Monday, 22 January 2018


I like the hats. That's all I can say for sure.

There are many contentious issues that divide the dissident Right. As noted in previous episodes, the hard Left don’t have this problem. You had better march in lockstep over every issue or, to quote the great Wild Billy Childish, you’re out the band, sunshine.
As I find myself to some extent ideologically allied with this very same dissident Right, and I am an aficionado of self-auditing, as also recently noted, I regularly run through the topics and issues on which I have shifted my opinion, or concerning which I am confused and undecided.
Abortion is one. I have had all sorts of wild and swerving viewpoints on this one. Clear the House of Commons of male MPs during abortion votes. Abortion on the NHS fine. Abortion on the NHS not fine. Abortion as free choice, except for rape-induced conception. Abortion as compulsory for the criminal classes. Yep, I have been round the houses. Now I am pro-life. This is partly because I knew someone who lost twins in the womb, and who wanted them very much, and partly because, when I see the faces and hear the verbiage of the pro-choice crowd, I instinctively know where I stand. I also believe more in life now, as my own begins to enter a – hopefully long but not too long – dusk before evening.
The death penalty is another knotty problem on which I have flipped and flopped like a grounded salmon. I used to wish very much to see some young bitch’s bastard climbing the gallows steps, guilty of a senseless murder somewhere in south London, whining for his mother and soiling his dignity pants as the shadow of the noose fell on his tear-stained face. But I didn’t believe in the death penalty because maniacs like me should not be making policy.
Now, again, I have changed my tune. There are some vicious murderers and terrorists behind bars. They cost a fortune to keep, and Europe is already beyond broke. So kill them. The death penalty will, of course, only deter the non-Muslim. Mohammedans are metaphysically equipped for death, much like the Japanese kamikaze or their rather more ancient countrymen the samurai, who began every day by saying that this would be the day that they die, and that it was a good day to do so. Cheery place, Japan, I should imagine.
Muslims, however, of the massacring variety, do not fear death and indeed invite that gloomiest of chums, because they are convinced they will become become martyrs, and doubtless their martyrdom will create more of the same. But a ground war on European turf is profoundly to be wished for, as it will both hasten the coming financial overload, and show Islam that the West will fight back despite the wishes of its elites. But we are getting off the point. Bring back the hangman’s noose and its traditional thirteen wraps, say I.
Julian Assange, now an Ecuadorian, is someone else I scratch my head over. Is he a hero or a traitor? Do we need full disclosure of what allied governments get up to, or do we need the Platonic noble myths of the Republic kept in place? When I come up with an answer, I will be sure and let you know.
Other areas which divide the Alt. Right and the dissident Right I am clear on concerning where my opinions lie. Homosexuality, for example.
What the fucking hell is the problem with gay marriage? What the hell is the problem with gays in general, with homosexuality in general? There is an almost atavistic detestation among some in the Alt. Right concerning homosexuality. Know what it makes you sound like, boys? It makes you sound like Muslims. It makes you sound like blacks. Because I will tell you something. I have been in enough English pubs, and talked to enough white working-class men, to know that, while it might be the occasion for a bit of a snigger, they are not, on the whole anti-gay. You need Mohammedans or schwartzes for that type of genuine nastiness. I have actually witnessed far more of what is termed ‘homophobia’ among young British women than men. A lot of women really don’t like gays. Perhaps their sexual egos can’t take the lack of worship.
I don’t, however, believe that homosexuality should be trumpeted and promoted in schools, because the stakes are high, and the stakes are high because the stakes are children. Transgenderism, the latest perverted wickedness to spring from the warped minds of the Progressive Left, is an entirely different matter. Transgender people are either mentally ill or degenerates or both. To foist that on young minds who should be learning real topics in inexcusable and unforgiveable.
So, despite the fact that I am a news junkie and have the critical apparatus you would expect a PhD in philosophy to bequeath you, there are areas of modern culture concerning which I simply do not know where I stand.
One such is Jewry.
Are we supposed to praise Israel as a beacon of democracy in a desert of tribal resentments, or condemn it as an oppressive regime? Again, I only have to look at the SJW types – as well as some stupid old bitch I used to work for – with the ‘Free Palestine’ badges to know where I stand. Supporting the ‘oppressed’ Palestinians – not too oppressed to rain rockets on Tel Aviv – is a convenient way to be anti-Semitic without anyone noticing too much.
But what of the non-Israeli Jew? The Jewish hold on entertainment and the media undoubtedly is pernicious, and the Machiavellian machinations – try saying that fast – of Jews such as George Soros actively endangers their European co-religionists. With Jewish backing for untrammeled Muslim immigration, European Jews are under attack as they have been since, to quote Harold Shand in The Long Good Friday, Hitler stuck a swastika on his jock-strap. They are fleeing France in record numbers, presumably to exercise Israel’s right of return. There is ample evidence that some high-ranking Jews are prepared to throw their fellows under the Muslim bus.
The Alt. Right, in part, are very anti-Semitic. I’m not talking about cartoon pundits like Andrew Anglin, whose constant use of various colourful epithets begins to become wearisome. There is a deep-seated anti-Jew rhetoric in play. I’m not being critical. I believe in free speech, and I believe that anyone can say what they want about anyone or any group, racial, religious or otherwise. Just don’t go out and hit them with a bat.
Leftist anti-Semitism, though, is far more interesting than the often reasoned arguments of the Right against Jewry. Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party seems a hotbed of Jew hatred, but that seems explainable by his adoration of all things Islamic.
Whatever the elites are up to, and I have always believed that uncontrolled Muslim immigration is a well-thought-out ploy rather than stupidity or misplaced kindness, I wonder if they will be able to ride the tiger once Muslims become majorities, as they are becoming in many European enclaves. They may not fully appreciate the extent of Jew-hatred among Muslims, possibly because of their new-Rousseauist ideal images of Muslims. And what if the Jews fight back? If there are any would-be Stern gangs lurking in Europe, they might soon emerge and fight a proxy war with Europe as the neutral venue.
So, for me, the Jewish question is still very much a question. I know where I stand on Islam. On Jewry, I see through a glass darkly.

Sunday, 21 January 2018


Look, lads, it's Allah! Let's get him!

Muslims don’t believe in Allah. Come on, get real, as the young people used to say. Of course they don’t. One of the Western traits Muslims have adapted for their own uses since their arrival in the West and the West’s arrival in their benighted countries is secularism. It thus joins training shoes, mobile telephones and talking like urban black men in the list of ‘cultural appropriation’ which is only ever criticised if white people do it.

Oh, there may be a few mediaevalists in the arse-end of the kush, or sitting in a crater in Kabul, or rocking backwards and forwards in a Tunisian mosque, who actually believe in an all-powerful deity controlling events, but even they must have their doubts. After all, if Allah is a Muslim god controlling world affairs, he hasn’t exactly played a blinder for the home side.

No, Muslims don’t believe in Allah, but they do believe in power. As I have written many times, Muslim infiltrators to Europe, and the fifth columnists in the various EU countries who are facilitating their movement, must be scratching their heads in wonder as to how easily the indigenous population rolled over. When you can successfully force the withdrawal of a drink in a fast food restaurant because the swirly design of the beverage’s name on the lid looks a little like the Arabic transcription of ‘Allah’, it must be tempting to see how far you can go.

‘Allah’ has become a magical word, and the Koran a book which casts a glamour – in the old sense of a witch’s spell – over a dumb and godless Europe. There was a surreal moment during the TV dust-up between the talentless oaf Piers Morgan and Tommy Robinson where Morgan demands that Robinson not even touch the book. We seem to be moving back in time, back to a dark age where spirits live in inanimate objects.

There is an excellent and scholarly book by Robert R. Reilly entitled The Closing of the Muslim Mind – obviously a play on Allan Bloom’s brilliant The Closing of the American Mind, and not unrelated in theme – which chronicles the history of Islamic metaphysics, showing that it went from the acquired and inquiring methodology of Greek philosophy to an increasingly dogmatic and bigoted – in the real sense of the word, not the SJW/Leftist sense – theology which admitted of no heterodoxy. As Reilly writes;

‘…Islamic civilization, which led to the urbane princedoms of Andalusia in the West, and to the mystical laughter of the Sufis in the East, underwent a moral and intellectual crisis in the ninth and eleventh century of our era, when it turned its back on philosophy and took refuge in dogma.’

This happened with Christianity, of course. The inquiring and brilliant minds of the Church Fathers gave way to the reforming zeal of the Inquisition in a few short centuries. It is never a long road from the book to the sword. The difference is that we are not having to live with the effects of this fossilisation of thought now when it comes to Christianity. We are very much having to endure it thanks to the elites’ importation of Islam.

But the dogma which propels modern Islam, as I say, has nothing to do with metaphysical belief in deity, and everything to do with power, with the overrunning of European civilization, with reconquista. Muslims only have to mention Allah and the Western world, or at least its political, media and SJW classes, stand to attention like the most conscientious of guardsmen. They don’t believe there is a big bearded dude in the sky any more than the pathetic Archbishop of Canterbury believes in a jealous, wrathful god residing in heaven. But they can see cause and effect. They can measure ground ceded. They can watch with satisfaction as legislation banning criticism of Islam and the Koran is enacted across European jurisdictions, as well as in Canada under its ridiculous Prime Minister.

Muslims on London streets waving placards demanding that those who insult Allah be beheaded don’t believe in Allah. The so-called ‘hate preachers’ who inflame sub-median IQ young men in urban mosques don’t believe in Allah. The Islamist apologists the BBC regularly promote and fellate don’t believe in Allah. But they all believe in power.

Allah, and the Koran, is a brand, like Samsung or Google or Manchester United Football Club. And allying yourself to a brand is advantageous in these culturally shallow times. Witness Tony Blair, for example.

Now this is a very, very bad man indeed. And now, as my London correspondent alerts me, we are told the he ‘reads the Koran every day’. Now, whatever else you can say about Blair, he is not stupid. He knows that by linking his name to the biggest brand name in the marketplace, things will go well for him when and if the transition of power from Western nation states to the caliphate occurs. Of course he doesn’t read the Koran every day. But he is sending the right smoke signals to the right people. Master of the soundbite, Blair spews out that ‘To be faith-literate in a globalised world is crucial’. Sure. Blair can do a lot of enabling for Islamisation, and he knows he had better get behind the brand.

Incidentally, an interesting aside. I was looking for an image to head up this piece and append one of my terribly witty captions. There are no images available via Google. So far, so shariah-compliant. When I looked for images of God, I was greeted by page after page of Hindu gods. Isn’t it interesting how the major corporate players are joining in with this crusade to expunge Christianity from consciousness? It almost makes me want to become a Christian.

Allah may we exist, for all I know. Dragons too, unicorns, leprechauns, transgenderism, all these phantasms may have being. But when it comes to Allah the Merciful, Muslims don’t believe in him any more than a fat man in a department store wearing a Santa Claus outfit believes in Santa Claus. But wearing the trappings earns him money, and pushing the Allah brand is earning Islam a wholly unwarranted foothold in the West it may be hard to dislodge.

Saturday, 20 January 2018


Doing what the police will not do

Oh, you’re confused? Maybe if I stick your head through this fucking window it might unconfuse you.

Joe Pesci’s character Nicky Santoro in Martin Scorsese’s Casino

I have written before concerning the coming vigilantism, and it appears it is here. It is not, however, large and frightening men armed with baseball bats, but rather concerned fathers with personal computers. It is not Death Wish, more a wish for justice the police are determined not to provide.

A group calling themselves Guardians of the North – and a better-known outfit called Dark Justice - have been particularly active in snaring paedophiles and, as you would expect in modern Britain, the police are not best pleased. Now, these paedophiles are sometimes Muslim, sometimes non-Muslim. The ethnicity or religious affiliation is not the point in this case. What is the point is that figures – and these are BBC figures, which surprised me – show that 44% of child grooming cases brought to court in 2017 used evidence obtained by these ‘paedophile hunters’.

This puts the police in a difficult position. At least from their point of view. If they allow vigilantes to do their job for them, they look weak and ineffective which, of course, they are, and deliberately so. This is part of the working practice of Traumaville. But if they turn on the vigilantes, they risk the wrath of the public, now that there is an alternative to the mass media, a dissident press willing to shine a light into these murky areas instead of telling us what reality TV stars are up to.

Enter Simon Bailey, who is described as the National Police Chiefs Council ‘lead for child protection.’ Mr. Bailey has this to say about the Guardians of the North and groups like them.

‘These vigilante groups are putting the lives of our children at risk.’

That’s his opening line. I don’t have kids, largely because I would have made a lousy father, but it got my blood pressure up and running. What about the failure of the police to act on information given to them in Rotherham, Oxford and many other British cities, as outlined in Peter McLoughlin’s disturbing book Easy Meat? Did that not put children’s lives at risk? You utter fucking bastard. The British people should take that badge off of you and put your guns in the ground. But he continues.

‘I’m not going to condone these groups and I would encourage them all to stop, but I recognise that I am not winning that conversation.’

This is a rather shitty, weaselly way of saying he is wrong. They teach them this sort of thing, you know, and if you are British and in work, you pay for that. But the pay-off reintroduces us to an old friend.

‘I think [working with vigilantes] is something we’re going to have to potentially have to look at, yes, but it comes with some real complexity.’

Ah, complexity. The Socialist’s friend. Everything is much more complicated than you think, little people, and that is why you are lucky enough to have experts such as ourselves to solve these mysteries.

It’s not complex, you thick cunt. Perverts are using the internet to lure and try to fuck young girls. I don’t know whether the activities of Guardians of the North and those like them count as entrapment, and I don’t much care. My moral compass tells me they are doing something good. As for the perverts they snare, they are not all Muslim, but a significant tranche of them are. You, the police, can’t do anything about it, because your men, women, and in-betweens are busy at diversity courses learning the difference between a sari and a hijab. They are busy painting rainbows on their faces for the next gay pride march. They are occupied with work on hateful Tweets.

Go and do your job, you fucking spastic. It won’t be long before Guardians of the North mutate into something a bit more nasty. And it will be your fault.

Friday, 19 January 2018


Look carefully. You'll see the nuance.

Barbarism begins at home.


One of the sock-puppets put up by the increasingly feeble and/or malevolent British polices forces – ‘force’ is a misnomer here – has said that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a crime with ‘many nuances’, and that these perky nuances are the reason that, despite thousands and thousands of reported cases of FGM since this act of barbarism was outlawed 33 years ago, not one person has gone to jail in the UK.


This is the range of nuances pertaining to FGM.

A small girl is set on a table, her legs forced apart, and her clitoris shaved away with a razor blade.


Did you see the nuance? No, neither did I.

The reason is obvious. In Islam, sexual gratification is for men, not for women. Don’t hear too much from the feminists about this one. Too busy whining about ‘mansplaining’.
If you have not read Infidel, one of a trilogy of books by the woman who should be a heroine to and yet is despised by feminists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, make sure you have strong liquor available when you reach her description of her own clitoridectomy. A book before bedtime it ain’t.

‘Honour-based abuse’, opines Britain’s national disgrace The Guardian, ‘is a complex problem’. Anyone remember what I said about the Socialist stratagem of pretending that very, very simple concepts are complex, in order that they can then obfuscate them and sweep them under the carpet of multiculturalism?

Pakistani heritage girls date non-Muslims, or Muslims from a different sect than their parents’, or, worse, refuse to marry the stinking, leering old man – probably a cosanguinous relative – they have taken her out of school in the UK to see in Pakistan. They are either killed or, by their own choice, kill themselves, usually by drinking bleach.

What is ‘complex’ about this? Where is ‘nuance’ amid this disgusting display of low-IQ, evolution-resistant mentality?

Yes, of course there are lovely Muslims running your newspaper shop, sitting a desk away at work, and playing for your soccer team. But they are the ones who imitate non-Muslims, in the same way that successfully integrated blacks are the ones who, when you close your eyes and hear them talk, sound like white people. At least, they sound like the white people not already imitating blacks. Intelligent and able white people.

There are two choices, and only two. You won’t find any complexity or nuance here. One either admits that some cultures are better than others by virtue of being less cruel, or one says that all cultures are equal, despite all the tiny flaps of carved skin lying like crippled oysters on the dirty floors of makeshift, front-room operating theatres, despite all the screaming little girls who don’t understand why the pain is coming from those they thought loved them, despite all the lying pieces of shit in authority who will not protect those little girls, but will protect their elders from you if, as a non-Muslim, you send a nasty Tweet about Islam.

I am ashamed of the world the Socialists have made. To protect this barbarism is to be complicit in it. No nuance. No complexity. No evil, either. I don’t do evil.

Just wickedness. Just the Devil’s work where there is no Devil.

Thursday, 18 January 2018


Harp on, harpie

How agreeable it is to have several of the strands I have been pursuing in recent postcards tied into one skein. Cathy Newman, a bog-standard media feminist, took on our hero Jordan Peterson in an interview – or rather an inquisition – and it was like watching a straggling gazelle attempting to fight off a lion.

The half-hour interview on Channel 4 can be found here and, if you wish for an object lesson in everything that is wrong with both the British media and contemporary feminism, you really ought to reward yourself and watch it in its entirety. I have written recently of the childish and petulant nature of media interviews with anyone not marching in exact Leftist lockstep, and also of the facile stupidity of the modern Left, and how that stupidity has come to replace rationality as the modern cultural marque. I have also written about Jordan Peterson. As I say, this interview is a convergence of all three.

The topic under ‘discussion’ is the gender pay gap. This has long interested me, having worked in publishing, and particularly in one magazine office. The magazine is a well-known British women’s title, and they took on a features editor who rapidly rose – she was talented in her field – to the position of executive editor. Then, once salary and pension had been secured, she wasted no time in selecting a mate from the staff and getting pregnant. Six months maternity leave was followed by a brief return to the workplace before she was pregnant again. Her position had to be filled by freelancers, who are very expensive in that area. This is simply one reason why there is a gender pay gap. There are many others, as Peterson calmly explains to an increasingly irritated and snippy Newman.

Newman displayed more or less all of the Leftist traits I have written about:

·        The overriding of debate. Peterson is a clinical psychologist, in addition to being a reasoned debater. He is also conversant with literature, philosophy, ancient culture and mythology, and the miasma of modern pop culture and pop politics. Newman strikes me as someone who would frown at a tough crossword. And yet Newman is schooled in snarky media tactics. Watch her letting Peterson get a point underway, and then simply cutting across him before reason masses its armies. A lot of women are like this, which is why I fundamentally dislike them. She won’t let him pursue an avenue of knowledge when it threatens to develop into a coherent point swimming upstream against her dogmatic gew-gaws.

·        Wilful ignorance of what has been developed in the argument. You might term this dialectical short-circuiting. Several times, she says that Peterson has made a claim he has not made. This denial of reality, of course, does not matter to the Left. They thrive on fabrication and what lawyers call ‘inaccurate denial’. Witness the section at 19.40, where she repeats her Touretter mantra of ‘so you’re saying’, and flatly contradicts what Peterson has stated. It is as though she has no conception that this interview is repeatable, no idea of the modern concept of ‘viral’.

·        The appeal to dogma. The gender pay gap is simply wrong in Newman’s world because it favours men. Women like this are the reason Western men are no longer committing to marriage and family. Who wants to walk up the aisle with Torquemada’s sister?

·        Righteous indignation. Peterson can become very angry in his student lectures. Here, he is a model of self-restraint and decorum. Newman, on the other hand, is a tut-tutting harpie, and cannot disguise her contempt for Peterson. Peterson himself laughs and smiles more than I have ever seen him do, and I suspect that may have been a ploy to wind Newman up even more.

·        Subjective ratiocination. ‘What I’m hearing’. ‘You’re just saying things to provoke’. There is no attempt to engage Peterson in the field of reason. Everything to the Leftie which is not orthodox is an acerbic soundbite designed to upset vulnerable victim groups.

·        False comparison. Comparing Peterson’s criticism of trans demands with Chairman Mao. This, of course, is a variation of the ‘literally Hitler’ Leftist ploy, if you can dignify such petty idiocy with such a name.

·        The replacement of ratiocinative argument with ad hominem attacks. Again, a female trait. ‘2 + 2 ═ 4’. ‘Yes, but you’re a bastard’.

·        ‘Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?’. I don’t quite know where to begin with this one. It should be inscribed in every classroom, every seminar room and lecture hall, every place of learning in words of fire. It is the crux and quintessence of the corrosive nature of the SJW.

With this interview, we have arrived at the destination of Leftist thought, the metaphysical coin trick whereby objective reality is replaced, by law, with subjective whimsy. Newman’s argument is simple; it is wrong that women earn on average 9% less than men. Peterson’s argument is complex but coherent. He explains the reasons why that disparity is the case. But he will not say it is wrong, and Newman is unable to discuss with someone who will not genuflect at the altar of gender orthodoxy. He is expected to perform the intellectual equivalent of the histrionic crying or laughter that the North Korean people perform when the frat kid with the bad hair who leads them makes a solemn declaration or a joke.

In the end, Peterson wins. He wins because he shows grace and politeness in the face of Newman’s arrogance and ignorant disdain. He wins because he is intellectually coherent where Newman shows herself to be a tetchy doofus. He wins because he shows no animus towards women, whereas Newman is clearly a man-hater. (I bet her husband is a pussy). In the end, he wins because he is smarter than she is.

I hope that television watchers are beginning to see through this crap. Apparently, BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, a notoriously Left-wing fetid marsh, gave Peterson four minutes at the end of their slot and tried to make him seem heretical and foolish. But you can’t make intelligent people look foolish if you yourselves are of the dummkopf class. As I have said, the modern Left are not noted for their intelligence, and it really showed in this train-wreck of an interview. I hope Peterson made a pass at her after the show.

Wednesday, 17 January 2018


Satire a decade ago. News now

A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, ‘You are mad, you are not like us’.

St. Anthony, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers

SOCRATES: And if they can get hold of this person who takes it in hand to free them from their chains and to lead them up, and if they could kill him, will they not actually kill him?

GLAUCON: They certainly will.

Plato, Republic

Once, the idiots were just the fools gawping in through the window. Now they’ve entered the building.

From The Rise of the Idiots, by fictional journalist Dan Ashcroft in TV series Nathan Barley.

I have not seen the film Idiocracy, but there are enough snippets and trailers on YouTube to get the general gist. In the world of the future, natural selection has not favoured the intelligent but, instead, the stupid. ‘With no natural predators to thin the herd’, the trailer says, evolutionary supremacy has simply gone to those who reproduce the most.

This, of course, seems more relevant to the threat of Islamic demographic dominance than to the stupid West, but the premise of Idiocracy is that the world of the future is populated by morons. There is civilisation of a sort, but it is chaotic and pointless. Crass entertainment rules. Everything is on the brink of total collapse.

Using the Woody Allen Sleeper wheeze, one man seems to have been cryogenically suspended or similar, and wakes up in this world of idiots. Compared to his new fellow citizens, he is a genius, but because they don’t understand what he is saying, they treat him as retarded.

As with the St. Anthony quote above, and the fate of Plato’s prisoner, who escapes the cave of deception and sees reality brightly lit by the sun, before returning to be killed by his fellow prisoners, the visionary in a crowd of fools will always be singled out for victimisation. So it is today.

Our recent subject, Raheem Kassam, was asked in an interview with Paul Joseph Watson to describe the open borders enthusiasts who demand unlimited immigration. He summed them up with a familiar term.


Now, Old Traumavillians will know well that I do not believe in the innate stupidity of those who plan to Islamise Europe and Hispanicise – if that is a word – the USA. Far from it. But intelligence is no guarantee of goodness, just as there are high-IQ serial killers such as Ted Bundy. But the foot-soldiers, the students, Antifa, the NGO goons, the virtue-signalling celebrities, the Leftist Twitter crowd? Yes. Morons. Stupid with bells on.

Stupidity used to be a mark of failure. Not mental impairment, where the sufferer has a physical or genetic component which impairs the ability to learn, to process the raw muck of information into the clay of knowledge and, hopefully, into the finished pottery of wisdom. Actual stupidity. Not anymore. As society de-evolves, stupidity is becoming the new guarantor of acceptance and advancement. I know. I have worked in British property management.

Let’s look at the dictionary definition of stupidity, although even those once-sacred lexical Bibles are not immune to the great dumbing.

The OED sayeth of stupidity;

Behaviour that shows a lack of sense or judgement.

But that is not quite good enough for our purposes. There is more of a wilfulness about Leftist stupidity than is explained by the simple omission of equilibriating criteria. Looking at the modern British or US campus, for example, with its program of wiping white men from the syllabus to be replaced with junk studies, one is reminded of Mao’s treatment of intellectuals. We will impose stupidity on you by removing its alternatives. Mao, it should be noted, persecuted intellectuals largely to prevent their being influenced by Western – ie. white – thought. There are enormous parallels with today’s academic chaos.

I think the answer is as obvious as Edgar Allan Poe’s purloined letter, placed in plain sight where anyone can find it. The elites are frightened of intelligence. This could be the brightest generation, and we all know what smart people do. They question authority. This was Mao’s other fear. What all ruling elites fear is the man or woman who is intelligent enough to take control and command of their own lives. And, of course, the greatest invention since Gutenberg’s printing press circa 1840 therefore represents the greatest threat to the ruling classes; the internet.

In the entertaining movie K-Pax, Kevin Spacey’s character claims to a psychoanalyst that he is fact an alien from another galaxy. He is not a little green man or bug-eyed monster, but Kevin Spacey-looking. His planet, he says, is way in advance of Earth’s stumbling, infantile attempts to progress. Asked how he got to Earth, he refuses to explain, stating that if he did so ‘you’ll blow yourselves up. Or someone else.’ He goes on to say;

‘You have no idea how much energy there is in a beam of light.’

In a similar way, I am not sure that many people know how much energy there is in the internet. The elites are happy for it to be used for shopping and pornography, and it is also coming in increasingly handy for surveillance and the creation of a new class of political prisoner for the 21st-century gulags that prisons will increasingly become. But, in the right hands, it is a tool for the elites to fear, which is exactly why they are working to curtail the range of its possible effects.

Of course, some of you will have responsibilities to your families and children. But that aside, your biggest responsibility is to fight against stupidity, to hone your minds, to kick against the pricks and not to allow the idiocracy to rule. Get rid of your television. Forget the shopping trips to buy more things you don’t need. Boycott Hollywood. That is easy; you just stop going to the cinema. Read 50 pages a day, and make sure it is not a book you are being told to read by advertisers and the BBC. More than anything else, think.

I’ll leave you with this YouTube snippet from a very funny and prescient TV series from over a decade ago, Chris Morris’s Nathan Barley. The whole premise of the show is that stupidity and intelligence are locked in a battle, and journalist Dan Ashcroft’s feature, The Rise of the Idiots, is a perfect satirical swipe at the type of state-enforced cretinism I have been writing about. Sadly, the idiots Ashcroft sees on the streets are looking less and less like pastiche as the days go by.

Tuesday, 16 January 2018


That's what friends are for

Deprive modern man, [Heidegger] says in his Heraclitus lecture, of everything that entertains and holds him, ‘the cinema, the radio, the newspaper, the theatre, concerts, boxing bouts, travel’, and he would die of emptiness, since ‘simple things’ no longer appeal to him. In contemplative thinking, however, emptiness becomes an opportunity for ‘remembering Being’. At the climax of the war – ‘the planet is in flames’ – Heidegger reattunes himself to the great theme of his postwar philosophy, composure.

RĂ¼diger Safranski, Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil

We are living in a material world.

Madonna, Material Girl

It is hardly a revolutionary insight to point out that people are more materialistic now than at any point in history. And, just as the relentless consumers Westerners have become demand more and more from technology, so that dark and light phenomenon works tirelessly to supply those needs and hungers. The world is in the grip of a type of anti-Buddhism, an attachment to things and services probably unparalleled in history.

In a world where European immigrants riot because the broadband services gifted them by the countries they have selected are not fast enough, where a new iPhone is available every year and must be sought out and purchased on the day of its release, where soccer teams produce a new shirt design each season for which fans and the parents of fans must pay ever-increasing amounts, where people stampede one another in department stores to be the first at the gormless bazaar inside, where it is nothing for families to have two or more cars, and where devices and machines are rarely repaired in case of malfunction but simply replaced, are there still simple, non-materialistic pleasures and pursuits?

Now, this is not an exercise in virtue-signalling. I am more geared for vice-signalling, if anything. And so I am not putting on my guru outfit to deliver a lecture about gross and earthly pleasures. It is true that, when I left England, I also left about 80% of my worldly belongings in a crappy little apartment in Bermondsey belonging to the arseholes I had previously worked for, but that was their problem, never mine. The only things I regretted leaving were the books. I miss nothing else except a couple of pictures, and so I did not need those things.

Materialism is, like so much of life, learned behavior. Now, learned behaviour always sounds like such a wholesome thing, but often it is just the opposite. The junkie learns to fix himself up. The young street criminal learns how best to use a knife to stab someone. The politician learns the most effective ways to deceive the masses for personal and financial gain, and so on and so forth. The need for material goods is no different, and perhaps just as deleterious.

The main educators in this learning process are, of course, advertisers, and their classroom assistants are the peer group of the target market. The aim is simple; To turn ‘want’ into ‘need’.

It is over 60 years since Vance Packard’s seminal book The Hidden Persuaders but, in the main, his work on the psychological basis of advertising holds good now. To this subtle manipulation, however, has been added an element which relies heavily on the narcissism of contemporary consumers.

This is the age of high self-esteem. I distinctly recall, after the London riots of 2011 – caused by the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan, a black drug dealer police believed to be armed – hearing a hip young ‘psychologist’ on the BBC saying that the reason young black men rioted was because of ‘low self-esteem’. I almost soiled myself laughing. Anyone who has ever walked the streets of south London will be aware of the almost palpable smog of testosterone and braggadocio, surrounded as they will be by strutting cockerels preening their feathers, with the sort of self-image you might have expected from an Alexander the Great or a Maradona. Low self-esteem. Fuck off.

And this excessive and unwarranted self-esteem is, to an extent, spread across society. You’re incredible, culture tells the young. And whatever you believe is right. But you must have the right equipment.

The football (soccer) shirt example is a good one. I have spoken to several fathers of young sons – and, increasingly, daughters – who have bemoaned the fact that they have to buy the new shirt of their chosen team every season. And they are not cheap, but the consequences of failure to purchase this uniform are sever in terms of parent/child relations. Ridicule at school is the most-cited danger. So, being a good father no longer consists of moral rectitude and discipline and setting an example, but in making sure you are further impoverished by shelling out for a cynical marketing ploy. We are reminded of how Chinese people dressed under Mao Tse Tung.

It is not much different in London’s cities. There are three or four variations, but essentially everyone dresses the same. The hideous training shoe dominates. Anyone who wears a training shoe and is not running – I discount petty criminals here – will almost certainly not be rewarding company.

As for consumer products other than clothing, everyone is by now familiar with the experience of seeing a group of young people, not laughing and talking and experiencing one another as personalities, but gaping guppy-like into their phone screens, Nietzsche’s abyss in pocket-sized form.

Is there an alternative to this slave-like existence? Of course. Books. If you are reading this – apart from you, police cuntstable – then you are almost certainly readers, that is, real readers. Note how libraries have been progressively shut down in the UK over the past decade or two. Note how the US practice of employing ‘sensitivity readers’ to peruse would-be novelists’ efforts has been adopted in Britain. Note that there is no promotion of books in the UK unless it is some faddish nonsense.

Some of the greatest books I have ever read have come from charity shops – thrift shops in the USA – and for a small outlay you can furnish your room with a wonderful little library.

So forget about the next-generation iPhone, and tell your children and friends to do the same. For the same cost you, and they, can open a world whose existence is often unsuspected and unknown. Don’t buy new things, however shiny and beguiling. Buy new ideas.