UK’s Telegraph Claims Attractive Young Women Are Now The New Face Of The ‘Far-Right’

/7 Comments/in /by

UK’s Telegraph Claims Attractive Young Women Are Now The New Face Of The ‘Far-Right’

The Telegraph has published a piece so tone-deaf it reads like self-parody. According to the outlet, the “far-right” is no longer the domain of bald men in boots and tattoos. No, it’s now being led by “strikingly telegenic young women” who dare to look good on camera while warning about mass migration, grooming gangs, and cultural replacement.

Three foreign activists – Ada Lluch, Valentina Gomez, and Eva Vlaardingerbroek – were banned from entering Britain for a Tommy Robinson rally, and the Telegraph can’t stop gushing over how “pretty” this makes the movement look.

The government has banned at least seven foreign voices from attending the rally, including the women highlighted by the Telegraph.

Critics point out the blatant double standard: pro-Palestine marches with openly extremist rhetoric are often tolerated, while a native-focused demonstration drawing tens or hundreds of thousands draws preemptive visa blocks on speakers.

Kier Starmer’s government waves in unvetted migrants and certain extremists but draws the line at articulate critics of mass migration.

The Telegraph profiles the banned women in breathless detail. Catalan activist Ada Lluch has called out “complete invasion” of western democracies, American influencer Valentina Gomez warned about “rapist Muslims taking over,” and Dutch commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek spoke of “the rape, replacement and murder of our people.”

All three were barred from the UK, along with several other activists. Meanwhile, the government continues to wave in the very people these women are warning about.

The Telegraph also warns about attractive home-grown women, including British influencer Saskia Teague. With over 100,000 Instagram followers, she mixes “happy happy happy” selfies with calls for “England for the English,” mass deportations, and an end to shame-free multiculturalism.

The Telegraph acts shocked that she also praises her “Anglo-Saxon hair” and rejects the idea she’s being “used” by men.

Of course the usual suspects are wheeled out to clutch pearls. Hope Not Hate researcher Alex MacKinnon calls it a “glamorisation” effort to shed the “violent thug image.” Institute for Strategic Dialogue’s Hannah Rose says looking desirable builds followers and fits the ideology that women should be “aesthetically pleasing.”

The implication is that these women can’t possibly believe what they’re saying – they must be grifting or being manipulated. Because in the eyes of the legacy media, no normal young attractive woman could possibly notice what’s happening to her country.

This is the same media that files stories on “far-right” threat while ignoring grooming gang scandals, no-go zones, and skyrocketing violence against women and girls. The Telegraph even admits the shift comes from young people “profoundly disaffected with mainstream parties” and disillusioned with modern life.

Yet instead of asking why that disillusionment exists, they obsess over Instagram filters and “zhuzhing” the image.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has today claimed he’s all about “championing peaceful protest” while simultaneously blocking entry to those he dislikes. Starmer declared:

“I’ll always champion peaceful protest. But the Unite the Kingdom march organisers are peddling hatred and division,” then admitting that “We’ve already blocked visas for far-right agitators who want to come here to spew their extremist views.”

Why are intelligent women who take care over their appearance being maligned as ‘far right’? Well, take at look at this lot:

It’s no wonder they’re rattled. That’s the clownworld alternative the establishment promotes – and it terrifies them that normal, feminine, attractive women are rejecting it in favour of common sense.

This is also the same tired playbook the left has run for years. Remember when the likes of MSNBC insisted health and fitness was the “new gateway drug to the far-right”? Even basic self-improvement triggers the mob. Now being attractive, articulate, and female while opposing open borders gets you labelled “far-right agitator.” Apparently only frumpy, blue-haired nose ring radicals are allowed to have political opinions.

X users were not impressed with the Telegraph writer’s take.

The left’s panic is understandable. When healthy, fit, attractive people start rejecting open borders and woke insanity, the narrative collapses. Being patriotic, noticing patterns, and wanting your country to survive is not “far-right.” It’s normal.

The real extremists are the ones importing chaos, silencing dissent, and branding beauty, fitness, and common sense as threats. The more they smear, the more people wake up.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

7 replies
  1. Terry Fyde
    Terry Fyde says:

    Is self-hating female ugliness (sadly) a psychological factor in “social revanchism”, lesbo-feminism and crime? Is female beauty a psychological factor in “social guilt”, compensatory misandry and protest-politics?
    The root problem is the disappearance of marriage, parenthood, and “Kinder, Kirche und Kuche”, with the advent of contraception, abortion and pornography – while the underlying evolutionary drives remain.

  5. Perry Rhodan
    Perry Rhodan says:

    “Bombshell: Hitler escaped to Indonesia!”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czuLwSt8CRk

    This guy’s “work” is a remarkable contribution to the burgeoning field of speculative historiography, a discipline in which the absence of evidence is not a limitation but a licensing agreement.

    His central achievement lies in demonstrating that if one assembles enough unrelated curiosities, rumors, bureaucratic oddities, and emotionally evocative anecdotes, one can indeed construct a narrative that feels impressively comprehensive right up until the moment it is examined by an actual historian.

    He has mastered the art of churning out hours and hours of nonsense. It’s genuinely surprising that Wikipedia refers to him not as a conspiracy theorist, but as an “author.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Levenda

    His interviewer in another video, who is unmistakably Jewish in appearance, claims that Germans are “more pessimistic” due to their extensive use of the past tense in their language (he presumably means as English speakers); I ran this claim through an AI:

    “Michels’ claim is linguistically and conceptually weak. The tense system of a language does not determine the emotional disposition of its speakers, so German grammar cannot be used to infer that Germans are intrinsically more pessimistic than English speakers.

    At most, one could argue that languages differ in how they encode temporal relations, which may influence habitual expression; however, that is very different from claiming a stable cultural psychology. The statement therefore reads less like a serious linguistic observation than a loose cultural stereotype.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7PLeu5rTv4

    https://i.ibb.co/35ywvnF1/ufo.jpg
    https://i.ibb.co/NgvjdvB1/levenda.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Levitt
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_Israel_Communications_and_Research_Centre
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poju_Zabludowicz
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British-American_Project

    Asking AI again:

    1) On Levitt / Fathom / Levenda

    A plausible explanation is that Levitt’s professional interests and the platform’s editorial alignment are compatible enough for the video to be treated as relevant, even if not universally true or authoritative. In other words, an endorsement or recommendation on a politically aligned platform is better read as curated relevance than as a rigorous seal of truth.

    What that means
    – The platform may find Levenda’s material useful because it fits broader themes like secrecy, security, intelligence, and narrative framing.
    – A recommendation does not necessarily mean Levitt agrees with every claim Levenda makes.
    – It also does not prove Levenda is right; it mainly shows that the material is useful inside a particular interpretive and political environment.

    The cautious conclusion
    The strongest reading is that this is a case of thematic and ideological fit, not proof of correctness. It looks less like neutral scholarship and more like selective amplification within a particular network.

    2) On the UFO-archive release as a distraction

    Yes, it is possible that the UFO-archive story is being used as a distraction from other political issues, including the Middle East and Israel-related controversies. But that remains a political interpretation, not a proven fact.

    What supports that suspicion
    – UFO releases generate major media attention.
    – They can crowd out coverage of more immediate political problems.
    – A highly publicized release can function as agenda-setting, whether or not that was the original intent.

    What does not follow
    – The existence of released UFO documents does not by itself prove a “Nazi UFO.”
    – Nor does it prove the release was intentionally staged to hide events in the Middle East.
    – Most of what has been publicly reported appears to be old documentation and image material, not a clean revelation of exotic craft.

    Best summary
    The most defensible position is: yes, distraction is a possible political use of such releases; no, the releases themselves do not establish the more dramatic claims attached to them.

    Yes — from your perspective, that is a very plausible reading. If someone wants to be taken seriously as a terrorism or security expert, a public association with highly speculative, esoteric, or conspiratorial material can easily look like a credibility problem.

    Why it can hurt him
    – It can suggest he is too close to fringe material to keep proper analytical distance.
    – It can make his methodological rigor look weaker, especially if he presents himself as evidence-driven.
    – It can imply that he is comfortable with narrative over proof.
    – In fields like counterterrorism, audiences usually expect a high standard of caution when dealing with speculative or ideologically charged claims.

    The most charitable readings
    There are still a few possible explanations that do not necessarily make him look good:
    – He may simply think the material is interesting, not reliable.
    – He may be operating in a milieu where security, intelligence, and esoteric topics routinely overlap.
    – He may be underestimating how ridiculous or damaging this looks from the outside.
    – Or he may accept the reputational cost because he personally finds the topic compelling.

    Your criticism is strong
    I would agree that, if Levitt depends on being seen as a serious expert, this kind of association looks more damaging than helpful. It does not prove that he is incompetent, but it definitely raises fair questions about judgment and standards.

    Short version for direct use
    If you want a concise formulation:

    If Levitt wants to be taken seriously as a counterterrorism expert, publicly endorsing or promoting material this speculative makes him look less credible, not more. At minimum, it raises questions about his judgment, his methodological standards, and how sharply he distinguishes evidence from narrative.

  7. Scaffel Pike
    Scaffel Pike says:

    Why are women’s magazines and men’s magazines BOTH filled with photos of females?
    What does that tell us about gender equality?

Comments are closed.