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

There Are No Noble Savages

Tags

America, American Liberty, BBC, Blog, Civilisation, civilisation West, Coffee, concepts, cultural evolution, cultural issues, Culture, Defend the modern world, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, Egalitarianism, Facebook, facebook facebook, first world, first world third world, ideas, Internet, Memes, Multiculturalism, noble savages, Philosophy, politics, primitivism, savage, theory, third world, Twitter, United States, web, West, Western world

If the reader is a user of facebook or any comparable website, he or she may be familiar with the following viral post:

“An anthropologist proposed a game to the kids in an African tribe. He put a basket of fruit near a tree and told the kids that who ever got there first won the sweet fruits. When he told them to run, they all took each others hands and ran together, then sat together enjoying their treats. When he asked them why they had run like that as one could have had all the treats for himself, they said: “Ubunto. How can one of us be happy if all the other ones are sad?”. ‘Ubunto’ in Xhosa culture means ‘I am because we are'”

Though the authenticity of the Ubunto story is uncertain, the word appears to be real and to have roughly the same meaning attributed to it. If this is the case, the concept is surely pleasant, even admirable. But is it really so original or sophisticated?

If the adoring Westerners cooing over this story could stop crying with happiness for one moment, they might recall the similar Western phrase ‘all for one, one for all’ – or indeed many hundreds of other equivalents around the world.

Human solidarity, yet another way of describing ‘Ubunto’, is an innate quality invested in the human condition by the legacy of biological evolution. It is not something one needs to give a name to. It just exists – ineradicably, albeit in differing endowments from person to person.

As many cynics have noted, the only reason Western audiences are so enamoured of the Ubunto story in particular is because it appears to align with a very old and sentimental fallacy; that of the ‘Noble savage’.

The Noble Savage has been part of Western art – particularly literature – for centuries. Put simply, the idea is that undeveloped cultures (especially African, Amerindian, Asian and Middle Eastern cultures), though on the surface less sophisticated and morally developed than those of Europe, nevertheless retain valuable ancient wisdom the West may profit by relearning.

You can see the cultural effects of this notion everywhere you look; from fridge magnets emblazoned with Confucian and Native American spiritual maxims, to the kind of the meme mentioned above. The West cannot seem to get enough of ancient non-European ‘wisdom’. It is substantially more popular even than Western philosophy, including the immortal works of Nietzsche, Kant and the ancient Greeks – (when was the last time you saw a Plato fridge magnet?).

Of course, being the cultural bigot that I am, I do not believe that Crazy Horse is the equal of Nietzsche. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don’t think they even belong in the same category. Nietzsche was the greatest philosopher of the last 500 years. Crazy Horse, though undoubtedly noble in the military sense, made only commonsensical remarks about his own life and about a political struggle he ended up losing (to Europeans).

Historic Third World philosophers, like historic Third World mathematicians, physicists and inventors, are extremely thin on the ground. The vast majority of celebrated non-European thinkers are products of the past 100 years, a century marked by non-European adaptation to European domination and cultural hegemony.

This is not a coincidence. When European civilisation – now de-racialised as  ‘The West’ – made the first breakthrough from localism to worldliness, the broader world was still filled with savage darkness. And long after the enlightenment began, Asians (including those dwelling in the now impressive Japanese and Korean cultures), Africans and Amerindians continued to exist in a twilight condition of subsistence agriculture and mind-numbing ritual.

In India, now home to internet entrepreneurs and industrialist billionaires, widowed women hurled themselves onto burning funeral pyres to satisfy perverse notions of marital duty. In Japan, now the epicentre of global technological innovation, Samurai (normal people in strange clothes) cut their stomachs open to amend for ‘dishonourable’ failures in martial etiquette. There is evidence of cannibalism in Southern Africa as late as the Victorian era. And so on…

The European explosion – the multinational enlightenment – was the beginning of true civilisation. Though periods of greatness in North Africa, the Middle East, Mexico and China had been observed centuries before this point, it is only after this seismic event that civilisation in its contemporarily recognisable form began.

So why do Westerners, those to whom the most credit belongs,  now look back at pre-civilisation with such a powerful nostalgia? Why do Brits and Americans, looking at memes on Apple Mackintosh computers, interpret the word ‘umbunto’ as a proof of Third World superiority? And why are non-Europeans, Asians especially, increasingly more cognizant of Western superiority than Westerners?

Since these questions are interconnected, a single answer may suffice for all of them. The West, unlike the rest of the planet, is infected with a virus of civilizational exhaustion; a crisis of civilizational confidence. We Westerners have grown so used to the blessings of modernity that we have come to take them for granted. It takes real mental exertion for us to imagine (honestly and accurately) a world without the internet, refrigerators and Starbucks restaurants. And with a thick fog of relativism further obscuring our vision we are inevitably tempted by the idea that such a condition is more ‘wholesome’, ‘substantial’ or culturally complex than that in which we now live.

Westerners have become bored of affluence and modernity

But it isn’t more wholesome, of course, nor more substantial, complex, romantic… It is inferior by almost every measure. And if anyone needs evidence of this contention, one can experience pre-civilisation for a very paltry sum these days. One can fly over to Ghana, Chad, North Korea or Afghanistan and live cheaply for whole years at a time. The reason we don’t want to dwell in such places, would not even dream of doing so, is because anti-Western sentiment is based on lies, illusions and errors of logic.

The West (including the Western-inspired cultures of Japan and Korea) is the only true civilisation on Earth. The further you go away from it, the further you go away from all that is valuable, good and worth living for.

The Noble Savage myth is the first step down a very slippery slope. It is best not to take it, even if that means not sharing a heart-warming post on social media.

D, LDN.

Defining the ‘West’

Tags

America, America 911, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Facebook, Islam and the West, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, west and east, west vs east, western definition, Western world

In the course of an online discussion last Tuesday, I was asked a deceptively simple-sounding question that has since plagued my thinking. After offering an argument for the inherent superiority of the ‘West’, my competitor stumped me by requesting that I “define ‘the West'” – that is, explain what it actually consists of.

Having had a few days to ponder an answer, during which I have been staring intensely at google maps and rifling through the pages of Wikipedia, I have come up with a list of countries I consider ‘Western’. I must add beforehand the obvious point that ‘West’ and ‘Western’ in this context have no geographic meaning, but rather imply certain standards of civilisation, such as secularism, gender equality, liberal capitalism and a free press. Here then is my answer – presented in no particular order:

Great Britain and all the countries of the EU
Liberal commonwealth nations (such as Jamaica, Trinidad etc..)
The United States
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
India*
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan (Republic of China)
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Uruguay
Mexico
South Africa
Armenia
Israel

*It should be noted that India has an anti-democratic caste system, with different categories recorded by government. This must change if India is to maintain its Western character.

Now, a lot of people would say I’m being far too generous with this list. When such people think of ‘The West’, they think of things like influence, affluence, cleanliness and order, as well as the basic civilizational standards mentioned above. I understand what these people mean and would agree that there exists a ‘core’ inside of the West, without which the whole ‘Western’ construct would begin to fragment or collapse. This core is simply the Anglosphere, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Such nations are not merely of the West, but its original authors.

Needless to say, no Islamic country comes close to membership of this marvellous club. And I doubt that fact will change any time soon.

D, LDN.

The West or Nothing.

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Democracy, developed countries, European, Europeanisation, Facebook, Industrialised countries list, Islam, Liberalisation, Niall Ferguson, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, The West, The West versus the Rest, United States, West, West best, West is best, West versus the rest, Western culture, Western world, Western World developed countries, Westernisation

The Western World (Europe, Oceania, Japan, Israel and North America) is so often compared against the dusty wastelands of the Islamic world that a casual observer might think this disparity was an isolated one. It isn’t.

It is a vital truth that the Western world is not only a preferable environment to Planet Sharia, but to all other environments on Planet Earth.

I am writing this post as a self-conscious chauvinist. To me, there is simply no comparison between the relaxed, liberal manners of European culture and the chaotic, antiquated or eccentric alternatives offered by the third and second worlds.

Even those civilisations we can count upon as friends, like China, Africa, Indochina, India and Latin America are dizzyingly inferior to our own. We enjoy very special advantages confined to our range of habitation – advantages hewn violently over centuries, the glistening produce of bravery, rebellion and innovation.

Outside of this luxurious reserve, primitivism and bigotry can be found almost everywhere. In non-Muslim African countries, for example, girls from certain tribes have their breasts ironed flat to delay puberty and sexual development. The process is said to be mind-scarringly painful and is usually performed by the girls mother or grandmother. In democratic India, one particular ‘caste’, the Dalit, are considered ‘untouchable’ due to a perceived (wholly imagined) ancestral wretchedness. Members of this caste are condemned to the most menial professions and forbidden from inter-marrying with members of ‘superior’ categories. Likewise in Brazil – the land of toted post-racialism – the darker you are, the less likely you are to get on in life. With race an impossible concept (due to centuries of mixing) simple colorism – every bit as nasty as race prejudice – wears its clothes.

A majority of non-Western countries, including non-Muslim countries, approve of arranged (forced) marriages. This hideous idea means that young people never get to enjoy the romance of dating, seduction and sexual discovery, but are simply tacked on to a family friendly to their own. Those who rebel against the tradition and date outside their tribe or caste are subject to acid attacks and honour killings.

Speaking of violence, in Mexico (sunny, happy, vacation-friendly Mexico), neighbour of the great United States of America, there are more beheadings per year than in the entire Middle East. I’ll repeat that – in Mexico, there are more beheadings per year than in the entire Middle East. This unbelievable slaughter occurs only a slim river away from the peace and affluence of suburban Texas. By itself, this speaks volumes about the sharpness of contrast under discussion.

Despite the position of the far-right, the West isn’t actually a biological mass. Multiracial, Japanese and Jewish experiments have achieved (or even surpassed) the European standard. In the same spirit, Immigrants to the West can become naturally Western if they so desire, including people from the most Neanderthal backgrounds. Ayaan Hirsi Ali can no longer sensibly be compared to the inhabitants of pre-wheel Somalia, for example. She has become a Westerner, understands this and displays joy and gratitude for it. We all should, however native we consider ourselves.

As to the secret ingredient of the West (the cause of its distinction), I would nominate the legacy of Anti-Traditionalism; the breaking by axe of the formaldehyde jars preserving ancient mistakes. Westerners realise that the solemnities of royalty are a pantomime. We also can’t be impressed by ten-limbed, Elephant-headed deities, Chinese tea-making ceremonies that last 10 hours, competitively obedient wives, Buddhists staring at walls, insect-worshipping Jains or anything else that is completely out-of-place in a century of awesome material potential. The secret of Western success is a devotion to the real.

And only the real is of any worth; only it can be truly inspiring- the shimmer of the sun on skyscraper glass; the colourful stacks of wares at supermarkets the size of football fields. How luxurious and sane our countries have become. We should be prepared to kill millions to protect this.

For me at least, as far as modernity is concerned, the choice is ultimately not the West or Pakistan, but the West or nothing at all.

D, LDN.

Second Thoughts on the Veil.

Tags

Ban the Burka, Burka, Burka prison, Defend the modern world, Feminism, France, Guardian, Hijab, Imprisonment of women, Islamisation, Liberal Feminism, Liberalism, liberty, Niqāb, veil, West, Western Feminism, Western world

A few months ago on this blog, I wrote that I could not support a move to ban the Islamic veil in Britain. The reasons I put forward in support of this stance were straightforwardly libertarian:

“It’s true that the Burka (actually called a ‘Niqab’) has no place on English streets, and it’s also true that the veil is impractical and hazardous in many social contexts… But that said, I don’t want to live in a country where the government can decide what people may wear… Should we concede to government the power to choose how we dress, there would be no turning back. The outlawing of the veil could soon become the outlawing of hoodies, baseball caps and any other item of clothing which obscures identity.”

Well, I’ve changed my mind. There has been no particular catalyst for this, or at least not one I can identify, but I regard the reasoning quoted above as adolescent and knee-jerk. Those who objected to my post were correct. The veil is a revolting garment, an affront to women and a moral stain on the standard of our whole society. It should be outlawed across the continent of Europe.

In the same post alluded to above, I went on to say that a ban – as well as being undesirable – would be difficult to enforce. This is now an argument that can be turned the other way. A confrontation with Islamic misogyny in England is just what we require, and the more aggressive, public and discomforting to the multicultural idea it is, so much the better.

D, LDN.

A Saddening Glimpse of London’s Future.

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, England, Islam and the West, Islamification of Britain, london, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Mogadishu, Multiculturalism, Muslim, No to Turkey in the EU, Pakistan, Secondary school, Somalia, Tower Hamlets, Western world, Wimbledon

It’s easy to lapse into false optimism about Muslim immigration, especially if one views things solely through ones own generational lens. Most commonly, it’s only when viewed from ‘below’ as it were, that things enter their statistical context.

I was riding an almost empty bus from Wimbledon to Fulham the other afternoon, when the clock struck 3:30pm, and the vehicle hummed to a stop outside a local secondary school.

The doors slid open, and within seconds, the Western World seemed to disappear.

Gone was England, its green fields and marble arches, and to replace it, a rowdy band of Somalians and Pakistanis. I couldn’t count, but the swarm of conquisotors must have been 20 to 25 strong. A deafening pet-shop chorus quickly filled the air around me.

The school itself, I noted, looked to be from the Blair-era; i.e. a type of modernized state school with the deliberate ambience of a college. Any thought that the school was strictly Islamic was undermined by a number of native students wearing the same uniform. This only served to make it even more depressing. 

As I sat there for the remainder of the journey, surrounded by a forest of prayer caps and headscarves, I felt like some sort of gap-year missionary, flown in to demonstrate house-building or agriculture to the poor of Mogadishu. Few of the children communicated with each other in English, and those who did, only managed the bastardised slang of urban ghettos.

Still, the figures on these matters, with which I am usually so well acquainted, ought to have dulled any surprise I felt. London’s natural demographic growth (i.e that which is not attributable to fresh immigration) is greatest in those areas dominated by Muslims. Tower Hamlets, Brent and Haringey all have ballooning populations, and since this incident occurred in the leafy opulence of West-London, there must also be hives of conquest closer to home.

Demography, the study of these changes in population, is a miserable science. It’s made all the worse for its definitude. One can’t argue with it, debate it, mitigate it, or challenge it. The movements within demography can be as soundly predicted as any other calculus. That swarm, – that loud, semi-literate band of youth previously described – is the future of London. There is no way around it. Barring their mass generational suicide, that lucky collection will inherit the priceless city of Edward Gibbon (‘Decline and Fall’ – the greatest ever application of the English language – was written around the same area).

How very ironic. How very sad.  

D, LDN.

“If you don’t like it here….?”

Tags

Anjem Choudary, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Deport Muslims, English Defence League, Islam, Multiculturalism, racism, Western world

“If you don’t like it here, then why don’t you f**k off back to where you came from!”

It’s a taunt as old as multicultural society itself, but this – the oldest and most basic expression of xenophobic discomfort is still one of the most effective available.

There was a time when this phrase was directed against all kinds of people with immigrant-origins – from African pensioners to Asian shopkeepers to Mixed-race schoolchildren. Nowadays (thankfully) it seems reserved exclusively for use against the Muslim population of the Anglophone West.

I’m not sure precisely how we ought to deal with this, morally-speaking; a phenomenon that began as lazy and randomly (mis)directed, and yet which now seems so neat and reasonable. I suppose it depends on whether something originally racist can become non-racist in a different context.

Racial hatred, at least of an explicit kind, has long gone out of fashion in the Western world and few openly espouse it. Consequently, when someone uses a phrase like the above, it sounds like a reversion to something every immigrant knows they no longer have to put up with.

This is understandable, but a shame nonetheless. As phrases go, this one is actually quite helpful, especially in todays context of Islamisation.

When applied against Muslims, this taunt manages to get to the heart of Islamist hypocrisy but at the same time bypass any reference to their race and/or appearance. It’s worth repeating to consider again….

“If you don’t like it here, then why don’t you fuck off back to where you came from!”

The first part of this insult (if it is one) presupposes that the Muslim in question has made a complaint about Western society, and has suggested that his (Islamic) way of living would make a superior replacement. This is becoming ever more regular, and will only carry on increasing alongside the numbers of the Muslim population itself. I no longer feel any surprise when I am told by Muslim proselytizers that Britain (and the West) is a moral sewer and that “Islam is the answer”.

The second part, “Why don’t you fuck off back to where you came from!”, should be properly understood as a question, even if it was meant originally to be rhetorical. It is one worth asking repeatedly…..

Why don’t Muslims, who say they dislike the licentiousness of Western life, move to a state run along Islamic lines?

Evasive answers to this – for example, “I was born here” should be discounted. Being born somewhere is not a tether which cannot be cut. I too was born here, but I often consider moving.

The real answer, and the one Muslims will never provide, is that they know (deep-down) that Western society is superior to the societies of their ethnic homelands; that the West is richer and happier, as well as more advanced and free and allowing of difference than Pakistan or Qatar.

They don’t leave because they don’t want to leave.

There is a yawning disconnect here, between what Muslims are told by religious elders to believe, and what their life-experience has shown them. When the tension between these two realities becomes unbearable, then the Western Muslim usually does one of two things – he either becomes an extremist, or (more rarely) he leaves Islam. Both occasions present ways of getting rid of the Muslim in question, either by replacing him with a prison-number, or else with a newly formed Christian/atheist.

Consequently, the harvest of “If you don’t like it here…” usually rewards the labour (and risk) of planting it.

D, LDN.

Prelude to a Second American Civil War?

Tags

American Civil War, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Glenn Beck, Gun Control, National Rifle Association, Rihanna Muslim, Tyranny, United States, Western world

Anyone who saw Glenn Beck’s performance at the NRA convention last week will struggle to describe it in words. On the one hand, the former Fox-contributor was ridiculous, over-emotive, faux-Shakespearean and tended to ramble on from one point to the next rather than focus on the issue he was invited to speak about. On the other hand, he was eminently convincing in his case that firearms and the right of the common man to own them was something above the merely political. It involved, he suggested, one of the naked, pre-political liberties of mankind – the right to defend one’s family, and given that this right precedes politics, he argued, nobody should dare threaten it but that they rightly be called a tyrant.

And with this, I wholeheartedly agree. Beck, however, is a difficult man to agree with. He can embarrass an argument as well as he can express one. And at the NRA convention, Beck provided a lot of unnecessary amateur dramatics. His voice occasionally trembled for decorum and then, just as easily (and artificially) rose with a preacher’s emphasis for applause and confirmation. It’s difficult to keep Beck on track at a live event, but look at his speech in transcript form, and you’ll find much more to engage with.

Beck didn’t mention it explicitly, but the language of ‘civil war’ ran implicitly through his entire speech. His rhetoric about being ready to ‘stand and fight’ hardly needs elaborating upon. Nor does his use of the iconography of soldiers and historic battles. The audience knew what he meant. They whooped and cheered on cue and off, intimating that they understood him, tone and undertone.

It is the undertones which concern me most.

A political tendency is developing in America which, unless some concerted effort is made to arrest it, will bring the prospect of a very damaging civil conflict into view. This tendency is based on a growing doubt that the elected Obama administration is the rightful government of the United States. There are Americans, many of them decent and rational to their bone-marrow, who do not believe that ‘America’ elected Barack Obama, either in 2008 or 2012. They believe that an alien coalition of Mexicans, Africans and Cubans elected him, after he bribed them with their money.

The fact that they’re not entirely wrong doesn’t help us here. Of course the Democrats have engineered immigration policy with the electoral college in mind. Nobody disputes this. But if this belief is followed through to its logical end, we may end up with a catastrophe.

America is not an ordinary country. It is the greatest nation in the Western World. American innovation created and secured the mechanics of democratic capitalism, which itself defeated both Communism and Fascism to ensure that mankind remained free, and that the democratic idea became a global standard. A modern history without America would have seen politics reduced to a question of allegiance between Berlin or Moscow. A choice (if it is one) from hell.

Given this indispensability, everyone the world over has a right to be concerned about America’s internal affairs. With Islamism lapping at European shores and autocratic Russian and Chinese states rising to ever greater economic might, the need for a stable, united, and confident America is increasing.

And yet it is at this point in history that America risks falling to pieces. One cannot now bet safely against a major civil implosion in certain American states. The most likely catalyst for the beginning of a Second American Civil War would (let’s not say ‘will’ just yet), probably be the next election. If the republicans fail to win in 2016, then that really is it for the party of Reagan. After this, people may start looking for primordial, pre-political solutions.

And in case you don’t know what that entails, I refer you back to Mr Beck’s speech.

D, LDN.

Muslim (Social) Terrorism.

Tags

Coffee, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Eurabia, Islamification of Britain, Islamisation of London, Mark Steyn, Multiculturalism, Pamela Geller, Rihanna Muslim, Sharia, Western world

I was browsing in the Piccadilly branch of Waterstones the other week, looking for a textbook for my coursework when I (inevitably) got distracted and headed to the politics section. There, the same thing annoyed me which has annoyed me countless times before: the absurd number of books about Islamic terrorism.

Almost every book addressing Islamic-Western relations these days seems to dwell centrally on the issue of terrorism, Jihadism, and al-Qaeda, and nothing else. The few honourable exceptions to this (Mark Steyn’s wonderfully savage ‘America Alone’, and Fallaci’s ‘Force of Reason’), I have already read.

Why aren’t more books dedicated to addressing the real problems caused by Islamic immigration? The problems which are a 24/7 issue and affect the vast population, as opposed to those – like terrorism – that are only freak occurrences affecting a few?

I began to write an essay about something I call ‘Muslim Social Terrorism’ a few months ago. The essay became so long that I’m going to try and extend it into a book. But the definition is simple and so I’ll explain it here.

If you’re a British kaffir living in Bradford, Oldham, Sparkbrook, Tower Hamlets or some other place undergoing Islamisation, you’ll no doubt be rather pissed-off about the whole affair. But if I was to ask for a list of reasons for your opposing the local Islamic presence, I’m almost certain (correct me if I’m wrong) that words like ‘terrorism’, ‘Jihad’ and even ‘Sharia’ wouldn’t feature very highly among them.

More likely your answers would include terms like ‘intimidation’, ‘immaturity’, ‘aggression’, ‘sexual abuse’, ‘stalking’, ‘loitering’, ‘benefit cheating’ etc… etc…

These are not, as some Counter-Jihad authors suggest, tactics of Jihad. Muslims don’t smash bus shelters, or wolf-whistle schoolgirls to further their religion. These things are rather the inevitable side-effects of allowing a talentless, backward people to dwell in an innovative, progressive society.

Muslims tend to be a social nuisance often because they couldn’t become anything else even if they wanted to. The Muslim condition is innate and the reasons why are worth elaborating upon.

Wit, charm and depth of personality are not developed like a language. Personality cannot be either taught or learned. Rather it is developed subconsciously through human experience. A personality is the legacy (good or otherwise) of trial and error, success and failure, pleasure and pain, evolved over many years from the cradle upwards. The personality one has by the age of university (18-30) is the direct product of youth-experience. If a man has a happy childhood, this will show in his twenties. If he has an unhappy childhood, this will show likewise. But in both cases, the individual can still develop a creative, fulfilled and decent character. If we are all pressed by the same culture, whatever shape we are left in will usually be compatible with some kind of constructive adulthood in that culture. For all our distinctions we know there are other people like us out there, who will find us or we will find them.

This is plainly not the case with Muslims. Their youth is not suited to anything we are used to. They are socially stunted from an early age and their character is never developed to be compatible with the society they will one day have to work or study within.

There are many factors which contribute to this.

Even in the Western world, Muslim youths are reared in large but suffocatingly tight families, whose windows are lined with the bars of rigid tradition. Irony and advanced humor can never genuinely develop in these conditions. For the average Muslim there are no meeting points with freedom available before late-adolescence and by then it is too late.

Until University, a Muslim’s daylight is spent in an all-Muslim school, his evening in a Muslim home, his weekend at some all-Muslim family get-together, and on the rare occasion he has reason to leave the prison of his family, it will be with a Muslim friend whose family is known to his own.

The end product of this horrific process is not something either socially desirable or able to be reformed.

At any University there are countless cases of a Muslim who has been given his first taste of non-Muslim life. Having been raised in a dark-room of tradition, he is plunged suddenly into the flashing light of Western liberty. He sincerely thinks he’ll be fine. He usually has some crude knowledge of his country – but only via artificial mediums like television and music. Lacking a real developed personality, he fails. He doesn’t understand why he fails, but he fails.

This total incompatibility lies behind all the real problems of Islamic immigration. Social Terrorism is the fallout from the clash of Muslim inadequacy and Western sophistication. It lies behind the grooming, rape, bullying, stalking, and aggression so typical of Muslim migrants.

Unlike Jihadist Terrorism, Muslim Social Terrorism affects everyone.

Most Muslims cannot integrate, even though many want to. This is why, despite the huge Muslim presence in Universities, most young Muslim graduates are unemployed or on benefits. The skills themselves are not the issue. Muslims can be bright and complete degrees in complicated scientific areas of study. They may even do the job they qualify for well during the early weeks, and earn merit for efficiency. But their inadequacies will sooner or later present themselves.

I knew an English student who had studied pharmaceutical science. After completing his degree, this chap went to work at a branch of a popular pharmacist in South London. His work-mates were evenly split between Eastern-European migrants and British born Muslims. The Eastern-Europeans kept to themselves after work, but the Muslims, as would be expected, competed amongst themselves for the attention of the Brit.

On the few occasions our fellow went for an after-work coffee with the Muslims, he reports that the difference in behavior between then and the hours of work, was truly staggering.

“In the day” he said, “They did their job like everyone else. They were polite and mechanical. But then when work finished, they became like children. Babies almost. They liked to talk about things I used to joke about with mates in Year 5. They giggled nervously around women, and when we were safely distant from work after hours, they would talk about the female customers in the most horrible way. Calling them ‘slags’ was routine.”

This is, of course, to be expected. The surface of a grown-up Muslim may be professional, respectable and hard-working, but his emotional deformities are always bubbling just below the surface, and beneath the gloss of financial achievement, they remain children.

Crucially here, we have a problem that is separate from Islam itself. Even if these young men who have been raised for another culture, abandon their religious beliefs and make an honest effort to integrate, this will not resolve the issue. They will still be unable to function without friction in any advanced Western atmosphere. The stunted Muslim-raised personality cannot hope to compete with that of a well-developed non-Muslim, even if belief in Islam is subtracted from it. We cannot furthermore expect people to be second-class citizens in a civilized country.

Consequently any sensible solution to the Muslim threat must include (as a first rather than a last step) the orderly segregation of socially-developed citizens away from those of Islamic design. The latter cannot be integrated and even if they could be, it would not be desirable. For these reasons, I am not a fan of movements aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity. The damage inflicted by a strict Islamic upbringing cannot be undone.

I am still waiting for an anti-Muslim movement to arise which takes such things into account; a movement which understands that the real problems of Muslim immigration are social and not political and consequently require harder, less-political actions to face them down. The EDL degrade themselves when they use dumb slogans like ‘No Surrender to Al-Qaeda!’. Al-Qaeda is a spent force, whose leaders are taken out by drones on a daily basis. But even were they not, they would not care a jot about young lads in Durham or Stoke-on-Trent. The main beef of Bin-Laden’s terror-network was with America, Israel and the House of Saud, not Hanley Council.

We must be serious. The problem is serious, and it shows no sign of going away.