Thoughts on Britain’s “Rwanda Plan”
“It seems fair to conclude that Jewish organizations have uniformly advocated high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups into Western societies and have also advocated a multicultural model for these societies.”
Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique
On April 14, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson outlined a remarkable immigration agreement with the nation of Rwanda. Under the agreement, “everyone who enters the UK illegally will be considered for resettlement to Rwanda,” where their asylum cases, should they wish to make one, will be processed. Even if a migrant is granted asylum, he or she will be encouraged to remain in the east African nation for at least five years. If their application is refused, Rwanda will offer them permanent residence, prompting Johnson to speak of “tens of thousands” of migrants who will be permanently removed from Britain in the years ahead. In return for taking Britain’s unwanted migrants, the UK government has offered Rwanda an initial payment of £120 million in cash and investment. It’s the kind of policy that would have prompted Enoch Powell, who always championed a policy of incentivized repatriation, to nod in agreement.
Despite its surface level appeal, however, those furthest to the right have expressed suspicion of the measure as yet another conservative sop, intended to mask spiralling legal migration and the fact the UK’s new points-based immigration system seems designed to keep numbers high. I agree with this suspicion. I also believe, however, that the Rwanda scheme is important in terms of setting a precedent that can eventually be built upon. We should be absolutely clear here that, at the level of first principles, what is proposed by Johnson is a step forward in population removal and the rejection of the idea that non-White migrants have a fundamental right to live among Europeans. To employ the well-worn Lenin adage, our ideas must probe with bayonets: When they find mush, we should push. I believe it is worthwhile pushing the Rwanda scheme. Concurrently, when the bayonet meets with strong resistance, we should pause and examine the nature of the obstacle.
One of the most outspoken opponents of the Rwanda plan in recent weeks is Larry Bottinick, an American Jew and the UN Refugee Agency’s current envoy to the UK. Bottinick’s lack of ties to the British people hasn’t prevented him from prolific and outspoken interference since the announcement of the plan. His main point of attack seems to be accusations that the plan will become “eye-wateringly expensive” and that it could “violate international law.” He told the Associated Press “There’s nothing in international law that says you have to ask [for asylum] in the first country you encounter. UNHCR understands the frustration of the U.K. government on that, and is not in favor of Channel crossing, of course. We think there’s more effective ways and more humane ways to address this.” By “effective and humane” he means doing nothing at a time when “more than 4,500 migrants have crossed the English Channel from France to Britain in small boats … four times more than the total this time last year.” Bottinick’s real fear seems to be that these migrants will never be allowed to settle in the UK, telling one skeptical interviewer that his understanding of the Rwanda plan is that “Once they’re in Rwanda they won’t be brought back to the UK. … You’re trying to deter them from coming.”
Bottinick has claimed that the Rwanda plan, the primary aim of which is to prevent migrant crossings of the English Channel in small boats organized by smugglers, won’t do anything to prevent people smuggling. I suppose it might be a coincidence or the simultaneous deployment of the Royal Navy to patrol the Channel for migrant boats, but in the nine-day period immediately after the plan became public knowledge, there were no migrant crossings in the English Channel. It’s clear that such attempts to enter Britain will seem radically less attractive to migrants if they result not in walking the streets of Notting Hill, but rather those of Kigali or Muhanga. This relates to the truth that the ultimate goal of the vast majority of even genuine asylum seekers to the West (to the extent that they do in fact originate in a country experiencing violent conflict or where they personally experience persecution) is not to find peace and security, but to take advantage of the chaos in their country in order to fulfil their pre-existent material ambition of living among Europeans and deriving any benefit that might entail. The basic principle of international refugee law contains, and approves, this ambition implicitly. It is the unspoken enshrinement of what we might call the international right to live among White people. This is why we see the widespread phenomenon of so-called asylum seekers passing through a dozen or more perfectly safe and welcoming countries in order to reach their chosen Northwest European destination, selected from the global map in the same way you’d pick your prize at a fairground. It’s also why we see the outlandish examples of Africans crossing an ocean, trekking across Latin America, and presenting themselves in the United States where they claim asylum.
Rwanda has three times the intentional homicide rate of the UK, low by African standards, but not quite the asylum seeker’s desired prize. If the Rwanda plan was put into full effect, migrant crossings of the English Channel would become almost non-existent — a fact that seems to deeply alarm Mr. Bottinick. Bottinick’s ideas on the outcome of the Rwanda plan aren’t just wrong, of course, they’re also deeply hypocritical. In previous employment, according to one legal document, Bottinick worked as a “Senior Resettlement Officer,” in Tel Aviv, during which time he participated in a working group designed to “work to facilitate the departure to third countries to be determined of some 16,000 Eritreans and Sudanese under various programmes, including sponsorship, resettlement, family reunion and labour migration schemes.” Under Bottinick’s watch at least 4,500 Africans were removed from Israel to third-party nations, apparently without the process becoming “eye-wateringly expensive” or resulting in an increase of illegal immigration or asylum applications.
Another significant objection to the Rwanda plan has been raised by Enver Solomon, Chief Executive of the UK’s Refugee Council. Solomon’s name has the air of a Dickensian villain, which is about the only English connection he really has since he’s the son of a Jewish father and a Muslim mother. Shortly after the plan was announced Solomon wrote:
We are appalled by the Government’s cruel and nasty decision to send those seeking sanctuary in our country to Rwanda. … Sending people seeking asylum to be processed abroad will do absolutely nothing to address the reasons why people take perilous journeys to find safety in the UK. It will do little to deter them from coming to this country, but only lead to more human suffering and chaos – at a huge expense of an estimated £1.4 billion a year. Far from enabling people to rebuild their lives, we know from where this has been done by other countries, it only results in high levels of self-harm and mental health issues and can also lead to people ending up back in the hands of people smugglers. We urge this Government to immediately rethink its plans, which are in such stark contrast to what every Conservative Prime Minister since Churchill has sought to do by providing a fair hearing on British soil for those who claim asylum. Instead, the Government should focus on operating an orderly, humane and fair asylum system, and developing safe routes such as humanitarian visas, rather than harming lives and destroying our reputation as a country which values human rights.
I must applaud Mr. Solomon for his literary talent in crafting mendacious, manipulative propaganda. Every trick in the book is present here. Consider, for example, the emotive language “cruel and nasty.” Look also at the many diversions, like it “will do absolutely nothing to address the reasons why people take perilous journeys to find safety in the UK.” Is it the responsibility of the UK to address internal stability in every nation on earth? Isn’t the presumption that some people are incapable of governing themselves “imperialist thinking”? Apparently not when you can use to it pry open borders. He then proclaims that sending migrants to Rwanda will lead to “high levels of self-harm and mental health issues.” Why? The missed chance to see Buckingham Palace or the Beatles Museum? Aren’t these people fleeing war zones and death threats? The UK government has stressed that Rwanda is a “fundamentally safe and secure” location, perfectly suitable for the relocation of people in genuine distress. If you are thrown into distress because you missed out on Piccadilly Circus and instead find yourself in another situation in which you will be safe and cared for, then perhaps you weren’t in that much peril and need in the first place. Finally, and predictably, there is the coup de grâce — an appeal to abstract values so near and dear to the the British (and completely missing among Jews re Israel): “our reputation as a country which values human rights.” And yet Solomon himself has previously described Britain not as a country which values human rights but which is typified by “empty rhetoric” and “nationalist posturing.” Mr. Solomon is indulging in a cynical and petty moral blackmail.
Following in the footsteps of Enver Solomon’s screed, the Guardian published an open letter by a collective of “rabbis and members of the British Jewish community,” spanning Orthodox, Reform, Masorti, and Liberal sects of Judaism. The offended postmodern Israelites complained that
we are utterly appalled by the government’s inhumane plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for offshore processing. Such a policy flies in the face of Jewish values, and would be a cruel, moral failure to those in urgent need of protections. It is particularly disturbing that such plans have been announced shortly before our community celebrates Passover, a festival where Jews recall our journey to safety from Egypt. As we prepare to read the story of Exodus, it is deeply unsettling that the government is seeking to deprive the opportunity of freedom to those fleeing modern-day tyrants. Such proposals also bring to mind unpleasant memories of the overseas internment of Jewish refugees in the second world war. This policy was a grave error: we urge the government to learn from this historic mistake, uphold international refugee law and ensure all those seeking safety in the UK are treated with dignity and respect. If the government is serious about preventing small boat crossings, it should act to introduce safe and accessible routes to sanctuary in the UK. Seeking to replicate Australia’s disastrous offshoring system in Rwanda, a country frequently condemned for its appalling human rights record, would be a terrible abdication of responsibility. We urge the government to instead stand up, fulfil its moral duty, and protect, not punish, those fleeing conflict and persecution.
Oy vey indeed. Our Hebrew friends are deeply distressed that the Rwanda plan reminds them of ancient stories that involve talking shrubs, sticks magically being transformed into snakes, and self-parting oceans. It’s almost criminal that Britain’s civil servants hadn’t considered this possibility when drafting the plan. In all seriousness, however, we see here precisely the same rhetorical tactics employed by Bottinick and Solomon. Again we see the emotive language, “cruel” and “inhumane.” It’s disparaged as a “moral failure,” and a “terrible abdication of responsibility” and “moral duty.” It’s an affront to “Jewish values” — values that are somehow missing in Israel which has deported thousands of African refugees to Canada against their will.
It’s cynical and petty moral blackmail another illustration of the power of moral imperatives in making Westerners act against their self interest. Cynical because, try as I might, I can’t find these same people issuing similar statements in the aftermath of Israel’s eviction of its Africans under Bottinick. You might argue that that’s because these are “English Jews” concerned with what’s happening in England, but that doesn’t add up either. The main author of the Guardian piece is Edie Friedman, who’s from Chicago, in yet another example of an American Jew bleating shamelessly about values she feels native Britons should adhere to.
In fact, much as with the American situation, almost everywhere one looks in the context of British refugee and migrant organizations, Jews are found in leading roles. The executive director of British Red Cross is Zoe Abrams, who has said she is “profoundly concerned” about the Rwanda plan and, echoing Bottinick, Solomon, and the Guardian complainers, added that “the financial and human cost will be considerable.” She wants the UK to accept “at least 10,000” migrants, and claims “We’re an island, but we can afford to be more generous, and as Global Britain — we should be.” Boris Johnson recently complained that refugee policy in the UK in recent years has been bogged down due to opposition from an “army of politically motivated lawyers,” but unmentioned is the fact that most British “refugee lawyers” filter through the University of London’s Refugee Law Initiative, founded and directed by the Jew David Cantor, and led academically by “Senior Lecturer in Refugee Law” Sarah Singer.
Aside from Jews, outspoken nonsense has also gushed forth from the Church of England, in the form of its abysmal Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. I’ve previously written of Welby:
At the heart of this disease is the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England, Justin Welby, a man who looks like ten minutes of manual labor would actually kill him. He is the definition of all that is wrong in modern Man. Setting aside his uninspiring physical presence, Welby is a literal bastard, his mother Jane Portal having cuckolded her husband, the alcoholic Jew Gavin Welby (born Bernard Weiler) with her boss, Sir Anthony Montague Browne. The result of these chaotic origins is that Archbishop Welby/Weiler/Browne has fled entirely from any sense of meaningful identity, asserting in 2016: “I know that I find who I am in Jesus Christ, not in genetics, and my identity in him never changes.” If Welby limited himself to personal genetic oblivion there might not be a problem. A problem does, however, emerge, when Welby uses his position and influence to attack those who do pursue their interests. In 2016, when Nigel Farage told the press that sex attacks by migrants were “the nuclear bomb” of the EU referendum, Welby/Weiler/Browne told MPs in the home affairs select committee that he “utterly condemned” Farage for an “inexcusable pandering to people’s worries and prejudices, that is giving legitimization to racism.” If that wasn’t bad enough, Welby/Weiler/Browne, who has confessed to struggling with his mental health, appears to have an almost Freudian desire to replace the Jewish father he thought he had with the current Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. Welby/Weiler/Browne has taken to accompanying Mirvis on numerous excursions, echoing the Rabbi’s sentiments on almost every subject.
For once, however, Welby seems to have taken the lead. While Mirvis has yet to say a word on the Rwanda plan, Welby has decided to speak for his deity, announcing that the plan is “the opposite of the nature of God.” I personally think Welby’s motivations for opposing the plan might be a little more earthly than heavenly. A recent London School of Economics study found that while native Britons are spending less and less time in Welby’s churches, “Migrants into the UK are more than three times more likely than natives to attend a religious service weekly, or to pray daily.” Welby probably thinks he’s boosting his pious flock, but it’s not quite so simple. It was reported by The Week last November that the Church of England was merely helping asylum seekers “game the system” by converting to Christianity. A Home Office source was quoted as describing the way in which asylum seekers would “show they are committed Christians” and can then “argue that their new faith would put them at risk in their home country.” The Telegraph reported that “thousands” of asylum seekers had been “welcomed into the Anglican faith in recent years, with clergy even given written guidance on how to navigate the Home Office system.”
Several newspapers pointed to a tribunal decision on an anonymous asylum case in 2017 that suggested an “improbably large” number of Iranians attending the Liverpool Anglican Cathedral cast doubt on whether they were all “genuine converts.” In other cases, asylum was granted after conversions were deemed authentic — normally after evidence of the very regular church attendance of the kind described above (three times more than native Brits). Modern British Christianity exists only as a left-wing immigration assistance body. It’s most notable conversion in recent years is that of Emad Al Swealmeen. He was denied asylum in 2014, then had a sudden road to Damascus moment which resulted in his baptism a year later. In 2017 he was “confirmed” to the applause of hundreds of idiots in Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral. Four years later this confirmed Christian prematurely detonated a bomb in the name of Allah, intended for a military remembrance event in the heart of Liverpool. I wonder if Archbishop Welby considers whether assisting such people, and making a mockery and a fraud of his religion, is “the opposite of the nature of God.”
Surrounded by hostile forces, there is a temptation within our camp to adopt contrarian stances towards almost everything emanating from mainstream politics. There is a lot of context around the Rwanda plan which is far from ideal and is in fact contemptible. The Rwanda plan has been introduced by Home Secretary Priti Patel, who recently sought after the interests of her own ethnic group by signing the Migration and Mobility Partnership (MMP), a deal that has been instrumental in the dramatic rise of Indian immigration to Britain. The immigration profile of the UK since Brexit has been transformed, with a huge drop in east European migration, and a large increase in non-EU migration, especially from India and China. Much of this migration is in the form of student visas for Chinese and Indian students, which might lead commentators to assume that this is a “temporary” migration problem that doesn’t result in long-term settlement. A comprehensive study of the relevant figures in 2015, however, found that trends consistently show “a majority of students were not going home. For the past three years the estimated inflows of students has been significantly higher than the number of self-reported former students estimated to be leaving.”
Britain has a massive legal immigration problem, and the Conservative party seems to be cynically playing to its audience. The party is traditionally the choice of rural England, while Labour is the choice of the industrial heartlands and the major cities. By curbing east European migration through Brexit, the Conservatives removed visible migration from rural areas where these migrants were occupying jobs in agriculture and food production. Legal migration is less visible to rural England, since it tends to flow in large part to the universities and workplaces of the major cities, which are regarded as fully multicultural anyway. As such, simply through geography and demography, Boris Johnson and Priti Patel can increase migration while giving the opposite impression to their key voters. The Rwanda plan is in many respects another part of the ploy, since it gives off an air of being hardline and appeals to the instinct of Conservative voters to want to tackle illegal immigration.
Those of us looking on at this charade from a radical Right perspective have a difficult choice to make. Do we support such charades knowingly and opportunistically, in the hope that it is something that could be built upon culturally and politically? Or condemn it honestly as a legislative hoax, and make no inroads at all in terms of the political landscape? I suggest probing with bayonets, but without getting your hopes up.
I say we talk up this new “Idea”, saying it should be something to be considered by all Western and European nations to implement with improvements.
We have got to get the ball rolling with an idea like this, for whilst the UK government might not be doing it quite the right way, or for the right reasons, it is the idea, the concept that must be built upon!
The choices listed here are not difficult to make at all. The utility of this article is for those who are still puzzled by the events around them, intuit that the REAL cause(s) are hidden or are removed. I was there once, and articles such as these tied all the evidence and experience together in a cogent form, revealing hidden agendas, events, and facts, that even evangelical Christians as teachers or influencers never expounder upon. I don’t know about you all (ya’ll) but I have been lied to all my life, at every turn, at every increment, about causes and stimulus, and antecedents. One feels that contemporary surreal reportage and recitations are false, but EVERYBODY is on board with it, and NOBODY contracts the main narratives and memes of history.
Even as kid, I couldn’t help but notice that the media made German’s out to be a distinctly brutal, inhuman, sadistic, and robotic people. Every movie and comic book, all the popular lore. But I grew up around a lot of Germans in Central Texas, sent there by King Frederick in the middle of the 19th century. They on average were a little more aloof, more prosperous that the norm, but otherwise nothing else. So, in my young mind I perceived dissonance and disorder. If this, these are true, how come my observations and interpretations are not consonant and corresponding. This is Mass Formation Delusion, foisted upon a less than astute or inquiring public.
When conflicts of ideas are not resolved or explained, most people just shrug and ignore the contradiction. It has long been my contention that the mass of humanity-certainly in the JUSA-are stupid, dullards, and cannot maintain a train of thought, syllogistic reasoning, or even care about the Truth or facts, if they create discomfort.
I never could, and dropped out of the Univ of Texas after 5 years, took a year off, and lived out my Route 66, Jack Kerouac, Richard Henry Dana, Joseph Conrad streams of Actual Experience. I’ve been the aloof observer, of many things but hardly ever in them. I played many roles in order to blend in. I asked a friend why people didn’t seem to understand me, while living in a lower class Hollywood neighborhood, and his reply was, “You sound like a book when you talk”. I then went to engineering school for 3 years.
For me this article is covered ground, nothing new, but it has great value for the person who sees smoke but doesn’t know where it is coming from on the other side of the mountain.
From this short biographical sketch, I can say that I have EXPERIENCED successful societies from a direct immersion as well as cutural anthropological framework and template. In my mind, all aspects of a phenomenon have to “fit”, like pieces of a puzzle. All the instruments have to be in tune. I have a mind that automatically scans for relations, pattern recognition, parallel, and analog-with no restriction across disciplines, academic theory, or accepted wisdom or knowledge. I am always thinking about 3 to 5 things at once in the background. Past and present are continuous.
An article by David Cole, Holocaust Denier and fraud exposer, is a helpful read. https://www.takimag.com/article/leftist-can-do-vs-rightist-voodoo/
Could it be an idea is to make more room for “legal migration” from India and Pakistan at the African expense?
There appear to be strong Indian-Pakistani presence in UK government. Indians appear to be rapidly taking over and embedding themselves in society key positions .
Most excellent writing as always. Thank you AJ.
When the Americans were in Vietnam and after they left, I forget the time period, Vietnamese would sail along the coast of China until they reached Hong Kong. Upon landing they would announce that they were refugees. The Oxford and Cambridge crowd, aka the Civil Service, would then settle them in the UK and the commonwealth.My brother was living in the Home Counties and a lot of Vietnamese were given fully furnished houses near him and in other parts of the country.
The Chinese Government, when they began the takeover of Hong Kong,told the Vietnamese who were there that they could go home or live in a concentration camp until they died. They all went home.
I worked in London and lived in a room which meant that I could apply for council housing.
I was on the waiting list for 25 years and was then left a property.
The RBKC purchased a £1.2 million house to house a Somali postman, his wife and 12 children
A lady from Thailand was renting a room when the landlord increased the rent. She said that she could not afford the new rent and would have to go home. The landlord told her to discuss the problem with the RBKC housing department. She was housed by them,in a nice one bedroom flat at the back of Sloan Square, in under 2 months. She told me that the UK was a wonderful place.
An Indian told me that he studied in the UK and then married an Indian nurse. He was given 4 sets of keys to 4 council houses so that he could choose the one he liked the best.
I met a young white man who had just been released from prison in London with 6 Windians. Each Windian was given a flat in Vauxhall (lucky Vauxhall) He had been given a 2nd class rail ticket to Hull. He was their problem.
I agree with the lady from Thailand. The UK is a wonderful place, it just depends who you are.
@Edward Harris – the British/Jewish establishment side with the USA Jews in the Vietnam War, the idea of which was to get ownership of assets (including money) there.
The collaborators must have been offered money etc, presumably for their support for atrocities and so on. You make it sound as though the officials were generously handing out housing and so on. I suggest it was just part of the genocide.
Proving that ENOCH WAS RIGHT ! Previous generations of British would vomit if they could see the England today. Sad to say but all over the western world the churches are plunging knives into the backs of White people and many of them are suckers sitting in the pews and paying to be stabbed. Wise up and stand up and close your wallet and walk away from those churches.
The Rwanda Plan looks like a step in the right direction. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The second and last sentence of your comment should be required study for all White Nationalists. It embodies a wisdom many of our best unfortunately still eschew (quite unconsciously I might add) to the detriment of us all.
‘You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ would be an excellent thesis for an upcoming TOO article.
You are right. It would be nice if more people in our camp understood the concept of incrementalism; the left seems to understand it very well.
After years of visiting this site, I feel assured to opine that the purpose is to produce or find a “space” where Whites can thrive and regenerate. Finding and producing are straightforward. Blacks and Browns already have brayed for years about wanting separation and autonomy. This is in fact, what we should be encourgaging, because they will obtain their domain each, and we will obtain ours. It’s a way-actually the only realistic way-for Whites to “reboot” and remake their heritage and future. The B and Bs will want the coastal areas. Our best play is the Midwest and west, for most importantly, that’s where the majority of the food is grown. That should be our focus. Only we do this and make it work. It is also permanent currency for future negotiations and self sustenance. There is no other way for Whites to create an autonomous country. After that is established, the new Repuglic should join the BRIC group of countries and establish a special relationship with Russia, the last refuge of the Indo-European,
Now, more immediately, there exists a place that is the opposite of the JUSA. Guess where? It is White, functional, integral in its people and heritage and has no ambivalence or namby-pamby Woke crap or other Jewish plagues. S. Freud on the steamship coming to America: “We are going to give them the plague!!” A picture is worth a thousand words, a video one has to assume more:
More slumming in Russia:
“Our best bet is the Midwest…that’s where the majority of the food is grown.”
Now even Jews are endorsing my plan. I think it’s a winner!
The USA is being subverted by covert neo-Bolsheviks whom are the ideological descendants of the USSR 1917 jewish Bolshevik communists perpetrators of the Ukraine Holodomor where several million White Russian Christians were starved to death . Obviously , vital food producing farm cultures are no impediment to Bolshevik extermination pogroms .
Normally , if Jews are truly for something , then White Nationalist ( White racial preservationists ) should be very skeptical about any Jewish rationale for it . In particular , farm cultures alone could not defeat neo-Bolshevik subversions of them .
For you single guys looking for a woman who is less likely to need an exorcism of modern toxins and rubbish, cognitively speaking. A representative sample, less overall putrefaction than women of the West.
The fact that we even have to pay other nations to keep their garbage off our shores. Bloody hell. You guys think this is bad now with 8 billion people, wait until mid century when there will be over ten billion people, most of them African. This is an utter disaster creeping slowly to its zenith.
Excellent, as always. This article furnished me with some very useful information. If anyone could tell me roughly what percentage of the UK judiciary are Jews, I’d be much obliged.
Thanks Andrew for your usual, great writing. As I’ve commented to you before, ‘hope springs eternal’, but I tend to agree with the last paragraph of your piece here.
While I have you here, I do believe that you read the comments since you have replied to them before, a few posts back, RockABotus had written a piece regarding how he had become enlightened to the Jewish problem. A commentator, Karl Haemers, I believe it was, suggested that we all share our own stories on our ‘enlightenment,’ the lucky bunch that we are; yes, I’m being sarcastic. Anyway, the complexities of life building up for an unvaccinated New Yorker, taking their toll on me, I did respond best I could but not in the detailed way that I would have liked to. While I have you here Andrew, your essay; “Modify the Standards of the In-Group: On Jews and Mass Communication,” was the first TOO piece that I ever read and it blew me away. I had stumbled upon it on the net. Since then I’ve probably read it three, or four times and frequently reference it. It also made me an avid TOO reader, I try to read every post that I can here. So, thank you Andrew and Kevin.
I’m sure you’re well aware, but the situation in regards immigration in the US is dire to say the least. Alejandro Mayorkas, a Sephardic Jew, who is the head of the Department of Homeland Security here, in complete disregard of our immigration laws, has opened the borders for anyway who wishes to enter the country. Hoards of illegals are given money, medical attention, food, and are put on buses where they are brought to different destinations to be met most likely by Soros funded groups who help them even more. To add insult to injury, Mayorkas’s DHS, overseas a new agency, a ‘Disinformation Governance Board.’ In charge of this Disinformation Governance Board, is one Nina Jankowicz. Miss Jankowicz refuses to divulge her religion but from the little I can gather online, I would bet big money that she is Jewish. In an article from, The Hill “Joe Biden’s Ministry of Truth,’ 5/1/22, Jo Concha writes:
“A government agency creating a ‘Ministry of Truth,’ to combat what it deems misinformation? And it’s going to fall under the leadership of DHS Secretary Mayorkas? The guy presiding over the worst border crisis in our lifetimes, who publicly denies it as a crisis while privately admitting it is? (Concha provides a link) The person chosen to lead this new “Committee of Public Information” under Mayorkas is Nina Jankowicz, who calls herself a “disinformation fellow’ and a Russian disinformation expert.”
The situation here makes one’s blood boil and is hair raising to say the least. Also, a new “relief” package has just been approved by the predominantly Jewish Biden administration for their Jewish gangsters brethren who have run Ukraine for years. I believe Jews make up over 60% of the current administration. There is now an alarming shortage of baby formula in the US.
I’ve been feeling a bit better these past few days. So today, I’m going to see The Northmen, gotta be the first time I’m going to see a movie in over 6, 7 years. Then definitely have a drink, or two. Then, keep fighting the good fight.
You guys do that too.
“Another significant objection to the Rwanda plan has been raised by Enver Solomon, Chief Executive of the UK’s Refugee Council. Solomon’s name has the air of a Dickensian villain, which is about the only English connection he really has since he’s the son of a Jewish father and a Muslim mother. ”
The kid didn’t have a chance…
“For you single guys looking for a woman who is less likely to need an exorcism of modern toxins and rubbish, cognitively speaking. A representative sample, less overall putrefaction than women of the West.
You in the Trade, PPM?
Some people are too emotionally fragile, insecure, unsure in the world extant to add significant opinions and information. Small knowledge base, lack of cross cultural experience, and of course not enough brainpower, a virtual small engine incapable of not much more than mowing the lawn, etc.
When comment sections are over moderated and censured, in favor of the moderator’s biases, quality declines and the comments become what devolved to stagnation, repetition and “chewing the cud”. Very circular and sterile. The Darkmoon heavyweights departed for various reasons, one being that someone felt “disrespected”or blocked for terseness and bluntness. A lot of comments are just word rearranging and repetitive generalizations. After one woman and man, who were highly intelligent, very educated, polymath, AND well traveled were blocked by a dim witted moderator, the decline proceeded rapidly. The site is no more.
The solutions for the White Plight are usually watered down and “We oughta…..should…” or “someone should”…… Critical comments, critiques are more useful than the usual paeans to the glory, hosannas, praise, etc of White History, because that is all to praise about Whites today: the past. And that is because of omissions and commissions of misleading inferior people, low quality of advocacy and planning. The Man With The Plan Wins in almost all cases.
Anyway, my responses to a lot of this drivel and low quality formation is:
“Some people are too emotionally fragile, insecure, unsure in the world extant to add significant opinions and information. Small knowledge base, lack of cross cultural experience, and of course not enough brainpower, a virtual small engine incapable of not much more than mowing the lawn, etc.”
I notice that you’re still (in the latest TOO thread) pushing the Russian woman mantra. My question remains.
Of course a smart arsed, know-it-all Slav will most certainly “have all the answers”…but the right one.
Am I the only one who thought of 1930s Germany? As in: send them all to Africa and let them sort it out over there.
Bottinick reminds me of Greenblatt, they always look like aliens.
Dr.Joyce, If (the biggest word in the world) only your work was read by the masses of ordinary decent English and indigenous people of the British Isles. My quest is for the plain simple truth and I believe your so close to it that it’s stirs painful emotions about homeland, belonging and identity. This is particularly acute when I see people who look like they shouldn’t even be in Turkey let alone 21 century London.
The ‘Rwanda Plan’ has all the traits of political posturing and to make the right noises before the next general election; given how the media allow ample platform for the ilk such as Enver Solomon and others from his eco-genocidal system to rant about ‘safe-routes’. The ruse or scheme will still allow woman and children, who arrive in a dingy, to have a stake in this country from a first-world country – France.
So the main hypocritical ploy of our ‘Israeli’ friends is to appropriate more Palestinian land; set up wars; funnel all the refugees to Western nations. The illusion of ‘the good Samaritan’, all in this benevolence in one playbook.
The names from America in academia in Britain start to resemble the link-chart in one of those Scandinavian thrillers, illustrating the matrix of connections. I opened up a few links from your articles and looked at who was sponsoring the refugee organisation: one, Esmee Fairbairn ( Social Equity and Environment!?) has a half-jewish money-man: Edward Bonham-Carter (brother of actress, Helena).
A stupid question for Dr. Joyce, but I still don’t really know the answer. Why can’t the Tories just come out and say Immigration = Invasion (unless, at a maximum, the immigrants are fellow white Europeans)? Surely Tories have not forgotten that Britain is a WHITE nation?? Why all this beating around the bush? Do a majority of Britons want mass nonwhite immigration?
Do as our enemies have done for almost a century. Our response should be ‘It’s a good start and more is required to satisfy the national interest.’
They’re all Jews.
As is the Director of the British secret police MI5
It’s worse than you think.
What if the Ashkenazim start to realize that in order to defeat Russia and China, Western nations must be kept strong with an adequately genetically healthy European majority population? Then after their remaining enemies of Russia and China are conquered (as well as North Korea and Iran), they can once again start the process of genociding Western Europeans.
“but to take advantage of the chaos in their country in order to fulfill their pre-existent material ambition of living among Europeans and deriving any benefit that might entail.”
With eugenics/transhumanism, even the most genetically primitive African nation could become Wakanda and far more advanced then any other nation on Earth. However, since even China and secular Israel don’t have the genetics to motivate them to practice national eugenics/transhumanism, then surely no African nation does either. Richard Lynn has stated that the first nation to implement national eugenics will rule the world. However, the human species is now dysgenically beyond the point to which they can apply his wisdom.
“he’s the son of a Jewish father and a Muslim mother.”
This would indicate that his father was not Group Selected, but Individually Selected, the result of dysgenics and mutational load among the secular Ashkenazim. Thus, Enver Solomon may also be Individually Selected (as well as comprising the genes of the specific Muslim race his mother belongs to), and his decision to take the position of Chief Executive of UK’s Refugee Council would have to be the result of the position offering satisfactory compensation to him, plus because he sees the goal of reducing the genetic fitness of Europeans as making the world safer for him personally, without much regard for the rest of the Ashkenazim.
“I must applaud Mr. Solomon for his literary talent in crafting mendacious, manipulative propaganda.”
Was it really literary talent? Or has the contemporary ethnic Europeans just become too unintelligent and Individually Selected? Dr. Woodley of Menie has calculated a loss of 15 IQ points for Europeans since 1750. In other words, the typical European in 1750 was as more genetically and culturally advanced than contemporary Europeans as contemporary Europeans are compared to contemporary African-Americans.
“we are utterly appalled by the government’s inhumane plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for offshore processing. Such a policy flies in the face of Jewish values”
What would it say about the contemporary European intellect if they cannot immediately notice the extreme levels of inconsistency between this statement and the national ethnic policies of Israel? Most Europeans are not even interested in reading anything on these matters – most will just spend maybe twenty minutes a day watching “talking heads” recite a highly “dumbed down” summary of “reality,” and/or relatively a few minutes reading popular “news” sources such as Fox News, Gateway Pundit, BBC, and so forth. The internet has now been available for twenty-five years – a quarter of a century – with dozens of Eurocentric websites, with the Ashkenazi media bringing much wide-spread attention to many of these websites and the leaders they endorse.
“outspoken nonsense has also gushed forth from the Church of England, in the form of its abysmal Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.”
So, what does your description of Welby’s behavior suggest about his genetics? First, his mother’s acts of racial exogamy and adultery suggests that she is R-Selected and thus a Genetic Psychopath. And his biological father’s acts of both adultery and fornication would suggest that he is also an R-Selected Genetic Psychopath. Thus, Justin Wilby had a high chance of inheriting the genes for his parents’ neurological profile, and his behaviors suggest that he indeed did. And the fact that he uses his position of Archbishop to promote an R-Selected British society suggests to me that he is actually an atheist who took the position under false pretense, perhaps because he thought it would be an easy job that offers generous compensation, or maybe because he thought he could have sexual relations with the Church’s children, or maybe because he was actually hired by the Ashkenazim to knowingly engage in fraud by claiming to believe in God so he can acquire his Church position for the calculated/strategic goal of promoting Ashkenazi ethnic interests. What other possibilities could there be? Whenever I read of a Gentile or Ashkenazi elite at this website, the first thing I do is conjecture on their genetic/neurological profile.