Editor’s Note: Dominic Kennedy, who is Investigations Editor at The Times of London, spent well over a year trying to dox an obscure British nationalist YouTuber who goes by “The Ayatollah” (his recent appearance on Counter-Currents Radio is here). When he learned The Ayatollah’s identity, he sent him 63 questions, which he answers below.
Why do you run a racist YouTube channel?
I use YouTube to communicate with, entertain, and hopefully lift the spirits of other non-compliant white people, by which I mean white people who reject the psychological abuse, dispossession, and humiliation of the present, anti-white order. I am trying to provide myself and the audience with a bit of relief in a very hostile, alienating world.
I outright reject the concept of “racism.” It’s simply an anti-white libel, and a weapon of mass psychological abuse devised and wielded to keep white people from thinking and acting in our own interests while our sovereignty and our homelands are taken from us. Bias toward or prioritization of your own nation or race is the most natural thing in the world, and it does not preclude you from feeling empathy or compassion toward those of other nations or races. If you do not feel a unique sense of attachment and protectiveness toward your own race and nation above others, and if you do not want safety and sovereignty for your people, you are a grotesque outlier in historical terms, and an affront to natural order.
You or somebody you work with has probably listened to me long enough now to have heard me talk about pathological compliance, and to understand what it means: fanatical, Pavlovian compliance with whatever the powers-that-be demand, almost regardless of the objective morality of what is demanded.
People like yourself comply with and collaborate in the program of mass psychological abuse and gaslighting to which white people are subjected in education, media, and entertainment. You comply with and uncritically accept the pathologization of healthy instinct, rationality, and collective self-interest among white people, which demands that we meekly and apologetically submit to the flooding of our homelands with foreigners, and that we submit to demonization, dispossession, and humiliation on our own ancestral soil. You comply with and collaborate in the demand that we keep our mouths shut about the consequences we see and suffer every day as a result of this agenda. You comply with and collaborate in all of this.
We do not.
Those who do not comply are subjected to the pathologization and anti-white libel of being branded “racist.”
Expression of any reservation whatsoever about the agenda described above is pathologized as “racist.”
Advocacy for anything whatsoever that is in the best interests of white people is pathologized as “racist.”
Express any sort of preference for or bias toward your own people as a white person, and you will be pathologized as “racist.”
If you are white and you express any desire for a homeland populated overwhelmingly by your own people, with your own people sovereign, you will be pathologized as “racist.”
If you are white and you display even a hint that any sense of racial identity you may have is not one of self-loathing and self-abasement, you will be pathologized as “racist,” because a sense of racial consciousness characterized by self-loathing and self-abasement is the only one permitted for white people under the present order. For evidence of this, look no further than the global outcry five years ago when young men in America dared to post pieces of paper bearing the words “It’s Okay to be White” on notice boards, lampposts, bus shelters, and the like. Or just look at the outcry which meets the displaying of banners and posters bearing the slogan “White Lives Matter.” Again, this is pathologized as “racist.”
All of which raises the question: If we were all “racist,” would the sexual enslavement and torture of hundreds of thousands British schoolgirls, and counting, by foreign gangs ever be allowed to happen? Would Britons have been allowed to become a minority in our capital city, our second city, several other major population centers, and would we be on course to be a minority outright within probably 40 years? They’re good questions, aren’t they?
What do you think those sent to kill and die in the Second World War — ostensibly for our freedom — would think of all of this? What do you think they’d make of the atrocities perpetrated against British schoolgirls in no small part for their race and religion in Rotherham, Newcastle, Telford, Manchester, Rochdale, and literally dozens of other towns and cities over decades, by gangs of foreign men filled with sadistic racial hatred, and able to act with near impunity due to the anti-white agenda which prevails within our institutions and our government? What do you think they’d make of Britons being a minority in London, Birmingham, Leicester, Luton, and Slough, and on course to be a minority outright in our own homeland by 2066? What do you think they would make of a typical day of BBC television programming in 2022?
How have you survived on YouTube?
I don’t know, and I don’t care. It may have something to do with the fact that I’m a self-professed pacifist who attracts very small audiences. Let me put it into perspective: My streams average a maximum of about 120 concurrent live viewers. Do you not find it embarrassing to be investigating someone with a reach as limited as mine? Let alone an autism sufferer?
My survival may also be a consequence of the fact that the large majority of what gets discussed during my streams is only tangentially political, or not political at all. There is a good reason for this: When you understand the world and the plight of our people as nationalist dissidents do — and particularly if you are not brand new to this understanding — you generally prefer not to dwell on the horror and injustice of the situation and its day-to-day consequences too much. You already know; wallowing in it only makes you feel worse. Talking about other things, whether it’s music, comedy, film, food, relationships, personal anecdotes, or anything else, is an antidote to this, and can give people a bit of relief. As I said at the outset, that’s what I try to do through my channel: lift the spirits of a small audience who have to navigate a very hostile, depressing, and sometimes dehumanizing world every day of their lives.
How do you feel about the fact that these are the efforts you are scrutinizing and demonizing?
We think you have achieved this by using euphemisms and code words when talking about minorities. For example, you may refer to “people who look white but aren’t” instead of saying “Jews,” or refer to “negrophilia” before beginning a passage where you complain about black people. The use of alternative expressions may fool YouTube’s artificial intelligence filters. Is this your intent?
What do you think of the fact that YouTube and other platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and so on deem it necessary to screen for and expunge so many words relating to so-called “protected” groups, and to screen for and censor so many topics of conversation? Do you think this is indicative of a healthy state of public discourse? What does it say of the multiracial, multicultural, anti-white societies our homelands have been transformed into? That they are happy and harmonious? Do you think the sort of hyper-neurotic censorship and deplatforming of dissenting voices that has been normalized over the past 7-10 years both online and offline would be necessary if the present order and its agendas were not so obviously harmful to the traditional populations of white homelands?
Those questions aside, to whatever extent that I vary the terms I use at this stage, I generally do it for my own amusement and that of the audience. Talk for long enough as a non-compliant white person and you eventually start to enjoy euphemism and innuendo for their own sake, just as people have since the dawn of civilization when it comes to subjects which are taboo in certain contexts.
I’m bemused by your citation of the term “negrophilia” in the context of a question about “euphemisms and code words.” “Negrophilia” is an unambiguous compound word, and I’m sure its meaning is abundantly clear to you. I would hope that your grasp of Latin and of Greek combining forms are better than mine. If you watched more than a couple of minutes of last week’s Commonwealth Games’ closing ceremony, you would have seen no shortage of the sort of bizarre, cultish veneration and idealization of people of black people and their exaltation to something like sainthood and infallibility. When I have used the term “negrophilia,” this is the sort of thing I am referring to. These ghoulish sanctification rituals and ham-fisted didactics are more or less obligatory in Western pageantry and cultural life; white people are made to watch as those most foreign to us are elevated to this status of sainthood and infallibility in the dystopian regime religion of “anti-racism.”
Better yet, pay closer attention when you watch television from now on, particularly during advert breaks. As you do so, ask yourself why a group who still constitute only a few percent of the population in Britain are so substantially overrepresented, and overrepresented so far in excess of other foreign groups who form a significantly larger proportion of Britain’s population.
You are the Investigations Editor for what is, if I am not mistaken, Britain’s oldest newspaper of record. Has it ever occurred to you to investigate why there is such a colossal over-portrayal of specifically white female-black male relationships in advertising? Of course not! Thankfully, normal white people who don’t hold editorial positions within major media corporations have already taken a closer look at this deeply sinister phenomenon.
Also on this subject, someone completed a racial analysis of the 433 actors in the commercials shown during the Super Bowl (NFL/American Football) broadcast in the US back in February of this year. Black people were overrepresented by nearly three times relative to their proportion of the US population. Whites were slightly underrepresented relative to their population percentage, Asians and Native Americans were represented roughly in line with their respective percentages, and Hispanics were roughly nine times underrepresented relative to their population percentage. So again, there is clearly something quite strange going on.
How did you learn this technique, from nationalists or from other YouTubers?
I learned to speak and to write in the same way everyone else does, and like everyone else, I put thought into the words and phrasings I choose. You ascribe fantastical powers of subterfuge and deception to nationalist dissidents, as though utilizing a varied vocabulary is some sort of dark, esoteric art. I’d like to be flattered, but really, all your paranoid over-analysis is just funny to watch.
How does it feel to be Britain’s most racist YouTuber?
Again, I reject the concept of “racism” outright, and I view it with nothing but contempt. The concept of “racism” is simply an anti-white libel, and a weapon of mass psychological abuse devised and wielded to keep white people from thinking and acting in our own interests while our sovereignty and our homelands are taken from us. I refuse to be gaslit and victimized in this way, as all people should. Watching you try and try again to induce a Pavlovian guilt response in this way is like watching a man repeatedly headbutting the concrete roof of a nuclear bunker in an attempt to break in.
You labor under the feeble old misapprehension that you will be able to make us cower and plead for mercy with the right trigger words, but I’m afraid that ship sailed a long time ago. You clearly have no comprehension whatsoever of how we think as nationalist dissidents, and appear to be incapable of putting yourself in the position of those who think outside of the boundaries set by the regime which is directly responsible for most of what we oppose. We’ve thought our way out of the self-hatred and self-abasement they demand of us as white people. That above everything else is what separates us from someone like yourself. I find it very hard to believe that you would not understand all of this after so long spent investigating and fixating on the British nationalist community. Forgive my incredulity, but I have to think that your apparent bemusement is a facade erected to enable you, personally, to maintain your pathological level of compliance with the demands of the powers-that-be.
Why do you use a false profile name and picture on YouTube?
Why do you take steps to avoid detection — changing your voice, withholding or changing factual details?
Have you been indicating a false age for yourself? On several occasions you have given an indication that you are 35, which is slightly younger than you are.
Why have dissidents against tyranny taken measures to protect themselves throughout the ages? The present order in the Western world is responsible for probably the most anxious, stressed, overweight, debt-ridden, atomized, alienating, and unhappy societies in history. If you aren’t saying anything to give it cause to scrutinize you, you probably aren’t saying anything worth hearing. Even if, like myself, you are only saying it to an average of 120 people at once.
As for the profile picture, Derrick Day was far better looking than I am.
When you had the Iconoclast as a guest, you billed him as “a normal lad from Sunderland with moderate views,” knowing he had been removed from YouTube. Was this to avoid YouTube realizing you had a banned guest? Why was there no YouTube transcript or subtitles for the Iconoclast show?
No, it wasn’t, I just thought it’d be funny. I will refer you to what I have already said in response to your question about “euphemisms and code words”: a lot of this stuff is done for a laugh, Dominic. In time-honored British tradition, it’s all quite nudge nudge, wink wink, and it’s just transgressive humor. You are frantically overanalyzing it, and it shows again how profoundly incapable you are of putting yourself into our collective mindset, or at least how incapable you may pretend to be. If you put half as much energy into trying to understand how we think and what we believe as you do into trying to track us down and present us as some sort of metaphysical evil for the crime of using euphemisms whilst refusing to collaborate in our own humiliation and dissolution, you might actually get somewhere.
On reflection, though, there is rich irony in the fact that Dan, The Iconoclast, really is just a normal lad from Sunderland with moderate views. It’s only the regime responsible for, once again, the most anxious, stressed, overweight, debt-ridden, atomized, alienating, and unhappy societies in history that categorize the likes of Dan and myself as heretics. Why? Because we want a safe, harmonious homeland for our people. And as we’re on the subject, Dominic, what do you think of YouTube summarily deleting the channel of a man with 215,000 subscribers? What do you think that says about the state of public discourse in the Western world?
As for why there is no YouTube transcript or subtitles for the stream you reference, I wasn’t even aware of that, so I have no idea. I don’t think I’ve ever even looked at anything like that for any of my streams. I do very little besides turn up and talk. I create thumbnails, intro videos, in some cases I’ll write guest intros and notes, and I’ll occasionally learn part of a song or some television or film dialogue to recite, by request, or write a sketch by request. That’s about it. This, and its audiences of about 80-120 simultaneous live viewers, is what you’re devoting significant time, energy, and resources to “investigating” and “exposing,” Dominic.
Is anonymity a tool for your work? But doesn’t anonymity enable you to avoid responsibility for your actions and to avoid consequences? Does anonymity also enable you to avoid the law? Is the law onto you? The law forbids the stirring of racial hatred. Do you believe you have stayed within the law?
“Consequences”? Tell me, Dominic: What “consequences” do you feel a white person should face for refusal to comply with the psychological abuse, demonization, and dispossession of their own people in their own homeland?
Regarding laws “(forbidding) the stirring of racial hatred” — I have never broken any laws to my knowledge, nor do I intend to.
Here are some questions in return: How often do you think the laws you reference have had to be applied due to any sort of discord between native Britons and, say, Bolivians or Japanese people living in Britain? I’ll venture not very often. Why am I so confident? I’m confident because people of these nationalities are relatively few in number in Britain. Historically, diverse societies are infinitely more prone to animosity, conflict, and violence than homogeneous, coherent ones. This need to dramatically narrow and neurotically micromanage and police all discourse is a symptom of both “diversity” in and of itself, and of the need to silence the disapproval of the native populations who are being targeted by this agenda.
After all, were such laws, and initiatives to foster “community cohesion” and to manage “race relations,” necessary in the racially and culturally homogeneous, coherent society we had prior to the era of mass immigration?
Here’s another question: Why are such tyrannical, Orwellian anti-white laws, which were first passed in Britain decades ago, only now nearing introduction in Ireland, where mass immigration and significant demographic change has got underway only in the past 15-20 years? There is a clear correlation there between the mass influx of foreigners against the will of most of the native population, and the introduction of laws to criminalize honest discussion of both the consequences, and the agendas of those responsible for those consequences. These laws are only necessary for the powers that be because they know fully well that they are imposing demographic, cultural, social, and economic conditions upon us which we do not want, and which, on the whole, we dislike intensely.
It is as simple as this: Impose things upon the native people that they dislike, then seek to silence any opposition by criminalizing criticism to the greatest possible extent.
White people are the victims in this; these conditions have been imposed upon us against our will, and unlike non-white groups, the mere ideas of our collectivization and our developing of a healthy, positive sense of collective identity are viciously condemned, pathologized, scrutinized, and legislated against. Hence all the time, effort, and resources journalists like yourself put into monitoring non-compliant white people like me with live audiences which barely break into three figures. Hence the laws you cite, the existence of countless Non-Governmental Organizations to monitor and disrupt us, and the state scrutiny we receive.
We live under a regime which sends “community cohesion” police officers to the homes of people who send unflatteringly honest limericks to “transgender” people online, in order to “check their thinking.” We live under a regime which imprisons young men for sending uncharitable tweets to multi-millionaire black footballers. That’s the difference between Airstrip One and contemporary Britain: In contemporary Britain, if you are white, you can never be a mere prole. All whites are subjected to Outer Party levels of scrutiny, as this is the only way to ensure ideological compliance and submission. That’s because the tenets of the prevailing truth regime cannot withstand free inquiry, and would be destroyed within days if anything resembling free inquiry were permitted.
Who do you think is onto you: activists, NGOs, media? Were you expecting me?
“Activists, NGOs, media.” You’ve sort of answered the question yourself, haven’t you, Dominic? It’s all of those, because you all serve the same agenda. Why? Because as it turns out, those responsible for the demographic atrocities, anti-white mass rape, anti-white violence, and the atomization and despair of our societies are stalked in their nightmares by — checks notes — non-compliant white men on the autistic spectrum using broken laptops to stream to live audiences averaging 120. Hence, people like myself are the primary target for all of the regime’s apparatus of surveillance and punitive power.
Reread the paragraph above, then ask yourself: What does all of this say for the legitimacy of the present order? And since you’re here investigating and interrogating me, what does it say for your legitimacy, Dominic? Is this the sort of thing you envisioned when you embarked upon your career in so-called journalism? To be Investigations Editor for The Times, only to end up “investigating” autism sufferers who field requests to sing advert jingles in the style of Kermit the Frog, often to audiences numbering fewer than 100?
And all of this whilst foreign gangs continue to groom, sexually enslave, and torture British schoolgirls on an industrial scale with motives of racial and religious hatred, and Britons continue to be marginalized and displaced by influxes of up to a million foreigners a year based on 2021 immigration figures. And all whilst similar things take place in most, if not all, white homelands west of the old Iron Curtain to one degree or another.
Again: What does all of this say for the legitimacy of the present order? And what does it say for yours?
What obstacles has YouTube placed in your way? A show you did with Harry TrUK was removed for breaching YouTube’s racial hate speech policy. What other episodes have been removed? What penalties has YouTube imposed on you? Has YouTube forbidden you from raising money on your site? Have you been suspended? Has YouTube threatened to remove your channel?
My YouTube channel is not monetized. Two other streams have been removed due to copyright infringements arising from the use of other videos from YouTube; one stream was taken down some hours after it finished due to a claim made by the owner of another YouTube channel, and another was terminated while in progress. That’s it. It’s almost as though even YouTube agree that, in maybe 700-800 hours of content thus far (a very rough estimate), very little of what I or any of my guests have said is controversial by any objective standard.
What is the importance of YouTube in recruiting nationalists? How did YouTube help to convert you? How do you use your status as a YouTube e-celeb to recruit others?
Nationalist dissidents are recruited by the ever worsening alienation, disenfranchisement, diminished social trust, crime, and anti-white psychological abuse of multiracial, multicultural societies. It was no different for me than it is for anyone else. Nothing any nationalist does — let alone a so-called “e-celeb” who rarely gets more than 150 simultaneous live viewers — is of any consequence in terms of “recruitment” compared to the results of multiculturalism and the regime religion of anti-whiteness. You credit nationalist dissidents with supernatural powers of manipulation and seduction, whilst somehow being completely oblivious to the ever more hostile, alienating, and humiliating social and cultural conditions white people are forced to endure in our own homelands, and how these are prompting more and more white people every day to reject victimization and take their own side.
How were you converted to ethnic nationalism? What were your views before? What did you think about racism? What about jihadis? Was your involvement in the anti-Islam/anti-Muslim English Defence League/Tommy Robinson type of politics a stepping stone to ethnic nationalism or a wrong turn, as you see it? Why do you support specifically ethnic nationalism?
A person is no more “converted” to ethnic nationalism than they are “converted” to loving their own family members more than they do strangers. Once again, we are the historical norm, and those who comply — due to a truly demonic program of mass psychological abuse — are the abnormal, maladaptive exception in their self-abasement. But the majority are passive, and largely unwitting victims rather than willing collaborators like yourself.
I’ve always had the same visceral feeling about the concept of “racism”: It’s an aggressive, abusive anti-white libel, and a malicious imposition which pathologizes entirely healthy, positive instincts for in-group preference, pattern recognition, and self-preservation among white people. There is no animosity whatsoever in caring more for those closest to you than those more distant, and this is what the average person means when they say things like “It’s not racist to care about your own people/want less immigration/want to be around people like yourself”; the mistake they make is in accepting the premise of “racism,” but in this they are victims of a lifetime of almost uncontested psychological abuse, the result of which is that in this context, the word “racist” is a stand-in for “a moral crime.”
That being said, while I have always had the same visceral feeling about the concept of “racism” — as I think most white people would realize they do if they could be assisted to be totally honest with themselves — for much of my life I didn’t understand the concept and its function as I do now, and was only a partial exception in actively rejecting the premise. I certainly didn’t do so with the confidence or the absence of caveats that I have since becoming actively involved in nationalism. For all but the most intelligent and courageous people — and I’ve never been either — introduction to the correct vocabulary and rhetoric, and the resulting knowledge and sense of empowerment and moral justification, are required to reject the concept of so-called “racism” outright, and to simply think and act unapologetically in one’s own ethnic and racial interests. In this way, being a non-compliant white person is very similar to having escaped an abusive relationship.
Continuing on the subject of exposure to the correct vocabulary and rhetoric as a prerequisite for becoming a nationalist for most people, this is of course why the powers-that-be continue to put so much effort into censoring, deplatforming, quarantining, and criminalizing nationalists. They understand we advocate for all that is healthy, natural, and life-affirming for white people, and they know only too well that if we were ever allowed anything even remotely resembling a fair hearing in public discourse, millions upon millions of white people would basically return to nature in a matter of months or a few years, and the present order would eventually lose control of the mass consciousness.
The simple fact is that the healthy instincts described in the first paragraph of this answer only have the potential to be “problematic” in multiracial/multicultural societies — and since multiracialism and multiculturalism have been imposed upon us against our will, we bear no responsibility whatsoever for any of the consequences, and no obligation to suppress or fight those instincts. Responsibility lies with those imposing these unnatural and dysfunctional conditions upon us. I want ethnic nationalism and ethnic/racial sovereignty because this is what is natural, and it is what best serves the interests of normal people in their own homelands. Homogeneous societies are generally far happier and far better functioning societies than any comparable “diverse” societies. Since all of this is incontestable, the next logical question is: Why does the present order forbid ethnic nationalism and ethnic sovereignty for white people, and why does it declare them moral crimes above all others? And since it does so, whose interests and agendas is this order serving? Have you ever asked yourself any of these questions? I did, and that’s how I got here.
What type of people are being recruited to nationalism? As there is a generational change with millennials and Generation Z taking over, what difference does that make?
The one thing all nationalists have in common is being sick of the ever-worsening alienation, disenfranchisement, diminished social trust, crime, and anti-white psychological abuse of multiracial, multicultural societies, and wanting to stand up for themselves and their people. That’s it. All ages, all socioeconomic backgrounds.
What is the importance of Patriotic Alternative? What is the goal of Patriotic Alternative? Is the goal to incite violence?
I am not a member of Patriotic Alternative or any other organization. I am, however, a pacifist, as you should know from your apparent familiarity with my streams. Secondly, you have spoken to both Mark Collett and Laura Towler at great length on at least one occasion. You know full well that they and Patriotic Alternative could not be more emphatic in their opposition to violence, or to any other form of illegal activity, because you published their statements on the subject last October. Remember?
You also know full well, therefore, that to ask whether the goal of Patriotic Alternative is to “incite violence” is preposterous, and in asking that question, you reveal yourself to be a man of absolutely no integrity, no shame, and with only the most dishonest intentions. Then again, your pursuit of an autism sufferer whose average live audiences barely break into three figures made that clear at the outset.
Again, I am not formally associated with Patriotic Alternative, and I imagine that Mark and Laura explained the objectives of the organization in detail when you spoke to them last year, and if they didn’t, you had every opportunity to ask them to do so. But since you’ve asked, as far as I can see Patriotic Alternative was established to advocate for the interests and the well-being of the indigenous peoples of Britain, and to create a community for those who wish to participate in this advocacy and activism. All other ethnic and racial groups have organizations which advocate for their interests. Establish a similar organization for white people, and the police, the intelligence services, NGOs, and the media come after you. Which brings us back to the now all-too familiar question: What does this tell us about the present order and its agendas?
If you’re concerned about violence, focus your efforts on documenting the full extent of the grooming, sexual enslavement, and torture of British schoolgirls by foreign gangs over the past 50-60 years or so, and the complicity of our political class, state institutions, law enforcement, and media in these atrocities. While you’re at it, document the ever-growing list of hundreds of murders of Britons by foreigners, most of which I have no doubt were motivated by at least some degree of racial hatred –the sort of racial hatred stirred up by the anti-white media.
You are winding people up to think there is a genocide happening. Humanity is obliged to prevent genocides, so you may encourage people to believe there is an urgent crisis and they need to act violently to stop it.
Victim-blaming of the most despicable kind, true to form. I am doing nothing whatsoever to “(wind) people up to think” anything is happening; people are reacting to what they see and experience in their own lives, and in that regard the people responsible are those behind mass immigration and the anti-white agenda more broadly. All I do is talk about some of what is happening — and I don’t even do that a lot of the time. You are winding people up to think that atomized, disenfranchised white people who’d just like to have the kind of homeland more like the one their grandparents grew up in and took for granted, are some sort of menace.
As for your hysterical references to imagined violence, tell me this: How did Kazakhs go from being only 30% of the population in Kazakhstan in 1959, and around 40% in 1989, to over 70% today? Forgive any oversight on my part if there is any, but I’m not aware of any mass violence in this process of demographic restoration.
How did similar restorations take place in Krgyzstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, and Latvia? Again, I am unaware of any mass violence as a direct result of the process of ethnic restoration in these countries.
Finally, your comment that “humanity is obliged to prevent genocides” is not applicable to the plight of the European peoples. The regime responsible for the demographic, cultural, and psychological atrocities being perpetrated against the European peoples also controls the global financial system, NATO, and all Western governments wherever it really matters, including and especially the United States, which is the greatest single military and economic power in the world — and, of course, it also controls most of the media in the Western world. In other words, the people and organizations who would have the power to “prevent” the atrocities being perpetrated against the European peoples are actually responsible for these atrocities, and for the underlying agenda. And that’s why the Investigations Editor of Britain’s oldest newspaper of record finds himself pursuing, among others, an autistic nobody who takes impression requests from audiences that would fit into a decent-sized pub.
The aims of Patriotic Alternative, such as creating a supermajority of what you see as whites, cannot be achieved without mass forced movements of peoples which can only be achieved through violence.
Firstly, any future supermajority of whites in Britain would be a restoration. Britain was 98-99.5% British or thereabouts at the end of the Second World War. The catastrophe that has been imposed upon us since was inflicted without our consent, and against our will.
And before you so much as think something like, “Well, people kept on voting for the political parties responsible for the immigration,” let me point out that people also keep on voting for the political parties responsible for the conditions in which it’s nigh-on impossible for millions of people to get an National Health Service (NHS) doctor’s appointment or an NHS dentist, and in which pensioners die because ambulances take up to 40 hours to arrive after they suffer a fall. They keep on voting for the political parties who’ve allowed fuel prices to reach the stage where it costs nearly a quarter of the average net weekly income to fill an average-sized car. Does anyone argue that the British people want any of that on the basis that they have not yet overthrown the government or voted some sort of renegade party into power?
Secondly, Dominic, “what you see as whites” is regime-issue anti-white gaslighting and deconstruction, and I’ll treat it with the contempt it deserves. It’s also disturbingly reminiscent of the way Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and various Turkish governments in the post-Ottoman era, sought to deny the existence of Kurds as a distinct ethnic group within their respective borders. This was done to oil the wheels for the dispossession and displacement of Kurds, and in the case of Iraq, the “Arabization” of many traditionally Kurdish areas with massive influxes of Arabs from elsewhere in Iraq. Other native groups, such as Assyrians, were similarly targeted. Remind you of anything? Like, for instance, the fact that Cockneys, their dialect, and their culture barely exist anymore because they have effectively been ethnically cleansed from the East End of London by massive influxes of foreigners, and have more or less dissolved into the surrounding counties as a result?
I refer you again to the above examples of Kazakhstan, Krgyzstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, and Latvia, where ethnic restorations have taken place peacefully over recent decades.
Which is more important to you, 2066 or the “Jewish question”? When you talk about the “Jewish question,” what do you consider to be the “answer”? You are anti-Semitic, aren’t you?
The answer is white sovereignty in white homelands. That’s the main thing that matters to me. Hopefully, all people can be sovereign in their own homelands, but quite naturally the sovereignty and well-being of my own nation, and then of my own race, are my priorities.
How do you justify what you said about David Lammy, that he is literally a funded agent of the people who funded his Harvard education, and who he is married to — you are aware that Jewish people funded his education, and his wife has Jewish ancestry, so you are saying he is literally a funded agent of Jews.
How do you justify actually asking a question such as this when The Jewish Chronicle, no less, reported on David Lammy himself publicly proclaiming that “a group of Jewish lawyers had funded his $40,000 (£26,000) entry into Harvard Law School”?
As far as I am aware, the background of Lammy’s wife is also no secret. I have nothing whatsoever to “justify.” I’ll leave that to you.
You say in your podcasts that Jewish people control the world. This is one of the oldest anti-Semitic myths. Why do you hold such a view?
I don’t recall ever uttering the words “Jewish people control the world,” and it doesn’t sound remotely like anything I would say. And I have absolutely no idea why such tropes about Jews and Jewish group behavior have persisted for thousands of years despite repeated and extensive efforts to criminalize and extinguish them. It’s a mystery.
Now, do Jews enjoy disproportionate wealth, power, and influence in Britain? Well, have a listen to what Sir Trevor Phillips, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, had to say on the subject back in 2015 in a segment just under two minutes long.
If our public-funded broadcaster can produce a feature lamenting and pathologizing the whiteness of the England women’s football team when the English are by definition a white people, and still a significant majority of the population of England, what are we to say of the fact that — according to the documentary linked above — a foreign ethno-religious group whose individual members are each entitled to Israeli citizenship are 40 times more likely to be billionaires in Britain than the rest of the population, over twice as wealthy as the rest of the population on average, roughly seven times better represented in Parliament per capita, three times more likely to hold senior management positions within Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100 companies, and four times more likely to be non-executive directors in banking?
If our state broadcaster decries the England women’s football team for being too English, but we must remain silent on the colossally disproportionate wealth, power, and influence of foreign groups in Britain, then once again, one has to question the legitimacy and the intentions of those who rule over us.
What do you think?
How do you justify what you have said about black people being connected to crime? You said that crime rates depend on “how many blacks you’ve got living in a place.” When the 2020 JD Sports Christmas ad featured a black child, you and a guest joked and laughed that he would steal the trainers.
Yet again, I have nothing whatsoever to justify. How do you justify your risible attempt to feign ignorance of a pattern acknowledged and lamented in political and social discourse for decades by everyone from Metropolitan Police Commissioners to black politicians and community leaders? Unfortunately, the law enforcement statistics are consistently on our side, and it is a well-established phenomenon. In 2009-10, when, according to the most recent data available at the time, just over 12% of the population of London was black or of mixed black and white parentage, Metropolitan Police statistics revealed that 67% of those proceeded against for gun crimes, 59% of those proceeded against for robbery, 54% of those proceeded against for street crimes (mugging, assault with intention to rob, snatching property), and 32% of those proceeded against for sex offenses were black. While this data goes back some years, I am not aware of any dramatic decline in London’s black population, nor in the rates of crime or violence in the city.
London Assembly member and former mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey is quoted in the article linked above:
The black community has to look at itself and say that, at the end of the day, these figures suggest we are heavily — not casually — involved in violent crime. We are also involved in crime against ourselves — and we regularly attack each other.
I am not aware of comprehensive statistics relating to criminality by race for the whole of the United Kingdom, or for that matter whether they are published at the national level, but anybody can refer to FBI statistics relating to crime and the race of arrestees in the US. The most recent FBI statistics I could find are from 2018. Considering that those in the category of black or African-American only account for somewhere between 12% and 14% of the US population, depending on categorization, and yet the degree of overrepresentation in crime is quite stark: 53.5% for murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 28.6% for rape, 54.2% for robbery, 33.7% for aggravated assault, and 37.4% for violent crime as a whole.
It is interesting to note, however, that many US law enforcement agencies failed to properly report their 2021 crime data to the FBI, including the New York City Police Department and the Los Angeles Police Department, to name two. Whether this relates in any way to a desire to conceal dramatic increases in violent crime since the astroturfed, media-induced hysteria, mass rioting, and anti-white violence following the death of George Floyd in May 2020, is open to speculation.
Now ask yourself: Are tame jokes made by non-compliant white people to minuscule audiences of other non-compliant white people really the issue here?
Why do you insult Muslims by calling them people “who like to face toward the bingo hall”?
And if I jokingly referred to Icelandic people as “former Bejam shoppers,” would that send you into apoplexy as well? Would it constitute an “insult” to the Icelandic people?
To interrogate me about “insulting Muslims” with a harmless joke about the common name of the city of Mecca and the Mecca Bingo chain would be pathetic in the most peaceful and harmonious of circumstances. To do so when the industrial-scale grooming, sexual enslavement, and torture of British schoolgirls by gangs of mostly Muslim men has proceeded almost unimpeded for decades in Britain, is nothing short of a disgrace.I’ve got a Muslim friend within the nationalist community. I can put the joke to him and see if he’ll give us an angry quote, if you want.
Do you have any doubts in your mind that you are following the correct path? Do you see anything wrong in what you are doing?
Why would I? Have I ever given that impression? On the evidence of your scrutiny, I’m drawing the ire of some of the most unscrupulous and malevolent institutions in the world, and this despite attracting audiences which barely break three figures. I’m clearly doing something right.
I mean, it’s a staggeringly low bar, is it not? When streaming off-the-cuff chit-chat to 100-odd people on YouTube qualifies you as a dissident of sufficient profile to receive a home visit from the Investigations Editor of Britain’s oldest newspaper of record? Once again: What does that say for the legitimacy of the regime on behalf of which you pursue us? And what, by extension, does it say for your credibility and integrity?
Do you have any doubts in your mind as to whether you are following the correct path in devoting your life to scrutinizing and surveilling disenfranchised white people on the basis that we want a better world for our people and don’t want to be browbeaten, demonized, and dispossessed anymore? Do you see anything wrong in what you are doing? Whose side do you think your ancestors would be on, Dominic? Yours, or ours?
You are an admirer of Adolf Hitler, and refer to him as “our uncle.” Why do you admire Hitler? Why do you support Nazi views? Are you a Nazi, or a neo-Nazi, or both?
Nearly half a million Britons were killed during the Second World War. Hundreds of thousands more were injured, with millions more emotionally and psychologically scarred for life by bereavement and by the horrors they experienced. They were told it was all for our freedom.
Whose side would they be on if they could see the country we live in today, Dominic? Your side? Or the nationalist side?
You know only too well.
I am pro-white. Call me an idealist, but I would like to believe that all peoples could be sovereign in their own homelands and live in peace. Naturally, the sovereignty and well-being of my own people is my priority, just as the safety and well-being of my own family is a greater priority for me than that of other families. The well-being of my people and that of others are not mutually exclusive; in fact, what would be best for white people and what would be best for most other peoples coincide in a great many respects. Unfortunately, none of this will be permitted by the present order. The circumstances in which white interests and those of other groups do conflict in white countries are entirely the creation of those responsible for the massive amounts of immigration into our countries over the past two to three generations.
People of your ilk have a hysterical, cartoonish obsession with Hitler, and normal people find it nauseating. The man has been dead for over 77 years. Neither he nor anyone else in any position of influence in National Socialist Germany bear any responsibility for the conditions of alienation, dispossession, humiliation, demonization, and displacement white people endure in most of our own homelands today, nor the mass sexual enslavement and torture of our nations’ daughters by foreigners. Responsibility for all of that lies with the political order, economic power brokers, institutions, media, academia, and lobbyists of the post-war era.
You are in a romantic relationship with a woman who has an Asian parent. That makes your politics illogical, doesn’t it? Does love conquer all? If you were to have children, they would be what you consider to be mixed race. Yet you preach against what you see as the mixing of the races. Do you fear for the treatment of your children, if nationalism takes hold?
It makes my circumstances an outlier. The woman in question is a nationalist of mixed European and Indian ancestry, and we shared a similar worldview and moral compatibility even beyond nationalism, notably in not eating meat or drinking alcohol, to pick a couple of things. The mixing of races on a scale at which it would lead to anything even approaching the dissolution of the white or any other race is not desirable, in my view. Worse are the intentions of those who stridently advocate for and seek to socially engineer exactly this, where the white race and the white race alone is concerned. But at the level of cases like two nationalist dissidents whose hypothetical children would be three-quarters white and one quarter Indian? Yeah, it’s probably not going to lead to our disappearance.
And while to be three-quarters of one race and one quarter another is indeed to be of mixed racial ancestry in the strictest sense, you’re three times more one thing than the other. In practice, it’s usually closer to being of one race than it is half one and half the other. Anthony Joshua is three-quarters sub-Saharan African (Nigerian, of mostly or possibly entirely Yoruba ethnic descent), and one-quarter European (Irish). Strictly speaking, he is of mixed race, but were you aware of that? Is Anthony Joshua considered mixed race? I’d be surprised if he sees himself as anything other than black, in racial terms.
I’ve got nationalist friends of partially East Asian, partially South Asian, partially Middle Eastern, partially black, and partially Jewish descent, all of whom are well-liked members of our community, so no, I’m not too worried for any children I may have. I’d be more worried about them being harassed by “investigative journalists”!
How are you a nationalist in the workplace? What is your career? Do your co-workers know about your racist YouTube channel?
None of your business, I’m afraid. But whatever their views, they’d be hard pushed to deny that my impressions of Tyson Fury and his Dad Big John are pretty good.
What do you think of the fact that your career has led you to scrutinizing and doorstepping an autistic nobody with live audiences averaging 120, and whose main objective is to entertain demonized, disenfranchised people and to make them feel less alone?
What were your ambitions? Journalism? Singing? Impersonations/entertaining/stand-up? And now?
My ambition is to do what little I can as one man to serve the nationalist community and to help my people. Anyone who opposes the inhumanity, indignity, and alienation of life under the present order and its anti-white agenda is an ally of mine, whatever their race or religion. I hope to be liked, trusted, and respected by my community.
I think I am by nature quite a sensitive person; I have certainly always felt that I am. For all the extroversion and the transgressive humor I display during streams, I think my audience and those who know me well would attest to this sensitivity. The struggles and the indignities that normal, decent, hard-working people have to endure just to survive trouble me a great deal, as does the fact that lives of peace, purpose, dignity, and fulfillment are inaccessible to so many millions. This is the case for more people today than it was a generation ago, and far more than the generation before that. Above all, though, it is the case for far, far more people than it needs to be now, relative to how it could be. This can only be the case because people and institutions in positions of great power and influence are at best untroubled by this being the case, or actively want it to be the case.
It moves me a bit to think about these things while I write this response, and whenever I think about these things, my sadness gives way to frustration and anger quite quickly, because with the knowledge, resources, and technology humanity is able to utilize today, so much of this hardship, unhappiness, and absence of fulfillment could be eradicated. Far too little in our lives is oriented toward what is best for our well-being, and is instead oriented toward a combination of profit-chasing on the one hand and managing, weakening, misdirecting, abusing, and dehumanizing us on the other. We live under the yoke of interest groups and organizations who are in many regards amoral at best, and callously indifferent to the struggles of normal people. In many other regards, they are megalomaniacal and psychopathic, and nowhere is this displayed more egregiously than in the abuses they continue to inflict upon the white race.
How much money do you receive from supporters? Could you live on just this?
Ha! Nowhere near enough for anyone to live on, and a tiny fraction of whatever you receive from Britain’s oldest newspaper of record to spend your days “investigating” people like me.
In 2011 you praised the sacking of Ron Atkinson for his racial insult to a player. You described how he had used “just about the most offensive racist slur of the lot . . . when he thought he was off air as a co-commentator. That didn’t mean he didn’t deserve the sack and almighty condemnation from all quarters. Saying what he said did irreparable damage to his broadcasting career, and that was exactly what he deserved.”
It is notable that you did not write down the racial slur in your 2011 article, yet today you use an excerpt from that word in the intro to your weekly show and use Derrick Day, the man who said it, as your profile picture.
With regard to my comments on the sacking of Big Ron Atkinson, I will refer back to my previous answer to the question about becoming a nationalist. While I have always had the same visceral contempt for the concept of so-called “racism,” for much of my life I didn’t understand the concept and its function as I do now, and was only a partial exception in actively rejecting the premise. As you can probably gather, this changed sometime between 2011 and today. I have to hold my hands up and say that in this instance in 2011, I was toeing the only permissible line, as so many white people do despite their serious — often suppressed — misgivings about the concept of so-called “racism” and their whiteness as some sort of pathology. And you understand full well why the racial epithet used by Ron Atkinson was not published in the article you cite — because it had long since been elevated to the most offensive word of all words by the same regime which is pathologizing and dispossessing white people in our own homelands.
It’s really quite extraordinary that we find ourselves in a situation in which you take a fine-tooth comb to an article from nearly 11 years ago in which a racial epithet was omitted, and then contrast it with the inclusion of audio of part of the first syllable of the same epithet in one of my introduction tracks today, as though this constitutes some sort of incontrovertible gotcha, and evidence of an apparently compliant young white man’s chilling descent from submission into heresy. Just stop and think about it for a moment. It’s absolutely farcical.
With regard to the Friday Night Dinner introduction, Derrick Day gets as far as “ni” before being interrupted by the hackneyed comedic trope of an expertly-timed turntable needle scratch. Once again, Dominic, we are back to the time-honored British tradition of good-natured, mischievous humor and implied transgression. Nudge nudge, wink wink.
In 2013 you wrote only two articles for the football blog In Bed With Maradona, and both were informative, positive pieces about British Asian footballers.
What happened to the man who thought a racial insult was so grave it should end a career, and who wrote conscientiously about British Asians’ contribution to football, to turn you into a Nazi who idolizes Derrick Day and Adolf Hitler?
Adolf Hitler has been dead for over 77 years. Derrick Day died of a heart attack in Brightlingsea, Essex in October 1995 while leading protests against the export of live veal calves to France. I should add that these protests were ultimately successful. Neither Derrick Day nor Adolf Hitler bear any responsibility for the conditions of alienation, dispossession, humiliation, demonization, and displacement white people endure in most of our own homelands today, nor the mass sexual enslavement and torture of our nations’ daughters by foreign gangs, to give one example. Once again, responsibility for all of that lies with the political order, economic power brokers, institutions, media, academia, and lobbyists of the post-war era.
Have you ever done anything as honorable in your life as protesting for the better part of a year against the export of live animals for slaughter weeks after birth, Dominic? Have you ever done anything as honorable as protesting and organizing against the victimization, displacement, humiliation, and dispossession of your people by a hostile regime for decades? Derrick Day did both. And forgive me, but I’m tremendously amused at reading the words “Derrick Day and Adolf Hitler,” names side-by-side as though the two are on par in historical significance.
As for having written “conscientiously” in 2013, I’d like you to tell me what exactly it is about what I do now that is not conscientious. The discussion of subjects and mere allusion to words which have been forbidden by the present order? The order which has, of course, presided over the mass sexual enslavement and torture of hundreds of thousands of British schoolgirls by foreign gangs, and the demographic atrocity which will see Britons outnumbered by foreigners in our homeland within two generations. I imagine you understand by now that I view the abusive, anti-white demands of this regime as being fit only for ridicule. There is nothing more conscientious than opposing tyranny and standing up for your people.
Before I address the question of “what happened” to me, I will say this: Though I was not an explicit nationalist at the time of writing the articles from 2013, White Nationalism and an interest in foreign cultures or friendship with foreign peoples, whether in Britain or elsewhere, are in no way mutually exclusive. The idea that not wanting to be psychologically abused and dispossessed as a white person necessitates ill-will toward others on the basis that they are not us is the most risible and pernicious libel.
Now, finally, to the matter of “what happened” to me.
The articles you reference were both published in May 2013. You may remember that, later that month, a serving British soldier was run over and more or less beheaded in a South London street by two Nigerian converts to Islam on a Wednesday afternoon. His name was Lee Rigby. Now, the fact that the wars the British armed forces have participated in during this century have generally been illegitimate, immoral, and served only the most corrupt and repugnant elite and foreign interests is, in this context, neither here nor there; a serving British soldier was run over and butchered on the streets of our capital on a Wednesday afternoon by two foreigners who followed a foreign religion, because he was a British soldier. Little more than a year later, the Rotherham child grooming scandal came to light: At least 1,400 overwhelmingly British schoolgirls were groomed, sexually enslaved, and tortured by overwhelmingly Muslim gangs over a period of 15 years, in a medium-sized South Yorkshire borough with a Muslim population of only a few percent. The police, courts, social services, local government, and local politicians knew all about it, and they allowed it to continue. But of course they did! I mean, given a choice between thousands of white schoolgirls being groomed, sexually enslaved, and tortured by foreign gangs, and being “racist,” the former is the better outcome by far. Right? And Rotherham, as I am sure you are aware, is just one of countless scandals of its type to date.
So the answer to the question of what happened to me is, really, very little. It’s a matter of what has been happening to my people and my society. Atrocities like those referenced in the previous paragraph, along with rapidly changing demographics, and having our existence and identity pathologized on our own soil with concepts like “white privilege” and tropes about “gammon,” are what eventually motivate us to abandon submission and stand up for our people. Compliance with the anti-white anarcho-tyranny is a church of no salvation.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
 I think it’s likely to be a fair bit sooner than 2066 given that this projection predates significant increases in immigration in more recent years, but that actually doesn’t make much difference to the question.