The Danger of Corbyn

Tags

America, American Liberty, blair, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Communism, corbyn, corbyn national anthem, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Europe, Facebook, Immigration, Islam, Islamification of Britain, Islamism, jeremy corbyn, Labour, labour party uk, labour threat to, left-wing, Leftism, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Scotland, socialism, United States, War

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.

D, LDN

Advertisements

Clown or Prophet? – Glenn Beck and World History

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Beck, Civilisation, Coulter, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Fox, Fox News, Glenn Beck, glenn beck caliphate, glenn beck isis, glenn beck Islam, globalists, Gun Control, Islamists, liberty, Multiculturalism, Obama, progressives, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, The Blaze, TheBlaze, United States

Glenn Beck is regarded by 90% of the world population as being unserious, someone to laugh at, make jokes about and treat with the same caution one would employ with a loudmouth drunk hollering about politics from a park bench. The left and moderate right are united in disliking him. I have more than once heard the phrase ‘to go/going chalkboard crazy’ in everyday conversation and this phrase almost certainly owes its existence to Mr Beck’s habit of scratching elaborate theories onto a blackboard in his various podcasts and YouTube shows. Beck’s heavy-handed and manipulative techniques (tearing up at the mere mention of the ‘constitution’ or the ‘troops’) have even led those in the self-declared ‘mainstream’ to question his mental well-being, although as to whether such concern is genuine or sarcastic must vary from person to person.

The media (with the possible exception of Fox News) is unquestionably part of this majority. CNN journalist Michael Wolraich (for example) spoke for millions when he wrote that Beck is “paranoid”, and that he dwells “in a land of make-believe” in which “devious enemies have infiltrated the government and are plotting to destroy America. Every significant phenomenon, from the recession to the BP oil spill, is part of their master plan. Their final objective is a fascist-communist-Big Brother-world-government-über-tyranny, and they will annihilate anyone who interferes, which is why Beck frequently asks listeners to pray for his safety.”

The 10% of the world population to whom the views above do not apply perceive things as differently as can be imagined. They do not regard Mr Beck as a clown or entertainer, but as a prophet, a seer, an Orwell, unappreciated by the majority simply because they are too scared to look at reality with an open mind.

I tend to fall somewhere in-between. I cannot deny that Beck obviously (and I mean obviously) hams up his delivery for cheap emotional effect. Nor can I deny that his willingness to advertise products ranging from vitamin supplements to insurance, gold-cash conversion services to security alarms is highly unorthodox and must count as evidence for his prosecutors.

But against this, I also cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the theories Beck scrawls on his blackboard have a strange tendency to prove accurate, not some of the time, but most of it.

The other day I watched a lengthy video Beck recorded many years ago. In the clip (using his trusty chalkboard) Beck outlines four forces he believes are jostling to decide the human future. The first is the force of progressivism, a loose and broad grouping of the international Left (or in American parlance, ‘liberals’) who have in mind the goal of a benevolent ‘one-world’ government and the abolition of the nation-state. The second force is that of the Globalists, the academic and business elites of the world who also wish to abolish national distinctions, but for largely economic and non-ideological reasons. The third force is the force of Jihad or militant Islam, the stated goal of which is a universal Caliphate, now represented clearly by the Islamic State and its supporters. And finally there is Beck’s preferred force, the Libertarian Conservatives, those who wish to uphold the old moral and national conventions and preserve liberty and the right of self-determination for the individual.

According to Beck (and to common sense) the first three forces are increasingly allied to each other, even though their eventual utopias differ radically. The Progressives sponsor and allow mass immigration, which enables the spread of Islam into the West. The radical Muslims confuse and delegitimise the societies to which they migrate, leading to a cultural hodgepodge conducive to one-world integration. The Globalists meanwhile are completely at ease with both forces. They lose nothing when Jihad strikes civil society, and may even profit from it. And as to the destruction of national identities, they couldn’t care less. Globalist capitalism strives to make the citizens of the world as similar as possible in order to simplify marketing and trade. The resisting force, that of Conservative Libertarian (often explicitly defined by Beck in religious terms) is thus very much the underdog, outnumbered, outspent and steadily being undone.

While Beck’s theory is imperfect (as any theory on this grand historical scale must be), who can really deny the basic gist of his argument? If the snobs who discount Beck as ‘mad man’ have a better explanation of the political zeitgeist, I would love to hear it.

D, LDN.

Wanted: A French Ronald Reagan.

Tags

America, American Liberty, BBC, calais, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Coffee, Communism, Defend the modern world, Europe, Facebook, France, france france, France holidays, french, gg, Police, policier, reagan, strikes, strikes left wing, Twitter, United States, waiting

In 1981, when a strike by air traffic controllers threatened to bring US commerce and civil life to a crippling standstill, President Ronald Reagan took to the podium and said of the workers “They are in violation of the law and if they do not report for work within 48 hours they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated.”

Calling Reagan’s bluff, the workers continued the industrial action for several days, expecting continued negotiation and a half-way compromise with their demands. True to his word, Reagan then fired over 11,000 unionised workers.

Given its scale and decisive resolution, this would prove to be a catalytic event in the history of the American labour movement, providing an effective deterrent against similar action ever since.

Fast forward to the present and France this time risks falling into dysfunction as a result of nationwide transport sector strikes. Unlike the Reagan administration of 1981 though, the French government still languishes in the grip of socialist psychosis and would appear both powerless and unwilling to intervene.

A Reaganite revolution for France is obviously too utopian to be feasible. But something of that kind is undoubtedly needed if the country is to avoid social and economic collapse in the future.

D, LDN.

Nobody’s Fool: Appreciating Ann.

Tags

Adios America, America, America 911, American Liberty, Ann, Ann Coulter, Ann Coulter Fox News, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Coffee, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Fox News, How to talk to a liberal, Immigration, Mexico, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, United States

Conservative pundits in America are frequently the subject of international ridicule. Judged to be theatrically insincere, eccentric and overdosed on faith, they rarely find an audience outside of their land of origin. Glenn Beck and his style have few fans in French or German conservative circles. Sean Hannity is not a household name in Finnish or Scottish right-wing society, and so on.

I can appreciate the reasons for this. American discourse is unusually brash and provocative, often quite deliberately so. Even if it were attempted, I doubt a weak-tea BBC Newsnight-kind of discussion would attract much attention there. American media is about viewers and advertising. A viewership on the scale required by sponsors can only be earned with fireworks, red cloth and bulls.

But this doesn’t mean that some American conservatives do not have real talent underlying their cable news methodology. One pundit in particular deserves a far more cosmopolitan – or any rate more international – audience than she seems at present to attract.

Despite acres of print arguing otherwise, Ann Coulter is not a ‘joke’ or a ‘novelty act’. She is admittedly a woman, and a blonde, long-legged one at that. I don’t doubt that some of her fanbase are motivated by apolitical factors. But I am not one of them.

I read Ms Coulter’s columns for their dark humour and cutting insight. She is gifted with a rapier wit, Adderall-sharp mind and her knowledge of the gut-workings of the Washington machine is unparalleled. Let me illustrate this with some well-known quotations:

“Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.”

“Since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed. Most of the time they can’t be locked up until it’s too late. It’s not against the law to be crazy — in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.”

“Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honour. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation.”

“One hundred percent of terrorist attacks on commercial airlines based in America for 20 years have been committed by Muslims. When there is a 100 percent chance, it ceases to be a profile. It’s called a ‘description of the suspect.'”

Some stuffy types might call this tone populist or dumbed-down, but that’s really quite unfair. It is actually the appropriate tone to use when discussing any kind of absurdity. When reality itself becomes self-satirical, mad to the point of losing insight, then the most accurate descriptions of it can only be phrased in comic language.

Humour is also a good means of getting a point across. Where would the anti-Islamisation movement be without the black comedy of Mark Steyn, for example? Some facts are so dark that one must one dust them in irony or laughter to make them palatable.

We are living in a world of beheadings, gays thrown from rooftops, forcible limb amputations and organised political rape. Most people would impulsively avoid knowing about these things. It’s all just too grim and defies too many human assumptions.

But we can’t ignore them. To put our fingertips in our ear canals only guarantees our destruction. The screams have to be heard. And I applaud and value people like Coulter for providing realism with the consolation of wit.

D, LDN.

Pyongyang or Islamabad?

Tags

American Liberty, Civilisation, Communism, Death Toll, Defend the modern world, Kim Jung-Un, london, North Korea Best, North Korea holidays, politics, Pyongyang, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, South Korea, Starvation, War

Here’s an interesting fact you might not be aware of: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the only foreign country North Koreans are allowed to study in during their period of higher education.

No other nation’s universities are open to the citizens of the Communist republic, presumably because of the well-grounded fear that those students might choose not to return. It speaks volumes that the North Korean regime has no such fears in sending its citizens to India’s chaotic neighbour, and says even more that there have been no recorded defections to Pakistan in the time this policy has been active.

Ever since I read this information, I’ve been imagining which I would personally prefer out of the two great evils of our time. That is, whether I would rather live in a starving, cruel and genocidal Communist state or in a nation ruled (albeit unofficially) along the lines of Islamic fundamentalism…

It really is a tough one. On the one hand, the DPRK has advantages over Pakistan. Unlike Pakistan, the DPRK is not chaotic but orderly and the state has absolute control over the people. True, this is ordinarily a bad thing, but given the activities that prevail in Muslim states when the government loses control, it is surely comforting by comparison. Furthermore, the DPRK does not forbid intoxication, an important means of escape from an unpleasant or insufferable reality.

On the other side, Pakistan, for all its hysterical unreason, is in reality a variety box of primitives, some of them violent, some of them merely stupid and quietly devout. If a North Korean lucked out and managed to study in whatever passes for a liberal area of the Islamic Republic, he/she might discover a forbidden liberty, like reading non-state-sponsored books, or watching unbiased international news via satellite.

Of course, the most clear and obvious advantage in going to Pakistan from Korea is the opportunity, however perilous, to cross the border into India and from there to get to the West. Indeed one could even switch planes at a Pakistani airport and get to the Korean Republic instead of the DPRK. But this takes us away from the point of the thought experiment.

Let’s say instead, that you have a choice to live for the rest of your natural life in Pakistan or in the DPRK. What would appeal to you more. Where do you think your suffering might be least, and your prospects of happiness greatest?

After thinking it through, I would probably plump for the savagery of Pakistan, purely on the grounds that there must surely be pockets of civility in a country of that size. There is also the factor of nutrition to consider. A starving life is no life at all.

I’m very much interested in your responses and reasoning.

D, LDN.

Putting Off the Inevitable.

Tags

Bombs, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, DPRK, DPRK US, Kim Jong un, North Korea, North Korean military, Nukes, South Korea, South Korean vs North Korea, The Interview, USA vs North Korea

The furore over the new Seth Rogen movie (‘The Interview’) has been exhaustively covered in the international press. In the process, the movie has acquired such immense publicity that folks are beginning to wonder whether the incident was orchestrated by the production company now profiting from it.

We’ll probably never know one way or the other. What can be known is that North Korea is an abomination and, in my opinion, one that should not be treated with kid gloves anymore.

When I was in South Korea last year, I witnessed a society thoroughly at ease with itself. It didn’t have the feel of a country on the brink of obliteration or even of one under the threat of injury. Why? Because Koreans are extremely intelligent and well understand how weak the Hermit Kingdom remains.

For all Kim Jong-Un’s bluster about turning Washington into a lake of fire, the North Korean military relies on the same standard of equipment used by Gadhafi’s Libya – most of it having origins in the Soviet Union, with few upgrades. The nuclear weapons Pyongyang undoubtedly possesses are unlikely to be mounted on accurate missiles. North Korean ‘transcontinental’ rocket tests are an international joke and can only leave observers wondering what vendetta the country has against its own coastline.

We could, and eventually we must, engage and defeat North Korea with overwhelming military force. I’m well aware that if and when we do so, there will be a downpour of artillery shells on Seoul and other Northern regions of the Korean Republic. However the bunker system in that grand city (over 4000 shelters) more than meets requirements for the protection of the general population, and in a pre-planned operation, millions of Seoul residents could be relocated beyond the reach of DPRK artillery. In any case, the prize of a united peninsula is surely greater than any risk.

In 1940, Adolf Hitler predicated that for all its numerical advantages, the Soviet military could be quickly overcome by a force of greater sophistication. “We have only the kick in the door..” he said “…and the whole rotten structure will coming crashing down.”

He was proven more or less correct for the first year of the Eastern war. Russia’s army was completely unqualified to halt the Nazi advance and this was directly attributable to the qualitative superiority of the Wehrmacht.

That qualitative gap between the Nazi and Soviet armies must be multiplied by 100 to get close to that currently separating the US and DPRK. The war, when it finally occurs, will be intense and bloody but also extremely short. The number of casualties, even if it reaches 100,000, will not hugely exceed the toll of deaths by hunger every year in People’s Republic.

We have no moral right to abandon this talented and tortured people. The comfort of the South must not take moral precedence over the liberty of the North. And by refusing to fight this pipsqueak tyranny, we are only putting off the inevitable anyway.

D, LDN.

Family Guy and the Acceptable Racism of the Left.

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Civilisation, Coffee, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Family Guy, london, Minority racism, Seth Macfarlane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN

Ukraine, Oil and Russian Decline.

Tags

American Liberty, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Ukraine Vs Russia, United States

The dire situation in Ukraine threatens to awaken many sleeping dogs. Among them is the potentially violent question of how Russia relates to Europe; that is, whether it is content to be a peaceable neighbour with a diminished geopolitical status, a respected part of Europe itself, or else a threat to Europe.

Out of these three scenarios, the first is both the most desirable and yet also the most unlikely.

Russia has always regarded itself  – if for no greater reason than its gigantism – as a global Superpower, forever equal to both Europe and America.

The problem here is that no respected observer (inside the country or out) would accord Russia this kind of status economically, militarily or culturally.

While I’m far from in agreement with the US analyst who (in reference to Moscow’s reliance on gas revenue) memorably defamed the country as “Saudi Arabia with trees”. I can’t say I don’t understand the point-of-view. Abroad from the wealthy Moscow mega-region, Russia is almost uninhabited. Those who do dwell east of the Urals meanwhile are typically old, infertile (by choice and age) and threatened by endemic alcoholism.

The best (and indeed only) thing Moscow can do, in a vast country with a shrinking population, is to put the land to work instead, extracting every mineral and value contained within it and selling it to the West and China.

So far, this has proved a workable strategy.

Russia today is hardly poor and much of the influx of Western money has been redirected into creating an impressive native arms industry. Russia’s military currently boasts several indigenously designed 4th generation fighter jets, accurate and effective anti-sattelite missiles, and (lest we forget) cutting-edge nuclear arms too.

But this situation could change.

Even if the current EU and Obama administrations seem reluctant to do so, the succeeding regimes will almost certainly begin to invest in the huge reservoir of shale gas buried beneath both North-America and Europe. Some analysts predict that between them, there is enough energy to eventually stop American reliance on Middle East oil.  More to the point, it could also end European reliance on Russian energy.

The loss of the European market would be a catastrophe for Russia, and would almost certainly initiate huge geopolitical consequences.

Perhaps it is that dire prognosis which motivates Russia’s drive to secure an empire that will, at a later date, be impossible to construct.

D, LDN.

Immunised by Experience: The Irony of East-European Fortune.

Tags

Belarus, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Eastern Europe, English Defence League, Eurabia, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Poland, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Russia, Slavic

Though still subject to debate, the landscape boundaries of ‘Europe’ have traditionally been drawn over the extremities of Russia in the East, and the coasts of Ireland and Portugal in the West. This mass is usually then cleaved into three (Western, Central and Eastern) cultural areas, each dominated by a regional giant – respectively, France, Germany, and Poland.

When we talk today of the ‘Islamisation of Europe’, we are normally talking exclusively about the Western and Central demarcations. The Eastern part of the continent remains, with a few isolated exceptions, relatively homogenous.

Poland, for an example, is currently over 90% Christian with a Muslim population below 1%. In Ukraine, the majority are either Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or irreligious, with Muslims barely a trace cultural element. Similar situations to these prevail in Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Hungary and Latvia too.

The reason behind this advantageous trend surely counts as one of the grandest ironies in history.

As you know, between the close of World-War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, the nations of Eastern Europe were held in political bondage to Moscow. During this period, the regime which saw fit to rule them, Soviet Communism, reduced such countries to economic ruin, and created a repressive and politically inflexible atmosphere, based – above-all – upon fear.

Throughout the Eastern bloc, young people, upon graduating from their indoctrinated universities, were allowed few aspirations beyond that of joining the cruel Soviet infrastructure itself. Goods were hard to come by. Food-production was poorly managed. Freedom of speech and conduct were radically curtailed. Businesses were bullied by the state, or else sank of their own accord. Only jails and torture chambers conducted a roaring trade.

Into this unfortunate situation, very few non-European immigrants aspired to enter, preferring, quite logically, the wealth and freedom of Paris, Amsterdam and London, to the midnight interrogations and bread queues of Warsaw, Kiev and Minsk.

When the iron curtain finally fell then, and with the seeds of demographic destruction already having been planted to the West of Berlin, Eastern Europeans re-awoke to find their societies starved, disorientated and angry, but otherwise relatively unchanged.

Though in the coming years, Cultural Marxists attempted to launch third-world immigration drives in Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania, they were never successful. Eastern Europeans were immunized to their deceptions by direct, bitter experience. They knew very well all the lies and buzzwords of the Left, having spent years in societies hearing nothing else. They also knew, more importantly, where such lies can lead.

In Britain, there is a running commentary in the football press, regarding the alleged ‘racism’ of Polish and other East-European fans at Euro football matches.

When the Polish national team plays the Dutch squad for example, explicitly racist taunting (monkey impressions, the displaying of bananas and watermelons, use of racial language) is often heard solely from the Polish terraces.

This is – of course – thuggish and unacceptable behavior for any civilized people, but perhaps there is more to this conduct than meets the eye.

These taunts, I believe, are rooted in political memory, and have behind them expressions of relief as well as – perhaps – just a whiff of Schadenfreude….

The Poles see in the (usually all African) ‘Dutch’ football squad, the realization of an ideology they successfully threw off, and which the West, once so chauvinistic, is now itself perishing under.

D, LDN.

JFK Assassination: A Leftist Outrage Turns 50.

Tags

American Liberty, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, BBC, Defend the modern world, Downtown Dallas, Friday, John F Kennedy, Kennedy, Oswald, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, YouTube, Zapruder Film

This past week, America and the world marked the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, one of the most charismatic and (retrospectively) popular Presidents in the nation’s history.

50 years ago on Friday, at 12:30pm, Kennedy’s ill-fated procession turned the corner onto Elm Street in Downtown Dallas. As it passed through the crowds, three or four shots were fired at the motorcade, one of which struck the President’s head and would later cause his death.

As many will have done, I took the suggestion of this anniversary to re-watch the ‘Zapruder Film’ – the famous 30 second silent reel which captured the assassination. Nowadays, with the benefit of YouTube, there are many enhanced versions available to see, including a harrowing High-Definition close-up of the fatal impact. After the explosion of the President’s skull, the pained reaction of Kennedy’s impossibly beautiful wife Jackie completes the film’s devastating emotional resonance, and provides in bright pink, a lasting icon of Americana.

As to the debate, still ongoing, about who fired the gun, how many shots were fired, and for what motive, I take a stand of principled agnosticism. Having read a great deal on the killing over the past week, I think it likely that Oswald did act alone. The killer had decided upon radical politics and felt a need to make himself count in world-history. Given his profile and his proximity, Oswald’s guilt seems the only logical verdict.

But in any case, even if they quibble with the ‘how’, most conspiracy theories alter nothing as to why the killing occurred. In terms of motive, we would be wise to believe the official explanation. Oswald was a Leftist, Communist agitator, and so presumably would be anyone who did/did not conspire with him.

It remains a fascinating crime, especially notable as one of the great and formative acts of modern Leftist terrorism.

D, LDN.