Dear Emma.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


It would be something of an understatement to say that Emma Watson’s speech at the United Nations last week – in which she argued for a revitalisation of global feminism –  has been well received. Such is the intensity of the world’s approval that criticism of the speech could well be greeted as blasphemy.

‘How could you not be moved by that?’ ‘She’s so humble and brave. What right have you got to say anything…?’

And it’s certainly impossible to deny that the speech Watson delivered was delivered extremely well. The 24 year-old actress, dressed in white with a plunging neckline, commanded sympathy with her blandly perfect appearance, her velvet Estuary tone like a well tuned violin, and her balanced and rehearsed acting (some of it very close in quality to the performances which made her name.)

How could anyone criticise that?

Well, if by ‘that’ you mean Emma Watson herself, I don’t want to. But we must all take issue with the content of her speech, for our own sake and for the sake of civilisation.

In order to react rationally to a speech given by a charismatic orator, it is important to read a transcript afterward before making a final judgement. The words on paper, robbed of the distortions of visual and audial bias, must stand on their own two feet, and if they cannot, then something is amiss.

Watson spoke well. But did she speak sense? Let’s examine a few quotes:

“Feminism, by definition, is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”

This is quite simply untrue. Feminism, whatever its founding ideals, has mutated into something far stranger and more destructive than the commonsensical sentiment described. Indeed, the notion or belief that ‘men and women should have equal rights and opportunities’ has never been exclusive to feminism and it represents a very arrogant appropriation of moral ground to remark otherwise. Marxism is not the owner of social justice, and feminism is not the owner of sexual equality. Marxism and Feminism thrive on society’s failures to address social justice and sexual equality, and without them, would die.

“Women are choosing not to identify as feminists. Apparently, I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, ‘too aggressive,’ isolating and anti-men, unattractive, even. Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one?”

The answer here is that feminists have a long and ignominious record of making hateful comments about men, up to and including calls for the elimination of the gender entirely. The women who want no part in that are not ‘uncomfortable’ – they are not prepared to sacrifice their humanity for their sex.

“I am from Britain and I think it is right that I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body (applause)”

Though the third-worlders who applauded this might have imagined it to be a reference to genital mutilation, that baleful phrase ‘make decisions about my own body’ is more likely referring to abortion; a totally invalid point and a horribly deceptive misuse of language.

When a woman is pregnant, she has inside her body another body. The body inside her body (possibly a woman) also has the right to make decisions about her body, and the only way this is possible is if she/he survives to make those decisions.

“No country in the world can yet say that they have achieved gender equality.”

Not even Sweden – where to be a man is to be guilty from birth? How much more ground can men give?

“We don’t want to talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive, women won’t be compelled to be submissive. If men don’t need to control, women won’t have to be controlled.”

This is one of the most radical and sinister strains of feminist thought. The idea that men (with their signature aggression and masculinity) must become woman-like in order for women to live in peace and the world in justice. Just how anti-natural and ruinous a thought is that? For the answer, look no further than the West today; where immigrant communities unaffected by feminism rule the streets, and White and East-Asian pansies are trampled demographically underfoot.

The remainder of the speech (which can be found on YouTube in full) was dedicated to emotional posture and snakish charm. The points quoted above were the warheads wrapped so deviously in the fruit.

Let it be understood, I have nothing at all against women’s rights. For a just society to work, a woman must have exactly the same liberties as a man. But this is moral common sense. It does not require the murder of children, the emasculation of men, or the demographic collapse of the only civilisation capable of upholding the rights of women.


Germany: Our Sword and Shield.


, , , , , , , , , ,


English people (for obvious and well-understood historic reasons) are often averse to acknowledging the virtues of the German people, in many ways their most ancient and significant continental rivals. After two world wars in which the ‘Hun’ emerged as nightmarishly cruel and ultimately self-destructive, the English archetype of cool-headed analysis seemed naturally superior to the violent romance of Teutonic ambition.

The Germans have too much hunger; their imagination is too wild; their sense of history is too acute. They succumb too easily to mass-euphoria.

All of these accusations are valid and not just in the context of Nazi Germany.

Nevertheless, deeper down than the part of their nature they expose, the English secretly adore and envy German success. In fact, Germans are probably the most secretly envied (and publicly condemned) racial group in the world.

Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schiller, Goethe, Max Planck, Schopenhauer, Humboldt, Mann, Hegel, Kant, Stirner, Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss, Bach, Bismarck, Adenauer, Rocket Science, BMW, Mercedes, Maybach, Adidas, Audi, Bayer, Volkswagen, Porsche, Heroin, Aspirin, IG Farben, Daimler, Bosch, Hugo Boss, Deutsche Bank…

The history of the recent past is dominated by German energy, German initiative and German genius. The German economy is unreachably superior in form and output than any other economy (adjusted for size) outside Japan. If there was a country the size of America populated solely by Germans, it would likely rule the world for a millennium. Indeed, the tragedy of the European Union is that it assumed Europe to be populated by peoples equal in industrial capability to the Germans.

How do we account for German success? Common stereotype has the Germans as more ‘efficient’ than other peoples, but this is not really an explanation for anything. Why are they more efficient, more productive, more inventive and disciplined than the rest of Europe?

The answer is likely a biological and evolutionary one. Germans are naturally better at certain things than French, Italian, English and Spanish people are. The same applies vice versa of course. There are innumerable things that Germans cannot do well that the countries aforementioned can. The English are better writers and shipbuilders than Germans for example.

But we must acknowledge the importance of Germany and its relation to our common security. The German military is now the strongest in Europe, having overtaken the UK and France many years ago. Its population (despite the demographic malaise being as strong there as anywhere else) is still the largest.

European strength is to a large degree dependent on German strength, and history must not force us to disarm ourselves of our strongest shield and sharpest sword.


What’s Wrong with Positivity and Health?


, , , , , , , , , , ,


The other day (having nothing else to do) I watched an interesting video on the Glenn Beck YouTube channel. In a ten-minute presentation, the flame-haired libertarian mourned the tendency of popular culture to emphasise and celebrate the negative. Where, he asked, is the art celebrating existence as opposed to devaluing it? I really share Beck’s exasperation on this issue and would identify one artistic principle above all as having led to the contemporary state.

Few attitudes have been more corrosive to British (and Western) potential as that we call ‘irony’. Married to the postmodern, irony (a mirage of depth) has deeply wounded, if not retarded Britain for over three decades. The famed British sense of humour now deals in little else. Nothing is said seriously. Sincerity and positivity are frowned upon, deemed to be infantile or unevolved. Those who celebrate openly positive concepts are dismissed as not being in on the joke of the age.

According to this position, life is a burden, a death-sentence. One may as well smoke or inject heroin as go out and exercise. The end result will always be the same; the endless grave. Hope for an afterlife or for a final, lasting justice is suited to childhood. People should be dark, philosophical and counter to all natural principles. Nature is ugly. Humanity overrated.

This poisonous attitude; the taking of life and nature as a joke we have worked out and transcended, must surely be the greatest burden of our history.

I am not wholly immune to its charm. For many years, I idolised the Kurt Cobain approach to living. The introverted poet, prone to self-harm, addicted to cheap pleasure, destined for self-destruction. I thought the painted smiles of White America were corporate illusions, and that when the camera faced another way, the smiles would surely drop. Never did I consider that those Americans were actually living more in tune with the rhythm of the universe than I or Cobain.

What is so wrong with health? What is so wrong with hope for the future, sincerity in emotion, politeness, hatred of death, celebration of life and vitality?

In England, we often associate smiles with stupidity and frowns with depth. Our musicians – even those with great talent like Radiohead – lean towards the dark margins around life, avoiding moments of integrity like spores of anthrax. We mock the happy and exalt the ironic. We are too intelligent to be happy.

Isn’t it time someone launched a cultural movement to counter this?

To be sure, there are some who claim to be making a start, but this is usually not in the way we ought to welcome. The ‘New Sincerity Movement’ in music for example, seeks to degrade the power of irony with the creation of unapologetically sentimental artworks. But sentimentalism is or can be just as corrosive as irony.

What we need is a positivity movement; a trend across the creative disciplines (but especially in literature and music) which resurrects natural principles. The rock band Sportfreunde Stiller are a good example of the way ahead. Stiller, a German three-piece, are known for their simple and positive song-writing as well their celebration of sport (sport and athleticism being far removed from the traditional lyrical themes of rock).

More broadly, culture must be revaluated from top to bottom, and the barometer of worth must be positivity. If self-help books, religious belief, vitamin tablets, Christian rock or therapy increase your feeling of life, pursue them.  

Positivity is what the world exists for, lest we ever forget. The anti-natural are foreign to it. They are unnatural. In any other system of life, the rotten parts drop away, rejected by the elements that still have the will to flourish. Perhaps this is how it should be. To be alive at all is a state of indescribable luxury. To waste life is a crime against being.


Oh What a Lovely War.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


As I write, the forces of the modern world are busily engaged in its defence. In the skies over Mesopotamia, F-22 Raptors – those beautiful, sleek monsters of war – are releasing smart bombs destined for the hide-outs of civilian-killers and child rapists.

I’m pleased and slightly surprised to see this. Obama and Cameron have had to make a tortuous about turn to arrive at the current (correct) poise. It wasn’t so long ago that these men were advocating the arming of Jihadist groups in the same region. Now they are pledging to roll such forces back into the middle ages where they belong. Hooray for common sense (at last).

The babyish pacifists are already whingeing of course. Some are warning of ‘mission creep’ and eventual ‘boots on the ground’. But why would anyone object to that? Of course I’d much rather that we could defeat ISIS entirely from the air, but it’s far from certain that we can. We must prepare for whatever this war may ask of us.

As acts of violence go, this is as close to moral violence as can be imagined. The democratic forces of the West are mowing down the ambitions of an anti-democratic evil. The edges we enjoy in technology are finally being made to count. The modern world is showing its worth and I for one am loving every minute of it.


Vacation in Padania.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I’ve been in Italy for five days. A late summer holiday. (I’ll of course be back to writing next week.)

I must admit it has been nice to have a break from thinking about doom-laden things. It’s also a great pleasure to return to Italian soil.

One can hardly overstate the beauty of this country. Every nook and cranny is worthy of a painting or a poem. Streets are glamorously narrow (the kind you see on those posters in Caffe Nero). Houses are artworks in themselves. Even the poorer-seeming buildings, marked with age and sour in colour, retain a strange and ancient dignity, unlike any equivalent on England’s threadbare estates.

I’ve been travelling mainly around the Northern cities this time; a region quite remarkable on its own two feet. The area is referred to as ‘Padania’ by its more nationalistic residents and there is a well-established movement to make it independent. This movement (spearheaded by the Lega Nord – Northern League) is stupid, but its motivating logic is not difficult to grasp.

Padania (Northern Italy) is one of the most productive regions of the European Union. Every Italian carmaker you’ve ever heard of has its base or construction centre here; Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Alfa Romeo being some of the largest and most well known. ‘Padanian’ cities include the historic splendours of Milan, Venice, Turin and Genoa. (Milan incidentally is every inch as beautiful as Rome). The people of Padania are said to be ethnically Celtic and are resented for a snobbish attitude towards their southern countrymen, much like the English North-South divide in reverse.

Despite this affluence, and though I’ve tried to keep politics out of my mind, the signs of the European times are visible even here. Young people seem in a different (lower) mood than the last time I was in Milan. Though the employment rate is better than in the South, there are still many sad and bored looking faces to be found in the afternoon. The Piazza del Duomo is fuller in the daytime than before. There are more drunk people than before. There are more unused buildings than before.

Still, for a comfortable resident or tourist, the life here is almost faultless. The time goes by too quickly. Europe has never seemed so precious.


The Answer Once Lived.


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


As I’ve said previously, although I don’t have a solid political affiliation, I would gladly align with any movement capable of both preventing Islamisation and at the same time upholding the virtues of European liberality.

This might well seem like something of a tall order. Many (if not most) parties professing the will to resist Islam also profess the will to resist secularism, Jews, individuality and sometimes even democracy. For all his virtues, even Geert Wilders has made some very smelly alliances with the Dutch ethnic right. Marine Le Pen is known to schmooze with those who doubt the facticity of the Holocaust. In both (and many other) cases, the apple has an attractive skin, but is sour inside.

But people like myself, even if we lack representation now, once did have a champion. His name was Pim Fortuyn.

A noted iconoclast, Pim Fortuyn managed in his truncated career to confuse the intellectual establishment like no other other modern politician. He was the first political leader to oppose Islam for entirely liberal reasons. And this naturally made him dangerous.

When Nick Griffin (or his faceless successor) criticise Islam; the liberal elite have no trouble dismissing their claims by associating them with the other claims they have made.

Griffin might speak sense on Islam, but he speaks (or has spoken) garbage on the Second World War. This self-cancelling poise is repeated across the continental far-right.

Fortuyn by-contrast was a classical liberal. He was also (and this is important) a nice, friendly, charming man. Unlike many others on the far-right, he made no secret of his homosexuality and fought consistently for a cosmopolitan morality. Indeed, he used this minority status to justify his politics:

I don’t hate Islam.” he said in a much-referenced 2002 interview “I consider it a backward culture. I have travelled much in the world. And wherever Islam rules, it’s just terrible. All the hypocrisy. It’s a bit like those old reformed protestants. The Reformed lie all the time. And why is that? Because they have standards and values that are so high that you can’t humanly maintain them. You also see that in that Muslim culture. Then look at the Netherlands. In what country could an electoral leader of such a large movement as mine be openly homosexual? How wonderful that that’s possible. That’s something that one can be proud of. And I’d like to keep it that way, thank you very much.”

How could (or can) a Leftist, a self-proclaimed ‘liberal’ take issue with that?

They can’t, and so every argument deployed against Fortuyn from the Dutch left rang hollow. His party ‘The Pim Fortuyn List’ was enjoying a rapid increase in support at the time of his assassination.

That’s right – in case you didn’t know – Pim Fortuyn was assassinated. The killer was a Leftist who (in his own words) disliked the ‘victimisation’ of Muslims.

In reality, the murder reflected the impossibility of refuting Fortuyn’s arguments from a Left-wing direction.

There are many ways of confronting Islam. Most of the options currently suggested are either self-destructive, ineffectual or regressive. But we are a great civilisation, capable of producing a better answer to the Islamic conquest. I know that because the answer once lived.


Fakir the Bacterium.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I was passing time on YouTube the other day, when I noticed a link in the sidebar to a clip of the Jeremy Kyle Show.

For those who don’t know, the Jeremy Kyle programme is (while ostensibly a talk-show) really a crude exhibition of the trashiest members of British society airing each morning on the ITV channel. In a typical episode, members of the English underclass (some of them astonishingly unkempt) are wheeled on to defend their benefit-fuelled affairs, hit-and-run impregnations and habitual drug abuse. The host (Mr Kyle) is an aggressive moral-majority type, with (for all his faults) a commendable bravery in confronting his subjects.

The clip I was directed to featured a young Northern man who was charged with beating his pregnant girlfriend, at times kicking her in the stomach. The male was a Muslim (probably of Pakistani origin) called Fakir, and in the course of the show (link below) he revealed himself to be of the purest evil imaginable.

When questioned whether he beat his (White) partner, Fakir didn’t bother to deny the charge. In fact, he found it hard to stop laughing at the issue, apparently surprised at the swelling chorus of hatred within the audience. When pressed to elaborate, his excuses never extended beyond a claim his girlfriend (who throughout the course of the programme appears utterly broken in spirit) had ‘annoyed’ him.

This isn’t the kind of programme to ordinarily affect my emotions. Shows like the Kyle programme are usually too fake, too orchestrated, too manhandling of the viewer’s mood to take seriously. But when I studied Fakir – his facial expressions, posture and accent – a host of thoughts began to swarm around my mind, quite foreign to my personality. Goulish thoughts – like how satisfying it would be to hurt that man; to kick him, or beat him into a deep coma.

His giggling evil; his skinny, pathetically unmanly frame; his complete lack of conscience or moral orientation… These elements all combined to light the fire inside me.

I’m aware that such thoughts should never be entertained. The law is surely the only protection we have left against bacteria like Fakir. But never let it be argued that the hostile sentiment amassing against Muslims in Britain is a purely native initiative. Brits would scarcely be human to avoid feeling burning revulsion at these creatures. They are constructing their own detention centres. They are energising their own tormentors and preparing the conditions for their wholesale removal.

I have no idea if Fakir will ever read this. But on the off chance he googles himself and finds this blog, let me say this: We are rapidly losing patience with this kind of abuse. There is only so much we will take, and you will not be forgotten when the time comes to arrange a lasting justice.


The Savagery of Abortion.


, , , , , , , , , ,


Adelaide Caines was born after just 24 weeks gestation. She later died, but many born at this point in development survive and go on to live full lifespans.

That photo of Adelaide above is now being used by her parents to lobby for a change in the UK abortion laws; 24 weeks being the current cut-off limit for NHS ‘termination’.

As reported in the Daily Mail, the mother explained her reasons as follows:

“Our picture shows Adelaide was not a foetus, she was a fully formed human being and to think that a baby like her could be legally terminated is to me horrifying.”

This is surely a welcome reminder of the grim reality of ‘abortion’ – a cold, bureaucratic term for medical murder.

I am quite unashamedly prolife. In fact, I could probably called an extremist on the matter, given that I don’t support a ‘right’ to abortion at any point in pregnancy, the only exceptions being in cases of rape or a threat to the mother’s physical health.

Life self-evidently begins at conception, and you don’t need to be religious to understand that. Science makes it equally clear.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, when does it begin? Is the breathing, twitching, kicking entity inside the womb alive or not? If it isn’t then we must radically revise our understanding of ‘life’. And if it is, then the abbreviation of its life is simply murder.

It has been to the immense discredit of the secular Left to have allowed this to become a purely religious or right-wing issue. There is nothing Left-Wing about the murder of children, and there is nothing especially ‘Conservative’ about defending those children. Indeed, in the popular understanding of Left and Right, one would have assumed the Left to be more naturally drawn to the prolife position than the contrary.

Some Leftists and Liberals are beginning to understand this. Christopher Hitchens was noted for his nearness to the prolife position. Bill Maher recently conceded that many atheists and Left-wingers are prolife and that this doesn’t count as hypocrisy. Even the coldly rational Richard Dawkins slowed his speed when discussing abortion in ‘The God Delusion’.

The scale of abortion in the Western world is bewildering. There have been 50 million cases of medical infanticide in America since 1973. 200,000 such crimes are committed in the UK every year. Similar figures hang over Scandinavia, Germany and Russia.

Where does moral blame fall most heavily in this – On the terminator or the woman who volunteers for termination? That’s a question that can only be answered subjectively. I would say that both have something profound on their conscience; something that should rightly invade their thoughts at night and make them question their moral orientation.

Women who carry unwanted pregnancies to birth, even to later have those children adopted, are surely heroic. They should be loudly commended by society and the state alike, openly and without fear of offending those of lesser moral courage.


Taylor Swift and Racial Politics.


, , , , , , , ,


A case can be made that the American country singer Taylor Swift is the most beautiful woman in the world. A superstar and multi-millionairess at 24, the artist’s aesthetic is one of shining health, sexual sincerity and perfect symmetry. And with such perfection comes political power.

The genre which Swift until recently called her own – that of Country Music – is a cultural region exactly coterminous with middle and working class White America. It was the denizens of this region who sponsored Swift’s rise from local performer to global icon, and it is undoubtedly these same people who have over the past month (since the publication of Swift’s video for ‘Shake it Off’) complained of ‘betrayal’.

Swift, you see, has departed the straight-backed Caucasian domain of country for the relaxed, multi-racial world of millennial pop. The ‘Shake it off’ video features Swift holding a boombox stereo, wearing a baseball cap and making lyrical allusions to ‘haters’, ‘playas’ and ‘sick beats’. Nothing in the video is pornographic or offensive. Swift retains her class and restraint throughout, even as she is surrounded by twerking Africans (Some have even noted this contrast as evidence of a racist agenda behind Swift’s reinvention).

And yet still the comments flood onto YouTube and elsewhere, accusing the singer of having abandoned something; of having done ‘a Miley Cyrus’. I found one comment especially revealing:

“Why Taylor why! You were the last one to not give in. Theirs (sic) no one left now.”

While, as my tone would suggest, I’m not at all convinced that (unlike Cyrus) Swift has vulgarised herself – the song and video are both tasteful and enjoyable – I do perceive a familiar anxiety underpinning this kind of outrage.

Today’s youth is tomorrow’s elite. Not the day after tomorrow, but tomorrow. Swift’s generation (and mine) will one day be charged with deciding the direction of our civilisation. What you see in youth is a prophecy of the future.

The Africanisations of Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber therefore have ethno-political implications. As does the (albeit less dramatic) cosmopolitanisation of the formerly White-as-snow Taylor Swift. Whiteness is everywhere declining, transforming from an advantage into a detriment.

When the comments talk of ‘giving in’, they are communicating a transparently racial anxiety; the uplift of blackness and the corresponding decline of Whiteness.

To remind you why this is happening, I will now use a quote from my own work I have recycled before:

“The centre of White gravity is now conspicuously old in America, and getting older. By this same trend, White culture has become ever more morally stiff and disconnected from younger generations. If you are young and White in America, you are, whilst not yet in an ethnic minority, most certainly in a cultural one.”

The short post from which this text is taken (Miley Cyrus and White Cultural Decline) is one the posts I am most proud of having written. It has a prophetic quality to it.

How complete its accuracy turns out remains to be decided.


We Don’t Have to Take This.


, , , , , , , , , ,


In our consideration of Islamic crime in Britain, we must never forget our geography. To maintain the right perspective, we must never forget how distant this island is from the hell-holes of Islam and how unnatural it is that women are beheaded in Enfield, raped in Rotherham and blown up in Edgware in its name. All this blood flows from a single wound; a single mistake, the making of which was unnatural and recent.

The idea that Muslim commonwealth citizens were assimilable into Western, or even British society was a fancy of our elders. It was considered radical even then, when history lay dormant like a sleeping leviathan and a peaceable weakness sedated the whole Islamic region.

For over a thousand years, there was no Muslim influence on Britain outside of foreign policy. Common folk were happily ignorant of sharia law and of the increasingly fatal divide between Sunni and Shia. It took the concussion of the Second World War to make our elites dizzy enough to change this. The mistake was made indigenously; the seedlings of rapists and murderers were patted down by native hands.

Recognising how recently this mistake was made, and how radical and strange the decision was to make it, allows for clearer thinking. It allows for the person reflecting to realise that this country is not bound by any moral law to accept the consequences of it without comment, or without the right to reverse its decision.

When I talk of deportation, the echoes that sound in your imagination deceive you. My suggestion has nothing to do with the spirit of Nazism, Stalinism or Aminism. It is not the excess but the right of a country, over 3000 years in age, to admit a recent mistake and seek to reverse it.

England was wrong to admit Muslims. It was an action allowed by an ignorance of history and a moral naivety rooted in that same ignorance. England (or at least that generation of command) wronged also those Muslims it allowed to settle. They are different kinds of human, with different ways of eating, praying and thinking, and they cannot simply be ordered by their importers to change their nature or adapt it to something incompatible with the prejudice of their hearts. The anxieties they and we feel are inevitable and will only grow stronger with time.

This isn’t a bomb that needs to go off. It can be defused (if we try) by a negotiated settlement. But to start that negotiation, the kafir peoples of this country must first make clear that nothing is irreversible, that the abuses of Hitler will not dictate the moral decisions of the present, and – most essentially – that Britain is under no moral obligation to kill itself trying to swallow what it cannot digest.

We don’t have to take this. Nor – for that matter – does France, Germany, India, Israel, Russia, Micronesia or Haiti. All countries make mistakes, but as long as these countries can admit (in a tone free of vitriol) “We were wrong and we want to become right again…” they should be listened to.

This isn’t (for the millionth time) a racist thing. I live in the south of London, a city of Africans, Chinese, Jews and a million other beautiful differences. I personally adore living in a cosmopolitan society like this. If the claims of racism were true, house prices would be higher in Cumbria and Cardiff than Hackney and Tottenham. They’re not though, and for good reason.

Only one minority is actively screwing things up here. Only one minority (and its misbehaviour) keeps the BNP and National Front in money and members.

And so, in place of the manifestos, militant phrases and hateful noises that too often cloud this debate, let’s offer instead a crystalline honesty: We have made a mistake. We are sorry we made it. But we want to make things better. And never let it be said we don’t have the right to make it better.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 184 other followers