General

Alexander Dugin: Decoupling

/6 Comments/in /by

From Arktos

Alexander Dugin discusses the term “decoupling,” signifying a fundamental shift away from the West’s universal norms and a rejection of the interconnected global structures that have historically bound non-Western societies to Western values, technologies, and political systems.

In the coming decades, the main and most frequently used concept will undoubtedly be the term “decoupling.” The English word “decoupling” literally means “disconnection of a pair” and can refer to a wide range of phenomena — from physics to economics. In all cases, it refers to the breaking of the connection between two systems, especially when both depend on each other to a greater or lesser extent. There is no exact equivalent for translating this word into Russian, although размыкание (unfastening), расцепление (disengagement), and разрыв пары (pair disconnection) convey the meaning. However, it is preferable to retain the English term “decoupling.”

In a broad sense, at the level of global civilizational processes, “decoupling” means something directly opposite to “globalization.” The term “globalization” is also English (of Latin origin). Globalization means the unification of all states and cultures according to rules and algorithms established in the West. “To be global” means to be like the contemporary West, to accept its cultural values, its economic mechanisms, its technological solutions, its political institutions and protocols, its information systems, its aesthetic standards, and its ethical criteria as something universal, total — the only option — and obligatory. In practice, this means the “coupling” of non-Western societies with the West and with each other, but always in such a way that Western rules and standards serve as the algorithm. Essentially, in such a unipolar globalization, there was a main center — the West — and all others. The West and the Rest, as S. Huntington put it. The Rest was supposed to connect to the West. This connection ensured integration into a single planetary global system, into the global “Empire” of postmodernity with the metropolis located at the center of humanity, that is, in the West.

Entering globalization, recognizing the legitimacy of supranational institutions — such as the WTO, WHO, IMF, World Bank, ICC, ECHR, and up to the world government, a prototype of which is the Trilateral Commission or the Davos Forum — was an act of system binding, expressed by the term “coupling.” Between the collective West and any other country, culture, or civilization, a pair was formed, in which a certain hierarchy — leader/follower — was immediately established. The West played the role of master, the non-West the slave. Along this axis of “coupling,” the entire system of world politics, economy, information, technology, industry, finance, and resources was formed. The West in this situation was the embodiment of the future — “progress,” “development,” “evolution,” “reforms,” while everyone else was supposed to connect to the West and follow it according to the logic of “catch-up development.”

In the eyes of the globalists, the world was divided into three zones — the “rich North” (essentially the West — the US and the EU, as well as Australia and Japan), the “semi-peripheral countries” (primarily the fairly developed BRICS countries), and the “poor South” (all others).

China engaged in globalization in the early 1980s under Deng Xiaoping. Russia did so under much less favorable conditions in the early 1990s under Yeltsin. Gorbachev’s reforms were also aimed at “coupling” with the West (“a common European home”). Later, India actively joined this process. Each country “coupled” with the West, which meant integrating into the globalization process.

Globalization was and remains a fundamentally Western-centric phenomenon, and given that the US and globalist elites play the main role in it, it is quite logical to use English terms to describe it. Globalization was carried out through “coupling,” and from there, everyone involved followed its rules and guidelines at all levels — both global and regional.

The processes of globalization gained momentum starting from the late 1980s until they began to falter and stall in the 2000s. The most significant factor in this reversal of the globalization vector was Putin’s policy, which initially aimed to integrate Russia into it (joining the WTO, etc.) but at the same time insisted on sovereignty, clearly contradicting the main directive of the globalists — moving towards de-sovereignization, de-nationalization, and the prospect of establishing a world government. Thus, Putin quickly distanced himself from the IMF and the World Bank, rightly noting that these institutions used “coupling” in the interests of the West and often directly against Russia’s interests.

Simultaneously, China, which derived maximum benefit from globalization by leveraging its involvement in the global economy, financial system, and especially the offshoring of industries relocated by the globalists from Western countries to Southeast Asia (where labor costs were significantly lower), also reached the limits of positive outcomes from this strategy. Moreover, China initially took care to maintain sovereignty in certain areas — rejecting Western-controlled liberal democracy (events in Tiananmen Square) and establishing full national control over the internet and the digital sphere. This became especially evident under Xi Jinping, who openly declared China’s course not towards Western-centric globalism but towards its own model of world politics based on multipolarity.

Putin also firmly established the course towards multipolarity, and other semi-peripheral countries, particularly the BRICS nations, increasingly leaned towards this model. Relations between Russia and the West especially deteriorated with the onset of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, after which the West rapidly began cutting ties with Moscow — at the economic level (sanctions), political level (an unprecedented wave of Russophobia), energy level (explosions of gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea), technological exchange level (bans on technology supplies to Russia), sports (a series of contrived disqualifications of Russian athletes and the ban on participation in the Olympics), and so on. In other words, in response to the SMO, that is, Putin’s full declaration of Russia’s sovereignty, the West initiated “decoupling.”

At this point, the term “decoupling” acquires its full, profound meaning. It is not just a severance of ties; it is a new mode of operation for two systems, each of which is now supposed to be completely independent of the other. For the US and the EU, “decoupling” appears to be a punishment for Russia’s “misbehavior,” that is, its forced detachment from development processes and tools. For Russia, on the contrary, this forced autarky, largely mitigated by maintaining and even developing contacts with non-Western countries, looks like the next decisive step towards restoring full geopolitical sovereignty, significantly undermined and almost completely lost from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Who exactly initiated the “decoupling,” that is, the cutting of Russia out of the Western-centric unipolar globalization structure, is now difficult to say definitively. Formally, Russia started the SMO, but covertly, the West actively pushed it towards this and provoked it through its Ukrainian proxy tools.

In any case, the fact remains: Russia has entered the process of “decoupling” from the West and its promoted globalism. And this is just the beginning. The inevitable stages are still ahead.

First and foremost, we must consistently and fundamentally reject the universality of Western norms — in economics, politics, education, technology, culture, art, information, ethics, and so on. “Decoupling” means not just a deterioration or even a severance of relations. It goes much deeper. It involves revisiting the basic civilizational attitudes formed in Russia long before the 20th century, in which the West was taken as a model, and its historical stages of development as an unquestionable template for all other peoples and civilizations, including our country. To some extent, the last two centuries of Romanov rule, the Soviet period (with a critique of capitalism), and especially the era of liberal reforms from the early 1990s to February 2022 were all Western-centric. For the last few centuries, Russia has been engaged in “coupling,” not questioning the universality of the Western path of development. Yes, the communists believed that capitalism needed to be overcome, but only after it was built, based on the “objective necessity” of changing formations. Even the prospects of world revolution were seen by Trotsky and Lenin as a process of “coupling,” “internationalism,” a linking with the West, albeit for the purpose of forming a single global proletariat and escalating its struggle. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union essentially became a separate state-civilization, but only by deviating from Marxist orthodoxy and relying on its own strengths and the unique creative genius of its people.

When the energy and practices of Stalinism were exhausted, the Soviet Union once again moved towards the West along the logic of “coupling” and predictably fell apart. The liberal reforms of the 1990s became a new leap towards “coupling,” hence the Atlanticism and pro-Western stance of the elites of that era. Even under Putin in the early stage, Russia tried to maintain “coupling” at all costs, until it came into direct contradiction with Putin’s even firmer resolve to strengthen the state’s sovereignty (which would have been practically impossible under continued globalization — both in theory and in practice).

Today, Russia is consciously, firmly, and irreversibly entering into “decoupling.” Now it is clear why we agreed to use this term initially in its English version. “Coupling” is integration with the West, recognizing its structures, values, and technologies as universal models, and the systemic dependence on it, as well as striving to be part of it, to catch up with it, to follow it — at worst, it involves replacing what the West has chosen to exclude us from. “Decoupling,” on the contrary, means rejecting all these principles, relying not only on our own strengths but also on our own values, our own identity, our own history, our own spirit. Of course, we have yet to fully grasp the depth of this, as Westernization in Russia, the history of our “coupling,” has lasted for several centuries. With varying success, the penetration of the West into our society has been continuous and intrusive. The West has long been not only outside but also inside us. Therefore, “decoupling” will be very difficult. It includes complex operations to “expel all Western influences from society.” Moreover, the depth of such cleansing is much more serious than even the criticism of the bourgeois system during the Soviet era. At that time, it was about two competing lines of development within a single (by default Western!) civilization — capitalist and socialist, but the second — socialist — model was also built on the criteria of Western society’s development, on Western teachings and theories, on Western methods of calculation and assessment, on the Western scale of development levels, and so on. Liberals and communists are united in the understanding that there can be only one civilization, and they also agree that this is Western civilization — its cycles, its formations, its phases of development.

A century before, Russian Slavophiles went much further and called for a systemic revision, a rejection of Westernization, and a turn to their own Russian roots. In essence, this was the start of our “decoupling.” It is unfortunate that this trend, which was quite popular in Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries, did not prevail. Now we simply must complete what the Slavophiles, followed by the Russian Eurasianists, started. We need to overcome the West’s claim to universality, globalism, and uniqueness.

One might consider that “decoupling” has been imposed on us by the West itself. But, more likely, we can see the secret workings of Providence in this. The example of the opening of the Olympic Games in Paris illustrates this clearly. The West banned Russia from participating in the Olympics. But instead of punishment, against the backdrop of that aesthetically monstrous parade of perverts and the pitiful scrambling of swimmers in waters filled with filth and toxic waste in the Seine, all this turned into something quite the opposite — an operation to save Russia from disgrace and humiliation. The images of “decoupling” in sports vividly illustrate its healing nature. By cutting us off from it, the West essentially facilitates our recovery, our resurrection. Not allowed into the center of degeneration and shameless sin, Russia finds itself at a distance, at a remove. We recognize this today as Providence. So it is.

If we now look at the rest of the world, we will immediately notice that we are not alone on the path of “decoupling.” All those peoples and civilizations inclined towards a multipolar world architecture are entering the same process.

Recently, in a conversation with a major Chinese oligarch and investor, I heard reflections on “decoupling” from him personally. With full confidence, my interlocutor stated that the “decoupling” of China from the United States is inevitable — and has already begun. The only issue is that the West wants to conduct it on terms favorable to itself, while China aims for the opposite, i.e., its own benefit. Until the last moment, China had successfully extracted positive results from globalization, but now this requires a revision and reliance on its own model, which China inextricably links with the success of integrating Greater Eurasia (in conjunction with Russia) and implementing the “One Belt, One Road” project. According to the influential Chinese interlocutor, it is precisely “decoupling” that will define the essence of relations between China and the West in the coming decades.

India is also increasingly and firmly choosing multipolarity. While a complete “decoupling” from the West is not yet being discussed, Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently openly declared a course towards the “decolonization of the Indian mind.” This means that in this giant country, a state-civilization (Bharat), at least in the realm of ideas (which is paramount!), the course is set for intellectual “decoupling.” Western forms of thought, philosophy, and culture are no longer accepted by the Indians of the new era as unconditional models. Especially since the memories of the horrors of colonization and subjugation by the British are still alive. After all, colonization was also a form of “coupling,” i.e., “modernization” and “Westernization” (hence it was supported by Marx).

It is evident that a full-fledged “decoupling” is also occurring in the Islamic world. Against the Western proxy in the Middle East — Israel — Palestinians and Shiite Muslims in the region are currently waging a real war. The stark contrast between contemporary Western values and norms and those of Islamic religion and culture has long been a leitmotif of the anti-Western policies of Islamic societies. The disgraceful parade of perverts at the opening of the Olympics in Paris only added fuel to the fire. Notably, the most severe reaction to the blasphemous portrayal of Christ came from the authorities of Islamic Iran. Islam is clearly oriented towards “decoupling,” and this is irreversible.

In certain sectors, these same processes are emerging in other civilizations as well — in the new wave of decolonization of African peoples and the policies of many Latin American countries. The more they are drawn into the processes of multipolarity and the closer they get to the BRICS bloc, the more acute the issue of “decoupling” becomes within these societies.

Finally, we can observe that the desire to retreat within one’s borders is increasingly becoming manifest in the West itself. Right-wing populists in Europe and Trump supporters in the United States are openly advocating for “Fortress Europe” and “Fortress America,” that is, for “decoupling” from non-Western societies — against immigration flows, the dilution of identity, and de-sovereignization. Even under Biden, a committed globalist and staunch supporter of maintaining unipolarity, we see some unequivocal moves towards protectionist measures. The West is starting to close itself off, embarking on the path of “decoupling.”

Thus, we began with the assertion that the word “decoupling” will be key for the coming decades. This is evident, but few yet realize how deep this process is and what intellectual, philosophical, political, organizational, social, and cultural efforts it will require from all humanity — our societies, countries, and peoples. As we detach from the Global West, we face the need to restore, revive, and reaffirm our own values, traditions, cultures, principles, beliefs, customs, and foundations. So far, we are only taking the first steps in this direction.

(translated by Constantin von Hoffmeister)

Is Kamala Black?

/4 Comments/in /by

IS KAMALA BLACK? 

 Probably inadvertently and for all the wrong reasons, Donald Trump made an important point last week when he said of the Democrats’ most recent presidential nominee, Kamala Harris:

“She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black.”

Cue media exploding in ritualistic rage at Trump for his “racist attack.” (I had no idea it was such an insult to be called an Indian!)

In fact, it actually is important that Harris is not a foundational Black American (FBA), but rather, the child of immigrants. I know we don’t talk about it nearly enough, but remember slavery?

A couple of centuries ago, slaves purchased in Africa from Black African slave traders were transported to America. They were freed by Republicans (at the cost of 600,000 American lives), then discriminated against for another hundred years — mostly by Democrats — until Republicans finally forced the Democrats to cease their infernal Jim Crow policies.

Because Americans felt such shame for how (a minority of) Whites treated Black people, we went to work on a massive enterprise to remedy these past injustices. The idea was: OK, we’ve got 13% of the population that got the short end of the stick for a couple of centuries, so we’re spending it all on them.

America altered constitutional provisions about freedom of association, private property and contract law — for the descendants of American slaves. Huge social welfare programs were established — for the descendants of American slaves. Affirmative action and racial quotas were imposed — for the descendants of American slaves. We agreed to virtually criminalize the use of certain words — for the descendants of American slaves.

Are you seeing the pattern? There’s no justification for special treatment for any ethnic group apart from victims of America’s history of slavery and Jim Crow.

But starting in the 1970s, parasites from around the world came in and announced, Here’s a new agenda for America — and it doesn’t include you, descendants of American slaves (DOAS).

Overnight, “DIVERSITY” became the new buzzword, and “integration” was flushed down the memory hole. Integration had been about redressing historic wrongs done to black Americans. By contrast, diversity means everyone gets special rights and privileges –- everyone except white Americans.

Under our history and Constitution, racial preferences could only be justified by the legacy of slavery. But now race-based benefits are being dispensed in great heaping portions to Hmong, Somalis, Latin Americans and so on — including people who arrived last year.

What happened to, It all goes back to the Middle Passage! “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” the “triangular trade,” “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” and We Shall Overcome!?

That’s been replaced with the demand that every organization in the nation, down to the lowliest bowling league, include Hispanics, Asians, disabled women, gays and so on.

And, as I keep pointing out to the DOAS: Immigrants are getting all the good “diversity” jobs. Look at the diversityadministrators on college campuses. All immigrants, mostly Indians.

To take another example, MSNBC is very proud of its diverse lineup, meaning eight of its hosts are immigrants or the children of immigrants, but only four are descendants of American slaves — and they’re relegated to the weekend dead zone.

E.g.:

Ana Cabrera — second-generation Mexican immigrant;

Ayman Mohieddine — born in Egypt to Egyptian father and Palestinian mother;

Katie Phang, born to Korean immigrants;

Joy Reid — second-generation immigrant of Congolese and Guyanese descent;

Ali Velshi — Ismaili Muslim of Indian descent, immigrated from Canada;

Yasmin Vossoughian — second-generation Iranian immigrant;

Alex Wagner — mother is immigrant from Myanmar.

May we ask what historic injustice this country visited on the Congo? Korea? Iran? Myanmar? Immigrants weren’t dragged to our country against their will. They came here. But now they’re expropriating the Black experience in America.

I don’t mention this out of some quixotic dream that Republicans will someday flip a meaningful percentage of the bBlack vote. That’s not going to happen — not now, not ever. (Sorry, clueless donors!) Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that that’s exactly why Trump mentioned Harris’ Indian-Jamaican heritage.

The point Republicans ought to be making is to remind white Americans that the diversity agenda gives everybody an advantage except Whites — especially White, heterosexual men with deep ties to our count.

Republicans across the country just cringed at that last sentence. They’re embarrassed to get the votes of White people. Pro tip: Whites are the only swing voters in the country. Slight movements in the White vote determine the outcome of every presidential election.

Totally by accident, Trump hinted at an argument that Republicans ought to be making all day long. To wit, the “diversity” regime — allowing the daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants to demand recompense owed only to the descendants of American slaves — is nothing but open, vicious discrimination against only one ethnic group.

You still want to vote for a party that hates you because you’re White?

     COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

Armed Migrant Gangs Stalk UK While Government Cracks Down On Native Brits

/9 Comments/in /by

From Zerohedge

It’s a story we’ve seen before.  In the US and Europe during the pandemic lockdowns, far-left rioting and looting in the name of BLM was widely celebrated by the corporate media and protected by government officials.  The lockdown mandates were not enforced when it came to progressive unrest.  Conservative anti-mandate protesters, on the other hand, were treated as terrorists and governments were quick to censor, suppress and intimidate.  A two tier policing system and legal system bubbled to the surface.

Wherever conservative, nationalist or “right wing” protests arise in the west the full force of government power is applied to frighten the public into compliance.  It might be to enforce covid mandates or it might be to prevent the populace from questioning open border policies.  In the UK The mask has truly come off.  The message? You will accept mass immigration from the third world, or else…

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent announcement on the government response to British protests are highly revealing.  To summarize, indigenous and “right wing” Brits are not allowed to take to the streets (or online) because their ideology is “wrong.”  Armed Muslim migrant gangs and leftists are apparently free to do whatever they please.

UK authorities, not surprisingly, have also called for a “covid-style lockdown” in order to control British patriots.  The conspiracy theorists were right again – The lockdown policies of the pandemic were never about protecting public health, they were a test to see how effectively they could subjugate the population.

Many Brits argue that Starmer’s proclamations have emboldened violent migrant gangs and armed Muslim groups to take to the streets and attack white people at random.  The migrants refer to this as “asserting dominance”.  Starmer has made little mention of the migrant gangs now patrolling the streets of UK neighborhoods and has focused solely on indigenous British protesters.

The only reason migrants are able to behave this way without being checked is because UK authorities made it clear that Brits who organize to defend themselves will be prosecuted.  The two tier system is designed to protect non-citizens and the open border ideology.

Keep in mind, a teenage child of Rwandan migrants went on a killing spree at a children’s dance recital in Southport last week and this is what triggered the civil unrest to begin with.  After a decade of relentless unvetted immigration, rising crime and rape gangs, the British are finally fed up.  Yet, Starmer and the UK government made no statements addressing the continuing problems caused by mass immigration from third-world countries.  They have treated these numerous incidents as coincidental and denied any relation to the criminal’s ideology.  Native Brits feel utterly unrepresented by their own political leadership.

Migrant gangs, calling themselves the ‘Muslim Defense League’, stalk British cities with impunity.  Few if any police are in sight when these gangs are engaging in criminal activity.  When police do encounter the gangs, they reassure the migrants that the authorities are “there to protect them.”

The media, referring to the Muslim groups as “anti-racism protesters”, have tried their best to make the MDL look good but they are having some difficulty.

The amount of footage showcasing the lack of policing when it comes to migrants is endless, not only in the past week but also in the past several months of aggressive Pro-Palestinian protests in London.  The absence of safety and the special treatment of migrants by the legal system is what British patriots have been complaining about, and the UK government just doubled down.  Ultimately, it may be time for Brits to accept the reality that the current government is the source of their pain, and migrant violence is just a symptom.

Anti-Immigration Protests In UK Spreads As Elon Musk Warns “Civil War Is Inevitable” 

/2 Comments/in /by

From Zerohedge

European countries on the front lines, such as Greece and Italy, have been overwhelmed with migrants over the years due to failed open-border policies facilitated by radical leftist politicians. These unaccountable leaders (elected & unelected) have created the perfect storm of migrant crime and chaos across the continent.

For readers, who are not caught up with the news cycle, anti-immigration demonstrations have erupted across the UK following the horrific stabbing of three children in Southport by the 17-year-old son of Rwandan immigrants.

Here’s the latest reporting:

Now weekend anti-immigration demonstrations were seen in Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester, Hull, Belfast, Stoke, and other cities. Some turned violent while others did not.

Citizens are enraged with progressive officials who have promoted open borders, leading to an influx of migrants. This has resulted in increased crime and chaos and has adversely affected working-class families by pushing down wages for low-skilled jobs.

The Guardian quoted protesters on Saturday as chanting, “Get them out” and “Yorkshire.”

In the southwest city of Bristol, folks shouted, “We want our country back,” while others yelled, “England ’til I die.” There were small pockets of counter-protesters who called called anti-immigration protesters ‘racist’.

It seems that the working-class people in the West are beginning to speak up. After all, Christianity played a major role in the development of Western civilization.

On Sunday, Policing and Crime Minister Diana Johnson told Sky News that unrest is viewed as “criminal disorder” and that people participating were “thugs.” She said some protesters may face “imprisonment.”

Folks are not happy about the two-tier judicial system. Where have we seen this before?

Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the nation that the government will do “whatever it takes” to quell the violence.

On Saturday evening, Musk weighed in on the unrest, warning: “Civil war is inevitable.”

Musk’s assumption might not be too far off from what could be coming to Europe. In fact, far-left EU elites who have pushed years of open borders, flooding countries across the bloc with hundreds of thousands of migrants, if not millions, have intentionally or unintentionally stoked incredibly high divisions among the population over migration. Meanwhile, failed open-border policies have supercharged nationalist movements.

One interesting note: leftist corporate media are pushing that X has been the epicenter of fueling misinformation and disinformation, as it’s likely EU leftist officials are going to attempt to clamp down some more (remember the Olympics censorship) on Musk’s free speech efforts.

Here comes the censorship.

Europe’s slow-motion crisis has undoubtedly gained momentum as social unrest ignites. This couldn’t have come at the worst possible timing as Russia and Ukraine are locked in a multi-year war in Eastern Europe with elevated risks of broadening conflict. Furthermore, risks of broadening conflict are also seen in the Middle East between Iran and Israel.

The West is in chaos, thanks to far-left lawmakers from the US to Europe who have promoted failed open-border policies – destroyed meritocracy – and still can’t describe what a woman is.

 

Why Sensible People Don’t Trust the Elite Media

/7 Comments/in /by

From the New York Times: “Riots Break Out Across UK”

After a weekend of violent uprisings across Britain, set off by a deadly stabbing rampage and an anti-immigrant disinformation campaign that followed it, tensions are high from the streets to government leaders’ offices. …

The unrest began after a 17-year-old wielding a knife attacked a children’s dance class on Monday in the seaside town of Southport, which is near Liverpool. Three children were killed, and eight were wounded.

The suspect was born and raised in Britain, but online rumors soon circulated that he was an undocumented immigrant. To counter those false claims, the authorities took the unusual step of publicly identifying him. But with migration a flashpoint issue in Britain, especially on the far right, the rumors were all it took.

Extremist groups urged their followers to take to the streets, and the day after the stabbings, they began to do so, starting in Southport. …

BJ Harrington, the head of public order for Britain’s National Police Chiefs’ Council, said online disinformation had been “a huge driver of this appalling violence.”

So the reader is left with the impression that there is no reason at all to be rioting. I 17-year-old from Cardiff it. Disinformation all the way. End of story. No mention of the race of the killer. No mention of his background as a second-generation immigrant. Worse even than the BBC.

But I do agree that they will prosecute any rioter they can identify—unlike with the far more destructive BLM riots.

“Be in no doubt: Those who have participated in this violence will face the full force of the law,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement on Sunday.

“I guarantee you will regret taking part in this disorder, “ Mr. Starmer said, “whether directly or those whipping up this action online and then running away themselves. This is not protest. It is organized, violent thuggery.”

From Matt Goodwin’s blog:

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”, so wrote George Orwell in his classic book 1984. This is the quote that came to mind as I watched Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Labour government struggle to respond to protests that erupted after three girls were brutally murdered by the son of Rwandan migrants.

But why this quote?

Because that’s exactly what Keir Starmer and much of the elite class are now asking us to do —reject the evidence of our eyes and ears.

When Keir Starmer first responded to the protests, he could have made it crystal clear that while there is absolutely no place for violence, his government does understand why so many people are so utterly frustrated and fed-up with the state of Britain.

He could have made the point that while everybody in Britain opposes violence it is clear that many people also hold legitimate concerns about the failure of successive governments to control the borders, lower migration, and maintain law and order.

Had he spoken to protestors, it would have become immediately obvious to Starmer and his team that this was not just about mindless violence or even the tragic events in Southport; it is chiefly about people’s concerns over legal and illegal immigration.

And after clips of marauding Muslim gangs attacking white people went viral, both Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper could also have made it clear that the rule of law will be applied equally, to all groups, irrespective of race and religion.

But they chose not to do that.

Which is why so many people are now even more disillusioned with what they feel is not just a Labour government but an elite class that is deeply biased and out-of-touch with the rest of the country; a class that is more interested in criticising and attacking the British majority than addressing the reasons they feel so utterly disillusioned.

Unlike Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper, and much of the ruling class, most normal people in this country know full well that these protests do not begin and end with “far-right thuggery”. Only an elite class that has become dangerously disconnected from the rest of the country would see the protests through this incredibly narrow and warped lens.

These narratives are a coping mechanism for an elite that is visibly struggling to make sense of what is unfolding around it, explanations that help it make sense of these troubling and shocking events but which make little sense to everybody else.

Because for much of the rest of the country, for millions of ordinary British people out there, these events are obviously rooted in the disastrous policies the elite class on both the Left and Right has imposed on Britain for much of the last thirty years.

They are rooted in the deliberate decision to pursue mass immigration, to weaken our borders, to usher in unprecedented cultural changes, to fail to integrate newcomers, and then refuse to tolerate any criticism of these policies.

But they are rooted, too, in a palpable sense of unfairness, hypocrisy, and bias when it comes to this elite class —a class that routinely appears more interested in catering to minorities over the majority, attacking rather than listening to the British majority, and violating the British sense of fair play which is absolutely central to our culture.

Many people today, for example, will have listened to Keir Starmer say “people have a right to feel safe in their country” while asking themselves why his Labour government consistently refuse to prioritise the safety of the British people by controlling who is coming in and out of Britain, deporting foreign criminals, and ensuring criminals remain in prison, not letting thousands onto the streets. Had the elite class stopped the boats and controlled the borders people would not be rioting.

Many people, too, will be wondering why the likes of Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper, Sadiq Khan, and others routinely talk about “hate” and “thuggery” among the British majority while doing all they can to distract us from asking for the real reasons why our children have been blown up at pop concerts, murdered at dance classes, and subjected to industrial-scale, anti-White rape across dozens of English towns.

Many will also be wondering why the elite class has continued to reshape Britain and its institutions –schools, universities, civil service, museums, galleries, and more—around a corrosive identity politics only to now wonder why the British are organising themselves along similar lines. As even Tommy Robinson has asked, if the lesson of the last few years is that competing identity groups can only gain attention, status, resources, and a voice from the elite class by taking to the streets, as BLM and pro-Hamas supporters did, then why would the white working-class not do the same?

And many people will be wondering if Britain really is the successful multicultural society that the Labour Party and liberals tell us it is then why are we are now watching gangs of Muslims roaming the streets chanting “Allahu Akbar!” rather than waving the Union Jack. Is this what successful multiculturalism looks like?

The elite class does not want us to ask these questions because it cannot answer these questions. To spark this kind of national debate about the policies that have been imposed on the country in recent decades risks threatening the power of this class.

Which is why the elite class is now working overtime to channel us into a much more managed and tightly controlled discussion about things the elite class can control.

They want us to talk about regulating social media. They want us to talk about shutting down alternative views, like those on GB News.

They want us to spend our time demonising counter-cultural writers who have been validated by current events as ‘far right enablers’, ‘apologists’ and ‘grifters’, whose voice should no longer be permitted in a tightly controlled public square.

They want us, in short, to talk about anything and everything except how the policies of the elite class have pushed us to this point —to breaking point.

This is why the narratives promoted by the elite class leave us feeling confused, alienated, and disoriented, unsure if what we think is reality really is reality. And this is why so many people in Britain are quietly asking themselves some questions that reflect this creeping sense of confusion, bewilderment, and unfairness.

Is the elite class calling for clampdowns the same class that cheered on protests by the revolutionary Black Lives Matter, which hates the West and praises Hamas?

Is the elite class that was so quick to talk about the legitimate grievances behind BLM rioting across the West the same class that now refuses to acknowledge this “far-right thuggery” is rooted in wider grievances among the British population?

Is Keir Starmer, the man denouncing these protests as “far-right thuggery”, the same Keir Starmer who rushed to Take the Knee days after Black Lives Matter protestors broke the law, injured nearly 30 police officers and defaced national monuments?

And is he the same Keir Starmer who openly praised Extinction Rebellion and leads a government whose MPs have openly socialised and engaged with Islamist extremists?

Is the elite class that is rushing to denounce the protests the same class that remained largely silent as antisemites and Islamists marched up and down the country celebrating the murder and rape of Jews, or simply denying these things took place?

Are many of the towns that are experiencing the most serious violence today, like Rotherham, the same ones where at least 1,400 young white girls were raped by Muslim gangs, a scandal Labour elites said it was “racist” to talk about?

Are the people causally implying that much of the country is “far right” the same ones who tied themselves in knots over whether they should call Hamas “terrorists”?

Are the police chiefs who deny there is two-tier policing the same ones who watched their officers Take the Knee and join Muslim show trials after an autistic boy was threatened for lightly scuffing a copy of the Koran?

The elite class does not want us to ask these questions because to do so would threaten the dominance of a class that is no longer confident and secure in its position. This is why it is now trying to justify even harsher restrictions on free speech, free expression, free assembly, and dissent.

This is why terms like “far right” and “Islamophobia” will now be expanded to silence and stigmatise not only those idiotic thugs who are destroying their own communities but millions of ordinary people who both object to those thugs and the disastrous policies the elite class has imposed on them from above.

This is why we will be told that in order to defend democracy we must not change the direction of travel but rather give up even more of our freedoms and rights, shut down alternative media, deplatform dissenters, and hand even more power to the elite class.

This is why Keir Starmer’s first instinct was not to acknowledge the wider public mood, speak across party lines and set out a plan of action but instead announce tighter restrictions and enhanced state surveillance to manage “the far right”.

So too was it revealing that a senior government advisor, Lord Woodcock, openly called for Covid-style lockdowns to shut down the protests and squash dissent.

And so too was it revealing that even one candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party suggested the state ban the English Defence League –a street movement that has not operated in any serious way for more than a decade.

In this way, the elite class calls to defend liberalism while simultaneously ushering in a dark new authoritarianism that is not liberal at all. Stifling and suffocating debate, shutting down dissent, and screaming at writers who challenge this groupthink are not the signs of an elite class that is confident and comfortable in its own position; they are the signs of an elite class that can sense it is starting to lose control.

And now many people out there can see it for themselves. So, this is not simply about “far-right thuggery”; this is about the unravelling and disastrous effects of an elite project that has hollowed out, divided, and weakened Britain over many years.

A project that has subjected the British people and their children to increasing crime, chaos, communalism, the balkanisation of their communities, and increasingly chilling atrocities while simultaneously expecting the British people not to react at all.

So, while the elite class might tell people in Orwellian fashion to ignore the evidence of their eyes and ears, what the events of the last few days reveal is that a rapidly growing number of people in this country are now refusing to play along.

The curtain in this country has been pulled back to reveal not just the mindless thugs who have become useful idiots for the elite class but, more importantly, for a much larger number of people, what the policies of this elite class have done to Britain.

And now that the curtain has been pulled back, and the light has poured in, it cannot simply be closed —no matter what the elite class might tell us.

UK: The Most Anti-White Regime in History

/5 Comments/in /by

UK: The Most Anti-White Regime in History

WORKING CLASS NEWSROOM

PATRIOTIC ALTERNATIVE: – Earlier this week, three little girls were brutally murdered by a teenager of migrant descent in Southport. 

This shocking attack comes on the back of a similar incident that took place last week when another man of migrant descent stabbed a British soldier outside a barracks in Kent. 

This prompts the question: how many more must die before the government acts?

For decades nationalists have warned that the native rightful people of these islands are at risk from mass immigration and multiculturalism, yet politicians have proceeded with their open border policies. 

But this time, it appears that the British people have had enough as TENS OF THOUSANDS of people have taken to the streets all over the country in spontaneous protests.

These protests have been met with a state police response that illustrates Britain’s two-tier policing and exposes that Whites have become second-class citizens. 

Unlike when police stood back and treated ethnic minority rioters with kid gloves just weeks ago in Leeds, police are now attacking White protestors with batons, setting dogs on them and carrying out mass arrests.

And the response from Prime Minister Keir Starmer is not to increase security for White children or to begin placing greater restrictions on illegal immigration.

No, Starmer’s response is to reassure ethnic minority communities and announce a raft of draconian measures to clamp down on White protestors who are rightfully outraged by what happened in Southport.

A full statement on the killings, the protests and on Starmer’s sickening and tone-deaf response can be found on our website. 

We are calling for calm, legal protests to show the establishment that we have had ENOUGH! The right to protest is an essential part of any democratic society – but sadly we are now living under a multicultural and anti-White tyranny.

This weekend, it is likely that there will be a large number of protests – we call on all those who attend such events to REMAIN PEACEFUL. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The lying pro-We4stminster media are already trying to flip the narrative on this issue – claiming that the ‘far right’ are the ones who pose a threat to our communities. If you do attend a protest, stay safe, and ensure your actions are lawful.

This horrific case underlines the threat posed by mass immigration, but it also highlights how much contempt politicians have for White people.

STARMER’S ANTI-WHITE RESPONSE: Keir Starmer arrived in Southport to lay flowers, but was heckled by the public and quickly left without daring to say a word.

Starmer emerged from hiding a day later in order to give an address in front of hand-picked, state-approved journalists. This address was not about the horrific murders, or about protecting White children, it was about taking away OUR rights!

The online response to this press conference, which was streamed live, was overwhelmingly negative. Every stream was downvoted and commenters were outraged that the response to the murder of three little girls was to take away more rights from White people. Remember when Black Lives Matter spent the summer rioting – STARMER GOT ON HIS KNEES!

Starmer bows and scrapes to black rioters, but takes away the rights of White protestors. We are treated as second class citizens!

THE ENEMY WITHIN: KEIR STARMER’S wife is Jewish. Starmer describes himself as ‘an unequivocal Zionist.’ The couple’s two children whose names have never been revealed are being brought up in the Jewish faith and background of their maternal grandparents. Starmer is an atheist; he chose to take a ‘solemn affirmation’ of allegiance to the monarch rather than an oath of alliance.

HELP SAVE EUROPE RENAISSANCE

JULY 50% news stories unpublished due to donation famine. Donations euroman_uk@yahoo.co.uk

The Brits and the Irish are rioting. It’s about time.

/8 Comments/in /by

We have noted the rioting in Ireland and now in England because of the transformation of their societies resulting from mass immigration. The rioters are desperate, and this is the only way to make themselves heard in an environment totally dominated by leftist media, academic, and political culture. It’s surprising in a way. Whether in Europe, Australia, or the U.S., people of northwest European extraction have basically laid down and allowed their dispossession to happen—too much individualism in a societies ruled by a hostile elite dedicated to their destruction. So far no riots in New York or elsewhere since the Mayorkas invasion (doubtful it makes sense to attribute anything the Biden administration has done to Biden), but people are unhappy, even in a decidedly liberal enclave in Brooklyn:

But I guess there comes a point when a significant number of people have had enough. So it’s gratifying to see this—particularly because these rioters will face very serious consequences if they are identified, as has happened to the January 6 rioters in the U.S. On the other hand, leftist rioting was routine in 2020, and the police and courts basically did nothing to stop it. There were very few prosecutions of the rioters despite far worse property damage and some deaths caused by the ri0ters.

It looks like it’s going to continue for a while: Jail cells are cleared and lawyers put on standby in crackdown amid fears of weekend of riots: Sunderland burns on fresh night of shame and Southport MP slams ‘disgusting extremists hijacking grief’ – but Kemi says ‘we can’t ignore tensions’

This Daily Mail article is typical of the media in calling the rioters ‘thugs’. The only voice expressing some understanding of the rioters is Olukemi Olufunto (Kemi) Badenoch, a Black female Conservative politician of Nigerian extraction.

Former business and trade secretary Kemi Badenoch speaking to the Telegraph warned that ‘you can’t just ignore the tension. They should be saying that we need a clearer strategy on integration, which we don’t have at the moment. ‘Instead, we just pretend that everything is fine and it’s a few bad apples, which is sometimes the case. But if you want to have a successful multi-racial country, you need to make an effort to do that. You can’t just pretend that there are no tensions.’

Certainly not an appeal for an end to immigration, and it’s not a call for repatriation of the invaders. When a Nigerian politician is the only mainstream voice not just condemning the rioters with no mention at all of their legitimate concerns, you know you have a problem.

It will blow over in a bit, just like the murders highlighted by Tobias Langdon in the current TOO featured article.