A disagreement between living Balfour and dead Gurney

Attached to Beyond sakkāyadithi or you are not the person

I have just been sent a book from England that might interest you. It is Lord Balfour’s A Study of the Psychological Aspects of Mrs Willett’s Mediumship, and of the Statement of the Communicators Concerning Process. I do not think that you have any doubts about re-birth, but this book seems to me to be quite exceptionally good evidence for it; and the various philosophical problems discussed (between the living and the dead) are themselves of no little interest.

There is, in particular, a disagreement between Balfour (living) and Gurney (dead) about the possibility of there being a split within one and the same person. This disagreement can only be resolved when the distinction between the notion of a person (sakkāya, attā) and that of an individual (puggala) becomes clear. (This distinction, as you will remember, is discussed in the Notes.) Balfour denies that a person, a self, can be split without ipso facto becoming two persons, two selves (i.e. two quite different people): Gurney affirms it. Balfour is wrong for the right reason: Gurney is right for the wrong reason.*

* Balfour; Gurney: On page 269 of the book the Ven. Nanavira noted, in the margin: All the muddle of this chapter comes of the puthujjana’s failure to distinguish personality from individuality. Personality as ‘self’ is indivisible. Individuality is as divisible as you please; that is, within the individual. The word individual does not exclude internal divisions; it simply means that you cannot treat these internal divisions as a collection of individuals. ‘Individual’ is opposed to ‘class’.) And on page 308 there is the marginal note: From a puthujjana’s point of view, Balfour’s objections are valid—‘self’ cannot be divided into separate ‘selves’…. This paradox cannot be resolved in the sphere of the puthujjana. If Gurney is right, that is only because he has, in fact, failed to appreciate Balfour’s dilemma….

***
"You say," the doctor remarked unrelentingly, "that Peggy Lou, Peggy Ann, Mary, and the others couldn't be the same person. But they can be. Vicky, don't you see that they could be different aspects of the same person?"

"No, Dr. Wilbur," Vicky said thoughtfully, shaking her head. "I don't see. You, you're just you. You're Dr. Wilbur and no one else."

"Yes?" the doctor asked.

"And I'm just Vicky. There's nobody else here. See." Vicky rose from the couch, paced the room, and asked, "Now do you believe me?"

Vicky sat down again, smiled at the doctor, and remarked, "That settles the question. There's no one else here. You're just Dr. Wilbur, and I'm just Vicky."

"Vicky," the doctor replied, "we haven't settled anything. Let's be honest with each other."

"But, Dr. Wilbur," Vicky insisted, "we most certainly have. We've settled the large, philosophical question of who am I? I am I. You are you. I think; therefore I am. There's a Latin phrase for it: cogito ergo sum. Yes, that's it."

"We've settled nothing," the doctor reminded Vicky. "We haven't established the relationship among Sybil, Peggy Lou, Peggy Ann, Mary and the others. What ...?"

"Questions, questions, questions," Vicky interrupted.
"I'd like to ask a question, too. Why do you have to ask all these questions?"

After rejecting the logical conclusion toward which Dr. Wilbur had been trying to lead her, Vicky contradicted the earlier contention that the doctor and she were alone, for she said, "Now, Dr. Wilbur, Mary would like to meet you. She wants to participate in our analysis, and I think we should let her."
"Our analysis?" Dr. Wilbur echoed. "How can it be "our" if you girls are not the same person?"

Vicky chuckled. "I suppose," she said with what seemed like deliberate ambiguity, "you might call it group therapy."

"You agreed you were sisters." Vicky was quick. "Family therapy, then, if you insist. Thanks for the correction."

Then, as surely as if she had physically left the room, Vicky was gone. A voice that definitely was not Vicky's remarked politely, "I'm glad to meet you, Dr. Wilbur."

"You're Mary?" the doctor asked. "Mary Lucinda Saunders Dorsett," the voice replied.

It was not the voice of a woman of the world like Vicky, nor of an angry child like Peggy Lou. The accent was unmistakably midwestern, soft, low, and somber.

SYBIL
By
Flora Rheta Schreiber
***
Vicki is one of multiple personalities (sakkāya) in one individual (puggala) know objectively by other individuals as Sybil.

We can see that there is something wrong, there is a mental problem here, since we as puthujjanas used to the idea one individual (puggala) = one personality (sakkāya). So the case of Sybil is diagnosed as multiple personality disorder in puthujjana medicine.

When the treatment is successful and other personalities are dissolved, certain individual (puggala) know as Sybil, who sees herself as a person (sakkāya) is recognised by medicine as more or less healthy.

In Dhamma medicine however an individual with one personality is still an unhealthy state. Certainty of being (bhava) - cogito ergo sum - is delusion and in need of treatment.  The true health comes only when we have the case of an individual without any personality. Arahat can be seen as Mr Nobody.

Puthujjana as an individual has more or less precise self-image of "what Iam" which is sakkāyadithi, and most likely will see an arahat as some special (holy, perfect) person, since it is inconceivable for him, that an individual can function quite well without "I am". That's why some "teachers" insist that there is a difference between living arahat and the dead one, and in fact that bhavanirodho, cessation of being happens only after the death of an arahat. Or that arahat still suffers since he is living in the world.

But the notion of external world in which puthujjana lives is as much dependently arisen on ignorance as he himself, or his being. To be sure, it doesn't mean that the material - external - world where he lives is an illusion. It merely means that when an interpretation of an experience in terms of self and the world is removed and consciousness functions without ignorance - (the subject) - related to self idea of external world is not present for the good reason that there is nothing external in relation to consciousness, all experience is in the field of consciousness.

**
NM : To destroy the false, you must question your most inveterate beliefs. Of these the idea that you are the body is the worst. With the body comes the world, with the world — God, who is supposed to have created the world and thus it starts — fears, religions, prayers, sacrifices, all sorts of systems — all to protect and support the child-man, frightened out of his wits by monsters of his own making. Realise that what you are cannot be born nor die and with the fear* gone all suffering ends.

*The absence of fear in the Dhamma is not the result of some stoic training, so despite of all circumstances one - as a person - is able to remain unmoved and at peace, but the result of seeing things as they are, namely that there are absolutely no reasons for the arising of fear.

Replacement Migration & Hypergamy

 

Note: This text is based on an address given November 2016 in Washington, DC.

Many of you have probably seen my byline but may not know me by sight. I write a lot about relations between men and women. Sometimes men in nationalist movements fail to appreciate the relevance of this subject to our political struggle as a people. Women don’t usually have that problem. They know that they control the perpetuation of our race, and in the final analysis, that’s almost all that matters. Feminists like to say that the personal is political, and on this point at least, they are correct: our political cause depends on stable marriages and families.

I would like to begin by drawing your attention to an article published in a Norwegian newspaper three and a half years ago. Some of you may remember the flurry of discussion it occasioned at the time. The article appeared in one of the few Norwegian publications not dependent on government subsidies, and therefore free to tell the truth about the situation in that country. It was based on interviews with two young men from Groruddalen, a suburban area outside Oslo that has enjoyed more cultural enrichment than any other place in that country, mostly from Pakistani and Somali Muslims. The two young men reflect on the challenges of coming to manhood in such an environment.

They report that there is a clear hierarchy among the local boys, and native Norwegians are at the bottom of it. They are often physically attacked by the immigrant boys in the local schools. Authority figures such as teachers tell the Norwegian boys never to retaliate, even when punched. The immigrant boys are to be pitied, they are told, because they come from countries which have suffered from war—even though some are third-generation immigrants by now.

The young Muslims are quick to perceive their inviolability, of course, and take full advantage of it. As one of the interviewees put it, “they talk about respect, but they don’t show any.” They have various contemptuous slang terms for their Norwegian peers, such as “whitey” and “potato.” They stare aggressively at them on the streets, and the Norwegian boys must lower their gaze first if they do not want to face an unequal fight there and then.

And the fights are always unequal. The European concept of a “fair fight” does not exist in the Muslim mind. “If you meet them alone,” said one interviewee, “they are cowards.” They travel and hunt in packs like dogs, and only attack the natives where they enjoy a clear superiority of force. Seven or eight against one is not uncommon. Furthermore, practically all of these boys dispose of large family networks: brothers, uncles, cousins who are glad to help them avenge any perceived slights. Most of the Norwegian boys, on the other hand, are children of divorce living with their mothers. Because of the low native birth rate, a majority do not even have any male siblings.

Seeing themselves on the bottom of the local totem pole, some of these Norwegian boys have actually begun to mimic the grammatical mistakes and limited vocabulary of the immigrant boys in an effort to raise their status. A handful have actually converted to Islam. But the most interesting part of this article to me is one interviewee’s description of the sexual consequences of this social experiment as described by one of the interviewees. The Muslim boys, he says, can chase Norwegian girls, but we cannot go after theirs. It’s something you learn early on. You just don’t go after a Pakistani girl, but Norwegian girls are available to immigrant boys. Norwegian girls prefer them. I don’t know why. That they are tough, that they have money despite not having jobs. The girls don’t see that they fight in packs, that they are cowards. I asked my best female friend if we could get romantically involved. And she told me that I have the right personality, but the problem was that I’m Norwegian. She wants to become involved with a foreigner.

Well, that young man may not understand why Norwegian girls prefer immigrant boys, but I do: sexual behavior is not under the control of the prefrontal cortex responsible for rational thought, but the limbic system, sometimes popularly known as the “reptilian brain” since it is primitive enough that we share it with reptiles. The female’s limbic instinct is to mate with dominant men—and it does not matter how such dominance is achieved. Reptiles, after all, are even farther from grasping the concept of a fair fight than Muslims. Norwegian girls either do not perceive or are unconcerned that their male peers face overwhelming odds, that the entire political and social regime of their country has been set up as if with the specific intention of disadvantaging them at the expanse of low-IQ thugs from the slums of Karachi. All the girls see is that Norwegian boys are getting beaten up and immigrant boys are doing the beating. Their natural impulse is to mate with the beaters, not the beatees.

Speaking more generally, women are less loyal to the tribe into which they are born than are men, and there are evolutionary reasons for this. In our environment of evolutionary adaptation, our remote ancestors lived in bands of fifty to a hundred persons whose men were frequently fighting one another. To be successful in such fights, men had to practice loyalty to the other men of their own tribe. When they were successful, they took the women of the vanquished tribe for themselves. This did not generally create any problem for those women. They formed new bonds with the newly dominant men quickly and easily. When men perceive that their side is losing, they redouble their efforts; women simply switch sides. The female instinct is to subordinate all other considerations to the successful rearing of children. Loyalty to their defeated menfolk would interfere with the fulfillment of this natural imperative, so they do not usually practice it. Exceptions are possible, but uncommon enough that they deserve special mention.

One case from American history has always especially impressed me. Pretty much all the sources agree that Yankee soldiers who took part in the military occupation of the American South during reconstruction got absolutely nowhere with the local women. The wives and sisters of men who had been overwhelmingly defeated—crippled and killed in many cases—remained loyal to these men, or to their memory, even at the expense of their own reproductive success. I’m not sure anything I have read about the Lost Cause has struck me with greater admiration for the defeated South. Female loyalty to tribe is certainly possible, and I hope we will know how to honor it where it occurs. At the same time, we would be wise not to count too much upon it. As I said, our evolutionary history has given women a facility in adapting to circumstance and a natural preference for the victorious, even in the unfairest of fights.

Muslim men stick to their own women when it is time to raise a family. They will happily use Western women for physical gratification if the opportunity presents itself, but they despise them as “Norwegian whores.” This may be one reason the women are so attracted to them: the female preference for dominance in males is very deeply rooted. It does not matter that they can have no future with such men.

So the exogamous Western women generally end up alone once they hit their thirties. I hope that when the time comes, Norwegian men will find the strength not to take pity on such women. If you want to discourage undesirable behavior, nothing is more effective than total ruthlessness. It’s masculine, it’s dominant, it’s attractive, and it’s one reason Norwegian women go for immigrant men in the first place. So in this respect, if no other, European men would be wise to imitate the foreign men among whom they are forced to live with and learn to be ruthless.

Let me give you an historical analogy. It is recorded that there was once a wave of suicides by young women in ancient Athens. If this happened today, emergency hotlines would be set up and psychotherapists dispatched to counsel the girls and find out what was troubling them. Instead, the city assembly simply decreed that the naked body of the next girl to commit suicide would go on display in the Agora. It wasn’t very kind, but there were no further suicides.

Similarly, a policy of writing off women who take up with their swarthy oppressors would be one way for Western man to regain a part of his dignity. It would also be eugenic, as tending to flush disloyalty from our gene pool.

F. Roger Devlin
https://counter-currents.com/

The Remigration Movement Solidifies

When the first Remigration Summit went forward last year in a small town near Milan, Italy, organizers had to count as a success that it managed to happen at all, so fierce was opposition from leftist groups and establishment politicians. This year’s event in the small Portuguese town of Figueira da Foz demonstrated that the remigration movement is here to stay. There were no venue cancellations, thanks to a sympathetic owner who laughed off threats and demands. Whereas police swarmed last year’s summit to prevent trouble, this year no visible police protection was necessary. Attendance jumped from 300 to 600, and the mood was confident and at times jubilant.

Afonso Gonçalves welcomed attendees and marveled at “so many good-looking people!” before handing things over to master of ceremonies Manuel Morgado. Mr. Morgado thanked the event’s sponsors and remarked on the appropriateness of holding it on May 30, the Feast Day of Saint and King Ferdinand III of Castile, under whose Christian leadership a large part of the Iberian Peninsula was reconquered from the Moors. The obvious implication was that our task of taking back Europe is a continuation of his struggle in the thirteenth century, but King Ferdinand probably did not have to fight against so much opposition from men of his own race and faith.

Mr. Gonçalves was the first speaker. He reminded us that, although getting stronger, we are still swimming against the tide: the anti-European Left remains entrenched in all our institutions, and the NGO SOS Racism formally requested that the Portuguese government cancel this event. Portugal is a country of only ten million people, and is home to two million immigrants. There are more foreign than native births in many towns, and many Portuguese wish to emigrate, yet the government is still allowing hundreds of thousands to come in and settle permanently. To be Portuguese, however, is not to possess a government-stamped paper saying one is Portuguese, but to be descended from the men who took their land back from the Moors in the Reconquista of the Middle Ages.

In 2023, Mr. Gonçalves founded the group Reconquista, which intends to take back Portugal for its natural sons once again. The group launched a petition to stop immigration last week and it already has 30,000 signatures. That means the Portuguese legislature is now required to receive him And to hear him speak in favor of remigration. This will be a huge media sensation because he is already well known throughout the country.

“We no longer care about being called racists, xenophobes, fascists, or extremists,” he noted, “but we will never be called traitors to our people.” Mr. Gonçalves does not believe there are many families in Portugal who have not at least seen a video or some other material put out by his group, and he has experienced the gratitude of ordinary fellow-countrymen despite being debanked and suffering other humiliations by the traitorous elites who cling to power.

The next speaker was Lena Kotré, a lawyer and provincial delegate of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. She noted significant progress since she spoke at last year’s first meeting in Milan. Nearly one-third of voters now understand that only her party stands for the preservation of the German nation.

The state is mobilizing enormous resources to keep patriots out of power, and imposing travel bans on her party’s supporters (something formerly associated with the East German Communist regime), but all of this reveals only their desperation. They resort to punishment because they have no arguments or facts on their side. These will intensify in the near future, and the establishment is now openly supportive of antifa terrorism, but “if that is the price we must pay to secure our nation, so be it.” Schoolchildren now speak openly and without fear of remigration, and little boys boast that they want to become police officers so they can deport foreigners.

The third speaker was Stefano Forte, president of the New York Young Republicans Club. He mentioned that 40 percent of New Yorkers now speak a language other than English at home, and many of these foreigners are the sort that “eat from our hands while they spit in our faces.” Remigration is not a mere political issue in the usual sense, but a question of survival. New York is currently governed by a radical Muslim mayor whose top lawyer represents al-Qaeda terrorists, and he cannot be allowed to replace native New Yorkers.

Mr. Forte’s group was the first Republican club to endorse Donald Trump, and it did so because the candidate said remigration will make America great again. People support remigration not because they hate but because they love: love their parents and their children and revere the civilized heritage passed down to them. “The West was bequeathed to us by our fathers to be passed on to our sons, and we will not be the generation that squanders our birthright.”

The next speaker was the director of the White Paper Policy Institute, Cyan Quinn, who spoke about birth rates. She began by citing American Congressman Steve King’s remark that “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

Indian President Modi recently signed free-trade agreements with the European Union, which include significant migration components, but these were not publicized due to their unpopularity. India has twice the population of Europe and wants to export its young men. When they arrive, they both compete directly against native men for jobs and practice ethnic nepotism as a matter of course. They are also a fiscal net negative, compounding the crisis of the welfare state rather than solving it.

European birth rates are already low, and our own men often cannot find jobs or start families. European couples must wait for houses, while immigrants go to the head of the line. Remigration would make housing affordable.

Direct policy fixes for low fertility do not work long term: in countries as different as Denmark, Hungary, and Korea, baby bonuses or tax incentives have led to short-term gains quickly followed by drops.

Women now compete against men for jobs, lowering the number of men women consider “marriageable.” Quotas for women are maintained in many positions that women themselves do not even seem to want: plenty would prefer to stay home, but no one asks them. Married women with children are the happiest women. They do not like to out-earn their husbands, and husbands do not like being out-earned. We need policies that accept people as they are: letting women have children and letting men support them.

Earlier marriage must also be encouraged. Many women are now marrying at 35 or even older. The evidence is also clear that mere cohabitation does not lead to marriage.

Remigration creates optimism. Following the 2016 election of Donald Trump, Hispanic birth rates dropped, while white birth rates increased. Reducing diversity makes people optimistic and lowers pressure on public services. It will lead to a renewed flourishing of family life.

Maximilian Märkl is a German nationalist who was stopped at the airport by government officials who claimed his participation at the Remigration Summit would “damage the reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany.” He recorded a videotaped apology for not being able to make it, then jumped in his car and drove twenty-two hours to Portugal on the chance he might not be stopped. It worked: organizers played the videotaped apology, then produced the man on stage: thunderous applause greeted him.

Mr. Märkl noted that Europe’s rulers are committing a historic crime against their people and attempting to prevent them from even speaking about it. He does not want to force his son to fight a battle his father was too afraid to fight: “Today I am proud to be a European and to fight beside you for remigration.”

Lawyer Eva Vlaardingerbroek told the audience “You will save this continent by the grace of God, I am sure of it.” She observed that at last year’s Remigration Summit, much of Milan was in lockdown and police had to escort participants to the venue: this year none of that was necessary.

The situation is still dire: nearly every day brings a new story of a white boy or girl raped, stabbed, murdered. These deaths well represent the state of the continent in general. Almost all right-wing activists in Europe have been banned from at least some social media, and many are being investigated or on trial. Vlaardingerbroek herself was recently banned from the UK, an honor achieved by Martin Sellner and a number of others many years ago. But the term “remigration” is now central to political debate in Europe.

Recently, Vlaardingerbroek and her associates drew up the Save Europe Act, a citizens’ initiative which includes a demand for a total halt to non-Western immigration. The sponsors are aiming for one million signatures, and conference participants were invited to be among the first. Such a petition could, under European law, force the European Commission at least to address the issue of remigration and meet with its advocates. It will be a bad day for Ursula von der Leyen when she is forced to meet and shake hands with Martin Sellner. Readers can check out the text of the initiative at Save-Europe-Act.com.

After a break for lunch, Björn Höcke of the AfD greeted the conference by video. He said that immigration has led to the emergence of ethnic block voting, representing a danger to the European idea of democracy. Migration is not a “human right.” Nations, on the other hand, do have every right to decide with whom they wish to live. Although still kept out of power at the national level, the AfD has been working to introduce the idea of remigration at the provincial level. Mr. Höcke stressed that the European fight to preserve its homelands for its own posterity is morally just.

Next came lawyer and member of the Spanish Congress of Deputies Rocío de Meer, who noted that no generation has the right to undo what the work and sacrifice of many generations has handed down to it. The real “hate speech” comes from those who want to destroy our homelands. Foreigners from outside Europe are now entering Spain at a rate of one million a year, and remigration is the only course that can still save the nation.

The homeland derives from the family, and the cradle needs defending as well as the border: “Women should not need to ask permission of feminists to become mothers.” Birth rates are a spiritual as well as national issue, and both motherhood and fatherhood must have an honored place at the center of society. Our rulers tell us speaking this way is extremism, but asking Spaniards to remain silent as they slowly disappear is the true extremism. We are not condemned to replacement. We can choose, and what we are choosing is remigration and Spain.

Lidewij de Vos told attendees that for the past six weeks, news in the Netherlands has been dominated by the largest anti-immigration protest in its history. How did the government respond? Not with dialogue but by calling an emergency meeting to arrange the building of more asylum centers. Three hundred of these already exist, and were a major factor behind the protests. Local residents are never consulted when new ones are built.

The government pretends that protests against immigration lead to violence, while it is obvious to everybody that immigration itself has led to violence. Asylum seekers rape twenty times more frequently than Dutch men, and kill and steal at comparable rates. Our daughters and sons are being slaughtered on the altar of mass migration.

Closing the borders and abolishing the asylum system will not be enough: Even if migration stopped completely tomorrow, its effects will remain. Remigration is the only solution to the failure of multiculturalism, which Mrs. de Vos likened to a cruel forced marriage. Somali immigrants, for example, cost the state €800,000 per person: paying them to leave is a bargain by comparison. The goal is net negative migration to preserve the Netherlands as a home for the Dutch people. What we want is humane and durable.

Especially loud applause greeted Mrs. de Vos’s mention that she is expecting a child, and she noted that her child’s future is what motivates her to continue the fight.

Retired US Border Patrol commander-at-large Gregory Bovino noted that the US and Europe have differed on many questions over the years, but with regards to remigration their interests are identical: on both continents, the same problem requires the same solution.

Little Village is a part of Chicago that local police recommended Mr. Bovino and his agents avoid due to the amount of violence there. It is home to tens of thousands of Central and South Americans. In the fall of 2025, they hit it hard, and Mr. Bovino was shocked by what he saw: crumbling buildings, crumbling infrastructure, trash all over. MS-13 placed a $10,000 bounty on Border Patrol agents, and one of $50,000 on Mr. Bovino personally. Anarchists and rioters arrived to interfere with the Border Patrol’s work, and agents simply arrested them by the dozens as well.

Such actions require careful preparation: The border patrol develops a strategy for five years before they go into an area. They have learned to maintain their own media apparatus to counter hostile reporters. Eighty million Americans voted for remigration, said Mr. Bovino, and the Border Patrol is delivering it. His speech was greeted with shouts of “USA! USA! USA!”

Former French Member of the European Parliament Jean-Yves Le Gallou focused his remarks on the problem of judicial usurpation of powers not properly belonging to them. In 2023, France’s legislature adopted an immigration policy which was far from ideal but contained some restrictive measures; France’s constitutional council, a kind of supreme court, struck down three quarters of these.

Mr. Le Gallou related the story of a civil servant who presided over Frontex, the European Union’s border and coast guard agency. This man worked to stop illegal immigration, which was part of his job description, and got accused by judges of “crimes against humanity” as a result. Judicial overreach is a problem in many European countries, and all in public life are intimidated by it. Legislators and politicians resort to self-censorship. There are many international agreements that can be interpreted almost at will, and this is precisely what European judges do. European conventions ratified in the 1950s to protect displaced persons after WWII are now being used to bring the entire world to France. Such power is not answerable to the voters or anyone else, and takes no account of the practical effects of its decisions. For example, a French court recently decided that every woman in Afghanistan has a right to residence in France.

The European people must resume full sovereignty over the laws and administrative decisions pronounced in their name, and judges must be made to follow the law. Power must be returned to the people of Europe through referenda where possible, elsewhere by parliamentary legislation.

Sammy Woodhouse, survivor of a Rotherham grooming gang, offered a moving account of her ordeal. At the age of fourteen, she met a 24-year-old Pakistani man through a friend of hers. He had only recently been released from prison. He gradually drew her into his circle, where the abuse began. She was abducted on many occasions and held for weeks at a time in hotels. As time went on, the abuse became more violent, including beatings and rape. On her fifteenth birthday, she was forced to participate in an armed robbery; she was arrested, while the Pakistani man went free. She had one abortion and attempted suicide on multiple occasions.

Authorities had known about abuse such as this for decades, but would simply lie about the evidence. Miss Woodhouse was among the first to take legal action against the police, who finally agreed to carry out a full investigation of her case: the largest child abuse investigation in British history. She was urged not to go public with her experience in order not to “jeopardize the investigation.” She did so anyway, and it jeopardized nothing. Many other victims began coming forward. Cases emerged of children as young as eleven being tortured, sometimes to the accompaniment of readings from the Koran. DNA evidence was ignored and other evidence was actually destroyed by the police, who called the girls prostitutes or slags and even arrested parents they found troublesome. Miss Woodhouse is author of the memoir Just a Child, and continues to educate the public about grooming gangs. Through her work, children conceived in rape have been legally recognized as a victim class.

Milan Mazurek is a Slovak member of the European Parliament who made a stir by announcing in that body that “white lives matter.” He notes that anti-white propaganda remains stronger in Western Europe, but is appearing in former Warsaw Pact nations such as Slovakia. Leading politicians from his country have promised the WEF to import Indians and Uzbeks. Ukraine is currently importing South Asians. Western Europeans must not believe that Eastern Europe remains a safe haven.

Mr. Mazurek warned against the dangers of petty nationalism while all of Europe is at risk. He is a member of the parliamentary group Europe of Sovereign Nations, within which traditional rivals such as Slovakia and Hungary cooperate rather than arguing over borders. “The enemy does not see any difference” between white nations. Europe of Sovereign Nations is currently sponsoring a bill to mandate the enforcement of deportation orders, now frequently ignored with impunity.

Some progress is occurring. The European Parliament has designated the nations of North Africa safe, meaning that refugees who cross these countries to get to Europe can no longer be considered legitimate refugees. But a sign of how much remains to be done was the EU Parliament’s recent award of the European Order of Merit to Angela Merkel, a woman guilty of destroying borders and thereby abetting the rape and murder of innocent Europeans.

Martin Sellner, cofounder of the Identitarian Movement of Austria in 2012, noted that there are now at least 95 million citizens voting for patriotic parties across Europe. Social-media sites are overflowing with identitarian messages. And yet this success has not translated into real power. Mr. Sellner reports that he has just founded the Remigration Institute as a lobby for remigration. Politics works through pressure, he noted, and even nationalist parties will not enact remigration unless pressured to do so: “If you cannot reward and punish politicians, you do not exist in their world.”

He cited America’s National Rifle Association as an example of how lobbying should be done: They monitor and judge legislators, rewarding loyalty and punishing betrayal. The Remigration Institute seeks to do the same for the remigration issue in Europe. Skill in spreading memes on social media represents the childhood of our activism; only once we create institutions feared by politicians will we have arrived at political adulthood. When the baby-boomers die off, white numbers will decline drastically, so we have roughly fifteen years left to save a 6,500-year-old heritage. This is our hour of decision, and what we do or fail to do now will echo into eternity. Let us become powerful!

2023 American Renaissance conference veteran Dries Van Langenhove was the final speaker at this second Remigration Summit. His talk was a reflection on the appalling judgment handed down against him just five days before in his native Belgium. For a second time, he was convicted of “hate speech” due to an entirely factual lecture he gave on the effects of immigration on living conditions and crime. The judge explicitly ruled that the truth of his statements was irrelevant to their status as “hate speech.”

Besides these two criminal convictions, Mr. Van Langenhove has had his house raided three times, was expelled from his university, and lost his bank account. He noted that nationalists are now starting their own bank to get around this danger, and we will probably have to create our own institutions in other spheres as well. But the struggle is worth it because mass migration is an existential crisis for Europe more serious than either the Black Death or the Second World War. All can yet be saved, and even our birth rates brought back to normal — but only if the project of remigration succeeds.

Meetings like this are an indispensable part of our struggle. There is nothing more inspiring than renewing ties with old friends and mixing with prominent movement leaders. As I savored the excitement and commitment in the room, I have no doubt that 600 people returned to their homes, more determined than ever to fight for their people and civilization.

F. Roger Devlin
https://counter-currents.com/

Helen of Detroit

 

Nolan is highly talented. For years, I thought he was our best living director after David Lynch and Martin Scorsese. But Nolan’s decline set in with Tenet, an incoherent movie featuring a talentless Affirmative Action Hero. Oppenheimer was flawed, but a hopeful uptick. The Odyssey now confirms that Nolan has gone “Hollywood,” which is to say, he has gone “woke.”

This means that Nolan isn’t really in charge of his Odyssey. Instead, he’s been possessed by the woke Zeitgeist, which is as evil a spirit as has ever stalked this world.

Wokeness is simply anti-whiteness. It seeks to destroy whites by indicting everything great about white civilization as evil or sick. It seeks to de-center whites from white stories and white societies, replacing whites with non-whites, white men with women, and normal people with homosexuals and transsexuals.

The most common woke trope is blackwashing: depicting white characters with black actors. There are various lame excuses made for such moves: providing blacks with “role models,” puffing up their self-esteem, making stories more accessible to them, etc. But when a historical character like Finland’s leader Marshal Mannerheim is depicted by a black actor, all those excuses fall away. Such casting is not directed toward blacks at all. It is simply directed against whites. It is an act of hate. It is spitting in our faces.

The same is true with The Odyssey, which is a story about white people in Ancient Greece and Troy. The Odyssey should be cast with white actors who looked as much as possible like the characters described by Homer.

Nolan, however, has cast a black actress named Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy. Helen of Troy was supposedly the most beautiful woman of her time, the “face that launched a thousand ships,” a woman over whom a long and bloody war was fought. Lupita Nyong’o, however, is ugly. If she were Helen of Detroit, nobody would fight a rap battle over her, much less a gang war. Casting her is just an insult to white people, specifically to white women and white standards of female beauty.

Nolan also casts mixed-race goblin girl Zendaya as gray-eyed Athena. This too is simply an insult. Zendaya can’t act. She’s not beautiful. She’s just Hollywood’s go-to girl for displacing white actresses.

Nolan also includes a black named Travis Scott who is apparently a “rapper” as a bard named Demodocus, as if oogaing about bitchez and money is in any way comparable to Homer. This too is an insult, but I can actually get behind it, because it is so stupid that it will be sheer torture for liberals to keep a straight face.

At this point, one might be wondering why the “diversity” in this film is so monochrome. Why no Papuans and Polynesians? Why no Chinese or Indians? If you dig further, it turns out that there is a Lee and a Patel among the extras, plus a few more blacks. Thus blacks remain massively over-represented. Thus The Odyssey is quite America-centric. Only in America have blacks protested and pouted their way to such symbolic centrality.

This is elegant proof that diversity casting is not about making films more “representative” and “inclusive,” else there’d be a Hottentot in every cast. It is simply an exercise in insulting whites by displacing us with the non-whites that are the most offensive to white people and most plentiful in Hollywood. That would be blacks.

There is, however, one more flagrant bit of diversity casting: a female to male transsexual named Ellen now Eliot Page was cast as Sinon, a character that doesn’t actually appear in The Odyssey. Just count your blessings that “Eliot” isn’t playing Achilles. Of course, there’s actually a role for an androgyne in The Odyssey: Tiresias the seer. But Eliot wouldn’t fit the part, because she cut off her dugs.

Why a transsexual? Even mushy Christian conservatives love putting black people in their dramas these days. By including this particular form of insanity, Nolan signals that he is fully on board with the woke crusade against white civilization. It is another gob of spit in our faces.

I am simply not going to piss away a bit of money and three hours of my life to be insulted this way, and neither should you, dear reader. Don’t even hate-watch this film. Just boycott it.

There are better things you can do with your time. Why not actually read The Odyssey? That’s my plan. In the time it would take for you to watch this movie, plus watch all the ads and previews, plus commute to and from it, you can read a quarter to a third of Homer’s original. I recommend the Robert Fitzgerald and Robert Fagles translations. But I am planning to try out A. T. Murray’s revised Loeb Classical Library translation.

Once whites finally come home, scour our lands of interlopers and collaborators, and reprise control of our destinies, we can commission a film adaptation that does justice to The Odyssey. In the meantime, stick with Homer.

That’s what Odysseus would do.

From 

Why I Am Not Reviewing Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey

Trevor Lynch

https://counter-currents.com/

On Jean-Pierre Houdin

 THE MAN IN BLACK

Almost all Egyptologists receive mail from strangers. Sometimes it is from reincarnated pharaohs; sometimes it is from prospective tourists who want to know if they can drink the water. (You can’t.) Because my specialty is mummies, I receive hundreds of letters and e-mails from sixth graders who have been studying Egypt in school and want to mummify their recently deceased parakeets. About twice a year I receive offers from people who want to donate their bodies for mummification when they die. To these good folks I reply that I did that once, as a research project, and have now moved on.

No matter what our Egyptological specialty, we all receive communications from retired engineers with theories of how the pyramids were built. Usually there is an obvious flaw that even I can spot. On June 16, 2003 I received an e-mail from a French architect, Jean-Pierre Houdin, who had his own theory of how the Great Pyramid of Giza had been built. My friend Jack Josephson, an art historian who also has a degree in engineering, had suggested he contact me. Jack is a no-nonsense type of guy; I knew that if he told Houdin to contact me, it would be worthwhile to meet him. So I invited Jean-Pierre for dinner. Also coming was my friend Armand, an engineer who had been to Egypt, and his wife, as well as another friend, Jack Scaparro, who was working on a novel set in Egypt. My Egyptologist wife, Pat, rounded out a receptive audience of five.

Jean-Pierre arrived at precisely 4:00 P.M., as suggested. We wanted time to hear and discuss his theory before dinner at seven, but would soon discover that three hours was not nearly enough time. This was not your ordinary pyramid theory. Our guest was dressed all in black, including a fashionable black leather jacket—in New York in June. A well-manicured gray-haired man of fifty, he had a pleasant smile and spoke heavily accented but good English. We were soon gathered around the coffee table as Jean-Pierre set up his laptop. He explained that he had given up his architectural practice five years ago so he could devote himself to the puzzle of how the Great Pyramid was built. Working out of his Paris apartment, he spent six or seven hours a day creating elaborate 3-D computer simulations of the interior and exterior of the Great Pyramid. As his computer models progressed he became more and more obsessed with the Pyramid, until it was all he thought about.

Jean-Pierre’s interest in the Great Pyramid began in 1999 when his father, an engineer, watched a television documentary on the pyramids and realized the program’s presentation of how the Great Pyramid was built was all wrong. He had another idea of how the huge blocks were raised to the top, a revolutionary idea, different from anything anyone had ever proposed, so he called his son Jean-Pierre and laid it out.

The father-son team was ideal to tackle this mystery. Henri Houdin had earned a PhD in engineering from Paris’s prestigious École des Arts et Métiers. In 1950, as a twenty-seven-year-old engineer, he was sent to Ivory Coast to build their infrastructure. When he arrived there were eight kilometers of paved roads; when he left there were highways, bridges, and power plants. For decades Jean-Pierre had designed houses and office buildings; he knew about planning big projects. The two were equipped to answer the question how the Great Pyramid was built, but it would not be easy. Eventually the search for the answer would take over both their lives.

While his laptop booted up, Jean-Pierre explained how his computer graphics helped him understand the interior and exterior of the Great Pyramid. With new, sophisticated software developed for architects, he created 3-D images of the chambers inside the Great Pyramid. Then, on his computer screen, he could rotate the images to see the spatial relationships between the rooms—what features were on the same level, what parts had to have been built first, where the largest stones in the Pyramid were placed.

As he clicked the keypad, beautiful diagrams of the Pyramid appeared and we realized we were in the presence of a man who knew the Great Pyramid intimately. He explained why some blocks in the Pyramid were limestone and others granite; why the patterns of stone in some walls were different from others. I have friends who are pyramid experts, but I had never heard anything from them as detailed as Jean-Pierre’s explanation. I was astounded by the quality of his graphics. Little figures hauled blocks up inclined ramps and put them in place with ingenious lifting devices. He even had topographical maps of the Giza Plateau to show how the architects of the Great Pyramid took advantage of the natural contours of the land to move huge blocks of stone. The images weren’t just informative, they were beautiful. I had just completed a high-budget documentary for The Learning Channel on pyramids around the world. We’d spent thousands and thousands of dollars on our graphics, and Jean-Pierre’s were better!

Jean-Pierre explained the difficulties with the two competing theories of how the blocks in the Pyramid were raised to the top. The single ramp theory, so often shown in television documentaries, could be easily discredited. The basic idea is that blocks were hauled up a long ramp constructed against one of the sides of the Pyramid. As the Pyramid grew, the ramp was raised and extended. The problem is that to keep the slope gentle enough so men could haul blocks, the ramp would have to be a mile long. If the Pyramid were being built on the site of New York’s Empire State Building, the ramp would extend all the way into Central Park, about twenty-five city blocks. Building just the ramp would have taken thousands of men decades. Also, there would have been a tremendous amount of debris from such a ramp, and rubble doesn’t just disintegrate in the desert; but huge piles of rubble have never been found. Perhaps most damaging to the single ramp theory is the fact that there is practically no place to put such a long ramp on the Giza Plateau.

The second theory fared no better in Jean-Pierre’s analysis. It posited that a ramp had corkscrewed around the outside of the Pyramid itself, like a road winding around a mountain. This solves the no-space problem. But this theory has a fatal flaw as well. The Pyramid has four corners, and as the Pyramid grew, the architects had to constantly sight along those corners to make sure the edges were straight and thus ensure that they would meet at a perfect point at the top. But a ramp corkscrewing up the outside would have obscured these sight lines. Thus this too couldn’t be how the ancient Egyptians raised the blocks to the top.1

Jean-Pierre showed us graphics of what the Pyramid looked like, year by year, as it was being built. And then he sprang his theory. He claimed that inside the Great Pyramid was a mile-long ramp corkscrewing up to the top, that had remained undetected for 4,500 years! We were astonished. The theory was so radical, so different from anything ever imagined, that it seemed impossible. But as the parade of graphics continued on the computer screen and Jean-Pierre explained the details, it seemed more and more credible, even probable. Here was a solution that answered the questions Egyptologists had been asking for decades. Somehow the centuries-old mystery of the Great Pyramid had been solved by this intense Frenchman dressed in black. I had the feeling that this theory just might be one of the great moments in the intellectual history of the world.

We were all overwhelmed by Jean-Pierre’s step-by-step explanation of the new theory, but the Jean-Pierre Pyramid Show was just beginning. For two more hours, a parade of graphics and explanations of Pyramid minutiae appeared on his laptop. We saw what the Pyramid looked like after five years, seven years, ten years, twenty years, until it seemed as if we were watching it rise block by block. There are three chambers inside the Great Pyramid, and Jean-Pierre gave us the construction details of all three. Two of the rooms—the King’s Chamber and the Queen’s Chamber—were clearly intended for burials. They are rectangular rooms where you can put a sarcophagus, statues, funerary furniture, and anything else needed for the next world. The great puzzle is the mysterious Grand Gallery. It doesn’t make any architectural sense. It is a long hallway sloping upward inside the Pyramid, leading to the King’s Chamber. But why the twenty-eight-foot ceiling? And why line the side walls with low stone benches with strange grooves carved in them? Our guest in black had an answer for every question.

After three hours Jean-Pierre was still just warming up, but he had lost his audience; we were all brain-dead. Jean-Pierre had no idea that much of what he had thrown at us had simply bounced off. None of us was nearly so familiar with the Pyramid as he was; there were concepts we just couldn’t wrap our nonarchitect brains around. But we were all impressed. Jean-Pierre could visualize the Great Pyramid in three dimensions in a way no one had ever imagined possible. The man in black was amazing.

Feeding Jean-Pierre was the only way I could think of to slow him down. Still, he continued his Pyramid seminar, laying out the physical evidence to support his theory and so the discussion continued over pasta. By dessert the radical new idea was looking better and better. I asked Jean-Pierre what most impressed him when he first saw the Great Pyramid. “Oh, I’ve never been there,” he answered nonchalantly. The man who had given up his career as an architect and devoted five years of his life unraveling the secrets of the Great Pyramid had never seen it—and didn’t want to! When I pressed Jean-Pierre about visiting the Pyramid, he wasn’t interested. “Oh, I know what it looks like,” he said, and added some polite response like, “Oh yes, I must do that.” Clearly, for him the Great Pyramid was an abstract intellectual puzzle to be solved, not a monument to be visited. Perhaps he was afraid he would be disappointed; perhaps he feared something he might see would disprove his theory and the search would be over.

As the evening wore on the question became, what to do next? Here was a man with what could be the most important archaeological discovery of the century. For five years he had devoted his life to solving an incredibly difficult intellectual puzzle. It was one of those rare times when obsession seems to have produced something positive—indeed, something wonderful, so wonderful that I found myself being drawn into the obsession. I wanted to be part of it; I wanted to be there when Jean-Pierre found his internal ramp.

The Secret of the Great Pyramid

How One Man’s Obsession Led to the Solution of Ancient Egypt’s Greatest Mystery

Bob Brier and Jean-Pierre Houdin

Vernon Coleman interview

 In December 2024 Vernon Coleman was interviewed for ‘Unbekoming on Substack’.

The writer of the popular ‘Unbekoming on Substack’ sent Vernon Coleman 15 interview questions. Here are the questions and his answers:

You’ve had quite an unconventional career path – from magician’s assistant to police surgeon. Which of these diverse roles has most shaped your perspective on medicine and society?

Between leaving grammar school and starting medical school I chose to spend a year as a Community Service Volunteer in a new town called Kirkby, just outside Liverpool. It was, to say the least, an eye opening experience. I suddenly found myself living and working as a catalyst in an area where the police station was barricaded and covered with razor wire and where the buses were always followed by a police car to give protection to the driver and conductor. Largely through naivety I wandered untouched like a white faced clown through the town and recruited a sizeable army of teenagers to help decorate old people’s flats and do their shopping for them. The more the unions and the council protested the easier I found it to recruit kids. No one ever threatened me, bricked me or knifed me, and before I left I was made an honorary member of one of the gangs. That year changed my life. When I started medical school I opened a discotheque in the city centre because there was absolutely nothing else available at the time. We couldn’t afford a glitter ball so I ‘borrowed’ an epidiascope and a projector from the medical school and showed coloured histology slides and old black and white films on the ceiling. The club was popular with several knife carrying gangs with whom I became good friends – mainly, I suspect, because I carried a Victorian sword stick and my blade was definitely bigger than anyone else’s. Idiotically, I described the club on national radio and the Dean of the Medical School heard the broadcast. That was the end of the epidiascope and the projector (which had always been returned the following morning) but the club continued until the council closed it when it was accurately reported that there were beds around the edge of the dance floor. The beds were rescued junk and were there because I couldn’t afford to buy or hire any chairs. It was all completely innocent. I was a GP Principal for ten years but I was never going to have an orthodox career. (I resigned when the NHS tried to force me to put private health information about my patients onto sick notes, something which I refused to do because I felt it was wrong). They fined me and threatened to keep fining me so I quit. I seem to have resigned a lot in my life.)

In your biographical notes, you describe yourself evolving from an ‘angry young man’ to ‘an angry old man’. What continues to fuel this sense of righteous indignation after all these years?

I cannot abide injustice or a lack of freedom. I won’t allow myself to be bullied and I don’t like seeing other people bullied. When I was about 12 I remember seeing a beloved aunt and uncle cry because the local Gas Board was bullying them. I always think of my Aunt Alice when I’m fighting bureaucrats. When I became a GP I spent much of my life fighting health service administrators on behalf of my patients. I discovered quite early on that all bureaucrats are terrified of higher authority, and so when fighting some senseless rule which endangered a patient’s life (and that happens more often than you’d think possible) I would point out that if my patient died as a result of their nonsense I would put their name on the death certificate as the cause of death. This never failed. I don’t use death certificates as weapons any more but I’m still soaked to the bone in righteous indignation. This may well be why I am now banned by just about everyone.

Your early warnings about benzodiazepine tranquillisers led to stricter government controls. What initially drew your attention to this issue, and how did you persist with that campaign for 15 years?

I first became aware of the benzodiazepine problem in the 1960s and was writing articles about it throughout the 1970s and onwards. (I still am). The British Government changed the law in the 1980s, and the Health Secretary admitted in the Commons that they’d done it because of my campaign. I wrote a book called ‘The Benzos Story’ which contains some of the research material I used. Sadly, doctors ignore the law and still over-prescribe the darned things. Sadly, as I had warned, the drug companies replaced the benzodiazepines with useless and dangerous anti-depressants.

You’ve written over 100 books that have sold more than three million copies in the UK alone and been translated into 26 languages. Which book do you feel has had the most significant impact, and why?

This is like asking a parent to name their favourite child but I suppose the book which has had the most impact is ‘Bodypower’ which I wrote in 1983 and which was my first big international bestseller. It is still one of my bestselling books. It is, in a way, a very simple book which describes the self-healing properties of the human body but it has changed the way quite a lot of people think. It also influenced a number of other authors. I made several TV series based on the book though all my old programmes have been removed from YouTube. The basic principle is that if left alone the body can heal itself in many ways – and potentially dangerous drugs aren’t always necessary.

Mrs Caldicot’s Cabbage War was adapted into a film. What inspired that story, and how did you feel seeing your characters brought to life on screen?

When I first started writing Mrs Caldicot’s Cabbage War the book was going to be something entirely different. I started to write a book about old people who rebel and rob a bank. (It’s been done several times since then, but it wasn’t a cliché when I started the book.) However, Mrs Caldicot took over (as I find that fictional characters often do) and the book developed along entirely different lines with Mrs Caldicot becoming a ‘voice’ for an oppressed group of nursing home residents. Antoinette and I bought tickets and watched the film at a large cinema, and at the end the entire audience stood up and applauded Mrs Caldicot. It was rather touching. I’ve since written another three novels about Mrs Caldicot and her chums and I’m terribly fond of them all. They’re a feisty and fearless bunch who look after one another and stand up to officialdom. In ‘Mrs Caldicot’s Easter Parade’ they end up broke in Paris and earn money for food by performing old music hall songs in the street. In ‘Mrs Caldicot’s Turkish Delight’ they inherit a broken down old pier and have all sorts of fun. As I wander further into the foothills approaching middle age my affection for Mrs Caldicot grows.

You’ve mentioned giving evidence to committees in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. What were these experiences like, and did you see tangible results from your testimonies?

I gave evidence to both Houses about the pointlessness and danger of using animals in medical research. It was, I’m afraid, a complete waste of time. When I spoke to a House of Lords committee one eminent member of the committee slept through the whole of my evidence. When speaking to both Houses, I pointed out that a good many drugs which are prescribed for humans are known to cause cancer or other serious health problems when tested on animals. The drug companies say this doesn’t matter because animals are different to people. On the other hand, if a drug doesn’t kill an animal the drug companies say this proves the drug is safe for people. I find this illogical as well as immoral. Unfortunately, the drug companies own the medical establishment and so campaigning against animal experiments has been a struggle. I have been opposed to animal experimentation since I was a medical student (I refused to perform required experiments on animals, and persuaded one or two other students to abstain with me) and this has always made me unpopular with people who have a lot of power and money. Animal experiments enable drug companies to launch new products without testing them properly on human patients.

Your list of favourite historical figures includes quite an eclectic mix, from W.G.Grace to Che Guevera. What common thread do you see connecting these diverse personalities?

Freedom and independence. I admire people who stand up for what they believe and don’t give a damn for the consequences. W.G was the best known Victorian after the Queen herself, and he didn’t lead any revolutions or die in a hail of bullets but he changed his world by being himself. He could be a bit naughty but was so popular that cricket grounds put up notices saying ‘Admission 6d or 1 shilling if WG plays’. Che cared and was a professional rebel. Even when he was a Minister he still worked in the docks on Saturdays. 

You’ve been consistently critical of the relationship between the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry since your 1975 book ‘The Medicine Men’. How has this relationship evolved over the decades?

I’m not sure there is a relationship. I loathe and despise the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry and they hate me. Between them they’ve bullied, threatened, sued and tried to bribe me. They’ve stopped me speaking and got me fired. I don’t know who it was but someone tried to kill us during the covid fraud. ‘I’ll rest when they bury me,’ as Clarence Darrow said.

You resigned from your newspaper column over the Iraq War coverage. Could you tell us about that decision and the principles that guided it?

It was an easy decision but it was a hard decision too. I’ve spent most of my life writing at least one column a week (at one point I had weekly columns in four national newspapers in the UK and half a dozen other columns in newspapers and magazines) and resigning from The Sunday People was hard because I had a lot of lovely readers (and, to be blunt, they paid me a great deal of money). I wrote a column criticising the Iraq War and the editor refused to print it. That was it. I have never allowed editors to decide what I should write and I always wrote articles and columns according to what I believed in. I’ve always been a fan of the newspaper editor you see in cowboy films – the one who prints editorials criticising the bad guy who is tormenting the town. I miss having a column but I now try to put new material on my website every weekday (except for a two week break at Christmas). I never accept advertising or sponsors for the website (and I never allowed my videos to be monetised). My income comes from selling books which I now self-publish since, after I exposed the covid fraud at the start of 2020, most of my publishers and agents abandoned me. 

Your work has often challenged conventional medical wisdom. What gives you the confidence to maintain your positions in the face of establishment opposition?

I spent a lot of time (and money) on research. For my first book I spent more on research than I received as an advance or as royalties, even though the book did very well. My wife, Antoinette, the most compassionate and caring person I’ve ever met, shares my passion for truth, justice and fairness and is a brilliant and tireless researcher who can follow a complex trail with great skill and unwavering determination.

You’ve expressed strong views about the European Union. How has your perspective on global versus local governance been influenced by your observations in medicine?

I first became really interested in the EU in the late 1990s when I realised that national campaigns were ultimately always dependent on EU law and that there was very little point in fighting to change a law within, say, the UK unless the EU was also targeted. For example, when fighting against the use of animal experiments I found that the EU was the ultimate source of evil and legislators, administrators, drug companies, etc., would disclaim responsibility and blame the EU for every law and rule. 

Your interest in Napoleon Bonaparte is well documented. What lessons do you think modern medical and political leaders could learn from his era?

It isn’t widely known but when Napoleon was imprisoned on the Island of Elba and was planning to escape and return to France, the entire French army was sent to capture him. Napoleon, riding a white horse as usual, had a small faithful platoon of bodyguards with him but he rode ahead, alone and the entire French army, instead of capturing or killing him, circled round behind him as he led them to Paris. I have a copy of the leaflet his men distributed to the soldiers. It is one of the most powerful and moving documents ever published.

Your book ‘The Dementia Myth’ challenges common assumptions about cognitive decline. What motivated you to explore this particular topic?

When my mother fell ill with what appeared to be dementia, my wife researched her symptoms and concluded that my mother’s symptoms were most likely a result of normal pressure hydrocephalus. We arranged for a total of nine neurologists to examine my mum. They were all dismissive, and even with the diagnosis handed to them on a plate they refused to accept it. When doctors finally accepted that they were wrong and that she did have normal pressure hydrocephalus, it was too late to repair the damage that had been done. The more I investigated the more I realised that many patients with alleged dementia have been misdiagnosed. There are several reasons for this. First, for some inexplicable but doubtless malign reason, doctors in the UK receive a cash bonus every time they diagnose dementia. Second, drug companies work hand in hand with charities to promote dementia in general and Alzheimer’s disease in particular. I wrote ‘The Dementia Myth’ to draw attention to the commonest, easily cured diagnoses which are overlooked in favour of the default diagnosis of dementia. 

You’ve been critical of medical screening programmes. Could you elaborate on why you believe they benefit doctors more than patients?

I never really saw the point of screening programmes. Having an annual medical check-up is like getting an annual bank statement. It tells you what your health is like on a particular day but it doesn’t tell you what your health is going to be like in three months’ time. Medical screening is a hugely profitable industry which has been shown, time and time again, to benefit no one but doctors and screening programme companies.

For readers who want to engage with your work and ideas, what’s the best way to follow your current writing and activities?

Prior to February 2020 I didn’t have any social media accounts. However, I was so horrified by the way the covid pandemic was promoted, that I tried to open accounts in the usual places. Even then I warned that compulsory vaccination programmes would be introduced and that, when it came, the vaccine would be dangerous. However, the censors were quickly into action. Facebook told me that I would be a danger to their community. Linkedin let me open an account and then closed it. The rest all refused to let me onto their sites. YouTube let me put up a few videos (some of which were viewed millions of times) and then expelled me for sharing too many truths. And so I am now left with the website www.vernoncoleman.com which I started in 1990. Since I am now also banned from all mainstream media, my website is the only place where my work appears. Details of new books and videos always appear on that website. Ironically, although I am banned from all social media (for the curious modern crime of telling the truth) I’m told that there are a number of fake sites using my name. When I first became aware of this I asked the platforms involved to remove the fake sites but nothing happened. So for readers who want to follow my current writing, I suggest that they visit my website which has new articles and details of campaigns posted every weekday. I am always grateful when people share the articles on my website because I am totally banned from all social media.

The End of Medicine Death by Doctor: .. Preface and some extracts

 Preface

I’m sorry if this is a bit blunt, but there isn’t another way to put it.

In The End of Medicine I am going to prove to you that doctors have been ordered to murder their patients and whether they realise it or not, that is, I’m afraid, exactly what they are doing.

Now that I have caught your attention, let me put it another way: your doctor has been ordered to kill you or, at the very least, to let you die. Murder or manslaughter, that’s the choice. That is what she or he is now being paid to do. And that’s exactly what she or he is going to do. Doctors have been turned into killing machines. Doctors are now paid (very well) to kill.

This is the most explosive, terrifying, shocking book you will ever read

Of course, your doctor isn’t likely to shoot you, or run you over, or stab you with a carving knife. It’s all much more subtle than that. But in the end you’ll be dead and your doctor will be richer.

Vernon Coleman

P.S. You can, incidentally, check out everything in this book by going online, reading my previous books or studying the books listed in the short bibliography at the back of this book.

P.P.S. At the end of my book Truth Teller: The Price I said that I did not intend to write any more books on medical topics. But everything changed when the medical establishment decided that tackling the alleged threat created by global warming should take priority over the care of patients. When I realised just how far they were prepared to take their devotion to this new cult, I knew I had to write The End of Medicine. The title is no exaggeration. The willingness of the medical establishment to abandon the care of patients in order to protect the planet from a non-existent, deliberately manufactured threat had to be exposed. And at the same time I felt that I needed to show how new developments in nanotechnology are being used by the medical establishment to threaten our very humanity and the very core of our existence as humans. 

P.P.P.S. You will see the word ‘debate’ a good many times in this book. No apologies. The key to the success of the conspirators has been their ability to turn news organisations into propaganda machines and to refuse to debate any of the issues which most threaten us. If we fail in our battle against the conspirators it will be because we have failed to force them to engage us in open debate.

**

Medicine has, I’m afraid, long been run by crooked and ruthless people who are easily manipulated by the prospect of profit. As a result, medicine has retreated, gone backwards, decreased in relevance and failed.

There once was a time when patients had greater regard for a doctor who kept up with advances in theory and practice. But today the opposite is true. Patients are safer if they are treated by a doctor who hasn’t taken notice of any judgements or opinions offered by the medical establishment for at least a decade and probably two. The men and women who end up in the medical establishment are, almost by definition, the dregs of the profession; the least committed to the art and science of healing and the most easily corruptible. They have, on the whole, abandoned clinical practice and the consulting room for the easier and far more profitable corridors of power, and the cosy, tucked away committee rooms and bars where deals are done and decisions made. They mix not with the sick, the fearful and the trusting but with the wheelers and dealers, the movers and shakers, who long ago sold the medical profession to the pharmaceutical industry. They sell their evil in old-fashioned ways. They create problems and then provide us with solutions. They lie brazenly and tell us that they want to help people. They tell us that we’re in danger and that they, and only they, can rescue us.

And so now we have the greatest betrayal of all: the destruction of the legacy of Aesculapius and Hippocrates.

Naturally, they are beginning by killing the disabled, the elderly, the frail, the mentally ill and the poor.

But, however fit you are and however young you are, they’re after you too.

This book will shock you, appal you and horrify you. It will probably frighten you, too, though I make no apology for that.

And it’s all true. You can check out anything I’ve written on the internet or by using the bibliography at the back of this book.

What is happening is worse, far worse, than anything that has ever happened in history. This is cold-blooded global genocide which will, if we do not stop it, make Genghis Khan’s activities look positively unambitious and rather parochial. Indeed, the Rockefeller and Rothschild dynasties, the string pullers behind the scenes, the families which make politicians and mere billionaires jump when they are told to jump, and as high as they are told, make Genghis look comfortably avuncular and relatively harmless.

There is no excuse to say ‘I don’t know why all this is happening’.

The answers are here in this book.

Now is about to become the most frightening time in history. Never before has man been in such jeopardy.

Finally, consider this: the World Health Organisation’s advice to doctors and other health care workers is simply this: ‘Don’t debate the science’.

As with covid and the covid vaccine, debate is forbidden because any debate would reveal the truth.

The WHO knows that if doctors once start debating the science of global warming (or climate change) they will lose every debate. They know that global warming is a myth. And they know that all the changes which are taking place, and which are predicated on the global warming myth cannot be justified.

**

People first noticed that health care was deteriorating during the illogical and dangerous lockdowns which were introduced in 2020 and which were allegedly but falsely, designed to protect us all from a disease worse than death. In February and March of 2020, I warned the readers of my website that the claims that were being made for that year’s new flu were wildly exaggerated. I explained in detail how I had come to this conclusion. I pointed out that the UK Government’s advisers had agreed that the coronavirus which was being promoted as the new plague was not a dangerous disease – and no more hazardous than the flu. But the Government ignored their own advisers and accepted the bizarre predictions made by someone called Neil Ferguson, a discredited computer scientist. It was clear from then that the fake pandemic was the harbinger of something much more. In April 2020, I published a book Coming Apocalypse in which I explained why the covid-19 scare was a hoax. In order to publish the book I had to avoid using words like ‘covid’ and ‘vaccination’. This was another sign of things to come.

The naïve and the gullible, trained to be compliant by the recycling scam, thought that the lockdowns had been introduced to protect them.

But they hadn’t, of course.

The lockdowns were deliberately introduced to create fear, to kill the elderly and the frail and the sick, to train the public to be obedient, to help sustain the absurd notion that it would make sense to make an untested and toxic vaccine compulsory and to initiate a process of destroying health care.

Since the United Nations was founded, back in the 1940s, human beings have been the enemy, and the aim of the self-appointed saviours of the world has been the formation of a world government and the transfer of all power and money to a tiny elite of malignant self-described philanthropists.

It was during the lockdowns which began in 2020 that both general practitioners and hospitals cut back their services very considerably. General practitioners, showing a lack of courage that should have embarrassed them, dressed from head to toe in utterly pointless but expensive PPE apparel and hid under their desks to avoid the flu. Moreover, they took advantage of the fake pandemic to stop seeing patients face to face. Instead, for the first time, many of them insisted on providing consultations exclusively by telephone and by computer. The evidence shows unequivocally that attempting to diagnose and treat patients by telephone, or over an internet connection, is so dangerous as to be worse than useless. (It is worse than useless because it means that real disease is over-looked and the patient is given bad advice – often worse than no advice at all.) 

But the lockdowns, and the imagined threat from the well-marketed flu, gave lazy doctors an opportunity to abandon medical care and to introduce a new system of medical care that would help the conspirators with their long-standing depopulation programme. 

Any doubt in my mind that the lockdowns were designed and introduced with a malignant purpose disappeared when, early on, I made a video suggesting that because of their reduced exposure to sunshine, most people would benefit if they took vitamin D supplements. The suggestion that vitamin D supplements be taken had another advantage too. Vitamin D helps strengthen the immune system and provide protection from infection. I put the video on YouTube in the hope that it would help those who saw it. All the video contained was advice about vitamin D. And what happened? YouTube, which was promoting bad advice and suppressing good advice, took down the video and immediately banned it.

Now things have got a good deal worse. The destruction of health care has become official policy and the medical establishment, loyal to a fault to the conspirators, whose overriding aim is to see a smaller world population, (and loyal to the imagined and carefully constructed global warming threat which they do not realise is fake and has an ulterior purpose) are tearing medical care apart and enriching themselves while damaging and killing their parents, apparently without a care. (How are doctors enriching themselves? Well, in the UK the average GP earns around £150,000 a year for a 23 hour week and is making a bonus of £50,000 a year or so merely by telling his State employed staff to vaccinate patients. And GPs who are given a prescribing budget can make another bonus by prescribing very few drugs. The money left over at the end of the financial year is theirs to spend on another Mercedes.

**

The vast majority of doctors know absolutely nothing about vaccines. They promote them, give them and defend them because they are well paid to do so. Any doctor who authorises multiple vaccinations on infants or children or who authorises the giving of the covid-19 vaccine is consumed by greed and so irresponsible that she or he should be arrested and charged with manslaughter. Sadly, this will not happen because the drug industry owned medical establishment, working for the conspirators, will always defend vaccination programmes however much evidence there is to show that they are ineffective and dangerous.

The medical establishment promotes almost anything made by the drug industry. If a big drug company made a product entirely out of pig shit, called it Pigshitium and said it was great for producing weight loss I can guarantee that doctors would queue up to say wonderful things about it.

The truth, of course, is that the medical establishment is almost always wrong.

The medical establishment always gives the impression that it is right about everything. And journalists always assume that the medical establishment is always right because it is, well, the medical establishment.

But, I repeat, the evidence proves quite firmly that the medical establishment is nearly always wrong – until it is forced by circumstances or by campaigners to change its view.

Thanks to the egregious errors made by the medical establishment (some of which I will list in a moment) doctors now kill or injure more people than cancer or heart disease or infections. Thanks to the medical establishment, one in six hospital beds are occupied by patients who have been made ill by doctors. And four out of every ten patients who receive a prescription drug suffer serious and sometimes lethal side effects.

Those who prefer to look at scientific evidence, rather than merely accepting decisions handed down by the pharmaceutical industry and passed on by the medical establishment, are dismissed as renegades and abused as discredited by people who arrogantly assume that they know everything and are always right because they’re who they are.

The medical establishment makes a lot of big errors and is, indeed, wrong more often than it is right.

The medical establishment (and its enthusiastic and uncritical supporters in the mainstream media) recklessly promoted and defended the experimental covid-19 vaccines, even after the vaccines had been proved not to work but to be responsible for numerous serious side effects and many deaths. The number of deaths alleged to have been caused by covid-19 (the rebranded flu) was at least ten times larger than the real count. (National mortality statistics show this to be true everywhere.) Government statistics show that the number who died from covid-19 was almost exactly the same as the number who would usually be expected to die of the annual flu. It is telling that during the covid-19 fake pandemic, flu almost completely disappeared.

**

The enthusiasm for vaccination is probably the most unscientific aspect of health care. It is more akin to witch doctor medicine than anything relating to science. Vaccines are not properly tested before being used and no tests are done to see if vaccines are compatible with one another or with other prescription drugs. No long-term tests are done to see how much the immune system is affected. And, perhaps most bizarrely of all, the same dose of a vaccine is given to everyone – children and adults, men and women, young and old. No attempt is ever made to alter the size of a vaccine dose according to the size of a patient. It is well known with other drugs that size and age are significant factors but doctors make no account of these differences. (Actually, of course, no attempt is made to titrate dosage against weight or age with most drugs. So, for example, the same, standardised dose of antibiotic will be given to an 18-year-old weighing 7 stone as will be given to a 45-year-old man weighing 28 stone or a 90-year-old woman weighing 6 stone. You don’t have to understand much about medicine or science or the human body to realise that this is unscientific. )

But here is the killer.

No one has ever tested to see if all the different vaccines are safe when given together.

No one has tested to see if vaccines are safe when given with commonly prescribed drugs.

No one teaches vaccinators to pull back the syringe to check that they are not injecting straight into blood vessel. (I warned about this before the mass vaccinations with the covid-19 vaccine began. I believe it was this mistake which led to the deaths of patients within minutes of being vaccinated.)

No one checks to see if diseases such as cancer are commoner among the vaccinated than the non-vaccinated.

The assumption is that vaccines are good and anyone who asks questions will be branded an anti vaxxer – which the conspirators want regarded as a form of terrorism

In 2025, a British television company seemed proud of itself for ‘exposing’ a scandal relating to the drug diethylstilboestrol. This isn’t a new scandal, of course. It was many decades ago, back in the last century, that I first exposed the scandal of a drug called diethylstilboestrol which was given to women in the 1960s and 1970s. It wasn’t until much later that it was found that the drug caused breast cancer in the women who took it. Even more worrying was the discovery that the drug caused adenocarcinoma, a type of vaginal cancer, in the daughters of women who took the drug. My worry today is that doctors are using new drugs (such as the mRNA vaccines) without any idea of the short, medium or long term consequences. Will the mRNA vaccines cause problems for the children of the people who were vaccinated with it? I don’t know and nor does anyone else. I am sure that the covid-19 vaccine is causing rapidly growing cancers among the generation who took the drug. But what about the next generation?

If vaccines really worked the authorities would not be promoting them. After all, the politicians and the medical establishment (controlled by the conspirators) want us dead. Why would they want to inject us with something which might protect us from ill health? Vaccines are given because they injure and kill.

It should be remembered that most of the health professionals who gave the covid-19 vaccine to the naïve, the gullible and the fearful did not have the jab themselves. They knew that covid-19 was merely the annual flu. And they knew that flu vaccines are worthless at best and often do more harm than good.

There is good reason to believe that all cases of poliomyelitis being diagnosed in the world today, and for the last 40 to 50 years, were caused by the polio vaccine. If medicine were a science this would be debated. But medicine isn’t a science and so it won’t be mentioned or discussed.

In the 1660s, the richest doctor in England was a man called Thomas Willis. His most popular prescription was a drink made of the dung of horses, pigeons, cocks and oxen. Patients with jaundice were given a tonic made of sheep and goose dung. He recommended rat droppings as a cure for constipation. Special patients, the ones who could afford the treatment, had dog shit smeared on their chests. If there had been any medical journals around at the time they would have doubtless published enthusiastic accounts of these remedies. And if drug companies had been invented they’d have bottled rat droppings and sheep and goose dung tonics on the market before you could say ‘thank you doctor’.

Willis wasn’t the only doctor around with exotic prescriptions to offer. A Dr Cotton believed in putting dead pigeons on the heads of his patients. In 1689 he put a dead pigeon on the head of a woman with convulsions. The pigeon remained in situ for five days, quietly rotting.

Nothing much changes, does it?

Today, thanks to science, (most) doctors no longer tell their patients to drink medicines made from horse shit. Instead they inject their patients with scores of different products which are just as daft, and potentially far more dangerous, as the dead pigeon treatment. The products they inject with such enthusiasm have never been shown to work or to be safe – especially when given, in vast quantities, to babies and small children.

These 21st century dog shit remedies are called vaccines, and doctors are so enthusiastic about them that dissent is not allowed. Indeed, any orthodox trained medical doctor who questions their efficacy or safety is likely to lose his or her licence to practise.

(The funny thing is, however, that in the UK only 27% of health care workers allow themselves to be given the flu jab. The other 73% say ‘no thanks, I’m not having that toxic rubbish injected into me’. The authorities complain about this but they shouldn’t be surprised. After all health care workers see what happens to the gullible who allow themselves to be jabbed.)

However, it is clear to anyone with functioning brain tissue that to claim that vaccines in general are not linked to autism, brain damage and immune system problems is like arguing that vehicles are not linked to road traffic accidents.

So, for example, the scientific and statistical evidence shows that to claim that the covid-19 vaccine has saved many lives and done more good than harm is an absurd and indefensible lie. (However, the UK’s Covid Inquiry still refuses to allow me to give evidence – evidence which would prove that the whole inquiry is a sham.)

Doctors who insist on vaccinating their patients are ignorant, crooked or easily bought.

I would heartily recommend that if your doctor wants to vaccinate you then you should tell her that you’d rather have a pigeon put on your head, if it’s all right with her. A pigeon on your head might not cure you but it’ll be a damned sight less likely to kill you than a vaccination. And, just for the record there is as little evidence assessing the value of the pigeon-on-the-head-regime as has been done to assess the value of mass vaccination.

When will any network TV or radio station have the courage to set up a live debate (with me on one side and the entire medical establishment on the other) to assess the value of vaccination? The debate must be live to be fair and national to be significant. 

The title of the debate could simply be: ‘Does vaccination do more harm than good?’

And let the public vote at the end of the debate.

At the end of the debate one side or the other will be permanently discredited.

If I lose I’ll look a fool.

If the pro-vaccination supporters lose then governments, drug companies and doctors will have to apologise and pay out trillions of dollars in compensation. They’ll also have to close down a multi-billion dollar industry.

And so I’m afraid that my challenge will never be accepted.

Governments, drug companies and the medical establishment don’t have the courage to debate because they know they will lose.

And the very absence of any debate proves that vaccination is dangerous and useless.

If parents don’t do with their child what the State orders them to do (have them vaccinated at the right time, for example) then representatives of the State (with guns if necessary) will take the child away and arrest the parents if they dare to complain. This is happening all around the world.

In several States in the USA, hospitals can now do what they like with patients, and relatives (however close) have no rights. Hospitals have been putting DNR notices on patients without anyone’s permission and so patients are effectively kidnapped, poisoned and murdered. No one is allowed to protest or stand as an advocate for an infirm or mentally ill patient. Protests merely bring in security officers and lawyers. Hospital staff see the disabled, the mentally ill and the elderly as helpless and without rights. This is medical murder on an industrial scale. And it’s being done partly to save money but mostly to speed up the depopulation programme which is justified by the mythical risk of global warming.

The End of Medicine

Death by Doctor: Why and how doctors are now paid to kill their patients

Vernon Coleman