Malala: A Question of Credibility.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


So, the world’s favourite teenager Malala Yousafzai can now add a Nobel Peace Prize to the Taliban bullet as things she has famously received and which qualify her as a global political sage. Does her talent for passively receiving things ever end?

Perhaps Yousafzai might next get run down by a lorry driven by a White Supremacist and immediately become spokesperson for Western race-relations.

I don’t enjoy having to use this silly tone to speak of someone so young. I must use it though because feelings are being demanded of me that I don’t have. I am being ordered to feel awe for someone who hasn’t achieved anything and who is being fattened by book-deals and political funds.

The institution responsible for the latest cheque in Yousafzai’s swelling bank account comes as no great shock. The Nobel Peace Prize committee has suffered for many years now from a dire lack of credibility. Ever since the awarding of the honour to (the then virginal) President Barack Obama, the honour has had a light, floaty, cosmetic feel to it – almost as if it was a means of political expression rather than of reward.

The choice of Yousafzai belongs undoubtedly to the same downward trend.

I should clarify that I don’t have anything personal against Malala. Or at least no more than I have against professional psychics, internet healers or astrologers. She is the kindly target of a storm of stupid emotion. That’s all. It’s not something I can either encourage or endorse.

Nevertheless, it has been uncomfortable to witness people I respect (friends among them) fall for Yousafzai’s sweet-smelling hypnotic. There have even been arguments put to me that I am somehow ‘jealous’ of the political starlet, or that I resent her for other base motivations. That is the purest nonsense. Malala is obviously cashing in at a furious pace, but this is no more offensive to me than the success of any other celebrity. What does miff me is that while Victoria Beckham or Miley Cyrus do not (rightly) enjoy either moral respect or political credit, Malala receives them by the bucketload. And for what?

If Yousafzai truly wanted to earn the respect and power she already possesses, she would leave Britain and return to her native Pakistan. She would stand as a Pakistani MP or set up a local organisation dedicated to the right of children to attend school there.

What possible use can she be to her professed cause in Birmingham or New York? The West is in no need of being lectured on the right of education. We already have that in place and have for some time.

Perhaps behind all the public virtues presented by Ms Yousefzai there is just a normal girl growing steadily accustomed to the pleasures of money, silk curtains and chauffer driven limousines.


Delayed Thoughts on Osama Bin Laden.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Those who read the child-killer Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto following his misadventure in Oslo were understandably quick to accuse the murderer of hypocrisy for his stated admiration of Osama bin Laden. How could a man so virulently anti-Islam and willing to confront Islamism speak in a positive voice about the leader of al-Qaeda?

It actually makes sense the more you think about it. Indeed, I think I also feel a twinge of respect for the 9/11 ringleader (as hideous as that sounds). You only have to read his notorious ‘Fatwa against America and Israel’ to realise the wildcat millionaire was by-and-large on the money about Western-Islamic relations.

Bin Laden recognised, long before most, that Islam and modernity were (and are) incompatible and that (eventually) one must make way for the other. He knew that the only way Islam could reassert itself as an alternative to modern living was through huge waves of violence; that Islam will have to outdo the modern world in savagery if it cannot (and it cannot) compete in terms of economic growth or cultural vibrancy. Most importantly, he also knew that there is a dark place in human nature that respects violence, even of the most horrid and savage kind and that this respect can sometimes overcome the rational part of the mind that values banks, music stores and coffee shops. It is out of ignorance of this that we are shocked by the pampered London Muslims who abandon Kensington, iPhones and PlayStations for Syria and Iraq. Bin Laden understood only too well the ancient, occult lure of the primitive and all its apparent ‘purity’.

I suppose bin Laden was also (though we are loathe to admit it) something of a freedom fighter. It’s not pleasant to acknowledge, but bin Laden was exactly correct about American policy in the Gulf. It was (and is) deeply hypocritical of America to posture about democratisation in the Middle East whilst at the same time maintain a relationship with a hand-severing despotism in Riyadh. And to be sure, were bin Laden’s aims limited to the liberation of his homeland from the House of Saud, it wouldn’t have been crazy for liberals to have supported him.

He was not limited to such noble aims of course, despite what the Left occasionally argues. He wanted an Islamic superpower under his direct command, primed to target and bully the free world for outlandish demands. Those who replace him maintain those aims, but lack entirely the reason he undeniably possessed.

It serves all the while to remember this though. Bin Laden was a monster, but the sleep of reason that gave birth to him was our own.


Gay Marriage in Saudi Arabia: Prospects and Obstacles.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


As I write, the passage of the Gay Marriage bill in Saudi Arabia still hangs tensely in the balance. Opposition from the religious establishment shows no sign of relenting with peaceful protests held overnight in Jeddah and Riyadh.

Meanwhile, supporters of the bill have delivered a petition with over a million signatures to the office of domestic affairs in Jeddah. The government has promised to consider both sides carefully.

Divisions between the two sides have been civil but impassioned and both feel strongly that they are on the brink of triumph.

Abu-Majid, a prominent advocate of gay liberties and executive of Saudi Gay Empowerment Committee (SGEC), said to reporters:

“This is obviously very tense. It’s also hugely exciting. The vote could go either way but I have faith it will be in the right direction: Forward. This is a chance to show the world the true progressive spirit of the Saudi people. Our values can help to lead the world.”

Meanwhile, across the ideological barricades, Sheikh Mohammad Sulayyil claimed his camp was the better placed to succeed.

“We represent the conservative majority in this country” he said “.. the silent majority, who oppose the desecration of marriage but are too polite to make their voices heard. We are a progressive, friendly society, but this is one step too far.”

Asked whether he harboured any hostility toward homosexuals (a frequent allegation by the SGEC), Sulayyil responded resolutely; “Of course we don’t. You cannot hate anyone in Islam. We love and care for homosexuals. We wish only that they respect our believes as well as their own.”

Despite observers predicting a close result, the ‘yes’ faction has easily been the most high-profile to date, with celebrities from throughout the Kingdom lining up to demonstrate their support for the bill. The 30 year old Lesbian actress Aafreeda Aftab has spoken at rallies up and down the country, accompanied by such LGBT superstars as Mohammad Badaidah, Abdul Laqiya and Osama Bin Haroum.

Some events in support of the bill have more dramatic than others. Laqiya and Haroum courted controversy by French-kissing in Medina during the Hajj season. Some clerics deemed this to be inappropriate behaviour and letters of complaint were written to various elected officials. Both actors may face a small fine if officials concur with the motion.

Within religious circles the debate has been particularly profound, with liberal and female imams taking a cautious stand in favour of tolerance and hard-line clerics stating frank opposition.

One thing is clear. Whichever way the result goes, the bill threatens to redefine the traditional identity of this gilded Kingdom and cause waves through the settled political landscape.


(That my satire here is almost see-through exposes how alien the Saudi world is to the one we inhabit).

Act One (Postponed).


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The day I begin writing this post has seen armed metropolitan police storming properties in West London (not more than 15 minutes tube journey from my house). Those resident there are said to have been planning the opening act in the terror wave against European targets that is almost sure to arrive in revenge for EU involvement in the war against IS.

The area (Ladbroke Grove) is familiar to me. I was walking around those streets the other weekend. Who knows, I may have brushed against the budding militants as I strode about, happy in my ignorance that this part of London is now a haven for violent cavemen.

I predicted some weeks ago that a terror wave will soon blaze across Europe, targeting mostly capitals and dense population centres. I’m afraid that prediction has only been strengthened by these arrests. The police have done a heroic service by preventing this attack, but another attempt is inevitable. Such is the risk of the age. No Londoner can be sure, as we rock back and forward on the subway train, that our carriages will not dissolve into fresh blood and white fire.  

Nevertheless, I can take this occasion to remind the scum who plot to shed my blood and that of my neighbours; we are not afraid of you. This beautiful city, this thousand-ringed tree of history decorated with sparkling merit, shall expel you as soon as it finds a singular voice. And that is only a matter of time…


The Uniqueness of Muslim Evil.


, , , , , , , , ,


If religions were psychotropics (and there are some who argue as much), Christianity would probably be classified as a euphoriant, Buddhism as a sedative and Islam as a deliriant.

Of course, I don’t believe religions are actually as simple or as rudely artificial as chemical compounds, but that isn’t to say that some of the effects of religions aren’t fairly easy to attribute back to their sources. In the Islamic world in particular, extremes of human dysfunction appear to be part of cultural character. And in the West, acts of violence without sense, committed without provocation, and in a ritualistic manner almost always have a Muslim practitioner. Put simply, there are certain lows of behaviour that Westerners do not sink to, even at our most criminal and so are now the identifying stamp of a different origin.

Last week for example, it was reported that an African-American male (Alton Nolen, 30) had beheaded a colleague at the Oklahoma food plant where he was employed. Soon after the first report entered the headlines, the second shoe dropped clatteringly to the floor; Nolen was a Muslim convert.

A month prior to this, in Edmonton, London, an 82 year old woman named Palmira Silva was found decapitated in her garden. The police soon arrested the chief suspect, Nicholas Salavadore, 25 – said to be a black, Muslim convert.

Last year, in Jersey City, two Coptic Christians were brutally killed and decapitated for ‘unknown’ motives. The killer was a 28 year-old American Muslim.

There are many other examples I could use, stretching further back in time than we would care to assume, but the point is already made. The importation of Muslims into the West has imported with them the threat of a specific, particularly nasty kind of behaviour.

I’ve used beheadings as an example, but the issue is much broader than that. I could have mentioned the Muslim branding of underage girls on their backside to denote ‘ownership’, or I could talk about the Muslim who forced his White girlfriend to wear a device allowing him to track her movements. The list is long and eventually desensitising.

Beheading is appropriate as an example because the cases mentioned above were often solved by the public even before the police released information. When the London and Oklahoma cases were first reported (in raw, undetailed form), the commentators on the internet all ‘knew’ what kind of person was responsible long before they had any grounds on which to base their presumption.

Beheading is also appropriate as an example because it requires a very peculiar and hysterical type of aggression. It’s been a very long time indeed since its last state-sanctioned use in the West. Our elites, as cruel as they have been and can sometimes still be, grew to be repelled by such actions. They evolved to concede that to do such horrible things was (and is) at odds with a society capable of doing great things.

The contemporary resurfacing of the bestial is therefore directly tethered to Muslim migration.

You might well react to this with a ‘You don’t saaay..” but I’m afraid not everyone yet accepts it. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, the neuroscientist Professor Ian Robertson sought (in vain) to universalise the local evils of Islamist behaviour:

“As Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria butcher thousands of “infidels” and carry off their women and children into slavery” he wrote “…many in the West are inclined to see this as an unique outcrop of Islamic fundamentalism. Yet after overrunning a Bosnian town on 11th July 1995, Bosnian Serb – ostensibly Christian – forces, cold-bloodedly massacred 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica. Hutu genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda, Khmer Rouge mass-murder of Cambodian city-dwellers, Nazi genocide of Jews, Gypsies and the disabled…. the list of savagery is as long as it is profoundly depressing.”

I find these comparisons somewhat disingenuous. The Bosnian situation was far more complex than most historians (particularly those in the victor nations) ordinarily concede. During the disintegration of Yugoslavia, there were uncountable atrocities on both sides, including many by Muslim forces determined to re-Islamise a Christian country that had been contended for by both religions for centuries. The narrative of Serbian Nazis and Muslim civilians is wilfully deceptive. The Serbs were faced with losing their most important and historically precious territory – Kosovo – and for no better reason than recent demographic changes. It would be as if Leicester was to declare a Hindu city-state and American intercede on its behalf.

The Khmer Rouge and Hutu genocides meanwhile are not Western and do not deserve comparison with the modern civilised world. The only valid example Robertson manages to offer is the Nazi Holocaust and the Nazis are the only manifestation of European culture that can ever be justly compared to the Islamism of today.

Still, for some strange reason, I can’t quite be comforted by the thought that Europeans once fell into habits of bestiality alike the ones we now import for ourselves. If Nazi Germany was still a country, I doubt we would grant its citizenry the right of migration while they still upheld the beliefs of their native land. This is exactly equivalent to the situation of Muslim migration to the Western World.

Such is the tragedy of the times. The West has paid a high price in blood and silver to reform the character of its citizens and overcome and expel the forces of hell… only to let the agents of its renewal back in.


Time Will Radicalise Us All.


, , , , , , , , , , , ,


I’ve been accused (more than once) of living in a fantasy land when it comes to my preferred solution to the Islamic colonisation of Europe; namely, an organised deportation of the colonisers.

‘It could never happen!’ they say, ‘Be serious!’, ‘We’ll never drum up support for it!’

To these concerns I must say again that the scale of a problem is not an argument against trying to solve it.

To put the matter bluntly, I find almost all mainstream commentary on the Islamisation of Europe pitiably incomplete. Writers tend to run boldly only two thirds of the distance required, stumbling at the last, apparently frightened into slowing down. It identifies the problem in studious (sometimes even tedious) detail, but does so like a poet mourning destruction for the sake of art, with no intention of affecting the future.

I don’t do this simply because I am not resigned to the Islamisation of Europe. I want to stop it. And I won’t blink or shiver when faced with the actions necessary to achieve that.

While the wholesale Islamisation of the British Isles may never occur, the fate of our largest cities is no longer in doubt. We are at a fork in the road, with two branches leading to two separate futures. In one future, London (and the other large cities) become as Islamised as Beirut. In the other, they retain a Western (and perhaps even British) aspect.

As to which future becomes established depends on whether radical action is taken over the next few years. The demographic advance of Muslim communities will make the task of maintaining our cultural sovereignty ever more radical with time. The kindest answer is to stop the colonisation while it is still small and manageable.

As regards a mass-deportation of Muslims from the UK, one must describe very explicitly what is under consideration; the forceful evacuation of entire families and the overcoming of native protest. I know how different this hypothetical Britain would be to the one we love – but it is precisely this Britain which is being allowed to shrivel and die because of our fear of action.

The women in veils who waddle down our streets are fish out of water. The prayer-capped men who threaten shops selling alcohol are fish out of water. They will lose little by being placed back into the sea.

And anyway, I believe the movement of events will come to change your mind in the end. Time will eventually radicalise us all.


Notes on the Islamisation of London VIII.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The other day, as I sat in a train carriage taking me from Birmingham to London, I decided to tilt my head against the window and try to get some sleep. It had been a long, difficult, boring day and the opiate lure of sleep seemed to offer a warm bath for my aching senses.

I didn’t get any though, for no sooner had I shut my eyes than a burly Somali woman crashed down on the seat across the gangway and began to graze like a cow.

Fidgeting around in a small grey trolley bag she removed box after box, flipping off the lids each time with an echoing pop. She prepared what must have been the apperitif – a cold soup, green in colour, similar in appearance to a badly made guacamole.

I remember thinking “Now she is not going to drink that out of the tub….She can’t do.”

Well, she did, and with a noise more distressing than the whoosh of an approaching bullet. An English (or any rate European) woman ( long legs, short dress) stationed in front of the Somali began to wince in time to every slurp. At one point (to my pleasure) she consulted me with a wry, sympathetic smile.

This went on through five courses. After each one, the woman wiped her mouth gracelessly on her flowing black cloak (by the end it looked like the bed-sheets of a mental patient).

When the train docked at Milton Keynes, the Somali woman picked up her bag and departed the carriage, leaving the boxes, wrappers, and copius stains for the poor train crew to deal with.

The train peeled away towards the smoke, and as I took the postponed chance to rest my head, I thought lazily about the differences in moral priotities between a Muslim woman and her equivalent in the West. No doubt for that Somali woman, bedecked in her Hijab and modest cloak, the lady in front who winced at her behaviour was a barbarian. No doubt her short skirt, social independence and unmutilated labia marked her out as someone awaiting civilisation. My thoughts of the Somali – of course – were of the same kind.

And that’s a good (if slightly ludicrous) analogy for the Muslim-Kaffir quarrel itself. As Christopher Hitchens wrote, it is not a ‘clash of civilisations’, but a clash about what constitutes civilisation that most separates East from West.

Or of course, I could be reading too much into a woman with no table manners.


Thomas Carlyle, Goethe and the Prophet Muhammad.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Very few writers either merit or can withstand comparison with William Shakespeare. The only two I would dare to suggest are Edward Gibbon and Thomas Carlyle.

The first, in his Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, demonstrated a perfection in writing that has never been (and may never be) surpassed. The second, in his history of the French Revolution and his essays on Heroism, exposed the wilder possibilities of language, blurring the boundaries of thought and emotion, poetry and prose.

So in the past few months of frantic intra-national diplomacy, it’s been saddening to hear so little about Scotland’s greatest writer. Andrew Marr’s ‘Great Scots’ BBC series surveyed in detail the likes of Hugh Mcdiarmand and James Boswell, but had nothing to say of a man who influenced history in a greater and more dynamic way than either of them.

War leaders and men of power are particularly drawn to Carlyle’s thrilling voice. When the meth-addicted dictator Adolf Hitler lived out his last few days in the Fuhrerbunker, the book at his bedside (which – I’m pleased to say – he never got the chance to finish) was Carlyle’s history of Frederick the Great. On the other side, Sartor Resartus (Carlyle’s satirical novel) was referenced approvingly by the allied commander in the Pacific.

Carlyle’s writing is in some ways alike Wagnerian music. It makes the reader want to become something better than himself. Through its chaotic poetry, it breeds an orderly ambition.

Consider the beauty of the following paragraph:

“Behold therefore, the England of the Year 1200 was no chimerical vacuity or dreamland, peopled with mere vaporous Fantasms, Rymer’s Foedera, and Doctrines of the Constitution, but a green solid place, that grew corn and several other things. The Sun shone on it; the vicissitude of seasons and human fortunes. Cloth was woven and worn; ditches were dug, furrowfields ploughed, and houses built. Day by day all men and cattle rose to labour, and night by night returned home weary to their several lairs. In wondrous Dualism, then as now, lived nations of breathing men; alternating, in all ways, between Light and Dark; between joy and sorrow, between rest and toil, between hope, hope reaching high as Heaven, and fear deep as very Hell.”

Alongside the connection with Hitler, you may have also heard Carlyle’s name associated with that of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims are known to bring him up because of the author’s portrait of the prophet in ‘Heroes, Heroism and the Heroic in History’ – a book advancing the Great Man Theory of history.

The following quote is taken from that work:

“Mahomet himself, after all that can be said about him, was not a sensual man. We shall err widely if we consider this man as a common voluptuary, intent mainly on base enjoyments, — nay on enjoyments of any kind. His household was of the frugalest; his common diet barley-bread and water: sometimes for months there was not a fire once lighted on his hearth. They record with just pride that he would mend his own shoes, patch his own cloak. A poor, hard-toiling, ill-provided man; careless of what vulgar men toil for.”

Other positive comments are forthcoming from the same work. This use (or rather misuse) of Carlyle is typical of Muslim dishonesty. Carlyle, though he admired the impact of any great figure of world-history, retained a more exact part of his intellect for comparative judgement.

“Only a sense of duty could carry a European through the Qur’an.” he wrote in a section of the same book quoted less often by Muslim observers. In that same paragraph, he pronounces the book in general to be a “wearisome confused jumble” and Islam to be greatly lacking relative to his own (fiercely held) Protestant faith.

The same dishonesty that allows Muslims to make use of Carlyle also permits mistreatment of the reputation of Goethe. Regarded by Germans to be the equal of Shakespeare, the polymath Goethe was a notably cosmopolitan figure, run through with a very optimistic kind of xenophilia. His poems took elements from numerous foreign traditions, including in his ‘West-Eastern Divan’ volume, the traditions of the Middle East. That book contains poems which glorify the Prophet of Islam, sometimes comparing him to the giants of Greek and Roman mythologies and more or less (unlike Carlyle) maintaining a positive tone throughout.

However, the truth of the matter is that Goethe (writing in a less-informed age than Carlyle) had very little knowledge of the Middle East and Islam as they actually were (and still are). Indeed, his kindly impressions of the culture of Islam were drawn almost exclusively from the poetry of the Persian (pantheist) Hafiz. This is hardly valid.

More generally, the Muslim longing to find in Western thought a validation for their own historical glories is really quite revealing. Do they concede (even if just inwardly) that the West has the clearer mind and the intellectual upper-hand?


Dear Emma.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


It would be something of an understatement to say that Emma Watson’s speech at the United Nations last week – in which she argued for a revitalisation of global feminism –  has been well received. Such is the intensity of the world’s approval that criticism of the speech could well be greeted as blasphemy.

‘How could you not be moved by that?’ ‘She’s so humble and brave. What right have you got to say anything…?’

And it’s certainly impossible to deny that the speech Watson delivered was delivered extremely well. The 24 year-old actress, dressed in white with a plunging neckline, commanded sympathy with her blandly perfect appearance, her velvet Estuary tone like a well tuned violin, and her balanced and rehearsed acting (some of it very close in quality to the performances which made her name.)

How could anyone criticise that?

Well, if by ‘that’ you mean Emma Watson herself, I don’t want to. But we must all take issue with the content of her speech, for our own sake and for the sake of civilisation.

In order to react rationally to a speech given by a charismatic orator, it is important to read a transcript afterward before making a final judgement. The words on paper, robbed of the distortions of visual and audial bias, must stand on their own two feet, and if they cannot, then something is amiss.

Watson spoke well. But did she speak sense? Let’s examine a few quotes:

“Feminism, by definition, is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”

This is quite simply untrue. Feminism, whatever its founding ideals, has mutated into something far stranger and more destructive than the commonsensical sentiment described. Indeed, the notion or belief that ‘men and women should have equal rights and opportunities’ has never been exclusive to feminism and it represents a very arrogant appropriation of moral ground to remark otherwise. Marxism is not the owner of social justice, and feminism is not the owner of sexual equality. Marxism and Feminism thrive on society’s failures to address social justice and sexual equality, and without them, would die.

“Women are choosing not to identify as feminists. Apparently, I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, ‘too aggressive,’ isolating and anti-men, unattractive, even. Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one?”

The answer here is that feminists have a long and ignominious record of making hateful comments about men, up to and including calls for the elimination of the gender entirely. The women who want no part in that are not ‘uncomfortable’ – they are not prepared to sacrifice their humanity for their sex.

“I am from Britain and I think it is right that I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body (applause)”

Though the third-worlders who applauded this might have imagined it to be a reference to genital mutilation, that baleful phrase ‘make decisions about my own body’ is more likely referring to abortion; a totally invalid point and a horribly deceptive misuse of language.

When a woman is pregnant, she has inside her body another body. The body inside her body (possibly a woman) also has the right to make decisions about her body, and the only way this is possible is if she/he survives to make those decisions.

“No country in the world can yet say that they have achieved gender equality.”

Not even Sweden – where to be a man is to be guilty from birth? How much more ground can men give?

“We don’t want to talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive, women won’t be compelled to be submissive. If men don’t need to control, women won’t have to be controlled.”

This is one of the most radical and sinister strains of feminist thought. The idea that men (with their signature aggression and masculinity) must become woman-like in order for women to live in peace and the world in justice. Just how anti-natural and ruinous a thought is that? For the answer, look no further than the West today; where immigrant communities unaffected by feminism rule the streets, and White and East-Asian pansies are trampled demographically underfoot.

The remainder of the speech (which can be found on YouTube in full) was dedicated to emotional posture and snakish charm. The points quoted above were the warheads wrapped so deviously in the fruit.

Let it be understood, I have nothing at all against women’s rights. For a just society to work, a woman must have exactly the same liberties as a man. But this is moral common sense. It does not require the murder of children, the emasculation of men, or the demographic collapse of the only civilisation capable of upholding the rights of women.


Germany: Our Sword and Shield.


, , , , , , , , , ,


English people (for obvious and well-understood historic reasons) are often averse to acknowledging the virtues of the German people, in many ways their most ancient and significant continental rivals. After two world wars in which the ‘Hun’ emerged as nightmarishly cruel and ultimately self-destructive, the English archetype of cool-headed analysis seemed naturally superior to the violent romance of Teutonic ambition.

The Germans have too much hunger; their imagination is too wild; their sense of history is too acute. They succumb too easily to mass-euphoria.

All of these accusations are valid and not just in the context of Nazi Germany.

Nevertheless, deeper down than the part of their nature they expose, the English secretly adore and envy German success. In fact, Germans are probably the most secretly envied (and publicly condemned) racial group in the world.

Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schiller, Goethe, Max Planck, Schopenhauer, Humboldt, Mann, Hegel, Kant, Stirner, Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss, Bach, Bismarck, Adenauer, Rocket Science, BMW, Mercedes, Maybach, Adidas, Audi, Bayer, Volkswagen, Porsche, Heroin, Aspirin, IG Farben, Daimler, Bosch, Hugo Boss, Deutsche Bank…

The history of the recent past is dominated by German energy, German initiative and German genius. The German economy is unreachably superior in form and output than any other economy (adjusted for size) outside Japan. If there was a country the size of America populated solely by Germans, it would likely rule the world for a millennium. Indeed, the tragedy of the European Union is that it assumed Europe to be populated by peoples equal in industrial capability to the Germans.

How do we account for German success? Common stereotype has the Germans as more ‘efficient’ than other peoples, but this is not really an explanation for anything. Why are they more efficient, more productive, more inventive and disciplined than the rest of Europe?

The answer is likely a biological and evolutionary one. Germans are naturally better at certain things than French, Italian, English and Spanish people are. The same applies vice versa of course. There are innumerable things that Germans cannot do well that the countries aforementioned can. The English are better writers and shipbuilders than Germans for example.

But we must acknowledge the importance of Germany and its relation to our common security. The German military is now the strongest in Europe, having overtaken the UK and France many years ago. Its population (despite the demographic malaise being as strong there as anywhere else) is still the largest.

European strength is to a large degree dependent on German strength, and history must not force us to disarm ourselves of our strongest shield and sharpest sword.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 183 other followers