Right wing = Fascist?

It is according to yesterday’s Times Concise crossword…

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 13.35.07

Trivial perhaps, but as a sign of where we are heading it’s striking.

This is another organ that I abandoned, but the OH went and re-subscribed. That won’t be lasting.



Where it all starts

While I was sipping a bloody mary in the jacuzzi yesterday, I listened to TJ Martinell’s Mountain Pass podcast. It’s often interesting and thoughtful, if not the rip-roaring fare you might get from Cynical Libertarian Society or Aaron Clarey.

He discussed an article written by a chap called Eric Peters. Eric writes about cars, driving and motoring from a libertarian perspective. Perhaps an odd thing, to bring a political perspective to something so seemingly removed from politics, but politics invades motoring to such an extent that the stories it tells are allegorical, applying widely across our festering societies.

In the 20th century, motoring came to embody freedom and autonomy for the individual and the family unit. Popular culture says this is an American ideal, but the global success of the car shows that whether you take a philsophical or a practical view of these things, cars have done more to unshackle people from their allotted place than any other invention since (yes, including the Internet, which has done quite the opposite).

Even Hitler had his own idiosyncratic take on this vision of family freedom, though I prefer that of Ministry:

Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to weren’t never there, and where you are ain’t no good unless you can get away from it*.

And so in turn, the 21st century has been a time of retrenchment, where freedom and autonomy are under continual structural attack. As such, motoring is a prime target for the authoritarians and their useful idiots – the scolds and killjoys.

Can there be a more stark contrast than between the motorist who can go where he pleases, when he pleases and the user of public transport, who depends on the state (or its subcontractors) and can only be taken where the provider is prepared to go, when the provider is prepared to go, at a cost fixed by the provider?

And so the very idea of motoring has been under ideological attack in the west since the elite left found its wings in the 90s under leaders like Clinton and Blair, and the greens played their part in the long march.

Though there are examples and analogues throughout the story of motoring in the 21st century, safety has been a big attack vector, and there’s a perspective provided by Eric Peters that really made me think slightly differently.

It’s only a few days ago when I was wondering what kind of a man you can possibly be unless you can drive – and where the cause and effect may lie in the case of the millenial milquetoasts who don’t like cars or driving. I think Eric can get us some way towards the answer:

It is no accident that people who grew up after the Safety Cult went mainstream – the Millennials and up – don’t much like cars or driving.

Why would they?

From their earliest memory onward, a drive was not an exciting adventure but a kind of prison bus ride. The child forcibly strapped in, by inevitably impatient hands; he struggles a bit, perhaps – at first – and is scolded. He learns it is pointless; that he is helpless.

The bindings are pulled tight, skin is pinched, clothes bunched.

It cannot be comfortable.

He has no control over anything. He is dependent on the whims of others. He probably can’t even scratch where it itches – and forget sidling up close to his sister or brother to whisper a secret which the parents up front can’t overhear.

Imagine it. How stultifying it must be.

It’s an interesting perspective, to compare this with the laissez faire practice of bundling half a dozen tessellated children into the back of a Ford Cortina and taking off to the coast for the day that was normal practice when I was a kid. Every journey was an intrepid outing.

The sum of human history tells us that what we had in 20th century motoring was heavily influenced by the instincts men are born with. Go out, adventure, get over that next hill come what may, even if you have to jury-rig a fan belt, dodge the police and piss in the radiator to get there. God knows I’ve driven the length and bredth of Europe on a wing and a prayer more times than I can remember.

Motorcycling is this on steroids.

Image result for mad max motorcycle

Whereas in the 21st century – enter seatbelts, ABS, airbags, traction control, lane assist, parking assist, isofix, child seats, booster seats, run flat tyres, sat nav and electric motors with a range of 8 – clean, green, mollicoddled motoring has come to embody the spirit of woman. Stay close to home, stay safe, don’t get hurt, don’t get lost, and if it goes wrong, call the man (yes, the man!) from the AA, and shrug your sholders because it’s too complicated for you to do anything about. Just hope that while you’re standing beside the car at the side of the road, its colour matches your shoes and purse, and lament that you’re only 7 miles from home, but you couldn’t possbly walk it in those heels.

Image result for drag queen car

It seems that we have reached a point where man’s natural instincts – encapsulated in our attitudes to cars –  are suppressed by safety culture so early on in our lives, and so completely, that there is no chance for innate preferences to blossom.

And that in a nutshell is what our society is doing to its children and has done to millenials. The consequences are there for all to see: every damned thing makes them feel ‘unsafe’.

But there is hope, and it came just as I went to press post on the above. Bad boys still like good cars, and the girls still like the cars the bad boys like. Next door’s Audi R8 is outside my house, and a pretty young lady just knocked on my door. She was shilling for the RSPCA, so I sent her on her way, but before she went, she asked me if that was my car, and proceeded to express her adoration of it. Made me smile.


*yes, I know the sample was originally from the 1979 film Wise Blood, based on the 1952 book of the same name by Flannery O’Connor

Why I quit my Spectator subscription

I’ve been a Speccie subscriber for a very long time now, through thick and thin.

But it’s over.

I always used to be okay with the diversity of opinion presented, which is why I tolerated Matthew Parris and Nick Cohen’s work being in there.. occasionally I even learned something by reading them.

There’s been a general deterioration of quality though. A slide towards mediocrity, banality, feminism, illicit injections of wokeness into the Spectator mix.

Latent harpies like Isabel Hardman and future Witches of Eastwick such as Lara Prendergast have been encouraged to flaunt their feminist credentials.

My patience has been steadily tested over the last year or two, but there have been three final straws over the last couple of weeks.

The first was when – after millions of dissenting words – the Spectator endorsed May’s deal as the best option on the table as its official editorial line. As a follow-up, Fraser Nelson waded into the comments below the article, basically telling any subscribers who didn’t like it to fuck off.

Screen Shot 2019-03-16 at 14.40.17

The second was when some nobody from nowheresville was given a platform to tick off the right wing about their ‘problem with Muslims’. That problem being, of course, that the soft right – as cucky as they are – are insufficiently aquiescent in the face of this alien invasion. Naturally comments were disabled for this column, because the staff know damned well what the readership would say.

Screen Shot 2019-03-16 at 14.25.40

The third and final nail in the coffin was another episode of the Spectator making its transition from house journal of Conservative Central Office to being the red-crescent-adorned tanks on the New Statesman’s lawn. Once again, no surprise to see that comments were disabled.

Screen Shot 2019-03-16 at 14.24.15

It’s both odd and sad, because Spectator Australia and Spectator USA both retain a joy and impishness that seems to have been completely wrung out of the British edition by Fraser Nelson, who presumably thinks his cultural vandalism will afford him entry to what these days seems to pass for polite society.

Like every cuck everywhere, he’s counting on them eating him last, and he’s likely to be disappointed.

I shall miss reading Rod Liddle and Rory Sutherland, but I’m afraid I just can’t stand the stench enough to endure it for the benefit of their wisdom and humour.


There are false flags and then there are false flags

I’ve just had a very brief look at Brenton Tarrant’s ‘manifesto’. It’s freely available on BitTorrent, if you search his name.

He self-identifies as a fascist, and claims to mostly agree with the ideas of Oswald Mosley.

It’s become somewhat popular to look for the ‘false flag’ in actions that aim to drive divide in our societies, and not unreasonably so. Some white-nationalists will be wont to claim that this is a false flag operation, by a stooge, meant to discredit them. Naturally this will be dismissed as ludicrous and offensive by the right-thinkers.

But here is where things get interesting: In the same sentence that Tarrant claims alignment with Oswald Mosley, there’s a big curveball.

I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosley’s views and consider myself an Eco-fascist by nature.

Now let’s be absolutely clear on this. Brenton Tarrant SELF-IDENTIFIES as an Eco-fascist. Who can dispute his right to do so? And who is to say that he cannot be what he purports to be because he does not meet the definition according to some established white-European historical standard that lacks relevance in today’s more progressive society? Would it not be grossly offensive to do so? Tantamount to a hate crime, I’d say.

And elsewhere in his document:

Why focus on immigration and birth rates when climate change is such a huge issue?
Because they are the same issue, the environment is being destroyed by over population, we Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. The invaders are the ones over populating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.

Reading on through the document, Tarrant seems in many respects to be an old school Malthusian. Much like most greens.

So then. Are we to expect greenies (like this loony) to make the contortions necessary to assert that this is not a false flag insofar as it’s purported to be an act of white-nationalism, but it is an absolutely appalling misrepresentation of the aims of the green lobby?

Are we to expect the babbling heads to nod sagely at assertions that this is a gross contortion of green philosophy, but a precisely accurate enactment of white-nationalist principles?

I think we are.

A slight aside, but I could not bring myself to listen to the stomach-churning sanctimonious nonsense from the British media on this event, so I had to turn to RT.com for the latest updates.


The Truth Hurts

Diversity + Proximity = War

Can you imagine a British politician sticking their head above the parapet like that? We certainly never saw it after 7/7 (52 dead, 700 wounded), Manchester (23 dead, 139 wounded), the slaying of Lee Rigby on the streets of London, or any of the other London attacks, let alone on the comparatively rare occasion when a British person saw fit respond in kind (1 dead, 12 injured)?

All we saw was capitulation, cowardice and a ravening hoarde of useful idiots ready to tear down anyone prepared to call it like they saw it.

I think Adam Piggott considers his homeland of Australia to be a lost cause (or something to that effect)… if this assessment is right, then we in the UK are in an even worse position.

This, however, is the sad new reality ushered in by our betters who have pursued an ideology inherently contrary to the best interests of western peoples, and these are the results of their efforts.


UPDATE: Perhaps unsurprisingly, Twitter suspended Senator Anning after he tweeted the above. Think about that. An American company, with a uniquely American set of political views, mores and standards, can unilaterally silence the voice of an elected representative in a democracy on the other side of the planet.

I’ve seen the future, and it’s a bit dim

You’re probably aware of the resurgent popularity of the ‘flat earth theory’. Stefan Molyneux, amongst others, has spent hours going back and forth with these bampots, in an attempt to draw them out and convince them of the manifest, observable absurdity of their proposition.

It seems that our ability to cast out an idea forever is inversely proportional to how bad the idea is. Socialism is another fine example of this phenomenon.

This evening I discovered a realm of absurdity I’d never heard of before, and to date it seems to be under-recognised. I think it has potential. That realm is The Electric Universe Theory.

Almost completely by accident, I stumbled into a talk advancing this ‘theory’ today, and I have to say I was impressed in a number of ways.

The first way was in the enormous balls of the guy advancing this theory. His opening gambit was to dismiss gravity (and with it Newton and Einstein) out of hand as fundamental to the observable universe. His next was to contradict Special Relativity by asserting that photons have mass, and the Standard Model of particle physics by implicitly denying that photons are electrically neutral.  Next he told us that filaments are the fifth state of matter, presumably bumping Bose-Einstein condensates down into 6th place in the phases of matter hit parade. I also learned that with one of those plasma balls, you can prove that oh.. do you know.. it was such an unlikely concatenation of words that I couldn’t promise to recount it faithfully.

After that I just had to spend sometime picking my jaw up off the floor and regaining my composure. During that period, I reflected on the guy’s ability to structure and present a talk. He did not get a passing grade in that test. He managed to do a disservice to this masterpiece of monstrous scientific lunacy, which was quite the achivement.

The third way I was impressed was how completely the audience was stunned and cowed into silence, rather than calling out the hundreds of provably false claims the guy made. To challenge this guy would have just seemed wrong. Like kicking a cripple. The foundations of his argument – in which he had so much invested – were so weak that any sort of challenge at all would have just felt like bullying. I think this is how Corbyn and Abbott get away with so much.

Anyway, the presentational problems with the delivery of this can all be fixed. When I opened my laptop to write this I was full of amused despair… but then I remembered Clarey’s ‘operation evil’ idea.

There’s already a depressingly sizeable Electric Universe community on YouTube, but honestly, it’s only 150,000 people. I think this is early days in what could become a big, bountiful thing. And I’m thinking about getting ahead of the game.

A slick Youtube channel, some merch, some clever marketing, and I could have a million subscribers and ten thousand patreons before the other chancers have got their mobility scooters charged. I could have hundreds of thousands of social media foot soldiers, bludgeoning all comers with a tsunami of ‘facts’ and links to meandering youtube videos and autistically built websites.

We could establish a compound in New Hampshire and, as a voting bloc, overwhelm those loony libertarians.

When that gets boring, I could start to accuse anyone gainsaying me of hate speech, get them banned from Twitter, dox them and put their cats in wheelie bins. My transfacts are valid beyond question, and should be afforded respect. While still successfully casting dissenters out of the public square, I could go on to condemn the Jew Science of Einstein and Feynman with complete impunity.

You want in? Don’t forget to like and subscribe, and please consider supporting our important mission on Patreon.