Category Archives: xenophobia

Corbyn: cause for alarm

A damned fool — and dangerous

Dalrymple points out that the populist-Leftist leader of the opposition in Britain, Jeremy Corbyn, is

an admirer of the Hugo Chávez school of solution to poverty and social problems.

Corbyn’s thought,

if such it can be called, is stuck in a primitive, almost pre-Bastiat stage.

This lifelong Castro devotee thinks that

expropriation and redistribution according to his view of what is right is the route to justice and prosperity. One might have hoped that the world had had sufficient experience of such notions to extinguish them from the human mind forever, but foolishness springs eternal.

In order to appeal

to the sentimentality of the electorate and to the xenophobic resentment of rich foreigners who can afford to speculate in London property, Corbyn is prepared to destroy his country’s reputation for probity and predictability in its laws of private property, a reputation that can be destroyed in a week but not restored in a decade, and which is vital to its prospects.

Corbyn

is dazzled by his virtuous vision, his mirage or hallucination of social justice.

There is, says Dalrymple,

no totalitarian as dangerous as he who does not realise he is one.

In praise of Rhodesia

The anti-colonial struggle in Africa, writes Dalrymple,

was not about freedom but about power and loot.

The sense in which it represented a political advance

was that it accorded with people’s natural preference for being ruled by a local rather than a foreign dictator, even if the latter were the better ruler by far. Many of the progressive pieties of the 20th century thus had within them a strong core of xenophobia and racism.

Dalrymple avers that Robert Mugabe

is a fine example of his genre: the liberator-turned-despot.

Compared to that of Mugabe, the régime of Ian Smith was infinitely preferable, being

  • considerably less ruthless
  • more willing to place limits upon its exercise of power
  • administratively vastly more competent

Mugabe, Dalrymple notes,

inherited a flourishing country, despite years of international sanctions, one that even Nyerere (no friend of Smith) called a jewel. Whoever takes over from Mugabe will most certainly not inherit a flourishing country.

Rhodesian whites are characterised by the ignorant as

  • lazy
  • spoilt
  • frivolous
  • anti-intellectual
  • beer-swilling
  • rugby-playing
  • thoroughly exploitative

The destroyers

Yet it is difficult, says Dalrymple,

to see how such a people could have left a bejewelled legacy.

A plague of locusts

Mugabe’s force and fraud

have had the opposite consequence of that of the whites: the bread-basket has become the basket case.

The whites

constructed something worthwhile.

Mugabe and his cronies have been

entirely parasitic.

An elementary error of logic

screen-shot-2017-03-04-at-22-25-43The campaign to leave the EU may, says Dalrymple (from 12:35), have appealed

to xenophobes. But it is an elementary error of logic to argue that if xenophobes voted for leaving, then those who voted for leaving were xenophobes. The fact that so many supporters of Britain remaining made this error suggests that education and the ability to think are not identical.

He notes that the implied corollary

was that there was nothing to choose between continued support for, and submission to, a corrupt and self-serving political élite on the one hand, and beating up foreigners on the street on the other.

screen-shot-2017-03-04-at-22-32-08

The real meaning of the European Project

Screen Shot 2016-07-20 at 22.58.13The vote of the British people to leave the European Union has been characterised by some of the losers, such as the BBC or

the left-liberal mouthpiece of the pensée unique, the Guardian,

as

nothing but an eructation of primitive prejudice.

Dalrymple reports that a survey has found that nearly half of young people who voted to remain either wept, or felt close to weeping, afterwards. This survey suggests either their depth of feeling or, more likely, says Dalrymple, their

emotional incontinence.

Many young people selectively interviewed by the media said that they felt that their future had been stolen from them by those who voted for Brexit. Dalrymple comments:

The fact that the youth unemployment rate in Belgium and France is 25%, in Portugal 30%, in Italy 39%, in Spain 45% and in Greece 49% did not seem to worry them. They were not of the youth-unemployment class.

The correlation between relatively low levels of education and a vote to leave was remarked upon. Dalrymple points out that

  • educated people initiated and carried out the Terror in the French Revolution
  • the Russian Revolution, and the joy that it brought to the Russian people, was the dénouement of decades of propaganda and agitation by the educated élite
  • there was no shortage of educated people in the Nazi leadership
  • the leaders of the Khmers rouges were relatively highly educated (in France, as it happens)
  • the founder of Sendero Luminoso was a professor of philosophy who wrote his doctoral thesis on Kant

The campaign to leave the EU may have appealed

to xenophobes. But it is an elementary error of logic to argue that if xenophobes voted for leaving, then those who voted for leaving were xenophobes. The fact that so many supporters of Britain remaining made this error suggests that education and the ability to think are not identical.

The implied corollary

was that there was nothing to choose between continued support for, and submission to, a corrupt and self-serving political élite on the one hand, and beating up foreigners on the street on the other.

You may wonder what the need for such a union is at all,

other than as a free trade area, which it was when it was mendaciously sold to the British electorate as being in 1975.

Well, it is this, says Dalrymple:

The abuse and the complicity, the secretive rule by decree by career politico-bureaucrats without any real oversight, is not the consequence of the so-called European Project, it is the European Project.

Brexit blow to the bien-pensants

Only a racist would question their right to rule over us

Only a racist would question their right to rule over us

Their view, writes Dalrymple, is that one either believes

in the rule of Messrs Juncker and Van Rompuy et al., or one goes around beating up foreigners on the street.

Britain’s intellectual class,

so dismissive of the uneducated masses who voted for Brexit, seem not to have noticed the logical fallacy in the argument that if xenophobes voted for Brexit, then those who voted for Brexit were xenophobes.

Dalrymple wonders if the country’s educational system might be

even worse than I had supposed.

Sturgeon is no ray of sunshine

Screen Shot 2016-06-28 at 07.53.42Physiognomy, writes Dalrymple,

is an inexact science. Suffice it to say that Nicola Sturgeon does not have a kindly face.

Her concept of democracy, he notes, is

odd. To call it self-serving would be a very mild way of putting it. When the referendum, to which she had not objected, produced a result that she did not like, she said that it was ‘democratically unacceptable’. You can have a referendum so long as it produces the result that I want. In this she is at one with the bien pensant signatories of the petition to have another referendum, and another, until the population gets it right.

When in the last general election the Scots nationalists

obtained every single Scottish seat in Westminster bar one, leaving more than half of the Scottish voters completely unrepresented, not a peep about democratic unacceptability was heard from Sturgeon. One can well imagine what she might have said, in her sour and grating way, if the nationalists had polled 40 per cent of the votes and not obtained a single seat.

Like fascists,

she knows all about plebiscitary democracy: she has an instinct for it. When the Scots vote again for independence, you may be sure that the million Scots living in England will not be allowed to vote.

And the Scottish nationalists who want to leave the UK but remain in the EU

accuse people who want to leave of xenophobia!

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.

How opponents of Europe’s corrupt political caste are branded fascist

Screen Shot 2014-05-31 at 22.45.05The European populist earthquake

It is nothing of the kind, writes Dalrymple. Neither the Front national nor Ukip

will achieve more than a slight, mildly unpleasant change in the rhetoric (not the policy) of the others. Europe will continue on its corporatist path, on its decline relative to other regions, while its political caste brands any who oppose it as xenophobes and fascists.

How Ukip appeals to those who seek a scapegoat for our discontents

The scapegoat is: foreigners.

When they are not coming to take our jobs, they are coming to take our unemployment benefits, ruining the country with their foreign ways in the process.

Dalrymple writes that Nigel Farage, the party’s leader,

is too intelligent not to see the reasons for the paradox of state-subsidised mass unemployment of the indigenous population concurrent with mass immigration of people to do unskilled labour: both lack of economic incentives for the local unemployed to work, and the superiority of the foreigners for the jobs anyway.

Though Britain spends nine times as much per head in real terms on education as it spent in 1950,

at least a fifth of our population is so badly educated that it cannot answer the telephone properly — a disadvantage in an increasingly service economy. But the degeneration of the electorate is not a vote-winner: better to concentrate, or appear to concentrate, on the wicked foreigner.

Xenophobes and multiculturalists

Screen Shot 2014-05-26 at 12.51.26The pessimistic, xenophobic, and implicitly socialist attitude to immigration

The successful cultural negotiation many immigrants accomplish, Dalrymple writes,

pleases neither the racist xenophobe nor the multiculturalist liberal, who are united in the belief that assimilation is wrong in principle and impossible in practice. The former wants there to be no foreign presence at all; the latter wants to preserve the foreignness of foreigners, thus provoking the very xenophobia he claims to decry and despise.

The racist xenophobe regards the wish to migrate

as more of a threat than a compliment. Because they conceive of a national economy as a cake of predetermined size, they believe the immigrants’ slice must take the crumbs from their mouths. In times of unemployment, immigrants are said to take our jobs by undercutting wages; in times of full employment, they are said to take advantage of our generous social security system and drive up our taxes. They either work too hard, or not hard enough. They can never arrive at the right moment in the economic cycle.

For his part, the multiculturalist liberal, while he approves of, indeed enthusiastically advocates, mass immigration,

believes that all cultures are equal, except for his own, which is uniquely wicked and imperialist. Assimilation, in his view, would be yet another despicable instance of cultural imperialism — but, of course, it would also throw doubt upon his own world outlook, which he has adopted precisely to establish his own superior broad-mindedness and tolerance….Keeping foreigners in cultural ghettoes is a necessity for him, if he is to preserve his self-regard.

(2001)