American Liberty, anti-Semitism, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Europe, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Russia, russia today, Ukraine
As far as cable news channels go, RT (Russia Today) has long been regarded as admirably broad-minded.
Indeed, the network’s slogan ‘Question More’ is clearly designed to promote a special independence of mind, as well as a willingness to showcase minority opinions.
And it has been true to this goal. In the 9 years of its existence, the channel given a platform to figures as diverse as Nigel Farage, Alex Jones, Norman Finkelstein, Pat Buchanan and Julian Assange.
What (if anything) links this colourful band of characters together is an opposition to globalisation and American Foreign Policy, both of which are imagined by the Kremlin as hostile to Russian interests.
As Joe Pompeo reported:
“RT thrives on covering topics that make the U.S. look bad. Occupy Wall Street gave us images of NYPD officers pepper-spraying peaceful protesters and roughing up members of the press. (Robert) Snowden must have been manna for the network. Still, RT’s journalists swear they’re under no pressure to toe a party line.
“RT also traffics in the type of fringe punditry that’s found an audience across the U.S. media landscape. Its marquee anchor, the zany, histrionic Max Keiser, is a champion of 9/11 trutherism and financial apocalypse. Controversial commentators over the years have included people like the Russian historian who predicted that the dissolution of the United States was nigh, or the American one who believes the CIA is using unwitting citizens as guinea pigs to test dangerous drugs.”
Despite this predilection for exaggeration, RT’s coverage of some issues – notably Syria – has been commendable, with the channel filling a shameful truth-void in the presentations of the West. It is likely as a consequence of this that many patriots in both Europe and America have chosen to overlook the obvious biases of the network toward Putin and China, and welcome its refreshing lack of censorship on issues pertaining to Western policy.
But whatever value could be claimed for RT just a few weeks ago seems now rather more tenuous. The behaviour of the channel since the start of the Ukraine crisis has been shady, immoral and more-than-anything – distinctly amateurish.
Propaganda of the lowest kind has been passed off as news. Groundless accusations (often involving the Jews) have been bandied about with reckless abandon.
The process this effort has tried to defend, furthermore, is now – I argue – inexcusable. The sovereign nation of Ukraine has been mutilated by a vastly more powerful army in clear contravention of international moral standards, and without strategic justification (Russia would always have the Black Sea base at its disposal). The Ukrainian protestors, though there are inevitably some fascists among them, are not all ‘Nazis’ as the network has slanderously claimed. Even RT’s own anchors have rebelled against this tawdry lie-factory, some quitting dramatically on air in protest.
The devil’s bargain patriots have made with the network in the past should now accordingly be revised.
Russia is – needless to say – a very important country, one whose stability is essential to the stability of the world. This importance, together with the rich cultural heritage of the Russian people, makes its current decline into despotic inadequacy a tragedy of global proportion. RT is not a news-service, but a tawdry government mouthpiece suited to an Orwellian hell-state like North Korea, Turkmenistan or Belarus, not the nation of Dostoyevsky, Tchaikovsky and Gagarin.
Russia, to put it simply, is too good for Russia Today. And if that sounds like a play on words, it’s because it is one.
Defend the modern world, No to Turkey in the EU, Multiculturalism, Demographics of Europe, BBC, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Eugenics, Dysgenics, Intelligence quotient, Africa, Boris Johnson, Wall Street, Gordon Gekko, Idiocracy, Johnson, Mayor, Margaret Thatcher, Flynn Effect
Have you ever seen the film ‘Idiocracy’? I haven’t, but I’m well-acquainted with its subject.
From what I’ve read about it, the plot of the film takes place in a (we hope) distant dystopian future, after the effects of the downward selection currently in progress has matured and taken over American society. To put the idea simply, because (in the film, as in reality) less intelligent people have reproduced more than the intelligent, society has become an ‘Idiocracy’, dominated by feral dullards, up to and including the President.
The scientific name for this process is ‘Dysgenics’, which (as any amateur etymologist will see) is the counterprocess to ‘Eugenics’. Dysgenics is the trend by which the intelligent fail to reproduce in sufficient numbers, or else are saturated by the greater fertility of the stupid.
But why am I mentioning this here?
Well, a few months ago, Boris Johnson, the mop-headed Mayor of my city, attracted a great deal of controversy by suggesting that some people are too stupid to get ahead in life.
In a speech to the Margaret Thatcher Centre, Johnson speculated that ‘natural differences’ in cognitive ability mean that economic equality is a dangerous pipe dream not to be pursued by politicians.
As you would expect, the Guardian and other liberal papers quickly poured aggressive scorn on this idea, with Johnson even being compared to Gordon Gekko, the ruthless elitist from the movie ‘Wall Street’.
Johnson is of course correct to say that differences in ability exist and that these differences will usually oppose any attempt to impose ’equality’. Where he is wrong is to think that politicians can ever get away with pointing this out.
Dysgenics is an open secret among the educated. Prospect magazine ran a terrifying story last year which claimed that (in contravention of the Flynn Effect) the average British IQ was going down.
As strange as this would seem to science, it would surprise very few people who converse with contemporary youth. Public literacy (a good test of intelligence) has never been in more dire straits, and little is being done to address the problem. In the title of this post, I have used what has fast become the standard social-network spelling of ‘losing’. The word ‘lose’ is now ‘loose’, whereas ‘loose’ is now ‘lose’ (or sometimes even ‘looce’). A similar mutation has afflicted the word ‘ridiculous’, which is almost always now spelt ‘rediculous’.
This is isn’t a small concern. When language degrades, cultures usually aren’t far behind.
Boris Johnson deserves credit for his bravery in speaking up on this, but his candor will likely go wasted on a public too afraid of dangerous ideas, and ignorant of the costs of ignoring them.
America 911, anti-Semitism, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Eurabia, Islam and the West, Islamisation of Europe, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, Muslim demographics, Muslims in Europe, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Tommy Robinson
Although I write in favour of European self-rescue, it should be clarified that I am under no illusions as to the likelihood of the measures required being adopted, now or in the future.
The chances, to put the matter frankly, of persuading an indoctrinated population to do something they have been conditioned – often since childhood - to regard as sinful, are zero.
Europe’s rescue from Islamisation requires discrimination, on both national and local stages. At the national level, every government must realise that the needs of its historic majority are more its rightful business than the ‘rights’ of a swelling and hostile minority. At the local level meanwhile, people must learn to recognise human difference as something vital to their personal security.
Discrimination however, is - perhaps more than anything else – anathema to the liberal mind. Consequently, even if the thought of European Muslims being sent their deportation papers may thrill the imagination, that is almost certainly where it will remain.
Muslim immigration will probably be halted the first day after the collapse of the European Union, but that will only deal with a hypothetical inflow and will solve nothing as to those already settled. On this point, the most likely scenario is that those Muslims who already live here (and their posterity) will be part of Europe forever.
Sure, the natives will thrash and moan a bit as each demographic milestone is met with grim punctuality; 15%… 20%… 25% etc… But these will be mere imitations of self-confidence, and of those historic conditions that once permitted self-confidence. Much like the re-enactments of medieval battles on a wet Tuesday in Bosworth, these will be resistance-themed carnivals, hemmed in by police and finally dispersed by reality.
True, it is unlikely that Muslims will capture all of Europe, but it is now almost certain that they will conquer its capitals and other large cities. The demographic material is already in place for the Islamisation of London, Brussels, Stockholm, Oslo, Paris, Berlin, Duisburg, Leicester, Malmo, Marseilles, Luton, Strasbourg, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and the urban parts of Switzerland.
These are all famous and historic places, decorated with treasures invaluable to world-history. What will happen to them when they are populated almost exclusively by Muslims?
Students of Asia’s modern history will be familiar with the fate of the Buddhas of Bamiyan; an ancient relic of pre-Islamic culture in Central Afghanistan. As is now notorious, the structure was exploded and the relics entirely destroyed by Taliban militants in 2001.
Just imagine that – the scene and all its details – for a moment. Picture it in your mind. Now – if you can – try to impose that image onto Rome, London, Paris or Berlin.
Instead of the Buddhas being demolished, imagine the Roman Colosseum, Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, or the Eiffel Tower subjected to the same misfortune.
I can assure you these are not outlandish thoughts. Despite popular misunderstanding of the matter, the 9/11 hijackers did not target the Twin Towers out of hatred of American ‘economic power’. They were rather acting in line with the Qutbist condemnation of idolatry. In Wahhabi Islamism, any great man-made structure that attracts wonder or praise, and that is not built expressly for Islamic worship, is an idol. This is why the Twin Towers were brought low. This is also why the Saudi government – with the consent of the Wahhabist religious establishment – has demolished many ancient buildings connected with the life of Mohammad in Mecca and Medina. Mohammad, you see, is not regarded by Muslims as divine, and therefore any pilgrimage to, or veneration of artifacts associated with him is also considered idolatrous.
The Pentagon too, is an idol. It was built to symbolize the power of the American military – the power therefore of ‘men’, and was attacked for these reasons.
One cannot exactly estimate how many of the cultural treasures of Europe would also be considered idolatrous according to this same measure, but surely if the artifacts of Mohammad himself are not considered sacred, then why would the Brandenburg Gate be afforded any mercy?
A successful Muslim conquest of Europe will reset European history at year zero. History shall not be so much as changed, as removed entirely. Europe will be forced to forget itself; that it ever had a history to begin with; just as the Egyptians were made to forget their past, as were the Persians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians and the Berbers, after they too fell to armies of Muslim conversion.
Away from cultural symbols, the mechanics of society will be greatly affected. Sharia courts will proliferate across Europe (whether governments allow them or not). Genital mutilation will continue in private. In the open, women will be assaulted on an increasing scale. Rape rates will skyrocket. Whatever pretentions a rational feminism ever had will be driven to extremism or else submission. Harassment will forbid native European women from urban centres and thus from commercial employment.
Elsewhere, shops selling alcohol will be vulnerable to attack and boycott. Terror-threats will paralyze subways. Every time Israel defends itself in the Middle East, anti-Semitism will become a violent reality.
There are potential military consequences too. The influential blogger Fjordman has commented on the dire possibility of French nuclear weapons falling into Muslim hands. I’m afraid it isn’t a fanciful idea. All it would take is one rogue Franco-Algerian general and Europe would be under a shadow of destruction.
All that for the false virtue of blind tolerance…
Pessimism like this is not an admirable trait, I know, but it is nevertheless appropriate to the situation Europe finds itself in. I see no sign of a popular movement able to achieve anything of substance on this issue. The EDL is all but finished. UKIP, the party in which so many good people invest their hopes, is practically neutral on the culture clash, preferring to badmouth Poles and Romanians than Pakistanis. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders was trounced in the national elections. Where now?
As I say, this is a depressing post, but I do believe it pays to periodically remind oneself of the stakes of doing nothing.
The nation of China has traditionally been considered (by Western stereotype) as remarkably homogenous; a nation of interlocking, complementary units, free of conflict and of individuals.
This isn’t true of course. China, like India, Brazil and even Japan, is a patchwork of related but distinct ethnic groups. Yesterday’s terrorist attack by (we may presume) Muslim Uyghur seperatists is a timely reminder of this fact, and should be less surprising to the media than it is.
The Uyghur peope of north-West China inhabit a region where the Sinic ethnic expanse blurrs into Turkic and Mongol. They are, to some purposes, a border post, half-in and half-out, analogous to the Tibetans.
Uyghurs are also predominantly Muslim, and have complained (in a style that will be familiar) about their ‘oppression’ by the state.
To be sure, as Muslim complaints go, this one could seem partly warranted. The Chinese state plainly does discriminate against religious groups, whether Christian, Buddhist or Muslim. What is different and invaluably revealing however, is that only the Muslims have resorted to violence.
Yesterday’s violence was medieval in style; a stark contrast to the uncompromising modernism of its venue. The attackers cut and slashed through a crowd of ordinary civilians like 8th century warriors, unmixed by civilized ideas.
“Witnesses described attackers in black clothing hacking at people apparently at random. Sixteen-year-old student Qiao Yunao told the Associated Press she was waiting to catch a train when people started crying out and running. She then saw a man cut another man’s neck.”
China isn’t noted for a softly-softly approach to criminal behaviour, and we may rest assured that the offenders (or those who remain alive) will be given their due. The greater and more important question of whether we can gain a cultural ally in Beijing remains an open one.
Affirmative action, African American, America 911, American Liberty, Anders Behring Breivik, Anti-Racist is a Code word for Anti-White, Barack Obama, Christianity, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, miley cyrus, Pat Condell, Paul Weston, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, White Genocide
It was in Birmingham on the 20th of April, 1968, that the political history of Modern England was quietly – but irrevocably – altered.
In a soft, seductive, Shakespearean tone, Conservative parliamentarian Enoch Powell delivered the talk on immigration since immortalised as ‘Rivers of Blood’.
In this address, Powell warned that Britain’s new immigration policy, should it continue indefinitely to the same extent, would disinherit the indigenous population of their rights, and in doing so set the scene for widespread civil conflict on English streets.
Shortly after the meeting was adjourned, the talk was reported by the media. The reaction was an uproar that shook British society to its very foundations.
Marches were held across the country, both for and against. The working-classes of the inner cities came out overwhelmingly in support of the MP, and claimed attention to the loss of industrial work for natives caused by immigration. The opponents of Powell’s sentiment meanwhile described his concerns as outrightly ‘fascist’, a word which, at that time, still had some emotional force behind it.
This is an excerpt from the speech itself:
“In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants… There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population… Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population … As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood…. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.”
The prescience of this speech is at once clear and obvious. Indeed, such an austere articulation of the fashionable ‘White Genocide’ thesis has never since been produced.
The phrase ‘White Genocide’ is one I personally dislike. It is deliberately hyperbolic, not to mention insensitive to the memory of genuine historical events. Nevertheless, it has quickly become the banner for a broad coalition of internet Nationalists, both rational and irrational, hateful and merely concerned.
And even if the phrase is innapropriate, the process intimated by it is real enough to deserve analysis.
As it happens, Powell was exactly correct in his ‘five to seven million’ range of estimate. The 2001 census in Britain showed that 6 million non-Whites then resided in the country; a figure which rises logically to seven million if we add the projected number of illegal, unregistered immigrants (1,000,000+).
The 2011 census showed that the figure of non-white Brits had risen to eight million, a figure kept down by the White immgiration from Eastern-Europe, in particular from Poland. But with Poles removed, the percentage of White English (Anglo-Saxons) in England in 2011 was just over 80% or 4 in 5. By 2020, over one quarter of English citizens will be non-English. By 2030, that figure will be over one third.
The White English are already a minority in cities like London and Leicester, and will soon be in Birmingham, Bradford, Nottingham and Manchester too.
The White population furthermore is getting considerably older. About a third of White English people are over or nearing retirement age. This will soon leave the numbers of physically capable White English citizens at a point of parity with non-Whites.
This last point, as offensive it might strike the heart, matters a great deal. As Paul Weston of LibertyGB has pointed out, people of the older generation ‘don’t matter’ as much in the demographic balance of power, because if a situation of ethnic conflict erupted over the political sovereignty of English territory, older English citizens would be largely out of the game, thus leaving the fighting to a severely diminished pool of White youths, many of whom are indoctrinated Leftists with a generational identity stronger than a National one.
Given the factors described, I would estimate the date at which White English people lose practical domination over their homeland at 2020. At this point, the fighting capacity of White English and non-White English will be roughly comparable. Perhaps it will even be slightly to the non-white advantage given the mixed loyalties of young whites themselves.
So, all is lost for Whites then? Not quite. As I mentioned above, the figures are nuanced with details which should considerably qualify any interpretation. Perhaps the biggest (and most obvious) swing factor in all this is that not all non-White communities possess either the cohesion or the desire to pose a practical threat.
The Polish people, for example, cannot seriously be called a threat to English sovereignty. Nor can, I would argue, the largely apolitical Black population, most of whom are integrated into the cultural bloodstream by sport and music. Nor are the Hindus or the Sikhs an aggressive or even integrationist element, given their strong ties of family and identity with India.
Still, even if not in England, White Genocide might seem a more reasonable hypothesis elsewhere.
The United States is due to have a White minority by 2042. White babies already account for a minority of newborns, and a shrinking portion of school and university intake. How minorities react to this transition is unguessable. While racial harmony has long been considered an American ideal, it hasn’t always panned out that way in reality. The Los Angeles riot legacy, Hispanic/Black gang animosities, lingering Protestant anti-Semitism, Detroitification of big cities, Trayvon Martin, Mexico border wars, drugs violence, and many other factors provide ample tinder for a wayward spark to ignite.
In his book ‘White Girl Bleed a Lot’, Colin Flaherty documents the alarming rise in Black-on-White mob activity in parts of urban America. The most notorious example of this trend is the reported ‘Knock-out’ game (often described in racial terms as ‘Polar-Bear Hunting’) in which gangs of Blacks seek out vulnerable Whites and Asians and attempt to knock them unconscious with a single blow the head.
In South Africa and Zimbabwe too, there have regular mob atrocities committed against White officials and civilians alike. The same trend is observable in parts of France, Sweden and Belgium (these cases particularly targeting women).
By way of conclusion, the hypothesis of ‘White Genocide’ should, I think, be rebranded simply as ‘Anti-European racism’. The first term is a ghost, the second a reality. As the Twenty-first century progresses, and as demographics alter, expect anti-European sentiment to become as widespread as any other kind of racism before it.
The White peoples of the world – aging, diminishing and riddled with Feminism – are going to have to learn to organize for their common defence; perhaps not against anything so great as ‘genocide’, but certainly against pogroms, the scale of which are yet to be determined.
Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Jerusalem, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Temple Mount, Zionism
The point of view, prevalent on both the Left and the Far-right in Europe, which considers the state of Israel as ‘racist’ and habitually cruel, is so familiar as to seem part of our ideological furniture.
According to this tradition, the Israelis (and their Zionist predecessors) are little more than European invaders, arrogantly displacing a non-European people from their ancestral territory. Israeli society meanwhile, is imagined as uniquely unjust, racially charged, and energized by an attitude of supremacism.
If there was a catch-all term for these indictments, it would be that Israel is ‘intolerant’.
It isn’t enough to call this view ’wrong’. To do so does not reflect the scale of both the error itself, and the ignorance and myopia involved in its invention.
According to the ethical principles of this movement, Jews have neither the right to their ancient homeland, nor the right to engage in the political life of those countries which host their diaspora. Both spell trouble for non-Jews, the logic implies; in the first instance for the Palestinians, and in the second, for the Gentile Europeans.
Zionism you see, can mean absolutely anything these days, and is as much at work in Tennesee as it is in Haifa. All European misfortune is organised by its design, and all European ills would be relieved by its destruction.
Zionism is at once guilty of Communism, Fascism (a ”reaction’ to Communism), Capitalism, Imperialism, anti-Imperialism, Socialism, inter-racial marriage and globalisation.
Logically then, Jews have no place in the world at all, except maybe as a vulnerable pariah commune on the rotten outskirts of a Western capital.
The fact that ‘Anti-Zionism’ – the fashionably clothed demon of Anti-Semitism – still draws in sophisticated advocates is a terrible indictment of our times.
The situation in Modern Israel is not a lesson in Jewish or Western intolerance – but rather its opposite; the belief that everyone has a place, no matter what their ancestry, faith or temperament. I don’t expect the Left to concede this any time soon.
The dire situation in Ukraine threatens to awaken many sleeping dogs. Among them is the potentially violent question of how Russia relates to Europe; that is, whether it is content to be a peaceable neighbour with a diminished geopolitical status, a respected part of Europe itself, or else a threat to Europe.
Out of these three scenarios, the first is both the most desirable and yet also the most unlikely.
Russia has always regarded itself – if for no greater reason than its gigantism – as a global Superpower, forever equal to both Europe and America.
The problem here is that no respected observer (inside the country or out) would accord Russia this kind of status economically, militarily or culturally.
While I’m far from in agreement with the US analyst who (in reference to Moscow’s reliance on gas revenue) memorably defamed the country as “Saudi Arabia with trees”. I can’t say I don’t understand the point-of-view. Abroad from the wealthy Moscow mega-region, Russia is almost uninhabited. Those who do dwell east of the Urals meanwhile are typically old, infertile (by choice and age) and threatened by endemic alcoholism.
The best (and indeed only) thing Moscow can do, in a vast country with a shrinking population, is to put the land to work instead, extracting every mineral and value contained within it and selling it to the West and China.
So far, this has proved a workable strategy.
Russia today is hardly poor and much of the influx of Western money has been redirected into creating an impressive native arms industry. Russia’s military currently boasts several indigenously designed 4th generation fighter jets, accurate and effective anti-sattelite missiles, and (lest we forget) cutting-edge nuclear arms too.
But this situation could change.
Even if the current EU and Obama administrations seem reluctant to do so, the succeeding regimes will almost certainly begin to invest in the huge reservoir of shale gas buried beneath both North-America and Europe. Some analysts predict that between them, there is enough energy to eventually stop American reliance on Middle East oil. More to the point, it could also end European reliance on Russian energy.
The loss of the European market would be a catastrophe for Russia, and would almost certainly initiate huge geopolitical consequences.
Perhaps it is that dire prognosis which motivates Russia’s drive to secure an empire that will, at a later date, be impossible to construct.
American Liberty, Christianity, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Detroit, Detroit Crime, Hip Hop, Music and Politics, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, United States, White decline, Whites vs Blacks
White Culture is everywhere on the decline, replaced by the values and styles of minority populations.
Despite the traditional White Nationalist view, this situation has less to do with crafty Jews hatching plots in misty, East-European graveyards, than it does with a single musical innovation: Hip-Hop.
When it began, Hip-Hop did not much seem like a revolution. Its basic idea – that of chanting rhyming lyrics over a fixed rhythm – was not even wholly original, having many lesser-known precedents both in Europe and Africa. And to be sure, the early output from the genre was unspectacular. Despite the pioneer label now retro-actively applied to the likes of Grand-Master Flash and Run DMC, nobody took them too seriously at the time. Hip-Hop was a fringe circus for more popular African-American disciplines like Jazz, Soul and Disco.
In the nineties this all changed, and shortly afterward, the West in its entirety changed with it. In Los Angeles, after a charged few years in which African-Americans were positioned in contest with local police forces, a new attitude was imposed on rap, differentiated by the prefix ‘Gangsta’.
Gangsta rap is in many ways a Black punk movement in that it glamourizes and endorses the same anti-Authority Jungen-Politik as its white predecessor. Unlike Punk however, Gangsta rap was and is markedly authentic. Whilst Jonny Rotten never really did believe in anarchy, and nor did Joe Strummer enact social revolution, Rappers really did (and do) shoot people. They really did (and do) go to jail, pimp prostitutes, smoke weed, and belong to gangs. This sincerity explains why it still flourishes as a music of rebellion across the world.
In his terrifyingly important article ‘The End of White America’, academic Hua Hsu felt compelled to mention the role of this genre in the downfall of the White establishment.
“Over the past 30 years” he wrote …”few changes in American culture have been as significant as the rise of hip-hop. The genre has radically reshaped the way we listen to and consume music, first by opposing the pop mainstream and then by becoming it. From its constant sampling of past styles and eras—old records, fashions, slang, anything—to its mythologization of the self-made black antihero, hip-hop is more than a musical genre: it’s a philosophy, a political statement, a way of approaching and remaking culture. It’s a lingua franca not just among kids in America, but also among young people worldwide. And its economic impact extends beyond the music industry, to fashion, advertising, and film.”
Indeed, Hip-Hop is not just a music genre. It is now a generational conquest of White majorities across the Western World. Just as Communism before it, Hip-Hop primarily seeks out youth, and like the Mao-ists of China, it disconnects each new generation from the one which precedes it, making children foreign to their parents.
If you’re over the age of forty, you might well listen to modern rap music with a giddy indignation. It will be entirely foreign to you, and, in many essential ways, it is designed to be. The younger generation, however, has a special sensitivity to concepts hidden in the philosophy of this art-form. Just like those special whistle pitches that only dogs can hear, Hip-Hop speaks an articulate language of incitement to the young generation which seems like mere nonsense to the old.
I have spoken elsewhere about the African-Americanisation of Miley Cyrus. To her I can now add Justin Bieber, the former darling of White pop music, who is now also hurriedly embracing the Hip-Hop lifestyle.
As to why this is happening so quickly, I will quote myself from the Miley post:
“The centre of White gravity is now conspicuously old in America, and getting older. By this same trend, White culture has become ever more morally stiff and disconnected from younger generations. If you are young and White in America, you are, whilst not yet in an ethnic minority, most certainly in a cultural one.
If that doesn’t matter to you and you just want to get a good job and have a family, then this isn’t a problem. But if you’re like the majority of young people in this digital age, and so not inclined to seek the same destiny as your parents, you must hop aboard a different ethnic train to escape it.”
We would be foolish to consider this process as being confined to America. Consider the following clip of the White Australian artist Iggy Azalea, whose racial transvestitism surpasses even that of Eminem.
The consequences of Hip-Hop’s dominant position are not just cultural but social. The field of education has been hugely affected by the lyrical conventions of rap music, leading to a progressive dilution of literacy with each successive generation. There have even been attempts to adapt the conventions of language downward to that of slang – an enterprise justified via the poisonous theory of cultural relativism. According to this idea, children can be taught ‘Shakespeare’ in the language of the ghetto and still profit as much as they would from the original. Sorry, although it’s open to metaphysical debate, can Shakespeare with all the language changed really be called ’Shakespeare’ at all…?
Rap Music is distinctly political in spirit. Many of the leading figures from Hip-Hop’s golden era propagandized against the White establishment with such intense fervor that, were the roles reversed, they would almost certainly be indicted for ‘race-hate’.
The upshot of children (including White, middle-class kids with no logical gripe against traditional society) being indoctrinated in this way is that minority grievances have become universalized, graduating whole generations into a nihilistic, Left-wing habit of thought completely out of sync with their life and opportunities.
One cannot witness these trends without wondering fearfully for the future.
I am not (lest it be argued otherwise) a ‘racist’, but at the same time I do propose that it would be a tragedy of unlimited proportion if White cultures were to be replaced in their entirety, especially by such an aggressive, de-civilizing force as that of Hip-Hop.
The consensus of English elites regarding the potential independence of Scotland – namely that the proposed amputation would prove fatal to the British concept – is misguided, I believe.
While the departure of Scotland would certainly be injurious to the Britain of nostalgia, its effect on the British future is harder to guess. Having studied (albeit briefly) the projected consequences of independence on the UK electoral system, I am personally inclined to estimate a positive outcome.
It’s an open secret in Britain that the Conservative party, despite failing to gain a majority over-all, won the last 3 general elections in England by a fair margin. In each instance, the tories were only denied office (or, in the most recent election, a governing majority) because of the Scottish fidelity to Labour.
With the Scotch vote removed from consideration then, the Political Left in England would have the carpet whipped from underneath them, and the Right would be granted a new freedom of ideological movement, potentially allowing a move back toward the Tory ideal of low-immigration, low-tax libertarianism.
I’m not personally a Tory – far from it in fact – but as corrupt and slippery as the Conservatives have become, I believe the Political Left and its survival poses a far greater threat to the continuity of Britain (as a material whole) than the proposed autonomy of Edinburgh.
Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, David P Goldman, Demographics of Europe, Eurabia, Europe, Islam and the West, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census
In Britain and Europe, it is customary for Liberals (and anyone under 40) to laugh at and belittle the religious*.
(*When I say the ‘religious’, I’m of course excluding Islam, which remains insulated behind a wall of ‘political correctness’.)
In the UK especially, the devout are routinely depicted as soft in the head, gullible, blindly conservative and generally stupid.
There are many reasons for this attitude. Chief among them is anti-Americanism (Americans being associated with organized religion) and particularly the age-old canard that Americans are somehow less intelligent than their European cousins. This bigotry is common enough in London and almost uniform in Paris, where the French intellectual elite can trace a lineage of imagined superiority back – through Sartre and Camus – to Voltaire.
For a while, I held fast to it myself. Prior to University, the nature of American religiosity was defined for me not by my observing the culture itself, but through a borrowed lens of self-important satire.
After a year at University however, and having moved to a city in a rapid process of Islamisation, I began to appreciate the logic of cultural protectionism – that old system of emotion traditionally badmouthed as ‘Xenophobia’.
Those religious ‘rednecks’ I had been encouraged to laugh at had a point all along. If Islamisation was the alternative to a confident Judeo-Christian identity, can we really afford to reject it?
The classical European view – that there is a comfortable ‘third choice’ available between Islamisation and Judeo-Christianity – called variously “Secularism”, “Post-Modernism”, “Multiculturalism” etc… is (to put it impolitely) bunk.
Whatever your views on the origin of life and the universe, the abandoning of cultural identity has real-world consequences.
European commentators often wonder aloud why the Muslims of the US are better integrated than the Muslims of Europe. Though the question suggests profundity, the answer is actually pitifully obvious. The Muslims arriving in the EU are walking into a cultural void. They see nothing before them but a blank sheet of paper, and, given their innate certainty and proselytizing urge, behave quite naturally by attempting to fill it in.
When a European secularist complains therefore, about the Islamisation of his native continent, a Muslim would be fully justified to reply (as they often do reply) – “What have you got instead?”.
Indeed, what has Europe got?
What tangible attribute separates the olive-skinned masses of Tunisia from the olive-skinned masses of Spain and Greece? Terms like ‘West’ and ‘East’ avail us nothing here. Geographically they are useless in explaining the divide between Tunis and Turin. ‘North’ and ‘South’ don’t work as cultural terms either. ‘Europe’ meanwhile is merely a restating of the question.
“What has ‘Europe’ got?”
I can tell you clearly what America has. American culture is solidly built on a base of confident religious identity. This element of its character has played no small part in its success relative to Europe’s decline.
Indeed, take the word of the brilliant Jewish commentator David P. Goldman (who writes under the name ‘Spengler’):
“The United States is the last remaining Christian nation in the industrial world” he writes ”…To speak of an “exceptional culture” would be a pleonasm; national cultures are unique by construction. Nonetheless some cultures may be radically exceptional. Unlike all the other nations of the world, America’s Exceptionalism rests on a political culture informed by the biblical idea of covenant – not on common language, race, borders, or history. That is why the US emerged as the survivor out of the 20th century while the ethnocentric cultures of Europe plunged into mutual destruction.”
Goldman prefixes the above observation by pointing out that “What has made the United States radically different from all other big industrial nations during the past generation is a fertility rate above replacement.” As he suggests, this is something directly attributable to American fidelity to the Judeo-Christian notion of family. I would also point to the taming effect religion has on the toxin of feminism.
Goldman elsewhere points out that, contrary to defeatist narratives arguing otherwise, the demographic prospects of the Jewish state are also bright, a direct result of population growth among the religious population.
The only real alternative to Cultural Nationalism is Ethno-Nationalism, the transformation of a country of individuals into an ethnic farmyard.
Unfortunately - if predictably – the ghost of ethno-nationalism is rising once again in the economic ruins of Europe. The Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is gaining influence in Greece, while Hungary is increasingly falling under the spell of the rabidly anti-Jewish ‘Jobbik’ organisation.
In the near future, Europe may become racially awake, but fall into an even deeper cultural sleep. Fascist parties may organize to expel the Islamising forces from their lands, but then recover only to find older hatreds burning across their own borders.
Indeed, the trouble with ethno-nationalism, as opposed to the cultural nationalism of the US, is that it supplies new threats even as it gets rid of old ones. This is especially true on a crowded, multinational continent like Europe.
French nationalists, for example, still have a lingering hostility to Germans. Macedonians despise the Greeks, and vice versa. Belgium is divided into two simmering ethnic enclaves that could easily ignite into war. Italian nationalists often speak of creating a new nation (Padania) in Northern Italy based upon imagined descent from primeval Celtic tribes. Finland lies in an uneasy peace with Russia. Spanish nationalists routinely taunt Britain with threats against UK sovereignty in Gibraltar.
I won’t depress you by listing any further examples.
All that remains to say is that only a return to Judeo-Christian self-awareness can save Europe from the twin menaces of Islamisation and/or a fragmentory civil war from which it could never recover.
In the meantime, the prognosis of Europe gets grimmer by the day.