Idiocracy

In this great film Mike Judge shows how things are going here in the UK.

Great quotation

“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”

Arnold Toynbee

NSS Secularist of the Year award

I’m touching on an issue that is very taboo here: race. While criticism of religion is now fairly passé, if you dare to even remotely question anything to do with perceived wisdom on race you will instantly be branded racist. Oh well, that’s the point here, to challenge the dogmas of political correctness, so here goes.

I recommended Pat Condell for the NSS Secularist of the Year award this year, for having  risked his life in promoting reason and secular values across the world for several years now. I recommended him last year too, but he didn’t win it. He didn’t win it this year either. The award went to The Southall Black Sisters.

Have you heard of them? Me neither. I don’t have time to write a lot on this but I must say there seems only to be a tenuous link with secularism in the work of the “Sisters”. This seems a rather politically correct decision. I would also add that (despite the good work they undoubtedly do) the name “Southall Black Sisters” smacks to me of racism. They say on their site:

“Southall Black Sisters, a not-for-profit organisation, was established in 1979 to meet the needs of black (Asian and African-Caribbean) women. Our aims are to highlight and challenge violence against women; empower them to gain more control over their lives.”

But there is arguably no real need for the emphasis on the “black”. All women should be entitled to fair treatment regardless of colour. If the organisation’s stated mission was to “oppose violence against women” this would of course include black women too. How about standing against domestic violence, full stop? That would be even better and even less biased. (The SBS are “right on the forefront of the feminist struggle in this country”.)

Likewise consider the “Black Police Association”, which Peter Hitchens interestingly referred to as a “grotesque, indefensible body” (read the article). It certainly seems to me very divisive and perhaps even racist. Ask yourself what would happen if some officers decided to form a “White Police Association”.

There is no need to invoke colour in these matters. People can’t have it both ways – they want complete inclusion and yet also insist on delineating themselves by their colour.

This certainly seems a PC decision regarding the award, because Pat Condell has obviously had far more influence in the secular field, and at far more personal risk to himself.

The colours of London are black, blue and grey

If you travel on the London Underground, as I have done frequently for 20 years, you might notice something: from a palette of many different colours, some vibrant and happy, people invariably choose shades of only three: black, blue and grey.

There is nothing to stop people from choosing brighter colours: red, orange, yellow and green coats are available, and many others besides. But these are rejected in favour of tones which match the weather, the buildings and the mood.

The mood is one of tedium. The unpleasantness of being confined in close proximity (nose to nose) with strangers who might be chewing gum, coughing loudly or listening to their music without a care for anybody else. The prospect of travelling to a workplace where office politics count for more than hard work or honesty for the umpteenth time, with no end in sight while the mortgage needs to be paid. The probability of a train jerking to a stop in the tunnel with no explanation of the reason.

It has occurred to me recently that winter in the UK effectively lasts for six months (those being the months from October to March). It’s dull and grey nearly every day and might rain, sleet or snow on any day during these months. In order to complement this weather most citizens of London wear black, blue or grey.

London is afflicted by some of the most hideous architecture known to man. Much of this stands not so many miles from some of the finest architecture mankind has ever created. The only problem is, in clear indication of our decline, the great architecture was built more than 100 years ago (principally during the Victorian era) whereas the monstrosities were erected more far more recently – to be precise, from the 1960s onwards.

It is almost entertaining to consider the name given to the most offensive architecture blighting the skies of London: Brutalism. Brutal to the sensibilities it most certainly is. This architecture was surely designed to be ugly. It is invariably grey, featureless (aside from plain windows) and imposing in a blunt and unrefined manner. It has no redeeming features.

Most people wear clothes to match the buildings. People conform. They even conform in that many pay for painful piercings in places previously considered strange, get irreparable tattoos at the bottom of their backs or adopt liberal leftist views. These are truly paradigms of conformist behaviour posing as the radical.

I took to wearing yellow and orange jeans in my late teens, in an effort to introduce some colour to society. These days I am often in white or cream. It would be nice to see some reds, yellows or greens on the Underground. In Florida they wear such colours to compliment the pastel buildings and the sunlight – but we English are in far more need of them here.

On dealing with Tooting police

I am generally greatly in favour of the police*, of course – without them there would be total anarchy. I especially like the rank and file officers, generally speaking. The senior management seem to be in league with the leftist cabal running government and I suspect many become overly concerned with self promotion and protection, and with political correctness and expedience at the expense being loyal to the truth, and indeed to their staff on the ground (I expect most of the staff feel this way about them too).

Rank and file police do an unenviable and dangerous job. Since people generally impose few moral standards upon themselves these days, it is generally up to the police to maintain the fabric of society as best they can, though often they end up simply trying to clear up mess after events.

Just recently my phone went missing. I got it back, because I called the police and the plain clothes officers got involved. I strongly suspect the phone was stolen and not “found” and I might yet press charges if CCTV delivers (I love CCTV and if they would like to install a camera in my garden I’d be much obliged). The plain clothes police who turned up were very professional – I find most police are pleasant and professional. Let me warn potential criminals: plain clothes police are unidentifiable. The man looked like he was just out doing his Sunday shopping and the woman would not have been out of place in a nightclub (several nose studs, very casual clothes). These are experienced people doing a hard job – interesting to meet.

One cannot say the same of those who answer the phone for Tooting Police though (these are presumably police officers too). On the occasion mentioned I called the police on my way down to an arranged rendezvous with the person who I believe had stolen my phone. I explained that I was going to meet this person and would like the police to be on standby, nearby. The woman said “Why are you doing something so dangerous as going to meet them on your own, sir?”, incredulous. I said “I’m not going on my own. That’s why I’m ringing you”.

It took a bit longer to get my point across, but eventually the police turned up, although I was never phoned back, the promise having been made. Well, it seems no-one ever phones anyone back these days. Whenever anyone tells me they’ll phone me back I make a note in my calendar to call them.

I had to call the police again this evening. There was a road traffic accident directly outside my house – one car driving into the back of another. This left shattered glass all over one side of the carriageway. Eventually both parties just got back in their cars and drove off without alerting anyone, then for the next 10 minutes I saw cars crunching over this glass, some swerving into the adjacent carriageway to avoid it. Cyclists slammed on brakes, dismounted, went on the pavement. I thought, ‘Before long this will cause a worse accident’.

So eventually I did my civic duty, since obviously no-one else was going to do it. I phoned up the police again, twice in one week. I expected the officer to say something like: “No problem, sir. Thanks for letting us know. We’ll have a van there in five minutes.” Then maybe one officer would guide the traffic while someone else cleaned up the mess.

Instead, the man told me it was nothing to do with them and I should phone the council. I should phone the council. Phoning the police is not enough then. I thought once I had put the issue into the system they would take care of that. Obviously not. I asked him: “Is not not a crime in any way to leave all that glass all over the road unreported then?”. “You’ll have to phone the council”, he replied.

When I did phone the council the man was far more helpful and very surprised the police had not told him themselves.

Another occasion worthy of mention is when I was in Argos, not long ago, and an evidently psychotic person was threatening to kill a member of staff. The air was thick with a very clear and present danger. The altercation went on for a good 10 minutes, while staff waited for police to arrive. Twenty-five minutes later they did arrive, by which time of course the man had gone (but it had been touch and go). A deplorable response time to a potentially very dangerous situation.

Clearly the police are stretched in Broken Britain. I thought Boris was going to do something about this. Now would be a good time to start.

After my call to the council this evening, I reflected on why the people involved in the collision had not phoned the police themselves. Then I realised the probability. If you were illegally in the country, or driving uninsured, how likely would you be to phone the police?

*Please note: you’re not allowed to call them the “police force” any more – it has to be “police service”. In Broken Britain “PC” stands for something other than “Police Constable”.

Mark Steyn writes…

Mark Steyn has posted up some fascinating photos showing that more women wear the hijab in Cairo now than they did in the 1970s. Obviously the number has greatly increased in London too – to the point that I can hardly set foot outside my door without seeing anti-social face coverings and emblems or religious irrationality within seconds. Indicators of the Islamisation of the UK.

Steyn’s experience of liberals matches my own:

“Whenever I give a speech on Islam, some or other complacenik always says, “Oh, but they haven’t had time to Westernize. Just you wait and see. Give it another 20 years, and the siren song of Westernization will work its magic.”

This argument isn’t merely speculative, it’s already been proved wrong by what’s happened over the last 20 years. Compare the Cairo University class of 1959 with those of the 21st century, and then see if you can recite your inevitablist theories of social evolution with a straight face.

The idea that social progress is like the wheel or the internal combustion engine — once invented, it can never be uninvented — is one of the laziest assumptions of the Western Left.”

Quick letter to NSS

“Geert Wilders (currently on trial for telling the truth in the Netherlands) has again been invited by members of the House of Lords to come and show his short film Fitna there.

The Telegraph reports here that Lord Ahmed has again threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to block Mr Wilders from entering the House of Lords. If this is true then Lord Ahmed should be arrested for breach of the peace. I’m tired of this man’s threats.

Best regards,

Gavin Orland”

Letting the side down

“If people who are highly educated are going to turn anti-social behaviour into a kind of joke, and make of antisocial people heroes for the entire country, you can hardly be surprised when public behaviour deteriorates.”

- Theodore Dalrymple

Again I preface an article with a quotation from Theodore Dalrymple – because the man speaks such sense.

This article is about the place, the company, in which I find myself being an atheist. Recently I attended a secularist social evening. I should first of all say that people cannot really be defined by a negative, but their not believing in God – that is true. I agree with Sam Harris’ concerns about the very term “atheist”. Nonetheless one often notices an apparent moral apathy among non-believers. This is not a necessary connection of course, but a noticeable one nonetheless.

Religious people at least have a book from which they cherry pick the good bits as a moral guide. At least this is typical of Type 1 Christians. Non-believers have no such book. The fact they do not believe says nothing about their morality. Very often they are the kind of atheist who just doesn’t care about anything very much, and is not against religion on intellectual grounds or moral grounds. Its just all too much trouble. Other times, and this is what I think I have noticed in some, especially younger, people in the secular movement, they are against religion mainly because it is seen by them to impose rules. Just to impose rules, which may or may not restrict them.

Liberals, leftists, radicals, these people, it seems to me, are often against religion not because it contains certain inconsistencies or is metaphysically unsound, but actually because it might limit the complete abandon and laissez faire morality so beloved by many liberals. This is unfortunate.

Here is a definition of Humanism found on the British Humanist Association’s website:

“Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason – humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone and that the aims of morality should be human welfare, happiness and fulfillment.”

This is all very well, excellent.. there is more like it on the same page. The funny thing is, one can often observe high profile humanists drinking liberally and smoking habitually. Smoking is of course extremely anti-social and harmful to the individual. I need surely not produce studies to show this. Likewise excessive use of alcohol is very damaging, the UK currently being the binge drinking capital of Europe. Not such good examples to be setting, perhaps.

Not to miss out, leading “Humanists” can also be found getting themselves tattooed. Even asking for sponsorship to do so. But aside from the fact that tattoos are arguably vulgar:

“A study of “at-risk” (as defined by school absenteeism and truancy) adolescent girls showed a positive correlation between body-modification and negative feelings towards the body and self-esteem.”

Source

There can be health risks associated with getting tattoos and of course they hardly teach the lesson of thinking in the long term and not acting only for the present moment – one of the problems of our age.

I might add it is not in fact “radical” to be tattooed now. It is following the herd. In Britain, by contrast, it has now only become truly radical to assert any views which are not liberal.

Anyway, these things, especially the smoking, surprise me in many high profile Humanists, and they remind me that nothing necessarily unites non-believers. I believe such behaviour though provides an open goal to religious people who can then point to “atheist” decadence.

Meanwhile, this decadence is laughed about by the “Humanists” themselves. At the aforementioned social event, the argument was even propounded by a comedian that Islam could never succeed in a country where the official response to a terrorist threat was to drink beer. Funny, sure, but only perhaps in an embarrassing way – because, in fact, the precise opposite is the truth. If we were serious, we would admit that.

We’re fiddling, with our multicultural naivete, our moral relativism and our decadence, while Rome burns. Meanwhile, many Muslim women who are not being converted to modern, fashionable, nihilism, are at home having children. Islam has its values very clear, and respect for us doesn’t feature in them. Sometimes you can see why.

One of the greatest Humanist lectures I have ever heard took place, actually, here. At the Grace Fellowship church in Brevard County, Florida. It was a year or so ago now. The “preacher” made good point after good point, it has to be said. He spoke for example about the importance of being a good husband and father, the importance of the family unit, the importance of self control. He said “When someone asks you what you do, tell them your interests. Don’t allow yourself to be defined only by your job”. He made many very sound, Humanist points. He was confident of his values, and they were good values, which make a mockery of the nihilism, or the “protest for protest’s sake” commonly found here in the UK. He tacked Jesus on at the end now and then, of course, but this actually wasn’t necssary – the points stood up on their own.

Often religious people seem, at least overtly, to value decent behaviour more then non-religious people do. Some (even non-believers) therefore argue that religion is indeed desirable in society, on balance, the reason being that it is necessary as a guide for those who otherwise would be unable to live morally. Of course, not all of the advice in religious books is moral, but believers tend to turn a blind eye to the bad parts. Perhaps some do indeed need the threat of a God. I am undecided about this argument, the “Argument from Utility”. I know I do not need religion, but perhaps I should not judge everybody as I judge myself.

In any case, I find that sadly I do not often share the values of my fellow “Humanists”. I am more likely to share the values of Type 1 Christians, even though I do not share their metaphysical beliefs. A sad state of affairs indeed.

Dr Goebbels describes propaganda

Joseph Goebbels understood propaganda. Here he describes propaganda methodology in a way that seems also to describe the policy of the government and the BBC here in the UK. For example, they are both devoted to the ideology of multiculturalism despite mounting evidence of its inherent problems, and both repeatedly tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

- Joseph Goebbels, Reichsminister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany

This is an extremely interesting quotation at this point in time, because right now the political, economic and military consequences of various leftist ideological “lies” are now indeed becoming undeniable. The topsy-turvy case of Geert Wilders being tried for speaking the truth in his own country. One law for Muslims, another for non-Muslims. High indigenous unemployment. People like Pat Condell scoring over 1 million hits on his videos (well, there is no-one else like Pat). Commenters on the BBC’s “Have Your Say” near-unanimously contradicting politically correct news articles. Judges saying they think the maximum sentences they can impose are ludicrously lenient. You can find links for all of these on my site. The lie’s coming undone in all sorts of directions.

I await now, of course, accusations of Nazism from brainwashed liberals, who fail to see that it is the Left who have embraced Dr Goebbels’ rules of propaganda to wholeheartedly, silencing any dissent from the from “allowed” PC views, and therefore in many cases silencing the speaking of truths.

Gym music

You notice all kinds of things at the gym. People sitting around doing nothing, sitting on machines so other people can’t use them, grunting loudly and inconsiderately because they can’t manage the weights they’re lifting, you get all types.

I get on very well with the staff, who are very friendly, and most people are okay – just the grunters become annoying. There are all shapes and sizes, too – it’s not all beautiful people at the gym – there are a few of those but it’s mostly people trying to get fit. One thing I would advise though: take your Walkman. I was chided for that today for showing my age – take your iPod.

The music in most gyms is, for the most part, limited to the most cretinous music in society: that with the most irritating melodies and which promotes the worst possible values, optimised to do the maximum damage to human relations and therefore to society itself.

I shall give you some examples from two songs I heard today in order to illustrate my point:

“Before I leave, brush my teeth with a bottle of Jack”

“Trying to get a little bit tipsy”

“Ain’t got a care in world, but got plenty of beer”

“And now, the dudes are lining up cause they hear we got swagger but we kick em to the curb unless they look like Mick Jagger”

“Police shut us down, down”

This song is by a female (I can’t say a lady) called Ke$ha (note the dollar sign which actually forms part of the name, denoting the importance of money while doing no work). It’s a goldmine of depravity with nothing even remotely intelligent to be found in any of the lyrics. This is generally much admired by the “fashionable” youth of today while being much loathed by any more intelligent people who have the misfortune of hearing it. To call the song irresponsible would be an understatement.

If it perhaps topped, however, by another music television favourite: “Bad Boys”, which goes as follows:

“Some people call them players
But I’m far from terrified
‘Cause somehow I’m drawn to danger
And have been all of my life”

“Yeah, the bad boys are always catching my eye
I said the bad boys are always spinning my mind
Even though I know they’re no good for me
It’s the risk I take for the chemistry”

“Addicted to them rougher fellas”

This is about as profound as these lyrics get.

After cases like this, you might find this song, as I do, extremely irresponsible to the point that there should perhaps even be legislation against it. Many young women will see such rubbish as vindication of their poor judgement. It is in fact both idiotic and disgusting at the same time.

The song is by a competition winner so far mainly known for her vastly inferior version of the song famously sung by Jeff Buckley, Hallelujah. She said that song “did nothing for her”.

So that’s the kind of music typically played in gyms, because they have music television on. It’s brainless, but aside from complaining to the management (which you could do) the best thing to do, of course, is to plug in your iPod and listen to something intelligent instead. Perhaps a podcast like this one.

Douglas Murray: speaking truth

Douglas Murray, Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, has been turning out some great articles for The Telegraph recently. They’re remarkable because they are bereft of political correctness and instead full of truth. I just commented under this one as follows:

“Great article, Douglas. Please keep it up. Few in the media even dare to speak up against the PC craziness that has taken over the country, so your voice is needed. It’s about time we said a resounding “No” to Islam and re-asserted our own values in the UK.

Also high time people stopped hating our allies the Americans and reminded themselves where the true threats to society lie: from the religion of peace and institutional political correctness.”

Ethnic profiling

Let’s imagine there was a killer at large, who it was known resembled me. I don’t identify with any particular religious or ethnic group, but let’s say I did, and it was known that this killer also belonged to my group. He looks like me, he’s killing in the name of my group. He’s bringing it a bad name.

Should I co-operate with the police in this matter? According to Andy Choudary, of course, no. But I surely should. There are so many reasons why I should:

1. I should want this killer caught, whatever group he is from.
2. I should want him to stop tarnishing the reputation of my group.
3. I should want myself eliminated from enquiries.

I should be the first person stepping up to help in any way I can, and I should understand, obviously, if the police are particularly interested in me rather than in little old ladies of a different ethnic group.

The major threat in terms of terrorism these days comes from Muslims. There are white Muslims and black Muslims, however it is fair to say that most Muslims are of Arab or Indian descent. The would-be killers are a scurge on the reputation of innocent Muslims; one would think they would want them rooted out as soon as possible. But are they so “innocent” while they deny, or remain silent about, the problem in their midst?

Is it reasonable of them to object to some degree of ethnic profiling at airports? I think not. This is only normal policing (profiling of any kind) but it faces great opposition from liberals of many backgrounds. It thereby risks lives.

Here is a very interesting article someone has sent me which explains that exactly this kind of politically correct thinking allowed September 11th to happen.

An evening with Theodore Dalrymple

On June 2, 2005, Theodore Dalrymple spoke at the Harvard Club in New York to celebrate the release of his book Our Culture, What’s Left Of It: The Mandarins and the Masses, published by Ivan R. Dee. This is one of the most well written and important books I have ever read.

By watching a series of videos, starting with the one below, we have the honour of experiencing the evening with Dalrymple as if we had been there. His eloquence is outstanding, as are his compassion and his good humour. Dalrymple is a man not only of great erudition but also of immense direct experience. When he speaks of the severe problems facing Britain in terms of social decay, and their causes, he knows exactly what he is talking about.

Even if the government isn’t listening, you can. Enjoy the talk!

(There is a fairly long introduction by his publisher first.)

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

The vulgarity of Richard Dawkins’ forums

“Moral values are easily reversed: what was formally thought good becomes evil, and vice-versa. This has certainly happened in my own country, Britain, and moreover it has happened as a mass phenomenon which I think, if you visited Britain, you would see on the streets every day.”

- Theodore Dalrymple

I am very disappointed to have to write this article because I have had respect for Richard Dawkins since well before he became a high profile atheist. Ever since, actually, The Blind Watchmaker was published. I’ve supported his clear reasoning and atheism and continue to do so, but I have to say I’m appalled at the standard of debate he permits – and therefore allows to inevitably flourish – on his web forums.

If you take a look at this thread you’ll see what I mean. I suggest you read it all, and follow links providing evidence (which is certainly more than most “contributors” did).

Not only is there is a very low level of intellectual debate exhibited here, with frequent use of logical fallacies (for example the Argument from Tradition and the Argument from Authority) but there is also a distinct and unpleasant pack mentality of bullying and of glorifying the gratuitous use of foul language and general apathy. People here shout others down without evidence but with the fully sanctioned use of vulgarity, obscenity and profanity instead.

When such language is permitted (i.e. when almost no standards are required) scum inevitably rises to the surface and the intellectual level of debate plummets. That’s why it is not allowed in journals, in university departments or indeed on many web forums. Such low-level discussion very probably puts many capable contributors off having anything to do with the forums. It certainly puts me off (as it does other people whom I know and esteem).

It would be hard to ban intellectual inadequacy, I grant, but gratuitous use of foul language is not banned on Richard Dawkins’ forums. Since the forums are a public place, and such anti-social, uncultured behaviour is hardly typical of the man himself, I find this surprising.

The forum terms specify only that certain kinds of “hatred” are disallowed, as follows:

“Richarddawkins.net will not foster or support racist, homophobic or sexist bigotry. Therefore, you may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender.”

This suggests a distinct political correctness which potentially even restricts free evidence-based discussion – because the above issues are hardly cut and dried. It also implies that other kinds of abusive content are fine.  Contrast it, for example, with the terms found at Sam Harris’ forums. These do not restrict themselves to PC areas but are instead all-encompassing and non-specific:

“By registering at this site you agree not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws.  We will permanently ban all users who do so.”

As such these are surely better terms (and far more succinct than those found at Richard Dawkins’ forums, which are several screens long going into other topics). Unfortunately these are not properly enforced at Sam Harris’ site, but at least they’re there should recourse be required.

Without quality control, debates will gravitate downwards. Forum posters who evidently have very little life outside the forum – extremely prolific “contributors” who have chosen names such as “Half_Cut”, “Fallible” and “Im_With_Stupid” for themselves – can barge out more occasional posters who do have lives, by insisting on very low standards in their clique. Other posters, rude, coarse individuals, the “voluntarily unemployed” are also free to unload streams of f-words for no good reason except that they feel it makes them look clever – and they will find themselves in majority company.

I have been told by a forum administrator that Richard Dawkins himself has no problem with the kind of excessive foul language (not to mention the low intellectual standard of debate and the apathy and nihilism) exhibited in the thread above, but I cannot help finding this very sad, and feeling this reflects very badly on him. I would certainly not allow this extremely low level of content on my site, and I doubt that he would have allowed such people in his lecture theatres. But on his personal website, setting the standard of debate, that’s fine. Surprising, to say the very least.

George Orwell predicts political correctness

“The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, CRIMESTOP.

CRIMESTOP means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.

CRIMESTOP, in short, means protective stupidity… orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one’s own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body.”

- George Orwell, 1984