The creeping return of totalitarianism

January 3, 2009

An US university has provided another example of the increasing power-grab executed by the PC left.

A mature student working part-time at the university was found guilty of racial harassment – for silently reading a book about the defeat of the KKK in a riot by Notre Dame student in 1924. He was summoned to a hearing, given no indication of any wrongdoing and then told a few weeks later that he was guilty of racial harassment… No appeal and this was now on his permanent record – who will hire a graduate guilty of racial harassment?

Seriously, watch the video linked above  and follow the links. This has got to stop.

At some point someone is going to say, “I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition…”

Pearl Harbor was NOT the result of US high-handedness

December 8, 2008

The Grauniad is at it again. Now Pearl Harbor is implicitly the fault of the US for being too hostile…Via LGF.

The article effectively begins by marking its target: Pearl Harbor as a patriotic rallying moment in US history. In the article by Eri Hotta, the wife of liberal Anglo-Dutch intellectual, Ian Buruma, the usual PC demons are brought out against the US to condemn it for provoking Japan into war. (Credit to David T at Harry’s Place for placing EH).
The author fails to understand the basic racism and cruelty in the Japanese political system of the time, nor its part in the reasons for Japanese imperial aggression.
The decision to attack Pearl Harbor was reached after five months of deliberations that included numerous official conferences. It was a gradual process in which more sympathetic, albeit firm, US engagement might have helped sway Japan in a different direction.”  It is not difficult to begin dissecting the prejudices shown here: by the absence of any reference to the murderous war Japan was waging in China, the author shows no regard for the victims of that war or towards China itself. The author displays no understanding of the balance of power issues that would have ultimately been the motives behind the US diplomatic stance, instead blaming the US in the classic PC attack fashion for “aggravating” the Japanese political scene by not being more friendly.
One wonders what the US should have done? Offered to divide up China? These PC idiots do not understand that weakness would have been presented as opportunity by the war-party, giving all the more reason to carve up the European empires in the far East.
Rather than telling Japan that the US was determined to search for a diplomatic solution, America’s categorical reaction confirmed it to the Japanese as an arrogant and conceited enemy. ” What diplomatic solution? Japan had just seized Indochina and Dutch Borneo in addition to continuing to murder thousands in China! What solution could have been presented? Hand over a certain proportion of French and Dutch territory to Japan? Ask the Imperial Japanese Army to withdraw – please?
Moreover, by transferring its Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, the US encouraged the Japanese understanding that the US fully anticipated war with Japan.” Again, the American response is blamed for the original Japanese aggression and subsequent aggression. The US move to Pearl Harbour would have been a warning to Japan that if these attacks on sovereign and independent nations did not cease that  – yes – the US would consider war to recover other states territorial integrity? Isn’t that called being the good guy in international affairs? The author is again paying no regard for the territorial rights of other powers and clearly dismissing all concern about the civilians subjected to the horrors of Japanese rule. In any case, the Roosevelt administration was far from decided on war, hoping that military build-up (what little there was) would deter further aggression.
A cornerstone of PC international theory is that diplomacy possesses magical powers, “The high-handed tone of the Hull Note of November 26, demanding Japan’s withdrawal of all its troops from China, was a final blow to the moderates in Japan’s government, who still hoped for diplomatic negotiations.” Wouldn’t this actually demonstrate how out of touch the “moderates” really were? That the US was not ultimately going to accept the imperial conquest of China and the Pacific? Who were the “moderates” fooling? Only themselves.
It was ultimately in the name of saving Asia for all Asians from what was regarded as western arrogance that the government united to wage war.” Are you really sure that those were the reasons for the Japanese attack? Or the certainty in the military and war-parties that the US stood in the way of “the rising sun” of Japanese imperial greatness? The war plan focused on the destruction of the immediate means of obstruction (the USN) and the errection of an fortified island barrier, backed by the mobile power of the IJN, protecting a zone of economic exploitation in which the natives would be treated as slaves to be used for the glory of the Emperor. One would think that arrogant of the Japanese.
The gunboat diplomacy that resulted in the opening of Japan and unequal treaties in the mid-19th century was but a beginning.” So preventing the carve-up of China and the destabilization of the balance of power was unjust to Japan? “Coupled with the economic hardship of the interwar years were instances of racial prejudice in the US that aimed at preventing Japanese immigration. United by this long-simmering and humiliating sense of exclusion, Japanese policymakers, whatever their differences, stumbled toward the December 1 decision to go to war.” No, the sense that the US was blocking their plans for regional domination (via the invasion of other states and the exploitation of their populaces) was the central factor in the arrogant decision to go war. That the Japanese military realised instictively that they were weaker than the US was a spur to try the attack on Pearl Harbor – knock the US out of the war for two years and become strong enough to deter a counter-attack: it might have worked had the strike gone according to plan.
But no matter how strong and historically justified such grievances may be, those who resort to murderous tactics must be condemned.” But the author goes on to say, “However, high-handedness and tough talk alone are an inadequate response, for this approach further humiliates those who already feel humiliated, and alienates those who might otherwise proffer a more moderate voice.” Clearly she feels that standing up to aggression is wrong because it..does…not work? No, sorry that is nonsense. By this logic, Poland should have been compelled to give up its industrial centres and only port to prevent war with Germany, rather than tell Germany that war with Poland meant war with Britain and France. “Diplomacy no longer works with terrorism,” did it ever work?
With global expectations mounting for a fresh start in US foreign policy, it is vital not just to remember, but to understand the attack on Pearl Harbor.” Yes, if you mean that declaring that aggression will meet force is inherently stupid and flawed, and if you believe in the magical power of diplomacy to solve all problems – because there are always moderates in every camp? Like in al-Qaeda? (We’ll only kill some of the Jews and not directly export terrorism into your nations? Our price?) Or in Russia’s attack on Georgia? (We’ll be content with half of the nation…and control over its politics).

No, I rather think Eri Hotta is a deluded PC idiot, who cannot see beyond the end of her anti-Americanism and I also have doubts about her attitude towards the victims of imperial and genocidal aggression  – so long as the attackers are not American.

Sorry, but the Guardian and CiF are just completely amoral and prove the truth of George Orwell’s assertation that all self-professed pacifists are secretly in love with tyrannical power. You lot are disgusting.


Kudos to Oliver Kamm. He’s bang on the money.

The disease of relativism

December 7, 2008

Via Little Green Footballs, from here.

I’ve heard quite enough media pundits desperately trying to link the terrorist carnage in Mumbai to Western “issues”, whether Gaza (what starvation?), a mysterious failure to reach out to the Muslims of Afghanistan and Pakistan (sorry, does WD mean not fight against the Taliban and their allies?) or the usual hobby horse of the traitors anti-war groups, Western troops in the Middle East and the liberation of Iraq.

Read the account from above. It’s from the perspective of an Indian family caught up in the attack.
Once you’ve read it, remain open minded and ask yourself this: how do any of the above issues actually relate to the crimes committed in Mumbai? Does “secular political outrage” (the implications of WD) motive two young men to machine-gun a line of frightened civilians against a wall? Does “anger against the occupation” motive them to open fire on a crowd in a railway station or seek out tourists and murder them? Do any of the above motivate normal people to go and seek out a tiny house in Mumbai, which happens to be only Jewish centre in Mumbai, which houses a young rabbi and his family engaged on an outreach mission – a mission of charity? And then to torture and murder them?

If you’re still engaged with the diseased thinking of relativism, you’ll probably accuse me of being Islamophobic to suggest that this was an Islamic agenda, inspired by the relevent verses in the Koran (Mohammed eagerly murdered an entire unarmed Jewish tribe – highest example of conduct to Muslims) that was being carried out on the streets and in the buildings of Mumbai. This is the same agenda that is played out against Israelis time and time again.

The disease of relativism is to ignore the reasoning of the terrorists and to dehumanize the victims by implicity accusing them of complicity in their governments “crimes”. It would not matter a jot what crimes had been committed against you if your response was the animal and barbaric agenda played out on the streets of Mumbai.

Perhaps the correct response might be the avatistic feeling that begins to emerge in one’s breast when this has happened again: revenge.

Identifying our Enemies

September 22, 2008

The international insitutions of the 20th Century are decrepit and falling apart from the moral decay at their heart. The European Union is stuck in the pursuit of a utopian dream of the abolition of the nation state as the cause of war; Germany is siding openly with the tyrannies of China and Russia against the West, against the US and Israel in particular.
The United Nations is corrupt; invested with utopian hopes of ending war and in turn achieving international concord, these aims are left in the hands of the enemies of freedom, liberty and humanism. In the UN, most of the nations of the world are openly, to one degree or another, aligned with the enemies of the West.
And within the West, the liberal-left are the subversive, seditious element, whose identification of humanism and freedom as the creator of human misery though capitalism and democracy, causes them to emerge as the followers of the enemy within; they follow the extreme left like the “moral majority” of Germans followed Adolf Hitler. Why is this?
I believe that Evan Sayet and others put the collective finger upon the reason for this: they yearn for a utopia, to believe in and follow the leaders to a utopia. So we have the Greens with “principal speakers” – to avoid the appearence of formal leadership and dictatorship, nonetheless impose a totalitarian mindset upon each other and all those who might listen to them. Hitler offered a utopia – a future of racially defined harmony and glory; the liberal-left follow the extreme left into a dream of a utopia, where freedom is proved to be a sham to create misery and those who perpuate misery, who cut the heads off of little boys, who would murder and impose a tyrannical and truly oppressive state, are the harbringers of “true” freedom, the creators of utopia.

Right now, Germany is in bed with its real enemies, its’ elite and people fooled by the liberal-leftists of the 1960s and the political remnants of National Socialism. There are those who attack the covert anti-semitism of the political dialogue of Germany, but they are very much a minority. I believe that for somewhere like Germany, David Horowitz of Frontpage Magazine is right in that the eventual reaction will not be politically liberal in the old sense of the word but nationalistic and possibly neo-fascist in outlook. By destroying the intellectual frameworks of European civilisation, the liberal-left are opening the ground to their enemies who will draw upon the most avastic emotions to promote an agenda of true hatred.
When this happens, will the liberal-left – those like Andrew Sullivan or Jonathan Freedland – recognise their folly? Will they recognise that by destroying rational criticism and promoting ideological indoctrination, by appeasing and assisting their declared enemies in Islam and in the world tyrannies that they will have destroyed themselves? I don’t know if they could because they are so morally bankrupt that those who are not put to death or imprisoned will switch sides and pretend to be progressive.

Will they recognise that organisations like Amnesty International exist because of the West and the Enlightenment and not despite the West? Will they wake up to the manipulation of their stupidity by the extreme and totalitarian left? In the 1990s, we thought in Britain that the far-left were redundant and gone, but did not listen to those who were telling us that the far-left were still lurking in the woodwork of education, destroying and corrupting the teachings of the Enlightenment – the majority of the practitioners were liberal-left, not consciously aware of the ends of the methods employed and fixated on illusory enemies – the political right. Capitalism and Democracy are being undermined by the far-left from within; I still need to read the sources that Melanie Phillips gave, but I believe in my heart that she is right in declaring that Barack Obama is a far-leftist and ideologically related to the Communist Party. There are too many trails leading back to the Communists and their totalitarian fellow travellers from his person to dismiss and scaremongering.

There is an interesting discussion begun on Harry’s Place by Adam LeBor about is the Right the place of intellectual coherence and confidence today? The left is frightened, split and confused by the modern world: the right is not exactly unified but is much more so than the left. I remain in the small (and perhaps slightly expanding) part of the left who can work with the majority of the right against this threat. I share the company of men like Nick Cohen and Christopher Hitchens, and women like Meryl Yourish and am proud to know what is right and to be prepared to fight for it.

All post-modern roads…

September 9, 2008

Lee Jasper, former advisor to Ken Livingston, has suggested that the black community should run its own schools… Now, keeping in mind that the movement of the radical left since the late 1960s has been towards identity politics and “community organizing”, this proposal amounts to a: de facto segregation, b: a controlled political grouping.
Lee Jasper is a member of Socialist Action (trotskyite socialist sect). He is also national secretary of one of the “anti-racism” bodies in the UK. How much would you bet that the school curriculum would focus heavily on slavery and the colonies in Africa, and contain lessons focusing on “combatting racism” and “racism awareness”. No wonder this lot of bastards are in bed with the Islamists – they both want to break up nation-states and seize control of their own indentity groups.

So all post-modern  roads lead to a radical marxist.

Small point and Michelle Malkin

August 27, 2008

Small point but in Britain, the first female leader of either of the two main political parties and the first female prime minister of the country was Margaret Thatcher. Now she achieved that post through sheer merit and force of personality and by her ability to lead and argue in debate.
Now the Democrats across the pond have been obsessed with countering sexism and other discriminations for years… Yet they seem to have trouble with women… Hillary in my view would have been better qualified to lead the Democrats, despite her troublesome baggage, yet the party chooses a black man (ok, he’s not “black”, he’s a white man with dark skin) over a woman. I mean hey! I thought merit ought to decide party leaders, not who’s more discriminated against.

I watched the video of Michelle Malkin being harassed, verbally abused and threatened by the moonbats outside the DNC. Shocking. I hope she is quite alright and that Alex Jones does something to be put in prison. Bastard.
It is interesting that the far left spout slogans of “peace, liberty and justice”, but what they mean is “obey, group think and tyranny”. If you disagree with Michelle Malkin, moonbats, try having a debate. I would disagree with her over the internment of Japanese citizens of the USA in the Second World War, but I haven’t read her book and would interested to do so. It is wrong to extrapolate from her book that she is arguing for racial based detention (meaning in this case that all muslims should be locked up) but I would suspect that she might argue for dentention of those who are known or suspected of Islamic terrorist activity.
The moonbats respond to an alternative point of view just as the Nazis did – with intimidation, denial of the public space and violence (the communist who tried to attack the Christian crazies who attended Recreate ’68). Notice that Alex Jones and his supporters were actually urging murder – “Kill Michelle Malkin”. If I were in her shoes, I would be pressing for his arrest on a charge of breaching the peace and incitment to murder.

This kind of incitement is dangerous and must be stopped as it poisons the political atmosphere. If far right crazies can bring guns to Denver, what is stopping a communist or a trotskyite trying to murder Michelle Malkin, Robert Spencer or David Horowitz? Just because you disagree does not make the other person a criminal.

Germany has gone mad…

July 16, 2008

The German political nation has finally detached itself from bourgeois reality and declared that even newly born infants should have the vote
I’m sorry to see the land that produced Beethoven, Schubert, Frederick the Great and Neitzsche be reduced to such intellectual penuary but the politicians proposing this are obviously not fit to run a chicken coop, let alone manage the affairs of a country. This seems to me that this is the result of post-modernist discourse running towards its logical (p-m? logical?) self-destructive outcome.
The group’s draft petition which was presented on Thursday calls for the possibility for parents to vote in the name of their children until they reach the age of 18 and that parents should talk to their children about election decisions as soon as they reach an appropriate age.From here. Ok – vote rigging in favour of large families?
I think that the Germans have just made themselves the laughing stock of Europe.

The excellent Evan Coyne Mallony

July 14, 2008

Two posts from the excellent conservative rival to the vile Michael Moore (and I mean that) have caught my attention.
The first is on a subject newly dear to my heart, which is taxation. Now I agree with the ideal of progressive taxation – a flat tax to me is both inefficient, though I am happy to presented with arguments otherwise, and retrogressive – that is unfair. This would be to my mind that a tax rate high enough to gather enough from the wealthy for government to function beyond the barest level would intrinsically be too high on the poorest who can least spare extra income.
So, when I read that the IRS data shows that of those who pay income tax, the top 1% pay more than 40% of the total income tax revenue and the the top 50% contribute 97% of all income tax revenue as opposed to the bottom 50% contributing 3%, then this leads me to some profound conclusions. During the debate in Britain about the abolition of the 10 pence tax band for income tax, the Adam Smith Institute – a conservative economic think tax – came up with the suggestion that not only was the abolition unfair, it was also inefficient. The poor in society would benefit more from the raising of the income tax threshold to above £10,000 or thereabouts and government would scarcely miss the income since the bottom of the tax bracket contributed suprisingly little.
Therefore on tax, I am still amazed that John McCain has not advocated scrapping taxes on the bottom 50% of income tax earners, since these do contribute a tiny percentage of income tax revenues. This would do far more for social mobility and social justice than any amount of tax credit with all such problems of disincentivisation associated with such policies. And the scary pointat the bottom of this debate – Bush was right…
Bloody hell, taxing the rich less actually does raise more revenue in the long run. That and relieving government inflicted economic hardship on the poorer would do a lot more towards creating a more just and fair society. So there, Polly Toynbee.

The second post is about one of ECM’s favourite subjects – the marginalization of the mainstream. “Whites” and especially working men are excluded in the multi-culturalist politically correct world in which live the academian liberals such as Barack Obama. There is no cultural space for them, especially heterosexual men. Why is this? Why are the largest group of people in countries that are demographically “white” excluded from this world? Because, one suspects, they are seen as the cause and origin of oppression on all those marginal groups – women, homosexuals, people with different skin colour or creed. Yet white heterosexual men were great movers in the liberation of mankind in the West from the oppression of these petty hatreds, but are still dressed up as the villains.
Part of me suspects that this is part of a Gramscian dialogue whose aim is to exclude the mainstream, to alienate and marginalise and untimately atomise societies until they are ignorant, scared and willing to do what the new feudal masters of the trustafarian classes demand. Yet, we must be careful of suspecting conspiracies. Where we find definate traits we will likely find only a handful of agitators or those who spread the faith but legions of those who have gone along with it like sheep and faithfully repeat that which they have been told. But the endgame does appear to be to the advantage of those telling us to do what we are told, to be peasants, to give up the gains and advantages and promises of modern life as it is delivered to us, and increasingly many others, by globalized capitalism.

Capitalism has been one of the greatest agents and creators of human happiness but it has also progressively deprived the traditional rulers of our societies of positions of power. They have not gone – look at the Old Etonians or their trustafarian “socialist” equivalents such as that preening peacock, George Monbiot. At every stage when a utopian (dark or otherwise) solution to the troubles of society have been proposed since the French Revolution, these have been led by those who served the former masters and wished above all to smash the social and economic forces that brought such change and freedom to societies. It is the ideal which is both dangerous and liberating; in a certain sense, the ideal in the human mind is like the “free radical” element in biology. It can do immense good and liberate untold energies. Or it can release intense destruction as the ideologies of Communism, Nazism and now Islamism are, and have, proved in the last 100 years.

It is time to end Affirmative Action.

November 27, 2007

Pretty tired today, on the 48/72hr shock delay, so this will be fairly short.

Today’s post is on the NPR/Intelligence Squared debate on Affirmative Action.
What strikes me as horrifying is that the side opposing, including that PC snake Kimberlie Crenshaw, keep trying to paint anyone questioning the “consensus” of AA as racist, reactionary and just an appalling human being.
This is just awful to listen to. One out of three panellists debates on scientific and intellectually reputable grounds (and that panellist is neither Tim West or Crenshaw), while the other two (in brackets) engage in vilifying the proponents of the motion as racist, pro-rich (when was that a crime?) and not socialists. I think it is disgraceful as two of the proponents ARE black.
Are those two racist or self-hating? Well, they don’t talk about them, because only white people are racist – and indelibly racist too. This is liberal masochism.
A note on K.Crenshaw. I have been warned out these sorts of “critical race theory etc” academics. I still cannot believe how bad their ideas are, they assume that if you don’t kowtow then you are a bigot. The ideas are not only didactic but also intellectually disreputable. She relies in “debate” on hectoring and abusing, even shouting down her opponent? Since when were those techniques of debate?
I can only finish by saying how the better quality of speech and debate can win debates. I still cannot believe that these people think that white people ARE ALWAYS RACIST…

Please you lot, grow up.