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.”

Excellent director Kathryn Bigelow is no feminist

I do hope Katheryn Bigelow wins Oscars for her outstanding film The Hurt Locker. It was perhaps the best film I saw last year.

It is heartening to see also that this talented film maker is no feminist either – she has no time for conspiracies that women are being kept out of film making, and has no interest in belittling men (indeed, she celebrates masculinity in her films). “I don’t look at these things in terms of gender lines”, she says. “It must be odd to hear me say that, but I just don’t.”

Quite right too. Talent will out, whether it is male or female.

Bigelow is also gracious with her ex-husband James Cameron. Most striking of all is that this very capable director manages to make action packed, gripping and thought provoking films while not only disassociating herself from feminism, but also retaining her femininity (just look at the photo). Perhaps that’s no coincidence. Credit to Katheryn Bigelow and good luck to her at the Oscars!

p.s. Especially for the liberals out there: the film presents the inside point of view of American, yes, American bomb squad technicians risking their lives disarming bombs to save the lives of people in Iraq. You’ll love it…

Pat Condell on Geert Wilders’ trial

Pat says it all, as usual, and very well indeed:

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

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.

How to ask questions at a public debate

I watch quite a lot of public debates on the Internet and sometimes I attend them as an audience member too. At such debates there is usually a panel of distinguished guests. They have ten minutes or so each to speak on the given topic, then ten minutes to answer. Eventually the debate is opened up to the floor for questions. Questions. Did everybody get that?

Almost invariably at these events, soon after the roving mic reaches the first “questioner”, one has that sinking feeling. It is nearly always a rambling individual who takes a full minute or so to build up to their “point” then takes another five minutes minutes making it then sees fit to add an extended lecture about something totally irrelevant.

Sometimes they have no point at all to make, and simply need to be shut down by the moderator (if they are doing their job properly, which is not often enough). Almost always, the asking of the question is a painful, drawn-out process, full of ego, devoid of respect for the speakers (who have earned their places) and terminally, excruciatingly boring.

Not many things are boring to the reflective mind, so this is an achievement indeed. There is limited time for questions as such events, so these self-indulgent, uninvited lectures by ignoramuses are extremely selfish and unwelcome. You can feel the time running out as they speak, still not getting to their point. Other people even sometimes start booing and ask these questioners to shut up. They didn’t go there to hear them.

Please remember these simple rules in order not to be infuriating at public debates:

1. Be concise!!! Get to your point. A preamble giving context should not be more than 5 seconds long. Your question, following this, should ideally be only one moderate length sentence.
2. Have a point. Engage brain before raising hand. Think it through. Predict the likely answer. Don’t waste everybody’s time with something inane or off-topic.
3. Remember you are asking a question. This is NOT your platform to sound off with a long lecture to show people how knowledgeable you think you are on some given topic that may be loosely related to the discussion. People are not interested. Put that on your own site and they’ll go there if you’re that great. Show respect for the panel and ask a carefully considered question inviting them to teach you (or indeed to reveal that they have not considered an angle of the topic).

It is selfish and extremely annoying when ignorant members of an audience hog a microphone, failing to observe the simple rules above. Moderators should be strict and shut them down and move on, allowing more considerate and intelligent people to contribute instead. They’re usually there, they’re just not as pushy.

Geert Wilders coming to London again

Breaking news: Geert Wilders MP, currently being tried for speaking the truth in the Netherlands, has announced his intention to travel to the UK again to screen his short film Fitna.

Mr Wilders has again been invited by Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and will travel to London to show the film in the House of Lords on 5th March.

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.

JMW Turner: Pope’s Villa at Twickenham

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.

Lifting dumbbells

I notice various things at the gym and one is that some people work out with dumbbells holding them like this:

How not to do it

They swing the weight up and down. This is better than nothing, of course, but it seems to me a bad idea, the reason being that the lifter is greatly assisted by the momentum of the weight.

How to do it

In the latter example the lifting is more difficult, thus more beneficial. It’s possible I could be wrong about this, and if so I would appreciate any comments below.

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.”

Geert Wilders’ opening speech

Here’s is Geert Wilders’ excellent opening speech at his disgraceful trial in the Netherlands:

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

I believe this is a win/win situation for Wilders and whatever the outcome he will win more support.

I have written to the National Secular Society as follows:

“This week, the principle of freedom of speech while not inciting violence has gone on trial in the Netherlands, in the form of MP Geert Wilders being tried by his own government.

I want to note first of all that the start of this very significant trial has so far gone completely unreported by the BBC. (Of course, the Today Programme did instead run a feature on the “triumphs of Muslim science“. That’s “triumphs” of several hundred years ago, mind you. The bias of the BBC is embarrassingly transparent now).

It will be interesting to see how this trial proceeds. If Wilders is found guilty, then telling the truth, even while not inciting violence, will be seen to be illegal in the Netherlands. The Dutch government particularly disliked Wilders’ film Fitna, but in that film he hardly said anything at all, and merely quoted from the Qur’an.

This brings me onto my next point, which is that Islam itself is effectively also on trial. If Wilders can show with reference to his witnesses and to the text that the Qur’an is indeed hateful towards unbelievers, then Islam is guilty. Whether the court would ever honour such a finding, however, is of course another matter entirely.”

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.