The mainstream press can no longer deny the “new normal” of progressive Europe, which now evidently involves the slow-burn effect of the consequences of decades-old idiocrat immigration and citizenship policies pushed by the “enlightened” heirs of a “post national” West (n.b. by governments of the official left and reluctant “right” alike). They will complain about Donald Trump’s recent comments concerning the sorry state of the Swedish public square, and what it might teach those of us who sincerely care about the future security of our national homelands. But his detractors’ objections cannot deny the US President’s honesty, cover up his comment’s truthfulness or ignore the prescient nature of his foresight. “France is no longer France” he said while on the campaign trail in 2016; and this could be said of most countries in the liberal western portion of the European Union, the United Kingdom included.
Every week that now passes vindicates the critics of liberal modernity in the epicentre of its civilisational genesis: the north-western parts of the Old Continent. What we are witnessing has been predicted in the post–bellum era by the Delphic-like premonitions of against-the-grain reactionaries in the political and literary world, such as Enoch Powell and Jean Raspail; but, of course, the “sensible centre” no less than the lunatic progressive fringe continue to hold their respective noses at these two visionarys’ work and warnings – they do so at our peril, but despise us for protesting against their recklessness. Thus the de facto alliance between both wings of the establishment left and faux-right that kept Wilders at bay and will likely keep Le Pen out of office later this year. This is possible only if representatives across the entire mainstream political spectrum are more concerned about momentarily retaining executive power and legislative influence instead of securing the existence of their people and culture.
Thus the mental bulwarks of the upside-down Orwellian elite remain uncompromised by reality’s relentless rebukes – rebukes that are tempted by the naïve utopianism of geriatric flower-children who have worked their way into the halls of the establishment they once rebelled against, but now occupy, and whose power they defend with fanatical zeal. Lies are peddled as truth – if “diversity is strength” then “ignorance is indeed bliss” – while the bobble-heads of the mainstream press claim that evidence of one thing is actually proof of its exact opposite. This is the mind of a Mad Emperor-like collective entity whose apparent shamelessness would likely mute any embarrassment even if he were to be struck by the realisation of his nakedness.
Perhaps the most pervasive example of this is the constant refrain, repeated as if it were a mitigating factor, that the latest terrorist was a “lone wolf”. No doubt the intention here is to douse with iced water any growing retaliatory sentiment directed at the Petri dish from which the virus spread. But where a society seems to be plagued by multiple “lone wolves”, all of whom share a common or closely related ideological faith in the righteousness of their terror, then this attempt to portray the latest assailant as a mere outlier becomes absurd. Within hours of the yesterday’s London terrorist attacks, perpetrated, we are told, by yet another “lone wolf”, UK authorities have detained eight suspects in six raids for further questioning and investigation. How many “lone wolves” must we suffer, before patterns are recognised by our political betters? How long must we wait until those patterns are identified as products of a social policy that has been pushed largely without the consent of the public for decades?
The lesson is simple and should be obvious to all: the “lone wolf” threat is a far more horrific spectre than any corporate menace to society because the source of the terror is ephemeral and cannot easily – or at all – be quarantined in a way that will satisfy an egalitarian polity. This is because the motivation does not come from an organisation, but an idea, and while organisations can be broken up, ideas are nigh impossible to eradicate. Far from feeling relieved at media portrayals of the latest perpetrator as an “independent actor”, a sane government would turn its attention to the terrorists’ animating ideology itself, where it might be concentrated on the home-front, how its influence may be curbed or neutralised, which existing policies that aid and abet its spread are to be terminated, and how to prevent a certain class of persons who carry it in their hearts and minds from entering the national hearth. Any leader who has the courage and vision to venture down this difficult path will likely find himself at war with his own bureaucracy, as President Trump’s consecutive (and frustrated) attempts at a targeted travel ban have shown in the US.
And so we turn our attention to today’s cover story in The Australian which simply reads, “Attack on Democracy”. Really? Has the franchise been restricted? So soon? Such headlines only serve to highlight the irrelevance of liberal critics of the present mess and underscore the ineffectiveness of their proposed solutions. To start with, they have no conceptual understanding of their own subject matter. The possibility of living in a “democratic” country – in the classical sense of the term – disappeared when the currents of social atomisation and cultural bulkanisation became dominant social pathologies; indeed, the socially and morally corrosive effects of these trends have proven to be fatal even in small doses. Democracy was under “attack” long before the burgers of London were blown up in the ‘tube or mowed down in the streets by the agents of hostile cultures. Nevertheless, the commentariate is evidently reluctant to come to terms with the fact that the “political religion” of liberal modernity is itself responsible for the current horrors that the present Muslim mayor of London once described as a necessary concomitant of living in a multicultural and modern metropolis.
This reluctance to acknowledge the obvious by those who are supposed to be journalists of record is either due to their inability to think outside of the box of liberal orthodoxy (the consequence of which they ostensibly criticize), due to a consternated refusal by an inherently liberal press to admit the error of its socio-political assumptions, or alternatively, due to the simple stupidity of feckless cowards. Either way, such headlines are merely another symptom of the establishmentarian delusion of the continued legitimacy of the status quo. Today’s vaunted mass-democracy, by reason of its scale, is anonymous and therefore necessarily mediated by faceless bureaucrats; likewise, the multicultural yet deracinated model of this “democracy” incentivises tribalism along multiple fault-lines of identity politics. Contrary to what the editor of The Australian may be thinking, democracy in its current form might come under additional pressure only if and when the British Parliament decides to react by getting to the root of the problem: highly improbable given the totalitarian reign of liberal sensibilities within the Isles’ political culture.
Let us recall the levels of sympathy noted among UK Islamic and Middle Eastern communities for the militants of al Qaida in the not-so-distant past, and ISIS presently, or the not-insignificant numbers who have declared a preference to live under Sharia rather than the common law. While “not every X is like that”, relying on exceptions to shape social policy is foolish, and allowing native tolerance to effectively facilitate a platform from which malicious foreign contagions are spread, is suicidal. Liberal egalitarians will undoubtedly consider this to be a dangerously heretical proposition, but preventing the kind of attacks we have just witnessed in London may actually involve rescinding – or at least questioning – certain civic privileges that are currently extended to groups who have demonstrated a fundamental incompatibility with the naïve polities that have agreed to host them. As unpleasant as this may seem, such a move might be a necessary first step to reasserting just who and what is the “we” that sentimentalist mainstreamers ritualistically appeal to when attempting to feebly reinforce propagandised messages of “unity” in a rapidly fraying society. But that first step would naturally lead to serious questions being posed about the nature and limits of the democratic systems throughout the West. Generosity has its limits, and goodwill is not in inexhaustible supply; while all civil societies ultimately depend on trust, the vacuum left behind by its dissipation is often filled by decentralised will to power. Avoiding this spiral towards potentially violent nihilism will therefore naturally require a reappraisal of our boundaries: moral and civic as well as geographic.
Australia is not immune to the degenerative effects of large scale demographic shifts on the democratic system, especially due to its ability to deform civil society and corrupt institutions of cultural transmission. We’ve mentioned this before – years ago – in the context of the Coalition’s odd preselection processes which saw minority and ethnic candidates intentionally placed in strategic federal seats that have become “multicultural” hotbeds of “enrichment” and “diversity”. This was spearheaded then by the soon-to-be (ex-) Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who Miranda Devine earlier this year referred to as a “cuckservative” for his hard counter-propositional stance on many issues dear to his core electoral support base. Demographic revolutions have effectively threatened our democratic system of representative government far more than the radicals of the militant left, right, or the zealots of religious or secular fundamentalism alone. Multicultural policies have made a mockery of systems of government predicated on individualism and inclusion because they fail to appreciate the tribal nature of the newcomers; but those who propagate these policies most aggressively cannot be accused of being so ignorant: that the political left uses immigration as a political vehicle to entrench its electoral prospects into a permanent majority is well known from Washington to London and throughout the capitals of Western Europe.
The future of the Old Continent is symbolised in the now infamous image of the the young, petite Swedish parking attendant, giving tickets to a row of burned out husks of vehicles that were demolished after a violent riot reduced a once-tranquil nordic screetscape into a warzone. This is not the future that we want for our country. To avoid it, we need to start questioning the underlying assumptions, not only of the progressive left, but those who purport to oppose them but are unwittingly slaves to the same stale thoughtlines of leftist morality.
– SydneyTrads Editors