Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Brexit: The Tyranny of the Minority

Brexit: 
The Tyranny of the Minority.


In the aftermath of the unexpected UK Referendum result, which as all will now know came out to Leave the EU, we have seen some incredible attempts to overturn this, which I believe is the largest single mandate received at a national poll in our history.  Slightly more people voted in the 1992 General Election, but the vote was split between three main and several smaller parties.  The winning party then, the Conservatives, received less than 40% of the total vote, while Leave took 52%, at over 17 million votes, and a million and a quarter lead over Remain.  No-one asked for any recounts, so the vote is uncontested, and stands.

Thus by any normal standards of electoral representation this is a firm and resounding vote in favour of the proposition to leave the EU.

And yet, despite it being stated clearly by the Prime Minister when this was arranged that there would be no second vote, and affirming on the morning after the Referendum that the will of the British people must be respected, that it is an instruction which must be delivered, and that the decision cannot be doubted, the Remainer camp, principally on the Left so far as I can determine have made an infinity of attempts already to get the result overturned, reversed, ignored, re-voted upon and the rest.

The Labour party has gone into meltdown as it does about once every generation, tearing itself apart in public; and regrettably Jeremy Corbyn has resorted to accusations of racism abounding in our country.  His message to me seems confused.  If he is seeking to maintain his position as leader of his party, then whether there is or is not racism abroad is fairly irrelevant, I would imagine since I’m sure they all consider themselves good ‘anti-racists’.  Although I dare say there is always some mileage to be had from a bit of gratuitous virtue signalling.  On the other hand there have been a rash of what sound to me like ‘false flag’ victims claiming to have been subject to racist attacks following the Brexit vote.  I think these must always be looked at cautiously since we have seen so many fake attacks or daubing of slogans on mosques claimed by muslims who have been subsequently demonstrated to have created these themselves.

I’m relieved that the EU elite seem to be taking our decision more seriously than some of our own people.  But what I would like to examine here is how it is that a minority of a minority can claim to have a right to overturn the largest mandate in our history?

If they were to actually succeed in preventing us leaving the EU then they would have in effect implemented a coup against the British people.  Now I want to look at the claims that since certain regions voted to Remain then they should be allowed to do so.

Frankly, this is in contravention to the way our laws and democracy work.  I have lost count of the number of times that lefties have said to me ‘Well, that’s representative democracy for you, you vote people in and they make decisions.  If you don’t like it, tough, it’s the will of the majority’ even when these ‘democratically elected’ politicians take decisions which they have never mentioned to the electorate previously.  (Like the Leeds Trolleybus scheme that was nearly foisted on the people of Leeds, but was rejected after an exhaustive Public Inquiry.)

And there can be no question that had the Remain camp won we would now be having to endure the most spiteful harangues against us in perpetuum, having ‘You Lost!’ rammed down our throats as they press their boot down on the back of our collective neck.

To claim that regions should have the right to secede from the United Kingdom on the basis of these results is the deny the nature of that Union and the representative democracy we have so often had used against us.  We voted as a the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Not a bunch of separate and independent principalities.  The nation state, which is still the fundamental unit of political and international identity in the world.  As has already been emerging, apparently the EU grandees are not interested in Scotland as a member if it left the UK, or at least there would be a very long application stage.  So Ms Sturgeon might realise that one's family is more dependable than one's new best friend; despite our long chafing at each other, we can be relied upon.

And Sadgit Khan’s suggestion that London itself should secede is so utterly ridiculous that I shall leave it at that and say no more on the matter.

So these, predominantly lefty, Remainers who won’t accept the standards applied to them which they have exploited for decades, are also griping because they don’t have the opportunity to sneer and lord it over us.  I’m sure the Conservatives are having their own little er.. discussions behind the scenes, but at least they manage a bit more decorum than the whinging whines of the leftie Remain losers and do it mostly in private.

And so we come to it. 

There are those in the Remain camp, not all, but many, especially the young, who entertain the delusion that they can overturn this democratically determined mandate if they shout loudly enough.

This is in a way the culmination of the Cultural Marxist technique, and they are betting all on this one last throw of the dice.

Since the Second World War and the creation of the UN, then the EU, we have seen the endless promotion of ‘minorities’ to the degree now where they have more rights than the majorities in our countries.  If you don’t believe this, look at any number of videos online where white males are vilified simply for being white males.  In Europe immigrants are committing terrible crimes ~ Rotherham and the rest ~ and get privileged treatment because those who should be rooting it out are afraid of being called ‘racist’.  Muslims who married child brides abroad are allowed to bring them into the UK, and can even claim benefits for multiple wives, while an English man who even had more than one wife would be prosecuted for bigamy.

In England we have had to put up with denigration of our people and our culture by the left for generations, even though we are in a majority, as was demonstrated by the voting pattern at the Referendum.  The tweets and social media vilification of the Leave camp has been extreme with verbal abuse and even death threats to Nigel Farage which have not lead to suspension of accounts.


This has been the style of the endless series of ‘colour’ and street revolutions we have seen over the last few years whether in Arab nations or the Ukraine.  ‘Popular uprisings’ somehow manage to overthrow established and in most cases legitimate or at least stable governments because the media and the likes of George Soros get behind them.

We have seen the chaos visited on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria when powerful external forces seek to replace their governments.  Would we fare any better if the will of the people were to be overturned in such a manner?

The ‘minorities’ have got so used to being protected and getting their own way all the time against the majority who have been perpetually backed against the wall in their own territories that they take it for granted that they can overturn even this mandate.  

The likes of Chukka Umunna and David Lammy say ‘Well 48% of the electorate didn’t vote for this, so we should respect that.’  Yes, I respect them.  I won’t berate them for having made a different choice to me.  I shan’t beat up on them because we disagree.  I will not sneer or lord it over them as they would have done to us.  

But they must accept that they have lost and we have won.  This is the way it is.  We have had too much of ‘everyone has to be a winner’ and ‘we can’t have anyone losing’.  So if that is the case, then you force losing on those who have actually won.  By giving consolation prizes to losers, and withholding the prize from the winners, you turn everything upside down, back to front and inside out as the Cultural Marxists always do.

The rabble mob of youth are claiming that they have had their future stolen from them by ‘oldies’ who have only a few years yet to live.  Well, I’m in my sixties, but hope to live for up to another thirty years, so I have a future too in this.  And my parents generation, some still voting, who fought in the war.  Whatever one might think about the rights and wrongs of that, they believed in what they fought for, and have a right to be respected.  The generation who defended and built the nation which the youth wish to give away for trinkets and baubles.

And my own generation, who grew up in the shadow of the war.  I know some who complain about the baby boomers who let all this happen.  There is some responsibility, but mostly we were misled and deceived; however, now we have stood up, before it is too late.  Yes, we remember what it was like before the EU plunged us into the depths, and we want it back.  Those who never knew it are ignorant, and have illusions to which they were indoctrinated.  They do not have the right to give away what our ancestors fought for, and built over long years of struggle.  It is the duty of the elders to preserve what was handed down to us.  Children don’t understand this.  I didn’t when I was young, and I don’t expect they do now.  But they will.

There was a time once, and it wasn’t so long ago, when the wisdom and experience of age was consulted before any major decision was made.  Those who had given their lives for a cause were respected, as Nigel Farage should be.

Those who seek to overturn the will of the people are a mob.  I hope it will burn itself out through being ignored, but it should be understood that this is a profoundly authoritarian movement, totalitarian in its desire.  We have seen it from the EU dictatorship who are already rolling out their plans for a super-state; which had been denied when the Daily Express broke the story.  And here it is.

We are hearing that the decision to stay or leave is too important to be left to the people.

Almost all revolutions begin with minority groups who pursue principally their own agendas.  The mob are co-opted, but then their impetus is diverted to those agendas, and then they themselves are put down if they get wise and try to stop it.

This is Chaos.  Anarchy.  Those who know the I Ching of the ancient Chinese will understand that the Yang must not be subordinate to the Yin.  The Great must be above the Small.  The Majority must rule the Minority, or there is Chaos.  Yes, the Majority should respect the Minority and not oppress them, but if they go beyond this, and give in to that Minority, then they have abdicated the right to rule.

If the Minority accepts that it has lost, it can be respected and accommodated to some degree.  If it tries to assert dominance over the Majority, it will bring downfall upon itself.  This is the way it has always been, and it is the way that it is.  The death knell of the EU has been sounded.  The 23rd July 2016 will go down in history as a momentous event, even more important than 9/11.  The ‘contagion’ of free thought and independence has broken through the autocratic mind control which assumed it would remain in power.

They have lost, and there is nothing they can do but scream and have tantrums.  They can slow it down, and they can cause us problems along the way.  They can manipulate and pervert.  But the EU is now doomed because the hope of freedom has arisen in the hearts of European nations across the continent.  They can accept it and let it happen smoothly, or they can fight and be eviscerated by their own chaos.

My video blog rant on this subject.



My Book 'Waking The Monkey!
~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey (A Book for Spiritual Warriors)
Paperback



Kindle

My other blogs
Relating to my book, metaphysics and consciousness.

Leeds Trolleybus Inquiry and miscellaneous material






Monday, 25 April 2016

‘Non-Binary’ and the LGBT Agenda

‘Non-Binary’ and the LGBT Agenda 
The War on Gender which is currently being waged by the LGBT lobby puppets of the Cultural Marxist propagandists has recently stepped up a gear, or possibly two.
           If you haven't heard my interview with the estimable Lana Lokteff on her Radio 3Fourteen show, then I would recommend you do so before you read this so as to get as much background to the subject as possible first.
Following the insanity of liberals allowing anyone access to either sex toilets according to how they ‘identify’ (whatever that means exactly), and the inevitable and predictable reaction by conservatives to prevent this, we see O’Bummer himself in a doubtless vetted set piece with a person of female appearance and Pakistani ancestry who claims a ‘non-binary’ identity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/student-comes-out-as-non-binary-to-barack-obama/
The mainstream media don’t seem to be questioning what this means, but rather jumping to ‘support’ ‘them’, while the on-the-ground level reaction I have picked up so far is that real people are saying “WTF is ‘non-binary’?”
So what indeed is a ‘non-binary’ identity, and why has it been sicced on an unsuspecting public at this particular time?
Although this young person has been associated with the ‘Transgender Movement’, we should distinguish between several closely related but distinct terms that have arisen in this culture.
‘Transgender’ is a word now widely used as an umbrella term for all gender non-conforming people, but this is a comparatively recent usage.  It was coined in about 1980 by a person calling themself Virginia Prince as a more acceptable term than that used at the time for cross dressers, ‘Transvestite’, which was commonly associated with sexual fetishism. 
‘Transgender’ on the other hand was designed to emphasise the gender aspect with which TGs were supposedly identified, since they would seek to pass in public in their desired gender without actually having had medical treatment like transsexuals..
‘Transsexual’ is a term which had been in use since at least the 1950s that was specifically applied to people who had medical hormonal and surgical treatment to modify their physical appearance and morphology to be like that of their desired sex.
All of these at various times have been put forward as mental illnesses, from the early ‘Psychopathia transsexualis’ to the more recent ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ but there has been evidence for some time that the closely defined Transsexual group have an actual neurological birth condition in which they really do have parts of the brain which had developed as that appropriate to their opposite physical sex.  Thus, it really is the case that the reported sense of being a ‘woman in a man’s body’ and vice versa is an accurate description.
So the term ‘Transgender’ has gone from meaning someone who is a Cross Dresser, to include both CDs and Transsexuals who have a more primary sense of their bodily identity.  Thus the distinction is blurred.
It is my understanding that this is a matter of some disagreement in the Trans world, my own preferred blanket term.  Many transsexuals do not like being associated with people they see as being entirely unlike them, while TGs often will argue that such distinctions are irrelevant, or divisive politically and attack TSs as ‘post-op elitists’.
And this is where ‘Non-Binary’ comes into the debate.
A large proportion of the general public will accept transsexuals who successfully pass in their desired sex/gender and who have had reassignment surgeries.  They may not exactly understand it, but it doesn’t challenge the very nature of sex and gender if the person involved seeks to fit into an existing pattern and is morphologically congruent.
TG is a grey area which has more recently been thrust on an unsuspecting world.  After the term was picked up by Judith Butler in her books from the late eighties and early nineties it somehow managed to get to be used as a conflation of several variants, including possibly the best known, transsexualism.  Her observation that there is a ‘performative element’ in gender has been widely abused and misrepresented to claim that sex is in itself only performative, and thus anyone can be either sex merely depending on their behaviour.  The finer points of distinction between sex and gender tend to get air brushed out of the picture when the LGBT promoters get their hands on it and we arrive at the stage we have got to at the present in which anyone claiming to ‘identify’ with one or the other ‘gender’ can use the toilets of the opposite sex.
The point at which ‘Non-Binary’ can now enter has been achieved because sex having been reduced to only gender is now only a concept, and so bodies have become irrelevant.  When we had sex, we knew that there were two forms, or at least two poles, male and female.  There might be intersex, hermaphrodites and transsexuals who are a mixture of male and female bodies, but there was this principle dynamic of the polarity, which has been designed into biological reproduction by nature over a billion years or so.
Enter ‘Non-Binary’.  If sex is no more than gender, then we are no longer anchored in nature, no longer rooted in the forms which are its means of expression, but we are seeking to repudiate its classical archetypes.
‘Non-Binary’ is far more than merely TG, TS, Cross Dresser, confused and all the rest.  ‘Non-Binary’ is not merely saying ‘I don’t know what I am, I’m all mixed up, I might be a bit of both, bisexual, asexual or whatever.’  No, all that is kindergarten stuff which we should be able to recognise and understand as the result of feminising chemicals on embryologic development, early maturation and the destructive influence of Cultural Marxist programming through the mainstream media.  What ‘Non-Binary’ does is to put a position that is a quantum leap beyond.
Having got the world all nice and confused with the imposition of ‘Transgender’ as the blanket term, superseding transsexualism, it then goes on the attack the existence of gender itself.
So someone who claims to be ‘Non-Binary’ ‘identified’ is someone who is not just some kind of androgynous, hermaphroditic, intersex like creature who is seeking to either find some slot into which they can fit, or something that is some balance of the sexes that they can become, or that even accepts that they are a confused mix of these two polarities, but is someone who rejects those polarities.  By claiming to be ‘Non-Binary’, they are not only saying that they don’t fit in, but that the ‘Binary’ on which our entire culture is based is no more than a construct, a fiction designed by someone for some arbitrary reason which bears no relation to the functions of nature.
The boundaries, the natural tabu between men and women are to be broken down entirely.  This coming so hot on the heels of the affirmation of transgenders’ rights to use toilet facilities of their preference regardless of appearance or bodily anatomical status is clearly no coincidence.
In the wake of the controversy we are to be reminded, guilt tripped into something most don’t really understand.
First, gender has been detached and deconstructed away from attachment to an actual body.
Secondly, the rights of any who claim an abstract ‘identification’ with that deconstructed construction are to be recognised regardless of demonstrative evidence such as physical appearance and behaviour, or medically reassigned status.
Thirdly, since ‘Sex’ is now only an incidental physical characteristic and not in any way associated with ‘Gender’, people who claim ‘identification’ with a particular ‘Gender’ can thus enter the space previously exclusive to the sex associated with that ‘Gender’.
However, since that space is no longer exclusively inhabited by those of that sex to which it was exclusive, the gendered terms ‘man’ ‘woman’ ‘male’ and ‘female’ are not merely enlarged, or modified as in the case of adapting to the existence of intersexes and transsexuals, but entirely transformed so that they lose critical parts of their meaning.
Policing of dissent from traditionalists is maintained by use of choice words of abuse, such as ‘bigot’ and ‘sexist’.
It is perhaps as much as a decade since I got into an exchange on an anti-Transphobia forum discussing the problematic nature of this discourse when claiming ‘female’ identity for TGs who have had no medical reassignment treatment, and got back the response ‘I’m perfectly happy with my female penis.’  Okay, this is a complete redefinition of language at which Winston Smith would stand back in admiration, as black became white.
When the Gender Recognition Act (2004) was passed I predicted that the failure to require certain medical procedures to be carried before a Recognition Certificate and revised Birth Certificate could be issued would lead to exactly the state we have at present.  Which some believe is a precursor to the elimination of legal sex or gender completely, on the basis of human rights or somesuch.  The fewer objective referents which are attached to the association between sex and gender, then the less meaningful the latter becomes.  As it becomes more amorphous it becomes easier to push the ‘Non-Binary’, and those who are tempted by this notion become thereby more malleable.  If you have no template to aspire to, no gender role model, then you are fair game for the Cultural Marxist to mould to their own ends.
What this ‘Non-Binary’ agenda seeks to do is to break down all that is based on nature and on the basis of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ to make us all grey and featureless drones without gender, race or any unique characteristics of our own.  And in the process it seeks to crush the mind which recognises the cognitive dissonance generated by ideas which conflict with our natural instincts.
Without going into details, we need to find some way to adapt to the presence of trans people in our societies. 
This is probably the point at which I should mention that I myself underwent what was then known as ‘Gender Reassignment’ in the 1980s.  I don’t discuss this online with any great enthusiasm as it has been a private matter all my life and I wish it could remain so, but it is important for me to speak out against the current LGBTQ movement which seeks to represent me, but which has goals entirely at odds with my own beliefs.
Our existence is a fact which will not simply go away by wishing it, or by condemning it as some on the Right would have it.  But trans people are a minute proportion of the population, even if the revised levels of prevalence calculated by Lynn Conway are correct,
 and for the general population to have to change their attitudes and behaviour for one person in a thousand or even in five hundred who is to be given a status above the law on the basis of no evidence other than a personal claim is not acceptable. 
There has to be a line somewhere.  We can negotiate where that line might be, but there has to be a line.
I’ve seen several comments on social media recently from people who have said things like ‘They’ve just messed it up now opening up rest rooms to anyone who ‘identifies’ as a ‘woman’.  There were probably thousands of successfully transitioned trans women who passed successfully in stealth and were never questioned when they used women’s rest rooms, but now any woman with so much as a trace of facial hair are going to be grilled, or else total pervs will be using the ladies facilities and no-one will be able to stop them.’
 It’s time we have the discussion.  Where do we draw the line?
The two sides are faced off against each other.  The liberals demand that anyone should be able to use any public toilet on the basis of simple ‘identification’, which is little more than a mere statement of wish, and the conservatives will only accept assignment at birth.  I have to reject the former as without basis in evidence, merely taking someone’s word for something without demonstrative evidence is stupidity in the extreme; and the latter, while I respect the impulse from which it arises, is rather living in the stone age with regard to recognition of intersexual type birth conditions, both morphological and neurological.
So we have to have the discussion.  The Alt or New Right is getting to grips with recognition of the fact that homosexuality exists and that it is an instinctual inclination in some people.  So long as we maintain a balance whereby we don’t punish people for inclinations which are natural to them, so long as they do no harm by them, but at the same time recognise that traditional heteronormative relations are the best basis for a stable and culturally fruitful society then we will be in balance.
We need to take the next step and get to grips with the fact that the trans world exists and that it cannot be stamped out.  But Transgender activists should not presume by this that they can establish and exploit a hegemonic victim position in order to attack heteronormative structures through virtue signalling.
We are a small minority and most of us seek only to pass unnoticed in society.  Those who stand on the soap boxes and promote ‘Non-Binary’ models of gender, and endlessly push their victimhood agendas are representative only of themselves, a minority faction within the minority.
I have my own position on where exactly I think we should draw the line, but I’ll leave that for now.  However, we must have a line, and preferably one which accommodates scientific knowledge on brain sex, but also on morphology, appearance and behaviour.  A man or a woman are recognised through their gestalt, although there are sine qua nons.  There must be a line drawn between male and female.  It is an ancient tabu, both sacred and profane.  Some may cross it due to exceptional circumstances, but those circumstances will be recognised and understood, there will be rites of passage, and formal recognition.  People who claim ‘identification’ will need to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.
I am even prepared to allow for an ‘Intergender’ category.  I mentioned this term to Dr Sally Hines of the Leeds University Dept of Gender Studies in 2009 when I had several conversations with her.  This would accommodate those who permanently inhabited a zone of mixed status.  I understand there is a term ‘Neutrois’ which has been adopted by some, but I don’t find this nearly as troublesome as ‘Non-Binary’.
This latter term is a purposeful attack on the very division of higher life forms into male and female.  People who use this term routinely attack what they call ‘The Gender Binary’, as if masculine and feminine were an affront to human dignity, rather than what gives it its depth of character.
So we must have a line, and we need to have the discussion about exactly where it is, especially when it comes to the use of pubic facilities, or we will fall into the abyss where anyone is anything they say they are, and where the very binary polarity of life itself is denied.
                  *                            *                            *
There is a whole other discussion I could get into about how this is parallel to the current attempt at destroying national identities and borders in a very similar way.  No Borders is not far from Non-Binary.  No boundaries is what these people want, and it is no surprise to me that one of the principle tools of fear that has recently been used against us is the threat of Ebola, the disease which ruptures cell walls, like open borders and Non-Binary abolition of gender.  This seems to be the template for the world which the EU, Soros and their social engineers have lined up for us.
But I will leave the discussion there for now, and thank Annie Dieu-le-Veut for drawing this topic to my attention, as well as for the use of her analogy about Ebola rupturing cell walls.


                     *                         *                       *

You can purchase a paper or e-book version of my account of my rite of passage at The Hundredth Monkey Camp ‘Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey’ (A Book for Spiritual Warriors) at
 
Amazon Kindle
 
My Other Blogs
Exerpts from my book and articles around cutting edge ideas related to consciousness and the human struggle for survival.
 
My original blog with full 2014 Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry online audio recording links and reportage from most days at the Enquiry and other material.








Monday, 28 March 2016

A House Divided Cannot Stand

A House Divided Cannot Stand
(Return to Logos)
I may not quite count myself a Christian these days, but I still recognise some wisdom within that tradition and will refer to it in this piece principally because it is recognisable to readers of a European heritage. 
The best of that wisdom is congruent with the traditions of the Aesir, and more generally, we seek to maintain Order, though it is surrounded by Chaos.  Its core may be summarised in the well known quotation from the Gospel of John. 
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  John 1:1
What is Logos?  Logos in the ancient Greek literally means Word and hence the verse by John.  By extension it means a principle, or Reason.  In alchemical philosophy the element of air accords with thought and reason, and the Tarot symbol or suit of that element is Swords.  The scalpel of reason which divides truth from falsehood, order from chaos and knowledge from ignorance. 
In that other book attributed to John, The Apocalypse, or Revelation, Jesus, the human face of the Divine, who is considered to be the Logos, the principle upon which all existence rests, in his ascended form, akin to Krishna, the Personality of Godhead, says ‘I bring not peace, but a sword.’  He says that he will separate the wheat from the chaff, the fruitful from the barren,  the good from the worthless.
There are elements and metaphors within this tradition that can be problematic, such as the sheep and goats, and I won’t rely too much on this detail, but there are core truths on which I shall concentrate.
Reason has been the foundation on which the ascendancy of the West has been built.  Modern science and industry emerged from the questioning minds of the Renaissance, which itself developed from mediaeval scholastic philosophy, back through Roman and Greek thought.
A slight digression for a moment.  The 12thC Renaissance (as distinct from that of the 15thC) was clearly influenced and even stimulated by contact with the Islamic cultures of the Middle East, but it is a mistake to claim that our culture is no more than an offshoot of those.
The Islamic Caliphate did indeed preserve some of the ancient texts that they found in the various formerly Christian Roman lands which they brutally conquered from the 7thC onwards, but they destroyed far more than they preserved.  It is also essential to understand that they did very little with this ancient knowledge.
Islam is an imperialistic and theocratic quasi-religious dogma which seeks only to obliterate that which is different, while the Christian cultures of the West had a more inquiring mind and sought to understand the new.  This is why the knowledge of architecture which the Crusaders brought back was used and integrated into our European culture, because Reason is at the core of our way of thought, while Islam seeks to dominate by force.

‘Strike the fingertips from the hands of the unbeliever.’  Sura 8:12

 

Reason tells us that facts are above opinions, that some realities, some outcomes are preferable to others, while our modern ‘Diverse’ society insists that all values are equal.  The primacy of Reason and the culture and ethos through which it is expressed is what I refer to as ‘Logos’ in the context of civilisation.  Each culture will have a different expression dependent on local circumstances and history, but Europe can stand as one civilisation because each nation shares Reason (actually deified by the French) as the common thread.
Thus we have now a society which inevitably seeks to undermine the principles on which it was built since we no longer share a uniting principle.  And so it is.  Firstly, our unified and homogeneous society has taken in different influences, principally Islam, allowed it to have equality with the logoidal culture, and then it becomes inevitable that that Logos no longer holds sway.
It is not about absolute conformity.  In any culture there will be subcultures that have their own local preferences, this is only the variety that is inevitable as the society grows or encounters different influences from abroad.
What has been lost to us is the Principle, the Dominant Culture, the plinth on which the pillar of our civilisation is built ~ the Logos.
We see that Islam, in particular, is an insidious culture which, when there are small numbers of its followers within a larger society, remains docile and compliant.  There is no immediate problem, they apparently seek not to erode or undermine the host culture, and are good and law abiding, conforming citizens.
But it is clear from historical evidence, that once the numbers of the population increase beyond a certain percentage, then this begins to change.  First they make apparently reasonable requests for us to respect their religion, headscarves, holy days and so forth, but then move on to more assertive aims.  What were first simply claims for respect of their own customs and values become criticisms of our values, our customs.
We have seen the complaints about Christmas, the eating of pork, and then this develops and grows into demands for sharia law, then sharia law areas which are no go for non-Muslims, and the native historic culture which has evolved in its own milieu for over a thousand years is put on the back foot and made to feel bad about itself.  This week I have seen news items about how Easter eggs have been put on sale this year without the word ‘Easter’ on them.  A small detail, but telling.  We are apparently not allowed to mention the name of our own customs publicly in our own land.  Although not a Christian any more these days, but a respecter of the culture and religion of my ancestors, nonetheless I have made a point of wishing as many people as possible a ‘Happy Easter’ this last week as an act of resistance to this creeping political correctness.
This has opened the door to Chaos.  I’m sure many of my readers will know the phrase ‘Ordo ab Chao’, the term used by the secret society elites who seek to control our world.  What it means is that they like to take the opportunity to impose their own Order on Chaos, but most likely they have created that Chaos themselves, so that they can manipulate and create their own Order.
The domination of brutal force which is the basis of the Islamic Jihad, and has been since the 7thC, is a form of Order, but of a cruder manner than the Logos of the West, and so must find a way to destroy it.  If Reason, the dominant principle of our civilisation is to be displaced, then this can be done in either, or both, of two ways: sheer brute force, or deception.
Islam has used the first of these methods for its entire 1400 year history, and that should be clear.  Dr Bill Warner has an excellent series of resources on this subject on his YouTube channel and website www.politicalislam.com
The history of why we are afraid of Islam.
 
It is the deception which is at the bottom of the problems we see today.  Either our leaders are simply ignorant of the 1400 year Jihad, they have been deceived and really believe, somehow, that Islam is truly a ‘religion of peace’, or else, and one is inclined to believe that this must be the case, they are cuckolds who for some reason are inclined to encourage the growth of this aggressive culture within our midst, disregarding or not caring about its destructive effects on our civilisation.
Any cell or organism must maintain homoeostatic conditions within itself, or else it will die.  A cell which is invaded by alien DNA will likely be corrupted and taken over to reproduce that DNA, not its own, unless it has an immune system or microphages that can destroy it.  If the skin of the ionosphere failed and we were exposed to the cosmic rays with which outer space is replete, then we would all soon die from radiation.
The cell walls and the ionosphere are boundary conditions which protect the logoidal essence within.  Truth may fear no investigation, but I have heard many mistakenly suggest that it needs no defence.  This is clearly wrong.  How many lies have been told which have been believed?  How many innocents have been hung or executed for crimes that they never committed?  Logos is the DNA, the guiding principle of order and life, but it needs a stiff defence, or else it will dissolve and recede back into the primal chaos from which it emerged.  DNA without a cell wall to enclose and protect it will not last long.
Nature neither likes nor allows total uniformity or conformity.  Light and dark alternate.  Ahura-Mazda, principle of Light, is locked in eternal combat with Ahriman, principle of Chaos and Darkness.  Osiris is restored to life by Isis after his battle with Set, God of the Desert and Chaos.  Baldr is betrayed by Loki and restored after Ragnarok.  And Jesus, the Logos, is resurrected by the power of the Spirit (Life) after betrayal by the servants of Satan.  And so on.
Thus when Reason and Light fade, it is the nature of existence for a New Logos to emerge.  Out of the rotting compost heap comes new life, new vigour.  The Christian symbol of the Resurrection expresses this, cognate with the ancient story of the Resurrection of Osiris.
Christianity was imposed on northern Europe by the sword.  But it took root more easily than it might otherwise have done because there were both core truths in Christianity which paralleled those of the Asatru faith of the north, such as the similarities between Balder and Christ, or Odin as the All Father as a more human version of God the Father, and the conquering religion had the sense to adapt the existing festivals and holy sites, such as Yule becoming Christmas, so that there was continuity and the people were thus kept on board.
We currently see a rather clumsy attempt at this taking place with the introduction of Islam to Europe.  Islam claims to be the successor of Christianity in the Abrahamic line, and that Jesus was a prophet, but lesser than Mohamed.  It claims to be a religion of peace, despite not only the words of their book, but also the rather more obviously apparent history of 1400 years of war on the rest of the world.  The Koran may be an obscure text which many seek to interpret in different ways, but the history of the loss of Christian European lands in North Africa, and the perpetual war against Europe is more easily understood. 
Typified by their penetration as far as Tours in France where they were repulsed by Charles Martel in 732 AD, or the siege of Vienna almost a thousand years later in 1683, where again they were sent back, or the millennium in between, characterised by unrelenting incursions on the southern coast of Europe, the predations of the Barbary corsair slavers or, not least, the taking of Constantinople in 1452.  This great city of the ancient world had been the Eastern capital of the Roman Empire and had survived a full millennium beyond the fall of its Western sister.  Characterised by the great dome of the Hagia Sophia built by Justinian in the 4thC, it had been the bulwark of Western Civilisation for an age, but fell to Islam, and the towers were erected for muezzin around the formerly Christian foundation.
It is probably a good moment to mention that North Africa under the Romans, and in the ancient world, was principally populated by peoples that we would recognise or understand as being European.  Ancient Carthage, and even some Egyptian pharaohs, were Caucasoid peoples.  The demographic dominance of Arabic peoples in North Africa dates only from the Islamic Jihad of the 7th and 8th centuries, when the indigenous Europids were genocided, ethnically cleansed, exterminated and replaced by the conquering peoples from Arabia.  Small groups of the indigenous people survived, such as the Berbers and Circassians.  TE Lawrence (of Arabia) was reputed to have passed himself off as a Circassian when in disguise as a spy and questioned about his blue eyes.
The Islamic predation continued for many centuries until the early modern period with the Barbary corsairs who took some two million or so European slaves from coastal raiding.  The ending of the trade routes which had existed since the ancient world by the Caliphate during the Middle Ages was one of the principle reasons for the initiation of the Age of Discovery, as it is known, in the early 15thC within a couple of generations of the Black Death, which had come from the Middle East.  Trade with the East had simply become impossible, either through the Middle East or the ancient Silk Road through Turkey, and so new routes were developed, leading to better navigational technologies and expanding economies.  Islam in the meantime stagnated, complacent in its brute strength and domination.
And so we come down to the present day.  Western Europe, having not faced Islamic attack since the Dark Ages has forgotten.  But Eastern Europe, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria have not.  An almost perpetual predation was visited on what was formerly the Eastern part of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, until comparatively recently.  Ottoman Turkey only finally fell in 1918 at the end of the Great War.  Kemal Attaturk may have sought to modernise, to westernise in the wake of its collapse, but it would be naïve to imagine that with the resurgence of Islam in the last generation or two there would be no hankering after the lost past, no attempt to restore the empire which had lasted for over five hundred years.  An aside:  why do we in Europe not seek reparations from Turkey for its crimes against our peoples?  Instead, Merkel seeks to allow them to enter our lands freely. 
One question I shall have to leave for another time is why, after 1918, the victorious powers failed to restore Constantinople to Greece or Bulgaria.  This, in my view, was negligence of the most extreme order, or else, as I think quite possible, a deliberate trap set for the future by the likes of those who rewrote the maps in the 1920s.  While Germany was, unjustly, stripped of several of its provinces which had unified with the Second Reich after the war of 1870, Turkey was stripped of its eastern possessions, such as Palestine, Syria and what became Iraq, but that ancient part of the European lands on our side of the Bosphorus was not restored to us as it should have been.  These obscure redrawings of the map of this part of the world have been at the root of the more recent troubles there, and it seems that this is no coincidence.  But I shall need to leave that for further exegesis elsewhere.
For now, I shall focus on the division that has been introduced into Europe.  This had been done in several ways.  The two most important are racially, and culturally.  We see from the example of Ancient Rome that racial diversity does not have to be as much of a problem as it has become if there is a dominant culture to which everyone, at least nominally, subscribes.  This was the main reason why Jews and Christians were considered troublesome in the 1stC particularly, since they insisted on being separate, and on claiming that their God was above the gods of the Roman pantheon.
There is a position which holds that Rome began to fall after Constantine had made Christianity the official religion of the Roman state.  This may be so, but it was certainly an attempt to maintain a dominant political and religious Logos, or principle.
Surely the reason why Rome lasted for as long as it did, and became the principle foundation for the modern world is because it had a firm cultural centre.  Literal belief in the gods may not have been universal, but the principles of what they represented were respected, and this was the foundation of Rome.  But when ‘The centre cannot hold, then things fall apart’ as the saying goes.  The hub, the axis, must be firm and strong.
Today, the only firm belief we are supposed to have is in ‘Multi-Culturalism’ and ‘Diversity’.  However this is in itself contrary to ‘firm belief’ since we find that the proponents of Islam firmly believe that the Christian, post-Christian, humanist, pagan, Odinist, Asatru or atheist culture which we share, which has evolved over centuries, is wrong, evil, and the work of Satan.
Thus Ahura-Mazda, God of Reason and Light, wanes and is confronted with the destructive power of Darkness, Ahriman (sometimes pronounced Angry Man, an interesting homophone), and the Logos begins to fall.  This is the state in which we find ourselves today.  Angry chaos bursts out from within the hearts of our own cities and tears at the breast on which it has fed.
On Tuesday of this week, the Christian Holy Week, a barbaric atrocity was visited on Brussels, the symbolic ‘Heart of Europe’. 
The news coverage which has been focussed on this event has demonstrated that the once great and beautiful city has become rotten to the core.  The ringleader of last year’s Paris massacre, Abdeslam,  had been holed up in an Islamic ghetto, and it is thought highly probable that this week’s bombs were reprisals for his arrest. 
This is a clear demonstration that it is the culture we have to fear; while individuals may appear to be law abiding, their compliance with the culture of the terrorists demonstrates their true loyalties.
There have been the usual attempts to claim that, on the basis that only a small number of individuals actually carried out these atrocities, the Islamic community as a whole should bear no responsibility.
This is an argument of sophistry.  When a society engages in war, only a small number of the population engage in front line combat.  For example, in the Great War, there may have been several millions of troops engaged in the war fronts, but these could never have been maintained there had their nations not been backed up behind them, unified in production of war materiel, food and supplies.  There is probably a formula used by military experts to calculate the number of front line troops that can be maintained by a population of a given size.
We have to understand that Islam seeks to spread itself and then conquer as its fundamental reason for existence.  The entire mediaeval caliphate which stretched from Spain and Morocco to the Far East was established through war.  Well, you may say, Christianity and other religions have extended their sway through similar methods.  To some extent this may be true, but do we see any other religion attempting to spread itself in this manner today on a comparable scale, or in recent times?  I would suggest not.
Islam has two strategies for conquest.  Firstly, the simple war jihad, but secondly colonisation and ‘conquering with the cradle’.  This is blatantly what is happening in Europe at present with the demographic invasion and the high birth rates of the immigrants.  And European empathy is exploited to the hilt.  One drowned child is far more emotive than tens of thousands of fighting age men who have no identification papers, but all carry smart phones, with fully paid up credit.
This is predation, and will lead to the genocide of the European peoples if not opposed.  A French judge recently declared that there is no basis for racial ‘Frenchness’.  Apparently there is no such thing as an ethnically French person, descent from the Franks, Gauls or Celts means nothing in this modern world.  It is commonplace to see people of African and Arabic descent described as ‘French’ or ‘Danish’ or ‘Swedish’ in the news media.
We are now to be abused as ‘racist’ if one identifies with one’s ethnic heritage in the West, although non-White, non-European nations are all allowed to maintain their ethnic identities in their own racially homogeneous lands.
Probably the pebble which started the avalanche of awareness on this issue for me was when in the autumn of 2013 a man I knew who was from a Pakistani family said on Facebook ‘Well I’m English, and I think such and such.’  I called him out.  I said ‘You aren’t English, you are Asian British.  English is an ethnicity, and you are appropriating it.’  It would be the same as if I managed somehow to get Nigerian citizenship, for instance, and then called myself Hausa, or Ibo, or Yoruba.  (The three principle tribal nations which make up the Nigerian population.)  Patently absurd.  And yet ethnic Pakistanis claim to be ‘English’, and it is politically incorrect to challenge such an assertion.  But I’m not politically correct, and I urge my readers not to be, either.
The conversation didn’t last very long.  Having said that I didn’t see why people of English ancestry shouldn’t maintain their ethnic identity and wish to remain the largest demographic group in the country which their ancestors had occupied for millennia, he called me a ‘xenophobe’ and promptly unfriended me.  I have only seen him once since, over the counter at the shop where he sometimes works, and he declined to speak.  As an aside, I would say that a refusal to engage in debate is a hallmark of totalitarian social structures and an unacknowledged admission of failure.  We see this all the time with Cultural Marxists and Social Justice Warriors.  They seek to silence all opposition.  We see this with the Sanders supporters against Trump.  They seem oblivious to the ethical implications of what they are doing, assuming that they have for themselves all rightness, and have no need to explore issues, or even as Marxists to engage in a dialectic.
And so, Reason is attacked.  It may seem to some even that they are seeking to establish a greater Logos, a universal system which supersedes and overtakes the existing one, but in so doing they are dispensing with Reason, allowing contradictions to co-exist, and thereby slide back into the morass of Dark Ages and brutality from which Islam emerged.
The arguments from the Islamic apologists have been rehearsed many times on the media this week.  Individual Muslims may be good people.  There was a Muslim in Glasgow this week who, having put up a sign wishing all his Christian customers a ‘Happy Easter’ was murdered for expressing such a wish.  So, yes, there are ‘Good Muslims’ but you probably wouldn’t want to be one, because of the consequences.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3509367/Muslim-shopkeeper-stabbed-death-hours-posted-happy-Easter-message.html
The ideology of Islam is to spread and conquer the world, not by Reason and the example of Charity, as the Christian and post-Christian West has done, but by any means available.  War and the cradle, but also deception ~ ‘Taqiyya’, covert force.   So that claiming it is only a few extremists can be, and likely is, a deception, since we have both the evidence that the populations of Muslim ghettos will harbour mass murderers, and the inevitable fact that a massive support chain must extend beyond in order to maintain the whole set up.  Add to this that Muslims who actually are good, tolerant people get taken out.  Perhaps not all so graphically as happened to that poor man in Glasgow, but brutality and coercion does not have to be exercised to the point of death, only of overwhelming fear.
This week I delved into the world of Twitter to see what was going down with the Brussels atrocities and the Trump campaign.  I came across numerous posts from @Sargon_of_Akkad claiming that we are all individuals so we should not blame demographic groups.  Well, I’m all for personal responsibility, but to suggest that everyone takes such responsibility is plainly absurd.  Having sat through several hours of his domination of Millennial Woes’ first Milleniyule Hangout on YouTube, I was already wise to his devious ploys, which I see others refer to as ‘Saul Alinsky tactics’, his claims to want to understand the views of others and his endlessly condescending ‘But don’t you think…’ assertions.
Yes, in a situation where all other things remain equal, and with no external pressures, many Muslims probably would behave in the kind of way that we in the post-Christian West might hope.
But all other things are not equal, and there are external pressures.  How should we expect the majority of Muslims to behave when they have been indoctrinated all their lives with admonitions to be loyal to the ‘Umma’, the community of the Islamic ‘faith’?  When they are surrounded by in group peer pressure and mullahs ranting hatred against the West.
If their numbers were small then we might continue to disregard them.  But to do so would still be perilous, because in time they use their tactics and increase.  However, we are now well past that.  To put it frankly, people are afraid of criticising because Islam has now become so over assertive, and has caused our own leaders to submit to their domination.  If you don’t believe me, think of Merkel claiming that ‘Islam belongs in Germany’, or Cameron’s false claim that ‘Islam is a Religion of Peace’.
A century ago, or less, such assertions would have at best been dismissed as laughable, the Church would have contested them, and anyone who persisted with them would have been considered irrational.  This is because the Logos of the European civilisation was still intact.  But now, we have suffered the Rape of Europa, a chilling myth from our ancient past.  I shall have to write more about this elsewhere, but the symbolism of Jove, who must be cognate with Jehovah, raping Europa suggests to me an influence on Western mythology from the Middle Eastern traditions.  Jove seems to be a conflation of the genuinely wise and compassionate Odin or Woden of the Northern peoples, the All-Father, with the vengeful and jealous Jehovah from the desert lands to the south.  So, I ask, does the rape of Europa represent the corruption of the true tradition of honour and wisdom with an infection of this cruel Middle Eastern demon?
But to return to my main thread, I believe I have demonstrated that Islam as a culture, a political movement, is a threat in that it is a unified belief system which has an aggressive mentality of conquest, and that creates a culture and domination within its own ‘Umma’ which obliges conformity to the collective will.  At best, so long as one does not resist or challenge that will, then one is not punished and coerced into compliance ~ submission ~ as I think we all now know the word ‘Islam’ means.
All that is required for Islam to succeed is for the West to fail to resist, to comply with its demands.  ‘All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing’ as someone once said.
It is remarkable really that the [mis]leaders of the West (I include Obama and the USA) have been so cowardly as to fail to stand up to the obvious threat of infiltration.  This was crept up on us over many decades, but when the picture became clear, they should have acted.  It seems that they must have other masters who have led them into this, first through their own naïveté, then cupidity, and finally outright cowardice.
And all this is cloaked under the disguise of ‘Multiculturalism’ and the proposition that ‘Diversity is our strength’.  New ideas which seek to overturn the perennial philosophy of the ages, that ‘A House divided against itself cannot stand’, and that ‘Unity is strength’.  What I call Logos, the Cultural Marxists call Hegemony.
Military strategists have long known that a divided enemy is much easier to conquer.  The saying and practise of ‘Divide and Conquer’ is much older than the British Empire which used this strategy to such successful effect.
Our civilisation, Western Civilisation, has become divided, has been divided, by those who have allowed or encouraged the ingress and growth of the parasite of Islam.  The present Pope, Francis, seems to be one of their prime agents.
Like Rome, any successful civilisation can tolerate a certain proportion of different peoples and cultures within its bosom.  But there must be a limit.  Travellers and traders may have walked freely in Rome for hundreds of years, but if the Imperial authority found that there were more than that certain proportion, or that sedition against the Imperium was afoot, it would be quashed.  When Rome was unable to do this, it fell.  Indeed, while I am no scholar of the Fall of Rome, I have read that it was simply a catastrophic error of judgement in allowing the barbarians into Rome, rather than a decisive defeat, which led to the fall of that great city and empire of the West.
The parallel with today is stark.
Native ancestral Europeans still outnumber populations of immigrant ancestry by ten to one, and yet the collective psyche, at least that part of it controlled by the mainstream media, is paralysed with fear of being called names such as ‘racist’, ‘xenophobe’, ‘fascist’ and so forth, when all they are doing is expressing a love for their own people, and a desire to maintain their civilisation against the ingress of foreigners who have no historical stake in what our ancestors fought and died for.  In fact, many of our ancestors fought and died for freedom from this very kind of demographic ingress and totalitarian religious threat.
It is unacceptable that Jews can be firm in their own borders around Israel, but criticise Europeans or Americans when they seek to do the same, whilst promoting multi-culturalism for us.  If you haven’t seen the infamous video of Barbara Lerner Spectre, an infiltrator into Sweden, then now is the time to watch it.

But I have a sense that much of this is about to end, as a part of the natural cycle.  The Fabian socialists and Cultural Marxists who have been working at undermining our civilisation for most of the last century or two fail to understand organic life and biology.  When an organism is threatened there are unconscious biological survival mechanisms which get activated.  I heard a story once of a young mother whose child got trapped in a car accident, and she lifted the car sufficiently to retrieve her offspring, when normally she couldn’t lift a quarter of that weight.  Adrenaline can do amazing things.  And there are deeper functions, far deeper, the functions such as the amygdala which trigger this from a whole set of instinctual drives and structures which normally lie dormant in our quiet and safe existence.  Genes and epigenetic factors can be activated by archetypal biological threats to our existence.  There is even evidence that these situations can cause adaptive mutations during procreation.
Have we become oblivious to threats, like birds who lived for millions of years in the absence of predators, lost the power of flight and then were wiped out by the introduction of rats?  Have all our alpha males who would historically seek to defend their people been exterminated by the world wars of the twentieth century? 
Or is there still within us left a kernel of survival instinct?  Is there a seed within the decaying compost heap of our once great civilisation ready to swell and spring forth into the light?  Perhaps a sapling already exists yet to be revealed, like the offspring of Nimloth the Fair which Gandalf showed to Aragorn upon the establishment of his kingdom.
I believe that there yet is.  The Logos of our people, which is reason, and honour, courage and virtue still exists in our hearts and our imaginations.  Europe must not be allowed to drown in the chaos of unreason which would be visited upon us should Islam be allowed to continue to grow, and thus triumph.
This is perhaps the most crucial hinge in all of human history so far upon which the future will depend.  Reason against chaos.  But we should not imagine that Reason alone will save us.  Aristotle said that Reason of itself does not move to action.  Motive desire is required.  We have that, and the action which it must generate is what shall save us.  And Reason tells us that sometimes we must resist chaos with force.  Islam demands ‘Submission’ and thus it is bounden on us to resist.
I would not be the first to suggest that should Islam win in the current struggle, the future of human civilisation on this planet would stand in jeopardy, that it would stagnate for centuries like it did under the Ottomans, perhaps for millennia, perhaps forever.  I am reminded of O’Brien in Orwell’s 1984 who saw the future as a boot grinding on the face of humanity forever.  Islam is the perfect tool for that, one step beyond Communism since it involves theocratic loyalty.
And thus it is heartening to see the emergent archetype of the future of our civilisation expressed in strong and dominant figures who will not back down from the defence of their people, in the case of Hungary’s Viktor Orban, or from the defence of law and the boundaries of his country in the case of Donald Trump.  It is no surprise that their opponents, the agents of Chaos, scream hysterical abuse at them, but have nothing save lies, corrupted half truths and distortions.
The rising tide of awareness is behind these emerging archetypal figures.  It is hard to go back when you see the truth.  In the face of decay and the ingress of foreign demands we must have a dominant Yang archetype of a strong masculine form, standing for Reason and Law, or else we will fall to chaos like the Romans who opened their gates to the barbarians.
The archetype of Logos must be restored, or it is the end of Western Civilisation.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
********************************************
You can purchase a paper or e-book version of my account of my rite of passage at The Hundredth Monkey Camp ‘Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey’ (A Book for Spiritual Warriors) at
Amazon Kindle
My Other Blogs
Exerpts from my book and articles around cutting edge ideas related to consciousness and the human struggle for survival.
My original blog with full 2014 Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry online audio recording links and reportage from most days at the Enquiry and other material.