicety has no meaning to any but antiquarian specialists in philosophy.

Before the political distinctions between Left and Right become as outmoded as that between Raphael’s duo, a note on what remains of the polarity of political difference. 

From its origins in the French Revolution to its current state of definitional bemusement, the Left/Right division could be reduced to a basic set of components: 

·        Moral agency

·        Fiscal responsibility

·        Societal hierarchy

·        Cultural quality 

Briefly and provisionally, the Left and Right might be said to differ concerning these components in the following ways: 

Moral agency. While a Leftist believes that, for example, crime is caused by poverty, a Rightist holds that each criminal is free to make an individual moral choice as to whether or not they break the law. This is the classic battle, in philosophical terms, between free will and determinism. A famous example of this conflict is the argument between Martin Luther and Erasmus. 

Fiscal responsibility. Broadly, a Leftist would approve of higher personal taxation allied with a concomitantly larger role for government, while a Rightist would prefer lower taxation and smaller government on the basic principle that individuals are less profligate with their money than the state. This schism aligns with a command-control economy on the one hand, and transactional laissez faire economic practice, or the free market, on the other. 

Societal hierarchy. Simplistically, a Rightist will hold that there is a hierarchy pre-existent in nature, and that this is properly expressed in various social striations, while those of the Left believe that any social difference is the product of exploitation and artificial inequality and can be righted by a programme of social justice and egalitarianism 

Cultural quality. Again, reductively, a Rightist will believe that there is a hierarchy of quality concerning the products of a specific culture, and even between different cultures, whereas a Leftist will believe that all cultures, and all cultural phenomena, are of equal worth, and that to hierarchise is to be ethnocentric, or to judge from one’s own perspective as though that were privileged. 

Personally, although I am a creature of the Right according to the above codifications, I have always felt that there is or ought to be a tertium quid, a third category. Although the laissez faire economic market is appropriate for elective purchases, for example, I don’t believe it works for healthcare. Although I find my country’s legal system preferable to shar’iah, I think the harsh Islamic legal code is appropriate for Muslims. Although I believe in moral autonomy, society does indeed remove choices from us and force us to act in certain ways that belie this freedom. And, although I believe in limited government, I do feel that large corporations should pay more than they do towards its upkeep. And so on.

I certainly don’t believe that either the Leftist or Rightist viewpoint is morally right; morals have no place here. Using morality – at best an heuristic gauge of reality – to judge political sectarianism is like trying to use a colour chart to measure a length of wood. And I’m not bound to say that because I am a Nietzschean; rather, I am a Nietzschean because I am bound to say that. It is simply a case of which side wins, a case of kinetics, of force and effect.

How nice it would be, though, given the demise of the genuine Right and my own vestigial Leftist sympathies, to find the modern Left were a principled, gutsy, honourable, able, authentic group of wo/men dedicated to making the world a better place for everyone according to the principles of reason rather than emotion.

Instead, from the adventure playground of social media to the uppermost reaches of government, from the humblest of the Twitterati to the most superannuated journalist, from the fresh-faced university freshman to the hoary old street campaigner, what a sorry state the Left is in as twilight grows in the West, as decline turns inexorably into fall.

What a shower. Narcissistic, authoritarian grievance-mongers vie with a radically entitled moral bigotry possibly not seen since the heyday of Catholicism. The perpetually offended jostle with the politically correct to win the laurels for spotting micro-aggression, hidden racism, institutional sexism and latent homophobia. The self-haters, the ethnomasochists, the mea culpists, the oikophobes and the white Western guilt-mongers, in league with the language monitors and the thought police, form a shadow judicial system no word, opinion or individual can escape.

And the worst of it all is that the Left have not only won, but won’t stop whining about it. They resemble a football team after a crushing 9-1 victory whose manager won’t stop banging on about how the opposition’s last-minute consolation penalty goal should never have been given.

Look, Lefties. Do yourselves and the rest of us a big favour. Get hold of the facts and learn how to interpret them. Don’t mistake emoting for reasoning. And shut up until you’ve done that homework. If Russell Brand, Owen Jones and Penny Red are all you’ve got, good luck with 2015.