The fall of Cambridge sociology professor Jason Arday began six weeks ago in mid July but I didn’t hear about it until early August, when suddenly it was everywhere - a national scandal.

In terms of his “expertise”, Arday was the standard Black “academic”. I will let someone else summarise:

he pushed the same anti-white ideology that led to Henry Nowak’s death.

He wrote about how higher education is institutionally racist, even though his own fraudulent career is a living contradiction to this pernicious claim.

He was the child of African immigrants who was given a better life in this country than he could ever have expected in his homeland. Yet he chose to attack the native population and the institutions that gave him every unearned opportunity

That would all have been fine - nay, terrific - in today’s academia… except that he did it with plagiarism. This was his (literally) fatal mistake which, once discovered and shown to the public, led to revelations of much wider, even compulsive, dishonesty. It turned out that, over the years, Arday had made countless fanciful claims. They covered his childhood, disabilities, misfortunes, as well as many incredible achievements in sport, charity and of course his academic career. (A comprehensive list is being maintained here.)

Then video clips surfaced of him, a Cambridge professor, voicing bland platitudes and trite slogans, apparently without an original thought in his head, very clearly “a DEI hire” - but one who, it turns out, even cheated at that most dishonest game.

At first, leftists denied his wrongdoing, made excuses, called his accusers racist and the evidence against him fake or flimsy or exaggerated. But, as it continued mounting, they began giving in, one by one.

The scandal had torn a great gash in the collective reputation of Britain’s academics. A great number of them were involved in stewarding Arday to Cambridge. And then:

In the two years after receiving his Cambridge position, Arday was awarded honorary doctorates from Anglia Ruskin University, Southampton Solent University, the University of Westminster, South Bank Colleges, and St Mary’s University, Twickenham. In 2023, he received the “Most Inspirational Person of the Year Award” at the MBCC (Multicultural Business and Community Champion) Awards, was placed fourth in the Shaw Trust’s list of the 100 most influential disabled people in the UK, and was awarded an honorary fellowship by the British Science Association.

So a great number of academics had pretended, or even believed, that a midwit was a genius, a pathological liar was a beacon of integrity, and a serial fraudster was an angel.

While the scandal raged, the man himself received a lot of mockery and contempt - deservedly, in my opinion then and now. With each passing day, the elaborate (but farcical) world of lies that he had constructed was steadily dismantled by one new allegation after another. Someone opined that even his dreadlocks were fake. He was not a laughing stock, because no-one was laughing. This was too serious, too significant, so instead he was the focal point of anger, at his audacity and at the stupidity of others which had enabled it.

And then he committed suicide.

Suddenly the stream of allegations stopped, as did the many opinion pieces describing him as a fraudster and detailing the sheer extent of his deceit, as did the articles speculating on whether DEI has gone too far, and whether wokery should be dialled back, etc. Everyone just fell silent.

Arday was certainly a pathological liar. He found he could make an easy living (being a Black man) in progressive academia.

I am uncertain as to how ideologically anti-white he was. He certainly said and wrote anti-white things, but that might have been simply because he perceived (correctly) that that is what works in the water he had found himself swimming in.

I am also uncertain as to whether he was addicted to sympathy/pity. It might be that he simply found he could obtain material benefits by soliciting sympathy/pity from White people, so went ahead and did it, in pursuit not of the sympathy, but of the material benefits. Maybe the sympathy was really for the pleasure of those idiot White people who dispensed it. This was a mutually beneficial transaction: he got “stuff”, they got the pleasure of feeling good about themselves.

But he didn’t just seek sympathy. He also lied that he was a much more accomplished person than he was, by fabricating hardships he had suffered early in life, which had thwarted his progress until he heroically overcame them. You can’t be a hero unless you overcome adversity, after all. But did he do this because he wanted praise or pity? It is difficult to tell, and probably irrelevant at this stage.

Whatever the cause of his pathological lying and shamelessly dishonest self-promotion, it got him made the youngest-ever Black professor at Cambridge University.

That happened in 2023 so there has been speculation that some of the academics’ motivation for promoting him was a desire to bulletproof their department against crazed BLM guilt-mongering (by then at its zenith, three years after the Summer of Floyd). This is plausible but seems too prosaic an explanation, ignoring the psychology of the female academics concerned. And after all, you could employ a man without making a hero out of him. You could promote him without heaping diarrhoetic praise upon him. Also, academia was promoting men like this long before 2023. Years before any of us heard of Arday, Tony Hayers coined the term “skintellectual”. This refers to a non-white academic whose career is entirely predicated on their writing endless screeds bolstering the anti-white narrative, and serving, by default, as an avatar of non-white triumph over White oppression. All such an “academic” has in the way of thought is anti-white grievance-mongering and endless whining about inequalities (“structural” or otherwise) in how the races are treated (by White people). Such academics have existed for decades now, and if Cambridge University were seeking yet another one to keep BLM at bay, there were far more plausible candidates than Jason Arday, whose lies about his academic record could easily have been checked, and who seems to have been a complete airhead. His only original thoughts were lies about himself.

So why were these female academics taken in by him? I think John Carter has the answer:

In every photograph he’s wearing this open, angelic, sincere expression that presses every sainted magical negro button in the AWFL’s emotionally conditioned brainstem.

Carter elaborated elsewhere but so did Aureus, after seeing this photo:

This photo really demonstrates the trick he played over his career. He manufactured a “modern Star Trek alien” look, as we can see here with his “brain canopy” hair formation. Combined with the distracting gleaming of his vaselined forehead and the unblinking homo-gaze (suggesting “we mean you no harm”) there is a feeling of “I am not just a signalling token but a celestial eunuch here to forgive your sins”.

I find this a far more convincing explanation for his success than mere diversity pandering by silly menopausal women. No doubt that played a part, especially when those women had to persuade their male colleagues to promote Arday, but there were reasons specific to him why they were so inclined towards him in particular.

It is a phenomenon that I have perceived (perhaps incorrectly) elsewhere. I think the popularity of Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and even Andy Burnham can be explained by a boyish child-like quality which triggers in women the powerful maternal instinct: “The boy is innocent and vulnerable, like a baby, and other boys have it in for him, but I can protect him!”

It is notable, in the widely-shared BBC report from March 2023 about Arday’s promotion to Cambridge, that he “cannot” look a man in the eye, yet effortlessly holds a woman’s gaze for extended periods, and even caresses her hands when they meet. His shyness around men was clearly affected, part of a persona he fabricated.

His child-like innocence was also a mirage. In truth he was ruthless, cunning, shameless and paranoid. He reported various people to police for questioning his academic record, and told various students they were racist for questioning his judgement of their work. He advanced by lying, and by threatening anyone who doubted his lies.

But, as explained by Uubzu, one of his more obscure lies could easily have brought dire consequences upon innocent people. He claimed that a masked man had twice broken into his office, the second time threatening him with a knife. If, when scouring CCTV footage, the police had found a viable candidate for this “masked man”, Arday, in order to maintain his story and thereby his reputation, would have had to keep quiet as some innocent man was imprisoned. He surely would have done so. But what makes this even more egregious is that the lie was entirely unnecessary in the first place, dreamed up by him apparently at random one day. How did it benefit him? What was his motive? It would reinforce protective feelings in his female colleagues by showing them that their star negro really was in danger, and thus reinvigorate their concern for him so that, when he needed something from them in future, he could manipulate them more easily.

Jason Arday was despicable.

One Black chancer is a trivial thing to get worked up about. There are plenty of them, after all. There is a wider story here. The vitriolic press coverage was motivated not by racism against Black people, but by the fact that Arday’s case clearly shows there is deep corruption in British academia. The corruption happens to be premised on DEI, but even without that cause, it has implications for our entire society, now and in the future.

Cambridge professors hold positions of great responsibility, with influence over government policy, corporate ideology, national cultural orientation, and the life chances of promising young students. If those positions are being given to incompetent people, people who should never have been entrusted with such power and influence, who cannot handle but can certainly abuse it… that bodes badly for all of us. How can we trust them after this? Who would incur huge debt to get “educated” at Jesus College now?

The real issue is not Arday himself, but the people who promoted him and lavished praise upon him. In doing so, these academics have shown that they themselves are incompetent and shouldn’t be in those positions. The case has made a mockery of British academia in general, because we all know that the policies and attitudes which facilitated Arday’s rise are in place all over the country, and in fact, that institutions are rewarded the more they enact these policies and voice these attitudes. The flaw, therefore, is not incidental but systemic. Therefore, Arday’s case will not be unique and might even be typical.

We have to remark on the sheer gullibility of those middle-aged female academics to believe Arday’s lies and projected persona. Is this a micro example of “mass formation psychosis”? Then again, did they really believe him, or did they actually know he was average (at best) but conclude that facilitating him would look good for them, professionally and among their equally dream-headed friends? But then, why are dream-headed people, silly indulgent women, in academia in the first place?

And we can’t let the male academics off, either. They too are implicated, if only for appeasing their female colleagues. We know that two male academics did raise concerns, but these went unheeded and the two men dropped the matter. Thereafter, did no male academic, rigorous and intelligent and sensible, ever speak with Arday and realise he was an airhead? Or did that happen, and the male academic concluded it was best to keep quiet, for the sake of his own career? Just how toxic and dysfunctional has academia become?

We begin to discern a grim picture. It threatens the whole idea that academics are smarter (in any way) than ordinary people. After this, they seem like fools.

And also corrupt. The woman in charge of promoting Arday, Hilary Cremin, was told two months after his appointment that a 2018 paper by him contained plagiarism and data distortion. Cremin asked Arday about this. He knew exactly what to do: tell her “about his experiences with ‘direct and indirect racism’ and poor health conditions” while writing that 2018 paper. For Cremin, that was all she needed to hear. Indeed, I’m sure it was what she desperately wanted to hear, because it put her, once again, in a position to protect this huge Black child. She pledged to the plagiarist her “full support”.

In the BBC report, Cremin comes across as bright, but certainly nothing special. It is disappointing and very concerning that this is what passes for a senior Cambridge academic nowadays. Moreover she is dressed in an unserious way for a woman of her age and position, wearing a short skirt that makes her look frivolous (which I am certain she is).

We must think of the damage done to academia by having people like Arday there, especially in commanding positions. But we must also think of the damage done by having people like Hilary Cremin there, or indeed anywhere. If she had any sense or any shame, she would have resigned by now.

At first, it seemed that this scandal might be a “reality check” moment for “the regime”. Maybe they would now have to face up to the fallacy of their worldview, and finally “put the woke away”?

Arday’s suicide nixed that.

When the news broke, everyone fell silent… but only for a few hours.

Then the Left, who had been so meek over the previous ten days, found their direction, their momentum. They struck back with “righteous” anger at the Right and the mainstream media (which they claim kowtows to the Right) for attacking Arday, for conducting what they now called a “witch-hunt” against him. It was perfect for the Left, because they could now tell themselves they were indeed the underdog, not the hegemon corrupting all of British society, but the brave rebels fighting a hegemonic right-wing state and media apparatus.

Of course the centre-right buckled immediately. Numerous commentators found they now agreed that the media had gone too far, that Arday didn’t do anything seriously bad, and after all, don’t we all lie in order to get ahead?

With the ever-reliable cowardice of the centre-right, the Left has been able to effortlessly re-frame the scandal. No longer is it about a fraudulent import, his feckless enablers and the corrupted academic environment which fosters and promotes those enablers… now it is about a vicious (racist) media and a hateful (racist) Right. Once again, the miasma plaguing our society is that much-loved classic: racism.

So… after a Black man did a lifetime of wrongs, got found out and killed himself, White Brits are the villains. Arday gets to be a victim in perpetuity, the Left gets to be “on the right side of history”, and the regime gets to continue destroying Britain.

Before Arday’s death, some in our circles were speculating that the scandal was engineered by the regime itself, to cause public outrage and obtain the “justification” it needed to “put the woke away”. That speculation has of course been completely disproven, and I remain convinced that the regime has no intention whatsoever to “put the woke away”.

So useful was Arday’s death for the regime, I suspect that, had he not done it himself, they might have eventually done it for him.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.

It is crucial to recognise that Season 2 was filmed before Season 1 aired, and written even before the 2023 specials aired. Therefore it was not, as many have assumed_, a vindictive response to negative feedback.

Conversely, there was no chance to improve it based on that feedback (assuming Davies would ever have done that). This explains the rabid wokery on display, since wokery hadn’t yet been decisively rejected when this was written. There could hardly be a better demonstration of the folly of writing a TV show two years in advance of broadcast: it cannot respond to cultural change and ends up obsolete on arrival. As a result, Season 2 is 2023 preaching to 2025, un-self-consciously.

At this point there was still officially a chance that Disney would renew, if Season 2 fared better than Season 1. But that was very unlikely.

Apart from anything else, the Doctor’s companion would no longer be a cute blonde girl, but an Indian girl. In Britain, having a TV show without any White leads is asking for commercial death.

Any sensible person would predict that fronting a sci-fi show (of all things) with only non-white actors would fail. However, back in 2016, as he was embarking on the wokery that scuttled his own tenure, Steven Moffat adventurously (and self-contradictorily) opined:

Two non-white leads would be amazing. In fact, a lot of people would barely notice.

Moffat might have been thinking, as per his infamous remark about blackwashing history, “by believing in it, we’ll summon it forth”. Well, now that notion would be put to the test.

More importantly, this casting completed the process of detaching Doctor Who from the White British boys who had, for sixty years, identified with it and been its lifeblood. I am sure many of them wanted to watch Season 2, but found themselves unengaged by it, perhaps without understanding why.

(Davies antagonised fans by saying he would like, in future, to cast Viola Davis, a Black American woman, as the Master. That would be a “hat trick” of three non-white leads.)

There would be increased diversity behind the camera, too. Davies had previously said:

I’m aware that we haven’t got enough women writing or writers of colour, which we’re fixing in the next series to come.

In January 2025, the four writers were revealed:

• Pete McTighe - a gay White man, a leftist who abandoned X for Bluesky. He is the only one of the four to have written for the show previously (two badly-received episodes during the Chibnall era, and co-writing a five-episode spin-off series with Davies)

• Inua Ellams - a leftist Black poet

• Sharma Angel-Walfall - a Black lesbian married to a White woman

• Juno Dawson - a White transgender gay man

25% female, 50% Black, 75% gay, 25% transgender. Davies was certainly delivering on his promise to diversify the show. As for those fans who, back in 2005, insisted he had no “gay agenda”, I hope they are now eating humble pie.

Juno Dawson came with particular baggage:

• a writer of books for children, he has included in them advice on anal sex, oral sex and sexting. For this reason, one of his books has been banned in various US states.

• on Twitter in 2020, he cyber-bullied a 14 year-old girl for opposing the Stonewall organisation

• some critics called him (a gay man) homophobic for saying that gay men want to be women. They also claimed he had reduced women to sex objects. I personally don’t consider these criticisms valid, certainly not when compared with his apparent preoccupation with reaching children.

Everything else aside, this man’s obsession with sexuality and gender orientation is a world away from the writers of, say, 1970s Doctor Who.

With less than two weeks to go before Season 2 aired, new companion actress Varada Sethu celebrated the show being woke:

There’s been a couple of Doctor Woke [references] or whatever, but I just think we’re doing the right thing if we’re getting comments like that.

After all that had happened, after the way Season 1 had been received, it is incredible that Sethu would say this. Clearly, among the media, nobody dares to speak against wokery and most people - ambitious young actors - are still in full support of it. This blinds them to how their self-righteous remarks will be received by the general public, dooming them to alienate themselves.

It got even worse. Laughing, Sethu recounted what Gatwa had said to her about being a non-white duo fronting Doctor Who:

Look at us. We get to be in the TARDIS. We’re going to piss off so many people.

It is bad enough that Gatwa said this, but it beggars belief that Sethu was gormless enough to quote it publicly. It proves that Gatwa knew he was ruining something that means a lot to many people, and that he enjoyed doing so, as did his new co-star. Why should any long-time fan of the show, any White person even, give these two people any respect?

At the start of April, with cancellation rumours running wild in the run-up to Season 2, Davies reiterated that there were “no meetings, nothing” going on with Disney at the time and said he was “dying to find out” whether the show had a future.

Then, two days before broadcast, he was interviewed on children’s programme Newsround and dodged a question about the future by saying Doctor Who is an immortal franchise, because “no good idea ever dies”. However:

Sometimes there might be a pause, and during that pause, the viewers of Newsround now will grow up a few years and start writing stories and they’ll bring it back.

For the first time, he was acknowledging that the show might go on “pause”.

With Season 2 imminent, the mainstream media and Rotten Tomatoes once again closed ranks to protect the show. They had a fight on their hands; as the season played out, reaction online was incendiary:

The Robot Revolution

In the opening episode, the Doctor is wearing a dress and meets his new companion. Indian thirty-something Belinda Chandra is an extremely feminist “girl boss” - obnoxious, rude, unfriendly and ungrateful. As well as insulting, berating and degrading the Doctor, she preaches at him. Naturally, Belinda is shown having had a White boyfriend, Alan, and of course he was simpish and obsessed with her.

But Alan was a misogynist. Belinda left him because he wanted to place limits on her behaviour so that she would be a better wife to him. He later becomes the story’s villain, killing many people in order to force Belinda to accept him. The entire episode is thus an attack on (White) “toxic masculinity”, belittling men who are afraid of female power. Belinda even uses the phrase “planet of the incels”.

When, at the end, Alan is reverted to a sperm and egg which are then sucked up by an unthinking automated vacuum machine, the Doctor and Belinda laugh in mockery. This flushes sixty years of characterisation down the drain. The show approves of the Doctor behaving in this way: Alan was not woke and therefore was undeserving of sympathy. With all the self-awareness of the self-righteous, Gatwa and Sethu spoke of this episode as a “compassionate” exploration of modern male loneliness and the incel phenomenon.

To make things much worse, Alan is a nerd, into gaming and sci-fi. In other words he could very easily be a Doctor Who fan. Davies could have made him any sort of young man, but specifically chose to make him a nerd. Many people have assumed this was Davies’ revenge on the fans for disliking the RTD2 era. However, that cannot be true. This episode began production in October 2023, so Davies wrote it long before any of RTD2 aired.

The story’s entire thrust is about misogyny, sexism and “toxic masculinity”. Indeed, according to Sethu, there were many discussions about these topics during production. At most, Davies added some nasty touches to the script at that time, which is when fans were first hearing about the transgender Rose character and beginning to complain, but he couldn’t possibly have made Alan into a nerd this late on. That decision, to attack the show’s fans, was made by Davies before the fans turned against him.

At the time he was writing this script, the nerdy White male fans were mostly excited about his return as showrunner, and pumping up the RTD2 era that was soon to begin.

Whatever dismissive attitude Davies had towards “the fans” in 2005 had now mutated into a contemptuous loathing.

How fitting that this was the least-viewed episode of all time, with a 23% audience drop compared to the previous season’s opener. This boded very badly for the show’s future, since renewal hinged on good ratings. (Yet, on the day it aired, Davies was talking wistfully about seasons 4 and 5.)

Four days later he answered criticisms that Gatwa’s incessant crying was grossly unlike the Doctor:

You don’t tell an actor whether to cry, not to cry, not an actor of that [Gatwa’s] stature. Absolutely not. It’s like, you wouldn’t tell anyone to laugh or not to laugh! It’s a beautiful thing he does, and it’s a completely new thing for the Doctor, that opens doorways into whole new experiences.

Diversity is many things, and sometimes it’s putting emotions on screen you haven’t seen before, or that the Doctor has withheld himself from.

But it does make me laugh…. I know sometimes fans get up in arms about it and they complain about it. They’re the same fans who say, ‘Why don’t you do something new with the programme?’ and you’re like, hello.

He doesn’t seem to give any consideration to the possibility that the fans are correct. This continued the next day when he appeared on BBC Radio 2 and denied that he had made the show too “woke”:

Someone always brings up matters of diversity. And there are online warriors accusing us of diversity and wokeness and of involving messages and issues. And I have no time for this. I don’t have a second to bear [it]. Because what you might call diversity, I just call an open door.

He was claiming that the show is dispassionately open to anyone and is simply reflecting the British population. That cannot be true. Britain today is 17% non-white, but non-white actors are all over RTD2. Non-heterosexuals are just 2.2% of the population, while in RTD2 it seems more like 75%. There is no way this could happen as the result of a merely “open door”. Davies deliberately made it happen. He was lying.

Lux

Season 2’s second episode, Lux, includes a virtual breaking of the fourth wall. The Doctor learns that he is a character in a TV show called “Doctor Who”, made by the BBC. The real-world logo, alongside the BBC’s logo, is shown on a TV. The characters even refer to a real episode, Blink, by name. All of this is eventually revealed to be a hallucination... but still, from the viewer’s point of view, the fourth wall has been broken, the show has gone “meta” and yet another limit has been dissolved.

Metro published (as far as I know) the very first MSM article condemning the RTD2 era.

It cited the record low ratings but also, crucially, the low writing quality.

The Well

The third episode was co-written by Davies and Sharma Angel-Walfall. It lacks the intelligent psychology, the creative wit and the production simplicity of the 2008 story to which it is a sequel, but nevertheless is well-written and involving, and is perhaps the only story in this season that is not offensive in some way. However, one notable thing is that it was originally going to be about African spirits (much like the other episode written by a Black person this season) and this was was only changed because Davies felt it was disrespectful to use figures from a real African religion as a Doctor Who villain. It seems his Black co-writer had no such qualms!

On the 30th of April, the Guardian published an article, “Is Doctor Who doomed?”, asking whether the BBC could justify renewing it given the low ratings.

Lucky Day

The fourth episode, written by Pete McTighe, further alienated the show from the general public while entrenching its progressive fans in their adulation of it.

Clearly written just after the covid period, this story demonises “anti-vaxxers”, “conspiracy theorists”, “hatemongers” and peddlers of “fake news” and “disinformation”, all of the bogeymen Hillary Clinton had named in her 2016 Reno speech. In the episode as in that speech, these various groups are linked (by the characters’ fixation on low taxes and by dialogue mentioning “Albion TV”, an obvious stand-in for GB News) with nationalism and the right-wing. For Clinton it was the Alt-Right, for McTighe and Davies it was Reform UK. The episode is also, like Clinton, paranoid about social media with its unscrupulous “influencers”. It feels very much like a mainstream media attack on alternative media.

However, its characterisation of right-wing influencers is not only crude and ignorant, it is inverted: they behave and get treated as, in real life, left-wing activists do (anti-social disruptive behaviour, smearing people, partial immunity from the law, sympathetic interviews on TV).

It is also very confused “in-story”. Given his own experiences, Conrad must know that UNIT are being honest about aliens so why does he dare them, on stream, to prove it and thus utterly discredit him? And why doesn’t his mole at UNIT, who must see every day that they are being honest, tell him that? Also, if he runs a pro UNIT podcast (“Lucky Day”), how don’t the followers of that know he also runs an anti UNIT podcast (“Think Tank”), and vice versa?

Of course, progressive Whovians didn’t care about these huge plot holes. They adored the episode. It “confirmed” their prejudices, made them feel wise and enlightened and sensible, and demonised their “out-group” as nasty, insecure, selfish, ignorant, dishonest, irresponsible idiots. It was essentially a wet dream for progressives, telling them they are good and their opponents are bad so they shouldn’t feel guilty about being full of hate towards them.

Unfortunately for progressives, the cultural hegemony they once enjoyed had expired. Outside their bubble, nobody shared their hatred for “right-wing” influencers.

Lucky Day’s thrust - total faith in the progressive neoliberal establishment and loathing for any who question it - could have “flown” in 2015 but by 2025 was completely “out of touch”. Once again, RTD2 showed itself incapable of acknowledging the modern world, and ensconced in obsolete presumptions from Davies’ heyday.

For the first time in Doctor Who’s history, ratings dipped below three million: 2.83m.

Even progressive journalists began acknowledging the situation. In Part 6 I mentioned a Metro article that smugly insulted “straight white men” who objected to the show’s new direction. Now, demonstrating how the winds had changed, Metro published a new article by the very same reporter:

What a contrast with a year earlier!

The Story & the Engine

The fifth episode was written by Black Muslim poet Inua Ellams. It sees the Doctor landing in Lagos and suddenly having a history of deep friendship with multiple Black people there, something that has never been mentioned before but is now said to be a huge part of the 15th Doctor’s life.

He says he feels “accepted” in Africa. Belinda doesn’t need him to explain; as an ethnic minority herself, she understands. “[They] treat you like one of their own?” He nods solemnly. She explains that her nan took her to India “whenever she could for the same reason”. Belinda felt accepted among her own ethnic group. The obvious question for this Black man and this Brown woman is “why don’t you leave Europe…?” Of course that question is never asked; instead White people are blamed for not treating either of these outsiders “like one of their own”. Likewise never asked is whether a White person would ever be treated by Africans or Indians “like one of their own”. Preferring one’s own kind is okay - even terrific - except when a White person does it. The messaging is entirely anti-White.

The rest of the episode avoids politics (except for a few inevitable comments about slavery) but is bad in other ways. Plot holes, absurd contrivances, unexplained things, very clumsy infodumping… The writing is simply dreadful. In addition it is a further drift away from sci-fi and towards fantasy.

On top of all that, the actors speak with thick African accents and, but for one small role in a flashback, there are no White actors in the episode whatsoever. British TV drama should not be like this.

Small wonder that it ventured even farther down in ratings than the previous episode, to 2.71m.

The Interstellar Song Contest

This is the most expensive episode ever made and is indeed an orgy of dazzling special effects. Trash 21st Century Western culture somehow survived the destruction of Earth and now, 900 years later, is enjoyed by many different alien species; the contest has three trillion viewers! Written by LGBT activist Juno Dawson, this episode is extremely gay throughout, full of men calling each other “babes” and “sweetheart”. Ordinary viewers are further alienated with cringe-inducing campery, an inter-racial gay couple and a mention of pronouns. There is even a cameo by Graham Norton (whom the Doctor says he met once at Brighton Pride). The whole episode also has a tedious moral message about racism. Ironically, it is actually very good in terms of plotting, characters, momentum and lack of plot holes (even if it does contradict earlier episodes in Season 2). If it hadn’t been for the needless wokery this could have been a very good episode. That said, in the final scene, female Timelord the Rani bigenerates into an Indian woman.

The Sun reported that, with Gatwa’s exit and no actor found to replace him, the show might have to be put on hiatus. The Standard also pointed to the low ratings and said the show might be cancelled altogether. All of this, including Gatwa’s exit, was denied by the BBC.

Then the Telegraph joined in, criticising the show and claiming that “only the BBC” didn’t know it was heading for failure.

Wish World

The penultimate episode is a barrage of woke storytelling. However, it does feature the RTD2 era’s second depiction of a normal nuclear family, and the first one where any of the members speak. The entire family is wiped out in the opening scene. Thereafter, the episode lampoons and demonises traditional social mores (the man goes out to work, the woman stays at home and her main role in life is child-rearing) even though these mores are exactly what make the opening scene (showing a family with many children) possible.

The fact that the Doctor’s companions leave him to “go and fall in love and marry and have babies” is mentioned, but by a villain - the misogynist obsessed with traditionalism who created the fictitious society shown in this episode. That this society is fictitious communicates to the young viewer that traditionalism and heteronormativity rest on delusion; that family formation is not for everyone so it shouldn’t be upheld as the social norm.

At one point, childlessness is celebrated by a female character (Mel). Yes, it’s a throwaway line, but these make an impression on young minds. Given the very low birth-rates in Britain today and how childlessness is known to psychologically harm women, a responsible writer would show Mel voicing regret about never having had children.

Furthermore, the episode characterises “non-conformists” as gay, trans, disabled, etc. This does work within the traditionalist society of the story, but is completely inconsistent with real 2020s Britain. (The Left can never accept that they have cultural authority and power; they must always see themselves as the underdog.)

Similarly, the episode champions the right to doubt social convention and received truth - yet Davies demonises anyone who doubts his favoured social conventions and his received truths. He does this multiple times in this season alone. He even includes a sly swipe at JK Rowling who disgraced herself by not being sufficiently pro-trans:

Especially with his sadistic treatment of Alan in the opening episode, Davies is exactly the cruel zealot that he caricatures.

On the 30th of May, the presenters of a show on BBC Radio criticised the preachy wokery of RTD2. This was significant because it was the BBC turning on itself - for the first time, a rupture in its resolve about the on-going debacle.

The Reality War

The finale of Season 2 is a sorry disjointed mess. To be fair to Davies, once Gatwa jumped ship he had to completely rewrite the second half to show the Doctor dying and regenerating. The result isn’t what Davies had intended. He was having to improvise.

However, even there, he made a reckless, selfish and catastrophic decision. Seeking a headline-grabbing cliffhanger, he had Gatwa’s Doctor regenerate into Billie Piper, a “fan favourite” companion from 2005:

This was bizarre. Nothing like it had ever happened before in the show’s history. Nobody understood how it was going to be resolved, or when, or indeed whether the new character actually is the Doctor. Even the show’s loyal ultra-progressive fans were disgusted at this naked “stunt”.

A leaker soon revealed that it was filmed very hastily just a couple of weeks before broadcast and was indeed a desperate ploy on Davies’ part to persuade Disney to renew their contract.

Unfortunately, all Disney cared about was ratings.

Ratings were even worse than for Season 1, down by about a million:

To grasp how bad this is, one must look at the entire revival, from 2005 onwards:

We can also compare Season 2 with the classic show’s final season, 1989. The latter is in purple and Season 2 (7-day consolidated) in bright pink:

The averages are 4.15m for 1989 and 3.17m for Season 2.

Bear in mind, again, the massive advantage that RTD2 had over 1989 in terms of budget, time, special effects capability, professional writing experience…

Davies’ triumphant return had failed utterly.

Now began the slow, agonising collapse.

Now imagine a product development team who go through iterations of a design. The first, Iteration 1, had serious flaws. Some of them were resolved in Iteration 2, but that introduced some new flaws. But the team are now on Iteration 7, and new people have come in, outside factors have changed the incentive structure around the project so that success becomes more likely, more desired, more facilitated. Now imagine someone looking at Iteration 7 and thinking: “Well, Iterations 1 and 2 let us down, so I’m not going to give this much later version the time of day. In fact, the more it looks like it doesn’t have serious flaws, the more the tricksters are clearly working to lull me into a false sense of security. The better it looks, the worse it actually is. Once bitten, twice shy. I’m not going to fall for it again. No matter what the evidence tells me, I will reject every iteration. This product is simply impossible and all attempts to develop it are either ill-fated or deceitful. There is no product developmental solution.”

Now, to be fair to the detractors of Restore Britain, their paranoia hasn’t been quite this mental. There are legitimate reasons for concern. As well as a history of British organisations being subverted or sabotaged or just imploding through self-destructive misfittery, there are visible flaws with Restore. There are important uncertainties about the structure, funding and future of the party. There have been some infamous gaffes by its Boomer leader. There are some shadowy figures at a high level about whom I know virtually nothing, and I will freely admit that this causes me some discomfort.

But…

My intuition has told me since February, since that video of Rupert Lowe on his farm, that this enterprise is radically unlike any other political party in Britain. Namely, it is sincere. It might be flawed, it might be disorganised or unprofessional (as of yet) or under-resourced. Its leader might not have the same grasp of things that you and I have. But I believe his heart is in the right place, and I believe he adapts quickly, learns from his mistakes, and has surrounded himself with young people who know “the lay of the land” in a way he knows he cannot, and I believe he is mentoring them to take over from him eventually.

Even if I am correct in all of these beliefs, that obviously doesn’t mean that success will come. But it does mean that we should be patient, give Restore the benefit of the doubt, and not rush to see every mistake made, or even every tactic used, as a sign of unfolding treachery.

On the 1st of August, Restore made an offer to Reform UK of “cooperation”. They made some prerequisite demands to preserve their own integrity, but nevertheless, people rushed to see this offer as a sign that Restore were “caving”, losing confidence and seeking “an off-ramp”. Even though Reform were almost certain to reject the offer because of the prerequisites, people thought this was Restore looking to merge with Reform. (Not merely cooperate, but actually merge; paranoia interprets things in the most extreme and calamitous way.)

There are others who have been saying for months that Restore is a con, a “grift”, or at least doomed, and once this offer was made, my colleague Academic Agent regrettably joined that set. In several livestreams then an essay, he wove a complex narrative. Paraphrased:

The regime is laying the groundwork for a merger between Restore and Reform, and then a merger between that amalgam and the Conservative Party. To grease the wheels, the regime is offering an off-ramp of mainstream acceptance to Connor Tomlinson (who isn’t in Restore and despises the mainstream media) and Carl Benjamin (who is in Restore but has a lucrative career of his own so certainly isn’t desperate for mainstream acceptance).

AA’s evidence for all of this was, as far as I can tell, merely the following:

1. Restore’s offer (which he took at face value)

2. Farage’s non-committal response (which he took as veiled acceptance of the offer, rather than the obvious interpretation: a man in an awkward position trying to save face)

3. the fact that Carl Benjamin has recently appeared on GB News and the Daily Express podcast

4. a belief of his that the right-wing parties will have to merge by the next general election in order to defeat Burnham’s revitalised Labour Party. This idea is creditable; it just isn’t matched by any facts “on the ground”. To insist on it is to be married more to theory than to reality.

AA also pointed out that, once Lowe made his offer,

the mainstream press immediately framed the exchange between Lowe and Farage as the start of talks, a possible pact, a coalition

Of course they did. They deliberately associate Reform with Restore so as to pressure Reform to perpetually dissociate itself from Restore. The regime did this for its own reasons, not because Reform and Restore actually are alike (they’re not) or a merger actually is on the cards (it isn’t).

Had AA spoken with me before publishing his essay, I would have advised him to hold back. Had he done so, for just a few days, he would have seen his theory demolished by events:

1. an avalanche of vicious hit-pieces against Restore in the Daily Telegraph, every one of them by avowed Zionists

2. some of those articles echoed by the Jewish Chronicle and Searchlight

3. a hit-piece in the Jewish Chronicle

4. a hit-piece by Searchlight

5. a (Jewish-written) hit-piece in the Independent

6. a (Jewish-written) hit-piece in the Times

7. TalkTV and (avowed Zionist) Brendan O’Neill likening Restore to the Nazis

8. (half Jewish) Nick Robinson interviewing Lowe on BBC radio and mocking him (reported by the Mirror)

9. Julia Hartley-Brewer interviewing Charlie Downes on TalkTV and mocking him

10. GB News having various guests on to talk shit about Restore

11. Alex Phillips’ rabid ranting about Restore on her show and on Twitter

One of the Telegraph hit-pieces (echoed by GBNews) targeted Charlie Downes, framing him as an anti-Semite for implying - six months ago! - that Reform had been “bought” by Zionist interests.

On the 9th of August we saw what all of this was really for. Nigel Farage finally gave a formal response to Restore’s offer: he would consider talks, but only if the party expelled Charlie Downes.

Now here is the interesting (and for AA’s thesis, devastating) thing about Farage’s demand. If it is genuine, that means the regime is attempting to kosherise Restore, which means that Restore is not currently kosher, which means AA is wrong. Conversely, if Farage’s demand is not genuine, namely he doesn’t expect Restore to acquiesce, then there is zero prospect of a merger, which means AA is wrong. Either way, if Lowe rejects the offer, AA is wrong.

Lowe rejected the offer.

In the meantime, by making this particular demand, Farage has laid bare where his true loyalty lies, undermined his own position and credibility and helped his supporters to see the folly of supporting him. He also demonstrated that Downes had been correct in the first place.

Restore won by making their demands, and then won again when Farage made his. And both stages pushed Restore farther away from the regime, not closer towards it.

I think, if Academic Agent had confabulated with various people, he would have had a much better grasp of the situation and wouldn’t have gone ahead and potentially done damage to morale and momentum in the movement. Thankfully, he hasn’t done much damage, for the simple reason that “the crowd” has had enough of fatalism, defeatism and pessimism. Something is obvious to the crowd but elusive to the theorycels: we are moving assuredly away from the post-war consensus, and, at least on the Right, a new apparatus is emerging to accommodate this change and navigate the new environment.

Does that mean the regime will just give up now? Of course not. But they do have a lot to worry about. For the first time in decades, a viable political party exists that vehemently rejects their order, their game structure, and their legitimacy.

The idea that Restore is seeking to merge with Reform was always a paranoid imagining. The idea that Restore is seeking to merge with the Tories is absurd fantasy.

It is very obvious at this point that Rupert Lowe is serious, Restore is in for the long haul, and the party is recovering from its “nadir” of late June. Lowe has explicitly spoken about the plight of White Britons, the party is openly and defiantly pushing the concept of “demographic security”, the membership is growing steadily (now at 150,000), Reform are cornered and discredited, the mainstream media are hysterical, and Lowe still doesn’t care.

In the meantime John Cleese has jumped aboard, and he has five million Twitter followers. Ah, but social media doesn’t matter, right? Wrong. Social media - whether Boomer Facebook or Zillen-X Twitter - is the life-blood of Restore, motivating, informing and recruiting the people who will do the vast amounts of donkey work that brings the party to the general public. What happens on Twitter does matter, and that is why momentum among Restore supporters on there is important and should not be damaged, certainly not on the basis of vague hunches or paranoid suspicions.

I will take issue with one other thing AA said in his essay:

there is little to separate Reform and Restore: on immigration rhetoric the two parties have largely converged

Here AA was making an assertion in order to bolster his desired belief that a merger was on the cards. I don’t think he really believes the assertion. He just wanted to.

But still, let us address the assertion. I would ask AA to think back to Restore’s birth as a party in February with that video from Lowe on his farm, and to compare it with Farage’s antics at the time: a gaudy Butlins-esque karaoke bonanza while Rome burned. This contrast demonstrates that the two parties are fundamentally different beasts, which means that even if their rhetoric converges, that is an event of no significance, because Reform is insincere and corrupt, merely aping Restore’s rhetoric in a futile attempt to regain credibility. Does anyone seriously believe that Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman, Richard Tice or Nigel Farage care about the demographics of Britain? After everything these people have said and done? Come on. Their rhetoric is irrelevant. A fundamental divide exists between Reform and Restore. There is not going to be a merger. I don’t think there is even going to be “cooperation”.

But I do think we are going to get our country back.

The journey is going to be long, and there will be more screw-ups along the way, some of them infuriating in how easily they could have been avoided. And perhaps Restore will transpire to not be the vehicle that wins elections, but even then, it will move us further towards that goal. There is no better vehicle lying around right now, none that can even remotely match it, so why reject this one just because it isn’t perfect?

We need to believe in ourselves and our cause in the way that the Left believe in themselves and their cause, despite reality. We are up against the Leviathan, but reality is on our side, and I believe the British people are just waiting to be given permission to agree with us.

We can be part of that effort or we can sit on the sidelines, critiquing and bitching and conspiracy-theorising like the tragic abused woman, incapable of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

But at least she has the excuse of being traumatised. For those determined to see Restore as ill-fated or insincere, the reason seems to be a burning desire to be “cleverer than thou”.

I hope I am not doing them a disservice, because I consider some of these people my friends. I invite them to reconsider. I think their talents would be useful and their contributions valued. But it requires seeing yourself as part of something, not as an “above it all” loner or a career malcontent. That adjustment might be difficult for content creator types, being, as we are, natural lone wolves. But it is an adjustment I think we all should make. There is, after all, much at stake here.

This is not a time for fatalism or for lofty detachment. It is a time for imagination, courage and audacity. This, as AA once said, is the shot.

Season 1 of RTD2 got the worst ratings in Doctor Who’s history and terrible fan feedback and was a laughing stock online, the height of “woke” storytelling. Having cost a fortune to make and with much fanfare about partnership with Disney, as a new lease of life for a sixty year-old programme it fell disastrously short. The question, of course, was what would happen next.

The immediate factor was that Season 2 had already been made. It wrapped filming just before Season 1 began airing. As a result, there was no time - and no money - to make any changes based on feedback about Season 1.

Bad Wolf Productions and their funders/broadcasters Disney and the BBC, as well as Davies himself, could only grit their teeth for a full year while Season 2 was post-produced and, eventually, broadcast.

We resume our coverage just after Season 1 ended, when everyone was shell-shocked from the disaster and Davies was smugly promising more drag and gay material in Season 2.

Davies was well aware, before and during and after the airing of Season 1, that there was a groundswell of complaint on social media. As shown in the images above, YouTube was very active, but when talking about the matter Davies always focussed on Twitter/X.

[When we lament a fandom’s alleged resistance to inclusion] are we actually talking about society now? Or are we talking about a single platform [Twitter] that is very noisy? None of us knows the answer to that.

The show’s low ratings surely confirm that Twitter was accurately representing general society and that the objections posted there were shared by most ordinary people, but Davies didn’t want to admit that. Nor did he want to admit that it wasn’t only on Twitter.

So it feels like we’re having a conversation into an echoing box. Unless you lift your head, and then the world is very different. Or you have to hope that the world is very different.

Yes, he was hoping. But in truth there is only so far you can push the public. Of course there is a limit. And that limit is where they feel that your demands and indulgences could harm their children, or even other people’s children.

But Davies didn’t think of that. So locked was he in his obsession with gay rights and individual freedom, he ignored all possible reasons against it and kept on fighting “bigots”:

So what do we do except keep on fighting? And I think it is a fight. I’m conscious of being part of it. It’s a tough old battle... but I simply will not back down.

This, I think, is how Davies ended up killing the thing he loved. In 2005, he used Doctor Who to ask for tolerance from the mainstream, and at first he received it. But he pushed too far. As the years passed, and the world grew ever more tolerant of sexual deviance, he became ever less grateful, ever more entitled, demanding, obnoxious, preachy and self-righteous. From 2023, he used his cherished TV show to reprimand the mainstream. In the process he made it unwatchable, alienating it (and himself) from the mainstream.

While Season 1 was playing out, various outlets attempted to hide the damage. Rotten Tomatoes froze public reviews throughout the majority of the broadcast period because they were so at odds with those of “professional critics” (regime apparatchiks):

As the low ratings gradually emerged, there was a scramble among devoted fans to explain them away. First, they laughably said that the warm weather was keeping people outdoors. By season’s end they had come up with a whole slew of excuses:

The first sign of doom came on the 11th of June 2024. With Season 2 filmed, Davies revealed he was writing ahead:

I’m working on the fourth script now for [Season 3]… Those scripts have to be ready by about August, for prep… It’s not actually commissioned, that’s still up in the air.

So Disney hadn’t renewed yet. By this time, Season 1 was three-quarters over. For renewal not to have happened by then was less than encouraging, to say the least.

But that’s the same for every TV programme. I shouldn’t say we’re confident, because that’s asking for a fall, but we’re very confident, to be honest.

Asking for a fall, indeed.

Davies did acknowledge the show’s low ratings:

You know, they might not be the ratings we’d love. We always want higher.

Then - and this is so desperate that I think it must signal that, deep down, he knew the truth - Davies mentioned 28-day cumulative ratings. I had never heard of this metric before, let alone seen it used as a barometer of success.

But they are building over the 28-day period. Episode 1, Space Babies, is already up to 5.6 million and counting. So it is getting there.

Every episode between 2005 and 2017 got 5.6m views on its first night. Taking 28 days to reach the same number is an astonishing decline.

Davies also claimed:

according to the people who juggle the numbers, all targets have been reached and exceeded. The BBC are running around like mad things.

This seems like an outright lie.

Asked whether, in retrospect, he would do anything differently with the RTD2 era, he replied:

I mean, no, to be honest – I’m very proud of it!

At this time, I think his colleagues were all afraid to tell the emperor the truth about his new clothes.

The mainstream media were also “toeing the line”. During Chris Chibnall’s tenure, they at first sang its praises - the female Doctor, the non-white casting, the increased wokery - but eventually had to admit it was a dismal failure. In 2024, there must have been even greater pressure to defend Davies. He is a much more prominent and influential figure in the British television industry than Chibnall, more recognisable to the general public, and more beloved by luvvies. All through Season 1, no mainstream journalist dared admit the problem.

Inevitably, though, cracks started to appear.

It began on the 17th of July, when Deadline suggested Disney might withdraw and Gatwa might leave, returning only to film a death scene for his Doctor to cap Season 2.

Comic-Con 2024

At Comic-Con in late July to promote the show, Davies was amongst friends. The audience there are not the sci-fi fans of the 1990s, but hardcore progressives who cheer on the subversion of franchises. These people are in disagreement not just with ordinary opinion but even with most male fans of sci-fi. United by progressive dogma against a mainstream they feel (or imagine themselves to be) excluded from, they constitute a new subculture.

It is a subculture that Davies himself helped to cultivate, with Doctor Who back in 2005, more with Torchwood and now even more with RTD2. It is a subculture of confused females and emasculated males who are obsessed with being different. Paradoxically, these people are fanatical about sci-fi franchises, but will celebrate those franchises being twisted out of recognition in the name of trans rights, gay rights, multiculturalism, feminism, etc. - this nexus of ideologies being their religion.

The more a franchise alienates itself from the general public, the more these people will cheer. But, while there is an unfortunately large number of these people, it is nowhere near enough to sustain a franchise.

Many of these people are politicised gays - far more politicised post-2005 than they would have been in, say, 1995. Many were Millennials not given sufficient lead by social convention, and left to drift into the various categories awaiting them on Tumblr. After this social group was brought together in the post-Buffy world of sci-fi/fantasy fandom, they became the “SJWs” of the mid 2010s and in some cases the violent antifa of the late 2010s and certainly the BLM rainbow drones of the early 2020s, and are now the childless forty-somethings of today, still clinging to the progressive activism which once gave them a sense of purpose and triumph.

For a flavour of how such people think about Doctor Who, here are some gay fans discussing Season 1:

UNWIN: It’s the first time that the Doctor talks like I do, as a gay man.

McCURDY: I feel exactly the same, he’s talking like how I talk.

BEVERIDGE: The Doctor has always appealed to gay men, because he’s a nonconventional male role model. So having the Doctor be more queer has allowed people to identify that bit more closely with him.

Fundamentally changing a sixty year-old character is perfectly fine, if it panders to your own feelings.

At Comic-Con, Davies spoke about trans rights, invoking his endless obsession with being persecuted:

I don’t go online much. Maybe I should, maybe that’s wrong. I’m talking about Twitter/X as “the portal” online. I don’t feel particularly safe [on Twitter] as a gay man. Increasingly, I think that it’s worse, worse, and worse in society. I see what’s said out there, but that’s a long discussion for another time. But I’m not sure I can even be part of that. So that’s tricky. So that stops me going online in many ways... So I get my agent telling me what’s going on...

There are several points to pick up on here.

First, he says he is fighting “battles” with gay/trans issues, but also that he doesn’t like to take part in debate online regarding those issues. He doesn’t feel “safe” on Twitter. Knowing what is said on there stops him going on. In other words, this is a man who cannot defend his ideas on a level playing field, and knows he can’t, so prefers to use his massive MSM soapbox to preach to people instead of debating with them on an equal footing. You could not get a clearer example of condescending, arrogant progressive elitism.

Second, it confirms his long-held loathing of Twitter, especially since Elon Musk took it over. This in turn confirms that the sly mention in Season 1 of an evil tech billionaire was indeed a reference to Musk. It is also another reflection of the change in the Left since Trump/Brexit: before, they were very pro freedom of speech, but afterwards they have turned against it, to such an extent that they demonise Musk for enabling it amidst a climate of near-universal and arbitrary leftist censorship.

Third, his focussing on Twitter seems tactical. Instagram, Facebook and especially YouTube were also ablaze with vituperation about RTD2, but those platforms don’t have “a reputation” that can be invoked in order to neutralise the criticism. By contrast, post Musk’s take-over, Twitter is “understood” by leftie liberals (Davies’ people) to be a den of right-wing fanaticism, hatred, conspiracy theory, bigotry and stupidity, therefore it actually plays in Davies’ favour to associate it with opposition to RTD2. This casts said opposition as a product of the right-wing bogeyman, not of ordinary people.

After saying this, Davies thought for a moment then changed tack:

I think Doctor Who’s fine… I think there are things happening in the culture wars, particularly with trans rights these days that are a million times more important than what’s happening with Doctor Who.

I think this should be interpreted carefully. He specifies “what’s happening with” the show, not the show itself. I think his actual meaning is that the controversy surrounding his revamp of Doctor Who is less important than trans rights, so please talk about that instead of his monumental screw-up.

He continued:

[There are] battles to be fought. And it’s getting worse. It’s… it’s terrifying.

Alex Kurtzman said:

You’re fighting some of those battles on the show just by [having] the [minority] representation.

Davies agreed:

I do that on purpose… Absolutely, that’s part of the battle.

Given these comments, there was no ambiguity: Davies no longer primarily saw Doctor Who as a thing in its own right that existed outside of him, but as his personal plaything and his vehicle for pushing his political views - onto children. He had turned from a dramatist into a demented propagandist. The results were celebrated by Comic-Con, but rejected by a nation.

Six weeks earlier, Davies had said:

Ncuti’s off to do a play, The Importance of Being Earnest. And so we’re coming back [to film] after that [in February 2025].

So filming would begin once Gatwa became available. But now, when asked at Comic-Con, Davies refused to confirm that Gatwa would be appearing in Season 3. It seemed he was preparing to throw Gatwa under the bus in an attempt to ensure that there would even be a Season 3.

Davies’ belief in an August 2024 deadline for delivering the Season 3 scripts seems to have evaporated by the end of that month, when he told SFX:

[Season 3 is] an industry decision, it’s like any business – these things take time. I think the decision will come after the transmission of season two.

Also in August came the astonishing news that Davies would be teaching people how to write TV drama. Given the incredible shoddiness of his writing on Season 1, the mind boggles as to how anyone could think him fit to teach the craft of writing. He had also taken to vastly over-estimating the quality of his own work. Such a man is the last who should be allowed to train novices. But who can be surprised? The job was given to him by his long-time friend, Jane Tranter, executive producer of RTD2.

Interviewed on a BBC show in October, Gatwa said he would be filming Season 3 in 2025. Ominously, the BBC removed this statement before broadcast.

Disney omitted Season 2 from a preview trailer of their 2025 content. This lack of enthusiasm made it seem increasingly doubtful that they would be funding any Season 3. It was probably around now (November 2024) that Gatwa made the decision to leave, prompted by Disney’s apparent impending departure and by his own skittish treatment by Davies.

2024 Christmas special

This was written by Steven Moffat. He is a talented writer, far more so than any of the new writers Davies brought on board. He delivered an intricately-plotted, engaging and heart-warming story. However, it has two serious flaws, which a responsible showrunner would have spotted.

The first is that it is too busy and “all over the place”, precluding the character development that would have been welcome with both Anita and Joy and thereby weakening the emotional punch that it tries to deliver.

The second is something endemic to RTD2: a callous disregard for things once deemed important. Namely, the Doctor encounters a hotel that enables its visitors to dip in and out of different points in history, doing untold damage to the timeline. This would have outraged any Doctor before now, yet Gatwa’s incarnation thinks nothing of it. This frivolous attitude is all over RTD2: nothing seems to matter. Well then, why should the viewer care?

For all that, it is probably the best script of the RTD2 era. Sadly, by now the damage had been done, and it got lower ratings than any previous Christmas special, 1.5m down from its predecessor:

The official rating is 5.91 million viewers, but the incremental data shows that during most of the broadcast it was actually below 4 million:

A story like this deserved better, both in finessing and in the episodes that preceded it and should have brought in more viewers, but instead drove them away.

2025

In January 2025, Bad Wolf advertised their studio space:

That the advert spoke in the past tense about Doctor Who being filmed there, not as an ongoing concern, was ominous. Of course, in the normal run of things, filming of Season 3 would have started by now.

More pressing still, given that Season 2 was “in the can”, was the question of whether a Christmas special would precede a future Season 3. Davies confirmed a 2025 Christmas special hadn’t been included in Disney’s “first order”, but nevertheless claimed to be confident about the show’s future. A month later, the Sun reported that, sans funding, there would be no 2025 special.

In early February, the crew was unexpectedly spotted doing location work. The Sun suspected this was hastily-arranged filming of Gatwa’s exit from the show, and turned out to be correct. It was exactly as Deadline had predicted in July 2024.

Soon, the Sun alleged that Gatwa had quit and the production crew had been told to find new work because the show was being axed.

Apparently Gatwa had had to turn down a very lucrative perfume advert because of his Doctor Who contract - one reason he might want to buy himself out of it. (Can anyone imagine Jon Pertwee doing a perfume advert?)

The Sun quoted an “insider”:

Ncuti doesn’t want to be tied to the series beyond this and plans to relocate to Los Angeles with several Hollywood projects standing by for him.

His team also see a lot of fan backlash from the series, and don’t want the perception of him still being The Doctor to get in the way of any future work.

The BBC denied everything. Nevertheless, it was obvious that Gatwa had left. He soon removed mention of the show from his Instagram bio.

In mid March, Davies won Gaydio’s “Pride Icon” award. In his acceptance speech, he fulminated about various right-wing bugbears and yet again repeated his lifelong refrain about gays being in more danger than ever:

I think times are darker beyond all measure, and beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.

He elaborated to the Guardian:

As a gay man, I feel like a wave of anger, and violence, and resentment is heading towards us on a vast scale… I’ve literally seen a difference in the way I’m spoken to as a gay man since that November election, and that’s a few months of weaponising hate speech, and the hate speech creeps into the real world… I’m not being alarmist. I’m 61 years old. I know gay society very, very well, and I think we’re in the greatest danger I have ever seen.

By now Davies had announced his next project, a gay drama for Channel 4. For this he was reuniting with Jewish producer Nicola Shindler (his enabler on Queer as Folk and It’s a Sin). It seemed significant that he would take on new projects while supposedly immersed in the huge task of steering Doctor Who. As he would later explain:

I was technically busy on Doctor Who, but I was driven to this [writing] desk. I had to write it in Manchester. And I would have written it for free. It just had to be written.

And the reason? Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Reform UK.

They’re out to get us. The president of the United States is literally out to get us, is discounting us. He would be happier with us invisible and gone, defunded, completely invisible if not biologically altered to become as straight as him.

This was typical Davies paranoia, but more deranged than ever.

In late March, a YouGov poll revealed the show’s dreadful standing with young and old viewers alike.

And now Season 2 was imminent. The long wait must have been agony for everyone involved in making it. They surely knew and dreaded the backlash it would elicit, but were powerless to avert it.

• dis-enchanting modern dialogue and accents

• black Helen of Troy heading a general mystery meat cast of “Ancient Greeks”

• transgender warriors

• bad writing

• subversion of concepts

Let us first confront the dumb notion that you need to have watched the film to judge it (a la Douglas Murray). No, I don’t need to watch the film to know that it is wrong, stupid, destructive and subversive to depict Helen of Troy as black. It is likewise common sense to know how a mystery meat cast will affect the telling of a classical European story. I can also predict - accurately - what effect modern dialogue will have on a mythic ancient story, because anyone could predict that. Transgender Greek warriors speaks for itself. As for the bad writing, that isn’t my concern here - although it is a widespread phenomenon nowadays and very much of concern to me - because others can analyse that. Ditto the subverting of the story’s concepts. But I can condemn all of these things, easily, without having personally endured them in this particular instance, for I have endured all of them elsewhere.

Indeed, if progressives tell us we can’t condemn the film before watching it, why were they celebrating it before watching it?

Let’s get to the point: this film is a White humiliation ritual. You know that by how much progressives celebrate it, rally to defend it, and want more of it.

The specific nation/people of Greece are especially degraded by this (eg. by accepting their budget contribution but not having a single Greek actor in the film or including Greece in its opening “world tour”). This abuse of the Greek people is even more grotesque because they are today a small and harmless nation.

But all European people, both in the Old World and the New, are degraded by this film. It perverts a key foundational text of our civilisation, it callously inserts non-Europeans into our heritage, it offends against the Faustian drive (much as Ridley Scott’s execrable Napoleon (2023) “biopic” did), in the manner of egalitarian poison it (by using modern American dialogue and accents) negates our very concepts of hierarchy and “the classical”, and, typical of Nolan’s spirit-shrivelling rationalism it dis-enchants our mythology, casting gods and magic as merely “apparent”.

Mainstream conservatives, of course, are as bovine as ever, seeking out ways to agree with the progressives and suppress their instinctual disgust and disappointment, so as to kid themselves that they have not been (yet again) defeated and humiliated. Mainstream conservatives are (due to their financial clout) an entity in political circles but (due to their nature) a non-entity in political discourse. They are the Renfield to the progressive’s Dracula. They are the shadow of the progressive, the forlorn echo of the jubilant vandal.

Is Christopher Nolan a mainstream conservative? Probably, but one with unusual amounts of agency and curiosity. He certainly had a reputation for being “a bit right-wing”. This is why I think, for the progressives, The Odyssey represents the cucking of Nolan, the successful corrupting of the only director right-wingers thought might just possibly be on their side. The progressives feel they have collected another scalp, in other words. This explains a lot of their joy about The Odyssey. But I am not sure they are really correct. It is more likely that Nolan willingly decided to join them. Having sailed quite close to the wind in his films thus far, I think he thought “okay, time to stop playing around now, and start being more socially responsible”.

It is natural, but also a sort of cope, for right-wingers to assume that Nolan didn’t want to do this. I disagree. I don’t believe he did this out of cowardice (he seems genuinely pleased with himself, not embarrassed or ashamed) or even in pursuit of Oscars (he goes far beyond what would be needed to clear that bar). For example, if he absolutely “had” to have a non-white Helen of Troy, he could have cast a mixed-race woman, or someone vaguely attractive, a Halle Berry type. Instead he chose a woman who looks like she is straight out of the jungle. It was as far from the Aryan ideal as he could possibly get without leaving planet Earth. So it was not desire for acceptance that drove him, nor the cowardice that would lead to such arrant compromising. I don’t think he was compromising. I think he did this willingly and even gleefully. As to the reason why, I don’t know. I am just certain that he was not acting under duress. I think right-wingers should give up on that notion. Christopher Nolan is not our friend.

Let us look at the fatuous defences progressives have made of the Helen casting. Almost all of them are tedious examples of pretending not to understand:

• she is a fictitious character (so it doesn’t matter…?)

• she is only on-screen for a few minutes (irrelevant)

• we don’t know that Homer intended her as White (of course we do)

• the character has already been played by non-white actresses - Eartha Kitt in a 1950 theatre play by Orson Welles and Galyn Görg in a 1996 episode of Xena: Warrior Princess! (Neither of these was an adaptation of The Odyssey, and neither was “serious”, the first being an experimental surrealist stage show and the second being a tongue-in-cheek 1990s pulp TV show.)

• the White actors in the film also aren’t Greek! (they can pass as Greek, are far more plausibly Greek than any non-white actor)

• why do you even care about the actress’s race…?! (then why do progressives care about it enough to feverishly celebrate it?)

Then there is the moronic and disingenuous argument that, if you can accept ghosts, giants, sea monsters, magic and a cyclops, then you can surely accept a black Helen of Troy:

As usual, Rotten Tomatoes is dutifully presenting the picture that everyone just loves this film. Now, it might be chicanery. I think it is, especially with the public reviews. But if it isn’t, that bodes very badly for public tastes. And either way, we know that mass numbers of them are paying to watch this film.

And that brings us to the matter I really want to discuss regarding this film. The people I want to reach are those who were hoping beforehand that it would fail, finally marking the end of “the woke era”.

To the contrary, The Odyssey stands as a “proof of concept” for Hollywood and all other media producers. If even Helen of Troy can be depicted as black, anyone can be (and therefore must be). If you think that, after this, some low-budget film is going to get away with having an all-White cast, you are kidding yourself. The precedent has been set: a $250m epic can thrive commercially with a diverse cast, even one that includes the hideous Zendaya and the hideous Lupita Nyong’o. That means all films will now be expected to do the same (or more) in terms of diversity casting.

Also, it is a proof of concept in terms of multiple new ways to distort European history and Western civilisational heritage. It has gone right back to the beginning of European history and globohomoed even that. If you think that, after this, any mainstream film is going to get away with faithfully depicting more recent periods in European history - say, Ancient Rome, Renaissance Italy, Restoration France, Edwardian England - you are kidding yourself.

So I think we now have to definitively put away the notion that “woke is being put away”. Woke is dead and discredited, and we were correct to perceive that. Woke is also getting a bit slicker and more tactful, and we were correct to perceive that. But we were wrong to think that these factors meant it was being retired as “the official global state ideology”. In fact, the very “battering ram” / “shock and awe” effect (2015-2022) which exhausted people to wokery was also what established it as default, omnipresent and unanswerable - the norm. After the fact, people are tired of it, tired of fighting it, but it has become unfightable anyway.

At least, it has become unfightable in the sense that the institutions are clearly never going to “put it away” voluntarily. They have shown that with The Odyssey.

They have also shown that another canard is false: “go woke, go broke”. We desperately need to give up on that one as well. Whenever you hear someone say it, you should ask them how the weather is in 2015. Mock them, insult them, make them embarrassed about their gormlessness. While it is true that some woke films make a loss at the box office (Joker: Folie à Deux, Snow White, Supergirl) it doesn’t even matter then because the studios are massively wealthy and can withstand huge losses. You can’t “hurt” them by refusing to buy their poison. If you are hoping that the general public will unify to do that for you, again, you are kidding yourself. The masses will buy whatever they are told to buy. They have about as much agency as they have taste.

In Britain we have seen similar “elite narrative control” in recent weeks: Ann Widdecombe’s brutal murder was minimised and memory-holed (because she was right-wing), and Andy Burnham’s manufactured ascent to No.10 has reinvigorated the Labour Party in the face not only of its own hollowness and ineptitude, but also of Britain’s dire condition. You can distract the masses from almost anything and make them do almost anything.

In the case of The Odyssey, the advertising machine made sure that the masses did as required. In its opening weekend alone, the film made $264m, exceeding its $250m budget. It needed to make twice as much in order to fully recoup its costs, but that was achieved with its second weekend. And now, every ticket being sold is a bonus.

So it has worked out for them. This butchering of our civilisational heritage has been successful. Why? Because they have the tools and the hegemony to ensure that their projects are successful.

This brings us to the ultimate problem in countering wokery. The difficulty is not production - which is much easier than twenty years ago and is destined to become infinitely easier with AI - but distribution and, as an adjunct of that, “ascension” into mainstream culture, achieving of “legitimacy”.

These, not the production of our own media, are the dilemmas we need to confront now. People triumphantly say “we can make our own media now” and that is true, but it is irrelevant if nobody is going to see (or pay for) what we make.

I don’t have the answers. I just think The Odyssey has helped to show us what the correct questions are.

We have been told recently that a kirpan is a “small” Sikh ceremonial blade, usually about three inches long. But, looking through the newspaper archives (demonstrated by the photo above), British journalists and Sikhs themselves have historically used the word “kirpan” to refer to blades of many different sizes, so it is not surprising that, even today, nobody seems to be sure what the word actually means, or what exactly we have committed to tolerating on our streets. Is it a sword? Is it a dagger? Is it something even smaller than that? It seems to be all of these. Only this year (for reasons we will get to) has the media assured us that a kirpan is typically just three inches long.

Even before being officially legalised in 1988, the kirpan (in all sizes) was almost always tolerated in Britain. Various Sikhs were arrested for carrying one but charges were usually dropped, convictions only happened for long blades and even then not always, and in at least one instance the police actually apologised for the arrest. Interestingly, two of those arrested Sikhs were converts - one White in 1973 and one Black in 1982.

Where it was used in crime, it was only ever against other “Asians”. I found two examples. In Southall in 1983 a street fight occurred between two “Asian” gangs and involved the use of both short and long “kirpans”, among many other types of weapon. Dozens of men were injured. In Kent in 1987, a huge fight broke out inside a Sikh temple between “rival groups of Asians”, some with blades of 75cm in length. Four men were slashed.

But all of these victims were Asian, and the stories would only make local news. Most White British, the broad public, would be oblivious. Perhaps that is how the kirpan could be formally legalised, the very year after that fight in a temple. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made it officially legal for Sikhs to carry a ceremonial blade in public. (This was later ratified by the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.)

Thereafter, there was the question of how much to tolerate it. In several cases in the 1990s and 2000s, it caused concern in schools and airports around the country. In every case, the answer found was to tolerate it more. It is remarkable how smooth the trajectory of acceptance has been. Then again, what school would forbid a pupil from carrying one around, when, given the legalisation, that would amount to the school breaking the law?

Though the law stipulates no size limit, the media assure us that most Sikhs only carry a small blade of about three inches in length. (Although it has to be said, even this could easily kill a man.)

But, as noted, even before this law, Sikhs carried much longer blades than that. Moreover, there is “mission creep”; if a law officially allows small blades, gradually longer blades will be tolerated, since nobody wants to take a non-white to task. I can’t find a single case after 1988 of a Sikh being arrested for carrying a kirpan of any length. Laws are used expansively against Whites, but diminishingly against non-whites. They have ever more leeway, we have ever less.

Thus, multiculturalism brings us scenes like this, even in Hazelbank Park in Northern Ireland:

If we read the actual text of both acts, we see that the legal exemption is not solely for Sikhs. In fact, Sikhs aren’t even mentioned. It applies to the adherents of any religion which requires the carrying of weapons. But of course, Sikhism is the only such religion. Some strands of modern Paganism and Wiccanism involve an athame, some strands of Buddhism a phurba, but there is no requirement to carry one around so neither qualifies for the legal exemption.

In theory, a bunch of White people could invent a religion which required them to carry swords around, and going by established law the British state would have to tolerate it. In practice, of course, this would never happen. Therefore, in practice what British law provides is a privilege for Sikhs that isn’t, and never would be, enjoyed by anyone else. Natives can only enjoy that privilege if they convert to the foreign religion of Sikhism.

This bizarre situation went on unchecked because very few people had any reason to be aware of it.

In the meantime, newspapers informed the British public that the kirpan is “a gold ceremonial sword symbolic of the struggle to maintain law and order and protect the innocent” and that it “represents freedom, protection, truth and justice”.

If they ever encountered a kirpan, it was probably in a formal setting of some kind. A Sikh brigadier gifted one to his former regiment in Penicuik. London police chief Sir Paul Condon was gifted one while visiting a Sikh temple. All very charming.

There just wasn’t much need for White British to know or care. I’d bet that 95% of them had never even heard the word “kirpan” before May 2026.

Then news broke of a criminal trial of a young Sikh, Vickrum Singh Digwa, who had killed a White teenager, Henry Nowak, using a ceremonial blade. Among other things about this case, White people were outraged to hear for the first time about the “religious exemption for Sikhs”, one law for us and another for them, British law giving them more freedoms than us - the natives! For many it was a perfect example of “two-tier Yookay”, even though the law goes back to 1988.

It was a bit ironic, because in fact Digwa was convicted not only of murder but of “possessing a bladed article in a public space”. The religious exemption didn’t help him. Why? Because he used an 8” pesh-kabz which the court ruled was surplus to his religious obligations, which were already fulfilled by the much smaller kirpan he wore around his neck and did not use in the murder.

So, technically, the public outrage about the religious exemption was unnecessary. But not really, because, if not for that exemption, Digwa would have got a longer prison sentence. Moreover, if not for the exemption, police would surely have taken an interest in a young man walking around with an 8” blade hanging from his waist, as Digwa was in the habit of doing every day. Sure, in combination with the small kirpan, the pesh-kabz was still technically illegal, but nobody knew this because nobody knows much about foreign cultures, especially about how they intersect with boring legal provisions. A non-Sikh walking around with the same weapon would be arrested immediately. Digwa wasn’t, because he is a Sikh.

Moreover, if anyone had claimed that his pesh-kabz was illegal, Digwa could have countered, saying it is required for his religious obligations because he is a member of the Nihang order. Even after Digwa’s conviction, any Nihang Sikh could still use that defence. And how could we Whites disagree? What do we know about their religious obligations? Had you even heard the word “Nihang” before now? I certainly hadn’t. We are tourists to their culture, and disinterested ones at that, while by contrast they can claim to be total citizens of our nation, every bit as integrated and invested in its ways as we are.

Despite these many nuances, the Digwa trial has prompted demands for the religious exemption to be abolished. The phrasing is typically “ban the kirpan”, even though abolishing the exemption would not “ban” it, only prohibit it being carried in public.

There are numerous reasons why people want this.

Some want ethnic revenge against Sikhs collectively for the Nowak murder.

Some are outraged that Sikhs have a freedom denied to the rest of us. They want equality under the law, one rule for all, etc. But if that argument is used, progressives will smugly explain that, in fact, Sikhs don’t have more freedoms than us, because the exemption applies to anyone whose religion has this requirement. In any case, if the goal is “one law for all”, I’d say the better way is to increase freedom for non-Sikhs rather than reduce it for Sikhs: let anyone carry such a knife, as used to be the case. We would still be protected by all the laws around assault, murder, etc. should a knife be used offensively (laws which, incidentally, apply to Sikhs today). I also think there is something petty, spiteful and feministic about removing weapons from people, defanging them. I think it would be more honourable for us to masculinise ourselves than to emasculate this other group. Having said that, I also don’t agree with “one rule for all”; this is our homeland, so if anything we should have more rights than minorities.

Some just want a safer Britain. They are outraged that the state allows the threat of kirpan-enabled Sikhs in their midst. But, if that argument is used, Sikhs will respond with statistics. And it genuinely is an extremely rare threat; Henry Nowak is, as far as I can tell, the first White Brit who has ever been killed with a Sikh ceremonial blade. But as for the idea that a ban would make us all safer… well, what about the argument, long-cherished on the Right, that “guns don’t kill people, people do”? And would it make us safer? Is it safer to live amongst kirpan-enabled Sikhs, or amongst Sikhs enraged at your emasculation of them and your obliteration of their culture? I honestly don’t know the answer. At any rate, I can understand why people think a ban would make us safer; it would certainly have made Henry Nowak safer. But then there is another question: do we really want safety at the expense of liberty, like the awful middle-aged harpies who want digital ID and censorship for the sake of “safety”?

For other people, the argument is that Sikhs should “become more British”, and an obvious obstacle to that is their ancestral habit of carrying a ceremonial blade. They want Sikhs to be forced to relinquish their weird foreign customs. This argument is virtually identical to that for banning the burka: it would force these foreigners to integrate into mainstream British culture. Civic nationalists see that as both possible and desirable.

I don’t.

I want these people - Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and non-white Christians and Atheists - to leave Britain. Whether they leave by choice or by law, I don’t care. I am tired of civic nationalists deluding themselves that any other course will preserve Britain. In that regard, banning the behaviours of our dusky friends is effectively just papering over the deep cracks in our multicultural crisis. It will not make them integrate to any great degree, but even if it did, that would be profoundly damaging to our people’s survival.

I also doubt that a ban on the kirpan (or the burka) would be enforceable. Would Sikhs abide by it? Would the modern British police have the guts to check?

All of those reasons are why I made this tweet.

Many replies said that I had missed the point. And indeed I had. In my rush to counter-signal the deluded civic nationalists who have thwarted proper nationalism in Britain for decades, I overlooked the fact that the policy they were advocating might actually have my desired effect, not theirs. In other words, banning the kirpan might cause Sikhs to leave Britain more than it would cause them to integrate.

It is very difficult to know because almost every Western country has more or less the same legal exemption as Britain. The only exception I can find is Italy, which forbids carrying kirpans in public, of any length. Italy has about 220,000 Sikhs (0.37% of its population) and that number is growing fast. That they remain in Italy suggests that they are willing to tolerate the ban, which also means it is not enough to make them self-deport.

In dealing with this problem we should not give in to our lower drives. We should try to be wise and to think of the long term. My positions:

• the civ-nat desire to “force” foreigners to integrate is crude, futile and, more importantly, genetically self-defeating for us

• the eth-nat desire to antagonise Sikhs is short-sighted, because if conflict ensues the regime is on their side, not ours

• the eth-nat desire to incentivise Sikhs to self-deport is sensible

With all of that in mind, should we “ban the kirpan”? Probably.

If nothing else, it would progress things, bringing us closer to the point where we can all openly admit that multiculturalism doesn’t work. Once that is admitted, we can begin deciding how we are going to separate.

One of the many depressing things about life in Britain today is being fond of various British cultural artefacts but knowing they are in the care of people who are bound, by their socio-political convictions, to destroy them. And this seems to affect literally all British cultural artefacts. Whichever you happen to be fond of, it is doomed.

In a dystopian novel, the people doing this would hate the things they were destroying. In our age, it is more perverse: they have genuine affection and love for the things they are destroying. After doing their destruction, they are happy for their warped version of the thing to sit alongside the original. (Did surgeons, having performed lobotomies, enjoy looking at “before and after” photos of the patients?)

The reason this happens at all is, of course, that right-wingers have ceded cultural authority to left-wingers. In many cases, feeling out of place or unwelcome, they have literally vacated the organisations where culture is generated, maintained, interpreted, etc. Where they remain, they are utterly dominated by the leftist atmosphere they are immersed in. If they are tolerated, it is because they are barely right-wing at all any more, or have learned to keep their heads down and pretend to agree with what is happening. There has been total castration of that contingent of “cultural people” who are politically right-wing.

This effectively leaves the spaces of culture entirely peopled by left-wingers. Some of those people are more strident and politically pro-active than others, but none of them can think of a reason why a Dickens character should not be played by a Black actor. So, when that suggestion is made by the more strident, it faces no pushback whatsoever from the less strident, and is in fact eagerly taken up and energised by all present.

It is the same when some activist working at a rural museum suggests an exhibition about the town’s role in perpetuating slavery. Perhaps nobody else present had ever made such a preposterous connection, but now that it has been proposed, well, it would be unthinkable to reject the proposal. The right-wing among them know that to object would be to risk a disciplinary hearing and possible sacking.

Once it happens in the places where culture is generated and maintained, right-wingers are either reprogrammed or repelled by what then emanates from those places. As a result, you find such people less and less in places where culture is discussed. Online forums have dumbasses of both political wings, and thoughtful left-wingers, but no thoughtful right-wingers. Those people just seem to have vacated the business of culture, especially high culture.

I have seen the phenomenon in various places, by both creators and fans of culture.

To deal with the latter group first… I have seen online portals where fans of vintage television drama gather to discuss the old productions they love - the techniques, the actors, the writers, the tropes, and of course the locations, the cultural settings that have long since evaporated. They discuss depictions (whether factual or fictitious) of bygone Britain - London in the 1950s, Liverpool in the 1960s, a rural village in the 1940s, Birmingham in the 1920s…

It is clear they feel deep affection for these settings, and they will admit this, yet deny vehemently any desire to “go back”. They speak of it like a forbidden pleasure - and forbidden for very good reason! - something we can sample but should never have, and should never want to have. We can look back on it fondly, but should balk at the idea of recreating it, even at the desire to recreate it, for that desire is dangerous and immoral. The rural train station, the village school, the dreaming spires of a university, the working-class canteen with the little old ladies, the grand metropolitan museum… these places of old might seem cute and heart-warming, but they were rife with racism, bigotry, homophobia and classism. Worst of all, they had no diversity at all, so these people existed in a purgatory of whiteness, ignorant of other cultures and possessed of a latent racism that waited to emerge when the first poor Pakistani family moved in and began their long suffering at the hands of these bigoted English.

This is how you are supposed to view pre-diversity Britain. Fanatical leftists will obsessively attack it (see above), creating a social pressure which ensures that fans of depictions of it - films, TV shows, novels, even music albums - will fall over themselves to assure everyone that they do not want that age back. The very qualities which make it appealing, they must deride as ugly and unpleasant, or even “disturbing”. This is virtue-signalling, of course - what we might call “performative revulsion”.

I can give several good examples of this.

Read more

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, 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 to him: “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 [brother, 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 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 Nowak 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 he was obviously 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. (I have written a separate essay about the legalities around the kirpan and about the calls to ban it.)

• 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.)

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 fault-line 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 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 multiracial 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.