Thank You & Goodbye

Tags

3 years, 500, BBC, Blog, blog blog, blogger, blogging, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, David, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, England, Facebook, hotmail, Internet, internet blog, Islam, london, mail, million, Multiculturalism, net, Notice, notice dtmw, notice of, published, publishing, stuff, Thank you, Twitter, UK, web, wordpress, words, writing

I began this blog in January, 2013, largely on a whim. I can still remember coming up with the idea as I waited in the rain for a bus in Wimbledon, London (the bus, as is London tradition, was absurdly late.). Since then, ‘Defend the Modern World’ has been visited over half a million times, chiefly by Brits and Americans, but also by thousands of Australians, Africans, Asians and Middle Easterners, too. I am immensely proud of the work that I have done. I hope that it has done some good.

Last week, I received an offer of a teaching position in Europe. When I taught English in northern Spain last year, mainly to small groups of infants, I managed to carry on the blog simultaneously. However, I have come to the conclusion that it will be difficult for me to do the same this time around.

In light of this, and with regret, I am suspending DTMW from this week forward.

The blog will remain online – I have no intentions of deleting it – and I have scheduled a selection of the old posts I am most proud of to be published over the next few Mondays.

To those who have been loyal readers of this blog, I want to say a heartfelt and sincere thank you. Though the quality of my writing has been greatly uneven, you have always been too kind to point out my failings. I do appreciate that.

It is possible I may pick up the blog again sometime in the future, but this is uncertain. I will try to post on occasion – when the news compels me to say something; say, after a terror attack in the UK or US – but the weekly format is just not something I can keep up.

It would, of course, be impossible to adequately sum up the work of three years in a few paragraphs, so I’ll just say this; my sole motivation in writing DTMW has been an uncomplicated loyalty to Western civilisation. It is, to me, the only culture on Earth worth a penny. Nothing else has inspired me. I have not hated anything. I have sought to help protect something I love.

The contest with Islam is not going away any time soon. I do, however, have faith that we will triumph in the end. Even the most fanatical Muslim knows in his heart that the modern world is superior to the mud-huts and mutilations of the Dar-al-Salaam. We need only be loud and proud about this and eventually even the most stubborn will come around.

I wish you all the greatest possible happiness. Thank you once again for your generosity and encouragement.

David (Defend the Modern World)

Advertisement

Why are We Letting Anyone In?

Tags

adults, adults posing as children refugees, asylum seekers, BBC, calais, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, dover, DTMW, EU, Europe, Facebook, Guardian, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamophobia, jungle calais, kids, london, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, photo, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Telegraph, Terrorism, Twitter

Many in the UK have been outraged (and often simultaneously amused) this past week by the arrival on our shores of a batch of Calais asylum seekers billed as unaccompanied ‘children’, yet who are in appearance seemingly well over the age of 20. As bizarre and brazen (and obvious) as the fraud appears to be, I think this outrage somehow misses the point. The bigger scandal – and the one worth focussing one’s anger on – is that asylum seekers are being allowed into Britain at all.

What obligation does Britain have – legally or morally – to those refugees (if they are indeed refugees) stationed in the safe, democratic nation of France? None is the answer, and no-one can (or has even attempted to) reasonably argue otherwise.

As opponents of asylum fraud are right to consistently point out, a central principle (even if not a law) holds that refugees should settle in the first available safe haven they come across that is willing and able to accommodate them. To illustrate this idea with reference to Syria, a refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Turkey has no right to demand entry into Greece. A refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Lebanon has no right to demand entry into Cyprus, and so on. If the purpose of emigration is, as stated, to avoid violence, war or persecution, then only in the first accommodating nation can asylum be rightfully claimed. Should the refugee flee from one safe haven to another, that is called migration and no country is duty bound to facilitate it.

This isn’t a very difficult principle to understand – and, to be sure, most ordinary folk do understand it, which is partly why the Calais Jungle infants have been so poorly and unsympathetically received.

Now, I am an Islamophobe – no doubt about that. I despise the Islamic religion with a white-hot passion. I’m also not over-keen on the adherents of the Islamic religion. Nevertheless, I am, like the reader will be, a moral person, or at the very least someone with a moral sense. We do have an obligation as human beings to ensure that the innocent do not suffer any preventable evil. 

To help the Syrian people, Donald Trump has endorsed a workable and perfectly logical initiative. Allied forces, he says, should carve out a safe-zone in Syria into which the innocent can flee while the conflict burns itself out. This would not be difficult to achieve. Though Assad and ISIS would inevitably object to the idea, both forces have been so degraded that neither is capable of mounting an effective resistance.

Turkey, rich in manpower and arms, must be told to do the work on the ground or face expulsion from NATO. The Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, must be made to cough up the money to support the campaign or face a year-long suspension of Western arms sales. This is the solution. Let’s pursue it.

As for the Calais ‘children’, Britain and the West are under no rightful obligation to take in anyone. No asylum seeker, not one, whether from Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan or the Congo, should be allowed to settle here. And we have every right to expect our government to prevent them from doing so.

D, LDN

Ann Coulter: “In Trump We Trust”

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Ann, Ann Coulter, ann coulter in trump we trust e pluribus awesome, Barack Obama, BBC, Books, carlson, Civilisation, Coffee, Coulter, Defend the modern world, DTMW, Europe, Facebook, interview, Islam, Islam and the West, london, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States

The beautiful and tack-sharp Ann Coulter continues to rise in my estimation. Here, the long-legged conservative goddess discusses her latest book “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome”.

D, LDN

Justifying the Extraordinary: Trump and the Debates

Tags

ABC, America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Civilisation, clinton, Clinton Foundation, CNN, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump debates, DTMW, EU, Facebook, Fox News, Hillary 2016, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton debate, Immigration, Internet, Islamism, london, moderators for debate, Multiculturalism, NBC, pol, politics, polls, presidential debates, trump, trump 2016, Trump Clinton debate, Trump election, trump odds, Twitter, United States

In seven days time the first of four presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will take place in Hempstead, New York State. It is probably fair to say that no such debate has been as hotly anticipated in recent memory as this one now is. The debate marks the biggest test Donald Trump has faced since the launch of his candidacy for the Republican nomination back in 2015. It represents a vital trial of the New Yorker’s presidential character, professionalism and natural wit.

Hillary Clinton, now lagging behind Trump in many national polls, will be placing a lot of her hopes on the debates. Unlike Trump, the Democrat is a natural when it comes to conventional political combat. She – and her team – will be hoping (and expecting) Trump to be suffocated by the polite constraints of traditional procedure and to show his unease by lashing out wildly at Clinton’s character, appearance, dress sense, femininity, etc. Put simply, they hope and expect Trump to suffer a meltdown.

Whilst I would love to say that Clinton’s strategy is unrealistic, I cannot, as it is perfectly feasible. Trump’s Achilles heel, as he has proven time and time again, is his volcanic and unpredictable personality, his tendency to hit back after every real or perceived slight with much greater force and immaturity than is required or appropriate. All Clinton has to do in these contests is provoke that kind of reaction. All she has to do is poke the tiger until it growls.

This is the most obvious and likely strategy for Hillary to pursue, but there are other possibilities open to her. The rabidly pro-Clinton Washington Post made the following suggestions for their preferred candidate: “Take (Trump) up on his word. He said he “regrets” certain things. Invite him to apologize to Judge Gonzalo Curiel or the Gold Star parents of Capt. Humayun Khan… Another tactic is to press him on empty and unintelligible answers. Trump rarely completes a sentence or can articulate any level of detail about his proposals. When Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and CNN’s Dana Bash tag-teamed, forcing Trump to explain what was in his health-care plan, it became patently obvious that he had a whole lot of nothing to offer. She can certainly take a page from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s book (used against Rubio) in pointing out that Trump repeats the same platitudes. Tell us, Donald, what’s your plan to reduce crime in Chicago? Have you ever sat down with law enforcement?… There are oodles of issues (such as the nuclear triad) about which Trump knows nothing. Challenge him to spell out his stance on net neutrality, the South China Sea and student loans. In other cases — the minimum wage, repayment of U.S. debt and immigration, of course — he has been all over the lot. Force him to pick a position and explain why he has said the opposite.”

The first presidential debate will be held at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York

Trump’s strategy for the debates is less clear at this point in time. When asked about his intended approach, the Republican has wisely dodged the question, explaining that he would prefer to not give anything away to the opposition prior to the event. We can thus only speculate.

I have a inkling that Trump’s strategy will hinge on portraying Clinton, as he has done all through his campaign so far, as ‘crooked’, dishonest, corrupt and in the pocket of the financial elite; an image he will then contrast with his own man-of-the-people persona.

The email scandal will undoubtedly be raised repeatedly, with Trump going off track and questioning Clinton directly about the thousands of inexplicably deleted messages. He will also link these questions to the issue of the Clinton Foundation and its highly suspicious ties to foreign leaders (including foreign and Islamic dictators).

The Clinton Foundation is coming under intense scrutiny for its ties to foreign regimes

This approach will carry Trump some of the way, but not all of it. He will need to have more strings to his bow prepared if he is to the win the debate outright.

To arrive at the best strategy for winning the debates, Trump would do best to look at what has carried him through the process thus far. I would say that, more than anything else, it is his credentials relating to the Islamist threat that have won over the hearts of patriotic American voters (including true liberals and Democrats). His positions on ISIS, Muslim immigration, Syrian refugee policy and other connected issues have been wildly popular with a broad cross-section of American society. Pushing hard on Clinton’s weakness on Islamism will pave the way for a very important ideological touchdown.

It is possible that in the days that remain before the November election there will be another Islamist atrocity somewhere in the world, perhaps even in the Western World*. This will serve as a timely reminder of how extraordinary the problems we (as a civilisation) face really are, and thus how inappropriate it would be to elect an ordinary candidate to solve them.

ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State

The Islamist challenge is so total and grave that all other issues melt under its heat. Trump and his team must realise this fact and base their approach on it. Sure, there are problems with the American economy which require ironing out; sure, illegal immigration from Mexico is undermining American sovereignty and nationhood; sure, the trade deficit with China is growing at an alarming rate.  But none of these issues are new or so extraordinary as to justify the American electorate taking a risk on a provocative and unconventional candidate (and that, undoubtedly, is what Trump is). Trump’s presidency is so unique and strange a prospect that he must build an equally strange and unique context in which it will seem appropriate and necessary. The only way he can achieve this, in my opinion, is with reference to the Islamist threat.

At the debates, Trump must be specific about how he will deal with this extraordinary issue. Soundbites, however popular they may be, should be avoided. It simply isn’t enough to say things like “We need to get tough and we need to get smart.” This is so vague as to be meaningless. Trump must map out a strategy for pulverising Islamism, demolishing it so severely that it will not dare raise its evil head for decades to come.

*Today, as I write, debris is once again being cleaned up from the streets of a Western city. In Manhattan, NYC, two bombs have exploded, injuring almost thirty innocent civilians. Meanwhile, in the peaceful, Scandinavian-American State of Minnesota, eight people have been stabbed at a shopping mall, the attacker allegedly interrogating potential victims as to their religious beliefs prior to attacking them.

These are indeed extraordinary times. They require an extraordinary leader. Next week in New York, Donald Trump would do best not to try and make himself seem ordinary, but rather embrace his uniqueness, tying it to the uniqueness of the times in which we find ourselves.

D, LDN

Victory is Bittersweet

Tags

BBC, bregret, brexit, brexit campaign, brexit farage, brexit poll, buyer's remorse, Civilisation, day, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog uk, economy, EU, eu eu, eu referendum, Europe, European Union, Facebook, Liberal, lobby, london, Money, Multiculturalism, news, No to Turkey in the EU, Paris, politics, politics eu, pound, prime minister, sterling, Twitter, UKIP, vote, vote leave, vote remain

Well… that was interesting. The polls, the bookies and the media were all wrong. Britain held its nerve, voting to leave the European Union by a clear margin of 2 percentage points. I am shocked and surprised, pleasantly and unpleasantly.

On the vital matters of sovereignty and immigration, I think the right decision has been made. The European Union was stifling Britain’s independent spirit, obstructing the British Parliament and overriding British courts. It couldn’t carry on. A civilised vote to leave is surely the most dignified way of bringing the relationship to a close.

Having said that, I must admit to being rather numb this morning (24th July). It feels like Britain has lost something. It feels like we, the British people, have lost something – a freedom, a set of liberties and privileges, many of which I have personally enjoyed.

Early last year, I spent some time working as a language teacher in the Basque Country in Northern Spain. In order to make my labour legal in that country, I had to visit the local council offices in Bilbao and apply for legal status. This process, which in non-EU countries would have taken many weeks, if not months to complete, was seen to in a single afternoon. I filled out a couple of forms and I was away – a Spanish taxpayer with the full and permanent right of abode.

This luxury is not something to sniff at. It really is (was) the most dazzling privilege. One can only imagine how much money the wretched refuse of the Muslim world would offer for such a right.

Bilbao, Spain

This morning, with Britain now committed irrevocably to disentangling itself from the European organism, I can’t help but wonder what kind of deal will replace the generous and advantageous contract we have just torn up. Will European states take revenge on us? Will they band together and punish the plucky, rebellious Brits with draconian measures and pointless, bureaucratic restrictions? It is certainly possible.

I am sad about this. I never wanted Britain to fall out with Europe. Though I fully understand and accept that Europe, the historic and cultural concept, is distinct from the European Union, the two are nevertheless so entwined at present as to be inseparable. In rejecting one, we necessarily reject – or at least offend – the other. What a shame. The Islamists must be euphoric.

Whether the right thing to do or not, Brexit will inevitably cause major disruption to the lives of ordinary British people. Many of us will come to miss the words ‘European Union’ at the top of our passports. Those words, though never triggering any kind of pride or patriotic emotion, guaranteed us the freedom to wander unobstructed across a magnificent continent. It gave us the right to live in Rome, Berlin, Stockholm, Madrid and Warsaw; to work in Krakow, Copenhagen, Helsinki and Tallinn. We will miss that freedom horribly until it is assured us once again.

EU governments have reacted to the referendum with shock and disappointment

On a brighter note, the benefits of us leaving the EU are not inconsiderable. We will soon have the right to decide exactly how many European migrants make it past our borders each year, as well as how many are allowed to settle permanently. No longer will an endless stream of labour gush through a doorless doorway, suppressing native wages and over-saturating the market for skilled labour.

As well as this, law-making will finally be returned to a sovereign British judiciary. No longer will we need to ask for EU permission to pass judgements on foreign criminals, terror suspects and ‘asylum’ seekers.

EU regulations, passed entirely in EU courts, will no longer apply, leaving us free to decide our own standards of quality, health and safety, as well as (crucially) the shape of our bananas and cucumbers.

Finally, and most importantly of all, our elected government will once again be the supreme authority over the British Isles. No longer will we need to waste calories and column inches whinging about ‘unelected bureaucrats in Brussels’ or ‘faceless EU dictators’. Now, if an unjust rule comes to prevail over this kingdom, we will be able to change it quickly and democratically. British rule, to oversimplify the matter, has returned to the British. We have our country back.

Boris Johnson has promised a ‘glorious’ future for Britain following Brexit

Five minutes ago, David Cameron addressed the nation from outside No.10 Downing Street. With rare emotion, the Prime Minister announced that he will be standing down sometime in the next three months.

As to who will replace him, almost everyone has the same person in mind; namely, Boris Alexander De Pfeffel Johnson – the yellow (not blonde) haired former Mayor of London and standout figure of the victorious leave campaign.

If this does come true – if Boris, perhaps joined by Michael Gove, rises to the executive of the British state on the back of Brexit – then that is another reason to temper one’s joy at the result of last night’s vote. Boris Johnson is an idiot, more of a clown than a politician. I would rather be ruled by almost anyone else.

Will Brexit be worth it in the end? Only time will tell for sure. I am honestly surprised by how lacklustre my enthusiasm for the result has been. I thought I would be tap-dancing with restless euphoria, possessed with native pride. But I’m not dancing. I’m not even smiling. The issue seems more nuanced in retrospect than it did in prospect.

If you derive from one of the nations still attached to the European Union, I would ask you to do whatever you can to prevent a grudge emerging between your country and Britain. We do not wish to divide the West. We are not, by leaving the EU, denying our European-ness. We are still one civilisation, one culture. Perhaps it would have been better to stay and reform the links that bound us together, but we’ve made our choice. Please don’t make it any harder for us than it already is.

D, LDN

The End is Nigh?

Tags

America, American Liberty, BBC, bbc bbc, Boris Johnson, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Islam, Islamisation, Islamisation of London, london, Mayor, mayor mayor, mayor of London, Multiculturalism, muslim mayor of london, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, sadiq, sadiq khan, sadiq mayor, Twitter

The news that Sadiq Khan (the Muslim son of a Pakistani bus driver) has been elected Mayor of London hasn’t exactly gone down well with the British people. Here is a representative reaction cropped from the comment section of a popular right-wing newspaper:

“Bye Bye London. It was nice knowing you. Can’t believe what’s happening to this country.”

Here’s another – “We’re doomed. This is the end. We knew it was coming. Shame on those who did nothing to stop it. I used to love visiting London as a kid. I won’t bother doing that now. Tragic.”

And here’s one more – “Hardly surprising. There are no English people left in London. It’s part of Pakistan now. Used to be such a lovely city.”

It would be easy – and conventional – to label such responses hysterical and exaggeratedly doomly. That is exactly how they are being framed by the liberal press. But are they really an overreaction? The answer is complex.

As Mayor of London, Mr Khan will have very little political power. The position of Mayor is almost entirely bureaucratic, with the functions of the office largely confined to issues like transport, museum fees, rubbish disposal and recycling. Despite that, few positions are more symbolic than the Mayoralty of our Capital.

When the man or woman who replaces Barack Obama visits London, he or she will be required to meet with Khan as a matter of tradition. There is no way around it. For the President to refuse this meeting would be loudly condemned by both ends of the spectrum of political acceptability. And this applies to all foreign leaders who visit the UK, including the premiers of China, France, Israel, Canada and India.

Mr Khan will often be the first living thing a foreign leader will encounter upon visiting the United Kingdom. He is the welcome mat; the red carpet; our best Sunday suit. This is one reason to be worried, for being an official representative of a major nation provides Khan with enormous ‘soft’ power.

Should Donald Trump enter the White House this coming November, he will be expected by his electors to follow through on promises he made over the election season. And most notable among these promises, at least for people of our political persuasion, was the promise to close the borders of the United States to all practitioners of the Muslim faith. While this policy was and is enormously popular with the American public (and the British public, for that matter), it will be very difficult to enact without setting off an organised wave of condemnation from leaders across the world. As to whether this makes any difference to President Trump depends to a large extent on how influential Muslims are in other Western countries. It matters little or nothing if the Sultan of Brunei decries the President from his little, irrelevant fiefdom. But it does matter if a certain Mayor lobbies the UK government to bar the US President from London, a city which hosts a massive proportion of the world’s economic and political get-togethers.

As Mayor, Mr Khan will have high-level access not only to the government, but also to the monarchy. The Queen herself will be expected to meet with Khan on occasion to discuss all manner of topics, ranging from economic matters to the status of foreign leaders. While the Queen, like Mr Khan, occupies a largely ceremonial position, it is nevertheless invested with considerable emotional importance. The Queen’s viewpoint (expressed, for example, in the annual Christmas Day speech) is taken a million times more seriously than the view of a commoner. Will Khan seek to influence the Queen? It isn’t exactly far-fetched to predict that he will.

Finally, we must also consider the effect that a Muslim mayor of London will have on our national-cultural identity. London is the most important site in the British Isles – the place where the economic, political and cultural elites reside and make their decisions. Though citizens of other areas might begrudge the idea, London still leads the way in setting the cultural tone for the rest of the United Kingdom. In what way will having a Muslim mayor change London’s cultural self-concept? Again, we don’t know, but this must be considered.

I do not personally believe the election of Sadiq Khan means Britain has succumbed to Islam. It is simply a sign that London’s British identity is slipping further into the multicultural gunge. I’d love to suggest a way of halting this decline, but I’m not entirely sure there is one.

D, LDN.

Yes, Women Can Be Evil Too.

Tags

America, attack isis, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, France, instagram, Iraq, ISIS, isis brigade, isis iraq, ISIS pictures, isis sex, isis sex slavery, isis slavery, isis syria iraq, isis terror, isis terrorists, isis women, isis women torture, london, Muslims, Nuke ISIS, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Russia, Spain, Syria, trump, Twitter, UK, USA, women who kill

Over the past two years, a period in world history dominated by economic crisis and extreme violence, the Daily Mail newspaper has published small variations of the same story at least three times. It concerns the shadowy manoeuvres of a sub-division of ISIS called the al-Khansa brigade, notable for being made up exclusively of young women.

According to reports, the al-Khansa brigade is responsible for enforcing a harsh Sharia-compliant lifestyle upon women in ISIS controlled territories. If and when women fall short of Sharia standards (say, by wearing a veil of thin material, leaving it slightly transparent), members of the brigade are said to arrest the offending female and take her to a dungeon, wherein they pinch her, beat her, confine her and otherwise torture her within an inch of her life. If the offence is ‘severe’ meanwhile (some extremity of the body being entirely revealed, adultery, lesbianism etc..) the brigade arranges for the prisoner to be stoned to death.

While some have doubted the veracity of these reports (an understandable position when one considers the record of the Daily Mail), we have every reason to believe this brigade exists, and in the fashion described. Indeed, in an interview with Sky News (later reported in the Independent newspaper), an account of the activities of the brigade was recounted by a woman claiming to be a former member. The woman, then 20 years of age, told the journalists that her job “was to lash women who tried to escape or wore the wrong clothes” and that “the women who were caught trying to escape would receive 60 lashes, while women who simply wore heels or were not wearing the proper Islamic dress known as the abaya, were ‘given the ‘standard’ 40 lashes’.”

(Note: When reading of people being ‘lashed’ in the context of the Muslim world, one should never presume the lash to be a thin, flimsy or light, but thick and heavy like rope. People have died from being punished this way).

Of course it’s easy to understand why (among the thousands of cruelties exacted by ISIS fighters) this particular story has proven enduringly popular. Firstly, it appeals to the darkest recesses of the Western male mind – the unlit zone attracted to Sadism, Masochism and fascinated with the exotic and the forbidden. And secondly, it is because of the natural shock people feel when hearing of acts of brutality committed by the fairer sex, something seemingly incongruous and running against the universal grain.

But is it really so rare?

We in the West have become so used to perceiving women as victims of Islam that we probably forget there are women who want to be Muslim; that there are women who choose for themselves a very extreme interpretation of the Koran, often against the wishes of their spouse or family; in short, that women can be irrational and evil too.

Given this reality, I would say that dealing with Jihadi women should be no more morally complicated than dealing with their male counterparts. There is no feminine value left in the ranks of al-Khansa and so they must annihilated with the same ruthlessness (and with the same weapons) as IS’s frontline troops. If they are captured and refuse to provide information, they shouldn’t be spared ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ either. When you betray your sex to such a dreadful extent, you sacrifice the privileges of being that sex.

D, LDN.

Hysterical Evil: The Crimes of ISIS.

Tags

American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Beheadings, Britain First, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, France, ISIL, ISIS crimes, ISIS savages, Islam, Islamists, Killings in Syria, london, Mexican, Muslims, Pakistanis, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Savages, Syria, Turkey, Violence

The very least we can do, as human beings coddled in the luxurious safety of the Western world, is to keep the suffering of those in darker situations in our minds and to prevent it from being buried under passing time.

What is going on in ISIS controlled Syria and Iraq defies credulity and logic. There has been no evil of this intensity, industry and sick creativity since the fall of the Nazi Party. No Soviet Gulag ever concealed the amputation of limbs. The war in Vietnam involved no attempt to impregnate the women of the enemy. Only Hitlerism at its most bestial merits comparison with the Islamic State.

Given how frequent the reports of death and destruction have become, it is only human to feel what popular sociologists call ‘compassion fatigue’; the tiring out of the capacity for shock or sympathy. While understandable, I really think we should fight that emotion. These are real people dying, and their suffering only has meaning if it is known and remembered and if conclusions are drawn from it.

Though Satanic from the get-go, Islamic State’s brutality has become distinctly theatrical of late, almost as if the savages are thrilled by the attention of the civilised world.

Today, polished and clear footage shows bearded militants embracing two blindfolded ‘homosexuals’ (the militants are said to have whispered words of forgiveness to the condemned, no doubt to raise hopes of a stay of execution). Shortly after, they are seen pelting the prisoners with sharp desert stones until their heads lose their shape, and dribble with purple blood. After the bodies stop twitching, the stoning relents, and the gathered throngs disperse.

Days before that, a lion-hearted Syrian who had campaigned locally against ISIS cruelty was made to kneel in the desert and shot point blank. Photographs were released of the murder.

Last week, 30 Ethiopic Christians were beheaded on the shores of Libya by ISIS fighters. Denied the most basic allowance of dignity, footage of their deaths was uploaded to the internet shortly afterwards.

Before that, a video depicted a young thief having his hand sliced off and the stump sown back up by an ISIS ‘doctor’ (if he is one, he disgraces the name of medicine). This insanitary and inhuman practice, relative to the other available retributions should perhaps be considered merciful.

Before this, photographs showed how a long line of Coptic Christians were made to kneel on the Libyan shoreline before being almost simultaneously beheaded, the massive ejaculations of blood from their necks turning the seawater deep red.

If ISIS ever had a point to make, they have surely made it.

It is very difficult to find the right words when talking about this. Terms like ‘savage’ and ‘beastly’ may offer short-term satisfaction, but they seem rather too mild when placed in captions under images like those described above. Even ‘evil’ doesn’t cut it; one must be more specific:

When mothers feel their children are threatened (especially newly born children), they can develop what is known in medicine as ‘hysterical strength’ – a superhuman toughness that is impossible under almost any other circumstance (at its most dramatic, a legend describes women lifting up cars to recover children trapped beneath).

ISIS fighters have achieved a kind of hysterical evil; a malice in excess of ordinary human potential. From its energy, it fuels its own perpetuation. Most people could never overpower their conscience to the degree necessary to behead a man in the morning, and then impregnate his daughter at night.

ISIS fighters are high on evil, thrilled by it, addicted to it, no longer fully in control of it, like rabid dogs. Needless to add, they have ceased to possess any human value and have thereby forfeited all human rights. Every further day they live is an abomination.

D, LDN.

4 Things Britain Can Learn from Spain.

Tags

Britain, British people, British people abroad, Civilisation, Clean, Culture, Defend the modern world, Learn from, london, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Spain holidays, Spain vs England, Spain weather, Streets, Trains, UK, UK US

I’ve been working in Northern Spain for more than 4 months now. I shall be returning to England very shortly and so in the past weeks I’ve been thinking about how this country compares to my own. There are many things the UK gets right that Spain gets wrong, but to list these would be impolite to my hosts. Here instead are four things Spain does that Britain should do too…

1. Build Real Cities.

One of the greatest failures of modern British planning is the way the capital city has been allowed to dwarf the rest of the country economically, culturally and politically. The 2nd city of Britain is a glorified housing estate. The 3rd city (Manchester) is merely a scaled down version of London. Below that, most English cities are simply large towns.

Compare this to Spain, where at least 5 cities – Bilbao, Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia and Seville – qualify as ‘major’. This gives Spain a wonderful balance, something sorely lacking the UK.

2. Cook Real Food.

British cuisine is an international punchline. To deny this only makes the laughter more emphatic. Spanish cuisine is simple, yet wonderfully varied. Let’s add more seafood to our diet. It extends your lifespan and is immeasurably more delicious than chips.

3. Don’t Fight High-Speed Railways.

There is currently a very silly controversy raging in Britain regarding the construction of a high-speed rail link between Birmingham and London. While I don’t know of many reasons why a Londoner would wish to go to Birmingham, high speed trains are an essential part of a modern national infrastructure. Don’t fight the future. It always wins.

4. Lift the 5pm Shutters.

There is no reason for society to shut down at 5pm. It is depressing, anti-social and economically destructive. If you want young Brits to stop getting drunk in parks, put pressure on businesses to stay open longer. In Spain, the happy part of the day begins when ours finishes.

D, LDN.

Bad Rubbish: If ‘Brits’ Go to Syria, Let Them Stay There.

Tags

BBC, Britain First, Brits deported, Brits going to ISIS, Defend the modern world, EDL, EU, ISIS, Islamisation, Jihad, Jihad in Syria, Jihadi John, Jihadis going to Syira, london, Paul Golding, Syria Yazidi, The Beatles Terror Cell, Traitors, Turkey, Turkish border

Yet again, Muslims with British passports have sought to cross the Turkish border into 6th century Syria with the intention of joining the international jihad.

According to the newspapers, these three ‘youngsters’ have now been apprehended by the Turkish authorities and are now awaiting deportation ‘back’ to the United Kingdom, where they will be treated (bizarrely) as ‘traitors’ and be tried in a court of European law.

This is obviously ridiculous, and all the comments beneath the articles in question are willing to say so.

“We don’t want the cretins back!” – said one.

“Keep them there. They’ve made their decision. If you make your bed, you lie in it!” – said another.

And this is altogether the right way to think about these matters. If you, a passport-holding British citizen, are willing to join a society filled with headless dissenters, thumbless thieves, invisible women, raped Yazidis and crucified Christians, you are not welcome, you were never welcome, and you will never become welcome in this United Kingdom.

D, LDN.