Russia Vs America


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


Russia’s intervention in Syria seems (so far) to be a very positive historical development. Seems to be , yet I cannot quite say ‘is’.

My sense of caution doesn’t derive from any hostility to Russia’s policy (which I generally support), but rather from my suspicions over the world response to it. While I personally love to see Russian bombs bursting in Islamist neighbourhoods, I am aware that members of our political elite are altogether more troubled by it. I am also aware of the reason for their unease.

Though it is the catchphrase of many lunatic characters, there really is something called the ‘New World Order’ – and in that ‘order’, things like this are never supposed to occur.

The NWO (the real one) is simply another name for the post-Soviet order, itself a slightly updated design of the post-WII order, with which it still bears many similarities. Conservative journalist Peter Hitchens (younger brother of Christopher) summed it up by rehearsing the following famous attitude – ‘Keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out.’

Put in greater detail, the order was designed to keep America as the worlds only accepted military superpower. Expeditionary exercises by states unallied to Washington were to become the stuff of history. There were to be no more Stalins, Hitlers and Nassers; no more upstart challenges to the US military’s global predominance in the air, on land or at sea. This is why Milosevic and Hussein were so quickly disposed of, why Germany and Japan’s economic growth was once so unnerving, and why Putin’s Russia is now regarded as so threatening.

In the NWO, only Washington’s opinion on world affairs matters (the UK being little more than a button on America’s shirt). Most Europeans (myself included) are fine with this. Though it tends to make world affairs rather lopsided, American hegemony plays a very positive and important role in maintaining peace. If American might was suddenly subtracted from the globe, vicious, large-scale wars would begin almost immediately. China would begin bombing Taiwan (and possibly Japan). Iran and the stronger Arab states would start threatening the Israelis. Pakistan and India would recommence their nuclear stand-off over Kashmir. The Serbs (backed by Russia) would retake Kosovo and attack Albania. The Turks would move ruthlessly against the Kurds. Sudan (backed and armed by China) would retake South Sudan and begin a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Long-simmering tensions between Venezuela and Colombia would be brought to the surface. Russia would follow through on its threats to invade the Baltic and move its forces close enough to menace Poland and other Slavic EU states. Etc…

America has thus given the world a very long and very prosperous period of calm. We should be thankful for it. But now, Obama’s astonishing weakness on foreign affairs is now threatening to undo it all. Who can accurately say how far this will unravel and with what historic effect?

As anyone could have foreseen, America has loudly condemned Russia’s activities in Syria. Only today, Obama rather idiotically claimed that the airstrikes will end up ‘strengthening ISIS’ (by weakening those charming US-backed Islamists in the Al-Nusra Front, for example).

And in Britain, the reliable, chew toy-seeking David Cameron has since barked his agreement with the Washington line, followed swiftly by the human-shaped cardboard art-exhibit known as Francois Hollande. The media has been similarly obedient. As Russia Today drily noted “No sooner had Russian planes taken off to bomb ISIS terrorists.., claims made by the West’s anti-Russia lobby (were) repeated in much of the western mainstream media… (alleging that) Russia wasn‘t really targeting ISIS but “moderate rebels” and its strikes killed scores of innocent civilians… Now there’s two possible explanations for the lightning fast way this new chapter in the “information war” against Russia has been launched… The first is that the anti-Russian lobby have fantastic sources in Syria and know exactly who has been killed in air strikes moments after the bombs are dropped, or, in some cases possess clairvoyant powers and know who the victims will be even before the bombs fall…The second explanation is that the accusations and allegations that we’ve seen were already written up – filed and saved – and ready to be posted online as soon as Russia’s parliament authorized the use of military force.”

Western government and Western media are thus united in hostility towards the Kremlin. This might not end well.

I don’t believe our leaders are ready to intervene in Syria (that is, against Russia) – or not just yet. We nevertheless have to be prepared for such an occurrence. With Russia fighting proxy wars against American security assets, it isn’t Bond-novel fiction anymore.

And just what would happen if the West did intervene on behalf of its preferred barbarians? World War III? Quite possibly, yes.


“They Could be ISIS”


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


With one curt reply, Donald Trump solved the conundrum of how Western leaders should react to the Syrian Immigration crisis. Instead of fumbling about for the right excuse, or degenerating into platitudinous psychosis, Trump met the contempt of the Left with a shield of toughest reason.

Should Trump become President in 2016, the Syrian refugees now headed to America (under Obama’s policy of general cultural surrender) will, he said, be made to leave. He gave no detail as to where they will go, but he was decisive (his jaunty, masculine tone never trembling) that they will go. Why? “They could be ISIS” he explained, and much to the chagrin of liberal press infiltrators, the audience receiving this news erupted into thigh-slapping approval.

“They could be ISIS” is such a straightforward, commonsensical rationale that the Left will surely pick at it ruthlessly in the weeks to come. Liberals, after all, don’t like common-sense; it’s far too reminiscent of the working classes they so despise (and pretend to represent). Liberals prefer (and will only listen to) lengthy, pseudo-intellectual theses from bespectacled East-Coast vegans (or even better, granola-crunching Scandinavian Leftists) composed in order to justify or extend the reach of government. Common sense just won’t cut it. Common sense doesn’t even have formal accreditation.

But this commonsensicalism is nevertheless the correct attitude for a prospective Presidential candidate to adopt. In politics, the issues are only as complicated as you choose to make them, and the Syrian immigrant debacle is at heart quintessentially simple. A country filled with hundreds of thousands of violent barbarians is busily issuing forth a stream of undocumented, unidentifiable strangers into the civilised world. The organisation responsible for the destruction of that source country has pledged its willingness to plant operatives in that human stream; their ultimate intention being to wreak a comparable havoc on Europe, as they already have on their own soil. When one considers the pastimes presently popular in ISIS-controlled territory (head-lopping, virgin rape, forced marriages, limb amputation among various others…), it is therefore the height of intellectual clarity to prevent the human stream from penetrating the borders of civilised nations.

I didn’t need to write any of that, of course. Trump made the same point with perfect austerity – “They could be ISIS”. As a statement, it can hardly be improved upon.

Still, if it helps the block-headed leftists better understand the point, perhaps Trump might in future use the analogy of contagious disease. If the human stream issuing from Syria was rumoured to contain carriers of Ebola or Bird Flu, the borders of the civilised world would surely re-appear as if by magic. It is the accepted responsibility of government to prevent the spread of disease where it is possible to do so. Why should this be treated any differently?

Islamisation is markedly worse than any organic malady. Once a country has been Islamised, that is usually how it will stay for many centuries. Ask the Albanians, the Bosnians or the Berbers. Unlike the treatment of a medical condition, overturning a cultural transformation is impossible without revolution, violence and chaos. Collected together, the number of historic deaths related to Islamic conquest – that is, from both Islamising and de-Islamising – runs into the wild millions.

And Islamic conquest is exactly what ISIS plans for us. If they need to move their wolves into position clad in wool, they will do. If they need to shed a few phoney tears for the Western press, they will do. Hell, they’ll almost certainly sacrifice children to the sea in order to forward this vile enterprise.

Any policy able to defend us against this process must be considered.


The Infuriating Rationality of Japan


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


First, know this – I am very keen on Japan. Two of my favourite novelists (Yukio Mishima and Haruki Murakami) are Japanese. I watch a lot of anime, eat a lot of sushi and often dream of visiting the megacity of Tokyo. At University, I shared a flat with a Japanese woman in my 2nd year and learnt a few sentences of the beautiful Japanese language. I also believe that the inherent cognitive power of the Japanese people will play a major role in defining the future of humanity.

Now, let’s talk about immigration. Japan, as you’ll be aware, maintains one of the strictest immigration policies in the Western World (yes, I would consider Japan part of that definition). A consequence of this policy is that Japan’s population is largely homogenous, the only exceptions being a few scattered Korean communities in larger urban areas. Despite the Japanese population shrinking with every passing year (the result of a shocking reproductive retirement among Japanese families), no immigration is desired – or even thought necessary – by people, media or government. If Japan shrinks in population, it shrinks in population, so the elite regards it. It needn’t be a disaster. Japan will stay Japan, whatever the future scale of that entity may be.

Given these striking ideological feathers, Western right-wingers tend to hate and love Japan simultaneously. They love Japan’s commitment to preserving itself, its orderliness and technological excellence. And they hate Japan for largely the same reasons. They hate the fact that Japan gets to be a first-world country (perhaps the only first world country) with a rational policy of cultural self-preservation and conservative economics. While right-wingers are free to call for these things in the West, they know that their suggestions will always go unheeded. Japan, by contrast, simply lives these values, almost without debate. And – most importantly of all – no one ever seems to criticise them for it.

No-one ever points out the disharmony inherent in the fact that Japanese people are free to move to Britain and become ‘British’, and yet no British person can move to Japan and become ‘Japanese’. Japan gets off the hook every time. No-one, including the international Left, calls them out on it.

When the Syrian ‘refugee’ pushers at the UN called on countries around the world to take in a fair share, little fuss was caused when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe politely declined the poison capsule, stating that he would rather focus on issues native to his own culture. There was no accusation of racism on his part. Once again, Japan – almost like (if you’ll allow this) a ninja – dodges the bullet. Why? What? How? Why is Japan permitted a level of applied rationality other cultures can only dream of?

I can foresee a time in which Japan is even more deeply resented than at present. As European states swirl down the toilet bowl, the rational and reasonable states will be subject to envious contempt. To the irrational, rationality is infuriating.


Is Ethno-Masochism Real?


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


Ethno-masochism seems to be the word of the moment on the political right. On sites like Vdare, Amren, 4chan and various independent blogs, the word is deployed as a charge against virtually everyone in the political mainstream (or at least as far as they relate to questions of Islam and immigration).

Etymologically it requires little explanation. Simply put, ethno-masochism denotes the masochism of one race in its dealings with another race. In America, the relationship in question is almost always that between White Europeans and Black Africans, whereas in Europe, it more often concerns that between Whites and the jumble of Islamic boat people who have graced our shores in recent decades.

The unifying component is the White race; specifically, the idea that White people are uniquely and unnaturally submissive to other racial groups.

While the slur is often deployed as a pure insult, unaccompanied by any proof or detail, some have attempted to provide the label with a scientific context. Jared Taylor, for example, the gentlemanly leader of American Renaissance – both the largest and most respected White nationalist organisation in the United States – has alleged that White Europeans are possessed by what he calls a ‘pathological altruism’ – an evolutionary disposition that compels the sufferer to root for the underdog, seek out justice and fairness wherever it may be said to be lacking.

According to Taylor, and many of his fellows at Amren, this disposition originally developed because it was useful to traditional European societies – but now, with those societies increasingly multi-culturalised, the compulsion represents a classic case of evolutionary misfiring. What developed as a means of ensuring European prosperity, now directs itself blindly at non-Europeans.

How accurate is this? I’m not sure. But I must say that – in frank contrast with the prevailing sociological orthodoxies – I have always found minority groups to be more racist, tribal and anti-egalitarian than White people. Despite all the talk of ‘White devils’ and White bigotry/privilege’, no other racial group has progressed so far in the direction of post-racialism than White Europeans.

Put a Kurd in the same room as a Turk; put a Persian in the same room as an Arab; put a Dominican in the same room as a Haitian; put a Kenyan in the same room as a Somalian; put a Japanese in the same room as a Korean, and you will witness the most ugly, primitive, frothing hatred that can be imagined. If you put an average White in a room with any of the aforementioned races, little will occur beyond awkwardness.

Rather than being masochistic, Whites are simply more advanced than other races on the issue of racial difference. After the second world war, having grown tired of biological conflict, White countries chose to disarm themselves of racial notions, fully expecting other races to do the same. But they didn’t. They still haven’t. Thus the perceived disparity.

Theories of racial ‘masochism’ (or sadism) are unnecessary, I believe. White people should simply insist that their universalism be replicated in kind. By this simple demand, the racial grievance industry would be made ideologically and intellectually bankrupt.


Saudi Arabia: The Brat Country


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


As you’ll be aware, two major disasters have afflicted Saudi Arabia in the past fortnight, each causing multiple fatalities. First, a crane ‘inexplicably’ crashed onto the most sacred Mosque in Islam, killing dozens. Then, a stampede during the traditional ‘stone the devil’ ceremony (not far from the site of the first incident) killed hundreds more.

On the off chance anyone finds this incompetence surprising, let’s build a context for it. In the first case, the Saudi construction industry is globally regarded as an institution of thinly disguised slavery. The workers, usually imported from impoverished areas of the Indian sub-continent, are provided with little training, guidance, insurance or protection. In this sense, the only wonder is why cranes aren’t falling on the hour.

In the second case, this is far from the first time that Saudi security forces, in total numbering barely 100,000 men (and only men, of course), have found large-scale co-ordination projects impossible to manage. A wave of animal chaos condemns countless families to an early, pious demise every year.

And this dysfunction, of course, is not isolated but general. Saudi Arabia is plainly not a developed country. Not by any measure. Though the Human Development Index continues to mistake wealth for sophistication, the nation is merely a third world state splashed with unlimited resources.

Like any crackpot regime, the Saudi government – knowing no better – wastes every dollar of (unearned) revenue on a bloated military and on spreading propaganda abroad (the result of which has been the rebirth of Sunni Islamic militancy and the deaths of thousands of Western citizens). Security and policing are brutal, often savage and yet also notoriously inefficient. The education system is appalling. Illiteracy is rife. Women are granted no rights whatsoever. Obesity is a national characteristic. Despite all the investment available, the national life expectancy is the same as in penniless Libya. The hospital system, while slightly better than the school system, is little more than a crude institutional plagiarism from the civilised world, and one that would collapse without that world’s continued instruction. Agriculture is non-existent (though, as other barren countries have shown, not impossible). If oil is subtracted from the equation completely, the economy is less productive than Jordan (a country with population of 6 million to Saudi’s 31 million).

Saudi Arabia is a brat country. A spoilt, lazy, bloated brat. Unaccustomed to ever working for a living, a brat never develops intelligence or a worthwhile skill. Money comes in whatever the case. So why do anything other than grow fat and play computer games? Why move with the cultural times at all? Why not freeze the clock at the very moment black gold first ejaculated from the ground?

I am an Islamophobe, admittedly. But I do nevertheless feel bad when innocent people die. Saudi incompetence has cut short the lives of a great number of people this week; people with futures, dreams and histories. They firmly deserve the blame of their co-religionists, as well as our unending contempt for their staggering lack of competence, compassion and innovation.


What Would Bismarck Do?


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


A few years ago, I was enjoying a lazy evening in my university library when I noticed that an essay was due for the following day. I had been completely unaware of it until then (having been absent on the day it was set). To my further anxiety, I noted that I was also unaware of its subject, the Father of Germany – Otto Von Bismarck.

I can be excused for the latter offence, I think. In British schools, we are taught an extremely limited curriculum (usually covering only the Holocaust, Henry VIII and Slavery in any detail). Bismarck was a familiar name to me, as it is to most people, but I had never been given a reason to make him any more vivid or lifelike in my imagination.

Needless to say, I got no sleep that night, spending the whole period in the library, pumped full of machine coffee and knee deep in a pile of thick, dusty books. But despite the anxious mood in which I was prompted to discover it, the story of Bismarck has proven enduringly fascinating to me. More than anyone in European history, Bismarck seemed to have been a living embodiment of the romantic ideal – Nietzsche’s ‘Ubermensch’, Carlyle’s ‘Great Man’, Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’ – a superman of reality, gifted far beyond the ordinary and with a drive to succeed that dramatically alters world history. There wouldn’t even be a ‘Germany’ without Bismarck, without his deviousness, intellect and personal strength. He is the author of Germany. Germany is his magnum opus. What other major country can call itself the product of one man’s cunning?

I believe the elephantine heroism exhibited by Bismarck goes some way to explain the quintessentially Germanic reverence for strong leaders (a reverence which, of course, went terribly astray in the 20th century). Bismarck was the proof of the German type. He demonstrated what a German could achieve. In this regard, he can be compared to Abu Bakr, the Muslim leader who conquered most of what is now defamed as the ‘Muslim World’. Bakr, like Bismarck, demonstrated an ideal – an ideal which Muslims try (in vain) to emulate right up to the present day (see, Bin Laden, Baghdadi, Zarqawi etc…). They are unwilling to accept that Bakr was a one-off giant, unrepresentative of the human average. Hitler and the Jihadists are thus products of the same delusion.

Still, unlike Bakr (a talented barbarian), Bismarck still has lessons to teach the leaders of the civilised world. For example, what would a man like Bismarck do in the context of the Euro-Islamic war? Let’s speculate now with the aid of three famous Bismarck quotes.

“A conquering army on the border will not be stopped by eloquence.”

This saying could hardly be more timely. As in Bismarck’s tinderbox era, Europe today finds itself under a long and potentially devastating siege. This time, the conquering army is not composed of other Europeans, but represents a detachment of our most ancient geo-cultural rival. Bismarck is surely correct to say that eloquence, reason and speech-making are bladeless weapons, useless in times of war and crisis. What we need is a physical, material blockade, strong enough to keep the hordes from advancing on our cities. In the case of the ‘refugee’ invasion, we should be deploying a massive, pan-European military force to Southern and South-Eastern coastlines. Anybody who shows up and is unable to prove they are Christian or of another non-Muslim minority faith must be turned away. If they try to rush the borders after being warned, they should be shot. That’s what war is like.

“With a gentleman I am always a gentleman and a half, and when I have to do with a pirate, I try to be a pirate and a half.”

Bismarck here uses ‘pirate’ to mean barbarian. He is correct to say that one should adjust one’s manner and values depending upon the force one is faced with. Since with Islam we are faced with a force of barbarism, we need not be overly civilised in defending ourselves.

“The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.”

As regards European politics, this is a timeless truth. No attempt to secure Europe is feasible if it does not factor in the influence of Russia. To have thought otherwise is the foundational error of NATO. If Islam is to be kept at bay, Russia must be incorporated into our security structure and provided with a role reflecting her size and innate capabilities.

Though the age of Great Europeans has passed, their words and wisdom remain as relevant and necessary as in their own time.


The Danger of Corbyn


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


In a striking video uploaded to YouTube last week, the Conservative Party brands new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn a ‘threat to the national security of the United Kingdom”, offering as evidence video footage of the squirrelly Marxist using phrases like “Our friends in Hamas” and “Our friends in Hezbollah”, as well as his now notorious lamentation of the death of Osama Bin Laden. At the time of writing, the video has received hundreds of thousands of ‘hits’, and has been broadly praised – both within and outside of labour’s swelling (but ridiculous) suburb of the imagination.

But just how dangerous is Corbyn really? Isn’t it true that the English press often exaggerates opposing viewpoints in order to discredit them, and that the scepticism inspired by this record has a reputation of being proven correct…? Yes. That is true. But on this occasion, the wolf is as real as they come.

Much has been made of the fact Mr Corbyn refused (during a service to remember the fighter pilots of WW2 – ‘The Few’ who prevented the occupation of Britain and the genocide of its Jewish population) to sing the national anthem. Commentators on both sides of the political arena have wondered aloud whether a secret republican agenda exists on Corbyn’s timetable. At the very least, they note, it seemed a profane gesture of disloyalty to the Queen, and one that can only have been deliberate. What did he mean by it? Why not just say ‘God Save the Queen?’ – does it even matter?

I think personally that it does – in this context. This is because Jeremy Corbyn, over his long, ignoble career, has never displayed a sign of real affection for the United Kingdom. His support for enemy forces in times of war represents no recent degeneration of his personality. He has always spoken warmly of the IRA despite its endless campaign of random violence against the English public. His ‘friendship’ with Hezbollah and Hamas marks only the latest phase in a lifelong campaign of anti-Zionist fire-eating. And though rumours of anti-monarchism seem as yet unfounded, Corbyn’s socialism remains of the solidly internationalist variety.

How can we possibly expect such a man to act in the national interest of the country? How can we expect a man who considers national borders to be constructs of the imagination to treat this nation with special favour?  We can’t, of course. We really can’t.

Since his election, Corbyn has selected a shadow cabinet of the sheerest rabble imaginable. Among the better known are the anti-White bigot Diane Abbott (a woman rumoured to have dated Mr Corbyn in his more tender years) who now counts as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, John McDonnell, the notorious – if supposedly repentant – apologist for Irish terrorism, who now counts as Shadow Chancellor and the arch feminist Angela Eagle, who is now Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

This is joke politics. This is an ill-conceived throwback to the oil-starved, rubbish-strewn, strike-crippled days of the late Seventies. No-one in their right mind would vote for it. But what if those not in their right mind are the majority? What happens then?

Well, if Corbyn become Prime Minister, the following calamities will be visited upon us. We shall lose our prized (and much envied) partnership with the United States. Immigration will go through the roof. Anti-terror measures will be eliminated, leaving the population at risk to attack from ISIS cells. The already decimated British military will be reduced to a purely ceremonial force. The entrepreneurs (upon whom we all depend for our continued prosperity) will be chased overseas by leaping rates of tax. Far-right political parties will be brought back from the dead, threatening the harmony of English civil society… The end of Britain, in other words. The end of everything we value and have ever worked for.

Corbyn must be stopped and stopped quickly. We cannot simply lie back and rely on the ‘good sense of the British electorate’ when that good sense is not yet proven to be typical. If a friend of yours expresses support for Corbyn, you should react in the same way you would if they expressed support for al-Qaeda. Support for Corbyn must be characterised as not only wrong, but treasonous and extreme. Because that is what it is. Treasonous and extreme.


Learning From Liberals


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


Let’s acknowledge an unpopular but important truth. Liberals are – on average – more successful, more pleasant and more intelligent people than Conservatives. They ordinarily have better careers, better cars, better manners and more sophisticated philosophies than those on the political right. Though I can’t speak for you, I would much rather share an apartment with a liberal than with a conservative. Indeed, I have always shared properties with liberals, consciously and deliberately. They make for friendlier and less judgemental associates. They are also more likely to lend a helping hand than conservatives, to bail a friend out of trouble, to offer a patient ear etc… Why is this?

There is a well-referenced body of evidence to suggest Liberalism becomes more attractive the better off one is in society; that once a person is liberated from the brutish concerns of bread and shelter, they become more willing to turn their caring eye away from themselves and towards society as a whole. Liberalism in this sense is a luxury, an indulgence. It is not available to the majority, but can only be afforded by the privileged few.

This does (or should) count as a mark of illegitimacy for liberals, but despite it, despite knowing it, I still fundamentally prefer them as human beings. I can’t help it. There must be a reason they have scaled higher peaks than the majority, and that reason, since it usually precedes their liberalism, must be independent of it.

We are trained by our culture of egalitarianism not to speak of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ human beings. To do so is the intellectual equivalent of swearing. By polite convention, all people are strictly equal, and all perceived ‘difference’ is a merely a dancing variation on a single, immovable baseline – a baseline from which we all begin and to which we all return.

Science is unfriendly to this theory and clashes with it frequently. Indeed, society only manages to prop it up with the same primitive tactics one uses to make any common lie seem true. Social thinkers simply ignore the findings of the laboratory, the G-test and the brain scan, offering in their place the produce of their own private goodwill. Let’s not do that here.

Let’s ask the question straight – Why are superior people more liberal? I don’t think the mystery is unsolvable. In fact, I think the solution is rather simple.

Conservatism has for a long time dallied in both great and stupid ideas – and the bad ones, being very bad, have obscured and discredited the good. When the idea that private property undergirds a democratic society is promoted in the same manifesto as the idea that Africans have no place in civilised society, or that homosexuals are trying to convert the young, or that scientists are lying to the public, it will be rejected. As it should be.

This idiot-conservative coalition was never inevitable. It is rather an unfortunate development of history; a quirk of fate. And since its basis is so flimsy, it can be undone.

How might we separate conservative logic from right-wing drivel? How might we attract intelligent people away from left-liberalism and back to the cause of freedom? For a start I would suggest ruthlessly cutting loose the crazies, pushing them to form their own political clan away from the mainstream. Cultural conservative leaders and intellectuals must publically reject (denounce) homophobia, colour-racism and the belittlement of women. They must cease fighting popular culture and embrace it (in order to attract dissenting elements in Western youth). Even if it exists, the influence of religious eschatology must be undetectable in policy and never endorsed by a candidate for office. More compassion should be displayed towards the poor. Arguments against abortion and gay marriage should be secularised. Candidates from urban environments should be sought over those from rural areas. And finally, perhaps most importantly, the right must rediscover its respect for worldliness and the intellect, no longer prioritising folksiness and the limited, small-town worldview.

In an age when liberalism has gone astray and allied itself to the enemies of freedom, conservatives must fill the void they have left. To do that successfully requires adapting to new realities and discarding unnecessary burdens. The defence of Western civilisation should be a friendly, positive and vibrant cause, not a moth-eaten and eccentric one.


The Second Republican Debate


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


So, did he blow it? Is Trump-mania beginning to die away in the wake of disastrous 2nd debate? That’s certainly what the press seems to think. Take this from The Atlantic: “Trump turned in a remarkably listless performance, buffeted by his rivals’ attacks, frequently sputtering or struggling to respond. His trademark bluster repeatedly failed him; the celebrity who has coasted to first place thanks to his larger-than-life persona seemed decidedly life-size. Pundits across the political spectrum unanimously pronounced him weakened and diminished.”

Or this from the Washington Post: “In the middle of Wednesday night’s main Republican presidential debate – that is to say, well over an hour into it – Donald Trump seemed to vanish. The voluble businessman came out of the gates punching everything in sight and then just… stopped. He didn’t literally leave the stage. But it was like when you only notice that the air conditioning has been humming loudly after it’s been shut off.”

Or this from CNN: “It was a wild night at CNN’s GOP debate.. and it took a toll on Donald Trump as he sparred with Carly Fiorina and Jeb Bush and sustained attacks from just about everybody on the stage.”

I don’t disagree with the basic gist of these points. Trump did have a sub-par debate compared to his first appearance, and other candidates have gained ground as a result. I don’t believe, however, that Trump is ‘finished’ as a candidate. Far from it.

The attempts to humiliate Trump during the debate fell rather flat, I found. Even Carly Fiorina much celebrated put-down – relating to an admittedly stupid comment Trump had made about her appearance – did little to reduce his popular advantage. I remember no comment made by the tycoon that did not attract raucous applause (and often vocal endorsement from identifiably female members of the audience). What’s more, since the debate, Trump’s poll performance has not declined but improved across the board. If this was supposed to be the car-crash of Trump’s campaign, it failed to scratch the paintwork.

Trump will continue to gain in the polls for as long as his rivals choose spin over emotion, and political correctness over honesty. Millions of ordinary people find Trump’s no-nonsense approach exhilarating, liberating and entirely appropriate to the times we find ourselves in. This is, as Trump notes, a world in which Christians are fed to dogs, beheaded and often crucified, in which Mullahs seeking the end of days are actively developing the tools needed to bring it about, and in which challenges to liberal democracy are flourishing on the back of amoral Chinese investment policies. This is an age that requires the old American way of doing things, the way of Macarthur, Patton and Eisenhower. And of the republican candidates featured at last week’s debate, only Trump would appear to offer anything resembling that approach.

Obama has given the enemies of America 8 years of weakness to take advantage of, and in Russia, China, Mexico and elsewhere they have taken it. Trump promises to make up for this. He promises to ‘Make America Great Again’. And with the right support and advice, I believe he may be up to the task.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 312 other followers