British Man Arrested For Questioning Muslim Woman About Terrorism

England is cucked. The multi-culti Jews there are a big part of the problem. Political correctness is another gift of the Jews, like feminism and communism. Jewish groups such as the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Board of Deputies of British Jews (a tiny group of elite Jews who are not representative of normal Jews who don’t have these suicidal desires) have long led a fervent assault on free speech. These are evil people and either they will destroy western civilization or they will be destroyed. Deep in their hearts, they long to be thrown into death camps, and they won’t stop pushing to flood the West with Muslims and Africans and other non-whites until either whites are destroyed or these suicidal elite Jews are destroyed.

If you found poisonous snakes in your bedroom, who would you hate? The snakes or the people who put them in your home?

America has a choice: Trump now or Hitler later. Most of the leaders of organized Jewry secretly long for another Hitler to come along and liquidate them. They consider Jews vicarious atonement for humanity’s sins.

All of the major Jewish groups in the United States push for immigration amnesty. They are traitors. They are a fifth column in our midst. They are the moral equivalents of Jonathan Pollard and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

From the WSJ:

LONDON—A British man who sent a Twitter message about challenging a Muslim woman over the Brussels attacks has been charged with inciting racial hatred, London police said Friday.

Matthew Doyle, a 46 year old public relations executive from South London, provoked criticism—and some support—after putting his post on the social media platform in the wake of Tuesday’s twin bombings in the Belgian capital that claimed more than 30 lives.

“I confronted a Muslim woman yesterday in Croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said ’Nothing to do with me’. A mealy mouthed reply,” said the post from a Twitter account in Mr. Doyle’s name.

Police arrested Mr. Doyle on Wednesday after widespread reaction to his post.

He has since been charged with a public order offense, namely “publishing or distributing written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, likely or intended to stir up racial hatred,” said the Metropolitan Police in a statement.

Under U.K. law, posting offensive social media messages can be classed as a hate crime and lead to criminal prosecution. …

In an interview with the U.K. newspaper The Daily Telegraph published on Wednesday, Mr. Doyle said he had been arrested for sending the tweet, and defended his actions.

“What everyone’s got wrong about this is I didn’t confront the woman,” Mr. Doyle was quoted as saying by the newspaper. “I just said: ’Excuse me, can I ask what you thought about the incident in Brussels?’”

“She was white, and British, wearing a hijab, and she told me it was nothing to do with her,” he was quoted as saying in the newspaper. ”I said ’thank you for explaining that,’ and her little boy said goodbye to me as we went our separate ways.”

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The process is the punishment. The message has been sent to others. Keep your mouth shut. Love diversity or else.

So far silence buys you peace but the time is not far off when silence will be construed as dissent and peace can only be bought through active support of beloved diversity. We’re already seeing this with the homosexual agenda – declaring that you’re OK with homosexuals doing their own thing in private is now deemed offensive, the proper catechism is that homosexuality is normal and should be celebrated publicly. After all, you’re not a bigot, are you, so why aren’t you loudly proclaiming that you love homosexuals?

* I married into an English family. I find they’re much more inclined and happy to follow someone else’s “rules” and much less likely to say “to hell with it – the law’s an ass.”

* This trait is known as being “law-abiding”. It is often considered to be a positive attribute.

* Yes, of course. The problem, however, is that, having evolved to live as part of a group, and having evolved and been enculturated to trust the group’s authority figures (it’s much more efficient that way!), we are vulnerable to being misled if outsiders can replace or corrupt or otherwise influence those whom we trust.

* It’s good to know that Scotland Yard has its priorities straight. Diversity or freedom, pick one. The UK has made its pick.

* If you asked the average British person to explain Brussels, they would tell you about the Brussels sprouts they eat at Christmas dinner.

The British laws about what you can and cannot post online are pretty absurd and show just how scared the government is of igniting the racial violence tinderbox. Not surprising as the country has periodic race riots in ethnic enclaves like Brixton, Toxteth, and Tottenham in which les miserables start fires and break plate glass windows to steal training shoes.

Of course the average law abiding Muslim in Britain is hardly likely to identify with criminal Muslim gang-bangers in Brussels, so you can’t really blame the woman he spoke to. What she should have said is that in the caliphate of ISIS these Belgian guys would never have been released from prison for their former crimes–they would have had their hands cut off, or possibly their heads too.

* There was never any chance of a jury returning a guilty verdict in this case. Just as there wasn’t a couple of years ago when a columnist who argued against gay marriage on a radio programme suffered a visit from her local plod.

It’s intimidation, pure and simple.

* The language of the statutory offense is incoherent. It has one conjunction too few and cannot be parsed. Is it “or” or “and” that is supposed to follow “insulting”? A prosecution under such a statute would be unconstitutional in the US, but the English no longer have the rights of Englishmen.

* Questioning a Muslim woman about Islamic terrorism is called a hate crime.

Blaming white people for colonialism, slavery, etc.? That’s called elementary school curriculum.

* When the British criminalized self-defense and debated banning pointed knives, you knew their time was up. A society that wedded to collectivism is beyond hope and redemption.

* Writing I support Donald Trump for president in chalk on a college campus is considered a hate crime.

Don’t you just love DIEversity?

* There is no “liberty” in the West any more, at least not like it was understood during Enlightenment. “Liberty” has been replaced by “license.” The cardinal rule is the equality of license, and the cardinal sin of the postmodern West is questioning someone else’s licentiousness.

The postmodern West is, basically, a soft communism. There are no gulags or firing squads, but defy the “party line” and you will pay for it.

* “So, over privileged white males can no longer disparage those with less institutional power. Boo fucking hoo”

The white male was never “privileged” in the West (certainly not the way males are “privileged” in Islam).

The Western white male EARNED his superiority by applying the Scientific Method to human problems, and by WORKING to sell the fruits of his labor in the free market.

Do you think that Edison and Ford and the Wrights prevented females and blacks from inventing and selling phonographs, autos, and aircraft through some kind of “privilege?” Or was it the case that females and blacks never accomplished such things because they were simply less talented and creative than these white men?

If white men have any “privilege,” at all, it is evolutionary and genetic superiority, not socio-political.

* A good metaphor for what’s happening, for build a tinderbox is what they have most certainly done. The ultimate goal seems to be a panopticon state presiding over an assortment of mutually hostile races. Everyone’s communications will be monitored, ensuring no white person expresses any objection to the ruin of his country or criticises any other race. The arrest of this man was symbolic and the decision to take no legal action was inevitable (even if tried, he’d have been acquitted). It’s merely an assertion of the state’s power and the ritual degradation of a citizen. People say the pretext for his arrest was ridiculous. That’s true – that was the whole point of it.

* If the English had been more inclined to speak up maybe 1500 girls [in Rotherham] wouldn’t have been forced into sex slavery and raped.

* Boy, this makes me happy I’m living in the US of A and under the First Amendment. Thank you, Founders.

As corrupted as we are by political correctness, I can’t imagine a police department ever even thinking about going after someone because of this, or of any law ever being imposed on us like this.

But we will have to keep the SC free of too many wise Latinas.

* Try looking at the non-governmental organisations that are providing training and advice to the police on race matters. The usual suspects.

* This is a side effect of the generational disappearance of gym class in public schools, or having one of those stupid PE classes where all the students do is walk around the block for exercise. All those introverts who got slammed in the face during dodgeball were traumatized by it, but people tend to forget about the side effect. By the time those introverts from previous generations had reached college, they’d been toughened up a bit and given some perspective and a scale on which to judge life’s bad experiences, and they wouldn’t have bothered to make a fuss about Trump’s name on a sidewalk. That would have been far too trivial to bother with because they’d known worse.

* Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson was sued for racial discrimination and personal injruy for calling one of his co-workers a “lazy, Irish cunt” and punching him, and ended up settling for more than a 100,000 pounds.

* I recently attended a talk given by the British politician and commentator Paul Weston, who has founded a conservative political party, Liberty GB. Weston described the gradual process through which Great Britain became the multicultural mess it is now.

–First trickle of immigrants after WW II–”Don’t worry, there are so few it will make no difference.”
–Increasing flow in 1970s and 1980s–”Don’t worry, they’ll assimilate.”
–Great flood brought in under Tony Blair and after–”Don’t worry, we’re a multicultural society and we must all get along.”
–Continued flood of immigrants despite their inability to assimilate and responsibility for increased crime, terrorism and riots– “Don’t talk about it, hate speech is against the law.”

* Meanwhile, away from the horror that is privileged white men asking impertinent questions, some trivial crimes have been occurring. A Glasgow shopkeeper was stabbed to death for wishing his neighbors a happy Easter. Also, the top imam in Scotland voiced his support of Mumtaz Qadri. Qadri, you may recall, assassinated a Pakistani politician who opposed Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which prescribe death for the offense of blaspheming against mohammedanism.

Now that’s some speech policing.

BONUS, an Iranian immigrant to Germany who sympathized with refugees to the extent of letting some stay in his home, had his head bashed in by an Afghan refugee staying in his home after an argument.

Liberal Teacher Takes In Muslim Refugee, His Colleague Finds What’s Left Of Him

In the wake of this tragedy, will the German polizei form a task force to arrest white people who tweet messages that might make Moslems feel uncomfortable?

* I sense a decline in the quality of iSteve comments over the past 6 months.

I believe it is due to Trumpism shifting the Overton Window. The smarter commenters have figured out that they can express things elsewhere, and more broadly distributed/read, than in this niche blog (despite the long tail it has).

Steve? How many sigmas from the center of the Overton Window is your sweet spot? Trump has moved it, quite obviously. Do you need to adjust, perhaps? Again, I see comment quality decline, quite obviously, to tell the truth.

* I see you’ve commented here for 4 months. Which particularly erudite commenters have left? Seems to me we’ve got basically the same crew we’ve had here for a long while, with some new arrivals. From my perspective, Komment Kontrol’s Overton window has shifted a lot over the last 5 years. Comments about repatriation used to get blocked. Now they are passed. It seems to me that there are equally extreme comments on other sites, but there is a lot of well-meaning but low IQ commentary, e.g. on Breitbart. I don’t comment there though, and see no point in it. I had an account once a few years ago at the DM, but one comment I made there got me kill-filed apparently. Their loss.

I agree that iSteve does inform a lot of discussion that happens around the blogosphere and the online newspaper comments sections. But it’s still here where the distilled discussion takes place. You can pretty much assume most people here know a lot about HBD, have read The Bell Curve, etc. This is not really the case in most other venues.

It does seem like a lot of the points to make on a site like this have already been made. However, the larger world moves more slowly, even with the arrival of Trump. At the end of the day, we do not know what Trump will do, but his arrival signals an emergence of the alt-right from the shadows, and that’s a good thing.

It sure was enjoyable to tell my liberal mother-in-law that I would vote for Trump, when she asked. I suspect she has seen my views on race and immigration etc. as a sign of mental illness, and I have not really pushed the case. However, as is usual I’m a few years ahead of the curve. In this case, about 12 or so. It wasn’t mental illness, it was prescience. It looks like the majority of the white population in the USA will be voting for Trump in 2016. Trump looks to have staked out a Citizenist position, a soft-core alt-right, a more mainstream version of Steve’s own SWPL Stormfront. I am sick of being called a xenophobe, a racist, a nazi, etc. for my views and there are millions along with me who are sick of it too. There is a tectonic shift taking place. The next decade will be very interesting.

* Perhaps you miss my point. Supposedly “innocuous on paper” politically/racially loaded questions to outgroup strangers in public can be a red flag for an imminent physical attack. Perhaps you are unaware this is a thing.

Regarding “stand your ground” laws:

I’m not talking about what the various laws actually say. I’m guessing what a skillful lawyer defending a hypothetical “Bernie Goetz v2.0” might do to sway a jury. Possible evidence might be factual stories such as these posted throughout various media in this internet age. Exhibit A: World Star Hip Hop fight comps featuring blindside attacks on outnumbered solitary victims. Exhibit B: The same on Liveleak. Actual video of countless attacks, consumed and commented on by the public for years now. Undeniable evidence of a violent society (worldwide) in which certain groups behave in certain ways, sometimes with particular tactics.

Now, of course, a hijab-wearing woman in London questioned by a solitary man who looks like he works in IT in the City probably has less to worry about than a white guy in DC being accosted by multiple ‘youths.’ Captain Hindsight (me) says he should have stayed in the Micky D’s and called the police to disperse the thugs, but he evidently failed to up his Cooper Code from Yellow to Orange (you do not drop your six).

* Trump should state that he will offer asylum to Canadians, Englishmen, and other Europeans who claim they are oppressed by their countries’ anti-free speech laws.

Watch the left’s heads spin.

* How does intersectionality deal with the stoning to death of a 13-year old rape victim or the 120,000 cases of FGM known to have occurred in Britain alone? One 12 year old WHITE girl in Oxford was beaten, raped and given a DIY abortion by her tormentors. When she sought help from her FEMINIST social workers, they took the side of the rapists. More.

* The irony is that Britain’s state broadcaster – the BBC – incessantly runs rather smug and patronising reports from China and Russia, to name but two examples, in its flagship 10 O’Clock news program, bewailing ‘state oppression’ and ‘human rights abuses’.

* If Matthew Doyle had received a ‘good telling off’ – or a ‘police caution’ is it is termed in the UK by a senior police officer telling him what he did was rather ‘below the salt’, and the police just left at that, that would be one thing.

But an actual *arrest*? – which, of course, means being ‘banged up’ in a police cell, DNA, photographs and fingerprints take, belt and belongings taken away, criminal charges etc.

* In the USA, censorship is outsourced to private entities. If you don’t mind losing your job, you might be better off here. Most people would rather not lose their house and impoverish their families to express a political opinion.

* The poster now has an “arrest record.” The intimidation point has been made. How many people contemplating expressing their genuine opinion of Muslims and immigrants will now refrain from doing so to avoid confronting police?

* Another metaphor is that they’re sitting on a powder keg and have to do all they can to prevent sparks in the form of race realist comments.

* You’re one Supreme Court justice away from a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, and with the product the law schools are churning out today, I predict you’ll see it within five years.

* Matthew Doyle, 46 (30.12.69) of South Croydon

So now everyone knows his name, date of birth, and location. The British police didn’t believe for a second that he could be charged for his tweet. It was intimidation pure and simple.

Every white man should think about this. Do we owe anything to a society which discriminates against us, and which is actually organizing our demographic replacement? In my humble opinion, we don’t.

* There was never any chance of a jury returning a guilty verdict in this case.

No, there wasn’t, because this particular offence is tried in a Magistrates’ Court, where there is no jury. The traitors who voted for this law in the Parliament made sure that that ancient bulwark of English liberties was not available to anyone accused of the offence.

* 56 days in jail for a tweet.

* People, even in England itself, forget how little of this censorship there was before the turn of the century. Americans would be shocked at some public comments regarding race made before that. Hardly a day went by without the left being upset about some manifestation of racism, but nobody heeded their complaints.

When the black rioter Winston Silcott was being led off to start a life sentence for killing a policeman in 1987, the Daily Star columnist Ray Mills remarked that he looked like someone who wouldn’t look out of place in a cage eating bananas. Mills wasn’t sacked nor suspended, let alone arrested, for what he said.

In 1989 the Tory MP Terry Dicks said black immigration ruined neighbourhoods and led to an increase in things like pimping and drug dealing. He said ” If they [blacks] want to go back to Africa then we can give them some ladders and they can climb up the trees if they want to.” He wasn’t censured by his party in any way, and he went on being re-elected till his retirement in 1997.

The tabloids would run stories about the “loony left” (usually in the form of local councils) and their anti-racist and anti-sexist policies. The far left was treated mostly as an object of ridicule. Even the most “conservative” newspapers now cravenly accept its ideology as mainstream.

* Germany is miles back behind Britain w.r.t. suppressing free speech. That’s mostly because Britains were told that being essentially a free country they ought to trust their police and their government. Whereas the German constitution was formed around the idea that one mustn’t trust one’s police and government, but control them by jurisdiction and judges. And this tradition, even as it is disappearing more and more, has made Germany rather old-fashioned in matters of free speech.

* Got to say that from that lady’s perspective some dude asking her about a terrorist attack and saying “nothing do so with me” was indeed mealy mouthed. British manners have traditionally not included accosting random strangers on the street. “Nothing to do with me you rude jumped-up sod” would have been more appropriate.

* His arrest is obviously stupid. So let me get that out of the way right now. Past that, however, his “questioning” of the woman is a punk move. [It’s not passive-aggressive per se, rather it’s punk-aggressive.]

Why not ask a man? Are there no male Muslims this guy could query? Instead, he feels it necessary to question a woman…with her child no less.

Blather all you want about political correctness run amok, you can’t deny the woman might have felt intimidated. Seriously, if a Muslim man started questioning my wife about drone strikes, we’re going to have a problem. And this isn’t about being macho, Muslim, or sexist.

Whatever. If you’re a dude, and you want to discuss incendiary political issues with strangers, then don’t pursue your “questioning” with a lone woman and her child. Punk.

* Policing speech is a complex subject, and I’m aware that these “anti hate speech” laws have never been intended to be enforced in a neutral fashion (free hateful speech for me but not for thee), and I think Islamic presence in the UK has had an overwhelmingly negative net effect.

But I can’t get too worked up over the idea of this guy getting arrested if he did actually tweet that. Going up to strangers and picking fights with them over what their correligionists did has no place in society.

What I don’t understand is why the article directly contradicts itself. Or at least Doyle did. In the tweet he apparently explicitly said he confronted the woman. Then when interviewed later he explicitly denied confronting her. Does the article address this contradiction? It’s behind a paywall.

* Juries have been removed from all but the most serious of crimes where a person’s liberty could be most seriously forfeit, e.g. life or more than ten years, but “short” stays in prison are the decision of a judge or panel of judges.

This is a response to two thorny issues, the first being the sheer cost of jury trials and trials in general in a society with increasing crime of all sorts, and the second is to remove the likelihood of jury nullification in an increasingly diverse society where this was seen to be the only likely way to a “fair” outcome at the hands of TPTB.

* This is an example of what happens when you pay attention by half in the age of twitter. I saw Ted Cruz basically take a canard cake and smash it all over his face in front of a live camera and then yell at Donald Trump for being the National Inquirer. I’ve never seen such a thing. Then I get that Teds hacks put out a pinup ad or something of Trumps wife. Then I heard Trump suggesting beans were what Ms Cruz didn’t want to clean up. But Ted thought he was talking about girlfriends, or was mad he said his wife had boyfriends. Initially I heard boyfriends. Spill the beans on her. Then Cruz goes WWF like no voter ever imagined. The papers didn’t cover that though. I saw an awful picture of Ms Cruz straining herself. Trump brags in that vein. And out all that comes the fact that Ted Cruz is married to a woman who runs marathons for the Republican Party on a flotilla or something. Twitter is like a pure democracy in hell: the voting just never stops.

* I wonder how many people would’ve kept their jobs, if they’d merely followed my policy ie., no social media connections to co-workers? But that requires some actual discipline and social finesse. Its so much easier to just accept friend requests from the other cubicle serfs (or whatever), and then complain that you’ve lost effective access to freedom of speech.

* When do we finally start openly mocking all the Europeans who sit on their hands while their women and children are raped by African invaders? Seriously, how much of a coward must you be to see your own wife and daughters raped and do *nothing* about it? To see your son beaten within an inch of his life and/or raped by an alien invader and respond with merely a shrug and another vote for Merkel and more of the same? That’s not manhood. The cuckoldry is bad enough, but utterly failing to defend ones own blood is beyond contemptible. And whining about “consequences” is a cop-out. The consequences exist only because the men are too cowardly to defend their homes and families.

* The police and prosecutors love laws like this because they allow them to actually do something. All other laws are virtually ignored in the UK. Robberies, muggings, car thefts, assaults, manslaughter are barely punished in the UK. Crimes committed by Muslims are not punished at all, even rapes. Everyone likes to feel useful, including the police. And in this kind of law, they are free to bring the hammer down.

* Yeah, why don’t we have this kind of thing in America?

Because we have Republicans, and they stop it. Not because they do anything heroic or brilliant but because they exist in the first place. And as part of the ordinary sausage-making in the legislatures and judicial nominations, that sort of thing never gets the chance to come up.

That’s not necessarily going to be the case at all if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination.

It’s cool for some Trump supporters to think that they have nothing to lose by the destruction of the Republican Party but that’s miles away from being true.

* Your idea of ‘outsourced censorship’ strikes me as a difference and a distinction with the Brit example. In the US, if you keep your mouth shut, in the workplace, wrt sex, religion, and politics–limiting your workplace comments to the work for which you’re paid–it doesn’t appear to me as outsourced censorship so much as good manners, with a view towards social harmony in the workplace. The Brit wasn’t in his workplace, nor conducting himself with a co-worker.

Granted, a US worker might find himself in hot water wrt to his employment should he make a sufficient spectacle of himself outside the workplace, but that extends to all kinds of behavior beyond the concept of free speech, e.g. gross, indecent, or criminal conduct–US operating, for the most part, under the concept of ‘at will’ employment. If you find yourself to be suffering ‘outsourced censorship,’ you might want to find a different employment situation, considering the right to contract in private (non-government, non-union) employment is a two-way street.

* Razib called it shooting from your hip one time. I think that’s apt. I do it impulsively more or less. Half the fun of writing these for me is a lyrical exercise. Largely because the issues rarely change and the arguments are redundant. And the only point I think I really have a perspective to hit upon is the constancy of citizenism. Because I happen to believe there is a way to talk the black liberals down from many of their victimisms by about 30 percent. Generally I would say I think you can be a public intellectual or you can be a writer, and at the end each one winds up thinking they’re the other. Irving Kristol wound up with purely writerly sentiments, and that’s when I started noticing the pattern. Joe Sobran considered himself a moralist by the end but he was a writer when he started. Take anyone really and you can see that pattern. You grow more serious or more frivolous. That’s what makes bloggers different. They straddle. Steve straddles. Citizenism? Pissh. I can’t remember when Steve last took a moral position that wasn’t pragmatism. Like don’t be sarcastic about black stereotypes. But no that’s not me telling him because he’s effective. And he’s from California. How many of those writers are there? I don’t know.

* Aristotle said that there are two flaws for each virtue – one of too little virtue and the other of too much virtue. For instance, courage is a virtue, but cowardice and recklessness are not.

* Matthew Doyle guy sounds like a jerk. You don’t walk up to a random stranger, Muslim or not, and confront them. If you do, you’re a jerk. If the stranger is a woman, that makes you a coward too.

* Europeans have depended on their institutions to defend and/or avenge them. It has the advantage of avoiding blood feuds. If you try to defend family members individually, you’ll find yourself facing 5-10 adversaries and you’ll almost certainly lose the fight. Even worse, today, you’ll find your institutions have turned against you.

There are three possible solutions: (1) Europeans can turn their own institutions back around and inflict collective punishment on the communities that perpetrate these attacks; (2) Europeans can form rival unofficial groups and fight the Muslims in the streets (these will resemble biker gangs and soccer hooligans); or (3) Europeans will be displaced and marginalized (save for the very rich and powerful elite) in what were previously their countries. My personal prediction is option 3.

* Jihadists should be free to explode a nuclear dirty bomb rather than us run the risk of making Muslims feel awkward or unwanted.

* To me the golden era was when Steve was still writing his definitive articles on race, IQ, income, HBD and the like. Around the same time, La Griffe was publishing his early ground breaking stuff. About a decade ago. It is still fun and addictive to comment here though. Too addictive. Hats off to Steve.

* I think the smarter commenters would realize that the so-called Overton Window has not really shifted at all, and that one still risks his social and even occupational position by expressing the kind of opinions that are often expressed here and at similar sites. As far as I can tell, the range of opinions that may be expressed is only getting narrower. Now, North Carolinians are considered to be horrible, white-hooded bigots simply for considering a law that would continue the historical custom that women should not have to share a bathroom with a dude, just because he puts on a sundress and calls himself Nancy.

* The Left paints Donald Trump supporters as Nazis but if you go to the comments section of Breitbart which is way more pro-Donald Trump than The Unz, they do not bash Jews anywhere near as much as The Unz. They largely leave Jews alone on the Breitbart comments section.

On The Unz, Steve Sailer can write a blog about golf courses in Scotland & England or a blog about Paul Walker and someone like Anon will still somehow find a way to invoke Jews into that topic.

* Most Nazis are Trump supporters, but most Trump supporters are not Nazis.

The reason why’s pretty obvious–I’d guess maybe about 30% of Americans are Trump supporters, but Nazis are maybe 3% of the American public (if you mean hardcore racialists) or .3% (if you mean supporters of fascism).

* Derb basically agrees with the psychos in a positive sense, but not in a normative sense–he’s not *personally* anti-Semitic. (You get the sense that he doesn’t *want* to be, if you read enough of his stuff.) I’m willing to guess whatever circles he runs in are heavily Jewish and he doesn’t feel good about saying nasty things about his dentist, oncologist, teacher, and so on, who he knows to be perfectly good people in everyday life with some annoying views. Remember, he lives in Long Island.

The point is that unless you follow politics closely, anti-Semitism seems like kind of a weird prejudice–you know you have to stay out of the black neighborhoods, but your tax accountant is part of a conspiracy against the white race? *Really*? A lot of people have various sympathies but find politics disgusting (which you can understand when it always involves digging up scandals and insulting people in 30-second commercials that play ad nauseam) and don’t really hate the other side.

* Being a permanent opposition party isn’t going to be much fun. There are very few jobs in Congress compared to the executive branch for a party that can’t win the “big one.” And Congress’s power of the purse and oversight aren’t terribly meaningful in a provider state that truly can’t be shut down, and in which the President is willing to govern by executive order and administrative regulations. The Republican Party will be marginalized and eventually become extinct unless it can reform as a de facto white identify party.

* It is not “white privilege” it is the “white legacy”. A “legacy” is what you create and pass down to your posterity.

The reason Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis, and Mexicans are moving to America is their desperate desire to share that white legacy without having to build it with their own people in their own lands.

Rather than struggling for hundreds and thousands of years and civilizing their own people, their own families, they want to move to America and share our fruits.

The people in their own countries are too rapacious, too self-centered, too evil to create it there. So the foreign immigrants desperately want to abandon their own people and share our white legacy.

* You don’t seem to grasp what religion is about. It is, at least partly, about unifying people into a cohesive group that can work together to achieve group goals. The members are not disconnected. It may in fact be fair to hold them accountable for their co-religionists’ acts. Salo Baron said that Jewish law traditionally posited the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each. Surely, there’s nothing wrong with asking a Muslim to try to reign in the collective craziness.

* The problem is it’s actually not that hard to connect your social media presence with your identity. If you piss off enough people someone will eventually figure out who you are and start a letter writing campaign to your employer. It’s pretty common for bloggers, commenters, and especially video creators to leave clues to their identity without realizing it.

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see My work has been followed by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (
This entry was posted in Censorship, Crime, England, Islam, Jews, John Derbyshire. Bookmark the permalink.