General

Percent of different racial groups in America getting food stamps

If you ask what percentage of Whites get food stamps, the first answer that pops out answers the question what percent of total recipients are White–a very different question, the answer to which is about 35% because there are a lot more Whites than these other groups. This 35% is then emphasized in the media to give a very warped picture of the situation.

Matt Goodwin: An explosive new report reveals where the “mainstream” in Britain really lies

“Most people reject the anti-British, anti-Western, anti-science, and fanatically pro-diversity woke outlook that unites the increasingly extreme and dogmatic ‘progressive’ class that controls the institutions.”

Still way too many Brits don’t get it.

An explosive new report reveals where the “mainstream” in Britain really lies

And what our readers have known for a very long time!

For years now, rebellious voters who oppose what is being inflicted on Western nations have been written off as cranks, extremists, weirdos, and loons.

Question mass immigration? Complain about broken borders? Wonder whether your country is losing its identity? Or whether the deeper social contract that holds a nation together is starting to collapse?

Ask about any of these things and you’ll soon be viewed by the establishment as not just voicing legitimate concerns but somebody who is flirting with extremism, fuelling division, peddling hate, even moving along a pathway towards terrorism.

Which is why I wanted to write about the findings of a major new report, Britain Under Strain, which not only blows apart these establishment narratives but shows just how widespread these concerns and anxieties have become in modern Britain.

Despite being produced by the ominous sounding UK Extremism and Democratic Resilience Centre and shadowy ‘counter-extremism’ industry, which often appears more interested in trying to control what people think than addressing their actual concerns, the report does draw on a wealth of new polling and data and so is forced to finally acknowledge what millions of ordinary people — including tens of thousands who read this newsletter—have been saying and feeling for many years.

What it finds, in short, is that many of the arguments and views that are held by the silent majority, which we have been tirelessly representing, are not those of some fringe minority but a radicalised majority of people who have simply had enough of what is happening to their country and culture.

The headline finding?

Close to two-thirds of all British people now think the social contract in their country between the people and the state is completely broken — something we’ve been pointing to for a while.

Nearly two-thirds of the entire country, in other words, rising to more than eight in ten Reform party voters, have now concluded that the unwritten bargain between the people and the state — that the people will obey the law and pay taxes so long as the state keeps them safe and secure — is no longer fit for purpose.

Why do so many people feel this way? It’s not because we’ll all suddenly morphed into extremists. Far from it. It’s because, as the report makes clear, millions of people have now reached the entirely logical conclusion that our governments, whether Labour or Tory, do not keep their promises, cannot be trusted, do not represent ordinary people, and, perhaps most crucially, cannot even be bothered to perform their most important duty of all — protecting our borders and keeping us safe.

This is exactly what we’ve been warning for years: the longer hapless politicians in Westminster refuse to do whatever is necessary to fix our broken borders, the more likely it is they will destabilise the entire system, tear up the social contract, and push our society further and further into the abyss. And this is no longer just our view; two-thirds of the entire country now agree with it.

And that’s not the only finding that stands out. A clear majority of British people — some 55 per cent of the entire country — now believe British identity is disappearing because of “diversity”. A view that is also held by an even larger majority of 61 per cent among white British people and 90 per cent of Reform party voters.

Let me say that again: more than half of all people in Britain and more than three-fifths of all white Brits have now concluded that diversity is undermining their distinctive sense of British identity — their sense of who we are as a nation.

While this is routinely dismissed in mainstream media, which wants you to think such views are entirely unacceptable, in reality this deep and profound anxiety about what mass immigration and rapid demographic change are doing to British identity has become a fully mainstream view, endorsed by a large majority. And here’s something else you’ll never hear about on BBC Verify: close to one-quarter of all non-white people in Britain hold this view, too.

This is not about whites versus non-whites; it is about a broad, growing coalition of patriotic people who no longer support the establishment’s insistence that diversity is “making us stronger”. On the contrary, the silent majority openly disagree with the narrative that the likes of Sadiq Khan, Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski, Carol Vorderman, and SW1-BBC Land are constantly jamming down our throats. Diversity is not making us stronger, they think — it is now out of control and eroding who we are.

And there are many other findings hidden away in this report that should likewise make the political, media, and university class sit up and take notice.

Because for years now, all we’ve been told is that the ‘mainstream’ of British politics is a place that happens to reflect the tastes, priorities, political loyalties, and ideological beliefs of liberal progressives — left-learning, urban, financially secure if not affluent university graduates who only represent about 12 per cent of the population yet wield enormous power because they dominate all of the major institutions in society.

But as the report makes clear, this could not be further from the truth. The real mainstream lies elsewhere, among a silent majority of people who hold far more traditional views, who reject the woke takeover of our institutions, who have come to the view that mass immigration and rapid demographic change are weakening British identity, and who can see that unless we change course we are heading for disaster.

A large majority of British people, for instance, believe it is patriotic to fight for Britain (81 per cent), to pledge allegiance to the King (68 per cent), to defend British history (76 per cent), and to protect Christian values (52 per cent).

Large majorities reject the assertion that Britain’s foreign policy is driven by ‘racist and colonial attitudes’, as well as the claim that Britain is somehow organised to mainly benefit white people.

Consistently, in other words, most people reject the anti-British, anti-Western, anti-science, and fanatically pro-diversity woke outlook that unites the increasingly extreme and dogmatic ‘progressive’ class that controls the institutions.

While it is true that younger people, Labour voters, and Green voters are much more likely to hold these views, the key point is that the silent majority — millions of people who are dismissed and stigmatised as laying beyond the pale — do not. Yet too often the establishment acts as though this silent majority does not exist at all.

Belief in the existence of ‘two-tier Britain’ is also becoming far more widespread than the establishment would like us to think. While only one in ten Brits think that white people are more likely than average to get away with breaking the law, close to one in three people now think that migrants and asylum-seekers are able to escape justice.

The establishment routinely suggests that believing in the idea of a two-tier society is a conspiracy theory for cranks, an indicator of far-right extremism. Does this mean that roughly one in every three people in Britain have fallen into the abyss?

Or does it mean they can see something the state refuses to admit — that when you flood our schools, universities, police, health service, and civil service with divisive, race-based ideologies like Critical Race Theory you are indeed setting us up to live in a two-tier society where some identity groups are prioritised over others.

Again, when a large number of people in a society have come to the view that immigrants, asylum-seekers, and newcomers are being treated more favourably by the state than than their own national citizens then I would suggest the social contract is not just coming apart but is at risk of collapsing altogether.

Lastly, these views and how they are being ignored or mocked by the establishment might also explain something else that comes through in this report: how a large swathe of Britain is now willing to endorse far more radical political options.

Such as the fact that some 40 per cent of people — a minority but still a large number of people — saw the recent ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally in London not as a gathering of racists and extremists but as “a show of patriotism from people with valid concerns about migration, diversity and the future of the country”.

Or that one-third of all British people — rising to four in ten Tories and six in ten Reform voters — now openly say they would support a policy of ‘remigration’ — the idea that migrants, whether illegal or legal, should be encouraged or forced to return to their countries of origin so as to preserve Britain’s distinctive identity and culture.

Whether you agree with these views or not is beside the point. My point is they are now held by millions of ordinary people who, for years now, have held entirely legitimate worries about the direction of their country yet have been consistently and grossly caricatured as ignorant, backward, extremist, fringe, or dangerous.

Instead of asking why these views have become far more widespread in modern Britain and then addressing the grievances, the establishment has simply decided to delegitimise the people expressing them. But this is a profound mistake. You cannot rebuild trust in a society by telling your own citizens their concerns are illegitimate.

That’s perhaps why this newsletter of ours has become one of the largest independent, counter-cultural newsletters in Britain, if not Europe. Not because readers always agree with every word I write. But because — long before politicians, journalists and institutions were prepared to admit it — this community of ours recognised that something fundamental has shifted, even if the governing class failed to spot it.

For years now, we’ve argued that Britain’s crisis is not simply about economics and GDP. It’s about something deeper — a broken social contract, collapsing public trust, and a palpable, overwhelming, and unavoidable belief out there among the people that mass immigration, porous borders, and a distant governing class are not just pushing Western nations in the wrong direction — they are actively destroying them.

This report does not endorse every argument I’ve made. But it does do something that is perhaps more significant. It shows that the underlying concerns that people like us share are no longer confined to the fringe — they are now recognised by even parts of the establishment as representing mainstream views.

And that, if nothing else, should give us cause for cautious optimism. Because once the truth starts to come out, and is even being recognised through gritted teeth by those who have been trying to conceal it, then it can no longer be ignored. And once the truth is acknowledged then political change will inevitably follow.

Haaretz op-ed: Lindsey Graham’s death leaves Israel without a clear voice in Trump’s ear

Well, I guess Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro will have to step up their game.
“Graham’s hits on Fox News and his posts on X concerning Israel and the Middle East were often messages effectively lifted from Netanyahu’s mind and aimed at an audience of one.”

Ben Samuels:

Americans woke up on Sunday to the shocking news of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s unexpected death. They also rose to the universal outpouring of condolences and mourning from Israeli officials across the political spectrum – who typically fail to agree on little else – alongside remembrances from families of October 7 hostages and pro-Israel advocates, who absorbed the news in real time thanks to the overnight announcement of his passing by Graham’s office.

It is fitting that the first iterations of Graham’s obituaries and eulogies were written by the country that came to singularly define his legacy as the primary Republican advocate for Middle East interventionism, who nearly always pushed U.S. policy in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desired direction.

Graham’s domestic political legacy will undoubtedly be viewed as a case study of our time. He was a man who unequivocally dedicated his life to public service, long considered a maverick alongside his best friends John McCain and Joe Lieberman, all of whom would buck party groupthink in favor of pursuing what they deemed right.

This once extended to Graham’s fierce opposition to U.S. President Donald Trump during his initial political ascendance, only to cross his previously marked lines in the sand with increasing audacity in order to bring himself closer into Trump’s orbit.

Perhaps no leader in the world benefited from this more than Netanyahu. Graham, like no other U.S. lawmaker or adviser, consistently had Trump’s full attention on matters relating to foreign policy. He served as both a private middleman between Trump and Netanyahu, but also as a megaphone for pushing Netanyahu’s party line in public forums.

It was true during Trump’s first term but even more so during his current stint in the White House: Graham’s hits on Fox News and his posts on X concerning Israel and the Middle East were often messages effectively lifted from Netanyahu’s mind and aimed at an audience of one.

Graham’s advocacy clearly made a difference, and he knew how to speak Trump’s language like few others. From the moment he was on Air Force One alongside Trump wearing a “Make Iran Great Again” hat, it was clear that Netanyahu had a voice firmly planted in Trump’s ear.

Even when Graham would publicly urge Israel to pump the brakes, it was clear that it was more about coaching Israel on how to navigate choppy waters in Washington than it was about slapping Israel on the wrist.

Right until his last moments of life, Graham maintained a mile-high view of Israel’s standing in both Washington and the greater Middle East. He continuously pushed for normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, even when it became abundantly clear that there was no bandwidth for such a paradigm-shifting development, to the point where it almost felt as though he was trying to will the breakthrough into existence.

Graham’s death is a significant blow to Israel’s influence on Trump’s thinking at a time when so much of its regional concerns are on the precipice. His passing, however, represents so much more. There is no logical successor among GOP hawks who possesses his charisma, access, and blatant embrace of ladder-climbing.

His death comes at a time when Republicans are openly disputing like never before about the party’s future, and when Israel has come to play a central role in the GOP’s hostile debates. Israel’s standing in America only stands to continue its downward spiral with both parties and with young people across the political spectrum. Now that Graham is gone, it is unclear who will take up the mantle. It is unclear if anyone even can.

Afghan Asylum Seeker Walks Free After Sexually Assaulting Multiple Young Girls At German Pool

Modernity News: Afghan Asylum Seeker Walks Free After Sexually Assaulting Multiple Young Girls At German Pool

A 21-year-old Afghan asylum seeker stands accused of sexually assaulting at least four girls between the ages of 12 and 14 at the Bud Spencer outdoor pool in Schwäbisch Gmünd, southwestern Germany.

According to police accounts detailed in German media coverage, the suspect touched the victims on their buttocks or thighs and attempted to pull down their bikini bottoms. In one instance he reportedly tried to penetrate a girl’s intimate area with his fingers. The girls resisted and fought him off before he stopped.

Police reports confirm the attacks occurred in the adventure pool area, yet an arrest warrant was suspended under limited conditions that do little to shield the public from further risk.

Authorities have indicated they do not rule out additional victims and continue to seek witnesses. The suspect was arrested, but a judge suspended the arrest warrant subject to conditions, including a ban on entering public swimming pools. Incredibly he has walked free pending the outcome of the investigation.

This case fits a recurring pattern of sexual violence and harassment targeting women and children in German public swimming facilities.

Prior investigations have laid bare the scale of the problem through official statistics and internal assessments that reveal stark disparities in perpetrator backgrounds.

Research established that 65 percent of sexual assault suspects in swimming pools were foreigners.

Separate analysis showed foreigners vastly overrepresented in sexual assaults as well as other crimes committed at these locations.

Another examination concluded that German authorities have not been fully honest about the identities of those assaulting children at swimming pools, with patterns of omission in official and media descriptions.

Coverage of the Schwäbisch Gmünd incident itself drew attention to selective reporting practices. Some German outlets described the suspect only as a 21-year-old man without noting his Afghan nationality, consistent with earlier criticisms of incomplete disclosure around perpetrator backgrounds in similar cases.

An internal assessment cited in reporting on the broader trend confirmed a surge in sex crimes at bathing establishments. It stated particular concern over rape and the sexual abuse of children, noting that the perpetrators are for the most part immigrants.

The president of the Federal Association of German Swimming Champions previously warned that he could no longer recommend families visit outdoor pools on weekends, adding that he would be acting irresponsibly if he took his own three grandchildren.

These documented realities have prompted concrete policy adjustments at some facilities.

Certain German swimming pools have begun barring visitors who cannot speak German, citing safety concerns tied to communication failures and behavioral patterns that complicate supervision and intervention in shared spaces.

The conditions imposed in the current case — a pool ban while the suspect otherwise remains free — illustrate the narrow tools available under current practices.

A targeted restriction does nothing to address potential risks in other public settings or to deter future incidents involving the same individual.

Girls who fought off the attacker at the adventure pool now rely on the hope that he complies with the limited order while the investigation proceeds.

Recurring episodes at pools, schools, and other everyday venues have exposed the downstream effects of rapid demographic change without corresponding integration or enforcement standards.

Cultural and language barriers frequently surface in official descriptions of incidents, yet public discourse often treats acknowledgment of these factors as off-limits. The result is a cycle where statistics accumulate, incidents repeat, and responses remain incremental.

Families seeking ordinary recreation at public pools encounter an environment shaped by these accumulated failures. The statistical overrepresentation, the documented reluctance to identify patterns clearly, and the narrow conditions placed on released suspects combine to shift the burden of vigilance onto parents and children themselves.

Official appeals for witnesses after each new case underscore how many incidents may go unreported or unresolved.

The Schwäbisch Gmünd events add to a ledger of cases stretching back years, where similar profiles of suspects and similar gaps in transparency have appeared repeatedly. …

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Mark Wauck: Mearsheimer: Optimist Or Pessimist?

Mearsheimer finishes on a pessimistic note. He calls up the example of Vietnam. When Johnson bowed out it was clear that he knew he had lost the war. But Nixon and Kissinger spent years trying to find some clever way to win the war. It didn’t work, but it does look like the same dynamic could be at play with Trump—once a modern state gets into a war it’s well-nigh impossible to simply call it quits. And especially not when that involves a surrender of hegemony.
What’s going on today in Trump’s engagement with Iran? Let’s walk this back a bit.

As soon as Trump submitted to the surrender terms that Iran presented to him in the MOU that he was required to sign, he immediately began trying to wriggle out of the MOU. He began insisting that the US had the right to set up its own route through the Strait of Hormuz; he tried to back out of the requirement to shut down Israel’s war in Lebanon; and he tried to talk the Iranian negotiators into discussing nuclear issues before complying with the MOU—as well as misrepresenting the Iranian position on those issues. Now, it happens that the Iranian negotiators may have contributed to some of that confusion, but the IRGC clarified all that—most recently by striking five ships that had tried, at US instigation, to ignore the Iranian regime in the strait.

What happened next was that Trump began striking at Iran again—violating the MOU and the ceasefire. And Iran retaliated. But the US strikes seem to have come to an end, as of last night. For the time being. The cessation of US strikes was accompanied by the usual childish Trumpian insults directed at Iran and Iranians. Larry Johnson suggested that Trump’s over the top rhetorical reaction was a typical sign from Trump that the Iranian retaliation had been extremely heavy and effective—Trump’s complaint that Iranians are “violent” certainly lends credibllity to that suggestion.

That brings us to this morning. Two things happened. First, Trump claimed that Iran had called him, basically begging for talks. Trump magnanimously stated that he was OK with continuing talks but that the ceasefire was definitely over. Second, the two US aircraft carriers in the region (Bush and Lincoln) sailed into the Gulf of Oman—well within Iranian missile range and without their air defense escort ships.

John Mearsheimer, speaking with Danny Davis, addressed these events. First, he reiterated that his long held view was that Trump’s only viable course of action to avoid massive strategic humiliation and economic chaos is to sign the MOU and accept defeat. Trump has signed the MOU, but can’t seem to swallow accepting defeat. Second, Mearsheimer stated that the correct understanding of Trumpspeak is that, when Trump says the Iranians want to talk to him, that means that he wants to talk to them. In other words, Trump has been forced to recognize that the recent events are just one more in a fairly long string of failed attempts to wriggle out of accepting defeat and presenting the appearance of a victory. The moves by the two unprotected carriers were just another bit of theater.

So far, so good. But expecting Trump to follow through on any of his commitments is a fool’s errand, and there aren’t many fools in Tehran. So, for the time being, Trump may actually be toying with the option of withdrawing—despite his talk of going back to his failed blockade strategy. Another possible sign that Trump is seriously considering the opt out is that the Israelis have once again deployed their “Iranian assassination plot” gag to try to bring Trump back in line.

Mearsheimer finishes on a pessimistic note. He calls up the example of Vietnam. When Johnson bowed out it was clear that he knew he had lost the war. But Nixon and Kissinger spent years trying to find some clever way to win the war. It didn’t work, but it does look like the same dynamic could be at play with Trump—once a modern state gets into a war it’s well-nigh impossible to simply call it quits. And especially not when that involves a surrender of hegemony.

So there we are. Trump goosed the markets on Friday—that much is clear. It remains to be seen how the rest works out.

I’ll close with some relevant remarks that Doug Macgregor made today to Glenn Diesen. Excerpts:

I don’t think President Trump has any idea how dangerous his statements are and how foolish he looks in front of the world and how easily he’s being manipulated by the wrong people.

It’s this parent child relationship that Trump attempts to establish everywhere he goes with everyone and the rest of the world, you know. ‘Well, I told them they have a chance and they want a deal. Well, if they want a deal, they’ll have to do what I say.’

‘Oh, the Iranians are desperate. They want a deal.’ Well, guess what? The Iranians are on a full war footing. Are we? No. And if you’re going to fight them in the region where they live on their doorstep, you better think long and hard about what that means because you’re in for a long fight in a real war. And again, we’re not prepared for that. I don’t give a damn what he says publicly. We’re not. You know, the Navy has now admitted that they have more launchers and more tubes for missiles than they have missiles to fire. He’s out in the open.

This is a Jewish war waged against Iran. I say ‘Jewish’ because it’s by no means exclusively Israeli. It involves the Jewish lobby here in the United States and the massive numbers of billionaires that constitute the backbone of it. They effectively own—lock, stock, and barrel—not just Donald Trump, but the Hill. Mr. Netanyahu when he embarked on this war. This was a war to the finish, he was talking in effectively from the very beginning in scorched earth terms.

Or is this again just talk? Well, you remember the operation in Isfahan where we tried to insert special operations forces with considerable air support and expertise from the CIA and so forth on the grounds that they were within range of plutonium that could be I guess acquired and then spirited out of the country. That ended in disaster. It was covered or concealed, if you will, by this supposed officer who had been shot down that had to be recovered. That was kind of a cover story. And what we discovered was that, in a part of Iran where we thought they would be vulnerable, they didn’t turn out to be vulnerable. And so once again, it was a question of have we underestimated the regime? Have we underestimated the military establishment, its various systems, human and remote? Well, I guess we did. And I think a number of people said—in fact, I know they did—they were grateful that this happened because it put an end to Trump’s fantasy that we could replicate what we did in Venezuela.

You do have people that have talked about Chabahar–seizing that port, because it’s outside of the Gulf, on the theory that if you gained control of Chabahar that would give you leverage over Iran. I haven’t quite figured out what that leverage is, strategically. I think the Iranians would probably take the Russian position. ‘Well, if they’re going to seize Chabahar, we’ll defend it if we can, but if we can’t, we’ll make sure they seize nothing.’ So then are you going to use the ruins of Chabahar as your launchpad for penetrating Iranian airspace once again, with helicopters and B2s, to take control of, say, Bandar Abbas? Or are you going to try to fly from the UAE right across the Gulf? I think everybody’s saying, ‘Wait a minute!’ If you’re looking for something clean, decisive, and effective, this may not be a good option. But I don’t know who’s there. You’ve listened to General Kellogg and General Keane. I think they would probably support any of those options. I don’t know. I assume so. They’ll do whatever in order to widen this war in the hopes that by doing so they can bring Iran to its knees. I don’t see that happening.