In his latest essay, MC wades into the culture wars and discusses mass media, propaganda, social engineering, and the long march through the institutions.


by MC

It is a long time since flogging was discontinued in the West, and even birching has not been with us for decades. All corporal punishment is a no-no. Instead we must systematically and chronically punish those who deviate (unless one is a member of the Sturmabteilung Antifa who are permitted to bash anybody who does not submit to global fascism) by long term incarceration, an expensive form of extended legalized torture.

Word, words and more words, each one loaded with visual LSD. Buy this; donate to that; girls are boys; real men are gay; babies are bad.

Everything we see and hear that is not part of a complete face-to-face conversation has the potential to be lies, and, unfortunately, much of it is.

Most of us look at prisons in a certain way. We do not think of the dungeons of the dictators, but of rehabilitation and re-education. But the reality is that prisons are nasty hell-holes of corruption that are more likely to produce graduate-level criminals and terrorists than any kind of reformed citizen. It is the propaganda that keeps the reality wolf from the door.

By what means can we allow Christianity to be denigrated as loony in one breath, and Islam upheld as the ‘religion of peace’ in the next? Even the Pope upholds Islam whilst allowing Christians to be slaughtered with little more than a murmur of protest.

The fact that an anti-Christian and anti-creationist bias exists among faculty at public universities— especially in science departments— has been well-known and well-documented for many years now. A new video report by the Alliance Defending Freedom has shown just how far that anti-Christian bias has now crept into the thinking of everyday college students on campus. When asked if they would support a law which forces Muslims to participate in activities on a professional level that go against their faith, students universally said no; but when the same question was posed with Christians instead of Muslims, they were unwilling to extend Christians the same rights!

Our London rammer self-identifies as muslim, so we are told, but we are also told that a real muslim would not do what he did…

But when a boy self-identifies as a girl, he has every right to use female facilities. Modern life is sooooo confusing.

Engineering is a precise skill. It turns science into technology. Bad engineering kills people; good engineering benefits us enormously. But there is an exception: social engineering is not a precise skill. We pretend to know the science behind it, when in actuality we know very little. So when social engineers start selling us their wares, be afraid, be very afraid. History shows us that this form of engineering is nearly always lethal on a large scale.

Before the age of radio, there was little in the way of mass communication. There was the local newspaper where, news was news and opinion was opinion, and advertising could be ignored.

Early radio reached many millions of people with the same social engineering message: it was acceptable, even desirable, for women to smoke in public. Sales of cigarettes rose dramatically, and everybody was happy.

Radio ads, carefully embedded within popular programs, were much more difficult to ignore…

So ladies smoked in public; it was no longer frowned upon. Score one for social engineering.

The undermining of the family using media propaganda started with the relatively honest desire to make money. Split a family, sell two washing machines rather than one.

Now, every TV show has to have its LBGTHijLIJK liaison, or else it is not cool! Or is it that we have to be taught, that we have to be remodelled, rebuilt, re-engineered to be the new man so beloved of the dictators of history?

Only it doesn’t work. It has never worked and it will never work. It just produces a mess; people die in large numbers, and we go back to brute ignorance.

Soon those of us who received an education where we were taught to think for ourselves will become old, feeble and mostly dead, and the new generations will have to fend for themselves. Have we provided them with the tools to survive? No, we plonked them in front of the goggle box and let them get on with it.

When we trashed our TV in 1978, my wife and I got a lot of flak because our children would become ‘outsiders’ by not getting their daily dose of pixilated psycho-vaccine. As a result they would not be part of the reality-immune herd, and would therefore be sensitive to outside influences. They might even see through the lies!

Our modern society has been largely shaped by Hitler and Stalin — Stalin good; Hitler bad. Although latterly Stalin, personally, has had some bad press, it did not stick to his policies. Those guys Adolf and Joseph were so similar they could have been identical twins. It is difficult to decide whether modern society is Communist or Fascist, or just an amalgam of both (i.e. Nazi). I see the word ‘Orwellian’ used more and more to describe reality rather than fiction; more and more, ‘big brother’ is moving to the non-fiction shelves. Can we really trust anybody at all with our personal data even when it might possibly ‘protect’ us from terrorism? But come the wonderland global utopia, that data is more likely to convict us of ‘terrorism’. “Ah, Alice” said the Queen of Hearts “you browsed the GoV website five years ago — off with her head!”. And the Cheshire cat just grinned and went back to sleep.” (with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

I grew up with the BBC news and have been influenced by it for some sixty years. We got our first TV in the late fifties; I even wrote about it for Liberty GB — yes, that’s me, the weedy one on the left.

The modern BBC is a pseudo-independent propaganda channel. It is at the vanguard of the Cultural Marxist long march through the institutions, and is now so corrupted that it believes its own propaganda and cannot tell the difference between news and spin. The BBC (and the BBC Trust, its supervising quango of the great and good) sincerely believe that it exists as a social force to define right behaviour and wrong behaviour. It is an electronic pulpit for the self-appointed bishops of globalism and their multiculti platitudinalism.

Muslims murder people on our streets in disproportionate numbers in relation to their demographic. They are also, on the whole, occupiers in our countries because they want to change our nations to their political and legal systems. Their object is that their Sharia law must supersede our national law. When the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, they first imposed their martial law, and subsequently imposed their Nazified form of civil law. Is there any real difference? Or is it all just wrapped in a propaganda-inspired multicultural diaper?

Again, when the USSR gained control in Eastern Europe it was a soviet-style body of law that was imposed on the conquered people.

So what is it with this Islamic invasion? Is Sharia law more desirable than the Nazi or Soviet legal systems? This is not about religions of peace or war; it is about which legal systems we have to live under. Do we keep our legal system based upon the boring Old Testament law that has been shown to work so exceedingly well, or do we adopt sexy, fashionable but totally failed systems such as Shariah? Or Nazism? Or Communism?

It is a stark question which we must all answer for ourselves, despite the propaganda.

‘Backlash’ is a word used to describe the actions of those who make the ‘wrong’ decision in the view of the tolerazzi, those who believe that all ‘isms’ are of equal value (except those that they disagree with, of course). To them, the (anti-muslim) backlash is the real bogeyman and must be avoided at all cost, so they criticize the victims and justify the perps. In that manner we bottle up the (as yet non-existent) backlash in a raft of social engineering. They relabel the world’s most violent politicized ‘religion’ a ‘religion of peace’ and turn up the volume on the propaganda whilst sweeping the rape of minors, FGM and legalized wife-beating under the carpet. So all you good global dupes citizens, put on your pussy hats and march behind the convicted Palestinian Islamic terrorist and murderer, after all, (President) Trump IS the backlash!

MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.

24 thoughts on “Backlash

  1. if someone is against LGBT, wants more religion, and more patriarchy – how is that different from Islamists?

    and then, this anti-“globalism” stuff.
    never understood what it actually means.

    look around, everything is made in (generalized) China these days.
    so if you don’t like it, if you want to deny the reality of international separation of labour, – don’t buy it, just put quietly back on shelf, be consistent.

    global union of people who value and promote freedom, humanity, secular education, non-zero sum collaboration, – what is wrong with that?
    is it pro-Islam? No.
    is it “utopian-egalitarian”? No. Actually, meritocratic and IQ oriented.
    first thing Islamists targeted on 9/11, was a headquarters of “globalism” – WTC…

    • I am having difficulty understanding what point you are trying to make. First you deny Globalism, then you say muslims attacked it. If it does not exist, how then can you attack it.

      I find your opinions greatly similar to that of most liberals. It’s not your fault, as your opinions have been shaped by an absolute barrage of propaganda feed to you constantly though a variety of sources. You see the world through the filter of what you want it to look like, and what you are told it should look like vs. what it actually is. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” is the phase that most comes to my mind when listening to liberals, because that is where their thinking will lead us.

      Fundamentalism and Conservatism are at their core a search for what is most true. Truth can never be subjective, but must be objective. Christianity teaches us that there is no utopia to be found on earth because it is an imperfect place that is filled with imperfect people with imperfect ideas (Yep, I’m one of them).

      • I think I defined quite well what was attacked by jihadis at WTC – the idea and a symbol of infidels unified in and by their, well, “infidelity”.

        that is “Globalism” in my view – the integral, generalized West.
        if you have other definition please specify.

        in part BTW, “Globalism” is the reality, at least in logistical sense. in many aspects, it is a framework for the future, and a pre-requisite for progress.

        not sure what you meant in second paragraph and by “liberals”, but I’m deeply touched that you have pity for me.
        I really do.
        But emotions aside, I don’t see any argument here – what is it exactly, that I fail to notice and/or understand?

        Christianity teaches us not what you just wrote, but several things lke this:
        – there exists an almighty God
        – seven days of creation, Adam, rib, all that stuff
        – Jesus is a son of God, brought in the world by immaculate conception
        – Holy Trinity comprises the hypostases of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit
        – and alike

        if any of that has something to do with “objective truth” – using your own expression, – then I am Queen of England.

        on the other hand, if you don’t accept all of the above, you aren’t Christian.
        but I presume you are.
        so maybe I’d rather discuss things like objective truth, with someone else.

        • “if any of that has something to do with “objective truth” – using your own expression, – then I am Queen of England.”

          Your Majesty:

          I respectfully submit the following.

          I am not referring to the supernatural elements of Christianity, but rather to what we as a society view as fundamental truths. When I say “Yep, I’m one of them”, I am stating that I am an imperfect person with imperfect ideas, not that I demand under penalty of death that you conform to my belief system.

          Atheists are always on the defensive around Christians, because they feel their belief system is under attack. I’m not here to attack you, but to merely ask what is important? I understand the issues people have with the supernatural elements of Christianity and that scientific observation differs from Christian dogma. It greatly bothers me that you throw the ideology completely out the window because of the previous stated issues, but then offer nothing better to replace it. Please think long and hard about what is the foundation of Western Civilization. It’s not the chaos of do whatever feels good. Do not offer nihilism and subjective morality in exchange for a tolerant religious ideology (despite the actions of a few crazies) . I’m here to question the wisdom of that.

          Subjective morality is the reason people lock their doors at night, and get concealed carry permits. I just want atheists to understand how destructive that ideology really is. If you create a society with disorder in it, then new, or worse ideologies will emerge to restore people’s faith in society in order to restore order. As one atheist Stephen Molineux on YouTube stated, “If Christianity preserves the social order, then pass me a whole bunch of those wafers and don’t Bogart the wine”. Islam can also restore social order, but I don’t think you or I would care for the price we would have to pay.

          • one can’t use the same brain for belief and for reason.

            certainly Christian morality is a cornerstone of civilization.

            but its origin goes back to Old Testament, from there to Babylonian law, and so on, back to chimps, the further, the less similar to modern morality, the more recembling jungle law.

            it is given to us as cognitive continuity, the same way as our bodies are given to us as evolutionary-physiological continuity.

            in the future, there will be no death penalty, no totrure, no abortions, no killing animals, likely no imprisonment, and who knows what else will be possible to fix socially with the help of modern biomedicine.

            it will be kind, svelte, and very reasonable world.
            we would all like it.
            not for everyone at the same time, and not tomorrow, but you can’t stop progress.

            not with Christianity, at least, – it is useless.

            as Christian, could you please enlighten us, if death penalty is forbidden in Christianity?
            well, that’s it.
            it was acceptable social practice all along.
            whereas now, in the country not so long ago known as Nazi Germany, and many others, the death penalty is already forbidden.
            the society there is way ahead of Christianity, in this regard.
            not only this, certainly.
            it is named, learning from mistakes.
            some chaps can do it.

          • For AY,

            It occurs to me on reading your post that your visions and predictions are every bit as based on faith rather than science, as any religious dogma you might criticize:

            in the future, there will be no death penalty, no totrure, no abortions, no killing animals, likely no imprisonment, and who knows what else will be possible to fix socially with the help of modern biomedicine.

            This is pure fantasy. We don’t know what the mechanisms of inter-species evolution are, and so even knowledgeable predictions are pure speculation.

            ” in the country not so long ago known as Nazi Germany, and many others, the death penalty is already forbidden.
            the society there is way ahead of Christianity, in this regard.”

            That is as pure an example of a priori value-based thinking, as opposed to logical, as I’ve seen. Not that your values, though not mine, are necessarily worse, but they are every bit as unsupported as any religious-based values you criticize.

            For dhans:
            ” I just want atheists to understand how destructive that ideology really is. If you create a society with disorder in it, then new, or worse ideologies will emerge to restore people’s faith in society in order to restore order. ”

            Your argument is that the existence of god, when acknowledged by the population, promotes order, and that is an argument for the existence of god.

            A million dollars in my account definitely promotes my welfare, but I’d be pretty foolish to start acting, for that reason, as if I had a million dollars in my account.

  2. Wonder how many of the special snowflakes being churned out by the institutions of learning here in ‘murica could identify that woodprint and what it represents. Bentham must be rolling in his grave.

  3. MC, I hear your bitter sadness. I hope things improve but it’s very hard to be a believer in the improvement of the human race. It becomes ever harder to be an optimist these days.

    I myself, being old, believe that at some point we have to face reality and make all-out war on the muslims, until they tuck their tails between their legs and scurry for home. There will be some kind of peace while they remember their failures, but then another generation will arise, equally arrogant and it will have to be done again.

    The muslim religion, were it actually peaceful and pleasant, would not be a problem. But it is violent, it is cruel, and it has been these things since Mohammed, the one who invented it. They are cruel to their women, their girls and to one another. I find absolutely nothing positive there. at least Christians profess for Christ who was a man of peace while he walked the earth. and I’ve never had any prejudice again Jews since they led Christians back in the day.

  4. Well MC, you weren’t too weedy to serve Her Majesty in the Forces!

    Can’t agree with you about “anti-creationist bias” in universities; it’s their job to teach science, not fairy tales devised to explain the world in a pre-scientific age.

    • Would you call the current state of liberal arts and humanities in our universities “science”? I would be happy to see a neutral attitude toward Christianity in universities. Teach it as philosophy if you desire. Instead you see downright hostility.

      I simply find it impossible to view the Christian Bible as a “fairy tale” if it is the fundamental basis for our society and law. That’s a pretty poor foundation to build on. Societies need organizing principles. Diversity and Multiculturalism destroy societies. What exactly would your basis for a unifying culture look like in our diverse United States, that everyone would agree is just and fair, promoted a vibrant, growing society, and people would revere to the point of not engaging in breaking those rules?

      • dhans, I was speaking specifically about creationism, as I might of people who believe the world is flat. I’m not dismissing everything in the Bible by any means (though there is, for example, no external evidence for the Jews’ enslavement in Egypt, or subsequent wanderings).

  5. If only their were Catholic armies to fight the murders of our brothers and sisters. There are Marxist armies, even a Jewish army and many Muslim armies. No Catholic armies…so, the Pope is reduced to chirping. How did THAT happen? Where are the Christian soldiers marching onward?

    • The same forces that infected media, government, and the education system, also infected the church. What you see to today in many churches is a selective and biased reading of scripture, or even a rejection of certain scripture because it does not fit with what they consider a modern world view (one that generally favors the political left).

      When you selectively weight certain scripture, then you will get a very distorted view of religion that leads to excessively pacifistic behavior. Imagine if scripture was interpreted with an excessive weighting on the scripture that says “Turn the other cheek”. That’s what would lead you to pacifism in the face of true evil.

      This is why it’s important to attend a church that is Bible oriented and not one that interprets the Bible. Pretty soon you are no longer practicing Christianity anymore if you leave things out, or put a new spin on it. Everyone has doubts about things, and everyone interprets things, but first you have to read it for yourself and try to understand the subject at it’s most fundamental level. That’s what Fundamentalism is.

      • Let me explain this another way. The New Testament is the yin to the yang of the Old Testament. To be complete, you need both. If you favor one too much over the other, you have a imbalance.

      • dhans,

        As one interested in the survival of our culture, I’m uninterested in the specifics of religious observance. I’m not denigrating your viewpoint, but reacting to the fact there are many forms of worship. I agree with you that universities have no business in actively attacking Christianity. This, however, does not mean treating any point of view without skepticism: an example is the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Another example is the made-up field of “intelligent design”, which is an attempt to use bogus probability in an attempt to prove divine presence. Religion is based on belief, so religion operates in the realm of unproven and unproveable. Any attempt to merge religion and science fails, except the use of, say, Christian emphasis on truth to motivate the integrity of scientists in approaching data collection and interpretation.

        The attack on religious display derives from the tenets of cultural Marxism, which looks to destroy existing culture and society to pave the way for a globalist socialism. As an atheist, I can be uncomfortable during a display of public prayer, but it’s not an injury. The militant, litigious atheists, gays like the LGQBT or whatever, the transgenders and the feminists are carrying out a systematic campaign to destroy the cultural norms we are used to living with. The particular issue is simply a smokescreen. This is why feminists are so comfortable with female genital mutilation (FGM): organized feminism is simply another cultural-Marxist front.

        So, we should be looking for ways to allow traditional, religious believers to maintain their culture (and the general culture we know) through Constitutional means. There are several paths:
        Freedom of association: doing away with quotas, affirmative action, and the fair housing practices of destroying culturally-stable communities. The only way to maintain a sense of community is to be a community. Practitioners of a particular religious identity have to live and work with each other to develop their identity and pass it to their children.

        Right to a private education, excluding non-practitioners. This is a double-edged sword. Private Muslim education is exactly a way Muslims maintain a keen sense of exclusion of the society within which they live. But, Muslims are pretty much given a pass on freedom of association and private education issues anyway, so perhaps the best we can do is extend the privilege to religions that actually support our culture and laws.

        • As an atheist, I can be uncomfortable during a display of public prayer…

          As a Christian, I am also uncomfortable with public prayer outside a church or religious institution. It violates the Constitution when done at public events open to all. There is simple courtesy to others in a pluralistic society to keep your prayers to your “closet” (as Jesus said) or to your place of worship. Public prayer is rude.

          It is odious when it blocks others’ enjoyment/use of public space – e.g., the Muslim Friday prayers that take place on city streets, blocking traffic. Those doing so should be arrested.

          Your idea of extending the privilege to religions that actually support our culture and laws is nowhere better demonstrated in America’s crackdown on polygamy among Mormons. Once they accepted American laws, they were accepted and are now respected by most people. However, I would not want to live where they are a majority and make local laws.

          Catholicism run amok ruined the economies of Ireland and Spain and Italy. None were prosperous while under the thumb of the Church.

  6. MC always writes interesting, informed, and informative articles. But, I usually take a different perspective.

    To me, there is a systemic aspect of the mass surrender to Muslim immigration and Islamic takeover. It’s a symptom of something which has appeared in many civilizations: the seemingly-inevitable decay of a flourishing civilization or empire or state. I take most of my concepts from
    Law of Civilization and Decay

    My conclusion is that the present deterioration of standards and culture described so well by MC is not simply a result of abominable taste in cultural norms, but an almost inevitable deterioration in the base of almost any successful civilization. For instance:

    1) It is common for civilizations to come under the control of financial geniuses who care about nothing but increasing their wealth. This generally results from the increasing complexity of commerce and currency, making it subject to specialized manipulation.

    2) The size of government expands, spending more money on administration and expenses in general, inevitably taking an ever-increasing share of the population’s wealth.

    3) The protection of commerce allows cheaper goods and services to displace the original citizens. The impoverishment of the small farmer, craftsman depletes the population base, and makes military security dependent on paid mercenary soldiers.

    4) The flow of money to the financial geniuses and the impoverishment of the small native workers and farmers makes raising children expensive and burdensome, resulting in optional marriage and small or non-existent childbearing.

    All this implies that systemic trade-offs need to be made. A trade-off means you give something up to get something. For example, when a government legislates a protective market to protect domestic workers and industries, the prices go up for consumers. Putting a tariff on imported goods means the average consumer will pay more.

    This is where the electorate needs to have a certain intelligence. A low-IQ, low foresight electorate will react immediately to higher prices, without considering the trade-off of higher quality of life and greater long-term security.

    Another example is the Kibbutzim in Israel. It is common knowledge the Kibbutzim provide a disproportionate number of Israel Defense Force fighters. I don’t know if the Kibbutzim are commercially competitive with large agricultural corporations, but there is definitely an argument to be made for a strong government bias supporting Kibbutzim, even at the expense of higher prices for food. Of course, this is subject to abuse, as illustrated by the Obama administrations subsidy of the Solyndra corporation which scammed hundreds of millions of dollars on the pretext of supplying cheap solar energy.

    I could go on and on, but my point is this. If we want to try to reverse the inevitable cycle of civilization decay, we have to look hard at the necessary trade-offs, some of which may not be too palatable. For example, intelligence and personality are heritable and generally Darwinian. Fundamentalist Christianity is indeed a mainstay of our culture and society, but if they indulge themselves in pushing the creationist theme, they will not have the tools to assure themselves continued survival. So, the necessity of trade-offs ends up biting us all where we don’t want to be bitten.

  7. MC, we know who the father of lies is, and to all appearances he is working overtime. I suppose that means he must have a deadline.
    PS, deadline can be taken in more than one way in this instance. Not only is a date of job completion but also a meaningless platitude.

  8. What a wonderful question. The only one’s I can think of are either Russian, Polish or Irish. No wait…..

  9. Another splendid essay to read in here; thank you.

    Yes, the Pope is a defender of the Mahometans because he is a liberal and liberals always succor the other because of the principle of non-discrimination.

    For modernists like the Pope, the ecumenical armed rocket the fathers assembled from 1962-until they launched it in 1965 – is their own work and they will not admit their errors (Is there any collection of men haughtier than our modernist hierarchy?) or repudiate their wildly wrong misreading of the times even though the rocket they assembled, armed, and launched, landed in the middle of the Sacred Sanctuaries and blowed-up wickedly with we trads constantly constrained to try and dodge the collapsing columns and to seek spiritual sanity in the ruins left behind.

    The opening speech at Vatican Two by the liberal Pope John XXIII (Written by the modernist Montini, then Archbishop of Milano) was an unconditional surrender to the world, the flesh, and the devil – all of which ancient and permanent enemies were to be corrected by love, not combatted by our legitimate ,and crucial to survival, coercitive force.

    The execrable Pope Paul VI even confessed to the Roman Clergy he desired to be loved more than anything else and that is why he would not actualise discipline to correct errors or remove obviously heretical prelates. Thanks Montini.

    Lord have Mercy, such deadly naivety combined with the Masonic Principles (all men are fundamentally good and free to worship God as they desire and this is the way to world peace) have left us bereft of the ability to see reality as it is.

    One can not have any hope that in the short run Catholics can be rallied to defend themselves as their own prelates constantly attack the Crusades and castigate Tradition.

    C’est la vie.

    It an odd way, one almost feels good about being abandoned by his shepherds for that is better than being attacked by them.

  10. If Nature abhors extremes, then the nihilism of the Leftists Cabal which controls everything (or almost) within the West, and is certainly extreme, is bound to fail.
    Though how many thousands of young lives will be snuffed out because of their addiction to Falsehood and Greed, we cannot yet guess.

    The perfidy of Western politicians and their propaganda organs is an outrageous affront to Liberty and to Truth. These Quislings are the betrayers of the people and the enemies of Reason. Their gated communities are not proof against the wrath of the Mob they will unleash by their inhumanity and folly: which they may discover, before very much longer.

    There are but two paths; one of which may lead to civilizational survival.
    The other path, most assuredly, leads to destruction: and a new Dark Age.
    We are now dangerously far along this path.

    This is a Fight to the Death!
    The death of their narcissistic, misanthropic Falsity: or the annihilation of Truth!

    Now choose!

  11. for ronaldB:

    you are right in your last post but you forget about format of discussion.

    “social justice warriors” are doomed to play teleology.

    I’m over-optimistic in my prognosis not because I presume validity of “objective historical process” or alike, but because our destiny is to choose and act, and I try to show, and argue in favour of desirable outcome.

    I know, nothing is granted.
    Aztecs created civilization worshiping, and acting as, bloody monsters, they were governed by madmen and died out as madmen.

Comments are closed.