 |
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Well done, lads. Standing for Canada’s Founding Settler People
More Indian Migrant Truck Drivers Caught Trafficking Drugs Across Border with Canada
16 Jan 202526
3:24
More Indian migrants licensed as Canadian truck drivers are being arrested by U.S. authorities for smuggling dangerous drugs through the United States.
The growing role of Indian truckers is another problem imposed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to invite millions of poor Indians to live in once-prosperous Canada.
The latest, Amarjeet Singh Matharu, a migrant from India to the greater Toronto area, was nabbed by Arizona State Troopers on Monday as he drove his semi on Interstate 40 near Holbrook, according to the Toronto Sun.
Officials say Matharu was caught with 550 pounds of cocaine hidden behind his load of produce headed to Canada. The drugs were reportedly picked up in the Los Angeles and Salinas, California, area.
T
He is far from the only Indian national from Canada arrested in the U.S. Officials also arrested many other truckers out of Canada including, Sukhraj Singh, 22, of Caledon; Sukjindr Singh, 29, of Peel Region; Naseeb Chisty, 49, of Etobicoke; Jasbir Singh, 40, of Paris, Ontario; Arshdeep Singh, 23, of Quebec City; Juli Sabosan Sathiaseelan, 42; and Gagandeep Singh among others.
Last year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced a wide-ranging investigation into a ring of criminals from India that had gone on a terror spree across the country to silence those criticizing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi or supporting his opponents.
In one particular incident, these accused criminals allegedly fired fourteen bullets into a home near Victoria and then torched the place.
Ultimately, six diplomatic and consular officials posted at India’s foreign missions in Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver were identified as being involved in the criminal conspiracy and they were expelled from the country and sent back to India.
But Canada has been beset with an increase in human smuggling from India that has brought in an increasing number of criminals from the Asian nation.
In one high profile case from November, an Indian national and an American were convicted of human smuggling in an incident that led to the deaths of a family from India that had been abandoned at the Canadian border near Minnesota. The family perished during a blizzard in 2022 as they attempted to walk into Canada while avoiding legal ports of entry.
The problem is not Canada’s alone. It was also reported in November that the U.S. has seen a ten-fold increase of Indian nationals who had entered Canada illegally, also trying to enter the U.S. from Canada. There are already more than 725,000 Indians living illegally in the U.S.A.
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston, or Truth Social @WarnerToddHuston
Moslem Invasion of the UK
The Aryan Invasion of India
How modern science has vindicated an old theory
Jan 12, 2025
∙ Paid
My book Nationalism: The Politics of Identity is now available on Amazon. If you enjoy my writings, please consider purchasing it and leaving a positive review.
The theory of an ancient Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent was first proposed by William Jones, a British philologist in the 18th Century. At the time a stunning and original theory, Jones proposed a common root language to European languages and Sanskrit, writing that:
The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.1
William Jones
Observing what he took to be two distinct Aryan and non-Aryan lineages in India, Jones proposed an Aryan conquest of indigenous Indian tribes, bringing the Indo-European Sanskrit language with them. The theory became more popular in the 19th Century, propounded by well-known philologists like Max Müller. It fell out of favour with the end of British colonial rule in India and the mood of anti-racism that gripped intellectuals the world over after WWII.
This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
While Aryan Invasion Theory has been wrongly dismissed as resulting from Western scientific racism, Hindu scholars have also expounded theories on the origin of the invasive Aryans. Dayananda Saraswati, a 19th Century philosopher and founder of a major reform movement in Hinduism, theorised that the Aryans originated in Tibet, arguing that the flora and fauna mentioned in the ancient Rigveda were native to Tibet, and the Aryans worshipped the sun and fire due to Tibet’s extremely cold climate — the ancient Rigveda has 10 hymns dedicated to worship of the sun.
Taking this further, the Indian scholar Bal Gangadhar Tilak wrote a work titled The Arctic Home in the Vedas in 1903, arguing that Aryans originally inhabited the Arctic before being driven from the northern tundras by an Ice Age and migrating to Central Asia. Tilak used a combination of Vedic calendars, analysis of Vedic hymns, and astronomical analysis to conclude the Aryans left their home in the North Pole around 8,000 BC. Traditionalist philosophers Julius Evola and René Guénon later endorsed this theory of a polar origin for the Aryans, with Guénon endorsing Tilak’s reading of the Vedas.2
However, although the Aryan Invasion Theory was long comfortably discarded as a relic of Western scientific racism, and its more esoteric proponents had to rely on speculative interpretations of religious texts, modern advances in genetic science have provided more incontrovertible evidence that has only served to vindicate the Aryan Invasion Theory. As I will demonstrate, not only does the genetic record show an enormous Aryan migration to the Indian subcontinent, but the latest evidence attests to this being a violent conquest that utterly transformed India.
The genetic record
In 2019, two major studies were published which gave some of the strongest evidence yet to the theory. And yet, an Indian publication reported that these studies were ignored by media in India, where the theory has been opposed by Indian nationalists. It wrote that:
Much of the Indian media did not bother to explain that the new research actually upheld the theory that people with European Steppe ancestry had brought the Indo-Aryan language branch to India – not overturned it.
At the time of the decline of the Harappan Civilisation — the first Indus Valley Civilisation, which grew alongside Ancient Egypt and Mesopatamia as one of the first agricultural-based civilisations along the fertile Indus River — this founding population began to mix with an Indo-European people carrying the DNA of Steppe peoples. These were the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans who originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, whose conquering descendants spread across Eurasia and contribute a significant amount of ancestry to modern Europeans. The Indo-European invaders entered India through Central Asia.
The Indo-European population mixed with the Harappan people to form the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) population. The study found significantly elevated rates of steppe ancestry in Brahmin communities in North India. In the words of one of the co-authors David Reich, the study is “not ambiguous” on proving a foreign origin of Indo-European languages in India.
Interestingly, Reich has also reported an incident where his Indian colleagues threatened to shut down a 2009 research project if the term “West Eurasian” was used to describe this major population group in the North of India, which led to renaming it “Ancestral North Indian” to satisfy Indian nationalist sentiment. Many prominent figures associated with India’s ruling BJP party have made subscription to the discredited “Out of India” theory a prerequisite to Hindu nationalism. For example, the leader of BJP’s parent organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) claims “the DNA of Indians has been the same for 40,000 years.”
Steppe ancestry being concentrated among ethnic Brahmins is interesting, since it has long been theorised that India’s caste system had a racial origin. A 2020 study on the DNA profiles of Brahmin men concluded:
This ethnic group did not originate from a single ancestral population, but instead emerged from at least 12 progenitors who, with one exception (haplogroup H), emerged from foreign lands that were geographically near or coterminous with India.3
The Indo-European ancestors of the Brahmins:
Brought Sanskrit and tenets of the Vedic religion with them. After the demise of IVC, starting around the second millennium BCE, some inhabitants, mostly the newcomers, remained in the north and others dispersed to the eastern and southern parts of India, resulting in the ANI [Ancestral North Indian] and ASI [Ancestral South Indian] population clusters. Over time, the Brahmins expanded and spread Hinduism throughout the Indian subcontinent.4
The Brahmins maintained the dominance of Sanskrit, the oldest existing Indo-European language in India. Reflecting the pattern of Sanskrit being enforced by the Aryan invaders, older Dravidian languages are dominant in the South of India.
This is reminiscent of Mediterranean Europe, which has far lower Steppe ancestry than Northern and Central Europe and where many non–Indo-European languages are reported still existing in classical sources.
The study notes that by the time of the Aryan arrival to India in the second millennium BC, the Indus Valley Civilisation was already in decline, and DNA evidence suggests the Aryan invaders rapidly dislodged the existing elite and dominated the region.
However, genetic and archaeological evidence has shown that these Indo-European invaders of India did not come directly from the steppe, but actually originated from people of the kind we find in the Corded-Ware culture of Central and Eastern Europe. These Corded-Ware populations had mixed with early European farmers and are most closely related to modern Northern Europeans:
Many of the samples from this group are individuals buried in association with artifacts of the Corded Ware, Srubnaya, Petrovka, Sintashta and Andronovo complexes, all of which harbored a mixture of Steppe_EMBA ancestry and ancestry from European Middle Neolithic agriculturalists (Europe_MN). This is consistent with previous findings showing that following westward movement of eastern European populations and mixture with local European agriculturalists, there was an eastward reflux back beyond the Urals.5
So while Proto-Indo-Europeans expanded out of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe in all directions, it was their later Northern European branch which mixed with native European farmers that then expanded back eastward and became the founders of Vedic civilisation.
The R1a DNA associated with the Indo-European expansion into India is found most in Southern Central Asia and Iran, and concentrated in the Northwest of India where the Aryan invasions would have begun. In Europe, its spread looks like this:
It’s important to note that had the origin of steppe DNA in India been the earlier Yamnaya culture, then males in the region would carry the R1b marker rather than the later R1a. But, as a 2018 study notes:
Early Bronze Age Yamnaya-related migrations had limited direct genetic impact in Asia.6
That R1a is what is present in the region shows that the entrance of Indo-Europeans came from a later European expansion:
The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.7
So we now know, as another major 2019 study argued, that Indo-European languages spread into South Asia from a group of European origin that had already mixed with European agriculturalists:
From Eastern Europe via Central Asia in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE, a chain-of-transmission now documented in detail with ancient DNA. The fact that the Steppe pastoralist ancestry in South Asia matches that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe…provides additional evidence for this theory.8
An article in the Journal of Human Genetics points to a series of migrations to India in 2,000-1,500 BC that was transformative to the region, and overwhelmingly male dominated.9 40% of the male lineages of northern India carry the R1a DNA marker associated with the Indo-European invasion, compared to less than 10% of female lineages. In other words, while critics of the Aryan Invasion Theory have tried to recast it as one among many simple migrations to India, it was anything but peaceful.
Over a millennium later, during Alexander the Great’s attempted conquest of the Indian subcontinent, the Brahmin descendants of this European invasion were noted for engineering particularly fierce resistance to the Macedonian. The Brahmins incited a holy war all along his invasion route, creating the toughest challenge of all his invasions. One of the subsequent battles led to Alexander being wounded badly enough to prompt a retreat from India.
Vedic sources on the Aryan conquest
As mentioned, faced with the incontestable genetic evidence of a large influx of steppe populations into India, some have proposed an “Aryan Assimilation Theory” and argued this influx was gradual and peaceful. This is not only challenged by the genetic record showing a male-dominated invasion, but also from the historical record provided by ancient Indian sources.
Written between 1,500-1,000 BC, the Rigveda is one of the foundational Hindu texts — one of the four Vedas, and the oldest Vedic Sanskrit text. It records the story of the Aryan incursion into India and their encounter with the local populations.
The Indo-Iranian peoples apparently referred to themselves as “Aryans”, meaning “noble” or “civilised”. An inscription on the tomb of Darius the Great uses the term “Ariya” to describe the Iranian people, apparently describing Darius as an “Aryan of Aryan descent.” In Avestan, the liturgical language of Zoroastrianism, “Airyanem Vaejah” is used to describe an ancient “Aryan expanse” which was the homeland of the Iranian people. Similarly, the Sanskrit term ārya, meaning noble, is used throughout the Rigveda to describe the conquerors who subdued the native Indians, who are referred to as Dasa/Dasyu.
Indra, the principal deity of the Rigveda, is a Vedic-Aryan deity who the Aryans petition as a god of war. He is frequently depicted enjoying soma, an ancient drink identified with ancient steppe cultures. Soviet archaeologists identified the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC), a Bronze Age civilisation that existed in the Pamir mountains in modern Tajikistan around 4,000 BC. Among the remains of this ancient culture were alters; cannabis; four-wheeled chariots and horse sacrifices; and ephedra, one of the ingredients for soma. The soma-drinking practices of Indo-Europeans are documented in other ancient sources.
Although partly mythical, the Rigveda was written near the time of Aryan incursions into India, and its many descriptions of the fair-skinned Aryan invaders contrasted to the dark-skinned, “snubnosed”, godless natives seems to record real events.
Indra and his light-skinned friends conquer the land:
“He (Indra), much invoked, hath slain Dasyus and Simyus, after his want, and laid them low with arrows. The mighty Thunderer with his fair-complexioned friends won the land, the sunlight, and the waters. May Indra evermore be our protector, and unimperilled may we win the booty” [RV Hymn C, 18–19]
Aryan invaders slay “darksome creatures”:
“Day after day far from their seat he (Indra) drove them, alike, from place to place, those darksome creatures. The Hero slew the meanly-huckstering Dasas, Varcin and Sambara, where the waters gather.” [RV 6.47.21]
The Aryans drive out a “dusky brood”:
SING, with oblation, praise to him who maketh glad, who with Rjisvan drove the dusky brood away. Fain for help, him the strong whose right hand wields the bolt, him girt by Maruts we invoke to be our Friend. [RV 1. 101. 1]
Indra conquers to spread the might and glory of the Aryans:
Armed with his bolt and trusting in his prowess he wandered shattering the forts of Dasas. Cast thy dart, knowing, Thunderer, at the Dasyu; increase the Arya’s might and glory, Indra. [RV 1. 103. 3]
Drawing by Christian Sloan Hall
The aboriginals of India are cursed with “dusky skin”
Indra in battles help his Aryan worshipper, he who hath hundred helps at hand in every fray, in frays that win the light of heaven. Plaguing the lawless he gave up to Manu’s seed the dusky skin; Blazing, ’twere, he burns each covetous man away, he burns, the tyrannous away. [RV 1. 130. 8]
The “swarthy fifty thousand” are defeated:
Thou to the son of Vidathin, Rjisvan, gavest up mighty Mrgaya and Pipru. Thou smotest down the swarthy fifty thousand, and rentest forts as age consumes a garment. [RV 4. 16. 13]
Indra hates “swarthy skin”:
O’er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men, blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates. [RV 9. 73. 5]
Indra is described with a yellow beard and yellow hair
At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair. He, Lord of Tawny Coursers, Lord of fleet-foot Mares, will bear his Bay Steeds safely over all distress. [RV 10. 96. 8]
Indra bestows the land to White people:
The Thunderer bestowed on his White friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters. [RV 1. 100. 18]
More passages on black skin:
Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshipper, he subdued the lawless for Manu, he conquered the black skin. [RV 1. 130. 8]
Stormy gods who rush on like furious bulls and scatter the black skin. [RV 4. 73.5]
Indra, the manifold protector (of his worship) battles, defends his Aryan worshipper in all conflicts, in conflicts that confer heaven. He punished for (the benefit of) man the neglecters of religious rites. He tore off the black skin (of the aggressor), as if burning (with flame), he consumes the malignant; he utterly consumes him who delights in cruelty. [RV 1. 130. 8]
Natives are described as Godless, lawless and inhuman:
Thou conqueredst, boundest many tribes for ever. Like castles thou hast crushed the godless races, and bowed the godless scorner’s deadly weapon. [RV 1. 174. 8]
The foolish, faithless, rudely-speaking niggards, without belief or sacrifice or worship,— Far far away hath Agni chased those Dasytis, and, in the cast, hath turned the godless westward. [RV 7. 4. 3]
These final passages especially don’t help the case of proponents of Aryan Assimilation Theory, who might argue the Aryans merely adopted existing Vedic religion. The Vedas are clear that the religious practices of the natives were considered without virtue and practicing a demonic, inferior religion.
The blonde-haired Indra is the central deity of the Rigveda. Many scholars have seen in Indra the same deity as Thor and Zeus, reflecting their Indo-European origins. The Swedish archaeologist Oscar Montelius remarked that:
Amongst the Aryan peoples of India we find a god whose favourite weapon in his fight against the demons is the thunderbolt. This god, glorified above all others in the Rigveda hymns, was Indra, that fabulously strong deity who corresponds to the Thor of the Scandinavians. His original weapon was the “heavenly stone” which the primeval smiths had sharpened for him; it was thus a kind of stone axe. Then a bolt was prepared for him which, according to some hymns, was made out of the skull of a horse, while others describe it as being made of bronze. Strictly speaking, it was made of “ayas,” the same word as the Latin “aes,” which word in the earlier Indian language signifies copper or bronze, but which in later times, after iron became known, means this new metal. From the fact that one of the Rigveda hymns gives to the lightning the name of the axe of heaven, we may rightly infer that Indra’s axe is really the lightning.10
Indra, god of thunder
Thor, god of thunder
Like Thor, Indra is considered the god of thunder, but he is also represented as the sun. Montelius and other scholars have argued that the god of the sun and of thunder had originally been the same in Indo-European mythology, with some depicting this god as wielding an axe and some a hammer. This god reflects the pole of a more fundamental conflict that animates Indo-European mythology:
As far back as written accounts extend, the struggle between Light and Darkness, Summer and Winter, Good and Evil, has formed the principal foundation of the religious belief of the people of the North.11
Horses in Vedic Civilisation
Another notable aspect of the Rigveda is how prominently horses are featured. Horses are mentioned 215 times in the text, far more than any other animal. The twin Ashvin gods are described as horsemen. Ushas, the most exalted goddess in the Rigveda, and Agni, one of the principal male deities, are both described as riding horse-drawn chariots.
This is significant because in the Harappan civilisation, there are hardly any traces of horses, either as skeletal remains nor engraved as images on any artefacts. Even before genetic advances totally rebuked proponents of Indigenous Aryanism, its proponents in India had to claim Harappan civilisation was Vedic, but were at a complete loss to explain the absence of horses in this civilisation and their sudden appearance in the Vedas. This is all the more conspicuous considering many of the terracotta seals recovered from Harappan sites are engraved with various animals, but never horses.
We now know the native population of wild horses had disappeared from India by about 8,000 BC, and only ancestors of the Indian wild ass remained. It was the incursion of the Indo-European population that brought domesticated horses to India, and they are featured so prominently in the Vedas because they are of Aryan origin.
Horses were crucial to the success of the Proto-Indo-European peoples, providing a great military advantage that allowed their vast conquests over peoples without horses. They were also central to the pastoral economies of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, likely used a lot for herding the livestock of these nomadic populations. As such, horses were revered in Indo-European cultures.
Horses were connected with the cult of the sun deity and seemed to have magical powers attributed to them. Hippomancy, divination through horses, was widespread among Indo-European groups. It was believed the future success or failure of a military enterprise could be judged by the snorting of a horse.
One of the great markers of Indo-European culture is the horse sacrifice, “one of the most enduring and widespread traditions in world history.”12 The archaeological record shows evidence of elaborate ritualistic sacrifices of horses in Celtic, Germanic and Slavic cultures. Vedic India too, carried forward this Indo-European tradition in the form of the Ashvamedha — literally meaning “horse sacrifice”.
This ritual involved the release of a stallion, allowed to roam freely for one year with the escort of the king’s army. During this time, any incursions into neighbouring territories was seen as an assertion of sovereignty. The horse would be sacrificed on its return following an elaborate religious ritual, which included the queen being stimulated with the penis of the dead horse as a fertility ritual.
Depiction of Ashvamedha
Traditionally, handling of horses was kept to the Kshatriyas, or warrior caste. Lower caste Dalits riding or handling horses was seen as a great insult and challenge to the power of the ruling castes. This attitude is still present in India today, where Dalits have been killed for owning horses. If there was a racial division in the original caste system between invasive Aryans for whom horses were such a central part of their traditions and military success, and natives whose adoption of horses might have been seen as a threat to their conquerors, this would help explain why this particular division was so strongly enforced.
Race in the caste system
The word “caste” is derived from the Spanish and Portuguese word casta, which roughly translates to breed or race. This stuck after Portuguese explorers used the term for the Indian system after encountering it in the 15th Century. The “caste system” now generally refers to the Indian system of jāti, which is a more complex and localised system of hierarchies than the broad categorisations we associate with caste.
This is closer to the Indian varna system, from where we get the traditional social groups of:
- Brahmins (priests & scholars)
- Kshatriyas (warriors, rulers, administrators)
- Vaishyas (merchants, agriculturists, artisans)
- Shudras (labourers, service providers)
A fifth class of Dalits or “Untouchables” was excluded from the fourfold varna system and considered fit only to perform undesirable menial work. They were also considered impure since their typical occupations often involved tasks considered to be ritually polluting, such as removing human waste.
The term varna itself literally translates to “colour”. In the epic Mahabharata, written in the 4th Century AD, a sage named Bhrigu identifies each varna with a particular colour: “Brahmins Varna was white, Kshtriyas was red, Vaishyas was yellow, and the Shudras’ black.”13 This is rebuked by another sage, who argues the colours are present among all varnas and what really distinguishes them is behaviour.
Could this reflect a progression of the understanding of the varna system, which was originally based on observable racial differences which became less solidified with time? These colours are now taken to represent the different Gunas or qualities — white represents Satva (purity and knowledge), Red represents Rajas (activity) and Black represents Tamas (destruction).
Depiction of Krishna
However, while rebuking Bhrigu, his interlocutor acknowledges that Bhrigu himself is indeed talking about complexion:
If the distinction between the four varnas is only on the basis of complexion and that is how the varnas are to be differentiated, then it is evident and can be seen that among the varnas, there has been a mixture of varnas.
So while later scriptures reject a racial foundation to the varnas, it does seem to be acknowledged that a division based on complexion and racial qualities had at one time been the prevailing view.
The earliest theorists of the Aryan Invasion Theory believed the different racial qualities of the major castes suggested it had once been a means of the Aryan invaders differentiating themselves from the darker-skinned natives. What can we surmise about this today?
The large study on Indian population changes cited at the beginning of this article reports the following:
We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.14
In other words, around the time Aryans began to arrive in India, there was a sudden shift from free mixing between groups to caste-based endogamy. Initially, the male Aryan invaders likely engaged in a lot of rape and mixing with the local populations.
The confusion of so many mixed offspring not clearly belonging to one or the other groups is probably what led to the institution of a caste system, which gradually became institutionalised. Indeed, the genetic record attests to high-caste Indians with a high ANI (West Eurasian) DNA mating outside of their caste but not allowing the resulting mixed offspring to enter their caste. Per a 2016 genomic study on India:
In eastern and northeastern India, populations such as the West Bengal Brahmins (WBR) and the TB populations continued to admix until the emergence of the Buddhist Pala dynasty during the 8th to 12th centuries CE. The asymmetry of admixture, with ANI populations providing genomic inputs to tribal populations (AA, Dravidian tribe, and TB) but not vice versa, is consistent with elite dominance and patriarchy. Males from dominant populations, possibly upper castes, with high ANI component, mated outside of their caste, but their offspring were not allowed to be inducted into the caste.15
So in summary, we know that:
- An Indo-European language speaking group who called themselves Aryans entered North India and overturned the existing elite, leaving their genetic mark through a flurry of male mixing with native females
- Genetic and archaeological evidence shows these original invaders came out of Europe, similar to the people of the European Corded-Ware culture
- The Rigveda describes fair-skinned Aryan invaders conquering dark-skinned natives and imposing a new religion on them
- The caste system began around the time of the Aryan entrance to India
- The caste system was originally described as a colour-based system with the highest castes identified with the colour white and the lowest with the colour black
- Vedic sources as late as the 3rd Century AD say some identified the mark of the varnas as skin colour
- Steppe DNA is focused in the higher castes, who mixed outside their group but whose mixed offspring were excluded from their father’s caste
- Horses were introduced to India by the Aryan invaders, and handling of horses by the lower castes was strictly prohibited
Given these facts, the conclusion that the varna caste system was originally a way for the Aryan invaders to enforce racial divisions between themselves and their conquered populations seems unavoidable.
Modern genetic science has helped us put to bed a centuries old-debate on the origin of the people who created Vedic civilisation. We now know that around three thousand years ago, a war-like Indo-European people, descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, invaded India. They conquered and subjugated the native population, imposed the liturgical language of Sanskrit, wrote the Vedas and created Vedic civilisation. Initially mixing widely with the natives, then instituted a caste system along racial lines. The Aryans imposed their aristocratic warrior culture on India; they provided its greatest literary accomplishments in the form of the Vedas; and later the most advanced development of monistic metaphysics in the form of the Upanishads.
Over time, their distinctness was lost as their bloodline blended with the more numerous populations native to the subcontinent. Today, their mark is still found in the genetics of India, especially among the elite Brahmin caste and people in the North-West of India where the Aryan incursions began.
Throne, Altar, Liberty
The Canadian Red Ensign
Wednesday, January 15, 2025
Humility and Hubris
Canada is a Commonwealth Realm, a country within the British Commonwealth of Nations which governs herself through her own Parliament but which shares a reigning monarch with the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms. Progressives, especially of the woke, “anti-colonial”, “anti-imperial” type, don’t like this and periodically call for us to “severe our ties to the monarchy.” This expression demonstrates just how little they understand our country. We don’t have “ties” to the monarchy as if it were something external that can be lopped off. It is integral to our constitution and for that matter to our history.
When our current king was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 6 May, 2023 he was greeted by a young lad of His Majesty’s Chapel Royal who welcomed him “in the name of the King of kings.” To this, His Majesty replied “In His name and after His example I come not to be served but to serve.” This was an addition to the coronation service requested by His Majesty himself although it expresses the attitude of humility appropriate to the tradition of the king coming to Church to be crowned by priestly representatives of the King of kings.
What a contrast between this attitude of humility on the part of the man and appropriate to the office he fills with the insufferable arrogance that has been characteristic of his Canadian prime minister for the last decade. Thankfully, that prime minister will soon be history. On Epiphany he announced his upcoming resignation, to take effect after the Liberal Party has chosen its new leader which is set to take place on 9 March. Unfortunately, the joy of hearing that he is finally stepping down, nine years after he should have resigned, has been dampened by the noise coming from south of the border. For as big as the contrast between His Majesty’s appropriate Christian humility and the vainglory of his rotten Canadian prime minister may be there is an even bigger contrast between that humility and the hubris of the festering anal sore who is set to be sworn in again as American president on 20 January.
Yes, that last sentence expresses a rather different character evaluation of Donald the Orange than the one I have been expressing for the last eight years. As recently as last 5 of November, Guy Fawkes Day and the day of the American presidential election, after declining to endorse either candidate on the grounds that it was an election in another country and for an office, president of a republic, of which I don’t approve, I did say that “If someone were to ask me which of the two candidates I like better as an individual person and which of the two has, in my opinion, the better ideas and policies, my answer to both questions would be Donald the Orange.” I can no longer say this, although my opinion of Kamala Harris has in no way improved. One’s insight into another person’s character gets a lot clearer when he is holding a gun to one’s country’s head and screaming “Anschluss!” Whether he is joking or serious, literal or non-literal, is entirely immaterial. Since he is holding a gun to another country’s head and screaming “Lebensraum” and demanding from yet a third the return of his “Danzig Corridor” he has clearly gone stark raving mad.
Enough, however, about the wounded head, now healed of the revived Roman Empire to our south who has been given a “mouth speaking great things and blasphemies” whose followers all wear a sign of allegiance on their foreheads. I do not wish to write an essay all about him because he thinks everything everywhere should always be about him and I have no desire to indulge him on that. Rather this essay is about Canada’s small-c conservatives and how the behaviour of some of them over the past week has made me abundantly glad that in my 1 January essay this year I distinguished my own Toryism, not only from big-C Conservative partisanship but from small-c conservatism as well.
John Casey, writing in the 17 March, 2007 issue of The Spectator, in an article entitled “The Revival of Tory Philosophy” recounted a conversation that had taken place between Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher in the Conservative Philosophy Group, which Hugh Fraser, Casey, the late Sir Roger Scruton and others had founded back in the 1970s. The meeting was just before the Falklands War and in it Edward Norman had given a presentation on the “Christian argument for nuclear weapons.” In the discussion that followed according to Casey “Mrs. Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values.” Then this exchange took place:
Powell: ‘No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.’ Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.’ ‘No, Prime minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.’ Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism.
I very much doubt that many of the small-c conservatives in Canada today would have understood Enoch Powell’s point any more than Margaret Thatcher did although Toryism is the traditional Right of Canada as well as the UK. One’s country is a concrete good for which a patriot fights regardless of what he may think of the people in government at the moment and what their ideology may happen to be. Of course many, probably most, on the Right today, would call themselves nationalists rather than patriots and would probably not understand this difference either. Here it is as explained by American paleoconservative/paleolibertarian Joe Sobran in a column from 16 October, 2001:
This is a season of patriotism, but also of something that is easily mistaken for patriotism; namely, nationalism. The difference is vital.
G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a “lack of patriotism.” He explained: “He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.”
In the same way, many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be “the greatest country on earth” in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, “a 3rd-rate power,” it would be virtually worthless.
This is nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being “the greatest family on earth” (whatever that might mean) or for being “better” than other families. You don’t feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don’t feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.
While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it’s often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.
Joe Sobran, sadly, passed away far too early in 2010 and so did not live to see the “Make America Great Again” movement. The paragraphs quoted above, however, are a good indication of what he would have thought of it, especially in its current revised version. In 2016, the movement used nationalist rhetoric but when it spoke of putting “America First” it sounded like it was echoing what those words meant to Sobran’s friends, Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan. Neither man took it to mean that the United States should be telling the rest of the world “we’re the best, we’re the strongest, so all the rest of you have to do what we say,” quite the contrary. Buchanan campaigned for American president three times on a platform of doing the opposite of that. In 1999 he published a book entitled A Republic not an Empire: Reclaiming America’s Destiny. In 2016, American neoconservatives, the most vehement supporters of American imperialism, shunned the MAGA movement because it sounded to them like Buchananism. It was thought by many that MAGA had taken its playbook from Sam Francis, who predeceased Sobran in 2005 and his “Middle American Radicals” strategy. The MAGA of 2024-5, however, is clearly the nationalism Sobran wrote against, taken to the nth degree, in both rhetoric and reality. Note that the neoconservatives who shunned it in 2016 are flocking to it today. Compare the Ben Shapiro of 2016 to the Ben Shapiro of today, for example.
John Lukacs, the Hungarian born historian who fled the Nazi and then Communist occupations of his home country and immigrated to the United States was another who understood the difference between nationalism and patriotism. He was a man of the Right, but was very skeptical about the American conservative movement which popped up after World War II in a country that had always considered itself to be founded on liberalism. Lukacs, like his friend Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, another refugee from Europe whom he succeeded as history professor at Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia when Kuehnelt-Leddihn returned to Austria after the war, he was a Roman Catholic royalist, the continental equivalent of a Tory, and always referred to himself as a reactionary. I learned to self-apply this favourite epithet of the Left from his example. In his Democracy & Populism: Fear and Hatred (2005) which I reviewed here, he predicted that a new type of Right was on the ascendency, but warned that it might be an unpalatable sort of Right that blended populism, the demagogic exploitation of dissatisfaction with elites with nationalism rather than traditionalism with patriotism.
The MAGA movement in the United States is, of course, a blend of populism and nationalism. It is at its best when playing the role of the “agin man”, that is, someone identified by what he is “agin” (against). It opposes globalism, uncontrolled and illegal immigration, the soft-on-crime policies that are wreaking havoc in places like New York and California, and to the whole combination of racial, sexual, gender and other identity politics that is woke ideology. MAGA did not invent the opposition to these things, however, and one does not have to be either a populist or a nationalist to oppose them. The term “woke” in its political sense had not yet become a household word when Joe Sobran died, but he opposed everything the term denotes and we have already seen his opinion of nationalism. John Lukacs’s mini-book “Immigration and Migration: A Historical Perspective” which can be read in .pdf on the American Immigration Control Foundation’s website here was originally published in 1986, decades before MAGA, the embodiment of the populist nationalism or nationalist populism he foresaw in 2005 and saw unappealing, arrived on the scene.
All of these things that MAGA opposes, the Liberal Party under its present leadership has embraced, taken to their most absurd extremes, and made into its own platform. This was not in response to MAGA, since Captain Airhead was promoting these things from the moment he became Grit leader, which was a couple of years before he became prime minister the year before that in which Donald the Orange defeated Hilary Clinton. He did, however, take his cues from the man who was president of the United States at the time, Barack Obama. Liberal prime ministers in Canada have always taken their cues from the United States. The Liberal Party has always been the party of Americanization.
In 1891, when Sir John A. Macdonald won his last Dominion election, he was campaigning against Sir Wilfred Laurier’s Liberals who were running on a platform of “unrestricted reciprocity” or what today would be called “free trade” with the United States. Macdonald has overseen the construction of the railroad in his premiership both to promote trade within Canada, uniting our economy, and to resist pressure to become dependent on trade with the United States, because he correctly foresaw trade dependence on the United States as a step towards falling into the cultural and political gravitational pull of the American republic and so undermining the Confederation Project. Macdonald won his last majority government in that election, shortly before he passed away, by campaigning against any such outcome. His campaign posters bore the slogan “The Old Flag, the Old Policy, the Old Leader.” William Lyon Mackenzie King, who led the Liberal Party for much of the early twentieth century was even more of a free trader and Americanizer than Laurier.
Now someone might point out that Mackenzie King represented a different wing of the Liberal Party big tent than that which today is identified with the Trudeau family. That is true but it is also true that the Trudeau Liberals as much as the Mackenzie King Liberals took their cues from the United States. Indeed, the very celebrity of the Trudeau family in Canada is an imitation of that of the Kennedy family in the United States. Americans should be grateful that they have not had a second Kennedy presidency.
When Pierre Eliot Trudeau became prime minister he began to expand federal social programs in an unveiled imitation of Lyndon Johnson’s similar expansion in the United States. More importantly, in 1977 Pierre Trudeau introduced the Canadian Human Rights Act and in 1982, he introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in imitation of the US Bill of Rights. The Charter gave the Canadian Supreme Court the type of powers the American Supreme Court has and after 1982 Canada began for the first time to experience the kind of cultural revolution through liberal judicial activism that had plagued the United States for decades prior. The American Supreme Court, for example, threw the Bible and prayer out of American public schools two decades before Pierre Trudeau introduced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They were still in Canadian public schools when I attended and I would have been in Grade 1 when the Charter passed. The Morgentaler ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court came in 1988, 15 years after Roe v. Wade in the United States. Such a ruling would not have been possible prior to 1982.
As for the Canadian Human Rights Act, this was an imitation of the United States’ unnecessary 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting private discrimination that capped Martin Luther King Jr. phoney career as a civil rights crusader which started a year after segregation had been ruled unconstitutional by the American Supreme Court and was hence already legally dead. Most of the free speech battles in Canada during my lifetime have been because of problems that go back to this Act. Those who maintain that we would not have had these problems if we had the American First Amendment are grossly mistaken. From 1949 to 1987 the American communications regulator the FCC had a policy called the Fairness Doctrine that amounted to what Jordan Peterson calls “compelled speech”, which transgresses freedom of speech worse than “prohibited speech.” The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters, if they expressed editorial opinions, to give equal time to the opposite view, thus forcing them to subsidize views they disagreed with. It was not evenly enforced but was enforced against right-wing broadcasters while left-wing broadcasters were generally left alone. The Rev. Carl McIntire ran afoul of it, for example, on a number of occasions. It was not struck down by the US Supreme Court on the grounds of the First Amendment, although challenges on that basis were made. After pressure from Congress and the Reagan administration, the FCC repealed it itself in 1987. So no, the American First Amendment is not the sacred guarantee of freedom of speech that some think it to be. Furthermore, and this is actually the main point, the enforced racial, sexual, and gender identity politics of today’s wokeness, at least insofar as it touches on public policy, in Canada can be traced directly to Pierre Trudeau’s introduction of an Act in 1977 based on an American Act of 1964. This, coupled with the fact that the biggest agent for promoting wokeness in popular culture, not only in North America but throughout the civilization formerly known as Christendom, has been the mass culture production industry centred in Los Angeles, California demonstrates that wokeness comes stamped with “Made in the USA.”
In 1980 at the beginning of the Reagan administration in the United States and a year into Margaret Thatcher’s premiership in the United Kingdom, Sir Roger Scruton wrote The Meaning of Conservatism to demonstrate that while Reagan and Thatcher had their good points, conservatism was not what they thought it was, free market ideology, but rather the instinct to preserve and pass on the good things that others have built before you because these things are much easier to destroy than to build. Towards the end of the 1980s, a movement arose in Canada that completely ignored Scruton’s message. It called itself small-c conservative to distinguish itself from the party, and it took the position that Reaganism/Thatcherism is the standard to which conservatism should hold itself. While the movement loathed the Liberal Party, its foundational misconception meant that it would never be more than an imitation of the centre-right wing of the Liberal Party. When it founded an alternative party to the old Conservatives, it gave it the name that the movement which became the Liberal Party had gone under in the years leading up to Confederation, the Reform Party. It promoted more economic integration between Canada and the United States, the Liberal Party’s position, rather than the economic nationalism traditional to both Canadian Toryism and American Republicanism. Lacking historical depth and a proper understanding of Confederation it wanted to make Canadian provinces more like American states and the Canadian Senate more like the American Senate. The social and cultural conservatism of the movement and the Reform Party initially attracted me to them until I realized that these were entirely expendable to the movement and that it would always put business interests ahead of traditions, institutions, and basically all those good things Scruton said that a conservative instinctually defends.
It is understandable, perhaps, that small-c conservatives, after almost a decade of misrule by the Liberal Party at its worst as far as extreme Leftism goes, would look to the success of the MAGA movement in the United States, but it is a huge mistake to follow the example of the Liberal Party in taking cues from the United States. Since Epiphany, small-c conservatives have demanded that the prorogation of Parliament end and that we go into the next Dominion Election right away. I, as well, would like to see that happen. Challenging the prorogation in court is not the way to go about it. Should the challenge go through this would weaken the Crown’s reserve powers and that outcome would be worse for us than having to wait until March for the no confidence vote that will inevitably bring down the Liberals. We should be strengthening, not weakening, the Crown, so as to check any future prime minister from becoming as autocratic as the current one. What this means is that the role of recommending whom the King appoints as Governor General must go to someone other than the prime minister. The Governor General should have refused to prorogue Parliament to give the Liberal Party time to choose a new leader, just as Lord Byng refused to dissolve it to save Mackenzie King’s skin 99 years ago. The solution is not to have the use of the Crown’s powers subjected to judicial review but to take control over the appointment of the Governor General away from the prime minister. Lord Byng was not appointed at the prime minister’s recommendation.
Furthermore, it is one thing to accuse the prime minister of abusing the process and putting party ahead of country by asking for Parliament to be prorogued until the eve of Lady Day to give the Liberals enough time to choose a new leader. It is quite another to complain that the Liberal Party choosing a new leader before the dissolution of Parliament that will lead to the Dominion election in which the Liberals are defeated is letting Party insiders choose the next prime minister rather than the people. Small-c conservatives, like Ezra Levant and Candace Malcolm, have perhaps not thought through the implications of this talk. There will be another Dominion Election by October. There will be one a lot sooner than that, because whoever the Liberals put in as their next leader will be brought down almost immediately when the House sits again. The next Liberal leader may technically be the next prime minister but it will be a very, very, short premiership. What Levant, Malcolm, et al., are demonstrating, however, is a lack of understanding of the Westminster Parliamentary model, which allows for the premiership to change hands between elections. In Dominion elections, we do not vote for the prime minister in the same way Americans vote for their president. We vote individually for the representative of our constituency, and collectively for a Parliament. The results determine who will be the next Prime minister – the person who has the confidence of the House – but not directly. It has been a huge mistake over the last thirty years or so to increasingly treat each Dominion election as if it were a direct vote for the prime minister. The last thing we need in this country is to import more of the American cult of the leader. Green Party leader Elizabeth May showed more understanding of our Parliamentary system and more basic constitutional conservatism than anyone at True North or Rebel when she schooled the American president-elect on why Wayne Gretsky can’t run directly for prime minister.
Then there are those who think Kevin O’Leary’s proposal of an EU style, common market, common currency has merit. This appears to include Brian Lilley. Has it perhaps eluded their notice that the result of this experiment in Europe was that each country involved began to face a migration crisis and related problems similar but on a larger scale to those that conservatives in Canada and the United States say they want to solve rather than exacerbate?
The small-c conservatives who have annoyed me the most have been those who have suggested one anti-patriotic response to Trump’s obnoxious behaviour or another. Laughing alongside Trump as if his “51st state” remarks were jokes only at Trudeau’s expense rather than that of the country as a whole is one example, excusing his remarks on the grounds that this is how he does business, “it’s all in the Art of the Deal” is another. If that is how he does business that compounds the charge against him it does not excuse it. Going around saying “I’m bigger than you and stronger then you therefore you have to do as I say or I’m going to take your toys” is bad behaviour in the schoolyard and it is no more acceptable anywhere else. It is just as reprehensible in business as it is in geopolitics. Then there is the response of emphasizing what good friends Canada and the United States have been. That is not the way to talk at this time. As Joe Warmington in the Toronto Sun put it “Trump can no longer claim to be a friend to Canada. No friend talks like this.” The problem with these anti-patriotic small-c “conservatives” is that while they lack true patriotism, that love of Canada like unto their love for their own immediately family, they do have a Nietzschean worship of power and strength which they direct towards the United States that in certain respects resembles what Joe Sobran called nationalism except that it is worse because it is focused on a country other than their own. Mercifully, these types are, I think, a small, if loud, minority.
The prize for the most reprehensible attitude goes to Stephen K. Roney who has been positively salivating at the idea of becoming the 51st state. He seems to be under the impression that those of us who love our country bear the burden of justifying her continuing independence of the United States. My answer to him is that if he wants to be an American so badly he is free to move there if the Americans will let him. I wouldn’t let him if I were the Americans. Someone who has that kind of attitude towards his own country cannot be trusted to be loyal to any other.
Yes, if these types are what it means to be “conservative” today, I am glad that I am a Tory rather than a conservative, just as I am very glad to be a Canadian, a citizen of a Commonwealth Realm and the subject of a king who went to his coronation to follow the example of the King of kings, not to be served but to serve, rather than the citizen of an imperial republic, whose incoming president is so full of himself, that I half expect him to raise a statue of himself in the National Cathedral in Washington DC and demand that not just Americans but everyone in the world worship before it.
God Save the King. Gerry T. Neal
Future generations will study this scene as the historical culmination of DEI. Everything encapsulated in a single image. A perfectly composed snapshot of our time. The banal grift at the end of equality. Black girl magic. Allies doing the work. Cash App in bio.
Deport Illegals Now Campaign Spreads Across the Dominion
Immigration reformers are spreading our demand all over. Stop the costly dangerous nonsense now Deport all illegals.Calgary, Manitoba, Hamilton, London. Tell Poilievre: Deport all illegals. They’re costing taxpayers millions.
Michael Murphy: Britain’s mass child rape horror and the price of not being called racist
Thanks to Elon Musk, the grooming gangs scandal is finally getting the outrage it deserves
Author of the article:
Michael Murphy , Special to National Post
Published Jan 09, 2025 •
409 Comments
For years, the British establishment ignored the mass rape of thousands of English girls by predominantly Pakistani-Muslim men — a crime it still refuses to confront. Embarrassment over the ethnic profile of both abusers and victims enabled networks of rapists, known as “grooming gangs,” to prey on vulnerable children with impunity. Driven partly by racial and religious contempt for their mostly white victims, these men exploited girls across northern and central England in an atrocity without parallel in modern British history. It continues to this day.
How did this happen? Or more precisely, how could it have been tolerated? Much like the Catholic Church abuse scandals, this crime threatened a cherished dogma. Multiculturalism preached that diversity was “our strength.” When uncomfortable truths surfaced, they were quietly brushed aside.
The illusion came at a cost. Whistleblowers were smeared as bigots, and victims dismissed by the very people meant to protect them. In case after case, town after town, police and local officials were more concerned with avoiding accusations of racism and preserving “community cohesion” than preventing the rape of children. And with few exceptions, journalists averted their eyes from one of the gravest injustices of our time.
That changed last week, when the grotesque details of one case, involving the mass rape of a 12-year-old girl, reached Elon Musk, who amplified it to his 200 million followers on X. This shattered what writer Ben Sixsmith called a decades-long “conspiracy of murmuring” and triggered an international outcry — one, at last, commensurate with the scale of the horror.
Instead of channelling the public outrage — the obvious response given the severity of the crimes — the British Prime Minister sparred with Musk over alleged “lies” and “misinformation.” In doing so, he missed the point entirely. Musk’s interventions, calling for members of the government to be jailed, were clumsy at times, but pale in comparison to the horror at hand. It is precisely this kind of deflection that allowed the abuse to persist, unchecked, for decades. While British politicians agonized over linguistic etiquette, a nationwide epidemic of child rape was ignored — and enabled — by those in power.
As a result, Britain is well-versed in the dangers of “far-Right” boogeymen and the speech crimes of anti-Islam activists like Tommy Robinson, yet no one knows precisely how many girls have been molested. There has never been a national inquiry focusing solely on grooming gangs. Local investigations offer only fragments — glimpses of a vast, grim collage of abuse, obscured by wilful indifference.
An inquiry into Telford (2022) found that more than 1,000 girls were abused, with cases dating back to the 1980s. In Rotherham, a South Yorkshire town now synonymous with gang rape, more than 1,400 girls were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. Yet Telford and Rotherham are only two of more than 50 towns and cities where such gangs are known to have operated. In 2023 alone, police in England and Wales recorded over 7,000 sexual grooming offences, indicating the abuse is widespread and ongoing.
S
Without a comprehensive inquiry, we can only guess at the total number of victims. Speaking in the House of Lords in 2018, Lord Pearson suggested, based on available data and the often repeated daily abuse inflicted on victims, that in total “millions of rapes of white and Sikh girls by Muslim men” may have occurred.
But even such potentially staggering figures remain an abstraction, incapable of fully capturing the horror. Consider the case of Samantha (in some reports, she is named Sophie), a 12-year-old girl abducted in 2006 by “two Asian men” in Oldham. They drove her around for hours, repeatedly assaulted her, then threw her from a moving car. Desperate and injured, she sought help from a passerby — who also abused her. She fled again, only to be picked up by another man she trusted to take her to the police. Instead, he took her to a house, where she was raped by five more “Asian men.” Her ordeal lasted nearly 24 hours. In total, eight men assaulted Samantha that day. In her world, every adult was a predator. The ringleader of the final gang, Shakil Chowdhury was jailed for only three years.
Such stories are not aberrations. One girl, enslaved at the age of 12, was branded with the initial “M” on her buttock by her rapist, Mohammed, to mark her as his property. Another 14-year-old was abducted, raped, and allegedly dismembered, with her body disposed of at a kebab shop.
The victims, mocked as “white slags,” were considered easy prey by their abusers. At a 2012 sentencing for Rochdale perpetrators, the judge noted that the girls were treated as “worthless and beyond respect” because “they were not of your community or religion.”
According to a study published by the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), the vast majority of those prosecuted for grooming gang crimes in the UK between 1997 and 2017 were of Pakistani-Muslim backgrounds — a fact frequently downplayed by the media.
In Rotherham, a 2020 academic study found that one in 73 Muslim men in the town had been prosecuted for involvement in grooming gangs. How many remain undetected because authorities are looking the other way in Rochdale, Telford, Oxford, and beyond? Without a national inquiry, we may never know.
In a speech that could define his premiership, Starmer dismissed calls for an inquiry as pandering to a “far-Right bandwagon” — a slur on the British public’s legitimate concerns, one he may come to regret.
Such declarations reflect a deeply ingrained mindset: unpalatable truths involving minority groups are considered too dangerous to share with the public. It is this attitude that allowed grooming gangs to thrive unchecked for so long. Authorities were petrified of a backlash against the “Asian community” from the white majority. In Manchester, a 2019 report concluded that Asian grooming gangs were left to roam the streets partly because officers were instructed to seek out offenders of other ethnicities.
Similarly, the 2022 Telford review found, “there was a nervousness about race … bordering on a reluctance to investigate crimes committed by what was described as the ‘Asian’ community.” The report found that the town council suspended taxi licensing enforcement, even though it had become “aware of taxi drivers offering children free rides in return for sexual activity.” The decision to stop enforcement, the report concluded, “was borne entirely out of fear of accusations of racism.”
To understand the power of a belief, consider what people are willing to sacrifice for it. In Britain, the sanctity of children, their innocence, and the integrity of our institutions were all heaped onto the pyre of a multicultural ideal — one that promised harmony but delivered a betrayal too vast and too painful to yet comprehend.
Michael Murphy is a journalist based in London. He writes for the Daily Telegraph and presented the documentary ‘Ireland is full! Anti-immigration backlash in Ireland’. You can follow him on X: @michaelmurph_y.
