The rise of totalitarianism, manifest in its multiple forms, is at the expense of democratic Parliamentary process.The dichotomy between Remain and Leave characterises the two opposites now, not the good natured partisan politics of Labour or Conservative. It tends to transcend Party allegiance. Parliamentary democracy thus functions poorly.
The culture wars have characterised the conflict since the 70s. But the vacuum of dogmatism left by such polarisation has also been exacerbated by the EU itself. This huge, unwieldy, bureaucratic Leviathan, rather ironically seeks to take advantage and take the place of small governments, usurping them piecemeal, on the claim nation state democracies don’t function properly anymore.
The EU is transparently seeking the continued capitulation of nation state democracy. Its attitude to Britain and its multiple traps to continue EU rule (via the Single Market and Customs Union) is proof enough of that.* In this it seeks European hegemony, the very nature of the EU project as articled in Maastricht. It isn’t going to give up long term either, because it is in fact developing a life of its own. This requires amassing more member states. But it also requires total capitulation of its member states if it is to fulfil its own “Europe a Nation” aims.
Frankly EU has become a Frankenstein’s monster. It seeks to take nation states and use them for its own newly created “improved” body, which is thirsty for ever more power. Soon it will be a totalitarian state of the kind Parliamentary democracy has always by instinct loathed and mistrusted. The peoples of Europe have a history of opposing it and fighting against it, both in its Soviet and Fascist forms.
The Progression of the EU, by its very nature, is to collectivise and then centralise and make sense of the disparate often incompatible member state parts. To achieve success requires not compromise, but dogmatism, more laws and bureaucratic authoritarianism, just to produce order and get things done.
Once this anti democratic organisation has full power, what it intends to do to those “dangerous populists” that somehow want the old sovereign system restored is anyone’s guess. The records of history however are written in blood.
The fact the Leavers of Europe have been termed “extremists”, “far right fascists”, Nazis or dangerous “populists” themselves, in terms remarkably similar to Stalin’s pronouncements against political subversives in the old Soviet, is frankly troubling. It suggests the ex Soviets and Communists and indeed a new generation of corporate fascists now run the EU Collective. Did such ideologies ever really go away?
Remaining inside the EU Customs Union after ceasing to be a Member State would necessarily entail a severe and continuing curtailment of the UK’s powers to govern itself as an independent state, It would be subject to the continuing effective jurisdiction of the ECJ. As cited by Lawyers for Britain particularly:
1. The UK would be obliged to operate a system of external tariffs according to the Common Customs Tariff decided by the EU, and would be obliged to follow future changes made to the Common Tariff, while not having a vote on those changes.
2. The UK would not be allowed to enter in to trade agreements involving reduced or zero tariffs with non-Member countries, which would make it in practice impossible to conclude meaningful trade agreements. It would in practice be obliged to follow the terms of trade agreements reached by the EU with non-Member countries or blocs, without having a vote on those agreements or on how they are negotiated. It is hard to therefore see what useful purpose would be served by having a Department of International Trade.
3. The UK would be obliged, either directly, or via an indirect mechanism similar to that of the EFTA Court under the EEA Agreement, to continue to be bound by past and future decisions of the ECJ on the interpretation of the common rules of the customs union.
4. If (as seems inevitable) the continuing customs union with the EU extends to non-tariff customs controls (such as certification of compliance with technical or safety standards, health requirements for food, etc) the UK would be obliged to follow the EU’s future rule changes on all these matters as well as interpretations of the rules by the ECJ.
5. The UK would have to apply these same rules and regulations across its own domestic economy as well. WTO rules do not permit us to operate different or more stringent standards on imported goods than the rules under which we allow goods to be put on our domestic market.
5. Having to follow the EU’s common rules on such non-tariff customs controls would (1) mean that the UK would be unable to negotiate changes to such controls with non-Member countries in order to facilitate trade with them and (2) make it in practice very difficult indeed for the UK to change its own rules for goods in its domestic market to differ from those applicable to imported goods under the Customs union common rules.
6. Overall, the UK would be significantly worse off than it is at present as an EU Member because it would be bound by the common rules of the EU customs union over wide areas of policy, be unable to operate an international trade policy independently of the EU, but have no vote on these matters.
“When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, Tivadar decided to split up his family so as to minimize the chance that its members would all be killed together. For each of them—his wife and two sons—he purchased forged papers identifying them as Christians; paid government officials to conceal his family’s Jewish heritage from the German and Hungarian fascists; and bribed Gentile families to take them into their homes. As for George in particular, the father paid a Hungarian government official named Baumbach to claim George as his Christian godson, “Sandor Kiss,” and to let the boy live with him in Budapest.
One of Baumbach’s duties was to deliver deportation notices to Hungary’s Jews, confiscating their property and turning it over to Germany. Young George Soros sometimes accompanied the official on his rounds. Many years later, in December 1998, a CBS interviewer would ask Soros whether he had ever felt any guilt about his association with Baumbach during that period. Soros replied: “… I was only a spectator … I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.”
George Soros recalls the German occupation of Hungary as one of the happiest years of his life.
“For me, it was a very positive experience. It’s a strange thing because you see incredible suffering around you and the fact you are in considerable danger yourself. But you’re fourteen years old and you don’t believe that it can actually touch you. You have a belief in yourself. You have a belief in your father. It’s a very happy-making, exhilarating experience.”
Mr Soros has always been something of a maverick. He was, as he wryly states, from a “Jewish anti-Semitic home” of secular Jews, who felt no religious leanings, or love for the Jewish faith.* He was, therefore, not typical of the Jews who lived in Hungary at that time. His feelings of “no guilt” on witnessing their plight suggests a lack of empathy. Equally one might say that (taking something positive from such a harrowing experience) says much about his strong attitude and personality. The experience may even have helped shape his Leftist ideological values. Values that see the future ownership of private property as best served by being delivered into the hands of the state. Whatever the case, his happiness and exhilaration in the face of others adversity provided the steel for his later business machinations, which required a strong character and a detached concern only to make money.
His business brain and seemingly cold uncaring attitude appears to now be offset by his philanthropic endeavours. But it is an agenda only of a particular kind.
Churchill succinctly draws the distinction in his article “Zionism v Bolshevism, a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people” when he contrasts the International and the National Jews. The national having faith and patriotism and being people of “outstanding character”. Whereas the International had a tendency to atheism and supported a “sinister confederacy” of Left leaning Bolsheviks with no loyalties to religion or country. In this, even the plight of the individual was to be sacrificed to the cause for the common good. A cause revolutionary Leftists sought in ideological domination on a world scale. Collectivism, not individualism, was the prime concern. Militantism was justified for the revolutionary cause, and even led to death and war. Stalin and Hitler both found comradeship in this common pursuit for power.
Rather than waving the red flag of anti Semitism at any who analyse Soros critically (as most notably the Guardian and Independent have recently done) let us note Churchill:
“It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.”
Since then much has changed in Europe, but how much has changed ideologically since George’s adolescent years? The old values of Bolshevism are still championed by a certain kind of extremist. Totalitarianism is still embraced in a progression that strives to get things done, overrides democracy, and rides roughshod over the constitutional values of the nation state. In this, once again, they care less for faith or nation which they sacrifice for the virtues of the so called “collective good”. The dissolution of the state, open borders and a remote, obdurate, rule by proxy government are the result. The EU progression and its “Europe a nation” goal treads a similar path. Like the totalitarians before (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao) dangers remain for any who do not challenge such a progression, or are kow towed by its advocates with the unjust charge of racism.
Absolute supra national political rule beyond the democratic safety net of the nation state poses a great threat to the individual. Jews tend to be unjustly made scapegoats by those whose pursuit of this concern devalues the worth of the individual and places political collectivism and its corollary political totalitarianism above the value of a human life.
We must champion liberty, sovereignty and nation state democracy. Those British values best suited to protect the worth of the individual and their natural rights. We must shun the tendencies of the Soviet and the Fascist that sees the individual only as a cog in a machine, tailored for the needs and values of what the state alone determines is best.
As Mikhail Gorbachev stated on the fall of the USSR:
“the most puzzling development in politics is the determination of European leaders to recreate the Soviet Union in Europe”.
His later statement is now more fitting.
“The EU is the old Soviet Union in Western clothes”.
Let us not make the same mistake the Russians did by over estimating the virtues of statism, as it too often leads to political totalitarianism.
Soros is not for democracy. His recent funding of Best for Britain after the referendum (to thwart the will of the Brexit majority) strives to keep Britain tied to an anti democratic federal organisation. A European government whose future progress (without reform) requires increasing totalitarianism. But such an ethos is not easily rescinded or reformed. Here is a telling comment by Joschka Fischer that illustrates this point and the future he feels the EU needs to strive for :
“What the EU needs in the future is not democracy, but a system of statecraft similar to that of the Soviet dictatorship, which would enable the political elite in Germany to organise the industrial capacity of Europe and the military qualities of the German people for the revival of the German race and the reestablishment of Europe as its power centre in the world.” –
Joschka Fischer, Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor of Germany in the cabinet of Gerhard Schröder from 1998 to 2005. A former self confessed Marxist militant activist and accused Putzgruppe terrorist of the 1970s.
In closing, the Founder of “Best for Britain” GIna Miller claims to disavow such ideological values. A London based business woman and activist, she recently critiqued the Soros’ funding of the organisation she has now left on the grounds his actions were “undemocratic”. In a recent interview, however, we were privileged to be privy to what really inspires her political values, when she spoke of her childhood memories growing up “in a very privileged home where we talked about politics”. She continued she would often:
“lie on the top of the stairs and smell the cigar smoke of Castro, or whoever it was, in the room, and listen to them debating about politics and social justice, and it always filled me with awe that you could change other people’s lives by your actions”.
Castro ruled Communist Cuba from 1959 to 2008, handing the reigns of power over to his brother Raul at the age of 81. Thousands were murdered by the Cuban Communist Party regime, with tens of thousands more drowning as they attempted to escape the country.
The papers are currently celebrating the cause of women’s suffrage with numerous articles on the anniversary to mark the cause of the Suffragettes, particularly the Pankhursts, who have become intrinsically linked to the cause of women’s rights and feminism today.
What is too easily overlooked is the reality. There were effectively two arms to the movement. The Suffragists believed in peaceful campaigning, whereas the Suffragettes believed in violent militancy. The Suffragists was a national organisation, the Suffragettes was a smaller organisation. It had about 2000 members at the height of its popularity in 1914. The Suffragists allowed men to join, the Suffragettes for lengthy periods did not. Due to the latters violent activism: the destruction of public property, arson, bombs (including the bombing of Lloyd George’s property) and even a discovered assassination plot on Asquith, they attracted the most negative publicity, but nevertheless actively sought civil unrest to boost the cause of revolutionary goals.
Millicent Fawcett conveniently contrasts the two movements in her criticism of the Communist Pankhursts in the WSPU:
“I could not support a revolutionary movement, especially as it was ruled autocratically, at first, by a small group of four persons, and latterly by one person only … In 1908, this despotism decreed that the policy of suffering violence, but using none, was to be abandoned. After that, I had no doubt whatever that what was right for me and the NUWSS was to keep strictly to our principle of supporting our movement only by argument, based on common sense and experience and not by personal violence or lawbreaking of any kind.”
The Mancunian Pankhursts were ardent Marxists. They happily referred to themselves at the time as Communists and supporters of the worker’s revolutionary struggle in Russia, when political idealism had not yet been tarnished by a public awareness of Communism’s totalitarian tendencies and inclination towards mass death. Nevertheless, even at this time, the Suffragettes were referred to by the Press as “terrorists” and many of their actions did little to dispel the charge.
Syliva’s support for Communism is detailed here, as is the inauguration of the Communist Party meeting with the WSF. She was a member of the steering committee of the Hands Off Russia Committee, a mass campaign for defence of the fledgling Soviet state. Adela also helped form the Communist Party of Australia. A more general appraisal is here.
Some of the key figures did later become disillusioned and reformed to Conservativism and Christianity, but as in Adela’s case not before flirting with Fascism and National Socialism. Of note also is that whilst Sylvia was expelled from the WSPU, due to her shirking of its violent tendencies and her clinging to “democratic Socialism”, her views still brought her into conflict with the Parliamentary Socialists of Keir Hardie’s Labour Party, in spite of her expulsion due to her sympathies with at least some of its values.
Sylivia’s desire for pacifism and egalitarianism sat ill at ease with the values of Emmeline and Christabel’s more class ridden concerns. At this time, however, Christabel and Adela (like Sylvia) certainly espoused the revolutionary cause and this above all required militantism. Christabel was even hailed as the “Queen of the Mob”, although even she later came to renounce such violent values as an Adventist Christian on her emigration to the United States.
They are often described as champions of the “feminists” today, but they were not “feminists” in the modern sense. Its modern usage connotes a later ideology of the Cultural Marxists, who sought cultural change to achieve social revolution incrementally. This was achieved through a destruction of traditional institutions and values. Its aim being less concerned with egalitarianism, and more with the emancipation of women from the proclaimed restrictive patriarchy of the nuclear family. The aim being to effectively deconstruct gender roles and the traditional institution of the family as part of the “long march” through the institutions.
Modern Socialists calling themselves “Marxists” practice historical revisionism. They merge the two arms of the movement in order to take the credit for women’s suffrage when they were in fact only a small, infamous, militant sect of a greater movement. The Suffragists incorporated Liberals (old Conservatives) and others of both the working, middle and upper classes, many of whom who were not necessarily politically affiliated, but were active in social causes. The Suffragists pacifism was not blighted by sexual prejudice either (as the Suffragettes was) as it supported the cause of men’s suffrage for those also denied the vote, because they were not landowners, or wealthy men of property.
Today Leftists tend to portray the cause of Sufferagism as an almost exclusively female/ “feminist”, Socialist cause, when it wasn’t restricted to such a political ideology. The Suffragettes might even have delayed the adoption of Suffragism by several years, as its militantism was not supported by Asquith and the Liberals, many of whom were yet sympathetic to the general cause, even before the Suffragettes emerged. They did nevertheless prevaricate and this justified the violence claim the activists.
The counter argument can be made, however, that whilst the original cause was undoubtedly laudable, the violent methods used by the Suffragettes may have been counter productive to the wider acceptance of the cause. Prevarication being exacerbated by the use of militancy and violence. Such tactics were pursued with fervour nevertheless. It has often been the case that noble causes (such as the civil rights movement) have been hijacked by political extremists seeking to stir up civil unrest in the name of a broader revolutionary agenda.
Probably the worst of the fake news was on display with Nick Robinson’s piece in the Sunday Mail recently, where he makes the case that the Russians created Brexit and caused it to happen though media manipulation of twitter and other social media sites. A similar claim to the one made by the US Democrats, who state the Trump election too was rigged by them.
It is propaganda of the most transparent and absurd kind, because of its convoluted cherry picking of facts. Surrounding the mass of accusations, however, even Robinson is forced to concede there is no “firm evidence” the Kremlin brought about Brexit.
Whilst the Russian threat of Neo Eurasianism posing as Russian Nationalism is real, as it proposes controlling a political bloc akin to the territory occupied by the old USSR and beyond, the idea that Russia caused Brexit to facilitate an EU fracture to aid this objective is pure conspiracy theory. However, there are no heroes or villains, good and bad, in this scenario. Both West and East seek power for their own ends, with Constitutionalism being eroded by big government power and people’s lives often paying the ultimate cost in war.
Robinson wants to pin blame on Russia specifically. However, there is a great deal of difference between Russia voicing supporting for a cause because it suits their own advantage and instigating something to cause it to happen in the first place. It would suggest UKIP to have been from its inception a Russian created operation. That Farage (a vehement anti Communist) was in the pay of Putin (an ex KGB acolyte) from the beginning, as some kind of Russian plant. This is almost stated at one point by Robinson, simply because Farage appeared on RT to make the case for Brexit.
The question then need only be asked if they did not merely support the cause, but instigated it, why RT (the Kremlin funded news site) did not present a more staunchly pro Brexit position? The answer was because Russia was hardly concerned about its development. When it was mentioned during the campaign it maintained a surprisingly impartial approach, merely reporting the events as they occurred. Its more biased concerns at that time instead centred on the “Russian roots” that justified their involvement in the Ukraine. An antidote to the US globalists claim that Ukrainian “independence” to join the EU, or to join the “International Community”, aka the gospel according to US (non constitutional) hegemony was necessary to quell “Russian fascism”.
It seems, however, Corporate Socialists seeking globalisation currently favour a “blame the Russians if things don’t go our way” strategy. This is at the cost of common sense. It is effected against political elections more generally that favour a more nationalist approach, e.g. a “Make America Great” ethos or Brexit, but it even extends as far as the Public’s growing aversion to annual vaccine programmes. Programmes we must all be expected to accept for our own good. Whilst any aversion, it is claimed, has been fostered by the Kremlin in order to weaken Western health. The suspicion fed via the media, however, is simply used to strengthen their own corporate objectives, by identifying a bogeyman they can conveniently pin the blame on to further their own gains.
This doesn’t mean the Russians are blameless. Political powers naturally seek supremacism and advantage. More generally speaking, in all of this the real danger lies in Collectivism (from both the Russians and the EU) that swells government power and gives them a false sense of superiority and a feeling they have the right to dominate. It has revealed Mrs May’s true allegiances too in her recent anti Russian claim that Putin “weaponises information” to “tear our collective strength apart”.
This is more a case of identifying a Russian threat to facilitate Western hegemony and is just as hypocritical as the Russian critique of the West. It highlights the dangers of political blocs acting for power purposes. But her continual desire to go out of her way to highlight a specific Russian danger lately suggests she is under the control of far more Corporate Socialist/ globalist sympathies herself. In her recent anti Russian statements, she seems to be speaking on behalf of the Western industrial military complex. But if by our “collective strength” she is referring to the future EU army and the part she appears to want Britain to play in any future operation against a perceived Russian threat, we all need to be very worried about the ramifications indeed.
“…a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasises preserving and protecting the white race in the United States in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes and strict law-and-order. The movement has been described as a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism, it criticises multiculturalism and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race.”
Alt Right claims to be a revolutionary movement to counter the effects of Liberal Progressivism. It has been accused of harbouring Neo Nazis in its ranks. However, many in the Alt Right would claim that their concern is not anti Semitic, but simply preserving ethnic and racial biodiversity through segregation and separatism. To achieve its aims, however, would require at least mass deportation based on racial profiling and this is tantamount to ethnic cleansing or genocide. It similarly denies the charge of white supremacism, but it is clear that some of the Alt Right consider the IQ (or at least the creativity levels) of the “White European” race generally to be higher. They often point to the technological achievements of western civilisation to prove this. Some of its adherents are, then, cultural supremacists, and by this indicator racial supremacists, even though not all contributions to western civilisation have been by “Whites” exclusively.
As “nationalists” and “conservatives” Alt Right have publicly supported Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again campaign. Richard Spencer, the leading spokesman of the Alt Right, has described the new President as a “great leader”, chiefly due to his Executive Orders to deport illegal criminals, his extreme vetting procedures, and his desire to build the wall on the southern border.
In respect to this, President Trump’s Executive Order seeks a temporary ban on visa holders from seven identified countries with strong ties to terrorism. It is not a Muslim ban, but has been described by Spencer as a “Muslim ban”, and a step in the right direction, but also one that is too “weak”. His stronger measures are outlined in this interview.
Spencer, the “President” of the National Policy Institute , essentially calls for a stronger stance from Trump and thus a stronger “Muslim” ban. Trump, however, has been highly critical of the “Alt Right” and has said during his campaign that he disavows and condemns the movement. His so called “Muslim” ban is not a ban on Muslims per se, but strictly on terrorists. Forty seven other Muslim countries are not banned. People from the seven countries are banned, if they have proven links to terror, irrespective of faith or race.
Red Ice appears to be something of a recruiter for the Alt Right, but in this it largely recruits from the conservative youth, or those who are “patriots” in the best sense. Many of these young people are Trump supporters, with strong national values, opposed to open borders and globalisation and generally critical of Liberal Progressivism and the ideas of the Left. The presenters of Red Ice who invite them on the show appear not so much to be wanting to explain specific NPI issues, as much as quell any reservations and lead them with questions to certain broad positions in line with their own. Other than this, they counter criticism or arguments that might arise in the alternative media and popularise Alt Right generally with a chat room type atmosphere. Red Ice, then, generally creates a space to communicate and spread their ideas unopposed. Their chief concern with more ambivalent guests, not in the inner coterie, often focuses on trying to persuade young conservatives with some overlapping concerns that they are not “Neo Nazis”. The fact Red Ice has now joined with Spencer more formally suggests its presenters might in fact be more extreme than they present themselves. Alternatively, they might be being duped themselves, or just simply reflective of the Alt Right’s fairly broad church.
The worrying problem concerning the Alt Right is the subversive influence being exerted on the minds of the conservative youth, who ordinarily would be more constitutional and patriotic in their values. In this, there are any number of subverting influences. Many of these are racist, or avowedly anti-Semitic, whilst others also espouse more collectivist, statist, totalitarian ideologies.
Alt Right is not simply Right-Wing Conservativism
The disingenuous use of labels particular the traditional ones of “Left” and “Right” in are largely used to sway, but are increasingly irrelevant in respect to Alt Right ideas and influences. Some influences that have helped shape the movement have originated from both Communism, fascism, anarchism and National Socialism, and there is a great debate as whether these specific ideologies are actually of the Right or Left. Mindful of this, it is best to proceed impartially with a simple analysis of how these movements have influenced Alt Right. This will require showing clear links to these movements to determine this.
Whilst it disavows the “Neo Nazi” tag, Alt Right’s publication arm Arktos has clear connections to Aleksandr Dugin’s Neo-Eurasian movement. This has called for a “consistent fascist fascism” for countering the threat of “western liberalism”. Arktos has it claims:
“…established itself as the principal publisher in English of the writings of the European “New Right” school of political thought (including original translations of works by its luminaries Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye and Pierre Krebs). We have also issued the first translations into English of the prominent Russian geopolitical thinker Alexander Dugin, who has served as an adviser to Vladimir Putin, as well as several works by the noted Italian traditionalist philosopher, Julius Evola.”
The link with Dugin also became evident in 2014, when the think-tank, together with supporters of the Russian Dugin, co-sponsored a “pan-European” conference in Budapest; although the Hungarian government deported Spencer and denied Dugin a visa.
In this association, then, Dugin uses the Alt Right to spread his ideas in the West, whilst simultaneously the conservative youth are somewhat unwittingly being influenced by them as they are drawn to the “Alt Right”. They are drawn to it because Alt Right have claimed to be supporters of Trump, and in this Dugin has voiced strong support of Trump in turn. In one recent interview with Remi Tremblay however, Dugin notably asserted:
“Eurasianism works with different groups who are against liberalism, North American hegemony and Modernity as a whole. These groups can be right or left. It is most important to be against liberalism and Atlanticism. But Eurasianism is not nationalistic—it is a Fourth Political Theory, ideologically similar to the European New Right of Alain de Benoist.”
By 1997 his views had become crystallised more clearly in his article “Fascism – Borderless and Red”, where Dugin proclaimed the arrival in Russia of a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism”. In this Dugin claimed that it was:
“by no means the racist and chauvinist aspects of National Socialism that determined the nature of its ideology. The excesses of this ideology in Germany are a matter exclusively of the Germans. Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true change.”
He does, nevertheless, still favour the “Waffen-SS and especially the scientific sector of this organisation, Ahnenerbe” as “an intellectual oasis in the framework of the National Socialist regime”.
Dugin soon began publishing his own journal, Elementy, which initially began by praising Franco-Belgian Jean-François Thiriart, a supporter of a Europe “from Dublin to Vladivostok”. Consistently glorifying both Tsarist and Stalinist Russia. Elementy also revealed Dugin’s admiration for Julius Evola and his ultra fascist, aristocratic views of racial superiority and political leadership. These ideas are summed up in an interview with Remi Tremblay called “Against Universalism”.
Dugin disapproves of liberalism and the West, particularly in respect to American hegemony, which he views as a direct threat to Russia. It is this opposition which strengthens his claim to be a “conservative” and “nationalist” who seeks to preserve Russian culture, faith and civilisation from the western, primarily US liberal threat. In this, however, he makes no formal distinction between Constitutional America and its more national values to preserve its independence by minding its own business (primarily within its own borders) and the anti Constitutional, neo Conservative and Democratic corporate socialists, that have subverted the Constitution and held sway for so long. It is these political movements that have promoted unilateral and multilateral military excursions to promote US hegemony abroad, and in turn Liberal Progressivism via globalism. His critique of “Liberalism” in this, then, is generally too broad and he completely fails to distinguish between Classical Liberalism and Liberal Progressivism sufficiently. He often, as a consequence, speaks only of the “western” threat, or the “US” threat, without drawing subtler distinctions. Whilst he overtly claims to support Trump, who might tend to a more constitutional approach, it is notable also that he does not see the threat as dissipating in respect to Russia anytime soon.
Dugin’s proclaimed ideas on “conservativism” and “nationalism”, like his ideological forefathers, appear not to be concerned with the constitutional merits of limited government and individualism. They focus, rather, on the corrupting influence of US corporatism and the rather bourgeois globalism that could subvert Russia: its political, religious, social and cultural values. His universal opposition to “western liberalism”, however, is cast very much in terms of the threat it poses to Russian hegemony in turn, and this is suggestive not just of simply wanting to preserve its own nation and culture, but of Russian supremacism and empire building.
Dugin ‘s 4th political theory claims multipolarity and the right for all his newly formed “great spaces” to co-exist free from interference. However, the sincerity of this is very much open to question and appears very much to be on Russia’s own terms. He often even speaks of Eurasia as the “Russian Eurasian” space interchangeably. In respect to this too, he often quotes Mackinder’s theory of Heartland as a region the “Russian Eurasia” will govern. In Mackinder’s “Democratic Ideals and Reality (p.150) he asserts:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.”
Dugin has often quoted this in his work and in interviews and it is significant. It suggests a Russian Eurasian “empire” bent on world domination. Any power controlling the “World Island” would control the planet and well over 50% of the world’s resources. At the turn of the 19th century the Heartland’s size and central position made it the pivotal region to control the “World Island”. In 1904 the Russian Empire ruled most of the region from the Volga to Eastern Siberia for centuries and it held a clear advantage. It is clear Dugin wants to restore and achieve full control of this important region once more.
The conservation and preservation of Russian culture, which Dugin has claimed will largely oversee the political rule of Eurasia (a large space that reclaims old Soviet territory and might well include Poland and large parts of Eastern Europe) is largely considered to be preserved and defined by a government centric Russian state. This Russia centric, state centric approach, heavily influences the individual and the family in turn and their identity and culture is largely determined by it.
This perspective is, therefore, quite distinct from US constitutional values of limited government and its ideas of individualism, liberty and natural rights. Its views focus on the idea of rights originating from the government, not from “Nature’s God”.
His ideas, therefore, are very distinct from the more constitutionally based ideas of Classical Liberalism: the largely Christian values that informed US Constitutionalism, and which shaped the (paleo) conservativism that arose from it in turn. As he asserts:
“We, conservatives, want a strong, solid State, want order and healthy family, positive values, the reinforcing of the importance of religion and the Church in society. We want patriotic radio, TV, patriotic experts, patriotic clubs. We want the media that expresses national interests.”
Nationalism for Dugin is, then, defined only in terms of what the government determines it should be. It is a political definition, more reflective of a Stalinist General Line programme determining culture and society. Liberty is not vouchsafed in the idea of natural rights and Nature’s God, nor in the idea of limited government, but determined by a state government that wields authoritarian power. He even offers (like Mussolini and other fascists of old) a political, state-centric notion of personal identity. This principle runs throughout his work, irrespective of the evolving ideas it might inform.
The influence of the European “New Right” on the Alt Right
The Alt Right’s other significant intersecting influence, which Dugin himself also often refers to, is the European New Right (ENR).
The ENR began in France in the late 1960s and then spread to other European countries as an initiative to rework fascist ideology, largely by appropriating elements from other political traditions—including what they termed “the Left”—to offer an alternative means of implementing human equality.
The ENR championed “biocultural diversity” against the homogenisation brought about by liberalism and globalism. They argued, like Alt Right, that true antiracism requires separating racial and ethnic groups to protect their unique cultures.
European “New Rightists” dissociated themselves from traditional fascism in various ways. In the wake of France’s defeat by anticolonial forces in Algeria, they advocated anti-imperialism. Thus, expansionism centred more on a federated “empire” of regionally based, ethnically homogeneous communities, rather than a big, centralised state spreading its influence. Furthermore, instead of organising a mass movement to seize state power in a coup, they advocated a “metapolitical” strategy that would gradually transform the political and intellectual culture of the West. This was a precursor to transforming institutions and systems. This cultural incremental struggle was very much a Gramscian or “cultural Marxist” type approach.
The Neo Eurasian and New Right ideology might appear at loggerheads, rather as classical fascism’s big state authoritarianism and Neo-fascism’s decentralised polities are, but Dugin has worked to create a more consistent perspective in his evolving ideas of 4th Political theory that now combines elements of both. They intersect most obviously in the acknowledged influence of Julius Evola, Ernst Jünger and Carl Schmitt’s political writings.
ENR ideology began to get attention in the United States in the 1990s via paleo-conservativism, notably in its shared concerns about the problems of open borders, the negative effects of multiculturalism, and the dangers of globalism to nation state democracy. On other issues, the two movements tended to be at odds: European New Rightists were not simply ignorant, but openly hostile to Classical Liberalism, ideas of individualism and laissez faire capitalism, and many of them rejected Christianity entirely in favour of paganism, or more accurately Neo-Paganism.
The influence of anarchism on the Alt Right
National-Anarchism, which advocates a decentralised system of “tribal” enclaves, was propagated in the 1990s by Troy Southgate, an advocate of British Neo Nazism. Over the following years, National-Anarchist groups formed across Europe, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. The first U.S. affiliate, BANA, began in 2007, and Southgate formally launched the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) in 2010.
National-Anarchism is a White nationalist ideology. Like Identitarianism, it draws heavily on the ENR doctrine that ethnic and racial separatism is needed to defend so-called “bio-cultural diversity”. The N-AM Manifesto declares that race categories are basic biological facts, and some people are innately superior to others. National-Anarchists also repeat classic antisemitic conspiracy theories and, like many Neo Nazis, promote Neopaganism. But National-Anarchists reject classical fascism for its emphasis on strong nation-states, centralised dictatorship, and collaboration with big business. Instead, they call for breaking up society into self-governing tribal communities, so that different cultures, beliefs and practices can co-exist side by side.
As part of its project to bring together a range of dissident voices, AlternativeRight.com published articles by self-identified anarchists Andrew Yeoman of Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA) and Keith Preston of the website Attack the System (ATS). National-Anarchists have not had a significant presence in the Alternative Right since BANA disbanded in 2011, but self-described “anarcho-pluralist” Keith Preston has continued to participate in Alt Right forums: for example speaking at National Policy Institute conferences and on The Right Stuff podcasts.
Preston is a former anarchist of the Left, who then moved to the “Right” in the 1990s before founding the “American Revolutionary Vanguard”. This group gave birth to the Attack the System website. ATS brings together a number of movements: National-Anarchist, White nationalist and Neo-Eurasianist, but Preston’s own views are distinct from these.
Like the National-Anarchists, Preston advocates a decentralised, diverse network of self-governing communities. Authoritarian and supremacist systems would be fully compatible with the anarcho-pluralist model, as long as they operated on a small scale. But unlike National-Anarchists, Preston frames his decentralist ideal in terms of individual free choice, rather than tribalism, and he is not a White nationalist. He has echoed some racist ideas in his work, such as the claim that non-European immigrants threaten to destroy western civilisation, but his underlying philosophy is based on a Nietzschean “ubermensch” elitism that is not ethnically specific. While Preston himself is white, several of his closest colleagues in the Attack the System coterie are not.
Preston has offered several reasons for his involvement in the Alt Right. He sees the movement as an important counterweight to what he calls “totalitarian humanism”: i.e. state-enforced progressive values, or political correctness. He regards the Alt Right’s foreign policy of non-interventionism and economic nationalism as superior to what the Republican or Democratic parties advocate, and he shares again the Alt Right interest in those “critics of liberal capitalism and mass democracy” Evola, Schmitt and Jünger.
Preston’s approach to political strategy echoes third position fascists, who denounce both communism and capitalism. He and ATS call for a broad revolutionary alliance of all those who want to destroy U.S. “imperialism” and the federal government. Within U.S. borders, this would involve a “pan-secessionist” strategy uniting groups across the political spectrum that want to carve out self-governing enclaves free of federal government control. To achieve this, ATS supported a series of North American secessionist conventions to formulate a common strategy. This brought together representatives of the neo-Confederate group “League of the South”, the Reconstructionist-influenced “Christian Exodus”, the libertarian “Free State Project”, advocates of Hawaiian independence, the left-leaning “Second Vermont Republic”, and others.
Other fringe ethno-nationalist literary associations
AlternativeRight.com developed ties with a number of other White nationalist journals, which eventually became associated with the term “Alt Right”. These have included Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance, whose conferences attracted anti-Semites; The Occidental Quarterly and its online magazine, The Occidental Observer, currently edited by prominent antisemitic intellectual Kevin MacDonald; and Counter-Currents publishing, which was founded in 2010 to “create an intellectual movement in North America that is analogous to the European New Right” and “lay the intellectual groundwork for a white ethnostate in North America.”
Some conflicting concerns of the Alt Right
The mix of influences and ideas will most likely mean the Alt Right will splinter once its long awaited manifesto of principles is officially formulated. This will raise the issue of whether it will modify its ideas and work within established political channels in an attempt to preserve its popularity, or tread an increasingly esoteric and radical path. Presently Alt Right followers have been moving from one position to another. Richard Spencer, for example, argued in 2011 that “the GOP could unite a substantial majority of white voters by focusing its platform on immigration restriction.” This strategy:
“would ensure that future Americans inherit a country that resembles that of their ancestors.”
But two years later Spencer appeared to reject the Republican Party entirely and called for creating a separate White ethnostate in North America because:
“the majority of children born in the United States are non-White. Thus, from our perspective, any future immigration-restriction efforts are meaningless.”
Spencer also argued that simply “restoring the Constitution” in its truly originalist sense (going back to an aristocratic republic run by property-owning, slave owning Caucasians) as some White nationalists have advocated, would only lead to a similar situation, or worse. This is presumably because he opposes the assumption of the Declaration that there are such values as equality and this universal truth of what natural rights entails is “self evident”.
It is clear Spencer is confused about whether to work within or against the existing system. One approach has been to propose working within the system in order to weaken it, advocating changes that sound more mainstream, but require radical change. This is a version of the Trotskyist transitional demand strategy. Ted Sallis, for example, urged White nationalists to:
“demand a seat at the multicultural table, represented by real advocates of White interests, not grovelling patsies.”
This would require using the language of multiculturalism, as an example, to complain about “legitimate” cases of discrimination against Whites, or members of other dominant groups. The aim here would not be “reforming the System”, but “using the contradictions and weaknesses of the System against itself…”
The Alt Right offers a vision of the state that is both authoritarian and decentralist. It upholds classical fascism’s elitist, anti-democratic views on how society should be governed. At the same time, the Alt Right has a goal of breaking up the United States into ethnically separate polities, and simultaneously seeks to replace nation-states with a federated “empire”. The centralised authority of the empire controls the numerous ethnically determined regions, but rather appears to contrarily need to enforce a collective political identity as a consequence: this overrides cultural and national distinctions. This might well cause conflict with any specific ethnic values of what culture and society might entail. It is an inconsistency not satisfactorily addressed.
Basic philosophical problems of the Alt Right
The Alt Right philosophy has been summed up by Alfred W. Clark in Radix as an ideology that recognises human biodiversity; rejects universalism and wants to reverse Third World immigration into the West. Generally, Alt Right rejects free trade and free market ideology; opposes mainstream Christianity from a variety of religious perspectives, and generally (but not always) supports Donald Trump, even though the support is not reciprocated.
Lawrence Murray in his 2016 appraisal in The Right Stuff believes Alt Right ideology necessitates the acceptance of inequality of both individuals and populations as “a fact of life”, where “races and their national subdivisions exist and compete for resources, land and influence”. White people are being supposedly repressed in this and “must be allowed to take their own side”; men and women have separate roles and heterosexual monogamy is crucial for racial survival; “the franchise should be limited”, because universal democracy “gives power to the worst and shackles the fittest”. For Murray, “Jewish elites are opposed to our entire programme.” Whereas Clark is more ambivalent in some respects, noting that Alt Rightists disagree about the “Jewish Question”, but generally agree “that Jews have disproportionately been involved in starting left-wing movements” over the last 150 years.
Clearly there are moral objections that can be readily identified as racist associated with the Alt Right, but some basic logisitical problems can be summarised in the objectionable ethno supremacist theory that underpins it.
Probably the unifying principle in the Alt Right is the desire for an all white state, This is an ethnically determined New World Order, which is difficult to actually implement. Besides a ban on immigrants of non white racial profiling, ethnic cleansing and mass deportation would be required of those non white and even mixed race citizens already settled for generations. In this, however, there appears only a very arbitrary idea of what is acceptable racial profiling. How for example are white Jews, or mixed races that appear to be white to be treated? How are different tribes to be determined within a nation itself, when bloodlines too are so intermixed?
Alt Right speaks of the need to preserve “White European” values. It considers these to be under threat via miscegenation, or just mass influx of non white aliens. This threat is identified as negatively impacting Whites in both Europe and North America, which is seen as the cultural and racial inheritor of Europe. Yet this notion appears to be very rooted in an Anglo Saxon idea of what the “White European” ideal should be. It does not account sufficiently for what different “European” races or ethnicities themselves might entail (see Joseph Deniker) and on this there is no clear consensus. By extension, too little is made of a European influx into a particular European nation state itself causing cultural and ethnic or racial change: e.g. the influence of Slavs into Britain has begun to effect the national culture, as EU immigration has shown. It does not, therefore, account sufficiently for the European threat itself undermining specific national cultures within it. The argument is therefore inconsistent, even accepting the objectionable premise of their own argument.
Alt Right consistently maintains ethnic or racial identifiers determine national culture. If for example you replaced all the British in Britain with Pakistanis, it would no longer be British. But it is clear that the definition of what exactly constitutes ethno-national identity is too arbitrarily defined. It is defined either in increasingly broad geopolitical terms, or contrarily non political, racially specific terms. These cannot be clearly identified and tend to lead down a slippery slope of unending bigotry. It is either defined as German for the Germans, or Britain for the British, etc, when these nations were politically and not racially determined. Or it is defined as “White European”, which implies a mono-racial continental identity, when it might not necessarily be so (see Joseph Deniker). More generally it is defined in national terms: e.g. as “British”, when this too is not necessarily homogenised, or even indicative of one national culture or race, or ethnicity, even historically speaking.
White Britain for example comprises of Scots, Welsh and English as a minimum, it also entails White British Jews. This is over and above the black British Asian or black British Afro Caribbeans settled for generations. These too also consider themselves “British”. This, then, raises problems in determining what precisely is “British”, if this political/national term is used within the context of a limited racial idea of identity.
It appears Alt Right have ideas of nationality based not simply on ethnicity or race, but one generally based on skin colour. But this determinant is often too simplistic and limited to an Aryan idea of whiteness. They speak of the European in these terms, but this raises a universalism – ethnic specificity clash of what kind of “whiteness” is entailed. They often speak of national identifiers to soothe the qualms of the patriot, but tend also to more broadly speak of continental identifiers that are not necessarily homogenous. They often speak of the European as representing a particular idea of what constitutes acceptable culture, but it is one that tends to favour an exclusively uniform idea of European ideas and values. This dichotomy also runs parallel with their conflicting ideas of a centralised and decentralised authoritarian and non authoritarian political vision.
Much is made of racial “purity” in Alt Right’s vision of how to implement their political and ethno-national programme to preserve the “White race”, but what exactly determines its perimeters? If it is simply skin colour, this clearly overlooks cultural and national dissimilarities between white peoples themselves. For example the basic problems of Corpus Juris and Habeas Corpus practised by the British and the French. If these are to be retained as national polities, how are these to be integrated into a more centralised pan “European” white political authority that unites but supposedly determines the idea of the “White European”? Which interpretation and authority exactly is to be deemed acceptable if they have opposing value systems?
Often Alt Right speak of keeping Britain for the British, France for the French and Germany for the Germans, etc. Britain, however, is a political construct created in 1707. Previously it consisted of separate countries. It was initially identified as Britannia by the Romans who knew little of the warring tribes that comprised the land mass island itself. So too with Germania and even Palestine. But these Roman defined regions in modern terms too are and have been primarily politically defined, not simply racially determined. Germany wasn’t created politically until 1872. Palestine wasn’t created until 1920 under the jurisdiction of the British.
Logistical problems exist considering the various ethnicities that comprise even “White” Britishness. Indeed “purity” entails a shifting, prejudiced notion, when Britain itself from its inception consisted of a mixture of tribes: Angles, Britons, Saxon, Scots and Celt. The influence of the French Normans and Vikings was considerable too. As a consequence, smaller and smaller regions might need to be formed based on past alien influences: the Nordic or French Norman blood line influences on the “British” indigenous that could hardly be determined accurately, but might well be considered as foreign, placing the viability of the nation state itself under threat, and preventing the formation and functioning of even regionalised communities themselves. The ideal appears positively divisive, and an increasingly narrow and difficult vision to achieve. It logically entails a process of continual deconstruction, bordering on a nihilism even of the nation state and the local communities within it.
Alt Right believe if Whites cease to be a majority in the US, the character of the country too will change. Whiteness is not specifically defined, but appears to reference the English and French influence, as they were the prime movers in the founding of the US republic. As a consequence, however, even Italian and Irish immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries might well be deemed to have diminished the pure “White” values of the US.
Filling the US with Central Americans will make the US more like Central America they argue, and thus they seek to restore “purity”. “Purity” would then require a determination of who were the acceptable “whites”, suggestive of genocide of particular ethnic groups.
Even if this unpleasant, ill defined aim of “purity” was achieved, we should not necessarily expect that an all-white state would necessarily mean a return to more “conservative” or “nationalist” values as they are traditionally defined. This is particularly so if many of these whites were in fact socialists, progressives and liberals. White people have been conditioned for generations to oppose nationalism. Ethno nationalism and its associated values, therefore, could not be guaranteed simply by race, unless white socialists or white globalists were also purged. But this invites only the pogrom and the gulag as of old, even against those who are deemed “racially pure”, but who are nevertheless politically incorrect.
Ethnic cleansing would be required to kick start the Alt Right vision, but would most likely trigger civil and global war. Alt Right would need state secession for white regions to be formed, or the collapse of the United States completely. It would require ethnic cleansing, or mass deportation, which would trigger chaos and war on a global scale. Of course they want this, and work to initiate it in some of its circles, but it is clear that, even if they were formed, these regions could not be easily defined, or determined, or governed successfully without an overriding authoritarian power to organise their needs. Trade and cooperation would also be required, as there is no guarantee communities or polities could be self-sustaining. Ethnic mixing in this would be inevitable, precisely as it was in the early days of trade and commerce. A phenomenon that very much created and feeds the current progression they now oppose in the first place.
The realisation of their ideas is unlikely to happen in any case, particularly considering the US has a strong well armed “militia”: a well armed citizenry opposed to its values of separatism and segregation, consisting of many racial and ethnic mixes, a strong military and Police. A more likely scenario is that the US will evolve into a surveillance state, with strong border security to protect its citizens from the illegals, undocumented criminals and mostly Muslim terrorists that are currently being allowed into the country. Non of these measures would use unconstitutional racial profiling to implement the measures, but will be based on whether someone observes the rule of law and acts as a model citizen. This is largely a case of honouring a contract, but adherence of subversives keen to break the rule of law for their own goals and aims could never be successfully guaranteed just because they are citizens. Eternal vigilance is therefore required.
Alt Right highlights problems and many conservatives might well sympathise when they are framed in a friendly way by Red Ice Radio’s attractive, intelligent presenters. Problems such as how the too speedy current immigrant influx shows a continued failure by the elected politicians to address the lack of assimilation, and the dangers of multiculturalism that this invites. Admittedly the problem of assimilation, even in a nation with a history of strong constitutional values, is now under strain, and social problems are becoming increasingly evident. Illegal immigration is rife too, and poor immigrants tend to engage in criminal activity. The Alt Right often highlights these problems correctly. However, in order to fully implement their objectives for a “White national” majority, a civil war and ethnic cleansing would certainly be required. The open border ethos, if it continues, will inevitably lead to enclaves, no go zones, social breakdown, civil strife and war anyway they complain. There are alternative strategies however, and these could be implemented in more measured terms. President Trump seeks to address all this far more sensibly.
A real and more “conservative” solution requires stronger borders, an emphasis on the values of national citizenship, irrespective of race, creed and colour, increased immigration control standards and more extreme vetting of terrorists generally from identified countries that pose a threat. This is the most prudent and, therefore, the most constitutional and best way to achieve “national survival”.
Trump clearly has the right balance and a traditional, more constitutional approach, that supports the idea of natural rights originating form Nature’s God. He is trying to implement the security measures necessary to protect the nation and the American people. He is deporting illegals and criminals who break the law. He is imposing extreme vetting on terrorists that pose a threat to law, order, security, peace and prosperity. He is tightening immigration requirements generally, so that professionals are encouraged, and less skilled workers are limited. These measures have nothing to do with race or faith. They are based on whether people can demonstrate their eligibility, whether they can fulfil the requirements of citizenship, and are prepared to be good citizens of a secular republic, based on following the rule of law.
In Britain, multiculturalism has led to cultural separatism, a loss of a national identity and a dissipation of Britishness in the traditional sense. This progression is a form of cultural nihilism and soft genocide too, but only in the more qualified sense, inasmuch as it invites change. All cultures and races have been subject to change however. Political authoritarianism in turn is no guarantor of survival: the Romans now no longer exist. Racial and cultural transformation is an inevitable phenomenon of life. It has characterised the rise and fall of empires and civilisations throughout recorded history.
Alt Right proposes stopping more races and ethnicities mixing with Whites in order to recapture a more preferable past, or produce a new classically influenced golden age empire of the future. This, however, cannot be achieved without the madness of ethnic cleansing, or genocide of non Whites that inhabit regions presently desired in turn. They might claim deportation is all that is required, but what if they refuse to leave? Mass immigration has ensured that the genie is already out of the bottle, it cannot simply be replaced.
The future on the present progression in Europe (unless prevented) will lead to a new racial demographic majority by the turn of the 22nd century. Mass importation of largely Middle Eastern and African blacks is already occurring. It is most likely being facilitated by open borders globalists in governments across Europe and the US sympathetic to the ideals of humanism. This is largely done also for political and economic reasons. In respect to Europe, the elite hope this influx will lead to a peaceful interbreeding into a new, assimilated, mixed European race.A new source of cheap labour might be the prime motivator, but cultural and social cohesion whatever the reason is being sacrificed.
Besides the racial component that invites change, the influx is largely Muslim. Islam is a religion not a race, but it invites social and cultural change nevertheless. As the majority influx are Muslim, and sharia and political Islam historically have sought either submission or dhimmitude of the indigenous non believers, not necessarily a peaceful coexistence, the future scenario does not bode well. Even if peaceful Islamisation occurs, any idea of Europe retaining its old values, its racial profiling, existing faiths and cultures, unaffected by all of this is highly unlikely. Assimilation of Islamic values into a homogenised European culture seems unlikely without Islam being reformed, due to the recalcitrant nature of sharia and Islam’s largely absolute, theocratic value system.
In this, Trump is demonstrating the correct approach, whilst not advocating Alt Right’s absurd proposals. This requires a truly conservative ethos and a proactive, brave approach. Paleo-conservativism in this isn’t to retreat or submit in the face of inevitable change: it is to preserve what is best about traditionalism, whilst being open to improvements and safeguarding the future. We need to preserve, but make the best of what we currently have created in order to strengthen our societies and our evolving civilisation. We should not simply seek to restore the past by seeking to destroy the current order. This is not what “conservativism” should be about. In this, then, “Constitutionalism” and the implementation of laws within its limitations create the bedrock of what civilised and humane government entails.
If conservativism is to continue to grow in popularity, the dangers of subversives using the terms “conservative” and “nationalist” have to be highlighted. The problem with the current wave of conservativism is most likely a number of 5th column movements associated within it that are seeking to channel the current popularism of the message in more radical, so called “new” and therefore supposedly more “relevant” directions. They do this by calling themselves “Alt Right”. This tendency unfortunately is already well established.
In this, the so called Alt Right movement more generally is taking many conservative nationalists and patriots and shifting them to Identitarian political issues that have in turn increasingly been taken over and subverted by fascists and anarchists (collectivists and statists) calling themselves “conservatives” and “nationalists”. They use these terms in radically different ways, and in ways many young conservatives might not be fully aware of. The risk to the conservative youth as a consequence is that they may be unduly influenced and become anti Constitutionalists, anarchists, race haters, or political subversives. This poses a very real threat to the very fabric of any western nation, an aim they contrarily claim they primarily seek to preserve. The possibility of total immersion in these extreme ideologies through disinformation and even brainwashing too is very real.
The good news might well be that the Alt Right is already at war with itself by virtue of its eclectic intellectual influences. The idea of decentralised ethnic regions is rather at loggerheads with ideas about pan Eurasian authoritarian empires. This in turn brings up questions of whether cultural identity will be preserved, or simply rebranded, based on political or racial determinants. It might well require both, but how are these to be identified and reconciled? Another related issue is the idea of culture being safeguarded by ethno nationalism, but which appears to be at loggerheads with the more universal ideas of what “White European” culture and “White western civilisation” supposedly entails. Philosophical problems abound within Alt Right, which may well trigger its demise, or prevent it from ever producing a consistent manifesto that its followers will collectively support in the future.
The more immediate danger, however, is that many decent conservatives are being duped by extremists. They do this by using false labels to promote their own more totalitarian and racist ideas in the intellectual space the popularist movement has created.
One example of this is Aleksandr Dugin, who has said in 2012 that he is a “nationalist”, whilst he also claims 4th Political theory avows nationalism. His support of Russian nationalism appears fairly clear however, but it is as a “former” national Bolshevik professing himself to be “on the side of Stalin” in which his definition of “nationalist” raises real concerns. His new 4th political theory claims to transcend these old definitions, but his Russian mind-set often means his theory is rooted in the old state-centric Soviet and Imperial Russian values nevertheless. Neither is it clear how Russian nationalism is to tolerate other nation states that might not want to be part of what the new Eurasian empire entails, nor how other non Russian races that are deemed less preferential to it are to be treated, as his statements have been rather contradictory in respect to this evolving theory. It is not one that provides any hope of peace and mutual cooperation if he does indeed favour the values of Stalin.
If one was charitable, one might see Dugin as simply a misguided intellectual, with a half baked academic theory of what is required to solve the problems posed by western liberalism. Confined to an ivory tower, he poses no threat, but the fact he has connections in the Kremlin makes the likelihood of political implementation and military confrontation a very real danger.
Some in the Alt Right have praised Dugin as a visionary. He is claimed to be someone who rightly criticises political correctness, and who champions the conservative and nationalist cause of the “Whites” and their need to preserve their unique cultures. It is usually best not to accept labels on face value however, but analyse the principles, as far as possible, free of value laden clichés. This is required, even if they are less readily accepted. Clearer examples of the contradictions then become more evident. In Dugin’s case, a simple series of contradictions can be provided that reveal his deceit, suggesting he cannot be trusted. They reveal him as a very dangerous extremist posing as someone more philanthropic, well meaning and moderate.
The broad contradictions are these. Dugin calls himself an Orthodox Christian, but elevates Heidegerrean nihilism and the superiority of “Eastern” religions over his own professed faith. He uses these preferences to formulate a philosophical response via his 4th Political theory, and it is this which largely determines what must occur in the military, geopolitical and cultural arena. His philosophical theory, however, does not simply favour nihilism and Eastern religions over Christianity, he actively seeks to destroy its basic principles. In this, he supports an anti Logos (and therefore anti Christ) pro Chaos agenda. He justifies this to bring about a rebirth of mankind, but it is one effected by men, rather than by God. He even calls for the use of pre-emptive military action. A position in contradiction to Christ’s teaching in the Beatitudes. It is a goal that appears positively anti Christian in itself, but is justified to supposedly hasten the Armageddon or Apocalypse of the End Times. An event prophesised in the Bible.
His objective, he claims, will usher in a supposed rebirth of civilisation, with the ontological and metaphysical resuscitation of mankind’s Being through the worship of Chaos. A goal which appears positively satanic in its aims, and which will inevitably require the death of the logo-centric civilisation that has been the foundation of western civilisation since the birth of the philosophical age in Ancient Greece.
Philosophical vagaries and contradictions aside, the practical implementation of his ideas are just plain dangerous, whatever one thinks of the intellectual rationale, as they justify pre-emptive war. He even considers cannibalism and genocide as justifiable in the midst of this battle to overcome the western threat! These aims are hardly the laudable values of an Orthodox Christian preaching the gospel of peace!
Dugin’s genuine fascist fascism claims not to be racist, but he has contrarily called for the massacre of Ukrainians because they are a:
“race of degenerates that has crawled out of the sewer. Genocide is in order.”
Views such as this led to him temporarily losing his academic post a few years ago, as he called for them to be massacred “without mercy”.
Similarly he has sought to pit blacks against whites, supporting blacks and other non white races, whilst yet contrarily supporting Alt Right ideas of “Whiteness”.
As he claimed in 2002:
“I am a supporter of blacks. White civilisation- its cultural values and false dehumanising model of the world, built by them- there were no benefits. Everything is leading to the start of anti White pogroms on a planetary scale. Russia is saved only by the fact that we are not pure White. Predatory multinational corporations, oppressing and suppressing everyone else, besides MTV gays and lesbians, this is the fruit of White civilisation, which it is necessary to get rid of. So I am for reds, yellows, greens [political Islam or Muslims?] and blacks, but not for Whites. I’m wholeheartedly on the side of the people of Zimbabwe.”
Clearly, then, this is a very dangerous divide and conquer strategy of global destruction. Any means is justified to stop the threat of “western liberalism”, without distinguishing sufficiently between its classical and progressive forms. It makes no distinction either between different ethnicities that might come under the rubric of the “White race”. It sees “Whites” only in their entirety as a danger. Yet it is prepared to recruit any anarchic and radical influence in turn, if it can hasten war and racial confrontation, by claiming it supports Alt Right values of preserving “Whiteness”.
In this, then, while Alt Right is indeed eclectic, it is always wise to analyse exactly whose ideas the spokespeople at the top actually promote. The use of the term “conservative” (which has been similarly exploited like the word “nationalist”) to harvest unwitting recruits, is a misnomer and disingenuously used. While Spencer himself might very well disavow its use to describe the Alt Right in any case, it is clear than many in the Alt Right movement still strongly identify themselves as such, but would be horrified if they knew more fully of the subversive influences and extremist ideas originating from its name.
If it needs to be said by now, I am a right wing paleo conservative and an advocate of US constitutionalism. I am also an advocate of nation state democracy. I campaigned for Brexit with a number of political organisations and associated think tanks for about ten years.
I have been a critic of the conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for the last few years, however, when Breitbart was being used effectively as a fan base to launch and further his US career. This has not been because of ideological differences per se, but simply because of his questionable values in respect to sex practise with children under the age of consent.
I was one of the first to highlight the video of his own self confessed under age sexual experiences with a Catholic priest, Father Michael, whom he claims he first seduced when he was thirteen or fourteen years old. He claimed he was the “predator” in that particular sexual relationship.
Here are all the highlights of that disturbing and shocking confession. An event he certainly makes light of.
The confession has caused Milo to resign from Breitbart, based he claims on a distortion of the facts, his own inability to express himself, misleading film editing and a better realisation that he was the victim. His realisation that he indeed was the victim and the one abused flies in the face of his claim to be the “predator” he bragged to be, but we can all change our minds as we mature.
In all of this spin and backtracking, his sexual predilections as “victim” or “predator” are largely irrelevant. His later admission in the same radio interview, however, that he attended Hollywood sex parties where he witnessed “very young” children being abused is far more important. In the original confession he admits to being a witness, but effectively protects the perpetrators’ identities because it would be “dangerous” to identify them by name. He does, however, identify the victims as “boys” who were “very young”. Presumably, then, in the age context of which he is talking, they were well below the age of thirteen or fourteen. At no time does he think he should have reported all this to the Police. His attendance itself clearly triggers loud warning bells: why was he even there in the first place?
Originally he said this interview was re-edited to give the wrong impression, a clear lie. He then states he expressed himself wrongly, but Milo is nearly always very articulate. If he did express himself wrongly in his first interview, he had ample opportunity to explain, but here, it seems, he simply blabbed too much of something he largely appears to be proud of. Neither was it simply a faux pas, for he talks at length about these experiences and had many opportunities to alter his account of the events in proceeding months. Indeed, until yesterday, he never expressed regret or outrage at the immorality of his actions. Regret appears to be conspicuously absent in the first interview, but he does seek to make amends in the second.
Adulation tends to swell the ego and blunt sober objectivity
Since the video was posted on YT, I have attempted via the internet to bring this to the public attention of readers of Breitbart. The response was disturbing. It was largely met with heavy insult and criticism from many calling themselves “Christian” and “conservative”. I found that extremely odd. There seemed to be an agenda to protect Milo, whatever the circumstance or charges brought against him. A refusal to even acknowledge the immorality, or to dismiss the evidence out of hand. Many like myself were attacked if any criticism against him was ever raised, with the assumption we were of the Left, or subversive, or even prejudiced against gays ourselves. The truth should be told, however, irrespective of whether he himself is genuinely a gay conservative.
His actions as confessed were not just immoral, but illegal. Failure to disclose such activities even as a third party witness of a crime at a party, even if he had no part to play, amounts to accessory after the fact and a knowing collusion. His justification that ran along the lines of: ‘in Germany our values at fourteen are different’, rather contrarily suggests he still finds such acts justifiable and therefore acceptable.
Whilst Milo has said some excellent things on other topics, his life as a student at university was the period when I knew him, albeit briefly, as a self confessed Leftist. In later years when he became confessedly Right wing, my feeling concerning his more outrageous claims aroused the suspicion he was not simply misguided or young, but actually controlled opposition: a 5th column subversive perhaps, meant to discredit Breitbart and conservativism more generally. I hope this isn’t the case, but should he simply be a misguided, albeit depraved conservative, he hardly does the cause much merit or service.
When I taught him as an academic his tendency was to Progressivism and cultural Marxist values, which I think says a lot about his motives at that time. One hopes he has moved on since then and one can only hope his so called “alt Light”, so called “conservative” values, are an ongoing journey that leads him to re-evaluate the immorality of his past. He is very intelligent and not a bumbler. He appears eager to contribute, so there is hope. It might, however, require a public conversion to Judaism or Christianity if he has any real hope of redemption or any future career in politics.
I’m personally glad he has resigned from Breitbart. It is an important media website to inform in a world of increasingly fake news and propaganda. At the least, it gives a fairly right wing perspective, even if it is itself derided as “fake news” in turn by the Liberal mainstream media.
Milo, Trump and the perils of “fake news”
The dangers of conservative infiltration by Leftists in government, strong activism in political circles and in the Press, is real. This is especially true as the Left becomes more radical. This subversion has naturally progressed over time however. A lack of objectivity as to what true conservativism entails intensifies, and a Left wing bias commensurately increases, even amongst those calling themselves “centre Right”.
Just look at the Telegraph as an example. Its reporting has increasingly lost touch with reality in respect to Donald Trump. It even claimed a recent future Nazi alternative history entertainment show was a pretty accurate reflection of the current Trump administration and its objectives and values. If the Nazis had won, or the fascists had succeeded, this is what the present would look like they claim: a Trump administration. This is an irresponsible insult to a constitutionally minded President, limited in his Executive powers by the checks and balances of the three tier separation of powers. It further impairs the horror afforded the dictator, placing a good man on a par with a Hitler or a Mussolini; men who were responsible for the deaths of millions.
This slanted, Liberal perspective is, however, too often pursued and usually beefed up with absurd assumptions: his wife shudders every time he touches her; the Russians hacked the election and created his victory; he is an Islamophobic “racist” who is clueless about the merits of Muslims; as a billionaire he is a narcissist and as a narcissist he again is clueless about the value of humans and human nature. It even impairs his judgement on how to manage a business or the economy, an administration and the nation successfully: utter nonsense.
Alternatively, comparisons have recently been made with Milo by those conservatives who wish Trump and himself to be painted as faultless, simply because they are “conservative” and “Right wing”. The comparison to defend Milo is, however, disingenuous and damaging. Trump has his Christian faith to support him, along with his love for his family. His very public demonstrations of his faith, along with his love for his family provide him with a moral context which Milo lacks.
Faith and family are the great templates of moral behaviour for those who cannot live a more contemplative, philosophical life. Milo, however, lacks in both spheres, and the subversion to impair and corrupt the traditional values of the nuclear family by encouraging promiscuity is far too evident in his own contrary values. Milo, then, is living the Leftist strategy he supposedly opposes. He is very much a product of it. By acting as he does, he is promoting the values he claims he opposes in turn.
Milo again has said many good things, his political contribution generally has been worthwhile, but this perverse attitude laughed off as being merely “gayness” always sat uneasily with his “Right wing” values. Not all homosexuals would act as he does, nor would they celebrate such a pose. Some gay couples would even find his perversity rather objectionable, disturbing and damaging to their own reputations.
He explains his adoption of shocking speech and his lewd public confessions as a hangover of his party years, but why should his adult audience have to listen to a self appointed spokesman in the conservative movement who too often makes mistakes and hasn’t yet quite grown up? His increasingly dizzy, loose tongue became slackened by his growing ego. The unquestioning, rather stage manufactured juvenile adulation he garnered and created in turn, gave him a rock star status, which he sought to exploit for good purposes. He sought to do good work in the name of conservativism, but he failed spectacularly.
His subversive influence on the conservative young has been notable however, irrespective of whether it has been intentional or not. Many of the conservative youth see him as a heroic role model, but it is one he has proven himself unfit to be. The values he espoused were largely tolerated, lauded and embraced, without even being properly analysed or questioned. His values were very much an attitude born of cultural Marxism and not homosexuality per se. The collective, almost hypnotic adulation conferred, was unbefitting of the Right in any case: young conservatives should advocate Individualism, not simply be slavish worshippers to feed the cult of Milo.
When, or if he returns to the UK, he will eventually be met with legal actions to retrieve unpaid wages by journalists who worked for him formerly and who were not properly reimbursed. These writers worked on his failed media projects in London. The US Police of course might want to interview him in any case, based on his disturbing comments concerning child abuse in Hollywood. Clearly his latest public attempt to mollify the problem and silence the issue has only raised more questions in turn and stirred the wasps’ nest. A Police interview might well be required.
The subversion of homosexuality into gay fetishism
The values expressed by Milo open up a debate about the way homosexual predilection in a cultural setting is expressed and how it has been subverted in the late 20th and 21st centuries in particular. Although one can only speak generally, gay fetishism of the kind more characteristic of Milo’s pose, is actually a fairly recent, popular and mainstream modern phenomenon, born of cultural Marxism and the “live as thou wilt” Marcusean ethic of the 60s free love revolutionary movement. Previous to that, homosexual relationships were not necessarily popularly characterised as “queer” or “gay”, but very much characterised as having a Platonic element, in private circles that combined both spiritual and physical aspects (παιδεραστία) .
Homosexual “relationships” could certainly be virtuous, as Oscar Wilde noted at his trial in respect to Socrates’ love of the Athenian youth and his comparison of Jonathon and David. A quality which Milo appears to yearn for in his own remarks, but appears to be bereft of. The spiritual dimension of homosexuality has a philosophical and therefore moral basis, as Plato’s Socrates too befriended the Athenian youth to celebrate their beauty and to ascend via Eros to the heavenly Form, without necessarily indulging in sexual pleasure. Although there is a debate as to whether it entailed both (see Symposium).
The lopsided popular emphasis on the fetishism of gayness, however, is very much a cultural Marxist subversion, and one that has subverted morals in turn. It has encouraged freedom of expression, but facilitated a perversion of the homoerotic higher ideal, practised by the great artists and the private lovers alike, who often saw it as combining the feminine and masculine, the spiritual and the physical, the older and younger aspects in one natural and liberating relationship.
The modern fetishism (sexual promiscuity and lewdness) that characterises contemporary gayness most probably has been driven by an urge for total emancipation after it was no longer illegal and necessary to hide. It turned moderation to excess however, with an overemphasis on a stereotypical classification of collective desires as expressed by the LGBT “community” in the name of equality and freedom of expression, rather than the integrity of personal morality and the responsibility of the individual. This collective identity sought to determine what gayness really ought to be, but has largely trivialised and corrupted it.
Today homosexual practise is not illegal, but the thrill of performing illegal naughtiness remains. The insistence on the right to be gay contrasts with this lingering sense of wickedness. Hence they still hang out in public places, risking their reputations whilst performing sexual acts. The forbidden thrill syndrome generally appears to be pushed as being part and parcel of what gayness should entail. Yet the insistence on freedom of expression has forced it into the public arena. Activity often entails young gays dressing lewdly in Pride celebrations, whilst a compromising smooch or a sexual tryst in public places is too often lauded as fashionably risqué behaviour. The pressures to conform to the stereotype are great in a kind of self fulfilling expectation of what homosexuality requires to be “normal” and “accepted”.
Perhaps making it illegal in Christian Britain marred it too, but in ways only half understood. In the mid 20th century, gayness never really got out of its furtive fumblings in the public toilet, the library, or out from behind the park bush. Whilst the Classical Greeks celebrated its spiritual aspects, it was despised if it was seen as being pursued merely for sexual gratification. Licentiousness was frowned upon. Wandering around trying to pick up boys in the market place, only to indulge in sex for physical gratification, was seen as a subversion and unbefitting of what moral behaviour should entail. Later, its illegality in Christian Britain, but not in some less Puritanical countries in Europe, dealt its spiritual and philosophical heritage a blow. It emphasised its physical wickedness according to biblical teaching, but ironically also served to emphasise the “take me before anyone sees” aspect for those who practised it secretly. Quick trysts were therefore required. Its practise went underground and was a source of shame not celebration. Punishment was generally severe for those caught.
Like so much of value that has been lost today, so called Liberalism has been subverted into a perversion itself by a dogmatic absolutism. A progression that continues to become more inflexible and extreme in the political, cultural, educational, social and moral spheres.
Cultural Marxism’s politically correct moral relativism, its absolute intolerance for any but its own view, has become a dogmatic edict that fails increasingly to champion majority rights appropriately, or indeed the traditional values and virtues that largely built the western legacy. It tends to champion only the importance of minority rights to their prejudice. These minority rights are consequently deemed of greater importance and superior to the majority because of this. The majority are harangued and castigated for their own largely more orthodox values in turn. In this, however, relativism has too quickly morphed into a progressive authoritarianism and is dogmatically imposed on any that oppose it. Gayness has been championed, but trivialised in a rigid, dogmatic, group-think notion of what it is supposed to entail. One that too often today purveys a limited notion of its values, expressed in the purely sexual context. Group think, however, silences individual originality in thought and expression, and simultaneously subverts more conservative values that might temper it as a natural response. The common denominator is too often accepted. Unbridled passion, or licentious values, a pleasure for pleasure’s sake ethos, are then the free for all modern popular expression: a Liberal group think progression which determines and champions it.
More generally, whilst two generations have been educated by its values, and many do not even necessarily consider themselves soldiers for the cause, the cultural Marxist revolutionary imperative remains. Using moral relativism as a tool, it sought to “make western society so corrupt it stinks” and the effect today is a perversion of once noble ideals concerned with civil rights, equality and the emancipation of the human condition. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence prove, however, that these noble ideals were not simply the sole concerns of the later Socialists (those who came to call themselves “Liberal Progressives”) they were the concerns of the early Classical Liberals and the Founding Fathers too.
Marxist extremism and political activism, however, became the spark to trigger a social and revolutionary change of these once traditional concerns. Along the way, cultural Marxism sought to subvert more spiritual homosexual relationships of the kind practised by Plato’s Socrates’, taking “naughty”, “ungodly”, “wicked”, “unchristian” ideas of gayness as an enemy, championing the gay cause in a claim to liberate it, but turning it merely towards licentiousness, fetishism and increasing depravity in turn. Its tendency to embrace increasingly perverse ideas, justified in the name of absolute freedom, has too often fuelled a perversion of traditional values and a distortion of family roles and sexual identity in turn. It has perverted homosexuality itself into something now largely expressed in the modern era more akin to sexual feshitism. The gay cruiser seeking pleasure with multiple partners is a more popular conception of gayness today, rather than the private relationship that expresses far more moral ideals.
Now, at least for some, gayness itself has become a rather sick parody of something once more ennobling and emotionally and spiritually satisfying. The gay attitude has become subverted as it became more acceptable, but this in turn made it more sexualised as it became mainstream. Its decline can be compared to the subversion of artistic erotica to pornography, that whilst becoming more popular, does not ennoble, but celebrates depravity and perversion. As this has occurred, it has been unjustly lauded and glamorised as a superior, liberal, lifestyle choice, but trivialised and subverted in turn, to the detriment of other, more moral forms of expression, and in relationships more deserving of the claim.
Like everything else, western civilisation has been dragged into the gutter by revolutionaries posing as moral arbiters and champions of the downtrodden and oppressed, but who have largely used minorities merely as useful idiots, or simply pawns, to trigger dissent for their own political objectives. Their self professed goal of emancipation and equality appears laudable, but in any case is a hypocrisy they have hardly truly espoused or realised in reality. Historically, and ironically so in this context, the Left have been shown to hold values ultimately intolerant of homosexuality in turn. The gulags were full of homosexuals deemed unfit for a moral, politically correct, Soviet Socialist society. Even in Russia today, its public expression is still considered immoral and illegal.*
More broadly, the subversion of values accrued by the development of cultural Marxism, moral relativism and Liberal Progressivism might not have even been deliberate or intentional in a second generation exposed to its concerns. It has been passed down via the education system and implemented almost subliminally as a self fulfilling prophesy. The progression entails subversion of traditional values generally, and the uncompromising change of culture entails a deconstruction and degradation of once noble institutions that upheld and represented them.
Cultural Marxism seeks to destroy institutions, but inevitably requires the imposition of new values and institutions reflective of it in turn. In this, even if its overt aims seem to mouth laudable platitudes, its covert concern to subvert is a danger in itself. Its natural imperative to absolutism too is a danger that’s invites a far too rigid imposition tending to autocracy. It is one that rather leads to the gulag to secure and neutralise any dissenters. In this, then, Progressivism leads to autocratic rule and less liberty, whilst conservativism and constitutionalism represent the true safety valve for any that seek to safeguard real liberty and freedom for the individual. The latter is maintained under the rule of law.
For the sleeping liberal majority, homosexual rights and values will be claimed to have progressed, but the dogmatic insistence on absolute tolerance and a lopsided emphasis on the rights of the minority have become subversive values against it and others in and of themselves. Fascism is being born from anti fascism. Progressivism subverts Traditionalism. Political values that historically sought to emancipate homosexuality in the name of tolerance, now seek to practise intolerance of others in turn.
In this, the Left seek to claim the moral high ground and champion homsexuals. The irony, however, is that the gulags of the Soviet Union were once full of homosexuals. Even in Russia today its public expression is still considered immoral and illegal. A legacy as much to do with its Soviet Socialist past than it is reflective merely of Russia’s new Orthodox Christian reaffirmation. It suggests that those it claims to champion and motivate to defend the Socialist cause are usually only “useful idiots” employed to give them enough rope to hang themselves. It shows too, in respect to the West and its persecution of Christians who still oppose it, that Progressivism or “Liberalism” that channels such values can evolve into a dogmatic and dangerous autocratic perspective in and of itself. An absolutism that ironically might well have no further use for moral relativism and the tolerance it claimed to show towards homosexuality, once its own objectives and cultural imperatives for change achieve only totalitarian government.
* Homosexuality became a criminal offence in the Soviet Union on 17 December 1933. On 1 April 1934, article 154 (later 121) was introduced specifying a punishment of up to five years in prison.
On 23 May 1934, Pravda and Izvestiya published an article by Gorky declaiming that homosexuality was the result of pernicious influences from both the Western bourgeoisie and German fascism. The article concluded with the slogan: “Destroy homosexuality and fascism will disappear!” It is an irony however that the reality was that many of the concentration camps of National Socialist Germany contained homosexuals. themselves.
In January 1934, homosexuals were arrested en masse in the Soviet Union’s main cities justified by Article 154. Among those imprisoned were many actors, musicians, poets painters and writers.
In 1936 the Commissar for Justice, Nikolai Krylenko, declared homosexuality a political crime against the Soviet state and the proletariat. It became an object of NKVD (later KGB) investigations, possibly with a view to recruiting new informers from among known homosexuals.
The fate of homosexuals in Soviet prisons and camps is typified by tragedy and brutality. Not only were the numbers vast, homosexual rape was commonplace. However, not only did the Soviet system fail to cure the ‘foreign disease’, it led to a dramatic growth in its numbers by a widening of what was considered immoral and therefore politically incorrect and illegal definitions. Freedom then and liberty as a consequence became increasingly limited. Even the classification of what was gay widened as to what it was originally and became more generally categorised as opushchennye (literally crestfallen, degraded, downcast; also a slang term for one who has been beaten up, raped or even simply abused).
As Andrei Amal’rik in Notes of a dissident asserts:
“Passive homosexuals are not necessarily prisoners with gay inclinations, they are the unassertive, the timid, those who have lost a game of cards, those who have broken the camp code of ethics. Once you have the reputation of being a “cock”, it is impossible to get rid of it. It follows you from camp to camp. And if, after transfer to a new place a “fallen” prisoner fails to reveal himself, sooner or later it is bound to come to light. Then punishment is unavoidable, and it will take the form of a collective reprisal often ending in death.”
The first convicted homosexual to come out was the Leningrad poet Gennady Trifonov. In December 1977, he sent the following open letter to Literaturnaya Gazeta from Camp No. 398/38 in the western Urals:
“I have experienced every possible nightmare and horror; it is impossible to get used to it. Over a period of 18 months I have seen daily what it is to be a convicted homosexual in a Soviet camp. The position of gays in the death camps of the Third Reich was nothing compared to this. They had a clear prospect for the future-the gas chamber. We lead a half-animal existence, condemned to die of hunger, nursing secret dreams of contracting some deadly disease for a few days peace in a bunk in sickbay.”
“I know people who have either forgotten the end of their prison term, or who have not managed physically to survive that long. Their bodies were taken off the electric wire; they were found hanging in prison cells, tortured to death by prisoners in bestial mood or beaten by guards, mad. I know their names; I have access to the written evidence of witnesses. In a year and a half of this hell I have carefully studied 22 convictions for homosexuality in the USSR. If this information reaches the West, I will be accused of slander and physically liquidated. It won’t take much. They will set a group of convicts who have lost all semblance of humanity against me and certify my death ‘in the natural way’.”
Tonight the news from Canada reports that six Muslims have been slain in a terrorist attack on a mosque in Quebec. Eight were also injured. The gunmen were reported by witnesses as having shouted “Allahu Akhbar” as the massacre occurred.
In the cold light of day, in the aftermath of the Canadian atrocity, the PC crowd make themselves look stupid. The temporary ban is required before extreme vetting can be put in place. Both the temporary ban and extreme vetting are required in order to save Muslim, as well as non Muslim lives. The violent jihadis need to be weeded out and all citizens must help by accepting the measures imposed by fully playing their part. In this, Trump’s concerns are fair, sensible and widely philanthropic. His concerns enhance his pledge to serve and protect the United States, which extends to all citizens, irrespective of whether they be Muslim or non Muslim. It chimes with the America First promise he made at his Inauguration.
In respect to the call for equality, however, Trudeau has been acting like an irresponsible fool. His position on immigration treats all Muslims the same, scrambling the distinctions required to identify the violent jihadis harbouring amongst them. He makes distinctions between them for political or PR reasons sure, but talks like a no borders juvenile idealist when he invites all Muslims to come to his country in the name of freedom from the Trump imposition. He needs to stop treating Muslims as a bloc and study Islam, its strengths and deficiencies, and also enter the world of Real Politik. His naïve tolerance for all is proving to put Muslim lives at risk from the violent jihadis themselves, who take refuge in their midst!
Only a useful idiot or a subversive would say otherwise. In this, distinctions need to be made. The Liberals are failing to distinguish between cultural Muslims, or nominals, moderates and fundamentalists, some of whom are violent jihadis. They need to identify the peaceful Muslims from the violent jihadis who mix amongst them.They need to recall the dangers when they call for more open borders in the name of some ill defined moral duty.
Clearly the present vetting has failed to stop acts of terror. Without more stringent vetting more lives could be lost. The prime moral duty for this President, therefore, is to put US citizen’s first, not simply to welcome in all refugees out of some rather vague sense of moral obligation. Anything less is the equivalent of putting up a “Welcome All” banner over the checkpoints to increase the likelihood of murder. Whilst some might claim the US checks in particular are the most stringent in the world, clearly the recent atrocities merit more.
Is Trump’s temporary measure a “Muslim ban”?
The measure (a 90 day or 120 day deferment of entry) is being called a “Muslim ban”, but it is largely temporary based on national links to terror. The seven nations, some of which are failed states, have a large terrorist contingent. Paperwork supporting background data for individuals is rather poor, but what is clear is the concentrated terrorist threat within these specified regions. The list cited was first proposed by the Obama Administration in 2015, but was unaccountably not followed through with any positive vetting action.
This is not “faith based”, or specifically an “Islamic” ban per se, which would be unconstitutional in any case. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, written in 1791, reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Neither is it “race based”, as some claim when they cry “racism”, as to be a Muslim is not racially determined.
As forty seven Muslim majority countries without classified links to terror are not subject to the temporary deferment, we can safely dispense with the notion it is a “Muslim ban”, or religiously biased. The most populated Muslim country Indonesia is not included, nor is Saudi Arabia, to cite but two examples. The seven that are, include Christians and Zoroastrians, Bahaists and others of non Muslim faith also. The measures, then, are not concerned with “faith”, or with a specific faith, but concerned with nations that demonstrate high risk terrorist links. In this, however, the discrepancy rests in a paradox that whilst not all Muslims are necessarily terrorists, many terrorists happen to be violent Muslims.
The truth is certain sects of fundamental Islam are largely to blame for propagating terror. But conversely not all Muslims (i.e cultural) believe in Islam and not all believers necessarily practise terror. This, then, is not simply an attitude born of the conservative Right wing that can be conveniently labelled by the Left as “Islamophobic”.
In adopting this stance, however, the Left appear to want to solely blame the conservative non Muslims as espousing a misplaced bigotry of Muslims. They call for more freedom and rights for Muslims as a solution, when the biggest haters and slayers of Muslims are in fact the Islamic radical fundamentalists mixing amongst the Muslim communities themselves.
These problems need the President to speak carefully. In a secular Republic, no preference can be given to one particular religion, nor has Trump as President sought to do so. President Trump has therefore spoken largely of terrorists, without falling into the unconstitutional trap of proposing a “ban on all Muslims”. He does, however, speak of Islamic terrorism. This is a rhetorical difficulty Barack Obama has seized on in the light of Trump’s past stump speech remarks specifically mentioning a “Muslim ban”. These criticisms have fomented social unrest and confusion in America and around the world.
President Trump’s measures, however, are largely defined as “Extreme Vetting”. They are intended to “keep America safe”. This has been done in order to identify terrorists specifically, and in this no deliberate discrimination of Islamic believers, people of faith, or nominal Muslims more generally is being made. It is just that many of the terrorists themselves do indeed happen to be Islamic believers of a peculiar kind.
The knotweed of terrorism
Islam is like a garden. The garden has deadly knotweeds and the garden needs pruning. This must apply to the whole , not just a part. During war, extreme security measures are usually required. It is insufficient to simply suppose this crowd are Muslims, therefore all should be allowed entry simply because they are practitioners of a great faith and consequently must be our friends. It is insufficient to suppose Muslims and Islamic believers, without qualification, simply follow an ethos of peace, when particular perspectives incite violence as a religious imperative. Neither is it prudent to risk US citizens lives in preference to a moral belief that America must welcome all refugees into their midst, when some of those refugees themselves pose a future existential threat.
Extreme vetting is required to determine which amongst them are a threat, both to non Muslim and Muslim lives alike. During WW2 , a sentry guard would not simply wave in a crowd of Jewish refugees, without checking first whether Nazis were hiding amongst the crowd! This indeed was one of the primary reasons Roosevelt temporarily banned Jews prior to the Second World War, as some German National Socialist spies were harbouring amongst them. To offer another analogy that is more cogent, violent Jihadism is a cancer and the Muslim body needs a proper examination in order to effect a cure.
Trump’s temporay ban must stand, and his Immigration Executive Order implemented and even widened. The violent jihadis are amongst the Muslim crowd. This now is a global threat. All need to work, be they Muslim or non Muslim, to identify, isolate and excise that specific and very dangerous threat. The Muslims must accept the measures are necessary to save their lives, as much as non Muslims must accept that the inconvenience of extended queues is necessary to save theirs. Chaos at airports is not helped by belligerent and often violent naïve idealists calling for an end to the ban. Generally they are low information activists, who do not fully understand the issues, nor the measures necessary to keep everyone safe.
Trump must stand firm
Today, British passport holders with visas were told not to expect a 90 day waiting process, but that they may yet experience “additional security checks”. The lack of a temporary ban was heralded as a retraction of Trump’s measures for those “British” citizens with dual nationality that originate from one of the seven identified countries, at least by some critics. Johnson, for example, has claimed the delays will only apply to those actually travelling from the named countries to the US and not to British passport holders travelling directly from the UK.
No exemption should be given in respect to the temporary ban, however, or in respect to extreme vetting, just because a Muslim carries a British passport. Concerning a potential terrorist, it is largely irrelevant today whether a Muslim was born in Britain, Yemen, Syria, or Tucson, Arizona in this. British born jihadis are just as much of a problem as non British jihadis, no more, but no less. British jihadis posing as moderates have in the past used the West’s open attitude to slaughter supposed Muslim heretics in turn at home and overseas.* They have swelled the ISIS ranks. Many are second generation British born Muslims who have turned to fundamentalism during time in prison.
The nature of the enemy is diffuse and not geographically, but ideologically determined. It is not one that can garner unquestioning trust, even if the nation be an old ally. Largely open borders and increased multiculturalism have exacerbated the diffusion of an alien terrorist threat into the midst of multiple western nations.
Trump then must stand firm, offering a compromise for political appeasement, accepting the present visa bearers, or British citizens who come into this dual category, must still be subject to a ban, or suffer “additional security checks”, whatever that extended process might entail. Ultimately, extreme vetting will have to be applied to all who enter, commensurate with specific definitions and a deep understanding of the nature of this diffuse and increasingly global terrorist threat. It will require extreme vetting of many more with demonstrable terrorist links, irrespective of where they were born.
If the Canadian slaughter proves anything, it is that terrorism is a threat to both Muslim and non Muslim alike. Nationality in this is largely an irrelevance, just as it is irrelevant what the particular passport is that they hold. Nationality for the violent jihadi does not change their ideological world view. Violent Islamic jihadism is viewed as a global imperative, and nations are simply regions to be conquered, as the battle for a global caliphate by the radicals intensifies. Links to radical sects however, or visiting regions of the world with demonstrable terrorist links, should trigger Extreme Vetting procedures.
Trump in this can only do his best, with a temporary ban and an extreme vetting solution proposed along national perimeters and Constitutional lines, but it is a solution that as long as it remains within national identifiers can only provide a partial fix. The full scale of the problem has increasingly to be recognised as lying more broadly within the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”: a distinction made by the Islamists themselves. In this, the specific, yet diffuse nature of the enemy must be seen as one that recognises no territorial limits. Whilst any that call for a borderless world are part of the problem that advantages radical Islamic terrorism, not part of the solution.
Radical terrorism, it could be claimed, is not Islam but Islamism. The distinction, however, could be viewed as pedantic, inaccurate and irrelevant, as Islamism is still ideologically centred in the Islamic faith, but uses violence to achieve its theocratic aims. As a consequence of the religious element, Trump has identified the enemy simply as terrorism, and the security measures simply as safeguarding against potentially violent acts. Whilst this ignores the Islamic context, it yet allows Trump to claim the measures are not punitive or discriminatory against believers of Islam. It further raises the anomaly of why Barack Obama is justifying a call for the ban to be lifted and extreme vetting measures to be rescinded on some of those who yet might practise terrorist activity, simply because they can be termed “Muslims” or “people of faith”.
In this respect, politician’s more generally are too often spouting liberal platitudes that belong to the values of the last century and which do not meet new criteria and present security needs. They are themselves on “the wrong side of history”. A criticism Obama often tarnishes his political foes with. Such values cannot be sustained if lives and indeed entire nations are to be saved.
Boris Johnson and Theresa May are too often liberal appeasers in this, who have largely appealed to Mr Trump’s love for Britain to encourage a rolling back, or exemption of his proposals, based on an appeal to the special relationship. In this, they too readily view Islam generally as a “religion of peace”, without adequately drawing distinctions. They also largely ignore the dangers of a British violent jihadi presence, exacerbated by themselves, because they have either kept them in the country, or even allowed their return from Syria in the first place. In this, they have only been paving the way for more attacks at home, as well as abroad, by violent jihadis with British passports. All this makes perpetrating terrorist acts easier.
Undercover terrorist activity in the past has largely been maintained by using false passports. But these false documents may now not even be required, due to May and Johnson’s rather foolish criticisms of Trump’s measures and calls for a British exemption. A threat in any case is still posed from British terrorists carrying genuine passports, and these terrorists are in turn faced with the possibility (unlikely admittedly) of a less rigorous vetting process in the US, simply because they are “British”: a status more generally deemed less of a security risk, but which is rather deceptive of the reality. National distinctions are quickly changing. Nothing can be taken for granted. Old allies have been subverted by weak borders and multiculturalism and exploited accordingly by the terrorists themselves, who constantly strive to take advantage. Even the jihadis born in Britain are a small, but growing number of second generation fundamentalists.
Equality and diversity
Much has been called for in the name of tolerance, diversity and equality for all of late, but it is insufficient to merely make a national distinction and expect the terrorist threat to be simply contained when religion transcends these boundaries. We need to make not just national distinctions, but a distinction between Muslims themselves: between the jihadis who kill and the moderates who don’t. We need to make a distinction between nominal and cultural Muslims who might not even believe, moderates who are believers, and the Islamic fundamentalists, only some of whom are actually “Islamists”, who practise jihad through terrorist acts. Even these distinctions are often too broad, as some of the Jihadis are in some cases not particularly religious, but politically motivated, or even naïve nominals who are duped, or simply looking for excitement and adventure. The key approach, however, must be a need to recognise this threat as no longer being confined to particular nations, but one which is spread throughout the world.
Much has been said about the faults of Trump’s Extreme Vetting and its divisive tendencies. Yet divisiveness need not necessarily be a negative thing. Divide and conquer can be good, if the violent jihadis usual mode of stealth cover is exposed and their presence identified. Peaceful and moderate Muslim factions should be encouraged to hamper them in turn, identify them where they can, and in doing so play their part to weed them out. Too often violent jihadism takes root in Islam, which is a far too submissive, passive, or even welcoming host. The Muslim community more generally needs to break ranks and draw clear water between themselves and their radical counterparts. They are either for us or against us. Divisiveness at least serves to better identify the terrorists amongst the Muslim crowd, even if the corollary is violence, which is exacerbated as a counter response in turn. If violence is inevitable, however, at least division can be used productively to help locate and isolate the enemy within.
Western politicians must stop treating Muslims as a bloc in the name of equal rights and draw more informed distinctions. Distinctions based on national loyalty and the requirements of citizenship and compliance to the rule of law serve as the true guidelines. They must abandon appeasement in the name of equality and pacifism, and let Trump deal with this thorny problem the best way he can. He will do so within political, legal and constitutional perimeters. He, at least, is prepared to take the Terrorist bull by its horns, identifying, isolating and weakening it with positive and swift action.
Such proposals should be supported as a cross party concern, and supported by the Muslim community as well. The measures should not be hampered simply in order to score Party political points, or further the cause of Muslims more generally, who might espouse a misguided idea of global theocracy. People’s lives could be put at risk. In this too, law abiding Muslims need to demonstrate their patriotism and sustain the rule of law for the good of America and other nations in turn. They must recognise and honestly admit that terrorists find refuge amongst them and act to expose it as best they are able. Patriotic, constitutionally minded Muslims, are the nation state’s most precious allies.
It will ultimately require the recognition of the fact that the nature of violent jihadism lies within some Muslim communities at home and is not simply an exterior threat from abroad. For the present however, liberalism and globalism, with its borderless aims, must be seen as ideologies that are counterproductive to what America, or indeed any nation needs to protect itself.
Freedom under the rule of law, not the rule of the mob
The liberal ethos of inclusivity for all only exacerbates the terrorist threat. In this, security must be maintained and cannot be sacrificed irrespective of whether they do not follow the law. The rule of law here is the distinguishing factor. A distinction often made, but too often overlooked. The voice of constitutional law is too frequently drowned out by the liberal call for universal tolerance, which they claim informs its charter in turn. Values that, whilst admirable, too easily permit violent jihadis to be treated more generally as moderate Muslims are, because of an absolute, rather misappropriated, equality ethic.
Freedom is a noble ethos and a basic principle of the Constitution, but that ethos permits the violent Muslim jihadis to slay more freely in turn. The principle of freedom centres in the Declaration on “we the people”, an epithet often viewed as referring to the more universal idea of “humanity”, but which can only be guaranteed for law abiding US citizens. It cannot be justified for “all” with a porous border, or a poor definition of what Islam and the Muslim denotes, at least if American lives are to be protected and constitutional values maintained.
Too often the Statue of Liberty has been cited as symbolising the prevailing ethos of America and used disingenuously, as Chuck Schumer has, to pull at the heart strings and justify more open borders and a more welcoming, inclusive ethic as a moral response. In terms of America’s guiding ethos, however, one should not simply appeal to a poem by Emma Lazarus, but the Declaration and Constitution itself. In this, the Founding Fathers were both pragmatic and prudent. They sought to preserve the independence of the nation as the prime directive, whereas the more universal moral principles of freedom and liberty provided a sanctuary for the poor, irrespective of race, creed, colour or national origin. But these were furnished as secondary virtues. Independence could only be maintained with a strong militia. This represented a security measure and made for a strong nation, so that freedom could be protected in turn. The existence of the nation and its fundamental stability has always to be primarily maintained to provide a repository for any secondary benefits that might be practised. If security of the nation is jeopardised, the secondary virtues cannot be practised or achieved.
Too often today the cry is for freedom for all, without freedom denoting the rule of law, or a call for the citizen’s obligation to protect the nation with constant vigilance. The rule of law is self evident, but too readily overlooked because of this. Whilst the role of citizens in protecting the nation, over and above the more universal principles that inform and shape America’s attitude in respect to aliens’ rights, is rather inaccurately recontextualised. The President, however, should at any time have the right to bar any alien as he sees fit, if the security of the nation is at risk. Security in turn protects those citizens that constitute a strong and integrated Republic. Security is a prime constitutional imperative. It guarantees independence and freedom and protects the vessel of nationhood, which should it fail, cannot harbour those other benefits derived from the moral principles that citizens currently enjoy.**
The role of the Press
The values of the Constitution can only be safeguarded by a moral and educated citizenry mindful of their civic responsibilities. The Press in this have a duty to inform the public and clarify, not muddy the issues. They should not strive merely to find an angle, generate headlines and sell papers. The problem in large part today is one where the Press think they can decide what happens and they can shape political events as they see fit. They seek to create and shape the world in their own image through spin, hysteria and provocation; but in this they must remain scribblers of the events as they unfold, not act as Gods with a divine mission, or more particularly elect themselves as unofficial politicians. Too often they are merely Left wing propagandists and disinformation strategists. They should not try to create a future brave new world filled only with attitudes from one side of the fence. They should not seek to hamper the legal and constitutional requirements of a President simply seeking to save American lives. At least they have an obligation to practise greater impartiality and propagate a sense of morality when lives are in danger.
Too easily Journalists fall into lazy thinking and spout politically correct platitudes as a knee jerk reaction. Their anti Trump message is suspiciously biased in this respect, as they call for no walls, freedom and open borders, and an equality for all ethic that echoes the globalist concern. They bolster this with shrieks of Islamaphobia and the call for a more humanitarian ethic against any who oppose them, when violent Islamic terrorism clearly disqualifies itself in turn. Too much of it frankly smacks of bias and propaganda and appears to be naïve (or even brainwashed) thinking. It dreams of a utopia for all that misjudges human nature, and which may well only lead to the destruction of the nation state and the end of freedom and human rights in turn.
A more basic recognition of the reality needs to occur. A realisation that terrorism is harbouring within the midst of Muslim communities. It is one that is intolerant and seeks to do its more tolerant enemies harm. It is one that largely has a religious basis, and it is one that shouldn’t be excused or overlooked because of this. Too often it is seen as something other and separate, when it simply isn’t. Muslims across the board are excused and given a free pass because of this, simply for being “Muslims”, irrespective of what different definitions that term entails.*** In this, the Press too often provide only generalisations, and are actually perpetuating the struggle and adding to the confusion; indirectly putting lives at risk.
Journalists are largely not up to the job required of them. They lack the intellectual acumen to be philosophical or provide solutions. Generally, they are hopelessly conditioned to spout politically correct platitudes as part of a long term agenda that doesn’t match up to the reality. They are rarely specialists, yet too often they believe they have the right to tell us what we can or can’t think, what we can or cannot say, or even what Presidents should or shouldn’t do, based on rather half baked personal opinions and values they too readily claim as experts. Their views too often have little to do with the pragmatic and more subtle decisions required for maintaining security and safeguarding lives.
Of course, they have the right to express their opinions, but it is too often formed in a university steeped in the Liberal perspective. A one sided view, and one not born of actual experience of individual Muslims and their different and sometimes conflicting views and needs in the community. It is one that espouses western liberalism, or cultural Marxism as an ideal, but one which is too often blind to its shortcomings and the dangers it permits via ideological radicalism. It too happily turns a deaf ear to the counter arguments that the conservative right could provide as a solution. This, then, displays a rather rigid, dogmatic, ideologically driven perspective, surprisingly intransigent to change or modification through the consideration of alternatives.
To labour the point, the Press more generally need to report the news, not try to make it. Critical analysis must be given by genuine experts, not juvenile “Jack of all trades” graduates, who set themselves up as experts on every topic under the sun. They need to stop acting like the political opposition, and at least provide impartiality, so the President is free to do his job within the limits of the Constitution. Unless they do, they will be hampering his concern to save lives and only perpetuate the ongoing mass slaughter they claim they seek to stem themselves. Too often, the Press suspiciously act like a collective in this. They speak of the virtues of criticism and free speech, but too often act like an angry mob lacking reason. They too readily espouse universal values, without drawing the distinction of the particular, just as they too readily jump to automatic attack mode, irrespective of the merits or value of a particular position.
In closing, nothing President Trump has done concerning the Executive Order is either illegal or unconstitutional, as some of his critics have claimed. Article 4 section 4 denotes the government:
“…shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”
The prescience and wisdom of the Founding Fathers as ever provided a beacon of light that guides the American people through their darkest hours. The law too is explicit, as in the 1952 statute 8 U.S. Code § 1182 on Inadmissible Aliens denotes:
“Whenever the President finds that the presence of any Aliens or of any class of Aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such a period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restriction he may deem to be appropriate. “
The claim that this is overridden by the 1965 statute that the President cannot discriminate against immigrants based on race, nationality or place of birth is exempt if the President deems such immigrants a national security threat. The 7 listed countries are a national security threat in respect to their demonstrable links to terrorism.
A recent poll shows the majority of Americans strongly agree with Trump’s assessment and the proposed temporary ban and vetting. The majority around the world most probably agree as well. It is only the Liberal Press and their general pc platitudes, the organised Soros protests and bot petitions, which mysteriously arise without any seeming publicity in advance, that want to give the opposite impression. Too often they act for the ideological aim of a borderless world, and a universal equality ethic, but in turn attack the nation and the virtues America seeks to defend. They seek to score political points, but put citizens lives at risk.
The general public are not stupid, but they may be misguided by those with less honest aims. Radicals often distort to justify their cause, by appealing to Americans’ charitable and good natured hearts. The bottom line, however, is often all that counts, and the majority do not want terrorists in their country. This concern cannot simply be dismissed as paranoia, nor can it be airbrushed with a moral call for equality, openness and freedom for all. An undetermined number of terrorists pose an existential threat to the people and to the nation. The nation being the protector of those very principles of freedom that citizens enjoy in turn. The thorny problem of the future is the fact that many are home grown, and the cultural issues this raises are serious and have yet to be fully grasped.
* Here are but a few recent British jihadis living and dead. Numbers are estimated to stretch into the thousands.
Nasser Muthana, 20, from Cardiff, is believed to have joined IS in Syria. He posted pictures of home-made bombs on an unverified Twitter account with the caption: “So the UK is afraid I come back with the skills I’ve gained”.
Aseel Muthana, 17, also from Cardiff, is Nasser’s brother. Aseel is believed to be in Syria but may have secretly returned, after he told BBC Wales “Jihad is obligatory”.
Reyaad Khan, 20, from Cardiff, appeared with Nasser and another Jihadist from Aberdeen in a recruitment video on 20 June, apparently filmed in Syria, urging others to join the IS cause.
Abdul Raqib Amin, believed to be 26, was brought up by his parents in Aberdeen. He appeared in the terrorist recruitment video just weeks before he was reportedly killed in a gun battle with an Iraqi Army Swat team.
Abu Dujana al-Muhjahir, 19, from Portsmouth, is an IS recruit who announced the death of Amin on social media in July. Former Primark worker Muhammad Hammidur Rahman, also from Portsmouth, died fighting in Syria in August. On Twitter he said he joined Isis after being “called by God to help Muslims being killed by President Bashar al-Assad.”
Twins Salma and Zahra Halane, 16, were reported to have travelled from their home in Manchester to Syria via Turkey in June, despite pleas from their family to return home. The girls are said to be “deeply religious” and social media accounts have since shown them learning to use guns and seeing grenades and Kalashnikov rifles
Abu Muhadjar, is among 20 young British men reported to be fighting in Syria last October. He told a foreign correspondent for the BBC: “I grew up in a fairly nice area. I come from a decent close-knit family. My family do know where I am and what I’m doing”.
Jafer Deghayes, 16, Amer Deghayes, 20, and Abdullah Deghayes, 18 are brothers from Brighton who travelled to fight alongside IS in Syria. Abdullah is believed to have died in April this year. Their father Abubakr says the boys initially travelled to the region for humanitarian reasons to deliver aid, but decided to fight against the regime of Bashar Al-Assad.
Abu Sumayyah Al-Britani left the UK a year ago to fight what he calls a “holy war” in Iraq and Syria. Speaking from an Internet café in Idlib, northwest Syria, the British father-of-three told reporters his terror training camp is “really really fun”. Five young unnamed British Asian men are believed to have boarded a flight from Manchester to Antalya this month on the pretence of attending a holiday spa, before slipping across the Turkish border to Syria to join up with IS forces.
** There is a philosophical debate as to whether universal principles such as freedom and equality, because they are derived from “nature’s God”, take precedence to the concerns of independence and its corollary security. But the latter too are principles which determine and safeguard a nation, and a nation cannot be a repository of ethical values if it no longer exists. If virtues are of God, they may well be eternal. It is the citizen’s notions of how they are to be realised in political practise, however, that inevitably requires the vessel of nationhood to be preserved and protected as a prime concern for their propagation. Terrorism represents an existential threat to the nation. Moral practise under the rule of law inevitably requires decisions to be made prudently and pragmatically. Priority must always be given to what is in the best interests for protecting its citizenry, and thus preserving the nation and its virtues in turn.
*** Part of the problem the West faces is defining the nature of the enemy, when the enemy too often cannot even be defined due to political correctness. Even ignoring such niceties, the terms are invariably difficult to define precisely. They test the boundaries of any translated meaning and the wide disparity and significance expressed. Thus a “Jihadi” is one who could yet denote a terrorist, but one who might equally be simply a spiritual practitioner, who believes in the worth of a peaceful and interior “struggle” to achieve purely spiritual development. Equally jihad might entail both. An “Islamist” furthermore could be one who might be viewed to be a violent practitioner of jihad, that is not Islamic, but it is a term that yet cannot rid itself of its Islamic context. The deficiency of terms has sown confusion and a better and more precise understanding of the enemy is required. It is a vocabulary still straining to convey the precise nature of why, or even how a violent jihadi terrorist should be distinguished from an Islamic believer that advocates peace, when that terrorist can make the claim that they, above all other Muslims, practice the true faith which is Islam.
Obama spent most of his time fomenting race riots and spending tax payers’ money on holidays in Hawaii. Rubbing people up, whilst damning the police with faint praise: justifying the innocent slaughter of law enforcers, as he tried to make out he and his “brothers” were still “oppressed” black men. His racism was not only divisive, but dangerous, justifying any crazed person reaching for a gun if their skin colour was black, but clamping down on gun rights if they were white.
His ideological mantra was “we all just gotta get along”, but it was a straightforward Alinsky ruse. He sought unanimity, not by working together to iron out differences, or doing business together to further individual or national causes, but by furthering the ethos: “be exactly as we say you should be, and do exactly what we say you should do”. Doing as we say, didn’t leave much room for a different opinion. Anyone who refused just hadn’t got the globalist edict and the radical memo of “that’s not who we are supposed to be.” Being and doing what we say paved the way for justifying the gangster mentality (just as Alinsky was mentored by the Chicago mob) a future autocratic socialist state, beefed up with plenty more unconstitutional Executive Orders, and less personal freedom, independence and initiative.
His idea was to initiate a race to the bottom, with an impossible equality in earnings for all, whilst ignoring those wealth creator principles that made America great. He shipped jobs overseas. He spent as recklessly as possible, in a Cloward-Piven strategy to double the national debt. His extravagance culminated in his pie in the sky socialist health care project that no ordinary working American could even afford, let alone the more affluent middle class.
In his desire to live in a borderless world, he apparently thought that any nation wanting sovereignty and independence had to be treated wiith disdain. He displayed this by claiming they should be “placed at the back of the queue”. This disdain for sovereignty, freedom and independence also informed his view of the US and its constitution, which he called on occasions an “antique”, “in need of modernisation”, or simply a plain old “piece of parchment” .
He was the most powerful racist on the planet, who never outgrew his Alinskyite student militancy and “woe is me I’m such an oppressed African” pose.
He achieved nothing in terms of a legacy, bar perhaps one good thing: he set back the cause of the multilateral hegemony he championed by a few more years through his staggering incompetence and naivety. Failed ideas crystallising this being: that Islamist radicals could be used to help him, when they only wanted to slaughter; coupled with an open borders policy to welcome them in to do it, whilst berating those that objected; along with a mistaken view that the general public would just accept being killed, because they all thought like the Hollywood luvvies he hung out with at his security flanked fundraisers. What he intends to do with all the money he snaffled from the parties remains to be seen. It probably entails a chain of Hawaiian hotels and a shadow government to keep his brainwashed fan base active.
On Scottish Nationalism and the anti-Brexit SNP
Apparently “independence” for Scotland doesn’t involve anything but running into the arms of the new European Soviet. That is why this so called party of nationalism is nothing more than a Socialist front, which only seeks rule by a bigger foreign government in Brussels. The majority of Scots are canny enough to see through its ruse however, and reject the idea of rule from Brussels as one that entirely negates any form of true devolution.
On the anti-Trump demos
I saw a few Hollywood liberals frothing angrily about how we all had to be “tolerant and get along” as they called for anarchy, civil war and death to the new President. The guys on the street appeared to be paid for activists with the usual pre-manufactured, Soros funded, billboards.
Apparently anyone who doesn’t like the idea of a borderless world is a threat. Those that do support it are our “friends”. I think they need to tell ISIS this, as they haven’t read the memo.
On the EU’s objections to a US UK free-trade deal
A bit like Horatio Nelson (with his blind eye) simply turn the deaf ear to these Commies on the Continent and plough on regardless. What will they do, oust us from the EU? Now we are re-establishing our special relationship with the most powerful nation on Earth, I think the whinging of a few technocrat OAPs, in a dysfunctional Brussels politburo club we have already half left, is pretty much an irrelevance.
On Donald. J. Trump being called a “fascist”
Ignore the labels and actually look at the bare bones principles the name shifting Socialists/ Liberals/ Progressives support and what this actually entails and culminates in. It soon becomes clear where the real danger lies. A danger culminating in supranational totalitarianism.
Considering the basic principles, modern day international Socialism differs little from the Communist, Fascist and National Socialist threats that preceded it. They are all characterised by a supranational state centric government that seeks to exert absolute control. This in turn exacerbates an unbridled expansionism and a political desire to determine what culture, race and even the individual should be. All entail uniformity in group think and an ideologically derived perspective of what was and what was not permissible, within narrow political terms determined by this supranational state power.
Globalisation represents just as much of a danger as the old threats of the past. Like Fascism and Communism, it seeks not just to dominate, but to end the concept of the nation state entirely and absorb it into an entirely new political framework for its own use and purposes. This logically requires inevitable domination by a totalitarian supranational government. Nation state democracy is accordingly sacrificed on the altar of political progressivism and political empire building. Moreover, through the imposition of new borderless political zones, the new progression strives to transform, through demographic influx, the culture and country that was previously maintained.
The globalist progression encourages the new supranational government to impose politically determined values on the peoples of the former countries. Political correctness will determine what is acceptable and reshape national culture and attitudes. In the current progression, however, this will be derived from cultural Marxism itself. A value system that was derived from the Soviet Union and propagated via the Frankfurt School in western universities by Marxist intellectuals, with the intention of spurring revolution and sparking a radical shift in values. Ironically its concern with countering absolutism, authoritarianism and fascism sought a solution fast evolving to an absolute, authoritarian and dogmatic liberalism itself. Paradoxically, the collectivist state centric idea of the globalists (most prominent currently in the EU and UN) and the PC cultural values it seeks to impose are increasingly coming to mirror the values of the General Line of Stalin, or even the Hitlerian authority ideas it claimed to oppose in the first place. The nature of the political progression culminates in a full circle return to the dangers of a dogmatic political correctness.
The EU imperative, as an example, strives for a uniform, state-centric, supranational government. A government that in turn imposes political authoritarianism and political correctness in the name of an imposed Liberalism, but which in turn negates classical liberalism and the values of the past heritage of the nation state. Localism, limited government and individualism are therefore sacrificed, only to be replaced by a new, more powerful, remote, supranational state authoritarianism. In this too, the age of the new man/ new citizen will be born: a politically derived individual that is expected to take root in the new “Liberalism” of cultural Marxism, or the “progressive socialism” that it continually espouses and propagates as group think in the name of “solidarity”.
Political Progressivism results only in totalitarianism. Whereas a political stasis, achieved through the 3 tier separation of powers and implementing the checks and balances of a Constitutional Republic, limits the power of federal government and results in a political system that serves its utility to best represents local communities and the needs of the people.
Today the Liberal Progressives claim Communism was a mistake that will not be repeated, whilst they continually give government the mandate for increasingly authoritarian rule. They skip over the fact Lenin called himself not simply a Communist, as much as a “socialist” and a “liberator” from oppression. In this, he viewed the Soviet Union not as a tyranny, but as “the most democratic form of government yet practised” for “the benefit of the people”. In this Progressives largely ignore the victims numbering in the many millions who stood as enemies of the Soviet imposition.
Socialists claim fascism is a clear danger, but they still support the same, or very similar, corporate state centric principles and political ideas as an ideology themselves. Their activists call for an end to the system, but support the values of the new globalist/ corporate socialist “system” in turn. They call for a borderless, politically correct world, a return to EU integration, and a continuation of the global imperative that will eventually usher in the values of world citizenship for all. All this is to be achieved in the name of tolerance and equality, strengthened by an enlightened modern liberalism, whilst they negate national and racial diversity, liberty and nation state democracy, which protect individual citizens rights as a consequence.
In practise, at least in Europe, they view corporate socialism as the answer. They turn to an unelected oligarchy (an EU Politburo of Commissioners and various technocrats) for guidance as to what to think. Their ideal utopia is for the people (not even workers) of the world to unite. This is placed in a free movement political utopia context, which espouses the virtues of a continent without borders. They largely ignore this as a threat to individual and national security, stability and prosperity however, and appeal to the cause of global humanitarianism to justify its progression and expansion. But it is an ethos which in turn also largely negates national identity, economic prosperity that requires healthy competition between nation states, and a country’s cultural values that help shape them as distinct and maintain social order and cohesion. It is a progression too that requires an increasingly monolithic and all powerful government to rule the larger zone it assembles. This political leviathan cannibalises nations. Expansionism then is a necessity for it to survive, as it negates European competitiveness between nations. The progression is fatally flawed. Is it any wonder then that, on the fall of the Berlin Wall, Mikhail Gorbachev should question the virtues of why the peoples of Europe were attempting in turn to build a new “European Soviet” in the fledgling European Union?
The EU proposes a supposed “equality for all”, but it is an equality ruled by a political elite afforded special privileges. They call for equality of income, but they destroy the innovative middle class wealth creators that give people jobs in the name of the oppressed they in turn have helped to create. They call for social justice and human rights, but increasingly this entails human rights that vilify the majority and champion only a minority. They champion political correctness and tolerance and diversity, but arrest and imprison any that practise the freedom of speech that deviates from it. They claim they represent the people and their communities, but increasingly centralise power in an increasingly large, remote and all powerful government for their own self interested, corrupt and greedy ends.
The strategy is ongoing in a more general globalist progression in both Europe and America. Its value system is modern socialism or “Progressivism”, and its value system is characterised by political correctness: an increasingly intolerant, radical and dogmatic perspective. A perspective that claims to be the opposite of what it is evolving into: an authoritarian mono perspective espousing a dictatorial dogmatism. In the US it has now become so extreme and dogmatic that even a President that proposes putting national values first, or who seeks to champion the rights of its home nation citizens, is somehow “dictatorial” in his aims. The Globalists of the Left even find fault in Trump because he simply promises to work to keep jobs in America. In this too, preventing illegal workers from entering is somehow “intolerant” and “racist”; checking borders and personal records for terrorists is somehow the thinking of a “bigot” and a “fascist”; withdrawing finance for overseas abortion programmes is somehow “sexist”; whilst even protecting Constitutional principles, in a more general sense, is somehow supposed to be “dark” and “sinister”.
What precisely is supposed to be wrong with Trump’s common sense patriotic approach, much of which was touched upon in his Inauguration speech? Is it to be criticised simply because it stands against the so called “inevitable” progression towards a New World Order, and its often too shallow call for absolute inclusiveness, whilst it glosses over its own too self evident authoritarianism in turn? Is it a threat because it stands against the corrupt and belligerent political elite that too often champion an agenda that largely fails to represent the will of a large swathe of the people? The people that love national values and the individual freedoms they successfully represent and protect. Since when is an affirmation of Constitutional America and the nation state supposed to be a threat, or an echo of fascism, when its checks and balances provide the necessary safety net to prevent such a political imposition occurring in the first place? Is this why the Globalists themselves find the values of it and what it represents so irksome? Because it scuppers their totalitarian agenda? Why should Trump’s message and concerns even be a “terrible danger” to the US, or its own citizenry, as the “fearful” Progressives claim? After all, wasn’t this simply an affirmation of the pledge he made at his Oath of Office during his own Inauguration? Isn’t it mandatory to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States” and to the best of his ability “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States“? Or is that pledge now, like the Constitution, supposed to be merely an irrelevance and an outdated way of thinking, which requires something more progressive and modern to replace it? Have we fallen that far?
The hubris and ideological intolerance of the globalists today is characteristic of the same dictators we fought to rid ourselves of in the past. They seem to think any President that speaks of improving infrastructure and rebuilding America is somehow “subversive”. Any President that spouts Constitutionalism is “extremist” and “radical”, or at worst a “Nazi” and a “fascist”. The words are often used interchangeably to any that oppose their agenda. In this, someone like Trump (who promises to never let the people down and to fight to represent them with every breath in his body) is somehow cast as a dictator. But the truth is Trump is the opponent of dictators, and far more Constitutional in his thinking. He is (to date) far more a champion of freedom and with it human rights then this new clack of fascists and Communists that call themselves “globalists”, or “Liberal Progressives” that continue their autocratic international strategy with a new belligerence and intolerance today.
Currently their leaders respectably call themselves the “political elite” or even “experts” or “technocrats” or “Czars”, as opposed to merely “politicians”, “representatives”, or “public servants”. Such unofficial terms speak much about their real attitude. They espouse International Corporate Socialism in the name of advancement. They call for a borderless world, uniform group think and a Left wing Liberalism in values imposed by a political organisation that will supposedly serve the people, but will inevitably only rule and tyrannise them to accept their dogmatic and increasingly tyrannical one world, uniform perspective.
The logical conclusion of the progressive strategy is to turn the entire Western hemisphere into a number of large single state political zones on the way ultimately to a one world western government. Ultimately this would lead to a one world dictatorship. This is no mere speculation either, as the aim was vocalised by Hillary Clinton herself in the claim:
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that’s as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” -Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013.
A common market too often is a ploy used to facilitate a political bloc, just as the EEC preceded the EU.
Whereas John Kerry has espoused the virtues of the New World Order far more starkly in his concern young people should champion the values of a “borderless world”.
Of course if you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country. Americans are beginning to understand this. Increasingly the British and the French and the Dutch and the Italians too understand the terrible and frightening implications and are acting according to their conscience.
In any case, if pursued, the imposition of a new regime could well culminate, if not in war, then certainly in a tyranny that overrides the freedoms nation state democracies protect. In this imposition too, any individual that holds a different or opposing opinion, or perhaps even a “nostalgia for the past”, as Kerry critiques it, represents a threat politically, ideologically and culturally. A threat which could well result in them being arrested and imprisoned.
Neither is this simply a strange fantasy, nor is it merely born of paranoia. In this new globalist progression “popularism”, as a counter response, is already being discussed as “illegal” and “dangerous” in the EU offices and chambers of Brussels and Strasbourg. Only time will tell what they propose to do about it. In this, even the act of waving a national flag will be forbidden. It is already being described as a “dangerous”, “subversive” and even a “racist” act by its leaders, as President Barosso made clear in his State of the Union EU speech only a few short years ago. One presumes, however, the new EU flag is to be viewed as an uncritiqued symbol of the pride of the “new” citizens we are all supposed to be.
Is anyone surprised, therefore, that his increasing authoritarian dogmatism aligns more closely to his former adherence to Maoism? Is anyone surprised Mrs Merkel too was a former Communist? That Mogherini was a former Communist Youth League member? That Jens Stoltenberg, a current representative of Nato, was a former Communist also, code named Steklov?
The EU is a dry run for totalitarian rule in Europe, where nation state democracy will be dispensed with. The United States too will succumb and become the American zone, unless it enforces constitutional values, strong borders and teaches the virtues of national patriotism to combat it. Eternal vigilance must be encouraged to temper the far too imminent dangers.
The new progression absorbs nations into political zones with an all powerful centralised autocratic government at the helm. A government whose leaders ( on the present progression) will be unelected and who will champion corporate socialism as a political imperative and cultural Marxism as a uniform approved state ethos. In this, it has already sought to impose increasing political collectivism and an increasing centralisation of power at the heart of its progression. A threat that has in turn sought to destroy and undermine the nation state and the constitutional and individual liberties it protects. Our old values are being dismissed as a relic of the past. Traditionalism, nationalism and patriotism are being vilified and may one day soon be outlawed as evidence of a dangerous “fascist” mind set. Indeed, anti fascism is becoming the new fascism. The kind of freedom we fought to preserve in Britain and America during two world wars will be misrepresented as theirs. It is being inverted and distorted as our histories and traditions are being rewritten for political purposes. Thus the objective of preserving the nation state fought for in two world wars is now being claimed as guaranteed by the supranational state. Peace in Europe only being guaranteed by compliance to the aim of an EU super state. The very antithesis of what soldiers fought and died to protect for the sake of nation state democracy, as they fought the fascist regime and its future idea of “Europe a nation”.
The constitutional values, which the US presently enshrines as basic principles of what liberty and independence entails are also being belittled, devalued and reconceptualised. Running parallel to this attack on the US Constitution and its values is the EU model. A model that is being hailed by some European Socialists as the USA’s new North American future. A political organisation that worryingly is characterised by an increasing democratic deficit: where the Commission rules and decides without even being elected, and a European Parliament is largely toothless and cannot propose, but only rubberstamp the edicts presented before it. The EU elite attempts to tell countries what they can or cannot do, what they can or cannot say, and even who they can or cannot trade with. We all know what that represents. It is the beginnings of a totalitarian state. It represents the true face of fascism by any other name.
“The European Union is a state under Construction. The construction of one state is its conclusion” Elmar Brok Chair of EU Parliament.
“We need to build a United States of Europe with the EU as its government.” -Viviane Reading 2014.
“The single market was the theme of the 80s. The Euro the theme of the 90s. Now we must face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political entity.” Romano Prodi 13th April 1999.
Today the foreign ministers of France and Germany have revealed a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states and morph the continent’s countries into one giant superstate. The radical proposals mean EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with these powers being transferred to Brussels. The nine-page report has apparently “outraged” some EU leaders and member states, particularly the Poles, who have described the plans as an “ultimatum”.
The EU’s democratic deficit is a greenlight to the construct not simply of a single political bloc, but a totalitarian state of the future. Britain can have no part in this project, nor should they seek an agreement that binds them in subservience as an “associate member” of the kind EEA will provide.
There are a number of scenarios for BREXIT:
Leaving the SIngle Market and Customs Union with No Deal.
Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, renegotiating access to the Single Market ideally tariff free, with no need for 4th freedom of peoples/labour.
Remain in the Single Market and just pay fees and follow 4 freedoms obligations.
Remain in Customs Union (limitations on trade outside EU) and Single Market (follow 4 freedoms and pay fees). This is the Remain position of Lib Dems, and others.
It is clear hard Brexit, if defined in this way, is the best deal for Britain.
The Norway option involves Soft Brexit then and is a means of keeping Britain tied to the bloc. As they are in EFTA and follow freedom of labour/ peoples obligations. They follow EU rules in some respects then and pay fees to trade in the Single Market. Remaining in the Customs Union too prevents Britain from trading freely with the rest of the world.
A future Eastern bloc
The Visegrad nations of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are now calling for dramatic reforms to the EU. They are calling for national integrity to be preserved within a union. They have been calling for the creation of “a genuine Union of trust”.
Calling for reform of the EU and its autocratic mandate they assert:
“The genuine concerns of our citizens need to be better reflected. National parliaments have to be heard. The institutions of the European Union need to stick to their missions and mandates. Trust also needs to be fostered among member states, starting with overcoming the artificial and unnecessary dividing lines we have seen emerging in past few months.”
Foreign ministers from the Czech Republic and Poland had already blamed “responsibility” for last week’s referendum result on the EU institutions, and even called for the resignation of Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.
Visegrad would be served better if they operated amongst themselves and separate from the EU in a new kind of national union. A kind of non Soviet led Warsaw Pact.
Other trade blocs, not limited by global trade, could also emerge. A Mediterranean trade bloc of Portugal, Spain, Italy & the currently ailing Greece as an intermediate solution before other FTA’s are agreed.
Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are probably of a similar understanding culturally also and with comparable GDPs could form their own trading association. The same is probably true for other Nordic countries.
This is the way it should have operated in the first place—the idea that you can start to include Kosovo, Albania and Romania in a future currency union for all member states, as President Juncker recently proposed, is palpable nonsense. It is born of a political ideology not the economic reality. The disparity of GDPs in a monetary union is too great without deep centralisation. But centralisation also brings about a loss of national integrity and power, something the Visegrad clearly wants to retain.
Similar peoples, similar mind sets, similar economies could form more stable alliances politically and economically.
There might well be multiple trade blocs within Europe, and a broad geo political separation of Eurasia and Northern Europe. They wouldn’t necessarily have to be politically joined, or merged into one, as on the current model of progression.
A warning to the EU is that the Roman empire spanned the regions of both. It tried a simultaneous system of rule, but ended up losing its eastern part when Constantinople became Istanbul.
For now EU is about control and central planning by a European oligarchy. The historical rhyming with the old Austro-Hungarian empire or the Roman empire may offer some unfortunate and perhaps once rejected alliances. These may not necessarily be preferred choices, but desperate times might call for desperate measures.
The key choices will be born out of cultural and demographic considerations and not simply the economic convenience of a single market that is in any case failing. The chief issue will be how the distinct and unique cultures of the West will be preserved in the face of a European Union that seeks a merger with Turkey in its on going expansion into Asia.
It is doubtful that the V4 would readily agree to Turkish accession and this might well be a tipping point to trigger realignment. Hungary has already expressed defiance at immigrant quotas and these will only get worse, not better with Turkish accession, which appears to be acting as a porous buffer for an increasingly serious immigrant crisis. The V 4 will be in the front line, whether the bloc splits or not, but they might in a new alliance forge a common immigration policy to deal with the influx. In the worse case, the V4 may even become a political and not simply a trade bloc in itself, outside of the EU. It would be unlikely however as I cannot imagine any of them allowing the destruction of their cultures. The current EU progression in the name of a diversity strategy is affecting this with a predominantly Muslim influx. A progression and a kind of political rule they have had enough of at any rate in their histories dished out by the old Soviet Union.
Hopefully the UK will form bilateral trade links with the Commonwealth and the US. These bilateral deals will nullify any freedom of movement principles currently being enforced by the EU. This would require WTO membership once more and increasingly more bilateral fair trade deals around the world as well. It would be a case of putting Britain first and maintaining its sovereignty and independence in turn.
We have expressed a desire for Brexit, and now is the time for forthrightness and valiancy. It may be enough to save our English culture by putting a stop to the freedom of movement principle that had been foisted upon us. As the originator of the Anglo sphere civilisation, trade links will be easily made. The necessity to achieve distance and independence even from the European single market could be met with other bilateral trade deals, particularly with France and Germany. This will protect these countries also from the fall out of a failing Euro and the disintegration of the aftermath of a collapsing EU which seems increasingly likely.
We are in the midst of an existential and political threat, but it also requires a strength of character from our politicians in soon to be arranged Brexit negotiations, which (judging by the quality of some of the political candidates we currently have in place) may be lacking. A Brexit candidate as PM would be the sensible choice and a popular one.
In this, the future is uncertain when potential leaders express such contrary ideas. Consider a popular candidate Boris Johnson, who has today spoken of the absolute necessity to end freedom of movement in any Brexit negotiations for trade with the “single market”. A paradox as membership with this requires allegiance to the four freedoms. For Johnson, immigration would be contrarily initiated with an Australian style points system.
Whilst a more palatable choice than the current one being enforced on us, this is a very different voice from the man who only a few days ago reaffirmed his commitment to introduce a 12 year amnesty for illegals in the UK and who spoke of the necessity to maintain the “closest possible links” to Europe. It is a very different voice from the man who, in 2006, spoke of the EU being a new “Holy Roman Empire” and who has written on the subject extensively.
Yesterday Mr Johnson spoke about “building bridges”. But what kind of bridges does he really want to build?
“I believe our generation has a historic chance … to build a bridge between the Islamic and the Christian worlds,” the politician said in 2006, when he called for EU expansion into Asia.
He made the case for Turkey to be admitted to the EU in a BBC documentary, saying he could not wait for the “great moment” when the two halves of the Roman Empire “are at last reunited in an expanded European Union.” His association with The Friends for Turkey Campaign, of which he was a founding member, shows his ideological conviction in the political sphere.
In the BBC documentary he asserts:
“What are we saying if we perpetually keep Turkey out of the European Union just because it’s Muslim? First, it’s a denial of the huge achievements of men like Kemal Ataturk who created a secular Westernising country that just happens to be populated by Muslims; it sends out the worst possible signal to moderates in the Islamic world, saying that we can’t incorporate such a country into Europe. And thirdly, are we really saying about ourselves and about Europe that it must be forever conterminous with nothing but Christendom? Well, try going to Bradford and saying that.”
Placing the Islamisation of Europe aside, Mr Johnson made a historic comparison also. Modern Europe like Rome once did, faces the problem of “how to deal with the people who yearned to come in”. But a 12 year welcome amnesty is not the kind of solution we need in the light of increasing terrorist threats from the Muslim world. Nor is weakness in the face of an EU Commission and a German Chancellor now insisting that trading in the single market necessitates observing the four “freedom” principles of the Treaty of Rome. Principles expanded upon in the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. The consequence of these freedoms have been, in many respects, self defeating and self destructive to nation state hood and the protection of personal liberties. Liberties best maintained under the rule of our own laws. Neither multiculturalism, nor parallel judicial and legal systems, can be accepted in any model for the future. An assimilation of immigrant numbers through an acceptance of national values must be the way forward.
Johnson’s 12 year amnesty remarks, along with his early EU idealism, suggests a future gaffe maker of Bidenesque proportions. Whilst Johnson privately might welcome such ideas, to prove his liberal inclusivity and racial and religious tolerance, it is hardly suitable for the pragmatic problems now facing an increasingly densely populated Great Britain. Catering for increasing numbers from a constantly expanding EU, its own colonial past and an African and Asian illegal immigrant influx that only appears to be increasing, how is British infrastructure to cope?
Today’s Johnson might realise the idealism of his younger days has to be abandoned in the face of the harsh reality. But it is a realisation born from career ambitions and courting favouritism, rather than the economic and infra structure difficulties posed. It is facilitated too by his liberalism: an ethos that fails to see Islam and its values as a future alien threat that resists assimilation with the Christian liberalism of the West. He assumes ipso fact it can be westernised through acceptance and should be welcomed before it is.
Whatever his imperative is born of, and something of his Turkish family background plays a large part, one thing is certain, it is time to take back control of our economy and sovereignty and reaffirm British values. It is vital in order to safeguard our constitutional legacy and our future place in the world as a key player. It is vital to preserve this island’s social unity, its ancient traditions, and the principles contained in Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. Our island must remain a united democratic nation state. We must in this act for the good of the nation, as well as its people as a whole.
Guy Verhofstadt, the pro EU federalist, has today tried to give the impression the EU will soon be reformed into a “small”, “less bureaucratised” government and that the British referendum did not represent the greater percentage (70%) of young people in Britain who largely voted Remain. He claims they must now live with the consequences in a future which rightly belongs to them.
To downplay the EU’s democratic deficit and to talk about reform, after so many British attempts to negotiate reform have been ignored, is a cynical and devious ploy by him. It flies in the face of their own agenda. Particularly considering his extremely pro EU federalist stance. EU has no intention of reforming democratically, at least in any genuine sense, and it is doubtful Verhofstadt believes it warrants it. To do so would require a reform of all its fundamental institutions and a rewriting of the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties.
In truth, the EU seeks only a deeper union, ceding more power to its oligarchy. “Smaller government” is here probably a euphemism for an increase in the Commission’s power and a reduction in the Parliament and Council’s already limited, overly bureaucratised powers. “Smaller” government here also rather suggests the idea of a One State government of Europe, ruled by a self appointed, all powerful oligarchic elite.
The power of the unelected oligarchy to make EU laws, without a true democratic mandate from the people, has been one of the intrinsic flaws of the EU project. It lacks the necessary checks and balances of the United States Republic. It is a Soviet model, which negates freedom and democratic accountability, placing centralised power in the hands of a few, with an impotent EU Parliament as a mere rubberstamp authoriser and false front. It essentially involves remote rule by a foreign oligarchy. A cabal that increasingly enforces laws on its member states against their own expressed wishes. The QMV process has now very much negated the value of the national veto, but also highlights further the problem of the EU’s democratic legitimacy. Clearly morally, as well as politically, such nation states should be free to govern themselves without interference. The corruption of many of its EU ministers more generally and their questionable political and financial histories has raised further doubts as to the merits of technocracy in any case.
Mr Verhofstadt’s disingenuous claim that the EU will reform has most likely been a cynical damage limitation exercise in the light of the fact that Brexit has triggered calls by elected politicians in Denmark, Italy, France, and Holland to hold referenda in the near future. As the “contagion” (as Mr Verhofstadt calls it) for self determination by nation state democracies spreads, the existential threat posed to the political project might very well be irreversible. Indeed, the EU may well be a defunct project in 10 years time; collapsing more because of its democratic deficit, rather than the economic one size fits all project of trying to assimilate differing GDPs in the Euro Zone.
The United Kingdom has never required union with a political bloc in order to trade. In this, the wise words of Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address should serve as an imperative:
“peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”.
The United Kingdom should look forward to trading with nations that understand the significance of these words and practise them as an ethos with bilateral trade deals. Hopefully Jefferson’s words in this will be heeded in any future free trade agreements.
The Second Referendum Petition
In opposition to the decision reached by the majority, a Petition has emerged with over 3.7 million signatures, calling for a Second Referendum. The petition seeks to justify itself as a call:
“upon HM Government to implement a rule that, if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60 percent based on a turnout less than 75 percent, there should be another referendum.”
It tries here to suggest the 72% turn out of the original EU referendum, which has triggered Brexit, is somehow invalid, even though there is no such threshold.
The EU referendum had a historic all time high turn out at 72%. Furthermore, a law cannot simply be applied retrospectively to this, deeming it invalid, just because the minority lost and happen to disagree with the majority decision. It cannot be considered legitimate based on a retrospective application of the threshold, even if it was turned into law at some point in the near future. The petition, therefore, must be deemed invalid.
The Petition originated from a Leaver, it is claimed, but has been hijacked by Remain to force a second referendum. It was written when Leave were in fact polled to lose. It cannot be taken seriously, however.
Of the currently 3.7 million supposed digital signatures it has garnered, many do not even originate from locations involved in the first referendum. Many have originated from Europe, including to date 39,000 from the Vatican City, which only has a population of 840. There are numerous other instances from far flung overseas locations such as 24,855 signatures from North Korea and 2,735 from British Antarctic Territory, which has a population of just 250. Clearly, then, the vote is being manipulated and should be viewed as inadmissible.
A second referendum could only be seriously considered if any future PM decides that Article 50 need not be implemented before a general election, and the process drags on. As a new government is not bound by the decisions implemented by the former, theoretically the Referendum result could be overruled, but is likely only if Labour was elected, If this occurred, however, the political fallout would be immense, and very damaging to the ethics of what constitutional democracy should entail.
The referendum could be overruled in the largely pro Remain House of Commons anyway, before any general election occurs, but that is unlikely, as it would be against the majority will of the people as expressed. Generally, that would be tantamount to an admission that politicians do not serve as representatives of the people, but serve only to meet their own personal ideas and ends as to what they deem is best. In this democracy would be weakened, and the people’s will overruled. But that would be tantamount to political suicide, and no party would survive it. The likely scenario is a vote of support in the Commons. It is unlikely to be opposed either in the House of Lords, as that would trigger a Constitutional crisis and the call in turn for its abolition.
Article 50 appears to be the chosen route to leave the EU, rather than simply a repeal of the European Communities Act 1972.* The latter would entail leaving the EU, the customs union and the single market entirely, reneging on commitments, and in effect repealing EU laws. It might entail returning to a 1960s EFTA arrangement by default, before renegotiating a new UK trade deal. Article 50 involves renegotiating in a slower, more orderly fashion, as UK leaves the political bloc. The new EEA or EFTA arrangement must be negotiated within a 2 year period. EFTA is something of a trap masquerading as a trade advantage. It means the UK would still be subject to some EU determined regulations, laws and fees on completion in the future. The customs union itself would limit trade agreements around the world. Leaving it would be best, as well as leaving the Single Market, so that the 4th freedom of labour/peoples would not have to be met. Britain would then be able to regain full control of its borders in respect to EU citizens.
Concerning Mr Johnson, the most popular candidate to succeed after Mr Cameron’s resignation (although Michael Gove or Theresa May are better candidates) he has in fact stated, in his post resignation speech, that Article 50 need not be implemented.
“There is no need to invoke Article 50” he states.
However, Mr Cameron only said that Article 50 need not be implemented immediately, until after a new Prime Minister has been selected.
This omission may have been due to tiredness on Johnson’s part, after a night of following the referendum result and the carnival atmosphere that ensued. However, the statement raises a feeling of foreboding as to his own intentions, let alone his ability to do his job.
Johnson might simply mean he wants us to “take our time” in the face of fierce EU bullying, particularly by the Franco-German axis and the Commission, to implement Article 50 immediately and leave within the 2 year time period. It is the slow “steady” position of Mr Cameron. It might alternatively mean he desires a new British trade agreement outside the single market with the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. If this is his wish it is a new one, born also from a desire to improve his chances as a future Conservative Party leader leading Brexit.
As many a Commissioner and President have made clear, Article 50 must be invoked in order to proceed. They of course wish this to happen in a short time frame, in order to lessen the chances of uncertainty in the markets, but as the markets are already recovering, it appears more to be concerned with survival and limiting the political fall out of further Frexits, Dexits, etc.that pose an existential threat to the bloc. It also appears to be a handy way of hoodwinking the British and driving them into an EEA/EFTA Norway style agreement, where they will be less troublesome, but still bound as an “associate member” by the main principles of the Four Freedoms.
Mr Johnson has called himself pro European, but against the anti democratic EU. In other comments he rather has appeared to want to remain in the EEA with a Norwegian style trade agreement, whilst being able to trade globally outside the Customs Union, something the UK currently cannot do. Our own seat on the WTO would be needed to achieve this once more.
The arrangement is not without its drawbacks. It still requires the payment of a membership fee. It has been a poor deal for Norway in any case, as it has limited their negotiating powers, whilst forcing them to still comply with some EU regulations. They have also been pressured for bail ins. It lets Norway set its own rules concerning agriculture, fishing, justice and home affairs. It has not limited immigrant numbers however; although this has largely been due to its voluntary adoption of Schengen, something the UK is not part of.
The British people, however, voted on the assumption immigration would be greatly reduced and that freedom of movement would be stopped, or subject to an Australian style points system. This was the prime reason offered by the Leave campaign to vote Leave. Spinning the opposite, in the face of discontent at a possible EEA arrangement, which simple justifies freedom of movement, is disingenuous. This has been the position of Daniel Hannan. The people are more than tired of being lied to. Clearly, a Norway style arrangement would not fully satisfy many of their high expectations caused by the promises some offered in order to win.
There are 4 EFTA countries with various degrees of involvement in the single market: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Liechtenstein has negotiated a curb on the freedom of labour, goods, services and capital, and with emergency provisions applied, it might be possible to negotiate no freedom of movement for the UK. On the other hand, the “Swiss” option involves a multitude of bilateral trade deals, but at least grants a reduced membership fee. Notably, Switzerland has recently come under pressure to accept increased immigrant quotas, but it has successfully countered this demand via its own regular referenda. Britain, however, does not favour the regular use of referenda.
All is not lost. First it is worth emphasising that all countries of the world have access to the single market and can trade with it, without necessarily being in it, or restricted by the mountain of red tape the EU foists on those within its member states. According to World Trade Organisation rules, therefore, the UK could enjoy full right of access to the single market outside of it, regardless of our stance on immigration, just as Canada does. The need for all the complex trade regulations that EU officials feel are important would then be rendered superfluous. The mountain of bureaucracy could be wiped out at a stroke, by declaring post-Brexit Britain to be a free trade zone. This would turn the UK into a magnet for enterprise, while the EU remains trapped in economic stagnation by its political and increasingly bureaucratised tendencies.
The idea that trade with the single market necessarily entails free movement as a requirement has been a too often proclaimed fallacy by the Eurocrats. It blurs the distinction between access and being a member of the single market. It is a stance Merkel has reiterated again only recently. It is a red herring however. For example, Canada is about to conclude a free trade deal with the EU, yet none of its citizens have the right to freely settle in EU territory.
In truth, the free movement of people has never been simply about economics, but more about the progression towards political integration. Formally imposed through the Maastricht Treaty, it was a tool used for replacing nationhood with the concept of European citizenship. It was meant to strengthen the solidarity and progression towards a single super state. That is why federalists cling desperately to this political ideology, even in the face of social dislocation, terrorism, fiscal bankruptcy and extremism. It is the reason too why so many European Communists found its values compatible with the Socialist Internationale’s values after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
Added to the mix, as proof of his pro European liberalism, Johnson has called for a general amnesty for illegals residing here longer than 12 years. This might appear to be a noble and moral gesture, but would be dangerous in practise. It sends out a signal that any may come and reside illegally, knowing after the 12 year period they would be safe and not prosecuted, or might even have citizenship conferred automatically. It suffers from the same myopia and deficiencies the free movement principle implemented under Maastricht does, inasmuch as it is the application of a universal applied across the board, irrespective of an individual’s criteria, at least in practise, if not in theory. It facilitates, encourages and even sanctions the spread of criminality across borders. It is an amnesty based on a period of ordinary residence, irrespective of its legality, rather than one based on individual suitability and a clean record.
Johnson’s amnesty is more of a PR exercise to prove his non racist, inclusive credentials. It means little in practise, as most illegals would not be able to work and or claim benefits without a national insurance number anyway, which could not be obtained without checks determining their illegal status. If they did work to survive on the black market, they would be working and residing illegally, breaking the law on two counts. Whilst this does occur in some instances, breaking the law must be an automatic disqualification for permanent residency status, let alone citizenship, once discovered. It should not be forgiven, or even offered as a carrot for political purposes.
In respect to the majority of the electorate’s wishes, free movement of labour and people would have to be determined by an Australian style points system. This cannot be applied retrospectively to those already residing in the country illegally. It requires leaving the Single Market so that the limitations might be applied to Europeans also.
In applying this, illegals who have entered via Europe should be deported, irrespective of their credibility to meet employment criteria after 12 years, as they have already broken the law as illegal aliens originally. Leaving the EU, EEA and ECJ enables this by effectively detaching ourselves from the EU and closing the open door. This requires invoking Article 50 and the 1972 Communities Act simultaneously. They should not be protected by the rights of citizenship they do not ordinarily have whilst residing in Britain as illegals. They have already broken the law and permanent residency, let alone citizenship, should be denied on these grounds alone.
Free movement of people should not be permitted automatically based on EU citizenship either, as it currently is. Neither should the free movement of labour. A full visa system should be non discriminatory and should require each candidate proves his or her eligibility, irrespective of citizenship. This alone is fair and impartial. Candidates should already have a job offer and a signed contract as proof of eligibility and admission, unless they desire a holiday or temporary stay.
The same requirement non EU citizens must satisfy, must be applied to EU citizens. There should be a temporary residence visa for work purposes subject to contract duration. Permanent residence would require an application to emigrate. Citizenship would be accepted only after permanent residency had been granted after a period (say 5 or 7 years). A previous criminal record or illegal status, even if that is over 12 years, should lead to automatic disqualification for a permanent residents visa, as well as automatic disqualification from attaining citizenship assessed on a case by case basis.
To summarise, the problem is whether we will implement Article 50 in an orderly fashion, or also repeal the European Communities Act 1972 to initiate a British Sovereignty Bill with emergency laws. EU and Berlin is pushing for Article 50 only, but we might find ourselves in EEA where we still pay a membership fee and must obey laws as Norway does with no real voice. They are voluntarily part of Schengen with a growing immigration problem, something we desperately need to control.
We need control of our borders to limit numbers. We need strengthened border controls. We need a special trade deal for the UK, recognising our exceptional status and contribution as EU’s greatest customer. It is not one that should inflict punitive measures as an “associate member”.
That Nigel Farage has been sidelined is saddening considering his contribution and presence for twenty years has very much shaped the debate. There are constitutional reasons however, as he is not an elected MP. He is an MEP however and this has not prevented private advisors influencing government policy in the past.
The Leave campaign, whilst bringing UKIP popularism into mainstream acceptance (after much earlier backbiting) has largely filched UKIP’s ideas for their own political purposes. His influence and contribution should be recognised. His efforts have largely led to the referendum, the awakening of the sleeping masses, and on completion, the independence of this country from EU rule.
As for Mr Cameron “steadying the ship” and staying until October, the downgrading by Moody’s reflects the protracted uncertainty this might bring. It might well cause him to think again.
The new prime minister can trigger the two-year process of negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the EU without a vote in Parliament under the Royal Prerogative. However, the issue is almost certain to end up with the courts, after law firm Mishcon de Reya launched legal action on behalf of a group of anonymous clients, arguing that an Act of Parliament will be required to deploy Article 50. The withdrawal process should also involve repealing or amending the 1972 European Communities Act, which in any case will require debates and votes in Parliament.
Proof of the democratic deficit comes from their own mouths.
Claud Cheysson, former French Foreign Minister and member of the European Commission “The Europe of Maastricht could only have been created in the absence of democracy”
Klaus Kinkel, German Foreign Minister “Politicians should have the courage to take decisions….against the will of the people”
Raymonde Barre, French Prime Minister and Commissioner “I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account”
M. Willy de Clerq, MEP “EC Governments should not try to explain the Maastricht Treaty. It is unexplainable. Treaty decisions are far too removed from daily life for people to understand”