Thinking Seriously About Fascism

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anders Behring Breivik

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

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

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

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

Saab Aero X – A Swedish-manufactured car

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

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

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

Benito Mussolini

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

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

I’m really not sure.

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

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

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

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

An ethnic Scandinavian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN

Advertisement

Hooray for Sweden and Denmark!

Tags

asylum seekers, asylum sweden, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, denmark eu, EU, european union vote, migrant crisis, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugees or migrants, Sweden, sweden denmark, sweden deportations, sweden eu, sweden yes

A peculiar modern stereotype insists that the nation of Sweden is more deeply infected with masochism and political correctness than all the other nations of Europe. According to this caricature, Swedes are absurdly tolerant, pathetically naïve and feminised beyond repair, a fact that can explain the mass immigration of Muslims into the Kingdom in recent years.

Is it accurate? I don’t think so. While Sweden certainly has a more extreme feminist base than, say, Great Britain, there is no clear evidence that the country is populated by suicidal masochists. That portrait is an internet myth, more rooted in the age-old misperception of Sweden as a magical land of naked, blonde rationalists. Sweden is actually a very normal European country, with the same imbalance of naivety over realism as afflicts every major Western state.

And just in case that isn’t convincing, my contention has been supplied with fresh vigour this past week by the announcement that the Swedish government plans to deport 60,000 (sixty thousand) Muslim ‘asylum seekers’ – without compensation or right of appeal – in the coming months.

Needless to say, when I first heard of this, I was enraptured. It is perhaps the first piece of good news since the migrant crisis began. After this, my already elevated mood was further raised by the news that Denmark is also to carry out its own mass-deportations in the near future, albeit on a lesser numerical scale than its northern sibling. Hurrah and Huzzah! It might not be the whole job, but it’s a bloody good start.

The coming deportations are good news for many reasons besides the obvious pleasure of seeing invaders packed onto plane. One, not mentioned yet by the media, is that it will set a precedent of mass-deportation for the whole of Europe to take advantage of at a later point. Given that physical removal of problematic Muslim citizens is surely the only failsafe way of securing our societies against Islamist terrorism, this precedent could hardly be more timely.

Of course, removing 60,000 people from a Western nation (presumably to relocate them back in the third world) will be a long, occasionally chaotic process. There will be opposition, indignation, locking of arms, and waving of placards. Facebook campaigns will surely be launched to keep certain individuals within ‘their’ adopted communities. And so on. It is nevertheless imperative that the project is a success. If it fails, the whole idea of restoring Europe’s balance of cultural power will be lost, and the suggestion of it forever demonised.

That the countries embarking on this action are Scandinavian, and thus respected by liberals across the globe, makes the prospect of success greater than it otherwise would be. This is for the simple reason that international socialists have no better examples of its workability than the regimes of the Nordic peninsula. Will the likes of Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders really want to bad-mouth the left-wing success stories of Sweden and Denmark? If they did so, surely that would cast doubt on the viability of mass-immigration and political-social liberalism in general…?

Away from the liberal clique, I would guess that most Western observers wish this project the fairest of winds.

D, LDN

Slow Train Coming

Tags

BBC, beatles, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Facebook, facebook twitter, google plus, hard rain, islam in sweden, Multiculturalism, Muslims, politics, Pop, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, social media, Sweden, sweden islam, sweden muslims, tiwitter, tiwter, tokyo ghoul, Twitter

Two deeply worrying stories have been reported in the past week, both relating to the EU policy on resettling Muslim migrants (or ‘refugees’ as we are told to call them).

First, in calm, famously genteel Sweden, a young man armed with a sword, entered a multicultural school and there proceeded to attack students and teachers alike, leaving two dead before being shot himself. Cyber-forensic operations afterward found the man to have a fetish for Nazi Germany and warm opinions of the Sweden Democrats, a political party rising rapidly on the back of Sweden’s crazed policy on asylum.

Secondly, in Germany, security services are reported to have prevented a massive terrorist attack on an asylum processing centre, bringing nine people, including several women, into police custody. The weapons cache of the group included handguns, assault rifles, illegal firecrackers and various materials emblazoned with Nazi iconography.

While I do not (and will never) excuse such vigilantism, it must be stated that our leaders were warned about this kind of thing when they made their toxic decisions. They consequently have no right to be surprised by the fallout. The people of Europe, or a majority of them at least, have consistently demanded an end to the mass-importation of Islam into their respective countries and warned of grave consequences if their concerns were ignored. This warning was a speculation, never a threat. It was an estimate based on a sound knowledge of the human condition.

No country in the world, rich or poor, civilised or barbarian, would tolerate what Europe is being asked to embrace; that is, the infusion of foreign and inferior manners, with no recompense or advantage to sweeten the trade. Turkey would not have it. India would not have it. Saudi Arabia would not have it. Nor would Japan, China, Korea (North and South) or the State of Israel. Europe is being asked to cut off one of its legs and inject the stump with typhus. A quick misery pregnant with other miseries. A total insult. A punch in the face.

When a nation is threatened in this way, the common man typically answers first to the call of duty. Unenriched by education or tact, he strikes crudely with primitive means. He has little or nothing to lose; a meagre life to trade for a bargain heroism. I feel compelled to repeat that I do not excuse such behaviour for a second. But some things have a nature sufficiently structured as to allow for predictions.

There is a slow train coming, and when it arrives we will all be the worse-off for it. I don’t like fascism. I don’t like hooliganism or random violence. I’m pretty sure you don’t either. And yet this all seems nearly inevitable now, with millions of Muslims streaming through the Balkans and Eastern Europe, unidentified, unfiltered and unpoliced.

This is the biggest crisis in post-war European history.

D, LDN

Eurovision: What the EU Was Supposed to Be Like.

Tags

Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, EU, Europe, European Union, eurovision, Eurovision 2015, Eurovision song contest, Eurovision Sweden, Great Britain, Italy, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Swedish entry

Yesterday in Vienna the Eurovision song contest was held for the 60th time. Sweden won this year, with Russia second and Italy third. The UK came a pathetic 22nd.

Most educated people view Eurovision with a ticklish sense of irony. The contest is camp, loud, colourful and – in its founding vision – hopelessly idealistic. The stated goal of ‘uniting Europe through the power of music’ is dreamy. The songs are often ludicrous ballads with ludicrous dancers and ludicrous lyrics. In Britain, there is a well-established tradition of having a comedian drily commentate over the proceedings in order to make the event tolerable for a snobby, postmodern British audience.

I actually enjoy Eurovision. I rather like the idea of a united Europe, of a European ‘community’ or extended family. Nobody is forced to enter Eurovision or to take it seriously. We all laugh politely at each others eccentricities. We work together for the sake of friendship and to celebrate our differences and similarities.

Perhaps this was what the EU was supposed to be like in everyday practice. Though it hasn’t worked out that way, Eurovision reminds us that the idea of a united Europe isn’t as unpleasant or infeasible as its current implementation would suggest.

D, LDN.

Varieties of Colonisation.

Tags

BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Demographics of Europe, Facebook, instagram, Islam in America, Islam in Europe and America, Islamisation of Europe, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Muslims demography, Muslims in Europe, No to Turkey in the EU, pinterest, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Twitter

While all Western European nations are currently enduring a process of Islamisation, not all face the same kind of process. By this I mean that Europe is not facing conquest by a single race, nation or even Islamic school. There are varieties of colonisation, and it is important and worthwhile to look at each one in isolation.

Despite the end-point being the same in all cases, some of these processes are worse than others in the short term. Each Muslim sub-culture goes about Islamisation in a different way, with a different level of enthusiasm, with differing levels of unnecessary cruelty, and with a different potential for success.

Here then is an analysis of four cases, noting the character of each individual process and how they differ from each other.

Germany – Turkish Muslims.

Only 75 years ago, the city of Nuremburg was the setting for the National Socialist Party’s most glittering rallies. Red, white and black Swastika flags billowed sideways down the walls of banks, libraries and municipal offices. In public squares, speeches extolling notions of ethnic supremacy – or more specifically, of German supremacy – brought gathered crowds to a state of thoughtless euphoria. German-ness, Aryan-ness, and Nordic-ness ruled as unquestionable virtues, exalted above all other considerations.

Today, the city is ostensibly democratic, free and modern. There are no mad theories to intoxicate the public blasted from tannoy speakers; no banners with flashy symbols designed to replace the task of thinking. But there are also fewer and fewer Germans to be found.

Nuremberg is increasingly a Turkish city, with Turkish shops, Turkish eateries and a Turkish character. In a 2011 study, more than 37% of the urban population have an immigrant background, with Muslim Turks accounting for the vast majority.

A similar process has occurred in various other cities across the nation. There are now over 1,500,000 Turks resident in Germany and this population has a birth rate way in excess of the slovenly rates of the Germans themselves. In fact, this is worth recounting in detail. The birth rate for German natives is 1.4 children per woman. For Muslim Turks on the other hand, it is above replacement level (2.4). If that weren’t frightening enough, due to national infertility, the native German population is slated to decline every new decade, requiring – if the worker-retiree ration is to be maintained – yet more immigration. And where is the main source of that immigration predicted to be? (You guessed it) Turkey.

Now, while the Turks are not always as criminal and aggressive as other European Muslim populations, they do account for more crime than other citizens, and the meteoric rise in groups like Pegida testifies to the sheer panic running through the minds of native communities.

Unless Germany finds a way to reverse its demographic collapse, or (just as well) decides to turn to another source of human replenishment, the prospects of an enlightened, Judeo-Christian future there seem really rather dim.

The United Kingdom – Pakistani Muslims.

In case you are unaware, the British ‘commonwealth’ is a compensatory ’empire of consent’, chiefly maintained in order to keep alive the idea of British global influence. Of the many countries included in this club, most are pleasant enough (Canada, Australia, India etc..), but one or two have fared very badly under the conditions of self-rule. Unstable, barely democratic and economically barren, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has undoubtedly fared the worst. For this reason, over time a very large (and fertile) contingent of Muslim Pakistanis have flocked to the shores of England (note: not Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales). As recorded in 2011, there are 1,500,000 Pakistanis living in England and most are clustered in urban areas like Leicester, Bradford, Birmingham, Luton and metropolitan parts of Yorkshire.

I’ll pull no punches here. The Muslim Pakistani population of this country are its most disliked, in some cases detested, constituent. Mass rape, paedophilia, corruption, low-level crime, bullying, harassment, stalking, sexual intimidation, terrorism and racist anti-Kafir violence have collectively served to bar the integration of Muslim Pakistanis into English (or British) life.

Muslim Pakistanis in the UK are often radical, prone to extremist views and actions, and intent on cultural conquest. I would venture that they are far more disruptive to English life that the Turks in Germany are to German life. While German Turks are rarely found to be members of violent Jihadi groups, British Pakistanis are arrested every day for such membership. Reflecting this, the largest ‘European’ contingent in the Islamic State’s ranks are British and Pakistani.

France – Maghrebi Muslims.

When the French colonial grip on the nation of Algeria began to loosen, some Algerians (in the hope of a better life) began to migrate to the land of their colonial masters. Since then, they have been joined by millions of other Maghrebis (including Muslims from Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania).

Today, the full figure of North African Muslims in France is unknowable, owing to a French ban on collecting ethnic data. Some estimates put the figure at 4 million, some at 5, others (on the political right) claim it could be as high as 8 million. Whatever the exact number, the transformation of many French cities is obvious and extreme. Marseille and Paris are dominated by immigrants. The number of Mosques in France is rapidly catching up with the number of churches. Despite a very brave and sensible ban, the veil is still a common sight in poorer suburbs.

Like British Pakistanis, the French North Africans have earned a solid reputation for aggressiveness and obedience to the criminal impulse. In 2005, much of urban France was set on fire, as Muslim youths rampaged through the streets of cities smashing buildings, vehicles and police officers (some – notably – shouting ‘Jihad!’ when doing so).

Despite this, and unlike UK Pakistanis, some North Africans in France have begun to integrate in recent years, much in the same way as African-Americans eventually integrated into America – that is, via sport, television and rap music.

Unlike the Arabs and Berbers, the French natives are increasingly atheistic and whether this makes Islamisation easier or more difficult remains to be seen. In my personal opinion, having a religious identity to defend is crucial if one is to resist conquest by another.

Sweden – Pick n’ Mix

By 2050, over one in ten Swedes will pray facing Makkah. This is an astonishing fact, and one that, only forty years ago, would have seemed absurdly dystopian. Unlike France, Germany and the UK, there is no single source of Muslim migration to Sweden. In the capital and in all major cities, one will find communities of Kurds, Iranians, Turks, Syrians, Pakistanis, Iraqis and North Africans.

This variety, though it may not seem as much now, is potentially good news for Sweden. As any worldly observer will realise, for Islamists to forge an Islamic coalition of Iranians and Arabs, Turks and Kurds, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, Sunni with Shia, is a very tall order indeed. For that reason, I think Islamisation will be a fragmentary and slow process in Scandinavia, albeit one that must nevertheless be actively and energetically opposed.

Conclusion.

Based on a continent-wide analysis, the more homogenous the Islamising force a country faces, the greater the violence and cruelty will be along the process. In Britain, the Pakistani community are emboldened by their local homogeneity – something that allows for confidence and common aspiration against the interests of outer-communal rivals. The same is true in Germany with the Turkish community. If tensions between the Turks and the German police (which are already strained) inflame further, the Turks will be able to retaliate with a common front, potentially leading to ‘Bradford riots’ kind of scenario.

In France, the North Africans are socially merging with the Black Africans – with whom they already share many cultural traits. If this continues, Black Hip-Hop culture may in time dilute the commitment to Islamic virtues that are incompatible with it. If not, then the North Africans may find enough in common with each other to pursue a united Islamising effort.

Finally, Sweden, despite playing host to a massive and growing Islamic community, has not been transformed to the extent of Britain and France. This must be for a reason. The explanation I would advance is that inter-Islamic divisions (racial and theological) inflame just as much passion in Muslim migrants as does the division of Muslim and non-Muslim. While this is advantageous in the short term, the likely end result – namely, the formation of what Christopher Caldwell called a multi-ethnic ‘Team Islam’ – promises to be every bit as destructive as the homogenous conquests ongoing in other European societies.

D, LDN.

Climatic Agnosticism.

Tags

American Liberty, BBC, Britain, Britain First, Civilisation, Climate change denial, Climate change hoax, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Full movie, Global Warming, Great Global Warming Swindle, is global warming real?, Lindzen, United States

Since I’ve never touched upon before, I’d like to briefly share my views on what many consider to be the greatest issue of our era: ‘global warming’- interchangeably known as ‘climate change’.

Despite being interested in the subject (as we all should be), I’ve been deterred from getting into this debate for several reasons, but first among them is the irrational fury, cult-like dedication and inflexibility of the warring parties.

In a sense, Global Warming is for the Political Left what demography and Islamisation is for the Right – a potential so dire and of such far-reaching disruption that it relegates all other issues to irrelevance.

After all, what are human trifles compared against the end of the world? What is there to gain by politics if our children cannot live to enjoy the results? And so on…

The position I would (perhaps wrongly) imagine most of my audience to occupy would be that of climate scepticism. This is a blog that offers opinions on other matters in tune with the conservative worldview, and conservatives have a very emphatic line on global warming – it isn’t happening; the only reason the climate movement exists is to resurrect in green clothes policies that failed wearing red.

The Left-Liberal position meanwhile is a mirroring confidence to outright denial. To them, the climate argument is not only persuasive, it is conclusive and should be taken as fact.

Neither view is consistent enough, friendly enough, softly-spoken enough to escape the suspicion of ulterior motives. And true to this, a substantial majority of activists (for and against) have political or economic interests to advance.

Anti-global warming theorists are usually sponsored by the oil industry. Pro-Global warming activists are usually employed by pressures groups, money-hungry ‘charities’ or in receipt of lucrative government research grants.

The closer you get to the climate change debate, the more the stench of money overwhelms you.

My own view? I don’t think political movements as big as this can be based purely on fabricated evidence. There must be something going on, and it mustn’t be to our common advantage.

That said, those who maintain we are on the brink of apocalyptic climate change, a change in the weather system so drastic that we will no longer be able to go about our lives, is not backed up with any substantial evidence at all.

It is important to remember that climatology, for all its certainty, is a science in its tender infancy. It should not be considered to possess the same predictive power as physics or biology. It is still developing and this means that it may be wholly wrong in its current outlook.

We must continue to test the predictions of the global warming theorists. If their predictions come about, action must follow. If not, then difficult questions must be answered by those profiting by making them.

D, LDN.

Copenhagen.

Tags

Blasphemy meeting, Charlie Hebdo, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Copenhagen attack, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Denmark, Denmark cartoons, Islam in Denmark, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Shootings, Stand up for

There has been another Muslim attack in Europe today (predictable as rain, isn’t it?). This time the venue was Copenhagen, the very innocent, slightly boring capital of the very innocent, slightly boring nation of Denmark.

The ‘provocation’ of this aggression was a meeting on the subject of blasphemy; a gathering that attracted numerous figures connected with the original Mohammad cartoon controversy from 2006.

As it turns out, the attack was a bungled affair. Only two casualties have been reported so far (one at the event and a Jewish security guard from a nearby Synagogue). Knowing the death-hungry psychosis of Islamism, this will be counted as a failure.

Nevertheless, the increasing frequency of these attacks will just serve to feed the cycle and maintain the momentum of total Jihad in Europe. That only leaves us to wonder which city is next…
D, LDN.

Icelandic Dreams.

Tags

Bjork, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Iceland, Iceland Islam, Iceland visa, Icelandic, Multiculturalism, Northern Europe, Scandinavia Blonde

Not all of Europe is being destroyed. There are still some pockets of continuity, survival and success. One of these fortunate exceptions is the state of Iceland.

Situated 470 miles north of the United Kingdom, this volcanic island is naturally suited to isolation and uniqueness. Its population of 325,000 all descend from the same root, speak the same language, share the same religion (or lack of religion) and are never separated by more than three degrees of relation from one another. A happy consequence of this is that the government and the people are on intimate terms. Democratic accountability is instantaneous and efficient. Economic differences are smooth and flat. Violent crime is an eccentric aberration, along with insanity, extremism and summertime.

Ostensibly a Nordic country, Iceland is far too remote to have avoided a character of cultural independence. That disconnect is mutual. Icelandic affairs are rarely the meat of a European conversation. Few people can name a son or daughter of the island once Bjork has been disqualified.

While in the short term, a slight embarrassment, the prize of this isolation is potentially dazzling. One can easily imagine a dystopian future in which continental Europe (despite its frescos, sonnets and symphonies) has been reduced to a tent-landscape of warring urban tribes, some indigenous and old, some foreign and charged with youth. Where Sweden, that ancient byword for cleanliness and order, is choked in filth, and Norway, divided into ghettos, each one hostile to the other.

In that world, Iceland will be a shining city on a hill, its situation the subject of much envy. As France, crippled by a terminal revolution of the worst kind, dives from its high tradition of wine and philosophy into the lower domain of Hanafis and Hanbalis, no Parisian will be so blindly proud as to refuse Reykjavik its due.

Starting from an artificial point, the glories of Europe may be regrown in smaller form on the only land hospitable to them. Little Londons, Bristols and Berlins will emerge from expat enclaves in Hafnarfjörður, Mosfellsbær and Arborg. The full expanse of our misbegotten politics will stand revealed in the contrast between New London’s peace, and old London’s squalor; New Bristol’s potential, and old Bristol’s doom. Between what we had, and what we have become.

Iceland is a potent and hurtful reminder of what is being compromised and degraded by our misdirection. It is the last holdout of an old Europe; one that had no need to fear Jihad, mass-paedophilia or beheadings, frozen in gilded eternity.

D, LDN.

Why America Thrives and Europe Dies.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, David P Goldman, Demographics of Europe, Eurabia, Europe, Islam and the West, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

In Britain and Europe, it is customary for Liberals (and anyone under 40) to laugh at and belittle the religious*.

(*When I say the ‘religious’, I’m of course excluding Islam, which remains insulated behind a wall of ‘political correctness’.)

In the UK especially, the devout are routinely depicted as soft in the head, gullible, blindly conservative and generally stupid.

There are many reasons for this attitude. Chief among them is anti-Americanism (Americans being associated with organized religion) and particularly the age-old canard that Americans are somehow less intelligent than their European cousins. This bigotry is common enough in London and almost uniform in Paris, where the French intellectual elite can trace a lineage of imagined superiority back – through Sartre and Camus – to Voltaire.

For a while, I held fast to it myself. Prior to University, the nature of American religiosity was defined for me not by my observing the culture itself, but through a borrowed lens of self-important satire.

After a year at University however, and having moved to a city in a rapid process of Islamisation, I began to appreciate the logic of cultural protectionism – that old system of emotion traditionally badmouthed as ‘Xenophobia’.

Those religious ‘rednecks’ I had been encouraged to laugh at had a point all along. If Islamisation was the alternative to a confident Judeo-Christian identity, can we really afford to reject it?

The classical European view – that there is a comfortable ‘third choice’ available between Islamisation and Judeo-Christianity – called variously “Secularism”, “Post-Modernism”, “Multiculturalism” etc… is (to put it impolitely) bunk.

Whatever your views on the origin of life and the universe, the abandoning of cultural identity has real-world consequences.

European commentators often wonder aloud why the Muslims of the US are better integrated than the Muslims of Europe. Though the question suggests profundity, the answer is actually pitifully obvious. The Muslims arriving in the EU are walking into a cultural void. They see nothing before them but a blank sheet of paper, and, given their innate certainty and proselytizing urge, behave quite naturally by attempting to fill it in.

When a European secularist complains therefore, about the Islamisation of his native continent, a Muslim would be fully justified to reply (as they often do reply) – “What have you got instead?”.

Indeed, what has Europe got?

What tangible attribute separates the olive-skinned masses of Tunisia from the olive-skinned masses of Spain and Greece? Terms like ‘West’ and ‘East’ avail us nothing here. Geographically they are useless in explaining the divide between Tunis and Turin. ‘North’ and ‘South’ don’t work as cultural terms either. ‘Europe’ meanwhile is merely a restating of the question.

“What has ‘Europe’ got?”

I can tell you clearly what America has. American culture is solidly built on a base of confident religious identity. This element of its character has played no small part in its success relative to Europe’s decline.

Indeed, take the word of the brilliant Jewish commentator David P. Goldman (who writes under the name ‘Spengler’):

“The United States is the last remaining Christian nation in the industrial world” he writes “…To speak of an “exceptional culture” would be a pleonasm; national cultures are unique by construction. Nonetheless some cultures may be radically exceptional. Unlike all the other nations of the world, America’s Exceptionalism rests on a political culture informed by the biblical idea of covenant – not on common language, race, borders, or history. That is why the US emerged as the survivor out of the 20th century while the ethnocentric cultures of Europe plunged into mutual destruction.”

Goldman prefixes the above observation by pointing out that “What has made the United States radically different from all other big industrial nations during the past generation is a fertility rate above replacement.” As he suggests, this is something directly attributable to American fidelity to the Judeo-Christian notion of family. I would also point to the taming effect religion has on the toxin of feminism.

Goldman elsewhere points out that, contrary to defeatist narratives arguing otherwise, the demographic prospects of the Jewish state are also bright,  a direct result of population growth among the religious population.

The only real alternative to Cultural Nationalism is Ethno-Nationalism, the transformation of a country of individuals into an ethnic farmyard.

Unfortunately – if predictably – the ghost of ethno-nationalism is rising once again in the economic ruins of Europe. The Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is gaining influence in Greece, while Hungary is increasingly falling under the spell of the rabidly anti-Jewish ‘Jobbik’ organisation.

In the near future, Europe may become racially awake, but fall into an even deeper cultural sleep. Fascist parties may organize to expel the Islamising forces from their lands, but then recover only to find older hatreds burning across their own borders.

Indeed, the trouble with ethno-nationalism, as opposed to the cultural nationalism of the US, is that it supplies new threats even as it gets rid of old ones. This is especially true on a crowded, multinational continent like Europe.

French nationalists, for example, still have a lingering hostility to Germans. Macedonians despise the Greeks, and vice versa. Belgium is divided into two simmering ethnic enclaves that could easily ignite into war. Italian nationalists often speak of creating a new nation (Padania) in Northern Italy based upon imagined descent from primeval Celtic tribes. Finland lies in an uneasy peace with Russia. Spanish nationalists routinely taunt Britain with threats against UK sovereignty in Gibraltar.

I won’t depress you by listing any further examples.

All that remains to say is that only a return to Judeo-Christian self-awareness can save Europe from the twin menaces of Islamisation and/or a fragmentory civil war from which it could never recover.

In the meantime, the prognosis of Europe gets grimmer by the day.

D, LDN.

Dubai: Money Can’t Buy Civilisation.

Tags

Abudhabi, American Liberty, Canada, Christianity and Islam, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Civilization, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Dubai, KFC, Middle East, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Qatar, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, United Arab Emirates

What is ‘Civilisation’?

Some people, typically on the Political Left, claim (and presumably believe) that ‘Civilisation’ is fundamentally indistinct from ‘affluence’.

By implication then, ‘Civilisation’ is at base just a commodity, available for purchase to every culture and people the world over. The essence of a ‘Civilised country’ meanwhile isn’t Literature, Human Rights, Liberty, or Justice, but simply skyscrapers, fast cars, cable TV, and KFC Restaurants.

These people are wrong of course, and no better pursuasion of this can be found than the modern City-State of Dubai.

This blog is called ‘Defend the Modern World’. I should probably clarify then, exactly what I classify as ‘Modern’.

Imagine if you met an apolitical simpleton and showed him two photographs, the first of the small town of Fleming, Saskatchewan in Canada, and the second of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

If you then asked him which city of the two is more ‘ modern’, the simpleton would almost certainly pick the latter.

He’d be wrong.

Modernity for me, has little to do with technology or convenience. While I would gladly live in a Scandinavian village without electricity, I could never live happily in Abu Dhabi or Qatar. This is because the first would doubtlessly be more ‘modern’ and Civilised than the latter (with the first term here qualified by the criteria above).

Every year, Great hordes of Westerners (permanent settlers among them) travel to Dubai or Abu Dhabi. Their reasons for doing so (and this needs clarifying) have only a little to do with tax, and a lot to do with immorality.

In Dubai, after-all, you can not only exercise the mod-cons of a millionaire, but the cruelty of a medieval King.

Dubai has an entire class (by some estimates making up a majority of those resident in the country at any given time) of East and South Asian slaves. Yes, that’s right, slaves…

But maybe that’s unexeptional. Many African countries – after-all – still operate systems of slavery and then there’s the ‘caste system’ of India etc….

Where Dubai is different is in the way the slaves are treated by their masters, and by the laxity of the law in protecting them.

Regard the words of the Guardian’s Tanya Gold:

“There are 250,000 foreign workers in Dubai, drawn mostly from India and Bangladesh. They are indentured servants, in other words, slaves. The usual way to recruit them is to draw them a picture of joy — great wages, fabulous working conditions — and charge them an enormous recruitment fee. Then, when they arrive, the construction companies often steal their passports, deny them their wages and say they must work endlessly to pay for their return home, while living 10 to a room and working in the terrible heat. In Dubai, they cannot change jobs, and they cannot strike; those who do face violence or deportation. Last year, 113 Indians committed suicide in Dubai, or one every three days.”

To return to the photo comparison thought-experiment, when was the last time a migrant worker jumped off an unfinished building in Canada?

Alongside slavery, Dubai also offers lengthy prison sentences for adultery, kissing on the beach, homosexuality, transvestism, and possession of such horrific drugs of abuse as Benadryl. These prohibitions too, demonstrate a great lag in cultural time, perhaps (relative to the West) of more than a century.

Civilization, to conclude, is not a commodity. It cannot be bought. It develops inside the psyche of a population over many centuries. The desert Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf then, skyscrapers and underwater hotels aside, have a long distance to travel.

D, LDN.