Costs of Multiculturalism

Fighting Whiteness

/25 Comments/in , , , , /by

A Field Guide to White Supremacy
Belew, Gutiérrez et al
University of California Press, 2021

Whiteness is having its day in the sun. Not White people — we may have already had ours — but the word itself, and the whole concept of Whiteness. “The problem of Whiteness” often appears in newspaper and magazine headlines, the implication being that Whiteness is a troublesome puzzle which needs to be solved, hopefully using some sort of cross between the lyrics to John Lennon’s Imagine and a final solution, depending on where the person is on the spectrum of blancophobic hatred. Blacks can be regularly seen online calling for the death of Whites, genocidal talk actually being enacted in countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe, which have been handed over to Blacks with predictable results.

It has long been asked in certain academic circles what Whiteness is, and this is not a bad thing in itself. Definition is a first principle, as Marcus Aurelius recognized: “Ask of each thing; what is it in and of itself? What is its nature?”

Perhaps those who espouse White supremacy as a problem, and take the time to research the field, might enlighten us. A collection of essays published five years ago, A Field Guide to White Supremacy, is an excellent almanac of Left-wing, academic attitudes towards Whiteness, thematizing as it does something that is both their nemesis and the jewel in the crown of White people; White supremacy. Appropriately, as language is one of the major battlefields in the cultural war currently raging, the collection opens with a lexicon of words which constellate around the central concept of White supremacy. The author rather arrogantly proposes it as “a resource for journalists, activists, policymakers and citizens” — everyone, in other words – with a self-importance familiar to anyone who has followed the ruinous arc of development traced by modern, White, middle-class, Liberal women.

The first thing that stands out about this introductory guide for journalists is the sheer audacity of calling it Thoughts on the Associated Press Stylebook. The internationally recognized Associated Press (AP) is heavily biased to the Left, as are all MSM outlets and syndications, but it does indeed have an industry-standard style-sheet. Kathleen Belew, one of the editors and essayists here, is a journalist, and she has written for some major newspapers in her native USA, as well as having a book on the New York Times best-seller list. But so have an awful lot of other people who don’t feel the need to tell the world’s press how to do its job. Ms. Belew is grossly impertinent to believe she has the right to tell an industry leader how to run their business, which in AP’s case is essentially ordering language in order to provide accurate reportage, or at least it should be.

This introductory glossary is the academic equivalent of a girl-boss in HR chastising a male employee:

Our aim in this section is to briefly provide journalists with an overview of terms and understandings agreed upon by most scholarly specialists and to encourage the editors of the Stylebook to reconsider some of the book’s guidance.

“Most scholarly specialists” are not cited and will likely turn out to be a network of faux-academics working in the same, CRT-based field as Ms. Belew. This is how CRT gives itself the illusion of intellectual integrity, by producing a blizzard of footnotes all of which tend to refer to works by people the author has probably had at least lunch with.

Ms. Belew strongly disapproves of the use of the word “immigrant”. “Immigrants”, she scolds, “are people who move”. Well, yes, they are. They are specifically people who move into a country from outside and typically dilute the voting power of the natives. “Migrants” are actually people who move, and “immigrant” is a cognate of that, the antonym being “emigrant”. Still, don’t let that disturb you while you advise one of the world’s largest press syndicates.

The next demand in a litany of disapproval is that the AP recognize that biology is no longer the gold standard, either for race or gender:

We urge the Stylebook to consider defining race itself as a socially constructed category of political identity that has changed over time.

This is evidently absurd, but absurdity in a brave new linguistic world is no longer an argument for invalidity. As for gender, and the busy modern self-elective traffic between male and female, “Pronouns should always match self-identification”. In short, this is a command that standpoint epistemology take the helm from post-Enlightenment rationality, flawed as that may be. This is an important and corrosive paradigm shift.

Capital letters are another area of concern for this journalistic martinet. “Black” should be capitalized, but not “white.” And AP have actually put this into place.

After all, as The New York Times says,

We believe this style best conveys elements of shared history and identity, and reflects our goal to be respectful of all the people and communities we cover [except White people],” said Dean Baquet, The Times’s executive editor, and Phil Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, in a memo to staff.

And:

“The lowercase B in Black has never made sense to me as a Black woman, and it didn’t make sense to me as a Black girl,” said Destinée-Charisse Royal, a senior staff editor in the Graphics department and one of the editors consulted on the change. “My thought was that the capital B makes sense as it describes a race, a cultural group, and that is very different from a color in a box of crayons.

But of course, capitalizing White doesn’t make sense because everyone knows that White does not refer to a race or a cultural group. It’s just like a color in a box of crayons.

“Indigenous” should also be capitalized, as should “Latinx”. This is amusing, as “Latinx” will certainly appear far more in the English-speaking media than its Spanish equivalent. The well-respected polling company, Pew Research, ran a poll a few years ago here in Latin America. The results showed that just 5 percent of Latinos had even heard the phrase “Latinx”, and only 3 percent used it. The statistics do not show how many of those who use the term do so simply to get an easy laugh in some Rancho bar in Panama. Latinos do not take kindly to being collectively described using a term invented by Liberal White women in American universities. There’s your White supremacy, right there.

There is much journalistic advice on the subject of Whiteness, obviously the center of gravity of CRT thought, such as it is:

The word white refers to a socially constructed and historically fluid category of identity in which people, systems of power, and wealth are invested. This is not a biological or unchangeable category, but neither is it neutral.

Whiteness, which built America and Europe, as well as many Commonwealth countries, is not something fixed and immutable:

Whiteness itself is a socially constructed category that has changed dramatically over the course of United States history. … Not until the nineteenth century did racial pseudoscience introduce the idea of ‘white’ as a biological marker.

Because White science hadn’t progressed enough to investigate it scientifically, although implicit notions of race date back to the ancient world.  We are familiar with the notion of the “social construct”, which is genuine “racial pseudoscience”. But what is this historically fluid entity capable of? Why, White supremacy of course. We have a definition which is clearly intended to hold for the Field Guide as well as the world’s media. White supremacy is defined as follows:

Both individual belief that White people are inherently better than others and the broad systems of inequality that insure racial disparity of health, income, life, and freedom.

Well, it goes without saying that White people in the aggregate are better than non-Whites (as Prof. Ricardo Duchesne has shown), and that this is demonstrable provided some kind of universal calibration is agreed to, which it no longer is. Who created the modern world?

The Left’s familiar technique of abstract complication extends to the definition of White supremacy:

What is White supremacy? White supremacy is a complex web of ideology, systems, privileges, and personal beliefs that create unequal outcomes along racial lines across multiple categories of life including wealth, freedom, health and happiness.

In fact, White supremacy follows simply from any objective interpretation of history. “Unequal outcomes along racial lines” are dictated by the divergence in intelligence and ability of the different races.  Race is not a social construct. Styles of dress are indeed social constructs because they differ between cultures. But race inheres at a cellular level, it is a chromosomal phenomenon.

Negative conceptions of White supremacy have to be craned into some of the essays here. With the CRT lexicon, and the ease of its grammar, this is an easy matter, and there is a philosophical reason for this. In an essay on the supposed persecution of “sex workers” — which is what prostitutes are now called — who are being de-banked and generally hassled as they try to go out their deviant work, the writer almost forgets to mention the star attraction:

While there has been an increase in legislative scrutiny and criminalization of sex workers, White supremacy/racism and transmisogyny/cissexism function to disproportionately impact Black and Brown trans/women/femmes who engage in sex work.

Apart from raising the question of whether “femmes” are French sex workers — salops Françaises, perhaps — this perfunctory mention of White supremacy, coupled with racism, shows the strange methodology of CRT. It works on reverse induction. Instead of gathering facts and progressing towards a hypothesis, testing it against an antithesis, and then arriving at a tenable thesis, they take the answer first and work back. These essays contain more than the usual quota of unsubstantiated claims such as those concerning the “Unarmed Black, Brown, and Asian women and men executed by the police”. These “never happened” memes are often used to reinforce claims about White supremacy, claiming that “overt and covert White supremacy [are] supported by often-violent patriarchy and gender norms”. I’m sure they are. I can’t prove that they are not, and nor can anyone else, given the standards of proof which now obtain.

Other statements made in the essays are very probably true, but lack ethnic and racial context:

Women worldwide ages 15 through 44 are more likely to die or be maimed because of male violence than because of cancer, malaria, war and traffic accidents combined.

Undoubtedly true, but which males are more likely to be violent? Without breakdown by ethnicity, a formula like that makes no sense whatsoever. The underlying ideology is this: it is not any particular ethnicity or religion of violent men that is important, it is that they are men. This recurs with discussion of those with sexual dysfunction:

In our heterosexual culture, being lesbian, gay, trans, or a nonbinary person also places people in disproportionate danger.

It certainly does. It places those deviant categories in danger primarily from Blacks and Muslims, and of course they didn’t discuss how sexual non-conformity is regarded in African or Muslim cultures. In a chapter on the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in 2016 in Orlando, Florida, we see elective blindness of race. The shooter was Omar Mateen:

Using hate to explain Omar Mateen … too readily conflates an Islamophobic narrative that misnames Islam as a religion of hate.

Islam is most certainly not exclusively a religion of hate. There are many things it loves very much, in-group things, endogamic things: the myth of its own superiority, that Mohammed is a role model, the genuine subjugation of women (dismissed by Western feminists). But there are certainly other things, other practices, that Islam hates. And one of those is homosexuality (a word the editor warns AP against using in its copy). Boy, do Muslims hate gays. I’ve written here before about “intersectional pile-ups”, in which lifestyles which are utterly antithetical to one another try to group together under a big, Socialist tent. If you are familiar with the group “Queers for Palestine”, you will be aware of the level of cognitive dissonance active among some gentlemen who play for the other team, as the English used to call gay men.

Islamophobia makes its obligatory appearance in the Field Guide, described as:

The presumption that Islam is inherently violent, alien, and unassimilable… [combined with] the belief that expressions of Muslim identity are correlative with a propensity for terrorism.

Firstly, it is not a presumption. For anyone with standard-issue cognitive ability, it is inductive reasoning. Secondly, people who don’t find the statement to be true confirm themselves as either deeply unserious or a Muslim. Islam gets a pass on terrorism, again uncited and unsubstantiated:

White power activists have carried out an overwhelming majority of domestic terror fatalities [sic] and attacks in recent years.

Much of the Field Guide replays many of these unsubstantiated modern myths:

A war is being waged against Black and Brown trans women/femmes in the United States. And this war is caused by systemic White supremacy that fuels racism, economic inequality, and transmisogyny.

No attempt to break down the ethnicity of the perpetrators.

Victimhood in the Field Guide is present and correct, with its usual false extrapolations and sense of melodrama:

When a Black person was lynched, they were not just lynching that person, they were targeting the entire African-American community.

This is a form of racial transubstantiation. There is no one Black person, they are all one and all is in the one, a negro ummah. This matches up with a tradition of grandiosity and self-aggrandizement among Blacks which is easily fed by the White Liberals behind the Field Guide. There is a lot of faulty wiring in the circuitry of the Black psyche, and one of the worst short-circuits is an acute susceptibility to bias confirmation. On receiving information, Whites are far more likely to assess that input and disregard it if it is dubious, even if, were it true, it would be advantageous to them. Blacks tend to enact a sort of corollary. They are more likely to assess whether the information, if true, would be advantageous to them, and then judge its dubiousness on that basis. It is like utilitarianism, but without the rational workings. Blacks are not, however, the only victims:

Anti-Asian violence recurring throughout US history should not be seen merely as episodic, arising in periods of xenophobia, but rather a structure sustaining racial divides.

This is crucial to the CRT program; It requires constants and not variables. If anti-Asian violence can be localized as “episodic”, it becomes just another aberrant social phenomenon to be explained away using the context in which it occurred. It must be the context. White supremacy must exist even if only presumed by a misreading of empirical facts. It is like the ether eighteenth-century scientists erroneously believed existed always and everywhere.

The media has an uncomfortable, cognitively dissonant role in the Field Guide. It must both help and hinder:

Trump and his supporters and key members of his staff and cabinet appear to adhere to the idea that immigrants are displacing the White ethnics who claim ownership of the nation that they allegedly founded. … This narrative is spread primarily by influential mainstream media pundits, writers, academics, and a host of conservative groups who seek to curtail immigration by invoking tropes of white decline, profound demographic change, and an ongoing Mexican invasion of the United States.

The media can be good or bad little children, dependent on the needs of the CRT community:

Trump’s racist discourse emboldened self-avowed White supremacists to take to the streets while the mainstream media normalized this scandal by calling them ‘Alt. Right’.

The phrase “Alt. Right” actually came into media usage after a stump speech given by Hillary Clinton in 2016, and if the media “normalized” the term, it was effectively at the request of the woman the media confidently expected to win the 2016 Presidential Election. The phrase “Alt. Left, incidentally, is included in Ms. Belew’s introductory linguistic demands as “False terminology; do not use”.

The collection, as with all CRT, is selectively blind to the role of the MSM in defending their dubious position. The legacy media is concerned today not with objective reporting, but with imaginative and agenda-driven story-telling. Part of the Field Guide’s project is statedly “to tell, and understand, better stories”. This is of interest as it funds the currently popular concept of “the narrative”, the root of which is the Latin narrare, meaning “to tell a story”. This is why the Field Guide is able to repeat the outrageous fabrication that the BLM riots of 2020 were “A long summer of peaceful mass protests”.

When it suits the CRT lobby to stroke the media’s fur, however, they are happy to comply:

Our eyes are turned on other horrors. Our news is full of hate crimes, exclusions legal and illegal, cruelty and violence in speech and action.

“Our news” refers to the MSM, clearly a Leftist institution across the West. It has been clear for some time that MSM news is agenda-based, inaccurate, and dedicated to blancophobia and determined to erase Black on White violence. There are occasions here in which the writers seem to forget, or to be unaware of, the fact that the MSM is on their side. But for serious activists like these, the media can never be far enough left.

An essay on antisemitism sits uneasily here, as a dislike and distrust of Jews is the one thing which unites parts of the Right and Left, especially since Gaza. “Antisemitism” is a phrase included in the opening lexicon, incidentally, and the editor suggests the word not be hyphenated. The word “Semite” is, apparently, a word of recent provenance. The essay has a familiar theme, that of historical oppression of Jews by (White) gentiles. There is plenty of talk of “tropes” and “conspiracies”. One particularly hilarious sentence talks of any mention of worldwide banking being automatically anti-Semitic, whether or not there is any mention of the Jew:

The word Jew hardly has to be mentioned to be already nefariously at work.

This is extraordinary reasoning. Even to mention something of which Jews have been accused is Jew-hatred even if the Jews themselves are not mentioned.

The “takeaway” from this collection, to use modern parlance, is that the rift between Left and Right, between “woke” and “based”, reduces to a philosophical schism, that of standpoint epistemology versus post-Enlightenment rationality. The political faction behind CRT, “White supremacy”, micro-aggressions, unconscious bias, systemic racism and the rest of the post-modernist grabbag that passes for their thinking have a singular form of irrationality: they base their theses on ex cathedra statements made ex nihilo.

The Field Guide to White Supremacy is a very good collection of essays. Most of the essays are well-researched and informative. As noted, some of the wilder claims made are not cited or substantiated, but there is a curious aspect to the book. White supremacy is not a guiding principle of the collection, but rather added to many of the essays almost as an afterthought.

There is a tremendous pathos about Whites who whine about White supremacy. One almost feels sorry for them. To fail to understand racial difference, to deliberately ignore what they know to be true, to throw nature out with Horace’s pitchfork is not going to do them any good in terms of mental health. Cognitive dissonance isn’t some skin rash — it will do genuine mental harm to anyone suffering from it. One can see it in the psychotic behavior of many on the Left. All that said, White supremacy is not in a very healthy situation.

There remains only one option for Whites, which is to double down on White supremacy, and to come in so hot that non-Whites know all about it. One of the historical essays in the Field Guide states the following:

British colonists created slave codes to manage potentially dangerous slaves.

Good for them. They obviously saw what we cannot, that Blacks are largely a problem people for the White races, prone to criminality and disproportionately in need of welfare and social services. We need new codes which must be explained, using ebonics if necessary, to non-Whites.

Charlie Downes is a young politician, and a leading member of Rupert Lowe’s party, Restore Britain. He makes a straightforward point:

The answer, in my view, is simple. If the Left is anti-White, we must be pro-White. That’s the game they want to play, so let’s play it.

Fine as far as it goes, but this is not a game. White people may need to go a lot further than merely being “pro-White”. Perhaps the White race, or races, may be left with only one choice: make blancophobia real. It already exists, of course, in the same way as Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia are said to exist, but it is the phobia that dare not speak its name. Western deep states, along with their controllers and allies, already hate White people. What is missing is the original meaning of “phobia”; an irrational fear. Now, it is time to make that fear rational. It is time to take the advice of the mad Roman Emperor, Caligula. One of his generals told him that his people hated him. Caligula replied; “Let them hate me, as long as they fear me”.

Tiers of a Clown-World: From Threats of Throat-Slitting to Lucy in the Sty

/5 Comments/in , /by

I have hope for Tom. I have no hope for Brendan. They’re both puppets of Frank, but Tom’s strings seem much looser than Brendan’s. That’s why I hope he’ll break free one day. Who am I talking about? I’m talking about the Trotskyist libertarians Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill, who are both puppets of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi. As Trotskyists and libertarians, Tom and Brendan have always thought and written with a mixture of delusion, dishonesty and deceit. But Tom shows worrying signs of beginning to see the truth.

Open Borders = Closed Mouths

For example, Tom has written about the very significant and disturbing murder of Asad Shah, which Brendan and Frank have always studiously ignored. Asad Shah was a heterodox Muslim who was engaged in theological debate by an orthodox Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed in Glasgow in 2016. Tanveer said that Asad had committed blasphemy. Asad said that he hadn’t. The debate was resolved in decisive — and typically Islamic — fashion when Tanveer stabbed and stomped Asad to death. It was what I call a meteor murder, one of those that flash through the headlines and then disappear for ever from the leftist media. Meteor murders disappear like that because they reveal the toxic truth rather than reinforce leftist lies. The toxic truth revealed by Asad Shah’s murder was that Muslim immigration is very bad for free speech in the West.

The hero and the heretic: Tanveer Ahmed is celebrated by British-based Muslims for murdering Asad Shah (ghazi = hero, kazzab = liar)

As libertarians, Frank Furedi, Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill are passionate supporters of both free speech and open borders, so they can’t admit that open borders inevitably result in closed mouths. Instead, they dishonestly pretend that Muslims and other non-Whites would adore free speech if only Western governments abandoned “multiculturalism” and championed the glorious values of the Enlightenment. The murder of Asad Shah explodes this libertarian pretence and dishonesty, which is why Frank Furedi and Brendan O’Neill have always completely ignored it. To his great credit, Tom Slater broke that silence and wrote a long article about the murder. He emphasized its ominous significance and deplored the lack of attention it has received. But he still refused to admit that the murder was a direct product of Muslim immigration, not of “multiculturalism.”

Importing Pakistani pathologies

If he’d set the murder in its full context, he would have found it much harder to do that. So he didn’t. Asad Shah belonged to the small Ahmadiyya sect, which is regarded as blasphemous by mainstream Muslims like Tanveer Ahmed. That’s why Ahmadiyya are persecuted in Muslim countries like Pakistan, whose government has banned Ahmadiyya from even calling themselves “Muslim” and whose mainstream Islamic sects literally preach murder against the Ahmadiyya.

Astonishingly, when Pakistanis come to  Britain, they bring Pakistani culture and ideas with them. Fancy that! Yes, Pakistani Muslims retain their devotion to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) rather than embracing the Enlightenment (Piss Be Upon It). In Pakistan, which literally means “The Land of the Pure,” you demonstrate your devotion to Muhammad by killing anyone who disrespects him. That’s why Pakistani Muslims built shrines for two martyr-murderers, Ilm Ud-Din from the 1920s and Mumtaz Qadri from the 2010s, who killed blasphemers and then nobly submitted to execution by the authorities. In Britain, the Pakistani Muslim Tanveer Ahmed saw no reason to abandon this venerable tradition of killing blasphemers. As the snappy saying goes in Urdu: Gustakh-e-Rasūl kī ek hī sazā, sar tan se judā! — “For insult to the Prophet, there is only one punishment: cut the head from the body!” That’s why Tanveer Ahmed stabbed and stomped Asad Shah to death, then calmly accepted arrest, trial, and life imprisonment. Now that he’s in jail, he basks in the adulation and respect of other British-based Muslims who share his perfectly orthodox and respectable views about the need to slaughter blasphemers.

Handy Hindi head-chopping hints: a mainstream Muslim maxes the mojo of Mohammadism (image from OpIndia)

Who could have seen that coming? Anyone with any understanding of Islam and Third-World migration, that’s who. There are also deep-rooted traditions of child-rape and political corruption in Pakistan, so — surprise, surprise! — Pakistanis in Britain effortlessly out-perform the White natives in raping children and rigging elections. Third-World immigration is very bad for the West and for free speech, which is why Frank Furedi and Brendan O’Neill have said nothing about the horrific murder of Asad Shah. To his credit, Tom Slater said a lot about the murder of Asad Shah but failed to admit the truth: that Muslim migration, not multiculturalism, was to blame.

Rapturous applause for violent threats

And now Tom Slater has done it again. He’s written about another highly significant free-speech case and has again failed to admit the truth. Indeed, I don’t think he even sees the truth, because his libertarianism warps both his perceptions and his judgment. Here is some of what he wrote:

What a difference a jury makes. The acquittal today [15th August 2025] of Labour councillor and trade unionist Ricky Jones, after he called for far-right protesters’ throats to be slit at an ‘anti-racist’ demonstration in north-east London last year, reminds us why 12 ordinary men and women are an infinitely superior defence against illiberalism and overly harsh punishment than any ‘enlightened’ judge.

Last August, at a Stand Up To Racism rally in Walthamstow, in the wake of the anti-migrant Southport riots, Jones picked up the mic to denounce ‘disgusting Nazi fascists’, adding ‘we need to cut their throats and get rid of them’. He ran a finger across his neck for dramatic effect. A clip of his speech, which naturally received rapturous applause from the crowd, went viral, and he was charged with encouraging violent disorder.

To say that people were locked up for saying much less after Southport is an understatement. Racist memes landed some people in prison. But there was no serious prospect of Jones’s violent rhetoric being acted upon. There were no fascists in attendance to knife: the Walthamstow protest was called in response to rumours of a far-right demo that mysteriously never materialised. He also argued, apparently successfully, that he never intended those words to be taken literally and even edited them out of a clip he later posted. Unless you believe that rash, stupid words should result in a lengthy spell in prison, then this can surely be the only correct, proportionate, liberty-protecting decision. If only we’d seen more of them amid the post-Southport mania.

The reason we didn’t is that, unlike Jones, many of those nabbed for speech-related crimes last summer pleaded guilty. Had Northampton childminder Lucy Connolly — convicted of ‘stirring up racial hatred’ and sentenced to 31 months for posting on X, ‘Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care’ — pleaded not guilty, she may well have been spared prison, too. That she remains inside while Jones has just walked free isn’t so much two-tier justice as it is two-tier legal advice. Not to mention two different offences — Jones’s charge of encouraging violent disorder, notes free-speech lawyer Preston Byrne, is a ‘narrower conduct offence that’s harder to prove’. Still, whether it was wise counsel or sheer bloody mindedness on his part, Jones’s decision to leave his fate in the hands of a jury of his peers, rather than some jaundiced, imperious beak, may well have made all the difference here.

This raises uncomfortable questions about the Southport speech criminals, many of whom pleaded guilty under the not-so-wise guidance of their duty solicitors. Hoping for leniency, many have ended up doing longer stretches than even violent criminals. Connolly received a heftier sentence than one Philip Prescot, an actual Southport rioter. He was part of the mob that menaced the town’s mosque. We might also ask why Jones, while remanded in custody at first, was later granted bail, while Connolly was not, piling yet more pressure on the defendant. (“The Ricky Jones acquittal shows us the wisdom of juries,” Spiked, 15th August 2025)

Leftist judge Rosa Dean, a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ) who promotes “diversity and community engagement in the judicial system”

Slater talks about “uncomfortable questions” but fails to ask one very obvious “uncomfortable” question. What would have happened if Lucy Connolly or any of the other White “Southport speech criminals” had pleaded “Not Guilty” and appeared before the same judge and jury that acquitted the Black leftist Ricky Jones? The question is obvious and so is the answer: Connolly and Co would have been found guilty by the same jury that acquitted Jones. The judge would then have taken great relish in sentencing her or them to a long stretch in jail. We know for certain that the judge, Rosa Dean, is a partisan leftist and there are entirely credible estimates that the jury was at least half non-White. Slater praises the jury for its “wisdom” and for making the “correct, proportionate, liberty-protecting decision.” Contra Slater, the overwhelming likelihood is the jury had no interest at all in “liberty” or free speech. Instead, it was merely protecting one of its own. If someone not of its own, like the White right-winger Lucy Connolly, had appeared before it, then it would have delivered the opposite verdict: “Guilty!” rather than “Not Guilty.”

The Dumbfounded and da Delighted

Do Slater and other libertarians disagree? Then I simply ask them to consider this obvious scenario. Suppose that Salman Rushdie goes on trial after a future British government introduces a law protecting Muslims from blasphemy and offence. Suppose further that the trial takes place in Bradford or some other heavily enriched city and that, by the vagaries of jury selection, Rushdie faces a jury composed entirely of orthodox Pakistani Muslims. What would the jury’s verdict be? It would certainly be “Guilty.”

Black murderer, White victim: the acquitted O.J. Simpson and his wife Nicole Simpson (image from Netflix)

And what would the verdict be if the jury happened to be entirely White instead? It would probably — but not certainly — be “Not guilty” (we can’t be certain because many White leftists pander to Muslim hatred of free speech). The law has never been perfect and never will be. But the law is much less reliable and objective in racially and religiously mixed societies. We saw that very clearly way back in 1995, when the Black O.J. Simpson had a mostly Black jury and was wrongly found not guilty of murdering his White wife Nicole Simpson. In the wider society, the verdict dumbfounded Whites and delighted Blacks. We saw it again in America when the White Derek Chauvin was wrongly found guilty of murdering the Black George Floyd. Whatever the racial make-up of the jury in that case, the jurors had no doubt that Blacks would react with fury and violence if Chauvin was acquitted.

Lucy in the Sty with Crime ’Uns

In Britain, something similar has happened: the Black Ricky Jones has been given an easy ride and found not guilty; the White Lucy Connolly has been strong-armed into pleading guilty and given a harsh sentence. Yes, the toxic truth about the acquittal of Ricky Jones and the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly is that they reveal the two tiers of a Clown-World. There is two-tier justice in Britain, because the leftist Clowns who are currently in charge treat non-Whites with maximal lenience and Whites with maximal harshness. The current Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is an “anti-fascist” Jew who loudly proclaims his devotion to the “rule of law.” In other words, he’s an anti-White authoritarian who believes in the rule of leftist lawyers like himself, not the genuine and impartial rule of law. Hermer and the shabbos-goy Keir Starmer personally oversaw the destruction of fair trials after the Southport riots in 2024, encouraging the courts to treat White defendants with maximal harshness and minimal delay. Accordingly, the non-criminal Lucy Connolly was quickly condemned to the pig-sty of jail not because her words posed any threat of inciting violence, but because she’s White and leftists like Hermer disagree with her politics. In 2025, Ricky Jones has belatedly avoided the pig-sty of jail not because his words were any less intemperate or unacceptable than Connolly’s, but because he’s Black and leftists like Hermer agree with his politics.

The Black and the White: acquitted Ricky Jones and imprisoned Lucy Connolly

It’s as simple — and as septic — as that. Clown-World believes in free speech only for its pets, not for its pests. Libertarians like Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill claim to believe in free speech for everyone. That’s why libertarians like Slater and O’Neill should ask themselves why Clown-World is so much in favor of non-White immigration. Are the Clowns blindly and blunderingly undermining their own power by importing vibrant Third-World folk? Or do the blindness and the blunders happen elsewhere? The answer is obvious. The acquittal of Ricky Jones has just bawled that answer again. Like Tom Slater, I’m pleased by the acquittal. Unlike Tom Slater, I’m pleased because I understand the acquittal means. It was another glaring example of two-tier justice and will be another boost for White nationalism.

Britain has witnessed harsh punishment for a White mother who issued a swiftly deleted cry of anger and easy acquittal for a Black barbarian who issued threats of throat-slitting. And more Whites have woken to the truth: that Britain’s traitorous elite hates Whites and loves injustice. This being so, one conclusion follows swiftly and surely: that traitorous elite needs to be toppled and its ethnic pets need to return to the Third World.

How the Left Turned Against Its Jewish Alter Ego

/13 Comments/in , /by

For a new-born state, the quest for identity means a relentless struggle against a rival victimhood. This can be called a pursuit of “negative identity,” requiring the demonization of the Other and a quasi-necrophiliac fixation on its own dead rather than its own living. No people or nation willingly cedes its dead to the competing death toll of another tribe or nation. A prime example is Jewish identity, uniquely enshrined in Western academia and mainstream media since 1945. It is now under significant strain.

The surreal accounts of World War II atrocities increasingly echo the actions of the Israeli military (IDF) in the Palestinian-inhabited Gaza Strip. Contemporary Israelis are now denounced as “fascists” or “Nazis” by the very groups whose attitudes on Jews as eternal victims were shaped for decades by their Jewish academic tutors. From the Marxist-inspired Frankfurt School to anti-apartheid advisors to Nelson Mandela, from confidants of Martin Luther King Jr., to prominent legal advocates of the Civil Rights Act and frontmen of the 1968 student upheavals in the U.S. and Europe, there runs a long tradition of Jewish involvement in progressive and revolutionary causes. Yet, the “negative dialectics” once critiqued by Jewish philosopher Theodor Adorno are now backfiring on Jews themselves.

Many leftists, antifa activists, and liberal commentators, along with Western politicians feigning outrage over what they call genocide in Gaza, fall prey to their own flawed reasoning. They equate Israeli military operations in Gaza with the persecutions of Jews in National Socialist Germany, ignoring that Israel’s actions align fully with the same antifascist logic deployed on a far more destructive scale by antifascist Allied forces during World War II when European and Japanese cities were firebombed into democratic submission. Thus, labeling Israel a “Nazi” or “racist” state is a contradiction in terms because it requires a mindless repetition of the antifascist and philosemitic rhetoric shaped in the wake of World War II.

As the Liberal System—colloquially called the “Deep State”—nears collapse, it grapples nervously with the Jewish Question in a context in which the Jewish collectivity has become symbol of absolute moral virtue. Over a long period, Jewish leftist, liberal, and antifa activists in the U.S. and EU have justified their existence by resorting to their own negative identity, that is, by branding White dissenters as “fascists” and “antisemites.” Jewish activist groups like the ADL and SPLC aligned themselves with these other virtue signalers and have basically followed up on tactics of the communist judicial practices in post-1945 Eastern Europe. For instance, Yugoslavia’s communist regime (1945–1990), in order to gain international legitimacy, widely encouraged by liberal outlets such as The New York Times, fabricated a perpetual “Croat fascist Ustasha threat.” Nowadays, U.S. and EU media and leftist pundits continue hunting for “neo-Nazis,” antisemites, and “white supremacists” — even when there are none in sight. As a young boy in Zagreb, Croatia, in the early 1960s, I recall a local joke: “When a fly farts at the foot of the nearby Sljeme Mountain or when a summer storm hits Zagreb, the Yugoslav media and its kangaroo courts will blame the proverbial “Croat fascist Ustasha.” Such communist-demonizing rhetoric, now adopted by Western judiciaries, reflects a policy of “negative legitimacy,” as seen in the recent lawfare against President Donald Trump and the January 6 Capitol trespassers.

The EU’s political class, burdened by Europe’s historical stigma of fascism and colonialism, must parrot U.S.-imported “ethnic sensitivity training” while simultaneously staging obligatory atonement pilgrimages to Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall. “Never again,” originally a Jewish-inspired antifascist slogan, meant to shield Jews from criticism, now carries little weight under the inconvenient reality of the Gaza’s dead and starving. Israel’s actions in Gaza are disrupting the leftist pastoral image of a benevolent, always suffering Jewish nation. Therefore, the U.S. and E.U. system must navigate a delicate balance: a cautionary condemnation of the IDF while preserving philosemitic rhetoric created in the post-1945 international order.

E.U. politicians couldn’t care less about Palestinian suffering, just as they didn’t care much about Jews’ plight before and during World War II. However, with Europe’s non-European Muslim population surging—over 10 million in the U.K. and France combined, and 20 million across the continent, totaling 40 million with the Balkans included —they must tread a fine line. Beside a mandatory ritual consisting of the regurgitation of feigned philosemitic phrases, they must also feign sympathy for Muslim newcomers. Hence the reason that both the U.K. and France, scared of popular unrest from their Muslim populations, recently endorsed the ill-defined Palestinian state—to Israel’s dismay.

“Nazis,” Socialists, and National Socialists

As noted in TOO on many occasions, precise definitions of words and their historical context are vital to understanding the notion of the political. This is especially true for terms like “Fascism,” “National Socialism,” “genocide,” and “antisemitism.” The trendy term “Nazi” has become a trivialized pejorative, stripped of descriptive value and weaponized against political adversaries. Israeli PM Netanyahu labels his Lebanese and Iranian critics “Nazis,” while leftist protesters on U.S. and E.U. campuses accuse him and his IDF of “Nazi-like behavior.” Even President Trump is branded a “fascist” by home-grown virtue signalers.

The term “Nazi” was never used in official German documents or academic journals from 1933 to 1945; the correct term was “National Socialism.” Informally, the word “Nazi” did appear in casual settings, often as a playful shorthand. Young German National Socialist party members sometimes referred to their older colleagues as “Altnazi” (“old Nazi”), akin to “old fart” in American slang—a term of endearment, not disrespect. In his half-satirical travelogue, “Ein Nazi fährt nach Palästina” (“A Nazi Travels to Palestine”), published in the respected German literary journal Der Angriff in 1934, Leopold von Mildenstein, a National Socialist author and prominent official in charge of the Jewish Question, chronicles his journey to the British Mandate for Palestine.[i]

The piece, light and picaresque, barely touches on political tensions between Palestinians, British authorities, and Jewish settlers. I do not intend to probe into Mildenstein’s ties with his close associate Adolf Eichmann and their Zionist connections. I solely want to highlight that the word “Nazi” was rarely used in National Socialist Germany, and when it was, it carried a colloquial, context-dependent tone.

Unlike Europe, where socialism historically aligned with class struggle, “socialism” remains a bad word among American right-wingers, who often equate it with communism. As German sociologist Werner Sombart, a disciple of Max Weber, noted in his book Why Is There No Socialism in America?, early twentieth-century European immigrants in the U.S. dreamt more about their social advancement than how to stage class warfare. Sombart observes that “the history of ‘third’ parties in America is a sad history of continued defeats that leaves little hope for the future.”[ii]

The American labor movement, shaped considerably by the racial awareness of workers and the myth of the promised land, made it hard for socialism to gain traction among the majority of White American immigrants. However, Sombart gives more credit to American workers, adding that unlike in submissive Europe, “the groveling and crawling before the ‘higher classes,’ which is so unpleasant in Europe, is completely unknown in America.”[iii]  In passing, it is worth noting that the word “socialism” had high standing in all countries affiliated with or sympathetic to National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy—before being usurped by the Soviet Union and left-wing parties which provided it with a multiracial and international meaning.

President Trump’s populist rhetoric carries some socialist veneer that resonates well with American workers and the lower middle class, though it’s viewed with anger by the American financial elites. Despite his pro-Israel stance, Trump garners ironically more support among European hardline nationalists than with his MAGA home base. He is certainly not ignorant of the ADL’s shady rhetoric but needs to make some compromise, however bad it looks to outsiders. One should remember how the popular French King Henry IV (1589–1610), in order to fast-track his ascension to the throne, converted promptly from Protestantism to Catholicism, with his short pragmatic phrase: “Paris is well worth a mass.”  (“Paris vaut bien une messe”).

Trump’s crackdowns on Antifa and communistic campus activists have already had a positive ripple effect in self-censored Europe. However, with nearly 50% of the U.S. population of non-White origin, MAGA’s vision may sound like a distant pipe dream.  Multiracial societies, such as the present U.S. or the E.U. are highly dysfunctional, as diverse racial groups vie for victimhood status at the expense of another group. The Holocaust, once a sacrosanct segment of the Liberal System, is now losing its victimological monopoly as other groups—Armenians, Timorese, Tamils, Tajiks, etc., and millions of victims of communism, or relatives of millions of killed ethnic Germans, and dozens of other ethnic groups worldwide, who perished before, during and after World War II—are eagerly waiting to be added to the long commemoration list.

An ethnically segregated system may be the only path to stability in the U.S. and E.U., reducing   fears of one group weaponizing its victimhood status against another. To counter the breakup of the country, Trump’s administration is well-advised to overhaul the education system first: eliminate Freudo-Marxist scholasticism, remove affirmative action, and end DEI-based faculty appointments. “Ethnic studies,” a conceptual misnomer, should be scrapped. Mandatory IQ testing, courses in sociobiology and behavioral genetics, Latin, and Greco-Roman classics should become the curriculum for students of European descent.

The collapse of Yugoslavia, a failed communist DEI showcase, serves as a cautionary example why multiethnic states do not last long. Ongoing ethnic conflicts like Ukraine-Russia or Serb-Croat tensions only give credence to leftist and communist arguments that nationalism can have equally disastrous results.

The haunting question must be raised: Are White nationalists  interested in preserving their identity based on their race, or will they continue to fight among themselves over their often-mythologized histories and their exaggerated cultural narratives? At present, the influx of millions of non-European migrants poses a far greater danger to White Americans and the native peoples of Europe than their millennia-long, and ultimately futile, debates over their historical and cultural memory.

Segregation and walls foster political stability. One could learn at least one thing from Israel: Fences, borders, barbed wire and a triple-locked door often make good neighbors and promote mutual understanding.

Notes

[i] Leopold („Lim“) von Mildenstein, „Ein Nazi fährt nach Palästina“, Der Angriff (Oct., 5-9, 1934), pp. 5-11.

https://digipres.cjh.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE9813662

[ii] Werner Sombart, „ Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus?“ (Tübingen: Verlag

von J. C.B. Mohr,  1906), p. 58 (In English, „Why is There No Socialism In the United States“, (‎NY:  International

Arts & Sciences Press, Inc., 1976).

[iii] Ibid. p.128.

Sacred Sex-Beasts: How a Rape-Gang Report is Another Step Towards Civil War in Britain

/8 Comments/in , , /by

Operation Voicer. Why is it so little known? The left could surely use it to counter the “racist narrative” that importing non-White men into the West is bad for White women and girls. Yes, Operation Voicer was the police investigation into a gang of the most depraved and disgusting sex-criminals. They were raping babies, filming their crimes, and sharing the footage on the dark web:

Police combed the suspects’ electronic communications and established that contact between them began on adult online sex forums, which are publicly accessible and legal to use. Investigators recovered Skype chat logs that recorded conversations between the men, which police described as disgusting and abhorrent. The exchanges — which were never meant to have been discovered as the men went to great lengths to destroy their online activities — included references to “nep”, a term investigators had not come across before. It is a shortening of “nepiophile”, a person sexually attracted to babies and toddlers. There were also references to controlled drugs and over-the-counter medicines, with members of the ring openly discussing what dosages were needed to drug children of different ages. (“Seven members of ‘terrifyingly depraved’ paedophile gang jailed,” The Guardian, 11th September 2015)

The White baby-rapists whose rich and vibrant gay identity was erased by the leftist media (image from the Guardian)

All of those sickening sex-beasts were White men — every last one of them. And they might still have been raping babies in 2025 if one of the gang hadn’t spontaneously confessed his crimes to the police in 2014. So why don’t the left use Operation Voicer to shame the pro-White racists who oppose non-White immigration? The answer is simple: leftists don’t do that because the baby-rapists are the wrong kind of White men. In their reports on the case, the Guardian, BBC and Wikipedia do their best to “erase” a core component of the men’s rich and vibrant sexual identity. But one word in one sentence of one Guardian report hints at the truth: “A baby, aged between three and seven months at the time of the abuse, and two boys aged around four have been identified as victims.” Can you spot the word? That’s right: it’s “boys.” The Manchester Evening News was less reticent: “A child rapist involved in a paedophile ring which sexually abused babies and toddlers was a manager at a well-known local charity […] Chris Knight worked at OutdoorLads, a social group for gay and bisexual men, for around five years until he was suspended when he was arrested in November last year [2014].”

Yes, the baby-rapists were members of what I call the Glorious Gay Community or GGC. Also members of the GGC are two men charged in June 2025 with raping a baby to death in northern England. Once again, the Guardian has done its best to erase the men’s rich and vibrant sexual identity. Unfortunately for the Guardian, it’s easy to read between the lines when the story is about two men adopting a baby boy:

A secondary school teacher has appeared in court accused of the sexual assault and murder of a 13-month-old baby boy he was adopting. Jamie Varley, 36, who was a head of year at a school in Blackpool, is also accused of a number of counts of assault, cruelty and taking and distributing indecent images relating to Preston Davey. Varley was in the process of adopting Preston along with the co-accused John McGowan-Fazakerley, 31. Both men appeared in court on Friday, nearly two years after police were called to Blackpool Victoria hospital, where the one-year-old died on 27 July 2023. (“Blackpool teacher charged with sexual assault and murder of baby,” The Guardian, 13th June 2025)

The two gay men accused of raping a baby boy to death in 2023 (photos from Twitter)

Again, the two men are White, but again they’re also gay and therefore entirely unsuitable for anti-White leftist propaganda. The left refuses to admit that pedophilia is more prevalent among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. It appears that baby-rape too is more prevalent among homosexual men. But homosexual men are a sacred minority on the left, so Operation Voicer cannot be used by leftists to counter another toxic truth about another sacred minority. The second toxic truth is that sex-crime is more prevalent among non-White men than among White men. Much more prevalent. That’s just been admitted by a leading leftist in her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. Dame Louise Casey was appointed to carry out the audit by the Labour government in January after Elon Musk criticized that government over Britain’s rape-gang epidemic. Unfortunately for Labour, Casey has been honest rather than obfuscatory. The BBC reluctantly reports some of her honesty about another sacred minority:

One small example of how Pakistani Muslim men are massively over-represented in sex-crimes (graphic from Louise Casey’s rape-gang report)

One key data gap highlighted by the report is on ethnicity, which is described as “appalling” and a “major failing”. It says the ethnicity of perpetrators is “shied away from” and still not recorded in two-thirds of cases, meaning it is not possible to draw conclusions at a national level. However, the report says there is enough evidence from police data in three areas — Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire — to show “disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds amongst suspects for group-based child sexual exploitation”.

It adds that the significant number of perpetrators of Asian ethnicity identified in local reviews and high-profile prosecutions across the country also warrants further examination. The report says more effort is needed to explore why it appears perpetrators of Asian and Pakistani ethnicity are disproportionately represented in some areas. […] The review also notes a significant proportion of live cases appear to involve suspects who are non-UK nationals or claiming asylum in the UK. (“Key takeaways from grooming gangs report,” BBC News, 16th June 2025)

The toxic truth is slowly starting to prevail over leftist lies. Not that the left is going to give up without a fight. The veteran leftist liar Polly Toynbee was still trying to hold the line — and the lying — in her response to the rape-gang report. She wrote in the Guardian that it was “inadequate” to record “ethnicity” in only “a third of cases.” I’m surprised that a writer as good as Toynbee used the feeble adjective “inadequate,” which is by no means the mot juste. And Toynbee didn’t explore how and why this “inadequacy” has arisen in leftist institutions that are usually obsessed with recording “ethnicity” and exposing “racial disparities.” She then announced: “[H]ere’s the latest from the data that has been recorded: 83% of suspects are white, 7% Asian, 5% black.”

Fancy that. Polly Toynbee doesn’t appear to read her own newspaper. Four days before her valiant attempt to carry on lying, the Guardian had published a report about the trial of a Pakistani Muslim rape-gang in the northern town of Rochdale. Here’s one line from the report: “Girl A told the jury she could have been targeted by more than 200 offenders but said ‘there was that many it was hard to keep count’.” And how many of those offenders went on trial in Rochdale? The report revealed that seven did. 7/200 = 0.035 or 3.5%. You can find the same thing in every other non-White rape-gang trial: the victims of the gangs always report far more abusers than are ever arrested and prosecuted. As I wrote at the Occidental Observer in 2018: “You’ve heard about specimen charges, selected when a criminal has committed too many offences for a court to deal with speedily and efficiently. Now meet specimen defendants, selected when a ‘community’ contains too many criminals for the authorities to charge without embarrassment.”

Seven Pakistani Muslim child-rapists out of possibly “more than 200”

I based that conclusion on reports in the Guardian. If a knuckle-dragging racist like me could understand the truth from reports in the Guardian, why couldn’t the hugely intelligent Polly Toynbee? It’s simple: because she prefers leftist lies to the toxic truth (and, of course, she isn’t really either intelligent or a good writer). But not all leftists prefer lies to truth. As I’ve also written at the Occidental Observer: “not all leftists are collaborating with or trying to conceal the rape-gangs.” I then listed some of the honorable exceptions: the journalists Anna Hall and Julie Bindel; the Labour politicians Ann Cryer and Sarah Champion; the former policewoman Maggie Oliver and the social worker Jayne Senior. Now I’ll add two more honest leftists to that list: Dame Louise Casey, who has begun to speak the truth in her just-published report on the rape-gangs, and Raja Miah, a brown-skinned Muslim from Oldham, another of the rape-gang redoubts in northern England. Raja Miah is a leftist insider who went rogue, because he refused to join the cover-up about the Pakistani rape-gangs. In other words, he refused to join the Labour party’s war on the White working-class. Then again, he’s Bangladeshi, not Pakistani.

Raja Miah, the rogue Bangladeshi leftist who refused to join Labour’s war on the White working-class (image from Andrew Gold’s channel at YouTube)

I don’t think that Bangladeshis are good for Britain, but I’m in no doubt that Pakistanis are worse. We are not all the same under the skin. Some groups, like homosexual men or non-White men, commit more and worse sex-crime than heterosexual men or White men. But Pakistanis are a lot worse than Bangladeshis. This is a toxic truth that the mainstream left has done its best to deny, decade after decade. Now the toxic truth is beginning to emerge. But there is no genuine cure for Third-World pathologies in the West except the removal of Third-World people from the West. And that won’t happen without civil war, which the evil White racist Enoch Powell prophesied long ago. In 2025 the respectable military historian David Betz expects civil war to arrive soon in Western Europe. Casey’s report is another step towards the fulfilment of Powell’s prophecy.

Carry On Raping: How Leftists Are Ideal Folk to Tackle the Pathologies Created and Sustained by Leftism

/4 Comments/in , , /by

Here’s an important question with an obvious answer. Who is best-placed to tackle war-crimes committed against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip? Clearly, it’s the Israel Defense Forces or IDF. The IDF have all the necessary local knowledge and experience, having been focused on the Gaza Strip for many months now, extending outreach daily to the local inhabitants, and conducting extensive remodelling of local architecture and infrastructure.

Creating a rape-gang epidemic

Next, what about crime and corruption on the island of Sicily? Who’s best-placed to tackle that? Clearly it’s the veteran civic association known as the Mafia. Again, they have all the local knowledge and experience. No-one knows more about crime and corruption on Sicily than the Mafia, as all experts are agreed. Finally, what about vampirism in the Romanian province of Transylvania? Who’s best-placed to tackle that? Clearly, it’s the respected local leader Count Dracula. His personal experience of vampirism in Transylvania stretches back many centuries, as not even his most stubborn critics will deny. Owing to a rare medical condition, the Count can’t, alas, be active by daylight, but he more than makes up for that with his energy and enterprise in the hours of darkness.

So the principle is clear. Those best-placed to tackle crimes are those responsible for or complicit in the crimes. And it’s this clear principle that has guided Britain’s Labour party in its response to the Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs that have been hard at work for decades in British towns and cities controlled by the Labour party. After Elon Musk led an outcry about the rape-gangs at the beginning of 2025, the Labour government refused to commission a national enquiry, but promised that there would be “five local enquiries.” Labour were lying, of course. They were merely buying time as they plotted to shield both themselves and their ethnic pets from further scrutiny. As I’ve pointed out in article after article at the Occidental Observer, Labour and its leftism created the rape-gangs, have sustained and protected the rape-gangs, and have absolutely no intention of stopping the rape-gangs. If the current Labour government were honest about that, it would admit that its policy on the rape-gangs can be summed up in three simple words: “Carry On Raping.”

The Grift Report extends its congratulations to fiercely feminist Labour minister Jess Phillips

But Labour isn’t honest about its policy on the Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs, of course. Leftism is an ideology of lies and evasion, so the veteran Labour politician Jess Phillips was intent on lying and weaseling throughout the speech she made to parliament about “Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation” on 8th April 2025. That date was carefully chosen, because parliament was about to shut down for the Easter Recess and the House of Commons was almost empty. Phillips has the Orwellian title of “Minister for Safeguarding Women and Girls,” which means that she is dedicated to harming women and girls. In particular, she’s dedicated to harming women and girls from the White working-class, whom the Labour party was founded to champion but now works tirelessly to destroy. In a pathological sense, here’s one of the most interesting parts of her speech:

We are developing a new best practice framework to support local authorities which want to undertake victim-centred local inquiries, or related work, drawing on the lessons from local independent inquiries like Telford, Rotherham and Greater Manchester. We will publish the details next month.

Alongside this we will set out the process through which local authorities can access the £5 million national fund to support locally-led work on grooming gangs. Following feedback from local authorities, the fund will adopt a flexible approach to support both full independent local inquiries and more bespoke work, including local victims’ panels or locally led audits into the handling of historic cases. (“Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation,” speech by Jess Phillips, 8th April 2025)

It’s hard to know where to begin responding to even that short section of Phillips’ lying and weaseling speech, but I’ll begin by noting the “£5 million national fund.” Three days after the speech, the Labour government announced that it was sending an additional £450 million in military aid to Ukraine. So Labour can devote another huge sum to a futile war in a distant foreign land infamous for official corruption and theft, but can find only a paltry sum for “locally-led work” on a pathology afflicting its own traditional supporters in Britain. Res ipsa loquitur, as we say oop north. Next, note how often Phillips used the word “local” and its variants. In every case, it could be replaced by “Labour” or “leftist.” For example, what does “locally-led work” really mean? It means “leftist-led work.” That is, the “local authorities” — the Labour authorities — responsible for the pathology of Pakistani rape-gangs will be leading the response to it.

Leftist-led audits

There has been “feedback from local authorities,” you see. That is, leftists in rape-gang redoubts have sent “feedback” to leftists in London about how local leftists can be best supported by their leftist government in “tackling” pathologies created by leftism. It’s like the IDF in the Gaza Strip sending “feedback” to Tel Aviv about “tackling” war-crimes in the Gaza Strip. Or the Mafia in Sicily sending “feedback” to Rome about “tackling” crime and corruption in Sicily. Or Count Dracula in Transylvania sending “feedback” to Bucharest about “tackling” vampirism in Transylvania. We can be sure that the IDF, the Mafia, and the Count would all be firmly in favor of “a flexible approach” and “locally led audits,” that is, audits led by themselves and therefore guaranteed to reach the right conclusions. And recall this richly resonant phrase used by Phillips: “more bespoke work.” Again, the IDF, the Mafia and the Count would most certainly want that. After all, who would be “bespeaking” about the best way to “tackle” war-crimes in the Gaza Strip, crime in Sicily, and vampirism in Transylvania? You won’t need any guesses.

Loathsome leftists in Britain: Jess Phillips and Angela Rayner

Yes, that speech by Jess Phillips was a master-class in leftist lying and weasel-words. Watching her make the speech, I was reminded once again of how well a book published in 1949 describes the psychology and behavior of leftists like Phillips in 2025. I’m talking about Orwell’s classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, of course. Jess Phillips is the Minister for Safeguarding Women and Girls. Orwell captures all the truth and sincerity of that title when he describes how, in his darkly comic dystopia, “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.” But there’s also a classic from 1886 that describes leftists in 2025. I’m reminded of it every time I see Jess Phillips and her Labour colleague Angela Rayner. The classic is Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Here’s a highly relevant quote from it:

Mr. Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile, he had borne himself to the lawyer with a sort of murderous mixture of timidity and boldness, and he spoke with a husky, whispering and somewhat broken voice; all these were points against him, but not all of these together could explain the hitherto unknown disgust, loathing, and fear with which Mr. Utterson regarded him. “There must be something else,” said the perplexed gentleman. “There is something more, if I could find a name for it. God bless me, the man seems hardly human! Something troglodytic, shall we say? or can it be the old story of Dr. Fell? or is it the mere radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent?” (Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson, 1886)

Loathsome leftists in America: Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton

Like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton in America, Jess Phillips and Angela Rayner aren’t “pale and dwarvish.” But all four of those leftists strike me as “hardly human” and fill me with “disgust and loathing.” And in each case I attribute that to the “radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent.” When Jess Phillips made that speech about “Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation,” I witnessed once again the “radiance” of her “foul soul.” And after she’d made the speech, I witnessed more radiance from the foul soul of another female leftist. But this time it was a leftist I’d never heard of: one Tessa Munt (born 1959), an MP for the Liberal Democrats (this is another Orwellian title: it really means the Illiberal Anti-Democrats). Ms Munt had been enraged by the response of a quick-thinking Conservative to Phillips’ speech. The Shadow Home Secretary Katie Lam pointed out that the Pakistani rape-gangs were clearly motivated by racial hatred of Whites and quoted one of Labour’s ethnic pets to that effect: “We’re here to fuck all the white girls.”

Tessa Munt spits out the phrase “white men” as she addresses her fellow goyim in parliament

Ms Munt wasn’t standing for that incitement to racial hatred. Or rather, she was standing for it. Quivering with indignation, she rose to her feet from the famous green benches of the House of Commons and proclaimed: “My blood is boiling as I listen to this stuff from the Conservative benches.” She then reminded the racist Tories of “people just like me, white girls who’ve suffered at the hands of white men.” The venom with which she spat out the phrase “white men” was a sight (and sound) to behold. Well, as I said, I’d never heard of Tessa Munt before, but a little research told me that I’d just witnessed this “white girl” supply a classic M.F.G. moment. In other words, Ms Munt was addressing “My Fellow Goyim.” Wikipedia, as lovingly “curated” by leftists, says that Munt’s “mother was raised within the Church of Scotland, but her family had mainly Jewish roots.”

Accordingly, Ms Munt reminds me of Denis MacShane, the slug-like leftist and bon viveur who long and devotedly served as Labour MP for Rotherham. Unfortunately, Denis was badly let down by the local police, who failed to notify him that, decade in, decade out, Pakistani Muslims had been brazenly raping, torturing, prostituting, and murdering White working-class girls in what he called his “wonderful constituency.” That is, Denis says he didn’t act because the police failed to notify him, but his credibility was sadly tarnished when he was jailed for fraud in 2013. His downfall was lamented by the Jewish Chronicle, which saluted him as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions.” The Chronicle was perfectly correct in that description. But MacShane wasn’t elected to champion rich Jews in far-off London. He was elected to champion the White working-class in Rotherham. He didn’t do that. Instead, he utterly betrayed the White working-class, just like his “beloved Labour party” as a whole.

The Judeo-leftist war on Whites and the West

In short, the Labour party doesn’t merely hate the White workers it was found to champion, but imports and incites non-White savages to rape, torture, prostitute, and murder the daughters of White workers. It then condemns anyone who notices its criminal conspiracy as “racist” and “Islamophobic.” Modern Britain is like a giant Carry On movie based on Nineteen Eighty-Four but scripted by the Marquis de Sade and directed by Jeffrey Epstein. It would, of course, be called Carry on Raping. If you don’t know the Carry On movies — Carry On Cruising from 1962, Carry On Camping from 1969, and so on — they’re classics of no-brow British comedy, cheaply made, crammed with crude innuendo, and endlessly repeated on nostalgia channels.

Trigger warning needed! Leftists are deeply concerned not by non-White rape-gangs in 2025, but by sexism in movies from 1969

But nowadays they have to be preceded by solemn “trigger warnings” about their racism, sexism and homophobia. Leftists in modern Britain are determined to tackle the harmful effects of words in decades-old movies, you see. At the same time, leftists are determined not to tackle the rape, torture, prostituting, and murder of White working-class girls by non-White men in towns and cities all over Britain. After all, the non-White men are vital footsoldiers in the Judeo-leftist war on Whites and the West. Jess Phillips, Tessa Munt and Denis MacShane would, of course, all deny that they and their fellow leftists want the non-Whites to carry on raping. But leftist deeds speak far louder than leftist words.

What are “British Values”?

/7 Comments/in , /by

Pre-election Britain is currently going through a self-evaluation in such a way that, were it retail goods brought over a shop counter, there could be an action brought under the UK’s Trade Descriptions Act of 1968. This piece of legislation replaced the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 with “fresh provisions prohibiting misdescriptions of goods, services, accommodation and facilities provided in the course of trade”. It protects the consumer, who might otherwise be sold something which did not match the description given by the seller and is thus of lesser value than advertised. This act of deception currently applies to a commodity mentioned daily in the British media, and marketed under the brand name of “British values”. Regrettably, some immigrants seem not to share these values. But what are “British values”, and who says so? We should examine the meaning of “value” before ascribing them to a nation.

Value is the ascription of worth and has two main fields of function, the mathematical and the behavioral. Financial value, although that is what is most commonly understood by the English word, is a sub-set of the mathematical function, and need not be a third category. If x is given a value in a mathematical problem and a house is valued at a certain price, nothing essentially different is happening between these two scenarios in terms of value viewed as simple ascription. But whereas mathematical value is contained solely within mathematics, a self-referential system, values can also be societal, and so refer to something other than an apparatus of pure value comparison. Societal values can perhaps be defined as a set of civic indicators deemed acceptable to the majority of a society as conducive to its continuation.

British values, then, would be a belief that a certain set of actions in the civic sphere are preferable to alternatives as consensually agreed by the people who live in Britain. As we shall see, however, it is not a country’s people who get to evaluate their own nation. In this case, financial value is a valid comparison because a price is either centrally controlled or arrived at by the operation of the free market. So too with national values.

Nigel Farage, currently the joker in the pack of British politics, has recently been criticized for referring to polling showing that a large percentage of Muslims in the UK do not subscribe to “British values”, and it is presumed that everyone knows what this yardstick is in much the same way as they know the names of the four separate nations that make up the United Kingdom. But what are British values? That is, not what do we nostalgically believe them to be, not an airbrushed list of qualities the post-war British held dear and which always begins with “fair play”, but what are they in actuality? Perhaps we should ask the British government.

In 2014, the Department for Education (DOE) published guidelines for Britain’s schools, instructing them “to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different religions and beliefs”. The first three on this wish-list are demonstrably eroding, to say the least, and are in any case not specific to Britain among Western nations. Nothing makes them uniquely British. But it is the fourth that needs unpacking. (“Tolerance” and “respect” for other peoples or religions can be conflated into one term without significant loss of meaning).

Firstly, we must go back to the source of the DOE’s four pillars of British society, and the paragraph quoted from above guides us: “These values were first set out by the government in the ‘Prevent’ strategy in 2011”. This “strategy” has a very specific purpose. The UK government introduced its Prevent program specifically to counter Islamist terrorism, although its guideline document gives equal ranking to other perceived threats. So British values have been defined by government as part of a program to stop Islamists blowing things up and hacking people to death. Is there not more to them than a sub-section of a government policy document? Let’s go back to the last Labour period in power.

The consensus among what there is of the British political Right is that the beginning of the programmatic dismantling of post-colonial Britain, including its elusive values, began in earnest in 1997 with the election of Tony Blair’s Labour government. Margaret Thatcher was certainly the last Prime Minister to be recognizably Conservative, and when her own party turned on her like the Roman consuls on Caesar, John Major was only ever presiding over an interim government before the advent of “Blairism” and the Blairites.

Blair’s Home Secretary was David Blunkett, and in 2005 he wrote a piece for The Guardian on patriotism and British values. In it, he gave a definition of these values:

I believe Britishness is defined not on ethnic and exclusive grounds but on shared values: our history of tolerance, openness and internationalism; and our commitment to democracy and liberty, to civic duty and the public space.

Along with the same anodyne abstractions noted in the DOE set above, note Blunkett’s negative definition which opens the quote. Whatever British values might be, they are not rooted in ethnicity. Indeed, any hint of White British patriotism is now highly suspect, and Labour have a particular animus against England. John Prescott, one of Blair’s aides de camp, spoke of the British Isles as “Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions”. [Italics added]. The BBC never mentions England by name unless there is rioting there or a football match.

British values, however, must not just be defined by government, they must be taught, and for the pedagogical aspect of national evaluation we move forwards almost a decade from Blunkett’s article.

In 2016, a governmental review was published that remains one of its best-kept secrets. Despite being hidden in plain sight, things only become visible to the public if the media make it so, and this document received no coverage. The Casey Review, subtitled British Values and the Common Language of Virtues, is a founding document of British adherence to globalism that would require a novella-length exegesis worthy of a Mediaeval Aristotelean scholar to show its significance. I’ll highlight a few salient points, but if you want to see the technocratic manipulation and systematic undermining of national, practical civic wisdom, it is a short report and worth your time.

The problems with the report are apparent at the outset, with author Baroness Casey’s stated aim to “establish a set of values around which people from all different backgrounds can unite”. Of course, each of these “different backgrounds” already has its own set of values, often differing from those of the British. The review’s example of a value which they deem universal is honesty, and this is assumed to be a value which immigrants from all backgrounds automatically share with the host nation. Teachers may struggle to explain this to the children of devout Muslim families who believe that honesty can be suspended in the case of taqiyya, an Islamic doctrine sanctioning lying if it is in the cause of their religion. This is confirmed by the Koran, Islam’s ultimate arbiter.

The Casey Review is pedagogical throughout. Baroness Casey quotes from David Goodhart (essentially a journalist) on teaching values, and we get our first glimpse of the universalism to come:

Values, meaning different and sometimes conflicting notions of how to live a good life, are in a way the problem, not the solution. It is shared experience and mutual interests, and the way these can be fostered by public institutions and public rituals, that are a better means for overcoming differences.

Values, meaning in this case British values, are now the problem. This is the ideological epicenter of a document super-saturated with ideology. The Baroness herself approves:

While a bolstering of British values may well contribute to enhanced integration, placing an emphasis on character and common virtues could be a more effective way of allowing pupils to discuss shared experiences, and to use a common language in discussing what they think it means to be British.

To give the document an air of philosophical gravitas, Aristotle is invoked as one of “many philosophers of character”, and is found to “suggest that a number of virtues are held in common across humanity”. Apart from his spell in Macedonia tutoring Alexander the Great, it is not reported that Aristotle saw much of the rest of humanity in order to make such a comparison. There is no citation given in the review. Also, if virtue is the issue and it’s a Greek philosopher you want to back you up, Plato would seem the more obvious candidate. However, Plato famously held (particularly in the Meno and Protagoras) that virtue could not be taught, and that is not what a technocrat wants to hear echoing down the millennia.

As noted, a line-by-line exegesis of The Casey Review is required, but I will just note a line from the summary, and the document’s extraordinary sign-off:

[T]he teaching and cultivation of values should be a more interactive, collaborative and inclusive process which will help to enhance the moral character of the next generation, and thus the tolerance, respect and community cohesion… currently lacking across Britain.

“Community cohesion” is code for ensuring Muslims do not have their patience tested by any aspect of British society, and “inclusive” is another familiar dog-whistle word meaning “fewer white people and their values”.

But it is the final statement of the review, boxed off and highlighted at the foot of the document, that contains the core message. Once again, it is by David Goodhart, who is clearly in favor at court:

To combine diversity with solidarity, to improve integration and racial justice, it is not good just preaching tolerance, you need a politics which promotes in-group identity. [Italics in original].

Racial justice has now arrived at the scene, and the identity politics we see blooming now in Britain is here seeded. Identity is all, provided that identity has nothing to do with White ethnicity.

The destruction of ethnic culture is an ongoing part of the drive to rid Europe of its nation states by dismantling the history of those nations, and an example from the troubled country of Sweden is instructive. In 2019, an archaeologist at Stockholm’s Länsmuseum turned whistleblower on the policy of the museum’s curator with regard to newly discovered artefacts from the Viking era:

Coins, arrow-heads, ritual amulets, weapons, jewelry and weights that were kept in the past are now dumped into metal recycling bins upon discovery instead of being cared for and displayed. Museum excavators are instructed to recycle unearthed iron elements into scrap metal on the weak pretext that ‘it would take too many resources to process, identify and store them’.

It is not easy to see how the storage of small metal items at a museum would present a logistical problem in a building geared precisely for storage. As for allocation of Swedish resources, it should be noted that the excavations which unearthed these historical treasures were part of works to prepare land for new accommodation for asylum seekers. The Swedish Culture Secretary at the time was Alice Bah-Kuhnke, a half-caste lady whose Wikipedia page curiously omits mention of any religion she might hold. Those interested in her are forced to make assumptions based on her parentage, her mother being Swedish and her father from 97%-Muslim Gambia. If a country’s ethnic history is destroyed, quite literally in this case, that country can be defeated without a shot being fired, and new values can be imposed which exclude those previously kept alive in the genetic make-up of its natives.

Alice Bah-Kuhnke: In charge of Sweden’s cultural heritage (2014-2019) and now a MEP for Sweden’s Green Party

Genetics is not a purely biological affair. It is obviously a vast field, but we all grasp the concept of heritability and would do so even if our reading stopped at Darwin. We may also know that the formation of heritable characteristics over time may not be limited to physical evolution, but extend to the sphere of the social. In primitive and broad-brush terms, one theory for the vast differences between Africa and Europe in terms of simple development goes back to differing ways of obtaining food. The gatherers in warmer climes had no need of co-operation with one another, which was thus purely discretionary. The hunters of the frozen north, however, who required a team of men to overpower larger animals and whose food did not drop from the trees, soon learned that co-operation was essential both to eat and to stay alive. From these behavioral seeds, two very different continents grew. And those seeds also contained values and the importance of their variation. Thus, the ethnic history of a nation, its developing valuation of itself, travels with it via a genetic delivery system which reinforces behavior advantageous to the group, in this case a nation.

Michael Levin, in his 1997 book, Why Race Matters, examines valuation in the context of racial difference, and makes use of reinforcement as a qualifying term:

From a behavioral standpoint, to value something is to be reinforced by it, and to explain someone’s values is to explain why those stimuli that reinforce him do in fact do so.

Reinforcement is a term in standard use in psychology. People require “conventional reinforcement”, such as praise, acceptance or encouragement. But the distinctive history of a national people has its own type of genetic reinforcement: ethnicity.

The valuation of individual and national ethnicity is the epicenter of the modern schism between the Left and the Right, and to recognize the role of reinforcement in that valuation is to go to the heart of that divide. Reinforcement in ethnic terms creates a virtuous circle in which an individual who values their ethnic history in turn reinforces the value they place on their own partaking of that ethnicity. The English value the work of Shakespeare not just because his work is dramatically satisfying and his use of language appealing, but also because he was English. A high valuation of ethnicity is why nations have national heroes, real or mythical. Which brings us to the question of national pride. Pride is the last of the Bible’s deadly sins, and national pride is now politically suspect if and only if that nation is historically White.

National pride is more complex than personal pride. It is more than the warm glow every time you see your diploma on the wall or feel the heightened sense of self-worth that comes with going for and getting a job you very much wanted. The pride an Englishman or any other native feels in his country extends backwards in time and goes down to the cellular, genetic level. Essentially, you are proud of those who came before you and what they achieved and, by extension, your own place as a living part of that achievement, which is your country. If this is a genetic as well as a temporal relation, we would do well to remember the root of ‘genetic’ is the Ancient Greek genos, among whose meanings are genus and species, but also family, lineage, and kin. This is the genetics the Left would rather you didn’t notice.

So, to what conclusion did our whistle-stop tour of contemporary British values, and the teaching of same, lead us? We can certainly say, pace the favored courtier David Goodhart, that values are not the problem. The problem is that values are being set technocratically by committee and not organically as national self-awareness. The installation of a pedagogical regimen will dictate what those values are, and what they are, what value is given to x, will not be the result of a natural accretion of values which have grown out of collective national identity but a set of globalist diktats. The values British schoolchildren are taught at school are the result of a technocratic/globalist value system which supersedes nationalist values and which by necessity prioritizes indoctrination, conformity and orthodoxy over national fervor. But real British values are not the outcome of focus groups of leftist ideologues writing anti-terrorism documents. They live in the blood and the soil of its native people, whether the new elites like that allusion or not.

Blights on Whites: HBD, Headlines and the Violation of Western Norms

/25 Comments/in , /by

A simple headline. That’s often all it takes to spot HBD — Human Bio-Diversity — at work in a high-trust Western society like Britain. That’s because a headline is often enough to reveal that the norms of such a society are being violated in an extreme way.

Brazen in Bournemouth

The norms were obviously set by mainstream Whites, so they tend to be violated by outsiders. The worse the violation, the more likely it is that an outsider is responsible. For example, one norm in Britain is the ability of large numbers of people to gather peacefully and cooperatively for recreation. That’s why we have holiday-resorts like the coastal towns of Bournemouth and Blackpool, where Whites have gathered for many decades to enjoy sun, sand and sea. But Bournemouth and Blackpool have recently generated headlines about the brutal violation of the norms that formerly prevailed there. When I read the headlines, I immediately thought “HBD!” That is, I thought that outsiders — not British Whites — would be responsible for the crimes in question.

And I was right. At least, I was right about one of the headlines and I’m confident that I’ll be right about the other two. The first headline ran like this: “Man found guilty of raping girl, 15, in sea off Bournemouth beach.” That’s an extreme violation of a British norm and sure enough an outsider was responsible:

A 20-year-old man has been found guilty of the “brazen” rape of a 15-year-old girl after he took her out of her depth in the sea off Bournemouth beach. A jury found Gabriel Marinoaica, of Darlaston, Walsall, guilty of three charges of sexual assault and rape. He was acquitted of a further charge of sexual assault by biting her neck. Judge Susan Evans KC [King’s Counsel] said it was a “brazen thing to have done in broad daylight” on the beach. (“Man found guilty of raping girl, 15, in sea off Bournemouth beach,” The Guardian, 15th March 2024)

Not British but brazen: the possibly Gypsy Romanian Gabriel Marinoaica

Well, it was a “brazen thing” to do by British standards, but Gabriel Marinoaica isn’t British. He has a Romanian surname and could well be a Gypsy. That is, he isn’t genuinely from “Darlaston, Walsall” in the English Midlands. Instead, he is a single footsoldier in the “immivasion” of Britain overseen first by the treacherous Labour party and second by the equally treacherous Conservative party.

I’m confident that the same will prove true of the criminals behind two other headlines from the British holiday resorts of Blackpool and Bournemouth. They run like this: “Woman raped in horror attack on Blackpool seafront” and “Bournemouth beach stabbing: man arrested on suspicion of murder.” In the first case, the police are looking for a “tall Asian [i.e., Pakistani or similar] man in his mid-30s.” And in the second, a suspect has now been arrested and charged. If you’re a hate-criminal like me, you won’t be surprised to hear that his name is Nasen Saadi. He’s described in the mainstream media as being “from Croydon, London.” He isn’t, of course. Whether or not he is found guilty, he’s another footsoldier in the “immivasion” of Britain overseen by our treacherous elite.

Schoolboy slaughters schoolgirl

If he is found guilty, he will become yet another non-White who has imposed vibrancy on the White norms that formerly prevailed in Croydon. This district of London has a name with a beautiful etymology: it’s from the Old English crogen and denu, meaning “valley where wild saffron grows.” But forget wild saffron: in the 21st century, Croydon regularly generates headlines that reek of HBD. Late last year, for example, there were headlines about the “fatal stabbing of [a] schoolgirl in Croydon.” Hate-criminals like me needed only the headlines to begin thinking heretical thoughts. When we read the stories below the headlines, our heretical thoughts got worse. It was a horrific crime, as the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill described at Spiked:

Everything about the death of [the schoolgirl] Elianne [Andam] is bleak beyond imagination. It happened during rush hour on Wednesday. Elianne and friends were on their way to school. One of her friends was accosted by a 17-year-old boy, reportedly her ex-boyfriend. He had a bouquet of roses. Elianne stepped in to try to calm things down. The boy allegedly took out a thin, foot-long knife and drove it into Elianne’s neck. She died in the street, next to the blood-spattered roses.

It feels incomprehensible. How untethered from morality must a young man be, how unbound by social norms, to slay a girl in the street for the ‘offence’ of suggesting he back off. Elianne was bright and clearly a good friend. She wanted to be a lawyer. And yet on a Wednesday morning, in front of her fellow citizens, her life was ended with a ‘zombie knife’ allegedly wielded by a boy who has not yet reached the age of majority. Not only the people of Croydon but the nation itself feels shell-shocked by this senseless destruction of young, promise-filled life. (“The Croydon stabbing: in the shadow of nihilism,” 29th September 2023)

Brendan is performing a common ritual in the modern West. The ritual involves leftists self-righteously bewailing the consequences of their own preferences, while steadfastly refusing to admit blame or face reality. The “boy” responsible for that “nihilistic” murder was almost certainly Black and living in Britain thanks to the non-White migration so warmly supported by leftists like Brendan. But there is no discussion of race or migration in the article. And when Brendan laments how the “boy” was “unbound by social norms,” he doesn’t raise the highly interesting question of what “social norms” he’s talking about. Are they Black norms? The norms that prevail in Somalia and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa? No, of course not. They’re White norms. And why would we expect Blacks, with a distinct genetic and cultural history, to follow White norms?

From repulsive to ridiculous

Well, if we’re sane and scientifically literate, we wouldn’t. But leftists like Brendan O’Neill aren’t sane or scientifically literate. That’s why they’ve cheered on the immivasion of Britain by non-Whites while simultaneously bewailing its inevitable consequences. For example, Brendan and his comrades also get very heated about Muslims attacking the traditional White norm of free speech. Yes, fancy that. Britain imports people who hate free speech and those people continue to hate free speech on the magic dirt of Britain. This is because the dirt isn’t in fact magic and doesn’t alter the genetics and culture of outsiders.

The magic dirt doesn’t work: Muslims carry on behaving like Muslims

If you want another example of that, just look at the behavior of a group that has lived on British soil not for decades, like Blacks and Muslims, but for centuries and even millennia. Yes, let’s go from the repulsive to the ridiculous. I’ve described how hate-criminals like me can detect HBD in repulsive headlines about rape and murder. But hate-criminals like me can also detect HBD in ridiculous headlines like this: “Couple in Wales jailed for series of ‘dine and dash’ offences.” In other words, the couple were ordering and eating food in restaurants, then leaving without paying for the food. That’s a violation of the high-trust norms of British society, which is why I read the headline and immediately thought: “Gypsies!” And I was right. At least, I was right in the short-hand sense I was using the term “Gypsies”:

A couple have been jailed for carrying out a string of “dine and dash” offences, racking up large bills for food and drink before leaving without paying. A judge at Swansea crown court said Ann McDonagh, 39, and Bernard McDonagh, 41, had “cynically and brazenly” defrauded restaurants and a takeaway in south Wales.

Judge Thomas KC told the court that the couple, from Port Talbot, had ordered more than they could eat — including T-bone steaks — just to see if they could get away with it and got a buzz out of their spree. “It was criminality for criminality’s sake,” he said. The court was told the couple were from a “very large Travelling community” and the judge criticised them for reinforcing negative stereotypes. (“Couple in Wales jailed for series of ‘dine and dash’ offences,” The Guardian, 29th May 2024)

Travellers and Gypsies aren’t fully distinct groups in Britain. They’ve interbred and, although the famous boxer Tyson Fury is a Traveller, strictly speaking, he calls himself the “Gypsy King.” After all, the two groups are both outsiders with similar nomadic cultures. And with similar cultures of violence, criminality, and parasitism. The “negative stereotypes” referred to by the judge exist with very good reason. And note how the judge in Swansea used the word “brazen,” just like the judge who sentenced the rapist Gabriel Marinoaica in Bournemouth. Like Marinoaica, the McDonaghs are marked as outsiders not only by their shameless violation of British norms, but also by their surnames. The surname McDonagh isn’t Welsh but Irish, because Travellers come from Ireland.

Living outside the state

Not that the McDonaghs will regard themselves as outsiders, of course. From their perspective, they’re insiders who are entitled to prey on the out-group of non-Travellers. The McDonaghs preyed on the Welsh out-group in typical Traveller fashion because that is the evolved norm in their “community.” Travellers have lived on British soil for many generations, but they haven’t adopted British norms of high trust and low criminality. In other words, they look White in the broad sense but aren’t White in the narrow sense. If Travellers and Gypsies were taken out of the crime statistics for “whites” in Britain, the stats would fall even further by comparison with those for Blacks and other non-Whites. Indeed, in some ways Travellers are closer to Blacks than to mainstream British Whites. For example, they have lower average IQs than British Whites and regard education with disdain and contempt. Although they’re undoubtedly far closer in genetics to us than Somalis or Pakistanis, they remain a distinct group.

The McDonaghs are Travellers who look White but don’t act White

It’s clear, for example, that they haven’t undergone the process of genetic pacification that applied to the White British majority. For centuries, a strong state and efficient system of justice suppressed genes for violence and criminality by the simple means of executing and imprisoning criminals. The law-abiding had more children than the lawless and the result was high-trust, low-crime White Britain. But nomadic Travellers lived outside the state and did their best to evade its laws. It isn’t anomalous that an exceptionally good boxer like Tyson Fury should have come from such a tiny minority, because violent and aggressive males among Travellers weren’t weeded out by the state and the hangman.

The double whammy of immivasion

On the contrary, they were rewarded with reproductive success. Having lots of children is another Traveller tradition. Fury himself has seven. The “dine and dash” McDonaghs have six. In contrast, the birth-rate of mainstream British Whites is at a historic low. It’s below replacement level. There are many reasons for the fall in White births and some of them are freely discussed in the mainstream. Here’s one reason that isn’t: the overcrowding that is now prevalent in cities like London. Unlike some races, Whites don’t like living in crowded, noisy environments. And they don’t like being unable to ensure a safe and secure home for their children. That’s why so many White couples postpone children or refrain from having children entirely.

Jewish migration-maven, the lovely Barbara Roche, spinner of ludicrous lies

Groups like Travellers and Somalis, who live much more in the moment, don’t follow those norms, which is why their birth-rates remain high even as their behavior helps suppress White birth-rates. And that’s exactly the way our hostile elite like it. They’ve imposed the immivasion on the West not simply because it floods us with outsiders, but also because it suppresses our birth-rates. Of course, HBD is also at work in the hostile elite. I’ve regularly described the central role of the Labour immigration minister Barbara Roche in organizing the immivasion of Britain and propagandizing for its non-existent benefits. Roche is Jewish. So were the plutocrats who funded the treacherous Labour party as it opened the borders and waged war on its traditional supporters in the White working-class.

No respect for White norms

The plutocrats who presently fund the treacherous Conservative party are also Jewish. And when, as seems highly likely, the Conservatives lose the next election, they will replaced by the Jew-funded Labour party under Keir Starmer, who has a Jewish wife and is firmly committed to following a Jewish agenda of open borders. In America, as Kevin MacDonald has carefully documented, the 1965 Hart-Celler Act that began national-wrecking immivasion was a thoroughly Jewish project. But the project was fronted by Irish Catholics like Teddy Kennedy, who also regarded themselves as outsiders to the White Protestants who had created America and established its norms. Teddy’s brother John F. Kennedy had already put his name to a book about America with the lying and ludicrous title of A Nation of Immigrants (1958). Again, hate-criminals will not be surprised to read that the book “was written as part of the Anti-Defamation League’s series entitled the One Nation Library. In the 1950s, former ADL National Director Ben Epstein was concerned by rising xenophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric, so he reached out to then-Senator Kennedy to write a manuscript on immigration reform.” The ADL also supplied a historian, Arthur Mann (a doctoral student of historian-Jewish pro-immigration activist Oscar Handlin at Harvard) for the project, and it was ghost-written by Myer Feldman who was influential in the Kennedy/Johnson administration.

Jews and the Whitey Bomb

The anti-White Jew Barbara Roche used the same lying and ludicrous propaganda when she claimed in 2000 that ““Britain has always been a nation of migrants.” The phrase “nation of migrants” has the same stupidity and illogic as “rope of sand” or “brick of water.” That is, it’s a complete contradiction in terms. The word “nation” itself comes from the Latin nasci, meaning “to be born.” In other words, a nation is a bond of blood, created by a distinct group that shares genetics, culture, and language. Immigration means the destruction of a nation, not its creation or consolidation. When Jews like Roche claim otherwise, they’re brazenly violating the White norm of respect for truth and objective reality. But Jews don’t respect White norms any more than Blacks or Travellers do. And with their much higher IQs and powers of organization, Jews are much more dangerous to White societies than imported minorities. Brazen rapists in Bournemouth and stabby schoolboys in Croydon are the footsoldiers of the immivasion. Jews are the generals and military theorists who have organized and directed the war on the White West.