Wipe That Smile Off His Face

Many of the Muslims who come to live in the West must daily shake their heads in amazement, unable to believe how stupid Westerners are to not only give away their wealth and paradise, but actually persecute the few who dare object. Said Muslims come here as conquerors, and our political leaders, instead of defending the interests of the people they were elected to represent, provide them with every conceivable aid to expedite the conquest. True, even the traitorous Labour government of Tony Blair found it within itself to jail or deport some of the most notorious cases; but such action, when it has been taken at all, always came late, was limited in scope, and struck one as cosmetic and expedient in character: the deeper problem – government sponsorship of foolish immigration policies, political correctness, and multiculturalism, which began and encouraged the progressive Islamisation of our society – remained untreated, and is still in fact consciously and willfully compounded through its promotion, financing, legalisation, and court enforcement, year after year after year. It is no wonder these would-be Muslim conquerors hold us in contempt.

One notorious example in the United Kingdom is Abu Hamza al-Masri, an Egyptian-born Muslim cleric and former imam of the North London Central Mosque (back then known as the Finsbury Park Mosque), who is currently serving a seven-year sentence for inciting racial hatred and soliciting the murder of non-Muslims. He is the man who once declared before his congregation that “Killing of the Kaffir [non-believers -- that is, us] for any reason you can say it is OK, even if there is no reason for it”; who once called on his followers to poison, ambush, and kill non-believers; who preached, “You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don’t ask shall I do this, just do it”. He is the man who once said to his followers,

It is a time to prove that you are not just here in the West for the money pot, just to take and not give anything … When you fight, you kill, you don’t fight to negotiate or show off.

He is the man who thinks, “There is no drop of liquid loved by Allah more than the liquid of blood,” and who informed his congregation that Muslims “are people who like to drink blood and we are addicted to blood.” He is the man who says that the aim of jihad is to humiliate non-believers, claim victory, and convert them to Islam; and who adds, “Now look at the suicide bombs. Does it fulfill all these purposes. Yes all of them.” He is the man who foresees “[t]he Khalifa sitting in the White House, ruling from there like the Prophet Mohammed said that Allah… told him” -- told him “that the whole Earth, it will be for Muslims, booty for Islam. This is a promise from Allah.” He is the naturalized “British citizen” who once described Britain as “like the inside of a toilet,” and who says to Muslims, “if you respect the law of the Kaffir by your heart, you are finished, you are not a Muslim anymore…”

Needless to mention his support for Osama bin Laden, his involvement setting up terrorist training camps in Oregon, or his having attracted, through his activity as a cleric at the London mosque, a truly nasty coterie of terrorists, including Richard Reid (the "Shoe Bomber"), Zacarias Moussaoui, Kamel Bourgass, Feroz Abbasi, Abu Doha, Rabah Kadre, Nizar Trabelsi, Djamel Beghal, and Kamel Rabat Bouralha.

Born in 1958, Abu Hamza arrived in Britain on a student visa in 1979. He secured his British citizenship through marriage in 1981, benefiting from naturalization laws that were in force during Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. When, four years later his marriage faltered on account of a fling with a prostitute, he decided to dedicate himself to Islam. He fought with the Muslims in Bosnia during the early 1990s, and subsequently worked with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, where in 1993 he lost an eye and both his hands.

In 1997, the year Tony Blair’s Labour government came to power, he became imam at the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, which soon became a cesspool of jihadism. That same year he praised the murder of 58 European tourists in Luxor (see here). In 1999 his seventeen-year-old son was sentenced by a Yemeni court to three years in prison following the bomb plot trial, where eight Muslim “Britons” were found guilty of forming an armed gang and planning to bomb the British Consulate in an anti-Western campaign. And in 2001 he praised the September 11 attacks. When the police finally raided Abu Hamza’s base, and the Charity Commission finally dismissed him from his post in 2003, he carried on preaching outside the mosque, surrounded by masked jihadists, until his long-overdue arrest in 2004. This was after the police discovered chemical warfare protection suits, blank-firing pistols, a stun gun, CS spray, a gas mask, handcuffs, hunting knives, and a walkie-talkie, which detectives believed were used in U.K.-based terrorist training camps. The police also found 100 stolen or forged passports and identity documents, laminating equipment, credit cards, and chequebooks, hidden under rugs and concealed above ceilings. Since the conclusion of his trial in 2006, Abu Hamza has been fighting extradition to the United States, where he is charged with “the hostage-taking of 16 [W]estern tourists in Yemen in December 1998” (which resulted in three British deaths), and with attempting to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon in 1999.

This is all well known and has been reported extensively in the media. Why, then, am I rehashing the story now? Because it turns out that last Thursday the European Court of Human Rights ordered a halt to the extradition proceedings (already approved in 2007) on the basis that American prisons might breach Abu Hamza’s human rights.

Yes. You read that correctly. Apparently, the judges at Strassbourg think he still has human rights, and in a cynical effort to save his skin, Abu Hamza is all too happy to abuse high-minded Western principles that he would otherwise like to see destroyed. Moreover, he, who in their place would probably have him shot or decapitated, evidently considers our legislators soft and stupid enough to grant him a reprieve, even now, despite the obviousness of his mockery.

The main problem I have is not so much that there is an Abu Hamza, or that there are many others just like him, seeking to come here and other countries in Europe, leech from our welfare state, train terrorists, and agitate, work, and organize Muslim jihadists to take what is rightfully ours. The main problem I have is that they are allowed to do so, and have been allowed to do so, year after year after year, for the benefit of none –- that the politicians and bureaucrats who fund themselves with my (and your) tax money have made it possible for the likes of him to live and conduct their activities in this country –- at tax-payers’ expense and at no Briton’s behest.

Every time I travel I am asked by airport security to take off my shoes, so that they may be scanned for plastic explosives –- this is because of the abovementioned Richard Reid, who worshiped at Abu Hamza’s mosque; and because Abu Hamza was able to draw from a large pool of locally-based worshippers. And this is but one of many indignities, delays, inconveniences, and expenses we have been saddled with. Did I forget to mention that Tony Blair’s Labour government -– one I never voted for –- took money from me and gave it to Abu Hamza every month, for years, in the form of disability benefits? What is more, Tony Blair’s Labour government also took money from me, every year, for years, to fund the 1,800-capacity mosque, which was and remains a registered charity, and which was used to run training sessions with AK47s.

Worse still, it seems, according to various reports, that there was a tacit pact between the British authorities and radical Islamists operating in the country, whereby the “jihadists were granted free reign so long as they did not attack Britain” (see here, and also another report here). Abu Hamza told the court prosecuting him in 2006 about this deal. The Times Online reported in February that year that MI5 had told one of its informants at Abu Hamza’s mosque (apparently the latter was riddled with infiltrators and informants) that MI5 thought he was a harmless clown.

Perhaps MI5 really thought that.

But when I read in The Independent that the 2003 police raid came only “after much agonizing at the highest levels of Scotland Yard and the Home office," when I read that the raid was considered a “controversial” and an “extreme step,” when I read that police officers deemed it imperative to take “every precaution to make sure as far as [they] could that [they] did not act in an insensitive manner,” when I read that they even took with them Muslim officers to “advise on appropriate behaviour” during the raid, when I read these things, I do wonder whether the tardiness of the British authorities in dealing with murderous terrorist activity on home soil, being aided and organised with tax payers’ money, right in the nation’s capital, had something to do with fear of offending Muslims. It is not too far-fetched an idea, especially when one considers that they are probably justified, having seen some years ago the violence Western Muslim immigrants are capable of after a Danish illustrator, living in his own country, drew a cartoon commenting on their prophet.

Another likely reason for this fear is the large and growing Islamic presence in the country.

The North London Central Mosque is not the only one in the United Kingdom: there are, in fact, approximately 1,500 of them, serving a population of over 2.4 million Muslims. These are mostly of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Indian origin, with the greater portion of them being in the under-40s group. According to the Office of National Statistics, between 2004 and 2008 the Muslim population grew by half a million – ten times faster than the rest of society. Youth, combined with high numbers, high fertility, and a huge worldwide population of 1.57 billion, makes them a formidable force indeed.

It is easy to laugh at politicians and bureaucrats cowering behind their desks, worried about incurring Muslim wrath. It is easy to laugh at them, knowing that they are in a predicament of their own making. Because it is they who encouraged their future Muslim conquerors to come and settle in Europe. We can perhaps forgive the likes of William Henry Quilliam, a Liverpool solicitor and Muslim convert, who founded the Muslim Institute and the Liverpool mosque in the late nineteenth century; or Lord Headly (Al-Haj El-Farooq), another convert, who established the British Muslim Society in 1914; or even King George VI, who donated land for a mosque in return for a site in Cairo for an Anglican cathedral – these are examples of individual inquisitiveness and of the normal cultural exchange between nations, which, in the case of Islam, goes back to the Middle Ages. But we cannot forgive the successive Labour and Conservative governments of the 1950s onwards, which, without ever consulting the electorate on the issue, initiated a process of large population transfers, which in turn took the Muslim demographic in the United Kingdom from 23,000 in 1951, to 1.5 million in 1997. And we especially cannot forgive the Labour government of Tony Blair, which orchestrated a secret conspiracy – finally uncovered last year – to make Britain more multicultural, allowing yearly legal immigration to more than quintuple between the middle of 1997 and the middle of 2005, while being singularly relaxed about illegal immigration. It took 117 years to go from the first mosque in 1860, to the first 1,000 in 1997; but it only took the Labour government 10 years to add another 500. That same Labour government also introduced Muslims into the legislature: in the 1997 election, Mohammed Sarwar became the first Muslim member of parliament; and the following year, Lord Nazir of Rotherham and Lady Uddin were appointed to the House of Lords, becoming the first Muslim peers. 1997 was also the year the British Muslim Council was founded; among many other things, it seeks to increase political representation for Muslims in Britain. By 2007 the Labour government had appointed Britain’s first Muslim Minister. This was Shahid Malik, who in a speech at the October 2008 Global Peace and Unity conference, expressed the view that there ought to be more than double the existing number of Muslim MPs in parliament, and voiced his hope to see a Muslim Prime Minister in Britain within a generation.

What no doubt baffles the likes of Abu Hamza and his followers, here and elsewhere, is the fact that, on the one hand, the politicians and the bureaucrats have been giving Britain, and Europe, and the West away to foreign invaders, against the wishes of the people; while on the other, the people itself have been perplexingly supine in the face of this outrage, too scared of being called names to sweep the traitors from power and defend what is theirs, despite being overwhelmingly against Islamisation.

Is it any surprise, then, that Abu Hamza mocks the West by claiming, even now, that a long sentence in an American prison is a violation of his human rights? He worries about a less than comfortable prison facility, but “Killing [non-believers] for any reason you can say it is OK, even if there is no reason for it.” Blowing me into a million pieces is OK; blowing my wife into a million pieces is OK; blowing you into a million pieces is OK; blowing members of your family into a million pieces while aboard a flight on their way to a meeting, a conference, or a holiday destination is OK -– even if you oppose the policies of our political establishment. It is OK for him to kill for no reason at all, and he wants us to fret about the level of comfort in his prison cell.

I am sure there are many ordinary folk out there who take a rather different view, and would prefer a less kindly sentence –- one that begins with “Line them up against the wall…” Indeed, it is possible that Abu Hamza cannot believe Westerners are so reluctant to do what he himself would do in their place, and take a leaf from the book of the Catholic Monarchs, Queen Isabella I of Castille and King Ferdinand II of Aragon, and revisit the triumph of 1492.

Abu Hamza is correct to judge that there is something gravely wrong with our modern culture, particularly when we even have an Anglican Bishop calling for Shariah to be accommodated within the British legal system. For now, however, until we replace our existing political leadership with one prepared to do what it takes to safeguard our interests, even if it offends Muslims, the best we can hope for is Abu Hamza spending the rest of his life in the company of his former chums and co-religionists – the likes of Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah, of al-Qaeda’s Operation Bojinka; Mahmud Abouhalima, Ahmed Ajaj, Nidal Ayyad, El Sayyid Nosair, Mohammed A. Salameh, Ramzi Yousef, and Eyad Ismail, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the al-Quaeda conspirator and would-be assassin; Iyman Faris, of the NYC landmark plot; Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, the “Canadian” terrorist; Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-Owhali and Mohammed Odeh, of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing; Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, the would-be al-Qaeda financier; Richard Reid, al-Qaeda’s would-be “Shoe Bomber”; Ahmed Ressam, of the 2000 millennium attack plots; and, of course, James Ujaama, who with Abu Hamza attempted to set up the abovementioned terrorist training camp in Oregon.

The terrorist attacks we have been suffering are said by the terrorists themselves to be a response to Western policy in the Middle East –- a pro-Zionist policy, riddled with double standards, that humiliates and oppresses Muslims in the region, and that continues despite Israel’s numerous human rights abuses and violations of international law. Every Muslim I have ever known has taken this view, suggesting it is not restricted to violent Islamist extremists. The explanation given for our political establishment’s support for such a policy is a familiar one. In the words of Abu Hamza:

They all know their roles as they are slaves of the Jews.

They hate the Jews more than we do. But the Jews own them. They own everything they have and they own their fantasies as well and they have a file on each one of them that could embarrass them in front of the people if he does not follow what he tells them.

Certainly, the situation in the West is likely to get ever more interesting if predictions of an Islamic Europe by century’s end come true. As indigenous Europeans are replaced by a non-European Muslim majority in our continent, we can expect this change in complexion to be reflected in Europe’s parliaments and national governments. With this will come, inevitably, legislative changes, historical revisionism, and different policies, reflecting Muslim sensibilities, concerns, and aspirations. Eventually, Europe will converge with North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia -- in every respect. We will eat halal meat, pigs will roam the countryside, cathedrals will become mosques, the Koran will be mandatory in every school, we will name our children Mohammed, and the call for prayer will be heard emanating from thousands of minarets across every village, town, and city, five times a day. The surviving and ever-shrinking White European minority -- foreigners in their own traditional homeland, most likely impoverished, and no longer masters of their own destiny -- will have to abide by the rules of their Muslim masters, cleaning their toilets and cooking their meals. (Many will be Muslims themselves, in mixed-race marriages, with women forced to undergo genital mutilation, wear burqas, share husbands, and suffer death by stoning if found adulterous.) And, once Whites become extinct, sometime in the next century, they will be remembered ignominiously in history and anthropology textbooks as a plague that swept the Earth, a degenerate species of human, too weak, too cowardly, and too stupid to resist the force of Islam.

It does not have to end that way, of course, but writing a different ending -- indeed having the right to write it in the first place -- begins by developing the ability to inspire the type of pride, courage, and self-discipline that attracts so many to the discipline of Islam; it begins by offering an idea that gives life meaning, that makes ordinary folk feel part of a greater cause that is worth fighting for, that makes fear of being called names seem silly, laughable, and ridiculous -- that does all this the way Islam does for its followers. (Do they ever worry about being called "Islamofascists"?)

In other words, if there is something wrong with our modern culture, a different future begins with developing a positive counter-culture. It begins with this, because our opponents will only respect us when we are strong, and summoning strength requires the kind of meaningful inspiration that comes from a vibrant cultural movement. Steeped in their religion, Muslims are inspired by the notion that they are fighting for a greater cause, so many think nothing of becoming jihadists and blowing themselves up in town centres; ordinary White folk, on the other hand, have allowed generations of Freudo-Marxist intellectuals to progressively estrange them from their own roots, so they only have material comfort and the opinion of their peers left to care about -- and these, because they are dependent on systemic approval and are therefore precarious, is precisely what keeps these White folk meek and quiet, even in the face of blatant theft, slander, and abuse. With our unique talents as a people; with our intelligence; our wealth; our art; our numbers; and our long, rich, and glorious history, it is not as if we lack the materials to grow a counter-cultural revolution. I believe we are involved in one presently, but it is still in its infancy and it lacks forward vision -- currently, our side is excessively preoccupied with the present and enamoured with the past, and not sufficiently concerned with imagining what the future needs to look like.

In addition to criticising what is bad and remembering what was good, we need also to express our urges, dreams, and aspirations. This is a pre-requisite to achieving legislative change: we have seen from the efforts of the Left in this area that legislation is not only about maintaining law and order, as conservatives like to view it, but also about building a new society. If we succeed in our endeavours, the Abu Hamzas of this world will no longer be mocking our laws and our politicians, thinking us weak and pathetic and begging for the bullets of their Kalashnikovs -- they, like our politicians, will be singing an altogether different tune. Because then there will be no judges in the European Court of Human Rights putting the comfort of foreign convicted Muslim terrorists ahead of the rights of European people. And the Abu Hamzas of this world will know it, and respect us for it.

Moaning Less, Doing More

One of the less helpful features of the radical Right is its propensity to spend a great deal of time and effort analysing and complaining abou is wrong with modern culture, and a lot less time actually producing an alternative to this culture. For the most part, the nearest it ever gets to producing said alternative is generating endless suggestions of what needs to be done, without actually doing any of it. Worse still, most of the suggestions are not even actionable in the short to medium term because they involve the creation of vast operations, necessitating large and sustained investment, abundant personnel, established networks, and extensive infrastructure - all this within a community that struggles to raise even measly sums of a few tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes I wonder if the people making these suggestions are serious about achieving change and do not just seek emotional relief.

Perhaps the tendency to make impractical suggestions stems from the tendency among elitists to think on a macro scale, a trait which I believe results from an inborn desire for order. This would explain the abundance of conspiracy theory buffs within the radical Right: what is a conspiracy theory if not a narrative, an ordered exposition, that efficiently explains a mass of otherwise confusing data and events?

Be that as it may, the fact is that the creation of an alternative culture does not have necessarily to start with a multi-billion-dollar operation, such as a television network; a Hollywood-style film studio; or a film, book, and magazine distribution service, complete with a centillion workers, a googolplex forklifts, and galaxy-sized warehouses. The enemy's control of billions of dollars in assets does not mean that it can only be defeated with billions of dollars. It must be remembered that the enemy did not always control those billions; that it took time for them to get to where they are now, and that their beginnings were small, even penurious. Contrast the awesome and seemingly unassailable dominance of cultural Marxism today with Karl Marx's situation in the 1850s: he had his family surviving on bread and potatoes, pawning clothing and shoes, and begging Engels for handouts.

The creation of an alternative culture is, in fact, simpler than it seems. All it takes is for a painter to paint, a writer to write, a composer to compose - in short, for a creative person to start creating, following his or her own inspiration and using the tools, the time, and the talent he or she already has in his or her possession. Granted, a dissident creator will not win the Turner Prize, be published by Random House, or see his music played on BBC Radio this year, but that is because there is not enough cultural production coming from the radical traditionalist camp yet to support an alternative system of prizes, publishers, and radio stations. Yet, production tends to beget resources, and resources more production, so, with increased cultural production, the aforementioned alternative system would likely in time develop. This is because the general public is mostly apolitical, so they will consume quality art, literature, and music, irrespective of whether its creator's cognitive structures are approved by the system. Similarly, an artist might be political, but, at the end of the day, art is art, and the ordinary consumer of art, unless highly political himself, seeks it for its enjoyment value, not for its politics.

I have already written about music (see here, here, here, and here), so readers of my articles are aware that there is already an abundance of it out there that springs from elitist, hierarchical, traditionalist, ethnically-conscious, European sensibilities, and that pays no tribute whatsoever to the false gods of egalitarianism. This music had small, DIY beginnings, and was initially disseminated by, and among, geographically dispersed fans who corresponded and traded tapes with one another during the 1980s. Eventually, specialised record labels and mail order services sprung up all over the planet, constituting a parallel system of production and distribution that bypassed mainstream channels altogether. It has been possible for many years now for numerous label owners operating in the fringe niches of the music industry to exist economically independent of the politically correct system. 

In the age of the internet, when information is much more readily available and can be disseminated and exchanged at the speed of light, there is no good reason why the process that took place in the realm of underground music cannot take place in other realms of creative endeavour.

Consider literature. There is an abundance of writers in the White advocacy movement, and the number is growing every year. Therefore, an obvious and fairly easy place to start in the creation and expansion of an alternative culture is literature, both fiction and non-fiction. Unless one is dealing with a major research project, writing books, for instruction and / or entertainment, demands very little in the way of resources besides a creative brain, writing equipment, and the willingness to invest a bit of time and effort in the pursuit of literary creation. There are already a substantial and growing number of non-fiction monographs dealing with the matters that concern readers of this and similar websites. But why not also write pro-White, elitist, radical traditionalist fiction? Or poetry? Or plays? After all, full-on instruction can lead to burnout, so regular relaxation in the form of quality and stimulating entertainment is part of keeping the synapses healthy and the imagination active. 

Even more importantly, fiction and poetry (and in loose, broad ways we could include advertising in this category) are often the catalysts of inspiration. Inspiration, daydreaming and fantasising, are what keep humans motivated a lot of the time, especially in times of adversity.

Some will no doubt want to point out at this juncture that we already have a vast literary canon fitting the abovegiven description. This is true. Yet, a culture cannot rely solely on past glories - otherwise, it is a moribund culture. For a culture to be vital, it must be actively engaged in cultural production, in producing new art, new literature, new music, both popular and refined, that reflects and is relevant to its epoch and those producing it and consuming it - that is innovative and does not limit itself to simply reproducing the obsolete styles of an era that cannot and will never return. Louis Ferdinand Celine, Wyndham Lewis, Jean Raspail are all well and good, but the latter is elderly and the former two are no longer of this world. The same applies to the poets, Ezra Pound and Miguel Serrano.

Please note, however, that by 'new' I do not necessarily mean 'modern'. Despite what the Left would like its victims to believe; the two words are not synonymous.

Probably, future literary classics will emerge from within popular fiction (as modern and old literary classics have), so this is an area that needs as much attention, from both writers and readers, as academic non-fiction. For now, however, examples are scarce. A well-known one is the classic The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail. Another is The Turner Diaries and Hunter, both written pseudonymously by Dr. William Pierce (and strictly no Nobel Prize material, despite the former having sold hundreds of thousands of copies). Less well known are Serpernt's Walk, by Randolph D. Calverhall (the pen-name of a science fiction author, according to rumour); and Utopia X by Scott Wilson. I read them both in 2007. Then there is Hold Back This Day, by Ward Kendall, and Das Reich Artam, by Volkmar Weiss, a German psychologist specialising in human intelligence. The first one seems long out of print (it was reviewed in American Renaissance), while the latter is in German. Perhaps most obscure of all, and also in German, are the novels of Wilhelm Landig, who wrote Götzen gegen Thule: Ein Roman voller Wirklichkeiten, Rebellen für Thule: Das Erbe von Atlantis, and Wolfszeit um Thule; and the more recent, and apparently rather pulpy, Stahlfront series. Landig reputedly coined the idea of the Black Sun, and his group, the volkisch mystic Landig Group, revived the ariosophical mythology of Thule, said to be the polar homeland of the ancient Aryans. And of course (in case someone thinks that I do not practice what I preach) there is my own assault on political correctness and the spineless eunuchs of 'respectable' conservatism, Mister.

Surely, there are more novelists out there.

Surely, there are folk out there willing to publish them. 

And surely, there are also painters, commercial illustrators, graphic novelists, filmmakers, designers, and computer games programmers out there willing and able to give full expression to their non-conforming sensibilities, urges, dreams, and aspirations, either pseudonymously or under their own names, as much as there are folk willing to start up businesses that tap on that wealth of talent.

And I have not even touched on outdoor culture: battle re-enactment, Mediaeval festivals, pagan festivals, history- or nature-oriented excursions. Even if these already exist, there can always be more. 

I am not advocating that the alternative Right cease applying their scalpels to the corpse of modern Western culture: its dissection and analysis must continue, their fora must remain open dissection wards, and, certainly, the dissecting must continue with unabated ferocity. Furthermore, the murderers of Western culture must be identified and removed from their positions of power, which they seized through cunning and hold without legitimacy or good purpose. But I am saying that the dissecting must be a means to an end, and not an ends in itself; and that the alternative Right must have as clear an idea of what its world will look like if it is successful in its endeavours, of how it will improve people's daily lives, as it has of why the present order must be overthrown.  It is imperative that the alternative Right be able to present ordinary folk with attractive glimpses of what it has to offer, of what could be, in a manner that is instant, powerful, emotional, stylish, and aesthetically appealing. Arid scientific texts and masses of facts, while important, will not convince anyone, except scientists who are already open to an alternative set of results - many ordinary folk, even well educated ones, choose the facts that confirm them in their prejudices. A breath-taking film, an absorbing novel, a rousing song, a powerful painting or illustration, even a powerful logo, created today for the White folk of today, can reach and transform much more deeply, and can be much more difficult to argue against, than all the data in the world. 

UK Pagan Police Obtain Special Minority Dispensation

The Times Online reported  yesterday that

Police officers have been given the right to take days off to dance naked on the solstices, celebrate fertility rituals and burn Yule logs if they profess pagan beliefs.

The Pagan Police Association claimed yesterday that it had been recognised by the Home Office as a "diversity staff support association" - a status also enjoyed by groups representing female, black, gay, Muslim and disabled officers.

Endorsement would mean that chief constables could not refuse a pagan officer's request to take feast days as part of his or her annual leave. The eight pagan festivals include Imbolc (the feast of lactating sheep), Lammas (the harvest festival) and the Summer Solstice (when mead drinking and naked dancing are the order of the day).

This is, of course, a welcome development for very many reasons. One of them, certainly, is that it tells us that the ethnically-conscious European descended peoples can also enjoy the rights and benefits the diversity state apparatus accords every other group in the West. Another of them is that it begins, for the first time and as evident by the reaction elicited by the Home Office decision, to stretch that apparatus beyond the limits of sustainability:

...there is unease in policing circles that the widening definition of diversity is creating a morass of organisations based on religion, gender and sexual orientation that appear to emphasise division.

Indeed.

Interestingly, some have finally begun to notice that a diverse workforce does not - as it is so often claimed (without substantiation of any kind) - increase performance; that it can be, in fact... problematic:

Andy Hayman, the former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, said: "No one would want to deprive any officer from being able to follow their religious belief - but what is difficult to understand is why representative groups have been springing up at such an alarming rate. Members of these associations are often permitted to meet in duty time - taking them away from their policing duties. The public are right to wonder sometimes whether any police work gets done."

As it happens, it seems some are already realising that diversity is not a strength at all, but a weakness:

Mark Wallace, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said he was astonished that the Home Office had time to consider the application from the Pagan Police. "Taxpayers don't want the police obsessing about what divides them, they want them to be a united force protecting the public.

And that the public would be better off without a diverse workforce:

"It shouldn't matter what your religion is when you're a police officer - it should only matter that you are committed to fighting crime."

Be that as it may, I am personally pleased that European pagans can rest at ease, secure in the knowledge that, so long as the diversity state apparatus exists, they will not be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs in our increasingly competitive and diverse world; that, in as much as they are being granted the right to official recognition as a distinct group with unique special interests, it is being afforded equal treatment before the law.

In that context, I hope that official state recognition of paganism will extend to industry and the civil service, and that existing anti-discrimination and pro-diversity legislation, as well as existing enforcement mechanisms, will be enhanced and expanded to reflect this extension.

The next battleground has already been identified:

The Home Office said, however, that it had refused a request for funding from the Police Pagan Association and did not endorse it as an official staff organisation.

David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth who also serves as a special constable with the British Transport Police, said: "It sounds like some kind of prank to me but as long as they receive no funding, then they can do what they want. However, I am concerned at the plethora of police organisations set up to support different ethnic groups and religions." 

So the battle for funding now begins...

Wanted: Something to Dream

I have written elsewhere about the need for pro-White campaigners to provide their target audience with better incentives than the apocalyptic warnings about economic collapse, race wars, and extinction that have constituted the traditional fare of the White Nationalist movement. I have argued that the reason campaigners have failed to make real political progress, in spite of having logical arguments, a moral case, and massive supporting data, is that, in the effort to persuade and inspire action, key aspects of human psychology have been ignored. Even though he is typically steeped in sociobiology, the White advocate has generally relied on rational persuasion to advance the pro-White agenda, neglecting well-known pre-rational motivators, such as the need for status and self-esteem (which he knows well enough), and the role of emotion (which he often deplores). We often hear about confronting the boobs with "the facts," even though it has been amply demonstrated that, on their own, facts make no political difference.

In response to this, I have stressed the importance of style and status as pre-rational campaigning tools. And in my most recent article, I have also stressed the need to move away from the negativity, the pessimism, the paranoia, the emotional masochism, and the obsessive conspiratology that permeates much of the White advocate's discourse, in favor of a friendlier, more positive presentation. Overall, my message over the past year has been that White advocates need to become pleasant and sought-after company, look attractive, and create a parallel economy and status system so that they can both impress and have, here and now, something to offer the White folk whose attention are seeking to gain.

I deem these essential ingredients to a successful strategy, because the evidence shows that ordinary White folk, no matter what the state of the economy or the politically correct indignities they are asked to endure, continue to see White advocates as scary, angry, boring, stupid, impoverished, and old, full of complaints but without solutions, full of analysis but unable to tell them exactly how signing up to the White advocates' program would improve their lives. Ordinary White folk continue to entertain the misconception -- perhaps partly justified, and in any event gleefully perpetuated by the Left -- that were a pro-White faction to achieve political victory, it would inevitably create a fascist dystopia like the ones commonly seen in Hollywood films. This deterrent is further reinforced by the fact that White advocacy's "perks" often consist of ostracism, lost livelihood, prison sentences, and even death. Ignorance of "what is really going on" might be, for most, a small price to pay when there is no immediate threat and when pretending that everything will be fine means retaining one's social status, peace and quiet, and affluent lifestyle.

How to change?

Evidently, I am not suggesting that pro-White campaigners ought to change their message, compromise, or sell out. I am simply saying that they need to change how that message is delivered; that they need to reformulate the pro-White discourse so that it achieves its political aims rather remain a method of personal catharsis. 

The first step towards achieving this is understanding the White advocate's role in contemporary society. Presently, the White advocate is the gentleman who arrives at a party wanting to switch on the bright lights and turn off the music, to tell everyone to sober up and put out their cigarettes, to scold them for wasting food and electricity, and to inform them that the lawn needs mowing, the floors need scrubbing, the drains need clearing, the overdraft needs paying, the and garbage needs taking out. And when the lung cancer patient is dying, the White advocate is the gentleman who tells him, "See? I told you so! I told you smoking is bad for you, but no, you wouldn't listen! Now you've got what you deserved! And if you think you have it bad now, it will only get worse!" 

This is hardly a recipe for popularity, and it is no surprise, therefore, that so many choose to ignore this gentleman; that they applaud when the Leftist host says, "Oh... Let's get him out. He's a psycho"; and even help him loose the guard dogs against the party pooper, even though the latter is looking after many of the partygoer's best interests.

Yet, the task is not as difficult as my analogy makes it seem.

This is not just because some parties are dreadful, but also because its ideological matrix confers upon the radical traditionalist Right a number of discursive advantages, in the same measure that the Leftist's own ideological matrix saddles him with a number of discursive disadvantages. In other words, the radical traditionalist Right tends to be uniquely proficient in the areas where the Left cannot be -- because of the Leftist system of belief -- an adequate match without superhuman effort and without Leftists twisting themselves into highly artificial convolutions. Identifying the areas of advantage is the second step.

Where does the radical traditionalist Right's mindset enjoy natural advantages?

One area, in my opinion, is the ability to inspire heroic feelings of superiority, pride, and glory. This is strategically advantageous, because humans like to think that they are strong, and because they enjoy feeling that they are part of something powerful; it flatters their vanity, it caters to their need to belong in a manner that enhances their self-esteem. The radical traditionalit Right excels at this for the same reasons that the Left does not even try: the former has a Romantic ethic, aspires to greatness, strives to push forward and upward in an organic and metaphysical sense. This, of course, implies elitism, a hierarchical conception of life. Leftists, by contrast, are egalitarians, so they resent hierarchy because it reminds them of their own mediocrity -- after all, only the mediocre benefit from egalitarianism. Rather than elite, proud, and glorious, Leftists are resentful, envious, and self-hating. Accordingly, their tactics rely on guilt-mongering and on inspiring a sense of grievance; they are champions of the weak and the pathetic. It is difficult to feel inspired by this, let alone be roused into heroic action for abstract principles like "equality." The best they can hope for, therefore, is to inspire feelings of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is unattractive, and people who are self-righteous tend to be preachy and irritating.

For the mystically-inclined, another area of natural advantage is our esoterica, which is linked to the Romantic ethic, which is in turn linked to traditionalist tendencies. Marxists would have never been able to produce a Left-wing analogue to, say, Armanism. Esoteric Marxism? Such a thing, were it ever to be invented, could erupt only out of a right-wing mind. Leftists are rationalists, materialists, anti-traditionalists; they see the world as a machine, without a soul. Whereas our side has thousands of years of rich and deep mythology and tradition, both exoteric and esoteric, to draw from for the elaboration of alternative, meaning-laden narratives, Leftists impoverish themselves by their wholesale jettisoning of the past, of tradition, of metaphysics. If the Left has any use for any of these, it is to subvert it, pervert it, mock it, and uglify it. The Leftist desires to be unmoored in order so that he may be given free rein to indulge his selfish individual appetites and impose his speculative schemes on pliant human guinea pigs. This confers our side with another strategic advantage: firstly, many ordinary folk feel attached to, and reassured by, traditional forms -- they are upset by fundamental change; and, secondly, for many ordinary folk everyday life is tedious and filled with drudgery -- esoterica caters to the human need for fantasy and escape, for something that supersedes the pedestrian reality of the material plane of existence. The Left, being solely concerned with material reality, can only emulate this with sneers, cynicism, and poor taste.

These unique areas of advantage can and ought to be further elucidated. They are also not the only ones. 

They are sufficient, however, for us to begin elaborating our own, forward-looking utopian vision. A utopian vision is necessary, because it provides direction, an ideal to aim for; because it unites behind a common purpose, it inspires aspirational sentiments of greatness and glory, and caters to the aforementioned human need for fantasy and escape. A utopian vision is like the advertisement in a marketing campaign. It needs to be forward-looking, because the arrow of time, indeed life, moves inexorably forward: you can kill a baby and make a new one; but you cannot put the baby back in the womb. 

Those who doubt the political significance of utopian inspiration ought to remember that while the Left was in opposition, it was as fundamentally critical of the existing system as we are today -- its message was "No, it's not OK and things will have to change radically, and I'm afraid you'll have to give up some of your privileges." On the face of it, this is not a message likely to prove popular with a ruling class or a dominant culture. Yet, at no point did Leftists forget to couch their critique with uplifting, moral language ("dignity," "inalienable rights," "fairness," "social justice," etc.) And neither did they forget to tell their constituents concretely how they would benefit from the Leftist program ("equal pay for equal wok," "universal healthcare," "no child left behind," etc.) The Left was successful because its leadership understood human motivation and it knew how to market its program effectively in a manner that was both consistent with the Leftist system of belief and difficult, for that reason, for the Left's opponents to emulate without looking like hypocrites.

On the basis of the above, I propose that our marketing strategy needs to focus on positive values that come naturally to us and which the Left finds difficult, or impossible, to replicate: quality, greatness, spirituality, heterodoxy, and romanticism. These values need to appear in contrast -- more often than not by implication rather than by accusation -- to the Leftist tendency to produce a world of cheapness, monotony, mean-spiritedness, materialism, and utilitarianism -- all of which are consequences of egalitarianism's race to the bottom, to the lowest common denominator. If we are able to develop a style of presentation, an image, that encapsulates our core values and message in an attractive, uplifting, and forward-looking manner, that captures White people's imagination, that enraptures them with images, sounds, tastes, textures, and smells that hint at what could be; and if we are able, at the same time, to develop economic opportunities (quality goods and services, as opposed to the modern con jobs) and status systems (awards, clubs, etc.) we are likely to make our target audience more receptive to the pro-White arguments and supporting data than it has been so far. The arguments and the data would then be marshaled by our target audience to justify their fantasies, yearnings, and ambition; the enemy's arguments and data would be dismissed, because boring and inconvenient. And access to parallel business opportunities and status systems unencumbered by political correctness would, in turn, inoculate our target audience against its dependency on the anti-White establishment. We would then be offering a carrot, available now, and not just the stick of fear of a cataclysmic future.

Back to my party analogy, we need to be like the gentleman who is throwing the rival party across the street, which is so much more vibrant and impressive in terms of music, food, décor, theme, cache, quality of attendees, and organization -- so much better, in sum, than the one being hosted by the Leftist that the latter's guests eventually desert him. A frivolous analogy, perhaps, but such is the world we live in.

Obviously, I do not regard political activism as a party, or as it being all about fun, style, and presentation -- to be sure, there is no reason why political activism cannot or should not be fun, but seriousness and substance still matter. I do maintain, however, that successfully selling a message involves necessarily making those to whom it is aimed feel good about themselves and their affiliation with the messenger; and that, if our side is to make political progress, this process and the methods, strategies, and tactics it involves needs to be understood and afforded much greater focus than it has enjoyed hitherto.

Some final thoughts. In some of my articles, including this one, I have used the terms "Left" and "Right". I use the Left-Right dichotomy for the sake of expediency. In reality, however, I do not see our mission in terms of a simple political binary, as the situation is far more complicated, indeed superseding the realm of politics (it has been suggested that our crisis is spiritual, for example). But I trust my readers will know what I mean; that they will understand that "Left" does not mean Democrat or Labour any more than "Right" means Republican or Tory - these are all liberal parties, all Leftists in my book. Essentially, "the Left" refers to the enemy: the rationalist materalists who believe in the ideology of equality and progress.

Also, sometimes I come across organizations that claim they exist to defend Western civilization and / or the interests of the White race, without making it obvious how they do this or what they plan to do. They tell us what they believe in and what they are against, and... they ask for money; but the prospective donor is not given in advance any real sense of what his / her money will be used for, let alone whether it will be used effectively. These organizations are not political parties, evidently, because they do not systematically campaign in elections, but... are they lobbyists? Award bodies? Literary agencies? Record labels? Or are they just websites, pumping out information for the benefit of the converted? Thankfully, White advocacy has in recent years been gradually moving away from this model; but, all the same, it needs to be re-stated: a generic organization with a grandiloquent remit is not sufficient. It is better to create narrowly focused organizations (small businesses, clubs, charities) that operate within a specific area, in a specific role, with a clearly circumscribed mission, offering opportunities and real goods and services in the market place. It might be that, looked in isolation, a record label, a battle re-enactment society, or a charity aiming to preserve specific monuments or sites, does not appear crucial in the battle for survival; but they are important in their aggregate, and, because specialized, they are much more likely than a generic organization to achieve tangible objectives within their scope of operation. Remember: focus is important in marketing. Another advantage to this approach is that the organizations need not be overtly political, and, therefore, not make themselves an immediate target for the censors.

In sum, I believe that ultimate success or failure will depend on, among other factors, whether our side is able to recast itself as the energetic forger of tomorrow, rather than simply the embittered critic of today.

We Aren't the World

On March 3, the BBC reported that the millions raised by Bob Geldof's BandAid campaign and LiveAid concerts to relieve victims of famine in Ethiopia in 1984-1985 went straight to paramilitary rebels, who then used the money to buy weapons and overthrow the government of the time. The corporation informed us that '[f]ormer rebel leaders told the BBC that they posed as merchants in meetings with charity workers to get aid money.'

Here is how it worked:

Max Peberdy, an aid worker from Christian Aid, carried nearly $500,000 in Ethiopian currency across the border in 1984.

He used it to buy grain from merchants and believes that none of the aid was diverted. ...He insists that to the best of his knowledge, the food went to feed the starving.

The only problem was that

... the merchant Mr Peberdy dealt with in that transaction claims he was, in fact, a senior member of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF).

"I was given clothes to make me look like a Muslim merchant. This was a trick for the NGOs," says Gebremedhin Araya.

Underneath the sacks of grain he sold, he says, were sacks filled with sand. He says he handed over the money he received to TPLF leaders, including Meles Zenawi --the man who went on to become Ethiopia's prime minister in 1991.

Mr Meles, who is still in office, has declined to comment on the allegations. But Mr Gebremedhin's version of events is supported by the TPLF's former commander, Aregawi Berhe.

Now living in exile in the Netherlands, he says the rebels put on what he describes as a "drama" to get the money.

"The aid workers were fooled," he says.

It seems "$95m (£63m) -- from Western governments and charities including Band Aid -- was channeled into the rebel fight." And "(s)ome 95 percent of it was allocated to buying weapons and building up a hard-line Marxist political party within the rebel movement."

Much of the money that ended up in the TPLF's hands was channeled through affiliated groups such as the Relief Society of Tigray.

Band Aid's accounts show that it gave almost $11m to the society and other groups close to the rebels, but the charity has declined to comment.

Well, well, well. What a surprise.

Right from the start, I sensed that not only was there something profoundly dishonest about the high-flown rhetoric and odious guilt-mongering surrounding the Bob Geldof's aid campaigns, but also that it would fail to meet its objectives. After all, Sub-Saharan African states had proven spectacularly dysfunctional and its political leaders bewilderingly incompetent and corrupt, so to me it seemed highly improbable that a handful of self-indulgent celebrities and superannuated rock stars would transform the continent into a space age utopia with just a concert and a charity shakedown.

What was obvious to me even as a teenager, however, evidently eluded Geldof and the coterie of largely White, fashion-conscious, guilt-ridden glitterati that like having their names linked to his crusades. In 1985 he, in collaboration with Lionel Ritchie and Michael Jackson, added insult to injury by inflicting upon us the insufferable single, "We are the World" -- a vile intrusion into my psyche for which I would still like to sue Ritchie and Michael Jackson's estate, as I believe I am owed compensation for the intense annoyance the repetitive playing of that ridiculous song caused me at the time.

In 1989 Geldof reprised with a new version of the original guilt fest, Do They Know It's Christmas?

And in 2004 Geldof went on the offensive yet again, this time putting his Live Aid campaign on steroids and spearheading a new crusade to end poverty in Africa and elsewhere. This crusade culminated with the Live8 concerts in July 2005, whose broadcasting around the world is recorded as the biggest media event in human history. Geldof enjoyed political backing from Gordon Brown, then the United Kingdom's Chancellor of the Exchequer and now the unelected Prime Minister, who promised to send our billions to Africa, even while war pensioners here starved or freezed to death, hospitals had waiting lists running into years, public services were in crisis due to underinvestment, and the national debt -- already considerable back then -- that was costing billions in interest.

Thankfully -- at least for my own sanity -- I was in a position to do something about it in 2005. Even though I knew it was but a symbolic gesture, I put together an "Anti-Geldof Compilation" double CD, if only to leave it on record that there were some who actively opposed Geldof's campaigns, and were indeed repelled by the very ideas underpinning it. In a 7,000-word statement, which I included in the booklet, I presented the case against Live8, and, for that matter, any such effort.One of my arguments was that the premise behind aid campaigns like Live8 was economically illiterate. I pointed out that since 1950 nearly one trillion dollars have been sent to Africa in the form of aid, 46 percent of all aid to the Third World; and that, despite increasing rates of aid, particularly since 1975, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty in the continent had increased. I also pointed out that Fredrik Erixon, then former Chielf Economist at Timbro (a Swedish think tank) and presently a director of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), had stated on 11 September 2005 on the BBC News website that

GDP per capita growth in Africa decreased and was for many years even measured in negative figures. The unfortunate fact is that most African countries are poorer today then they were at the time of their independence from colonial powers.

If the idea of aid had been true - in particular the alleged link between aid, investment, and growth -- many of those countries would today have eradicated extreme poverty and have a GDP per capita similar to that of New Zealand, Spain or Portugal.

If nothing else, aid to Africa seems to have lowered rather than increased economic growth.

I drew attention to the fact that, according to Erixon, aid recipients have channeled aid money towards "current spending and public consumption," boosting the public sector in the economy. And that, also according to Erixon, the consequent strengthening of socialist tendencies made of investment a government activity, fuelling fiscal budgets and the growth of "parastatals and state-owned enterprise."

Largely supported by the donor community at the time, these soon became arenas of corruption and this corruption spread like wildfire to other parts of the society.

The tragedy of aid, as been shown in numerous evaluations and by World Bank research, is that donors are part of the problem of corruption; aid often underpins corruption, and higher aid levels tend to erode the governance structure of poor countries.

Erixon's conclusion, which I share, was that the persistence of poverty in Africa was not the result of a lack of aid, but rather Africa's failure to make good use of it. I highlighted Erixon's argument that "[i]nstead of focusing on the quality of aid and how to raise the output through a more productive use of aid, donor countries and others are solely occupied by increasing the quantity of aid." I further highlighted the fact that it did not seem that world leaders, "not to mention Bob Geldof and other campaigners, have any real idea how the aid given can be made more effective."

Of course not.

And neither do they have any real idea of what kind of people exactly they are trying help. This includes Erixon, of course, since, for all his laudable criticism of the aid mentality, he still assumes that by shifting away from aid and towards development, Africa can be brought into economic convergence with Europe. My view is that this will never happen, no matter what approach is taken, short of re-colonizing the continent. Furthermore, my view is that it is wrong to even attempt it: Africa does not need development; what it needs is complete de-industrialization and non-interference from outside powers. If it has gone to hell since the dismantlement of the European empires, it is because it must - it is because Africa is, in fact, overdeveloped, and needs to be brought into economic convergence with Africa as it was in pre-colonial times.

If aid and development money is stolen to buy weapons in order to replace one chief with another, or is pilfered by a corrupt chief and his private army, it is because development -- the result of progress -- was never important in Africa. The ideology of progress is a European invention, and one that is associated with a specific subset of Europeans, whom we call liberals. Liberals think of progress the way they think of equality: it is good and right in its own right, and needs no justification. If progress is good and all humans are equal, then all humans will benefit from progress equally, given a level playing field. The problem is that humans are not equal and, because they are not equal, because they are diverse physically, mentally, and spiritually, progress is a philosophical construct that is alien to large swathes of humanity. Nowhere is this more the case, probably, than in Sub-Saharan Africa, the part of the world we consider the most dysfunction.

J. R. Baker, summarizing in 1974 the impressions of early explorers of Sub-Saharan Africa, chosen for their accuracy and reliability, describes a pre-Colonial situation that was tens of thousands of years removed from the European reality: the aborigines were naked or semi-naked; they practiced self-mutilation; they resided in small settlements, in simple, single-story dwellings; they sailed in crude canoes carved out of tree trunks; they had not invented the wheel; they rarely domesticated animals or used them for labor or transportation; they had no written script or recorded history; they had no use of money, no numbering system, no calendar; they had no roads; and they had no administration or code of law. Chiefs were despotic, capricious, and cruel; slaughter was frequent; cannibalism was sometimes practiced. Dialects were simple, with limited vocabularies to express abstract thought. The average tribesman lived for the moment and lacked foresight. Said early explorers were shocked by their discoveries, obviously because they also thought in terms of progress.

Is it a surprise, given this background, that sending aid money to Sub-Saharan nations is as good as sowing seeds on stones? Consider that much of Europe lay in ruins following the end of World War II. Some of its cities, at least parts of them, had been bombed back to the Stone Age; industrial production had been devastated, the economic structure ruined, millions made homeless, foreign reserves and treasuries exhausted. Like in Africa today, millions starved - many died or froze to death in the brutal Winter of 1946. And while much of the countryside was spared, the destruction of transport and infrastructure had left rural communities isolated. Between 1948 and 1952, parts of Europe received aid from the United States through The Marshall Plan: the money was transferred to European governments, who were assisted by the Economic Cooperation Administration, an American agency that was later succeeded by the United States Agency for International Development. Three years into the program, output in the participating European nations was 35 percent above pre-war levels. Why was the 4-year, $13 billion Marshall Plan successful in Europe and the 30-, 40-, 50-year, $1 trillion aid program unsuccessful in Africa? I posit that it is because Europeans believe in building things -- because there is, in other words, a fundamental and deeply rooted difference in temperament, outlook, and capability -- at least in the areas that are important for maintaining a modern technological civilization -- that makes all the difference.

When the European powers colonized Africa, they reconfigured the continent in conformity with European values. They divided the continent into nation states, built infrastructure, and developed industrial economies, which were then put in the service of the industrial economies of Europe. The natives, whom for a while anthropologists thought to be less than human, were used as cheap labour and otherwise marginalized. When the European empires were dismantled, they did not leave Africa as they found it. Rather than dismantle the legacy of empire, European political leaders handed it over to the natives. The latter were left, therefore, with a legacy that was - socially, culturally, economically, politically, and technologically - tens of thousands of years ahead of anything their ancestors had ever seen or even conceived. Even though many had by then been taught to read and write and drive cars and even build highways and skyscrapers, from a sociobiological point of view, the cities and the stock exchanges and the universities constituted for them a highly artificial environment, product of a sensibility, a way of thinking, a way of seeing, even a biology, that was entirely alien. This was the fatal mistake that European leaders made.

Had Earth been conquered by an alien race capable of telepathy and time-travel, abilities evolved by the aliens over tens of thousands of years, it would have no doubt been impossible for us humans to continue to maintain the legacy of the alien civilization once its creators had left the planet: on the one hand, we would have been reluctant to return to our boring old ways, having experienced immensity of alien power; on the other, we would rapidly find ourselves in a terribly dysfunctional society, unable reliably and consistently to match - even come close in certain areas to - the aliens' performative minima. If Hesketh Pritchard's observations about Haiti in 1900, found in Where Black Rules White, provide any indication of what we could expect, we would, at best, be able to emulate the outer form of the aliens' habits, institutions, and social relations, but we would never be able to truly internalize their substance -- not without being them. Were the aliens still in contact with us, there is no doubt humans would be clamoring for aid, both needy and resentful of their former rulers. Some would want them to return, even at the cost of political power. Absent the political will among the aliens to come and take it all away, this would go on for centuries, until human civilization converged with the old human baselines.

Of course, liberals will never accept this view, because admitting to human biodiversity would necessitate renouncing one of the fundamental tenets of what among them amounts to a secular religion: equality. Therefore, as long as they are in power, in the guise of Democrat or Republican, Labour or Tory, we will continue to see our billions, and eventually our trillions, sent to Africa to fight a battle that will never be won and should have never been fought. The irony is that for all the liberals' denunciation of empire, for all their installing of White-bashing postcolonial studies departments in Western universities, development is nothing but a sublimated form of European imperialism.

Should we just let Africa starve, then? This is a valid question, and probably the main obstacle to a meaningful change in policy. Whatever the mistakes of earlier and current European political leaders, the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa needs to be resolved: if we do nothing, the horror in the continent will multiply and the demographic pressure emanating from Africa and into Europe will continue to increase; the cost of containing it will be prohibitive, while the cost of not containing it will be extinction.

Since empire seems no longer possible, since aid does not work, since development is inappropriate, and since doing nothing is fatal, the only remaining option is to accept that Africa will never be Europe and to help Sub-Saharan African societies return to their indigenous cultural baselines. Rather than encouraging the natives to emulate Europe, we ought to dismantle and remove from the region any vestige of European civilization: nothing that is not indigenous to the region ought to remain. Rather than encouraging natives to maintain large populations, we ought to assist them in reducing them to levels they can themselves sustain, unaided by European influence or intervention. The argument must be made that Black Africans had their own model of social organization, which, because it developed over millennia in harmony with their own specific suite of traits and in response to their environment, was comparatively stable. Also, the argument must be made that scaling the ecological footprint down to manageable levels does not necessarily preclude the evolution of these societies: it only clears the way for an evolutionary path that is established organically from within, rather than artificially imposed from without, the Sub-Saharan landscape.

The liberals would call us monsters, but what is more monstrous than preventing millions from having a culture that reflects them, rather than their conquerors? What is more monstrous than the imposition on millions of a system that measures them precisely along the dimensions in which they are most likely to register failure? It would be like us living under Black hegemony and being evaluated, not on the basis of traits where we are likely to excel, such as abstract reasoning, capacity to delay gratification, and morality, but on those where we are likely to under-perform in relation to our Black masters, such as athleticism, aggression, and self-concept. Only the ignorant could be so arrogant. If Africa has gone to hell, it is because liberals sent it there.

Evidently, having experienced the conveniences of Western technological civilization, Sub-Saharan peoples will be reluctant to return to traditional tribal life. The transition, therefore, must be gradual. Similarly, aware of the natural and, especially, mineral resources in the continent, outsiders will be reluctant to leave them to the natives. The region, therefore, must be declared a nature preserve, or an anthropological preserve, outside the jurisdiction of any given government. Perhaps Western and Asian nations could be persuaded to sign up to something analogous to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959: a treaty that declares Sub-Saharan Africa off limits for exploitation, development, and trade; the ancestral patrimony of all humanity; and merely a field of world scientific research - there is, after all, much we do not know about the origins and pre-history of man, and much we can learn from observing traditional tribal societies.

The deprecation of the present political consensus with regard to Sub-Saharan Africa will probably take many additional decades of failure, and perhaps a succession of catastrophes. Billions, if not trillions, will need to be wasted on futile aid and imperialistic development programs before these are finally given up. It is not unlikely that economics, rather than a change in philosophy, will force their abrogation first: after all, most Western nations are already technically bankrupt, and the productive sections of Western populations are either being taxed into oblivion or physically replaced through low fertility and immigration, so the money will eventually run out. I am glad, therefore, that the Band Aid campaign has now proven a complete fiasco. Geldof will never change, of course, and he will continue to throw away well-meaning folks' money on his ill-conceived campaigns, irrespective of whether this money ends up in the hands of hardcore Marxist propagandists and guerilla men. But at least the need to re-examine aid has been brought back into the agenda, and we can make a fresh call for a less ideological, and more effective long-term solution to the problems that former and present political leaders have caused through their appeasement to the Left and their craven refusal to finish the job of dismantling the old empires.

ERRATUM: A primitive version of this article was posted here on 8 April; the present version superceded the early one.

Pop Culture is Important

In a satirical blog  about pop culture, I recently presented two sets of photographs: one of ageing mainstream musicians, whom I described as the past, and another of young underground musicians, whom I described as the future. Using a standard tabloid technique, I mischievously chose unflattering images for the first set of musicians, and proceeded to dismiss the latter as a freak show as well as a negative cultural influence. Unfortunately, some interpreted this (rather superficially) as simply a derogation of Elton John, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Bono, and Bob Geldof's looks and musical talent, ignoring the fact that the title of the blog referred explicitly to culture, and the blog itself made no mention of music.

My original aim had been to do a series, where I juxtaposed representatives of the egalitarian against representatives of the inegalitarian camp, taken from the fields of philosophy, politics, journalism, art, literature, psychology, anthropology, and more, always accompanied by a few satirical comments at the enemy's expense. There is no doubt that there was an element of playground malice in this exercise. Yet, the latter had a serious purpose: the enemy routinely engages in self-serving, derogatory, and cartoonish misrepresentations of the intellectuals, artists, and scientists whom they do not like, whom they would like to keep beyond the pale, and whom they would like the apolitical and the miseducated to avoid and dismiss in advance. The message I wanted to convey was that we know how to do it too, and are quite prepared to give them a taste of their own medicine (in fact, in December last year I wrote an article  for The Occidental Observer where I did some post-imperial deconstructing, in response to the White-bashing discourse that permeates the field of postcolonial studies). I think this is important because one of the reasons European descended peoples have come to find themselves in retreat, on the losing side of every significant battle in the cultural war for the better part of a century now, is that the Left has not been met with an effective response - in fact, even so-called "conservatives", who were supposed to have been on the side of European man, have proven - at best - craven, weak, flaccid, myopic, selfishly motivated, and far too willing to compromise, pull back, surrender, and apologise in order to avoid trouble.

By an effective response I do not mean necessarily always serious, logical, or intellectually profound: the enemy has long understood that people are less persuaded by reason than by irrational, or pre-rational factors like status, fear, and romance, or pragmatic ones like money and individual self-preservation. We only need to look at the Frankfurt School's work during the 1930s to 1960s, particularly on the subject of mass culture, to realize that the Left has been preoccupied with the pre-rational mechanisms of persuasion, belief, and perception for a long time. If the liberal media has been singularly effective in the perpetuation of Leftist ideologies, it is not because they have presented the liberal case more seriously, more logically, or in a more intellectually profound manner, but, rather, because they have done so through humor, emotion, and stereotypes. Most ordinary people are too preoccupied with their own lives, their hobbies, and their immediate interests, too busy trying to survive, and too uneducated, to have the time or the ability to analyze all the arguments, check all the data, and critically interpret both before making a decision on an important issue. Many people do not have an opinion one way or the other, and simply mimic the opinions of those around them with whom they wish to identify. Most people simply look to be confirmed in their own prejudices. It is far easier and always reassuring.

The Left has attacked the interests of European descended peoples on practically every front - legal, social, cultural, political, historical, economic, demographic, scientific, academic -; but an important battleground in this ideological war has been popular culture. Some would argue that this has been their key battleground, along with education. One area of popular culture I know something about, but which is seldom examined from this side of the political equation, is music. Popular music has played an important role in popularizing liberal ideas among the young since the 1960s. Accordingly, the industry is peculiarly liberal, and music channels like MTV have been for quite some time the tip of the spear in the liberal charge against traditional Western culture and values. And did not Bob Geldof's Live8  concerts of 2005 - that guilt-mongering parade of guilt-ridden self-indulgent celebrities and fabulously rich Rock and Pop stars - constitute the largest media event in history? Hence, why I have highlighted on various occasions the existence of discursively non-conforming genres within contemporary popular music. Said genres may or may not be everyone's cup of tea, but that is a separate issue and not relevant here. My highlighting them is not an effort to express feelings of superiority on the basis of musical tastes: it is an effort to advertise the existence of growing spaces within popular culture where discursively non-conforming artistic production and consumption is taking place in the contemporary West among the younger demographic. That they exist is, to my mind, a positive sign, and one that may augur well for the future.

I am not oblivious to the fact that genres like Black Metal may be problematic for a subset of the demographic that falls under the umbrella of "alternative Right". However, I am aware that, outside this subset, there are many who do sympathize with the values and sensibilities - spiritual and aesthetic - that define and permeate associated, derived, contiguous, or compatible musical forms, like Viking Metal, Folk Metal, Neo-Folk, Folk Noir, and Martial Industrial. Implicitly or explicitly, these forms tend fundamentally to reject the tenets of liberalism, embracing, instead the elitist, traditionalist, neo-pagan tendency in European culture and thought - the tendency that prefers Evola, Nietzsche, Schmitt, Spengler, and Jünger to the egalitarian and materialist Freudo-Marxist scholastics. (This is not to say that some musicians within these genres may not hold liberal attitudes or be entirely apolitical.) Granted, some artists can be silly and shocking at times, but this can be found in abundance elsewhere in popular culture: their primary purpose is entertainment and escape through a Romantic heightening of emotion, not dry intellectual analysis. All the same - or, rather, because of this - their power must not be underestimated, as a political tract might be read once, if at all, but a good album will be heard a thousand times. 

Perhaps more importantly, music tends not to operate in isolation: often it involves an entire worldview and lifestyle, associated with a subculture that fits into a wider constellation of broadly compatible subcultures, united by a golden thread of common underlying assumptions and sensibilities. Thus, for example, many fans of the abovementioned genres are also interested in European paganism, battle re-enactment, and Right wing politics, even while not all pagans, battle re-enactors, and Right wing activists are interested in the abovementioned genres. This offers, in a way that panders to the innate human need for belonging and self-esteem, fertile ground for the growth of dissident subcultures, both in size and number, as well as a grassroots basis for the gradual displacement of our present mainstream cultural establishment. Absent military means, this displacement is a pre-requisite for the eventual achievement of political change.

It must be remembered that the Left did not achieve its political supremacy in the West through violent revolution, like the Bolsheviks in Russia, but, rather, through incremental cultural and institutional change over a period decades. They subjected Western culture to radical critiques, which were often neither benign nor fair, and campaigned for change along liberal lines, one issue at a time. Because many of them were involved in the media, they also  mastered popular culture, and offered, promoted, and cultivated "progressive" options to a rebellious, miseducated, and politically-agitated youth, the most talented among whom contributed to the creation of new waves of popular art. Many of our establishment politicians were influenced, if not part of, the liberal subculture of the 1960s and early 1970s. At least two notable cases were/are also musicians. How many otherwise ordinary folk have had their general outlook, their attitudes, and their opinions molded through the subtle process of repeated, long-term exposure to liberal ideas encoded in music and other forms of popular culture, where there is often pressure to conform to subcultural norms? 

Algerian-born French economist Jacques Attali, once advisor to the former socialist French president François Mitterrand, argued in Noise: The Political Economy of Music that music has the capacity (as expressed by Fredric Jameson) "to anticipate historical developments, to foreshadow new social formations in a prophetic and annunciatory way" and that "the music of today stands both as a promise of a new, liberating mode of production, and as the menace of a dystopian possibility which is that mode of production's baleful mirror image." If this is so, then, whatever might be thought - from an aesthetic point of view - of the types of music I have previously discussed, there is good reason to note that they give expression to a sensibility, a worldview, a spirituality that is well in tune with the views expressed in this and similar websites and forums. It is in this sense, and in the context of an increasingly discredited liberal establishment, that I speak of certain artists representing the past, and others (maybe) representing the future.

An Afro-American Freakout

Defenders of multiracialism never cease to amaze me, despite their having a long and well-established record of wilful ignorance, dishonesty, hypocrisy, disingenuousness, muddled thinking, and outright inanity. After reading Cleo Brown's yapping in the Hip Hop Republicans' website, I have to wonder whether even the most powerful electron microscopes would be able to detect a brain inside some of these multiracialists' prognathous skulls.

Brown's "rebuttal" to Alternative Right magazine is yet another - and, as usual, spectacularly incompetent - iteration of the old, tired, lazy, clichéd, fallacious, always tedious, and never convincing argumentum ad Hitlerum, riddled with errors and laden with the usual dysphemisms and non sequiturs. After a protracted whine about being denied a doctorate twenty-six years ago and about her subsequent (failed) complaint about her having been victim of "discrimination", she proceeds to characterize the present website as a venue for "White Supremacy" and the website's contributors as being "obsessed with Arian [sic] Superiority".

As you would expect from someone who cannot tell the difference between Arian (to do with the theological teachings of Arius) and Aryan (to do with the Aryan race), Brown has not read the website very carefully. Had she done so, she would have found the argumentum ad Hitlerum already rebutted in my blog of 15 March, where I wrote:

. . . our critics think that the instant we acknowledge that skin pigmentation is one of a suite of traits evincing distinctive patterns linked to different populations, we are going automatically to legislate compulsory castrations, slavery, lynching, hangings, and worse, on an industrial scale. By that logic, then, the abolition of the monarchy in the United Kingdom will lead automatically to the guillotining of the royalty and the aristocracy (it happened in France, after all), the condemning of adultery will lead automatically to lapidations (it happens in some Muslim countries, after all), investing in dotcoms will automatically lead to investor hysteria and a massive market bubble (it happened in the late '90s, after all), and so on. The Lefties (and that includes the faux conservatives) have a cartoonish perception of the world.

And further down that same blog, she would have also found a rebuttal to the facile conflation of high IQ and overall superiority:

The Left abhors hierarchy. But, again, if the Left were not so deeply insecure, Leftists would realize that there is no single hierarchy, but, rather, a multiplicity of possible hierarchies. Human biodiversity does not equal a single vertical scale that orders all humans from inferior to superior, according to their IQ scores. Contrary to Leftist myth, those who accept the existence of human biodiversity understand that a human is more than just an IQ score: general intelligence (what IQ tests are designed to measure) is but one of a multitude of different traits. Because human populations are essentially adaptations, or specializations, to given environments that, over millennia, exerted slightly different evolutionary pressures, humans can be ranked in many different ways, depending on what trait one chooses to look at. The White race originated in an environment that selected for higher general intelligence. And since human groups have tended to invent cultures that reflect their own particular suites of traits, the cultures invented by White - or European-descended - peoples, have been predicated, and indeed placed a premium on, general intelligence. There are regions in the world, however, where the environment selected less strongly for intelligence and more strongly for other traits. It will be found that different cultures assign different levels of importance to different traits, and that, accordingly, the peoples belonging to these cultures may well choose to rank humans as per the traits most important to them. Therefore, while IQ is central to us because it has consequences within our civilization, the study of human biodiversity remains ultimately about understanding man from a multi-dimensional perspective. This is why I find it ironic that the Left tries so hard to rubbish Eurocentrism, when, through their single-minded preoccupation with IQ in discussions of race, they betray, in fact, a quintessentially Eurocentric view. But then again, the Left is and has always been singularly myopic.

In other words, Brown would have found that there is no need for non-European descended peoples to feel inadequate in the face of the science, as the science that so vexes the cacophrenic "anti-racist" ipsedixitists can show superiority for one population or another along a variety of alternative dimensions, depending on the ones chosen.

It is exquisitely ironic that if Brown's diatribe demonstrates anything at all it is the unviable nature of the multiracial society: the latter is so filled with irresolvable contradictions and conflicts of interest that it can never be made to work without a crushing legislative apparatus - without a bloated, ubiquitous, and intrusive government that can only keep the social chanko stew from exploding by regulating, monitoring, recording, and taxing every aspect of a citizen's life. Multiracial societies are always less free. Witness the ever-growing limits to our speech, our thought, and our freedom of association; the ever-growing government-sponsored bureaucracies to dream up yet more limits, monitor compliance, and persecute non-conformity; and the ever-growing taxes to pay for it all. After decades of this in the West, all the multiracialists have to show for their efforts (and cubic lightyears of our money) is a debt-crippled postmodern dystopia, where honest citizens cannot choose whom they want to live or work with, and where one may well be fined and imprisoned for articulating an unapproved opinion. For all the gratuitous references to Hitler and the Nazis, for all the crude commandeering of Auschwitz, this latter point seems to have been conveniently overlooked.

Affirmative action devotees blame their frustrations on non-existent White Supremacy (What White Supremacist society would ever pass laws that advance the interests of its non-White members?). The problem is that these frustrations are not the result of White Supremacy, but the result of the multiracial society that said devotees seek so vociferously to advance. It is because of the multiracial society that African-descended peoples in America have found themselves in a culture where, because it was invented by Whites and, accordingly, designed for Whites, they are evaluated along dimensions where they are less likely to perform very well. Like subcultures, cultures tend to be self-serving, in that they are designed to reinforce a sense of belonging and enhance its members' self-esteem. Hence, why they tend to be unkind to outsiders: cultures do not place a premium on traits that are absent among its members. Without outside influence, a culture predicated on high IQ will, therefore, typically emerge in populations with a comparatively high average IQ - but not in populations indigenous to environments that did not select very strongly for general intelligence. As the evidence suggests that African-descended peoples are in the latter category, it is not surprising that they are often frustrated by the demands of living the high IQ White societies. To combat this and other irritants, the multiracial society has to be structured to penalise excellence and reward mediocrity across the board.  

Obviously, the very welcome abolition of slavery in America ought to have been followed by a progressive repatriation of the former slaves to their continent of origin. This was the purpose of the American Colonization Society, which founded Liberia and enjoyed Black support. Alas, the task was a great one and the multiracialists proved stronger. Since then the situation has been further complicated by generations of admixture, and admixture upon admixture. Years of failure and increasing chaos seem not to have deterred the multiracialists, however, and so the experiment continues. Ultimately, success will not be achieved without driving the White race to extinction and creating a coffee-coloured utopia, where everyone is equally mediocre. The multiracialist program is a monstrosity.

This is why, among other reasons, we object to the multiracial experiment.

One last word: a doctoral thesis does not entitle a student to obtain a PhD, and a university has no obligation to grant one just because work has been completed. What counts is the quality of the work and whether it meets the university's minimum standards of competence.

Ecstasy of Vituperation

I have read with some amusement the attacks on Richard Spencer and his present project, which over the past few days have multiplied on the internet like microbes in a culture. I note that Spencer’s enemies share two salient characteristics: a religious belief in human equality and a Borg-like collective consciousness: they have all articulated identical criticisms (e.g., Spencer and other Alternative Right writers do not mind discussing the existence and consequences of human biodiversity) and two of these critics, exasperated by the absence of tattoos on Spencer’s visage, have faithfully reproduced what strikes me as an obviously apocryphal story. As is often the case with attacks from mainstream quarters, they reveal more about the nature of the attacker than about the target. In evidence are obtuse, conformist minds that take pride in their willful ignorance; slow, dull brains of negligible cubicage and low neural density; mean-spirited souls whose likely response times in IQ tests would need to be measured in geological eras.

What is ironic whenever these politically correct ninnies scream about ‘racism’ is that in doing so they lay bare the illogical and contradictory nature of their position. If one is a champion of diversity, one celebrates the evidence of its existence. Yet, these anti-racist nupsons who so vehemently and ridiculously object to our analyses declare themselves champions of diversity only to then wail in horror and undo themselves in invective, whining, and vituperation each time evidence of diversity is acknowledged in oral or written communication. To my mind, this is indicative of hypocrisy: the aforementioned anti-racists claim to be one thing, but are, in fact, quite another. Beneath their fine, universalist rhetoric and celebrations of multicuturalism lurks a totalitarian heart, yearning for total homogeneity: their ideal world is a grim ball of mud, where all humans look the same, think the same, speak the same, and earn the same, in conformity to the Left’s delirious visions of universal equality – a brave new world of gray cities and cement office blocks, filled with polyester carpets, neon lights, Formica surfaces, and rows upon rows of identical cubicles. Does not equality necessitate homogeneity? Does not diversity necessitate heterogeneity? Is not the former predicated of sameness and the latter on difference? If so, then, why is human biodiversity such a problem?

We know the answer, of course: our critics think that the instant we acknowledge that skin pigmentation is one of a suite of traits evincing distinctive patterns linked to different populations, we are going automatically to legislate compulsory castrations, slavery, lynching, hangings, and worse, on an industrial scale. By that logic, then, the abolition of the monarchy in the United Kingdom will lead automatically to the guillotining of the royalty and the aristocracy (it happened in France, after all), the condemning of adultery will lead automatically to lapidations (it happens in some Muslim countries, after all), investing in dotcoms will automatically lead to investor hysteria and a massive market bubble (it happened in the late ‘90s, after all), and so on. The Lefties (and that includes the faux conservatives) have a cartoonish perception of the world.

The problem with the Left is that they are deeply insecure. They are reassured by monotony and homogeneity: Communism proved it. They are also control freaks: their obsession with regulating, legislating, monitoring, recording, and taxing every aspect of our lives proves it. They project their inadequacies on us, and accuse our side of possessing all the pathologies that afflict, and in many instances are unique to, their psyches: rigid dogmatism; extreme conformity; breath-taking arrogance; self-righteous smugness; self-serving myopia; a propensity to favor systems over aims, abstract theory over empirical evidence, artificiality over nature, and wishful thinking over practical experience. They are suspicious of inquisitive minds, and thus seek to straitjacket them with endless speech codes, thought crimes, sensitivity training, taboos, and academic orthodoxy. They are terrified of exposure, and, as any university student conversant with Leftist theoreticians will know, hide behind arcane terminology, impenetrable syntax, opaque conceptualizations, meaningless metaphors, and rococo theoretical constructions. They fear excellence and individuality, and thus elaborate sanctions to level down, hold back, penalize, limit, constrict, restrict, reshape, and redesign originals and high achievers. They are mediocre, pedestrian, below average, and thus invent analytical frameworks that absolve them of responsibility for their failures – this necessarily involves a one-size-fits-all vision of society and humanity. And they are profoundly disturbed by, and hysterically intolerant of, anything inconsistent with their queer and peculiar constructs and worldview, to the point where fundamental difference must be obliterated at any cost. Consequently: the African bush must be urbanized; Whites extinguished; females masculinized; males feminized; laws harmonized; and every human on the planet must be androgynous and coffee-colored, live in a city, work in an office, and hold Leftist views.

Did not the Swedes attempt something similar during the second half of the 20th century (except without the race mixing), and came to enjoy some of the highest suicide rates in the world?

The Left abhors hierarchy. But, again, if the Left were not so deeply insecure, Leftists would realize that there is no single hierarchy, but, rather, a multiplicity of possible hierarchies. Human biodiversity does not equal a single vertical scale that orders all humans from inferior to superior, according to their IQ scores. Contrary to Leftist myth, those who accept the existence of human biodiversity understand that a human is more than just an IQ score: general intelligence (what IQ tests are designed to measure) is but one of a multitude of different traits. Because human populations are essentially adaptations, or specializations, to given environments that, over millennia, exerted slightly different evolutionary pressures, humans can be ranked in many different ways, depending on what trait one chooses to look at. The White race originated in an environment that selected for higher general intelligence. And since human groups have tended to invent cultures that reflect their own particular suites of traits, the cultures invented by White – or European-descended – peoples, have been predicated, and indeed placed a premium on, general intelligence. There are regions in the world, however, where the environment selected less strongly for intelligence and more strongly for other traits. It will be found that different cultures assign different levels of importance to different traits, and that, accordingly, the peoples belonging to these cultures may well choose to rank humans as per the traits most important to them. Therefore, while IQ is central to us because it has consequences within our civilization, the study of human biodiversity remains ultimately about understanding man from a multi-dimensional perspective. This is why I find it ironic that the Left tries so hard to rubbish Eurocentrism, when, through their single-minded preoccupation with IQ in discussions of race, they betray, in fact, a quintessentially Eurocentric view. But then again, the Left is and has always been singularly myopic.

Personally, I am content with a diverse and varied world, rich with contrasts and differences in focus or emphases. I do not mind if the human ecological footprint varies from one population to the next; if some live in prehistorical communities and others in space-faring utopias; if there are pronounced differences between the races or the sexes along variety of dimensions. Humans can create meaning in their lives in many different ways. And why not? Not everyone is designed for, or wants, or needs, the world as the Left imagines it ought to be.

Pop Culture: Theirs vs. Ours

A picture speaks a thousand words. Is it a surprise that the creeps running things today are so profoundly dysfunctional, when they grew up listening to this freakshow?

One doesn't know whether to laugh or run in the face of such a weird and repellent collection of vainglorious, pontificating, self-righteous, self-indulgent, cosmetically-enhanced, fossil-like perverts and nincompoops. An eloquent illustration, if any was needed, of why they must be pushed into the deepest depths of the Tartarus, as soon as possible.

They represent the past, and we the future.

Big Brother Goes Green

It is always interesting to note how the Left describe themselves as champions of freedom when, in fact, every day they prove freedom’s worst enemy. That this is the case is perhaps less indicative of dishonesty as it is of their ideology’s incompatibility with freedom: after all, any world-improver who regards man and nature as a machine will inevitably come to regard himself as an engineer, and engineering is all about finding ways to manipulate components in order force a pre-determined outcome. For the Left, of course, those components are you and I. When people who are not of the Left attempt to do the same, the Left calls this authoritarianism, oppression, and totalitarianism.

An increasingly topical area of Leftist oppression has been their efforts to implement environmentalist policies. When scientists began speculating about climate change Leftist politicians quickly realized that the apocalyptic scenarios arising from these speculations afforded them the most politically viable arguments they had had in years for confiscating an even larger proportion of people’s earnings. Desperate for money to fund their loopy and costly programs, they wasted no time in sponsoring information campaigns and identifying whole new areas of taxation. An obvious one has been our rubbish.

In the United Kingdom, one of the Labour government’s responses to climate change has been to cut rubbish collections in half, from weekly to biweekly (the council tax remains the same, though), and collecting only rubbish designated as “recyclable” during the gab weeks. Naturally, a system of fines was introduced, in the hope of creating a new revenue stream from people’s mistakes or absent-mindedness, with fines of up to several hundred pounds (even more in dollars) levied on offenders. Another of the Labour government’s responses has been the introduction of an electronic microchip, to be secretly affixed to people’s rubbish bins (trash cans in the U.S.), with the aim of identifying them, weighing the rubbish upon collection, and then invoicing the household connected to that bin for the amount of non-recyclable rubbish they produce. Naturally, a computerized database has been created to keep records and build up profiles and statistics. And, of course, the onus has remained on individual households to somehow reduce the rubbish they produce, while no pressure has been applied on manufacturers to reduce the amount of packaging they use. Since that packaging is the source of most household rubbish, we can easily see that these measures have more to do with collecting taxes than with the environment. The operative word in “green tax” remains, as always, “tax”, not “green”.

The pay-as-you-throw scheme, hugely unpopular, has been, ostensibly, under study. All the same, councils have been forging ahead quietly chipping people’s bins. To date, some 2.6 million of them have been chipped, an increase of 60% during the past year; and with 68 councils already using chipped bins, this means one in five of all household bins in the United Kingdom are already being monitored. Last week, Bristol City council became the first local government authority to formally announce the implementation of the scheme.

According to the Daily Mail on Friday (5 March), the Big Brother Watch campaign group has:

… complained that the bins allow councils to examine household rubbish and sell the information to commercial concerns as well as to impose taxes.

It also warned that collection of data from chipped bins could show when households were on holiday, opening the way to abuse by criminals.

Naturally, the Local Government Association has denied this, arguing that the chips have been installed “to improve services”, while a spokesman for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:

There are no Government plans to introduce microchips in bins. Any use of microchips is a local authority decision - some councils use them to monitor levels of waste. This is not about spying on people or fining them.

Yea, sure. Except that, apparently in 2008 nearly 100 councils ran investigations into the contents of their residents' bins, in some cases to check on what rubbish they dump and in others to try to obtain information on their incomes and lifestyles.

When I hear a helicopter flying overhead, I often joke to my wife saying that it is the taxman, looking for signs of affluence (and therefore for people to investigate). It turns out, however, that even my most cynical scenarios are not far from reality. One can imagine a future in which barcodes are succeeded by chips, and where bin chips can detect the chips on discarded packaging and transmit data about the bin’s contents to a huge, government-controlled database. Further, one can imagine a future in which the Inland Revenue’s computers have access to this database, and are able, via a robotic set of algorithms and cross-references, to quickly detect lifestyles inconsistent with a taxpayer’s declared earnings, thus automatically flagging the taxpayer to the taxman as a target for an investigation.

Consider that this is only part of a larger picture. We already know that almost all of our economic activity is recorded and databased; that our internet activity is recorded and databased; that our perambulations in high streets and shop centers are recorded and databased. This information is used, almost uncontroversially, to restrict our economic freedom through taxation. Soon, no doubt, it will be restricted even more: once they are up and running, having turned all of the nations’ rubbish bins into household spies, one can well imagine that governments will make it a requirement that cars come fitted with black boxes, just like airplanes. The argument will be that this will help prevent theft and assist authorities in the investigation of a crime or a road accident; and that this will help ease congestion by enabling the collection of tolls on motorways and congestion charges in town centers (and fines everywhere) electronically, without disrupting the flow of traffic. Needless to say that, as with the rubbish, the stealth taxes will gradually increase and multiply, and our political enemies will continue to gain an ever-more accurate and precise picture of us – of where we are, what we do, what we like, what we read, what we think, what we say, what we make, what we keep, what we throw away – all in the name of safety, your convenience, and the environment.

Alternative Universe

I have written before about the need to create an alternative universe, where dissidents can find economic and professional opportunities and sources of status that are independent of those dispensed by the mainstream of culture. This is because many who privately agree with the views of the Alternative Right dare not voice them for fear of ostracism and loss of livelihood: many are, after all, on payrolls and their livelihoods depend on their employers' willingness to continue to employ them.

But what would this alternative universe look like? This is a topic well worth exploring, and to my mind even more important than the topic of what exactly is wrong with the world we live in today and why. We need to be aware of the latter, of course, and keep ourselves well educated and informed; but we must also show a way forward, and do so in a manner that is not only serious but also displays our capacity for humour and fun -- otherwise, the average person out there will continue to perceive our camp as comprised of grumbling old codgers, fearful and suspicious of progress, waving a fist at the world. Who said being a dissident cannot be fun? Only the enemy, of course!

For these reasons, I will start this blog in good style, by giving our enemy a taste of their own medicine!