3 Difficult Questions About the Refugee Crisis

Tags

Afghanistan, Africa, Assad, asylum, BBC, Boats, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, death, Defend the modern world, drama, eritrea, Facebook, flood, immigration crisis, immigration uk, Iraq, Islam, Italy, Kurds, migrants, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugee crisis, refugees, Spain, syrian war, syrians, Terrorism, Twitter, UKIP, ukip refugees

When a photograph depicting the corpse of young boy washed up on the shore of the Mediterranean emerged last week, the world was shocked and appalled. Unlike any image before it, the photo has galvanised a massive humanitarian response, some of it deeply moving and morally impressive, from Iceland to Poland, Britain to Greece. Money is being thrown aimlessly into the air. Shelter is being offered across the continent. EU governments, including formerly hard-line and conservative regimes, are now yielding to public pressure for greater quotas of asylum seekers for their respective nations.

When emotion shouts in this way, wisdom struggles to be heard. Questions of a more cynical, less humanitarian nature are in this environment extremely difficult to ask. One risks being accused of ‘heartlessness’, ‘meanness’ or ‘xenophobia’ for casting any doubt, however light, on the official humanitarian narrative. But cast it we must.

Here are 3 questions that must be answered, however difficult and cynical they may – in the shouting short term – be considered.

1. Are the majority of ‘refugees’ actually refugees?

This is obviously the most important question at this juncture. Do the ‘refugees’ pouring into Europe deserve the label, or are they simply opportunists seeking a better material outlook for their family? While it is impossible to give a definite answer (one applicable to every different individual case), the information already gathered allows us to at least make a general estimate. Most, if not all, the refugees attempting to reach Europe are actually migrants.

How do we know this? That’s the answer to question 2…

2. Why isn’t Turkey safe enough for them?

The Kurdish child Aylan Kurdi, whose grim fate now dominates every newspaper in the world, did not have to die. He and his family were already safely in Turkey when they chose to shoot for Europe, and since Turkey is perfectly safe and reasonably affluent, Europe has no moral case to answer for his demise. Indeed, while he was been roundly criticised for it, the UKIP member Peter Bucklitsch was brave and entirely correct to place the blame directly on the child’s parents, remarking that had they not been ‘greedy for the good life’, the tragedy could have/would have been averted.

This isn’t actually a complicated matter (or at least it needn’t be). Once a refugee reaches a country of safety, he or she ceases to be a refugee. If that person then chooses to move on in search of a more desirable haven, that person becomes a migrant. It really is that simple.

3. Who is to blame for the crisis?

The answer to this last question is crystal clear. ISIS/Islamic State are to blame. Their cynical and merciless campaign against the people of Syria has sent ripples of destructive chaos across the whole of Eurasia. The everyday suffering in Raqqah and Palmyra is almost too extreme to be imagined. As we luxuriate in our peaceful suburbs, Syrian men, women and children are being enslaved, beheaded, brainwashed, forcibly conscripted, raped and robbed by a psychopathic gang of desert primitives. I fully understand why ordinary people wish to leave the nightmare being constructed. We would all do – or at least, try to do – the same.

But Europe is a not a charity. It is a continent and a civilisation. We have our own problems, our own impoverished masses and our own economic and politic disorders to contend with. In this time of Muslim suffering, the Muslim world must come to its own aid. More than anywhere else, the money-drenched kingdoms of the Arabian Gulf must allow a massively increased quota of migrants into their own territories. If they truly believe in the concept of an Ummah, let them prove it. Let them impress and embarrass the whole world with their brotherly kindness.

And if they do not, the blame is theirs and theirs alone.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

Slovakia Says No

Tags

Africa, American Liberty, Asia, BBC, Britain First, calais, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, counter-jihad blogs, counter-Jihad websites, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, eritrea, Facebook, Islamophobia, Middle East, Multiculturalism, refugee crisis europe, refugees, slovakia, slovakia muslim, slovakia refugees, Syria, uk blogs

It was of course inevitable that the great nation of Slovakia would one day perform a feat of political daring bold enough to inspire Europe as a whole. The only wonder is how long we have had to wait for it. Now it is here, let us savour it and seek to deepen its impact.

As you’ll be aware, the Slovakian government announced last week that its country will only be accepting Christian refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war, and not Muslims. You’ll also be aware that this then led to kind of acrobatic stupidity only Western governments appear to be capable of.

“The attitude underlying this is to be condemned.” One EU drone remarked “It is unhelpful and does not display solidarity.”

In saying this, the drone was compacting the general response of the EU establishment. By staggering coincidence, it is also the view of the European business elites, globalist charities, humanitarian lobby groups, and (of course) the establishment media.

But outside this bubble of cheerful unaccountability, most reactions to the Slovakian stance have been extremely positive. Wherever the story has ben reported in the English press, the reader comments underneath each individual article salute and commend the Slovakian government for its bravery, timeliness and fidelity to the wishes of the Slovakian electorate. Often tacked on to the end of these commendations are hopes and wishes (against all odds) that other European states will follow suit, including – perchance –  the regimes of Western Europe. Needless to say, such fantasies are just that – fantasies.

In the face of EU criticism, Slovakia has justified its policy in the following way: Slovakia is a Christian country. There are no Mosques or Madrassas in Slovakia, nor are there Muslim schools or traditions compatible with the Muslim experience. Muslims therefore wouldn’t like it in Slovakia. They are being denied access to Slovakia as much for their own good as for the good of the native population.

I know what you’re thinking. If only our government had reasoned the same fifty years ago. How much trouble, bloodshed, innocence and economic disruption would have been spared?! As the Slovaks have shown, all it would have taken was a bit of (inoffensive) common sense.

It is of course far too late for our own countries to use this elementary good judgement, or at least to endorse it in the shrugging, devious and friendly manner in which the Slovaks have. We are five decades too late, and while other countries can get away with being sensible, it is no longer a luxury we can afford.

Given this reality, out of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Eritrean Muslims currently trekking across the green fields of Europe, I suspect a great proportion will eventually live in English neighbourhoods, their progeny eventually attending English schools, voting in English elections, and (some of them) going on to violently avenge English foreign policy.

All the while, Slovakia will carry on – grinning, living, persisting – as if nothing had ever happened. There has surely never been a greater, more saddening illustration of the failure of the European idea.

D, LDN.

In Praise of Black People

Tags

Africa, Africa America, Africa continent, Africanism, Africans, America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Black historical achievements, black history, black history month, black music, Black people, black science, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Immigration, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Sub-Saharan Africa, Twitter, twitter facebook, United States

I’ve just finished reading a lengthy article on the ethno-nationalist website American Renaissance (Jared Taylor’s organisation) entitled ‘What I don’t like about Blacks’. It was written by a Black intellectual named Zora Wheatley and is presented as a polite and self-deprecating rebuke to Jared Taylor’s (uncharacteristically diplomatic) essay the prior month – “What I like about Black People”.

Here are three defining paragraphs from Wheatley’s article:

“The discontent you feel with yourself and blackness as a whole can be crushing. You discover that aside from the tall African tales of Alex Haley, Underground Railroad figures, and peanut proprietors, there’s not much there (in terms of Black historical achievements). And on top of that, these historical footnotes arise from a new world that is leaps and bounds beyond the stone-age existence in which your ancestors were found. As (Black academic James) Baldwin put it, ‘It is quite possible to say that the price a Negro pays for becoming articulate is to find himself, at length, with nothing to be articulate about.’….

“Mr. Taylor finds the way blacks speak English entertaining, and I would agree in part, though most modern black English is so dumb and vulgar that I wouldn’t be surprised if clicks and grunts will be making a comeback….

“One of the things that I don’t like about blacks (is) their tendency to lay claim to the building and resulting greatness of the West. Picking cotton, tilling soil, and whipping up sweet potato pies were helpful and important in their own way, but were nothing like the establishment of private property rights or the implementation of Enlightenment-era ideals in the New World, which guided the nation for generations. It would be akin to a Native American claiming that, because his ancestors shared corn and turkey with early European settlers one fine November day, they are as important as the descendants of those white settlers who would fight the British and build the America in which we live today.”

Though I admire greatly the intellectual detachment and personal bravery it must have taken to say these things about her own ethnic group, I must disagree with Ms Wheatley’s argument entirely.

It is sadly accurate that most Black contributions to history were enabled by contact with Europeans (and their technology), and that before this, Black history was a long and largely blank expanse of time. But since that great encounter with Europe, and the subsequent incorporation of Black people into European culture, Black accomplishments have been multitudinous and often dazzling.

Perhaps the reason racists feel comfortable in denying these achievements is because they are not various and widespread but concentrated in a few particular areas, compact and neat enough to kick under the nearest cupboard and pretend not to have seen them. One can then focus on the map of absences – the absence of a Black Darwin, Brunel, Newton or Shakespeare etc…

But this is incredibly unfair and intellectually dishonest. Every racial group and culture has a speciality – something they do better than anything else. Austrians are better at composing music than they are at writing. English people are better at writing than they are at painting etc… A speciality should never be considered a limitation.

And what are the Black specialities? Well, the obvious starting point is music. Since the abolition of slavery, there has appeared no musical discipline that cannot be traced back to Black innovation. Rock n’ Roll, Jazz, Soul, Blues, Southern Folk, Disco, Hip-Hop, Swing – all of these are Black inventions, and very influential ones at that. They have changed our tastes, fashions and social norms, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. They have all been cheerily received by other races, understood and celebrated by all the varieties of mankind.

In the connected field of entertainment, Black people have also proven sublimely capable. Through their extroversion and wit, African-Americans have conquered the fields of comedy, film and presentation. Every facet of modern Western humour is informed by Black sensibilities. Their urban parlance has penetrated deeply into our vocabulary and can never be excised from it.

And in Sport, Black athleticism inspires the mind and spirit, dazzling, humiliating and surpassing our view of human capability. Through their determination, Blacks have even conquered sporting disciplines for which they have no natural advantage, like golf and tennis. And whatever sports the future may withhold, Black people will surely eventually dominate these too.

I write this in part to clarify my earlier posts about Black demography. We in Europe reserve the right to maintain a cultural balance favourable to our traditions, but this does not (or need not) imply a dislike of Africans themselves. Despite the contemporary plagues of violence and anti-aspirational politics afflicting the Black community, the fact remains that over the last two centuries, this great and gifted race has scaled the peaks of the Western world. Let that never be forgotten.

D, LDN.

Dyzgenicz: Wat Is Britain Loosing?

Tags

Africa, BBC, Boris Johnson, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Dysgenics, Eugenics, Flynn Effect, Gordon Gekko, Idiocracy, Intelligence quotient, Johnson, Margaret Thatcher, Mayor, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Wall Street

Have you ever seen the film ‘Idiocracy’? I haven’t, but I’m well-acquainted with its subject.

From what I’ve read about it, the plot of the film takes place in a (we hope) distant dystopian future, after the effects of the downward selection currently in progress has matured and taken over American society. To put the idea simply, because (in the film, as in reality) less intelligent people have reproduced more than the intelligent, society has become an ‘Idiocracy’, dominated by feral dullards, up to and including the President.

The scientific name for this process is ‘Dysgenics’, which (as any amateur etymologist will see) is the counterprocess to ‘Eugenics’. Dysgenics is the trend by which the intelligent fail to reproduce in sufficient numbers, or else are saturated by the greater fertility of the stupid.

But why am I mentioning this here?

Well, a few months ago, Boris Johnson, the mop-headed Mayor of my city, attracted a great deal of controversy by suggesting that some people are too stupid to get ahead in life.

In a speech to the Margaret Thatcher Centre, Johnson speculated that ‘natural differences’ in cognitive ability mean that economic equality is a dangerous pipe dream not to be pursued by politicians.

As you would expect, the Guardian and other liberal papers quickly poured aggressive scorn on this idea, with Johnson even being compared to Gordon Gekko, the ruthless elitist from the movie ‘Wall Street’.

Johnson is of course correct to say that differences in ability exist and that these differences will usually oppose any attempt to impose ‘equality’. Where he is wrong is to think that politicians can ever get away with pointing this out.

Dysgenics is an open secret among the educated. Prospect magazine ran a terrifying story last year which claimed that (in contravention of the Flynn Effect) the average British IQ was going down.

As strange as this would seem to science, it would surprise very few people who converse with contemporary youth. Public literacy (a good test of intelligence) has never been in more dire straits, and little is being done to address the problem. In the title of this post, I have used what has fast become the standard social-network spelling of ‘losing’. The word ‘lose’ is now ‘loose’, whereas ‘loose’ is now ‘lose’ (or sometimes even ‘looce’). A similar mutation has afflicted the word ‘ridiculous’, which is almost always now spelt ‘rediculous’.

This is isn’t a small concern. When language degrades, cultures usually aren’t far behind.

Boris Johnson deserves credit for his bravery in speaking up on this, but his candor will likely go wasted on a public too afraid of dangerous ideas, and ignorant of the costs of ignoring them.

D, LDN.

United in Hypocrisy: The Left-Right Reaction to Mandela’s Death.

Tags

Africa, Christianity and Islam, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Dutch, Dutch people, Multiculturalism, Nelson Mandela, Netherlands, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Rotterdam, South Africa, Zulu

In both the liberal and right-wing reaction to and subsequent commentary on the passing of Nelson Mandela, there has been (perhaps predictably) no shortage of hypocrisy.

Of these uncountable strands, there are two dominant fallacies which themselves give momentum to all the rest:

The first is found on the right-wing, and in particular amongst its White Nationalist faction. Members of this tendency seem to find no logical problem in defending the right of Dutch people to settle in the ancestral lands of the Zulu, while at the same time protesting the right of Zulu (and any other kind of Sub-Saharan African) to settle in Rotterdam. For such people it would seem, the mere fact of being European serves as a kind of universal passport; a transcendent liberty to settle, disperse, re-arrange, conquer and roam, without moral regard for any other tribe or hue.

On the Left meanwhile, a strange hypocrisy of the opposite kind can be felt, namely the idea that Dutch people have no business asserting themselves in Johannesburg, but that the Africanisation/Islamisation of the Netherlands is perfectly OK. Zulu and Nguni men and woman should not only be free to settle in Amsterdam, but should be allowed to feel as Dutch as the people who have always lived there, and furthermore, if their birth-rates condemn the Dutch to the dispossession of their ancestral land then well… if you snooze you lose…

Both of these points of view involve ridiculous errors of logic. Neither of them, hemmed in by self-contradiction, can move an inch either side. We shouldn’t argue with them therefore, but we can and should replace them with sound alternatives:

The only consistent and honest positions on South Africa are the following:

1. The White race is so crushingly superior that they can do whatever they damn well please. Therefore South Africa should be governed and organized by Afrikaners.

2. The White race is inherently demonic and therefore should not be allowed to settle in Africa, but (given the innate evil of the honky) all Africans have the right to settle in Europe just to make sure Whites behave themselves.

3. The Dutch people are not indigenous to South Africa and should return to the Netherlands. By the same principle, the Africans currently in the Netherlands should return to Africa.

4. The exchange of peoples from Europe to Africa and vice versa is a fact of history. Both Europeans and Africans have the right to settle in either continent insofar as their presence is consented to by the native population. People should be free to live in voluntary segregation, or to inter-mix. The issue should be left to human (not political) agency.

Personally, I would pick number 4. You might choose differently. But whatever your view, hypocrisy demeans us all. We’d do well to avoid it.

D, LDN.

The Enduring Horror of FGM.

Tags

Africa, American Liberty, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Clitoris, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Female Genital Mutilation, fgm, Islam and the West, Middle East, Multiculturalism, Muslim, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Sex organ, United States, Vagina

A most revolting crime, formerly confined to distant, barbarous lands, is now increasingly common in the civilised world, including Britain.

I’m talking about the practice you may have heard referred to as ‘FGM’ – ‘Female Genital Mutilation’; the deliberate torture and vandalism of an unwilling female (often by her parents) using a knife or razor blade.

The origins of this peculiar tradition are ancient and African, however the practice quickly spread to (and is now chiefly maintained by) the countries of the Muslim world. Estimates (for an example) propose that a ‘majority’ of Iraqi and Kurdish girls have been deformed in this way. A majority in this context would imply up to ten million people.

The actual process of FGM is relatively simple. The undesired parts of the female genitals – in this case the clitoris, labia and prepuce – are cut off. There are gradients to the amount of tissue removed. According to the website and activist site Forwarduk, the most extreme variants of the practice involves the “excision of part or all of the external genitalia and (the) stitching or narrowing of the vaginal opening, also known as infibulation. It involves the use of thorns, silk or catgut to stitch the two sides of the vulva. A bridge of scar tissue then forms over the vagina, which leaves only a small opening (from the size of a matchstick head) for the passage of urine and menstrual blood.”

According to the same account, another form of the practice “includes pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or the labia; stretching of the clitoris and or the labia; cauterisation or burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissues, scraping of the vaginal orifice or cutting (Gishiri cuts) of the vagina and introduction of corrosive substances or herbs.”

To gain a healthy understanding of FGM is the same thing as gaining a reflexive disgust for it. To this end, scroll down to the diagram of the variations of FGM below (you can maximize it by clicking on it). Particular attention is advised towards the sub-section depicting ‘Type III.’, the most gruesome technique, and one which leaves intercourse and childbirth unimaginably painful as well as life-threatening.

There are (I’m afraid to say) Leftists and liberals, who would look at diagrams such as that above and continue to invest their energy defending notions of ‘cultural equality’. Whatever else may be said about such people, they have an icy void where the moral sense should stand.

For the rest of us, FGM and its importation into Europe on the back of mass-immigration from Muslim parts of Africa and the Middle East, must count as a human rights emergency. Only today the Evening Standard reported that “the (estimated) number of FGM victims in Britain at around 65,000, with a further 30,000 individuals believed to be at risk.” This is unacceptable in the extreme. No woman – not one – should have to endure this depravity in a Western state. The penalty for the parents, as well as for any other accomplices involved should be of the same order that follow charges of rape and murder.

Just in case somebody thinks they’ve found an ‘aha..” in all this, I’m quite aware that FGM is not an exclusively Muslim practice. Nevertheless, given that most reported cases in Europe involve Muslim communities, social services have every right to monitor the welfare of Muslim women with a special intensity. Political correctness has no business obstructing the prevention of cruelty.

Finally, we should feel no shame in making use of FGM to dismantle the mistaken dogma of cultural relativism. The West does have a moral high-ground here, and frankly if we can’t muster the confidence to stand against this, our pillars have already crumbled.

D, LDN.

Political Correctness, Godfrey Bloom and the African Tragedy.

Tags

Africa, African people, China, Christianity and Islam, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Godfrey Bloom, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Africa, Member of the European Parliament, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Race and Genetics, Race and intelligence, Romania, Saharan Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa

I was motivated to write this post after reading about the treatment of Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP who has been severely reprimanded for protesting the transfer of British aid to a catch-all territory he called ‘Bongo-Bongo land’.

While the term Bloom used is obviously retrograde, silly and a throwback to the worst days of colonial racism, he was entirely correct to criticize the foreign aid budget which (alongside MP salaries) surely ranks among the great scandals of our day.

How can we justify, Bloom asked, giving any money to the foreign poor, when the poor here are becoming reliant on food-banks?

He could have gone much further, I’m sure, if political correctness hadn’t forbade it. Perhaps I can go further for him. Aid to Africa – though it has been a noble pursuit in the past – is today largely a swindle.

While the problems of Africa are real and tragic, they are usually self-created and self-maintained. Malnutrition for example, is the fruit of overpopulation. Aids is the fruit of irresponsibility. Tribal conflict is the fruit of culturelessness. 

To be absolutely frank, if we really cared about the welfare of Africans, we could solve their problems in a single decade by enforcing two commonsensical policies.

1. A child limit per woman.

Even though the same policy in China has led to horrid individual tragedies, Africa sees many, many more as a result of overbreeding. We must be clear that African parents who bring six or seven children into starving countries are not just uneducated, but frankly evil. They are behaving in a disgusting and reprehensible way and should be made an example of.

2. Economic policy, agriculture and city planning must be delegated to non-Africans.

Africans are not as bright as Europeans (the average IQ of a Sub-Saharan African is 70; the average for a European is 100), but they are still very much human-beings and deserve their share of human dignity. That dignity depends on their liberation from a state of darkness they evidently cannot escape.

African countries, even those considered to be merely ‘desert plains’, can be made into semi-modern countries with the right leadership. The Arabs and Berbers of North Africa manage to guarantee themselves a bassline standard of living (often in countries with little fertile land), but Sub-Saharan Africans clearly aren’t able to achieve the same. 

The only alternative to the status quo therefore is for Non-Africans to administer the economic and agricultural policies of Black-majority countries.

There you go.

Job done.

None of this will ever be undertaken of course, because to do so would wreck the Egalitarian order of the West. I just thought it might be nice to imagine a world in which we put peoples lives above theories.

Perhaps angry liberals could start thinking a little less about Mr Bloom, and a little more about that.

D, LDN.