The Future and the Western World

Tags

biotech, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, elitism, facebok, Facebook, facebook social media, future, Futurism, hi-tech, Innovation, Internet, nano, nanotech, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, research, robotics, science, science gap, social media, tech, tiwtter, twitteer, Twitter, United States, West and the Rest, west technology, west vs east, Western world, windows

• First published on this blog in October, 2015

Whatever one’s political orientations are, and no matter what the individual context is, the sight of human suffering is always traumatic. As human beings, we are naturally upset when presented with photographs of starving African children, shrapnel-wounded Syrian schoolgirls, Burka’d Afghan women and brainwashed North Korean families. It is the way we were designed to be. Few things are more innate.

Given this predisposition, the arguments of ‘humanitarianism’ will usually find a public audience, and typically (from there) a political majority. For example, the view that it isn’t ‘fair’ for Americans to have ipads and super-sized milkshakes, while Malians have only bottle tops and sewer puddles is not one most people would feel comfortable disputing. Who would ever wish to be regarded as an elitist or social Darwinist? No-one, I would venture.

However, in the interest of truth, we must consider that at some point the privileged will have to draw a line around their advantages and prevent their being usurped. For if they fail to do so, the advantages will be watered down, or stolen outright, to be shared among the swelling masses until all have as much as each other, and very little alike.

It is a good time to reflect on this difficult issue. For if we think that the West enjoys obscene advantages at the moment, the developments of the near future will leave us bewildered.

We are living on the brink of a scientific revolution unlike any in history. The confluence of emerging competences in AI, robotics, nanotechnology, life-extension and genetic manipulation will make the gap between America and Mali today seem insignificant. Part of the world is about to accelerate through time into a dazzling future, and all other parts will be left languishing in a primitive angry, resentful past.

Most ordinary folk have no idea of what is about to be unleashed on the Western market. Misinformed by experience, they naively presume that technology will progress at the same rate as it did in the past. They do not realise that with every advance, technological development is speeding up.

To a 20 year old in 1980, military drones were science-fiction, as were iPhones, ipads, anti-satellite weapons and hypersonic vehicles. And yet all are now with us. It takes a healthy and imaginative mind to realise how much has been achieved in such a short period of time, and to appreciate that this kind of 35 year leap will soon take 5 years, then 4, then 3…

We would be fools to believe this scientific revolution will not have geopolitical consequences as large as its spectacle.

Right now, you can buy a PlayStation in Karachi, and perhaps even in Mali. This won’t be the case with the operating systems of the future. New technologies will be so overwhelming and expensive (and dependent on other technologies and infrastructures) that first-world lifestyles will fall entirely into their orbit, adapted to fit and absorb their possibilities. The first-world will begin to speak a language that the rest of the world cannot relate to, using concepts, humour, references and symbolism only applicable to the age the West (and the West alone) has arrived at. In time, technology will create a new cultural divide far greater than any created by religion or politics.

And as that divide grows, the West will have to make a choice. Let the rest of the world in on the future, and risk having our hard-won wealth and military advantages destroyed or turned against us by destructive and primitive beliefs; or else simply declare ourselves the winners of human history; the winners of the global lottery, and be happy and secure in our good fortune, willing to defend it from our competitors. Triumphalism, that is, and not humanitarianism.

While this sounds morally outrageous, recall that many of us indulge in this attitude already, even if only semi-consciously. When you’re out using your laptop in Starbucks, for example, you are doing so fully in the knowledge that you are part of the exclusive 20% of the world population who can afford to live so extravagantly. Though we might feel privately guilty about this, none of us make any great effort to change it. If a popular figure (Russell Brand, perhaps) called upon us to donate 90% of our wages each month so that the third and second worlds can lead a Western standard of life, we would all refuse. In fact, we would likely be indignant about it. Our civilisation has figured out the best way to live, to produce and to thrive. Theirs has not done so. Sub-Saharan Africa is among the most fertile regions in the world. The Islamic world is flush with resources. The reason for our success is our creativity; the things we have done with our hands and minds. Therefore, only we have a right to the fruits of our achievements. Perhaps this is the correct attitude…

‘Humanitarianism’ and its much vaunted idea of ‘international development’ certainly has a future. But I don’t believe its arguments are as future-proof as some believe. I’m interested in your views.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Cumberbatch, Please…

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, cumberbatch, cumberbatch immigrants, cumberbatch islam, cumberbatch migrant, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Facebook, facebook twitter, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, shakespeare, tiwtter, Twitter, United States

I have never understood the appeal of English actor Benedict Cumberbatch, and given his recent remarks on the hoodlum invasion of Europe, I don’t think I ever will…

In case you have yet to hear – last week, after a performance of Hamlet in which he starred, Cumberbatch provided something of foul-mouthed encore, lecturing the captive audience on the needs of Middle Eastern ‘refugees’. Begging the governments of Europe to do more for them, he climaxed with the juvenile and decidedly un-Shakespearean words “Fuck the politicians!”.

In the private universe of the remarkably overrated, misshapen vegetable-headed fool, the British commitment to take in 20,000 hoodlums was parsimonious. Though Cumberbatch didn’t put an figure on his desired influx, by implication it must number somewhere in the hundreds of thousands, amounting to a dramatic and permanent (and completely unwanted) alteration of our national-cultural make-up.

When this fit of anti-logic was reported in the press, almost every comment beneath every article contained the same point: Why doesn’t Cumberbatch himself take in refugees? It is an obvious and simple reaction, requiring little reflection, and yet can anyone really argue with it? As far as he has made known, Cumberbatch has not taken in a single soul since the crisis began, and has made known no plans to do so either. And for all his demands for donations, I know of no large contribution made in the actor’s (quite ridiculous) name.

What is Cumberbatch asking of us here? Let’s remind ourselves., lest we feel moved to accuse ourselves of overreaction. Mr Cumberbatch is asking us to take in hundreds of thousands of single Muslim men of military age. By and large, they are NOT Syrians, but a ragtag assortment of burdens lifted from every country in the Muslim world (the largest contingent is said to be from Afghanistan – a country we have already done so too much for). Such people (as Cumberbatch will surely be aware) have no moral right to enter Europe, and do so not out of misery, but out of greed. Furthermore, since the majority are devout believers in the worst religion in the world, they will – if allowed in – create further refugee crises in towns and cities across Britain. Will the actor sympathise with these exiles too?

Cumberbatch’s moral position, as well as being stupid, borders on treason, and is well within the borders of ingratitude. The culture of Europe, the same cultural flowerbed from which Cumberbatch’s beloved Shakespearean theatre sprouted, is being sown with salt. He should be ashamed of himself for partaking in the desecration of the only civilisation that values him, that can fully appreciate his work, would tolerate his lifestyle, and that continues to pay his scandalously bloated salary.

He won’t be ashamed, though, will he? For he belongs to a liberal cosmopolitan elite that is becoming ever more detached from everyday reality, from the urban ghetto and from the common man. His opinion is worthless. His suggestions are insane. By rights, his career should now be over.

D, LDN

The Fraud: Anjem Choudary’s Quest for Notoriety

Tags

America, America 911, anjem, Anjem Choudary, anjem choudary arrest, anjem choudary bbc, anjem choudary fox news, anjem choudary muslim, anjem choudary newsnight, BBC, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, deport anjem, Facebook, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Political Correctness, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Terror, tiwtter

From relatively modest beginnings, ‘English’ hate-preacher Anjem Choudary has risen through the ranks of evil to become the star of the British tabloid press. After the hook-handed, one-eyed nightmare Abu Hamza was carted off to America to face overdue terror charges, and the equally horrific cleric Abu Qatada was deported to Jordan for similar offences, the red-top media has had to rely almost entirely on Choudary to provide their readers’ daily fill of anger and indignation.

If you sense a cynical tone in my words, you are right on the nail. The transformation of radical Islam into a pantomime, complete with quasi-humorous oddball villains is a very dangerous and inappropriate game in my view. No issue is more serious or more threatening to our country than Islam, and the reality is far darker than low-risk, smooth-talking pieces of shit like Choudary would suggest.

Serious (active) Jihadis don’t appear in documentaries, and nor do they jostle for supremacy with Sean Hannity and Pamela Geller in Fox News debate shows. They keep their rotten little heads down and plot the murder of women and children – that’s what they do. The people waving placards suggesting the murder of the Pope are usually cowards who do not have the courage of their own hideous convictions. Anjem Choudary fits that definition perfectly.

Choudary is certainly an Islamist (and an enemy of the West), but unlike some of his peers, he is a fundamentally spineless. He has never directly taken part in terrorist attacks (which, though nefarious, must involve a willingness to tolerate pain and the loss of liberty). Despite suggesting that others do so, he has refused to join his brothers in the ranks of ISIS, a refusal that makes no sense if one believes his claim to agree with their agenda. For all his hostility towards the British state, he continues to live off the British taxpayer, receiving thousands upon thousands in benefits every year. And according to certain reports (most of which he has denied), he cannot even resist the pleasures of secularism, like alcohol and casual sex with native women.

Choudary is a gigantic fraud and a gutless nobody. He doesn’t incite outrage to promote or protect Islam, but solely because he enjoys the limelight. Like a twisted Islamic Katie Hopkins, Choudary thrives on column inches and airtime, regarding himself as heroically honest, brutally articulate and historically essential.

Even Muslims are beginning to see through the act. I have read numerous accusations on social media alleging that Choudary is a state agent, hired by MI5 to whip up hostility against the Religion of Peace. He isn’t, of course. But the fact such accusations can be brought to mind is further evidence of his ideological amateurishness.

As you’ll be aware, Mr Choudary was arrested this past week on charges of encouraging support for Islamic State. While this is good news, I doubt it will lead to a satisfactory conclusion of the Choudary saga. The only fitting end would be the exile of this fake, freedom-loving con-artist to the cultural and economic wilderness he pretends to prefer.

D, LDN.