Aristocrats and Peasants: The War Between the Genders

Tags

aristocracy, balance of power, female privilege, Feminism, French Revolution, gender

The slogan “The future is female” probably isn’t supposed to be embittering or chauvinistic. A pep talk in miniature, the sentiment is most often used to motivate young girls at nobody’s particular expense. All can use it in this way. The words emblazon shirts for boys as well as girls, men as well as women. They are, like ‘black lives matter’, open to amazing flexibility of meaning if challenged, which they are only rarely.

But now, with all that is happening and all that has happened, the slogan is increasingly taken as a taunt, a trumpet-blast of conquest, backed not only by dreamy aspiration, but cold, hard fact.

It is considerably better, I am quite sure, to be a woman than a man these days; certainly in the West, but perhaps even elsewhere, for the same dynamics and the same model generally apply.

I am surprised to have come to this conclusion. For much of my adolescence the dogma of female disadvantage seemed fairly watertight; women are physically weaker,  after all, which we must remember is a profound handicap, and so all the claims of feminism were made correct in that light; even if women didn’t obviously seem to be a class of victims, I knew they could become one at short notice, whenever the male temper changed. But that I now recognise as a major fallacy.

It is true that men ultimately have a veto on human destiny. If tomorrow we collectively decide to reimpose a patriarchy, nothing can possibly prevent us. The ‘kick-ass woman’ able to defeat men at their own game is a corporate fancy designed to sell pink running shoes. Men are stronger, more dynamic, and so on.

Nonetheless, this says nothing about quality of life or immediate power. It is true only theoretically; true in the same way the working classes can seize the means of production. True but unlikely, then, for much stands in their way.

The working classes are physically and numerically stronger than the capitalists. It isn’t science fiction to imagine ragged-trousered hordes trashing the headquarters of Barclays or Morgan Chase. But it is profoundly unlikely that they ever will; because society, with its guns and its norms and its trained manpower, stands against them, forbiddingly, menacingly.

In much the same way, natural male advantage is trapped in the imagination of radicals; outside of such space, even the mention of it is condemned as evil and terroristic. Theoretical power cannot feed a starving man, or prevent a family of hard-working proletarians from being thrown out of their houses, and nor can it lend consolation to the immiserated men of our current era. The theoretical (as a general rule) is immediately useless.

Men are handicapped today by several key social factors – most obviously the universal bias that exists in favour of the fairer sex. You, the reader, will have this bias. Most people do. We see women as more precious, more valuable and fundamentally worthier of our tenderness, restraint and generosity than men.

Evolutionary psychology makes this easily understandable. In a pure state of nature, it requires only one male to impregnate a hundred females, and so individual men are naturally considered less important than women.

But this is the inherited logic of a state of nature that no longer strictly exists. We are not living in the same jungle as our ancestors, with the same struggle for life day by day. Our societies are no longer even coherent; all kinds exist around us, friendly and hostile, and yet the instinct will not disappear any time soon.

To make matters worse – for men at least – fewer and fewer cultural objections to the exploitation of this instinct by young women are tolerated within liberal society. If a woman plays to this advantage for the purpose of manipulating others, for money or influence or fame or power, it is considered vulgar and bigoted to object, or even to notice it is happening.

Men are everywhere staying quiet, allowing taboos to harden around the discussion of very important imbalances, which in turn tempts more and more young women to take advantage of them, just as men would in the same position.

It must be understood that the charge of ‘misogyny’ today too often functions as a neutraliser of protest or even notice-taking of the runaway development of female privilege. The increasing gap between the genders is precisely the opposite of what polite society insists. And the toll on men is mounting.

Today it is increasingly easy to succeed as an ordinary woman, and increasingly impossible for an ordinary man. While feminists like to argue that the male elite, who invariably and necessarily work harder and with greater dynamism than the female elite, crowd them out at the pinnacle of meritocracy, even a small step down from that elite reveals the majority of men trapped below the majority of women.

Men have degenerated – though no-one’s fault but our own – into a peasant gender, while women have become aristocratic. Men must justify themselves, their portion of space and oxygen, with high intellectual achievement and / or crushing manual labour, or else be counted as worthless. Women, meanwhile, are self-justifying; and more than that, entitled to the protection, gallantry and subservience of the peasants.

One might point out, as feminists are wont to do, that women are markedly underrepresented in the governments of Western nations; but this, too, is fallacious. The whole meaning of the aristocracy in the modern sense is based on a distinction from the actively ruling class. Aristocrats sometimes govern, but only if they wish to. And they usually do not. Lord Byron quite understandably preferred his opium pipe and mistresses to the drudgery of parliament. The aristocrats of the ancien regime, similarly, tended to choose apolitical luxury over needless, bloody partisanship. Government is a job like any other, performed out of a lack of something. When nothing is lacking, what is there to be gained?

The new aristocrats have no war to fight. Indeed, quite like the aristocracy of old, the only time they engage themselves politically is for the defence of aristocratic privileges. The very last thing young women desire is an outbreak of sexual Bolshevism, a rebellion of the peasants, the men.

And that is no longer out of the question. The internet-enabled conversion by young women of sexual power into social, financial and political power is creating the necessary conditions for a future breakdown in relations between the genders.

Already we see the politics of younger generations greatly effected by the processes described. It is taken almost as a given that men at the radical extremes of ideology are motivated at least in part by gender resentment. Uncountable tired-out routines by liberal comedians play upon the theme of right-wing and conservative men having sexually unsatisfying lives, or of them suffering from ‘male fragility’; angry virgins, fragile men, stupid losers. The liberal men who join such accusations, who strive to make clear their lack of anxiety regarding female ’empowerment’, are indirectly boasting of having a relatively satisfying life, as part of a male elite, differentiated from the peasant majority. This is essentially slave-caste chauvinism (field over house) dressed up as moral sentiment.

In the new gender model, men who are not part of the male elite, but who nonetheless wish to enjoy privileges (access to media, publishing, general political and social viability) must stress their good behaviour and adjust to a modern, acceptably castrated type of maleness (the ‘soyboy’ / corporatised ‘nerd’ archetypes, for example).

What is most interesting for those of us who care about political matters is how much the gender breakdown confuses both left and right tendencies. The paleo-right are increasingly divided according to priorities. Here, male interest goes up against ethno-nationalism, with the former creating a pan-racial brotherhood of male solidarity that undermines the goals of the latter. On the left, the militantly castrated ‘woke’ left are falling out with men who wish to see male complaints taken more seriously, and who ultimately shift to the right when they find they cannot have a voice on any non-conservative platform.

This last point is especially noteworthy. Even the most conformist young Zoomer wishing to make a name for himself on the left of politics (in journalism or visual media, say) will likely find himself frustrated purely on gender grounds. Media work is an easy, desirable, aristocratic form of labour, eagerly sought out by women. A peasant may find very few opportunities left after his young female competitors have had their fill.

The liberal Zoomer mentioned may find openings only on the right, and his sympathies, nurtured by resentment, will travel with him.

This really cannot be stressed enough. The de-platforming of men by liberal media and society will drive more and more of them to the right, and when aristocrats begin to take over even those publications, to the far-right.

De-platforming authentic representatives of male interest is an incredibly stupid move. It will accelerate social breakdown and bring the prospect of gender conflict ever closer.

I will close by making clear I do not put the blame for this development on women, especially not on women from older generations, to whom the points made may seem absurd given their own life experiences. This is something effecting mostly younger people. And even in these generations, women are only taking advantage of a situation we have all allowed to come into being.

David

The Dark Enlightenment

Tags

America, BBC, beef, Blog, dark, dark enlightenment, DE, Denmark, England, enlightenment, essay, face, Facebook, Internet, internet internet, Japan, lamb, magazine, manosphere, matrix, mencius, mencius moldbug blog, moldbug, neo, neo matrix, neo-reactionary, Newsnight, online, politics, pot, reactionary, red pill blue pill, right-wing, social media, Standpoint, subculture, the face, the matrix, The West, Twitter

• First published on this blog in November, 2015

If you’re one of those people not yet not au fait with the internet phenomenon/subculture referred to as the ‘Dark Enlightenment’, perhaps the best way to describe it is with reference to its adherents favourite movie scene. This is the moment in The Matrix, when Neo is offered two pills – one blue, one red. The man offering the medicaments, Morpheus, informs Neo that the pills have different metaphysical powers. One of them, the blue one, will send him back to the artificial world of the Matrix (a computer simulation) that he is already familiar with, completely ignorant of the existence of the alternate (real) world. The other pill, the red one, will make it impossible for him to go back to the sleep of unreality. Upon taking it, he will tumble down the rabbit-hole of the truth, however ugly or traumatic he may find that truth to be. As you’re probably aware, Neo boldly chooses the red pill, and so begins the main action of the film. Well, Dark Enlightenment adherents view themselves as embarking upon a comparably journey to Neo’s, and will often refer to themselves as being ‘red-pilled’. But what truths exactly are they discovering? What reality have they entered that is hidden from the majority? The answer is complicated.

It is certainly accurate to say that the Dark Enlightenment is on the political right. Its followers have little sympathy for feminism or political correctness, and on matters of race and racial difference, their views tend to align with those advanced by the likes of Madison Grant and T.H Huxley. Furthermore, one of the labels embraced by the movement since their beginnings is ‘Neo-reactionary’; a pretty baggy definition, but one that clearly denotes a rightward bent.

Some press commentators have even suggested a fascist sentiment motivates the Dark Enlightenment subculture. Jamie Bartlett (writing for the Daily Telegraph), for example, describes the bloggers associated with the movement as ‘sophisticated neo-fascists’.

“Since 2012” he writes “…a sophisticated but bizarre online neo-fascist movement has been growing fast. It’s called “The Dark Enlightenment”… Supporters are dotted all over the world, connected via a handful of blogs and chat rooms. Its adherents are clever, angry white men patiently awaiting the collapse of civilisation, and a return to some kind of futuristic, ethno-centric feudalism… The philosophy, difficult to pin down exactly, is a loose collection of neo-reactionary ideas, meaning a rejection of most modern thinking: democracy, liberty, and equality… The neo-fascist bit lies in the view that races aren’t equal (they obsess over IQ testing and pseudoscience that they claim proves racial differences, like the Ku Klux Klan) and that women are primarily suited for domestic servitude. They call this “Human biodiversity” – a neat little euphemism. This links directly to their desire to be rid of democracy: because if people aren’t equal, why live in a society in which everyone is treated equally? Some races are naturally better to rule than others, hence their support for various forms of aristocracy and monarchy (and not in the symbolic sense but the very real divine-right-of-kings-sense).”

Is this a fair evaluation? I don’t think that matters. What does matter is why men (and presumably some women) find it necessary to hive off into subcultures in the first place. The Dark Enlightenment is clearly a reaction to the culture of extreme (and unnecessary) self-censorship by the academic and intellectual mainstream. We simply don’t talk about the important facts of the world for fear of alienating a single part of it. No, the races are not equal in average intelligence. Nor are the sexes equal. The first-born child is generally more intelligent than his/her younger siblings. The tall are more successful than the short. Women are physically weaker than men. Egalitarianism is a lie. And yes, even Democracy is a stupid idea when reduced to its fundamentals. For if the majority are wrong about something, then society is every bit as doomed with democracy as it would be with a wrong-headed dictator. Etc… Etc…

But creating subcultures around forbidden truths is a dangerous game. Whenever hives of thought arise, the trust generated by basic truth-telling grants the hive-leader authority over his/her followers. Having earned their trust with real (but publically denied) facts, he/she can then sprinkle any kind of abject stupidity on top. And if any mainstream condemnation of this stupidity comes about, it can be ascribed to ‘Leftism’ or the ‘blue pill’. “They told you the races were equal, so why listen to them when they say authoritarian monarchy is bad?”… “They told you affirmative action made sense, so why believe them when they say Jews aren’t in control of the government” Etc…

Denying self-evident truths risks handing intellectual authority to some very shady people indeed. The Dark Enlightenment must be replaced with a straightforward enlightenment. No ‘darkness’ is necessary.

D, LDN

Mishima and Masculinity.

Tags

A Voice for Men, Body, Bodybuilding, Confidence, Defend the modern world, Diet, Male Rights, Man, Manliness, Masculinity, Men, Men's rights, Muscle, Sun and Steel, Yukio Mishima

*Originally published on this blog in 2015

Despite what they claim, very few people actually discover Yukio Mishima through his art.

More often, Western readers in particular are drawn to him by the details of his sensational death. I was no different. In case you don’t know about that strange, gory episode, let’s get it out of the way now.

Yukio Mishima, arguably the greatest Japanese novelist of the modern era, spent his final years living in accordance with the customs of a Samurai warrior. Using his renown as an artist, he raised up an army of young male followers from across the country and on the 25th of November 1970, stormed the headquarters of the Japanese military to call for the abolition of democracy and the resurrection of an Imperial regime headed by the Emperor. When those who gathered to witness the spectacle refused his call, Mishima retired into an office his supporters had occupied and committed ritual suicide (seppuku) by disembowelling himself.

So there it is. Crazy, I know. But of course Mishima is substantially more than his demise. His fiction (especially the Sea of Fertility tetralogy) is a fascinating, panoramic and deeply philosophical body of work. His non-fiction meanwhile has made a lasting impression on my life.

Shortly before his death, Mishima penned a slim confessional volume entitled ‘Sun and Steel’. In its pages, alongside his trademark ruminations on romantic death, the author decries the tendency of thinking people to collapse into timid introspection, isolation and unmanliness. In particular Mishima makes an impassioned case for the art of body-building, a pursuit he took up aggressively in his final decade.

“Why must it be that men always seek out the depths, the abyss?” He wrote “Why was it not feasible for thought to change direction and climb up, ever up, towards the surface? Why should the skin, which guarantees a human being’s existence in space, be most despised and left to the tender mercies of the senses?”

In this spirit, Mishima looked back ruefully over his whole life, mourning that he had led the passive, shy and unadventurous existence of a writer, when his nature yearned in fact for action, masculinity and war.

After reading the book, and having recognised a lot of his criticism as valid for my own bookish character, I went out and purchased a set of weights. At the time of writing, I have been body-building for over two years.

My view of masculinity has been altered over this time. I now consider the bohemian tendency to skinny effeminacy and romantic bad health as a betrayal. One really doesn’t have to choose between masculinity and intelligence. Both are vital ingredients in the concept of a man.

The disunity of brains and brawn can be sourced directly to the perversions of Western Feminism. Feminist thought has tended to make an either/or choice of civility and manliness. Mildly applied, one could argue that this is helpful to the maintenance of a modern society. Let loose without limit however, it is ruinous.

If those with intellect and moral substance disarm themselves of worldly strength, the Darwinian arena is primed for their elimination.  At school, you will have observed for yourself how the stupid tend to rule the roost and get the girls. It is no different in adulthood, with the classroom exchanged for a city centre splashed with brut and alcohol.

I fully recommend Mishima’s books, and in particular ‘Sun and Steel’, ‘Runaway Horses’ and ‘Mishima on Hagakure’.

D, LDN.

Decorating Chains

Tags

Amazon, American Liberty, Ban the Burka, BBC, bukr, Burka, burkha, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, coffee coffee, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, Facebook, Islam, islamic women, Islamic world, Masculinity, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rape, sexuality, Twitter, women and islam, women's rights in Islam

Pierre Berge, influential fashion pioneer and co-founder of the Yves Saint Lauren designer firm, (I’d never heard of him either), caused an outcry last week when he boldly condemned the fashion industry’s growing embrace of Sharia-compliant clothing. Addressing the concept of the ‘burkini’ – a piece of swimwear designed to cover the body and head of the wearer, Berge remarked that “Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship (Islam) which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life…These creators who are taking part in the enslavement of women should ask themselves some questions.”

Since the remarks were made, numerous comment pieces have been published, both for and against. In the ever-reliable Guardian newspaper, columnist Remona Ali stated frank disagreement with Berge’s sentiment. “A burkini to cater for wider audiences?” she wrote “How dare they! Stop them! In the name of freedom, don’t let women wear what they want! Seriously, though, it’s time to grow up…I really don’t get the urge to disempower Muslim women over and over again. The only person who should have ownership over a woman’s body is her. If I want to buy a burkini from M&S, I bloody well will. If anyone else wants to buy a bikini, well guess what, that’s available in stores too. Bergé bangs on about freedom, yet taking freedom of choice away is where enslavement begins. But I think the irony is lost on him…”

Voices sympathetic to Berge’s sentiment were largely confined to the secular and international press. Atheists inevitably lined up to agree that burkinis (as well as other cultural compromises with Sharia) are a step too far, that they oppress women and represent a capitulation of modernity to the forces of regression.

Fully body coverings in the Muslim World

You’ll be able to guess my own standpoint. I think the burkini (since it has no relation to the Burkha, it should really be called the ‘Hijabi’) is an insult to the women unfortunate enough to be expected to wear it. We in the West should be encouraging Muslim women to break their chains, not decorating those chains with a veneer of elegance and choice. In the 21st Century West, women should be free to dress in whatever way they please. No-one has the right, nor should anyone have the inclination, to judge a free human being ‘virtuous’ or ‘dishonourable’ by their clothing alone. It is barbarism. It is primitivism. It belongs in the primitive world.

Despite the heat she has subsequently taken for it, the French minister who compared Sharia-compliant women to the ‘negroes who supported slavery in America’ hit the issue wonderfully on the mark. Just as abolitionists rightly ignored the opinions of negro ‘uncle toms’ who were hopelessly devoted to the whims of their ‘Master’, so can we feel comfortable in ignoring the bleatings of women who are so institutionalized by Islam, so broken by it, that they have come to support their own imprisonment. These poor women are warped. They have been brainwashed by time and cruelty.

And how dare we excuse their condition? We, who have all the blessings of freedom and individuality, who think it entirely pedestrian to go for a drink with someone of the opposite sex, who never have to worry about morality police or ‘honour’ killings; how dare we intimate that this is appropriate for other human beings to endure.

I have always been particularly enraged by those airhead liberals who excuse the mistreatment of women under sharia by saying ‘it’s their tradition’, or ‘it’s their culture’. It is not ‘culture’ at all! It is anti-culture – the resistance of pre-civilization to civilization. Culture is exactly what is being denied these poor souls.

The ‘Burkini’

While it’s probably not possible for a man, let alone a man in the free west, to imagine what life is like for a Muslimah in the Muslim world. we can at least ponder the question. How can it feel to walk around in a Niqab? How does it feel to know that if you are raped, you may be raped as a punishment for being raped? How does it feel to read a holy book that describes you as biologically, socially and intellectually ‘inferior’ to half of humankind? It must be a condition of misery. I will accept no other answer.

We should care about this, not just for moral reasons, but because Muslim women are vitally important to any effort to diminish or destroy Political Islam. As the iconoclastic commentator (and devout atheist) Johann Hari noted “One of the central tenets of this ideology (Jihadism) is the inherent inferiority and weakness of women… If you haven’t spoken to (Jihadis), it is hard to explain just how obsessed with sexual apartheid they are. At least two of the London bombers (on 7/7) refused to make eye contact with women outside their families. Image the sheer effort and repression that required…The best way to undermine the confidence and beliefs of jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women, their mothers and sisters and daughters.” (Italics added).

Hari is surely correct here. Islamic women are (if you’ll excuse the implied misogyny) the soft underbelly of the Islamic religion. They are ‘soft’, not because they are weak, but because they are more rationally inclined to apostasy when presented with the opportunity that Islamic men are. Muslim women are also more important to Islam’s future prospects than men. Should we succeed in triggering the rebellion Hari suggests, we would halve both the present problem and the problem’s next generation. Muslim women are viewed as little more than talking wombs by their partners. They are weapons factories, producing a constant supply fight-ready believers to replenish the ranks diminished by infidel technology. Remove the women and you disrupt the supply of Jihadis. This is surely the last thing the Islamists want, and the thing they fear the most.

Islamism relies on excessive reproduction

How might we go about triggering this rebellion? Hari suggested two things in his article: a boycott of oil, and a Western programme to lend capital to Muslim women who wish to start their own businesses. I’m afraid I find both of these suggestions quite unsatisfactory. These measures might well improve the lot of individual women, but neither has the potential to topple the patriarchy (and for once this word is merited) ruling Islamic society. This patriarchy itself must be toppled before women can be empowered. They cannot be empowered before that point.

A better strategy would involve reaching out to Muslim women directly and encouraging them to quit Islam. This can be very safely and easily done online – by making videos for YouTube, setting up groups on Facebook, sending personal messages and tweets, and so on. Make it a movement; a large-scale, organised campaign. Muslim women currently resident in the West have very few places to turn if they wish to be liberated from Islam. Existing apostate groups like the well-meaning CEM (Council of Ex-Muslims) do not presently offer the kind of protection necessary to make female apostasy a desirable prospect. To rectify this, organisations – preferably citizen-based – should be set up with the specific purpose of providing safe shelter and funding for those women who wish to leave the religion of peace. Though the number of women using this kind of service would be small at first, this would quickly change as successful escape stories fill up the international and religious press. We have to do something. It would be scandalous to carry on pretending there isn’t a problem to be solved.

The burkini row is not nearly as funny or light-hearted as some commentators seem to have decided. It represents at its base a life-or-death struggle between slavery and freedom for half of the world population. Chains should not be decorated. They should not be beautiful. They should be as ugly as the purpose for which they exist.

D, LDN

On the Barbarians in Cologne

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, Annoying things on facebook, assault, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, cologne germany assaults, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, facebook twitter, germany sex assaults, joe for, Merkel, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Pegida, pegids, rapes, refugees in cologne germany, sex, sex assaults migrants refugees

“We are from Syria. You have to be nice to us. Merkel invited us.”

These were the infuriating words allegedly spoken by a refugee during a recent orgy of sexual intimidation in Cologne, Germany. On a single night, what has been described since as a ‘co-ordinated’ series of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants spread fear and terror through the streets of this picturesque, historic (and formerly peaceful) German city. Though some of the details are still sketchy (many of the women understandably remain in shock), the criminal behaviour reported should rightly put to bed the entire ‘debate’ over refugee settlement in Europe as a whole.

What do we know at this point? Well, according to the reports I’ve read, some of the men involved in this outrage are said to have plunged their hands down women’s skirts to feel their vaginas. Others tried to grasp hold of women’s breasts and attempted to lick or kiss them through the victim’s clothing. Apart from the quote above, few – if any – words were spoken during the assaults. The men simply saw something they wanted (they would say ‘-thing’ rather than ‘-one’), and felt compelled to take it, much like a child unthinkingly reaches for candy in a supermarket.

Of course, many native German men will have felt this same compulsion on occasion. It’s a regrettable part of being a man. But those men (almost all of them anyway) will have been prevented from carrying out such actions by important psychological forces; forces which seem to be wholly lacking in the Muslim mind; things like conscience, respect and social intelligence; elementary but apparently rare prerequisites of social order and civilisation. The Muslim filth who carried out the attacks haven’t developed these mental habits because they come from a region in which such habits are unnecessary.

In Afghanistan or Syria, you pick a woman, you don’t charm or fall in love with them. There, you acquire a woman in the same way you or I might acquire an apartment, a microwave or a Fiat Punto. In such environments, tact, charm and the very notion of romance is alien. A Fiat Punto isn’t your reason for being. You don’t have to respect it. You just want one, and so you get one.

In personality too, these men are thoroughly undeveloped. Socially, they are little more than children. Having been given no reason to, they have scarcely matured beyond the giggling infancy of pre-adolescence and still carry the stupid sense of entitlement we all had back at that stage of our lives. This explains the very sincere lack of understanding displayed in the quote above. Merkel invited them in, so they can take what they want while they stay.

This isn’t evil. This is simply what happens when you let cavemen wander into the modern world.

In Denmark and Norway, authorities seem to have conceded this reality and are now seeking to combat the problem directly. As you may have heard, Scandinavian social services are to hold ‘sexual etiquette’ classes for Muslim refugees. These classes are designed to instil modern sexual attitudes in the new arrivals, ‘just in case’ they might find the modern world ‘confusing’.

One can only imagine what these classes are like in practice…”If you see a woman you like, what do you do?”- “Yes. I like. So I take her as my wife now.” – “No, Abdul…”

As to whether we should be making any effort to bring Muslims up to the standards of Western civilisation is a question of taste, or of priorities. I would say such charity is the very height of generosity, but do we really owe our enemies that?

D, LDN

Why are Mass-Shooters Usually White?

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, American Whites, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, decline of White america, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Family Guy, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, social media, Twitter, White decline, White people decline of, White People in America, White Working Class, White Working class decline, Whites, Whites in America

As the world sought to digest the frightening news from San Bernardino last Wednesday, a consensus swiftly arose on social media arguing that the shooters were most likely of ‘Caucasian’ descent. They were wrong, it turns out, very wrong, but their presumption is nonetheless easy to explain.

From Columbine High to West Nickel Mines, Jokela High to Northern Illinois University, Sandy Hook to Lindhurst High, a frightening and probably disproportionate number of gun massacres are committed by young White men.

Why are they doing this? It’s a question that Leftists and Islam-panderers love to ask after shooting events like that at Planned Parenthood. They think (but are mistaken in thinking) that this will absolve Islam of its violent reputation, or that it will ‘put things into context’ with something like the same effect. “Perhaps Islamists are just the Middle East’s jerks, and school-shooters are America’s jerks? Perhaps we both have the same jerk-minority” etc… This is bullcrap, of course. Even if we entertained such logic, what would it make of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are merely sympathetic to the Jerks – ‘Jerk-sympathisers’? ‘Ideological Jerks’? What would it make of the Islamic God who recommends such jerkish actions in the first place?

But apart from liberal mischief, the question is nonetheless valid and must be answered. Why are mass-shooters usually White? Could it be that White people are more violent generally than non-Whites?

No, it couldn’t possibly be that. African and Hispanic Americans commit crimes at a far (far) greater rate than American Whites do, and yet there have been very few Hispanic or Black mass-shootings in recent US history.

Are Whites in thrall to an extremist ideology of some kind – like Nazism or White supremacism etc..? No, not really. While membership of far-right organisations in America continues to grow (having been given new life after the election of Barack Obama), the proportion of Whites interested in head-shaving, dressing up in hooded pyjamas or saluting with an outstretched arm is tiny overall, and wouldn’t even make for a single percentage point.

What can it be then? The answer I believe involves the great unspoken, unexamined crisis of the modern world – namely, the dire condition of the White working class.

White decline as a phenomenon is not limited to America, and nor is (or will be) the fallout from it. Rather, it affects every European-majority nation on the planet. In England, America, Canada, Germany and elsewhere, White working class communities are falling into social disrepair and economic oblivion. With the death of Western manufacturing (due to China’s monopoly on exports), the growth of prescription drug abuse, and the academic impacts of mass immigration (especially from Asian nations), White working class men are finding it impossible to compete, to find a place for themselves in modern society.

If that weren’t bad enough, working class Whites find themselves the butt of popular culture. In Hollywood, satirical cartoons and internet memes alike, White working class men are portrayed as idiotic, aggressive, overdosed on religion and habitually racist towards all other social groups.

None of that could possibly excuse the kind of random cruelty under examination, but the context is nonetheless screaming out to be understood. A young white male – say, 16 years old – today, has a future of nothing but decline to look forward to. He is aware of the lofty position his race enjoyed until very recently. And the fall – as well as the corresponding rise of ethnic competitors – hurts. Blacks are stronger, faster and cooler. Asians are smarter. Hispanics are more numerous. etc… And all such minority groups are openly celebrated in the media, with only Whites left to construct pride out of nothing.

While there is a still a White power class, fat with wealth and armed with influence, the White ‘community’ itself has torn in two, with the White elite flying away into a cosmopolitan world of champagne and racial ambiguity. University-educated Whites care more about Tibetans than Texans; Palestinians more than Minnesotans. Poor Whites have literally no-one to protect them apart from gun-manufacturers, other disenfranchised Whites and the tattiest extreme of the Republican party.

The social condition of working class Whites is beginning to have shocking results quite apart from rates of crime. A report published last month (which stunned the medical community) revealed that mortality rates among poor whites are not diminishing (as in all other cases) but rapidly increasing. Addressing these findings The Atlantic magazine noted: “All-cause mortality among middle-aged Americans with a high-school degree or less increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people between 1999 and 2013, but there was little change in mortality for people with some college (education). The death rate for the college-educated fell slightly.” Elsewhere the same article added the “reasons for the increased death rate are not the usual things that kill Americans, like diabetes and heart disease. Rather, it’s suicide, alcohol and drug poisonings, and alcohol-related liver disease.”

The ‘drug poisonings’ referred to in that quotation are part of a much larger epidemic of Heroin, Benzodiazepine and Oxycodone abuse in White American communities. The New York Times reported that “prior to the 1980s, whites and non-whites were equally represented among first-time heroin users. But that’s changed as heroin use has expanded across other parts of the country… Now, nearly 90 percent of the people who tried heroin for the first time in the past decade were white.”

Here in England, White working class decline is most noticeable in the field of education. Numerous reports (the most recent study was published earlier this year) have revealed a massive and still growing disparity in academic achievement between poor Whites and those from foreign backgrounds. Martin Beckford wrote in the Telegraph that “only 48 per cent of the poorest white boys met (government) targets in English and maths at primary school last year, compared with 82 per cent of Chinese pupils…This makes it less likely they will go on to university or well-paid jobs, and has consequences for their own children. The National Audit Office has claimed that white working-class boys are “‘significantly under-represented in higher education'”.

In October this year, the same newspaper reported that “White boys from poor backgrounds have the lowest attainment levels at GCSE (compared to) any other social or ethnic group… Just 28.3 per cent of white boys who were eligible for free school meals (Note: a significant signifier of poverty in the UK) achieved five GCSEs at grade A to C.”

Reacting to a different report with the same findings, Claire Crawford, an academic at Warwick University was quoted in the Guardian as saying: “We were particularly surprised to find that ethnic minority groups which have relatively low school attainment, such as those of black Caribbean, Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic origin, are, on average, more likely to continue into higher education than white British pupils.”

White decline of this kind is a precondition for White nihilism, the rejection of society and all its boundaries and values. If you allow a community to be poked at, robbed of hope and then left entirely to its own devices, the consequences can be shocking. I am not excusing violence. But in a world in which we rush to examine the societal causes of all wrong-doing by minorities, we should sometimes do the same for the majority as well.

D, LDN

America Saves Europe (Again)

Tags

America, America 911, american heroes, American Liberty, amsterdam terror, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Fox News, france train terrorist, hero marines, marines, marines tackle terrorist, Multiculturalism, Muslims in Europe, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, skype, terror marines, Terrorism, train, Twitter, twitter facebook, United States, Violence, War

Europe today feels (or should feel) equal parts thankful and humiliated. America has come to our aid again, showing more bravery and decisiveness in an instant than we have shown in years.

On Friday, on a train travelling from Amsterdam to Paris, a Moroccan terrorist – armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle and various other small arms – opened fire on random passengers. After being resisted unsuccessfully by several civilians, two off-duty marines (together with a third American) tackled the piece of filth, overpowering him (one marine getting shot for his troubles, and another being stabbed), trapping him in a chokehold until he lost consciousness. After the terrorist was incapacitated, other passengers piled on and the gunmen was disarmed and then tied up. It is believed – but not yet confirmed – that the Moroccan had ties to ISIS and had been on the radar of the French secret services for some time now.

What kind of tragedy was averted by this heroism? For an answer, we must cast our minds back to the Mumbai attacks in 2008, and specifically the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (railway station) shootings. On that occasion, two Kalashnikov-wielding terrorists managed to massacre 58 (fifty-eight) people before the attackers chose to leave the Terminus in search of more prey. Over 100 other civilians were also shot at the station but survived.

A Thalys high-speed train, like the one targeted on Friday, has a capacity of 377 seated passengers and well over 400 allowing for standing passengers. In reports issued since the attack was foiled, the service running that evening has been described as ‘packed’. We will assume for our purposes that the population of the train numbered at least 377.

A single attacker moving through packed carriages with a fully-automatic rifle could have quite easily killed a hundred people. Incapacitated by fear, femininity, old-age or childhood, many civilians would not have stood a chance against a young, fearless militant unconcerned with death and legal or moral repercussions. The security services on board we now know were cowering (cowering!) in their staff quarters, leaving no obvious impediment to the attacker other than a feat of spontaneous bravery, which, thank goodness, was forthcoming.

Even though it was averted, we should treat this attack as though it was successful This was an attempted assault by ISIS on the people of Europe. Those who believed ISIS could be quarantined to the Middle East must have this delusion beaten out of them. This is war, no less real than in 1939. A far-reaching licence of special powers must be granted to our governments until this threat is diminished to manageable proportions.

If any Muslim resident in Europe has suspected links to ISIS (and that can be as little as ‘liking’ ISIS propaganda on a facebook post), that is more than enough reason to deport him/her. Stop building Mosques. Stop all Muslim immigration (Bravo Slovakia!). Stop pandering to Muslim causes. Man the f*** up!

America (and the American spirit) will not always be there to defend us. We must develop that spirit within ourselves if we are to survive another millennium.

D, LDN.

Can a Man Be a Woman?

Tags

Bruce Jenner becomes woman, Bruce Jenner Caitlyn Jenner, Bruce Jenner history, Bruce Jenney Man or woman, Bruce she or he, Caitlyn Jenner vanity fair photo, Caitlyn or kaitlyn, Christianity, Civilisation, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Glenn Beck, Heroism, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Transgenderism, Twitter, United States

I never thought I’d be writing an article like this. The subject matter isn’t something I worry about on a daily basis, nor is it something I have spent much time considering in my casual hours. But since there seems to be no bigger story in the world at the moment, I will comment here on the transformation (so called) of athlete Bruce Jenner (yes, my fellow Englishman, I’d never heard of him prior to this month either) into a trans-woman called Caitlyn.

My thinking about this has been prompted by an article of quite remarkable lucidity published on Glenn Beck’s media outlet ‘TheBlaze.com’. It is entitled ‘Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman Is an Insult to Women” and was authored by the conservative blogger Matt Walsh.

Here is a summary by quotation:

“(Bruce Jenner) is a mentally disordered man who is being manipulated by disingenuous liberals and self-obsessed gay activists. Far from having the appearance of a genuine woman, he reminds me of someone who is being abandoned to his delusions by a culture of narcissistic imbeciles..

“A woman is a woman not merely because of whatever cosmetic feature a man might vaguely emulate. A woman is a woman because of her biology, which Bruce does not share and never will. A woman is a woman because of her capacity to create life and harbor it in her body until birth, which Bruce cannot do. A woman is a woman because of her soul, her mind, her perspective, her experiences, and her unique way of thinking, of loving, and of being — all things Bruce can only mimic….

“’Bruce Jenner Unveils New Female Self’. Um. What? You don’t get to have a “new” self or another self… Your self is your self. It’s your being. It’s your essential personhood; your particular and unrepeated character… A self can only be what it is…We’re talking about a sex change like it’s an Apple product. With this kind of language, we have not only made the self mutable, we’ve also commodified it and turned it into a spectacle that can be sold for profit. This is a bastardization of our humanity on a scale and to a degree that wouldn’t have even crossed the tortured minds of last century’s most prophetic social critics.”

Before adding my own viewpoint, I feel compelled to first make clear my attitude to homosexuality (something not exactly relevant here, but usually a revealing marker of general sexual-political worldview). In my view, people have the right to do whatever they wish to each other providing both parties are consenting adults. Persecution of minority communities by the state is an evil phenomenon and one with much innocent blood on its hands. And in any case, no government should ever be allowed to extend itself into the bedroom of ordinary citizens. With that said, religions must be free to remain true to their scriptures, and if a Holy Book describes homosexuality as wicked, its believers should be free to hold and express that view, so long as they do not incite violence or crimes against the person.

For me, the question raised by Mr Jenner is not whether he should be allowed to do what he has done, because that should only involve his own private court of judgement, but whether we teach our children that Bruce Jenner is now literally a woman, or whether he remains a man. It is, as Walsh argues, a question about the nature of reality.

Bruce Jenner is not a woman by any scientifically valid method of consideration. He is a man down to his bone marrow, and will always be. He is a father and a grandfather to his children and children’s children respectively, and will remain in that role until his demise. He cannot become pregnant. He is much less likely to develop breast cancer than an actual female. He will always be physically stronger than any natural member of the sex he aspires to join. He once was a masculine man and he is now just a deliberately androgynous man.

I’m aware that it is convention to use ‘she’ and ‘her’ when talking about men who have made the transition to female, but as conventions go, I find this one rather sinister. Should you use those words in front of a child, you risk interfering with his/her developing perception of reality. Naturally, children must one day learn about transgenderism and homosexuality (in fact, I am one of those dastardly liberals who believe it should be taught in school) but when they do learn about these things, they should be taught a neutral outsiders view, rather than an inside account with an insiders glossary.

I can’t agree with Walsh that calling Jenner ‘mentally disordered’ is in any way warranted. It’s bad to be cruel, especially when talking about someone who doesn’t wish us any harm. While the causes of gender dysphoria remain a mystery, it’s probably best to live and let live.

… And to leave sexual categories as they are.

D, LDN.

Who Knew?

Tags

Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, decadence, Defend the modern world, Detroit, Facebook, Imam, Iran, Islamisation, Islamism, masturbation, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, sex, sex and, sexuality, Turkey

According to a Turkish Imam, when men masturbate they risk impregnating their hands.

Once again… According to a Turkish Imam, when men masturbate they risk impregnating their hands.

Now, before you jump to any rash conclusions about the scientific basis on which this claim is made, I must inform you that the hands are only impregnated in the afterlife, and this explains the lack of earthly evidence with which the Imam might back up this theory in the present, terrestrial domain.

Though he has not been pressed much further on the matter, the idea he imparted has great implications for those who hope to survive death, and such people are understandably desperate for certain clarifications. For example, if the hands are pregnant, from what part of the body does the child emerge? Is morning sickness in the wrists?

It’s very easy to laugh at Islamic madness. Despite that, I thoroughly recommend it.

D, LDN.

Maajid Nawaz’s Striptease Should Surprise Nobody.

Tags

BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, ED, EDL, Facebook, Liberal, Maajid, Maajid Nawaz, Maajid Nawaz striptease, Multiculturalism, Nawaz, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

For many years now, the Pakistani Muslim commentator Maajid Nawaz has been advanced in the media as a model of Islamic reform. Once a crazed Islamist and member of the terroristic faction Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Nawaz suddenly lurched into ‘moderation’ in 2007, having become ‘disillusioned’ with both the means and ends of the Islamist project. His confessional ‘Radical: My Journey Out of Islamic Extremism’ was roundly commended by the Liberal media, and Nawaz is now a paid-up candidate for the Liberal Democrat Party.

Given this reputation, one can imagine the surprise in Liberal circles when yesterdays news broke and was promptly shared around the internet. In case you haven’t heard, a video has been released showing Nawaz – now a self-described ‘Feminist’- enjoying a striptease, during which he violates conventions by groping the woman performing the tease, eventually following her out of the booth to continue the harassment.

Getting a strip-tease is nothing illegal, but it’s fair to say that real ‘feminists’ are not altogether keen on the practice. We are thus prompted to wonder whether this was merely an aberration or in fact a revealing reversion to religious type. My guess is the latter.

Despite his warm words and political gestures in favour of civilisation, Nawaz remains a believing Sunni Muslim. Since his religion anti-sexual, he shuns access to the tact and subtlety that come as the reward of a modern imagination. He is sexually unpredictable for this reason. You cannot shake off the neurosis of faith by changing political direction.

Toxic beliefs, whether or not they are watered down, always find a way of exposing themselves. Moderate Muslims are useless to the counter-jihad cause, for latent within them are all the evils they claim to have overcome. 

To call yourself a Muslim, moderate, liberal or orthodox, you must believe certain things. Prime among them is faith in the divine authorship of the Qur’an and its infallibility. This means you stand by passages describing women as secondary to men. There is no way around that. The passages are very clear and cannot be explained away as poetry or metaphor. To be a Muslim, you also have to believe that the conduct of the Prophet is noble, moral and worth emulating. This includes numerous practices deemed to be immoral and unlawful in modern Western society.

The source of Muslim dysfunction is therefore innate in the system of belief itself, in its articles of faith and the conduct of its holy figures.

While Ex-Muslims have the potential to be our best friends,’moderate’ Muslims like Nawaz fail to recognise the source of the problem and must be rejected for that reason.

D, LDN.