Featured Articles – Page 90 – The Occidental Observer

The Best of Badvice: A Black Libertarian Inadvertently Tells Whites How to Win Back the West

August 24, 2024/3 Comments/in Featured Articles, Libertarianism/by Tobias Langdon

Good advice helps you. Bad advice harms you. But badvice (bad advice) can be just as useful as good advice. When you know you’re hearing genuine badvice, you simply do the opposite of what it tells you. That’s the ironic premise of a wonderful little fantasy called The Screwtape Letters (1942), which was written by the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis (1898—1963). In the book, a senior demon advises a junior demon on the best way to lead a human to damnation. For example, the junior demon should encourage pride, resentment and despair while discouraging humility, forgiveness and hope.

Black barbarism advances

Lewis was using humor and fantasy to badvise his readers – to tell them what not to do and how not to think. Demons guide humans down the path to damnation, so by doing the opposite of what demons want you’ll find the path up to salvation. You don’t follow badvice, you invert it and do the opposite. That’s what The Screwtape Letters is about. If modern Christians were serious about reviving their faith, they would extend the book’s lessons far and wide. For example, Christ-hating leftist newspapers like the Guardian and New York Times are full of helpful advice for Christians. Welcome women priests! Embrace homosexuality! Cosy up to Islam! That’s genuine and powerful badvice, so Christians should invert it and do the exact opposite: ban women priests, abhor homosexuality, and condemn Islam. They don’t, of course. Instead, they follow the badvice, which is why mainstream Christianity is dying.

But it isn’t only Christians who follow the badvice of the leftist media. It’s leftists themselves. They snort their own supply. After the Black thug George Floyd got himself killed in 2020, leftists eagerly embraced the hysteria and lies of Black Lives Matter (BLM). They demanded that the police stop oppressing the vulnerable Black community. The result was disastrous for Blacks and particularly for the young Black men about whom leftists express such concern. When White civilization steps back, Black barbarism steps forward. Steve Sailer has carefully documented how Black-loving leftism has gotten lots more Black Lives Murdered. And lots more Black lives destroyed by dangerous driving. But let’s move from leftism in general to libertarianism in particular. Libertarianism specializes in offering badvice to the Whites who built the West. When Whites are under collectivist attack, they should double down on individualism. That’s some badvice from libertarians. Oh, and Whites should open the borders to allow even more collectivist non-Whites to flood in. That’s more badvice from libertarians. By following libertarian badvice, Whites will destroy both the West and the freedoms that libertarians say they’re so concerned about.

Bursting with badvice: the Black libertarian Inaya Folarin Iman knows just what’s best for Whites

Some of them may be sincere about freedom. But it’s very easy to see selfish motives in libertarianism. It’s a heavily Jewish movement, for example, which is why it doesn’t want Whites to recognize and pursue their own racial interests. In America, the Jewish libertarian Ayn Rand (1905-82) told Whites to reject racism and embrace open borders. In Britain, the Jewish libertarian Frank Furedi (born 1947) has the same message for Whites. In other words, Jewish libertarians are badvising Whites to remain individualist as they suffer collectivist attack. Furedi’s cognitive clones incessantly repeat that badvice at Spiked Online. The Black female libertarian Inaya Folarin Iman (born 1996) has recently supplied some particularly good badvice at Spiked. After the violent response by working-class Whites to the Southport stabbings, she has announced that “White identity politics is the worst possible response to the riots.”

Martians and deep-sea starfish

When a Black libertarian tells Whites what not to do, we should listen very carefully and then do it. That is, we should invert the badvice, because it’s designed to harm us, not to help us. Here’s an extract from Iman’s article:

Disillusioned and frustrated by uncontrolled immigration, by an elite class that seems to despise Britain and by a lack of a real small-c conservative party, more and more young right-wingers are gravitating towards grievance-based identity politics. Take … comedian and right-wing commentator Nick Dixon. He described a case in which white police officers were purposefully passed over for promotion in favour of a non-white colleague as an example of how ‘systemic anti-white racism exists in every part of our society’. Similarly, GB News’s Steven Edginton called it ‘disgusting anti-white racism’. Again, we should all be critical of DEI practices that divide people up by race, but does anyone seriously believe they are driven by ‘anti-white’ animus?

[The right] have flirted with notions of white ethnic racial peril. [Harrison] Pitt recently delivered a lecture presenting migration as the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of white Brits, warning that they are due to become ‘a minority in their own homeland’. He suggested that even former prime minister Rishi Sunak had ‘not integrated well’ into British society, because he once said diversity ‘built Britain’. Edginton, in an interview with Liz Truss, asked the former PM if she was ‘concerned’ or felt ‘threatened’ by ‘the decline in the white population in Britain and America’. This is racial identity politics on steroids. (“The Very Online right has gone down a very dark path,” Spiked Online, 16th August 2024)

And obviously, if Whites adopt “racial identity politics on steroids,” it would be a very bad thing. Very bad, that is, for Blacks like Inaya Folarin Iman. She doesn’t want Whites to recognize that they have collective interests. This isn’t because collectivism would be bad for Whites: it’s because White collectivism would be bad for Inaya Folarin Iman. She’s Black and doesn’t belong in Britain or any other Western country. But naturally enough, like the Bangladeshi Rakib Ehsan, she can’t admit it. That’s why she’s blatantly dishonest in the article. She asks this: “Does anyone seriously believe [DEI practices] are driven by ‘anti-white’ animus?” Well, yes, lots of people believe exactly that for the simple reason that it is obviously true. When Whites are incessantly demonized and denied promotion, what else is at work but “anti-white animus”? Are the woke being hostile to Martians when they demonize Whites? Are they trying to harm deep-sea starfish when they deny promotion to Whites? No, the woke are being hostile to Whites, not Martians, and they’re seeking to harm Whites, not deep-sea starfish.

The coming of Kemi

Now look at Iman’s denial of the truth about Rishi Sunak, the former prime minister. When a White accurately observes that Sunak hasn’t integrated well, Iman says that this is “racial identity politics on steroids.” Sunak claimed that “Diversity built Britain.” In fact, the British built Britain. The clue’s in the name: it’s Britain, not Diversitopia. But why would a Brown Indian Hindu like Sunak want to deny that White British Christians built Britain? You won’t need any guesses. Like Inaya Folarin Iman, Sunak doesn’t belong in Britain, so he has to re-write history and pretend that he does. Iman’s denial of the obvious in her article is proof that she can’t be trusted. But it’s precisely because she can’t be trusted that her advice for Whites is so useful. But only if we invert it and do the opposite. She repeats that perennial libertarian badvice: when Whites are under collectivist attack, they should double down on individualism. In other words, libertarians are saying: “Divided you stand, united you fall.” Which is ridiculous.

The high-testosterone Israel-loving Black pseudo-conservative Kemi Badenoch (image from Jewish News)

Inaya Folarin Iman also advises Whites not to be concerned about their falling share of the population. That’s badvice, so Whites should be very concerned. As non-Whites like Iman increase in number and power, it will be very bad for Britain. That’s why the badvising libertarians at Spiked will be delighted if a Black female politician called Kemi Badenoch (born 1980) becomes the new leader of the British Conservative party and potential first Black prime minister (Badenoch is a Scottish surname pronounced BADE-noch, with the -ch as in German Bach). Spiked will celebrate Badenoch’s “rejection” of racial politics and belief in the power of personal endeavor. Well, I’ve been watching Badenoch’s rise for some time, which is how I know that she doesn’t in fact reject racial politics. And that she doesn’t believe in the power of personal endeavor either. That’s why she has been careful to follow the golden rule of British politics: “Serve the Tribe.” In other words, to succeed in British politics you have to suck up to the Jews and make Jewish interests your first priority.

A strategy of Semitocentric sycophancy

Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour party, rejected that rule. That’s why he was demonized as an anti-Semite and eventually thrown out of the Labour party. Keir Starmer, the current leader of the Labour party, has been careful to follow that rule. That’s how he became prime minister. Corbyn was very popular among ordinary Labour members and party membership rose considerably when he was leader. It’s fallen considerably under Starmer. But the Labour party doesn’t exist to serve its ordinary members: it exists to serve Jewish interests. So does the Conservative party. Kemi Badenoch wants to become prime minister, which is why she has been sucking up to Jews ever since she entered politics. Here she is worshiping at Yad Vashem, the central shrine of Holocaustianity in Israel:

“Dear Israel, I’ll be your bestie for ever!” Kemi Badenoch sucks up to Jews at Yad Vashem (image from the Jewish Chronicle)

Badenoch’s strategy of Semitocentric sycophancy is a good one, but it doesn’t guarantee that she’ll become the next Tory leader and perhaps the next prime minister. After all, every other contender for the Tory leadership is following exactly the same strategy. The similarly non-White and similarly high-testosterone Priti Patel sucked up to Jews so hard in 2017 that she created a scandal and had to resign from the government. She’s still sucking and still seeking supremacy. Another contender for the Tory leadership, Robert Jenrick (born 1982) is handicapped by being a White gentile male (or presenting himself like that, anyway). But, just like Keir Starmer, he’s self-certified as kosher by marrying a Jew and raising his children as Jewish. After visiting Auschwitz in 2019, he said: “It had a huge impact on me and in particular because my wife is the daughter of Holocaust survivors from modern day Poland and Ukraine.” He’s also said that his links to Jews are “a very important and integral part of my life.”

Like Badenoch and Patel, Jenrick follows the strategy of Semitocentric sycophancy in search of supremacy. In Western nations like Britain, Jews are both very small in numbers and very big in power and influence. They’ve achieved their extraordinary success in two ways: by practising collectivism among themselves and by demonizing collectivism in Whites. That’s why the Jewish ideology of libertarianism tells Whites not to unite and not to embrace “racial identity politics.” It’s excellent badvice – that is, it’s very bad advice. Whites need to take that badvice, invert it, and do the exact opposite. United we stand, divided we fall.

Is it Time for the True English to Rescue England from itself?

August 21, 2024/14 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Edward Dutton

Britain has now almost completely fallen to cultural Communism. This has become clear in the wake of the protests of August 2024, which were sparked by a 17-year-old second generation Rwandan immigrant murdering three little White girls, and stabbing many more, at Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport in the northwest of England. It was wrongly claimed online that the killer was a Muslim and a recent illegal arrival, which sparked the original riot which centred around Southport’s mosque.
But even when this was debunked, rioting, by the long-vilified White working class, continued. What had happened was symbolic of a problem which the Labour government began when it was last in power in 1997: mass-immigration, leading to unspeakable crimes such as the grooming and rape of young native girls, ludicrous house prices, overwhelmed public services and a feeling of being invaded. The killer was foreign, an ethnic Rwandan; he was not native English. In the panic that greeted the disorder, the new Labour government, elected, due to voter apathy, in a landslide only a month earlier after 14 years in opposition, made their loathing for traditional English liberties, and for the English people, shockingly clear.
New Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer declared that there was “no excuse” for the rioting. He had zero sympathy for the White working class because they are not part of his coalition of virtue-signalling elitists and non-Whites. They don’t tend to vote, except to come out and blasphemously vote for Brexit, and they don’t like mass immigration. They are thus, as Starmer put it, “far right thugs.” Being both of low socioeconomic status, and thus poor and unpleasant, they evoke visceral disgust in Starmer and are potential allies of his dangerous enemy; the populist right. It has been found that disgust is decreased by power, meaning powerless people who act in aberrant way strong induce disgust. This would be particularly pronounced if they were already an enemy and if a person felt negative feelings, like moral disgust, strongly because, being left wing, they were high in Neuroticism, the essence of which is negative feelings, and were especially sensitive, as liberals are, to moral disgust.
Consequently, democracy was, in a sense, suspended and not even very subtly. Starmer, the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, must have known what he was doing but he did it anyway. Clearly shaken up by the intensity and fury of the rioting, he declared that anyone involved would be arrested, tried, found guilty and jailed. He further pronounced that anyone spreading false information online could expect the same fate. At a stroke, he had quite deliberately made clear that democracy is finished in the UK, at least for the next five years, until the next election. How so?
In English Law, as in the US, powers are separated as a bulwark against tyranny. A person may only be arrested if the police believe there is reason to arrest him, and if a person is wrongfully arrested he has legal redress, so they must be careful. He is only tried if the Crown Prosecution Service believes that a conviction is probable. When it comes to summary offences, where you can serve no more than a few years in prison such as public disorder, you are only found guilty if the magistrates believe that you are guilty, and you are given a jail sentence at their sole discretion.
In making the remarks he did, Starmer, the King’s Chief Minister, was knowingly corrupting this entire process. He was pressuring the police, the prosecutors and the magistrates such that none of these people, who are, ultimately, appointed by the government, could behave fairly. In other words, he had, through pressure, politicised the system, even more so than was already the case, with New Labour already having marched through the institutions since 1997, introducing Woke imperatives about commitments to equality, as Sean Gabb has explored in depth in his book, Culture Revolution, Culture War.
The result, it seems, has been people pleading guilty to vague offences such as “inciting racial hatred” for saying “Allah, Allah, who the fuck is a Allah!” because it’s quite obvious that the magistrates, under government pressure, will find them guilty, so their solicitor advises them to plead guilty in order to get a lesser sentence.
It should be noted that one of the causes of the riots is the flagrant two-tier policing in the UK. As I have explored in my new book Woke Eugenics, the Muslim clients of the Woke State can effectively get away with child rape, while those who offend client groups of the Left, such as over-excited, angry, working-class English people, can expect hefty prison sentences. The government and police deny this, with the chief of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, recently being so confident it was untrue that he broke the microphone of a journalist who had the temerity to ask about it.
Worse still, and in order to stem the rioting and online inflammatory discussion, Starmer declared that it was crime to spread misinformation and that those who did so would be prosecuted and jailed. This is simply untrue, as he well knew. It is a crime, as of last year, to knowingly spread misinformation when this is likely to result in non-trivial physical or psychological harm to somebody. Thus, an absolute defence is that you did not know that the information you retweeted was untrue.
Nevertheless, in the UK now, a woman has been arrested in Cheshire for tweeting misinformation about the Rwandan killer. The head of the Crown Prosecution Service announced that you could be arrested for retweeting true information about the riots and, just before they subsided, with Elon Musk having taken the side of the English people, the left were talking about banning Twitter in the UK, placing the UK alongside North Korea; unsurprising considering the roots of New Labour in supporters of Brezhnev.

Commentators in both the UK, such as libertarian Sean Gabb, and elsewhere have been remarking on the Neo-Communist tactics of Britain’s Labour Party for many years. In many ways, they shouldn’t be a surprised, though they have been presented with such slick, manipulative PR that they seem to remain as such. At the height of the Cold War leading figures in this government, such as sometime Home Secretary Jack Straw, were members of the Communist Party or groups sympathetic to it, with all which that implies about their views.
They eventually rejected economic socialism, in order to get elected, but leftist hatred of tradition, resentment of success, natural treason (where you identify with another group, a “disadvantaged” one, over your own, in order to seem kind and so manipulatively gain power over your own group), and the leftist mental instability that leads to paranoid authoritarianism had never gone away. (I explore all of this in Woke Eugenics if you want the related scholarly papers).
After a week of rioting, Starmer met with his “Cobra” anti-terrorism team and devised a plan. Suddenly, it was announced on all UK media that there would be 30 “far right” protests in one night, with the implication that the government were frightened that anarchy would be the result. This was obvious a massive hoax, a Psych Op, as Nick Lowles, the head of the “anti-Fascist” group “Hope Not Hate” admitted. It was obvious, really, because the protests were all going to be in multicultural areas, including the “Gay Capital” of Brighton. The result? Huge protests by the extreme left, and by violent Muslim activists, in favour of destroying Britain and declaring in all the newspapers that the “true British” had turned out to defeat the “far right.”

What was the point of this? It was to break the morale of the far right, buoy the regime’s clients (foreigners and violent White Woke extremists who act as its enforcers) and, hopefully, fool the British people. Of course, like a Potemkin village, it has done no such thing. It has only shown the British people that, as with Communists, the regime has no choice but to blatantly lie, as the problems with their Multicultural, Postmodern, moralistic ideology — social disintegration, collapsing trust, racial conflict, appalling crime, grooming and rape of native girls, an atmosphere of fear, de facto Islamic states within England — become ever more clear, in the hope that the inevitable collapse, in which everything they are invested in falls apart, is postponed. Until that time arrives, as with the dying years of the Soviet Union, tyranny and deception will be ramped up more and more.
Until the 1960s, America saw itself as the true England, more English than England, as Eric Kaufmann has shown in The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. It was the heir to pre-Norman Conquest, Anglo-Saxon world: without social class, high on liberty; democratic. England has been conquered anew by the French in the form of its worst idea: Postmodernism; that truth is subjective, all cultures are equal and challenging tradition is a moral duty.
Maybe it is time for “England West” to rescue its brother across the sea again, just as it did in World War II, but to rescue it not from Continental tyranny but from itself. After all, like Iraq, it is a tyranny, its leaders abuse its people; it is an enemy of American liberty, it is toying with adopting policies associated with China and North Korea (America’s adversaries) and it has quite a lot of oil . . .

An Indian Overlord Speaks: Whites Must Accept Unlimited Immigration for All Eternity

August 20, 2024/8 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

If you enjoy intellectual adventures, you’ll love the Hilbert hotel. It’s a thought-experiment in mathematics created by the great German mathematician David Hilbert (1862-1943). Hilbert asked us to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms numbered 1, 2, 3… On the day the hotel opens, an infinite number of tourists roll up in a luxurious infini-bus. Can they all be accommodated in the Hilbert hotel? Of course: with an infinite number of rooms, it can accommodate an infinite number of guests.

From math to Maya

After the tourists have entered, the hotel is now completely full – every room is occupied. But next day another infini-bus rolls up at the Hilbert hotel with another infinite load of tourists on board. How can the new arrivals all be accommodated in the completely full hotel? Very easily. Each current guest in the hotel simply moves to a new room whose number is twice that of their old room. The guest in room 1 moves to room 2; the guest in room 2 moves to room 4; the guest in room 3 moves to room 6; and so on. Now an infinite number of odd-numbered rooms are unoccupied – 1, 3, 5, 7… – and the infinite number of new arrivals can all find a room. Indeed, the Hilbert hotel can go on accepting a daily intake of infinitely many new arrivals for ever, always full and always able to find room for infinitely more guests. And that’s just the start of its mind-boggling properties.

Stale pale male versus vibrant vivid vixen: German genius David Hilbert and hierarchal hegemon Maya Goodfellow

Speaking of boggling the mind brings me to the Indian female leftist Maya Goodfellow, a writer and academic whose “doctoral thesis explored race and processes of racialisation in British international development discourse about India between 1997-2017.” First, please enjoy the leftist perfection of her name. It inadvertently refers to both the tenuous grasp leftists have on objective reality and the tenacious belief leftists have in their own virtue. In Vedic Sanskrit maya means “illusion, unreality, deception, fraud, trick.” Goodfellow speaks for itself. Now, I doubt that Maya Goodfellow has ever heard of the Hilbert hotel. If so, that’s ironic, because she obviously thinks that Britain is a Hilbert hotel, able to accept any number of non-White enrichers for any number of years. In August 2024 Goodfellow wrote an article for the Guardian with the mind-boggling title of “We keep hearing about ‘legitimate concerns’ over immigration. The truth is, there are none.” That’s right: there are no legitimate concerns over immigration. None. Suicide-bombings? Slaughtered schoolgirls? Rape-gangs? Gang-rapes? Nope, none of those are legitimate concerns. Acid attacks? Threatening mobs driving teachers into hiding? Welfare dependency and fraud? The horrendous suffering and expense caused by the genetic diseases that flourish after marriage between close relatives? Nope, none of those are legitimate concerns either.

“Politics is about persuasion, you racist scum”

Indeed, Goodfellow doesn’t mention any of them for the simple reason that they don’t matter. How could they matter when non-Whites are responsible for them and we know that non-Whites are paragons of political and social virtue? Here’s an extract from her article:

The political “centre” usually reacts to the far right by denouncing its methods and distancing themselves from its coarse, racist rhetoric – but ultimately conceding to its underlying argument. In the days after the general election, Tony Blair advised Keir Starmer that to ward off the far right, he should celebrate what is good about immigration but be sure to “control” it. No matter how respectable and sensible such advice may seem to some within our political classes, the sentiment that “controlling” immigration is a way to appease socially conservative voters is one cause of the corrosiveness. …

Are concerns about immigration “legitimate”? Demonstrably, no. People who arrive in the UK aren’t to blame for an economy designed to benefit the richest while exploiting and abandoning the poorest – immigration is not a significant causal factor of low wages and it’s not why people have insecure jobs. Anti-immigrant feeling isn’t a natural, inevitable reaction to change either. One study found areas with low levels of immigration had some of the highest proportion of leave voters in them – a vote that was at least partly motivated by anti-immigrant concerns. No: it is mainstream politicians and certain sections of the media that summon these feelings. They characterise certain groups of people, usually those who aren’t white (or not-quite-white), as a cultural threat – often targeting Muslims, no matter where they were born.

The “legitimate concerns” in this case are illegitimate. Admitting this doesn’t mean dismissing what people are saying. Equally, engaging people with these views need not lead to legitimisation. The choice is not ignore or accept. Politics is about persuading people of another way; to think this can’t be done is patronising as well as dangerous. The government could change the narrative by making the history of empire and migration a statutory party of the curriculum, and by actively countering racism in the press, among opposition parties and within its own ranks. But it could also use this moment to change people’s material circumstances by getting rid of “hostile environment” policies and providing safe routes of travel (one of the only viable solutions to stop people from having to cross the Channel). It could also make visas cheaper, provide better housing, simplify labyrinthine Home Office processes and end temporary, exploitative visas, giving people the ability to come here on decent terms and stay if they want to. (“We keep hearing about ‘legitimate concerns’ over immigration. The truth is, there are none.,” The Guardian, 13th August 2024)

There are no legitimate concerns over immigration

Note the sneer-quotes that Goodfellow puts around “control.” Seeking to control immigration is both impossible and immoral. Britain is a Hilbert hotel: it can accept infinitely many enrichers for infinitely many years to come. And note how Goodfellow says the government should “counter racism” when she really means “silence all dissent.” Note how she says “persuading people” when she really means “ordering whites to shut up and obey.” But addressing the article on the level of fact and logic is a futile exercise. Goodfellow is a leftist addressing her fellow leftists. As I’ve often noted before, leftists are not interested in reality and logic. They believe in feelism, not realism. And while they preach equality, they practise hierarchy.

Inferiors must obey superiors

Maya Goodfellow is right at the top of that hierarchy. She’s a non-White woman, a superior being before whom lowly Whites must grovel in the dust. Blacks, Indians and other non-Whites are at the top of the racial hierarchy of leftism and Whites are at the bottom. That’s why all White concerns about non-White enrichment are “illegitimate.” The inferior can neither object to the behavior of the superior nor maintain borders against entry by the superior. The territory of White nations must be open to non-White migrants just as the territory of White history and culture must be open to non-White appropriators.

Border Abolition Now! Maya Goodfellow joins two more Indian Overlords to attack the White West

But the reverse doesn’t apply, of course. That’s why White colonialism, when inferior Whites entered the territory of superior non-Whites, is one of the greatest crimes in history. It’s also why non-White roles like Othello are now closed to inferior Whites even as all White roles, from Isaac Newton and Anne Boleyn to Achilles and Doctor Who, are open to superior non-Whites. And it’s why leftism forbids real women to object to the invasion of female spaces by transwomen (where trans- is a Latin prefix meaning “fake”). Male perverts who claim to be women are higher in the leftist hierarchy than real women. It’s feelism trumping realism again. But only for the groups favored by leftism. The feelings of “transwomen” trump the reality of biological sex, because male perverts are higher in the leftist hierarchy than real women. But the feelings of Rachel Dolezal and other wannabe Blacks don’t trump the reality of biological race, because White wannabes are lower in the leftist hierarchy than real Blacks.

Just say no to transgenderism and trans-Westernism

Not that race has any biological reality for leftists. In which case, why can’t Whites become Black if they want to, just as, for leftists, men can become women if they want to? Leftists don’t have an answer for that simple question, because the answer would involve admitting the existence of the leftist hierarchy. But only hate-filled bigots would ask a question like that anyway. People with pure hearts and spotless souls do not question the wisdom and goodness of leftism.

Infinite enrichment for all eternity

And they especially don’t question the wisdom and goodness of non-White leftists like Maya Goodfellow. Her article in the Guardian is an excellent example of that central leftist principle: “Preach equality, practise hierarchy.” The article is written in the name of racial equality even as it issues orders from an Indian at the top of the racial hierarchy to Whites at the bottom. Non-Whites must have “safe routes” to enter Britain and must be allowed to stay “if they want to.” The wants and wishes of Whites do not matter. Their concerns about immigration are entirely and absolutely illegitimate. Whites are there to pay taxes and supply whatever their racial superiors need. That’s what the racial overlord Maya Goodfellow says and who but a racist could disagree?

Infinite guests for the wicked West

And who but a racist would question the wisdom of her proposals for unlimited non-White immigration into the indefinite future? The highly intelligent mathematician David Hilbert was a stale pale male who thought that an infinitely accommodating Hilbert hotel could exist only in the realm of fantasy. Maya Goodfellow isn’t highly intelligent like Hilbert, but she isn’t stale and pale like him either. She has access to wisdom and virtue beyond all constraints of white-supremacist fact and logic. Britain can become a Hilbert hotel for infinite immigration if non-Whites like Goodfellow so desire. America can become a Hilbert hotel too. And France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Australia, New Zealand. All White nations can and must become Hilbert hotels, accepting unlimited numbers of enrichers into the indefinite future. After all, only the “illegitimate” concerns of Whites stand in the way.

Kosher-dashians, The Jews Who Birthed Reality TV: Review of ‘Cue the Sun!’

August 19, 2024/16 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jews and Hollywood/by Jason Cannon

Cue the Sun! The Invention of Reality TV
Emily Nussbaum
Random House, 2024

If, after a decade of researching the Jewish question, you had revealed to me that Jews largely invented the reality television genre, my reaction would hardly be one of surprise. Given Jewish overrepresentation in the television industry overall and the altogether sordid and sleazy nature of reality TV, it seems almost a given to assume that the same group of people who played pioneering roles in the world of pornography would also have birthed the genre that gave us bottom of the barrel shows like Jersey Shore and Love Island.

As a result, I was far from shocked when the Jewish names came thick and fast as I read through Cue the Sun!, television critic at The New Yorker Emily Nussbaum’s newly released history of reality television. Cue the Sun! chronicles the explosive cultural impact of what was always television’s least respected genre, from its early pioneers in the radio industry up until the election of a reality television star as president of the United States of America. Utilising interviews with key players in the industry and uncovering the threads of influence that link seemingly disparate television shows together, Nussbaum has given us another entry in the non-fiction genre I like to call the ‘inadvertent Jew-exposé.’ The type of history book which documents a stunning variety of Jewish characters across its narrative arc, but altogether fails (or refuses) to identify them as Jewish or offer any type of analysis of the Jewish nature of their endeavours and the impact that their Jewish identity may have had on their decision making.

Where Cue the Sun! did surprise me was how sexually suggestive, exploitative, voyeuristic and taboo breaking the precursors to the genre were, even as early the 1940s. It wasn’t that reality television was a once pleasant type of cheaply produced programming that devolved as the tastes of general audiences shifted. An underlying darkness marked by a willingness to provoke and mistreat, a pathologisation of the nuclear family, and a hostility to Christian cultural mores was present from the very beginning. A fact that perhaps can only be explained by the identity of the people who birthed it. As recounted in Cue the Sun!, these Jewish pioneers – Allen Funt, Chuck Barris, Craig Gilbert – and their latter-day successors like Mike Fleiss and Lauren Zalaznik, gave the world a genre that there are plenty of reasons to hate, but one that no-one can now ignore.

Candid Cameras

Pinning down what reality television actually is is a difficult task, even a quarter of a century after the genre first came of age in the 1990s. Nussbaum comes up with the term “dirty documentary”, television shows that merge the technique of the documentary filmmaker with commercialism or other forms of story-telling that place a premium on entertainment over truthfulness.[1] As Chapter 1 details, reality television has its origins in the audience participation genre of American radio in the 1930s and 1940s, where ordinary people would be invited on to programs as guests or contestants. Such radio programs were dime-a-dozen during the era and considered vulgar by respectable society who had an instinctual reaction against attention seeking and the spectacle of a public confessional. Nussbaum highlights The Original Good Will Hour as one of the earliest such examples, where Jewish radio host Lester Kroll played the character of ‘John J. Anthony’, a marriage counsellor who gave relationship advice and encouraged his guests to vent and confess on air.

Nussbaum identifies four ‘streams’ or varieties of broadcast entertainment that would eventually combine to create the modern genre. The oldest (and arguably least subversive) were the game shows or talent shows, primarily quizzes and other such contests, with physical competitions also becoming popular once the age of television dawned. Whilst often critiqued for their tawdriness and not without major scandal, such shows were limited by the audio-visual technology of the day and still lacked the necessary innovations to be described as reality television in the sense we would understand it now. The man who provided two of the most important innovations, and the undoubted inventor of the prank show – the second stream – was Allen Funt.

Born to a Russian-Jewish family in New York, Funt worked as a radio producer for the US army during World War Two. Realising that the latest generation of microphones were now small and discreet enough that they could be hidden without being discovered by an unwitting participant, Funt came up with the idea for a radio program that hoped to capture insights into people’s hidden behaviours. After a series of failed attempts at secretly recording conversations, which resulted in nothing more than inane chit-chat about daily life, Funt stumbled on the secret ingredient — the act of provocation.

Whilst installing a microphone in a dentist’s operatory, a patient walked in and mistook Funt for the dentist, setting herself down on the chair for treatment. Funt rolled with the mistake and recorded the shocked reaction of the patient, informed that her wisdom teeth were inexplicably missing. As Nussbaum notes:

“It wasn’t enough to spy on people, to tape what they were saying. You also had to puncture their sense of normality somehow – to confuse or irritate them, to throw them off balance. Only then would their mask slip, letting you see a burst of authentic emotion…A Reality host needed to do more than simply ask questions. He… had to be a provocateur, willing to engineer situations and heighten drama.”[2]

The resulting radio program created by Funt in 1947, Candid Microphone, which jumped to television in 1950 as Candid Camera, developed the staple elements of the hidden camera setup as well as the producer-provocateur who moulds the scenario. Recording equipment could be set up almost anywhere to capture a reaction creatively provoked by Funt’s team. Classic pranks from Candid Camera include a sketch on the street involving a man carrying a suitcase which had another man stuffed inside, with passers-by trying to free him after hearing the calls for help, or students at an elite high school being given the results of career aptitude tests telling them they were destined to be bricklayers.

Candid Camera was considered a radical and “deeply destabilizing experiment” in its day.[3]” Who knew where one of these newfangled hidden cameras could be set up to secretly record your reactions? Its legacy is evident in every prank-style show broadcast since then (and indeed in every reality show), shows like Punk’d or character-driven versions like Sascha Baron Cohen’s assortment of ethnic personas. Shows which disguise callousness or even cruelty towards an unsuspecting participant with the cover of humour. The success of Candid Camera also attracted the attention of social scientists of all stripes, intrigued by the behavioural revelations.[4]

Borderline exploitative, Candid Camera relied on Funt and his crew extracting release signatures from the unsuspecting participants, often by aggressively waving enough cash under their noses until they gave in. Once the novelty of Candid Camera wore off in the late 60s, Funt turned pornographic, with an X-rated version called What Do You Say to a Naked Lady? Filled with nudity and vulgar sexual questioning, the film hits it provocative peak with a prank involving an interracial couple kissing in public (a white woman and a black man) in front of a group of elderly people.

Of Dates and Divorces

Moving on from Allen Funt, Chapters 2 and 3 chart the precursors of the other two streams of reality television, the dating show and the real-life soap opera. The modern dating show, of which the examples are too many to count, is the creation of television producer Chuck Barris. In the mid 1960’s Barris took the basic concept of televised dating and sexed up with music, a bright and colourful set, and the allowances in candour afforded to him by the ongoing sexual revolution. The Dating Show, which originally aired in 1965 on ABC, prodded its contestants with titillating and sexually suggestive questions and soon became a prime time hit. Multiple follow-up game shows developed by Chuck Barris Productions — most famously The Newlywed Game and the anti-talent show The Gong Show – only became trashier, culminating in 3s a Crowd in 1979. The format was a contest between a husband’s wife and his secretary, each answering questions to see who knew the man better, with the clear implication of adultery. The show was eviscerated in the press for its sexism and cancelled within a year.

The real-life soap opera, a now ubiquitous type of television featuring non-actors in every setting known to man owes its birth to Craig Gilbert.[5] Modern variants cover everything from pregnant teenagers, pawn shop owners, celebrity families and wife-swapping households, but the original outing involved a solitary camera and a suburban family in California. Gilbert’s creation, An American Family, was broadcast on PBS in 1973, and launched the Loud family as the first reality stars, the original Kardashians.

Like Allen Funt, Gilbert envisioned his creation as a noble undertaking, a documentary that captured generational change and the American family in its natural habitat, like an anthropologist studying a far-flung tribal society. Gilbert was undoubtedly inspired by Margaret Mead, directing and producing Margaret Mead’s New Guinea Journal, a 1968 television special which saw Mead return to the New Guinean village which formed the basis of her research in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935). Using the voyeuristic cinema verité style of filmmaking (again a Jewish invention, originating with Dziga Vertov – born David Abelevich Kaufman – and French born filmmaker Edgar Nahoum) Gilbert’s crew followed the Loud family in their daily life across the span of seven months. Eldest son Lance Loud, a flamboyant gay man, became a breakout star and LGBT icon. The real star of the show however was Patricia Loud as the empowered ‘real housewife’ who initiated an on-screen divorce against her husband Bill.

When husband-and-wife duo Alan and Susan Raymond, the two-person film crew who became almost part of the family, began to feel their camera was peering too deeply into the Loud’s lives, too many ethical boundaries being crossed, Gilbert insisted they press on. An ethical filmmaker would see divorce and family breakup as fragile and private moments not fit for broadcasting, where the presence of the camera could well destroy any chance at rehabilitating the marriage. Gilbert instead saw compelling television. Gilbert knew he needed a ‘confession scene’ of Pat explaining her decision in order to tie the story together, a scene that she was unwilling to allow cameras to witness. Eventually he convinced an intoxicated Pat to let him film a conversation with her brother where she laid out her reasons for ending the marriage in intimate detail, describing Bill’s affairs with other women.[6]

An American Family attracted around 10 million viewers per episode, drawn in by the level of intimacy never before seen on television, and turned the Louds into household names. The series was portrayed as an indictment of marriage and the nuclear family, a narrative the series itself leant into with the choice of font for the word ‘family’ in the title sequence, as if to imply a family cracking and falling apart. The Loud family themselves, lambasted as vapid and self-obsessed by critics, felt betrayed and turned against Craig Gilbert. Ultimately the series raised the question, how real is reality when the camera is rolling? Modern audiences are under no illusions as to the level of fakery and exaggeration present in the performative antics of the Kardashian family. For 1970s audiences, these were questions encountered for the first time.

The Real World

As Nussbaum tells it in Chapter 4, a lull set over television during the 1980s, a decade where studios dialled back on risky and avant-garde productions. TV viewers settled into the safety of daytime talk shows and scandal-free audience participation outfits, hits like Real People or The Peoples Court (both gentile-produced) that avoided the producer-provocateur dynamic. The prolonged Writers Guild strike in 1988, which deprived Hollywood of creative ideas, spurred the launch of two further proto-reality shows which stood the test of time. The Fox series Cops, which trailed real police officers and ambushed criminals with a candid camera[7], and America’s Funniest Home Videos (AFHV), a mail-in clip show created by Jewish producer Vincent Di Bona. It was a show broadcast on MTV of all places which began to coalesce these earlier streams and launched reality television as a distinct genre.

MTV’s The Real World, what could then still be labelled an unscripted soap opera, aired in 1992 and contained many of the recognisable elements of modern reality television; a diverse cast of characters living together in one house, the ‘confession booth’ for giving commentary and airing grievances, and the all-overseeing producers filming and deliberately provoking the cast for an on-screen reaction. Co-created by soap opera veteran Mary-Ellis Bunim[8] and Jonathan Murray, with various Jews involved at the directing, editing and executive levels, the long-running series was directly inspired by An American Family.

The first season gathered seven young Americans from across the country in a New York loft, filming their daily life and the inevitable conflicts that confining together a group of diverse personalities will eventually produce. Prodded on by the crew, the series covered all the hot button ‘real world’ issues of the day; Rodney King and racism, drug use and abortion, sexuality and ‘coming out’. Bunim/Murray Productions continued the Real World format throughout the 1990s, the company later producing celeb-reality shows The Simple Life starring Paris Hilton and mega-hit Keeping Up With The Kardashians.

Chapter 6 turns to the Fox network, at the time trying to market itself as a riskier broadcaster, and the soon-to-be reality kingmakers Mike Darnell[9] and Mike Fleiss. The creative duo, the former going on to create the singing contest American Idol, the latter the dating show The Bachelor, worked together on found footage clip shows with titles like Shocking Behaviour Captured on Camera, rip-offs of AFHV. In the year 2000, they created Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?, a gimmicky production that spliced together a quiz show with a Barry Diller-esque dating show. The on-screen engagement of two strangers who had barely set eyes on each other before the question “Will you marry me?” was uttered would end up being only the first in a now long line of marriage-themed shows that have dragged the institution of marriage into the mud.

Reality Goes Mainstream

Chapters 7 through 9 of Cue the Sun! sag under the weight of a 100-page slog that extensively details the origins of the ratings hits Big Brother (first US broadcast 2001) and Survivor (first broadcast 2000), followed by a blow-by-blow account of the highlights of the first seasons of each show. Originally aired in the Netherlands, CBS executives imported its Dutch creators to mastermind the first season of US Big Brother. More social experiment than soap opera, Big Brother debuted to a less than stellar ratings result. A second season purged of Europeans was overseen by Arnold Shapiro, Alison Grodner and Lisa Levenson, who sexed up production and turned up the dial on debauchery to the desired ratings effect.

Now firmly in the 21^st century, Nussman’s narrative struggles to keep pace with the explosion of reality television programs in the US and beyond that followed in the wake of Survivor and Big Brother. The formula now established and the genre a veritable success story, producers were empowered to pitch shows to the major networks at their hearts content. No idea was too wild, trashy or sexually provocative for consideration. In fact, that clearly became the draw card. The oftentimes hapless participants rarely understood what they were getting themselves into, and if they objected, all the networks had to do was show them the fine print and where they willingly signed away on the dotted line.

Bachelor Nation, as the The Bachelor franchise (first season broadcast in 2002) would eventually come to term itself, grew into a global empire under the production team of Mark Fleiss and Lisa Levenson. According to Nussbaum, The Bachelor popularised the editing trick known as the ‘Frankenbite’, the deceptive splicing of two unconnected film or audio samples together, creating an entirely new scene.[10] Another success story of reality television is the Bravo cable television network, which specialises in real-life soap operas and “queer” shows. Bravo owes its success to Lauren Zalaznik, also an alumnus of MTV’s The Real World, who produced programs specifically targeted at “gay men and their female friends.”[11] The result was fashion shows such as Project Runway (pitched by Harvey Weinstein, who wanted a program that would give him access to young models) and the Real Housewives franchise, beginning with The Real Housewives of Orange County (first broadcast 2006) and counting upwards of 40 spin-off versions in cities around the world.

You’re Fired!

The daughter of a Democrat lawyer close to the Clintons, Nussbaum’s disdain for Donald Trump and The Apprentice, the game show that reinvigorated his public image, comes as no surprise. Chapter 13 ‘The Job’ reads more as takedown of Trump than a history of the admittedly successfully and popular television show he starred in. Nussbaum fills the chapter with allegations of racial slurs and sexist comments issued by Trump during production and behind-the-scenes gossip on Trump’s scandalous behaviour, verified by some and denied by others.

The Apprentice added little new to the reality game show format other than unabashed capitalism. Its importance to the narrative of Cue the Sun! exists primarily in the character of Trump and his later political achievements. Nussbaum acknowledges that plenty of other factors led to the election of Trump in 2016. Though reading between the lines, one deduces a sense of dismay about the role reality television played in his rise, a black mark on an otherwise progressive and left-leaning genre. The creative mind behind The Apprentice, British born producer Mark Burnett, also the original producer of Survivor, is admonished for the destructive role he played in American society in a way that none of the other reality television creators are.

Mostly White Men

“They were mostly (but not all) white men, something that was true of the majority of the people who had the power to produce television, until recently.”[12]

As the above quote taken from the introduction indicates, Cue the Sun! begins with a distortion that continues throughout the book. The creators of reality television were mostly white men, and no further inferences can be drawn from that fact, other than to point out that reality television has become more diverse over the years. Nussbaum occasionally identifies some of the individuals in the book as Jewish, but as mere biographical footnote. It’s not as if Nussbaum isn’t willing to notice a pattern. In Chapter 12, she allows herself to confidently point out that a:

“…striking portion of early reality producers were gay men… Perhaps gay men were more attuned to the tensions between behaviour and performance; maybe they were more willing to innovate, as outsiders.[13]”

If gay men were overrepresented in the reality television genre due to their ‘performative’ nature and position as societal outsiders, why did Jews play an even more prominent and over-representative role? Nussbaum is unwilling to provide an answer.

To start off with, one can point to the nature of Hollywood, from its origins a Jewish institute. The studios of Los Angeles remain the heartland of reality television, so a strong Jewish presence in the genre and its precursors is as expected as it is in every other genre of television produced in America. Another common theme throughout Cue the Sun! is the taboo breaking nature of reality TV, going all the way back to its pioneers. Craig Gilbert put real-life divorce, adultery and homosexuality on prime-time television. In episode after episode, Chuck Barris launched euphemistic and sexually provocative questions at naïve young dating show contestants, questions which toed the line on what was acceptable to air on television at the time. A Jewish impulse born out of what Natham Abrams infamously called the “atavistic hatred of Christian authority.”[14]

A deeper answer lies with understanding the act of provocation, a defining characteristic of reality television. Or as the creators of The Real World called it, the catalyst of “throwing pebbles into the pond”[15], disturbing the calm and controlled disposition of the person being filmed. Provocation takes many forms, but even simply placing a camera in front of someone with no script or instruction as to what to say or do is a provocative act, goading them to perform. As Nussbaum notes, the less ethical a reality show is (i.e. the more provocative the production and the more naïve the participant), the more authentic and compelling the footage captured ends up being.[16] For the showrunners, producers and editors detailed throughout Cue the Sun!, the appearance of tears, raised voices and discomfort were scenes to be celebrated, signs that riveting television had been produced.

In all, the best explanation to the predominant Jewish role uncovered by Cue the Sun! is that Jews are more at ease with provoking and making gentiles uncomfortable than gentiles are at provoking a member of their own race. The historical precedents in the more extreme cases are well known. The Bolsheviks in revolutionary Russia staffed the secret police with Jews, knowing that a Jew would have fewer moral qualms about torturing and mistreating their victims than an ethnic Russian Cheka agent would have in doing the same to his fellow Russian. Centuries of ethnic separation, religious laws that morally differentiate between the ingroup and outgroup, and the longstanding persecution narrative appear to have given Jews enough of an emotional detachment that they are more willing to countenance exploiting and manipulating a gentile for commercial gain or for television ratings. Perhaps there is even a sense of being able to get one over a goy, a chance to put an overconfident fame-seeker in their place or to ridicule the wannabe starlet from flyover country.

Even the author, herself a member of the tribe, ends the book on a disturbingly unsympathetic note. Those early reality TV participants, taken advantage of by a phenomenon that had yet to even be defined, are deserving of pity. But for Nussbaum, those contestants who grew up in the 21^st century with reality television all around them, cognisant of its true nature: “...they knew what they were getting into. I say, let ‘em crash”.[17] Crash they still do, alongside the crashing moral standards of Western culture, something which the Jews who birthed reality television bear more than a passing responsibility for.

[1] Nussbaum, E 2024 Cue the Sun! The Invention of Reality TV, Random House, New York USA, p. XV

[2] Ibid., p.15-16

[3] Ibid., p.19

[4] Notoriously Stanley Milgram of the Yale obedience experiment and Philip Zimbardo of the Stanford prison experiment: Ibid., p.23

[5] Not an obvious Jewish name, his heritage is confirmed by a gravestone adorned with Hebrew script: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/228000402/craig-p.-gilbert

[6] Nussbaum 2024, Op. Cit., p.58

[7] Nussbaum notes the conceptual similarity of Cops with Allen Funt’s Candid Camera.

[8] Born Mary-Ellis Paxton, married into a Jewish family.

[9] Mike Darnell’s ancestry is unclear.

[10] Also a Jewish creation, Nussbaum points the finger at editors Daniel Abrams and Josh Belson: Nussbaum 2024, Op. Cit., p.321

[11] Ibid., p.346

[12] Ibid., p.XVI

[13] Ibid., p.336

[14] Abrams, N 2003, ‘Triple Ethnics: Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American Porn Industry, Jewish Quarterly, 51(4), p.27-31

[15] Nussbaum, Op. Cit., p.115

[16] Ibid., p.390

[17] Ibid., p.391

[4] Notoriously Stanley Milgram of the Yale obedience experiment and Philip Zimbardo of the Stanford prison experiment: Ibid., p.23

[5] Not an obvious Jewish name, his heritage is confirmed by a gravestone adorned with Hebrew script: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/228000402/craig-p.-gilbert

[6] Nussbaum 2024, Op. Cit., p.58

[7] Nussbaum notes the conceptual similarity of Cops with Allen Funt’s Candid Camera.

[8] Born Mary-Ellis Paxton, married into a Jewish family.

[9] Mike Darnell’s ancestry is unclear.

[10] Also a Jewish creation, Nussbaum points the finger at editors Daniel Abrams and Josh Belson: Nussbaum 2024, Op. Cit., p.321

[11] Ibid., p.346

[12] Ibid., p.XVI

[13] Ibid., p.336

[14] Abrams, N 2003, ‘Triple Ethnics: Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American Porn Industry, Jewish Quarterly, 51(4), p.27-31

[15] Nussbaum, Op. Cit., p.115

[16] Ibid., p.390

[17] Ibid., p.391

Are Ulster cops helping the rioters? Part 2

August 17, 2024/in Featured Articles/by Ganainm

Some call the police “system pigs”. I suggest the term “system teddy bears” is more accurate.

To avoid breaching strict and scary UK law, this article has been heavily toned down. It is a summary of MSM reporting: RTE Raidió na Gaeltachta, The Journal.ie and the “Bauer Media” owned Newstalk Radio plus some satire, within legal limits. Take it all with a pinch of salt.

Some of Our Guys are worried that the mostly peaceful protests will peter out. They can rest reassured, the Ulster boys know that the world’s cameras are watching, and they are loving it. They will happily rún mostly peaceful protests for the next thirty years, without killing anyone, and with only very minor – but very humiliating – injuries.

On Friday, a few hundred attended an anti-migration protest in Belfast. A thousand allegedly counter protested. The cops kept the two sides apart. They did not allow the Antifa to attack. Nobody hurt. One man arrested for throwing a bottle at the police.

On Saturday 15,000 supposedly marched in Belfast for the refugees.

A petrol bomb was lobbed at a mosque. The Moslem Mother’s Collective (400 members) sent letters to all and sundry worried that their children will not be safe in school. Do they want a “one cop, one child” policy? Several cute, hardworking female foreign nurses “have been moved” from their accomodation ón the Shankill Rd.

In (London)Derry, they cancelled a protest ón Friday. Sinn Féin whined that it was an anti-migrant demo. But the internet leaflet called for people of all colours, creeds and nationalities to “Protect the Children”. If it’s good enough for Matt Groening and The Simpsons…The leaflet had the Union Jack and Irish Tricolour together. Very symbolic. The hand of friendship, yadi-yadi ya.

It was cancelled to avoid violence before the arrival of thousands of visitors, many from Bonnie Scotland, for the Apprentice Boys March. A celebration of three hundred years of not surrendering. No doubt they swapped tales of Humza Yousef, Leo Varadkar, Siddiq Khan, the Welsh mulatto minister and Two Teir Keir and his Mrs – what’s her name again? Are your Pakistani politicians worse than our politician Pakistanis?

After the march, there was a mostly peaceful protest. As Andrew Anglin might say: Twelve pre-teen Proddie Afro-Potatos firebomb Ulster system pigs, because of racism, poverty. Top cop surrenders ón live radio, begs parents to take their kids home. Ten cops file injury claims, anticipate three months paid leave in the Canary Islands while they recuperate from bruises and trauma. If their doctor will certify that the little burn ón their thumb came from a petrol bomb, there’s probably a cash payment of thousands. One teen arrested. In any rioter’s – or cop’s – language that’s a win-win scenario.

Two Tier Keir boasts that he has 5,000 in his standing army of riot cops. But only 120 are coming from Scotland to NI. The Brits had to keep 20,000 Army in Ulster to keep the Fenians down. They will need twice that, at least, to keep the Orangmen and the Fenians down at the same time. It is notorious that loyalist paramilitaries have deep and wide connections at all levels of His Britanic Majesty’s Armed Forces. Every extra cop in Ulster is one less for the mainland. The English will be free to do mostly peaceful protesting, without worrying about PC Plod spoiling the fun.

The protests are doing three supposedly impossible things at the same time: strengtening the Union, increasing cross border friendship and increasing Catholic/Protestant cooperation and mutual respect.

The age range of mostly peaceful protestors is wide: A 58-year-old arrested in Belfast. An 11-year-old arrested for 3 counts of possessing petrol bombs in “suspicious circumstances”. A 42 yr old arrested for a failed petrol bomb on the mosque, was released on bail. Does releasing an alleged mosque petrol bomber fit the description of a “harsh crackdown”?

In many parts of the western world, the native palefaces are scared of the big, bád Darkies. “Our government does not protect us,” you hear them whining in their online hangouts.

Here in Afro-Potato Land the Belfast cops are appealing for information: On Sunday a foreign gentleman was approached by six young people while walking in a park. They shouted abuse and intimidated the man, before throwing stones at him as he walked away.

When the Jews wanted to stone the woman for a bit of non-marital slap-and-tickle, Jesus eyeballed them and said: “Anyone of youse boyos who are without sin, cast the first stone”. They all backed down, of course. Guilty consciences, one and all.

It’s clear that the Christian youth of Belfast have looked into their souls, determined that they are more sinned against than sinning and are ready to start slinging stones, in what they consider a fun, safe, non-lethal, non-sectarian way.

On Radio na Gaeltachta ón Monday the host and his four guests spend 20 minutes cursing the Israelis as thieving, genocidial, bloodthirsty colonial maniacs and competing to show how much knowledge they have about Zionist control over the US.

When the talk shifts to anti-migration protests, the host is clearly amused, the guests are by turns worried, bored or flippant. They patronise the stupidity of Ulster Prods for not understanding that mass immigration has nothing to do with housing shortage. In fact we need to import even more migrants to build the houses that the current migrants are not prepared to build…

One guest mentions that some foreigners had their house attacked and they called the police. When the cops eventually came, they advised the foreigners to leave, for their own safety, and urged them to respect the local cultures. There’s video footage to prove it, apparently.

Úna Ní Bhroiméil, lecturer in American history in Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, seems to have stumbled across some of Professor MacDonald’s academic writings: She warbles uncertainly about “identities” for a few minutes then she comes straight out with it: “The people seem to be saying that they welcome newcomers as long as they are ‘bán agus Críostaí’ (white and Christian).”

Hey! What’s that sound?

It’s a couple of Proddie carpenters from the Shankhill Road. They are installing a new Overton Window…

No Friend of Free Speech: The Racist Silence of Pseudo-Libertarian Brendan O’Neill

August 14, 2024/4 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

I logged into the Occidental Observer’s very own AI chatbot last night and made the following request:

Please write a pro-free-speech polemic in the self-righteous and pseudo-colloquial style of Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill in which Brendan condemns himself for once again completely ignoring the censorship-by-murder of the Glaswegian shopkeeper Asad Shah.

Nanoseconds later, the OcciBot supplied the following text:

Why I must condemn my disgusting failure to combat Islamism and defend progressive Muslims

A passionate friend of free speech. And an equally passionate anti-racist. That’s what I claim to be. Am I ’aving a larf, Brendan? I need to have a quiet word with myself. And stop this absurd posturing. At Spiked Online, I’ve once again written about free speech and the threat of Islamist intolerance. And I’ve once again completely failed to mention the British man who, thanks to Islamist intolerance, paid the ultimate price on British soil for exercising his free speech.

Asad Shah, Brendan. Asad Shah. Who was he? Don’t pretend I don’t know. My successor as editor of Spiked, the estimable Tom Slater, wrote a long article about his appalling murder only last year. I must have read it. And when I say “appalling,” mate, I blimmin’-well mean it. As Tom wrote, Asad lost his life “in the most barbaric fashion imaginable.” He was a Glaswegian shopkeeper and a member of the gentle, much-persecuted Ahmadi Muslim sect. He’d been granted asylum in Britain after fleeing Islamist violence in his homeland. But guess what? He wasn’t safe here either. He provoked the anger of British Islamists for YouTube videos that, absurdly, they regarded as blasphemous and disrespectful to the Prophet Muhammad. In March 2016 one of those Islamists, a dickhead named Tanveer Ahmed, drove up to Glasgow from the English city of Bradford. I’ll let Tom describe what happened next: “[Ahmed] attacked Shah, stabbing him repeatedly in the head and upper body. Shah tried to escape outside. Ahmed followed. He repeatedly stamped on Shah’s head, shattering almost every bone in his face.”

Asad Shah pays the price for liberal cowardice (image from The Daily Record)

Stabbed and stamped to death. By an Islamist fanatic. On British soil. Yeah, this is Britain we’re talking about here, not Afghanistan or Iran. Britain, Brendan. And how did I react at the time? How have I reacted ever since? By never allowing the name “Asad Shah” to cross my lips or shake my keyboard. Not once. A British man is murdered on British soil by an Islamist fanatic and I never spoke or wrote a word in condemnation. What’s going on here, Brendan? Huh? Do brown-skinned victims of Islamist barbarism not matter to me? To answer that far-from-unreasonable question, let’s take a look at my latest article about the Islamist threat to free speech in Britain:

There have been more sinister acts of censure, too. Last year a 14-year-old schoolboy in Wakefield was suspended from school for lightly ‘scuffing’ a copy of the Koran. The police, in shameful mimicry of Iran’s morality cops, launched an investigation into this supposed ‘hate incident’. Oh, just say it: blasphemous incident. The boy’s mother was pressured to make a pitiful public apology. It was a grotesque spectacle: a mum begging for mercy for her supposedly ungodly kid, like something out of Afghanistan.

Then there’s the case of the Batley Grammar schoolteacher chased into hiding by a fundamentalist mob. His transgression? He showed his pupils an image of Muhammad during a classroom discussion on blasphemy and free speech. That was in 2021. He’s still in hiding in 2024, so ferocious were the insults and death threats he received for ‘insulting’ the Prophet. (“Why we must fight for the right to criticise Islam,” Spiked Online, 10th August 2024)

So I wrote about “more sinister acts of censure” in Britain and discussed two white males, both of whom are still very much alive. What’s a “more sinister act of censure” than murder, Brendan? There isn’t one, is there? So why didn’t I discuss Asad Shah? Why have I never discussed Asad Shah? But wait: I can condemn Islamist murder when it happens to a white guy in an entirely different country. Samuel Paty, the schoolteacher beheaded by an Islamist fanatic in France. His name and the details of his appalling murder have often crossed my lips and shaken my keyboard. Haven’t they, Brendan? But brown blokes barbarously blotted out in Britain – nah, not interested, don’t give a flying flip.

Do I know what I conclude, Brendan? I conclude that I’m racist. R-A-C-I-S-T. Racist. Just look at myself: I’ll write about white guys merely menaced by Islamists in Britain, but I won’t write about a brown guy actually and appallingly murdered by an Islamist in Britain. And ignoring Asad Shah is not just racist, is it? No. It also trashes a truth often hammered home by me and my colleagues at Spiked. I must remember how it goes: “Censorship. Harms. Minorities. Most.” Capitulation to Islamist intolerance betrays those progressive Muslims who are fighting for greater freedoms within the Muslim community. Doesn’t it, Brendan?

Yeah, it does. And by ignoring Asad Shah once again, I’ve once again betrayed those progressive Muslims and once again failed to make the strongest possible case for free speech. Asad Shah has been dead for eight long years, Brendan. That’s 2,920 days. And counting. Two thousand, nine hundred and twenty days. And on not one of those days – not one – have I, Brendan O’Neill, passionate friend of free speech, so much as muttered his name in any public forum. For shame, Brendan! For shame! With friends of free speech like me, who needs enemies?

Brendan O’Neill joins Jewish supremacist Melanie Phillips to support the Muslim-pulverizing military of far-off Israel

The Politics of the UK Riots

August 12, 2024/5 Comments/in British Politics, Featured Articles/by Mark Gullick

August is traditionally a quiet month in the United Kingdom. The British go on their summer holidays, perversely leaving the country during the hottest month of the year to seek sunshine in foreign climes. Parliament goes into recess, and so no new laws are passed. Even the media take a break, the lack of newsworthy stories earning the month the nickname “the silly season”, reflecting the inane stories the media have to find to fill their newspapers and TV news programs.

But the sleepy eighth month, named for Augustus Caesar, occasionally acts strangely on the English, a people once famed for their rather dull nature. In August 2011, rioting spread across the country after a Black man was shot dead by police in London. Somewhat earlier, in August 1641, the first battle of the English Civil War (three wars, technically, within a decade) was fought at Nottingham. Today, August 2024 can take its place in the British calendar of civil unrest. But where the mainstream media have concentrated on the visuals of the recent riots, it is the political back-story that needs watching. The question is a simple one; how has a tenderfoot British government made such fast and efficient use of the riots for authoritarian political ends?

The riots have been well-documented globally; they are a distraction from the real story, that of political manipulation and the use of civil disturbance to change the law of the land. And this Machiavellian program is aimed squarely at the White population. When British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer addressed the nation after Black Lives Matter riots in 2020, his tone was conciliatory and apologetic, praising what he claimed was the ongoing Black fight against racism. His speech after this month’s riots is markedly different, beginning as it does with the following;

“I utterly condemn the far-Right thuggery we’ve seen this weekend”.

The phrase “far Right” is Britain’s equivalent to the Biden administration’s use of “white supremacy”, a meaningless smear by association I wrote about here at The Occidental Observer over two years ago. The organization which has set itself up as the moral arbiter of supposed White racism is HOPE Not Hate (HNH), an equivalent to America’s Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League. It is HNH who have popularized the phrase “far Right”, one the government has run with. They are also agents provocateurs, groundlessly alleging that a Muslim woman had had acid thrown at her from a car in the town of Cleveland during the rioting, a claim the local police immediately debunked.

But the temptation is still to blame government ineptitude rather than malevolent design. Before the general election on July 4, it was assumed that as Labour had made no substantive policy announcements, they therefore had no policies. They seemed to be campaigning solely on the fact that they weren’t the Conservatives, and simply would not be equipped to govern. Now, that accusation of under-preparedness looks naïve.

There is a perception that Labour’s authoritarian response to the riots is a result of panic, that they getting tough in order to appear in command. But the government appearing to make policy on the hoof is a grand deception, and this sudden roll-out of zealous and ethnicity-specific strong-arm tactics was in place all along. The riots were engineered and the results both predicted and used in a pre-determined way. The White British working class have been goaded for decades with the effects of immigration and the plainly preferential treatment often given to undocumented men. As in Ireland, the government pushed them once too often, albeit deliberately so.

The initial rioting in Southport, a suburb of Liverpool, was sparked by the murder of three young girls at a dance party on July 29, but there had been something of a prequel in the Harehills city district of Leeds on July 18. The difference between the police response to the latter riot and that of the ensuing and far more serious violence shows patterns which are already beginning to define Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s fledgling government.

For once, the rumor on social media that the alleged killer was a newly arrived immigrant was genuine misinformation. The police withheld the attacker’s name for several days, by now a recognized signal that whoever the perpetrator was, he was not a white Englishman. The accused was in fact born in Wales — a fact endlessly repeated in the media — of Rwandan immigrant parents. But the fuse was lit, and a group which was composed of White Englishmen gathered outside a mosque in Southport, which they attacked. By Friday, riots had broken out in several major cities, and the weekend inevitably saw an escalation of hostilities. Then the police and the media came spectacularly to life in a way that had not accompanied the Harehills riot.

The Harehills disturbance began when an immigrant Romanian family became involved in a stand-off with social services officers who had come to take at least one of the family’s children into care. The ensuing riot attracted a crowd of mostly Muslim young men. The police have shown during pro-Palestine demonstrations that they are reluctant to police ethnic minorities, and when they finally arrived in Harehills, the crowd chased them out of the area. They did not return. When rioting subsequent to the Southport murders was instigated by White, English, working-class men, the style of policing changed completely. This represents a central pillar of what is already a new order; Two-tier policing.

The phrase “two-tier policing” was coined by ex-Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman. Her use of the phrase, in addition to using the term “invasion” to describe illegal immigration, led ultimately to her defenestration by her party. It used to require a sexual or financial scandal to end a politician’s career. Four words are sufficient today.

Two-tier policing is undeniably taking place in the UK, although that has not stopped governmental mouthpieces denying it. With the advent of citizen journalism, ordinary people whose media information used to come solely from the state-sanctioned, legacy press, are now able to watch the different policing styles employed against Muslims and the White working class. Starmer flatly denied that there is any two-tier policing, claiming that the British police act “without fear or favor”. This phrase was first used in 1829 by the founder of the British police, Sir Robert Peel, and in Starmer’s mouth it is demonstrably untrue. Tempers frayed when Sir Mark Rowley, Chief Commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police Force, was asked by a reporter whether he would end two-tier policing. Rowley angrily snatched the microphone from the offending reporter’s hand.

Below is a 12-minute video by Mark Collett, of British political organization Patriotic Alternative (PA, who have been blocked from registering as an official party). It explains two-tier policing succinctly, and PA have been watched forensically for years, meaning that government lawyers will certainly have watched this short exposé. In other words, you know it’s true because if there was one slip-up, Collett would already be in jail. His message is simple; Whites are policed very differently from non-Whites.

And so, while the rioting itself dominates the media, political machinations are clicking into place behind the smokescreen. Labour are determined not to let this crisis go to waste, and they are using methods of control honed by the political class over the last quarter of a century, which links Tony Blair’s Labour government to Sir Keir Starmer’s.

The rioting has been extensive, but it is the damage done to the liberty of the citizenry that is significant. Prime Minister Starmer and his Home Secretary Yvette Cooper have, to use a phrase beloved of the political class, “been absolutely clear about this”. The current troubles are the fault of White, “far-Right” thugs. Starmer put into place instant retribution for rioters, 24-hour courts to process them despite a normally sluggish judicial process in Britain, and staggering prison sentences of up to ten years for involvement in disturbances, including online incitement. This is not a flustered government grasping at ad hoc policy. This has been a long time in the planning.

Central to this aggressive policy-making are arrest and punishment, and the weaker and more vulnerable those arrested, the better the deterrent. A 55-year-old woman was arrested on August 8 for posting a name believed to be that of the Southport killer, but which was in fact incorrect. Here is what Chief Superintendent Alison Ross of Cheshire Police had to say about the arrest:

It’s a stark reminder of the dangers of posting information on social media platforms without checking the accuracy. It also acts as a warning that we are all accountable for our actions, whether that be online or in person. [Italics added].

It looks as though Ms. Ross is saying that we are all responsible for our actions, but she is not. You won’t hear any mouthpiece of the British Left (which is what the police are) saying such a thing because a belief in personal agency is not in the ideological DNA of the Left, at least not when groups with protected characteristics are being arrested. What she is impressing on the specifically White British is that they are accountable, they can be held to account, even for repeating an inaccuracy. This is reminiscent of a government advertising poster during World War II, on which a fierce-looking army officer barks out the following; “Treat rumours like mistakes. Don’t repeat ‘em”.

Britain’s people are learning a political lesson. If government cannot control the narrative, and therefore the behavior (both physical and mental) of its citizens, it will increase its powers of detention and prime the judicial system towards heavier sentencing for the ethnic bloc of which it disapproves most, which is the White working class. People are already going to jail for their part in the rioting, the usually sluggish judicial system suddenly being given the equivalent of a jab with a cattle prod. There are similarities between what is happening to rioters in the UK and the so-called “insurrectionists” of the infamous January 6 walkabout in the US. But it ought to be pointed out that the British rioters really were rioting, whereas the Americans who still languish in jail over January 6 were guilty of little more than aggravated tourism.

While everyone is being distracted by the main events of the rioting, plus the government’s pulpit-pounding response, it is the activity off-stage and behind the scenes which gives genuine cause for concern. Aside from the flurry of legislation the government is implementing, consider what else Labour have done in their first month in power.

A Parliamentary Bill intended to restore free speech to university campuses has been abandoned, and not in its formative stages. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 received Royal assent in May of last year, and was therefore effectively law. It even had cross-party support. The Bill was summed up in a governmental report of June 1, 2023 as follows:

[The Act] delivers on the Government’s commitment to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in higher education, helping to protect the reputation of our universities as centres of academic freedom.

On July 26 this year, after three weeks of a Labour government, the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, wrote to colleagues to announce the new government’s intention to proceed no further with the Bill. Her report even allows the Bill to be repealed if constitutionally required for its annulment. The reason she gives, with reference to the academic freedom of speech the original Bill guaranteed, is that “I am aware that the Act would be burdensome on providers”.

In just over a year, in a nation that once led the world in higher education, academic freedom of speech has gone from being a championed priority to being a burden. And Labour are only just getting started.

Shortly before this eruption of dissidence, Starmer announced that there were “too many prisoners” in British jails, and began a program of early release. Once again, the line from Anthony Burgess’ novel A Clockwork Orange echoes. A British MP is discussing early release with a prison governor, and informs him that “soon we will be needing all our prison space for political prisoners”. Starmer had already announced that he will step up early release. But the British prison system has been described as on the brink of collapse in the media for as long as I can remember. Why the sudden desperate need for prison space?

Then there is legislation which was already draconian and which is now under review to increase the powers it grants government.

The Online Safety Bill (OSB) was controversial when it first passed into British law last year. It was marked by an almost total lack of a working definition for key operative phrases and terms such as “harm”, “hate speech”, “offence”, “racism”, and others. This lack of definition is a political tactic I called “usable ambiguity” in a piece on the Bill here. Lack of precise definition should be totally unacceptable where crime and punishment are concerned, but there are already moves to make rigid definition in the law a thing of the past, and we will see a lot more usable ambiguity as the truth is tinkered with. This is civil war at an epistemological level.

Now, the Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has stated that the OSB needs reviewing in the wake of the rioting specifically to address the confected problem of “misinformation”. Khan is an arrogant man but he has every right to be. As the highest-profile Muslim politician in the UK, he is relishing his new influence over the government. Keir Starmer has already made it clear that when Khan shouts “Jump!” Starmer merely needs to ask “how high?” Why else would a PM newly swept into power with a record-breaking mandate allow a bumptious London Mayor to inform big tech companies that, concerning online misinformation, “if they don’t sort their own house out, regulation is coming”.

Misinformation is what has exercised the Mayor, Elon Musk having taken a keen interest in the disturbances. Musk’s use of his platform, X, as a base from which to troll British politicians has incensed the political class. Musk has attacked Starmer from early in the rioting, and Starmer has responded rather bafflingly by having his Chief Commissioner of Police imply that Musk “will face the full force of the law” and possible subsequent arrest for his online comments. Whatever this government might lack, it is not braggadocio.

“England and Wales have long had very broad criminal offences that make it illegal to say something online that would often be legal offline,” says Michael Veale, associate professor in technology law at University College London. “Those communications offences are the tools that law enforcement usually reach for when dealing with specific cases like Musk’s, prosecuting thousands a year.” And some of those rules have been bolstered by the new Online Safety Act, which was passed into law in the last few months. But there’s a catch. “Even in the new act, these do not extend outside of the jurisdiction, meaning it would be hard to see how they could be used to target Musk,” says Veale. Independent

Before leading the Labour Party to victory, Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), a powerful figure in the estate of the British judiciary. Strange that he and his Chief of Police should neglect to inform Mr. Musk which law he has broken, and what extradition agreements are in place with whatever country the world’s richest man is in today. The exchange offers a clue to wider ideological concerns. For the Left, criticism of Left-wing ideology is increasingly becoming equivalent to breaking the law. And Starmer genuinely is a creature of the Left.

The only MSM journalist to have spoken about Starmer’s past as a Pabloite (a hard-Left branch of Trotskyism) is the veteran Peter Hitchens, whose late brother Christopher was probably better known in the USA. Hitchens may be a gloomy curmudgeon, but he holds onto stories tenaciously, and is a lone voice in the wilderness of the British media for forewarning an unheeding nation about Starmer’s hard-Left provenance. But we are not seeing the triumph of the Left, but that of the political class.

I recently reviewed Peter Oborne’s seminal book on modern British politics, The Triumph of the Political Class, here at The Occidental Observer. The book was written in 2007 and describes the formation of a separate political class acting in their own self-interest, and to the ultimate detriment of the citizenry. A key point Oborne makes is that, in 2007, the political class was still learning how to control the people in an age of mass communication. In the interim, it has got a lot better at it. Starmer and his party were famously seen as having no policies going into the general election, leading critics to claim Labour in power would be inventing policy as they went along, merely improvising government. This isn’t credible. Five weeks into their new government, the Labour Party certainly has got policies, and I suspect they had them long before their election victory, when they were deemed unpalatable for public consumption. Now, with a huge mandate and a five-year-plan, a Labour Party supposedly unprepared for government looks very prepared indeed.

So, if this government is coming across as panicky and unprepared for power, I suggest that is something of a psy-op. Gross incompetence leading to the exacerbation of a problem is often metaphorically referred to as “putting out the fire with gasoline”. But what if you weren’t trying to put the fire out? What if your intention all along was to make it blaze ever hotter, even if it burns the house down? If the UK is going to hell in a handcart, the handcart doesn’t need to be built from scratch. It was finished long ago.