The big news from yesterday’s FA Cup Final between Leicester and Chelsea?  OK, it was the first crowd - just 20,000 strong - to be admitted to watch a match since the third lockdown started.  It was also the first time in their long history (they were founded in 1884) that Leicester City have lifted the trophy, after a 1-0 victory.  But the interesting political news from Wembley is that the fans booed the hallowed pre-match BLM moment.  Just like old times.  Sadly, there was no light airplane towing a banner overhead to remind the European-descended millionaires debasing themselves on the pitch that White Lives Matter too.

Apparently, the BBC’s pee-cee engineers leapt into action to turn the amps down on the broadcast feed so viewers did not have to hear working-class white men’s disdain for the BLM insult, enabling the rest of the corporate media to downplay the event.  “Social media” ... that’s Handwringers’ Central to you and me, since they’re all that’s left on TwittBook ... reacted according to corporate requirements.  But someone forgot to moderate the Daily Mail thread.  Click the first link above and have a read if you want to know what non-handwringers think.

There must be many nationalists who have asked themselves, “Why Israel?  Why is the Israeli Likud government ... supposedly the nationalist government of the most ethnocentric and tribal people on the planet, uttery persuaded of its own g-d given right to minister forever over of all humankind ... why is that government coercing and deceiving its Jewish population, including pregnant women and children, into taking the Pfizer jab; and why is it racing ahead with the roll-out of the instrument of totalitarian control which is the Covid passport?  Why, of all governments, has that government collectively taken upon itself the task of experimenting on, of all peoples, that people and, if Mike Yeadon and others are to be believed, of committing them to a future of fatally compromised physical and reproductive health?

At the very least they, the Israeli government, cannot know that the Pfizer jab is safe, most especially for babies in the womb.  No democratic governments are elected to gamble with the life of the unborn.  But while nationalists across the developed world readily suspect their own governments, aided and abetted by formal Jewish organisations, of such venality, still there was an understanding that Israel’s Jews would always be kept safe by their politicians.  That was the famous Jewish double standard: “Universalism for you, nationalism for me.”  It was an article of faith for seven-decades of nationalists after the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 by David Ben-Gurion.  And yet here we are, with the Israeli people committed by their government to the same perilous path as the rest of us.

It just does not fit with the standard nationalist narrative of Talmudic struggle, or with the Zionist struggle, or with the post-1980s sanctification of the six million and, thereby, of every Jewish life.  If these things have been let go by the Jewish elites in Israel in favour of the Schwabian Re-Set and, furthermore, if it involves the oft-alleged strategy of mass depopulating vaccination, it represents the most extraordinary reversal of ethnic investment and unity, comity and service any of us have ever seen.

Here, to validate the process, is the passionate testimony of Ilana Rachel Daniel to the Dutch video platform blckbx.tv.  She is a health worker and, now, an activist and information officer for a new political human rights party named Rappeh:

https://rumble.com/embed/vd2935/?pub=4

You don’t have to listen to the whole interview because the meat of it is stated over the first 2 minutes and 46 seconds.  That said, one very interesting fact from later in the interview is that the Israeli state machine, the social media giants, major employers, banking sector and so forth are treating dissenters exactly as the parallel institutions in the UK treat salient dissenters and nationalists here.  As the lady says, “They are making this complete Re-Set.”  Olam ha-ba it ain’t.

As a side comment, the behaviour of the elites in Israel puts me in mind of a VDare article by Peter Brimelow that I read back in 2004, on the tenth anniversary of the publishing of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.  Brimelow remembered his friendship and his last meeting with the Jewish-American psychologist Richard Herrnstein, who co-wrote the book with Charles Murray.  Herrnstein was dying from lung cancer, and Brimelow was able to visit him close to the end and press into his hands a pre-release copy of the book.  Brimelow described him as “a great man”, and he certainly might have been a remarkably observant and prescient one given that his motivation for writing the book was to warn against the developing caesura - he called it cognitive dissonance - within the body of his own people between its elites and its masses.

His thesis seems now to have become fact inside Israel in the most definitive way.  Is there any other explanation for the extraordinary events in that country?

I have not been able to interest myself in the Super-League debacle, largely because I would have preferred the game of African kick-ball which English professional football has become to die out, to be honest.  But here, anyway, is a pretty good, historically-grounded and factually accurate analysis by NativistConcern of the attempt to take the Big Six truly global, and destroy the rest of African kick-ball in the process.

It’s just a pity that the video-maker is another one lost to the poetic lie of heroism and the life of glory - and more a pity because, actually, he has a real feel for the life and culture of the old working-class.

Not much.  But it’s a win and it appears to be unusual.

However, is it unusual that a case like this appears on the front age of the Telegraph website, or are these cases unusual?  Is it that the media have not really reported them or do indigenous Brits simply put up with arrogant big mouthery from non-whites in positions of authority over them?

Worker told ‘English people are lazy drunks’ wins discrimination claim
A transport company employee who was an ethnic minority at his workplace has won a discrimination claim after his colleagues jeered that the English were lazy drunks.

James Heeley, an administrator at Birk Holdings, was repeatedly teased about his nationality by his co-workers, who asked whether he was “still drunk” when he came to the office.

His boss, Gurvinder Singh Birk, was overheard saying English employees are “lazy and only interested in claiming benefits”.

Mr Heeley was one of five white British employees at the company of 16 - making him a “minority”, the employment tribunal in Bury St Edmunds heard.

... Mr Birk was ordered to pay Mr Heeley £2,500 in compensation for injury to feelings, and a further £961.74 for breaching employment law.

Mr Heeley began working at Birk Holdings in Peterborough in October 2017 and was sacked in March 2019 by Mr Birk, who cited concerns about his performance, attendance and time keeping.

The tribunal panel, chaired by Employment Judge Jennifer Bartlett, found that he was subjected to numerous derogatory comments.

Senior employees said “English drivers do drive slowly” and accused Mr Heeley of not working hard because “he’s English”, the tribunal heard.

On one occasion, two colleagues sneered: “Can tell you’re British as you don’t have your coat on. Are you still drunk from last night?”

After Mr Heeley took a few days off sick, an employee said: “Oh, the lazy English worker has decided to come back to work”. The same employee commented: “Lazy English workers are always off sick”.

Mr Birk was said to have told a senior employee not to hire British workers because they “can turn you down easily and claim benefits”.

The tribunal panel agreed that Mr Heeley had suffered race discrimination and harassment.

It concluded: “We consider that the comments are serious such that they create a hostile and/or intimidating environment because they are by a number of reasonably senior individuals, over a period of time, repeated and in a workplace in which the claimant was a minority.

“We do not accept that the fact that he called some of the comments jokes undermines their effect on him. Many extremely unpleasant behaviours can be dressed up as jokes but it is no excuse.”

Will the controlled media be as callous and disinterested as it is with the murder of Ashli Babbitt?  Will it be a case of “Race? What race?”

Since its inception in 2005 Conservative Home has become an “indispensable read” for Tory party members and MPs, particularly those of a centrist persuasion.  These days it is edited by Paul Goodman, who maintains a rigorous guard against any suggestion (and I mean any suggestion) of nationalist critique among the commentariat, while allowing hating lefties free range to attack all and sundry for any backsliding on ethnic suicidalism.  It is not entirely clear how Mr Goodman would feel, say, should ethnic suicidalism ever grip the gentlefolk of Israel.

But today someone let Richard Ritchie, not a Jew but Enoch Powell’s archivist, to post an abridged version of a 16,000 word paper he has authored.  Its subject is the parliamentary history of immigration.  Cue a deadly bunfight below the line, but a bunfight which has lacked the usual viciously partisan moderation.  One can’t help wondering what all those so so respectable centrists are thinking as they peruse the thread.  How to survive the conniptions, probably.  No doubt order will be restored tomorrow.

The Telegraph reports:

Nigel Farage quits politics - and this time he means it
The Reform Party leader is stepping back after almost three decades. But he’s still got the woke brigade in his crosshairs

Mr Farage announces he is resigning as leader of the Reform Party and turning his back on politics after three decades of political street fighting.

He says: “There is no going back - Brexit is done. That won’t be reversed. I know I’ve come back once or twice when people thought I’d gone, but this is it. It’s done. It’s over.

...

He adds: “Now’s the moment for me to say I’ve knocked on my last door. I’m going to step down as the leader of Reform UK. I’ll have no executive position at all. I’m quite happy to have an honorary one, but party politics, campaigning, being involved in elections, that is now over for me because I’ve achieved the one thing I set out to do: to achieve the independence of the UK.”

The 56-year-old insists that he had no plans to retire, saying: “I’m not packing up. I’m not off to play golf four afternoons a week and have half a bitter afterwards. That’s not happening.” Instead, he will be trying to influence the national debate on China’s influence in the UK and the battles over the so-called culture wars.

He says he wants to “do battle” on two “very big” issues: “One is the extent to which the Chinese Communist Party is taking over our lives and certainly has undue influence in our country. And the other thing [is] the ‘woke agenda’ - literally the indoctrination of our children from primary school all the way through university with now a completely different interpretation of history.

Farage, of course, has form for resigning and returning, and a lot of people in possession of a memory will greet his retirement news with some cynicism.  After all, it’s only five minutes since he relaunched The Brexit Party as Reform UK, supposedly focussing on lockdown and Covid strategy.  Now he’s thrown that over completely, invented an anti-Chinese cause to talk up, and returned to flirting with the culture war agenda currently in the hands of Laurence Fox and his Reclaim Party (who announced today that he will stand in the London mayoral election, which sounds like a bad idea to me).  Farage the great communicator was, it seems, a terrible political manager to the last.

One should, of course, give him his due for his role in freeing this country (excluding Northern Ireland, obviously) from the EU project.  That achievement alone secures his place in British history.  The patriotic right will be poorer for his absence from party politics.  Nationalism, however, may gain substantially from it.

This is very good news:

English nationalists can be protected from discrimination under equality laws, judge rules
People with firm political views regarding the culture, identity and politics of England potentially qualify to sue under equality laws

English nationalists can be protected from discrimination in the same way as followers of a religion or those who hold philosophical beliefs, a judge has ruled.

People with firm political views regarding the culture, identity and politics of England potentially qualify to sue under equality laws if they believe they have suffered as a result of their opinions.

However, publicly expressing anti-Muslim sentiments disqualifies them from protection because it infringes on the rights of others.

These conclusions were reached by employment judge Christiana Hyde at a London tribunal involving the political figure Steven Thomas, who was attempting to sue the NHS for discrimination.

Mr Thomas, who has campaigned for the English Democrat Party, claimed he was sacked as a consultant from Surrey and Borders NHS Trust in July 2018 after just three months due to his political views.

...

The 56-year-old from Kent claimed his nationalistic views are equivalent to a philosophical belief and should therefore be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

Judge Hyde concluded that Mr Thomas was entitled to claim for discrimination under the Equality Act as his nationalistic views could qualify as a philosophical belief, but his opposition to multiculturalism and Islamification undermined his claim.

To qualify as a protected characteristic, a philosophical belief must be: genuinely held; a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint; a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Judge Hyde ruled that while Mr Thomas had succeeded on the first four points, his anti-Islamic views meant he had failed on the fifth.

...

“He clearly had a very static and somewhat simplistic view of what constituted all things English.

“(His) belief included views about the way in which a society in which those of varied racial origins, religions and cultures should be ordered.

So, some thoughts ...

Potentially, the judge introduced two important caveats.  First, the relentless and pointless anti-Islam garbage one encounters so frequently among Britain First members, civic nationalists such as For Britain, and Tommy Robinson fans is disqualifying.  But criticising what has become known as Muslim grooming ... criticising the criminality of that part of the Muslim male population which has groomed, trafficked, and abused or prostituted for abuse underage girls ... cannot be so.  It really does require only a modicum of intelligence to stay the right side of the law.

The second caveat is that the law is indeed crafted to defend multiracialism and multiculturalism, as we all know.  But it does not state that the English people are in any part a non-white people.  On the contrary, government itself confirms the specificity of the English people in its ethnicity choices for the 2011 Census form for England and Wales:

White: Total Š English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British Š Irish Š Gypsy or Irish Traveller Š Other White Š Mixed/multiple ethnic group: Total Š White and Black Caribbean Š White and Black African Š White and Asian Š Other Mixed Š Asian/Asian British: Total Š Indian Š Pakistani Š Bangladeshi Š Chinese Š Other Asian Š Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Total Š African Š Caribbean Š Other Black Š Other ethnic group: Total Š Arab Š Any other ethnic group

So the judge’s comments conceding Mr Thomas’s supposed “very static and somewhat simplistic view of what constituted all things English” cannot reasonably extend to the question of English ethnicity.  Her further remark that Mr Thomas’s “views about the way in which a society in which those of varied racial origins, religions and cultures should be ordered” likewise is at odds with the law’s support for Jews in Jewish organisations, say, to advocate for the import of more and more refugees and impose stricter and stricter hate speech laws.  The fact that the interests of a native people must differ in multiple ways from those of non-native peoples, and that will impact upon “the way in which a society ... should be ordered” cannot reasonably be held as grounds to exclude advocacy of the former from legal protection.

To expand on this point, there is a primary and universal principle at issue here, which is that all peoples grouped by kinship naturally self-identify, and naturally express self-interest and self-concern.  In fact, British law does not disqualify any ethnic or racial group from so doing.  It is silent on the matter, seeking only to defend all groups defined by their “protected characteristics”, one of which, importantly, is national origin.

Our defining characteristic is not solely that we possess the physical trait of white skin by way of our northern European descent.  Our identity as the native ethny of the land which bears our name is also our defining characteristic of origin.  It is a proving point of difference to every other group in our home, white and non-white, for it automatically orients our self-interest and self-concern as qualities of a people equipped by Nature with the right, unique to us here, of defence of life and land.  It cannot be otherwise.  British law, in protecting our national origin, cannot but protect that orientation or it is to void it of meaning.  Nowhere does British law void our native status of meaning.  The principle of non-discrimination itself cannot void the native status of its meaning, for that would be discriminatory and therefore fall foul of itself.

British law does not void our native ethnic self-interest and self-concern of its meaning.  Therefore, attacks on our nationalism as the expression of that meaning (ie, as defence of our people against non-national groups colonising our home) cannot be lawfully made or communicated.

Discrimination against our native status is possible only because of a quite unexamined and one-eyed presumption that our act of self-defence is illegitimate merely because it expresses in opposition to the other groups who have come into our home over the past seven decades.  Those groups, by their acts of colonisation, initiate the oppositional relationship.  No native people, ensconced in its own home, can be held uniquely responsibly for the oppositional character of the relationship between coloniser and colonised.  It is the party which is offended against.

We must establish if the existing protections under law, ie, those parts of legislation dating from the 2010 Equalities Act back to the 1986 Public Order Act which are relevant and have force, apply equally to all.  If so, we must recover our right to speak and act in our own group interest, free of untrue and hateful accusations, like any other group.  The fact that, as the natives here, our people’s ethnic interests run contrary to the interests of non-native groups and to government policy on race, immigration and population is completely immaterial, and cannot constitute a lawful basis for discrimination against advocacy of our ethnic interests.