Tuesday, 24 May 2016

DON’T MAKE THE MUSLIMS ANGRY: KUFR BEHAVE




General David Howell Petraeus is the much-decorated ex-CIA boss who was famously reprimanded for providing classified material to his biographer – who was also his mistress – while he was the head of America’s foremost intelligence agency. Writing in The Washington Post, the must-read newspaper for the ethnomasochistic white liberal class, Petraeus makes the extraordinary claim that the way to defeat ‘Islamist extremism’ – which is the term these people use instead of Islam – is to be a good deal nicer to Muslims. Indeed, echoing Muslim-friendly Barack Obama, Petraeus thinks that the way to defeat these people is to invite more of them to the West, a lot more.

Wherever and whenever a member of the political elite is lying about Islam, you can expect the stalwart phrase ‘playing into the hands of the terrorists’ to be dusted down and taken from the cliché shelf. Petraeus does not disappoint;

“[T]hose who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realise they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilisations – telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.”

Petraeus’s target is primarily Donald Trump, and we should note that Trump’s mild and entirely sensible suggestion of a moratorium on Muslim immigration until the United States’s pathetic border control services can be told to do their jobs properly has been twisted into ‘blanket discrimination’. Discrimination, which we all of use each and every day and is an essential ability humans possess to stay alive and healthy, has been changed, like so many formerly neutral or positive terms, into something wicked, something that racists on the far Right do, and which decent people would never indulge in.

Now, it has been strongly suggested that Petraeus, like the Clintons, is on the payroll of the House of Saud, and that his statements are just another example of the sort of promotion of brand Islam that all Western elites practice all the time. Nevertheless, The Washington Post is a widely read and respected newspaper, not some hole-in-the-wall blog. It is a powerful statement by virtue of its juxtaposition of power and media outreach.

The thrust of Petraeus’s article is that a clear and present enemy that has unequivocally stated that it wishes to destroy the West, and which is clearly supported or at least approved of by a majority of its co-religionists, should be coddled and simpered to instead of being hit so hard they won’t know what day it is. It is an extraordinary logical manoeuvre, one more suited to dog-handling or bee-keeping than the maintenance of law and order.

The idea that one ethnic or religious group commits violence because the victims of that violence have provoked them beyond endurance brings to mind Louis Farrakhan’s comments on Hitler and the Jews;

“You see everybody talk about Hitler exterminating six million Jews. That’s right. But don’t nobody ever ask what did they do to Hitler.”

In other words; perhaps these guys riled Hitler so much they deserved the ovens. Perhaps if they hadn’t annoyed him so much he wouldn’t have had the tracks laid to Treblinka and made all those orders for Zyklon-B.

Now, Farrakhan is both the leader of the Nation of Islam and a notoriously stupid man. In the context of black activism, he makes the Reverend Al Sharpton look like Goethe. But his comment underlines a fact that runs through contemporary anti-White strategy; if minorities commit violent crime, and the victims are white, the victims are at fault.

Here, for example, is British Prime Minister’s diagnosis of the problem of multiculturalism;

“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. [Emphasis added]

This is typical of Western power’s response to the Muslim Question. Any failings cannot be ascribed to Islam or Muslims, and so must be the fault of the largely unwilling host nations. It doesn’t seem to occur to Cameron that no society would be held acceptable by many Muslims unless it operated under shariah law, and was under the direct control of Muslims, which is what he seems to want.

But let us return to the notion that we must pacify Muslims and other minorities by ensuring that we do nothing to anger them. Colin Flaherty, an American journalist who sprang to prominence for securing the release of a wrongly accused black man and then began to investigate black crime and social disruption, sums up the prevailing strategy when dealing with violent minorities attacking despised majorities – always whites – with the title of one of his books; Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry.

The provenance of the title leads us to realise that this societal appeasement is not going to make any of its associated problems go away. Flaherty reports as follows;

“For the last five years, black mobs have rampaged and beaten and destroyed and threatened and defied police dozens… of times at the upscale Country Club Plaza in Kansas City. They tried everything to fight it. New mayor. New police chief. They begged parents. Pleaded with perpetrators.

‘What do you want?’ community activists asked the members of violent mobs. We want to be left alone, they said.

Finally they tried a curfew – against the advice of former Mayor and now Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, who told them; ‘All we are going to do is make a lot of black kids angry.’”

This is precisely what Petraeus is saying with reference to Muslims; indulge in ‘hate speech’ – by which he means any criticism of Islam, however innocuous – and all you are going to get is a lot of angry Muslims.

The first point that this ridiculous attitude ignores is that much of the Muslim world is perpetually angry. The British talk about a bad-tempered person as having ‘got out of bed the wrong side’. For much of Islam, both sides of the bed are the wrong side. There is no right side, and it’s all the fault of the West for inventing and designing the bed.

The dissident Right in the West, which is growing against the express wishes of the elites, have realised for some time that Islam requires criticism in the form of honest description to stop its carcinogenic spread throughout formerly free continents. People must be free to criticise, attack, demonise, lampoon, accuse and speak the truth about Islam. All these various speech acts are, of course, designated as ‘hate speech’ by the elites and their cronies in the media, the NGOs, the campuses and the public sector, particularly the police. If these things are hate speech, then we must fight for the right to hate, even if it makes Muslims angry.

Monday, 23 May 2016

REMOVED BY THE AUTHOR: THE CLOSING DOWN OF FREE SPEECH




This weblog has a very modest readership, and attracts few commenters. But I noticed something curious concerning a recent post. Noticing that one post had attracted six comments, I looked forward to reading what might become a small debate on the topic of the post. Three of the comments, however, had been removed. What was interesting is that the notification of the comments’ removal described them as having been ‘removed by the author’.

Needless to say, I did no such thing. Blogger undoubtedly employs assiduous little weevils to root through comments and pluck out those not deemed politically correct, to use one of the most nauseating phrases of the last fifty years.

Now, I am a hobbyist writer with a hundred or so hits a day, occasionally reaching five hundred if someone re-Tweets a posting. I hardly feel as though my human rights have been infringed. But this is a phenomenon which is creeping across the internet, as free speech of a certain tone and type is corralled and curtailed, controlled and coerced.

It goes without saying that the commentary which is disallowed comes from the Right, such as it is. Facebook leads the way, and Mark Zuckerberg has shown himself to be a good little houseboy to the likes of Merkel and Obama. Anti-immigration rhetoric is increasingly marshalled out of town, and it has recently been shown that news items from Conservative news sites are consistently muffled, with the likes of the dreadful Huffington Post boosted.

The comments pages at both The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph have a removal policy of anything they deem off-colour, and they are notionally Britain’s foremost, non-gutter Right-wing newspapers. The trend is to police anything anti-immigrant, critical of Islam, pro-white, disparaging of blacks and so on.

A curtailment of free speech is, of course, one of the founding tenets of Communism. Tens of thousands of people died in Stalin’s gulags merely for making jokes about the engineer of human souls, as described in Milan Kundera’s early novel The Joke. Not only are Kim Jong-un’s subjects absolutely unable to criticise Dear Leader, they are in trouble if they fail to show sufficient joy at his very being. The manic, deranged shows of affection whenever this strange, fat little man-boy makes a public appearance are a curiosity we might do well to get used to.

For something similar is happening in the West. I well remember a few years ago when David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary of Britain, informed a grateful public that we must all 'recognise and celebrate diversity’. For me, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I recognise diversity as I recognise any other unpleasant fact, like a faecal smell on an omnibus, but perhaps Mr. Blunkett and the other government apparatchiks will excuse me if I don’t show up for the party.

It is not enough now not to criticise, for example, Islam. You must show your dhimmi credentials when asked. Politicians and public sector workers have better have their story straight when the Muslim Question hoves inevitably into view. Those that don’t inevitably achieve instant pariah status. Geert Wilders, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Lars Hedegaard, Tatjana Festerling, Tommy Robinson and Lutz Bachmann are all Europeans deemed guilty of wrongthink and thoughtcrime. There are many more of us who wonder if the midnight visit from an increasingly weaponised police force will one day come.

There is no freedom of speech now in the West, and you can be sure that unless a resurgent Right can make any real gains politically, socially and culturally in the near future, modes of expression such as the internet will become entirely an echo chamber for the bien pensant millennials who embody the correct attitude towards the Islamification of Europe, and the Americanisation and Caribbeanisation of her culture. The newspapers are already there, and you will find no dissident opinion there. The same unofficial code of practice applies to the television, with the nauseating BBC leading the way, supported by its coterie of gormless actors and shrieking students.

It is already possible to be arrested for an innocuous Tweet, as recently happened in south London. Free speech which takes the form of ‘hate facts’ is also punished appropriately. Jesse Helms, lead singer of The Eagles of Death Metal, commented honestly on the atrocity in Paris. He saw, he reported, Muslims dancing in the street, and was certain that the deadly Bataclan attack was facilitated by Muslim staff at the theatre. He was duly punished by dhimmi French promoters who cancelled several of his band’s engagements. Political correctness, as I believe Steve Sailer pointed out, consists largely in not noticing.

So, my apologies to those who had their comments removed. If you would like to send them to me via email, the address is mark_gullick@yahoo.co.uk

And to the nasty little police person undoubtedly reading this, haven’t you got any proper work to do?

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

UNMOURNED FUNERAL: THE MYTH OF BRITISH VALUES




There is a wonderful thought experiment at the opening of Peter Hitchens’s The Abolition of Liberty which imagines a traveller in time attending both the funerals of Sir Winston Churchill and Lady Diana Spencer. A respective taking of the national mood, a litmus of response, is deployed by Hitchens, and the result shows something all genuine conservatives will long have been aware of.

Between the passing of a truly great if flawed statesman and a befuddled Sloane Ranger who got in with the wrong crowd (the British Royal Family), something incalculable has happened to the British people. Deference has gone, openly cheered to its demise by the Labour Party, or the Labour wing of today’s undeclared coalition. The class system has, supposedly, been dismantled – and Socialists do love their machine imagery – and in its place the appearance of egalitarianism has been hastily erected. Nothing of the sort has taken place anywhere in the real world, of course, and instead of John Major’s dream of a classless society, the United Kingdom – even the name is a falsehood – is now simply a society with no class.

Self-restraint has gone from being the dignified response of the civilised Western European to an event causing distress or joy. Watch footage of football fans from the 1950s and earlier. They all look the same. They all behave the same way. That is, in both cases, impeccable. I once read story of an elderly gentleman who remembered seeing a football player called – I think - Johnny Haines hit the post with a great shot. “Luckless Haines!” a man in the next seat exclaimed. Today, an unsuccessful – or even successful - effort by an opposition player will whip the crowd into a baying, grimacing, gurning, writhing mass of hatred, with obscene gestures and gutter language, which can be lip-read on any replay, taking the place of a despairing “Luckless Haines!”.

If the behaviour of football fans were our Virgilian guide, we would be forgiven for thinking that 1950s Britain was a decent, restrained country, its people civilised and unexcited in their responses to social situations, and that today’s British are scum.

We hear a tedious chatter about ‘British values’. What might they be, what might they resemble? Ancient Greek or Roman values? Nordic values? Hindu values? A socio-cultural value is, we can safely say, a way of acting or behaving which is accorded a certain value, in the positive sense (a reprehensible or violent act still has a value, albeit negative in terms of social capital).

Whatever they are, these mysterious values, this hidden book of the law, they are what foreign arrivistes to Britain are expected to adopt. We know this to be the case because we hear it weekly from the government’s megaphone, the popular press. Of course, we understand the between-the-lines inference that it is not all cultures that need to adapt to British values, merely the more socially troublesome ones. The Chinese arrivals in the UK tend to maintain the cultural practices of their home countries but, outside Chinatown, no one would ever really notice that they hadn’t signed up for our still-enigmatic British values.

I was in England recently for ten days, after a three-month period away, by far the longest time I have ever spent outside the country of my birth and upbringing. It was pleasant to see again the hundred small kindnesses the English specialise in, to see manners displayed openly and unashamedly. I noticed this particularly, having spent time in Costa Rica among American expats who, for the most part, are arrogant, charmless, mannerless, braying, small-minded braggarts. I was actually reprimanded here for apologising for the crass behaviour of someone I happened to be playing in a band with. I’m sure that Costa Rica’s Yankee contingent, comprised as it is of pensionados, misfits and chancers, is not representative of all Americans, but it threw the charm of the English into strong relief on my return.

The point is this. What positive values the British still have are a private preserve, social capital stowed away like fivers under the mattress. If the great, lumbering, vindictive Socialist governing class in Westminster has anything to do with it, even these niceties will be removed. Other British values, as far as I can read them from a distance, seem to be stupidity, rudeness, narcissism, football, cataclysmic drinking and drug consumption, hypocrisy, self-hatred – in the case of the white British elites – and a moronic and slavish obsession with consumer trinkets.

If these are the values the great influx of immigrants are expected to learn and practice, can the British really be surprised when Muslims, for example, cling to their own cultural identities? The case against Islam is not going to be a very strong one if the people making the case behave like apes. The twin phenomena of the Americanisation and Caribbeanisation of British, and particularly English, culture is one of the greatest acts of cultural self-harm in history. Islam knows this, and rightly sees it as a vast weak point in the citadel walls.

If you are to have values in the UK, you must nurture them in private, like seedlings. Keep away from government, keep away from the television and newspapers, keep away from cultures alien to your own. Read, and read genuinely educational books, not the crap in the window at Waterstone’s. Listen to music that actually speaks to you in the deeps, not the infantile, objectionable and retarded babble of talentless, gold-strewn black idiots with big trousers. Don’t watch Hollywood movies, watch old black-and-white films which have simpler values and authentic reasons to exist. More than anything, don’t trust anyone who is of the Left. Their methods need observing as their ability to connect must be emulated, but as people shun and disapprove of them, be it in the workplace or in your social life.

Money should only have value because it represents capital. So too with actions, although they represent social capital, a tender in which Britain is running worryingly short. Do not act in the way that your government and its various lobby groups want you to act. Have some dignity. Create a value system that actually means something, and you might find you have something to defend and fight for.

Sunday, 15 May 2016

UNSAFE EUROPEAN HOMES :BREXIT - THE MOVIE




I’m in a European super state.

Every citizen required to debate.

Killing Joke, European Super State

 

Sitting here in my safe European home.

The Clash, Safe European Home

 

In a week which has seen British Prime Minister David Cameron warn that a referendum vote to leave the EU would likely usher in the Third World War, and a German foreign minister – we’re allies now, you know – has warned that a so-called ‘Brexit’ would so rile the Irish Republican Army that they would immediately set to work on Troubles 2.0, anyone with a vested interest in regaining British sovereignty would be forgiven for hoping that a mature response would be forthcoming from their co-conspirators. They will not be disappointed.

Brexit the Movie is crowd-funded, government money being unavailable for double-plus ungoodthink although the usual trough of tax-geld is available for Cameron’s ‘Conservatives’ to bombard ever home in Brtain with junk-mail propaganda. Junkaganda, perhaps. What it posits, admittedly crudely reduced here, is whether a complete loss of sovereignty is worth a handful of brightly coloured beads in the form of reduced mobile phone charges and conformity of duvet filling.

Presented by the amiable and bemused Martin Durkin, the film runs at around 70 minutes and is so convincing that it makes the forthcoming referendum not one concerning Britain’s continued membership of the EU, but a plebiscite on just how stupid, credulous and distracted by the baubles of consumerism the British really are.

The talking heads are a great and tousled rogues gallery. Janet Daley, Daniel Hannan, Melanie Phillips, James Delingpole, Kate Hoey, Nigel Farage and Kelvin McKenzie – a star turn here – are among the on-screen heretics. The film itself attacks the concept of the EU at every weak point in that leviathan’s armour.

The sheer unaccountability of the EU runs through the narrative like a thread. As is well known, no one votes for the Presidency or senior positions in the EU. Very few people know who their MEP is. Scarcely anyone recognises the likes of Juncker, Schulz and van Rompuy. And this is just how the EU gauleiters want it. They have absolutely no interest in making the EU more open and engaged in some semblance of a democratic project. I forget who says in the film that the EU is not undemocratic, but anti-democratic.

The vast and largely unnecessary bureaucracy of the EU, and its concomitant technocratic class, is dissected with a very sharp tool. You have the feeling that you have wandered from the dark forest of elite lies into a bright clearing of facts. The graphics are light and pleasing, Terry Gilliam-like, without being smartarse and irritating.

The sheer number of laws emanating from Brussels is incomprehensible. These laws will, of course, increasingly apply to the regulation of people, speech and thought as Europe’s crisis approaches, but for now a guided tour through the regulations of the inanimate world is testament to one of the Left’s most powerful and pernicious tools; complication.

If you want to control a system of operations from a position of power within that system, you must make it increasingly more difficult for those over whom you have power to operate. You do this by over-complicating every stage of process, by increasing the amount of time operatives spend on pointless tasks of taxonomy and specification, and by always requiring slightly more information from operatives than they can actually competently process. This, incidentally, is not just a disease of the political elites; it also infects modern management, even in the private sector.

The way the EU achieves complication is the sheer bloom of its regulatory powers. I’m sure you aware of the fairly recent meme concerning the lengths of various historical documents;

Pythagoras’ theory    24 words

Lord’s Prayer    66 words

Archimedes’ principle    67 words

Ten Commandments    179 words

Gettysburg Address    267 words

US Declaration of Independence    1,321 words

Magna Carta (including signatures)    3,856 words

EU regulations on sale and trade of vegetables    Around 36,784 words

(Note: this figure was originally claimed to refer just to cabbages, and the whole meme was doubted by, naturally, Europhiles at the BBC. The above is the latest refinement of the figures I could find.)

There is a pleasing sequence which follows Durkin from rising and through his day, graphically showing the regulatory rules attached to each object he touches or passes. I will just say that 118 such rules apply to shampoo, and we will shake our heads and pass on.

Trade and trading regulation also take a large but fully justified portion of the film. It is a myth that companies will cease to trade with Britain if the No vote triumphs; companies trade with companies, not countries. The decimation of the British fishing industry is as appalling as anything that happened to the miners, but I must have missed the Lefties marching for that cause. The choking triumvirate of tariffs, quotas and complex regulation (see above) are exposed, and the beneficial effects of regulation of small business for big business reinforces the fact that the EU is a crony-capitalistic gentleman’s club sadly lacking in gentlemen.

Regulation, it transpires, took after the First World War and, when the consequences of the Second World War – German economic expansionism – are thought through, the uncomfortable notion begins to form that both wars were an essential part of the plan for a European superstate.

The club aspect of the EU has always been a disgusting spectacle, and its reputation takes another dive here. I had no idea there was a luxury shopping mall for EU staff only, like the shops for Party members only under Stalin. It has a manicurist. Employees have a list of ‘company’ benefits that would make any corporate trougher in Britain green with envy. 10,000 EU employees earn more than the British Prime Minister.

And this club is fully supported by big business, charities, NGO’s, arts bodies, and a long tail of other grubbers and pinchers. They produce what one of the contributors calles a “chorus of noise.” Like the British public sector, the EU is a wealth transfer scheme intended to divert financial capital away from the productive classes to the non-productive classes, the ‘make-works’ anyone familiar with – and honest about – the British public services will attest to.

Perhaps, if a gentleman’s club is not an appropriate comparison for the EU, an ex-serviceman’s club might be more appropriate, provided that we make the allowance that no genuine service has ever been performed to gain entry. Nick Clegg is a perfect example of a future EU mandarin. An almost wholly talentless, conniving, mendacious piece of walking malware, Clegg couldn’t have cared less about losing his place in government. He knows what is coming anyway, and wouldn’t want to be around when the twister hits. And he won’t be. He’ll be in the adult Disneyland that is the EU.

Although Brexit is a very clear, very wholesome film, it does have its faults. It skirts entirely around The Muslim Question. It fails to mention the well-known fact that no reputable financial body has been able – or prepared – to sign off the EU’s accounts for something like 17 years. Whenever nationalism is mentioned, the phrase ‘far Right’ is right there at its elbow like a butler, and the inevitable stock footage of skinheads with red flags bearing some kind of swastika-like emblem, or young Scandinavian men with burning torches in a forest at night, is shown as predictably as night follows day.

But these are trifles. The overall message I took from the film confirms that the fault-line of the EU runs through something I am fascinated by; political technocracy. There is much mention in Brexit of the concept that the EU is built on the notion of a superior intellectual class who are the people best entrusted with the protection and improvement of the masses, who would otherwise fail despite themselves. Ferociously intelligent and peerlessly capable, these administrative Ubermensch have it within their gift to see the solutions to problems the existence of which the hoi polloi are barely aware. Again, this chimes with modern Western management practice.

I think of the technocrats as a family. They even have a name, a double-barrelled name to emphasise their aristocratic nature. They are the Dunning-Krugers. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a psychological disorder. It is not mentioned in the psychologist’s Bible, DSM V, but it’s alleged indicators make fascinating reading when one is observing the technocratic political elites;

‘The central argument of the Dunning-Kruger Effect – named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University – is that incompetent people don’t know enough to know what they don’t know. Consequently, they are more likely to over-estimate their own competence.’ (Zawn Villines, GoodTherapy.org)

Yes, the Dunning-Krugers are a family, alright. And they are not Orwell’s family with the wrong members in control. They are the wrong family.

Of course you should watch Brexit. You ought to watch any intelligent and communicative information pertaining to the greatest political choice – if you are British – that you will ever make. Personally, I believe that whatever happens to the UK in terms of the EU, Europe can’t get out of what’s coming, and neither can the UK. They hang together or separately, it makes no difference. Also, I’ve always wanted a united Europe. More, a Guillaume Faye-esque Eurosiberia stretching from Vladivistok to Shannon which would be ideal to fight back against The United States of America, whose revolting culture has prepared Europe for the slaughter about to be executed by the halal knives of our new Islamic arrivistes. I just don’t want an EU run by technocrats, populated by Muslims, and scared of free speech and concepts other than those within their playbook. Vote whichever you want to. But recognise that at least Brexit the Movie treats the viewer as though they were an adult and not a special-needs child.

 

 

Thursday, 12 May 2016

FREE FALLING DIVISIONS: BEYOND LEFT AND RIGHT



T]he German nationalist scene, or certain sections of it (the NPD, the Free Nationalist/Free Comradeship/Autonomous Nationalist groups) are not Far Right in the conventional sense, and aim at taking politics beyond Left and Right.

Tim Johnstone, Foreword to Welf Herfurth’s A Life in the Political Wilderness

 

Falling.

Falling.

Free falling divisions.

Wire, A Bell is a Cup until it is Struck

 

With the emergence of a new political Right, there also appears a problem of terminology. For the Alt. Right, or Dissident Right, conservatives who have distanced themselves from the so-called Conservatives – called ‘Cuckservatives’ by the New Right - in power or opposition across the Western world, it is no longer clear as to what the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ actually refer.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote that ‘every man is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelean’. He was referring to Plato and Aristotle, whose philosophical systems can broadly be described as ideal and material respectively. These terms, in the lexicon of philosophy, are obviously translations, and do not exactly mean what they mean to us. Roughly speaking, though, Plato believed that the ultimate reality was to be found in the realm of the ideal, unknown to man with his limited senses, and Aristotle held that reality was earth-bound, material, and accessible to those same senses. Their difference of opinion is beautifully illustrated in the detail from Raphael’s famous The School of Athens, pictured above. In discussing the political problem of the difference between Left and Right, we will return to Plato and his pupil Aristotle, whom Plato called nous, or ‘mind’.

For the time being, the point is this. Most people no longer understand the difference between Plato and Aristotle, and Coleridge’s natal division is redundant, archaic, out of time. It may be that ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ may be about to join them in the gloom of the hall of antiquities.

It should be noted that the problem of defining Left and Right exists only for those on the Right. For those on the Left, no such problem exists. To be politically Left wing, for the Left, is to be correct, to be good, to be on the ‘right side of history’, to be compassionate, to fight for ‘social justice’ (an equally nebulous concept) and to defend the rights and welfare of oppressed minorities. Above all to be Left is to be a good person, as Leftists will not fail to remind you.

Defining themselves dialectically against everyone who is not of their tribe, the Left’s view of the Right is easy to make out. The Right are wrong, evil, heartless, oppressive and selfish. To be Far Right is the ultimate curse bestowed by creatures of the Left. To be Far Right is to be a fascist, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and, as one young lady opined on Twitter, ‘literally Hitler’.

Is it possible to move beyond Left and Right, as Nietzsche believed it was possible to reason ‘beyond (Jenseits) good and evil’? It is my belief that divisions will fall soon whether the Left or Right will it or want it. There is a time coming when ordinary people will put aside their divisions and realise that the desperate and required struggle is against the political class. But not yet.

In the meantime, it is up the Right to educate the Left, for no such educational transaction can take place in the opposite direction. And a large part of that education is ontological, or concerned with the structure of reality. For, given that we still understand what we mean when we use the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, the differences between the two warring camps – and the war is vital – can be reduced to the differences in approach to the nature of reality. Some examples.

The Left are egalitarian. They believe that all races are equal in every way, that genders are equal, that sexual orientation is not granted biologically at birth but is able to shift and change according to whim or lifestyle choice. Most importantly, the Left hold that all members of a given society, no matter how much that society is altered by immigration and miscegenation, are absolutely of equal worth. The only hierarchies are those imposed by the oppressor class, currently Western white men.

The Right are hierarchical. We believe that nature has an ineradicable system of differences which can be arranged and taxonomised in an order of use and merit. A South Bronx crack dealer is, in reality, worth considerably less to humanity than a Malaysian paediatric surgeon.

The Left are against national borders and the nation state as it has evolved historically. They would like to see free movement of peoples, and view this movement as playing a role in the correction of society to fit their model of social justice, where everyone is equal in the sight of Karl Marx.

The Right wish to maintain both nation states and the ethnicities that exist within them, although the further one goes into White nationalism, the more the second part of that belief system becomes apparent. This is why those often called white supremacists are actually white separatists. They do not dislike black people, for example, they just don’t want to live around them.

The Left believe that speech and writing should be controlled. Free speech has limits – and is thus, of course, not free – and discourse that does not agree with the Leftist agenda should not be tolerated. Hence the modern concept of ‘hate speech.’

The Right believe all debates are available, all points of view must be heard, and any disagreement should be debated openly and freely. That is what free speech is in and of itself, that is its nature, as the great Marcus Aurelius would have said.

The Left believe that the white man is responsible for the ills of history. Slavery, oppression, racism, repression of women and all the other rancorous items on their inventory of righteousness are the fault of the Caucasian male.

The Right believe that the white man built history, and should be primarily responsible for running it.

These are pointers, and this whole piece is simply a sketch. There is much work to do to fill it out. To return, however, to our portrait of Plato, with his finger pointing upwards to the heavens, and Aristotle, with his palm flattened towards the earth, Raphael has given us a beautiful vignette of the difference between the political Left and Right; idealism and realism. The Left believe in an ideal world, the world as they feel it ought to be, the Right believe in the real world, the world they feel that is the case because nature and not man decrees its nature.

Whatever the terminology, we shall soon see which viewpoint fits reality. And reality, as science fiction author Kurt Vonnegut reminds us, is that which does not go away just because you stop believing in it.

Wednesday, 11 May 2016

THE USES AND ABUSES OF ISLAM



Originally published in New English Review, September 2014. The essay has been slightly altered, and point 6 has been added.

 

For Western Muslims with an interest in the return of the Caliphate, these seem the best of times. While earlier Mohammedan hordes had to go through the onerous exertions of fighting and dying to invade the West, today’s more sedentary Mussulman can simply sit back in his host country, pull up a wife, and let Western governments do the rest. In Britain, with its growing Muslim enclaves in inner city ghettoes, prisons and local councils, these micro-caliphates must surely link arms before long, Allah willing.

When it comes to the warm welcome of appeasement, nothing is too much trouble for political elites from Cyprus to Alaska. From generous welfare funding to the banning of marches and speakers critical of Islam, from blind eyes turned to grooming gangs to deaf ears cocked to inflammatory speech, Muslims merely have to post a request into the suggestion box, and a progressivist useful idiot acting in the sacred name of multiculturalism will make it so. And, thanks to what Muslims must view as mein host, being a Mohammedan means never having to be alone. Co-religionists arrive in the West daily by the plane, train and boat-load, while our political gauleiters ignore jihad in favour of informing us that Islam is responsible for inventing everything from the plough to the Large Hadron Collider.

But might not the governments of the West – always looking, as they are, for global lebensraum for their Socialist, wealth-transfer ideology – be concealing a wily agenda, one in which Islam plays a vital if ignorant part?

Western governments, from the neo-Communist kommissariat of the EU to Obama’s posse of community organisers, are fascinated by the power of Islam. Why can’t they come up with a simple portmanteau word, as the Muslim Brotherhood did with ‘Islamophobia’, and use it to stifle dissent? Perhaps this is why the West is treating Islam as something akin to a corporate brand consultancy. What if Islam is something other to the political class than a special-interest group to be flattered and pawed for the resource of its voting bloc? Why are Western governments falling over themselves to welcome the Islamic world, and what might the uses and abuses of Islam be? Here are some suggestions.

1.  To assuage white Western guilt by self-denigration. Certainly, the hair shirt is ever-present in the wardrobe of Western opinion formers. Roger Scruton writes of ‘oikophobia’, or a hatred of home. Guillaume Faye, French nouvelle droitiste, thematises Western ‘ethno-masochism’. Online essayist Takuan Seiyo warns against the ‘mea culpists’. Orwell is, as always, accurate with his famous observation that the British intelligentsia would be more likely to steal from the poor-box than stand during the national anthem. One of the few culturally relevant Popes, Ratzinger, claimed that Europe’s hatred of itself was ‘pathological’. But surely there is a limit to self-flagellation. Have our politicians really imported an aggressive ideology and its quarrelsome adherents simply to make themselves feel better about their past? It stretches credibility.

2.  To import a ready-made voting bloc; bring them in, feed them the addictive opium of state benefits, and they will vote for you in perpetuity. Possibly, but immigrants of any persuasion are not needed to ensure ideological continuity in government. Firstly, there is a readily available dependent underclass already in position. Secondly, although this theory is popular with critics of the Liberal-Left, it doesn’t really stand up, given that the difference between Western political parties is paper-thin. In the UK, at least, a vote for any of the three traditional main parties is a de facto vote for more non-assimilable Muslim immigration. There is, in reality, just one political party in the UK with three main departments generating insignificant squabbles which they then parade as ideological difference.

3.  Genuine fear. A moratorium on Muslim immigration plays for higher stakes than that of other groups. And, once established, Islam keeps turning the screw. Did the UK fast-food chain Subway cave in to Muslim demands when they removed pork and bacon from product ingredients in 200 of their stores and, if so, can you blame them? A good business model can come unstuck if a couple of menu items cause your retail outlets to be bombed. Subway were merely putting into practice the excellent advice of anti-Christian conceptual artist Grayson Perry. When asked why his work mocked Christianity but did not mock Islam, Perry replied that he didn’t want his throat cut. One need not ask the opinion of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Past generations of artists had to fear the Lord Chancellor’s green pen. Now, the ghost of Theo van Gogh keeps order among the artistic community. And don’t be fooled by Cameron’s occasional stern but ultimately toothless gesture of concern about Islamic intimidation. This is largely to head off a potential backlash from the Orwellian proles if Islam is seen to be too privileged. This is the one thing British government genuinely fears; not the radicalised mosque but the radicalised pub.

4.  Managing dysfunction leads to big government boosterism and, if it is dysfunction you require, it is Muslims you must import. More immigration, particularly of those peoples who are aggressively opposed to integration and even quasi-imperialist in their aims, will lead inevitably to social problems in the form of civil unrest, over-stretched resources, increased administrative requirements, the imposition of cultural requests, and extra infrastructure. In this way, big government creates adverse circumstances requiring bigger government to resolve them.

5.  Preparation for world government. Conspiracy theorist, but not impossible. Islam certainly complements Socialism. It denigrates free will. It demands ideological lockstep. It denies freedom of expression. It despises Jewry. The association of extreme Socialism with an all-encompassing ideology is certainly consistent with history, as Nick Cohen charts in What’s Left? And, as Pamela Geller puts it, ‘the left traditionally aligns itself with the totalitarian ideology of the day.’

6.  It is not inconceivable that a type of power-sharing is envisaged by the elites. Something like this is the premiss of Michel Houellebecq’s Submission.The elite class would, of course, have to be confident they could ride the tiger, but with Islam’s help, the increasingly dissenting people of the West could be put firmly back into what the technocratic, neo-Socialist, gauleiter class in Europe and The United States believe is their place. Western-style government would be backed by Islamic-style enforcement.

Some suggestions, then, as to why governments are carrying through immigration policies which look culturally suicidal.

Certainly, Islam is proving very useful to Western governments intent on closing down dissent. Make criticism of Islam illegal, as the EU openly intends, and Obama heavily implies he would prefer, and criticism of government may not be far behind. We must remember that our politicians cannot see the argument against curtailing freedom of speech largely because their own ability to speak freely is powerfully circumscribed by media far more interested in ‘gaffes’ than in intelligent debate and informative reportage.

Cameron and his ilk are fond of stressing that the West can learn from Islam, but there is one lesson it knew all along, and finds only a refresher course in what it refers to as ‘the Holy Qu’ran’; taqiyya. This Islamic principle, which tolerates lies and dissembling in the cause of Islam, is simply Western political practice refound in a non-Occidental political constitution. With this passport, Islam is useful to Western elites – both governments and their media courtiers - because it brings with it both the opportunity to criminalise dissent, and the connected and continuing practice of lying to the populace, so essential to political control. As Theodore Dalrymple writes in The New Vichy Syndrome;

“Hypocrisy and dissimulation are what keeps social systems strong; it is intellectual honesty that destroys them.”

Free speech is the vanguard of intellectual honesty, which cannot exist without it. Islam could not be more opposed to either, which may explain what must be, to its leading ideologues, an unexpectedly swift beach-head in the West.

British Imams should not congratulate themselves too soon, however. Western governments may still be using them wit a view to discarding them once the people of the West have been subjugated. Once the Muslims' role is over as authoritarian canaries in a coalmine whose owners lack the confidence to ban free speech outright, they may find themselves left in the dark.

Tuesday, 10 May 2016

A COMMUNITY OF REFERENCE: WHY COSTA RICA HAS NO MUSLIM PROBLEM

 
 
Even the media can no longer suppress the fact that there is a migration crisis in Europe and that the problem is one which reduces to Islam. Indeed, The Islamic Question is becoming for Chancellor Merkel what The Jewish Question was to one of her more notorious predecessors in the Chancellorship of Germany. Her Final Solution is, however, markedly different.
While Merkel and her EU sidekicks insist ever more Islamic ‘refugees’ pour across the parlous borders of Europe, the east of that continent is emerging as a dissenting bloc unwilling to follow the playbook. Poland will not take refugees due to ‘security fears’. Chechia, Hungary and Romania have all resisted the open door policy of the Fourth Reich. But what of the rest of the world? Are Muslims able to treat those countries outside Europe as the mix of youth hostel and mosque they are creating out of central and western Europe?
Last year, Costa Rican president Luis Guillermo Solis responded to a request for asylum for Syrian refugees, the same human detritus Europe has prioritised after the collapse of yet another failed Muslim state. His response should be noted by the dissident Right in Europe and in The United States.
Initially, Solis’s Foreign Ministry spokesman made an announcement seemingly in line with Costa Rica’s Constitution.
Article 31 of that document reads that ‘The territory of Costa Rica shall be a shelter for all those persecuted for political reasons…’ Syrian refugees, he said, would be accepted in Costa Rica, and provided with food, shelter and assistance in finding employment. This is a magnanimous gesture in a Third World country which, although it is experiencing economic growth which outstrips that currently found in the EU, still has basic infrastructural problems and none of the ability to make generous welfare payments that the European countries enjoy.
A few days later, however, President Solis himself stepped in, and the announcement he made – as well as igniting the cries of ‘Islamophobia’ so familiar to European ears, should be compulsory reading for the European elites. It is worth reading in full:
“In regards to Syrian refugees, we are in a very different cultural area from their own, and there isn’t a community of reference that can give them welcome… We are a multicultural country with communities of very different origins, but the Syrians are not one of those communities, thus any group of people who come from Syria would not find the sociological, religious or cultural shelter they would require to live normal lives.
“I would rather maintain a very serious, responsible and articulated policy in handling immigrants or those asking for political asylum [rather] than playing with people who have very great needs and even greater expectations that would end up in a country that is not adequate and where they would be condemned to discrimination. I do not want an act of humanity to end with the construction of ghettos in Costa Rica.”
I am unable to find this short speech in the original Spanish, and we must beware of examining and perhaps betraying nuance in translation. But when set against the simpering justifications and outright lies spewing from the EU leviathan’s mouth, Mr. Solis’s pronouncement is remarkable for several reasons.
Firstly, cultural difference is the Costa Rican President’s first point of reference. In Europe, the idea is peddled by the Left and their outriders that all cultures are essentially the same but for some minor differences, perhaps, involving cultural froth such as dress and diet. This is manifestly untrue. Islam is a wholly different culture from Judaeo-Christian tradition, no matter how many mealy-mouthed social justice workers try to tell you that The Bible is just as violent as the Koran. ‘We are in a different cultural area,’ says Mr. Solis, continuing that ‘there isn’t a community of reference that can give them welcome.’
Of course, Mr. Solis is a politician, and thus expert in obfuscation. Here, too, lines must be read between. Claiming that Syrians would not be happy in Costa Rica hides his real agenda, that they and Islam are not wanted in a religiously trouble-free country. The Syrians would not, he goes on to say, ‘find the sociological, religious or cultural shelter they would require to live normal lives.’ Funding this apparent compassion, however, is the recognition that Syrians, and Muslims in general, do not live normal lives when set against civilised countries. Mere cultural difference is not enough to debar an ethnic group from seeking asylum. One doubts Mr. Solis would have turned about face if the refugees were a group of Icelanders or Swiss.
Mr. Solis also isolates an aspect of Islamic migration which has been ignored in Europe, and which is now leading the EU towards inevitable civil war. The President would prefer an ‘articulated’ policy, ‘rather than playing with people who have very great needs and even greater expectations’ than Costa Rica would be prepared to provide. We have seen in Europe that ‘refugees’ do not arrive with a willingness to co-operate with their new hosts. They do not arrive with gratitude in their hearts. They do not arrive with a sense that their culture might not fit, and that certain aspects of the way they behave may not be acceptable in a strange land.
Instead, they arrive with a list of grievances, many with mischief and worse on their minds, and they are armed with the realisation that it is possible to play cards with a deck in which every card is the race card. There are communities who fit in to Costa Rica, says President Solis, but the Syrians are not one of them.
Of course, the outcry caused by the President’s intervention and reversal of policy caused is entirely predictable to a European. His statements were called ‘xenophobic’ and, inevitably, ‘fascist’. One Tatiana Gamboa said that ‘He [Solis] even says he does not want Costa Rica to become ghettos’. He doesn’t, of course, say anything of the kind. He said that he does not want ghettos in Costa Rica, and implies that he particularly would not want Islamic ghettos. Perhaps he knows something of Bradford, of Malmo, of Molenbeek. Ms. Gamboa goes on to say that Christians and Muslims co-exist in Syria, so why not in Costa Rica? She is, of course, lying. If twenty five Syrian Christian villages razed to the ground in February of this year alone is peaceful co-existence, what might ethnic and religious cleansing resemble?
President Solis has done what none but a handful of European leaders have had the courage to do; he has said no to Islam. It will be interesting to note any sly penalties the Costa Ricans might pay for failing to respect the ummah. Certainly Costa Rica, like all countries, will only be under increased pressure in the future to take in refugees as more and more of the Muslim world finds itself ill-equipped for the demands of modernity, and its implosion has to be dealt with by the civilised world, the dar al hard deemed so miserable by so many Muslims. As for claiming political asylum rather than return to a civil-war-torn country, it may well be something I will have to look into myself in the not-too-distant future.
 

Monday, 9 May 2016

GULAG 2.0: WHY IS THE BRITISH STATE TRYING TO KILL TOMMY ROBINSON?




They simply kept me in beyond my licence date. I know they can’t, but they did.

Tommy Robinson, Enemy of the State

 
It was like the story of the chap who was in prison and a friend calls and asks him why and the chap tells him and the friend says But they can’t put you in prison for that and the chap says I know they can’t, but they have.

P G Wodehouse, Much Obliged, Jeeves

 

Tommy Robinson is a heretic. It has been pointed out many times that multiculturalism, and particularly the forced acceptance of Islam in the West, has all the hallmarks of a religion. It has its high priests, its own language, its dogma, its churches, its promise of salvation and, most importantly, its dogma. Without dogma there can be no heresy. Without heresy, you don’t have a real religion. Persecution is a necessary condition of belief. And history tells us that heretics must die. Muslims believes this, both concerning apostates and critics from the dar al harb.

Robinson’s autobiographical book, Enemy of the State, seems to have escaped the notice of the mainstream press. The few mentions I have seen make a point of ridiculing the way he speaks. The British media are very snobbish when it comes to the lower classes, at least the ones who don’t toe the line when it comes to multiculturalism. Tommy Robinson writes as he speaks. And that is how Tommy Robinson speaks. I should know, because I spoke to him six months ago on the telephone.

Now, Tommy is about to go through another duel with Britain’s weaponised and biased Crown Prosecution Service. He told me, before his last bail hearing, that he fully expected to go to jail again. He also told me that, one day, he expects to die there, the victim of an assassination by a Muslim which the British Left will dance a jig and reel over.

Robinson is perhaps the first victim of a Great Britain – terrible misnomer, that – which is gradually, with glacier-like progress, becoming a police state. Does that square away with you? Are you happy to live in a sort of Kashmir with IKEA?

Police states have existed throughout history, and they have generally mutated from other types of state. And so we see that the possibility that England could become a police state is, as that country’s snake-like politicians like to say, on the table. I grew up in a time when the idea of a fascistic, police-led state was absurd, as though someone had said our new neighbours were going to be from Narnia. I was arrested once, aged 16, for causing an affray after a concert by punk band UK Subs. I had blue hair and I was wearing a kilt. At the station, some uniformed motorcycle cops walked past me and looked me up and down. One said,

“Oh look. A little girl.”

His friend added,

“Someone needs a bit of a slapping.”

I was 16 and I was frightened. For years later, I used it as an excuse to hate the police. Later, when I began to row to the other side of the political river, I began to respect the police and their fallen comrades, who often die defending their communities. But I realise now that I was respecting dead officers, not live ones, and certainly not their politicised bosses. The British police are no longer worthy of respect. They took the chocolate and they did the favours, even though they knew they should not have done it and they feel sick from the sweets. Enemy of the State just made me hate them even more.

As I know from personal experience, three serving police officers will attend a complaint about an attempt to steal a bicycle in London, England. They will take statements, and spend a goodly deal of time agreeing with one another about how the theft was carried out. They will be absolutely faultless in their people skills. There will be no hurry in their enquiries, just as though they have nothing to fill out the rest of their day, and are happy to be away from the endless paperwork which stops Britain’s police from actually policing anyone. They will be polite, almost eerily so. They will share and make jokes. They will be led, in their trained empathy, into speaking about the familiarity they have with most of the local individuals who perpetrate this kind of petty nastiness up until the point where you think;

“Why not do something about them, then?”

The police have been politicised, militarised, bureaucratised and weaponised. If there is not some kind of authoritarian ramp-up underway, our ruling class is doing an impression of just such a regime which would make Sammy Davies Jr. envious. But something in Robinson’s book chimes with echoes I have heard. In terms of the armed British public sector – the army and the police – different hymn sheets may be in existence from which to sing.

Tommy does not try to come over as a tough nut. There is an honesty to his book that is conspicuously missing both from the state’s narrative concerning him, and the Muslim braggadocio that Europeans will be seeing and hearing a lot more of in the years to come;

“I wasn’t scared any longer. Not of anyone, and certainly not of being thrown in a prison cell. I thought I could cope with anything, although I would discover eventually that I couldn’t, I really couldn’t.”

We will return to Enemy of the State, and I urge you to read it. For now, we note merely that Tommy Robinson was once the capo of the English Defence League (EDL), a sort of cross between Combat 18, football hooligans and The Bash Street Kids.

The EDL began as a response to a homecoming march by the 2nd battalion of the Royal Anglican Regiment, returning to England as they were from a tour of Afghanistan. Muslims gathered, holding up placards suggesting, among other things, that these brave men and women should burn and rot in hell. You must understand that, if you are a Muslim and thus a species protected by the state, nothing will happen to you for this kind of inflammatory behaviour. Try it on as a white man, however, and aim your vitriol at Muslims, and you had better be prepared for harassment, or even to be in the next cell to Tommy. Much of Enemy of the State is about just this, the hounding of the kufr. The sooner Englishmen realise that the police are the provisional wing of an authoritarian and pro-Islamic state, the closer we will be to genuine social justice, not the type that revolves around transgender bathrooms.

The EDL – and you may not know this – were responsible along with the BNP for shining a light on the Muslim rapists Peter McLoughlin writes about in Easy Meat (see last entry below). And rape is what that was. I note with interest the use of the word ‘grooming’, with its positive, rather attractive image of curry-combing ponies or clipping the hair of your favourite Terrier.

Of course, to blow the whistle on Islam in any variety in which it comes is to court the attention of the British police, who have become outriders for this revolting ideology. The police went after Tommy by weaponising the British authorities who deal with income tax. They went through Tommy’s business accounts – he ran a tanning business – and he produced everything for which they asked. Now, I know from personal experience that if authority goes after you for technicalities and fails to find the rope with which to hang you, it just makes them more annoyed. They will find something else.

The state wants Tommy Robinson dead, of that there can be no doubt. Imprisoned for offences for which other people would receive a slap on the wrist, Tommy is repeatedly placed in prisons and wings with a high Muslim contingent. He has been repeatedly attacked. Recently, a Somali Muslim attempted to throw a cup of boiling water saturated with sugar over him. This is called ‘napalm’ in prison jargon. Tommy attacked the man in self-defence. He is likely to face another trial for this act of self-preservation. He has a wife and, I believe, three children, all of whom are made to feel distressed and inconvenienced at every possible opportunity which presents itself to Bedfordshire pathetic police force.

Let this be a warning to the British police, particularly the Bedfordshire force. And it is a force, not a fucking service, as they have tried to rebrand it under pressure from what George Orwell called the ‘Pansy Left’. If Tommy Robinson dies in prison – as he fully expects he will – you will create a martyr, and people will fight for martyrs. I certainly will.