Pakistanis and the Debasement of Britain.


, , , , , , , , , ,


Another sunrise, another sundown, another cruelty imposed by Pakistan on its own people.

The most recent outrage from the Indus Valley, as you may have already read, involves a Christian daring to send a text message supposedly defaming the Prophet Mohammad.

Given that Pakistan is an enlightened and valuable addition to the family of nations, a sentence of death was swiftly announced by the judge, and a violent silence, an approving apathy, has since rippled across the mud-cities of the nuclear republic.

Despite this (the sentencing of kafir to an early grave) being a common situation in the Muslim World, it is especially common (perhaps even traditional) in Pakistan, where the sizable Christian and Shia communities are handled as tenth-class citizens, unendingly vulnerable to compatriot mood-swings and scared away from the type of political activity necessary to defend themselves.

As of 2014, there are an estimated 2,800,000 Christians slogging out a prison existence in that country, though that number is naturally diminishing, by both emigration and explosion, all the time.

And Christians, of course, are not the only Pakistanis exporting themselves from the motherland. The majority who leave Pakistan do so as cultural pioneers and arrive balancing on their shoulders the enrichments of corruption and aggressive sexual dysfunction.

Historically, Britain has been by far the most blessed by this outflow, trading its old industrial city of Bradford, and towns like Oldham and Sparkbrook by way of deposit for the decades of pleasure to follow.

Since then, we’ve been treated to an expanded variety of culinary spices… and this sentence can’t be padded any more than that I’m afraid.

Let me speak more frankly than I perhaps should; of all the colonial peoples who chased Britain’s receding borders at the close of empire, Pakistanis have proven easily the most wretched, inassimilable and damaging to the fabric of its society.

Almost any other British minority has something positive to be said for it. The Hindu and Sikh Indians who fled Idi Amin’s misrule in Uganda have since made Leicester Royal Infirmary one of the country’s finest medical centres. West-Indians and Afro-Caribbeans have restlessly integrated into the cultural bloodstream via sport, music and entertainment. Jews have ensured Britain maintains a cutting edge in science, medicine and literature. The Copts, Armenians and Maronites, whilst arriving in small numbers, have strayed little from their reputation as industrious, law-abiding tax-payers. Poles are guilty of nothing more than hard work. Even the Persians and Arabs have brought with them more wealth than grief.

Pakistanis have brought nothing. Nothing at all, save for a legacy of ruined children, grubby deceit, inbred monsters and limbless commuters.

And it’s not only wingnuts like myself who see fit to point these things out. Last year, the Conservative MP and Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC attracted a firestorm of criticism when he drew attention to the cumulative effect of Pakistanis on corruption in British society.

After making clear to which community he was referring, the barrister remarked that some immigrants “come from societies where they have been brought up to believe you can only get certain things through a favour culture. One of the things you have to make absolutely clear is that that is not the case and it’s not acceptable”.

Despite the stupid tears shed over this statement, Grieve is entirely correct. It won’t have escaped anyone’s notice that Pakistanis are hugely over-represented in the arts of political, social and moral sleaze. Just watch an episode of Crimewatch and keep a mental tally of the offenders with Pakistani names, or from Pakistani areas. You’ll be surprised.

This past week has seen the ascension to government of a British Pakistani named Sajid Javid, a former financial worker. Javid replaces the shamed Minister Maria Miller as culture secretary and many have spoken of this as a temporary foothold in a meteoric climb that could see him reach the apex of the Conservative Party.

A quick glance at the MP’s Wikipedia page informs me he is non-religious, and has offered (doubtlessly to confirm this) a friendly hand to Zionism.

That should I suppose, be enough. After all, culture – not racism – is the point of Counter-Jihad…

In fact, the Pakistani degradation of English society is not always interwoven with the issue of Islamisation at all. Corruption (to take Grieve’s example) is frankly more characteristic of Pakistan than of any other Muslim society. Muslim grooming gangs in Britain are almost always of Pakistani origin, and rarely include Turks, Bangladeshis, Persians or Arabs. Minority cases of fraud, hit and run, stalking, bullying and drug dealing also attract a greater portion from the same community. Put simply, a predictable moral laxity appears specific to Pakistani, as opposed to general minority, or even Muslim behaviour.

The ethnic slur ‘Paki’ – which more than any other term is synonymous with racial tension in the UK – is revealing in itself. In case you don’t know, ‘Paki’ – in English patois – is an insult thrown at pretty much anyone with heritage in Southern Asia; most commonly Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, but also occasionally Afghans, Sri Lankans and Persians too. Although the etymology of the term doesn’t require analysis, perhaps the question of why ‘Paki’ has endured, instead of ‘Indie’, or ‘Deshi’, does.

I used to work part-time in a bookshop and had an Indian co-worker whom we’ll call Sanjeev (I’m not being lazy here; this is phonetically close to his real name). On occasion, usually near the close of the working day when the shop was empty, we used to chat by the till about his impressions of England from a foreign standpoint. His view of the country was generally favourable, but his biggest complaint (above even the drizzle) was hearing the use of ‘Paki’ as a racial insult. This was not, he explained, merely because of its vitriolic point of departure, but because of the generalisation compounded by its inaccuracy. He completely understood why people disliked ‘Pakis’ but couldn’t understand why (of all the people in the world) one would accuse an Indian of being one.

Here’s a rough quote from memory: “Everything you (British people) like about Asians is Indian, and everything you hate about them is Pakistani. You just don’t know it. All of those grubby ‘Indian’ restaurants on the high street (he gestured outside) aren’t Indian at all. Pakistanis just steal our recipes.”

At the time, I found this quite funny. Nowadays, less so. It is plainly an injustice for Indians to absorb the negativity earned by Pakistani misbehaviour, and this goes on far more than we admit.

So let’s not be shy in calling a spade a spade here. Sajid David, and other British Pakistanis, have more to distance themselves from than religious politics. The effects of Pakistani immigration to England has been roundly negative and to refuse to say this clearly only damages the prospects of other (more valuable) Asian minorities.


Jobbik: An Enemy Within.


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

Members of the Jobbik "Hungarian Guard" participate in an inauguration ceremony at Budapest's Heroes Square

Those who monitor the fortunes of the far-right in Europe will be increasingly familiar with a bizarre Hungarian outfit known as ‘Jobbik’.

On the face of it, the organisation is a generic nationalist movement, aimed at closing Hungary’s borders, re-emphasising its national identity and cracking down hard on domestic criminals.

Beneath that veneer however lies a perverse, little-known ideology that should completely disqualify the party from any greater European solidarity. That ideology is called ‘Turanism’.

A Turanist website describes the scope of this concept as follows:

“The Turanians are a family of ethno-linguistically related peoples which include the Hungarians, the Uralic group (Finnic and West Siberian peoples), and the Altaic group (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, Korean and Japanese peoples). The Turanians are the indigenous inhabitants of vast territories in Eurasia, from Central Europe to the Pacific Ocean, and have a rich and ancient cultural heritage… Throughout history, the Turanian lands have been invaded by foreigners: Semites, Persians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Slavs, and Germanic peoples. In many cases, the indigenous Turanian peoples have been and are still subjected to genocide, colonization, deportation, or assimilation. Foreign rule has not only caused great losses in demographic and cultural terms, but also economically and environmentally as severe damages have been inflicted by the exploitation and pollution of the Turanian lands.”

Hungarians, or ‘Maygars’ are therefore (in Turanist theory) not European in origin, but rather descend from a mixture of Central Asian peoples, closely related to the Mongolian, Turkic and (in some extreme variants of the idea) Japanese ethnic groups.

And Jobbik, far from the ‘White Nationalist’ movement the media has intimated hitherto, seems determined to de-emphasise if not abolish Hungary’s identification with European history.

Of all the follies of Turanism, it is naturally the identification with Turks that should most bother Counter-Jihad activists.

Unsurprisingly, given the local bitterness about being refused entry into the EU, Turanism is enjoying a particular renaissance in the Ottoman fatherland, where its nationalistic adherents hungrily recognise a knife with which to prise apart the bloc that so cruelly denied them.

A Turanic axis, inclusive of Turkey, Hungary, Azerbaijan and the Azeri region of Iran would be disastrous, not just for Western Europe, but also for Russia, whose vast Asian territory is claimed by the same movement.

For now, Jobbik is rightly sidelined by mainstream Nationalist movements for its Anti-Semitic, anti-Ziganist, and anti-Democratic energies. Only the BNP and like-minded siblings embrace the group and even with these, desperation (rather than approval) supplies the motivation.

Still, the party provides welcome evidence, if any were required, of how unmalleable theories of biology cannot allow for a realistic solution to the predominantly cultural battles of our era. A great deal of cultural history separates Hungarians from Turks, even if blood does not. It will be a measure of Europe’s strength as to which way Hungary turns.


The End of the European Union.


, , , , , , , , , , ,

Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg

If you watched the much-hyped debate between Nigel Farage and suited bureaucrat Nick Clegg, you’ll no doubt be more tempted to vote for UKIP than ever before. Farage, as the media has now reported, wiped the floor with his genderless, over-groomed opponent, whose main argument – namely, that withdrawal from the EU would plunge the UK economy into ruin – was (and is) supported by a podium of damp sand.

Nobody with a knowledge of European history can fail to notice what is becoming of the EU, and what lies immediately ahead of its downfall, should a more amicable divorce not be arranged before then.

‘War’ is the word; if not military war then economic war – or if neither then intra-national wars in the form of fascist implosions promoted by parties like Golden Dawn.

A fundamental truism conducts the orchestra here: In any European political arrangement, Germany will always emerge as the most powerful nation. This isn’t because of any calculation or intent, but purely because of the country’s size and industry.

Indeed, even when Germany was boxing with one hand (during the Soviet occupation of its Eastern region), German banks and planners still set the policies for the rest of the EU to follow.

Within the arrangement of the EU then, and its insidious doctrine of ‘ever closer union’, Berlin has naturally become Europe’s de facto capital, and the only place in which political debate serves a purpose other than recreation.

Greeks – in real terms – have no power over Greece. Portuguese have no influence over Portugal. The Italian grip on Italy is diminishing. The desire of other European states to avoid a similar fate is as inevitable as it is justified.

Although I derive from a country with a long tradition of anti-Germanism (rather a genetic hypocrisy for the English) I do not partake in the vice myself. My on and off girlfriend is German, and I have always valued in particular the musical achievements of that country. Nevertheless, German rule (as opposed to financial domination) of Europe is neither right, nor natural, nor – in the long term – sustainable. There is too much bad blood between Germans and other Europeans to allow for such an arrangement in the long term.

Ironically, the only argument for the European Union that still carries weight is also that which underlies its most fatal criticism. According to the website “The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War. Europeans are determined to prevent such killing and destruction ever happening again.”

Well, with economic inequality between Northern and Southern Europe beginning to hold lighters to German and even French standards, surely that argument has now crossed the floor. The prevention of intra-European conflict is now the goal of Eurosceptics. The promoters of the EU project have been disarmed of their founding principle.

I do not realise the EU’s mortality with a special joy. I actually like the fact that – should I feel like it – I could permanently relocate to Sweden, France or Portugal without going through an application process. As a British citizen, every door in the continent of Europe is open for me. It’s a pleasant liberty to possess.

Nevertheless, contingency plans are now needed for a divorce that seems all but guaranteed. To this end, UKIP I’m afraid is a dud force, incapable of delivering the very referendum which undergirds its manifesto. At the same stroke, David Cameron’s pledge to allow a referendum before 2017 is rather too late.

Ultimately, the collapse of the EU will – as Farage argued – be settled in one of two ways; Democratically, and with a preservation of order and moral norms, or if not that way, then in a different manner. To understand what that means, I refer your imagination to the centenary we commemorate this year.


Kanye West’s Poetic Incitement.


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


As I suggested in my earlier post on the genre, the reputation of hip-hop as a product of popular degeneration has misled many into thinking that it lacks a conscious, intelligent, or political agenda. Indeed, it is ludicrous to some even to consider it. The’ rapper’ as a social type is lazily imagined to be equivalent with the semi-feral street thugs or sub-standard White trash kids who consume his products. This is both wrong and potentially dangerous. To underestimate here is to misunderstand and so let us here again push back against the trend.

There is – I believe – no better contemporary example of hiphop’s insidious politicking than the artistry of the Chicagoan rapper Kanye West.

Mr West, you may have noticed, is a figure of particular ridicule among the educated (and those who believe themselves to be so). His outlandish public statements, his ‘humourous’ naming of his first-born ‘North’, and his marriage to the absurdly proportioned celebrity Kim Kardashian have made him low-hanging fruit for a predatory satirical class.

Nevertheless, West is, relative to his contemporaries, especially political, his lyricism often highly intelligent and his art loaded with racial significance.

The first lyric we’ll consider by way of illustration, is from a recent song entitled ‘New Slaves’:

“My momma was raised in an era when,
Clean water was only served to the fairer skin
Doing clothes you would have thought I had help
But they wasn’t satisfied unless I picked the cotton myself.”

This freezing of the clock in the era of slavery provides the keynote for much of West’s work. In this verse, West begins by acknowledging the cooled nature of ‘his’ complaint, but then proceeds to reheat it by placing himself in a previous historical time (“Unless I picked…). This speaks volumes about the faded thinking involved in Black Power movements.

It’s true to say that African-Americans have every right to be angry at the moral barbarism inflicted on their ancestors by slavery, but to make of it – as Mr. West does – fuel for division in the present is tawdry.

In ‘Black Skinhead’ West attempts to weather accusations of such irresponsibility in the following lines:

“Middle America packed in, came to see me in my black skin
Number one question they asking, fuck every question you asking
If I don’t get ran out by Catholics, here come some conservative Baptists
Claiming I’m overreacting like them black kids in Chiraq bitch”

Chiraq, as you’ll know, is a slang name for Chicago, the southern region of which has been transformed into a war zone by exclusively black gangs for a over decade. Even given this situation, or rather because of it, it’s pretty rich for Black hip-hop musicians like Mr. West to request sympathy for the problems he himself has long served to glamourize.

These two examples are not especially typical of all rap music. Indeed most of modern rap lyricism devotes itself to material wealth. I have chosen them rather to highlight two dominant political demands made by rap music;

1. (African-American) Entitlement because of the crimes of the past -


2. Sympathy (for African-Americans) because of the self-inflicted chaos of the present.

This twin-track manipulation – when understood – can be perceived everywhere, from the innocent-seeming romance described as RnB, to the nakedly aggressive ‘drill’-music emanating from Chicago, Detroit and other metropolitan Zimbabwes.

A third demand, detached from but germinated in the soil of the first two, is that African-Americans be allowed to incite hatred against their historic oppressor.

At the end of ‘New Slaves’ West seeks out revenge for the White crimes of the past with a tirade of sexually explicit aggression:

“They tryna lock niggas up
They tryna make new slaves
They prolly all in the Hamptons
Braggin’ ’bout their maid
Fuck you and your Hampton house
I’ll fuck your Hampton spouse
Came on her Hampton blouse
And in her Hampton mouth”

The Hamptons area of Long Island, New York is a middle to upper-class enclave populated mainly by Caucasian Americans of the suburban style. We can at least thank Mr West for not being cryptic in his sentiments.

Now let’s turn it around:

(forgive the lack of rhyme)

“They tryna rob us all
They tryna shoot us all
They prolly in Compton
Braggin bout their welfare
Fuck you and your Compton house
I’ll fuck your Compton spouse
Came on her Comptom blouse
And in her Compton mouth”

All I’ve done here is substitute the stereotypes West uses for Whites for those racists use for Blacks. What would happen do you think, if Ted Nugent, serenaded a rough-neck audience with lines like those?

African-American musical achievement is almost unparalleled in the modern era. From the blues to soul and jazz, to the first green shoots of rock and roll; Black innovation underlies the complex garden of modern music like rough but necessary soil, without which the garden could not have flourished at all. One still sees flashes of benign excellence from the same community today (the song ‘Happy’ by Pharrell – for example – is a simple but uplifting old-fashioned soul number well worth listening to.)

It’s all the greater shame then that Hip-Hop, with its divisive political methodology, threatens to overshadow what could otherwise be a fine legacy.


Muslim Rage: Conviction or Cognitive Dissonance.


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


One of my favourite characteristics of the English language is its abundance of idioms and ‘folk expressions’; phrases which can be used to express very complex ideas with simplicity and brevity, provided the other party is of a cultural kin.

You’ll no doubt have your own favourite example. Mine is the old phrase ‘Sour Grapes’.

As with other elements of our language, this idiom is now commonly used incorrectly. Many people believe ‘sour grapes’ to mean being bitter or annoyed about losing a game, when actually it is much more beautifully nuanced than this.

The ‘sour grapes’ idiom derives from a story in ‘Aesop’s Fables’ about a fox who tries to reach a high-hanging vine of perfectly ripe grapes. When he is unable to do so, he dismisses the grapes as being sour, in order to delude himself out of his own disappointment.

To lose a chess game and be angry therefore is not sour grapes. To lose a chess game and then dismiss the concept of ‘winning at chess’ as invalid – is.

This idiom is very useful – I find – to the modern situation as we confront it.

How much of Muslim rage against the West derives from a genuinely held belief in cultural superiority, and how much of it is – like the fox and the grapes – merely cognitive dissonance? Do Islamists hate the West because they genuinely love their poverty, or do they detest the West because its glistening fruit is beyond their capability?

To pursue an answer, let’s try a thought experiment:

Imagine a Pakistani youth walking down a high street in London. In the course of his journey he notices all the furniture of a modern, secular culture; a group of lightly clothed women congregating together without a family chaperone; smartly-dressed business people of both sexes enjoying a red wine lunch; young lovers walking hand in hand, having chosen each other freely, without filial or tribal consideration; and all about him rises the glassy architecture of an affluent, free and developed nation, built by people other than his own.

Isolated and confused by all this, he thinks to himself:

“Look at all these soulless, decadent sinners!” and pledges his energy to their collective destruction.

But then suddenly, out of nowhere, a magical figure appears in a puff of smoke and offers the startled fanatic a bargain -

“I feel sorry for your discomfort” the figure whispers “….And so I’m going to give you two ways to alleviate it… The first is for you to be born again in Pakistan, away from all this horrific liberty, and never to learn of it. Or, alternatively, I can make you one of these very people, in appearance, identity and lifestyle, so that it no longer bothers you and this tension is resolved.”

As to which option the Muslim would take, it is impossible to give numbers. We can nevertheless provide case studies of ideological weakness which suggest the latter option might often be more likely than the former.

Before embarking on the deadliest attack against the West this century, some members of the al-Qaeda hijack-squad are believed to have engaged in numerous un-Islamic practices on American soil, such as attending strip-clubs and getting blind drunk at liquor bars. Similarly, their ring-leader Osama Bin Laden, according to the Navy Seals who disposed of him, is said to have kept a large stash of Western pornography at his Pakistani compound. Meanwhile, the main regime credited with exporting the ideology utilised on 9/11, the Saudi Royal Family, routinely sends its younger members to Europe for a ‘private education’, during which their licentious, playboy behaviour has become notorious in London hotels and German brothels.

Closer to home, we have the following example: According to the Daily Mail, numerous students who attended University with the figurehead of British terrorism, Anjem Choudary, allege that the fanatic – despite his professed devotion to Sharia – was known to engage in extreme sexual promiscuity and drunkenness when away from the prying eyes of his family.

Finally (and most horribly), the Jihadi death squads who stalked unguarded neighbourhoods of Baghdad after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein were widely reported to have executed dozens of young men for possession of alcohol whilst under its influence themselves.

I could go on of course, but I don’t think I need to.

Is it enough to write all this off simply as hypocrisy; or might we justly infer a motive outside of the official excuse of religious piety? To tidy it up into a question: Do Islamists actually believe they are right, or are they merely thrashing around in a fit of nihilism and self-denial because they recognise they are wrong?”

My favourite novelist Martin Amis wrote against this idea in his masterful history of Stalinist genocide ‘Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million’. ‘Koranic rule’ he wrote ‘is meant to work’. It is meant to result in affluence, ‘swimming pools and atomic bombs’.

According to Amis’s position then, when Muslims erect a society like that attempted by the Taliban in Afghanistan, they sincerely and unironically believe that Sharia law – harshly applied – will eventuate in a Utopia that shames the West by its own example.

As much as I admire Amis’s gifts, I must disagree with him here. Islamists might be fanatical, and psychopathic, and unreasonable, but I don’t believe they are stupid.

More likely for me is that they, like the fox, cannot admit to themselves that they have failed and – worse – that a great historic rival has got to the fruit instead. To concede as much would require a renunciation of the superiority of Sharia law and thus of their deepest held convictions.

Trapped between this terrible humility and an intolerable status quo, their violence is merely music to drown out the sound of their contradiction.

When George W. Bush suggested in a post-9/11 speech that al-Qaeda ‘hate us (America and the West) for our freedom’, he was roundly mocked, including by those on the right who otherwise agreed with him. It sounded implausible and contradictory. Why would people become suicidally angry about another culture’s success?

Cognitive dissonance is the answer, and I hope you’ll agree that (on this at least) President Bush is owed an apology.


Family Guy and the Acceptable Racism of the Left.


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


Liberals are smart, kindly and open-minded; Conservatives are dumb, nasty and closed minded. Such is convention in even the most professedly informed circles of opinion. So sure are these principles considered in fact, that they lend themselves sufficiently to a grading system: The more Conservative you are, the more stupid and closed minded; the more Liberal you are, the more intelligent…

Nobody is confused about where this dichotomy derives from. It was born on University campuses in the Sixties, when Left-Wing professors added a compulsory Liberalism module to all academic degrees. Since that decade, almost every graduate, having emerged through an intellectual car-wash of politicised education, has self-identified as firmly on the Left. By this same process, the Right (and the thinking associated with it) has become associated with those not clever enough to attend University; the sub-professional class, or – if you prefer – the 95 percent.

But how accurate are these assumptions today? To find out, let’s use the favourite measure of the Left – Racism.

It is undoubtedly true that those who are consciously racist most often identify as ‘right-wing’, and those who consider themselves non or anti-racist, align as Left-wing. This, however says nothing about that sizable group of people who are racist without being conscious of the fact.

Racism, lest we forget, is not all about pointed hoods, Roman salutes and burning crosses. Before it becomes anything political, Racism is merely a mindset, a tendency of thought. A racist is someone who judges people according to categories too broad to be reliably accurate. He or she might believe (for example) that all Blacks are criminals, that Jews are greedy, that Hispanics are lazy, Arabs are violent, Russians are alcoholics etc… The specific error involved here is generalisation, and it lies behind every other vice of the political mind from misandry to misogyny, ageism to disablism…

To investigate the levels of unconscious bigotry in the liberal community, perhaps no better example can be found to work with than the satirical cartoon ‘Family Guy’. Despite airing on the FOX network, Family Guy is an unmistakably liberal creation, loudly opposed to religious belief, guns and ‘rednecks’, degrading to male sexuality and conservative politics, and as its unifying principle – hostile toward the values of the family. The lead writer and creator of Family Guy Seth Macfarlane also has an active political life outside of entertainment, playing a leading role in organised Atheism, Democratic advocacy and Gay rights.

As is typical of Liberal presumption, Macfarlane seems to believe that these political credentials provide him with a pass on all matters otherwise covered by political correctness. As a result, his long-running show, whilst always nominally leaning Leftward, draws from an open sewer of caricature against every group imaginable.

Hispanic characters in Family Guy are typically of suspicious origin, illiterate in English, and employed as menial labour. Blacks are smooth, handsome but stupid dolts permanently relegated to second-standing. Asians are uptight, slant-eyed freaks who cannot speak properry.

But of all its grotesque liberties, the representation of Jews on Family Guy is perhaps most worthy of note. Consider the analysis of Mark Pinsky writing in the Jewish Daily Forward:

“Anti-Semitism is a serious charge” he writes “…made too quickly and too often. But as someone who has followed (Family Guy creator Seth) MacFarlane’s career, I think it is well past time to call him out.”

In Pinsky’s words the show ” reinforces classic, anti-Semitic stereotypes: greedy, cheap, cowardly, whiny, averse to physical labor, and in control of Hollywood.”

The main Jewish character in Family Guy – Mort Goldman – (an accountant, naturally) -is usually portrayed as weak, shy, unmanly, and qualified only in numbers. Many other Jewish characters are wheeled on to add emphasis to this concept.

My point here – it should be clarified – is not to complain about FG’s lack of Political Correctness. In fact, I completely support its unfettered exercise of freedom of speech. My point is rather a question: Why can Liberals say these things, and not anyone else?

Why, for example, can Macfarlane mock the disabled (through the wheelchair-bound character – Joe) without attracting a whiff of public outrage, but a Conservative, or even Centrist comedian trying the same would be hounded to the grave? Why – to put the question simply – does Liberalism provide an exemption from Political Correctness? Indeed, if Political Correctness really is only a benign ‘institutionalised politeness’ (as Stewart Lee eloquently argued) then why are exemptions from it made at all?

The outdated British comedian Jim Davidson (whose live act is filled with jokes about Gay, Irish and Black people) was interviewed last year on BBC Newsnight. When asked why he was condemned by modern comics as being out-of-date, he said his mistake was not to play the ‘irony’ card. When asked to explain further, he described the attitude as “I can’t be racist cos’ I went to University”.

I have no affection for Mr Davidson’s act, but his description of the Liberal attitude is pin-point accurate. And until the Left addresses its own bigotry in this regard, its attacks on others will rightly be deemed hypocrisy.


Obituary for the English Defence League.


, , , , , , , , ,


When the Manchester United football team play Manchester City, a physical crowd of 70,000 people is these days almost guaranteed. A similar number can be expected at other rivalrous matches like Everton Vs Liverpool, Celtic vs Glasgow Rangers, Tottenham vs Arsenal, and Chelsea vs Human Decency.

These crowds are not drawn by the promise of entertainment (or at least not by that alone) but by emotion and genuine sentimentality.

Tens of thousands of people, young and old, male and female, show up at football stadiums periodically to unload the kind of hatred, loyalty and aggression that was, perhaps only 70 years ago, confined entirely to the battlefield.

And as on the battlefield, the entrenchment of division over extended periods of time has spilled naturally over into personal animosity. Manchester United fans – for example – are known to detest their Manchester City rivals with a racial intensity, often leading to acts of deranged, pointless violence. The same is true of the other examples mentioned.

Every football club in Britain therefore has its own army fit and willing to engage in massive co-ordinated action. The genius of the English Defence League was to try and tap this enormous resource and redirect the energy expended on the irrational into something rational. To take, that is, the hollow love for a corporation (because that is all modern football teams are) and channel it into a love of country and culture.

Indeed, the original name for the EDL – ‘Casuals United’ – (‘Casual’ is an English phrase for a football hooligan hidden among ordinary supporters by the wearing of inconspicuous casual clothes) suggested a unification of the nation’s hooligans into a common formation; one in which all differences would be suspended under a single banner to combat a menace that recognises no distinctions.

And how it worked!… For while at least.

Crowds came out in thousands. Shivers trickled down the coward spines of Islamists in every city. Streets were, for a while, reclaimed – repatriated to the soil beneath their urban paving and all its socialist rot.

And then in Walthamstow, the Socialists fought back and by numbers the EDL was humiliated in a way it never recovered from.

Months later, sensing the ship he built beginning to waver, leader Tommy Robinson converted to moderation, leaving confused and betrayed masses scrambling for land and meaning.

They have since failed to find any.

The EDL is dead. Deader than the BNP, National Front or any other ‘far-right’ political body to which it was once erroneously compared.

Those armies the EDL plucked from the fancy of sport are now steadily returning to the terraces. All their anger will soon be again directed at millionaires booting a ball of leather on a green-grass pitch, and not spent on protesting the encroachment of a religious community who would forbid such gatherings altogether. A sad irony.

Those who still fancy a fight for cultural survival are turning their gaze to the cultureless Thatcherites of the United Kingdom Independence Party; a clique obsessed by money, Europe and rural freedoms.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that as it relates to Jihadism, UKIP is a blunt sword. Nigel Farage, his oratorical brilliance aside, is nothing more than a corporate dandy, politically deep and ideologically shallow.

We would of course be better off under a UKIP regime in the short term, but the long term would likely emerge unaffected.

The search for a viable resistance continues. It is to accelerate that search that we should be frank about the EDL’s demise. It has ceased to motivate or to inspire and should now be disbanded.


India Will Not Be a Superpower.


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


It has long been standard practice among foreign policy experts to include into future projections the potential influences of an ‘Indian Superpower’.

Behind this logic lies a demographic determinism which, broadly applied, also promotes the highly fertile nations of Brazil, South Africa and Nigeria to a similar hypothetical prowess later in the century. To put the logic at its most simple:

Big population + stability = China.

Anyone with a less politically-correct mind will of course (correctly) discount the potential of Nigeria or South Africa gaining a seat at the top (economic, political or military) table any time soon. Some however might understandably find the prospect of India ascending to such a rank rather more feasible.

After all, India is due to become the most populous country in the world in a matter of years. The territory of India is large, diverse, and in a geo-strategically important position. The military of India is huge and well-equipped by EU and American exporters. The country is also the world’s largest democracy, with guaranteed representation for all faiths, genders and political persuasions. This status as a democratic counterweight to the rise of Chinese autocracy in Asia may further tighten Delhi’s ties with Washington and secure generous terms of alliance with America long into the future.

It is a strong case then, I concede, and I’ve little doubt most policy-makers will continue to believe it. But I also have a diminishing sense of doubt that they are wrong.

After the population issue is discarded, India has very little in common with its rapidly ascending Northern neighbor. In fact, the differences, considered closely, couldn’t be more stark.

For whatever reason this may be, China has industrialized at a rate that has left India scrambling in the dust. Chinese cities have shifted in just a few decades from semi-rural wastelands to New-York-grade metropolises, complete with financial districts, subways, lightening fast overground train networks and first-class infrastructures. Even the wealthiest and most important Indian cities like Delhi and Mumbai have nothing on a myriad of internationally unknown Chinese urban centres. Comparing Delhi to the prefecture level city of Chongchinq for example, is equivalent to comparing Bogota to Chicago. The distance in modernity, infrastructure and appearance couldn’t be more starkly presented.


In terms of Cultural sophistication (provided we take the West as the standard to measure against) India lags even further behind their Northern counterparts. China, under the dictats of its (albeit heavily qualified) ‘Communism’ has outlawed many tribal practices that only fifty years ago were considered the norm. India however, under the much lighter reforming hand of democracy, has yet to abandon many of its most antique oppressions. Women in India (from all religious backgrounds) are routinely married not by love and choice, but by considerations of caste and family standing.

Should the women in question flee into more modern practices, then honor killing is not unheard of even in large, middle class cities like Bangalore or Chennai.

If rape rates are an adequate measure of cultural misogyny, India is also far behind the expectations of the modern idea. Sexual assault is a horribly common occurrence in India, and this has become especially notorious of late as the ‘Delhi gang-rape’ scandal hit headlines across the world.

As to explanations for the endemic violence against women, the Guardian reported that some consider it “a consequence of the efforts of a growing number of women, even in remote areas, to claim basic freedoms denied for centuries.. ” while “…Others point to India’s acute gender imbalance, tenacious caste system and entrenched patriarchal culture. Conservatives have blamed “western influences”, women’s clothing and even fast food.

“Informal village courts run by local male elders, such as that which ordered this most recent attack, are common across much of rural India and are frequently responsible for inflicting cruel, sometimes lethal, punishments for supposed social transgressions such as marrying without their prior consent. Such courts also frequently oblige relatives to take violent action to restore the “honour” of a community.”

Despite what we might automatically (and given the situation in neighbouring Pakistan, justifiably) assume, those involved are not all Muslims, but Sikhs and Hindus too.

India is also weakened by that very diversity. The country is a very recently woven patchwork of historically divided religious communes, many of which have come to violent confrontation in just the past few decades. Though it might be said that China is equally afflicted by division (Tibetans, Uygurs etc…) – such cleavages are there managed by an efficiently centralized, undemocratic regime. Parliamentary Democracy (like that which governs India) is much less suited to holding religiously or ethnically divided countries together (for comparison, I give you the cases of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Lebanon). China’s authoritarianism also serves to manage the fallout from economic inequality, an increasing problem on both sides of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

In conclusion, although India will certainly become more economically important as the 21st century progresses, an Indian Superpower is a most unlikely prospect.


Historical Awareness.


, , , , , , , , , , ,


People in the Counter-Jihad fraternity are justified on occasion for feeling they are banging their heads against a brick wall.

This blog, just like Gates of Vienna, Jihadwatch, IslamversusEurope and so on, often seems like it preaches to the choir. On the issue of Islam, the general public prefers – over controversy and truth – occasional fits of anger, separated by long periods of tepid disinterest. Playing a part in the effort to save Europe therefore can often feel like little more than a hobby.

As to why we are failing, many different theories have been advanced - from the successes enjoyed by Leftist slander (‘Racist!’ etc…), to the unfortunate excesses of people who identify with us (Breivik etc..).

My own theory is rather different. I believe that the public suffers less from ignorance (the threat of Islamism is well known by now) than from a defective poise of the imagination. Put simply, the public suffers from a lack of Historical Self-Awareness.

Of all the intellectual senses, historical self-awareness is among the most valuable and also the most rare. To know your position in history requires both a knowledge of the past and a knack for imagining the future. Both are difficult to develop.

Most people talk about the Holocaust, to take a grand example, in terms that suggest it was almost something ancient, hidden behind a mist of centuries, almost irrelevant to the present - like the conquests of Genghis Khan, or the immolation of Pompeii.

But of course the mass-murder of European Jewry did not happen in an age of swords and sandals, but that of Charlie Chaplin and Bob Hope. It entirely merits the term ‘recent’.

When this awareness becomes possible, other things move into view.

Fifty years ago, near the midpoint of the swinging Sixties, both Europe and America were fertile, homogenous and unchallengeable by any country in the world. Not even China and Japan, whose economic miracles were then only beginning to germinate, could bare comparison. The Islamic world meanwhile was a sedentary, mediocre irrelevance, of interest only as a strategic asset to Washington or Moscow.

Stockholm was Swedish. London was English. Lebanon had a Christian majority and a civilized, aspirational society. Iran and Turkey wanted nothing more than to imitate the obvious advantages of Western culture. To advance the point-of-view that Sharia-compliant society was superior to the glittering capitalism of New York was considered as absurd in the suburbs of Cairo as in London.

Fast-forward to the modern world. Europeans are aging, dying out (by up to a quarter a generation) and diminishing in every area of global influence. China is (in real terms) the world’s leading economic power. The South-West of America is steadily but irresistibly returning to Mexican administration. Swedes are no longer safe on their own streets. Murder, mugging and terrorism are an everyday threat in London, Paris and Madrid. Mosques proliferate across the continent. The point of view that Sharia law is superior to Liberal Capitalism is no longer a fringe view in Cairo but absolutely dominant, as it is across the Muslim world and in swelling portions of the West itself.

We who can comprehend the scale and speed of change between these two eras recognize that what has happened, and is happening constitutes an emergency. Those who have known only the present however, or who have never wondered what came before it, or who have naively assumed ’twas every thus’ cannot see any problem at all.

My generation in particular falls into the latter category. Multiculturalism is often imagined as being the default condition of history. Gang violence, Islamist terrorism, Muslim rape-gangs, drug-dealing, Sharia courts in Western towns – nothing about this is new, or strange, or not completely inevitable. Those old folk who maintain otherwise are just bitter, deluded liars.  

The reality is very different of course. Despite the liberal consensus, the age before multiculturalism was not a living hell of injustice, boredom and sterility, but of cohesion, happiness and invention – an age that supported a position now slipping through the West’s fingers like water.

Until this issue is addressed - by a more honest portrayal of the recent past and its advantages – little may be affected in the future.


RT: The Mask Slips.


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


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.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers