The enemy within


By D. J. Webb

So many people have commented on the events in Paris that I see no reason why I shouldn’t offer my two penn’orth. The key issue for me is the declining morale of Western societies. The end of the erstwhile Christian culture has robbed European culture of any social glue. Worse, it is actually thought cool and progressive to take against our culture and see in it the fount of so-called racism, imperialism and the like.

The problem is therefore not external. It is not a problem out there in Syria that we could solve by bombing Syria (although I don’t object to bombing as many Islamic State targets as possible in the wake of the recent atrocities). Neither is the problem one that relates to the presence in our societies of unassimilated minorities.

The problem is one internal within us, the majority ethnic groups (for the moment) of Western societies. The presence in Britain, France and elsewhere of ethnic minorities has been facilitated by our lack of nerve and self-belief. The problem we face is that very lack of self-belief and not the fact that we host minority populations as such, which is an epiphenomenon, a by-product of our crumbling self-confidence.

A lot of nonsense is written on the subject of immigration by faux libertarians of the left. Apparently, everyone in the world ought to be able to do as he pleases, including the right to move to whichever country he wishes. Yet a society that willingly co-operates in creeping colonization, which is what it is, is a society with a death-wish. Societies become coherent as a result of their common culture, and the failure to transmit that culture to incomers and insist on their respect for it shows that the host society no longer believes it represents anything valuable culturally in the world.

To practise a foreign culture in a country you’ve moved to is to engage in deliberately destructive behaviour. It is like moving into someone’s home as a lodger and then insisting on partying in the living room until 3 in the morning while the children of the house are trying to sleep. There is nothing wrong with different lifestyles as such, but if you move in with people, you need to respect their way of life and fit in.

By calling into question the value—even to us ourselves—of our own cultural heritage, we have indicated to the incomers that there is nothing to integrate with. We no longer tell them that this is our house and that, to make living together a success, they have to abide by our rules. The very statement that multi-culturalism is “more vibrant” makes this clear. Heavy metal in the living room while you’re trying to sleep at 3 in the morning is undoubtedly vibrant too. Vibrant in this context means nothing more than jarring and unpleasant, but we praise vibrancy in the belief that our own way of life has become stodgy and stale and boring—just like going to bed early and closing the party down before midnight might be seen as boring.

The corrosion is within us. Clearly the incomers do not all wish us well, but we could deal with ne’er-do-wells if we were not milksops.
The journalist Charles Moore (former editor, I think, of the Daily Telegraph) wrote an interesting article today entitled “How many more people have to die before we stop appeasing Islamists? Why aren’t we standing up to the enemy within?” . There clearly is an “enemy within”, but, as I have stated, the real enemy is not the minority communities, but, in fact, journalists like Charles Moore, who are determined to engage in futile, virtual-signalling gestures to the last. He writes:

This is because of the implacable enmity of Islamism. It is a highly political version of Islam which cleverly mixes the modern blogosphere world of grievance and conspiracy theory with the sanctity of ancient texts ill-understood but passionately invoked. It has some advocates who are not themselves personally violent, but its entire idea is a violent one.

The word “Islamism” is a made-up word that pretends there is a difference between Islam and a radical interpretation thereof. While Moore does not approve of terrorist murder, he does insist on appeasing the Moslem communities in Britain and elsewhere by his claim that Islamists misunderstand ancient texts.

How foolish to insert yourself into the theology of someone else’s religion! We seem to be trying to tell others what their own religion teaches. “No, we love Islam, but you’ve got it all wrong: Islam preaches peace and tolerance.” What about the ones who don’t believe that? How can you believe in freedom of religion and then start telling people which version of their own religion they are allowed to have? If freedom of religion means anything, it means that the Islamic State and other similar groups are entitled to believe that it is appropriate to translate the behaviour of Mahomet in the 7th century into the 21st century. That is their belief. And to be honest, that is what Islam has always taught.

Mahomet himself was a beheader. When he conquered the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe of Medina, then called Yathrib, he himself took part in the beheading of 400 Jews. They lined up before trenches and were beheaded by Mahomet and his companions in an action that took all day. The Moslem Ahadith (the traditions recorded by early followers that are a key source of Mahomet’s life) include the Ahadith compiled by Abu Dawud, who tells how Atiyyah al-Qurazi, a Jewish man, related how he had his life spared by Mahomet:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (Mahomet’s followers) examined us, and those who had begun to grow (pubic) hair were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

This kindly prophet spared those young enough to be without pubic hair and beheaded the rest. It is cretinous to tell Islamic State that they are misunderstanding their own religion. They’re not!

Mahomet is on record as approving of rape in warfare (to allow God to create more life) and stating that runaway slaves go straight to hell. Is there any surprise that women are being forced into sexual slavery in the Islamic State and that slavery itself as an institution has been revived by the Islamic State?

It is probably true that Islam could gloss over some early incidents. We note how Christian denominations are uneasily tiptoeing away from the aversion towards homosexuality explicit in the Bible and numerous Biblical statements that “the man is the head of the woman”. We also note that Judaism manages to overlook the slaughtering of the Canaanite heathen (men, women, children and their cattle) by the likes of the prophet Samuel.

These things can be glossed over by contextualising early texts. In that sense, one could imagine a future Islam where people said “well, yes, Mahomet was living in the 7th century and things were different then”, but until Moslems start saying this, they are stuck with a religion that teaches them that Mahomet’s own life is an exact ideal of how to behave today. So what’s wrong with beheading, rape and slavery if Mahomet approved of it?

In the end, we need not get involved in theological debates (nonsense, actually) internal to Islam. Whatever these people wish to believe is up to them. But why should we play willing hosts to them in our societies?

It is not a question of vetting arrivals, as the UK government has promised to do. By allowing Syrians, Afghans, Somalis and others to come to the UK, even if it were possible to be sure that none of the incomers were terrorists, we are fuelling the growth of an unassimilable minority. Their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will imbibe the poison of multi-culturalism and take against us, even if the first generation of newcomers does not.

We must insist on freedom of association. It is horrific to read of the arrest of a woman (apparently from Trinidad) who does not wish to serve Moslem customers in her beauty salon. Leaving aside the fact that frequenting a beauty salon in itself contravenes a literal and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, why should everyone be forced to take part in a charade that claims that any demographic configuration of the UK population whatsoever is welcome?

I see no evidence that people in the UK are prepared to learn from the French atrocities. Once again, it is being asserted that the murders have nothing to do with Islam. Why then do polls show that at least one-quarter of Moslems in Britain and France support terrorism? If large numbers decided to translate that into action against soft targets, no amount of surveillance would stop them.

We need urgently to abandon the doctrine of multi-culturalism, cease referring to Islam and other religions as part of our culture, and start demanding full cultural integration. Teachers who abuse their positions to promote multi-culturalism should go to prison for attempting to radicalize their pupils, which is what it is. We have a problem in that problem communities are among us, but we can only address this if we start believing in ourselves again. How can the toothpaste of an abandoned culture be squeezed back in the tube again? Left libertarians who have cheered all this on have a lot to answer for.

Advertisements

23 comments

  • So to summarize: Authoritarian collectivism is the “real” libertarianism. Odd take in my view, but it seems to be fairly prevalent in the “Libertarian” Alliance.

    • What sorts of things, Thomas, would you like people to say on here then? I only ask because I’d love to know.

      • Libertarian things would be good.

        • It’s called real libertarianism, Thomas!

          • Yes, DJ, you’ve made it quite clear that you believe collectivist authoritarianism to be “real libertarianism.”

            I disagree.

            • I think the problem here is that you equate liberty with anarchy. Many libertarians do, but I think they are different things. Anarchy is the abolition of the collective. Liberty describes the relationship between the individual and the collective.

              Libertarianism, or more properly, liberalism, can describe any relationship between individual and group- a nation, a tribe, a family, a business, a church, a vegan nudist chess club. Liberty is the tendency to a minimum of rules. Authority is the tendency towards a maximum of rules.

              Anarchy tries to solve this by aboliting the nation, tribe, family, business, church and vegan nudist chess club. Libertarianism accepts (or should accept) that these groups/collectives/whatever exist, and then argue for the preferable arrangements within them, since humans are going to actually form into collectives whatever you might wish otherwise.

              • “I think the problem here is that you equate liberty with anarchy.”

                Nope.

                And I have no problem with collectives per se. I explicitly modified the descriptor “collectivist” with the descriptor “authoritarian” in order to distinguish particular kinds of collectivism and particular kinds of authoritarianism from others. For further details on the differences, see Neil Lock’s recent piece.

                It’s one thing to note that collectives exist. It’s entirely another to assert that because one has defined a particular set as a collective regardless of whether or not all, or even most, of the members of that set have formally or consciously affiliated with that set AS a collective, let alone endorsed whatever rules one may have miracled up to pretend apply to that collective, that the existence of the imaginary collective, e.g. “race” or “nationality,” magically transmutes authoritarian behaviors into libertarian behaviors.

              • “Anarchy tries to solve this by aboliting the nation, tribe, family, business, church and vegan nudist chess club.” Say what? Since when? Bullshit.

  • Not bad, Mr Webb. The ‘rinse and repeat’ nature of not learning lessons and thus not seeking to avert disaster is well stated, also that the main problem is not from outside but from within.

    However, for me, there is one major component missing – and that is, the question of how have we got to this point, who has been shaping the directions of our civilisation to the point where these kinds of situations and crisis of confidence (and identity) can not only transpire, but be entrenched and seemingly omnipresent.

    I think that limitations on obvious ingredients of our problems have to be put in place, even though they are uncomfortable to contemplate. The disaster is already set into motion, but that does not mean to say that the impact should not be slowed or that attempts to avert the worst of it should not be employed.

    But how can this be done, when the established order is opposed to any such measures and actually imposes on the world the very things that cause the disaster to transpire? How can it be done when so many people proudly stand defiant of such measures – including open-borders lunatics and those who cling to left-wing-liberal virtues as part and parcel of the crisis of confidence etc that is expressed?

    So yes, on that score, I do think that the fight still largely remains within. That doesn’t mean to say that the rest should be ignored, but that for real change to come, it has to come from within our nation than from outside.

  • Muslims can’t “integrate”, because (apart from a few converts) they are of a different race to us. You could criticise Polish immigrants in Britain if they persisted in holding on to their own language and culture, and if they ceased to do that you could say they had integrated into the host community. I believe nationality is based on race, and that the culture, laws, religion and political institutions of a country reflect the racial makeup of the population. There is an unbridgeable division between Europeans and other races. I realize that most libertarians disagree with this view. But surely it’s obvious to them that most Muslims can never truly belong in England, when a large number of those of second or third generation still support jihad and terrorism, having grown up in one of the most secular cultures in the world.

    • My Dear Wife came here to be with me, from Poland, in 1993. She now regards herself (and has said so more than once) as not only British but specifically English. Having acquired latterly up here a number of recent friends among “The New Polish Immigrants” (we have at least three rather good Polish and “Baltic” grocers in the town now, which is a great improvement on the previous smelly charity-shops and second-hand-furniture-dumps), she “does stuff for them” sometimes in the way of translation and interpreting when they have the usual minor irritations with The Authorities, landlords etc.

      But more to the point, she increasingly actively but gently “coaches and instructs” them on small matters like “How To Be A Bit More British in ordinary life” ***, and “these are the sorts of things the British like and value and would prefer you to do/not do”…(I paraphrase her descriptions of the sorts of advice she gives out.

      It is rather unclear to me whether there is any such integration-driven-activity among the UK’s Moslem populations. My Dear Wife sort of just does it because she’s trying to help people to fit in better. It may sadly be that the Moslem populations are so, so very very different from us, in religious outlook, in social customs, and also (not least and often) racially [cue all the boring stuff like skull-shape, skin/hair/eye colour, bone-structure and the like] that there is next to no hope of proper integration, in the way that for example Britain’s Jewish immigrants have almost “disappeared” as a separately-identifiable group.

      One funny thing she sometimes says, when a particular incident she’s been trying to help with has irritated her, or the recipients of her advice were especially wimpish and negative:-
      She says…”BLOODY HELL…SOMETIMES i NEED A BREAK FROM BEING POLISH!”

      *** (1) Don’t swear loudly to each other in Polish/Russian/Lithuanian/etc in front of other people when shopping in ASDA,
      *** (2) Don’t buy a telly, then pretend it’s broken having broken it yourself, and then try to send it back, (or a car, or whatever…)
      *** (3) DO go the Church at Father John’s place (St Teresa’s, Everton Road) Lots of Poles feel pressured to go to church every Sunday, because the Archbeako of Chestochova commands so – and try to take part in English. They’ll like it if you do, they’ll invite you to tea, and your children to play with their children etc. (Father John is about 192 years old, a senior Cannon in Liverpool diocese) and is happy to see everyone, and even makes jokes instead of preaching sometimes. Don’t keep on going all the way to wherever where there’s a monthly Polish Priest.)

      Unfortunately, any one of us has probably more chance of winning two lottery jackpots in a row, on a single line, than Father John will have of seeing a family of Moslems turn up to worship in his church next Sunday.

      As to beauty salons and whom to serve in them, I’d have thought that if a lady covers her face fully in public, there’d be no point on going along to one. And if she wanted to put the warpaint on for her husband, then she’d have to do it herself at home…no? (No white British beauty-salon-proprietors allowed in…)

      • [quote]”We need urgently to abandon the doctrine of multi-culturalism, cease referring to Islam and other religions as part of our culture, and start demanding full cultural integration.”[unquote]

        Sorry, but I completely disagree. “Full cultural integration” is just a euphemism for abolishing European civilisation. I don’t want Moslems to integrate. I want them to leave.

  • To be a real enemy within, a group would require high intelligence, cohesion and hostility to the majority. Muslims have two of three, but one has to ask: Why were they ever admitted in the first place? Who voted for it? Why was Enoch Powell simultaneously the most popular politician in the country and the most reviled after his appalling “Let’s starting building a new Auschwitz” speech in 1933?

    • One difficulty was that in the 1950s, in a desperate attempt to “save” the British textile industries in places like Leicester, Bradford, Preston, Blackburn, Accrington, Burnley, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Rotherham, South Manchester and the like (I can’t speak for Luton as I didn’t know whether that place had similar industries) the UK imported lots of cheap labour from the Old Indian Empire. This couldn’t logically come from actual India which was rapidly building its own global textile market-base, so it came from East and West Pakistan.

      As Old white working class workers retired, left or were quietly “made redundant”, they were progressively replaced by these cheaper (but still more or less competent) workers – who were of course entitles to bring their extended families, the only sort of families that existed over there.

      The GramscoFabiaNazi fascist Fabian left also spotted this as a strategic opportunity to “dilute” the old White Working Class which had “failed the project” by staying slightly too conservative, and to get up the noses of and hurt Britain in general. For we can never be forgiven for lifting most of the Known World out of previously inevitable and primeval torments reserved by Dante only for the souls of the damned.

      • The GramscoFabiaNazi fascist Fabian left also spotted this as a strategic opportunity to “dilute” the old White Working Class which had “failed the project”…

        The “GramscoFabiaNazi fascist Fabian left” included the Tory party, because it has been part of the enrichment project. It could easily have won working-class voters from Labour. This is Roy Hattersley:

        Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted – the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants? Politics should be guided by principle, not populism

        In other words: no democracy on the most important question of all. Because that would be “populism”.

        So who wanted mass immigration and why? Not the British people.

        • Or to be more precise: Who did (and does) this mass immigration benefit?

        • Politics should be guided by principle, not populism.

          Of course. And the principle espoused by Hattersley and the rest of the Westminster traitors is to replace the indigenous population. They have faithfully adhered to it for the last sixty years.

          • I notice Hattersley is still alive. I think our Moslem friends should turn their attention to people like him. I wouldn’t shed any tears.

        • Nice find. Very useful.

        • See also this by Hattersley:

          “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist Sparkbrook’s demands… otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jul/31/mp-ideology-constituents-esther-rantzen

          And for further comments (including news of Hattersley’s marriage to his “long-time companion, literary agent, Maggie Pearlstine”):

          Hattersley’s harmonious hordes

  • [quote]”We need urgently to abandon the doctrine of multi-culturalism, cease referring to Islam and other religions as part of our culture, and start demanding full cultural integration.”[unquote]

    Sorry, but I completely disagree. “Full cultural integration” is just a euphemism for abolishing European civilisation. I don’t want Moslems to integrate. I want them to leave.

    • I agree. There is no good outcome from this situation, either way.

      If we have “integration”, it means the slow and painful death of our people and our culture as it gradually morphs into something else that is neither ethnically or culturally the same as our natural selves…….

      Yet if we continue to allow separatism and ‘organised minority advantage’ over us, we are likely to be democratically and demographically put in second place, or in a situation where enough of them are a bloc that they can force Islamic structures onto us by threat or by force, or by ways such as the Home Secretary quietly allowing Sharia courts to build presence in many cities and large towns.

      We are currently being squeezed at both sides, and our diagnosis is not good. The only real way out is to release both sides of the grip. But in order to even contemplate that, another interloping and powerful group (along with their useful idiots) need to be disposed of, not to mention the millions of brainwashed “millennial” generation who nearly faint in “horror” at students in fancy dress costumes and would seek for the law to ban people from expressing different views to their own.

      • The only way out of this is separation, and if that is not allowed, then that means violence: i.e. terrorism. That’s the reality of the situation. It means fighting in the streets – literally. This is what happens when you try and re-engineer human nature. What the Left are doing has been tried before, many times, and never works. It always ends in a blood bath and civilisational collapse.

        There is no democratic solution to this. The ‘conservatives’ who go on about ‘Cultural Marxism’ and ‘kulturkampf’, etc., don’t grasp that the issue is biological. You can’t ‘vote’ race-mixing away. The forces at work here are deeper. The reason the NSDAP were able to rise to power is because, even during the Weimar era, Germany had a very strong conservative and traditionalist hinterland. Hitler’s democratic insurgency did not happen in a vacuum. He was facilitated by a pre-existing reactionary scaffold in rural and petty bourgeois Germany that now no longer exists in Britain and much of Europe. The ‘conservative’ parties are now neo-liberal (UKIP is a case in point). In short – the Left have succeeded in hollowing-out the indigenous European identity.

        The people who advocate “integration” are actually worse than those who support multi-culturalism. At least with multi-culturalism, we have a shot at racial survival – even as a minority. It’s also always possible that whites could migrate to a new territory or establish themselves in a single geographic area and simply start again. This has been done before. In fact, you might say it’s a staple of white history. My suspicion is that this was how ‘Europe’ started: we were cornered here.

        So, I am not pessimistic. I see this as just the latest iteration in a racial war that has been going on for thousands of years. The expression ‘Race War’ just means Nature. We are reaching our evolutionary bottleneck, and the lumpenproletariat, Leftist cultural warriors, queers, and sundry degenerates will not survive. A better White Race will arise.

        The solution?

        (i). We need a Conservative Rebellion in politics, society and culture, which needs to embrace a broad base of ethno-conscious libertarians, national-socialists, reactionaries and genuine conservatives.

        (ii). The race-conscious should start building whites-only communities by re-engineering existing, deprived areas in the North of England and places like Cornwall and the Celtic fringes where there is still an existing strong indigenous identity.

        (iii). Go ahead and join parties like UKIP and the regionalist parties like Merbyn Kernow, the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Work at the grassroots level to help shift public consciousness in a more broadly national-socialist direction.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s