It’s election year in some parts, with the afferent far right-left-pretend left circus. If you dip your toes into current patriotic rhetoric in the UK (particularly England) and Ireland, you will hear the same old tropes: stop the progressive madness and get rid of all immigrants. Only now, this rhetoric has escalated into homicidal ideation, out in the open, in 2024.

These people are sacks of… contradiction, as I will detail below. Their talking points include:

  • Hatred of immigrants as a whole, but particularly if they are black of brown;
  • Hatred of non-whites in white countries in general, citizens included;
  • Hatred of current policies asked for by the LGBT community, particularly gender ideology;
  • Hatred of Muslims; agitation regarding Sharia Law (still, mind you);
  • Support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza or indifference towards the genocide;
  • Support for pro-life policies (ironic for warmongers!);
  • Support for cultural Christianity and “western values”;
  • Support for free speech (except when it denounces genocide);
  • Hatred of identity politics (except when they are used to falsely label people as antisemites);
  • Abhorrence of state control over the individual (again, unless individuals protest against war/ genocide);
  • A love of capitalism (which they currently have and has been making them poorer by the year);
  • A pervasive obsession with the “plight” of White people, “oppressed” by the fact that foreign-sounding names and Brown faces are elected to public office;
  • The “great replacement theory”, namely the conspiracy theory that there is a cabal seeking to eliminate native Europeans through immigration; this is usually blamed on Jewish people, who “control the world”;
  • Support for US imperialism, on occasion.

Race-based psychosis

Remember when these types had to say that immigrants were responsible for the vast majority of crimes to successfully agitate? That’s no longer necessary. They have lowered the bar even more (all the way down to hell).

Today it’s completely acceptable to incite hatred or even violence based on skin colour alone. It’s not what people are presumed to do, their culture or even their immigration status, necessarily; if they are anything but white, they don’t belong in the country. Skin colour reveals that they, their parents or ancestors were not native to the formerly 100% white country and that is enough.

A few years ago, this rhetoric was not acceptable; right-wing politicians chose their words carefully. Not even people like Farage were careless enough to talk about whiteness. This was reserved for swastika-bearing extreme elements no one wanted to touch with a ten foot pole. Likewise, the Great Replacement theory was the apanage of nutcases like Alex Jones, among stories about reptilians, satanic rituals and whatnot. This is blood and soil discourse. Nothing less. However, some of these people deny being fascist; some even with righteous indignation.

Most, of course, claim they are alarmed by current levels of immigration, particularly through the asylum seeking process and refugee status.

Riddle me this: if only preoccupied with recent arrivals, why do they have a problem with people of colour running for office? To run for office, one must be a citizen, therefore naturalised through a long process. They just don’t like brown faces on candidacy posters and say it openly. It doesn’t matter whether the person was born and raised there or has been there for decades, or how competent they are. They will always be perceived as an invader because of their skin colour.

In these people’s heads, it’s like turning the clock back 50 or 100 years. Give them 5 more years and they may just start running about with clubs and sporting animal skins, depending on how far back in time they want to travel.

Those who are more open about their white genocide psychosis are shocked and dismayed when ingenuously asked what the value of their whiteness is. What does it signify in the evolution of the species? Why is the lack of melanin, a geographical adaptation, so special, and the prospect of race mixing such anathema? How are their prospective offspring disadvantaged by race mixing? Mind you, it does not involve their lineage dying and disappearing – but merely looking less pasty.

Some of them know they can’t answer these questions without sounding batshit insane – which is why they don’t refer to their targets as non-white, but as “invaders” (regardless of how long they have been in the country), while whites are described as “natives”.

Mysticism is sometimes added (which the Nazis also imbued their delusions of grandeur with); the country’s history is glorified, going back hundreds or thousands of years, as if it should have any bearing on what people do in the 21st century. It’s an illusion of being special at the biological, cellular level, which calls for the blood to remain “pure”.

I’m slightly tempted to ask a hypothetical question in one of those cesspits of folie a plusieurs on YouTube: if you only had two choices of a mate, one being of a different race and the other being your cousin, what would your choice be? I already know the answer to that question.

“We’re not inciting”

Recently, I heard a public speaker endorse a political candidate whose platform is centred on getting rid of invaders. They claimed should the issue fail to be addressed asap, there would be a civil war that immigrants would definitely lose. Common sense translation: natives will attack them, immigrants won’t be able to defend themselves and they will be slaughtered in large numbers. “Including the good ones”.

While decrying this scenario, the public speaker focused on justifying the homicidal impulse and described such an attack as inevitable. Although one can’t refer to it as incitement, it certainly borders on it. When a person with a sizeable audience describes mass violence as inevitable, those wishing to commit it are emboldened. They are provided with moral justification.

It’s a case of we’ll try to get these people out, but if we don’t manage, we’ll have to kill them. This is my common sense interpretation, of course, and not this person’s exact words. Should this not be the national consensus overall – at least to this level – the person is either spending lots of time with homicidal maniacs, in an echo chamber, or is disingenuously creating a sense of panic to help someone get more votes. They might not even grasp the gravity of what they’re saying to the public. Alex Jones certainly didn’t.

If you think the Kool Aid smells tempting and are about to sip it, take a moment to think about what such people are calling you, implicitly. They’re calling you a fucking animal. They’re saying you are very likely to pick up a weapon and start hacking away at strangers based on their skin colour. Think about that for a second. If I were you, I would feel incredibly insulted.

The notion of stochastic terrorism implies the ability of those engaging in it to deny any responsibility, since they are usually not connected to the person/people committing violence against their target of choice. The moral responsibility, however, stares them in the face.

We need to differentiate between the usual issues with immigration, that some might have without ever contemplating anything close to homicide, and assuring an audience that war is coming, namely there will be mass death/ mass murder. Germinating this scenario in people’s minds is not normal.

Pro-life racists and genocide supporters…?

No such thing. Moving on.

On a serious note, it’s downright awful that this cause is being appropriated by some of the most hateful people and groups, in order to give a humanistic touch to their agendas. Unless someone values every human life, irrespective of any aspect (race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, immigration status etc.), they are not pro-life. End of story.

These people see threats to their existence in maternity wards and the prams of new mothers. Here’s an example (although if I remember correctly, this was from outside of Europe, perhaps Canada). There was a newspaper article about babies born on the 29th of February (leap year babies). Readers overwhelmingly focused on the skin tones of said babies, noting how none looked white enough, and flooded the comment section with such observations. If you can bring yourself to hate newborns based on their skin colour, spare me the right wing pro-life recital, as you do not value human life apart from that of your own community/nation/race.

Certain political candidates now speak openly bout the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. They are alarmed by the number of children members of ethnic minorities tend to have. Excuse me? Is that not their own ideal? Do these people not share the natalist ethos of right-wingers, which should be praised as an example to follow? Well, of course, that is their ideal, but only for whites. When other groups have children, it isn’t out of family values, religious devotion etc.: it’s to take over the country they have immigrated to. They are not allowed the normal mindset natives have in terms of family. Every single thing these people do is believed to have a sinister motive behind it, including the simple act of having sex and getting pregnant.

Would these so-called pro-lifers be against immigrant women getting abortions? Not likely, since some of them contemplate either mass deportation or mass murder.

The other issue is the actual reason they want to enforce blanket abortion bans – not only to increase the white population by design, but to utterly control women. As someone who is against abortion apart from logical exceptions, I acknowledge wholeheartedly that many men who claim to be pro-life are raging misogynists and would be/ actual abusers.

Draconian policies put in place by such people, like in the US and Poland, don’t give doctors the freedom to decide to act in an emergency to save the woman’s life, and women have died as a result, while others were investigated for miscarriages. This is pig-headed and surely to God laws can be agreed upon which take absolutely every scenario into consideration, making sure no one is subject to cruelty and injustice in terms of reproductive rights. Humans have landed on the Moon. We can do this. Thus far it seems to have been left to imbeciles and psychopaths on both sides, left or right.

“Social conservatives” who hate other social conservatives for their skin colour

Their social conservatism is a ploy; a mere list of buzzwords they know resonate with a large part of the population. At the forefront of these people’s intention is the aforementioned race-related psychosis, formerly the apanage of nutcases like Alex Jones, now commonplace among “patriots”. Had they placed equal importance on social conservatism, they would coalesce with ethnic minorities with the same ethos, towards scaling back what they see as excessive zeal from progressives.

This would be such a logical move that it makes my head hurt. Again, I’m not saying I want to see most of those changes take place; they are regressive; I’m just saying they’re absolute idiots, or better yet, they are only using these issues as an emotional hook.

Instead, they cry that Sharia Law is coming to the UK or Ireland. This scaremongering tactic dates back to the pre-Trump era, and what do you know: not only is Sharia Law not a concern for non-Muslims in 2024; society has moved at an incredible pace towards progressivism. One would think far-righters would be more sympathetic to Islam in terms of traditionalist views. After all, some of them want to ban gay marriage, make it more difficult for people to get a divorce and reinstate the rights of abusive men over their children.

The grift of pretending to be Christian

Some public speakers, YouTube creators etc. originate from different lines of thought altogether. Some were outspoken atheists a few years ago, priding themselves in their realism and logic, since turned cultural Christians for political reasons (like Dave Cullen). They, of course, do not embrace the message of Jesus Christ, as in love thy neighbour. They instead embrace the western superiority complex and racial supremacy.

These “Christians” tend to support the genocide in Gaza, which has to date killed at least 40.000 civilians and injured many tens of thousands more.

Anyone who truly believes or has ever truly believed in Jesus Christ would never in a million years endorse war, genocide, racial supremacy and anything in that putrid package. Hatred is unchristian. Homicidal hatred, particularly based on insane reasons such as people’s skin colour or ethnic origin, even more so.

These people aren’t Christian. Not in the real sense. How can someone be in a state of prayer on a regular basis and emerge out of it hating other people’s newborns as a threat to their own existence?

You may, of course, say that everyone has their understanding and the “no true Scotsman” fallacy applies. That’s fair enough. I can only say that what was supposed to happen did happen for me – a sense of complete harmony and merger with the world, a sense of humility, a sense that everyone was a sister or a brother and sheer faith that if one acts morally and with compassion, good will come out of it eventually. When you actually live the faith, this is natural. You don’t analyse it; it’s intrinsic to you. And I can’t deny that I very much miss it, as naive as it was. There is nothing wrong with the message of Jesus Christ, apart from making people more prone to being victims of predators. There is nothing internally damaging to them; it’s the complete opposite. Organised religion, of course, makes use of people’s faith to trap them, bully them, shame them undeservedly and whatnot.

If you have ever lived the faith, you will understand what I mean. There is no way these hateful, rageful, potentially violent, potentially murderous, egomaniacal individuals actually follow Jesus. Just NO.

Apologies for the personal rant. I know faith is a very personal issue; I hate it when it’s weaponised as an institution or communal identity for the sake of it. There are so many pretenders, so many fakes, who do this for political reasons. It’s cynical and extremely ugly – not to mention worthy of contempt.

Where do they actually stand on LGBT rights?

It’s hard to tell. On the one hand, they justifiably decry the treatment of LBGT people in Muslim theocracies, yet only to shit on Muslim communities in their own countries.

As soon as LGBT rights in their countries are discussed, the attitude shifts by 180 degrees, to “the left has gone too far”, and “we need to stop this madness” because it’s a “slippery slope”. Some want to ban gay marriage, while others are only concerned with gender ideology issues, some of which are indeed contentious for the normal (non-fascist) population, namely those involving life-altering procedures carried out on children, female prison safety and the like.

Do I think such people could ever handle the matter thoughtfully enough; empathetically? No. These people lack empathy altogether. They are cold-hearted. They are the Inquisition 2.0. No curiosity whatsoever as to people’s experiences and their inner landscape; no interest in what makes humans so varied in so many ways. Utterly anti-intellectual.

I end this rant with…

Apologies for leaving out names and groups; this crowd is very likely vicious (if they entertain the prospect of mass murder). One person involved, formerly known as a humanist, was a terrible disappointment. Words are futile.

Many thanks for reading all the way through. As Alan Watt, may he rest in peace, said many times, may your god or gods go with you.

May your conscience and rationality go with you, above all.