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.

The Future and the Western World

Tags

biotech, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, elitism, facebok, Facebook, facebook social media, future, Futurism, hi-tech, Innovation, Internet, nano, nanotech, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, research, robotics, science, science gap, social media, tech, tiwtter, twitteer, Twitter, United States, West and the Rest, west technology, west vs east, Western world, windows

• First published on this blog in October, 2015

Whatever one’s political orientations are, and no matter what the individual context is, the sight of human suffering is always traumatic. As human beings, we are naturally upset when presented with photographs of starving African children, shrapnel-wounded Syrian schoolgirls, Burka’d Afghan women and brainwashed North Korean families. It is the way we were designed to be. Few things are more innate.

Given this predisposition, the arguments of ‘humanitarianism’ will usually find a public audience, and typically (from there) a political majority. For example, the view that it isn’t ‘fair’ for Americans to have ipads and super-sized milkshakes, while Malians have only bottle tops and sewer puddles is not one most people would feel comfortable disputing. Who would ever wish to be regarded as an elitist or social Darwinist? No-one, I would venture.

However, in the interest of truth, we must consider that at some point the privileged will have to draw a line around their advantages and prevent their being usurped. For if they fail to do so, the advantages will be watered down, or stolen outright, to be shared amongst the swelling masses until all have as much as each other, and very little alike.

It is a good time to reflect on this kind of difficult issue. For if we think that the West enjoys obscene advantages at the moment, the developments of the near future will leave us bewildered.

We are living on the brink of a scientific revolution unlike any in history. The confluence of emerging competences in AI, robotics, nanotechnology, life-extension and genetic manipulation will make the gap between America and Mali today seem insignificant. Part of the world is about to accelerate through time into a dazzling future, and all other parts will be left languishing in a primitive angry, resentful past.

Most ordinary folk have no idea of what is about to be unleashed on the Western market. Misinformed by experience, they naively presume that technology will progress at the same rate as it did in the past. They do not realise that with every advance, technological development is speeding up.

To a 20 year old in 1980, military drones were science-fiction, as were iPhones, ipads, anti-satellite weapons and hypersonic vehicles. And yet all are now with us. It takes a healthy and imaginative mind to realise how much has been achieved in such a short period of time, and to appreciate that this kind of 35 year leap will soon take 5 years, then 4, then 3…

We would be fools to believe this scientific revolution will not have geopolitical consequences as large as its spectacle.

Right now, you can buy a PlayStation in Karachi, and perhaps even in Mali. This won’t be the case with the operating systems of the future. New technologies will be so overwhelming and expensive (and dependent on other technologies and infrastructures) that first-world lifestyles will fall entirely into their orbit, adapted to fit and absorb their possibilities. The first-world will begin to speak a language that the rest of the world cannot relate to, using concepts, humour, references and symbolism only applicable to the age the West (and the West alone) has arrived at. In time, technology will create a new cultural divide far greater than any created by religion or politics.

And as that divide grows, the West will have to make a choice. Let the rest of the world in on the future, and risk having our hard-won wealth and military advantages destroyed or turned against us by destructive and primitive beliefs; or else simply declare ourselves the winners of human history; the winners of the global lottery, and be happy and secure in our good fortune, willing to defend it from our competitors. Triumphalism, that is, and not humanitarianism.

While this sounds morally outrageous, recall that many of us indulge in this attitude already, even if only semi-consciously. When you’re out using your laptop in Starbucks, for example, you are doing so fully in the knowledge that you are part of the exclusive 20% of the world population who can afford to live so extravagantly. Though we might feel privately guilty about this, none of us make any great effort to change it. If a popular figure (Russell Brand, perhaps) called upon us to donate 90% of our wages each month so that the third and second worlds can lead a Western standard of life, we would all refuse. In fact, we would likely be indignant about it. Our civilisation has figured out the best way to live, to produce and to thrive. Theirs has not done so. Sub-Saharan Africa is among the most fertile regions in the world. The Islamic world is flush with resources. The reason for our success is our creativity; the things we have done with our hands and minds. Therefore, only we have a right to the fruits of our achievements. Perhaps this is the correct attitude…

‘Humanitarianism’ and its much vaunted idea of ‘international development’ certainly has a future. But I don’t believe its arguments are as future-proof as some believe. I’m interested in your views.

D, LDN

Alt-liberalism: A Mini-Manifesto

Tags

alt left, alt liberal, America, American Liberty, anti-islamism, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, DTMW, EU, Europe, Facebook, Feminism, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamophobia, Left, liberalism in UK and US, Liberals, manifesto, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Twitter, United States

In my post regarding the ‘alt-right’ political movement/subculture, I mentioned that I do not consider myself a ‘rightist’ of any kind, but rather an ‘alt-liberal’. This is a concept I thought was worth taking further. What is an ‘Alt-liberal’ of my personal style? To define the concept as I intended it, I offer the following mini-manifesto of what I believe to be positive alt-liberal principles. –

We are liberals, but…

… we do not believe that Islam and other reactionary third-world cultures are compatible with – or preferable to – the way of life historically prevalent in Western nations.

… we do not believe that immigration is necessarily a good thing –  but that its value depends entirely on the type of immigrants being admitted. Muslim immigration is a self-inflicted wound and one we must stop inflicting on ourselves.

… we do not accept that egalitarianism is an achievable political aspiration. Humans vary naturally in intelligence and ability and any attempt by the state to enforce an artificial equality will lead inevitably to the Gulag.

… we view political correctness as an over-prescribed and unhealthy solution to the failures of social cohesion. Social cohesion is best achieved when reactionary and barbaric ways of thinking (including racism) are voluntarily rejected and replaced with honesty, cosmopolitanism and understanding.

… we believe in speaking plainly about the superiority of the West and do not worry about offending primitive cultures.

… we support the defence of secularism from all its enemies, including the cultures of immigrants.

… we believe that sensible limits should be put on the size and power of the state.

… we are grateful for, and enthusiastic about, capitalism – an economic system that has improved the lives of millions and has proved to be the only workable kind of social organisation.

… we do not condemn, but celebrate consumerism and materialism as means of satisfying innate human drives and desires.

… we support democracies over tyrannies. We do not support – nor sympathise with – autocratic regimes.

… we are not pacifists and recognise that many wars (WWII, the US Civil War, etc..) have been for the common good.

… we reject anti-Semitic incitement disguised as ‘anti-Zionism’.

… we actively support the continued dominance of the United States of America over the military affairs of the world. This has been an undeniable blessing for humanity and has served to maintain stability and peace.

D, LDN

Trump in Gettysburg

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, BBC, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, gettysburg, gettysburg trump, gettysburg trump 2016, rallies, rally, trump rallies, trump rally, trump speech, United States

Donald Trump has frequently been accused (sometimes justly) of being short on detailed policies. This speech, delivered in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, is very valuable for its detail and clarity. In it, he outlines the agenda for the first 100 days of his administration.

D, LDN

In Praise of South Park

Tags

America, American Liberty, anti-terror, Barack Obama, BBC, Civilisation, Coffee, Culture, Defend the modern world, depicitions of Muhammad, depictions of Mohammad, DTMW, EU, Facebook, Family Guy, intimidation, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamism, Multiculturalism, parody, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, satire, seth, south park, south park election, south park republican, south park season 20, stone, Texas, Twitter, United States

I was thirteen years old when the adult animation South Park premiered on UK television. I remember the kids at school being immensely excited by it, a feeling to which I quickly succumbed myself. It seemed altogether new, even revolutionary. To our childish minds, the obscenity and scatological humour of the first season was ingenious, interesting, bold. It was like the Simpsons, but for bad people, those who find humour in darkness and the depraved.

It took me only a couple of years to become bored of South Park’s provocative style. Upon leaving school, I suddenly seemed to find that jokes about excrement and boobies were no longer novel or amusing. Without any taboos left to break South Park lost much of its power and appeal.

When I recently returned to watching the series (upon the recommendation of friends), I was pleased to discover that the show has changed considerably since my high school days. The humour, characterisation and mission of the series has matured and evolved into something intelligent and even vital. It seems South Park is these days less concerned with flatulence and breasts (although both of these remain features) than with political and cultural criticism, particularly of the faux-liberal and regressive Leftist worldview so exhaustively advertised and endorsed by other sitcoms and satires.

Uniquely among shows of its kind, South Park has pursued of late an admirably consistent libertarian rationalism; one that could be hardly any more different from the hypocritical conformity of rival programs like Family Guy and The Simpsons. Against convention, the show has ridiculed the mob-mentality of political correctness, the lethal denial of Islamic aggression, and the damaging excesses of environmentalist and egalitarian dogmatism.

So impressive has this radicalism become, in fact, that a real-world political tendency has been attributed to the show’s influence. The phrase ‘South Park Republican’ is now well understood and defined in circles of political commentary. The phrase denotes those who, while they are opposed to the more absurd and outdated aspects of social conservatism (such as blind opposition to gay rights, marijuana use and open sexuality), nevertheless believe that the right isn’t wrong about the economic and ideological fundamentals – for example, the fact that Western World is superior and infinitely preferable to the Third World, that capitalism is superior and infinitely preferable to communism, and that ‘racism’ – as a word and concept – is largely empty of meaning and routinely abused for cynical political gain.

Unsurprisingly, South Park’s approach has not passed without controversy. On numerous occasions the cartoon has been roundly condemned by journalists and network executives alike for overstepping the boundaries of the acceptable. Perhaps most famous of these occasions concerned the episode ‘Cartoon Wars’, which featured (or intended to feature) an animated caricature of the Prophet Muhammad alongside renderings of other religious figures such as Jesus and Buddha. Despite the plot of the episode being relatively benign toward the Islamic Prophet (or at least no more mocking or malicious than toward the other featured characters), Comedy Central (the company behind the show) declined to air the episode without the condition that Muhammad be completely obscured behind a black rectangle.

It doesn’t really matter that South Park ‘lost’ in that instance. Their attempt at religious satire exposed a very real hypocrisy in the liberal media. We are better off for them having tried.

I believe South Park’s willingness to fill in the gaps left by more politically correct shows like Family Guy is almost certainly the reason for its continued success. In a world where sacred cows are too often left unbutchered, bravery of this kind will always be worthy of praise and attention.

D, LDN

The Case Against Clinton

Tags

America, American Liberty, arguments for trump, Barack Obama, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, crippled, debate stream, debates, Defend the modern world, EU, eu usa, Europe, Facebook, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton scandal, I'm not with her, I'm with her, Merkel, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Palin, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Terrorism, trump, trump 2016, trump america, trump donald, Twitter, UK, uk usa, United States, US, USA, War

So… today (transatlantic time difference notwithstanding) is the day. The first debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will take place tonight in New York. I can hardly wait. This is, as I said in my post last week, the most important debate of our era. It will greatly influence, if not decide, the course of America’s future. Should Trump exceed the low expectations people have of him, the chances of his winning a majority in November will be massively enhanced. Should he make a fool of himself, his chances will sink very low indeed. This would be thrilling if it wasn’t also so nerve-wracking.

Anyway – to mark this momentous occasion, I will present here fifteen of the strongest (in my estimation) objections to a Clinton presidency. If Trump is to triumph at the debate tonight, he will need to focus on these points above all others.

1. She refuses to name the enemy.

Like President Obama, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly refused to the use the term ‘radical Islam’ when discussing terrorism in general and ISIS in particular. Contrary to what the mainstream media suggests, this is really no trifling matter. The phrase ‘radical Islam’ is itself a watered down and liberal framing of the problem (a more honest commentator would just say ‘Islam’). For Clinton to stop short of going even this far shows that she is either unwilling or unable to recognise (and thus deal with) the biggest challenge facing the civilised world.

2. She is dripping with other people’s money.

Unlike Donald Trump, who has largely funded his campaign out of his own pocket, Hillary Clinton has received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. The individuals and organisations who have stumped up this money will have done so for a reason. What has she promised them? We simply don’t know. And that is a problem.

3. She is arguably unfit to lead.

No-one knows for certain the true condition of Hillary Clinton’s health. Though many on the internet have busily speculated, the facts remain, for now, obscured behind a haze of spin and denial. According to Clinton herself, she is more than physically able to govern and has sought to prove this by, among other things, opening a jar of pickles. The episode in which the Democrat nominee ‘overheated’ and was left unable to walk properly following a 9/11 commemoration event says otherwise.

4. She has no clear agenda.

Donald Trump, for all his faults, has been admirably candid about which direction he plans to take the country in upon winning the general election. His opponent is a very different story. Never in the last fifty years has a vaguer agenda been offered by a major presidential candidate than that which is now advertised by Hillary Rodham Clinton. So undeniable is this shortcoming that even the Democrat’s most die-hard supporters have elected to focus their campaigning almost exclusively on the weaknesses in Trump’s manifesto. Rarely has any solid, clear, feasible policy been set out either by Clinton herself or by those affiliated with her campaign. This strongly suggests to me that Clinton has a secret, under-the-table agenda, written up, in large part, by her donors (see point 2).

5. She is underwhelming.

Hillary Clinton has virtually no charm at all. This much is evident from the meagre crowds the nominee has managed to draw at her lacklustre ‘rallies’ over the past few months. Even during the primary season, the nominee was totally outclassed and outperformed by her very able and inspiring opponent Bernie Sanders, to whom many millions of Democrat voters remain attached. This matters because, as president, Clinton will be responsible not only for the smooth running of the economy and public sector, but also for rallying the troops against America’s enemies and picking the country up after terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Does anyone really believe she is up to this?

6. She is a throwback.

Hillary Clinton’s political views, if indeed she has any, were brewed in the same pot as her husband’s. While I am too young to recall Bill Clinton’s administration with any clarity, I have read widely enough to discern that in terms of foreign policy, national security and immigration (the three major issues of this election), his regime was close to hopeless. Hillary Clinton has not once sought to distance herself from her husband’s record. She has not stated any meaningful disagreement with his agenda, and from this it is very fair to infer that she offers more of the same.

7. She is a lawyer.

Hillary Clinton’s main career outside of politics is law, the traditionally favoured occupation of the political mountebank. Other examples of law-graduates-turned-politicians include Barack Obama and Tony Blair. I don’t think I need to say anymore.

8. She is coastal and out of touch with America’s heartland.

The secret of Donald Trump’s success is not, as the media alleges, his star-power and celebrity connections. It is his ability to connect and convincingly communicate with the denizens of America’s ‘flown-over’ country, AKA the heartland. Though Clinton has attempted during her campaign to touch upon the issues affecting this blighted region, her appeals have fallen on deaf ears. She is simply too coastal and too urban to be taken seriously when discussing the opiate epidemic or the decline of manufacturing. Trump, on the other hand, has, via his business dealings, genuine credentials on the meat and potatoes issues facing rural and impoverished communities.

9. She has ties with some of the worst regimes on the planet.

The Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s pet project, has received and given support from and to some of the worst governments in the world. These include (but are not limited to) Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. While North Korea has yet to be explicitly embraced by the foundation, you would be a fool to rule it out entirely.

10. She is arrogant.

Hillary Clinton believes she deserves to win simply on the strength of her being a woman. This is a monumentally arrogant and presumptuous mindset to display at a time of real political strife and uncertainty.

11. She is a threat to the 2^nd Amendment.

Hillary Clinton is not a pro-gun candidate. Indeed, on this matter, she is arguably more problematic for the advocates of private gun ownership than Barack Obama has been.

12. She is humourless.

Even the most vociferous and committed of Donald Trump’s critics acknowledge that the Republican possesses a sense of humour, a layer of humanity beneath his political sheen. At his rallies and in media interviews, the New Yorker has consistently displayed an ability to take matters lightly where appropriate (and yes, occasionally where inappropriate also). Hillary Clinton, by unpleasant contrast, is businesslike to the point of sociopathy.

13. She believes climate change is a more immediate threat than ISIS.

Not much elaboration is required on this point. I will only say that while climate change may or may not be a crisis in need of addressing, ISIS clearly represents (in the view of any reasonable person) the most pressing and urgent short-term threat to the stability of America and the greater modern world.

14. She is conventional on healthcare.

I tend to disagree with most right-wingers on the issue of healthcare provision. I support (and am immensely grateful for) the free treatment offered by the UK National Health Service. Though I imagine the idea might prove unpopular in the short term, I believe that America should strive to institute a similar system. Healthcare is no different – in my view – from the fire and police services. One should fund them with taxes, not private finance.

Hillary Clinton, as she has never sought to deny, is happily wedded to the set-up known unofficially as Obamacare – a wretched and ill-thought-out jungle of bureaucracy that has led, directly or indirectly, to thousands of job losses. Against this, Donald Trump, quite refreshingly for a Republican, has said many nice things about the British and Canadian health systems. If the New Yorker is able to shift conservative opinion on this, America would profit greatly. Clinton, like many of Trump’s foes in the GOP, offers only conventional and misguided thinking.

15. She is Hillary Clinton.

D, LDN

Gove Vs. May

Tags

7/7, aftermath, America, American Liberty, BBC, Blog, blog dtmw, Boris Johnson, brexit, brexit aftermath, brexit brexit leave, Britain, celsius 7/7, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Conservative, David Cameron, Defend the modern world, DTMW, globe, gove, gove celsius 7/7, may, michael gove, michael gove leadership election, michael moore film, Multiculturalism, neo con, political, political matters, politics, remain, ripples, Theresa May, Tories, tory leadership, Tory Party, UK, world

The news that Boris Johnson has pulled out of the race to succeed David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party is unequivocally good news from my perspective.

Though undoubtedly charismatic and popular with the lower elements of the population, Johnson has always seemed to me altogether too unserious for political power. The man is a clown, a children’s entertainer, and a slippery and duplicitous one at that. For many years the former Mayor of London has nakedly coveted the position of Prime Minister, and yet when asked if this is the case, his answers have been evasive, humorous, misleading, and sometimes wholly in Latin. This kind of behaviour should be off-putting to anyone hoping for a dignified or honest form of politics.

As to the reasons for his withdrawal, the old Etonian is being his usual un-candid self. It is widely speculated where it isn’t concretely understood that Johnson has been stabbed in the back by the former education secretary Michael Gove, a man with whom he has spent the last three months campaigning for a leave vote in the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

If this is true, or if Mr Gove’s denial that this is true fails to convince enough people, then the Tory Party looks set to splinter into two roughly even camps; the Boris-loyalists, represented by the likes Nadhim Sahawi and Nadine Dorries, versus the people who actually care about the fate of the United Kingdom.

The first group will vote for anyone but Michael Gove; a gesture of petty vengeance against the bespectacled Scot for his treatment of their egg-yolk-splatter-haired idol. The second camp will meanwhile vote in good conscience for the person they believe most able to take the country in the right direction.

As you might be able to tell by my tone, I sympathise strongly and only with the latter camp. I have never liked Boris, and I don’t like Theresa May, now the most likely repository of his supporters’ votes, either. Ms May, like Johnson, is a career politician with no detectable commitment to the preservation of Britain’s native culture. She is the woman behind the notorious ‘Extremism Bill’, ostensibly aimed at curbing the free expression of radical Islamists, but so worded as to threaten the freedom of speech of those who oppose radical Islamists. She is also weakly moderate on matters of immigration, an attitude that has been well demonstrated by her hopelessly ineffective tenure as Home Secretary.

Michael Gove, by relieving contrast, makes for a much brighter prospect. As the Left has nigh on exhausted itself lamenting, Gove is known to harbour unusually healthy views on Islam, Islamism, US foreign policy and the State of Israel. His controversial 2006 book, ‘Celsius 7/7’ confidently and unapologetically attacked the culture of appeasement underlying the British reaction to Islamist violence and even went so far as to link radical Islam to the central tenets of the Islamic religion itself – an incredibly bold move at that time and one for which the author received a lot of vitriolic abuse from his peers.

Britain, I believe, would profit enormously from such a clear-headed attitude at the helm. Furthermore, should Gove eventually be elected Prime Minister, it would mark the first occasion since 9/11 that a politician genuinely sceptical of Islam has held power in a major Western country.

That is nothing to sniff at. It could be the start of something revolutionary.

D, LDN

Victory is Bittersweet

Tags

BBC, bregret, brexit, brexit campaign, brexit farage, brexit poll, buyer's remorse, Civilisation, day, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog uk, economy, EU, eu eu, eu referendum, Europe, European Union, Facebook, Liberal, lobby, london, Money, Multiculturalism, news, No to Turkey in the EU, Paris, politics, politics eu, pound, prime minister, sterling, Twitter, UKIP, vote, vote leave, vote remain

Well… that was interesting. The polls, the bookies and the media were all wrong. Britain held its nerve, voting to leave the European Union by a clear margin of 2 percentage points. I am shocked and surprised, pleasantly and unpleasantly.

On the vital matters of sovereignty and immigration, I think the right decision has been made. The European Union was stifling Britain’s independent spirit, obstructing the British Parliament and overriding British courts. It couldn’t carry on. A civilised vote to leave is surely the most dignified way of bringing the relationship to a close.

Having said that, I must admit to being rather numb this morning (24th July). It feels like Britain has lost something. It feels like we, the British people, have lost something – a freedom, a set of liberties and privileges, many of which I have personally enjoyed.

Early last year, I spent some time working as a language teacher in the Basque Country in Northern Spain. In order to make my labour legal in that country, I had to visit the local council offices in Bilbao and apply for legal status. This process, which in non-EU countries would have taken many weeks, if not months to complete, was seen to in a single afternoon. I filled out a couple of forms and I was away – a Spanish taxpayer with the full and permanent right of abode.

This luxury is not something to sniff at. It really is (was) the most dazzling privilege. One can only imagine how much money the wretched refuse of the Muslim world would offer for such a right.

Bilbao, Spain

This morning, with Britain now committed irrevocably to disentangling itself from the European organism, I can’t help but wonder what kind of deal will replace the generous and advantageous contract we have just torn up. Will European states take revenge on us? Will they band together and punish the plucky, rebellious Brits with draconian measures and pointless, bureaucratic restrictions? It is certainly possible.

I am sad about this. I never wanted Britain to fall out with Europe. Though I fully understand and accept that Europe, the historic and cultural concept, is distinct from the European Union, the two are nevertheless so entwined at present as to be inseparable. In rejecting one, we necessarily reject – or at least offend – the other. What a shame. The Islamists must be euphoric.

Whether the right thing to do or not, Brexit will inevitably cause major disruption to the lives of ordinary British people. Many of us will come to miss the words ‘European Union’ at the top of our passports. Those words, though never triggering any kind of pride or patriotic emotion, guaranteed us the freedom to wander unobstructed across a magnificent continent. It gave us the right to live in Rome, Berlin, Stockholm, Madrid and Warsaw; to work in Krakow, Copenhagen, Helsinki and Tallinn. We will miss that freedom horribly until it is assured us once again.

EU governments have reacted to the referendum with shock and disappointment

On a brighter note, the benefits of us leaving the EU are not inconsiderable. We will soon have the right to decide exactly how many European migrants make it past our borders each year, as well as how many are allowed to settle permanently. No longer will an endless stream of labour gush through a doorless doorway, suppressing native wages and over-saturating the market for skilled labour.

As well as this, law-making will finally be returned to a sovereign British judiciary. No longer will we need to ask for EU permission to pass judgements on foreign criminals, terror suspects and ‘asylum’ seekers.

EU regulations, passed entirely in EU courts, will no longer apply, leaving us free to decide our own standards of quality, health and safety, as well as (crucially) the shape of our bananas and cucumbers.

Finally, and most importantly of all, our elected government will once again be the supreme authority over the British Isles. No longer will we need to waste calories and column inches whinging about ‘unelected bureaucrats in Brussels’ or ‘faceless EU dictators’. Now, if an unjust rule comes to prevail over this kingdom, we will be able to change it quickly and democratically. British rule, to oversimplify the matter, has returned to the British. We have our country back.

Boris Johnson has promised a ‘glorious’ future for Britain following Brexit

Five minutes ago, David Cameron addressed the nation from outside No.10 Downing Street. With rare emotion, the Prime Minister announced that he will be standing down sometime in the next three months.

As to who will replace him, almost everyone has the same person in mind; namely, Boris Alexander De Pfeffel Johnson – the yellow (not blonde) haired former Mayor of London and standout figure of the victorious leave campaign.

If this does come true – if Boris, perhaps joined by Michael Gove, rises to the executive of the British state on the back of Brexit – then that is another reason to temper one’s joy at the result of last night’s vote. Boris Johnson is an idiot, more of a clown than a politician. I would rather be ruled by almost anyone else.

Will Brexit be worth it in the end? Only time will tell for sure. I am honestly surprised by how lacklustre my enthusiasm for the result has been. I thought I would be tap-dancing with restless euphoria, possessed with native pride. But I’m not dancing. I’m not even smiling. The issue seems more nuanced in retrospect than it did in prospect.

If you derive from one of the nations still attached to the European Union, I would ask you to do whatever you can to prevent a grudge emerging between your country and Britain. We do not wish to divide the West. We are not, by leaving the EU, denying our European-ness. We are still one civilisation, one culture. Perhaps it would have been better to stay and reform the links that bound us together, but we’ve made our choice. Please don’t make it any harder for us than it already is.

D, LDN

Thinking Seriously About Fascism

Tags

Amazon, America, anders, BBC, Blog, blog blog, Breivik, Civilisation, Crime, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, demolition man, demolition man analysis, demolition man plot, Eugenics, Facebook, fascism, fascist, letters, Multiculturalism, myspace, nordic state, politics, q, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Scandinavia, social media, stallone, tennis, Twitter, United States

The much bemoaned rise of the extreme right in Europe is actually very easy to explain. The mass-influx of Muslims, most of them unwilling to integrate into Western cultures, has provoked a completely natural reaction. People want control over their borders again. It’s as simple as that.

With that said, some people are – as the media claims – using the present crisis to promote darker or more radical visions for the future. I’m talking here specifically of fascists.

By using this word I do not refer to those mainstream conservative figures unjustly defamed as ‘fascists’ by the liberal press. I’m not talking about Bill O’Reilly or Nigel Farage. I mean real, honest, self-declared fascists; people who see virtue and worth in the fascist movements of the past.

We are compelled, even commanded, to oppose fascism outright. Fascism is evil, destructive, genocidal even. It seems a simple enough thing to argue against, right? In this article I want to argue that, contrary to popular assumption, it isn’t easy to condemn fascism in an honest or consistent way. It’s very difficult in fact. Put another way, I want to argue here that fascism is rising in Europe in part because some of its tenets are inherently appealing, not horrifying.

One of the better known of the European neo-fascists is Anders Behring Breivik, the narcissistic butcher of Utoeya and noted lover of moisturising cream. From his jail cell in Norway, the killer has recently expressed a desire to create a completely new nation; one he would grandly call ‘The Nordic State’.

This new country, Breivik says, will be distinguished from the Nordic States currently in existence in two important ways. Firstly, only 100% pure-blooded Nordic people will be allowed to live there. Secondly, the government of the new nation will be dedicated to the replenishment of the Nordic species, sponsoring a rise in controlled reproduction, as well as overseeing eugenic processes aimed at raising the standard of the Nordic race to new peaks of human excellence.

It is my duty, and yours too, to both dismiss and condemn this racist proposal out of hand. And I do so now, reader, conclusively. I do not want the Nordic State to come into existence. I find the concept bizarre, untenable, politically naive and contrary to the realities of the modern world.

Anders Behring Breivik

Many people would leave the matter there. But I don’t think that would be fully honest. While condemning the concept in theory, I cannot honestly say that The Nordic State would not be remarkable in practice.

I am not an egalitarian. I do not believe the populations of the world are exactly equal in character, intelligence, creativity and behaviour. I believe that palpable differences, rooted in biology, explain almost all of the mysteries pondered by conventional sociological analysis.

Through this politically incorrect lens, I must recognise that the Nordic State would surely become, in time, the envy of the world.

A 100% Nordic society would have one of the lowest crime rates on Earth. It would have one of the lowest infidelity and teenage pregnancy rates on Earth. It would be among the cleanest, safest and greenest countries in history. The average IQ of the Nordic State would be the highest in Europe, leaving other Nordic states languishing in inferiority. And if, as Anders Breivik proposes, eugenic breeding were authorised by the Nordic State’s government, then the state would over time become the source of the world’s most impressive technological and medical advances. It would also be militarily supreme, since the technological edge allowed by superior intelligence will make for the world’s most efficient and sophisticated army. And so on…

Saab Aero X – A Swedish-manufactured car

My point is – knowing all this, how can we sensibly and rationally object to Breivik’s fascism? Seeing as the programme he suggests would have such dazzling results, what counter-argument might we manufacture to dissuade rational people from endorsing it? This is a vital question; one we must try with everything we have to come up with an answer for.

One tried-and-tested objection we might make concerns the moral costs of bringing such a project to fruition. Despite the touted benefits of a Nordic State, the fact remains that every Nordic country (with the possible exception of Iceland) is solidly multiracial. A fifth of Swedes are of mixed-foreign or foreign descent. What would become of these people in Breivik’s utopia.

At his first trial in 2012, Breivik claimed to be a ‘cultural nationalist’. He denied being a racist or a fascist and sought to prove this by saying pleasant things about Israelis, Slavs and other non-Nordic populations. This is no longer the charade. At his most recent trial (deciding a lawsuit the killer brought against the Norwegian state), Breivik’s courtroom salute, formerly closed-fisted, was explicitly and undeniably Roman. Breivik now states that he self-identifies as a ‘National Socialist’, a ‘fascist’ and a Nordicist.

Benito Mussolini

From this we might reasonably infer that Breivik (and his supporters) would deal with non-Nordic people in Nordic countries in the same way the original National Socialists dealt with non-Germans; that is to say, starve then, expel them or kill them en masse. This is obviously unacceptable to any orthodox moral philosophy. None of the benefits brought by a Nordic State would be worth the murder of millions, with all the political and moral degeneration such an action would bring.

But what if a Nordic State could be achieved without violence? What if – as Breivik suggested in a more moderate mood – a section of scarcely populated Northern Scandinavia was sectioned off for Nordic People, and the rest of Scandinavia left as it is? What would our objection be to that?

I’m really not sure.

A fundamental question that must be answered is ‘Does a race have the right to be left to itself?’ And if not, why not? If the creation of a 100% Nordic society brings infinite benefits for those deemed appropriate enough to live in it, why is there any moral objection whatsoever?

Why is segregation a bad thing? Whose rights are infringed by it? The answer, perceived by the majority to be clean-cut, is actually very difficult to express. As a commenter on a Neo-Nazi website put it:

“Why are Whites (and only Whites) expected to share everything with other races? Why are Africans allowed to have Africa, but Whites are allowed to have nothing? There is no obligation for me to associate with people I don’t like. It’s my life and I’ll live it how I want. How is this racist?”

Though I dislike the general tone of this comment, I find it difficult to rebut his arguments conclusively. This blogger recognises the infeasibility of Muslim settlement in Europe. But then Muslims are not the only immigrants. What intrinsic right do Japanese people have to settle in Europe? What right do French people have to settle in Norway?

An ethnic Scandinavian

I have little doubt that ethnically ‘pure’ nations would be less prone to civil conflict than multiracial ones. For solidly scientific reasons, a person is considerably less likely to want to harm or victimise someone if he/she feels a kinship with them. We naturally sympathise with those in whose design we see elements of our own.

Ethnically pure nations would also have a more harmonious social structure than multiracial ones. Since the social classes would be bound together with biological and sentimental links, class warfare would be made considerably less appealing.

And even fascist government is difficult to condemn clearly. Contrary to popular belief, fascism is not necessarily synonymous with Hitlerism. In its purest and most original form, fascism was merely a radical form of corporatism; a simply, mutually beneficial union of government and industry.

So what can we do? Perhaps the best argument against fascism – and against political simplification of all kinds – is not a moral argument at all, but a practical one. Breivik’s fascist utopia might be a cleaner, greener and more productive society than those prevailing in Scandinavia today, but it wouldn’t be a pleasant society. It would be boring, colourless, drab and orderly beyond desirability.

There are already numerous parts of the developed world in which only one ethnic type reside. Most of Wales is Welsh, for example. Most of Ireland is Irish. Most of the Faroe Islands are Faroese. If these are perfect societies then they will stand scrutiny to that effect. But they don’t.

Have you ever seen the movie ‘Demolition Man’ starring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes? If you have, you will be aware of its strangely ingenious and philosophically stimulating plot. A cop of the present day is frozen cryogenically as a novel punishment for committing occupational manslaughter. When, after his term is served, he is released from the ‘cryo-penitentiary’ in 2032, he discovers that America has since achieved a perverse kind of techno-social perfection. In this future utopia, there is no littering, no crime, no swearing and no sexuality. It is a completely innocent society, where men and women of all ages are reduced emotionally to children. Everyone is happy, but only in a very shallow and naïve way. This new society, we  made to understand,  is nightmarish after a while. While it is safe and affluent beyond contemporary possibility, it is also fake, plastic and lacking in adrenaline. I have a feeling that Breivik’s Nordic State would eventually resemble this dystopia in many essential ways.

Imperfection is a natural and necessary part of human life and character. Without it we become machines – shiny and impressive, sure, but also soulless.

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