The Answer Once Lived.


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


As I’ve said previously, although I don’t have a solid political affiliation, I would gladly align with any movement capable of both preventing Islamisation and at the same time of upholding the virtues of European liberality.

This might well seem like something of a tall order. Many (if not most) parties professing the will to resist Islam also profess the will to resist secularism, Jews, individuality and sometimes even democracy. For all his virtues, even Geert Wilders has made some very smelly alliances with the Dutch ethnic right. Marine Le Pen meanwhile often schmoozes with those who doubt the facticity of the Holocaust. In both (and many other) cases, the apple has an attractive skin, but is sour inside.

But people like myself, even if we lack representation now, once did have a champion. His name was Pim Fortuyn.

A noted iconoclast, Pim Fortuyn managed in his truncated career to confuse the intellectual establishment like no other other modern politician. He was the first political leader to oppose Islam for entirely liberal reasons. And this naturally made him all the more dangerous.

When Nick Griffin (or his faceless successor) criticise Islam; the liberal elite have no trouble in dismissing their claims by associating them with other claims they have made.

Griffin might speak sense on Islam, but he speaks (or has spoken) garbage on the Second World War. This self-cancelling poise is repeated across the continental far-right.

Fortuyn by-contrast was a classical liberal. He was also (and this is important) a nice, friendly, charming man. Unlike many others on the far-right, he made no secret of his homosexuality and fought consistently for a cosmopolitan treatment of moral sense. Indeed, he often used this minority status to justify his politics:

I don’t hate Islam.” he said in a famous 2002 interview “I consider it a backward culture. I have travelled much in the world. And wherever Islam rules, it’s just terrible. All the hypocrisy. It’s a bit like those old reformed protestants. The Reformed lie all the time. And why is that? Because they have standards and values that are so high that you can’t humanly maintain them. You also see that in that Muslim culture. Then look at the Netherlands. In what country could an electoral leader of such a large movement as mine be openly homosexual? How wonderful that that’s possible. That’s something that one can be proud of. And I’d like to keep it that way, thank you very much.”

How could (or can) a Leftist, a self-proclaimed ‘liberal’ take issue with that?

They can’t. Every argument deployed against Fortuyn from the Dutch left rang hollow. His party ‘The Pim Fortuyn List’ was enjoying a rapid increase in support at the time of his assassination.

That’s right – in case you didn’t know – Pim Fortuyn was assassinated. The killer was a Leftist who (in his own words) disliked the ‘victimisation’ of Muslims.

In reality, the murder reflected the impossibility of refuting Fortuyn’s arguments from a Left-wing direction.

There are many ways of confronting Islam. Most of the options currently suggested are either self-destructive, ineffectual or regressive. But we are a great civilisation, capable of producing a better answer to the Islamic conquest of our society. I know that because the answer once lived.


Fakir the Bacterium.


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


I was passing time on YouTube the other day, when I noticed a link in the sidebar to a clip of the Jeremy Kyle Show.

For those who don’t know, the Jeremy Kyle programme is (while ostensibly a talk-show) really a crude exhibition of the trashiest members of British society airing each morning on the ITV channel. In a typical episode, members of the English underclass (some of them astonishingly unkempt) are wheeled on to defend their benefit-fuelled affairs, hit-and-run impregnations and habitual drug abuse. The host (Mr Kyle) is an aggressive moral-majority type, with (for all his faults) a commendable bravery in confronting his subjects.

The clip I was directed to featured a young Northern man who was charged with beating his pregnant girlfriend, at times kicking her in the stomach. The male was a Muslim (probably of Pakistani origin) called Fakir, and in the course of the show (link below) he revealed himself to be of the purest evil imaginable.

When questioned whether he beat his (White) partner, Fakir didn’t bother to deny the charge. In fact, he found it hard to stop laughing at the issue, apparently surprised at the swelling chorus of hatred within the audience. When pressed to elaborate, his excuses never extended beyond a claim his girlfriend (who throughout the course of the programme appears utterly broken in spirit) had ‘annoyed’ him.

This isn’t the kind of programme to ordinarily affect my emotions. Shows like Kyle are usually too fake, too orchestrated, too manhandling of the viewer’s mood to take them seriously. But when I studied Fakir – his facial expressions, posture and accent – a host of thoughts began to swarm around my mind, quite foreign to my personality. Goulish thoughts – like how satisfying it would be to hurt that man; to kick him, or beat him into a deep coma.

His giggling evil; his skinny, pathetically unmanly frame; his complete lack of conscience or moral orientation… These elements all combined to light the fire inside me.

I’m aware that such thoughts should never be entertained. The law is surely the only protection we have left against bacteria like Fakir. But never let it be argued that the hostile sentiment amassing against Muslims in Britain is a purely native initiative. Brits would scarcely be human to avoid feeling burning revulsion at these creatures. They are constructing their own detention centres. They are energising their own tormentors and preparing the conditions for their wholesale removal.

I have no idea if Fakir will ever read this. But on the off chance he googles himself and finds this blog, let me say this: We are rapidly losing patience with this kind of abuse. There is only so much we will take, and you will not be forgotten when the time comes to arrange a lasting justice.


The Savagery of Abortion.


, , , , , , , , , ,


Adelaide Caines was born after just 24 weeks gestation. She later died, but many born at this point in development survive and go on to live full lifespans.

That photo of Adelaide above is now being used by her parents to lobby for a change in the UK abortion laws; 24 weeks being the current cut-off limit for NHS ‘termination’.

As reported in the Daily Mail, the mother explained her reasons as follows:

“Our picture shows Adelaide was not a foetus, she was a fully formed human being and to think that a baby like her could be legally terminated is to me horrifying.”

This is surely a welcome reminder of the grim reality of ‘abortion’ – a cold, bureaucratic term for medical murder.

I am quite unashamedly prolife. In fact, I could probably called an extremist on the matter, given that I don’t support a ‘right’ to abortion at any point in pregnancy, the only exceptions being in cases of rape or a threat to the mother’s physical health.

Life self-evidently begins at conception, and you don’t need to be religious to understand that. Science makes it equally clear.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, when does it begin? Is the breathing, twitching, kicking entity inside the womb alive or not? If it isn’t then we must radically revise our understanding of ‘life’. And if it is, then the abbreviation of its life is simply murder.

It has been to the immense discredit of the secular Left to have allowed this to become a purely religious or right-wing issue. There is nothing Left-Wing about the murder of children, and there is nothing especially ‘Conservative’ about defending those children. Indeed, in the popular understanding of Left and Right, one would have assumed the Left to be more naturally drawn to the prolife position than the contrary.

Some Leftists and Liberals are beginning to understand this. Christopher Hitchens was noted for his nearness to the prolife position. Bill Maher recently conceded that many atheists and Left-wingers are prolife and that this doesn’t count as hypocrisy. Even the coldly rational Richard Dawkins slowed his speed when discussing abortion in ‘The God Delusion’.

The scale of abortion in the Western world is bewildering. There have been 50 million cases of medical infanticide in America since 1973. 200,000 such crimes are committed in the UK every year. Similar figures hang over Scandinavia, Germany and Russia.

Where does moral blame fall most heavily in this – On the terminator or the woman who volunteers for termination? That’s a question that can only be answered subjectively. I would say that both have something profound on their conscience; something that should rightly invade their thoughts at night and make them question their moral orientation.

Women who carry unwanted pregnancies to birth, even to later have those children adopted, are surely heroic. They should be roundly commended by society and the state alike, openly and without fear of offending those of lesser moral courage.


Taylor Swift and Racial Politics.


, , , , , , , ,


A case can be made that the American country singer Taylor Swift is the most beautiful woman in the world. A superstar and multi-millionairess at 24, the artist’s aesthetic is one of shining health, sexual sincerity and perfect symmetry. And with such perfection comes political power.

The genre which Swift until recently called her own – that of Country Music – is a cultural region exactly coterminous with middle and working class White America. It was the denizens of this region who sponsored Swift’s rise from local performer to global icon, and it is undoubtedly these same people who have over the past month (since the publication of Swift’s video for ‘Shake it Off’) complained of ‘betrayal’.

Swift, you see, has departed the straight-backed Caucasian domain of country for the relaxed, multi-racial world of millennial pop. The ‘Shake it off’ video features Swift holding a boombox stereo, wearing a baseball cap and making lyrical allusions to ‘haters’, ‘playas’ and ‘sick beats’. Nothing in the video is pornographic or offensive. Swift retains her class and restraint throughout, even as she is surrounded by twerking Africans (Some have even noted this contrast as evidence of a racist agenda behind Swift’s reinvention).

And yet still the comments flood onto YouTube and elsewhere, accusing the singer of having abandoned something; of having done ‘a Miley Cyrus’. I found one comment especially revealing:

“Why Taylor why! You were the last one to not give in. Theirs (sic) no one left now.”

While, as my tone would suggest, I’m not at all convinced that (unlike Cyrus) Swift has vulgarised herself – the song and video are both tasteful and enjoyable – I do perceive a familiar anxiety underpinning this kind of outrage.

Today’s youth is tomorrow’s elite. Not the day after tomorrow, but tomorrow. Swift’s generation (and mine) will one day be charged with deciding the direction of our civilisation. What you see in youth is a prophecy of the future.

The Africanisations of Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber therefore have ethno-political implications. As does the (albeit less dramatic) cosmopolitanisation of the formerly White-as-snow Taylor Swift. Whiteness is everywhere declining, transforming from an advantage into a detriment.

When the comments talk of ‘giving in’, they are communicating a transparently racial anxiety; the uplift of blackness and the corresponding decline of Whiteness.

To remind you why this is happening, I will now use a quote from my own work I have recycled before:

“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.”

The short post from which this text is taken (Miley Cyrus and White Cultural Decline) is one the posts I am most proud of having written. It has a prophetic quality to it.

How complete its accuracy turns out remains to be decided.


We Don’t Have to Take This.


, , , , , , , , , ,


In our consideration of Islamic crime in Britain, we must never forget our geography. To maintain the right perspective, we must never forget how distant this island is from the hell-holes of Islam and how unnatural it is that women are beheaded in Enfield, raped in Rotherham and blown up in Edgware in its name. All this blood flows from a single wound; a single mistake, the making of which was unnatural and recent.

The idea that Muslim commonwealth citizens were assimilable into Western, or even British society was a fancy of our elders. It was considered radical even then, when history lay dormant like a sleeping leviathan and a peaceable weakness sedated the whole Islamic region.

For over a thousand years, there was no Muslim influence on Britain outside of foreign policy. Common folk were happily ignorant of sharia law and of the increasingly fatal divide between Sunni and Shia. It took the concussion of the Second World War to make our elites dizzy enough to change this. The mistake was made indigenously; the seedlings of rapists and murderers were patted down by native hands.

Recognising how recently this mistake was made, and how radical and strange the decision was to make it, allows for clearer thinking. It allows for the person reflecting to realise that this country is not bound by any moral law to accept the consequences of it without comment, or without the right to reverse its decision.

When I talk of deportation, the echoes that sound in your imagination deceive you. My suggestion has nothing to do with the spirit of Nazism, Stalinism or Aminism. It is not the excess but the right of a country, over 3000 years in age, to admit a recent mistake and seek to reverse it.

England was wrong to admit Muslims. It was an action allowed by an ignorance of history and a moral naivety rooted in that same ignorance. England (or at least that generation of command) wronged also those Muslims it allowed to settle. They are different kinds of human, with different ways of eating, praying and thinking, and they cannot simply be ordered by their importers to change their nature or adapt it to something incompatible with the prejudice of their hearts. The anxieties they and we feel are inevitable and will only grow stronger with time.

This isn’t a bomb that needs to go off. It can be defused (if we try) by a negotiated settlement. But to start that negotiation, the kafir peoples of this country must first make clear that nothing is irreversible, that the abuses of Hitler will not dictate the moral decisions of the present, and – most essentially – that Britain is under no moral obligation to kill itself trying to swallow what it cannot digest.

We don’t have to take this. Nor – for that matter – does France, Germany, India, Israel, Russia, Micronesia or Haiti. All countries make mistakes, but as long as these countries can admit (in a tone free of vitriol) “We were wrong and we want to become right again…” they should be listened to.

This isn’t (for the millionth time) a racist thing. I live in the south of London, a city of Africans, Chinese, Jews and a million other beautiful differences. I personally adore living in a cosmopolitan society like this. If the claims of racism were true, house prices would be higher in Cumbria and Cardiff than Hackney and Tottenham. They’re not though, and for good reason.

Only one minority is actively screwing things up here. Only one minority (and its misbehaviour) keeps the BNP and National Front in money and members.

And so, in place of the manifestos, militant phrases and hateful noises that too often cloud this debate, let’s offer instead a crystalline honesty: We have made a mistake. We are sorry we made it. But we want to make things better. And never let it be said we don’t have the right to make it better.


Boris Johnson is not a Politician.


, , , , , , , , , , ,


It is by now broadly accepted that the Conservative Party has become hugely unpopular in Britain and – as things stand – will probably lose the next general election to Ed Miliband’s Labour Party.

As to why the Tories are struggling, everyone has their own theory. Mine is that David Cameron is not a conservative at all and that this by itself provides ample explanation for his failures at the ballot box. In America, to be sure, Cameron would almost certainly be (or be compared to) a Democrat. His programme of moral liberalism, light-touch welfare reform, and open door immigration would not clear a single Town Hall meeting, let alone national campaign. His voter base has been consistently exasperated, driven into the arms of fringe elements on the centre and distant Right.

But with that said, all is not yet considered lost for the party of Churchill. The Conservatives have an ace in their pack. His name? Alexander ‘Boris’ De Pfeffel Johnson.

It’s true to say that no politician in Britain is held in greater affection than the current mayor of London. His rehearsed stupidity and uncensored poshness, his giggle-inducing persona, honed on chat-shows and panel games has transformed man into myth; an archetype we might call the cuddly anachronism.

Reflecting this goodwill, most national polls suggest that if Johnson, and not Cameron, was leader of the party, the Conservatives would be gliding to a sure majority in 2015, leaving even UKIP choking in its dust.

But is Johnson actually a Conservative? This is an important question to ask, especially given the name of the party he may one day represent.

My own view is that not only is Johnson barely a conservative, he is barely a politician at all. I don’t believe his muffled, engineered-to-be-endearing patriotism has any root in personal sincerity or a coherent worldview. His shape-shifting position on immigration alone, from opposing it – to (more recently) supporting it, speaks volumes. He has also modified his views (many times) on UKIP, Islam and Iraq with the same speed and apparent ease.

But don’t take my word for it; The wonderful journalist Sonia Purnell has performed an invaluable service in documenting the artificiality of Johnson’s presentation and the failings of the man behind it:

“Many in and outside the Conservative party have started talking about “when” and “how” Johnson will become prime minister, rather than “if”…” She wrote “The startling omission in all this outburst of Boris-mania, however, is whether he “should” be considered as a prime minister at all. Before we get too carried away by the cult of personality, it may be worth glancing at his track record. Any whiff of scepticism – well-founded or not – over the zipwire show (at the 2012 Olympics) should be judged in the context of Johnson’s extraordinary record as a performer. Those wonderfully spontaneous bumbling speeches, such as the Conservative party conference one that so baffled Arnold Schwarzenegger, are meticulously planned. Former staff reveal how the pauses, the non sequiturs, the rambling tangents are studiously prepared; the most successful jokes and “off-the-cuff” Boris-isms are rehearsed and recycled.” – (italics added).

Why should the office of prime minister be considered so cheap as to be open to this deception? Boris is an act; a lie sold to the public of a great country. He must always be considered in this context before any other.


Icelandic Dreams.


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


Not all of Europe is being destroyed. There are still some pockets of continuity, survival and success. One of these fortunate exceptions is the state of Iceland.

Situated 470 miles north of the United Kingdom, this volcanic island is naturally suited to isolation and uniqueness. Its population of 325,000 all descend from the same root, speak the same language, share the same religion (or lack of religion) and are never separated by more than three degrees of relation from one another. A happy consequence of this is that the government and the people are on intimate terms. Democratic accountability is instantaneous and efficient. Economic differences are smooth and flat. Violent crime is an eccentric aberration, along with insanity, extremism and summertime.

Ostensibly a Nordic country, Iceland is far too remote to have avoided a character of cultural independence. That disconnect is mutual. Icelandic affairs are rarely the meat of a European conversation. Few people can name a son or daughter of the island once Bjork has been disqualified.

While in the short term, a slight embarrassment, the prize of this isolation is potentially dazzling. One can easily imagine a dystopian future in which continental Europe (despite its frescos, sonnets and symphonies) has been reduced to a tent-landscape of warring urban tribes, some indigenous and old, some foreign and charged with youth. Where Sweden, that ancient byword for cleanliness and order, is choked in filth, and Norway, divided into ghettos, each one hostile to the other.

In that world, Iceland will be a shining city on a hill, its situation the subject of much envy. As France, crippled by a terminal revolution of the worst kind, dives from its high tradition of wine and philosophy into the lower domain of Hanafis and Hanbalis, no Parisian will be so blindly proud as to refuse Reykjavik its due.

Starting from an artificial point, the glories of Europe may be regrown in smaller form on the only land hospitable to them. Little Londons, Bristols and Berlins will emerge from expat enclaves in Hafnarfjörður, Mosfellsbær and Arborg. The full expanse of our misbegotten politics will stand revealed in the contrast between New London’s peace, and old London’s squalor; New Bristol’s potential, and old Bristol’s doom. Between what we had, and what we have become.

Iceland is a potent and hurtful reminder of what is being compromised and degraded by our misdirection. It is the last holdout of an old Europe; one that had no need to fear Jihad, mass-paedophilia or beheadings, frozen in gilded eternity.


Scotland the Magnificent.


, , , , , , , , , , ,


It’s been reported today that the ‘Yes’ campaign has taken the lead in the referendum on Scottish independence, overturning a clear advantage for Better Together that has persisted for over three months.

Reactions to this poll on newspaper forums has been predictably (if lamentably) sectarian.

“Kick out Scots from the British military!” read one.

“Deploy the army on the border. No refugees!.” read another.

One particularly unbalanced observer went so far as to suggest the expulsion of ethnic Scots from the English north.

This is quite unnecessary. Though it would undoubtedly be a great shame to decapitate the UK after so much shared history (including two World Wars), we must realise that Scotland is a very proud country with an independent spirit that cannot be long suppressed. If the No campaign wins on September the 18th, it won’t be long before the calls go up for a rerun.

And I hope, if Scotland does choose separation, that we can co-exist in a spirit of friendship and mutual respect. Chauvinism demeans us all and Scotland is a magnificent country, with just as much to be said for it as England.

The greatest British prose writer of the last 500 years, Thomas Carlyle, was a son of the North. Another Scot, Adam Smith laid the groundwork for the age of capitalism. Scottish inventors gave the world steam engines, televisions, telephones, penicillin, tarmac and general anaesthetic.

As Winston Churchill famously put it – “Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.”

Whatever happens, I hope the Scots continue to enlighten the world with their genius and industry.


War Crimes in Rotherham.


, , , , , , , , , ,


I sometimes wonder how those who believe in the liberal narrative regarding Islam (which holds it as an ‘unfairly maligned’ religion of peace) integrate mentally the events reported in the news.

How does a liberal protect his orthodoxy from the rational interpretation of ritual stonings, beheadings and terror attacks? And of what formidable substance does that firewall consist? Emotion? Stubbornness?

Well whatever it is, we will surely see it tested now.

Last week it was reported (I’m pleased to say on many front pages) that the number of girls raped by grooming gangs in the town of Rotherham may amount to more than 1400.

I’ll say that again.

Last week it was reported that the number of girls raped by grooming gangs in the town of Rotherham may amount to more than 1400 (one thousand four hundred).

In 2001, Rotherham had a population of less than 250,000 in its metropolitan district. 1400 as a percentage of 250,000 is 0.56. That’s more than one person for every two hundred. If you live in Rotherham or a nearby region, you will have almost certainly seen a victim in public. You may have spoken to one. Your strangely quiet daughter or granddaughter might be an unreported case. Perhaps needless to add, almost all the victims involved are White British (Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Welsh etc…), and all the men responsible pray towards Makkah.

What are we supposed to call these acts? There are too many cases to call this a ‘spree’, or even a ‘wave’. Not all the gangs involved are connected to each other, so we can’t really call it a conspiracy either.

It is much too immoral for ‘terrorism’. One could reasonably make excuses (as many did) for Islamic violence during the Iraq war. We had invaded a Muslim country, and proud Muslims wanted to strike us back. They had no moral right to, but I can understand their reasoning. That the Rotherham crimes occurred over a period of many years, in times of both hot war and cold peace, suggests that something more longstanding is at issue.

The truth is that we are in a state of cultural war with Islam, and these rapes, like those in Oxford, are simply war crimes.

The Muslims hold us all in aggressive contempt. Our women however are considered especially worthless given that they wear knee length skirts and allow their hair to billow godlessly about their shoulders. They clearly have no pride or spiritual awareness, and so to deflower them by force is perfectly halal.

The men involved will have felt no prompt of conscience as they forced down the defences of their victims. And if such a thing could be made worse, perhaps it is with the thought that the girls were not only raped, but raped hatefully.

In all the commentary on this subject over the past week, only one article (by Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson) has come close to capturing the purple fury of the public mood:

“Men of Pakistani heritage treated white girls like toilet paper.” she raged “They picked children up from schools and care homes and trafficked them across northern cities for other men to join in the fun. They doused a 15-year-old in petrol and threatened to set her alight should she dare to report them. They menaced entire families and made young girls watch as they raped other children… No just God would stand for what they did. “

Hard attention has now fallen and will likely remain on the Rotherham police. They certainly merit it. How difficult could it have been to pursue the leads to their logical conclusion? A stifling atmosphere of political correctness (aided and sponsored by a spineless government and an occupied press) certainly goes some way in explaining it.

Only we who jump such barriers can say clearly what the remedy is to all this. Get them out. Get all of them out and think no extra thought about it. I don’t want to breathe the same oxygen. That we might be called cruel for advocating this policy means nothing to me. To defeat a devil, you must find the devil in yourself.

I could attempt here a few hundred words of horror-poetry speculating what it was like for those poor, undefended children. I won’t be so disrespectful. I will only say that our elite has allowed for the innocent to be made sore, all that it might preserve ideological comfort for itself. There is surely no more contemptible crime than that.


The ‘Asian’ Calumny.


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


The former BNP chairman Nick Griffin should in general feel thoroughly ashamed of himself. His career in politics was built on low-brow generalisation and blind hate rooted in abused science.

It is all the more surprising therefore to note that Griffin once made a very important point that reverberates up to the present day.

In a BBC Newsnight interview many years ago, Griffin chose to take issue with Muslim criminality in the North of England. The Muslims were, he claimed, chiefly responsible for the tensions which had then exploded into the Burnley Riots. When prompting Griffin to clarify his accusations, the interviewer (Jeremy Paxman) consistently reverted to the word ‘Asian’ instead of the religious signifier suggested by his subject.

Growing quickly tired of this, Griffin barked out what must be the only helpful and prophetic sentence in his long and fruitless career:

“Stop saying Asian. This isn’t an Asian thing, it’s a Muslim thing”.

This was in 2001 – long before grooming gangs began to be reported in the mainstream (and even fringe) press.

Griffin deserves credit for this clarification, if for nothing else.

Of course, given its congenital fear of accuracy, the BBC continues to use the word ‘Asian’ to describe the Pakistani Muslim gangs involved with Rotherham; a trickle of protest from Hindu and Sikh communities going largely unheard.

This is nothing short of scandalous. The Hindu and Sikh communities are natural allies in the struggle against Islam. They have departed lands long haunted by the same demonic ideas, and bring with them lessons of glittering value.

There are no Hindu, Sikh or Jain rape gangs currently operating on British streets. As a matter of fact, in some Northern towns Sikh girls in particular have fallen victim to the same grooming techniques as White girls.

Let the fruit of Rotherham be a coalition bound by links of iron. The isolation of Muslims in our society is the first step towards their excision.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 179 other followers