Political Correctness Was Always Mad


Merriam Webster provides us with this definition:

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

I would describe political correctness as a set of ideas relating to race and gender that are accepted as indisputable truth, and that therefore can “legitimately” be defended from all criticism by any means fair or not fair. It is this latter aspect of political correctness that is the most troubling and dangerous, this idea that it is not necessary to defend the set of ideas purely with reason and evidence. It is this aspect of political correctness that leads me to say political correctness was always mad, because I don’t believe any ideas should ever be protected from being questioned. These are some of the ideas that I think form part of this specially protected set of ideas (of course this is a broad generalization):

  • Racism is very bad.
  • Some words are inherently racist and therefore should never be used (the set of words thereby excluded seems to grow ever larger).
  • Opposing immigration is racist and therefore opposing immigration is also very bad.
  • Diversity is strength.
  • All races are exactly equal and therefore employers must hire exact numbers of each race to match the local population or applications.
  • Only white people are racist (contradicts the above idea suggesting that white people are uniquely inferior to other races in this respect). This idea was summarized by the catch-phrase “racism is the white man’s disease”. This leads to further ideas such as the idea there is nothing for white people to fear from white populations becoming racial minorities.
  • “Positive” discrimination is necessary to force the racist white employers and educational establishments to hire/accept the right numbers of other races.
  • Dislike of Islam (Islamophobia) (or other minority beliefs) is racist and therefore is also very bad.
  • Overt displays of the host’s nationality – flags or religious symbols, may upset ethnic minorities and therefore should be suppressed.
  • Different genders should be exactly equally represented in all professions.
  • Women can perform just as well as men if they are not discriminated against.
  • Women should be paid exactly the same as men for the same occupation.
  • Women who choose to have no children as a lifestyle choice should be celebrated for their decision.
  • Homophobia is very bad.
  • Opposing gay marriage is homophobic and therefore is also very bad.
  • Opposing the teaching in schools of things that must not be opposed (the above list) is also very bad.


A major problem with many of these ideas is that they vastly over-simplify realities. For example, men are physically stronger than women in general and therefore better suited to certain occupations. If women have children this will necessarily impact their ability to pursue careers on an equal footing with men, therefore enforcing equal gender pay may inhibit employers’ competitiveness. Racism can be seen in many races, not just among white people. The way the Japanese treated Chinese people after they invaded parts of China in the early 20th century can be seen as just one example of evidence of this.

All races are not necessarily equal in all aspects at all, this can be seen in athletics where certain groups often do better in running events.  Here is a BBC article on the subject. They point to the athletic prowess of the runners from the Nandi region of Kenya. They also point out that the African Bambuti tribe have a certain advantage in the sport of walking through low doorways, that is obviously a genetic advantage:

Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?

Of course, since this is a BBC article, they are pushing the politically correct idea that racial discrimination is bad. The objective of the article is to point out that athletic prowess is particular not to black people in general but to particular African groups, and that therefore generalizations about black people (and other larger racial groups) are illogical. The agenda here is to promote the idea of “positive” discrimination – the article then cites a study that they claim proves that employers discriminate against people purely because they have African names. They then reach the conclusion from this study that irrational discrimination is behind black performance in “economic development”, quote:

For many economists, this assumption, which gets under the radar of our conscious thought, explains why black people still lag behind white people in economic development more than four decades after the introduction of race-relations legislation.

There is a huge leap in thinking going on here, from a single study involving 5,000 fake CVs to a conclusion about black people’s economic performance in the Western world in general. There is for one thing plausibly another large factor that the BBC have overlooked entirely, beyond discrimination – that black people might actually have lower AVERAGE intelligence than white people. In fact, the only studies that have been done on the subject suggest just that – the famous (or infamous if you are politically correct) studies of Richard Lynn for example.  It is perfectly possible that this may be the largest reason “why black people still lag behind white people in economic development” (although most probably there are more than one factors at work).

Something the BBC also seem to be overlooking (no doubt due to the fact that they are left-leaning employees themselves), is that people can also set up their own businesses, and become employers themselves.  It is also perfectly possible that there may be other factors at play in employers’ hiring decisions, that are not well described by the simplistic phrase “racial discrimination”.  The question of whether “positive” discrimination is a good idea or not is a large one (I will come back to that on another occasion), I am merely pointing out here that when arguments are made within the strait jacket of politically correct limits, then the conclusions are likely to be wildly over-simplistic.

Of course it is intelligence that is the biggest factor in economic success in today’s world, not running ability or the ability to walk under low doorways. Conformity to political correctness is preventing the BBC from even mentioning the question of IQ and race here, which is obviously crucial to the question of racial discrimination in the modern technology-driven workplace. The believers in political correctness should put their efforts into trying to prove professor Lynn’s data is wrong rather than simply slandering him/calling him names, if they are serious about challenging his theories.  Are the employers who discriminate really doing so just because they are “racist”, or because they are facing an economic reality that will negatively affect their business if they ignore it?

There are too many problems with these individual ideas in the politically “correct” set to discuss them all in a single post, I will come back to them in detail in future posts. Even considering just these few objections it quickly becomes clear that our Western societies have NOT in fact arrived at a perfect set of ideas about equality. It also becomes clear that many of these current ideas negatively impact competitiveness. If Western societies implement government-enforced recruitment policies based on these ideas, while other societies do not, then Western societies may well begin to lag behind those other societies. Also, the strait jacket of political correctness creates inertia in thinking, and thinking needs to be dynamic to meet the challenges of an ever changing world.


A particular problem with some of the ideas is that the terms used have never been well defined by those using them. What, exactly, is a racist? Is the BBC author in the above mentioned article a racist for suggesting that some African groups may tend to statistically perform better in certain athletic events? Richard Lynn was widely accused of racism (and fiercely vilified) merely for conducting a study into IQ and race, yet his conclusion was not that his own race (white Europeans) were the most intelligent – in fact he concluded that some Far Eastern groups had the highest IQ!  If his statistical data turns out to reflect reality, will he still be considered a racist for publishing it, or does the charge of racism only apply if he is wrong, or if he can be shown to be deliberately lying?

My own idea of what constitutes a racist would include someone who thought that ALL non-white people were inferior to ALL white people in every way, which is an idea that is clearly false – some black people are clearly very intelligent and some white people are clearly very stupid. A racist would typically be someone who would like to see all non-white people deported from their country, or worse. A racist would be someone who felt no shame in shouting out racial epithets at people of other races.

Clearly my definition here is a very long way away from this writer’s at the National Union of Journalists who seems to include at least a third of the UK population (including 12 million UKIP supporters) in his definition:


And it’s true; UKIP aren’t necessarily openly racist. But neither are Pegida. Instead they seek to capitalise on a fear of ‘an other’ who they claim is becoming more powerful even though the reality is that minority communities overall remain just that.

Of course these words and phrases suppress the nuances of a person’s opinions and throw lots of people with widely different views into the same category. Is an “Islamophobe” someone who puts a pig’s head in a mosque doorway AND also someone who is critical of the Islamic religion in an intellectual way, such as Richard Dawkins or the Reverend Canon Gavin Ashenden (a chaplain to the Queen)? Is it really even sane to lump all these opinions in the same category?

Its a very sad reflection on the last and current UK Prime Ministers, that they bandy words around without ever it seems even thinking about what they mean by them, let alone telling us what they mean by them. “We must stamp out extremism in ALL its forms” said these dimwits. David Cameron also for example used the phrase “sickening Islamophobe” without giving us the slightest hint what he meant by the word.


Sometimes words that previously had been reasonably clearly defined began to expand greatly in their meaning, at least in their usage among the PC brigade. As many others have pointed out, these words have been so over-used and misused by now that they are becoming practically meaningless. If a racist now includes everyone who wants to limit immigration because they are worried about the impact on wages for their peers, then blimey that’s quite a broad definition of the word racist, so broad in fact the meaning is practically actually now a different meaning.

Those people who are still concerned about ACTUAL racism should be worried about these trends towards greater vagueness in language, because people are beginning to rebel and consider the tags “racist” and “far-right” as badges of honour, a sign that they are willing to speak out against the strait jacket of political correctness.

The phrase “far-right” was always misleading because it was used to describe people with strongly racist and nationalistic viewpoints whose politics were not particularly right-wing at all, and often were in fact left of centre. The phrase “National SOCIALIST” is a bit of a giveaway here. By sheer persistence of use the phrase eventually stuck, a phrase that casually slanders the right wing by suggesting there is something right-wing about racism. The true economically “far-right”, the libertarians, are in fact often open borders advocates who are not troubled by questions of race at all.

A new phrase the “alt-right” has arisen to describe people with a particular view-point that is generally fairly closely associated with the libertarian view-point rather than racist-nationalist groups. Lately however there seems to be an unconnected but simultaneous effort from those on the left and those of racist-nationalist tendencies to conflate the two terms, for example consider this quote from the Guardian:

It may be that Gab becomes an online sanctuary for the far right. It’s not clear whether anyone else will join the party. The question then will be: will isolation in such a bubble simply intensify and normalize alt-right views?

In this single paragraph in an article about the twitter alternative gab, the Guardian writer simultaneously slanders the gab site as “far-right” (i.e. they are hinting that its users are racist/nationalist), and also conflates the far-right and alt-right as indistinguishable from each other.  By slandering gab in this way they are (not subtly) hinting that their readers should not go there, lest they be deemed racists.


Political correctness has not stood still, it is a movement that has grown and gathered momentum as it went. The phrase “political correctness gone mad” emerged as the first challenge to the prevailing and it seemed ever expanding reach of political correctness. An example of this trend was Oxford city council’s proposal to rename Christmas to the ‘Winter Light Festival’ on the grounds that it would be more “inclusive”

A number of attempts to ban the cross of St George contrasted with failure to ban the ISIS flag:

Why are we ’embarrassed’ to fly the Cross of St George but the vile ISIS flag is FINE?

Words previously in widespread usage such as “coloured” were being outlawed as someone had now ridiculously decided they were inherently racist – the actor Benedict Cumberbatch was vilified for using the word in a well-meaning way. So eventually the PC monster had begun to eat its own silly parents and children.

Much more troubling still was the fact that the rules of political correctness were beginning to be enshrined in law. Politicians had begun clamouring for laws to stamp out homophobia and Islamophobia before they had even properly defined what they meant by these words. Vague laws were being passed that could be (and have been) used against anyone who challenged the ideas of political correctness. The thought policing we were warned about by George Orwell was becoming a reality. This could be seen for example in the conviction of one Mr. Stephen Bennett, prosecuted for making some “grossly offensive” general remarks about Muslims and women on a Facebook page.

Harriet Harman, UK politician, proposed a so-called “Equality Bill” which was in fact discriminatory against white males.

Under the proposals, employers would be legally allowed to discriminate in favour of a job candidate on the basis of their race or gender where the candidates were otherwise equally qualified.
Michael Millar, writing in The Spectator, was of the opinion that, “The Equality Bill before parliament today gives employers the right to choose an ethnic minority candidate or female candidate over a white male, specifically because they are an ethnic minority or female.”


Political correctness has been enforced in society by its supporters who have for some time  formed the majority in all the elite institutions that have influence over our beliefs – government, the judiciary, the police, the media, academia, teaching, the unions. They have also long formed a majority in the arts – film, theatre, music.


In a brilliant essay on the subject, Stella Morabito identifies 2 main features of the psychological manipulation practiced by the propagators of “politically correct” ideas – saturation and suppression:

Public opinion is often molded through a calculated process of psychological manipulation that takes two main forms: saturation and suppression.

I strongly advise readers to read her article in full:

Dissecting Political Correctness

Saturation involves persistently repeating politically correct points of view, and suppression involves preventing other points of view from being heard, and suppressing facts. Suppression of opinions is achieved often by ostracism and slander when it is otherwise difficult to silence them completely. A form of slander I discussed above that is used in suppression is the deliberate confusion/blurring of the meaning of different phrases such as far-right, alt-right, racist, anti-immigration.


The mainstream media throughout the West has long suppressed non-PC viewpoints simply by not broadcasting these viewpoints, or at least by only rarely broadcasting them. Sometimes other views are occasionally presented but usually with cues such as “look out, what this person is about to say is racist/sexist”! TV and radio presenters in the UK will often adopt a particular tone of voice when speaking to those they deem racist/sexist, and sometimes be quite rude to their guests. For example, in a recent interview on the BBC TV with Nigel Farage the presenter persistently rustled papers near her microphone whenever Mr. Farage was speaking. In another example the BBC TV were interviewing a Donald Trump supporter and they cut the supporter off mid sentence at the end of the interview. Of course either of these incidents on their own could have been a trivial simple mistake, but after you watch BBC TV politics programmes for long enough you start to see there is a definite pattern.

Another much more significant thing is the way the mainstream media has also adopted subtle techniques to suppress facts. For example, mainstream media has been routinely suppressing the fact that most of the migrants coming across the Mediterranean from Africa in the ongoing migrant crisis are fit young men. This was accomplished by repetitively publishing pictures of very young children and women in articles on the subject, rather than outright misinformation.

This example demonstrates just how dangerous political correctness can become. The motives of the migrants were obscured and Europeans were encouraged to think that they were welcoming in desperate refugees whereas they were in fact welcoming in large numbers of opportunistic economic migrants and criminal elements, many of whom have gone on to commit crimes including rapes and murders and even terrorist attacks.

If large numbers of young men travel long distances without females accompanying them, then it can be easily predicted that some of those young men will be sexually frustrated and some will commit sexual crimes as a result. Political correctness discouraged the mainstream media from informing the general public of these realities, for fear of being called racists for portraying this wave of immigration in a negative light.

In the UK, all the broadcast TV channels are quite obviously subscribers to politically correct ideology, and the BBC especially has a uniquely powerful position having several terrestial TV channels and 4 FM radio channels. The Islamic religion has almost never been challenged to any significant extent on any mainstream TV channels in the UK. Only very rarely have opposing voices been heard. On one episode of Newsnight the critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali was interviewed by a presenter who behaved as if she were disgusted by Ms. Ali and rather spoke to her in the same manner that a BBC presenter would speak to a member of the BNP.

The only newspapers that fall outside the politically correct sphere in the UK such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express are routinely vilified/derided by the rest of the mainstream media with phrases such as “the gutter press”. During the migrant crisis the Daily Express became my newspaper of choice because it routinely publishes important stories revealing the character of this wave of migration that were almost never seen in the politically “correct” mainstream media, for example:

Squalor on the streets of Paris as migrants turn capital into ‘APOCALYPSE’




In the Daily Mail some inconvenient claims were made about the father of a child migrant in Calais, who pop-singer Lily Allen had shed tears over and apologized to:

The father of the Jungle boy who made Lily Allen cry

This is the same Daily Mail that the BBC routinely derides on political and comedy shows such as “Have I Got News For You”. The story has neither been published nor disputed by the rest of the mainstream media.

Of course the emergence of the Breitbart news website has helped to stir things up quite significantly. This website has been rapidly gaining readership, much to the consternation of the mainstream media, who have been routinely slandering it as “far-right”, “ethno-nationalist” etc..

It won’t be long before Breitbart IS the mainstream media, and papers like the Guardian begin to lose ground to them, because the suppression technique of slander is NOT WORKING against Breitbart.


I mentioned an article published on the NUJ’s website above, also in this article it says.

We provide support to those actively fighting racists and fascists on our streets.

We must call on our politicians to explain why they allow racists on our streets and challenge them to not allow that in the future.

When we hear that demonstrations are taking place to “rid these islands of Islam”, we should all be very concerned.

Now why is a union of journalists getting involved in politics like this? Ever heard of the impartiality of the press? Surely journalists should be filming and writing about fighting on the streets, not SUPPORTING it? As I mentioned above the article seems to also tar the UKIP party as a racist organization. Is this NATIONAL union of journalists really sure they ought to be openly opposing (and slandering) a party that represents 12% of the UK electorate (at the last election).

There was a time when the NUJ had quite a lot of influence over journalism in the UK:


The good news is that this union is rapidly losing support among the younger generation of journalists, at least if this is anything to go by:



I already mentioned the creation of laws to enforce political correctness in the UK above. The laws include laws which have been used to prosecute non-politically correct speech, and so-called “equality” legislation that is in fact discriminatory against white males.

Perhaps the high-water mark of the era of political correctness in the UK has been the rise of Theresa May to be the (unelected) UK Prime Minister. The coverage of the leadership contest in the mainstream media was brazenly biased against the non-politically correct candidate, Andrea Leadsom. Leadsom was vilified in a series of phoney scandals which included “babygate” and “gaymarriagegate”. Leadsom had dared to mention the fact that she was a mother (contrasting with the childless Theresa May), this was the “scandal” called “babygate”. Leadsom had also dared to suggest that she might have doubts about gay marriage, this was the “scandal” called “gaymarriagegate”. Of course the mainstream media was also opposed to Leadsom’s candidacy because she had campaigned for the UK to leave the politically correct monster called the “European Union”.

In the most ominous sign of a drift towards a thought-police state, Theresa May had recently advanced a “Counter-Extremism” bill that included a measure called “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders“. These orders were clearly designed to enforce political correctness through the law courts, particularly to suppress politically incorrect “Islamophobia”, but also to suppress other politically incorrect opinions – one conservative MP even suggested that the orders should be used against school teachers who dared to express doubts about gay marriage.


Peter Hitchens wrote an article about political correctness in today’s police force in the UK:


Some other views:




These techniques of suppression and saturation however could only be applied as long as media was restricted to a relatively small number of organizations and (delivery platforms – printed papers/tv/radio) – and the PC brigade largely controlled the mainstream media. Now, thanks to the internet, anyone can publish ideas that the whole world can read. Also very importantly, smart phones are now widely available that enable people to easily record video footage of events on the spot that contradict the mainstream media narrative and expose their suppression tactics:


More and more people are beginning to openly question the mainstream media via blogs and social media platforms. The anonymity that is possible on the internet makes it easy to evade the suppression techniques of vilification and ostracism. A true revolution in human thought is beginning to take place. It should be welcomed and allowed to flourish, because it will become the greatest enabler of human progress of all time, in all spheres, if it is freely allowed to develop. Most people are not evil, believe it you “elites”, they do not need to have the truth hidden from them like this, they will not suddenly turn into ogres.

Sensing that they are losing their grip, some of the leaders are now trying to control the social media platforms and harvest data about individuals using mass surveillance (ostensibly under the guise of the combatting of terrorism and paedophilia). This is only likely to result in

  1. More suspicion of the leaders, more erosion of trust in politics.
  2. New social media platforms arising (such as the Twitter alternative gab.ai mentioned above) whose main motivation is simply to avoid censorship.
  3. Use of encryption techniques that bypass national governments’ control such as Tor. Ironically the Internet and Tor were first created by the US govt.

We must not underestimate what lengths the leaders will go to suppress dissent:


Outside Germany at least we should now see the rise of alternatives.

In the longer run, the only way that national governments will be able to stop this explosion of individuals publishing their ideas and (e.g. video) evidence will be to physically separate their countries from the rest of the internet and then heavily censor internet publication.

For smaller countries the impact on ecommerce will be too great and I do not expect that most countries will in the end even attempt such separation, although they will probably contemplate it when it becomes clear to them just how hopeless attempts at censorship will be otherwise.  Another route they may attempt is to outlaw encryption that they cannot break, in fact e.g. the UK govt. has already mooted this.


As Ovid once said, it is right to learn, even from the enemy. One of the tools of political correctness enforcement – saturation – can and should be used to turn the tables. Every time someone shouts “racist Islamophobe”, shout back “Islam is not a race”! Repeat this every time, never be afraid of repeating yourself. Also, keep repeating the truth about Islam – that it incites violence and condones child abuse.

Our goal should be to use the truth to fight back – suppression of the truth should be met by exposing the truth. The truth will always be more powerful than lies. We have the greatest tool mankind has ever had to combat falsehood – the internet. Use the freedom it brings or lose it, and oppose all attempts at censorship, even of opinions you don’t agree with. As Noam Chomsky put it:

If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.

(I’m not a huge fan, but he is spot on about that).


The tyranny of political “correctness” has been exposed for what it is but there is now a danger that the ruling elites will try to silence dissent with greater censorship and further restrictions on freedom of speech. Join the fight using reason and evidence to undermine the mainstream media’s PC narrative. If you haven’t already, start blogging, join conversations on social media, anonymously or in person, say what you think, spread information and ideas, write to your MPs. The very idea of political correctness needs to be utterly discredited and freedom of speech needs to be allowed to flourish once more.


The Principle of the Thing – Equality Before The Law
Groupthink In Action





Defend European Civilization!

Much though I want to see Brexit happen I think its important to also urge our fellow Europeans to throw off the shackles of political “correctness” and resist the migrant invasion. The UK will not be in a good place if large areas of Europe become Islamified. The leaders of Great Britain in the past understood the importance of a stable Europe. We would be very unwise not to give our support to the likes of Frauke Petry, Geert Wilders, Viktor Orban and Marine Le Pen. Marine Le Pen particularly has a hard task to overcome the legacy of her father’s political viewpoint – we should appreciate the fact that she has moved her party away from antisemitism. It is particularly important that France with its nuclear weapons does not succumb.

The relentless barrage of bad news relating to the migrant crisis has shocked me to the core, just one example here of how the traitors who “lead” us are assisting the illegal immigrants and trampling on our liberty:

[Hat tip to Vlad Tepes via John L. Work for publicizing the video]

Let us also show our support to our ordinary fellow Europeans who have been let down by their governments and help them find the courage to win the argument for defending Europe’s borders. We are all Luigi. A wrong done to one is a wrong done to all.

I prefer to accept those of other races who have joined our civilization in the past and contributed to it, who have learned our languages and become Europeans in spirit and culturally. Let us also show solidarity with those brave ex-Muslims who risk everything to resist their religion, everybody must watch this to understand what can happen to those people even in the UK:

We must find a new vocabulary and a new patriotism. We must unite not around race but around the shared belief in the freedom of speech and democracy and human progress.

[This post originally posted on the Not the Daily Telegraph channel]


In the discussion of the above post some questions were raised, I give some answers to them here:

Q. Is the migrant crisis the West’s fault for intervening in the Middle East?

A. A large number of the migrants are not coming from Syria, or anywhere near it. Many of the migrants are coming from southern and central Africa for example. Of those who are coming from Syria they have a safe haven in Turkey or Jordan, they should remain there. There are other Islamic countries near by that should be pressured to help them as well. The West’s interventions in the region are simply an excuse, not a reason for the influx into Europe. Most of the migrants are simply opportunistically trying to enter Europe, who knows to what end. We must resist illegal immigration – if migrants are prepared to break the law to enter our country, we should not be surprised when they break the law again, once they are here, as many are doing.

Q. Can we expect a majority of Muslims will ever be able to lose their religion? Since they were raised to believe from birth it is particularly difficult.

A. We will never know for sure how many will be persuaded by the arguments until we try – we must find the courage to challenge Islamic beliefs.

Q. Should we treat Muslims better in the hope that they will become Westernized?

A. We have been treating Muslims in Europe very well for many decades – many have been the recipients of free housing, free healthcare, free education, and we have allowed them to build their mosques in our countries, and given them equal opportunities in employment. Far from becoming Westernized, they have grown further apart, encouraged by their divisive religion. It is time to resist the religion by calling for the closure of mosques. We must reform welfare by putting time limits on welfare payments, and refuse to fund those who irresponsibly have children while they are unemployed.

Q. Is there hope for an Islamic reformation?

A. The short answer is that Islam cannot be reformed, it revolves around the “perfect example” of Mohammed who was a brutal intolerant bandit who became a ruler purely by conquest. I will explain my reasoning for this position at more length in a future post.


Our Shared European Identity

A Clash of “Civilizations”?

Confusing Historical Parallels

You often hear the phrase “history repeats itself”. The reality is that history never repeats itself exactly, but sometimes there are similarities. Mark Twain is reputed to have put it rather more poetically:

“History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.”

Sometimes however these similarities or “rhymes” can be confusing and lead people to jump to the wrong conclusions. I believe this is a major problem in the current situation in the “West” with regard to two related issues – the rise of Islamic influence and the migrant crisis. Although there are many theories about exactly what is motivating the West’s political leaders currently, I think there is genuine confusion about these issues among some people more generally and yes to some extent among the leaders as well. Here are some of the different “rhymes” that I’m thinking about:



In truth, not so much:

  • SOME of the migrants are genuine refugees fleeing from war zones particularly Syria. The Nazis in Germany were behaving in an increasingly violent manner towards the Jews in that country. Any German Jews were in mortal danger, as would later become absolutely clear when the concentration camps were discovered near the end of WWII.


A lot:

  • A great many of the current migrants (probably the large majority) are not fleeing from war zones at all but opportunistically taking advantage of the crisis, and the weakness of Europe’s borders and leadership, to push their way into Europe. We can know this because so many of the migrants are fit young men. Fit young men would not generally be running away from war zones leaving all their womenfolk, children and older relatives behind. A few might be doing that, but that such huge numbers would be doing that does not seem remotely credible to me. If they are genuine refugees, running away from war zones and leaving their relatives to fend for themselves, we have to wonder what sort of people they are, exactly. By contrast when the Jewish exodus from the European continent came to the UK in the run-up to WWII there were men, women, children, young and old.  A journalist visits the migrant camp in Calais to determine how many are from Syria: https://youtu.be/vSg4gBi7heY
  • The sheer numbers involved – over a million migrants entered Germany just in one year alone in 2015 and more are still coming. If these people all settle in Germany and bring their relatives in as well (remember the ECHR grants the “right to a family life) the numbers could multiply 4-8 fold. what effect will it have? With Germany’s aging population and low birth rate this is going to completely change the ethnic and cultural makeup of Germany, which already has a large population of people with foreign origins. The potential further numbers of people who want to come to Europe could be truly enormous – the population of Africa is 1.216 billion and it is exploding while the population of Europe continues to decline. The population of Pakistan and Afghanistan is continuing to grow as well. Not all of these people may want to come to Europe, but many parts of Africa and the middle East have suffered instability and poverty, the potential numbers who MIGHT want to come are quite large enough to overwhelm Europe and change our way of life forever. Europe is already heavily in debt and experiencing increasing problems with previous immigrant communities from the same areas – long term unemployment and rising crime rates.
  • The Jewish people were an ethnic minority in Germany – how many of the migrants supposedly fleeing from danger are coming from countries where they are also ethnic minorities? In a great many cases they are coming from places where they are not minorities either ethnically or culturally. Instead of staying to fix what is wrong in their societies, they are running away from problems when they should be staying and helping to sort those problems out.
  • European countries have adopted welfare policies since WWII that benefit the poor at the expense of the rich. We give free welfare payments to the unemployed and the sick, free healthcare to all, free housing to many, legal assistance. We have adopted a culture of generosity towards everyone since WWII. Allowing huge numbers of unemployed, unskilled, homeless people (many of whom are illiterate) into our countries will add a huge burden to our already heavily indebted welfare systems. Even if some of these people find work it will probably be low-skilled work so they will benefit from our generous system that gives free healthcare and housing often to the poor and they won’t have to pay much or any tax at all if they stay on low wages. Many of the migrants are being housed and fed at huge expense.  Can we even afford all this?
  • Crime rates are increasing, adding to the burden still further. We will have to recruit more police to deal with this. Many undocumented migrants are just disappearing, some working illegally, not paying taxes.
  • A very large number of the migrants are Muslims – its impossible to know exactly how many, but most of the countries the migrants are coming from have large or majority Muslim populations. Islamic culture does not get along well with other cultures, especially cultures that value freedom of speech as Europe does. We already have a very serious problem with incitement to violence in mosques in Europe.  After all, Islam incites violence against us non-Muslims in the core religious texts, if we’re honest about it.  Why on earth should we feel obligated to look after people whose religion incites violence against us and sedition against our democracy and legal system?
  • The manner of migration is also very different, as shockingly revealed by this footage: https://youtu.be/gaiJawAUyJ0



In truth, not so much:

  • One similarity (possibly the only similarity) is that members of a religious minority are facing increasing hostility in their host country. There was real anti-semitism all over Europe prior to WWII, including even in the UK.


A lot:

  • Really vicious Islamic terror attacks have been taking place with some regularity, large numbers of people dead many more injured. We don’t know exactly the motivations perhaps, but they keep telling us that they are doing it in the name of their religion, so why would we not believe them? I can’t think of a reason why we wouldn’t believe them, especially since their religious texts encourage them to commit acts of violence and terror. There just weren’t any Jewish terror attacks going on in Europe in the run up to WWII. None at all.
  • Jews are members of a race, the Jewish race.  Anti-semitism in Europe was motivated by racial hatred more than hatred of the Jewish religion and culture.  Muslims are followers of a particular belief system, they are not a racial group.
  • Muslims are a (very) rapidly growing minority in Europe, they could even become a majority in just a few generations time if current trends continue, completely altering the culture of Europe. This was never the case with the Jewish population which was always small and remained quite static in Europe. For example, in 1933 Jews were less than .75 % of the population of Germany. Muslims are already around 7.5% of the population in France (officially) which is also the country (coincidence?) that has experienced the most Islamic terrorist killings so far.
  • Hostility to Islam may be growing in Europe in the present, but so is anti-semitism AS WELL. A lot of the anti-semitism is coming from the Islamic population.  Not many Muslims have been attacked, but Jews have been attacked and killed by Muslims for example in the killing of 4 people in a Kosher supermarket that happened at the same time as the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Is “Islamophobia” the new anti-semitism or is Islam the new Nazism? Islam has quite a few similarities with Nazism in fact – Islam was admired by the Nazis. There are nasty and derogatory references to Jews in the Islamic religious texts.
  • A lot of reports of Muslim “grooming gangs” committing rapes of vulnerable children have been coming to light in the UK particularly.  Jewish people were never known for this sort of behaviour, at least I’ve never heard of such a thing.
  • Muslims throughout Europe have also been engaging in other types of crime such as drug dealing and generally are very disproportionately represented in our prison systems.  Is it really so unreasonable to be objecting to this kind of behaviour? Jewish people were never known for this type of behaviour either, most were hard-working and many were exceptionally intelligent and did very well.



Quite a lot actually this is quite an interesting lecture on the subject:


A lot is also different:

  • Modern Europe has a vast wealth of technological knowledge and achievements including many things that the Romans would be truly astonished by if they came back to life in our times.
  • We know that we are poisoning our water supply (with chemicals), the Romans were also poisoning themselves (with lead in cooking vessels) but they didn’t know.
  • Finally what is most different is the fact that the Roman Empire declined and actually fell a long time ago. Western civilization is in a bad way, but it is still very much alive. We still have time to reverse the decline, IF we can find the courage to question every opinion that we secretly disagree with, regardless of whatever names anyone wants to call us for speaking our minds.


We should never forget the past, we can learn many lessons from it, but we should never try to draw too many conclusions from history about how we should react to the present. Every situation we find ourselves in is a new situation, requiring an objective assessment of the facts that now face us.



The above comment was removed from this article:



I really doubt it was Breitbart. I suppose it could have been removed by Breitbart or Disqus at the behest of some shadowy state official.


The EU particularly but also national governments in Europe are becoming increasingly inclined to interfere with freedom of speech, one of our most fundamental freedoms. It seems to me they are particularly anxious to suppress criticism of immigration and of the Islamic religion. Right now the EU is proposing to crack down on “illegal hate speech”. But what, exactly, do they mean by “illegal hate speech”?


One of the bullet points in this document:

“The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”

Have I fallen victim to this Orwellian directive? Would those enforcing this directive err on the side of “caution” and delete first, ask questions later? Is there any appeals process, any way of publicly questioning the judgement of those enforcing it? Will those enforcing it be accountable in any way whatever? Will there even be public acknowledgement of what they are censoring?

The largest objection I have to this kind of censorship is that it is going to be hard to convince others that we really are being censored at all. “Are you sure dear?” “Maybe you deleted it yourself by mistake?” Well when you delete a Disqus comment yourself it just disappears, you don’t see the red “Removed” icon in the picture above. So no, “dear”, I did not imagine it. There is the evidence.

Some people will be intimidated by this sort of censorship, because it will remind them that they are being watched by big brother and that big brother does not approve of what they are saying. Those people might have very valid and useful things to say. There is also the implied threat that if the state does not approve then they may be fined or even imprisoned for what they are doing.


Certainly, but I feel that its important to document such incidents to see if a pattern can be identified, to find out whether other people are experiencing similar, and most importantly because there may be some sort of very deliberate state censorship going on. Also, since the EU is currently devising these “hate speech” directives for social media companies, it really isn’t fanciful to suspect state involvement. I have had very few comments removed to date, only a handful. In most of the other cases (perhaps all) it was clear that the comment had been “Flagged as inappropriate” by another user, because the status of the comment was “Pending”, not “Removed” as is the case in this comment (see text in red in picture above).


I fear it was a bit vague in the sense that it wasn’t clear which migrants I was talking about, rather hastily written perhaps. However in the context of the article, and the current migrant crisis, I think I could be allowed to let people put two and two together. I also specifically mentioned Islam so I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to Muslim majority countries. If there was anything wrong with the comment, people were free to question it, and challenge it with reply comments.


Quite what constitutes commonplace is subjective I think, but a brief search in google immediately points towards quite a lot of evidence that I was justified in making the remark. There is a Wikipedia article devoted to the subject of Islam and domestic violence for example:


For example, there is a claim in this article:

“According to HRW 2013 report, Afghanistan has one of the highest incidence rates of domestic violence in the world. Domestic violence is so common that 85 per cent of women admit to experiencing it.”

Before anybody questions my linking to Wikipedia, please note that this article is backed up with many references to its sources, so please read those instead of just dissing Wikipedia.

Mistreatment of women among the migrants has been reported by Breitbart themselves quite a few times:


It seems unlikely to me that this would be happening if such treatment was particularly uncommon in their countries of origin.

Evidence of a bad attitude in Islam towards women can be found in the Koran, for example 4:34 which condones wife beating. Many other examples exist, documented much more comprehensively by people who know more about it than I do, so I have provided some links at the end of this post for those who wish to learn more.

There is also significant testimony in the above of the suppression of information about the mistreatment of women in these countries. Who for example is going to report a rape if the Islamic requirement is for 4 male witnesses? How many rapes are going to be calmly witnessed by 4 male bystanders who are later prepared to testify against the perpetrator? If they objected to the rape then these 4 males would surely intervene?

Furthermore, mistreatment of women in Islamic culture is so ingrained that women may not even regard it as mistreatment. For example, many women in Pakistan believe that the Koranic justification for beating a “disobedient” wife mentioned above is correct. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is sometimes carried out by women.


It seems to me that if you make a statement that is demonstrably true then you cannot be accused of incitement. The comment was not in any case at all inciteful, but plainly descriptive. I did not say, so and so is the case and therefore people should hate the group I’m talking about. I wasn’t even thinking like that. I’m just concerned that the migrants in question have been brutalized by the culture of their country of origin, particularly in their attitude to women.


In the current migration crisis, the principle countries of origin are all Muslim majority countries to my knowledge, and include:

Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, countries of the Maghreb. Mistreatment of women under the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is of course particularly brutal, I hardly need mention all the rapes of Yazidi women and stoning of “adulterers”. Mistreatment of women is well documented for Pakistan and Afghanistan. Here is an article about Syria:


Countries further south in Africa that have featured significantly in the number of migrants include Gabon and Eritrea. Female genital mutilation is practiced in Eritrea (1).



I think this experience illustrates exactly what is wrong with trying to suppress “hate speech”. Just what constitutes hate speech is highly subjective. We should be able to talk about groups of people without automatically being condemned because there may be features of that group, such as their religious beliefs, that incline them to behave in a particular way. I believe that the Islamic ideology is deeply flawed and a danger to freedoms of all kinds, but particularly to women’s freedom. If we can no longer discuss this in public without facing censorship and possibly even arrest, then freedom of speech is truly finished in Europe. The claims that freedom of speech will be protected in the EU directive document above are then merely empty words. Also if internet commenters like myself are being censored like this today, how long will it be before the state starts interfering with the supposedly free press when they try to tell us facts about the migrant crisis?


(1) http://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#women_affected


Click to access Afghanistan_brochure_0913_09032013.pdf







The Myth Of The Hard Working Immigrant

Globalists and large corporations favour immigration because the first wave of immigrants are willing to work long hours for lower wages. They are prepared to do this because the wages in “Western” countries are invariably significantly higher than in their countries of origin. Subsequent generations however often soon acquire the habit of taking from the state, as they become wise to what is on offer from the state purse. This does not particularly reflect badly on those people, because immigrants who came to do the lower skilled jobs will tend to have stayed poor and be living in the poorer areas. The education available to their children will also have tended to be of poorer quality.

The bill for supporting these future generations comes to the ordinary taxpayer, because the globalists and large corporations are expert at tax avoidance. Thus there is an incentive for the globalists to keep promoting the idea that “immigration is good, because immigrants work hard and do the jobs the natives are not prepared to do”. In reality of course immigrants are human beings like everyone else, they respond to incentives.


If we look at Muslim immigration into the UK, this gives us a good example of this pattern. It all started when large numbers of Muslims came from Pakistan to work in mills in parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. Nowadays a majority of them are unemployed because those industries closed down not long afterwards and very little new industry has been created since in those areas. Then over the years their numbers swelled as they brought in spouses from their countries of origin, often while they were unemployed and while their spouses had no prospects or intention of finding work either. They were coming from cultures which had not in any case acquired the habit of female employment.


British workers are only not prepared to do the jobs the immigrants do because they know there is an alternative, namely the welfare system. Relatively recently, benefit sanctions have come into force which penalize those who do not actively seek employment. If these were being applied equally across the country, the myth of the “lazy British worker” would quickly become a thing of the past. However I suspect that they are not being applied equally across the country. Also there are simply fewer vacancies in some parts of the country, so it is a lot easier in those areas to appear to be looking (or actually genuinely looking), while never actually finding work. So far at least there has been no attempt at imposing a fixed time limit on welfare, so there is little incentive for welfare recipients to seek work in areas further afield.

The UK government is now proposing to stop giving welfare to new immigrant arrivals (the welfare will only be available after a certain period of working). The incentive for governments to continue with open doors immigration policies will remain therefore, because new arrival immigrants will have a much greater incentive to work than those born here. The myth of the “hard working immigrant” will therefore be REINFORCED. Thus, what is sold to the voters as a government policy to discourage immigration, is actually an incentive for governments to continue allowing high immigration levels.


Immigrants on low wages benefit from free healthcare, schooling, better justice. Those immigrants on low wages do not have to foot the bill for these things, it is higher wage earners who have to foot the bill. Once again the globalists and large corporations are the winners, because they benefit from the lower wage immigrant workers, while their armies of expert tax accountants ensure that they pay as little tax as possible.


The idea of “the hard working immigrant” has been used in the propaganda war around the current illegal immigration crisis. However it is quite clear that the current wave of illegal immigrants are not motivated in the same way that normal legal migrants are. These are opportunistic migrants, taking advantage of a humanitarian crisis in a war zone which is far away from them in most cases. Legal migrants are more likely to have qualifications and skills, because those are needed to gain entry in the normal process, especially when coming from outside the EU.

The current wave of illegal immigrants are prepared to live in squalid and dangerous camps, they do not have high expectations. Quite what their expectations are is difficult to know, and very few journalists seem interested in discovering the truth. Some of them may be motivated by pure hatred of the “West” and a desire to spread the Islamic religion, some may even be actual terrorists, but who knows how many. Hopefully some brave journalists may eventually pluck up the courage to try to find out. I have to admit I suspect these illegal immigrants are more likely to exploit our hospitality in every way they can than conform to the mythical stereotype of the “hard working immigrant”.


It is the welfare system that drives high levels of immigration, but not for the simplistic reasons that are normally given. First waves of immigrants are often not motivated by our generous welfare system, but rather the lure of higher wages and a better general standard of living. British unemployed people are no more lazy than anyone else, they respond to incentives just as the immigrants do. They are not motivated to do unpleasant jobs for low wages because they have an alternative, to remain on welfare. The myth of the hard working immigrant – actually a product of government incentives, is likely to remain a feature of government propaganda on immigration policy until those incentives are questioned by ordinary voters. High mass immigration levels are good news for globalists and large corporations who have the resources to exploit the situation to the full. They are bad news for the ordinary people, who suffer from the pressure on housing, school places, and the tax burden. Ordinary people also suffer from a feeling of alienation and a breakdown in community, because the immigrants are usually in much higher numbers in the poorer areas.

A Clash of “Civilizations”?

There has been much talk, especially since 9/11, of a “clash of civilizations”. Osama bin Laden said that it was his intention to stoke division between the West and the Islamic world, and spark a great conflict. In this post I am going to examine this idea and ask whether such a clash is likely and what form it might take. Could it in fact be more ideological than actually physically violent?

Many, almost all in fact, of the leaders of Western countries have hastened to claim in the wake of terrorist attacks, that these attacks are “Nothing to do with Islam”. Publicly at least, it seems that they are worried their own non-Muslim populations may become hostile to the Muslims within their own countries, and such a violent “clash of civilizations” might begin.  Privately perhaps their concerns may be rather different.

Of course George W Bush and his accomplice Tony Blair did appear to react in a knee-jerk fashion when they launched the ill thought-out invasion of Iraq in 2003. In reality it may be more likely that foolish world leaders would start such a clash, rather than ordinary people.


Those readers who have visited my blog before may have noticed that I put a lot of words in quotation marks. In putting the word “civilization” in quotes in the title I am pointing to the fact that this is hardly a clash of civilizations, but rather a clash of modernity and medieval-ism. For example, the stoning to death of adulterers, life threatening punishments for those who merely dare to question the Islamic religion, legalized wife beating (Koran 4:34), none of these things are the marks of a civilization at all. Since the very phrase therefore irks me, I will refer to the idea of a “clash of cultures” instead.


I think the answer to this question may depend somewhat on who is doing the criticizing. If leaders of non-Muslim countries were to begin loudly and publicly criticizing the religion, then I suppose that could lead to a clash, perhaps even full-scale wars, especially if they spoke in a derogatory or unduly offensive fashion. My suggestion therefore is that the world leaders behave in a diplomatic way, and leave the criticisms of religions to other people who have more time to think about those religions in depth.

I firmly believe however that the current practice of these leaders of pretending that any violent behaviour of Muslims has nothing to do with Islam is a *very* bad idea, and they should completely desist from doing that. These denials are just making the work of explaining the true nature of the religion to the majority more difficult. They are also emboldening the jihadists who conclude from it (with justification), that the Western leaders are very foolish. In this way the current leaders are actually increasing the risk of violent conflict rather than reducing it. The best hope of reducing the risk of a violent clash is in fact to allow the citizens to peacefully encourage as many as possible to reject/renounce the religion by revealing its many contradictions and faults. No Islam, no problem.

If ordinary citizens of “Western” countries can no longer criticize Islam without risking violent conflict either in their own countries or abroad, then freedom of speech is in very grave danger. If Western leaders resort to silencing such criticisms then they are really betraying freedom in their own countries to appease Muslims at home and abroad. I feel very strongly that it is essential that Westerners must continue to exercise free speech by criticizing Islam regardless of the consequences. If we fail to do this we are effectively allowing ourselves to be ruled by a foreign culture, we are effectively taking the first step towards submitting to Islam.

We cannot know if our criticisms will lead to a violent reaction from Muslims or not, we cannot predict the behaviour of others, but we must take the risk in order to preserve our own culture. I do not believe that an ideological clash will necessarily lead to violent confrontation. If Muslims do feel compelled to react to mere vocal criticism of their religion with violence, then that violent behaviour is their fault, not the fault of those that merely criticize. The Muslims in that case would be the ones initiating the violence. Western leaders MUST STOP blaming the non-Muslims who dare to merely criticize Islam for the violent actions of Muslims.


The publication of a book by Salman Rushdie called “The Satanic Verses” was possibly the first major polarizing event in recent times. The decision of Western countries to provide sanctuary and protection to Mr. Rushdie no doubt had some impact.

After the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo magazine’s cartoonists, there was a great outpouring of sympathy in the West for those killed and a great show of solidarity with even the leaders of France, Germany, the UK (among many others) appearing at a march in Paris. Some numbers of Muslims in the West protested against this show of solidarity. For example there was a sizable protest in Whitehall (1).

Clearly the Hebdo event has done something to increase tension between the cultures. Other attempts to kill cartoonists who mocked Islam in the West seem only to have increased the resolve of some to continue drawing such cartoons. A group hosted a cartoon drawing competition in Garland, Texas for example, and they were violently attacked although fortunately their security team managed to kill the assailants before they could get inside the building. All these events could doubtless be seen as evidence of increasing polarization.

A huge atrocity later occurred in Paris when 130 innocent people were massacred quite randomly. Was there a connection between this event and the Hebdo magazine publication? Did the magazine’s publication increase the tension in France particularly or would the later massacre have happened anyway? It is impossible to be sure. However the fact that another atrocity occurred in Belgium not long afterwards, where no such prominent magazine was published, suggests really that these atrocities are much more motivated simply by hatred of “Western” civilization and are an attempt to terrorize non-Muslims into submission or spark violent conflict.

While there can be no doubt that polarization is taking place, the relationship between this and acts of violence is not direct. Acts of violence may also have more political motivations. Terrible though the atrocities so far committed have been, the scale of violence could also scarcely be described as a violent clash of cultures.


Thanks to modern mass communication technology, TV, radio and now the internet, things we say in one country can fly round the world and upset people who are very easily upset on the other side of the world in an instant. Since the Islamic religion cannot survive in a critical environment, this does pose a problem for the Islamic countries that want to remain Islamic. However much they repress their own populations with harsh punishments for speaking against the religion, they cannot currently repress non-Muslims in far away countries.  Perhaps then an ideological clash is inevitable in our interconnected modern world.  Consequently I suspect that Muslim countries will increasingly try to censor and restrict internet access within their own countries.  It is not surprising that the Muslim president of Turkey, Erdogan, said recently at a press conference that ‘I am increasingly against the Internet every day’ (2).

Probably mindful of this increasing inter-connection, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been trying to pressure the United Nations into enacting a worldwide law preventing the criticism of religion. However in the “West”, we have long regarded freedom of speech as a very fundamental right. The suggestion that we should no longer be able to criticize religions in our own non-Muslim countries is in very real and direct conflict with this right. There is a huge, unavoidable conflict of ideas here. We can expect therefore that there will be more such attempts to destroy our freedoms in future.

If we want to protect our freedoms then we must protest loudly against both existing blasphemy laws and proposed new blasphemy laws. We must be vigilant and prepared for these laws to appear in many guises. An example of such a law that already exists is the law in Austria against “denigration of religious beliefs”. A far worse law, because it could encompass practically any criticism of anything, is the UK government’s proposed “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders”. We must oppose all laws that increase the limits on freedom of speech.


Those that have studied Islam in any depth know that it is in fact a supremacist ideology that does not tolerate those with conflicting ideologies, including those who have no faith. Even if everybody in the world were to refrain from criticizing or mocking the religion, the demands from the Islamic world might increase regardless. Islamic leaders might begin to call for laws requiring everybody in the world to convert to the religion. Could there come a point where majorities in “Western” non-Muslim populations begin to object to this? Could a violent clash of cultures come about in this way? The possibility cannot be dismissed lightly.

It is certainly increasingly difficult for the followers of other faiths to openly practice their religion in Islamic countries. If the birth rates in Muslim countries continue to stay significantly higher than replacement level, and the huge migrations from Muslim countries into the “West” are allowed to continue, while the non-Muslim birth rate stays so low, these demands will very likely begin to be heard.  Erdogan, for example clearly believes that Islam has a mission to dominate the whole world. (3)

Islamic influence can best be seen as a combination of peer pressure, fear and intimidation. The more Muslims there are in an area, the stronger this influence becomes. As the pressure grows, eventually the choice inevitably becomes one between submission and opposition, and Islam dictates that any opposition, any “mischief” be dealt with very harshly with violence.


In conclusion, I believe that there is in fact a very real ideological clash going on, that it is escalating steadily, and that, thanks to modern communications technology, such an ideological clash is inevitable in the modern world.  Human thought is vastly more inter-connected than ever before.

If the leaders of “Western” countries truly believe in freedom of speech and democracy, as they claim to, then they must know they have a duty to stop Muslim immigration.  This must continue at least until there is evidence of sufficient numbers of Muslims becoming apostates so that the influence of the religion in the “West” begins to decline dramatically. The leaders also have a duty to reform welfare programs because currently there is every incentive for those on welfare to have large numbers of children, and this is fostering the increase of Islamic influence in the West. If they fail to take these steps it will be them, not the concerned critics of Islam, who are responsible if the ideological clash escalates further into violence. It is simply a numbers game. The more Muslims the more risk some will resort to violence to try to impose their ideology on others.

In short, the best way for the world to avoid the ideological clash escalating into something more dangerous is for the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds to be separated and segregated physically as much as is practical. Of course we can care about what goes on in Islamic countries, but the pressing need today is to stop the increasing influence of Islam in our own countries in the West.


(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11398967/Huge-crowd-of-Muslim-protesters-picket-Downing-Street-to-protest-at-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons.html

(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkish-president-erdogan-tells-conference-i-am-increasingly-against-the-internet-every-day-9772048.html

(3) http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/30/erdogan-renews-anti-birth-control-campaign-muslims/



Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders

Our Shared European Identity

In the last post I wrote about the Persecution of Non-Muslims, an increasing problem throughout the world. What strikes me most strongly about these persecutions is the deafening silence, the lack of outrage, among the non-Muslims of the world. The Muslims of the world feel a sense of shared grievance when they believe a Muslim has suffered at the hands of a non-Muslim, as witnessed for example by demonstrations by Muslims of mostly Pakistani origin in the UK against the state of Israel. However, the non-Muslims seem to lack a similar sense of shared grievance when non-Muslims suffer at the hands of Muslims. Can people be united around a negative, around the fact that they are NOT Muslims?

In Europe particularly, there has been a culture of political “correctness” and white guilt, German guilt, and self-hatred of the European past, that has been stoked by European left-wingers generally and by the architects of the European Union. Reporting by the mainstream media of abuse of non-Muslims has been suppressed. For example, the large number of rapes by predominantly Muslim grooming gangs in the UK were for a long time not reported. In another example, it took many days before the mainstream media reported on the events at Cologne train station on New Year’s Eve 2015. Non-Muslims should be outraged by this, but instead they are largely meekly accepting of it. Many would deny that Islam was even a factor in such an event, but yet the majority (perhaps all) of the suspects on this occasion were from Islamic majority countries.


The leaders of the European Union have long seen national identities as an obstacle to their grand socialist, bureaucratic project. However in their efforts to smash national identities, they have encouraged negative attitudes and self-hatred, and sown division. This has weakened our resistance to the anti-Democratic and supremacist ideology of Islam. By also inviting so many people from Islamic countries into our nations recently, these leaders have created the climate for the very thing that the European project was supposed to avoid – civil conflict within Europe. It is these leaders, who have so little regard for our shared identity, our European culture, who are endangering us, not those on the right who still cherish a sense of this shared identity. The reaction against these mindless left-wing leaders is not a resurgence of nationalism in the old sense, but rather a reaction against the tyranny of these left-wing politically “correct” leaders who are so hostile to our European past and identity.

In their attempts to control the people of Europe, and force them to accept their vision, they have greatly undermined our most fundamental and hard-won freedom, the freedom of speech and expression. Increasingly European governments have used the threatening words of Islamic hate preachers as an excuse to curb the freedom of speech of everybody else. They have also used the threat of Islamic terrorist attacks, and a greatly exaggerated and largely imagined threat of anti-Islamic violence, as excuses to increase the surveillance of their entire populations.  We must force the resignation of these current leaders if we are to re-discover our shared identity and recover our freedoms, so hard-won by previous generations.


I often encounter the view that it is the declining Christian faith of Europe that has left us weakened and exposed in the face of the increasing influence of the Islamic religion. Many of those who subscribe to this view often also think that the only thing that can save us from this influence is a revival of Christianity. I take a rather different view however, as I see the influence of Christian ideals in our meekness, as I explained in a previous blog post:

Christianity And Western Decline

Even if a more widespread revival of Christianity could be considered as desirable, I doubt that it is achievable. Many Europeans simply no longer believe in a supreme being, still less in the miracles that are claimed as part of the story of Jesus. Ours is a more rational age, and we should be thankful of that. To force people to attend church against their will would be a very un-Christian thing to do.

Perhaps if the church leaders adopted a more rational and universal moral philosophy, they might attract more people to return to attending their churches.  Such a universal moral philosophy would necessarily also reject Islam.  The church leaders must also openly reject Islam if they are to recover the moral high ground, instead of meekly submitting to its influence.


I suggest that we Europeans, both Christians and Atheists, do in fact have a shared identity, and that we should celebrate it loudly and proudly and with a cheerful heart. Our shared identity should be considered to include not just Christian values and art, but also secular art and the ideas of the Enlightenment, which paved the way for so much European scientific and technological progress.

Let us rejoice in the writings of Shakespeare, Voltaire, Dickens and so many more great European writers. None of these writers would be tolerated in a world dominated by Islam.

Let us rejoice in our traditions of comedy and satire, of Monty Python’s Life of Brian for example, and Voltaire’s Candide and Mahomet.  Comedy and satire would not be tolerated in an Islamic society, especially not where it dares to mock religions.

Let us rejoice in the music of J.S.Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Mahler, Ravel, Debussy and so many more great European composers.  None of this beautiful music would be tolerated in a world dominated by Islam. Let us rejoice in the music of more recent times as well, such as the Beatles, Abba and Pink Floyd and many more.

Let us rejoice in the paintings of Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael, Monet, Van Gogh and so many more great European painters. None of their paintings would be tolerated in a world dominated by Islam.

Let us rejoice in the glorious architecture and sculpture of our Christian heritage – Notre Dame, Florence, Milan, York Minster, King’s College Chapel and so many more. Do we wish to see these beautiful buildings converted into mosques? I can say even as an atheist that I object very strongly to the idea. I feel these buildings are part of our heritage, and Islam should not be, because it would not tolerate their existence as churches.

Let us rejoice in all our scientific and technological achievements as well.

It is as much Freedom of Speech, of expression, that characterizes the modern European as it is our Christian past. This is the most fundamental thing that should unite us, that we should consider as the most important part of our shared identity. Church and State have also long been kept separate in most European countries, and we should also cherish this as it is much more likely that people of different beliefs will live in harmony. Islam is too political and almost invariably leads to intolerance of other beliefs and ultimately to theocracy.


In summary, I suggest we must rediscover and celebrate our shared identity, that which we Europeans have in common, or else we could lose this identity to that which is hostile to every aspect of it, namely the Islamic religion.

Persecution of Non Muslims

We often hear about the persecution of religious groups – Christians, Muslims, and particular sub-sections of these groups. Increasingly it seems however that there is another larger group whose persecution often goes unnoticed, the Non-Muslims. They are usually persecuted by Muslims for failing to be Muslims, for daring to suggest that the Muslim religion, Islam, might not be entirely a correct or even really a very moral religion. More worryingly still, they are also being persecuted by their own governments in non-Muslim countries. Lets look at just some examples of the persecution of non-Muslims around the world.

Pastor James McConnell – a non-Muslim Christian pastor in Belfast, Northern Ireland who was subjected to over a year of court proceedings merely for suggesting that Islam is heathen and satanic. He was acquitted but the ordeal was not insignificant.

Apostates in the UK – savagely beaten and threatened:

Salman Rushdie – threatened with death by the state of Iran for writing a book, himself formerly a Muslim but now officially a non-Muslim atheist.  Despite the fact that he has long lived in Western non-Muslim countries his life is still in danger.

Theo van Gogh – a non-Muslim film maker murdered by a Muslim in the Netherlands.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff – prosecuted in her own country, Austria, for suggesting that Mohammed might have had an unhealthy interest in a very young girl. The fact that she found the evidence for her assertion in the core Islamic texts was not enough to convince the moronic Austrian authorities who sentenced her. Another case recently made the news where a teacher in Austria was prosecuted for the same thing. The irony of these prosecutions is that they make the news all around the world and thereby publicize Mohammed’s interest in the child Aisha, who he “married” when she was 6 years old (according to Islam’s own religious texts).


Pim Fortuyn – Dutch non-Muslim politician murdered by non-Muslim Volkert van der Graaf who was worried that Muslims might become scapegoats if people objected to the Islamic religion. Pim Fortuyn thought Islam was a backward culture and so objected to Muslim immigration, as sane people do. Van der Graaf’s idea was that shooting people was a civilized thing to do whereas criticizing some silly old religion was not.

Tommy Robinson – persecuted by the British authorities and individual Muslims in the UK for daring to suggest that there might be something a bit wrong with the Islamic religion. Assaulted in prison with the alleged involvement of the authorities.

Atheist Bloggers in Bangladesh – brutally hacked to death by gangs wielding machetes, the death toll keeps growing.

Asia Bibi – a Christian non-Muslim condemned to death by the authorities in Pakistan for alleged blasphemy, just one example of a great many cases of non-Muslims persecuted in Pakistan. Western countries continue to generously donate huge sums of money to this country for reasons that entirely escape me. She is still in prison after many years and 10 million Muslims in Pakistan have apparently said that they would be willing to kill her themselves.

Christian non-Muslim migrants – trying to escape from Islamic countries finding that Islam has come with them:


Is it perhaps about time that we shone a spotlight on the persecution of non-Muslims around the world? Of course the above list hardly even begins to explain the scale of the persecution, we could literally go on for months, maybe even years, listing them all. Is it about time these people were allowed to practice their religious beliefs – that Allah is not the greatest God, or in fact not even a God at all, that Mohammed was not his messenger (but was in fact just a brutal warlord who “married” a 6 year old girl), in peace?

Increasingly, as more Muslims swarm into Western countries thanks to idiot “Western” leaders like Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau, where they multiply rapidly thanks in no small part to the foolish Western non-Muslim countries’ generosity in welfare payments, we can only I am afraid expect the persecution of non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries to increase. These moronic leaders then observe the fact that social cohesion is breaking down in their countries (predictably enough), and then they use this as an excuse to create laws that limit freedom of speech, our most fundamental right.

Some of my readers may be thinking, but surely if non-Muslims just all shut up about Islam, there wouldn’t be a problem? Unfortunately a lack of resistance to the barmy ideology of Islam will merely embolden those who wish to shove it down other people’s throats. Gullible people will be more in danger of being lured to join the religion by unscrupulous preachers who fail to mention all the very bad aspects of it. It is therefore very important that people continue to criticize the religion, loudly, and that they are allowed to do so. Furthermore Islamic ideology calls upon Muslims to kill/convert or subdue all non-Muslims (e.g. Koran 9:29), so merely not criticizing Islam will probably not save you in the long run if Muslims continue to grow in numbers.

Freedom of speech is the most important freedom in a civilized society because bad ideas can flourish where people are prevented from criticizing them. Finally I will leave you with the immortal words of Pastor Martin Niemöller which explain why nobody should ever bow down before tyranny, no matter what form it takes:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


I have mentioned before how the UK government plans to persecute non-Muslims with an Orwellian measure they call:

Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders

I urge you (especially UK readers) to read this post if you have not already done so, and write to your MP to demand the bill that contains these is rejected completely. Your liberties are in serious danger if you do not speak up.

German Guilt and the Islamification of Germany

What do we mean by “German Guilt”, or “German Collective Guilt” (Kollektivschuld)? Well, in Germany they have the relatively recent history of Nazism and the holocaust to feel guilty about. Germans seem to be suffering from this guilt very badly and it seems to be affecting their judgement in a dangerous way. I therefore thought I would attempt to point out how this guilt is very ridiculous this long after WWII, now that nearly all the perpetrators of the Holocaust are dead.  Worse than that however, it is risking the resurgence of one of the biggest things that the guilt should be about, i.e. hatred of Jewish people.

Here is an imaginary conversation that I recently had with a German:

Me: Guten Tag

German: Hello, how are you?

Me: Good thanks, how are you feeling today?

German: I feel very guilty about the fact that we Germans killed so many Jews in the Holocaust.

Me: Well, that’s understandable, it was a terrible thing. But, why should you feel this way yourself particularly? It was a long time ago, after all, long before you were even born. Have you killed any Jews yourself, or even ever been slightly rude to any?

German: No, no of course not. I am always very polite to Jews and I would never dream of killing them, that would be terrible.

Me: I am very glad to hear it, I think maybe you should move on with your life then. What else is new?

German: Some very good news. Our great leader Angela Merkel has recently welcomed a huge number – millions in fact, of mostly Muslim immigrants from poor countries into Germany. This shows how a country should behave, with true compassion and warmth!! In fact soon Germany will be a Muslim majority country because we give them all the free food and free housing and free health care and free education that they need, and besides although we work hard ourselves we are lazy about having children and they have lots!

Me: Oh, but don’t you know, the Jews are not really very popular among the Muslims in general? Won’t we just see Germany become a Jew hating country all over again?

German: That’s not a problem. We will educate them to respect Jews.

Me: But…. but, you have quite a lot of Muslim people in Germany already, and they don’t seem very friendly to the Jews. If you have been trying to educate them not to hate Jews, it doesn’t seem to be working very well. Jews in Germany are complaining that they fear for their safety, there is an account here of a demonstration where demonstrators were apparently shouting “Hamas, Hamas! Jews into gas!”:


German: Hm, I see what you mean, but this is so strange, why should the Muslims hate the Jews so much?

Me: Well there are a couple of reasons in fact. After the Nazi Holocaust, many Jews fled to the Middle East to create the state of Israel, and Palestinians, mostly Muslims, were displaced. Many Muslims around the world take cause with the Palestinian Muslims against the Jews because of this. They generally don’t feel much sympathy towards the Jews for their suffering in WWII because they feel a connection with other Muslims first and foremost.  They are not troubled by the extremely violent tendencies of HAMAS, because really those tendencies are in line with the example of Mohammed, who claimed he was a prophet but really was just a warlord.

German: Hm, I see, and what is the other reason?

Me: The other reason is that Muslims are taught to hate the Jews (and just about everybody else for that matter) by their religion, for example consider this quote from the Quran:

Quran 002.065
“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.” ”

Then in an Islamic description of the day of the last judgment the Jews will be killed by the Muslims (with help apparently even from the stones that the Jews try to hide behind):

“(Muhammad said:) You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him..”

(Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6981)

German: But, surely the Muslims will eventually just become modernized like us Europeans and forget the worst aspects of their religion that preach against the Jews? After all, Christians were at one time also hostile to the Jews.

Me: The fact is that Muslims everywhere in the world at the moment are generally taking their religion MORE seriously, not less. This is because Islam is really driven by fear and intimidation, not reason, and the more their numbers grow demographically, the more that climate of fear grows stronger. As Winston Churchill once wrote, “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world”.  Muslims and non-Muslims alike are succumbing to the climate of fear and so are feeling more reluctant to criticize the religion, and so Islam is emboldened yet further. Also, thanks to falling average intelligence among the human race overall, people generally no longer have the critical faculties to understand what a terribly bad influence the religion has on people.

German: So in summary then, you don’t think we should be welcoming so many more Muslims into our country?

Me: No, I most certainly do not.

Further reading: