Bartlett's Bizarre Bazaar

Comment, Comics and the Contrary. Contact: aj_bartlett1977*at*yahoo*dot*co*dot*uk
Enter your email address below to subscribe to Bartlett's Bizarre Bazaar!

powered by Bloglet

Thursday, March 16, 2006


Neo-Conservatism? Neo-Nazism would be far more apt

Douglas Murray author of 'Neo-Conseravtism: Why we need it" and a stablemate of the contemptible Oliver Kamm at the Social Affairs Unit (SAU), presented a lecture titled “What Are We To Do About Islam?” That this was a speech to the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference On Europe And Islam ought provide us with a hint to the bigotry that we will find in the text of the lecture.

Here are the highlights:

He invokes the Second World War to rally white people, sorry, Europeans, to his standard, which I expect is red and black and has some dramatically simple wheel-like symbol at the centre. Oh, you think that is hyperbole? Please, read on: He bangs on about ‘dhimmitude’ a hell of a lot. If you di“In their efforts to avoid war, Europeans are once again choosing dishonour. They refuse to cut back their welfare budgets or significantly increase their defence spending, and they still refuse to enforce the measures required to cease or reverse the disastrous effects of mass immigration… Yet in their effort to avoid confrontation now, Europeans are making a worse confrontation down the line more likely: in their effort to pretend-away the risk, the risk is swelling. The word for dishonour this time is Dhimmitude.” He bangs on about ‘dhimmitude’ a hell of a lot. If you didn’t know, this term, in the hands of writers like Murray, means any kind of accommodation with or sensitivity to Muslims and Islam.

“On the battlefield this enemy is defeated every time… It does not mean that they cannot win the battle of ideas… If you doubt this, then just think back on the so-called "defeats" which we are meant to have suffered since 9/11. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, 100,000 civilians alleged to be dead by a fanciful survey courtesy of The Lancet magazine. What did our enemy do to win these victories? Absolutely nothing. It all came from within.” The ‘within’ that furnish these ‘defeats’ are not the brute military machine or even the ‘rotten apples’, but those who complain at these egregious offences against what we hope are ‘Civilised values’. As he writes; “it’s guaranteed that modern Europeans will finish the job much better than any two-bit thug or terrorist could have done.”

In order to persuade us that European decency and tolerance – and, indeed, socialism – is cowardice he offers up a laughable analysis of the Spanish election in 2004. He suggests that spinelessness on the part of the Spanish people led to elect “a sympathetic socialist who has spent his time in office so far offering up concessions to Islam” rather than an ideological descendent of Franco. This analysis can only be maintained by a studied ignorance. It is a fact that Aznar led his nation to war against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the population. It is a fact that Aznar’s ministers insisted that the Madrid bombs were the work of ETA. They did not merely suggest, they insisted that ETA were responsible and that this truth could not be questioned. Unless these ministers are so stupid that they insist on improbable truths in the knowledge that they are ignorant of any evidence to support these truths, then Aznar’s government compounded acting against the wishes of the people with lying to the people. Murray is wrong, and he knows it. But he is keen to grasp at any opportunity to paint decent people, tolerant people as cowards.

But, what to do with Islam, eh? “Militarily, this is relatively easy to deal with, and in foreign lands there is a solution to the problem.” But “our societies in Western Europe are too weak-willed, tired and degenerate to act decisively.” It is a shame that our ‘weakness’ does not stretch to significant moral qualms at the mass killing of brown foreigners. But ‘degeneracy’ at home? I think that I have heard that call before, a call which Murray, and we, will return to.

He continues along the lines of his historical antecedents when he quotes the biological metaphor of Mark Steyn; “Radical Islam is an opportunist infection, like AIDS: it's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off.” Of course, ‘radical Islam’ may be this, it may be that. But Murray’s thesis does not deal with 'radical' Islam. It is a thesis that attacks Muslims.

“[I]n the current war the enemy is, as a demographic and political fact, massed not just on foreign shores, but within the gates of our cities. The collision of forceful Islam with European spinelessness and dhimmitude is fatal for our free societies.” ‘Gates of our cities’ in this context is a reference to the ‘Gates of Vienna’, where brave Christians repelled the Musselman horde. This a mythic rallying point for the militant Muslim-haters. And we have seen this careful building of a historical narrative in the service of ousting degeneracy and the building of a strong ‘culture’ before.

“The first thing to do is to address the problem at home unsparingly. It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop… [and] Those who are currently in Europe having fled tyrannies should be persuaded back to the countries which they fled”. Why not send them all to Madagascar, Murray? Just in case they do not know their place in society; “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board”. And what measures does that include, and where do they stop?

Advocating a new round of wars on variously Islamic and secular Muslim states he writes; “We must remind the malignant that this war and this era will be dictated on our terms - on the terms of the strong and the right, not the weak and the wrong.” I mean, come on, is this a fucking satire, or is he just plagiarising fascism here?

Well, perhaps he is. For, as well as the Semitic enemy population within that needs solving through a battle of demographics, and a round of threatening, but weak enemies abroad to act as foci of proud, brave aggression, the real battle is with the ‘degeneracy’ within the Volk, sorry, body politic.

“[T]the reason why the war at home is not working as well as it should is because of the underlying disease of the West. We could decide with our immune system low that we should simply cut off all contacts with the outside world, try desperately to ensure that no malicious viruses – however small – get through to us. We can go some of the way to doing that, but there is a much better option. That option is to strengthen our societal immune system, to re-energise and build-up ourselves as a society”.

“And we must become absolutist – absolutist in defence of our societies, our traditions, our heritage, culture, freedoms and democracies. There is only one way to destroy relativism, and there is only one way to conquer the rise of Islamic militancy and that is to be uncompromising and absolutist. If people want certainty then let us give it to them here. Ignorant people will still say, "Ah, but I'm not sure what European culture is". Well that's their fault, not the fault of European culture.”

Well, I know what ‘European culture’ is. Or I know what ‘European culture’ is when the excreta spills from Murray’s gob. And it had its heyday between 1933 and 1945.

Fucking hell Andrew. Good post, all the more depressing for the fact that this kind of shit is being pumped out by so many in so many places.
Well said Andrew! Well said...

As an aside, my firebox renders the quotes in a sans-serif font which is so close to the serif font the other text is in that the whole thing looks like a mess...
What is a 'firebox'. I'll change the font, tomorrow perhaps. Assuming that I am sober.
"Assuming that I am sober." Well, you said it, I only wondered after reading all that.

Anyway, you will be pleased to know that I only have one question for you: As you appear to be against immigration controls and would be perfectly content to open our borders to the world, and given the demographics in which the ethnic English birth-rate is dropping below even replacement levels, what sort of society do you envisage in, say, the next 50 years?

By the way, have you missed me?
Oh! I know this. Is it "a society that is free of racist old cunts like you"?
Firebox! It's a great web browser. Ahem. Actually, the text is looking better this morning, so don't worry.

David: I'll play. Where does Andrew says he's all for uncontrolled immigration? I think he says he's against mass deportation, or worse, of the current immigrant population. Anyway, hows about we try to make life better for people in their own country (like not bombing the crap out of it, and then declaring it "safe" so we can deport people there again) so they don't want to come to the UK.

Oh, and once this happens, who do you think will clean the hotels and office buildings and generally underpin our economy?
For the benefit of readers who may not know, the writer above who produced that 'witty, literary master-piece' of political comment, is a lecturer in Higher Education - please don't laugh! In fact don't even smile, he could be 'teaching' your children! Currently, he is doing his best to destroy the educational chances of his students by going on strike in an agitation for more pay. Sorry, I can't continue, I feel rather ill ...
Sorry, as I was commenting, 'doormat' jumped in. I was referring, of course, to 'littlemissprincess_86'
David, kindly fuck off.

I haven't been on strike: I don't belong to a union.

Your post didn't include one single argument: it was just an attack on me.
David, well, at least you weren't just making things up about people then. But, still, any chance you could actually engage in some debate, instead of petty name calling. No, I guess not...
The myth of the stab again. You might think these people would at least have the nous to realise the origin of the critiques that they run, over and over again, apparently totally impervious to any evidence. But then, I suppose, the second half of that sentence explains exactly why they don't.
"What sort of society do you envisage in, say, the next 50 years?"

There will be more Catholics and Jews, because they tend to have larger families.

Therefore, we must make life harder for them. Let's make a start now by smashing their shop windows.
I think Doormat means "Firefox" rather than "Firebox" (which is an online gadget shop).

And I think David has taken one bit out of the whole lot, read it in his particular way, and apparently ignored the rest. So go on then David, what about the rest?
Great post Andrew.

I consider myself right-wing, I'm anti-uncontrolled immigration, anti-radical Islam, anti-socialism etc. etc. but that doesn't make me for racist knuckle-dragging ignorant morons who are filled with so much hate that it has unbalanced their minds. What is most interesting about the rhetoric from the right-wing and the radical imams, something they both have in common, is that they seek to close the gap between the moderate and the extreme - they both do this either with violence or threats. Its soooo 1933, yawn.
I haven't time to respond to Katherine's challenge - but I will!

Just for now I wanted to pick up on 'Wolfie's comment: "Its soooo 1933, yawn." Perhaps, just perhaps, he is right. In which case, I would remind him, and anyone else, to remember that in the 7 years that followed, the 'great British public' slumbered along through most of them, ignoring (or even shouting down) all the warnings from, er, Right-wingers like Churchill, and then found themselves with one of the most ferocious enemies in our history a mere 20 miles away across the channel and not a single friend in sight!

One need not, it seems to me, follow the alarum calls in panic but an intelligant man or woman would at least consider the message with care!

(I often wonder what happened to all those Cambridge Union students who voted *not* to fight for King and country in the early '30s. Anyone know?)
David Duff
March 13, 2006 -

"I admire and usually agree with most of Oliver Kamm's writings.."

Thanks for the warning Mr Duff. We now know you are an imbecile, and not to be taken seriously.
don't read anything except what andrew bartlett tells you to read. andrew bartlett will explain other people's words and ideas for you so you don't have to think for yourself. you won't have to peruse through paragraph upon paragraph of text or decipher long block quotations and you'll never have to open up one of those big unwieldly tomes to look up the definition of a word you don't understand.

andrew bartlett makes it simple for you. he won't provide you with unnecessary links to the arguments he takes issue with, nor will he waste your time by equivocating between certainty and uncertainty which you certainly don't need. what you need is writing that will provide certainty. andrew bartlett does that and more.

he tells you whom to hate and dislike, which thoughts and ideas are bogus and what to believe others have said without you ever having to exert yourself. and all that the magnaminous andrew bartlett wants in return for this important service is praise and popularity. not a bad deal.

so suck on andrew bartlett. a man who stands up to people he has labelled racist neo-nazis and allows you to stand up to them as well. andrew bartlett: an authority you can trust/ an authority of our time.
Andrew Bartlett provides you with a link to the lecture that he is commenting on. Andrew Bartlett provides you with his opinions and interpretations on those writings. Feel free to disagree.

If we did not comment on writings, lectures or public pronouncements there would be no such thing as debate. And no such thing as democracy.

So what is your problem? have you trawled over here from the Harry's Place thread in which the mass deportation of Muslims was advocated? Where Britain was approvingly described as a 'white nation', where people of other ethnicities are, necessarily, less British. If so, why does being likened to a Nazi cause you to blanche?
Nice post.
I think Europe must find a juste milieu... a middlepoint between extreme fascism like what you described (which will lead to more confrontation and possibly ww3) and extreme leniency in assimilating immigrant populations... you always have to be careful, because difference can spark confrontation, we have the experience of it here in lebanon, where difference within the country (and a weak gouvernement) sparks unrest every 20 years or so. Europe needs to be sure that this will not happen in the future... radical islam, and the demographic bomb (yes, the demographic bomb) are real problems, but waging a holy war against them is not the way to go.
I posted the last comment... I just logged in so that you can have my identity now.
Post a Comment

<< Home


August 2004   September 2004   October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   February 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   March 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

«#?» Listed on Blogwise