In October 2024, a British court convicted a man of praying silently. Not out loud. In his head. Three minutes of it, on a public street, standing behind a tree with his back to an abortion clinic, thinking about the son he’d lost to abortion twenty-two years earlier.

The police questioned him about the nature of his prayers. The local council — then being warned it was heading for bankruptcy — spent more than £90,000 of public money to secure the conviction. They made him pay another £9,000 in costs.

It was the first conviction for silent prayer in British history.

Here’s the thing you need to understand before anything else: that’s not the worst case. It’s one of the mild ones. I’m starting with the mild ones on purpose, because the strength of the pattern isn’t in the outrages — it’s in how ordinary the targets are.

Four people who broke no reasonable rule

A charity worker in Birmingham, December 2022. She’d spent twenty years volunteering with women in crisis pregnancies. Police arrested her on a public street after she said she “might” be silently praying. Acquitted February 2023. Arrested *again* in March. Paid £13,000 in compensation by West Midlands Police in August 2024. Charged a third time in December 2025 under new buffer-zone law. For standing on a footpath, possibly thinking.

Jordan Peterson, August 2023. Ontario’s Divisional Court ruled that the College of Psychologists could order him into mandatory social-media re-education — at his own expense — or lose his licence. The trigger was tweets about contested political topics. The Court of Appeal refused to hear it. The Supreme Court of Canada refused the final appeal.

Dr My Le Trinh, a Sydney GP of twenty-seven years with not one prior complaint. Suspended in September 2021 on the basis of an anonymous “John Smith” complaint whose email bounced, whose phone was disconnected, whose address was blank — and which the regulators wouldn’t confirm was real. The evidence attached was a prescription she’d left at her local pharmacy, which the pharmacy says was collected directly by the regulator’s own agents. “John Smith” had no lawful way to get that document. Which means the complainant was inside the regulator. The case went ahead anyway.

None of these people said or did anything a reasonable person would call threatening, harassing, violent, or dangerous. None had any criminal history. And every power used against them — the protection orders, the licensing boards, the buffer-zone laws — was sold to the public on a promise. The promise was that these powers would be aimed at genuine threats. Real harm. Public order.

The architecture was sold as protection against serious harm. It is being used against silent prayer, social-media posts, and people expressing religious belief on a street corner. The gap between what it was sold as and what it actually does — that’s the thing to be explained.

It’s not four cases. It’s the whole machine.

If it were four cases, you could call it bad luck. It isn’t four cases.

Australia’s Section 18C bans speech that “offends” or “insults” on racial grounds. Thirty years on, its biggest scalps are a conservative columnist (Andrew Bolt), some university students who objected to being told to leave a computer lab because of their race, and a cartoonist (Bill Leak) for a drawing about parental responsibility. It has never been turned on an academic department hostile to Anglo students, Islamic extremists, or on any left-wing publication’s editorial line.

Britain’s Public Order Act and Communications Act now generate around thirty arrests a day for things people said — roughly twelve thousand a year, up from 7,734 in 2019. A parallel system of “non-crime hate incidents” has logged over 133,000 citizens in police files since 2014, including children too young to be charged with anything. These same laws have not come down with equal weight on marchers openly chanting for the death of Jews, or clerics preaching execution for leaving Islam, or academics calling to dismantle “whiteness.”

Canada’s old Section 13 tribunal, before it was repealed in 2013, became an instrument used almost entirely against right-wing speech — with a near-perfect conviction rate.

Australia’s ABC operates under a legal charter requiring impartiality. Review after review has found systemic editorial drift on climate, immigration, Indigenous policy, Israel-Palestine. The charter isn’t enforced. It’s interpreted — by an institution staffed almost entirely from one side.

And it keeps going: charity commissions, registration boards, university discipline panels, platform moderation, immigration discretion, the curriculum authority in every English-speaking country. Same direction, every time.

Two things are happening at once

Most people who notice this reach for one of two explanations. Either “they’re operating in bad faith, and we’re playing fair” — the moral story. Or “vague rules always get captured by whoever staffs the enforcement” — the structural story. Both have something to them. Neither, on its own, is enough.

What’s actually happening is two separate asymmetries running at the same time, and feeding each other.

The first is about motivation, and you can see it just by reading the news. One coalition treats getting and using institutional power as the whole point. The other — for reasons of temperament, internal disagreement, fear of the press, or genuine principle — mostly doesn’t. So even when conservatives hold the offices, they don’t drive them the way their opponents do.

The second runs underneath, and it’s the one almost nobody talks about. Vague rules have to be interpreted. Interpretation needs interpreters. And the people who fill those interpretive jobs — the tribunal members, the ombudsmen, the commissioners, the senior officials — come out of credentialing pipelines that have leaned one way for two generations, into an information world that leans the same way across journalism, the universities, the professional bodies, and the NGOs. So even the sincere ones, the genuinely fair-minded ones, produce one-directional results. Their whole sense of what counts as fair, neutral, harmful, or legitimate was shaped by an environment that filtered out one set of starting assumptions before they ever sat down to decide.

These two don’t pull against each other. They compound. The motivational gap means nobody pushes back. The structural gap means the baseline output is already tilted before anyone would push. Fix one and leave the other, and the machine keeps producing exactly what it produces now.

The rule book looks neutral. The referees are not.

That’s the whole problem in one line, and it’s why writing another column about hypocrisy changes nothing. Hypocrisy isn’t the mechanism. Structure is.

So the real question isn’t “why are they so brazen?” It’s two questions, and they have different answers. Why does one side never use the power it holds? And why does the machine tilt even when the person operating it is honest?

Part 2 takes the first one: why conservatives, handed the same levers, keep declining to pull them — and why the rare moments they do (Florida under DeSantis, Washington under Trump) get treated as the end of democracy rather than as someone finally playing by the established rules.

This is Part 1 of a four-part series adapted from the Prothean Institute brief “Nothing Left to Conserve.”

In October 2024, a British court convicted a man of praying silently. Not out loud. In his head. Three minutes of it, on a public street, standing behind a tree with his back to an abortion clinic, thinking about the son he’d lost to abortion twenty-two years earlier.

The police questioned him about the nature of his prayers. The local council — then being warned it was heading for bankruptcy — spent more than £90,000 of public money to secure the conviction. They made him pay another £9,000 in costs.

It was the first conviction for silent prayer in British history.

Here’s the thing you need to understand before anything else: that’s not the worst case. It’s one of the mild ones. I’m starting with the mild ones on purpose, because the strength of the pattern isn’t in the outrages — it’s in how ordinary the targets are.

Four people who broke no reasonable rule

A charity worker in Birmingham, December 2022. She’d spent twenty years volunteering with women in crisis pregnancies. Police arrested her on a public street after she said she “might” be silently praying. Acquitted February 2023. Arrested *again* in March. Paid £13,000 in compensation by West Midlands Police in August 2024. Charged a third time in December 2025 under new buffer-zone law. For standing on a footpath, possibly thinking.

Jordan Peterson, August 2023. Ontario’s Divisional Court ruled that the College of Psychologists could order him into mandatory social-media re-education — at his own expense — or lose his licence. The trigger was tweets about contested political topics. The Court of Appeal refused to hear it. The Supreme Court of Canada refused the final appeal.

Dr My Le Trinh, a Sydney GP of twenty-seven years with not one prior complaint. Suspended in September 2021 on the basis of an anonymous “John Smith” complaint whose email bounced, whose phone was disconnected, whose address was blank — and which the regulators wouldn’t confirm was real. The evidence attached was a prescription she’d left at her local pharmacy, which the pharmacy says was collected directly by the regulator’s own agents. “John Smith” had no lawful way to get that document. Which means the complainant was inside the regulator. The case went ahead anyway.

None of these people said or did anything a reasonable person would call threatening, harassing, violent, or dangerous. None had any criminal history. And every power used against them — the protection orders, the licensing boards, the buffer-zone laws — was sold to the public on a promise. The promise was that these powers would be aimed at genuine threats. Real harm. Public order.

The architecture was sold as protection against serious harm. It is being used against silent prayer, social-media posts, and people expressing religious belief on a street corner. The gap between what it was sold as and what it actually does — that’s the thing to be explained.

It’s not four cases. It’s the whole machine.

If it were four cases, you could call it bad luck. It isn’t four cases.

Australia’s Section 18C bans speech that “offends” or “insults” on racial grounds. Thirty years on, its biggest scalps are a conservative columnist (Andrew Bolt), some university students who objected to being told to leave a computer lab because of their race, and a cartoonist (Bill Leak) for a drawing about parental responsibility. It has never been turned on an academic department hostile to Anglo students, Islamic extremists, or on any left-wing publication’s editorial line.

Britain’s Public Order Act and Communications Act now generate around thirty arrests a day for things people said — roughly twelve thousand a year, up from 7,734 in 2019. A parallel system of “non-crime hate incidents” has logged over 133,000 citizens in police files since 2014, including children too young to be charged with anything. These same laws have not come down with equal weight on marchers openly chanting for the death of Jews, or clerics preaching execution for leaving Islam, or academics calling to dismantle “whiteness.”

Canada’s old Section 13 tribunal, before it was repealed in 2013, became an instrument used almost entirely against right-wing speech — with a near-perfect conviction rate.

Australia’s ABC operates under a legal charter requiring impartiality. Review after review has found systemic editorial drift on climate, immigration, Indigenous policy, Israel-Palestine. The charter isn’t enforced. It’s interpreted — by an institution staffed almost entirely from one side.

And it keeps going: charity commissions, registration boards, university discipline panels, platform moderation, immigration discretion, the curriculum authority in every English-speaking country. Same direction, every time.

Two things are happening at once

Most people who notice this reach for one of two explanations. Either “they’re operating in bad faith, and we’re playing fair” — the moral story. Or “vague rules always get captured by whoever staffs the enforcement” — the structural story. Both have something to them. Neither, on its own, is enough.

What’s actually happening is two separate asymmetries running at the same time, and feeding each other.

The first is about motivation, and you can see it just by reading the news. One coalition treats getting and using institutional power as the whole point. The other — for reasons of temperament, internal disagreement, fear of the press, or genuine principle — mostly doesn’t. So even when conservatives hold the offices, they don’t drive them the way their opponents do.

The second runs underneath, and it’s the one almost nobody talks about. Vague rules have to be interpreted. Interpretation needs interpreters. And the people who fill those interpretive jobs — the tribunal members, the ombudsmen, the commissioners, the senior officials — come out of credentialing pipelines that have leaned one way for two generations, into an information world that leans the same way across journalism, the universities, the professional bodies, and the NGOs. So even the sincere ones, the genuinely fair-minded ones, produce one-directional results. Their whole sense of what counts as fair, neutral, harmful, or legitimate was shaped by an environment that filtered out one set of starting assumptions before they ever sat down to decide.

These two don’t pull against each other. They compound. The motivational gap means nobody pushes back. The structural gap means the baseline output is already tilted before anyone would push. Fix one and leave the other, and the machine keeps producing exactly what it produces now.

The rule book looks neutral. The referees are not.

That’s the whole problem in one line, and it’s why writing another column about hypocrisy changes nothing. Hypocrisy isn’t the mechanism. Structure is.

So the real question isn’t “why are they so brazen?” It’s two questions, and they have different answers. Why does one side never use the power it holds? And why does the machine tilt even when the person operating it is honest?

Part 2 takes the first one: why conservatives, handed the same levers, keep declining to pull them — and why the rare moments they do (Florida under DeSantis, Washington under Trump) get treated as the end of democracy rather than as someone finally playing by the established rules.

This is Part 1 of a four-part series adapted from the Prothean Institute brief “Nothing Left to Conserve.”

Have you noticed that so-called “anti-racism” campaigns, supposedly designed to end racism, sound admirable in theory, but almost always function the same way in practice?

While cloaked in the euphemistic language of diversity, equity, and inclusion, these sorts of things often smuggle in assumptions drawn from the failed and fraudulent ideologies of Marxism and Critical Race Theory.

Rather than treating “racism” as an individual issue, they reframe society as the struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, and that, largely defined by race. As a result, “anti-racism” initiatives often appear less concerned with eliminating racial discrimination than with redistributing it.

This is because, at the heart of their worldview, racism is not primarily understood as an individual vice but as a systemic condition. Beneath this lies an implicitly Lockean view of human nature: that people are fundamentally the same, and that the differences we observe between individuals and groups are ultimately the product of environment, upbringing, and social circumstances rather than any deeper distinctions.

As such, because Western institutions were historically built and governed by White-majority populations, those institutions are presumed to be inherently racist, as it is argued, every institution disproportionately favours its founding group—especially if that founding group is White.

Thus, any and all disparity in outcomes between racial groups is often treated as evidence of discrimination and racial inequality. And yet, if unequal representation is automatically assumed proof of prejudice, then the same logic could be applied to virtually any visible characteristic—not just racial heritage.

If people with brown hair occupied a disproportionate number of leadership positions, would that prove society systematically favoured brunettes? Most people would reject this as absurd. And yet, whenever race is involved, many are expected to accept precisely the same argument.

That’s why so many of these “anti-racist” initiatives appear less interested in raising people up than cutting successful people down.

The influence of this worldview can also be seen throughout our public institutions. Policymakers, bureaucrats, academics, and senior officials frequently argue that disparities between racial groups are evidence of systemic injustice and that institutions must actively work to correct those imbalances.

In recent decades, concepts such as “institutional racism,” “intergenerational trauma,” “White privilege,” and “systemic discrimination” have become embedded in the language of government agencies, police forces, universities, and large corporations. The assumption underlying these initiatives is that historical injustices continue to shape present-day outcomes and that race-conscious policies are therefore necessary to achieve equity.

Concepts such as “White privilege,” “White fragility,” and “systemic racism” are often deployed within an anti-White framework that interprets social and political life through the relationship between dominant and subordinate groups. As such, their practical effect is to encourage institutions to judge people less as individuals and more as members of racial categories that can be reduced to two: White and non-White.

What this approach does, however, is shift society away from equal treatment under the law and towards differential treatment based on group identity. Once institutions begin viewing individuals primarily through the lens of “oppressed” and “oppressing” race, the Christian principle of impartiality becomes impossible to maintain.

As such, so-called “anti-racism” campaigns often resemble efforts to impose equal misery rather than eliminate imagined discrimination. Instead of judging individuals according to their own merit, they assign collective guilt and collective innocence, and seek to treat people based on law and policy.

While it is sold as an effort to “level the playing field,” in practice, it does the opposite. It doesn’t balance the scales; it disproportionately disadvantages White men under the guise of racial equality—its propagators admit as much when they use terms like “reverse racism.”

Reversing racism is not synonymous with ending racism. To reverse racism is to discriminate against those deemed responsible for racism, or against those said to benefit from it. And of course, under the dominant anti-White narrative of our age, that category consists exclusively of White people.

For decades, we’ve been told that society is built around systems that favour Whites. We’ve heard endless warnings about White privilege, White supremacy, White fragility, White power, and every other variation of the same.

So, if the problem is a system that allegedly benefits White people, then “reversing” that system necessarily means disadvantaging White people. It’s just legitimising and legalising the mistreatment of White people in their own homelands.

That is what many anti-racist policies increasingly amount to—not equality before the law, but race-conscious discrimination justified in the name of historical correction.

History offers little reason for optimism whenever societies begin sorting citizens into categories of collective guilt and collective innocence. These systems do not reduce division—they deepen it.

And this is what we are seeing across the Western world today. Across Britain, Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, anti-White policies are becoming increasingly common in public institutions, corporations, and educational systems.

But it’s not only that these policies are unjust, many have also warned they’re creating the very conditions for future conflict. The irony here is that what is introduced in the name of racial harmony may very well end up producing the opposite effect. When institutions openly favour some groups and disadvantage others on the basis of their race, resentment will inevitably accumulate. When that bleeds into law enforcement, the resentment is intensified.

People will tolerate many things, but they rarely put up with unequal treatment indefinitely. History offers us little reason to believe these arrangements end peacefully. In fact, we know that societies become profoundly unstable when citizens are divided into categories of collective guilt and collective innocence, privileged and oppressor. So, far from healing supposed racial tensions, “anti-racism” policies risk intensifying resentment.

Once collective guilt and collective victimhood become the organising principles of public life, racial division becomes a certainty. The path being pursued across much of the Western world is therefore not one of reconciliation but of increasing racial division, suspicion, grievance, and resentment—on all parts.

It is a dangerous experiment, and it’s one that risks turning Western nations into powder kegs and leaving future generations just one spark away from the devastating consequences—if it holds out that long.

Have you noticed that so-called “anti-racism” campaigns, supposedly designed to end racism, sound admirable in theory, but almost always function the same way in practice?

While cloaked in the euphemistic language of diversity, equity, and inclusion, these sorts of things often smuggle in assumptions drawn from the failed and fraudulent ideologies of Marxism and Critical Race Theory.

Rather than treating “racism” as an individual issue, they reframe society as the struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, and that, largely defined by race. As a result, “anti-racism” initiatives often appear less concerned with eliminating racial discrimination than with redistributing it.

This is because, at the heart of their worldview, racism is not primarily understood as an individual vice but as a systemic condition. Beneath this lies an implicitly Lockean view of human nature: that people are fundamentally the same, and that the differences we observe between individuals and groups are ultimately the product of environment, upbringing, and social circumstances rather than any deeper distinctions.

As such, because Western institutions were historically built and governed by White-majority populations, those institutions are presumed to be inherently racist, as it is argued, every institution disproportionately favours its founding group—especially if that founding group is White.

Thus, any and all disparity in outcomes between racial groups is often treated as evidence of discrimination and racial inequality. And yet, if unequal representation is automatically assumed proof of prejudice, then the same logic could be applied to virtually any visible characteristic—not just racial heritage.

If people with brown hair occupied a disproportionate number of leadership positions, would that prove society systematically favoured brunettes? Most people would reject this as absurd. And yet, whenever race is involved, many are expected to accept precisely the same argument.

That’s why so many of these “anti-racist” initiatives appear less interested in raising people up than cutting successful people down.

The influence of this worldview can also be seen throughout our public institutions. Policymakers, bureaucrats, academics, and senior officials frequently argue that disparities between racial groups are evidence of systemic injustice and that institutions must actively work to correct those imbalances.

In recent decades, concepts such as “institutional racism,” “intergenerational trauma,” “White privilege,” and “systemic discrimination” have become embedded in the language of government agencies, police forces, universities, and large corporations. The assumption underlying these initiatives is that historical injustices continue to shape present-day outcomes and that race-conscious policies are therefore necessary to achieve equity.

Concepts such as “White privilege,” “White fragility,” and “systemic racism” are often deployed within an anti-White framework that interprets social and political life through the relationship between dominant and subordinate groups. As such, their practical effect is to encourage institutions to judge people less as individuals and more as members of racial categories that can be reduced to two: White and non-White.

What this approach does, however, is shift society away from equal treatment under the law and towards differential treatment based on group identity. Once institutions begin viewing individuals primarily through the lens of “oppressed” and “oppressing” race, the Christian principle of impartiality becomes impossible to maintain.

As such, so-called “anti-racism” campaigns often resemble efforts to impose equal misery rather than eliminate imagined discrimination. Instead of judging individuals according to their own merit, they assign collective guilt and collective innocence, and seek to treat people based on law and policy.

While it is sold as an effort to “level the playing field,” in practice, it does the opposite. It doesn’t balance the scales; it disproportionately disadvantages White men under the guise of racial equality—its propagators admit as much when they use terms like “reverse racism.”

Reversing racism is not synonymous with ending racism. To reverse racism is to discriminate against those deemed responsible for racism, or against those said to benefit from it. And of course, under the dominant anti-White narrative of our age, that category consists exclusively of White people.

For decades, we’ve been told that society is built around systems that favour Whites. We’ve heard endless warnings about White privilege, White supremacy, White fragility, White power, and every other variation of the same.

So, if the problem is a system that allegedly benefits White people, then “reversing” that system necessarily means disadvantaging White people. It’s just legitimising and legalising the mistreatment of White people in their own homelands.

That is what many anti-racist policies increasingly amount to—not equality before the law, but race-conscious discrimination justified in the name of historical correction.

History offers little reason for optimism whenever societies begin sorting citizens into categories of collective guilt and collective innocence. These systems do not reduce division—they deepen it.

And this is what we are seeing across the Western world today. Across Britain, Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, anti-White policies are becoming increasingly common in public institutions, corporations, and educational systems.

But it’s not only that these policies are unjust, many have also warned they’re creating the very conditions for future conflict. The irony here is that what is introduced in the name of racial harmony may very well end up producing the opposite effect. When institutions openly favour some groups and disadvantage others on the basis of their race, resentment will inevitably accumulate. When that bleeds into law enforcement, the resentment is intensified.

People will tolerate many things, but they rarely put up with unequal treatment indefinitely. History offers us little reason to believe these arrangements end peacefully. In fact, we know that societies become profoundly unstable when citizens are divided into categories of collective guilt and collective innocence, privileged and oppressor. So, far from healing supposed racial tensions, “anti-racism” policies risk intensifying resentment.

Once collective guilt and collective victimhood become the organising principles of public life, racial division becomes a certainty. The path being pursued across much of the Western world is therefore not one of reconciliation but of increasing racial division, suspicion, grievance, and resentment—on all parts.

It is a dangerous experiment, and it’s one that risks turning Western nations into powder kegs and leaving future generations just one spark away from the devastating consequences—if it holds out that long.

It’s been said, “The Left will always win because they have something the Right doesn’t: unity.”

It’s true. The so-called “Left” is more than happy to align itself with Islamists, Hindus, refugees, immigrants, environmentalists, atheists, radical feminists, LGBTQAI++ activists, abortionists, trade unions, anti-capitalists, globalists, and countless other groups that often share little in common beyond one crucial point—a point that makes all the difference.

One clear reason the Left can appear more unified than the Right is that it is often bound together not by a coherent shared vision for some ideal good, but rather by a shared hatred. That is, by a common sense of what or who constitutes the central social problem to be confronted, dismantled, and defeated.

The Right, on the other hand, is generally more united around ideals, principles, and standards. While a wide range of varying groups can all agree on what they oppose, finding agreement on what should replace it is much more difficult. And that is how those on the Right often define themselves, not merely by what they are against, but what they seek to establish or restore.

On the other hand, when dismantlement and destruction become the chief purpose, there’s no shortage of potential allies. That is why the Left has so little problem siding with those who would fundamentally oppose them in any other context.

Of course, they don’t have the same ultimate vision of the world, but they share a common foe and a common hurdle that is preventing them from ever reaching their desired outcome. Whatever their “eutopian vision” of the world may be, Western civilisation—or more precisely, Christianity stands in their way.

There are countless ways to dismantle or undermine a Christian society, and that creates broad opportunities for cooperation between groups that otherwise would have very little in common. Differences are put aside, provided they are all working in some way to the same destructive end.

We often mock the unity of our opponents with memes like “Chickens for KFC,” but if both the chickens and the restaurant become convinced they share a common enemy, then the old saying proves true: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

On the Right, the dispute usually centres on the remedy. Even when there's agreement that cultural decline exists, there's often significant disagreement about the primary cause and the necessary cure.

As a result, the Right tends to be far more fragmented than the Left. While their standards may differ on the Right, and even if, only to a small degree, each faction generally believes its own standards are higher—and that the abandonment of those standards is the chief cause of the cultural and social decline they seek to reverse.

This is the reality in which we operate—and, whether it’s a good thing or not, it leaves the Right at a significant disadvantage. “Divided we fall,” as it’s said. The more pressing question, then, is not whether differences exist or even whether they matter, but whether they can be properly ordered, and at times, overlooked for the greater good?

If there is genuine agreement on the nature of the cultural crisis, then the first task is not to resolve every internal disagreement we might have, but to recognise what is at stake in failing to act in unity at all. Movements rarely succeed by achieving perfect ideological harmony in advance. They succeed by identifying a shared measure of concern that compels cooperation despite remaining differences.

On that basis, the issue is not whether all factions of the Right can or should become identical in outlook, but whether they are capable of subordinating secondary disputes to a more immediate and common task.

We don’t need to put aside internal debate; it simply cannot be allowed to become so paralysing that we are virtually ineffective. It would just be ensuring our own death by a thousand factions.

Perhaps the better way to think about it is what comes first. What issues must be dealt with together now, and what disagreements can wait until later without putting at risk the civilisation, culture, and institutions that all factions say they want to preserve?

It’s been said, “The Left will always win because they have something the Right doesn’t: unity.”

It’s true. The so-called “Left” is more than happy to align itself with Islamists, Hindus, refugees, immigrants, environmentalists, atheists, radical feminists, LGBTQAI++ activists, abortionists, trade unions, anti-capitalists, globalists, and countless other groups that often share little in common beyond one crucial point—a point that makes all the difference.

One clear reason the Left can appear more unified than the Right is that it is often bound together not by a coherent shared vision for some ideal good, but rather by a shared hatred. That is, by a common sense of what or who constitutes the central social problem to be confronted, dismantled, and defeated.

The Right, on the other hand, is generally more united around ideals, principles, and standards. While a wide range of varying groups can all agree on what they oppose, finding agreement on what should replace it is much more difficult. And that is how those on the Right often define themselves, not merely by what they are against, but what they seek to establish or restore.

On the other hand, when dismantlement and destruction become the chief purpose, there’s no shortage of potential allies. That is why the Left has so little problem siding with those who would fundamentally oppose them in any other context.

Of course, they don’t have the same ultimate vision of the world, but they share a common foe and a common hurdle that is preventing them from ever reaching their desired outcome. Whatever their “eutopian vision” of the world may be, Western civilisation—or more precisely, Christianity stands in their way.

There are countless ways to dismantle or undermine a Christian society, and that creates broad opportunities for cooperation between groups that otherwise would have very little in common. Differences are put aside, provided they are all working in some way to the same destructive end.

We often mock the unity of our opponents with memes like “Chickens for KFC,” but if both the chickens and the restaurant become convinced they share a common enemy, then the old saying proves true: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

On the Right, the dispute usually centres on the remedy. Even when there's agreement that cultural decline exists, there's often significant disagreement about the primary cause and the necessary cure.

As a result, the Right tends to be far more fragmented than the Left. While their standards may differ on the Right, and even if, only to a small degree, each faction generally believes its own standards are higher—and that the abandonment of those standards is the chief cause of the cultural and social decline they seek to reverse.

This is the reality in which we operate—and, whether it’s a good thing or not, it leaves the Right at a significant disadvantage. “Divided we fall,” as it’s said. The more pressing question, then, is not whether differences exist or even whether they matter, but whether they can be properly ordered, and at times, overlooked for the greater good?

If there is genuine agreement on the nature of the cultural crisis, then the first task is not to resolve every internal disagreement we might have, but to recognise what is at stake in failing to act in unity at all. Movements rarely succeed by achieving perfect ideological harmony in advance. They succeed by identifying a shared measure of concern that compels cooperation despite remaining differences.

On that basis, the issue is not whether all factions of the Right can or should become identical in outlook, but whether they are capable of subordinating secondary disputes to a more immediate and common task.

We don’t need to put aside internal debate; it simply cannot be allowed to become so paralysing that we are virtually ineffective. It would just be ensuring our own death by a thousand factions.

Perhaps the better way to think about it is what comes first. What issues must be dealt with together now, and what disagreements can wait until later without putting at risk the civilisation, culture, and institutions that all factions say they want to preserve?

A petition calling for the arrest of the police officers who handcuffed 18-year-old Henry Nowak after he was stabbed has attracted more than 200,000 signatures since its launch.

The petition states, that on December 3, 2025, officers arriving at the scene failed to recognise that Nowak, an accountancy student at the University of Southampton, was the real victim and instead placed him in handcuffs as he lay critically wounded.

Police body camera footage captured Nowak telling officers that he had been stabbed, to which one officer can be heard responding, “I don’t think you have, mate.”

The petition claims police instead accepted the account given by Nowak’s attacker at the scene, who accused Nowak of being “racist,” an accusation later rejected in court.

The court found Vickrum Digwa guilty of Nowak’s murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The petition argues that the verdict has established that Nowak was innocent and that the officers who attended the scene failed in their duty to provide assistance.

“The lie [Digwa] told that night has been completely rejected by a jury and a judge,” the petition states. “Henry was innocent. He was the victim. And the officers who were supposed to help him failed him completely.”

While the incident is under investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), the petition notes that the officers who handcuffed Nowak are being treated as witnesses rather than suspects. It also claims that one officer has resigned while three others remain in active service.

Campaigners say this is inadequate and are calling for criminal proceedings against the officers involved in the arrest. The petition urges the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Secretary to consider charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence, and dereliction of duty.

Signatories are also demanding that the IOPC publish its final report in full, without redactions.

The petition also cites Nowak’s father, Mark Nowak, who said his family should no longer have to fight for answers.

“Henry’s father, Mark, has said his family should not have to fight for the truth anymore,” the petition states. “He’s right. They shouldn’t.”

You can view the petition here.

A petition calling for the arrest of the police officers who handcuffed 18-year-old Henry Nowak after he was stabbed has attracted more than 200,000 signatures since its launch.

The petition states, that on December 3, 2025, officers arriving at the scene failed to recognise that Nowak, an accountancy student at the University of Southampton, was the real victim and instead placed him in handcuffs as he lay critically wounded.

Police body camera footage captured Nowak telling officers that he had been stabbed, to which one officer can be heard responding, “I don’t think you have, mate.”

The petition claims police instead accepted the account given by Nowak’s attacker at the scene, who accused Nowak of being “racist,” an accusation later rejected in court.

The court found Vickrum Digwa guilty of Nowak’s murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The petition argues that the verdict has established that Nowak was innocent and that the officers who attended the scene failed in their duty to provide assistance.

“The lie [Digwa] told that night has been completely rejected by a jury and a judge,” the petition states. “Henry was innocent. He was the victim. And the officers who were supposed to help him failed him completely.”

While the incident is under investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), the petition notes that the officers who handcuffed Nowak are being treated as witnesses rather than suspects. It also claims that one officer has resigned while three others remain in active service.

Campaigners say this is inadequate and are calling for criminal proceedings against the officers involved in the arrest. The petition urges the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Secretary to consider charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence, and dereliction of duty.

Signatories are also demanding that the IOPC publish its final report in full, without redactions.

The petition also cites Nowak’s father, Mark Nowak, who said his family should no longer have to fight for answers.

“Henry’s father, Mark, has said his family should not have to fight for the truth anymore,” the petition states. “He’s right. They shouldn’t.”

You can view the petition here.

Liz Truss, branded by the BBC as Britain’s shortest-serving Prime Minister, isn’t fading into obscurity the way the bloated bureaucracy might have hoped.

Truss became PM in 2022 after once-conservative all-star Boris Johnson was booted by his party, allegedly due to multiple scandals.

The biggest of which was Johnson’s supposed COVID-19 lockdown breaches. Something he often refers to as “Partygate.”

Johnson has since quit politics entirely, insinuating that he was usurped.

If Liz Truss’s own 10 Downing Street experience is on the level, Johnson’s claim isn’t outside the realm of probability.

Speaking with TalkTV’s Jeremy Kyle last month, Truss dropped a proverbial bomb on the bureaucracy, stating, “When you are a junior minister or a cabinet minister, you do not have that much power to change things.”

You either go along to get along, she explained, or you resign.

For instance, she said, “I argued against all the net-zero stuff. I argued against all the environmental regulation stuff.”

Truss was (and still is) opposed to Environmental Social Governance (ESG) policies, solely because they’re damaging Britain.

She also pushed for bigger defence budgets and reduced migration, only to be strong-armed by what Truss has labelled elsewhere as “Treasury Orthodoxy”.

The “officials in the Treasury, the unelected bureaucrats, are incredibly powerful,” Truss told Kyle.

“When I was Prime Minister, I wanted to restrain welfare spending. I wanted to get fracking.

“I thought that when/if I get to be PM, I can call the shots.”

Not so, Truss continued.

“I then discovered, actually, I can’t. Because there are people there determined to continue with the same failed ideology.”

Sheepish, if not opposing her policies outright, Truss said, the bureaucrats
“created a deliberate narrative, saying, ‘She’s got the wrong ideas. She’s done things too quickly.”

They considered her budget too “chaotic.”

It wasn’t, Truss asserted. They just didn’t like it.

Being undermined from within, Truss recalled, wasn’t something she found out about until she was no longer in office.

There was no time to investigate it all, she clarified.

Most of her opponents, Truss said, were people who wanted Rishi Sunak (then a backbencher at the time) to run the country.

They wanted Rishi. The goal was to push through policies like “mass migration, net zero etc.”

The enemy was within.

“I had two different forces I was fighting,” Truss said.

“One was the permanent bureaucracy (something Nigel Farage calls ‘the blob’ – swamp; deep state), and the other was people in the conservative party, who didn’t actually support Conservative policies.”

They used the Bank of England tripping market chaos at the time to undermine confidence in her leadership and “get rid of me”, Truss added.

Describing the unelected bureaucracy as permanent bureaucrats, she said, “That’s the way they operated.

“The only thing I’d done wrong was actually underestimate just how vicious and conniving they are.”

In the case of the current Labour Government, Truss described Keir Starmer as a “weak individual.”

“The decision-making is driven by the permanent bureaucrats in Britain, and you can see that on everything. It’s in the foreign office, the home office, and the treasury.”

Truss then stated that the last one is the “most powerful of the lot.”

Citing scandals, she said, “These people aren’t elected. That is the deep system problem we have in Britain.

“These people are ideologically opposed to the kind of change Britain needs,” Truss explained.

“The problems are deeper than just the political parties.

“We need a mass movement that wants to change the country to take on the blob that has been ruining Britain.”

Adding to her argument, Truss said, “It’s not just about parties, it’s about ideas.”

Talking about the need for “bold leadership.”

“I’m seeing too much status quoism.”

Stating that she knew there was a problem with the bureaucracy (blob), she just didn’t know it was that bad, Truss explosively declared:

“That’s what I discovered at 10 Downing Street. The elected Prime Minister is not the most powerful person in the country.”

Liz Truss, branded by the BBC as Britain’s shortest-serving Prime Minister, isn’t fading into obscurity the way the bloated bureaucracy might have hoped.

Truss became PM in 2022 after once-conservative all-star Boris Johnson was booted by his party, allegedly due to multiple scandals.

The biggest of which was Johnson’s supposed COVID-19 lockdown breaches. Something he often refers to as “Partygate.”

Johnson has since quit politics entirely, insinuating that he was usurped.

If Liz Truss’s own 10 Downing Street experience is on the level, Johnson’s claim isn’t outside the realm of probability.

Speaking with TalkTV’s Jeremy Kyle last month, Truss dropped a proverbial bomb on the bureaucracy, stating, “When you are a junior minister or a cabinet minister, you do not have that much power to change things.”

You either go along to get along, she explained, or you resign.

For instance, she said, “I argued against all the net-zero stuff. I argued against all the environmental regulation stuff.”

Truss was (and still is) opposed to Environmental Social Governance (ESG) policies, solely because they’re damaging Britain.

She also pushed for bigger defence budgets and reduced migration, only to be strong-armed by what Truss has labelled elsewhere as “Treasury Orthodoxy”.

The “officials in the Treasury, the unelected bureaucrats, are incredibly powerful,” Truss told Kyle.

“When I was Prime Minister, I wanted to restrain welfare spending. I wanted to get fracking.

“I thought that when/if I get to be PM, I can call the shots.”

Not so, Truss continued.

“I then discovered, actually, I can’t. Because there are people there determined to continue with the same failed ideology.”

Sheepish, if not opposing her policies outright, Truss said, the bureaucrats
“created a deliberate narrative, saying, ‘She’s got the wrong ideas. She’s done things too quickly.”

They considered her budget too “chaotic.”

It wasn’t, Truss asserted. They just didn’t like it.

Being undermined from within, Truss recalled, wasn’t something she found out about until she was no longer in office.

There was no time to investigate it all, she clarified.

Most of her opponents, Truss said, were people who wanted Rishi Sunak (then a backbencher at the time) to run the country.

They wanted Rishi. The goal was to push through policies like “mass migration, net zero etc.”

The enemy was within.

“I had two different forces I was fighting,” Truss said.

“One was the permanent bureaucracy (something Nigel Farage calls ‘the blob’ – swamp; deep state), and the other was people in the conservative party, who didn’t actually support Conservative policies.”

They used the Bank of England tripping market chaos at the time to undermine confidence in her leadership and “get rid of me”, Truss added.

Describing the unelected bureaucracy as permanent bureaucrats, she said, “That’s the way they operated.

“The only thing I’d done wrong was actually underestimate just how vicious and conniving they are.”

In the case of the current Labour Government, Truss described Keir Starmer as a “weak individual.”

“The decision-making is driven by the permanent bureaucrats in Britain, and you can see that on everything. It’s in the foreign office, the home office, and the treasury.”

Truss then stated that the last one is the “most powerful of the lot.”

Citing scandals, she said, “These people aren’t elected. That is the deep system problem we have in Britain.

“These people are ideologically opposed to the kind of change Britain needs,” Truss explained.

“The problems are deeper than just the political parties.

“We need a mass movement that wants to change the country to take on the blob that has been ruining Britain.”

Adding to her argument, Truss said, “It’s not just about parties, it’s about ideas.”

Talking about the need for “bold leadership.”

“I’m seeing too much status quoism.”

Stating that she knew there was a problem with the bureaucracy (blob), she just didn’t know it was that bad, Truss explosively declared:

“That’s what I discovered at 10 Downing Street. The elected Prime Minister is not the most powerful person in the country.”

Sergeant Benedict Bryant, the Sydney police officer found guilty of dangerous driving causing death after an Indigenous teenager riding a stolen motorcycle collided with his parked police vehicle, has been sentenced to a two-year Intensive Corrections Order (ICO), including 500 hours of community service.

An ICO allows eligible offenders to serve a prison sentence of up to two years in the community under strict supervision.

Every ICO demands that the offender commit no new offences and submit to strict supervision by a Community Corrections officer. Under these rules, the offender must report to their supervisor as directed and strictly obey all instructions regarding where they live, who they associate with, what jobs they hold, and any mandatory rehabilitation or drug and alcohol testing.

What’s more, courts must attach at least one extra condition—such as a curfew, home detention, electronic monitoring, or up to 750 hours of community service work—making an ICO a highly restrictive community-based sentence.

Judge Jane Culver handed down the sentence for the death of 16-year-old Jai Kalani Wright. In her ruling, Judge Culver found that Bryant ought to have known the teenager would ride in a dangerous manner to avoid apprehension.

However, she also noted that Bryant “honestly but mistakenly” believed the teen could not travel beyond the end of the bike lane. The judge acknowledged that Bryant’s intention was to intercept the rider and that he had “no idea” Wright was going to strike the bollard at the end of the lane.

Judge Culver further noted that Bryant is of good character, has a limited criminal and traffic history, and has served the community over several decades.

Speaking outside court following Friday’s sentencing, Bryant’s lawyer, Paul McGirr, confirmed the decision would be appealed and said “a lot of police and members of the community will be shaking their heads at this decision”.

“This decision fails the pub test,” he said.

“I don’t want to add grief to the family, a life has been lost. … I’m not trying to rub salt to the wounds, (but) if people were at home not doing home invasions and stealing vehicles, we wouldn’t be here.

“This matter is far from over and my client … (is) going to fight for justice to be delivered.”

Following the sentencing, an active police officer told Caldron Pool the outcome could have far-reaching consequences for frontline policing.

According to the officer, the decision may discourage police from responding to incidents under lights and sirens or pursuing offenders in stolen vehicles.

“Who will want to do either,” the officer said, “if, when things go wrong, you’re the one who ends up with a prison sentence?”

The officer argued that the ruling could affect not only individual officers but the broader culture of policing in Australia.

“Nurses and teachers go on strike for better pay and conditions,” the officer added. “Should police go on strike too, so they don’t risk being sent to prison for doing their job? How would the public feel about that?”

Bryant has served on Sydney’s frontline since 1999 and has been stationed at Redfern since 2008. During that time, he has worked with vulnerable members of the community, mentored younger officers, and responded to situations many would find confronting.

The legal proceedings have already placed a significant financial burden on Bryant and his young family. Bryant supports his wife, two children, and his mother-in-law, who suffers from advanced dementia. He has personally spent approximately $130,000 on legal expenses, with appeals and potential retrials expected to cost many thousands more.

Following the initial sentencing, a fundraiser was established to assist Bryant and his family with mounting legal costs. The campaign was launched by retired NSW Police Chief Inspector Paul Fownes APM OAM.

It is the second fundraiser Fownes has organised on Bryant’s behalf. The first campaign, which raised more than $57,000, was removed by the hosting platform within 24 hours, and all donations were refunded.

According to the platform, the fundraiser breached its Terms of Service, specifically Section 8.10, which prohibits fundraising for the legal defence of criminal offences, including murder, assault, and offences against minors.

You can view the fundraiser here.

Sergeant Benedict Bryant, the Sydney police officer found guilty of dangerous driving causing death after an Indigenous teenager riding a stolen motorcycle collided with his parked police vehicle, has been sentenced to a two-year Intensive Corrections Order (ICO), including 500 hours of community service.

An ICO allows eligible offenders to serve a prison sentence of up to two years in the community under strict supervision.

Every ICO demands that the offender commit no new offences and submit to strict supervision by a Community Corrections officer. Under these rules, the offender must report to their supervisor as directed and strictly obey all instructions regarding where they live, who they associate with, what jobs they hold, and any mandatory rehabilitation or drug and alcohol testing.

What’s more, courts must attach at least one extra condition—such as a curfew, home detention, electronic monitoring, or up to 750 hours of community service work—making an ICO a highly restrictive community-based sentence.

Judge Jane Culver handed down the sentence for the death of 16-year-old Jai Kalani Wright. In her ruling, Judge Culver found that Bryant ought to have known the teenager would ride in a dangerous manner to avoid apprehension.

However, she also noted that Bryant “honestly but mistakenly” believed the teen could not travel beyond the end of the bike lane. The judge acknowledged that Bryant’s intention was to intercept the rider and that he had “no idea” Wright was going to strike the bollard at the end of the lane.

Judge Culver further noted that Bryant is of good character, has a limited criminal and traffic history, and has served the community over several decades.

Speaking outside court following Friday’s sentencing, Bryant’s lawyer, Paul McGirr, confirmed the decision would be appealed and said “a lot of police and members of the community will be shaking their heads at this decision”.

“This decision fails the pub test,” he said.

“I don’t want to add grief to the family, a life has been lost. … I’m not trying to rub salt to the wounds, (but) if people were at home not doing home invasions and stealing vehicles, we wouldn’t be here.

“This matter is far from over and my client … (is) going to fight for justice to be delivered.”

Following the sentencing, an active police officer told Caldron Pool the outcome could have far-reaching consequences for frontline policing.

According to the officer, the decision may discourage police from responding to incidents under lights and sirens or pursuing offenders in stolen vehicles.

“Who will want to do either,” the officer said, “if, when things go wrong, you’re the one who ends up with a prison sentence?”

The officer argued that the ruling could affect not only individual officers but the broader culture of policing in Australia.

“Nurses and teachers go on strike for better pay and conditions,” the officer added. “Should police go on strike too, so they don’t risk being sent to prison for doing their job? How would the public feel about that?”

Bryant has served on Sydney’s frontline since 1999 and has been stationed at Redfern since 2008. During that time, he has worked with vulnerable members of the community, mentored younger officers, and responded to situations many would find confronting.

The legal proceedings have already placed a significant financial burden on Bryant and his young family. Bryant supports his wife, two children, and his mother-in-law, who suffers from advanced dementia. He has personally spent approximately $130,000 on legal expenses, with appeals and potential retrials expected to cost many thousands more.

Following the initial sentencing, a fundraiser was established to assist Bryant and his family with mounting legal costs. The campaign was launched by retired NSW Police Chief Inspector Paul Fownes APM OAM.

It is the second fundraiser Fownes has organised on Bryant’s behalf. The first campaign, which raised more than $57,000, was removed by the hosting platform within 24 hours, and all donations were refunded.

According to the platform, the fundraiser breached its Terms of Service, specifically Section 8.10, which prohibits fundraising for the legal defence of criminal offences, including murder, assault, and offences against minors.

You can view the fundraiser here.

United States Vice President J.D. Vance has commented on the murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who died after being handcuffed by police while bleeding from fatal stab wounds inflicted by a man who accused him of racism.

In a post on X, Vance described the circumstances surrounding Nowak’s death as symbolic of a broader civilisational decline.

“Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies: abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit,” Vance wrote.

“His murder is as tragic as it is enraging. He should still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.”

The Vice President argued that Nowak’s death was not an isolated incident, warning that similar tragedies would continue unless political leaders changed course.

“Henry was far from the first to so needlessly lose his life, and I fear he won’t be the last,” he said.

“Each time a life like his is lost, the proper response—the only response—is righteous anger.”

Vance pointed to the Trump administration’s immigration policies as evidence that governments can take action if they choose to do so.

“One of the most important things the Trump administration has proven to the world is that stopping the flow of mass migration and defending national sovereignty is a matter of political will and leadership,” he wrote.

“Anything else is an excuse.”

The Vice President framed opposition to mass migration as an expression of patriotism and civilisational loyalty.

“It is because we love the West that we want to preserve it,” Vance said.

“We love our civilization. We love our country. We love our children. And nobody—nobody—should ever die the way that Henry Nowak died.

“May God comfort those who loved him, and may God rest his soul,” he said.

United States Vice President J.D. Vance has commented on the murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, who died after being handcuffed by police while bleeding from fatal stab wounds inflicted by a man who accused him of racism.

In a post on X, Vance described the circumstances surrounding Nowak’s death as symbolic of a broader civilisational decline.

“Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies: abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit,” Vance wrote.

“His murder is as tragic as it is enraging. He should still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.”

The Vice President argued that Nowak’s death was not an isolated incident, warning that similar tragedies would continue unless political leaders changed course.

“Henry was far from the first to so needlessly lose his life, and I fear he won’t be the last,” he said.

“Each time a life like his is lost, the proper response—the only response—is righteous anger.”

Vance pointed to the Trump administration’s immigration policies as evidence that governments can take action if they choose to do so.

“One of the most important things the Trump administration has proven to the world is that stopping the flow of mass migration and defending national sovereignty is a matter of political will and leadership,” he wrote.

“Anything else is an excuse.”

The Vice President framed opposition to mass migration as an expression of patriotism and civilisational loyalty.

“It is because we love the West that we want to preserve it,” Vance said.

“We love our civilization. We love our country. We love our children. And nobody—nobody—should ever die the way that Henry Nowak died.

“May God comfort those who loved him, and may God rest his soul,” he said.

A fundraiser has been launched for Australian comedian Lisa Jane Spencer after she was subjected to an online and media pile-on that escalated into a doxxing campaign, following a short comedy sketch she posted on her social media accounts.

The offending gag, which targeted White Australians who identify solely as Indigenous, briefly showed Spencer sniffing from a petrol can, which left-wing lynch mobs seized on, branding it a “racist stereotype.”

Mainstream news outlets also fanned the flames of manufactured outrage, with virtually every outlet clutching at their pearls. Activists then doxxed Spencer, revealing her workplace and pressuring her employer to fire her. They did.

But it seems like the furore may backfire, as a fundraiser was soon after established, which has since raised more than $26,000 in less than 24 hours, and shows little sign of slowing. The GiveSendGo campaign, set up by a friend of Spencer’s, notes that she relied on her income to live, and urges supporters to “rally behind Spencer to demonstrate that free expression and good comedy cannot simply be cancelled by the far-Left.”

It’s not a question of whether you find the sketch funny. The point is whether people should be financially destroyed over a joke that offended the sensibilities of perpetually outraged online mobs and a mainstream media often willing to throw fuel on the pyre.

But what makes the whole thing all the more frustrating to watch is the obvious hypocrisy and double standard at play in Australia.

Today, it’s not only permitted but often applauded to mock and denigrate White Australians and their history. Remember this disgraceful skit from the taxpayer-funded ABC portraying Australia’s founders as genocidal maniacs?

White Australians are routinely described as murderous, land-thieving colonisers, as inheritors of guilt, and as illegitimate occupants of their own country. Every major event opens with an “acknowledgement” that White Australians don’t belong in the country their ancestors built for them.

National symbols are vandalised. Monuments are defaced. The flag is burned. Every Australia Day, there are “Invasion Day” marches that feature slogans like “Death to Australia,” “Abolish Australia,” and “Watch Out, Whites”—and this rarely, if ever, gets any media attention.

What about the violent anti-Australia posters that were circulating a year or two ago, depicting an Aboriginal woman spearing a White man in the throat with the caption, “Dead coloniser harms no one.”

And that’s to say nothing about the anti-Christian parodies on public display at every Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade. Remember this abomination?

It would seem White Australians are fair game. They can be abused, ridiculed, stereotyped, and collectively blamed without provoking the slightest concern. But the moment a White Australian makes a harmless joke involving a recognised stereotype, suddenly, there is national outrage. The perpetrator must be publicly lynched, flogged, and stripped of their livelihood.

What’s tolerated towards White Australia is unforgivable when returned, even if at less than half the force. Of course, the outrage isn’t serious. It’s entirely manufactured and works only as a justification to cancel anyone and everyone who transgresses the bounds of the approved political narrative.

So, as we’ve said before: Do not take unserious accusations seriously. When they accuse you of something, especially if it’s something they’re guilty of themselves, brush it off, carry on, and while you’re at it, why not donate to the Support Lisa Jane Spencer fundraiser?

Let their cancel-culture campaign backfire every single time.

A fundraiser has been launched for Australian comedian Lisa Jane Spencer after she was subjected to an online and media pile-on that escalated into a doxxing campaign, following a short comedy sketch she posted on her social media accounts.

The offending gag, which targeted White Australians who identify solely as Indigenous, briefly showed Spencer sniffing from a petrol can, which left-wing lynch mobs seized on, branding it a “racist stereotype.”

Mainstream news outlets also fanned the flames of manufactured outrage, with virtually every outlet clutching at their pearls. Activists then doxxed Spencer, revealing her workplace and pressuring her employer to fire her. They did.

But it seems like the furore may backfire, as a fundraiser was soon after established, which has since raised more than $26,000 in less than 24 hours, and shows little sign of slowing. The GiveSendGo campaign, set up by a friend of Spencer’s, notes that she relied on her income to live, and urges supporters to “rally behind Spencer to demonstrate that free expression and good comedy cannot simply be cancelled by the far-Left.”

It’s not a question of whether you find the sketch funny. The point is whether people should be financially destroyed over a joke that offended the sensibilities of perpetually outraged online mobs and a mainstream media often willing to throw fuel on the pyre.

But what makes the whole thing all the more frustrating to watch is the obvious hypocrisy and double standard at play in Australia.

Today, it’s not only permitted but often applauded to mock and denigrate White Australians and their history. Remember this disgraceful skit from the taxpayer-funded ABC portraying Australia’s founders as genocidal maniacs?

White Australians are routinely described as murderous, land-thieving colonisers, as inheritors of guilt, and as illegitimate occupants of their own country. Every major event opens with an “acknowledgement” that White Australians don’t belong in the country their ancestors built for them.

National symbols are vandalised. Monuments are defaced. The flag is burned. Every Australia Day, there are “Invasion Day” marches that feature slogans like “Death to Australia,” “Abolish Australia,” and “Watch Out, Whites”—and this rarely, if ever, gets any media attention.

What about the violent anti-Australia posters that were circulating a year or two ago, depicting an Aboriginal woman spearing a White man in the throat with the caption, “Dead coloniser harms no one.”

And that’s to say nothing about the anti-Christian parodies on public display at every Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade. Remember this abomination?

It would seem White Australians are fair game. They can be abused, ridiculed, stereotyped, and collectively blamed without provoking the slightest concern. But the moment a White Australian makes a harmless joke involving a recognised stereotype, suddenly, there is national outrage. The perpetrator must be publicly lynched, flogged, and stripped of their livelihood.

What’s tolerated towards White Australia is unforgivable when returned, even if at less than half the force. Of course, the outrage isn’t serious. It’s entirely manufactured and works only as a justification to cancel anyone and everyone who transgresses the bounds of the approved political narrative.

So, as we’ve said before: Do not take unserious accusations seriously. When they accuse you of something, especially if it’s something they’re guilty of themselves, brush it off, carry on, and while you’re at it, why not donate to the Support Lisa Jane Spencer fundraiser?

Let their cancel-culture campaign backfire every single time.

Gustave Doré’s “The Triumph of Christianity Over Paganism” (1868) is one of the most iconic paintings in Christendom.

The artwork depicts Jesus Christ towering above a chaotic heap of powerless pagan deities. It is a portrait symbolising the defeat of the demonic pagan realm through the spread of the Gospel, thus highlighting the supremacy of Christ over the pagan pantheon.

This was not a concept invented by Doré. Indeed, throughout the New Testament, Jesus was portrayed as being superior to the pantheon of Roman deities in a way that would have been unmistakable to the Greco-Roman mind. Below is a list demonstrating this concept, though it is by no means exhaustive, and some instances even overlap.

1. Authority over Poseidon/Neptune: By calming the sea and walking on water, Jesus demonstrated control over the natural elements said to be governed by Poseidon (Greek) or Neptune (Roman). In Mark 4:35-41, Jesus calms a storm on the Sea of Galilee with a word. Later, he walks on water, and in so doing, further shows his superior authority over the realm of the sea and the gods within.

2. Authority over Hades/Pluto: Throughout his ministry, Jesus raised several individuals from the dead, including Lazarus (John 11:1-44), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:21-43), and the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11-17). Each of these miracles demonstrated his power over Hades (Greek) or Pluto (Roman), who were regarded as the rulers of the underworld. Jesus’ own resurrection further affirmed his ultimate victory and authority over death itself.

3. Authority over Asclepius: Healing the sick was a central aspect of Jesus’ ministry. He restored sight to the blind (John 9:1-12), cleansed lepers (Luke 17:11-19), and healed the paralysed (Mark 2:1-12). In doing so, he displayed greater power than Asclepius, the Greco-Roman god of medicine and healing.

4. Authority over Demeter/Ceres: When Jesus miraculously multiplied food, feeding the 5,000 (John 6:1-14) and later the 4,000 (Mark 8:1-10), he demonstrated authority over agriculture and abundance. These were domains traditionally associated with Demeter (Greek) or Ceres (Roman).

5. Authority over lesser deities and spirits: In Greco-Roman belief, minor deities or daimones influenced human affairs, sometimes possessing individuals. By casting out demons, as seen in Mark 5:1-20, Jesus demonstrated his dominion over these spirits, rebuking them with a word.

6. Authority over Zeus/Jupiter: Zeus (Greek) or Jupiter (Roman) was revered as the god of the sky, thunder, and storms. Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4:39) demonstrated that he held ultimate power over these elements, thereby demonstrating superiority over the chief god of the Greco-Roman pantheon.

7. Authority over Thanatos: In his resurrection (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20), Jesus triumphed over death itself. In Greco-Roman mythology, death was personified as Thanatos. Jesus’ rising from the dead demonstrated that he had complete authority over life and death.

8. Authority over Dionysus/Bacchus: At the wedding in Cana, Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1-11), an act that directly challenged the power of Dionysus (Greek) or Bacchus (Roman), the god of wine and revelry. Jesus displayed that his creative authority far surpassed that of this widely worshipped deity.

9. Authority over Artemis/Diana and Pan: Jesus’ miracles affecting nature, such as cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21), demonstrated his power over Artemis (Greek) or Diana (Roman), the goddess of the wilderness, and Pan, who governed wild places and flocks.

10. Authority over Athena/Minerva: Wisdom was personified in Athena (Greek) or Minerva (Roman). However, Jesus’ teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), revealed that he was the true source of wisdom and knowledge, surpassing even these revered goddesses.

11. Authority over Apollo: Jesus referred to himself as “the light of the world” (John 8:12), positioning himself above Apollo, the Greco-Roman god of the sun, prophecy, and enlightenment. Jesus’ claim made clear that he was the ultimate source of truth and illumination.

12. Authority over Ares/Mars: The Greco-Roman world exalted Ares (Greek) or Mars (Roman) as the god of war. Jesus, however, preached peace and sacrifice, subverting the traditional concept of victory. His triumph was not through violence but through self-sacrifice, challenging the authority of Ares/Mars in a profound way.

The list goes on, and yet, this theme of God’s triumph over false deities is not unique to the New Testament. A similar confrontation between battling gods occurred during the ten plagues of Egypt, each of which targeted a significant Egyptian deity.

Exodus 12:12 states, “On all the gods of Egypt, I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.” In this, God declared war on the Egyptian deities, and in so doing, vividly demonstrated that not one of the false Egyptian gods was able to deliver them from the true and living God. These were not random acts of judgement, but a systematic dismantling of the false gods of Egyptian paganism.

Once again, there is overlap, but broadly speaking, the plagues and their demonic counterparts were as follows:

1. Water Turned to Blood (Exodus 7:14-25): This plague demonstrated the Lord’s authority over Hapi, the god of the Nile, and Khnum, the god of the Nile’s source.

2. Frogs (Exodus 8:1-15): The overwhelming presence of frogs showcased God’s dominance over Heket, the goddess of fertility, often depicted as a frog.

3. Gnats (Exodus 8:16-19): Turning dust into gnats displayed power over Geb, the god of the earth, and Heka, associated with magic, as Egyptian magicians failed to replicate the miracle.

4. Flies (Exodus 8:20-32): The swarming flies demonstrated authority over Khepri, the god of creation, often depicted as a scarab beetle.

5. Livestock Pestilence (Exodus 9:1-7): The disease striking cattle challenged Hathor, a goddess associated with sacred cows.

6. Boils (Exodus 9:8-12): The affliction of boils displayed superiority over Sekhmet, the goddess of healing and medicine.

7. Hail (Exodus 9:13-25): The destructive hailstorm challenged Nut, the goddess of the sky.

8. Locusts (Exodus 10:1-20): The devastation of crops demonstrated power over Seth, the god of chaos, and Osiris, associated with agriculture and fertility.

9. Darkness (Exodus 10:21-29): The three days of darkness showed dominance over Ra, the sun god.

10. Death of the Firstborn, Heir to the Throne (Exodus 11:1-10; 12:29-32): The final plague struck at Pharaoh himself, believed to embody Horus, the god of kingship and dynastic rule.

Indeed, as Jeremiah prophesied, “Thus shall you say to them: ‘The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.’” (Jer. 10:11)

Both the New and the Old Testament accounts highlight a recurring theme: the triumph of the true God over false gods and pagan deities. Truly, Christ alone is Victor, and Christianity has triumphed over paganism.

Gustave Doré’s “The Triumph of Christianity Over Paganism” (1868) is one of the most iconic paintings in Christendom.

The artwork depicts Jesus Christ towering above a chaotic heap of powerless pagan deities. It is a portrait symbolising the defeat of the demonic pagan realm through the spread of the Gospel, thus highlighting the supremacy of Christ over the pagan pantheon.

This was not a concept invented by Doré. Indeed, throughout the New Testament, Jesus was portrayed as being superior to the pantheon of Roman deities in a way that would have been unmistakable to the Greco-Roman mind. Below is a list demonstrating this concept, though it is by no means exhaustive, and some instances even overlap.

1. Authority over Poseidon/Neptune: By calming the sea and walking on water, Jesus demonstrated control over the natural elements said to be governed by Poseidon (Greek) or Neptune (Roman). In Mark 4:35-41, Jesus calms a storm on the Sea of Galilee with a word. Later, he walks on water, and in so doing, further shows his superior authority over the realm of the sea and the gods within.

2. Authority over Hades/Pluto: Throughout his ministry, Jesus raised several individuals from the dead, including Lazarus (John 11:1-44), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:21-43), and the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11-17). Each of these miracles demonstrated his power over Hades (Greek) or Pluto (Roman), who were regarded as the rulers of the underworld. Jesus’ own resurrection further affirmed his ultimate victory and authority over death itself.

3. Authority over Asclepius: Healing the sick was a central aspect of Jesus’ ministry. He restored sight to the blind (John 9:1-12), cleansed lepers (Luke 17:11-19), and healed the paralysed (Mark 2:1-12). In doing so, he displayed greater power than Asclepius, the Greco-Roman god of medicine and healing.

4. Authority over Demeter/Ceres: When Jesus miraculously multiplied food, feeding the 5,000 (John 6:1-14) and later the 4,000 (Mark 8:1-10), he demonstrated authority over agriculture and abundance. These were domains traditionally associated with Demeter (Greek) or Ceres (Roman).

5. Authority over lesser deities and spirits: In Greco-Roman belief, minor deities or daimones influenced human affairs, sometimes possessing individuals. By casting out demons, as seen in Mark 5:1-20, Jesus demonstrated his dominion over these spirits, rebuking them with a word.

6. Authority over Zeus/Jupiter: Zeus (Greek) or Jupiter (Roman) was revered as the god of the sky, thunder, and storms. Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4:39) demonstrated that he held ultimate power over these elements, thereby demonstrating superiority over the chief god of the Greco-Roman pantheon.

7. Authority over Thanatos: In his resurrection (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20), Jesus triumphed over death itself. In Greco-Roman mythology, death was personified as Thanatos. Jesus’ rising from the dead demonstrated that he had complete authority over life and death.

8. Authority over Dionysus/Bacchus: At the wedding in Cana, Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1-11), an act that directly challenged the power of Dionysus (Greek) or Bacchus (Roman), the god of wine and revelry. Jesus displayed that his creative authority far surpassed that of this widely worshipped deity.

9. Authority over Artemis/Diana and Pan: Jesus’ miracles affecting nature, such as cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21), demonstrated his power over Artemis (Greek) or Diana (Roman), the goddess of the wilderness, and Pan, who governed wild places and flocks.

10. Authority over Athena/Minerva: Wisdom was personified in Athena (Greek) or Minerva (Roman). However, Jesus’ teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), revealed that he was the true source of wisdom and knowledge, surpassing even these revered goddesses.

11. Authority over Apollo: Jesus referred to himself as “the light of the world” (John 8:12), positioning himself above Apollo, the Greco-Roman god of the sun, prophecy, and enlightenment. Jesus’ claim made clear that he was the ultimate source of truth and illumination.

12. Authority over Ares/Mars: The Greco-Roman world exalted Ares (Greek) or Mars (Roman) as the god of war. Jesus, however, preached peace and sacrifice, subverting the traditional concept of victory. His triumph was not through violence but through self-sacrifice, challenging the authority of Ares/Mars in a profound way.

The list goes on, and yet, this theme of God’s triumph over false deities is not unique to the New Testament. A similar confrontation between battling gods occurred during the ten plagues of Egypt, each of which targeted a significant Egyptian deity.

Exodus 12:12 states, “On all the gods of Egypt, I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.” In this, God declared war on the Egyptian deities, and in so doing, vividly demonstrated that not one of the false Egyptian gods was able to deliver them from the true and living God. These were not random acts of judgement, but a systematic dismantling of the false gods of Egyptian paganism.

Once again, there is overlap, but broadly speaking, the plagues and their demonic counterparts were as follows:

1. Water Turned to Blood (Exodus 7:14-25): This plague demonstrated the Lord’s authority over Hapi, the god of the Nile, and Khnum, the god of the Nile’s source.

2. Frogs (Exodus 8:1-15): The overwhelming presence of frogs showcased God’s dominance over Heket, the goddess of fertility, often depicted as a frog.

3. Gnats (Exodus 8:16-19): Turning dust into gnats displayed power over Geb, the god of the earth, and Heka, associated with magic, as Egyptian magicians failed to replicate the miracle.

4. Flies (Exodus 8:20-32): The swarming flies demonstrated authority over Khepri, the god of creation, often depicted as a scarab beetle.

5. Livestock Pestilence (Exodus 9:1-7): The disease striking cattle challenged Hathor, a goddess associated with sacred cows.

6. Boils (Exodus 9:8-12): The affliction of boils displayed superiority over Sekhmet, the goddess of healing and medicine.

7. Hail (Exodus 9:13-25): The destructive hailstorm challenged Nut, the goddess of the sky.

8. Locusts (Exodus 10:1-20): The devastation of crops demonstrated power over Seth, the god of chaos, and Osiris, associated with agriculture and fertility.

9. Darkness (Exodus 10:21-29): The three days of darkness showed dominance over Ra, the sun god.

10. Death of the Firstborn, Heir to the Throne (Exodus 11:1-10; 12:29-32): The final plague struck at Pharaoh himself, believed to embody Horus, the god of kingship and dynastic rule.

Indeed, as Jeremiah prophesied, “Thus shall you say to them: ‘The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.’” (Jer. 10:11)

Both the New and the Old Testament accounts highlight a recurring theme: the triumph of the true God over false gods and pagan deities. Truly, Christ alone is Victor, and Christianity has triumphed over paganism.

A 2020 Hampshire Police social media post expressing outrage over the death of George Floyd has resurfaced following the fatal stabbing of 18-year-old Henry Nowak and the force’s widely criticised handling of the incident.

Hampshire Police condemned the officers of the Minneapolis Police Department who were arresting Floyd at the time of his death, saying they were “appalled.”

“We, with the rest of the UK police, stand with those appalled by the death of George Floyd,” the post reads. “The relationship between the police and the public in the UK is strong, but there is always more to do.

“Only by working closely with communities do we build trust and keep people safe. We stand alongside those who are appalled by the way George Floyd died.”

The six-year-old post resurfaced after shocking bodycam footage showed officers handcuffing Nowak after he had been stabbed five times by Vickrum Digwa.

According to court proceedings, Digwa accused Nowak of “racism” as officers arrived on the scene. Footage shows the teenager repeatedly telling police he had been stabbed.

One officer responded: “I don’t think you have, mate.”

Despite his pleas, Nowak was handcuffed while lying incapacitated on the ground. He later lost consciousness and died from his injuries.

The footage has sparked widespread public outrage, with critics arguing that officers treated the victim as a suspect while blindly accepting the baseless claims of his attacker.

Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years at Southampton Crown Court on June 1.

Following the verdict, Hampshire Police issued a public apology. Temporary Deputy Chief Constable Robert France described the case as an “unspeakable tragedy” and said he was “deeply sorry” that Nowak had been handcuffed and arrested before losing consciousness.

France said officers had been misled by Digwa, who “continued to divert the blame, obstruct our inquiries, and never admit the serious harm which had been done.”

“The facts heard in court should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind who was lying to officers that night and why,” he said.

Following the release of the footage, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage urged the public to respond with “pure, cold rage,” saying “The fear of being called racist was greater than dealing with Henry Nowak’s murder.”

Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe went further, arguing that Digwa deserved capital punishment.

“Enough is enough — a deep line needs to be drawn in the sand,” Lowe said. “Talk is weak. Britain needs to say no more, and mean it. A Restore Britain government, with the British people’s approval, would put Vickrum Digwa to death.”

While acknowledging that Nowak’s murder was an “awful, shocking case,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer criticised Farage’s response, saying, “Nigel Farage is completely wrong to use this to try and create division.”

But as Hampshire Police are finding out, the internet never forgets. In 2020, Starmer also commented on the death of George Floyd. Taking to social media at the time, he posted a photo of himself kneeling within an office with the caption: “We kneel with all those opposing anti-Black racism. #BlackLivesMatter”

No knees for Henry—just condemnations for Starmer’s political rivals, it seems.

A 2020 Hampshire Police social media post expressing outrage over the death of George Floyd has resurfaced following the fatal stabbing of 18-year-old Henry Nowak and the force’s widely criticised handling of the incident.

Hampshire Police condemned the officers of the Minneapolis Police Department who were arresting Floyd at the time of his death, saying they were “appalled.”

“We, with the rest of the UK police, stand with those appalled by the death of George Floyd,” the post reads. “The relationship between the police and the public in the UK is strong, but there is always more to do.

“Only by working closely with communities do we build trust and keep people safe. We stand alongside those who are appalled by the way George Floyd died.”

The six-year-old post resurfaced after shocking bodycam footage showed officers handcuffing Nowak after he had been stabbed five times by Vickrum Digwa.

According to court proceedings, Digwa accused Nowak of “racism” as officers arrived on the scene. Footage shows the teenager repeatedly telling police he had been stabbed.

One officer responded: “I don’t think you have, mate.”

Despite his pleas, Nowak was handcuffed while lying incapacitated on the ground. He later lost consciousness and died from his injuries.

The footage has sparked widespread public outrage, with critics arguing that officers treated the victim as a suspect while blindly accepting the baseless claims of his attacker.

Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years at Southampton Crown Court on June 1.

Following the verdict, Hampshire Police issued a public apology. Temporary Deputy Chief Constable Robert France described the case as an “unspeakable tragedy” and said he was “deeply sorry” that Nowak had been handcuffed and arrested before losing consciousness.

France said officers had been misled by Digwa, who “continued to divert the blame, obstruct our inquiries, and never admit the serious harm which had been done.”

“The facts heard in court should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind who was lying to officers that night and why,” he said.

Following the release of the footage, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage urged the public to respond with “pure, cold rage,” saying “The fear of being called racist was greater than dealing with Henry Nowak’s murder.”

Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe went further, arguing that Digwa deserved capital punishment.

“Enough is enough — a deep line needs to be drawn in the sand,” Lowe said. “Talk is weak. Britain needs to say no more, and mean it. A Restore Britain government, with the British people’s approval, would put Vickrum Digwa to death.”

While acknowledging that Nowak’s murder was an “awful, shocking case,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer criticised Farage’s response, saying, “Nigel Farage is completely wrong to use this to try and create division.”

But as Hampshire Police are finding out, the internet never forgets. In 2020, Starmer also commented on the death of George Floyd. Taking to social media at the time, he posted a photo of himself kneeling within an office with the caption: “We kneel with all those opposing anti-Black racism. #BlackLivesMatter”

No knees for Henry—just condemnations for Starmer’s political rivals, it seems.