One of the cleverest and strangest books I’ve ever read is Edwin Abbott Abbott’s Flatland, a Victorian fantasy first published in 1884. It’s about what happens when two worlds collide. One is our own three-dimensional world. The other is a literally two-dimensional world called Flatland, where there are only two dimensions to move in: north-south and east-west. There’s no up-down in Flatland, because there’s no third dimension.
They can’t think in 3D
The inhabitants of Flatland, known as Flatlanders, are living geometric shapes like triangles, squares and circles. They can perceive only in two dimensions and our three-dimensional world is impossible for them to imagine or understand. Flatlanders see a 3D object passing through their world as a series of infinitely thin slices, so to them a cube can look to them like a square or a triangle or even a hexagon, depending on how it’s orientated. And they can’t understand how human fingers, which look to them like a disconnected series of fleshy circles, can be part of a single, undivided hand.
In short, solidity baffles them. Abbott wanted his readers to see that we humans live in a Flatland of our own. After all, if 2D is flat to a 3D being, then 3D will be flat to a 4D being. Flatlanders can’t see or understand three dimensions of space and we can’t see or understand four. But Abbott wasn’t just writing a very clever mathematical fantasy: he was satirizing Victorian politics and culture. For example, the more sides Flatlanders have, the higher their status: triangles are lowly and circles are exalted. And so arbitrary geometry determines one’s position in life.
Forbidden to perceive reality
That’s a liberal idea, of course, but Flatland could easily be updated as a right-wing satire on the modern West. The point of an update would be this: We’re 3D, but we’re forbidden to think in 3D. Instead, we have to inhabit an intellectual Flatland, a flat, gray, silent world of political correctness and minority worship. Abbott’s original Flatlanders had hearing and colour vision, at least. We don’t have those things in our politics. When we look at the world, we have to turn most of our senses off and stop using reason and logic. We’re forbidden to see unity where it really exists, because the High Priests of PC tell us that phenomena like non-White failure and non-White genetics are entirely separate and unrelated. At the same time, we’re commanded to see unity where it doesn’t exist. “There’s Only One Race — the Human Race!” “Gender is a social construct!” “Whites and Non-Whites, Men and Women are entirely interchangeable!”
And some parts of the real world are strictly off-limits to us twenty-first-century Flatlanders in New Flatland. The Scruton affair, which I discussed in “A Philosopher Falls,” is a good example of how important and closely connected facts float off into an inaccessible hyper-realm. In early April 2019 Sir Roger Scruton, whom some call the greatest living conservative philosopher, was sacked from a government committee for the alleged thought-crimes of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism. Scruton himself and his many supporters have continued to bewail the unfairness and injustice of what happened to him. As Scruton wrote in a neo-conservative and highly philo-Semitic magazine called Standpoint: “Heretics like me should not be silenced by mobs.” But Scruton isn’t a genuine heretic or free-thinker, because he’s writing from New Flatland and certain facts go entirely unmentioned in his article. He doesn’t refer to Jews or his own alleged anti-Semitism even once, let alone discuss the Board of Jewish Deputies and its direct role in his sacking. And what about Lord Finkelstein and Tom Tugendhat, two prominent Jewish “Conservatives” who immediately joined the left-wing “mob” and its heresy-hunt?
No, Scruton doesn’t say a word about those two. Instead, he muses on the aetiology and epistemology of censorship:
One way to silence argument is by the invention of thought crimes, which are so vaguely defined that anybody can be accused of them. We thereby seal off areas of inquiry with a warning notice, saying “enter at your peril”. In my view the thought crime of Islamophobia, which [George] Eaton [the left-wing journalist who began the heresy-hunt] tries to pin on me (along with the other isms and phobias of our time), has precluded discussion of the most important issue facing European societies today. (“Heretics like me should not be silenced by mobs,” Standpoint, 25th April 2019)
Scruton is wrong. Muslim immigration isn’t the most important issue facing European societies today. In fact, the most important issue is that of Jewish power and its effects. But Scruton himself has “sealed off” that “area of inquiry.” He’s censored his own discussion of censorship. For example, who was behind the “invention of thought crimes”? And what “thought crime” was the forerunner of Islamophobia and the direct model for it? Scruton doesn’t discuss any of that, because the answers don’t fit into New Flatland. However, the then Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was much more honest in 2007, when he described the origins of identity politics and heresy-hunting like this:
Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the [London] Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)
According to Jonathan Sacks, “the process began with Jews.” He’s right and he’s also right that “blacks, women and gays” have followed the Jewish lead. So have Muslims. But heresy-hunting Muslims aren’t merely imitating Jews: they’re working with direct Jewish assistance. The Jewish heresy-hunter Richard Benson, who formerly headed the Community Security Trust (CST), is now working with the Muslim heresy-hunters at Tell MAMA. (MAMA stands for Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks.)
Trailblazers of heresy-hunting
Fiyaz Mughal of Tell MAMA welcomed Mr Benson’s arrival at his organization with these words: “CST has been the trailblazer in recording hate crime for the Jewish community and has set the benchmark. Richard spent 12 years building CST and his governance, leadership and support will take Tell Mama through its founding stages to a much higher level, and build confidence with the public.” In short, Fiyaz Mughal agrees with Jonathan Sacks that “the process began with Jews.” The Jewish CST have been the “trailblazer” in the invention of thought-crimes and have “set the benchmark” for the hunting-down of heretics like Scruton.
And when Scruton complained that thought-crimes are “so vaguely defined that anybody can be accused of them,” why didn’t he mention the very vague definition of “anti-Semitism” created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance? It states that “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” This definition has been officially adopted by the Conservative party, whose Chairman is a rich Jew called Lord Feldman and whose Chief Executive is another rich Jew called Sir Mick Davis. Ambitious gentile Tories like Sajid Javid and Priti Patel know that they have to grovel long and hard before Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), which the Jewish Chronicle has described as “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster, holding lunches for 700 guests, making countless Downing Street visits, and developing contacts throughout Israel and the Middle East.”
Who’s a good goy?
The Tory minister who sacked Roger Scruton is called James Brokenshire, which is a perfect name for a traitorous British politician. Bipartisan support for mass immigration has been breaking the shires of England, Scotland and Wales since shortly after World War II. James Brokenshire himself seems to be a gentile lawyer, but he has a Jewish wife and his goy-grovel is impressive even by Tory standards. In the House of Commons he has grovelled thus: “antisemitism has no place in our society — however it evolves, it is still hatred and bigotry — and we should not be afraid to call it out and to champion our Jewish community, which continues to make a towering contribution to our society without reservation. Indeed, Britain would not be what it is without our Jewish friends, neighbours and cousins.” And in a speech at Conservative Friends of Israel, he has grovelled thus: “In my role as Communities Secretary I’ve seen first-hand how important the contribution of the Jewish community across the United Kingdom is. Whether through community housing, providing education or even emergency services such as Hatzola, the Jewish community is a cherished and an essential part of what makes Britain great.”
Brokenshire is praising the “contribution” of Jews to other Jews, not to Britain as a whole. For example, Hatzola or Hatzalah (Hebrew for “rescue”) is an ambulance service staffed by Jews for Jews in places like London and New York (where it was involved in the Crown Heights Riot of 1991 after allegedly helping an injured Jew and ignoring two Black children injured in the same accident). According to James Brokenshire part of what “makes Britain great” is the presence of Jews working exclusively for Jews. Which simultaneously means working against Whites and against Christianity, of course. Brokenshire is a shameless shabbos goy who will grovel before Jews as hard and as often as it takes to maintain his political career. That’s why he sacked Roger Scruton: “A Board of [Jewish] Deputies spokesperson said: ‘As soon as we saw Roger Scruton’s unacceptable comments we contacted the government to make our concerns heard. We are satisfied the right decision has been made to dismiss him.’”
Not a great philosopher
From the perspective of Roger Scruton and his supporters, the Board of Deputies is “satisfied” that a blatant injustice has taken place. The Board of Deputies is also “satisfied” that argument has been silenced by the invention of vaguely defined thought-crimes and that vital areas of inquiry have been sealed off from scrutiny. But Scruton and his supporters don’t breathe a word of criticism against the Board of Deputies (see here, here, here, here and here). And they don’t criticize Lord Finkelstein and Tom Tugendhat as representatives of mainstream Jewish opinion and activism. After all, Scruton and his supporters live in New Flatland, where Jewish power, influence and ideology can’t be discussed or even mentioned.
That’s why I don’t agree that Scruton is a great philosopher or an effective conservative. A great philosopher should be someone who can transcend his own times and proclaim truths that others don’t see or refuse to mention. The truth in the Scruton affair is that he was sacked on Jewish orders in accordance with Jewish ideology. Scruton himself won’t admit this. Nor will he admit that Jews like Lord Finkelstein and the Board of Deputies actually approve of innocent people being condemned and punished for “anti-Semitism.” Voltaire joked that the English “execute an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.” Such behaviour isn’t a joke for Jews: it’s a highly effective political strategy. They punish “anti-Semites” from time to time to frighten anyone who might think of discussing Jewish power.
Jews decide, goyim obey
And from the Jewish perspective, an obviously innocent victim is even better than a supposedly guilty one. Why so? Because the injustice proves that Jews don’t have to obey any rules or follow any logic. Or rather, it proves that they make their own rules and that goyim have to obey. According to an Israeli newspaper, Jews in Britain “overwhelmingly back” the present Conservative government. Obviously, then, they shouldn’t be supporting a subversive, pro-immigration, anti-Christian leftist like George Soros against a right-wing traditionalist like Roger Scruton.
But so-called conservative Jews do support Soros against Scruton, because in fact they are leftist, pro-immigration and anti-Christian just like Soros. Furthermore, by punishing criticism of Soros they are helping to protect their own subversion and corruption. All these things are obvious in the Scruton affair, but only to those who are prepared to use all of their senses and wits. Sir Roger and his supporters aren’t prepared to do that. They live in New Flatland, a flat, gray, silent world where discussion of Jewish power is forbidden. At best, the Scrutopians are doing nothing effective to defend the West. At worst, they’re complicit in what Jews and their imported allies are doing to destroy the West. When the history of the early twenty-first century comes to be written, they will not be its heroes and its heresiarchs but its dupes and its Wormtongues.