Letter to the Muslims of Europe.

Tags

American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Dear Muslims, Defend the modern world, EU, European Union, Islam, Islam in Europe, Islam in Europe and America, Islam versus the West, Israel, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Muslims in Europe, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

*Originally published on this blog in July, 2015

If you (reader) are one of the twenty million devout Muslims currently resident in Europe, I’d like to try explain to you why I believe your beliefs are incompatible with the culture of your adopted home. But more than this, I hope also to persuade you that this view (shared by a growing majority of Europeans) does not emanate from ignorance or racism, and why it may not be a defeat or a humiliation for you to agree with it.

You or your parents probably came to Europe initially for economic reasons, seeking a better life and a more secure future. There is nothing dishonourable or unusual about that. Most non-Muslim migrants make the journey with the same ambitions. The West is very wealthy and safe relative to the rest of the world and so it is only rational to want to join it.

Once here, you or your parents probably planned to exist in a peaceful but separate state to the majority, maintaining your beliefs and traditions quietly in the same way that Orthodox Jews and Eastern Orthodox migrants have done in the past. Increasingly, this doesn’t seem to be possible, if it ever was. And in my view, the reasons for that directly relate to the nature of Islamic belief and the sense of mission that is so inseparable from it.

Unlike Christianity or Judaism, yours is a conquering faith, not a persuading one. Relatively little importance is given to peaceful proselytization in Islam. While there are occasionally stalls set out in front of tube stations or elsewhere in city centres to preach Islamic doctrine, this is an imitation of Christian practice and not something organically ‘Muslim’. Rather, Muslims have historically sought to attain dominion over society by violence, sometimes later permitting religious diversity within that society, but never allowing any symbol to enjoy precedence over the crescent. Their hope, indeed their expressed intention, has always been to exalt Islam to a position of cultural dominance and authority. While Christians and Jews have peacefully resided as minorities in many different parts of the world, Muslims have always struggled with the very concept of minority life. Since Allah is supposed to be the only authority to which submission is made, it is seen by most Muslims (and perhaps by you specifically) to be incongruous that a divine authority is subordinate to any non-Islamic regime, whether secular or religious. Minarets are built to tower above all other buildings for grander reasons than amplification. They proclaim symbolically the primacy and authority of Islam over the territory Muslims inhabit. It will simply not do that cathedrals or government buildings are larger or invested with more power and importance. Indeed, it is blasphemous and idolatrous. As Islamists never forget to proclaim before they demolish some priceless artefact – “Nothing and no-one is worthy of veneration except Allah”.

This sense of mission, inherent within Islamic theory, has radically altered human history. The nations of Lebanon, Libya and Syria were once Christian. The territory of what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan was once Buddhist. Persia was once Zoroastrian. That these places are now Muslim is testament to Islam’s conquering urge and military spirit. Islam seeks not only to convert, but to dominate and subdue. It is expansionist by its very nature. It was not designed to be one faith out of many, but to be the one and only faith of all humankind. The Quran itself is not shy of stating this. I would quote the passages urging the subjugation of unbelievers here but this would be so long as to be disruptive to my argument.

Your faith is antagonistic to everything but itself. And since you began settling in Europe back in the 1960s, members of your community have behaved in a way harmonious with that analysis. Just recently in Britain, there has been a wave of serious sexual assault committed by Muslims against exclusively non-Muslim children. Some estimates put the number of girls assaulted by British Pakistanis as high as 200,000. In the town of Rotherham alone, at least 1400 girls are known to have been forced into sexual slavery by Muslim gangs.

And even when it doesn’t lead to assault, your behaviour around women (if you are a man) is infantile and tactless. It would appear customary that upon meeting a woman (Muslim or otherwise, online or in real life) your first words either involve sex or invite a personal relationship that can lead to sex. It might surprise you – it probably has surprised you – but non-Muslim women do not enjoy being asked for their phone number or address by a complete stranger without any preceding conversation. Your lack of charm – indeed, your failure to even understand the idea and purpose of charm – is absolute. To you, women are merely sexual animals, possessing no greater value or agency than cats and dogs. For this reason, perhaps more than any other, I find it difficult to breath the same air as you.

Then there are the acts of extreme violence. Members of your community blew up the train network in Madrid, Spain and the subway in London, England. Members of your community massacred the staff of a cartoon tabloid in Paris. Members of your community have beheaded European citizens, the most recent case occurring only a month ago. You even hunt your own kind! Hundreds of Muslim women have now been killed in Europe in the name of ‘honour’ – and usually by members of their own family. Every year, thousands of Muslim girls are taken abroad to have their vagina mutilated by a shaving razor and then brought back to lead a miserable, painful existence with the perpetrators.

How could we possibly put up with this? What kind of people would we be if we did?

Face the facts, a growing proportion of the native population of Europe actively despises you, and does so without allowing any distinction for your race, Islamic school or individual contribution to European society. After decades of aggressive dysfunction and sickening crime, people simply hate you. They hate you and they fear you. And it is becoming difficult for even the most committed liberal to propose a reason why they shouldn’t.

There is an obvious – some would say cartoonish – contrast between the Islamic conception of society and the hopes and opinions of the Europeans. We value things you view as Satanic. You value things we regard as barbaric. You put faith before reason. We put reason before faith. You regard women as second-class human beings. We regard the sexes as equal. You view freedom of speech as being limited to secular matters. We believe it should permeate every corner of life and thought.

Even if this weren’t the case, your religious tradition is not the one that we are used to and which has inspired and characterised our manners and rituals over centuries. No European books are dedicated to your God. No statues of your Prophet (even if this were allowed) grace the Piazzas of our cities. Few if any Qur’anic phrases have entered our common parlance. We don’t celebrate your holy days, and have no regard for your heroes and saints.

You might reply that Hindu and Sikh mythologies do not inform our ways either, but then Hindus and Sikhs have proven themselves to be comfortable with that. I have never heard of an act of Hindu terrorism, nor any religiously-motivated outrage committed by a Sikh, Buddhist, Scientologist or Jain organisation. Islam has actively distinguished itself in violence, in readiness to fight and to make war where there is peace.

You are wrong if you take us for fools. We know well enough what the phrases Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam mean. We recognise the desire on your part to transfer us from one to the other and by what means. You must have known from the start that a project of this historical magnitude would be resisted with passion and fire. And, please believe me, that passion and fire is already generated in sufficient quantity should we ever be given the excuse to unleash it.

There are people on this (uniquely civilised) continent who would gladly slaughter you like dogs. It is not fantastical anymore to foresee a new Nazi movement emerging in Europe and going on to behave in a Hitlerian fashion. Nobody (save a few lunatics) wishes to go back there. Peace in Europe has been a blessing. Democracy is deserving of all the celebration dedicated to it. But your behaviour is testing the hold of democracy to its white-knuckled limits.

How then can we defuse this bomb? How might we organise a solution that forbids the need for mass violence and the self-destruction of democratic liberalism? This of course is the great question of my generation, and the most important task of the Western World, ahead of the environment, Russia, or any other exaggerated diversion.

That there is – or rather, that you are – an issue in need of resolution can no longer be sensibly denied. We are obliged by everything we hold dear to guarantee that the Islamisation of Europe ceases and that what progress it has already made is reversed. The Western way of life is not just ‘different’ to your own, but a million times superior. We are behaving very rationally by seeking to protect it.

Incidentally, you can deny this last fact as much as you want. It makes no difference to me. Deep down, beneath all the evasions and the layers of self-hypnosis, I’m sure you accept it as much as I do. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t still be here.

And that is the real, embarrassing truth, no? Whatever your friends have scrawled on placards in the past, you don’t ‘hate our way of life’ at all. You are simply jealous of it, and angry that your ancestral lands have failed – and are still failing – to develop in a like fashion.

For an effective and rapid solution to this problem, I propose the following measures – If you are brave, honest and intelligent enough to rid your mind of the numbing circularities of Islamic thinking, a space in the European future can and should be found for you. If not, and if you continue to display the toxic side effects of Islamic belief, then no more kid glove treatment should be forthcoming. If you espouse anti-Semitic, anti-Democratic and anti-Western ideas, you should be arrested and receive criminal records, with all the implications that has for finding employment, pursuing political office and securing tenancy and accommodation. The wearing of the Niqab must be outlawed and repeat offenders deported to a country where it is still the prevailing fashion. All Muslims involved in the mass-rape of British children must hang. Any Mosque preaching violence against Jews, Christians or Homosexuals must be shut down and demolished, and the same with colleges and Islamic faith schools. There must be an end to all immigration from Muslim countries, including from those cultures touted as exceptional (like Tunisia, Turkey or Iran). The culture of the West must be openly celebrated as the supreme culture of the world, and no ‘noble’ savagery must ever be taught as a desirable alternative to our children.

Our foreign policy must also be redesigned to reflect our desire to survive. Turkey should be expelled from NATO and replaced by Armenia. Any sanctions lifted from Iran must be reimposed. Investment in alternatives to Middle Eastern oil, including fracking (in lightly populated areas), fusion technology, nuclear and renewable energy must be radically increased. Western arms should only be exported to regimes which ruthlessly suppress Islamist activity (like Egypt and Jordan) and never to theocratic countries, whether ‘allies’ or not (Saudi, UAE, Kuwait etc…). Needless to say, our support for Israel must be great and unconditional.

In all these efforts, our motivating principle (and final goal) must be that Islam is forever segregated from the Western World.

Finally, reader, I promised at the beginning to tell you why it isn’t a humiliation for you to agree with my arguments… This is for the simple reason that you were a human being long before you were a Muslim, and this will always be the most salient fact about you. You are no more biologically predestined to ignorance and poverty than a Swede or a German. If you wish to become free, you can become free! And if you prefer slavery, well, then there is no defeat in relocating to pursue it, if that is your dream. There can no ‘shame’ in wanting to be where you belong. Nothing is more human.

Whichever condition you choose (and we will make you choose), understand that the West is the homeland of the free, the creative and the happy. A slave will always be foreign here.

D, LDN.

Qur’an-Denial: The Foundational Error of the Appeasers

Tags

belgium flag facebook, belgium terror attack, brussels, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, clas, clash, clash of civilisations, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Culture, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, Facebook, Islam, Islamic, Islamism, lockdown, Multiculturalism, muslim in europe, muslims in europe and the west, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, security, Terrorism, Twitter, Violence, War

*Originally published on this blog in May, 2016

The terror attacks in Brussels, Ivory Coast and Nigeria this past week were (if you’ll tolerate a well-worn paradox) notable for being completely unremarkable. The murders were generic, run-of-the-mill, classical and exactly in step with the history and character of the Islamic religion. As I have said previously, such violence is best understood simply as the Qur’an in action, or Applied Islam, if you prefer. This is what all those elegant Arabic characters materialize into. This is their effect.

There is no ingenious metaphor behind Quranic verses imploring Muslims to kill “unbelievers.” and “strike of their heads”. It isn’t an allegorical way of saying “Try your best in life and be proud of your heritage”. It means exactly what you think it means. Mutilate and murder people if they derive from a different religious tradition.

The Qur’an murdered those people in Belgium, Nigeria and Ivory Coast. Without it’s message, they would still be alive.

But despite that terrible reality, this notorious book of death will remain readily available at your local Waterstones or Walmart for the foreseeable future. Your children, if you have any, will be able to purchase it, read it, learn from it, perhaps even act on it. This is because, for all the chaos and bloodshed at the hands of Muslims the world over, our cultural elite still refuse to recognise that it is the text itself which inspires the carnage. Rejecting this idea as essentially ‘racist’, they offer instead tortuous sociological, economic, psychological explanations more palatable to the liberal mindset and harmonious with liberal, multi-cultural doctrine. The Muslims are killing people because they are ‘disenfranchised’, ‘outcast from the cultural mainstream’, ‘oppressed’, ‘economically deprived’ and so on. They will stick stubbornly to these explanations right up to the point a Salafist knife rests upon their throats.

Prime Minister Cameron has repeatedly claimed that Islam is peaceful

Through this prism of misinterpretation, individual terror attacks are not understood as a call to banish Islam forever from the shores of the free world, but as an opportunity to understand better the mistakes WE have made in our diplomacy with the Muslim world. Simon Jenkins, the eccentric libertarian sore thumb over at the Guardian, argued just a few days ago that the reaction of the West (to Brussels and other comparable acts of terrorism) should be to “alleviate” the “rage that gives rise to acts of terror…”, including by instigating a “wiser foreign policy than most western nations have shown towards the Muslim world over the past decade.”

The cretinous Socialist Worker newspaper struck a similar tone: “Wars launched by the leaders of the US, Britain and France” read this week’s opinion column “have created huge resentment and created the space in which groups such as Isis can grow. These same leaders back the brutal governments that have turned back the tide of the Arab Spring—which offered hope…There is nothing remotely anti-imperialist about the bombings. But the reality is that more repression will mean more attacks.”

This bewildering ignorance is the natural result of Quran-Denial. Without reference to the text demanding violence, Islamic violence inevitably seems free-floating, reactive and mysterious. It is only with reference to the text itself that such violence becomes understandable. Denial of the link between violence and the Qur’an is thus the foundational error of the Western appeasers of Islam.

It is worth noting that we rarely fail to trace the origins of other religious practices. One of the key pillars of Christian practice, for example, is the injunction to loves one’s neighbour, the poor and even one’s enemies. Christian charities are acting upon this sentiment when they do charitable work, launch missions in the third world, or stage interfaith dialogues. Only a very eccentric man indeed would try to claim that such people were not directly motivated by the text of their Holy Book. It stands to reason that they are.

Christians are directly inspired by the New Testament

When critics of Christianity and Judaism, such as Bill Maher, reference the textual origins of what they perceive as Abrahamic ‘homophobia’, Christians and Jews are never allowed to claim the verses in question are metaphors or that they discriminate only against ancient homosexuals.

Only Islam is allowed to stand apart from its own Holy Book. And yet Islam is also the faith most fanatical about the literal inerrancy of its Holy Book.

Let’s look at some of the passages which may have influenced the murders this past week. A Hat-tip is due here to the staff at the invaluable websites ‘Gates of Vienna’ and ‘Religion of Peace’ which compiled some of the following excerpts (as well as many others):

Quran (5:33) “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Quran (8:59-60) “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

Qur’an

Quran (9:5) “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Quran (9:14) “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.”

That should be enough to prove my point. We need only use Occam’s Razor (AKA Ockham’s Razor: the formula that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one) to discover the root cause of the carnage afflicting the civilised and developing world. Muslims are killing because their Holy Text implores them to kill. No further discussion is needed.

Dear political elite – Islam is violent because the Qur’an is violent. The Qur’an itself is Europe’s mortal enemy. Drop the mystification and start working on a fightback.

What else is there to say about the Brussels attack? Well, for one thing, it happened in a very beautiful city. I went on holiday to Brussels as a teenager with my family and remember enjoying every minute of the two weeks I spent there. If you haven’t been yourself, please consider it (especially now). The famous cobbled streets, superior booze, laid back mood and architectural grandeur repay the price of travel with generous interest.

Watching the news come in after the explosions this week, I recognised with real sadness parts of the city I had strolled through during that halcyon fortnight. One of the massed news correspondents even stood in front of a complex of buildings I once happily photographed, her sad, elongated face starkly out of sync with the pleasant memories I will try – in spite of everything – to nurture and keep pure and intact.

Brussels

Of course, as well as being a charming city in itself, Brussels is also – for now – the Capital of the European Union. Sadly, even if also inevitably, this fact has discoloured some reactions to the bombings. One couldn’t help but detect a mood of political schadenfreude on the part of the British right-wing press last Tuesday evening. From a propaganda point of view, it must have seemed too good to be true. The EU capital, machine-heart of a despised and oppressive bureaucracy, shattered by the fruit of its own myopic agenda. The heat of the explosions had yet to fade from the air when EU-haters excitedly set about refitting the tragedy to add weight to their case for Brexit. This tasteless enthusiasm, understandable but deeply regrettable, says a lot about how badly the European experiment has poisoned continental relations.

Let’s be clear: Those unlucky souls vanquished in Brussels a few days ago did not die entirely in vain. They are (and should always be remembered as) martyrs in a just war of good vs. evil, modernity vs. darkness. My heart goes out to them, their families and their friends. In their memory, I will conclude by restating my motive in writing this blog: I detest Islam. I detest it with all my soul.

D, LDN

D-Day

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Blog, Civilisation, clinton polls, Coffee, coverage, Defend the modern world, DTMW, election, Facebook, global politics, Guardian, international, Internet, MSNBC, Multiculturalism, newspaper, NYT, political, politics, polls, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Times, trump polls, trump vs clinton, Twitter, United States, White House, world, writing

Nervous? I am. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure I’ve ever been so on edge before an election in my life. On Wednesday morning, barring some unforeseen chaos, America will have a new president elect. As to whether that president will wear a tie or a pantsuit is still anyone’s guess.

I have stopped paying attention to the polls. The last couple I saw, published only a few hours apart, predicted a Clinton victory and a Trump victory respectively. This tells us nothing except that the contest really is down to the wire.

The New York Times is, as far as I know, the only notable publication daring to predict a landslide for one particular candidate. In today’s online edition, the paper’s resident statisticians give Hillary Clinton an 84% chance of winning the election. For context, the paper notes that (according to this calculation) “Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an NFL kicker misses a 38-yard field goal.”

I don’t need to tell you that such brazen overconfidence is terribly unwise at this point.

We have, whatever the media may fill time by saying, no real way of knowing what the final imbalance will be on Wednesday morning. We know only that two radically different Americas will have fought with purpled-faced passion for the right to determine the national (and, in some ways, global) future – their preferred visions as different from each other as can possibly be imagined. Perhaps not since the Civil War has there been such stark and violent disagreement between the peoples of the (ostensibly) United States.

There remains nothing more to say now other than to hazard a final prediction. Before I do, I must first make clear the difference between what I think will happen and what I am personally hoping for. These are, as I will explain, sadly out of sync.

I believe (perhaps I should say – I fear) that Hillary Clinton will edge the contest on Tuesday. My reasoning for this is based not on the polls, but on the strange logic (if it can even be called logic) of the US electoral college. As you’ll be aware, it ultimately doesn’t matter who leads the national polls. America’s presidents are elected by a much more convoluted mechanism. Based on unbiased (non-US) media analysis, the road to a Hillary victory appears at present much clearer than the road to a Trump triumph. In order to pull off an upset, Mr Trump must ‘flip’ numerous states in which the Republican support base is traditionally weaker than the Democrats’ – and do so in spite of a massive blitz of hostile propaganda in those states (Clinton’s attack ad spending in this election has resembled more the budget for a military invasion than for a political campaign).

True, a Trump victory is still possible, and we mustn’t lose hope. I was, you may remember, wrong about the outcome of the Brexit vote (along with pretty much everyone else in Britain). However, there is nothing to gain from wishful thinking, and I prefer to state my opinion truthfully.

Whoever wins on Tuesday, America has been undeniably altered by the long, gruelling contest up to this point. A forgotten and despised community – the White working class – has organised into a coherent and readily deployable political force. This force will outlive Trump’s candidacy and go on to influence many elections to come. This is bad news for both parties, but in particular for the Republican mainstream – a tired-out, uninspiring and treacherous collective more concerned with dollars and cents than with people and destiny. If Trump does indeed lose, therefore, there are still a lot of reasons to be thankful for his having stood at all.

The Democrats, even if they win, will be greatly wounded by Clinton’s effect. Almost singlehandedly, the nominee has peeled off a previously loyal base of youthful idealists, casting them adrift into the political wilderness in search of a third party able to satisfy their lust for European socialism and big government. It would be no surprise to me were these idealists to coalesce with the stray Republicans mentioned previously. Both groups do, after all, have the same complaint in kind. They both understand all too well that the elite no longer gives a damn about their welfare or identity. Never has a genuine third alternative looked more realistic than now.

I will post a celebration or condemnation of the result as soon as possible after it has been announced.

See you on the other side of this madness. Breathe slowly. It’s almost over!

D, LDN

PS: I am very interested to hear if the readers of this blog concur with my prediction. Perhaps I’m being unduly pessimistic?

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

Why are We Letting Anyone In?

Tags

adults, adults posing as children refugees, asylum seekers, BBC, calais, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, dover, DTMW, EU, Europe, Facebook, Guardian, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamophobia, jungle calais, kids, london, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, photo, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Telegraph, Terrorism, Twitter

Many in the UK have been outraged (and often simultaneously amused) this past week by the arrival on our shores of a batch of Calais asylum seekers billed as unaccompanied ‘children’, yet who are in appearance seemingly well over the age of 20. As bizarre and brazen (and obvious) as the fraud appears to be, I think this outrage somehow misses the point. The bigger scandal – and the one worth focussing one’s anger on – is that asylum seekers are being allowed into Britain at all.

What obligation does Britain have – legally or morally – to those refugees (if they are indeed refugees) stationed in the safe, democratic nation of France? None is the answer, and no-one can (or has even attempted to) reasonably argue otherwise.

As opponents of asylum fraud are right to consistently point out, a central principle (even if not a law) holds that refugees should settle in the first available safe haven they come across that is willing and able to accommodate them. To illustrate this idea with reference to Syria, a refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Turkey has no right to demand entry into Greece. A refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Lebanon has no right to demand entry into Cyprus, and so on. If the purpose of emigration is, as stated, to avoid violence, war or persecution, then only in the first accommodating nation can asylum be rightfully claimed. Should the refugee flee from one safe haven to another, that is called migration and no country is duty bound to facilitate it.

This isn’t a very difficult principle to understand – and, to be sure, most ordinary folk do understand it, which is partly why the Calais Jungle infants have been so poorly and unsympathetically received.

Now, I am an Islamophobe – no doubt about that. I despise the Islamic religion with a white-hot passion. I’m also not over-keen on the adherents of the Islamic religion. Nevertheless, I am, like the reader will be, a moral person, or at the very least someone with a moral sense. We do have an obligation as human beings to ensure that the innocent do not suffer any preventable evil. 

To help the Syrian people, Donald Trump has endorsed a workable and perfectly logical initiative. Allied forces, he says, should carve out a safe-zone in Syria into which the innocent can flee while the conflict burns itself out. This would not be difficult to achieve. Though Assad and ISIS would inevitably object to the idea, both forces have been so degraded that neither is capable of mounting an effective resistance.

Turkey, rich in manpower and arms, must be told to do the work on the ground or face expulsion from NATO. The Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, must be made to cough up the money to support the campaign or face a year-long suspension of Western arms sales. This is the solution. Let’s pursue it.

As for the Calais ‘children’, Britain and the West are under no rightful obligation to take in anyone. No asylum seeker, not one, whether from Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan or the Congo, should be allowed to settle here. And we have every right to expect our government to prevent them from doing so.

D, LDN

Ann Coulter: “In Trump We Trust”

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Ann, Ann Coulter, ann coulter in trump we trust e pluribus awesome, Barack Obama, BBC, Books, carlson, Civilisation, Coffee, Coulter, Defend the modern world, DTMW, Europe, Facebook, interview, Islam, Islam and the West, london, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States

The beautiful and tack-sharp Ann Coulter continues to rise in my estimation. Here, the long-legged conservative goddess discusses her latest book “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome”.

D, LDN

Lily Allen’s Shocking Naivety

Tags

afghan man, afghans, BBC, bbc bbc, boats calais asylum seekers, Christianity and Islam, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, Feminism, Islam, Islam and women's rights, islam women, Islamism, jungle, jungle calais, jungle france, Lily Allen, lily allen calais, lily allen pop, Multiculturalism, Muslim misogyny, Muslims, pop star facebook, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugees or migrants, sexual, Twitter, violent, Women

I quite like the pop singer Lily Allen. Not her music, you understand, just her. She is roughly the same age as me and I have always found her pleasantly, if also unconventionally, attractive.

Now, with such irrelevant information out of the way, I must say I was stunned, though not surprised, by the news that Allen had been reduced to apologising for her country during a visit to the notorious Calais ‘Jungle’ migrant camp last week.

In case you’ve yet to hear of this incident, Allen, faced with a war-weary Afghan teenager, declared that she was ashamed of Britain for not letting in the teeming hordes currently massed (illegally) on France’s Northern coast, making these remarks through a veil of tears and tear-dampened blonde hair. Later, in conversation with the British press, Allen remarked (presumably seriously) that she would even be prepared to have a refugee stay with her at her personal residence in England.

The UK backlash against Allen’s remarks has been predictably harsh. In the right-leaning papers, critics have lined up to pour cold water on Allen’s dippy sentiments, as well as to explain that the singer knows little to nothing about the realities of the Calais crisis and its multiple backgrounds.

“(Allen) was merely repeating the canards of her arty liberal chums” Zoe Strimpel wrote in the Telegraph “who – despite never venturing outside their own intellectual and social cosmos – are sure that everyone who doesn’t see the world as they do, and especially anyone who voted for Brexit, is a bigoted fool. To reduce the web of direness behind the ongoing migration surge to a simple matter of Western culpability is plainly idiotic. It shows painfully limited understanding of the catalogue of political and human horrors that predated, and indeed motivated, Western intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq…And to weepily lay the situation in Calais purely at Britain’s door was a severe misfiring of sentimentality. Crying in the face of human suffering is one thing. But crying on national TV while telling the audience that their country – merely by trying to control its borders – is cruelly causing the misery of innocents is quite another.”

Personally, I was less struck by Ms Allen’s weak grasp of the political-economic background of the migrant crisis than with her shocking naivety in relation to the religion of Islam and the nature of those currently attempting to force their way into the British Isles. For a young, beautiful Englishwoman such as Allen to offer to take in young (almost always male) Muslim refugees displays a terrifying disregard for her own safety. Can you imagine (do you even need to imagine) what would happen if Allen allowed a 16-20 year old Afghan male to move into her personal residence? True, we cannot say for sure, but I don’t believe it is bigoted of me to speculate that sexual advances would almost be made by the new arrival – and that, should they be rebuffed, sexual violence might well follow.

What will it take for our best and brightest to understand that they are being conned by the lowest elements in the human species? What will it take for Western women to understand that the weeping masses huddled in tents along the French coast are not like the Jews who fled Nazi Germany; that they are rather wolves imitating sheep; devils imitating angels? What will it take?

Several commenters under the articles reporting Allen’s comments in Calais have delighted in speculating the fate that would await her should she follow through on her deranged offer of sanctuary. I don’t believe we should be so cold-hearted. Allen is a good person. She has simply fallen victim to a dangerous lie peddled by a negligent, dishonest media. The blame, should Allen’s words inspire some young girl to expose herself to danger, lies ultimately with them.

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

Justifying the Extraordinary: Trump and the Debates

Tags

ABC, America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Civilisation, clinton, Clinton Foundation, CNN, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump debates, DTMW, EU, Facebook, Fox News, Hillary 2016, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton debate, Immigration, Internet, Islamism, london, moderators for debate, Multiculturalism, NBC, pol, politics, polls, presidential debates, trump, trump 2016, Trump Clinton debate, Trump election, trump odds, Twitter, United States

In seven days time the first of four presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will take place in Hempstead, New York State. It is probably fair to say that no such debate has been as hotly anticipated in recent memory as this one now is. The debate marks the biggest test Donald Trump has faced since the launch of his candidacy for the Republican nomination back in 2015. It represents a vital trial of the New Yorker’s presidential character, professionalism and natural wit.

Hillary Clinton, now lagging behind Trump in many national polls, will be placing a lot of her hopes on the debates. Unlike Trump, the Democrat is a natural when it comes to conventional political combat. She – and her team – will be hoping (and expecting) Trump to be suffocated by the polite constraints of traditional procedure and to show his unease by lashing out wildly at Clinton’s character, appearance, dress sense, femininity, etc. Put simply, they hope and expect Trump to suffer a meltdown.

Whilst I would love to say that Clinton’s strategy is unrealistic, I cannot, as it is perfectly feasible. Trump’s Achilles heel, as he has proven time and time again, is his volcanic and unpredictable personality, his tendency to hit back after every real or perceived slight with much greater force and immaturity than is required or appropriate. All Clinton has to do in these contests is provoke that kind of reaction. All she has to do is poke the tiger until it growls.

This is the most obvious and likely strategy for Hillary to pursue, but there are other possibilities open to her. The rabidly pro-Clinton Washington Post made the following suggestions for their preferred candidate: “Take (Trump) up on his word. He said he “regrets” certain things. Invite him to apologize to Judge Gonzalo Curiel or the Gold Star parents of Capt. Humayun Khan… Another tactic is to press him on empty and unintelligible answers. Trump rarely completes a sentence or can articulate any level of detail about his proposals. When Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and CNN’s Dana Bash tag-teamed, forcing Trump to explain what was in his health-care plan, it became patently obvious that he had a whole lot of nothing to offer. She can certainly take a page from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s book (used against Rubio) in pointing out that Trump repeats the same platitudes. Tell us, Donald, what’s your plan to reduce crime in Chicago? Have you ever sat down with law enforcement?… There are oodles of issues (such as the nuclear triad) about which Trump knows nothing. Challenge him to spell out his stance on net neutrality, the South China Sea and student loans. In other cases — the minimum wage, repayment of U.S. debt and immigration, of course — he has been all over the lot. Force him to pick a position and explain why he has said the opposite.”

The first presidential debate will be held at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York

Trump’s strategy for the debates is less clear at this point in time. When asked about his intended approach, the Republican has wisely dodged the question, explaining that he would prefer to not give anything away to the opposition prior to the event. We can thus only speculate.

I have a inkling that Trump’s strategy will hinge on portraying Clinton, as he has done all through his campaign so far, as ‘crooked’, dishonest, corrupt and in the pocket of the financial elite; an image he will then contrast with his own man-of-the-people persona.

The email scandal will undoubtedly be raised repeatedly, with Trump going off track and questioning Clinton directly about the thousands of inexplicably deleted messages. He will also link these questions to the issue of the Clinton Foundation and its highly suspicious ties to foreign leaders (including foreign and Islamic dictators).

The Clinton Foundation is coming under intense scrutiny for its ties to foreign regimes

This approach will carry Trump some of the way, but not all of it. He will need to have more strings to his bow prepared if he is to the win the debate outright.

To arrive at the best strategy for winning the debates, Trump would do best to look at what has carried him through the process thus far. I would say that, more than anything else, it is his credentials relating to the Islamist threat that have won over the hearts of patriotic American voters (including true liberals and Democrats). His positions on ISIS, Muslim immigration, Syrian refugee policy and other connected issues have been wildly popular with a broad cross-section of American society. Pushing hard on Clinton’s weakness on Islamism will pave the way for a very important ideological touchdown.

It is possible that in the days that remain before the November election there will be another Islamist atrocity somewhere in the world, perhaps even in the Western World*. This will serve as a timely reminder of how extraordinary the problems we (as a civilisation) face really are, and thus how inappropriate it would be to elect an ordinary candidate to solve them.

ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State

The Islamist challenge is so total and grave that all other issues melt under its heat. Trump and his team must realise this fact and base their approach on it. Sure, there are problems with the American economy which require ironing out; sure, illegal immigration from Mexico is undermining American sovereignty and nationhood; sure, the trade deficit with China is growing at an alarming rate.  But none of these issues are new or so extraordinary as to justify the American electorate taking a risk on a provocative and unconventional candidate (and that, undoubtedly, is what Trump is). Trump’s presidency is so unique and strange a prospect that he must build an equally strange and unique context in which it will seem appropriate and necessary. The only way he can achieve this, in my opinion, is with reference to the Islamist threat.

At the debates, Trump must be specific about how he will deal with this extraordinary issue. Soundbites, however popular they may be, should be avoided. It simply isn’t enough to say things like “We need to get tough and we need to get smart.” This is so vague as to be meaningless. Trump must map out a strategy for pulverising Islamism, demolishing it so severely that it will not dare raise its evil head for decades to come.

*Today, as I write, debris is once again being cleaned up from the streets of a Western city. In Manhattan, NYC, two bombs have exploded, injuring almost thirty innocent civilians. Meanwhile, in the peaceful, Scandinavian-American State of Minnesota, eight people have been stabbed at a shopping mall, the attacker allegedly interrogating potential victims as to their religious beliefs prior to attacking them.

These are indeed extraordinary times. They require an extraordinary leader. Next week in New York, Donald Trump would do best not to try and make himself seem ordinary, but rather embrace his uniqueness, tying it to the uniqueness of the times in which we find ourselves.

D, LDN