If you are enjoying the show, please subscribe to our channel on YouTube (click the Subscribe Button underneath the video and then Click on the Bell icon next to it to make sure you Receive All Notifications)
Month: August 2024
Elon Musk Warns of English ‘Civil War’ as Muslim Gangs Clash With Anti-Migration Demos
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has warned that “civil war is inevitable” in Britain, which has seen sectarian violence break out between vigilante Muslim groups and anti-mass migration protesters.
The Tesla and X/Twitter CEO shared his grim prediction as the UK descended into chaos over the weekend following the mass stabbing at a children’s dance party, which left three young girls dead and eight others injured in Southport allegedly at the hands of a Rwandan-heritage teen.
Responding to footage of the ensuing riots, born-South African Musk said that “civil war is inevitable” while highlighting the perils of “incompatible cultures” being “brought together without assimilation.”
While much of the response from the political and legacy media establishment has focused on the “far-right” anti-mass migration protesters and riots, there has been a growing recognition of the countermovement among the Islamic population in Britain as Muslims have also taken to the streets en masse and clashed with police and protesters.
The BBC reported, for example, that around 250 to 300 members of the “Asian community” — a longstanding British media euphemism for Muslims — charged police in Bolton, threw eggs, rocks, and chanted “Allahu Ackbar” as they squared off with an anti-mass migration protest.
The Telegraph also reported that footage appeared to show “Asian men” attacking white men in Middlesborough.
On Monday the Prime Minister’s official spokesman lashed out at Elon Musk, saying per the Evening Standard on Monday: “There is no justification for comments like that. What we have seen in this country is organised, violent thuggery that has no place either on our streets or online.”
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, a longtime advocate of mass migration in Britain, also sought to cast blame for riots breaking out under her watch on social media, which she said has acted like a “rocket booster” and that social media firms should “take some responsibility” for the unrest.
Cooper, like Starmer, has come under heavy criticism for the apparent disparity in response to riots among ethnic minority groups, such as the Roma-led riots in Leeds last month, compared to the response to the anti-mass migration protests and riots seen across the country after the Southport stabbing attack.
Amid accusations against the government and police of taking a softer approach to Muslim street protests and violence, former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi said that while it is correct for the government to have a “zero tolerance” approach to rioting, the law must be applied fairly, including the “thugs who hijack Islam.”.
“If you settle in Britain like I did, you respect its values and traditions, integrate and be proud of this country, otherwise you must go somewhere else,” Zahawi said.
While the tensions over Britain’s open door migration policies spilled out onto the streets over the past week, warnings of civil strife and a collapse of community cohesion have been longstanding. For example, a 2021 report from Migration Watch UK warned that if the government failed to cut mass migration, the UK could see societal breakdown. Yet, despite public demands to curtail the inflow of foreigners, successive governments have refused to do so.
Left-Wing Spanish Government Accused of Cozying Up To Venezuela’s Maduro
Members of the Spanish left-wing government are split on how to respond to last week’s Venezuelan elections, in which Nicolás Maduro’s government has been accused by most of the Western world of widespread fraud. Spanish right-wingers VOX, whose observer was interrogated in Venezuela before being deported, has accused the Socialist Spanish government of cozying up to the Maduro regime.
The Venezuelan presidential election, held on July 28th, was won officially by President Nicolás Maduro with 52% of the vote, while the main opposition candidate Edmundo González got 43%. However, the government has still not made public the voting tallies to prove Maduro won, and the opposition claims the elections were stolen. They declared González the winner by a landslide of 67%.
Despite international criticism of the Venezuelan government, Spanish Labour Minister Yolanda Díaz, a member of Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s hard-left junior coalition partner Sumar, called for the recognition of the Venezuelan results, saying: “The first thing is to recognise the election results, which is what democrats all over the world do, and secondly, simply: in the face of doubts, transparency, transparency, and transparency.”
Another left-wing party, Podemos—which split from Sumar last December, but still lends its support to the Sánchez government in parliament—also expressed its support for Nicolás Maduro, saying “the people have spoken and their will must be respected.”
Not everyone on the Left agrees with these statements. Another leading politician within Sumar, Health Minister Mónica García, has called for full transparency in Venezuela. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez also called on the Caracas government to provide a detailed breakdown of votes cast to prove Maduro won.
The Spanish government is outspoken and ferocious when attacking the conservative governments of Israel or Hungary. In contrast, the response has been lukewarm with regards to Venezuela. PM Sánchez appealed for “calm, civic-mindedness and respect for the fundamental rights of all Venezuelans.”
Former Socialist Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was invited to observe the elections in Venezuela, which was denounced by opposition party VOX. The party decried the detention of Maduro’s political opponents, and called on Sánchez to issue a harsher response “to condemn the electoral fraud carried out by the dictatorial regime,” and the actions of Zapatero “in supporting a regime that violates human rights and commits crimes against humanity.”
While Zapatero was feted by the regime in Venezuela, one of VOX’s own politicians, Victor González was given a less than warm welcome. González was invited to be an election observer by Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado. As he told the newspaper El Debate, he arrived in Caracas two days before the election, and had a meeting at his hotel with young people who had been imprisoned and tortured by the Maduro regime.
González’s ordeal began the next day: he was confronted by police in his hotel’s lobby, his passport was confiscated, and he was told to pack his bags. They took him to the airport where he was locked in a cell for seven hours. He was forced to strip naked, and was interrogated by members of the domestic intelligence services who verbally abused him, and demanded that he collaborate. In the end, they returned his passport, his mobile phone—which they had hacked into—and put him on a flight back to Madrid.
Tensions are still rising in the South American country. There have been ongoing protests against the socialist regime ever since polling day. Opposition leader María Corina Machado, who was disqualified from running in the election, last week called for a peaceful transition of power. The largest protests against the president are concentrated in the capital Carácas but protests are taking place in areas throughout the country.
Security forces have fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters. The government has also sent paramilitary groups to disperse the demonstrators with gunfire. Human rights groups say at least 22 people have been killed, and more than 2,000 detained. At a rally in Caracas on Saturday, Maduro pledged to detain more people and send them to prison. Both Edmundo González and María Corina Machado have gone into hiding.
“We have serious concerns that the result announced does not reflect the will or the votes of the Venezuelan people,” said U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken. Many governments in both North and South America expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the result.
The European Union refused to recognise Maduro’s victory, and has called for an independent count of the votes. “Copies of the electoral voting records published by the opposition, and reviewed by several independent organisations, indicate that Edmundo González Urrutia would appear to be the winner of the presidential elections by a significant majority,” the EU statement said.
Sixty-one-year-old Maduro has slammed the international criticism, describing allegations of vote fraud as a “trap” orchestrated by Washington to justify “a coup.”
As Venezuelan writer and analyst Alejandro Peña Esclusa told The European Conservative in an interview:
The fundamental problem is that Maduro and his clique cannot give up power. They have committed so many crimes that they know that the moment they leave power they are finished. That is why they had no qualms about committing such a blatant and obvious fraud, especially in the absence of international observers.
Assaulted for Drinking Beer in Germany
For centuries, Germans have been known for beer. Many of the major breweries of the USA (and Mexico) were founded by German immigrants. Lager is a German invention. Oktoberfest means drinking beer. But like the rest of their heritage, Germans will have to give up beer, because their Islamic conquerors don’t like it.
Friday night, three thugs attacked a young man in the historical heart of Germany’s capital, the Berlin Mitte district:
At around 2.15am, the perpetrators reprimanded the young man for religious reasons because of his beer consumption. They then took him to the ground and robbed him of his mobile phone and a bag containing documents.
Religious reasons. Maybe they were Lutherans.
Moonbattery Assaulted for Drinking Beer in Germany – Moonbattery
BBC removes 2018 promotional video featuring Axel Rudakubana who stabbed 3 girls to death in Southport
Amidst backlash, the British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, deleted a 2018 Children in Need promotional video from its websites when it was revealed that the video featured the teenager accused of murdering three girls in Southport. The accused teenager who appeared in BBC’s promo video has been identified as Axel Rudakubana.
In a now-deleted charity promotional video from 2018, Axel Rudakubana is shown leaving the Tardis dressed as Doctor Who, sporting a trench coat and tie that resembled Doctor Who’s star, David Tennant.
Axel Rudakubana, then 11, reminds viewers in the video, “It’s that time of year again”, before offering tips on how to best raise money.
In a statement, BBC Children in Need spokesperson said, “Our deepest sympathies go out to everyone impacted by this shocking case and we have removed the video from all of our platforms out of respect to them.”
He was chosen for the video via a casting agency and had no involvement with any Children In Need projects.
As reported earlier, Axel Kudakubana appeared in Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, accused of the murders of Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven. He is also accused of attempting to murder yoga instructor Leanne Lucas, businessman John Hayes, and eight youngsters who cannot be identified for legal reasons.
The suspect is a minor and generally, names of minor suspects are not released to the public in the UK. However, Judge Andrew Menary took an exception and let the suspect be identified as Axel Rudakubana, a resident of Wales born to Rwandan parents, to stop the spread of misinformation.
After the stabbing incident, anti-immigrant protests have erupted across the United Kingdom. Dozens of protests have been taking place across the country and law enforcement agencies are facing difficulties in controlling the protesters.
BBC removes video featuring Axel Rudakubana who killed 3 girls in Southport (opindia.com)
Man pretending to be woman in Olympic boxing says ‘I have Allah with me, Allahu akbar’
Could the ridiculous and appalling charade of Imane Khelif beating up women at the Olympics be all about humiliating the Infidel? “Allahu akbar” means “Allah is greater,” i.e., greater than your god. The scream of “Allahu akbar” is designed to “strike terror in the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60). 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta reminded himself to “shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”
The UK Police Use their Powers Against White Working Class But Seemingly No One Else
NCF Fellow Emma Webb speaks for millions when she says the police know how to police when they want to. Running away from Leeds rioters, ignoring Gaza protestors and BLM, whilst coming down with the full force of the law on the white working class.
Did Western Governments import Muslims to our countries to act as muscle against us when the government started to show its communist hand?
Let’s start with the theory as Stephen Coughlin explains it from a historical context:
I think we have seen in modern history how tyrants will import or ally with enemies of the people to quell the people. Anyone who has not seen the movie, Cromwell, about. how a real British Patriot, Oliver Cromwell, created an army of people to depose a tyrannical King, Charles the 1st. Charles, when he got wind of how unpopular his increasingly tyrannical measures were, decided to import entire foreign armies that up to then had been enemies of England. At that time, specifically the Scots and the Irish, because they where Roman Catholic and loyal to the Pope and Rome, and England was Protestant and the actual government where puritans.
When it was learned that Charles the 1st had called for the Scots and Irish to invade to fight the people of England, the uprising began and Charles was arrested and decapitated. So the practice of using foreigners to quell one’s own people by tyrants is time honoured.
Meanwhile, now in the UK:
Read more:
BRITAIN BURNING: Muslim Mobs Roam the Streets with Knives and Machetes Unchecked by Police as Labour Gov’t Prepares to Crack Down on “Far-Right Thugs”
Riots continued in Liverpool, Hull, Manchester, Belfast and at least 7 other UK cities Saturday as the System Media blamed the indigenous population for defenmding their country and mobs of Muslim men armed with knives and machetes roamed the streets in several British cities.
Police braced for fresh violence after protests Saturday resulted in at least 90 arrests, several police officers being injured, and looting, the Express reported. More anti-immigration protests are planned for Sunday in Bolton, Lancaster, Middlesbrough, Weymouth and Rotherham.
England and Wales police federation Deputy National Chair Tiffany Lynch said the unrest was “flooding across major cities and towns.”
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Anyone who gets involved in criminal disorder, violent thuggery on our streets, will have to pay the price.”
While British police treated patriots to the full force of the law, police in Stoke seemed to advise Muslims on how to avoid arrest for wielding knives and machetes. This is known in UK as “Two-Tier Policing”.
Read more:
Labour, Not the ‘Far Right,’ Are the Real Threat to Our Safety
Many will be familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s line that those willing to purchase temporary safety at the price of essential freedoms deserve neither. While this is typically cited in defence of liberty, it still presents the two values in question, namely freedom and security, as existing in an awkward trade-off.
This rings less true today. Can there be any doubt that the reckless actions and wanton negligence of the political classes in Western countries pose a far greater threat to public safety than even their most impulsive, irreverent critics? After the mass slaughter of young girls in Southport by a second-generation Rwandan immigrant, the elites in Britain have followed the usual playbook, focussing on the more hot-headed aspects of the backlash to this atrocity while accusing anyone who points to its roots in disastrous, avoidable policy-making of ‘playing politics’ and ‘stoking division.’
In The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray clarified the debate over immigration by drawing an instructive distinction between “primary” and “secondary” problems. His wise counsel has not been heeded. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the Labour home secretary, would rather obsess over the regrettable riots in Southport—and elsewhere—after Axel Rudakubana’s murder of three girls at a Taylor Swift dance class than grapple with the entirely justified grievances of a people who have had enough.
To put it in simple terms, we never voted to be demographically replaced—least of all by groups with a higher propensity for committing acts of violence. In just the last week or so, we have seen a British soldier nearly stabbed to death by a Nigerian called Anthony Esan, a policewoman punched in the face by Pakistani youths in Manchester, and machete brawls in Southend. Throughout July, we were also treated to Bangladeshi riots in London, Romani and South Asian lawlessness in Leeds, and Muslim protests outside a police station in solidarity with the very Pakistanis who had attacked officers at Manchester Airport.
Moreover, there has been blatant two-tier policing of different groups’ collective grievances. Compare the disorder in London earlier this week with the mid-July riots in Harehills, Leeds. As many as 111 people protesting the slaughter of young girls in Southport were arrested on Wednesday night—some quite justifiably, others seemingly not. In Harehills, where we witnessed orders of magnitude more chaos, arson, and property damage, the figure was just 17. That is what happens when the police run scared, rather than rocking up in full riot gear as they do when the so-called ‘far Right’ are in town.
This is just one example among many of the host population’s justified anger—often intermingled, it must be said, with technical inaccuracies and shoddy speculation fed by the silence of officials—being policed in a more heavy-handed manner than ethnic and religious minorities with bogus tribal grievances. This is reflected in the rictus of contempt displayed by Yvette Cooper when responding to the backlash from white working-class protestors in Southport, as compared with her more diplomatic, understanding demeanour after minorities burned Harehills to the ground.
This is not just a solitary clip. Overall, there has been much more catastrophising over the public’s reaction to the murder of three girls—an emergency meeting with police chiefs, a theatrical press conference, the sudden introduction of 24-hour rolling court proceedings—than there was to any of the rioting in Harehills, let alone the epidemic of knife crime in London or the mass rape of white working-class girls at the hands of predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs over many decades. The key difference, of course, is that while Brits have been protesting the state’s evident failure to protect children in Southport, foreign diasporas in majority-minority Harehills set their own neighbourhood on fire to protest the state’s success in protecting children in accordance with the law.
Rioting is wrong in both cases, but motives can be more or less legitimate. If necessary, will the government’s new “violent disorder units” be deployed to Britain’s highly ghettoised towns and neighbourhoods, where up until now the grudges and sensitivities of tribal sub-cultures have made them virtually untouchable? We would be unwise to hold our breath. Only yesterday, menacing mobs of Muslim men, many of them armed, freely stalked Stoke and Blackburn without arousing a flicker of police interest. In one case, those with weapons were merely invited by some community liaison officer to drop them off at the local mosque.
At his press conference on Thursday, Starmer tried to deflect attention away from the primary problem and towards the radical discontent, not always intelligently expressed but very well-founded, of Britain’s host population. He condemned “far-right hatred” and spoke directly to social media companies about the way in which “violent disorder” gets “whipped up online.” Yvette Cooper has also lectured the tech platforms, as if chatter on X—rather than the mass stabbing of children followed by a complete information vacuum—is the truly radicalising factor. The one-sidedness of Starmer’s remarks backfired, prompting a viral X meme among those in the silent majority who have no desire to riot, but do confess to being intolerant of child murder and consistently broken election promises: #FarRightThugsUnite.
Still, the Labour government is clearly intent on using the more aggressive aspects of the backlash as a pretext to crack down further on free speech and popular dissent, particularly online. (Even before the election, Starmer was talking tough with Mayor Sadiq Khan about his eagerness to tighten ‘Islamophobia’ laws.) In front of the cameras, Starmer concluded that “service rests on security, and we will take all necessary action to keep our streets safe.” By “all necessary action,” of course, he means everything except closing the border to the Third World.
It is also telling that Starmer associates “security” with a state-driven stranglehold, hand in glove with Big Tech, over the spread of information and opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there is an honourable tradition of defending free speech not just by reference to some right to autonomy, but as an instrumental value that ensures the well-being of those who live in free societies. In the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670), Spinoza argues that the toleration of eccentric opinions is not just a price we should be willing to pay for respecting autonomy, but in fact a positive benefit:
Not only may this liberty [of thought and speech] be granted without risk to the peace of the republic and to piety as well as the authority of the sovereign power, but … to conserve all of this such freedom must be granted.
After all, how can we know that views are false if their proponents are forbidden from making the case and we are prevented from hearing it? Freedom of thought and speech are in this way praised by Spinoza as dual-servants of social flourishing. The reframing is significant: all of a sudden, freedom of speech comes to be seen as necessary for security, not a value we should uphold in spite of it.
This brings us to the serious dangers of a Labour crackdown on free speech. Without wanting to get personal, it is a matter of public record that both Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper have daughters. This raises the question: would they ever send these daughters unaccompanied to Rwanda, Somalia, or Pakistan? If not, why are they so blasé about importing huge numbers of people from such countries into our own towns and cities? What do they think it is that makes Rwanda, Somalia, and Pakistan so much more ill-advised as an all-girls holiday destination than, say, Switzerland, Denmark, or South Korea?
It can hardly have anything to do with natural factors. And if it is not the climate, the altitude, or the biodiversity, it must surely have something to do with the people—not when considered in a way that unfairly smears all on the basis of observable patterns, but when considered at scale and in general.
It would be absurd to tar all members of any group with the same brush. However, it is equally absurd—and a grave danger—for those with a sworn duty to keep us safe to maintain the delusion that a randomised sample of military-aged male Rwandans, Somalis, and Pakistanis (especially if we include those willing to pay criminal gangs to smuggle them illegally into our homelands) will be identical to a randomised sample of Swissmen, Danes, and South Koreans. Anyone who clutches their pearls at such obvious truths simply exposes himself as a fanatic who cares more about betting the house on human nature than ensuring the safety of our women and girls.
It is betrayal enough that our politicians have imported, and continue to import, so many foreign peoples who are consistently overrepresented in violent crime statistics. Now they flirt with plans to forbid Brits from noticing? Is it really in the interests of Britain’s national security to silence those of us pointing out unpleasant facts and sounding the alarm to prevent further bloodshed?
Freedom of speech is not just one value among many. Being necessary for course correction, it is the value that enables us to make good on all of our other values. Unless we are free to criticise government abuses and mistakes, they will get worse. If Starmer uses recent events as an excuse for a renewed crackdown on our free speech rights, he will be further endangering national security, not making the streets safer. We can expect even more attacks on our people if whistleblowers are either muzzled or hurled into prison.
If truth is to set us free, we must first be at liberty to pursue it. Free speech is liable to strike many as an abstract concern. But if the Labour government sees fit to make further assaults on our liberties, free speech will come to be seen in a very different, much more sobering light: a matter of life and death.