Julie V. Gottlieb
Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain’s Fascist Movement, 1923-1945
New York: I.B. Tauris, 2003.

“Feminine fascism” is a phrase that Julie V. Gottlieb uses to describe the forward-thinking, yet traditionally influenced, ideology embraced by Britain’s fascists. Their objective was not a return to the past, to a time when women were solely mothers and homemakers. Instead, the fascists in England combined traditional roles with the advances made in women’s suffrage and the workplace, and added a fascist bent of discipline and integrity.

Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain’s Fascist Movement is a chronological account of fascism in Britain, starting in 1923 with the country’s first fascist group, the British Fascisti, founded by Rotha Lintorn-Orman, a woman. The BF remained the predominant fascist organization until Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists (BU) was established in 1932. Feminine Fascism discusses the role of women in these two groups, details the unique form of feminism embraced by members, and ends with an account of the internment and trials of women fascists during World War II. The last quarter of the book provides brief biographies of the many women in fascist Britain.

Gottlieb, a senior lecturer in history at the University of Sheffield, has trouble wrapping her head around what attracted so many women to fascism, especially those who had campaigned for women’s suffrage. How could women embrace such seemingly different ideologies: women’s rights, on the one hand, and anti-democracy on the other? The answer is that fascism offered women the best of both worlds.

Britain’s fascists encouraged women to be traditional in many areas. Motherhood was valued and respected, as was homemaking. In fact, the Corporate State would include a Home Corporation, in which homemakers would have representation just like any other trade. An article in The Blackshirt explained, “only when women represent women will womankind attain its rightful influence.”

A primary goal of the fascist platform was allowing women to once again be homemakers, but they used forward-thinking methods to advance their ideology. Many British women were essentially forced into the workplace due to wage variances between the sexes. Employers preferred less costly female employees, which pushed many men out of jobs. All too many families experienced the trials of having a working mother, with the father at home tending the house and children, unable to secure a decent wage. The fascists knew that in the modern world, a platform that appeared to regress women’s rights would hold no sway. Thus, they supported equal wages for women, since equal pay would mean that more men could return to the workforce. As explained by Fascist Week:

Under Fascism women will not be compelled to resign, but encouraged to do so by the fact that, under Corporate State and the scientific methods of raising real wages, men will be able to afford to marry women—and women will not be compelled to earn their own living as they are at present. (125)

However, the fascists never insisted that career-minded women remain at home, recognizing that there were not only occupations suited to women, but also situations in which women would desire a career and need equal pay. Rosalind Raby, for example, claimed that fascism would allow the unmarried mother “to earn an honest living for herself and her child.”

But the biggest innovation in British fascism was its emphasis on character. Men were encouraged to have values of courage, strength, honour, and integrity. The aristocracy of money and class would be replaced in the Corporate State with a meritocracy. Likewise, British fascism presented an alternate form of femininity: one that included strength, courage, and fearlessness. During marches, women were not permitted to wear lipstick or wave at friends as if in a beauty pageant. These feminine fascists were described as healthy, attractive, charming, intelligent, and of strong character. They were motherly, but as wary of sentimentality as Julius Evola. A male writer described the women Blackshirts:

Nothing silly or soft about these women. They are nothing if not practical . . . and the happy carefree way in which they made themselves at home, was so refreshing after one has had their fill of the simpering little brats that democracy and Jewish films have produced. (95)

The combination of traditional and modern was seen in the BU women’s uniform of: a black blouse, grey skirt, and black beret. It was against regulations for women to wear trousers while on active duty.

Integrating Fascism into Everyday Life

British fascists grew in numbers, in part because they didn’t relegate their philosophy to just the political sphere, but participated in almost every aspect of members’ lives. Weddings included fascist regalia, and at some funerals a fascist flag was draped over the coffin. The Fascist Week printed the names of wedding guests just like the society pages of The Times.

Members of the BF organized Fascist Children’s Clubs, in which children were taught history, songs, patriotism, and given awards for homework. Other women had brooches designed with the BU lightning symbol, and made dolls dressed in the blackshirt for children. There also was a BU Women’s Choir. According to Gottlieb:

By celebrating each phase of life within a fascist framework, the BF in fact appropriated the functions once carried out by the Church and this substantiated their claim . . . that fascism was akin to a religion. (28)

In addition to the accolades given to real women, there were fascist heroines as well. The most notable was Queen Elizabeth, for her command of the nation and exemplary oratory skills. Another heroine was Lady Hester Stanhope, who worked as a housekeeper before traveling through the Middle East. E. D. Hart wrote:

Those women who, whether from choice or, as in the case of Lady Hester, from necessity, explore other walks of life, will find both assistance and encouragement. When, like her, they display the Fascist virtues of courage, self-reliance, and tenacity of purpose, we ascribe to them the honour which is their due. (97)

Blackshirts also banded together to disparage several less attractive types of women. One was the feminist with mannish, short hair, called the “bleating Bloomsbury.” Another was the “Mayfair Parasite,” who usurped the nation’s wealth and vitality by sleeping late and devoting her life to superficial pleasures. Being fit and healthy was considered a moral duty, for as one writer put it: “Far too many women consider it their privilege to be ill . . . just ill enough to pamper themselves and evade their share of the family work.” Communists often were referred to as “submen” and “subwomen.” Titled women did not escape criticism either. Those who earned money by advertising products were publicly chastised by BU members for degrading both themselves and their class.

Women’s Duties in Fascist Organizations

Women were involved in almost every area of Britain’s fascist groups, and made up about 25 percent of the membership. The Women’s Section of the BU was established in March 1933, under the leadership of Lady Maud Mosley. She said, “When my son married Lady Cynthia [Mosley’s first wife], she took her place by his side. Now she is dead and there must be someone to help him in this work and I am going to do my best to fill the gap” (52).

Mosley’s second wife, Diana, and her sister Unity Valkyrie Mitford became two of the best-known female fascists, but Feminine Fascism only lightly touches on their stories. Their aristocratic parents were extremely Right-wing and anti-Semitic, but when the 2nd Baron Redesdale supported England during the war, he and his Nazi-sympathizing wife permanently separated.

Diana was married to Bryan Guinness when she met Mosley, and soon became his mistress. Mosley’s wife died suddenly of peritonitis in 1933 (though he was plagued the rest of his life that infidelities and political stress might have been the cause). Mosley and Diana were married at the home of Joseph Goebbels in 1936, with Hitler as guest of honor.

Unity debuted the same year her older sister became Mosley’s mistress. The next year, Diana and Unity went to the 1933 Nuremberg Rally as part of the BU delegation, and saw Hitler for the first time. Unity returned to Germany the following year, eating at the same restaurant as the Führer for 10 months, until he finally asked her over. Unity wrote to her father of their meeting: “I am so happy that I wouldn’t mind a bit, dying. I'd suppose I am the luckiest girl in the world. For me he is the greatest man of all time.” Hitler, in turn, described Unity as “a perfect specimen of Aryan womanhood.” Their affections might have escalated, if not for a suicide attempt by Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun. Though in love with Hitler, Unity devoted herself to making speeches, writing letters, distributing propaganda, and being one of Hitler’s intimate confidantes. On September 3, 1939, the day Britain declared war on Germany, Unity took a pearl-handled pistol (a gift from Hitler for protection) and shot herself in the head, unable to bear the thought of the two countries she loved at war. She survived and was eventually able to walk again, but never recovered her full mental capabilities.

While Unity was helping the cause on the continent, women Blackshirts in England spoke at meetings, organized children’s groups, sold newspapers, and participated in marches and canvassing. Study groups about fascism were established for women speakers, and women participated in public debates. But women did not forsake their traditional duties either: One woman reported that it was the fair sex who kept the BU headquarters clean and brewed tea for the men. Members who did not give five nights a week to the movement were denied the privilege of wearing the coveted blackshirt.

A relatively large number of women participated in local elections. In 1936, the BU ran 10 women candidates (10 percent of their parliamentary candidates), from a variety of backgrounds. (Six were unmarried, five were professionals, three were in their 20s, and two were from gentry families.) The various women received between 15 and 23 percent of the votes in their respective districts.

Women’s most valuable talents were said to be in public speaking, and numerous BU women were praised for their excellent oration and ability to move crowds. Other women were lauded for their ability to use personal stories in their speeches, which proved more powerful than simple recitations of facts. During a 1936–37 campaign, women decided to censor their speeches for tactical advantage. No speaker was allowed to use the word “Jew.” Instead, plain-clothed members were scattered throughout the audience to use the word instead, as the message was thought to be more rousing if coming from the public.

Women had roles to play in security and self-defense as well. Female members of several organizations were trained in ju-jitsu, for as Fascist Week reported, “no male member of the BU is permitted to use force upon any woman, and women Reds often form a highly noisy and razor-carrying section at fascist meetings. Thus we counter women with women” (66).

The Fallout During the War

As early as 1938, a division of MI5 was formed to place agents in subversive organizations. Three women agents provocateurs successfully infiltrated the popular fascist group, Captain Ramsay’s Right Club. After Britain entered WWII, the country started to resemble a totalitarian dystopia for fascist sympathizers. In October 1939, Anne Brock Griggs was charged with “insulting words and disturbing the peace” for saying in a speech: “If Germans don’t like Hitler they can get rid of him themselves. We do not need to send our sons to fight them. If ever a country wants a revolution now it is Great Britain” (236). She quit her BU post, but was still interned during the war.

Defense Regulation 18B(1A) went into effect in September 1939, and it allowed the Home Secretary to detain anyone suspected of being a threat to national security. That category included anyone who was a leader or member in a group that might be under foreign influence. Under 18B, 1,826 people were interned, including 747 BU members (96 of them women).

Sir Oswald Mosley was arrested in May 1940, the day after the Defense Regulations were passed. The BU was outlawed in June, and his second wife, Diana, was interned shortly after. She was denounced by both her sister Nancy (later a famous novelist and biographer) and her former father-in-law, and had to leave without her 11-week-old, still-nursing baby boy. Although the English public called for Unity Mitford to be interned as a traitor, she was allowed to return to the family home with her mother, since she was weak from her suicide attempt.

Interned women were given no special treatment in prison. When Miss L. M. Reeve was arrested, a group of armed guards came to take her from her home. One officer asked if he could have her dog, since she was “probably about to be shot.” One woman’s infant died while staying with her in prison, and another woman’s infant was pulled from her arms and placed in an institution. Part of the evidence against another woman was a photograph of her on vacation in Germany in 1939, seated at a table with bottles of German wine.

Fascists on the outside, though their organizations were banned, were still able to help their comrades via a registered charity founded specifically to help those interned under 18B. The charity helped pay for legal and medical services, provided assistance to detainees’ families, provided post-release counseling, and helped people find employment. Trials could only be held for those who could be charged with a tangible offense, so many men and women fascists were imprisoned for years.

The Impact of Feminine Fascism

The much-anticipated Corporate State never became a reality, and its philosophies and ideas were forced to the margins of history. Yet the lessons that can be learned from the events detailed in Feminine Fascism remain relevant to the leaders of future generations.

Eighty years ago, the fascists recognized that it would be impossible to shed the gains made in women’s rights. Rather than fighting against women’s “emancipation,” with which they ideologically disagreed, the fascists used it to their advantage. The result was a philosophy for women that honored the traditional, yet considered the needs of modern women. Fascists didn’t need to force women into the home or sell them on an ideology that contradicted the propaganda of the modern world; they realized that the moment women didn’t have to work the majority of mothers would return gladly to full-time homemaking. And given the precarious nature of homemaking as a profession, they planned ways for women to have representation and security in the Corporate State. The result was a platform that united women of various political persuasions, ages, and classes. Because it details the fascists’ unique outlook and strategy, Feminine Fascism makes a relevant handbook for those looking to learn from the successes and failures of history.

The British National Party is now at an important crossroads. After the successes of the last decade, which resulted in growing influence on the national political narrative, the party has been weakened by a split between supporters of the party’s leader Nick Griffin and his opponents, many of whom have been pushed out of the Party. Despite this, at the last leadership election this July, Griffin was re-elected by the narrowest of margins. In a vote that was limited only to voting members, Griffin received 1157 votes, against the 1148 votes cast for Andrew Brons, his challenger and fellow Member of the European Parliament.

While there have been calls from some to form a new nationalist party outside the control of Griffin, others believe that the way forward is to continue working within the BNP. What follows is an article by John Bean, a leading figure in nationalist politics since the 1950s and a key mover in many of the events that have shaped British nationalism. Until recently, he served as the editor of the BNP’s influential magazine, Identity, and is presently an important influence in the Brons camp.

In the article, which was originally published on the BNP Ideas website last month, this much respected elder statesman and intellectual of British nationalism uses his years of experience and insight to identify key points and tactics in the struggle to secure the goals of British nationalism. This is an article that has relevance not only for British nationalists but for nationalists everywhere.

~Colin Liddell 

For Nationalism to achieve the minimum of power required to act just as a brake upon the socio-political policies that are destroying our national identity—let alone reverse it as is required—ideally we need to win at least two Parliamentary seats and five MEPs within the next decade. Council seats and members of such bodies as the London Assembly are but stepping stones. We cannot, for example, follow the tactics of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school with the successful Marxist Long March Through the Institutions, for time is not on our side.

The long-term success by incremental steps of the Marxists and liberal-minded “useful idiots” who have made up the bulk of our teachers at schools and universities over the past 30 years has encouraged the nation to reject its cultural heritage without knowing it. This has resulted in our being colonised by a tsunami of Afro-Asian immigration. For immigration to continue, even at half of its present rate (as the Tories suggest they are aiming for) for another decade, could mean that the battle is lost. In 30 years at a “reduced” rate it would definitely be lost. Therefore the policy of ending immigration is not negotiable under a reformed BNP or a new Nationalist party. It must take priority over all other aspects of policy.

Thanks to the Metropolitan Police's ridiculous policy of appeasement, a large part of North London resembles a bombed out scene from the 1940 Blitz following a night of rioting by the city's Afro-Caribbean "community." The riots started after about 300 people gathered outside a police station in the gang-infested area and demanded "justice" following a shooting incident in which a policeman and a suspected gang member were both shot in what appears to have been an exchange of fire.

Faced by what initially started as a peaceful demonstration, the police responded with their usual "culturally sensitive," "softly softly" approach of showing sympathy, maintaining a low police presence, avoiding assertive gestures, allowing the mob to vent its emotions, and retreating behind barriers, effectively giving a green light to the rioters and anyone else who was interested to run amok.

With other emergency services unable to intervene, scores of shops were looted and burnt, while the inadequate numbers of police officers sent to contain the violence were not properly equipped with riot gear resulting in several officers being hospitalized.

Despite the unfortunate results of this policy and the obvious criminality of a large section of the West Indian "community," much of the emphasis in the mainstream media has been on rationalizing the actions of the mob as an understandable if regrettable reaction to police shortcomings and attributing all negative actions to a "tiny unrepresentative minority" – the typical hallmarks of the leftist multiracial state in damage limitation mode.

The truth is that whatever the Metropolitan Police do to police the gun, knife, and drug crime of London's West Indian "community," it will breed resentment. Drug-fuelled criminality and gang culture are so ingrained among young West Indians that any effective policing has to involve frequent interactions between the police and this group that can only breed tension and resentment.

The attempt to eradicate the criminality of the West Indian "community" is problematic for the leftist multiracial state as it essentially involves the imposition of White standards on an ethnic group that clearly has little inclination to accept these standards. For this very reason most of the establishment types have been calling for greater interaction with "community leaders." This is a subtle recognition of the fact that Tottenham and other heavily Black neighborhoods are de facto independent statelets whose main connection with wider British society is as recipients of welfare and repositories of badly retailed drugs.

Colin Liddell’s recent article about the British National Party needs some additional comments, as it concentrates on the party’s leadership while leaving out some important reasons why the party fails in the polls.

It bears asking: Given that successive British politicians since the 1950s set, then improved, then perpetuated conditions that have left the country open to colonisation by peoples of the Third World, without ever asking the citizens whom they represented whether they wanted to be thus colonised; given that they have a proven record of not acting in the national interest, favouring instead plutocratic, globalist, and even foreign lobbies; given that they have repeatedly lied to the citizenry on immigration, multiculturalism, and foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; given that they have wrecked the economy, mortgaging, if not hobbling, the future prosperity of the nation; given that so many have stolen from the public purse for personal benefit—given all this, would it not make sense to vote into power the one party that ostensibly stands against all of the above, and whose policy is to put the interests of the indigenous peoples of the various parts of the United Kingdom first?

All else being equal, it would make sense, wouldn’t it?

Especially after seeing, and in some cases living, what happens when Whites become disempowered minorities in former—and formerly prosperous—British colonies.

Why, then, are British people not voting for the British National Party?

Liddell has suggested some of the reasons: a neo-Nazi past, which in the minds of ordinary citizens means a neo-Nazi present; poor staffing decisions by the party leader, which has resulted in maladminstration; and, although not explicitly stated but clearly suggested by the choice of illustration in the article, an uncharismatic leader.

These are serious handicaps for a party that is constantly under attack by the political and media establishment—over the years we have seen a number of money-draining court cases, bank harassment, gerrymandering, media ambushes, and a consistently negative portrayal, with images of the party leader in the mainstream media chosen on the basis of their unflattering quality.

Yet, to my mind, the most serious handicaps are internally generated: 1) the very nature and character of the BNP’s message; 2) its failure to professionalise its operation; and 3) which is releated and dependent on the previous two, its lack of presentation skills.

The Message

I contend that even if the BNP were left entirely alone by the establishment, it would still fail to inspire the electorate.

The problem with the party’s message is that it is almost entirely negative. It is based purely on a negative proposition (Britain is going to the dogs, the establishment is corrupt); it is concretely and emphatically anti-everything (anti-immigration, anti-establishment, anti-globalisation, anti-multiculturalism, anti-Islam, anti-feminism); and it is pessimistic (everything will get worse, the economy will collapse, Britain will be Islamised). As a result, it seems acutely paranoid rather than simply realistic.

Where an effort has been made to make the party’s message positive (and the recent logo re-design seems part of this) the message remains for the most part reactionary and conservative, expressing a yearning for a return or restoration to a pre-liberal past, rather than a will to rebirth or regeneration in a post-liberal future.

To be fair, both the reactionary-conservative and archeofuturistic currents exist within the party, but the latter (which, from my very limited vantage point, seems more prevalent among some younger members) is not dominant—and yet that latter current is the one capable of producing a winning formula.

The citizenry already knows that Britain is going to the dogs—they know it deep down, even if they do not feel immediately threatened because they have good jobs, live in non-diverse areas of the country, or have insulated themselves from the effects of the ‘equality’ project; yet no one wants to hear endless complaining, pessimism, and paranoia from dowdy angry middle-aged men, who deliver their remarks with sarcasm and a scowl.

It never matters whether they are right: people do not want to hear it.

Most want to feel happy and optimistic. They want to look forward to, rather than dread, the future. And most importantly they do not want to be like ‘those awful BNP supporters’—at least how they imagine them to be.

In other words, the negative message implies a negative identity—an identity defined against an establishment that enjoys the benefit of possessing and regulating access to status, power, and money.

The BNP would perhaps increase its appeal were it to emphasise how Britain was going to be better off with the party in charge, as opposed to how Britain is going to be worse off with the mainstream parties; and if they emphasised the positive without relying on the negative: that is to say, if ‘better off’ was not a simply consequence of avoiding ‘worse off’, but rather also the result of a unique, forward-looking social programme of rebirth and regeneration.

One of the keys to success is in being able to formulate a unique proposition, implying a positive identity, and having everyone else define themselves either for it or against it.

The BNP so far has done the reverse.

Professionalism

Having said the above, even a fantastic message is useless if the citizenry lacks confidence in the party’s ability to deliver.

The terrorist Left has made great capital from exploiting manifest weaknesses in the party’s accounting systems and record-keeping. The latter have enabled the BNP’s enemies to scare the electorate by implicitly posing the question: if a small party with ten thousand members cannot keep on top of its own accounts, how on earth are they going to keep on top of the nation’s accounts?

Moreover, anti-racist legislation has contrived a number of employment bans and convictions, thus enabling the BNP’s enemies to brand the party as composed of unemployable criminals.

Nick Griffin has made efforts to professionalise his party, but these have yet to prove sufficient to inspire confidence in spite of establishment enmity.

While most citizens would like to see an end to the colonisation of Britain and Europe, even they would worry were the BNP to win a general election tomorrow.

Presentation

Similarly, even a fantastic message is useless without the skills to deliver it in a manner that maximises the party’s appeal.

Since gaining seats in the European Parliament the BNP has grown better at doing media and made visible efforts to develop their own in order to improve their image and their outreach. However, this is recent, and for most of its history the party has lacked media skills.

In a media age, this is a big minus.

Even now, results are inconsistent. Some good performances by Griffin have been recorded, such as this short interview. However, many still remember his embarrassing performance in 2009 on the BBC’s Question Time, where he spent much time explaining and defending himself rather than attacking the enemy and putting across the case for his party.

Besides the problem of media skills, there is the problem of the overall presentation strategy having been defined around a negative message. 

Yes, there are legitimate reasons to be angry. And yes, given the record of the mainstream parties and politicians, it would seem logical, reasonable, and justified for a party purporting to be one of fundamental change to define itself against them. Yet, that alone will not work and has rarely if ever worked. The most spectacular electoral wins have been led by politicians who inspired optimism, not politicians who prophesied doom.

A clear example is the United Kingdom’s 1997 general election. The Conservative Party’s most famous slogan was ‘Britain is Booming, Don’t Let Labour Blow It’; the Labour Party’s was simply ‘New Labour, New Britain’. Labour won by a landslide and a wave of cheer swept the country. Eleven years later, an obscure Black United States senator campaigned with the simple slogans ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’. He became president and a wave of cheer swept the country.

It seems the matter of presentation is very simple. A vague, wishy-washy appeal to optimism is far more effective than hard-boiled realism.

No one wants to be a realist.

Endgame

It may seem preposterous to discuss the viability of a British national party when prospects of real political power for any such entity are presently so remote.

Some may argue that party politics is futile, since we will not likely vote ourselves out of the present mess.

Yet party political work is far from futile or pointless, even at this juncture.

Firstly, there needs to be a continuous political presence representing fundamental change in the right direction, if only to exert political pressure and remind people that such a position exists. Secondly, there need to be professional campaigning organisations capable of assuming political power in the event of an opening.

Such an opening is, of course, unlikely to occur without there being a fundamental change in the culture that prepares the citizenry to accept values and propositions that today are seen as marginal. This is so much the case that, in fact, party political activity will only become immediately relevant at the end of a long process of cultural transformation. Political power is the last stage, not the first, in the project of transforming society.

Thus, at least in peacetime, party politics is the instrument of the endgame. No party proposing fundamental change will be voted into power unless that fundamental change has already occurred.

Given how far we are from the kind of culture that would make political victory possible for the kind of party the BNP ought to be, I do not think Nick Griffin holds the key to anything except the fate of his party.

I suspect the BNP’s electoral prospects will improve after a change of leadership—but only marginally, assuming no change in the culture. And any new leader would need to be young, charismatic, and not part of the existing leadership clique. Crucially, he would need credibly and successfully to represent in the public eye the political expression of a counter-cultural current, a real break with both the past and the present.

That seems a long way off for now, and there is no credible party on the horizon. 

So the multicultural project continues . . .

Contrary to what most of the pundits are saying, the recent Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election in the UK was very revealing about the state and direction of British politics.

With Labour winning a seat they have held since its inception (42 percent of the vote), the Liberal-Democrats coming second with a marginally increased percentage of the vote (31.9 percent), and the Conservative vote being squeezed in a seat they had little hope of winning (12.8 percent), political commentators have been left with little of interest to remark on. But this is because they have been ignoring yet again the increasingly important substratum of British politics and how it impacts on the top flight.

I’m not about to say that the substratum parties—essentially the BNP, UKIP, and the Greens—are about to break through, but, with parties outside the big three scoring almost 12 percent of the vote in the last general election, how the political establishment deals with this increasingly important segment of the electorate will determine which of the big parties runs Britain and how.

The most significant fact of the 2010 general election was the narrowness of the result. After 13 years of economic mismanagement, rising taxes, and destructive social engineering, at a time of severe economic turbulence, and with a leader who lacked the glib charm now required by voters, the Labour Party should have been wiped out by the Conservatives.

As it was, there was only a 5 percent swing from Labour to Conservatives, so that the Conservatives were forced to rely on the help of Britain’s perpetual bridesmaid party, the Lib-Dems, to form what may yet prove to be ramshackle coalition.

According to an article in the Independent, the English Defense League is taking a, shall we say, interesting approach to resisting Islamic colonization of the United Kingdom and the perceived encroachment of Sharia law. Some excerpts:

A white extremist organisation is forging links with Jewish, Sikh and gay communities to fuel prejudice and fear and hatred of the Muslim community, it was claimed today.

New branches of the League, such as the Jewish Division, could exploit the existing religious hostilities caused by territorial disputes in the Middle East, says Professor Copsey whose report was commissioned by the organisation Faith Matters.

It claims that these inter-faith tensions were brought into sharp focus last month when the senior US Jewish leader and Tea Party activist Rabbi Nachum Shifren denounced Islam at a EDL rally outside the Israeli Embassy in London. Israeli flags have also been spotted at several EDL demonstrations across the UK.

As well as aggravating religious tensions, the EDL has established a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Division to "defend" gay people from Sharia law. There are also specialist divisions for women, soldiers and disabled people. The report warns these communities to be vigilant against "selective racism" and the EDL’s attempts at manipulation.

Contributors to the EDL Facebook site confirm that the group wants to work with other minority organisations including those which promote women’s rights. One member writes: "After all, leftists have portrayed themselves for decades as the only ones really interested in promoting a progressive and inclusive agenda: homosexual rights, women’s equality, minority rights, reproductive rights, immigration, world peace, among others."

One member added: "Remember there is a difference between being anti-Muslim and anti-Islam. We are against the ideology not the people. Let’s not forget that many Muslim women and children are victims of their own religion."

On the surface at least, the EDL appears to be less concerned with developing a serious and reasonable defense of Western cultural heritage than in crude, philistine Islamophobia resembling that of American neocons, combined with the hoary leftist habit of denouncing everything to the right of Leon Trotsky as racist, fascist, sexist, and homophobic. Indeed, the Islamophobia of the neocons sometimes comes close to resembling the anti-Catholic tirades originating from American know-nothings of the mid-nineteenth century. It is possible to recognize Islam as one of the world’s great civilizations and religious traditions, and even find much that is admirable about Islamic culture and history, while also recognizing that uncontrolled mass immigration by Muslims into the West amounts to cultural and demographic suicide. It is even possible to at once favor the preservation of Western civilization and agree with thinkers like Michael Scheuer and Robert Pape that much of the problem with Islamic terrorism is indeed “blowback” generated by unnecessary Western, mostly American, interventions and interference in the Islamic nations, and that some kind of apocalyptic showdown between the West and Islam is neither necessary nor inevitable. As Pat Buchanan says, “They are over here because we are over there,” and there is no clear reason why we Westerners should not seek peaceful co-existence with Islam as much as possible. While we don’t want to surrender Western nations to Islamic colonization via mass immigration, there is no reason why Muslims cannot exercise sovereignty in their traditional homelands.

The English Defense League is an organization I admittedly know little about. Perhaps English readers can enlighten me. If the depiction conveyed in this article is accurate, it would appear that the EDL is less interested in defending the Western civilization of Aristotle, Seneca, Augustine, and Michelangelo than in defending the Western civilization of Theodor Herzl, Betty Friedan, Harvey Milk, and RuPaul. AlternativeRight.Com contributor Richard Hoste has in the past made the plausible argument that a Europeanized Islam might even be an improvement over much of what goes on in Europe at present: “I don’t know what a Swedish Islam would look like, but it probably wouldn’t be half as ugly as the feminist-communist dystopia that the country is today.  The culture of that Nordic state repulses me a lot more than that of, say, Turkey. “

I’m inclined on one hand to regard these activities on the part of the EDL as one of those “So this is how it ends?” moments. If the principal objection to conquest of the West by means of demographic aggression by hostile immigrant populations is that some of the immigrants aren’t PC enough, then why bother? Surely a civilization that has sunk to such levels would deserve to die. Still, political pragmatism and eclecticism have their place. The approach of the EDL resembles in some ways the Dutch left-nationalist movement of the late Pim Fortuyn, and even my own approach to certain questions (for instance, my blurring of the left/right distinction when attacking the managerial state) bears a casual resemblance on occasion. A commenter on my blog suggests that the EDL’s efforts are largely motivated by a desire to steer anti-Islamic or anti-immigration sentiment away from support for the British National Party. That would seem to be as good an explanation for this spectacle as any. However, the EDL may have the positive unintended consequence of providing an entry level gateway for participants in its activities, particularly young people inclined towards either the Left or neocon sympathies, to eventually develop a more serious critique of the threat posed by uncontrolled immigration and a more solid intellectual and political defense of their cultural heritage and civilization.

A time there was when the awarding of a title of nobility in European countries was intended as formal recognition of the recipient's service to the crown, to the country, or to the state. Under the feudal system, the honour was given in exchange for military service and was hereditary; but in modern times it has been given, at least in theory, as a very special life-time award by the state to a tiny handful of individuals deemed by it to have led a singularly meritorious career. That is why the process has been termed 'ennoblement' -- the implication being that these individuals are somehow noble and worthy of such appellation. For this reason, concommittant with the very exclusive privileges they obtain, ennobled citizens have added responsibilities, especially with regards to standards of conduct.

When Tony Blair's Labour regime seized power in 1997, the nobility as a system had long been on the wane, the aristocracy having been progressively stripped of its legal powers through successive reforms. All the same, the majority of the House of Lords prior to 2000 was in the hands of a hereditary aristocracy, which were largely Conservative members. During the late 1990s, Blair undertook his long-threatened 'reform' of the House of Lords with gusto and in a partisan fashion, determined, above all, to increase Labour's representation in the chamber (according to him and his supporters, it needed to be more modern and 'democratic'). While at it, he also undertook to multiculturalise this old institution, as it was too uniformly White and male for his liking.

Two beneficiaries of Blair's policy were foreign-born Muslims: Manzila Pola Uddin (from Bangladesh) and Amir Bhatia (from East Africa), who became Baroness Uddin and Lord Bhatia respectively. They joined Indian-born Swraj Paul, since 1996 Lord Paul, and a wealthy long-standing supporter of the Labour Party and of the man who most diligently ruined the British economy in the decades since World War II, Gordon Brown.

Having been ennobled under such extraordinary circumstances, one would have thought that their Lordships and Ladyship would have gone the extra mile to prove their worth. After all, does not aristocracy mean 'rule by the best'? 

Yet, how did they repay the British state for the honours it bestowed upon them?

By theft.

All three have been found guilty of misappropriating public funds through fraudulent expenses claims. 

Needless to say that they are not the only ones in Parliament who have been found guilty of misconduct. The Parliamentary Expenses Scandal of 2009 provided a most unedifying spectacle, with many of these peers' 'blood-and-soil' British colleagues also caught with their arms elbow-deep in the cookie jar -- essentially pickpocketing me and all other taxpayers.

All the same, it is still especially galling when individuals who were not even born in the country and who have been awarded high honours instead of worthier citizens, behave in such corrupt and dishonourable fashion.

All now face suspension from the House of Lords and have been asked to return the £200,000 ($300,000) they stole. But in a just world, they would be stripped of their peerages altogether: these are not individuals deserving to be called 'noble'.