Sunday, 31 July 2016

Cool War, Warm War, Hot War. Part 1

If there is one issue on which the liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the Western elites will not only lead to war but also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it as well. Such a paranoid outlook, of course, is not shared with those of the spiritually enlightened left.

They are more in tune with the European Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of people who would testify to this, notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon populations of Belgium itself — to name but a few.

In fact, it would be hard to find a phrase exhibiting such an awe-inspiring example of utter historical ignorance coupled with sinister Orwellian doublethink, save perhaps for “Arbeit Macht Frei”, the “welcome” sign above the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp.

It should never be forgotten that the Nazi party were the one-time allies of the Communists, those moral-free “egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to the sloganeering of genocidal regimes, and unaware, apparently, that they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.

What the liberal/left palpably fail to realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” — manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism — inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many fronts, and we are losing all of them.

A full scale war between Islam and the West, should it materialise, will be the “Hot War” that must logically follow the “Cool” and “Warm” wars currently being waged in Europe specifically, and the West as a whole.

The cool war is carried out on a number of fronts and is made up of the culture / civilisation war; the political/propaganda war; the demographic / immigration war; the territorial war; the faith war and the knowledge war. The warm war is made up of terrorism, jihad, and the end game of total war, described by James Burnham in his book Suicide Of The West as: “Political control over acreage.”

The Culture / Civilisation War

The culture/civilisation war has been ongoing for several decades, but appears to be reaching its peak in the attitude demonstrated not only by the vitriolic hatred shown toward the West by radical Islam, but also by the liberal elites of Western societies as well, who appear to perversely loathe their own people and their own culture.

On Sep 8 2001, the UN held a conference in Durban, under the heading: “The United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance And Xenophobia.” America, aware of the impending anti-Western hate mongering, declined to join them, but the best of the rest of the West were arrayed in force. America’s suspicion turned out to be remarkably prescient. The event turned into a hate fest.

The Cuban dictator Fidel Castro was introduced to rapturous applause as: “The leader of the most democratic country in the world” whilst Robert Mugabe, the altogether barmy President of Zimbabwe, taking a well-earned rest from the persecution of his white and black countrymen, was similarly cheered to the rafters in his denunciation of the white imperialist oppressor; his ovation only surpassed by that offered up for the Syrian Prime Minister’s denial of the Holocaust.

Britain’s Tony Blair, France’s Lionel Jospin, Canada’s Jean Chretien, and an aesthetically displeasing assortment of Europe’s great and good, beat their collective breasts in time with the rhythmic thudding of the anti-racist bongo drums, offering no counter-arguments such as the ethnic cleansing of whites from Zimbabwe, or the imprisoning of AIDS victims in the Cuban “socialist paradise,” choosing instead to raise their soft, bruised hands aloft and proclaim Yes, you are correct. We are white, we are Western and we are GUILTY!“

The UN’s Mary Robinson declared the event a great success. The oppressors and the oppressed packed their bags, paused briefly at the airport to exchange a little more brown hatred for white guilt, and went home. Forty-eight hours later, Muslim terrorists flew three hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, thus ensuring celebrations all over the non-Western world, indeed even within the West itself, where Muslims danced in the streets and liberal Western intellectuals within the Guardian and BBC traitor class crowed that America had finally been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved.

No doubt those noted anti-racists, Mugabe and Castro, danced until dawn, such vitriol and hatred for the first world from the third being nothing new. But even with 9/11 on top of the obscene appeasement in Durban, our liberal elites still refused to admit to themselves that their culture was any better than that of Islam’s. Nothing personifies this more than the controversy caused by the remarks made by (the then) Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, in the wake of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist outrages, stated:

“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights, and — in contrast with Islamic countries — respect for religious and political rights.”

Such a statement, at such a time, should not have been controversial. After all, how could Western Civilisation possibly be held as the moral and cultural equivalent of Islam — a religious and political ideology that orchestrated and celebrated the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah?

But controversial it turned out to be. No sooner had the words left his lips than a bevy of European politicians rushed to denounce his heresy. Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said: “I can hardly believe that the Italian Prime Minister made such statements!” whilst Jean Christophe-Filori, the spokesman for the European Commission, added: “We certainly don’t share the view expressed by Mr. Berlusconi,” and to round off a positively surreal day of reality denial and anti-Western loathing, Italy’s centre left opposition spokesman, Giovanni Berlinguer, called the statement “eccentric and dangerous.” Faced with such an onslaught, Berlusconi was forced to retract his factually correct statement within a matter of days.

Such anti-Western sentiment is no longer merely confined to the mindset of our ruling elites. By successfully infiltrating the educational establishments, the liberal/left have captured the most important section of society that any wannabe totalitarian regime could wish for; the unformed minds of unquestioning small children, upon whom they could indoctrinate and brainwash to their hearts content.

The liberal/left culture war in our schools and universities has been carried out over at least four decades, and has been extraordinarily successful. Targeting children as young as three in order to unlearn racism young Westerners have been persuaded that their history is one of national imperialism, Christian imperialism, white privilege, oppression, genocide and racial brutality. They have been brainwashed into believing that their country, race, religion, culture and history — or more succinctly, the very essence of their being — is not something to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of.

This is a powerful and potentially lethal form of disarmament. Wars have always been fought over four basic impulses: the acquisition of territory, the subjugation of a race or tribe, the subjugation of a religion and the subjugation of a culture. If young Westerners are as ashamed — as they say they are — of their country, race, religion, culture and history, then they will not be particularly keen to even verbally defend them, as is the case today, let alone to fight and die for them. As, no doubt, was the intention.

Some may say the removal of reasons to fight can only be a good thing which will lead to peace and prosperity for all men, for all time. But multiculturalism does not work that way. Whilst we are shamed into perpetual appeasement, the non-European and non-Christian groups within the West are taught the exact opposite. Their cultures and their religions are held up as paragons of virtue, they are taught to think and act as distinct racial or religious groups, whilst being encouraged to believe that any difference in civilisational success between their culture and Western culture is due solely to their historical and present day oppression by the prejudiced West.

As wars are traditionally fought by males, so another vital part of the culture war is to remove the natural aggression prevalent amongst boys and adolescents. To this end, young Western males are encouraged — nee forced — to lay down their toy guns, end their games of cowboys and Indians, cease taking part in competitive sport with its inevitable winners and losers, and instead to play with dolls, get in touch with their “inner selves,” develop their “self esteem” through the “medium of dance” and to express their “emotions” in “empathy workshops.”

Christina Hoff Sommers details this obscenely sexist social engineering in The War Against Boys, where she writes:

"There are now conferences, workshops and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problems of boy’s masculinity. “We’ve deconstructed the old version of manhood, but we’ve not yet constructed a new version…” In the spring of 2000 the boys’ project at Tufts offered five workshops on “Reinventing Boyhood” where the planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: “We’ll laugh and cry, argue and agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys, whilst figuring out how to change the terrible parts."

Christina goes on to quote the words of “gender experts” at a meeting made up of feminists from Harvard, Wellesley and Tufts:

“It may be too late to change adult men. Boys on the other hand are still salvageable — providing one gets to them at an early age.” As one keynote speaker said, “We have an amazing opportunity here, Kids are so malleable.”

Gloria Steinem is of the same opinion, once saying: “We badly need to raise boys more like we raise girls.”

This evil social engineering is now par for the course in the West — but it gets worse. When little boys rebel against this warped ideology of enforced feminisation, they are diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders and “ritalinned” to the eyeballs in an attempt to chemically achieve what brainwashing could not. In Britain, some 60,000 children, principally of course boys, now suffer this abuse.

Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is not usually known for the last man part of the title, but I think he was implying the last man to be the last “alpha male,” that patriarchal upholder of masculinity so despised by the perverse Marxist mind-set that now controls our educational establishments. Whenever a potential alpha male rears his patriarchal little head, our quasi-Marxist educators reach for their psychoanalytical Rolodex and the keys to the drug cabinet.

This does not happen within the Muslim faith schools, the madrassahs and the mosques, where masculinity is pushed to the other extreme. Whilst little Western boys learn about the merits of femininity, and become, as Ann Coulter so wonderfully puts it — “girly men” — little Muslim boys learn about male dominance, violent jihad and the superiority of Islam over the infidel kuffar.

As the little Muslim boys grow into adolescence, there are any number of mosques they can attend to further reinforce their ideology. It is no longer a secret that many of the thousands of mosques across Europe are funded to the tune of 90 billion dollars by Saudi Arabia and that they promote extreme Saudi Wahhabism and actively encourage violent jihad against the West.

If the entire world was full of feminised men then perhaps we could, as the liberal/left persistently shrill, “give peace a chance,“ but in a continent of Western girly men and masculine Muslim Jihadists, it is obvious who has the upper hand. As feminists (male and female) continue with their social engineering of Western boys, whilst refusing to condemn the inculcated aggression of Muslim boys, one is led to conclude that this is not simply a case of typical short-sighted liberal stupidity, but a deliberate attempt to further negate the ability of Western males to recognise the threat before them, let alone stand toe to toe with the enemy.

One peculiar aspect along with the feminisation of boys is the concurrent “masculinisation” of girls and young women, who are no longer encouraged to become housewives and mothers. Instead, they are brainwashed into dressing in men’s clothes, entering the work place and embarking on careers; the proceeds from which should be spent on the latest “must have” baubles and trinkets so beloved of both magpies and women’s’ lifestyle magazines.

A little harsh, a little sexist some might say, but it is important that is said nonetheless. Western women have put careers before children, and as a result — for the first time in the history of womankind — we are no longer replacing ourselves. If we did this for long enough we would become extinct, leading one to believe, quite naturally, that such a deviation is unnatural. Masculinised women, as well as feminised men, have become denatured.

Does this denaturing of the Western people matter? Well, yes it does; it is of supreme importance. The driving force of all living organisms is reproduction and survival. Western women have ceased to reproduce at a replacement level, thereby giving the hard left just the excuse they needed to foment revolutionary change in the Christian, capitalist West — which they eagerly carry out via the importation of inalienably alien third world immigrants with a history of anti-Western aggression.

Whilst Western women have forgotten nature’s law of reproduction; Western men — brainwashed into dhimmitude and unable to comprehend invasion when they see it — have similarly forgotten what it takes to survive. If one asked an  anthropologist the likely future for a species that spurned nature’s most fundamental requirement, he would answer with one word — extinction.

If the coming war was fought only by the products of our liberal establishment, then look out Vienna. Feminised men will find the singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves singularly ineffective as a defence mechanism when confronted with scimitar wielding bearded fanatics. When our backs are to the wall, the feminists will look to the currently smeared alpha male types — if there are any left — for their defence.

And they had better hope that there are. Feminists have little appreciation of the “spoils of war” mentality Should Europe fall to Islam, the peculiar feminist theory that ALL penetrative sex is rape, would suddenly become not just a hazy memory, but a longed-for return to the good old bad old days, when Western men were still men and it was just the desert roaming camels looking nervously over their humps with an air of doleful resignation.

It is no bad thing to remove the impulse for war from the minds of Western man, but to do so whilst actively encouraging mass immigration from the third world and to simultaneously inflame their tribalism and resentment, smacks not simply of double standards, but the deliberate importation of one increasingly radicalised group at the expense of an indigenous population, brainwashed into appeasement.

What would have been obvious to previous generations of men, those who lived through or shortly after WWII, is no longer obvious to the brainwashed and feminised Western male. The inhabitants of European nation states have allowed an utterly alien culture to cross their territorial border, dismantle their culture, colonise their cities, rape their women, and blow their citizens up; all the while calling for the overthrow of the West. If European males think this is something to “celebrate” as liberal/left orthodoxy would imply, then we are in terrible trouble. Perhaps if I shout it loudly enough, they may hear me:

“You are not engaging in some mutual act of multicultural tolerance. Your country is being invaded!”

As a final note: what should be all too apparent is that the civilisational war against the West is not carried out by external forces alone, but also by our own rulers, against their own people. This is of course, wholly unprecedented in the history of mankind.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

To be continued.
I have only covered one small aspect of the assault, both from without and within, against the West. 


  1. Very well written paul...bulls eye.

  2. The rants of a clearly unhinged moron that xlearly needs psychiatric help urgently

    1. Ah, the Left in all its glory! Never able to mount a genuine argument! Always up for locking away dissenters in Gulags and mental institutions. What wicked people Leftists are! If you really want to make an argument Frank, try 1,000 words and I will post it here as an article. I rather doubt you can though. :-)

    2. Frank's been at the Dragon stout again.

    3. Another brilliant piece of debunking by Mr Weston. He's practically dismantled the leftist project of 40 years in this one piece, and there are more parts to come! I have looked in vain for articles like this in the main press. James Delingpole, Leo Mckinstry, Peter Hitchens, Frederick Forsyth, Paul Watson or Douglas Adams - to name a few - would do well to come to Paul's blog for material.

    4. Don't be fooled by his false name - Frank is part of the Muslim invasion.

  3. This is an excellent article, except for this phrase: "It is no bad thing to remove the impulse for war from the minds of Western man, . . ." With it, you contradict your earlier ridicule of feminizing boys: "To this end, young Western males are encouraged—nee forced—to lay down their toy guns, end their games of cowboys and Indians, cease taking part in competitive sport with its inevitable winners and losers, . . ." What do you think is the purpose of those games but the preparation of men for war, for defense of one's family, country, even the rights of God Himself? Men, in any right-thinking culture, shall always be called upon for its defense, thus they should always play at, and be prepared to engage in, war. Fr. George Rutler made this quite clear in a recent article:

    The defect in your thinking arises from the false globalist hope of a war to end all wars. Only with the peace of God throughout the world can true peace be reality. The peace of man is but a nasty and deceitful imposter, bent upon the goal of world conflagration and annihilation.

    1. My point here, is that it is no bad thing to avoid the thought process behind the European / world wars of the 20th century. It is hard to envisage us doing anything like that again. Unfortunately, sufficient numbers from the non-Western world would like to do it to us....

    2. If you mean, by "the impulse for war", the desire for subjugation of others to warped ideology which spurred on Hitler or Mao or Lenin or Ho Chi Minh, or the mindless engagement in war for the sake of conflict or the vindication of slighted pride, then I concur. An impulse for war, though, is also felt by those striving to free themselves from the shackles of subjugation and wrong. Without it, men would be but the subservient, sheepish, effete shells of the male form, found so disastrously often in the remnants of Christendom.

      Clarifying this in your article would make it even better.

    3. Too late to clarify re the article, but I agree with your points.

    4. It's not either or. Boys need to be understood with a lot more wisdom so they are both civilised and keep their survival instincts intact. We need to do a lot better at moulding the violent instinct into its highest expression and disciplining it. We also need to understand where we went wrong. For example, I've run into some Thomas Hardy paperbacks recently and I'm seeing him as a bellwether. He made it a virtue for women to rise up and be independent and at the same time he gave vent to the problems in the church by suggesting it should be left behind. Incorrect deductions, clearly. And all the changes started when desire/rivalry started running rampant. Everyman could go to the city and get a leg up. No more guilds and time/place restrictions to run dreams in channels. Competition, aspiration became a free-for-all and there was no time to work out how to downstream good practice, which existed among the gentrified classes, like it or not Merry England, (and you also need to deal head on with the bogey man in your closet. The longest-running PC dance of all). It would appear there was a certain method to the reviled madness of feudalism. India is the best example and look at how long their civilisation has lasted intact. The unfortunate side effects whisked away by the promise of reincarnation, but maybe there's a middle way. Then the wars hit, doing untold damage to the national psyche, the church was on it's knees, feminism was ripe, but why the going got good so it was all brushed under the carpet, and that's why we're in the situation we are now. We need to think about how to rebuild after this war. I'm all for democratic values but if this situation is teaching me anything it's that those who take power and lay down the law are those with the b**** to do it.

  4. Great article, you should get in touch with certain popular alt right sites to get it published there.

  5. ....and Milo Yiannopoulos, of course. Much as these well-known writers, who are the pick of the bunch as far as I can see, try to counter-deconstruct the deconstructors, and they do an excellent job, they often fall a bit short when it comes to understanding who the enemy are from an historical perspective which is one of the things Paul excels at. More articles and essays like this and we will have them wrapped up. They are already on the back foot [liberal/left], after forty years of having it their own way we are beginning to turn the tables on them (the dirty swines on the left).

  6. Not Douglas Adams - Douglas Murray. Not to mention Melanie Phillips and David Starkey. The are the serious British writers I have knowledge of who have been busily engaged in the heroic task of resisting the tyranny of multiculturalism. There are a few like Rod Liddell, Richard Littlejohn and company who try to achieve the same object with humour (more power to them) but this is a serious man's business.

  7. Another great article, thanks so much. May I offer one piece of well-intended if unsolicited advice?

    Cut these excellent essays in half.

    Not many below the age of 50 these days have the attention span or the personal discipline necessary to digest 11 pages of content-rich, thought-provoking prose in one sitting. There are simply too many distractions (e.g., texts, instant messages, TV, etc.) for 90% of the population to get through and essay of this size, despite its significant reward in edification. I would therefore suggest (humbly) that you limit these amazing essays of yours to no more than 1500 words (1000 would be even better). It's a sad reality, but the shorter your essays are, the more people there will be that actually READ them. But please, shorter or longer, KEEP THEM COMING! :)