Oh my country, where art thou?

Oh my country, where art thou?

Britain. Home of English Common Law. Home of parliamentary democracy. Home of Western liberty, of property rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, of religion, of association. Home of that most noble and rooted idea: the nation state, a nation state of people bound together by a common language, common beliefs, commonality of culture, religion and purpose. All bought through the great and noble sacrifice of those that have gone before.

No longer.

Britain today is a shadow of its former self. The ideas, beliefs and old certainties about who we were and what we were here for are gone. No longer do we have the ties that bind us together. This disintegration of the community of our island nation has been disastrous. People now not only live in cultural enclaves but in personal enclaves, enclaves of the soul, souls which still cry out for connection with our fellow man, and instead seek solace in the synthetic communities of the cold dead, world of cyberspace.

Mass immigration alone did not cause this rupture of that which bound us together as a society. Indeed, it would behove us to recognise the salient fact that many immigrants coming to these shores would assimilate with greater success if there was something to assimilate to. Instead, there is only feeble talk of ‘our values’, followed by mention of shallow nothings, whispered sentiments that just as quickly vanish in the wind of reality.

The hollowing out of our culture has been ongoing for a century. The First World War crushed the soul of Europe, and Britain was not immune from the tragedy. Nearly a million dead, the uncounted wounded, in mind and in body. The families rent by the loss of their sons, brothers, fathers and husbands, through death or the immolation of their spirit in the fires of Flanders. The toll on all levels of society was immense. Those in the ruling and gentry classes arguably felt the effects, the loss, the continuing, aching absence of those gone from this world in a different fashion, more keenly than others. An entire class, an entire social structure that presumed to rule had the heart torn out of it in bloody Flanders fields. It never recovered, neither its moral or civil authority.

Then came the second calamity. The Second World War, despite the attempts to stave off the coming storm, the attempts to shelter behind the watery frontier of the English Channel, called Britain back to the field of battle, to answer the tramp of boots and the occult chants of a regime that appeared born of an earlier and more savage age, to resist those who would drag us back to a time from the darkness of history, those who believed in a desecration of the soul that had no compunction in swallowing up sovereign nations to drape its darkness of the soul over the continent like a shroud.

In response, Britain stood fast, through the travails of varying fortune. Britain bore the sacrifices, the necessity to bear the suffering to ensure that our home remained free, the acts that required the incorporation of out national shadow to secure that freedom, despite the cost to us and the enemy.

These two catastrophes destroyed Europe’s sense of itself. Europe had its metaphysical foundations torn away in the heat of the industrial and scientific revolutions. It attempted to replace the destroyed moral structure that Christianity provided with art, music, philosophy, all of which ultimately led down and down to the evils of Fascism, Nazism and Communism.

Britain escaped this fate. But only just. No-one should delude themselves that if circumstances had conspired to leave Britain facing the darkness alone, that our freedoms would have remained intact and our consciences clear. In order to destroy evil, Britain itself had to commit acts that would at any other time be designated less than righteous. Our national incorporation of Jung’s shadow was necessary to win. Our freedoms were not left untouched, however, and it would have taken little for them to be subsumed even further should events have necessitated it.

Following the end of Europe’s second Thirty Years War, the dissolution of our societal bonds continued through the 20th century, through the upheavals of the cultural revolutionary 60’s, through the stagnant and decaying 70’s, into the decadence of the 80’s. Margaret Thatcher may have saved Britain from national oblivion, but she, like Ronald Reagan, displayed too great a reverence for the power of the economy, worshipped too readily at the altar of the mighty dollar. Having seen the collectivist horrors of Communism, our leaders swung far the other way.

The preservation of culture, outside the economic sphere, became something in which the government had no role to play. We became human oeconomicus, as Roger Scruton elegantly describes, economic widgets to be moved around by the forces of the untrammelled free markets and individualism, with no thought for the consequences on what binds us together as a community, as a country. Margaret Thatcher’s legacy occupies two sides of the same coin; she rescued our economy, securing our place in the world. However, she also destroyed what little cohesion we had left as a nation with a distinct shared culture. The mass immigration under Tony Blair and successive governments, along with the concomitant investment in divisive policies of multiculturalism, simply widened these cracks further.

Our society is coming apart. We are now divided between Somewheres, Anywheres and Global Villagers, to use David Goodheart’s terminology. Somewheres are more rooted in their local community, and still feel a strong connection to the land they call home, often occupying the lower rungs of the economic and social ladder, but also occupying space further up. Anywheres are more cosmopolitan, occupy the higher echelons of society and the economy. They feel no deep connection to the land they live in, and often disdain those who do as backward, nativist, narrow-minded, somehow morally deficient.

Global Villagers are members of the international elite, those who proclaim from on high what is right and good for we mere mortals, in all spheres of life, while displaying an attitude that signals the rest of us should be grateful for their deigning to address us with their presence at all. They have little connection to any single place and take full advantage of the increasingly borderless world that they helped create, never mind the cost to their home societies or the rest of the world. Their relationship to our nation is purely instrumental, a matter of convenience.

The Brexit vote and the turmoil of the recent general election is a result of all this and shows the deep divisions that have opened up in our society. All are searching for an answer, and none are yet close to finding it.

Instead, we no longer remember who we are, or if we do, we feel so racked by masochistic, existential guilt that the repudiation of our shared past seems the only moral option.

We are stumbling around in the dark, searching for the light of understanding, searching for who we are, for a reason to exist.

If we do not find it, history tells us that a flood of chaos follows to wash away all before it.

We cannot allow that to happen. We must re-engage in logos, to renew ourselves and by extension our culture and country through dialogue. We have a hope, maybe a fool’s hope, but a hope nonetheless to discover what our highest ideal is, both personally and as a national community, and thus aim for the highest possible good that comes out of the spoken truth of logos. Only through this can we revivify the dead structure of our society, only through the spoken truth can we regain some order out of the chaos of our lives.

The time to start is now.

If we do not, then we, immigrant and non-immigrant alike, risk losing that most precious of things: our home.

The Summer of Love: How Hippies Changed the World (or how they tried to tear it down) – Thoughts

The Summer of Love: How Hippies Changed the World (or how they tried to tear it down) – Thoughts


The so-called ‘Summer of Love’ was born in the sun-drenched streets of San Francisco, centred around the Haight-Ashbury area in the summer of 1967, as portrayed in the BBC documentary The Summer of Love: How Hippies Changed the World. The three tribes of hippy, the Naturist, the Truth-Seeker and the Political were drawn there by the promise of freedom. The freedom that is, to do whatever one pleased, whenever one wanted, in whatever way one saw fit depending on the inspiration drawn from their drug-addled minds.

The climate in America at this time was ripe for a revolution. America had been struggling to reconcile its basic principles of the equality of man imbued with a sacred dignity as instantiated in its founding with the relativist approach to race that it had also instantiated at the beginning. The results of this cancerous relativism at the heart of American society and the struggle to end it by obtaining the final equality of rights to their fellow Americans is what Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow civil rights campaigners were striving for, against heavy opposition and a less than cooperative federal government.

The impact of all this is movingly portrayed in Shelby Steele’s book Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarised Our Country. An interesting aspect of the book is when he recounts his realisation that the violent revolutionaries like the Black Panthers were following a course of action that would ultimately do far more harm than good, and instead of helping to bring equality of opportunity and equal rights would only serve to divide America even more than it already was, as they wanted to tear down the system, not reform it. The trouble with this is that it never ends well, and nearly always involves appalling violence along the way. What may start out as a wish to change society for the better – and the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King Jr. was forcing through changes that needed to happen – ends up with society teetering on the edge of chaos.

In its own way, the hippy movement, while it started out based on a naive understanding of human nature and society, and how it could be made better, dissolved into self-satisfied, self-indulgent moral bankruptcy, and went down the same path of revolutionary violence. If there was one single, fundamental difference between the approaches of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Black Panthers and hippies, it was that King wanted reformation, and the Black Panthers and the hippies wanted a revolution.

The Hippies

The Naturists

The influences on the various hippy subcultures that came together in this period of orgiastic hedonism were varied and stretched back into the period before the war, before 1900 even, crossing over one ocean to Europe and another to Asia. From Europe, a big influence on the naturist component of the hippy movement was the 19th-century German phenomenon of the ‘nature boys’, who wandered around the Black Forest, living off nature’s bounty and moving with the seasons.

This idealised form of civilisational sentimentality, of course, had its roots in Rousseau’s view of man as burdened down by civilisation and only able to be truly free and truly moral in a state of nature. This view of human history is romantic because it is pure wishful thinking; tribal humanity was an extremely violent social organisation, and hunter-gatherer societies today, in South America for example, can still be extremely violent.

This emphasis on the communion between body and nature found its way, along with the ‘nature boys’, to California, with various groups choosing to live out in the California countryside, and moving around according to the seasons. They became somewhat of an object of fascination, particularly to the left-leaning group of actors and artists known as the Diggers, who looked to them for inspiration in their quest to feel closer to nature and the self-knowledge apparently inherent in it.

After a period of time, however, some members of the ‘nature boys’ tribe tired of life near the built up centres of human habitation and, following the crackdown on certain more radical members of the hippy community by law enforcement, decided to literally head for the hills. The hippies who went back to nature founded communes out in the wilds where they could be as close to nature as possible. Everything would be free (including each other’s bodies), everything would be shared (including children), and everyone would be equal (except the women weren’t and were often little more than female cattle to be used by the male bulls when they so desired).

An interesting note on which to conclude this section is that the commune movement, and the hippie movement more generally, had a profound influence on the development of Silicon Valley, in particular, future tech giants like Steve Jobs. The ethos of the commune translated itself into the realm of cyberspace, the most obvious example being the internet, where everything is free, can be shared, and everyone can be equal.

Except when it isn’t, like when not everyone was free or equal in the communes, and when only a tiny proportion of people win hugely from the otherwise totally Darwinian wilds of the internet. See, some people tend to just end up more equal than others in a state of nature.

The Truth Seekers

The Truth-Seekers were closely aligned with the Naturists but went further in their attempt to discover the true nature of humanity and to try and build a common consciousness that would bring people together on a higher plain and would enable the human race to leave behind all the evils that they saw as manifested in modern society, which was a hopelessly oppressive, violent, exploitative and bigoted structure thought up and kept by those in power in order to crush the souls and break the backs of the many. Or some such pretentious rubbish.

The Truth-Seekers attempted to reach this state of enlightenment through the use of LSD and other hallucinogens. Aldous Huxley was a big inspiration in their quest towards a higher understanding and state of being, with his “The Doors of Perception” filling the role of the Truth-Seekers’ Bible on what acid and other mind expanding drugs had the potential to bring about. Cary Grant lent the acid trip an edge of glamour along with the note of respectability brought by Aldous Huxley, although his claims that his 100+ trips led him to see himself as a giant penis launching itself from earth neatly characterises the moral emptiness at the base of the movement. Aleister Crowley meanwhile, in his search for new experiences and the true nature of things, engaged in witchcraft, Satanic rituals and free love (which devolved into “all women are free and fair game”), demonstrating that for more than a few people the whole thing was a gateway to enjoy a hedonistic lifestyle in service to a nothingness that was fronted by an empty, vacant smile and even emptier, vacant words that said little and meant less.

Having said all that, drugs like LSD, DMT and Psilocybin have been shown to induce truly spiritual experiences, as shown in the trials at Johns Hopkins University, and should, therefore, be researched much more thoroughly and carefully so that we can possibly stumble some way towards answering some of the most fundamental questions about humanity’s need for some sort of spiritual belief, and how and why this might have come about .

However, in service to a dangerously naive system of ideas based on little understanding (or willful misunderstanding) of how the world works and of how human nature manifests itself, LSD turned what was something touted as the next stage of human societal evolution into what was effectively a middle-class freakshow of young people off their minds on drugs, wallowing in syrupy sentimentality and foolish notions of the universal applicability of love to drive forward a revolutionary bulldozer through the society that allowed them to pursue their foolishly naive dreams in the first place. The fact that so many who experimented in this way at the time now resemble mad-eyed, burnt out shells perhaps suggests that the experience wasn’t as beneficial as it was claimed.

The Politicals

The last group of people present in San Francisco during this fervent period of cultural foment were the Politicals, the tribe of left-wing radicals, now known as the New Left who had incubated on college campuses, in particular at Berkeley. These were people who were heavily invested in left-wing ideas and theories, who wanted to change the system, mostly by burning the whole structure of society down and starting again. They saw the other two elements of the nascent hippy movement as possible allies in their attempts to change the world. By revolution, if they had to.

Just how revolutionary were the hippies and those they influenced and inspired? A Gallup poll in 1970 found that 44% of college students felt that violence was justified in order to bring about social change, 40% thought revolution was needed in the US, while 1.7 million saw themselves as revolutionaries. 20% of respondents had a favourable opinion of the Soviet Union as opposed to 1.9% in 1956 and 4% in 1980. Philip Roth’s American Pastoral captures the mood these radicals, this progeny of the politicals, referencing a quote from Weatherman  John Jacobs: “We are against everything that is good and decent in honky America. We will loot and burn and destroy. We are the incubation of your mothers’ nightmares”. They certainly were.

The Politicals’ guru was Professor Herbert Marcuse, the most famous member of the Frankfurt School of Marxist philosophy, aka Critical Theory, whose members had fled Hitler’s rise to power and found refuge in America. Marcuse was teaching at the University of California, San Diego at the time of the formation of the hippy movement. Marcuse influenced many radical scholars and activists, such as Norman O. Brown, Angela Davis, Captain Charles Moore, Kathy Acker, Abbie Hoffman, Rudi Dutschke, and Robert M. Young.

In his 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance”, Marcuse claimed capitalist democracies can have totalitarian characteristics. The argument Marcuse put forward was that genuine tolerance does not allow support for repression because to do so would ensure that marginalised voices would be kept silent. He characterises tolerance of what he sees as repressive speech (anything not left-wing) as ‘inauthentic’. Instead, Marcuse advocated a kind of tolerance that was intolerant of right-wing political movements which he saw as inherently totalitarian (never mind the horror that was the result of the implementation of Marxism in the Soviet Union):

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.

Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”

Along with his concept of repressive tolerance, Marcuse brought to American left-wing radicals the idea that the way to bring about the revolution that would overthrow the oppressive bourgeoisie was to apply Marxist philosophy to the realm of culture, a realm more important, more fundamental to human life than politics. He no longer believed that the working class was the tool that would cause the collapse of the ‘affluent society’, and instead looked to certain marginalised communities to act as the revolutionary vanguard for what was ultimately the doctrine of equality of outcome. In this case, the students of Berkeley were like empty vessels, waiting to be filled by the seductive elixir of Marcuse’s utopian ideals. The fact that these ideals would breed an empty nihilism wasn’t apparent, and if it had been it would’ve been too late; by that point, the students were caught, hook, line and sinker.

He placed great emphasis on complete personal liberation for the mind and body and a breaking down of traditional structures and mores like the family. This was in his view a tool of oppression and an incubator for right-wing totalitarianism that was used by the oppressive political right to keep their grip on power. Marcuse, like his post-modern counterparts Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, wanted to dissolve the social structures that glued society together and provided a separate ‘realm of value’ away from the state by questioning the value of everything to the point where nothing had any inherent, objective moral value and everything was morally and culturally relative. The fact that this absolute relativism is a self-defeating proposition shows how bankrupt the whole intellectual background to the hippy movement was.

The Results

And what was the result of all this? The ‘Summer of Love’, led by those who sincerely believed that they were the ones who would drive a fundamental, societally-altering change in American social and political culture, descended into a welter of protest and violence in order to speed the revolution along. All that achieved only a sense of bitter estrangement between those who supported the cause of the various militant organisations that grew out of the hippy movement, like the Weather Underground, and the rest of society who were horrified at what was happening on the west coast and at how it spread to places like Chicago where the clashes between the protesters and police led to the deployment of the National Guard.

The bombing campaigns carried out by groups like the Weather Underground lasted from July 1969 to April 1985. As Bryan Burrough writes in his book Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence on the violence perpetrated by the radical-Left in the 1970’s, during a period of 18 months in 1971 and 1972, 2,500 bombings were reported in the US by the FBI. That was almost 5 a day.

The rhetoric of destruction that came from many of the intellectuals who inspired the New Left movement played into and fed the worst and darkest emotions in the human hearts of those not old or experienced enough to know better; resentment, bitterness, envy, anger at what many saw as the most violent political system ever created. And what does one do against something or someone who perpetrates violence against you? You destroy it. Apparently, history wasn’t the strong point of the hippies and their fellow activists, otherwise they might have proceeded with more circumspection.

And this is the point; it is better to reform society, through its culture and institutions, rather than burn it to the ground. Those who are determined to subvert or destroy society’s institutions fail to realise that the most likely outcome in destroying these institutions – that either guarantee equality under the law or have the potential to do so after reformation – is a form of oppression and domination far worse than the one they opposed in the first place.

The remedy to injustices like those that the civil rights movement campaigned against is not to blow apart the established order and impose some new, ill-thought out and ill-planned socio-political order by coercive force, as the more extreme elements of the hippy movement ended up doing, cheered on by their less militant brethren. Mao was wrong; power doesn’t come from the barrel of a gun. Stable political power and a stable and prosperous society that all can enjoy are grounded in the healthy relationships and feelings towards one another that mitigate the more destructive passions we all bear within ourselves.

These relationships, between us and God, us and our country, and between one another, provide the basis for a civic partnership that allows citizens to work together to raise up one another’s best interests. The disputes that are an inevitable part of living in a large social unit are thus easier to resolve with as little conflict as possible.

The hippy movement and the different strains of the New Left ideology that birthed along with it brought none of these things. Instead it brought a shallow self-righteousness that all too easily brought the ugly aspects of human nature to the surface; the  oppressive (and some of those attitudes were indeed oppressive and repressive) values of their parents were removed, but the vacuum was instead filled with a vacuous self-regarding yearning for participation in a revolution which many did not fully understand, let alone what the consequences of their actions might entail.

If there was a maxim that might best respond to the hippy movement and other revolutionary movements in the West, it might be something like “reformation, not revolution; cultural innovation, not cultural immolation”.

The hippy movement started out in the naive belief that love could conquer everything and that all that the West needed to do was give up on its oppressive past, socio-political structures and cultural mores and just jump into the whole caring, sharing, free love society that would release people from their humdrum existences. The fact is, none of the hippies’ forays into decadent hedonism would have been possible if not for the fact that the rest of the country, and indeed the West, still clung to the ways of doing things that meant these people could afford to do nothing and waste away in a muddy field trying to connect to the earth-spirit.

In some ways, the hippy movement was one of the most selfish cultural movements in modern human history, and when it didn’t get what it wanted, it lashed out like a spoilt child. It’s just a pity that their temper tantrums cost lives. We are still dealing with their legacy today, and because the revolution always eats itself, we now have the phenomenon of the modern university campus.

Aren’t we lucky?



Was Trump’s Warsaw Speech really that controversial?

Was Trump’s Warsaw Speech really that controversial?

Donald Trump made his first major foreign speech on Thursday, July 6, at the memorial to the Warsaw Uprising in Warsaw, Poland. He was surprisingly clear, coherent, and projected conviction and belief in the words he uttered.

I don’t agree with Trump on everything and believe that his personal conduct leaves much to be desired and does not give due respect and reverence to the office he holds. However, the reaction to this speech was disproportionate to what was actually said and reveals the ulterior motives of those making the point.

After the usual diplomatic flim-flam thanking the Polish dignitaries and saying how much he loved to be in Poland, a country placed at the centre of the European continent and witness to some of its defining historical moments, trials and tribulations, he got down to his speech. It was a long one, and the transcript is available here.

Trump however gave a realistic picture of the threats facing the Western world today. He talked about a variety of geopolitical security issues, from radical Islamist terrorism, to cybersecurity issues, to a commitment to Article 5 of NATO, to Russian meddling in the Ukraine.

Of course, because he didn’t spout the same platitudes about ‘hope and change’ and say everything would be fine if we just hold hands and sing ‘Imagine’. That led the predictable circles in the media to weep and wail about how dark it was, how lacking in hope, how deprived of optimistic visions of the future.

They proclaimed that he had regressed to his ‘American Carnage’ rhetoric seen in his inauguration speech. Sorry, the world isn’t a pretty place and there are people who would be quite happy to see the West enfeebled, in retreat and in eventual ruin. Facing up to that, with a degree of honest realism, is now beyond the pale. Maybe that’s why we’re in such bad shape.

After this, Trump really plunged into the heart of his message. And of course, the commentary classes went crazy. The New Republic and Vox.com called it an ‘alt-right’ speech based in xenophobic nativism speckled with a dusting of white grievance. (Compare Trump’s speech with that of Kennedy in 1961)

Eric Foner of Columbia University said on BBC’s Newsnight that Trump’s speech repeated the idea that Trump was espousing white nationalism and alt-right xenophobic nativism. According to him, saying that Europe and the West are based on Judeo-Christian values is basically white pride.

I’m sure those who also subscribe to Judeo-Christian values who aren’t white, like Middle Eastern Coptic Christians and Israelis are thrilled at this incredibly solipsistic and narcissistic display of privilege on the part of some well-to-do academic. 

He also implied that James Burnham, an ex-Trotskyist turned conservative writer was far-right because of the popularity of some of his works among Trump supporters. Finally, he claimed that Trump’s warnings about ‘creeping bureaucracy’ were redolent with far-right panic over the deep-state.

Maybe if he’d actually listened properly, or read the speech, Foner might have realised that Trump was warning against the weight of big government on individual liberty, so casting those who aim for smaller government as also beyond the pale. Messiah College History Professor John Fea tweeted “The West will never be broken.’ We will defend ‘civilization.’ Trump’s speech in Poland has [Steve] Bannon written all over it.“

These are just several examples of the reaction among the commentary class, who basically broke Trump’s speech down to their old stand-by of “fascism!” They don’t realise that their overuse of hyperbolic language concerning Trump’s rhetoric is simply turning people off to their white noise levels of hysteria and angst regarding some opinions they don’t agree with from a man they can’t control, who speaks his mind (often to the worse rather than better) and who doesn’t need them anymore, who doesn’t need their benediction as a member of their club.

They fail to realise that by continuing with their screeching about the impending fascist takeover, about Trump stirring up violence against journalists by tweeting a meme, about Trump supporters being the most violent (Antifa, anyone?), about the whole right of politics being beyond the pale of political and civil society, that they are driving the polarisation of America, and of the wider West. Leaders like Roosevelt and Reagan would now be beyond the pale for making very similar points. I mean Churchill even talked about defending “Christian civilisation” before the Battle of Britain. The horror.

Meanwhile, Trump explicitly said that new arrivals would be welcome and that those who would not be welcome are those who would wish to do us harm and destroy us. In other words, Islamist terrorists. That doesn’t sound tyrannical to me, that sounds like prudent control of a nation’s borders.

If and when something comes along that really is tyrannical in nature, what then? No-one will listen to them, because they will have worn out their tactics of offense, and their quivers will be empty should the situation arise where there really is a risk of something truly totalitarian in nature.

The fact that Trump’s focus on family, freedom, country and God, on the ideas brought to fruition at great sacrifice over millennia that made the West great, such as individual liberty, property rights, freedom of speech, equality before the law, all of which allow these people to have and express the opinions they do, and also the fact that that nation states have a right to be sovereign and have defined and defended borders, all of that is inherently bigoted and all that can be said is that defending these values and ideas is a sign of inherent bigotry.

The alternative is apparently to oppose these values because they are now Trump’s values, so even worse than they already were due to their growth in a part of the world that has never done anything good and has only got to where it is by oppressing everyone else. If you’re a liberal and you support Western civilisation that is built on the aforementioned values, then you’re a white nationalist. Even if you’re a person of colour.

Even if you’re a Never Trumper like Bill Kristol, who also commended the speech or George W. Bush’s speechwriter who called it one of the best presidential speeches given abroad in his lifetime.

Standing up for Western values does not make one alt-right, and to say it does only drives us further apart, cutting us further off from one another and inflaming the each side’s view of the other, risking further violence seen on the ideological extremes.

There can be serious questions about Trump himself, and rightly so. But the fact that Trump said that Poland and the West could be saved, and could go into the future with its head held high if we rediscover our roots and values, who we are, and from that draw the will to survive and prosper, isn’t and shouldn’t be controversial.

Re-posted from Bombs and Dollars

Political Peter Pans: The Millennial Generation and Fairy Tale Politics

Political Peter Pans: The Millennial Generation and Fairy Tale Politics


In the most recent edition of the Spectator, Lara Prendergast penned a column describing how the millennial generation’s political views have been moulded by the world of Harry Potter. Having seen how my generation has evolved politically, how they vote, how they approach political life in the way it intersects (sorry) with culture, the depiction of the millennials as the Potter Politicals is apt.

One only has to see how the millennials view the world to see how much they’ve been influenced by the world of Harry Potter and his fellow wizarding denizens. They view it with a similar Manichaean lens, with the world divided into comforting black and white, good and evil, nasty and nice. Ergo, Labour under Corbyn is nice and the Tories under May are nasty.

This worldview helps explain why millennials are so committed to rooting out social injustice and inequality wherever they find it, believing that they are like Dumbledore’s Army, bravely resisting and fighting back against the oppression and victimisation practised by those who don’t conform to their way of thinking, in Britain and in America.

The irony is that in their own way, the millennials have become as intolerant of dissident voices and opinions as those they view as bigoted; Theresa May is now viewed as Dolores Umbrage by many. But then again, if we are to use the Potterverse as a metaphor for real life, Umbrage would better describe the campus censors, who go around college campuses castigating and policing those who hold different opinions to themselves and thereby creating an environment that is no longer conducive to free thought and enquiry, and which actively seeks to kill it off if it deviates from the accepted Left-wing narrative due to words now being elevated to the same level as actions; words are now violence, hence unsafe, hence the need for ideological safe spaces.

I suspect that J.K. Rowling wouldn’t be happy to hear of her creation being co-opted by someone who doesn’t exactly share her worldview or the worldview she portrayed in her books. Another example of this is given by anti-Islamist extremist campaigner Maajid Nawaz. He calls the unwillingness to name the ideology of Islamist extremism due to fear of giving offence the “Voldemort Effect” because Islamism becomes the ideology that must not be named due to the fact that it admits that Jihadi terrorism has something to do with Islam. Not naming the ideology only increases the levels of hysteria around it, as it did in the books regarding Voldemort.

Apparently, when Nawaz told Rowling of his use of one of her literary devices in passing she wasn’t overly pleased. One suspects that’s because she’s in the “nothing to do with Islam” crowd, and is uncomfortable with her creation that displays an extremely fixed view of what good and evil is being used in this way, which suggests she falls into the trap, as Nick Cohen puts its, of being unable to comprehend that even brown-skinned people can behave in fascistic ways rather than always being the victims.

Given her own political views, it is hard not to see the bad guys in Harry Potter as magical right-wing and conservative caricatures, with all the emphasis on blood (racial) purity, purging the Muggles (unclean, not of the race), excessive order and hierarchy (tools of oppression designed). It’s a neat trick and serves only to reinforce the “us and them” narrative between those on the political Left and Right.

The real problem with how Harry Potter has influenced the political worldview of my generation is that it displays a lack of realism in how they view reality. Everything is black and white, good and evil, and can be solved by make-believe, wishful thinking and magical actions. The faith (and it is almost a sort of religious faith) placed in Jeremy Corbyn (and Bernie Sanders), now seen as some sort of Dumbledore, to deliver on his promises to bring about fairness and equality rests on the naive belief that socialism, a morally and economically bankrupt ideology, works or is even a good idea. The fact that socialism is tied with Nazism for the most murderous ideology in the history of mankind seems to have passed many millennials by.

This faith in magical thinking, displayed by the application of the Potterverse to real world politics, and the belief in the power of bankrupt ideologies to act as a sort of redemptive moral force together with a government that acts like a replacement parent, arguably displays the real political immaturity of these political Peter Pans. Their reliance on fairy tale political beliefs shows that they haven’t come to terms with the fact that life, both socially and politically, involves trade-offs between bad and less bad options. There is never a solution that will make all the problems vanish in a puff of smoke, and some people will always be disappointed.

The goal of politics should be instead to provide a basis that allows the full flowering of the individual as a sacrosanct being of inherent value, and whose prerogative in life it is to pursue life, liberty and happiness to the best of their ability. And yet this worldview does not mean that we should view society as made up of atomised economic widgets. Community, a sense of belonging and deep-seated love and affection, of oikophilia as Roger Scruton puts it, for those around you, whether it be your family, neighbours, village, town, city or nation, is also vital.

However, there is a difference between communitarianism and collectivism. Communitarianism revolves around a degree of freedom of association and choice, whereas collectivism, as instantiated in the most recent wave of Left-wing group identity politics, removes this freedom to choose. In collectivist identity politics, everyone is divided up by their basic biological, racial or sexual characteristics, and must associate and behave accordingly with a pre-defined group. Being part of a community means that while you are part of a bigger whole, there is room for manoeuvre in how you conduct your life; in a collectivist identity group, there is no room and everyone must behave in accordance with their in-group.

The Potterverse has, I would argue, helped feed into the mentality that has given rise to the “us and them” phenomenon present in Left-wing identitarianism that is rampant on campuses today, and which punishes those who stray from the narrative. It has further helped divide people by playing into the resistance narrative currently on display in America, and to a lesser extent in Britain. It has also fostered and played into an unrealistic view of the world, where problems can be solved by magical thinking and sweeping programmes designed to end inequality and bring fairness. The fact that the policies millennials favour will bring neither and will only serve to grow inequality and unfairness doesn’t seem to be on their radar.

The political Peter Pans of the millennial generation need to leave behind their fantasies about life and politics and the warm embrace of the comforting world of childish dreams. They need to abandon their longing for magical solutions to their problems, and they need to start thinking about ways in which they can find solutions to their own issues. If they cannot sort their own lives out, maybe they should have the humility that comes with maturity to realise that they’re not prepared to sort the rest of the world out, either.


Christianity and the Imperative of Freedom of Speech

Christianity and the Imperative of Freedom of Speech

The most fundamental freedom that Christianity guarantees and demands as an absolute necessity for the good of us as human beings created in God’s image is freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech as an almost spiritual necessity in order to find truth and draw order out of chaos is something that’s integral to Christian doctrine. This is demonstrated in John 1:1, which begins with ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning’. This is an extremely important idea; the idea that God brought the world into existence through speech, by using his voice to shape the potentiality in chaos and to draw out an ordered world through the use of speech. 

Further on there is the passage ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth’. This is where Christianity and its Greek philosophical predecessor intertwine in the idea of the Logos. In Greek, logos means, the logic behind and argument, used to engage in discussion to formulate ideas, test theories and see how your preconceptions stand up under scrutiny, to see whether they have validity or need to be modified or discarded. It’s a form of learning and growth through conversation or dialogue, the word whose root if logos.

In the Christian sense, this passage in John established in the eyes of the Church and set out in the Chalcedonian Creed, Jesus as equal to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. This means that the Christian belief system places Jesus as a physical manifestation of the Word, of God speaking the universe into the existence out of the chaotic potentiality of nothing; they’re the same thing. The idea behind this, as Jordan Peterson argues, is that if a person embodies the immortal soul or Word of God properly then they’re the thing that draws order out of chaos here on earth, they’re the dividing line that sits on the border between order and chaos. This is what the Bible arguably portrays Jesus as; the same thing as that which spoke the universe into existence; the beginning of being.

How did Jesus embody the immortal soul of the Word of God and God the Word? He embodied it through articulated truth. Jesus was the salvation of mankind, and he brought this salvation through truth, the best defence against the suffering inherent in life. He was the truth, articulated through speech, used to save us from the suffering of our sinful existence.

Think about his encounter with Pontius Pilate. Jesus said in John 18, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me”. Pilate then retorts “What is truth?” The implication of this emphasis on the articulation truth obtained through speech is that speech is necessary for us to try and live as truthful lives as we can. We cannot know if it will succeed or even be sure what will happen, but we will only find out once we try. It requires Kirkegaard’s leap of faith. Articulated truth through speech is the only defence against suffering we have in this life, and as we were created in God’s likeness, it is our duty to tell the truth as much as is in our power. Lies on the other hand only serve to unleash suffering on the world.

In this way, restrictions on freedom of speech, beyond those prohibiting direct calls to violence, are a sin against consciousness itself. It is only through free thought and truthful speech that we can guard against the chaos that lies bring with them. If you cannot say what you think and mean what you say in a dialogue, then your path to the truth is cut, and lies become more easily spread in the void that this restriction on articulated truth leaves behind. We may not know what would happen if enough of us told as much of the truth as we knew as much of the time as we could, but we do know what happened when the truth was replaced by lies.

Lies can be the most destructive thing in the world. There is no other way of saying it. One need only look at the bloody history of the 20th century, with its procession of totalitarian dictatorships that relied on lies to attain and keep power realise this. This was particularly true in Naxi Germany and in Soviet Russia, where lies opened the door to the darkness of resentment, envy, jealousy and bitterness in every human heart, allowing the leaders to pursue their utopian dreams that rapidly became charnel-house nightmares.

In Soviet Russia, the Soviet intellectuals went round the provincial towns and villages, spreading the lie among the most resentful and bitterest peasants that their plight was really due to their oppression at the hands of their Kulak employers, who were really just peasants able to afford a brick house, maybe a cow and possible an employee or two. The Soviets told the people that if they pointed out who the Kulaks were and surrounded their homes and businesses, then the Soviet authorities would have these oppressors shipped off to Siberia. Meanwhile, the food supplies would be collectively owned in a central supply so that everyone would be equally fed. As a result of this mass imprisonment of the Kulaks and the executions of those who kept their food and were thus enemies of ‘the people’, 6 million Ukrainians starved to death, along with another 30-50 million Russians who died of starvation and from the purges.

In the end, the entire population became complicit in the lie that none of this had anything to do with them, that is wasn’t their responsibility, that they hadn’t given in to their base desires and given their friends or neighbours away to the authorities, who of course portrayed themselves as the guardians of ‘the people’, and as the moral authority that would guide ‘the people’ on the path to their Communist heaven. This is what lies that loose the darkest emotions in the human heart can achieve: 30-50 million people dead between 1920-1959, with people so hungry that signs were put up reminding parents it was wrong to eat their children. The revolution literally ended up eating its children, because of lies. By the time enough people realised what had happened, it was too late, and their complicity in the lies that led to the horrors of Stalin’s Russia had become the complicity in the silence that enabled it to maintain power.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said that the line between good and evil runs down every human heart. Lies, to each other and to oneself, allow evil to snuff out the good side; one must always be on the watch for this, as it is hard to keep the two sides in balance and very easy for evil to snuff out the good without eternal vigilance.

As with Communist Russia, so with Nazi Germany. Hitler and his fellow Fascists used the same formula of lies. The only difference was in application. This time, it wasn’t the Kulaks that were the victims of the lies about being the oppressors. This time, it was the Jews who were the oppressors of the German Volk. Instead of the lie of oppression occupying the realm of class structure, it occupied the realm of racial hierarchy.

The German people and many throughout Europe bought wholeheartedly into this lie because, as in Russia, it meant they could avoid looking within themselves to see where the faults in their own character lay and how these might have contributed to their situation. It was much easier to believe the lies of the Nazis and put all their failings, brought together with that of their fellow countrymen under the collective ideology of Fascism, on others who if purged would then lead to the purging of their collective faults. This lie also extended to Gypsies, homosexuals, dissidents and disabled people. 6 million Jews would die, along with 5 million others. 300,000 disabled people were among their number, with horrific experiments performed on them as a result of their abnormality. All because of a lie.

In totalitarian dictatorships, authoritarian leaders have to purge the bacterium of dissidents and dissenting thought from the body of ‘the people’ because these dissidents will disrupt with the virus of truth the lie that everyone else believes in. Only if everyone believes the lie that the authoritarians peddle will enough people willingly follow their leaders down the road to utopia.

The need for indoctrination and propaganda is essential to stamp out individual thought by leading people to willingly open the door in their heart that their resentment, envy, jealousy and bitterness is always threatening to slam wide, otherwise their minds would receive dissenting ideas that could contradict the lie that the authoritarians spread and many people will readily accept. That is why totalitarian regimes, especially Communism, always lead to genocide; more people always have to be killed to keep the body of the people pure to usher in the utopian date with history.

The use of speech as a means to articulate truth in order to mitigate the suffering inherent in life was instantiated in the Bible through the figure of the Logos, the human figure of Christ, who was the embodiment of the Word, the use of articulated truth to pull order out of chaos.

Freedom of speech is thus a necessity, and any attempt to restrict it beyond reasonable limitations against incitement to violence is a sin against consciousness. It is a sin because without the ability to freely articulate the truth through speech and dialogue in order to mitigate suffering and the resentment that spring from suffering, lies readily take the place of truth and feed on that resentment.

And we know where that leads.





On Disability and Individualism

On Disability and Individualism

Disclaimer: I do not claim to speak for every physically disabled person. I do not “represent” the disabled community. This is my opinion, which I think may fall on sympathetic ears within the disabled community. Nor, in the arguments laid out below do I apply it to every able bodied person and their view of disability and disabled people.


Some time ago I read Bret Easton Ellis’s long but insightful “In the Reign of the Gay Magical Elves” where he argues that the attitude shown by the identitarian Left towards gay men like himself is arguably both condescending and infantilizing, with many advocacy groups reinforcing this by punishing those who stray off the ideological reservation.

I’m not gay so I can’t totally relate to everything Ellis describes in his piece. However, the sense that a body of organisations and affiliated notables who supposedly have my best interests at heart, all the while proclaiming the acceptable narrative of what a disabled person is and what they should do, be, say and think – and the fact that I’m against this collectivisation – is something I do have in common with Ellis.

In conjunction with this, the Paralympics in Rio also revealed the tendency to collectivise disabled people into a monolithic bloc, which doesn’t actually help the individuals within that group of “disabled people”. Now, I support the idea of the Paralympics and think it’s good that disabled people get to compete in a sport at the highest level they can, in other words, they are given equality of opportunity.

Yes, it’s right and good that these people, who have been given a bad hand in the game of life whether through birth or fate, should be celebrated for their amazing achievements against odds that normal athletes don’t have to deal with. However, I’m also ambivalent about what the Paralympics represent to some members of the general public. It is to be hoped that large numbers of those who watched the Paralympics did because they wanted to see high-level athleticism, with the disabilities of the participants an incidental fact. And yet I fear that it could also be argued that watching the Paralympics and showing support for the athletes is a way for some able people to salve their consciences about their attitudes to disability, the fact that perhaps they only notice the UK is full of disabled people every four years. What better way to do this than to watch a load of “brave” athletes (Channel 4’s “superhumans”) breaking boundaries on the track, in the pool or on the water?

Sometimes it feels as though events like the Paralympic Games are an excuse for some “normal” people to not only remember that disabled people exist without feeling guilty for their previous lack of acknowledgement of disabled people as individuals, but to take it as an opportunity to celebrate the sanctity of the Sainted Super Disabled, to be masochistically reminded only of “Tolerance” and to “Feel Good About Ourselves” when viewing these disabled athletes as symbols for all disabled people, rather than viewing each one based on his or her individual character and merits. This attitude also pertains to the treatment of disabled people as endowed with inborn virtue for merely existing as disabled people.

I mean, God help the disabled man of woman who doesn’t want to conform to this idealised collectivist idea some people have of what being disabled means. What about those who don’t want to be representatives of the disabled class? Who don’t want to teach with their supposed inborn moral clarity and insight? Who don’t feel like an inherently moral authority before which all able bodied people must prostrate themselves in supplication, the altar upon which they can exorcise their guilt for being who they are and dissociate themselves from who they were in relation to their attitude towards disability?

I hate to break it to you, but suffering oppression, adversity or misfortune in life, whether being born disabled or becoming so later in life, for example, does not make you inherently noble, just as being in poverty doesn’t imbue you with goodness. Your base characteristics do not decide your moral status; it’s what you do with that, how you choose to act because or in spite of your apparent limitations, how you bear the suffering of existence, that really defines your moral character.

In my opinion, those who sanctify disabled people (again, it is hoped that this is a minority) by portraying them as more inherently good, noble and dignified than able-bodied people do so because they arguably use the disabled person’s physical deformity as a psychological expression of their own emotional and spiritual deformities and deficiencies. By having this exterior deformity, disabled people are arguably assumed to be almost holy in their spiritual, mental and emotional purity. They are therefore worthy at the same time, of veneration, and of exploitation under the guise of support for the redemption of the able-bodied person’s soul.

I would argue that this is why disabled people are held up as paragons of virtue: some able people need us to fit this image so they can find redemption for their own deficiencies which they see represented in physical form by our disabilities. It’s a classic case of psychological projection that reduces disabled people to cyphers for some able peoples’ personal characterological deficiencies, and the treatment of disabled people as inherently virtuous allows the able bodied person to dissociate from past and present character flaws.

This might explain the reaction the depiction of a less than perfect disabled individual in the entertainment sphere in recent years, in the character of Will Traynor in the smash-hit book and movie Me Before You, about a man who’s run over and paralysed, and ends with him choosing to commit suicide at a Dignitas type clinic in Switzerland. Now, I don’t agree with the ending but thought it was an interesting take on a disabled character that opened up the possibility for dialogue around extremely emotive and complex questions like the issue of quality of life, and how much agency a disabled person can have.

But of course, because the film didn’t depict Will as some sort of morally superior being, it went off the ideological reservation for what is an acceptable depiction of disability, with many disability rights campaigners and other activists panning it for its nihilistic take on living with a disability. In other words, as soon as a story came along that depicted a disabled person as a flawed individual, like the rest of us, the disabled community was up in arms about it not being perfect and upbeat enough.

Well, I would argue that actually both the book and the film were a refreshing change to the usual view of disabled people as an almost holy symbol that serves to save some able peoples’ sense of guilt. This was a portrayal of a disabled individual’s life that didn’t shy away from the tougher aspects of what it entailed and didn’t pull any punches over what it actually meant.

The character of Will Traynor himself, disability aside, is also interesting. To start with, he was a horrible, self-centred, egocentric, arrogant, surly, rude, ungrateful and sometimes malicious man. Further from the Sainted Super Disabled, one could not get.

As such, I found it refreshing to see a disabled man who behaved more like many people might if they were in the same situation, which is not as well as they might hope because none of us is inherently good.

Did the campaigners and activists not see that this film might actually bring people closer together through the potential for dialogue? Did they not see that there was a possibility that a more realistic view of a messy flawed, individual who happened to be disabled might mean some members of the general public who went to see the film might leave with a more realistic impression of how disabled people might actually behave, rather than continuing on with their cozy fantasy of the Sainted Super Disabled? It does not appear so.

The reaction to this film and the issues around the Paralympics I discussed earlier will never be entirely mitigated. In the end, the best thing that everyone can do is to treat each disabled person as an individual. Acting and being treated like an individual is more attractive to me than being a member of a collective identity that is the be-all and end-all of my existence, from which there is no escape.

This is why I am a conservative; the values of individual liberty and freedom that conservatism enshrines as its core principles are the only way that people as thinking individuals can achieve their full potential. As Shelby Steele says, “Only human initiative is transformative, and it is an eternal arrogance of the Left to assume that government can somehow engineer or inspire or manipulate transformation. You cannot help people who have not already taken initiative—meaning total responsibility for their future. And it takes very little to help those who have actually taken such responsibility.”

Incidentally, this is also why I am a supporter of free speech, and despite the identitarians now running riot in our universities; my body is in chains. I can only experience freedom using my mind. To limit my speech, as the identitarians do on our campuses, strips me of my only recourse to freedom; not only is my body in chains but so too, in their world, is my mind.

The response to disability, like all other challenges that life can throw at you, is to show the initiative needed to take up the freedom that we enjoy in the West in any small way you can, in spite of the challenges being disabled places before you. The new reality of this freedom can be disconcerting and can leave one feeling resentful at the weight of the burden that freedom places on your shoulders; the requirement of freedom that you show greater responsibility, discipline and sacrifice. In the end, a truly meaningful life is only possible if you have the freedom to pursue that life as you see fit in accordance with the law.

In the end, this shows greater respect for disabled people as individuals. I find conservatism, more than the politics of today’s Left, offers the simple fairness of true freedom in which both individual success and failure are always possible, a fairness grounded in an ideal of unbiased level-headed interaction between people. This does not mean that I think there is no place for some sort of safety net for disabled people, or that there are not huge challenges that disabled people face every day, both in dealing with their condition and in facing the many societal challenges that still face them. But it is only in this kind of fairness there is respect for disabled people as individuals who could be competitive with others once any residual discrimination is removed and they are allowed to compete and given the tools they need to perform to their full potential, taking into account any limitations they may have.

Indeed, I would argue that this course of action is the only route to disabled people feeling some sense of having transcended their often painful physical reality. This is the same for everyone, but for those of us whose physical existence is chained by disability, this is of the utmost importance.

To conclude, I’ll leave off with another quote from Shelby Steele: “only the impartiality of true freedom—uncontaminated by group preferences and governmental paternalism—[will] provide exactly the right incentives to do precisely this”.

The Camp of the Saints: Bigoted Diatribe Used to Torpedo Serious Discussion about Immigration

The Camp of the Saints: Bigoted Diatribe Used to Torpedo Serious Discussion about Immigration

The book The Camp of the Saints was written by Jean Raspail and published in 1975. It’s a particularly foul piece of book-length bigoted polemic soaked in purple language, making it a far from pleasant read if you’re not part of the alt-right.

The basic plot is that Europe has been hollowed out by its loss of faith, loss of civilizational will and loss of white pride while being ashamed of its racist and genocidal past. Then 1 million Indians turn up in a sea going version of Genghis Khan’s horde and proceed to conquer the continent (i.e. France because we all know France represents Europe) while raping every white woman in sight and eating as much shit as they can, all the while grubbing in the dirt like animals.

Here are some quotes.

“The old professor understood. That scorn of a people for other races, the knowledge that one’s own is best, the triumphant joy at feeling oneself to be part of humanity’s finest — none of that had ever filled these [white] youngsters’ brains, or at least so little that the monstrous cancer [of treating people with a different skin colour as individuals] implanted in the Western conscience had quashed it in no time at all.”

“Retaliation took many forms. … A hundred nice French girls, teaching school in Algeria, were suddenly hauled into the hospital and spread on the stirrups to be plumbed and explored by a squad of medical student commandos, whipped up to a frenzy. Two of them died as a result…”

“But in time, very slowly, the flesh [aboard the ships] began to seethe. … Perhaps it was the heat… . Most of all, the natural drive of a people who never found sex to be sin. … [E]verywhere, a mass of hands and mouths, of phalluses and rumps. … Young boys, passed from hand to hand. Young girls, barely ripe … waking to the silent play of eager lips. … Men with women, men with men, women with women, men with children… . And so, in a welter of dung and debauch — and hope as well — the Last Chance Armada pushed on toward the West.”

“Sure ‘nough boss,” one red-spattered black said, “we can sure ‘nough do one more at least…” The white man felt no more pain than any of the other pigs on the line. Stunned, hoisted, slaughtered. … [Hung from a hook, the murdered boss’ body] caused … no special disgust [among the black workers]. They had seen such things before, after all. At market, in the Congo.”

“Lydie … died in Nice, in a whorehouse for Hindus… . At the time, each refugee quarter had its stock of white women, all free for the taking. (One of the new regime’s laws, in fact. In order to “demythify” white women, as they put it.) … [In the end, Lydie, along with other white female sex slaves, is confined by the “Hindus” to their] “White Female Practice and Experimentation Center.”

“[F]irst to land were the monsters, the grotesque little beggars from the streets of Calcutta. As they groveled through the wet sand like a pack of basset hounds, or a herd of clumsy seals exploring an unfamiliar shore, with their snorts and grunts of joy, they looked like an army of little green men from some remote planet. … Yes, the country [France] would suit them fine. No question.”

Many people on the Far-Right/Alt-Right love this book and use it as an allegory for what has been happening in Europe since the upsurge in migrant flows in 2015 (these flows have been coming for years, 2015 was just a peak). They see Europe’s identity – and by extension the whole West’s – as tied to the superior characteristics of the white race, which is now under threat of being swallowed up by a brown skinned tide of dirty sub-humanity who are invading the white ancestral homelands to fill in the spaces left by Europe’s declining birth rates, hammering the final nail in the white coffin by screwing every white girl they can find to produce lots of mixed race children.

The problem with this view is that not only is it undoubtedly xenophobic, nihilistic and over-simplified, it actually harms the debate on immigration, multiculturalism and integration that we in Britain and Europe need to have.

First of all, the book and its adherents tie race and culture together completely, never allowing for any nuance and leaving no room for facts to get in the way.

Some of these facts include the fact that not all white people are heroic individuals endowed with god-like mental and physical abilities. Who knew? Neither are all British or European people of an ethnic minority background all hate filled barbarians who refuse to integrate, who instead want to take the white man’s birthright by force if necessary, in the meantime leeching off the welfare state, rioting or abusing white people. Really? I would never have guessed.

For example, Nigerian immigrants to the USA do better economically than both black and white Americans. What happened to the barbarity and lack of civilised behaviour that all black people are supposed to have? Why aren’t they turning America into a 3rd world hell-hole? Aren’t they all meant to perform sacrifices or something?

Let’s take another example, this time from the UK. Many Indian immigrants to the UK actually do better economically not only than the white British population, but also many other immigrant populations. Same with East Asian immigrants, and now also black Britons in school, who do better than white working class boys. What happened to the inherent superiority of the white people? What happened to the supposed moral turpitude and deviancy of the Indians portrayed in the novel? Weren’t they supposed to take over Britain? Why did they integrate and become upstanding members of our communities? Weren’t they meant to destroy all that?

Of course, there are also examples of immigrants from successful groups that don’t do so well and cause problems for society. Just like with most other groups. Again, who would’ve thought?

It seems to me that what is most important is culture, not race. The idea that people of a different skin colour will never fit into British or American life and never hold their values because their skin colour is a clue to their intellectual, moral and behavioural deficiency is just plain wrong, intellectually and morally.

The problem that this book represents, and the rhetoric from like minded people who hold similar views on race and immigration, is that it and the rhetoric that stems from these views are used as a club by the regressive Left to tar anyone who has questions about immigration as it currently stands in Britain and Europe today.

Even today, to question the numbers of people from different cultures to our own moving to Europe or the UK is still seen as a sign of secret bigotry that says you don’t want a lot of brown skinned people moving into your country because they’re brown. For a few this may be true, but for most people, the concern is not necessarily the colour of immigration itself but the speed and scale. Indeed, many immigrants to the UK also say how concerned they are with the speed and scale of the influx. Human societies are bound together through strong feelings towards the Oikos, or your local community, starting at the level of the family, moving up to the tribe, then the region, then the nation, which is the largest group size we as people can still feel some level of kinship and loyalty to.

These feelings of preference for people like you, in terms of values and ideas and beliefs, is built into us on an evolutionary basis, and should not be discounted lightly. Of course, this idea directly flies in the face of the “blank slate” theory on human nature popular among the Left, that states that everything about human behaviour is learned rather than evolved, and thus there is no human nature. Steven Pinker destroyed this idea in the book The Blank Slate, but still, it persists.

The fact is that the nation-state is the largest social entity to have existed that successfully binds people together through the bonds of mutual attachment, understanding and cooperation while facilitating their existence and growth as sacrosanct individuals. These bonds, even at the level of family, clan or tribe, are an extremely fragile ecosystem that binds us together and gives us a sense of belonging. If something drastic happens to disrupt this, then everyone feels like the ground is shaking beneath their feet and that the world is tipping over into the chaos unknown. This is the major downside to globalisation and the increased immigration that accompanies it.

This is the biggest problem with the speed and scale of immigration that Europe and Britain have experienced over the last 20 or so years. It has happened so fast and on such a scale that a lot of people (including immigrants themselves) haven’t had time to completely come to terms with how the social dynamic of the nation-state, their largest conception of what community is, has changed, and as such they feel like everything’s shaking around them. This is arguably why you’re seeing the regrettable and potentially worrying rise in nationalism across Europe, because at one level it is a reaction against the problems that stem from the amorphous entity of the EU which many people feel little to no attachment to, and at another level it is a reaction against the “global community”, an idea so vast and amorphous in scope that most people cannot truly comprehend it and feel no attachment to it whatsoever.

Unfortunately, in reaction to the sense of chaos that globalisation brings, nationalism leads to a lack, ultimately, of intellectual diversity through homogeneity, thus sacrificing any dynamism and opportunities to learn from those different from you. A totally nationalist state is a dead entity; it never evolves or progresses. Globalisation and Nationalism are both sides of the same coin; each brings their own problems, but the trick is not to fall into the trap of excess chaos (total globalisation) or excess order (total nationalism). Both are catastrophic paths to follow.

Multiculturalism is arguably part of this path towards chaos. Along with the questions about the size and scale of inflows of immigration that result from the increased globalisation of our world, there are serious questions about the policies and attitudes towards multiculturalism as it has been practised since its height in the 1990’s. As we have seen, it has encouraged ethnic or religious minority groups to cluster in their own cultural enclaves, having little contact with the outside world and with people of different worldviews and beliefs, leading to a country where different communities lead parallel lives. This is no good for anyone, as it breaks the bonds that hold a nation together as the people inhabiting its borders revert to a form of tribalism, a tribalism originally from good intentions and enforced by political correctness.

Part of the failure of the liberal-international elites that have been in power over the last 25 years in many Western nations like Britain is their failure to fully articulate what our values are. To my mind, these include property rights, the division between Church and State, the rule of the common law before which everyone is equal, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom from overt governmental imposition in our lives. If our leaders articulated this and created an atmosphere that allowed civil society to do the same, they would give the new incomers something to join and assimilate to, which would be better for everyone, immigrant and non-immigrant alike.

In the case of those who come to our countries and don’t wish to assimilate at all while holding on to their extremely culturally regressive attitudes, our elites have failed not only to articulate the values that we used to take for granted but to be firm in defending those values in the face of those who view them with scorn, distrust and outright hostility, as recent surveys showing large value discrepancies between a proportion of the British Muslim community and the rest of the country demonstrate. The problem is that many of our elites no longer take the values that grew with Western civilisation seriously anymore, instead viewing them as relics of a past based on oppression and exclusion, and view the propagation of these values as a form of racism in itself, as it is a form of cultural imperialism. Instead, our elites want to govern based on moral compulsion under the law backed up in civil society by fear of seeming culturally insensitive. The fact that this displays a shockingly condescending view of non-white British and European people is seldom mentioned.

The approach to multiculturalism that we’ve seen in the West these last 25 years has led to a breakdown in assimilation, as it has been viewed as racist to insist that some elements of some cultures do not fit our Western way of life. One cultural practice that springs to mind and which is seldom talked about let alone condemned is female genital mutilation. After all, if hacking off a girl’s clitoris is “their” culture who are we rich, cultured, sophisticated white people to say otherwise? Never mind the pain and suffering it causes to those who go through it, it’s their culture so we can’t interfere. This abdication of responsibility is disgusting because it is basically a statement of the belief that those with brown skin aren’t able to enjoy the benefits of our culture because that is not their culture and to protect them with the benefits of our culture would be neo-colonialist. This is the horrifying bigotry of low expectations.

These questions have only become more pressing in the last couple of years since the sharp uptick in migrant flows entering Europe from Africa and the Middle East in the summer of 2015. The scale and speed of the migrant flows were so large and fast that no country that has taken in significant numbers of migrants and refugees has been successful in integrating them. Germany suffered mass sex attacks in Cologne over New Year’s 2016 and continues to see social problems to the present day, as does Sweden which has seen the number of rapes and violent crimes go through the roof, with unrest in migrant areas of the big cities continuing to this day. Meanwhile, Paris suffered a terror attack in November 2015, where one of the perpetrators had come into Europe on a fake passport specifically to carry out the attack, has suffered more terror attacks since and still remains in a state of emergency.

The societal problems that we have seen over the last year or so have been bubbling underneath the surface for a long time now, and the migrant crisis was just the catalyst that brought them to the surface. Recent events have shown that our leaders and elites have failed in pursuing their policies of multiculturalism in response to mass immigration. They still refuse to see the problems that have come from their unwillingness to look the problems of cultural segregation in the face and deal with them honestly, instead preferring to label anyone who raises doubts or questions the wisdom of their actions as racist, xenophobic and bigoted.

The Camp of the Saints was written by a racist who saw culture and skin colour as inextricably linked. If our leaders don’t want the people of Europe to start looking for answers to their legitimate questions by looking to the fringes of politics where the answers to these issues range from unsavoury to borderline or downright fascist, then they need to wake up.

If they don’t want political leaders who embody the spirit of The Camp of the Saints then they must confront the issues that they have avoided for too long. For the good of everyone, both indigenous European and immigrant. Otherwise, because of multiculturalism and the growth in identity politics on the Left and Right, we are on the road to tribal violence based along ethnic, cultural and religious lines. And it will be horrific for everyone, no matter their race, religion of culture.