Friday, 30 October 2015

WHAT IS METAPOLITICS? THE REAL RIGHT RETURNS: A HANDBOOK FOR THE TRUE OPPOSITION by DANIEL FRIBERG





[T]he Right poses a special problem in that its different tendencies define themselves largely in opposition to the Left, which often gives them a negative or reactive character.

Michael O’Meara, New Culture, New Right

 

The leftist brain cannot be fathomed.

John Derbyshire, Introduction to From the Dissident Right II

 

 

The political Right wing in Europe is a spent force. Not only that, beaten as it is, the Left is not finished with it yet. Even though the Left controls Europe’s political chambers, its media, its academic institutions, its public sector, its police, its armed forces and its financiers, the long march through the institutions set in motion by the imprisoned Gramsci is not over, not until the future is a Right-wing face being stamped on by a Leftist, Progressivist training-shoe, forever. Incipit Daniel Friberg.

I recently heard a Swedish girl in a bar say; “The top party in my country is Right-wing! It’s really scary!” Oh, sweetheart, I thought. Here comes the twister. What is ‘scary’ is that she doesn’t find the Islamisation of her country ‘scary’, its elevation to the rape capital of Europe ‘scary’, its relentless hounding of dissenting voices ‘scary’. Incipit Daniel Friberg.

Friberg is the Swedish CEO both of Arktos, a media group, and Wiking Mineral, a mining company. He is also the co-founder of Motpol, a think-tank devoted to what he calls ‘metapolitics’. The Real Right Returns is a short, inexpensive book which, for those of us on the political Right, represents a glimmer of light in an encroaching darkness.

‘Metapolitics’ is central to the book and the movement. The history of the Greek prefix meta- begins, of course, with Aristotle’s Metaphysics, the book placed after the Physics. Here, metapolitics has an accompanying, qualifying role to play before politics can begin;

‘Metapolitics is the prerequisite of politics – the dynamic of power, as it is manifested on the street and computer screen and up to the government and parliament; in the media and the press; in academia, cultural institutions, and civil society; as well as in art and culture. In short, in all the channels which communicate values perceived on an individual and collective level. This is the reason why metapolitical analysis must precede political action.’

At issue is the politicisation of ordinary people, those who are not represented by the special interest groups of the Left. Soon, politics will no longer be a dull interim between baking shows, holiday packages and sports, but will impinge on every person in Europe in a way they will genuinely find ‘scary’. The New Right, if it is to succeed – and it must – has to be what the Greeks knew as pharmakos; both poison and antidote. The poison must be given to the Left, the antidote to the people.

The book begins with a history of the post-war rise of Leftism, and the facilitating collusion of the political elites. These elites are, writes Friberg;

‘The fanatical group of warmongers who, while mouthing platitudes about human rights and democracy, kill millions throughout the world while simultaneously using the same rhetoric to encourage mass migration to Europe from the Third World…’

These people must be wrenched from power. Revolution, however, is not an option. This is ‘to relate to society as an angry child to a parent.’

That the Left no longer operate simply within the political sphere rounds out the idea of metapolitics. The Left are now active in the social and private arenas, snooping, harassing, intimidating. ‘These conceited moral policemen’, as Friberg terms them, have extraordinary power in Sweden – and increasingly in Germany – to hound people from their jobs for politically heterodox opinions. We only have to look at the show trials of Geert Wilders, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Marine Le Pen and other to see this. The UK’s Tommy Robinson is, as I have chronicled elsewhere, a de facto political prisoner. Friberg includes a practical list of actions to take if or when the new ideological Stasi come looking for you.

The New Right must be properly conservative if it is to be anything at all. This means a reversion to traditional family values, gender roles, educational standards and techniques, and social capital rather than just a clamour of selfish and grasping individuals. In a feminised, homosexualised, anti-Christian and sexually liberal Europe, this presents a Herculean task, partly due to the Left’s success in de-masculinising men;

‘The deconstruction of the European male has been an important element in – and in fact a prerequisite for – the Left’s project of destruction.’

For no mistake must be made; the Left are wreckers, destroyers, defilers of all that is great and good about Europe. This is why they are such natural lapdogs for Islam. As Friberg warns;

‘Free yourself from the false worldview of the Left. Do not even consider it as anything other than a product of insane people who want to hurt you.’

This is far from sensationalist rhetoric. I recently disassociated myself from all the people in my life who were markedly Leftist (all three of them were women, as a matter of fact) and I am much the better for it. I see the empty, nihilistic, asinine fruits of their ideology all around me every day; I don’t need friends like that. I have seen and I increasingly understand the damage the Left has done to the West, to one of the greatest cultures that has ever existed, and I will now not tolerate it within the reach of my arm. If you are a Leftist, you are part of a cancer which must be cut out; the only surgical implement suitable for this excision is the scalpel of the New Right.

Gone are the days where creatures of the Right such as myself can be content with laughing at and ridiculing the jackanapes of the Left; we must now recognise them for the deadly enemies they are and fight them as such. Friberg’s book will be a key component in the arsenal which must be assembled for that fight.

 

Wednesday, 28 October 2015

SETTLING FOR LESS: LOSING THE RACE by JOHN H. McWHORTER



There is a level of conformity among blacks that whites would find hard to believe.

Christopher Jackson, A White Teacher Speaks Out


The only significant threat facing modern-day black Americans is themselves, not white people.

Scott Hampton, Culturism



That there exist serious problems within black culture and society, such as it is, can scarcely be denied by any honest observer; that those problems are the legacy of white racism is moot. This is the theme of Losing the Race, and the main reason why you won’t have heard of John H. McWhorter. While white Liberal America lionises Ta-Nehisi Coates, his execrable prose style, and his mantra that evil whites are dedicated to ‘destroying black bodies’, McWhorter’s book gathers dust when it should be on the reading list of every politician, head teacher, police chief and government worker in America.

McWhorter, at the time of writing the book in 2000, was a black Linguistics Professor at Berkeley, who was also a hobbyist actor, light operatic singer and musician. A black man, in short, about as far removed from rap music, cornrows and Black Lives Matter as could be, which is why his fellow blacks despise him. Black society does not take kindly to brothers who don’t read from the victim script, and McWhorter is far too accurate in his sociology to be doing anything other, in the eyes of other blacks, than working up at the house.

Losing the Race has as its sub-title; Self-Sabotage in Black America, and McWhorter’s abilities as a linguist enable him to parse that dysfunctional bloc with precision and an honesty rare in his ethnic co-workers. He isolates three main pillars which support the edifice of black suffering/white racism: Victimology, Separatism, and Anti-Intellectualism.

Victimology is the received wisdom that blacks are always and everywhere the victims of whites, either literally, as in the largely mythical police brutality supposed still to exist, or as a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. It is viral and self-replicating, interested in keeping itself alive not least for the revenue it generates. It relies on an ‘apocalyptic embroidery’ of actuality, and McWhorter includes a very instructive case study.

The Reverend Al Sharpton is a genuinely odious man. A posing, preening race-hustler, he is of course high on the list of Obama’s White House invitees and advisers. After twitting him delightfully for ‘sporting James Brown’s campy hairstyle’, McWhorter points out how much Sharpton enjoys the latest drummed-up racial scandal. Invented racism keeps Sharpton in his trademark natty suits, which is why the well will not run dry any time soon. For the rest of black society, though, whether they realise it or not, ‘we have replaced the shackles whites hobbled us with for centuries with new ones of our own’.

Black Separatism is the method which keeps victim status in place. The cult of Separatism dictates to black people that their culture is entirely separate – and yet just as valid – as the default white culture which dominates. It enables victim status by posing as a separate enclave from which criticism of white culture can be made, but which will accept none in return. It infects academia, a cultural domain concerning which McWhorter is well placed to comment;

‘All too often, black scholarship is devoted not to general scholarly enquiry about black people, but a subset of this: chronicling black victimhood past and present…’

This begrudging isolationism also validates, in the minds of black academics, a separate ‘black’ methodology;

‘In “black” academia, as often as not, comment is preferred over question, folk wisdom is often allowed to trump rigorous argumentation, and socio-political intent is weighted more heavily than the empirical soundness of one’s conclusions.’

Anyone who has any knowledge of the bizarre versions of history taught during Black History Month will see this anti-academic non-methodology in action.

Finally, the black cult of Anti-Intellectualism is laid bare, a cult the existence of which anyone honest who has worked in education will confirm. We all know about affirmative action, about blacks and ‘the book thing’, about education viewed as ‘something whitey does’. What is horrific is both the extent of the rot, and its defence by black American educational elites. This type of nihilism may provide a supporting wall for Victimology and Separatism, but if black culture is not careful, white culture will be left with the only explanation remaining; the old IQ/genetics argument. The Bell Curve waits in the background.

Excuses for black educational underachievement, in the final analysis, do nothing but keep black children where, presumably, black society – and perhaps white – wants them, caught ‘in a cultural holding pattern they cannot help’. The tortuous excuses and faux explanations for black failure are an insult, and yet they inform American academic practice, and have doubtless already arrived in the UK. McWhorter quotes from a New York State Board of Regents document on the subject of black learning;

‘[Black children tend] to prefer “inferential reasoning rather than deductive or inductive reasoning” and show “a tendency to approximate space, number and time instead of aiming for complete accuracy”… In other words, they are less likely than students of many other ethnicities to dwell spontaneously in the post-Enlightenment ways of thinking that education is founded upon and is dedicated to fostering.’

Black music and dress is one thing; there is no ‘black mathematics’.

John McWhorter is currently catching flak for daring to question the probity of the Black Lives Matter movement, a blatantly racist, deceptive pressure group which again is championed by Obama, the most racially divisive president in US history. Any black writer who dares question the narrative should be applauded and championed, but the opposite is almost always the case. The truth doesn’t matter; acting like a good brother does. But those resentful, non-inferential, self-righteous agitators who believe in Ebonics, ‘the Talk’, Black Lives Matter, trigger words, dog-whistle racism and all the other intellectual rap music that passes for modern black thought have a saviour in their midst who, as usual, they don’t recognise.

Saturday, 24 October 2015

PROFIT AND LOSS: THE CONFLICTED LIFE OF MEYER LANSKY



“Meyer Lansky would have been chairman of the board of General Motors if he’d gone into legitimate business.”

FBI agent

 

For what shall it profit a man, if he should gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Mark 8:36

 

 

Meyer Lansky, the Polish Jew widely credited as the financial brains behind the Mafia, was the subject of a gag by Jewish comedian Jackie Mason;

“All those Italians with broad shoulders and dark glasses? How could they possibly have created something like the Mafia – unless they had a Jew to show them how? Meyer Lansky? He’s their Henry Kissinger.”
Robert Lacey’s Little Man: Meyer Lansky and the Gangster Life was first lent to me by a friend at the height of Scorsese-inspired gangster fever, with Goodfellas and Casino, and the Nick Pileggi books they were based on. The book did the rounds of all self-respecting hipsters. Indeed, film critic Robert Warshow mused, in 1948, that the average American took all their ‘knowledge’ of gangsters from the movies. Lee Strasberg’s character Hyman Roth in The Godfather is clearly Lansky, and is the reason the line “We’re bigger than US Steel” is reputed to the man they called the Chairman of the Board. The truth is both more mundane and more fascinating, and Little Man (a reference to Lansky’s diminutive height of 5’3”) is a palliative to the histrionic razzmatazz that grew up around the Mob.

Look at every chapter of the American Mafia’s history – Prohibition, the Cuban casino complex, Las Vegas, Apalachin – and there you will find the small, neatly dressed, trim figure of Meyer Lansky. It is unlikely that Lansky himself took part in the episodes of violence that punctuate the story of the Cosa Nostra, but he was surrounded by the hard men who did: Bugsy Siegel, Lucky Luciano, Arnold Rothstein. Lansky knew them all, impressing them with his ability to run an efficient accountancy practice from within the confines of his own head.

Born Meyer Suchowljansky in Grodno in Poland in 1902, the future financial capo di tutti capi made the rough sea voyage to the Land of the Free in 1912, his father Max having emigrated there two years earlier to set up a new life for his family. Meyer’s brother Jake would be a life-long business accomplice. The fascinated boy was soon drawn to the street crap games, and developed a skill for calculating odds which would never leave him. The is more than a trace of Lansky in de Niro’s portrayal of Sam ‘Ace’ Rothstein in Scorsese’s Casino.

Like any smart criminal, Lansky operated a series of front operations – he sold Wurlitzer juke-boxes, then an innovation – and he paid at least some tax. Ultimately, though, gangsterism became a way of life, one for which Lacey – a smooth, compelling writer – gives an interesting diagnosis;

‘Meyer Lansky was a lawbreaker, and his decision to break the law was conscious and deliberate. He could make no excuses. But there was also a sense in which his career, at times, was less his own creation than an accommodation to the ways of his adopted country, and to the rough-and-ready style in which America had chosen to create herself.’

That said, one of the great paradoxes of the classic American gangster was his patriotism, particularly in time of war. The possibility of sabotage, and a Fascist fifth column, loomed large in America, particularly around the crucial arteries of the docks. Working for the government unit B-3, Lansky, Luciano, Vincent Alo – aka Jimmy Blue Eyes – and most other prominent gangsters used their pre-existing grapevine of informers to aid the US government in keeping tabs on potential double agents. This was not Lansky’s only cameo appearance in history; it is said that when Golda Meir decided ‘No Mafia in Israel’, the Nixon administration kept Lansky away in return for a contract for Phantom jets.

The other affiliation Lansky held was to the state of Israel. Although not a particularly observant Jew, and almost certainly devoted to Israel just as long as it seemed to offer him an escape route from an American justice system he only ever seemed to be one small step ahead of, Lansky was certainly beneficial to a Jewish state which, in the end, invoked Section 2(b)(3) of the famous Law of Return, the clause that exempts Jews from being able to return if they have ‘a criminal past likely to endanger the public welfare’. Certainly, Lansky parted with a great deal of his ill-gotten gains for the homeland. As Jewish activist Shepard Broad said; ‘Money for Israel? You did not have to ask Meyer Lansky twice.’ But, in the end, although the Jews took his money, he enjoyed no more than an extended stay in Israel, he and his second wife Teddy continuously extending their visas until the state would extend no more. He parted from Zion bitterly.

In the end, Lansky was just another wiseguy, content to break the law and try to evade the consequences. Reputed to be worth, at the height of his fame, $300M, the facts did not bear this out, and it was another example of America’s obsessive mythologisation of its criminal classes. There was precious little in the way of an inheritance for his family. Whether that dysfunctional family would have fared any better had Lansky plied his trade in the overworld is moot, and the coda to the book, which shows Lansky’s crippled son Buddy dying alone and quadriplegic in a dreadful home in Miami, is heart-breaking.

But it is difficult for us, in these times of swirling moral relativity, to judge the criminal, mired as we are in increasing state-sanctioned crime in the name of progress. Perhaps we should leave the last word to Lansky himself, an old Jew ending his days reading another old Jew, Spinoza, whose most famous work was the Ethics;

‘If Socrates and Plato had trouble defining what morality was, how can people come along, just like that, and lay down that gambling is immoral?’

Tuesday, 13 October 2015

BETTER A THOUSAND ENEMIES: EUROPE BEFORE THE RAIN


The facts were plain: Europe had reached a point of such putrid decomposition that it could no longer save itself, any more than fifth-century Rome could have done.

Michel Houellebecq, Submission

 

Better a thousand enemies outside the house than one inside.

Arabic proverb

 

 

In Michel Houellebecq’s latest novel, Submission, the France of 2020 elects an Islamic government. Houellebecq has form when it comes to ‘insulting’ Islam, having previously been tried for hate speech and also having made various verboten comments in interviews concerning the Western elites’ favourite brand. But the critics who couldn’t wait to pounce on Submission and its anticipated ‘Islamophobia’ were left empty-handed.

For Houellebecq’s fictional Islamisation of France is no invasion; rather it comes as a welcome relief, the conservative nature of Islam serving as a corrective to the decadent, exhausted wreck France has become in the novel, as well as in reality. I have reviewed Submission more fully here, but for our present purpose it is sufficient to say that the novel does not paint a picture of an Islamic invasion of Europe, rather the acquiescence of an exhausted land mass to an invigorating and organising new cultural presence. The Islamists in Submission come not brandishing the whip of shariah but bring instead a conservative order France did not know it needed.

Let us suppose, however, both that there is a more malevolent, planned Islamic invasion of Europe, a revanchist quest for the mythical caliphate, and also that it will not be met with the weary acceptance of Houellebecq’s novel. Certainly, the more pungent areas of what Thomas Harris describes as ‘the damp floor of the internet’ are rife with proclamations that the current migrant crisis is a second wave of Islamic invaders working in conjunction with a fifth column whose beach-head is already established from Malmö to Merthyr Tydfil. Even if that supposed invasion is a demographic one, playing off the gradual importation of fecund Muslim families against the sub-replacement-rate tendencies of Western Europe, there is more than a possibility that Muslims, believing as they apparently do in the metaphysics both of the afterlife and the sanctity of Allah’s plan, are happy to play the long game.

What sort of Europe are they aiming to conquer? The strong horse of bin Laden’s equestrian metaphor, or its weaker sibling?

If you were the subject of an invasion, you would hope for one thing more than any other; that your people were both strong and prepared. Let us assume, for a moment, that you are an ISIS warlord who wishes to turn Europe to Islam by whatever means. How would you rate the Europeans – and Europeans are always ‘rating’ things, from phone calls to a bank to electoral candidates to schools to holiday homes – in terms of strength and preparation?

Our warlord, steeped in Koranic law and with a resolve unfound and unfindable in the modern West, would be amazed at what he saw. For he has chanced across a Europe so decadent – and ‘decadence’ is a musical term which is utterly appropriate here – that it is positively inviting its own destruction, as though sub-consciously it knows that its own demise is necessary, that its time has come, like Faust or the Roman Empire.

He would find a West whose ‘most powerful man’ tells his countrymen that ‘the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam’. He would find a Europe feminised, homosexualised, addicted to shallow consumerism, bereft of spiritual ideals, a world where children rule over adults. He would find the world’s leading broadcaster, the BBC, with a political correspondent called Faisal Islam. He would be amazed at a university system which, instead of teaching its students the glories of their own culture, curse and demonise that very culture, preferring instead the censorious, almost Koranic world of safe spaces, micro-aggressions and trigger warnings attached to certain haram texts, usually those written by white men.

Our pakol-hatted, fiercely bearded imam of the plains would wonder openly, perhaps while cleaning down his scimitar, at the spectacle of the President of the United States, with its famous second amendment, openly trying to disarm its citizens instead of arming and training them to fight and defeat the caliphate our man longs to bring. He would scratch his head at the open arms with which the European elites greet their conquerors, the longing of the British Prime Minister for a Muslim replacement for himself, the fact that the outlawing of the supposed effects of the charlatan word ‘Islamophobia’ was drawing ever closer, scarcely opposed save for a handful of counterjihadis.

And he would know he had won, if not now, then soon. Expecting to find a weak horse, he would be staggered to find merely an empty stable. And he would be satisfied that he was right on a number of counts. Firstly, democracy is, as he has long been taught by his elders, a sham. The actual people of Europe want less Islam, a lot less. Their rulers, however, want more, much more, and the people seem absolutely powerless to stop them. If this is democracy, it is suicidal. Secondly, the dar al Islam really is superior to the dar al harb. One of Houllebecq’s characters quotes the Nietzsche of that incendiary book, The Antichrist;

‘If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so; Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men…

Again, I have considered this overlooked snippet of Nietzsche here. As for men, you will be hard put to find any in Europe or America, despite its macho rap stars and footballers. Western men have been all but emasculated by state-sanctioned militant feminism which has left its men, as were, thoroughly disgusted with womankind, and anxious to be rid of them; hence the lagging childbirth rate.

A good friend once told me to get an old service revolver because one day we would see jihadis running down Croydon High Street. I laughed. It does not seem so funny now.

 

 

Friday, 9 October 2015

WHEN THE BEAR STOPS DANCING: WHY VLADIMIR PUTIN IS THE WEST'S BEST BET



When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally prefer the strong horse.

Osama bin Laden

 
Who [is doing what to] whom?

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

 

Vladimir Putin is an ex-KGB man. His grandfather was a chef to the post-Tsarist court, and served dinner to Lenin, Stalin and Rasputin. He will have seen genuinely dreadful things. He is well versed in the art of judo and speaks fluent German. Barack Obama is an ex-‘law student’ and ‘community organiser’. His family background is hotly disputed, and he has a Muslim middle name. He will have seen, or thinks he has seen, or has been told he has seen, unspeakable racism. He plays a lot of golf and when he speaks tends to do so from a teleprompter.

The two men are currently engaged in a proxy chess match in Syria, one which will have wider repercussions in the middle East. There is not a great deal of point in relying on Western mainstream media [MSM] – who still think Obama is the best president in America’s history when he is clearly the worst – for your information concerning Syria and the middle East in general.

When it looks tough for the MSM to report favourably on one of its sainted subjects, it relies on complexity, nuance and the argument tu quoque. What Putin understands is that people in general, ordinary people like his own parents, deal in simplicity and absolutes. And so, when they see the West pussy-footing into some grand hall for the latest round of their eternal talking shop on the subject of the Arab world – a blight which will always be with us – he sees the advantage of lock and load. Where Obama is beginning to look like what he is, a soft-palmed, out-of-his-depth social engineer used to bullying his own state departments and weaponising the IRS against his enemies, Putin is starting to look like what he might be, a dependable tough guy who doesn’t mind knocking other heads together than just those of his own courtiers.

The first thing Putin understands better than Obama is the nature of the Muslim world. While Obama, the MSM and the western elites insist on segregating the Islamic ummah in such a way that Muslims themselves would never do except in a pragmatic, non-sectarian way, into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Muslims,  Putin simply realises that there is an Islamic civil war taking place which has been going on for centuries. America bets on its runners too, of course, it just lies about it.

And so, while Obama is claiming that Russia is backing the wrong side while pretending to go after ISIS – itself a Western creation with Obama as its ‘Arab Spring’ architect – Putin is now a hero in Iraq. What Blair, Bush, Cameron or Obama would have given to have that accolade. But they are PR men, photo-op monkies, technocrats. Putin is increasingly looking like the real deal.

There is much evidence that Putin is an Orthodox Christian; he wears his Baptismal cross openly, for example. Obama is absolutely not a Christian, both turning a blind eye to the persecution of Christians in the middle East (a persecution he is happy to fund), and openly championing the sworn enemy of both Christianity and, of course, Judiasm; Islam. Obama has also spent a great deal of his quasi-imperial reign stirring up racial hatred in his own country. Telling Putin that black men are being routinely targeted by racist police (which they are not) would be unlikely to garner much interest.

There is another long-game consequence that benefits Putin. The more his bombers and destroyers pound Syria, the bigger the horde of refugees looking to leave for mainland Europe with its rich pickings and the craven, quasi-dhimmi posturing of its elites. Now, when genuine Syrian refugees begin to arrive, rather than the posers who have pretended to be Syrian so far and succeeded in conning European authorities already practically neutered, this will put even more strain on what will be, by then, very parlous infrastructures in the Western European nations. The Eastern European countries, of course, who remember the hell of Communism are less keen on having another totalitarian ideology invade. Thus, by hitting Syria, Putin realises his political objectives, thins the Islamist herd, and weaponises the resultant camp of the saints 2.0. It’s a brilliant strategy to put against Obama’s blustering, self-righteous drivel.

Concerning the personalities of the two men, what is refracted through the distorting prism of the media is still instructive. Putin comes across as a calculating, nationalistic, intelligent political operator. Nothing short, in fact, of an ex-KGB man. Obama, by contrast, is shown – despite the best efforts of the lickspittle MSM – as a petulant, empty-headed, chippy and over-privileged doofus. Nothing short, in fact, of an ex-community adviser. Putin loves Russia to the same extent that Obama despises America.

And so, while Obama is on the links or partying with Kanye, Putin’s destroyers are off the coast raining fire on Aleppo. Who looks the more capable? The media is shilling for Obama, as usual, for all its pitiful worth. But the narrative is starting to fold under questioning and, when the narrative fails, the Left are in trouble. CNN, for example, stated that Russian missiles have fallen in Iran. The Americans can’t confirm this, the Russians flatly deny it, and it’s certainly news to the Iranians but, hey, all the news that’s fit to print, right?

Vselovod Chaplin, head of the Russian Orthodox Christian Church (as opposed to the Charlie Chaplin in The White House), has called the Russian exercise in Syria part of a ‘Holy war’. I never thought I’d be pleased to hear that phrase again in the 21st century, but if all we have to place against that attitude is an uppity social agitator who states that ‘the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam’, I know where my money is. As Lenin rightly said; who is doing what to whom?

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

THE SHORTEST WAY WITH THE DISSENTERS: POLICING SPEECH



It’s their ways to detain,

Their ways to disgrace,

Their knee in your balls

And their fist in your face.

Oh, and long live the state,

By whoever it’s made.

Sir, I didn’t see nothing.

I was just getting home late.

Leonard Cohen, A Singer Must Die

 

[M]ulticulturalism is bringing on a new Dark Age of scientific obscurantism, moral fanaticism, and political repression.

Greg Johnson, The Persecution of American Renaissance

 

A few years ago I attended a freedom of speech rally in Trafalgar Square. Points were made by speakers that seem platitudinous today, at least if you believe in free speech. To those who don’t – the political class, their media courtiers, the police, the Left, Islam – they seemed then and seem now like dissent. And, to paraphrase Jonathan Swift, there is one, short way with dissenters. They must be silenced.

My good friend Barry Shand reminded me the other day that we were drinking in the cavernous J D Wetherspoon on Whitehall – The Moon on the Mall, is it? – before the speeches and rally, when several fine members of our London Metropolitan Police Force – sorry, Service – entered the building. They were jangling and clanking with their various appurtenances and utility belts, and it was unclear then why they were there. It is clearer now.

One of the officers came up to my group and stood very close. He stared at all of us with a look of sheer, naked hatred and contempt on his face. It didn’t improve his appearance as he had a face only a mother could love, but it did make a point. We were, if not the enemy, then an enemy.

Forward we come in time, to early Spring of this year. After the massacre at the Parisian offices of Charlie Hebdo, the next issue was released with great pomp and solemnity. Many issues were shipped to Britain so that people could express their solidarity by buying a copy. The people who bought the magazine from one particular Wiltshire newsagent would get a little more for their money than the warm glow of solidarity and the chance to wear a Je Suis Charlie badge for five minutes before the next hashtag came along. Presently, Police officers from the Wiltshire Constabulary entered the shop and demanded the owner give names and addresses of those who had bought the magazine, so critical as it is – was – of Brand Islam.

It is being made clear, little by little, incursion by incursion, what is and is not permissible to say in our brave new world. Our political gauleiters are just as intolerant as the flintiest kommissar or sternest mullah when it comes to dissenting speech, and this includes criticism of themselves and their favoured victim groups. The denaturing of speech is a big part of the Leftist/Progressivist program, and freedom of speech is the natural enemy of the Left.

One front on which the battle for free speech is being fought – and you are involved in the battle, like it or not – is that of provenance. That is to say, a statement is a priori incorrect if it said by certain people or classes of people. Thus, if a perfectly valid point is made by a person of the Right, an unperson to the Left, the statement and the idea it represents is automatically invalidated and, if possible, criminalised. It doesn’t even matter if the point is valid or has the prerogative of validity; if the wrong person says it, it is wrong. An interesting example is Voltaire’s disputed aphorism.

Voltaire was one of the great 18th-century French philosophes. Everyone is familiar with; “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, even if the Left have debased the sentiment. Another of his memorable aphorisms has swum in the currents of the internet for the last couple of years; “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.” It is not quite apposite in our modern communication arena, resembling as it does a vast library with Socialist martinets hissing “Sssssshhh!!!” every three seconds, because Islam does not quite rule over us yet, but it contains an undeniable truth. Ah, those philosophes.

Except it is now claimed that Voltaire didn’t say or write it. Now, regardless of its provenance, the phrase resounds, is undeniably a participant in at least a truth. You’ll find it in management every bit as much as in wider society. And so, in a rather gleeful little online feature from earlier this year, it was sneeringly claimed that a white supremacist called Kevin Alfred Strom coined the phrase – or one very similar – in a 1993 book entitled All America Must Know the Terror That is Upon Us. Of course, for the Left, anything said by a white supremacist – the bogeyman par excellence for the Leftist – is not only false but pure evil. The idea, the statement, itself becomes secondary; the source becomes everything.

I know, or knew (I’ve had a spring-clean of my acquaintances) Leftists who believe this. Thus, their reasoning runs, because Nigel Farage is a white man who made money in the City and has been critical of endless immigration, everything he says at any point is invalid and morally disgusting. It is a feeble, pathetic argument, but the great shame of the Right is that it is winning.

You are going to miss free speech when it has gone from us, and it has gone from us already. There are off-limits areas now just as there a ‘safe spaces’ on modern university spaces. The outlawing of criticism of Islam inches ever closer, and your political masters will not be defending your corner when the issue comes to a head. This is truly a mad world, my masters, and sanity will not return while its spokespeople are persecuted. If a certifiable lunatic who always opposes reality tells you it is raining, you should still take an umbrella.

 

 

Thursday, 1 October 2015

ENGLISH HERETIC [I]: THE ONGOING INCARCERATION OF TOMMY ROBINSON


“The Government cannot be concerned any longer with outmoded penological theories. Cram criminals together and see what happens. You get concentrated criminality, crime in the midst of punishment. Soon we may be needing all our prison space for political offenders.”

Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange 

For us in Russia, Communism is a dead dog, while, for many in the West, it is a living lion.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

A gorgeous late summer’s day in England. The weather is fine enough for a pleasant full day’s play in the final Ashes test match at The Oval, the funeral of light entertainer Cilla Black has just taken place, and the British Labour Party are locked in a power struggle over their upcoming leadership election. The European migrant crisis is now seeing tens of thousands of people, mostly Muslim, migrating from the chaos of the Middle East and the Maghreb. Over London, and banking in to land at Luton Airport, an aeroplane’s passengers include a family, rather a traditionally structured one in these modern times; a husband and wife and their three young girls. They are returning from a holiday in Spain. On passing through customs control, the man is arrested by officers from Bedfordshire Police.

The man’s name, the one which will have appeared on the plane’s flight manifest, is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, although for some time he has gone by the name of Tommy Robinson. His arrest is in connection with a previous period of incarceration, itself a recall to prison after an alleged breach of bail connected with the original crime of mortgage fraud. The police claim that Robinson was involved in a physical altercation with a man while in prison. Robinson claims that although there was a fight, he was defending himself from a planned attack involving boiling water and sugar mixed together to cause facial disfigurement, a well-known method of revenge in Britain’s prisons.

Tommy Robinson may well be going back to prison, an institution he is more than familiar with. If he does, a question arises. Is his incarceration an impartial expression of British justice, a valid and legally appropriate response to the breaking of British law, or is it a type of false flag exercise to silence and demonise a man who has spoken in such a way that his comments and ideas are unacceptable to that legal and judicial system while at the same time not being imprisonable in and of themselves? In other words, is Robinson a prima facie criminal or a heretic?

Tommy Robinson was once the leader of the English Defence League (EDL), a loose and chaotic movement born from a mixture of intense and often violently expressed patriotism, and football hooliganism. The movement’s focus soon became Islam, partly inspired by a demonstration by Luton Muslims against British soldiers returning from a tour of Afghanistan. The perceived disrespect shown by the demonstrators seemed to strike a chord with the EDL. For some time, there had been a growing belief among the British working class – although strangely absent from the media - that Muslims are allowed to get away with rather too much, while critics of the same religion seem to be excessively persecuted. This dichotomy is precisely the case with, the case of, Tommy Robinson.

If it is the case that Robinson is being cyclically imprisoned not for what he has done but for what he has said, then we are now a country which takes and holds political prisoners, and the difference between HMP Peterborough and the Lubyanka is one merely of degree. If Robinson is being put through the gruelling experiences he claims to have been put through because of his stated position on the subject of Islam and its – according to him – deleterious effect on Britain, then British justice (already a raddled old whore) has descended into something properly totalitarian. Certainly, if a quarter of what Robinson told me in a 20-minute phone call last week is true, he is being victimised for his beliefs while at the same time being held in prison for other misdemeanours – real or trumped up – while the establishment work tirelessly to criminalise the type of what they term ‘hate speech’ for which Robinson is well known. It is the same method famously used to imprison and nullify the threat of Al Capone, never successfully prosecuted for gangsterism, but dying in prison on a charge of tax evasion.

If we are a country which now holds political prisoners, or those incarcerated and harassed for holding viewpoints inimical to state diktats concerning favoured social groups, perceived sexual identities or religious beliefs, this may be a dangerous and horrible new world for us and any children we might have.  We already live in a country in which more truth concerning the aims and methods of the Islamic Reconquista comes out of the mouth of a goombah like Anjem Choudhary than it does from the British Prime Minister.

To get at the truth of Robinson’s incarceration and possible intimidation won’t be easy; in its way this country is as secretive as Communist countries or Islamist theocracies. But it is surely worthwhile, in the midst of a country hurtling towards economic destruction and social breakdown, to see whether or not the future holds not the smiling social worker but the ruthless apparatchik, not the helpful, cheerful police service but the Stasi, not the corrective institution of prison, with its ping-pong and telly, but the Gulag.

 We are not there yet, and the voice of heresy may yet be proved to speak truth. Religious heretics in the Christian tradition, after all, were persecuted not for being wrong, but for speaking out against the church as a power structure, as an institution which dealt not in metaphysics, gods or angels, but with power, coercion and control. It is no coincidence that the modern Progressive Left, while loudly dismissive of religion (with the exception of Islam), use the same structures: heresy, inquisition, excommunication.

The case of Tommy Robinson will continue, in many places.