RUPERT LOWE'S DWEEBY SON SCORES A PIECE OF HOT ARABIAN TOTTIE

Not since the days of Scheherazade and a Thousand and One Nights have we seen a love story to rival it, namely the coming together of the dweeby son of Britain's iron-fisted anti-immigrant politician Rupert Lowe and an exotic Arabian "princess" from the sandy shores of Libya! 

Yes, on Sunday (the 24th), Angus Lowe, who favours remigration and the de-Islamization of Britain, posted a photo on X of his son, Angus Lowe and his new dusky and alluring wife, Yasmin Mezran, at their wedding ceremony.

It seems that just like JD Vance, who was reduced to having carnal relations with random pieces of furniture by the refusal of White women to copulate with him, Angus Lowe faced a similar conundrum, leading him to cast his eye across the increasingly permeable borders of our civilisation to the fluttering tents of some distant desert oasis—in Angus's case a "sexual oasis," as Yasmin has hair like the night, a face like camomile petals, and "buttocks like a dune over which a rain shower never falls" (to quote an obscure Islamic poet)!

Yasmin is the daughter of esteemed Libyan academic Karim Mezran, who boasted that Halal meat was served at the nuptials of Angus and his sultry daughter, fully approved of by Rupert Lowe himself who micromanaged every detail.

But it seems that it is Angus who has the most to boast of in this case. The "thin-framed" and prematurely balding insurance clerk, who has long existed in the shadow of his domineering father, now has a sloe-eyed wife who can don a veil and spark a "thirst intifada" back in her native Middle East and even some parts of leafy England! 

LAST HOPE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY EXTINGUISHED AS MASSIE GOES DOWN IN FLAMES

American political corruption soared to new heights yesterday with the defeat of Thomas Massie, the libertarian-leaning Republican rebel from Kentucky's 4th District in the latest Republican primary.

The battling Congressman went down by around 55% to 45% of the vote. This result was bought and paid for by a massive dump of Trump-and-Zionist-aligned cash in the District, with around $28-34 million in anti-Massie spending, much of it on AI-generated slop and disinformation.

This included nearly $19 million on campaign ads and media attacking Massie and favouring Massie's sock puppet opponent Ed Gallrein, with pro-Israel groups (like the AIPAC-linked United Democracy Project and the Republican Jewish Coalition, etc.) throwing in another $9–15 million, or possibly more.

This tsunami of dirty, external cash was unleashed for two reasons: (1) Massie supported the release of the Epstein files and (2) Massie opposed "forever wars" in the Middle East, especially those undertaken at the behest of Israel, like the recent terroristic attack on Iran. Both policies were policies that Donald Trump himself ran on in 2024. 

The defeat of Massie by a highly-funded dummy candidate thus ensures Donald Trump's death-like grip on the increasingly moribund Republican Party.

This wasn't just another primary upset. It was the ritual execution of the last Republican willing to say "no" and the total replacement of the GOP by a blindly obedient MAGA cult dedicated to funnelling an ever-increasing stream of bribes into the Trump family's pockets.

Massie, with his MIT engineering background, rural pragmatism, and habit of actually reading bills, represented the dying breed of small-government conservatives who remembered what the Republic was supposed to be about: restraint, scepticism of endless foreign entanglements, and fiscal sanity.

He bucked Trump on key votes, opposed blank-check aid packages, and pushed transparency measures like the Epstein Files—actions that marked him as an "intolerable heretic" in the age of personality cults. 

Trump himself torched Massie as the "worst" Republican in Congress. The truth is that in many ways he was probably the "best," as America continues its slide into Third Worldist caudillism. 

Remaining "conservatives" will learn the lesson—keep your head down, vote the line, and mouth the platitudes. Dissent is for losers and libertarians. The broader tragedy is America's.  Now Gallrein will waltz into a "safe" Republican seat in November (one that was bought with tens of millions of dollars) and take up his subservient role as yet another interchangeable placeholder and yes-man to the Orange Baboon in the White House. 

In America, democracy sells and guess who's buying.

ALL YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT TOMMY ROBINSON BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK

A whore for Russia and Israel

Left-coded Rapper Low Key shines a searchlight on the shady origins of "shit magnet" Tommy Robinson and his various "organisations." Rather than being an English or British nationalist, he is just a tool and a frontman for foreign influence operations.

DISASTER FOR SCOTLAND AFTER "AGENT OF POLARISATION" BECOMES CHAMPIONS

 

Toxic winners

Scotland has suffered another blow to its poor social cohesion after a major "agent of polarisation" and de-assimilation achieved success (once again) in the country's most popular sport, namely football.

For centuries Scotland has suffered from a dysfunctional, fractured, and violent social culture, based on ethnic deep and possibly irreconcilable divisions between "Post-Protestants" and "Post-Catholics" (mainly of Irish origin). Neither group, it should be stressed, is actually religious, as only around one-in-twenty Scottish people are active/regular churchgoers (e.g., attending at least monthly or weekly). 

These "sectarian" divisions, and in particular the non-assimilation of Post Catholics, are maintained through Scotland's football league system and its dominance by two teams, Rangers and Celtic, both of which are embodiments of hatred for the other side.

No other football team has won the Scottish league (now known as the Scottish Premier League) since 1985, and every year the success of either one of these teams revives and deepens the fractures in Scottish society, leading to a country typified by a creeping sense of alienation. This in turn feeds into a wide array of social problems, ranging from drug addiction, public drunkenness, vandalism, litter, and knife crime that puts even London's Afro-Caribbean community in the shade. The city of Glasgow has suffered particularly badly from this blight. 

Celtic fans, alienated from their social environment by Scotland's dysfunctional football culture

This year there was hope that this polarising pattern could be broken by a relatively normal third team winning the Scottish Premier League, after the Edinburgh-based Hearts of Midlothian FC dominated for most of the season. But unfortunately, on the final day of league football, a late goal by Celtic's Japanese import Daizen Maeda allowed the agent of polarisation to defeat Hearts 2-1 and thus clinch the championship, thus ensuring another season of toxic polarisation in Scottish society.

Partick Thistle, the Neokrat-approved team for Glaswegians to support

ORANGE BABOON IN DIAPER "FRAME-MOGGED" BY HUMBLE CHINAMAN

An orange baboon, known as "The Donald," has been seriously "frame-mogged" by a humble Chinaman in Beijing.

The demoralising incident occurred after the amber-coloured ape, resplendent in a luxury padded diaper, travelled thousands of miles to China on a "looksmaxxing" expedition that sadly backfired. 

Instead of looking cool and dominant against the quietly-spoken Oriental, who is also the leader of one-fifth of the World's population, the orange baboon appeared small, weak, submissive, and just weird.

Even his attempts to assert dominance by "smashing his face" with orange goo and doing "death grip" handshakes failed as the meek Asiatic merely stood there with a subtle ironic smile on his lips and used judo moves to deftly extract his hand. 

After his humiliation, the orange baboon returned to his native land with a painted Chinese fan, a stuffed toy panda, and two packets of Dragon Well tea, claiming a great diplomatic success.

SADLY STARMER CAN'T BOAST ABOUT HIS ACHIEVEMENTS

by Colin Liddell

The UK has just had its "Midterms," a slate of elections—Welsh and Scottish Parliaments and major council elections in England. The conclusion from all these is that the voters rejected Labour mainly because of its deeply unpopular leader, Sir Keir Starmer. 

I'm not going to assert that Starmer has been a great Prime Minister because he hasn't, but he is definitely not as bad as the consensus has painted him. A considerable number of people even think he is some sort of Son of Satan. 

My basic view is that most mainstream UK Prime Ministers are mediocre at best (limited by the system), while Labour ones tend to be a bit worse than the Tory ones. Starmer, however, strikes me as a bit better than the average Labour Prime Minister, operating at roughly the level of competence that you would expect an average Tory PM to operate at. Yet, despite this, he has become the most loathed and unpopular PM of all time. What is going on here? 

Ask political commentators the reason and they are hard pressed to come up with clear reasons.

The biggest thing that comes up is Labour's move soon after they were elected in 2024 to cut winter fuel payments for many pensioners (soon reversed). Other things mentioned are "slow economic growth," problems with the NHS, not supporting the Palestinians enough, and, laughably, "sleaze and corruption," as if Starmer is some bribe-harvesting Latin American dictator.

This last point should alert you to how skewed this all is. Trump and his entire family have been looting tens of billions of dollars from the system through blatant graft and corruption and building golden statues with the receipts, while Starmer and his missus have picked up a few hundred quid in designer clothes and tickets for pop concerts and football games. Yet Starmer's the bad guy here!

As for (temporarily) cutting the Winter fuel allowance for well-off pensioners and not being too partisan on the Palestinian question, those were actually objectively good decisions that blew up in his face politically. The first move alienated a lot of self-entitled old boomers who have been over-privileged for too long; while the second alienated the "student leftie" and "ethnic Labour" types, many of whom have now defected to the Greens.

Regarding the Palestinians, morally there is a case for more being done, but at the same time, the UK has to keep in touch with its main existing ally, the USA. Whatever one thinks of the future of that relationship, it would be reckless to just trash it and go all-in on Palestinian liberation and saying "fuck you, America."

When you examine other aspects of Starmer's record, none of it is brilliant, but, generally speaking, his decisions are characterised by sensible caution that tends to push in the right direction. I would give two particular examples: immigration and avoiding involvement in Trump's war against Iran.

Since taking office in 2024, Starmer has taken immigration seriously and his government has been pushing as hard as a Labour government can to stop small boats crossing the Channel and reducing immigration in general.

Thanks to Boris Johnson and the Tories, my home town in Scotland was flooded with African health workers whom the locals could see walking around at all times of day, paying home visits to the ill and the elderly. Since Labour took over, however, they have largely disappeared.

Also, look at this graph:

Sure, as always, more could always be done to protect Britain's ...erm..."demographic integrity." But for a Labour Prime Minister this is actually pretty impressive.

Also, quietly but firmly telling Trump that the UK wasn't on board with his idiotic terrorist war against Iran was the correct decision, a decision that was mocked and blamed by people like Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch, who leads what remains of the Conservative Party. 

So, why the relentless and unjustified hatred of Starmer? I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that when he does something right, like keeping his distance from Hamas, cutting unjustified public spending, or cracking down on immigration, it alienates lefties, who then jump ship to the Greens.

It also stems from the fact that he finds it difficult or counterproductive to boast of his actual achievements.

Starmer could have made a lot more of his government's relative success in cleaning up the immigration mess left behind by Boris Johnson and his Tory successors. But crowing about clamping down on migrants would be a bad look for a Labour PM and might push some more lefties into the Green camp. 

Likewise, he could have gained a lot of popularity by making his disagreements with Trump more public, possibly throwing in a few personal insults to spice things up. But Starmer, true to his nature, chose to quietly tell the Americans to take a hike, while sending over the king to mollify Trump's fragile ego, so as to minimise the chances of any erratic American behaviour harming Britain. 

The way Starmer does things makes it difficult to boast about them, even when they are clearly the right decisions. This means that the shallow, fickle, and uncomprehending public remain blind to them.

source

___________________________________

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 

IS JEWISHNESS JUST A PERVERSION OF IDENTITY?

Trouble in the leafy shtetl of Golders Green

by Colin Liddell

A little mind experiment (not my actual family history btw):

My ancestors came down from the Highlands and moved to London around 120 years ago. For three or four generations my people have now been living in the leafy London suburb of, say, Cricklewood, but in all that time we have made it a point to marry only with other people who have "come down from the Highlands" (although occasionally it hasn't worked out). We have also made it a point to walk around in our tartan kilts, mumble to ourselves in Gaelic, and occasionally hunt deer in Richmond Park. 

Probably, and quite rightly, you would think that there was something deeply wrong with us; something much worse than mere eccentricity. Some of you might see us as suffering from a collective form of insanity. 

The reason you think this is because assimilation is a relatively natural and rapid process—or should be once you move between the generations—unless there are specific hard barriers stopping it happening.

Why then does Britain even have a "Jewish community" like the one in Golders Green that is now in the news? After all this is mainly made up of people who came here several generations ago!

We have been reminded of this community's existence once again, following the frankly hysterical response to a relatively minor stabbing incident in which no one died. London, it should be emphasised, has around 17,000 stabbing-related incidents a year.

One week after this attack, it is still dominating the UK news with the Prime Minister taking time out from his forthcoming electoral apocalypse to hold an "Anti-Semitism Summit." In fact, the prolonged and artificial prominence in the news of this story is now actually provoking additional attacks, possibly by anti-Semites, possibly by malicious state actors who see this as a cheap way to throw Britain into confusion.

Reception committee for Sir Keir "Himmler" Starmer

But back to the main point, why does Britain even have a "Jewish community" at all? It's not like they are recent migrants unable to speak the language, or radically different in racial appearance. Shave off the beards and take off the kippahs and you wouldn't know them from the Welsh. 

Is it because London, like medieval Eastern Europe, makes it impossible for Jews who emigrated to the UK several generations ago to "blend in" and be English? Of course not!

So what is the answer? Why do so many Jews still cling to Jewishness, when all Jewishness means is a stubborn refusal to blend in and accept the collective identity of what is probably the most tolerant and accepting society in the World?

Of course, over the years, many Jews have indeed accepted Englishness as their identity and allowed their Jewishness to naturally lapse, but what about those that don't? 

You will be told that it's a religious thing. They are Jews and walk about being ostensibly Jewish because they believe in "Yahweh" (or whatever the Ancient Semitic Moon God's name is).

But this is ass-backwards, as the Americans like to say. The "being a religious Jew" thing is downstream from the "refusal to assimilate to jolly old England" thing. We can be sure of this because almost all Jews are too high IQ to believe in a lot of falsified Biblical and Talmudic claptrap. 

I would feel some sympathy for these obvious anti-assimilators if no such thing as the state of Israel existed. In that case, you could claim that they were a "homeless people," hoping one day to go home, and temporarily trapped in alien England, because their own land had been wiped off the face of the Earth (by the Romans), and that, as soon as it was recreated, they would need all their carefully preserved "Jewishness" to go there and get things going again.

That would at least be the logic of that position.

But we all know what happened in 1948, right? The existence of Israeli and an Israeli identity effectively supersedes, negates, or substitutes a Jewish identity.

It's right there, next to the bomb-craters of Lebanon and Gaza, if you want to go on being "Jewish." You can't miss it. Or, if you want to stay generation-on-generation in England/America/France/Australia, etc. there are perfectly good identities there to assume.

Actually, I might have to take part of that back, because becoming "American" would give me pause for thought too, even after several generations. But, hey, that's a detail. To stick to the main point, if you have Israelis, you really shouldn't have Jews (except as a synonym for Israelis). Yet we still have them, generation-after-generation in England and other places in the West, and even in places like Iran. And while many do indeed blend in and escape what is an extraneous identity, a great many don't.

Is it a victim cult, a mutual backscratching network, or is it just a perversion of that thing called "identity," without which, we are told, all humans would just turn into shapeless blobs or clouds of transient dust?

___________________________________

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