POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE IN GERMANY AS ANTI-AfD FIREWALL BREAKS

The architecture of German politics may have been shaken, following a landmark vote in the Bundestag that united the so-called "far right" Alternative for Germany (AfD) with the Conservative CDU on a non-binding vote on immigration issues.

The motion voted on was as follows: 

"People seeking protection who enter Germany from other European countries should be turned back because they are already safe from persecution."

This was passed with 348 votes in favour and 345 against, with 10 abstentions.

German politics, up until now, has been shaped by the idea that all the other parties must unite to oppose the rise of the so-called "far right" AfD. But this vote, which is thought to be a precursor of solid anti-immigration legislation, breaks this firewall (or "cordon sanitaire" as it is also referred to).

It means either that the AfD and its views are now relatively "normalised" or that the CDU is desperate to steal its popular anti-migrant positions in the run up to the German Bundestag elections next month.

Both parties are doing well in opinion polls with the CDU (and its CSU junior partner) polling at around 30% of the vote and the AfD at around 22%.

"PERFORMATIVE MASCULINE" MILITARY HELICOPTER TAKES DOWN PLANE FROM "PERFORMATIVELY RELIGIOUS" STATE

A "defeminised" lady pilot trying to cut it in a world made by "boomer friendly" fake masculinity

The details are still emerging from the "tragic" air crash in Washington DC that has taken in excess of 60 lives, but so far it looks like more incompetence caused by the US military, which has a second-to-none track record in killing people through "friendly fire" and "training accidents," while also being adept at running away from enemies at the first sight of blood. 

This is all part and parcel of the "performative masculinity" with which the US military is imbued, leading to brittle gung-ho outbursts of "fragile masculinity" in inappropriate situations, such as flying around busy international airports at night while trying to look like the cast of Top Gun. 

Even lady pilots, of whom there are many now in the US military, have to conform to "boomer friendly" norms of performative masculinity by forgetting to check basic in-flight safety protocols, while chewing gum or snorting coke in a suitably off-hand and "couldn't give a fuck" hard-ass sort of way. 

Someone about to say "motherfucker" in the US military...

On the other side, most of the victims in the aircraft taken out by the $5-10 million taxpayer-funded helicopter appear to be from the "performatively religious" state of Kansas, allowing for a tedious outpouring of religious effusions from the soulless, small-town politicians who represent the Sunflower State at Congressional, Senatorial, and gubernatorial levels.

The US Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall, was quick out of the gate with a statement saying:

"My prayer is that God wraps his arms around each and every victim, and that he continues to be with their families."

Well, too bad God couldn't have just sent that Black Hawk to Somalia an instant before it hit an aluminium tube full of faithful churchgoers!

Exciting scene from the movie "Black Hawk Down" when 

the US military surrendered to some Somalian children

Footage of the disaster

AMERICAN TECH SECTOR TAKEN DOWN BY CHINESE A.I. STRIKE

The smug, bloated, and over-invested US tech sector is reeling after its formerly "dominant" AI models were effortlessly outclassed by a nimble Chinese competitor, DeepSeek. The carnage extends all the way to Bitcoin and Meme coins. Tech vlogger TechLead takes up the story (before getting a few grifts in).

THE TRUMP PARASITE

Also available on YouTube

The Founding Fathers certainly didn't see this coming

by Colin Liddell

A parasite is a creature that oversteps the mark with regard to symbiosis and which prioritises its own interests at the expense of the host. If it chooses a weak host or overdoes the parasitism, the host may sicken and die, in which case the parasite will probably die too or at least suffer badly.

All politicians exist either in symbiosis with the political entities that host them, or else in various degrees of parasitism. So, which one is Trump? 

There are various possible answers to this question, but before we go there, we need a little more definition of the host. Just what is America, and what has it been trying to do?

America, as is well known, is the preeminent global power and is often called an "empire." It is an amalgam of hard financial and military power and soft economic, moral, and cultural power. But, more than this, it exists at a level of complexity, and its trajectory over the last several decades has been towards increasing complexity. In fact, many of its most infamous problems come from this aspiration towards complexity.

So, what does this "complexity" involve?

Various things, like the attempt to create a post-racial society and the socialisation of atomization (i.e. a new way for extreme individualism to exist in a social context). There is also the complexity that comes from the attempt to rejig sexual and gender categories in a way that is 100% inclusive. Another aspect of this aspiration is towards a kind of frictionless international hegemony where, ideally, America's interests are also the world's interests -- and even the interests of each and every state!

Suffice to say, America's aspiration to complexity is one of breathtaking ambition.

The problem with this, however, can be summed up by the simple formula:

Aspiring to complexity generates stupidity, while reverting to simplicity generates competence.

This is because the amount of available intelligence in a given society tends to grow in an arithmetical progression, while the problems created by growing layers of complexity grow in geometric progression (yes, this is borrowed and repurposed from Malthus).

Of course, this may change once Artificial Intelligence becomes "sovereign" (a rather disturbing phrase!), but until it does, I think this relationship holds true. 

So, in this context, what kind of parasite is Trump, or does he even exist in healthy symbiosis with the American political entity?

Trump's main political push in recent days can be typified by "common sense" policies, essentially the attempt to generate competence by reverting to simplicity.

• Instead of the complexity of new "greener" energy solutions and difficult to calculate impacts on global weather, he reverts to the tried and tested means of cheap gas.
• Instead of the complexity of redrawing the gender map, he reverts to the simplicity of male-female.
• Instead of the complexity of a massive migrant population existing in a no-man's-land between citizen and non-citizen, he prefers the clarity of legal and illegal.
• Instead of the complexities of international organisations and carefully woven diplomatic consensus and occasional obfuscation, he prefers the simplicity of America being the biggest gorilla in the jungle and asserting its "alpha male" prerogatives.

All of Trump's moves in recent days show this same characteristic towards simplicity over complexity. This generates an instant "competence" dividend -- clarity, positive action, economic kick, fleeting dominance, etc., that Trump can then convert into political capital to keep his political machine going.

But, where do the calories of this political capital come from? In other words, what part of the American body politic is Trump feasting on the most, and does that make him a parasite or a poultice drawing out the poisons?

Clearly it is that part of the American state that has grown up in the wake of its geometric aspiration towards greater complexity in the last 70 to 80 years.

Whether this will produce a leaner, meaner, healthier America -- allowing Trump to be seen as a symbiotic entity despite all his blatant corruption -- or else a blinded and bumbling behemoth, shorn of much of its soft power, while being internally riven and out of place in an increasingly chaotic world, remains to be seen.

My guess is that Trump will ultimately get enmeshed in his own complexity.

____________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

SHORTPOD (101) TRUMP'S NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

Also available on Bitchute

If you are 100% for Donald or 100% against him, you are probably a bit mad. Colin Liddell considers the inherent nature of MAGA 2.0 and the apparent Faustian deal being made with the American people.

GROK POST: IS SOCIETY BECOMING LESS RACIST OR MORE RACIST?

The alienated psychopathic product of what will probably be the least racist society possible 

This is a new thing I am doing called a Grok Post, where I access AI and ask it some pointed questions. The first question is: "Is society becoming less racist or more racist?" Take it away, Grok...

Society's trajectory regarding racism is complex and multifaceted, with different regions and communities experiencing varied trends. Here's a nuanced look:

Becoming Less Racist:

Legislation and Policy: Many countries have implemented or strengthened anti-discrimination laws over recent decades, aiming to reduce systemic racism. For example, policies promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in workplaces and educational institutions reflect a societal push towards less racism.

Public Awareness: There's been an increase in public discourse around racial equity, fueled by movements like Black Lives Matter and global conversations about racial injustice, which seem to indicate a growing awareness and desire for change among some segments of society.

Education: Educational systems in various parts of the world are increasingly including multicultural education, teaching about the histories and contributions of different racial and ethnic groups, potentially fostering a generation less prone to racial biases.

Potentially More Racist:

Backlash and Polarization: In some areas, there's been a noticeable backlash against these progressive movements, with some groups feeling threatened by changes in racial dynamics, leading to increased support for nationalist or overtly racist political parties or rhetoric.

Digital Spaces: The anonymity of the internet can also lead to a more visible expression of racist sentiments, which might not reflect an increase in racist beliefs but certainly makes existing prejudices more apparent.

Economic and Social Stress: Times of economic hardship or social upheaval can exacerbate racial tensions, as resources become scarce, and groups might scapegoat minorities, leading to temporary spikes in racist behavior or attitudes.

Neutral or Mixed:

Measurement Challenges: Measuring racism's prevalence over time is challenging due to changes in what is considered socially acceptable to express, how racism is defined, and the methodologies used in surveys or studies.

Geographic Variance: While one area might be making strides in racial equality, another might be regressing, leading to an overall ambiguous or mixed picture globally.

In summary, whether society is becoming less or more racist can vary significantly by location, demographic, and specific context. There's evidence pointing in both directions, suggesting we are in a period of transition where battles against racism are being fought on multiple fronts, with both gains and setbacks. To get a more precise answer, one would need to specify the geographical and cultural context in question.

This all seems a bit bland, nebulous, and "on the one hand... but on the other hand," so let's try another question:

How about in Britain and with reference to people's "unofficial" behaviour?

In Britain, the perception and reality of racism, particularly in terms of "unofficial" behavior (actions in everyday life that are not necessarily governed by formal policies or laws), present a complex picture. Here's an analysis based on recent trends and sentiments:

Perception of Racism:

A significant portion of the British public, including both ethnic minorities and white Britons, believes that racism remains a substantial issue. Surveys from bodies like YouGov and Statista indicate that a majority of Britons from various ethnic backgrounds perceive racism as either unchanged or increasing in recent years. For example, in 2024, 46% of people in Great Britain thought that racism was somewhat prevalent, with 34% believing there was a great deal of racism.

Incidents of Unofficial Racist Behavior:

Racial Violence and Hate Crimes: There's been an increase in reported hate crimes, particularly after events like the 2024 riots, which were fueled by far-right ideologies and misinformation. These incidents highlight a surge in unofficial racist behavior, where individuals feel emboldened to act on their prejudices in public settings.

Everyday Racism: Reports and personal accounts from people of color in Britain often highlight instances of microaggressions, slurs, and other forms of casual racism in daily interactions. For instance, posts on X have noted an increase in open expressions of racism, correlating with political and social shifts like Brexit.

Community and Social Settings: There's a noted increase in community tensions, especially in areas where economic disparity or political rhetoric has heightened racial divides. Unofficial behavior here includes discriminatory practices in housing, employment, or neighborhood interactions, often not formally reported but experienced by many.

Counterpoints and Initiatives:

Despite these challenges, there are also efforts against racism:

Counter-Protests and Community Action: There have been significant counter-movements by anti-racist and anti-fascist groups, indicating a pushback against racist behaviors.

Public Sentiment Against Racism: There's also evidence of widespread public condemnation of racist acts, with polls showing opposition to far-right riots and support for anti-racism initiatives.

Political and Social Dynamics:

Political discourse and media portrayal of immigration and race have been contentious, with some rhetoric perceived as encouraging or at least not sufficiently countering racist sentiments. This can influence unofficial behavior by making certain groups feel more or less welcome in society.

The British public's view on what constitutes racism has also evolved, with some actions previously overlooked now being more critically examined.

In conclusion, while there are institutional efforts to combat racism, unofficial racist behavior in Britain appears to be on the rise or at least more visible in certain contexts. This is evidenced by an increase in hate crimes, the normalization of racist rhetoric in some quarters, and a general sense among ethnic minorities of not fully belonging. However, this trend is met with resistance and condemnation from significant portions of society, indicating a dual movement of both increasing racism in some unofficial settings and a counter-push for racial equality.

Well, I guess the answer is yes, then. We seem to have reached peak anti-racism, the point at which moves to contain racism are increasingly overwhelmed by the various forms of negative blowback that this creates. 

The obvious questions that flow from this -- like "Will this increased level of racism push minorities to commit more acts like the Southport stabbing or ironically will it make them more afraid to do so?" or "What comes after peak anti-racism?" -- seem well beyond the capability of AI to answer.

Apparently hated White people because they were so nice to him.

AMERICA IS SHIT AT RACISM (2025)

The Antioch High School shooter

by Colin Liddell

Since it was founded as an offshore lunatic asylum for religious fanatics that grew into a very large farm, America has constantly failed upwards. Now it is making the final leap towards hitting the target with its arse by getting "racism" totally wrong, and, in the process, overcoming its main fracture point exploited by its enemies.

This is clear from the latest school shooting carried out by a seething racist who published a “manifesto” talking about how he hated “N****rs” and “brown people,” and saying that “we must aid the Aryans regardless of our race.” There is also wide speculation that he is a Groyper and a fan of Nick Fuentes. He certainly writes like one.

There is only one slight problem…

Yes, you noticed it too.

This is just like a more condensed form of the “White Suprecmacist” spree shooter in Texas a couple of years back who happened to called Mauricio Garcia rather than “Aryan Shitstorm88.”

One of the unconfirmed images reputed to be Garcia

Yes, the guilty secret of American racism is that just about everybody in the American racist far right, turns out to be either Hispanic, non-White, or Quasi-White, and this has been going on for some time.

Nick "The Mexican midget" Fuentes and Mauricio Garcia are sadly typical. Meanwhile, the online Right, most of whom are conveniently hidden behind sock accounts, post stuff like this, as if the mainstream media is getting them all wrong:

 

No, the mainstream media is completely right in this case. This is EXACTLY what a “white supremacist” in 21st century America looks like.

It should be clear by now, especially to anyone familiar with the Dissident Right, that America is just totally SHIT at the one thing most people around the world associate it with, namely, "racism."

This is nothing new, and it is something I have been saying for years. In fact, America is so shit at racism that it should probably just stop trying. The evidence is overwhelming.

Back in 2020 there was the case of "Based Stickman" Kyle Chapman, a one-time leader of the Proud Boys, a group that some say the Texas shooter Mauricio Garcia had ties with. Back then the media reported that Chapman had gone off the deep end, spewing anti-Semitism and racial smears like any Fed trying to make his quota.

As reported by Newsweek:

White nationalist Kyle Chapman—who set up the "tactical defense arm" of the Proud Boys, the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (FOAK)—has criticized the group's chairman Enrique Tarrio while announcing a so-called rebranding of the organization.

Writing on encrypted messaging app Telegram, Chapman used racial slurs against Tarrio and other neo-Nazi rhetoric while announcing that the "grifting leaders" had been deposed and the group would be renamed the Proud Goys. The term "goy"—a Hebrew word for a non-Jewish person—is sometimes used by white supremacists to signal their anti-Semitic beliefs, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

America is the moron of racism

In the Telegram message Chapman wrote: 

"We will no longer cuck to the left by appointing token negroes as our leaders. We will no longer allow homosexuals or other 'undesirables' into our ranks. We will confront the Zionist criminals who wish to destroy our civilization. We recognize that the West was built by the White Race alone and we owe nothing to any other race."

OK, so far so good. Whether you agree with it or not, this looks like pretty solid, relatively normal race hatred. 

• Disparaging non-Whites? Check!
• Recycling crappy terminology from the Daily Shoah podcast? Check!
• Making anti-gay statements while secretly being thrilled you're a gay icon? Check?
• And of course frothing at the mouth about Jews? Double Check!

But, then, we got this:

WTF?!

Yes, super, uber Neo-Nazi race hater Kyle Chapman and family. The Dissident Right's Aryan superhero was, it turns out, a guy who has a cute waifu and had actually race-mixed by sprogging out a "future Elliot Rodger"!!!

Whether you're cool with that or not, is not the point. The point is that this is not what a solid, old school racist is supposed to be like. The guy is doing it all wrong.

But not only does he have "Yellow Fever," it looks like he is at least partly Jewish. Indeed, it's not even anything he tries to hide. Check out his battle helmet. 

But, really, why be surprised, because American racists and anti-Semites have an abysmal track record at actually being racist and anti-Semitic.

A few even older historical examples:

Check out this guy.

Nice swastikas, solid White Supremacist banners, and even a snazzy Nazi uniform! But this guy, Frank Cohen fucks up the whole Neo-Nazi, Jew-hating thing by being -- yes, you guessed it -- a Jew himself.

Even worse, lots of dumbass American racists thought this guy was their Aryan Fuhrer, LOL. That's how crap these low-IQ Americans are at racism and anti-Semitism. They should just fucking stop and get back into Monster Trucks or something equally tailored to their low IQ.

Then there’s this guy, yet another classic case of just how totally shit Americans are at racism:

Yes, Mike "the K***" Enoch from TRS. Totally, 100% Jewish! Even his Nazi sock name "Enoch" is an anagram of Cohen!

And here is big, bad Aryan Neo-Nazi Weev Aurenheimer of the Daily Stormer.

Except he too is a Jew. And also a midget -- about the size of a large cat.

God almighty, can it get any worse? Yes it can...

This is Andrew Anglin, the wit behind the hardcore racist Daily Stormer site. 

Yes, I'm not sure which one he is either.

Then there are other leading American racists and anti-Semites, like Sven (Jesse Dunstan) and Alex McNabb from The Right Stuff, and of course Striker. How about those guys?

Here is swarthy, almost Arab-like, Sven and his Chinese wife. 

Sven and Chen

Really, if some dude comes at you with a "Nordic sounding" sock name, you can be sure he is 100% fake.

As for McNabb, he's about the Blackest White man I can claim to have laid eyes on.

Then there's Striker. He's about the size of a pony's breakfast. Yes, small enough to be of sexual interest to Joe Biden. Not to mention that he is of course an Hispanic!!!

What else would he be if he wasn't Jewish or Black?

Rare picture of Striker (white T-shirt) taken with a microscopic camera.

Really -- to paraphrase Donald Trump -- American racism and anti-Semitism hasn't been sending us their best.

We were promised these guys:

But instead we ended up with this mess:

America's "racists": Total Great Replacement victory!

Really, Americans, it looks like we'll have to shut down this whole racism thing until we find out just what the hell is going on.

____________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

TRUMP PARDONS HITLER

 

In what many legacy media commentators are calling a "new low" for MAGA 2.0, newly inaugurated President Donald J. Trump has signed a pardon for mid-20th century dictator Adolf J Hitler.

Hitler, whom many blame for a spate of "atrocities" and "disappearances" that occurred over large parts of Europe from the 1930s onwards, is generally seen as a "divisive figure" in American politics. 

There is also speculation that, following the pardon, Trump plans to sign an additional "Executive Order" bringing Hitler "back from the dead," and then to issue him with a HB1 visa due to his foreign citizenship.

Hitler, who passed away in an underground location back in 1945, would them be in line for a role in Trump's new administration.

Some analysts believe that Trump is thinking of appointing him "Border Czar" with special powers. It is believed that the former Bavarian corporal's rhetorical abilities to shout in German and foam at the mouth would be well-suited to an immigration enforcement role.

The surprise move by Trump to utterly change historical reality follows the enormous outpouring of butthurt rage from Leftists, Liberals, and otherwise sensible human beings after a harmless autiste accidentally did a Hitler salute in a fit of ketamine-fuelled exuberance the other day. 

How a future Trump administration could look

"HEIL TESLA": MUSK ATTEMPTS "DARING" REBRAND AT TRUMP RALLY

Top sperg and autistic genius billionaire Elon Musk has been at it again, astounding the world with his out-of-the-box thinking, this time by rebranding his overpriced electric vehicle company Tesla during a speech to thousands of pardoned J6 participants at the Capital One Arena in Washington. 

The speech came hot on the heels of a day of celebrations to welcome new President Donald J Trump, during which the world-renowned ketamine addict threw out a stiff-armed Nazi salute, not once but twice, before breaking out into a rousing chorus of the "burst blood vessel" song.

It is now believed that Musk, 53, will replace the "S" in TESLA with an ancient Hindu symbol beloved of H1B workers and early 20th century Bavarian politicians. 

New self-combusting tank designed by Musk for a wealthy Russian client.

TRUMP CELBRATES INAUGURATION WITH "TARD TAX" ON HIS DUMBEST FOLLOWERS

To celebrate his inauguration as 47th President of the USA, Donald Trump has imposed what appears to be wide-ranging tax on stupid people who like him. The new tax is cleverly designed to only take money from the most abject and pathetic Trump supporters, while leaving everybody else untouched.

The tax is in the form of a couple of "shitcoins" -- "$TRUMP" and "$MELANIA" -- that are geared to appeal to Trump's blindly loyal base.

A shitcoin, for those who don't know, is just a crappy fake cryptocurrency with no intrinsic value, utility, or potential that is issued by scammers, driven by dubious marketing on social media, and which inevitably results in a future "rug pull," when the developers suddenly abandon the project after raising funds from those duped into buying the fake tokens. 

The "tard tax" is thought to be a major indicator of the levels of sheer corruption and profiteering that we are likely to see under the new Trump administration. 

Also the shitcoins can serve as a useful avenue for "dark money" bribes to be paid directly to the new President, with the dodgy billionaires and unscrupulous foreign states buying them being certain that they are putting money directly into Donald Trump's pocket for whatever favours the new administration has agreed to grant them. 

HOW MANY PROMINENT MUSLIM CLERICS IN THE UK HAVE DENOUNCED GROOMING GANGS?

Dr. Taj Hargey

by Colin Liddell

What one notices about the UK grooming gang phenomenon is just how "White" it all is.

Of course, I am not referring to the perpetrators, who, it is well known, are overwhelmingly brown, Muslim, and Pakistani. Instead, I am referring to the reaction to the problem.

This includes the "clean-up and damage control teams" (namely those politicians and "experts" trying to find technocratic solutions to the problem, while also trying get us all to "calm down" and "NAXALT" about the mass rape and interethnic prostitution of tens of thousands of young girls over decades) as well as those who criticise the perpetrators and denounce the way these girls have been treated, let down, betrayed, etc, etc. 

But appearances can be deceptive. The media can distort reality. Maybe a lot of Muslims have also reacted in various ways to counter or critique the problem.  Can we be sure they haven't, or that they don't feel just as angry, upset, and determined to do something about this horror as the rest of us?

So, just how involved have Muslims been in the reaction to the problem (and I don't mean prison visits)?

In order to get some objective idea, I first asked Grok, Twitter's A.I. facility to give me the names of leading Muslim clerics in the UK. I assume this list is relatively broad-based and unbiased. Grok provided me with the following list of eight names.

• Dr. Taj Hargey - Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation. 
• Dr. Usama Hasan - A senior researcher and lecturer at the Quilliam Foundation, as well as an imam at Masjid al-Tawhid in Leyton, London. 
• Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad - A well-known figure, particularly among conservative Muslims in the UK. 
• Ajmal Masroor - A television presenter, politician, and imam who has served as an imam at the Shacklewell Lane Mosque in Dalston, London, and has been a Liberal Democrats candidate. 
• Sheikh Abdul Qayum - Chief Imam of the East London Mosque, one of the largest mosques in the UK. 
• Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri - While he spends significant time in Pakistan, he has a considerable following and influence in the UK through Minhaj-ul-Quran International.
• Dr. Mohammad Naseem - Formerly the chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque.
• Maulana Shahid Raza - An influential scholar based in Leicester, associated with the Islamic Center and Jamia Islamia Ghousia Trust. 

Next, I asked Grok "how many have specifically denounced the grooming gang phenomenon?" The result was only one, namely Dr. Taj Hargey, Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation.

"Dr. Taj Hargey has specifically denounced the grooming gang phenomenon, notably after the Oxford convictions in 2013."

Here is what Grok had to say about the othere

• Dr. Usama Hasan has not been publicly noted for denouncing grooming gangs specifically, although he is known for advocating against extremism and for moderate Islamic practices.
• Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad has not been prominently associated with public denunciations of grooming gangs, but he has spoken on various issues concerning the Muslim community in the UK.
• Ajmal Masroor has focused more on political and interfaith dialogue, with no notable public denouncement of grooming gangs found.
• Sheikh Abdul Qayum has not specifically been linked to public denouncements of grooming gangs.
• Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri is more known for his broader anti-extremism work, including a fatwa against terrorism, but there's no specific mention of him addressing grooming gangs.
• Dr. Mohammad Naseem was known for his community work and interfaith activities, but no records of him specifically denouncing grooming gangs were found.
• Maulana Shahid Raza has not been recorded as denouncing grooming gangs in a public capacity.

Grok then stated the obvious:

"From this list, only Dr. Taj Hargey has been explicitly noted for denouncing the grooming gang phenomenon in the UK. Thus, out of the 8 clerics listed, 1 has specifically denounced the grooming gang phenomenon."

This is clearly one of the most troubling aspects of the Grooming Gang phenomenon, the sheer lack of criticism of it from the community from which it stemmed. Are they just scared, and if so, who are they scared of, us or them?

____________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

AMERICA IS ABOUT TO FIND OUT HOW POWERLESS IT IS

Trump: more Zoolander than Greenlander

by Colin Liddell

America is the classic paper tiger. It thinks all the other countries exist because it exists. The truth is the opposite: it exists because all the other countries exist.

Unlike America, they are real countries, based on real histories and real peoples, even if demographic change is watering that down a little. Unlike America, they are not paper countries built on treachery, freemasonry, and a bit of parchment. But they are also what created America and what makes America look big and strong.

Without them, the Paper Tiger would look like a shaved kitty.

Most wise Americans have intuited this truth in some form and acted on it over the years, building strong, mutually beneficial alliances around the World. The result was that the image of "American Greatness" was bolstered and burnished to a fine shine.

But now the boomer-wing of the American electorate have been dumb enough to take their inherent national solipsism too far and re-elect someone who turbo-channels the bullshit myths and propaganda of "American Greatness," someone who is acting out the deluded fantasy of America as the sole font of greatness and power in the World by making absurd demands and threats towards allied countries -- punitory tariffs here, threats of annexations and military action there, etc. -- and the flaccid freak hasn't even been sworn in yet!

Yes, Donald Trump thinks America holds up the sky, and, by acting the way he is, he and America are both about to find out the hard way just how powerless they really are and always have been without their friends.

Let's be clear, America without NATO would be in a perilous situation. Donald Trump tells other NATO countries "you have to spend 5% on defence." Does this orange baboon think he's actually the "King of NATO" or something?

No, the other NATO countries can get away with around 1% of GDP on defence, as all they really have to worry about in their part of the world is the gutted carcass of a Russia that continues to stumble zombie-like to its doom, and this after fighting just a single medium-sized European nation.

Yes, let's be clear again, Europe has nothing to worry about militarily. But this is not true for America, as it has decided to stick its big, fat nose into Asia and face up to not only the Chinese, but also the Iranians and North Koreans -- and in all of their back yards!

Given the poor fighting quality of the USA and its extremely low pain threshold in taking casualties, the current 3% of GDP that it spends on its inefficient defence sector looks a tad low, especially without it friends and allies. I would say that it realistically needs to raise it to around 7%. Europe meanwhile has not decided to face up to these Asian powers, so 1% will be more than sufficient to keep Russia in its bloody coffin and to clean up Africa. 

Americans attempting to deal with stuff without their allies

Let's face it, a country that is about to hold the inauguration of its latest shitty president indoors because of a bit of cold weather is not really ready to annex Greenland anytime soon.

My hope is that saner minds will triumph in America, and work to marginalise the arrant stupidity and arrogance of Trump, and start to repair America's damaged relationships with its friends and allies. If not, however, America will quickly find out just how weak and powerless it has always been when counted alone. 

____________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

"RIGHTISM" IS SIMPLY NON-LEFTISM

This isn't happening 

by Sectionalism Archive

Communists used to talk a lot about “Theory”. It was considered a duty of all Communists to “read theory”. It is likely that many of them were bullshitting — as is only reasonable, frankly. But that’s what you sign up for. This sort of obsession with theory is obviously ridiculous and is sort of reminiscent of the “Natural Philosophy” that people used to use to decide how nature worked before the scientific method became popular. Nevertheless, they liked to dangle it over the heads of their political enemies. “You haven’t read theory like we have. You are uneducated and lack the necessary credentials to talk about this argument”.

Right-wingers would try to respond by saying yes, they do have theory, but nobody could ever agree on what this theory was. Some said that the Holy Bible was the “theory” of the Right, or maybe the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or maybe just the general writings of Christian theologians. This is probably a correct response, not in the sense that it is right but in the sense that it is the response Communists deserve. They are effectively getting mad at you for not reading their theological tomes, so it is fair to respond in kind. But obviously right-wing non-Christians exist. But even this group can’t agree at all on what “theory” is. The Trads point to Evola. The Fascists point to Sorel. The Nietzscheans point to— well, isn’t it obvious? And the LOLberts point to Austrian economists. This is probably the second most reasonable way to respond, because when Communists are told that they are religious they deny it and say that Communism is economic, or if they’re really feeling fancy they will call it a “science” (pfft, maybe in the sense that palm-reading is a science). But obviously there are right-wingers of pretty much every economic school, including bizarre ones like Neo-Feudalism or Guild Socialism.

A lot of the intellectual right is also just not interested in “theory”, because they really prefer talking about numbers than words. Left-wingers are more verbally tilted and wordy academic fields tend to be far more left-wing than STEM. This is not always true, as there are many wordy right-wing authors, but is a general trend. But I digress.

The reason why this is the case, is because there really isn’t such thing as “Rightism”. I’m seeing this term get used more often, but it’s not being used correctly because the political right is a big-tent coalition against Leftism. And Leftism, unlike Rightism, is ideological. Leftism is distinct from the Left-Wing, and self-identified Leftists make it very clear that they don’t consider mainstream Liberals to be Leftists. Liberalism on its own isn’t necessarily Left-Wing. It’s more of a tabula rasa. It has manifested itself throughout history in the form of populism, elitism, racialism, egalitarianism, progressivism, and conservatism. It has no real founder. Locke is often cited as such, but Locke fell almost completely out of relevance during the 19th century. There is a very early split between English and French Liberalism, with English Liberalism’s roots (along with Locke’s beliefs) being difficult to fully distinguish from the preceding period of Calvinist Republicanism. The problems continue when we look at later figures influential to Liberalism. Idealists like Kant and Hegel had very different worldviews from the Empiricist-Nominalists like Locke and Hume. Liberal thinkers also didn’t view themselves entirely as being revolutionary in their ideas. Montesquieu and Jefferson traced their political roots back to antiquity. For the former, the Romans and Polybius. For the latter, the Anglo-Saxon Folkmoot.

Leftism is mostly derivative of Marx, in my opinion, but Kropotkin and Bakunin are also contributors. Other 19th-century non-Marxist socialists did not have any stronger of an impact on the left than they did on the political right. Utopian Socialism is pretty much irrelevant today as far as I know — those variants of it which exist are not related to its older forms, but outcrops of Marxist Scientific Socialism. Proudhon and Blanqui arguably influenced the political right more than the political left, establishing the groundwork for Boulanger and Sorel. It’s not necessarily always an accurate interpretation of Marx, but it has a strong lineage connected to him nonetheless. Marxism and its numerous children, in their own little ways, provide the source for Western Progressivism as it exists today. Wealth redistribution is good not necessarily out of a sense of charity, but out of the false belief that workers are entitled to a certain amount of wealth by virtue of their labor, and that the bourgeoisie are not producers but thieves who ought to give their money back in the form of taxes. This is completely different from the Rawlsian justification for wealth redistribution, which goes something like “people don’t deserve to suffer for innate characteristics or circumstances of their birth”. It really demonstrates how far we’ve come (or more accurately in my opinion, fallen) from the initial Greek notion of Justice, but I digress… Other things are also justified under Marxist pretenses, rather than Liberal ones. In my opinion, the Social Sciences have a relatively minor role in creating “Woke” but a large role in post hoc justification of it. Take any anthropology-related gen-ed in college, and I think you will probably find this to be the case. It really started with the end of WWII. I’m not a huge Neema Parvini guy, but he has a pretty decent video on the Allied backing of Western Marxists in the Denazification process, if any of you are interested. There is also no shortage of e-Stalinists to harp on about the collaboration between Trotskyites and Western Governments. It is possible that Trotsky himself was an FBI asset. He was a slimy fellow, but you have to give him credit. He got his skull punctured with an ice pick and fought the guy off, only dying in the hospital the next day.

The leg-up Marxists got in academia, both due to this state support and due to a certain ethnic group with a fondness for Leftism emigrating out of Europe en masse around this time… Put them in a perfect position to reorient Anthropology, Sociology, and History around Marxist notions. Culture-History was thrown out for Processual and Post-Processual Archaeology, the former being more subtly materialist and the latter having much more evident Marxist elements (would recommend Stone Age Herbalist’s interview with STJ on this topic). History from Below defeated the various top-down and progressive theories of history prominent before the war. This was not just a change in philosophy of what we derive the most knowledge from studying, but furthermore of what we ought to study. See my post on elite-focused history on why this is all quite ridiculous!

It was this change in historical and anthropological thought which encouraged Psychologists and physical anthropologists to downplay the existence of race and population differences in phenotype frequencies. It was now somewhat necessary to do so, in order to uphold the new theoretical framework. Marxists did not initially reject the gene — Marx recognized differences in races, but in a sort of odd way simultaneously imagined people within groups to be tabula rasa. Under Stalin the regime promoted the deadly falsehood of Lysenkoism in order to avoid the terror of the gene. Hereditarianism was also rejected explicitly because it would harm race relations which had just been sorta-kinda-barely put to bed by the 60s Presidents. Nixon had this to say on the matter:

“I have reluctantly concluded, based at least on the evidence presently before me … that what Herrnstein says, and what was said earlier by Jensen, is probably … very close to the truth, […] There are geniuses within black groups. There are more within Asian groups … This is knowledge that is better not to know.”

The Civil Rights Movement was, again, probably not caused by Marxism but relied on Marxism and increasingly Anti-Colonialist Maoist arguments in order to prop itself up. The most famous civil rights advocates in American history were either Marxists or sympathetic to the cause at some point during their activism. Rosa Parks attended CPUSA meetings with her card-carrying husband, and was essentially a trained agitator. W.E.B. DuBois was an open Maoist by the 50s, and held ambivalence towards the Soviet Union prior to that point. MLK was a CPUSA collaborator with clear Left-wing sympathies. Malcolm X was Communist in his youth, but had seemingly grown out of it as he became more focused on Islam. He still aligned himself with anti-American forces, but to call him a Communist sympathizer might be a bit much. He sympathized with the Islamic world, which found friends in the Red countries. After the death of X, Black Radicalism became dominated by the openly Marxist-Maoist and much more violent and ugly Black Panther Party of Huey Newton. The CPUSA had been involved in the Civil Rights movement for decades, funding the defense of the Scottsboro Nine in 1931.

All of this was happening while Communist militias were ripping apart the remnants of European colonial empires, and justifying it with either Maoist or Leninist theory depending on who was sending them their weapons. The Communist MPLA overthrew the Portuguese. The Rhodesians fought against both the China-backed ZANU and the USSR-backed ZAPU. In South Africa, the ANC’s development relied on its close alliance with the South African Communist Party. Anti-Imperialism and Anti-Colonialism became the new war cry of the international Left, and it eventually spread to the accused countries. Today “decolonization” is an integral part of Leftist thought in countries that are currently getting colonized by waves of foreign immigrants. In Latin America and the Arab world you do see the continuation of Socialist-Nationalist movements which had previously characterized the far right, likely to placate the religious majority. What makes these left-wing populists different from right-wing populists? Well, a few things, but one of the big ones is simply that they were warmer towards Marxists instead of being axiomatically anti-Marxist.

Back on the topic of the intelligentsia, I don’t think it’s even worth going into that modern gender ideology relies on Frankfurter and Postmodernist scaffolding in order to intellectually justify itself. As far as numbers go, a bit shy of 1 in 5 Social Science academics are self-identified Marxists, with a quarter of Sociologists being Marxists. I have a hard time believing more than 5% of Economists are Marxists, the one field of Sociology that Marxism claims descent from. It’s among the least left-wing fields in academia. This is a large percent considering that Marxism is both wrong and unpopular, suggesting that these fields were heavily influenced by Marxism in their development.

The point is that “Social Progressivism” as it exists in the current year is generally some form of Liberalism with varying degrees of ideological influence from 20th-century Marxism. Virtually everyone who identifies as a Leftist is either a Marxist or someone who, through the theories of Social Progressivism, is heavily influenced by Marxist ideas (perhaps more than they realize).

The political right has no such philosopher who they can consider their rock, and this makes sense, as the right has historically come into being as the preceding regime, and this regime took many different forms based on the country. People often say that being right-wing means being pro-hierarchy while being left-wing means being anti-hierarchy, but “pro-hierarchy” is not an ideology. The differences between people on the political right tend to be centered around how this hierarchy will be structured, which is kind of a big difference when you believe (as you should) that hierarchy is an inevitable characteristic of social organization even in societies whose mission is to abolish it. These differences are reflected on a smaller level in Western politics. The left-wing is less ideologically diverse than the right-wing. Feeling a certain way on one topic, given this certain way is associated with the political right, is less predictive that you feel a certain way on any other topic.

If there is anyone who should call themselves “The Rightists”, it should probably be the capital-T Traditionalists, and all of the religious groups which more or less agree with them. It is this group which believes essentially in Restoring Order, restoring cosmic “rightness”, in a manner quite distinct from utopian or salvation-based ideologies. This is not etymologically the same as the political right, whose name just comes from which side of the assembly people were on in Revolutionary France.

Follow Sectionalism Archive's Substack here