Sunday, 25 August 2013


You know something’s gone terribly wrong with society when three teenagers go out and shoot someone simply because they were ‘bored’. 

The killers (above) said they were 'bored' - what on earth made them give such a reason for murder?
Christopher Lane, an Australian national who was attending collage in Oklahoma, was shot dead by James Francis Edwards Jr. 15, Chancey Allen Luna, 16, and Michael Dewayne, 17, last Friday in an apparently random shooting.

There has been some speculation over whether the shooting was an act of racism.  Well, if it were we will never know – we will never know the real reason the three blacks chose the white student, in the same way that we will never know whether George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin because he was black, or because he was wearing a hoodie.  However, with the Zimmerman incident the Liberal Media were all too willing to treat it as a race attack, without any possible way of verifying that.  So, if you are to say that we cannot be ‘sure’ that the Lane attack was racist or not, then I say that we cannot be ‘sure’ whether the Zimmerman attack was racist, either.  The only option, then, is to leave it at that – a mere speculation. 

But there is something far more important about this case.  The Zimmerman epic (yes, I’m being sarcastic) centered on one man’s desire to protect himself from physical attack – and it was a physical attack, courtesy of Martin; we’ve seen the scratches, we know about the hysterical phone call Zimmerman made to the police.  But the Lane case (sadly, I cannot call it an ‘epic’, as the media have failed to make the story into anything more than a simple ‘random attack’) concerned three young thugs shooting a young man not merely in cold blood, but because they were ‘bored’.  Because they were ‘bored’, they had to commit the crime.  Because they were ‘bored’, a man has lost sixty years of his life. 

But in what society do young killers come up with such a justification?  It’s no longer simple ‘cold blood’; it’s a necessity to ensure contentment.  It’s Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism; it’s the principle of utility.  There were three of them, and they’d ran out of pot, they’d watched all their movies, they’d texted all their mates, they were in need of a new game.  In our society – of buy-now-pay-later, of immediate gratification – is it no wonder that three killers find ‘boredom’ to be a decent justification?  After all, nobody waits for anything anymore.  People want things so much that they are willing to get themselves into debt in order to pay for them.  Debt is of no concern because you don’t have to pay it off straight away; it gives you time to enjoy the new toy, and then allows you to buy another one once you’ve gotten bored to the former. 

In short, people don’t wait.  People don’t wait for marriage, they don’t feel constrained by Judaeo-Christian morality, they don’t want to stop and think about the people their actions are destroying.  ‘Who cares if I get drunk?’ they ask.  ‘It’s my body, it’s my choice’.  Well, I care, because I cross the road.  I care; because I have to walk pass you when you’re out of your senses.  I care because I’m a citizen, and I have a right to feel safe. 

The murder in Oklahoma is of course far more concerning than drink driving, but it boils down to the same mentality.  Too many people now just don’t give a damn about their fellowmen.  They’ve become desensitized and debased.  They’ve ceased to stop and think.  Indeed, our 24-hour culture doesn’t even allow them to stop and think. 

In the end, we are headed towards a period where the citizen must strive to protect him or herself.  The police won’t help you, and increasingly your fellow citizens won’t either.  The option available to you at the moment is to hold onto your gun and pray to God you see the knife, car or bullet before it’s too late.       

Saturday, 17 August 2013


No, don’t exit this page.  There is a conservative way to dealing with racism.  It’s the sober way, the right way, the way that guarantees liberty whilst encouraging politeness.  In short, it isn’t the PC way. 

How did the great Conservative 19th Century politician, Benjamin Disraeli, fight prejudice in the days before Political Correctness?
Whether its Al Sharpton, stirring up racial hatred over the Zimmerman verdict, or a pathetic storyline in a TV show, or ‘Bongo Bongo Land’, racism often finds itself at the forefront of . . . er, debate? 

But the potential danger of our petty actions is immense.  Because of our love of race rows (a kind of real-life soap opera) we risk losing our liberty.  Yeah, that’s right.  We risk chucking in that old right to free speech, and replacing it with something called ‘Political Correctness’: a thought code, a set of principles, a collection of universal truths.  It is as bad as religious fundamentalism or political dictatorship.

Now, there will be those reading this who scream at their computer screens and say that I have ‘no business’ talking about race.  After all, I’m a white dude, an oppressor, a slave owner – my kind is responsible for everything that’s wrong in the world.  There is no conceivable way a black, Asian or Jewish person can be racist, as well.  That goes against every law of science; it’s illogical, ridiculous, and ‘bigoted’. 

But I’m goanna go ahead anyway - best vent all my opinions on this subject when I can, before the Thought Police come calling and I’m sent off to PC Boot Camp, where ‘The Guardian’ newspaper is compulsory reading and the great works of English literature are ‘deconstructed’ in the name of Enlightened progress.  Did you know that William Shakespeare was a sexually repressed maverick, Emily Bronte a fanatical feminist and Rudyard Kipling an evil monster?

But surely this is the only way of dealing with the ‘R’ word?  When we are confronted with ‘bigots’ we should stick our fingers in our ears and sing Bruce Cockburn’s “If I had a Rocket Launcher”.  We should wallow in self-righteousness, sneer and jibe our opponents . . . without ever perusing a debate.  Why debate with a ‘bigot’, right?

I’ll tell you why.  Because if you think you’re so right, and if you think your opponent is so wrong, you should have to substantiate that.  Your ‘opinion’ of him or her doesn’t count as fact.  This is important.  It’s the first step towards debunking the racist myth and separating the real racists from the thoughtful masses who are concerned about immigration, cultural degradation and crime.  It’s the first step towards reclaiming liberty. 

So, when someone says ‘immigration has gone too far’, or ‘there’s a cultural problem in the black community’, don’t play the race card.  If you’re so sure they’re wrong and you’re right, debate them – press them.  You’ll find that these people are not fully paid up members of the Ku Klux Klan, but rather concerned citizens who are worried about the stress immigration places on housing, schooling, healthcare, and communities.  You’ll find that they are not attacking black people; they are merely saying that there is a problem in the black community, which is the case.  As the statistics show us, black kids are more likely to enter into a life of crime.  Admitting that there are cultural issues here shows concern for fellow citizens, it shows a commitment – a desire – to end this great scandal – of segregated communities, racial hatred, gang culture – and make peoples’ lives better. 

And I for one do want to see a fully integrated and prosperous black populous.  I – unlike the real bigots, the liberal bigots – do believe in that great maxim: that people should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. 

And, last but not least, how should you respond if you are ever racially abused – black or white, what should you do?  If you are an ethnic minority you could cry for the Politically Correct Police. 

Or you can do it the conservative way.

When the 19th Century British Conservative politician Benjamin Disraeli was taunted in the House of Commons by Daniel O’Connell for being Jewish, he didn’t call the PC Brigade (they didn’t exist, anyway), he didn’t become inflamed with passion, he didn’t stomp his feet with monstrous rage.  He simply said this:

‘Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.’ 

Benjamin Disraeli later became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.  His philosophy – of ensuring social stability before anything else, and putting your nation’s interests at the heart of foreign policy – became a central pillar of modern conservatism.  To this day he remains, in my mind at least, one of the greatest political leaders of modern times.  

**Are you a PROUD CONSERVATIVE? If so, please support our page. Make a statement, take a stand, and support Proudly Conservative:**

Tuesday, 13 August 2013


The media hyperbole surrounding comments made over five weeks ago by a senior member of the UK Independence Party is somewhat startling.  After all, what is the actual story?

Godfrey Bloom thinks sending foreign aid to 'Bongo Bongo Land' is mad - well, it's also mad sending foreign aid to Banana Republics
Godfrey Bloom MEP said that Britain should stop sending money in the form of foreign aid to ‘Bongo Bongo Land’, provoking many Left Wing commentators to faint over their glasses of wine and their plates of fine cuisine.  Before long, the ‘Guardian Newspaper’ was pioneering a great attack on Bloom, and the BBC wasn’t too far behind. 

But is this imaginary country actually as offensive as people think?  At any rate, the ‘Guardian’ did not unearth any dirt on UKIP.  The meeting was recorded by UKIPers themselves, and had been on YouTube for the best part of a month. 

We know that Mr. Bloom doesn’t ‘do political correctness’, and is sometimes a bit outlandish as far as political discourse is concerned, but surely old-fashioned humour (of this sort, at least) cannot amount to anything more than just that.  He has insisted that Bongo Bongo Land is ‘a figment of people’s imagination’ and should therefore be no more offensive than other abstract concepts, like ‘Ruritania or the Third World.’  He has also made the case that Bongo Bongo land is in fact the land of the antelope.

Whatever the fictional country is, there is one word that Bloom, at least to my knowledge, has not brought up.  I am talking about the ‘Banana Republic’, a country with a cardboard political system and an economy that relies heavily on the export of a single product, such as bananas.  If you wanted to be difficult, you could make a flimsy case about how such a term is unacceptable now because it may be used as a derogatory term towards developing countries – there is something quite uncivil about bananas, especially bananas that prop up a newly formed republic. 

But such an argument would be so flimsy that it’d be . . . well . . . a Banana Republic.

Could Bongo Bongo Land be such a place?  Could it refer to an underdeveloped country that has no sense of stability?  Some say that ‘Bongo’ gives the impression of beating drums.  Well, if it does to you then I can see why you might think the term slightly racist, but the problem lies in the word’s *impression*, i.e. it is ambiguous; we don’t know what meaning Mr. Bloom actually gave to the word when he spoke it.  He might have been thinking about drums, or might have been thinking about the antelopes, or he might have been reminiscing on Ruritania and felt like creating a fake world of his own, or he might have simply thought it sounded amusing.  Whatever his personal motives, we can never know because we cannot enter his head.  Because of this, we cannot immediately conclude that it is ‘racist’.  There was nothing explicatively racist about his speech.  What the media are actually doing is clutching at straws.  They are (as usual) trying to create something out of nothing. 

I’m not defending or condemning the use of ‘Bongo Bongo Land’.  Personally, I find the term itself to be quite funny, there’s something about the word ‘Bongo’ that makes the British Government’s commitment to foreign aid budget protection appear all the more bizarre.  It’s a jolly term, perhaps a bit rosy cheeked, perhaps a bit Old English.

Or perhaps it’s a sinister message, brilliantly encoded.  Perhaps Bloom is declaring the superiority of the United Kingdom above all other nations.  Perhaps the ‘Bongo’ is the sound of the drum, being banged by the primitive savage, or, come to think of it, being banged by British soldiers as they march throughout the world (supposing UKIP wins in 2015, of course) declaring British dominion over the earth. 

You can take your pick – oh, sorry, it’s an ambiguous term so you can’t.  In which case, let’s get back to real news, please.  

**Are you a PROUD CONSERVATIVE? If so, please support our page. Make a statement, take a stand, and support Proudly Conservative:**

Sunday, 14 July 2013


As George Zimmerman walks free from court, there are mixed emotions concerning the not-guilty verdict. 
George Zimmerman is found not-guilt, but what does his treatment by the Liberal media tell us about our interpretations of 'racism'?

Zimmerman was, of course, defending himself, and I feel confident in presuming that if Trayvon Martin had been white the frenzy would have been a lot less potent. 

It a sad truth that in our primitive – sorry, ‘modern’ – society we tend to assume that all crimes (though Zimmerman did not commit a crime, I know) committed against black people are intrinsically racist.  Yet, the same logic is not applied to white people killed by blacks.  Well, good.  It would be ridiculous to say that the latter type of crime is racist, simply because it involves an individual of one colour attacking one of another colour. 

And I wish we would put down the ‘race card’.  I really do.  I don’t presume anything is racist – why should I? – until I see hard evidence supporting the fact.  This is because ‘racism’ is something very specific, only people have taken it to mean anything from commenting on bad influences with in the ‘black community’ to killing someone who happens to be black (not white, though, one cannot be racist against a white person, for it goes against the laws of physics, or something to that effect). 

What we must understand is that ‘racism’ is a very particular belief.  A ‘racist’ is someone who literally believes in racial supremacy, and actively seeks to bring down other races in a way that reflects Darwinism perfectly.  I say this because many people are ignorant and, even though they feel confident branding people with the word, know very little of its meaning, and almost always give it the wrong definition.

I will now give a couple examples of instances that are not racist (I do not necessarily agree with the views I will now write down, and I only use them to illustrate that, whether they are right or wrong, they do not fall into the ‘racist’ category with the above definition in mind, so there is no need to rebut me on the following points, for I am note arguing their virtues):

1.     ‘There are dangerous influences within the black community, violent influences that are not found in other racial communities’ – To determine whether this is racist or not we must examine, very closely, the precise words used.  Note, the proponent of this view did not say ‘people’, but ‘community’; from this alone, we can conclude that the statement is not racist.  This is because the proponent is attacking black culture, not black people.  He or she is merely stating that he or she believes there are bad influences within that society.  Now, culture, as we know, can easily change, evolve and refine itself.  Therefore, the problem does not lie with people of African descent, but rather the culture, which they (or some of them) have created.  Indeed, we talk of violent influences in mainstream culture as well, as well as Christian culture, and white culture, highlighting the nonracist tone of the argument.  Anti-black racists, on the other hand, would argue that it is not culture, but the genetic makeup of the individual that is the problem, in which case there is no hope of solving the issue.  However, this statement provides hope, as it does not imply in the slightest that black people are intrinsically violent or dangerous – not at all – it only talks of grave influences from some elements of that community, a perfectly nonracist position to hold. 

2.     ‘I don’t believe in multiculturalism because it brings about segregation, and I want to see more integration’ – This is the most comical of the nonracist statements that are thought to be racist.  The media, as well as educational and political establishments, hold the view that any attack on Multiculturalism must come from a racist sect.  But this statement is the exact opposite of racism.  Indeed, what this person is arguing is that Multiculturalism is itself racist, because it promotes the flourishing of a society based on separate ‘communities’ – ‘Black Community’, ‘Asian Community’, ‘Muslim Community’, ‘White Community’, etc. etc. – which in turn fosters division.  Instead, opponents of Multiculturalism (and I am one of them) advocate an integrative society, where all people view themselves not as members of a race-based group, but as citizens of the country in which they live.  Indeed, my motto is quite simple: ‘there is one race – the Human Race’.  Many newspapers today are actually making truly racist comments in regards to the verdict at the George Zimmerman case, without even realizing.  For example, many read: ‘members of the black community were greatly saddened by the verdict’.  I find this kind of rhetoric to be deeply demeaning, as if to say blacks are members of some primitive tribe and thus all think in the same way.  Benjamin Carson has been frequently attacked for being a conservative and therefore going against his ‘tribe’.  In the eyes of some, he is a disgrace to the ‘Black Community’, simply because he does not vote Democrat.  And yet there are people who continue to justify and promote this sectarian, Multicultural hell of a society, without ever properly examining the deeply unsettling consequences of their social experiment. 

The George Zimmerman case is not by itself of that importance, but the questions it raises about racism, and how it is used as a phoney outrage against points of view that are deemed ‘Politically Incorrect’, most certainly is.  Alas, people have become so confident brandishing this word about, that they never bother to look up the word in the dictionary.

**Are you a PROUD CONSERVATIVE? If so, please support our page. Make a statement, take a stand, and support Proudly Conservative:**

Tuesday, 16 April 2013


The funeral of Baroness Thatcher this Wednesday will be the biggest event happening in the world this week.  Across the globe, people will be watching, and representatives from many countries will be present (in some cases leaders themselves). 

Barack Obama will not send any senior member of his Administration to the funeral of Lady Thatcher, citing the phoney issue of 'gun-control' as the reason
Although nobody expected President Obama to attend, it was widely thought, both in the US and the UK, that he would send a senior member of his administration to represent him – perhaps the Vice President Joe Biden, or even his wife Michelle. 

However, it turns out they can’t make it, as they are very busy this week taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. 

The US embassy said that ‘this is a hugely significant week in terms of US domestic politics’.  The spokesman went on to say that both the First Lady and the Vice President were ‘the President’s point people on gun control’, adding: ‘This is a week when there is a lot of movement on Capitol Hill on gun control issues.’ 

Instead, the Reagan-era secretaries of state James Baker and George Schulz would represent the US. 

Of course, this might be a lot more appropriate.  It is, after all, better to have two people who actually appreciated Margaret Thatcher rather than a far-left celebrity of a president who would probably much rather be with the ill-mannered protesters dancing on her grave (if it were not for his current predicament) than mourning her death. 
Mrs. Thatcher was arguably President Ronald Reagan's
closest ally

Nevertheless, this is an embarrassing moment for the United States of America.  It is somehow unbelievable that Obama could not find *one* senior member of his administration to attend this *world event*.  It is a very careless handling of diplomacy on the president’s part and should make other countries wonder why he’s acted so carelessly.  He might hate the United Kingdom (he sent back the bust of Churchill the British gave the United States following the 9/11 attacks, and he opted for ‘neutrality’ over the Falklands dispute), but he really needs to put his petty ‘anti-imperialism’ aside.  One cannot simply snub other countries, particularly countries that are members of the G8.  The President should send someone to represent the Administration. 

But no, and why?  Because the Obama Administration is very busy this week trying to grab guns off innocent citizens.  I never knew that tearing up the Constitution was more important than mourning the death of a fighter for liberty.  

Monday, 15 April 2013


I wondered how long it would take before the Boston Bombings became partisan.  It is amazing that such an event, in a civil society, can even take such a turn.  When people should stand united petty politics is still playing out.  Here’s what happened:

'RIGHT-WINGERS' might be responsible for the Boston
Bombings, says CNN contributor Peter Bergen
CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen told host Jake Tapper that the Boston explosions might be the work of Al Qaeda terrorists in as much a way as they might be the work of ‘right-wing extremists’.  Of course, because the streets are filled with those ‘right-wing extremists’ planting bombs, aren’t they?  And why ‘right-wing extremists’, could it perhaps be ‘left-wing extremists’ (after all, most revolutions and terrorist attacks of the last century have come from the Left). 

I need to make a point here.  When Bergen talks of ‘right-wingers’ I am assuming he means ‘conservatives’ (it would be the natural connection, particularly in the United States where ‘left’ and ‘right’ are so clearly defined).  But (and this is important) bombing, and other acts of terrorism, are by their very nature, very *un-conservative*.  Conservatism is a *reactionary* philosophy that developed following the French Revolution.  Conservatives of that time included the well-known Edmund Burke, who wrote in his book Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) ‘that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their fetters’.  In other words, revolution (and revolutionary behavior, such as bombing) is to be detested, for it can only have worse consequences.  Conservatives are *against* such acts.  This was why, equally, the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik could not have been a ‘conservative’, as so many people, including the British Prime Minister David Cameron, kept suggesting.  For no real conservative would act like such a socialist revolutionary – no conservative would desire a revolution of any sort – in fact, revolution is the exact opposite of conservatism, as it does not seek to ‘conserve’ nor does it maintain the peace and encourage social stability.  

Thursday, 11 April 2013


Have the Left colonized the educational establishment?  This writer thinks so. 

‘Professor’ Darry Sragow of the University of Southern California has been very busy making some eloquent and highly intellectually challenging points.  In fact, his thesis of the Republican Party and conservatism is so convoluted that one might want to stop reading if one does not have a PhD. 

LEFT WING LOONY-TOON 'Professor' Darry Sragow goes on
anti-GOP, anti-conservative rant in university
Is one ready for the stimulating analysis?  It echoes the poetry of Shakespeare, combined with the philosophy of Burke: 

“They’re really stupid and racist . . . The Republican Party is increasingly the last refuge of old, angry white people who don’t like what’s going on in this country”

Amazed by the ‘Professor’s’ genius, yet?  It gets even more academic (one might need a dictionary):

“Old white guys are stubborn suns of bitches.”

Masterful, isn’t it?  Well, not exactly.  You’d think this demagogue would at least be more articulate in his vicious lying, but I am not surprised of his rashness and fanaticism.  After all, over the last few weeks I’ve written several articles about similar events, occurring in schools and universities across America. 

On Thursday, 21 March 2013 I wrote about another ‘professor’ who told his students to ‘stomp on Jesus’.  You can read the article here: 

On Friday, 22 March 2013 I wrote about the school performance of a pro-homosexual play that seeks to ridicule the Holy Bible.  You can read the article here: 

On Saturday, 23 March 2013 I wrote about the university that invited a ‘businesswoman’ to come in and talk to students about the ‘huge benefits’ of being a porn star.  You can read the article here: 

On Wednesday, 27 March 2013 I wrote about the school that banned the word ‘Easter’ because they thought it was offensive.  You can read the article here: 

I have also been on the receiving end of ideological indoctrination in a school myself.  I was ruthlessly silenced by the Bigoted Woman in an inner city London sixth-form college in Islington simply because I stood up for tolerance and freedom.  You can read the article here: 

The Left might say that the students are free to challenge these morons, but in practice that is impossible, for most students (save myself) realize that doing so might narrow their chances of getting decent grades.  The high and mighty professors and staff run the show, and if the students don’t play along, they risk being given low grades, or even getting expelled (as I was). 

I am not even interested in rebutting the ‘Professor’s’ claims.  If you have a brain, you wouldn’t need to here any rebuttals, the statements speak for themselves. 

It seems clear to me that the Left has indeed hijacked education in the West, and they are turning out young men and women who will blindly follow their undesirable cause. 

I can only hope that, as these kids get older, they’ll see the light, and release themselves from the curse these fanatical Lefties have put on them. 

Monday, 8 April 2013


The death of Margaret Thatcher doesn’t end a chapter of British politics, that chapter had already ended with the destruction of the ‘Conservative’ Party following her downfall.  However, it is a sullen reminder of the fact that such a time has gone, that the last patriotic major politician in Great Britain has vanished. 
MARGARET THATCHER at the casket of former US President Ronald Reagan as he was laying in state in the Capitol Rotunda on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 9, 2004

Lady Thatcher died in the morning of the 8th of April 2013, after suffering a stroke.  She was 87. 

During the 1970s Britain was crumbling.  Nationalization meant that the government effectively controlled the economy, the trade unions could easily hold the country to ransom (as they did), and only a few years earlier Britain had lost its Empire in Africa. 

But, by the beginning of the 1990s Britain was rich and prosperous.  Undoubtedly, Margaret Thatcher was responsible for a lot of great change in Britain. 

What makes Thatcher’s story all the more inspiring was not simply that she was a woman, but more that she was a woman who didn’t complain about the fact.  She jumped into a ‘man’s world’ and didn’t bang on about ‘inequality in the workforce’; she fought, and she won.  Unlike the Feminists, who want to disregard traditional female roles and deem them as ‘oppressive’, Thatcher used them, and even embraced them: ‘Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country.’  Running a home!  The Feminists would flip. 

And it was that spirit of opportunity that she had – anybody could do anything regardless of class.  Her Left Wing haters attacked her for ‘rolling back the frontiers of socialism, and returning power to the people’ (her words, not mine).  They could not contemplate a world where the government did not control the means of production, where people could be on the property ladder, where individuals looked to themselves, and not the government. 

Indeed, one of the main reasons the Left (and the Labour Party) hated her was because she stole their vote.  People from America might not have heard of ‘Right To Buy’, but it allowed people living in social housing to buy their homes from their council at a discounted price.  The Labour Party opposed the move, and they flew the typical banner: that if council houses were sold, people would be sleeping in the streets. 

The real reason for their loathing of RTB, though, was that it took away a lot of their vote.  Labour, like other socialist parties, relied heavily on the poor to win elections.  They thrived in the ‘council estates’ where people who felt hopeless and useless voted for them with the wish of getting some welfare in return.  The Labour Party was happy to give handouts, what they could not do was *empower* those individuals to succeed and own property. 
What we should remember most of all was the disgraceful attack on her from the Conservative Party itself.  She had been one of Britain’s most successful leaders electorally.  She had revitalized the Tory Party (another name for the Conservative Party) and she had fixed the economic woe.  Still, her senior ministers stabbed her in the back, mainly over the Europe question, although many strangely believe it was the Poll Tax.  Alas, Margaret Thatcher became a ‘Euroskeptic’ a bit too late.  She realized, after having brought Britain closer to Europe than any other British politician, that the EU (back then the European Economic Community) wanted to destroy nation state democracy, and control the continent from remote institutions located in Brussels and Strasbourg.  Her Conservative Party cabinet did not share her new-founded contempt for this new movement, and so literally kicked her out of office – thus, Britain’s greatest post-war leader was gone, never to return. 

Today there are mixed feelings concerning Thatcher, but that is only because of the perception that she ‘hated’ the poor.  It is a similar story in the United States, where Republicans are often thought of as being representatives of the rich and powerful.  This is not true.  Conservatives believe that the poor can only combat poverty if they are given the opportunity to succeed, and to have that opportunity they must first be freed of the slavery of government dependence.  Thatcher believed this, and although she did not do much to reduce the size of the welfare state, she did give individuals the opportunity to become entrepreneurial. 

I may write about Mrs. Thatcher’s shutting down of various industries in the coming weeks, but for now I would like to join with the millions around the world, who are celebrating Margaret Thatcher’s achievements on both the domestic and international stage. 

May God bless Baroness Thatcher. 


Lady Thatcher has only been dead a few hours, and already student/communist thugs are rejoicing like autistic emus.  Comment below and tell these loons how wrong they are! 

No one on here was alive when Hitler was around, you all hate him.  I'll hate Thatcher until I die, don't tell me what I can an can't do.


Great News Thatcher is dead!!! 


Margaret thatcher fucked more minors than jimmy saville


I know it's harsh to laugh at the dead, but... HA! Fuck off Thatcher you stupid sack conservative shit.


RIP Margaret Thatcher, the Milk Snatcher


I'm not middle class and not pretending to care about Thatcher dying, so neither should a lot of you. Shameful
12:25 PM - 08 Apr 13 from Birmingham, United Kingdom


20yrs ago I'd have gone on the biggest piss up ever to celebrate Thatcher's death. Now I think I'll have a glass of milk.


R.I.P margaret thatcher even though she was a major bitch !


There's only a few exceptions for me to not show respect for the dead, and she was top of the list. Party on her minute silence! #Thatcher


Thankfully, somebody made an observation:

Seems like a good chunk of those celebrating Thatcher's death are students who weren't even born when she was PM. Pathetic.

(A formal article will be posted later today concerning the death of Margaret Thatcher)