IN EUROPE NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU SCREAM

Self-censorship is insidious, especially the kind of self-censorship that creeps into your consciousness unknowingly, unasked and unwelcome, like a disease that surreptitiously eats into your body and begins slowly to attack you from the inside. At first you probably ignore the early warning signs; the odd ache, tiredness, the occasional twinge or a general feeling of malaise, but then later there’s something more serious, bleeding perhaps or an excruciating pain, something that really shouldn’t be ignored but often is. Finally the disease can’t be resisted, its presence is in your face, in your gut and it’s going to hurt you and worse fighting it is going to be scary. It’s going to take all the courage you can muster, and more. Courage that you passed up on months earlier when it was easier just to be scared, when you could perhaps have dealt with it but still hoped it would go away, and now even worse the disease is so bad that you may lose the fight and the disease will destroy you. Yet often, knowing all that, knowing that you have just maybe one last shot at defeating it; when you can feel that lump, or see the blood in the toilet or just know that you really are unwell, you still sit there, scared, alone, waiting for the disease to slowly eat you away from the inside, in effect, to kill you... 

Well that’s what politically-correct self-censorship is slowly doing to the psyche of the European, it’s infecting our collective body-politick and slowly destroying it, bit by bit, until the host body is overcome. Of course that probably all sounds very melodramatic and body-snatchers-like and what after all is self-censorship? Isn’t it just correcting or altering what one says, does or writes before making ones thoughts public. Don’t we do that say with swearing? Most of us wouldn’t swear in front of children or in a church and so curb and moderate our language for the sake of decorum. Likewise we often think thoughts that are best left unspoken. Telling the world that you fancy your partner's best friend or that you secretly lust after your wife or husband’s brother, sister or other close relation is probably a thought best left unspoken. 

But there is another kind of self-censorship entering our thoughts now and that’s not a censorship born of manners, social settings or decorum but rather a censorship imposed on us by the state. A censorship, in fact, of values and beliefs conceived by a liberal, politically correct intelligentsia and driven by its supporters in the media, local government and vested interest groups relentlessly from the nineteen eighties onwards and which is making free thought, speech and expression increasingly restricted and at times dangerous. Why? 

Why? Because of the ruling elites obsessive pursuit of a, to use the approved vernacular, racially diverse, non racist, multicultural, sexually inclusive, gender equal, disability friendly, multi-religious inter-faith, non-discriminatory, culturally aware society, free of derogatory labeling and individual stereotyping. In actuality they are overseeing the destruction of Europe, its peoples, its culture and its Will, replacing it with a cowed collection of weak, bureaucratic semi-nation states bound to an unelected, unanswerable and all powerful European Union whose post WWII, post colonial, secular, guilt-driven policies have sold out their indigenous populations and sacrificed their freedoms and their cultural, religious, racial and national heritage on the alter of politically correct dogma and left Europe ill and vulnerable to assimilation by unchecked immigration with it adherent cultures, religious-political faiths like Islam and its associated adherents. The European Union is in actuality, slowly killing Europe, its nations and its peoples and at the same time gagging the sick lest they cry out and try to fight back against the disease that has infected them and their countries. 

The West, and Europe in particular, is losing its Will to live. It has embarked on a ludicrous social experiment, unasked for by its indigenous peoples, whereby on the back of the wider cultural liberalism that has so corrupted our societies, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have been allowed and encouraged to take up residency in their towns and cities with no thought as to their impact on the host nations. The figures are truly staggering: in Sweden of 9 million people currently 1.5 million are either immigrants or children of immigrants; in Holland out of a population of 16 million, 3 million are immigrants, though this figure is probably higher as it excludes Dutch born immigrants and their children. In the UK, even if immigration stopped today, there will be 7 million ‘newcomers’ by 2050 and 16 million if immigration continues at current rates. By the middle of this century between 20 and 30 per cent of European countries populations will be of foreign origin. 

On top of that, our indigenous populations are declining. We are quite simply breeding ourselves to extinction. The average sized family needed in order for a population to sustain itself is for a woman to have 2.1 children in a lifetime, below 1.7 children in fact populations tend to collapse rather than decline. Indigenous women in Italy, Spain, East Germany, and the Baltic nations are averaging 1.3 children and face the prospect of halving their populations by 2050. 

Coupled with our inability to procreate, it seems, is our inability to die. Europeans are living longer, working less and, whatever leisure time we have we’re certainly not spending it with Hella, Isabella or Chantal, rather we’re probably working out how to avoid offending Aalimah, Madeeha or Shumaila. Our multicultural, diverse and apparently impotent countries are being filled with immigrants, invited and uninvited and who, unlike us, are, it seems, only to ready to breed and procreate.

Our rulers currently see this as marvelous, as they can quell the indigenous population's fears of unchecked immigration and a clash of civilizations by the oft quoted nonsense that immigration creates diversity, that with new people come new ideas, energy and so on and of course these people will work, pay taxes and make our old age comfortable. This is hokum of course as immigration on this scale, and where assimilation is unachievable, is colonization pure and simple. 

It is colonization by birth, by religion and by numbers and we, by which I mean Europeans, lie back and take it. We say nothing, we do nothing and we accept everything. Our leaders, intellectuals, opinion formers and our media, in return, reinforce this European wide acquiescence by politically correct self-censorship which is increasingly dictated by laws and implemented by a politically driven police force. Criticism of this new European ideal is a crime. Race relations acts have begat disability acts, have begat lesbian and gay transgender nonsense, have begat discriminatory hysteria that sees people arrested every day for daring to say aloud what, privately, we all think and know is wrong.

The European is not only physically impotent but the state is rendering him mentally impotent as well. Now he is afraid to voice his disquiet at immigration or forced changes in laws relating to race, religion, disability, or sexual orientation for fear of ridicule or, increasingly, of arrest. Now, as the assimilation of Europe gathers pace, so does the zeal with which our leaders, and the faceless little men that back them up through the power of Europe’s legislative process, block dissent. The European is, in fact, damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t and soon the disease will win.

What began two to three decades ago as a social experiment by nation states and idealistic left wing dreamers and intellectuals who, appalled at the horrors of WWII and riddled with guilt at their nations role in colonialism, sought to create a better, more harmonious world is, ironically, sowing the seeds of a new European catastrophe. 

Never without conflict has a population and collective of nations the size of Europe allowed its people and land to be colonized by a people, religion and ideology of ideas so at odds with its own. Soon, in an effort to appease the growing Islamists in their midst, small token aspects of Sharia law will begin to be incorporated into European state laws and constitutions. More fundamental changes will follow, slowly and inextricably infecting and altering the host nations.

At some point, despite the gagging laws, despite the impotency, shame and our seeming inability to breed, despite the political correctness and utopian dreams of our leaders, I believe that the people of Europe are going to scream aloud and finally begin to fight the disease that is infecting their nations. When they do, the whole world will hear it. 


Mad, Bad and Culled: Come Back Eugenics, All is Forgiven

Apparently the UK now has some 84,150 people locked up in its prisons, give or take the odd dying train-robber and Libyan terrorist, with more being added every day. This, given the fact that you have to be on your twentieth offense or whatever before one of our courts would even consider locking you up, means that there are probably one to two million criminally minded types or their dependents hanging around, feeding off welfare, stealing what they can, breeding or generally behaving like some parasitic munchkin any one time.

This vast criminally-minded sway of the population is the Underclass, the great cradle to grave, totally welfare dependent, semi-literate, thieving subhuman dross that has sunk its rotten teeth into the soft belly of Brown’s Britain and is, in conjunction with the Government, bleeding it dry.

For years successive UK governments have cosseted the weak, the needy and the medically unfit along with the undeserving, the could work but won’t, those that can take whatever the State has to offer and more, and turn welfare dependency into an art form. They are encouraged to do so at every turn by a system that rewards sloth and indolence as much as it penalizes success. 21st Century Britain is rotting from the inside and yet our leaders go on prescribing more of the same, like some quack doctor that goes on pumping mercury into a patient even when it is obvious that his medicine is killing him.

Our ‘we’re all victims now’ culture, coupled with the States self-flagellating obsession with human rights and being seen to be politically correct, has now become so insidious and all pervasive that many of us utter and enact PC pieties with the same gusto that a religious zealot once used in trying to do, and being seen to do, God’s work. Both kinds of zealotry are insufferable and both carry the same degree of saintly sanctimoniousness but whereas, at least for most of the last hundred years, Christianity operated separately from the state and strived to instill a basic set of moral values in the population, the modern politically driven PC mandarin is driven not by morality but by the spurious concept that all humans have rights and that, contrary to modern notions of evolution, that we are also all equal.

We are also all vulnerable and must therefore also be protected from all possible harm which has led to the formation and writing of new legislation under the ‘catch-all’ header of ‘Health and Safety’, the politically correct world’s Sermon on the Mount, the Holy Grail of the blame someone else, Help me I’m a victim give me compensation, Ism-ist culture that is destroying Western life faster than the plague wiped out our ancestors.

Now a criminal has rights, his skin colour cannot be mentioned as that is racist, his photograph cannot be displayed as that breaches his human rights, his religion has to be respected along with his sexuality, food intake, living space, hair style, and so on infinitum. The Victim has less rights. In the UK, defending your home against burglars can make you more of a criminal that the burglar. Hurting or hitting a criminal is a minefield of politically driven nonsense that rarely favours the victim and all the while the crime rate climbs, though now of course criminals can add the ‘credit crunch’ to their lexicon of woes, grievances and excuses for their criminality. This is the ‘you made me a criminal so my crime is your fault’ concept. We are in fact the cause of crime, not the criminals.

I though would like to see a state that removed all rights from criminals other that the right to exist and only then if they had committed a crime that didn’t warrant the death penalty. Murderers and other criminal dross should be killed. To my mind, the day that a criminal commits a crime is the day that their ‘human rights’ cease. California’s “three strikes and you’re out’ legislation whereby any criminal convicted of more than three offenses was put away for life seemed pretty fair. If you haven’t learned that crime is pretty stupid after getting caught and convicted twice then maybe jail is the best place for you to be after all.

In the US and Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, there was a far more dramatic, draconian and, many would say, unacceptable policy with regards not just to criminals, but to their offspring, families, the disabled, the infirm, and those on the margins of society, this policy's name was Eugenics and in the US a policy of sterilizing criminals to stop them breeding and creating more criminals caused consternation and fear in prisons throughout the country. Eventually the war and concerns at the Germans' capacity for death (even in the early 1930s the Nazis were killing tens of thousands of the so-called feeble-minded and sterilizing thousands more under the guise of eugenics) ensured that US lawyers would be able to protect prisoners' rights to their bodies.

Consigned to the lunatic fridges of the science world after WWII’s eugenics nightmare showed that the Nazis' enthusiasm for bumping off anyone with so much as a cleft palette had led to the killing of some six million Jews, homosexuals, communists, Slavs and a large number of Gypsies, meant that the idea of the State killing off its perceived undesirables was going to have to take a back seat for a while. But, ideas like Eugenics, which is basically the study or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive traits), have a habit of coming back. As they say in the bible (Genesis 40-41) ‘you can’t keep a good man down’ (though actually you can if you shoot him).

Modern science, with its ability to ‘enhance’ babies in the womb, clone, alter cells, preventing certain hereditary diseases from occurring, understanding DNA and so on, show that we are getting extremely close to creating a ‘perfect’ human or at least science's idea of a perfect human. Indeed, James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, who is also an outspoken proponent of using genetic engineering to "redesign" future children and "improve" the human species. said that: "If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease.... So I'd like to get rid of that.... Those parents who enhance their children, then their children are going to be the ones who dominate the world.... People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

Yet, while the world talks of the perfect human, our society appears obsessed with encouraging the rise of the imperfect human. We dumb down, we despise elites, we mock intelligence and celebrate stupidity, we ignore differences of race and ability for fear of nebulous ‘rights’ and we nurture a parasitic criminal underclass allowing it to breed and fester while undermining and damning the rest of society. The underclass is like a great sway of vermin that lives, like rats, only a few feet from us at any one time. The underclass does no work, contributes nothing, is uneducated, steals, is violent, takes up property and landspace, and constantly whines for more. It is ungrateful, vile, and dangerous, yet we pay it millions upon millions of pounds every year. We provide the feckless young underclass girls, pregnant almost as soon as they can be, with homes and money, rewarding their careless promiscuity, young underclass males can procreate at will as the state will pay for their offspring. All responsibility for their actions is absolved and paid for by the State. This is anti-eugenics, the rise of stupidman.

The 21st Century Brave New World is not populated by the beautiful and the ultra intelligent rather we are evolving the super-stupid. The new stupidtelligentsia is probably the first species on earth that is regressing and disproving Darwin’s theory of evolution at the same time. Each generation born in the underclass has less brain power, is more brutal, less able to speak and more criminally minded that the last and each generation is more likely to destroy the hand that feeds it, us.

Eugenics may have had a bad start and a bad history but it offers a solution for the future, a solution that we will inevitably begin to be used as it becomes available. For, as sure as part of our population rejoices in its own squallor and simian qualities, so another will be striving for higher goals, to produce the perfect human and drive the human race forwards. It will be interesting to see how the champions of the underclass and of political correctness and Health and Safety deal with the rise of the über babe... Born of human to be better than what went before, or born of subhuman to be less than... No doubt the only winners, as in all things, will be the lawyers, a species that neither evolves or regresses but, like God, just is.

THE AGE OF THE ELOI

The soft, fluffy, cotton wool mindset that seems to have reduced most of the world's left/right political animals to a sort of sludge-brained Eloi have somehow convinced themselves and, seemingly, most of the population, that the secret of a happy life is now to log-on, dumb-down, spend-large, think-small (if at all) and care lots. Empathy is the new apathy. I feel, you feel, we all feel but ideally I feel more than you. Now, if a butterfly sheds a tear in Japan, there’s hysterical grief in New York.

From President Obama’s recent beer swilling love-in with a policeman and a crabby black professor whose brilliant IQ he demonstrated by breaking into his own house (the professor then cleverly got himself arrested by getting all mouthy with the policeman who had come to check out a reported burglary), to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s lamentable attempt at bonhomie on breakfast TV, our leaders strive to be our mates.

A few weeks ago, when Gordon Brown tried to get all pally with the nation over concerns that hirsute singer Susan Boyle was going loopy and spent his airtime discussing Boyle, while at that very moment Moslem psychos were dicing their British hostages (reader’s may recall that Boyle’s sudden fame and wealth coupled with her inability to shave her face had made her go insane). No doubt the link between sudden fame and madness might go some way to explaining Brown’s own transition from smug and inept, but little known Chancellor of the Exchequer, to smug, power-crazed, I-can-walk-on-water-and-heal-the-world loony, Prime Minister. Our leaders are now desperate to connect with the people and more importantly to be seen connecting with the people. To show us that they ‘feel’ and ‘share’ our concerns: that our issues, no matter how trivial, are now their issues. That these tears of concerns are crocodile tears and not butterfly tears is now irrelevant, if they feel then we feel and vice versa.

Obama maybe in charge of the most powerful nation on earth, but years of touchy-feely rhetoric from the liberal left/right intelligentsia, coupled with his predecessors' failings and perceived gungho US-style Jingoism, have created the USA’s first Presidential enoch. Obama may be black, but his balls are distinctly pink and, judging from the amount of make-up he’s wearing, possibly shrinking as well. So when Iran’s religious thugs stamped all over their people’s valiant attempt at protest it was no surprise that the US uttered barely a word in protest. It should also be no surprise that Iran is now storming ahead developing their nuclear bomb or that North Korea can can lob nuclear test missiles around with impunity . After all, what’s Obama’s new all inclusive US of A going to do to stop them? Have a group hug probably or, maybe, if Obama gets really angry, he’ll stamp his feet and buy a new dress - cos he’s worth it and anyway that’ll show ‘em.

Our leaders though are only reflecting the deeper ‘nicey’ malaise that is sweeping the West. Now that political correctness, health and safety mania, sexual, religious and racial offend-thee-not legislation and a total obsession with making sure that no one is hurt or emotionally upset by life we are collectively dumbing down and regressing so fast that soon we’ll all be on a par with the Taliban. Lest we forget the Taliban are a species that, in 2000 years, has barely evolved beyond the stone-age; not, for them two brain cells when one will do.

It is telling too that the UK’s Foreign Secretary, David Miliband and the Obama administration now want to arrange for talks and hugging with the Taliban. No doubt in this touchy-feely world we can overlook the fact that the Taliban blows up and murders school children in an effort to stop young girls being educated, that men can be killed for shaving and that being caught with satanic objects like a radio will get you thrown into a Taliban slammer. The liberal left/right coalition also conveniently ignores and turns a blind eye to the fact that the Taliban’s treatment of women is on a par with our treatment of battery hens only worse, given that we thankfully don’t stone chickens to death or burn them alive. Oh and lest we forget to the Taliban homosexuality is an abomination, so no same-sex beard love-ins in Afghanistan unless Susan Boyle decides to drop in for a sing-along and a bit of back door action.

We now have a world at the pinnacle of our achievement so far and we can either progress or, in a fit of mass hysteria, embrace a utopia that never was, can be, nor will ever be despite Obama’s pink testicles and Gordon Brown’s Saviour complex. What we have instead is a slowly evolving do nothing, want everything, emotional feel for everyone, upset no one, we are all equal, no gain cos we don’t want the pain, con trick. We are rapidly morphing from a can be, can do people, into a should we, can we, what if population of dullards not fit for anything except emotional turpitude and emphasizing with celebrities.

In the 1960s film version of H G Wells novel the Time Machine, the hero, played by actor Rod Taylor, stumbles across a seemingly idilic scene where young, good looking people sit around a river bank eating and drinking, seemingly without a care in the world. Suddenly a young woman falls into the river and starts drowning. She screams but the people ignore her cries and carry on eating and drinking, oblivious to her plight. These are the Eloi, a people who want everything but do nothing.

Then today a news story broke of a man who drowned in 18 inches of water after his car plunged down a steep bank into a stream. The rescue services and police arrived quickly along with a ‘health and safety’ officer who deemed the bank and water too dangerous for the men present to attempt to rescue the man and consequently a unit with 'water experience' were summoned from 50 mies away. While they waited for the second unit to arrive the men present sat around drinking tea while the man cried for help and died.

In the Time Machine the hero, in despair at what mankind had become, cried out to the Eloi:

"What have you done? Thousands of years of building and rebuilding, creating and recreating so that you can let it crumble to dust. A million years of sensitive men dying for their dreams, for what?!!! So you can swim, and dance, and play”.

Had the film been made now Rod Taylor would of course have hugged them...

SPASTICS ELASTIC

The reissuing of the book Art of the Nasty which Salvation originally published in 1998, which has now been revised and updated and published anew by FAB Press, has, along with the passing uncut of Lars von Triers' new film The Antichrist and the reclassifying of an episode of Friends from PG to a 12 for the use of the expression ‘laundry spaz’, meant that film censorship is again in the news. Has the BBFC gone too far? Is the BBFC too soft on sex and violence? Is the reclassifying of Friends politically correct lunacy?

Who knows and who cares?

What matters ultimately is the quality of the work on screen and our response to it. Adults will respond to something that they don’t like or which offends their tastes by switching off, not buying something or through disinterest. They do not need a censor telling them that this year's PC bugbears are offensive ‘words’, but showing a close-up of a woman hacking off her clitoris or a man ejaculating blood, as is the case in The Antichrist, is now OK.

Jennifer Aniston’s Friends character, Rachel, used the expression ‘laundry spaz’ to describe her ineptness in using a washing machine. According to the BBFC’s head of policy, Peter Johnson, ‘spaz’ is “short for spastic or ‘mong’ (originally a reference to people with Down’s syndrome), which is quite common in American works and we (the BBFC) have found that UK audiences are quite offended... research told us that for the public this is now as important as drugs or horror or sex”. Boo hoo.

What Mr Johnson and co at the BBFC mean is that they now seek offense, that they see racial and disability discrimination, sexism, agism, homophobia and religious hatred seeping out of the cinema screen relentlessly. Now censorship is morphing, moving away from the old taboos of the sexually explicit and the gratuitously violent and into a new, quasi Orwellian world of thought control and new speak where disapproved words and ideas outside of the new norms are excised and erased forever.

This move is the censors Shangrila where they can be part of the brave new world where hatred and wickedness are excised not just from film but ultimately from our minds. Spaz may have been one small word for Rachel but it was a whole dictionary for the BBFC. Already, filmmakers and scriptwriters are pouring over their Thesauruses in search of nicer, more cryptic ways, of calling a dwarf a ‘dwarf’ or of insulting a black or gay man without using the ‘n’ or ‘f’ words. If they can’t find the appropriate ‘nicer’ euphemism then rest assured that the BBFC will have a whole selection of tasty morsels in their new ‘it's a wonderful world’ lexicon of life. When opened, it plays ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’, unless you’re a spaz of course in which case you can just dribble along to the chorus. Offensive? Well yes. Should I or anyone else be stopped from saying things like this? No.

The episode of Friends that caused all the fuss was an early episode that consequently fell foul of the BBFC’s new offend-thee-not word holocaust, which is currently culling non pc words from our vocabulary faster that you say spastics elastic to someone with a speech impediment. Such is the odious advancement of the notion that we are all equal and of equal worth (except white, working class males and Christians who are of course scum), and being of equal worth should not be offended or discriminated against in any way least we get upset or emotionally damaged. Hence highlighting the noxious and improper use of the word ‘spaz’ in Friends which might not only ‘offend’ us but legitimate spazes as well, that is someone born with spastic diplegia, or hypertonia, which is better known as cerebral palsy, or just plain ‘spastic’ but which has now be reclassified by the generic term ‘disabled’. Likewise the ‘Spastics Society’ was rechristened ‘Scope’ in 1994 which of course means nothing and offends no one and therefore conforms to the new pc mantras of inclusivity, touchyfeely, niceness where no one gets hurt. No matter that you have an incurable neurological disorder that will probably kill you by age thirty, just so long as no one refers to you as a spaz it’ll all be alright and life is so much better for the rest of us now that your offensive sounding ‘spastic’ disability has morphed into ‘scope’, which of course rhymes with ‘hope’, which is wonderful and sounds so much nicer.

Likewise, the BBFC will no doubt be removing words like nigger, poof, faggot, cripple, spic, yid and so on from films where their use is deemed inappropriate or likely to cause offense. Yet, why is it so offensive? ‘Sticks and stones may break our bones but words will never hurt us’ children use to chant in response to being called a fat pig, or indeed a spaz. Yet in our new utopian society where you can get three months community service for mugging someone yet years for offending another race or religion, words not only hurt they are deemed so dangerous that they cannot be heard or spoken. Silence in Brown’s Britain is indeed golden.

What is it that modern society now fears so much that we have to censor words, and has in a sense made words more alarming to the BBFC than the sight of a woman mutilating her vagina? Is it that words hurt? Or that words make us do things, that they inspire us to hate as well as to love or like? That they can make us despise someone or something that pictures cannot, or is it that these now ‘forbidden’ words are part of something intangible that the new politically correct quasi religion of mainstream soft left/right political thought cannot tolerate? That some thoughts and the words that represent them are now deemed so dangerous that they have become the new taboos? I think so.

Hatred of a religion or race is a taboo. Hatred of a particular sexuality is a taboo. So is questioning women’s rights or the rights of the disabled or rights for other groups. All are now protected and enshrined in law. Discrimination is in many cases a crime as is the telling of racist or sexist or religious jokes to various degrees a crime. One may argue that this is a good thing. That allowing groups and individuals the freedom to express hate or to promote hatred against an ethnic or specific minority is bad and unnecessary in these enlightened times. Yet there is a balance to be struck between protecting society from those that potentially would destroy it or aspects of it and an individual's right to express his or her disgust, or hatred of that society.

By censoring words, the BBFC and the government that sanctions and endorses their decisions are denying those individuals, and the wider voice of dissension that doesn’t buy into this new nicetopia, a voice. And when people are denied a voice they get angry.

In the US, freedom of expression is enshrined in law as the First Amendment and protects the extremes from the mainstream. So pornographers and the Ku Klux Klan can sup with Pro Lifers and radical Islamists and no one gets hurts. American society manages to be what the UK aspires to be, but which in our new politically driven times is failing to be; a true Democracy. The BBFC and those that seek and take offense so readily should remember that the first recorded case of word censorship was of the philosopher Socrates whose writings were believed to be corrupting youth, his punishment was death...