Europe is Suspended Until Further Notice


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


The picture above was taken in Belgium just a few days ago. That’s right, Belgium: the reassuringly boring, eternally peaceful expanse between France and the Netherlands, home of world-class chocolatiers, breweries and waffle-makers; the scene of history’s most peaceful civil conflict over land; office space of the European Union.

In this photograph, what can we see? Well, as far as I can make out, it shows heavily-armed soldiers interviewing a Muslim woman on the cobbled streets of the capital city, Brussels; a scene and scenario reminiscent of the darker days of the former Soviet Union, or perhaps an upmarket area of the modern Middle East.

Though this is happening in Europe, this isn’t Europe. Europe as we know it is suspended until further notice. And with great sadness, I must speculate that this notice may not come for some time.

We have grown so used to the majority of Islamic violence taking place in the Middle East that the near future is likely to be very traumatic. Whilst the Israelis have found a way to continue their coffee and croissant culture in the midst of military checkpoints, barbed-wire fences and back-slung rifles, Europe is entirely unaccustomed to that reality. How will we cope? How will we explain the changes to our children?

It is necessary that we think about this. The explosion of Islamist activity that began with the establishment of ISIS in Iraq and which opened a broad European theatre with the attacks in Paris is not going away any time soon. This is merely the beginning, the opening act. If you were thinking the fire would die down in a few weeks, after which you could go back to worrying about the next Manchester United match, or the prospects of Andy Murray at next year’s Wimbledon, you are greatly mistaken. I predicted many months ago (in my post “ISIS and the Coming Terror Wave”) that a massive campaign of Islamist violence would be inflicted upon European cities in retaliation for the bombing of ISIS territory in Syria. I was right, as were many others. We knew that ISIS could not be contained with airstrikes. We knew that ISIS wasn’t weak or disorganised enough to be broken up by police raids or rudimentary border controls.

To repel an organisation of this kind will take bold and ruthless action – not only by the West, but Russia and allied Middle Eastern states (Israel and Jordan) also. Tens of thousands of bombs must fall. Thousands of missiles must be fired. It will take years, not months. It will cost billions, not millions.

As to the home-front, attacks like those in Paris will be attempted across the continent. Expect them. Prepare for them. Obey government orders to stay inside when they are made. Do not launch vigilante retaliations. If you do so, emergency measures enacted to deal with terrorists may be extended to contain you as well. While governments are (by their very nature) untrustworthy, our militaries are surely on our side. Put your trust in them, even if in no-one else.

For all the Islamic State’s storm and bluster, they cannot challenge the West at its peak capabilities. Our weapons are better and more plentiful than theirs. A jeep cannot repel a Raptor. An RPG cannot outwit a Tomahawk. Let’s be sure to impress the bastards, even as we dispose of them.

Let’s also take the prompt of the moment to regain pan-civilizational solidarity. Here in England, we often consider the continental nations to be slightly ridiculous, their eccentricities entrenched so deep that they limit the rationality of their general population. We consider France, for example, to be hopelessly Left-wing, prone to post-modern philosophy and addicted to leisure. We see the Dutch as pot-smoking, laid-back liberals; the Swedes as naked, free-loving Feminists; the Germans as militaristic work-robots etc… But despite these bigotries, we all secretly value the traditions of our continental neighbours. Our rivalries are friendly; our prejudices are light-hearted. This is why the descent of a state like Belgium into a ‘den of terror’ (as it has been shockingly branded since Paris) is and will be hard to take for all of us.

This is a sad time, but not yet a hopeless one. Strength lies in numbers. We are all in the same boat. And if we combine our efforts and efficiently apply them, Europe – as we knew it – will one day resume.


The Facebook Flag Issue


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


One of the ways in which the Left sought to dampen down the fires of reaction over Paris was to emphasise a supposed moral imbalance between the world reaction to French deaths and to deaths in the Muslim world.

The day before the Paris attack, bombs – set by ISIS – detonated in a Shia neighbourhood of Beirut, capital of Lebanon and the famed ‘Paris of the Middle East’. However, unlike in relation to Paris, there was no official reaction from social media. Most notably, on Facebook, there was no feature by which one could change one’s profile picture to the Lebanese Cedar, as one could (and most did) to the French tricolour. The insinuation of the complaint was and is that Europeans, Americans – and Facebook itself – do not value all terror victims equally; that they are ‘racist’ in some way. One article in the UK Independent newspaper even went so far as to brand the disparity evidence of a ‘corporate White supremacism’ – whatever that can be said to mean.

Now, whilst I recognise all too well the manipulations intended by this crusade, I will nevertheless take its prompt to state that I do not view some lives as being less worthy than others. At least not for the reasons they propose. While the victims in Beirut were Muslims (adhering to a religion I’ve come to rather disapprove of), they were citizens of a relatively liberal society, and it is for that reason that their deaths are unfortunate. By contrast, if an Afghan or Saudi man is stoned to death, my inclination (wrong as it may be) is to say he was fortunate simply to escape such an environment.

In saying this I consciously raise a very difficult but important ethical question, and it is a different one to that being posed (with such cynical enthusiasm) by the Left. While humans of a certain ethnicity are not intrinsically less worthy than others, is the death of a free human (of any race) more tragic than the death of an unfree person (of any race)?

If some of the dead in Paris, for example, were atheist/Christian Arabs, would I be more upset for them than for their ethnic fellows perished in ISIS-controlled Syria? To use another example, is the death of a  21 year-old North Korean less tragic or upsetting than the death of a 21 year-old South Korean? My response to both questions would be ‘yes’.

Recall to mind that to be a legal citizen of the free world is to have won the human lottery; the jackpot of life. To lose such a life, therefore, is to lose more. More value (in potential happiness, liberty, creativity etc…) is lost when a free person dies, than when a slave dies. That is not to say that one life is less worthy than the other. It merely explains why we have the reactions we have to different emotional stimuli. 

This is beastly philosophising, but philosophise we must in order to make sense of our increasingly beastly world.


Western Attention Deficit Disorder


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


Just over a year ago (last October) I wrote an article entitled ‘Is Jihadism Becoming Accepted?” (google to read it in full). After the Paris attacks of last week, and given the length and intensity of the reaction to them, I believe I am justified in recycling some quotes from it.

“During this process of Islamisation…” I began “…a good way of gauging the will to resist in the general population is to monitor the speed of recovery after each individual Muslim outrage; that is, how long it takes for the public to resume its usual apathetic mood after being shocked anew by a terror attack or comparable scandal involving Muslims…”

I then gave a brief history of terror outrages (against Western targets), noting that each reaction was briefer than the one before… “The pattern here is obvious: Years, then months, then weeks, then days… Jihadism – it seems – is becoming assimilated into everyday Western life. This is potentially devastating and for several reasons…Most of all it is because shock and anger are integral to the psychology of human resistance.”

Now, a question: Do you believe the reaction to the Paris attacks of this month has been more proactive, severe or long-lasting than the reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shootings of last January? Personally, I don’t believe so.

Indeed, facebook gimmicks and a few cruise missiles aside, there has been very few political consequences. While, for 24 hours or so, the world was undoubtedly transfixed on the Bataclan carnage, a few days more reduced the event to fish and chip paper. Compare this to the years of outrage over 9/11, the months of outrage over 7/7, the weeks of outrage over Lee Rigby, and the 5 or 6 days of outrage over Charlie Hebdo. While more people dislike – even hate – Muslims than ever before, there is a diminishing vibrancy and intelligence in their emotions. Perhaps needless to say, this is gravely worrying.

Whatever else can be said about Muslims, one cannot say that they are forgetful. Indeed, we are still being attacked in retribution for the re-conquest of Andalusia, the Balfour declaration and the publishing of the Satanic Verses. Muslims remember. They hold grudges. The Western mind, by contrast, is easier to distract than the mind of toddler loaded up on Jelly beans. Whether to facebook, twitter, youtube, xbox or football, Western attention flees from unpleasant realities, having given them only the briefest glance in the first place.

This must change if we are to survive. If terrorism becomes an accepted part of our culture and everyday lives, we will lose the will to do anything decisive or conclusive about it. Religious violence is not acceptable in the modern world, and nor is it inevitable, natural or ‘the way things go’. It is exceptional, horrid and shocking and must remain so to our imagination.


Islam in Europe Can’t Work


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


What a breathless charge of hatred Friday evening saw… The sheerest malevolence driving towards the innocent at a hundred miles an hour. The chaos left behind is nightmarish. Bodies strewn on the streets; sporting events and classical concerts cancelled, morgues inundated with cooling bodies, clouds of gunsmoke and burnt explosives washing over the streets of Sartre, Husymans and De Beauvoir. 127 people (this is the figure at the time of writing) have perished, most of them young, most of them middle-class. We can assume from such data that many of them will have been liberal, even towards Islam. How cruel, how very awful it is that they have been made to depart in the process learning the vital truth of our age.

What truth? The truth that Islam is violent – and that Muslims are themselves violent in proportion to how much credence they give their religious beliefs. This is the unvarnished reality. I am very tired of hearing the ‘not all Muslims are terrorists’ talking-point. While terrorists don’t yet comprise a majority in the Ummah, the true proportion is markedly higher than the 2-3% fabricated by our political elite. You don’t need to be dead on the ground, surrounded by shards of glass and puddles of blood to be called a terrorist. All suicide bombers were alive once. They smiled once. They had jobs once. Likewise, many ‘ordinary’ Muslims walking beside us today will end up trying to kill us. As to why they behave this way, the lies simply won’t work anymore. Beyond all those block-headed and absurd analogies with abortion clinic bombings, the truth remains that Islamic violence really has no equivalent in other faiths. Most religions have modernised, re-examined their doctrines and tamed their believers. Islam, by terrible contrast, actively resists even the most moderate alterations to its foundational dogmas. For this reason, the modern world must resist its incorporation as actively as one would resist imbibing a fatal poison.

Have we learnt anything new from Paris’s nightmare? Not really. ISIS has today claimed responsibility for the attack, but this was largely a waste of energy. We knew who was responsible from the moment the story broke. Indeed, since we have opened our borders to ISIS-infested Syria for the best part of a year, the only wonder is why this hasn’t happened before now.

While some of our head-in-the-sand celebrity class may have learnt a lesson, the chances are it’s already been beaten out of them. The respected comedian Jason Manford, a very liberal personality, had his whole Facebook profile deleted after posting the following ‘outburst’:

“Slaughtering innocent unarmed people for what? Families and children enjoying life, theatre, meals? For what? In whose name? Are you doing this in the name of your God? Cos I’ve got news for you. If you think your ‘God’ is gonna reward you for this type of atrocity then your God is a massive cunt. I hope you are all caught and murdered in a similar agonising way you fucking scumbags.”

I can’t see much to be ashamed of in Manford’s reaction. Can you? But that doesn’t matter. We are expected – commanded even – to forget the facts, overlook the well-established reality, and make sure not to offend the people cocking AK-47s in toilets waiting to launch massacres. All else is fascism.

This kind of mass-folly is unsustainable. Europe will always be incompatible with Islam. On this matter, the people already know better than the government. Moderating propaganda will always be futile. Instead of lying to us, our elected representatives (in step with the public) must be brave, come together and talk without censorship about the unpleasant realities of Islamic immigration.

Only when we admit to having a problem can we begin to do something about it. And after Paris, Rotherham, New York, Washington, Madrid, Jerusalem, Tunisia, Benghazi, London, Glasgow, Moscow, Mumbai, Sydney, Beslan, Fort Hood, Stockholm and Argentina… anyone who denies that we have a problem is a fool at best, an enemy at worst.


ISIS: After the Fall


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


Friday’s attack did not occur without a greater context. Though it’s too soon to speak with certainty, it would appear that ISIS (aka Islamic State, aka ISIL) is beginning to weaken and may soon collapse. The evidence for this proposition is plentiful. After years of superhuman military performance in which towns fell to the group in a matter of hours, often having been emptied of resistance beforehand by the sheer (justified) terror of remaining, great swathes of IS-held territory are now falling (just as rapidly) to Syrian and Kurdish troops. The controversial Russian intervention seems to have greatly diminished ISIS morale and the US and UK drone strikes (which today disposed of a particularly vicious fool known as Jihadi John) are steadily picking off the group’s here-today, gone-tomorrow leadership. And while ISIS boasts of being the penultimate destination of all Muslim believers, the number of ‘Western’ Muslims travelling to Syria to join the nascent Caliphate has been falling consistently for months, perhaps a reflection of a declining reputation on its part.

Let’s be optimistic and presume this is the case. Let’s presume that ISIS has but a few more blood-soaked months of life left in it. What happens then? What should happen to the thousands (and there are still many thousands) of ISIS members when their protective unity is no more? Obviously, this will initially require one of the largest mass arrests since the fall of Nazi Germany. But what comes after that? What sentence or punishment would be sufficient for the crimes these savages have delighted in committing over the past five years?

You’ve probably guessed my answer already, but I’ll detail it regardless. If an ISIS militant is captured in the midst of combat, he should face the death penalty. If this sounds excessive (and I’m sure you don’t think so), remember that had any of the medieval crimes ISIS members have committed over the last few years been committed in America, a death sentence would have been issued in every case. This really is no different. Furthermore, we’re already issuing death sentences from the air with our drone strikes. I can think of no valid counter-argument to this.

After the fall of ISIS, captured fighters should not be extradited to their home countries, but promptly turned over to the Syrian military (the Kurds, Russians and Jordanians are too humane). Given the moral standards of the Assad regime, we can be sure the correct action will be taken, and with little compassion or fanfare. ISIS members have lived by the sword, and they shall die by it, too. For over half a decade, they have massacred uncountable civilians, beheaded them, cut their arms off for ‘witchcraft’ and other imaginary offences, thrown gays from the top floor of bombed-out buildings, gang-raped non-Muslim women, and sold others into sexual slavery. They have recently shot 200 CHILDREN in the head and uploaded footage of the crime onto the internet. Before that, they butchered Christians on the shores of the Mediterranean, turning the sea a dark shade of red. They fed other Christians to dogs, watching gleefully as they were agonisingly ripped apart.

Just as the Nazis were hung for their crimes, so must ISIS hang for theirs.


America is Not Going Down the Tubes


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


One of the hardest things to endure when watching the GOP and Democratic debates is the tendency of politicians to fabricate an unrealistically negative prognosis for the United States as a whole. In both cases, talking points like the following are typical: “America is on its knees, screaming for help.” – “The American Middle Class is being decimated.” – “The American dream is dying.” – “Americans are losing hope.” – “If we don’t act now, our country will not survive” – And on, and on…

This kind of scaremongering is both irresponsible and starkly inaccurate. America is not going down the tubes. Indeed, relative to the faltering civilisation across the pond, America is booming, setting sail into a new century with strength, opportunity and stability. While there are certainly challenges America must deal with, such as the Latinisation of the Pacific South-West, mass retirement of baby boomers and a rising, potentially hostile China, none of these challenges – unlike the infusion of Islam into Europe – poses an existential threat to the historic entity itself.

So why do people say otherwise? Political expediency is an obvious answer. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a man I quite liked a few months ago, has since completely repelled my affection with an unceasing binge of melodramatic doom-mongering. There is no question as to why he indulges in this. Cruz is like the mechanic who subtly wrecks a fine-working part of the car in order to make his services more necessary than they are. He is putting greed before truth, manipulation before reality.

Among the GOP field, only two candidates are striking a positive and proactive tone – Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. The former, though born in the USA, still has the optimistic fervour of an immigrant. Coming from a family of Cuban exiles, Rubio still recognises the innate advantages of the American model, and he has yet to be corrupted by the Machiavellian orthodoxies of Washington. Going back and scribbling out many things I’ve said in the past, I would subsequently much prefer Rubio over Cruz were this the choice to be made.

Thankfully, it isn’t. Or at least not yet. Despite the unceasing onslaught from a corrupt mainstream media, Donald Trump remains the man to beat. In every major poll (barring the highly suspicious numbers manufactured by MSNBC), Trump is the clear front-runner to receive the final nomination. Nothing the billionaire has said or done in his campaign has been deceptive. His claims of American failings are all sourced from reliable data. America really is being taken for a ride by China and other low-wage worker colonies like Mexico and India. No exaggeration is required of the dangers in that.

This is very different from what other candidates are recklessly maintaining. Unlike them, Trump has never claimed that America itself is falling to pieces. Rather, he decries the stupidity of its leaders. He proposes to ‘make America great again’ because he knows greatness is still inherent within it.

Europe, by contrast, is a mess; a rickety, skeletal tribute to what it once was.  If we had half the reasons for hope America has, we would be among the happiest people in the world.


Computer Issues.


, , , , ,


Hello all,

My laptop has been in for a servicing this past week. The folk at the desk informed me it would take a day to repair, but this turned out to be a rather callous untruth. It was in on Tuesday and was only released back into the wild yesterday. I am hurriedly writing, but this shall have to be for next Monday.

Though I always feel bad about missing a week, my record in this regard is still rather good (this is only the 4th week I’ve missed in 2 and a half years). I shall therefore only lightly self-flagellate.

Have a great week.


PS: I saw this earlier today and found it amusing. The debate concerns the excessive reach of gender feminism in modern Britain.

Cumberbatch, Please…


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


I have never understood the appeal of English actor Benedict Cumberbatch, and given his recent remarks on the hoodlum invasion of Europe, I don’t think I ever will…

In case you have yet to hear – last week, after a performance of Hamlet in which he starred, Cumberbatch provided something of foul-mouthed encore, lecturing the captive audience on the needs of Middle Eastern ‘refugees’. Begging the governments of Europe to do more for them, he climaxed with the juvenile and decidedly un-Shakespearean words “Fuck the politicians!”.

In the private universe of the remarkably overrated, misshapen vegetable-headed fool, the British commitment to take in 20,000 hoodlums was parsimonious. Though Cumberbatch didn’t put an figure on his desired influx, by implication it must number somewhere in the hundreds of thousands, amounting to a dramatic and permanent (and completely unwanted) alteration of our national-cultural make-up.

When this fit of anti-logic was reported in the press, almost every comment beneath every article contained the same point: Why doesn’t Cumberbatch himself take in refugees? It is an obvious and simple reaction, requiring little reflection, and yet can anyone really argue with it? As far as he has made known, Cumberbatch has not taken in a single soul since the crisis began, and has made known no plans to do so either. And for all his demands for donations, I know of no large contribution made in the actor’s (quite ridiculous) name.

What is Cumberbatch asking of us here? Let’s remind ourselves., lest we feel moved to accuse ourselves of overreaction. Mr Cumberbatch is asking us to take in hundreds of thousands of single Muslim men of military age. By and large, they are NOT Syrians, but a ragtag assortment of burdens lifted from every country in the Muslim world (the largest contingent is said to be from Afghanistan – a country we have already done so too much for). Such people (as Cumberbatch will surely be aware) have no moral right to enter Europe, and do so not out of misery, but out of greed. Furthermore, since the majority are devout believers in the worst religion in the world, they will – if allowed in – create further refugee crises in towns and cities across Britain. Will the actor sympathise with these exiles too?

Cumberbatch’s moral position, as well as being stupid, borders on treason, and is well within the borders of ingratitude. The culture of Europe, the same cultural flowerbed from which Cumberbatch’s beloved Shakespearean theatre sprouted, is being sown with salt. He should be ashamed of himself for partaking in the desecration of the only civilisation that values him, that can fully appreciate his work, would tolerate his lifestyle, and that continues to pay his scandalously bloated salary.

He won’t be ashamed, though, will he? For he belongs to a liberal cosmopolitan elite that is becoming ever more detached from everyday reality, from the urban ghetto and from the common man. His opinion is worthless. His suggestions are insane. By rights, his career should now be over.


The Dark Enlightenment


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


If you’re one of those people not yet not au fait with the internet phenomenon/subculture referred to as the ‘Dark Enlightenment’, perhaps the best way to describe it is with reference to its adherents favourite movie scene. This is the moment in The Matrix, when Neo is offered two pills – one blue, one red. The man offering the medicaments, Morpheus, informs Neo that the pills have different metaphysical powers. One of them, the blue one, will send him back to the artificial world of the Matrix (a computer simulation) that he is already familiar with, completely ignorant of the existence of the alternate (real) world. The other pill, the red one, will make it impossible for him to go back to the sleep of unreality. Upon taking it, he will tumble down the rabbit-hole of the truth, however ugly or traumatic he may find that truth to be. As you’re probably aware, Neo boldly chooses the red pill, and so begins the main action of the film. Well, Dark Enlightenment adherents view themselves as embarking upon a comparably journey to Neo’s, and will often refer to themselves as being ‘red-pilled’. But what truths exactly are they discovering? What reality have they entered that is hidden from the majority? The answer is complicated.

It is certainly accurate to say that the Dark Enlightenment is on the political right. Its followers have little sympathy for feminism or political correctness, and on matters of race and racial difference, their views tend to align with those advanced by the likes of Madison Grant and T.H Huxley. Furthermore, one of the labels embraced by the movement since their beginnings is ‘Neo-reactionary’; a pretty baggy definition, but one that clearly denotes a rightward bent.

Some press commentators have even suggested a fascist sentiment motivates the Dark Enlightenment subculture. Jamie Bartlett (writing for the Daily Telegraph), for example, describes the bloggers associated with the movement as ‘sophisticated neo-fascists’.

“Since 2012” he writes “…a sophisticated but bizarre online neo-fascist movement has been growing fast. It’s called “The Dark Enlightenment”… Supporters are dotted all over the world, connected via a handful of blogs and chat rooms. Its adherents are clever, angry white men patiently awaiting the collapse of civilisation, and a return to some kind of futuristic, ethno-centric feudalism… The philosophy, difficult to pin down exactly, is a loose collection of neo-reactionary ideas, meaning a rejection of most modern thinking: democracy, liberty, and equality… The neo-fascist bit lies in the view that races aren’t equal (they obsess over IQ testing and pseudoscience that they claim proves racial differences, like the Ku Klux Klan) and that women are primarily suited for domestic servitude. They call this “Human biodiversity” – a neat little euphemism. This links directly to their desire to be rid of democracy: because if people aren’t equal, why live in a society in which everyone is treated equally? Some races are naturally better to rule than others, hence their support for various forms of aristocracy and monarchy (and not in the symbolic sense but the very real divine-right-of-kings-sense).”

Is this a fair evaluation? I don’t think that matters. What does matter is why men (and presumably some women) find it necessary to hive off into subcultures in the first place. The Dark Enlightenment is clearly a reaction to the culture of extreme (and unnecessary) self-censorship by the academic and intellectual mainstream. We simply don’t talk about the important facts of the world for fear of alienating a single part of it. No, the races are not equal in average intelligence. Nor are the sexes equal. The first-born child is generally more intelligent than his/her younger siblings. The tall are more successful than the short. Women are physically weaker than men. Egalitarianism is a lie. And yes, even Democracy is a stupid idea when reduced to its fundamentals. For if the majority are wrong about something, then society is every bit as doomed with democracy as it would be with a wrong-headed dictator. Etc… Etc…

But creating subcultures around forbidden truths is a dangerous game. Whenever hives of thought arise, the trust generated by basic truth-telling grants the hive-leader authority over his/her followers. Having earned their trust with real (but publically denied) facts, he/she can then sprinkle any kind of abject stupidity on top. And if any mainstream condemnation of this stupidity comes about, it can be ascribed to ‘Leftism’ or the ‘blue pill’. “They told you the races were equal, so why listen to them when they say authoritarian monarchy is bad?”… “They told you affirmative action made sense, so why believe them when they say Jews aren’t in control of the government” Etc…

Denying self-evident truths risks handing intellectual authority to some very shady people indeed. The Dark Enlightenment must be replaced with a straightforward enlightenment. No ‘darkness’ is necessary.


Defining the ‘West’


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


In the course of an online discussion last Tuesday, I was asked a deceptively simple-sounding question that has since plagued my thinking. After offering an argument for the inherent superiority of the ‘West’, my competitor stumped me by requesting that I “define ‘the West'” – that is, explain what it actually consists of.

Having had a few days to ponder an answer, during which I have been staring intensely at google maps and rifling through the pages of Wikipedia, I have come up with a list of countries I consider ‘Western’. I must add beforehand the obvious point that ‘West’ and ‘Western’ in this context have no geographic meaning, but rather imply certain standards of civilisation, such as secularism, gender equality, liberal capitalism and a free press. Here then is my answer – presented in no particular order:

Great Britain and all the countries of the EU
Liberal commonwealth nations (such as Jamaica, Trinidad etc..)
The United States
New Zealand
South Korea
Taiwan (Republic of China)
South Africa

*It should be noted that India has an anti-democratic caste system, with different categories recorded by government. This must change if India is to maintain its Western character.

Now, a lot of people would say I’m being far too generous with this list. When such people think of ‘The West’, they think of things like influence, affluence, cleanliness and order, as well as the basic civilizational standards mentioned above. I understand what these people mean and would agree that there exists a ‘core’ inside of the West, without which the whole ‘Western’ construct would begin to fragment or collapse. This core is simply the Anglosphere, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Such nations are not merely of the West, but its original authors.

Needless to say, no Islamic country comes close to membership of this marvellous club. And I doubt that fact will change any time soon.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 322 other followers