Identity Politics (IP) is a product of Postmodernism, the corrupted thinking that gave us Political Correctness (PC). This operates by denying an opponent the language needed to present a case, and thus preventing that person from doing so. It is intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt, because it is directly contradictory to free speech. You cannot speak freely if the language you must use has been censored so that you cannot express yourself. However, the Regressive Postmodernist Left has never been very keen on free speech. It prefers that people toe the party line.
IP ‘identifies’ a hierarchy in society, which it defines as ‘relative privilege’. It suggests that there is such a thing as ‘the patriarchy’, which apportions ‘privilege’ to individuals according to their identities — white men, black women, and so on. It proposes to counter this by establishing a hierarchy based on ‘oppression’. It says that those who are awarded most patriarchal privilege should not be allowed to speak about matters that affect the less privileged. This applies even if the person speaking is a recognised expert quoting the best science.
The name of King Jan III Sobieski of Poland is one that every European should know and speak with pride.
In September 1683, the city of Vienna was near to collapse. For months, it had been under siege by the Islamic hordes of the Islamic Ottoman army. Every day now, starvation and surrender grew closer. The city had long since run out of horses and pets to eat and even rats were few and far between now.
Worse, the Viennese knew that other Europeans had been the instruments of their doom. Swiss Calvinists had begged the Turks to attack, so that they could sweep away Catholicism. It beggars belief that Christians could call down the hounds of Islamic hell on their fellow Europeans, but that they had, hoping, no doubt, to negotiate some deal, a reward for their treachery, that might spare them the scimitar or a lifetime of submission to the foul creed of Islam.
The city’s defenders, listening in its basements, could hear the scrape-scrap of pick and shovel as the enemy’s sappers undermined them. Soon they would plant another huge mine and blow up a section of the city’s curtain wall, breaching it and allowing the enemy in. Nobody in Vienna was under any illusion as to what would happen then: the men would be tortured and killed or enslaved, the women would be raped and killed or enslaved and the children slaughtered. The behaviour of triumphant Islamic armies was well known.
Today, the Twelfth of September, was the last. The government of the city knew it. The people knew it and worse, the enemy knew it. They were ready: their final attack was to come on the twelfth of the month. There was nothing left. Vienna would fall. Without a miracle, Vienna must fall, and with it, Europe.
The recent exchange between Hollywood star Ben Affleck and writer Sam Harris on Bill Maher’s popular show has highlighted the fundamental problem of the ‘liberal left’. The crux of the argument rested on Affleck’s Politically Correct presumption that it is never acceptable to criticise another culture. This view holds that all cultures are equally valid and that persons inside the dominant culture – in this case a Post-Renaissance, post-Christian European one – may never criticise any aspect of another culture, which in this case was Islam.
Now the rights and wrongs of the argument are clear to anyone who watches the exchange, which is here: (http://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60) and I advise readers to do this. They will see that Harris maintained a reserved and non-confrontational position throughout, whereas Affleck behaved like a hectoring bully.
Affleck, while wrong, was only iterating the underlying viewpoint of the culture he espouses, which he calls ‘liberal’.
Last night, a group of murderers ploughed a white panel van into crowds of people on London Bridge in England. They then jumped out of the van and began stabbing people. This was a terror attack. Seven innocent victims died before the attackers were shot to death by armed police. At least 48 were injured.
‘Assailants drove a van into pedestrians at high speed on London Bridge on Saturday night before stabbing revellers on nearby streets, killing at least seven people and wounding dozens in what police suspect was a terrorist attack. (Reuters).’
There is no enemy but Islam and until we name it, we will not be safe from it.
This morning, the wires are alive with news of a terrorist bombing in Manchester, UK. Over twenty killed, scores injured. Many were children; they had just attended a concert by American singer Ariana Grande, who is popular in the youth market. But who on earth could have done it? Who can have brought this Calvary to Manchester?
In the week after yet another terrorist attack perpetrated by a Muslim in the United Kingdom, and the tragic and pointless deaths of innocent bystanders that this savagery caused, it is worth looking again at the late Sir Enoch Powell’s notorious ‘rivers of blood’ speech.
Powell was vilified for decades for his candour and honesty, but who could read that speech today and not, while condemning some of the language, see how he accurately predicted what has happened?
The conflict Powell feared has but just begun. All over Europe, our culture and its values are under attack. The attackers are Muslims and they act in the name of Islam.
We have absolutely no hope whatsoever of preventing the climatic catastrophe that is coming. Even were we to stabilise greenhouse gas production at today’s levels, the disaster would still happen. Were we to take them back to the levels of a hundred years ago – impossible anyway— it would still make no difference.
All that we might gain is a decade or two more time. However, we can decide whether our Enlightened Culture will survive, to help us rebuild, or be destroyed. But we must act quickly, for time is running out and we have given the enemy too much already.
Sweden is proud, today, to say that it has a woman president and a largely female Cabinet. This is lauded by feminists the world over. Yet Sweden is unable to provide the basic level of protection that its own citizens require. And those who suffer most are women, who are the victims of rape jihad at the hands of Muslim immigrants.
The Duty of State
The primary duty of a State is the protection of its people. This is the social contract we make: we consent to be governed in return for protection. If we require to look after our own security, why should we pay a State to do it? Why not buy a pistol or a shotgun and learn how to use it? Why not form militias or vigilante groups and defend ourselves? If it’s defend yourself or be raped or murdered, what right does the State have to demand taxes, or hobedience to its laws? The point of having a State at all is to avoid anarchy; but that is precisely the result, when it cannot protect its citizens. Continue reading “Sweden: How feminist emasculation broke a State”
We have no time left to deliberate, now. Appeasement has failed, just as it did in 1939. The enemy is among us. He is far more cruel and vicious than Adolf Hitler and more totalitarian than the Nazis. He uses any weapon he can to kill us, while we have allowed our governments to take from us our own, with which we might, perhaps, have defended ourselves. His name is Islam and he has declared war.
Our cultural values of freedom and toleration we must now put aside, because our continent is sick. The dream of a free, peaceful Europe that we have been building for seven decades is dead. We must, now, fight to preserve what is left, the essential core of our cultural values. To do that we must accept that many of our privileges, afforded by the system we live under, must be suspended. We are at war and that is one consequence.