Max Wilkinson is member of the British House of Commons, one of 72 members belonging to the Liberal Democrats, currently the third-largest party behind the ruling Labour majority (which holds 404 seats) and the Conservatives (Tories, with 116 seats). In December, Wilkinson “enjoyed a lively debate at the Demos Collaborative Democracy Network event,” where he made the following comments:
“We obviously have social media, which is a massive problem at the moment for engagement. I’m tempted to say, you know, how you make your voice heard as a citizen in 2025 in the UK: set up an X account and start writing some sort of nativist content and it will go ’round the world really, really quickly. Your voice will be heard as quickly as you want it to be, not in a way that I would be comfortable with, and I would suggest not in a way that most people on the panel this evening would be comfortable with, either. But that is a really easy way to get your voice heard: Get some content about how you think immigration is too high, or immigration is the big thing that’s tearing the country apart, et cetera, and that goes around the world because social media, run by the world’s richest man, X, is now making sure that you can have your voice heard in a really easy way that you couldn’t in the past.”
British MP Max Wilkinson: @x is a "massive problem" because it allows critics of mass immigration to "have their voice heard in a really easy way that they couldn't in the past". pic.twitter.com/Q114ChV5y3
If you’re my age, you may remember when the Left actually claimed to support free speech, and were opposed to censorship. But the U.K. nowadays is like Orwell’s Oceania, where the Left has become so dominant as to make England effectively a one-party regime, and people are literally being arrested for “problematic” Facebook posts.
Wilkinson, like the vast majority of politicians in the UK, despises actual English people, and advocates flooding the country with Muslim foreigners. As he said during the Demos discussion, Wilkinson is not “comfortable with” hearing from anyone who disagrees with that position, so he considers it a “massive problem'” that X allows critics of the open-borders agenda to express themselves.
We can point and laugh at this idiot, but if Democrats win the next election, guess what? They’ll enact censorship and you’ll be at risk of prison if you dare express disagreement with their policies.
Regular readers here know that I’ve often praised the online forum Kiwi Farms as an invaluable source of information on “LOLcows,” which is their term for idiots who make fools of themselves online, as I explained in October 2023:
Some of us are old enough to remember when, 15 or 20 years ago, Silicon Valley had a libertarian tilt. Entities like Google were very much in favor of free speech and very much against censorship, but more recently, they’ve gone 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Probably the defining event of this shift — the moment when Big Tech’s pro-censorship regime made clear its intentions — was the episode known as “GamerGate,” beginning in August 2014 with the drama surrounding Zoe Quinn (a/k/a the Tattoo-Covered, Mentally Ill Ex-Stripper Whose Real Name Is Chelsea Van Valkenburg).
#GamerGate was my first encounter with Kiwi Farms, which proved to be useful for research on such personalities as Zoe Quinn, Nicholas Edwin “Sarah” Nyberg, and “Brianna Wu” (a/k/a John Walker Flynt) who were involved in the controversy as left-wing SJWs (“Social Justice Warriors”).
What united the SJWs was the rallying cry of “harassment” — #GamerGate was, according to them, about the misogynistic bullying of women in the videogame industry, and claims of victimhood were amplified to promote that narrative, even though the alleged victims of harassment were relatively obscure people who were, at best, marginal to the industry,
There seems to be an unwritten rule that left-wing activists should be entitled to say or do anything they like without criticism. To criticize such a left-winger is to “harass” them, and this alleged “harassment” then becomes a pretext for silencing criticism of the Left. Kiwi Farms says “to hell with that” and, even though most participants in the forum are not ostensibly political — and I doubt many consider themselves conservatives — they vehemently oppose this kind of censorship.
So the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) wants to enforce their Online Safety Act’s age-verification requirements. KiwiFarms and 4chan hired lawyers to sue the U.K. over this, and one of the lawyers they hired is my friend Ron Coleman. The filing begins thus:
The Internet is a global system of communication between computer servers, located in data centers around the world. Despite the Internet’s global reach, it is more or less universally acknowledged that the Internet is, predominantly, an American innovation, built by American citizens, residents, and companies, and that the United States has the largest and most thriving technology sector of any G7 member state.
Foreign governments, particularly those in Europe, which have not managed to build technology sectors of their own have, for the past half-decade or more, sought to control the American Internet, and hobble American competitiveness, through a range of legislative and nonlegislative initiatives.
These foreign governments have threatened American and other non-European entrepreneurs with a wide range of coercive threats, including, fines, arrest, and imprisonment, for engaging in conduct which is perfectly lawful in the territories where their websites are based, including in the United States. . . .
The United Kingdom recently joined France in seeking to apply its domestic laws to the rest of the world, with the enactment of its censorship law, the Online Safety Act 2023
(“OSA”). Immediately after the OSA’s substantive provisions entered into force, this censorship law was used to target the free speech rights of American citizens. . . .
This lawsuit seeks to restrain Ofcom’s conduct and its continuing egregious violations of Americans’ civil rights, including, without limitation, to the right of freedom of speech.
Because Elon Musk decided to remind people of the role that Britain’s Labour Party played in the “grooming gang” scandal, suddenly millions of people who never knew about the scandal — particularly in the United States — are talking about this as if it were breaking news. And while I suppose I should be grateful that this gruesome tale is finally getting the attention it deserves, excuse me for asking: Where were these people 10 or 15 years ago, when I was frequently calling attention to this?
Imagine if more than a thousand girls, some as young as 11, were sexually exploited by members of a fundamentalist religious cult. Now imagine that authorities refused to act to stop this heinous abuse of young girls because of their fear of offending public opinion.
Except you don’t have to imagine this. It actually happened.
And the fundamentalist religious cult? Yeah: Islam.
Class prejudice was clearly a factor in this. Most British journalists are from the college-educated upper classes, while the girls being raped and pimped out by these Muslim gangs were mostly from a class that Americans would call “white trash.”
It’s not as if the “grooming” gangs were a big secret, after all. Young Pakistani men were parking their cars in front of schools to pick up their 14- and 15-year-old “girlfriends” and, because these girls were generally from the welfare-dependent lower classes, nobody seemed to care. Police, educators and social-service agencies ignored what was going on, and as for the media, well, they wouldn’t want to be accused of “racism” or “Islamophobia” for reporting on this phenomenon.
Here’s the thing: This is all entirely the government’s fault.
After a 17-year-old suspect was arrested for the Southport stabbing attack, the police refused to publicly identify him. Given the pattern around such incidents in England, this led a lot of people to assume that the attacker must be a Muslim immigrant, and so some of the rioters targeted mosques or facilities for so-called “asylum seekers.”
Eventually, the situation was such that officials finally identified the attacker as Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, the son of immigrants from Rwanda. Rudakubana was reportedly born in Cardiff, Wales and, whatever his motive — other than Crazy People Are Dangerous — there is no apparent connection to Islamic radicalism. Therefore, the claim is being made, “misinformation” was to blame for the riots.
No, actually, government secrecy was to blame. If the police had merely released the name and mugshot of the suspect, at least the public would have known that he wasn’t named “Mohammed” or “Abdul,” which was a conclusion many people quickly leapt to, based on recent history of such stabbings not only in England, but all across Europe. And just because it appears the attacker was a deranged teenager — apparently motivated by mental illness, rather than radical ideology — does not mean that complaints about immigration policy are irrelevant or misguided. The cultural dislocations involved in relocating Third World migrants to England (or France, Belgium, Canada, America, etc.) often result in situations like this, where the children of immigrants become alienated or hostile. Even if the immigrants themselves are grateful toward their host country, and eager to have their children take advantage of the available opportunities, the younger generation may not share that attitude, and may not be able to handle the pressure to adapt and assimilate.
It’s not “racist” or “anti-immigrant” to mention this phenomenon, which is widely acknowledged by social workers who deal with immigrant populations, and equally known to advocates of immigration. From a conservative perspective, of course, this problem points toward a simple conclusion about immigration: NUMBERS MATTER.
Assimilation is easier when immigrant populations are relatively small, and the larger the immigrant population, the greater the likelihood of violent conflict. If you have a town of 10,000 people, the arrival of one family of immigrants from Guatemala or Ghana is not going to have much impact on the social fabric; whereas the arrival of 500 or 1,000 immigrants is a whole ’nother thing. When you have mass immigration — which is what England has been dealing with for decades — the potential for trouble rises to a near certainty. Government officials don’t want to tell the truth about the results of their policies, and so a culture of secrecy arises, eroding public trust and leading to exactly the kind of situation that produced riots in the wake of the Southport stabbings.
If you're in England, please help me think of something I can post that will "incite violence or hatred" enough that the Crown Prosecution Service will order me arrested. As an American, I consider this my patriotic duty. https://t.co/jUmmfshlwP
Today I was waiting for my pizza to come out of the oven and scrolling through Facebook on my phone when I saw my post from last year (“St. Crispin’s Day: ‘If We Are Mark’d to Die, We Are Enough to Do Our Country Loss’”), and said to myself, “Is today October 25?” Never shall we cease to celebrate one of the greatest victories in the history of the English-speaking peoples! It’s important to understand the background of Henry V and the Battle of Agincourt. His father, Henry IV (“Bolingbroke”) stood accused of usurping the crown from Richard II, disinheriting the Earl of March. Henry V gained his military education fighting his father’s wars to suppress a series of rebellions. Just 26 years old when he succeeded to the throne at his father’s death in 1413, Henry V did not face as much domestic opposition, but the old English claim to the French throne soon led him into foreign conflict to claim what he believed was rightfully his. Thus began the third phase of what came to be known as “The Hundred Years’ War.” By 1420, Henry had triumphed and wed Catherine, youngest daughter of the French king, with a guarantee that their son would inherit the French crown. That would not have been possible, however, had the French defeated Henry at Agincourt, where his army fought heroically against overwhelming numerical odds.
WESTMORLAND. O that we now had here But one ten thousand of those men in England That do no work to-day!
KING. What’s he that wishes so? My cousin, Westmorland? No, my fair cousin; If we are mark’d to die, we are enough To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour. God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. By Jove, I am not covetous for gold, Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; It yearns me not if men my garments wear; Such outward things dwell not in my desires. But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive. No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England. God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour As one man more methinks would share from me For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more! Rather proclaim it, Westmorland, through my host, That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made, And crowns for convoy put into his purse; We would not die in that man’s company That fears his fellowship to die with us. This day is call’d the feast of Crispian. He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say “To-morrow is Saint Crispian.” Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars, And say “These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.” Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, But he’ll remember, with advantages, What feats he did that day. Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words— Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester— Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be rememberèd— We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
So it was that the English yeomanry earned their military fame in a battle where the number of French casualties was larger than Henry’s entire army. Indeed we shall remember “to the ending of the world.”
A recruiter for the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force referred to white men looking to join the air force as “useless white male pilots,” according to emails obtained by several British media outlets.
The comments were reportedly made by Squadron Leader Andrew Harwin in an email discussing board placements for ushering recruits through training.
“I noted that the boards have recently been predominantly white male heavy. If we don’t have enough BAME [black, Asian and minority ethnic] and female to board then we need to make the decision to pause boarding and seek more BAME and female from the RAF,” Harwin, who worked at the Officer and Aircrew Selection Centre, reportedly wrote in a January 19, 2021, email. “I don’t really need to see loads of useless white male pilots, let’s get as focused as possible, I am more than happy to reduce boarding if needed to have a balanced BAME/female/male board,” he added.
One RAF source told The Telegraph that the “email clearly demonstrates the endemic culture that was created by the senior leadership to chase ridiculous diversity statistics that were patently unachievable.”
A later email from January 19, 2021, said that the recruiting pool for minorities and women had been “drained.”
“From 336 Cs [candidates] we have [about] 10% female, 5% BAME which we will burn through quickly using the boarding profile proposed,” the email said.
Thirty-one men will be compensated roughly $6,000 each as a result of their training being delayed due to diversity quotas, according to Sky News.
Where this anti-white “diversity” mania began, of course, is in higher education, where discrimination against white males has been more or less overt for the past 25 years. The admissions data that came out of the lawsuit Harvard showed that, year after year, 14% of the freshman class was black — demonstrating that a de facto numerical quota was in effect, otherwise some variation in the percentage would have been expected. Asian students sued because, it was equally obvious, no matter how clearly their superior academic aptitude was demonstrated by GPA and SAT scores, the number of Asian students admitted to Harvard was artificially “capped” at around 20% of the freshman class total. Expert testimony showed that an Asian student whose GPA/SAT gave him a 25% chance of being admitted to Harvard would have had a 95% chance, if he had been black. In other words, being black was worth at least four times as much as academic aptitude. And this type of blatant bias is now being replicated in corporate America (see “Google Lawsuit Exposes Stalinist Climate Protecting Anti-White, Anti-Male Bias,” Jan. 10, 2018).
That these discriminatory practices have now spread to other English-speaking countries, and are being enforced in military training, goes to show how wrong it is to laugh at the latest insane trends in academia. Once bad ideas take hold on college campuses, they usually seep out into the real world, often with disastrous consequences.
In his monumental Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke goes to some length to demonstrate how the principle of inheritance operated in English law. The young person to whom he addresses his lecture — which began as a correspondence — seemed to have been deceived by those who contended that the English constitution included a “right” of the people to choose their own king. This contention, as Burke shows, was based on a misunderstanding of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which had the effect of bringing William and Mary to the throne. Yet in the very document establishing this succession, the signatories declare the fealty of “ourselves and our posterity” to their new sovereigns — and their posterity: How could the principle of inherited authority be voided, asked Burke, if the English people could by solemn compact bind their descendants as subjects of the descendants of their sovereign? So the imagined “right” to choose their own king was not proven by the Glorious Revolution; rather, it was explicitly denied.
Most people have never actually read Burke’s Reflections. If they have studied it at all, they’ve done so as college students under the supervision of a professor who includes excerpts from it as part of a syllabus on political philosophy, and thus absorb only a limited conception of Burke’s argument, one that overlooks such details as his emphasis on the importance of the principle of inheritance in English law.
Consider the Queen of Bohemia, a relative of William and Mary. The Queen of Bohemia was the daughter of King James I, and was allegedly a target of the conspirators (including Guy Fawkes) in the 1605 Gunpowder Plot. While her English cousins were going through their ordeals in the 1600s — Cromwell and all that — she was the wife of Frederick V of the Palatinate, who became King of Bohemia, a title he held for only one year before being exiled because of a defeat in the Thirty Years War. Despite their misfortune, Frederick and his English-born Queen had numerous children, the 12th of whom was Sophia, who in 1658 married Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover. In the meantime, the English throne had passed from William and Mary to Queen Anne. None of them left any surviving children, which precipitated a succession crisis:
Anne was the only person remaining in the line of succession established by the Bill of Rights 1689 [which excluded Catholics from the English throne]. To address the succession crisis and preclude a Catholic restoration, the Parliament of England enacted the Act of Settlement 1701, which provided that, failing the issue of Anne and of William III by any future marriage, the Crown of England and Ireland would go to Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and her Protestant descendants. Sophia was the granddaughter of James VI and I through his daughter Elizabeth, who was the sister of Anne’s grandfather Charles I. Over 50 Catholics with stronger claims were excluded from the line of succession.
As a Protestant nation, the English refused to be ruled by Catholics, which is how Sophia’s son, the grandson of the Queen of Bohemia, became King George I, establishing the Hanoverian dynasty in England. Was the exclusion of Catholic claimants to the crown a violation of the principle of inheritance in English law? On the contrary, it was confirmation of that principle. Going back to Henry VIII, the English had rejected papal supremacy, and the fundamental point of “Cromwell and all that” was the continuation of England’s Protestant legacy, even if they had to behead King Charles to accomplish it.
All of this may seem irrelevant to Americans today, but ask yourself why our forefathers fought the War of Independence and why, in agreeing to the ratification of the Constitution, they insisted that it immediately be amended with the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, establishing freedom of religion? Our nation was founded by men who understood the rights for which their English ancestors had fought during all those decades from James to Charles to Cromwell and onward. The legitimacy of colonial assemblies as instruments of governing authority in America had been recognized by the Crown and upheld by Parliaments, so that when George III started infringing on this long-established arrangement, the American colonists resisted. They saw the King as seeking to deprive them of their inherited rights — a legacy of liberty that Englishmen could trace back to Magna Carta.
American patriots love to speak of their “God-given rights,” adopting the rhetoric of the Declaration about the “self-evident” truth that “all men” are “endowed by their Creator” with these rights — which is fine, except when you ponder why these truths were not proclaimed at some other time in some other place by some other people, but rather by English-speaking Americans gathered at Philadelphia in 1776. And when they leave off quoting the Declaration, well-meaning American patriots are fond of quoting the Preamble of the Constitution without making much of the phrase wherein the Framers declared their intent to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” extending to the infinite future the principle of inheritance.
My emphasis on the English origins of our conception of rights, as a legacy inherited from our ancestors, is not intended to exclude those Americans whose ancestors were not English and thus had nothing to do with this particular history. As Americans, all of us are rightful beneficiaries of this legacy, no matter where our ancestors came from, or how recently they may have arrived. Readers will recall my praise for Vivek Ramaswamy as “an enthusiastic proponent of American exceptionalism,” notwithstanding the fact that Vivek is a Hindu whose parents immigrated from India. Vivek gets it, in terms of the importance of “the Blessings of Liberty” which we seek to preserve under the Constitution. My ancestor fought in the Revolution as a teenager in the South Carolina militia, and I would hope that all his descendants — probably thousands of us by now — share the same sensibility expressed by Vivek Ramaswamy. Meanwhile, in Colorado, we have this adamant declaration from Jeff Goldstein:
Be it so understood:
I refuse to “unpack white violence.” I reject the idea that my existence “perpetuates white power structures.” I will not — and in fact cannot — “examine my implicit biases.” I’m an individual. I refuse to grant determined interpretive communities authority over my being. My meaning is mine. It is what makes me me.
I’m not taking any “journey” to “discover” the impact of my “privilege” on “black and brown peoples.” I will not become “anti-racist” or “anti-fascist” to satisfy your demands. I reject Cultural Marxism. I am an individual. I’m not defined by my color, my religion, my sex. I’m Jeff.
I will not “respect your pronouns” or “celebrate” your “queerness.” I am hostile to your sexualizing of children. I reject your neologisms, your “triggers,” and your desire to control my speech. I know who and what you are: you are my presumptive master, or else the Useful Idiot who empowers him. But I will grant you and your ideology no power over me.
(Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.) Jeff is definitely an individual, as he says — and if you’ve ever met him, you certainly wouldn’t argue the point — but he is recognizably American in his individualism, as he understands the “Blessings of Liberty” as the Framers intended it, as belonging to him by inheritance as an American. While I suppose that Jeff would bemoan the lack of liberty and the violation of rights in distant places — Quebec or Kabul, Kinshasa or Kathmandu — it is the preservation of freedom in America that concerns him.
Intelligent people understand what Ronald Reagan once pointed out, in his famous 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing,” about our nation:
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
Our freedom as Americans — our nation’s proud claim to be liberty’s “last stand on earth” — has a history, and if we don’t teach that history to our children, how can they possibly understand how precious this legacy is?
The Queen of Bohemia could not be reached for comment.
Consider this: If it weren’t for the prominence of his family, nobody would give a damn about Harry Windsor. Which is to say, all the respect accorded to any member of the royal family is based on their inherited dignity. Why, then, would Harry go out of his way to trash his own family’s reputation? Of course, we can blame that bitch Meghan Markle, but what does it say about Harry that he would choose such a woman as his companion, and join her tacky talk-show “celebrity” trip?
My brother and I were riding to the store when I saw the latest headline about Harry and Meghan, which caused me to erupt in an angry rant: “Tell-all memoir! What a damned idiot! Never trust anyone who speaks ill of their own family. Oh, your dad is a bum and your brother’s a bum? Well, the nut don’t fall too far from the tree, so I reckon you must be a bum, too! ‘Tell-all memoir,’ my ass! Yeah, buddy, the stories I could tell, if somebody paid me to write a ‘tell-all memoir’!”
At which point, my brother interrupted to remind me that he was driving, and if we were to get T-boned at the next intersection — a semi-truck ramming into the passenger side of the Nissan — the cops would never doubt it was an accident, if you catch my drift. But of course, this was merely a joke, because I would never in a million years think to write a “tell-all memoir,” given my own (alleged) role in various disreputable shenanigans. Sometimes I’m tempted to tell tales, but then I remember the Miranda warning: “You have the right to remain silent . . .”
Harry is to the Windsor family what Fredo was to the Corleones. He’s banging cocktail waitresses two at a time and defending Moe Green, so to speak, and where’s the royal Michael to issue the warning?
“Don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever.”
Michael understood the value of loyalty, just like he understood the code of omerta. And the Corleones knew how to enforce their distinctive Sicilian concept of honor, which the Windsors don’t understand, or else Harry would be taking a ride to the airport with Clemenza.
Putting aside fantasies of Harry getting “whacked” by a royal enforcer — an MI6 man, discreet and reliable, arriving in a stylish Aston Martin — isn’t there a lesson here for us all? Only a fool would imagine he could benefit by bringing dishonor to his own family, yet such fools are everywhere nowadays, marching around in parades to proclaim how proud they are of their preferred perversions, while denouncing their parents as “bigots” for not celebrating their decadence.
Harry’s reached the Iowahawk “skin suit” phase of degradation:
1. Identify a respected institution. 2. kill it. 3. gut it. 4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.#lefties
