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

Advertisement

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.

The Anti-Language of ‘Diversity’.

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Democracy forum, Diversity, Enrichment, Facebook, Login, Mass immigration, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Standpoint, The Commentator, Twitter, UKIP

It is one of the great buzzwords of our age. America’s strength is purported to be built upon it. Society is enriched by it. As a principle, it explains all that is good, true and beneficial to humanity. The word is ‘diversity’ – a formerly accurate and useful term that has come to mean something rather mind-bending.

You see, ‘diversity’ – when used by the political elite – does not signify the absence of homogeneity (which is either a good or bad thing depending on your personal sensibility) but only the absence of a certain kind of homogeneity – the wrong kind; typically, the Western or Christian kind.

The photo above was published last week in the Daily Mail. It shows the intake of a class in Birmingham, England. As the captions inform us, many different languages are spoken by the pupils, thus earning it the adjective ‘diverse’ in the article beneath. But is it? Is it really?

Certainly by the standards of our elite, this class is a wonderful and perfected kind of diversity; the kind the world should collectively strive for. But to the trained eye this photo reveals an entirely (one might say, homogenously) Muslim class.

The first names of the pupils pictured are as follows – Amil, Shahid, Alishma, Safyaan, Marwan, Humaya, Amaan, Shams, Awran, Duaa, Aminah, Saira, Shaila, Rina, Abubakar, Farhad, Mohammed, Sayam, Sams, Aksa, Yusrah, Ubaydah, Maha, Mohammed, Muhammad, Sairaj, Ismaid and Amaar.

I’m sorry, but that is about as diverse as rural Waziristan.

Of course, diversity, in its genuine sense, can be a blessing. If you have two schools – one of which contains a mix of Christians, Sikhs, Jews, and Hindus, and another which contains only white Christians, the pupils in the former school will doubtlessly end up as more worldly and informed adults than those in the latter. Real ‘diversity’ is built on difference, not any random arrangement of the foreign.

By contrast, the Birmingham students depicted in the photograph will emerge into adulthood completely unenriched, zombiefied by lack of variety, and with their minds closed to the complexity of general society. (*Needless to add, Muslim homogeneity is also a grave threat to national security. The lack of sunlight which might otherwise break the dark-room orthodoxy of Islam contributes directly to violent extremism).

It is high time people took issue with the missuse of ‘diversity’ and exposed the roots of its distortion in political anti-language. Those in the corridors of power know well what is meant by it, and their refusal to speak out tells us everything about their attitude to traditional English culture.

And that culture (the one diversity seeks to contain if not wholly replace) is not malevolent, built upon exploitation, or designed to exclude those of other backgrounds. In fact, it is uniquely universal in a world dominated by the English language and cultural standards first set by the British. The ideas of Shakespeare, Mill, Hume and Russell are anything but parochial. They have informed every country the world over.

But then again, perhaps to admit this would only risk exposing the lack of (genuine) enrichment the other way around.

D, LDN.

Could Islamic State Kill Islam?

Tags

4chan, Assad, Bad blood, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Culture, Defend the modern world, Facebook, History, ISIS, ISIS ISIL, ISIS Islam, ISIS pictures, ISIS videos, Islam, Islamic State, Multiculturalism, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, reddit, UK, UKIP, YouTube

For the first time in a blue moon, Anglo-American liberals are telling the truth. Islamic State (or ISIS) are increasingly unpopular with ordinary Muslims. Although few can doubt that the actions of the terror regime are explicitly rooted in Quranic text, the exotic barbarism and random flashes of violence employed by its fighters are rarely endorsed by anyone outside of its own ranks. A swelling number of Muslim regimes (themselves backward and detestable in separate ways) are calling for the annihilation of the Caliphate, with some even looking to the infidel West for help in doing so.

The bigger picture here is fascinating. I’m starting to wonder if the very public cruelties of ISIS are causing a quiet crisis of identity for hundreds of millions of mildly devout believers. Magnifying the most extreme implication of this, I’m starting to wonder if ISIS may prove to be Islam’s fatal wound.

Islamic State is the Quran in action. That point is very important to understand. When you read the Quran, you are reading the basis for the blood-soaked terror currently engulfing Syria and Iraq. If you believe the text is endorsed by heaven, you are silently condoning the same slaughter. Now, I don’t believe that the majority of Muslims are stupid or lacking in humanity. Most of them are ordinary people, often very good-natured people, who have simply been brought up in a climate of ritualised stupidity. Given the deep roots of their cultural heritage, it was always going to take something frightful and extreme to make them question it. Has that ‘something’ now entered the stage of history?

Recall that Communism, as a philosophy and as an aspiration, declined greatly in the latter half of the Twentieth century. Most scholars agree that this process had something to do with the discovery (by historians and statisticians) of the Biblical-scale famines and state genocides of the first half of that century – events that were previously only rumors (deniable rumors). When faced with the realities of the Gulag even the most hard-hearted card-carrier began to wonder if his system of thought stood on faulty ground.

As ISIS continues to expose the consequences of applied Islam, even Saudi Arabia (the ideological source of many ISIS doctrines) finds itself swerving into panicked hypocrisy. Last month it was announced by Saudi officials that the Kingdom will be building a multi-million dollar wall spanning the entirety of its northern border to lessen the threat of an ISIS invasion.

The state of Jordan, after one of its pilots was murdered in the most bestial manner, has sworn to mobilise its military to crush the Islamic State. Egypt, having witnessed the spread of ISIS to neighbouring Libya, has brutally crushed Islamist forces within its own territory. In Tunisia, after Islamic State blew up a tourist destination in the capital city, the local population exploded in horrified shame and patriotic anger. Even Iran is warming to the West (and vice versa) as both powers seek to contain the same barbarism.

As someone who monitors these things, I have personally seen the membership of atheist groups rooted in Muslim countries swell in recent months. The citizenry of countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Bangladesh, Qatar, Bahrain and Algeria are increasingly aware of how fragile Islam makes their prized social peace and growing economic fortunes.

Has Islamic State – organised to promote and expand the domain of Islam – sent the religion into its death-spiral?

Food for thought.

D, LDN.

OK.

Tags

2015 elections, Alex Salmond, BBC, Britain First, Coalition, coalitions in uk politics, Conservatives, David Cameron, Defend the modern world, ED, ed miliband, Election 2015, fallout from election, how many muslims in uk, immigration statistics in the uk, immigration to the uk, Labour, Labour Party, nicola ed pocket, Nicola Sturgeon, political issues in the uk, politics, UKIP, UKIP Labour

The 2015 general election result is in. Out of the three possibilities – great, OK or terrible – the ball has slipped into the second groove. We have an OK regime, a tolerable one, not especially healthy and not particularly self-destructive.

The Liberal Democrats have been shot to pieces and will find it difficult to survive. The Labour Party is far from dead, and will soon reinvigorate itself with younger generation of advocates (the favourite for leadership being, of course, the ‘British Obama’).

The UKIP grenade, much hyped as being nuclear in its fallout, went off with a silent puff. Farage has been fatally embarrassed. The faces of Middle England are shiny with tears. Chinks of hope for the future have closed.

The Islamisation process ongoing in parts of Britain has not been altered one bit by the result. It would have been quicker under the Labour party, and slower under UKIP. The Tories won’t interfere with it one bit.

That’s about all that can be said.

D, LDN.

Political Destinies.

Tags

America, American Liberty, C4, Civilisation, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, election, Election 2015, Election coverage, Election polls, Election Tory UKIP, Labour Party, Libdems, Liberal Democrats, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Nigel Farage, Right vs Left, Tory UKIP coalition, uk election, UKIP, What's Left

So, it’s election week… Are you excited? Do you know who you’re going to vote for yet? Do you think this election will make a difference?

My answers are as follows – 1) The election is thrilling, perhaps the most thrilling in my lifetime. 2) I’m not physically able to vote physically this time around. Had I been, I would vote for UKIP or LibertyGB (the latter if they are standing, the former if not). 3) Absolutely.

Nobody, not even the most seasoned political commentator, dares to predict who will be running the country this time next week. Despite the avalanche of newsprint, debate, advertising and scandal, the vote remains stubbornly too close to call.

As far as I can see, the UK faces one of 4 possible destinies. Let’s briefly look at each one:

1. Labour Victory.

This would be a disaster; a further half-decade of socialist rule would corrode social and race relations to (or beyond) breaking point. Immigration would remain at the current level, and possibly even get worse. Fear of Islam will apparently be legislated against, eroding our right to resist it. The tentacles of the government will squeeze through more legal gaps, blocking out light and lurching deeper into our intimate affairs. Taxes will rise. Green superstition will rule the laboratories. The army will grow ever more ornamental.

2. Conservative Victory.

Better than a Labour victory, but still a postponement of real solutions to the issues facing this country. More austerity, more economic growth, further cuts to the military and police. A jumble of good and bad.

3. Ukip Victory.

Potentially revolutionary, yet also highly unlikely, a UKIP government would transform UK society in many positive ways. Immigration would finally be addressed with the seriousness it requires. The army would be brought back from the dead. Hate preachers would be shown to the nearest airport (though – crucially – their congregation would remain).

4. Coalition.

This seems by far the most likely situation, and also the most chaotic. A UKIP-Tory coalition would never last beyond a few months. An SNP-Labour coalition would never be accepted by the English public. A Libdem-Tory coalition might work but only with awkwardness. A Lib-Labour coalition would be stable but hugely unpopular.

5. Conclusion.

I think this election will be the last ‘mainstream’ contest for quite some time. By that I mean it will be the last in which the traditional parties dominate the polls. In that sense, it is just a rehearsal for 2020.

I strongly believe conservative radicalism will continue to grow whatever the result is on Thursday. This may clear away the obstacles for a truly restorative party to achieve a parliamentary majority in the third decade of this millennium.

D, LDN.

Europe and the Boats.

Tags

Africa and Europe, African migrants, Africanisation, Africans, American Liberty, BBC, Boat capsize, Boat sink in Med, Christianity and Islam, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EU, Immigration, Italians, Italy, Migrant, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, UKIP

The sinking in the Mediterranean of a boat carrying 700 migrants dominates the headlines today, with sources in the region predicting that most have drowned.

I don’t think anyone, whatever their political convictions can fail to be saddened by an event like this. Loss of life on such a scale is simply heartbreaking. Were we Africans ourselves, living lives of unendurable poverty, we too would take any opportunity  we could think of to get a better deal for our families.

The blame for the incident must thus lie squarely on the liberal policies of the EU and on the shoulders of those who uphold them. It was they who made our continent seem like a prize any African and his wife could successfully pursue (even though it shouldn’t be). It is they who refuse to safely escort all migrants back to Africa when they arrive at the shores of Italy or Malta. And it is they who fail to crack down on the human smuggling gangs who operate freely on African and European streets.

The demographic explosion in Africa is going to make this issue predominant in our political discourse for the foreseeable future. Europe will have to make very tough and internationally unpopular decisions if it is to protect itself from inundation and cultural blackout.

A majority of the migrants attempting to sneak into Europe are Muslim, though there are also Christians among them. This co-habitation has often proven difficult and on occasion, tragi-comic: Just a week ago, it was reported that a group of Muslim Africans, after their own dinghy began to leak, threw the Christians overboard after they prayed to Jesus for help.

Needless to say, we have more than enough Muslim degenerates in our midst already and these Islamic migrants should be promptly returned to Africa. There is growing evidence to suggest this mass export of humans is being sponsored by Islamist groups in North Africa in order to destabilise Europe. If this is true, those Islamist groups should be pursued by Western and allied militaries.

And in general, our governments should make it clear that we are economically unable (and therefore politically unwilling) to rehome the population of Africa. The longer our governments take to do so, the more lives they actively put at risk.

D, LDN.

One Million Girls: A Question of Honour.

Tags

Are Muslims bad?, Britain First, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Grooming gangs, Multiculturalism, Muslim rape, No to Turkey in the EU, Rotherham, Rotherham rapes, UKIP

The Arabs, for all their current violence and confusion, abide by a principle that is increasingly outdated yet also thoroughly decent: the principle of Honour.

As concepts go, this one is fairly easy to understand. If you injure an Arab man’s ‘honour’, he will reclaim that honour by injuring yours. If you hurt his friend, he will hurt your friend and so on…

While this might seem barbarian to us, it really isn’t. Some slights are so great that they merit a proportionate response. Call it tit-for-tat, an eye for an eye, or whatever you like. What it is at base is a question of honour. You have harmed me, so I shall harm you.

Bin Laden believed in honour. His credo ‘As you lay waste to our lands, so we shall lay waste to yours.” found sympathisers on both sides of the cultural divide. Despite the hideousness of Islamic terror, one must be intellectually honest and admit that some ideas have a value that survives the disgrace of those who hold them.

Where is our honour? By ‘our’ I mean the Western World in general, but most specifically the British people.

Estimates are being made that up to one million young girls have been molested, raped or assaulted in the past decade by Muslim immigrants. Had this occurred in Pakistan to Muslim children with Shia Muslims as the offenders, the result would be a violent chaos. I am not, of course, suggesting we emulate that kind of justice, but I must ask, where is our retaliation? This wave of sickening crime was surely historic enough to merit an equally historic response.

The very least we could do to reclaim the honour of those girls is to dispense altogether with political correctness where it might interfere with the safety of children. We should be open and fearless enough to advise children of the dangers of approaching or conversing with Pakistani men and politically incorrect charities should be set up to disperse warnings to this effect. Children of both sexes and of any stage in development should be encouraged to inform local authorities of Pakistanis loitering near schools, or if they witness a friend or relative speaking to Pakistanis in any context outside of education. On the internet, ‘memes’ should be produced which (without inciting hatred) warn young users of social media to watch out for cultural warning signs.

Above all, we must be absolutely clear as to what it is that motivates such criminal behaviours. It is the teachings of Islam, the conduct of Mohammad himself, and the punkish immorality of Pakistani Muslims in particular.

If sufficiently widespread, this type of campaign might result in a UK in which Pakistanis no longer feel at home. So be it.

D, LDN.

Reflections on the Revolution in Europe.

Tags

Civilisation, Conservatives, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, David Cameron, Defend the modern world, Elections, EU, EU Election, EU Parliament, Nigel Farage, UKIP, UKIP Islam, Votes, Who to vote for.

Last Thursday, elections were held in Britain to elect a fresh body of MPs for the European Parliament. The United Kingdom Independence Party was always the favourite to ‘win’, and that prediction has now been decisively justified.

Despite this foreknowledge, the media has since reacted with a purple-faced hysteria. Reading the papers this morning, one would think that Nigel Farage has been announced Prime Minister, Archbishop and direct inheritor to the crown. Metaphors like ‘earthquake’, ‘shock’ and ‘hurricane’ are being hurriedly worn out, as are adjectives like ‘unprecedented’, ‘historic’ and ‘revolutionary’. In the Mail and Telegraph, rustic conservatives are pictured jubilantly flushing down pints of real ale, whilst liberals and leftists are portrayed with creased brows and watery eyes.

In France meanwhile, Marine Le Pen has dramatically triumphed in the popular vote and in doing so may have fatally wounded traditional Gallic conservatism. In Denmark and Germany, far-right parties have also seen their fortunes rise, if only by one seat in the latter case. Bucking this rightward trend, Geert Wilders’ PVV Party returned a smaller vote than at the last election, despite earlier opinion polls suggesting an increase. Elsewhere, Greece has thrown its support behind the radical Leftist grouping Syriza.

My feelings about all this haven’t had the time to mature, but I’ll offer them anyway.

The descent of Geert Wilders is obviously disappointing, as is the victory of radical socialists in Greece. Madame Le Pen’s victory meanwhile provides cause for both hope and fear; Hope that the French people are collectively waking up to the state of their civilisation, and fear that Anti-Semitic boot boys merely have an attractive disguise and are privately bent on dividing the continent as fatally as their German predecessors.

In regards to UKIP, my feelings grow even more nuanced. I love listening to Nigel Farage speak and concur with a lot of what he says, especially about the decadent and unresponsive elite of Westminster. Nevertheless, I can’t help but feel his party has been elected on an imagined manifesto.

If one votes for UKIP believing – as many do – that they will ‘sort out’ the Islamisation of Britain, one will likely be disappointed. UKIP in truth has no coherent policy on religion, cultural protection or race, save for a flaccid, over-qualified commitment to an ‘immigration freeze’. Anyone who voices Islamophobic opinion within UKIP furthermore, is routinely expelled without hesitation.

In addition, the Muslim inflow to Britain is not usually the fault of the European Union, and would not necessarily be affected by Britain’s withdrawal from it. True, we would have fewer Poles, Ukrainians and Romanians, but as miniature Pakistans swell within London, Birmingham and Manchester, that seems rather beside the point.

I don’t want to be completely negative about all this. There are reasons for celebration today. Across the continent of Europe, many vital signs are beginning to return, and the comatose patient is beginning to blink and shuffle, perhaps signifying that it is ready to awaken.

UKIP is one such blink. The party has value, but only as a path-breaker for others who will tread the prepared ground with greater daring.

D, LDN

Scottish Independence Would Liberate England from the Left.

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Immigration, Independence, Scotland, Tory Party, UKIP

The consensus of English elites regarding the potential independence of Scotland – namely that the proposed amputation would prove fatal to the British concept – is misguided, I believe.

While the departure of Scotland would certainly be injurious to the Britain of nostalgia, its effect on the British future is harder to guess. Having studied (albeit briefly) the projected consequences of independence on the UK electoral system, I am personally inclined to estimate a positive outcome.

It’s an open secret in Britain that the Conservative party, despite failing to gain a majority over-all, won the last 3 general elections in England by a fair margin. In each instance, the tories were only denied office (or, in the most recent election, a governing majority) because of the Scottish fidelity to Labour.

With the Scotch vote removed from consideration then, the Political Left in England would have the carpet whipped from underneath them, and the Right would be  granted a new freedom of ideological movement, potentially allowing a move back toward the Tory ideal of low-immigration, low-tax libertarianism.

I’m not personally a Tory – far from it in fact – but as corrupt and slippery as the Conservatives have become, I believe the Political Left and its survival poses a far greater threat to the continuity of Britain (as a material whole) than the proposed autonomy of Edinburgh.

D, LDN.