Civil War on the American Right

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paleo-Con icon Pat Buchanan

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

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

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

Megyn Kelly

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

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

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

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

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

Ivanka Trump

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

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

Charge 3: Donald Trump is anti-mass immigration.

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

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

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

Viral photo from Trump rally

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

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

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

D, LDN

The Wolf at Israel’s Door

Tags

America, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, BBC, Britain First, Caroline Glick, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Glick, ISIS, Islam, Islamism, Jerusalem, Jerusalem Post, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Palestinians, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, stabbings, stabbings in Israel, Terror, Terrorism, War, war in M.E

One of the more unpleasant consequences of Russia’s involvement in the Middle East is the formation of a formidable military and political coalition along Israel’s northern border. As I write, Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria and Iran are establishing a united force in southern Syria, protected and armed by the Russian military, and with tight links to the New Iraq.

This coalition is unlike any enemy Israel has faced before. It is not a force that Israel can simply bomb out of existence (like Hamas in Gaza, or – formerly – Hezbollah in Lebanon). Moscow will not allow that. What’s more, in combined strength the new Anti-Israel Northern Border Coalition (from here-on AINBC) is perfectly capable of defending itself. Though his country itself has been burnt out, Basher Al-Assad’s huge military still exists and is now dangerously concentrated in the south of the country. Hezbollah is the most effective terrorist force Israel has ever had to contend with. And Iran, unleashed by Obama’s utopian ‘nuclear deal’, now awaits a payment of 100 billion dollars in previously frozen funds; enough to purchase an army strong enough to dominate the region. To have this monster in the most contested area of the Middle East may prove to be a game-changer.

How might Israel get out of this? No commentary (in Israel or the West) as yet seems to offer an answer. Nuclear weapons (Israel is estimated to have over 200) are practically useless because of Moscow’s involvement. A conventional bombing campaign would risk Russian and Iranian reprisals. The Syrian army, so concentrated in the area adjacent to Israel, forbids a ground invasion. What can be done? At the moment, precious little.

AINBC doesn’t have a single policy yet, but when it develops one, several things will almost certainly be on the agenda. Syria will want the Golan Heights back. Hezbollah will want Sheba Farms back. The Palestinians, emboldened by a sympathetic super-power in the neighbourhood, will demand an acceleration of the peace process.

Indeed, who can say with certainty that the current Palestinian hate-crime epidemic is not related to a new feeling of political invulnerability?

In case you’re unaware of this epidemic (not impossible given the shameful lack of media coverage in the West), you should know that Palestinian criminals in the Greater Jerusalem area are stabbing people with kitchen knives simply for being Jewish. Dozens of Israelis have now been killed or injured, every one of them completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The IDF military, designed for much larger and very different operations, is overwhelmed, along with Israel’s police force, health sector and local funeral services. No end to the violence has yet come into view.

Given these mounting troubles, it must be conceded that Israeli leaders have been far too serene about the prospects for regional and internal peace in recent years. The surrounding states (or ‘ring states’ as some Israeli strategists refer to them) – with the pleasant exception of Jordan – are demographically booming, developing in arms, and degenerating in attitudes.

If the State of Israel is to survive (in the very long term), its leaders must regain their previous realism. They must confront AINBC while it is still in its larval stage. If that develops to its fullest potential, and if it allies itself (which it surely will) with the most intolerant factions of the Palestinian movement, Israel may find itself facing the greatest existential risk in its modern history.

D, LDN

The 1st Democratic Debate

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Bernie Sanders, Blog, Britain First, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Democratic Party (United States), Democrats, Demos, Dems, Facebook, laptop, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, United States, US, USA

When I sat down to watch the first Democratic presidential nomination debate, I had no great expectations. This isn’t because I’m ‘right-wing’ – because I’m not ‘right-wing’ at all. It’s because I’m a liberal – a defender of liberalism in its best and most essential form – and those seeking the nomination were and are illiberal.

By the end of the debate, I felt I had learnt very little. I imagine most of America came to the same conclusion.

It was certainly a lively affair, with much whooping and hollering from the audience. Indeed, I don’t recall any point made by any of the candidates which did not receive prolonged applause. It had the feel of a Communist rally, with no happy unit of socialism daring to stop clapping first, for fear of death.

There were five candidates in attendance on the night. Only two have chance of winning. Hillary Clinton is still by far the favourite, despite not winning the debate by any measure. Closing in behind her is Bernie Sanders, the darling of social media, and a self-confessed ‘democratic socialist’, who most certainly did win the debate (at least according to every media and internet outlet covering the event).

Sanders is admittedly a very good speaker, with a much deeper voice than his appearance would suggest. In the debate, we discovered that he has a liking for the socialism prevalent in Scandinavia. Given the well-established norms of American politics, this was a very brave (even if also foolish) thing to endorse. Clinton never went so far, and we can presume that she never will.

The debate was hosted by CNN (a reliably ‘liberal’ – i.e. Leftist – news network), and the candidates did not receive any difficult interrogations from the chair. As Jonah Goldberg (author of the splendid ‘Liberal Fascism’) noted “Anderson Cooper and his colleagues… didn’t only lob softballs at the Democrats in Las Vegas; they made little to no effort to highlight the fact that on many social issues, the Democratic Party is often more out of the mainstream than the Republicans are. Why? Because the Democrats don’t seem out of the mainstream — to the mainstream media.”

Still, as I say, it remains to be seen if any of these debates matter to the Democratic Party. As well as Sanders performed, a Clinton ticket would seem to be written in the stars.

Who can beat her? That’s the only question still worth asking. Ted Cruz might be up to the task. Marco Rubio would stand a chance. Ben Carson could (maybe). But out of all the Republican front-runners, only one can be counted on to win and deliver the goods upon winning, and that is Donald Trump. Call me crazy. Call me rash. But an increasing number of people agree with me.

D, LDN

Israel and Ann Coulter

Tags

America, American Liberty, Ann Coulter, ann coulter Jews, ann coulter outburst, ann coulter twitter, anti-Semitism, Civilisation, CNN, cnn debate, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Fox News, Israel ronald reagan, Jews, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, reagan, rebublican, republican megyn kelly, Twitter, United States

As I have written on this blog before, the US journalist/polemicist Ann Coulter is someone I hugely admire. Her wit, incisiveness and bravery set a standard to which most cannot aspire to meet. Her books, such as the most recent ‘Adios America: The Left’s Plan to Turn America into a Third-World Hellhole’ represent an essential, clear-eyed view of the American political scene and are well-worth seeking out, even if you live outside of the United States.

With that said, I must offer a word of admonition following Coulter’s latest controversy. As you may already be aware, Coulter sent out some highly inflammatory tweets during the second CNN Republican debate, most of which involved Jews and Israel. Here they are:

“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

“I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night”

“Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: ‘What will AMERICA look like after you are president”

“Boy were they wrong @ Jewish influence! I complained about pandering on Israel (Reagan & abortion) & haven’t heard a thing about it!”

Coulter’s outbursts have attracted much ire from both the right and the left. Of this ire, only that from the right is worth considering. As someone who watched the debate, I can report that very little time was given to discussing Israel, and while the country did come up, it was in response to questions over foreign policy (specifically Iran).

Coulter’s mistake is to consider the concerns of Israel as distinct to the concerns of America and the West. Israel is an integral part of the West, and shares many of its anxieties. Viewed in that context, Ann’s complaints are null and void.

D, LDN

Clown or Prophet? – Glenn Beck and World History

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN.

Only a Matter of Time: Israel Vs. The Islamic State.

Tags

American thinker, BBC, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, IDF, IDF vs Islamic State, Iraq, ISIL, ISIS, ISIS fighters, ISIS number, ISIS video, Islamic State ISIS ISIL, Israel, Israel Vs. Islamic State, Japan, Kurdish, Kurds, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Twitter, United States, War

The military success of the Islamic State terror group has been almost unbelievable. With a numerical strength of just 25,000 (according to the CIA) IS fighters have performed with such efficiency that Kurdish resistors routinely estimate the true figure as being as high as 250,000.

For over a year now, the Islamic State has fought on three fronts. To the East, the State engages Shia Iraqi and Iranian state Militias. To the South, it sees off the Syrian Army and multiple Free Syrian factions. To the North, it grapples with Kurdish groups and allied Western paramilitaries. If this weren’t enough, the State is also bombed around the clock by a coalition of Arab air forces.

And yet, in spite of this, the organisation grows in strength week by week.

Who or what will it take to degrade the power of this demonic entity? The only answer I can think of is the State of Israel.

“Why is it Israel and ISIS haven’t clashed yet?” – This question is asked regularly by conspiratorial types on the internet, the insinuation being that the Jews actually support the terror group, or at least so approve of its actions against Assad that they feel the benefits outweigh the risks.

I suppose the latter idea isn’t crazy. Assad is certainly a sworn enemy of Jerusalem and his (large and threatening) army is being substantially harmed by the conflict. But even so, given the speed of IS’s advance (and also the threat the group poses to Jordan – Israel’s only genuine ally in the region) a confrontation between Israel and IS may ultimately be inevitable.

ISIS are obviously opposed to Zionism and though they deem Hamas to be made up of apostate ladyboys, they do share many of its goals. As the ISIS frontline bulldozes its way down from the Syrian desert towards the Golan Heights, IDF units will have to adopt a more aggressive posture. This will probably start with a live-fire exercise or two in order to deter the terrorists away without engaging them, but that seems unlikely to work. ISIS are anything but cowards. Stimulated with a fanatical lust for the afterlife, the lovers of perpetual Jihad will surely welcome the opportunity to fight a superior foe.

But what would an IS/Israel look like? We can only guess.

I can certainly tell you what I hope it looks like. Dearest reader, I hope it resembles the apocalypse. I hope missiles rain down like hail, leaving deep craters in the desert. I hope Merkava tanks roll over the rubble of knocked down fortifications, their raised guns popping shells into enemy ranks. I hope the Israeli Air force’s reputation for overkill is made to seem naïve. I wish for fire, smoke and obliteration – Biblical precedents of death. I want Left-wing tears, UN panic attacks, desperate pleas for a ceasefire that never comes. I want the conclusive humiliation of political Islam – a knockout counterpunch from the 21st century against the 7th.

Infeasible? Don’t be so sure. With every passing minute, the gap diminishes. With every passing minute, the mouse stumbles closer to the python.

D, LDN.

Anti-Semitism: Real and Imagined.

Tags

anti-Semitism, BBC, Britain, Daily Mail, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Family Guy Jews, Family Guy racism, Hatred, Immigration, Islamic terrorism, Israel, Jews, Kevin Macdonald, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, War, Zionism

Ever since the rather hysterical reaction to Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to congress and later re-election as Prime Minster of Israel, I’ve been thinking at length about anti-Semitism in the modern world, how intense it is, and where it might ultimately lead. I’ve also tried to properly define ‘anti-Semitism’ – that is, of the most serious kind, as opposed to the ethnic banter that occurs (between all groups and cultures) on a daily basis.

After all, not all anti-Semitism leads to Auschwitz. Some of it is simply laziness. I remember, many years ago, passing a London Synagogue with a friend. As we were directly outside of it, he pointed at the building and sighed “Look at that” in a low, defeated tone of voice.

“What?” I asked, adding “It’s a Synagogue.”

Frowning at my reply, my friend shifted his fingertip to the parking lot outside. “Those cars, I mean… Jags, BMWs, Mercs. You know what I mean?”

And the conversation (if it can be called that) ended there. The insinuation was obvious and was duly taken on board.

Now, is this Anti-Semitism, or just plain envy? Many people readily confuse the two, and this, I think, detracts from our ability to face down anti-Jewish hatred of the most serious kind. (My friend incidentally is a working-class, apolitical Irishman, with whom I used to bunk off school and who more or less belongs to the ‘salt of the earth’ type.)

If that is ‘casual’ anti-Semitism, another modern type is comical or ‘ironic’ anti-Semitism. In an episode of Family Guy, a Jewish high school pupil objects to being asked to dissect a pig, to which the teacher drily replies, “Believe me Neil, it’s no thrill for the pig to touch a Jew either.”

This is clearly near to the bone, but nobody upon hearing it would think of joining the KKK or ANP. This is sub-political thinking and doesn’t treat Jews with the seriousness preferred by genuine fascists.

Of course, even I have at one time or another been accused of anti-Semitism, as has anyone who forwards arguments of the political kind. I once noted for example that American Jews enjoy a dominant position in the American film industry. I found (and find) it bizarre and unnecessary to deny something so obvious. For this, I received emails of mockery and hateful accusations.

The use of the ‘Anti-Semite’ label in cases like that is irresponsible, especially as anti-Semitism of the most lethal kind appears to be enjoying a secretive renaissance. Let’s break some more taboos…

Jews have vastly superior verbal intelligence scores than Gentiles. Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent on average than any other division of the human population. Jewish representation in the scientific, political and cultural elites of the West is massively disproportionate to their numbers. Jews have taken pains in their history (for religious reasons) to prevent integration with non-Jewish communities. The Jewish religious belief that they are a chosen tribe favoured by God has often contributed to the hostile attitudes of those who live alongside them.

Not one of these observations is powerful or scurrilous enough to unleash a new Holocaust and should not be treated like that. The ideas motivating real hostility to Jews in the modern world have nothing to do with widely known, if publically denied, facts. Rather they are the product of a uniquely complex style of conspiratorial thinking.

Kevin Macdonald, a Canadian professor of Evolutionary Psychology, should be considered the grand wizard of modern anti-Jewish feeling. His trilogy of books – The Culture of Critique, A People Who Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and Its Discontents – have encouraged millions to sign up to a hatred that had been in a period of terminal decline.

Macdonald’s basic theorem is that Jews have organised in such a way as to degrade the spirit of kinship in their ‘host’ societies, thereby preventing an ethno-nationalism that could exclude or threaten them from coming into existence. They are said to achieve this by organising cultural, political and intellectual movements that complicate or oppose White ethnic interests. Examples of this include Bolshevism, Psychoanalysis, interracial pornography and open-door immigration.

Macdonald backs up his assertions with a heavy weight of evidence and quotation, giving the ideas expressed a veneer of scientific detachment and legitimacy. Despite this, no respected figure in Macdonald’s field of evolutionary psychology takes his contentions seriously, and luminaries from other fields – including Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond – treat them with lofty ridicule.

They are wrong to be so dismissive. Macdonald’s thesis is spreading like wildfire. The explanatory promise of his ideas makes them irresistible in an age as distrustful and anti-political as ours.  On websites like 4chan, Stormfront, reddit and on innumerable blogs, the idea that Jews have damaged the prospects of White civilisation is omnipresent. I spend a lot of time on these sites (to attune myself to the popular zeitgeist) and come across arguments traceable back to Macdonald on a daily basis.

Part of what makes Macdonald’s theories so strong is the inbuilt defences he has implanted in them. His family of theories are designed in such a way as to make Jewish counter-arguments seem like a confirmation of their validity. In ‘Separation and its Discontents’, Macdonald argues that the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ is an integral part of the Jewish project to stop Whites finding an independent voice.

I don’t know how this shadowy renaissance will pan out, but the fact these ideas remain plausible should teach us all a vital lesson: that Anti-Semitism remains a dangerously toxic and regressive element in the global system, and that if it ever reaches 20th century proportions again, it will not be due to comical or political asides, but to the semi-scientific theories of the intellectual fringe.

D, LDN.

Letter to the Jews of Europe.

Tags

ADL, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Atheists against Atheism, Britain First, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EDL, France, Germany, Hasbara, Jews in Paris, Multiculturalism, Nazis, Paris Attacks, Pegida, PLO, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

Ever since the attacks in Paris, the question of whether you, the Jewish people, are safe in Europe has been hotly debated. The actress Maureen Lipmann, the editor of the UK Jewish Chronicle and numerous other public figures have questioned whether there is any longer a place for you on this continent. Even the Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu has called for your mass emigration to Israel, citing the same security concerns.

After Copenhagen, the second case in swift succession that a Jewish venue has come under attack by Muslim colonists, more of you than ever will be beginning to wonder if such sentiments are justified.

Europe is in a dire condition. I won’t pretend otherwise. Nevertheless, I think it would be a terrible shame is you were to abandon it and its people to cultural desertification. As has been said by innumerable French intellectuals over the past months, a Judenfrei France is not ‘France’ at all. I would extend that even further. A Judenfrei Europe is not ‘Europe’ at all.

It probably goes without saying that had you never settled in Europe, many of the glories of the continent would never have been possible. In European science, medicine, the arts and political thought, you have been a leading edge ever since your emancipation from the Ghettos.

In the aftermath of Paris, it has not been pointed out enough that the supreme work of modern French literature, ‘À la recherche du temps perdu’ was written by an author of Jewish origin; that the halls of French philosophy are similarly decorated with Jewish achievements; that the economic fortunes of Paris itself are entwined with the security of its Jewish community.

The fear you feel is obviously justified. The Muslim conquest of Europe is proceeding at an accelerating pace and challenges everything we hold dear. Ghettos of violent intolerance are becoming a feature of everyday life, not just in France, but in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia too. From these Ghettos, there will likely be further attacks on the general public and on your community in particular. People will die. Women will be raped. Transport networks will be blown up and trains derailed. Perhaps there will one day be an attack on a French nuclear reactor, sending winds of toxic fallout across the nearest residential sprawl.

You could, of course, flee to Israel and from there watch the descent of Europe with a grinning, “told you so..” schadenfreude – but surely this is a gutterish pleasure befitting a people of far lesser qualities than your own.

I understand there is a demographic war in Israel and that an exodus would bolster the Zionist project, but surely your presence in the powerful nations of Europe also lends itself to that project. If you depart, what will become of your reputation or influence on a continent increasingly populated by those who hate you?

We are told repeatedly by the dispensers of Hasbara that we in the West should ‘stand with Israel’ in her times of peril. And that of course is very proper and correct. We should do. But we should also expect reciprocation.

After all, if you go and Muslims remain, Europe will lose a vital and reliable source of resistance. That will leave the prospects of Jihad much brighter and the likelihood of European survival greatly diminished. Even in Israel, the fallout from an Islamified France or Sweden will be felt. Sweden is already voting to recognise a Palestinian state, no doubt under duress from its swelling Islamic population. Without a Jewish-led opposition to such suicidal policies, Israel might find itself left with only Washington as an ally. In my opinion, it would be extremely dangerous to place all your eggs in the basket of a post-Obama, soon to be minority-majority America. Especially one where even the Republican base increasingly jostles for a more isolationist foreign policy.

So don’t flee. Stay here. Lock arms with us. Fight alongside us and be willing to defend our common values. This is your home as much as anyone else’s.

D, LDN

The Cynical Genius of Hamas.

Tags

American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Bombing, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Gaza, Hamas, Hamas Charter, Israel Gaza, Operation Protective Edge, War, Zionism

Anyone who values civilisation – from its music and museums, to its cinemas and nightclubs – will have been sympathetic to Israel’s plight over the past two weeks. It is being attacked by another century, and cannot respond except by striking (as surgically as possible) one of the most densely populated territories in the world.

Faced with these odds, Israel has inevitably lost. As I said a fortnight ago, the only way Operation Protective Edge could succeed (or be worth the ocean of negative publicity arising from the project) is if Hamas was knocked conclusively out of history. I’m far from alone in holding this view. Many a patriot in Israel has been exasperated by this war and its apparent lack of direction.

Hamas – in contrast to Netanyahu’s ambiguity – is working with a clear and intelligent strategy:

1. Provoke Israel into bombarding Gaza.

2. Fire missiles from hospitals, schools and (for added propaganda effect) UN-affiliated buildings in order to maximise foreign and civilian casualties – human lives being cheaply expendable given the local birth-rate.

3. Mobilise Left-wing and Pro-Palestinian media around the world with photos of dead women and children. Gain as many young and naïve adherents to the Palestinian cause as possible.

4. Allow the war to die down. Re-arm and await next operation.

As you can see, there is little room for failure here. One can also see how Israel’s response has fed directly into it. The intensity of Pro-Palestinian information-flow since the start of the war has been staggering. And it hasn’t been limited to the closed world of the political Left either. Here are some of the hundreds of anti-Zionist comments left on the centre-right Daily Mail website (all of which were given hundreds of ‘green arrows’ by its readership) –

“Israel would like nothing more than to destroy all Palestinian settlements. The ‘excuse’ of defending its people is a smokescreen. If this campaign somehow stops they’ll find another excuse to attack and kill thousands of innocent people. Israel are mass murderers.”

“Israel is an apartheid state gone wild and it’s unfair to expect their neighbours to sit there defenceless without the weapons and military to defend themselves.”

“Israel wants the land for its natural gas, it’s as simple as that. It won’t stop and is behaving in an appalling manner.”

“The whole world knows what a terrorist state Israel is-you can sit here all day trying to defend it-it won’t work.”

Elsewhere, the Telegraph (arguably the most reliably pro-Israel news source in the UK) has run numerous reports on the bombings of Hamas targets near schools and hospitals with the (rather important) Hamas element unmentioned anywhere in the text. It used to be the case that only the BBC was capable of this wilful propaganda. This time around, were it not for the middle-ground politeness of the BBC, the Israeli side would have no media voice in the UK outside the Jewish Chronicle.

Its inherent evil aside, Hamas is reaping the crop from a well-thought out and devilishly clever tactic. Now let’s look at what a comparably clear Israeli response would have looked like:

1. Delay retaliation to Gaza rocket fire. Instead make clear to Hamas and international community that living next to a terrorist group has become intolerable (i.e. make the case for the action before the action). Issue final warning to Hamas and make clear that it will be removed if rocket fire continues. The longer the period between the ultimatum and military action, the less the power of criticism will be when the latter is underway.

2. If rocket fire continues, launch air and ground strikes against all known Hamas sites. Occupy Gaza for as long as it takes to arrest or kill Hamas leadership and its supporters. After the occupation, make clear that the same routine will be repeated if any comparable terrorist group emerges there.

By way of conclusion, Protective Edge has been a disaster for Israel, a windfall for the Palestinian cause, and it raises serious questions about Israel’s long term planning. Let’s hope lessons have been learned.

D, LDN.

The Split Personality of William Maher.

Tags

America, Bill Maher, Christianity and Islam, Defend the modern world, Gaza, Hypocrisy, Iraq, Liberals, Michael Moore, Multiculturalism, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Real Time, Television, USA, War

The Liberal position in America is notoriously difficult to define. Many of the ideologies gathered under the term in the US would be classed at ‘Right-Wing’ in Europe (and almost certainly in continental Europe) where the label usually carries connotations of socialism and enthusiasm for the welfare state. American Liberals (against the claims of some Conservatives) are not at that point yet. More often, they align roughly with British centrists like the Orange-book Liberal Democrats or Cameronite Tories.

The American term for Liberals of the European style is ‘Leftist’, or collectively ‘The Left’. These are not often found in Establishment politics, or indeed anywhere close to the heat-field of democratic accountability. Rather they lurk on the fringes of Hollywood, music and (perhaps most of all) the booming trade of ‘political satire’.

A giant on this last stage is a Mr William “Bill” Maher.

Perhaps the most effective satirist in modern America, Maher has never made a secret of his adoration of President Obama (he was a big money donor to Obama’s re-election campaign) or of his violent loathing for White American culture and the rural poor. His well-honed spiel has been to accuse, with the merry confidence of a drunk, anyone exhibiting hostility toward the big-state idea as ‘racist’, a paid-for corporate toady or else a reprobate, homophobic, pro-life creationist. 

And this has worked extremely well. On my personal facebook page, I can never seem to avoid a re-post of Mr Maher’s latest routine, and his television show ‘Real Time’ is one of the most popular of its kind on American cable.

But despite such popularity, Maher has a quirk which makes his acceptance into Liberal high society controversial for more devout believers.

Maher is a Zionist. As a matter of fact, a very orthodox one. The comedian reliably supports the Israeli military in its offensives against terrorism wherever (and in whatever manner) they occur, and most recently found himself in hot water for doing so regarding Operation Protective Edge.

But why would I complain about that, you ask? It’s simple. Mr Maher’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself lies in stark contrast to his consistent refusal to grant this same right to America and Europe.

Whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, Maher has repeatedly berated the US military for its excesses and sought (with some success) to diminish the morale of patriotic forces. The Bush regime in particular had no moral fibre for Maher and his baying amen-corner audiences. The invasion of Iraq was motivated by the price of oil. The assault on Falluja was a war crime. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib meanwhile was not a singular episode but rather chimed with the moral tone of the whole enterprise.

Is it unfair to speculate that had the IDF been responsible for any of these events, Maher would have no trouble finding a way of rationalising them? I don’t think so.

And what would that be exactly? Hypocrisy? Tribalism (Maher has a Jewish mother)? Ignorance (that America and Israel are fighting the same wars)?

That I don’t know. But in my humble opinion the right Israel has to defend its liberal society extends to any other democracy, and wrong-headed hypocrites like Maher let us all down by obscuring this fact.

D, LDN.