Systematic Feminism

In Memoriam of the Career of Sir Richard Timothy "Tim" Hunt FRS, FMedSci

"Strong Son of Socialism, immortal Creed,
Whom those, that have not seen thy face,
By faith, and faith alone, embrace,
Believing where they cannot prove;
Thine are these orbs of light and shade;

Thou madest Life in man and brute;
Thou madest Death; and lo, thy foot
Is on the skull which thou hast made."

“Our class enemies (the British bourgeoisie) are empiricists, that is, they operate from one occasion to the next, guided not by the analysis of historical development, but by practical experience, routinism, rule of thumb, and instinct.”[Trotsky, 1921: Military Doctrine or Pseudo-Military Doctrinairism.]

It is claimed that feminism is a movement that represents women's self interests; and it is presumed that the self interests of 'feminism' and women, are identical. Yet it is also known that feminism comes in waves, like fashions; does that mean that women's self interests are also fashionable, like wet clay?

Women are never invited to vote on feminism, nor the manifestos that distinguish the various waves that crop up from time to time; women are expected to comply with the prescribed fashions, without question or referendum. It's as though feminism is an anonymous dictatorship, imposed upon fashionable women.

Feminism's subversive credentials:

The human condition needs the capacity for both radical and conservative thinking. If our human cultures evolved, much in the same manner as our physical nature, then it would follow that we need radicalism to act as the 'mutating agency', necessary for evolutionary modification; and we would also need conservatism to function as the 'DNA', that preserves the 'fit' from the 'unfit', as expressed in the surviving traditions of that culture. To illustrate this, imagine the extremes of both: too much radicalism leads to the mutation of mutations, both good and bad, so the system would not survive due to lack of discriminating efficacy; and too much conservatism would lead to fossilisation, that would diminish survival options should the environment change. Thus conservatism is the counterbalance of radicalism, and vice versa; therefore a natural and spontaneous society will be stabilised by the dynamic of a negative feedback equilibrium.

In contrast, the idea of a perpetual revolution, as advocated by the likes of Trotsky, through the imposition of idealist radicalism, would have to rely upon positive feedback. But from Le Chatelier's principle, a spontaneous natural system will react in rebellion against imposed radical perturbations, driving that system to unstable crisis as a result of the imposed positive feedback. Hence perpetual radicalism of society can only be maintained by unnatural systematic idealism, else that driven society will either die or rebel.

Idealist radicals will often awaken the Narcissistic self interests of their chosen identity groups, so as to co-opt their allegiances, via promised assistance and special favours; especially if they are weaned on self pity from subversive histories of their ilk. And those so deceived, will beg for group representations to enhance their voice, in the hope of democratic power over and above those not in their fold. Their self interests can only be stymied by the presence of an equivalent power in opposition, such as cussed rebels, else there will be a runaway positive-feedback destabilisation. Thus a synthetic cult, such as feminism, will induce a natural rebellion, such as the various men's groups, if the people are free to act in accordance to their evolved human condition.

Since it is universally understood by all parties, that a democratic State should function separately from the Church, so as to safeguard against any possible dissonance between mind and spirit, it is important to recognise and nullify the detrimental effects of any cult, or 'special interest identity groups': “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. When a State, responsible for the well being of the whole society, supports any self interest group within that society, it will generate sectarian conflict.

A belief system that is neither empirically, analytically, nor democratically mandated, is a cult. There, but for the grace of God, goes feminism. Feminists adhere to their identity cult by virtue of unquestioning belief, seduced by the conceit of superiority, by simply 'being a women', and conserved in piety by not being a male pariah; the her-volk of the fashionable Reich. Thus the cult of feminism is counter to democracy, when it inveigles itself into State laws, as well as being detrimental to the health of a natural society. So, for the preservation of a natural healthy society, it becomes a moral imperative to oppose any State that advocates a feminist cult.

Representational democracy, without free natural morality to thwart positive feedback, will make a virtue of fashion and popularity; which are the very things that identity politics uses to garner unquestioning support. What representational member of Parliament would vote against any policy that is dressed in the special needs of feminist issues, especially since they are State sanctioned? Thus feminism is a means to sidestep true democracy. And by adding to the panoply of female-focussed quangos and State sponsored outreach and awareness groups, that burden our shared economy, the State increases its control of the 'democracy', and the economy, via feminised employment laws. All this is achieved by displacing natural spontaneity with contrived systematic feminist fashion.

Consider the oxymoron of equality and diversity. This subversion of logic serves to generate, via edict and law, a homogenisation of all cults; thus rendering a 'culture-less'  society, composed of all views across the political spectrum. Indeed, a truly balanced society would be incapable of making a democratic decision, because left and right would be 50:50. But if one cult was allowed full sway, and by identity self interests, persuaded 20% of the electorate to vote in accord to the fashion, then that 'democracy' could be controlled by that cult, as all future votes could potentially resolve to as high as 60:40 majorities, all other things being equal. If the cult of feminism didn't exist, then a Socialist State would have to invent it: "You shall have no other gods before me".

Socialism, that feminists advocate, will lead to Totalitarianism; because any systematic control of the economy by the State that represents a special needs group, especially if those in 'need' are members of the State executive, will inevitably divert wealth towards their own power, at the expense of the market. Hence a destructive self-perpetuating extortion ensues, which can only be maintained by the power of the State being used in an absolute fashion against any spontaneous attempts to establish a free market:

Politics is mapped by two orthogonal axes: the good/bad axis versus the true/false axis. The exclusively rational of us would only see the line of 'truth'; and the those who are exclusively passionate, will only see the line of 'good'. The whole populace, however, will be distributed between these extremes as a result of both individual diversity, and personal conceit, as nobody has an incentive to contradict themselves. Furthermore, they will regard being 'right minded' as the virtue of being both true and good, albeit to different extents and emphases, according to the subject matter, and their personalities. Therefore in the political landscape of representational democracy, right and wrong can change according to either principles of truth, or popularity of good:

In a natural society, the laws of equilibrium prevail, and Le Chatelier's principle, applies. Hence, there are no rebels with a cause, only radicals are seduced by these inventions. Therefore radical politics must appeal to self interests, in order to overcome the natural cussedness of the human condition that tends toward the status quo. So, in order to persuade the self interest group to change from a natural state to a contrived state, the politician can appeal to their passions of special wants and needs; hence radical politics will promote the 'good lie' via fashionable propaganda. Meanwhile, all those not in the cult, will spontaneously oppose the propaganda with unfashionable rebellions of 'bad truth'. Famously caricatured in '1066 and All That' by the line: "The Roundheads were right but repulsive; whereas the Cavaliers were wrong but wromantic." And of course, since nobody has an incentive to contradict themselves, the propaganda of the opposing faction, is the wisdom of the other. The ensuing sectarianism is the temporary divorce of one part of humanity from the other, thus they no longer contribute to mutual stabilisation of each other, as each sectarian group now resides in its own quasi-society. Prior to feminism, men and women were complementary sexes of a symbiotic life; after feminism, men and women became 'opposite' sexes.

And in modern times, with the evil of feminism hijacking State ethics, we have the fashionable 'good lies' becoming the 'big lies' such as: 1 in 5 men are paedophiles, and 1 in 4 men are rapists; which induces the cussed and unfashionable 'bad truths' that most children murdered, are murdered by women, and 94% of rape accusations are judged to be false. Despite the best efforts of State-Feminist propaganda, to pervert reality, present 'traditional' freedoms allow independently minded folk to counter it, via the internet. Therefore the internet community represents its own 'counter-cult', that the various  centralised socialist States, or pseudo-democracies, must either thwart or control, if they are to continue their totalitarian ambitions and investments.

Because feminists have become their own autonomous quasi-society, they too are prone to internal sectarianism, as their sense of righteousness includes elements from both political axes. So even self serving groups may show signs of schism, owing to the variations of selfish motive from within. For example, there are at least two types of identity feminism. The first type views womanliness as exemplary: the argument from inclusive conceit, relying on feminism as a 'virtue by identity', in and of itself; driven by fashionable, radical academia, and its Narcissistic self-regard. The second type regard men with contempt: the argument from exclusive piety, relying on the puritanical slant of man as pariah; driven by the evil of State controlled media propaganda. These standpoints can only cohabit in a synthetic reality; but when a real political event, or choice of propaganda, turns up, it helps expose the demarcation of these forms, thus highlighting the incompatibility of trying to map popular 'truth' and principled 'good' onto the same axis; both fail, as one exposes the shortcomings of the other:

What is the difference between a 'good lie' and a 'bad truth'? The unpopular truth is spontaneous, discovered, and real; whereas the popular lie is manufactured, fashioned to flatter, and deliberately fake. For lies have the function to deceive, they are systematic; unlike the truth, which at worse, is random. Therefore the intent of deception can be divined by the means of correlating all the data. Thus we can separate lie from the truth in much the same way that we can eliminate systematic experimental errors, by the meta-analysis between other systematic errors.

Alas, if the powers-that-be have the blanket influence of mainstream media propaganda, to control all the data sources, then all meta-analyses will simply compound the 'good lie' of systematic fashion. Whereas the truth can be made to look bad simply by overstating its random qualities, or juxtaposing it with fake correspondence, and fabricated conspiracies.

Positive feedback is induced; it can be revealed, via Google search term trends, that feminism is likewise induced, simply by comparing 'feminism' against a truly spontaneous subject like 'atheism':

The graphs show that Google searches using the word 'feminism', tend to take regular holidays during summer and winter, indicating the professional profile of 'feminism', via its Google search trends; compared to the spontaneous movement of 'atheism' as a search term. This indicates that feminism is a synthetic idealism, driven by an agency other than its followers: idealists leading the fashionable; whereas atheism is generally rebels leading rebels.

Feminism, the toxic spawn of socialism, is a form of collective Narcissism. This is because it is an 'identity politic', whose compliant flock profess to seek equality; yet they never aspire to the heights of others, instead they demand, in a Procrustean fashion, to force others to fit their frame; as though they were a self evident exemplar. And since the nature of identity politics is the exclusion of the 'other', then all those not in the fold will be condemned by the edicts of 'equality'.

Because the human condition is natural and spontaneous, it will comply with natural laws of evolution and dynamic equilibrium. And because positive feedback subversion opposes the natural spontaneous order of the human condition, cults like feminism and socialism invariably lead to the perversion of life, and the death of freedom and culture. Any society foolish enough to be duped by the synthetic promises from an identity cult, will be selling their humanity for a mess of fashionable pottage. It is therefore a moral imperative of any natural society, to oppose the systematic idealism imposed by any Socialist State.

“The Soviet bureaucracy is like all ruling classes in that it is ready to shut its eyes to the crudest mistakes of its leaders in the sphere of general politics, provided in return they show an unconditional fidelity in the defense of its privileges... It is possible to build gigantic factories according to a ready-made Western pattern by bureaucratic command – although, to be sure, at triple the normal cost. But the farther you go, the more the economy runs into the problem of quality, which slips out of the hands of a bureaucracy like a shadow. The Soviet products are as though branded with the gray label of indifference. Under a nationalized economy, quality demands a democracy of producers and consumers, freedom of criticism and initiative – conditions incompatible with a totalitarian regime of fear, lies and flattery. ” [Trotsky, 1936: Revolution Betrayed.]

Wisdom, and all that Jazz

 

ISIS, Scotland and The Politics of Mimicry

Thursday, September 18, 2014 at 1:27PM Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Is the fact that half of the Scots want to split from Britain and the news that hundreds of young Muslim Brits are fighting with Jihadi militant groups in Syria connected?

Of course they are. These two social phenomena are intrinsically linked, yet in the intellectual desert in which we live, no one dares to address the subject. The boundaries of our curiosity are limited by our deference to political correctness and Zionist sensitivities.

From a political perspective, Jihadi enthusiasm amongst young Western Muslims is an outcome of the emergence of tribalism in the West; but isn’t the call for Scottish independence driven by a similar tribal urge? From both a philosophical and dialectic perspective, Jihadi identification and the Scottish call for independence are the antithesis of the New Left and its corrosive Identity (ID) politics that have been spread in our midst for too long.

In the last five decades we have witnessed a relentless attack on nationalism and patriotic values. These attacks are commonly associated with the ‘New Left’ and have been led in large part by the Jewish intelligencia. It was the Frankfurt School’s thesis on Authoritarian Personality (Adorno & co) and Wilhelm Reich’s take on ‘Mass Conservatism’ that suggested that there was something wrong, dangerous and even vile to be found among the masses and their ‘reactionist’ political orientation.  Contemporary Left cosmopolitan icon Noam Chomsky has been calling for the abolishment of borders and states (except, of course, the Jewish State* for many years. Chomsky is proudly hostile to patriotism and nationalism. Yet we must examine the alternative offered by Chomsky, The Frankfurt School, The New Left and The Guardian – the media outlet that enthusiastically disseminates these ideas.

For reasons that I have discussed numerous times, the New ‘Left’ and the Jewish intelligencia have vigorously advocated the replacement of the national patriotic discourse with ID politics. In practice, this was intended to break the cohesiveness of the working class and the national bond and replace it with a score of marginal and sectarian discourses. The Left that once claimed to be a universal voice for the working people was hijacked. It became the mouthpiece of ID groups, most of them defined by biology (gender, skin color and race), sexual preferences (LGBT) and even religion (Jews only).

The outcome has been devastating. ID politics that initially purported to promote authentic thinking ended up promoting the opposite. It dismantled authenticity and replaced it with  ‘Identification.’ Instead of being who we really are (John, Sue, Nahida or Abraham) we’ve been trained to identify with group ideology. We adopted a new manner of speech. We convey our thoughts ‘as a’; ‘as a Jew,’ ‘as a woman,’ ‘as a gay,’ ‘as a black,’ instead of expressing our own and very personal authentic feelings and beliefs as we experience them in an unmediated existential mode. 

In practice, we have replaced authenticity with detachment, alienation and mimicry.  Instead of celebrating Being in the most existential manner we learned to pre-mediate what being a ‘woman’, ‘Jew’, ‘black’, ‘gay’ should sound like. We learned to envisage what our identification ‘may entail’ and to react as our identification demands.  What I describe above is the practical result of the ‘forgetfulness of Being,’ a term coined by the great German philosopher Martin Heidegger. But it is at this point that tribal awareness; nationalism and patriotism are reinvigorated and seem to be gaining ground.

In order to explain this shift, l would like first to examine the case presented by Zionism, Israel and Jewish progressive politics.

Those who attend progressive meetings become accustomed to the righteous Jewish manner of speech. Many Jews launch their speeches with the ‘as a Jew’ cliché. Needless to mention, neither I nor any other scholar of Jewish ID politics have ever managed to figure out what this cliché means. The reason is that it doesn’t mean a thing.

For years I have asked many Jews to address this question and haven’t received a sound reply. The ‘as a Jew’ seems to convey a meaningful logos, but in practice it is used to block critical discussion of the emptiness of the notion of Jewish progressive ID. In truth, there is no Jewish value system and as the great Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz observed in the 1970s, there is no such a thing as ‘Jewish ethics.’ The Jew is expected to follow Mitzvoth and laws (halakha) instead of acting upon his ethical judgment. The conclusion is devastating - ‘as a Jew’ is an empty expression. It is a deceptive mode used to convey an image of a Jewish ethical heritage that doesn’t exist.

This is where Zionism and Israel intervene. They offer the Jew an opportunity to rid himself of the sham of clichés and offer a glimpse of authentic redemption. Zionism and Israel say to the young Diaspora Jew - instead of speaking ‘as a Jew’ why don’t you just ‘Be a Jew?’ – take the first El Al flight, come to Israel, join the IDF, learn how to drive a tank. By the time your transformation is complete you will be able ‘to pour your wrath on the Goyim’ in the name of the Jewish people and in accordance with Jewish heritage (as the Zionist interpret this heritage).

Whether we like it or not, Israel and Zionism give meaning to Jewishness.

The Zionist call is very appealing to young Diaspora Jews (American, British, French, Australian). The IDF is saturated with lone soldiers who arrived in the ‘promised land’ just to wear the uniform and serve their people.

Israel and Zionism provide an authentic patriotic answer to the anti-patriotic mode that has become the voice of the New Left.

ISIS and other Jihadi groups offer the young Muslim a similar product. Instead of talking ‘as a Muslim,’ a statement that means very little within a consumerist, materialist, multi cultural society, the Islamic State and other Jihadi organizations offer their young Western followers the opportunity to Be a proper Muslim. Instead of participating in the inauthentic ‘as a’ game, ISIS calls on its followers to participate in a holy war, the ultimate form of true spiritual fulfillment. 

It would be foolish to tag ISIS Western combatants as “bad Muslims” or ‘evil fundamentalists’ while turning a blind eye to the rising popularity of Jihadi culture within Muslim communities in the region and in the West. I recommend that we examine the popularity of ISIS amongst young Muslims in the light of the popularity of the Zionist cause within Western Jewish communities. I can’t see why a young British Muslim fighting in Iraq is worse than a Jewish British citizen serving in the IDF and ruining the lives of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The rise of nationalism and tribalism is prevalent throughout Europe and much of the world. This week Britain is on the verge of breaking up. Half of the Scots prefer to split from the Kingdom. What is going on in Scotland is a repetition of the same pattern. Instead of subscribing to a watery meaningless British ‘collectivism;’ Scotland, as a unifying symbolic bond has much more to offer its people.

To sum up, it seems that the attempt by the New Left to weaken the Nation state by promoting ID politics has backfired. It has led toward a sharp rise of tribal orientation and local patriotism. This reading may also help us to grasp the historical failures of the New Left and its mentors at the Frankfurt School. As we know, the masses never joined the Left. The promised revolution never occurred either.  And the reason is plain: real working people didn’t have cause to impersonate working people - they were the working people. 

The Left’s advocacy of mimicry was not without its benefits. It brought itself some popularity amongst middle class Guardian readers and progressive Jews.  But the current outburst of tribalism suggests that our society is changing direction. Society may never be the same, and this may be a very positive occurrence.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular - available on Amazon.com  & Amazon.co.uk

---

*In a complete contradiction of his opposition to nation State, Chomsky actually oppose the One State Solution in Palestine, he prefers the Two States in accordance with ‘International Law’.

Sodomizing Family Values

Updated 3^rd July 2013

On 5^th February 2013, under the Leadership of the Conservative Prime minister David Cameron, the British parliament voted 400 to 175 to sodomize family values.

Just as Marxist-Feminism appeals to a woman's greed and conceit, to dupe her into playing the Trojan-Mare, that is seduced by self pity to stalk upon her very own family, and crash into it like a deranged Kamikaze Valkyrie, to liberate herself, as ‘sacred cow’, from the oppression and sacrificial alter of the house of patriarchy, to the rapture of a State controlled home, or 'victim to survivor', as they would label the pawn ticket to pay for the lawyers, the Social Service wonks, the ‘post-divorce hen-parties’, and ultimately, rent for the Psychiatrists couch, so did David Cameron's New Tory Party, appeal to the Gay infiltrated public sector lobby, by entering headlong into the war against the traditional family. They hid inside a giant wooden gerbil, then, invited by the Gay dominated mainstream media, they crept through the back-passage of the nation's living rooms, under the ramparts of decency, to launch their Gay berserkers upon the none voting, and disenfranchised public. And in the name of 'fairness', they branded the bleeding heart of humanity, using the fire and iron of its own hearth, with the free-to-view flat-screen TV logo: EQUALITY.

Throughout the world, the family is one of the most ubiquitous elements of any spontaneous culture, therefore it is safe to say that it has naturally evolved as part of the human condition. The heterosexual family thus represents a paradigm of stable society. This is why the family attracts the corrosive contempt from power seeking radicals, because they first need to subvert its inherent stability before they can supplant it with their homogenized State controlled 'utopia'.

The State may use Marxist style subversion, as instigated by the Frankfurt School and the Fabian Society, without it being necessarily a Marxist State, but sharing the same totalitarian ambitions to make redundant the democratic process. And what is sauce for the goose, will be sauce for the gander; as the Soviets deployed 'useful idiots' amongst the British population, as a fifth column, so too can our own Bureaucracy, and for the same ends.

The problem faced by a large Bureaucracy with ambitions for imperial feudal control, is that to progress further it has to destroy the checks and balances to its own power, which happens to be our quaint old democratic culture and traditions. In order to supplant the freedom of the voting public with the totalitarian authority of the Bureaucracy, it has to hobble the people's ability to scrutinize. It does this by instigating moral-relativism, which equivocates terms of moral incongruence, thus subverting the very language itself, to the extent that the people are forbidden to tell a hawk from a heron, arse from quim, or ultimately right from wrong. Equivocation will undermine the ability to judge by making things that are traditionally different, to seem equal. The ambivalence of equating heterosexual with homosexual in the right of Gay marriage, causes the natural cognitive dissonance between our sense of fairness and our innate revulsion to sodomy and other sexual perversions. In the ensuing rational flux of an ethically homogenized society, the people maybe inclined to moral panic, and yield their capacity for concerned judgement; thus allowing the State Bureaucracy a free hand to rule every aspect of their existence. There will be no need for democracy, and lamenting its demise will be deemed seditious, indeed, homophobic.

As Orwell puts it in “1984”:

“It had been on the tip of [Winston's] tongue to say ‘Except the proles,’ but he checked himself, not feeling fully certain that this remark was not in some way unorthodox. Syme, however, had divined what he was about to say.

‘The proles are not human beings,’ he said carelessly. ‘By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.’”

The State’s advocacy of perversion gives the Bureaucracy two extra weapons: the use of Sodomites as stalking horses, to surreptitiously deploy the State sponsored subversion; and the use of the concept 'homophobia', as a pejorative term, to act as shield and sword against their critics; making it a criminal act to raise criticism of the ‘new orthodoxies’. The judiciary conspire to be Gay friendly, and yet in the name of equality, where is the reciprocal law of 'heterophobia'? Indeed, now the Sodomites have the law on their side, maybe they will force their critics to wear a ‘rusty brown star’ in public, as shame for their failing of the Gay Gleichschaltung of New Britannia. It's all good to the target driven, and performance chasing, police force, who can up their arrest quotas whilst helping their new ‘Gay victims' onto their allegation enhancement programs. If you want to contrive the crime, ask a policeman.

They beg for the “right to love”, as would the dog beg for the right to lay in a manger. Their lack of marital status did not, and does not, stop them from sodomising each other; hence there is no logical reason for the passing of this bill. The attitude of “why not?”, so often cited, is not a supporting argument, but a tacit confession to the indifference of the imperative of the case, for the pragmatic reality is that no Gays will gain materially from this ‘equality’. Thus a motion passed by members of the parliament, that was neither prominent nor established within the manifesto that got some of them elected, but sneaked in as a vague suggestion on the eleventh hour, cannot be regarded as honest or democratic, and so, from this dubious agenda, we must conclude a nefarious agency is at work.

---

From Christopher Booker : 5:09PM BST 25 May 2013

 

It's time we knew the real gay marriage story

Gay marriage dominates the agenda for political, rather than ethical, reasons. Gay people want marriage, so why can't straight couples enter into civil partnerships?

In view of the devastation inflicted on the Tory party by the gay-marriage issue, it is remarkable how little interest has been shown in the story that lies behind David Cameron’s desperation to get a measure – that was not mentioned in his 2010 election manifesto – on to the statute book by no later than June this year.

As I recounted here on February 9, the drive to get same-sex marriage into law was masterminded from 2010 onwards by an alliance between Theresa May, the Conservative Home Secretary, Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem equalities minister, and gay pressure groups, led by one called Equal Love. They pushed the issue forward, not in Westminster, but through the Council of Europe, culminating in March last year with a day-long “secret conference” chaired by Miss Featherstone in Strasbourg. With the public excluded for the first time in the Council’s history, it was here that – with the active support of Sir Nicolas Bratza, the British president of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – a deadline was set for their planned coup of June 2013. If, by this date, “several countries” had managed to put gay marriage into law, Sir Nicolas pledged that his court would then declare same-sex marriage to be a Europe-wide human right. Hence the recent rush for several countries to oblige, including France, where gay marriage has brought thousands of protesters out on to the streets. And hence last Tuesday’s unprecedented revolt in the House of Commons, when 133 Tories voted against their government.

They included Owen Paterson, the only Cabinet minister to vote for all the amendments moved by his parliamentary private secretary, David Burrowes, designed to give protection from intolerance to those opposed to same-sex marriage for reasons of conscience or principle.

An irony of all this was that among the amendments defeated by the Government was one proposing that heterosexuals should be given an equal right to homosexuals to enter into civil partnerships. Originally, in 2010, Theresa May had been all for this, as was Equal Love, which supported a case by eight gay and non-gay couples to be taken to the ECHR. But when the Government checked the financial implications of allowing non-gay couples to enjoy civil partnerships, finding that the resulting tax privileges could cost the Treasury up to £4 billion a year, it ruled that this was a step it couldn’t afford. When it comes to equality, it seems that money takes precedence – and that some people must be considered more equal than others.

---

The Sodomites, like the Feminists before them, are being openly invited to join the ranks of the State funded ‘victim network’; a collusion that both dupes the subversives, whilst contemporaneously using them as an excuse by the State to enact ever more socially invasive laws. David Cameron's party should be re-christened the ‘New Tory Party’, in recognition of its similarity to New Labour, and their radical cultural Marxism. Liberal Democrat, New Labour, and now New Tory, have betrayed our representative democracy, in exchange for a totalitarian ‘Client State’, that does not reside in any one party, but distributes itself strategically throughout the public sector, like an all consuming cancer. The many heads of the Client State Leviathan sniff out all that is good and loved, it follows the paths of society’s vital fluids, then corrupts them through its emissaries of fear and propaganda. Inventing, and then stalking behind, every contrived victim, themselves paid large and revocable bounties, as inducement to their indentured compliance. In the absence of distinguishable party politics, democracy becomes a TV whodunnit: nobbled by a mercenary media, voters become jurors, in which they enthusiastically pass judgment upon their own subjugation, in the ultimate audience participation of mass political suicide.

Such wholesale subversion requires the complete reappraisal and reversal of all that makes a nation State, from its past, present, and future. Indeed, the concept of ‘nation State’ itself, is being superseded, as we see the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’, on a leash held by the Politburo of the EUSSR, become the dog wagged by its own tail. For, inevitably, when you create a Client State out of an ever burgeoning public sector Bureaucracy, the centre of gravity of the political power must shift along the axis towards the administrative executives of that parliament; and it becomes the Bureaucracy itself that ‘votes’ for the laws which govern the people, and not their elected representatives. So by filling the management positions of the bureaucratic machine with Feminists and Sodomites, who have openly no vested interest in the heterosexual family or of our indigenous culture, then the traditions inherent in a naturally evolved heterosexual society, will gradually become sidelined, possibly even outlawed. And bearing in mind that evolution is a very strict protocol, in that it eliminates most of its mistakes in situ, it will thus leave behind only the most stubborn of survivors. Hence, for the new Bureaucracy to survive against the cussed regressions of nature, especially the reactionary convulsions from the raping of the Nation’s families, it too must be equally strict, indeed, totalitarian.

After the traditional family is completely deposed, voided of its cultural significance, what then of the people themselves? Are we and our natural indigenous culture, also to be crushed under the wheels of the State Juggernaut? Will our Democracy devolve into: “Government by the Bureaucracy, for the Bureaucracy”? And when democracy becomes redundant in one modern nation, will the globalization of customs, ultimately lead to the coalescence of all the national bureaucratic agencies, to form a single totalitarian ‘World State’?

Once upon a time, the German people were promised great things, in exchange for their Democracy. And for a while, it seemed they world get what they hoped for, if it were not for the extreme prejudice of a small democratic nation. Today, most Germans are publically embarrassed by their history; and if they don’t show any form of contrition for that period, others would be justified in admonishing them. But equally it would be as churlish to condemn all present Germans for the history of some of their countrymen. And it would be an outrage to pass laws specifically to curtail modern Germans based upon the acts of their ancestors. Yet it is not unreasonable to oppose behaviour that others see as instrumental to social disaster. We the people are generally sentient, and we expect others to be so. We should not tolerate inconsistency in ethics or morality, but these tendentious edicts derived from ‘social equality’, surely must apply only to equals, such as those who have vested interests in the preservation of their respective cultures. But radicals and agents of subversion, lack the credentials to engage in moral discourse, for they have nothing to lose, and so bring nothing to the negotiations. Now the Germans and the English, for example, differ in the scheme of identity politics, purely from their respective cultures; other than that, they are sociologically equals, for they each have a culture to maintain; thus they can negotiate ethically via their political differences. Whereas homosexuals and heterosexuals are sociologically different, therefore they do not share the same moral space; hence it would be inappropriate for either party to be forced into the same political space through the application of State law. That is, national difference is cultural, whereas sexual difference is biological; the former is to be addressed in politics and law, but the latter should be left to the natural individual, and the evolutionary emotions they were born with: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”.

And what are these Gay persons that so need the rights to act as heterosexuals, but without their duties and family responsibilities? And why do the Sodomites demand 'equality' with the very social paradigms that so disgusted them in their ‘victimized past’, by virtue of what they saw as rank heterosexual family oriented traditionalism?

A hat-tip to Henry Makow for putting us straight regarding what is happening in Gay America:

---

“Imagine that an organism is sick. Imagine that the sick cells convince the organism that they were healthy, and in fact, the healthy cells are sick. The gullible organism would just get sicker and sicker.

This is the relationship between society and homosexuals today. Gays argue that same-sex behavior is no different than being left-handed. On the other hand, they say heterosexual behavior is not natural, but socially conditioned and "oppressive." Heterosexual society and family are taking heavy casualties. Our stupid, opportunistic and craven leaders have betrayed us. We don't even know we are at war.

Let's decide whom, in fact, is sick. Let's look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of "After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's"(1989).

In Chapter Six, they outline "ten categories of misbehavior," drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays. Their contention is that the male gay lifestyle, (not gay sexuality mind you), "is the pits." They want gays to improve their image by addressing "what is wrong with a lot of gays." (276)

What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven't caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.

• The authors say "a surprisingly high percentage" of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one's own gayness and its implication.

• They say gays tend to reject all forms of morality and value judgments. Gay morality boils down to "I can do whatever I want and you can go to perdition. (If it feels good, I'll do it!)" If a gay feels like seducing a trusted friend's lover, he'll do it, justifying it as an act of "sexual freedom" and the friend be damned.

• They say gays suffer from a "narcissistic" personality disorder and give this clinical description: "pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation."

• As an example of this narcissism, the authors say "a very sizable proportion of gay men" who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.

• They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such "forbidden" aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.

• They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.

• Many gays are "single minded sexual predators" fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are "the real queer bashers." Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.

• "Relationships between gay men don't usually last very long." They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The "cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%."

• Even friendships are based on the sexual test and hard to sustain. Unattractive gay men find it nearly impossible to find a friend, let alone a lover.

• The authors say gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas.

Is there any doubt that this behavior is sick? Obviously this is not true of all homosexuals. I feel no malice toward gays. I feel the same way about people who have the flu. I want them to get better and I don't want it to spread.

Unfortunately, even the authors of this book are deceiving themselves. They claim that it is the gay lifestyle and NOT gay sexuality that is "the pits." Who are they kidding? The two are inseparable.

The authors of this book are public relations experts who believe that "our problem is fundamentally one of bad image with straights."

The book details "a comprehensive public-relations campaign that should go a long way towards sanitizing our very unsanitary image:"

"Desensitization": flooding straight America with advertising presenting gays in the "least offensive manner possible."

"Jamming": Advertising that equates fear of gays with hatred of Jews, Blacks and women.

"Conversion": Presenting images of gays that look like regular folks. "The image must be the icon of normality."

They say "it makes no difference that the ads are lies" because "we are using them to...counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies."

This book was written in 1989 and obviously a campaign similar to this has taken effect. Read what the authors say about it:

"By Conversion, we mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life [than subversion]... We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean... to turn their hatred into warm regard whether they like it or not." (153)

Thus gays want Americans to learn that something they naturally and justifiably regard as sick, is in fact healthy. Thus Americans will be defenseless to resist their overtures whether in parks, barracks, bathrooms or classrooms.

It is a measure of the authors' cynicism and self-deception that THEY quote psychologist M. Scott Peck, who in "People of the Lie" characterizes people who suffer from extreme or "malignant" narcissism simply as "evil."

Evil people, Peck says, have "an unshakable will to be right and will not consider the possibility that they are wrong...Their main weapon, interestingly enough is the lie with which they distort reality to look good to themselves, and to confuse others." (297)

The publicity surrounding gay marriage doesn't reflect the reality. Gays don't want to marry. In Canada, gay marriage has been legal for more than a year yet only one in one thousand marriages are homosexual. Gays and lesbians make up about 40 out of 1000 population.

Gay marriage is really designed to make heterosexuals see homosexual behavior as the new normal. They could have designated a separate but equal status for the homosexuals who want marriage.

Gays can continue to fool themselves. But let us stop. Their behavior is sick. And it's contagious.”

---

Meanwhile here in Blighty, consider for example how the perennial family favourite, Dr Who, has been sodomised in recent times to become a veritable Marxist-Feminist-GayFest of interplanetary Queendom, in the vast inter-galactic emptiness of Brokeback Universe.

And I cannot help but wonder whether the State’s use of Ritalin upon prepubescent and adolescent children, of which on estimate there are presently about a million boys being prescribed the cocaine like drug, in conjunction with Gay-friendly sex education, is some kind of bizarre dystopian 'pharma-eugenics programme’ to make more Sodomites, and thus reduce the population, along with its culture. Oops, did I just think that out loud? Maybe I'll be sent to the correction Gulags, where I'll be presented with circular and elliptical food bowls... choices, choices, and you don’t get to eat until you choose the politically correct one.

We must also be alert to the corruption of truth by the counterfeit of political correctness. For example, it is all but illegal to equate homosexuality with paedophilia; yet the scandal in the Catholic Church was brought about by the turning of a blind eye to the problem of homosexuals entering the same sex clerical orders as a refuge from the heterosexual society at large. According to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the majority of the discovered instances of paedophilia were homosexual, Priests on boys, and Nuns on girls. This observation was, and is, condemned by the politically corrected press, who are part of the conspiracy to supplant the traditional word ‘pederasty’ with the modern invention of ‘paedophilia’.

Now imagine if Gays had State power to act in secrecy, and with the total authority of law… as do the Social Services. Indeed, I believe that the present brouhaha regarding the criminality of viewing images of pederasty, is a result of the powers that be, protecting their homosexual clientèle from appearing to all and sundry as the main perpetrators. The cover up is akin to Stalin airbrushing out the official photos of himself next to 'purged traitors', but with the added security of prohibiting the witnesses.

Back to Gay marriage; where there are legal rights, there are also legal licences, the tool which allows the State to control our lives via penalty of forfeit. Further, by diluting the cultural meaning of 'marriage', people are less likely to challenge its demise, such as allowing the secret family courts to thrive; and turning a blind eye to the piecemeal dismantling of families by the Social Services, which, as mentioned above, are overly populated with Feminist and Sodomite management teams, that have themselves next to no vested interest in the survival of the heterosexual family. By juxtaposing the rights of Gays, with the cultural principles of the traditional family, a pantomime is made of the social significance of marriage; thus allowing the virtues of family culture to be sodomised by 'giving the dog a bad name', so that you can hang it in a gay and carefree manner.

It's also lucrative for the agents of the Bureaucracy, especially the pro-Gay Social Services, who through targeted funding, are apt to promote fostering rights to Gay couples as a political and economic priority. This is tantamount to State sponsored baby snatching. What heterosexual family is safe from this Kafkaesque nightmare when faced with the full violence of the law, under the jurisdiction of the secret family courts, enabled by an ethically bankrupt parliament, presiding over a morally paralysed democracy.

Orwell “1984”: “One of these days, thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face.”

Nancy Schaefer was killed in 2010 by her husband, who also killed himself, possibly because of family debts and the general stress of long term campaigning on very emotional issues relating to broken families. Though some believe she was 'vaporized' for saying this:

The commitment to marriage vows has become ever more dilute and diffuse, etiolated by the 'caring State' and its policies of inclusivity, to oppose the very discrimination which the natural symbiotic relationship between heterosexual man and woman is based upon. The more inclusive marriage becomes, the less distinguished its evolved biological function becomes, to the point where the union is mostly between un-husband and un-wife; with the focus on the future divorce, to finally consummate the ideally childless un-family.

The Bureaucracy has no human empathy, as it has no inherent means to generate natural life, for it has repealed the necessary evolutionary condition of symbiotic diversity inherent in heterosexuality, by its insistence of equality between the genders and pseudo-genders. Through the Social Services, it fosters the semblance of humanity, like the cuckoo dupes the host with its own perverted substitution; and whilst gaining complete control over the family, that it secretly holds in contempt, the Bureaucracy supplants life itself, so that it becomes the un-life of a sympathetic counterfeit.

To live is to both love and to hate. To do these things we have evolved to feel and know the real world, so that we may differentiate between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ of living in it, without recourse to State sponsored indoctrination, whose orthodoxies aim to proscribe and prescribe our living thoughts, thus displacing our personal beliefs with that of the State’s.

Give the State the power to control our beliefs through the Gleichschaltung of political correctness, and you begin the inevitable dismantling of the Democracy. After all, would you expect the State Bureaucracy to contradict its own power? Once laws are passed to control the choices of 'correct thought’, then any Democracy will devolve towards a totalitarian State, since true democracy requires complete freedom of thought, including the right to have unorthodox beliefs. It is the purpose of democratic law to preserve us from the acts of imposition upon each other, not to dictate our living thoughts.

As our freedom of belief is a safeguard to democracy, so the meaning of words helps us distinguish right from wrong, and thus ensure the meaning of our beliefs. The aim of the equivocator is to undermine that ‘meaning’ through the confounding of certainty and distinction, in the hope of removing the associated passion of our beliefs; either because the State fears the human condition, especially its power of defensive hate, or because heterosexual love marks the emptiness of the androgynous Gay ‘life choice’. Removing our beliefs, removes our passion to oppose a totalitarian State. Gay marriage has little to do with empowering Sodomites, who are simply being implemented as ‘useful idiots’, its function is primarily to dismantle our Democracy.

In summary, ‘Gay marriage rights’ will subvert the virtues of a core family tradition, by conflating homosexuality with heterosexuality. The subversion works by making people believe their traditions and beliefs are morally equivalent to the things that disgust them, thus contributing to mass moral paralysis; hence facilitating the aims of the radical State Bureaucracy, to supplant, unopposed, an indigenous culture with its own synthetic utopia. The irony is that the subversion tactics used by radical outsiders, also serve to benefit the ruling incumbents, especially if the latter want to gain ever more totalitarian control; because the checks and balances that stop the self serving State Bureaucracy from totally ruling the Democracy it sprang from, are the traditions of personal liberty. So by allowing the radicals  to take liberties with our living evolved traditions and beliefs, we risk cutting loose the sheet anchor to our culture, that in turn safeguards our Democracy from drifting into the stagnant waters of State Fascism.

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

PART 5

PART 6

PART 7

6 Out Of 100 ‘Rapists’, Prefer Rape

On 1st January 2010, the Isle of Wight County Press disclosed as part of Ross Findon’s article: “£20,000 anti-rape campaign” that there were 42 reported rapes on the Island in 2009; and 53 reported in 2008; according to police figures.

The campaign comes from the Hampshire Police:

“The Don’t Cross The Line campaign is designed to tackle issues around serious sexual offences by increasing interaction, promoting debate and providing access to information.

It aims to raise awareness of the chain of events that can lead to rape, dispel common myths and provide information that will enable people to make the right decisions. Ultimately it is about keeping young people safe. We will proactively explain rape in their terms, on their territory, before it is too late.

Previous national and local campaigns have focussed on women and the risk they put themselves under through alcohol consumption. The emphasis has been on them taking steps to protect themselves. Rather than place the onus on women, we’ve taken the unique approach of focusing on young men. We want potential offenders to consider their actions, while also raising awareness of acquaintance rape so that women can keep themselves safe.

The issue of consent is right at the centre of this. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 stipulates that a defendant in a rape case must show that they have reasonable grounds to believe that the other person had given their consent. The campaign aims to reduce incidents of rape by ensuring that men understand the need to gain active consent before they have sex.”

The last line makes rape out to be some kind of faux pas of a civil contract, rather than a violent act of sexual aggression invoked by the terms “serious sexual offences”. It is bad enough in itself to cry wolf for attention, but these campaigns sneak in a redefining of the terms, so that a fox is regarded as a wolf, and tried accordingly. And maybe the courts agree, when faced with a jury of real people like you and me, the proportion of convictions from the number of reported rapes, is less than 6%, according to a Home Office Study of rape, as reported on the Campaign to End Rape website. As with hawks and herons, Islanders know the difference between a fox and a wolf.

That means for an Island with population of 132,719; of which 63,685 are male, according to 2001 census, and 50971 are males between the ages of 10 and 74; that there will possibly be nearly 3 real rapes per year, and the chance of any viable Wightman being a rapist for that year is about 1 in 17,000.

Not to be outdone on the question of viability, the campaign relies on the ‘fact’ that “most rapists are men aged 16 to 24”, which will increase the odds of a male in that age bracket being a real rapist to about 1 in 2000 based on there being approximately 6000 Wightmen between 16 and 24 years of age, inclusive, and that these are responsible for all of the nearly 3 rapes per year, and that each rape is unique.

So for every 50 rape accusations reported, there are plausibly 47 young male victims of false witness; of which about 16 will be charged and hence about 13 will be wrongly placed in remand custody, until a sane jury has an opportunity to free them from the insane system that flatters feminist misandry.

Are these campaigns, which invariably claim to safeguard the perceived ‘victims’, designed to aid justice, or to extol misandric malfeasance? How many of the real rape victims are helped by the encouragement of male slander? Since it is clear that there are more victims as a result of the abuse of law than as a result of rape; the conclusion must be that these well funded feminist campaigns are aided by crime rather than by justice. For example, this year there will probably be 3 rapes on the Island with or without the campaign; but the number of innocent Wightmen falsely accused will increase disproportionately with such campaigns; as it would if there was an increase by 1 real rape that was caught. Indeed, feminist misandry needs more real rapists to succeed, for they are paid, not by crimes stopped, but by perceived crime increase. The feminists have a symbiotic need of real rapists, as do the police, who measure their success from the quotas of convictions rather than the amount of actual crime reduced.

There just aren't enough rapists to go around, so those agencies that earn their daily crust from helping victims of rape will need to conjure up the next best thing, which is the fear of rape based on Wightmen’s natural profile, rather than a real rapists profile; after all, there are more Wightmen than rapists:

“Rapes usually take place in private premises.

Nearly half of all rapists know their victims.

Sexual assault is about power and control, not sexual attraction.”

Notice that these factoids from the police site, do away with numbers altogether, and concentrate on type profiling. Notice also that the last quote asserts that sexual attraction is not part of the defining characteristic of rape, and yet the campaign is targeting the sexually promiscuous age group!? Now let us paraphrase those last quotes:

Slander usually begins in private premises; with the real risk of you losing yours and becoming homeless and despised.

Practically all slanderers know their victims gender; for this is a feminist hate crime.

Slander is about power and control, not justice; the identity of the slanderer is protected, whilst the names of their victims are dragged through the shit.

If punishment fits the crime, then those who have been falsely accused have at least suffered, through unjust punishment, the equivalent of that ‘crime’, by the full unyielding violence of the law. Further, the true rape victim may fear a single man or even be persuaded by feminist harridans, to fear an entire gender; whereas the falsely accused will fear the betrayal of society itself, with just cause, hence they would have suffered far more than a genuine rape victim.

Indeed, so called rape victims are often promoted as 'rape survivors'; how many of the growing legion of the falsely accused can proudly strut in public as a 'falsely accused’ rapist survivor?

The motives that drive a slanderer to commit their evil deed, maybe as varied as lying itself; as nobody does what they believe to be wrong. Some slander for financial gain, and some through ideological or social malice; but those agencies such as the police, and all other publicly funded Marxist-Feminist groups, that support, encourage, and further profit from slander, are the epitome of malfeasant evil. They have made a cold calculated choice to act with full prejudice against the sacred innocence of Wightmen; using the subversive propaganda of their rape and abuse campaigns as perverse didaches from the church of Marxist-Feminism, to persuade neurotic and naive women to regard natural love, and the heterosexual family, with fear and contempt.

By establishing an evil political compact between Marxist-Feminism and the judiciary, the publicly funded ruling bureaucracy has treasonably rendered the social contract between the innocent, and the authority of law, null and void.

 

NIMBY

Here's where your Grandfather gave back to that woman her white feather, and married her nice friend; a reward in those days, for winning their freedom. Here's where your Auntie dodged a bullet from a raiding Junkers 88, as it fled from our skies back to Brunnhilde, and European slavery. Here's where your Father brought home your Mum, liberated from Il Duce, for the price of a bullet in the gut. Here's where that little girl drowned; all before you were born.

Here in our pyjamas, through the bedroom window, we heard the first cuckoo of spring. Here's where we ran from the farmer's shout, and learned to hold our breath. Here's where we caught sticklebacks and slow worms, and saw how things live and die. Here's where we asked for a penny-for-the-Guy, and discovered the smell of anarchy and jacket potatoes. Here's where they accused you of chopping off a dogs tail, and you burned with the injustice of that slander. Here's where you listened in hope for Dad's return, and learned not to fear death, but to hate it. Here's where they made you read and write, slowly, then surely.

Here's where you scored the winning goal, and shared the glory. Here's where we ran into the cold night air, laughing at anything; laughing at nothing. Here's where her freckles melted into your eye, and her smile lingered through space and time. Here's where we parted, never to speak. And here, in the woods, fields, streams, and 'blue remembered hills', lay what makes us what we are, root and branch. Here in Gethsemane, where, for thirty promises, some will betray our hard won sky to the fear of a thermal death. And here is where the butterflies of our shared memories will be broken on the wheels of outrageous Wind Turbines.

Here is the fulcrum between yesterday and tomorrow. Here is the fork between liberty and Robespierre, the thin line between love and hate. Here is where they threw us the apple of discord: “to the most politically correct”. Here is Occam's razor, where you and I must fight, toe to toe. Here is the anvil of our democracy, where the circle and the ellipse are being forged into a new Pavlovian sanity. Here comes a candle to light you to bed, and here comes a chopper to chop off your head: whumph... whumph... whumph...

 

 

 

 

 

War-Droids on Parade

Yesterday evening (August 11th), whilst returning from the local IoW Newport Lidl, there was a woman in her 30s, looking somewhat dazed and bemused; wearing autumn clothes, and surrounded by about six fully kitted (armoured but no guns) Hampshire coppers, who were clumsily taking it in turns to persuade her to go into one of the three police cars that had arrived, and parked themselves about on the pavement.

And to add to the overkill, a cycling bobby, and a female PCSO turned up; though the latter continued walking by, seemingly as lost as the 'target'.

So a quiet simpleton, possibly walked out from one of the psychiatric wards from up the road, is mobbed by a bunch of over-trained war-droids. Needless to say, the next reaction is for her to panic. She spent the next 5 minutes screaming for help; whilst her Majesty's finest, stood holding their collective dicks.

Tonight will be the Cowes' firework display; which typically draws the largest crowd the Island ever experiences, bar the musical festival possibly. But the crowd at the fireworks is predominantly local families.

Amongst this traditionally peaceful gathering, will always be the minority of drunken lads and lasses; who in the past have been contained by no more than a friendly ‘tut-tutting’, when the language has gone a little over to the blue side.

This year, the Hampshire Police force, priding themselves as the most gay friendly force in the country, has given us fair warning that police levels will be elevated this year to counter any 'trouble' at the event, in light of the riots on the mainland.

What's the bet that next year it won't be as much a family event? Give a dog a bad name…

Anders Behring Breivik; the new Marinus Van der Lubbe?

As left and right face each other in their perpetual moral standoff, the Breivik rampage appears to offer the left a major propaganda coupe. With a 1500 page manifesto to cherry pick from, and an extensive internet activity trail in the wake of Breivik’s self publishing, under various aliases, the left will fulfil its own image of the right by proxy, according to its bent.

Indeed, so hot is the war of interpretation and association, that Breivik’s wikipedia page has been rapidly evolving from a collection of dry reports as they fed in from the initial press releases on the 22^nd July 2011, into a maelstrom of rhetoric and pejorative adjectives, as Breivik’s character is being perpetually reassessed to form an ever more exotic and potent mud-pie, to sling at the opposing political side.

Breivik is relatively unique, or if familiar to any science, of such a rare breed as to be near impossible to categorise by mere association. Any expert in the phenomena of rampage killings, would risk ridicule as though possessing a PhD in the nature of horses, whilst pontificating with authority about unicorns. This episode is becoming an exercise, not of rational understanding of the human condition, but a public display by those desperate to ride their personal political hobby-horse, entitled “Why all good people like me, are not infected by the ‘Breivik’ touch... YOU’RE IT... NYAH NYAH!!!.”

As an illustration, how many on the left will point out that from the age of one, Breivik, along with one of his step sisters, was raised by his single-parent mother? Thought not.

One of the collateral victims by indirect association, was Dr Theodore Dalrymple; whose selected writings were included in Breivik’s manifesto, via a third party quote. Dalrymple is a noted critic of policies of which the left wing hold dear; but his measured style could not possibly be considered inflammatory, except to puritans of the left extreme.

Below is a short analysis by Dr Dalrymple, that appeared in the Daily Express 26^th July 2011:

HOW does a man in one of the most peaceful societies in the world come to the conclusion that shooting a large number of people unknown to him is to serve the cause of his country?

Several ingredients must be in the witch’s brew of Anders Breivik’s mind.

First is resentment; second, self-importance; third, the desire for fame or notoriety; fourth, the search for a transcendent meaning to life, and fifth, a difficulty in forming ordinary human relationships, whether of love or friendship.

A final precondition is an above-average level of intelligence, for this is necessary in order to rationalise the commission of a deed that would otherwise be repugnant.

Resentment arises when you are not treated or rewarded as you think you deserve to be. Your merits, whether by virtue of birth or accomplishment, go unrecognised. You are therefore a victim of injustice. By definition you can do no wrong when you try to right them.

Self-importance prevents you from putting the wrongs you think you have suffered into any kind of perspective. You do not see that, by the standards of most people, you have suffered little. You cannot see the difference between mere inconvenience or distaste and severe oppression.

In a world in which celebrity seems so important, obscurity is felt by many as a wound to their ego. Why should others be famous and not me?

If you cannot achieve celebrity by force of talent, then you can do so by means of murder – witness the Crossbow Cannibal.

A wider cause gives meaning and purpose to your life, and persuades you that your resentment, your anger, is not petty or personal, but something much grander. Breivik thought that by acting on his personal resentments he was a saviour of Europe; he might just as well have been an animal rights activist as a nationalist. His monomania relieved his inner emptiness. A difficulty in forming normal human relationships is another cause for resentment of a man like Breivik, and of yet another wound to his ego. It has to be compensated for somehow, and producing an event of historic importance is one way to do it.

A man must be intelligent to act like Breivik – for he needs not only to plan and execute his “historic” deed, but to be able to weave a coherent, if paranoid and ultimately stupid, justification for it.

The pity for others of a mass killer like Breivik is nil; for himself, infinite.

Dalrymple also writes here:

It is always hazardous to pronounce on the mental state of someone one had not met, and about whom one knows only a little and third-hand. But all the same, one is tempted...

The first trap to avoid is to say person x did act y because [he] is or has z, and we know he is or has z because he did y. This is circular.

But there does seem to be evidence that Breivik was narcissistic, grandiose, paranoid, socially and sexually inept, and deeply resentful. This is a horrible mixture, though any explanation will always be incomplete and not pluck out the heart of his mystery.

I think it unlikely he is legally insane according to the M'Naghten rules that govern legal insanity in a lot of the English-speaking world. He knew the nature...[a]nd quality of his act and that [it] was (legally) wrong, to use the wording of the rules, and therefore would not be entitled to a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Despite the relative uniqueness of Breivik, there is a genuine risk that the left in positions of authority, or its influence upon, will use this atypical episode as an excuse for enabling further legislation against free speech and association.

Compared with another leftwing political system, whose parliament building, the Reichstag was set ablaze by one Marinus Van der Lubbe, it is to the great credit of the Prime minister of Norway, that he announced his intentions of maintaining the principles of liberty, despite the reflexive reactions to the contrary.

Returning to the Narcissism theme, referred to by Dalrymple above, there seems a certain characteristic link with martyrdom demonstrated by both Breivik and Lubbe:

Breivik: ... [T]he purpose of the attack was to save Norway and Western Europe from a Muslim takeover and "The price for this they had to pay yesterday"... A former classmate has recalled that he was an intelligent student who often took care of people who were bullied.

Lubbe: ... While working for the Tielmann factory a strike broke out. Van der Lubbe claimed to the management to be one of the ringleaders and offered to accept any punishment as long as no one else was victimised, even though he was clearly too inexperienced to have been seriously involved. During the trial, he tried to claim sole responsibility and was purportedly hostile to the idea of getting off free.

Like all martyrs, they crave the ultimate love. To fulfil that which they may feel they have command over; as happens when a child is raised and allowed to manipulate a parent or guardian, who mistakenly offers a display of affection to their charge, in purchase of a moment of peace. Whereas the unconditional love from a father, which is given and never purchased, is immune from such manipulative corruption; and any cherished child that tried to buy love with a selfish plea, would be met with by sour scorn.