The Union Jackal
September-October 2025

3,459 words

Identity Crisis

It’s become something of an axiom in the UK that if former Prime Minister Tony Blair thinks something is a good idea, then it will certainly be a very bad idea for ordinary British people, particularly the ones unfortunate enough today to have white skin. Almost 30 years after Blair and his Labour Party came to power in 1997, we know now that their term in office was the first leg of a well-disguised globalist project. The latest tool of oppression intended for the native British was not implemented by Blair personally, but it was his idea, and his spirit lives on in Labour’s latest plan to turn up the authoritarian misery in the UK.

National identity cards were an obsession for Blair almost from the moment he took office as Prime Minister (PM), but he failed in his efforts to introduce them. Even Gordon Brown was against ID cards. Brown was the dour Scottish Presbyterian who took over from Blair as PM in 2007, although he opposed ID because he hated Blair so much, by that time he would have opposed a cancer cure if Blair had invented one. However, Sir Keir Starmer – Blair’s ideological Mini-Me – may finally realize the former PM’s wet dream of total surveillance of his own people.

When the Labour Party won that general election in 1997, many people thought their lives would change. They were right, but not in a way they expected or voted for. It was enough that the ghost of Margaret Thatcher was exorcised, the deposed stuffed shirt that was John Major could go back to watching cricket, and Labour were back in power for the first time since Jim Callaghan left office in 1979. “Blair’s Babes,” the record number of women taking their seats as MPs, were all over the newspapers, as if having more women in positions of power was something good in and of itself. (There were also 200 Labour MPs elected who were members of the Fabian Society, but we didn’t hear so much about that from the media). The corridors of the BBC were strewn with champagne bottles, and a new millennium beckoned. It is only now, almost three decades later, that hindsight allows us to see exactly what Labour and Tony Blair had in mind: total government surveillance intended primarily for the white, indigenous natives.

Digital ID cards are always sold as a way to make an individual’s life easier. Keir Starmer, announcing the planned card at a franchise of the World Economic Forum rather than at Westminster, began by telling a grateful public that the card would be “free of charge,” like a plastic toy in a cereal packet. In the fiscal sense, this may be true, but your free card will have a price, which is your freedom. But the public in the UK are not as naïve as they were in Blair’s day, and are aware of just how pathetic a lie Starmer has told over ID cards. In an age of identity politics, just how important is identity?

If you look back at this century’s Islamist attacks in mainland Britain, you will find that most of the attackers were “known to the intelligence services” before they donned their rucksacks or sharpened their knives. They didn’t have ID cards. This meant they were on a “watch list,” or under surveillance. None of these men were what British intelligence agencies such as MI5 and MI6 call “clean skins,” meaning unknown to them and under the radar. It meant that their identities were known, probably in some detail. But they still managed to blow people up, decapitate them, or otherwise end their lives. I was a little confused as to how surveillance helped in those cases until I realized that it was never designed to watch Muslims. It was designed by kuffar to watch kuffar. And now a planned digital ID card has been announced by a PM whose mouth is full of truth decay, it won’t be Mohammedans who have to fear the intrusive eyes and ears of the state.

The government rushed out a mock-up of the planned “Britcard” and, inevitably, the photograph on the front shows a smiling black man. Approximately four to five percent of the British population are black (although this will be creeping up incrementally as most of Africa makes its way to the UK), while around 80% of the population are white. Nevertheless, a grinning black was chosen as the face on the card. Of course, this is in line with TV and print advertising, dramatic casting, journalism, academia, social services, NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), board-rooms, and just about every other area of British life at present. If you watched British TV for a couple of hours with the sound down, and were not sure which country it was being broadcast from, you would assume it was somewhere in Africa or the Caribbean. The Lord Chancellor and Deputy PM of Britain is currently a black man and, should Keir Starmer die, David Lammy would have the nuclear codes. Diversity hiring could yet get us all killed. This is the man who thinks Henry VII succeeded Henry VIII on the throne of England, so number sequences are not really his strong point. His latest masterstroke was accusing Nigel Farage of “flirting with the Hitler Youth” as a young man. Farage is looking good for his age, because the Hitler Youth was disbanded in October, 1945.

The idea of digital ID cards, according to one of the most duplicitous governments in the world, has many wonderful advantages. It will reduce illegal immigration, they claim, and it will stop people working illegally. It will also make it so much easier to access government services, which are decaying by the day. That’s like being given a season-ticket to a football ground that closed two years ago. The whole thing is a compound lie on such a grand scale that even the usually gullible British public are not buying it, and we can see behind it by walking through a day or two in the life of a new migrant arrival in the UK.

An illegal immigrant – let’s call him Mohammed, because there is a fair chance his parents did – turns up on Dover beach in a rubber boat with a few dozen of his co-religionists. He has much more chance of making the trip in one piece these days, because the boats are getting bigger, better, and more robust. They are now being made to order in China, obeying the simple economic principles of supply and demand. There is a healthy market for these boats and, once their job seems to be over, the British authorities are good enough to have them shipped back to France to be re-used. Mo’s boat has effectively been escorted across the English Channel by the obliging French maritime authorities, who are paid a lot of money annually by the British taxpayer to do precisely the opposite. Every now and again, there will be a fake but carefully orchestrated little video showing gruff French policemen slashing a dinghy with a knife and yelling at migrants they will later apologize to once the cameras are turned off, but this is all show. They don’t want these people in their country any more than anyone else does – even the Egyptians won’t take Gazans – and they are particularly happy to offload Mohammed and company onto the English. For some Frenchmen, the Hundred Years War is still going on (the French have never liked the English very much, and the feeling is mutual).

On arrival in Dover, anonymity is the key note. Mohammed and his friends have already thrown their passports and phones into the English Channel, and if you could dredge that 21-mile stretch of water (at its narrowest point) you would haul up more passports and phones than you could shake a stick at. Mohammed knows he will get a new phone on arrival in Britain, and he also knows that you do not require a passport to get into the UK unless you are an actual British citizen. He knows that because one of his cousins told him so by text message while he was still in whatever country he was born in and has originally come from. In a few months’ time, he will have the same legal status – and lots of extra perks unavailable to the white British – as you, if you are in Britain as you read this. But who is Mohammed? The authorities will need to know, because he is going to need a digital ID card too.

Those authorities, however, are not allowed to test his DNA because it would violate his human rights, which don’t and never have existed except as tools to disadvantage white people. This means that if a 27-year-old says he is 16, you have to take him at his word. They will fingerprint Mohammed, however, or whatever his real name is. As they don’t know his real name, or even his country of origin to any degree of certainty, there is no point to this fingerprinting, but they do it anyway. There is no database against which to match it, so it is a pointless but expensive exercise, as it usually requires a paid interpreter as well as ink and a piece of paper. From the moment Mohammed arrives in Britain, the British taxpayers are picking up the check for his presence. Every move he makes costs money. It’s like when you get into a cab and the driver flicks that lever on the meter and the numbers start ticking.

Next, Mohammed may be driven to a good hotel. He doesn’t need ID to book in, although a white British person would require photographic ID. These hotels, however, are closed to the British public, with short-notice cancellations of weddings and holidays having inconvenienced many white people. Or Mohammed may be taxied to one of the many private houses which are being bought up by the government and are known as HMOs, or “Houses of Multiple Occupancy.” Entire streets in England are now being purchased in this way using tax money, like a real-life game of Monopoly. If you are, say, a young English white couple with a new baby who would like to buy a house to raise your family in, you are out of luck. You can’t outbid the government for property, and it may hurt a little when you realize that they are using your tax money – and your parents’ tax money, if you are youngish – to keep you confined to the rental market. Rents are also going up in line with increasing house prices, and it’s really not your day, white couple. It’s not your month, it’s not even your decade. It’s certainly not going to be your century, or that of anyone resembling you. Mohammed is what counts now. But we still don’t know much about him. Who is he? What should we put on his digital ID card?

One of Donald Trump’s observations which enraged the left because of its accuracy was his noting of the fact that Latin American and African countries “are not sending their best people” to the USA. In fact, he expanded on this theme over time. Not only were they not sending their best, the President later pointed out, they were sending their worst. Jails and asylums were being emptied in countries such as Venezuela and the Congo, and the former inmates of both essentially told to get out of town, permanently. “I hear the USA is nice this time of year,” was effectively what these governments were saying to their retards and murderers. It’s the US of A or it’s back to jail, Miguel or Mbombe. You choose.

Anyone thinking through all the things that smell fishy about the British immigration “system” will note two points. Firstly, the endless stream of Mohammeds, Abduls and Ahmeds landing on the beaches of England will have paid something in the region of 5,000 euros for their trip across Europe. You can take a first-class round-trip from London to New York for that kind of money, and drink champagne all the way, so why didn’t Mohammed save himself a bit of cash and just get a flight to Heathrow? It’s almost as though he didn’t want to come through the normal channels, almost like he had something to hide. Which many Mohammeds have, of course. “Refugees welcome,” therefore, also means: “rapists, murderers, paedophiles and jihadis welcome” once you translate it into real-world speak. Also, if Mohammed comes to Britain legally, then he has to find his own accommodation, buy his own phone, get a legal job, and all the other stuff that normal, non-criminal people who already have ID do. Come illegally, and that’s all free. That 5,000 euros Mo paid begins to look like a bargain once he’s been in a good hotel for a couple of months and is working off the books for Deliveroo or Uber Eats. It’s the only holiday that pays for itself. In what world can a digital ID card put an end to this remorseless process? It obviously can’t.

This announcement has predictably led to a storm of protest, and there is a government-endorsed petition against ID cards. The deep state instituted this absurd piece of fake democracy back in 2015, under a Tory government, claiming that if a government petition for or against any particular piece of legislation reached 100,000 signatures, then it would be debated in the House of Commons. When I signed this one on October 1, it stood at almost 2.8 million signatures, and the email I received was extremely long, and simply reiterated government plans to introduce the card. They won’t debate it, and even if they did the result would be as rigged as a wrestling match.

So, now that Mohammed is here and has made sure that room-service is up to scratch, and he has signed on for benefits, it’s time to get a job as well. This is where the Britcard will really come into its own, we are assured. But there is a flaw. If you are an employer who plays by the rules, you have not only to pay your staff members their wages, you also have to be insured while they are on your premises, you have to pay their National Insurance contributions, sick pay and holiday pay, and maybe buy them uniforms. And if your new black employee thinks someone has been racist to him in the workplace – which many of them are either taught to do or work out for themselves – then they don’t sue the “racist,” they sue you under the “vicarious liability” laws. It’s the same as being knocked down by a drunk bus-driver. You don’t sue him, you sue the bus company. Now, let’s forget about Mohammed for a while and think about who he is about to start work for.

Let’s say you have started your own business and it’s going well. Do you really want all that stuff in your life, to put out that money for some low-IQ illegal immigrant who could get you into trouble? No. So, second choice. If you are an employer who does not play by the rules, you just have to give Mohammed “cash in hand,” as it’s known in Britain. You are not going to ask for an ID card any more than you are going to ask for a valid National Insurance number, a perfectly good ID system every British person has been issued with at birth for the last 114 years. I still know mine from memory.

It’s clear that the British deep state wants a social credit scheme in place in the same way it exists in China. I saw this system at first hand in Sweden over 30 years ago. There were, at the time, two large off-licenses, or liquor stores, in Göthenburg. When purchasing your tipple of choice, your ID card was checked online. If you or members of your household were found to have purchased more than a state-mandated amount of booze in any given month, they sent a social worker to your home to discuss the problems of alcoholism. Intrusive, but at least there is a valid health aspect (and Swedes do like a glass or three). The British government will be concerned with alcohol consumption because Muslims generally don’t drink, so it is safe territory. But they will be concerned with much more than that. When the nice girl behind the supermarket checkout tells you that, unfortunately, you have exceeded your meat allowance for the month, so the steaks will have to go back on the shelf, or the family holiday is unbookable because you have exceeded your annual air-miles allowance, things will become clearer. And it won’t stop with simple material consumption. “Good morning, sir,” a policeman will say on your doorstep early one morning. “It seems you have bought a copy of Ian Kershaw’s two-volume biography of Hitler from Amazon. Your son seems to have watched American History X three times. And you complained about the noise from your neighbor – a person of color – on Facebook. Would you mind coming with us, and bringing a toothbrush?”

The digital ID card is peaches and cream for this government, and for its mentor, Tony Blair. It needs resistance because, as the game stands, the government are holding stronger cards in their hand than the people.

Let Us Pray

Quiz time! Which English woman wrote the following on social media in the summer of 2020, and where is she currently employed?

Now is a time to listen, and to learn. We stand together for dignity, equality and justice. #BlackLivesMatter.

The lady in question is Dame Sarah Mullally, although we ought to address her by her new job title: the Archbishop of Canterbury. I’m not religious myself, if you except a sort of cranky Spinozist pantheism. But if I were, I would be thinking about becoming Amish or Lutheran or Mormon, or pretty much anything but Anglican. While the Church is crowing about the first woman in this historic office, one wonders what actual Christians think of it all. The Church of England (as it used to be called) is now simply a sub-department of the deep state in Britain, hopelessly liberal and desperate to be liked. Nowadays, it’s all Pride flags and Palestine, climate change and coloreds, that get the Church excited, rather than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And the Devil is no longer red, but white.

It’s an odd thing, but the Anglican Church doesn’t spend a great deal of time these days talking about God. I thought that was the point, no? Should there be a second coming, and Jesus turns up once more, I don’t think he’ll bother with the Christian Church. He’ll probably convert to Islam. A 4-star hotel is better than a stable, and Mohammed Christ is not such a bad name.

Jews in the News

When the British police describe an event as “a terrorist attack,” it means “a Muslim did it.” That’s what it means. This is not something which could be said out loud without jail-time for someone in the UK, so “terrorism” has become a euphemism, in the same way I once heard some lefty journalist in the States call 9/11 “an incident,” like a fender-bump. But “terrorist attack” is still rather a vague term, as the attack at a synagogue in Manchester illustrates. When three little girls were killed by a Muslim in Southport last year, the word “terrorism” was not used. Once the victims are Jews, however, the word is displayed for all to see.

The police got a move on in responding, too, doubtless spurred by the fact that it was a synagogue where the trouble occurred, and not a church. Church crime and vandalism are off the scale in the UK, but attacks rarely make more than the local press. Attack Jews, however, and it’s “hold the front page!” The boys in blue (or girls, or don’t-knows) arrived at the scene in seven minutes, which they will not do if you are an ordinary white person. In fact, they got there so quickly they managed to shoot and kill the Muslim man who had just knifed a couple of Jews to death. Three died in all, but the third was shot by mistake by a police officer. The dead killer’s first name (I suppose you can’t really call it a Christian name) was Jihad, and he was out on bail pending a court appearance on a rape charge. I suppose “Jihad” is a more interesting name than “Mohammed.” Two days after the attack, two mosques were set ablaze in England. Things really are heating up.

Rule Britannia. Someone’s got to.

The Union Jackal.