Banalysis

BY ANDREW MOODY

Witty, cleverly structured, argued and written, Frank Haviland’s BANALYSIS is driven by the same exasperated tone of the TV presenter in the classic 1970s movie NETWORK. “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Once, the author hopes, just this once, the truth will finally be told about the way the world really operates.

It is only easy to disagree with Mr Haviland when he writes “the exploration of religion (is) the greatest lie in history” but easy to agree elsewhere with both the clarity and passion of his arguments, and the urgency of his prose.

“Remember,” he writes “the next time someone in authority sincerely claims we’re only concerned with your welfare, you can be sure that’s the very last thing they are concerned about.”

Lies and the lying liars who become billionaires or prime ministers through deception of the public are the primary target of this elegant polemic. The book explores the deadly hidden agenda of outrage culture and identity politics, chapters include THE WAR ON THE Y CHROMOSOME, THE WAR ON WHITEHOOD, and, penultimately, THE SUICIDE OF THE WEST. One imagines David Lammy will not ask for a copy on his Christmas list.

To close his opening chapter, the gambit that will set up the entire argument, Haviland writes:  “Leverage is everything, everywhere, and everyone. We all know this intuitively. We also know how to spot the obvious stuff. When we read online: ‘Single mum earns $6,000 per day at home using this simple trick’, we don’t click on the link, because we are leveraging experts, and we know when we are being oversold. How do we know? We know because the leverage is too high, too thinly disguised. In many ways, life is just one extended game of no-limit poker. We have to perfect our own bluffs, but we also have to beware that others may bluff too. Justification is the process by which we sell those bluffs.”

A refreshing metaphor for an increasingly chaotic world and, in fact, solid advice. In our day and age when denying a man in a dress is a woman is “transphobic” (whatever that means) Haviland puts the true mission of third wave feminist transgenderism well: “not content with having infinite genders, Liberals confuse us further by getting us playing genital Top Trumps in the same toilets. They have their work cut out for them, nonetheless. It was always going to be a Herculean task to claim that males and females were one and the same. The rather obvious reason being, that males do not remotely conform to the homogeneity script. Not only do they largely represent variation in our species, but they flaunt it with such gay abandon in evermore excessive displays to attract those variance-loving females. For progressives, the answer is simple – genuine masculinity needs to be annihilated.”

This cuts to the heart of the matter – all the Laurie Pennys and anti-Trumpers are part of the problem, so threatened by real men that they will starve them, disenfranchise then, imprison them, ensure they are unemployed and can never enter the MSM, providing of course they are white:

“Men feel (understandably) aggrieved at the criticism they face for penis possession, then white people ought frankly to be up in arms over the hysteria that their pigmentation causes. For the most part, they are not. Thankfully they are not, because if any other group faced a similar, brazen, unashamed barrage of hostility from society in general, we would be in the early stages of civil war. There’s still time. We’re not talking about the lunatic fringe here, nor the odd, drunken tweet at 3am. We’re talking about mainstream publications, educational institutions, the media, and public figures, collectively normalizing the relentless war on whiteness. Indeed, if you did not know to what they referred, you would be forgiven for thinking that a sickness, rather than a race or skin colour, was being referred to.”

Mr Haviland details the errors in the ongoing culture of victimhood, and in his most desperately angry chapter on THE SUICIDE OF THE WEST he accurately describes the major problem behind a population of virtue signalling victims, who now blame white people, especially those of the heterosexual male variety:

“Society is now being described almost exclusively in terms of ‘privilege’, ‘oppression’ and the ultimate ‘intersectionality’ – an impossible, labyrinthine continuum of victimhood that no one could ever hope to untangle. Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps the idea is to have everyone waste their lives calculating the victimhood implications of their actions, an objective so complex that it would result in no one ever doing anything.”

This is a gripping and important sociological work, and a careful and angry study. Very detailed and well paced and, in our messed up, mentally ill Western culture, utterly vital. To provide some kind of way out of our group dilemma as homo sapiens on this planet, the author concludes with a chapter called LAST CHANCE SALOON:

“In just the same way that moderate Germans did not stop the Nazis, and moderate Muslims do not deter their extremist coreligionists, so too are we are implicitly guilty when we allow more courageous fellows than ourselves to be ostracised, imprisoned and even murdered for daring to say what we know to be true, but are too frightened to speak up about. There are times in history when we have had the luxury of inaction. This is no longer one of those times. The position is now clear. It is not so much a question of left and right anymore, but rather a question of those who embrace reality versus those who refuse it at all costs. The current debate distils to realists versus fantasists, whatever other names they may give themselves.”

Even though I was aware of these arguments before I read this marvellous book, I was taught clearer arguments to defend my unfortunate white, male heterosexuality, and by proxy everyone else.

Follow Andrew Moody on Twitter @VoguishFiction

Advertisements