Atticus Fox

I’m racist. And so are you.

As we all know, Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) accuse everyone that doesn’t share their ill-considered opinions to be racists.

Want to leave the EU? That means you’re racist.

Climatesceptic? Only a racist would think that.

You voted for a centre-right government? Raaaaaacist!

‘Racist’ is the go-to insult for the average Leftist. It is often used in situations where, to a casual observer, there is no racial implication within the subject under discussion. But you don’t need to worry about that. The dedicated SJW will somehow find a racial slant to any subject. It doesn’t matter to them how tortuous the logic, they can build a path to racism. It’s like a game of ‘6 Degrees of Racism’.

For example, on Brexit, the SJW thinking goes as follows:

People supporting Brexit want to limit numbers of Europeans entering Britain under the rules of free movement.
Europeans are white but there are also people of other races that also want to immigrate into the UK
Brexiteers’ desire to stop freedom of movement is a proxy for stopping brown people immigrating into the UK.
Therefore, Brexit voters are racist.

Or, we could look at the racism logic behind Climatescepticism:

Man is definitely responsible for climate change
Climate change will lead to sea levels rising as the ice caps melt
Rising sea levels will mostly harm island nations, most of which are populated by brown people.
Therefore, if you don’t do everything possible to fight climate change, you are racist.

Voting for centre-right government:

All centre right governments secretly want to send all brown people to gas chambers.
Therefore, if you vote for Boris Johnson, you are racist.

It’s as easy as that. The beauty of this approach by SJWs is how much it simplifies debating. The SJW no longer needs to wait for evidence that their debating opponent is racist. Words are no longer important. The person can be accused of racism purely on the basis of the policies they support. It also make debates shorter and much easier to win. As soon as the SJW’s opponent expresses support for any policy that the SJW disagrees with, the SJW can hurl the ‘Racist’ bomb and the debate is over. The SJW has emerged victorious again! Simples!

I’ve written before that ‘racist’ is SJW’s favourite insult because, deep down, they are frightened that they might actually be racists themselves. Well, I’ve got news for them: they are! We all are!

The definition of racist is:

“prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

‘Prejudiced’ is the key word here. We are all prejudiced to people of other races to some extent. And by ‘all’ I mean that all races are similarly prejudiced. So let’s look at an example of racial prejudice to see how that works in practise.

Example:

You are asked to spend a week in a room with a group of other people. Toilet facilities will be available and food with be brought to you. However, you have a choice to make: you can choose to spend the week in a room with people of your own race or you can choose to inhabit a room occupied by people of another race. Which room do you choose?

Clearly, under the definition of racist, choosing to spend the week with your own race, indicates prejudicial behaviour to other races. Yet who would not choose the company of their own race? We all feel more comfortable with people that are similar to ourselves: people that share the same cultural background; people that have similar reference points; people that have had similar life experiences. For that reason:

Whites would choose to share with whites over blacks
Blacks would choose to share with blacks over Indians
Indians would choose to share with Indians over Orientals
Orientals would choose to share with Orientals over whites

This is natural human behaviour. However, SJWs would never admit to this. They would probably declare that they would prefer to go to the room of different race. They would be lying to themselves. SJWs do become quite mixed up when it comes to race. That’s when they say silly things like “Only whites can be racist”. They are projecting.

I read somewhere once the following quote:

“Home is where you don’t have to explain yourself”

You don’t have to explain yourself – as much – when your with your own race. You are in your comfort zone. You can relax. There is less suspicion amongst a homogeneous group of strangers of any race. You are slightly less suspicious of them and they are less suspicious of you if you are all the same race. A week with another race would, in many ways, be a rewarding experience. However, it would be more difficult than the equivalent week with your own race. There would be cultural barriers to surmount. There is no doubt that, while rewarding, a week in the company of another race would be more stressful.* (see footnote). Spending a week in a room with a bunch of strangers is stressful enough, but if you are all the same race, that is one less thing to be stressed about.

SJWs would counter the paragraph above by arguing that we need to breakdown cultural barriers and the only way we can do that is that embrace multiculturalism. Have the SJWs ever considered that people of all races like their cultures and want to protect those cultures? SJWs are all about smashing the current structures and re-making the world as they want it to be in their fevered imaginations. It is true that if there were less cultural differences in the world, there would be less wars. However, change has to be organic. Multiculturalism cannot be forced. As the example with rooms above seeks to point out, we all have a natural preference for our own race in extreme social situations and that is not going to change any time soon. SJWs would also point out that ethnic minorities face the issue of being outnumbered by other races every day of their lives. I would answer: yes, they do and that is why they tend to group together in their own communities. Which rather proves my point. We all prefer the company of our own race in order to feel comfortable. In order to feel at home. That applies to all of and so, yes, everyone is racist. Even you.

Footnote: Obviously, this example is not so extreme in the case where all races have lived in the UK for multiple generations because the cultural barriers are much lower if not non-existent.

But This Is [insert current year]!

Social justice activists love to reference the current year as a fundamental argument to justify why their latest social justice cause should be waved through without being challenged.

“We must do this because it’s [insert current year]”.

This argument plants a strong suggestion that this issue shouldn’t even need discussing because, like, it’s 2019! The advocate is implying that this NEW IDEA should have been fixed years ago. It’s only because we were busy with other stuff that this issue remains outstanding. Can we just agree that this NEW IDEA is really no different to all those other issues that our society has dealt with over the years so we should simply agree that the progress we made on that other stuff also applies to this issue and wave it through?

We see this argument used heavily during debates on transgenderism:

“Of course, people should be allowed to identify as whatever gender they feel most comfortable with. It’s 2019, after all”.

Or…

“I think it’s ridiculous that in 2019, we don’t allow pre-op transexuuals to use the toilets and changing rooms of their self-identified gender”

Or…

“Do I think that, in 2019, we should have a new set of personal pronouns for people to choose from and that those pronouns should be enshrined in law such that it would be an offence for someone not to refer to someone else by their preferred personal pronouns? Of course I do.”

I’m sorry, did we agree at some point in the past that everything would be fixed by [insert current year]? Did I miss a meeting? Are we behind schedule on this one? Who’s to blame for this horrendous oversight? Perhaps we need a knee-jerk (over)reaction in order to catch-up with where we should be in [insert current year].

This argument attempts to cut across the history and traditions of our society without any due process.

Our traditions have been built up over thousands of years. Our traditions are the sum of all of the agreements made by all of our ancestors since time immemorial. Our society is governed by rules and etiquette and patterns of behaviour that have evolved over centuries. As such, our society is a reflection of all of our ancestors. I think Isaac Newton’s (borrowed) quote about crediting his insights to those who came before him is very relevant here:

If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders [sic] of Giants.

The idea that we can ride roughshod over the rules that govern our society just because it’s [insert current year] is preposterous. Change has been slow and gradual over that time. Changing direction of a society is like changing the direction of an ocean liner. It takes a while. This is a good thing. We all need to take on board new ideas and the only way we can do that is if those ideas are discussed at length. The merits need to be debated and any relevant legislation can be defined ensuring that existing rights and protections are not jeopardised by the NEW IDEA. The NEW IDEA has to fit into the existing framework. If transgendered people have been oppressed for thousands of years – yet they are only now making a fuss about it 🤔🤔🤔 – then surely another few years whilst we consider how this feature of humanity can best be incorporated into the current structures is neither here nor there.

But social justice warriors do not think in terms of society. They do not think in terms of the impact on everyone not immediately benefitting from the NEW IDEA. There is no consideration by the progressives as to whether the changes represent a net benefit to society as a whole. Nor is there any consideration of what the unintended consequences could be if a NEW IDEA is rushed through without careful consideration. No, they do not think in terms of the bigger picture. They only think in terms of the rights of whatever new niche group they are advocating for and how quickly they can achieve it. For them, this group of people have the right to do such-and-such immediately and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves.

Margaret Thatcher once said “There’s no such thing as society”. I know what she meant. This sentiment applies in [insert current year] more than ever.

‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ – My Review

On 28th May 2018 I watched the C4 documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. On 29th May 2018 I attempted to review the programme on IMDB.

Surprisingly, my review was declined by IMDB. I was informed that the review did not meet IMDB’s guidelines. This seems strange because I did not use any crude language. Nor did I include any contentious opinions. My review was simply a precis of the programme. I ensured that I made it clear that my review included spoilers. I cannot help but wonder that my review fell foul of Climate Change ideology?

I have just re-found a link to my rejected review that I have decided to post here so that it may be saved for posterity:

This documentary was a real eye-opener.

No one in the film denied that the planet has been warming up recently. However, the film showed that this is NOT due to man-made greenhouse gases.

Firstly, it explains that the amount of CO2 in atmosphere – 0.05% – is way too low to have anything but a negligible impact on global temps. This is accompanied by explanation that water vapour – which also acts like a greenhouse gas – is much more abundant in the atmosphere. Furthermore, man-made CO2 is much less than the total amount of CO2 in atmosphere.

Then it explains that while the Earth’s surface temps are rising, if greenhouse gases were to blame, the temps in the troposphere should be rising by even more. But this isn’t happening.

Then they present graphs of CO2 historical levels in atmosphere compared to historical Earth temps – the lines clearly showed correlation. But here’s the thing: CO2 levels rise hundreds of years after Earth temps rise! The temp rise causes CO2 to rise. Not the other way round!

Then they talk about the impact of solar activity on Earth’s climate. Then they showed graphs of number of historical sunspots vs historical Earth temps: these lines clearly showed a high level of correlation. The message here is that sunspot activity cause the temp to rise and, after a long lag, this causes the CO2 levels to rise because the additional CO2 is being released from the Oceans and the Oceans – being quite large – take quite a long time to warm and cool.

One reviewer on this thread has stated that no one in the film referred to decreasing vegetation on Earth. This is misleading: vegetation on Earth has been rising:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-world-is-getting-greener-why-does-no-one-want-to-know/

The last part of the film discussed the historical and political context that allowed for the theory of Man’s impact on Earth temps to take ascendancy: Basically, after fall of Communism, anti-capitalists needed a new way to take down Capitalism. They latched onto global warming. Another reason is governments launched research into global warming in the 1980s and whether or not it was man-made. Nigel Lawson launched such research in the UK when he was in the govt in the 1980s. Nigel stated in the film that the results came back negative – man was not responsible. However, other people with vested interests decided that was not the answer they wanted and have played the “Man’s fault” card ever since. The vested interests now treat any contrary argument as heresy.

Funniest bit was watching Piers Corbyn – Jeremy’s brother – talking about all the money he’s made betting on weather based on the sunspot activity he collates. He’s right and the bookies are wrong. An insightful view into how consensus can develop

Your contribution has been declined.Your submission conflicted with one or more of our policies as stated in our User Review Submission guide Please review these policies before submitting again. Thank you for understanding our position.

Brexit is not about the EU. It’s about Class.

We have reached the point where Brexit isn’t even about the EU anymore. It’s turned into a good, old-fashioned class war.

The EU was the catalyst but the war we are seeing fought day-in, day-out on social media, is a war between the middle class and the working class. The upper echelons are venting their fury and anger at Britain’s working classes for daring to ignore all of the hints and direction provided to them by the elites prior to the 2016 EU Referendum.

The CDEs in our society voted for something the ABs don’t want. This was the first time the lower rungs of our society have unified on an issue in sufficient numbers to give the establishment a bloody nose.

As it is, the elites cannot stand the fact that the ‘lower orders’ defeated them. To the elites, being outvoted by ‘common’ people undermines the credibility of the result. Hence, the repeated tropes from the establishment that Leavers “didn’t know what they were voting for” or that the public were “Not qualified” to vote. Class also explains why ‘Loser’s consent’ does not apply to this result.

It is the first national decision ever made where the establishment is virtually united on one side – Remain – and the working classes are virtually united on the other side – Leave.

Our intellectual elites are failing, probably for the first time ever, to impose their will on the population. Since these people control all media – mainstream and social – we are seeing a sustained propaganda onslaught to wear down our will. This war of attrition by the elites and their numerous attack dogs preceded the referendum vote and they have barely let up since. In fact, their efforts have accelerated in recent months as ‘no deal’ becomes more likely. Leave voters are called ‘stupid’. We are told that Leave voters are ‘gullible’ for believing the ‘lies’ told them about the EU. Leave voters are ‘racist’. Apparently, for some reason, it’s racist to want to leave the EU even though the EU is white and the UK is white. We have to accept that the militant middle classes now use the ‘racist’ epithet against anyone that disagrees with them, irrespective of the relevance of the term. It’s very nasty out there on social media. The gloves are off. As Julie Burchill has written:

At a time when ‘diversity’ is all and pronouns are policeable, it must come as a relief to the professionally progressive that there was still a social group they could spit on: the white working class.

The elites have a different ideology from the working classes. The elites have embraced globalism. Globalism fits their agenda very nicely. Globalism results in societies divided by identity politics (which are easier to control); an explosion in citizens of anywhere (with no loyalty to the country they inhabit); and greater availability of workers (which can be paid less due to supply and demand). None of this benefits the working classes in the UK. In fact, it is all largely detrimental to them. The working classes knew this and voted accordingly. They have been made to pay for such independent thinking ever since. We are now seeing what the middle classes really think of working class people: all the faux-sympathy and faux-empathy towards the poor and working class that has long been the default setting of the middle classes has been blown away to reveal something ugly in its place.

My view is that if the Leave / Remain vote had been more equally split across the class lines, we would not now be witnessing attempts by the middle classes to subvert Brexit on the same scale that we are. Remainers feel justified in their attempts to overturn Brexit because they don’t believe that a cause supported largely by the working classes has any credibility.

Brexit has revealed new divisions in our society – Globalisation – and re-opened old divisions that we were beginning to think had been left behind – class. How can the country move on with such critical open wounds? I’m not sure. But the one I’m sure about is that a clean Brexit needs to be delivered before there can be any chance of reconciliation.

Quotes of the week (to 25Aug 2019)

Quote #1 is from Tim Newman

Desert Sun Blog

Unprincipled Agent Problem

Aug 21, 2019

Atticus says: Tim’s blogs are always a good read. He discusses contemporary issues in a very engaging and pithy manner. Here, Tim is discussing how corporations are happy to jump on SJW bandwagons if that’s what it takes to pacify the progressive loons:

To the extent a shift has occurred, it is that much of the left no longer see corporations as a problem but as a power to be harnessed in order to bring about their desired political goals, bypassing the political process that has thwarted their ambitions for so long.

What these CEOs are doing is signalling to the American left that they are open to doing their bidding provided they get left alone financially: we’ll sign up to Pride Month and let our HR department fire anyone who posts wrongthink on social media, just don’t look too closely at our lobbying efforts regarding NAFTA and our tax exemptions.

Quote #2 is from Eric Kaufman

UnHerd

Is Woke Culture Totalitarian?

Aug 20, 2019

Atticus says: We are all familiar with the ‘progessive’ zealots in western societies that are intent on smashing us all around the head with ‘cultural marxism’. I’ve always thought of these people as fascists (the irony being that these people style themselves as ‘anti-fascists’ thereby proving that they know nothing of history or they would slink away quietly).

In his new book, Legutko makes the comparison with communists. It’s a good comparison and it makes me want to read his book:

In The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, [Ryszard] Legutko points to the eerie similarity between 20th-century communist and contemporary liberal societies, providing western readers with an important new vantage point on problems of our current moment.

Having experienced the communist regime first-hand, he is well-placed to spot the symptoms of ideological tyranny today. Anything which stood in the way of the forward march of socialism was labelled by communists as ‘reactionary’, ‘bourgeois’ or ‘idealist’. Like today’s progressives, he says, they believed that familial, ethnic, national and religious traditions were obstacles to the revolution – atavisms to be overcome and ultimately dismantled.

Numerous artists and intellectuals jumped aboard the express, eagerly suppressing their rational faculties. Alongside the party apparatchiks, these ‘lumpen intellectuals’ constituted the shock troops of the socialist movement. Average citizens stepped into line to avoid harassment and intimidation.

Arguments no longer revolved around truth, but were judged by their fidelity to the tenets of the secular religion. You were either with the movement or against it – those who tried to straddle the middle ground were denounced by socialists as ‘bourgeois’. The dishonest ‘slippery slope’ charge was repeatedly laid by communists to indict moderate opponents seeking some form of compromise between competing positions. Those on the opposite side of the debate were deemed ‘dangerous’ rather than incorrect.

History, the socialists believed, was moving inexorably in the direction of ‘progress’, and the role of the vanguard was to vanquish those standing in its way. Sound familiar? Anyone exposed to the power of the cultural Left in today’s liberal institutions, where ‘because it’s 2019’ is a killer argument, will recognise this.

The 3rd quote this week is taken from Takimag

The Week That Perished

Aug 18th, 2019

Atticus says: I try to read every Takimag article. They have some great writers. Every Sunday they release their own take on the week’s most shameful stories. It’s like the Pepys diary except that instead of documenting the Great Fire of London, it’s documenting the decline of western civilisation. This extract shows the EU in full SJW mode:

…the European Union appears ready to pass a law mandating that all consumer goods made by Jews in occupied Palestinian territories be labeled as coming from “settlements” and “Israeli colonies.” Items made by Muslims in the same area will receive the more benign-sounding label of “Palestine.”

The law follows on the heels of a similar law in France, which, as it so happens, is being overrun with Muslims.

According to Yohan Benizri, a lawyer with an extremely Jewish-sounding name who represents a winery that would be affected by the new law, Jews are hypocritically being singled out for scorn:

“Can you imagine a situation where plastic cups imported from China must be labeled ‘this country has a one-child policy,’ or gas from Russia must be labeled, ‘This is gas from a country that illegally occupies Crimea,’ or products from the United States require the labeling ‘the U.S. engages in capital punishment and is building an illegal border wall?’ Product labels will have become political billboards depending on the whims of EU politicians, and every EU importer will shoulder a liability for not complying with arbitrary labeling laws.”

He has a point.

Quote #4 from Brendan O’Neill

Spiked-Online

Aug 21 2019

Who’s Really Demonising Journalists?

Atticus says: I’m a big fan of Brendan. Here he discusses the recent altercation that involved Owen Jones and hordes of highly trained far-right thugs who made some light scratches on Owen’s tummy before rushing off to buy 1st print editions of The Sun:

Why is the accusation of ‘hate preacher’ always made in one direction only – that is, towards the right-leaning press? Who, we might ask, is responsible for the violent assault on a 60-year-old feminist at a trans-sceptical event in Speakers’ Corner two years ago? Was it the virulently anti-‘TERF’ sections of the press, which includes Mr Jones himself, which frequently dehumanises certain feminists as bigots and haters? If the Mail is responsible for the violent assault of a left journalist, why aren’t left journalists responsible for the violent assault of a so-called TERF?

Or who is responsible for the attack on Andy Ngo in Portland? The so-called antifa forces who assaulted him, very violently, notably used milkshakes. They were clearly inspired by the middle-class milkshaking phenomenon in the UK and possibly by pro-milkshaking journalists at newspapers like the Guardian, one of whom said milkshaking is a valiant effort to ‘reduce men of pomp to figures of ridicule’. If the Express bears responsibility for right-wing violence, does the Guardian bear responsibility for left-wing violence?

We might also ask whether supposedly liberal media outlets have helped to stir up Islamist violence. We’re often told that right-wing newspapers embolden far-right terrorists. By the same token, might it be argued that the leftish media’s incessant, overblown claims about rampant Islamophobia fuel the violent victim mentality of people who carry out such atrocities as the Charlie Hebdo massacre or the Manchester Arena bombing? After all, that bomber was apparently convinced that Britain is a disgustingly Islamophobic society – where might he have got that idea from?

Let’s Criticise The Hypocrites

My flabber continues to be gasted by the extent of blatant hypocrisy endorsed by Leftists. So much so, that I realise the time has come to document as many examples as I can recollect. I will continue to update this list with appropriate examples over the coming weeks:

Working Class: Liberal Leftists hate them. Particularly the white working class (WWC). The left took the votes of the WWC for granted while they went in pursuit of the brown vote. While their backs were turned, the WWC decided to vote for Brexit and the tories (& Trump) and the left loathe them for it. The left relied on WWC votes. Now they no longer bother to pretend they like the WWC.
Materialism: Leftists are constantly complaining that Capitalist societies are obsessed with ‘stuff’. We buy too much stuff. We don’t need as much stuff. We should live simpler lives where we are not stripping the planet of its natural resources in order to feed our insatiable appetites for stuff. Yet, when it comes to Brexit, Leftists adopt the argument that is the exact opposite: there must not be any backsliding on standards of living caused by Brexit. No. When they are referring to the environment, then they preach that we must all live more simply. Yet, on the subject of Brexit they preach that living standards must continue to rise. “No one voted to be poorer”, say the Leftists. We must be able to buy more stuff. There can be no shortages of stuff. Lots of stuff must always be available from lots of different countries so we can choose exactly what stuff we buy. Leftists are aghast at the thought that Britons should focus on buying British stuff. No, they argue, Britons have a human right to be able to buy as much stuff from as many different countries as they have always been able to buy. What makes this hypocrisy ever more rancid is that British Leftists are more than happy to install the well known Socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, as their Prime Minister. Socialism has reduced the choice and quality of stuff available to its citizens in every country in which it has been tried. These people are not consistent and that makes them hypocrites.
New Prime Ministers: Leftists are in uproar that Boris Johnson has become PM. It’s undemocratic, they say. Only 130,000 people voted for him after several rounds of voting by 340 Conservative MPs. But they weren’t complaining when Gordon Brown became PM without any voting at all: neither by MPs nor by Labour Party members. They don’t complain when Ursula von der Leyen becomes the new President of the European Commission when she was the only candidate put forward and even then only managed to win 52% of the votes of the EU Parliament. She was not elected by the EU electorate and she cannot be removed by the EU electorate. Martin Selmayr was promoted to Secretary General of the EU Commission without due process. All fine for your average Leftist.
Protect the Planet: People in 1st world countries use much more energy and natural resources than people in 3rd world countries. Yet Leftists are happy to allow unlimited numbers of economic migrants to arrive in 1st world countries and none see that this policy clashes with their desire that the West must be doing everything it can to be carbon-neutral by next Tuesday.
Corbyn: There is a big group of people who argue that Brexit must be overturned because of the negative effect it will have on the economy have no qualms about supporting Corbyn’s ambitions to be PM despite the negative effect his Premiership will have on the economy. The most charitable thing I can say about such people is that they suffer from cognitive dissonance.
BAME: Leftists are all about protecting ethnic minorities. Leftists are always on the lookout for racism and, consequently, they see it everywhere. However, if ethnic minorities decide to shun the Left’s kind offer of protection in favour the tough love and self-determination offered by the Right, then things turn kind of nasty: the Leftists call them ‘race traitors’ or ‘tokens’. This is because, as far as the Leftists are concerned, ethnics shouldn’t have their own minds, like white people. They should vote as a block, like good ethnics.

Kehinde Edwards wrote the following in the Guardian:

By parading a set of token figures to legitimise his agenda, Johnson is treading a well-worn path

Some choice tweets from other race-baiters are here:

Free Speech: Is there anything more hypocritical than liberals that want to curtail free speech? This is happening: academics and authors are denounced for having the wrong views. Books are banned. There is a strong movement to shut down criticism of Islam via Islamophobia legislation. The Big Tech companies throw people off their platforms for stating legal opinions. Google fired James Damore for exercising his right to free speech. This is enough to know these people are not liberals. They are totalitarians in liberal cloth.
Brexit Coup: Leftist Remainers do not want to leave the EU with ‘no deal’. As such, the zeal of democracy burns so strongly within these people that they are planning to bring down the elected government in a carefully organised manoeuvre in order to install a caretaker government whose objective would be to stop the result of the 2016 referendum from being enacted. I’m not sure you could get any more democratic than that! It’s the very definition of ‘democracy’. Well, the 2019 definition at any rate.
Tolerance: the Left preach tolerance. Yet, they are the most intolerant bunch of people you would never hope to meet. They are always on the lookout for words or deeds that are inconsistent with their ideology and then they go on the attack. They cancel people. They try to have people fired. They try to no-platform people. They try to suppress opinions they don’t agree with. These are not the actions of tolerant people! You don’t see the Right acting this way. The Right are much more about letting people express themselves. Live and let live. The Left are all about control.
Feminism: Leftists are strong supporters of feminism and female rights. Leftists are also trying to tear down the patriarchy. All very militant. The Leftists are usually very vocal in support of womens rights. But not always. While Leftists will scream “sexism” and “misogynist” at any white man that fails to treat a white woman as the member of protected class, Leftists never attempt to win equal rights for Muslim women. However, they are prepared to scream very loudly for increasingly marginal gains for british women. Conversely, there are large gains that could be won for Muslim women yet lefties don’t go there. The necks of Lefties must be in constant pain with the effort of looking the other way so hard!
Gays: Labour representatives regularly state that Tories are a threat to LGBT people. They have yet to produce any evidence of this. Yet they seek out association with groups that shamelessly declare their animosity to gays by executing them. I cannot understand the mental gymnastics required to not be aware of the inconsistancies here.
Nationalism: Leftist complain about Trump’s decision to assassinate Iran’s Suleimani. They paint Suleimani as an honourable nationalist, looking after the interests of his country. Yet these people hate Westerners that put the interests of their countries before the interests of Globalism.
Private Schooling: Labour’s 2019 GE manifesto declared they intended to abolish selective education. Fair enough. If you are the sort of person that believes all children should undeego the same education, irrespective of academic ability then abolishing selective education is the natural consequence. Except that virtually every member of Labour’s shadow cabinet that have children, chose selective education for their children. Yet another example of Leftists talking the talk but not walking the walk.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/791481/Labour-grammar-schools-Angela-Rayner-education-selective-Diane-Abbott-Shami-Chakrabarti

Diversity:

Tsars

Redemption:

Lockdown #1:

written

Lockdown #2:

From Brandon O’Neil in The Spectator:

The double standard was made crystal clear by Labour MP Dawn Butler. When in mid-May Boris Johnson relaxed the lockdown rules and said some people could return to work, Ms Butler fumed. She said the PM was being ‘reckless’ and, get this, was ‘sending people out to catch the virus’. And yet when Conservative MP Kevin Hollinrake criticised the BLM demo on the basis that it could cause a second spike, Butler responded: ‘Don’t you dare! Don’t even go there!’

Uighur Muslims:

I will add more examples to this list as and when they occur. It won’t take long!

Men (Not) At Work

Leftists are very excited by the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

Wikipedia defines UBI as follows:

Basic income, also called universal basic income, citizen’s income, citizen’s basic income in the United Kingdom, basic income guarantee in the United States and Canada, basic living stipend or universal demogrant, is a periodic cash payment delivered to all on an individual basis without means test or work requirement. The incomes would be:

Unconditional: A basic income would vary with age, but with no other conditions, so everyone of the same age would receive the same basic income, whatever their gender, employment status, family structure, contribution to society, housing costs, or anything else.
Automatic: Someone’s basic income would be automatically paid weekly or monthly into a bank account or similar.
Non-withdrawable: Basic incomes would not be means-tested. Whether someone’s earnings increase, decrease, or stay the same, their basic income will not change.
Individual: Basic incomes would be paid on an individual basis and not on the basis of a couple or household.
As a right: Everybody legally resident would receive a basic income, subject to a minimum period of legal residency and continuing residency for most of the year.

The idea is that UBI replaces welfare. But the crucial difference from welfare is that even those with jobs would receive it. The idea is that as we enter the age of automation, there will not be the need for as many manual workers. So, the AI machines at the factories will perform all the work and then the profits generated by the AI machines can be split, equitably of course, across everyone in the country. Those people that have the skills or the need to work can choose to do so, but there would be no obligation to work. We will just need people for the jobs that can’t be automated while everyone else lounges around sucking grapes like the last days of the Roman Empire. Leftists predict that we will experience a cultural renaissance because people will be able to turn their minds to more lofty pursuits once they no longer have to worry about how to pay the mortgage.

Yet people of a perceptive nature can immediately see what this is: it’s another method championed by Leftists for breaking the link between work and money. The Left don’t really like working. They feel there is enough money around that if it was shared around equally they wouldn’t have to work. That is the goal.

Plus, there is clearly a mismatch between the means of production and the source of UBI: UBI is a payment from the governnent. Yet the automation at businesses is in private hands. So, how is the money going to be transferred from businesses to government? Well, either corporation tax will have to shoot up or, better yet, the businesses will be taken into state ownership. It all starts becoming clear: UBI is the latest re-purposing of socialism.

Welfare was the original method that loosened the links between work and survival but welfare has a PR issue: welfare is seen as something for common people. UBI, on the other hand, is a much higher status endeavour. This is a project that lower middle class Leftists are happy to rally around because whilst Leftists love suckling at the teat of public money, they don’t like the thought of being on welfare. UBI is another way of making us all reliant on the state in a socially acceptable way. Leftists sure do love to be dependent on the state.

Anyone can see that this experiment goes against human nature. Humans have had to spend the whole of human existence trying to survive. At the very moment when existence seems assured, Leftists want to down tools and say “Right, we can take it easy now”. No, we can’t. Humans need work. Humans need competition to bring out the best in us. Humans need to strive, to innovate and to invent in order to keep moving forward. No progress will be made in a society where life has no purpose.

If the population doesn’t have to work, there will be all sorts of unintended consequences. We will have too much free time. We will become bored. We will feel irrelevant and unnecessary. Mental health issues will become an epidemic in a world where nobody feels they make a difference. I can’t imagine that peoples’ physical health will be good either: in a world where you don’t have to do anything, what’s the point in doing anything? Welfare has been around for multiple generations now. We don’t tend to view families in which 3 generations haven’t worked as being the best that we have to offer: these people have not spent the time available to them becoming really good at pottery. Nor are they seen as examples of physical perfection. Let’s not pretend that people with lots of time on their hands will use that time wisely.

Listlessness and ennui will be widespread. People will not be working out. Instead, opioids will be the order of the day. Something to take your mind off the insignificance of your life. Something to soothe that anxiety you feel that there must be more to life.

The current elevated status of Western Civilisation is not guaranteed. It would be a mistake to think we can sit back and enjoy the fruits of our labours. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the West lost the knowledge as to how to make concrete for 1000 years. As concepts go, UBI is worse than socialism: socialism also ignores human nature for progression and to be rewarded for hard work but at least people have to work under socialism.

Let humans be humans, not lab rats.

UPDATE: Caitlin Johnstone, writing in Takimag, has a much better handle on UBI than I have. I see UBI as a method for governments to take over. Caitlin sees it as a way for the oligarchs to take over. She makes a good case. Either way, we’re fucked.

Here’s a snippet from Caitlin’s article:

Think about what would happen in that situation if people decided they weren’t being treated fairly by the existing system. What recourse would they have? They can’t organize labor strikes if they have no labor. They can’t boycott if everything is made by the same corrupt system. Mass demonstrations and civil disobedience would go unnoticed by a power structure that needs nothing from its populace. Violent revolution would be an unwinnable game as security systems protecting the infrastructure of the powerful would also become automated. People would cease to be active participants in their society, and would instead be merely along for the ride at the whims of the oligarchs, for as long as the oligarchs deemed them not too inconvenient to keep around.

Caroline Lucas Reveals The Truth About Diversity

Caroline Lucas has been ridiculed this week for calling for a government of national unity that would be led by an all-female cabinet. Anyone can see that this idea is horribly misandrist.

If I were to indulge in a moment of ‘whataboutery’, I would ask you to consider the reaction if a male politician suggested an all-male cabinet to tackle Brexit. However, I won’t because this piece is not about the special privileges to be sexist that women have over men.

This crazy idea started with an opinion piece for The Guardian that Caroline sent to 10 prominant female British politicians.

The names Caroline had in mind for this cabinet of ‘Galacticos’ are:

Caroline Lucas MP (natch)
Heidi Allen MP

Kirsty Blackman MP

Yvette Cooper MP

Justine Greening MP

Sylvia Hermon MP

Liz Saville Roberts MP

Anna Soubry MP

Nicola Sturgeon MSP

Jo Swinson MP

and Emily Thornberry MP

Approximately one nanosecond after publication of Caroline’s sexist call to arms, people realised that her ‘All-Star’ cabinet didn’t include any BAME representation. All her nominees were white, female, middle class liberal Remainers. In fact, they were all very similar to Caroline. Not very diverse, in other words.

And this is where we get to the point behind the title of this piece: Caroline has accidentally revealed a great deal about diversity. Despite liberals like Caroline calling for ever more immigration to help Britain’s diversity because – chant in monotone unison after me – ‘Diversity is our strength’, Caroline doesn’t think in terms of diversity at all. Caroline has shown that, left to her own devices, she thinks in terms of her own identity group.

I don’t have any problem with Caroline thinking and acting in the interests of her own identity group: we all do it. And that is why diversity cannot work: diverse societies will not coalesce into one ‘brotherhood of man’ as Leftists like to believe. Diverse societies will splinter into identity groups and each group will then agitate for more rights and privileges for that group over rival groups. Social cohesion breaks down under diversity. We see the evidence for this all around us. Diversity equals division.

So, I realise that Caroline’s instincts were natural ones. It doesn’t mean she is racist. But it does mean she is hypocritical. She pretends that diversity will lead to a better society but her actions don’t support this attitude.

By the time Caroline made her apology for her awful idea, she had reverted to learned behaviour: diversity is our strength.

She talks the talk but she doesn’t walk the walk.

As an extra treat, here is a great article by Joanna Williams on the Lucas tragedy.

Addendum (Feb 2021):

I recently read this article that reminded me of Caroline’s proposal for an all-white-woman Govt of ‘national unity’. The author, Joel Kotkin, argues that an intellectual overclass is forming in the West, progressive in nature, that sees themselves, as a result of their superior educations, as better placed to guide the thinking of the other 98% of us. This elite ‘clerisy’ are not elected but are in positions to influence those that are. The clerisy are not particularly interested in democracy as elections are too short term and often result in the wrong result. Rather, they are a set of experts that believe they should guide the long term strategic objectives for their countries. The overclass are comprised of the media, academics, artists, writers, scientists, intellectuals and the entertainment leaders.

Those who harbour a sense of natural superiority tend to support strong governmental action in line with their personal values and an overconfidence in their own competence, according to research by Slavisa Tasic of the University of Kiev on decision making in government

I believe Caroline Lucas was invoking the same spirit of a class of ‘superior thinkers’, working outside of democratic boundaries, to better guide the country to the best progressive end-point when she proposed her government of ‘white women unity’:

https://thecritic.co.uk/neofeudalism-and-its-new-legitimisers/

White Flagellation

There are increasing numbers of white people in the West who feel the need to martyr themselves at the altar of multiculturalism. This martyrdom goes beyond simply being an advocate of multiculturalism. I am not referring to a fondness for international cuisine. No, I am referring to people who wish to dismantle white culture. And the most bizarre aspect of this syndrome is that most of these anti-white racists are…white!

There are white British people that are quite happy for there to be unlimited immigration into the UK.
There are white British people that believe that immigrants do not need to assimilate into UK culture.
There are white British people that support the protection of foreign cultures at the expense of British / Western culture.
There are white British people that want BAME representation in jobs to be based on demographics rather than merit.
There are white British people that genuinely feel that only white people can be racist (and they have no idea how racist that belief is).
There are white British people that are convinced that wealth inequality between British white people and BAME people is due to structural racism.
There are white British people that believe that any indicators that Britain is a white Christian country need to be suppressed so as to not offend immigrants.
There are white British people that are convinced that white people owe a debt to former colonies. A debt that never be re-paid but, maybe, can be slightly mitigated with liberal amounts of ‘white hate’.

Etc etc etc.

We have entered the realms where such British whites want their own race and culture destroyed so that other races and cultures do not feel oppressed by white culture.

In an article in The American Interest, linguist and social critic John McWhorter argued that white liberal discourse on race has become quasireligious, with “uncannily rich” parallels to Christianity: white liberals embrace accusations of racism and confess their white privilege (original sin); and they seek a forgiveness from black people that can never be fully earned (grace). There’s also a substantial element of self-debasement and self-flagellation, McWhorter noted.

Western civilisation is possibly the most successful civilisation that has ever existed. However, its success is leading to its downfall. In short, the middle classes have become too numerous and too comfortable for too long. For it is they that are the chief proponants of the ‘white culture must be smashed’ narrative. Only a successful culture has the time on its hands to see inequality of cultures and blame themselves.

Such people feel so much guilt over the success of Western culture that they seek to undermine Western culture from within in order to level the playing field for other cultures. These (white) people know that the best way to show the world how not-racist they are is to attack white people. This lets brown people know that the white-attacking white person is on their side.

The self flagellating white middle classes are consumed with guilt: white guilt; colonial guilt; liberal guilt; class guilt; wealth guilt. Self flagellation is the best way they have found to assuage that guilt.

It’s a trait that perfectly reflects the age: an age in which feelings and fairness trump context and facts. They believe that there should not be inequality between the civilisations. Therefore, all civilisations should be equal. That can be achieved by hampering Western civilisation.

I am referring to a very precise demographic here: young, university-educated white liberals. This group are so sensitive and so consumed with feelings of how unfair the world is that they feel it is a reasonable objective that the white race is replaced in order to make the world better for everyone else.

Here is an example, from an American, of anti-white flagellation:

No civilisation can exist with such a large proportion of its civilians are agitating for its failure.

UPDATE:

I recently came across this article in The Atlantic by Reihan Salam that describes the white-bashing phenomenon from the perspective of a non-white. Some pertinent quotes are as follows:

The people I’ve heard archly denounce whites have for the most part been upwardly-mobile people who’ve proven pretty adept at navigating elite, predominantly white spaces. A lot of them have been whites who pride themselves on their diverse social circles and their enlightened views, and who indulge in their own half-ironic white-bashing to underscore that it is their achieved identity as intelligent, worldly people that counts most, not their ascribed identity as being of recognizably European descent.

And…

It is almost as though we’re living through a strange sort of ethnogenesis, in which those who see themselves as (for lack of a better term) upper-whites are doing everything they can to disaffiliate themselves from those they’ve deemed lower-whites. Note that to be “upper” or “lower” isn’t just about class status, though of course that’s always hovering in the background. Rather, it is about the supposed nobility that flows from racial self-flagellation.

So, you see it comes down to class again. Upper whites want to disassociate themselves from lower whites in order to impress lower browns. Yet upper whites don’t see the hypocrisy in their position. how hypocritical. Nor do they realise their attitude is patronising to brown people. It’s the white saviour complex.

UPDATE #2:

https://unherd.com/2019/10/who-elects-self-hating-white-liberals/

UPDATE #3:

https://unherd.com/2019/10/how-not-to-be-a-white-anti-racist/

UPDATE #4:

https://unherd.com/2020/01/modern-politics-is-christianity-without-redemption/

UPDATE #5:

The Brexit Party

Early in 2019 I applied to be a parliamentary candidate for the Brexit Party. I was selected to attend an interview. As part of the interview process I had to prepare a 2 minute speech that would be delivered at the outset of the interview. This is the speech I delivered:

The speech:

‘I am going to explain why Britain needs the Brexit Party.
The first reason is that the other parties have been trying to subvert Brexit because none of them ever wanted it. And it was beginning to look like they were going to succeed.
But, just when our prospects for leaving the E.U. were bleakest, up pops the Brexit Party and suddenly we have new hope.
Within a few short weeks, the Brexit Party have won a national election, our Remainer-in-Chief has resigned and the Tories have been forced to seriously consider a proper Brexit after all.
Would any of this have happened without the presence of the Brexit Party? Of course not! And that is why Britain needs the Brexit Party!
We also need the Brexit Party because the referendum exposed a new division in British politics. The referendum cut across the traditional party lines. Millions of voters from both the left and the right voted to leave the EU.
The new political division in Britain is now not so much between the left and right but between the cities and the countryside. And between the graduates and the non graduates. And between the globalists and the nationalists. And between the pessimists and the optimists.
All other political parties are catering for the metropolitan, globalist graduates with degrees in pessimism. No one represents the rest of us. That is why we need the Brexit Party.
The Brexit Party has the potential to be the antidote to all other British parties. The Brexit Party can leverage not only the anti-EU mindset but anyone who is not represented by homogeneity of the other parties.
There are many other battles that need to be fought in Britain than just Brexit. Soon, there is likely to be a General Election. Voters will finally have a chance to turf out the political insiders who think they know best. To eject the elites that think that London is the centre of the universe. And to boot out those hordes of politicians who have proven they cannot be trusted to honour their promises. The political insiders need to be replaced by the political outsiders.
And that is why Britain needs the Brexit Party.’

I was chosen to be PPC for the Brexit Party. I accepted and then, a few days later, I changed my mind.

I declined for a number of reasons. In short, I did not have the courage.

The political atmosphere around Brexit was so febrile that I suspected that I could be in danger as a PPC for the Brexit Party. I was shocked at just how angry Remainers were with the result. Their anger was bizarre since none of them had ever been able to put up much of a reason for why staying in the EU was such a good thing. (I have covered Remainer arguments for the EU in a separate blog). However, Remainers were very angry and many Remainers were potentually very dangerous in that way that Leftists are dangerous when they fervently believe their opponents are Nazis. Young ideologues who believe their political enemies are Nazis feel that they have a moral obligation to hurt those enemies. (At the time ‘Punch a Nazi’ was a heavily used phrase used in connection with Brexit and the Trump victory).

So, I didn’t want to be punched. I didn’t want my family to be attacked. I didn’t want to be doxed. I didn’t want the media digging into my background and either finding something embarrassing or, inventing something embarrassing in order to destroy me.

As things played out, the Brexit Party PPCs were irrelevant anyway as Farage did a deal with Boris Johnson to stand down all Brexit Party candidates standing in constituencies that had, at that time, a Tory MP.

Brexit was a crazy time.