General
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).
Look at what’s happening to the UK
The Red is immigration into the UK from outside Europe
Source: Gvt report on migration
Chart HT @lucyjaynewhite1 pic.twitter.com/k9UaZpgTdT— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) September 17, 2025
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.
The biggest development coming out of Charlie Kirk’s murder last week is that the gun isn’t to blame. This time, “social media” did it.
On Sunday, The New York Times published an idiotic op-ed to that effect by Nathan Taylor Pemberton, who “writes about extremism and American politics,” and whose last article for The Nation magazine was presciently titled: “Why the Right Fantasizes About Death and Destruction.” So we know he’s a fair broker.
Long after it had been established that Kirk’s shooter, Tyler Robinson, was in a romantic relationship with a transgender, Pemberton proclaimed: “The only thing that can be said conclusively about Mr. Robinson, at this moment, is that he was a chronically online, white American male.”
Really? Was that the only thing that stuck out about the accused shooter?
If Pemberton’s right, we can narrow down future assassins to the 99% of the population that’s online — with the exception of people over 65, only a paltry 90% of whom are online, according to Pew Research.
I don’t know how the FBI’s profiling unit missed this.
On further thought, the usefulness of “chronically online” as a red flag is severely hampered by the fact that it encompasses the entire f-ing population. Most Americans spend more than 10 hours a day online, according to a recent survey. The only less helpful characterization would have been “mammal.”
Is there something — anything else — that stands out about a murderer who was living with his transgender partner?
Transgenders are, at most, 1% of the population. That’s about the same as the percentage of Americans who are deaf, missing a limb, have eyes of two different colors or support Stacey Abrams for any elected office.
Here are some of the most notorious recent public murders. Would it be at all odd if each of these had been committed by a deaf person?
In 2018, transgender Snochia Moseley, one year into her pre-surgery hormone therapy, shot and killed four people at a pharmaceuticals distribution center in Aberdeen, Maryland.
In 2019, transgender Maya McKinney, born female, but who “identified” as male (“Alec” McKinney), shot nine students, killing one, at a STEM high school in Denver, Colorado, allegedly because they’d mocked her identity.
In 2022, nonbinary (“they/them”) Anderson Lee Aldrich opened fire at a gay night club in Colorado Springs, Colorado, killing five. Liberals deny that Aldrich is really nonbinary — but you’re a Nazi if you deny that Joe Biden’s assistant secretary for health “Rachel Levine” (born Richard Levine) is really a woman.
In 2023, transgender Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who went by “Aiden” and “he/him” and was “miserable being raised a girl,” shot up a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee, killing six, including three children.
In 2023, transgender Audrey Elizabeth Hale, who went by “Aiden” and “he/him” and was “miserable being raised a girl,” shot up a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee, killing six, including three children.
In 2024, transgender Genesse Ivonne Moreno fired around 30 rounds from an AK-47 into a Houston, Texas, megachurch before being taken out by a couple of off-duty law enforcement officers.
Just last month, transgender Robin Westman, who changed his name from Robert because, as court documents put it, he “identified as female and wants her name to reflect that identification,” fired dozens of rounds from a rifle at the children attending Mass at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, Minnesota, injuring 21 and killing two, ages 8 and 10.
Taking into account their percentage of the population, economist John Lott determined that, between 2018 and 2024, transgenders committed a wildly disproportionate number of the mass public shootings — 6.8 times their share of the population.
But it would be difficult to discern any pattern to these crimes from listening to the American media. As far as they’re concerned, trans shooters might as well have been Muslims.
1) Bury the story;
2) Doggedly refuse to believe the transgender’s chosen identity — something that gets you labeled a fascist in any other context;
3) Sneer at right-wingers for commenting, Say, isn’t the transgender community producing a lot of homicidal lunatics?
For example, there’s this classic New York Times headline: “Conservatives Use Minneapolis Shooting in Anti-Transgender Campaigns.”
One transgender shooting that got gobs of media attention was the attack on the Houston megachurch.
AP’s “fact check” was typical:
“CLAIM: The shooter who carried out an attack injuring two people at a Texas megachurch on Sunday has been identified as transgender.
“AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Houston police said on Monday that its investigation has thus far determined that the shooter, Genesse Ivonne Moreno, identified as female …”
Hmmm. On the other hand, the attorney who represented her in divorce proceedings from 2021 to 2022 said that, at the time, she was going by the name “Jeffrey Moreno Carranza,” and even the police commander who claimed she only identified as female admitted she went by several aliases — “including Jeffrey Escalante.”
Apparently, in the case of a trans shooter, “deadnaming” is not White supremacist, it’s mandatory.
Why this burning animosity toward “social media”? One big reason is that liberals lose in any competitive environment, such as dating apps, Little League baseball and the internet. Pemberton can’t even figure out how it works, falsely claiming that a relative of Robinson’s described him as “full of hate,” when it was Robinson who described Kirk as “full of hate.” See, the internet can prevent stupid mistakes like that.
Without the internet, we’d be trapped in a media bubble, forced to rely on geniuses like Pemberton who informed Times readers that Robinson “most likely committed” Kirk’s murder as “an ironic gesture”; that Kirk “used his platform to coarsen our political discourse”; and that he was “a showman who attracted disaffected young Americans into the conservative movement with fantasies of white replacement or racial grievance.”
Obviously, ideas like this can only survive in a sensory deprivation chamber, stripped of dissenting voices — no conservative guests, no op-eds by Sen. Tom Cotton, no conservative college speakers, no unapproved economists who’ve calculated the transgenders per capita rate of mass shootings.
First, they came for our guns, now our computers. Let’s just hope none of the transgenders drove cars to the crime scene.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER**
For years, conservatives hoped that the notorious white nationalist would go away. Instead, Mr. Fuentes has gained more traction, even while opposing the president.
Until a month or two ago, Nicholas J. Fuentes was regarded by right-wing influencers as a mosquito-like interloper whose lifeblood was attention. Ignore his openly racist and sexist rants, their thinking went, and Mr. Fuentes would eventually flitter off into oblivion.
But today an entirely different consensus has emerged on the right. The footprint of the oratorically proficient late-night streaming show host has not dwindled in the least, with his tens if not hundreds of thousands of alienated young male conservatives followers known as Groypers, a nickname derived from an alt-right meme. If anything, his anti-Israel, anti-immigrant, anti-transgender and anti-civil-rights views seem to have gained new currency during the second Trump administration.
There is now growing alarm among leading conservatives about Mr. Fuentes, who routinely tests the cultlike devotion of his young male fans by savaging their patriarchal figure, President Trump, for not being right-wing enough. In the process, he has emerged as one of the loudest voices on the right to turn on the president.
“When I was a teenager, I thought he was a Caesar-like figure who was going to save Western civilization,” Mr. Fuentes, 27, said in an interview. “Now I view him as incompetent, corrupt and compromised.”
Specifically, he has criticized the president for showing solidarity with Israel over the war in Gaza, for refusing to release the Epstein files and for considering extending student visas to Chinese nationals. On Labor Day, Mr. Fuentes posted on social media, “Trump 2.0 has been a disappointment in literally every way but nobody wants to admit it.”
Asked to comment on Mr. Fuentes’s remarks, White House officials declined. Current and former members of the Trump administration as well as outside advisers would not be quoted for the record about Mr. Fuentes out of fear, they said, of inviting online attacks from him and his zealous followers. Three of them mentioned the sudden ubiquity of Fuentes-related clips circulating in their social media feeds.
Certain metrics attest to Mr. Fuentes’s surge. Since his X account was reinstated by Elon Musk 16 months ago, the number of his followers appears to have grown from roughly 140,000 to more than 750,000. His “America First” streaming show viewership on Rumble has quintupled to around 500,000.
“Fuentes represents the cutting edge of a right-wing racism that has surged over the past decade during the rise of Trump,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian and expert on right-wing movements at George Washington University. “And it’s clear that he’s becoming more prominent because these bigger influencers are now fighting with him.”
But Mr. Fuentes has yet to demonstrate that he can shape American politics on an electoral level. He said he is determined to thwart the presidential ambitions of Vice President JD Vance, who Mr. Fuentes described as “the end state of Trumpism, a complete fabrication who was created in a lab by Peter Thiel,” the Silicon Valley billionaire who bankrolled Mr. Vance’s 2022 campaign for Ohio’s open Senate seat.
Mr. Dallek said Mr. Fuentes’s animosity toward the vice president was telling. “He’s going after JD Vance at a time when Donald Trump is likely in the twilight of his political career,” Mr. Dallek said. “What we’re seeing is Fuentes, Carlson, Vance and others engaged in the battle to be the legitimate heir to Trumpism.”
Mr. Dallek was referring to Tucker Carlson, perhaps the pre-eminent media figure on the right, who unwittingly kicked off Mr. Fuentes’s coming-out party this summer. On his podcast in July, Mr. Carlson wondered aloud how Mr. Fuentes, whom he described as “this weird little gay kid living in his basement in Chicago,” could wield any influence at all.
Mr. Carlson then supplied the answer: Mr. Fuentes, he said, “is really talented, legit,” but is also “clearly part of a campaign to discredit noncrazy right voices.”
Mr. Fuentes responded on his show to Mr. Carlson’s attacks with characteristic bombast. After denying that he is gay, Mr. Fuentes chided Mr. Carlson for being a trust-fund elitist. He embraced his own status as more than just a leader “of real disaffected white people. You want to talk about me and them? I am them!”
Mr. Fuentes was widely seen as having gotten the better of the exchange. In August, the former Trump White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon reposted on the conservative social media platform Gettr a comment by a fellow right-wing podcaster, Vincent Oshana, that Mr. Fuentes “is freaking on fire right now” and then added his own terse appraisal: “Reality.” That same month, Dave Smith, a comedian and libertarian podcaster who has been disparaged by Mr. Fuentes for being Jewish, said, “He’s been canceled by everyone and he’s bigger than ever.”
A similar sentiment was begrudgingly offered by the podcaster Jason Whitlock, a Black conservative who has frequently criticized Mr. Fuentes for his racist commentary. “Young men are listening to Nick Fuentes,” Mr. Whitlock lamented on his show in August, “and he’s reveling in that.”
In the interview for this article, Mr. Fuentes insisted that he remains “an underground figure.” Unlike prominent right-wing influencers like Mr. Bannon, Charlie Kirk and Laura Loomer, he has no ties to the Trump White House. He has been prohibited from attending the conservative movement’s highest-profile gatherings: Mr. Kirk’s Turning Point USA events and the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.
He has been banned on YouTube since 2020, for violating the platform’s hate speech policy. For the same reason, his name cannot be displayed on TikTok, an inconvenience that some of his followers have circumnavigated by posting clips of “Nick Fuentz” and other permutations. He has not been able to obtain the blue check mark on his X account that would allow him to amass paid subscribers. Instead, Mr. Fuentes said, his income derives from tips paid by viewers of his streaming show, as well as from merchandise that he sells on his website.
Image
Mr. Fuentes has never seemed a likely candidate to lead a group built on the idea of white supremacy.
For one, his father, a vice president of a company that makes conveyor products, is half Mexican. Additionally, two individuals who knew him during his teenage years describe a lone wolf who was highly intelligent but also abrasive and condescending. Raised in La Grange Park, an upper-middle-class suburb of Chicago, he and his twin sister excelled in high school speech contests. A classmate recalls that as they began their senior year in the fall of 2015, Mr. Fuentes was an ardent supporter of the Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, with views very much in the mainstream of conservative politics.
In August 2017, a radicalized Mr. Fuentes emerged. That month, the 18-year old soon-to-be Boston University dropout joined the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., chanting, “You will not replace us” and claiming that white Americans were being subjected to a “cultural genocide.” Several national media outlets, including Time and NBC, interviewed Mr. Fuentes in the wake of Charlottesville, and several of Mr. Fuentes’s critics have suggested that he consciously began to stake out his turf as the most outrageous voice on the right.
On his show, streamed by the pro-Trump Right Side Broadcasting Network, he said, “I want people that run CNN to be arrested and deported or hanged.”
Image
Mr. Fuentes’s hateful rhetoric began to extend to Holocaust denialism. “Six million cookies? I’m not buying it,” he said in 2019 in comparing baked cookies to the six million Jews who were exterminated by the Nazis. He made some brazenly racist comments that year as well. Jim Crow, he said, “was better for them; it’s better for us.”
Leading conservatives distanced themselves from him.
Mr. Fuentes gained additional notoriety during the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he stood a few hundred yards from the building and hollered through a megaphone, “Never relent!” Though Mr. Fuentes himself did not enter the Capitol, five Groyper associates did and were subsequently indicted. The F.B.I. spent several months investigating Mr. Fuentes but never brought charges against him.
Others on the right took notice of his burgeoning following of young male conservatives and deduced that he must be onto something. Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona gave the keynote speech at Mr. Fuentes’s America First Political Action Conference in 2021. A year later, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia did the same, though she later expressed regret, claiming that she had been unaware of Mr. Fuentes’s racist beliefs.
Later in 2022, Mr. Fuentes accompanied the rapper and presidential aspirant Kanye West to Mar-a-Lago to have dinner with Mr. Trump. In the interview, Mr. Fuentes said that he had been working on policy papers for Mr. West, “who wanted us to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and to include in it Hitler’s most severe policies and also his most moderate policies.”
He was surprised to have been let into Mar-a-Lago “because of who I am” and recalled spending most of the evening “glazing” the former president with flattery and encouraging him to give only unscripted speeches. Still, the fact that Mr. Trump had dined with a notorious bigot created a firestorm. His former ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, condemned the meeting as “unacceptable.”
Mr. Trump, Mr. West later said, “is really impressed with Nick Fuentes.” The former president insisted that he had no idea who his young dinner guest was.
Image
Several conservative critics of Mr. Fuentes interviewed for this article asserted that he was little more than an internet version of a carnival barker, thriving in an attention economy that rewards the most extreme statements. In the interview, Mr. Fuentes acknowledged some validity to this view.
He recalled his mocking comment on X about women, right after Mr. Trump’s victory last year: “Your body, my choice?” That remark, Mr. Fuentes said, “was just trolling; it was cheap rage bait.”
What about questioning the Holocaust? “I’ve never taken a hard position,” he said, adding, “I’ve never done the deep dive into it, to tell you the truth.”
Mr. Fuentes suggested that his most outlandish musings were “when I was 18, at the beginning of the Trump movement. But I’ve become more moderate.” He added, “I would say that I’ve definitely mellowed with age.”
A review of Mr. Fuentes’s recent remarks indicates otherwise. He said on his show in July that “Hitler had aura” and chided Polish people for having “this bad habit of hating Hitler all the time.” Last month on X, he characterized the Indian American in-laws of Vice President JD Vance as “Uber drivers and call center scammers.” He also said on his show in August that all Black people should be “ashamed” of crimes committed by others of their race, adding, “White people are every single bit justified in being racist.”
“Ultimately it doesn’t really matter whether all of this is a put-on by Fuentes,” said Nicole Hemmer, a history professor at Vanderbilt University who specializes in conservatism, the presidency and media. “For seven or eight years now, he’s been pushing a consistent message of a world order in which white men are on top and hold that position through antidemocratic means. He doesn’t have to have the audience of Tucker Carlson or Fox News to be playing an important role in moving the political culture in a more radical, illiberal and violent direction.”
Image
“Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open borders, neoliberal quasi Marxist policies”
-Charlie Kirk pic.twitter.com/327h1uc2Mb
— Gentile News Network™ (@Gentilenewsnet) September 11, 2025
You can gauge the fragility of an ideology by the blind fury with which it reacts to questioning. So it is with neo-liberalism. Teacher Simon Pearson, for example, was sacked for suggesting that the jailing of Lucy Connolly – who said very nasty things about asylum seekers – was an example of two-tier justice and that, while her words were indefensible, she should not have been sent to prison.
One could counter that opinion, but only at the risk of coming into collision with hard facts concerning sentencing – hence the sacking. Best to get shot of your political opponents, especially when he or she is demonstrably correct. Only by doing that can the ideology cling on. The other form of defence, if you are the adherent of an ideology which is palpably on its way out, is to lie to people, or to withhold information from them. Just shrug your shoulders and say: ‘Search me, mate – we don’t have any information on that, I’m afraid.’
For a good 60 years the British public have been lied to about immigration and had information withheld from them. The reason that information was withheld is because the authorities know full well that possession of it would infuriate the great mass of people. And so, when some deranged jihadi murders somebody, we are not given his ethnicity, or we are told a lie (that he is a Norwegian, say), or a truism – that he is mental. If the police released the ethnicity of the suspect every time a serious crime was committed, the public would be even more averse to continued mass immigration from cultures dissimilar to our own than they are at the moment. I still suspect that Crimewatch was taken off air a decade or so ago because the gallery of criminals displayed each week revealed a remarkable dearth of white folks in it. The programme is back, by the way, with diverse presenters and they don’t do the rogues’ gallery thing any more.
The lying, or obfuscation, about immigration has included withholding crime figures from us. Until recently we were un-aware that foreign nationals living in the UK were 70 per cent more likely to be convicted of sexual crimes. Meanwhile Algerians were 18 times more likely to be convicted of theft. The proportion of the under-18 prison population which is of black heritage is 30 per cent, compared with 5.5 per cent of under-18s in the general population.
These figures are all comparatively new to us and they have been released for the simple reason that the dominant paradigm, the guff we’ve been fed for decades – that multiculturalism is terrific and immigrants commit no more crime than do the locals – is increasingly rejected as being not merely untrue, but absurd. The only comeback you will hear from the left on the issue of, say, young black offenders is that if they constitute 30 per cent of the under-18 prison population, then the majority of underage crime must be committed by white youths. This is what I call the Dave Allen argument, and it has been deployed over and over again in the case of the Pakistani rape gangs, despite what we might agree are its obvious flaws.
The centre cannot hold, the disinformation no longer works – and people are angry
So we have been lied to about crime rates among immigrants, or simply not told. But we have also been lied to about how many immigrants are here, how many will continue to flood in and what benefit they will be to society. It is quite common for the left to insist that an influx of 900,000 or so every year will not have any impact upon our crumbling infrastructure – housing, schools, the NHS and so on – despite the epic denial of reality that this involves.
More recently, however, the truth has begun to leak out. While we are continually told that immigration boosts the economy, a report last year from the Office for Budget Responsibility showed that a low-skilled migrant costs the British taxpayer an average of £150,000 by the time he or she has reached pensionable age, and £500,000 if they make it to 80. This is the first time we have been given such information, and my suggestion is that in future the OBR breaks it down by individual ethnicity.
Meanwhile, at the beginning of this year it was estimated that by 2063 white British people will be a minority in their own country. For decades anti-immigrant groups and right-wing politicians have warned of this and their claims were laughed off as ludicrous. Nope, not ludicrous: the truth. And of course any time conscientious politicians raised the issue of mass immigration, the liberal authorities wheeled out the great wicker man of Enoch and set it on fire, while denouncing all those who questioned the avidity with which this country yearned for suicide as ‘racist’ and ‘far-right’.
The slightly better news is that the public no longer buys this rubbish. For a long while, attitudes towards immigration among the general public seemed to soften, the consequence of being kept in the dark, being lied to and not wanting to seem ‘racist’ to the nice researchers. Not any more. The latest YouGov poll shows that a whopping 45 per cent of Brits are in favour of admitting precisely zero new migrants and wish for large numbers to be persuaded somehow to leave the country. That would have been an unthinkable proportion even ten years ago. Meanwhile, only a small minority believe that immigration has been mostly good for the country, and three-quarters oppose greater numbers still coming here.
The lesson from this is that the centre cannot hold, that the disinformation no longer works – and that people are angry. Here, as in continental Europe, the indigenous populations have roused a little from their enforced slumber. A shame, really, that it’s too late.
Sorry about the formatting, but a typical case of Jewish activism—pulling out all the stops, mobilizing 25,000 people writing letters, major Jewish organizations getting involved. They are very good at this. And no, students are not “getting the education they deserve.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m Max Sevillia, ADL’s Senior Vice President of National Affairs, and I’m joined today by two colleagues who were instrumental in our response to the NEA boycott threat — Shira Goodman, Vice President of Advocacy, and Ariel Behrman, Vice President of Education.
Shocked and concerned. The NEA represents 3 million educators who use our materials to educate students about the Holocaust and antisemitism. I thought “this cannot be happening.” Antisemitic incidents in schools are at record levels — which is devastating enough. The thought of this group that represents teachers, passing a resolution like this seemed unreal.
Agreed, I was shocked! We’re talking about programs that have reached millions of students. Our Echoes & Reflections program alone has trained over 20,000 educators in the last school year. These materials are evidence-based and have taken decades to develop, and they aren’t political tools. The idea of losing this was terrifying, and the gap that could have been created in Holocaust education and antisemitism prevention would have come precisely at a time when it is most desperately needed.