U.S. DIPLOMAT SUMMONED TO "EXPLAIN" WHY TRUMP IS MURDERING INDIANS IN THE GULF

Trump pretending to win a war he is losing, while attacking neutrals

India has summoned the top US diplomat in New Delhi, demanding answers after US forces attacked a peaceful oil tanker resulting in the deaths of 3 Indian seamen. 

The incident occurred when U.S. forces launched a strike on the Palau-flagged oil tanker MT Settebello, which was carrying a crew of 24 Indian seafarers. According to reports, the vessel was hit in what the U.S. Central Command described as a "precision" operation, like the one that killed around 120 school children on the opening day of the war. The vessel was hit as part of Washington's unilaterally-imposed blockade, an action that itself violates several treaties the US has signed over the years. The other 21 sailors on board the tanker were rescued by Omani authorities.

India's Ministry of External Affairs has lodged a strong protest, summoning U.S. Embassy Deputy Chief of Mission Jason Meeks to "explain" the unprovoked attack on innocent Indian civilians. Officials described the strike as "deeply unfortunate" and called for an immediate end to assaults on commercial shipping in the region. 

This incident is the latest in a series of aggressive, quasi-terroristic moves from Trump that have seen the US torch its soft power and descend to the status of an international pariah state, while also undermining US power and influence around the world, especially vis-a-vis its long-term rivalry with China.

Opposition voices in India have also used the incident to ramp up pressure on the government, accusing it of insufficiently confronting Washington over repeated incidents affecting Indian crews. The summoning of the U.S. diplomat signals growing frustration in New Delhi with Trump's erratic and increasingly desperate behaviour.

THE REFUGEE PARADOX

"Person targeted because of skin colour"

by Colin Liddell

Following an almost successful attempt by a Sudanese refugee to behead a White man in the street (see above), it's kicking off in Belfast. Gangs of men dressed in Black are taking to the streets to show their anger. Stuff has been set on fire.

A number of things need to be mentioned here. The UK government has been struggling for some time to make their "refugee settlement plan" palatable to the general public. They have done this by (a) dispersing refugees across the country and (b) stopping them living together in large groups in the remote towns and cities to which they have been dispersed.

The government seems to have come to the conclusion that as long as they prevent these groups of mainly brown, male, and Islamic refugees lumping together in ghettos or congregating in so-called "refugee hotels," then the problem will disappear, or at least the public will stop noticing.

They have been wrong on both counts, mainly because the refugees have not been cooperating. Yes, I know -- the ungrateful bastards!

In fact, dispersal is absolutely guaranteed to make things worse in certain ways. On the plus side, it makes it harder for refugees to form highly visible ethnic enclaves and then ethnic gangs, but on the negative side it worsens the mental health prospects of each individual refugee. This is because the so-called ethnic gangs and ghetto concentrations, in addition to being a threat to the wider society and a political eyesore for politicians, are also the refugees' own mental health networks. Without these, expect a massive upsurge in alienation levels, insanity, and random acts of brutal violence. 

What we are really dealing with here is what I call "the Refugee Paradox," which is this: There are two kinds of refugees -- fake ones and genuine ones. Given a choice, you should probably opt for the former. This is because a genuine refugee is someone who has suffered great mental torment and stress. Many of them have been tortured or raped; or they have seen their families massacred, etc., etc. -- all sorts of mad shit has happened to them that isn't ever going to be forgotten. At least with the fake ones, you are dealing with people who have not been pushed over the edge.  

There you have it in a nutshell. Refugees are either fake, in which case they should be kicked out for dishonesty and for breaking immigration laws, or they are genuine, in which case they are too mentally damaged and have too many demons to easily fit into UK society.

Indeed, in recent days we see that even non-British people born in the UK have the greatest difficulty adjusting to British society; and I would even go so far as to say that it is even difficult for sane British people these days. Assimilating to a society, even one you're born into and in which your ethnic group is the majority, is an uphill struggle, so we are practically insane to think that deeply traumatised brown people from war-torn countries are going to easily "settle down." Even more so when they have been placed under additional stress by the UK's own "under the radar" and "under the carpet" dispersal strategy, something that separates genuine refugees from their only realistic stabilising force in the UK, namely their own ethnic community.

The only credible way to have a refugee policy in the 21st century is to either limit it to just women and young children, or else to allow refugee communities to naturally form. As these invariably lead to other problems, like gangs and crime, these communities, which would effectively be ghettoes, must be placed under strict control and have their own well-guarded walls or wires in order to prevent harm to the general population. Anything else is just a politician moving his lips.

___________________________________

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 (112) WILL THE MURDER OF HENRY NOWAK CHANGE ANYTHING?

The details of Henry Nowak’s murder, including his arrest while his lungs filled with blood, have rightfully shocked the British public. But does this case point the way to significant abuses that can be effectively countered and reformed, or is it just a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately signify nothing?

FEMALE PILOT INVOLVED IN DEADLY ROYAL NAVY HELICOPTER CRASH

Neokrat, if it stands for anything, stands for raising awareness of the terrible dangers of employing females in challenging male roles, like flying helicopters at night in poor weather.

This is because the empirical evidence stubbornly suggests that this kind of gender blindness drastically increases the chances of something bad happening. And something bad just happened again!

Meanwhile the "institutional wokeness" of the organisations involved means that they invariably brush any inconvenient facts under the carpet.

In the latest example of a woman pressed into a challenging male role leading to disaster, a £40-million pound Royal Navy Merlin Mk4 helicopter crashed into a field in Sourton Down, Devon, England, during a training exercise in the early hours of 3rd June 2026. 

Killed in the crash were Lieutenant Commander Chris Gayson, 42, from Somerset, Lieutenant Lily-Mae Fisher, 31, from Surrey, and Petty Officer Owen Green, 24, from Hampshire. Although cockpit roles have suspiciously not been released, other information from the Royal Navy makes it almost certain that the crash occurred with Lieutenant Lily-Mae Fisher at the controls. 

Petty Officer Owen Green was not trained as a pilot, while Lieutenant Commander Chris Gayson was there in an "assessing role." Meanwhile, according to the Royal Navy article, Lieutenant Lily-Mae Fisher "was tragically killed in a helicopter incident on her final assessment of flying training and was due to be awarded her Pilot’s Wings in June 2026."

The only conclusion to draw from this is that Fisher was at the actual controls when the copter crashed.

Sadly, due to "institutional wokeness," the armed forces in Western liberal democracies routinely insist on treating women like men, despite the fact that this repeatedly leads to tragic and humiliating accidents. 

Last year there was the case of Captain Rebecca Lobach (above), who piloted a $10-million Blackhawk helicopter into an American Eagle Flight near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. All 67 people aboard the helicopter and airplane died in the crash.

But it is not just helicopters. In 2024, there was the demoralising case of the New Zealand Navy ship Manawanui, which went down after Commander Yvonne Gray (below) pranged it right into a reef off the coast of Samoa. This was despite the fact that it was a newly upgraded hydrographic survey, salvage, and support ship, with complex sensory equipment.  Rather than going down with her ship, she then insisted on being rescued by men.

In neither of the reports following these horrendous incidents did investigators make any mention of the differences in spatial sense in men or women, or whether either of these ladies were "on the rag" at the time of their cataclysmic misjudgements.

In the modern woke West these are questions that one is simply not allowed ask. How many more lives must be sacrificed on the alter of gender blindness before this madness ends?

LAURA LOOMER SEES THE LIGHT

For a long time Laura Loomer has been something of a MAGA joke figure. But people are complex and even the most absurd individuals can have hidden depths. Also, have I mentioned broken clocks? Anyway, Loomer's recent comment (see below) on Twitter, about how the dissident right is basically just a stooge of Russia, show that she is not entirely beyond redemption and that even MAGA Americans can develop a degree of sapience above that of a glove puppet: 

"I don’t think conservatives realize how much Russian propaganda we have been fed over the last few years as 'independent journalism'.

It’s starting to become very clear to me how many people who claimed to be defenders of the West were just saying that to suck in a pro-West audience so they could slowly brainwash them with foreign propaganda until they could convince their viewers to work against the West. 

Those 'interviews' we all defended were not actually interviews. They were psychological operations meant to weaponize political factions in America for the purpose of pushing foreign interests. 

And many of us fell for it because we let our anger with the system get the best of us and we decided to trust personalities who have never been honest about who they are and where they come from.

I’m starting to think the entire podcast ecosystem is and always has been on giant psychological and information warfare operation. 

Criminals and terrorists no longer need billions of dollars for weapons and aircraft. They just need an influencer and  podcast budget to create more damage to our society than high powered weapons. 

I hope the DOJ will investigate all of this. It’s a shame so many false accusations of Russian collusion were spread over the last 10 years as a way to smear Donald  Trump and his allies with lies, because now that actual Russian interference is here in our media and on social media, nobody believes it’s real. 

It’s starting to get very creepy just how coordinated, organized and well funded this OPP is."

Or maybe Loomer has just had her nose put out of joint by how badly Israel is now doing in the foreign op wars.

SHITMAGNET & MOSSAD AGENT TOMMY ROBINSON HIJACKS ANTI-SIKH PROTEST TO TURN IT AGAINST MUSLIMS

Robinson effortlessly navigating the British moronosphere despite his diminutive size 

It seems that you can't fail by underestimating the intelligence of nationalist Brits. This point has been emphasised once again after professional shit magnet, manlet, and long-term Mossad asset Tommy Robinson hijacked a demo by angry white people protesting against Sikhs and instead turned it against Pakistani Muslims.

The demo was provoked by recent revelations about the murder and arrest of Henry Nowak, an 18-year old white boy by a sword-carrying Sikh thug. Even though Nowak was dying, Britain's woke police, under constant fear of being called "racist," initially arrested and handcuffed the victim, not the perpetrator.

Under UK law, Britain's Sikhs, who are members of a Hindu-related cult that grew up in Mughal India, are legally entitled to carry "ceremonial daggers," something that is now of great concern to the general public in the aftermath of Nowak's murder. 

However, Robinson, instead of criticising the practice of Sikhs carrying dangerous stabbing tools on Britain's poorly-policed streets, instead tried to serve the interest of his Zionist paymasters by framing the attack as an instance of "Muslamic" violence to his low-IQ followers.

Addressing the crowd, Robinson, whose real name is "Yaxley-Lennon," ranted through his cocaine-damaged nasal passages:

"Well done for coming out [for] Henry’s murder. I’ve spoke about this for 20 years. I said you’ll be a victim of a race gang i.e. Pakistani Muslims will [be] beating up a white kid, the police will turn up they jump on the white kids."

While Pakistani Muslims have their own sins to make amends for with regard to the British public (as do Yaxley-Lennon's own of "Irish traveller" ethnic group), the murder of Henry Nowak is not one of them.

Also, many atrocities committed by Muslims in the past may in fact have been provoked by the kind of polarisation ops that Mossad and the Zionist lobby have a long track record of secretly running.

The ethnic background of the man telling low-IQ British that a Sikh is a Muslim

UKRAINIAN A.I. DRONES ARE DESTROYING PUTIN'S ARMY

Ukraine's long-term approach to the war (focusing on developing tech and gearing up production in cooperation with Europan supporters) is increasingly outpacing Russia's short-termist approach ("Muh 3-day SMO"), according to Ukrainian war blogger Ukraine matters, who draws attention to the innovative way Ukraine is using AI to enhance in battlefield drone dominance. Taking a particularly painful hit right now are Russia's awkwardly extended logistics to the Crimea.

NAZIISM, A 21st CENTURY DEFINITION

by Colin Liddell

I know I shouldn't, but I've been thinking about Naziism again.

It's not really down to me. It's really down to all the other people on social media who constantly use the term as if it's a magic kill shot or something.

It isn't. It's just a word, and like lots of words, it may mean something or it may mean nothing; or it may mean something on one day, to one person, and something else, completely different, to someone else on a different day (or 5 minutes later).

Anyway, it's one of those terms that won't go away, so, if it's going to stick around, which it clearly is, we should at least ascribe some sort of robust meaning to it.

The mainstream meanings that you encounter with this word, are all coated in a sickly goo of extreme hystericism, so none of those meanings will do.

Indeed, if you think about the two main problems in the world today, Ukraine and Middle East (or to be more precise the Russians and the Israelis) and correlate this fact with the now extremely awkward fact that the two groups that Hitler was trying to hardest to remove from the face of the earth were (ahem) the Russians and the Israelis, you can at least say that this whole "Naziism thing" is becoming a little less black and white than it used to be.

Recently there's been a new Naziism spat between online Poles and others over President Zelensky' reported "decision" to allow a Ukrainian military detachment to name itself after Stepan Bandera's Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Bandera is a controversial figure from WWII history whose militia participated in atrocities.

But even though this story is sourced from RT.com and pumped out through fake news sites like The Irish Sun, a lot of Poles fall for it. 

Of course, Russian propaganda usually pushes on something that is already there, and it is true that some Ukrainian nationalists venerate Bandera as a national icon, even though the Ukrainian state does what it can to distance itself from him, as this association with Bandera plays into fake Russian accusations that the Ukraine is a "Nazi state" and tends to undermine its relationship with Poland, a natural ally in the struggle against Russia. 

The awkward fact for the Ukrainian government, however, is that Bandera remains something of a hero for certain Ukrainians and was  indeed involved in various atrocities against Poles in World War II even if some of the historical sources, Soviet, etc., are far from reliable.

Possible genuine image of Ukrainians with Stepan Bandera banner.

The broader fact, however, is that East European history between 1914 and the 1945 (when some sort of totalitarian order was imposed by the Stalinist goons) was a total shitshow.

If you take any prominent Russian, Pole, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Croatian, Rumanian, Hungarian, or German active in the Slavosphere in that period, then you have a more than 50% chance that they were involved in some kind of horrifying ethnic atrocity or brutality against somebody. So, even if some Ukrainians do want to brand themselves "The Stepan Bander brigade," reacting to this as if Poles never did anything bad themselves is a special form of snow-flakism. 

In fact, just to put this on a historical footing, the Poland that emerged from WWI (and following a short war with the Soviet Union) had rather too much land belonging to other ethnicities, which inevitably involved it in brutalities against those groups. In short, Bandera didn't just happen in a vacuum.

In 1930, in response to unrest in the ethnic-Ukrainian parts of Poland, the Polish government launched the "Pacification of Eastern Galicia" with police and military units conducting mass searches, arrests, beatings, the destruction of Ukrainian community centres, libraries, cooperatives, and property, plus crop damage. This involved widespread brutality and intimidation as well as killings of Ukrainians.

Needless to say, both sides amplify or minimise the atrocities of the other, but the essential difference is that the Ukrainian atrocities against Poles happened during WWII, while those of Poles against Ukrainians happened during a period of relative peace, so, for that reason alone, the Ukrainian atrocities  probably edge it.

I won't bother going into what either group did to the Jews, although it probably has a lot of bearing on how Israel turned out as we now see it in 2026. 

All this talk about interethnic atrocity under conditions of major geopolitical struggle leads onto what Naziism truly is, and a more workable definition that should be used going forward.

It is clear to any objective person who is not personally involved in the hatreds, rivalries, and complexes of these various groups that many, if not all, of the atrocities that occurred in the Eastern European segment of WWII were directly attributable to the storms and stresses of fighting a particularly nasty war.

This was a war, remember, where it constantly seemed that just one more spurt of ruthless brutality would either slow down the invaders, cause the invaded to implode, or stave off the vengeful victims when they decided to do a bit of invading themselves.

I don't really want to get into the long grass here and start doing tedious historical detail, but to just chuck one example on the pile, the Nazi brutalities that occurred in the Kiev area in 1941 were clearly sparked off by some rather nasty work by the NKVD, whose sappers and engineers had pre-placed radio-controlled mines and delayed-action explosives in key buildings before retreating (or being captured).

These detonated starting around 20th of September 1941, causing significant damage and German casualties. The buildings targeted, included hotels used by officers, the Citadel, the Old Arsenal, and other prestigious buildings that the Germans predictably and quite stupidly occupied.

An NKVD booby trap bomb goes off in Kiev to "welcome" the Germans

These little surprise packages, often rigged to have a "double tap" effect, also caused fires that destroyed much of the downtown area of Kiev and killed over 200 German soldiers, some of them middle-ranking officers, and left tens of thousands of Ukrainians homeless.

Yes, what I'm claiming here is that the "poor wittle Nazis" were radicalised by a cunning series of Kremlin-installed booby traps, creating not only direct death and mayhem, but also a severe loss of face (sometimes literally). Remember, this was the same Wehrmacht that had executed and massacred around 6000 Belgian civilians on its passage through peaceful little Belgium in 1914!

This loss of face was a serious problem, as the Germans had little they could legitimately do in response. "The invisible enemy" in this case had already fled or was hidden in the general population. However, doing nothing and continuing to look weak was not an option either in a do-or-die war like that on the Eastern front. Blindly retaliating against the general population, as they had done in Belgium, was an option but not a very good one because it would alienate the general population and make control of rear areas even more difficult. The solution the Nazis hit on was to make use of the pre-existing "racism infrastructure," so to speak, and to scapegoat and "make an example of" the one group who had long fulfilled this function in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

One could get into endless and pointless debates about German racial theories and whether they were "complete bollocks" or "actually on to something," or even if there was anything new in them or not (there wasn't). But the fact is Naziism and Nazi anti-Semitism, such as it was, could have taken quite a different path to the one it took if Germany had not got itself enmeshed in a meat-grinding existential war with three Superpowers. 

For example, under more benign conditions, the Nazis might have taken a leaf out of the book of the Poles themselves, who in addition to the occasional "petty" pogrom, were actively encouraging many of their Jews to relocate to the British mandated territory of Palestine before WWII, while also smuggling weapons to them. These weapons, by the way, were used not just against the unfortunate Arabs, but also the hapless British who were trying to keep the peace down there.

Or else a calmer and less-stressed Hitler might have realised that Jews were actually Germany's "secret superpower" and have decided to use their scientific know-how to help Germany develop the A-bomb first, instead of chasing their scientists off to America to work on the Manhattan project.

So, once you blow off the hysterical and emotional froth, and boil it all down, "Naziism," at the end of the day, is really just the messy and often moronic process of fighting a particularly nasty war; and the two people mainly responsible for that today are a certain Eurasian midget with man boobs in the Kremlin and a slimeball in Tel Aviv.

___________________________________

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 

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 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 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