Wednesday, 2 December 2015


Yes, you, Colonel Blimp.

You already know about #Swebola and Angela Merkel importing millions of "potential rapists" into Europe, and more recently we have also seen the French making excuses for their halal butchers. Europe certainly is a pozztopia of PC pozzing!

Of course, there are countervailing trends – in Sweden and France, lite nationalist parties (Swedish Democrats and Front National) are currently riding high in the polls, and the Overton window is bouncing all over the place – but what people see is mainly the abject surrender to the forces of the Left. From a distance Europe does seem to be all about "the Pozz."

It is thought that one of the reasons that Europe rose to such prominence in the first place – as opposed to other civilizational areas – is because it was divided into several competing states, each of which served to sharpen up the others.

With the EU and the ending of war and conflict, competition between the states is now confined to the Eurovision Song Contest and the degree to which they can signal how pozzed they have become. Sometimes literally. When Sweden started to make a thing about how it was the interracial rape capital of the world, Germany quickly responded by allowing in millions of young, traumatized male Muslims in what was clearly a desperate attempt to catch up, and it now seems to be doubling down on this pozzing policy by acceding to Turkish demands on EU membership. Expect the very best of Turkish society to suddenly show up around German kindergartens.

The real essence of pozzing however is not encapsulated by the evil, idealism, or degeneracy of the Left. The Left was pozz to begin with, and its endemic condition was diagnosed very early. People like George Orwell – someone with a certain amount of inside knowledge – were on to the twisted psychological drives of the Left decades ago. Here is Orwell on self-loathing Englishmen in the WWII period:
Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell or when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
Notes on Nationalism (1945)
As I said, the Left was pozz to begin with, but for an act of pozzing to occur you need negholes, in other words those who are still HIV negative – the uninfected. This is why Conservatives and the traditional right are so important to the Left. Maximum pozzing occurs when you get someone like Bush, Merkel, or Cameron, and make them behave like radical leftists. This basically describes what Merkel has been doing recently. Before 2015 she was essentially a standard Conservative, content to support old-fashioned things, like slightly porous borders and strict debt repayment.

The days of "Send a gunboat!"
In Britain Cameron has been resisting full pozzing, mainly because he has UKIP snapping at his heels like one of the Queen's corgis. Other parts of the British Conservative establishment, however, now appear to be in fully lubed-up "pozz me! pozz me!" mode. The most obvious example is the Daily Telegraph, the established house paper of the Tory Party – mainly because it was voluminous and absorbent enough to be stuffed down the diapers of senile old colonels and batty dames reminiscing about the gymkana in New Delhi in 1932.

In my youth, the Telegraph – parodied in the satire rag Private Eye as the Torygraph – used to be a hold-out of old-fashioned, blue-rinse, God-Save-the-Queen, Colonel Blimp Conservatism. But in recent years it has started to shadow the hard-leftist Guardian so closely that it is now difficult to tell the two apart. This was driven home by this recent story, attacking the new World heavyweight boxing champion, Tyson Fury, for his views on homosexuality:
"It all started when Fury gave an interview to my colleague Oliver Holt in the Mail on Sunday, and said, verbatim: 'There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home: one of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other one’s paedophilia. Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those first two would be legalised?' You will notice that 1. Fury thinks homosexuality and abortion should still be illegal and 2. That he is conflating homosexuality and paedophilia."
Notice the temporal focus – "should still be legal" – and the suggestion that, hey, it's "the current year." The tone of the article may perhaps be slightly less strident or sniffy than the Guardian – no doubt there are still a few old dears who have to be shepherded towards the "great pozz hole" the Telegraph is disappearing down, but for anyone who can remember even a few years back the transformation in the Telegraph evokes Orwellian analogies of Airstrip One suddenly being at war with Eurasia and at peace with EastAsia (or is it vice versa?).

Telegraph get in the ring.
The Telegraph doing this has a certain redundancy about it – a word that may have some significance for a newspaper that could well be be just a memory in ten years. Firstly, Tyson Fury is not a middle-class poster boy for political correctness. His views are more or less what you would expect a healthy, masculine, working class lad to have, and for that reason their worth has already been marginalized by mainstream "current year" Western culture. Secondly, there are more than enough media outlets out there doing this kind of boring, point-and-sputter journalism, without the Telegraph chiming in with the red-eyed, splittle-flecked chorus.

But while it's easy to get paranoid about things like this and perceive some dark ideological hand behind the curtain, the simple functionalism of a thing should never be discounted.

The various initiatives and interventions in Syria, and Merkel's attempt to fast-track Turkey into the EU may really be about oil pipelines and broken economics, rather than the Protocols of the Elders or the Covens of the Illuminati. For example, it is said that the latest spout of refugee debris scattered over Europe may have been about shoring up German property prices, helped no doubt by the fact that several dozen properties, designated as refugee centres, were consigned to the flames by patriots and local democrats.

In the case of the Telegraph, the most significant factor to look at is probably the newspaper's inflated running costs and its increasing reliance on the internet for revenue, combined with the rise of Breitbart, a leaner, more effective online competitor. A site specifically tailored to the UK market Breitbart London was launched only last year. Since then the Telegraph's swing to the left has become increasingly noticeable to more and more people, while Breitbart looks increasingly like a rebooted version of the old Telegraph.

But who can blame poor old Colonel Blimp Telegraph if he would rather go head-to-head with another old fuddy-duddy like the Guardian, rather than a nasty new media outlet like Breitbart?

No comments:

Post a Comment