Thursday, 25 August 2016


Today, Hillary Clinton will speak in Reno. Her speech is expected to be an attack on the Alt Right, as a burgeoning and largely online movement has come to be known. She will almost certainly challenge Donald Trump either to affiliate with or disavow this group of disparate writers and thinkers. It could easily be a defining moment in the most important US American presidential election of this century and possibly of any other.

Everyone has an opinion concerning Donald Trump. Win or lose, he has had the ride of his life. It’s quite a way to take a break and get out of the office. Personally, I think he will lose to Clinton. He faces too many opponents marching in lockstep, too many fixed bayonets. The entire MSM is against him. The political establishment, including his adoptive party, is against him. Blacks, fearful of losing their fount of free money, are against him. Latinos, faithful to La Raza, are against him. And, of course, self-hating liberal whites are against him. The odds are too great. A Trump win is simply not allowable. If nothing else, Clinton’s Jews will see to it.

But this is a big day for the Alt Right. Various websites are cock-a-hoop, and why should they not enjoy their day in the sun? The Alt Right, to me, is the only movement which makes any sense in a world spiraling into chaos like a planet whirling into its parent sun. And the reason is that it is not a movement. There is no ideological lockstep, no orthodoxy, no pseudo-religious canonical texts or preachers. There is just the one thing the Left, our new masters, fear and must destroy; a marketplace of ideas.

Clinton is clearly an appalling human being, both corrupt and maniacally anti-Caucasian, although that has reservations as the people she and Obama will actually harm most are poor blacks. And yet she may well occupy the White House as of next year. It is worth noting, in passing, that the leaders of arguably the three major nations on the planet will then be women. A triumph for feminism, or the opening scene from Macbeth writ large?

What, then, of the Alt Right? If, taking perhaps their cue from Islam, they are prepared to play the long game, a Clinton win may be the best thing that ever happened to them. The next presidency could well be a poisoned chalice. With a 19.3 trillion dollar debt, hyperinflation looming, and an uppity BLM crowd to go with an inimical gaggle of Mohammedan arrivistes, the USA may be about to experience its very own Weimar moment. Who wants to be president when the balloon goes up, and there is an interface between excrement and air extractor?

Personally, I don’t have a dog in the fight. Trump wins, and I have the joint pleasures of seeing whether a nation can pull itself back from the brink of the globalist abyss, in whose maw waits the Jew Soros. I can also enjoy the sight of BBC announcers in black armbands. Clinton triumphs, and I can pull up a chair on the beach here and watch the end of the USA, which may be the best thing for all concerned, all concerned being the rest of the world.

The Alt Right genuinely seems to scare the global elites, and yet it would not even exist had there been a genuine political Right to begin with. In the UK, there has not been one for many years, as brilliantly outlined a decade and a half ago in Peter Oborne’s seminal The Triumph of the Political Class. But the USA, until recently, has been successful in duping the West into believing that the Republican party were stern-faced conservatives determined to reverse Democrat liberalism and return the USA to some sort of pre-lapsarian golden age. This is, of course, nonsense. The Republican plan this time around was to have a comfortably bland wing-tip, a Carson, Cruz, or Rubio – you know, a whiff of exoticism to suggest inclusivity – who could lose to Clinton in style. Instead, they looked up from their expensive Japanese salads and saw Donald Trump. It was as though they had invited Gandhi for tea and got Hannibal Lecter instead.

And so the Alt Right coalesced from various strands of dissident thinking. Anti-globalist, anti-feminist, anti-Islamic, race-realist, economically frugal, anti-egalitarian, anti-Zionist; it seems that it is what the Alt Right are not that defines them. There is a white supremacist, or at least a white separatist, strand running through the varied sites, an ambivalence towards Jews, and a refreshing zeal when it comes to addressing racial differences. Trump, of course, would suffer smackdown if he aligned himself with these elements, but these elements have largely aligned themselves with him. But there is a chink in the armour of the Alt Right.

It is largely an online phenomenon and, if Clinton wins, you can bet the farm that one of her first assembles task forces will be dedicated to taking down dissident websites from Pamela Geller to The Right Stuff, Counter Currents to Jihadwatch, Alternative Right to The Occidental Quarterly, Vox Populi to The Daily Stormer. These sites differ wildly in their worldviews, but those worldviews have a common denominator; they will not be those of Clinton or the globalist, Soros-funded Left.

Nevertheless, a Trump defeat may seem to destroy this new vanguard of genuine political and cultural thought – and though is not something the Left will tolerate, at least free thought – it may condense the new resistance, the maquis fighters of the Alt Right into something more powerful and consolidated, something able to face the long game after the decline and fall of the West which is surely coming.

After all, every phoenix needs its ashes from which to rise.

Tuesday, 23 August 2016


Soon, we'll be needing all our prison space for political prisoners.

A Clockwork Orange

I am the law!

Judge Dredd

The Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has made available well over a million pounds – generous in these austere times - with which to combat the menace of online hate speech. He has given this money into the stewardship of the police force – or ‘service’ as it is known in these gentlest of times – and we must hope it will be spent wisely and for the benefit of the wider populace. It is regrettable that no such sums are available to help towards the housing of the mentally ill ex-servicemen who line some of the capital’s streets, for example, but we can be sure that the hounding of those who dissent against Facebook’s community standards, or the in-house politesse of Twitter, is a need of more pressing urgency.

Unusually for a Labour man, no new legislation will be required for this witch-hunt although, as we shall see, the existing legislation is not quite the full story when it comes to speech inimical to those of the Mohammedan faith. For we know almost to a certainty that this initiative is not intended to protect The Salvation Army or The Church of Scientology. The Seventh-Day Adventists will not be the immediate beneficiaries of this new pledge to benefit the citizens of London, the ultimate responsibility with which an urban mayor is tasked.

Whereas much legislation seems written to produce tears of frustration in the reader, the legislation extant in the UK pertaining to ‘hate speech’ repays inspection. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 states that a criminal act is committed where the accused is found to be “using (a) public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. This is an extraordinary triumvirate of outcomes liable to prosecution. Let us examine them carefully, and perhaps seek to discover what lies behind them in the longer, more pious vision of our current lawmakers.

Now, I am about to enter into dispute with an ex-employer about whom I am writing an article. I have asked them variously to confirm or deny certain events in what we’ll call the anatomy of a constructive dismissal. I can say without reservation, and with the stoutest of Boy Scout salutes, that each and every one of the emails I fire off to this outfit will cause them to be annoyed, inconvenienced and quite possibly anxious lest they receive bad publicity in any way, shape or form. But is this priel of outcomes consistent with the Communications Act cited above? Apparently so. And yet it is a perfectly legitimate exercise pursuivant to my intention to document certain events for the enlightenment of others who may not be aware of details.

It all seems very antithetical set within the context of Western law, with its traditions of free speech, and libel and slander, and the clear demarcation between those two territories. Let’s examine the kernel of UK libel law as it stands. Let me add at this point that, proud holder as I am of a Law A Level, I am no lawyer or legal expert. What I do know is that nuance is an essential element of the law. Also, I believe I am right in saying that UK law is still run along the ‘precedent’ priciple from, I think, Roman law. In this arrangement, law is malleable and refinable. There is no fixed set of legal dictates that are applicable sub specie aeternitatis. This is, of course, far from being the case in Islamic law.

The word “slander” has a substantially different sense in sharia than in contemporary English usage. We use the word to indicate that you have said something that is substantially untrue about someone or something in such a way as to damage their reputation. It must be proven to be objectively false.

In sharia law, the word translated as “slander” is the Arabic word ghiba. It means to say anything about someone that they do not like, even though it is true. This rule was given by Mohammed himself;

Do you know what slander is? It is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike.” Someone asked, “What if he is as I say?” And he replied, “If he is as you say, you have slandered him, and if not, you have calumniated him.”

Note that, by definition, this kind of slander is true.

Again, I stress my lack of credentials. However, I believe there is a metaphysical difference between the law of slander and its written concomitant, libel, and the order of defamation it represents, and that same notion in sharia, under-written by the Koran as it clearly is.

British law, with regards to defamation, seeks to prevent individuals being harmed by the statements of others within a framework of objective validation. In other words, it is not enough for me to dislike the fact that my neighbor has said that I smell objectionable. There must be a rigorous examination as to whether I do, along with proof that this will damage my reputation at the steam bath. In the terms of sharia, it is simply enough for my neighbor to have said it. That has caused me annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety and, regardless of what the truth of the matter might be in the real, external world, that is sufficient for a case to be brought. Subjective values have taken the place of objective values.

Among other things, we can see several pertinent indications that only a Muslim mayor would have introduced this initiative, or at the very least a kufr who hopes that by appeasing the tiger it will eat him last.

Khan is a devious, rather unpleasant little man, but he is possessed of the cunning necessary to advance within today’s political class. I hope he wouldn’t object to my saying that, or I may find myself in chokey. Making ‘hate speech’ punishable by imprisonment, which it de facto already is, will have several effects.

Firstly, free speech will be even more policed than it already is. ‘Police’ shares the same etymological roots as ‘polite’ and ‘political’, we note with interest. Of course, free speech no longer exists. It is an archaic and antique concept, like astral ether or the four humours. And, as noted, Khan intends the policing to be in one area and one area only, that area being criticism of Islam, even if that criticism is objectively verifiable. There will be some strategic taqiyya in defending the occasional insult to LGBT people, but essentially this is a Mohammedan diktat.

Secondly, it will introduce an element of sharia into the legal framework of the capital city of one of the world’s most significant countries. I’m sure readers are familiar with the modern parable of the boiling frog, in which a frog dropped into boiling water will immediately leap out whereas, if it placed in a pan of cold water and gentle heat applied until boiling point, the creature will die. London is being prepared for a new legal system.

Thirdly, it will divert scant police resources from the currently unfashionable pursuit of actual criminals. Anyone who has visited certain parts of London will know what a horrible place it can be, and not because of people being rude about women wearing Muslim face veils.

Fourthly and finally, it will subtly reinforce the message Muslim leaders across Europe are whispering; We are the masters now.

Tuesday, 16 August 2016


Well, look happy. We won, didn’t we?”
Michael Caine’s character Charlie Croker in The Italian Job

With the English Football Premier League having started, a footballing metaphor does not seem impertinent. Imagine a football team – or soccer team, for my American browsers – who face opponents they are not expected to beat, or even force to a draw. In the event, this unfancied outfit triumph over the favourites, beating them 9-1. The only consolation goal for the stunned losers is a disputed penalty in the last minute of play.
In the customary post-match interview, the victorious underdog manager, or coach, is far from exultant. Instead, he complains constantly about the penalty. He claims it should never have been given in the first place, that the result was not a fair one, and that the referee is an incompetent. He goes as far as suggesting that a better referee - a black man, say, or a woman - would not have allowed this travesty of justice to have taken place. Finally, when one of the puzzled journalists attending the press conference asks if, surely, the man is not happy with the result, the manager storms out of the interview with a face like thunder.
If you have managed to perform this little thought-experiment, then you now have a reasonably accurate portrait of the contemporary Western political Left. When they should be basking in the warm glow of cultural victory, the Left will not stop whining about the injustice of it all, of anything and everything. Be it the lack of transgender toilets in Arkansas, the UK Referendum on the EU, Jews – although they keep that quiet – the lack of black actors in execrable TV dramas, the lack of women in the construction industry, the lack of homosexuals more or less everywhere, Donald Trump, Nazis, the occasionally only 4-star treatment of violent immigrant Muslim ingrates, or anything else from a list increasing seemingly weekly, the Left have got a face like a wet weekend about it. One only has to consult that ubiquitous kindergarten of the pieties, Facebook, to get a taste of the vintage of sour grape on offer.
Facebook is, I feel, a reasonably indicative social barometer, although I fully appreciate the fact that one’s virtual friends probably tend to be much like oneself and so it is scarcely a thoroughly reliable straw poll. Then again, that is exactly my point. I probably had 100 ‘friends’ on Facebook, many of whom I don’t recall ever having met, although there may be extenuating reasons for that lack of recall. Of my 100 online chums, I would say that not only did fewer than ten seem in any way Right-wing in their political predilections, but that the same amount were not situated between the calibrations of Left-wing and Far-Left-Wing although, as the BBC will confirm, ‘Far-Left’ is a non-phrase. There is only the far Right.
Since the EU Referendum, expected and promised by a Prime Minister of such monumental foolishness and incompetence one can only shake one’s head and pass on, Facebook has resembled a rainy afternoon in a Salford graveyard. You would think these people had lost a child. The most intelligent Leftist I have ever met took to bawling like a petulant child about the failed exercise of democracy, and thereby hangs a tale. He is actually a man who, when I pointed out that Stalin killed far more innocents than Hitler, claimed mumblingly that figures were hard to confirm.
There are two main points of relevance concerning the UK referendum on the EU. The first is simply pragmatic, the second, if anything, more psychological. I have long believed that there is a demonstrable psychopathology to Left-wing thought patterns, and I have notes toward an essay on the subject. For now, let us remain within the realm of the uncomplicated and non-technical.
Point the first concerning the ‘decision to leave the EU’ is that it will never happen de facto. There will be a compound series of fudges whereby everything remains essentially the same while being variously renamed, in the same way that a Roman army commander once told the captains beneath him regularly to rename their cohorts to promote the illusion of progress. The EU is in too much financial and social trouble to allow dissidence to set a precedent. These people do, unfortunately, rule a goodly part of the world, and if any merry Brexiteer thinks she struck a blow for democracy on June 23, she must think again. Democracy – from the Ancient Greek demos, the people, and kratos, power – is firmly in the crosshairs of people like Jean-Claude Juncker, the anonymous ex-Communist deliberately chosen for his role because he makes Philip Larkin look like Alice Cooper. Britain is not leaving the EU in anything but name.
With this very much in mind, we turn to the second point, that which concerns the psychopathology of the Left. Leftist thought patterns are not patterns as such but regular geometrical designs. There is no room for irregularity for the Leftist mind. A question is not possible for the Leftist – there are only answers, and they have them.
Peak humanity passed in the last century. Whether it be instantiated by the landing of a man on the moon or Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time, whether it be the internet or The Wasteland, the time for genius is past because the time of the white man is passing. There will now be a period – decades? Centuries? – of reverse social and intellectual de-evolution during which civilisation will go backwards in time, like a rewind of the famous clothes shop scene in H G Wells’s The Time Machine.
The Left run education. If you are found to have any Right-wing sympathies – and your potential employers will look, and look again – you will not work in the British education system.
The Left control the media, or at least its narrative. Again, the BBC simply will not employ you if they find a comment on social media that suggests a world other than that they inhabit. I don’t believe, however, that the Left accept that there is a bias to the press or, if they do, they wheel out the Rupert Murdoch Guy Fawkes dummy and stone it for a while until their frenzy has passed and they can comfortingly tell themselves that any bias is towards the Right, as if the political Right still existed in any meaningful sense.
The Left control politics. To reiterate what I said in the last postcard, anyone who believes the likes of Cameron, May, Gove, Johnson and any of the other poseurs of the putative British Right are actuallt Right wing, or Conservative, probably believes televised wrestling matches could go either way.
The Left control culture. Pitch a TV drama to an entertainment executive which concerns the odyssey of a Syrian family as thet try to gain asylum in Europe, and focus on the terrible racism they have to overcome, and you will ring the lemons. Pitch to the same person a script concerning the Rotherham and Oxford Muslim rape gangs and they will quite possible call the police.
The Left have won. The long Gramscian march through the institutions is all but over, and all that is left is the show trials and the gulags for dissidents.
So, Lefties. Look happy. You won, didn't you?