General

Implicit Whiteness and “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” at the Charlie Kirk memorial

/13 Comments/in , /by

I listened to much of the memorial service for Kirk. It definitely had the feeling of a Christian religious revival. Every speaker commented on Kirk’s intense Christian religious beliefs and there were calls for people to get more involved with Christianity. The memorial began with Christian music and it was striking to see people swaying and lifting their arms up to heaven as if they were in church. Marco Rubio talked about the Resurrection and the Ascension. Sebastian Gor, who has a Jewish mother, talked about Western Civilization as the source of all science and innovation—and obviously something to be proud of. Stephen Miller,  also Jewish, did the same, echoing Prof. Ricardo Duchesne’s Greatness and Ruin. He did so without getting into the Judeo-Christian garbage, a phrase that is clearly the result of Jewish academic and media activism. His speech recieved quite a bit of attention (video here):

Our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion, our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens to Rome to Philadelphia to Monticello. Our ancestors built the cities, they produced the art and architecture, they built the industry. …

What do you [the left] have? You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness. You are jealousy, you are envy, you are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing. We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We are the ones who lift up humanity. …

You have no idea the dragon you have awakened. You have no idea how determined we will be to save this civilization, to save the West, to save this republic, because our children are strong and our grandchildren will be strong, and our children’s children’s children will be strong. …

And what will you leave behind? Nothing. Nothing to our enemies. You have nothing to give. You have nothing to offer. You have nothing to share but bitterness. We have beauty. We have light, we have goodness, we have determination, we have vision, we have strength.

Other important themes:

  • Courage. Kirk said he wanted to be remembered for his faith and his courage. Not being Christian, my interpretation is that we have to have faith in our ability to enact change, that no matter how bleak things are at present, they will change. We must believe that we are on the right side of history, and that takes courage, because it won’t be easy. Courage is much-needed among dissidents still being routinely harassed and hounded out of respectable society.
  • Encouraging young people to get married and have families. Especially men. Another critically important message in these times of cultural decline and plummeting fertility. Of course, as F. Roger Devlin emphasizes, the laws surrounding marriage are very much against men, so many are making a rational decision to avoid marriage. We think of pre-nups being for rich people, but seems like a good idea for everyone, especially men.
  • Implicit Whiteness. The only Black speaker was Ben Carson. No LGBTQ+ people, even as tokens—so different from Republican gatherins where non-Whites and queers are given conspiculous places in an effort to showcase “inclusiveness.” And the two Jews that I was aware of being Jews extolled Western Civilization.

Tucker Carlson provided another highpoint, much noticed by Jewish activists (here’s his speech and a compendium of his interviews with Kirk emphasizing Kirk on “God, Christianity, and hope”). It seems a stretch to suppose that Carlson was hinting that Israel was behind the assassination, as many of these activists do, but there’s a lot of Jewish paranoia out there right now—understandable given Israeli genocide of Palestinians and the damage that has done to the “Jews as eternal victims” narrative, Europeans calling for a Palestinian state largely because of the genocide, Kirk’s declining support for Israel, and Carlson’s record of making statements and interviewing people that Jews don’t like, such as Darryl Cooper. His speech has exacerbated Jewish hostility.

JTA: Tucker Carlson tells story about murder of Jesus at Charlie Kirk’s memorial, igniting criticism

 Carlson likened Kirk to Jesus — and his assassin to those who killed the man worshipped by billions of Christians. Recounting what he said was “my favorite story ever,” Carlson said:

So it’s about 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem, and Jesus shows up and he starts talking about the people in power, and he starts doing the worst thing that you can do, which is telling the truth about people, and they hate it, and they just go bonkers. They hate it, and they become obsessed with making him stop: ‘This guy’s got to stop talking. We’ve got to shut this guy up.’

And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamp-lit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus, thinking about — what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us? We must make him stop talking. And there’s always one guy with the bright idea, and I can just hear him say, “I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we just kill him? That’ll shut him up, that’ll fix the problem.”

It doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t work that way.

For many listening, including right-wing Jews who admired Kirk, the link between the story and the contemporary allegation against Israel was clear.

Some Jewish voices said Carlson, who laughed as he told the story, was invoking antisemitic ideas that have long fueled Christian violence against Jews. Several also noted that hummus was not traditionally eaten in ancient Jerusalem, for them making Carlson’s reference a clear dogwhistle about contemporary Israel.

“Tucker Carlson pushed an antisemitic trope, painting the Pharisees as ‘sitting around eating hummus’ plotting Christ’s crucifixion — then comparing it to people supposedly silencing Charlie Kirk by killing him, as if Jews killed Kirk the way they killed Christ,” tweeted Adam King, who goes by “Awesome Jew” on the show he hosts on Infowars.

“I’m not a person who sees dog whistles quickly or readily, but I sure as s— saw it in Tucker’s speech,” tweeted the conservative commentator Bethany Mandel. She noted that President Donald Trump had included Tel Aviv among the places where Kirk had been mourned, adding, “There is a fight for the soul of the conservative movement.”

“Tucker Carlson Hints at Baseless, Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory of Jews Killing Charlie Kirk at Funeral Service,” read a headline on Belaaz, a right-wing Jewish news site. The site said it had “reached out to two influential Jewish leaders with personal ties to President Trump, and both declined to comment.” It did not name the leaders.

It was not only Jews drawing the connection: The Quds News Network, a Palestinian network, meanwhile, tweeted a video of the speech with the description, “Tucker Carlson suggests Israeli involvement in Charlie Kirk’s death during TPUSA’s memorial for its late founder.”

The most prominent voices amplifying the theory that Israel was behind Kirk’s murder, which authorities have attributed to a 22-year-old Utah man who they say has confessed, have been Carlson; Candace Owens, who has long amplified antisemitic and anti-Israel ideas; and Nick Fuentes, a streamer who made a point of goading Kirk to be more antisemitic and anti-Israel.

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel group, tweeted that he was distressed by Carlson’s speech.

“Tucker Carlson used the memorial for Charlie Kirk — a passionate friend of Israel & the Jewish people — to spread antisemitic blood libels,” Dubowitz wrote. “I knew his father, Richard Carlson, Vice-Chair at FDD who strongly supported Jews & Israel. I just can’t fathom what happened to Tucker.”

Max Abrahms, a political scientist focusing on terrorism who is a Republican, tweeted that he was most unnerved by Carlson’s prominence within the party. Carlson took the same stage as Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance and multiple prominent Republican lawmakers.

“There was a time when Tucker was known for debating” Abrahms wrote. “Now he’s known for dog whistles, blaming everything on Jews, heaping praise on fake-historian Hitler apologists, apologizing to the Bin Laden terrorist family, denying Hamas is a terrorist group, siding with Islamist terrorists, and pretending Russians enjoy a higher standard of living than Americans.”

He added, “What concerns me isn’t Tucker. What concerns me is this un-American toxicity is so welcomed in the Republican Party.”

A Kansas Reform rabbi, Sam Stern, responded, “As long as he is welcomed, will we be?” Abrahms responded: “Your question answers itself.”…

Matt Goodwin: Get ready for Brexit 2

/18 Comments/in /by

What the reaction to Reform’s policy reveals about the country

One key lesson from the Brexit years is that the ruling class who claim to speak for the British people do not really understand the people at all.

This is why, at the 2019 general election, the ruling class found itself completely outflanked and overturned by an electorate that had simply had enough of its ongoing efforts to dilute, block, and overturn their democratic vote for Brexit.

Once the sheer power of popular sovereignty was mobilised against a remote elite along the lines of an issue, Brexit, that cut across the traditional ‘left versus right’ divide, the contest was not even close. The people won, easily. At the 2019 general election, the forgotten majority comprehensively defeated the elite class.

Which is what, I think, we are about to witness all over again, only this time the cross-cutting issue that unites the forgotten majority in this country will not be the call to leave the European Union; it will be the call to end mass uncontrolled immigration.

Just look at the utterly deranged, bizarre, and hysterical reaction among the ruling class to Nigel Farage’s and Reform’s latest policy announcement on immigration, which is remarkably similar to their equally unhinged reaction to the vote for Brexit.

This week, Nigel Farage and Reform said something that the vast majority of people on these islands will hear as being entirely reasonable and understandable.

They will overturn the widely unpopular ‘Boriswave’, a policy that saw, with no democratic mandate whatsoever, Boris Johnson and the Tories import millions of economically costly low-wage, low-skill and non-European migrants from radically different cultures into Britain and then give them the right to remain indefinitely.

This policy makes zero economic sense (see here and here). Not even one in five of the people Boris Johnson brought into the country came on skilled worker visas. The rest, more than 80 per cent, are the relatives of workers, international students who often moved into low-skill jobs, and refugees, subsidised by the British people. Only about 2-3% of all visas issued went to doctors and highly trained workers in the NHS.

Reform have pledged to not only overturn this disastrous policy and sharply reduce overall levels of legal migration into Britain but also ensure that any migrants who come in the future will have to apply for five-year renewable visas, speak English fluently, make a net contribution to the economy, have a clean criminal record, and work, rather than relying on welfare benefits and social housing.

At the same time, welfare benefits and social housing will be restricted to British nationals while companies that do need migrant workers will be forced to also invest in training up British people, such as the one million young British people who are currently not in education, employment, or training.

Now enter the ruling class, which over the last 24 hours has responded to this entirely reasonable policy by having what can only be described as a nervous breakdown.

Despite this policy being pursued by many other countries around the world, here in Britain our ruling class has radicalised to such an extent that it now views any opposition to mass migration as tantamount to the resurrection of the Third Reich.

Andrew Marr, the same man who assured us after Keir Starmer’s election victory, last year, that “the adults are back in the room”, wonders if the policy could lead to “blood on the streets”. Seriously. So-called ‘conservative’ Iain Dale wonders where the British sense of “fairness” has gone. London’s Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan says the policy is ‘unacceptable’, while John Crace, in the Guardian, says it is ‘economically illiterate’.

The New Statesman, meanwhile, talks of Farage’s ‘immigration extremism’. The Times claims the policy is “half-baked”. And Keir Starmer is reportedly preparing a major speech to warn about, you guessed it, “the far-right”.

The members of the ruling class, in other words, the people who control many of the key institutions in our society, are once again demonstrating to the rest of the country how utterly out-of-touch and adrift they really are, much like they did after Brexit.

A reminder. The British people, out there in the country, have never been as strongly concerned and sceptical about mass immigration as they are today. Consistently, reliable pollsters find large majorities want what the ruling class refuse to give them. Lower immigration. Control over their borders. A country they recognise.

Not even one in five think immigration has been ‘mostly good’ for Britain. Close to three-quarters, a record in modern polling, say immigration’s been ‘too high’. The zeitgeist, the mood, in other words, has turned firmly against mass immigration.

Which is why the people have sent Reform to the top of the polls. Such is the intensity of feeling about immigration that the people are prepared to burn down a two-party system that has governed this country for a century so they can change course on this issue.

And the policy Reform is offering is not extreme at all. It is the approach taken by countless other countries around the globe, from Switzerland and Japan to the United Arab Emirates.

Countless other countries would look at Reform’s proposals and shrug their shoulders. Only in Britain would the ruling class conclude that ensuring migrants speak the national language, make a net financial contribution, and do not commit crime is somehow equivalent to entering the political abyss.

Most other countries do not hand out billions in welfare benefits to foreign nationals. Most other countries do not prioritise foreign nationals in social housing. And most other countries do not force their own people to subsidise millions of low-wage migrant workers from radically different cultures. Only in Britain do politicians do this and then call their own people “far-right extremists” when they ask questions.

What about that British sense of fairness, they ask? Well, indeed. Where is fairness when the UK government, the UK state, is using the British people’s own money to outbid the British people in their own housing market to favour migrants?

Where is fairness when the UK state is forcing its own people to pay £12 billion a year in benefits for households with at least one foreign national in them —enough for 240,000 new nurses or police officers, 15 new hospitals, or 1,700 new schools?

The fringe minority, in other words, are not the people who are suggesting a radical overhaul of an immigration policy that is visibly broken; the fringe minority is the ruling class that is now insisting the British people maintain this rotten status-quo and continue paying billions in costs for an extreme policy they never asked for.

And what is the argument the ruling class plan to take to the country at the next general election, exactly? That the British people should stay quiet, keep subsidising low-skill migrant workers from the Third World, paying £10 billion a year in welfare for people who are not British, another £6 billion subsidising social housing for foreign nationals, ignore the 1 million people in our country who do not speak English, and just go along with a policy that even major experts say makes no sense?

Is that the plan, here? And if the ruling class really think it is “fascist” or “far-right” to demand migrants should be able to speak English fluently, have a clean criminal record, make a net contribution to the economy, and work rather than rely on the welfare state then I would urge them to get outside London and try these arguments on the people of Wigan, Halifax, or Sunderland, where I was speaking last week.

Because what I see happening out there, clearly, is mass immigration becoming the new Brexit –a new fault line separating a ruling class who support a policy they and their friends have largely benefitted from, and a much larger number of people who have been forced to live with the dire effects of this policy.

Only, this time the split will not be 52-48, like it was with Brexit. It will be more like 80-20. Pretty much everything Farage is currently saying –end mass immigration, prioritise people who contribute, force migrants to speak the national language, reserve housing for British families, restrict benefits for British people—is popular.

And so, what will end up happening, if the ruling class remains on this course, is what we saw after Brexit, in 2019. The people, once again, outflanking a distant and out-of-touch elite in London, Oxford, Cambridge, and Brighton, handing Farage a commanding majority drawn from the very same areas that handed Boris Johnson a commanding majority nearly a decade earlier.

It will be Alarm Clock Britain, the people who have to get up and work for a living, Middle England, coastal communities, Labour’s Red Wall, Wales, and the people of non-London England who will rally behind this policy, much like they rallied behind the only other major rejection of the liberal establishment —Brexit.

They will all mobilise en masse to ensure the misery of mass immigration, imposed by an alliance of London liberals and globalist corporations who have zero interest in looking after the national community, comes to an end.

Nigel Farage knows this. Zia Yusuf knows this. Reform knows this. I know this. You know this. The only people who don’t are the ones who claim to speak for the British people but who, once again, will soon discover they do not understand them at all …

Constantin von Hoffmeister: Charlie Kirk and the Tale of the Two Wests

/8 Comments/in /by

America crowned through sacrifice, Europe consumed by decline.

Stephen Miller stood at the pulpit and spoke like a prophet speaking lightning through a microphone. His words framed Kirk’s fall as a doorway into eternity, the body silenced yet the figure multiplied across the cosmos. “You thought you could kill Charlie Kirk; you have made him immortal.” Hatred, envy, wickedness: Miller named them as entities feeding on emptiness, parasites of civilization, and destroyers who build nothing. His voice cracked into vows of vengeance, pledging state power as a sword, Department of Justice and Homeland Security as hammers, promising disruption, dismantling, and annihilation of radical left networks. The speech became ritual, an invocation of Caesarism born from blood, Miller’s cadence elevating Kirk to the crown, sealing him into the structure of myth.

Charlie Kirk falls, and America trembles with the force of the blow. His body collapses, yet his figure expands, thrust upward like a banner of fire. The Faustian soul of the West, long restless in skyscrapers and deserts alike, seizes upon this moment as a symbol of destiny. America breathes this martyrdom as if it were oxygen, and the air becomes sharper, colder, clearer. The West divides before our eyes: America emerges as the Caesarist bearer of the civilizational flame, armored in conservatism and sharpened by faith. Western Europe, meanwhile, converts its cathedrals into stages of woke liberal performance, preaching LGBTQ and transgender dogmas as sacred truths while inviting endless tides of immigration to erase its memory and genetic heritage.

In the American heartland, farmers, workers, mothers, soldiers, all turn towards the new axis. Kirk’s words surge across digital plains as fragments of gospel. He becomes Caesar slain, and with his fall the Republic transforms into an Empire of conviction. Spengler foresaw this metamorphosis: democracy’s chaos yields to leaders born of blood and destiny. Martyrdom accelerates what had already begun: the conservative reawakening, the rejection of globalist illusions, and the claim of America as the citadel of the West. The United States is no longer a parody of Rome but a new Imperium itself, its temples now megachurches, its armies both martial and spiritual. Kirk becomes a symbol of continuity, a reminder that history writes its chapters in sacrifice.

Across the ocean, Western Europe embraces its own theater. Rainbow banners and flags of foreign nations hang across state ministries. Brussels enforces ideological loyalty tests in the form of LGBTQ codes, transgender lessons, and immigration quotas. Berlin hosts parades where bureaucrats in suits bless drag queens as guardians of democracy. Paris chants hymns to diversity while dismantling its own historical self. The Faustian drive towards infinity there dissolves into a cult of sameness, a civilization devouring itself by proclaiming openness as its supreme faith. The continent of knights and philosophers remakes itself into a safe space of bureaucratic sermons, immigration pipelines, and transgender lessons.

Two Wests now contend for the meaning of civilization. America seizes its role through Kirk’s death, raising its conservative standard high, summoning imagery of destiny and renewal. Europe, enthroned as the new headquarters of woke liberalism, drifts towards dissolution, its elites enthralled by the cult of sexual identity and immigration as salvation. The Atlantic becomes a wall as much as an ocean: on one side, faith, tradition, Caesarism, the promise of renewal through sacrifice; on the other, indulgence, bureaucracy, parades of rainbow perversion. Kirk’s assassination lights the fault line. America becomes the spear. Europe becomes a sinkhole.

History is flesh, and myth bleeds through language. Kirk dissolves as a man and fuses as an archetype, his ghost looping endlessly across headlines and speeches, never silent, always returning. The tale of two Wests is written across his fall: America inherits the crown, Europe wears the clown costume. The story is written with strokes of providence, a narrative of martyrdom, empire, decline, and resurgence. Charlie Kirk, slain, becomes more alive than ever, his absence the pulse of a continent, his silence the thunder of a new Faustian dawn.

Murdoch family to be included in TikTok bid

/3 Comments/in /by

Trump said yesterday that “Lachlan Murdoch … Rupert [Murdoch] is probably gonna be in the group, I think they’re going to be in the group.” Fox will presumably be quite happy with the new neoconning of the American media.

Trump also said that Oracle executive chairman Larry Ellison and Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell are also likely to be involved in the TikTok deal.

“Couple of others, really great people, very prominent people,” Trump said.

“And they’re also American patriots, you know, they love this country[!!]. So I think they’re going to do a really good job,” he continued.

A person familiar told CNBC that Lachlan Murdoch is unlikely to participate in the TikTok deal individually, but Fox Corporation, where Lachlan Murdoch is executive chair and CEO, could play a role.

President Donald Trump said in an interview that aired Sunday that conservative media baron Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan are likely to be involved in the deal to save TikTok in the United States.

“A man named Lachlan is involved,” Trump said on Fox News’ “The Sunday Briefing.”

“Lachlan Murdoch … Rupert [Murdoch] is probably gonna be in the group, I think they’re going to be in the group,” he continued.

Trump also said that Oracle executive chairman Larry Ellison and Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell are also likely to be involved in the TikTok deal.

“Couple of others, really great people, very prominent people,” Trump said.

“And they’re also American patriots, you know, they love this country. So I think they’re going to do a really good job,” he continued.

A person familiar told CNBC that Lachlan Murdoch is unlikely to participate in the TikTok deal individually, but Fox Corporation, where Lachlan Murdoch is executive chair and CEO, could play a role.

But China is dragging its feet.

Trump’s remarks come as the details of the deal to allow TikTok — currently owned by Chinese company ByteDance — to continue operating in the United States are still being worked out by Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

Congress last year passed a bill that would ban the popular social media platform unless ByteDance divested from U.S. operations amid national security concerns.

The White House provided new details of a possible deal on Saturday, saying that six of the seven-member board that controls TikTok will be Americans.

The U.S. will also control the app’s algorithm, according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, addressing a major sticking point in negotiations.

Leavitt also said that data and privacy for the app in the U.S. will be led by Oracle.

Trump and Xi had a call on Friday about the possible TikTok deal. After the call, Trump said that the deal “is well on its way, as you know, and the investors are getting ready.”

But China, in its own statement, suggested that the two sides are still further apart on negotiations.

 

John Tyndall on how democracy works

/10 Comments/in /by

Tyndall (1934–2005) was a prominent English nationalist. Wikipedia article.

Right now the UK and the West in general are in upheaval about immigration. Tyndall has seen such outbreaks of righteous fury before but predicts that the elites will find a way to channel the anger into yet another feckless alternative to the current situation. One thinks of Boris Johnson and the Tory promises to drastically reduce immigration. So now theyhave Labour, which is worse but still making promises to cut immigration.

From John Tyndall’s The Eleventh Hour (p. 225ff; Albion Press, 1988).

In effect, what we have in Britain is an ongoing state of national disunity and civil war, chaos, inefficiency and weak and flabby government — without, at the end of it all, even the free choice and sovereignty of the people that are supposed to justify these things.

For government in Britain is not democratic government; it is oligarchic government, operating within a purely nominal framework of democratic institutions and procedures; nor is it oligarchic government of the type that might be justified: an oligarchy bound in devotion to nation and people and the guardian of their welfare; it is oligarchy which, at least in modern times, has been consistent in its betrayal of nation and people at every juncture of affairs.

In the hands of this oligarchy of power, the politicians and their parties have become nothing better than marionettes, to be paraded before the people each at his appointed hour and then withdrawn from the stage as soon as he has served his purpose, to be replaced by new performers with a new act, though of course manipulated by the processes by which they are governed. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to put the ordinary people of this country in a position of having less power over national affairs and less freedom to choose how they will be governed than they have today. An alternative system of government designed to produce leadership of the quality for which I have called, and which empowers it to act effectively, is by no means incompatible with the objective of giving the people greater freedom and a more influential voice in national affairs. On the contrary, the establishment of such conditions of government would, without question, meet a need that is yearned for by millions of Britons as never before.

It is quite ridiculous to place a man who has never had a driving lesson in the seat of a motor car and then tell him: “You are now free to drive this car anywhere you like!” Ridiculous and also dishonest. The dishonesty is then compounded if the lay-out of the streets in the area is such that, whichever one he takes, he is bound to end up at the same destination.

It is equally dishonest to tell a man that he has the freedom to determine what government he wants by exercising his vote at election time if he is completely lacking in the information needed to use that vote intelligently and discriminately and if, furthermore, his effective range of choice is limited to candidates and parties whose policies, at the end of the route, land him in the same place!

If the freedom of the individual to influence the course of politics — supposedly the first foundation-stone of ‘democracy’ — is to have any meaning, it must be in the context of that individual having the capability to exercise that freedom by understanding the political issues. Without this, ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are meaningless catchwords. That is a cardinal truth which must be taken into account in any effort to formulate an alternative political system for the achievement of sound government.

The next truth which must be accepted is that it is futile a government being elected to carry out policies approved by a majority of the people if, from the moment it takes office, it is engaged in a nonstop civil war in parliament in which every possible device is used to sabotage its effective operation.

Likewise, the will of the people, just supposing that we have a way of clearly ascertaining what that is, cannot be carried out by any government effectively if its power of action is hampered at every turn by the need to appease various vested interests and bend to the pressures of the various lobbies, invariably representing organised minorities, which bay at government’s heels. Here we come back to the truth recognised by Mosley in the 1930s and dealt with in an earlier chapter. Under the old system, as Mosley said, the power of finance “can affect the lives of the mass of people more closely and more provided a useful safety-valve for those voters who might grow disillusioned with both Tories and Labour. By courtesy of The Guardian newspaper, it was ensured that the Liberal Party did not fade into total oblivion but, on the contrary, was always there at election time to soak up the protest vote just in case that vote rose to unmanageable proportions. This of course happened at Orpington in 1961 and has happened on a number of occasions since, thus corralling safely into the establishment pen any maverick steers that might be so bold as to break loose from the general herd.

In the 1980s, a similar device was employed by the creation of the Social Democratic Party. Again, the establishment astutely judged the public mood: sensing that a larger than usual number of voters and members were deserting Labour, and realising that not all of these could be relied upon to drift into the Liberal camp, our real rulers did everything possible to encourage and nurture the infant SDP, giving it a rousing send-off in the press and thereafter generously publicising the daily utterances of its leaders and the pastiche of old-gang clichés that it tried to pass off as ‘policies’. In consequence, the voter who had grown tired of the Tory/Labour cycle of misgovernment of the previous half-century now had, not one alternative, but two! Well, just for a while at any rate. As is known, the Social Democrats later went out of business when their main rump was swallowed up by the Liberals, leading to the formation of today’s ‘Liberal Democrats’. The latter party incorporates just the same flabby potpourri of internationalism, free trade, racial suicide and ‘wet’ prescriptions for social problems that form the bases of the manifestos of their rivals. Whatever way the poor voter tries to turn, he ends up down the same blind alley.

This is the reality of the political system under which the people are deluded that they have a ‘free choice’, and under which every symptom of governmental weakness and ineptitude is glossed over by the consoling cry that Britons are favoured by the benign smile of providence to live in a ‘democracy’.

No meaningful effort to grapple with our immense national problems will be possible until this ludicrous and wholly unworkable system is done away with and we institute an effective system of government capable of bringing to the fore a high calibre of national leadership and then properly equipping that leadership with the necessary powers of action.

There will be those who will ask if such a change would threaten the framework of ‘democracy’ and the ‘freedom’ of the people that is supposed to lie at the centre of that ideal. To them, let us straightaway reply that at present no such framework of ‘democracy’ exists which can be threatened and no freedom exists for the people to control the processes by which they are governed. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to put the ordinary people of this country in a position of having less power over national affairs and less freedom to choose how they will be governed than they have today. An alternative system of government designed to produce leadership of the quality for which I have called, and which empowers it to act effectively, is by no means incompatible with the objective of giving the people greater freedom and a more influential voice in national affairs. On the contrary, the establishment of such conditions of government would, without question, meet a need that is yearned for by millions of Britons as never before.

It is quite ridiculous to place a man who has never had a driving lesson in the seat of a motor car and then tell him: “You are now free to drive this car anywhere you like!” Ridiculous and also dishonest. The dishonesty is then compounded if the lay-out of the streets in the area is such that, whichever one he takes, he is bound to end up at the same destination.

It is equally dishonest to tell a man that he has the freedom to determine what government he wants by exercising his vote at election time if he is completely lacking in the information needed to use that vote intelligently and discriminately and if, furthermore, his effective range of choice is limited to candidates and parties whose policies, at the end of the route, land him in the same place!

If the freedom of the individual to influence the course of politics — supposedly the first foundation-stone of ‘democracy’ — is to have any meaning, it must be in the context of that individual having the capability to exercise that freedom by understanding the political issues. Without this, ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are meaningless catchwords. That is a cardinal truth which must be taken into account in any effort to formulate an alternative political system for the achievement of sound government.

 

Interview with Josh Neal on the new edition of The Culture of Critique, etc.

/9 Comments/in , /by

Dr. Kevin MacDonald, “Culture of Critique”

Celebrating the release of the third edition, by Antelope Hill Publishing
Psychopolitics
Sep 19, 2025

Support Dr. MacDonald:

Buy my books here:

Matt Goodwin: Labour Ministers proclaim Islamic Sharia courts are part of “what makes us British”.

/5 Comments/in /by

While President Trump rightly warned, during his second state visit to the UK this week, that illegal migration is ‘destroying nations’, and said he ‘would send in the military’ were he in charge of the spiralling crisis in the UK, our hapless Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who has completely lost control of the borders, was reduced to waffling and gaslighting his way through the state visit.

Even more shockingly, on the same day the British people discovered an Egyptian asylum-seeker who raped a woman in London’s Hyde Park is also a convicted Islamist terrorist who was staying in a four-star Hilton Hotel, paid for by British taxpayers, Labour’s new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was dropping social media videos as if she had personally just assassinated Osama Bin Laden having managed to remove … one … yes, one illegal migrant from the country.

And then, astonishingly, in the same week that saw Keir Starmer reassure President Trump that “we in the UK have always had free speech”, the police visited a woman who is battling stage-four cancer to demand she apologise for something she wrote on Facebook, otherwise she would be hauled off to the police station.

And on top of all that, on top of a string of events and stories that have left us all feeling as though we have now fully entered the Twilight Zone, we also learned several other astonishing facts that underline the sheer scale of Britain’s decline.

Like the fact our Labour government, this week, just voted to change sentencing laws that will see rapists and paedophiles –including those who pay children under-13 for sex, who rape children, and who create indecent images of children–released from prison early, after serving only one-third of their sentence. Seriously.

Like the fact Labour Ministers are now standing up in the House of Commons to proclaim Islamic Sharia courts, which violate our tradition of separating church and state, are now, according to our Labour government, part of “what makes us British”.

Like the fact that, today, we learn that last month the UK government was forced borrow £18 BILLION to cover the growing gulf between taxes and spending, which is the highest for five years, since the Covid pandemic.

Like the fact that since April alone, the UK has “spent” an eye-watering £50 BILLION just servicing our national debt –just paying off the interest on our country’s credit card before you even get to health, schools, military, police, and more.

Like the fact it was just revealed people in the UK who are not working and on welfare can claim on an income of £25,000 –which is MORE than the £22,500 earned by workers, after tax, on the national living wage. In which case, why work?

Like the fact the Office for National Statistics just revealed the average home in London is no longer affordable for any household income group, while nobody in Westminster is even willing to discuss what might be fuelling house prices and rents.

Like the fact Net Zero lunacy is now forecast, according to energy experts, to add yet another £100 to the average household energy bill from April onwards.

Like the fact, underlined by a shocking new chart from a UK government report, that historically unprecedented migration into the UK from outside Europe is continuing to make the country unrecognisable (look at the chart below -the red is immigration into the UK from outside European nations).

Like the fact Sadiq Khan’s Transport for London officials have just been found out to have been suppressing taxpayer-funded research that found ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’, another extreme Net Zero measure, do NOT reduce the use of cars –yet officials worked overtime to try and bury the report from citizens.

Like the fact we are only now discovering, after Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper and the Labour Party consistently sought to block a rape gang inquiry, that a senior police officer from West Yorkshire deliberately blocked attempts to investigate rape gangs operating at a children’s home in Bradford.

Like the fact, according to new research from the Policy Exchange think-tank, the British people are having to pay £252 MILLION to cover medical treatments and costs for foreign citizens that were never paid.

All this, in a word, is insane.