Consume Product

> America isn’t doing enough to welcome them.

Interesting logical leap there. Why can't Israel welcome them? Why can't Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, with their plentiful oil wealth, welcome them? Why can't Turkey, not far off of European standards of living, welcome them?

> Millions of migrants and refugees are displaced by violence, persecution, and economic instability.

Why arbitrarily let in this million rather than that million? Why discriminate on behalf of one non against another. We should take in all (ultimately what our enemies truly want, with anything below limitless immigration simply a compromise so as not to upset less extreme people too much) or none.

Furthermore, only indoctrinated and stupid people look at 'millions of migrants and refugees' and think: 'If we share our country with them, that will solve their problems.'

Those properly using their mental faculties think: 'If we share our country with them, they will share with us their problems. Their problems will become our problems.'

It is also worth mentioning that Rupert Lowe again clarified that he is *not* one of us, just to make it clear to those wishful thinkers who actually are Far-Right or at least anti-immigration.

I don't know how this wasn't obvious right from the get-go. Literally the first Tweet I saw from him was saying that the 1970s were a great time in British history. Needless to say, I don't follow him: it was obvious in mere seconds that he's a Thatcherite classical liberal.

From an interview with Bret Weinstein:

> I detest Far-Right, sort of, you know, ethnonationalist or neo-Nazism, I've never been driven by that.

Some other text attributed to him (unsure of source, probably a transcript of an interview or speech):

> You said I'm right-wing, I'm not right-wing. What's happened is that the whole of British politics has been pulled to the left. So anything that's even common sense is described as far right, and that's all got to change.

Regarding his son marrying a Libyan:

> As if I would try and control who my son married. And by the way, I'm not anti-Islam, I'm anti-radical Islam.

It just occurred to me while typing the above quote that, unless his son's wife is an apostate or they have simply ignored Islamic law, Lowe's son must be a 'revert' (Islamic term for convert) to Islam because there is no way that that marriage is Islamic if he is not (a Muslimah cannot marry a non-Muslim).

That makes me wonder: Is Lowe's son officially Muslim, or is his Libyan wife an apostate, or have they simply disregarded Islamic law insofar as their marriage is concerned? It doesn't look good for them, whichever of these three options is the truth. The first would enrage civic nationalists and 'Islamophobes', the latter two would enrage Muslims.

So there you have it, right from the horse's mouth. Perhaps we can make something out of his party, and actual ethnonationalists are in there trying to do that, but it's obvious that he's not one of us.

Personally, anyone who says he's against the 'Far-Right' is off limits. If somebody doesn't like the 'Far-Right', you can just practice quietism about it. There is no need to use terms like 'detest' or disavow. As soon as somebody says: 'I detest' the 'Far-Right' and ethnonationalism, then you make it clear that you're ultimately still working with Leftist and liberal mental schemata, which makes you the enemy of the counter-revolutionary illiberalism of which I am for.

Lowe can keep whinging and whining about illegal immigrants and radical Muslims all he likes. Labour's Burnham or Reform's Farage will be the next prime ministers, heavens forbid, whereas other candidates like Lowe, the Nigerian Olukemi, or Homo-Schlomo poofter Polanski have no real shot at the prime ministership.

I'm not interested in Lowe's vision of a return to the 1970s and to a Thatcherism that just deports illegal immigrants and radical Muslims, whose numbers pale in comparison to legal immigrants and non-radical Muslims, and leaves everything else - Buddhists, Hindus, Leftists, niggers, kikes, trannies, etc. - intact. Nor will he ever realize that vision. We aren't going back to the 1970s or to Thatcherism: that was a time that Lowe simply sees through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia and his own youth. The 1970s and your rose-tinted glasses be damned!

Given that many of his most vocal supporters happen to be anti-immigration and ethnonationalist but are simply reading him wrong, his words will do nothing but drive them away, leaving him with people who are just as willing or more willing to support Farage or even Olukemi. Useless scum like 'Tommy Robinson', the detritus of the White Race, who somehow inexplicably love Hindus and Sikhs while simultaneously hating Muslims, as if the beliefs in the minds of these people matters one iota at all.

What sense does it make to say: I do not like this man because he is Muslim, but this other man here has converted to Hinduism and this third man over there has converted to Sikhism (which, amusingly, is a synthesis of that very same dreaded Islam with Hinduism), so I want the latter two in my country and not the former? Just how does their religion matter? Do Hinduism and Sikhism magically stop brownoids from committing crimes and Islam not? Preposterous! There is no difference!

All it takes to keep your most vocal supporters is to say nothing - and how easy is it to simply say nothing? - but, no, you had to come out and spinelessly denounce them, even worse, all in front of some 'American' kike. That was his Kanye West grovelling before the rabbi moment: 'Please, Mr. Kike, please let me climb up the political ladder, please, please stop the constant mass media attacks on me. I'll be a good goy, I promise!'

Immigration…. aaaaannnnddd whoooooo….