Andrew Gardner

Andrew Gardner has 12 articles published.

Ed Sheeran says he LOVES Jeremy Corbyn

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

Singer Ed Sheeran told the Sunday Times this weekend that he loves Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn:

‘I love Corbyn. I love everything Corbyn is about. And I feel ­people thought that, because I didn’t put myself behind him, I wasn’t a Corbyn supporter. But if you knew me as a person, and listened to my music, you would be able to make a pretty educated guess that he would be the kind of person I really dig. He cares about other people. He cares about all classes, races and generations, and that’s how I was brought up — we need more people that care about everyone.’

Does Sheeran realise that being a Corbynista is not edgy, the hard-left is full of privileged chattering classes types from monied London neighbourhoods, who believe they too are ‘radical and edgy’ progressives?

Look how they flirt with the symbols and rhetoric of 20th-century totalitarianism. The Labour flag they are so fond of waving has a Soviet feel to it, the New Labour rose being ditched when Miliband was at the helm. (Even Corbynista has a ring of Venezuelan rebel about it – the same country that has oil reserves and the people now have to sell their hair to eat food, when they are not eating their pets that is).

Jeremy Corbyn is not so much a leader as a comforting figure of righteous inertia. A kindly old uncle who once supported the IRA. He doesn’t challenge anything or take uncomfortable decisions. In fact he doesn’t take any decisions at all.

He cares. But that is not enough.

And, like Labour, Ed Sheeran seems to have deserted his core fan base.

It will be interesting how his next album sales go.

Lefty campaign Stop Funding Hate want to ruin Christmas

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

The recent campaign by Stop Funding Hate started with wrapping paper. Stationery chain Paperchase offered all Daily Mail readers two free rolls. But after numerous complaints on social media and pressure from Stop Funding Hate for working with the supposedly hatemongering Mail, Paperchase quickly issued an apology for its actions. ‘We’ve listened to you about this weekend’s newspaper promotion’, it said. ‘We now know we were wrong to do this.’

Next stop, food – Pizza Hut were criticised by the online army for a promotion in the Sun offering readers a free pizza.  Pizza Hut apologised for ‘any offence caused as a result of this partnership’.

Stop Funding Hate have regular updates on Twitter as to who is advertising in papers whose editorial line they disagree with.

Stop Funding Hate did the same last Christmas with its John Lewis-style Christmas advert, calling on big brands to boycott the Mail and Co. It repeated the exercise this year, with a new ad upping the cringe factor with a sad-looking dog.

But Stop Funding Hate founder Richard Wilson let the cat out of the bag on a recent Newsnight interview ‘I think the endpoint for us is a media that does the job that we all want it to do, that upholds the public interest, that treats people fairly.’

In other words, agrees with our point of view. Censorship to you and me!

Other members of this collective have not been backward in coming forward. Owen Jones says Paperchase’s apology is ‘a victory for basic decency’, before going on to explain why the Mail is so evil: ‘When Theresa May announced her fateful snap election, the Daily Mail celebrated an opportunity to “Crush the saboteurs”, demonstrating its utter intolerance of political dissent.’ How ironic for Owen Jones to criticise the Mail’s supposed ‘intolerance of political dissent’, given his intolerance of the tabloid press.

The Daily Mail remains the most read newspaper in Britain, with 31.1million readers. The Sun comes in second with 28.8million.

Stop Funding Hate wants to censor what they consider to be offensive messages in the tabloids, and yet they have no qualms about the offensive message they are putting out to millions of tabloid readers.

As Christmas draws ever nearer, Stop Funding Hate and its army of trolls and bots will likely up their activity, relenting only when the media is nothing more than a vacuous echo chamber of the official ‘left-of-centre’ line.

Isn’t it time an alternative pressure group was formed to push back?

The Qur’an And Violence

in Islamism by

I think we all know the script now. A terrorist attack occurs. Hours later, the world learns the identity of the attacker (or, the identities of the attackers). Then comes the inevitable question, “What was the motive?” We wait and a familiar narrative emerges, but we can usually guess the conclusion.

Sometimes a consensus is quick. Few disagree, for instance, that Anders Breivik was motivated by xenophobia and ultranationalism when he killed 77 fellow Norwegians in 2011, or that anti-Muslim bigotry propelled Darren Osbourne to plough his car into a crowd of Muslims near the Finsbury Park Mosque in London in June 2017.

Yet other times, particularly when the perpetrators are Muslims, such a consensus becomes elusive. At least that is what we are told. Suddenly the motive becomes complicated.  We’re told that the attackers could have been influenced by any number of factors, and for some — including many journalists, pundits, social scientists, terrorism experts, even heads of government— there is one factor that did not, or even could not, play a role: and that is the terrorists’ stated faith.

A week after the Westminster attack in March 2017, journalist Mehdi Hasan offered this argument in an article with the  title, “You Shouldn’t Blame Islam for Terrorism. Religion Isn’t a Crucial Factor in Attacks.”

According to Hasan, Islam is not the “main motivation” in Muslim terror attacks, and if the attackers do cite religion as an influence, it is because they are “cynically appealing to Radical Islamic motifs or doctrines” that provide “a ready-made justification” for their violence.

A week after the 2013 murder of British Army soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, Hasan wrote in the New Statesman that “Muslim extremists usually cite political, not theological, justifications for their horrendous crimes.” As evidence, Hasan cites the words of Michael Adebolajo, one of the two men who killed Rigby: “The only reason we killed this man…is because Muslims are dying daily.”

He omits (because his argument depends on ignoring half of what jihadists say) Adebolajo’s multiple references to Islam during his 80-second on-camera rant. “By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone,” he said, his blood-soaked hands holding two blood-soaked knives. “So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands?” And, clearly providing a religious justification for his act, Adebolajo said, “We are forced by the Qur’an in Surat at-Tawba [the ninth chapter of the Qur’an], through many many [verses] throughout the Qur’an, that we must fight them as they fight us.”

Adebolajo’s statements indicate that we shouldn’t understand Islamist terrorist motives as being either political or religious. Rather, we should recognise that, in the mind of the jihadist, the two domains are inseparable. Simply put, their theological convictions inform their political beliefs.

That Adebolajo was not just using Islamism, the Qur’an, and Sharia as an “excuse” is evident by looking at the ten years that preceded his assassination of Rigby. After enrolling at Greenwich University in London in 2003, he began mingling with Islamists, including members of alal-Muhajiroun (a group once co-led by Anjem Choudary, recently found guilty of inviting support for the Islamic State). In 2006, Adebolajo participated in a demonstration outside the trial of Mizanur Rahman who had called for “another 9/11” in countries “all over Europe” in response to the publication of the Danish cartoons caricaturing Muhammad.

2009, Adebolajo attended a protest of the EDL (English Defence League, insisting those in attendance convert; and a year later he was apprehended and returned to the United Kingdom after attempting to emigrate to Somalia, where he hoped to live under Islamic law). Abebolajo’s interpretation of Islam was not an inconsequential factor in his radicalisation or his justification for murder.

And this is not a one-off. Countless Islamist terrorists have demonstrated that their political grievances and terrorist acts are inspired by a sincere belief in a radical interpretation of Islam.

Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, wrote a letter to his co-conspirators drenched with references to martyrdom and the glory awaiting them in paradise. (“Be happy, optimistic, calm because you are heading for a deed that God loves and will accept,” Atta instructed the attackers. “It will be the day, God willing, you spend with the women of paradise.”)

And two individuals who appeared in the 2016 Channel 4 documentary entitled The Jihadis Next Door later went on to commit acts of terror: one, Abu Rumaysah, became an executioner for ISIS, and another, Khuram Shazad Butt, led the group of terrorists that carried out the London Bridge attack in June 2017.

Of course, members of the “it’s-not-Islam” crowd will argue that these terrorists have followed a perverted version of Islam. But a reading of Islam’s most revered and influential texts — including the Qur’an, hadiths (collections of the sayings and deeds of Muhammad), the biographies of Muhammad, and tafaseer (commentaries by respected Islamic scholars) — indicates that all this violence follows Islamists’ accepted interpretation of the religion. The Qur’an is not written in a concurrent timeline. The beginning is not the earliest event and the end not the last. Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin have written Mohammed’s Koran that does indeed put it in a chronological order.

Islamists express a desire to establish a religious state and resurrect a vast caliphate. They are following the Qur’an. Verse 18:26 of the Qur’an says that Allah “shares not His legislation with anyone,” and verse 4:59 declares, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day.”

Some radical Islamist groups argue that violence can be used to restore religious rule in territory once controlled by Muslims that has ceased to be sufficiently governed by Islamic law. That would mean that Bradford, Birmingham and parts of East London can be subject to open jihad!

One verse that supports this argument is 5:50, which reads, “Is it the judgment of [the time of] ignorance they desire? But who is better than Allah in judgment for a people who are certain [in faith]?”

There are, of course, tolerant and peaceful verses in the Qur’an like ‘There is no compunction to religion’ or ‘Transgression should not be done’ But these are early in the timeline. The belligerent verses that came toward the end of Muhammad’s career — when the Muslims’ military and political power were ascendant and they override the more tolerant verses.

Other statements from Qur’anic texts also lend themselves to justifying the use of violence to spread submission to the one true faith. (The word Islam actually means submission, or ‘to submit’.)

The two most trusted hadith collections (Bukhari and Muslim) testify to Muhammad declaring, “I have been commanded to battle mankind until they declare that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”

Also Ibn Khaldun wrote, “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation) to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in Islam, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same time.”

The verses, hadiths, and commentaries cited above all provide a firm theological basis for Islamists’ desire to legislate and enforce Sharia and jihadists’ use of violence to topple secular regimes and establish a religious state. But this still leaves us with the issue of Islamist terrorism, including why it is carried out and how the terrorists justify killing civilians — and even themselves.

As the statements by Tsarnaev and Adebolajo prove, many Islamist terrorists see their attacks as a legitimate form of defensive jihad.

Terrorist attacks cannot be viewed as distinct from radical Islam’s stated goal of toppling regimes and creating a pan-Islamic state. Osama bin Laden explained the singular purpose behind al-Qaeda’s attacks on the Muslim world and the West this way in his ‘Letter To America’ in 2002: “The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you” [emphasis added]. And in a 2016 article entitled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You” published in its magazine Dabiq, ISIS explained that it hates and fights the West, first and foremost, not because of its foreign policy but because of its disbelief. “The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” the article explains. “We have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah — for those afforded this option — and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims.”

Some have seized on and applied this rationale to justify terrorist attacks on civilians. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for example, one of the most influential Islamic scholars in the world, stated that Israeli women and children can be targeted because of Israel’s law mandating a stint of military service (even though many potential conscripts are granted exemptions).

Al-Qaeda has stated that attacking Western civilians is justified because of their collective political support for governments that engage in hostilities in Muslim lands.

Takfir is a component of Islam, dating back to the Sunni-Shi’a split and the Kharijites of the seventh century. It was used most notoriously by Ibn Taymiyyah, who argued in fatwas around the year 1300 that Muslim Mamluk troops could engage in battle against the invading Mongols despite their leader’s recent conversion to Islam. The Mongols, Ibn Taymiyyah claimed, were not true Muslims because of the influence of Shi’ite and Mongol beliefs and customs on their society.

In recent decades, jihadist groups have used takfir as a justification for killing both troops and civilians.

Finally, there is the controversy over suicide terrorism — whether Muslims can kill themselves while attacking the enemy. At first glance, it appears that Islam prohibits such actions. Indeed, verse 4:29 says, “And do not kill yourselves.”

Verse 4:74, however, encourages martyrdom by promising “a great reward” to those who “fight in the cause of Allah” and “sell the life of this world for the Hereafter.”

Numerous hadiths indicate that Muhammad approved of fighters entering battle against overwhelming odds, even if their death was all but certain. According to one, Muhammad said, “In order that the people have a livelihood, it is best that they have a man who holds on to the reins of his horse, battling in the way of Allah. He flies upon [his horse’s back] every time he hears the call or alarm, wishing for death or expecting to be slain.” There are so many references in the Islamic scriptures that can be interpreted so as to allow force, coercion and domination of others, meaning Islamists see it as a manifesto of global control, by fair means or foul. The latter being demonstrated too many times over the 1400 year history for it to be coincidence.

The point of the above is this:

First, they counter arguments about the motives of radical Islamic terrorists. Yes, these terrorists do harbour political grievances against Western powers. But these grievances derive from their beliefs. They are living out an extreme yet learned interpretation of the faith.

Second, some argue, for instance, that terrorism cannot be a cause of jihadist and terrorist violence because throughout its 1,400-year history, not all Muslims have exhibited such behaviour. A worrying number have though.

As Fareed Zakaria put it in a Washington Post editorial in 2014, “You can never explain a variable phenomenon with a fixed cause. So, if you are asserting that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant — ‘the mother lode of bad ideas’ — then, since Islam has been around for 14 centuries, we should have seen 14 centuries of this behaviour.” Well, I personally, would argue we have: the above examples being just a few available.

Finally, there is a alleged practical benefit to establishing the connection between militant Islam and Islamism, jihadism, and terrorism. Grasping this connection is essential to understanding the beliefs, we are told, and motivations of the radical groups at odds with the West.  They are at odds with civilisation itself.

We should pay attention when ISIS says “We will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam, and will never stop fighting you until you’re ready to leave the swamp of warfare and terrorism through the exits we provide, the very exits put forth by our Lord for the People of the Scripture: Islam, jizyah, or — as a last means of fleeting respite — a temporary truce.”

Mutual coexistence with Islamism is impossible. We need learn this lesson sooner rather than later.

Post modernism Part 3 – The Arts

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

Postmodernism since its outset has sought to destabilise society. It thrives on the polarisation of it. Dispensing with structure, logic and reason, it says ‘there are no overarching truths’. It is the opposite of free speech. And there can only be two possible outcomes, submission or outright rejection often resulting in violence.

It has a number of names, sometimes Cultural Marxism or Political Correctness. It is a postmodern movement, and is often couched in Marxist doctrines as per the French philosophers of the seventies; Derrida was the foremost. They argue there is no value in any one view but if there is no value system there is no point in creating anything. It follows then that there can be no progress.

With the total rejection of Western values Derrida stated that the ‘old way’ of doing things was phallocentric or paternalistic. It sought to break down the family unit and replace it with a collective identity. This collective identity can now see any individual as an oppressor. (Think white privilege, or any privilege come to that). The goal?  Undermine Western conservative values and replace it with a nihilistic dystopia that is easy to control.

So, what does this look like? How does it manifest itself now it is out of the universities and in everyday life?

Look at the recent ballooning of protests, from BLM to Antifa to the ‘vagina’ third-way-feminism protests! In art there is no distinction between high and low art. Tracy Emin touts an unmade bed and Damien Hirst exhibits a collection of coloured dots. Music videos promote dysfunctional amoral behaviour. There are TV shows showing broken families as normal. Reality TV purports dysfunction as the new normal. We are all meant to think that this is acceptable behaviour! Like the Kardashians. Everything is becoming hypersexualised, like Madonna’s early videos, which now look tame when you see Miley Cyrus exposing her crotch and then insisting she is maintaining her dignity as a woman. With this hyper sexualisation comes the normalising of cheating on a partner. The breaking of the strong family unit I mentioned in my article here.

If you want a more modern example of dysfunction, I read recently that Angelina Jolie says her only natural child feels pushed out of the family, probably being surrounded by third world adoptees. It has now decided it is trans!

Even music is dumbed down. The same riffs and hooks, repeated in song after song, offering the same experience. There is no alternative. Once this behaviour is taken as acceptable and normalised, society’s moral filter is gone.

Now diversity is seen as every one looking different but all having the same opinion. It is more important to fit in than be an individual. An innovator. No wonder everything that is churned out feels bland and uninspiring. No one is daring any more.

George Orwell is credited with saying “There will be no revolution. No one will notice – they will be too busy looking at their screens”.

This is what post modernism looks like. This is what cultural Marxism looks like and it is, and will be, the fruits of political correctness.

It is now time to stop apologising for being a conservative, (in the traditional sense. Modern Conservatism [Globalism/Postmodernism] is now as left leaning as the Labour party of the Seventies). Don’t apologise for having a Western outlook either. Get involved in committees. Join local groups. Make your voice heard. Argue using rationality, logic and reason to dismantle this fallacy, but be polite. Engage in conversations whenever you can – you may find others share your point of view but have resisted speaking as they thought they were the only ones.

Our origins are being forgotten and need to be rediscovered and reasserted. Otherwise the hoards amassing on the periphery will just march straight in. And they can because we will be unstable like any culture that has ceased to be relevant.

The Left Are Upping The Ante

in Brexit/Islamism by

Recently, the sentiment of the British people has been changing, noticeably so. There has been the peaceful march by the Football Lads Alliance (FLA). It was attended by 73,000 people and the BBC decided not to report on it – so they are taking part in another one outside Broadcasting House on November 5th. The Chartists movement protested against both Labour inviting MEND to Parliament, and against BBC bias. Some UKIP members have spoken out on the dangers of Islamism, and also Anne Marie Waters has formed a new political party (For Britain). Tommy Robinson and others, including MBGA News, have campaigned for the CPS to review the case of Chelsey, a victim of a Islamist grooming gang in Sunderland. There have been some other well attended events too.

These have been populated not by chanting blackshirts, harking back to the glories of 1939 and the Reich, but by ordinary working-class people frustrated by a surge in crime and terrorism. Mothers, fathers, young people who feel the job market is becoming overcrowded and are unable to get work. They are being undercut by migrants, who may be nice people but who will work for substantially less, undercutting the minimum wage. The future is beginning to look bleak. Parts of Britain are becoming no-go zones after dark, with a knife or a ‘sharp’ used in an assault approximately every 14 minutes.

Some have lost friends and family, or know people who have, to the terrorist incidents that are happening with alarming regularity. Suspects are arrested and then released without charge. Others have daughters who are victims of the grooming gangs. In Rotherham alone there were 1400 victims. As if that wasn’t bad enough, parents who tried to intervene were arrested for breach of the peace!

The people of Britain are demanding something more than sound bites and platitudes and some media coverage would be welcome.

Cue ITV. On November 9th ITV are airing a programme called Exposure. Not to expose the grooming gangs, and not to address the woes of our young who are struggling. The show’s tagline is “Inside Britain’s New Far Right”!

Between June and October 2017 an undercover reporter has taken video footage and audio recordings of Anne Marie Waters and the FLA in a number of pubs. Here is a copy of the correspondence the producers have given to AMW: Here

It can be seen that they are also bringing in two ‘experts’ on extremism. One is Nick Lowles and the other Matthew Collins. The former is CEO of Hope Not Hate (HNH), formerly Searchlight the anti-fascist group who benefit from government and Soros funding, and the latter is an alleged ex-BNP mole who also works for Searchlight/HNH.

Hope Not Hate have a very welcoming name and an even nicer logo, of a stylised sun. But they are not impartial. In fact the CEO was allegedly no platformed by the National Union of Students last year, so that’s not exactly a glowing endorsement. In January they will be joined by Matthew MacGregor. He was the digital attack guru for Barack Obama in 2012 and was tasked with discrediting Mitt Romney.

That is all well and good. But where are the fascists? Where are the Nazis? They are not at these meetings or marches. No, ordinary people are there. That is all.

The fact that ordinary people are not accepting the platitudes and lies is evident. What is also evident is that the left of centre and hard left who not only are in positions of power but also control a large section of the media are upping the ante.

And in the New Year I think we will see more concerted action to stifle debate. Is that not what happened in 1939? The difference this time is that it is the ones who shout loudest who are the Anti-fascists, who are a direct descendant of Roter Kampferbund, and the real threat to peace, to democracy, to liberty!

Why Does The Left Get An Easy Pass?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Student Politics by

Growing up in south London I didn’t know much about Communism. It was generally seen as a bad thing. Older people with a bit more experience of life than me told me stories of the Soviet bread queues and Pravda, the official news agency and the like.

Back then it was clear to me that the Soviet Union was an authoritarian regime, but it wasn’t dramatically emphasised in the same way that the evils of Nazi Germany were. I always thought that curious, I still do. The Nazis were the bad guys. As boys playing at soldiers with make-believe rifles (usually broken tree branches) the baddies were always Nazi, you never went to battle with the Commies.

As I grew up and during the Brezhnev era, the Soviets were more sinister than evil, a silent malevolent force nobody knew much about. Then came Mikhael Gorbachev and they also seemed to be turning a new leaf.

The Communist bloc fell in the early 1990s under Glasnost and Perestroika, but I did have other encounters with the ideology. One of my friends was an avowed Communist. A hardline Marxist. Forever saying that if the Cuba regime would be implemented globally we would have a perfect world! But I didn’t give it much thought. In the 1990s Communism had no future, so his ideological passion struck me as just that, a harmless affectation.

I later understood the true impact of Communist ideology, especially earlier in the 20th century. The poverty, the food shortages, the power outages, the gulags, the police state with the dreaded knock on the door in the dead of night. The ones that had been brushed under the carpet. Stalin’s and Mao’s political purges, and the tens of millions who died in famines. The death toll under Communist regimes is of incredible magnitude, when compared to other mass killings.

Joseph Stalin is reputed to have been the one who said “the death of one person is a tragedy; the death of one million is a statistic.”

And yet whenever I attack Communism for being an evil ideology I get a number of counterclaims and ‘whatabouteries’.

One argument I often get is that they meant well. This is in contrast to the National Socialists in Germany. The proletariat was going to overturn the old order. Not only were they going to be dispossessed, but they were often targeted and killed. They were class enemies, and it was clear early on that revolutionary Marxists were not going to be gentle with those class enemies. They would liquidate them. (In my mind surely that makes the Marxists as bad as the Nazis they rail against!)

Today we face a new dilemma. The egalitarian society of mass affluence seems to be fading away, as a new era of inequality and misery is facing us, at least in the west.

There is no easy solution on the horizon. And, to be frank, those on the centre-right are correct in suggesting the old elite are involved extensively in crony capitalism; they enforce policies which are self-serving. If it is not the old elite, it is the powerbase in Brussels. The EU is just a new brand on an old tin.

Into this vacuum are stepping firebrands on the hard left. The soft left seems to have vanished, or perhaps morphed into the Conservative Party? Also on the left, the media are taking a “fresh look” at Marxism, except they rebrand it Cultural Marxism, as since the Winter Of Discontent in UK (just before the Gorbchev era I mentioned above), Economic Marxism was shown wanting and wholeheartedly rejected. Thatcher got in and stayed in for 10 years. I can understand the impatience, but this experiment has been done, disastrously, multiple times. There is no way any state, major or otherwise, should risk this sort of socialism.

I know of people who call themselves “Anarchist Communists”, but in practice, they praise states like Venezuela, who are not a very good example at the moment. Girls are having to sell their hair to wigmakers to buy food! Is that really a goal for a country to aspire to?

Alarmingly, and despite the record of Communism, the Uni fraternity, lecturers in particular, seem to have a warm spot for the Marxists. They “meant well”. Obviously, there are no Nazi professors. And yet Communism is given latitude, despite its 100 million body count!

This point was also made recently by the journalist and presenter Andrew Neil when he said the left gets a “much easier pass than the right” at a recent speech at the Holocaust Educational Trust. The left gets away with, and is allowed to get away with, much more.

The body count issue is interesting because apologists for Communism regularly suggest that these numbers may be exaggerated. This is like saying the Nazi regime has been slandered, because they killed 2 million, as opposed to 6 million. Quibbling over numbers in a passionate manner like this is the domain of Holocaust deniers, and yet with Communism, it seems OK to do.

If Communists had their hearts in the right places, what did they end up accomplishing? Look at Romania, totalitarian USSR, East Germany with its Stasi? And of course now there is Cuba and Venezuela. A country with massive oil reserves that ought to be on a par with middle eastern OPEC countries but is instead reduced to selling hair to buy food.

And yet here we are when many, including Corbyn’s Labour with its Momentum troops, boast their sympathies with Communism and Communist regimes of old. This is a failed experiment that must never be repeated or we may be revisiting a dark corner of history.

How The Left And The Media Hijack The Islamist Narrative.

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/World News by

On 22nd May, 2017, a 22 year old jihadist named Salman Abedi wandered into the Manchester Arena during a concert populated primarily by young teens and their parents, and detonated a suicide bomb, killing 22 people including an 8 year old girl, and injuring approximately 120 others. This was the deadliest terror attack on the UK, the other notable one being the 52 commuters killed in the London transport attacks of 2005.

We are often told that we should defy the terrorists by simply carrying on as normal.

The fact that the two deadliest attacks upon the UK in recent memory were at the hands of Islamist terrorists is not simply pub trivia.

When the apologists for Islamofascism get bored of claiming that jihadists are lying about their religious motivations, (“It is nothing to do with Islam” may sound familiar at this point) they invariably engage in the exercise of throwing around skewed data to minimise the danger posed by Islamist terror.

In the now not uncommon event of an Islamist jihadi slaughtering a crowd of innocent people, articles and tweets lying about the remote likelihood of this happening to you, instantaneously begin to surface. Each of these claims are variations on the theme that right-wing or far-right terrorism poses a greater danger than Islamofascist terrorism, and they are based on several studies which attempt to make the same claims.

Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by non-Muslim extremists than by jihadists,” insists this MSNBC article based on this report by research centre New America.

This article was published in the summer of 2015. And whilst the information contained within it is frozen in time, the source report that it cites is not. The report has since been updated, and so anyone citing the article now, is citing statistics that do not include the 49 Orlando clubbers murdered the following year by ISIS-inspired gunman Omar Mateen in the deadliest mass shooting in American history. The updated statistics which now include this attack, along with other attacks in 2016, show that deaths from jihadist terror attacks in the US are now almost double those attributable to far-right terrorists.

The practice of quoting outdated figures to further a false narrative is a common ruse.

John Sexton of Breitbart notes, the numbers here ostensibly focus on the threat to Americans, but do not take Americans killed abroad by Islamist terrorists into account. The beheading of Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 7 Americans killed in the 2002 Bali Bombing, the 6 Americans killed in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 4 Americans killed in the 2016 Brussels bombings, the American killed in the Zamboanga City bombing, the American killed in the 2015 Bamako hotel attack, the 22 year old American student killed in the 2015 Paris attacks, for example, are all absent from these figures. Nor do the figures take into account the number of Islamofascist plots foiled as a result of the asymmetric counter-terrorism focus placed upon jihadism as a result of 9/11. As former counter-terrorism analyst Daryl Johnson acknowledges:

The U.S. government currently employs hundreds of analysts focused on Islamic extremism, but only a couple dozen who monitor domestic terror.

Fortunately I didn’t need to undertake a great deal of arduous research to find this quote. Why? Because it’s mentioned in the very same report (MSNBC) that is routinely circulated as proof that Islamic terrorism is essentially a non-issue in comparison to “far-right” terrorism.

But surely, the most blatant and deliberate skewing of the numbers here is in the fact that the biggest terror attack in the history of the United States is discounted by beginning the tally on 12th September 2001.

Florida State College Professor Andrew Holt issued a statement debunking this  and the methods it uses. In it he points out that if one were to start the clock a day earlier and therefore include the approximately three thousand innocent lives taken on 9/11, then “there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist.”

Also, the proportionality of terror attacks attributable to Islamist extremism does not factor in the scarcity of Muslims in western population.

Muslim adults comprise less than 1% of the U.S population, and yet according to data, persons claiming to follow Islam are responsible for a whopping 27% of the terrorism in that country. This is a significant over-representation among such a tiny minority and, as expected, is completely overlooked in this report. 5.2% in the UK are Muslim and yet those claiming to be of said faith have been responsible for 316 woundings or deaths since 2000. In Europe since 2004 the figure is 5103. This figure is starkly drawn into relief when we note that this violence said by perpetrators to be from, or inspired by, the Qur’an, and the Qur’an alone.

The number of “far-right”, Jewish or Christian inspired attacks is currently zero. That figure is unlikely to change any time soon.

And the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that “far-right terrorism” (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamofascist terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:

  • A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.
  • A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)
  • A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.
  • A tally which misreports certain attacks as “right-wing” or “far-right”.
  • A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.
  • A report which ignores foiled plots.
  • A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.
  • A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamist terrorism.
  • A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Islamofascists in relation to Muslim’s lack of prevalence as a minority group.
  • A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the “far-right” bracket.
  • A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.

This narrow focus on terrorism committed within Western borders is particularly galling. According to the 2015 Global Terrorism Index, only 2.6 percent of terror-related deaths occur in the West (for accuracy, this figure includes the September 11th attacks.) Furthermore, just 4 groups (Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al Qaeda) were responsible for 74% of the world’s terror related deaths in 2015 — and Islamic State and Boko Haram were responsible for over half of the world’s terrorism fatalities between them.

Ironically, those of us concerned about the global impacts of Islamism are routinely accused of xenophobia and bigotry by the very same people who demand that we measure this threat by ignoring Islamist terrorism in foreign states. They seem to be arguing that as long as jihadism is negligible in the West then it’s as though the threat to “foreigners” in the rest of the world is of no concern. That sounds a lot like bigotry and xenophobia to me.

None of this is to say that far-right terrorism is not an issue. But the prevalence and threat of Islamist terrorism is a perfectly legitimate area of concern and focus in its own right. Particularly, one would think, in the immediate aftermath of an Islamist inspired bloodbath.

And this insistence on changing the subject to the far-right in response to it is not dissimilar to mounting a sustained campaign of vocal objection to cancer research on the basis that diabetes kills people too. It’s a textbook example of ‘Yes but whatabout’.

Many well-meaning people have been taken in by these reports, seemingly due to a legitimate concern over a general increase in far-right sentiment. However, their circulation and citation by Islamism apologists is a deliberate attempt to limit the problem of Islamofascism solely to terrorism, then to further limit it to terrorism on Western soil, and then to dismiss even that concern with deceitful nonsense.

Scarcely a few hours after a Muslim refugee in Stockholm ploughed a truck through crowds of pedestrians killing 5 people including an 11 year old girl who was literally ripped in half, and injuring 15 others, The Irish Times published an article worrying about how this ISIS inspired butchery would be used as political capital by the Swedish far-right.

Immediately hijacking any conversation on the detrimental impacts of Islamism as an ideology, and redirecting it towards the likes of Anders Breivik and Thomas Mair is often intended not only to whitewash the global phenomenon of Islamist terrorism, but also to divert focus away from Islam entirely.

It’s like saying right wing ideology causes someone to be a Nazi, but this argument is not extended to Islamofascism. You will often hear the ‘Nothing to do with Islam’ chant, usually after an attack.

There are other parts of the Qur’an to be considered in this as well as jihad and terrorism. This will include Female Genital Mutilation, honour killing, blasphemy, the persecution of the LBGT community, the subjugation of women, and the grooming and sexual exploitation of children, Rotherham being just one case in point.

It is simply a fact that Islamist terrorism is currently the deadliest form of terrorism on the global stage: whether they are Bangladeshi secularists pulled apart by Islamofascists’ blades, whether they are French cartoonists gunned down for defying Sharia blasphemy laws, whether they are Pakistani Sufis incinerated in Lahore for being the wrong kind of Muslims, or whether they are British children blown to pieces and lacerated by shrapnel in a Manchester concert hall.

As if to underscore this, The Telegraph ran the story  here on 26th October of Madihah Taheer, who bought her husband to be a wedding gift of a hunting knife and a plastic dummy so he could practice for killing the so called ‘right wing’ columnist Katie Hopkins!  The groom to be wanted to stab someone 27 times. I wonder if Katie Hopkins would be accused of Islamophobia here.

Almost as if to justify the narrative, in the same week the alleged head of the proscribed organisation National Action Christopher Lythgoe has been charged with ‘encouragement to commit murder’ of a Labour MP. As far as I know he is the only member of the far right to be charged with such, which is dwarfed by the relentless Islamic threat.

It is obvious which ideology presents the greatest problem.


The Post Modern Assault Pt 2; Education

in Anglophobia / Marxism/World News by

Post modernism has seeped into education. Originally, I was of the mind that it applied to an artistic movement. Or even an architectural one. But now it has expanded to encompass, in my experience, higher education. And certainly, the psychology, philosophy and the humanities disciplines. I will explore postmodernism in popular culture in another article, but today my focus is on its influence in education.

Some time back I enrolled on an access course, to then go on to study Criminology. So far so good. This course had a psychology bias, and I was exposed, surprisingly, to the thinking of Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze among others. You may recall that these were the primary French thinkers I cited in a precious article. [Here] So why is this promoted on a course where a rigorous pursuit of facts are required? Surely a strong logical argument would be easier support than one that is not.

Not if you are a postmodernist. You see, facts as you see them, are a construct. Not real. You just think they are because of your conditioning. This refers to your race/culture/education.  They will argue that if your construct can be untrue, then so are your facts, your evidence.

Here are some more facts:

  1. Access to education means access to knowledge.
  2. Knowledge enables a better future.
  3. Truth and knowledge should be synonymous with each other.

The generally accepted theory for validating a truth as knowledge is scientific experiment. You present a theory and prove the theory works via an demonstrative experiment. Others then try to replicate the results. If other findings are consistent with your own, it must be true. It supports your theory to be valid and true. But what happens when the results are inconsistent or disagree with the outcome you want?

Cue postmodernism. In education it has dramatically lowered the bar. It has hijacked it! Anyone can assert a truth, and, using the postmodern yardstick, it must be a truth for the asserter, it must also hold true globally. To argue otherwise would be some kind of ‘ism or ‘phobe. Take your pick; the politically correct have plenty for you to choose from.

And this is a very large problem indeed. If I was exposed to this thinking in higher education, then it is most definitely in basic, school level education. Young impressionable easily moulded minds are being led along a path of non-critical thought.  I found a table, which is below, setting out the main differences between modern v postmodern education theory.

Modernist Theory Postmodernist Theory
Knowledge Educators ideally should be authoritative transmitters of unbiased knowledge Educators are biased facilitators and co-“constructors” of knowledge.
Culture Culture is something students should learn about, but can also be a barrier to learning. Students from diverse cultures must be trained in a shared language, or medium of communication, before teachers can transmit knowledge to them. The modernist goal of unifying society results in domination and exploitation, because unity is always based on dominant culture. All cultures are not only of equal value, but also constitute equally important realities. Minority students must be “empowered” to fight against Eurocentric enculturation.
Values Traditional modernists believe that educators are legitimate authorities on values, and therefore they should train students in universal values. More liberal modernists argue that education should be “values-neutral.” Teachers help students with “values clarification”–deciding what values each individual student will hold. Values can, and should be separated from facts. The most important values are rationality and progress. Education should help students construct diverse and personally useful values in the context of their cultures. Values are considered useful for a given culture, not true or right in any universal sense. Since teachers cannot avoid teaching their own values, it’s okay for teachers to openly promote their values and social agendas in the classroom. Important values to teach include striving for diversity, tolerance, freedom, creativity, emotions and intuition.
Human Nature Modernists generally believe in a stable, inherent self that can be objectively known. In addition, since humans are thought to have a stable essential nature, IQ tests, and other similar “objective tests”, can be used to discover students’ innate intelligence. By giving them mastery over subject matter, teachers enhance students’ self-esteem. Education helps individuals discover their identities. Individuals and society progress by learning and applying objective knowledge. Students have no “true self” or innate essence. Rather, selves are social constructs. Postmodern educators believe self-esteem is a pre-condition for learning. They view education as a type of therapy. Education helps individuals construct their identities rather than discover them. Individuals and society progress when people are empowered to attain their own chosen goals.

It was authored by Dennis McCallum of Xenos Christian Fellowship on a different topic but it serves to demonstrate the differences well. Notice how modernism separates facts from values. Postmodernism prizes values over facts, and these values are often emotionally driven. Modernism has an authoritative and consistent delivery of knowledge and postmodernism has many different realities. This is wrong on so many levels.

As the philosopher Roger Scruton points out in his book England And The Need For Nations, the thing that binds us gives a sense community. A sense of belonging and a cohesiveness. ‘A society of citizens is a society when strangers can trust one another, since everyone is bound by the same set of rules’.

Given knowledge enables a better, more prosperous future, everyone owes it to their children, and to the generations to come, to do something about this creeping ideology of this false education.

I have a couple of suggestions on this front. Get involved in parent/teacher associations. Maybe get on the board of governors at your local school. Join local groups. Make your voice heard.

Argue your point using rationality, logic and reason to dismantle this fallacy. But be warned, although this is a relatively easy argument, you will be outnumbered, sometimes greatly so. You will also be shamed into silence using guilt (an emotion), they will point and shriek using hysterical moral panic. And they will swarm. The postmodernists rarely, if ever work alone. They will also not like you.

You may notice some are not as vocal as others. These people will also have been shamed and are just waiting for a moderating voice amid the turmoil to latch on to. Perhaps they didn’t fancy the odds, or are not resilient enough. They are allies, nurture them.

It is worth remembering the lines in Goethe’s Faust, (translated from German). ‘What you have inherited from your forefathers, earn it, so that you might own it’



The Trouble With Theresa

in Brexit by

Now the dust is beginning to settle, it is probably a good time to take a look at the spectacle that was Theresa May’s almost infamous speech in Florence. She left vast holes in her dialogue. Not holes you could definitively, quickly point out, but grey areas. Vague, non specifics that can be interpreted a number of ways.

The points that I gleaned from this 5000 word ramble once I cut through the fog that had the effect of inducing mental disorientation were;

  • She agreed not £30bn but £18-20bn payment
  • There is a non specified transition period of ‘about 2 years’
  • We do not seek an unfair competitive advantage
  • She did confirm leaving the custom union but see the second point above
  • She sees the migration/refugees as a ‘shared’ problem
  • Most worryingly, she sees a Third Way for UK/EU relationship going forward.

Well for me, as we have paid in more than we have got out over a number of years, why do we have to pay to leave? And why is it so much? This is one of those grey, not quite sure moments. The EU has said we owe it and no one seems able or willing to question the bill. The ‘about’ two years, well could she not come up with a more specific figure? And about two years from when? Is about less than four, eight? It is a totally unacceptable statement akin to a second-hand car salesman tying a gullible punter into a warranty deal.

She doesn’t want an unfair competitive advantage. Well why not? That was the whole reason for the leave vote. Because we were getting an unfair deal. The logo behind the rostrum said shared history, shared challenges, shared future. That is not the motto of a country striding out on its own, forging new links in a brave new world. Just like she sees migration as a shared problem. Shared with the architect of the Schengen Agreement perhaps.

And as for this Third Way! That sounds like a Blair soundbite. In fact it was. And he is the one still brokering an out-but-in hybrid kind of arrangement. It has been said she is the most left wing PM since Callahan. I think she is more akin to Neville Chamberlain. He was a ditherer too. And thought maintaining a trade agreement (with Germany) of more importance than UK security/ sovereignty. There is the famous quote of him saying something like “I have in my hand a promise from the Chancellor…” Quite a parallel there.

Let us not forget the UN speech either. Bashing Trump over the Paris accord, climate and migration. Perhaps she was thinking to alienate the USA to such an extent she will be able to say the UK needs an EU deal. Or not leave at all.

And why the silence from the supposedly all-powerful Tory grandees? I would have expected an uproar, telling her to get her act together and do the job of a PM. Which is to lead! But no. Nothing. Just a bit of a moan from the Bow Group.

The whole Brexit deal is being made to sound as complicated as possible, to justify an expended and protracted transition deal. It reminds me of how John Major, another PM with a personality bypass, waxed long and wearily about the Maastricht treaty. In the end everyone told him to just go away and get on with it.  Perhaps this is another level to the remain strategy.

The party is scared of its own shadow. It got the snap election wrong, May was unengaging and aloof. Boris started well earlier this week but has now, apparently, backed down. If they do not get a move on they will lose the next election and will deserve to.

The problem with that is the dire Marxist alternative to what we have now. I wonder what Rees-Mogg is doing now?

The West Is Under Attack – And What You Can Do About It, Part 1

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit by

“Modernity” is the name for a cultural transformation which saw the rise of representative democracy, the age of science, of reason over superstition. It has given us the Industrial Revolution and has provided more wealth and stability than any other societal system before or since. It has provided healthcare for the masses across the world along with an accessible education to all.

At its core, it values empowered the individual to think, believe, read, write, speak, doubt, question, argue, and refute any ideas at all in pursuit of truth. What is there not to like?

But now, in 2017, we find ourselves offered an alternative upon which so called progressive thinkers bill themselves as the only true defenders of Social Justice and moral progress. They call themselves Modern.

This is not strictly true.

Johnathan Rauch, the American Author and journalist said “utopianism and perfectionism, however well intended, should never displace reasonable caution in making social policy… It’s much easier to damage a society… than to repair it.”

If you look around, and you do not have to look far, the damage is very evident. The progressive left has aligned itself not with what was once labelled modern but with postmodernism. It rejects objective truth as a fantasy dreamed up by naive and/or arrogantly bigoted thinkers.

Take a look into the “Social Justice” world, and you’ll find the objectionable notion that truth is “situated” in identity, which leads to the belief that truth is relative to whatever one’s cultural background is held to be — unless that culture is considered to have unfairly dominated in the past (read white), in which case anything it holds to be true must be refuted as a lie and ideally some kind of reparation offered.

If this sounds confusing, all is not lost. Well educated representatives (often from academia and always from the media), have appointed themselves along this path to decide who can say what to whom and under what circumstances.

You need only to check your privileges in life, then fall in line, next become an “ally,” and shut up. Listen to those who were more oppressed than you are. The shutting up is particularly important. It’s impossible to avoid being a problem if you are speaking independently and engaging in some free thinking.

You probably won’t like being told you are evil and responsible for the world’s collective problems, but according to the mantra (about which you will be regularly reminded) there are those less privileged in the world and they like their oppression (and you) even less.

I will be writing a further article in the future breaking down all the different factions and what their goals and aims are. And you will see their aims are united, not in a positive goal, but in tearing down all that modernity created. And they will not stop until it is totally eradicated.

You will also notice that the chief tool of choice here is hysterical moral panic, an absolute intolerance of thinking differently. Postmodernism, despite insisting to the contrary, is bent toward authoritarianism and a value system at odds with anything ‘not in line’ with previously stated goals. Sound familiar? To me it has echoes of the Cultural Revolution. Or Lenin.

These Postmodernists make up a relatively small, intrinsically divided, but alarmingly powerful minority. Not least because they have the support of the mainstream media.

A brief look at the history of this movement may shed some light on dark corners of human development. Postmodernism is a set of ideas from the 1960s, rooted in the works of French theorists including Jean-François Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard, and Jacques Derrida.

It has been adapted and further politicised within the fields of intersectional feminism, critical race theory, post-colonialism, and queer theory and manifested to various degrees in left-wing policies and Social Justice activism.

Although the founding fathers of postmodernism claimed to be continuing the Modern project by breaking down oppressive power structures they were, in fact, replacing them with their own versions.

They treat truth, as we know it, selectively, using only the portion of the whole truth which supports their moral ambitions. Anyone who has watched BBC Question Time, or indeed pretty much anything the BBC has pumped out over the last 30 years or so, can verify this. Who could forget the recent assertion that the Roman empire was multicultural? (Conveniently forgetting they had slaves who were not citizens until they had earned their freedom.)

The skill with which the anti-modernists/ post-modernists are able to conquer and co-opt political movements on their side is a huge contributor to the problem. Postmodern extremists have co-opted the Women’s March, for example, BLM and Pride UK is currently under great pressure from the same groups to ban criticism of Islamic homophobia. Additionally the vast majority of the education movement is unashamedly left leaning and actively instil their skewed message of progress in young impressionable minds.

Now not everything that happened in the Modern period is without its faults. There has been war, genocide, imperialism, and slavery to name a few. It needs to be kept in context, there was an intellectual shift which produced benefits that had been lost in the Medieval period. You are pro-Modern, as opposed to post-Modern, if you believe in the scientific method, human rights, individual liberty, and established thinking based on evidence and reason.

These defining values include

  • A profound respect for the reason and the strength of science.
  • An unwavering commitment to the norms of society, including rule of law.
  • An understanding that the base of society to be defended and cherished is the individual and the family unit.
  • An appreciation that Good is best achieved through a balance between co-operation and competition.

Despite being still being popular, these values are currently under threat.

Support for scientific thinking, human rights, representative democracy, individual liberty, and arguments based on evidence and reason, as well as the society which protect and develop them, is overwhelming. But we must speak up. Be seen. Be heard. To silently approve is no longer enough.

We must promote and support these values explicitly, engage with society and our current political situation in these terms. In this way, the defenders of Modernity can unite to help society climb down from the existential polarisation that is forced upon us. Even now, some people hint at a racist motivation behind Brexit and Donald Trump. (Notably I have seen no evidence of it.) It is vital to marginalise those anti-modernist/post-modernist fringes, so as a country we can continue to grow. If we don’t, the fate of the Roman Empire may await us.

Should the State Administer Drugs To Control Minds Or Attitudes?

in World News by

There is a lot of talk of ‘Wrong Think’ just recently, what with James Damore being outed from Google and the alternative social media platform app Gab.Ai being deselected from the Google Play Store. There are many comparisons with Orwell’s 1984 and many obvious parallels with modern day living and dystopian SciFi. The oft-quoted 1984, The Matrix, Fahrenheit 451 and so on. But Brave New World was suddenly brought to mind when a news item caught my eye the other day.

Brave New World was written by English author Aldous Huxley. He was born 26th July 1894 and lived until 22nd November 1963, a short while before the summer of love in 1967. He wrote nearly fifty books, the most famous and well known being Brave New World. It is set in a dystopian future where citizens live in a consumerist world and live a hedonistic lifestyle where they experience the ‘feelies’ and take a feel-good drug called soma (a state provided drug that induces forgetfulness,).

Actually, it is not that dissimilar to the world we find ourselves in today. The point of note in the book is the state uses science to create a ‘happy’ seamless world. It talks of the progress of science. But when we break that down, the state is actually promoting betterment through technology, not science per se. Not advocating exploring through scientific logic and principles but more using tech to maintain a status quo. One of the basic scientific principles is to question phenomena, the environment, cause and effect. That sort of thing.

Here is the article that caught my attention.

The study, originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and later reported by Science Daily, involved 183 subjects, each given 50 euros which they could donate to either migrants or locals in need.

Researchers from the University of Bonn, the University of Lübeck and the Laureate Institute for Brain Research in the U.S. were “surprised” to discover that people donated around 20 per cent more to migrants than to needy locals to begin with, and when drugged with oxytocin — the so-called ‘love hormone’ — participants already well-disposed to migrants gave even more generously. [Breitbart News]

In fact after dosing was supported by peer pressure, i.e. participants were shown how generous others were, the generosity went up to a staggering 74%! A Professor at the university’s Department of Psychiatry commented that the combination of drugs and peer pressure would be able to change ‘selfish’ motives. 

Well, leaving aside the fact that an estimated 1.2 million migrants had come to Germany at the end of 2016 and only 3% of these had found work, according to the Finance Ministry. Plus the upswing of crime and terrorism by 54% as revealed recently by the Heritage Foundation, one could reasonably question the Professor citing selfish motives. It doesn’t seem selfish to any community spirited person who has paid into the public funds, via tax, to then be expected to fund such a large amount of non-contributors, as well as be at greater risk to exposure to crime as a direct result of this.

In a poll published last week (11th August) by broadcaster ZDF, found that 70% of those polled believe Germany cannot handle the rate of inward migration. The research institute Civey said that 69.8% of Germans do not feel the migrants rescued as legitimate refugees. This seems to show the sentiment of the Germans polled, and by a large margin too.

No, there is a moral dimension to this as well. Should the state use drugs to change its peoples minds? Let’s be clear here. We are not talking about health. The German people are not suffering from a disease or general malaise that is affecting the population as a whole. This is not like fluoride being dosed in to tap water to reduce dental decay or an annual flu jab, although their efficacy may quite reasonably be questioned, perhaps in another blog article.

The point I am making here is one of morals and ethics. The academics are saying that drugs can be used to change attitudes. At what point does free will and cognition cease to be an individual’s choice? And if the academics and, by extension, the state, change this behaviour what else would they like to change? And to whose benefit? This is the scenario alluded to in the dystopian novels mentioned above and the degree of free will being surrendered, I feel, needs to be questioned. It appears that a modern equivalent of soma is being advocated and it may not be beneficial, except from a governmental perspective. And worryingly, it may not stop there.

The Scourge of Recent Acid Attacks in UK

in Islamism/Uncategorized by

Just recently, at about 7.00pm, Tuesday 25th July, there was yet another acid attack in London. It was two young men who were attacked on Roman Road in Bethnal Green, in what was once called the East End. They ran screaming in pain into an off licence asking to be drenched in water. The shopkeeper has stated that their skin was peeling off and their clothes melting, before his eyes, like some ’70s horror film from the likes of John Carpenter or George Romero. Emergency services were obviously despatched and there is footage freely available on the internet showing them being doused with hoses by the London Fire Brigade.

Since 2010 there have been over 1800 attacks of this sort and they are increasing. That’s a 70% rise on figures for 2015/2016.

Historically acid was used in Muslim cultures as a revenge or honour punishment, primarily against women. It has seen great usage in South Asia, on the Indian subcontinent when a woman rejects an offer of marriage. There are also stories of it being used if the suitor (or his family) feel that the dowry is insufficient.

It was first recorded in Bangladesh in 1967 and also in India in 1982. Before that in 1915 on October 17th it was thrown over Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg by his mistress! Traditionally there was under reporting of these crimes, possibly linked to the associated shame so figures from those earlier times leading up to the present may not be accurate.

But now, as in the Bethnal Green attack, data suggests 60% of the victims are male. A 60/40 split as opposed to 80/20 female bias and it appears to have been hijacked by young (mainly black Afro Carribean) street gangs, especially in London.

This is an unintended consequence of multi-culturalism being adopted by gang culture

Jaf Shah of the Acid Survivors Trust International has said Newham has had a greater density of attacks. It also has a high density of people from South Asia; this may or may not be connected. There were 400 attacks in 2010 alone and he has said that gangs now use it as a weapon of choice.

The criminologist Dr Simon Harding also observes “It has been adopted by street gangs. There is anecdotal evidence that gangs are moving from knives to acid in the wake of a crackdown on knife crime.” From the perpetrators’ perspective “it puts the victim into a permanent state of victim status.”. He goes on to say “50 years ago in [East London] scores were settled by a fist fight, five years ago by a knife fight – now we are in darker territory.”

DCI Mike West of the Metropolitan Police is in charge of overseeing ‘acid based crime’ and has stated recently that 25% are robbery connected but 60% are used in direct assaults.

On 13th July, a 16 year old was charged with 15 acid attacks. They spanned just 90 minutes and it prompted the London Major Sadiq Khan to say on 17th, a few days later, that there should be zero tolerance for this sort of crime. What has taken him so long to speak about it? Much less act?

And still it will not stop. The weekend of the Notting Hill Carnival, a festival in West London celebrating the vibrant diversity of the Caribbean culture was attended by about 2 million people. Two were attacked with a ‘noxious substance’. No one has been arrested for the attack at the time of writing, which is testament to the efficiency of the way the problem is being dealt with in modern Britain.

Go to Top