Thursday, 25 August 2016

EVERY PHOENIX NEEDS ITS ASHES: THE RESISTIBLE RISE OF THE ALT RIGHT




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, 23 August 2016

I AM THE LAW: PREPARING FOR SHARIA



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

A Clockwork Orange



I am the law!

Judge Dredd




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Tuesday, 16 August 2016

MEMO TO THE LEFT: YOU WON. SO WHY THE LONG FACE?



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


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

Monday, 4 July 2016

THE TRIUMPH OF THE PANSY LEFT: HOW REMAIN LOST A WINNABLE WAR



Anybody who has ever met a student activist, a muckraking journalist, or a reformist politician will notice the important role that boredom and impatience play in the impulse to ‘remake the world.’

Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

 

“I AM real”, cried Alice, and burst into tears.

Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

 

The Leave campaign did not win the recent UK referendum on membership of the EU; the Remain campaign lost it. It will, of course, be a Pyrrhic victory for Brexit, as every stubbed toe, broken shoelace and hangover the average Leftist suffers in the next five years will be blamed on the vote. If there is one defining trait of the political Left in the UK, it is the abdication of responsibility. Everything is the fault of the political Right, if everything is defined as that which is not in accordance with the phantasmagorical notions of the political Left.

And yet it could have been very different had the Remainers not allowed their arguments to be led by that faction of the Left who have low impulse control, limited intelligence, and lack the political literacy to make coherent arguments which appeal to those outside of their strange wonderland. For the spokespeople for the Remain campaign were not reasoned, mature people able to make a case for remaining in the EU – and there was a strong case – but what used to be called the ‘Loony Left’, a variant of what Orwell, in a phrase which would surely now see him no-platformed by the phalanx of ninnies who run British universities, called the ‘Pansy Left’.

It was inevitable that the referendum would reduce to a Left/Right spat although, as I am fond of repeating, Left and Right are terms as irrelevant now as Coleridge’s dictum that men are born either Platonist or Aristotelean. And there was a formidable input from a self-interested political class. But these people need no explanation. If Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown wish you to vote a certain way, you ought to know which way to vote. But the Remain camp’s real enemies were within. The referendum was really a run-off between emotivist scaremongering and a set of undeniable facts about an anti-Caucasian, ademocratic bureaucratic monster. And therein lies the problem, and the reason for the result.

The modern British Left lacks maturity. The mass of Leftists in Britain could never accept that there might be any argument but their own. They also lack intelligence, which is why they gravitate to simplistic, easy-to-digest topics for their noise-making. The average Leftist is far more likely to march around Trafalgar Square yelling about transgender toilets than, perchance, pick up and read Roger Scruton to see what Conservatism might be like and whether it has any valid points to make for the betterment of humanity.

Mind you, Conservatism is so rare now in the UK that it brings with it a wave of antiquarian nostalgia when spotted, like seeing a horse-drawn carriage at an East End funeral. Peter Hitchens may well be the last Conservative in Europe. For me, the greatest sin committed by Cameron is that he calls himself Conservative, and so the braying Left take him at his word. Cameron is not a Conservative. He is a liberal, pro-immigration, high tax and spend, pro-Muslim, pro-big government, pro-bloated public sector Blairite. He is as much a Conservative as I am Amish. But to return to the tragedy of the Left.

When I was young, I was a creature of the Left. In 1979, dressed in PVC snakeskin trousers and a Siouxsie and the Banshees T-shirt, I went to the polling station at the local deaf school – they had those then - to vote Labour, and spent the next few years dutifully hating Thatcher and all her works. But when I got to university in 1981, and began to see the Leftist young, I began to wonder what it might be to be a Leftist. Of course, that was the end of a golden era of universities, before today’s millennial snowflakes came along and started yelling about safe spaces, trigger warnings and removing the work of white men from the syllabus. Good luck with that, by the way, although it will free up a lot of time to campaign against Islamophobia, because there won’t be much worth your while left to read.

It took a while to realise what it was about the Left I disliked so intensely, but I got there eventually; religious zeal unanchored by actual religion. A sort of free-floating obsession without a referent, the type of rootlessness I suppose was bound to rush to fill the vacuum left by the slow withdrawal of Christianity in the West. Leftists didn’t argue a point of view, or arrive at it using the trusty toolkit of Enlightenment reason, they just took it because that was what was expected of them by their moral peer group. And once they had taken it, and all were quacking in unison, you had better take it too. If not you were, perforce, a racist and a fascist. And we didn’t like racism and fascism. Joe Strummer had told us not to.

Now, this larval dogmatism has blown up into full intellectual lockstep, although the word ‘intellectual’ sits uneasily here. The Left as it stands has no conception of debating, assessing the grounds of disagreement, or reasoned difference of opinion. Instead, closing down debate, no-platforming, a demonstrable war on freedom of speech, censorship and demonisation of those who deviate in their opinions are all hallmarks of the contemporary Left. So, here are some suggestions for the Left to revive itself in the UK:

1.   Ditch the students. Today’s undergraduates are the stupidest generation. Associating with people who have no knowledge of classics, but who are stuffed to the beak like fois gras geese with utterly worthless non-knowledge will not help your cause. Snowflakes studying Queer Studies, Media Studies, Women’s Studies, Black Studies and Critical Theory will never be able to work through the cognitive due process which authentic argument requires. Charlie Gilmour and his friends are going to alienate ordinary people, not draw them along.

2.  Ditch the luvvies. Does anyone who voted Remain think that people approved of the essentially talentless Bob Geldof throwing insults, V-signs and masturbatory gestures at British fishermen and Nigel Farage on the Thames? Do you think, O Leftists and Remainers, that this spectacle without dignity made British voters warm to the cause? Do you believe that Emma Thompson and Benedict Cumberbatch are experts on the environment and immigration? If so, you are in a great deal of trouble.

3.  Ditch Islam. I am fully aware that you gravitate towards Muslims because, like yourselves, they have no freedom of thought. But they are not going to tolerate you when Britain’s micro-caliphates start linking arms. Also, as you have signally failed to criticise Islam for some of its disgusting attitudes towards women and gays, as well as FGM, burkas, terrorism and all the other negative social capital that Islam brings in its wake, you should hang your heads in shame.

4.  Ditch the Antifa. There are no fascists to be anti. These are products of your fevered imagination. The PEGIDA marches across Europe, peaceful in intent, that are regularly and violently attacked do not contain the people behaving like Mosley’s boot-boys. The Antifa are post-modern football hooligans and you should call them out rather than applaud them. Arrests at these demonstrations are almost entirely of creatures who identify as Left-wing. Cut yourselves adrift from them.

5.  Ditch the multiculturalism, the egalitarianism and the cultural relativism. Contrary to what you might have heard from the Founding Fathers, all men are not created equal and, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet might have added, nor women neither. All cultures are not equal. Some are better than others, more civilised and more capable. There are large IQ differences between races, and screeching about racism in the light of these facts is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting ‘can’t hear you!’ FGM and throwing gays from tall buildings is not okay because brown people do it, and Texas is not a racist state because it has a disproportionate number of blacks on death row.

6.  Ditch the pretence of media impartiality. The UK media is hopelessly skewed towards the Left. Real people are beginning to realise this, thanks to the internet. This is one of many reasons the elite will be coming for the internet sometime soon. The truth is actually important, however malleable Leftists believe it to be. Just as in Chaucer’s Nun’s Priest’s Tale, the truth will out because of the smell of lies. If you believe that there is a Right-wing media bias, you should not be allowed to own a computer.

7.  Ditch the belief that there is any difference between the two main parties in the UK. There is none. They desire the same things. Read Peter Oborne’s The Triumph of the Political Class, and more or less anything by the surviving Hitchens brother. If you believe that the illusory division between ‘Labour’ and the ‘Conservatives’ is anything but chimerical, again, you should be on an X-box somewhere shooting zombies, not talking while the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation.

8.  Ditch the pretence that you are not anti-Semitic. The UK Labour Party is one of the most openly antagonised by Zionism in recent decades. Why bother to squirm and issue inaccurate denial? As a matter of fact, you will find many allies to the Right, particularly among the Alt. Right. Not everyone who wishes for an expansionist Israel wishes to see a punished Palestine. Many would like to see as many Jews as space permits go back to live there.

9.  Ditch the identity politics. Many of the identities for whom you believe you are fighting do not exist, at least anywhere in the real world. There are no women trapped in men’s bodies, or blacks trapped in white bodies, or blacks traumatised by slavery. There are just chancers who can surf the system. Fight for the working-class, by all means, but not for ethnic minorities who are undermining the wage-earning potential of that working class. And please don’t pretend that immigration is necessary in Europe. This is one of the largest and most injurious lies in a handsome stable of competition.

10.      Ditch the faux morality. Politics is not a battle between good and evil, or right and wrong, or any other comic-book opposition. It is a kinetic conflict. There is no ‘right side of history’, no moral high ground among whose pastures you believe you graze, so stop virtue-signalling. If you knew your Nietzsche – a writer at whom many Leftists sneer because he is too difficult for them, in addition to being a dead white male – you would be able to situate historical conflict – a reality – in the context of morality – at best a heuristic principle – and understand your struggles accordingly, instead of beaming with a smug and entirely unmerited sense of self-worth. If you suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder – and many of the Left unquestionably do - then I’m sure your pharmacist has something for it. Polly Toynbee once famously declared, at some bourgeois book festival, that Left-wingers were ‘just better people.’ If you want to indulge in this type of poster-paint, sandbox value system, then take better care of your children. For it is their moral architecture you share and which will be your bequest.

In short, give up your struggle against reality. By denying plain facts, it is as if you are trying to disprove gravity by jumping in the air. You would have won the referendum if you had recognised that not everything that comes out of the mouths of those people whose use of reason has led them gently into the territory of the political Right is racist bile, at least as you would define it. The social media has been rife this last week with comments suggesting that old people in the UK are now a problem because they probably voted leave. Old people are wiser than the young. Re-acquaint yourself with Plato. I particularly enjoyed the placard in east London, with its wobbly, special-needs, hand-written font, which read; Old white people please die. Should the person holding that placard be alive? Well, should they?

You did not lose the vote because of people concerned about who in the UK is being granted asylum. You lost because the lunatics have taken over yours.

Thursday, 2 June 2016

NO DOG IN THE FIGHT: THE EU REFERENDUM VIEWED OBJECTIVELY




And so the EU Referendum looms for Great Britain. Personally, I don’t see how a Brexit win is possible. Referenda on EU membership have been held before in Europe, and the countries involved who voted ‘no’ have been politely requested by their unelected EU governors to vote again until the right result is achieved. In many ways, I think the EU Referendum is much like Trump’s run at the US Presidency. These are quite possibly stage-managed events to distract real people – and those who run our affairs are not real people - from the action taking place elsewhere. My brother is a magician, a member of the Magic Circle, and he emphasises the importance of the one hand that flashes this way and that, diverting the attention of the audience while the real prestidigitation is taking place in the other hand, the flash of the coin that you missed because you were not paying proper attention.

How the Left can defend the Remain bias from the BBC and other bodies is extraordinary. But then, for those of the Left, the truth and objectivity have never mattered, unless reality has become bothersome and requires manipulation, tweaking, or re-ordering. The Western Left is now in control of Plato’s cave, and are therefore the people controlling not reality but its perception.

One of the incidental problems for the Left is that Cameron is desperate to remain in Europe, and they must now defend his blatant bias. But then, cognitive dissonance is nothing new for the Left. As for Cameron, that smug and irritating PR man who has disgraced the name of Conservatism, it may be that he wants his legacy to be the PM who kept Britain in Europe because he wants a top seat at the EU trough when he finally steps down or is defeated in a General Election.

There remains the possibility that it makes absolutely no difference whether Britain votes to remain or leave the EU. It may be as irrelevant as having a cabin on either the port or starboard of the Titanic as the iceberg looms. We may hang either together or separately. Of course, if we look at the rogues’ gallery imploring a mystified public to stay, we can more or less make up our minds about the wisdom of staying for the real people. What a bunch of thieves and liars are the Remain crowd.
As for the welfare of the real people, no member of the political elites could care less. They are purely interested in their own careers and their pathetic globalist visions. Cameron from the beginning of his regime started using a childish PR catchphrase; we are all in this together. No, sir. We are not.

I’m certainly not. I have left for Costa Rica and with the exception of the occasional family and social visit, I won’t be going back to England. It’s just not my sort of place anymore. I like freedom of speech, genuine democracy, controlled immigration, a distinct lack of Islam – the Muslim population here is 0.001%, most of whom are in San Jose, and there are two mosques in the whole country, which is the way I like it – and a country that cares about its environment without there being a cadre of beneficiaries lurking in the shadows getting rich via Green extortion rackets. It may be the beginning of the rainy season here, with all the associated problems such as mosquitoes, keeping anything leather free from mildew, and drying clothes, but I’ll take any weather as long as I never have to hear the call to prayer.

I also like staying out of prison which, so far and to the amazement of some acquaintances, I have managed to do. I wonder how long that would be the case if I were to return to my home shores. I see that the long-expected putsch ­on social media has begun. Not on social media per se, you understand, only on those users who say the wrong things. I’m sure I won’t be allowed into Twitter’s playground for much longer, and Facebook will soon follow suit. The EU now wants government-issued ID cards for social media use. Welcome to the next level.

To return to Europe and the question of the referendum. The context of this question, the supporting canvas on which it is being outlined and painted, is not the future of the European Union as such. The context is the giant fiscal experiment in which the West is involved and from which it can no longer back down.

Western nations have been working for some time on the assumption that money can be endlessly conjured from a combination of quantitative easing – or money printing – supply-side investment in infrastructure, and money loaned from what amount now to junk-bond merchants. If they are right, happy days. If they are wrong, as Sammy Davis Junior used to say as he bounded on stage to play with Count Basie’s band; look out Count!

If Europe suffers a financial collapse, now that it has imported hundreds of thousands of economically useless and socially inimical Muslims, there will be blood, and it won’t be in the River Tiber. The EU has been trying the patience of real people for some time, insulting their intelligence, lying to them, punishing them if they dissent and, one can only assume, testing the limits to which they can be pushed.

So I’ll watch the referendum with indifference. It would be worth seeing the lemon-sucking faces on the BBC panels if Leave win, just as it would if Trump won, but I honestly don’t think the whole thing will matter when compared with what’s coming down the pike. The only thing we can say to a certainty about the EU referendum in Britain is that, in terms of campaigning and reporting, it will be a spectacle without dignity.

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

DON’T MAKE THE MUSLIMS ANGRY: KUFR BEHAVE




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, 23 May 2016

REMOVED BY THE AUTHOR: THE CLOSING DOWN OF FREE SPEECH




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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