On the Shooting at Planned Parenthood


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


It didn’t take long for the shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, Oklahoma on Friday to be exploited for cynical political ends. After three bodies were carted away to the morgue Colorado Springs, memes began to spring up everywhere (on facebook, twitter, reddit and other places) comparing the shooting to Islamic terrorism, and in doing so downplaying the suffering of its victims. A truly shocking exercise in cold, emotionless manipulation if ever there was one.

The memes, though multitudinous, differed from each other only very slightly. The most popular ‘Willy Wonka’ variant was typical: against the backdrop of a smiling Gene Wilder (taken from my favourite childhood movie), the text read as follows: “Christian extremist kills 3 people at an abortion clinic…Tell me again how Syrian refugees are a threat.”

You don’t need more than a few operational brain cells to perceive the startling un-worldliness of this sentiment. Indeed, many people on social networks have recoiled from the image in revulsion or responded to it with loud mockery. How on earth can one tragic, stupid action – the first of its kind in years – measure up to the daily bloodbath of Political Islam? How can one action – brutal, awful and yet discriminating – be placed in the same ethical category as the bombing of market-places, funeral parades, Parisian restaurants and concert venues?

Since the outrage in Colorado was committed, Christians across America have disowned the force behind it, branding him ‘psychopathic’, ‘crazed’, ‘lunatic’ and (most crucially) ‘un-Christian’. Compare that to the icy silence and tacit approval of Muslims communities after outrages in the West.

Let’s be clear – there has been no major Christian terror attack (that is, a terror attack committed explicitly for Christian theological motivations) in Europe or America for the last 100 years. There have been murders, random and cruel all, but nothing of the same malevolent grade as Islam manages to inspire on a daily basis.

The attacks in Norway in 2011 were not Christian. I don’t believe Anders Behring Breivik had a Christian bone in his body. The troubles of Northern Ireland don’t count either (despite the enthusiasm with which Islamic apologists bring them up). The Catholics of Ulster do not hate the Protestants of Ulster for religious reasons, but for ethnic and national reasons. Ulster Protestants are descendants of British colonisers and remain loyal to their imperial sponsors. The Catholics are native Irish who wish to have the northern corner of their island back under Irish control. Whichever way you lean on this, you can surely agree that religion plays no part (apart from the total coincidence of the religious divide between Scots-Irish and Irish which serves as an excuse).

Adherents of Christianity have certainly been violent at various points in history, but the period since they behaved in a way comparable to the adherents of Islam is measured in centuries. Let no one deny reality, or history, or seek to deform them into a reality or history synchronisable with their bigotries.

Islamic violence has no equivalent in other faiths.


The Left is Starting to Crack


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


Ever since hijacked airliners made toxic dust of the World Trade Centre in New York, there has persisted an intellectual struggle in Europe and America the furiousness and range of which has very few historical parallels. As soon the smoke cleared from that gigantic crime scene (and after the criminal force behind the attack was exposed) a thousand journalists, philosophers, historians and artists set out feverishly to make sense of the event. In the blink of an eye, the global intelligentsia split down the middle into two haughtily confident factions; factions we will brand simply as the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’.

According to the Left, 9/11 was a revenge attack for the depravities of American, British and Israeli foreign policy. In this sense, the attackers were little more than Quran-carrying Che Guevaras or Guy Fawkes’s; freedom fighters, essentially, who had been forced by cruel circumstance to choose a nasty response to past-nastiness. The Right saw things as differently as can be imagined. For them, the attacks were not revenge for anything, but simply the perpetuation of an ancient theological grudge-match between East and West. No moral case, they considered, could be made to justify the barbarism so photo-realistically witnessed.

We are now 14 years on from the attack on New York. In the intervening period, wars have been launched; numerous smaller-scale atrocities have been committed all over the globe; protest and counter-protest have gripped every Western capital; every thinking person has found themselves in some way drawn in. After all that – which set of arguments has won? Which narrative has triumphed? Or, if we allow that the debate still persists, who is winning?

If you caught me in a bad mood, I might tell you that the Left had won. For this contention I’d probably offer such evidence as the continuing Muslim immigration into the West, as well as the enduring taboo on blaspheming the holy figures of Islam.

But if you caught me in a calm, rational mood such as I find myself in today, I would likely decide the other way, and I’d be correct. The Left has lost the Islam debate and lost badly. Outside of the media crèche itself, the number of people still arguing for appeasement of Islam is infinitesimally small. Don’t believe me? Just look at the Guardian newspaper coverage of the Paris attacks of this month. Though the columns themselves were designed to promote ‘understanding’ and inter-communal ‘tolerance’, the comments made in reply to them exhibited frank disagreement, even mockery. The following comment is representative of the general trend:

“I detest Islamism. No-one is ever going to change my mind on that…The more Muslims we import into Europe the more our security services will be burdened. If the truth offends you, tough.”

Remind yourself that this is from the Guardian’s ‘comment is free’ website; a bastion of orthodox anti-imperialism and left-wing inflexibility. Most people registered to comment are Left-leaning in almost every other respect (take a look at the comments on welfare sanctions and climate change). The reorientation of such attitudes on an issue of this divisive nature is telling, shocking, encouraging.

Further evidence for this new and pleasing reality is found in online polls. Whenever a newspaper (whatever the stance of that newspaper) sets up a two-answer poll involving Islam, the anti-Islam option wins by a landslide. And not only is this trend ongoing in the general public. A similar process is underway in the intelligentsia itself. It is surely amazing from this historical distance to imagine an argument like the following being taken seriously:

“On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well…The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course… That they (the terrorists) waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint…They did not license themselves to “target innocent civilians.” There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved.”

This quote is taken from an lengthy essay entitled “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” written by Native American professor Ward Churchill. At the time of its publication, this amoral screed encapsulated the mood and feelings of uncountable academics, both in the West and outside of it. Now, post-Iraq, post-7/7, post-Madrid and post-Hitchens, such views are weighed as wicked, childish, unbefitting of intelligent consideration.

Though the nightmare of Jihad is far from resolution, we must yield to optimism when reason allows for it. More and more people are waking up to our position. We are no longer ‘extremists’ lurking about on the half-lit fringe. We are pioneers. We are being followed.


Could a Country De-Islamise Itself?


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


Iconoclastic commentator Ann Coulter once made headlines by suggesting that “(America) should invade (Islamic) countries, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.”

Her idea – if it was really an idea – was promptly laughed out of court, as well as being branded an example of a corresponding American ‘fundamentalism’ by the apologist Left. I can’t really argue with that response. If an operation such as Coulter proposed were in any way feasible (or affordable) it would surely be the most worthwhile and benevolent action by a nation in human history. Sadly, it isn’t feasible, nor is it affordable.

Despite that, the idea that a Muslim country can be de-Islamised is not political science-fiction. There are isolated examples which may allow for it, owing to unique historic factors and local ethnic aspirations. I am frequently presented with the idea that Iran (Persia), Egypt, and Syria all have ancient identities which precede the Islamisation of their territories by Abu Bakr and his marauding armies, and for which they might be willing (if presented with the right amount of Western encouragement) to trade their rotten Islamic present. How might this be achieved?

The most notable case of a country attempting to rid itself of the strictures of Islamic doctrine is that of Turkey in the time of Ataturk. Although rarely explicit, Ataturk had little affection for the Islamic religion (or at least its social application) and his bold, sweeping reforms severely curtailed the faith in Turkish society. Ataturk (and his supporters) wanted a secular, Westernised Turkey; one that would bare little to no resemblance to the Ottoman Empire – with all its fanaticism and slovenly Eastern habits. The reforms so implemented were successful and would go on to secularise and partially Europeanise the Republic for over 60 years, before being rapidly reversed by the AKP party of Tacip Erdogan, a self-confessed Islamist and dedicated Sunni.

Turkey’s experiment with modernity was destined to fail all along. Despite their genuine desire to Westernise, the Turks remained overwhelmingly Muslim in allegiance, having Islamic funerals for the dead, Islamic rituals for the young and a large Crescent despoiling the national flag. Turkey did not de-Islamise because there was never an intention of de-Islamising.

A comparable experiment in Westernisation took place in Iran before the revolution. Backed by American and British leaders and inspired by the example of Ataturk, the authoritarian ‘Shah’ Reza Pahlavi enacted massive social reforms aimed at liberalising and modernising Persian society. In the urban elites this was a roaring success. Young middle and upper class urbanites fully adopted the freedoms of the modern world, celebrating the diminishment of Islamic authority. The descendants of these people are now largely living in the West, having fled the country after the Islamic uprising of 1979.

Why did that uprising occur? For many reasons, but one of the most essential is that a nation is not its elite. Working and lower-middle class Iranians (especially those from impoverished backgrounds) were not ready for such rapid change. When the rabble-rousing populists of revolution appeared, they thus found a sizable number of henchmen willing to topple the ‘arrogant’ pro-Western elite. The rest is history.

These days, the Iranian diaspora (descendants of the Iranian upper classes) assures the West that the next attempt at Westernisation will succeed. They may be right, they may be wrong. It will be a while before we can know one way or the other.

In Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Syria and Algeria, the middle and upper classes are also secular. They too dream of civilising their respective countries; that is, bring the general population up to their own level of personal development. Yet as with Iran, the majority of Egyptians (excepting Christians), Lebanese (excepting Christians), Tunisians and Syrians are uneducated, jobless, illiterate, and supremely devout in their attachment to Islamic consolations. The elite can wish away the days and months, but nothing will change without a long, difficult and expensive process of public education and social reform.

De-Islamisation (of countries, societies, races) is not an impossible prospect. It may happen at some point in the future. But at the moment it is simply utopian, and as likely as the elimination of tradition from any nation, Islamic or otherwise.


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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 320 other followers