Misplaced Trust: Is an English Charity Helping Fund the Great Replacement?

3,562 words

Back in 2017, there was a much-hyped British history book, Black Tudors, which tried to persuade the traditional native population of the UK that, contrary to popular belief, the sixteenth-century Tudor England of Henry VIII had been chock-full of Africans, Muslims, and other such non-white, non-Europeans, even though it clearly wasn’t. By the twenty-first century, a charitable organization by the name of the Tudor Trust was finally making this blatant lie come true for real.

Inspired by the “anti-racist” (re: anti-white) snake-oil of self-abnegating American race-hucksters like Robin DiAngelo, the Trust’s previously all-white board has recently decided to stand down to be substituted wholesale with a bunch of new, dermatologically different successors instead, only one of whom was still allowed to possess pale skin, in the name of “racial justice” – the voluntary demographic self-liquidation of the Great Replacement in pure boardroom microcosm.

Construction Firm Demolishes Itself

What is the Tudor Trust? Founded in 1955 from a large bequest by construction magnate Sir Godfrey Mitchell, it is Britain’s largest charity no-one British has ever actually heard of, possessing assets of £230 million and distributing around £16 million a year to good causes – depending on what you consider a “good cause” to be, of course.

Initially, Sir Godfrey focused on what he knew, using his construction company to build subsidized infrastructure and capital works in the national interest, like university halls of residence, care-homes and hospices. Later, the Trust branched out into accepting grant applications from worthy recipients like groups helping out needy children and the elderly. Now, it prefers to fund the systematic colonization of Great Britain by non-white outsiders instead, and somehow calls this “moral progress”.

As a hitherto family-run body, staffed largely by the descendants of Godfrey Mitchell, the board was quite naturally all-white, as Mr. Mitchell himself had neglectfully failed to ever marry a Zulu. In 2023, however, the Trust suddenly announced itself to be “white and privileged” and instituted a complete pause upon any further grant applications for the next two years whilst it “re-thought” its future to become far less steeped in “white supremacy culture”.

In April 2025, the entire subaltern all-white board were reported to have begun standing down, to be progressively Great Replaced by their new and improved racial superiors, such as a nice brown lady named Raji Hunjan, who has very kindly taken on the role of Chief Executive. Proudly, Hunjan announced the glad tidings that, from hereon in, “racial justice [is] now embedded as the lens through which we will tackle all forms of injustice.”

What does this actually mean? Examined through a competing lens of dissident realism, it would appear to indicate that, rather than doling out Mitchell’s cash wisely, as the old man would presumably have desired, it is now going to be pissed away on total race-activist nonsense of no moral or practical worth whatsoever, purely on the basis that the people applying for it happen to be lucky enough to have been born black, brown, or Muslim.

Except, actually, that’s not quite accurate… because, in a complete reversal of how the Trust’s bequest-awarding processes used to work, outside applicants are no longer allowed to make appeals to receive any Tudor funding at all. Instead, the new board will “proactively identify” favored recipients of the late Sir Godfrey’s remaining largesse to approach and ask, nay beg, them to take their dirty white money off their hands as a form of fiscal reparations for the never-ending sins of slavery and colonialism.

Just look at the way the Trust’s website has changed itself of late. On its Who We Are page, rather than saying “We’re a charity that gives away money to those who need and deserve it!”, the Trust now grandly proclaims that “We are a grant-making charity with a mission to advance racial justice by resourcing power in communities.”

But that wasn’t the “mission” originally given to it by Sir George Mitchell when he actually first founded the damn thing back in 1955, was it? It is highly unlikely that, in a 99.9 percent white society, Mitchell would have given the slightest shit about the sacred post-2020 quest of “directing resources to communities most impacted by racism and other forms of discrimination.” He wanted to build subsidized housing for students, not huts for boat-people.

Here is an up-to-date image of some typical future intended “English” recipients of Sir Godfrey’s wealth:

To be fair, Northern UK housewives in the 1950s when the Trust was formally established did often used to wear headscarves when out and about doing their daily shopping, but not ones looking quite like that.

In its first announcement of grants made since the initial grant-application freeze of 2023, in March this year the Tudor Trust declared £9.3 million  of long-term funding to be made to eleven favored groups, dubbed “Learning Partners”, together with seven one-off payments of £100,000 each towards seven others, called “Exploration Partners”. But what were these oh-so-worthy new causes, precisely? The answer is even worse than you might be expecting …

Disrespect Your Elders

One of the charity’s favored new core Learning Partners is the ironically named Good Ancestor Movement (GAM), a bizarre financial pressure-group devoted towards invading the empty skulls of other susceptible white family-owned charities and trust-funds across Britain and persuading them to hand over all their cash to non-whites too in slavish imitation, a kind of self-replicating system of metastasis – like cancer. I wonder how the present-day Mitchell family’s own ancestors, who laboriously built the coffers of the Tudor Trust up in the first place, feel about their legacy being comprehensively “reimagined” in this way?

Founded by a black former lawyer named Stephanie Brobbey, GAM describes itself as a consultancy firm providing “bespoke consultancy services for individuals, families, trusts and foundations” which aims to “equip our clients with the multidisciplinary support they need to create a wealth plan that sits in line with their values”, just so long as “their values” equate to supinely handing over everything they own to random black people either before or after their deaths, because slavery. As GAM explain:

We encourage our clients to adopt a reparative approach to redistribution of excess wealth. This involves identifying any harm incurred by people, groups, communities, and the planet in the creation of wealth and its ongoing accumulation; and committing to repair such harm through redistribution.

According to such a twisted outlook, all white-owned assets and property are inherently unclean, just like that of the mafia. As Brobbie argues, whiteness is even now quite literally destroying the entire planet through climate-change: “It’s only in the past couple of years that I’ve come to develop an understanding of how Western imperialism is largely responsible for climate change – aggressive industrialization of our economy, globalization, the list goes on…” I bet it does: an infinite, self-regenerating list of itemized and (deliberately) never fully-repayable charges.

Approaching naïve rich white people like a corrupt medieval Catholic bishop and offering to facilitate what amounts to a modern-day system of Indulgences based upon the new all-time ineradicable crime of Original-Race-Sin sounds like great work if you can get it. Mrs Brobbie declares a “need to make extreme wealth extinct”, but I query if this noble aim also applies to persons like her? How poor are you these days, Stephanie? Do you live in an old fruit-box under a bridge, perchance? Or is that just what white people will have to do soon, once they’ve handed over non-whites all their selfishly inherited wealth and houses?

Let’s Mock Tudor

The new Tudor Chief Executive Raji Hunjan explains how, in the ideal world she imagines for future Britain:

Centering a racial justice approach … can be problematic in a context where a scarcity mindset is widely adopted in our society. Scarcity implies there is not enough for everyone, and that we must therefore fight or compete to have enough for ourselves. It fuels ‘we are full’ narratives. If we imagine a society where is it understood that there is enough [money, food, homes, consumer goods, etc, to be shared out equally between everyone – i.e., redistributed from whites to non-whites], then we can begin to explore how racial justice can be a lens through which to achieve equity and justice in ways that go much further to be intersectional and capable of reaching all communities.

This is magical monetary thinking. Merely “imagining” that a country with £2.8 trillion of national debt can somehow miraculously conjure up enough cash from nowhere to support the entire imported world and his burka-clad wife to flood onto its shores, thereby making all those evil far right “we are full narratives” disappear, is not going to do anyone any favors once the immigrants actually do arrive and ruin the nation even more fully by bankrupting the welfare benefits system – the current cost of putting up so-called ‘asylum seekers’ in UK hotels is £8m per day.

Or am I just looking at all this through the wicked white Western “scarcity mindset” of capitalism and financial logic here? If so, that would be no good, as another key aim of the organizations henceforth to be supported by the Tudor Trust would seem to be that of transforming Britian into an outright Communist country. Another of the Trust’s dynamic new recipients of unearned monetary aid is the Decolonising Economics group, whose aims are succinctly summed up here:

It would be interesting to know what the former head of Great Britain’s one-time largest homebuilder Sir Godfrey would make of the concept of “community ownership of assets” like housing. But is there a racial element to this key communistic aim too? Given the below beyond-parody online bios of Decolonising Economics’ founders, it seems unlikely there would not be.

What in the name of Christ is “microbial justice”? Are germs due reparations now too, for the genocidal long-term human use of penicillin? That was first identified by a white British man too, another thing the country is no doubt soon to be held eternally guilty for. Notice particularly here how Nonhlanhla Spellcheckerror seeks to “shift power and resources” towards blacks and black lesbians. But shift them how? The good folx from another recent recipient of Tudor Trust funds, Project Tallawah, could certainly tell her (sorry, I mean “they/them”).

Give Us Allawah Money

“Tallawah” is Jamaican slang for being small and black, but strong, like Gary Coleman with a bazooka, as exemplified by the patois Caribbean saying “We likkle but we tallawah”, the solidarity-building motto of trade unionized dwarfs and pygmies everywhere. The brave, Imperialism-battling Ewoks of Project Tallawah boast of using “Black feminist technology” [1] to mobilize the profound potential intersectional power of “Women of Color” all across the UK – the word ‘women’ here being inclusive of all “Black, African and African-Heritage women, girls and gender-expansive people.” So, the organization also represents the interests of mentally ill men, then.

Being fantasist-friendly, it should be no surprise the Tallawites seek to reform the British economy along unrealistic utopian lines, guided at all times by “our vision of living loving, joyful lives; where our communities experience freedom, healing, abundance and equity”, like black African economies supposedly did before the white devils in pith-helmets arrived to steal all their yams and bananas.

Oddly enough, it seems that the equity-loving Africans of old were Communists long before white nineteenth and twentieth-century laggards like Marx, Engels and Lenin had even so much as dreamed of the concept of seizing the oligarchic modes of production. The way Tallawah talk about the white people who they say invented global capitalism purely as a means of dominating their poor black economic dupes seems eerily reminiscent of the way Julius Streicher or Joseph Goebbels once talked about the Jews doing the same to white Europeans:

The dominant economic models are corrupt and violent. We will not define them as ‘broken’ as they were never intended to free us [i.e., blacks], and they continue to be held in place by a limited but powerful number of humans [i.e., whites, not Jews] for the benefit of a limited number of wealthy/financially rich people.

To these people, Shylock is now us. If you’re white, and you possess any property, possessions, or even a piggy bank, then you are taking your pound of prime black African flesh whether you know it or not. Plus, the very idea of “Scarcity has been manufactured [by whites] to maintain the status quo”, meaning the laws of supply and demand themselves are innately racist. In a world run by benign Commie Africans, however, everybody could doubtless have absolutely everything for free, even private jets, unicorns, and country mansions, as “There are enough resources on this planet to enable all of life to be nurtured and supported equitably, outside of the dominant paradigms [i.e., actually having to have jobs and pay for things] which feed competition, exploitation and extraction.”

As all known previous “Reforms and adaptations of capitalism have only served to hold systems of power in place”, it therefore follows that white capitalism must be replaced wholesale. This dialectically inevitable process will begin by persuading liberal, white-guilt-ridden morons like the old board members of the Tudor Trust to hand over all their ancestral financial inheritance to Africans, before then using this as a mere staging-post to persuade entire white Western governments to act similarly in the name of belated ‘reparations’ for slavery, colonialism, George Floyd, the Ku Klux Klan, climate change, Jim Crow, old episodes of Amos n’ Andy, Golliwogs on jam-jars, etc, etc:

Philanthropy, especially as it operates through foundations, corporate social responsibility, and individual giving by high net worth individuals is not the solution to economic inequality. Indeed the philanthropic industry, arguably, has been part of the problem. However, transformative actions on the part of these actors, along with key shifts including tax reform, debt cancellation (national and individual) and reparative action at the level of states and individual wealth holders, are all part of moving us towards economic justice.

To be fair, philanthropy like that described above is indeed “part of the problem” with the world today – the actions of the Tudor Trust in helping fund poison like this proves it.

LIONist Settler Movement

For the truly committed Communist, taking after Proudhon, “All property is theft”, and that includes land too. As Project Tallawah say, “Colonization and capitalism are interwoven”, as “The acquisition of wealth is by and large related to historic and contemporary patterns of exploitation including in the plantation economy, the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the occupation of indigenous lands through settler colonialism.”

So, if you’re white, and you have any property at all, even if you live ten-to-a-room in a small garden-shed, it’s only because your ancestors stole it from some random Kenyans circa 1889. The solution? For Kenyans to become settler colonialists themselves, by moving to places like Britain en masse and parceling all the lovely land out between their kin in an act of revenge, like Cecil Rhodes in reverse.

To help facilitate this, the new-look Tudor Trust are also diverting funds towards another black-run group called LION, or Land In Our Names, although it should be called Taking Hold of Everything For Themselves, or THEFT. LION describe themselves slightly ungrammatically as a “grassroots collective of Black and People of Color getting land through reparations”. Land-reparations are apparently necessary in order to “heal and repair transgenerational traumas” inflicted by historical white people against the contemporary black race – the word ‘transgenerational’ there being a Newspeak synonym for ‘things that didn’t even happen to us’.

Members of LION “believe that land [redistribution] is vital to this process, both as a return of what was taken from us and our ancestors, and as a way to rebuild ancestral ways of being in right relationship to the land.” They aim to do this by taking over large tracts of land in England and then living on them in what sound like little separatist black race-communes, resembling neo-Bantustans. How does squatting on pieces of land somewhere just outside Norwich or Ipswich count as being “a return of what was taken from us and our ancestors”, though? When precisely did your ancestors own East Anglia, Thabo?

Although currently being funded by the Tudor Trust, given its aspirations towards seizing white land, LION’s original patron must have been Robert Mugabe. They are very explicit that their titular goal of Land In Our Names “is not a figurative title but a tangible goal to collectively own land in the names of Black and People of Color communities in Britain.” Once again, LION identify themselves as “anti-capitalist” (a fancy way of saying ‘Communist’, maybe?), and claim to operate upon behalf of “those of us who have been dispossessed and have unequal access to land”. I think the real people being dispossessed in England at the moment are the whites, not the blacks.

Although LION call for “reparations and redistribution of resources”, as far as I can tell they don’t literally go around occupying and then seizing white farmlands bearing burning torches, machine-guns and pangas, Zimbabwe-style, but instead purchase such properties perfectly legally with cash donated to them by idiots like the Tudor Trust and the Quakers. Having done so, they then seem to want to transform them into self-ruling micro-states.

Self-stewardship of the land upon the basis of “collective ownership” and management of it for food-growing purposes, as in Stalinist Russia, is lauded by LION as “the basis for revolution and sovereignty in our communities” as “our liberation is intertwined with liberation of the land”. If I tried to establish an all-white commune to help displaced natives escape from the conquered citadels of London or Birmingham by buying up nearby heathlands and saying only pure Aryans could come and live there alongside me in my own personal Anglo-Saxon race-paradise, do you think the Government would let me?

LION’s Black Pride

The most prominent LIONess in the media today is the body’s co-founder, Josina Calliste, who goes around penning op-eds for alternative economics websites with unbelievably self-entitled titles like ‘This Land Is Our Land’, as if Woodie Guthrie was really Nigerian. Here, she claims to be speaking upon behalf of the “peoples whose ancestors built the wealth of Britain” – not the British, obviously, but black Africans. How does she work that one out? As follows:

We know that a lot of the people who own the most land in Britain have inherited wealth built up through economic activity in the former colonies. And we know that Black communities and communities of colour in Britain are dispossessed from the land in their countries of heritage.

So, you took our land away from us, and now we’re going to take your land away from you, then. Thanks for being so clear and open about it all for once at least. “Land is ultimately about power,” Calliste helpfully explains. Yes indeed. That’s why you want to grab it away from us, isn’t it?

In a 2020 interview with Far-Left online media outlet Novara Media, Calliste bemoans how “farming is the least ethnically diverse occupation in the UK with only 0.8 percent of farmers identifying as non-white” – I presume she’s not including cannabis farming in those figures. Shockingly, it transpires that “the top 50 landowners in the UK own over 12 percent of its landmass [and] they are overwhelmingly white”. They would be, it’s meant to be a white country. Plus, this list of “the top 50 landowners” includes public bodies like the Ministry of Defence and the Forestry Commission, not just the plutocratic descendants of dead white Caribbean sugar-plantation owners, so such figures are deeply misleading. Nonetheless, continues Calliste:

There’s a political narrative of this country being ‘full’; that we can’t support any more migrants, or people fleeing persecution. But when you drive through the countryside and see these vast tracts of land that are free and open, you realise that there is enough space, it’s just that land is hoarded by the wealthy.

The MoD could always gift LION an acre or two of free land right in the middle of one of their practice artillery firing ranges, if she likes? Calliste has a better suggestion, though: “There are some progressive landowners who have spoken to us about inheritance and succession and who they want to pass their land on to [i.e., us].”

Once such “progressive landowners” have meekly handed over their ancestral fields and demesnes, LION don’t even plan to continue treating them like aspects of the traditional patchwork British countryside we all know and love from the novels of Thomas Hardy and paintings of John Constable, but instead to enable “the revival of more communal ways of living with the land that we know existed [in Africa] in pre-colonial times – from the kinship-based commons found in West Africa … and nomadic communities found the world over.” Just what we need, the Maasai Mara in rural Kent. Will you provide the elephants and giraffes, Calliste, or shall I give Chester Zoo a call?

If this is where ‘charity’ gets you nowadays, I say bring back Scrooge and give him control over the Tudor Trust, not Raji Hunjan. Instead of charity beginning at home, insane and ruinous over-generosity like this will soon end up meaning that the British will have no home.

If black professional victims really insist upon demanding endless free handouts from white people, can’t the British just give them a few free colored beads and cowry-shells again? That all seemed to work out perfectly OK the last time around.

Notes

[1] Oprah-branded motorized dildos, maybe?