Tag Archives: Islam

Diary Blog, 26 February 2021, including some thoughts about crazy cults

The madness of belief

I was listening last night to BBC World Service; a piece about “Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh], one of the “gurus” of the 1960s and 1970s, and favoured by the hippy element (and some pop stars).

There was a whole mass of odd “gurus”, supposed religious teachers etc around at that time. Most were broadly of Hindu orientation, though some were Buddhist, or even “Christian”, e.g. the “Reverend” Jim Jones [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones]. Some invented their own religions, as did L. Ron Hubbard (who invented Scientology in the 1950s), and the “Reverend” Moon of South Korea, whose “Moonies” became a pest across the Western world. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

As a matter of fact, I was wandering around London, I think in 1978, aged 21, when two people, a young man and a young Asian woman, accosted me in Edgware Road. I was living in Little Venice at the time. I quickly guessed that they were Moonies but, curious, allowed myself to be invited to their HQ, which turned out to be a fairly large house in, I think, either Paddington or Notting Hill. The latter, as far as I can remember.

I was given a drink (instant coffee, I think) and a biscuit, and was then invited to an odd lecture (audience: about a dozen people, all young) by a possibly Korean, or Chinese, woman, not unattractive and aged about 30-ish.

I was slightly worried (the Moonies having been the subject of tabloid Press outrage) that I might be somehow prevented from leaving, but once the lecture was over (it concerned some weird ideas about how the Earth was created, the lecturer using a blackboard and chalk circles), I simply expessed a polite but firm intention to leave, thanked them, and walked out, never to see (as far as I know) another Moonie for the rest of my life.

As far as Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh is concerned, the only one of his disciples or former disciples I met was a woman whom my then girlfriend invited to the home we (sometimes) shared. That would have been mid-1980s.

The woman, divorced, had completed a Master’s degree at the University of Essex in he 1970s, where my 1980s girlfriend, a Cambridge graduate, had also taken a higher degree at the same time. The other woman had married a Jew, and brought her two rather unpleasant, rude, and badly-behaved young sons (aged about 4 or 5) with her. She was, I had been told, a senior official in the —even then, rather notorious— Haringey Council in North West London.

She started talking about how she had at one time been involved with the Rajneesh cult (she referred to the Indian as “the Bagwash”, perhaps in an attempt not to seem brainwashed). She said that she could still see some value in what the cult taught. I could only listen, not knowing anything to speak of about that cult. I certainly had no idea that it was at least partly a “sex cult”! The afternoon did not end very amicably.

The “guru” himself is now dead, having had a heart attack at age 58 in 1990.

Bhagwan beweging gekwetst door reclame-affiche van het NRC met de tekst profeet , Bestanddeelnr 933-0734-cropped.jpg
[“Rajneesh Shri Bhagwan” in 1984]

Listening to the BBC broadcast [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44300915], what struck me most was the sheer decadence not (only) of the “guru” but more so of the white Western people who bowed down to what Churchill might have called (his description of Gandhi) “a half-naked native fakir“.

Of course, to be fair, Rajneesh was only an Indian con-man, not a supposed political “saint” whose activism led to the Partition of formerly British India, with the loss of life possibly topping 2 million: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India. [cf. Mandela…]

To my mind (no doubt “prejudiced”, “racist” etc…), it is almost beyond belief that young European (white) women from the UK, Germany, USA etc would want to have sexual relations with the Rajneesh creature. Does “group hypnotism” or “Stockholm Syndrome” explain some of that?

Likewise, the idiots not only accepted that Rajneesh was screwing many of the women, but accepted his extravagance on himself, as they slaved to bring in money to the cult, and/or gave their own money for the use of the “guru”.

Rajneesh had just under 100 Rolls-Royce cars, for example. The photos below show him expounding his “truths” to the “chelas”; also, his white serfs lining up to worship him as he drove past, covering them in dust. Madness. Rassenschande.

Bhagwan 1976
Hugh Milne
by Samvado Kossatz on the ranch in Oregon, 1982 - in the early 2000s, Samvado allowed use of the photo conditional on him getting the photo credit.

Did they stand there clapping, too? Or was mere silent worship enough?

I imagine that most of the followers were probably not hugely intelligent. Certainly, the Scottish bodyguard reminiscing on the BBC did not give a very intelligent impression. Still, interesting from the psychological point of view. The followers were (superficially) seeking enlightenment, sought it from Rajneesh, and seem not to have been too fazed by his sexual antics, or by his ownership of about 94 Rolls-Royces. Very odd, to me. I suppose that I am rather an ancient Roman, in my way…

Rajneesh was not the only guru-figure who liked Rolls-Royce cars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#Lifestyle

Eventually, the Rajneesh cult ended in tears, with murder plots, criminal charges etc. The cultists even tried to kill 750 Oregon inhabitants by poisoning. Shades of Jonestown [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown]. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Anand_Sheela.

To any Western person of rational mind, that cult was crazy, as are or were “Jonestown”, Scientology, Moonies etc. There are literally thousands of other examples, from “Maharaj Ji” to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the believers in “Joanna Southcott’s box”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Southcott; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

Indeed, the Westernized Indians also look with disfavour upon the cults, such as those mentioned, the “Hare Krishna’s” etc, which mostly appeal to Western people. Books have been written, by satirical Indians, about it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Cola

Having said that, of course some of the major religions of today were once regarded by many of the people of the time of their inception as equally crazy. Christianity was looked upon as both mad and seditious by Rome, until Constantine adopted it. The same could be said of Islam, mutatis mutandis.

The only guides are reason, conscience, and instinct.

Looking at it in the wider historical context, cults and fantastic beliefs have always existed, but seem to flourish more during times of collapse of existing order and established belief.

Afternoon music

Hanson, Symphony no.2, “Romantic” (in three movements):

Tweets seen today

Interesting psychological experiment. Not surprising though. A virus which kills one in a thousand people has been presented as a “Black Death”, and has led to human “rabbits” wearing facemasks as ordered (and even when walking alone in the open air!), keeping away from each other, making their children into poor pathetic muzzled and isolated units even in school, and so on.

Not a bad film, but arguably far too sympathetic to the fugitive couple. Few were arrested solely for their opposition to the Vietnam War. Fugitives of that sort usually were wanted on charges of murder, manslaughter, robbing banks, setting off bombs etc.

There was a similar case in real life, seen on TV by me when I was staying on the Gulf Coast of Florida in 1999. A woman in (I think) Ohio, or somewhere that way, was arrested. A housewife/homemaker, married to a dentist who knew nothing of her past (if I am remembering correctly) or her real name. Arrested on Federal warrant originally dated sometime around 1970.

I think that this was a similar case: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jan/20/duncancampbell.theobserver; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground#Legacy

More tweets

Wake up, people…”they” will not be content until our whole civilization, culture, race and religion(s) are destroyed, and “they” rule over whatever raceless, cultureless humanoid mass is still living.

The schools in the UK (both fee-paying and State schools) are becoming, indeed have become, unfit for purpose. Some people think that it is somehow unlawful to homeschool. Not so: https://www.gov.uk/home-education.

More peaceful afternoon music

That Rautavaara piece is peaceful in part, but also unsettling, like much of life…

More peaceful…

Late tweets seen

Tweeter “Jason/@j8ybb” is all too typical. Ignorant, thinks that an insult is an argument, and seems to think (or has been brainwashed into thinking) that White Northern Europeans are somehow worse than, and certainly not more advanced than, the “blacks and browns”. He also seems to despise what appears to be his own ancestry and people.

I just read a few more of the tweets from “Jason”. Sad, more than anything.

Late music

Terrorism and Reason

Thoughts about the recent “Islamist” terrorists

When Joseph Conrad wrote The Secret Agent in 1907, he used as the basis for his plot a real plot of 1894 to blow up the Royal Observatory, Greenwich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Agent#Background:_Greenwich_Bombing_of_1894

In 1920, Conrad wrote this about a discussion about that real event of 1894:

…we recalled the already old story of the attempt to blow up the Greenwich Observatory; a blood-stained inanity of so fatuous a kind that it was impossible to fathom its origin by any reasonable or even unreasonable process of thought. For perverse unreason has its own logical processes. But that outrage could not be laid hold of mentally in any sort of way, so that one remained faced by the fact of a man blown to bits for nothing even most remotely resembling an idea, anarchistic or other. As to the outer wall of the Observatory it did not show as much as the faintest crack. I pointed all this out to my friend, who remained silent for a while and then remarked in his characteristically casual and omniscient manner: “Oh, that fellow was half an idiot”.” [Wikipedia re. Conrad— The Secret Agent: A Simple Tale]

The supposed attempt on the Royal Observatory has in the past been described as “pure terrorism”, in that there could be no direct political “reason” to explode a bomb at or destroy the Observatory. I say “supposed” attempt because it was never proven, though it is hard to imagine any other reason why an anarchist carrying a bomb would climb the hill from Greenwich. Anyone who has been there knows that, to this day, the Royal Observatory stands alone, apart from an ice-cream shack etc, at the highest point of Greenwich Park; there is there no obvious other potential target:




In more recent years, that is in the 1990s, the Provisional IRA blew up buildings in London etc, trying as far as possible not to injure or kill anyone. That secondary intention was not born out of compassion or military decency, but purely out of reasoned calculation: destruction of important buildings in the City of London and elsewhere hit the “British Establishment” but resulted in little or no public outrage.

That campaign of the 1990s was in fact the polar opposite of the 1970s bombings of the Provisionals. Those 1970s attacks were poorly conceived from the political point of view and were, in some of the most outrageous examples, designed to kill or injure as many people as possible. The targeted buildings were often pubs sometimes frequented by British soldiers (entirely or almost entirely “other ranks”) as well as by civilian members of the public.

The Baltic Exchange was one such 1990s attack. I happened to hear the massive bomb detonate. At the time, I was in a small cafe-restaurant in Bloomsbury, nearly 3 miles away, with my then girlfriend. The sound of a bomb of that sort is distinctive. I remarked on it. We were puzzled.

In fact, despite the evening timing, the location of the target (uncrowded in evening) and a 20-minute warning, three people were killed (and 91 injured).


The IRA (in collaboration, inconsistently, with Sinn Fein) had a political purpose and a strategy. Basically, a United Ireland, achieved via making Northern Ireland too much of a nuisance to hold on to.

It could be argued that, despite the apparent sincerity of the “peace talks” that led eventually to the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Fein/IRA “won”, strategically: power sharing in a democratic Northern Ireland (which is leading over time to a Catholic/Republican and so Sinn Fein victory, via the greater birth rate of the Catholic/Republican community); as Mosley predicted decades before, greater concordance of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic within the EU (until Brexit, at least…); Sinn Fein to pursue a peaceful political strategy in the South— which seemed unrealistic and even quixotic to me, but not now that —over 20 years on— Sinn Fein has become the most significant political party in the Republic and may form a government:


Other “terrorist” campaigns have been launched over the years and decades, but they have all had serious political aims: Jews against the British in Palestine, Arabs against the Jews in Palestine/Israel, Communists and Social-Revolutionaries in imperial Russia etc.

Now let us move to these “Islamist” terrorists (in the UK) of recent years. They appear to have no directing brain or organization, and any “allegiance” to the main body of the ISIS barbarians seems to be little more than notional.

More than that, the individuals seem to want to create havoc as far as they can, but in the absence of heavy-duty weaponry can only do so using whatever weapons are freely available: knives, axes etc, cold weapons generally.

Targets have generally been ordinary members of the public. Even the police have mostly been killed or injured not because they were the main targets, but because they became involved in the course of fulfilling their duty.

What is the political aim of the “Islamist” terrorist? There seems to be none, save for a generalized or “pie in the sky” wish that the UK, along with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world, turns to Islam and adopts Sharia law. I suppose that that desire might be described as having been the aim of Islam since its foundation in the 7th Century:


The term “Islamist” is in fact only a convenient label. It appears that the recent UK “Islamist” terrorists, such as the Streatham attacker, knew little of their own religion.


Certainly most have not been noted as having attended specifically-Islamic madrassahs. The Streatham attacker had attended secular schools in or near London and was only 20 at time of death.

No attempt has, as yet, been made by such “Islamists” (in the UK) to assassinate any famous politician or high-ranking military figure. That may be purely because the “Islamist” terrorists, as “lone wolves” or small groups, have not the ability or means to undertake reconnaissance or intelligence work in order to discover addresses, schedules, daily habits etc.

The recent “Islamist” attackers have no real political or religious aims. The connecting thread seems to be a wish to hurt and kill non-Muslims and to achieve a spurious “martyrdom” by being “killed in battle”, i.e. shot by police or SAS during an incident. The secular equivalent is called, in the USA, “suicide by cop”. They have no real strategy and their tactics are pathetic. They not only have no prospect of success or victory but also no way of even forming a conception of what such success or victory might look like.

In short, “Islamist” terrorism, like Islam itself, is a dead end. Islamist terrorism can lead to nothing on the socio-political level and its only results are, and can only be, death. Death for any victims, and death for the “Islamists” themselves. A form of evil not seen in Europe previously, even during the Mongol invasion of the 13th Century.

What can be done? Nothing, directly. If a state has within its borders millions of Muslims, a certain small proportion of them will fall victim, in their own uneducated or semi-educated minds, to Islamism. Perhaps one in a thousand. There are about 3 million Muslims in the UK, so maybe 3,000 potential terrorists. In fact, that is the figure the police are suggesting [see Notes, below]. Others may also be radicalized, usually blacks of non-Muslim origin.

The only long term solution is for Britain to become an ethnostate, and Europe a collection of ethnostates. In the meantime, these stupid, pointless and unpleasant attacks will continue.




The New Zealand Attack and Related Matters


I have thought for a week or so before writing this. As one would expect, there has been an outpouring of virtue-signalling (accompanied by State repression or threats thereof) not seen since the Anders Breivik event in Norway eight years ago. I wanted to write not only about the Christchurch shooting itself, and about the perpetrator, but also about surrounding events and the overall context. I also want to examine the moral and ethical aspects.


There are many mass shootings in the world. The USA alone seems to have one on a weekly if not daily basis (and those are only the ones which are reported heavily). The anti-gun lobby focusses on ease of access in the USA, New Zealand etc. Obviously, if a disturbed (or other) person cannot acquire firearms, then he cannot shoot people; he can, however, stab them, blow them up, drive at them etc.

Firearms events have more victims, usually. Having said that, one could say “ban cars, because some people misuse them”, to which the answer would no doubt come, “people need cars, they don’t need guns”. Well, true, though still arguable. It all depends on where society decides to draw the line. In the UK, since the late 1990s, it has been almost impossible to own lawfully-held firearms (except shotguns and, in some cases, certain types of hunting rifle). That was not always the case.

“Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 with the exception of Northern Ireland. Dunblane was the UK’s first and only school shooting. There has been one spree killing since Dunblane, the Cumbria shootings in June 2010, which involved a shotgun and a .22 calibre rifle, both legally-held. Prior to Dunblane though, there had only been one mass shooting carried out by a civilian in the entire history of Great Britain, which took place in Hungerford on 19 August 1987.” [Wikipedia]

Note that. In the entire history of Great Britain there have only been three mass shootings, yet the government took the opportunity to ban most firearms (at which time there had only been two such events in British history), and did so with the apparent agreement of a majority, probably high, of the general public, most of whom know nothing about firearms, have never so much as seen one (other than on TV), and who were stampeded by the publicity around the 1996 Dunblane school murders.

At one time, there was little regulation of firearms in the UK:

Following the assassination of William of Orange in 1584 with a concealed wheellock pistol, Queen Elizabeth I, fearing assassination by Roman Catholics, banned possession of wheellock pistols in England near a royal palace in 1594.[73] There were growing concerns in the 16th century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use in England and Wales.[74]

The Bill of Rights restated the ancient rights of the people to bear arms by reinstating the right of Protestants to have arms after they had been illegally disarmed by James II. It follows closely the Declaration of Rights made in Parliament in February 1689.[75] The Bill of Rights text declares that “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law”.” [Wikipedia]

British common law applied to the UK and Australia, and until 1791 to the colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of common law.”

Starting in 1903, there were restrictions placed on purchase of certain firearms (mainly pistols), subsequent Acts of 1920, 1937, 1968 and 1988 tightening the law in other respects too.

It is worth noting that, following the two 1997 Acts, which effectively banned private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) and required surrender of thus-affected weapons, 57,000 people (0.1% of the population) handed in 162,000 weapons and 700 tons of ammunition! In other words, one maniac with a few weapons became the trigger (so to speak) for a law which affected at least 57,000 people all of whom had held and used their weapons peacefully until then!

I personally was not affected by the ban, though I was at one time (mid 1970s/mid 1980s) a member of the Kensington Rifle and Pistol Club in London. In the UK and/or other countries, I have fired a variety of weapons, including the 7.62 R-1 automatic/semi-auto rifle (there was a switch on the side), semi-automatic pistols including the 9mm Browning Hi-Power and numerous others in .32 and .22 calibre, and also revolvers such as the Colt .32, .38 and .357 Magnum, and have handled (overseas and mostly long ago, again in the 1970s and 1980s) others, such as the famous Uzi submachinegun and some Warsaw Pact automatic weapons. Despite that, I am not in fact particularly interested in firearms  (or any weapons) and, even in the unlikely event of the 1997 Acts being repealed, would probably not bother to join a gun club. As far as shotguns are concerned, I have used them in Ireland and in England (in England only for clay pigeon, because I disapprove of shooting birds and animals for sport or “fun”). I myself have never privately owned any firearm.

I doubt that many people now even know that there used to be public ranges in England, where for a small fee, people could take their own weapons and fire them. I went once (in 1976) to the one at Dartford (Kent), quite near what was then a (disused?) mental hospital. Now the area is probably either a housing development or perhaps might be the present Dartford Clay Shooting Club, which (I just saw on Google) seems to be at or near the same location (it is not an area that I know, though).

Most British people have never fired nor even seen a firearm and that does tend to colour their reaction.

In the USA, things are of course very different. The old English Common Law right to bear arms is written into the U.S. Constitution, though muddied by the famous words about “a well-regulated militia” etc. Leaving aside the legal and quasi-theological arguments revolving around that Amendment, it always seemed to me when I lived there (in New Jersey) that it was odd for many American states to require people to have a licence to own or at least drive a car, but not a pistol, shotgun or something even more dangerous.

In the UK, people tend to say, “look at the USA: easy ownership of guns and a massacre every week!”, but that has to be set against the fact that tens and probably hundreds of millions of Americans own firearms. Probably the vast majority have never received even the most basic training. True, there are huge numbers of crimes committed with firearms in the USA, but simply banning guns (as in some other countries) is a simplistic solution which might leave American citizens helpless. Societies differ. I met an American lady, a blonde with startlingly blue eyes, in the Caribbean. She said that she had a large silver-plated automatic pistol (I forget the marque), which she kept under her pillow. I never got to see it, by the way!

As far as New Zealand is concerned, its gun ownership laws were lax compared to the UK or even Australia, but huge numbers of New Zealanders (about 5% of the population, 250,000 out of 5 million) own at least one weapon. New Zealand is a country about 10% larger than the UK but with only about 5 million inhabitants. Much of the country is rural. There had never been a massacre there such as the one recently perpetrated in Christchurch by Brenton Tarrant.

First impressions, Muslims in the UK and NZ, the history, the demographics

When the Christchurch attack happened and the news organizations started to report, my first surprise was to hear that New Zealand has 50,000 Muslims living there! That figure may seem small, but is still 1% of the whole population.

In the UK, there were at one time effectively no Muslims, though trade with Muslim lands, evidenced by coins, goes back at least as far as the time of King Offa in the 8th Century. All the same, there were only a few Muslims in England, mostly diplomats, traders etc, for centuries, e.g. in the Tudor and Stuart periods (15th-17thC), until sailors from British India (mostly Bengal) known as lascars started to spend time in ports such as London, Bristol, Liverpool etc in the 19thC. There may have been 10,000 at any one time, but few were permanent residents. The Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle occasionally mention lascars, not infrequently preceded by words such as “rascally”.

The first small mosque in England was built in Woking (Surrey) in 1889 (it’s still there, quite near the railway station), having been built there adjunct to an Islamic burial ground. The first mosque in London only appeared in 1924. By 2007, there had been established 1,500 mosques in the UK! Now, in 2019, the figure is even greater: 1,750 [BBC statistic]. 250 more mosques in little more than a decade…

As to the population figures, England and Wales had 50,000 Muslims in 1961. That was then around 0.1% of the whole population. A decade later, in 1971, there were 226,000, a quadrupling, then by 1981, 553,000; 1991, 950,000. Doubling every decade at that point. Then 1.6 million in 2001; 2.7 million by 2011 and, a mere three years later in 2014, well over 3 million.

The present number of UK-based Muslims is not officially known but is around 3.5 million.

So in the UK, 50,000 Muslims became (via immigration and births) 3.5 million within little more than half a century. New Zealand has 50,000 now. New Zealand has different immigration and other factors as compared to the UK, but will New Zealand, a land of only 5 million people now, have a population of Muslims alone of 3.5 million by, say, 2075 or 2100? It cannot be dismissed out of hand. At that point, the Muslims would be already dominant even if the general NZ population will by then have grown to, say, 10 million (twice its present level). Yes, that projected third of the population could in fact be the dominant bloc. A laser is powerful because its light is concentrated and disciplined, not diffuse.

The intention of the shooter

It seems that the perpetrator of the massacre had been travelling, perhaps using inherited monies, for 7 years. Information given out by the msm indicates that Tarrant was “radicalized” not while a member of some group or party, but by events witnessed while travelling around Europe and, finally, in New Zealand itself.

The manifesto of Brenton Tarrant, The Great Replacement,  will not be reproduced here. It is found with ease on the Internet, via Google or the like. I do not want to give anyone hostile the excuse to say that, by posting it on here, I am somehow “encouraging” terrorism or political violence. It does seem very repressive that major Internet platforms have been pressured to remove his manifesto, and have acquiesced.

Reading that manifesto, the motivation of Brenton Tarrant seems to be almost impersonal on the face of it. It has elements of sacrifice and self-sacrifice. It shows determination (he has that in common with Breivik). As to education or erudition, I do not think that he lays claim to much, but there is intelligence manifest in the document. He has learned (whatever might be said about that) from his travels.

Politically, Brenton Tarrant describes himself as an “ethno-nationalist”. He also says (the manifesto is mostly written in Q & A format):

“Were/are you a nazi?

No, actual nazis do not exist.They haven’t been a political or social force anywhere in the world for more than 60 years.”

That is a good point. As Hitler said, “National Socialism is not for export.” Hitler also remarked to his last secretary, Traudl Junge, and others, in 1945, that German National Socialism was finished, but that something with the same essential core might emerge “in a “hundred years” and then “take hold of the world with the force of a religion”. Well, here we are in 2019, 100 years after the founding of the NSDAP, though of course we are only 74 years from the end of the Reich.

Tarrant also describes himself as an “eco-fascist” as well as writing that he is at one with many of the policies expounded by Oswald Mosley. A word of explanation might be useful here. I knew someone who was at one time quite well acquainted with Mosley. She always said that he was basically an intellectual who saw himself as a “man of action” (“Action” was also the name of Mosley’s newspaper). Mosley of course was also a “man of action”, who had flown in the First World War (where he was a fellow-officer of the aforesaid lady’s husband in the Royal Flying Corps), but he, arguably, made too much of sports, fencing, physical fitness generally, as a politician. That was the Zeitgeist of the 1930s though, not only in Germany and Italy but in the UK, where lidos and indoor public swimming pools etc proliferated.

Mosley was once described as someone who could have been a great prime minister of the UK, for either [System] party. He was unwilling to accept mass unemployment, so resigned from the Labour Party (under which he was a government minister).

Mosley is now remembered, in the public mind, in the “cartoon” version put out by a largely Jewish mass media: the sneering Fascist demagogue in his black uniform. As with all important lies, of course, there was a kernel of truth in that.

As to Tarrant’s “eco-fascism”, there has always been linkage between “green” politics, environmentalism etc, and social nationalism. See:


In fact, the author Henry Williamson, who wrote Tarka the Otter, combined Englishness, support for Mosley and support for German National Socialism with being an early environmentalist and, in essence, “green” activist:


Tarrant declares in his manifesto that he will not kill NZ police. He kept to that and allowed himself to be captured. He also makes the following point:

Were/are you a supporter of Brexit?

Yes, though not for an official policy made. The truth is that eventually people must face the fact that it wasn’t a damn thing to do with the economy.That it was the British people firing back at mass immigration, cultural displacement and globalism, and that’s a great and wonderful thing.”

Amen to that.

He adds, re. Marine le Pen’s party in France:

Were/are you a supporter of Front National?

No,they’re a party of milquetoast civic nationalist boomers, completely incapable of creating real change and with no actual viable plan to save their nation.

Rather oddly, Tarrant says that one Candace Owens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Political_views was a major influence. I had to look up her details. I myself see nothing of any real interest there, but this blog post is about the New Zealand attack and its author, not me.

As to the psychology of Brenton Tarrant, hard to say. True, he shares some characteristics with other “rampage killers”, being marginalized by society, not having a solid career or place in society, not having a solid marriage or other relationship either. He seems to be sane and in fact makes some very good if obvious points in his manifesto. No doubt the New Zealand state’s psychiatrists will find suitable labels to attach…

The reaction of the New Zealand state, msm and public

Once the initial shock of the massacre ebbed, there was a wave of sympathy for the victims, especially in New Zealand itself. Looking at the TV news, one can see how warm-hearted the New Zealanders are, though it is all too easy to see a crowd of a few hundred and assume that it represents a whole country. The New Zealanders have proven that they have a heart. It is far more doubtful as to whether they have a head. Like Australia, New Zealand has gone from being an entirely white European society (albeit grafted onto an existing “native” one) to a developing multikulti mess, but the extent of that is probably slight enough in terms of numbers and percentages (so far) that most New Zealanders are unaware of it. I cannot say.

The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, immediately started virtue-signalling on an epic scale, wearing Arab dress and insisting that even women police officers did the same. It was rather chilling to see an armed policewoman carrying her automatic rifle and wearing the Arab hijab. Reminiscent of the ISIS barbarians.

Stray thoughts

Many of those who virtue-signalled like mad about the people shot in New Zealand scarcely noticed, I think, the many killed recently by American or British bombers when the ISIS barbarians were under attack. The ISIS fighters had to take their chances, perhaps their camp-followers too, but what about uninvolved civilians? What about small children also killed by the assaults on towns such as Raqqa?

Then take another example: the Second World War bombings (on both sides, though the Allied bombing was far worse, in Germany, both in terms of numbers killed and in terms of intensity). In Japan, the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have supported the war effort, may also have been related to soldiers or whatever, but were themselves not combatants. Their children even less so.


[above, Dresden 1945]

To attribute blame becomes difficult. That is why human beings cling to the conventional. Many will have seen The Night of the Generals, which is based around questions like that: in the midst of a massive war, where thousands are being killed monthly or weekly, and where the Wehrmacht resistance to Hitler is in the background (with its premise that Hitler must die for the greater good…), an investigation is launched into the murder of a prostitute.

If conventional morality says that it is justified for a state to kill civilians and even civilian children for some larger end result, then perhaps the same argument could be used by an individual who massacres civilians whom he regards as either “the enemy” or “collateral damage” to achieve some larger end? The moral question which looked so clear superficially becomes opaque.

For me, the NZ shooting was unpleasant, unnecessary and possibly counter-productive. Tarrant obviously disagrees with that conclusion. All one can say is that the large-scale movements of population will continue until someone says or enough people say NO.



















Where Are The Limits Of Religious Freedom?

One of the pillars of a future “Threefold Social Order” society will be religious freedom. Such freedom is also said to be a pillar of our existing “Western” model of society.

“We” supposedly all agree with that ideal, meaning of course “we” white Northern Europeans. Of course, once one gets away from Northern Europe and its wider offshoots in North America, Australasia etc, that consensus ends. In the Middle East, much of Africa, South Asia etc, freedom of religion either does not exist, or exists only as a fragile plant.

In Europe, we see that the migration-invasion, and the societal takeover via a high birth rate of, in particular, Muslims, is threatening our fond belief that we have and always will have religious freedom. The pendulum is swinging. Whereas in the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic Christians repressed other religious communities and launched crusades to conquer Muslim lands (a simplification, of course, but let’s leave that aside), today the Muslims are invading Europe, not as armies (as happened several times in the past) but as migrant-invaders (immigrants, “refugees”, “asylum-seekers”, and as babies born in Europe…). If this continues unabated, we can expect to see more attempts to shut down religious freedom for non-Muslims, as shown in this cartoon:


This process can be seen in the UK. There have in fact been Muslims in the UK for a long time, at least in small numbers. An Islamic centre and cemetery was established on the edge of Woking, Surrey, in the 19thC (it can be seen just before trains enter Woking Station, on the Southern or lefthand side as the train travels from London). However, the political or societal strength has grown in more recent years, along with the numbers.

In the 1970s, the Muslim element rarely displayed itself politically. I myself recall that posters on the Underground in 1976 or 1977, advertizing the Libyan-funded film “Mohammed, Messenger of God” were often defaced, always with the same words: “Islam forbids representations”. That vandalism, along with “community” representation to the UK authorities and the film distributors, resulted in the film being renamed “The Message”.

Now, 40 or so years later, times have moved on. Despite the Muslim population of the UK only being between 5% and 6% (officially), there has been a gradual infiltration (I do not say that it has been particularly organized) into mainstream political parties, in areas where Muslim numbers are significant: parts of the North of England, the Midlands, smaller areas within London and elsewhere. The influence of Sharia law and courts has grown; the Church of England has shown itself craven (as indeed it is when confronted by the aggressive Jewish-Zionist element). In some cases, Christians wishing to display their faith, e.g. by wearing crosses etc, have been given the choice of not doing so or being dismissed.

I repeat, officially the Muslim population of the UK stands at little more than 5% (about 5.1%) so far, but a high birth rate may propel that to 10% in the short term and later to…who knows? What will then be its influence and power?

As to the Jews, in numbers they are small, somewhere between 250,000 to 280,000, though there are also very large numbers of part-Jews, many of whom have little or no day to day connection with Jewish religious practices. Their influence and power comes not from crude numbers, but from concentration in and control of key strategic areas: finance, law, politics, mainstream media and, now, large Internet organizations.

Christians and Muslims accept persons of any race into their communities, at least in principle. Both Christians and Muslims have traditionally accepted it as an article of faith that persons of other religions should be “converted”, whereas Jews do not seek converts (though some modern branches do accept small numbers, e.g. after marriage to Jews). Judaism, therefore, has never launched “crusades” or the like. The Jews do not aim to make the world Jewish, only to be the major influencing, controlling and profiting element in or over the world.

The modern Christian world of the post-Enlightenment has, in principle, accepted that people can be Christian, Muslim or Jew (or whatever else) freely. That is easy enough when it comes to beliefs, ideas, even public worship in particular buildings, though (as mentioned above) it took Europe a long time even to accept those aspects. Much of the world does not go that far.

Where things become more difficult is when the religious practice of a community contravenes the law or morality of the society as a whole. Halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, which revolt the sensibilities of thinking non-Muslims and non-Jews. Male and female genital mutilation by Muslims and Jews. The cries (now electrically amplified) of the muezzin from the minaret of the mosque. These are cases where, in my view, the demands of the society to prevent cruelty, the wish of Europeans not to hear constant mosque noise in their neighbourhood must prevail over the practices of both the Jews and the Muslims.

To take an extreme case: there were societies in the past, Aztecs, Incas, even Europeans of ancient Europe, who engaged in ritual sacrifice of humans. Would we accept such practices today just because “it is part of their religion”? I think not.

There have been problems in the recent past in relation to other religions: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their unwillingness to save the lives of their children via blood transfusion; the mental and sometimes physical cruelty to children of some small “Christian” sects such as the Plymouth Brethren; the contrived scam that is Scientology (the British government of the 1960s fought a long battle to suppress Scientology, because of its perceived cultic and controlling behaviour). There could be other examples given.

It might be said that even mainstream Christian religions have done very evil things, e.g. the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, though those involved acts not sanctioned or encouraged by the religion as such.

In the end, society, meaning the political element, must draw the line between the zone where religion holds sway and the zone where group or community religious practice must give way before the general secular law which should protect people and animals.