Collective Masochism

Many years ago in Hong Kong I met a local girl. We talked and quickly became very well acquainted. She was fascinated by all things western, very dubious about the role of the People's Republic in Hong Kong, and committed to liberal western democracy. As a middle-class Honky she was well off so this wasn't simply a money thing, and just so you know, we didn't meet in one of the infamous bars of Wan Chai where aspiring Suzy Wongs are friendly and easily to become acquainted with. During an energetic sex session one day she blurted out a barrage of self-deprecating racism and encouraged me to join in with it. The amateur psychologist in me was fascinated by this even mid act. When we discussed this later she confided that this was not a one off thing. She had a sexual fetish for racial and cultural degradation. It was bizarre though I must admit quite fun. Talking about it afterwards it appeared that there wasn't really a hard and fast division between her sexual desires and her political outlook.

The more I observe Britain and the west's ongoing death spiral from afar, and especially the current migrant crisis, the more I come to the conclusion that it's nothing to do with compassion. Nor is it an ideological belief in one world where we all move around freely, and live side by side as equals, nor any of the other usual explanations. Rather it seems more and more that many 'liberals' have some sort of a masochistic love of seeing our culture suppressed, denigrated and destroyed. A dystopian fantasy, that is reminiscent of my Hong Kong encounter.

Obviously it's nearly impossible to come up with hard evidence of this, but when you look at various stories and reports in that light it's hard not to notice it. Many of these people appear to have a sort of deep rooted sexual desire to be taken advantage of by aggressive immigrants.

I'm starting a Collective Masochism tag to flag up stories which illustrate this. Please do feel free to send me more, or your own examples of such stories.

ISIS Aid

While ont he subject of the peculiar things that are and are not deemed worthy charitable causes, a good friend of mine recently pointed out this batshit mental campaign organised by Canadian-Jewish businessman Steven Maman to actually buy sex slaves from ISIS.

Yes, he is giving money to Islamic State. Money to buy weapons, fuel and propaganda. And perhaps worse still he is providing them with every incentive to continue their barbaric campaign of death and slavery.

This of course is all fine and dandy according to GoFundMe, through which he is raising funds.

Just Giving to Certain Causes

To no-one's great surprise my campaign to raise funds to repatriate the illegal immigrants currently at Calais was not published by Just Giving. The original rejection email simply said that my page did not meet their guidelines, and when I asked for clarification I was told that the crowdfunding platform enables people to deliver a social good, and this campaign did not fit their criteria for this

Now while I clearly don't fit the social justice warrior profile of your typical Just Giving crowdfunder and my campaign was tongue-in-cheek I genuinely would be interested in how exactly this idea does not constitute a social good. It would be helping them to comply with the laws of two democratic countries, to whom they would be free to apply for asylum or work visas through the proper channels, it would be alleviating their immediate hardship which will only worsen as the weather turns colder and the authorities harden their stance, and it would take away the impetus for increasingly hardline attitudes in both Britain and France against all immigration and asylum.

According to the other campaigns already running on JG, these migrants barely have the money for the bare essentials. In fact, they even need to be given bicycles in order to get around Calais. We know that these people are not being allowed into the United Kingdom and that many are already illegally in France where surely their presence in large camps around Calais is disruptive. With no funds to return to their countries they are completely stuck in limbo. In what sense is providing them passage home not a genuine kindness?

Or perhaps it's just not the right sort of kindness. From the links above they obviously believe that sending basic necessities is a social good, keeping these people in a miserable half-way house. Looking elsewhere on their site they clearly have no objection to raising money for Islamic Relief, a charity that was has been accused of funding Hamas by several governments.

So it's obviously something about helping stranded refugees to get home that doesn't fit with their ethos.

There would seem to be two obvious possibilities - Firstly that Just Giving is actually pro-immigration and is happy to help keep these migrants illegally squatting in Calais in the hope that European governments will eventually relent and allow them to settle. The other being that Just Giving is a commercial organisation who charge 5% of the money raised, and this campaign simply wouldn't fit with their branding. As only a mild cynic, I'm probably more drawn to the second possibility but wouldn't rule out a heavy dose of both.

As a libertarian, I'm bound to say that Just Giving are quite entitled to support any cause they wish and refuse and cause they wish and don't own me any explanation as to why. It sticks in the craw a bit that they have this veneer of being all about helping people when they are in fact a profit making the venture, but that's by the by.

The real point here is the way in which a certain strand of the left has been allowed to dominate the charitable sector so totally. This does not need to be the case. Voluntary action by private individuals is not an inherently socialist idea. In fact quite the reverse.

So let's try GoFundMe.com next.

The Empire Bum's Rush

Since neither our own government, the French government nor our "partners" in the wondrous European Union have shown any ability of even desire to solve the utter mess at Calais, I propose a private sector solution - simply load them on boats that we say are bound for England and sail them straight back to Africa where they can find far better refuge in the lands of their Muslim brethren.

Talking to a friend who works in shipping he reckoned on about £12,000 for a decent sized boat to sail to Morocco carrying up to 100 passengers.

I'll call it the Empire Bum's Rush.

To this end I've set up a Just Giving crowd funding site here where people can donate. I've set the target at £1 million, because this will be an ongoing project until would be migrants get the message that it is simply not acceptable to turn up in Europe with no visa and no money and no right to be here, and that it is very unwise to pay significant amounts of money to people trafficking gangs in order to do this.

Degradation Fetishists Dressed as Liberals

That rather alarming title is about the best I can think of for this utterly ridiculous video. It shows a group of French morons pretending to be kind by feeding the swarm of illegal migrants camped out around Calais hoping to come and enrich the United Kingdom.

This sorry band, led by dismal baby-boomer Claudine are going out and doing the begging on behalf of the assorted human misery living in fields around Calais, and getting local businesses to donate food, so that they can get a taste of life in England by living for free before they even get there. And what sort of reaction would you expect from these poor and downtrodden folk who are the recipients of this largess?

Even someone as cynical as me was a bit surprised to see them besieging and robbing the van when our saintly dupe noticed that they were hoarding boxes to sell to their fellow illegals. They drove off with one of them hanging out the back of their van emptying the contents out to his friends. Incredibly this only seemed to enhance Claudine's idiotically misplaced sympathy and she returned the next day bringing cans of halal ravioli to a colony of Somalians. When they noticed that the cans were past their best before date they angrily refused them and eventually tipped their contents out on the ground, almost quite literally throwing Claudine's "kindness" back in her face. She retreated, offended by the waste of food. This waste actually did annoy Claudine, but her anger wasn't directed at the supposedly poor and desperate Somalians who had just thrown away perfectly good free food. Oh no, as she and the gormless blob of silence in the van drove off she blamed "consumer society." Somalia, with an annual GDP of $246 can't really have much by way of rampant consumerism, so I presume she means the western consumer society which they have recently arrived in.

I tried hard to be generous to Claudine and think that she was simply an aging, naïve simpleton who thought she was being kind. The sort of lady who "charities" prey on to set up direct debits. It won't fly, though. Someone who was simply kind and compassionate would have stopped at the point that her van was besieged and assaulted. They would have been rightly offended, annoyed and disillusioned by this behaviour. Not Claudine though, she is back the next day getting more abuse from the recipients of her kindness. It could be a martyr complex, but she doesn't really come across as someone intent on broadcasting her generosity. In my experience, such people do more self-promotion and apart from a few photo ops with babies. The (video) photo op Claudine put out on YouTube shows her being berated by the very people she is trying to help. 

This is the thing, though. I simply can't believe that it's actually the migrants Claudine is trying to help. From watching the video, I get the impression she thrives on degradation and abuse. Like a battered wife who keeps going back for more, she feels on some level that she deserves it. In this, Claudine is far from alone. This sort of cultural masochism appears to be a phenomenon of that age bracket. I believe Claudine wants to broadcast this element because she enjoys the humiliation of it.

Whether this betrays some sexual fetish or simply a general lack of any self-esteem or dignity is not clear and is really the business of Claudine and her merry band alone. What is clear is that she is at the very sharp end of a phenomenon which is basically destroying the western world. The fact that this swarm of aggressive and vicious migrants have even got as far as Calais, quite possibly with the help of the British navy, is an absolute disaster. 

It would be quite possible for us to stop this. By simply doing nothing instead of assisting their illegal passage to Italy, it is quite likely that the numbers would be greatly reduced as far fewer would even attempt the crossing. Actually turning boats back would probably deter even more. A contributory welfare policy would make the country far less attractive. Having and enforcing a sensible immigration policy should make the number of illegal immigrants and genuine asylum seekers negligible. 

That would be no good for Claudine and her ilk because they actively want to see western countries destroyed by mass third world immigration. They want scorn and degradation because they actually hate themselves and western culture so much that they believe it is deserved. They seem to derive some sick pleasure from being mugs. Taken advantage of by the very worst that humanity has to offer.

There's nothing especially complex about stopping this, we simply lack the political will to do it because an influential section of the public who are disproportionately represented in government and the media seem to share what appears to be a rather sick fetish for this sort of degradation. They feed off sharing it publically and crave ever more of it, and they are quite literally destroying western civilisation to fulfil it. 

A very smokey fire

Someone making a wholly malicious accusation of child molestation against a prominent politician in the current climate seems to be a pretty strong case of perverting the course of justice. So it seems a bit strange that Ben Fellows was recently found Not Guilty of perverting the course of justice for making a historic child abuse accusation against Kenneth Clarke. Something with the potential to cause massive damage in the current climate.

Now it is quite possible that after 21 years there was simply insufficient evidence to either prosecute Clarke for molestation or Fellows for making a false allegation. However, Fellows accusations are quite specific. In 1994 he was part of a cash-for-questions sting operation by The Cook Report targeting Clarke, who he alleges plied him with alcohol and sexually abused him in the office political lobbyist Ian Greer. It doesn't really sound like there's a lot of room for error or mistaken identity there. This wasn't a mysterious figure taking him from a children's home late one night, but a targeted investigation which uncovered something even more dramatic than was originally intended. It either happened or it's a fabrication. The law on perverting the course of justice covers fabricating evidence, and effecting a public mischief, both of which would seem to describe Fellows behaviour if the court believes the allegations were wholly false.

Perhaps even more curious still is Fellows statement immediately after the trial that while he stands by his allegations, he “shall make no further comment now or in the future about Mr Clarke and the events of 1994.” 

Why would this be? It seems that the court has decided these allegations are not unfounded or malicious and that Fellows believes he was interfered with by a prominent politician. Even if no criminal prosecution can be brought against Clarke then surely having brought it this far he could either bring a private prosecution or at least encourage others to come forward so that Clarke can face justice while he is still alive.

His vow of silence seems to suggest a deal has been done. Quite what the deal is we may never know, but the deal maker would appear to be Justice Peregrine Simon. As well as acquitting Fellows, Simon also ordered that the jury not be told about another, entirely separate investigation by South Yorkshire Police into Clarke's interference with underage boys. Simon is the son of Jocelyn (Baron) Simon of Glaisdale, a founding member of the One Nation Group along with Clarke and Heath. According to Simon adjourning the case to let the other investigation take it's course would take too long, and just be too much trouble for such a minor matter.

So far so normal then, a Tory sexual cover up over 20 years ago, and a quite possibly dramatised recollection of events by Fellows.

Except there's more. You see in 1994, just around the time of the alleged incident a promising young Conservative researcher rather abruptly left politics and went over to Carlton Communications as Director of Corporate Affairs. His name was David Cameron, and he is the current Prime Minister.

Carlton was the baby of one Michael Green who through his marriage to Janet Wolfson, daughter of Conservative life peer Lord Wolfson, and cousin of Lord Young, the Conservative Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, Cameron's brief at the Conservative Research Department. In 1994, around the time of the alleged incident and Carlton hiring David Cameron, the company acquired Central Television who made The Cook Report, the programme that Fellows was working on when the alleged abuse took place. The episode in question mysteriously disappeared, the only episode cancelled in this fashion, as apparently after a few months accusations of cabinet ministers accepting bribes would have been "dated." All seems very cosy and convenient.

The Cook Report was cancelled in 1998, with Cameron still in situ, where he remained until being parachuted in to an ultra safe Conservative seat in 2001. Four years later he was leader of the Conservative party and by 2010 Prime Minister. Quite a career.

None of this of course is conclusive proof of any impropriety by Clarke, or of any assistance or collusion on the part of Cameron. Conclusive proof of anything in the sorry saga of the Westminster paedophile ring is a scarce commodity. However, it does not seem beyond the realms of possibility that both Clarke and Simon were keen to close the matter off once and for all, and that with Cameron now leading a majority Conservative government they had the perfect opportunity to do this, and do it by whatever means to ensure the silence of Fellows and others.

The more details emerge, the more probable it seems that a very powerful clique at the very highest levels of British politics and media have conspired to cover up grotesque child abuse, and through their culture of secrecy and silence have created a situation where paedophilia is rife across the very top echelons of society.

Paedophiles and Power

I'm beginning to think that paedophilia is more a manifestation of someone being drunk on their own power than an innate condition in itself.

In this light it shouldn't really surprise anyone to hear that Edward Heath has been accused of child molestation. As well as persistent rumours, and the admission by his Chief Whip Tim Fortescue about covering up such things to keep backbenches loyal, Heath showed himself to be a thoroughly nasty piece of work in every way and absolutely power crazed.

There's no real way of knowing whether Heath was a paedophile who became powerful, or a powerful man who became a paedophile. However, the persistent nature of these accusations against very powerful men at the top of their profession does seem to point towards some link, rather than a representative proportion unless paedophillia is simply far more common than we are led to believe. 

If there is a link between power and paedophillia then there seem to be 2 possibilities:

One, that power actually makes certain people attracted to the abuse of children. Perhaps their belief in their own power and invincibility leads them to push new boundaries and sexually abusing children is one of the most extreme boundaries they can push. Perhaps simply a love of extremes where the most powerful political figure in the country would derive sick pleasure from abusing some of the most powerless people, orphaned and abused children.

The second is that being a paedophile is a prerequisite for attaining power in the first place. Sexually abusing children is a rite of passage to the inner circle, and someone who doesn't do this can not be trusted.

This is basically an extension of Tim Fortescue's comments on his time as Chief Whip in Heath's government, where he would routinely help backbench MPs cover up "problems" in exchange for their loyalty:

"For anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, I’m in a jam, can you help? It might be debt, it might be… a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which, erm er, a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did. And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points… and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more."

It isn't quite clear from this whether these people will "do as we ask forever more" out of gratitude or fear of being outed later - i.e. blackmail. What is clear is that if you were a chief whip or a senior minister then the more scandal and dirt you have on your backbenchers (and hence the more loyal they are) the better. Of course, the reward for being a loyal backbench MP is promotion to more senior roles in the party and in government.

Given that MPs are meant to first and foremost to represent their constituents, there's no reason they should be unswervingly loyal to the government. In fact they should hold the government to account which necessarily involves disagreeing with it on occasion. If the whips know they are a child molester then they can be prevented from doing this in any way which would be detrimental to the government. The more dirt the whips have, the more the MP can be trusted to toe the line.

The logical conclusion of these machinations is that the governing party would promote those who they had dirt on, while promoting someone with no dirt would be dangerous as they might contradict or challenge the government. Of course not all dirt is paedophilia, but it's hard to imagine a more potent scandal, or thus a more powerful way for a government to keep their MPs in line. 

I suspect the reality lies in a mixture of both of these explanations - the mix of ambitious MPs attaining much longed for power, and the fear of public revelations about what they do with that power creating and reinforcing a culture of secrecy and collusion. In this situation everyone who could expose it stands to lose by doing so, yet stands to gain by staying quiet.