This naturally begs the question: Is the UK really a free country, or a totalitarian state? I would argue that the UK has become the latter for all intents and purposes. The same goes for the entire EU. Unless there is a massive uprising and change, Europe is doomed.

Yes Carl, most disheartening. So I hope you will spend at least a little time resisting the threat you perceive even though resistance seems hopeless. Think of how horrible it could get and how deadly it will be to resist once we hit bottom.

Just as the Romanize Britons committed cultural and national suicide (auto-ethnic cleansing?)by inviting the Angles Saxons and Jutes so to the modern Britains are commiting suicide through immigration and reproductive rates.
Whereas the Britons fought back too late, the modern British are giving up and silencing the patriots.
Too bad it isn’t just Great Britain.

Complete freedom of the press has been a very recent thing—just the last couple of hundred years. For centuries a vital, growing, Western-Christian culture co-existed with all kinds of restrictions on speech. Up until the 19th century Englishmen were regularly thrown in jail for their published writings. So press restrictions by themselves would not indicate that Western civilization is dead or doomed. What indicates civilizational doom is the precise nature of the restrictions, namely their alienism. Members of the majority culture are increasingly forbidden to defend their own culture or to say anything critical about alien and incompatible groups that are rapidly gaining ground. This goes beyond an attack on individual freedom and is part of a suicide-murder campaign against the civilization itself.

What strikes me in particular about the hate-crime law in Britain is that the offense consists of “inciting to racial hatred.” In my article On the Meaning of Racism (see link on main page), that’s one of the definitions I give of racism. It never occurred to me, however, that when I criticized the invoking of hatred I was defining a felony. Further, while I was attempting to draw clear distinctions between racist and non-racist speech, one wonders where the politically correct British would draw the line between “incitement to hatred” and any strong criticism of a group. For example, if I said—as I have repeatedly said at VFR—that Islam is incompatible with Western society, would that be incitement of hatred against Muslims? It’s hard to see any clear line under Britain’s law that would protect me from criminal indictment. In any case, if Taki cannot safely speak of multi-generations of “black thugs,” then we are not free, and we are not safe.

None of this is to defend Taki, a writer who consistently indulges in cheap and offensive comments and who is hardly a desirable representative of conservatism. Also, The Spectator is to be condemned for publishing an article containing such juvenile vulgarities as “bull—-t,” which not long ago would have been inconceivable in any serious magazine let alone a conservative opinion journal.

“For example, if I said—as I have repeatedly said at VFR—that Islam is incompatible with Western society, would that be incitement of hatred against Muslims?” — Lawrence Auster

Yes, to publish that opinion in England today — the opinion that Islam is incompatible with Western society — would get Mr. Auster at least investigated by the powerful (and somewhat arbitrary) Diversity Directorate over there. A dossier would be opened on him by Scotland Yard or the London Metropolitan Police, for example, and thereafter he’d know that he had to watch everything he published about any group, lest things proceed to criminal charges and possible prison sentence and/or fine.

At any rate, this is the situation as described to me a couple of days ago by members of the BNP in an online chat I had with them.

The Free Speech situation in Britain is indeed grave, and with the Lords effectively destroyed with the dissolution of Hereditary Peerage, and as EU integration increases, it is hard to be positive about the future. I imagine a lot of what is said on this website could fall within the bounds of their racial discrimination legislation.

Under the editorship of Boris Johnson, MP for Henley, the “The Spectator” is effectively tied to the right-wing of the Tory Party, and must follow as the centre of politics and the Conservatives continually drift to the Left.

As a classicist graduate of Eton and Balliol, Johnson presumably is no intellectual lightweight, yet seems to be more interested in advancing “The Spectator” and ascending within the Party, rather than taking a principled intellectually honest stand on vital issues to the future of the UK, like opposing mass immigration, and the related acknowledgement of racial difference. If he did he would be thrown out of the Tory Party, but history would be kinder to him.

It is unfortunate that Taki, more a rich playboy than traditional conservative, is the only representative on “The Spectator” who will take up hard issues like race and immigration - his continually vulgar manner and criminal history make him as a liability to conservatism. He has, however, been helpful in setting up and publishing magazines like “Right Now!”, and notwithstanding its shortcomings, “The American Conservative”.