BBC’s fawning Interview of a Hard Left Extremist Historian

Apr

2012

 

Eric Hobsbawm. The Marxist BBC’s fawning Interview of a Hard Left Extremist Historian

Written by Tim Heydon

One can't imagine the culturally Marxist BBC ever devoting a programme lasting an hour on Radio 4 to some far–right historian.  The chances of David Irving, for example, being given such an opportunity, are nil.
Would the BBC ever celebrate the life of an academic apologist for the Nazis who justified his support for the extermination of millions of leftists, jews, homosexuals, Freemasons, gypsies and others?  Hell would freeze over first.
Yet, like it or not, the paying public were this week treated to an hour of 'Eric Hobsbawm, a Life in History'.  Hobsbawm is a man who has publicly proclaimed his support for the extermination of millions of 'class enemies' in the Soviet Union.
It might be argued that Hobsbawm, who, born in 1917 now has various academic posts of a largely honorific nature including the Presidency of Birkbeck College, University of London, is extremely prominent in his field.  It might also be argued that he should be a good deal less prominent than he is.
Approving of the Death of Millions
Hobsbawm is the Marxist historian who, when in 1994 he was asked on TV by the Canadian politician Michael Ignatieff whether 20 million Soviet Deaths may have been justified had they brought about the promised communist utopia, asserted that they were.  He confirmed that this remark was no slip of the tongue or momentary lapse the next year.  When Sue Lawley asked him on Desert Island Discs if the ''sacrifice of millions of lives" would have been worth a communist utopia, he replied: "That's what we felt when we fought the Second World War".
Soviet Murders are to be equated with fighting the Nazis?
In other words he equated the necessary deaths fighting off the Nazi German invasions with the deliberate deaths of 20 million Class Enemies in the Soviet Concentration Camps.  Not to mention those millions who died elsewhere; in the forced famines in the Ukraine and transportation of ethnicities, for example.  (Solzhenitsyn put the total figure of unnecessary deaths at 60 million, a figure which makes the 'Holocaust' look relatively minor ).  Hobsbawm also argued that, "In a period in which, as you might imagine, mass murder and mass suffering are absolutely universal, the chance of a new world being born in great suffering would still have been worth backing".
Well, isn't that exactly what the Nazis thought too?  But can you see the BBC fawning over a Nazi historian who said that?
BBC Praise for an Old Marxist
The interview of Hobsbawm by Simon Schama was extraordinarily hands-off.  True, the Desert Island Discs remark was touched on - lightly.  But otherwise, Hobsbawm was given uncritical free rein.  His work was 'universally acclaimed', it was said.  No it wasn't.  The famed Kremlinologist Robert Conquest, author of 'The Great Terror.  Stalin's Purges of the 1930s' said of Hobsbawm's 'Age of Extremes', that the latter suffers from a "massive reality denial" regarding the USSR.  The philosopher John Gray, though praising of his efforts on the nineteenth century, thought his work on the post-1914 period as "banal in the extreme' and ' highly evasive' about the realities of communism.
Belief in the Improvement of Humanity (By Whom?) makes one both dangerous and wrong
Hobsbawm was praised by Schama as having a grip on human nature and the way people behave that would ensure his lasting greatness.  But a man who continues to believe in the 'improvement, if not the perfectibility of humanity' when he has his own personality and attitudes and the gross failure of the beliefs he continues to hold to as a standing reproach to this idea, does not understand himself, still less human nature in general.
A Case of Arrested Development
Hobsbawm came to Marxism at the age of 15, we were told.  When he read 'The Communist Manifesto', he thought, 'that's it!'  He became a communist activist in Germany.  He came to Britain when he won a scholarship to Cambridge.  Interestingly, while there he was a member of the Apostles, the society to which the Cambridge traitors Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt belonged in their time.
It seems he has made no progress emotionally since because such juvenile moments are emotional, not intellectual.  Like many other leftist intellectuals, his is a case of arrested development.  His adolescent fantasies of utopia have vitiated his undeniable talents and made them if not worthless, then worth much less than they might otherwise have done.
Hobsbawm is a Jew and it took another Jew, Tony Judt, to point out that Hobsbawm's bias in favour of the USSR and communism in general and his tendency to disparage any nationalist movement as passing and irrational, weakened his grasp of parts of the 20th century.
What a pity he has never really matured.

CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM AND IT,S INFLUENCE

Foreword by Horwich Nationalist, Although I believe this article has some theological errors on the origins of Christ ,as Christ was descended only on his mothers side in the flesh, otherwise being begotten by Gods power, it is quite clear in the Gospel that Christ was descended from Abraham the founder of the Jewish People, as stated quite clearly in the 1st chapters of the Gospels. But the article in all fairness has some quite interesting points , and in the quest to an open and free debate, is the reason I would publish it. CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM

Written by Stone Turner

April 2012 08:50

The debate raging within the patriotic movement over religion - and especially Christianity - has attracted many contributions from various personages. It has been a fascinating, eye-opening experience – if we can say one thing for certain, the debate has ‘shaken the tree’, figuratively speaking. Please don’t think for one moment that this article is “anti-pagan” – it is not. I have the greatest respect and reverence for the ancient beliefs of our ancestors (I find them fascinating), but I also believe these beliefs matured and developed into British Christianity, which then held sway until the present day. I was, until quite recently, a confirmed atheist with no appreciation or faith whatsoever in the ‘supernatural’. This was until I opened my mind and actually looked at the story of Jesus Christ and Christianity, and started to read the Bible, and I discovered that there was a gigantic discrepancy between my old bigotries against Christianity and the real thing. It occurred to me that as I was condemning Christianity I really didn’t know anything about it. Can you ask yourself honestly, right now, do you know what it is all about? Honestly? I didn’t, and as an inquisitive strong-minded young Englishman, I decided to study the whole subject and find out the truth for myself. Some have said that Christianity is “unnatural, egalitarian, universalist and pacifist” (to use an actual quote from the British Resistance website). Christianity is entirely natural: it promotes breeding (“go forth and multiply”, in fact, almost the whole of Man’s Christian existence is based on marriage with the aim of breeding), love for your own kind (“love thy neighbour as thyself”), is nationalistic (read the Bible, it speaks many times about “the nations”) and, especially in the Old Testament, the whole book is an endless catalogue of punishments inflicted by God on the ancient Hebrews for race-mixing and copying/assimilating the ways and traditions of other nations (God was enraged with this multicultural approach). If you don’t believe me, read the Old Testament, it’s all there in black and white. The Bible says that God has made us all different, and that’s the end of it. Speaking of heaven, the Bible says that “The nations shall walk by its light…The glory and honour of the nations will be brought into it.” “Christianity and Patriotism are synonymous terms,” said evangelist Billy Sunday, “and hell and traitors are synonymous.” According to Rowland Croucher: “There is now a clearer understanding that when the Bible speaks of ‘nations’ it is primarily referring to people groups defined not so much by artificial political boundaries, as by ethnic origin, language, group loyalty, custom and religion.” In fact, the nationalistic aspects of Christianity is what made our European civilisation so nationalistic and patriotic in previous times. Christianity in its traditional (pre-liberalisation) format was so violently nationalistic that Adolf Hitler actually called the Old Testament “The Book of Hate”. Christianity is definitely not pacifist in any way shape or form (“Don’t think I have come to bring peace” said Jesus). Jesus was no pussy footed liberal, and all you have to do is read the New Testament and this fact is blindingly obvious. Millions of Christians have been man and women enough to defy the greatest powers on earth and die by the millions for their beliefs. Jesus was, to use the words of Adolf Hitler, a “fighter”. For example, Jesus invaded the Jewish Temple and drove out (with violence) all the Jewish corrupt money lenders. Jesus hated Judaism, in fact, the entire story of Jesus was a rebellion against Judaism and the Jewish state of that time. He was so successful in his mission that the Jewish elders ensnared him and had him crucified by threatening the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, with their influence in Rome (“you are not Caesar’s friend”). Scared stiff of their influence in Rome, Pilate consented to their demands to have the Galilean upstart crucified. Was Jesus a Jew? Based on the evidence I have seen, no. Judaism, for the last two thousand years, has violently repudiated the claim that Jesus was “one of them”. The idea that Jesus was a Jew was invented in the Middle Ages to try to insulate the Jews from Christian persecution, for if Jesus was a Jew, and people believed it, then surely the Europeans/Christians wouldn’t treat the Jews so severely, went the rationale. So what was Jesus Christ in ethnic and racial terms? In my opinion, based on the evidence, Jesus Christ was a European Celt. We already know from works such as ‘March of the Titans’ that white European migrations stretched to the furthest corners of the Earth. One of these migrations from the old Black Sea basin homeland was a white European tribe called the Galatians, who settled in modern day Turkey (Anatolia). Part of this white European tribe broke off and migrated further south, settling in northern Palestine. This new break-away tribe was called the Galileans, and yes, Jesus Christ was a Galilean. I want you to stop reading this now and watch this video before returning to the article. Jesus Christ was a European Celtic anti-Jewish activist, who led a spiritual revolt against Judaism and the Jewish state during Roman times, and countered the Judaist message of intolerance, hatred and false religion with a (more European) message of decency, true faith, love and honour (I say “honour”, because Jesus Christ was crucified for his beliefs, how European is that). Jesus Christ, in my opinion, as a European Celtic anti-Jewish activist, was right in the fault line of a battle between European values and Jewish values, right in the midst of the friction point between European civilisation and Middle Eastern civilisation (if you can even call it a “civilisation”). Once the dust had settled, the Middle East (still clouded in Judaism) rejected Jesus Christ, whilst the message of Christ was adopted and implemented in Europe, as it suited our innate sense of values. Some have said that Christianity resembles Marxism or liberalism, but this is, in my opinion, ludicrous in the extreme. Where’s the proof for such assertions? Where’s the documentation or evidence to back up such claims? In my experience, Christianity is the diametric opposite of liberalism/Marxism. You probably think that just because Jesus Christ preached love and compassion, that it resembles liberalism. But no, because nationalism also preaches love and compassion. Nationalism, you could say, is “universalist”, because it is a creed that can be adopted and applied by all races and nations. After all, all nations could be nationalist, couldn’t they? If you read the Bible, you will see that Christianity is so far removed from our modern, Church of England idiots, that it is impossible to actually call them Christians. They are not Christians, do not follow real Christianity and its values or beliefs, they do not reflect the traditions of Christianity, and so on. It’s like people assuming that nationalism itself is corrupt, grasping and morally bankrupt just because Nick Griffin is. That would be unfair wouldn’t it? To tar a whole Cause just because someone corrupts it and misrepresents it. Elizabeth 1st, Walsingham, Cromwell, Duke of Marlborough, Wellington, Nelson, and on and on and on, in fact, every single one of our greatest warlords and leaders for the last three hundred years, have been true and deeply serious Christians and would look with utter contempt at the present day totally corrupted Church of England tree-hugging morons. Try telling Cromwell, or Wellington, etc, that Christianity is an “unnatural, egalitarian, universalist and pacifist” religion/belief system and they would react with utter amazement and confusion. Can anyone provide any evidence that Christianity is liberal? Christianity wants to separate gender roles. If you go to a strong Christian area like Ulster you will see: men are men and women are women, and enjoy traditional life roles. Using an extreme example, look at the Amish in America, who are peaceful, decent, moral and dedicated to large families and rearing the next generation. All these things also constitute the essence, values and principles of political nationalism. Christianity has a strong warrior tradition, stretching from the first great knights of the Middle Ages (who defended the whole of Europe against Islam) and then the great generals and soldiers of the age of Empire and colonialism (all Christians, read about them). Christianity definitely has a racial and ethnic perspective - all you have to do is read the Bible and its diatribes against the liberalism of the ancient Hebrews. In fact, the only true remaining “nationalist” areas of the western world are in fact Christian areas. Northern Ireland’s loyalist community is entirely Christian: if you speak to loyalist (and republican) paramilitaries and also church leaders in Ulster, you will discover that it is the martial, aggressive features of true Christianity that inspired both the loyalist and republican causes to active, military resistance against each other. Many, if not most, of the nationalist youth movements of Russia, France, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Bulgaria , Hungary etc have a strong Christian ethos. Check them out for yourself. Some say that “Christianity is dead in the West” but this assertion leaves me gobsmasked. You could also argue, using a cursory glance, that patriotism is dead in the west, as is nationhood, racial consciousness, decency, honour, and so on. Yes, a lot of things are dead or on the backfoot, but Christianity is by no means dead, as there are still five million Christians who go to church in Britain and Christianity is a common thread amongst virtually all nationalist European youth movements in Europe and especially in the USA. Just because the media hides it from you (in the same way they censor all politically incorrect stuff) doesn’t mean it is “dead”. As Jim Dowson explained in his articles, Christianity features heavily in virtually all European nationalist movements, everywhere in fact, except Britain (which has the greatest record of failure and impotence). The only organisation to utilise symbols of our 1,300 year Christian heritage is the English Defence League (EDL), which found (temporary) stunning success. Do you want to know where the whole cranky, paganistic style nationalism originates from? It’s simple: Heinrich Himmler. Virtually all the leaders of the Third Reich were ‘Christians’, including Hitler himself. This is from Wikipedia: “In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture, and his belief in an Aryan Christ. Before his ascension to power, Hitler stated before a crowd in Munich: ‘My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.’” In a proclamation to the German people on February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "It [the NSDAP] regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.” On March 23, 1933, Hitler addressed the Reichstag, saying: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions [i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism] as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." Albert Speer said of Hitler: “He carried within himself its [Christianity’s] teaching that the Jew was the killer of God.” This is taken from Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [Jesus Christ]." This is also from Wikipedia: “For a time Hitler advocated positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which emphasized Christ as an active preacher, organizer, and fighter who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day.” Older literature on Hitler states that he had no intention of instituting worship of the ancient Germanic gods in contrast to the beliefs of some other high-ranking National Socialist officials (primarily Himmler). In Hitler's ‘Table Talk’ one can find this quote: "It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. Here we come to the crux of the matter: the only leader of the Third Reich to take paganism seriously was Himmler, and he was mocked and ridiculed by Hitler and the others on this particular issue. But, seizing upon a chance to demonize the Third Reich, post-war leftwing propagandists elevated Himmler and the pagan stuff (primarily within the SS) to prominence, and made them a main focus for anti-nationalist propaganda, and then, like lemmings off a cliff, post-war nationalists fall into the trap of thinking that National Socialism was pagan. It’s all a great misunderstanding engineered by post-war Bolshevik propagandists. The positive influence of Christianity is far reaching especially in the rich history and culture of Western Civilization, despite a long standing ignorance or adamant denial of its contributions. The Bible itself is responsible for much of the language, literature, and fine arts we enjoy today as our artists and composers were heavily influenced by its writings. Paul Maier, in writing the forward to the book ‘How Christianity Changed the World’ by Alvin J. Schmidt, says the following about the profound impact Christianity has had on the development of Western Civilization: “No other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world for the better as Christianity has done. Its shortcomings, clearly conceded by this author, are nevertheless heavily outweighed by its benefits to all mankind.” Contrary to the biased liberal treatment of the subject, Christian influence on values, beliefs, and practices in Western culture are abundant and well ingrained into the flourishing society of today. Alvin J. Schmidt wrote the following regarding liberty and justice as enjoyed by today’s Western civilisation: “The liberty and justice that are enjoyed by humans in Western societies and in some non-Western countries are increasingly seen as the products of a benevolent, secular government that is the provider of all things. There seems to be no awareness that the liberties and rights that are currently operative in free societies of the West are to a great degree the result of Christianity’s influence. History is replete with examples of individuals who acted as a law unto themselves often curtailing, even obliterating the natural rights and freedoms of the country’s citizens. Christianity’s influence, however, set into motion the belief that man is accountable to God and that the law is the same regardless of status. More than one thousand years before the birth of Christ the biblical requirement given by Moses comprised an essential component of the principle that no man is above the law.” Magna Carta served as a courageous precedent some 800 years ago to the American patriots in the creation of the unique government of the United States. The charter, signed in 1215, at Runnymede by King John, granted a number of rights never held before this historic occasion including that “(1) justice could no longer be sold or denied to freeman who were under authority of barons; (2) no taxes could be levied without representation; (3) no one would be imprisoned without a trial; and (4) property could not be taken from the owner without just compensation.” Magna Carta had important Christian ties as demonstrated by its preamble that began, “John, by the grace of God…,” and stated that the charter was formulated out of “reverence for God and for the salvation of our soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honour of God and the exaltation of Holy Church and the reform of our realm, on the advice of our reverend [church] fathers.” This document also followed the precedent established in 325 at the Council of Nicaea in which Christian bishops wrote and adopted a formal code of fundamental beliefs to which all Christians were expected to adhere. Magna Carta displayed what its formulators as Christians expected of the king and his subjects regarding civic liberties. Christianity’s influence on language, literature, and the arts is often overlooked and even taken for granted. Without the Bible much of what we enjoy today would be non-existent. The English language incorporates many words and phrases taken from the Bible when first translated. In 1380 John Wycliffe translated the Scriptures in its entirety and from it appears many of the words we still use today including the words adoption, ambitious, cucumber, liberty, and scapegoat among others. William Tyndale was responsible for the first English translation from the original Bible texts. A gifted linguist skilled in eight languages with impeccable insights into Hebrew and Greek, Tyndale was eager to translate the Bible so even “the boy that drives the plow” could know the Bible. The influence of Tyndale on the English language was solidified in the publication of the 1611 King James Bible which retained about 94 percent of Tyndale’s work. A renowned scholar on the literature of the Bible, Alistair McGrath, notes, “Without the King James Bible, there would have been no Paradise Lost, no Pilgrim’s Progress, no Handel’s Messiah, no Negro spirituals, and no Gettysburg Address.” Despite the hostility and persecution towards the Christians in the early centuries under Nero and Domitian and later under the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation, the Scriptures were meticulously copied by the priests and monks which in later years were translated into the languages of the common people even under threat of punishment. Tyndale first worked in secret and when later betrayed and about to be burnt at the stake he called out, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” Within a year King Henry allowed English Bibles to be distributed. Two million English Bibles were distributed throughout a country of just over six million nearly seventy-five years after Tyndale’s death. Writers, artists, and musicians over the centuries have been greatly influenced by the Bible: from Dante to Milton to Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the words and themes found in the Scriptures have made their way into much of the literature we study and enjoy today. Other great Christian writers in the history of Western Civilization include Chaucer, William Shakespeare, John Donne, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, William Blake, T.S. Eliot, and William Faulkner, to name a few. Art depicting biblical scenes was made popular especially during the Renaissance with artists such as Raphael, Michelangelo, and Rembrandt. Johann Sebastian Bach, one of the most famous composers, was greatly influenced by the Scriptures. Most forms of music began as psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and the outgrowth from there progressed as the monks and churches spread throughout the ages. The works of Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, and Mendelssohn among others have greatly been influenced by the words of the Bible. With the publishing of Andrew Dickson White’s ‘A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom’ in 1896, the idea that Christianity was responsible for the arrival of science has largely been pushed out of the minds of the people, especially in academic circles. In the field of astronomy great advances were made under devout Christian men Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo. In physics we encounter Christians such as Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), Blaise Pascal (1623-62), Alessandro Volta (1745-1827), Georg Simon Ohm (1787-1854), Andre Ampere (1775-1836), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), and William Thompson Kelvin (1824-1907). These men held to a strong Christian faith as evidenced by their writings. Before he died, Kepler was asked by an attending Lutheran pastor where he placed his faith. Kepler replied, “Solely and alone in the work of our redeemer Jesus Christ.” Kepler, who only tried “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” died with the Christian faith planted firmly in his mind and heart. History books are filled with the rich details of men and women whose lives were changed by Jesus Christ and impacted the world through ideas found in Scripture in a wide array of disciplines. To deny the influence of Christianity on Western Civilization is to deny history altogether. Although at certain times there loomed dark areas in church history by those who deviated from the faith, the overall positive contributions far outweigh the negative. There is no mistaking the fact that Christianity has changed the world for the better. The truth about what Christians achieved in pursuit of knowledge, theology, philosophy, science, arts, music, education and their contributions to the progress of humanity (in the Middle Ages especially) has been hidden by our politically correct educational system. In fact, the bias and prejudice exhibited by leftwing teachers helped undermine and ridicule the Christian faith which undoubtedly caused the history and development of modern Europe. The term “Dark Ages” in which supposedly related with Christian corruption in the medieval Europe is very misleading. There weren’t any so-called Dark Ages and if there was one it was Christianity that brought light upon it. The idea of a ‘Dark Age’ is pure myth and an oft-repeated fabrication produced by prejudiced anti-Christian leftists - not a single unbiased historian believes this lie. Historical books on how Christianity built Western civilization and why it survived and how it accumulated knowledge (Greek philosophies, mathematics etc) and other disciplines in is suppressed by modern secular politically correctness. The historian, Bruce L. Shelly wrote: “Europe owes more to the Christian faith than most people realize. When the barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire in the West, it was the Christian church that put together a new order called Europe. The church took the lead in rule by law, the pursuit of knowledge, and the expressions of culture. The under lying concept was Christendom, which united empire and church.” There are other highly significant contributions from Christianity that have been ignored by liberal biased historians, especially in the fields of agriculture, architecture, charity, printing, health care, higher learning and education, nursing, law, justice, morality, science, arts, and on and on. Leftwing myth states that during the ‘Age of Faith’ in the Middle Ages, people lived in deep ignorance, superstition and intellectual repression. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to a historian, Thomas E. Woods, Jr, it is to the Middle Ages that we owe one of Western civilization’s greatest – unique – intellectual contributions to the world: the university system. Most of the present universities in Europe, for instance, Oxford, Paris, Cambridge, Heidelberg, and Basel, had Christian origins, not to mention other famous universities such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, in the United States, have their Christian forbears. The notion that the Christian faith replaced knowledge and reason with faith and superstition in the Middle Ages exists in the mind of bigoted historians and their research doesn’t hold water. The development of modern science should be attributed to Christians in the medieval era who were advocates of scientific knowledge. Great scientists and thinkers of the Middle Ages include Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253), Roger Bacon (1214-94 - known as the father of modern science), William Of Occham (1285-1347), Jean Buridan (1300-1358), Nicholas of Oresme (1320-82), Nicholas Copernicus (1474-1543), and so on. Again, the mythology that the Middle Ages was an era of intellectual slumber is a propaganda fiction that has no support among real historians of Western civilization. The myth that the Christian church in general and Christians in particular were intellectual backwards during the “Dark Ages” is nothing but pure leftwing fabrication designed to turn modern generations against Christianity. Christians had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes, and microscopes, magnetism, optics, and electricity. These are no small, insignificant achievements but mighty contributions to civilization and to science. Britain, in contrast to all the other nations of Europe, has a flag that is made up entirely of Christian crosses. England has the St. George cross, Scotland has the Saltire Cross and Northern Ireland has the cross of St. Patrick – all completely Christian in origin and nature. We must always, as British patriots, honour the legacy of sacrifice of the tens of thousands of Christian knights of the Middle Ages who defended Europe, Christendom and Britain from the encroachment of Islam. Without Christianity, the common religion of the whole of Europe, it is doubtful whether the cohesion needed to stop the onslaught of Islam would have been present, and Europe would have been lost. Thankfully, Christianity provided the common pan-European bond needed to present a relatively united front, and European Christian armies turned back the Islamic hordes on the plain of Poitiers, the gates of Vienna and finally driving them out of the Iberian peninsula. This rich anti-Islamic, Christian heritage of the Middle Ages will provide immense moral guidance for European youth of the future as they struggle once again against the followers of Mohammed, as their ancestors did. To finish this article, I implore you to set aside an hour and watch the following program. It will really help with your understanding of the true nature of Britain and our history. Please watch it and you will understand the true mighty engine that drove this small nation to build the modern world: How God Made The English Thank you for taking the time to read through this article.

Tory Party - Islam should become our state religion

Conservative Party - Islam should become our state religion

Written by Green Arrow @ The British Resistance

April 2012

Many years ago, I used to think that the average conservative voter had a few brains and bit more get up and go than some of the sheep people I would watch being shepherded into the voting booths to vote labour by people I knew to be nothing more than charlatans on the make. Clearly I was wrong, your average conservative voter is just a dull stupid blue sheep as opposed to the red sheep of the labour party and the only sheep more cowardly are the yellow sheep of the Liberals. It has been a long, long time since the conservative party's membership was anything like a patriotic party. Now they are just voting fodder for one side of the rotating dictatorship coin that who are themselves no more than puppets of the ZOG controlled New World Order - but whatever you do, do not mention the Jews, they tend to go a bit hysterical when you lift the rock off them and expose them to the truth. You all know that our Ashkenazi Jewish Prime Minister, David Cameron is a great admirer of the moslems and believes that we can learn a lot from these barbaric followers of a dead paedophile. You read here the other day, how the Turkish Immigrant Boris Johnson is crawling in the moslem sewers for their votes. Now read what Conservative Home has to say about the unwanted colonisers of our land: As I have said above, Christians accept the dictats of evidence over intuitive reason, but Islam is the most straightforwardly intuitive religion of all. Its core doctrines make perfect sense: there is one God over all the earth; He is our creator; He commands obedience from us; He will judge us at the end of our lives sending the virtuous to paradise and the wicked to hell. How could it be any more obvious? Islam is also clearly tempting to our Establishment - they admire its disciplines, certainty, self-confidence and clear hierarchies of authority........ Christianity cannot serve that role any longer in Britain, and the notion that it does has become a threat to individual devout Christians - the Establishment's self-hatred becomes manifest in oppression of Christians. The next best alternative is Islam. That would be the best way to go from here. You might remember that it was the treasonous and revolting Conservative Home site that threw a wobbly and wet their silk knickers when I wrote that the Queen was a liar and a traitor to her people. I now add all the stupid people who vote conservative to the list of traitors in Our Country. Come on people WISE up. It is us against them and they are winning.

Ethnic Minorities Now Decide General Elections Say Conservatives

Minorities Now Decide General Elections Say Conservatives

Written by Southwest Nationalist

April 2012

If we needed any further proof that the ballot box is now as colonised as our nation, we have it with revelations that Tory ministers and MP's have been told to attend Eid and Diwali celebrations because they can't win the next election without gaining support from Asian voters. Perhaps triggered by the Galloway victory in Bradford, where the power of Islam over the ballot box was demonstrated without question, the Tories are now in a flap that in order to stand a chance of winning at the next general election they need to secure the ethnic minority vote. Think on the implications of that, with a little bit of a reword whilst retaining the same meaning. According to the Conservatives, you cannot win a general election majority without securing the vote of ethnic minorities. That means nothing else than an open admission that ethnic minorities, those who have colonised our land, now hold in their hands the power to decide who governs us. Our electoral process is moot, colonisation is now a fait accompli - the British people have no say in it without winning the votes of our colonisers. Our colonisers are not so stupid as to vote themselves out of Britain, only we were stupid enough to vote ourselves out over the space of decades. That is one scary situation. We now have to, in effect, ask Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or a whole host of other countries people for permission to elect a British government of which they approve. One could indeed say that this means we no longer have a national government, rather an international one which cannot be voted into power unless it wins the approval of a foreign populace who happen to now be resident in the UK. The ramifications of that are truly staggering, one could read further into it that the British people are now no longer a decisive factor at the British ballot box. They have been disenfranchised from the electoral process, and things will only get worse as minority populations increase rapidly. The Conservatives themselves have now said it - at this point in time it is minorities who will be the decisive factor in who governs us and who determines our future. Our future has now been placed in their hands, we are no longer the deciding factor in elections in our own country.

The Road to Wigan Pier: A Review from a Nationalist Viewpoint

The Road to Wigan Pier: A Review from a Nationalist Perspective

Posted, 2012

By Andrew Holden.

In a work where there exists a strong expression of partisan support for the ‘Socialism’ of International Marxism; it is natural for those of us well versed in the pernicious reality of that ideology to cast doubts as to the value of this work.

Such doubts on the value of this book as a read however, can be rapidly dispelled when one considers the effectiveness of left wing propaganda in inoculating ignorance into someone of George Orwell’s character and background. With this I refer to the delayed response to reality which afflicts the character of many people imbued with a moralistic sense of purpose that sadly often has a tendency to place abstract ideas before real life practicalities.

Orwell’s descriptions of hardship, misery and further injustices of a liberal capitalist system are a historical document to be treasured in our national literature. Orwell’s vivid descriptions are also a testament to the failures of International Socialism embodied in the Labour Party’s periods in office during the 1920’s. The ‘International Socialism’ of that movement offered a revolution in our national life that would correct the injustices of liberal capitalism in this country; these hopes were betrayed.

The reality of any Socialism, in the correct definition of redistributing the wealth of a community in order to correct extremes of wealth which are considered unjust, is that the driving sense of justice cannot be hazy and abstract. It is impossible for instance to protect the working class of a nation by believing in internationalism. When we consider the different standard of living in different countries, by agitating for ‘equality,’ all that is achieved is that one nation’s working class has its standard of living reduced, all for the pursuit of an impractical dogma that all peoples should be on the same economic level.

Furthermore any political movement that wishes to guarantee a fair economic principle along the lines of what we have discussed; has to in the least accept, and preferably venerate the reality of a distinct community competing for its interest in the world. A common argument by Leftists against Nationalism is that it apparently divides communities and in this sense is a means to compromise the interests of the working class.

This of course is typical Leftist doublespeak (something which the author under review here takes credit for giving literary form). Communities are divided by natural factors such as culture, language, religion and last but not least the instinct to racially discriminate in favour of one’s own community. The idea that these can be rejected or purged is of course a fallacy given the considerable degree of behaviour that is derived from the subconscious and inheritance. Whether such a purge is desirable is of course a question many would answer in the negative, this is why political correctness has adopted such subtle means.

Without understanding these factors that terminate the value of the word Socialist in reference to Marxism, it is impossible to gauge the irrelevance and largely mystical belief that Marxist Socialism has somehow ever had as its end objective the advancement of the working class of a nation.

George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier is ignorant of these realities but this is no means to dismiss him instantly. The propaganda of the far left is very effective in appealing to a pseudo-moralist instinct, something that first had the ascendancy in England with the advent of liberalism in the late eighteenth century.

For example, the left may claim to advance liberty, may claim to advance working class conditions, yet when one has the capacity to observe the practical effects of their ideology and the realist aspect of who financially supports their movements; it is clear to the independent thinker that these are a facade in a ruthless quest for power. This vulnerability for incredulously accepting words and euphemisms for the hard substance of reality is something that has dogged this country for many years.

We only have to look at the justifications of the barbarities of the early Industrial Revolution, the blind belief in pacificism in the 1930’s and today this idea that a multicultural society has this virtue of ‘tolerance’.

Orwell regurgitates the prejudices of the Left when he considers Fascism to be a form of “hysterical nationalism”; as if to say any patriotic attempt at national rule is automatically psychotic and delusional when the reality is to the opposite: International government as ‘liberty’ and ‘peace’ is delusional.

An interesting passage is when Orwell refers to a Fascist takeover of Britain as:

“Not necessarily speaking of Oswald Mosley and his pimpled followers.”

It is unlikely that Orwell could overcome his prejudices, allowing to objectively consider the Guild Socialism promoted by the British Union of Fascists, or perhaps consider Mosley’s heavy involvement with the Labour Party and his reasons for rejecting international socialism.

Mosley’s resignation from the Labour Party indicted the International Socialism of the Left as being ultimately incapable of building a country which the sacrifices of the Great War generation deserved. As such then, Orwell tacitly accepted the genuinely Socialist, according to the theory we have outlined above, principles of what was British Fascism.

This draws us to Orwell’s greatest error in ‘Wigan Pier’ which is his ignorance over the horrendous crimes committed by Marxist Socialism in Russia. In the middle of a sentence he admits to “know nothing” about post-revolutionary Russia and consequently of the barbarities of that regime. Presumably he knows a lot about Italy and Germany and their Fascist regimes which he deplores.

He has no comments about the blood stained floors of the Cheka’s many execution houses, no comments about the millions who died in the concentration camps and the hundreds of thousands who froze to death during the construction of the White Sea canal.

As such at this stage of his literary career (1937) he was in no position to derive a fair judgement of the movements that opposed Marxist internationalism.

Arriving at the merits of the work, it would appear given Orwell’s common aims with what existed as ‘British Fascism’ at that time. Orwell can be said to have had the object of integrating his vision of Socialism within our national identity. Orwell’s view of Socialism is one which the principle of “justice calling for the overthrow of tyranny” predominates over the theoretical haranguing of Marxism.

In other words he rejected Marxism in place of a ‘down to earth’ approach to life, an approach that fully embraces English concepts of justice and taste. This vision of integrating social justice with our values as an organic community is thoroughly Nationalist.

Orwell’s awareness of the twisted nature of many of Marxism’s adherents is an invaluable insight into a major reason why that ideology is often responsible for the worst atrocities and restriction of natural freedoms:

“Sometimes I look at a Socialist- the intellectual, tract writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair and his Marxist quotation and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is difficult to believe it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class from whom he is of all people the most removed.”

Orwell of course, in keeping with the prejudices he has developed from leftist propaganda, fails to realise that the reasons for this general unsoundness of character is the basis of an ideology that rejects human nature. I am not just talking about the obvious suppression of human faculties, but the belief that human history can be ended.

The belief nothing else than economic matters motivates us and that all races have similar values and destinies once everything is reduced solely to economic matters.

Orwell’s understanding of Fascism is that it reflects a reactionary opposition to advancing the interests of the working class.

This of course doesn’t consider that Marxism has always existed as an international capitalist supported dialectic means to worker suppression through the power of the state, a means to use their propaganda of advancing working class interests to suppress those very interests.

The application of Marxist theory into practice requires a process of state centralisation. The consequence is that every means of economic production becomes the property of the state. But who owns the state? Who has supported the advancement of the so-called Marxist Socialist ‘revolutionaries’ into power? An excellent book on this topic has been written by the New Zealander Kerry Bolton: Revolution from Above available from Arktos Media™.

Later on in the book Orwell displays the qualities that would later go on to form the foundation of 1984. Here he refers to the utopia of the Marxian Socialist revolution:

“As for such qualities as loyalty, generosity, etc, in a world where nothing went wrong, they would be not only irrelevant but probably unimaginable.”

This is a sound warning against a totalitarianism that ignores the human aspect to history, an ideology that seeks to kill the historical aspect through simplifying everything to a dimension of economics.

A humorous passage reflects on attacks on William Shakespeare by a writer in The Daily Worker, which when challenged with passages from Karl Marx that supported Shakespeare, were withdrawn as if Marx’s writings were some sort of Gospel of life.

If one considers Orwell’s definition of ‘Fascism’ to be the cruel reality of Marxism which he has ignored, one reads his statements of Socialism to in effect mean a Nationalism that embraces every one of its members to ensure natural principles of justice are enforced; then in The Road to Wigan Pier, Nationalism has yet another ideological forbear with influence in the mainstream.

Nationalists can easily separate the realities from the ideological fantasies, and apportion to ourselves the moralistic blessing which George Orwell has mistakenly bestowed on International Socialism.

* Andrew Holden is the author of Nationalism versus Globalism, the sensational new handbook for British nationalism, further details of which are obtainable here.

Muslim Married at 5 : Sick Multicultural Britain in Action

Married at 5 : Sick Multicultural Britain in Action

Written by Southwest Nationalist

April 2012

Which vile culture or faith would want to marry their children off at just 5 years old? Take a guess, but that's the age of the youngest victim of forced marriage in the UK at least according to the Home Office's Forced Marriage Unit. They don't give us any further details - apparently in order to protect the childs identity - but we find numerous sources stating that forced marriage is particularly prevalent among "Muslims of Pakistani origin". With Muslims of Pakistani origin disproportionately represented in child sex grooming gangs then perhaps there's a recurring theme here, but that's a whole other story. Let's just call the forced marriage of children exactly what it is. It's a form of paedophilia and child abuse. Officialdom wouldn't dare to say that, we can't go offending those enrichers and causing tensions in the community, but that's exactly what it is. Heaven forbid we might stigmatise certain groups, best to just keep it hidden under the carpet. It's not even a crime, it just wouldn't do to see thousands of enrichers up in court for whisking underage girls abroad and marrying them off, that might open peoples eyes. Instead it's a civil matter. You can bet your bottom dollar there'd be no such sensitivity involved were it white British sick enough to marry off their 5 year old children. There'd be social services involved, courts all over it, and child protection/sex offences galore. It is also a problem which never should have been here. We imported it, and now we're left needing a dedicated Forced Marriage Unit to deal with the fallout. The Home Office said its forced marriage unit dealt with 400 cases last year, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. We imported the third world and, as anyone with half a brain could have guessed, we got third world practices that are sickening to us. No shock that they just didn't abandon those practices when they set foot on British soil, that was never going to happen. "Society's shame: The five-year-old girl forced into marriage" the Independent calls it, but it isn't our shame. The shame lies squarely with those whom we have so ignorantly imported and decreed to be just like us. Our only shame is that we allowed it to be here in the first place. This multicultural, diverse nightmare amounts to simply giving the abhorrent practices of the entire world a new home and making them into our countries burden. Britain dealing with 5 year olds getting forced into marriage is just a single strand of that sickening reality.

Liberals, Pasties and Betrayal of Our Christian Heritage

Pasties and Betrayal of Our Christian Heritage

Written by Richard Newman

March 2012

Having seen the photograph printed in the press of the new Islamic Scout dress my utter contempt for the chattering liberal class has now reached new depths. It is clear that this government has an agenda to destroy the traditional institutions of this country, merely following on the work of its predecessors. But the scouting movement has reached a new low with its latest attempt to sell out to Islam. The Scouting movement is involved in charity, yet as the nature of our society is Islamified the Liberal elite who aid this process fail to understand that even in scouting the nature of the beast is different. There are in fact many institutions out there who give to charity, and we should commend private individuals who continue to provide support for those in need. That said, the use of public money for the same purpose is a shocking abuse of tax payers money. Islam too should be commended for its charitable institutions, remembering that charity is one of the five pillars of Islam. Zakat, or the principle of charity giving ensures that Muslims give charity to Muslims. Here of course is the main difference between the Liberal/Christian tradition of charitable giving which gives to all regardless of race, colour or creed, and the Islamic tradition which, with few exceptions gives exclusively to members of Islam. The reader may not believe this, yet you only have to see charity boxes and bins in Muslim areas to see signs proclaiming Muslim Charities Only. Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Oman give $billions each year to Muslims. I for one do not argue against this, because I too believe that charity begins with our own people. Many people remember when we used to give to our people. Harvest Festival was, in my youth an opportunity to give fresh food to the local elderly, and not an excuse to send even more aid to Africa. The same was true of the Scouts, who in keeping with the traditions of the movement helped their local communities and supported local traditional institutions. This tradition continues in most countries throughout the world, again with geographical vagaries like the USA. My knowledge of modern Scouting is vague, having been a Cub then a Scout half a century ago. Yet I remember the founding principles and Lord Baden-Powells reasoning behind the movement. Lord Baden-Powell was an anti-Communist and a patriot, which of course means that many in the Liberal left regard him as a racist and a Nazi! It is worth reappraising the original scouting law published in 1908: 1. A Scouts Honour is to be trusted2. A Scout is loyal 3. A Scouts duty is to be useful and help others 4. A Scout is a friend to all, and a brother to every other scout, no matter to what social class the other belongs 5. A Scout is courteous 6. A Scout is a friend to animals 7. A Scout obeys orders 8. A scout smiles and whistles 9. A scout is thrifty 10. A scout is clean, in thought word and deed. I for one concur with the honourable sentiments stated above, and people understand that the scouting law is applicable to all races colours and creeds. The strength of the law being that the wording from the original text can be changed to suit local traditions and cultures. For those who remember the Scout Promise the original 1908 promise went like this: I will do my duty to God and the King I will do my best to help others whatever it costs me I know the Scout Law and will obey it Again there is nothing wrong with this promise as the promise is adaptable to various locations and social mores around the world. Here however is the looming problem. By changing the standard of dress in Britain to incorporate religious differences you then make difference an issue, the whole point of a uniform is to prevent this. The same is true of school uniform. The adoption of Islamic dress is a violation of this code, and a betrayal of the principles of the scouting movement in this country. The other countries that have embraced scouting and who are not liberal do not even consider changing the uniform for this reason. Although many will see the adoption of a Muslim uniform as a further Islamification of Britain, as indeed it is. It should be viewed as a more serious violation of Scouting Law. In fact there is one body called the International Union of Muslim Scouts, based in Saudi Arabia, which exists to promote Islam within the Scouting movement. They are joined by many other religious bodies since the start of the 21st Century who have sought to promote their own religious dogma within the scouting movement. This can be seen as a reaction for the defence of belief against the ingress of secular anti-religious belief. As a Nationalist and Having no problem with the promotion of the traditional religious belief of a nation, within that nation. The pandering to a religion by the governing body of an institution, any institution at the expense of an established Christian tradition is wrong. It is always Christianity that retreats, and Islam which advances because there is no one in Britain now who is in a position to stand up for our Christian beliefs. Here then is the further malaise and the deeper issue which lies beneath the surface of the dress of a Scout. We live in a time and a place where all our political elite promote no values except those of greed and corruption, where our religious leaders continue to promote Islam and Homosexual while remaining silent on the promotion of traditional Christian values which remain the basis of our own heritage and culture. A society where our head of state betrays her people by her refusal to defend our faith. Where the Liberal/Maxist elite seek to destroy every vestige of our historic cultural traditions. My membership of the 70% Christian, 75% non voting, 100% pasty munching majority already much maligned by the ruling liberal elite has made me an enemy of this Liberal state. If you argue against this madness you are automatically branded racist et al. Works for me as I don't mind being branded a pasty munching 75 per-center. It just means that I am standing up for my traditional heritage and culture, knowing that Muslim Scout dress in this country is a further attack on my culture and religion.

The Lefts Hypocrisy and the The Utter Normality Of Ethnonationalism

The Utter Normality Of Ethnonationalism—Except For Whites

Posted March, 2012

By Professor Kevin MacDonald. (Originally published in the VDARE.com site). Jerry Z. Muller’s Foreign Affairs article, Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism (March/April, 2008), is a grim and timely reminder of the power of ethnicity in human affairs. It has explosive implications for the future of the United States and the West.

Muller demonstrates that, over the last 150 years or so, the general trend in Europe and elsewhere has been toward the creation of ethnically-based states—“ethnostates“. This trend did not end with the close of World War II. In Europe, the war was followed by a forced resettlement of peoples—mainly Germans—to create ethnically homogeneous states. Indeed, the high point of ethnic homogenization in Europe was in the two generations in the immediate aftermath of World War II.

Muller writes:

“As a result of this massive process of ethnic unmixing, the ethnonationalist ideal was largely realized: for the most part, each nation in Europe had its own state, and each state was made up almost exclusively of a single ethnic nationality. During the Cold War, the few exceptions to this rule included Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. But these countries’ subsequent fate only demonstrated the ongoing vitality of ethnonationalism.”

This point is crucial. While the recent spreading of the European Union imperium has given rise to a great deal of “post-nation“rhetoric, it has in fact been accompanied by an astonishing multiplication of ethnostates, split out of Yugoslavia and the formerUSSR — not to mention, of course, the Czech/Slovak division

Ethnic conflict is apparent as well throughout the developing world, and will likely lead to more partitioning and nation-creation. As Muller notes: “In areas where that separation has not yet occurred, politics is apt to remain ugly”.

But a huge anomaly has arisen. Recently, Western societies have embarked on a public policy project in which the ethno nationalism of white people is officially proscribed as an unadulterated evil. Multiculturalism only is encouraged and viewed as morally superior. As Muller notes: “Americans … find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally”.

As a social scientist who takes the biological component of ethnicity seriously (although I readily agree that there is a cultural component as well), I can speak from personal experience about the hostility and moral disdain one faces from other academic social scientists when one points to these unfashionable facts.

Although World War II marked the defeat of the ethnonationalist National Socialist movement, Muller is clearly correct that it resulted in a Europe that was more accurately divided into ethnostates than ever. But World War II also saw the triumph of the political and cultural Left. These two cultural facts have been at odds ever since.

German National Socialists remain the bogeyman of the political and cultural Left to this day. The Left is utterly dedicated to eradicating any vestiges of European ethnonationalism. Opponents of immigration are routinely labeled “racists” or “Nazis” for advocating policies that are, in fact, the norm in the rest of the world. Thus Israel favors Jewish immigrants, Spain favors people from its former Latin American Empire, India its “Non-Resident Indians“ (NRIs), China favors the Overseas Chinese.

As Muller notes: “In a global context, it is the [Western]insistence on universalist criteria [for immigration] that seems provincial.”

And, Muller points out, the anomaly whereby Western nations have sought to turn their backs on ethnic homogeneity is quite modern:

“The ethnonationalist view has traditionally dominated through much of Europe and has held its own even in the United States until recently. For substantial stretches of U.S. history, it was believed that only the people of English origin, or those who were Protestant, or white, or hailed from northern Europe were real Americans. It was only in 1965 that the reform of U.S. immigration law abolished the system of national-origin quotas that had been in place for several decades. This system had excluded Asians entirely and radically restricted immigration from southern and eastern Europe.”

In attempting to account for this trend in opposition to ethnonationalism in Western societies, my own writing has emphasized the triumph of the Left and particularly the role of some Jewish intellectual and political movements and certain elements of the organized Jewish community as the vanguard of the left and the most important force in passage of the 1965 immigration law (PDF). As Muller’s essay observes, Jews were major victims of the ethnonationalism of others. Anti-Semitism was a general force throughout Eastern and Central Europe, culminating in the slaughters of World War II. And Muller notes that a prime motivation was that Jews dominated areas of the economy and segments of the social class structure to which others aspired—a principal theme of my book Separation and Its Discontents.

This history of loss as a result of others’ ethnonationalism doubtless goes a long way toward explaining the main thrust of Jewish intellectual and political movements in the 20^th Century—a principal theme of my book The Culture of Critique.

For example, the Jewish opposition to immigration policies favoring the European majority of the US dates back to before the immigration cut-off of the 1920s and spans the entire mainstream Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right, to this day.

However, Jewish opposition to the ethnonationalism of Europeans and European-derived peoples is in remarkable contrast to their unswerving support for the Jewish ethnonationalist state of Israel — a rather glaring double standard, to say the least. There is a rather straightforward analogy of Jews as victims of nascent ethnonationalism in Europe and Palestinians as victims of nascent Jewish ethno nationalism in Israel. (And ex-President Carter, in his recent Peace Not Apartheid, triggered much hysteria by noting the similarities between the policing techniques of Israel and the Afrikaner ethnonationalist state of pre-1990 South Africa.)

As Muller notes: “Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that [ethnonationalism] is a product not of nature but of culture, often deliberately constructed. And ethicists scorn value systems based on narrow group identities rather than cosmopolitanism. But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.” (My emphasis –KM)

Indeed, a mainstay of the intellectual left since Franz Boas and his disciples came to dominate academic anthropology beginning in the 1920s has been a rejection of any theories that allow for biological influences on culture. A corollary is that different peoples and different cultures do not, therefore, have legitimate, biologically-based conflicts of interest.

But the data are quite clear: There are genetic distances between different peoples and different peoples therefore have legitimate conflicts of interest. And: there are deep psychological roots to ethnocentrism that make us attracted to and more trusting of genetically similar others. (PDF)

These biological realities will not simply disappear, no matter how fervently social scientists and other political and cultural elites wish they would.

But that does not mean that these realities cannot be repressed—at least temporarily. The response of the Left has been to entrench a culture of “political correctness” in which expressions of ethnocentrism by Europeans are proscribed. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League seek draconian penalties against such expressions by Europeans—and only Europeans. Many European countries and Canada have savage legal penalties that enforce intellectual conformity on these issues. In America the sanctions are more informal—but nevertheless similarly effective.

Whatever the drawbacks to ethnic nationalism (and the most obvious is the bloodshed that sometimes accompanies the creation of ethnostates), it has at least three overriding advantages expressed or implied by Muller:

• As also noted by Frank Salter, because of closer ties of kinship and culture, ethnically homogeneous societies are more likely to be open to redistributive policies such as social welfare.

• Sociologists such as Robert Putnam have also shown that ethnic homogeneity is associated with greater trust of others and greater political participation.

• And finally, as noted also by historians of European modernization, ethnic homogeneity may well be a precondition of political systems characterized by democracy and rule of law.

Political correctness in the West cannot be maintained without constantly ratcheting up the social controls on individual thought and behavior. Western societies will experience increased ethnic conflict. Their governments will increasingly be obliged to enact draconian penalties for deviations from political correctness. And probably also to “correct” ethnic imbalances in social status and political power—much as the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires of old were forced in their declining years to constantly bargain with rising ethnic pressure groups. Democracy, representative government, and freedom will be likely casualties.

Finally, Muller’s essay is interesting in that it highlights how normal ethno national strivings are, even among Europeans.

In a very short period, Europe and European-derived societies, which had achieved an unprecedented level of ethnic homogeneity following World War II, have developed a stifling political correctness, in which any tiny vestige of ethnocentrism on the part of Europeans is crushed with all the power the ruling elites can muster. This is taking place while the rest of the world continues to undergo modernization via the creation of ethno states. Muller’s essay makes one realize that this multicultural fad really may be just a phase—and a backwardly echoing phase at that, recalling the failed multicultural empires of the pre-modern era.

The climate of anti-ethnocentrism in the West is utterly anomalous, and set against the rest of the world. In my own writing, I have emphasized biologically-based European tendencies toward individualism and relative lack of ethnocentrism as flaws that have predisposed European whites to these tactical blunders. And I have emphasized how political correctness works at the psychological level (PDF) to suppress the legitimate ethnic aspirations of Europeans.

However, Muller’s essay reminds us that Europeans have a long history of ethnic conflict. Ethnic nationalism was a precondition of European modernization. It also reminds us that, whatever their tendencies toward individualism, Europeans certainly also have sufficient levels of ethnocentrism to assert their interests and to establish ethnically homogeneous states of their own.

As Muller points out, though, the process is can be ugly. Just ask the Israelis—and the Palestinians.

Finally, as Muller notes, ethnic homogeneity is compatible with—perhaps conducive to—liberal democracy. At a theoretical level, this is because ethnic conflict produces deep, frequently irreconcilable divisions within a society and ultimately, causes group-based competition for resources and political power. These can be very hard to mediate.

The difficulty of establishing democracy and the rule of law in societies divided by ethnic conflict is a major theme of the contemporary world.

So is the campaign to bully European-stock whites, alone of all the world’s groups, to forswear ethnocentric politics and consequently to fatally disable themselves in an unchangingly ethnocentric world.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. For his website, click here.