Category Archives: moral cowardice

Transgender murderer to receive a sex swap on the NHS

Taxpayers are to pay for vicious and depraved Paris Green to have a sex-change operation at a private hospital.

Dalrymple notes that a deep moral cowardice infects many countries in the Western world, with Britain in the vanguard of the rush to surrender. In England, he reports,

a prisoner guilty of a murder of uncommon depravity and viciousness has decided that he would like to change sex, and—although he has already assaulted women in the women’s prison to which he has been removed—he is to receive expensive surgery at taxpayers’ expense to enable him to fulfil his dream. To the medical costs will be added those of security (the only escapes from imprisonment that I observed during 15 years as a prison doctor were from hospital).

At one time, writes Dalrymple,

prisoners used to change religion, sometimes with accompanying changes of diet, as a means of occupying their time and irritating or embarrassing the prison authorities. But increasingly, prisoners are changing sex to achieve the same ends. No one in authority has sufficient courage to say no to them.

What is the immediate cause of this cowardice? It is, Dalrymple explains,

fear of a small but vocal and monomaniacal lobby. Rather than having to think and then face it down with arguments, surrender has been immediate and unconditional.

Flüchtlinge willkommen

Screen Shot 2015-11-28 at 08.48.04So, even now, say a few Germans. In Sweden they cried (until they brought in border checks),

Flyktingar välkomna.

Dalrymple turns to Max Frisch’s Biedermann und die Brandstifter (1953), written

Screen Shot 2015-11-28 at 08.48.47in the aftermath of the Second World War as an attempt to explain (and to warn) how a patent evil like Nazism can triumph in a civilised society.

The play’s protagonist, Dalrymple explains,

is a comfortable bourgeois living in a town that is beset by several mysterious acts of arson. He is visited at home by Schmitz, a hawker, who half-persuades, half-intimidates his way into an invitation to lodge in Biedermann’s attic, and who soon brings a second hawker, Eisenring, to stay in the house.

Screen Shot 2015-11-28 at 08.34.08Gradually it becomes clear that Schmitz and Eisenring

are the ones setting the fires in the town, but Biedermann refuses to acknowledge it. His blindness arises from moral and physical cowardice, and from wishful thinking—the hope that what he sees does not really mean what it obviously means.

Screen Shot 2015-11-28 at 08.49.23Schmitz and Eisenring bring barrels of gasoline into the house and Biedermann,

pusillanimous to the last, helps them make the fuses and gives them the matches with which they burn his house down.

Popish unctuousness and cowardice

Screen Shot 2015-10-06 at 09.28.47Less a shepherd, more one of the sheep

Pope Francis’s speech to Congress, writes Dalrymple, resembled that of

a politician seeking re-election. It was like the work not of a man intent upon telling the truth, however painful or unpopular, but that of a committee of speech-writers who sifted every word for its effect, appealing to some without being too alienating of others. If Bill Clinton had been elected pope, he might have made the same speech, so perfect was its triangulation, so empty its high-sounding phrases.

Interviewed after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Francis let it be known that if someone insulted his mother he could expect a punch, making a physical gesture to illustrate his point.

This is not exactly the doctrine enunciated in the Sermon on the Mount; and one could not imagine John Paul II or Benedict XVI making so foolish or crude a mistake under the complacent impression that he was charming.

Francis’s

propensity to run after false gods, most of them fashionable in the constituency to which he evidently wants to appeal, no doubt accounts for his popularity. He is bien pensant; and where he does not yet feel able to alter doctrine in a liberal direction he is evasive and even cowardly, afraid to court distaste or opposition by clear expression of what he means.

Dalrymple asks to whom and at what these papal weasel words are directed:

It is my wish throughout my visit that the family be a recurrent theme. How essential the family has been to the building of this country! How worthy it remains of our support and encouragement! Yet I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and beauty of family life.

Dalrymple:

Who and what are calling fundamental relationships into question? Fundamental relationships do not call themselves into question: someone must do it in the name of some doctrine, some belief. The Pope’s resort to the passive mood is indicative of his moral cowardice in confronting the opponents of what the Church believes in. Those opponents he knows to be militant and aggressive, and to confront them openly would lead to his fall in the popularity polls.

Francis

evades the issue with vague and oily declamation. It is one thing to be peace-loving and conciliatory, another to surrender by means of avoidance of the issue.

Such avoidance was evident when Francis said:

We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.

Dalrymple:

This may be true in the abstract, but the wholesale persecution of religious minorities, and the perpetration of violent acts in a host of locations, is confined to Islamic extremism. It would have been better for the Pope not to have broached the subject than to have dealt with it in so pusillanimous a fashion.

The Pope’s secularist outlook is evident in his abolitionism:

I am convinced that this way is best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.

Dalrymple:

There is nothing here about mercy, forgiveness, repentance, redemption or salvation. Rehabilitation is a purely secular concept, suggesting that the wickedness of crime is a form of illness, to be treated by the psychological equivalent of physiotherapy; sin, or even vice, doesn’t come into it.

Francis’s words

are indistinguishable from those of the European Court of Human Rights, when it ruled that it was a breach of fundamental rights that brutal repeat murderers should be sentenced to whole-life terms because such sentences exclude the possibility of their rehabilitation (even if, in practice, they would never be released). But while God may forgive Himmler – under certain conditions – surely Man cannot. The irreparable exists in the sublunary world.

At every point, Dalrymple points out, Francis

evaded specifics and resorted to unctuous generalities. No one ever courted unpopularity by denouncing injustice, but many risked much by being specific about what they considered, rightly or wrongly, unjust.

Francis

was against poverty in the way the preacher in the Coolidge anecdote was against sin. But while no secularist will speak up for poverty, the religious attitude has traditionally been more nuanced.

Francis spoke of the unjust structures that exist even in the developed world. This, says Dalrymple, is to

make a fetish of wealth.

Moreover, he was

exciting one of the seven deadly sins, envy.

Francis, Dalrymple concludes, prefers to court popularity while rocking no boats. He

plays to the gallery, wanting to be liked by everybody. There is nothing of timelessness in what he says but only of the temporal, the contingent, the fashionably platitudinous.

A society in decomposition

Screen Shot 2015-04-01 at 23.07.37England has neither leaders nor followers but is composed only of egotists

The

intellectual torpor, moral cowardice, incompetence and careerist opportunism of the British political and intellectual class

A careerist, intellectually torpid, incompetent coward

A careerist, intellectually torpid, incompetent coward

is now very evident, writes Dalrymple. Despite everything that has happened in recent years, the corrupt mandarins continue to contrive

not to notice what has long been apparent to anyone who has taken a short walk with his eyes open down any frequented British street: that a considerable proportion of the country’s young population (a proportion that is declining) is ugly, aggressive, vicious, badly educated, uncouth and criminally inclined.

Screen Shot 2015-04-01 at 23.08.41Lavish self-esteem

While British youth is utterly lacking in self-respect,

it is full of self-esteem: that is to say, it believes itself entitled to a high standard of living, and other things, without any effort on its own part.

Although youth unemployment in Britain is very high, that is to say about 20 per cent of those aged under 25,

the country has had to import young foreign labour for a long time, even for unskilled work in the service sector.

The British, idlest workers in Europe

No rational employer in a service industry would choose a young Briton

if he could have a young Pole; the young Pole is not only likely to have a good work ethic and refined manners, he is likely to be able to add up and — most humiliating of all — to speak better English than the Briton, at least if by that we mean the standard variety of the language. He may not be more fluent but his English will be more correct and his accent easier to understand.

Screen Shot 2015-04-01 at 23.11.24Travesty of an educational system

After compulsory education,

or perhaps I should say intermittent attendance at school, up to the age of 16 costing $80,000 a head, about one-quarter of British children cannot read with facility or do simple arithmetic. It makes you proud to be a British taxpayer.

Screen Shot 2015-04-01 at 23.15.37State-subsidised criminality

British youth

leads the Western world in almost all aspects of social pathology, from teenage pregnancy to drug taking, from drunkenness to violent criminality. There is no form of bad behaviour that our version of the welfare state has not sought out and subsidised.

British children

are radically unsocialised and deeply egotistical, viewing relations with other human beings in the same way as Lenin: Who whom, who does what to whom. By the time they grow up, they are destined not only for unemployment but unemployability.

Long bath in vomitus

Screen Shot 2015-04-01 at 23.17.38All the necessary electronic equipment is available for the prosecution of the main business of life, viz

entertainment by popular culture. And what a culture British popular culture is! Perhaps Amy Winehouse was its finest flower and its truest representative in her militant and ideological vulgarity, her stupid taste, her vile personal conduct and preposterous self-pity.

Sordor

Winehouse’s sordid life

was a long bath in vomitus, literal and metaphorical, for which the exercise of her very minor talent was no excuse or explanation. Yet not a peep of dissent from our intellectual class was heard after her near canonisation after her death, that class having long had the backbone of a mollusc.

Screen Shot 2015-04-01 at 23.19.10Thugs in uniform

What of the police? They are

simultaneously bullying but ineffectual and incompetent, increasingly dressed in paraphernalia that makes them look more like the occupiers of Afghanistan than the force imagined by Robert Peel. The people who most fear our police are the innocent.

(2011)

Guide to Asiatic Birmingham

Birmingham Central Mosque, Highgate

Birmingham Central Mosque, Highgate

Former longtime resident Theodore Dalrymple answers your questions

How many Muslim Brummies are there?

In the last census, in 2011, 21.8 percent of the inhabitants of Britain’s second-largest city said that they were Muslim.

Will the figure rise?

The percentage is likely to rise because of higher birth rates among Muslims, immigration, and the departure of white Christians.

What have been the movements in and out of Brummagem?

Residents of Birmingham who identified themselves as ‘white British’ declined by 11 percent between 2001 and 2011, while the ‘white Irish’ declined by 33 percent. The proportion of Christians would have decreased further had it not been for the arrival of Eastern Europeans. The Muslim Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations increased over those ten years by 40 and 50 percent respectively.

Central Jamia Mosque Ghamkol Sharif, Small Heath

Central Jamia Mosque Ghamkol Sharif, Small Heath

Are there no-go areas?

Since ethnic and religious groups are not scattered evenly throughout Birmingham, the population in some areas is overwhelmingly Muslim. White women report being verbally abused there, as sluts ex officio, though it would not be true to say that any of the areas are truly no-go.

Where might I dine?

Spot the difference: Jamiah Masjid Mohiuddin Siddiquia, Aston. To the left is Christ Church Baptist Chapel (1865), which long ago fell into disuse. It appears to be the church hall (1888) that has been converted into the mosque, with the cross now hacked off

Spot the difference: Jamiah Masjid Mohiuddin Siddiquia, Aston. To the far left is Christ Church Baptist Chapel (1865), no longer used for worship, having been made into flats. It appears to be the red church hall (1888) that has been converted into the masjid, with the cross hacked off

One of these Muslim areas is notable for its profusion of small, cheap, and good restaurants, patronised by the rest of the population.

Do these districts resemble the banlieues?

No part of Birmingham is as cut off from the rest of the city as are some of the banlieues of Paris. Physical (if not social) mixing of populations is evident.

What is the relative educational, social and economic level of Birmingham’s Muslims, and to what extent are they prone to criminality or semi-criminality?

Before and after: at Jamiah Masjid Mohiuddin Siddiquia in Aston, someone has climbed up to the roof and hacked off the cross

Before and after: at Jamiah Masjid Mohiuddin Siddiquia in Aston, a zealous Mohammedan (whether a supple-limbed imam or a layman is unknown) has climbed up onto the roof and righteously hacked off the cross, doubtless to the cheers and cries of Allahu Akbar! of the throng below

In Britain, Muslim populations like those in Birmingham have relatively poor educational attainment and high rates of youth unemployment, crime, and imprisonment.

Hindus and Sikhs are much more successful than Muslims and than whites (who no longer have any religion) in life, are they not?

Hindus and Sikhs, present also in large numbers, have lower rates of youth unemployment than whites and much lower levels of crime than whites. The Sikhs have the second-highest average household wealth when such wealth is broken down by religious affiliation.

Place households in order of their respective wealth by religious persuasion.

Sikh households are richer than Christian ones; Muslim households are much poorer.

What do you say to the suggestion that the city government has exhibited a high degree of moral cowardice in the way it approaches the matter of the growing appeal of jihadism?

Birmingham Central Library: women-only tables

The great cringe: Birmingham Central Library provides apartheid-inspired, Muslim-women-only tables so that study of the Koran and the Hadith need not be confined to men; their wives and concubines may also gain access to the texts

Supposedly to placate Muslim sentiment, local authorities have sometimes agreed to or imposed measures worthy of an apartheid regime. For example, the Birmingham Central Library provided women-only tables, in practice for the use of Muslim women.

Who came up with the idea of Muslim-women-only tables at Birmingham Central Library?

I don’t know whether this gesture came in response to a request or was an anticipatory cringe; the argument in its favour would almost certainly have been that without such separate facilities Muslim women would not have been allowed by their males to use the library at all.

Would a demand for Christian-women-only or Hindu-women-only or Buddhist-women-only or Sikh-women-only library tables have been acceded to by the Birmingham city government?

It is unlikely that such an argument would have succeeded for any other religious or social group, and indeed it would have provoked feminist ire, in this case notably absent.

Neither seen nor heard in Birmingham

The sisters: neither seen nor heard in Birmingham

Why was it absent? Why no feminist fury in this case? Why no library-users’ sit-in? Why no demonstrations against this grotesque denial of the gender equality that it has taken so many years and effort to achieve? Why no lingerie torched in protest at Birmingham Central Library’s fostering of a collective image of submissive females who must be set apart to protect their ‘purity’? Why no occupation of the library by protesters? Why no petitions? Why no revival of the anti-apartheid movement? Why no Gender Equality Speakout and Festival in Centenary Square? Why no resolutions to reclaim the library and liberate it in the cause of equality? Why the silence?

Fear.

Wife-beating etiquette

Calling all Brummie believers: wife-beating rules

A low point in the extensive history of British official moral cowardice

Screen Shot 2015-02-06 at 20.53.21This point occurred, writes Dalrymple, after the Stephen Lawrence case and

the egregious Macpherson Report, when the immemorial rule that no man could be tried twice for the same crime was abrogated.

The English excel only in anti-social behaviour

Self-expression: Justin Carley, 12, threw dog excrement at a neighbour's van and raced his bike through a library Early promise: Justin Carley, 12, hurled dog excreta at a neighbour’s van and raced his bicycle through a public library

Hooliganism is to Britain what fraud is to Nigeria

Anti-social behaviour, writes Dalrymple,

is what the British are now principally known (and despised) for, everywhere they go.

A large proportion of British people

do not socialise when they get together; they anti-socialise. They cannot enjoy themselves without making a nuisance of themselves, without screaming, drinking to excess and creating an atmosphere of menace. Our football crowds are notorious for the vileness of their behaviour, British holidaymakers en masse make everyone else seem refined by comparison and, on Saturday night, Britain is Gin Lane with machetes and mobile phones.

The State’s proposals to deal with the problem are,

as one would expect, weak and feeble. So many of the voters, particularly the young, are anti-social that it would be electoral suicide to be too hard upon, or even about, them.

An ‘action line’ to advise local agencies on what to do about anti-social behaviour

represents a new nadir in moral cowardice, or alternatively a new apogee of pusillanimity. On the other hand, it will provide an employment opportunity for otherwise surplus bureaucrats, which is the principal purpose of the government.

It would be nice if people were socialised into behaving with reasonable consideration for others, but

our culture of self-control and restraint has been so thoroughly destroyed by the social changes since the 1950s that there is no hope of appealing to people’s better nature: they have none.

Self-expression

is regarded ideologically as an unqualified good in itself, no matter what is being expressed, and the state has made it a financially viable, or even an advantageous, way to behave.

For instance, a disinclination to eat on the street is regarded as

a weird inhibition, an utterly alien and quite unnecessary custom, bizarre and even offensive to human rights. If one is hungry, why not eat there and then, when one feels so inclined? I’m hungry, therefore I eat; I want, therefore I have; I’m inclined, therefore I do: this is the modern Cartesianism. Our streets are filthy — the worst in Europe, if not most of the world — because people eat on them.

An efflorescence of violence in France

Screen Shot 2014-03-17 at 09.13.07Violent thug? Let him plant daisies

When the State abdicates from the one undoubted task that could justify its existence, namely securing public order and keeping the peace, the result, writes Dalrymple,

is not freedom, but fear. This is the fear with which millions have to live continually.

The sentimentalists who advocate leniency towards murderers, rapists and violent thugs

confuse law with therapy, [believing] that firmness and cruelty are the same. This unwillingness or inability to make proper distinctions is a symptom of our time. It is a form of moral cowardice.

Afraid to discharge its most important duty, faced with acts of cruel violence the State in France, England and elsewhere in the West thinks not of retribution but of

psychoanalysis, perhaps mixed with a little compulsory social work or planting flowers in municipal flowerbeds.