What is needed is realism, not a kind of Pavlovian political correctness conditioning that prevents any discussion. Instead of realism and debate, we have repression and mass immigration policies that have internalised the problems that used to be external to our societies, and have led to us producing difficult-to-find, home-grown Islamist terrorists. As we see with the Labour leader in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn — that very pomegranate of learning — the Left is more determined than ever before to pursue a new, multicultural demography rather than national security which seems to stand for nothing. This comes at a time when social media and other aspects of our lives are becoming increasingly ‘securitised’. As observed previously, we are living in the age of ‘security’, and the world is not very ‘secure’.
And nor can it be, because privatised, internalised thought about authoritarian fear and oppression is likely to encourage, by definition, lone-wolf attacks of the Breivik style. The quiet, shy man who kills the British Member of Parliament or who guns down children in a German McDonald’s is potentially everywhere. Heinous private thoughts have perhaps just not yet become public actions. I do not worry about the piety of radical Muslims. I care about the obfuscation in the West; the media that is deceiving freedom-loving people. I am against the totalitarian nature that liberalism has come to represent and its post-democratic direction. The first priority has to be to beat the liberals in the information field. Liberals overwhelmingly dominate the information space. In the name of preserving the tried-and-tested model of European nation-states, there needs to be a diversification of the ideological discourse. True conservative thinking has more or less disappeared. It has been silenced.
It is an uneasy feeling when the parent culture dissipates, when the church bells fall silent on parts of England’s ancient land (such as West Yorkshire) where place-names tell the story of our Viking heritage. The soft chime of the bells is being increasingly replaced by the loudspeakers that resonate the adhan called out by the muezzin, the call to prayer and the repeated praise for Allah and Muhammed. The call can be heard twice a day across the cities of Bradford, Blackburn, Manchester, Oldham, Bolton and Coventry where churches have been converted to mosques (such as Didsbury Mosque, Manchester; Jamia Mosque, Oldham).
The documentary Undercover Mosque (2007) proved that British imams right across the country have been calling for Muslims not to accept the rule of the kaffir; imam Abu Usamah praised the killer of a British soldier serving in Afghanistan, stating: ‘The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders’ and his advice on meeting a homosexual was to ‘throw [the homosexual] off the mountain’. Then, you have imam Abdullah el-Faisal: ‘You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews you kill them physically’. Imam Al Jibali said: ‘By the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear hijab, and if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her’. Some imams in Britain and elsewhere in Europe are spewing out hatred and vengeance, calling for the persecution of Christians in Pakistan. No charges were made, and no doubt their pronouncements have been taken out of context.
London, the capital city whose mayor is a Pakistani Muslim, is no longer an English city in any way. When Zac Goldsmith debated alongside Sadiq Khan in the London mayoral election of 2016, many British Conservatives must have surely wondered how it was possible for Zac to lose by the margin he did. The answer is simple: the London voter base is no longer made up of people representing the values that he stands for. London has become a pluralistic, hybrid à la Toronto where the ethnic minority population has gone from three per cent to over fifty per cent in fifty years. In years to come, the rich language of Churchill will err towards some kind of multicultural pidgin as new multi-ethnolects emerge in London, creating new and more fundamental barriers. Not only will any sense of common hope be forgotten, but also communication could even be impaired ultimately as recent sociolinguistic research shows.138
In these post-modern places, the imperative is not to be wedded to any one culture unless it is a non-Western one; monoculturalism might be perceived as racist or imperialist, but ethnocentricity if one is a Muslim is unobjectionable. White Canadians are now the ethnic minority in the biggest city of their own country. In Frankfurt, ethnic Germans are also now a minority. These changes are irreversible. Publicly, one can only celebrate this diversity, even if it is one big mangled diaspora of confused allegiances and hyphenated identities, an aggregate of unconnected individuals, living with mythical shared, secularised values. But for societies to work, its members must have some kind of historical commonality and collective inner experiences. Even if the language is shared, if the understanding of the concepts that the words designate is slightly different, then they will not have the same experience of events.
There is nothing wrong with urban diversity per se, but one needs a core in order to celebrate ‘difference’, and celebrating ‘difference’ is the ordre du jour. If diversity becomes the state-sanctioned discourse, as it has in Canada under Trudeau, the indigenous group is just disenfranchised because of the blank-slate ideology. One wonders whether there are any frontiers or limits to this celebration of diversity. Is one meant to jump and cheer in the name of anti-racism if we elect a Muslim Prime Minister, or if our greatest cathedrals become mosques? Diversity in the true sense of the word (and not in the sense of ideologised privilege bestowed upon minorities, which has become the meaning of the word in the public sector) is of course what makes the world utterly fascinating. Discovering just a tiny fraction of the cultural and natural riches of this planet is the best education one could ask for, and has given me personally more pleasure than anything else. But if every country and city were genuinely diverse in the perverse sense in which the word is used, the world would be significantly less interesting, as culturally it would be the same everywhere because every community would be multi-ethnic along the same lines. And thus the advocates of diversity would end up celebrating homogeneity or undiversity (on a global macro scale at least) and not the diversity they craved to make them feel better and less guilty about themselves.
People who identify as ‘white British’ are now a minority in London, their capital, and in some parts of London a tiny minority (2011 Census). They are also a minority in England’s second biggest city, Birmingham, as well as Luton, Leicester and Slough (2011 Census). The Muslim population of England and Wales has doubled in the last ten years. In parts of London such as Tower Hamlets, there are more Bangladeshis alone than there are white Britons (2011 Census). Arguably, none of this matters. But what does matter are the establishment of entirely ‘separate’ communities with religious (and not political) accountability and with a system of values which are alien and sometimes conflicting with the rest of Britain. It is not about immigration per se, and absolutely never about race. It is a question of ideology and cultural norms. It would be easier to integrate English-speaking, Christian Africans from Commonwealth countries such as Uganda than Muslim Afghans or Syrians that wish to live in societies run in accordance with shari’ah. At the risk of repetition, this is absolutely not a race issue. It is the Left that insist on trying to make it that, so that they can close down debate and claim the moral high ground by labelling the mass migration sceptic ‘racist’.
Research from Oxford University shows that Britons will become within this century minorities in their own country, changing its culture forever, and descending us into an unknown fosse.139 Mass immigration and open borders have been imposed on a people without ever asking them. The Government cannot so much as put a figure on the number of newcomers, and does not even appear to care, content to rip up the English countryside in the name of economic growth and housing starts. Currently, the Government believes there may be up to half a million migrants unaccounted for in the UK, but nobody is really sure what the number is. We are living in the age of super-mobility and mass population shifts, and governments cannot possibly keep up with the new paradigm.
These days will leave an indel
ible mark on our future, leaving our children and grandchildren to grow up in rootless societies built around secular cathedrals that serve little direction and that might not stand for much more. If the attempts by the Left and the EU technocrats to erase national identity succeed, there might arise a risk to social solidarity, and this might lead ultimately to societal breakdown. History shows that social cohesion is possible and is best achieved through nations which have a democratic legitimacy and a shared set of cultural beliefs and anchors of belonging. As has been noted, thanks to cultural nihilism, the current intellectual Zeitgeist, an incoming ‘strong’ culture could trespass across this Hamletian ‘muddled pile of identities […] this congregation of vapours’ and create a stronghold out of a self-imposed vacuum. At the moment, it looks like that will be Islam, a rigid theocratic monotheism, and this time there will not be much left of Christendom for it to overrun.
When considering these issues, it is important to recognise that there is a difference between immigration and colonialism. Colonialists bring their culture with them and live under their own laws, whereas immigrants may be willing to learn the ways of their new home, to integrate and perhaps assimilate. Sweden and other parts of Europe look increasingly like countries that are being colonised by groups which are in moribus et artibus alien, but also alien in terms of Weltanschauung. From a European perspective, the twenty-first century is beginning to look like the inverse of the nineteenth century. And yet it would be unthinkable to ponder colonialism models that differed from the white, settlement colonialist model, which is inherently racist, to speculate whether the empowerment of minorities might be tantamount to a transition in control.
It is in this manner that the West has nurtured an overdeveloped capacity for self-criticism, a fetishised historical guilt, and a passion for self-laceration, and in so doing has become a ‘penitent State’ (Bruckner, 2010). The culture of remorse has become a disabling, debilitating form of narcissism that makes it almost impossible to criticise non-Western crimes or actions. A lingering sense of culpability that is explicit in the outpourings of the liberal elite, the anti-traditional ‘aristocracy of the parvenu’ (Evola, 2002: 289). It has committed itself to systematic cultural narcissism, wallowing in the barbed words that it aims at itself. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, implied in a speech given in 2008 that we could not expect Muslim communities to live under British Law, and responded to a question by agreeing that ‘the application of shari’ah in certain circumstances would achieve cohesion because it would show that we are treating peoples’ religions seriously’.140 This relativist remark suggests that the former Archbishop of Canterbury endorses the affaiblissement of the civic and legal identity of British society.
This is the naïvety of callow youth and will lead ultimately to completely segregated communities answerable to utterly opposing legal systems: one based on a system of divine commands with no distinction between morality and law, and the other a common law system built up by the courts. These kind of concessions would be extremely dangerous and irreversible. The implication of shari’ah is that the secular, Western law lacks authority because the opposing system is divine, and thus supersedes everything else. Islam dictates that the authority of God is always sovereign. Anything that does not respect the ‘divine’ system of judgement is potentially blasphemous. We know from the Undercover Mosque documentary that this is what is being taught in some British mosques.
In such a context, Europeans might become ultimately dhimmis (indigenous non-Muslims that surrender to Muslim domination) in their own countries, pariahs in what were once their own societies. Having surrendered to the armies of jihad, the dhimmi loses his territorial rights and his sovereignty. Our commitment to a liberal ideology states that we must accept multiculturalism and afflicted by our imperial past, we must reject our cultural and national pride. It is argued that once the ‘multiculturalism project’ is complete, there will no longer be any need to go to war. But the Arab states of the Middle East, Russia, Japan and China are quite ostensibly not pursuing the same multiculturalist policies. The countries with the largest armies in the world such as China, Russia, North Korea and Pakistan are united instead behind a national identity and nationalist ambitions. At the same time as we are being educated in the benefits of globalisation and multiculturalism, it seems that it is essential to remain ignorant about the history of Islamic imperialism; that way we can be ‘infidels’ in our countries and live up to the dictionary meaning of Islam and ‘submit’.
We are living in a time where the violent Islamist ideologist meets the European milksop, who has become an easy target. In the face of totalitarian Islam, this is not a time for spineless accommodators, new-age wimps or rose-tinted spectacles. This is a time for Promethean thinkers and open, intellectual debate first and foremost. It is time for realism, common sense and honesty. Leftist thinking has become disconnected from reality; political correctness has failed and morphed into something much more sinister. Sweden needs to respond to protect its democracy. In the face of ritual assassination, we cannot continue just to talk in terms of dialogue and respect. Militant Islam is an ideology, and it must be defeated and rendered defunct by any means possible. It is antithetical to the freedom we should cherish, the freedom that our grandparents and ancestors fought for.
If one criticises the Christian Crusades, that does not make one anti-Christian. One might note that the Left has cleverly coined the term Islamophobic, allowing any critic of Islam to have this label affixed to him. This is what Bruckner (2010: 48) calls the ‘semantic buckler’, and is employed by the politically correct brigade, the apostles of identity liberalism. The notion of Islamophobia denies the reality of worldwide jihad. To comment negatively on the Islamist offensive would be Islamophobic. The rhetorical crime of speaking common sense trumps the actual terrorist crime where innocent civilians are killed.
There is no recognised equivalent adjective for other religions. Criticism of Christianity does not make that person ‘fear’ this religion, just as criticism of Islam should be allowed to be made without being reprehended. It also means that Leftists can couple homophobia with Islamophobia; these substantives, which are endowed with such rhetorical force, are used alongside each other by liberals who criticise right-wing thinking. The implication is that adherence to a traditional sexual morality or Christian ethics is indicative of some kind of disorder. The term Islamophobia is nothing but a propagandistic term used to defend Islam in a context of paranoia. The Left likes to conveniently package these things together, and the vocabulary allows them to, even if there is absolutely no reason why somebody who ‘fears’ Islam should ‘fear’ homosexuals. However, one could see why a homosexual might fear Islam. A survey (April, 2016) where over one thousand Muslims were polled shows that fifty-two per cent of Muslims in the UK want homosexuality to be banned.141
IX. The Globalists in Brussels
Europe is France and Germany: the rest is just trimmings.
— Charles de Gaulle
There was panic in the skyscrapers, blanched faces at Brussels; frowns of disapproval at the universities. The long faces at the BBC on the night of the 23rd of June 2016 said it all. This was never meant to happen. In the morning that followed, the furious Brussels Politburo stood on the podium with faces like smacked bottoms, giving monosyllabic answers to journalists’ questions. They dished out veiled threats and spoke of ‘consequences’ and a ‘painful process’. Subsequently, Jean-Claude Juncker spoke like a dictator, telling the British to get on with Brexit and invoke Article 50, reminding that anybody in Europe who shows dissent towards his project should expect to feel the ‘consequences’. Anybody that stands up to this arrogant globalist project, such as the Hungarian Prime Minister, is called a ‘dictator’ by the President of the European Commission. Juncker is clearly determined to punish the British people for their decision to dent his empire. Juncker admitted that he has a little black book called ‘Little Maurice’ in which he list
s the people that have betrayed him. The British people and Nigel Farage in particular clearly make for a significant entry in the book.
The media, the intellectuals, the IMF, the NGOs: they were all committed to the globalist project, and all used threatening language, speaking about the dire consequences of leaving the EU before the event: economic collapse and even war apparently. But the fight back against them and their mantra of political correctness had begun. First Putin, then Brexit, Trump and subsequently a series of election wins for anti-globalist parties in Europe. Putin and Trump do not play by the globalist rules, and are therefore deemed to be a threat. Anybody that does not sign up unthinkingly to the European federalist project is a threat. Even after the Trump victory, Juncker and his stubborn brigade of Brussels oligarchs still do not apparently understand that his globalist vision is not the wish of the people.
Following Brexit and Trump’s victory, the rules of the game must change, but the Western media is still reluctant to let one hear the alternatives. When was the last time anybody in the West actually listened to a speech by Putin? One doubts anybody who voted for Trump or Brexit, i.e. the majority of Britons, would disagree with much of what Putin has to say. His speeches are perhaps the most important since Churchill’s, but there is a media blackout on them in the West. The media would not want the electorate to be exposed to an alternative, anti-globalist message. When one listens to his words, it is worth asking the question: why does the Western media never let us hear this?
The Ideology of Failure Page 24