New Years Eve will mark exactly two years since one of the most shameful episodes in recent European history, the sexual assault of approximately one thousand two hundred women by up to two thousand men in the square and adjoining streets outside Cologne Cathedral.  There was a mainstream media blackout because the rapists were men of Arab and/or North African origin, a great many of them part of the wave of economic migrants invited into not just Germany, but the European Union, by Angela Merkel.  Only when the news spread on the internet was any form of official recognition given and the feminist establishment tried to ignore the truth.  In his book The Strange Death of Europe, published this year, Douglas Murray has detailed these crimes and numerous similar sexual assaults carried out by fake ‘refugees’ under the guise of the ‘migrant crisis’.  Such sexual assaults, against children as well as women, by the fake ‘refugees’ have taken place in every European country whose government has admitted them; those governments having abdicated any sense of responsibility for protecting their nation’s citizens and indeed other immigrants who legally reside in their respective countries.

Whilst Murray’s book gives a reasonably comprehensive summary of how unrestricted immigration, without the consent of the indigenous majority, has led to the fragmentation of every Western European society, he waffles on about those societies suffering from ‘self-doubt’ and ‘guilt’, using certain nihilistic modern art and literature as examples to illustrate his point.  He ignores that a lot of 20th Century European art and literature was very good and not nihilistic.  The ‘self-doubt’ and ‘guilt’ that Murray writes about belong to the chattering classes to which he belongs, they don’t belong to most of the working or middle classes in these countries, who are content with living in a secular, post-religious, society.  Most know what they want and need for their respective countries: representative government; immigration kept down to a level that is economically and environmentally sustainable; for those immigrants to assimilate into the host country and respect its values and laws; and for immigrants who enter the country illegally – because they think that they are more important than those willing to use due process – to be deported (following completion of a prison sentence if they have committed crimes).

Murray’s book is also not without other faults, notably his quoting attitudes held by Muslims in Britain towards homosexuality, without stating whether Sikhs, Hindus or other faith groups may hold similar attitudes.  This is relevant in a British context because most Muslims are from a similar ethnic background in the Indian sub-continent to Sikhs and Hindus.  What if similar attitudes towards homosexuality exist among Sikhs and Hindus to those among Muslims?  And disapproval does not necessarily mean a desire to murder.  I wonder if Murray has been to Manchester where the Islamic Institute is next door to the Proud Trust (both being just off Oxford Road near MMU).  Nor does Murray examine whether any of the immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, who have entered Europe via Morocco, Tunisia or Libya come from a non-Muslim background; if so they may still be possessed with the same sense of entitlement towards taking any woman whom they want whenever they want, because their Third World cultural background has no concept of women possessing human rights.

Whilst it is true that ‘Europe’ is run by an arrogant, corrupt self-serving elite – Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt and numerous faceless others –  this in itself does not nullify the principle of a European Community of independent sovereign nations with mutual ties of trade, scientific research and environmental protection, i.e. what we used to have and what we can have again.  It will mean a total clearout of the elites, the priesthood of the political class; with direct democracy established as it should be from the bottom-up.   Whilst the immediate future does indeed look bleak, as the political caste and its media sycophants in Western Europe become ever further removed from the majority of the population in their respective countries, European laws, culture, civilisation and indeed the nations of Europe are not yet defeated.  Although Murray’s book offers little in the way of hope, being almost as nihilistic as the art and literature he criticises, genuine liberals need to fight back to defend our post-Enlightenment secular countries from the cultural relativism of those who insist that less developed cultures are equal to ours when they are not.

One final point is that the narcissistic feminist ‘Me Too’ movement, which has developed in the short time since Murray’s book was published, ignores that women are far better off in all post-Enlightenment ‘Western’ societies than anywhere else in the world.  Whilst seeking to criminalise all ‘Western’ males, to the point where trust between the sexes totally breaks down, ‘Me Too’ women should be careful what they wish for.  A real rape culture, imported from the Third World, awaits and ‘Western’ men, conditioned to have minimal contact with women, will just ignore their complaints.  Crying wolf has its consequences.

Anyway, that’s it for this blog, thanks for reading.


From Darien to Gogarburn


To kick off this blog properly I thought I’d try a review of sorts of Iain Martin’s superb book Making It Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the Men Who Blew up the British Economy.  The author, the bank and the principal villains in the story are all Scottish, including former Labour MP and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, who agreed, eight years ago, that all UK taxpayers should have to bail out the huge amount of debt accrued by Fred The Shred and his pals at Gogarburn.  Martin sets the scene by recounting the Darien scheme, which led directly the Act of Union and the creation of Royal Bank of Scotland, as an example of how the Scottish reputation for fiscal prudence has always been tempered by recklessness.  Scotland’s First Minister and former RBS employee Alex Salmond urged Goodwin that RBS should take over Dutch bank ABN Amro – an event that was to lead to RBS’ collapse – ‘for Scotland’.  If only it had been, then the rest of us wouldn’t have been left picking up the tab.  It was Salmond, without any reference to the bail out of RBS, who suggested that an ‘independent’ Scotland should walk away from the UK’s national debt.  But I shan’t ruin a good story for you; if you don’t wish to purchase the book I’d recommend doing an RBS: borrow it or let someone else pay.

Related to the above, another book recommendation is an older one: Britons: Forging the Nation 1707 – 1837, by Linda Colley; originally published by Yale University Press in 1992, with the first British edition by Pimlico Press in 1994.  In her Conclusions, pp 374-5, Colley states: The Scots, in particular, who became British after 1707 in part because it paid such enormous commercial and imperial dividends, are now increasingly inclined to see partial or complete independence plus membership of a federal Europe as the most profitable strategy for the future.  ‘Federal Europe’ propaganda was quite commonplace in 1992 and based on the assumption that small nations such as Scotland could have some influence in how it was run; but what we have had for the past 24 years is an increasingly centralised superstate in which small nations have had diminishing levels of influence.  Britishness, as Colley tells it, pp 117-132, ‘A Scottish Empire’, was formed by the intermarriage of the Scottish and English landed gentries (our recently departed Prime Minister David Cameron being an English offspring of one such family); as well as the partnership of the English and Scottish political and mercantile classes, with these Scots enjoying a disproportionately high level of influence in running both the United Kingdom and the British Empire.  Some Scots – those of SNP inclinations – are suffering delusions of grandeur if they think that they will ever have that level of influence in running the European Union.

The above all has a bearing on Scotland’s status within the UK, hence the future of the UK itself.  The electorate of Scotland need to decide between the UK, EU or genuine independence and if the last of these options, how they could afford it.  As it is, in the context of the limited sovereignty that the UK has within the EU, the electorate of Scotland have a greater degree of devolved home rule than those of Wales, Northern Ireland and suffice to say England, which has none.  Scottish separation from the UK could and should mean that the subsidy which Scotland receives via the Barnett Formula be redirected towards the economically depressed post-industrial areas of the North and Midlands of England; the ‘Brexit’ heartlands, whose electorates are subject to the condescension of the worse-than-useless Labour Party.  With Nicola Sturgeon ‘threatening’ another ‘indyref’, the electorate of the rest of the UK must insist that Scotland inherit all of the debt bequeathed by Royal Bank of Scotland, if Scotland is to separate from the rest of the UK.  Whilst the SNP’s oxymoronic policy of ‘independence within the EU’, ie subservience to a centralised authoritarian superstate based in Brussels, looks ludicrous on the surface, perhaps the SNP’s tactic is that Royal Bank of Scotland’s debt should be socialised onto hundreds of millions of taxpayers in continental Europe, to let the Greeks, Spanish, Italians and Portuguese amongst others inherit the debt from one of the world’s biggest banking failures.