Friday, 28 August 2015


I cannot pass by in silence this new form of literature [journalism], since, aside from the fact that it offers nothing whatsoever for the development of the mind, it has, from my point of view, become the fundamental evil in the life of people today because of the poisonous influence it exerts on their mutual relations.

G I Gurdjieff, Meetings with Remarkable Men


You form your own opinions when you don’t read papers.

Chas Hodges, The Autobiography of Chas and Dave



On January 1st, 2012, I did what a lot of people do every year; I made a new year’s resolution. Mine was not to buy a newspaper for the entire year. A couple of weeks ago, after over three and a half years, I finally broke my resolution, buying a copy of The Times because I wanted a tangible souvenir of England’s Ashes victory for my scrapbook of sporting triumph for England and Arsenal stretching back two decades. I took out the sports section, and threw the rest away, unread.

The most depressing thing about modern newspapers is the smug, self-satisfied look of the people carrying them, the look that says; I am among the well-informed. Not for me the lifestyle or music magazine, the new penny dreadfuls or Fifty Shades of Harry Potter. What is this mine of information they hold in their well-informed hands, what is this portal to knowledge concerning the world? Perhaps a couple of dozen articles on events, things which have undeniably taken place, which can be found in any of the major newspapers because it is not journalism but syndicated info-fodder processed and pre-filtered by the big news agencies. Other than that it is advertising disguised as journalism, puff-pieces about establishment-approved causes (Europe, the public sector, multiculturalism, big government and so on), celebrity tittle-tattle (despite claims the paper is averse to the cult of celebrity), television, fashion, motor cars, kitchens and seemingly limitless sports coverage. And, of course, opinion.

A man in a position to know about these things recently gave the opinion that modern journalism is increasingly becoming op-ed. I used to think that ‘op-ed’ stood for ‘opinionated editorial’, but in fact it is short for ‘opposite the editorial page’, and is simply opinion given by a staff writer on the major topics of the day. It is worth noting that the man in question was Alastair Campbell, and so worth listening to concerning what journalism is and is not. If you want to know about evil, you don’t petition the Lord; you ask the Devil.

So, as a confirmed news junkie who hasn’t owned a television for twenty years, where do I get my daily fix? Why, the internet. By which I don’t mean the botched and failing migration the print media have rattled together, but what we might call the ‘dissident net’. Not the dark net, or any other of the dime-store, Illuminati-obsessed, foil-hat-wearing, damp and squalid virtual cellars. The dissident net is that part of the internet where unsanctioned opinion flourishes – from the informed to the psychotic – offering both a genuine, laissez faire marketplace for ideas, and a slowly congealing voice of those we could call cultural plaintiffs. Freedom of speech, dissident ideas, the ability to mock the elites; no wonder those same elites have made their first, tentative steps towards curtailing this playground of freedoms. First they came for the bloggers, but I was not a blogger…

The mainstream media [MSM] will defend itself thus: the press still capture the news as it happens and communicates it. No blogger, commenter or e-zine host can do that. The dissident net is just leeching from the MSM. Well, just so. It is not the reportage qua reportage that concerns the dissenters; it’s the presentation, selection and ill-disguised politicisation of that news which smacks of Orwell and Communism. As for macro-news, this is all too often used as a distraction from localised news, which is exactly what the citizen journalist is equipped to cover. They have the competence.

And that is a sore point for the courtiers of the MSM; competence. All these unlettered bloggers and e-zine contributors, expressing opinions unchecked by professional sub-editors (a dying breed, incidentally; I used to be one), with not so much as a seaside journalism college diploma or a Media Studies degree from an ex-Polytechnic! But opinion needs no mentor save knowledge, and successful bloggers and magazine editors soon find out they have a very capable sub-editor in its readers and commenters, a hive-mind of useful pedantry. Journalists just don’t like it because it’s someone else’s go on the swings. My diaries tell me that, over six years ago, I was writing of the press and its relationship with blogging thus;

‘In the last three years, I have read vitriolic anti-blogging diatribes by Madeleine Bunting, Jackie Ashley, Polly Toynbee and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.’

The press is largely composed of orthodox, Left-of-centre, tenured courtiers who might be permitted the odd tantrum or raspberry, but otherwise hold the party line. There are one or two exceptions – Peter Hitchens being the most obvious and erudite – but if you want genuine debate on and new and contrarian ideas concerning immigration, Europe, globalisation, climate change, Islam, the public sector, the economy, cultural decline and any one of the other dwindling redoubts where the Right might turn and take a stand, do not look to the gentlemen and women of the press.

I’ll resist the urge to proselytise but, if you are already here  - although this is no font of knowledge, just a twitch in the nerve of democracy as it sickens and dies – then perhaps you already have the feeling that the MSM simply won’t do. So kick the habit. Stop buying newspapers, get rid of your television. You can buy a top-of-the-range e-book with the licence fee and still have change for sweets and a comic, and you can buy what Wodehouse’s Jeeves would call ‘an improving book’ with the money you save on chip wrapping. Starve the beast.

Wednesday, 19 August 2015


Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. 

George Orwell, Party slogan, 1984

Today the reference to Nehru was cut out from the announcement – N. being in prison and therefore having become Bad. 

Orwell’s diaries 


Reading Orwell’s 1984 for the fourth time, I was reminded of the Victorian lady who complained that Hamlet was full of clichés. So much of the book originally titled The Last Man in Europe is familiar to us that it has spawned its own cliché; that the ‘leaders’ of modern states, reading 1984, mistake a novel for a how-to guide.

Big Brother, Newspeak, Two-Minute Hate, Telescreens, Room 101, Doublethink, The Ministry of Truth… 1984 contains a lexicon for the modern surveillance state many of us fear we are walking – slowly, so slowly – into. The idea of the lexicon is also central to the book. Newspeak functions by compromising freedom of thought through reducing the range of its available vocabulary;

‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.’

This agenda exists in today’s West, with certain words becoming verboten according to the dictates of PC, the PR front of the hard Left. Look at how many of today’s non-stories concern use of language.

Orwell, a sick man, retired to the remote Scottish island of Jura to write 1984. He must have felt like the last man in Europe. Eric Blair (Orwell’s real name) intended 1984 as a critique of Communism, which makes the book’s relevance today all the more frightening. All the while the modern Left believe that collective totalitarianism is a utopia to be desired, we all risk our past being thrown down the Memory Hole, acceptable collateral against a future Orwell’s O’Brien infamously pictures as ‘a boot stamping on a human face – for ever’. This is our Western future if we fail to defeat the hard Left.

Although famously a Socialist, Orwell wrote of the ‘Pansy Left’, a phrase which, if coined today, would cause Owen Jones to have conniptions. It is that Pansy Left, however, that effectively runs the West. Of course, the neo-Communists gearing the West for decline and fall are not Orwell’s Inner Party, but there are protocols which must be observed on pain of imprisonment and ostracisation.

Orwell himself would have had no time for PC. Delightfully, he writes to Anthony Powell in 1936;

‘It is so rare nowadays to find anyone hitting back at the Scotch cult. I am glad to see you make a point of calling them “Scotchmen”, not “Scotsmen” as they like to be called. I find this a good easy way of annoying them.’

The Guardian would have a self-righteous seizure at this today.

Something which had eluded me previously is that 1984 is a wonderful love story. Love ought to exist as a beautiful oasis in the midst of a wasteland of ugliness, and Orwell achieves that. Winston is a physical cripple – a shade, perhaps, of Orwell’s tubercular self – and Julia is not attractive. ‘Except for her mouth, you could not call her beautiful’. Orwell fails to predict the rampant sexualisation of the modern age – Julia works for the Anti-Sex League, unthinkable today – but the scenes of the couple’s affair are genuinely touching and well handled. Winston’s love for Julia is his personal revolution, his hubris, and the point of his otherwise tawdry existence, exemplified by her defiant statement that ‘In this room I’m going to be a woman, not a Party comrade.’ Today’s feminists could learn much here.

As a writer, Orwell’s style is spare, austere and sometimes drily funny. A man wears ‘a concertina-like black suit’. A room contains ‘a deep, slatternly armchair’. His scene-setting is perfect for the sense of despair and hopelessness pervading almost every scene. Grit, dirt, grease, dust sweat; these are the elements of Orwell’s laboratory. It is pleasant to note that Orwell, as all writers must, also has his images which fascinate him. In 1984, a ruined woman neighbour is seen ‘fiddling helplessly with a blocked wastepipe’. The same desperate image occurs in The Road to Wigan Pier, as Orwell sees a woman from a train ‘kneeling in the gutter in a back-alley in Wigan , in the bitter cold, prodding a stick up a blocked drain.’

In the end, Orwell’s genius was to show a world under totalitarianism as a world which is now all too feasible. The malodorous alliance between Europe and America’s hard Left and Islam echoes throughout O’Brien’s manifesto toward the end of the book. O’Brien diagnoses the captive Winston;

‘You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You could not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity.’

Despite the bleat of politicians telling us that Islam means peace, it does not; the word means ‘submission’. This is far from the only prescient foreshadowing of Mohammedanism in 1984;

‘The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.’

This is our dystopia too, if we choose to avert our eyes from its gradual dominance.

In an echo of Lenin’s lament, Winston Smith decries that ‘if there is hope, it lies in the proles.’ But we are busy, far too busy with our trinkets and Telescreens and time-saving devices. And this failure to see what is hidden in plain sight will be our undoing. Read properly, 1984 could still be the worm in the Left’s septic rose, if we read it at all.

‘The world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.’

Thursday, 13 August 2015


Today’s Tory Party is indistinguishable from New Labour, and is probably more Marxist in practice than Jeremy Corbyn is in theory.


Peter Hitchens, The Mail on Sunday



If there is one lesson to be taken from this run-up to the presidential campaign of 2016, it is that a huge and growing segment of the nation does not want what the establishment of either party has on offer.


Pat Buchanan, Taki’s Magazine



There is nothing the Western political and media complex dislikes more than when its narrative is upset. This happened in the UK with Nigel Farage and, after a sustained and blatant media attack campaign against his party in general and Farage in particular, the threat of UKIP was finally nullified. It is happening now in America with Donald Trump and the Republican Party candidature. Even Fox News – an organisation laughably called Right-wing by the Pansy Left – have mobilised their forces to destroy someone plainly not of the political class. To a curious extent, and with obviously marked differences to the campaigns against Farage and Trump, the same thing is happening to the firebrand pretender to Labour’s tainted throne, Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn commits the unforgiveable sin of the modern political elites; authenticity. He may be a Marxist loon who believes that if a heavily indebted nation keeps borrowing to build infrastructure it will eventually solve its financial ills, but he does actually believe that. The rest of our empty-headed gauleiters believe whatever their focus groups, SpAds, wonks, policy advisers, fixers and other illusionists and manipulators have told them to believe that morning in order to placate the media and fool the masses. The one favour Corbyn could do all of us is to expose and reject the public relations ethos of modern politics.

Perhaps he won’t have to try too hard; conviction politics may be toxic enough. Joel Benenson, an American ‘pollster’ who has worked for the odious pairing of Obama and Hillary Clinton, is lined up to work for the Labour Party on one condition; that Corbyn is not leader. Warding off these shysters is an encouraging start for the overwhelming favourite to win the leadership election. But there may be other implications of this dark horse storming through on the rails as the finish line hoves into view.

Peter Hitchens is probably our leading popular Conservative journalist, and is to that extent despised by the Pansy Left. He is a Christian monarchist, well-spoken and erudite, and is often openly ridiculed by dullards in print, on radio and on television. I remember one particularly shrewish Pakistani heritage woman leaning in to him while he was making one of his usual closely argued and reasonable points and saying into his face: HELLO? HELLO? HELLO? as though she were implying that Hitchens was mentally defective by virtue of not sharing her own fudge-brained and self-righteous multicultural pieties. Thus the Pansy Left. Hitchens Minor (his brother was the late Christopher) has an interesting take on the Corbyn phenomenon and a salient message to the ‘Right’, or at least the so-called Tories; be careful what you wish for.

‘Corbyn for Leader’ has, of course, become the gleeful chant of the Right. Conservatives – although they are conservative in name only, like the RINOs in America – are happily joining the Labour Party in order to vote for the bearded Marxist-Leninist who counts Gerry Adams and Hamas among his friends because they believe it will administer the killing stroke to their supposed adversaries. Hitchens argues that there are two reasons why the Tories may rue the election of Corbyn as Dear Leader.

The second reason is the weaker argument. Hitchens says that without an enemy, the Conservative Party itself will begin to crack and fragment. He compares it to NATO after the fall of Communism, but I think Hitchens is having a vaporous attack of dialectics. There is no cast-iron political law that says that a party or organisation requires an enemy, a radical other, in order to define itself. In fact, this smacks rather more of the type of post-modern pabulum found in our universities, where post-modernist progressivism has replaced the inconvenience of having to think. It is the first of Hitchens’s arguments which resonates.

The problem facing the Tories, writes Hitchens, is ‘the constant risk that George Osborne’s supposed recovery finally runs out of luck, and is revealed as the conjuring trick that it is.’ For it almost certainly is a conjuring trick and, like the conjurer, Osborne knows how to distract with one hand while fooling the audience with the secret actions of the other. This country’s structural deficit is greater than that of Greece, a notoriously bankrupt country now reliving its classical battles against the barbarian hordes. Our superfatted public sector shows no signs of diminishing. Foreign aid continues to be posted into a hole in the ground. Costly and culturally inimical immigration continues apace. Scotland still leeches from English tax-payers. It cannot continue.

With this in mind, it is worth noting a tendency of that mass of people so despised by the contemporary political class; the electorate. People, en masse, do not really vote for political principles, they vote against incumbent parties with which they are disgusted and bored. In the case of the UK, that would be every post-war party that Her Majesty the Queen has invited to form a government at Westminster. This is where dialectics really does come into play. When the latest reigning bunch of mercenary stuffed suits have run out of steam and can’t fool a docile public any longer, a general election sees the other lot take the reins. It looks very much like change, even though it is not.

If Alastair Campbell despises him, Corbyn can’t be all bad. Ditto the man Hitchens calls ‘the Blair creature’. With the advent of the curious triumvirate of Farage, Trump and Corbyn, politics has done what the political class has fought so hard to disallow, despite their fork-tongued protestations to the contrary; it has become interesting again.

Thursday, 6 August 2015


Marxists always work in stealth mode to effectuate their revolution. They hide behind the mantle of social justice, fairness and equality all the while they are busy dismantling American principles and replacing them with Communist slogans, propaganda and social engineering strategies.


Napoleon and Yevtushenkov, A Look Inside the Playbook


At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected their thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that.


C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters



The spider of fiction spins ceaselessly in the Leftist, progressivist imagination. Imagination is, in fact, the arena in which the contemporary Liberal-Left agenda begins its life. The advantage of the imagination as a nursery for a political agenda is that it is not impeded by a slavish adherence to the truth. For the Left, fiction will do just as well as fact, if not better.

Truth, of course, is the central philosophical concern of mankind, whether it knows it or not. “What is truth?” asked Pontius Pilate of Jesus, and then did not stay for an answer. Whatever the answer to Pilate’s question, truth is not the currency of the political Left.

What are the big Leftist lies currently on offer? That Islam is a religion of peace unconnected with vicious terror attacks occurring on a daily basis world-wide. That there is a racist assault on America’s black community by its police force. That the UK’s nominally Conservative government is in fact conservative and not a soft-left, high-tax, high-spend, multiculturalist, egalitarian, focus-group-driven bunch of failed PR technocrats. That colonialism is responsible for the ills of Africa. That we have and cherish freedom of speech. The list is long, and fully sanctioned by Western leaders and their client media.

It may be that these ‘leaders’, both elected and unelected, see themselves as exercising the famous Platonic ‘noble lie’ of The Republic. They are not; they are simply lying. They have found the truth to be inexpedient and decided, as policy, to utilise its other. Why truth? They have asked, in a perversion of Nietzsche. Why not rather error? Jean-Claude Juncker, one of the many unelected, neo-Marxist gauleiters of that dreadful institution, the EU, famously said that, “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.” Perhaps he agrees with T. S. Eliot, that mankind cannot bear very much reality. Perhaps not.

To paraphrase Zola, truth should be on the march, and nothing should be able to stop it. We should be seeking truth from our political elites, the fourth estate should be speaking truth to power, but instead we are forced to agree with Orwell, that in times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. And it is a revolutionary act which is being increasingly punished. As Guillaume Faye writes;

‘In times of indoctrinated lies and well-bred civil cowardice, the courage to tell the truth mutates into a cardinal sin, as the few who take on the challenge must share the heretics’ hopeless state of banishment.’ (Why We Fight)

If you would like evidence of the way the modern state punishes the truth tellers (and Plato’s myth of the cave stands in the wings here), look at the treatment of public sector whistle-blowers, look at the treatment of those who dare to address the truth about Islam, look at Tommy Robinson’s incarceration. Look at the military family in Lincolnshire who had threatening hate mail posted through their letter-box from ‘The Circle of Allah’ promising revenge for the man of the family’s actions ‘in the Holy Land’. Instead of investigating the threat, the local police warned military families not to use social media to flag up the threat, just as Robinson was warned against – and quite possibly re-imprisoned for – re-tweeting death threats he had received. Look at the persecutions of Geert Wilders, Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others for telling truths to power. Look at the bans placed on Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, while so-called hate preachers are able to come and go in the UK with impunity.

These lies have a sharp political purpose well described by Theodore Dalrymple;

‘I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.’

Correspondence to reality is a justified sacrificial animal for the rituals of the modern Left; lies are justifiable as means provided the ends are to be desired. And so, when we are told by our elites that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, that we need more immigration, that remaining in Europe is essential to business, that the BBC is politically impartial, that foreign aid is essential, that white people are inherently racist but black people cannot be so, that equality is best achieved as outcome not opportunity, that a yearly improvement in secondary education is accurately reflected in grade inflation, and that our governments are comprised of selfless public servants rather than self-serving PR people with their snouts in the trough of the public weal, we must have the courage to recognise lies and liars, and call them such. We are lost otherwise.

What we cannot allow is the persecution of those who expose the truth, just as the escaped prisoner in Plato’s cave myth is killed by his fellow prisoners, chained as they are in the dark and unable to see the lit world outside.

St. Anthony the Great, the saint who built the foundations of monasticism in 4th-century Egypt, provides a glimpse of these coming persecutions;

‘A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, “You are not mad, you are not like us.”’


Saturday, 1 August 2015


People in power bamboozle the public… into supporting rules that will ultimately be used to protect the sensibilities (or sensitivities) of those in power.
Unlearning Liberty, Greg Lukianoff
They’re chopping off Christians’ heads in Syria, and we’re worried about tone.
Donald Trump


Intending to write about Donald Trump, and further to my meditations concerning Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, something serendipitous from Ann Coulter’s book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama;

‘I read Obama’s books to help me understand just what it is that makes black people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate.

The above paragraph is a precise paraphrase of what Obama wrote in Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, explaining why he read Joseph Conrad’s… Heart of Darkness, with “white people” switched out for “black people”’.

Ostensibly the president who would heal America’s racial divide, Obama is possibly the most racist politician outside of Africa and the former Soviet Union. He is obsessed with race, and demonstrably dedicated to undermining and eradicating white America. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is his latest wheeze; look it up.

A deeply unpleasant man with an ideological entourage equally mired in resentment (Alinsky, Holder, Wright, Sharpton, Jackson), Obama is pure product, a man without an original thought in his head, deeply ignorant (though touted as an intellectual), and a malevolent and blatant social engineer. He should be always in the crosshairs of the Republican Party. Instead, the GOP is simpering its way to electoral irrelevance. Or it was, before the arrival on the scene of Donald Trump.

Trump’s strategy is simple; he talks to ordinary people and not merely the political class and its media courtiers. He has an exact analogue here in the UK in Nigel Farage, and the political elite has no answer to anything that is not a product of PR. As Mark Steyn puts it concerning Trump, ‘his observations on immigration were a rare intrusion of reality into an other-worldly public discourse.’

Trump’s current wave of success is not because of superior political strategy; it’s because he doesn’t have a strategy. Spontaneity, openness, willingness to discuss verboten issues; these are the traits that both explain Trump’s – probably transitory - appeal and scare the GOP half to death.

And yet Trump could be the Republicans’ best chance of keeping Clinton out of power, an outcome much to be desired for the sane section of the planet still remaining. Trump is polling remarkably well among blacks. Even given his comments about Hispanics, he has not totally alienated that bloc; it is one of the great myths of immigration that successful immigrants want more of it, La Raza – to which we will return - notwithstanding. Most importantly in terms of America’s electoral college, Trump is polling second in Iowa. This is no novelty act.

Whereas Europe’s problem immigrants hail from failed Islamic states in the Middle East and the Maghreb, America’s influx is predominantly South American. What this means in effect is that America, the world’s biggest racial melting-pot and, at the time of writing, the world’s major superpower, is importing La Raza. And if you think La Raza - a supporting wall of Mexican culture, for example - is all mariachi, piñata and Cinco de Mayo, think again. It’s a racial supremacist ummah that makes the Klan look like The Church of Scientology.

And when Trump is reprimanded by the thought police of the Left for stating the blindingly obvious, that Mexico is sending more drug dealers than neurological consultants, perhaps some of the ethnic minority groups affected by a sudden influx of cheap labour are starting to look beyond groupthink.

Here, for example, is the formula so dangerous to American blacks, the very client group supposedly dear to Obama and his stasi; amnesty guarantees an influx of unskilled Latin-American labour which will both saturate the workforce and depress wages, economic outcomes completely inimical to blacks. So blacks voted, with extreme racial prejudice, for a man who will lose them their jobs. Black youth unemployment in the USA is already 51%. What do the open-borders, amnesty, in-state tuition discount crowd think will happen when Juan, José and Consuela arrive and think $5 an hour is high rolling?

Conventional wisdom says that Trump cannot become president just as Farage cannot become Prime Minister (or even a sitting MP). But the more the media dance to the political establishment’s tune, and ignore real people and their stake in democracy, the shakier conventional wisdom looks. When Rubio – another fraud – says that Trump has ‘no class’, what he is really saying is that the Donald is not a member of the political class. Their protocols don’t apply to him, nor their speech codes. Donald Trump can’t be bought and he can’t be bribed and he can’t be dictated to by the politically correct thought police who determine much of the West’s permitted discourse. If you would like an example of this permitted discourse, please feel free to study modern Sweden, a nation known for its suicide rate and which is now hell-bent on committing collective hari-kiri by importing wholesale Islam. My brother moved to Gothenburg 25 years ago, and told me then that a rape in Sweden would make the front page of the national newspapers. Now, Sweden is the rape capital of Europe, and Malmö is close to being a war zone. Instead of the national debate one might expect, however, it is simply not permitted to talk about Islamic immigration in Sweden, and you risk your job and your freedom if you do.

It’s ironic but thoroughly comprehensible that Trump, one of the big winners at capitalism’s roulette wheel, is the least politically skilled of the GOP nominee pack. It also explains his current success, despite the best efforts of the media. Trump has made politics interesting again, and the political class despise him for it. For the little man, that should be endorsement enough.