The Assassination of Jo Cox, MP

Tags

American Liberty, BBC, brexit, brexit poll, brexit vote, Britain First, Civilisation, computer, Defend the modern world, EU, eu poll, eu vote, Europe, Facebook, facebook facebook, far right, fascism, fascist, immigration migrant, Jo Cox, Jo Cox murder, Jo Cox shooting, media, media media, Multiculturalism, neo-nazi, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, shooting, Terrorism, turner diaries, Twitter, Violence, william pierce

The murder of Jo Cox MP, 41, has prompted a seething fury across Britain that will take a long time, perhaps many years, to fully dissipate. The mother of two young children, Ms Cox was carrying out her democratic business at a local surgery in her constituency of Birstall, Yorkshire, when a man by the name of Thomas ‘Tommy’ Mair shot her twice with a home-made gun, later kicking her as she lay dying and remarking (according to eyewitnesses) either ‘Britain First’ or ‘Put Britain first’.

In the Guardian newspaper today there are reports that Mr Mair maintained links with the Neo-Nazi National Alliance party in the United States, an organisation from which he purchased a substantial amount of material online. This material, according to the SPLC, included the squalid and nasty volume ‘The Turner Diaries’ by Dr William Pierce, a Jurassic anti-Semite and favoured author of the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. And when he appeared in court for a preliminary hearing on Saturday, Mr Mair seemed to confirm his radicalism by stating his name as ‘Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”. All things considered, it appears clear enough what motivated the killer to carry out his deed; fascism, unpolished and uncomplicated; a grudge against democracy.

Thomas ‘Tommy’ Mair

Since the murder was confirmed by local police, media outlets across Europe have been quick to seize upon the murder for explicitly political gain. It would be easy and conventional to beat them up for this, but it would also be dishonest. I made political capital out of Orlando on the day that it happened, as did many of the people currently complaining. We can at least be consistent. Like Orlando, this is an act of political violence with direct political implications. It must therefore be discussed in a political context.

What are those implications? Who deserves blame? Well, according to the continental media, the murder may have been connected to Ms Cox’s outspoken support for the ‘remain’ side of the upcoming EU referendum. This is based on the – not unreasonable – assumption that Mr Mair, given his rumoured nationalism, was/is firmly in the ‘leave’ camp. That, however, is where the evidence dries up. This is just an assumption. It may be an accurate one, but at the moment we simply don’t know enough to say one way or the other.

Others, most notably Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian, have blamed a climate of anti-politics stretching back to the ‘expenses’ scandal of 2009. In case you’re unfamiliar with that scandal, it was centred on revelations that numerous MPs had claimed public money for highly dubious reasons, such as the construction of a moat around a personal residence, or for expensive holidays or alcoholic drinks. Since that crisis, public opinion of politicians in Britain has been gutterishly low. In Freedland’s opinion, this climate has swollen out of all logical proportions.

Anti-political sentiment is rife in the UK

“For weeks, months and years,” he wrote, “‘politician’ has been a word more spat out than said. MPs have been depicted as a form of pond life, routinely placed on the lowest rung of the ladder of esteem, trusted less than estate agents and journalists, the butt of every panel show gag, casually assumed to be venal, mendacious, vain, stupid or malevolent… These complaints are repeated so often, we barely notice them. They’re like moans about the weather, presumed to warrant no disagreement….We don’t yet know what was in the mind of the man who killed Jo Cox. But even if we cannot locate a specific cause in the nation’s political debate and claim this murder as its direct effect, we can say this: that if you inject enough poison into the political bloodstream, eventually somebody will get sick.”

Finally, Britain First, the facebook-based activist group/political party has been specifically blamed by many, especially in light of the comment allegedly made by the killer cited above. Ms Cox was known for her impassioned activism on behalf of the children of Syrian refugees. Britain First is a very straightforward anti-Islam collective. It isn’t outlandish to propose that Mair agreed with the latter’s agenda. A photograph allegedly depicting Mair holding a Britain First banner is also circulating on social media, although its authenticity has yet to be confirmed at the time of writing.

I personally think the truth is a mixture of the first two (although it wouldn’t surprise me if the last was also a factor). The EU debate has taken on a decidedly histrionic character, with words like ‘fascist’ and ‘traitor’ thrown about with little serious regard for their meaning. The anti-political sentiment of which Freedland speaks is very real. People up and down this country feel that they have been duped, lied to, taken for fools. The EU referendum is where it all comes out; an opportunity, as some may see it, for vengeance against the political class.

David Cameron announced a pause in campaigning on the EU referendum in the wake of Jo Cox’s death

But we haven’t been lied to nearly as often as we think. The problems our country faces are the result of policies enacted openly, with advance warning and after copious explanation. Mass immigration was never a policy cooked up in a dark, smoke-filled room. It has been debated and discussed for decades. Even if it was difficult to take advantage of, there has always been a semblance of choice available to the general public. That popular discontent has yet to be converted into a change in policy is the fault of the people as well as the establishment.

So why is dissent on the issue of immigration always ineffective? Why is always left to fester underground, setting the scene for hatred and violence?The answer, I believe, lies in how anti-immigration dissent is expressed and who expresses it. 

Anti-immigration advocates, in the popular imagination and sometimes in reality, are uncouth, scruffy, loud and aggressive. They wear camouflage jackets and baseball caps, have tattoos and speak with a heavy, unattractive regional stamp. Even if you agree with them, you might be hesitant to say so for fear of being grouped in with them. All the pretty, successful and clever people are left-wing. The right is for misfits and dullards, for the underclass. This snobbish sentiment has forced many middle class voters into a reflexive, insincere leftism; one not based in reason, but in status-anxiety and snobbishness.

Anti-immigration demonstrators

Jo Cox, whether one agreed with her opinions or not, was a beautiful and civilised human being. Young, bright, warm and tolerant, she was everything you would look for in a friend and hope for in a colleague. The urge to side with her against the nasty, bellicose and ill-mannered ‘leave’ campaign must now be overwhelming. 

I have always tried to treat the subjects I discuss on this blog with restraint and moderation. I try not to hurl insults or baseless accusations. If I advance a theory about something, I make sure to back it up with explanation and examples. Most importantly, I try to put forward my arguments using measured and clean language. Without wanting to sound immodest, that should be the standard approach to all political discourse. It is on the left. It should be on the right as well.

The murder of Jo Cox may is no small event. It may well go on to change the course of history, keeping Britain in the European Union and thereby saving the EU from implosion. If so, the failure of the British commentariat, not just the British establishment, to make the case against unlimited immigration will be to blame. We had a good case to argue, but we failed to make it in a sufficiently civilised and intelligent way. Had we done so, the likes of Tommy Mair would scarcely have been able to appreciate our arguments, while the likes of Jo Cox may have found reason to agree with us. We repelled the good and the clever, whilst attracting the dull and the reprehensible. If Britain votes to remain, if only in order to stand with Jo Cox and against Tommy Mair, I fully understand why.  

The case against mass immigration from the Muslim world is a liberal argument, not a conservative one. The Syrian refugees Ms Cox championed have views so conservative they make Nigel Farage look like a bearded hippie. We must resist the influx of Muslims in order to preserve our freedoms, our democracy and our modern way of life. If we put our case like that all the time, we might be surprised by how many allies we actually have.

D, LDN

Advertisement

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