I think it’s fair to say that the discussion around remigration has been pretty big this year, largely down to indomitable activist Steve Laws, and it seems that with amazing continuity throughout the festive period, it is bound to be just as big a talking point in the brave new world of 2026. The story started a couple of months ago when Steve was interviewed by the Civic “Nationalist” Liam Tuffs. For those unfamiliar with his work, Liam is a kind of parasitic grifter, attached to the Tommy Robinson/Lawrence Fox Kosher Right containment sphere, whose USP seems to be having the look of a queer Grant Mitchell.
The interview caused quite a stir as Steve stood firm on his Total Remigration stance in the face of such searching questions as, to paraphrase, ‘Would you not shag Halle Berry though?’ and ‘What about me mate Footlong?’, referring to Tuffs’ friend of colour with a nickname alluding to a racial stereotype. Would Steve really deport him, too? The news that Footlong would have to go was too much for Liam and his supporters. High-brow it wasn’t, but this was just a warm-up for what was to come. The forces of CivNattery were lining up a slightly higher IQ interrogation of Steve.
At some point over the Christmas period, I don’t remember when, as the days at this time of year tend to blur into one and I can’t be bothered to look up the date, Steve was interviewed by the latest algorithm-acing talking head, Andrew Gold. The video is available on YouTube, and you can find it by typing “I Confront Britain's Biggest RAC*ST”. (Why the I is redacted, we don’t know, maybe it’s code) This is what we’re dealing with. A man who runs a show called Heretics, and gifts softball interviews to regime-approved bogeymen, yet confronts Britain’s biggest RAC*ST. It doesn’t neutrally say “I talk to Britain’s biggest racist”. The word used is “confront”. Steve, we are being told, and thereby the idea of Total Remigration is beyond the pale of settlement.
Andrew Gold has been everywhere recently, popping up regularly in my Xitter and YouTube feeds, and everybody else’s by the sound of it. This has prompted some to suggest that he is being artificially boosted by the algorithm grinding man behind the curtain. I don’t believe that exactly. He is a media-trained and well-connected Person of North London, having worked at the BBC. He knows the game. He’s also personable and uses a studio with fairly high production values. Props such as a lamp, a rug, and the ability to show his face, a luxury that we don’t have as people who wish to remain anonymous. That plays well with people, and he is producing content that is like Catnip to the CivNat Boomers that we seem to be eternally at war with, so we interact, often angrily, and the algorithm loves that. Indeed, I clashed with him earlier in the year when he appeared to suggest that many Jews have a greater claim to this island than the natives, which I made a strongly worded objection to. I don’t know if there’s strong enough evidence to argue convincingly that his particular rise to prominence is a part of a Jewish conspiracy.
But we don’t need to speculate about algorithm boosting shenanigans because Andrew would himself put his own Jewishness at the centre of the Remigration argument, or at least that is what seems to have happened. When Steve was asked whether he would send Andrew to Israel under his Remigration plan, and Steve answered yes with a hearty laugh, a heated debate ensued regarding what we know as the Jewish Question.
I don’t think there’s any need to go through the debate line by line. My verdict is that though Steve nobly defended his position, he was outmaneuvered by Gold and allowed himself to be dragged into unnecessary and unhelpful weeds, for example, the narrative around the Holocaust. I did, however, enjoy seeing it put to Andrew that the Jewish community is up to their necks in the phenomenon of mass immigration. You may have your own view about the helpfulness or otherwise of being drawn into those subjects, and there probably isn’t a right or wrong answer, with pros and cons on both sides. There is also an interesting confluence between the Laws/Gold interview and the Morgan/Fuentes interview, which also caused quite a stir. I suppose that only time will reveal whether airing those subjects was a benefit or not.
It was the response to the interview from some high-profile right-wing talking heads that I found most interesting, though. Charlie Bentley-Astor, Cambridge-educated former troon, came out against the unsophisticated rhetoric, optics, and strategy of Laws. I have been told that Bentley-Astor has a ‘dog in the fight’ as Mel Gibson would say, but I can’t prove that.
There has also been quite a lot of outrage from the wider CivNat/Zionist sphere, with commentators such as Bloviating Pete North droning on in his usual manner [TLDR] about how he, predictably, draws the line just short of deporting Jews.
And of course, Andrew was invited on to GB News to whine and call us all Woke Right.
However, I’d like to focus on the response from Carl Benjamin, also known as Sargon of Akkad, or at least the possible reasons behind it. You see, his critique was on the face of it quite reasonable and focused on what the public, and the wider right-wing/Nationalist movement, including CivNats, would make of it.
Naturally, Carl managed to get through the whole video, which he titled On the Steve Laws Question, without direct reference to the JQ, other than to briefly state that he doesn’t think we need to deport the Jews. We may, he says, end up deporting the Pakistani community, but the Jews? Unthinkable. It’s hardly a surprise. I don’t expect him to touch the third rail.
Carl’s critique of Steve’s position drew the ire of many a Nationalist, as you might expect, but why did he need to offer a critique at all? After all, he must understand the concept of not undermining your extremists and activists. He even dubbed Steve the Greta Thunberg of the Right in a nod to this idea. However reasonable he appears to be, it’s no wonder he drew an angry response, especially when you consider the Sargon Question.
You see, the thing is that I, and many others, it seems, don’t trust Sargon.
Sargon has a long history of both putting himself at the center of internet culture and controversy, as that is how he makes his living, and of battling against actual (ethno) Nationalists, famously butting heads with Richard Spencer and engaging in multiple debates against Millennial Woes. Murdoch Murdoch did an episode on him back in the day, that's how bad he was. Andrew Gold describes him as a friend, and Sargon is also happy to associate with Civnats such as Tommy Robinson and Lawrence Fox. But he is also friends with the Academic Agent. So ideologically, he seems to want to occupy a space between Ethno and Civic Nationalism. All this while never acknowledging the likes of Woes and refusing to even call himself a Nationalist. It appears that with this critique, he seeks to distance himself from the extremes of the remigration debate.
It may be true that people change their minds, and it is welcome when they reach a better understanding of the solutions required to deliver us from this nightmare, but a full apology for his previous behaviour would go a long way to appeasing the Ethno-nationalist crowd he wants to court. I’m not sure how he can avoid the splinters from all this fence-sitting.
As for certain communities receiving an exemption, well, I’ve heard a lot of talk recently that the Somali community in America needs to be removed as they cause problems, and Sargon seems to support the idea that the Pakistani community should probably go from the Yookay. If that’s the standard, that a whole community can be deported because it causes problems, how can any minority community be exempt?
My view is this. Firstly, we don’t punch right. Steve is creating the space we need to bargain with. Aim for a hundred percent and agree to ninety-five (for now), shoot for the moon and land in the stars. We don’t need people supposedly on our own side sabotaging it for clicks.
And the principle that all of foreign descent can be deported must be established. No doubt exceptions will be made, but we must not allow the principle to be picked apart. And where exceptions are made, there must be no explanation or guarantee of consistency offered.
Comments
Post a Comment