They’ve got their bare boobs out, doing “housework” in a skirt and heels, looking cute enough with their makeup, all without the financial stability and safety net of a provider husband because…they’re mad about electoral results. Seriously, if you’re going to become a cliché male fantasy, at least get the serious benefits that a man brings to the table as a partner. Why give all that up for nothing in exchange?
If the relationship between men and women is all so gross and transactional, as leftist feminism routinely implies, then this little stunt just goes to show how truly incompetent leftist women are when they come to the bargaining table. Leftist feminism accuses men of being pigs who “only want one thing” which means any woman who adopts such an ideology and then acts like the woman epitomizes stupidity—a more intelligent woman would use that knowledge, and her femininity, to her advantage.
Shouldn’t embracing the “traditional wife” role be the dangling carrot to getting the benefits of a “traditional husband” role? The dynamic promoted by traditional conservatism, or the “far-right,” assumes that men are to be monogamous providers, loving and cherishing their wives, and this is objectively a good deal for a woman. You can work but you don’t have to, and you have a man to protect you physically, emotionally, and financially. It goes without saying that infidelity, neglect, or abuse are of course immoral behaviors, and would not be considered an accurate and good reflection of the traditional conservative male role—which is what these leftist feminists cling to when making their specious cases for progressive leftism.
I wasn’t the the only one taken aback by the irony though; OutKick’s Clay Travis said this on X:
French feminists are mopping topless to protest right wing success in elections. Finally a protest I can support.
Seriously, no wonder they don’t get anywhere in life, because they hand out the only things they have to offer, with no expectation of receiving anything valuable in return. I mean, this is the culture that considers a guy a “gentleman” if he pays for the abortion after he knocks you up instead of ghosting you completely—what a low bar. If you act like a cheap whore, you’re going to get treated like a cheap whore.
What’s sad is that you know these women either didn’t have fathers, or any fathers they may have had weren’t strong male figures who protected their innocence, and told their little girls they loved them. Case in point:
The leftist Labour Party has won the United Kingdom’s general election in a landslide and their leader Keir Starmer will become Prime Minister.
While the votes have not yet been counted, a relatively accurate exit poll has Labour winning a landslide of around 170 seats.
Meanwhile, Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is projected to win 13 seats, although their vote share is likely to be considerably higher.
If the exit poll is correct, then the Conservative Party formerly led by the likes of Maragret Thatcher and Winston Churchill has experienced its worst election result in its electoral history.
While styling himself as a moderate, Keir Starer is another far-left proponent of open borders, high taxes and the woke agenda. The man who will hold the post of Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has previously compared Donald Trump to Nazi Germany and the KKK.
A trans-identified male has been found guilty of rape after sexually attacking a woman during a night out. Lexi Secker, previously known as Alexander Secker, was said to have committed the crime when he was “living as a man.”
The assault is said to have taken place in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, in April of 2023. While details are extremely limited, it is known that Secker began identifying as woman in the period between the assault and his court hearings.
But in a statement on the arrest, Wiltshire Police referred to Secker as a “person convicted of rape,” adding that he was recorded as a male by police but “tried as a woman” in court.
In subsequent coverage by the BBC, feminine pronouns were used for Secker. A photo of the criminal was noticeably absent from reports on the conviction, which had sparse details on the incident beyond noting he had been remanded into custody awaiting sentencing.
But while Secker was “tried as a woman” and referred to only by his “preferred” name in news reports, he appears to have gone before the court without having completed any legal “gender” change at all.
In a publicly accessible database of court records, Secker appears under the name “Alexander.” This would indicate British media outlets chose to utilize the name he preferred, one which may have obscured his identity from other potential victims, rather than report on him accurately.
Under his legal name, Secker has a lengthy digital footprint revealing he has fathered two children and worked with a registered charity.
According to his profile on Creative Pool, Secker had been a Creative Media Practitioner at Digital Writes – a registered charity which receives funding from the UK Arts Council and describes itself as “enriching creative experiences” for youth.
During the COVID-19 lockdowns, Digital Writes received a substantial COVID Emergency Response Grant and boasted that it enabled them to hire Secker. On a page dedicated to discussing the impact of the grant on Digital Writes, the organization stated that it “meant we could offer employment to a local creative media practitioner, Alex Secker.”
Secker is quoted as saying: “This has been amazing for me, being able to earn a living for me and my family, doing the work I love.”
Describing himself as an “award-winning filmmaker with two feature films widely distributed,” Secker has directed 10 films, most of which were in the horror genre. One of his most recent releases, Follow the Crows (2018), was funded in part using an Indigogo campaign. The year prior, Secker had won a People’s Choice Award at the Swindon Fringe Festival for his debut stage play, a political thriller called The Door.
Reduxx has also found a defunct blog belonging to Secker in which he claimed he appeared “regularly” on BBC Wiltshire to discuss films.
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, France’s globalist president Emmanuel Macron took a massive gamble calling for a snap election following an enormous defeat in the EU elections earlier last month.
Now, his bet has officially blown up in his face as Marine Le Pen’s right-wing party,RN, won the first round of legislative elections.
But Klarsfeld told The Associated Press in an interview at his Paris apartment that the far-left France Unbowed party has militant pro-Palestinian supporters and “antisemitic overtones,” while Le Pen’s party supports Israel and Jewish people.
“Marine Le Pen is the head of a party which supports Israel and supports the Jews,” Klarsfeld said in the interview Tuesday. “So we gave this advice to those who will be faced with this runoff between the far left and what used to be the far right, which for us is now a populist party, to vote for the right,” he said.
Klarsfeld continued, “I fear the far left. The far left has a deep-seated hatred of Israel and has … militants who are pro-Palestinians.”
A French junior minister and her team were attacked while putting up posters on the campaign trail on Wednesday, resulting in her ending her ground campaign.
Government spokesperson and candidate Prisca Thevenot was accosted by four individuals in the western Parisian suburb of Meudon located in Hauts-de-Seine.
Thevenot was uninjured, but a member of her team suffered a broken jaw while her deputy Virginie Lanlo was also beaten. Both were taken to Percy Hospital in Clamart for treatment.
Speaking to Le Parisien, the Macronist spokesperson revealed her campaign team “found themselves next to a small group of young people” who had been “defacing posters.”
When one of her group called out the youths on their vandalism, they were “immediately attacked.”
“Everything happened very, very quickly,” Thevenot added, also confirming she had filed a complaint at the Meudon police station.
Four suspects have been arrested, including three minors and one adult.
No further information regarding the attackers has been published by the authorities. However, numerous journalists and media outlets have suggested the perpetrators were of a migration background and this fact was being deliberately censored over fears it would increase the support for Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella’s Rassemblement National (RN) ahead of the second round of voting in the French legislative elections.
Journalist Damien Rieu posted on X: “You won’t hear it on TV but one of Prisca Thevenot’s attackers is called Wacim, another is Ivorian. They will try to hide the information until Sunday. A minister who is attacked by scum… that could boost the RN.”
Europe 1 confirmed that of the four suspects arrested, three hold French citizenship and one is an Ivorian migrant. No further details about the three French citizens have been published.
Journalist Amaury Bucco of Valeurs Actuelles reported that one man had torn down posters before addressing several young girls in the neighborhood and preaching the Koran.
“These are the same people who caused the riots last year,” he wrote, citing a local source referencing civil unrest caused by activists affiliated with the far left.
“The residents are a bit annoyed. They don’t understand why the authorities only resort to arrests when a female politician is attacked, while they are subjected to this gang every day,” he added.
Thevenot took to social media herself to thank the emergency services for their response and confirmed she would stop campaigning following the attack.
“Violence is never the answer. I will end my campaign on the ground,” she wrote.
Doctor in hospital ward with patient in bed Shutterstock
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was ongoing fear that those in the disability community would be discriminated against and have worse outcomes than their able-bodied peers. Tragically, these fears would turn out to be true, as people with disabilities were at least twice as likely to die. Now, a new study has revealed that patients with Down syndrome, specifically, were increasingly given do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders at much higher rates than the able-bodied population.
In a press release, Stephanie Santoro, assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, director of quality improvement research for the Down Syndrome Program at Mass General, and co-author of the study, said people with Down syndrome and a diagnosis of COVID-19 — or COVID pneumonia — were six times more likely to be given DNRs than similar patients without Down syndrome. “It seems like a lifetime ago, but early in the pandemic, extreme steps like rationing ventilators were being discussed,” she said of her reasoning behind the study. “In the Down syndrome community there was a lot of worry, of wanting to protect the rights of people with Down syndrome.”
Noting that people with Down syndrome were known to get sicker and need more supports when they contracted respiratory infections, Santoro said the research team had to ensure the DNRs weren’t being given merely because the prognosis for someone with Down syndrome was so much poorer. “We tried to compare some comorbidities — like intubation rates, if they had been in the ICU, or if they had come from acute care — but it didn’t pan out to have a similarly high odds ratio as the diagnosis of Down syndrome,” she said, adding, “Might people or their families be choosing DNR status when admitted with high acuity, life-threatening disease? We also wondered whether the folks with Down syndrome were older or if there was some other intervening covariable that would explain the high odds ratio of DNR status. But we couldn’t find anything that explained it.”
Though there are health conditions known to be associated with Down syndrome, medical advancements have been able to address many of them. “[I]n general, people with Down syndrome are leading healthy, happy, productive lives,” Santoro said. “I think the DNR status rate should likely be the same as for people without Down syndrome.”
This study is not an anomaly; a survey done in the United Kingdom likewise found that people with disabilities were being pressured to sign DNRs during the pandemic. Additionally, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence also told doctors that they should assess patients with disabilities for “frailty” before deciding whether or not they could be given life-saving treatments.
“[T]he thing that caused me more distress was when the government decided they were going to publish the frailty guidance,” one survey respondent said. “I looked to see how frail I am and am I going to be offered a ventilator if I need one. The reality according to that guidance was no, not necessarily, And, then thinking how can I prove my worth to people to make sure I get that treatment if needed.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the hour has come. After an interminable four-week general election campaign, mercifully spirited by the 100% proof charisma of Nigel Farage and the increasingly erratic behaviour of Sir Ed Davey (whose suicidal attempts to relieve himself of the Liberal Democrat leadership have been cruelly mistaken for bungee jumps), we have arrived at polling day.
Will Britain finally shake off the shackles of the two-party system, put the Tory party to bed and submit to the loving embrace of Reform UK? Or will she be content to leap headfirst out the nosediving aircraft, and crash to earth with nothing but the saggy pillow of Keir Starmer to cushion to blow?
If you will forgive the soliloquy, The New Conservative was established precisely for this eventuality and with this day in mind—to fight for ‘conservatives in heart, not name only.’ Now, the electorate will have to do their part.
This is an electorate increasingly at odds with its representatives, for never has the divide between Westminster and the voters been so stark. Everyone knows what the British public wants it seems, apart from MPs & their bosom buddies in the media. For 14 years, the people have demanded the bare minimum of conservatism from their government:
Sovereignty: secure borders and an end to mass immigration
Low tax, small state
Law & order: stop & search, and zero tolerance for knife crime
An end to the scourge of wokery
Equality before the law rather than special treatment
Education not indoctrination
The scrapping of net zero
Free speech
A functioning healthcare system
Meritocracy rather than identity politics
For 14 years, they have been denied on all counts. It is time therefore for a reckoning, and that I believe is what we are about to witness. For my money, this election is about one thing and one thing only: the Reform vote. Here’s why:
People Want the Tories ‘Out,’ Not Labour ‘In’
For all that Starmer’s majority may be a done deal, the Labour Party are still genuinely unpopular. Only 32% of the electorate think they will provide a safe pair of hands at the tiller, with 43% disagreeing. According to YouGov, the reason to vote Labour is overwhelmingly to evict the Tories (48%) as opposed to agreeing with Labour policies (5%). And perhaps worst of all for an aspiring two-term Sir Keir, an astonishing 60% of Labour voters say they are merely ‘lending Labour’ their vote.
Zero Seats
The Conservative Party deserves utter annihilation, for the contempt and deceit they have shown their voters. The short-lived thrill of revenge however, will matter less than the ramifications of such a drubbing—the closer the Tories get to zero seats, the more this will ensure a genuine right-wing party rising phoenix-like from the ashes.
The Muslim Vote
One of the imponderables in this election is how exactly the Muslim vote will play out. While the media has focussed exclusively on the right-wing split in UK politics, little has been made of the obvious indications that Islam is now flexing its electoral muscles and may be about to terminate its parasitic attachment to the Labour Party.
According to recent polling, Starmer’s majority could be dented to the tune of 20 seats due to ‘Gaza’—an opportunity not lost on the bloodhound olfactory senses of George Galloway. Labour’s expected Muslim vote share is expected to be down considerably, from 86-63%—with 44% of British Muslims stating they would vote for an independent candidate who prioritised their side of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Polling also suggests the Muslim vote could be decisive in 129 of 220 swing seats—an issue which may soon be particularly relevant as groups like ‘Muslim Vote’ put pressure on Starmer to accede to their demands, or before an actual ‘Party of Islam’ gets past the vetting of the Electoral Commission.
Shy Reform Voters
The media sneers, ‘far-right’ labels, rigged audiences, and dirty tricks plaguing today’s election will undoubtedly have an effect on the outcome—the question is, which way? The Reform vote appears to have held up remarkably well throughout the onslaught, and may even be underrepresented. ‘Shy Tories’ are likely a thing of the past, but there could well be a significant proportion of Reform voters for whom announcing their intent is just not worth the aggravation. Don’t just take my word for it, even The Guardian seems to agree.
The Electorate Itself
Most importantly, have the people got the courage of their convictions to do the right thing or will there be a lot of slip-sliding in the lonely isolation of the polling booth? That’s the trillion nicker question, and why this election revolves around Reform UK. Are the public willing to take another gamble on Farage and guarantee a genuine alternative to Labour, or will they lose their nerve at the last minute?
Hold Your Nerve
Yes, Starmer will get the keys to Number 10, but this may only prove a temporary lease, on the back of a margin of victory which is likely overestimated. There is zero reason to vote Tory, and the protest votes of the Liberal Democrats and the Greens are, if anything, worse than usual. I have warmed to Farage’s choice of election theme tune over the past four weeks, but I still think Reform would have done better to go with the old Elvis classic: It’s Now or Never.
Of course, there is no reason why you should listen to me, but as the Patriarch-in-Chief at TNC, I humbly suggest you send a message at this election—a message even the dullards at Westminster can understand: Britain is still a conservative country, and we demand real conservatism!
Naturally, you won’t get any of that with Keir Starmer. But what you just might get are the seeds of genuine change. Have faith, and put your ‘X’ in the only deserving box.
Vote with your heart. Vote for Britain. Vote Reform.
Britain’s Muslim population is around four million, equating to about six per cent of the populace. Will their votes have much of an impact on today’s general election? On a national level, the answer is clearly no. I am not going out on a limb when I say that Labour’s Keir Starmer will be prime minister by Friday evening regardless of how many Muslim voters stick with Labour. But there will be intriguing local battles which may foretell future trends.
In recent general elections, over 70 per cent of British Muslims have voted Labour. That percentage will ironically go down this year, even as the vote for Starmer’s party goes up among the electorate as a whole. Campaigners such as Muslim Vote, backed by Islamic groups of various degrees of radicalism, argue that in just under 100 of the UK’s 650 constituencies Muslims make up 10 per cent or more of the electorate and could be decisive.
But it is in a much smaller number of seats, 30 or so, where Muslims make up a quarter or more of the electorate, where they are much more likely to vote as a bloc. And nearly all these seats are very safe for Labour in even very bad years for the party. Where the Muslim vote is lower, the communities’ voting behaviour is much closer to the norm for the area.
What is unusual this year is that an organised challenge has emerged to Labour in these constituencies, coming either from rabble rouser George Galloway’s Workers Party or from various Mosque-backed independent candidates. The galvanising issue is supposed solidarity for the Palestinian cause.
Under Labour’s former hard Left leader Jeremy Corbyn, Labour had adopted an extremely hostile attitude towards Israel. One of the leitmotifs of his whole career has been antipathy to Israel and his self-proclaimed solidarity with Palestine. His lieutenants Andrew Murray and Seumas Milne were even more vocal in the hard-line positions they took.
During Corbyn’s leadership, Labour was embroiled in endless anti-Semitism rows. If one was being kind, one would say that Corbyn was often careless with his language and with whom he was willing to associate. Some of his explanations rather lacked credibility. Was Corbyn really only using “inclusive language” when he spoke of his “friends in Hamas” and “friends in Hezbollah”?
After Keir Starmer took over as Labour leader in 2020, detoxifying Labour of its anti-Semitic taint was a key task to making the party once more electable. In the weeks immediately after Hamas’s October 7 pogrom, Starmer strongly backed Israel’s right to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism.
This is where Labour’s current problems with the Muslim vote stem from. Whilst Corbyn, the by now ex-Labour MP, was found on the front row of endless “Palestinian Solidarity” marches, Starmer initially adopted a robustly pro-Israel line, over time adding caveats and nuances. Today his position is very much what you might expect of a moderate European centre-Left leader – but it is still enough to drive sections of the Muslim community mad.
Labour’s support in very heavily Muslim areas fell by up to 25 per cent in May’s local elections. Previously, in February, Galloway won a by-election to the House of Commons for the Rochdale constituency in Greater Manchester. The seat is about a quarter Muslim, and Galloway’s campaign was all about the iniquities of Israel rather than local issues. The breakthrough for his Workers Party would not have been possible without Labour having mucked up their own candidate selection, but it may have been a harbinger of things to come.
In East London, Bradford and now Rochdale, Galloway has a history of stealing heavily Muslim seats off Labour since his own departure from the party over the Iraq war. But he has until now proven much less adept at holding on to them.
Whether now having his own party will make a difference, today’s election will show. The Workers Party combines its pro-Palestine solidarity stance with hard Left economics, Russophilia and anti-wokery. It speaks the language of a party appealing to the electorate as a whole. But make no mistake, its vote will be nearly wholly Muslim. It is standing in a total of 152 constituencies, in the vast majority of which its vote will be negligible.
The Workers Party’s real impact will be seen in a very small number of heavily Muslim seats. The same is true of the independent candidates backed by various “community groups.” National polling, even at its largest and most sophisticated scale, is not very good at picking up such hyper-local trends.
It is possible that a couple of such candidates could take their place in the Commons alongside Galloway and Corbyn – the latter standing as an independent this time in his London constituency, more on a general Leftist platform rather than specifically appealing to the Islamic vote.
Today’s election may see the start of the emergence of a separatist Islamic politics in certain parts of England. The phenomenon has already been observed in local government and may now be seen in Westminster.
Naama Amit. Frame taken from an interview with the Israel Broadcasting Corporation.
An Israeli woman is being taken to court by a trans-identified male who claims she violated his privacy when she made social media posts condemning him for suing a pharmacy after he was “misgendered.” Naama Amit had commented on the case through her social media accounts using publicly available information, and is now facing a lawsuit from the same man.
The incident began on June 12 last year, when Zohar Katan, a man who self-identifies as a woman, filed a civil suit against Super Pharm – an Israeli pharmacy chain. Katan claimed he had been the victim of a “transphobic incident” at the chain’s Haifa branch when an employee addressed him using the masculine form of words in Hebrew. Hebrew has a high degree of grammatical gender, and almost every word is masculine or feminine.
Katan claimed he had been addressed by the masculine form of “you,” indicating that the employee viewed him as a man.
The following week, on June 19, Katan withdrew his legal claim against Super Pharm. In documents seen by Reduxx, the two parties agreed to an out-of-court settlement, the terms of which remain undisclosed. But court records indicate that Katan had sought both financial compensation and for Super Pharm employees to be forced to undergo gender sensitivity training.
As news of the case began to spread, Naama Amit shared publicly-available information about the dispute to her social media accounts on both Facebook and X, where she commented that Zatan “disguised himself as a woman.”
In her social media post, Amit stated: “A lawsuit was filed against Super Pharm because a pharmacist said ‘you’ [masculine form] to someone who disguised himself as a woman. We have officially started… good luck here.”
On June 20, Katan contacted Amit and demanded she remove her posts about the court case as the posts included his name and personal information. Amit the swiftly redacted identifying information, but Katan pursued legal action anyway.
Katan’s suit against Amit is seeking compensation from Amit in the form of ₪36,400 (approx. $9,600 USD). He also alleges harassment and a violation of laws related to privacy protection despite the fact that all of Amit’s comments utilized publicly-available information.
Regarding the claims of harassment, a 1998 Law on the Prevention of Sexual Harassment includes the concept of “gender” within its definition, stating that such offenses include “derogatory or humiliating treatment directed at a person in relation to gender or sexuality.” As a result, Katan is accusing Amit of sexually harassing him by way of misgendering.
“In the current case, we are dealing with sexual harassment … there is no doubt that addressing a transgender person in a manner not in accordance with their gender identity is a form of humiliation that amounts to sexual harassment,” the complaint alleges.
However, during the first court session to hear the case against Amit, which took place today, the court agreed to allow Amit to use masculine pronouns when referring to Katan.
ניצחון גדול עוד לפני פס"ד.
בתביעה של זוהר קטן נ' נעמה תקפנו חזיתית. טענו שאי אפשר לכפות עליה להתייחס לטרנסית כאישה כיון שהיא גבר. בענין הזה בית המשפט ואפילו זוהר הסכימו מראש. כדי לרצות את הפרוגרס השופט בחר להתמקד בפגיעה בפרטיות שנעשתה בתום לב. לא חשוב מה הוא יפסוק בענין זה. pic.twitter.com/BXpDTvX63D
The claim also alleges that Amit’s social media posts about Katan constituted a violation of his privacy despite the fact that Amit simply commented on publicly-available records.
To support this allegation, the suit cites a portion of the Privacy and Protection Law of 1981, which reads, “A person shall not violate the privacy of another without their consent. Section 2 (9) of the law defines invasion of privacy as the use of information about a person’s private affairs … other than the purpose for which it was disclosed.”
As the matter is being addressed in a small claims court, neither Katan nor Amit are being officially represented by legal experts. Instead, Amit is being advised on how to defend herself in court by Michael Foa, Chairman of Choosing a Family, a conservative organization which promotes “discourse on the issue of the family” as it relates to “values in the Israeli tradition.”
Speaking to Reduxx, Foa expressed that he felt the lawsuit was simply another way of silencing people from speaking out against transgender ideology.
“This is probably another silencing lawsuit designed to intimidate the public and make people afraid to say what they think: that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and that cannot be changed,” Foa told Reduxx. “It is the right of every person to feel as they do; a man can feel like a woman, but he cannot impose his subjective feeling on others.”
Additionally, Foa explained that Katan had attempted to have Amit’s statement of defense stricken from the record, but this was denied by the court. The reason: the letter of defense itself was, according to Katan, “offensive, insulting and shameful.”
“We went out of our way to explain … that no one can impose their subjective feelings on others. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. In response, the plaintiff, in wording that appears to have been written by the attorneys’ office, requested that the statement of defense be deleted.”
In her defense statement, Amit had remarked that the litigation against her constituted a “spiteful lawsuit designed to intimidate and silence those who do not align with an extreme opinion that has no basis in reality.”
She also noted that there is “no legal provision that prohibits the publication of a legal document.” She further added the definition of biological sex, as based on human chromosomes, to her statement.
On the eve of the UK General Election, NCF presents a special election edition of #NCFDeprogrammed. Hosts Harrison Pitt of the European Conservative and Connor Tomlinson of Lotus Eaters speak with Prof. Matt Goodwin.
