Friday, 24 March 2017

ISLAMIST TERRORISM IS A SALES PITCH, AND I’M NOT BUYING

Islamist terrorism is a great sales pitch, but I’m not buying. The script is too good, the actors too polished, the lines too obviously rehearsed. Also, the plot has some serious flaws.
The UK ‘intelligence services’ insist that there are thousands of potential jihadis in Britain. They could strike at any time and vigilance is vital along with, of course, massive surveillance.
When one does finally attack on Westminster bridge, it takes him weeks of preparation, maps, synchronisation with a web of accomplices, and an intricately wired explosive device. Oh, wait. No, it doesn’t. It takes a rental car.
This is a point I have made before. If I returned to England tomorrow and sauntered down to an ATM for a few grand, I could have a couple of guns and ammunition by the end of the week. I know how to do that and which contacts would set the ball rolling. Once tooled up, I could pop along to a shopping centre of my choice on a busy Saturday and I bet I could get a kill list in double figures before I got mine. Are the UK intelligence people really trying to tell me these crazed and covert jihadis couldn’t do the same? Or would it be patiently explained to me that this is just white privilege in action?
A car, of course, is easier to obtain than a gun. It would count me out of martyrdom as I don’t drive but, again, am I really expected to believe that these psychotics would not strike every hour of the day and every day of the week if authorised?
And authorization may be the key to what stinks about the Westminster attack. Islamic attacks in the UK are starting to look very apportioned. One every now and again just to keep people afraid and allow the media to froth about diversity being strength and the danger of the far-Right. The police get more powers. Politicians get to preen their moral feathers. And the little people come incrementally under government control. And, of course, the maternity wards of inner-city hospitals increasingly reverberate with the cries of new-born Muslim babies. The frog slowly boils but will not leave the pan.
It is quite possible that there is an Islamic chain of command working in collusion with the British version of the state. I can quite easily see London’s mayor signing this one off and telling the boys to take it easy for a few months. This is how anarcho-tyranny works.

Monday, 20 March 2017

THE DUTCH REFERENDUM AND THE MYTH OF RADICAL ISLAM

The Netherlands recently held a referendum on whether they wished for more Islam or less. They chose more. Prime Minister Rutte was able to use the tried and trusted political stratagem of triangulation to maintain power, using the presence of Geert Wilders to enable him to lie about taking a tougher stance on immigration and, now that he has won, it will be business as usual. Muslims across Europe will be hard put to control their mirth.

I don’t agree with everything Wilders says. He wants to ban the Koran, for example. Once you start banning books, you are on a very slippery slope at the end of which is full, Soviet-style censorship. The Koran is a dull read, certainly, but that is no reason to disallow its publication. Better to let everyone read it in order to understand that it is not a very good book.

Whether or not Wilders’ own tome, Marked for Death, is any good is not a subject on which I am able to comment, never having read it. It is not available in translation on Amazon – does no one speak both Dutch and English? Wilders does – and even years ago when I naively believed the famous London bookshop Foyles could and would order any book for you, I got a glare of outright animosity from the sales assistant I spoke to about the book.

But Wilders is right in essence. There is no ‘radical Islam’. Islam is radical in and of itself. The media lie that a few hotheads have somehow hijacked Islam and used their own perverse version to justify slaughter and carnage is fallacious, as all lies are and must be. We are not and should not be at war with some abstraction called ‘radical Islam’. We are and should be at war with Islam. During World War 2, we were not at war with the Nazis, we were at war with Germany, whose ruling party were the Nazis. So it is with Islam.


Wednesday, 15 March 2017

TATTOOS, PUNK, AND THE CULTURAL PENDULUM

“What are you rebelling against, Johnny?”

“Whaddya got?”

The Wild One



The cultural pendulum swings, and may be about to complete another interesting arc. But before we watch it swoop through the air, let us consider tattoos.

When I was a boy, no one had tattooes except squaddies and the occasional pub nutter. These scarifications tended to be the usual bestiary of rose and heart, dagger and eagle, Mum and Dad. You were wary of men with tattoos – I never saw a tattoo on a woman in my childhood – and with good reason. A tattoo signified that the wearer was outside of convention, and a tendency to violence was presumed to be waiting in the wings.

Now that everyone with, I believe I am right in saying, the exception of my mother, has tattoos, they are no longer a symbol of rebelliousness but of the norm. Tattoos have become conventional, their wearers orthodox. So it is with political and cultural beliefs.

The Liberal-Left, progressivist, globalist, no-borders, pro-Islamic worldview dictates culture in the West as it stands, if it is still standing. I haven’t checked today. But what will happen when and if the pendulum swings? Populist gains across Europe – and populism is the new racism, the Great Evil – indicate the pendulum has reached the far point of its trajectory and may be about to swing back in the opposite direction. What will happen when the doyens of culture begin to realise this? Let’s take a cultural example from the UK, by way of the USA, from the mid to late 1970s.

Punk rock was a genuine cultural sea-change. Before punk, anyone could form a band provided they had about ten thousand quid. After punk, anyone who could commandeer their dad’s garage, buy a cheap Woolworth’s guitar, borrow a bass with two strings, cobble together a couple of amps from pieces found on the local rubbish tip, and pinch a snare drum and microphone from school could start a punk band. It was glorious.

But the music press was slow to appreciate the swing of the pendulum. My favourite was the writer at a prestigious rock weekly who suggested the best way to appreciate eponymous debut album The Clash was to throw it from his tenth-floor office window. By the time of the classic London Calling, he and just about every other writer was singing a different tune. I have a white-label copy of London Calling, incidentally, given to me by my old flatmate, Topper Headon. But I digress.

The question is whether mainstream media culture is as prone to this slow recognition of change as the notoriously fickle music press. As with the fable of the tattoos, when everyone is doing the same thing, then to rebel means to do something else. At the moment, the only writers dissenting from the mainstream are on the ‘net, mostly on the Alt. Right. But it remains a possibility that, just as music writers realized that to stay hip they had to write about The Damned and not Emerson, Lake and Palmer, so too MSM journalists may realise that they must turn with the tide to stay relevant, particular as immigration into Europe turns sour, which it is. With the sales of some newspapers in free-fall, journalists might be needing a plan B. Or they could just get tattoos.

Sunday, 12 March 2017

WANT MEANING IN YOUR LIFE? DITCH THE TV

Everybody’s sitting round watching television.


The Clash, London’s Burning




I got a TV eye on you.

Iggy and the Stooges, TV Eye





For ten years I lived on a narrow boat on an English canal. Folk walking the towpath would naturally be interested, and I showed several people the inside of the boat, at their request. One eastern European concert pianist wanted to measure up to see whether he could fit an upright piano on a boat, should he decide to buy one. I pointed out to him the necessity of counter-ballast on a boat with such a shallow keel. But I digress. The pressure being put on boaters to move back onto the land and get a fixed address has been ramped up since I quit the life, but that is a subject for another postcard from Traumaville, that strange city in which we find ourselves.

On one gorgeous summer day, a young woman and her small daughter asked whether they could come aboard, and I happily obliged. For the little girl, this was obviously fascinating, that people, grown-ups, could bob about on little boats. But something else caught her attention, and she became mildly agitated and concerned. She pulled at Mummy’s hand and whispered urgently;

“Mummy. He hasn’t got a television.

Do you watch television? You do? Seriously? How does that make you feel? Does it enrich your life? Do you talk about the programmes you’ve seen with your co-workers each morning? How long would you say you spent watching TV? Is your TV set the focal point of your room in that all the furniture inclines towards it? In your opinion, does television fulfil the vision of Lord Reith, the founder of the BBC, to ‘educate, inform and entertain’? I think you may have to re-examine your motives, as you should do always and about everything important in your life. In fact, if you own a television, I think you need to undergo a root-and-branch examination of your entire life.

The television, in my opinion, is the single most corrosive element of modern life. I haven’t owned one for over 20 years, with the exception of an old 1970s set I used to watch videos through. We were never a TV family, although my late father would like to settle down and watch the box, particularly the old English sports programme Grandstand and Top of the Pops because he, like all Englishmen of his generation, fancied the dancers in Pan’s People. If you know what I am talking about, enjoy your free bus pass in just a few years’ time…

Get rid of it. This is a weblog with a modest readership, but if one person reading this either took their television set to the municipal tip or sold it to someone who feels the need to watch celebrities and ex-politicians ballroom dancing, or politicised and emotionally deleterious soap operas, or news so biased they may as well rename the BBC Pravda – Russian for ‘truth’, as if you didn’t know – or comedians retreading the same joke that Right-wing people are just mean, or any of the other crap for which you pay both financially and temporally, then this whole weblog will have been worthwhile.




Saturday, 11 March 2017

CHARIOTS OF IRE

The supporters of English rugby have been criticised for singing 'Swing Low, Sweet Chariot' as the unofficial anthem of the English team. There has been some convoluted reason given by the Pansy Left media, a reason connected with slavery and colonialism, as most Leftist arguments are this year. Curiously, I thought the mis-named Jerusalem - actually a section from the long Blake poem Milton - was the alternative national anthem for rugby. The Lefties will doubtless come for Blake soon.
The Left like nothing more than to patronise black people in order to continue to gain political beach-heads and redoubts. They don't actually like black people, just the ones who act like white people and the ones who are a bit naughty and produce a sort of erotic yearning in some white men and women. Rappers and what have you.
There is no point whatsoever in your looking at the history of this song. It is not the cultural phenomenon being banned that concerns and exercises the modern Left. It is the banning itself and, more, the act of banning.
Whatever we call the contemporary Left, their aims and desires reduce to control. Each and every day, there will be another small incursion into what white people can and can't do, say, sing, wear and so on.
They will be coming for something you like to do, and soon.

Friday, 10 March 2017

TRAUMAVILE GETS A LICK OF PAINT

Well, it's time for a bit of re-branding, something both my readers will think long overdue. I have been attempting to cobble together essays for a few years now, and it is time consuming. Furthermore and added to which, my pirate version of Word has just decided to up sticks and leave. Here in Central America, it may be some time before I can get a bona fide version.
Postcards from Traumaville, lately Escape from Traumaville, was always intended partly for my own pleasure, partly to express political dissent without the tiresome prop of anonymity, and partly to allow my political thought and beliefs to evolve. I achieved all these aims, and now it is time to change the format to smaller entries, written more often.
I don't pretend to understand the modern world fully, but I have an idea of where it is going, at least I believe I have. Viewed through the dark glass of the media, it is actually clear to me that we are in a type of looking-glass world, where the truth is usually the opposite to the media's portrayal.
Totalitarianism is coming, that much seems certain. The EU is a totalitarian project, and globalisation has gone from being a catchy advert for worldwide free trade to being the secret aim of the elites. Who needs the Illuminati or The Elders of Zion when you have this crowd in power?
The Left, of course, actively pursue totalitarianism. Why would you worry about threats to freedom of speech when yours will remain free? It is not speech, or writing, that is being threatened, merely what one German politician recently called 'wrong opinion.''
The internet, in its current and relatively Libertarian version, may well not be around very long. When creatures such as Obama start talking about 'curating' truth, you know that things are going to be changing. Politicians in the UK, even a decade or so ago, used to love talking about how internet-savvy they were. The worldwide web. It had such a global, egalitarian ring to it. Now the political class rarely advertises the 'net, and you find it being subtly demonised. This is why, for example, you read about the latest murderous Mohammedan being 'radicalized online', never by, say, reading the Koran. The political elites don't mind you using the net for shopping, sportsball and porn, or their tiresome pre-fabricated press releases, but they don't want you to use it to educate yourself.
Anyway, Traumaville really will be postcards from now on. I am planning a book on anarcho-tyranny, which I hope to write when the rainy season arrives here in September.
The political landscape, which I thought may experience a joyous new dawn with Brexit and Trump, has in fact become profoundly depressing for Right-wing people such as myself. The Left has come out of its cave, all horns and scales, and it is just too powerful for the people I would champion - aka the people - and it is too pervasive, even if it is unrepresentative of the worldview of the little people. This is one of the reasons the little people are being, democratically speaking, dispossessed.
So, postcards it is. Traumaville Wish you weren't here?

Friday, 3 March 2017

KNOW YOUR ENEMY: DISSECTING THE LEFT

The male of the species


As the Alt. Right continues its white-water raft run into what remains of national consciousness in the West, both supporters and critics are beginning to dissect and label its component parts. Alt. Right, Alt. White, Alt. Lite; the ‘movement’, such as it is, is beginning to resemble a coffee menu. But there is still a tendency to treat the Left as though it were a monolith. The following is a sketched attempt to divide the enemy’s camp into separate tents.

I am English, and thus my four-part division of the Left is based on Europe and the UK, but it is broadly applicable to the USA.

As for the division between Left and Right, these terms are becoming as archaic as Coleridge’s description of all men as being either Platonists or Aristoteleans, but still offer enough descriptive resonance to make it clear what we are dealing with. As far as the Left is concerned, by their works shall we know them, and you will know them when you see them.



The Elite Left

This is the political class itself. In the UK, Peter Oborne’s seminal book The Triumph of the Political Class described, 15 or so years ago, how the main parties had effectively conjoined, with their policies on the most important topics more or less identical. Given that this is the case, is this hybridised party Left or Right, politically speaking? All three of the traditional main parties – and here I exclude UKIP – favour high taxes, a huge and highly paid public sector, more surveillance, open-door immigration, technocracy, massive management structures and tiers, the EU, the neutering of the police force, the policing of thought and language, diluted and standardised educational standards, a championing of minority and identity interests over majority concerns, and a range of other Leftist attitudes and implementations. There is no way, in terms of classical political divisions, that the governing class in the West can be described as anything other than Left and even far-Left.

In the USA, this phenomenon has also been noted. The last presidential election was supposed to be a staged dynastic showdown between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, as realistic as a WWF bout and with Bush losing gracefully to Clinton. The GOP had absolutely no interest in winning. The Democrats are perfectly capable of doing the work of the globalists without RINOs (Republicans in name only) needing to dirty their wing-tipped shoes.

The media is a part of the Elite Left, acting both as contemporary courtiers and as part of the complex provisional wing of the Elite Left. They also intersect, and are indeed the foundation of, the second element of this Leftist quadrivium, the Cultural Left.



The Cultural Left

The culture of a country is not merely its musical tastes, cookery styles and television and cinema preferences. It also extends to its style of policing, its academic institutions, its management ethos in both public and private sectors, and its social and communitarian practices. In the media, the universities, and the public sector, the Gramscian long march through the institutions is all but complete, and radically favours the Left. If you hold Right-wing views in the UK, however mild, you will find it almost impossible to gain employment as a teacher, lecturer, journalist or public servant, and will endanger your job even in the private sector.

As mentioned, the media are at the forefront of the many cultural redoubts and beach-heads the Left hold in the West, and their main artillery is televisual. T S Eliot’s warning to Britain concerning the television, gleaned during a stay in the USA, was that it was not the content of programming that was the danger of the medium, but the habit of watching (Eliot wrote this in a letter to the London Times in 1950). Now, however, the two have been combined. British television, whether it is news, light entertainment, drama, science and nature documentaries or even advertising, is nothing but pure Leftist propaganda, policed, analysed and authorised with the thoroughness of Soviet kommissars or the UK’s old Lord Chancellor. At a subliminal level as well as overtly, modern televisual content stresses the desirability of immigration, multiculturalism, homosexuality and sexual deviance. Concomitantly, it thematises the failures of the white West and the desirability of its replacement with a globalised order.



The Pansy Left

As I recently explained to a very triggered British journalist (David Aaronovitch of the London Times), the phrase ‘The Pansy Left’ is not my invention, although it does serve my purpose. Aaronovitch was incensed that I had used the phrase, not recognising it as a term used by George Orwell in private correspondence. The Left in the UK, incidentally, is increasingly distancing itself from Orwell as various phrases and passages deemed unacceptable to the modern PC Left begin to emerge from his writing.

The Pansy Left is unmistakable and almost needs no introduction. You will know it when you see it. They are the strutting harlequins on every one of the many marches which regularly disfigure London, for example, with their crude placards and childish, garish clothes. They are the anti-intellectuals screeching and crying on every campus, no-platforming and banning and constantly reminding others about white privilege, slavery, and a host of other non-academic concerns. They are the generation of snowflakes, millennials, safe spaces, micro-aggressions and trigger warnings. You either march in ideological lockstep with them, or you are a racist and a fascist. The Pansy Left is the old Left but feminised and homosexualised, with classical education demeaned and replaced with fictional ‘social justice’ issues. They are fellow travellers with the Elite and Cultural Left, an entertaining caravanserai of zanies who, befitting their status as morons with perfect teeth, despise the various Western governments – discounting Trump and a handful of Eastern European visionary leaders such as Viktor Orban - without realising that they are all fighting on the same side.



The Malevolent Left

The Left as a whole is malevolent, but the ‘Malevolent Left’ refers specifically to the violent sector of the Left’s provisional wing. These are the Antifa, Black Bloc, the anarchists, the nihilists, Islamists, Black Lives Matter and any other of the violent splinter groups responsible for the violence often blamed on groups such as PEGIDA and the EDL. There have been many allegations that the Malevolent Left is part-funded by George Soros, and even backed in the USA by veteran community organiser Barack Obama. The Malevolent Left are the shock troops of the Elite Left, under-policed and left in the field to keep non-violent political participants who are of the Right in their place using a combination of intimidation and outright violence.



Although, as mentioned, the terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are outmoded and purely nominal, they contain matrices which can be contrasted and compared. The Left tends to emote while the Right still trusts to Enlightenment reason. The Left has mastered the art of the ad hominem attack, while the Right prefers to go after arguments and ideology. The Left makes a totem of multiculturalism, while the Right prefers a conservative approach to pre-existing, individual national cultures. The Left utilises the working metaphor of the machine, seeing society as something to be tinkered with and made right in the manner of an engineer, while the Right prefers an organic working metaphor in which social conventions accrue over time as a result of human trial and error. The Left believes that classical education is disqualified by virtue of its canon having been produced by white males, the Right viewing this as precisely what has led to the triumphs, up until now, of Western culture. The Left sees biological reality as malleable and subjective, the Right as fixed and objective. To return to Coleridge’s division of men into Platonist and Aristotelean, if these categories as broadly viewed as idealist and realist, they may not be as archaic as they appear when applied, respectively, to Left and Right.

This four-part division of the modern Left is intended as a prolegomenon, a sketch towards a finished picture, but I believe it helps to isolate the various strands of the contemporary, toxic Left, as well as to show the areas in which the different quarters nest and overlap, as in a Venn diagram. I hope that it goes some small way towards fighting Leftist, Socialist, progressivist and globalist ideology, the greatest threat of the present century.