Category Archives: dictatorships

Compared with this parliament of fools, Pinochet was a democrat

The British parliament, writes Dalrymple,

voluntarily called for a referendum on the issue of Britain’s EU membership, on the understanding that the government would abide by the result.

Since then, the parliament

has done everything possible to oppose, obstruct, delay, dilute, or straightforwardly annul the implementation of the result, which was unexpected.

Jo Swinson, leader of the Liberal Democrats,

has said that if a second referendum were to take place, she would accept the result only if it were in the direction that she favoured—that of remaining in the EU. War is peace, freedom is slavery, liberal democracy is the unopposed rule of the leader.

Guy Verhofstadt, one of the leaders of EU-loyalist members of the European rubber-stamp parliament,

has sided with those who have striven might and main to overturn the result of a vote that no one can deny was democratic while simultaneously trying to cover themselves in the mantle of democracy.

In other words, says Dalrymple,

true democracy is the rule of the right-thinking, and the purpose of a referendum anywhere in Europe is—as under Napoleon III—to provide legitimation for a decision that has already been taken.

He adds:

By comparison with those who have attempted, and are still attempting, to obstruct Brexit in Britain, Augusto Pinochet was a democrat. When he lost a plebiscite, he stood down.

Verhofstadt

prefers as democrats those who, like the British MPs in the middle of a political impasse, refuse to hold elections in case the electorate gets the answer wrong again.

 

The sort of thing one would expect in a dictatorship

Out come the candles: women must be believed qua women

Femaoism on the rise

Dalrymple writes that Brett Kavanaugh’s statement to the committee after Christine Blasey Ford had given her evidence

was a very bad one. As he was soon to recognise, he spoke in a way in which he should not have spoken and said things that he should not have said. To me he sounded more like a politician than a judge.

However, Dalrymple points out that those who demonstrated to the effect that the women who accused Kavanaugh of misconduct were to be believed qua women

are guilty of flagrant sex stereotyping. They degrade their sex and render it less than human.

Dalrymple does not say that Christine Blasey Ford lied, only that

to claim that she did not do so because women ex officio do not tell lies is to diminish women as human beings.

What Ford said

was not substantiated, and insofar as there is evidence other than what she said, the evidence is against her. This is not the same as saying that her testimony was untrue; but no criminal prosecution could be brought on the basis of what she said, and even a civil case would fail. What we are left with is a mere possibility, and it seems to me unlikely that, in the absence of startling new evidence, it will ever amount to more than that.

The protesters showed

how little they respected due and established process and how fragile was their belief in the rule of law. They would let unsubstantiated allegations—provided they were of the right sort—wreck a man’s career and perhaps deprive him of a living, certainly stain his reputation for the rest of his life if not longer, principally because they didn’t like his views. This is the kind of thing one would expect in a totalitarian dictatorship, complete with staged outrage and accusations against which there can be no complete defence.

The effect of the episode is the advance of the cause of what Dalrymple calls

femaoism, an amalgam of feminism and Maoism. For some people, there is a lot of pleasure to be had in hatred, especially when it is made the meaning of life.

Femaoism

Liberal supranationalism is dangerously dictatorial

Dalrymple notes that José Manuel Barroso, while head of the European Commission, on one occasion

let fall the true nature of the European Union. It was, he said, an empire, albeit an empire of an entirely new type. He said that for the first time in history nations had agreed to pool their sovereignty.

To what end, Barroso did not say.

Artful Albanian mass murderer

Dalrymple explains that the works of Enver Hoxha are

worth reading.

The late first secretary of the Party of Labour, chairman of the Democratic Front and commander-in-chief of the Albanian armed forces has in his writing, says Dalrymple,

a wonderful natural gift for poisonous invective and insult. As by the end of his life he had fallen out with everyone, he also had a lot of practice at it.

Dalrymple explains that Hoxha’s principle was

never to speak well of the dead, especially if he had killed them himself.

A paranoid-schizophrenic African dictator

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 08.54.18The worst dictatorships, writes Dalrymple,

try to destroy not only people but memory itself.

Among the worst dictatorships in a century full of dictatorships

was that of Ahmed Sékou Touré, president of the West African state of Guinea for more than a quarter of the 20th century. A third of a population fled his rule, and many thousands were tortured and killed, victims of the dictator’s paranoia.

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 08.59.23Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 09.02.40Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 09.00.00

How aid workers get around

For those lords of poverty, the aid workers, the Toyota Land Cruiser is the only way to go

For the lords of poverty, a Toyota Land Cruiser is the only way to go

Finding himself in Malabo (formerly Santa Isabel de Fernando Póo), capital of Equatorial Guinea (the former Spanish Guinea), Dalrymple spends

a very happy afternoon counting the number of aid agencies whose white Land Cruisers pass me in the street (the only vehicles there are).

He counts 27 agencies in all,

which goes to show that corrupt dictatorships are the boon of aid agencies.

Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.31.18Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 08.01.39Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 08.01.12 Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.33.18Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 08.00.55 Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.36.13

Francisco Macías Nguema

Francisco Macías Nguema

Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.38.04Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.40.52Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.45.33 Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.40.09 Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.42.17 Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.43.04 Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.43.15Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.15.15

Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 07.36.37

Against Islam, the ideological gloves must come off

Screen Shot 2015-11-23 at 08.56.04For the moment, writes Dalrymple,

it will have to be accepted as a regrettable fact that there are substantial numbers of young people in European countries susceptible to the siren song of idiot Islamism.

Obviously,

there must be properly directed surveillance of susceptible types.

But

surveillance will never be enough: criticism of Islam itself must be free and unconstrained and relentless. For example, in the very small town in France near which I live some of the time, there was a demonstration against terrorism. The small and generally well-integrated population of Maghrebis there was conspicuous by its absence. Of course, citizens are free to demonstrate or not demonstrate; but it is at least possible that some of the young Maghrebis did not demonstrate because of fear of denunciation, of accusations of apostasy.

Mohammedans

live in fear of one another more than in fear of others, at least in the modern world, and this is because of a fundamental incompatibility of Islam with the modern world.

The accusation of apostasy in Islam is

potentially fatal to the accused. So long as this is so, so long as Muslims fear to adopt another religion or publicly proclaim their atheism or detestation of Mohammed and Islam, intellectually justified or not, the religion is incompatible with our notions of what our polity should be.

The prevalent

insincere (and cowardly) homage to Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance

must cease. No religion

that makes apostasy a punishable crime is tolerant. On the contrary, it more resembles a criminal conspiracy, at least when the punishment is severe. This is so no matter what proportion of Muslims are decent people (the people of Egypt, for example, have often struck me as among the most charming and hospitable in the world, as did the Syrians in the good old days of uncontested secular dictatorship), or how troubling or hurtful they find the thought.

Aux armes, citoyens! And let your arms, says Dalrymple,

be intellectual ones as well as a good intelligence service.

A religion of peace

Screen Shot 2015-07-01 at 08.21.04It’s just that Muslims choose strange ways of showing it

At Sousse, 38 people — 25 of them British — were murdered by a Mohammedan fundamentalist gunman at an hotel (in an atrocity prefigured in the 2001 Michel Houellebecq novel Plateforme).

The attack possessed, writes Dalrymple, logic from the Islamo-Leninist ‘the worse the better’ point of view. Tourists

like sun, sea and sites, but not at the cost of their lives. Tourism can survive a dictatorship such as that of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, but not a democratically elected government that cannot guarantee security.

After the attacks, David Cameron

made a statement in which he reiterated, among other things, that Islam was a religion of peace. He was under no pressure, except that of his own pusillanimity, to say any such thing, which is in flat contradiction both to history and to the state of the world today. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt would not have said anything as stupid or as cowardly.

Leadership, says Dalrymple, should not

propound blatant untruths. It is true that most Muslims are peaceful and want to get on with their lives; the same is true of almost everyone, including Marxists. It is blatantly obvious that not all terrorists are Muslim; but when they are Muslim, their religious ideas are a necessary precondition of their acts.