Thursday, 17 September 2015


Masses of young men in their twenties with beards singing Allahu Akbar across Europe. It’s an invasion that threatens our prosperity, our security, our culture and identity.

Geert Wilders 

Angela Merkel


Contrary viewpoints from diametrically opposed politicians, and yet both are true. How can this be? Wilders is absolutely accurate; there is a de facto Islamic invasion, a contemporary setting of the Koran-mandated Hijra, or invasion by demographic. The turnstile counter is mightier than the sword. Many of the refugees are neither Syrian nor under threat. They have been in Turkey, a safe haven. ISIS have threatened to put their people on mainland Europe – some have already been discovered – with results which will undoubtedly become apparent. So Wilders, as he so often is, is right.

But Merkel is also right within the terms of her and her colleagues’ agenda for Europe. The point for these unelected oligarchs is never ‘should we change Europe’ but rather, ‘how quickly can we do this?’ The reasons for the Islamisation of Europe remain obscure, but this is part of a program. One of the great mistakes made by the commentariat on this unfolding disaster is that it is the result of government incompetence. It is not; this is what Progressivist competence looks like.

Christians are reluctant to go to refugee camps in their country of origin or transit because they are afraid of what the BBC calls ‘radical Islamist elements’, but what you and I understand as ordinary, middle-Eastern Muslims. In this way, the Muslim Brotherhood has done its first level of filtration, ensuring that what Europe gets for its forced and mawkish compassion campaign is more Islam, lots more Islam. I have written here about the range of possible reasons for the mass importation of this most inimical of ideologies, but what are we to make of this sudden ramping up of the reconquista, a mass migration seemingly exacerbated by a single photograph of a dead child on a beach, a photograph whose back-story is just as spurious as you would expect from Western Leftist media?

Firstly, it’s a win-win for the political class. If saturation-level immigration of Muslims doesn’t net them the voting bloc to ensure European expansionism – geographically and fiscally – in perpetuity, then they have imported the new Jews. If this socio-economic experiment goes wrong, the people are going to want a whipping boy. Why not give them Islam?

Secondly, there is an advantage for those of us who might be described as cultural plaintiffs. We now have a far more clearly defined idea of our immediate enemy – and they are not immigrants, but Progressivist Leftists and their client media – as well as an opportunity to witness the superiority of white European culture and civilisation to that of Islam. Or so one might be forgiven for thinking. There is, however, a problem with this chain of reasoning.

The problem lies with what Wilders refers to as ‘our culture and identity’. These things are already under serious threat from a political class determined to deracinate the white West, and the antagonistic addition of Islam may be another front in that ongoing cultural war. But the problem extends further. Not only have cultural values been deliberately eroded by the elites; the people themselves, distracted by the baubles of technological consumerism, seem to have acquiesced all too readily to the disappearance of anything like value or identity in the contemporary West. Take the case of Britain.

Those – we, the people – who object to mass-transit Muslim immigration into the laughably named United Kingdom often subscribe to a piece of faulty reasoning ourselves; that immigrants fail to take up something called ‘British values’. The fault lies in two points. British values, while they once meant something definable, have been hugely in flux since the 1960s as a direct result of neo-Socialist social engineering, and immigrants do indeed adopt British values as they stand. They just adopt the wrong ones.

Cultural values fund one of the biggest lies told by the modern media. We are told that all cultures are equal. This is, of course, demonstrably untrue. Western culture is immeasurably superior to the Islamic version, mired in superstition and Medievalism as it is. If you believe that female genital mutilation, honour killings, rape as a judicial instrument, the fundamental inequality of men and women, sacrosanct Jew-hatred, intercourse with minors and a host of other Islamic delights have their equivalent in Western culture, and may not be adversely judged by the latter, you are quite simply mentally ill and a burden to your society.

That said, what values does the West offer up as a corrective to the barbarian hordes? Consumerism, an obsession with cars, PR, advertising, sexual licence, a devotion to a lying media, false egalitarianism, unbridled materialism, the self-hatred of the ruling class… It’s hardly a second Renaissance here.

And so while Geert Wilders is right that Muslims fail to assimilate into the West, it is because they choose from the cheaper end of our range of values – IT toys, trainers, drunkenness, loutish behaviour, aggressive self-aggrandisement and self-importance – instead of the few worthwhile vestiges of social capital we still enjoy: self-reliance, communitarianism, tolerance, patriotism, good manners. These things are actually under attack by Progressivists in government, the public sector and the media far more than they are by Islam, which is simply benefiting from a cultural vacuum into which they might march.

Eventually, ordinary people will be called upon to put an end to this migratory nonsense, using whatever means they have at their disposal. The first terrorist atrocity committed by our new arrivals will prove the tipping point, I suspect, and the ruling elites should look lively, as it is more than possible that they will have lost their police forces and armed services after decades of turning them into politically correct caricatures. As always, the progressive Left is forging a world which will not be pleasant.

Wednesday, 9 September 2015


From the very earliest days of the new Soviet state… people were to be sentenced not for what they had done, but for who they were.

Anne Applebaum, Gulag


Both the Russians and the Americans… are groping for a way of life that will enable the common man everywhere in the world to get the most good out of modern technology. There is nothing irreconcilable in our aims and purposes.

American Vice-President Henry Wallace, from a speech given at Kolyma Gulag, May 1944 


For years, it has fascinated me that whereas entering a pub or club in London wearing a T-shirt bearing the image of Stalin, Che Guevara or Mao Tse-Tung would count as a hip statement, wearing one with a portrait of Hitler could well lead to jail. In her harrowing but extraordinary history of the Soviet Gulags, Anne Applebaum has a similar epiphany watching Western tourists shopping for souvenirs on the Charles Bridge in newly liberated Prague;

‘Most of the people buying the Soviet paraphernalia were Americans and West Europeans. All would be sickened by the thought of wearing a swastika. None objected, however, to wearing a hammer and sickle on a T-shirt or a hat.’

The simplistic answer is, of course, that Stalin gets a pass because he is seen as a creature of the Left, while Hitler is a bogeyman because our modern myth-makers inform us that he is of the Right, and the Left have won the culture wars. If that is the case, the Left should hang their heads in shame, a commodity to which, however, they have no access. The only position Leftist heads have traditionally maintained where Stalin, the Terror and the Gulag system are concerned is in the sand.

The history of the Glavnoe upravlenie lagerei – GULAG for short – begins in the early 1920s on the northern Solovetsky Islands (a genuine archipelago, a foreshadowing of Solzhenitsyn’s later masterpiece) which set the tone for a death-camp empire from which others learned much as the century slouched on.

The camp system soon spread, and the economic benefits of a captive workforce requiring no wages but a minimum of black bread and brackish water to keep them – sometimes - living was irresistible to a Soviet determined to overcome its native economic incompetence and bestride the technological, industrial and agricultural worlds.

As well as a literal history of the camps, and the pathetic white elephant vanity projects with which Stalin slaughtered hundreds of thousands – like the unusable White Sea Canal – Applebaum concentrates on the physical and mental experience of the prisoners, with separate sections on arrest, arrival, work, guards, the dying, strategies of survival and every facet of this life of the damned.

Much of the power of Applebaum’s book lies in the oral narrative of camp survivors. The details are no less harrowing, but they reach the reader through the dignified strength of memories of camp ‘life’ which would never, could never, disappear. The epigraph to Gulag encapsulates this. Unsurprisingly, the hardest passages to read are those written by children, accounts of which there were, bizarrely, many commissioned by the authorities. What obscure impulse drove these monsters to leave a testament of innocence destroyed to haunt them and the memory of them? It is difficult to read through tears, as when a Polish boy of thirteen writes;

‘There was nothing to eat. People ate nettle and swelled up from it and they left for the other world.’

The book is so gruelling that the only time I smiled was reading the description of Stalin’s final, prolonged death agonies, related by his daughter, Svetlana.

The overwhelming stench that emanates from this essential book is that of lies, as it always is with the Left. Lies about numbers, about treatment of prisoners, about reasons for incarceration, about the very existence of the camps themselves. Anything to maintain a respectable image for Stalin – a contemptible little man – on the world stage, and to make the Soviet Union appear anything but what it was; incompetent and sadistically cruel. The lies continued, although the Soviet tried to spread the myth of the camps’ dissolution after Stalin’s death in 1953. Their mutation into psychiatric institutions and regular prisons was intended to mask their survival, and if anyone thinks that there are no equivalents under Putin – an ex-KGB hard man – they must be dupes as willing as the Western intellectuals taken in by the Potemkin show camps of the 1930s.

A casual acquaintance of mine once told me that Hitler was a far more evil man than Stalin because ‘with Stalin, it’s difficult to get accurate figures’, as though totalitarian slaughter were a game of cribbage in which Soviet incompetence was a strong hand to hold. Socialists want so much to believe; it is the psychopathology of the child. We may yet end up in its grip once more.

If you have the onions, Gulag is one of the books you should read if you wish to understand the great lie of the 20th – and possibly this – century; that the political Right is evil and the political Left sainted. It was partly my own utter hatred of the Left and all its works that gave me the gumption to read on. Any one of the many transcribed eye-witness accounts of camp survivors could have done service to sum up the Soviet Union’s rotten heart, as lice-ridden as the shirts of the millions who perished in its gulags. This lady’s name was Olga Adamova-Sliozberg and, after being lied to by corrupt and incompetent ‘officials’ concerning her promised compensation for a twenty-year incarceration, she finally found the time to weep;

‘To weep for my husband, who perished in the cellars of the Lubyanka… for my children, who grew up orphans, stigmatised as the children of enemies of the people; for my parents, who died of grief; for Nikolai, who was tortured in the camps; and for all my friends who never lived to be rehabilitated but lie beneath the frozen earth of Kolyma.’

Sunday, 6 September 2015


This is how the Left uses polls to manipulate public opinion, rather than quantify it. They provide the ingredients for today’s political discussion, and you’re not allowed to choose any items off the menu.

Ann Coulter, Adios America


Imperialistic house of prayer.
Conquistadors who want their share. 

Joy Division, Dead Souls


Immigration has become the news leader in the last few months here in Europe, but it is not the only affected continent. America has its own immigration problem, but its arrivistes are not coming from the Maghreb or sub-Continental Asia, but from its strange cousin, Mexico. Now that Donald Trump has drawn the fire of the media for highlighting immigration, Coulter’s new book is timely. Like all her other books – and to the undoubted chagrin of The New York Times – it currently dominates the NYT best-seller list, indicating once again that a good indicator of what the political elite wants is to see what the people they are supposed to represent do not.

Viewed as a part of what is rapidly becoming a critical literary genre revolving around the apparent Leftist agenda to destroy or at least ruinously transform the West, Adios America features certain prominent and all-too-familiar themes: the pathetic attempts of the ruling class to be seen as the immigrant’s friend (it seems there isn’t a GOP front-rank candidate who hasn’t got a Spanish-speaking cousin they can wheel out onto the stump to try to patronise Latinos); the closed ranks of the media; the anonymisation of immigrant criminals in the press; the mobilisation of social justice workers in the cause of accelerated immigration; the unwillingness of the state, so intrusive everywhere else, to apply already-existing laws; the ridiculous option of amnesty.

Coulter is often cast as shrill, but the casting is done (as always) by Leftist media for whom any voice which is heterodox is at best shrill, at worst racist, the non plus ultra of modern thoughtcrimes. If Coulter is shrill, she has much to be shrill about; an additional 30 million immigrants, many of whom have no contribution to make to social capital, into a country $17 trillion debt and counting is enough to hoarsen any dissenting voice.

Criticisms of Coulter are the usual pearl-clutching, bully-pulpit, Pansy Left faux outrage. The Leftist playpit published what they obviously considered to be a well-researched putdown by following up Coulter’s meticulous notes and bibliographies. All they produced was confirmation that Coulter’s facts, although accurate, came from sources despise. Here, we are deep within the territory of the hate fact.

One of the Left’s most irritating mantras – we hear it endlessly in Britain, too – is that the USA is ‘a nation of immigrants’. America certainly is that, but Coulter’s point is that the original and subsequent waves of immigration brought to the Land of the Free able, determined and intelligent races and peoples who saw the advantage of contributing their several talents to a common cause and, therefore, a common culture. Not so Mexicans, who are largely benefit recipients, subtracting from the common weal rather than contributing, and certainly have no interest in common cause in the sense of becoming Americans. Quite the reverse.

La Raza is a Central/South American organisation dedicated to racial supremacy. It is both racialist and racist, and is the type of ultra-nationalist and xenophobic outfit which would appal the Pansy Left if it were represented by white people. It is not, and so gains their approval at the same time as it is being imported wholesale into America. The National Council of La Raza – who make no secret of their imperialist aims – will provide attorneys to any Mexican accused of a crime in the US and, in a role similar to that of The Muslim Council of Britain, are always on hand with a spokesman (like the MCB there are not too many spokeswomen) to criticise the most reasonable assertions made by white people if it can be seen as detrimental to their cause. Thus, when Senator John McCain timidly suggested the obvious fact that some of the bushfires that raged through Arizona in 2011 were set by illegal Mexican immigrants, ‘La Raza’s Daniel Ortega accused McCain of spreading fear and hate’. Once the oppressed have spoken, the oppressor’s client media will not be far behind. The stratagem of the Left is to accuse anyone not in favour of unlimited immigration of being racist, xenophobic and – that old favourite – a fascist.

In the final analysis, the consequences for America will be the same as those of Europe, and these consequences remain to be seen. Whether or not mass immigration is intended to provide minimum-wage fodder for the business cronies of the political class, miscegenate the white race, or simply provide cheap nannies, lawn boys and removal companies for the social elites, it is coming, and there is no theoretical limit. German politicians have just explicitly said as much.

In the end, the decisive factor will be real people and their reaction to a deliberate programme under which their countries are changed beyond recognition, and they and their families and loved ones are put at risk from crime, terrorism or economic collapse brought about by over-wrought resources. Of course, the Progressivists stamp down very hard indeed on any show of dissent. Witness the European show trials of ‘Islamophobes’, the politicised incarceration of those such as Tommy Robinson, the de facto (if not yet de jure) criminalisation of groups such as PEGIDA.

But people have a tendency to push back and, if the ruling elites in both the USA and Europe believe that they still have the ace cards of the army and the police force with which to trump the dissenters, they may be surprised at how little loyalty those badly abused bodies show to their rulers when crunch time arrives, tipping points are reached, and tolerance of social engineering is a busted flush. This piece began with a film title and it feels appropriate to end with one; there will be blood.