In 2023, to much fanfare and delight, 37-year-old Jason Arday was appointed Professor of the Sociology of Education at Cambridge University. The Woke fanfare occurred because Arday was Black and he seemed to embody disproof of all the evidence of low average IQ and high anti-social personality and mental illness among Blacks. More than merely Black, he was, so he said, diagnosed with autism when he was three, couldn’t speak until he was 11, couldn’t write until he was 18, ran 30 marathons in 35 days while doing his PhD full time, overcame a brain tumour and a stroke while doing so, raised millions of pounds for charity, and did aid work in developing countries.

Arday was exactly what Wokeness needed to provide; a Black man that could be academically brilliant if only the environmental conditions were right . . . except it was all a lie.

If anything, Jason Arday has confirmed every empirically accurate stereotype about Black people and, in so doing, has left Cambridge University and some very high profile academics who leapt to defend him, such as psychologist Prof. Sir Simon Baron-Cohen who insisted people stop interrogating him because Arday is “autistic,” besmirched and humiliated. How can one trust the integrity of Cambridge University which, at the point of writing, continues to defend Arday?

Already, in 2025, there was an investigation by Arday’s alma mater, the Community College-level Liverpool John Moores University, into whether Arday had plagiarised parts of his PhD thesis. He was cleared, but it seems fairly obvious that he was cleared because he was Black and high profile and the academics involved were Woke. In July, “race realist” philosopher Nathan Cofnas, who had been fired by Cambridge University for his “racist” research, proved, using plagiarism detection software, that Arday had stolen over 100 pages in his 2015 thesis from a Brunel University thesis that was passed in 2009 . . . and then the entire “Emperor Has No Clothes” farce, about which the Woke Establishment had been in denial to the extent of covering it up, fell apart at breakneck speed.

Arday’s thesis was nothing more than Woke word salad, with a punctuation error in its title. He had plagiarised quotes from the trainee teachers whom he had supposedly interviewed as part of his thesis. The same fraud had been committed in various papers he had published in academic journals. This future brilliant Cambridge professor had had serious trouble getting articles published in academic journals — via anonymous peer-review, such that his first academic publication was 3 years after he got his PhD. In addition, Arday was a complete Walter Mitty. He had been a high-level footballer aged 10, before he could speak, apparently. Arday had managed to pass GCSEs (school-leaving qualifications) supposedly before he could write. He’d attained a top degree in Sports Education only a few years after he’d learnt to write . . .

Arday employed the services of a notorious libel lawyers to intimidate people and even released the police on a Times journalist, accusing him of harassment, but the dam had broken. There was no evidence that Arday had run the marathons he’d claimed to have run while doing his PhD, which, anyway, meant he wouldn’t have slept, and he claimed to have been seriously injured while running them. Arday’s claim that he was sent a pig’s head as a racist gesture was disputed by the police and the local butcher from whom it was supposedly obtained. Arday claimed to have been part of a TV program called Seven Up, which followed people throughout their lives, but this began in 1964 and Arday was only born in 1985. Various universities where he claimed to be a “Visiting Professor” or “Honorary Professor” — Glasgow, Durham, Ohio State — all chimed in to assert that this was untrue. Arday hadn’t raised millions for charity at all, at least not solo, and he hadn’t done relief work abroad, according to the charity cited.

The Good Law Project set up an open letter in which various Woke types claimed that Arday was being targeted because of his race, held to higher standards than most academics, and that this pile on had to stop. Sir Simon Baron-Cohen intervened to manipulatively state how damaging this media coverage was to a fragile, autistic man. As we all know, leftists, but not conservatives, engage in a competence shift, using simpler language when they talk to Black people, betraying what they truly believe. This avuncular attitude embodies the deceit behind the case of Jason Arday. He confirms key racial stereotypes about Blacks.

Simon Baron-Cohen signed this crazy woman’s Arday plagiarism denial petition! The other signatories are idiots, so no explanation needed. But I don’t get Baron-Cohen. He needs to study his own brain. https://t.co/E07TZRgPqe pic.twitter.com/OJxgruiKpz

— Nathan Cofnas (@nathancofnas) July 29, 2026

Firstly, Arday is not very intelligent, hence obtaining his degree in Education, whose graduates have the lowest IQs according to studies, and only ever attending universities that aren’t very good: St Mary’s, Twickenham, cannot even validate its own degrees; this is done by the University of Surrey and Liverpool John Moores (rather than Liverpool University). The fact that he had to plagiarise others’ writings extensively and had tremendous trouble getting journal articles published only underscores this point. The Woke have leapt upon him as the cleverest of Black men — deserving a Cambridge Professorship — and he likely only has an IQ of about 110, if that. And he’s the best? That is what Woke academics seem to realise deep down. The intelligence stereotype seems to be confirmed.

As for personality, Richard Lynn published a book, shortly before he died, entitled Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality. There are consistent race differences in this regard, with Blacks being more psychopathic than Whites. One of the symptoms of psychopathic personality is lying. Jason Arday is clearly a liar and a fraud. Worse than this, he is a pathological liar. He seems to impulsively tell quite ridiculous lies, such as having been on Seven Up, which began in 1964. Impulsive lying is associated with poor impulse control, another marker of psychopathic personality, but also with dissociation (switching off from reality) and psychosis, the core symptom of schizophrenia. This condition is notoriously elevated among Blacks. Mythomania is also associated with Narcissism — grandiose fantasies of importance, and entitlement — which crosses over with psychopathy as part of the “Dark Triad” of personality disorders.

So, what has actually happened here? A relatively stereotypical Black man — implicitly not very bright and high in psychopathy and possibly traits related to schizophrenia — has, via being a fantasist and a fraud, blagged his way into academia. For all we know, the “autism” diagnosis is nonsense and is a way of victim-signalling, something that Dark Triad people often do in order to elicit sympathy. Arday is then leapt upon by Woke scholars, as he is everything they could possibly want: he’s Black, he’s struggled so much, he’s academic and he researches Woke topics such as the nature of “whiteness.” They are taken in by him, enamoured by him as you would be by a successful conman, so they overlook the obvious problems — implausible stories, appalling scholarship — and make him their King.

And then, when it all falls apart, they realise what has happened, and they descend into denial and insist that he’s somehow both King and a fragile little peasant girl at the same time. It reminds me of the presidency of Joe Biden — he’s both a brilliant president and a forgetful old man, depending on the circumstances. Making the clearly senile Biden president was elder abuse by his backers and it went to Biden’s head, meaning he tried to run for a second term. Making Arday an academic at all was the abuse of a not very bright, slightly Dark Triad Black man, and it went to Arday’s head, as he realised how much he could take at advantage.

Becoming a Cambridge Professor, he flew too close to the sun. He was duly revealed not to confound “harmful, racist stereotypes,” but to be a data point in their favour.

Martyr or meteor? Almost everything pointed towards martyr, but one fatal flaw will ensure that it’s meteor. That’s what I predict anyway. I’m talking about the murder of the secular saint Annabel Rook. Like the murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, Ms Rook herself had everything that makes for a martyr in Clown-World. She was “compassionate and caring,” devoted to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and left a “rich legacy of love and support for the vulnerable.” Yes, she was a committed anti-racist, a passionate feminist, and the shining light of a charity set up to “help refugee and migrant women, some who had fled domestic violence, through art and drama activities.”

A compassionate carer and her crazed killer: Annabel Rook and her vibrant “volatile partner” Clifton George

And she was murdered by a malevolent male with the grimmest and goriest of irony. A woman who had helped so many other women flee domestic violence was herself a victim of it. So why do I think she won’t become the focus of a leftist martyr-cult? It’s because, unlike Jo Cox, she was murdered by the wrong kind of malevolent male. Jo Cox’s killer was a stale pale male and therefore presented no obstacle to the formation of a leftist martyr-cult. But Annabel Rook’s killer was a vibrant enricher and therefore presents an insurmountable obstacle to the formation of a leftist martyr cult.

No cult for Kriss

This is because all leftist martyr cults are devoted to lies, not to truth. Think of the martyrs Stephen Lawrence in Britain and George Floyd in America. Their leftist martyr-cults are devoted to the lie that Whites are vicious villains and Blacks are vulnerable victims, that Whites are an ominous and omnipresent danger to gentle, enriching Blacks. The truth is the reverse: it’s Blacks that are a deadly danger, killing and raping Whites every day across the West as leftists yawn and look away. That’s why I predict that Annabel Rook’s savage slaying will be a meteor murder, something that flashes throughout the headlines of the mainstream media and then disappears. This meteorization doesn’t happen because a murder is insignificant and bears no important message for society. On the contrary: the mainstream media meteorize murders precisely because they’re significant and bear important messages for society.

Meteors, not martyrs: the long-forgotten White victims of the Knoxville Horror in Tennessee (image from Unz Review)

That’s why Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan are long forgotten in official Britain, while Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom are long forgotten in official America. All those individuals were Whites murdered in horrific ways by non-Whites. Kriss Donald was a 15-year old White schoolboy kidnapped, tortured, and incinerated with gasoline by Pakistani Muslims. Mary-Ann Leneghan was a 14-year-old White schoolgirl kidnapped, raped, and tortured by Blacks for hours before having her throat slit. Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were a White couple kidnapped by Blacks. Christopher Newsom was raped and quickly shot dead, Channon Christian was raped, and tortured by Blacks for days before being agonizingly scrubbed with bleach to remove DNA traces from her body and then slowly and deliberately suffocated by being enclosed in plastic bags. Those four murders had great significance and bore a very important message for Britain and America: that non-Whites cause huge and continuing harm to Whites and should not be resident in Western societies.

Judeocracy, not democracy

So all those murders were meteorized, not martyrized. They were dropped down the memory-hole, not made the center of regular commemorations. But the mainstream media are losing their power to make the choice between meteor and martyr for unworthy and worthy murder-victims. Leftists would much prefer to have meteorized the murder of Henry Nowak. He was the unworthy White teenager who was stabbed by a violence-obsessed Sikh and then bled to death in handcuffs thanks to the “anti-racist” zealotry of the British police. But Nowak’s meteorization was prevented by the internet and the growing racial and political awareness of Whites. Across the West, more and more Whites understand that we live not in democracies governed by the preferences of the White majority, but in Judeocracies governed by the preferences of the intensely selfish and anti-White Jewish minority. So Henry Nowak wasn’t meteorized but forced to the attention of leftist politicians and journalists. But Annabel Rook will be meteorized. That’s my confident prediction. If she’d been murdered by a White man, she’d have been martyrized instead. But she was much less likely to be murdered by a White man. Any race-realist who sees the details of her life with Clifton George will spot all the “metrics” of violence by a vibrant:

Well, Annabel: he’s Black, had a violent mother, and is greatly attached to knives — what could possibly go wrong?

An electrician has been found guilty of murdering a judge’s daughter in a frenzied rage before he blew up their north London home in a gas explosion. Clifton George, 45, killed his partner Annabel Rook, 46, by stabbing her 31 times during a row at their home in Stoke Newington after she had said they should end their 10-year relationship. In the aftermath of the killing, George started a fire in the basement in order to cause a gas canister explosion which ripped through the house.

George, who had worked as an electrician on major projects such as Crossrail and the Northern Line extension, denied a murder charge, arguing he had lost self-control when he punched, throttled and ultimately stabbed his partner. But by the end of the trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court, the judge, Mr Justice Constable KC, had ruled that his defence could not be relied on, thanks to “overwhelming” evidence of George’s short temper and a pattern of abuse directed towards Ms Rook.

The trial heard damning evidence that George — despite his denials — was an aggressive and bullying partner who was prone to angry outbursts over trivial matters. Ms Rook, a charity co-founder and the daughter of retired Old Bailey judge Peter Rook, had vowed repeatedly to leave her volatile partner, but tragically did not follow through on the promise before she was murdered. Police and firefighters rushed to the couple’s home in Dumont Road, Stoke Newington, at just before 5am on June 17 [2025] after an explosion — likened by neighbours to a “mini-earthquake” — ripped through the property and blew off part of the roof.

George was found lying on the kitchen floor covered in blood and then tried to stab himself with a shard of broken glass while Ms Rook lay dead in the living room. He admitted “I lost it” in the aftermath of the attack and the trial heard how George had been furious with his partner for keeping a secret from him. In his defence, George insisted he did not have a “short fuse”, but friends and family of Ms Rook gave evidence of his true character. Ms Rook’s best friend, Sian Davin, told jurors she believed George needed therapy for his anger issues and described an incident when he pushed Ms Rook against a wall and grabbed her around the throat.

She said he had “unreasonable flashing rage anger” at times, would fat-shame and gaslight Ms Rook, and possessed a “tendency to over-react about small trivial things”. Daniel Varani, a former flatmate of Ms Rook, described the joy of their time living together but said he decided to move out shortly after George moved in, due to his “angry outbursts”. The court heard of an incident in 2024 when George stormed out of Glastonbury Festival after rowing with one of Ms Rook’s friends and then drunkenly haranguing his partner. In another incident, George had flown into a rage when Ms Rook washed his chef’s knives and left them to drip-dry instead of immediately putting them away.

In 2023, Ms Rook tearfully confided in her father about George’s short temper, saying living with him was like “walking on eggshells” and first mentioning the possibility of a break-up. She told her close friend Catherine Milne about the relationship difficulties while insisting there had been no violence and saying: “I don’t think he would do that.” Ms Davin said her friend had acknowledged by summer 2024 that the relationship was “abusive” and a couple of weeks before her death Ms Rook left her sister a message saying the relationship was “not tenable. I fear there will be some more wrath to come,” she said, but she went on to predict they would “get through this and will be stronger for it out the other side.”

Before the fatal stabbing, Ms Rook had told George that they should separate and he should move out of their home, which she owned. Although under no legal obligation, Ms Rook had decided to give George £50,000 to help him find a new home and she also had hopes that they would holiday together in the future. On the night of the murder, George had been drinking red wine and got into an argument with Ms Rook about a secret she had been keeping from him. “In the course of that argument he punched her, he then tried to strangle her, and then he went to the kitchen to get a knife, he came back with the knife and he stabbed her to death,” said prosecutor William Emlyn Jones KC. “He lost his temper, and in his rage he murdered Annabel.”

George, who had been heard crying out “she lied” repeatedly as he mounted the attack, claimed he had lost all self-control and had little memory of the stabbing. But in a ruling on Monday, the judge concluded that his defence could not be left to the jury. He highlighted that George had stopped mid-attack to arm himself with a knife, which was a deliberate action “plainly inconsistent with a loss of control” and he found there was “overwhelming evidence” of George’s short temper and bouts of anger.

“The only possible conclusion on the evidence is that Clifton George was clearly ready and capable of unreasonable flash rage anger,” he said. In the aftermath of the murder, George slit his wrists and then triggered the gas explosion, but miraculously survived the blast. During the trial, jurors were shown pictures of the Stoke Newington home in the aftermath of the explosion. The court heard the couple’s neighbours likened the blast to a “mini-earthquake”. Ms Rook’s family and friends, including her father, packed out the public gallery in court during the trial and were forced to watch as George — in his evidence — attempted to paint Ms Rook as the abuser in the relationship. He claimed she had bullied him over his childhood traumas of finding his infant sister dead in her cot and being taken into care after violent abuse by his mother. George claimed the fatal stabbing had happened after Ms Rook had provoked him and pushed his face.

In the days after her death, there was an outpouring of tributes for Ms Rook, the co-founder of the MamaSuze charity which supports refugee and migrant women, some who had fled domestic violence, through art and drama activities. “She touched the hearts of so many,” her family said, in a statement. “She gave her life to helping the vulnerable and the disadvantaged.”  (“Abusive partner guilty of murdering judge’s daughter before blowing up their Stoke Newington home,” London Evening Standard, 3rd June 2026)

If you want to understand why Annabel Rook allowed herself to be slain so savagely despite such clear warnings, think of it like this: she was playing Rwandan roulette. This is a popular variant of Russian roulette among deluded White women. But those White women don’t risk violent death by placing one bullet in a previously empty revolver, spinning the chambers, then putting the revolver to their heads and pulling the trigger. Instead, the White women risk violent death by living with Black “partners” like Clifton George. Men from any race are, of course, capable of killing their wives or girlfriends. But men from some races are much more likely to do so. Blacks are the likeliest of all. Annabel Rook was tripling or quadrupling or quintupling her risk of violent death by living with a Black male.

Bank Blax-Maxxes for White Women

Rwandan roulette doesn’t carry the apparent 1-in-6 death-chance of Russian roulette, but White women who play Rwandan roulette with a Black “partner” are putting themselves at serious risk of death or severe injury. However, imagine what Annabel Rook would have said if one of her friends or acquaintances had espoused race realism to her and told her bluntly that Blacks are dangerous, that Blacks blight White lives. She would have erupted with righteous anti-racist anger and denial. Not that there seems to have been much chance of a friend or acquaintance espousing race realism to her. She obviously dwelt in a typically leftist world of narcissism, virtue-signalling and willful ignorance of racial reality. Recall what “Ms Rook’s best friend, Sian Davin,” told the court: “she believed George needed therapy for his anger issues and described an incident when he pushed Ms Rook against a wall and grabbed her around the throat.”

A Blax-Maxxing Bank: Clown-World wants more White women to die by Rwandan Roulette (advert from Halifax Bank)

To a race-denying leftist, Clifton George had “anger issues” calling for “therapy.” To a race-realist rightard like me, Clifton George had the genetically and culturally mediated predisposition to impulsive violence that is characteristic of Blacks. Ms Rook and Ms Davin must have discussed Ms Rook’s “volatile partner” many times. But neither woman would have been truthful about his behavior and its racial underpinnings. And neither woman would have stated the obvious: that Rook needed to leave their shared house as quickly and quietly as possible, before informing George from a safe distance that the relationship was over. That “£50,000” she offered him — leftism pays very well for some — should have been spent on securing her own life and welfare, not trying to bribe him into good behavior.

But Rook obviously didn’t want to leave her “volatile partner.” Why not? Well, I suspect he was central to her leftist virtue-signaling. He was a trophy partner, a Black male lifted by a White anti-racist from amongst “the vulnerable and the disadvantaged.” Look at the poor man’s history: he’d suffered the “childhood traumas of finding his infant sister dead in her cot and being taken into care after violent abuse by his mother.” Well, hearing that a potential boyfriend or husband had a violent mother should be a red light for any sensible woman: “Stop and think—it likely runs in the family!” For Annabel Rook, it would have been a green light: “Continue care and compassion and of course he’ll turn out to be an ideal partner just like the ads say!” Later on, she learned very clearly that her vibrant-but-volatile partner was greatly attached to knives: recall how George “had flown into a rage when Ms Rook washed his chef’s knives and left them to drip-dry instead of immediately putting them away.”

“Bitches Get Ditches”

I’m shaking my head right now. What did Clifton George have to do to make Annabel Rook see racial reality and understand the danger she was in? Maybe she’d have tumbled to the truth if he’d worn a T-shirt saying “Black Knives Matter” or “Bitches Get Ditches.” But I don’t think even that would have lifted her blindness. I think she would have reacted to a T-shirt like that by having another intense and earnest discussion with her “best friend, Sian Davin.” And they would have decided that the T-shirt was more evidence of “anger issues” that needed addressing with “therapy.” So Rook stayed with a  potential killer until the day he turned his potential into practice.

And after she’d been stabbed “31 times during a row,” her leftist friends again failed to admit the racial realities of the “row.” One of them said this: “It is a particularly tragic and poignant reality that Annabel fell victim to the very kind of violence she had so passionately sought to challenge.” That friend did not admit the truth: that the tragedy of Annabel Rook’s murder was self-inflicted and self-assisted. The friend also inverted the truth: Rook had not “challenged” but promoted “the very kind of violence” she fell victim to. After all, she worked to continue the Mud-Flood into Britain, helping “refugee and migrant women” who will bear male children and assist adult male relatives to immigrate here. More non-White males in Britain inevitably means much more murder, violence, and rape.

Bath-Time with a Strong Black Woman

But more non-White females means more murder and violence too. Black females in particular are far likelier to kill than White females. Black women don’t challenge the slaying supremacy of their menfolk, but they do their bestial best. You can test your own race-radar by reading two stories below about the same Black woman. If you’re surprised in any way by the second story, your race-radar needs adjusting. If you’re entirely unsurprised, your race-radar is working just as it should. Here’s Story #1:

Janice Nix used to be a notorious London drug dealer. Known as Mamma J, she drove flash cars and had money to burn. Her crimes caught up with her though and she spent many years in prison. The suicide of a fellow inmate would lead to Janice to turning her life around, and she went on to become a probation officer. The 62-year-old, who has released a memoir about her eventful life, has now left the Probation Service but still works voluntarily to help vulnerable women in the capital.

She describes her transformation from drug dealer into Probation Service engagement officer as at one point being “the most talked about thing on Brixton High Road”. People who remembered her dealing and driving fast cars were speechless to meet her again when they walked through the doors of Brixton police station. Sometimes her past still makes her uncomfortable. ”I am not proud about it,” Janice says. “Sometimes I cringe when I think about my criminal history but then I am gentle with myself, because I also understand that without that past I couldn’t have what I have in front of me today — [the chance] to teach people, to support women.”

She had started out as a shoplifter in the mid-70s, stealing furs from Harrods and dipping into the bags of wealthy shoppers in London’s West End. In the evenings Janice would return home to her sleeping toddler Nadia, who soon learnt to count her mother’s earnings and had excuses ready when the police called. By the 1980s Janice was firmly established as a drug dealer. By the 1990s she was serving a long prison sentence.

In the 15 years since her release, Janice has worked as a ward clerk in a hospital and supported ex-offenders through the St Giles Trust. She joined the Probation Service just before the decision in 2014 to part-privatise it. She describes the policy — since reversed — as “a bad idea”, and one that eventually saw her spend more time behind a desk instead of having face-to-face meetings with offenders. The women she worked to help were often not there through choice, but to avoid custodial sentences, and Janice talks about them with affection.

She says they faced the same problems she did, the same problems so many young women face today: a lack of role models and a sense of isolation magnified by poverty. […] In 2016, Janice received a Diversity and Engagement Award for her work as a probation officer. Janice’s father had come to England in 1957, and her mother followed. They set up home in west London. Amid the ever-present atmosphere of racism, Janice remembers sleeping under the bed because her father feared teddy boys in Notting Hill would identify their curtains as those of a black family and throw a petrol bomb through the window. (“Janice Nix: The drugs kingpin who joined the Probation Service,” BBC News, 24 January 2021)

Oh, those evil racist teddy-boys! How could they have resisted the enrichment of stale pale Britain by Blacks like Janice Nix? For the answer, here’s Story #2:

A woman has been found guilty of killing her five-year-old stepdaughter by scalding her in a hot bath in 1978. Janice Nix, 67, who had denied the manslaughter of Andrea Bernard, punished her by forcing her to take the scalding bath in Thornton Heath, south London, nearly 50 years ago. Andrea suffered serious burns to half of her body and died in hospital on 13 July 1978, five weeks after the incident. The jury was told Andrea’s death had been treated as an accident until her older brother Desmond Bernard went to the police in 2022.

Nix, of Clapham, south London, was also convicted of cruelty to Bernard between October 1975 and June 1978, when he was aged between seven and nine.

Warning: distressing details are included in this article

Bernard, now 56, said Nix regularly beat the children, even for things as petty as not folding their clothes “to her standards”. Giving evidence during the trial, Bernard, now 56, tearfully told jurors he had initially described his sister’s death as an accident because he wanted Nix to stop beating him. Bernard said that Nix beat him with a belt, burned him with a cigarette, bit him and made him eat cat food.

He said Nix regularly beat the children, even for not folding their clothes “to her standards”. Bernard described Nix as physically “strong” with a “heavy-set build”. Jurors heard that on 6 June 1978, Nix was “furious” after Andrea ignored instructions not to leave the house and to help clean instead. Nix shouted at Andrea in an “extremely loud” voice before beating her, the court heard. Bernard said he later heard the bath running.

He went on: “I could hear Janice shouting ‘Get in the bath’ and I could hear Andrea saying ‘The bath is too hot, mummy.’ I could hear Janice shouting ‘Get in the bath, get in the bath’ and then I heard screaming and splashing. Then I heard the screaming stopped and I could hear Janice calling Andrea to ‘wake up, wake up’.” Asked by prosecutor Kerry Broome how Nix sounded, Bernard replied: “She sounded scared”. He said he then entered the bathroom and saw Nix cradling Andrea, who was “limp” and wrapped in a towel. Bernard said that Nix asked him to say it was an accident and “to say that we were in the garden when it happened and that she would never beat me again”.

“I lied, I told everyone that story,” he said. Asked why, Bernard replied: “Because I didn’t feel protected, I just wanted it to stop.” He told jurors he lived in “constant fear” of Nix’s beatings and did not tell anyone because he feared being “punished more”. Speaking about why he decided to tell others about his sister’s death, Bernard said: “I couldn’t carry on dealing with it, so that’s what I did.” He added: “To place this burden where it should go.” (“Stepmum guilty of 1978 scalding killing of girl, 5,” BBC News, 26th May 2026)

From leftist pet to convicted killer: Janice Nix receives a “Diversity and Engagement Award” in 2016 and Janice Nix today (images from BBC)

Were you surprised by the second story? I doubt it. Like the savage slayer Clifton George, the vibrant virago Janice Nix is more proof of an officially unspeakable truth: that Blacks Blight Britain. But I don’t blame Blacks for that. Blacks are like the rabbits or cane-toads let loose to ravage Australia: unthinking puppets of their unalterable genetics in an alien environment. The people to blame for the non-White Blight across the West are the Roches and the Rooks: Jewish subverters like Barbara Roche and White leftists like Annabel Rook.

But Roche and Rook differ in one very important way. Barbara Roche is not prepared to die rather then admit racial reality. Roche is Jewish and knows the truth about race, which is why she avoids Black partners herself and works so hard to blight Britain with Blacks for others. Unlike Roche, Rook was prepared to die rather than admit racial reality. And she duly did die, playing Rwandan roulette until she learned too late that Black Knives Matter and White Lives Don’t.

2314 Words

Prior to the brutal murder of Iryna Zarutska by a Black man on August 22nd, 2025, there was much talk about “black fatigue.” According to the Urban Dictionary, “black fatigue” refers to the “deep mental exhaustion from being forced to care about Black people and their actions 24/7”[1]—an understandable state of mind for Whites confronted by the appalling reality and universality of Black crime. Since Iryna’s murder however, that fatigue has turned to disgust and contempt. Given not only the atrocious murder itself, but also the anti-Whiteism of the killer who twice claimed he “got the white girl,” the indifference of the handful of Blacks who witnessed the crime on that Charlotte train (sort of like the Kitty Genovese story, but real), the brazen irresponsibility of the Black magistrate who released the killer back in January for a mere promise to meet his court date, and the sheer callousness of many American Blacks who reacted to the murder with little more than a shrug, how could it not?

According to National-Conservative, in 2023 and 2024 Blacks murdered 1,136 Whites in America, while Whites returned the favor only 200 times. Are Whites just not supposed to notice this?

The rampant criminality among Blacks is bad enough. What raises them to the level of an existential threat to the West  is how they coalesce into an identity group, which not only fiercely protects its interests but also seeks to strip power away from other groups (namely, Whites) that care to implement higher standards of law and order—standards which, let’s face it, a significant proportion of Blacks simply cannot abide. And 9 out of 10 non-criminal Blacks get sucked into this vortex. This is where the “slowly I began to hate them” moment begins. You may have a Black neighbor or colleague who’s perfectly nice, and they may even be honest enough to feel some Black fatigue themselves; but they stick with their identity group at the ballot box and they do precious little to police their own. Thus, they offer no real resistance to the forward march of Black power against Whites.

One way Blacks remain on the offensive in this power struggle is to establish uneven codes of speech. For instance, they can speak of a racial “us” and a racial “them,” while Whites cannot. They can use past injustices to justify present misbehavior, while Whites cannot. Also, they can use the word “nigger” and its variations, while Whites cannot.

This last stipulation crystalized for me a few months ago when I was seated at an outdoor table at an amusement park. Four or five young Blacks sat at the table adjacent, and very soon every other word out of their mouths was nigga this and nigga that. It was gratuitous and obnoxious. And because there were no other tables available, I had to listen to it, as did several other Whites seated nearby. It then occurred to me that these Black kids were being loud and proud with this supposedly hateful slur for no reason other than to flex their power. They wanted to rub our noses in the fact that they can say it and we could not. I believe it was the late great Z-Man who referred to this word as “the word of power,” and he was right.

So does this mean that Whites will begin to halt the odious political progress of Blacks when enough of them can utter this word with impunity? Perhaps. It’s gotten to the point in my personal life where I refuse to trust a White person unless he can either say the word “nigger” or tolerate someone who does. And that got me thinking—is there a moral argument for the appropriate use of the word “nigger?” This is, of course, assuming that there is no moral argument behind the indiscriminate use of a racial slur—except as a necessary evil. For example, calling half a million Indian H-1B workers “jeets” when a clear majority of them may well be honest, peaceful individuals is evil, but it’s a lesser evil than the H-1B Visa program itself which, through its use and abuse, is chipping away at the White majority and White political power in America. Thus the lesser evil is justified. The problem with this argument is that it can easily be adopted by anyone, including Blacks. Observe:

Sure, shanking random White girls in the neck on public transportation is evil, but it is the lesser evil to White supremacy, which oppresses Black people everywhere. So this Zarutska bitch is not worth crying over. And if you do cry over her, then you’re a White supremacist who wants to keep Blacks down and contribute to the greater evil.

This epitomizes how Blacks use the necessary evil argument to shrug their shoulders over poor Iryna Zarutska and the thousands upon thousands of other White victims of Black crime. So while I, as a White person, appreciate the necessary evil argument when it protects or advances my interests (which, as Ricardo Duchesne has shown, closely aligns with humanity’s), its inherent moral flexibility makes it difficult—although not impossible—to prove in a formal setting.

Instead of proving that indiscriminately using the word “nigger” is a necessary evil, I would rather attempt to prove that appropriately using the word is a positive good. In other words, it is immoral not to use or tolerate the word under appropriate circumstances. One could take the tack that using it in order to turn a double standard into a single standard is reason enough. So would using it to help diminish Black political power, which obviously has bad effects. Okay. But what about after this double standard or Black power has been crushed? Would saying “nigger” then no longer be a positive good? I am interested in whether saying “nigger” appropriately is always good, everywhere, regardless of double standards or power structures.

I believe it is.

Here are my axioms:

1. Sub-Saharan Africans have a unique genetic makeup in that 2 to 19 percent of their DNA comes as a result of interbreeding with primitive archaic hominid species hundreds of thousands of years ago.
2. The general lack of intelligence and impulse control among sub-Saharan Blacks springs from this interbreeding.
3. On a population level, such genetic defects are impossible to overcome through education, law enforcement, self-discipline, religion, or social engineering.
4. The word “nigger” is appropriately used only when describing particularly dangerous Blacks who lack enough intelligence and impulse control to become criminally violent.[2]
5. Violent crime is inherently evil.

I conclude from these axioms that appropriately using the term “nigger” is moral because it is one way to not tolerate and potentially diminish the inherent evil of Black violent crime. If one disagrees with any of these axioms, then the moral imperative behind “nigger” fails, but if one does agree with them, then it must succeed.

Springing from this, my argument is simple: Whites appropriately using the word shames non-criminal Blacks into better controlling their criminal element when it comes to interracial violence. “Nigger” is a nasty word. It is also cruel. When used appropriately it is never good.[3] It is an especially potent epithet because it applies a broad brush to describe behavior that if performed by people of other races would require a finer brush. For example, in 2007 a Korean student shot up Virginia Tech University and murdered 32 people. Using broad-brush language to describe the killer (e.g., calling him a chink or a gook) would be inappropriate since East Asians rarely commit violent crime, let alone shoot up universities. More appropriate would be to label the killer (and only the killer) a deranged psychopath, which is indeed what he was.

On the other hand, using a broad brush to describe Iryna Zarutska’s killer (i.e., calling him a nigger) would be appropriate because the killer’s behavior is typical among Blacks due to their genetics—even though a majority of Blacks are neither criminal nor violent. Because the word itself denotes race, calling him a nigger is effectively calling all Blacks niggers, something that non-criminal Blacks are not going to appreciate. When this happens with enough frequency and nonchalance among Whites, non-criminal Blacks will give up trying to force Whites not to use the word and instead will try to force their own criminal subpopulation to commit fewer violent crimes, thus reducing the evil we established in the final axiom above. For example, if Teresa Stokes, the Black magistrate who set Iryna’s killer free, had any fear at all of a whole nation of Whites shaming her as a nigger, she would have played it safe and kept Iryna’s killer behind bars. But because she had no fear of such a broad-brush treatment (since Whites today lack the nerve to apply it), she let him go, thus perpetuating the evil of Black violent crime.

Another recent example is Raja Jackson, whose horrendous story fell from the news cycle after video of the Zarutska murder was released, and has remained sidelined thanks in no small part to the tragic Charlie Kirk assassination. Raja, the son of retired MMA fighter Quentin “Rampage” Jackson, was taking part in a scripted wrestling event in Los Angeles on August 23rd in which he body slammed wrestler Stuart Smith (AKA Syko Stu) into the canvas and then punched the unconscious Smith nearly twenty times in the head before having to be pried off of him by other wrestlers. Jackson is an MMA fighter like his father, and so knows how to attack a downed opponent with his fists. As a result, Smith was hospitalized for a concussion, a fractured maxilla bone, the loss of several teeth, and trauma to both jaws. The video is horrific. This was clearly attempted murder—all to avenge a perceived slight before the event in which Smith harmlessly smashed a beer can on Jackson’s head in an attempt to sell the show. (He later apologized to Jackson for it.) For some reason it took law enforcement in California nearly a month to arrest Jackson for felony assault.

White people calling Raja Jackson a nigger for his actions would be appropriate not because it would make Jackson less inherently violent (nothing can do that), but because it would make Jackson’s less-violent father less indulgent of his son’s violence. After the assault, Rampage Jackson predictably condemned Raja’s actions and offered prayers and platitudes for the victim. He also stated that his son should do “a little time” and then attend anger management therapy. But when asked about it directly, Rampage denied it was attempted murder. How did he know? Because Raja is his son, that’s how. Perhaps Rampage also wished to downplay his own possible culpability in the crime since he rage-baited his son moments before the attack.

I argue that millions of angry White people publicly calling Raja Jackson a nigger would effectively be calling his father and other Blacks niggers too. This would prompt them to use whatever influence they have to throw the book at Raja to avoid the opprobrium themselves. The result would be taking a violent thug off the streets for a long time and sparing future victims of violence. In other words, widespread appropriate use of the word “nigger” will force a fundamental attitude shift among at least some non-criminal Blacks towards the good. It will reduce the evil of Black-on-White violent crime, and is therefore moral.

Of course, this is not a perfect solution and won’t necessarily have a dramatic impact. There are better and more direct solutions to Black-on-White crime, such as police racial profiling, segregation, apartheid, or (most preferably) complete separation. But these solutions require greater effort and come at greater risk. Normalizing the word “nigger” among Whites requires less effort and entails less risk, so of course it will have less impact. But an impact it will still have, and likely will be the starting point for the more consequential solutions listed above. Most importantly, however, I am not arguing the efficacy of the appropriate use of the term “nigger” but rather its morality. Using it appropriately is moral. The small extent to which it will reduce the evil of Black-on-White crime makes it so.

*   *   *

[1] “Black fatigue” has a double meaning, and originally stems from the title of a 2020 book called Black Fatigue: How Racism Erodes the Mind, Body, and Spirit by Mary-Frances Winters. According to a separate entry at the Urban Dictionary, “Black fatigue” originally referred to how Blacks feel “the physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion, trauma, and consequences of systemic racism.” In this essay, of course, we focus on the second definition of this term, not the first.

[2] Arguments can be made for using the word “nigger” to describe Blacks who exemplify other negative stereotypes of their race, such as laziness, stupidity, and corruption. But these arguments are more difficult to prove and are thus excluded from this brief essay. With video evidence of Black violence being so pervasive today, keeping to the strict definition of appropriateness outlined above is sufficient to prove the moral necessity of using the word “nigger.”

[3] Yes, “nigga” and words like it can be used as terms of endearment, but not universally. Blacks who accept other Blacks using the word will balk when a White  (or non-Black) uses it in the exact same way—even if the endearment is sincere. A memorable scene from the 1998 Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker movie Rush Hour exemplifies this contradiction. Meanwhile, Whites may use the term among other Whites for the sake of humor or rebelliousness, but would never dare utter it publicly—as White country singer Morgan Wallen found out after being secretly recorded using the word in 2021. Thus, “nigga” as endearment is not a serious term  with only one strict definition; whereas the hard-R term “nigger” is.