Yesterday, the 7th of May 2017, will be long remembered. It is the day of the Fall of France.
This is not the first Fall of France. In 1940, German troops stormed through the Ardennes, completely surprising the French General Staff.
Nobody who has read Chester Wilmot’s ‘The Struggle for Europe’ can fail to recognise the similarities. In 1940, the French Establishment was represented by octogenarian and even nonagenarian generals. Their incompetence was complete. Counter-attacks were so badly organised that battalions engaged on different days or in the wrong place. Communications were by carrier pigeon. The French armour, superior in numbers and quality to the German, was not allowed to operate freely and instead was used as semi-mobile artillery for infantry support.
The result was that France capitulated. That was the first Fall of France. An uneasy truce was declared, in which the Germans gave the French permission to govern themselves in territory not already under a German jackboot, but it didn’t last long; in 1942 the Germans assumed complete control.
Seventy-two years later, the second Fall of France has just occurred. Instead of dottering relics from bygone wars, fought decades before, today the French establishment is represented by a dandified fop called Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frederic Macron. This poodle sans couilles is now the President-elect of France.
Margaret Thatcher, heroine of the Falklands, the scourge of the miners, the ‘most divisive’ Prime Minister in recent British history, maybe any British history, died in 2013. She was 87.
Legions of trendy-lefty commentators danced in the streets, and people far, far too young to have any recollection whatsoever of what Dame Margaret Hilda Thatcher actually did, filled their Facebook drivel, er, pages, with claptrap about how much they hated her and were glad to see her gone.
Well, I remember her reign, and indeed it was not pleasant. But what is forgotten, perhaps wilfully, by those who celebrated her death, is what life was like before Thatcher. They forget too, that without her, a great part of what the ‘British’ now accept as normal, simply would not exist.
There is no alternative to Capitalism in a free society. Removing it would also necessarily remove the foundation of Enlightened Culture. As I wrote here, that foundation is that we all own our own bodies and lives. They are ours to do as we will with, so long as we do not harm others. If we so choose, we may use them to earn and acquire property, which is Capital. Once acquired, it is ours to keep or exchange.
Removing Capitalism dispossesses us of our own lives and bodies, since it prevents us from using them to acquire things. Worse, it assumes that, since our bodies and lives are not our own, they must belong to someone or something else. This has been the Family, the State, the Tribe, the Earth, the Party, the Church, the Crown, the Faith; you name it. Our most precious freedom, to live our own lives with our own bodies, is removed when we attempt to remove Capitalism.
Sweden is proud, today, to say that it has a woman president and a largely female Cabinet. This is lauded by feminists the world over. Yet Sweden is unable to provide the basic level of protection that its own citizens require. And those who suffer most are women, who are the victims of rape jihad at the hands of Muslim immigrants.
The Duty of State
The primary duty of a State is the protection of its people. This is the social contract we make: we consent to be governed in return for protection. If we require to look after our own security, why should we pay a State to do it? Why not buy a pistol or a shotgun and learn how to use it? Why not form militias or vigilante groups and defend ourselves? If it’s defend yourself or be raped or murdered, what right does the State have to demand taxes, or hobedience to its laws? The point of having a State at all is to avoid anarchy; but that is precisely the result, when it cannot protect its citizens.
Well, it’s here at last, Trump Day. The twentieth of January 2017. This is the day we begin to roll back the tide and reclaim both our culture and our homelands.
Trump Day marks the turning of the tide, and that is why millions of screaming, whining pseudo-liberals are so upset. There is nothing they loathe more than a powerful white man. And Donald Trump is just such a man.
A vicious alliance of lesbians, race-supremacist blacks and of course Muslims, who will use any opportunity to bite the hand that feeds them, has lined up in ‘protest’ at the democratic will of the American people. That people elected Trump as an honest broker, a harbinger of change that would put an end to nearly a decade of appalling cavilling to the most destructive and hate-filled forces in Western society.
2016 began, for me, in the Philippines, where I now am. It had a less than auspicious beginning: I remember my shock at hearing about the death of David Bowie. But, while the toll of celebrities continued, this was not the most surprising thing about the year by any means.
That something was afoot became clear early on, in May, when Rodrigo Duterte, a fast talking populist, was elected as president of the Philippines. Most people in the West hardly noticed this, but it was a straw in the wind. It is true that Duterte’s route to power was laid open by the Philippines electoral system, which is single-stage, and the fact that the centrist vote was split between two popular candidates, Mar Roxas and Grace Poe. Duterte exploited this division expertly and won, on around 38% of the vote.
‘Phobia’ just means ‘fear of’. ‘Islamophobia’ therefore, is the fear of Islam. But Islam is not a group of people, a race or an ethnicity. It is just a religion. A religion is a set of ideas, so Islam is an ideology.
It is reasonable to fear an ideology that calls on its followers to kill you and destroy your culture; so why does ‘Islamophobia’ have special status? Why are people deliberately shamed into not stating that they are afraid of Islam and what it instructs its benighted followers to do to them?
Why should Islamophobia be reviled, when it is actually the only intelligent position to take? Is self-preservation a bad thing? Is it wicked to want to protect a culture that you are justly proud of? Is it wrong to want to protect yourself and your children from a 9th-century travesty of lies and delusions fabricated by an evil warlord whose closest modern equivalent is Adolf Hitler?
Islamophobia is not only a reasonable fear, it is also the only intelligent and rational position to take.
On Saturday it was Bonfire Night in Blighty. Yes, that spectacularly English version of the traditional festival at the onset of winter. While the rest of the world has Samhain, Hallowe’en, the Day of the Dead and others, the English celebrate a failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament, otherwise known as the ‘Gunpowder Plot’.
Thirteen men, led by one Robert Catesby, smuggled 36 barrels of gunpowder into the vaults under the building. On the 5th of November 1605, Guy Fawkes was arrested attempting to light the fuse.
A less than entirely pleasant exchange on Twitter made me consider the issue of self identification. I don’t mean identity, which has been hijacked by the left. I mean self identification. Who you are, not what you are.
Self identification matters because without it, there can be no free speech and therefore, no free society. It is impossible to debate when one party is hiding his identity and the other is not. Without free society, we live in a dictatorship.
This has become hugely important, since large numbers of people use anonymity to harm others with no fear of being exposed. The cult of anonymity has become pernicious today and nobody seems to realise how dangerous it is.
Anonymity is the enabler of totalitarianism. It effects this in two ways. Firstly, it allows people to spread toxic ideologies without fear of reprisal. They can say what they want, be as vile as they can be, and mummy will never find out how reprehensible has been their behaviour. Secondly, as we have seen all too often, anonymity protects the very people who do the most to shut down free speech.