, , , , , , , , , ,

Hello all,

This is a note to say that I will be taking a break of four weeks from this blog. It has become clear to me of late that it is impossible to juggle the many things in my life and retain the required passion for each of them. I am working privately (as a tutor) for much of the week, which means my writing must be squeezed into the weekends, during which I have to find time for various other things as well. This all combines to make writing seem like a chore and something to ‘get out of the way’ – which is not an attitude conducive to creating sincere or interesting pieces of work.

I’ve been rather unimpressed with my recent posts. They were rushed and ended up being quite generic. You were too generous to say so, of course.

My tutoring is due to finish sometime in the next few weeks, after which I shall have too much time to write articles. Things unfortunately tend to swing between extremes. My next post will be on May 9th. I hope you will continue to visit this blog, and I am genuinely grateful for the attention I receive, especially on those plentiful occasions when such attention is unmerited.

Have a fantastic few weeks.


Defend the Modern World.

Decorating Chains


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


Pierre Berge, influential fashion pioneer and co-founder of the Yves Saint Lauren designer firm, (I’d never heard of him either), caused an outcry last week when he boldly condemned the fashion industry’s growing embrace of Sharia-compliant clothing. Addressing the concept of the ‘burkini’ – a piece of swimwear designed to cover the body and head of the wearer, Berge remarked that “Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship (Islam) which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life…These creators who are taking part in the enslavement of women should ask themselves some questions.”

Since the remarks were made, numerous comment pieces have been published, both for and against. In the ever-reliable Guardian newspaper, columnist Remona Ali stated frank disagreement with Berge’s sentiment. “A burkini to cater for wider audiences?” she wrote “How dare they! Stop them! In the name of freedom, don’t let women wear what they want! Seriously, though, it’s time to grow up…I really don’t get the urge to disempower Muslim women over and over again. The only person who should have ownership over a woman’s body is her. If I want to buy a burkini from M&S, I bloody well will. If anyone else wants to buy a bikini, well guess what, that’s available in stores too. Bergé bangs on about freedom, yet taking freedom of choice away is where enslavement begins. But I think the irony is lost on him…”

Voices sympathetic to Berge’s sentiment were largely confined to the secular and international press. Atheists inevitably lined up to agree that burkinis (as well as other cultural compromises with Sharia) are a step too far, that they oppress women and represent a capitulation of modernity to the forces of regression.

Fully body coverings - often erroneously referred to as 'Burkas' - Burkhas (blue garments with netting over the eyes are actually unique to Afghanistan

Fully body coverings in the Muslim World

You’ll be able to guess my own standpoint. I think the burkini (since it has no relation to the Burkha, it should really be called the ‘Hijabi’) is an insult to the women unfortunate enough to be expected to wear it. We in the West should be encouraging Muslim women to break their chains, not decorating those chains with a veneer of elegance and choice. In the 21st Century West, women should be free to dress in whatever way they please. No-one has the right, nor should anyone have the inclination, to judge a free human being ‘virtuous’ or ‘dishonourable’ by their clothing alone. It is barbarism. It is primitivism. It belongs in the primitive world.

Despite the heat she has subsequently taken for it, the French minister who compared Sharia-compliant women to the ‘negroes who supported slavery in America’ hit the issue wonderfully on the mark. Just as abolitionists rightly ignored the opinions of negro ‘uncle toms’ who were hopelessly devoted to the whims of their ‘Master’, so can we feel comfortable in ignoring the bleatings of women who are so institutionalized by Islam, so broken by it, that they have come to support their own imprisonment. These poor women are warped. They have been brainwashed by time and cruelty.

And how dare we excuse their condition? We, who have all the blessings of freedom and individuality, who think it entirely pedestrian to go for a drink with someone of the opposite sex, who never have to worry about morality police or ‘honour’ killings; how dare we intimate that this is appropriate for other human beings to endure.

I have always been particularly enraged by those airhead liberals who excuse the mistreatment of women under sharia by saying ‘it’s their tradition’, or ‘it’s their culture’. It is not ‘culture’ at all! It is anti-culture – the resistance of pre-civilization to civilization. Culture is exactly what is being denied these poor souls.

The 'Burkini'

The ‘Burkini’

While it’s probably not possible for a man, let alone a man in the free west, to imagine what life is like for a Muslimah in the Muslim world. we can at least ponder the question. How can it feel to walk around in a Niqab? How does it feel to know that if you are raped, you may be raped as a punishment for being raped? How does it feel to read a holy book that describes you as biologically, socially and intellectually ‘inferior’ to half of humankind? It must be a condition of misery. I will accept no other answer.

We should care about this, not just for moral reasons, but because Muslim women are vitally important to any effort to diminish or destroy Political Islam. As the iconoclastic commentator (and devout atheist) Johann Hari noted “One of the central tenets of this ideology (Jihadism) is the inherent inferiority and weakness of women… If you haven’t spoken to (Jihadis), it is hard to explain just how obsessed with sexual apartheid they are. At least two of the London bombers (on 7/7) refused to make eye contact with women outside their families. Image the sheer effort and repression that required…The best way to undermine the confidence and beliefs of jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women, their mothers and sisters and daughters.” (Italics added).

Hari is surely correct here. Islamic women are (if you’ll excuse the implied misogyny) the soft underbelly of the Islamic religion. They are ‘soft’, not because they are weak, but because they are more rationally inclined to apostasy when presented with the opportunity that Islamic men are. Muslim women are also more important to Islam’s future prospects than men. Should we succeed in triggering the rebellion Hari suggests, we would halve both the present problem and the problem’s next generation. Muslim women are viewed as little more than talking wombs by their partners. They are weapons factories, producing a constant supply fight-ready believers to replenish the ranks diminished by infidel technology. Remove the women and you disrupt the supply of Jihadis. This is surely the last thing the Islamists want, and the thing they fear the most.

Islamism relies on excessive reproduction

Islamism relies on excessive reproduction

How might we go about triggering this rebellion? Hari suggested two things in his article: a boycott of oil, and a Western programme to lend capital to Muslim women who wish to start their own businesses. I’m afraid I find both of these suggestions quite unsatisfactory. These measures might well improve the lot of individual women, but neither has the potential to topple the patriarchy (and for once this word is merited) ruling Islamic society. This patriarchy itself must be toppled before women can be empowered. They cannot be empowered before that point.

A better strategy would involve reaching out to Muslim women directly and encouraging them to quit Islam. This can be very safely and easily done online – by making videos for YouTube, setting up groups on Facebook, sending personal messages and tweets, and so on. Make it a movement; a large-scale, organised campaign. Muslim women currently resident in the West have very few places to turn if they wish to be liberated from Islam. Existing apostate groups like the well-meaning CEM (Council of Ex-Muslims) do not presently offer the kind of protection necessary to make female apostasy a desirable prospect. To rectify this, organisations – preferably citizen-based – should be set up with the specific purpose of providing safe shelter and funding for those women who wish to leave the religion of peace. Though the number of women using this kind of service would be small at first, this would quickly change as successful escape stories fill up the international and religious press. We have to do something. It would be scandalous to carry on pretending there isn’t a problem to be solved.

The burkini row is not nearly as funny or light-hearted as some commentators seem to have decided. It represents at its base a life-or-death struggle between slavery and freedom for half of the world population. Chains should not be decorated. They should not be beautiful. They should be as ugly as the purpose for which they exist.


Qur’an-Denial: The Foundational Error of the Appeasers


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


The terror attacks in Brussels, Ivory Coast and Nigeria this past week were (if you’ll tolerate a well-worn paradox) notable for being completely unremarkable. The murders were generic, run-of-the-mill, classical and exactly in step with the history and character of the Islamic religion. As I have said previously, such violence is best understood simply as the Qur’an in action, or Applied Islam, if you prefer. This is what all those elegant Arabic characters materialize into. This is their effect.

There is no ingenious metaphor behind Quranic verses imploring Muslims to kill “unbelievers.” and “strike of their heads”. It isn’t an allegorical way of saying “Try your best in life and be proud of your heritage”. It means exactly what you think it means. Mutilate and murder people if they derive from a different religious tradition.

The Qur’an murdered those people in Belgium, Nigeria and Ivory Coast. Without it’s message, they would still be alive.

But despite that terrible reality, this notorious book of death will remain readily available at your local Waterstones or Walmart for the foreseeable future. Your children, if you have any, will be able to purchase it, read it, learn from it, perhaps even act on it. This is because, for all the chaos and bloodshed at the hands of Muslims the world over, our cultural elite still refuse to recognise that it is the text itself which inspires the carnage. Rejecting this idea as essentially ‘racist’, they offer instead tortuous sociological, economic, psychological explanations more palatable to the liberal mindset and harmonious with liberal, multi-cultural doctrine. The Muslims are killing people because they are ‘disenfranchised’, ‘outcast from the cultural mainstream’, ‘oppressed’, ‘economically deprived’ and so on. They will stick stubbornly to these explanations right up to the point a Salafist knife rests upon their throats.

Prime Minister Cameron has repeatedly claimed that Islam is peaceful

Prime Minister Cameron has repeatedly claimed that Islam is peaceful

Through this prism of misinterpretation, individual terror attacks are not understood as a call to banish Islam forever from the shores of the free world, but as an opportunity to understand better the mistakes WE have made in our diplomacy with the Muslim world. Simon Jenkins, the eccentric libertarian sore thumb over at the Guardian, argued just a few days ago that the reaction of the West (to Brussels and other comparable acts of terrorism) should be to “alleviate” the “rage that gives rise to acts of terror…”, including by instigating a “wiser foreign policy than most western nations have shown towards the Muslim world over the past decade.”

The cretinous Socialist Worker newspaper struck a similar tone: “Wars launched by the leaders of the US, Britain and France” read this week’s opinion column “have created huge resentment and created the space in which groups such as Isis can grow. These same leaders back the brutal governments that have turned back the tide of the Arab Spring—which offered hope…There is nothing remotely anti-imperialist about the bombings. But the reality is that more repression will mean more attacks.”

This bewildering ignorance is the natural result of Quran-Denial. Without reference to the text demanding violence, Islamic violence inevitably seems free-floating, reactive and mysterious. It is only with reference to the text itself that such violence becomes understandable. Denial of the link between violence and the Qur’an is thus the foundational error of the Western appeasers of Islam.

It is worth noting that we rarely fail to trace the origins of other religious practices. One of the key pillars of Christian practice, for example, is the injunction to loves one’s neighbour, the poor and even one’s enemies. Christian charities are acting upon this sentiment when they do charitable work, launch missions in the third world, or stage interfaith dialogues. Only a very eccentric man indeed would try to claim that such people were not directly motivated by the text of their Holy Book. It stands to reason that they are.

Christians are directly inspired by the New Testament

Christians are directly inspired by the New Testament

When critics of Christianity and Judaism, such as Bill Maher, reference the textual origins of what they perceive as Abrahamic ‘homophobia’, Christians and Jews are never allowed to claim the verses in question are metaphors or that they discriminate only against ancient homosexuals.

Only Islam is allowed to stand apart from its own Holy Book. And yet Islam is also the faith most fanatical about the literal inerrancy of its Holy Book.

Let’s look at some of the passages which may have influenced the murders this past week. A Hat-tip is due here to the staff at the invaluable websites ‘Gates of Vienna’ and ‘Religion of Peace’ which compiled some of the following excerpts (as well as many others):

Quran (5:33) “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Quran (8:59-60) “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”



Quran (9:5) “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Quran (9:14) “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.”

That should be enough to prove my point. We need only use Occam’s Razor (AKA Ockham’s Razor: the formula that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one) to discover the root cause of the carnage afflicting the civilised and developing world. Muslims are killing because their Holy Text implores them to kill. No further discussion is needed.


Dear political elite – Islam is violent because the Qur’an is violent. The Qur’an itself is Europe’s mortal enemy. Drop the mystification and start working on a fightback.

What else is there to say about the Brussels attack? Well, for one thing, it happened in a very beautiful city. I went on holiday to Brussels as a teenager with my family and remember enjoying every minute of the two weeks I spent there. If you haven’t been yourself, please consider it (especially now). The famous cobbled streets, superior booze, laid back mood and architectural grandeur repay the price of travel with generous interest.

Watching the news come in after the explosions this week, I recognised with real sadness parts of the city I had strolled through during that halcyon fortnight. One of the massed news correspondents even stood in front of a complex of buildings I once happily photographed, her sad, elongated face starkly out of sync with the pleasant memories I will try – in spite of everything – to nurture and keep pure and intact.



Of course, as well as being a charming city in itself, Brussels is also – for now – the Capital of the European Union. Sadly, even if also inevitably, this fact has discoloured some reactions to the bombings. One couldn’t help but detect a mood of political schadenfreude on the part of the British right-wing press last Tuesday evening. From a propaganda point of view, it must have seemed too good to be true. The EU capital, machine-heart of a despised and oppressive bureaucracy, shattered by the fruit of its own myopic agenda. The heat of the explosions had yet to fade from the air when EU-haters excitedly set about refitting the tragedy to add weight to their case for Brexit. This tasteless enthusiasm, understandable but deeply regrettable, says a lot about how badly the European experiment has poisoned continental relations.

Let’s be clear: Those unlucky souls vanquished in Brussels a few days ago did not die entirely in vain. They are (and should always be remembered as) martyrs in a just war of good vs. evil, modernity vs. darkness. My heart goes out to them, their families and their friends. In their memory, I will conclude by restating my motive in writing this blog: I detest Islam. I detest it with all my soul.


Civil War on the American Right


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


The rise of Donald J. Trump over the past 12 months has impacted almost every area of American political life. But nowhere is his impact more apparent than on the culture of American Conservatism – the political right; a culture that was – prior to the billionaire’s rise – ostensibly united in thought and action, but which has since split into combatant political blocs.

On one side of this divide is the Paleo Right (PR), Trump’s own favoured niche, which stresses what is good for the American Republic itself over what is good for the world. On the other is the Neo Right (or neoconservative right), which stresses more the cause of liberty and democracy abroad than the condition of America at home. These two camps have sat awkwardly together for over two decades now. It was always inevitable that they would split. It just so happens that the chisel is Trump-shaped.

Both schools of thought have much to recommend them. The Neo Right has played a vital role in preserving the Pax Americana against the threats of Islamism, Communism and Dictatorship. Israel, Japan, Ukraine and Georgia, as well as many other democratic states in undemocratic neighbourhoods rely on the American Neo Right for their prosperity and security. Democrats in non-democratic countries look to the NR for moral and financial support. The net effect of the Neo Right is positive. Few conservative movements have been so charitably international.

Prominent Neo-conservatives: Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld

Prominent Neo-Cons: Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld

The Paleo Right, meanwhile, has safe-guarded (or where they have failed, attempted to safeguard) the uniqueness of America, battling against moral and social subversion from within, and maintaining America’s spirit of patriotism and peculiarity. They are motivated by core social issues like abortion, gay marriage, keeping prayer and the pledge of allegiance in public schools, the need to defend the sacredness of the Star-Spangled Banner, and so on. Foreign affairs is to them a secondary concern, if a concern at all. They tend to favour a non-interventionist policy in regard to the Middle East, even while being generally supportive of Israel and other pro-Western regimes. Paleo rightists objected (and were right to object) to the war in Iraq, and have no desire to repeat the experiment with Iraq’s elephantine neighbour. They favour a strong, advanced military, but believe the army should be retained for life and death confrontations, as opposed to constabulary duties. Many Paleos also nurture an obsession with civil liberties, viewing the US government as semi-tyrannical and bloated out of constitutional design. On this matter, too, they are providing a vital voice of caution which all should heed.

Paleo-Con icon Pat Buchanan

Paleo-Con icon Pat Buchanan

As I said, it is a wonder how these two inclinations managed to sit politely together for so long. Now that they have parted, it seems unlikely they will re-unite any time soon. If Donald Trump clinches the White House, the Paleos will have control over the GOP for the next 4 to 8 years.

Neo Rightists are not taking this development well. Fox News – which despite its tangential forays into abortion and homosexuality – is a solidly Neo Right entity, has been thrown into a frenzied identity crisis. The over-publicised ‘spat’ between Donald Trump and Fox Anchor Megan Kelly is just a symptom of the underlying divide. Fox, just like every other part of the conservative establishment, is uncomfortable with Trump’s candidacy and secretly wishes to stall or destroy it.

Fox coverage of candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz has been tainted with bias from the very beginning. With the partial exception of Sean Hannity, most anchors have treated Trump with rubber gloves, as if handling radioactive waste. Trump was never being paranoid or irrational in protesting this treatment.

Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly

The Neo Right is substantially more powerful than the Paleo Right in material terms. Most conservative TV networks are Neo Right, as are most Think Tanks, magazines and newspapers. This is the legacy of the long period of uncontested domination of the conservative universe by academic, economic and intellectual elites that is now being ripped to pieces by the Trumpsters. This is why (to the untrained eye) Trump supporters appear to be ‘anti-intellectual’. If the conservative era is to switch from Neo to Paleo, there is a lot of hierarchy to tear down in the process. This is intellectual and ideological regime change. It was always going to be messy.

How valid are Neo Right objections to Donald Trump? Let’s go through a few of them.

Charge 1: Donald Trump is insufficiently supportive of the State of Israel.

On the subject of the Middle East, Donald Trump has said he thinks it unhelpful to frame the conflict as being between ‘a good guy and a bad guy’. Whilst I disagree with the spirit of this quotation (Hamas certainly qualifies as a ‘bad guy’ in my opinion), it seems more rooted in a sense of fairness and pragmatism, than in any bad will towards the Israelis or Zionism. Trump’s beloved daughter Ivanka is Jewish (by conversion) and Trump has spoken of her adopted ethnicity with pride and understanding. There is no direct evidence that Mr Trump has an anti-Semitic bone in his body. Rumours about his keeping Hitler’s collected speeches by his bedside have never been corroborated outside of delirious chat-rooms. Until they are, we should treat them much like we treat rumours that the Earth is a pancake.

Pro-Israel donors obviously prefer Marco Rubio because he is so malleable. Rubio will do whatever his backers tell him to do. This is not meant as an anti-Semitic dog-whistle. It is a fact of politics that donors influence policy, and not only foreign policy. The Koch Brothers, as the left never stops bleating on about, have enormous influence over social and economic issues. Donors – of all varieties – hate Trump because they can’t buy him. Donors also invest in media networks. Media networks hate Trump because they are told to. I adore America. But let’s call a spade a spade here. Trump is battling against a corrupt political establishment.

Ivanka Trump

Ivanka Trump

Charge 2: Donald Trump is not pro-free market.

Donald Trump has stated his determination to bring back manufacturing jobs from Asia and Mexico. When asked how he intends to accomplish this, the GOP front-runner explains that he will impose taxes on US companies that outsource jobs. This is not a violation of the free-market, nor of the regular rules of capitalism. It is a common sense measure to maintain prosperity for the American working class. It is also no different to what China and Mexico have done for several decades without American complaint.

Charge 3: Donald Trump is anti-mass immigration.

Guilty as charged. Donald Trump has been admirably clear on the subject of open borders. He opposes the idea, top to bottom. He wants to build a wall, and make Mexico pay for that wall. He wants to put a freeze on Muslims entering the United States. He also wants to deport the illegal immigrants already resident in the country, only allowing to return those who have clean criminal records and a professional command of English. This should be the default conservative position. No objections to this policy make for any sense.

The Neo Right’s love of open borders isn’t quite treachery, but it is moral and ideological confusion. Yes, Muslim immigration should be avoided as a special case, but this doesn’t mean the entire non-Muslim world is suitable for Western settlement. We have a good thing going here in the Western, Modern world. Allowing in people from regressive or intolerant cultures (of which Islam is only one example) is counter-productive. It jeopardizes what is precious to us.

Other objections to Trump by the Neo Right are similar to those made by the Political Left. The idea that Trump is akin to Mussolini is wildly popular on both sides of the ideological aisle. What evidence is there to support this idiotic claim? Some point to the enthusiasm whipped up at Trump rallies, but then if this is a crime, we’d better convict the Dallas Cowboys, Manchester United and Oprah Winfrey while we’re at it.

Viral photo from Trump rally

Viral photo from Trump rally

People are so refreshed by Trump’s style that they are overjoyed by his message. Joy is not an offence. Emotion might be rare at formulaic rallies with tedious politicians, but Trump is anything but formulaic or tedious. There is real contagious enthusiasm being generated by this man. Politics is being rejuvenated.

The patronising distaste with which the media and economic elite view the pleasures and aspirations of ordinary people is scandalous. People are people. Americans are Americans. All deserve to be heard, appreciated and spoken to, whatever their race, faith or economic category.

If Donald Trump wins the nomination, the Republican Party will never be the same again. The Neo-Con racket – the art of calling oneself a conservative whilst being left-wing on everything except foreign policy – will have been exposed and replaced with a straight-shooting honesty more in line with the fine history of the Grand Old Party.


The Case for Trump


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


The star of English comedian John Oliver (sorry for him, America) has been rising fast this past week, largely (or entirely) due to the viral success of his ‘Make Donald Drumpf Again’ routine, a 20 minute rant that has since been shared over 50 million times on facebook and viewed over 4 million times on YouTube.

The piece has been praised as “timely”, “politically explosive”, and “devastating”. Observers (mainly on the centre left) claim Oliver has ‘destroyed’ Trump’s credibility, if not his entire candidacy in one fell swoop. Is this true? No.

The majority of Oliver’s points in this clip are embellishments of points already made elsewhere, often with greater force and skill. Not one of them is valid. Few of them even have a cogency able to survive the deduction of humour. Let’s go through a few of them.

Oliver repeatedly notes that Donald Trump is unpredictable and has changed his political positions over time. This was likely intended to make Trump supporters question their favoured candidate’s authenticity. Like previous attempts to wound Trump’s reputation, this failed miserably. As Mr Trump himself has noted, Ronald Reagan – the untouchable giant of recent Republican history – shifted position on many important topics prior to settling on his widely adored Presidential agenda. So have many other great political figures. Though this defence is simple, it is also devastating. Why the hell can’t a man change his mind? Do figures on the left hold everyone to this rigorous account? If a right-winger goes to the left later in life, would they be so suspicious of his or her integrity? Of course not. The matter should thus be closed.


Another charge Oliver advanced in the Drumpf routine involves Trump’s claim that we should kill (or threaten to kill) the families of terrorists in order to make them play ball. Trump’s rationale on this matter (almost always excluded from the quote in reports) is that terrorists care about little outside of their own private universe. They are obviously, demonstrably willing to sacrifice the lives of random Muslims for their eschatological cause. They are also obviously, demonstrably willing to sacrifice their own lives, which they view as intolerable spiritual encumbrances obstructing entry into a garden of olives and virgins. It is rational – whatever else it is – for Trump to float the idea that these brutes may care about their families, if about anything at all.

I don’t believe for a moment that Mr Trump would order US airmen to bomb the houses of innocent people. It is more likely that his comments were meant as an argument for intensive bombing – which might result in the deaths of innocents.  This is a crucial distinction; one the media should be more careful to add when they raise the issue.

Oliver’s argument that Trump is a bad businessman is both untrue and completely irrelevant. Trump is obviously a very successful man, worth  – even according to the estimates of his enemies – over 8 billion dollars. Though the son of a wealthy businessman, Trump was supplied with a comparatively tiny loan by his father which he has since multiplied consistently with no outside help. Turning a small amount of money into a huge amount is no small art. If you don’t believe me, try turning $1000 into $80,000. If it was easy, everyone would have a tower.


As I say, Trump’s financial history is not only fake but irrelevant. Trump is not running as a businessman. He is running as a patriot. Even if Trump Steaks or Trump University did fall flat, why would this have anything to say about the billionaire’s competence as a leader? It could even be said to recommend him further. The world economy is like a violent sea. Its current tosses big and small ships alike. Every vessel, however expertly designed, is at risk. What matters most is not the occasional random, unforeseeable shock of fortune, but the staying afloat. Trump has absorbed great turbulence over his life and still managed to survive and flourish beyond it. Experience like that cannot be bought.

The only original conceit of the Drumpf routine is Oliver’s genuinely penetrating insight that ‘Trump’ rhymes in the unconscious mind with ‘luxury’, ‘quality’, ‘exclusive’ and other aspirational nouns and adjectives. Ordinary folk, Oliver explained, instinctively associated names with the qualities their bearers are famous for. Tiger Woods, for a different example, brings to mind victory, health, Black achievement and sporting excellence. You are substantially more likely to buy a product with the name Tiger Woods emblazoned on it than one emblazoned with the name of Vanilla Ice or George Zimmerman. Similarly, in politics – a choice of product like any other – we are naturally drawn to individuals based on positive associations. Trump is wealth. Trump is success, luxury and New York. Trump is a five star hotel on the top floor of the capitalist universe. People find this very difficult to refuse.

But does this observation make choosing Trump for President any less rational? No, it doesn’t. Trump is not only admired for subliminal reasons, but for fully rational, real-world advantages. He is (as he is absolutely right to remind us) the only self-funded candidate. This matters a great deal, much more than Trump’s detractors are willing to admit. Marco Rubio, his articulate speaking aside, is a bought and paid-for puppet of the Republican establishment. His manifesto is ghost-written by wealthy donors who are completely unaccountable to – and disinterested in – the general public. The American people are no longer willing to accept this callous type of flyover politics; the politics of ‘we know what is good for you because we have degrees and you don’t’. 


If Oliver’s routine was a serious attempt to cripple Trump and take him out of the game then it has surely failed. Trump’s polling figures are as high as ever. Not one of the tycoon’s rivals appears able to mount a consequential challenge. Super Tuesday was a splendorous triumph for The Donald. He won states in the north and in the south, perplexing analysts who had long called these for Rubio and Cruz respectively.

Although (surprisingly) Oliver didn’t dwell on it too heavily, we must also address here the idea that Trump is somehow a ‘racist’ or a ‘White Nationalist’. Of all the slurs directed at him, this is by far the most frequent and potentially effective. Where is the evidence?

Some might immediately point to the comments the candidate made about Muslims – namely, his lightening-rod suggestion that the US bar foreign Muslims for a temporary period on security grounds. This proposal has been wildly criticised by all and sundry, but is it racist? No, obviously not. As the world should be tired of hearing by now, Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a biological family. To propose their exclusion is no more racist than proposing the exclusion of Mormons. There are White Muslims, Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turkic Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Indonesian and Malaysian and African Muslims. Under Trump’s policy, all will be subject to the same measure, whereas Christian Arabs, Atheist Turks or Buddhist Malaysians will not be. Bottom line – race is irrelevant.

Trump’s attitudes to Mexicans and Blacks are also far from troubling. As regards the former, the billionaire has famously called for the deportation of 11 million illegal migrants. While sensational to an unreliable and skittish media, this isn’t even a policy shift. It is the enforcement of an existing law. It should be no more controversial than to propose the enforcement of parking legislation. Trump is not opposed to Mexican Americans legally resident in the United States. To the contrary, he has repeatedly praised the ‘spirit’ of the Mexican people and highlighted his determination to improve living standards and job opportunities for the Latin and Hispanic community.

Trump’s anti-immigration posture is for the benefit of all working Americans, with no distinction made of race, religion or class. It is a policy that should be welcomed by the Right and Left alike. Illegal immigration devalues the native labour force and undercuts the wages and expectations of American workers. It isn’t fair. It isn’t right. It cannot be tolerated.


Donald Trump is an opportunity that will not come again. He is a one-off: unscripted, un-bought, willing to fight for real-world advantages and speak up against real-world injustice, strong enough to resist the fury of a whipped up media class, patriotic enough to risk a personal fortune to enter politics – this is far from the ordinary. Should he be rejected, something amazing will have been squandered; something historic will have been rejected, and for no greater reason than a queasy fear of the novel and the real.

Trump’s manifesto is the red pill, the uncomfortable jerk that awakens the comfortably numb out of their demon-haunted repose. Trump will redefine American politics, smash the cross-party liberal consensus and reintroduce essential ideas into a pacified and muddled American consciousness. The ‘conservatives’ who are bulking at the prospect of his presidency never were conservatives to begin with. The liars are being separated from the truth. The cards are being laid on the table.

Will you stand with him?


The Pleasures of Victimhood


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


Once upon a time, in an unrecognisable period of history, victimhood was something to dread.  It didn’t merely bother you. It bruised you, robbed you, raped you and sometimes even killed you. In Tsarist Russia, Jewish victims were on the receiving end of crippling pogroms; organised and state-approved orgies of hatred and petty discrimination that would subsequently metastasise elsewhere into genocide. In the Antebellum South, African American victims were treated as entirely subhuman, put to work for no pay and treated abominably by a boorish and unworldly rural class. Across Europe and all its history Romani (Gypsy) victims have been treated and regarded much like mosquitoes or spores of anthrax; cleared from their settlements with guns and wooden clubs. A modern citizen of Democratic Europe or America can scarcely imagine what this persecution was like to those who suffered it, for there is no modern example even close to equivalency.

Of course, if you spend enough time on the internet, one could easily come to a different conclusion.

Victimhood, even as it has declined as a real phenomenon, currently enjoys incredible popularity as a concept. It is no longer something to be feared, but to be craved. To be a victim in the Modern West is to have won the political and social jackpot. If your self-identification as a victim is approved, you are supplied with opportunities and benefits the rest of society can only dream about: preferential treatment in job and college/university applications, a free moral pass on many types of crime and delinquency, excessive governmental attention to your personal and social requirements, and – above all – the right to treat your failures as if they are someone else’s fault.

Who wouldn’t want to be a victim? I’m envious of them myself. Had I rallied the chutzpah to apply for this exalted status as a teenager, many struggles in my life would have been made considerably easier. I would have been spared the discomfort of worrying about my grades, my finances and job prospects. Instead of searching through the folds of my character for faults, failings and inadequacies, I could have just blamed society, the oppression of a social group ‘above’ me or the effects of my childhood. I imagine it feels good to do this, like a weight off one’s shoulders, a sudden relaxation of the body and mind. But it would have been dishonest. Many people have wronged me in my life, sometimes to the point of temporarily holding me back. But no force has been so constant or severe as to justify my giving up on life (as I have, many times). No force has been so constant or severe as to deserve the whole blame for my situation. Victimhood is something one chooses to embrace, or to decline. Every person on this earth is capable of resisting its opium.


The rise of mass victimhood is something slightly different from individual cases, being more political and rational in nature. Those who lead or contribute to mass victimhood movements do so for a bigger reason than simply feeling better. They are in pursuit of something tangible, luxurious and seductive: namely, political and social power. Black Lives Matter is the perfect case in point.

It is no coincidence that the tenure of the first ‘Black’ President oversaw a rise in African-American political ambition. Spurred on by Obama’s first victory in 2008, many Black Americans began to desire a correlative rise in their own social standing. If the President is black, they reasoned, why am I still living in sub-standard housing? If the First Lady is Black, why are we being arrested disproportionately by the police? Obama’s victory convinced many Black people that measures they used to suffer without protest were no longer acceptable. Thus arose Black Lives Matter. The name of the organisation is telling. Black lives have always mattered, but what the leaders of the new movement really meant was ‘Black Lives Matter Now’. Obama raised the value of Blackness in America, raised it above the Mexicans and Asians, the Middle Easterners and Jews. Seeing Black people in the White House supplied the Black lobby with a wild new confidence, impermeable to reason.


For an example of this confidence in practice, recall the circus over Trayvon Martin’s untimely death, during which the details of the case fell by the wayside in favour of African-American chest-beating and candle-waving. It didn’t matter then (and doesn’t matter now) that Trayvon was at fault in the incident. Those protesting his death didn’t (and still don’t) actually care for the boy at all. They simply saw a chance to take centre stage, plunge a Black flag into the soil and bask in the euphoria of Black ascendency. Black Lives Matter is a Black Power movement. Nothing more. Nothing less.

BLM is not alone. Numerous other organisations are actively pushing a victimhood narrative for the purpose of accruing political power and influence. Cuban Americans are said to provide the second most effective ethnic lobby in the United States (after the Jewish lobby). How? By endlessly harping on about the oppression of their relatives and former compatriots under the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. My tone is not meant here to cast doubt on the horrors of Communism. Castro is a butcher and a tyrant of the first order. But one would need to be very naïve to presume the Cuban Lobby has not used this grievance as a step-ladder to climb the Conservative ranks. Anti-Communism has allowed the Cuban Hispanics of America to scale the peaks of the Republican party – something they would hardly have been able to do without their nurtured survivor-status.

Here in Britain, the Muslim population invests a lot of its money and credibility in an organisation called Tell Mama, which ostensibly seeks to combat violent attacks on individual Muslims in the UK. Despite its recent creation, TM now has a budget of hundreds of thousands of pounds and commands the attention of countless journalists, MPs and Left-leaning Cabinet Ministers. In every case the equation is the same – Grievance + Exaggeration + Organisation = Political Power.

The Victimhood trend does not exist independently from our broader cultural moment, but is increasingly embedded within it. Reporting the influential findings of sociologists Campbell and Manning, the noted thinker (and author of the acclaimed ‘The Righteous Mind’), Jonathan Haidt wrote that:

“(The) culture of dignity (in America and the West) is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim. This is why we have seen the recent explosion of concerns about microaggressions, combined with demands for trigger warnings and safe spaces.”


It’s interesting that Haidt says people are ‘encouraged to respond’ to imagined offenses. It can hardly by denied that the forces of popular culture – especially but not only the media – actively promote victimhood through their disproportionate coverage of particular issues. Obvious culprits like The Daily Show and Real Time With Bill Maher are joined in this by more respectable and neutral-seeming foghorns like the New York Times and UK Guardian. In all of these media outlets, anti-White crimes are minimised or left unreported while anti-minority crimes are amplified. There is a complex here, a subtle and undeclared alliance between the media and minorities – between the media and grievance. If you sense a conspiracy, you’re not going crazy.

Victimhood culture is not without its victims. In a victimhood narrative, someone has to play the victimiser. And that role is naturally filled by the WHCM (White Heterosexual Christian Male). The WHCM is the cause of all victimhood. Like a bigoted Dracula, he lives to feed on the misery of others. He has no identity except this cruel nature. He is privileged, ignorant, unsubtle, biased, un-self-conscious, habitually regressive, oppressive and transgressive. He is the past. Minorities are the future. He is darkness. Minorities are the light.

That this cartoon version of reality has been so successful is an indictment of our times and of us – the human race. Because of our apathy, victimhood is taking over the world, draining orthodox conceptions of success of their logic and allure. People are desperately seeking out ways in which to fail at the hands of someone else. Where can this possibly end?


Challenging the Islamic Mind-Trap


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


In terms of its reputation among non-believers, the past 15 years must rank as some of Islam’s worst. Every since the planes of 9/11 carved into New York glass, the international media has barely missed a beat in making known the faults of Islamic theology, tradition and social policy. The UK Daily Mail, once the grumpy advocate of small government and Victorian morals, is now better defined as The Daily Islamophobe. The Telegraph, Sun, WSJ, NYT and Star have likewise reshuffled their priorities to place a greater and more critical eye on the Islamic World. The result of this is that every Muslim wrong-doing the world over is reported as international news. Every honour killing, beheading, murder-by-explosion, corrective rape or stoning (though all common enough before 9/11) is now given headline treatment. One can only wonder what this has done to the average Muslim mindset.

It is fair to say that most Muslims sincerely believe Islam is the best religion for mankind to universally adopt; that Islam is a better recipe for peace, progress and happiness than its rivals. Indeed, one cannot be an authentic believer unless one believes this. And yet nobody paying any attention to the contemporary situation can possibly come to this conclusion – or indeed sustain this conclusion – without unimaginable contortions of logic and tricks of the mind. The most visible of these tricks has been to blame the ills of Islam on other forces, whether economic, racial or political. ‘True, Saudi Arabia is a barbaric, undeveloped desert, but it would have been very different were it not for the Zionists’. ‘True, illiteracy and incest are Pakistani specialities, but this would not be the case were it not for the wicked Indians’. And so on.


This self-deception, though ludicrously fake, has held out remarkably well. Apostasy rates from Islam are no higher than in the 1990s. Minority faiths (LDS, Scientology etc…) excepted, Islam remains the fastest growing religion in the world. The impression given is that Islam is the perfectly designed mind-trap; that it has inbuilt defences against criticism and failure that cannot be overcome by reason or reality. But this is unduly pessimistic, I believe. Though strong on the outside, Islamic psychology is substantially weaker in its design that its current reputation might suggest. Inflexibility is being mistaken for strength, disorder for complexity.

The psychology of Islamic belief is best understood as a simple loop of deterrence, aversion and reward. When someone criticises Islam (its truth value, historicity or moral nature), a functioning Muslim will at first rationally process and understand the criticism, perhaps even to the point of agreeing with it. After this, in a state of profound unease, the Muslim will think of the Qur’anic verses drummed into his consciousness since infancy. He will think especially of those passages admonishing the ‘unbelievers’ – those who are bound for hellfire and who stray habitually from the ‘right path’. This then creates a feeling of terror and a desperation to obey Allah (who can perceive thoughts, reasoning, and even inclinations). To get rid of this discomfort, the believer admonishes the critic with harsh and even violent words. How dare he question the perfection of the Qur’an! He must have no soul! The aggression towards the critic is for the eyes of Allah and not the critic himself. The greater the aggression, the more relief will be felt by the believer. He is angry at you because you derailed his circular thoughts. You convinced him of something forbidden, something he tries with every fibre of his being not to think about. The force of aggression you unleash in him is proportionate to how convincing he (almost) found your argument; to how close you pushed him to the edge of reason.


Circular thinking is central to Islamic belief

This process also governs how Muslims integrate (or fail to integrate) the contemporary realities of the world. When viewing the chaos of Quranic rule in Syria, the loop described above prevents the processing of the stimuli into moral judgement and understanding. The believer is not ignorant. He knows everything we know. He just has a disorder of thought which allows him to dispose of un-Islamic stimuli as fast as he imbibes it.

How could one disrupt the loop? This is question best answered by those who have been raised in Islam only to discard it at a later stage. Since I am not from a Muslim background, I will have to go from the accounts of others.

As you’ll be aware, testimonies by ex-Muslims are notable among apostatatic statements by their emphasis on the aspect of ‘fear’; fear of Allah, of hellfire, of divine retribution awaiting them should they fail to live a morally perfect life. To understand why this is so characteristic of Islam, one must first appreciate the system by which human beings are said to be judged in Islamic theology.

According to Islamic tradition, a Muslim has two angels beside him at all times – one to the left, another to the right. One of these keeps a record of the good deeds and thoughts the believer performs and has during his earthly tenure, and the other keeps record of the bad. At the day of judgement, the two records are ‘weighed’ to see which is more reflective of the human in question, greatly influencing (but not deciding) whether he is to go to hell or paradise.

Doorways to heaven or hell

In a comparative sense, this is one of the more endearing and just-seeming of Islamic concepts. But a side effect of it is that the believer becomes subject to the divine equivalent of thought policing. As I say, the Kiraman Katibin do not only record your deeds, but your inner reflections. They make note of your intentions, temptations, lusts and transgressions, preserving all of them down to the finest detail. A bad deed is never forgotten or forgiven. There is no equivalent of Catholic confession in which one may wipe the slate clean. You sin and you are stained. Black marks last forever.

Try to imagine the effect this concept would have on your psychology were you to believe in it. You would be unable to enjoy a single private emotion without the fear of upsetting an omniscient authority. And since even temptations are recorded, you would be compelled to avoid any environment or stimuli which might lead you astray. This explains why Muslims are so seemingly afraid of female flesh. A girl in a mini-skirt prompts ‘impure’ thoughts in the believer, which in turn upsets Allah. The recorded acts of aggression against such women (Cologne, Rotherham etc…) are attempts to impress Allah, to make up with him for brief deficiencies of thought control. The believer might have been weak-minded for a moment, but he can still be a soldier of Islam by punishing the kafir in question.

You would also avoid un-Islamic knowledge as a matter of course. This explains why Muslims read little other than Islamic texts, and why they remain ignorant of scientific concepts like evolution and cosmology. The Muslims themselves might be intelligent and academically gifted, but their fear of wrong-thinking deters them from building on these gifts. One might posit this anxiety as the reason for the un-development of the Muslim world as a whole.

AMISOM's humanitarian mission in Somalia.

Islam, as a mindset, is a permanent state of anxiety, never-ending panic attack, perpetual psychosis. This must be understood by anyone who wishes to break through Islamic psychology to where the captive human is being held. One must treat a Muslim in the same way one would treat a victim of OCD or any comparable neurotic illness. Muslim fanaticism is based in fear. Muslim confidence is fake. Muslims do not like their God. They are afraid of him.

Convincing (or trying to convince) a Muslim that their religion is axiomatically false must necessarily be a perilous operation. If you do not succeed, he will kill you for trying. But it is not impossible. The best approach is not to impose conclusions on the believer, but rather to ask questions. The most developed, rich and powerful parts of the world are those in which Muslim believers are few. Are these enemies of God blessed by something else? Why are so many Muslims killed by other believers? Why are non-Muslim women happier and more secure from domestic violence and rape than Muslim women? Why are so many claims in the Quran provably false? Why do Muslims seem naturally drawn to non-Muslim societies over Muslim ones? Why do Muslim countries fail at science and technological development? Why are non-Muslims so petrified of Muslims in particular (and not, say, Hindus and Sikhs)? Why do Muslim armies fail to win battles against non-Islamic armies? Why are non-Muslims more plentiful than Muslims? And so on.

The more questions one leaves with a Muslim, the more effort he will have to put into diverting them from his rational mind. True, some believers are superhumanly stubborn, but these are far from typical. Many have never been presented with un-Islamic arguments before. A missile shower of reasonable doubts can severely degrade the conviction of a semi-committed believer.

While Islamic psychology cannot be broken in a society which prohibits un-Islamic concepts from being entertained, it can at least be attempted in the Western world, where no form of speech is (officially at least) off-limits. Muslims shouldn’t be written off as hopeless. It costs nothing to try and liberate their minds. You may be surprised by your success.


The Consequences of White Decline


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


A mournful yet grimly poetic comment on a newspaper article captured my attention last week. It was on the Guardian: Comment is Free webpage (of all places) and read like this:

“Europe has been dying for decades with negative growth rates. There are not enough young people to turn the demographic process around. Young Muslim men are being imported to alter the nation. These are the saddest of our days…”

The last line deserves thinking about. One could argue, as I’m sure many other commentators on the article later did, that this kind of talk is hyperbole (and dangerous hyperbole at that). Europe has a very long and remarkably dramatic, often blood-soaked history. To suggest the present day is its saddest era is a statement in need of concrete, supporting information.

Regretfully, that evidence is easily found. As regular visitors to this blog will be aware, Europe is faced with an apocalyptic downward trend. Low birth rates, high Muslim birth rates, low workforce numbers, high immigration numbers. The perfect storm. The end of the European organism seems all but guaranteed.

It’s interesting to note that this was actually predicted a long time ago, including by the mainstream press. Back in the year 2000, the Observer printed an article which has subsequently been forgotten in the wake of events the following year. It was entitled (rather dramatically) ‘The Last Days of a White World’. Here is an extended quotation:

“The past millennium was more than anything the era of the whites. Just 500 years ago, few had ventured outside their European homeland. Then, with several acts of genocide clearing the way, they settled in North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, southern Africa…But now, around the world, whites are falling as a proportion of population. The United Nations collects and produces a vast array of statistics on population… the UN’s State of the World Population 1999 predicted that 98 per cent of the growth in the world’s population by 2025 will occur in lesser developed regions, principally Africa and Asia. The most significant reason for this is lower birth rates in rich countries: in 61 countries, mainly the rich ones, people are no longer having enough babies to replace themselves…In its World Population Profile 1998, the US Census Bureau predicted that by the second decade of this century all the net gain in world population will be in developing countries. ‘The future of human population growth has been determined, and is being determined, in the world’s poorer nations”


Fertility Rate by Country (enlarge to read)

The article then went on to muse on the social and economic consequences of this imbalance, with a special focus placed on the issue of immigration: “In Britain the number of ethnic minority citizens has risen from a few tens of thousands in the 1950s, to more than 3 million – or around 6 per cent of the total population. While the number of whites is virtually static, higher fertility and net immigration means the number from ethnic minorities is growing by 2 to 3 per cent a year…One demographer, who didn’t want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: ‘It’s a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Euro peans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK.”

Utopians like to argue that this doesn’t really matter, insisting that it is the character of a country, and not its biological content, that matters most. I can only partially agree with that. It is certainly true that were the newcomers culturally European, then a semblance of Englishness/Britishness could be maintained without an English/British majority. Alas, the newcomers are not culturally European. They are Pakistani, Afghan, Syrian, Indian, Sri Lankan, Korean and Bangladeshi.


Origin of UK Immigration

Does the passing of White peoples concern the world? I believe it should, whether it does at present or not. A post-white world – or a world in which White influence is suppressed – would be a much darker world in ways quite apart from pigmentation. As well as the Holocaust, slavery, colonialism, apartheid, communism, and fascism, the White race has invented (and largely still abides by) the most progressive racial attitude in world history.

One could prove this with an experiment. Put a White man, a Persian and an Arab in the same room. Whilst the White man is there, the Persian and Arab will pretend to be modern, evolved human beings, no longer concerned with race, tribe or ancient grievance. If the White man secretly sets a tape recorder and then leaves the room, however, he will record a remarkable and horrifying transformation. The Persian and Arab will tear into each other for reasons buried under centuries of time. A similar result will arise from using Japanese and Chinese, or Turkish and Kurdish subjects. 

The idea that modern people are not blamed for the behaviour of their ancestors is crucial to post-racial practice. It is the reason Russians do not wish to annihilate Germans. It is why Spanish people do not wish to annihilate the English. White people judge people of other races on an individual, case by case basis. Even if black people do commit more crimes than other races on average, post-racial whites give every black person they meet the benefit of the doubt, restraining judgement until evidence of criminality or malevolence is provided. After the White age ends, this pleasant sophistication will fade away, unleashing an age of primitive darkness. Racism, which has never faded as a concept in the hearts of non-White peoples, will rise to the surface, causing wars, genocides and general misery.

Religious moderation is another gift of the White peoples to the world. One of the reasons Hindu women are no longer tossing themselves on burning funeral pyres is because the English banned the insane practice outright. In the same spirit, Whites are the only race loudly protesting the use of FGM, breast-ironing and forced marriage. Without a global white standard for the third world to aspire to, the old errors and imbecilic traditions will regain prominence.


And none of this is to touch upon the moral question in all this; namely, should Whites – as much as any other tribe – have the right to resist their overcoming? The obvious answer is yes. Like any other, European (and Europe-derived) cultures are the product of thousands of years of evolution, innovation and struggle. To see the work of 3 thousand years vanish in the course of 100 is rightly perceived (by ordinary Whites) as a tragedy without precedent. It isn’t ‘genocide’, as some hot-headedly claim. But it is destruction. Something of value is being destroyed to be replaced by the excess of something that already exists. The Third World already houses and assures the continuation of Third World culture. Only Europe (and its offshoots) can incubate European culture. For the cultures of the Third World to build an annex on formerly European ground represents a loss of something. The world will be impoverished by it, not enriched.

European culture is the undergirding of modern popular culture and has been for centuries. Without European innovation there would never have been television or radio, let alone Hollywood, Disney or any of the other specific glories of the entertainment industry. The political, social and economic stability that results from a White majority supports even minority art-forms. If black people are naturally talented at hip-hop, why isn’t Africa the leading exporter of rap music? Surely the answer is that it is the combination of black talent with White culture and technological expertise that allows the creation of hip-hop, not to mention jazz, jungle, RnB, rock etc… Without it, such minorities might not be as able to express or enrich themselves.


White culture is defined more than anything by its stability. White people are boring. They pay taxes, raise families, rarely take illegal substances and by and large stay out of prison. It isn’t glamorous to be that way. But it is essential to everyone in the West that one part of society bothers to take care of these things; that one part continues to provide the straightened backbone supporting the whole. If Whites no longer worked or paid taxes, the boasted-about riches of rappers, drug dealers and street hustlers would vanish, as would the welfare, healthcare provisions and commercial life of urban minorities.

White civilisation is the only civilisation to share its territory (voluntarily) with imported foreign peoples. There are no black areas in Japan. There are no Pakistani enclaves in China. Multi-racialism (which must always be distinguished from multiculturalism) is a White virtue, exclusively and originally. Whilst we might unimaginatively consider the presence of Afghans in Canada to be in tune with the music of the universe, it is actually absurd. It is absurd for the mountain villagers of Kandahar to nest on the native soil of the Inuit. And had the Inuit retained sovereign dominion over their continental home, we can justly assume that Afghans would never have been invited to settle as they have. It is entirely because of the attitudes of the White colonisers of North America that non-White people have been integrated into the Western hemisphere.


White majority societies also provide by a considerable distance the world’s most tolerant environments for minority sexualities and lifestyles. Gay villages – areas in which gay men and woman can openly and freely congregate – are a fixture in most European capital cities, but remain rare to non-existent in the Third World, where anti-homosexual sentiment is close to universal. In non-White communities within the West itself, anti-gay violence remains a constant feature of life, and has led many gay minority men to flee to the safety of White areas. When Whites are no longer the dominant cultural player in these countries, a renaissance in anti-gay politics seems almost certain to occur.

Whose fault is the decline of Whites? According to the internet, the blame lies squarely upon the Jewish people; specifically, on the liberalising effect of their instinctive political and social bias. Such people argue that Jews, being a minority, are naturally inclined to be suspicious  if not hostile to White ethno-centrism (which almost always excludes and/or seeks to persecute them). In this spirit, they have been at the forefront of liberal politics in the Western world for over a century. But this theory (The MacDonald Thesis) is pocked all over with gushing holes. Why would Jews want to fill Europe, currently filled with postracial Christians and atheists, with race and Islam-obsessed foreigners? That makes no sense to a reasonable person, and for this reason MacDonald’s ideas remain decidedly fringe.

Other candidates for blame include socialism, the Frankfurt School and the European Union. But in reality the mass import of non-Europeans into European domains is just another unpredicted by-product of international business and free trade. Globalisation, the shrinking of the world and the harmonisation of its peoples, is an irresistible force. Money rules everything. Our governments answer to it, crave it, and attend to its requirements far more readily than to yours or mine.

Even if cannot be resisted, my purpose here has been to show that the end of the White age is not a cause for celebration. No-one is enriched by it. The further the colonisation of Europe progresses, the more desperate and un-civilised the Europeans will become. To defend the ancient lines of their homelands, Europeans will come to resemble (morally and politically) the third world. They will fight with the brutality of Muslims, erect governments alike the authoritarianisms of Asia, and so on. It seems that whatever happens, the unique and invaluable European personality will be deformed, setting the world back centuries.


Note About Changes


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


I’ve been planning to change the way I post for a while now. I no longer believe that posting a batch of small posts each week is the most effective or professional way of presenting my writing. Instead, I am going to post longer, more ‘journalistic’ articles (usually one, sometimes two) each Monday, in order to go into topics in greater depth.

Always grateful for your visits and support.

Thank you. 



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 342 other followers