Saturday, 31 December 2016

A TWO-FACED GOD: IN WHICH THE LIBERAL LEFT TALKS TOUGH

But she's always a woman to me



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.

Daniel Friberg, The Real Right Returns



The Leftist brain cannot be fathomed.

John Derbyshire, From the Dissident Right.





And once again the world indulges in its seasonal trick of making us believe in a new start. But the god Januarius has two faces, and looks back as well as forward. The only firm prediction I can make about 2017 is that it won’t be dull. Of 2016, it is difficult to know what to say, except that the bizarre laboratory of Left-Liberal-Progressivism is continuing its experiments unabated, no matter how vile the smoke issuing under the door, no matter how the racks of test-tubes and alembics groan and crack and hiss. The Progressives are out to destroy the white west, and they will be attempting to make 2017 the year that they further their dread agenda.

Liberals are your enemies. They may appear as your work colleagues and friends, they may inhabit the bodies of your family, they may prance and chatter on your television sets, enticing you to come into their shiny, new world, but they are enemies and enemies to be feared. What, then, are the dangers of Liberalism?

Firstly, the pretence that they are losing. One of my Twitter chums alerted me to this piece in The Guardian Britain’s failing anti-white newspaper of record – by Matthew D’Ancona. Now, man-boy D’Ancona has been around Fleet Street for a good while, and is a card-carrying Progressivist, multi-culti, bien pensant Liberal. He worked for the Catholic Index on Censorship early in his career, but is now far enough on the Left to be more likely to be in favour of the old Catholic church’s Index prohibitorum, the list of books banned by that particular outcropping of religion back when it had arrived intellectually roughly where Islam is now. I’d like to know D’Ancona’s view on Milo Yiannopoulos’s book deal, which is giving the Pansy Left fifty fits, but I think I can guess its likely gist.

The piece is worth reading not as an exercise in journalism – it is as poorly written as all Guardian editorial – but as an exercise in polemic, which the vast majority of MSM written journalism is now. It would be nice to give it a thorough Fisking – whatever happened to Fisking? – but a few choice selections would serve us well.

Little Matthew has issued something of a call to arms. How do liberals halt the march of the right? he, or his sub-editor, asks in the headline. Stand our ground and toughen up. Stirring words from the little general. Of course, for those of us on the political Right, the number one, front-of-the-queue, vital question of questions is exactly the opposite, and you find this necessity of changing the polarity of questions posed by the Left almost every time they do so. When dealing with Leftist statements, it is well to apply the Medieval principle of mutatis mutandis; Once the necessary changes have been made.

What is wrong with the West, of course, is that the Right, even in their spanking new livery as the Alt. Right, have not yet figured out a way to stop the march of the Left. As I never tire of pointing out, the Left are running the show. That they have manufactured a credible – to them – narrative that the Right are somehow in charge of things is simply testament to their own intrusive and comprehensive cultural hegemony. This is the thrust, however, of D’Ancona’s article.

The piece is headed up with a stock picture of Costner, Connery et al as Elliot Ness’s famous Untouchables. All are toting guns. In any other context, this would trigger half the Guardian readers in north London – that is, almost half the Guardian readers in total – but here the implication is that Liberals are gunning for the ‘far Right’, and so all is well. In fact, this gets D’Ancona into some hilarious PC contortions as he quotes Connery’s character in the movie early on in his ramblings;

“You want to get the alt-right? Here’s how you get them. They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way.”

Fighting talk from the Pansy Left. Who’da thunk it? So much so, in fact, that it gives Matthew a nose-bleed, as he recognises through the mist what the reaction of his own tribe would have been to a similar statement by someone on the Alt. Right;

“Before we proceed, and to pre-empt litigation, let me emphasise that I am speaking metaphorically. If you were by any chance planning to mark Boxing Day by going after a member of the far right with a pointed stick, please don’t.”

A lot of Leftists have ill-concealed masturbatory fantasies about doing violence to the Right. Matthew has too, but he shits himself when he sees it in print. Next, this being for journalists the season of lists and mellow fruitfulness, Matt has ten tips for Liberals everywhere on how to repel the big, bad wolf of the Right.

Matt’s first lifestyle hack is to point out that “Pluralism, women’s equality, ethnic diversity, our responsibility to refugees, internationalism, LGBT rights – all that is now under systematic attack.” Well, he is right there. It is under attack via that terrible, destructive eater of worlds that is social media, plus a few dozen weblogs, in the West, and by men with swords, stones, whips, jet fuel accelerant, crosses and high buildings throughout the Islamic world, much of which is now being transplanted into the heart of Europe. We know to a certainty which of these oppressors exercises Matthew.

The next fanfare leads us straight into the Left’s heart of darkness; language.

By Christ language obsesses the Left. More, changing the meaning of words obsesses the Left. There was excellent work done on Wittgenstein by a man called Saul Kripke. If I remember, Kripke pays particular attention to disagreement over meaning. If I point at a rabbit and say ‘that is a rabbit’, and you then point at it and say ‘that is a frog’, there is more going on than the simple fact of my being right and you being wrong. Kripke follows Wittgenstein in seeing language and communication by its means as a game with consensual rules. By pointing out a rabbit and calling it a frog, you are refusing to play by the rules of the game, either because you are insane or a malevolent prankster.

I’m not sure which of those last two categories best describes D’Ancona and his ilk, but the Left do like to subvert and twist meaning. Look at what manglings they have visited on ‘racism’, ‘fascism’, ‘hate speech’ and ‘Right wing’. These concepts are unrecognisable, but the Left just will not play the game, and delight in a shifting polyvalence for the sake of an ideological agenda. It is always worth checking on a weekly basis, for example, as to exactly what white people are allowed to call black folk at any given time. But to return to our elders and betters.

Matthew is very concerned that the Right – particularly the Alt. Right – has ‘colonised’ language, and we all know how bad colonisation is. ‘Why,’ he wails ‘is centrist speech dismissed as “virtue signalling” while fiercely rightwing language is hailed as “plain speaking”?

‘Rightwing’, incidentally, has been one word in The Guardian for some time now, in an attempt to make a portmanteau noun from an adjectival abstraction. Make it a thing and you objectify it. But I digress. If ‘centrist speech’ - actually far Left dogma – is seen as virtue-signalling and ‘rightwing’ language hailed as plain speaking, that is your fucking fault, Matthew.

I could go on, but I urge you to read the piece if you want to know your enemy. I will leave you with a choice selection of the wit and wisdom of Matthew D’Ancona and, by extension, the bastard parish he represents (my comments are italicised):

·        ‘Treat opinion polls as no more than partial snapshots of opinion rather than flawless oracles’.

We always did, Matthew. It was you that believed in a Clinton victory and a UK Remain vote because the Lügenpresse told you to.

·        ‘Stand up for immigration. Not just as an economic necessity but as a cultural good. If there is such a thing as “Britishness”, it has cordial multiplicity at its heart. Stamp on the economically illiterate idea that immigration is a zero-sum game, and that newcomers are depriving Britons of work, housing, school places and healthcare.’

Demonstrably bollocks on stilts.

·        ‘Never let the claims of faith trump the promotion of equality – especially of women’.

Any mention of ‘Equality’ is the surest sign that the psychopathology of the Left has set a tilt at reality.

·        ‘Tony Blair sought to combine economic efficiency with social justice. In 2017, the challenges are no less specific: globalisation (opportunities and discontents); Islamist and far-right extremism; the cult of autocracy fuelled by populism; climate change; the consequences of human longevity. Be uncompromising in your focus. Don’t let the other side frame the debate.’

Discuss. Islamist and far-right extremism. Yes, Milo, Steve Sailer and Greg Johnson actually want to chop off your head.

And on it goes, little Matt’s diatribe against a largely non-existent enemy and in praise of folly. Don’t think for a moment that there is a moral element to this battle, and I am I some way claiming to be on the ‘right’ side. I am not. I’ll be looking at the Left and their relationship with morality, and the relevance of Nietzsche, in coming postcards. For now, let’s just say that the coming battle is not over moral territory. It is simply concerned with the territory. It isn’t who is right. It’s who wins.

My New Year resolution – apart from the one about playing polo with the skulls of mine enemies, like every year – is to hate the Left even more than I do already, and I urge you to do the same. Give them some real hate speech. Take them to task on every crappy micro-malevolence with which they are trying to infect you and your children and their children. Troll the shit out of them. Don’t let them scold you on Facebook for having Right-wing views. Double down on those views. The Left and their attitude to the phoenix that is the Alt. Right explain much about the modern world, a world that can still be saved if enough people have the resolve to banish these lice. We on the Right would do well to read what the Left think of us and our supposed influence. It might cheer you up in times of desperation. For a creature of the Right to read about the supposed dominance of their beliefs in the context of Leftist domination is to recall the joke – a commodity soon to be outlawed in the West - about the jolly Jew of the Weimar Republic. He is sitting on a park bench reading a German newspaper and laughing, while his gloomy companion reads a Jewish newspaper. Why, says the companion, are you reading that filth? And why is it making you so happy? Well, replies the man, in your newspaper it tells us that the Jews are under threat and that we are doomed as a race. In this paper, on the other hand, we rule the world.

A very happy New Year to all my readers. Keep up, or join, the fight.

Friday, 30 December 2016

HURRICANE WHITEY: CREATING UNSAFE SPACES


Well, quite


2016 was the year of the safe space. Many other post-modern absurdities have a claim to the laurels, of course, but the safe space seems to me perfectly to encapsulate the decline and fall of the West. Safe spaces are, of course, the little enclaves and alcoves ‘built’ originally for snowflake students so that they may be protected from the rumble of conceptual traffic coming from the street outside. Now, creating a safe space is not easy. Gender, ethnic, sexual and other identities are being created as fast as Kentucky colonels. What’s the use of making transgender and bisexual folk comfortable if they don’t like unicorns and might offend the Otherkin? (NB. If you haven’t come across Otherkin, I strongly recommend you follow the link. This will genuinely cheer you up). But though the task is great, there are fortunately those equal to it, working tirelessly to protect the delicate from the indelicate. But how exactly does a safe space operate, and from whom is it making its occupants safe? Let’s ask The Safe Space Network (SSN);

“A Safe Space is a place where anyone can relax and be able to fully express, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, religious affiliation, age, or physical or mental ability.”

So far, this just sounds like a slightly annoying coffee shop but, for snowflakes, an actual coffee shop could be a breeding ground of intolerance and oppression in the way that a used dishcloth is a nursery to bacteria. One of the defining traits of the safe space is that someone else needs to create it and place you inside it. The safe space is part of a toolbox designed to create dependency. But we are no closer to the threat, to finding that from which the snowflake must be protected and made to feel safe. We must assume that those who might make the incumbents of the safe space ‘uncomfortable’ will be specifically excluded from that space, along with their – presumably powerful – discourse.

Although the SSN neglects to mention exactly what can be expressed in the safe space, it does seem very inclusive. I wonder if anyone can have been left out. Just how safe a space is this? Let’s look at the first ‘Ground rule’ (printed as it appears on the SSN website);

“We want this to be a Safer Space as possible, recognising that no Space is entirely safe, and free from Oppression. If anything shitty needs to be called out to make it the safest possible space, then let it be known that this space is open to other’s idea’s, thoughts, beliefs and realities. These issues will be tackled as they arise.”

And the fourth;

“Offensive, Oppressive and Shitty Behaviour will not be tolerated. We have a three-strike system, to encourage self re-educating on topics, however, we maintain the right to deal with each infringement case as we see fit, and give no warnings.”

We have our Progressivist, Liberal-Left shibboleths of oppression, offense and re-education all present and correct. But where does this oppressive, offensive danger, a danger which can require re-education, actually lurk? We still don’t know, if we are a student of trembling lip, whence the threat issues. Will the SSN not say? Some clarification;

“This blog is for any identity, orientation, thoughts, beliefs and/or people, as long as that identity, orientation, thoughts, beliefs or person does not oppress another.” (Italics added)

Now we have arrived. “As long as” plays the same role here as the “but” in “I believe in free speech, but…”, a phrase we know and love so well. We all know that safe spaces are to protect millennial snowflakes from white men who act white and who act like men. SSN got themselves into a bit of a tangle early on by claiming that safe spaces were for all. Of course they aren’t. They are not for white people, just as long as those white people refuse to wear their access-all-areas guilt and white privilege card. The only white people allowed in a safe space are those white people who hate white people. What a hive of dysfunction is being foisted on the student body, aka the future of the West.

Most of you reading this will be white. You are, in other words, the Oppressor SNN hinted at but never defined. The vast majority of you – and there are only a couple of hundred, this is as yet a modest blog – will be men, the vast majority of those men heterosexual. For the millennials, you, we, are the enemy. So why are we not fighting?

White people, white men in particular, are allowing the rules to be set for them. Those doing the setting, the academics, the NGOs, the politicians, the media, the SJWs, all the good people, are actually small in number, and we greatly outnumber them. So why are the powerful hell-bent on creating a world, not that the majority would enjoy and in which they might prosper, but that would get a stern commissar’s nod of approval from James O’Brien, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Diane Abbott and Bono? In the USA, you might know these people as, say, Megyn Kelly, Jon Stewart, Paul Ryan and Madonna. The reason the elites want this world is precisely because they despise white men, who are history’s ultimate success victims. In the coming year, this must change.

Don’t put up with their diktats and rules. Refuse to learn their grotesque sexual and ethnic taxonomies. Above all, don’t allow them a safe space. Don’t allow anyone a safe space, if it is within reach of your arm. Get in among them and disturb them, make them see that there are genuinely other viewpoints to their own, not just those that their secular imams have inspected and pronounced fit for purpose.

Safe spaces have extended their puerile reach from the campus to the wider world, and this must be stopped. Safe spaces are designed to protect and coccoon, providing shelter from the squalls of free speech battering the windows and doors outside. There is one great wind in particular the safe space is intended to protect the vulnerable from; Hurricane Whitey.

To be a straight white man is to be an oppressor. This is axiomatic for the snowflake generation. Good. Then let us oppress. We, or rather our ancestors, have won in the game of life. To be a success, to run things and others and not to be run by things and others, are the spoils of the victor. So let’s keep it that way. This is the unspoken truth of white privilege; it is deserved. And so the time is here not to see white privilege as a shameful leg-iron to be hacked off – as though any of you who have washed up on the sorry beach of this weblog would – but the foremost weapon in an arsenal which must now be cleaned down and taken from the wall.

If, as seems entirely possible, the white man takes a back seat for a few hundred years and passes the baton of civilisation to those somewhat duskier and more sexually befuddled, I hope he is able to take a seat and enjoy the show. For on one thing, you can bet the farm. If history is suddenly handed over to someone other than the white man, the snowflake, millennial, safe-space, speech-codified, anti-white morons with perfect teeth will have a pretty rude awakening.

So, here’s to 2017 as the Year of Whiteness, the year things surmount peak stupid and begin to seek out the stability of maturity and genuine power, the year safe spaces are made unsafe again.

Thursday, 29 December 2016

BOOK OF THE YEAR: EASY MEAT by PETER McLOUGHLIN



I am reprinting this review of Peter McLoughlin’s Easy Meat from May of this year for two reasons. Firstly, it is my personal book of the year. As you will see from the Tweet below, the MSM completely avoided reviewing Easy Meat. This is a disgusting and deliberate omission from a motley collection of cowards and appeasers. This was the story of the year for everyone except those who could have reported it but did not.

Secondly, I have four times the readership I had when the review was first published. This hardly makes me the internet’s leading news source, believe me, but if even one of you who has not already done so buys and reads this book, then worthwhile work will have been done. From May, then.



SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN: EASY MEAT by PETER McLOUGHLIN



A 2010 document by Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board stated that, ‘great care will be taken in drafting… this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.’

Quoted in Easy Meat



If you fear that you cannot treat [orphan girls] with fairness, then you may marry other women who seem good to you: two, three, or four of them. But if you fear that you cannot maintain equality among them, marry one only or any slave-girl you may own.

Quran 4:3



Journos requested free copies. Not one did a review. That means the book is entirely accurate. They’d rubbish it if they could.

Twitter message to me from the author of Easy Meat



Three books from a lifetime of reading have forced me to put them down, unable to read on, blinded as I was by tears of rage.

The description of her own clitoridectomy in Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel, the depravity of English serial killers Fred and Rosemary West in a biography the title of which I forget, and the description of the torture meted out by the Japanese to their prisoners of war in Singapore during World War II, as described by Russell Braddon in The Naked Island, all forced me to stop reading and wait until I was able to drum up the resolve to go further into the chamber of horrors.

Peter McLoughlin’s Easy Meat, the story of Muslim grooming gangs in the UK, did not force me to lay it down once, even when I read about a young girl who had threatened to inform the police of her abuse and name her tormentors. As a precautionary warning, she had her tongue nailed to a table. I shifted a little in my chair, but read on. Easy Meat is, as the publishing industry likes to say, a page-turner. I found myself unable to stop reading, unable to quell the fascination with the sheer wickedness of the English Left as it exists in that country’s public sector, in its schools, its government, its media. To read this record of the wilful failure of responsible adults in the presence of the acts of a disgusting group of men united by a common ideology is to see the decline and fall of the West acted out as a sort of grim mummer’s play, a ghastly preamble to the main dramatic event.

The publishers as well as the author of this book are to be congratulated. We have all seen what can happen with any publication deemed by the political elite class to be potentially damaging to Brand Islam. The book overall is well written, concise, opinionated when necessary and, above all, factual. The research and indexing is meticulous, as it would have to be in a book you can bet your young daughter’s virginity on will be read by many in positions of power, with a lawyer looking over one shoulder and a Muslim over the another.

For it is not the largely Pakistani heritage Muslims who will be the main target of your disgust if you read this book, which I think you ought to do. It is the British public sector, the police officers and teachers, the social workers and politicians, who are the guilty parties here. If your house is full of rats, you cannot blame the vermin, who are only acting according to long-standing genetic imperatives. No, you seek out and punish – or should seek out and punish – the person whose responsibility it was to keep the door closed but who failed in their duty for the shabbiest of reasons. Mr. McLoughlin is unswerving in his attitude towards these people;

·        ‘The signal that police, social services and the media sent to these gangs was; carry on with what you are doing, we are not going to stop you, we are not going to expose your crimes.’

·        ‘In their wildest dreams, most criminals could not envisage an alliance of sociologists, politicians, police officers and religious fundamentalists helping to cover up the gangs’ criminality.’

·        ‘Sometimes it is worth reminding oneself of the wider historical and cultural context: in 21st century Britain, considered one of the most open and lawful countries on earth, people were threatened with death for criticising gangs of men systematically seducing and prostituting schoolgirls.’

The grooming scandal itself came into the press despite journalists, not because of them. Rotherham and Oxford are the two names synonymous with this rape jihad – which is what it is – but as Mr. McLoughlin points out, even these towns served as scapegoats to keep the broader phenomenon away from the public eye, as clouded, milky and rheumatic as that eye is.

Every single public sector body supposedly responsible for the welfare of the young and innocent failed in their duty. The appalling aspect of that failure is that it was not due to incompetence – and the British managerial and administrative class are past masters at incompetence – but a direct result of government diktats which demand that no criticism of Islam is permissible.

For the whole of this new century, this new millennium, and almost certainly for many years previously, thousands of schoolgirls of a particular ethnicity – white British - have been systematically raped and sexually abused by men predominantly of one religion, Islam. This ritual sacrifice – for it was a sacrifice – took place in England, once the greatest country in the world, and what truly shocks about this great wrong is not the manner of its coming about, but the wilful collaboration of adults in responsible and often highly paid positions of authority to deny that it ever existed.

There is an almost erotic yearning among Britain’s public sector for the arrival of Islam. Now, this may be explicable in the case of women and homosexuals, two groups notoriously excitable when it comes to muscular and dusky men who act like men, albeit in the extreme. But how can any heterosexual father working in the social services supposedly responsible for the well-being of children, particularly men with daughters, justify the assistance they have willingly given to brutal and pitiless rapists? Why is the Left in estrus over a marauding, invasive tribe of sexual miscreants who have no apparent worth to anyone but themselves and their creepy sexual predilections? A country whose men will not protect their young women will fall, and perhaps that will be a good thing. The white western gene pool has no need of cowardly appeasers.

A question for you to consider. London, the capital of the United Kingdom with a GDP that, were it a country, would put it on an economic par with Turkey and Switzerland, has just elected a Muslim mayor. Sadiq Khan will have control of a £16bn budget, and the police force. Now, tell me. Do you imagine that Muslim men with an eye to replicating the deeds of their brothers in the north will have a more or less easy time of it under a Muslim mayorship? London has a Muslim mayor, and the meat market is open.

Easy Meat is a most important book. I don’t imagine it will be reviewed in the legacy media, appeasers of the coming Islamic invasion as they invariably are. Rather than end this review with a quip or summation, I would ask you to read this lengthy excerpt, and then find a quiet few moments to think through what your beliefs are, to consider what you think is right and wrong.

Samantha was abducted by two Asian men who drove her around Oldham for hours and then raped her. They then threw her out of a moving car in the Chadderton area of Oldham. She ran away and asked another man for help. He invited Samantha inside and then dragged her upstairs and sexually assaulted her. She ran away while he was calling his friends to come and join him. At that point a taxi driver and his passenger pulled up beside her to ask if she was okay, they said she looked very upset and like she’d been through hell, and so offered to take her to the police station and then home… They took Samantha to a house on Attock Close, took her inside and then locked her in a room where five Asian men when on to rape her over and over for nearly 24 hours. The ringleader was Shakil Choudhury, and he received a three-year sentence for leading this extraordinary attack.

Wednesday, 28 December 2016

ARE YOU TALKING TO ME? IN WHICH TRUMP DIS(MIS)SES THE COURT OF THE KING


Saw you coming



She is a star in a profession that is predominantly image over substance, where newsreaders call themselves ‘anchors’ (as if to connote substance and weight) and who typically make more money than ER physicians who are truly anchors in their community because they serve humanity and save lives.


Anthony Napoleon, A Look Inside the Playbook: How Marxists Plan to Destroy America



Are you talking to me?

Taxi Driver





One of the most delightful and important aspects of Trump’s victory is the way he has treated the press. The mainstream media, legacy press, Lügenpresse or whatever else you care to call them, are not taking The Donald’s coming presidency at all well, and it is obvious why that is; the courtiers are having to wait in line with the plebs. Holding their perfumed kerchiefs over their noses, they must jostle in the queue with the great unwashed, the little people, the hoi polloi, the rest of us. Me. And the reason is that we’re getting our news about Trump straight from Trump himself.

How different it was under Obama, who loved playing to the press gallery as they lobbed him softball bunt questions about tractor production in the Urals. For a narcissist like Obama, the press corps, not the Marine Corps, were his kind of people (see his recent interview with black perma-victim court jester Ta-Nehisi Coates). His pose and demeanour during press gigs – for gigs, performance, is what they surely were – was that of grandiloquent nobility, a black Sun King, dispensing his pearls of wisdom not before swine, but before the provisional wing of his racially divisive brand of Socialism. Then came Trump.

Instead of preening for the lickspittle haberdashers of the MSM, Trump put his message out via Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. The combined follower tally was 39 million, although there would undoubtedly have been duplication. Twitter alone, however, netted Trump 18 million followers. The news agencies guffawed, various journalists dismissed this as more evidence of buffoonery, overpaid and under-talented hacks from Fleet Street to Manhattan rolled their eyes. And it worked. It’s working still.

The first reason is authenticity. During the election, Clinton’s Tweets had all the fake airbrushed sheen of having passed through half a dozen advisers and wonks, looking for clarity of message and optics instead of speaking in a normal voice. This addiction to PR is a big part of what lost her the election.

Trump’s Tweets, on the other hand, felt real, right down to the typos, an aspect of his communication that an increasingly desperate-seeming and pathetic Liberal-Left chatterati pounced on as though it were Chappaquiddick. The greatest was undoubtedly ‘unpresidented’, a solecism Trump birthed when discussing the capture of an American drone by the Chinese. Was it a mistake, or a joke? Or was it a clear-cut case of Freudian parapraxis, the familiar – and, here, protentional - ‘slip of the tongue’ (or pen; Freud gave them equivalence, coming as he did from a time when people still used pens, and wrote as much as they talked)? Whichever, it gave the press much cause for bitter and sarcastic ad hominem mirth. They don’t have much to laugh about when it comes to Trump, and this is all to the good. Have a look at this hit piece https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/19/unpresidented-trump-word-definition by some little spaz called Adam Gabbatt in The Guardian – the Liberal-Left’s anti-white newspaper of choice – and wallow in the poor snowflake’s distress. Have a look at his face while you are there. That, unfortunately, is the modern face of European journalism; a cherubic hipster in West Indian leisure wear. Naturally, when you Google ‘unpresidented’ – which Obama thankfully soon will be – little Adam’s piece is top of the list. But I digress.

The reason the press is so disdainful of Trump’s approach is closely allied to the war on democracy being waged by the elites across the West. A clue to this is that, now that the word ‘racism’ is nearing the end of its useful life to the press, the word ‘populism’ is taking its place. ‘Populism’ is now a Great Evil, like racism or Islamophobia, and that this is the case reveals much about the elites’ war on the people.

As we must never tire of reiterating, ‘democracy’ comes from the Ancient Greek Demokratia, a combination of demos (the people) and kratos (power). And that is what it means. It means something very different in the mouths of out putative rulers, however, most usually a blunt tool with which to further afflict already educationally subnormal Arab states in the furtherance of arms sales.

Populism, then, is a Very Bad Thing. The Communists who run the EU have made absolutely no secret of their disdain for you and I. In north America, this distaste for ordinary folk has been a little more occluded, but it still runs through the establishment like a vein in marble. In by-passing the main facilitators of anti-democracy – the legacy media – Trump has therefore offended against de trop protocols as surely as if he had called the king of Saudi Arabia a raghead.

There was an air of stunned and awed disbelief in the tone of Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole when he told the virulently anti-Trump – and therefore anti-white-folk – CNN that;

“I don't think people are used to having a president that can reach into their districts the way that I think Donald Trump can. I mean, he’s very popular with the Republican base. And a guy that can sit there and tweet out of the White House and generate several thousand calls to your office is somebody you ought to take pretty seriously, because I suspect he’s gonna be very serious about pushing his agenda.”

Trump’s use of social media rather than the lackeys of the press is a symptom of a deeper tectonic disturbance in the Western political establishment. I made this point a long time ago, but Nigel Farage confounded the UK’s political establishment in a similar way. With him, it wasn’t so much use of social media as what the totally artificial Obama and his (white) enablers would call ‘optics’. In other words, how something looks. When Nick Clegg and David Cameron were photographed supping pints in an English boozer, they looked as comfortable as two dowagers at a rave. When Farage was snapped, again and again, on his fourth pint, fag in hand, he looked like he’d still be there at closing time. The image-makers of the political court flapped and fussed. How did UKIP’s people come up with that image of, well, reality? I’ll let you figure out how it was done.

If Trump achieves nothing else, he has exposed the press for what it is; a cabal of establishment cronies ever-ready with their tribute for the Dons of the political cosa nostra that runs the West. Contemporary journalists are a confederacy of bastards, rotting from the inside as a direct result of their proximity to power, like Gollum in The Lord of the Rings. By talking directly to real people, Trump has elided one of the most sacrosanct channels through which malevolent power flows, and for this he should be applauded to the very echo. Newspaper sales, in the UK at least, are on a consistent downturn, and the parent companies are desperately trying to work out how the internet works, like a medieval ditch-digger with a smartphone. If dissident politicians in Europe – and there are many on the rise – have any nous, they will follow Trump’s lead and speak directly to us. Then we may say in disbelief; Are you talking to me?


Tuesday, 27 December 2016

AND THE WINNER OF 2016 IS… A CARTOON FROG?



We are the boys who will stop your little game.
Theme song from British TV show Dad’s Army



That’s not who we are.
Almost every Western politician commenting on the possibility of reducing or controlling immigration



Lord Byron famously said, after the publication of his poem Childe Harolde, that he ‘awoke one morning and found myself famous’. The Alt. Right, whatever that may turn out to be, might be excused for feeling much the same way after the inadvertent publicity given to them by Hillary Clinton. Since then, every other feature on the reputed Alt. Right sites has been entitled ‘What is the Alt. Right?’ So far, answer came there none. Although there are certainly overlapping memes, themes and phonemes among the various practitioners of a rapidly evolving mindset, there is absolutely no consensus, and this lack of doctrine may turn out to be a very good thing indeed.

Since Clinton attacked the Alt. Right as part of her increasingly desperate fusillade against an insouciant Donald Trump, she appears only to have given that nebulous online collective what the British press are fond of calling ‘the oxygen of publicity’. Oxygen is, of course, necessary for the maintenance of human life. In excess doses, however, it can lead to fits of laughter, and the good burghers and unofficial gauleiters of the Alt. Right can be forgiven for sniggering at this strange woman and her choice of targets. But what exactly was her target? She almost certainly doesn’t know, but then again those writers who are bracketed with the Alt. Right are themselves vague on the details. This lack of foundation may, however, be a strength rather than a weakness.

Since the Alt. Right was spot-lit by the Klieg light of Team Clinton’s attention, the MSM has begun to follow, eventually, its own attention, to paraphrase Kinglsey Amis, wheeling slowly around like a flotilla of old ships. Always late to the really good parties, the MSM is slowly joining in, aghast at this rowdy new untutored rabble, its appetite whet by the fact that these people actually have the temerity to call themselves explicitly creatures of the political Right. The MSM definitions, predictably, are pithy and rabid. The Alt. Right are fascists, racists and neo-Nazis; these and other colourful terms are stored on the F keys of Western bien pensant journos. But among the undefined Alt. Right community itself, although there have been attempts to provide definitive micro-manifestoes, this is a movement as nebulous as Al Qaeda.

The Alt. Right’s strength may very well be that, while it is providing a haven for the politically disaffected who retain their conviction, it is not anything that can be reduced to doctrine, manifesto or the intellectual lockstep beloved of the Left. It is not a political party, nor could it form one at present. It is not a set of consensual dogma or agreed ideology. It is wildly disparate, with some of its ‘members’ openly antagonistic to others.

The Alt. Right, on a personal note, leaves much to be desired. Personally, the only time I lose interest completely is when a new Star Wars or Batman film comes out, and most of the Alt. Right suddenly act as though they were kittens chasing a flashlight beam around a kitchen floor. Perhaps I am just middle-aged, and the Alt. Right is a young man’s game.

It’s certainly a man’s game. The ratio of men to women - if it’s not too offensive to stick to those archaic old terms - is heavily weighted. This, of course, will immediately enrage feminists, the same ones who provide blustering and slippery apologetics for the treatment of women in Islamic culture. It’s also predominantly a white man’s game, again guaranteed to stick lit matches between the toes of SJWs everywhere.

Now, Clinton has failed, as did the entire Grand National-sized field of defeated Republican potential nominees, and Trump has been presented with the keys to the Last-Chance Saloon. As a consequence of this upset apple-cart, the Alt. Right must either find its attendant niche, or let that role form naturally. With his every crass, vulgar, blustering throwaway line, the media has clutched its pearls in an orgy of virtue-signalling and awaited Trump’s horrid down-tumbling. It has not, at the time of writing, arrived. The focus groups cannot believe their tired eyes. Trump seemingly deals with every attack, ideological or personal, in the same way P G Wodehouse’s Bertie Wooster invokes The Scarlet Pimpernel as

“…laughing down from lazy eyelids and nicking a speck of dust from the irreproachable Mechelin lace at my wrists.”

It may be that this ease of deflection, like a karate master swatting away a blow, is part of Trump’s appeal to the Alt. Right. The time when SJWs can win an argument simply by shrieking one of their weaponised lexicon – the -ist words - at offending parties may be coming to an end, and Trump may be the herald of a welcome end to ideological tyranny. But, until the glorious revolution, who and what are the Alt. Rightists? Are they the brave maquis fighters of resistance, or posers and ideological fashionistas surfing a zeitgeist because it’s the new game in town?

The belief system of the Alt. Right – outside of a clear commitment to white nationalism - is not easy to define, but a famous legal aside may go a long way towards, if not a definition, then at least a heuristic principle. In an American legal case (Jacobellis vs. Ohio, 1964), Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was required was required to provide a definition of pornography. He took the advice of his law clerk, Alan Novak, who told him;

“Mr. Justice, you will know it when you see it.”

And by their works shall ye also know the Alt. Right because, in bold defiance of the post-war trends in Western political discourse, they are not the Left. Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the USA, and the various token ‘Rightist’ parties in Europe have, from World War II until very recently, actually been Left wing, quite strongly so in the UK. Now the Alt. Right is here, and it actually is Conservative, not simply the equivalent of RINOs.

Not only do they oppose SJWs, politicians, students and their tutors, the media, public sector chiefs, NGOs and the whole sickly caravan train of modern – or rather post-modern – Left-Liberalism, the Alt. Right goes into places the Left would not dare to enter, as though the concepts of race and IQ, white nationalism, Islam as a violent ideology, fixed biological gender identity, freedom of speech and so on were shrunken heads on bamboo poles circling a village deep in the African heart of darkness. The Alt. Right will go cheerfully into areas of investigation the Left have been trained to screen out with electro-convulsive thoroughness. Where the Alt. Right thrives on debate and its necessary friction, the Left could not even conceive that there might be two sides to a debate on, say, racial genetic differences. Those on the Left have iPersonalities, identical and pre-programmed. The Alt. Right is refreshing and vital because of their internal divisions and conflicts, not despite them. It will grow because of disagreement, not consensus.

This is precisely the power of this new political movement; it has no dogma, no creed, no canon. It does not, therefore, carry with it the baggage of religion in a – Islam excepted – largely post-religious era in the West. When you take the religion out of William James’s varieties of religious experience, you are still left with the ideological framework which held religion in place. Religion required heretics, and the Left have absolutely continued that founding tradition. Apart from necessary internecine squabbling, Alt. Right writers do not tend to demonise dissidents de jure – even if they do so on occasion de facto - precisely because the Alt. Right does not march in ideological lockstep.

Now, all this is a sketch, but one aspect of the Alt. Right seems to me to stand above others, and it’s the quote attributed Steve Sailer and stating that political correctness consists in not noticing. More, even if you do notice, PC and its paramilitary enforcers command that you do not publicly acknowledge that recognition. Political correctness and its enforcement form a large part of the Left’s playbook. If, as Sailer writes, political correctness consists in not noticing, then the Alt. Right notices, if it does anything significant at all. Like little Toto pulling back the curtain to reveal the mighty Oz as actually a bumbling old man pulling on switches and levers, Alt. Right scribblers are looking into nooks and crannies they have been specifically ordered not to inspect. When set in the context of, to take one of many possible examples, the ongoing and self-inflicted European jihad currently taking place, the Alt. Right is doing a lot of noticing. Can the same be said of the elite authorities, and their provisional wing in the media?

The Alt. Right absolutely do not fit the prevailing modus operandi of the elites and their courtiers. They are saying the unsayable, noticing that which the elites wish hid, pointing the finger at minorities deemed off-limits by the thought police, criticising the gods themselves. It is worth pointing out – as it seems inevitable – that affiliating yourself with the Alt. Right will become an increasingly dangerous thing to do. The political class and their globalist eminences grises will be sure to come after the movement should it gain too much purchase on disillusioned Western minds.

But for now, the Alt. Right is in the ascendant not simply because its renegades and mavericks defy the nominal Left, but because they have also exposed the fraudulent behaviour of the putative Right, the notorious ‘cucks’. They are anti-zeitgeist, anti-establishment, and anti-consensus. As such, the Alt. Right are not marching in time, but out of time, in all the senses of that phrase.

Whatever else the Alt. Right should do, it should not make the mistakes the Left have not only made but elevated into doctrine; they must not mechanise their thought. The fascination the Left has for the imagery, metaphor and implications of machinery and engineering deserves far fuller treatment, but it is a defining trait of Progressives across the West. The idea that reality, social order, economies and people can be tinkered with, calibrated, adapted, customised and repaired by a beneficial elite is a hallmark of the Left. What the Right should have offered, and what the Alt. Right still can, is an organic alternative, a working metaphor from nature rather than from Blake’s ‘Dark, Satanic Mills.’ And, above all, they must continue to notice.




Monday, 26 December 2016

KNOW YOUR ENEMY: WHY THE MALEVOLENT LEFT MUST BE BEATEN  



 The extreme Left does not, however, take its defeat with good graces. From their quarter we are witnessing violent riots, parliamentary spectacle, and an incomprehensible fixation on the construction of eccentric sexual identities, as well as a renewed ‘anti-fascist’ struggle consisting of harassment, violence, and, in some cases, even murders of political opponents.
Daniel Freiburg, The Real Right Returns: A Handbook for the True Opposition

I gloat! Hear me gloat!
Rudyard Kipling, Stalky & Co.


Well, we surely had our fun. It was good, for a while, to bathe in the salted tears of the Left. First Brexit, then Trump; great was their wailing and lamentation. Granted, the Austrians voted for more onerous times with a large side order of Islam served in An unpalatable Green sauce, but the technocratic placeman Renzi was ousted in the Italian referendum, and Italy has the seventh largest economy in the world. The dominoes may be beginning to fall. Anyway, Austria may have to pay for gifting the world Hitler – who in his day was literally Trump – and Austrian gun sales have quadrupled in anticipation of their new neighbours’ arrival. Other than that glitch, 2016 ended on a positive note for those of us who self-identify as Right-wing, and with the usual screeching, dissonant caterwauling from the Left. So, great larks and gloating at the expense of the po-faced, snowflake, millennial, safe space, politically correct, antifa thought police. But beware an enemy scorned…
I forget who wrote that if a child could destroy the world, it would. I fancy it was Rousseau, who looms large, although probably unread by the average thick SJW, in the narrative of the Malevolent Left. But it is apt. With the contemporary Left, we are surely dealing with children, nasty, spiteful infants who would gladly burn everything to the ground if it meant that the people who oppose their malevolence were also destroyed in the conflagration. They remind me of the Viz character Spoilt Bastard, a child in a sailor suit whose mother sacrifices everything for him only to be met with a torrent of scorn. Little Timmy always ended each strip being beaten to a pulp, hoping that that would teach his mother a lesson. I do hope the similarities with the Left extend to that last panel. The Malevolent Left, then. It is these cancerous, wasp-like creatures to whom we must turn our attention, and endeavor to destroy.
Although I often use Orwell’s delightful epithet ‘the Pansy Left’, these people should not be underestimated. Indeed, since Islam took the place of homosexuals in their fevered (anti-) meritocracy, we might better call them the halal Left. You see, these people are the bien pensant, the right-thinkers, the agenda setters whose moral calculus, although it has but one bead, will set the limits of ethical arithmetic for generations to come, or may do unless checked. And they have many advantages, have already won many a redoubt, hill position and beach-head.
In case you were unaware, or have been living in a dug-out in the Hindu Kush for the past fifty years, the Left run more or less every facet of Western civilization. They monopolise culture, from Hollywood all the way down to the lowliest sit-com and stand-up comedian. They run through Europe and north America’s academic system from kindergarten to debt-laden graduation like a vile word through a stick of rock. They institute – Trump and Eastern Europe notwithstanding - politics and government. They are the very marrow of the various public sectors. And if you ever hear anyone whose arms are not tightly bound across their front talk seriously about a Right-wing bias to the media, just point and laugh. This is what makes you want to say to Owen Jones what Michael Caine says to his successful bank robbers in The Italian Job; “Look happy. We won, didn’t we?”
The Right plays almost no part in the current story of the West. There is a sense of resurgence but, even with the hope that brings, the Left is bringing all its guns to bear on what it rightly perceives as a threat to its hegemony. They will not go gently into this good night. Ramping up their efforts to import as much Islam as ferries and rubber dinghies can carry, and George Soros can fund, they will be fighting their battles against the rest of us using Mohammedan foot-soldiers. What, as Lenin famously asked, is to be done?
What is to be done? If you are a morpion of the Left, the question one of your heroes asked is easy to answer. Scream insults, go on noisy and disruptive demonstrations bringing inconvenience to your fellows, lose people their jobs for writing weblogs that you don’t agree with, ruin the concept of a university education by ignoring the classic – and hideously white – syllabus in favour of a pathetic carnival of safe spaces, micro-aggressions and unreadable books by black people, champion such corrosive cultures as Islam and Black Lives Matter, call everyone a racist and fascist. In short, do everything but confront reality which, as Kurt Vonnegut wrote, is that which does not go away just because you ignore it.
If you are of the Right – and therefore of this world – the options are still forming. The Right is, for the nonce, having to manoeuvre in the ideological and cultural space the Left has not monopolised but, as will become apparent as 2017 unfolds, this space is reality-based and therefore its occupation will prove more potent than placing the tanks and divisions of the Left in Wonderland and through the looking-glass will prove.
Write. Read. Think. Stop buying newspapers. If you are British, get rid of your television and stop paying the licence fee to the BBC, the most egregiously Left-wing propaganda machine this side of Pravda. Anything the BBC has to say of note turns up on the ‘net anyway. You don’t need to be patronized by their newsreaders or watch their crappy dramas with their racial quotas or their soap operas with their token transgender characters.
Refuse to accept Left-wing pieties at work or in social situations. Seek out people, not who think as you do – ideological lockstep is a defining trait of the Left – but who are prepared to question the artificial, anti-life, nihilistic protocols of the liberal-Left, globalist, multi-culti, progressivist, feminist, anti-White lice that infest us. The world is preparing some very nasty surprises for the coming months, but this is not a question of ‘being on the right side of history’ or any of that supercilious bunkum. It’s a question of honour. It’s a question of reality.  It’s a question of survival, reclamation and cultural reconquista. It’s a question of staying out of the weak-minded herd, the hommes de ressentiment against whom Nietzsche warned us. Stop what you are doing and take the world back.




Friday, 23 December 2016

EUROPE: HERE IS YOUR SUBMISSION, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT




“It’s submission,” Rediger murmured. “The shocking and simple idea, which had never been so forcefully expressed, that the summit of human happiness resides in the most absolute submission.”

Michel Houellebecq, Submission


Submission.

Going down, down.
You’re dragging me down.

Sex Pistols, Submission





If you are familiar with Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission, you will also be aware that the book is gradually emulating Orwell’s 1984 by moving from the realm of fiction to that of description of the current state of European affairs. Houellebecq’s novel – reviewed by me here – tells of a France a little into the future coming under Islamic rule not as a result of terrorism or demographics, but due to political alliances which favour an Islamic party and produce a subsequent Mohammedan President and ruling party. In short, a fear of the ‘extreme Right’ – a bogeyman today’s extreme Left will not let loose from its jaws for a moment, like a terrier with a rat – causes a serious of fortuitous alliances which favour Islam, and Islam is what France subsequently gets.

Houellebecq is not to every taste as a writer, but the scenario he describes becomes more plausible for Europe as each dread week rolls by. At this point we must perform a hoary old thought experiment and ask; if the European elites really were planning to Islamise Europe, what would they be doing any differently?

The following is a selection of news items and snippets culled from various random sources:

·        Angela Merkel tried in September to push through a programme to train migrants as lorry drivers.

·        The Swedish government offered migrants shooting courses at a rifle range.

·        The German police first showed the photo of the suspect in the Christmas market massacre with his face pixelated.

·        After the Berlin massacre, police in Bristol, UK, increased their presence in the town, not with an eye to terrorism, but over concerns about increased ‘Islamophobia’.

·        Obama is to discontinue a registry previously used to track Muslims from countries known to be a terrorist risk.

·        A French mayor voiced concerns about the replacement of white people. He is to be charged with a ‘hate crime’.

·        Despite assurances that immigration is essential for European economies, just 34,000 out of 1.2 million refugees in Germany have ‘found’ work.

·        Muslim immigrant men are being taught how to ‘flirt’ with German women.

·        Prince Charles, who may one day become King of England, has asked people to ‘think of Mohammed’ this Christmas.

·        The first statement by a Swedish official appointed to monitor terrorism was that the greatest risk comes from the ‘far-Right’.

·        The parents of a 19-year-old raped and murdered by a Muslim immigrant collected money at her funeral to go towards immigrants.

·        Journalist Robert Fisk has written a column stating that ‘anti-Muslim parties only help ISIS’.

·        Swedish disabled people were forced to move from sheltered accommodation to make way for Muslim immigrants.

·        Further to Angela Merkel telling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that he must counter ‘fake news’ and ‘hate speech’ on his site, Germany is now preparing legislation to outlaw what is described as ‘wrong opinion’. This opinion will be concerned with immigration.

This is just a selection from a vast inventory of recent aberrations which appear to share a denominator; they all point to an insistence that deleterious immigration of Muslims as a good and welcome thing in itself.

Add to this the ceaseless and remorseless hounding of those who dissent against the elite programme, and a scenario very much begins to form. Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Lutz Bachmann and many, many others have been tried and harried through the courts for daring to speak out against Islam and its forced importation into the West.

Each day brings a fresh wave of micro-events establishing what we might call a framework of coercive acceptance. Governments are very clear on what is expected of the populace with regard to Islam:

·        Belief that it is a Good Thing.

·        Belief that it is a religion of Peace.

·        Belief that it is not and cannot be connected with terrorism.

·        Acceptance that Muslim migration is necessary to save ailing economies.

·        Realisation that dissent is punishable to an extent that criminal wrongdoing by Muslim immigrants is not. This particularly includes thought-crime on social media.

Foremost in the battle against this forced submission is what the elites are calling ‘fake news’ sites such as Breitbart and numerous others. More than this, attention is now being turned to ‘fake opinion’ as mentioned above in the case of Germany. Now, when the Germans talk about criminalising ‘wrong opinion’, which will doubtless be represented by some multisyllabic and Hegelian-sounding noun, you can be sure they will not be going after those who feel that the earlier Beethoven symphonies are superior to the later, or that Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason does not form a whole with the Critique of Practical Reason. These opinions will be confined to immigration in general and Muslim immigration is particular. That is to say, the public are being told in no uncertain terms that they will not treat the greatest and clearest threat to their freedom and well-being as such, but will instead welcome, celebrate and embrace it under pain of job loss, social ostracisation and jail.

I have said a number of things on this subject, certainly enough to lose me at least one job in the UK. One is that disruptive and dysfunctional Muslim immigration is a deliberate and well-planned operation by the European elites. Secondly, the indigenous people of European nations – and ‘indigenous people’ and ‘nations’ are both concepts anathema to the elites – will, eventually, rise up to combat the invasion their masters and mistresses have put into action. Thirdly, this resistance will be met with maximum force.

Now, whether George Soros or Saudi Arabia or the European taxpayer is funding this sorry state of affairs is a matter of much conjecture, but the ultimate purpose remains even more of a mystery, until one of the many possibilities toxic to ordinary people – non-Muslims, in this case - proves to be the correct one. By that time it may well be too late.

There is, of course, an ultimately petrifying scenario for us, the little people. What if the elites realise that we the people – such an archaic, quaint old phrase, like ‘I say!’ or ‘I do beg your pardon’ – are too powerful in potentia, now that the liberatory seeds of the Sixties have come to fruition, and the internet has provided a path to knowledge, even if vanishingly few people actually take it? What if the elites are scared of a populace which could rise up at any moment and take control? What if the elites have realized that a demoralised police force and a denuded army will not be enough to pacify a populace who have both had enough and know their enemy? What if Islam is being brought into Europe for one reason and one reason only; to police the kufr?

‘But with Islam, I think, the time has come for an accommodation, an alliance.’

Michel Houellebecq, Submission