Africans

The Darkness of Dindu Decarlos: Manstabbing, Mancineration and the Real Misogynoir

We want White women raped and murdered!
Love, the Left

Orwellian ironies. Modern politics abounds in them. But one of the greatest is this. On the one hand, the left complain incessantly about patriarchy, rape culture, male supremacism and male privilege. And yes, those things are all real, repulsive and wrecking lives. But they fester and flourish under the left, not the right. The left’s favorite religion, Islam, is also the most patriarchal, rape-friendly and misogynist religion on Earth. Islam has a genuine rape-culture based on a divinely mandated male supremacism. But the left don’t fight Muslim rape-culture or even mention it. Instead, they allow Muslim rape-gangs to operate without rebuke or restraint. At the same time, they demonize as “racist” and “Islamophobic” anyone who does try to address Muslim rape-culture and rescue its victims.

Warring on women’s welfare

But onward and upward: nurturing non-White rapists is only one front in the left’s Orwellian war on women’s welfare. At the behest of the sexually perverted men who call themselves “transgender,” the left have also mutilated, medicated and sterilized thousands of children, a disproportionate number of whom are girls. And they’ve trashed women’s rights and conducted witch-hunts against dissident women right across the West. They’ve driven women out of employment and public office, denied them the right to speak, threatened them with rape, murder and beatings. They’ve allowed men to invade female spaces, trash women’s privacy and feed their fetid fetishes at female expense. And throughout all that, with authentic Orwellian chutzpah, the left have claimed that the perverted and persecuting men are the victims of the persecuted and perved-over women!

Racism = Reality: Iryna Zarutska relaxed around Blacks and paid the price

Yes, black is indeed white under the trans-worshiping left. But black is also white under the negro-worshiping left. And literally so, because the left reverse the true order of merit and worth between the Black and White races. They blame all the pathologies of Blacks, the world’s least productive and most sadistic race, on the malice and cruelty of Whites, the world’s most productive and least sadistic race. They wail about non-existent White privilege while rampant Black privilege destroys lives every day throughout the West. And often those lives are women’s lives. With their pro-criminal, anti-law policies, the left have effectively granted Black men licence to commit rape and murder against White women.

We’ve just seen another horrible example of that in the murder of a Ukrainian refugee, Iryna Zarutska, by the career criminal Decarlos Brown, whose Black privilege had kept him out of jail and free to swing a knife into a White woman’s neck. Does it matter that his victim was young, blonde, slender and attractive? Yes, it does. It matters a lot. Her life was worth more than the life of a fat, ugly, purple-haired gender-goblin. In part, that’s because it wasn’t just her life that was lost. It was also the lives of the attractive White children that she’ll now never bear. And the lives of her grandchildren and more. In killing her, the Dindu Decarlos destroyed a dynasty.

The reverse of random

And that’s why he did it: he wanted to destroy White life because he hates Whites. When they deign to notice such murders, the leftist media call them “random.” In fact, they’re the reverse of random: they’re racially targeted and they express the ingrained hatred and envy of an inferior race, Blacks, for the beauty and grace of a superior race, Whites. Axel Rudakubana was expressing the same hatred when he murdered and mutilated White schoolgirls one sunny day in Southport last year. Like Decarlos Brown, he should have been securely detained long before he killed. Like Decarlos Brown, he was free to enrich the White West thanks to Black privilege and the lying left.

Axel Rudakubana, yet another left-enabled Black who has slaughtered White females

The murders of White females by Black males happen again and again, not just in America and Britain, but in every White country enriched by Blacks. When I learned about the murder of Iryna Zarutska by Decarlos Brown, I immediately thought about the murders of two other young White women by Black men on public transport where they assumed they were safe. And they would indeed have been safe if their treacherous governments hadn’t imported non-White savages at the behest of Jews and the Jew-inspired left. But who in 2025 has ever heard of the murders of English Christina Edkins and Norwegian Margaret Sanden in 2013? Certainly not Iryna Zarutska. If she had heard of them, she might have thought twice about sitting so temptingly in front of a dreadlocked Black male. But her ignorance of her danger was just the way the leftist media wanted it. Christina Edkins and Margaret Sanden were the victims of meteor-murder, of savage crimes that flashed through the headlines and then vanished for ever.

Manufactured martyr and murderous misogyny: how the left reacted to the deaths of George Floyd and Iryna Zarutska

This is because importing non-Whites is just the first stage in the left’s war on White women. The second stage is ensuring that White women don’t know the sadism and savagery of Blacks and other non-Whites. The left have devoted a great deal of effort to establishing the concept of “manspreading” in the minds of Western women. “Look!” cry the left. “See how women are inconvenienced when men spread their legs and take up too much space on public transport!” But is manstabbing on public transport a thing on the left? Of course not. Okay, manstabbing is a definite and deadly phenomenon. But it’s also a dusky phenomenon — decade after decade, non-White men have been  stabbing White women on buses and trains. Therefore the left have no interest in warning White women. That’s why Iryna had never heard about Christina and Margaret and the many other White women savagely murdered by Blacks in “random” attacks. And the left didn’t want to talk about Iryna Zarutska either. Her deeply shocking and highly significant murder was at first ignored by leftist outlets like the New York Times, the Guardian and the BBC. But don’t get the wrong impression from this silence. The left aren’t saying: “We’d rather die than admit the truth about Blacks.” No, the left are saying: “We’d rather you die than admit the truth about Blacks.”

Don’t Say Her Name: Debrina Kawam and her Guatemalan mancinerator (image Newsminimalist)

They’re also saying: “We’d rather you get burned alive than admit the truth.” Do you know the names Debrina Kawam and Tracey Mertens? Almost certainly you don’t. Again, that’s just the way the left want it. Debrina Kawam was the White woman incinerated by a Guatemalan on the New York subway in 2024. Tracey Mertens was the White woman incinerated by two Blacks in an English churchyard in 1994. They were two murders separated by the Atlantic and united by non-White savagery. They were also meteor-murders, mancinerations sent into oblivion by the left not because they were trivial but because they were truthful. That is, they were full of truth about the harm done by allowing non-Whites to live in Western societies. But part of the truth about those mancinerations is that they put the manstabbing of Iryna Zarutska into perspective. Bad as the murder of Iryna was, she could have suffered far worse at the hands of a non-White. Her death was comparatively painless. It was also mercifully quick, unlike the death of another White female whom the leftist media long ago sent into oblivion:

A teenager wept today as she told how she knelt side by side with her friend Mary-Ann Leneghan waiting to be murdered by a gang of men who had raped and tortured them. The 19-year-old woman, who can not be named for legal reasons, broke down in front of the six men accused of stabbing 16-year-old Mary-Ann to death. But the witness, who was in turn shot in the head but “miraculously” survived, went on to identify five of the six men in the dock at accused of the murder. The woman began her evidence at Reading Crown Court [in January 2006].

She described how she and Mary-Ann, her friend of 10 years, had been abducted and forced into the boot of a car as they sat in the car park of the Wallingford Arms in Reading, Berkshire on May 6 last year [2005]. She said they were taken to Room 19 of Abbey House Hotel in the city where they were beaten with a metal pole, ordered to strip, forced to perform oral sex, raped, and had boiling sugared water thrown on them.

She said the pair were shown guns and a knife, constantly told they were going to be killed and heard that they would be taken to Prospect Park in Reading. During the first day she hardly flinched as she recounted the graphic details without being hidden by a screen. But today she wept as she told how, as she was raped by a man wearing white jogging bottoms, another man said: “We are ready to go now, let’s leave these bitches now, come on let’s do it.”

She told the jury that she understood this phrase to mean “the final stage, that we were going to die, that they were going to kill us.” She said she, together with Mary-Ann, was taken out of the boot of the car and forced, stumbling and wiping blood from her head, across the park. She said the pair had been ordered to kneel on the ground side by side and were told to put pillow cases over their heads by two men, one wearing a bandana over the lower half of his face and the man with the white jogging bottoms.

With the six defendants just feet away, Mary-Ann’s father sat with his hand over his mouth as the girl continued. Asked by prosecutor Richard Latham QC, what happened next, she paused for around 30 seconds before looking straight ahead at the jury and saying “she [Mary-Ann Leneghan] was stabbed”. The court was told that the knife-man had been the man with the bandana and asked where on Mary-Ann’s body the man had put the knife she said: “Her upper body, her chest, her breasts, everything. She was asking ‘please not there, please not there’ whatever area she was referring to, and crying and pleading,” she said.

She told how the man with the bandana got angry saying words to the effect of “shut up”. She said that Mary-Ann then fell in a ball on the ground but the stabbing did not stop. “He got more angry because she wouldn’t sit up, he was telling her to sit up because he wanted to slit her throat. … He was stabbing and then she fell,” she said. “They said something about wanting her to die slowly,” she added, before she broke down in tears. … (Friend weeps over Mary-Ann murder, The Daily Mail, 20th January 2006)

Rape, torture, murder: the Black killers of Mary-Ann Leneghan — note how the Guardian gave prominence to an Albanian Muslim “asylum-seeker” who did not play a leading role.

Black is bountiful, baby! If you want an abundance of sadism and slaughter, Blacks will supply it right across the West. If you don’t want sadism and slaughter, Blacks will supply them just the same. But the left obviously do want sadism and slaughter by Blacks and other non-Whites. There’s no other explanation for leftist censorship and silence about non-White savagery. In particular, the left obviously want White women to be raped and murdered by non-Whites. As with manspreading, the left have devoted a great deal of effort to establishing the concept of “misogynoir” in the minds of Western women. According to the left, it’s the particularly pernicious form of misogyny directed against Black women by White men and White society. According to reality, Black women enjoy racial privilege over White men and are showered by White society with success and sycophancy far beyond their merits.

The Jew David Aaronovitch wants White women to be raped and murdered

In fact, the true misogynoir isn’t misogyny against Black women by White men, but misogyny by Black men against White women. It was true misogynoir when Decarlos Brown stabbed Iryna Zarutska in the neck. It was true misogynoir when that Black gang raped and tortured Mary-Anne Leneghan for hours, then stabbed her and slit her throat as she begged for mercy. In 2006 the left successfully meteorized the murder of Mary-Anne Leneghan, sending her death and her name swiftly into the darkness of oblivion. In 2025, the left have tried to meteorize the murder of Iryna Zarutska too. They’ve failed. Iryna isn’t going to be forgotten. Nor is Decarlos Brown. The left wanted to send his crime into darkness. Instead, the darkness of Decarlos stands in a blaze of light. And it’s a dual darkness: first, the depravity of his crime; second, the Black biology that underlay his crime. But there’s another and deeper darkness in his depraved Typically Black Behavior (TBB). A prominent journalist in Britain has helpfully reminded us of the group that played a necessary (but far from sufficient) role in enabling endless non-White crime against Whites. Yes, here’s the Jew David Aaronovitch blowing smoke in service of sub-Saharan sadism and savagery:

A Black guy murders a White woman on a train in North Carolina. It’s captured on CCTV. It’s horrible. But no more horrible than many murders committed by White guys on women, none of whom receive a fraction of the attention being paid to this. Why do we think this is? — David Aaronovitch, Twitter, 8th September 2025

The obvious reason is because it’s interracial and Aaronovitch knows that, but he won’t say it. Aaronovitch doesn’t want White women to know that non-White men pose a vastly disproportionate threat to them. In other words, Aaronovitch wants White women to be raped and murdered by non-White men. One day, he and a lot of other leftists will answer for their lies and censorship in court. After they’re found guilty, they can go and share prisons with Blacks, Muslims and the rest of their oppressed ethnic pets. They won’t want an enriched incarceration, of course, but we can recite their own ideology back at them: “Don’t be disgustingly racist and xenophobic! Sharing space with the Global Majority is a privilege, not a privation!”

The Wasteland of Windrushistan: DNA, Decay and the Absurdities of Afro-Apotheosis

What is it like to live in a communist country? I no longer ask myself that question. I don’t need to ask it — I know by direct experience. The United Kingdom in 2025 is a communist country in all but name. We’re ruled by omni-surveilling authoritarian ideologues who bombard us with absurdities and lies, preaching equality and practising hierarchy, living in luxury whilst ordinary citizens struggle to survive. Our once-proud cities are dirty, decaying and demoralized, crammed with ever more people from ever less compatible cultures who prey on and parasitize the White natives.

Hungary is still a true nation

But I have to be fair there: the cramming of incompatibles isn’t communist. Nor are the predation and parasitism by aliens on natives. As the leading hate-thinker Vox Day has pointed out, communism was far less harmful for Eastern Europe than so-called liberal democracy has proved for Western Europe. That’s because the communists didn’t open the flood-gates to low-IQ tax-eaters and criminals from the corrupt, diseased and tribalist Third World. Formerly communist Hungary, for example, is still a nation in the true sense of the word: a state whose inhabitants are bonded by blood, united by shared history and a common language. That’s no longer true of the United Kingdom, which is now a core component of Clown World. We’re no longer bonded by blood, no longer united by shared history and a common language. Instead, our true history is traduced and our clownish, crypto-communist rulers provide free translation for dark-skinned invaders who either don’t speak English or mutilate it when they do.

Clown World in Control: one of countless absurdities in the crypto-communist Yookay

All of that is why so many people have adopted the mocking term “Yookay” to describe the multi-racial, multi-cultural mud-puddle that has replaced what was once a great nation. I have another new name to suggest, something that captures the true spirit of what Britain has become. I think we should be re-named Windrushistan. It’s an ugly, hybrid name for what is now an ugly, hybrid place. The “Windrush” honors the ship that in 1948 blighted Britain with the first big influx of Blacks from the Caribbean, as Andrew Joyce explained in his magisterial article “The SS Empire Windrush: The Jewish Origins of Multicultural Britain.” And the suffix “-istan” salutes Islam, the religion of rape-gangs and rapacity, the vigorous and violent faith that is replacing effete and treacherous official Christianity on these islands. Say it again: Windrushistan. Savour the syllables: Wind-rush-i-stan. We’re no longer Great Britain or the United Kingdom — we’re the Wasteland of Windrushistan.

Celebrating Blacks, execrating Whites

Indeed, we’re the Windy Wasteland of Windrushistan. You could hear the wind blowing in great gusts of absurdity and mendacity during the celebration of Windrush Day 2025 in the “UK Parliament” on Monday 16th June. Hansard, the official record of proceedings in parliament, has helpfully captured all the absurdity and mendacity for posterity, as you’ll see below. Note that the celebration of Blacks was accompanied by the execration of Whites — the ordinary, working-class Whites who genuinely built Britain by laboring in her factories and on her farms and who objected with “racism” to the crime and chaos of the unwanted Black invaders.[1] Physicists and fans of science fiction should also marvel at the temporal paradox that took place in Liverpool, a city that the “Windrush Generation” arrived in before they had “built” it. So here’s a little of what was said in parliament:

On 22 June 1948, HMT [His Majesty’s Transport] Empire Windrush arrived in Tilbury docks from the Caribbean, carrying 1,027 passengers and two stowaways. More than half the passengers came from Jamaica, and there were many from Trinidad, Bermuda and British Guiana. […] In 1948, the UK was desperate for labour to help rebuild the country following the devastation of the second world war, and the passengers on the Windrush brought a wealth of skills [e.g. rape, robbery, violence, educational failure]. […]

However, as we remember those stories with affection, our commemorations of Windrush Day must avoid any sentimentality. The contribution of the Windrush pioneers was made in a context of widespread racism, the clearest and ugliest illustration of which was found on signs on the doors of boarding houses — stating “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs”[2] — and which in many situations ran much deeper, often resulting in daily discrimination and humiliation. An egregious example is the appalling and still unaddressed scandal of black children being deemed emotionally subnormal in the 1960s and ’70s and being placed in special schools, where they were denied an education and made to feel inferior. […]

The Windrush generation came to Britain as citizens —invited by Enoch Powell, we should remember — to rebuild a broken nation after the war. In Liverpool, they settled mostly in the south of the city, building a vibrant community and contributing to our culture in many different ways, from music to food to football and to the unique Scouse spirit [“Scouse” is a colloquial term for Liverpool]. They included Lord Woodbine, a Trinidadian who helped The Beatles to achieve fame, but who sadly was written out of history. They worked in the shipyards, the hospitals, the buses and the schools. Against the daily struggles and common racism, they built our city and claimed it as their home. […] Today is a reminder that our diversity is the best of us. For the sacrifice these immigrants made to better our country, we all owe them a debt. […]

I have spoken before in this Chamber about the role the Windrush generation played in not only rebuilding our nation, but transforming our society and culture. My constituency of Clapham and Brixton Hill was completely reshaped by the Windrush generation, with a legacy that is still evident in the people, the culture, the music, the art, the cuisine and in so many other ways. Beyond rebuilding our cities and enriching our culture, the Windrush generation played a crucial role in shaping and sustaining the public services that we continue to rely on every single day. They were the nurses, midwives and doctors who formed the backbone of our NHS, often working long hours in difficult conditions to care for the sick and vulnerable. They were the bus drivers and train operators who kept our transport networks running, ensuring that Britain’s economy kept going. They were the teachers who educated generations of children, instilling in them the values of hard work and perseverance. They served in our armed forces, fighting for a country that did not always recognise them as equals. Their contributions were not just significant — they were indispensable. Without them, Britain would not be the country it is today. (“Windrush Day 2025,” “debated on Monday 16 June 2025,” Hansard, UK Parliament, Volume 769)

For a detailed refutation of those absurd lies about the “indispensable” contributions of unwanted and unneeded Blacks, I heartily recommend this thread at Twitter. To cap all the absurdity and lies, Hansard described “Windrush Day 2025” as having been “debated.” But there was absolutely no debate: there was simply declamation of pious propaganda and logic-free lies. It was a festival of Afro-Apotheosis, that is, the raising of Blacks to divine status in the face of all past history and all present reality. Britain did not need the “contribution” of low-IQ, high-criminality Blacks after the war and Britons — true White Britons — did not want the presence of Blacks. But I can heartily agree with the last line I’ve quoted above from Hansard: “Without [the Windrush Generation], Britain would not be the country it is today.” Yes, without that first opening of the flood-gates — or mud-gates, as they’d be better called — Britain would not be the failing country it is today, the dirty, decaying, demoralized country racked by rape-gangs and pervaded with a sense of fast-approaching dissolution and doom.

A hypothetical heretic

But it’s entirely unsurprising that there was no debate about Windrush Day 2025, because the windy Windrushistanis in parliament were almost all women — traitorous White women like Helen Hayes, Deirdre Costigan, Kim Johnson, Stella Creasy, Lisa Smart and Harriet Cross; self-worshipping non-White women like Dawn Butler, Florence Eshalomi, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Harpreet Uppal and Sureena Brackenridge. Just as I no longer wonder what it was like to live in a communist country, I no longer wonder whether it was a good idea to give votes to women and allow women to enter politics. It wasn’t. For every tough-minded, clear-thinking and intelligent woman like Ann Coulter in politics there are a hundred — or a thousand — vapid, vaporing female airheads. Women in general don’t like debate. Instead, they like conformity. In a sane society, that can be a good thing, because women will conform to sanity. In an insane society like the Yookay, women conform to insanity.

White British men did not die on D-Day to put Black women like these into the British parliament (left-to-right: Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Dawn Butler, Florence Eshalomi)

And when women conform to insanity, they condemn sanity. Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had tried to introduce genuine debate into that clucking chorus of Afro-Apotheosis in the House of Commons? If someone had dared to air the toxic truth, that Blacks don’t bless Britain but blight Britain? The clucks of approval would have been replaced by squawks of outrage. The airheads would have demanded that the heretic be arrested, be arraigned, be incarcerated! But if our hypothetical heretic had been clever, he could have cozened the cluckers. He could have led them on by calling for the celebration of one of the brightest stars of the Windrush Generation, an under-recognized over-achiever who came to Britain from Jamaica in the 1970s to make an outsized contribution in the face of official opprobrium and unrelenting police hostility. Yes, our hypothetical heretic in the House might have said something like this:

Amidst the chorus of celebration I note with sadness and concern that one giant of the Windrush Generation has been undeservedly overlooked, despite the size and strenuousness of his contributions to Britain over many years. I can truthfully and unequivocally say that the man of whom I speak was performing a job that the so-called white natives of Britain simply would not and could not do. More astoundingly still, he achieved all that he did whilst caring for a disabled wife and whilst facing unrelenting hostility from both the police and the media. Might I ask my colleagues to join with me in saluting Delroy Easton Grant? He is the Jamaican-born giant who has found a permanent and unshakeable place in British history by [and now the clucks of approval would be about to change to squawks of outrage] raping and robbing dozens of elderly White women in a campaign of relentless and remorseless racial terror carried out by night over nearly two decades in South East London. Many of those elderly women endured permanent trauma and suffered premature death thanks to Mr Grant, who is a prime example of the little-recognized fact that Blacks rape old White women at even higher rates than they rape young White women. Indeed, Mr Grant found time in his busy schedule to perform sexual assaults on elderly White men too, cementing his unique place in the annals of British crime and confirming the true nature of the “contributions” made by the Windrush Generation to our country. My colleagues have claimed that Blacks bless Britain. That is an absurd and easily refuted lie. Delroy Easton Grant is one example among many of the obvious but officially unspeakable truth: that Blacks blight Britain.

Bestial Blacks Delroy Easton Grant and Emmanuel Adeniji, two gerontophile rapists who have blighted Britain and Ireland

But there was no heretic like that, of course. Instead the clucking chorus of absurd Afro-Apotheosis went entirely uninterrupted and unchallenged. And one of the Afrolaters — Black worshippers — said this:

In my constituency, the Windrush generation helped to forge the Brixton we know today. In doing so, they made a huge contribution to a community where everyone is welcome, where difference is not feared but celebrated, and where we are not strangers but friends and neighbours. To mark the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush, talented young people from Brixton designed a beautiful logo, which is based on the pattern of human DNA.

The Windrush generation and subsequent migrants who have come to this country from all over the Commonwealth sparked the emergence of modern multicultural Britain. They are part of us, and part of the UK’s 21st-century DNA. The Windrush generation made an extraordinary and enduring contribution […] (“Windrush Day 2025,” “debated on Monday 16 June 2025,” Hansard, UK Parliament, Volume 769

That was Helen Hayes, the blonde White Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood. For understandable reasons, she didn’t mention the knife-crime and acid-throwing that enhance the vibrancy of Black-enriched communities “where everyone is welcome” and “where we are not strangers but friends and neighbours.” And Ms Hayes didn’t mention another noteworthy connection between the “pattern of human DNA” and the “Windrush generation.” That connection was visible in a trial taking place even as Ms Hayes was on her feet in parliament, showering the Windrush Generation with sycophancy and smarm:

Court-artist’s rendition of Ryland Headley, a previously unacknowledged over-achiever of the Windrush Generation (image from BBC)

Man, 92, who allegedly raped and murdered woman in 1967 caught after DNA advances, court told

Detectives caught a 92-year-old man who it is alleged murdered and raped a woman in her home almost six decades ago after advances in DNA techniques led them to the suspect, a jury has been told. An extensive police operation was launched in Bristol in the summer of 1967 after the death of mother of two Louisa Dunne, 75, but her killer could not be found, a jury at the city’s crown court heard.

Evidence relating to the case was stored and last year a DNA match was allegedly made between material found at the murder scene and a man named Ryland Headley, the court was told. Headley, from Ipswich, Suffolk, denies murder and rape. In the prosecution’s opening, Anna Vigars KC said police had never given up finding the killer. She said: “What we are talking about is the murder of an elderly and vulnerable lady in her own home. […]” The jury heard that soon after the murder, Headley moved to Suffolk, where in 1977 he raped two women, threatening to strangle or smother them if they did not follow his orders. Vigars said Dunne had been born in May 1892, when Queen Victoria was on the UK throne and by 1967 was living alone in Britannia Road, Easton, Bristol. She had been married twice, to a city alderman and to a nightwatchman, but both had died. Neighbours knew her as “a local fixture”, always out on her doorstep, watching the world go by.

On 28 June 1967, a number of local women became worried about Dunne after noticing that one of her windows was open. A neighbour, Violet Allen, climbed in and found her dead. A postmortem was performed. Dunne was 5ft 3in tall and weighed less than seven stone (45kg). […] She had abrasions to her face and bruises to the back of the head and her right thigh. The pathologist concluded a hand had been forcibly held over her mouth, and that a bruise across the back of her neck had been caused by a scarf found under her body having been violently tightened. A vaginal swab taken from her tested positive for semen.

Police found a palm print on a window at the back of the house and over the following weeks took thousands of prints from men and boys but could not find a match. Vigars told the jury that though semen had been found, DNA examination was “not a technique in the armoury” of the police at that time. The material gathered in the investigation was boxed and preserved, latterly at the major crime archives at Avon and Somerset police headquarters. The case was looked at from time to time and in 2024 items including the blue skirt Dunne had been wearing were sent off for forensic examination. […] The jury was told forensic scientist Andrew Parry discovered that Dunne’s skirt contained “a large quantity of semen”.

Vigars said: “By 2024, scientists were able to do what was impossible nearly 60 years earlier and examine that semen for DNA. Mr Parry discovered that the semen matched Mr Headley’s DNA with a match ratio that meant it was a billion times more likely to be Mr Headley’s DNA than anybody else’s.” Police found voters’ records from the late 1960s showing that Headley and his wife lived in Picton Street, Bristol, about a mile and a half from Dunne’s home. Vigars said: “Picton Street fell outside the ring of homes where men had been asked to provide a palm print.”

The jury heard that in 1977 Headley raped two women, one aged 84, one 79, in Suffolk, where he had moved soon after Dunne’s death, after breaking into their homes. He threatened to strangle the 84-year-old if she did not do what he ordered, the court heard. Headley told the 79-year-old he had a gun and warned her that, if she did not follow his instructions: “I’ll put a pillow over your face and smother you.” He admitted both rapes and asked for a further 10 offences of overnight burglaries of homes where his fingerprints had been found between 1973 and 1978 to be taken into consideration. After his arrest for Dunne’s murder and rape, his palm print was taken — and experts said it matched the one taken at her home in 1967. (“Man, 92, who allegedly raped and murdered woman in 1967 caught after DNA advances, court told,” The Guardian, 16th June 2025)

So Louisa Dunne was “5ft 3in tall” (160 cm) and “weighed less than seven stone” (45 kg or 98 lbs). And in 1967 she allegedly had a vibrant encounter with one of the Black newcomers who were making such “valuable contributions” to Britain. Ryland Headley’s contribution may have consisted of raping and murdering Louisa Dunne. He certainly raped at least two other elderly White women. Like Delroy Easton Grant, Headland is a prime example of the Black genius for depravity and degeneracy. And like the other victims of these two depraved Blacks, it appears that we can easily understand why Louisa Dunne failed to live out her days in calm and serenity, “watching the world go by.” It was thanks to White traitors at the top and the White-hating Jews who controlled those traitors and supplied them with their ideological script. The traitors and the Jews unleashed the “Windrush Generation” on the unwilling ordinary Whites of the United Kingdom, ensuring that Blacks would commit endless violent crimes against ordinary Whites, drain vast sums of money paid in tax by ordinary Whites, and drive huge numbers of ordinary Whites out of the cities that Blacks were enriching with noise, dirt, crime and chaos.

Two Bestial Blacks from the post-Windrush Generation, Mohamed Iidow and Xyaire Howard, a proven rapist-murderer and a probable rapist-murderer

In 1948, when the mud-gates began to open, the United Kingdom was still a nation. In 2025, it’s no longer a nation and no longer worthy of its older name. No, today we live in the Yookay, today we wander the Wasteland of Windrushistan. But Windrushistan will fall. The mud-flood won’t be reversed without fire and blood, but more and more Whites see the truth and are getting ready to fight to take their country back. That clucking, conformist chorus for “Windrush Day 2025” is more and more seen for what it truly is: an absurd celebration of an unconscionable atrocity. One of the clucking conformists claimed that “we all owe [the Windrush Generation] a debt.” She was lying. In truth, we owe the Windrush Generation death after death after death. They were in fact the Windrush Degeneration, an unwanted invasion of alien Blacks whose low intelligence and high criminality have not blessed Britain but blighted Britain. For proof of the blight, I again heartily recommend that truth-telling Twitter thread.[3] For example:


[1]  At bottom, leftist worship of non-Whites and Muslims is powered not by love of non-Whites and Islam, but by hatred of Whites and Christianity.

[2]  The existence of these infamously worded signs is an endlessly repeated claim for which there is absolutely no evidence, as even a leftist academic once admitted in the Guardian. Writing in 2015, the historian Steve Bruce issued a “plea to Guardian readers. If ‘No Irish’ signs were as common as is asserted, there should be plenty of them remaining in private collections, local archives and the like. … Can we please see some?” No, Bruce couldn’t. He was calling for facts when he should have been kneeling in faith.

[3]  The Twitter thread reminds me to note this: Badly as Trump has erred over Iran, we would be far worse off under cocoa-colored Kamala. If she’d been in the White House today, Elon Musk could well have been in court, in jail or in exile, rather than allowing heretical hate-thinkers to broadcast toxic truths on Twitter.

When Uncle Tom Crosses Uncle Shmuel

In America’s NGO space, some topics are so taboo that even renowned public intellectuals aren’t safe when they dare criticize sacred cows such as the state of Israel.

Just ask Black economist Glenn Loury.

A former Reagan-era conservative, Loury has held a distinguished career in the field of economics. After earning his doctorate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Loury began as an assistant professor at Northwestern, then joined the University of Michigan, becoming a full professor in 1980. In 1982, at age 33, he became Harvard’s first Black tenured economics professor.

Loury would later join Brown University in 2005, where he held the title of Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University. Additionally, he is a Professor of International and Public Affairs at the same institution. In late 2020, Loury joined the Manhattan Institute as a senior fellow and got the conservative think tank to sponsor his podcast “The Glenn Show” for a few years.

Everything was going well for the economist until he crossed into politically dangerous terrain. During his May 9, 2025 interview with Tucker Carlson, Loury revealed that he was fired by the Manhattan Institute for criticizing Israel.

In 2024, Loury started to criticize Israel for the way it conducted its military campaign in Gaza. According to Loury, the Manhattan Institute first expressed concerns about his stance on Gaza after he published his interview with Israeli historian Omer Bartov, who has been critical of the Israeli hard right and the Netanyahu coalition government’s actions in Gaza.

Loury endorsed historian Omer Bartov’s analysis, which aligned with international human rights organizations’ warnings that Israel’s conduct might constitute a genocide. Further, Loury openly condemned Israel’s actions in the summer of 2024 in a post titled “I Was Fired by the Manhattan Institute. Here’s Why.”

Loury conceded that Hamas’ attack on Israel was indefensible but stressed that Jewish state’s response was disproportionate. He wrote:

…killing thousands of noncombatants, subjecting hundreds of thousands to injury and starvation, and destroying the homes of millions is too high a cost to pay for the goal of “eliminating” or “eradicating” Hamas, especially since it is not clear whether and how that goal is to be accomplished. It seems likely that the scope of the death and destruction in Gaza will inspire more people in Gaza, the West Bank, and abroad to take up arms against Israel than would have been the case had the response been less catastrophic.

Interestingly, Lowry praised Ta-Nehisi Coates’ 2024 book The Message for its coverage of the plight of Palestinians living in the West Bank settlements, saying “there’s much to admire in it.”

It was his appearance on Carlson’s show where he finally broke the silence about his departure from the conservative think tank. In the show, Loury discussed the chilling effect that such actions have on open debate. The former Manhattan Institute fellow could no longer tolerate self-censoring and holding his opinions back on Gaza. Carlson summed up the incident: “For decades, conservative think tanks celebrated and supported black economist Glenn Loury. Then he expressed an unauthorized opinion on the Middle East and they dropped him in a second.”

Glenn Loury [00:00:00] And I said, what has been proceeding there in Gaza as a collective punishment that I don’t think is justified. And I got notified the next day the Manhattan Institute was discontinuing its relationship with me as a senior fellow.

Tucker [00:00:13] If you’d said that about the United States, would you have gotten the same reaction?

Glenn Loury [00:00:17] Ah, good ques-

Tucker [00:00:18] Do you think you’ve been bamboozled?

Glenn Loury [00:00:20] Are we really going to go to war with Iran and turn the world economy upside down? Is it really Jim Crow 2.0 if they want to ask for a driver’s license before you cast the ballot in Georgia?

In a follow-up post on Substack, Loury noted that the Manhattan Institute “disapproved of my opposition to the Gaza War, my criticisms of Israel’s prosecution of that war, and my praise of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s meditations on the West Bank settlements. “

Loury’s call for proportionality and Palestinian rights violated an unspoken rule in U.S. politics: unconditional support for Israel supersedes intellectual independence, even for Black thinkers, who are largely privileged by the United States’ anti-White system.

Being the token Black in Conservatism Inc. could not even shield Loury from professional harm at the hands of Manhattan Institute—an organization bankrolled by billionaire Jews such as Paul Singer and John Paulson.

Other Blacks have shared a similar fate as Loury when they dared touch the Hebraic third rail in the post-October 7 world. Progressive Black commentator Briahna Joy Gray learned firsthand about the risks of criticizing Israel’s industrialized child ritual murder project in Gaza.

In September 2022, Gray joined The Hill’s popular web program “Rising” as a co-host. The show was noted for its bipartisan format and focus on breaking political news and analysis. However, her tenure on “Rising” was brief.  On June 4, 2024, Yarden Gonen, the sister of Israeli hostage Romi Gonen, appeared on “Rising.” As a strong advocate of Palestine, Gray was skeptical of the narrative being put forward by Gonen and other defenders of the Jewish state. The interview was suffuse with tension.

At the end of their conversation, Gonen said she hoped that Gray would “believe” Israeli women. Gray rolled her eyes, interrupted Gonen, and ended the segment. This moment sparked backlash, with many perceiving Gray’s reaction as dismissive toward the families of Israeli hostages. Shortly thereafter, Gray was unceremoniously fired from “Rising.”

Addressing her termination, Gray stated: “The Hill has a clear pattern of suppressing speech — particularly when it’s critical of the state of Israel. This is why they fired @kthalps, & it was only a matter of time before they fired me.”

As I’ve written before, the once stout Jewish-Black alliance appears to be fraying. Jews’ historically reliable golems in the Black community are beginning to venture outside of the Zionist plantation, thereby compelling the Jewish community to find new proxy forces to carry out their bidding and even throw Whites a bone.

Blacks are getting a hard lesson that their political relevance is predicated on Jewish funding and organization. Once that funding and support dries up, they become just another non-White minority group fighting for political attention in the Empire of Mongrelia.

When one strips everything away, the real sovereign in American politics is not in Congress, but in a synagogue near you.

The Abomination of Enslavement … Is At The Heart of Proud Black Culture

A meteor in the media. That’s what the proud Black woman Lydia Mugambe will be. The story of her conviction has flashed through the headlines and will shortly disappear forever. There will be no agonized analysis of her shocking crimes, no solemn intoning of stern conclusions. Not by leftists, that’s for sure. And why not? Because analyzing her crimes and drawing conclusions from them wouldn’t be good for leftism.

Lethal for Leftism

The truth isn’t good for leftism, you see. In fact, the truth is lethal for leftism, which is why Mugambe will be a meteor in the media. Her crimes remind me of this line in Nineteen Eighty-Four: “It was enough to blow the Party to atoms, if in some way it could have been published to the world and its significance made known.” The novel’s protagonist, Winston Smith, is thinking about a photograph that reveals how the Party’s power is based on a vast system of lies, censorship and illogic. Lydia Mugambe’s crimes reveal the same about leftism. That’s why she will be a meteor malefactor.

So who is she and what did she do? She’s a strong Black woman from Uganda and she committed one of the worst crimes in the world. She enslaved another human being. But it gets worse: her atrocious crime wasn’t the act of an errant individual, but obviously a settled part of her homeland’s culture. That’s right: in the proud Black nation of Uganda, slavery is shamelessly practised by strong Black women like Lydia Mugambe.

The unrepentant enslaver Lydia Mugambe in her judge’s wig (images from Daily Mail)

But it gets worse still. Lydia Mugambe isn’t just a Strong Black Woman — she’s a highly educated S.B.W., from the cream of Ugandan society. She’s a High Court Judge in Uganda and when she committed her appalling act of enslavement she was studying for a PhD in law at Oxford University. And three months after she was arrested for enslavement, she became a judge for the United Nations! But the worsening of her wickedness keeps coming. As a legal expert, Ms Mugambe was well aware that she couldn’t put a notice in the local paper: “SLAVE WANTED.” So she did the natural thing. It’s obviously natural for highly educated Strong Black Women from Uganda, that is. She sought the help of the Ugandan embassy and the Proud Black Man John Mugerwa, who was then the Deputy High Commissioner. And Mugerwa arranged for a young Black woman to be brought to Britain from Uganda in full knowledge that she was to be enslaved by Lydia Mugambe. Here are the depraved and deplorable details at the BBC website:

A United Nations judge has been jailed for six years and four months for forcing a woman to work as a domestic slave. Lydia Mugambe, 50, was studying for a doctorate in law at the University of Oxford when police discovered she had a young Ugandan woman at her home carrying out unpaid work as a maid and nanny.

Mugambe, who is also a High Court judge in Uganda, was jailed at Oxford Crown Court on Friday after she was found guilty of modern day slavery offences in March. In sentencing, Judge David Foxton told the defendant she “showed absolutely no remorse” for her actions and she had looked to “forcibly blame” the victim for what happened.

Mugambe fraudulently arranged a visa for the woman but it stipulated she would be paid to work as a private servant at the diplomatic residence of John Mugerwa, Uganda’s former deputy high commissioner based at the country’s embassy in London. Prosecutors said Mr Mugerwa sponsored the victim’s visa knowing she would actually work in servitude for Mugambe.  In return, Mugambe would provide him assistance in relation to a separate court case in Uganda in which he was a defendant, the court was told.

The trial heard Mugambe paid for the victim’s flight and picked her up from the airport — but the young woman then became a slave at the judge’s home in Kidlington, Oxfordshire. Mr Foxton described it as a “very sad case” as he outlined Mugambe’s legal accomplishments, including her work in the protection of human rights.

In a written statement, read to the court by prosecutor Caroline Haughey KC, the victim described living in “almost constant fear” due to Mugambe’s powerful standing in Uganda. The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said she “can’t go back to Uganda” due to fear of what may happen to her and added that she may never see her mother again. […]

The Crown Prosecution Service authorised police to charge Mr Mugerwa with conspiracy but he had diplomatic immunity, which the Ugandan Government did not waive. Mugambe had denied forcing the young Ugandan woman to do household chores and said she “always” treated her with love, care and patience.

Ch Supt Ben Clark, of Thames Valley Police, said there was “no doubt” that Mugambe had known she was committing offences. […] A University of Oxford spokesperson said the institution was “appalled” by its student’s crimes. “The university is now commencing its own disciplinary process, which has the power to remove students convicted of serious criminal offences,” the spokesperson added. (“UN judge jailed for keeping housekeeper as slave,” BBC News, 2nd May 2025)

As you can see, the worsening of the wickedness continued in that news-report. The proud Black nation of Uganda refused to waive the diplomatic immunity of John Mugerwa, despite Mugerwa’s involvement in the abominable act of enslavement and his corrupt conspiracy with arch-enslaver Lydia Mugambe to evade justice in Uganda. So a highly disturbing question has to be asked. Do proud Black Ugandans not think slavery is a crime? And here’s the even more disturbing answer: No, they don’t. Obviously not. Slavery is obviously a settled part of Ugandan culture. And of Nigerian culture too. In my article “Destroy the Goy: The Metaphysics of Anti-White Hatred,” I discussed another pair of highly educated Black African enslavers, the obstetrician Emmanuel Edet and his wife Antan, “who kept a man in servitude for almost a quarter of a century after illegally bringing him to Britain.”

The deepest wound on the Black psyche

That was in 2015 and Emmanuel Edet soon became a meteor malefactor. His atrocious crimes flashed through the headlines and then disappeared forever. The same will happen to the atrocious crimes of Lydia Mugambe and for the same reason: because the truth is lethal to leftism. And the truth is certainly revealed by those two stories about highly educated African Blacks committing the abominable act of enslavement in Britain. Let’s “interrogate” what many righteous anti-racists regard as the central evil of human history, that is, the enslavement of African Blacks by European Whites. You might call it the worst patch of “racist vomit” splattered across the world by White supremacy and the deepest wound inflicted on the Black psyche by Whites. Logic dictates, therefore, that slavery must be deeply abhorrent to Black Africans, and particularly to those Black Africans who are educated enough to understand the true horror and depravity of the Atlantic slave-trade.

But reality laughs at logic. Highly educated Black Africans pretend to find slavery abhorrent only when they’re trying to guilt-trip Whites. At the same time, they routinely enslave their fellow Black Africans from the lower classes. And those Black enslavers take full advantage of the lying leftism that grants Blacks special privilege and endows Blacks with special virtue because they’ve allegedly suffered so much at hands of wicked Whites. Central to leftism’s indictment of wicked Whites is slavery, which leftists present as an unforgivable crime on an appalling scale committed by cruel and vicious Whites against gentle and virtuous Blacks. If they could, leftists would claim that only Whites practised slavery and only non-Whites suffered as slaves.

The toxic truth about Black culture

They can’t claim that, but they still present Whites as uniquely culpable for slavery and pretend that slavery was the all-powerful engine of Western success. It wasn’t and the only unique thing Whites ever did in relation to slavery is to make it illegal and abolish it. When Whites kept slaves, so did everyone else. And nobody regarded it as wrong. Christianity permits slavery, Judaism and Islam positively celebrate it. Slavery was practised in Africa long before Whites arrived and is still being practised there now. The toxic truth is this: The Abomination of Enslavement is at the Heart of Proud Black Culture in Africa. And when proud Black Africans come to the West, they bring their slave-culture with them. That’s why stories about highly educated Black Africans keeping slaves appear again and again across the West. You’ve seen two such stories from Britain. Now try America, where the Nigerian couple Chudy and Sandra Nsobundu were convicted of forcing “a Nigerian woman to work nearly 20 hours a day taking care of their home and five children and home without pay for two years.” In France, a Black girl called Henriette Akofa Siliadin was trafficked from Togo when she was fourteen. A leftist website goes on: “She was vulnerable and dependent on others. However, the people accompanying her took away her passport and made her work as an unpaid servant, all day long, seven days a week for over four years.” By “the people,” the leftist website means “other Blacks.” By “unpaid servant,” the leftist website means “slave.”

As I said: The Abomination of Enslavement is at the Heart of Proud Black Culture. But it’s also at the heart of proud Filipino culture. The late Filipino-American journalist Alex Tizon won widespread acclaim in 2017 for his essay “My Family’s Slave,” a moving and disturbing account of a woman who was exactly that: a slave to his family for fifty-six years. Just like Lydia Mugambe and Emmanuel Edet in Britain, Tizon’s parents — “[m]y father had a law degree, my mother was on her way to becoming a doctor” — were highly educated non-Whites who simultaneously enslaved a vulnerable woman and took advantage of the special privileges granted to non-Whites in the West because they have allegedly suffered so much at the hands of Whites. And just like Lydia Mugambe in Britain, Tizon’s parents were obviously following a settled custom of their non-White homeland. Tizon says that the enslaved woman, Eudocia Tomas Pulido, was “18 years old when my grandfather gave her to my mother as a gift.”

Omnia Ex Alea, Omnia Ex Albo

So slavery is at the heart of proud Filipino culture. That’s why, just like the crimes of Lydia Mugambe in Britain, the crimes of Tizon’s parents were “published to the world” but their significance was never “made known.” There was no agonized analysis by leftists and no stern conclusions were drawn about Filipino culture. After all, Filipinos are non-White, which means that, in leftist eyes, their culture is axiomatically virtuous and unimpeachable. In fact, these stories about non-Whites enslaving other non-Whites explode the two contradictory principles that lie at the heart of leftism: omnia ex alea and omnia ex albo (si mala). Those Latin phrases mean “everything from the dice” and “everything from the white man (if it’s bad).”

Black is Beautiful — except in Jewish Israel, where you will never see race-mixing propaganda like this

Omnia ex alea is the guiding principle of the Jewish scientist — and pseudo-scientist — Jared Diamond. He has done genuine science, but he was peddling pseudo-science in his best-selling book Guns, Germs and Steel (1997), which claims that the blind forces of biogeography account for the apparent over-achievement of Whites and under-achievement of Blacks. According to orthodox leftists like Jared Diamond, all humans are the same under the skin and capable of exactly the same high achievements in cognitively demanding fields like science, mathematics and technology. It’s just that the biogeographical dice rolled the right way in Europe and the wrong way in Africa. Whites in Europe had large mammals that were easy to domesticate, Blacks in Africa didn’t. Whites in horizontally aligned Europe could trade easily to east and west. Blacks in vertically aligned Africa couldn’t trade easily to north and south. And so on. That’s why, according to Diamond, Europe flourished and Africa foundered.

“The cancer of human history”

But at the same time as Diamond and his fellow leftists peddle omnia ex alea, “everything from the dice of history,” they also peddle omnia ex albo (si mala) — “everything from the white man (if it’s bad).” As the acclaimed Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag once put it:

If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. [italics in original] (See “Susan Sontag’s Jewish World,” Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, 17th October 2017)

I disagree with the anti-White Jew Susan Sontag, of course. I don’t think the White race is the cancer of human history. If human history has a cancer, that cancer is Jewish ideology and the Jewish Culture of Critique that simultaneously — and self-refutingly — preaches the Absolute Equality of Humanity and the Innate Depravity of White Europeans. But those two principles are only self-refuting in the minds of those who believe in logic. Leftists like Sontag and Diamond don’t. Instead, they believe in doublethink, which Orwell defined as “hold[ing] simultaneously two opinions which [cancel] out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.”

Not All Bioweapons Come From A Lab — if Black migration was good for the West, leftists wouldn’t want it

The story of Lydia Mugambe and her Black slave reveals the doublethink of the left on slavery and race relations. Mugambe is a proud Black woman who not merely enslaved another Black but “showed absolutely no remorse” for her abominable act of enslavement. Indeed, she tried to “forcibly blame” her victim. She is an entitled enslaver and she explodes the lies of leftism. That’s why she’ll also be a meteor malefactor, someone whose crimes flash through the headlines and disappear for ever, receiving no analysis and prompting no conclusions about proud Black culture. Except at hate-sites like the Occidental Observer and Unz Review, where we don’t believe in doublethink but in reality.

Tragic Lessons from the Life of Sally McNeil

I recently watched the 2022 Netflix documentary, Killer Sally, which unfurls the tragic life of Sally McNeil (born Sally Dempsey in 1960) who murdered her husband, Ray McNeil (a black Mr. Olympia competitor), on Valentine’s Day in 1995.

Sally and Ray met while they were in the U.S. Marine Corps, and both had an obsession with bodybuilding. They dated for about two months before getting married in 1987 which was perhaps the first indicator that their marriage would not last. Sally’s first marriage to Anthony Lowden (a black marine she met at Parris Island) lasted about four years, and it produced two children – Shantina, John, and a third from another man. Sally claimed that toward the end of her marriage with Anthony, he became abusive toward her.

Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

After marrying Ray, Sally became the main breadwinner in the family. Ray had left the marine corps to pursue full-time his passion for bodybuilding which was not lucrative enough to support either himself or his family.

Sally, then, took up a career performing on wrestling videos with various men for $300 an hour (a rather bizarre proclivity among some men even though no sexual contact occurs), taking on the moniker “Killer Sally.” As was common in the 90s bodybuilding scene, both Ray and Sally began to use steroids which only made their already volatile relationship even more so. Sometimes Sally would drive to Tijuana, Mexico with her two children to score steroids for herself as well as to sell to those at her gym. She conceded in the Netflix documentary that it was “bad parenting” on her part.

Sally’s children from her first marriage were alleged to have been routinely beaten by Ray using his belt. John said he began to hate Ray for the beatings he received, and Shantina was often terrified of him during his explosive outbursts or when she witnessed him brutally beat Sally which was a common occurrence in their home.

The local police were periodically dispatched to their Oceanside (CA) apartment for domestic violence incidents. According to Sally McNeil’s entry in Wikipedia, “Child services frequently visited her for reports of abuse to her children by her neighbors, teachers and family members. The children suffered from malnutrition, the apartment was unlivable, and they were both left alone for multiple days in a row while Sally would go to the gym, out of town, out of the state, and out of the Country.”

The marriage progressively got worse when Ray began seeing other women, and it wasn’t long before he began to make plans to leave Sally. Understandably, this drove Sally a bit off the deep end with jealousy and rage, and she threatened the woman who was dating Ray at the time.

On February 14th, 1995, Ray returned late in the evening to their apartment, and an argument ensued between the couple over his whereabouts. According to the investigative report, Ray “slapped her, pushed her down on the floor, and started choking her. McNeil squirmed away, ran into the bedroom, and took her sawed-off shotgun out of its case in the closet.” She then unloaded twice on Ray, striking him in his abdomen and in his jaw. He later died at the hospital. An autopsy revealed that Ray had five kinds of steroids in his body at the time of his death.

Although Sally argued during her trial that she was a victim of ongoing domestic violence by Ray (known as ‘battered wife syndrome’) and that she was only defending herself, she was convicted in 1996 of second-degree murder and sentenced to the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla. Sally was granted parole on May 29th, 2020, after having served 25 years in prison.

Sally’s competitive nature was evident from a young age. She was both athletic and physically strong. She was also impulsive and had a volatile temper that she seemingly had little control over. This was obvious during her time in the Marine Corps. Sally was demoted from her sergeant’s position because of poor behavioral performance, anger issues and violence. All of this eventually led to her to being discharged from military service.

Upon entering the civilian world, Sally appeared to have learned nothing from the disciplinary measures that were taken against her in the Marine Corps because the same sort of behavior continued: “McNeil was arrested in 1990, for brandishing a firearm at Lowden and smashing the windows of his vehicle with a metal bar. She had been arrested previously for assaulting a mailman who had slapped her son John after he had a fight with the mailman’s son. McNeil attacked one of Ray’s lovers at a bodybuilding show, pinning her to the floor and hitting her repeatedly. This resulted in the National Physique Committee suspending her for a year. It is thought she also physically took her anger out on her husband, pulling a gun on him for the first time before being pepper-sprayed by police officers. In 1993, Sally was confronted by a club bouncer for dancing on the tables. Drunk and not wanting to do what he told her, Sally kicked him in the face three times. When police arrived, she threatened to kill them” (Wikipedia).

In short, Sally McNeil was one crazy lady!

Yet, one of the things that most stood out for me about Sally’s life was how frequently she sought out black men as boyfriends and for marriage. For example, Sally got into trouble with her mother as a teenager when it was discovered that she was dating a black guy. Later, after she joined the military, she married a black man who she alleges had repeatedly abused her. Her second husband, another black man, not only physically beat her on many occasions, but did the same to her children!

You’d think that Sally would have learned by now to avoid black males altogether, especially ones who were violent and criminal. But her many years in a California prison, apparently, did little to sober her up to racial realities. When she was released in 2020, Sally went on to date and eventually marry another black man (Norfleet Stewart). Think about it: Sally literally brought enormous levels of dysfunction and violence upon herself and the lives of her children because she couldn’t stop chasing after black men!

I don’t know if the same pattern of violence will continue in this more recent marriage of hers or not, but for me it underscored yet again just how racially naive and foolish so many white women are to date and marry black men who have a long and documented history of domestic violence, rape, murdering their white spouses and white girlfriends, and of abandoning them and any offspring that’s produced.

It’s not that white men haven’t done the same, but the crime statistics show a hugely disproportionate number of violent and sexual crimes committed by black males.

These same white women utterly devalue themselves by pursuing black men, and they throw away their precious European genes to produce mongrel children who often don’t quite fit into either black society/culture or white society/culture. The threat that miscegenation poses to the future of European whites staggers the mind when one stops to think about it.

Large numbers of whites may speak positively about miscegenation in the presence of others, but in their personal lives they are determined never to do it. They know, perhaps instinctively, that it’s wrong or, at least, wrong for them. It would not be unusual for white males to be racially triggered at the sight of a black and white couple. I suspect it happens more often than people think. Our internal defense system, it seems to me, subconsciously recognizes when something is not right, and it would be a natural reaction to view such relationships as contrary to the natural order or perhaps even dangerous – particularly if one looks at the FBI crime statistics!

The 1933 film, King Kong, is considered by many to be one of the most iconic movies of all time. Moviegoers at the time were horrified by the sight of the beastly primate clinging to the Empire State Building while clutching in his swarthy hand a white lady (actress Faye Wray) after his destructive tour of Manhattan before finally being killed. The savage gorilla provided a sharp visual contrast to that of the beautiful white woman. King Kong is aesthetically ugly, violent and primitive. The white woman is aesthetically attractive, innocent, as well as socially and culturally civilized. One did not have to be told that the gorilla was physically abhorrent when compared to the white woman. It was patently obvious. The only ones who might deny it would be the blind, the mentally deficient, or shameless liars and propagandists.

It’s no stretch, then, in the minds of many people who experience a similar revulsion at the sight of a black male romantically involved with a white woman, particularly if any physical affection is displayed. Whites may claim to not be bothered by such unions, but I’m inclined to believe that such opinions are more the result of propaganda and the suppression of what they really think. No westerner wants to look like a bigot to others even though inwardly they may harbor what is considered by society to be bigoted opinions. We are all inclined to restrain ourselves from expressing what we really think or feel about such racial unions because we know the consequences for doing so.

Yet it doesn’t detract from the reality that most whites are not inclined to pursue a racially mixed marriage or relationship unless there is tremendous social and cultural pressure placed on them to do so. It doesn’t come easy, and this may explain why Hollywood and every media outlet does all in its power to glorify race mixing. They’re not content with suggesting it nor speaking in glowing terms of its virtues. No, they must constantly confront whites with it. Every television commercial must portray a racially mixed couple. The benefits of miscegenation must be extolled continually. Black and white unions must be ‘celebrated’ and universally deemed as ‘perfectly normal.’ Whites who choose to do otherwise and prefer those of their own race are labeled ‘xenophobic’ or ‘white supremacist.’ The Left must guilt and shame every last white person who fails to comply.

The push toward miscegenation isn’t a recent thing either. It can be traced to at least the 1967 film, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, starring Sidney Poitier, Katherine Hepburn, and Spencer Tracy.

Despite the push for unnatural unions, our Bolshevik elites are fighting an uphill battle at every turn. We are not as naturally inclined to date, marry and produce children outside of our own race. Yes, there are many whites who engage in this sort of thing (mostly white women), but it’s not as common as one might be led to believe. The greater number of white women, for instance, are not particularly drawn to Asian men. This could be due to the perception that they are viewed as less masculine than black and white males. I would tend to think their more reserved and seemingly less confident personas may conflict with what many women desire – namely, men who are tall, who possess strong masculine traits, and who exude social confidence. Granted, some Asian men do, but the general perception seems to be that Asian men are much too polite and reserved and this may cause them to be less desirable in the eyes of white women.

White males are not generally attracted to black women. These kinds of unions are comparably rare. I would even say that the greater number of them are repulsed by black females unless they are unusually attractive with light-skinned features (e.g., actress Halle Berry). But even then, it’s rare for white males to marry black women. Black women with very dark pigmentation, in fact, seem to be universally rejected by white males. The black wife of former mayor of NYC, Bill de Blasio, is typical of the kind of black woman I’m referring to. Everything about her is visually repugnant, and most men with good eyesight and sound judgment would not be inclined to produce children with such a beast. De Blasio’s marriage to Chirlane McCray, then, was both unusual and rare.

Many black men find even their own black women to be far less desirable compared to white women – a frequent complaint on the part of many black women. This is mostly the fault of the modern black woman who is often marked by an overly aggressive persona, seemingly high testosterone levels, foul-mouthed, morbidly obese, and often completely deficient of the most basic social graces and femininity. Is it any wonder why so many black men turn to women outside of their own race?

Black women are outclassed in every conceivable way when compared to the infinitely more attractive white woman (assuming they are not obese nor afflicted with same problems as black women in terms of being brutish, loud-mouthed, rude, or lacking femininity) and Asian woman. Russian and eastern European women seem to have what a lot of men want in that they are trim, very feminine, genuinely seek marriage and motherhood, and appear not to have been poisoned by ‘woke’ rhetoric nor the kind of radical feminism that prevails in the West.

The kind of white woman, generally, who seeks out black men tend to be young and racially naïve. White college girls often fall into this trap as they are aggressively pursued by smooth-talking black bucks. For some, it’s a form of rebellion against their conservative father. Most of these white girls engage in dating outside their race for the simple reason that they’ve been endlessly propagandized by racial ‘diversity’ lies and see nothing wrong with it. They have no reason to date or marry only those among their own race. They see no benefit to it. They haven’t the foggiest notion about racial realities nor understand the importance of preserving one’s racial ancestry. They don’t even have a framework in which to make sense of such matters even if it were carefully explained to them.

A good many of these white women who mix with black males are morbidly obese. Walk through any big city in America, and you’ll witness it for yourself. Although they’re generally rejected by white males, they’re gladly welcomed by black men who practically worship their rotund bodies, ginormous buttocks, and all the jiggling cellulite that one could straddle.

Perhaps it may be due to a greater acceptance among American blacks of fat people? Or maybe it’s just a widespread preference among black males for larger women? Although I wouldn’t rule out such possibilities, I’m inclined to think that when black males secure for themselves a white woman – even a repulsive ham-beast as previously described – it’s seen as a step up for them. It improves their lot in life (or so it seems) and increases their status among other black males. Consider, for example, how many black male celebrities and sports stars surround themselves with white women and end up marrying one too. Much of this is due to the superior beauty of white women, no doubt, but there may also be a signaling of one’s wealth and status to others as well.

Yet, for the white woman, it devalues her. It’s a step down, not a step up. She throws away her genes, including her racial heritage. Truth is, it’s a huge turn off when white guys discover that their girlfriend had previously dated or slept with black guys. As the saying goes, “Once you go black, we don’t want you back!” Contrary to current thinking, a normal guy doesn’t want to wife-up a woman who has a high bed notch, especially if those same notches came by way of the typical pants saggin’ black ghetto thug!

White women who date black men place themselves in a precariously dangerous relationship as Sally McNeil discovered. The number of news reports of black men severely beating, disfiguring and even murdering their white girlfriends is at astonishing levels. Mainstream media outlets, as one might expect, do their best to downplay such stories or ignore them altogether. For instance, a simple Google or Duck Duck Go search of “Black man murders White girlfriend” will instead provide page after page documenting occasions where white women killed their black boyfriends or white men who murdered black males because they made sexual advances toward their wives or girlfriends. Rather than finding precise articles about black-on-white female violence, one is instead bombarded with articles on the history of lynching in America, the death of Emmett Till, or stories about ‘Central Park Karen,’ etc. This is not meant to deny that white women have on occasion killed their black boyfriends, but it’s comparatively rare when one considers the staggering number of white females who have been ruthlessly beaten and murdered by their black lovers.

If one wants to find reliable and detailed information on the rising crime statistics of black males who have murdered their white girlfriends, the American Renaissance website edited by Jared Taylor is a good source. Paul Kersey has written a plethora of sobering articles on the skyrocketing levels of violence committed by black men against white females.

The danger that dating black men presents lies in the nature of blacks themselves. Having on average much lower intelligence compared to whites and Asians and coupled with high testosterone levels, including a persistent pattern of neglecting to consider the consequences of their actions (known to those in the human bio-diversity community as ‘poor future time orientation’), far too many black men in America have proven to be emotionally volatile and are easily triggered into violent fits of rage against their white wives or girlfriends when things don’t quite turn the way they want.

Black men also have a long history of abandoning their wives and children. The common notion of the missing black father or black children raised by a single mother with no father in sight is not ‘racist’ mythology as the Left would want us to believe. It’s evident in the astronomical numbers that plague every community or inner city where blacks live in the U.S. In the cities I worked in as a police officer, it was rare indeed to encounter an intact black family with an involved father. Most of the black women were single mothers and they complained constantly at the lack of financial support they receive from their ‘baby Daddies.’

Entire generations of American blacks have been raised on government welfare and absent fathers is nothing new. This explains, at least in part, why a hugely disproportionate amount of the ‘wilding,’ looting, and murders that occurs in our cities is committed by young black males. They have no fathers present in the home to teach them about such things as integrity and basic morality nor to model such qualities before them. The greater number of them are being raised by impoverished single mothers (or grandmothers) who have no real influence or guiding hand on their sons.

This problem is evident even in the animal kingdom, and there are lessons we can learn here as well. Several years ago, for instance, 60 Minutes investigated the serious problem of young male elephant delinquencies in the Pilanesburg National Park (a game reserve in South Africa). The young elephant males and their mothers were separated from their fathers who remained at the Kruger National Park because of a growing population that the park could not sustain. What seemed like a simple solution turned out to be a nightmare.

In a fascinating account of what occurred, Fr. Gordon J. MacRae, writes: “Rangers at Pilanesburg began finding the dead bodies of endangered white rhinoceros. At first, poachers were suspected, but the huge rhinos had not died of gunshot wounds, and their precious horns were left intact. The rhinos appeared to be killed violently, with deep puncture wounds. Not much in the wild can kill a rhino, so rangers set up hidden cameras throughout the park. The result was shocking. The culprits turned out to be marauding bands of aggressive juvenile male elephants, the very elephants relocated from Kruger National Park a few years earlier. The young males were caught on camera chasing down the rhinos, knocking them over, and stomping and goring them to death with their tusks. The juvenile elephants were terrorizing other animals in the park as well. Such behavior was very rare among elephants. Something had gone terribly wrong. Some of the park rangers settled on a theory. What had been missing from the relocated herd was the presence of the large dominant bulls that remained at Kruger. In natural circumstances, the adult bulls provide modeling behaviors for younger elephants, keeping them in line. Juvenile male elephants, Dr. Horn pointed out, experience ‘musth,’ a state of frenzy triggered by mating season and increases in testosterone. Normally, dominant bulls manage and contain the testosterone-induced frenzy in the younger males. Left without elephant modeling, the rangers theorized, the younger elephants were missing the civilizing influence of their elders as nature and pachyderm protocol intended” (“In the Absence of Fathers: A Story of Elephants and Men,” Beyond These Walls, 6/20/2013).

If the same problem of fatherless boys exists in America’s Black communities – a significantly deeper and wider problem than that of rogue elephants on a game reserve in South Africa – how likely is it that racially naïve white women will choose a black man as their mate who isn’t also a criminal thug or who hasn’t been previously incarcerated? If a healthy marriage was never modeled before him by his own parents, what are the chances of having a functional marriage with such a person? Since character and personal integrity plays no meaningful role in the lives of a hugely disproportionate number of American blacks as is evident in their crime statistics and incarceration rates, what sense does it make for any white woman to look to them for a potential life partner?

Black males become particularly volatile when it dawns on them that they are about to lose their white princess, especially so if he realizes that he will never again snag such a pretty white woman. This reality provokes many of them to savagely beat and in some not-so-rare instances to brutally murder their white lovers. Why any white woman would want to take such risks in dating a black man is beyond me. But most of them know little or nothing about racial differences nor the unstable and eruptive nature of black men in America. Modern ‘diversity’ lies, then, help to keep our women blind to the real and ever-present danger that black males in America pose.

Finally, there is an entire set of unique problems that producing racially mixed children brings. Offspring from a black and white couple tend to be racially confused as they grow older, especially in their later teens as they try to figure out just who they are. As mulattos, they don’t quite fit into either a black or white racial paradigm. Often, they feel inferior or inauthentic. Though they tend to favor their ‘black side’ in terms of culture, music or personal identity, they are not always seen as ‘truly black’ by their black peers. This often results in a mission to prove their ‘blackness’ which may explain why mulattos are seemingly always out to show to their racial kin that they’re ‘down for the cause.’ Many of them turn out to be radically pro-black and determined to prove that they’re the ‘blackest’ of the blacks. I’m not a psychologist, but it sure smacks of some kind of identity crisis that they’re undergoing.

Finally, there’s evidence that mixed-race people have higher rates of mental health issues, including that of substance abuse. For instance, a multi-authored article published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence concluded that “multiracial youth were found to have higher levels of mental health issues than their monoracial minority and majority peers. Specifically, multiracial youth had higher levels of depressive symptoms than their African American and Caucasian counterparts. Multiracial and Caucasian youth had similar levels of anxiety, but these levels were significantly higher than African Americans” (“Examining Multiracial Youth in Context: Ethnic Identity Development and Mental Health Outcomes,” 8/7/2014).

Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

TPC interview with Drue Lackey on Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King

What follows is a transcript of a TPC radio interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards and former co-host Bill Rolen with Drue Lackey before his death in 2016 at the age of 90. Lackey served as the former Chief of Police of Montgomery, Alabama, and is featured in the iconic photograph fingerprinting Rosa Parks after her arrest.

Chief Lackey’s book, Another View of the Civil Rights Movement, recounts his time as a police officer in Montgomery in the 1950s and ‘60s and his personal interactions with Parks, Martin Luther King, and others. This historically significant interview has never before appeared in print online. We revisit it now in light of this week’s federal holiday.

* * *

TPC: The Civil Rights Movement was hardly the saintly march and holy crusade that has been portrayed by the schoolbooks and by the media over the years. In brief, what is your view? What was the view that you had back in the 1960s when the South was being put through the Civil Rights Movement?

Drue Lackey: Well, my view was that this so-called Civil Rights Movement, headed by Martin Luther King, was really a farce. He was using the civil rights issue to raise money and further his personal cause to have parties and do his womanizing throughout the country. And, in my opinion, he was more interested in tearing America down than he was in the plight of his own people.

TPC: When Rosa Parks was arrested for violating the segregation laws in Alabama, she was participating in an orchestrated event staged by her handlers. She refused to give up her seat on the bus, but we don’t really know anything about the man for whom she refused to move. Who was this man and why was he trying to take that seat in particular?

Lackey: He was an elderly man and very feeble, and he couldn’t stand too well and really needed to sit down.

TPC: So, she wasn’t being bullied by somebody trying to provoke her into civil disobedience. This was a legitimate reason for her to give up her seat to an old man who was obviously at least semi-disabled.

Lackey: That’s correct. That’s right.

TPC: Before Rosa Parks’ arrest, had any city like Montgomery or Birmingham had problems with blacks violating the segregation codes like that, or did this just suddenly come out of nowhere? Because after her arrest, this seems to just take fire and suddenly, it’s a big civil rights issue?

Lackey: Well, to my knowledge we didn’t have any problems. Prior to Rosa Parks’ arrest, we had two other women who were arrested for the same violation. One was arrested in March of 1955, and then the other one was in October of ‘55, and then Rosa was in December of ‘55. Of course, we all know that she was hand-picked. She was the secretary of the NAACP here in Montgomery. She had lunch with her attorney, Fred Grey, the day that she was arrested, and she attended the Communist school in Tennessee, where Martin Luther King attended, and Ralph Abernathy and others. So, it was a hand-picked deal from the word go.

TPC: And, of course, other events came out of that. The picture that’s on the cover of your book, the famous picture, was not taken after her arrest for taking the seat on the bus but was actually taken after she participated in the Montgomery bus boycott. What was she doing to get arrested during that boycott?

Lackey: She was one of the people indicted for violating the boycott law and interfering with public transportation. The deputy sheriff of Montgomery County called me and asked me if I would be willing to help him the next day, because they had these 90 people coming in, and I agreed to go up and help him. And that’s where and when they took that picture.

TPC: It always seemed interesting to me that Martin Luther King and some of the other civil rights activists always seemed to be one phone call away from the White House. It seemed like they had access to the highest offices of power when they needed it. And yet in the South, we were struggling against riots and violence caused by these people. What is your opinion on that? Why do you think they had such ready access to John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bobby Kennedy?

Lackey: Well, they were helping back this movement. And you’re correct, they had a direct line to Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and President Kennedy. During the Freedom Rider episode that happened in Montgomery, I picked up John Seigenthaler out of the street and took him to the hospital about two blocks away, possibly saving his life. And he immediately called Bobby Kennedy at Hyannisport and he had a list in his pocket of all the Freedom Riders that were on that bus. So, Bobby Kennedy and others in the administration were behind it, helped sponsor it, and saw that it was followed up.

TPC: That’s fascinating that the call he makes from the emergency room of a hospital was to Bobby Kennedy. It’s almost scary to think about people who are that crazed. I want to ask you about some of the media propaganda at the time. I always thought it was so incredible that the so-called civil rights activists were presented as peaceful demonstrators. According to the network news footage of the time, these peaceful black activists would come into town, and the mean-spirited police officers would unleash the hounds and the water hoses for no good reason. Is that the way it was, or was the truth of the matter a little bit different than what people have seen on television?

Lackey: It was a lot different than what you saw on television. I mean, the Civil Rights Movement attracted every kind of criminal that you can think of — revolutionaries and every thug that you could come in contact with. And they would curse the police, spit on the police, and do everything they could to try to incite a riot. Martin Luther King used what I called a big lie technique. He’d go around saying he was preaching non-violence, but violence followed him everywhere he went. You never heard of King ever chastising any of those rioters and looters. It happened all over this country, and I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that gives people the right to burn, loot, and do things that they did and be protected under the so-called civil rights banner.

TPC: Did you and the Montgomery Police Department feel as though there was a very real threat that these so-called activists would burn down the city? Do you think that was their intention and would they have gotten away with it if you had not acted accordingly?

Lackey: That was their intention. To come in and burn the town down. I believe if we hadn’t taken the action that we did, this would have happened. But we took an oath to protect the lives and property of this city and use that force necessary. And it was unfortunate that we killed a couple of arsonists that were teenagers. But we had no way of knowing their age. One of them was 16, one was 17. After that happened, we got a lot of calls that they were going to come in by the busload and burn the town down, and of course, I let them know that we were going to use the force necessary to protect our city. And they could leave like those other two in a box.

TPC: Tell us a little bit more about the Freedom Riders. What do you recall about their behavior while they were under your jurisdiction, or on your watch?

Lackey: They were very belligerent, and it was apparent that they were looking to have some kind of conflict with the police or with other people. Their mannerisms and their speech and everything indicated that they wanted to stir up a conflict. This is one of King’s tactics. I think he trained his people to have these conflicts with the police and then when it was all over, he would blame us for causing the riots.

TPC: Then he would charge police brutality when you put the riot down, or brought order back to the city?

Lackey: Yeah, that was his favorite — police brutality. And if you go back to Fidel Castro, he started using the same technique when the Communists were taking over Cuba. And, of course, Martin Luther King was knee-deep in with the Communist Party. They came to Montgomery. We knew who they were when they came in, and we usually would put a tail on them, to follow them. We did have some luck with the black leadership talking to them about getting these people out of Montgomery. They weren’t really there to help them, you know.

TPC: I noticed in your book that you wrote about not only the arrest of troublemakers in the Civil Rights Movement but also other troublemakers who were opposing it. The fact that you were not partial when it came to stopping lawbreakers doesn’t seem to be covered very much by the history books or by the media either.

Lackey: That is correct. The news media didn’t give us any coverage on that, and we had to make some arrests of Klansmen, too, you know. Our job was to keep law and order, and we couldn’t pick and choose. But we got very little coverage regarding that.

TPC: You met with Martin Luther King to coordinate security. What can you tell us about that?

Lackey: Yes, I had a meeting with him and even booked him once in 1956. But in the later meeting, I discussed with King some things that we needed to do, and that he needed to do. At first, he turned down any security but changed his mind before I left. And I told him we would like to give him security. We couldn’t guarantee a hundred percent, but we could cut down the odds on it. He admitted that he could not control his people, and he had some people in there who were going to get out of line and so forth, and he said, “I just can’t control all my people.”

TPC: I see here you have a copy of the newspaper article from that time where Martin Luther King, while preaching non-violence, actually tried to get a permit for a gun.

Lackey: Yeah, he tried to get a permit for a pistol, and he was turned down. His so-called peaceful movement was not what it was cracked up to be. The way that he got sympathizers and the money coming into his organization was by having conflict. When they would be marching on the streets and sidewalks, some of the males in his group would break off and go and urinate or defecate on a white person’s lawn. I mean, that’s trying to have a conflict. If it was my house, I’d be coming out of there with a shotgun.

TPC: It is so important to have eyewitness testimony like this. Is this what led you to write your book so many decades later? Why is it important to you that people understand the truth about the Civil Rights Movement?

Lackey: After I retired from the police force, to read and hear these people talking about how great King was and not have any balance whatsoever, I decided it’s time to unveil.

TPC: But it is more than that. The myth of King is propaganda. Your book is an actual factual document. Am I right?

Lackey: That is right. It’s correct. And don’t forget that Coretta King had those FBI files and the tapes sealed until 2027.

TPC: Do you think that in 2027 they’ll be released even then?

Lackey: I don’t think they will. I tried to get in there and get them released, but I didn’t have any luck on that, and I don’t think they will be released. If we could have gotten them released, you would have seen a lot of politicians running for cover.

TPC: The standard excuse for not releasing the files on King was that it would ruin his reputation. I think that’s what Coretta Scott King said when she testified before Congress about sealing the records.

Lackey: The liberal politicians and the liberal news media flocked to him. And he had them eating out of his hand. It was sickening when you saw it happen, that these politicians would run over each other to try to get to him. And then later, every year when they have that march over Edmund Pettus Bridge, you still see them lined up, arm-in-arm to get in on the act.

TPC: Now it’s almost like bragging you’ve won the Congressional Medal of Honor if you can say that you marched with Martin Luther King. But certainly, those people, when they were there and among King’s stooges and thugs must have seen some of the same behavior that you saw. Did you ever have any of them come up to you and say that they were wrong about Martin Luther King and the tactics they employed?

Lackey: I never had one of them come to me and say that.

TPC: What was the worst day for you during the Civil Rights Movement? What day do you recall as being the most frightening or the most disturbing from a policeman’s point of view?

Lackey: This particular day that I recall, Abernathy had organized a group, and they were meeting at King’s church. King wasn’t there, but they were going to march from his church to the capitol and they’d already put this out to the news media and everybody else.

When I arrived, the white people were all over the lawns up there at the capitol. It was at least, I’d say ten or twelve thousand, in the neighborhood of the capitol complex buildings. I sent some plainclothes officers to check it out. It was a kind of a cool day, and they had on overcoats and the majority of them had shotguns, pistols, you name it. I mean, it was an arsenal there on the grounds.

I called Abernathy out of the church to talk to him personally and showed him what he was up against, and what we were up against. And I said, “There ain’t no way that we can give you protection with all these people, and them armed like they are. And I’m gonna ask you to call off the march.” And he said, “No, we had this planned and we’re going to stick with it.”

Of course, the national news media was there to cover this thing because they announced it several days prior to. So, they came out of the church and started across the street there, Decatur Street, toward the capitol. And when they did, all these white people started rushing down. So, I called my men to put them back in the church and we made Abernathy and all these groups get back in church. And then I told him I would let them leave there, maybe six to eight at a time, and give them the streets they were to walk down so we could furnish protection. But that was a close call there because we could have had a blood bath very easily. Montgomery was a powder keg. For some time, the least little spark could have set it off. We had to really stay on our toes trying to keep the lid on it.

TPC: Did the white crowd disperse once the civil rights marchers were out of sight and removed from the scene? Or did you have any trouble with them after that?

Lackey: No. They started dispersing.

TPC: They didn’t throw bags of feces on you or spit on you or anything like that?

Lackey: No, we didn’t have any of that. It was the other side who would do that.

TPC: So you saved Abernathy’s life, in all likelihood, and the lives of some of those marchers?

Lackey: Yeah.

TPC: But they never expressed any appreciation for that, I suppose?

Lackey: Oh, no. No, they didn’t ever express any appreciation for anything we did. You know it’s good though.

TPC: Well, I think it’s certainly apparent that you did your duty, Chief Lackey. During those very difficult and incendiary times, you showed integrity and a spirit of righteousness. The ability for us to personally speak with someone who was a first-hand witness to this history from our point of view is an opportunity very rarely afforded to anyone.

Lackey: It was an honor.

Rosa Parks getting fingerprinted by Drue Lackey after her arrest in 1956
Martin Luther King being booked by Drue Lackey.
When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. Over the past 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country.

Another Take on the Causes of Black Family Dysfunction

Who Lost America? Why the United States Went ‘Communist’ and What To Do About It
Stephen Baskerville
Arktos Media, 2024

Back in July my friend Roger Devlin posted an extended and largely favorable review of Stephen Baskerville’s Who Lost America?[1] I recently read this book and had quite a different reaction. To be very generous, Baskerville’s book is a glass half full.

To his credit the author is a harsh critic of establishment conservatism, although perceptive leaders of the authentic Right long ago realized that the conservative approach to combating the Left was a losing proposition.[2] The critique of Conservative Inc. has certainly intensified in recent years with the rise of Trumpism and the Alt Right/Dissident Right. Yet, while keeping a lower profile of late, Ryan/Romney conservatism is quite resistant to change, and is ready to again take full control of the establishment Right after the Trump era is over.

Among Baskerville’s complaints about the Right include a lack of leadership, creativity, and energy. In contrast the Left is innovative. It has “reinvented itself repeatedly” while the establishment Right is content to dog whistle to their constituents while protecting vested economic interests. “Conservatives seem temperamentally incapable of arousing themselves . . . . [T]hey seem habituated to apathy” (67). The Right is “devoid of ideas and intellectual depth . . . . the Right still produces few intellectuals of any stature, no universities of any quality, no ideas of any value” (119). Okay, this appears to be the case, but I do not believe that conservatives are inherently stupid or lazy. Their retreat is a maladaptive response to political and social conditions. The master manipulators on the Left have exploited the individualism of Western culture. More on that later.

Another telling point made by Baskerville is the centrality of the radical sexual revolution—feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism—to the Left’s agenda. It is part of an effort by the Left to blur all distinctions between cultures, races, and sexes. The author’s main concern is the prevalence of fatherless families, but this issue must be viewed within a wider context.

Credit Professor Baskerville with tamping down on conspiracy theories. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they “can foster a defeatist mentality of . . . helpless resignation. The conspirators become so evil and all-powerful that opposition is pointless” (xxv). Often those who posit such theories assume the status of savvy and sophisticated analysts who can see through the smoke and mirrors, and the smart money is on the sidelines. Later in the book, however, the author will indulge in some “black pilling” of his own.

Baskerville is also on the mark in Chapter 5 “Flirting with Nuclear War.” Here he laments “the needless carnage in Ukraine” (121). Apparently, “the negotiating table is off limits” (123). And “Russia is not the only hegemon playing power politics at Ukraine’s expense. We—the US, NATO, the EU—have cynically manipulated Ukraine as a pawn to augment our own position” (133). There is no mention of the carnage in the Middle East. Baskerville does not address the Jewish question in this book, but elsewhere he has supported Judeo-Christian values.

So, if Who Lost America? is a glass half full, it must also be a glass half empty. It is a work with serious analytical flaws.

To begin with a minor point of terminology: The word communist in the subtitle is in quotes so we understand that it is used a bit ironically. But Baskerville refers several times to a Leftist coup occurring in early 2020. Although I follow the news fairly closely, I missed that event.  A widely accepted definition of a coup is a sudden violent overthrow of the existing government by a small group. At the risk of seeming pedantic, rather than a coup, what we saw in 2020 was the approaching end of the “Long March through the Institutions.”  The term was coined in 1967 or 1968 by German communist Rudi Dutschke. The long march is, in part, a reference to the Chinese Communist Party’s retreat inland during the 1930s. But to simplify things quite a bit, the core concept originated with Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács in post- World War I Europe. After the failure to replicate the Bolshevik Revolution in other European countries a segment of the Left reinvented itself, abandoning violent revolution to work within, but against, society’s institutions. The strategy was imported to America in the 1930s and ultimately led to the Frankfort School’s critical theory and the domination of academic and media culture by the left.

It has taken time, but this technique has succeeded in making cultural Marxism the dominate ideology in government bureaucracies, education, the news and entertainment media, the judiciary, Christian churches, and even in the military and corporations. Not to belabor the point, but there has been no coup. As a professor of political science, one might think that Baskerville would be more precise in his terminology.

The author’s overriding concern is fatherless families. He states that it is an “irrefutable fact that every major social pathology is directly attributable to fatherless homes” (30). The professor is given to making sweeping generalizations without documentation. A family of children living with their married biological parents is best and should be the norm, but why weaken a valid point by overstatement? The author attributes the weakening of family structure, especially among Blacks, to the welfare “reforms” of the 1960s which made men, particularly Black men superfluous. It was during the 1960s that all the markers of family dysfunction—single parenting, teenage childbearing, and divorce) began their inexorable rise.

Baskerville is a rare bird indeed—a rightwing negrophile. “The young African American male is truly an extraordinary figure. His culture in large measure distinguishes that of the United States itself, and he has spread it all over the world—in music, films, sports, religion, and politics—where it inspires widespread imitation” (159). Two points come to mind: The ascendency of Black culture did not happen by chance, but was heavily promoted by the Left, especially the Jewish Left. And yet, despite this cultural dynamism, the author would have us believe that Black men have no agency when it comes to welfare policies. You cannot have it both ways.

In fact, modern welfare policies have been designed to accommodate the Black family structure. The well-known French anthropologist and historian Emmanuel Todd wrote a seminal work on the influence that family structures have on social systems, especially political ideologies.[3] Todd found that: “Family relationships—those between parents and children, between husband and wife—provide a model for political systems and serve to define the relationships between the individual and authority.” He identified seven different family systems distributed across various geographic and environmental regions. Yet the African system, originating in the sub-Saharan region, was unique. Its main characteristics were “instability of the household [and] polygyny.” One of the subheadings in the African chapter is “A fatherless world?” In the African family “the primordial family relationship is between brothers rather than that between father and son.” There is “a lax attitude toward paternal authority, African society does not respond well to discipline. It has trouble forming states.”

Todd is not a racialist. There is no explicit genetic determinism in his argument. He is, however, identified with the Annales School of historiography. The Annalistes are interested in what they describe as cultural continuities of long duration. Thus, while negatively impacted by New World slavery and modern welfare policies, the looser African family structure predates those institutions.

When discussing welfare, it should be noted that modern social welfare originated under German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, hardly a bleeding-heart liberal. During this same period rural America had county poor farms that cared for the indigent, including single mothers, but excluding “rogues” and other unworthies. Both the German and American systems were government-supported, augmented by private charity. My brief stint as a volunteer with the Salvation Army reinforced my belief that the Victorians were right to distinguish the deserving poor from the irredeemables.

In considering relations between the sexes Baskerville believes that “men are too cowed and frightened—too emasculated even to discuss honestly what is wrong” (147). Radical sexual ideologies, the Left’s cutting edge, have feminized society. “Where did all this begin? Here we must return once again, to that pivotal character in the American tragedy: the neglected, demonized, and manipulated black male” (159).  Well, here again, as in welfare policy, Baskerville has things backwards. Second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution, which the author so detests, had its genesis in the “civil rights” movement. The chronology is clear. Mainstream historians agree with feminist journalist and woman of color Anna Holmes: “Correctly contextualized second wave feminism [was] a direct outgrowth of the civil rights movement.”[4] And both are products of the culture of critique.

Forced racial integration meant that the White men could no longer defend their communal interests, diminishing their leadership role. The traditional defenders of the community were men, especially young men, now emasculated and no longer permitted to protect the tribe. What happens if White men assume that role? Consider the fate of Daniel Penny the New Yok subway rider, Marine Corp vet, and architectural student, who stood up to protect his fellow passengers from a psychotic Black criminal. The confrontation ended with the Black miscreant dead. Some called Mr. Penny a Good Samaritan, others called him a hero. The Black Manhattan district attorney called him a criminal and charged him with manslaughter. European-Americans have paid a high price for diversity.

Baskerville has a valid point regarding “the myth of female innocence.” Many White men especially conservatives, engage in the “sentimentalization of women” (157). This is not true in other societies. It is another example of the Left manipulating a Western cultural characteristic to their advantage. Tacitus, in his ethnographic study Germania, notes the high status of women among the northern tribes. Some social historians trace the concept of romantic love to the medieval aristocratic culture articulated by troubadours of twelfth century Aquitaine and Provence, but may well have much deeper roots in Western culture.[5] The present “woke” society is so alienating that many young people find it difficult to make the social/sexual bonds needed for family formation.

The church is another institution that the Left has marched through. Christianity, a universalist and essentially egalitarian faith concerned with individual salvation has been exploited by every outgroup—racial, sexual, and mental—to guilt trip Whites into acquiescing to their demands. In some Whites, the urge to virtue signal has mutated into ethno-masochism where they actually gain pleasure from witnessing the diminishment of their own people and culture. The terrible sectarian conflicts our people have had in the past argues strongly for religion to be a matter of personal belief. But no creed should be permitted to advocate socially destructive policies. A new Western religion would require the emergence of what Wilmot Robertson called “a mind-blowing prophet.” One might hope that a science-based naturalist religion with an element of faith might gain currency in the future.

What is the creation story of the feeble Right? One of the most cogent explanations for the flaccid state of American conservatism was written by a liberal academic Kevin Kruse. His book White Flight is a case study of racial integration in post-war Atlanta.[6] Kruse describes pre-civil rights era White working-class neighborhoods of that city as taking a great deal of pride in their parks, schools, and civic associations. Integration broke up these neighborhoods along with their collective identities. What replaced this communal integrity was an “every man for himself” individualism which translated politically into a shallow, defensive conservatism that retreated from the public sphere into the private sphere. This process was repeated in hundreds of communities across America.

This rise of the enervated Right, which Baskerville complains about, developed in the absence of a confident, collective ethnocultural identity. This psychological manipulation was made possible because Western peoples, especially the Anglo-Keltic branch, tend to be very individualistic. They are likely to seek individual solutions to social problems: A deteriorating neighborhood? Move to the suburbs. Poor schools? Home school or parochial school. Public parks and playing fields no longer conducive to recreation? Join a private club. Once again, a cultural characteristic was exploited by those hostile to our people.

With this in mind we can see why Baskerville’s last chapter, “Conclusion—The Way Out” is way off the mark. The author believes “the true antithesis of leftist ideology is not rightist ideology. It is no ideology—the default state that existed throughout the world until modern times” (198). Wrong and wrong. Terminology matters. While some may argue that ideologies grew out of the French Revolution, in fact an ideology—root word ‘idea’—is simply a set of beliefs about how society should be run. All societies are ruled by an ideology. Premodern ideologies included rule by aristocratic warriors or by the divine right of king or priests. What the Right needs is an ideology more radical and dynamic than the Left.

In the conclusion Baskerville again rides his hobby horse. The solution to our present societal crisis is to repeal “no-fault” divorce laws and “reimpose a presumption of father custody over children” (203). Yes, divorce is bad, it is an admission of failure, but it is not always the woman’s fault. Yes, there is clear evidence that the divorce rate increased after many states instituted no-fault laws, but there were other social factors involved. Plus, many studies have shown that infidelity/adultery is the leading cause for divorce. Desertion is another leading cause. Presumably these are not considered no-fault. If you can believe the CDC statistics the divorce rate peaked in the 1980s at close to 50 percent and has since slowly declined. Presently, 41 percent of first marriages end in divorce, still way too high. The author’s solution is for men to “boycott women and marriage until laws are changed” (204). A men’s revolt “is a key takeaway of this book” (205).

There is a lot to unpack here. This is just a guess, but one might suppose that the author has personally experienced a bitter divorce and custody battle that has skewed his perceptions. If young White men did “boycott” the young women of their race, then we will know that the life force has truly left our people and all is lost. The more important and immediate problem is the low White birthrate, and the need for pro-natalist policies. If the European-American ethny had a collective voice it would encourage marriage. There are no guarantees in life other than death and taxes. Starting a business, entering a profession, starting a family are all risky. What if an army recruiter emphasized the dangers of military service, highlighting whose who came home grievously wounded or in a body bag. How many recruits would enlist? In any case, the battle of the sexes has been waged for millennia, consider Aristophanes Lysistrata or Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew.

In the end, Baskerville’s criticisms of conservatives, while valid, rings somewhat hollow. He singles out Victor David Hanson’s “10 Steps to Save America” as an example of “the pointless wish lists dreamed up by frustrated conservatives” (207). That is a bit ironic because Baskerville’s ideas on citizenship are somewhat similar to Hanson’s non-ethnic civic nationalism. In fact, Who Lost America? could be summarized as an amalgamation of libertarianism, Hanson’s ideas on citizenship, and the men’s rights movement.  But in the end Baskerville is a reactionary. His answer to the failure of conservatism is radical reaction reaching back to the nineteenth century for some of his policy proposals.

After being so critical of the professor I would be amiss not to offer an alternative. Strong communities are key; they support and strengthen marriages, increase birthrates, and contribute to the overall quality of life. A while back, I made some suggestions for forming White communities even during these trying times.[7] My vision of citizenship differs from both Hanson’s civic nationalism and Baskerville’s libertarian-influenced radical traditionalism. The professor warned us about being “black pilled” by conspiracy theories, yet Baskerville dismisses my idea of building “local communities and parallel structures. . . . As if the totalitarians are going to permit this” (xxvi).  Properly conceived, it would be difficult for any authority to prevent the building of European-American communities and parallel structures, as in the case of Orania in South Africa. If there is a remedy for our decadent society, it begins with recreating a strong ethnic and cultural identity. Opposition to such an idea unites Baskerville with the woke Left and the establishment Right.

[1] F. Roger Devlin, “Courage Cannot Be Outsourced,” A Review Essay on Stephen Baskerville’s Who Lost America? The Occidental Quarterly 24, no. 3 (Fall, 2024): 3–23..

[2] See, for example, William Pierce’s essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win,” Attack!, no.4 (1971); reposted in National Vanguard (September 22, 2010). https://nationalvanguard.org/2010/09/why-conservatives-cant-win/

See also: Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (H. Allen, 1981).

[3] The quotes below are from: Emmanuel Todd, The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems. Translated by David Garrioch. (NY: Basil Blackwell, Ltd. 1985) 6,7,191-195.

[4] Anna Holms, “The Second Wave,” New York Times Book Review, 09/15/24, 10.

[5] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future (CreateSpace, 2019).

[6] Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism. (Princeton University Press, 2005).

[7] Eric Paulson, “Nine Reasons for an Ingathering” The Occidental Observer (11/03/2010).