Category Archives: ghettoes

Ztraceni v ghettu

Šokující, srdceryvné příběhy z anglických městských ghett, jež napsal literárně talentovaný vězeňský lékař a psychiatr, jsou především obžalobou levicového liberalismu a multikulturní ideologie intelektuálů. Těm se totiž podařilo přesvědčit tzv. spodinu společnosti, že je především obětí nespravedlivých společenských podmínek, ze nezodpovídá za svůj život a ze je naprosto bez šancí.

Tolerantní postoje k deviantnímu chování a ke zločinu odsuzují ty nejzranitelnější (děti a ženy) k životu v gangsterském prostředí násilí, drog a každodenní hrůzy.

Ohromná mašinerie sociální pomoci nevede k soběstačnosti ani neumožňuje únik z ghetta. Ideologická představa, že z bídy neexistuje osobní východisko, pouze sociální dávky, tak vytvořila velké patogenní společenství (24 % mladistvých neumí v Británii číst ani psát), které se paradoxně opravdu stalo obětí systému a žije v sebeklamu neviny, bezmoci a beznaděje.

Nechť se tento dramatický a strhující zápis strašlivé skutečnosti stane pro nás varovným mementem.

Ukázky z knihy:

Jako vězeňský lékař trávím sice velkou většinu svého profesionálního života na dně společnosti, ovšem díky svému psaní mám přístup i do společnosti literární. To, jak tato společnost samolibě přehlíží sociální katastrofu, k níž došlo v nejnižších vrstvách, mě děsí neméně než katastrofa sama. Ještě nikdy se tak strašlivá lhostejnost neskrývala za soucitem, ještě nikdy neexistovala taková záměrná slepota. Je to, jako kdyby se pragmatičtí Angličané změnili v národ náměsíčníků.

Je chybou domnívat se, že všichni lidé, nebo přinejmenším všichni Angličané, chtějí být svobodní. Naopak, pokud svoboda znamená zároveň zodpovědnost, pak ji mnozí lidé nechtějí – ani co by se za nehet vešlo. Ochotně by vyměnili svou svobodu za skromný (byť iluzorní) pocit bezpečí. Dokonce i ti, kteří o sobě tvrdí, že si svobody nesmírně váží, nemají zrovna nej větší radost, aby uznali následky svého jednání. Cílem milionů lidí je dělat si, co se jim zachce, a nechat za své činy pykat jiné.

George Orwell napsal, že základní povinností novodobého intelektuála by měla být obhajoba samozřejmostí a neustálý boj proti „malým smrdutým ideologiím…, které zápasí o naši duši”. Orwell tím mínil totalitní ideologie, které oslňovaly inteligenci jeho doby a bránily jí vidět zřejmé a evidentní pravdy o společnosti. Jeho napomenutí platí i dnes, přestože fašismu a komunismu už dávno odzvonilo. Zánik totality totiž zdaleka nevedl k upřímnému a čestnému hodnocení reality, ale pouze rozmnožil ideologické brýle, jimiž lidé pohlížejí na svět. Jestliže platí, že lidstvo, jak to vyjádřil T. S. Eliot, nesnese příliš mnoho pravdy, očividně dokáže snášet jakékoli množství nepravd.

Cenzura, jíž intelektuálové zakrývají pravdu, a to i před sebou, stojí proto za prozkoumání a musíme se ptát, proč tak vlastně činí.

  • Nejprve je tu fenomén vědomého popírání reality.
  • Za druhé, žongluje se s tendenční ahistorickou analogií neboli jakýmkoli precedentem.
  • Za třetí, jakmile jsou fakta pod tíhou nevyvratitelných důkazů konečně přijata, je popřen nebo překroucen jejich morální význam.

Jeden producent televize BBC mi nedávno nastínil, jak takové liberální zapírání může probíhat.
Jeho kolegové, sdělil mi, ho považují za nekonformního, za rytíře bojujícího s větrnými mlýny a možná téměř za blázna. A jak že se projevuje to jeho bláznovství? Chtěl, aby BBC natočila nepřikrášlené dokumenty o životě ve spodní třetině společnosti, o masové (a vzrůstající) negramotnosti, o masovém (a narůstajícím) nemanželském původu dětí, o rodinách s jediným rodičem, o masovém (a narůstajícím) chuligánství, násilí, bezpráví, narkomanii, závislosti na sociálních dávkách a beznaději.

Chtěl, aby si lidé uvědomili, co se u nich za rohem vlastně odehrává. Doufal, že upozorní na devastující účinky fragmentace, lépe řečeno, atomizace rodiny, již liberální legislativa, sociální inženýrství a neblahé změny v kulturním vnímání od konce 50. let 20. století tak silně podporují.
Jeho nadřízení v BBC přivítali jeho návrhy blahosklonně.

Nejprve ovšem popřeli fakta. Když přišel s nevyvratitelnými důkazy o existenci zmíněných jevů, obvinili ho z amorálního šíření paniky.
Když dokázal, že jevy, na něž fakta poukazují, jsou vážné a že se rychle šíří celou společností, sdělili mu, že se s tím nedá nic dělat, protože jde o nevyhnutelnou součást moderního života. Když namítl, že jsou výsledkem záměrné politiky, chtěli vědět, jestli touží po návratu starých špatných časů, kdy rozhádaní manželé byli nuceni žít spolu.

A když na to odvětil, že co se napáchalo, lze rovněž alespoň zčásti opravit, vytasili nakonec svůj trumf.
Na tak nezajímavé téma nemá smysl něco natáčet.
Britskou veřejnost přece nebude nikdo rušit při její neoblomné náměsíčné chůzi ke společenské katastrofě, před níž ji její křehká ekonomická prosperita zcela jistě neuchrání.

Advertisements

The decay of Paris

screen-shot-2017-01-07-at-22-18-34Dalrymple writes that quite a number of the stations of the Métro

smell unmistakably of the homeless, far more than they ever did before. Whole families of beggars take up daytime residence in them, claiming to be Syrian refugees but really being gypsies.

At the Gare du Nord

one would not know what country one was in, except that such a mélange could not occur anywhere but in a few major Western cities.

There are more French in Kensington than here, he says.

This is not, he points out,

true cosmopolitanism. It is the reduction of everyone to the lowest common denominator, namely something akin to American ghetto culture.

One’s sense of security, he notes,

is not heightened by observing how many of the young men jump the ticket barriers, quite openly and with a sense of entitlement on their faces, secure in the knowledge that no one will say, let alone do, anything about it. One is not surprised occasionally to observe a crime committed there; one is surprised that there are not many more.

How the West invites terror

Riaz Khan Ahmadzai

Riaz Khan Ahmadzai

Muslims, writes Dalrymple,

are not deceived by pusillanimous, odious, unctuous, and fatuous expressions of understanding for their feelings that have emerged from official circles, in a vain and cowardly attempt to defuse the situation by a precipitate though insincere abandonment of the best values of the Enlightenment.

Islamic fundamentalists

know perfectly well that the West does not respect them, and that the only way they can cut a figure is by terror. Technologically, scientifically, artistically, philosophically, economically they are nullities: but they know how to be vicious, and that makes up for every other defect. If the world will not listen to their tedious religiose lucubrations, it will at least pay heed to their bloodcurdling threats. Each expression of pseudo-understanding is music to their ears: they know that threats of mass decapitation and killing in the streets have worked. It is an open invitation for more of the same.

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

The Western democracies, says Dalrymple,

have demonstrated a lack of resolve comparable only to that of Chamberlain and Daladier in the face of Hitler.

When, he says,

we see the freedom that the Enlightenment wrought challenged in so intellectually primitive and thuggish a way, we realise how very much we owe the Enlightenment. You don’t really appreciate something until you have lost it.

The problem of the Muslim world is that

it wants the material fruits or benefits of the Enlightenment without the Enlightenment. A considerable proportion of the large migrant population from Islamic countries to Europe has wanted this too, which is why many such migrants are notably less successful in their adopted countries than their Hindu, Sikh, and Chinese counterparts. Muslims have been trying to square this circle for well over a century, since they first became aware of how retarded they were by comparison with a civilisation that theirs once more than equalled. Like the inhabitants of the ghetto, they want the respect of the rest of the world without wishing to do the things necessary to obtain it.

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 09.45.50

Multiculturalism breeds terrorists

Screen Shot 2016-03-22 at 21.32.25And patriotism is left to the savages

In Britain, writes Dalrymple,

patriotism has been left to the brutes: the kind of ignorant savages who tattoo a bulldog on their biceps and Made in England round their nipples, and who in equal measure revolt and terrorise the cheaper resorts of the Mediterranean.

The intellectual’s

equation of patriotism with xenophobia, and pride in past achievement with an arrogant superiority complex, has left a population demoralised and without any belief in its own nation. Orwell saw this happening. It has created a vacuum for the English Defence League to fill.

Many of Britain’s homebred terrorists

are not culturally isolated and alienated figures, cut off from mainstream British life by ghettoes and the multicultural nonsense that leaves them unable to speak English. Nor do they derive their suicidal-utopian fantasies from an unalloyed Islamic tradition. Their utopianism is at least as much secular as it is religious, though their religion is one that lends itself well to political violence.

Many of them are educated,

if attendance at a modern British university counts as an education; they have jobs and prospects. No, they have seen British values and culture close up, or at least what British values and culture have become, and they don’t like them.

They are quite right not to do so.

The fact that their response is grotesquely disproportionate and even more stupid than the culture they despise does not alter the correctness of their apprehension. Better a live slut than a dead pedestrian, say I; that does not make me pro-slut. It means only that I detest terrorism and its works as among the worst of evils.

In reacting as terrorists,

the young Muslims are following Bakunin and the Baader-Meinhof gang as much as the Koran. It is not for nothing that they go to Western universities.

Just because multiculturalism is not a major direct contributor to home-grown terrorism

does not make it right. On the contrary, it is a sentimental and harmful doctrine that turns the mind to mush, is evidence of an underlying indifference to real lives, and is a provider of pseudo-work for lots of people such as community organisers.

Multiculturalists, with their doctrinal sentimentalism,

are seldom interested in the culture of others. Very few of them read books in foreign languages, for example, let alone immerse themselves in the Pali scriptures or the writings of the Sufi. I don’t blame them: it is the work of a lifetime to be able to do so, and we each have only one lifetime, to say nothing of limitations of ability and inclination. But let us at least not pretend that our interest in other cultures extends much beyond their cuisine.

Multiculturalists rejoice at mass, and indiscriminate, immigration,

not because they are admirers of, say, Somali political philosophy, but because they want the culture of their own country to be diluted as much as possible, for only by rejecting what they have inherited do they think they can show their independence of mind and generosity of spirit. Let the heavens fall, so long as I am thought (by my peers) to be a free thinker.

The multicultural mindset or emotionset, characterised as it is by extreme sentimentality,

seems to destroy the critical faculties, if not the brain itself.

Almost by definition, multiculturalists

are not interested in the national interest. The world is their oyster, and they demand that we all swallow it.

Les Jardins de l’Empereur

Screen Shot 2016-01-06 at 07.47.05Life in Ajaccio

In France and England, Dalrymple points out,

the most dismal social housing is always given a grandiose or an arcadian name.

Screen Shot 2016-01-06 at 07.52.36In Corsica, he writes,

unemployment, dependence, and Le Corbusier-style ghettoes are now common, if not the rule.

Screen Shot 2016-01-06 at 07.48.31 Screen Shot 2016-01-06 at 07.50.15 Screen Shot 2016-01-06 at 07.51.44

The Gramscian Islamists

Allahu akbar!

Allahu akbar!

It would be simplistic, writes Dalrymple, to ascribe the violence of Muslim fundamentalists

to Islam itself, by citing those verses from the Koran that seem to justify or even require it. Selective quotation does not explain why extremism is the province of the young, and why, for example, the first generation of Muslim immigrants to Britain (and elsewhere) were not at all attracted to it.

Even in Islamic countries, fundamentalists

are not medieval throwbacks, however they may see themselves. They derive their ideas, even if they do not acknowledge it, at least as much from Lenin, Gramsci, and Mao as from Mohammed. They claim to want to return to seventh-century Arabia, but this is no more realistic or sincere than the wish of Victorian admirers of the Gothic to return to the Middle Ages.

Most Muslims in Britain, Dalrymple points out, are of Pakistani origin.

They were encouraged to come to Britain largely as a source of cheap labour, to prop up declining industries that had not adapted to the modern economy. But no labour in Britain could ever be cheap enough, without technological superiority, to compete successfully with labour in much poorer and cheaper countries. Originally, the idea was that the imported labour would be shipped back home if ever it became surplus to requirements. The opposite happened: each immigrant established a beachhead for others.

The immigrants

tended to congregate in certain areas, and they often met with hostility. Their children, growing up in virtual ghettoes, were neither fully of the host country nor fully of their parents’ culture. They were betwixt and between, in effect left to develop their own culture. Insofar as they encountered the hostility of the surrounding society, they developed resentments.

The Muslims were not the only immigrants to Britain.

There were Sikhs and Hindus as well, who fared much better, on the whole: their rates of unemployment are much lower than Muslims’ (indeed, lower than their white contemporaries’); they are underrepresented in prison, unlike Muslims, who are increasingly overrepresented; and they never developed any propensity to violence.

Islamism

provides a utopian and violent ideology of the kind that appeals to disgruntled young men facing all of the existential difficulties of youth. Moreover, Islamic society provides young men with another incentive for Islamism: the maintenance of the domination of women.

The British government

promoted ‘leaders’ of the Muslims, thus giving a golden opportunity to fundamentalists to establish themselves as controllers of government funds and to establish networks of patronage. Not knowing what it was doing, the British government spread Islamic fundamentalism.

Multiculturalism

has been another unwitting ally of Muslim extremism. Multiculturalism has created an informal system, like the late Ottoman empire’s millet system, in which various groups receive their privileges but are expected to live separately and distinctly from everyone else. This serves to prevent the various groups from developing any common identity and stimulates the ascent of political entrepreneurs whose power depends on the maintenance, aggravation, and inflammation of supposed grievances. Islamists are political entrepreneurs with a plausible doctrinal reason for violence. They are now able to extract from society the kind of respect that street muggers demand, and multiculturalism has become the ideological wing of sheer cowardice.

Europe is asking for a fascist reaction

Screen Shot 2015-12-06 at 08.14.51The price the West pays for stifling debate

Nationalism, writes Dalrymple,

is fraught with dangers, of course, but so is the blind refusal to recognise that attachment to one’s culture, traditions, and history is a creative, normal, and healthy part of human experience. A democracy that stifles debate on such vital and difficult matters by means of speech codes, explicit or implicit, is asking for a genuinely fascist reaction.

He points out that in France the genie of unease about the North African influx cannot be returned to its bottle. For the sake of democracy,

vigorous, civilised debate must replace the law of silence that political correctness has imposed.

France, Dalrymple reminds us, has

a large, undigested, and growing immigrant population from North Africa that congregates—unwanted by the bulk of the population—in huge and soulless modern housing projects that surround French cities, as if besieging them. There are now Muslim ghettoes in France so crime-ridden that the police will not enter, except in armoured convoys.

The Front national addresses

widespread anxieties that ‘respectable’ politicians have preferred to ignore for fear of appearing illiberal and unenlightened.

The party dares say on the subject of mass immigration

what many Frenchmen think and feel. A problem as essential to France’s future as how 5m North African Muslims are to be integrated successfully into French society has been left unexamined, obscured behind a cloud of wishful thinking and politically correct platitudes.

Dalrymple explains that the ‘respectable’ politicians,

by espousing the banalities of multiculturalism, left those with a desire to conserve something of traditional French identity with nowhere to go but Le Pen. By declaring that realities as obvious as the high immigrant crime rate and the resulting fear that many Frenchmen feel cannot be mentioned by the polite and sophisticated, they have ceded all public discussion of such evident facts to the impolite and the outré. The élites were the architects of the Front national‘s triumph.

This is happening not only to the French. For example, the Danes

have seen that, in the name of diversity, everywhere is becoming the same. There are large parts of Copenhagen in which it is impossible now for a stranger to guess what country he is in. The Danes fear to become foreigners in their own land.

The enemy within France

Screen Shot 2015-12-04 at 08.03.56The government of France allowed, Dalrymple points out,

the mass immigration of people culturally very different from its own population to solve a temporary labour shortage and to assuage its abstract liberal conscience.

An estimated 8m or 9m people of North African and West African origin dwell in France, twice the number in 1975. At least 5m of them are Muslims. The French government has handled the resultant situation

in the worst possible way. Unless it assimilates these millions successfully, its future will be grim.

France has

  • separated and isolated immigrants and their descendants geographically into dehumanising ghettoes
  • pursued economic policies to promote unemployment and create dependence among them, with all the psychological consequences
  • flattered the repellent and worthless culture that they have developed
  • withdrawn the protection of the law from them, allowing them to create their own lawless order

A profoundly alienated population is moreover

armed with serious firepower.

Paris is caught in a dilemma between

honouring its commitments to the more privileged section of the population, many of whom earn their livelihoods from administering the dirigiste economy, and freeing the labour market sufficiently to give the hope of a normal life to the inhabitants of the cités.

The likelihood is that the French State will continue to respond merely by

attempts to buy off the disaffected with more benefits and rights, at the cost of higher taxes that will further stifle the job creation that would most help the cité dwellers. If that fails, as in the long run it will, harsh repression will follow.

Ghettoised Sweden

Screen Shot 2015-11-26 at 09.06.25Dalrymple points out that last year, Sweden took in 100,000 migrants and this year it is estimated that it will have taken in 190,000, equivalent to 3 per cent of the population. He says:

If this rate were to continue for very long, Sweden would be irreversibly changed for ever.

On the London Guardian newspaper’s website, Dalrymple comes across a video about the Sverigedemokraterna or Sweden Democrats, a political party opposed to mass immigration. Dalrymple writes:

The Guardian journalist interviewed young members and made them appear arrogant and unattractive. Whether this was the result of editing or a true representation of them, or both, I cannot say. She herself appeared intolerably smug and self-righteous, arrogant in a different way. She asked the young Swedes what was wrong with vibrant multicultural societies such as Britain and France.

Even from the video,

what was shown, no doubt unintentionally, was that Sweden was not multicultural, it was ghettoised, with practically no contact whatever between the refugees and natives.

The Swedes, says Dalrymple,

throw social security to the refugees as zookeepers throw meat to the lions.

One of the questions of the Guardian journalist to the young Swedes was

Why do you dress so smartly?

The question was asked, says Dalrymple,

in an accusatory tone, as if dressing smartly was yet another of their bad qualities, a derogation of their duty to appear casually or scruffily dressed like almost everyone else in modern society.

For the person who asked it,

any kind of formality in dress was symbolic of élitist or exclusivist political sympathies, whereas casual dress, the prevailing any-old-howism of the majority of the population, was symbolic of democratic and egalitarian sympathies, a demonstration of solidarity with the poor of the world. Whether poor people in Africa actually benefit from rich people dressing in expensively-torn jeans and T-shirts is not important: as with presents, it is the thought that counts.

There is another way of looking at it, Dalrymple says.

To dress well is a sign of respect for other people and society, to dress scruffily is a sign of disrespect for them, a sign of the purest egoism. Perhaps it is even possible to express élitism and respect at the same time.

Europe’s Muslims and social exclusion

Dalrymple identifies as a large threat to Europe’s future the presence of a sizeable and growing immigrant population, a big part of which, he says with delicate understatement, 

is not necessarily interested in integration.

As the population ages, the need for immigrant labour increases, and among sources of such labour are the Maghreb, the Middle East, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Dalrymple writes:

When I recently drove to Antwerp from the south of France, I thought I had arrived in Casablanca. There are parts of Brussels where the police are enjoined not to be seen eating or drinking during Ramadan. Similar accommodations are occurring all over Europe: in the Central Library in Birmingham, for example, I found a women-only table occupied exclusively by young Muslims dressed in the hijab. (They were the lucky ones, members of liberal households that allowed them out on their own.)

Across the non-border in France, there has been

a salutary monoculturalism,

but the country’s cock-eyed economic and social policies have

helped, if not to create, at least to maintain Muslim ghettoes. On one hand, the children of immigrants were told they were French; on the other, they were de facto excluded from the rest of society. Ferocious resentment was the result, and we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Screen Shot 2015-11-24 at 08.04.50