Featured Articles

Why Are Whites So Vulnerable?

/25 Comments/in /by

A single lie is louder than a hundred truths
Georges Bernanos

Our ancestors, the Hunter-Gatherers of the North, evolved in the harsh environment of the Ice age. They formed small groups that tended for reasons of survival to isolate themselves socially instead of creating large cohesive communities, ethnocentrism being irrelevant in the battle against the elements, according to American professor of evolutionary psychology, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, the author of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future.

Whites of European descent are therefore far less ethnocentric than the tricksters who have declared war on them. More inclined to individualism and moral universalism, they are vulnerable to strongly collectivist and ethnocentric groups that are by definition more cohesive and stronger.

Key genetically influenced traits of individualists include:

– More positive towards outsiders and more likely to behave in an altruistic manner;

– Less aware of differences between races and ethnic groups and have fewer negative attitudes towards outsiders, sometimes to the point of disagreeing with their own group’s policies towards outsiders;

– Show little commitment or loyalty to their group, and lack a sense of common destiny with its members;

– Less likely to assume that other groups are wrong;

– Create moderate attachments to other groups.[1]

What makes Whites even more vulnerable is the fact that they have guilt cultures rather than shame cultures (like the vast majority of the world) because in a cold and harsh environment if you don’t follow the rules of the group for survival, you can jeopardize everyone’s survival. If you don’t behave as expected, guilty feelings, to say it differently, will drive one to seek forgiveness and not to repeat any life-threatening behaviour that could endanger the group. “In the environments we evolved in, violating the moral sensibilities of the group was an evolutionary dead end,” as MacDonald puts it. Guilt, in other words, is a group evolutionary survival strategy.

However, in an artificial environment such as ours, this predisposition for guilt can be hijacked and used against Whites by predators who know how to manipulate people into doing things they would not normally do. Jews, for example, and minorities in general, who are much more ethnocentric than Whites, are very good at manipulating Whites into welcoming multiculturalism, race-mixing, and replacement immigration, for example, by making them feel guilty about the bad things their ancestors supposedly did to weaker and vulnerable people such as slavery, colonization, or the Holocaust. Most Whites who are made to feel guilty that way will tend to relinquish their normal survival instincts to seek forgiveness not only by opening wide their heart to invaders and their demands for equality and tolerance but also by punishing other Whites for not complying (altruistic punishment).[2] The following quote taken from the June 19, 2022, issue of White World Wrap sums up well the overall effects of this tendency to feel guilty and to seek forgiveness:

White people are basically battered housewives, whose better instincts have been used against them by predators who know how to construct consensus on a massive scale, basically a massive psychological warfare operation to turn weakened and dilute European countries until they can be integrated into a world slave state.[3]

This strong genetic predisposition for guilt which is no longer well adapted makes Whites prone to suicidal and punitive altruism as well as pathological compassion because they can be easily tricked into doing and believing things they would not normally have done or believed in the Evolutionary Environment of their Ancestors (EEA) where they lived for tens of thousands of years.

On top of the genetic factors, there has been a major softening up of the population because of domestication itself and various cultural measures, such as compulsory schooling, alphabetization, and the internalization of the law and religious principles; these measures were put in place along the way to curb our basic instincts in an environment to which they were no longer adapted when they left the EEA for reasons that are still not clear. These necessary steps of the civilization process are also part of a group evolutionary survival strategy. You don’t want people robbing, raping, eating, enslaving, or killing each other in the street. But this well-adapted strategy is not immune to being taken over and changed by hostile forces who have different interests at heart.

In fact, beginning with the French Revolution, native Western Christian elites, whose values were in sync with their populations, were gradually replaced by a Jewish elite that had different values. They were supposedly for universalism and the rejection of race consciousness while the natives were overwhelmingly for separatism and race consciousness. With the advent in the early 20th century of the fraudulent Jewish-led Boasian anthropology, which defined race as a social construct, race realism, Darwinism, and eugenics lost their popularity, except, paradoxically, with the Jews themselves, the very ones who imposed on Whites the values of universalism and race denial for political reasons. In other words, as we shall see further on, Jews are basically using universalism and race denial as a Jewish group evolutionary strategy to dominate the White race and eventually all races, while they themselves remain separate and racially conscious. As Kevin MacDonald says,

Jewish ethics is universalist, while at the same time maintaining that Israel must remain separate in order to present a moral beacon to the rest of humanity—a beacon of universalism and ethnic dissolution of non-Jews. One cannot underestimate the importance of the fact that the central pose of post Enlightenment Jewish intellectuals is a sense that Judaism represents a moral beacon to the rest of humanity. [4]

And this even after the Gaza genocide, and continuing on the West Bank.

As the Jewish elite was rising to the top of the social pyramid and in their mind approaching world conquest, criticizing Jewish influence gradually became more and more off-limits, to the point,

that even to openly use the word ‘Jew’ or to expose it nakedly to print is somehow improper. … There is an extreme sensitiveness about the public discussion of the Jewish question on the part of Gentiles. They would prefer to keep it in the hazy borderlands of their thought, shrouded in silence. … Anyone who essays to discuss the Jewish question in the United States or anywhere else must be fully prepared to be regarded as an antisemite in highbrow language, or in lowbrow language, a Jew-baiter.[5]

The situation though is not desperate yet because what is natural for all races is race consciousness and separatism, i.e., nationalism and territorial borders. These basic instincts implanted in our DNA for eternity can be subdued at gun point or massive propaganda but not for long. What is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh. So, if we fight back by debunking the lies or “tricks” that were implanted in the minds of Western populations to smother with guilt their racial identity and pride, it might be possible to trigger our collectivist instincts which lay dormant and to revitalize the facets of our character and temperament which allowed us to create the greatest and most unique civilization the world has ever known.[6]

Indeed, ethnic Europeans do not lack collectivist mechanism for group competition, notes Kevin MacDonald, but since these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated, they require a higher level of group conflict in order to trigger their expression.[7] Our racial competitors therefore go to great lengths to wage a low-key race war against us in order to avoid waking up a “sleeping giant.” They are a tiny minority holding a dog by the tail, and they’re scared stiff of losing their grip. So, they need to wage their racial war discreetly by hiding behind various masks, i.e., censorship, lies, or tricks, in broad daylight, you could say.

To unmask them, you need a special flashlight called “truth,” but in the end, it is useless to debunk the tricks with truth without naming at the same time the “trickster.” One must name this wolf in sheep’s clothing every time he shows his face behind one or the other of his tricks; attacking only the lie simply encourages him to invent another one, and ultimately to sharpen his will to power and control. This is perhaps the most demonic aspect of this low-key race war that is being waged on our race and eventually against all humanity: to make us contribute to our demise by not naming, systematically and publicly, our real enemies: the Jews and their non-Jewish allies.

Easier said than done in some cases as our enemies have learned over the centuries to disguise themselves by adopting the surnames, languages, and even the religion of their hosts. By impersonating, mimicking, cloning, copying the hosts’ culture and values, by being, in other words, indistinguishable and accepted, and therefore undetectable, they can with this clever trick bypass their hosts’ natural defense mechanisms against subversion. And the best way to hide in plain sight is to use as a pretext for stigmatizing Whites and destroying their civilization with some noble cause such as the liberal values of the left, i.e., democracy, anti-racism, humanism, universalism, tolerance, love, and egalitarianism, when in effect, you don’t yourself espouse these values. The following widely known citation falsely attributed to Roma Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.) stands as the best indictment of what has just been said:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.[8]

As written in the Talmud, their holiest book, Jews are loyal to no nation except their own. They occupy nations and literally vampirize them. “Because their break with their native environment — the Arabian deserts — occurred at an early stage in their ethnogenetic cycle, the Jews,” according to famed Russian historian and ethnologist Lev Goumilev (1912–1992),

developed the ability to penetrate virtually any type of natural landscape, and even codified their strategies in the Talmud. Wherever they settled, they acted as a chimera towards the indigenous populations, deliberately promoting ‘skepticism and indifference’ in order to erode the spiritual and moral resistance of their hosts and to extend their domination over them. In ethnological terms, a chimera is a parasitic ethnos, which exploits the indigenous populations of the country as well as its flora, fauna, and subsoil riches. Like a population of bacteria or infusoria [a type of single-celled organism] that spreads through the internal organs of the person or animal, a chimeric ethnic invasion vamps the vital energies and resources of its host organism.[9]

Goumilev also compared the relationship between a chimera and its indigenous ethnic group to a cancerous tumour: “The latter can only grow with the organism, never outside it, and it lives only at the expense of the host organism. As a cancer, a chimerical ethnic antisystem draws its means of existence from the indigenous ethnos.”[10]

In so doing, concludes French author Laurent Guyénot who summarized Goumilev’s work from Imaginary Kingdom: The Legend of the Kingdom of Prester John, a book written by Jewish American scholar Mark Bassin:

it disrupts the vital processes of the [native people]. The invading ethnicity is also irreparably degraded, but in a way that strengthens rather than weakens it. Uprooted ethnicities survive precisely by developing traits that, although unnatural, give them decisive advantages over their cohabitants. Uprootedness, as a structural trait, itself becomes a selective advantage, in the sense that the invading ethnicity has internalized strategies that allow it to thrive virtually anywhere.[11]

In short, whenever you encounter an influencer who systematically destroys anything which is ethnic-European, try to identify who that person really is. Much of the time, it will be a Jew, even if he looks White and claims to be speaking in the name of Whites. On social media, there are hundreds of these Jewish “White” trolls busy demonizing Whites and making it seem like righteous Whites are at war with their own race when in reality it is the Jews who are at war with our race:

Because of their ability to often pass as White, one of the most effective strategies Jews have of infiltrating and subverting White Christian nations is to take on a White identity and then speak for their “fellow White people.”

This shape-shifting phenomenon has been going on for years on X/Twitter, and one astute observer has painstakingly cataloged over 1,100 examples of Jews pretending to be White while at the same time denigrating Whites for being White, and then switching back to their Jewish identity to shield themselves from any criticism.[12]

Moreover, in order to put an end to any criticism of Jews, Israel, and Jewish power, Jews introduce laws against incitement to hatred, but have no qualms about writing books with impunity that smear whites as something they are not.[13] But if White people do the same, they are immediately arrested and prosecuted for hate speech. Why this double standard? Is it because Jews are the real masters of the West?

Yes, of course, it’s pretty obvious.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, Kindle Direct Publication Edition, 2019.

[2] Ibid., p. 304.

[3] White World Wrap (2022-06-19): merchantHelios @merchant-Helios@poa.st interesting thoughts from /lit/ on why so much western media is blatantly anti-White.

[4] Kevin MacDonald, cited, p. 284.

[5] Ibid., pp. 299-300.

[6] Ricardo Duchesne, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Brill, 2012.

[7] Kevin MacDonald, book cited, p. 94.

[8] Citation taken from Greg Felton, The Host and the Parasite. How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America. Expanded Post-Obama Edition, Money Tree Publishing, p. 536.

[9] Laurent Guyénot, “Lev Goumilev et ‘la chimère khazar,’” E&R, December 1, 2022. This article is a review of the book by Mark Bassin, The Gumilev Mystique: Biopolitics, Eurasianism, and the Construction of Community in Modern Russia, Cornell University Press, 2016.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Christians for Truth team, “Over 1,000 Shape-Shifting Jews Exposed For Pretending To Be White on X (formely Twitter),”August 19, 2019: https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Shape-Shifting-Jews-on-Twitter-Exposed-.pdf

[13] Jewish Anti-White Books, https://www.thehardtruth.info/jewish-anti-white-books, The Hard Truth Files.

Why are Hollywood Lead Actors Getting Older?

/8 Comments/in /by

Titanic hit the cinemas in 1997. The tragic tale of doomed love between Jack and Rose, played by Leonardo di Caprio and Kate Winslett, is one of the most successful films ever made. As with many such films, it focused on the story of two young lovers of approximately the same age; perhaps the male was slightly older. This was reflected in the casting: Di Caprio was born in 1974 and Winslett was born in 1975. Precisely because they were so young, this was very much their big break, especially in the case of Kate Winslett. Very few people knew who she was before she starred in Titanic.

A fascinating new article has drawn upon a large body of research to show that this has been changing. Hollywood decreasingly casts young actors in key roles. Across the years, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the male and female leads have gotten older. The article’s author is confused as to why this should be. In reality, of course, it makes perfect sense in terms of social changes that have been happening in Western countries, especially over the last 60 years or so. In particular, it makes sense in terms of increasing female influence.

The intriguing piece — “Why are actors getting older?” — was published on the Substack “StephenFollows.com — using data to explain the film industry”; it makes a number of eye-raising points. Across the twentieth century, the average age of top-billed film actors was about 38. However, from the year 2006 onwards a dramatic rise began, and it is now 44. This rise is the most pronounced in action movies and Westerns and the least pronounced in horror movies, but in both cases it is stark. It is found among both sexes. In 1940, the average age of a lead actor was 40 and the average age of a lead actress was about 28. By 2021, the male was 48 and female was 34.

This change reflects the fact that lead parts are increasingly given to established actors and increasingly not given to relative unknowns. It seems quite obvious to me what this reflects: a decreasing desire to take risks. If the lead is an actor who everybody has heard of ,then he will likely be older. Precisely because he has a reputation for being in successful films, more people will be drawn to watch his next film than if he is a relative unknown, meaning that the film is less likely be a box office flop. What changes, over the last 25 years or so, would militate in favour of this?

This most obvious seems be aversion to risk. As I explore in my book Woke Eugenics, there is abundant evidence that Generation Z are far more risk-averse than are previous generations. However, people have been becoming more risk-averse across a longer period of time. Generation Z lose their virginity later than Millennials, leave home later, learn to drive later, are less likely to drink alcohol (partly because of the risks involve) and even increasingly suffer from “Menu Anxiety,” disliking the “risk” of having to make a choice from a menu in what they see as the pressure of the moment. They need to be able to look up the menu online at home before they go to the restaurant or they become terribly anxious.

If you think about how they’ve been raised, this makes sense. Older people were deliberately prepared for the harshness of life such that they could develop coping mechanisms in order to deal with adversity. They were also allowed to take risks, as these build confidence or result in adversity which further prepares you for adult life. On average, Generation Z has been raised very differently. In many UK schools, unsupervised play is banned lest bullying occur, competitive sport is prohibited because losing at sport might hurt your feelings, children are allowed to identify as dogs or as the opposite sex rather than be smacked and told not be so stupid, there are no serious sanctions for bad behaviour and, in some schools, children are banned from bringing in birthday party invitations lest this upset the children who are not invited. In other words, everything is done to protect children from real life rather than prepare them for it. And it goes without saying that their parents drive them to and from school, often even at secondary school, and, almost unbelievably, accompany them to university open days.

The key reason for this shift, it seems to me, is fairly obvious: the rise of women in the workplace, especially in school-teaching. As of 2020, females were 73% of high school teachers in the UK and 85% of elementary school teachers. Females, being evolved to look after babies, are far more risk-averse than males; they are far more concerned with harm avoidance. Being evolved to alloparent each other’s children as part of harems centred around high status males, they must be able to totally trust their fellow alloparents not to take extra resources from the male. Accordingly, they are focused on equality and nobody feeling excluded, such that they can maintain their alloparenting clique.

What is the result? More and more younger people who are increasingly risk-averse. This shift has been happening for a long time and can be seen in every profession, including politics. Female influence was likely a key factor in Covid-19 lockdowns. In 1968, when men dominated UK politics, the government policy for any future novel pandemic was very clear: Achieve Herd Immunity; let the plague run through the population.

Of course, this risk-aversion is going to influence the movie industry as well. Perhaps the early-2000s witnessed the ascension into the movie-making industry of Generation Z, whose lives had been so much more coddled, and female-influenced, than those of Boomers. This would appear to make sense of what has happened. It also helps us to understand why onscreen nudity has decreased by 40% since the year 2000. Females are more influential and, in general, it’s only young and un-established actresses that are prepared to do nude scenes. Unlike older women, they are body-confident and, unlike established actresses, they are under greater pressure to be cooperative.

The nature of contemporary movies attests to this desire not to take risk. There is a growing concentration on trusted franchises: Remakes, reboots, sequels and even prequels abound. In part, this reflects a desire to avoid risk and, in part, it may simply reflect increasing materialism and concern with money above everything else. This, in itself, militates in favour of sticking with well-known actors. So, perhaps we can expect Hollywood stars to continue to get older and older.

Finishing the Job: Starmer the Pabloite

/11 Comments/in , /by

This is the tale of three men, a Russian, a Greek, and an Englishman, separated in time but united by doctrine. The first was Jewish, born Lev Bronstein, although he is better known to history as Leon Trotsky. After leading the Red Army to victory in the Russian Civil War, Trotsky became Lenin’s right-hand man, and after Lenin’s death was left as a rival to Stalin for leadership of the new Soviet. Stalin exiled Trotsky in 1928 and, after travelling rootlessly through Turkey, France, and Norway, the exile settled in Mexico. In August, 1940, an assassin dispatched by Stalin attacked Trotsky with an icepick. Whether or not the killing was quite as dramatic as that portrayed in the 1972 movie The Assassination of Trotsky, starring Richard Burton as the Russian and Alain Delon as NKVD agent Frank Jacson, is one for the historians. Trotsky survived the initial attack, but died in hospital days later, reportedly saying at the last that, “I think Stalin has finished the job he started”. Trotskyism, however, was still very much alive.

The second of the main proponents of Trotskyism was a Greek, Michalis Raptis, who was born in 1911 and later took the pseudonym Michel Pablo. Heavily involved in Greek Trotskyism, Pablo was also exiled, in 1936 when Greece fell under military rule, although he and his wife escaped and made their way across Europe to Paris. There, when France was occupied by the Nazis, he continued his work for the Trotskyist cause. After the war, he became General Secretary of the Fourth International, founded by Trotsky in Paris in 1938. After Pablo’s death in Greece in 1996, where his funeral was a state affair, he was perhaps best remembered for the political concept of “entryism”  (like neocons joining the GOP and moving it to the left on social issues.

The third man is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Keir Starmer. Although he is leading the Labour Party, and thus the country, in an increasingly authoritarian fashion, it might seem excessive to place him in the lineage of Trotsky. As a term of abuse for those seen to be on the political hard left in Great Britain, “Trot” has always been just behind “Bolshevik”. But Starmer’s past is the subject of two mysteries. Firstly, what is his connection with “Pabloism”, and, secondly, why is virtually no one in the British media talking about it?

The 1980s saw Starmer in his twenties and entering on a career in the law, his choice of guildsmen consistent with his political leanings. He became Secretary of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers rather than the alternative, the Society of Labour Lawyers, and there was one major difference of opinion between the two organizations. The latter did not approve of what was occurring and had occurred in the Soviet Union, while Starmer’s favored professional body very much did, this schism going as far back as the 1940s. As well as his fledgling legal career, Starmer also turned his hand to political journalism.

The International Marxist Tendency was a Parisian Pabloite group whose British chapter was named Socialist Alternatives. A magazine of the same name was published from 1986 to 1987 and was co-edited by Starmer. Pablo himself was among the contributors and, in its five issues, eight articles were penned by Britain’s future Prime Minister.

Starmer’s program for the redefinition of socialism had as its center of gravity trade unionism, but Socialist Alternatives also introduced a new political perspective, highlighting the potential for new and supposedly oppressed societal factions to bolster the socialist cause. The new socialism, the magazine and its co-editor held, “will necessarily have to be rooted in the anticapitalist alliance of all the emancipatory movements.” Looking to broaden the potential socialist base, Starmer foreshadowed his and Labour’s current abandonment of the White working class, insisting that “the working class exists beyond its historical base amongst white, male workers”. “Today the challenge to the status quo comes from protest movements which are not singularly based on class but represent a wide variety of social groups”, he wrote. These groups seem very familiar in modern Britain, comprising “environmentalists, tenants associations, ethnic minorities, feminists, gays, nuclear disarmers etc.”. This is an obvious deviation from Marxism. The workers were, at least nominally, championed by the Communists, whereas Starmer and his cabinet have made their hatred of the White working class in Britain absolutely clear, and these new “marginalized” groups are favored by today’s elitist, metropolitan Labour Party in a way its old base is not. When not running a Pabloite magazine, however, Starmer found time to experience socialism at ground level.

In 1986, in his mid-twenties, Keir Starmer attended a Communist work camp in what was then Czechoslovakia. This was at the height of the cold-war clampdown on free speech, and playwright Václav Havel was among those jailed for speaking out against Communism. This has echoes in contemporary Britain, where the issue of freedom of speech — and criticism of government policy in particular — is a hot-button topic. One union not favored by the British Government is The Free Speech Union, founded by journalist Toby Young, who report the following:

Pubs and other customer-facing businesses may ban discussions on contentious topics, such as Christians expressing deeply held beliefs about sex and marriage or feminists defending women’s sex-based rights, to avoid breaching Labour’s proposed workers’ rights reforms, the UK’s equality watchdog has warned.

The “rights” supposedly being defended are those of hospitality-industry workers not to be offended, which is held to be tantamount to “harassment”. No clear definition of “offense” exists in British law.

The Left-wing establishment in Britain has provided covering fire for Starmer and his Pabloite past. In a laudatory puff-piece on Starmer four months before the General Election that, while it didn’t exactly sweep Starmer and Labour to power, at least allowed him to pocket the keys to 10 Downing Street, Labour stalwart Andrew Marr discusses Starmer via a hagiography written by the dubious Tom Baldwin. There is no mention of Starmer’s dalliance with the hard Left, instead jumping straight from his taking up the law to his becoming DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), and even then neglecting to mention the Muslims he defended and which are now causing a stir among Starmer’s critics. Baldwin also makes much of Starmer’s supposedly financially impoverished childhood, growing up as was claimed in a poor part of the county of Surrey.

This is fanciful, to say the least. Starmer grew up in Oxted, a town I knew well as I grew up at the same time a few miles away, and Oxted hosted our nearest cinema. We knew it as the town where the rich kids lived. As a matter of fact, I was at school with Starmer, a year above him at Reigate Grammar School in the same county, having gained my place by virtue of an examination-based scholarship. It is a great surprise to me that such a conservative school could have produced such a radically Left-wing Prime Minister. Starmer also mentioned ad nauseam during his election campaign that his father was a toolmaker, invoking images of back-breaking hard graft wielding a farrier’s hammer in some infernally hot workshop. In fact, Starmer senior — with whom the current PM had a cold and distant relationship — owned a tool-making company. This type of class-based cosmetics is familiar in British politics, but what of the more salient chapters of Starmer’s past outside these feeble attempts to bracket him with the working class he so reviles? Why are the British mainstream media almost entirely uninterested in the radical socialist past of its current, controversial Prime Minister?

In an article from 2020, when Starmer was the front-runner for the Labour leadership, The Daily Mail quoted an unnamed Labour MP as calling today’s Prime Minister a “posh Trot”, as well as referencing Socialist Alternatives, but the paper has kept quiet on the subject since. So much for the MSM.

Also in 2020, an article from the hard Left dismissive of Starmer’s past associations actually describes accurately the MSM’s oblivious stance towards the PM today:

Was Keir Starmer a Trotskyist? Or a follower of Michel Pablo and therefore a ‘Pabloite’? Is there a difference? Indeed, who was this ‘Michel Pablo’ and what on earth is ‘Pabloism’?

Does anyone care?

Indeed. The piece goes on to describe Pablo’s approval of the success of Mao and Tito, and the notion of “client states” inspired a concept which links Pablo to Starmer:

This led to [Pablo] putting forward an idea of ‘deep entryism’ (entryism ‘sui generis’ [‘of a special type’]) where Trotskyists would join mass Communist Parties and seek to influence their development without revealing their politics openly.

Rather than a “mass Communist Party”, Starmer chose Britain’s Labour Party.

And what of the British right-of-center politicians, such as they are? Professor Matt Goodwin is a near-permanent fixture on Right-of-center British media, and is becoming a force within Reform UK, whose political star is very much in the ascendant, and at whose party conference Professor Goodwin recently spoke. Professor Goodwin goes after Keir Starmer personally — a national pastime at present — from about 13:00 in the video, and since his academic background is in statistics, he is tethered to facts and figures in a way rare in the political class. If any man was going to expose Starmer’s Trotskyite past, surely this was Professor Goodwin. And he didn’t mention it. That the Prime Minister of the UK was formerly connected with hard-Left doctrine ought to be a serious weapon, particularly for a party eclipsing the Tories. One wonders what the media response might be were Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform and himself tipped as a future Prime Minister, found to have been an avid reader of Julius Evola.

The only British journalist even to have mentioned the fact that Starmer was or had been a Pabloite, and so by extension a Trotskyite, is the veteran writer Peter Hitchens, the surviving younger brother of the late Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens becomes more curmudgeonly as he gets older and more jaded politically, but he is evermore forthright. The reason he gives for the media’s radio silence on Starmer’s radical political past is a simple one:

They don’t understand it. Most people who write about politics in this country are politically illiterate.

This is unlikely to lead to many lunch invitations from journalistic colleagues, but Hitchens does understand both his profession and politics. In particular, he understands Trotskyism because, in his youth, he was himself a Trotskyist, a fact he has never tried to conceal and which gives him his insight into Starmer.

Starmer is portrayed in the British press as “boring”, but he is psychologically fascinating. Asked his favorite book or poem in an interview, he seemed slightly surprised at the question, and said he had neither. What kind of person doesn’t have a favorite piece of literature? There is something autistic about the man, as though he doesn’t function at the human level, but instead as a sort of AI program. Peter Hitchens describes the PM as “an extremely dogmatic person”, which is accurate as far as it goes, but he is more doctrinaire than simply dogmatic, and this makes him absolutely suited to the hard Left.

Contemporary Britain is, of course, a very different place from the Soviet Union. One of the main points of difference between Trotsky and Stalin was that, while Bronstein favored a period of capitalism in order to bring down that very edifice, Stalin did not. Starmer seems to be with Stalin in despising capitalists. The rich are now leaving Britain at record levels due to his policies, with millionaires exiting the country in 2024 at a level 150% higher than that of 2023.

Starmer is not the first PM in recent history to have fallen under the spell of Trotsky. Tony Blair, whose New Labour began the project of which the Starmer administration is the continuity version, was himself drawn to Trotskyism after reading the first volume of Isaac Deutscher’s biographic trilogy of the Russian, as a 2017 Guardian article revealed:

‘Here’s this guy Trotsky who was so inspired by all of this that he went out to create a Russian revolution and changed the world. I think it’s a very odd thing – just literally it was like a light going on,’ Blair told Reflections with Peter Hennessy on Radio 4.

While Starmer has always been branded a “Corbynite”, or a follower of Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader prior to his tenure, seasoned watchers of British politics will recognize Blair as the PM’s true mentor. It may still be that a torch lit in Soviet Russia, kindled in Greece and Paris, and one that so illuminated Tony Blair, has been passed on to Sir Keir Starmer, and may not be extinguished before the job is finished.

The Emerging Hindu Nationalist-Zionist Alliance

/9 Comments/in /by

In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, the Jewish state received the usual outpouring of sympathy from the craven leadership classes of the West. That is to be expected from politicians who are bought off and extorted by Jewish interest groups.

That said, Israel also received a deluge of support from the least likely of the places — the Indian Subcontinent. Thousands of Hindu nationalists took to social media to express their sympathies with Israel after Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel. One could go on X/Twitter to see threads brimming with pro-Israeli posts from the social media platform’s large base of Indian users.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a staunch Hindu nationalist, offered his support to the Jewish state immediately after the Hamas attack, declaring, “Deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour.” Curiously, Modi became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel in 2017, further accelerating a growing economic and security relationship between the world’s largest democracy and the Jewish state.

Modi’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, lit: “Indian People’s Party”) is notorious for its hyper-Zionist sympathies.  The ideological progenitor of the BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has long wanted to emulate the Zionist project. RSS intellectual Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a source of ideological inspiration for many present-day BJP leaders, published a book “Hindutva” in 1923, where he advocated for the formation of a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu state). Savarkar also waited in anticipation for the Jews to achieve the “Zionist dream” of transforming Palestine into a Jewish state. The RSS ideologue wrote effusively about the prospect of a Jewish state: “If the Zionists’ dreams are ever realised — if Palestine becomes a Jewish state — it will gladden us almost as much as our Jewish friends.”

There is a growing synergy between Israeli nationalists, Hindu nationalists, and pro-Zionist interests in the West. In fact, the gate-keeping, Israel First “National Conservativism” movement backed by the Edmund Burke foundation recently featured two BJP politicians Ram Madhav and Swapan Dasgupta at National Conservatism’s July 2024 conference. Madhav and Dasgupta have expressed pro-Israeli sentiments on multiple occasions. The former is open about using the Indian diaspora, which numbers over 30 million, as a tool for advancing India’s interests abroad.

“We are changing the contours of diplomacy and looking at new ways of strengthening India’s interests abroad,” declared Madhav in 2015, when he served as the general secretary of the BJP. To boot, Madhav wanted Indians to emulate global Jewry, noting “They [the Indian diaspora] can be India’s voice even while being loyal citizens in those countries. That is the long-term goal behind the diaspora diplomacy. It is like the way the Jewish community looks out for Israel’s interests in the United States.”

A similar philosemitic tendency is present among certain Indian-American political figures like failed presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Shortly after the Hamas attack on Israel, Ramaswamy spoke before the Republican Jewish Coalition on Oct. 28, 2023, making his slavish devotion to the Jewish State abundantly clear. Ramaswamy wanted the Israelis to deal with Hamas harshly, proclaiming, “I would love nothing more than for the IDF to put the heads of the top 100 Hamas leaders on stakes and line them up on the Israel-Gaza border.”

A strange partnership appears to be forming between Israeli nationalists and Hindu nationalists. On the surface level, Hindu nationalists and Israeli Jews share a common foe in Islamic militants, with the Israelis having to deal with threats organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis while India has to confront its Muslim majority neighbor in Pakistan and some of the proxy groups it has been accused of funding against India since both countries’ independence from Great Britain. As they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Building New Golems

Jews have a long history using non-White groups ranging from Blacks to Hispanics as golems to attack the United States’ White European population. That dynamic appears to be changing in recent years. The perennial threat of Black nationalists going off script and attacking Israel’s occupation of Palestine reared its ugly head in the wake of the Black Lives Matter unrest of 2020. Notable Black political pundits such as Marc Lamont Hill and Ta-Nehisi Coates have also attacked Israel, putting a dent in their respective careers.

Further suspicions about non-White no longer being reliable golems were confirmed by professor of political science at Tufts University Eitan Hersh and Harvard University PhD candidate Laura Royden who found in a study they published in 2022 that antisemitic attitudes tend to be stronger among Blacks and Hispanics than the broader White population. With these trends in mind, organized Jewry are likely looking for a new class of gentile useful idiots to tap into. Not all Indians are rabid BJP partisans, but their servile attitudes and deference to incumbent political power could make them useful goys for Jews to exploit.

Indians also hold considerable animosity towards White Christians. With the right poking and prodding, Indians’ racial grievances could be easily directed against the country’s White population — the perfect divide-and-rule scenario that allows Jews to thrive in multi-racial societies.

Mass importation of Indians could also be in the cards for Europe, whose multiple decades of importing migrants of Islamic confession has created a situation where these migrants are becoming more sympathetic with the Palestinian cause and broadly antisemitic. As mentioned before, Indians remain quite subservient and anti-White. More importantly, they’re not as incessantly pro-Palestinian nor who have a long history of butting heads with Jews the way White Europeans or Muslims have had over the past two millennia.

New Geopolitical Considerations

On the geopolitical front, the Judeo-American Empire faces the new challenge of containing an ascendant China in the Asia-Pacific region. Starting in 2007, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (The Quad) grouping of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States was established to counter Chinese influence in Asia. The United States subsequently cobbled together the AUKUS trilateral security pact with Australia and the United Kingdom. Now that the United States is taking its sights off Europe and the Middle East and shifting its focus towards Asia, one can expect a renewed effort to galvanize the Quad. Tightening up economic and security relations with fellow Quad member India will be key in the United States’ attempts to balance against China.

China and India have chilly relations. Since the Sino-Indian War of 1962 both countries have viewed each other with increasing skepticism. India, like the foreign elites of the United States, shares a mutual interest of ensuring that China does not achieve hegemonic status in Asia. Cynical American geopolitical strategists will look to prop up India and try to draw it into a prolonged military conflict with China that bleeds both countries dry. The world got a sneak preview of a renewed Chinese-Indian conflict during skirmishes between Indian and Chinese forces in the Himalayan region from 2020 to 2022.

Washington will try to further stoke these tensions now that its attention is being directed toward Asia. Once the dust settles from a hypothetical China-India conflict, the United States will be able to swoop into Asia as the pre-eminent power on the block. To secure India’s cooperation in such geopolitical perfidy, Washington will try to sweeten the deal by expanding legal immigration from India to the United States.

There are currently 5.2 million people of Indian origin residing in the United States. The Indian government views the Indian diaspora as a tool to not only advance its interests abroad, but also as a cash cow to exploit. In 2023, Indian workers stateside sent back $125 billion in remittances to their home country.

The Republican Party, which is enamored with perpetual war and cheap labor, would play ball in an arrangement to have the United States contain China with India’s help in exchange for opening the floodgates to Indian immigration. In the Trump era, Republicans have sounded more hawkish on illegal immigration, but still have blind spots on legal immigration — a flaw organized Jewry will exploit to advance their manifold interests of keeping the country diverse while also maintaining the United States as the leading superpower on the world stage.

With the changing geopolitical climate, the United States will be scrambling to find ways to keep its imperial enterprise afloat. As mentioned before, the consummation of a North American Union could be one endeavor to keep the gravy train going. Regardless of which anti-White, globalist path the United States’ occupational regime takes, the mass importation of Indian migrants will be a common denominator in these schemes to find every possible way to boost the big red line and have as many warm bodies as possible for future great power conflicts.

Once one group of golems turns on their masters, a new set must be created to maintain the charade. Indians could perhaps end up becoming the most pliant goyim shekels could buy.

José Niño is a Hispanic dissident who is well aware of the realities of race from his experience living throughout Latin America and in the States.

As a native of lands conquered by brave Spaniards but later subverted by centuries of multiracial trickery and despotic governance, José offers clear warnings to Americans about the perils of multiracialism.

His Substack is at: https://josbcf.substack.com/. Definitely worth supporting.

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

/4 Comments/in , /by

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

Lackey: That’s correct. That’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lackey: No. They started dispersing.

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

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

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

Lackey: Yeah.

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

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

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

Lackey: It was an honor.

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

Conor McGregor’s remigration road to the Irish Presidency?

/1 Comment/in /by

If he can get the nominations he can win it. If he wins it, he can speak out in favour of Remigration. But the government can easily, perfectly legally, get rid of him within 24 hours.

Even if he was only President for a day, it would still be a worthy contribution.

But first, he has to smarten up.

1. Give up the white powder and encourage all Ireland’s other cocaine hardmen to do the same. This could be done as part of a round Ireland pilgrimage, running a marathon a day, livestreaming at scenic locations.  Stephen J Delaney gives a detailed account of how Ireland’s cocaine hardmen have been weakened, distracted and confused by the “sneachta” (snow), when they should be defending us from the invading hordes.

2. Get his girlfriend pregnant and marry her. Or the other way round. Come out strongly pro-life, pro-family and pro-God generally but make sure to call Pope Francis a freemason bollox who protects revolting priests like Mario Rupnik. (Conor shouldn’t worry about all that rape allegation stuff against him: it will not lose him votes, even amongst women.)

3. Patch things up with the Palestinians, after that unfortunate Happy Hanukkah tweet. Something like: “I love the Jews and wish them all Happy Hanukkah. But I love the Palestinians just that little bit more and I pray that they get their country back. Keep the faith, boys. Christ is King.”

The Nomination: To be nominated you need either four County Councils or 20 TDs or Senators.

This would be difficult, but not impossible. Various Councils have voted to take court action to stop refugee camps. It would be consistent for them to nominate a Remigration candidate. Various Senators and TDs have criticised aspects of migration policy. It would be reasonable for them to nominate a Remigration candidate.

Party politicians might be tempted to nominate a Remigration man, even at the risk of being expelled from their party. There are many examples of politicians expelled from their parties who make a comfortable living as independents.

What could Conor do as President?

He can pardon anyone or commute their sentence. He can delay a general election, but he cannot call a general election. He can delay signing legislation. He can call a meeting of the Council of State and publicly debate the merits of a new law.

Most important of all, he can eyeball the politicians, speak out and demand Remigration.

What could the government do if a Remigration man became President?

Five judges are enough to certify the President as mad or unfit. A two thirds majority in both Houses is enough to impeach him. And even European Union officials seemingly think they have the right to cancel and rerun national elections!

The government could assemble five crooked judges within 24 hours. No problem.  Any Remigration candidate in the presidential election should be aware that the government can just snap it’s fingers, call five judges into the room and tell them to get rid of the President. There will be no shortage of judges ready to do the deed.

If Conor’s too scared to be the Remigration candidate, will someone else step up? If you’re over 35 and are an Irish citizen, that’s all that’s required. Even if you’re not an Irish citizen now, there’s time to purchase a passport through the High Net Worth Individual scheme.

Ireland is a small country, and for less than a half million bucks you will have plenty of billboards and local newspaper advertising.  The salary is generous. Even if the Government gets rid of you within a day, you will still be entitled to the Presidential pension.

If you’ve got a half million bucks burning a hole in your pocket and you fancy a gamble, you should seriously research this possibility.

Beir Bua!

The Labour Party’s tolerance for child sexual abuse

/3 Comments/in , /by

Ivor Caplin, a member of parliament of the ruling Labour Party in the UK, was arrested last week. Allegedly, he had arranged to meet a boy in Brighton for sexual relations, only to be caught by paedophile hunters. This case is not unusual in a political party that has shown itself more than tolerant of child sexual abuse.

In 1974 prominent Labour politicians, who sensed that the sexual revolution of the Sixties would continue to overturn conservative mores, backed the Paedophile Information Exchange, a body that demanded decriminalisation of sex with minors down to the age of four. Notably involved was feminist Harriet Harman. PIE is no more, but be in no doubt that perversion prevails, with sexualisation of children licensed by transgender ideology and equality law.

All major political parties have had paedophile problems. The Conservative government of the 1970s was led by Ted Heath, who was strongly suspected of taking boys. The Liberal Party had Cyril Smith, an abuser of almost Jimmy Savile level. But the Labour Party seems to particularly attract adults with a penchant for kids. The website labour25.com, named after twenty-five people who held positions in Labour who were imprisoned for child sex offences, contains gory details of seventy-six abusers from the party.

Here are a few examples.

Former school governor and Labour councillor Alec Dyer-Atkins was arrested by the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit for downloading 42000 illegal images, including some extremely brutal abuse. He was a member of Shadows Brotherhood, an international paedophile ring. He was sentenced to two years in prison in 2003. Dyer-Atkins is one of many who were both Labour politicians and school governors or teachers, thus having optimal access to children to exert their depravity. Another one is Nelson Bland, who walked free from Reading Magistrates Court in 2004 after admitting 16 counts of making indecent images of children.

In several cases the abusers worked with Labour Party leaders. In 2006 Peter Tuffley, who advised Hazel Blears in the New Labour government, got fifteen months in jail for kidnapping a 13-year-old boy for sex, after grooming him online. The judge told Tuffley that he had no excuse as his mentor David Blunkett had enacted a law against grooming as home secretary. In 2001 Martyn Locklin, a leading Labour activist in Tony Blair’s seat in Sedgefield, County Durham, was jailed for fifteen years for a series of offences against teenage boys, including rape.

Eric Joyce, former Labour MP, was given a suspended sentence in 2020 for making an abusive film of children as young as 12 months(!).  Here is another troubling feature of the cases: soft punishment for abhorrent crimes, particularly in comparison with the harsh sentences for people who made Facebook posts or attended protests following the Southport murders (arguably, not even passing the threshold of crime).

The list goes on and on. Perhaps most notorious was Lord Janner. In 2021 an independent enquiry into sexual abuse found that police had failed to investigate allegations against the Labour peer. Greville Janner was a MP for Leicester from 1970 to 1997, when he was ennobled. Eventually he was charged with 22 offences of indecent assault and buggery, but director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders ruled that it was not in public interest to prosecute Janner due to his dementia. He died in 2015.

It would be an exaggeration to state that the Labour Party is a nest of paedophiles. But the refusal of Sir Keir Starmer’s government to launch a national enquiry into the so-called grooming gangs that have rampaged in towns and cities across the land is not surprising when you consider the predilections within its ranks.

Of course, Labour politicians don’t see the world like you or I do. They take the side of any minority group at odds with traditional norms. They regard conservative reaction to mass immigration or transgenderism as ‘hate crime’, and would happily fill prisons with critics of sex crimes committed by migrants or homosexuals, rather than the offenders themselves.

The response of metropolitan liberals to reports of the Pakistani-origin rape gangs and their victims is distaste for anyone describing the gangs as Pakistani or referring to their deeds as rape rather than the euphemistic ‘grooming’. Jess Phillips, the ardent feminist now serving in the Home Office, prefers to blame White men for misogyny, while defending Muslims (during the protests after the Southport killings, she praised the hordes of Pakistani men who brandished weapons and intimidated White people). The Guardian recently compiled a feature on the eighty female victims of murder by males last year, under the banner of a campaign to prevent violence against women and girls. The three girls killed in Southport were not included.

It’s almost as though privileged moralisers regard the industrial-scale traumatising of poor White working-class girls as cultural enrichment, as interracial mixing, and a slap in the face to racists. And there is a similar theme in the sexual abuse of boys by men: if you complain you are risking accusation of homophobia. Or anti-Semitism, because another theme here is the involvement of perverted Labour politicians in Jewish causes.

In 2018 Ivor Caplin was appointed as chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement, at the time that this body was undermining the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Say what you like about the unpatriotic socialist Corbyn, but he was not fiddling with kids. Lord Janner served as president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Did powerful Jewish influence give Janner immunity from prosecution? Furthermore, are such perverted politicians exploited through blackmail?

Silencing and smearing of people who speak out on child sexual abuse is damaging society. Concerns are suppressed by parliamentarians while the likes of Labour peer Lord Ahmed perpetrated the very crime himself. I am not masking the presence of child abusers in Conservative and other parties, but it seems that Labour has more than its share of paedophilia. What chance of protection do girls have from prime minister Starmer, who as director of public prosecutions failed to prosecute the BBC predator Jimmy Savile and to pursue the Pakistani rape gangs, while leading a party plagued with men who take boys?