Why Don’t British Men Do Something?
... except, apparently, in Northern Ireland?
In response to the migroid atrocity du jour, one often hears Americans ask ‘why haven’t British men done anything?’, to which Americans will flatteringly reply to themselves, ‘It’s because those BRITCUCKS have gone SOFT, they gave up their GUNS like little BITCHES, but you won’t see anyone trying THAT in a SMALL TOWN.’ Which conveniently elides the awkward detail that American men, armed to the teeth as no other people on Earth, have allowed themselves to be pushed around this way and that since the sleep of the good Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior (PBUH) was disturbed by his little dream. ‘Just you wait,’ Americans will promise when this is pointed out, ‘The electric boogaloo will come any day now, you’ll see!’ Sure we will. In the meantime, all those guns have done precisely nothing to prevent the relentless incursions of Section 8 housing, disparate impact, affirmative action, DEI, anti-discrimination training, Title IX, human resources, and all the rest of the soft tyrannies that flew out of the Pandora’s box of America’s ersatz race communist constitution. There was no resistance to any of this. Heavily armed red state Americans abandoned the cities for the suburbs rather than standing and fighting for them, and then stolidly watched as their kids were sidelined in education and employment while being terrorized by black criminals.
American speech is protected by the first amendment and backstopped by the second, yet nevertheless you will not find many Americans daring to even so much as mutter the forbidden word of power. This is not because white Americans don’t understand the problems. They have developed an elaborate vocabulary of ‘bad neighbourhoods’ and ‘good schools’ and ‘urban crime’ and ‘troubled youth’ and so on and so forth with which to discuss, in whispers, after glancing twice over their shoulders, the realities of life in the USSA. There is no law against parrhesia, technically an American citizen may say whatever he pleases without consequence, but of course frank speech in this Greek sense requires courage by definition, and there has been a great shortage of that. You can say whatever you please, yes, of course, fill your boots, but you will find yourself ostracized, divorced, unemployed, and homeless if you speak too directly, so you know, shut up. The unspoken strictures of the longhouse are a more effective prison than iron bars for those whose spirits have been cowed.
Meanwhile, last week there was a minor uprising in Belfast. Hadi Alodid, a gentlemen of Sudanese extraction, enriched the face of Stephen Ogilvie, a local bloke with special needs, providing him with extensive tribal scarring in a generous act of cross-cultural exchange, and only claiming two of his eyes in payment. The entire incident was caught on video. Ogilvie’s life, though not his sight (and he was already hard of hearing) was saved by three Irish men who rushed in to beat the innocent Sudanese rocket surgeon off with their hurling sticks. In the aftermath, it emerged that Ogilvie had helped Alodid move in to his new accommodations just a few days before. No good deed, etc.
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control—
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
- The Stranger, Kipling
Belfast exploded the next day. Yes, I was surprised too. Not a city noted for its hard lads, Belfast.
The uprising was variously described as a protest and as a riot, but it was neither of these. A protest is when an angry crowd gathers to chant some slogans and wave around some signs, pretending that their numbers are a display of power, and deluding themselves that Power will redress their grievances because a noisy lump of quivering biomass is somehow intimidating to Power. A riot is an explosive release of emotional energy that results in some property destruction and futile confrontations with armoured riot police, typically ending with the rioters being rounded up and jailed. In some cases, it’s true, protests and riots appear to produce political change, but this is almost invariably because Power has orchestrated these little carnivals in order to sanctify the policies it’s already decided upon under the guise of ‘bowing’ to ‘pressure’ from the ‘public’. The Canadian government, by the way, has long since mastered a non-violent variant of this dark art: practically every ‘public policy research group’ in the country is funded by the government to pressure the government to do what the government already wants to do. Show me what Our Democracy looks like; this is what Our Democracy looks like.
There were no signs being waved around in Belfast, no chanting of slogans. While there was a great deal of violence, it was not random and senseless, but methodical and carefully targeted. It unfolded with the tight discipline of a coordinated military operation.
The day before the uprising started, a communique was sent out to local businesses, instructing them to close before the fun started. At the appointed hour loose formations of young men, indistinguishable in black hoodies, fanned out across the city.
Barricades were set up all over Belfast; these were lightly manned, reportedly often with minors, and seem to have been intended mainly to slow down the police. In a few places men in balaclavas established checkpoints, pulling out migrants when they found them and roughing them up.
Meanwhile, highly mobile groups of young men targeted houses, cars, and businesses known to belong to migrants, breaking their windows and firebombing them. When there were civilians inside, they evicted them first: as far as I’ve heard, no one was killed, or even hospitalized. By the time emergency services arrived on the scene they’d already moved on to the next targets.
There do not seem to have been many direct confrontations with riot squads. There were a few videos of small numbers of skirmishers lobbing bricks or petrol bombs at police vehicles while using wheelie bins to shield themselves from a water cannon. It looked like they were mainly trying to keep the police occupied, so that the real work could proceed unimpeded elsewhere.
These young men had no interest in providing fodder for the media cycle. They left their phones at home in order to avoid being tracked. They kept themselves masked, and were at pains to politely discourage bystanders from recording them.
This combination of identical black clothing, identity concealment, mobility, and property destruction are classic black bloc tactics. In North America black bloc is generally associated with Antifa, and as far I know, the tactical doctrine was first developed by anti-globalization activists at WTO meetings (remember when anti-globalization was a leftist position?), but tactics have no ideology: several years ago a Polish nationalist friend informed me that he’d participated in several black bloc actions against the police in Warsaw, back during the naughty oughties when Poland wasn’t as nationalistic as it has since become.
The violence was largely contained to Belfast’s Protestant neighbourhoods, strongholds of loyalist paramilitaries such as the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association. These were formed in response to the Irish Republican Army’s terrorism, as community defence organizations meant to deter incursions from Catholics, although they weren’t above reprisal attacks. The back and forth between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland is why Belfast is divided up by peace walls. Some of the paramilitaries’ leadership were seen on the streets, although they did not participate directly, and seemed to be just observing. Officially the paramilitaries played no part in orchestrating the violence, which is a line that both the paramilitaries and the police are sticking to, but then of course they would: the leadership isn’t about to confess to criminal activity, and the authorities much prefer a narrative of a spontaneous eruption of disorganized racist thuggery because that doesn’t imply that they don’t actually have a monopoly on violence in Belfast. My working assumption is that this is nonsense, and that the uprising was in fact organized by the loyalist paramilitaries.
A lot of people assumed that it was the Irish Republican Army reactivating, I think mainly because the only thing most Americans know about Northern Ireland is that it’s where the IRA was from, and they think the IRA is romantic. To the contrary, the IRA does not seem to have played any part in this, and indeed the IRA’s communist boomer leadership actively discouraged Belfast’s Catholics from taking part. They could not, however, motivate their people to actively interfere with the loyalists: the Catholics seem to have mostly watched (there were reports that some of their young men joined in the fun, but who knows).
The IRA was always a left-nationalist organization, and as such aligned itself with Marxist national liberation struggles, meaning that it consciously situated the struggle of the Northern Irish Catholics to leave the United Kingdom and join the Republic of Ireland with decolonization efforts in the third world. You can read about the factors driving Sinn Fein’s fall from grace in this very good article by Keith Woods. The ideological inertia of this stance has meant that, since the Good Friday Agreement, the IRA’s public-facing political wing, Sinn Fein, has steadily drifted into third worldism. As a result, Sinn Fein are now amongst the loudest cheerleaders of third world invasion. The corrupt old men at the IRA’s head were more incensed by ‘racism’ than they were by an Irish man having his face cut off, which, you know, part and parcel.
The loyalist paramilitaries, by contrast, were always implicitly reactionary and traditionalist. Where the IRA obtained its weaponry from the United States, the Soviet Union, and Libya, the UVF and UDA traded with South Africa, Rhodesia, and Israel. Now that nativism is associated with the far right, it is a much easier fit for the loyalists.
The uprising in Belfast was not nihilistic violence for the sake of violence, though I’ve no doubt the lads were enjoying the opportunity for mayhem. It was violence towards a specific political objective: driving the foreigners out. Migrants whose domiciles were destroyed were directly deprived of housing. Migrants who managed to avoid this were made to worry that they will be next. Landlords taking government money to house migrants, or even thinking about doing so, now need to worry about the immediate cost of repairs and the ongoing expense of higher insurance premiums, making the Home Office’s lucre a lot less attractive. Landlords also need to worry about escalation: reportedly, letters were circulated which heavily implied that bricks and petrol bombs were just the first step on the violence ladder, and that the paramilitaries would be quite happy to take more decisive measures against the landlords themselves should the message not be received.
All of this is very sad, and I don’t want to seem heartless. The immigrants whose houses were destroyed were probably innocent; there was one particularly touching video of a nurse from Ghana or somewhere. Unfortunately, that is the nature of these things. They were brought in by the government en masse as a form of biological warfare against the native population. The government wants them there, the people want them gone, and the government refuses to listen, so, this is what happens.
Only 27 migrants were actually made homeless by the arson, but reportedly, quite a few are already clearing out on their own. The British government quite naturally condemned the violence, organizing a rally against racism in the aftermath, but it also responded by instructing the media to emphasize that it would be cracking down on illegal immigration into Northern Ireland. Underneath the condemnation, there is a clear message to all of this: in this case, violence worked.
That message has been sent before in Northern Ireland. Exactly one year to the day before the uprising in Belfast, there were riots in the small town of Ballymena after the courts let two gypsy boys off with delicate wrist taps for raping an Irish girl. The rioting went on for two weeks, and resulted in two thirds of the gypsy population clearing out. Again: violence worked.
Contrast Ballymena with the other major British protest movement last summer: the anti-migrant hotel protest in Epping, a London exurb populated largely by Londoners driven out of their city by diversity, which started when one of the migrants diversified a teenage girl. In contrast to the eruption in Ballymena, the protest in Epping was explicitly non-violent: the only violence came at the hands of the cops arresting people for flying Union Jacks. The mothers of Epping spent months gathering outside the migrant hotel, holding signs and raising awareness. The council also fought the migrant hotel in the courts, and enjoyed early success when a judge found that the location was zoned as a hotel but not as a migrant dormitory, essentially telling the Home Office that they didn’t have a loicense for that. This legal victory was short-lived. The decision was overturned almost immediately by a higher court judge, who explicitly found that whatever the concerns of the people of Epping as to their children’s safety, these were outweighed by the human rights of the mystery meat that had washed up on Britain’s shores, and by the government’s interest in housing them. As a result, parallel lawsuits that had been launched by councils across the country were dropped. The migrant hotel in Epping was eventually shut down, but this likely had more to do with the government’s switch to ‘Operation Scatter’ in which migrants were garrisoned in smaller houses all over the country, rather than concentrated in a few large centres, than it did with the government responding to the concerns of British subjects.
In Ballymena and Belfast, violence worked; in Epping, peaceful protest did not.
The British establishment has spent the last thirty years driving this message home to its captive population.
The British people have voted for lower immigration in essentially every election since the British establishment destroyed Enoch Powell, and every government they’ve voted into power, whether Labour or Tory, has increased immigration. The British people have used social media to raise awareness of the problems caused by immigration, and the British establishment, whether Labour or Tory, responded by imprisoning more Britons for mean tweets in one year than the Soviet Politburo sent to gulags for political crimes throughout Brezhnev’s entire term. They’ve used the courts to try and defend their rights, and the British establishment responded, lol, you don’t have rights, immigrants do.
The British people have patiently pursued every avenue for peaceful redress of their grievances, and have been shut down at every turn by an establishment that doesn’t want to hear it.
As the Americans say, there are four boxes: soap box, jury box, ballot box, and ammo box. Whether the Brits as a whole can crack open the fourth box remains to be seen, though it seems some are trying. A lone arsonist firebombed the house of an imam in the English town of Bolton, using tactics very similar to those seen in Belfast.
The Ulster loyalists may well be a special case, and not only because they’re one of the only groups in the UK who almost certainly did not hand in their firearms. Decades of sectarian carnage honed their society into something uniquely suited to insurgency. They don’t seem to care very much what outsiders think of them or their methods. Their paramilitaries manage to balance clear chains of command alongside superb operational security: to this day MI5 has difficulty penetrating their ranks with informants. This requires close community bonds, high levels of interpersonal trust, extreme suspicion of outsiders, and a relaxed attitude towards extralegal violence in furtherance of community protection.
Such conditions are rare in the rest of the British peoples, who are comparatively atomized, making trust difficult, and who have been conditioned to abhor any expression of collective violence. Since violence is deplored, attempts to build paramilitary organizations tend to attract antisocial personality types, for whom the violence is the point, rather than concrete political objectives. These actually make quite poor foot soldiers.
Hey there. Are you enjoying this? I hope so, as I’ve spent quite a bit of time over the last several days composing it. Actually I started last week with an essay that was basically just about Belfast, but then by the time it was almost done decided that the news cycle had already moved on, so I scrapped it, but then I decided that maybe I could use the incident as a frame with which to examine the broader question of why European men have placidly allowed their countries to be taken from them, so I started from scratch and wrote this instead. I’ll get into that below, and really, I could be an absolute grifting asshole and put a paywall here, but I want people to actually read it because I am a VAIN asshole, and also I just feel weird charging people for my musings. Even if I have spent a ridiculous amount of time writing them up. Anyhow. In the end, I do actually need to eat, and I rely entirely on your generosity to do so.
The lads roaming about Belfast last week didn’t strike me as street thugs. Their numbers, coordination, and discipline rather suggested that they were by and large just ordinary young men engaged in what they saw as the legitimate defence of their community, rather than criminals out for a thrill. The violence was very carefully targeted at specific residential and commercial properties, with direct violence against people generally avoided (although there was at least one rather amusing exception in which a black streamer discovered that the racism he was in the process of farming attention for was actually quite real). The boys all obeyed the tactical rules, e.g. by keeping their faces covered. There was no looting. Perhaps most importantly, the violence ended quite abruptly after three days, exactly as if someone up the chain of command gave the order to stand down, and they all obeyed. Perhaps it was felt that the necessary message had been sent; perhaps there were quiet back-channel negotiations, which resulted in the leadership getting what they wanted, such as money, or a promise to redirect migrants away from Belfast.
Legitimacy is a key aspect to all of this. Non-criminal men do not tend to engage in organized violence unless they feel that they are justified in doing so, and not only personally: they must feel that the people whose opinions matter to them agree that they are justified. A great many men may understand that violence is the best or even the only solution, but unless they also sense that others feel the same way, they will not act. Men generally understand that lone wolf violence is politically pointless, and usually counterproductive, and so, unless they are paranoid schizophrenics, sociopaths, or simply very stupid, they do not engage in it. Men who have been organized for the purpose of collective violence will often refuse if they come to feel that their leadership is illegitimate. At the same time, men who harbour private doubts about the justification for organized violence will often carry it out if they believe that the authorities directing them are legitimately empowered to do so.
In the case of the Ulster paramilitaries, all three conditions seem to be fulfilled. The young men who conducted the pogrom were confident in the justice of their cause; they were confident that their community broadly shares their assessment; they perceived the paramilitary leadership as a legitimate authority. As a result, mobilizing them for action is possible, even easy, and as a result of that the British state finds that it must tread very lightly in Belfast.
In the broader United Kingdom, in the Republic of Ireland, and in Europe as a whole, these conditions do not exist. There are angry young men in abundance, and a great many of them would privately agree that violence has long since become the best solution to the problems inflicted by the treacherous political class. However, the broader society is split down the middle: many of the elderly, and many of the young women, are vocal enemies of their own civilization, and therefore of the young men who would defend it. Men correctly understand that if they act, they will be condemned both by authorities, and by the wider society; therefore they do not act.
None of this is to say that the established authorities themselves retain any legitimacy. Decades of betrayal have eroded this completely. Keir Starmer is the most despised prime minister in the history of constitutional monarchy, and the political mechanism he presides over is discredited. During the postwar era a social control infrastructure based largely on emotional manipulation was put into place, but lately this has broken down. The old scare words, ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, ‘Nazi’, and so on have lost their power, and it does not matter how loudly regimoids scream them. The legacy press is regarded as the lugenpresse, and outside of senior citizens is mostly ignored, except as fodder for outrage and mockery.
The regime’s more elaborate psychological operations are also failing to find purchase. In my discussion of the Henry Nowak affair, I speculated that there was almost certainly a British equivalent to America’s Community Relations Service, the ‘X-Files for Black Crime’ whose agents pressure the families of victims of interracial crimes to make conciliatory public statements in order to defuse community tensions. As it turns out I was correct: Britain’s CRS is the Research, Information, and Communications Unit.
As the Lotus Eaters’ Connor Tomlinson describes, RICU is the ‘Don’t Look Back In Anger’ unit, set up by a former MI6 agent to run interference for multicultural excesses. Their signature is ‘controlled spontaneity’, which really means ‘false spontaneity’: astroturfed events which provide the appearance of an organic movement in support of regime narratives. According to a whistleblower, RICU stage-managed the response to the Manchester arena bombing, in which the crowd at a candlelight vigil ‘spontaneously’ began singing the Oasis song ‘Don’t Look Back In Anger’. More recently they played a role in the public statement made by Henry Nowak’s father after his murderer was sentenced, and wrote the statement released by the family of Stephen Ogilvie, an especially hamfisted composition that took pains to praise migrants for their role in the hospitality industry, exactly matching the register of a memo from corporate in which you’d expect a family to speak after a savage cut their son’s face cut off.
Just as with Nowak, the British establishment attempted to use the statement from Ogilvie’s family to shame the outraged public into silence, and just as with Nowak, the result was to outrage the public further. Using a family’s grief over an atrocity as moral cover to damp down the natural anger at the atrocity, thereby making further atrocities more likely, is macabre, and once this ruse is understood, it can only backfire.
Another psyop tactic is to hold rallies in an effort to generate the appearance that the public is more horrified by the response to an atrocity than they are by the atrocity itself. They tried this in Belfast, gathering a few thousand paid protesters and grey-haired boomers together to stand up against racism. They tried it with Henry Nowak, sending Stand Up To Racism to yell at his memorial. They tried it in Epping. It always seems to fall flat now. People notice all the buses bringing the paid protesters in, the identical professionally printed signs, and the generally unsavouriness of the spiteful mutants and geriatrics who can still be rallied to the rainbow banner, and conclude that it is neither organic, nor something anyone respectable wants to be associated with. Rather than generating the illusion of popular support for the regime, these fake rallies tend to underline the very absence of organic support.
The regime’s narrative control system is observably failing in real time, but all this really means is that they lack the ability to move the hearts of the people.
So, a couple days ago Rupert Lowe’s insurgent nationalist party Restore Britain released its Rape Gang Inquiry Report. It has now been downloaded over a million times. The content is sickening, and the general sentiment is that it authorizes retribution of the sort typically described with adjectives such as ‘biblical’ and ‘medieval’, not only against the rapists themselves, but most especially against the officials who facilitated these war crimes. There is great appetite for heads on pikes. But of course, we have known of the Pakistani rape gangs for over twenty years, now, and so far nothing of the sort has happened. This indeed is one of the primary reasons that Americans mock their British counterparts as chestless cucks. “Why haven’t British men done anything?”
The truth, as the report makes clear, is that British men did try to do something, repeatedly, and were shut down hard at every turn by a state that treated their attempts at self-defence and justice as a worse threat than the rape of their daughters by foreign invaders. Individual fathers attempting to rescue their daughters from sexual bondage were given the runaround by the authorities, and were arrested when they got frustrated with official inaction and intervened directly, while the rapists themselves were left untouched. The rape gangs were of course completely unworried by the police, who they knew would treat them with kid gloves, but they were extremely worried about the English Defence League, who they knew quite well would not hesitate to kick the crap out of them. For a few years, at least. Until the full weight of the British security state crushed the EDL ... in rather sharp contrast to the community defence leagues organized by Sikhs, which the authorities turned a blind eye to, and which successfully used street violence to deter the Pakistanis from preying upon the daughters of the Punjab.
The point I’m making here is that the spirit of British men hasn’t been crushed to the point where they can’t resist. They can and do resist, as we just saw in Belfast, and as we saw last year in Ballymena, and as we saw the year before in Southport…
… and as we saw the year before that when things cooked off in Dublin …
The Day The Irish Snapped
The transnational ruling class has decided that humans are to be treated as a fungible resource, to be moved around the same way we transfer oil, cell phones, or liquid capital. Of course this doesn’t apply, yet, to every country. China, India, and Japan, for example, are famously exempt from th…
… and as we saw with the EDL, and as we’ve seen with innumerable isolated acts of individual resistance when British men take matters into their own hands to clock a dangerous migrant on the street or on the train.
The problem is not that Britain’s manly courage bled out in the trenches of the Great War, leaving behind a residue of flat feet, asthma, and cowardice in the gene pool. Nor is the availability of weaponry the primary problem: as we just saw in Belfast, you can ban guns, but glass bottles and gasoline are harder to get out of people’s hands. Hardware stores are full of improvised weaponry of every kind. Just ask your great-granddad about the common soldier’s ingenuity in the Great War.
The problem is fundamentally one of legitimacy. The duly appointed authorities are on the side of the invaders, and as of yet there is no widely recognized alternative authority to step into the moral vacuum left by the subversion of the state apparatus.
Absent such a recognized authority, resistance to the state’s depredations amounts to an atomic dust of angry individuals, who may be numerous and might take lots of individual actions but are utterly powerless to really change anything.
The state understands this quite well, which is why it acts to interrupt the formation of alternative centres of authority around which any kind of effective resistance can cohere.
I would not recommend trying to start such an organization. The loyalist paramilitaries got away with it because they were useful against the IRA, and therefore tolerated and even cultivated at arm’s length by the state. That is a very special case that will certainly not be replicated elsewhere in the modern Yookay. Any organization that tries to set itself up along these lines will immediately be subject to infiltration and its members arrested for participation in a terrorist hate group.
For now, conventional politics really is the best avenue to pursue, and not only because it’s the safest. The collapse of the regime’s sense-making apparatus has left it wide-open. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has been cleaning up in the local council elections, and is widely expected to form the next government. Lowe’s Restore Britain has galloped to the right of Reform, promising millions of mass deportations, the death penalty for rape gangs, the repeal of the managerial tyranny inflicted by New Labour, and all sorts of other great stuff; this is all very popular, and has forced Reform to move to the right itself. Restore has only been around for a few months, and has grown explosively, already reaching 100,000 members to become one of the largest parties in Britain. The moribund Conservative Party is shifting to the right in a desperate attempt to remain relevant. Even Labour has been forced to make overtures towards limiting immigration. There’s a critical mass of people now who simply do not care what names the regime gremlins call them, and this has the gremlins worried.
The trajectory on the Continent is similar. Germany’s AfD continues to grow in popularity. Social democrat parties in Scandinavia are restricting immigration. The European Parliament just voted to deport illegal immigrants to detention centres in third countries to chants of “Send them back!” from enthusiastic rightists, which occasioned great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the females and catamites on the other side of the issue, who felt very unsafe.
Electoral politics may fail in the end. There is a narrow window, perhaps ten to fifteen years, in which it is still possible for rightist, nativist, and populist parties to take power in Britain and other European countries, and commence the policies of peaceful, orderly, and thorough remigration necessary to avoid rivers of blood. After that, if present immigration and fertility trends continue, whites will be outnumbered. It’s entirely possible that the establishment will successfully avert defenestration via a combination of procedural manipulation and outright repression, holding back the tide of popular discontent just long enough for the invaders to become electorally dominant.
In that event, however, there will by that point be well-established political infrastructure which is avowedly and unashamedly pro-European. This would serve as the basis for precisely the kind of legitimacy-generating mechanism that could allow Europeans to ask one another whether the votes of foreigners in ‘national’ elections should count at all. If consensus is reached that the votes of invaders don’t count, organizing towards reconquista via other means would be a real possibility. The best means of turning this around is to take control of the state via conventional means; but if that fails, the very effort to do that will have built the foundation necessary to erect a parallel state that can supplant the occupation from within.
Thank you very much for investing your time and attention in my rambling speculations, which if nothing else I hope you found amusing. As always, I would especially like to thank those of you who invest in my writing in more direct turns, as without your treasured patronage I should have to wagecuck somewhere, which would mean submitting myself to the humiliations of human resources, which I am quite eager to avoid. Your support means a lot to me. It honestly never ceases to amaze me that you’ve made this possible.
While the cucked American society deserves lambasting... the very presence of all those gun owners in the USA has forced the Globalists to boil the frog far, far more slowly than they would have preferred.
Electorally dominant? Well, in that mythical place, "try that in Texas," Hindu and Muslim voters dominated a city election to squeeze out the white American candidate.
But I'd like to go back a little further in time. Many many years ago in the days of my innocence and civil rights romanticism I was nevertheless deeply troubled that busing was being forced upon communities as in Boston, because--and even I, then unmarried and childless--I understood that a community's safety and strength has its core in neighborhood schools.
But all my betters, those fine erudite men of conservative letters, all they did was get rich and richer from books and think tanks and now Boston is a fully-realized paradise for illegal alien scammers and the Democratic party which loves them, and not least because the fine Irishmen and women who were the backbone of Democratic party politics since forever were busy raising money for the IRA and gushing over them in Congress, etc. etc. and grifting and Irish mafia-ing etc. etc. etc. and here we are.
And with Trump the most successful actual Deporter-in-Chief of several lifetimes, the GOP is determined to cut his political nuts off before the midterms.
I'm glad the rightful men of Belfast acted and I'm further glad that the IRA is so publicly revealed to be the vile trash it always was. I had a colleague who was one of those Smith-educated daughters of the mythical Irish poet types--translation a drunk who managed to create four profoundly damaged children while making the NY literary crowd swoon over him--and who thought Gerry Adams was--oh, fill in the blanks yourselves. She was one of my betters too.
I really hope the tide will turn. All of us have to turn it though.