Does It Have to Get Worse to Get Better?

Tags

America, America 911, BBC, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EDL, English Defence League, Eurabia, Europe, France beheading, ISIS, ISIS Beheading, Islamic State BBC, Islamic State Wikipedia, Islamification of Britain, Islamophobia, Kuwait Mosque, Muslim, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Tunisia attacks

• First published on this blog in June, 2015

An argument beloved by the extremes of the right-left spectrum proposes that the short-term success of the opposing side is ultimately good for their own; in other words, that the dystopia they intend (ultimately) to make impossible has first to occur before it can be permanently forbidden.

In our case, this would be to say that the Islamisation of Europe has to quicken, the terror attacks multiply and the general abuse of our population intensify if we are to prevent a future in which such events cannot be opposed at all.

I suppose as arguments go, this one has a whispering, seductive quality to it. To a youthful and excitable temperament especially, easily thrilled by the idea of civil unrest and bad news, it will seem an obviously fine idea, since it guarantees (in fact requires) action and blood, broken glass and the rumble of boots.

But does it really hold water?

Well, today, following a Ramadan sermon by the shaggy beatnik “Caliph” Al-Baghdadi, terrorists have attacked civilians in three different countries. In Tunisia, Gunmen massacred at least 37 tourists relaxing at a beach resort. In France, some poor soul has been murdered, his head left – covered in Arabic script – on a spike. And in Kuwait, the perennially despised Shia have been blown up while praying in a Mosque.

All of the attacks are thought to be the actions of the Islamic State.

This triptych of evil certainly says something about the expansion of IS’s reach. And I think we can all agree that it qualifies as things ‘getting worse’. But have we been empowered by this day of carnage? Are we in a stronger position now than yesterday? I’m not so sure.

Most of the people intelligent enough to understand the reality of Islam already understand it. Faced with the daily progress of Jihad, you would have to be blind, deaf, mute and stupid to resist the conclusion that Islam is violent. And once that main point is understood, further outrages become progressively less shocking.

For this reason I doubt today’s events will have changed anybody’s mind. At least in the West…

In the nation of Tunisia, I think some progress will be made in the coming weeks. Although the point is often exaggerated by eager multi-culturalists, the Tunisians really are a more liberal, relaxed, ‘European’ people than their neighbours. Images of the city afflicted by today’s massacre (Sousse) remind me of destinations in Sicily and Greece. Only the captions below reveal their African location.

As one would expect, this reputation is jealously guarded by Tunisian liberals for whom an event like today’s must be infuriating. While they are in this mood, and should they stumble across this site, I would like say the following – The elimination of Islam from your country is the only failsafe cure for the misery that oppresses you. You have a beautiful Mediterranean homeland, one that many Westerners could be made jealous of. Be bold and change your allegiance while you still have a culture worthy of the name.

As for us in the West, the ‘things have to get worse before they get better’ argument is contradicted (repeatedly) by reality. Van Gogh’s stabbing didn’t bring us any closer to a solution. Lee Rigby didn’t. Rotherham didn’t. Charlie Hebdo didn’t. Today’s events won’t either. The attention span of the average Westerner is diminishing with every fresh atrocity, just as one would logically expect it to.

To rouse people into direct and decisive action will take initiative. It is no use waiting around for things to reach rock-bottom, and then like a phoenix, bounce back to a previous vitality. That is simply not realistic.

If you have the gift of organisation, organise a protest. If you have the gift of eloquence, write letters, start a blog or compose a petition. And when it is asked of you to state your grievance and preferred solution, be open and unafraid about it. Tell them you wish to preserve the Britain of comedy, poetry and freedom, and resist a Britain of Salat, Sawm and Jihad.

Keep the faith in victory too. When the future exerts its terrible pressures, our house shall stand. Theirs shall fall.  

D, LDN.

Normalising Muslim Britain

Tags

BBC, Blog, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, EastEnders, Facebook, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamification of Britain, Islamisation of London, moderate, Moderate Muslims, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, trum, trump, Twitter, wordpress

• First published on this blog in January, 2016

The presence of Islam in 21st century Britain is no more natural or inevitable than the presence of Sikhism in Chile. It’s worth repeating this fact whenever possible or appropriate. This is because many fake liberals continue to push the argument that Islamophobes such as you or I are somehow unworldly, retrograde, or unrealistic for opposing Muslim settlement in the contemporary West.

Some commentators go even further, saying that far from being a new and foreign element in our society, Islam is a traditional part of Europe, citing irrelevant factors like the antique conurbations of Muslim Sicily, Malta or Andalucía. Islamic influence, they claim, can be found in Europe’s system of law, code of social ethics, philosophy, medicine, architecture and geography. Given that this is so, why shouldn’t Muslim Pakistanis, Turks or Arabs live in present-day Leeds or Stockholm? They are as responsible for the greatness of these places as the natives…right?

No. Not right at all. It is certainly true that Islam’s Andalusian Golden age imparted a great number of ideas to European elites, many of which are now claimed as entirely and originally European. However, such contributions were mostly limited to disciplines of what we would now call ‘academia’ and in-any-case are dwarfed many times over by the influence of European ideas on Muslim civilisation. Do Europeans have the moral right to settle in Muslim countries on that basis? No, of course they don’t. And vice versa.

Leftists like to push the myth of European-Islamic co-development for one reason above all; they think it will normalise the presence of Islam in Europe and erase the memory of a Europe without Islam. For if the Muslim presence in Europe can be made to seem normal, traditional or ancient, objections to it will naturally seem irrational, unreasonable and unrealistic.

Another way the same effect can be achieved is via the media, and especially the screen media. Over Christmas, like most Britons, I found myself slouched in front of the television for extended periods of time. During that time I witnessed an astonishing barrage of British Islamic subject matter. There was the Citizen Khan Christmas special on BBC One (Note: CK is a woefully unfunny Muslim sitcom). There were the quiz shows with a disproportionate number of Muslim contestants, many of whom wore Hijabs or prayer caps. There was Eastenders – perhaps the most popular show in Britain today – with gripping plotlines involving characters called Shabnam, Kush, Tamwar, Masood, Fatima, Kamil and Ali. National (and even more so) local newsreaders and weathermen/girls were disproportionately Muslim. And so on. Over time, this normalises something abnormal; the slow bleed of east into west; the merging of two contraries into a single untenable consensus.

This is new. This is unnatural. And this is not something we should be tolerating.

D, LDN

Brexit and Islam

Tags

America, American Liberty, BBC, brexit and Islam, brexit Islam, brexit vote, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, coffee coffee, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, dtmw blog, dtmw dtmw, EU, eu vote, Europe, europe europe, Facebook, Islamism, June, June 23, june eu, June month, politics, Politics in Europe, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Twitter, United States, vote

The EU referendum is now only four weeks away. Reflecting this urgency, both campaigns are becoming increasingly shrill and their warnings increasingly perverse. Boris Johnson – standout figure on the ‘leave’ side – compared the intentions of the European Union to those of Adolf Hitler; a comment which has since garnered the margarine-haired philanderer ferocious criticism from both official campaigns. Across the divide, David Cameron – Prime Minister and standout figure on the ‘in’ side – has suggested that were Britain to leave, Europe might be plunged back into the kind of carnage not seen since the darkest days of the twentieth century.

Both of these statements are unworthy even of refutation, but they nevertheless reflect just how high the stakes are in this contest of visions. The EU referendum is the most vital and influential choice the British people have been asked to make since D-Day.

The EU

Though there are a plethora of issues at stake in this vote, perhaps the most vital sub-issue concerns demographics; specifically, the effect the result of the referendum may have on the contest between Europe and the Islamic religion bent on conquering it. With this in mind, let’s examine here the differing claims of the ‘in’ and ‘out’ side relating to the problem of Islamisation.

Claim 1: Leaving Will Strengthen British Resistance to Islam.

Most people on the political right believe that leaving the European Union will be good for the Western resistance to Islam. And there are many solid reasons for this point of view, some obvious, some less so. Perhaps the popular argument holds that the EU currently favours large-scale legal immigration from the third world, and seems unwilling – or unable – to prevent large-scale illegal immigration from the third world.

In the first ten months of 2015, 1.5 million illegal immigrants entered the European Union, most of them deriving from the Muslim world, especially the nations of Syria, Eritrea, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq. This can be compared to 2014, when only 274,000 illegals entered the EU. This drastic and bewildering increase has continued to grow in the first half of 2016, with uncountable hordes of ‘refugees’ swelling the total out of the competence of monitors to record.

The Refugee Crisis continues unabated

Should this continue for the next ten years or so, the demographic reality of Europe will be permanently disfigured. The Muslim population will rise to a proportion unseen since the Moors were pitchforked out of Andalucía. The leaders of the European Union have refused to heed the European public’s concerns on this trend, instead going on to make the problem worse by passing legislation designed to enforce massive asylum quotas on all member states. No national (that is to say, democratically elected) leader has been able to overrule this insanity. Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Francois Hollande, despite their different ideological origins, have been reduced to nervous silence by the muscle of the combined European purse. This is what the EU looks like in practice, critics say; unaccountable, undemocratic, and as far as Islam and immigration is concerned, potentially ruinous.

Another argument for Claim 1 holds that the European Union secretly favours Islamisation. Critics point to the bizarre statements made by EU officials relating to multiculturalism; a concept they would seem compelled by some hidden motive to defend. The same people also point to plans, as yet unrealised, to incorporate large swathes of the Muslim world into the European fold, beginning with Turkey, and then extending to absorb Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Lebanon. The EU-backed ‘Union for the Mediterranean’ has been laying the groundwork for this plan for several years now, holding summits with the leaders of all Mediterranean states (with the temporary exceptions of Syria and Libya). Both conservative (Merkel et al) and liberal (Hollande et al) European leaders have expressed support for this initiative, despite its clearly dystopian end-goal – the elimination of Mediterranean divide, the creation of Eurabia.

Union for the Mediterranean Members

Claim 2: Staying In Will Weaken British Resistance to Islam.

As we have observed, it is doctrinal to the ‘leave’ camp that Brexit will inevitably reduce the amount of immigration to the United Kingdom. Some see this as logically including the number of Muslims coming to the UK, but this isn’t necessarily true. Almost all Muslims come from outside the European Union and their immigration route is not filtered through EU legislation.

As commenter DaveyP put it just a few days ago: “Being in the EU at least means that most of the immigrants coming here are from the EU itself, which is preferable to mass immigration from the Third World.”

This is a vital truth; one we cannot sensibly ignore if we wish to come to an informed conclusion. Being in the EU means that most of the immigration the UK receives each year is White and Christian – Poles, Bulgarians, Romanians and Slovenes. Is this not infinitely preferable to Pakistanis, Iranians, Saudis and Bangladeshis? I would say that it is.

Nigel Farage, the closest the eurosceptics have to a Churchill figure, is admirably candid about this. He has asked, repeatedly and with great conviction, why the UK seems to give favour to Poles and Bulgarians over Indians, Pakistanis and other denizens of the Commonwealth. Is this a man with his head fully screwed on?

UKIP leader Nigel Farage

The only exception to DaveyP’s point is the case of Turkey. As the leave campaign have wasted little time in pointing out, the EU administration appears hell-bent on integrating Turkey – a nation of 70 million+ Muslims – into the European project. A prelude to this integration will involve giving visa-free access to Europe for all Turkish citizens. Should the EU go ahead with this, the number of Muslims permitted to enter and dwell within Europe will increase by Turkey’s population, massively adding to the Muslim component in the ongoing cultural tug-of-war between Sharia and civilisation.

But will this affect the UK? Not necessarily. The free movement of peoples, though a central tenet of EU policy, does not play out everywhere in the same way. The Schengen Zone, inside which all may travel unobstructed without passports, does not extend to include Britain at all. Should Turks be admitted to the EU, there would still be a degree of oversight, even if not control, available to the British state.

There is also the issue of Western Unity to consider. My friend, a Tory, has repeatedly attempted to persuade me that the EU, for all its evils, serves to unite otherwise divided nations into one coherent bloc – a defensive phalanx, through which it is difficult for the spear-point of Islam to penetrate. Who is to say that the dissolution of the European Union will not lead to the resurrection of ancient grudges on the continent? Who can guarantee that France will not seek to fight Germany’s dominance over the regional economy? Who can say for sure that Germany will not turn to protectionist measures to secure its place atop the European pile? I do not believe for one moment that World War III will break out, as our Prime Minister has ludicrously and desperately suggested, but I cannot say with certainty that Europe, as an idea, will survive the end of the European project. Nor, for that matter, can anyone.

Anti-German sentiment

Western Unity is vital at this point in history. At a time when Muslim extremists stand ready to seize upon the slightest weakness or division in our civilisation, it is imperative that we remain on the same page.

On Balance:

Whether we stay in the European Union or drop out, the issue of Islamic immigration will remain a serious problem for the United Kingdom. The EU vote will not finish anything. It will only tip the balance towards our salvation or away from it.

Considering the factors we have discussed above, I still believe that Brexit will serve the cause of resistance better than remaining. However, this is only as far as the United Kingdom itself is concerned. The argument that the breakup of the EU will risk disunity within the broader West is convincing to me. I do not believe that the EU will be replaced by a sunlit utopia of happy cooperation. This is wishful thinking. The truth is we don’t know what would come after it. It might be good, but it might be bad. In my opinion, the best course of action for continental Europe would be to reform the European Union without the UK. The EU should continue in its current form, but with a democratically endorsed constitution, alike that of America, guiding its actions. Needless to say, any attempt to integrate Turkey or other Muslim states must be permanently taken off the agenda.

Come the day of the referendum, it seems more likely that Britain will vote to remain than to leave. People are more inclined to carry on with the status quo than to step into the unknown. Such is human nature.

In the meantime, the enemy is licking its teeth, hoping and praying that we make the wrong choice.

D, LDN

Civil War on the American Right

Tags

American Liberty, Ann, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, BBC, border, border crisis, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, conservative civil war trump, Coulter, cruz, Defend the modern world, drudge beck, Facebook, fox trump, Glenn Beck, Immigration, Islam, Islamophobia, megan kelly, Middle East, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, rubio, trump, trump 2016, Twitter

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

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

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

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

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

Paleo-Con icon Pat Buchanan

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

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

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

Megyn Kelly

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

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

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

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

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

Ivanka Trump

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

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

Charge 3: Donald Trump is anti-mass immigration.

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

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

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

Viral photo from Trump rally

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

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

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

D, LDN

The Case for Trump

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, arguments, arguments for trump, arguments in favour of Donald trump, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, debate, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, donald drumpf, Donald Trump, donald trump 2016 defending, drumpf, john oliver, make america great again, mitt, Mitt Romney, trump, trump 2016, trump 2020, trump drumpf, trump romney, trump twitter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you stand with him?

D, LDN

Note About Changes

Tags

American Liberty, BBC, Blog, blogs, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Davdldn, defend, defend defend blog, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog, defend the modern world blog uk, Facebook, Multiculturalism, Twitter, UK, uk blogs, USA

Hi,

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

Always grateful for your visits and support.

Thank you. 

D, LDN

Note of Absence

Tags

articles, articles articles, Blog, blogging, D, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog, Facebook, inter, Internet, LDN, notebook, notes, politics, sharing is caring, Twitter

Hi,

Just a note to say I haven’t managed to write anything for this week. I’ve been away from my computer. This is only the fifth time this has happened in 3 years. I still self-identify as efficient.

Thank you,

David.

The Earth is Flat, Islam is Peaceful, Idiocracy was just a Movie.

Tags

America, BBC, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Dysgenics, Dysgenics definition, Facebook, flat earth, flat earth b.o.b, flat earth bob, flat earth idea, flat earth theory, flat earth vs round earth, force, intellectualism, logic, nasa, reason, reason reason, science, science and knowledge, solar system, space, theories, Twitter

The popular hip-hop artist B.O.B (I presume this is pronounced Bob) made headlines last week when he confidently proclaimed the earth to be a flat disk, and not – as we have been cynically led to suppose – a slightly oval sphere. Reactions to these statements ranged from the informed to the ridiculous. It has been pointed out, in a variety of ways, that B.O.B’s assertion is unsound; that the earth is in fact a sphere (or there abouts) and that the flat-disk theory is outdated and no longer taken seriously by the relevant scientific authorities.

You might think the easiest disproof of the flat disk theory is that the earth can be seen as round in photographs released by various space programs. The reason this isn’t accepted by B.O.B’s ilk is because NASA (in particular) is held to be a shadow agent of American malevolence (although what such a demonic force hopes to profit from this deceit remains unclear).

I have been aware of the renaissance in flat earth theory for quite a while now, so wasn’t as surprised by B.O.B’s comments as other seem to have been. Indeed, the flat earth boom is just another symptom of a general human malaise; one that if left unchecked threatens us all with a grim and untenable future.

The Idiocratic reality afflicting (primarily) Western countries is one of the great crises of the modern era. The social and political dominance of certain personality types, bolstered by their increasing organisation via the internet, is beginning to significantly degrade the focus of Western politics, dragging it back, relentlessly back to an era of conspiracy, moral panic and ignorance.

In a rap song (called ‘Flatline’) released just after his flat earth comments, B.O.B made positive noises about other fringe ideas, most notably in the following lyric:

“They nervous, but before you try to curve it/Do your research on David Irving/Stalin was way worse than Hitler/ That’s why the POTUS gotta wear a kippah/I’m a man before an artist/ Get a lawyer, look up Doctor Richard Sauder.”

David Irving I presume needs no introduction. The cretin is an iconic denier of the Holocaust and a large and respected presence on the international and Islamic far-right. Doctor Richard Sauder is probably less well known. Indeed I had to research the name myself (thereby grudgingly following B.O.B’s commands). As I now understand it, Mr Sauder alleges among other things that Western militaries have constructed massive underground and underwater bases, including marvellously infeasible facilities beneath the Atlantic and Pacific ocean floors. Why have they done this? It’s for the usual reason these imagined tyrannies operate behind closed doors – to control us, to keep us from discovering ‘the truth’…..

Internet conspiracy theories and their ballooning popularity must be placed in a greater context in order to be properly understood. Unlike the flat earth, the non-Holocaust, and the peaceful religion of Islam, idiocracy is a grim reality, and one that can only become more problematic as time goes on.

Most population increase is occurring among the less intelligent sections of the human species. Downward selection is now mass-producing gullible and unintelligent personalities, leaving the intelligent at risk of saturation. Why is this not considered a problem?

D, LDN

Europe is Suspended Until Further Notice

Tags

Are Muslim countries safe?, Christianity and Islam, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, dtmw dtmw blog, EU, Euro, Europe, europe future, Europe future Muslims, European Union, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Internet, joe, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, TheBlaze, United States

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.

D, LDN

Western Attention Deficit Disorder

Tags

add, adhd, adhd adhd, BBC, Britain First, cartoon, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, DTMW, europe africa australia, Facebook, facebook twitter, family guy Islam, glenn, ISIS, ISIS ISIL, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslims, Muslims in Europe, Paris, Paris Attacks, paris ISIS, politics, social media, south park Islam, Twitter, YouTube

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.

D, LDN