Labour Leader Wants to make Wales an Open House for Asylum Seekers

Labour Leader Wants to make Wales an Open House for Asylum Seekers

Written by John of Gwent

April 2012

Those who recall my fifteen minutes of fame making Peter Hain look a bloody fool on live TV might have noticed Ieuan Wyn Jones, then leader of Plaid Curry saying it was important to welcome all and sundry from the 27 EU countries to Wales and the more the merrier. How exactly that works to the advantage of the existing British Passport Holders struggling to find a job there I never quite worked out. Now however it seems the Welsh Labour Leader has decided it is time to chop down the door frames that once held fast the doors which Tony Blair blew of. Over on the decidedly unpatriotic wales online website you will see details of the First Minister's Grand Plan for "Wales To become the first 'nation of sanctuary', and that it must 'blaze a trail in its care for refugees and asylum seekers' If I thought for a moment that this really was an initiative designed to help and assist those who through no fault of their own find the government of their own country desiring their heads on a plate, or at least their bullet riddled corpses left in the street, I might give my blessing to this measure The reality, as every patriot knows, is that this will shine a beacon out to the world in general yelling "illegals welcome here". After all, I never did get a reply from the outgoing Euro-Millions winner Glenys Kinnock when I wrote to her in 2009 to ask for her opinions about a BBC Documentary that showed the reality of illegal immigrants in shite-strewn plastic tent cities carrying out a nightly attempt to break into a lorry so as to "come to england to claim political asylum" as the near-toothless Afghan said whilst gummily grinning into the BBC camera. I did, however, get a reply from Plaid Curry's AM out there paving the way to import the Euro Dosh For The Party's Pet Projects And No Others. She said "it was important that we went out of our way to help these unfortunate people" The laugh is of course all of them are already entitled to kick the door open and walk in because we are a military beliggerent engaging in military operations in their country. Which means under UNHCR rules they have a right to walk in here and swan around at our expense. A right that only continues while we maintain our troops on their soil. At least you can see, if you pop over to the Wales Online site, that the majority of commenters have suggested that the First Minister spend rather more of his time assisting those who are already here in this country rather than those who seek to flock here in droves. Why not spend a moment adding your voice to theirs. But if you do, be polite.

Big Brother Is On The Way To The UK

Big Brother Is On The Way

Written by Southwest Nationalist

April 2012

Imagine a world where the government - or government appointed snoops - can monitor, without warrant, every phone call you make, email you send, text message you write, and every website you visit. It's apparently not an April Fools Day joke, it is the future that ConDem is about to usher in for us in Britain - the same future that the Tories and Liberal Democrats vociferously opposed when the previous Labour government attempted the same. Under the new legislation - which would still have to make it through the Commons and Lords - internet companies would be forced to install hardware which would allow GCHQ to monitor everything a user does. Apparently a warrant will be needed to actually view the contents of emails or listen in to phone calls etc, but even without the contents one can imagine how such information may well be used against someone. Just think. That nasty man visits patriotic websites. Oooh, he's occasionally on the phone to other people in patriotic parties. On the watch list, potential extremist, perhaps we'd better warn his employer, maybe hint at the consequences should they continue to employ him and he goes on to get in trouble. Getting a warrant to monitor contents of emails and phonecalls? Well, it could be as simple as just proving that someone visits sites which are considered objectionable by officialdom. Sites like this one no doubt, sites that most of us end up on every day. After all, who would visit these sites if they weren't up to no good? Billed as a measure to protect us against terrorism - most of which now stems from Islam and wouldn't be here if we hadn't have been idiotic enough to let Islam flock to the UK in its millions - it will, as all laws are, soon be used against the innocent whose only crime is to hold opinions which differ from the state mandated ideal. In a nation obsessed with trying to prove the existence of a far right bogeyman, who among us doesn't think such a law will end up used against all of us patriots who dare to peacefully speak out and campaign against what is being done to our country? This is scary stuff. We've racism laws on one side to beat us into submission, and now we're going to face the possibility of everything we do online, or on the phone, going into a government database. Any government would use that as it suits them, ruin a life, threaten someone, attempt to tarnish them, beat opposition into silence. Terrorists will just employ increasingly sophisticated encryption, obfuscation, and so on, to limit the usefulness of monitoring or to circumvent it. This will be a law used against the innocent like ourselves who dare to hold opinions with which the state disagrees. Big Brother truly is about to start watching us all in every single thing we do, and it most certainly isn't with protecting our best interests in mind. Welcome to the dictatorship of thought and association as ushered in by the shill politicians of Lib/Lab/Con and the true enemies of all our freedoms.

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 Rise of Anti-Western Christianity

The Rise of Anti-Western Christianity

The following has been sent to me, and makes interesting reading:

During Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to London this September, Cardinal Walter Kasper noted two things about London: it’s secular and parts of it resemble a Third World country. While the politically correct were quick to condemn Kasper and the Vatican was even quicker to exhibit its pro-Third World, anti-racism bona fides, Kasper’s two statements taken together are noteworthy in that they demonstrate two antagonistic aspects of the modern world. The First World is secular; the Third World is religious.

How can London be both? What happens when you mix First World secularism and Third World religion? In particular, what happens when you import the Third World to the First – as in London? Often, the Third World tries to convert the First, regardless if the evangelizers are Christian or Muslim. While Westerns may be more shocked by Third World Muslims because they expect them to be different, they often are more disoriented by Third World Christians because they are so different from what they expect. The Christianity that the Third World brings to the West is unlike anything ever seen before – just as alien as Islam.

you can read the full article here

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.

Forget International Women's Day, What About Britain's Women and Girls?

Forget International Women's Day, What About Britain's Women and Girls?

Written by Southwest Nationalist

March 2012

Hurrah and hallelujah. For International Women's Day we're going to be a major player in stopping violence and trafficking across the world. We'll help 60,000 women in Asia avoid abuse, 7,000 in Zambia, and we'll "end early marriage" for 200,000 girls in Ethiopia - apparently half of all girls in Ethiopia are currently married by the age of 15. Great news, with church of the foreign aid evangelist - and International Development Secretary - Andrew Mitchell crowing all over it like some hysterical devotee. Gender, barrier to a healthy life, violence, destroys the potential of girls, girls and women at the heart of our efforts. Blah, every buzzword going. What about all the victims of the (alleged) Muslim paedophiles currently on trial in Liverpool? What were we doing about safeguarding their future potential, protecting them from violence, about putting them at the heart of our efforts? Bloody nothing, that's what. They don't matter if they're here, they don't matter if they're white, they don't matter because the establishment would rather keep the full extent of the Muslim paedophile nightmare a secret. Those girls - and by God we all hope they recover from this and go on to happy lives - are a price that the adherents of the multicultural dream considered worth paying. Nobody was there to protect them from a catalogue of horrifying abuse and violence, society looked away. Tell me I'm wrong. I'm not. Derby. Burnley. Sheffield. Rochdale. How many cases are there? How many victims? We don't know. The state PC and picture of harmony apparatus covered it up, it keeps covering it up wherever it can. We see just a few cases among many hit the headlines. Where were they when our girls were falling victim to violence and abuse? Looking the other way, telling us it wasn't happening. Ignorance and deception was - and is - the only way they keep their idiotic multi racial and multi cultural Utopia delusion alive. Where were they for a list of names we'll never know, children and grown women alike - simply because they were abused at a young age, will never have their identities revealed, but will have to live with the nightmare of Muslim paedophiles haunting them til the end of their days? Or, even worse, who had their lives ended. Where were they for Charlene Downes? Where were they for Paige Chivers*? Where were they for Laura Wilson? They - those who should be protecting them - weren't there. They were looking to Zambia, Ethiopia, and every other nation, and saying what we had to do to improve girls and womens lives there. Our children, our women and girls, they didn't matter to those running the show. They still don't. International Women's Day? What about our women, our girl children? The hypocrites can bang on about protecting women all they like - truth is that they sold out our women and children, protecting them took a distant second place to the creation of this multicultural insanity. Whilst there is one Charlene, one Paige, one Laura, one girl whose name we will never know, falling victim to Muslim perverts, and whilst the establishment still cover it up and insist there is no problem, we fail the most important women and girls of all - our women and girls. Forget other nations, forget our eyes elsewhere, it is our women and children needing protection - but our elites and establishment are busy wilfully ignoring that whilst they prance around at posh events crowing about protecting women in far flung lands. Protect our women, protect our young girls, that would be something to truly mark International Women's Day - but no, they don't matter, they're a sacrifice our leaders will willingly give up in the name of the multicultural madness. *We should note for Paige that although she has been linked to the same takeaway as Charlene Downes, and Muslim grooming is a certainty, her family still believe she may be alive. She vanished at the age of 15, and we all pray that she will be found alive and well.

Love That Dare Not Stop Shouting Its Name (Homosexuals) Wins Lottery

Love That Dare Not Stop Shouting Its Name Wins Lottery

Written by Southwest Nationalist

March 2012

Researching earlier for a story about a gay rhino in Birmingham - yes, taxpayers are footing most of the bill - the National Lottery fund got mentioned several times and seemed worthy of a further look. Charities focusing on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) issues seem to do pretty well every time we buy a lottery ticket. Just searching the lottery.culture.gov site for any funding projects with "lgbt" in their project description turns up £6,278,800 of funding. That's more than most jackpots pay out if you get 6 numbers these days. Seven projects are listed as receiving over £400,000 in funding each, with three of those just a few quid shy of £500,000. 98 Projects in total are shown as funded on just that search of "lgbt". We have, for example, The Metro Centre Ltd getting £499,648 to "research the difficulties faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people and those questioning their sexuality, and their access to relevant services. Specifically, it will compare the situation of LGBTQ young adults to the Childrens Plan 2020 and Every Child Matters (ECM) goals and targets to inform the development of policy and services based on systematic, up-to-date evidence" LBGTQ? Queer surely can't be a term of abuse then, it can win lottery funding? Of course they'll claim it means questioning, or - like ni**er - it depends who dares to speak the word. There's £50,000 for a group named Rukus! Federation to undertake a project called Sharing Tongues : Black LGBT Oral Testimonies. No sensible person is Googling anything involving Black LGBT Oral and the sharing of tongues to find out what on earth that might be about. Compared to "lgbt", "marriage" turned up £6,388,362 of spending - with all the big grants over £200,000 bar one going either abroad or to ethnic minority concerns such as Asian women, or BME women at risk of violence. Searching "heterosexual" returned 4 results and spending of £779,656. Two were to do with AIDS, one domestic abuse, and one ran by Stonewall. "Gay" gave 386 grants totalling £19,748,902. "Lesbian" returned 279 grants and a spend of £14,951,714 (admittedly some of these will cross over, a number contain both lesbian and gay in their description). "Straight" couldn't really be searched fairly since it includes all kinds of other things like poly tunnels and the construction of a straight lane athletics track, but even so it only returned 39 grants with a value of £10,133,163. So far as could be seen none of the grants had anything to do with sexual orientation. Perhaps it's time they started printing those lotto tickets on rainbow coloured paper, it seems the LGBT minority are doing remarkably well out of it and get to win just by filling out a grant application form. Something to remember when we're queueing up to by a ticket in the forlorn hope of getting rich at any rate. Someone waving a rainbow is certainly doing pretty well out of our wasted £1.

When the terror is the British state

When the terror is the state

Written by Sarah Albion

March 2012 14:05

A young man was sent to prison yesterday. He has been locked away for eight weeks, not a lifetime in itself, but he now has a criminal record, which will blight his life for years to come. The unforgiving zealots at the university where he had been studying have kicked him out, so his career plans are wrecked so probably his life is too, after all his picture, and his name were published in every national newspaper and on every TV news bulletin in the nation. He was not a hero, but a broken boy who cried as he was led away into state incarceration where he will spend the next two months. But let us not judge his tears, would the strongest of us be able to withstand the bile and venom poured upon him by a morally outraged media and the blood baying Twitter nazis who now dictate how people are to think. And what was his crime? He did not steal, he did not defraud anyone, he did not rape or kill, he did not draw blood, he did not bruise, he did not lay a finger on anyone. His only crime was to say things which we are not supposed to say, and which offended those who passionately seek offence. For that he must be punished, shamed, humiliated and held up weeping before the nation as an example of what will happen to those who, even when drunk, as he was, dare to misspeak. Elsewhere a young mother awaits trial for the transgression of daring to say “You're not British, you're black!” There was a time when what we found most frightening about states such as those beneath the totalitarian fist of Soviet Russia or which were tin pot dictatorships, run by brutal despots, was that people could be locked away because of what they said. We now live under such terror. More chilling still are the shrill cheers of those who support the prosecution. To merely read the approving comments beneath the news report of the young man's trial is to hear echoes from another darker place we once thought had disappeared long ago. “Finally the sentence fits the crime!” Snarls brain dead Olivia from Swindon “hahahahhahahahhahaha i love it..... u vile rascist little pig ” crowed Arshad from Worster – (clearly enjoying seeing a white man brought low) “Good, scum like this should have the book thrown at them. ….. He made racist comments” squeaked Anthony from London, the sort of person who, in another life would have sold his mother to the Stasi for misspeaking. As would Denise from Chelmsford who shrieked with the pride of a Khmer Rouge guerrilla with a baby on her bayonet “The racial comments were disgusting. I'm glad that I was one of the many people who reported him to the police.” How low has our country sunk that the likes of Olivia, Arshad, Denise and Anthony now tell us how to think. We are told that this is a free country, that is a joke, we are becoming the terrorist state of which others once warned us, and most frightening is the fact that there are many who welcome it. _______________________________ Post Script: It is ironic that one of those who reported the offending speech was black footballer Stan Collymore, who said there must be “zero tolerance for racism”, luckily for Stan it appears that intolerance does not extend to black footballers who beat up their girlfriends or go dogging on Cannock Chase. I guess Stan thinks that doing stuff is not as bad as saying it.

Twitter Muamba Rant = 56 Days More In Jail Than Some Child Abusers Get

Muamba Rant = 56 Days More In Jail Than Some Child Abusers Get

Written by Southwest Nationalist

March 2012

Twenty-one year old Liam Stacey, who shot to the front of the tabloids with a headline of "lol, f*ck muamba he's dead!!" has been sentenced to 56 days in prison after being convicted of inciting racial hatred. Stacey, who was tracked down and admitted the charge when he appeared at Swansea Magistrates Court, made the moronic remarks on Twitter. Although the comments may well have been crude and offensive, the witch hunt that resulted really is insane and serves to highlight how any whiff of perceived racism elevates anything to hysterical levels The inciting racial hatred angle shows a clear disparity in how offence is tackled. Should the details of his comments that have been posted online be accurate, we have such lines as : "Yes it is you f**king c*nt! Go rape your mother", "go rape your dog", and "come do it then you c*nt?? Give it the big one and actually do it!! I'll stamp on your face until its f**king flat" which most likely wouldn't even warrant a slap on the wrist or a £50 fine, let alone huge media attention, if it wasn't for two other comments : "go suck muamba's dead black d*ck then you aids ridden twat" and "owwww go suck a n*gger d*ck you f**king aids ridden c*nt". We've all heard worse language than the first set of examples in the local pub, a most likely drunken idiot mouthing off and giving it large. If the police turn up at all - good luck with that mostly, at least before said drunk books you a trip to casualty - it's a night in the cells, perhaps a slap on the wrist for threatening behaviour. We can find countless rants like that online, nothing much is done. Unless you mix in a couple 'racial' comments that don't even relate to the later aggression that is, and then it's prison time for incitement to racial hatred. Would he have even been in court if he'd not said n*gger or black d*ck in amongst his rant? Would he have been had he posted a similar rant focused on a white persons misfortunes, then branching off into a drunken rant about nothing at all? Why should an alleged racial aspect elevate speech, however crude and repugnant, to prison time? He'd not have even been in court if he hadn't mentioned the n*gger word most likely, nor if it had been a white footballer collapsing whom he jeered over. I call his posts the tasteless and idiotic rant of someone who had drank too much (he confessed to this), his tirade crude and offensive. But, 56 days in jail? Just recently there was a case of child abuse in Bristol, David Reed found guilty of 16 sexual offences against a girl whilst she was aged five to eight. Not a day in prison, a 12 month suspended sentence. There are plenty of other similar examples especially when it comes to child pornography. Are a few crap words on Twitter, with a few 'racist' comments mixed in, worse than sexually abusing a five year old - however crude those words may be? Seems they are when it comes to how much time you'll spend in prison and how harshly you will be punished. Apparently the judge in the Stacey case passed sentence to "reflect public abhorrence". Funny they never care about that when it comes to perverts abusing children, a crime which truly sickens everyone and ruins far more lives than a few crude and clumsy words on Twitter.

Oxford Child Rape - Arrested Men Named, You've Guessed It....Right ?

Oxford Child Rape - Arrested Men Named, You've Guessed It....

Written by Southwest Nationalist

March 2012

In the vile case of child sexual exploitation in Oxford most of us suspected what was coming next. We were nearly certain when the police had community reassurance patrols out on the streets, were at pains to tell us it's a small minority but sadly present in every community, and refused to reveal the ethnicity of the suspects. After appearing in court today three of the (alleged) perverts are now identified. Akhtar Dogar faces three charges of rape, one of conspiring to rape a child, one of threats to kill, three of arranging prostitution of a child, and one of trafficking. His brother Anjum Dogar faces charges of conspiring to rape a child, trafficking a child, and arranging the prostitution of a child. Kamar Jamil faces four charges of rape, two of arranging the prostitution of a child, a threat to kill charge and a charge of supplying cocaine. Those three were remanded into custody to appear at Aylesbury Crown Court on March 30. Details of the other three who appeared before magistrates today will be available soon. This is who (allegedly) raped children in the UK, sold them into prostitution, and exploited them in every way they could. This is why the police wanted to keep a lid on it. This is Britain today and heaven help the children here. The state puts community cohesion and diversity ahead of our children. How many more of Britain's children will be subjected to this before we say that enough is enough? *Update, the other 3 in court today are now named. Zeshan Ahmed, charged with ten counts of engaging in sexual activity with a child. Mohammed Karrar, charged with two counts of conspiracy to rape a child, and supplying cocaine. Bassan Karrar, brother to Mohammed, charged with a single count of rape. Any bets on who the other 7 may be once they are named?

25% of Young People in Europe Unemployed: So Why Do They Want More Immigration?

25% of Young People in Europe Unemployed: So Why Do They Want More Immigration?

Posted by BNP Ideas , 2012

The leftist delusion that “more immigration” is needed to solve Europe’s “labour shortage” has been inadvertently shattered by none other than establishment Tory grandee David Cameron at the Davos World Economic Summit this year.

During his keynote address, the Tory leader said that “decisive action” (perhaps akin to his “muscular liberalism”) was needed to address “European economic issues.”

At the beginning of his speech, he outlined the bleak economic circumstances facing Europe, and told his audience that “in more than half of EU Member States, a fifth of all young people are now out of work. So this is not a moment to try and pretend there isn’t a problem. Nor is it a moment to allow the fear of failure to hold us back. This is a time to show the leadership our people are demanding. Tinkering here and there and hoping we’ll drift to a solution simply won’t cut it any more. This is a time for boldness not caution,” he said.

Yet in September last year, Cecilia Malmström, the leftist EU commissioner for home affairs announced that even more immigration from outside Europe was vital to “meet present and future challenges in the labour market.”

In an article written on the EurActiv website titled “The EU needs more labour migration,” the increasingly bizarre Ms Malmström said that “Contrary to existing misconceptions, migrants do not damage national labour markets in terms of lowering wages or increasing unemployment among national workers.

“We will need workers from outside Europe. Increased labour immigration is one of the instruments we can use in our efforts to prevent labour shortages in the short and long term,” Ms Malmström claimed.

The obvious question arises: if there is already a 25 percent unemployment rate amongst young people in Europe, why on earth do these mad people in charge of the EU think that even more immigration is going to solve the problem?

This is especially so when it is considered that Third World immigrant populations already in Europe have, across the board, the highest unemployment levels.

What Ms Malmström and her colleagues want is the importation of even more unemployed and unemployables, which will not foster economic growth but simply add to the already impossible-to-bear welfare burden.

And as for Mr Cameron? His slavish adherence to the European Union’s ideals and his already proven lies and inconsistencies on all manner of topics, make him as unreliable and as politically deviant as Ms Malmström.

“Decisive action?” What is needed across Europe is a clean break from the old failed model and the institution of national governments which put the interests of their own people, the white European people, first.

Geert Wilders' book "Marked For Death; Islam's War Against The West and Me" will be officially launched on May 1st, 2012

Geert Wilders' book "Marked For Death; Islam's War Against The West and Me" will be officially launched on May 1st, 2012.

The book, with a foreword by Mark Steyn, is currently being printed.

Marked For Death tells the story of Geert Wilders' fight for the right to speak what he believes: namely that Islam is not just a religion but primarily a dangerous ideology which is a threat to Western freedoms.

Because he has made his opinion of Islam known, Geert Wilders has become a political prisoner - living in hiding, surrounded by security 24 hours a day, banned from entering certain countries and has even been dragged to court.

In his book Geert Wilders tells his personal story and explains his views about Islam and how to stop the Islamization process.

The book can be ordered on Amazon

Thatcher , The Betrayal Of Britain

Thatcher & The Betrayal Of Britain

An old woman stumbles into the shop of an Asian grocer and peers quizzically at the price of milk. Indian music blares from the speakers as a large African smirks with the usual blend of contempt and hostility at the white slag fumbling with her pence at the counter. She shuffles home through the dirty streets, passing dull-eyed denizens of the metropolis, and complains to her husband about rising prices as they sit to a modest breakfast. Only after another woman enters the kitchen do we discover that Lady Thatcher is talking to herself, a prisoner in her own home and of her own memories. Like Britain herself, she has been buried alive.

The Iron Lady is a film about the ghosts of people, issues, and a nation long since vanished. It has little to do with Margaret Thatcher's accomplishments, beliefs, or time in office. Instead, most of the movie is spent watching an old demented woman scurry about her modest quarters in conversation with the shade of her dead husband. Occasionally, it shifts from clumsily executed biopic to outright horror. In one particularly disturbing scene, Lady Thatcher frantically turns on all the appliances in her house to drown out the hectoring of her dead husband. Denis Thatcher stares at his wife's back from within a mirror, as Lady Thatcher desperately pleads with herself to turn away from madness. The camera zooms in and out with one wild cut after another. Such a mood fits The Exorcism of Emily Rose or Paranormal Activity. So much for those who came to the theater to see a movie about the Conservative Party.

As a portrayal of a living woman, it is sickening and without excuse. Obviously, this kind of treatment is limited only to someone who is right of center. Can anyone imagine a biopic focusing on a senile Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks? To ask the question is to answer it. Even as the issues Thatcher championed have faded, as "New Labour" and other left-wing parties reconciled themselves to a diminished role for the unions, the rage against the Iron Lady is constant and enduring and the controversy about her continues. Websites have been set up to commemorate her death with a party, the comment boards on videos and articles about her are filled with furious vulgarity and loathing directed at woman who hasn't been in power for 20 years, and even the Conservative Party has backed away from “Thatcherism,” as much as they can, even to the point of changing the Party's logo from a flaming torch to a tree seemingly drawn by a child.



Out with the old, in with the green.

The result is that in some way, the portrait of a defeated and dying woman is the only kind of tribute the Kali Yuga can pay to a figure of importance who came from the wrong side. Meryl Streep (whose mimicry is skilled, but what of it?) sets the tone with the usual comment along the lines of "of course, I don't agree with her evil politics, but this portrayal makes her sympathetic." Similarly, the chattering class of Britain in the press and online have come to terms with this portrayal of Thatcher precisely because it shows the Iron Lady at her lowest point. Thatcher is, of course, racist, a traitor to woman, an enemy of workers, a woman who made people starve and completely destroyed Britain. As a human being, however, she is sympathetic because she is dying. In a culture where the highest value is self-loathing, this is perhaps the most a conservative can hope for.

The movie also does its best to turn Thatcher into a symbol of identity politics. The young Thatcher lectures her husband (just after he has proposed no less) that "one's life must matter...beyond the cooking and the cleaning and the children, one's life must mean more than that." A young Thatcher dressed in bright blue and heels enters Parliament for the first time and is contrasted with the stereotypically stern aristocratic British men in dark suits who just strolled over from being evil in The King's Speech. All gaze at her in astonishment, although the first woman in Parliament had already taken her seat 30 years before. Ominously, the "Members" room has urinals, while the "Lady Members" room contains an iron. Obviously, we are supposed to think Lady Thatcher should have forgotten all this silliness about the collapsing economy and championed the sitzpinkler movement. As Steep herself observes, what is important about Thatcher is not anything she did (which was all evil) but that a woman was elected in "gender biased, homophobic, class-ridden England." Movement conservatives, of course, don't believe the movie is feminist enough.

What did Margaret Thatcher do? Well, we really never really find out. She confronted the unions...but why this matters or what was the outcome is never really explained. We know it is incredibly controversial but the military-style planning Thatcher used to humble the trade unions is ignored and the entire subject simply peters out. Then we jump straight into the Falklands War, which gives Thatcher the popularity needed to carry out the rest of her program. However, again, why the decision was difficult, why there was opposition, and why Thatcher made the difference as opposed to anyone else being in charge is not explained.

After the Falklands, prosperity magically comes to Britain (again, no explanation why) and Thatcher rules for a lengthy period of time—during which nothing apparently happens. There is a shot of perhaps three seconds of Margaret Thatcher dancing with a tuxedoed Ronald Reagan, but that's all the mention the "second most important man in my life" will get. Just them dancing around somehow causes the Berlin Wall to crumble. Rather than a tour through history, we are a treated to a montage out of Rocky IV...or maybe even Team America: World Police. Even Thatcher's collapse is reduced to the petty and the personal, as her colleagues seemingly betray her because she yelled at them, not because of any policy differences. Thatcher's warnings about increasing European centralization and fiscal union, a subject as timely as ever, is all but ignored aside from a brief comment about the UK not being "ready for it."

Such a treatment is perhaps inevitable because the issues that motivated Thatcher have become all but irrelevant. The best that can be said of Thatcher is that she confronted, and to some extent defeated, the primary challenge of her time by frustrating the British Left's attempt to turn the sceptered isle into a grim Airstrip One of Brezhnev bureaucracy and overwhelming state ownership of the economy. The Iron Lady contains one notable scene of an enraptured Thatcher watching her father speak of the virtue of a "nation of shopkeepers"; later, Thatcher speaks of the small businessman's proud rejection of noblesse oblige. Of course, Thatcher's libertarian rhetoric about there being “no such thing as society" belied her electoral dependence on a British traditionalism she did not identify with. Despite the fact that she in large partowed her rise to power to a thinly veiled critique of non-White immigration (and spoke even more frankly about the subject in private), Thatcher did precious little to stop the demographic transformation of the United Kingdom, the transformation of the British Empire into a mere satrap of the United States (or even worse, the European Union), and the eradication of the culture and identity of the British people.

Just as American conservatism of even the Russell Kirk variety was gradually replaced with a deracinated defense of "values," so did Thatcher ground her politics in abstractions rather than in a sense of British identity. When Enoch Powell commented to her that he would fight for Britain even if it were under a Communist government and that values "can not be fought for, nor destroyed" because they exist beyond space and time, Thatcher was literally rendered speechless. Thatcher represented the “Americanization” not just of the British economy but of conservative politics, and the result was inevitable retreat and failure on cultural issues, as in the United States.

Even her economic reforms can be seen with the advantage of hindsight as, at best, a rearguard action. While outright state control over the economy may have been blunted, the fall of trade-union power may have been inevitable. The larger concern is that as with the "Reagan Revolution" and later "Republican Revolution" within the United States, Thatcher's Conservatives failed to cut the growth of government or the ever increasing share of government spending that went to the welfare state. By saving British socialism from itself but ceding to the hard Left control of the commanding heights of the culture by defining conservatism purely as economic, Thatcher made "Cool Britannia" and its all encompassing political correctness possible.

Even victory in the Falklands may have simply postponed the inevitable, as Britain's military position has seriously declined and Argentina is simply biding its time to reclaim the Malvinas. Viewing contemporary debates over a national army for an independent Scotland and the Union Jack condemned as controversial because Blacks think it's racist, Thatcher's call to make "Great Britain great again" seems almost tragic. As London is no longer an English city and the governments of the West are girded for seemingly permanent economic decline, it is hard not to view Thatcher's story as irrelevant.

One can imagine an alternate British history with Enoch Powell as Prime Minister laying the foundation for a sustainable traditionalist Right that would preserve the long-term existence of British identity, culture, and economic power. Instead, we had the transformation of Toryism to American classical liberalism, and therefore its inevitable (and perhaps intended) defeat. With Thatcher's accomplishments alternatively co-opted or undone with the passage of time, what is left? To the emerging post-Britain, she'll be linked to the evil racist past, a bump on the road to Equality, her policies bluntly summarized as supporting the "rich people."

To the official conservatism of the rump Britain, she'll be a symbol of the Good Old Days of Conservative victories against unsympathetic statist enemies, with troubling questions about immigration, culture, and the long-term impact of her policies abstracted away and easily avoided. Of course, to official opinion, even harmless nostalgia can not be tolerated. Would that there was a real British Right to come to the same conclusion!