First off, it is a bad film. Let’s get that out of the way. I am not claiming it is a worthy contribution to the Western artistic canon. It is cheap, badly-written “shlock” entertainment. My claim is only that it is good for the White nationalist cause.

Of course, the film is already massively successful and will become a cultural milestone whether you and I support it or not. Even if you are not interested in the film or not persuadable, this essay will hopefully be useful as an analysis of bad arguments and a demonstration of better ones.

I will go through all of the arguments against it that I have seen.

The lead actor is Jewish

First, Armie Hammer didn’t write the script, so his ethnic background is of limited relevance. However, people on our side often take this kind of thing as a sign that “shenanigans are afoot”; even if he didn’t write it, he took the lead role, which must mean he understands the film to be operating in Jewish interests (and therefore, the film must be operating in Jewish interests, even if we can’t see how it is).

That chain of reasoning falls apart, however, as soon as one realises that Hammer is really not a Jew anyway. Not only is he not halachically Jewish, he is three times over not halachically Jewish, coming from three generations of White Christian mothers:

Armand Hammer (J) + Olga Vadimovna von Root (C)
→ Julian Armand Hammer (1/2 J)

Julian Armand Hammer + Glenna Sue Ervin (C)
→ Michael Armand Hammer (1/4 J)

Michael Armand Hammer + Dru Ann Mobley (C)
→ Armie Hammer (1/8 J)

This would have been enough to satisfy some very hard-to-satisfy people. In another time and place, Michael Hammer might have been wearing a Hugo Boss uniform and Armie might have been in a certain youth organisation.

Ah, but he had his children by a Jewish woman! No, he didn’t.

Ah, but, despite being only 1/8th Jewish, he has described himself as “1/2 Jewish”! The paranoid explanation for this is that his Jewish ancestry must be very important to him. Occam’s Razor would say he thought it would help his career in Hollywood; exaggerating or even faking Jewishness has helped so many actors that even Caryn Elaine Johnson laughably tried it.

Ah, but he has a Hebrew tattoo! Most likely, he got it for some standard Millennial “it’s my ancestry” reasons.

Uwe Boll intends Sanders to be Jewish

This argument is that, even if Hammer isn’t really Jewish, his tattoo must mean that his character Sanders is Jewish, and this will condition the gentile public to see Jews as our saviours.

First, do you really think Uwe Boll was thinking at that level?

Second, even if he did hope for this effect, do you really think it will succeed? Do you think the normie general public, glimpsing that tattoo, will recognise it as a Hebrew symbol, then assume it means the character is Jewish, and from that take the lesson that Jews are our saviours? If you do, I think you need to be on medication.

In all likelihood, when ordinary viewers glimpse that tattoo, none of them will have a clue what it is. If this was a Boll manoeuvre to subtly condition the masses into accepting Jewish supremacism, it was even more far-fetched and ridiculous than his film’s storyline.

The vastly more likely explanation for the tattoo being there is that Boll, insisting on toplessness for the sex scene, didn’t have the budget to digitally erase the tattoo, or more likely didn’t care and didn’t know what it meant anyway. If he did know what it meant, he probably hoped it would help stave off allegations that he (Boll) is a White supremacist.

However, given that there is not a single other suggestion of Sanders being Jewish in the entire film, I think Boll didn’t even know what the tattoo meant.

The film was funded by Jews/Israel

As far as I can tell, this is completely untrue. My understanding is that it was funded by Uwe Boll himself (some sort of tax write-off scheme).

However, even if it were true, that wouldn’t change the content of the film, whose likely effect on the general public can be judged in isolation from its funding.

It is distributed by a Jewish-owned company

Of course, because every film distribution company is owned by Jews. I have read that Quiver - owned by two supposedly hardcore Zionist Jews - got the US distribution rights to the film because they were the only company that made an offer.

On the face of it, this is a good argument, except for two things:

First, Jewish film distributors tend to like money. Once the controversy started, it would have been obvious to Messrs. Sackman and Meyerowitz that there was big money to be made, which is enough of an explanation for them buying the distribution rights.

Second, none of this changes the effect the film is likely to have on the general public.

Hollywood is not our friend

Indeed, but this is not a Hollywood film.

But even if it were, that wouldn’t change the effect the film is likely to have on the general public.

Uwe Boll is a Zionist cuck who did a Holocaust film

True, but so what? Something can be true yet have no bearing on the matter at hand. The film is still the film it is, and will still have the same effect, regardless of his previous (and future) films and, indeed, regardless of his beliefs.

Uwe Boll doesn’t agree with us about race

Again, so what? Do you think the ordinary viewer will take the time to go and research the director’s political stances? That is an absolutely ridiculous notion. People in our sphere really need to understand that Joe Public thinks in very broad, simplistic and obvious terms. He is not nearly interested enough to do the research that would steer him away from the nationalist instincts that the film clearly pushes him towards.

Uwe Boll didn’t intend this to be a racial identitarian clarion call

Yet again, this is irrelevant. (There are so many irrelevant things that people persuade themselves “change the game”.) His intentions with the film are completely superseded by what the film actually achieves.

Having said that, I think Boll’s intentions are a big step in our direction: to embolden the general public to say that diversity doesn’t work and that most Third World people haven’t integrated into the West, won’t ever do so, and probably can’t do so. I think he believes this on cultural/religious grounds, not racial, but who cares? It works for us.

It’s exactly what the Establishment wants!

How…?

Because it might encourage “copycat” behaviour which can be prosecuted? That’s hardly worth the price of legitimising nativism.

Because it blames everything on Muslims? But it doesn’t. The killing in the opening scene is by a Black guy. He might be Muslim, or he might not be.

Because it neglects to “name the Jew”? True, but it still argues that diversity doesn’t work.

The banning is part of the trick!

This argument is that Boll and his (supposed) Jewish collaborators ensured the film got banned in Germany so as to achieve notoriety and “sell” the idea that the film is dangerous, when actually it is exactly what the establishment wants (see above).

First, the ban affects only one country (Germany).

Second, it’s not exactly “banned” in Germany. The ratings board has chosen not to give it a rating, which merely means that cinemas will not “want” to screen it.

Third, how could Boll “ensure” his film got banned? By including the crucial climactic scene which he had to include anyway? The film’s narrative would be severely hampered without that family execution.

Fourth, why would the German state do anything to help a film which explicitly rejects the open-borders mania of the German state? Much more likely is that, seeing the finished film, the ratings board shook their heads in despair and chose not to “dignify” it with a rating. What else could they do?

Fifth, to what extent has the film exploded because of the ban, really, rather than because of endorsements from Elon Musk? I’ll agree that the ban helped somewhat, but even then, that doesn’t mean the ban was intended to help. Not everything that happens is intended.

Nothing happens by accident

This is an example of the “everything is a psy-op” mentality. Paranoid nuttery, it holds that virtually everything that animates the public towards our ideas is actually a trick to ward them away from our ideas by misdirecting them - limited hangouts. So, if something looks too good to be true, that’s because it’s false! “Don’t be fooled, people!”

Okay, so how does the success of Citizen Vigilante harm our cause? It doesn’t. It helps our cause. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is it was indeed made (and then thrust into notoriety) by a series of accidents: a cucked Boomer pissed off enough by mass rape and murder to make a quasi-racist film, a German ratings board inevitably leftist enough to ban such a film, and two Jewish film distributors greedy enough for money to buy the rights to such a film.

It doesn’t point to the real perpetrators behind the Great Replacement

First, neither does Renaud Camus.

Second, of course it doesn’t. Uwe Boll is a Boomer German racked with Holocaust guilt!

Third, so what? Do you want everything to happen at once? If it did, do you think the general public would be receptive? Or would including that angle give them an excuse to reject the pro-White angle? (The answer is it would.)

Better reasons to condemn the film

All of the above reasons for condemning the film are retarded, but here is a good reason. It could be used to dismiss all right-wing/nativist art and drama as bad quality and undeserving of funding. But in most countries the institutions already believed that and would never give us funding anyway. I think the days of trying to persuade captured institutions to fund our projects are long, long over.

Reasons to celebrate it

What we on the Right need is new distribution systems and new institutions to fund our projects, and Citizen Vigilante might prompt some billionaires to realise the potential here, leading to films that surpass it artistically (which wouldn’t be difficult).

I have mentioned several times “the effect it is likely to have on the general public”. Let us spell out that effect.

Even if the film was funded, written or performed by Jews (which it wasn’t) you still need to look instead at the film itself, because everything else is actually irrelevant.

The ordinary viewer will take Citizen Vigilante at face value and see in it the vindication of his forbidden concerns. It tells him he is not alone and that he is not wrong.

Now, there are dangers consequent to this event (he gets led astray) but the event in itself is not a bad thing. And the alternative is that Joe Public never sees his concerns vindicated.

Many normies are watching Citizen Vigilante. We know this because it has shot to the top of several global streaming charts, including Amazon and Apple. Many, many people are being told for the first time that their feelings are valid, the problems are real, and the solutions to them are necessary.

Conclusion

People in our sphere need to learn to take a win when it’s handed to them. We are so accustomed to losing, we can’t believe it when something happens in our favour, so we invent reasons as to why it is actually a trick.

Instead of looking at the most likely explanation for something, we look for the most grotty explanation.

Instead of celebrating its most likely (even if unintended) effects, we forecast the most detrimental effects it could have, then persuade ourselves that the thing was only made in the first place so as to have those (unlikely) detrimental effects.

If this movement were a mental patient, the psychiatrist would be rubbing his hands.

They are very formulaic: an ordinary guy who abides by the law, pays his taxes and believes in the system, suddenly finds himself betrayed by it, and decides to get revenge and right a societal and moral wrong. Thus, built into the formula are both personal retribution (selfish, satisfying) and abstract justice (altruistic, duty). This is why, as predictable and silly as these films are, they are often highly enjoyable.

The genre is inherently masculine. We see a guy on a mission, working on his own, using tools, solving problems, improvising, bucking the system, striking out, acting in secret, and asserting himself brutally… but in the name of good. Implicit in the formula is the idea that social systems might be inadequate and it might be necessary to break the rules, to literally take the law into one’s own hands. Men find that exciting, women find it very troubling. Tellingly, so do liberals.

The genre is almost custom-designed for exploitation, and indeed every vigilante film turns out to be exactly that: trashy titillation of the audience’s base lust for revenge and a knee-jerk conception of “justice” which callously brushes aside all the post-war dictums about crime being an understandable result of social inequity, deprivation, marginalisation, etc. Women find that upsetting. Tellingly, so do liberals.

It’s no surprise that the genre has always met with lofty disapproval from liberal critics. They despair of the public’s base appetites, and wish film-makers had enough integrity not to make such obvious, reactionary, crowd-pandering slop.

The genre is inherently poised against liberals. It takes as a given that the civilised West is too weak on crime, that bad people do bad because they are bad and therefore the only solution is to meet violent wrong with violent right. When evil outwits lawful good, chaotic good must be allowed to intercede. For the liberal, this is a quadruple-whammy:

• we should be “cruel” to criminals (disadvantaged, misunderstood)

• people are not blank slates, and can be born evil

• our liberal system is unfit for purpose

• there are times when no organised social system can suffice. This throws into doubt the very possibility that we can ever fully transcend primitive animal existence.

Worst of all for the liberal is that he feels the same rush of joy that we all feel when the vigilante “takes out the trash”, putting a bullet through the brains of the beast who raped an innocent young woman. That bastard thought he’d got away with it, tricked the system, fooled that judge, and perhaps on his way out of the courthouse even mocked his victim… well, now he has paid the ultimate price for being a piece of shit. How can anyone resist feeling pleasure about that? The liberal can’t.

And so the vigilante genre shows the liberal that he is an animal, after all. Despite his pretensions and all those books he read about intersectional wiffle-waffle, deep down he is just like the reactionary right-wingers he despises.

Moreover, while it is true that vigilante films satiate a primitive instinct in the viewer, it seems likely that people will be most amenable to such satiation when their society really is too soft on crime. The spate of vigilante films in the 1970s, headed by Death Wish, were responding to a widespread feeling in America at the time that the courts were too often betraying the public by releasing violent scum back onto the streets. Whether it was a bloated bureaucracy, a lily-livered judge, a corrupt district attorney, the “expert” testimony of a Marxist professor, or the pleadings of a milksop female social worker, the system had become ineffectual, and the result was the dystopian squalor of inner city New York, Detroit, Chicago…

Though the vigilante genre fell out of fashion, it never went away. In fact there has been a steady stream of vigilante movies ever since 1965. As Hollywood declines and relies more and more on formula, there is one formula that is always reliable.

But the genre has never evolved. For fifty years it has ruminated on the same social ills. What is notable about the film we will discuss is that it drags the genre kicking and screaming from the 1970s to the 2020s.

The average liberal instinctively bristles at the tropes of classical vigilante cinema - “soft judges”, “nanny state”, “timid policing”, “moral decline”, “criminal parasites living off hard-working decent ordinary people” - but they long ago came to accept the genre as a necessary sop to right-wing idiots. I think the attitude was: “Let them have their trashy bread and circuses, if it keeps them docile while we remake their world around them.” After all, the tropes referred to realities that were incidental, not fundamental.

But today there are new realities, which today’s liberal cannot stand to see acknowledged because this strikes at the core of his worldview. These realities are fundamental, not incidental.

The first reality is that diversity has, far from improving White societies, degraded them in every way - economically, morally, culturally, socially, legally, educationally, physically, visually, aurally, olfactorily, and even medically.

The second reality is that the above degradation, far from a temporary side-effect of diversity, is inherent to it, unavoidable.

The third reality is that this permanent link between diversity and degradation is clearly known by the powers-that-be. Worse still, given that they continually advocate more diversity, they must actively desire the degradation that it brings.

The liberal cannot stand the idea that elite advocates of diversity advocate it, not because they agree with the liberal that diversity is good, but because they know that diversity is bad. This would mean that the liberal is a fool and has been played, and furthermore, that the elite do not love the liberal and see him as their equal, but despise him and see him as their useful idiot. This means he is not the thinking, discerning sophisticate he has always believed himself to be, but a gormless dupe who “thinks” whatever he has been told. (Which he is.)

Obvious lies can be tolerated easily, even happily, because they are obviously lies. Truths, even subtle ones, are painful.

And loud truths, truths spoken crudely and rudely, without any sense of decorum or nuance or good taste, truths that crash into your day like a fascist T-Rex, are unbearable.

Citizen Vigilante is a contemporary vigilante film written, produced and directed by the German am-auteur Uwe Boll. Aged 61, Boll has a long history of making films that are panned by critics and audiences alike.

Hollywood actor Armie Hammer had been “cancelled” in 2021 and was looking for a come-back vehicle. Boll persuaded him to play the lead in his new low-budget flick. What it will do for Hammer’s career is as yet unknown.

Objectively, Citizen Vigilante is a bad film. The production is competent enough. The real shortcomings stem from the script.

Sometimes I burst out laughing. Some scenes I couldn’t stop laughing throughout. It is bad, but it is enjoyable.

There isn’t really a storyline. What linear events occur are needlessly (perhaps to disguise the lack of a storyline) presented in a random order. One would say the film is more a character study, if it did any character studying. It is perhaps best described as simply a sketch of a situation.

American soldier Michael Sanders is visiting his ancestral country, an unnamed one in Europe. Apparently, he came to attend his father’s funeral and assume the running of his business empire, expecting it to be a fairly short visit, but ended up sticking around once he realised there was a need for brutal vigilante justice in the city, in the country, in the continent.

We don’t see any of that. The factors and process that led to his vigilantism are not important to Boll, who assumes that the audience already “get” the situation in Europe. His intent is to show that something can be done about it.

A narrative device throughout the film is a newsreader (with an oddly archaic English accent) giving updates on the situation. Except, she doesn’t really give updates. Most of the time, she just says what Boll clearly wants the audience to think. She speaks in a calm and precise way while being shamelessly partisan, couching rhetorical “questions” in an absurdly thin veneer of impartiality.

As well as the brazen one-sidedness, another thing we quickly notice about Citizen Vigilante is the generic-ness. This might be incompetence on Boll’s part or it might be deliberate, because the story is applicable all across Europe.

The filming location was Zagreb but absolutely nothing of Croatian culture is shown. Instead, we see a nondescript “modern European city” in which the architecture could be anywhere, the only culture is globalist consumerism, and all the people speak in American English with placeless “Eurotrash” accents. This extends even to lead actor Costas Mandylor, who is Australian but here adopts an amalgam of European accents (perhaps fittingly given that his character works for Interpol).

Depicting a generic “European city” feels lazy and offensive, but then I remember all those Hollywood films I grew up with, set in generic “American City”. Often they were not even shot in America - Toronto or Vancouver serving as generic stand-ins for a different country!

But we take it for granted that European countries are more distinctive, with deeper histories and more pronounced cultures, than the New World. Therefore it is depressing to see “Europe” presented as a blended puree, retarded by American entertainment, filleted by the 20th Century, de-souled by global capital, and now raped by kaleidoscopic immigration from every corner of the Third World, destroying the uniqueness of each European country. But this is exactly what has happened. Like other aspects of the film, what Boll did with the setting might be audacious or accidental, but is accurate.

Sanders does not quite fit the classical vigilante mould, an everyman victimised by the corrupt system. He is more like Bruce Wayne, being the orphan heir to a fortune and thus having plenty of time and resources to expend on “healing society’s sickness”. (Actually, back in 2007 Armie Hammer was cast as Bruce Wayne, for a film that was never made.) What he does have in common with the classical vigilante is military experience, having served in the US army. He is thus a highly-disciplined expert in weapons and killing. Convenient? No more so than his apparently limitless wealth.

Also convenient for the plot is his limitless resourcefulness. He can obtain heroin, a clean syringe, infinite guns and ammunition, the personal phone number for an Interpol officer, a shed-sized bulletproof iron safe, and cars that won’t be traced back to him.

But more convenient still is his limitless immunity from police detection. Sanders has no fear whatsoever of CCTV evidence, fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence, or witnesses. Where the classical vigilante must operate incognito, and Bruce Wayne must invent a complete alternative persona, Sanders simply marches in, kills the bad guys while delivering some political commentary, and marches out. He even does this in broad daylight, so unafraid is he of being seen, detected, filmed, tracked, recognised or accosted. At times it was like watching the T-800 mechanically going about its mission, until I remembered that, with its artificial skin, the T-800 actually does wear a disguise.

Sanders is constantly serious, unfriendly and humourless. In virtually every shot he has a hilarious expression, something between steely rage and steely disgust. He can be walking on a sunny day yet looking as if someone just keyed his car. Only once and very briefly in the entire film does he smile. He does it for no apparent reason while on a bus:

On one occasion, when a barmaid has to go away for a moment, he dreamily says “I’ll watch the bar”. His voice, in this single moment, has a note of irony. This might have been an oversight by the director, because every other line of dialogue is delivered by Hammer in robotic monotone. (I was impressed, actually, by his ability to memorise long screeds of political and social commentary.)

For the first half of the film Sanders is an enigma, with almost no character sketching whatsoever. The only thing we are shown is that he is bothered by dilapidation: he photographs the decay on one of his buildings, and is angered by human apathy causing wall plaster to rot. Presumably this reflects his irritation with the decline of society being allowed to progress.

We get some insights during the film’s sex scene (which is gratuitous as the information could have been conveyed without sex): Sanders owns lots of property, has a Hebrew tattoo, is not racist (the prostitute is non-white), and is “morally ambiguous” enough to frequent prostitutes. I applaud Boll for finding a way to sketch the character of Sanders that isn’t overt dialogue, but unfortunately, the revelations are all rather pointless since none is ever developed. Like the sex scene itself, they have no bearing on the story.

Then, 48 minutes in, we get two scenes that inform us about his background. He talks about his estrangement from his parents, which he has “come to terms with” meaning that he is not angry or resentful towards the father who neglected him. There might be a question mark over whether Sanders is being honest with himself about that, but if so, Boll never explores it.

Sanders’ moral ambiguity is developed slightly. He is needlessly rude to his employees (“Smells like a nursing home in here. Let’s get some fresh blood”). He uses mafia-style intimidation tactics to force rent out of tardy tenants. Finally, to pointlessly demonstrate an obvious truth to a man who is too drugged up to understand it anyway, he pointlessly causes the death of a passing motorist.

The trouble with this “moral ambiguity” is that Boll doesn’t do anything with it. We don’t see Sanders struggling with it, tormented by his dual desires to be good and to be horrible. He seems completely content being a man who is needlessly rude and even needlessly murderous but who also puts himself at huge risk for a moral cause. Good writing would have explored a conflict; Boll’s bad writing merely presents a contradiction.

Boll seems to have intended Sanders to have some depth, but didn’t know how to go about it. He never has any doubts, never changes his mind, never has a learning experience, never makes any mistakes.

But then again… would you really want him to? That brings us to the question of what this film is for, what this film is. And, whatever delusions Boll might have about his abilities as a film-maker, I think he knew what he intended this film to be, and I think he succeeded.

Sanders is a one-note character because that is what ordinary Europeans, tormented by mass immigration, want to see: a man just getting the job done. Citizen Vigilante is a film aimed squarely at those people. Boll has no interest in “showing both sides of the issue”. He knows, as we do, that the other side of the issue has been broadcast ad nauseum, for decades. We know the claims, we know the counter-claims, and we know the situation is intractable and that liberals are beyond persuading. There is a need only to take action against them and the dystopia they have built.

Billionaires Elon Musk and Duncan Bannatyne have endorsed Citizen Vigilante.

Liberals, of course, are apoplectic, about that endorsement and about the film itself. Their first go-to was to pretend to believe it is an elaborate joke, that Boll is merely trolling. He immediately clarified that he is not trolling; the film is meant seriously and straightforwardly.

Captured (like all institutions) review website Rotten Tomatoes did its usual thing, its “professional” critics vastly out of step with its public reviewers.

In theory the professionals are correct: this is a bad film. But in reality that doesn’t matter, both because the film shows the real situation in Europe and the real feelings of Europeans, and because the Left has lost the right to condemn anything on artistic grounds, having long ago degraded all of their art into crass propaganda.

But of course, when the Right do the same, that’s terrible. For the Left, it is always outrageous to see the Right having an opinion, and especially having a platform on which to voice it. They assume that, being right-wing, our perspective is inherently invalid, since validity comes as a quality of left-wing-ness, and therefore it is both unnecessary and unwise to allow us to speak.

After decades of that oppression in the media, academia and online, the Right have begun to seize the means of culture production, without giving any lip-service to impartiality. The result is a million memes that voice our worldview, cartoons like Murdoch Murdoch and The Will Stancil Show, online festivals like Millenniyule and Decameron, and films like Citizen Vigilante. These works come unapologetically from a right-wing perspective.

In the meantime, the same “hardening” has occurred on the Left, though for the opposite reason. The Right hardened because we were excluded from the institutions; the Left hardened because they had total control of the institutions.

The result is a film like One Battle After Another, a shameless leftist screed, completely one-sided, doctrinaire and supportive of leftist violence and terrorism. Other organs on the Left, having in their decadence lost all self-awareness, praised and celebrated the film. It was awarded no fewer than six Oscars, among a slew of accolades so extensive that there is a dedicated Wikipedia page.

With leftist propaganda as shrill as One Battle After Another, nobody should be surprised that the Right give up on “being reasonable” and “meeting them in the middle”, and simply produce a film like Citizen Vigilante.

So, is this how entertainment will be now? The Left and Right in a race to the bottom, competing to make the most crude, prejudice-affirming propaganda? Perhaps. But if so, our films will be the truthful ones, and this war of attrition will result in a Left exposing itself as utterly morally and intellectually bankrupt. Stripped to the bare bones, deprived of artistry and budget, our version of the world rings true, while theirs, bloated with expertise and prestige, discards all subtlety and reveals itself as insane, dishonest and suicidal.

Uwe Boll is clearly not a deep thinker. In an interview with Jared Taylor, he comes across as very much “an ordinary bloke”. This is why he is not an artist; he lacks the thoughtfulness and sensitivity that lead to art. But it is also why he would make something as crude as Citizen Vigilante, which can function as a battering ram and a rallying call, reducing the Left to “I can’t even” spluttering while emboldening more thoughtful right-wingers to make films that are better than it.

The danger is always the “limited hangout”, the release valve that seems to sympathise but actually misdirects. People have pointed out that Citizen Vigilante is distributed by a Jewish company, its lead actor is of Jewish descent (although he is only 1/8th Jewish!), its protagonist is apparently somewhat Jewish, and its narrative is more anti-Islam than pro-White.

The last is the most interesting for me. For all the fuss the Left have made about this film, it really isn’t racist. It repeatedly states that the problem is not race but integration, that what is at stake is not genetics but values. In the climactic scene, Sanders chides a Muslim family not for their religion or ethnicity but for their “commitment to religion over democracy and over anything else, including the rule of law”.

It is not even anti-Islam per se. Sanders condemns “archaic values” but also says that among Islamic populations there are “good ones” as well as “bad ones”.

As for a traditional White society, the film never yearns for that. No comment is made on the awful modern architecture or the dead culture. Everyone speaks English and consumes products, and it’s fine.

So what this film advocates is kosher, race-blind, civic globalism.

Boll doesn’t care about race. He just wants them to integrate. If they do, Sanders won’t blow their brains out.

The trouble - for Boll, for Sanders, and for civic nationalists everywhere - is that these people, en masse, cannot integrate.

And everyone who celebrates the film knows that. Even the film itself seems to know that, implicitly; if you are at the point of summarily executing entire families, that would seem to be well beyond any hope of their co-ethnics integrating. Killing the bad ones isn’t meant to “encourage the others” - it’s meant to scare them shitless so that they self-deport.

Thus, the lingering message is not “if we kill enough of the bad ones, we can make diversity work”. The message is: “diversity doesn’t work”.

As a result, I am not worried about the Jewish involvement in this film. I think their intentions rather fall by the wayside in the face of what the film achieves. It gives voice to a disenfranchised majority. Will the Left take heed, and begin making balanced films or even right-wing films? Of course not! But that isn’t the goal. The goal is to legitimate and articulate the nativist viewpoint. The Left cannot win here: admitting error is not an option for them, but the more they refuse to admit error, the more they show themselves to be irredeemable.

So in summary… is Citizen Vigilante a good film? No, but I am glad it exists.

We should think of Uwe Boll as a cinematic vigilante. He broke the rules and did a bad thing, a terrible thing, but he did it in the name of good.

Constituting 0.9% (535,517) of the British population, Sikhs are perhaps the minority we hear least about. Blacks and Muslims (especially Pakistanis) are for obvious reasons often in the news. Chinese run restaurants. Hindus do well in business and own lots of property. Japanese crop up in academia and tech. Sikhs just seem to keep to themselves.

Their reputation is difficult to pin down but they are certainly seen as more masculine than Hindus, who are generally seen as quite feminine and passive (and at worst, sneaky and treacherous). By contrast Sikhs are seen as the guys who are direct with you, old-fashioned, traditional and formidable coming from a martial creed, but also honourable, law-abiding and peaceful.

More recently, there is the archetype of “the cool Sikh”. Almost never encountered in real life, the cool Sikh is lively, confident, a bit quirky, warm-hearted, and of course completely at one with the hyper-modernity of today’s diverse, pro-LGBT Britain. And he knows some kick-ass recipes.

Among some people-of-flat-design there might be one with a turban, and that’s him. There he is, smiling along with the others, happy in our glorious new world in which difference is not a cause for concern, but a cause for delight, and yet at the same time completely inconsequential because (lest we forget!) we all bleed red and are exactly the same. He is the modern, westernised Sikh, who (we tell ourselves) is typical of his kind.

In fact the opposite trend is occurring. The more multi-racial Britain becomes, the less Sikhs see any reason or need to integrate. Like Pakistani Muslims, where they integrate it is in the sense of taking part in the degeneracy that the modern West makes possible - the drugs, the alcohol, the casual sex.

Moreover, there is increasing resentment among them towards Britain for, in the past and even now, supposedly oppressing their ancestral culture. Professor Gurnam Singh was quoted in the Digwa trial:

Over the last 30 years, there has been a trend towards younger people wearing a kirpan with pride, in a desire to express their cultural identity. They see it as an act of resistance to being denied the ability otherwise to display their identity.

I don’t believe they have ever been denied this ability, except perhaps, in the days before PC and inclusivity, in select environments such as offices and building sites, all of which will have long changed their ways and would today be terrified of imposing such restrictions on the young Sikhs who, nevertheless, are convinced of oppression.

This is simply entitlement, emerging as a direct result of the British state placating them and tiptoeing around their sensitivities. With some peoples, the more you accommodate them, the more they despise you and convince themselves you despise them.

This growing sense of entitlement also explains why Sikhs are, like all minority groups today, convinced that hate speech against them is rising. Sikhs were complaining about this even before the Digwa trial, as well as complaining that special provisions for Muslims will impact them. Diversity doesn’t seem to be their strength.

While leftists are happy with any and all minorities being in the country and replacing us, conservatives always have to rationalise their support for what is, after all, an existential threat to everything they hold dear. They tend to use the same rationale for every single minority group: “X-group are natural conservatives!” With Sikhs, the evidence available for this delusion is their traditional garb, religious piety, masculine presence, and apparent law-abiding nature. For civic nationalists obsessed with counter-jihad, Sikhs win additional points simply because they are NOT MUSLIMS. For all of these reasons, the centre-right will declare:

Read more

Stephen Ogilvie is, and always was, what luckier people sometimes call “a poor soul”. Not bright, not talented, not impressive, not fortunate… but good. Unable to make much of a mark on the world, he wanted to at least do what he could: he helped the people around him.

Last week in Belfast, he helped two African men. Hadi Alodid and Younis Arabi were moving into the flat downstairs. He did “everything he could” for them. After a few days the Africans’ relationship with this local man who was trying to help them went downhill. One of them attacked, disfigured and maimed him. Maybe he had looked at them the wrong way.

Well, now he will never look at anyone again. Alodid gouged his eyes, blinding him forever. He also slashed his face and his neck, many times. Once “recovered”, Ogilvie will look like something from a horror film. If he is lucky, he will not understand how dire his situation is. But he will be traumatised and will probably spend the rest of his life in a state of vague terror that what happened to him could, now that he is much more vulnerable, happen to him again at any moment. The small amount of independence he had has been taken away. He will be helpless.

The ruination of this poor man’s life is entirely on you, the British establishment, comprising the government, civil service and mainstream media.

Civilisation requires that the low respects the high and the high protects the low. That is the bargain. This dynamic produces a functional, sustainable culture that handles truth with integrity and uses resources sensibly.

The price of status is that the high have a moral duty towards the low. Rich people look after the poor. Intelligent people organise the unintelligent. Educated people steward the ignorant. Able and well-connected people solve problems for the helpless. Above all, the establishment - ostensibly comprising the most intelligent, educated, able and well-connected people around - look after everything that is beyond ordinary people to look after, from the borders to the emergency services and the welfare state.

People like you - intelligent, connected, aware - have a moral duty to protect people like Stephen Ogilvie - simple, vulnerable, naive. You failed in that duty. He is the latest in a very long line of your failures. You failed to protect countless thousands of young English girls from being preyed upon by foreign men (yes, foreign men, because they are not British and never will be). You failed to protect Henry Nowak. You failed to protect Charlene Downes. You failed to protect Kriss Donald. You failed to protect this girl in Dundee. You failed to protect a million and more White Britons who, unfortunately for them, needed you to protect them.

They needed you to protect them, first and foremost, by not injecting into their communities people who are much more likely to commit violent crime.

People from the Third World are much more likely to commit violent crime.

Your predecessors knew this (it’s common sense) but let them into Britain anyway. Once they proved the stereotypes accurate, your predecessors let more of them in. This happened a hundred times since 1948, culminating with Boris Johnson’s extraordinary treachery (treason) in admitting over two million such people in 2021-23. In this crime against the British people he was aided by Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman, two traitors who now hope to bedazzle the British people once again under the guise of Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage who proves his treachery by not ejecting them both immediately.

Farage declares that race doesn’t matter, anyone can become British, we mustn’t alienate Muslims, and it’s fine if we get replaced to extinction in our own homeland. Farage is already in your club, but he hopes to rise within it and knows he must therefore say these things. This is what you require of politicians: acquiescence, treachery, deceit.

Your requirements of the general public are equally outrageous. You do not merely demand that we accept Third Worlders. You do not merely demand that we tolerate them. You actually demand that we celebrate them. If delusion is impossible for us, you demand that we pretend to celebrate them. The least you will accept from us is silence. If we complain, you punish us.

To be clear… Your crime is not merely that you refuse to solve a problem. It is that you have caused and are maintaining and continually worsening the problem.

Some have likened it to “the emperor’s new clothes”, but it is worse than that, because the emperor’s nakedness did not bring barbarism and misery upon his citizens. Your fantasy does. You demand that we believe in and love something that is destroying us.

Anyone would think that you viscerally hate us and want us extinct. (Your bosses in global finance certainly do. Maybe you just want promotion.)

Usually you don’t punish us directly. The government and judiciary are only two of the weapons you use to oppress us. You have a whole infrastructure in place to punish us indirectly - the media, NGOs, antifa, Hope Not Hate, all backed up by corrupt, fraudulent academics. Destruction of reputation and livelihood are your favoured techniques, because they maintain your “plausible deniability”.

But you are also perfectly willing to use law. Indeed you make sure to use it disproportionately against us, giving more harsh sentences than to foreigners who commit the same crimes. This is your two-tier anarcho-tyranny.

It works well in the short term. In the long term, it destroys your legitimacy.

You arrest us, seize our devices (and needlessly retain them for years), keep us in legal limbo, imprison us for ridiculous so-called “crimes”… and when one of your Third World pets brutalises one of us, you pressure the victim’s family into issuing blatantly fake statements…

Know this: everything you do is being seen, logged and judged, and eventually you will be held accountable.

Likewise, every Third Worlder who commits some terrible crime against us, is a mark against you who let them in - and eventually you will be held accountable.

Of course, you are thinking “listen to this fool, thinking we have power over every little incident that goes on in the country!” but you do. You have the power at the border, where you choose to accept people you must know are highly likely to be violent, impulsive, low IQ savages. Hadi Alodid is just one of millions of examples.

He came from Sudan, where the average IQ is 79. He travelled to Paris then, in February 2023, flew to Dublin. He entered the United Kingdom by bussing across the border into Northern Ireland. Arriving in Belfast, he immediately claimed asylum. You (specifically Rishi Sunak, Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman) soon introduced a fast-track scheme to clear the asylum backlog.

This scheme - which you opened to Sudanese, Eritreans, Syrians, Afghans, Libyans and Yemenis - meant that Alodid merely had to fill out a 10-page questionnaire. He did this (no doubt with the help of a translator you provided at our expense, since he still needs one three years later) and you rewarded him with a visa allowing him to stay here until 2028. What you expected him to do here in those five years is mysterious; Sudanese (just like Eritreans, Syrians, Afghans, Libyans and Yemenis) are not known for improving European countries. Why did you think they should be fast-tracked into our lives, rather than immediately deported?

Then Alodid spent three years in Belfast. According to police:

There is no trace of this suspect on any of our national security databases and he was not known to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

So, three years in which he didn’t attempt to brutally murder anyone… until suddenly one day he did.

You might point to those three law-abiding years and claim they make Alodid’s case somewhat ambiguous, not clear cut. But, if you had asked the British public in February 2023 whether you should admit a man from Sudan, they would have told you “no”, emphatically. But you know that. You knew it then. You also knew that they would vehemently oppose placing a Sudanese man anywhere near a vulnerable man like Stephen Ogilvie.

When they voiced this sort of opinion, you ignored them, mocked them, demonised them, fined them, and in many cases imprisoned them. Then you went ahead and placed men like Alodid next to men like Ogilvie, and now a man has been maimed for life - a man who it is your job to protect, more than it is your job to accommodate the foreigner who maimed him.

“Ah,” you say, “but most men like Alodid don’t do things like this!” Indeed. They just ruin our towns, dilute our culture, lower our social trust, intimidate our girls, and either live off us on welfare or do jobs that our own people would otherwise be doing. So we don’t want them either. But we told you that already. We’ve been telling you for sixty years and more.

You laugh about “gammon” and “Muslamic rayguns”, pour scorn on the poor and uneducated while pretending to value them. You claim virtue while making life difficult for your own people. Then, when they cannot escape the consequences of what you have done, you mock, criticise and lecture them. This is not how a society is supposed to operate.

Look again at Stephen Ogilvie, the man you should have protected.

Even before being brutalised, he wasn’t pretty. He isn’t graceful or sophisticated. He doesn’t understand much. He doesn’t listen to Debussy. He doesn’t attend plays in the West End. He hasn’t read Jane Austen. He is unfamiliar with exotic cultures and knows only the most basic form of his own.

You loathe him. After all, he will never lead anything or create anything; his achievements will be unremarkable. What kind of avatar is he of a civilisation? He is not even the “salt of the earth” working-class who keep things going. He represents the most unfortunate of our people.

But he is ours. He is yours. And he was your responsibility.

All you had to do was not make his life worse than it already was. All you had to do was not place men like Hadi Alodid near to him.

But, like a child holding a boiling kettle over insects, you wondered how “the gammon” would react to the Third World. You already knew, of course, from decades of experience, but you had to find out just one more time.

Stephen Ogilvie is paying the price for your sadism. He will pay it for the rest of his life.

I believe that these decisions will soon be taken from you. You are going to be removed from power.

Right now you are feigning outrage at the rioting in Southampton and Belfast, but I don’t think you will ultimately be defenestrated through violence. I think it will happen quite calmly. A tap on the shoulder, a routine memo, a knock on your office door. But it will be decisive. Your whimpering will be futile.

What you should really be worried about is not the manner of your removal, but the punishment you will be handed afterwards by a court of (reformed) law. Treason is taken seriously. Of course, your treason is not against the state but against the native people of your country. That there is (astonishingly) no law for that will be your only hope for mitigation.

I realise that some of you will slip through the net. A few will even, in the manner of a snake, miraculously pop up in the new regime, proclaiming that you have always believed in all of the new ideas, voicing them more energetically than anyone else, and even judging people for not being sufficiently ethnocentric. It’s nauseating but, well, that’s just you.

Most of you, though, will never hold power again.

I expect that for some of you this will be a relief. Cowardly and conformist, you know you are part of a rotten regime and you don’t feel great about it. You push the doubts aside every night when you close your eyes, and every morning when you close them again.

But for others among you, the idea of this all being over will be terrifying. You were willing to proclaim anything in order to get ahead. You didn’t care whether it was true or not, and when reality proved it false, you denied reality, and vilified us for pointing at reality. Nothing was more important to you than your personal career success, even at the expense of your ethnic group.

It seems unlikely to me that, in all of human history, there have ever been people more treacherous than you in charge of a city, a country, a former empire. Perhaps there have, but history is too disgusted to remember them.

We will make sure that you are remembered.

Like many news stories these days in Britain, this one involves multiple institutions, because they all operate together in a concert of dysfunction and insanity. These institutions include academia, the media, the judiciary, the police force, the civil service, the government, the various political parties, the charity sector, the NGOs, etc. But obviously the one most crucially implicated here is the police force. My point in naming these others is to highlight that the police force is not an island. It is part of a general regime which is highly unified, self-reinforcing, adept at rejecting criticism from “outside the tent”, and completely averse to the bitter teachings of reality.

The story of Nowak’s death is causing great public anger. There have been riots and protests, and it might not be over yet. (After all, summer has only just begun.) The issue is DEI and British policing.

What are the regime’s options?

• insist that DEI training had nothing to do with Nowak’s death. The cause was incompetence in that particular officer / the lying of the Digwa family

• agree that DEI training might have “gone too far”

• agree that DEI training has been a disaster

The problem with “gone too far” is that it implies that DEI - ie. “being a good person” - is something one can do too much of. The activist Left will obviously have a huge problem with that idea, but so will the supposedly apolitical institutions we are discussing. If DEI means being good, well, there is no limit to how good one should be. In fact, one should be as good as it is humanly possible for one to be, at all times, in all circumstances, in all ways.

But then examine what DEI entails, in British police literature:

The allegation is that this leads to a two-tier system. The regime vociferously denies that. But, as Morgoth says:

So the question is, can the regime disavow this? That would be for it to disavow, not just one isolated program or policy or training course, but its entire ideology.

However, let’s hypothesise that public pressure became so intense that the British police felt they had to admit defeat and begin rolling back DEI training. I’m not sure they would be able to roll it back.

The Macpherson Report was in February 1999, but I’m confident this goes far before that. At a minimum, we are talking about three decades of implementation. In that time, sensible people have aged out or been pushed out of policing, and been replaced with, at first, pragmatic sociopath types who don’t really have any values but know to “play the game”, but latterly by true believers, people who have never known anything else and can’t imagine that anything else could ever be “okay”, let alone desirable or better. These are women and weak-minded men who went into policing in the first place because their natures matched the mentality of the force. They didn’t have to “adapt” to it; they’d grown up with it and were at one with it already. Indeed, if they were any other way, they wouldn’t have been accepted into the modern police force.

In 2005, a friend of mine who wanted to join the police was told by a seasoned officer that there was no point in applying since, being White and straight, he didn’t stand a chance. Now, the officer was surely exaggerating because I don’t believe that, twenty years on, every single police officer is either non-white or gay. However, in the news at exactly that time was talk of a redoubled effort to get more minorities into policing, which could only mean prioritising those candidates over men like my friend. In the twenty years since, the same talk has periodically been in the news, the unrelenting need to have fewer straight White males and more of everyone else, the apparent self-disgust of a force filled with “so many white people”.

But, while this shows the mentality, it does not demonstrate the problem. After all, all of the police who attended Henry Nowak’s murder were White, so it’s not as if his treatment was due to racial difference between him and the officers. Somehow, White has been set against White. To understand that, we have to understand the principle that unifies the diversity drive with the anti-white mentality of even the remaining White officers.

It doesn’t take much explaining. It is not complicated or subtle. It is childishly stark: “White bad, everyone else good.”

This notion is internalised perhaps especially in White officers, because they have something to prove and because White people, frankly, tend to be more concerned with moral rectitude than anyone else. If the dictum is “White bad”, then they will feel a moral need to demonstrate that, whenever they have a choice, they err against White people - their own kind.

Now, the principle is never actually expressed in the stark terms above. It is couched in a whole thesaurus of academic and sociological jargon as well as countless paragraphs and PowerPoint presentations of cutesy, feelgood, trite, feminine drivel. This is not just so as to “get away with it”; it is because, if the principle were ever stated explicitly, a lot of people would realise “we’re the baddies”. Instead they are invited to arrive at the principle themselves, through their own cogitation and absorption of sundry materials and exercises.

Ideally, they will never be consciously aware of what they have arrived at, for that would enable them to question it. Instead, it will simply be the new condition of their mind, which hasn’t the latitude to reflect on its own condition. The closer a candidate is to that condition naturally, or the more easily they can be moulded towards it, or the more willing to be moulded they demonstrate themselves to be, the more likely they will get accepted into the force. And certainly, the more likely they will get promoted thereafter.

In short: once established, the reigning mentality promotes in its own image, and this become a self-fulfilling and self-refining process that, while needing to be constantly pushed, doesn’t need to be (and mustn’t ever be) explicitly stated.

That paradox of deliberate action without conscious thought is what we struggle to comprehend.

It is also what would make it very difficult to “roll back” the anti-white mentality of an institution. If the staff aren’t even aware that they have a certain belief, how can you persuade them to relinquish it?

But the situation is even worse than that. While they are unaware they hold this belief, they are simultaneously bound to it in a hundred little ways. They are conscious of those ways, and believe each one to be crucial, necessary, decent, “just being a good person”, critical for delivering a just and equitable service, a key aspect of the job, an essential performance indicator, etc. More broad than just professional probity, they will feel that each of these little ways is how they, as police officers, can be moral people and contribute towards building a good society.

So the problem is that they are unaware of the cancer, but believe that a hundred things they do which perpetuate the cancer are essential.

It will be inconceivable to them to work in any other way. For them that would mean not only being unprofessional, but being a bad person.

To see how unconscious this anti-white bias is, compare how the chief of Hampshire Police, Alexis Boon, responded to the death of a violent Black career criminal in 2022 and then to the death of the innocent Henry Nowak in 2026:

I don’t believe for a second that Boon did this consciously, for the simple reason that it looks terrible. He did something that looks terrible because it was completely natural for him to do it. Decades of training brought him to this condition.

The death of Nowak is a matter of fact, not something that moves him. He almost looks uncomfortable voicing sympathy with a White family, as if he is doing something disgusting or low-grade. By contrast, the death of a Black gangster has him gushing, impassioned, deeply sympathetic, and making an effort to imagine the emotions the gangster’s family and community are feeling. It’s over-the-top and affected, but that isn’t the point. His natural reaction - even in footage that will be seen by the general public - is to be gushing, impassioned and over-the-top towards a bereaved Black family, while sympathising with a bereaved White family is a duty he performs with apparent reticence and distaste. Henry Nowak might have been a murder victim, but he was only a White murder victim. Chris Kaba might have been a violent thug, but he was a Black violent thug.

A fish rots from the head. If this is the mentality of the chief of Hampshire Police, imagine the thinking of his subordinates when they arrive at a crime scene involving four Sikhs and one White male.

I acknowledge that his fatal injury wasn’t immediately apparent, and if it had been, doubtless the police would have behaved differently. But because it wasn’t immediately apparent, they just assumed he was lying. After all, the Sikhs were saying so. And because his speech was slurred, they assumed he was drunk. After all, the Sikhs were saying so. He was clearly mildly injured, but they assumed that came from jumping over a fence. After all, the Sikhs were saying so.

As a direct result of these assumptions, which were made so as to dutifully honour the Sikhs’ word over his, they handcuffed him. In so doing, they might have accelerated his death.

Moreover, we have to bear in mind that there were two 999 calls regarding this incident. One characterised it as a stabbing, the other as a White-on-Brown racist assault. It is unknown which of these calls was made first, but it is clear that the police enroute to the scene were informed of only one of the calls. The racism claim was prioritised over the stabbing claim even before police got to the scene. This biased them in how they would interpret what they saw once they got there.

So the problem is not just with the front-line officers but with the dispatchers who inform them. But we can see that it is also with the chief who manages them, and of course all of the tiers of command in the middle.

We can only hope that it doesn’t also infect the IOPC that is now investigating their conduct. But if the IOPC should find against the officers, it will have a choice as to whether to blame incompetence or DEI training. If it asserts that DEI training is causing critical operating problems in policing, that means it will have to be modified or outright abolished.

But then we get to the problem I described earlier. Even modifying DEI would be anathema, would seem like heresy, like evil, to the people who now staff the British police force. And they in turn have to answer to the rest of the regime - the media, academia, the government, the civil service…

In a time of universal deceit, can one institution break away and tell the truth?

Henry Nowak was an 18 year-old from Essex, of Polish descent. He was intelligent and did well at A-levels. With those, he got onto an Accountancy & Finance degree at the University of Southampton. A well-adjusted, social and ambitious young man, he was also responsible, working part-time at a supermarket to help support himself. His family said:

Henry was loved by all those that knew him. He was an incredible son, brother, cousin, grandson, nephew, friend and teammate. He was an all-round top lad and everyone who was lucky enough to share his company thought the same.

He also enjoyed sport, joining two football teams within his first term at university. On the 3rd of December, that first term was nearing its end. To celebrate, one of his teams gathered at the Hobbit pub.

At 11:07pm, Nowak left the Hobbit and began making his way home to his halls of residence - most likely Portswood House which is at the top of Belmont Road, a quiet residential street lined with big houses on both sides. He was slightly drunk from his merry-making but within the legal limit for driving. Stumbling back to halls at night… it is something that virtually every male student in Britain has done, throughout the ages. But Nowak was in modern Britain.

Vickrum Singh Digwa, a 22 year-old Sikh, lived nearby in his family’s house on St Denys Road. Oddly enough, he also worked in accountancy, being accepted by a local firm. However, his own community were wary of him; they had barred him from a temple for bad behaviour. Fulfilling religious requirements, he wore a small “kirpan” dagger around his neck, under his clothing. But he is in a Sikh order called the Nihang, for whom carrying a second weapon is customary, so he also had an eight inch “pesh-kabz” sword hanging sheathed from his waist. Aside from any religious obligations, he was “obsessed” with bladed weapons and had trained with them since the age of twelve.

On the night, Digwa had just come home from a Deliveroo shift. One report says he parked his car on Belmont Road at 11:17pm. It seems he walked some way towards his family house then went back “to fetch some curried chips” from his car.

The two men encountered each other on the pavement at number 70.

Nowak was about three-quarters of the way home. He happened to be filming a video for Snapchat at the time. In this footage, he “can be heard saying ‘hello car’ and singing to himself before yawning”. This suggests to me he was slightly drunk and tired, in a placid and light-hearted mood.

He paused filming as soon as his interaction with Digwa began, so we don’t know exactly how that happened. Digwa claims that Nowak deliberately bumped into him, then told him he “could have moved a little more”, then said “Do you think you're a bad man? I'm from Essex. You don't know what people from Essex are on.”

(In modern British slang “badman” means a gangster, someone who is comfortable using violence.)

Nowak resumed filming. The footage shows Digwa walking away, and Nowak saying: “Innit bad man, what bad man. You’re a bad man, say you’re a bad man, go on.”

Digwa replied “I’m a bad man”, then walked back to Nowak and grabbed his phone, at which point the footage ends.

In court, Digwa said he grabbed Nowak’s phone in response to being filmed, and that Nowak now got very aggressive, punching him, knocking off his turban, and saying “I’m going to fuck you up, I’m going to kill you.”

Digwa testified that he “did not mean to stab Nowak in the chest when he pushed him away”.

This is where Digwa’s story, plausible enough until now, falls apart. How can you accidentally unsheath a sword and stab someone in the chest with it? It also seems unlikely that an intelligent and ambitious young man like Nowak - versed in the PC ways of modern Britain - would resume filming if he intended to racially abuse a non-white person.

What’s more, in both Snapchat segments, Nowak’s tone is described as placid and light-hearted, “not aggressive or threatening”. With that in mind a completely different interpretation, based on the same footage, is possible:

He was walking along Belmont Road, hazily filming a Snapchat video, and bumped into someone. He paused filming so as to apologise. Then, bemused by the sight of a turban-wearing man with a sheathed sword hanging from his waist, he thought his Snapchat friends might like to see so he resumed filming. Slightly drunk, he engaged the stranger in “banter”, thinking he would enjoy it and play along: “Innit bad man, what bad man. You’re a bad man, say you’re a bad man, go on.”

Either way, the footage shows that Digwa did not respond well to this. I believe that, while Nowak was being jovial, Digwa was being serious, and feeling increasingly malevolent, coiling like a spring, preparing to strike.

He replied to Nowak, “I’m a bad man” then approached him, snatched his phone and ended the filming. Perhaps while a confused Nowak was demanding his phone back, Digwa drew his sword.

He inflicted three wounds: a slash to Nowak’s jaw, a stab to his groin area, and a stab to his chest. This last was the fatal blow. The sword “passed upwards through soft tissue between the two uppermost ribs, catching a lung and cutting [the subclavian vein] an important vein behind the collarbone.” This slowly caused massive internal bleeding.

Bizarrely, Digwa now (11:22pm) began recording with his own phone. That footage shows Nowak attempting to escape, climbing on top of a bin to jump over a fence, leaving a trail of blood behind him, while Digwa taunts him, “you’re not going to get away with this, big man” and stabs him twice in the back of his legs.

Nowak managed to jump over the fence to number 68, landing on a car. I guess Digwa walked around to join him there. At this point Nowak seems to have been overcome by his injuries and stopped fleeing. Digwa, now assured of his quarry, stopped pursuing.

The two young men now began a sort of captor/prisoner conversation. I picture them seated - one calm, one in agony. Nowak pleaded with Digwa to help him, and Digwa mocked him.

Digwa’s brother arrived. Gurpreet was 26 at the time and himself had form for threatening people in public with a sword.

Footage shown in court has Gurpreet off-screen saying (presumably in a phonecall to his parents telling them to come): “Some little [expletive] just attacked Vic.” He then shouted to Nowak: “Step down now big man I will eat you up.”

Digwa himself told Nowak: “You’re [expletive] now bro. Come down now and apologise and we can have a conversation now.”

The brothers told Nowak repeatedly to “get down”. He must have been terrified. At some point, presumably succumbing to his injuries, he fell from the car onto the ground.

Footage from a home security camera has Nowak saying “I am dying” and Digwa replying “you’re not dying bro”, then ten minutes later, Nowak saying “you stabbed me” and Digwa replying: “No I didn’t.”

Digwa was lying to his victim. As will later become clear, he knew he had stabbed him, at least three times.

Having denied he had punished him, Digwa now explained why he had punished him: “You were recording me thinking you’re sick.”

(“Sick” in this context means tough, daring, etc. Like “badman” it derives from Jamaican slang - yet another gift of multiculturalism.)

A resident called 999 saying they thought someone had been stabbed. Incredibly, nothing came of this call.

Still now, Digwa did not call an ambulance for him. However, he did film him again, taking close-ups of his face. This second Digwa video, which I believe lasted a full five minutes, was withheld from the trial for being “too disturbing to be shown”.

The brothers concocted a story: Digwa was a victim of racist abuse and assault by Nowak. Given later comments made between them in a police van, it seems that at this point Gurpreet genuinely didn’t know what had happened and was simply taking his brother’s word for everything.

Whether or not Nowak knocked off Digwa’s turban, the brothers agreed he had. Digwa’s hair was in a tight bun in the footage he took after stabbing Nowak, highly unlikely if his turban had been knocked off. Either way, by the time the police arrived his hair was loose and hanging down over his face, which the prosecutor suggested he did so as to “corroborate” the story.

Gurpreet now called 999 and relayed the fake story to the police:

We’ve just got attacked racially by some White person. He’s physically attacked my brother, we’re Sikhs, we wear a turban and he’s just attacked my brother. We’re restraining him right now because he’s just attacked my brother and took my brother’s turban off. He also, he’s verbally, he’s verbally attacked my brother racially. I’m not having this as a regular occurrence, I live here, I’m not having this a regular occurrence. He ain’t fighting people, he’s racially attacking people, that’s what he’s doing. Nah, he sees some brown people, that’s what it was.

This article gives the time of the 999 call as “approximately 23:30”, but since it lasted nearly 12 minutes and the officers arrived at 23:37, it must have been made at 23:25 or earlier.

A large portion of the 999 call is the police operator trying to determine whether Nowak had said anything racist to Digwa. It is alarming how much time is spent on this.

Also, Gurpreet explicitly denied that any weapons had been used. As a result, the police were unaware of the nature of the incident. However, Gurpreet did say that Nowak was bleeding from his mouth, so the police operator did summon an ambulance but not urgently (it certainly hadn’t arrived by the time the police arrived).

Presumably before Gurpreet called 999, the brothers called their parents, father Moga and mother Kiran Kaur. When they arrived Digwa and his mother conspired in Punjabi and his mother took the sword and left the scene. Gurpreet filmed that interaction on his phone, which implies to me that it happened before he began the 999 call. The sword was later found at their family house, amongst a huge collection of bladed weaponry that Digwa had been amassing since childhood.

Now they waited for the police to arrive.

During this time, the Digwas actively prevented Nowak from seeking medical help. They were holding him down, restraining him. Gurpreet had told the police operator: “I can't let him go until this gets sorted.” The family seem to have been determined that this White racist wouldn’t get away with abusing young Vickrum. But if they hadn’t restrained him, Nowak could have rung on people’s doorbells for help, or got to the main road and been seen by passing motorists. In fact, if Digwa had simply given him back his phone, Nowak could have called an ambulance himself.

By now it must have been at least ten minutes since he had received the fatal blow. There was a trail of blood from his escape attempt, and given his various wounds there was almost certainly blood spilled elsewhere by now, and the slash to his jaw would be clearly visible, and given that he had been telling Digwa “I am dying” even before the family arrived, he would certainly be saying the same in front of them now… yet none of the four Sikhs thought to call an ambulance for him.

Instead, they spent this time accusing him of racism. Nowak denied that and insisted he had been stabbed. Digwa replied: “No one stabbed you bro… you’re drunk.” The truth: Nowak was below the drink driving limit, and Digwa himself was the person who had struck him with a sword, five times. Furthermore, father Moga joined in, accusing Nowak of “pretending” to be injured.

The police arrived at 11:37pm. By now Kiran had returned to the scene and Moga was propping Nowak up, perhaps because that would “look better” than his sons pinning the boy down on the ground.

Moga explained to the police: “He keeps dropping down, so I am just trying to keep him up.” (Why would he keep “dropping down” if he wasn’t injured? This question didn’t seem to occur to either Moga or the police.) Moga then quickly said that Nowak had “a mouthful of blood”, which aroused no interest from the police even though it clearly indicates a serious internal injury. Instead, they took the Digwas’ word for it that he hurt himself when jumping over the fence.

Digwa himself distracted them for a while by claiming to be injured: a trivial bruise under his eye. He can also be heard in the background telling another officer that this kind of thing has happened before to him:

“We’ve been walking in the park... and multiple times we’ve had people... racist and attack us... and nothing happens.”

Nowak told the police he had been stabbed and couldn’t breathe. Digwa told them he was “pretending” to be injured, specifically said “he hasn’t been stabbed”, and reiterated that Nowak had assaulted and racially abused him.

Lying on his side, Nowak told the police repeatedly that he couldn’t breathe and that he had been stabbed. The police officer replied: “I don’t think you have, mate.”

Unbelievably, the police now put him in handcuffs and said they were arresting him on suspicion of assault.

The male police officer said: “He’s saying he’s been stabbed.” His female colleague asked Nowak: “Where do you think you’ve been stabbed?” Digwa muttered “he hasn’t been stabbed” and the police woman replied: “I know but we have to check, don’t we?”

Nowak said “please, brother, I can’t breathe” (his final words) and lost consciousness. He was now motionless and unresponsive, yet they proceeded to read him his rights.

At this point a different female police officer noticed that his pupils weren’t reacting to light. This, exactly three minutes after they had arrived, was when the police realised he really was unwell and they had been lied to - persistently - by the Digwa family. The handcuffs, which had been on for nearly two minutes (not one minute, as was claimed by a police chief) were removed and the police began CPR and summoned an ambulance.

Digwa was arrested for attempted murder at 11:55pm. He was not handcuffed.

An emergency doctor was also flown in by helicopter. When these medical professionals arrived is unknown, but it was a lot later than had the Digwa family been honest.

Henry Nowak was pronounced dead at the scene at 00:37 on 4th December, about eighty minutes after he encountered Vickrum Singh Digwa.

Within four days, Hampshire Police had taken action against the entire Digwa family:

22-year-old Vickrum Digwa has been charged with murder and possession of a bladed article in a public place... Officers charged 52-year-old Kiran Kaur [mother] with assisting an offender.

Both Digwa and his mother have now been convicted of all the above charges.

Police also arrested a 51-year-old man [father, Moga] on suspicion of murder, who has now been released on bail. A 26-year-old [Gurpreet] was initially arrested on suspicion of murder, assisting an offender and a public order defence [sic]. Officers released him with no further action in relation to murder, but he is on bail pending further enquiries for the other offences.

It is understandable why the murder charge was dropped against both men, but I am surprised that the “assisting an offender” charge against Gurpreet was dropped. I also think Moga could have faced the same charge; he must have seen his wife taking away the murder weapon yet he stayed silent about this and told the police that Nowak was lying about being injured, even while he was having to prop him up. Are Moga and Gurpreet just incredibly stupid, unable to process incoming evidence if it contradicts what they have been told? Or is it simply that they were told by a relative? Is this the famous “clannishness” of Indians?

At the trial, Digwa maintained his innocence and insisted he had acted only in self-defence, terrified that Nowak might seize his sword from him and attack him with it. He also claimed he did not know he had stabbed Nowak in the chest until the police said it during his first interrogation.

Throughout the trial, Hampshire Police remained silent. This fuelled rage and speculation. After the conviction, they said their silence had been to avoid prejudicing the trial. However, this concern hadn’t stopped them tweeting about George Floyd nearly a year before Derek Chauvin’s trial.

After Digwa’s sentencing, a raft of new charges were levelled against the family for possession of weapons.

The wickedness of Vickrum Singh Digwa, like the wickedness or stupidity of his relatives, has been overshadowed by the behaviour of the police officers who attended. For many, it confirms long-held beliefs that the British police are hopelessly “woke”. How didn’t they immediately realise he had been stabbed?

Three things can be said in their defence:

• it was night-time. Blood spatters wouldn’t be easily visible. The trail of blood he had left was on the other side of the fence.

• three minutes is a long time to a dying man, but not long at all in ordinary human perception

• four angry Sikhs were bombarding them with a false story that he had got “hurt” jumping over the fence, and that he was drunk. These two factors might seem to explain his condition.

But:

• the police also received a call from a resident of Belmont Road saying she thought someone had been stabbed. How on earth was this not combined with Gurpreet’s report to prepare the officers for a potentially more complex scene than Gurpreet had described? This failure, of police infrastructure, is surely critical.

• upon their arrival at the scene, Moga immediately told the police that Nowak couldn’t sit up on his own

• Moga also told them Nowak had “a mouthful of blood”

• he had been slashed around the jaw. A simple look at his face should have immediately told them a bladed weapon had been involved

• he told them four times that he had been stabbed and nine times that he couldn’t breathe

• they barely checked him for any stab wounds

• when they arrived, he was literally three minutes away from death. He must have looked dreadful.

All in all, I think the predominant explanation for the police’s conduct in those first three minutes is that they chose to prioritise racism over all else. They chose to believe a brown man had been racially abused rather than that he had stabbed a White man.

Within a day of the incident, Hampshire Police knew they had performed badly and referred the incident to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Its investigation has been proceeding all this time (six months). Its findings must be published, because this story is dumbfounding the British public.

For unknown reasons, police bodycam footage was withheld. This also fuelled rage and speculation; the British people wanted to know how politicised, anti-white and therefore dangerous to them their own police “service” has become. A segment was finally released after Digwa had been sentenced.

What is truly astonishing is that the police handcuffed Nowak. Even if it wasn’t clear he had been stabbed, the bodycam footage shows it was clear he was in no state to cause trouble or violence, still less to run away, so there can be no justification for that.

There was immediate public fury about this. However, according to the judge at Digwa’s trial, no matter how soon the police arrived and no matter what they did, Nowak was doomed:

The pathologist, Amanda Jeffrey… said that no emergency medical treatment would have permitted access to the bleeding vein. In simple terms, he would not have survived, however quickly he received first aid, CPR or expert medical treatment.

This was contested on Twitter by a Polish paediatrician who specified a set of medical actions by which this injury could have been treated and Nowak’s life saved. He furthermore said that the police pulling Nowak’s hands behind his back might well have stretched the subclavian vein, rupturing any blood clot that had developed and thus worsening the haemorrhage and expediting his death. Now, alongside the police conduct investigation, there is to be a full medical inquest into this.

Some bits of “fake news” have spread about the story:

• the police officers were all female

• they searched his phone and his father’s phone for evidence of racism

• the “kirpan” legal exemption has only existed since 2019

• in court, the judge reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter. (In fact, he gave the jury the option to find Digwa guilty of manslaughter if they couldn’t find him guilty of murder.)

• (possibly) that a female resident of Belmont Road phoned 999 and said she thought someone had been stabbed

I have written a separate essay about the legalities around the kirpan and about the calls to ban it.

Also, there was speculation that the officers were non-white. This always seemed unlikely to me given Southampton’s demographics and was disproven when the bodycam footage was released. However, the fact that their race was immediately a matter of concern for people indicates how febrile a situation is created by diversity. Whichever side we are on, we all know that race is a faultline constantly waiting to rupture. The result is constant latent mistrust, a population constantly expecting betrayal and sabotage by “the Other”. We simply shouldn’t be living like this.

Another facet of living with diversity is the constant threat (for White people, solely) of being accused of not liking diversity, of being “racist”. Non-whites know that the R-word has a magical effect on White people: if you apply it to one of them, his fellows will abandon and condemn him. This is why the Digwa family threw the word around very liberally:

• Vickrum to his family

• Gurpreet to the police operator

• the three Digwa men to Nowak

• the three Digwa men to the attending police officers

• Vickrum to police interrogators

• Vickrum to the jury at his trial

• Vickrum’s (White) defence barrister to the jury

• the Digwa family to the court during sentencing

Even now, some brown people are trying to use it to make White people abandon and condemn Nowak.

In court, the judge and Nowak’s family felt they had to emphasise that he was definitely not racist, as if it would mitigate his being butchered if he were!

For White people’s sake, the R-word has to be stripped of its magical power. One could argue that it, like a curse, killed Henry Nowak.

In the aftermath, some Sikhs are closing ranks. How dare White people tar them all with the same brush? Yet any incidence of White violence against non-whites is used to tar all White people. In any situation, whichever option harms White people is the one chosen. When a non-white attacks one of us, our collective outrage is used to demonise us. When one of us attacks a non-white, their collective outrage is used to demonise us.

Narinder Kaur, a notoriously anti-white Sikh woman, has voiced solidarity with Muslims against “racist” Whites. For many years I have listened to White centrists squealing that “Islam isn’t a race!” Well, how insightful does that stupid remark seem now? For clarity, on the back of this incident I have seen Sikhs characterise animosity towards them as racist. Fairly soon I expect to hear White centrists squealing “Sikhism isn’t a race!” in the pathetic hope that this will shield them from the R-word. The truth is the whole world thinks in racial terms and we White people should never have stopped doing the same. We might have always been individualistic, but only recently did we become stupid.

Now, of course it is possible that a White family could conspire against an 18 year-old boy like the Digwa family did. I’m sure it has happened, here and there. But it is much less likely to happen. And where it does happen, race isn’t an issue, nobody can suspect it of being a motivating factor, and it can’t be used to mitigate or demonise the victim or the perpetrator, or the police, judiciary and media who handle the case thereafter.

Moreover, everyone knows that race was a factor here. It was a factor not just in the mutual alienation which undoubtedly prompted the attack in the first place, and not just (as too many have concentrated on) in the actions of the police. Most of all, it was a factor in the behaviour of the Digwa family. At some level, they saw the dying Henry Nowak as “just a White guy”. They probably associated him with every resentment and suspicion they’ve ever had about all White people. In that hour he was a helpless avatar for them of the race they live amongst yet do not know, cannot know, and quietly despise.

Could a White family have treated him the same way? Yes, but their motivations would be different. Could the Digwas have had other, non-racial, motivations? Yes, but racial ones were there, making their contempt for him more likely, more real, more substantial, more deadly.

And everyone knows this. Everyone knows that, just as birds of a feather flock together, racial difference combined with Third World clannishness means that all White people are as vulnerable as Henry Nowak.

This could happen to any White guy in Britain.

Nowak was one of us. He might not have been “fully English” but it doesn’t matter. We identify with him, and we know that he suffered gravely by the nonsense that plagues us all in this multicultural dystopia. We care about him because race is real. It is so real, it probably caused his death.

If current trajectories proceed and diversity increases in Britain, how much more perilous does the situation become for us White people? What happens when the police are largely non-white, and instead of taking three minutes to wise up, they take ten minutes, or simply decide not to? What happens when the Independent Office for Police Conduct is largely non-white, and even when misconduct is clear, they simply decide not to see it? What happens when the government is largely non-white, and even though the regulatory bodies are clearly corrupt, it simply decides not to do anything about it? What happens when the political parties are largely non-white, so you can’t vote for a less Third World government? Without remigration, all of these things will happen - well within this century.

And even if all of the above paragraphs are false, even if race played no role in the motivations of anyone involved in this, and therefore we needn’t fear the Great Replacement further corrupting our societies… even then, it is certainly true that, had the Digwa family never been allowed into Britain, Henry Nowak would still be alive today.

Digwa was sentenced to “life with a minimum term of 21 years”. Nowak will never see any of those years. His family will have to spend those years wondering what the promising, happy young man would be doing by now, if he had just walked on the other side of the road that night, so long ago.

Henry Nowak’s final hour was spent listening to alien people conspiring against him in a foreign language while using English to accuse him of racism and deceit. His final minutes were spent with British police dismissing his pleas for help. His final waking moments were spent in handcuffs, on a cold December ground, while all of the above continued around him.

We should be angry and disgusted with the Digwa family.

We should be angry and disgusted with those Sikhs nationwide who are using this terrible incident to induce yet more White guilt in the native majority.

We should be angry and disgusted with the Hampshire Police who made a grotesque three-minute mistake.

But there were many more people who could have helped Henry Nowak. In all of the houses around him, there were people who must have heard his screams and pleas, people who could have rescued him from the foreigners, people who should have cared, people of his kind. For Belmont Road is 80% White.

Even though she knows the school is majority White (over 85%), she has designed her classroom, in her own words, “for non-white students”. To be fair, this could be simply because she is bringing materials from her previous school, which was much more diverse. But even then, you would think the sensible thing would be to buy materials more fitting for her new school. She does not.

So the woke attitude goes far beyond merely accommodating non-white people, and beyond even the absurdity of giving them equal prominence in our ancestral society, but actually to giving them precedence over us there.

What I found striking about this video, apart from the mindboggling fact that this is someone presumably vocated to help people yet doing something that will clearly harm her pupils, is how she delights in the fact that what she has done will annoy parents. To be precise, it will annoy parents who, whether conscious of it or not, are “racist”. After all, if they really “don’t see race”, then how can they possibly care about this? Thus, they cannot argue that their kids should see representations of their racial kin without outing themselves as “racist”, which in turn will make them very vulnerable. So this younger teacher feels not just morally sound, but bulletproof against reprisals, and very clever.

There is also a social class element to this. She specifies that these will be “posh White parents”. Despite appearing to be all of 23 and only having taught in very diverse schools, she alludes to experience in dealing with such upper-class White parents before. She is hoping to disturb them in their privilege and veiled racism.

She also clearly assumes that, if any parents do complain, she will be safe. The institution - not just her school but the entire education sector, including all of the academics and every university department that sustains them - will be on her side. If and when the parents complain (having navigated their way through the minefield of realising they are “racist” and painstakingly forming some lame argument to hopefully avoid that accusation) they will find that she is protected not just by her employer but by an entire segment of society. They, the parents, might get some small local newspaper to back them, or more likely to report the story impartially, but in all likelihood they will find themselves shamed by some much bigger newspaper. That is what she was clearly expecting when she made this video.

I think, if she had posted her video two years earlier, during the Summer of Floyd, that is probably how things would have played out. The school board would have been terrified to reprimand her, lest armies of BLM rioters and crazed antifa lay siege to their buildings and the national media destroy their little town’s reputation. By mid 2022, however, things had changed.

What actually happened was a small media furore followed by a statement from the school principal condemning her video. Then she was put on paid leave while the authorities “investigated”. After a month, they announced they had found no evidence of “any policy or legal violations” or “instances of discrimination [against White children] of any kind within the employee’s classroom”. She was reprimanded for her silly video but allowed back into the classroom. The school published an apology from her which clearly contradicted what she had said in her video. As it turned out, this smug SJW was startled by the blowback and said whatever was necessary to keep her job.

However, there was an assumption that she would soon be transferred to some other school, for her own safety since threats had been made against her. (Miraculously, nobody ever obtained her name and she remains anonymous to this day, four years on.)

What I find troubling about this story is that it illuminates both the viciousness and the vulnerability of the midwit. It wouldn’t be worth fretting over, except that there are many millions of these people about. Every one of them is bright enough to grasp the drivel at teacher training college, but not bright enough to realise that it is drivel. Every one of them is vicious enough to harm children and take pleasure in disturbing the parents and sadistically putting them in an impossible position… but every one of them is literally just doing what they have been told to do, and is spreading the ideas they have been trained to believe are good, healthy, and crucially needed.

It is almost pointless to be angry with that girl (a patronising word that I use deliberately) because, as smug as she is in her video, she isn’t very clever and she isn’t thinking for herself. She is “just following orders”. You’ve really got to be angry with the institutions that made her this way, that sent her out into the world with a head packed full of poison. She is their useful idiot, their canary which will sometimes flourish and sometimes suffocate. If she had been fired in disgrace, they would have some new drone fresh off the brainwashing line ready to take her place.

Indeed, why did she feel so safe putting out that video? Because she has heard countless senior figures advocating exactly the same things. She just didn’t realise that, being less senior than them, and being subject to the whims of parents in a small town, and with a media frantically rowing back from its 2020 excesses, she was much more vulnerable than those academics. They can spout their nonsense from an ivory tower, but when it gets to “ground level”, things are much more visceral, and parents will protect their children. That young teacher misjudged things, but I can see why she thought she was safe.

What should we do with people like her, the preachy sadists who think themselves above us and are quite happy to harm us in the name of “good”? I think the answer is the same as for all midwits. We must not give them the credence they so desperately want. We must circumvent them. Tackling them head on is pointless; they are not bright enough to recognise good arguments, nor humble enough to accept that they have been wrong. Always assert dominance. Talk down to them, brook none of their nonsense, never seek their approval, make them seek yours, reject their premises, put up obstacles to their proposals. Give them no more than the most basic respect. Talk to them as if you are addressing an errant child; to all intents and purposes (despite their paper medals), you are. But the best option is to avoid them entirely, if that is possible.

Of course, in another world, the very same person would be a fascist. Perhaps that is the ultimate irony. They are so smug, so sure of themselves, but the truth is they have no idea… of anything at all.

The normal process of essay-writing, for me, is like this:

1. I have the initial idea.
   I immediately create a new post in Substack. I might write a key paragraph there and then. I will certainly jot down the initial idea along with any related ideas that occur as I’m typing. The goal is to make as many notes as possible now, when the inspiration is fresh, so that when I come back to the essay there will be enough material for me to “find my feet”- not a blank page but a set of starting points.
   I always jot down an idea as soon as possible because otherwise I will probably forget it.
   Some of these notes will immediately be evolved into actual paragraphs for the essay, others will be ignored for the time being and I will eventually get around to either fleshing them out or deleting them.
   What now follows is some days of frenzied writing (usually between one and four days). During this phase, many new ideas are jotted down as they occur to me (see above). Eventually, new ideas stop coming, and the frenzy dies down and I stop writing.
   I might read through the essay and calmly expand the odd paragraph here and there.

2. I take a few days away from it and work on other things. Then comes the “redrafting” phase.
   Most of the paragraphs are written by now, so this is when I revise the structure, improve sentences, etc. This phase can take quite a long time, because the structure of something is very important and because sentences can always be improved.

3. Then comes the “finessing” phase, which is much more casual. The essay is 97% done by now, but the final 3% of work is finishing touches that can make all the difference. This phase can last, on and off, quite a long time - basically until I am happy with the essay. Often the opening paragraph is written in this phase, because by now I know what it should say.

That is the simplest version of the process. With some essays it is much faster, with some it is more elongated and messy. I might write some new paragraphs even at the “finessing” stage. I might split an essay up into multiple parts (a series) or into several completely separate essays; some of those will be written immediately within the same frenzy as the original idea, others will enter a long purgatory and be forgotten about until, months later, I’m looking for something to work on.

The asterisk symbol is my best friend when writing. Because I never use it in the actual text itself, I can safely use it to mark any piece of it that requires attention. This could be a word or sentence I’m not sure about, a need for a hyperlink or supporting evidence, a question I will need to find the answer to, additional research that is needed, or simply to mark the place where an image should go. At any time, I can do a search for the asterisk symbol and immediately find every point in the essay that needs some type of work done. Once there are no asterisks left, it might well be that the essay is finished.

Have a place where you are comfortable and have minimal distractions. Writing requires immense concentration.

Start writing with whichever point interests you most. Do this again and again, until the only points left to write are the boring ones. Then brace yourself one day and just bite the bullet. For each boring point, you can write a basic version initially; tomorrow that version might inspire a more interesting treatment. Having the text in front of you is always better than having it in your head, in some vague form, frightening you because you haven’t written it yet.

Never be afraid to write a paragraph even if “you haven’t got to it yet” in the essay’s structure, or you don’t even know where in the essay’s structure it will eventually go. We live in the era of non-linear editing, after all. The important thing is to write the paragraph while it’s fresh in your mind or you have “zest” for it. You can worry about placement later.

Any point that occurs to you should be quickly jotted down, with an asterisk next to it. Actually, a key part of writing is moving these rough notes around the text until you find the best place for each one. It’s like planting seeds that will eventually grow - each one needs to be in the right place.

The same applies to paragraphs. I said earlier that you can write them in any order and arrange them later. This is true, but you should try to arrange them quite soon. Once something is in its proper position in the whole, it will inspire new things. And if it doesn’t, that means that section is finished and you can devote your mental resources to other sections now.

The first paragraph should simply open the topic. It doesn’t need to be stilted and it doesn’t need to describe the argument you intend to make or the material you intend to cover. It just needs to get the reader “into” the essay. However, you might well achieve that by briefly describing the point you intend to make or introducing the scope of the material. Either way, try to make the first paragraph engaging and short.

Make your text as clear as possible. Ideas are complicated so the text that conveys them should be simple; do not burden your reader with unnecessary cognitive load. To that end, I favour short sentences and will split a complex sentence apart wherever possible.

Always refer to something using the same name. This increases clarity. Multiple names will lead the reader to assume you are referring to different things. You have created unnecessary work for them.

Always delete redundant words and sentences. If two sentences make the same point, merge them or delete one. Keep doing this until there is no repetition at all.

Try to think of ways to make each point more concisely. Keep doing this until it is impossible.

Making the text as concise as possible helps, not only the reader, but you as the writer, because it clarifies the material, enabling you to better work with it and develop it. Redundant verbiage gets in the way like clutter in a room.

Never be afraid to just rewrite a paragraph from scratch. Sometimes it is the only way to make it work. But always keep the original somewhere, because you might want to revert to it or merge it with the new version.

An essay should have a purpose, and you need to know what the purpose is, and it should do nothing but serve that purpose. However, sometimes you need to “free-wheel” for a while and just write organically, and let the purpose emerge gradually. Once it does, you might need to prune a lot of irrelevant material. This doesn’t mean deleting it forever; maybe you will find a home for it in some other essay? But you really should do this, because if it remains where it doesn’t belong it will only detract and disrupt.

If you have written an essay but you can’t say exactly what its purpose is, you should probably shelve it.

Then comes structuring. The structure of an essay depends on its purpose, but generally speaking it should begin by pointing out some source of uncertainty and end as soon as that uncertainty has been satisfactorily addressed. This is why you shouldn’t worry about structure - or the opening paragraph - until a decent chunk of the essay has been written. You might find that you’ve ended up addressing a different uncertainty than the one you initially started with.

The final paragraph should be a summation - probably not of the entire essay, but of its final phase. It’s nice if you can link back to something from early on, but this is an unnecessary flourish. The very last sentence should be punchy.

Sometimes I show an essay to somebody else before publishing it. This can be useful because, being immersed in the topic, you might not realise that you haven’t explained something sufficiently. Conversely, you might have over-explained. Cutting one’s own material can be painful (that’s why writers used to have editors) but it is something I am trying to get better at doing.

Whatever else matters, the two “end conditions” for an essay are:

• it should achieve a purpose

• it should not be boring

If it fulfils those two, you have probably succeeded.

Its 1960s era, covering the first two Doctors, is a beast that I just can’t bring myself to enjoy watching. I know this is bad, a sign of ignorance, but life is only so long and there are many other things I need to do with what time I have. Someone else will need to discuss whether it was “woke” in that period.

However, I do very much enjoy what came immediately after: the 1970-1974 era with the Third Doctor, played by Jon Pertwee, overseen by producer Barry Letts and script editor Terrance Dicks. Writers and directors changed from one story to the next, while Letts and Dicks were the mainstays, shaping and steering the show. They were respectively left and right-wing, and together they crafted an adorable programme which, by the standards of today, is very wholesome and old-fashioned.

I was first introduced to it in 1989 with a VHS of the story The Time Warrior (which I still think is a lovely piece of lightweight, swashbuckling TV drama) and then two more videos. Throughout the 1990s I saw a few more Third Doctor stories at friends’ houses. From the mid 2000s I slowly gathered the whole run on DVD.

It had been about five years since I last watched any vintage Doctor Who, but then I had these Third Doctor stories playing in the background while I worked on Millenniyule X. This gave me a chance to test the claims of today’s left-wing Whovians - admittedly not about the show’s very beginnings, but still, 56 years ago.

Needless to say, there are no transgender characters. There are no gay characters. There are vanishingly few non-white characters. Feminism is present but, even there, “independent modern women” can be brought to heel by a man if he simply speaks firmly, as occasionally he must do during these perilous adventures. Class receives particularly “regressive” treatment, with the working-class nearly always depicted as gullible, helpless and ignorant.

So, clearly, it is disingenuous to claim that the show in this era was “woke” as we use the term today. But people are talking at cross purposes. Right-wingers mean it wasn’t as ludicrously progressive as it is now, and they are correct. Left-wingers mean it was progressive by the standards of its time, and they are correct.

I will briefly discuss various Third Doctor stories in order to make the point.

Spearhead from Space (1970)

This is the Third Doctor’s debut story, setting up this era of the show. A central feature is UNIT, the United Nations Intelligence Taskforce, a scientific and military organisation which is international in scope and mentality. UNIT is presented throughout this era as a forward-thinking, well-run, thorough and responsible organisation, unlike the British government and the British military which are presented as backward, petty, bigoted, short-sighted, corrupt and often incompetent.

The Ambassadors of Death (1970)

This features a demented British Army general who is driven by his “moral duty” to destroy a peaceful alien race, including by killing dozens of humans who get in his way. He is aided by friends (“the old school tie”) in the British government. He is foiled by UNIT.

The Claws of Axos (1971)

This features a petty, cowardly English civil servant, Chinn, who interferes and sabotages good people. He is desperate to destroy an alien spacecraft before they have shown any signs of being hostile, but is then immediately taken in by their offer of great wealth. He talks about his responsibility to England - the Doctor remonstrating “not to the world?!” - and off-screen says something nationalistic which the Doctor rebukes: “England for the English? Good heavens, man!”

Colony in Space (1971)

This has a planet being settled in 2472 by two sets of humans, one a group of peaceful independent colonists, the other an evil mining corporation. Meantime, the planet has intelligent native species who are low and barbarous now but once had a thriving civilisation which made highly-advanced interstellar weapons, technology far ahead of that of the 25th Century humans.

This story’s anti-imperialist message is less clumsy than that of The Mutants (see below), but my main criticism of that story also applies to this one: to make imperialism look bad, you make the subject peoples look good instead of barbaric. Their apparent barbarism is explained away as a temporary condition, or an illusion caused by prejudice, or even a result of the imperialism itself. No consideration is given to the scenario that they really are barbaric, and a danger to themselves and everyone else, and that their daily life is one of needless hardship and suffering from which they can only be elevated by an imperial power stewarding them. That scenario (of actual, consequential diversity) is apparently inconceivable for the progressive writers of Doctor Who. For them, and their successors working on the show today, diversity is only ever trivial, something that brings harmless and fascinating delights, but never actually matters.

“We’re all the same, really” is the abiding anthem of progressivism. But, for the post-war post-imperial British progressive, the anthem is even more self-sabotaging: “we’re all the same, but, because the barbarian recognises this and we don’t, he is better than us”.

The Curse of Peladon (1972)

This “examines” whether Britain should join the European Economic Community (the EU) via the allegory of a primitive planet joining an advanced federation. The absurd bias should already be clear, but I have written a dedicated essay.

The Sea Devils (1972)

Echoing Chinn from The Claws of Axos, this story has Robert Walker, a trigger-happy English politician who is just desperate to genocide an alien race and is a pathetic coward, as well as selfish, self-aggrandising, foolish, impractical, and eager to blame others for his mistakes. This is how “the British Establishment” is represented here.

Meantime there is Colonel Trenchard, whose defining feature is said to be his patriotism, but his patriotism is used to trick him into helping evil.

Taking Walker and Trenchard together, patriotism is shown to be - only - a weakness.

Countering this somewhat is the Royal Navy as an institution, which is actually shown to be very efficient and well-run. That its staff may be motivated by patriotism is never contradicted, but also never acknowledged.

The Mutants (1972)

This is by far the most egregious, warranting a dedicated essay.

The Time Monster (1972)

A pioneering scientific team has a female member, Dr Ruth Ingram. She mocks her male colleagues for their chauvinism and, when eventually she gets control of the project, outshines them in imagination and competence. The implication is that inside every downtrodden, sidelined female scientist is a Marie Curie desperate to get out, if just given a chance.

Frontier in Space (1973)

In the 26th Century, Earth’s militaristic one-world government is being goaded into war against the Draconian Empire, a war that would devastate both sides. On Earth, only the Peace Party is working to avert this catastrophe. Though beleaguered and borderline illegal, the Peace Party is global and highly organised. One member says “we have contacts everywhere. Journalists, broadcasters, even friends in the government” - agents embedded in every organ of society, quietly subverting, or waiting for the signal to mobilise.

The Peace Party is represented on-screen by a youth activist (played by an Indian actor) but mostly by its imprisoned leader, Professor Dale.

Despite his name, Dale is an extremely Jewish character: an intellectual, an educator, and a dedicated activist who has gone to prison for his ceaseless and courageous struggle for peace. I suspect the actor was consciously chosen, being extremely Jewish himself; his name was Israel Goldblatt! Moreover, this is a very positive portrayal of Jewish political activism: Dale is wise, kindly and intelligent, and uniquely open-minded among the story’s characters. Imagine! All the gentiles we see are feckless and war-like. Thank God that Professor Dale is around to teach them about peace - if only they would listen to him! Instead, they punish him for his intellectual and moral superiority by throwing him in prison!

The Peace Party is an obvious analogue for Comintern, and Dale is an obvious analogue for Trotsky, or really any Jewish intellectual who ever took it upon himself to remake the world and save the goyim from themselves.

This story was written by Malcolm Hulke. He was not Jewish, but given his politics and his writing of the Dale character, I suspect he was in awe of them.

Hulke was a talented writer but also a hard leftist. He was a member of the Communist Party until at least the early 1960s. Whether he stayed a member or not, he remained ardently left-wing and wove messages into his work. In a 1975 letter to a friend, he mocked the conservative establishment for being so naive as to never notice what he was doing:

For seven years running I wrote subversive Doctor Who serials. No one noticed. I’ve since attacked the Right in my Writing for TV in the 70s and in six Doctor Who books. Not a comment.

You would almost think the establishment wasn’t conservative at all. In fact, MI5 had a file on Hulke so must have “noticed” what he was doing, yet let him continue. Boasting of his “subversive” writing, Hulke was pushing at an open door but never realised. He was the naive one.

The Green Death (1973)

A hippie commune of young scientists and activists fight for the environment against an evil corporation, while doing groundbreaking work in the field of ecological science. They are aided in their fight against ruthless capitalism by UNIT.

They have house parties in which a Black man (presumably a brilliant scientist like the rest of them) gets close with a beautiful young blonde.

Invasion of the Dinosaurs (1974)

The British government and army are defeated by an internal coup and have to be rescued by UNIT, the embodiment of globalist cooperation and integrity. (However, to be fair, one of UNIT’s officers, Captain Yates, is also involved in the coup.)

And yet, for all that, early 1970s Doctor Who is still infinitely less “woke” than the programme today.

• It accepts without question that men and women exist, are different from each other, and complement each other.

• It recommends marriage and family formation as a norm, the only norm.

• It shows society being run by hard-headed patriarchs, with women using their wiles to nudge, persuade, encourage, reassure and inspire.

• It accepts social class and even celebrates it, from the adorable brashness of the worker to the urbane charm of the aristocrat.

• It distinguishes between high culture and low culture, with no hesitation.

• It celebrates Englishness - in tastes, morals, attitudes, places, landscapes, fashions and achievements.

• It sees Britain, even with its imperial past, as a good country with a good culture.

• Perhaps most un-progressive of all, it believes that the ethnic British exist - otherwise it would not be able to browbeat them, or celebrate them.

So the right-wingers who claim the show wasn’t always “woke” are correct. And the progressives who claim it always was are sort of correct, but they are being dishonest - as they always are, and always were.

It seems that one of the key ways in which progressivism advances is by lying about history, then lying about the lie, then lying even about that - building one lie upon another in service of the biggest lie of all: equality.

This is one of those topics where I think someone can give good advice even if they aren’t basking in a joyful multi-decade marriage. For those of us not so successful, it is easy to retrospectively identify the mistakes we have made. Moreover, the chances we had for contentment are more obvious in retrospect than at the time, when we stupidly turned them down because of youthful passion or idealism. With all of that in mind I am confident that the advice I am about to give is very sound, and I would implore young men - and women - to take it to heart. (It is written from the male perspective but a lot of it is relevant to women as well.)

I will not write here about what you should do to make yourself attractive. But I think it goes without saying that you should, especially as a young man, be trying to make yourself the best you can become. Competence, resilience and social status are the things to cultivate. No woman wants to be with a loser and you shouldn’t settle for being one. Don’t expect women to be impressed if you don’t have wherewithal, “get up and go”, and at least some money. I mention this because the rest of this text could seem quite demanding, so I want to clarify that you are not “entitled” to have high expectations of women if you are a mess of a man.

Now the things you should look for. They are not listed in any order of importance. I consider them all equally vital.

There is raw sexual attraction

This might seem so obvious it shouldn’t need saying, but it is actually very possible to be with someone who ticks all the other boxes but just doesn’t turn you on, and you might well think you should overlook this problem because everything else is good. Unfortunately, it is a problem that never goes away. It will bother you and eat into you, and she will sense this and feel deeply hurt, which in turn will make you feel guilty… and these feelings on either side will spiral into heartache, disappointment, regret, a sense of deep betrayal. Even if everything else is great, this one problem will destroy the relationship. In short: if she doesn’t turn you on, be strong, do yourself and her a favour, and end it.

Note that this is not just a visual thing. A woman can turn you on visually - say, in photos online - but then when you’re physically with her, something just isn’t right. I think there is such a thing as pheromonal incompatibility. If you find yourself struggling to be aroused by her, in the flesh with pheromones flying, that is a sign of a fundamental problem that, I’m sorry to tell you, cannot be solved.

I should clarify for men: you will always be attracted to other women - it is our nature to enjoy novelty - so “noticing” other women does not mean that you are unattracted to your spouse. Indeed, it doesn’t mean anything at all. So don’t be discomfited by those feelings. However, if you find yourself wishing dearly that your spouse were different, that is a very bad sign.

On the other hand, if you honestly enjoy making love to her and such thoughts do not come up, then it’s fine.

I belabour this point because, yes you guessed it, this happened to me once. She was a wonderful woman, and perfectly pretty, but something just wasn’t right at the pheromone level.

You enjoy each other’s company

This is self-explanatory but, again, something whose importance people can under-estimate.

Any relationship means that you will spend a great deal of time together, in the domestic setting and elsewhere. It is essential that the two of you are able to be alone together, a lot, without becoming irritated by each other. This doesn’t mean that you need to have shared interests or hobbies (you don’t). It just means that you should simply enjoy being together. You should miss her when she is away, and look forward to her being there again.

She is sane and loyal

Again, obvious, but we are tempted to overlook it if passions are high and sexual allure powerful. Choose a partner who is stable, sane and sensible, and will be loyal to you, insofar as you can ascertain these things. If you detect a capacity for treachery or instability, maybe let her be someone else’s problem.

Being stable and sensible doesn’t mean that she needs to get everything right all the time or that she should never be upset. It just means that she shouldn’t seek to cause problems, and that she should listen to sense when it is told to her. If instead she reacts with outrage, leave her, because this portends a lifetime of pain for you.

This also goes for women choosing men.

I have known people who suffered a lot because they chose an unstable or unreliable partner. Usually there are signs (“red flags”) early on, and usually you see them but overlook them, for some silly reason you later regret. If you are susceptible to this, ask your male friends what they think of the person. Trust your macho friends over your sensitive ones; macho guys have a very good sense for crazy women and for skeevy men, while sensitive guys tend to be naive or too forgiving.

At the same time, you have a responsibility to be the same way for her: stable, sensible and loyal. Don’t embark on serious relationships unless you are confident about these things, because you will only be setting women up for pain, and yourself for guilt.

You work well together and counter each other’s flaws

It’s a cliché but true that a relationship is a partnership. At the practical level, a relationship is the story of two people confronting together a thousand little problems (and maybe ten big problems). As in any partnership, you have to function as a “team”. This means that each of you does the things the other isn’t good at, and that you accept these shortcomings in each other without futile recrimination.

If you are socially reserved, she should be outgoing. If she isn’t good with deadlines, you need to be able and willing to prompt her, and she mustn’t resent you doing that. If you are dream-headed, she should be realistic. If she gets carried away, you need to be calm. Etc. This will differ from one couple to another so don’t be too hung up about “gender roles” - as long as the flaws are countered, that is what matters.

Try not to end up with someone who has the same flaws as you, because it means they will be compounded and hamper the partnership. It would help if you identify your most serious flaws so that you can look out for them in potential spouses. Ask your parents what your flaws are; friends probably won’t be honest about it, especially if they are female.

You respect and admire each other

This means appreciating each other as people, enjoying the thought of each other, and being grateful that you are together.

Unfortunately feminism encourages modern women to be bitchy, entitled, and to think men stupid and inferior, etc., so it is harder than before to find a woman with the right attitude - but far from impossible.

Every man has his own tolerance level for being taken for granted, hen-pecked, criticised, mocked, etc. Some men accept it, a few even seem to enjoy it in some bizarre way. Personally I can’t abide it. I would leave a woman instantly if she didn’t respect and admire me. This doesn’t mean I expect her to be blind to my flaws (indeed, she’d be little use to me if she were) but that I expect her to recognise my work, my talent, etc. This might sound vain but I think it is the healthy way for most relationships throughout history. In some sense the woman has to look up to the man, otherwise she will default to treating him as an errant son, or a factotum. I have seen quite a few relationships like this and they are never happy. Eventually her growing contempt leads her to divorce him, or else he is drained by it and starts looking to other women for positive feelings, or else they stay together forever with him withered and her contemptuous. This is the fruit of a woman not taking her man seriously. You should expect, at a bare minimum, that she respect and admire you. It is that important.

On the other side, you should respect and admire her. “Treat ‘em mean, keep ‘em keen” is a strategy that does work during the flirting stage, but to conduct a relationship in that manner is an exercise in cruelty and egotism. She is a human being, not your plaything. Give her compliments, thank her for things she does, and be sincerely grateful for her. Enjoy her little ways, and the attitudes she brings to everyday life. Celebrate her in your mind. Be grateful that life brought you together.

This rule, to respect and admire, is essential for maintaining a relationship. As such, when seeking a spouse you need to look out for it. If she begins by showing a lack of these qualities, do not pursue. If she does not seem interested in learning about your particular strengths then she will never come to respect and admire you for them, so do not pursue. At the same time, if you don’t see qualities in her that you can respect and admire, do not pursue.

She helps to bring out your potential

Some people might voice this as “does she share your values?” but I think it is more practical than that.

If you are a man, you should ponder:

• Will she be good for me?

• Will she help me to be successful?

• Will she help to build the life that I want?

If you are a woman, you should ponder:

• Will he be good for me?

• Can I help him to be successful? And do I want to? (Do I respect and admire him?)

• Do I want the same kind of life that he wants?

This is the most practical level of judging whether a relationship is viable. Though practical, it is essential. Do not let feelings cloud your judgement here. Consult your parents - especially if you are young.

It is also worth listing some things that don’t matter. Modern culture gives us such terrible guidance about relationships that we end up sabotaging our opportunities for success and happiness because we have unnecessary provisos and unrealistic goals. So here are some things that I think you shouldn’t worry about.

Having much in common

People always say this is important but I think it really needs to be qualified.

I don’t think it is necessary to have common interests and hobbies. You should approve of hers and enjoy hearing her talk about them, but you don’t need to share them and she doesn’t need to share yours. Odds are she won’t, since she is female and you are male.

The things you should have in common are the life and the lifestyle that you want, and your broad attitude to dealing with problems so that you are not clashing in that regard. Anything in common beyond that is a bonus but not necessary. Remember this is not a friendship but a partnership for getting through life successfully and happily. It’s really nice when the partnership veers into friendship and the two of you can enjoy something together, but it’s not essential.

If you enjoy each other’s company, you don’t need common hobbies and interests as well. (Just imagine - you could have a lot in common but hate each other’s company! Which is preferable?)

She being interested in your work

This is very relevant for me because my work is so central to my life, but I think it applies to most men to some extent.

For discussing your work, you have friends, colleagues, business partners, and forum guys online. You don’t need her for this. Trying to interest the average woman in the average male obsessions is an exercise in pure futility. She just needs to get the rough idea that you are capable, talented, clever, resourceful, inventive, or whatever, and she should enjoy these qualities in you, but she doesn’t need to know the details of your work.

(For God’s sake, don’t bore her with the details! I have seen guys doing this with their wives and I always feel sorry for the wives, but the guys themselves end up dispirited, because they have expectations their wives can’t possibly meet.)

She being the prettiest girl you could get

You could always have got a prettier girl, if you were in the right place at the right time, or a bit luckier, or a bit more cocky, or tried a bit harder, or started that job a year earlier, or knew the right mutual friend, etc. But prettiness comes with a whole slew of costs. The prom queen is often a “ball-ache” - self-absorbed, shallow and neurotic. If you have a girl you find attractive and all the boxes above are ticked, believe me, you don’t need a prettier girl.

It being perfect

Of course it isn’t. She’s human. She probably has the same reservations since you, too, are human. What matters is that it can be a successful life partnership. That means about 80% ideal and no big glaring dangers such as the ones I have mentioned.

It being exactly what you envisaged

This is one you have to weigh up. It might not be what you envisaged at 15. But remember, you won’t have the same goals when you are 50 as when you are 25. What matters is whether it will broadly get you to where you want to go, and what your chances are of finding a more “suitable” spouse. Accept that life really does mean “settling”, cashing in your chips, not waiting for perfection and not being hung up on some ideal you once dreamt of when you weren’t even the person you are today. You have to think about the future you want, and whether she will help you to get there. But also, don’t compromise too much. You might regret settling for 70% when 80% was possible. Be realistic, but also be positive. Again, this is something you have to weigh up; I can’t give any “hard and fast” rules for it.

In this text, you might have noticed an absence of the word “love”. Instead I have spoken about practicalities and dangers. I haven’t spoken about passion or excitement, romance or lust. This is because, at 43, I have done all of that, and it doesn’t impress or mesmerise me as it does a young man. Love, of the justified sort that persists and prevails, emerges when certain dangers are avoided and certain necessities met. My intention here has not been to ward you against love, nor to advise scepticism towards it, but to help you find it by navigating things correctly.

Good luck, everyone!

Admittedly, the acquiescent can be criticised for acquiescing, but that is to be at war with human nature, which seems a fool’s errand. The masses will take whatever opiate is presented to them - religion, culture, DVD boxsets, football, even Wimbledon and The Antiques Roadshow. But those who purvey the opiate must, surely, know what they are doing, so they deserve castigation.

My observation is simply this: a lot of modern TV, whether soap opera, drama, documentary, sitcom or panel show, seems to be designed to stave off awareness of the disaster unfolding around all of us in contemporary Britain.

Of course the target for this bamboozlement is as wide as possible - all ages, all classes, and definitely all White people (the dangerous people). But the Boomer generation are both especially susceptible to bamboozlement and especially important to target with it. The former, because they are largely insulated from the realities of modern life, being cooped up at home with often little to do but watch TV, relying on it for their awareness of things. The latter, because they, still now, are the ones with the money, and because they are the largest generation, and thus (in theory) could cause a lot of problems should they ever realise how bad life is going to be for their grandchildren.

When reality is unpleasant, it is understandable to take refuge in things that are very different from it. I do this myself, only watching TV dramas from the 1970s which depict a Britain radically unlike that of today. But I watch these dramas painfully aware of this fact, not in denial of it. By contrast, when your average Boomer watches Have I Got News For You, they cheerfully believe that the panellists are discussing Britain as it is today, as it still is, which is much like it was in the mid 2000s. Younger people know that this is false, but Boomers don’t.

This perhaps explains why so much of modern TV seems to be tailored for that generation, now in their late 60s and 70s. For current affairs and politics they are given agonisingly smug panel shows bemoaning “the Tories”. For period drama they are given cutesy things like Call the Midwife and Lark Rise to Candleford - which, incidentally, are often laced with modern attitudes, transplanting 1990s Boomer presumptions into 1890s rural England, etc. But perhaps the greatest deceit is in the “contemporary” dramas they are given. These show a Britain that nobody under fifty would recognise except from their early adulthood, because it is fossilised in the mid 2000s, and blooms with the thinking of that time. That thinking was fraudulent even back then, but it seemed plausible. Today it lies in ruins, yet the televisual expressions of it continue anyway, flickering eternally on the gogglebox.

On TV:

• east London is still mostly White and everyone has an English accent, unpolluted by MLE

• the mainstream of political discourse (which is now very left-wing) is the only sensible option. Everything else is crank extremism

• Muslims are nice and integrated

• refugees are all deserving cases who mean well and just want to help Britain, work hard, and certainly not molest White schoolgirls

• Black men are intelligent and non-violent

• White men are stupid, racist, sexist, violent and insecure

• White people are entitled

• racists are White

• rapists are White, and usually middle-class

• mixed-race relationships work and the children they produce are well-adjusted, actually more so than White children since they have to learn how to get along in racist Britain - vital lessons in humility and resilience

• twenty-somethings buy houses

• terrorism is committed by “the far-right”, not Muslims or Mossad

• racist conservatives are in charge of everything and must be dethroned

• kids go to university and then get professional jobs

• migrant hotels are an absurd right-wing myth

• feminism has made life better

• Pakistanis are helpful shopkeepers who shake their heads in disgust at news of White child molesters

• childless women are happy

• climate change is real and every sensible person believes in it

• “racists” have absolutely no just cause and are simply creating trouble because they are hateful idiots

• the Conservative Party (and now Reform UK) are a bunch of arrogant aristocratic racists and the worst thing that could happen is them getting into 10 Downing Street (which, on TV, is where real power lies, not in high finance or global bodies).

In short, you would think that the last twenty years simply haven’t happened and we are currently in 2006.

But of course there are some discrepancies. Even though it’s 2006, there is something called Brexit, and some dark fact symbolised by the word “Rotherham” (something so dark that it is almost never spoken about), and there is a bad man called Elon Musk. And there is an evil force called “MAGA” that stalks the land and is linked to racist rednecks and the Ku Klux Klan or something like that. There is a threat called “incel”, poor young men tricked and controlled by a villain called Andrew Tate. And there are other villains who also have no place in 2006 but are here anyway - bad men like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. These bugbears exist like pustules on the bottom of 2006, spoiling it, not belonging here but insisting on sticking around to ruin everyone else’s fun. If not for them, if only they would disappear… life in 2026/2006 would be just great.

But that is actually reassuring, because it means that life in our society is, by default, just great, and all we need to do is defeat these horrible things that don’t belong here in 2026/2006. It’s a beautiful Groundhog Day, it just has some glitches. And a glitch, being a small disruption of an otherwise harmonious pattern, lacks any justification or support from outside itself, so can easily be excised and destroyed.

Of course, this doesn’t actually work in practice. The MSM have been presenting these bugbears as glitches for decades, yet they remain in British society and are stronger than ever, making the fakeness of the Groundhog Day ever more obvious. This is because the glitches are not glitches but grave systemic problems that arise from the fabric of modern society itself, that result from its core (and fraudulent) premises and thus cannot be swept away except under a rug.

But the Boomers don’t realise any of this. After all, the TV has been their priest all their lives - it would never lie to them! So they keep watching, and keep believing, and berate younger people who desperately try to tell them about the world beyond the opiate.

The Boomers might die sincerely believing that we are just one step away from conquering racism forever, and that when we finally manage it, John Lennon will return to Earth.

But I don’t really think so. When the migrant hotel opens in town and your grandchild’s best friend gets molested, it is human to react, to wake up, and to realise (to some extent) that the TV was lying to you all along. I think many Boomers will live long enough to make this realisation and redeem themselves, despite the best efforts of the scum who run TV.

For those of us in the thick of it, there is a temptation to condemn the Boomers for not seeing reality. But I almost hope they never do. It would be a cruel thing for a man at the end of his life to realise he had been duped all the way through it.

The Satanic Verses furore erupted in September 1988 as soon as Penguin Books published the novel by Salman Rushdie. After five months the uproar was only getting worse, yet Rushdie remained sanguine. Having been adopted into the Western liberal elite, he had absorbed their self-confidence. Ordinary Muslims in Britain perceived him as a traitor to his religion and to his beleaguered kinfolk; he had joined “the powerfuls” and now, like those kuffar decadents, was drunk on “privlige”.

Unabashed by all the offence he had caused, Rushdie wrote a letter to the Guardian advocating the scrapping of blasphemy laws (to make books like his less legally risky to publish) and mocking his opponents Hesham El Essawy and Max Madden:

Note the smug tone. It didn’t last long. Eight days later, Rushdie’s life changed forever when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa for his death. Rushdie would spend the next decade in hiding and the rest of his life venturing out in public only with bodyguards. By 2022 he had relaxed a little too much and was maimed.

The fatwa was announced on the 14th of February 1989. Tony Harrison quickly wrote a poem in response, publishing it in the Observer on the 19th.

As far as I know this poem was not widely celebrated and Harrison did not include it in any subsequent collections. However, it is valuable in illuminating various things about the thinking of its era. In particular, looking at it from 2026, we can see wishful thinking and naivety undergirding the entire text. The ultimate products of the liberal worldview are not insight, reason and enlightenment but, yes, wishful thinking and naivety (which, untempered, will lead to oblivion) as well as cowardice and intellectual impotence. Liberalism is like an acid, dissolving everything that you might draw strength from and leaving you determined to exact the same fate on other people via undermining whatever gives them strength (eg. their religion, their traditions, their nation, their ethnic group, or even the project of civilisation).

I will comment on various parts of the poem.

spare us the God-inspired screed
to which the gormless grovel.

Admittedly, it is “low-hanging fruit” to attack this bit, but that only raises the question of why a man of Harrison’s intellect wrote it. Time and again, liberals say things they must know, or could easily know, to be fatuous or outright false.

Overlooking the arrogant dismissal of (apparently) all religious thought, I have to point out that the public are gormless with or without religion. Almost every contemporary thought-plex - from covid to equality to feminism to MAGA - beguiles the public only because they are gormless.

But Harrison seems to understand this; he says that the gormless grovel to religion, not that religion makes them gormless. If this is true, what does he suggest be done with the innumerable gormless? Should we just look down on them, in perpetuity, for being what they are, and assume that they pose no threat to us more discerning chaps, and that no demagogue will use them to destroy us? If we recognise that the masses are malleable, it would seem not only a moral duty but also a matter of self-preservation for us to mould them, not to leave their moulding to the winds of fate and whatever their undiscerning minds are drawn to. Harrison doesn’t seem to have thought of this. But he believes in the elevating powers of learning and civilisation - the things that pulled him out of the working-class - and no doubt believes they will do the same for Islamist fanatics. (Even on that detail, he is wrong; a number of Islamist terrorists have been highly educated, including trained doctors.)

However, I think we have to assume that Harrison believes the masses would be less gormless, but for religion. In this way he has a very optimistic view of humankind - very typical of his generation, but, yet again, grossly naive.

So much for the masses, but I would also say that even sophisticated men like Tony Harrison can be gormless. For example, he believes that all people can be rational and can thrive without religion, even though this has never happened before in human history. He believes it because he wants to believe it. How is this thinking more rigorous than that of any religious fanatic? The latter believes what he is told, while Harrison believes what he wants; both are slaves to irrationality. But only one of them is prepared to slaughter in defence of his beliefs. It’s like leaving a poodle in a room with a Rottweiler.

All religion’s had its day
especially when it insists
it is the one and only way
and fosters fundamentalists.

As we have seen with the rise of “wokery”, the masses are attracted to any creed which gives them certainty, or a sense of certainty, especially if it also authorises them to feel good about themselves and superior to others. Some of them will merely take solace in the creed, others will become fundamentalist promulgators. The fanaticism with which people today believe in “equality”, and the violence that antifa mete out to their opponents without a moment’s self-doubt, prove that the creed needn’t be a religious one in order to inspire fundamentalism. In the absence of religion, other creeds will innocently emerge or be maliciously manufactured to fill the void, which is very real. “The God-shaped hole” is a problem that simply cannot be denied, and it is irresponsible of intellectuals and social commentators to do so. But I cut Harrison some slack on this; it was 1989, not 2026.

democracy’s not founded
on creativity’s cremation

He is referring, literally, to the burning of books, but figuratively to the broader activity of destroying ideas.

His sentiment is a well-meaning one, but again naive in that it prizes democracy when, as seen throughout the life of universal suffrage in Britain, democracy is a farce. It means in most cases rule by the media, which means rule by the wealthy who influence the media. In times of plenty and often even in times of want, the masses wait to be told how to vote, or simply vote how their grandfather did in a sad substitute for “tradition”.

Harrison’s sentiment is also naive in connecting democracy to creativity. Again it’s a nice idea, but as far as I can see has no basis in actuality. It is perfectly possible to have democracy amidst mass censorship and a media that diligently circumscribes thought. That is exactly what we have in modern Britain. The only free speech is on social media, and the organs of democracy are striving to extend their censorship to there as well. But even if that is achieved, this will still be a “democracy”, for what that’s worth. What we see is not that Britain is a bad democracy, but that democracy itself is a bad system.

Indeed, if democracy actually worked as it is supposed to, then the Muslims who were in Britain to threaten Salman Rushdie, trouble Tony Harrison and endanger the public peace, would have been deported (or would never have arrived in the first place) and would therefore be unable to do any of those things. But Harrison’s precious democracy kept them around - indeed, he himself would regard it as monstrously undemocratic to do anything else.

The democratic impulse dooms itself by refusing to countenance having standards among voters, just as multiculturalism dooms itself by refusing to discriminate against intolerable cultures.

in a democratic nation… creative minds [are not] Mahounded

Oh, but they are. Harrison here is simply writing against reality, even in 1989. But he knows this, and what he actually means is:

in a democratic nation… creative minds should not be constrained by religious barbarism

But, if this is what he wants, he should oppose mass immigration from religiously barbaric parts of the world into democratic nations. You simply cannot have both; eventually the Muslims will tire of your starry-eyed idealism and slaughter an intellectual. They will also engage in ethnic nepotism and thus democratically empower their own against you. In addition, they will form voting blocks and make various demands in return for their block-vote, demands that will benefit their group, exclusively, at the expense of the natives. Thus will Harrison’s precious democracy be repurposed into a tool for conquering his people, dominating his land, obliterating the civilisation he values, and finally, destroying the democracy he believes in.

If any of these dangers occurred to Harrison, he would presumably have assuaged them by hoping that, over time, British liberalism will “colonise” (if I dare use that word) the minds of Muslim immigrants, and eventually they will have his attitudes. Well, that was in 1989. Thirty years later:

What would these men think if Tony Harrison told them about the value of freedom of speech, and how they should treasure it over their religion, which has “had its day”? Not much. The truth is, a liberal trying to gently persuade Muslims to give up Islam is like a man trying to gently rape a lion.

Another part of the poem deals - smugly - with the threat some outraged Muslims had made to boycott Penguin Books. Harrison thinks these Muslims would be shooting themselves in the foot, since their boycott would mean they couldn’t buy copies of a book very dear to them:

a book that Moslems ought to know is
published by Penguin - the Koran!

So … when you impose your Penguin ban
the Koran’s on their list.

This is an incredibly weak and naive thing for Harrison to say. The first part shows the juvenile glee so typical of liberals when they think of some fatuous point and rush to think it a “winner”. Then he switches to a solemn tone, with the preachy moralising that was also beloved of “right on” liberals back then. (How ironic that this combination of traits - moralising while being naive - is exactly what these very people mocked Mary Whitehouse for.)

To examine the point that Harrison was making… Does he seriously think (he doesn’t, because he isn’t really thinking) that Muslims would have even the slightest difficulty obtaining non-Penguin copies of the Koran? Of course they wouldn’t. Therefore, what kind of “win” is it that some copies of it are by Penguin? Who cares?!

With the smug stealth of the “rebel” who knows the powerful are on his side, Harrison starts off railing against religious fundamentalism but casually pivots to the absolutism of “all religion’s had its day”. From the vantage point of 2026, this cavalier approach to very delicate subjects seems alarmingly reckless. But Harrison was speaking in a time when liberalism was ascendent and must have seemed invincible.

From that complacent - and therefore careless - position does Harrison also write the final stanza. It is surely worth studying.

I want to let [Salman Rushdie] know

I shall not cease from mental strife
nor shall my pen sleep in my hand
till Rushdie has a right to life
and books aren’t burned or banned.

This is a laudable sentiment, but again it is hopelessly naive and ultimately amounts to hot air.

In truth, Harrison has the freedom to write only because Muslims haven’t (yet) beheaded him, and the government hasn’t (yet) imprisoned him, and Communist thugs haven’t (yet) thrown him in a gulag, and Fascist thugs haven’t (yet) put him in hospital, and MI5 haven’t (yet) dragged him away in the dead of night.

I will not say that violence is necessary in life, however, those who cannot or will not use it are helpless against those who can and will, and for protection they must rely on some third party who may not remain reliable. This is the plight of the effete intellectual - like Harrison, like myself. Does writing have any effect in protecting one from violence? Do intelligence, imagination, kindness, talent, originality or noble intentions protect one from violence? I used to believe so, but eventually I realised that I believed it not because any evidence suggested it, but because I wanted to believe it - and this purged me of the delusion. If Harrison still believed, when he died in 2025, in the things he wrote in 1989, I can only surmise that, despite his advanced age, he still hadn’t gone through the painful process of evaluating his beliefs in the context of cold reality.

In 2026 we live in a Britain in which minorities proliferate by the year, and where (on current trends) Muslims are destined to rule. In 1989 this was not yet the case, so we should cut Harrison some slack for thinking back then that Muslims en masse could be swayed by kuffar verbiage. He was operating from a position of luxury compared to ours today. However, even then Muslims were present in Britain in numbers sufficient to force Salman Rushdie into hiding. Indeed, this was exactly what Harrison was responding to with his words. While their demographic predominance was not yet on the cards, their force as a group was already on full display - even while they were a tiny minority!

Harrison’s wording in that final stanza suggests that he realises the naivety of the sentiment. But he has nothing to offer that is less naive. In the end, all he can do is hope for the best. His awareness of this fact does not help him. What’s worse is that he lacks the moral fortitude, having become aware of this fact, to investigate alternatives. A cosseted intellectual, he sticks with his comfy delusions. The old cloisters of elitist Oxbridge which Harrison railed against might have produced complacency, but it is difficult to imagine that it rivalled the complacency of him and others promoted in the age of democracy. Having seen out the old order, they believed that their commitment to equality would see them through anything. They still believe this today. But I suspect that a man of Harrison’s sensitivity, in his darker moments, later realised the truth.

In the same year as all of this, 1989, Francis Fukuyama announced “the end of history”, first as a question then, three years later, as a declaration. In the Rushdie affair we see the factors that would eventually disprove the “end of history”. It is interesting that the thesis and its antithesis were born at the very same time.

With that caveat acknowledged, we have to look at what AI will enable us - or other people - to do. Even those of us who reject it need to understand how it will benefit others, since ultimately we are “up against” them.

First, I should explain my bias. While I loved primary school, secondary (high) school was a torment for me. With class teaching that was frustratingly slow and bureaucratic demands that were overly pedantic, it felt like a huge waste of my time. If there is a way to avoid thwarting the tremendous energy and drive that teenaged boys have, then I am biased to approve of it. Likewise if there is a way to free kids from the suffocating syllabi of formal education.

I might have been an extreme case but I think most kids, especially boys, have similar experiences of high school. The older I get, the more I am disturbed by the idea of forcing highly energetic youngsters to sit still for eight hours a day in dull classrooms learning dull stuff. The superficial result is demotivation and disengagement, but it feels like there is wastage at a more profound level. We seem to be stifling our people when they are at their most mentally fertile.

Schooling takes far too long - thirteen years to get someone ready for work? Also, at the high school level, most of what you learn is irrelevant once you leave. We have long spoken of this as a sort of joke, something that just can’t be fixed, but it can be fixed, and we should not cheerfully accept an inherent flaw in a system that could be changed. In seeking to heal its dysfunction, Western society is going to have to ask why our schooling takes so long, why it includes many things that aren’t needed or enriching for the individual child, and why these things are often taught badly.

All of this was probably inevitable given the way education developed. In expanding schooling to the many, it was thought right to echo the classical education by teaching all children about Hamlet (for example), but as the West became ever more bureaucratised and egalitarian, “teaching them about Hamlet” became “training them to repeat ten facts about Hamlet”. By now, even many of the teachers don’t have any real grasp of Hamlet; they just know that each kid needs to go through the motions, as they did, in order to get the grade. Democratising means homogenising, which especially in the context of the Humanities makes the exercise basically a farce. It is brought about by the need to serve a system that has taken on a life of its own; the process has become “the point”.

So, for most kids, satisfying the process is the real experience of high school. They just want to get by and get out. They will learn whatever needs learning in order to pass the tests. Then they go to college or university where the process is repeated in a more focussed form. Then, finally, they are out in the world of work, where they will occasionally have to do courses in order to “stay fresh” with the latest thinking, techniques and tools.

For a long time, then, our conception of education has been more akin to skills training than to classical “education”. Moreover it has become routine and impersonal, like software installation. We install the software, we make sure it has installed correctly, then we periodically install small updates as they become available.

The spread of first schooling and then university led to this new conception of education. We ceased speaking - and thinking - of “the formation of character”. Certainly, we stopped thinking of “bringing out what is within”. It became the opposite: the inserting and forcing and grafting of the authorised into the raw mind, to tame it, to ensure it is fit for purpose in a society that was highly regimented and demanded conformity of its messy organic drones.

This was education in a world that was semi-automated, that required people to interface with a pedantic and inflexible infrastructure. You achieve that by making the infrastructure more human or the people less so. We did both: the infrastructure became easier to operate, but operating it at such intensity required people to act like machines.

But in the era of AI, the infrastructure is not only becoming more versatile, it is becoming able to actually communicate with us. The White call-centre worker of the late 1990s was replaced with an Indian by the late 2000s, then by barely-functional speech recognition software by the late 2010s, but that is now being replaced by AI with which you can actually have an easy conversation. You tell it what you want, it asks you for the information it needs, and the job is done. You nearly say thank you, and when it wishes you a good day you have to remind yourself not to say the same back, then you hang up. It is “impersonal” in a way we could scarcely have imagined in the 1990s… but it works, and it works better than the clumsy “intermediary versions” of the 2000s and 2010s. The automation is complete - the system can now converse with us - so we no longer need humans in the middle, acting like machines.

That eliminates a lot of jobs - the “operatives”, the data entry people, the management layers above them… we don’t need a middle-class to operate the system any more. We also don’t need them to do many jobs that the system itself can now do. From data analysis to graphic design, it is becoming difficult to work out what we do need a middle-class for. We still need a working-class for the manual tasks that robotics can’t take over, but not many. Of course, at this point you have to ask the more existential question of what a society is for if it doesn’t “need” most of the people in it, but that is beyond the scope of this essay.

In terms of employment sectors, until the last few years it might have seemed that education was a safe option, but AI nixes that too. Who needs a teacher or even a highly-trained professor when you can just ask ChatGPT?

This tweet sums it up. If a student can simply get ChatGPT to write essays for him, then his degree has little value to employers since it no longer “proves” what it used to. Similarly, if a student can simply get ChatGPT to explain things for him, then attending university is absurd since he can acquire the same understanding without racking up huge debt and wasting three years of his life. If we have divested education of “higher purposes” and it is now purely for training people, then a more efficient training method renders it obsolete - a grossly expensive farce, justified only by residual social cachet that is depleting daily.

I can imagine a (very) near future in which a company tells 12 year-olds how to join it with a simple page on its website:

Learn X, Y and Z thoroughly. Ask AI whatever questions you want in order to develop your understanding of those and related concepts. Once you are 16, you may join a group of candidates sitting an exam here on our premises. Electronic devices will be forbidden so you will be relying purely on your knowledge and understanding. The exam will determine the extent to which you have mastered X, Y, Z and related subjects (which we won’t specify, so as to gauge your initiative and engagement). The best ten of you will get employed.

Not only is university not required for this, even high school isn’t. As for the exam at the end, that would be invigilated by people who actually work at the company and thus “know the territory”, so exam boards would also be superfluous. The entire 20th Century system of formal education would be bypassed.

Now, once you (as this hypothetical 12 year-old) know which subjects you need to master in order to be eligible for that job, how will you learn them? How will “AI training” work?

• You tell the AI that you need to master subjects X, Y and Z within the next four years. It determines what mastering those will entail. For example, like any subject, X can only be grasped by first grasping a hierarchy of other things. The AI will guide you through that hierarchy, step by step.

• It will estimate the amount of time required to master X, Y and Z so that you make the deadline. It will revise this estimate periodically based on its perception of your progress so far.

• It will gauge your progress and your mastery of particular things by devising tests for you to sit. These could be generated automatically but perhaps posted online to be checked by human experts before deploying. Eventually there will be a huge stockpile of such tests so no danger of scarcity. The software will, of course, keep track of which tests you have already sat.

• You will learn at your own pace, unhampered by slower students.

• You will be constantly engaged rather than waiting for the lecturer to get to the point, being distracted by social hijinks, or getting bored learning things you already understand or have no use for.

• If there is something you don’t understand you will be able to get clarification immediately without having to worry about “looking stupid”.

• On “downtime” you can watch relevant YouTube lectures by real people and enjoy a sample of the old style of university. You can chat about the subject with other interested people online. Such activities will yield random “bits” to serve as fuel, new questions for you to ask the AI.

• If your curiosity takes you away from the X, Y and Z required by the original company, you can ask the AI which jobs at which companies would better fit the knowledgebase you have been gathering.

• The AI can (if you choose) make your knowledgebase publicly searchable so that people looking for employees or research partners will be able to find you. This profile will be very precise, and it will update automatically as your interests evolve. Maybe the company still requires X, Y and Z but has developed a special need for people who also know about P and Q - and you happen to fit their needs so will be contacted.

Now, you might think all of that sounds dreadfully impersonal. I wouldn’t disagree. But it might well be what many, many people do. Your kid could spend six years at high school then another three at university before applying to begin his career at 21, but many of his peers will be there at 16, possibly with more knowledge and better understanding than he acquired in-between all the tedious lectures, crap food, drinking, shagging, and student activism. They will have a five-year lead over him and zero debt.

Note that this would apply not only to “hard theory” subjects like STEM but even to the Humanities, because they, once the heart of the classical education, have been degraded into pure exercises in memory, facts, statistics and unquestioning alignment with ideology. Conformity and shrill certainty are required. Contemplation is certainly not required (indeed it is discouraged and punished) in order to obtain a Humanities degree today, or probably for the last fifty years. So AI could take over teaching this material, so degraded has it been by its human conveyors since 1945. They have made themselves redundant by so devaluing the precious thing they were trusted to look after. Now a machine can do it - and a machine doesn’t want a salary and a pension.

At the moment there are shortcomings with AI training. Studies are coming out saying that it lowers IQ because, of course, people are allowing it to do their thinking for them. I believe this is about as much of an intractable problem as the “uncanny valley” feel of AI imaging: it will be solved, and probably quickly.

For example, I can imagine an AI training system that requires the student to demonstrate understanding. I can imagine a verified AI testing system that gauges a student’s progress in a way that cannot be faked. These are problems waiting for solutions that will materialise.

Within a decade from now, AI might well be better than the ways we currently have for training, especially in subjects that don’t require physical skills or activity (although even there it could be a useful aid).

Ironically, the kind of education it will be terrible at is the type we have spent a century moving away from.

Understanding life, history, philosophy, art, men, women and oneself requires interaction with human educators. It is not just a matter of IQ, so no matter how “intelligent” AI becomes, it can never do this. It is a matter of, for want of a less sentimental word, humanity. I don’t want to learn from software what it is to be human, to fall in love, to lose, to be bereaved, to be jealous, to fail, to win, to endure, to hope. It couldn’t possibly understand, so how it could help me understand? Why would I trust it? I don’t want to discuss with software the meaning or potency of a film or a piece of music. The idea is ridiculous.

But I think this kind of education - the Humanities as they used to be taught - is of value to only a minority of people, 10% or less. (Most fans of Withnail & I don’t want to think about its reflections on friendship, class, nationhood… they just want to play the drinking game and laugh about thumbs going weird. Most people, even if they stumble upon great things, are shallow.) For this reason, I don’t think the inability of AI “education” to truly handle the Humanities should be a count against it. On the contrary, it gives us a chance to revive a rightful separation between training (90%) and actual education (10%).

Let the 90% finish schooling at 12 and find their way towards adulthood using AI. The other 10% are a very different matter, and for them perhaps old-fashioned elite schooling can be made widely available with all the resources freed up.

Ha! You’re not even American! “Account based in Belgium”! Europoor! Mind your own business! Who cares what you think anyway? Why do you think you should have an opinion on America? It’s not your country! Opinion discarded! HAHAHA Cope and seethe, irrelevant Eurotrash!

Of course it’s the lower IQ Trump supporters who say this kind of thing, but there are many of them. I want to have a response here that I can link to, for convenience.

The United States is (at time of writing) the world superpower. This means that things it does, and even things that happen internally within it, have repercussions all around the globe. Other countries are affected, directly and indirectly, by the actions and tribulations of the hegemon.

With power comes responsibility. With superpower status, comes the fact that everyone else will be affected by your actions. You can’t have one without the other. If you are proud of America’s superpower status, fine, but understand that it means everyone else will have things to say, and that objecting to this only makes you look like an ignorant simpleton.

As an extension to the above, I will point out the asymmetry of the situation.

When the BAP crowd suddenly spoke out against Restore Britain, it was very suspicious and also unwelcomed by us in Britain. BAP is a Romanian Jew so why he should be so interested in (and claim to be knowledgeable about) British politics is a mystery. When I told him and his (mostly American) hangers-on to mind their own business, people reminded me that I have often opined on the politics of a foreign country: America.

It is annoying that this needs to be explained, but here goes.

The two are not comparable. Britain is no longer a superpower, while America is (for now).

American politics is all over British TV, media and social media. We Brits cannot help but know about what is going on over there, how it is likely to affect us (or has affected us), who is involved, why they did it, etc. Therefore, inevitably we will have opinions. And those opinions will be backed up with knowledge (even if it is sometimes flawed).

The converse is simply not true. The vast majority of Americans will not be affected by British politics and will certainly not be informed about British politics. Therefore, when they opine on the same, it is aggravating and insulting. When BAP and his lackeys chimed in, it was obvious they didn’t know what they were talking about. It was obvious that America and Romania would not be affected by a Restore government in the way we in Britain are affected by any American government. It was therefore also obvious that BAP’s “interest” in the matter was wholly artificial, and that of his fluffers even more so. But perhaps most insulting was their insistence that they knew more about British politics than we British do. Of course, this is always possible, but it would have to be someone who had taken a lot of time to learn and understand - and they clearly hadn’t.

I am happy to hear foreign views on British politics, culture, etc. when they are informed, or when they are uninformed but offered with humility. Other than that, do the honest and respectful thing: remain silent.

At the same time, accept that we in Europe will continue to voice opinions about the superpower. If our opinions are uninformed, point that out to us, but try to keep it polite. And certainly, give up on the ludicrous idea that the United States is none of our business. It is everyone’s business, because it is so important.

This story sees the rulers of Peladon, a backward and unimportant planet, contemplating whether to join “the Galactic Federation”.

After much debate in Parliament and the media, Britain joined the EEC (which evolved into the European Union) when Ted Heath signed the Treaty of Accession on the 22nd of January 1972. Just seven days later, The Curse of Peladon began broadcasting. Given the sheer temporal proximity, the story must be seen as a meditation on this real-world issue.

Moreover, since a great percentage of the British public opposed joining the EEC, it is an attempt by educated liberals to persuade them. But, as is often the case with allegorical drama, the persuasion is done dishonestly. The fictional setting allows for key facts to be twisted, replaced or omitted altogether, and thus, a fallacious argument to be constructed.

Coming from the mind of a writer, any story is bound to have “a perspective”. That is fine. I have no objection to the storyteller’s concerns being apparent in the stories he tells; drama would be very dull if it had to be strictly impartial on everything. However, there are two caveats. I would prefer if the BBC employed storytellers with a range of perspectives, not just liberals! Doctor Who viewers never got a story which showed “the other side” of this issue.

The second caveat is that a story should make some attempt at even-handedness, especially when it is for the general public and even more so when large numbers of children will be watching. The Curse of Peladon is certainly not even-handed. While purportedly a meditation on cooperation and federation, it ends up being a full-throated defence.

It is also not honest or fair, since Peladon differs from Britain in very relevant ways. Whatever the country, any fair treatment would take its peculiarities into account. Instead, Britain is distorted out of recognition in The Curse of Peladon. Just as the barbarian has to be elevated so that colonising him seems bad, a great country has to be diminished so that federating it seems good.

Well within living memory in 1972, Britain had been the world superpower. Thus, when its avatar here is a “somewhat primitive planet” which is lucky to be offered a chance by more advanced planets, the narrative is wildly off-the-mark. Britain was not in any way primitive compared to the other countries in the EEC; indeed it was as advanced as any, merely facing economic problems.

Then there is the character of the EEC itself, separate from its “member states”. The Galactic Federation is described exactly as the EEC (and EU) describes itself: a force for good, rationality, progress, efficiency, and benign cooperation. But what if the EEC is actually willing to destroy its “member states” in pursuit of a technocratic dream? This isn’t mentioned.

However, opposition to joining the Federation is mentioned, and linked explicitly with superstition and fear.

Hepesh, the High Priest of Peladon, is the ultra conservative uncle of its youthful, progressive king. He is desperate to dissuade the king from taking Peladon into the Federation.

Hepesh worships an ancient god, Aggedor, which of course turns out to be a false god. Moreover, Hepesh is engineering murders (including of his own brother) in order to frighten the king into keeping Peladon independent.

I can imagine a defender of this story saying that it isn’t biased, because the idea of national independence is shown on-screen, embodied in the character of Hepesh. But that is exactly the problem. When you have made the only visible representative of an idea also a liar, a superstitious and fear-ridden fool, a corrupt schemer, a murderer and a fratricide… it is rather difficult for the audience to take his worldview seriously. You have primed them to dismiss anything he espouses. Indeed, the more vehemently he holds a belief, the more instinctively they will reject it.

As a side-note, this story also has the reappearance of a species from Doctor Who’s past.

When last seen, the Ice Warriors were a war-like and xenophobic species. Now, though, they have become enlightened. As emissaries of the Federation, they proclaim:

We were once [war-like], but now we reject violence - except in self-defence.

Ah yes, “muscular liberalism” like we would later see in Star Trek, when Picard fought the Borg.

When asked why their ambassador is defended by an armed guard, they explain:

Unfortunately, in order to maintain peace, it is necessary to survive.

It sounds like a CNN anchor: “Though we abhor imperialism, we must have the ability to defend our way of life, our rules-based order, our democracy.”

The implied argument is: if even a race as aggressive and jingoistic as the Ice Warriors can become enlightened, surely we Brits can, too? In this context, national pride is implicitly equated with being aggressive and jingoistic.

In a conversation with the Doctor during a desperate moment, Hepesh finally “opens up” about why he opposes Peladon joining the Federation:

Because I’m afraid.

The Doctor - standing in for the liberal writer and the (presumed) liberal viewer - attempts to persuade:

Afraid of what? The Federation is your safeguard.

This is the benign idea of globalism and federalism: it means that each country will have a “safety net”. But Hepesh believes that is a trick:

That is not true. I know the Federation’s real intent.

The Doctor is sure:

The Federation’s real intent is to help you!

But Hepesh knows:

No. They’ll exploit us for our minerals, enslave us with their machines, corrupt us with their technology. The face of Peladon will be changed, the past swept away, and everything that I know and value will have gone.

Peladon has the vulnerabilities of an African country (“exploit us for our minerals”), not a highly advanced First World nation, but let’s overlook that and consider the second half of his statement, which the story presents as reactionary and blinkered. I would say every word of it has been vindicated by Britain’s experience of EU membership and globalism in general. Of course, this relates not just to the EU but the WHO, the WEF, the UN, and so on. Even now, post-Brexit, these bodies have learned nothing and remain absolutely determined to destroy whatever they can of every ancient culture under their control.

The Doctor tries to reassure Hepesh:

The progress that they offer isn’t like that.

Oh, but it is. And Hepesh is brave, strengthened by his faith in his people and homeland:

I would rather be a cave-dweller and free.

You might say that, in 2016, after 45 years in the EU, the British public agreed with Hepesh. But of course, we were never going to be cave-dwellers, and the public knew that in 1972.

This possibility of impoverishment, like so much of the allegory in this story, depends on Britain being depicted as a primitive planet that could only gain by federating. It would be more accurate - and also more patriotic - if Peladon had been an advanced planet that could only lose by federating.

Instead, the desire to love and value and preserve your homeland, as Hepesh does, is presented as fearful, superstitious and backward-looking.

As he dies, he says:

I wanted to save our world, to preserve the old ways. Perhaps I was wrong. I hope so. The future you set so much store by, is yours now.

In the real world, that future didn’t last long, and in its short life it destroyed Europe. What we found was that the Federation did indeed exist to dominate, browbeat, threaten, weaken, homogenise, castrate and annihilate, to whatever extent it could, every “member state” that submitted to it. The very goal of the project, from the outset, was global homogeneity and centralised control, based on technocratic hubris, loathing of tradition and contempt for people in general.

It is exactly as Hepesh said. A liberal writer unwittingly gave his “superstitious fool” more wisdom than everyone else.

Subscribe now

We should be honest about the scope of what is ahead for Restore Britain. I will speak about three phases: expansion, electioneering and governing.

Expansion

This is a critical phase because the people in an organisation define what the organisation ends up being, how it will perform, what strengths and vulnerabilities it will have, and what daily life within it will be like.

Expansion means lots of new activists. Since this is politics, and politics of a certain pitch, some of those who volunteer their time will be misfits, malcontents, sociopaths, the types who love to fall out with people and actively look for ways to create conflict - just an all-round nightmare. Once they’re in, you can’t stop them doing damage because they always find ways around rules. You can only remove them. It is wise to do so promptly.

A separate category, ideological spergs, can be extremely useful but must be kept in a box. They are great at research, number crunching, strategising, etc. Don’t give them any social responsibilities or prominence.

Expansion will also mean bringing professional advisers onboard. That is a risk, especially because they will not be familiar with the sort of political party RB needs to be, since none has existed before. They should be chosen carefully. Not only should they be competent and trustworthy, they should have the imagination needed to understand the project.

Another risk is non-natives joining. Some will be well-meaning, some entirely self-interested, but all will weaken the resolve and ability of RB to do what needs to be done. Hold the line. Remember that the native people of Britain are with you, no matter how little diversity you have in the shop window.

Don’t accept Zionist funders. This is the death knell for any pro-European organisation. It has happened time after time, and RB would be no different. The same goes for figures, such as Douglas Murray, who would force RB down that path. Few things could be more devastating to a party that purports to be devoted to improving Britain and helping the British people. It is a key aspect of the farce of British politics that every party has a “Friends of Israel” organisation. If RB does this, people will see the party, rightly or not, as a sham owned and controlled by foreign interests and the organic support, the base, the energy, will dry up overnight.

Then you have to worry about infiltrators - spies from the media, Hope Not Hate, etc. - who will seek to get your people on tape saying something inadvisable. Everyone should bear this in mind and not say anything in private that they wouldn’t say on TV. State infiltration will likely come in the form of honeypots, because there is no surer way to corrupt young men than with young women. Insulate yourselves from scandal however you can. Finances, relationships, etc.

Then there are the drama merchants, the martyrs and exhibitionists who thrive on wild antics that get attention, creating fodder for their socials and for the progressive media, but generally bring down the tone and drive away sensible people.

What you need is straightforward, well-adjusted professional types, preferably with unblemished personal lives, the types of people who solve problems rather than create new ones.

Expansion is an extremely tricky business because basically every new person is a risk. Mistakes will be made. The whole organisation will need to be adept at recovering from these and continually moving forwards. However, vetting and monitoring new people will be essential to building a stable working environment.

I can’t emphasise enough that the organisation will need to be robust, because the opposition it is going to face will be historic. (Were the country’s situation not so drastic, I would even suggest delaying an electoral run until a solid base has been established.) I also can’t emphasise enough how being robust depends on the types of people brought onboard. An organisation is the people in it.

Loyalty (“he agrees with us”) should count for infinitely more than merit (“he’s clever/qualified”). But, obviously, you ideally want both in every person you bring onboard. The establishment parties will always be able to attract qualified people; RB’s appeal will be strength and conviction, not slickness.

Electioneering

I think this will actually be a lot easier than the first phase, because the message is one that the British people will naturally be very amenable to. Finally having a party that represents them, comes across as genuine and simply speaks the truth will be a breath of fresh air. If RB don’t win a majority in the next election, they will in the one after that. Yes, it might be necessary for Britain to endure a farcical Reform/Conservative or an appalling Green/Labour government, but if RB hold the line and don’t cuck, victory will be assured after that. I would strongly advise against accepting a minority role in a coalition government. It worked out badly for the Lib Dems in 2010, and the establishment would make sure it worked out badly for RB.

I suspect that, in time, RB will transcend the left/right paradigm to some extent, but clearly for now it is squarely a right-wing party. For that reason, courting Green, Labour and LibDem voters is largely a waste of time. You will have more luck pulling (some of) them towards your position than slyly adapting it to please them. The realities of Britain today - corruption, globalism, corporatism, cost of living crisis, the failures of multiculturalism - are visible to everyone who is willing to see them, and I think a lot of young men who currently feel that the Green Party sympathises with them could be brought over on the same basis. A lot of people are not stridently left-wing, they just hate the status quo. But Tolkien would have hated it for the same reasons. Be Tolkien, not Thatcher.

When it comes to Conservative and Reform voters, your task is at once easier and harder. It is easier because these parties are obviously corrupt and incapable of rescuing the country. It is harder because a) a lot of people have invested great hope in Reform and b) conservative people tend to be very staid. RB will seem to them like an unknown quantity, and maybe too extreme. Do not over-play any cartoonish memeable “basedness”, no matter how funny it might be. The party’s communications can be slick and “cheeky” and poke fun at its rivals, but should never veer into the sort of vulgarity that can be used against it.

RB’s top weapon against Reform is the fact that Farage, now admitted publicly by the man himself, lied about Rupert Lowe in the hopes of getting him imprisoned and destroying his reputation. No sensible person should want a man who behaves like that in charge of the country. There is a danger of over-playing this card, but only if you fail to supplement it with other things - tangible policy, capable figures, clear direction, a clean image, a proper constitution. If you have those things sorted out, you can safely go hell-for-leather against Farage on this crucial matter of personal integrity. The emphasis should be not on Lowe’s misfortune or suffering, but on Farage’s duplicity and malice.

Boomers, like left-wingers, should not be placated, but rather invited to come to your position. Don’t waste time and energy trying to adapt the message for them, because as far as I can see, the message really isn’t for them. It is for the young who will need to deal with the Britain that is on the way.

Don’t over-play the Christian angle. It needlessly alienates many people who would naturally be your allies. I say this as someone who is dismayed whenever a church is converted into a mosque or a callcentre. Of course our Christian heritage matters (even to those of us who are not Christian) and of course it should be protected. But we are not starting from a point at which a majority of the population are practising Christians, and it would be wise to proceed with that in mind.

Don’t over-play the stuff about welfare scroungers. While there is undoubtedly a huge problem with multi-generational welfare dependency, there is also the fact that a lot of jobs simply are disappearing due to automation, AI, off-shoring and low-wage immigration. This issue particularly affects young men, who would otherwise be drawn to RB, and have been systematically cut out of employment, training, promotion, bursaries, etc. and really left on the scrap heap. It’s also the case (I believe) that Thatcherite insistence that people “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” has led to dead-end communities up and down the country, when investment and sympathy would have been a more intelligent approach for families that, until then, wouldn’t have dreamt of going on welfare but found themselves with little option. All of these factors explain a large part of Zack Polanski’s appeal, and rather than refute or ignore this, I would suggest RB co-opt it. Make it positive; instead of demonising “the indolent”, speak of those who are “neglecting their potential”. You might even call them “the neglected”.

No token BAME candidates. This is a cheap tactic that insults everyone and demoralises the young who are “over” such things. They are worried about being strangers in their country; they don’t care whether you’re “down with the Sikhs” or not.

Having good people, who seem capable of doing the monumental work the party seeks to do in government, will be essential during the electioneering phase. People want to see that RB is a serious party, genuinely preparing to do what it has pledged.

Governing

Third will be actually being in government and saving the country. This might involve:

• gutting and re-staffing the civil service (otherwise it will thwart you at every turn and get you tied up with a million kinds of nonsense)

• reforming the judiciary to disbar activist judges. This is not just for criminal reform but to prevent them thwarting governmental action

• leaving the ECHR

• legally abolishing DEI

• reforming the entire governmental apparatus (including banning Hope Not Hate)

• prosecuting everyone involved in the Pakistani rape gangs and the facilitating thereof

• bringing industry and food production home to revitalise the economy

• reforming the tax system to incentivise native family formation and increase birth rates

• slashing the insane, suicidal wokery in education

• reinventing formal education for the 21st Century

• abolishing or drastically reforming the BBC. Personally I favour reforming it and consider promising to abolish it a cultural and electoral strategic mistake, but I will write about that separately

• remigration (eg. my 25-point blueprint)

Once in government, RB will be surrounded by traitors and “establishment creatures”. Get rid of them as quickly as possible so that the actual work can proceed unhindered. Clear them out.

General

Messaging should be simple and harmonised. Essays are for critics and academics. You are now in the role of political warriors. Politics masquerades as a debate club but is actually a gladiatorial battle. Do not think that reasoning with your enemies will ever placate them. Your job is to ensure that you don’t get stuck in the weeds and that they do.

Attack is the best form of defence. Always be on the attack. Do not justify to the enemy unless it is strategically useful for you.

Keep the weirdos and fatties out - optics matter. RB people should look good and sound good. The fewer Ts that are dropped, the better; leave the nihilism to the Greens.

Resist the temptation to disavow your radical supporters. Use Cato’s tactics. Radicals can be tactless but their energy is priceless. Disavow them only when absolutely necessary.

I realise there will be no shortage of people offering RB advice. White Papers Policy Institute have some ideas. So does Michael Reiners. WorldByWolf wrote a good tweet. Academic Agent has some ideas of the dangers you face and offers good advice. But advice can be suffocating. A lot of what you need to do will be simple common sense.

Sometimes there will be difficulties, both practical and psychological. Have confidantes you can trust completely, and use them when you need to.

In closing

Britain has been in need of revival for a hundred years now. We have watched our Victorian grandeur fade, sometimes we have watched governments actively destroy it, and today we watch as its remnants are mocked, or re-purposed for foreigners who wear our heritage as a skin-suit. Cold Thatcherite monetarism didn’t reverse any of this. Neither did Blairite globalism. Neither will autistic libertarianism.

What is needed is new thinking, the courage and imagination to restore a great country and revitalise a great people. We do not need a return to the 1980s or the 1990s or even the 1890s, but a spring forward to something new and innovative, something that respects our deep past and replenishes it, and which nourishes us as a people - because that is what we are.

A lot of the structures of the 20th Century, and the terrible first quarter of the 21st, will need to be dismantled. A lot of people will need to be re-homed where they belong so that we have our country again and can begin the long process of healing, of recovering our peoplehood.

These are uncharted waters. The state clearly needs rolled back, but at the same time, relying on the free market will not be enough, because its interests are most fully served by destroying peoples and countries.

Nothing - no principle, value, law or institution - is more important than our future.

What the British need now is a government that is not in hock to any ideology of the past, and which has the courage and imagination to conceive of a future for us - for only us.

The premise is typically outlandish for an Anderson show: a 9 year-old boy is sent off alone on extremely dangerous missions with his brain implanted with memories and skills from numerous experts using a machine invented by his adoptive father. Yes, his father literally brainwashes him at the start of each episode before sending him off to defeat gangsters, terrorists and dictators. It wouldn’t be made today.

I don’t like Anderson’s other shows, but I love Joe 90. The reason isn’t just that I was introduced to it at a young age (my grandparents bought us a video of it, quite randomly I think); having had that entrée I could easily have “got into” the other shows, but I never did. Nor is it because by this time they had worked out how to have the heads be in proportion to the bodies, though that certainly helps. Rather, it’s because Joe 90 has a very small cast of characters, and each one is distinct and has clear relationships with the others. This might seem a ridiculous thing to praise, but the fact is, Anderson dropped the ball on this with all of his previous shows. They tend to have many “duplicate” characters - all the Tracey brothers in Thunderbirds, all the agents and all the “angels” in Captain Scarlet - which I find dizzying and confusing.

In Joe 90, there are just four people: Joe, his adoptive father Professor McClaine, his friend Sam Loover, and his boss Shane Weston. Thus, the show has an intimacy and calmness to it, and there is a camaraderie between the four which really “chimes”.

The cosiness is aided by the main setting, the house where Joe and his father live. It is an archetypal English cottage, rendered in adorable miniature:

This is countered by the steely modernism of Weston’s office, where business is often discussed:

Weston and Loover are directors at WIN - the World Intelligence Organisation. Prof. McClaine is an associate of the same, and young Joe becomes its “most special agent”.

What we have here is White men being competent, brave and honest. Each man has a role to play in the world, and he does his duty. These men have emotions, but they keep them under control. They are upset only by things that happen, not by ideas or personal demons. In the course of growing up or professional training, demons have either been defeated or consigned to a locked box so that they cannot prevent the man from doing well in life and helping the people around him.

On occasion, such as in the episode Talkdown, we encounter a man who has not defeated his demons, but this is not seen as a terrible mark against him, just as a burden that he must be helped to overcome so that he can do good in the world.

This is an extremely wholesome show. The moral lessons are not hammered home, but they are present in the actions and attitudes of the characters.

In this future (around 2012) the Cold War is long over and Russia is an ally of the West. But outside the West there is barbarism and dictatorship, poverty and superstition. WIN’s job is to intervene in these foreign lands to keep them relatively peaceful and honest - and to prevent these dusky scoundrels from making nasty little attacks on the West, which is idyllic.

21st Century Britain is depicted as a haven of peace, civilisation, friendliness, and good taste. Its people (entirely White) are helpful, polite and civic-minded. Things are looked after. Things are done properly. Yes, in the far-flung corners of the world there is tyranny and dysfunction and corruption, but here in Europe and the Anglosphere, we have a good way of life.

It being Britain, class is part of this formula. Everyone knows his place and is comfortable with it. But also, you occasionally see an educated person with a broad regional accent, indicating that, in this perfect future Britain, a talented man is enabled to thrive no matter his origins. But also, he knows how to thrive: it means embodying high culture, not gorging on vulgar trinkets.

As for Britain geopolitically, its Empire has clearly dissolved and it is subservient to America (as indicated by WIN being led by Americans) but it remains important, influential and well-respected on the global stage. Internally, this future Britain is a hive of shopkeepers, farm workers, small businessmen, diligent scholars and inventive scientists.

This is Britain as a thoughtful 1960s conservative would hope it would become in the next 50 years: a hi-tech post-industrial country, proud of its past but looking to the future; a land where the rural idyll has been recovered, but without sacrificing the gifts of science. As Prof. McClaine says:

That’s the way we like it, Sam - a combination of the old and the new.

All of the music - theme tune and scoring - is by Anderson’s regular composer Barry Gray. What a talent! He contributes a key ingredient without which the show just wouldn’t be the same, setting the tone right from the Century 21 sting that opens each episode.

Shot gleamingly on 35mm film, the show was rescanned by Network for Blu-ray. I haven’t gone for that because I don’t really care for high-definition, and also… I’m still chuffed with the fact that I got the DVD boxset for the ridiculous price of £10 in an HMV sale, back in 2005.

The VHS my grandparents bought had the slogan:

Daredevil excitement every boy dreams about!

And it is. If you have a son, and he is young enough not to have been spoiled by modern CGI, show him Joe 90.

My recommendations

This is superfluous because there aren’t really any bad episodes. However, for the sake of it…

Most Special Agent
This is the opener, which establishes the premise and is thus “necessary viewing”. Aside from that, it has an impressive destruction sequence where a military base is levelled, and also an exciting sequence at the start demonstrating Prof. McClaine’s flying car (note the wonderful shot of the wheel touching down on tarmac).

Arctic Adventure

I absolutely love this evocation of the Arctic - some little piece of water, bounded by ice floes, with a vertical ice sheet as a backdrop. It is all so simple, but beautifully done. This is the kind of thing you get aplenty in the show. Of course it doesn’t look realistic, but why would you want it to?

Breakout
This is a lovely (but surprisingly violent) episode set in Canada. What’s interesting, viewing it today, is that Canada is depicted as having a distinct culture of its own, and it is recognisably Anglo. This unique culture, incidentally, allows for the appearance of a charming log cabin set:

Note the Canadian official, dressed in national garb. Being an educated Anglo man, he is stoical, helpful, efficient, well-informed, and not corrupt.

Project 90
This is an exceptional episode. Every aspect of it is better “than it needs to be”. It’s as if everyone involved is going the extra mile - not least Barry Gray whose score here is outstanding. On the visual side, I love the rendition of the Alps, especially at twilight. Things this beautiful don’t need to exist.

The Professional
This episode is very tense and culminates with an escape sequence that is absolutely thrilling, and very technically impressive. I remember the first time I watched it, the climactic shot amazed me.

Colonel McClaine
Another gripping episode, this sees Joe tasked with transporting highly explosive material across a rocky terrain. Very tense indeed! Also lovely model landscapes and cute chunky vehicles.

Episodes in strange locations

Child of the Sun God - the Amazon
Most Special Astronaut - space!

Touching episodes

Hi-Jacked
Relative Danger
Three’s A Crowd

Episodes with hilarious racial stereotypes

Using stereotypes for incidental characters is a thing done in all dramas, even today, for speed and convenience - but it’s notable here because of the national/racial aspect. This was a time when it was okay for Westerners to engage in “othering” - ie. to find something exotic. That was okay, because we were allowed to have our own perspective. In some episodes these stereotypes are especially prominent:

Big Fish (South Americans)
Child of the Sun God (Amazon tribes)
King for a Day (Arabs)

“Oddball” episodes

See You Down There
Lone-Handed 90
The Race

Episodes with female characters

Women cameo here and there, but only two episodes have a key female character, and there is only one recurring (Mrs Harris, the McClaines’ housekeeper).

Double Agent - Mrs Harris
Arctic Adventure - Mrs Harris
The Birthday - Mrs Harris
Three’s a Crowd - Angela Davies and Mrs Harris
Viva Cordova - Dorina Cordova

What I would have liked

More of it! The formula just works so well, it seems criminal that a second season wasn’t commissioned. I’m sure it would have been every bit as charming and adorable as the first. Unfortunately, by 1968 the spy/espionage genre was going out of fashion, and Joe 90 was too different from its Anderson predecessors to capitalise on their popularity, so one season is all that was ever made.

After this Gerry Anderson made only one more Supermarionation series (The Secret Service, which was axed halfway through production) and then he moved on to other things. Joe 90 was less popular than his earlier series but, for me, it represents the peak of his ingenious (and very British) experiment with the craft of storytelling. With Supermarionation, Anderson and his technicians created something both unique and charming, and I believe Joe 90 is the best of it.

See my other TV guides here.

Blacks defend black murderer Karmelo Anthony. Moderate Muslims defend hardcore Muslims. Moderate leftists defend extreme leftist professors, writers, journalists, bomb-throwers, vandals, rioters, murderers and even terrorists.

Groups defend their radical fringes because they understand that the radical fringe is a bulwark against the enemy as well as a snow-plough clearing ground so that moderates can seize it. In addition, protecting the radicals is beneficial for reasons of morale, solidarity, not showing weakness or kowtowing to the enemy, etc. Therefore, every group prizes and protects its radicals.

Every group, that is, except White conservatives. They have a completely different strategy: disavow their radicals in order to gain their enemy’s approval, endorsement and friendship. This is the “people pleaser” approach, and indeed it does please people, because it puts the conservative in the losing position and enables his enemy to walk all over him. (Whenever one hears about a conservative politician who behind closed doors really enjoys getting whipped or otherwise humiliated, it seems to just make sense. It makes sense that Tim Stanley, who condemns right-wing radicals as Nazis, calls Kemi Badenoch “mummy”.)

The general public don’t want to follow radicals, because they associate being radical with being unstable, weak and unreasonable. They associate being moderate with being stable, strong and reasonable. But the key thing for them is not moderation - which is arbitrary and changes with the times - but the other attributes which are seen to go with it. They follow a moderate not because his ideas are bland, but because he is stable, strong and reasonable - “a safe pair of hands”. What they want is not just stability, but direction that will not swerve, not err or falter, not lead them off a cliff.

If you, as a politician, have radical ideas but nevertheless seem stable, strong and reasonable, the public will take you seriously. Of course, your enemy will do everything they can to obstruct this. They will first emphasise how radical your ideas are. If that fails, because the public have an appetite for change, they will switch to emphasising the other traits, trying to get the public to see you as unstable, weak and unreasonable. Funnily enough, “unstable and weak” can be achieved by getting you to disavow people on your own side. This could be because the individuals are corrupt, sleazy, under-qualified… or because they are more radical than you. If you disavow them, you admit that you had bad judgement in associating with them in the first place, and you show yourself as a people-pleaser who lacks the strength to stand by his principles and his allies. Your enemy wants you to disavow your radicals because doing so makes you look bad.

Far from winning you some peace, it disrupts things on your side. Now you have to deal with tumult in the ranks - your supporters feeling demoralised because you have started disavowing people, your allies unsure which of them will be next, everyone wondering whether some other leader would be less of a push-over.

Meantime, having done what your enemy demanded, of course you have not won his approval. He moves straight on to the next demand. The point of holding you responsible for the radicals is to persuade you to kill your own cause. You end up literally doing your enemy’s work for him.

We on the Right have to start playing to win, not seeking our enemy’s approval. There is no placating people who want you extinct. And be in no doubt, that is absolutely what they want. So, invoking your attachment to morality and principles, and using your decency against you, they invite you to castrate your own side.

Now, of course there are objectionable ideas and people on the Right (as anywhere). But you don’t need to attack them or counter-signal them. I won’t say categorically that you should have “no enemies to the right” - good luck with that! - but that you should avoid cutting them loose. Most of the time, you can simply ignore them.

A high tide raises all ships. Instead of attacking someone you deem not good enough, elevate someone you deem better.

Social class comes into this. On the Left, radicals tend to be middle-class, university-educated, idealistic, and full of self-regard. But on the Right, radicals tend to be working-class. This is a vector of attack. The enemy will point out how uncouth the radical is, how lacking in finesse and nuance, how uneducated, boorish or unpleasant he might be. All of those accusations might hold, and yet what the radical is saying remains true. And even if not, to be cold about this, the radical remains strategically useful.

Often, the purpose of the radical is not that he identifies end goals, but that he maximises the ground the enemy has to fight to secure. When you as a moderate concede ground from the off by disavowing your radicals, you reduce your enemy’s workload and reduce your possible win before the fight has even started! Now, you might think this helps you because it makes you appear reasonable, moral, etc. Your enemy doesn’t care about those things. If he cared about morality, he wouldn’t be demonising you for objecting to the Great Replacement or trying to secure the existence of your ethnic group.

Of course we should be reasonable and humane - but by the standards of the public, not of our enemies. If someone on your side is too extreme, maybe privately suggest they calm down their rhetoric so as not to give the enemy an easy win. However, never publicly disavow them except as an absolute last resort. Not only does it inflame egos leading to reprisals and resentment all round, more importantly it demoralises your side (yes, because people are human) and hands a win to your enemy by showing there is division on your side, something he can stoke and exploit.

Perhaps most fundamentally, a man who continually disavows his own side is seen by the public as a man who is weak and/or has bad judgement.

When one of your radicals (let’s call him “Ronald”) is in the news for some controversial thing he has said or done, you might not need to say anything at all. Simply letting your enemy bluster impotently might be the winning move for you. However, we should not imagine that we too enjoy the privileged position of the Left, namely that the media is on our side and won’t hold our radicals against us. Sometimes things do need to be addressed. Should you be quizzed about Ronald, here is how to respond:

Let’s go through each of these.

• “That’s not my position.”
  This differentiates you from Ronald without disavowing him, and also makes your enemy look incompetent. You could even mock your enemy for stupidly equating you (a moderate) with a radical and ask why he is wasting your time with this misapprehension.

• “He’s clearly reacting to a problem.”
  With these words, you re-cast Ronald’s “radical” position as understandable, emerging not from evil intent but from real life, but you do not justify it and thus create burdens for yourself. You are showing sympathy with Ronald (which emboldens your side) without embracing his position. The word “clearly” makes this seem obvious, common sense, and thus makes your enemy look stupid.

• “What about my position?”
  This switches you from defensive to pro-active. You are controlling the discourse instead of letting your enemy do so. (And after all, why is your enemy talking to you if not to learn your position…? Surely it’s not just a sly vindictive effort to get you to disavow a friend…?)

• “Yes, Ronald is my friend.”
  This puts you on top, seizing dominance from your enemy. It demonstrates spine, courage and solidarity (which will energise your side) and shows there is not a schism that your enemy can exploit. You have differentiated yourself from Ronald but are not pathetically terrified of being associated with him. This deprives your enemy of all options but to listen to your “more reasonable” position.

In short: undermine your enemy, not your radicals.

And you should always do this, even when you disagree with the radicals or think their ideas impractical. Why? Because the radicals are on your side while your enemy is not. They have your back, your enemy doesn’t. This really is zero-sum, friend/enemy, power politics, black/white, etc. There is unlikely to be much “reasonable common ground” you can find with an enemy whose worldview is diametrically and implacably opposed to your own.

And even if there is some common ground, be careful about pursuing it. The nuances of morality and truth are much less important than attaining power. Without power, you cannot advance morality or truth anyway.

Conservatives don’t think about “winning” battles with the Left, just “getting through” them. On the rare occasions they do think about winning, it is by showing themselves more adherent to leftist ideals than the Left.

This apologetic strategy has brought conservatives defeat in all cultural battles (and most economic battles) for a century now, but still they cling to it, constantly sure that despite its record of total failure, it will get them through the next battle, or the next one, or definitely the one after that…

Underlying this defeatist approach are two factors: the inherent passivity of the conservative psyche, and the supplanting long ago of traditionalism by progressivism. Ever since, the conservative has recognised that the Left really believe in progressivism while he merely “accepts” it. His lack of fealty to the orthodoxy is felt by the conservative (who yearns to conform) as his secret sin, which he constantly has to hide and deny. He feels always on the brink of being unmasked as a pretender.

All of this results in him believing that the Left have the moral high ground. Even if they are naive, clumsy or over-zealous, they are righteous - and that means conservatives must be wretched. The Left have a purity of intent, a simplicity of vision and a total absence of self-doubt that the conservative claims to find amusing but actually finds intimidating.

As a result, he approaches battles with the Left convinced both that he will be defeated, and that he probably should be. All he can do is delude himself about his situation and the nature of the Left, and in the meantime try to limit the damage they inflict upon him.

The battered wife desperately assures her husband, turning to her with clenched fists, that she ironed his suit this morning. She would like the bathroom refitted, the lounge painted a different colour… she would like all kinds of things, but from day to day she can think only of placating her husband’s wrath. As a result, she will never get anything she wants.

But at least the battered wife knows that the situation is wrong. The conservative isn’t sure. His natural want is to be at one with his society, in tune with its orthodoxy. But progressivism repels him so he cannot be at one with it, only cowed by it. For this subterfuge, he sees himself as a fraud. Meantime, he knows that the Left actually are at one with the orthodoxy. So what right does he have, really, to oppose them?

But much worse than the conservative, in his eyes, are the right-wingers who go further than him, who actually openly defy progressivism. At least he has the decency to pretend! These nutters explicitly reject the orthodoxy of their own society! They threaten to upset everything! And worse still, the Left associate him with these people!

This is why, time after time after time, the conservative rushes to disavow right-wing radicals. It is to protect normalcy (a normalcy that he hates) and to prevent people realising that he hates it, because then he would be revealed for what he is: a traitor to his own society.

Having disavowed the radicals, cut ties with them, barred them from his organisations and warned colleagues never to help them, the conservative feels a glimmer of security and hope. The work he has done for the Left, castrating his own side, surely proves that he is “reasonable” and “moderate”. They will surely appreciate this and reward him with respectability and “a seat at the table”. He will enjoy some influence on how society develops, and be able to help the Left identify and disavow their own radicals.

This never happens. The Left never give him any power whatsoever. They rarely even give him the treat of calling him “respectable”. He remains, perpetually, under suspicion and having to prove himself to them, his enemy, day after day.

But he keeps hoping, and he keeps disavowing people on his own side, and hoping, and disavowing, hoping, disavowing... That is his lot, dictated by his nature.

The conservative is the perfect manager of decline, because he is comfortable with decline. He sort of “believes” in it as the lesser of two evils. Action - rejecting the orthodoxy, snubbing the Left, taking his own side, supplanting progressivism and actually saving his society - would be, in his eyes, the behaviour of a mad radical.

The conservative’s two fundamental problems are:

• he is naturally passive and sleepy

• he doesn’t like the idea of changing society

As a result, he always defers to the Left when they want to change society. Averse to doctrine and hysteria, he defaults to being “the adult in the room”, the “reasonable” person who can “bring some much-needed common sense” to the lefties and “make sure they don’t go too far”. To that end, he seeks their trust and admiration. To that end, he sells out his own radicals. This strategy results in him neutering his own side and facilitating the Left in achieving exactly what they want to achieve. He isn’t strong enough to thwart the radical Left, but he has thwarted the radical Right who are strong enough to do so - or rather, would have been.

After a century of this process, we are living in Woke World, Globohomo World, Rainbow World, the Yookay. It is a nightmare and we are heading for permanent extinction. While it would be unfair to blame this on the Left as such - most of them are just useful idiots - this is the world they approve of. Even if it isn’t perfect for them, they will defend it to the death.

In this dire context, it is time for the conservative to wise up, man up, and either grow a spine or get out of the way. He must either make peace with right-wing radicals or give way to them entirely. The very future of the European race is at stake now. Milquetoast conservatism - in policies and attitudes - didn’t prevent this and will never fix it.

Gorton & Denton is a good election to have at this juncture, because it demonstrates the futility of Reform UK’s approach and the efficacy of the Green Party’s approach (identity politics). Nigel Farage has betrayed and condemned his base, Zack Polanski has wholeheartedly embraced his and said everything necessary to please them. Just in the last few days, Farage has warned of White ethno-nationalism while Polanski has advocated giving non-whites universal basic income, the vote, NHS treatment, and a house from the moment they arrive. The difference could not be starker.

Thus the by-election shows what, without Restore Britain, will be the future of this country: the natives progressively betrayed by the political class in favour of ethnic minorities, who will increasingly get what they want, whatever they want.

Between 2011 and 2021, the Muslim contingent in Gorton & Denton grew by a staggering 64% and the “none” (Atheist, likely progressive, ie. Green-voting) contingent by 44%, while the Christian contingent shrank by 21%:

The result is an electoral map that looks like this:

In a sane country, this would be two separate constituencies. In ours, we have to mix together (even while we, demonstrably, want to segregate) so this is just one constituency, which must be fought over by diametrically-opposed ethnic camps - in Denton, white native Brits, and in Gorton, the newcomers. In such a polarised environment where people are aware of the stakes and have the confidence to seize them, there can be no common ground, no “meeting in the middle”, no centrist swindle. Whichever camp is more united will win the entire constituency, and politically dominate the other camp.

In fact, if we look at the overall demographics in the constituency, it is 44% BAME. How long before it is 51%? At that point, no matter how united the native voters are, they will be easily defeatable by the newcomers, forever thereafter. (This by-election might actually have been the final chance for Gorton & Denton to get a result decided by native Brits. Unfortunately, half of them didn’t bother to vote, so disgusted are they by the options.)

Into this mix come two newly-prominent parties: Reform UK and the Green Party. They are supplanting the old dichotomy of Conservative/Labour, respectively. One of these parties, the Greens, recognises the reality that all politics is (at least in a multi-ethnic society) identity politics. The other, Reform UK, is desperate to maintain the civic nationalist delusion that we can all unite around principles and ideas. Here is how those attitudes worked out for them:

A very comfortable win for the Greens.

I will now go through the main parties and discuss how I think this by-election bodes for each of them.

The Conservative Party

Demonstrating the redundancy of his party, Daniel Hannan lamented:

Back in 2020, Hannan had the standard Conservative Party line on immigration: it is nothing to worry about because, in modern Western countries, immigrants tend to integrate (!). As examples, he preposterously cited himself, since he happened to be born abroad like George Orwell and Rudyard Kipling, and is therefore comparable with millions of Pakistanis moving to Britain. He also said that, among Western countries, there is especially little cause for concern in Britain because Britain has always had a civil, not ethnic, conception of nationhood. Bear in mind he said this after Harry from TrUK had spent several minutes giving him copious evidence to the contrary, which he chose to completely ignore.

For years, Hannan poured scorn on anyone sounding the alarm bells. But now the consequence is clear to him: balkanisation of Britain. If only smug, arrogant traitors like him had respected the electorate all these decades, instead of scoffing at them, demonising them and colluding in legislation that would silence and punish them, maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation now, and he wouldn’t be having to lament the electoral death of his party.

It is a death that is richly deserved and I can only hope is permanent. However, such is the Conservative Party’s treachery and contempt for its own base, it is currently trying to trick them that it has listened to them and transformed into what they want. This is the gambit involving Reform UK popping up as a hardline anti-immigration party which, rumour has it, is destined to merge back into the Conservative Party, thus granting it new life like a starving Dracula eagerly sinking his fangs into the neck of some fresh young dupe.

Despite its historic failure in this particular constituency, it has to be acknowledged that the Conservative Party might fare better elsewhere. The same is true of the Liberal Democrats.

(As a side-note, I was nauseated by this conservative podcast’s coverage of the by-election. Not once did they mention what it means for native Brits. But they were very concerned about how it might affect Britain’s Jews, the rights of Muslim women, and the Left’s hypocrisy. The woman also said at one point that Muslims are natural conservatives, being family-oriented, faith-oriented and flag-oriented. Then she lambasted “the right” for not doing more to appeal to Muslims. I swear that conservatives are competing to be ever farther behind the curve. The sheer staidness of their thinking, the total lack of moral courage, the abject refusal to fashion a worldview not ratified by their enemy… It is often said that progressives have no self-preservation instinct, but I think conservatives might be even worse. They are like chickens voting for Kaporos.)

The Labour Party

In fact the biggest loser in this election is not the Conservative Party but the Labour Party. Being an urban constituency with a high percentage of ethnic minorities, Gorton & Denton is ideal ground for Labour, and this is bolstered by history: it has been a safe Labour seat for nearly a century and, just eighteen months ago, Labour won over 50% of the vote there. Therefore its defeat by the Green Party is very significant. The Greens got 1.6 times as many votes as Labour, pushing it to a shocking third place.

It is possible that Labour, after kowtowing to Muslims for many years, even to the point of letting them rape our young girls, assumed it could count on the Muslim vote. Maybe this is why one Labour politician took the lesson that they need to be even more accommodating to migrants and even less sympathetic to concerns about immigration.

If this constituency is prime Labour territory (regarded as the sixth-safest Labour seat in the country), yet Labour came third, I think we can safely assume that they will fare even worse in constituencies that are less favourable. Whether due to supplanting by the Green Party, or rising White self-awareness driving people to Reform and Restore, I think the Labour Party is becoming, if not extinct, much less of an electoral force.

The Green Party

The relentlessly grotesque Zack Polanski seems to be working like clockwork at manipulating young, idealistic and female voters. He is a sort of Pied Piper, leading them to their doom with jollity and promises that seem almost deliberately outlandish. He has talked about legalising all drugs and making them available on the NHS. He has talked about UBI for every migrant upon arrival. He has talked about creating a borderless world. Whatever some tedious blue-haired imbecilette on a Post-Colonial Studies degree would dream up, Polanski has already thought of it.

As an ugly gay Jew, he must seem to young women like a harmless but deformed teddy-bear: they want to protect him from all the bullies who have it in for him. I saw the same syndrome with Obama and Trudeau, but with Polanski it is much more pronounced given his various attributes.

On the other hand, alongside the crazy leftism, he also acknowledges some realities and appears to sympathise with the young voter of today who hasn’t a hope of getting on the property ladder or saving any money after paying the exorbitant rents and bills of modern Britain. (I would urge Restore Britain to examine this aspect of his appeal.)

With all that said, this by-election is the first proper test of the Polanski-era Greens. The party has long enjoyed strongholds in Brighton and Bristol, and in 2024 gained seats in Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire. But those are all affluent areas. It was a real gamble for the Greens to attempt their wishy-washy New Left message in a place like Gorton & Denton.

But, as we can see, it paid off. The party will now be greatly energised, basking in victory and already planning how to capitalise.

I think their victory happened for two main reasons: the sheer unpopularity of the Labour Party, and the rising self-determination (due to demographic predominance in certain areas) of Britain’s Muslims. They don’t yet have a viable party of their own (despite George Galloway’s best efforts) but for now, the Green Party will suffice. It promises them more, seems to worship them even more, than Labour did. The Green put out their campaign literature in Urdu and Bangla, demonstrating that this is their client group and they are its “bitch”.

I can’t help suspecting this is all being orchestrated from above. Shortly before the election, Polanski mocked native Brits concerned about demographic replacement. It feels to me as if he has been told by higher powers to be this cocky, this insulting to the British people, and he is delighting in doing so, knowing that he will get away with it. The whole thing feels manufactured.

But we shouldn’t discount the gentile element within the Green Party, the moralistic types who are obsessed with equality and in love with foreignness. There are countless British people like that today, including male ones, and the Green Party is welcoming them more explicitly than even New Labour used to. New Labour at least pretended to be a pragmatic party, not ideological. The Polanski-era Green Party is joyfully ideological. For the rest of us, woke might have been a terrible time, a bad joke and a total practical failure, but for its adherents, it was a glimpse of a wonderful future that they are now determined to bring forth.

The Green Party has long been a hugely (and laughably) White organisation, but clearly, it is now co-opting the ethnic vote. And after all, why should Labour have all the benefit of our dusky friends’ support, when the Green Party loves them even more?

It all flows together. The Green Party supplants Labour. Wokery becomes unapologetic, unremarkable, default. White identitarianism rises, making BAME voters even more paranoid (yet also even more triumphalist) than before. The Green Party courts their vote.

Interestingly, at least some Green Party supporters seem to be aware of the game they are playing, namely that demographics is destiny. One of them used ethnic data along with opinion polling to construct a map of likely voting in this by-election. He stressed that his map should be taken with a pinch of salt, but such a project would be completely pointless if ethnicity were not a strong indicator of political behaviour - which of course it is, as demonstrated by the fact that his map turned out to be very prescient. Of course he is only one man, but his project seemed to be welcomed without surprise by his Green colleagues. I think it is significant, in a party that will claim the Great Replacement is nothing to worry about, that some of them know full well that it has direct political implications, because people vote along ethnic lines.

As a result of its brown-nosing, people have speculated whether the Green Party will eventually be taken over by BAME. I doubt the regime will allow this. I think it needs the Green Party as an attractor for the “crazed white woman” vote. Muslims will just create some new party of their own eventually, and then the white Green voters will be in the position Reform voters are currently in (“we sucked up to these people, yet they hate us”).

In the meantime, the rest of us have to watch these useful idiots gleefully doing their damnedest to ruin the country and set up oblivion for all of us. I don’t think there is much point trying to get through to them, especially the young women, for whom politics now seems to be a sort of gender war by proxy.

Reform UK

Reform, the uber civic nationalist party, have come up against the hardened limits of their creed. Once identity groups are mobilised, the centre has no appeal. And, in today’s Britain, identity groups are very decisively mobilised, and that isn’t going to change any time soon - if ever.

It is pointless and even self-abasing for Reform to complain about this problem, because they have committed to never solving it.

Moreover, they spent a lot of the campaign insulting their own base, so confident were they that their principles have universal appeal so there is no need for low-down “identity politics”.

Their candidate, the ridiculous Matt Goodwin, even gave an interview in which he criticised Restore Britain supporters and implied they are less patriotic than the Sikhs who helped him on the campaign trail:

According to polling, this cuckoldry won him 8% of the BAME vote:

One of Reform’s figures, Andrew Rosindell, when asked about demographic replacement of the native British, devolved into mumbling about principles at the expense of client groups. He hasn’t realised this is no longer the game and that approach has stopped working. (Actually, it never worked; it only got us to where we are now.)

Nigel Farage claimed the Greens won the by-election by cheating. Both he and Goodwin railed against sectarianism.

Last month, Reform MP Danny Kruger said that anyone born in Britain is an heir to the civilisation of this country. He made a Freudian slip, though, when he specified “newborn Afghans”. Aren’t they Brits, if they’re born here? But of course we all understand what he meant to say: the children of Afghans, if they’re born here, are as British as anyone else. Well, perhaps Reform will look at the Gorton & Denton result and realise how insane that notion is.

However, the signs are not good:

• Reform chairman David Bull, in the hours after the election result, seemed not to realise that the defeat was a call to rethink their civic nationalism. Instead, he doubled down on it, disowning some remarks Matt Goodwin had made about identity and distancing Reform from them.

• Goodwin himself tweeted that Britain “must reject sectarianism”. It is an impotent request that will be ignored by all BAME groups who have learned, yet again, that acting in their self-interest benefits them. How this could be a surprise to anyone, and how Goodwin can’t see it after what has happened, and how he can’t see that it would be in native Britons’ interests to adopt the same attitude, boggles the mind.

• Nigel Farage might now be recalling his own statement from last year, that if you lose the Muslim vote, you will lose elections. He might well see Gorton & Denton as proof of that. Like Labour, he might conclude that his party lost because it didn’t court the Muslims hard enough.

On the face of it, backtracking on all of this and embracing nativism would be pure common sense for Reform. But I suspect they are going to do the opposite. This leaves the field wide open for the genuine insurgent party…

Restore Britain

Restore didn’t have a candidate in this by-election since the party was only announced a fortnight before. However, it can certainly draw some lessons from the event.

It clarifies that Restore’s only rival is Reform UK. It is not only soaking up the right-wing vote (making the Conservative Party irrelevant) but also the general White vote (see the racial graph earlier). Restore should relentlessly attack and undermine Reform. I doubt there is much to be gained for it in attacking the other parties. Lefties, especially leftie women, will vote for them no matter what. One left-wing woman celebrated:

How ironic to say this, when the winning party relied for its victory on the racism of ethnic minorities!

Another lesson Restore should take is that, contra received wisdom among right-wing parties, brown and black people are emphatically not “natural conservatives”. Any attempt to appeal to them on those grounds will fail dismally while repelling Restore’s natural base, native Brits.

The third lesson is that “pandering” to an identity group works well for you. Matt Goodwin says it’s a road to defeat, but he is delusional. The Greens did it and beat him soundly. Before that, Labour did it for decades and secured numerous strongholds around the country. In 2026, with the Great Replacement well underway and the Boriswave having done its damage, the atmosphere in Britain is so febrile that it is utterly foolish for a party not to target particular groups in its campaigning. It is really a road to failure to do anything else.

Does this mean that the country will devolve into a set of competing groups, with little to bind them together, fighting over limited resources? Yes. But that has been the situation since June 1948 when the Empire Windrush arrived - native Brits just haven’t realised the fact. To continue refusing to recognise it is not to “win the day with principles”; it is to let native Brits be eaten alive by foreigners. That is what civic nationalism leads to, and that is why civic nationalism must be abandoned.

From Restore’s point of view, there is one identity group that is steadfastly ignored by every other party, and even actively disparaged by them. That group desperately needs representation - explicit, unashamed representation - and the party that has the courage to do this will be assured success. This is an open goal just waiting to be taken. Yes, the media will castigate you for it, but the British people will reward you.

I think there are two dead-end discussions which will be made of this by-election.

There is a lot of sound and fury about electoral fraud (euphemistically termed “family voting”) by Muslims. This is where a Muslim woman is told how to vote by her husband, or he even does the voting for her. Sky reporter Sam Coates claimed to have witnessed this, and it was reported by a democracy watchdog but denied by police and doubted by uber-progressive Owen Jones. (Of course, how ludicrous to think that clannish people might behave clannishly!)

Whining about this kind of thing, decades after letting these people into our country en masse, is futile. The Muslims don’t feel guilty about doing it and never will. Their enablers don’t care, in fact they think it’s funny. Once again, conservatives need to wake up and realise that their decency has been used against them for 100 years.

Furthermore, the truth is we have no idea how much of this “family voting” went on. But also… it doesn’t matter. Who seriously thinks that Muslim women need to be forced by their husbands to vote for the most pro-Muslim party? And without that, these Muslim women would be voting for… Reform? The Conservative Party? Laughable.

In addition, even if they are coerced by their husbands, I for one don’t care. Are we seriously meant to worry about the rights and dignity of Muslim women, when by their very presence in our country they are colluding to take it - our only homeland - away from us?

With that in mind, infinitely more important (from our point of view) than “family voting” is the broader phenomenon of ethnic bloc voting. There is no question that this is happening. It was mentioned briefly by conservatives in their coverage of the by-election. The claim was made that ethnic bloc voting undermines democracy. Technically it doesn’t, if by “democracy” you mean “people vote for what they want”. What it undermines is the British people’s ownership of their homeland. That is never said, because milquetoast conservatives refuse to acknowledge such ownership. (Often they even refuse to acknowledge the existence of the British people.)

The second dead-end discussion is that this is all about religion (ie. Islam), not race. This is the go-to argument for civic nationalists, because it enables them to “not be racist” while complaining about the problems of diversity. Unfortunately, I think the problems of diversity occur precisely because racial difference is baked in, genetic.

I have long said that Islam isn’t a race but might as well be. Barring a few exceptions, it is “a brown religion”, most of its adherents being of that hue. Moreover, from our point-of-view as Europeans, Muslims present as a racial group. They arrive in our countries together, and they socialise, live and work together - a big brown mass that frowns and scowls at us whenever we encounter it. Are there White Muslims, black ones, yellow ones? Yes, but then they are racially despised by the brown ones, and are in any case not numerous enough in Britain to matter. Then we must consider the chicken-and-egg process of a religion that is largely shaped by an ethnic group, which is subsequently shaped by its religion, and on and on.

In addition is the simple fact that race and ethnicity go hand in hand with religion; the two are virtually inseparable, especially for non-European peoples who don’t tend to have much time for abstractions or individualism. Presented with a foreigner, we cannot separate his race from his religion, because they are profoundly intertwined. This is why it is impossible for us to determine whether, for example, Pakistanis rape English girls because of their genes, their culture or their Islamic faith. Some will insist it is the latter, claiming that rape jihad is justified in the Hadiths, but what if it weren’t justified in the Hadiths? Do we seriously believe that, in that scenario, these men would not be doing this? The same could be said for taqiyya, halal slaughter… and ethnic bloc voting.

Yes, you can blame these things on religion, but that is futile and might in the first place be wrong-headed, and in any case, how are we to know? And what is the point of us trying to know, when, if it did turn out to be due to religion, these people would never relinquish or reform their religion anyway?

Ultimately, the only solution is for us to separate from them and their problems, which we can’t help them with and shouldn’t presume to be able to, or that they would be amenable to it even if we could. Because we don’t even know that! After all these decades, the stranger within our gate remains a stranger.

And he always will remain a stranger, as long as we remain sufficiently ourselves to see him as such.