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!

Road Privatisation. The Stealth of gradualism

Road Privatisation. The Stealth of gradualism

Written by Rex

March 2012

THIS TIME, Cameron, Clegg and Osborne absolutely have to be unseated and stopped. Clearly they are following Letwin’s book “Privatising the World”. SO JUST WHEN ARE WE ALL GOING TO STAND UP AND DO SOMETHING? Some of us have already started but it needs the entire country to join in. Our roads must not be privatised. Else Britain will come to a most expensive grinding halt. In South Africa, it is far cheaper to fly there than go by (all the) toll-roads. Do you not think this is another step toward pricing us off the roads? And with privatisation of the police, what level of policing will we see on our roads? Draconian? Think about it. The Coalition are not working for our benefit. What has privatisation done for Britain so far? With accountability only to shareholders, who cares what happens to those who need to use the services run for commercial gain above all other interests? We end up paying far more for a worse service. Is that what you want? This is the thin end of the wedge. Beginning with “Only new roads” as we are carefully told, you know as well as I do it will not be long before all roads are privatised. What will that mean for the beleaguered motorist or more crucially, our transport businesses? Our nation survives on the ability to travel by road. What about the quality of our roads (Yes, I know many are already poor quality) but do you honestly think they’re going to marvellously improve under privatisation? Privatisation is for commercial (and shareholders’) gain. NOT OURS. We pay the money, endure worse conditions and others profit. Mark my words, privatisation will very soon bring blanket road pricing using the satnav that many have most conveniently had installed in their cars while Government gleefully rub their hands knowing full well that once most people have satnav, if it can tell a car where it is, it will also tell the government where the car is too (over the whole journey) and what speed it is doing. That way they’ve got you both ways. Double billing as distance and speed are toted up for the bill that comes through your front door. And if you don’t pay, they’ll find a way of preventing your car starting via direct satellite instructions to the car by some piece of legislated software demanded under the MOT procedure. If road pricing is to prevent congestion (as are congestion charges) isn’t it most convenient that traffic lights (primarily) and many other “traffic management measures” (aka, built-in baulking devices) actually cause the congestion we find so impenetrable, costly and unavoidable. "So here’s what we should do. Yes, move passengers and heavy goods on to rail". David Cameron There IS a better way. Remove many of them and allow drivers to exercise that overlooked inbuilt ability called initiative. They will work it out for themselves without waiting to be told exactly what to do and when to do it. Left to their own devices, drivers will by nature go more carefully because nobody sets out to have an accident and if there is nothing to tell them what to do, they have to think for themselves. This is not about getting Britain out of the recession that Government (Gordon Brown) deliberately got us into, it is part of the greater ploy to impoverish us into economic slavery. Think I’m joking? Look it up. It is all there to be read online. There are very many websites that explain just what is going on secretly behind our backs. Immense sums of money could be far better used for the benefit of our own country including sorting out our road systems instead of throwing it into the bottomless EU pit and the other countries that are in fact better off than we are. But they are all sacrosanct. So long as Cameron and Clegg are in place, they will fight “tooth and nail” to keep us in our worsening impoverishment. That is their role in the new order of things. So a few of us are working for the arrest of Cameron and Clegg. If only the rest of the country (as they say they would be keen to see it) would join in, it’d be happening next week. Do SOMETHING.