This video argues that the British legal system operates on a two-tier justice model where minority groups receive special protections and community-based governance, while white individuals lack equivalent protections. The case of Henry Noak, a white British man who was stabbed and died in handcuffs after being arrested for allegedly being racist, illustrates how the system prioritizes group identity over individual rights. The video contrasts this with the Steven Lawrence case, which led to significant legal reforms in Britain, including the removal of double jeopardy protections. The speaker argues that identity politics creates a system where non-white groups receive preferential treatment while white individuals face systemic disadvantages, and that the SPLC indictment represents a potential turning point in challenging this system.
Identity Politics (Ep. 119): When The Saxon Began (w/ Lydia Brimelow)Added:
All politics is identity politics.
Welcome to Identity Politics everyone.
I'm Kevin D. Adam. Every once in a while you see a case that really sums up our entire situation. So in the United Kingdom there was a young man named Henry Noak. He was a white man and unfortunately in England that means he had no protection. More than that, if you are a white man, you are hated, seemingly most of all by your own government. You don't really matter.
Now, if you don't know what happened to him, you'll find out in a moment. But first, we should talk about the situation of the English in what used to be their country. The English are uniquely disadvantaged, and the reason why is because of this weird system that the British authorities have set up. As we know from the government's response to various protests and terrorist attacks and violence between the different tribes that they've imported to overrun the island, the way the Brits govern their homeland is basically the way they used to govern the empire. Each little group has its own little community leaders that the police liaison with. Each little group has its own quasi official representatives that bargain with the state. So before the police crack down on say Muslims rioting, they have to go and basically plead with the imams to keep their people in line. There's this whole line of tribal leaders that exist between the state and the people. And now that this has basically been formally established, those people aren't really non-governmental actors at all. They're part of the governing apparatus. For all intents and purposes, they are part of the regime. And this tells us something important. In the United Kingdom, not too much different from America frankly, but a more extreme example, people are not governed as individuals or subjects of the crown or whatever. They are governed as members of groups. The way the law deals with one crime or another, one person or another, one action or another is entirely dependent on what group he belongs to. Give you an example. A couple years back, the British police rather absurdly doxed a guy who had burned a Kuran and was arrested for a hate crime. Guy's name was Martin Frost. The British police put a target on his back. What was strange about this was at the same time British officials and police and journalists were denouncing those who were trying to find out about non-white criminals whose actions had led to rioting or community violence. Why? Because those identities needed to be protected to diffuse tensions and keep people safe. But they dox this guy. They even doxed his birthday. A column in the Telegraph entitled, "Britain's illiberal two-tier justice system is now impossible to deny accurately summarize the situation." And I quote, "Martin Frost treatment cannot be viewed in a vacuum." The decision to quickly identify him hardly gels with strenuous recent calls by police chiefs that journalists and the wider public must refrain from speculation in a number of high-profile cases with potential or actual cause to inflame tensions.
The brothers who assaulted a female police officer at Manchester airport were not named. Nor were the Roma i.e. Gypsy family who had four children removed in hair halls. Both cases saw public unrest in the case of hairh halls outright rioting. That Martin Frost actions would upset Muslims should be all the justification that GMP which is to say the Greater Manchester police needed to protect his identity. Even if they were not aware of the retributo killing of Manik Mika, this was somebody who burned a Quran somewhere else and was killed. They surely would know of the Batley and Spven school teacher still in hiding after showing his students a picture of the prophet Muhammad, the fatwa placed upon an eventual stabbing of Salman Rashi, and the emergency community meeting called when an autistic child scuffed a Quran.
When calming community tensions is your highest calling, even the clear endangerment of life can be countenanced in service of keeping the peace. One might be tempted to compare the functioning of the modern British state to the Ottoman millet system where a fractious society was ruled by appeals to various community leaders to police their own internal concerns. But this analogy doesn't quite work. After all, there is one group that seems not to be afforded special protections under equality law, nor engaged with through community leaders." Now, interestingly enough, the journalist there does not name that group. I suppose people could come up with different ones. Christians, maybe. Certainly Christians don't get the worshipful treatment and set aides that Jews, Muslims, and others enjoy despite there being a state church in England. But then, you know, given the state of the clergy, especially in Britain, the priests would probably deny that they want special treatment and join in the attacks. Probably like hand over their own congregants to be sacrificed or something. But we're not really talking about religion, are we?
We're talking about something deeper.
We're talking about tribalism. We're talking about race. Whites are the group you can go after. And it's not that whites don't get special treatment. That would be one thing. It's that whites don't even get the basic fairness or supposed rights that are theoretically guaranteed to everyone. As the column says near the conclusion, Britain is simply not a liberal country. Nor has it been for a very long time, my entire lifetime, in fact. Our legal system, both through enforcement and sentencing, has made it extremely clear that there are indeed tiers of justice predicated upon a nebulous and unquestionable hierarchy of offense and oppression.
Free expression, free speech, openness, the rule of law, all malleable, all disposable, when emergency decrees it so.
Now, it's very important to remember this because we're not really dealing with multiculturalism as normie conservatives occasionally complain about. We're not just dealing with tribalism. It's somehow worse. Everyone except those in the majority population is treated as a member of a group and therefore worthy of respect. You get treated as part of a community. The state has special liaison to bargain with your leaders. The way the law will be enforced, if at all, is dependent on the outgrowth of those negotiations. And if you have a group at your back, you can expect better treatment. You can expect special protections like funding to protect your religious sites. But if you aren't part of a group recognized by the state, it's not that you get treated the same as a normal citizen. You don't even get that. You just get abused. And people like abusing others. It's fun.
Notice how the same European police who never seem to be able to stop nons from rioting in major cities just love waiting in with no fear and beating the crap out of anti-immigration protesters in the Netherlands and Ireland and Britain. Full view of the cameras.
Nobody cares. They love it. Maybe every society needs a group that you're just allowed to abuse without consequence.
And in the United Kingdom, unfortunately, that's the actual British people. Henry Noak was white and so therefore he was considered a part of that people. This was him, by the way.
Probably doesn't look too different from kids, you know, maybe your kids if you're my age, maybe your friends if you're a bit younger. And that's precisely why no one who matters gives a [ __ ] any more than they would care if you got killed. But again, let's not overstate it. I don't want to be accused of engaging in hyperbole. There is a trial. They didn't just let them go. And we're finding out more about what happened from this trial. Though it doesn't exactly weaken my thesis here, rather strengthens it. This from the Daily Mail. Now, the Daily Mail is the worst in so many ways as papers go when it comes to race stuff. It always doubles down on the usual themes. And yet somehow, and at the same time, they're also the best because they're just such a tabloid. And so they just throw themselves in with the details of all these crimes, including details that the American media often just refuses to mention. So this then from the Daily Mail about this case. Quote, "Seek man stabbed 18-year-old university student to death with an 8- in ceremonial knife after claiming he'd been racially abused." Court hears a university student died after being repeatedly stabbed by a man armed with a seek ceremonial sword. The court heard finance student Henry Noak, 18, was on his way home from a night out when he was allegedly attacked by stranger Vikram Digua, 23, with the 8- in Shastar blade. Digo was caught on camera saying, "I am a bad man." before fatal attack.
Jurors were told he is now on trial accused of murder alongside his mother, Kieran Carr, 53, who was accused of assisting an offender. Prosecutors said she went to the scene before running home with the knife to stash it among an arsenal of weapons there. They both deny the charges. Now, this of course is not the worst part. This is the worst part.
Quote, "After he was stabbed, Mr. Noak tried to climb a fence to escape, but Digwa was aggressively pursuing him, leaving a trail of blood, the court heard." Police were called to the scene, but arrested Mr. Noak after Digwa claimed he had been racially abused. Mr. Noak was then handcuffed before passing out and dying in the street a short time later. Prosecutor Nicholas Ladenberg, KC, said, "Put simply, Henry drowned in his own blood with his lung having been cut by the knife going 8 centimeters into him. Vicram Digua raises the defense of self-defense. He persisted that Henry perpetuated a drunken racist attack. He says he doesn't recall exactly how the fatal wound came to be inflicted."
In other words, he's out on the street.
For some reason, this foreigner is out there waving around his knives, one of which he needs for his religion. Of course, the foreigner stabs the kid.
Then his family tries to help him get away with it. The police come. The naan tells the police, "This kid is being racist." So what do they do? They handcuff the kid who was stabbed and leave him there so he can drown in his own blood. In handcuffs, the last words he hears being a bunch of hysterical Indians denying that they did anything wrong and that he's a filthy racist.
This is where we're at. This from the Daily Echo, which seems to be doing the most reporting on this trial, has the most relevance to the case. Man accused of Southampton murder called himself a fool. The man accused of murdering a Southampton student said, "I'm a fool."
during a conversation that was secretly recorded by police. A court heard Vicram Singh Digua, 23, is accused of repeatedly stabbing Lee Henry Noak, 18, with a ceremonial dagger during an incident at Belmont Road in Southampton on December 3rd, 2025. Police covertly recorded a conversation that took place between Digwis and his brother Gerrit.
Two days later, Southampton Crown Court was told. A transcript of the conversation was read to the jury by Nicholas Ladenberg, KC prosecuting. At one point, the defendant's brother told him, "You should say it was self-defense." Digo responded by saying, "It was my fault or mistake." His brother told him, "You have not done anything wrong. He was the one who started fighting you first. You defended yourself or acted in self-defense." He asked Digwa why he had used his knife, adding, "You should have hit him, beaten him up." Diga replied, "I am a fool, an idiot." The court heard that the defendant was interviewed by police five times, but refused to answer any questions. Instead, he submitted a statement in which he said he was walking toward his brother's car when he saw Mr. Noak, who appeared to be intoxicated. He added, "He came at me and barged into me. I was racially and physically abused by Henry Noak. I was petrified as he pulled out his phone to record his attack." Quote. So again, this incident was apparently recorded.
And by the way, in the toxicology report, we know he was not so drunk that he over was that he was over the legal limit. So this question of fact has already been established. But more importantly, think of the way the defendant is framing his response. They know to go to this defense. They know to go to the defense of like, oh, it was a racist attack. And this was effective enough that at the time when British police arrived and saw a young British man suffering from a stab wound, obviously weak, they arrested him. They handcuffed him. I'm reminded of what Enoch Powell said during his famous speech when he was talking about a woman whose neighborhood was taken over by non-whites. They cannot speak English, he said, but one word they know, racialist, they chant.
Every single naan knows how this game is played. Every single naan knows the ticket to individual wealth and collective political power is complaining about white racism. Because even though they can complain about white privilege, every single naan knows that power is ultimately on his side.
That's why they know they can start fights. That's why they know they can get in the face of police or commit various petty crimes and nothing's going to happen. And on the rare occasion something does happen, it becomes the biggest story in the world. Police brutality, fascism, racism seems to be the case here. Now you heard this. This was all over social media, but I actually dug through the source and went through the trouble to find it because it seemed too despicable. Not too good to be true, but too despicable to be true. Well, it's true. This from the Daily Echo. Southampton murder trial years claim he's pretending. Article by a guy named George Ratcliffe. This is from the article. Quote, in the 999 call played in court, Diga's brother said, "We've just been attacked by someone racially. We just got attacked racially by some white person." He added, "Physically attacked my brother. We're seeks. We wear turbans and he attacked my brother. They know what will get the police coming." A video was shown to the jury of Mr. Noak scrambling over a fence to escape Digua after the prosecution alleges he was stabbed. Jurors have now been shown two more videos taken in the aftermath of this. In the video, Digua and his brother accused Mr. Noak of racially and verbally attacking Digwa.
Mr. Noak can be heard denying these claims. Diga was heard saying, "No one stabbed you, bro. You're up. You're drunk." A second video played to the court. Diga's father can be heard saying he's pretending. A minute ago he was talking to you guys. Now he's trying to get up and going to leave. Throughout the second video, Mr. Noah can be seen lying on the floor as they was family and neighbors tell him to sit up. The court also heard from forensic pathologist Dr. Amanda Jeffrey. Dr. Jeffrey explained to the court that the wounds suffered by Mr. Noak, including an 8cm deep stab wound to his chest, which caused a nick to his subclavvern vein, causing a liter of blood to fill his chest cavity, which killed him."
It's not just that he drowned in his own blood. It's that he drowned in his own blood while being called a liar and being put in handcuffs and being accused of a racist attack. And it should be noted, too, two of the most serious wounds he suffered were on the back of his legs. Now, think about that. Pretty bizarre place to get stabbed, right? How would you even get stabbed in the back of your legs? Because he was running away and because he was trying to climb over something to escape and you're vulnerable for a second while you're trying to do that. So, you're running from this armed attacker. You're climbing over a fence. You're desperate to get away. He's already wounded at this point. And I don't care how tough you think you are. If someone has a knife and you don't, all your self-defense training and weightlifting and MMA sparring and survival training videos, all of that doesn't count for [ __ ] You're gonna die unless you can get out of there. And he knew that. And he's desperately trying to get out of there. And the seek ran over to him and stabbed him twice in the legs as he's trying to escape. Back of the leg place you can't even hit unless someone is just totally helpless. But it was self-defense. It was self-defense, guys.
This poor seek was petrified. He was terrified of this racist who was coming after him. He's the victim. He stabbed this British kid in the back of the leg because he was fighting fascism or something. I can't wait for the movie version on Netflix. It's going to be enthralling. Here's something else they're going to leave out in that movie version. This also from the Daily Echo.
It tells us in a story entitled Portswood murder trial shown body cam of victim's arrest that quote Mr. Noak can be heard saying can't breathe. Police put handcuffs on Mr. Noak, who was lying on his side, telling officers he had been stabbed and that he could not breathe. The officer told Mr. Noak that he was under arrest for suspicion of assault. Mr. Noak repeated that he had been stabbed. A male voice said, "I don't think you have, mate.
I can't breathe."
Now, that's one of those phrases that's just supposed to all us into silence.
Now, those words alone have launched nationwide, worldwide movements. Eric Garner, George Floyd, every black criminal detained for anything now knows all they have to do is scream that as they're being handcuffed. And they're going to have a crowd showing up. You're going to have worthless celebrities singing songs about it. You've seen this slogan on protest signs. It's on social media. It's on murals. It's everywhere.
How could the police possibly ignore someone crying out, "I can't breathe."
Well, here's a white kid. Here's Henry Noak. young white man in school, well-liked by everyone, so much to contribute in his own country. And that's why everyone in his society who matters hates his guts. He comes across a seek arm with two knives. Those very things that the whole British government, media, and law enforcement says is the worst thing ever. But this guy can have them. That's fine. He is then stabbed in the front. He runs away.
He's stabbed in the back as he's trying to run away from this armed asalant who is claiming self-defense somehow. He's stabbed twice in the back of the leg, which is just impossible in any kind of a situation where you're trying to do anything but run. He dies in handcuffs, hands behind his back, probably ripping open his chest wound even more because his killer contemptuously instructs the police that he was a racist. And they of course believe him. So they put him in handcuffs so he can drown in his own blood. And the last thing he hears on this earth is a man, probably one of the cops, calling him a liar, for saying that he has been stabbed. And what is the last thing he says on this earth?
Can't breathe. Can't breathe. As long as they're filling up with his own blood.
And no one who matters cares. No one.
Not one person in the whole country. Not the journalist, not the cops, not the weeping clergy, not the prime minister, not the [ __ ] king of England. He was a British kid. And in so far as anyone who matters thinks about the larger meaning of this, it is a source for nothing except quiet satisfaction.
I can't breathe. Well, you know what? If you're a white kid, no one gives a [ __ ] Am I engaging in hyperbole here? And no one is saying it's a good thing, but it's a private tragedy. We're all just individuals. Why do you need to bring race into this at all? There's no larger significance. Okay, let's look at how the system over there really works.
Let's look at a case not from that long ago. This is recent history. This is one of these vanishingly rare man bites dog type stories. On April 22nd, 1993, a black kid named Steven Lawrence was killed by whites and a witness claimed that the n-word was used. It was worldwide news. Nelson Mandela of all people got involved. There was a full inquiry from the government. One result from the resulting McFersonson report defined a racist incident as any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person regardless of motive. So, what do you think that does as far as incentivizing people to call things racist? The murder also led to an overhaul in Britain's race relation legislation, which created the strongest anti-discrimination powers in Western Europe and was the catalyst for permanent change. This being the description from the Steven Lawrence Charitable Trust, which helpfully provides training materials to teachers.
Media went nuts. They were so desperate to convict the guys who did it that they even got rid of the prohibition on double jeopardy. You know what this is, right? You remember how you like can't get tried twice for the same thing? This is pretty foundational to English law.
They literally just got rid of that over this cornerstone of English law just gone. This from the Telegraph, just a headline. Steven Lawrence murder change in double jeopardy law allowed Gary Dobson prosecution.
What else did they do? Steven Lawrence's mother Dorene was made a baroness. She's British nobility now. Why not? And now she can make speeches about how evil and racist the United Kingdom is from the House of Lords. And under the Conservative government of Terresa May, the right-wing government, the center party, the Tories, the UK made Steven Lawrence Day on April 22nd a holiday.
Why not? Why would you make a holiday to try to honor the heroes of your people or their great accomplishments? That's not what we're about. What has Great Britain ever done? We need holidays to torture ourselves. Some deranged monk out of a progressive's caricature of the dark ages has less self-hatred than a typical British bureaucrat or politician today. Part of the celebration, is that the right word that we can call it that included having the police silently reflect on racism for 5 minutes. For comparison's sake, there's only a twominut silence on Remembrance Day. But you know, the hell with those guys, they were just racists. This is something that actually matters. Now, are you saying that it was okay this poor boy was killed? No, no, I am not. And I am not engaging in any revisionism about the murder itself. The guys who were convicted seem to have done it. It was a despicable crime. The only thing I will say about the legal process is it's pretty incredible that they threw out a core Anglo-Saxon legal principle just to get them. But hey, David Lambie, who's justice secretary in the UK along with a bunch of other positions, wants to get rid of trial by jury for crimes that carry less than 3 years in prison, which of course includes a lot of these speech crimes that they're so fond of. So there goes something else that used to define what a long time ago we used to call British liberty. This is David Lambie, by the way. And I'm sorry, I'm not trying to laugh, but like is isn't it funny when they like dress up these nons in these costumes?
Like they're just like you. like they've been here since William the Conqueror. I digress.
What was done to Steven Lawrence was terrible and we should not minimize this. A parent, I cannot imagine anything worse than having a child taken from you by violence. I would completely lose my mind. But let us think about this objectively. Some crimes have social meanings and political importance. Some do not. It is very sad that this young black man was killed. It is also very sad that blacks are disproportionately both the victims and perpetrators of violent crime in the United Kingdom. The victims of those crimes are not less important in some human sense than Steven Lawrence. But here's the thing. No one who matters cares. In fact, both in the United Kingdom and the United States, it is taken for granted that it is more morally just to hamper law enforcement from aggressively pursuing violent crime than solving these cases. Why? Because if you solve the cases, that will disproportionately lead to blacks getting arrested. It would also disproportionately lead to more black lives being saved. But nobody cares about that. Not even the blacks themselves. Why? But don't try to guilt me with this thing because this is where we're at. Why? The collective identity of the group, its collective power, its ability to operate as a united front against outsiders and getting concessions from the government and the power structure is perceived to be more important. Same with Muslims. Same with Sikhs, same with everyone except whites.
And politicians take some crime seriously as a moral challenge to the nation. Others are not even considered.
So for example, last month a British citizen, he was actually born in Somalia, stabbed two Jewish men. Nobody died, but there were serious injuries.
Prime Minister Kier Starmer vows to bring the full power of the state to bear. His quote. The home secretary calls fighting anti-semitism and threats to Jews the top issue regarding security. Now, not enough to stop bringing in Somali, of course. They're not going to be serious about fighting crime by everyone. We can't do that.
That might get some non-whites in trouble. But seriously enough that millions of pounds are going to be set aside to secure specifically Jewish sites of worship and special task forces are being created and all this kind of stuff. You can't even imagine a response like that after an attack on white Gentiles. So, the law enforcement and security response has to be rationed out by group and our group just doesn't count. I mean, think about this. Can you even imagine a white kid gets stabbed by a non-white, doesn't even die, and the prime minister or the president of the United States like gives a statement and prepares a giant security response. It's crazy. advocating a response like that would be regarded as far more evil than merely killing a white kid because who cares about that? And of course, the prime minister has nothing to say about the case we're discussing, even though the young man is actually dead, but he's from a community that has no collective identity. So, he doesn't matter and neither does that community.
It's not that, oh, all crimes against people shouldn't be punished. like the we shouldn't we should obviously be going after crimes regardless of who they're committed against. Yeah, obviously. I know it's very easy to say that. But we don't live under that kind of system. Nobody believes that we do.
The UK does not work that way. America does not work that way. In reality, what you get from the system depends on what group you are in and who attacked you and the relative collective power of those groups. So don't talk to me about, well, everyone's entitled to the protection of the laws. That's not how it works and nobody actually thinks that's how it works and nobody really wants it to work that way. At least nobody who matters.
One last thing about this case specifically. Why did this seek have a knife at all? Do knives considering how hysterical the British government is about knives? We can't keep knives out of a prison. But the United Kingdom is going to stop people from having knives in the whole country. It's absurd. But don't worry, that doesn't really apply to everyone. Now, in this murder trial, there was some debate about whether the defendant was wearing these knives out of a religious obligation. The defense claims that the larger of the knives carried by the defendant was less than 9 in long, which was within the permitted length of a kound, that's what they call it, that a seek is allowed to carry for religious reasons. Prosecution is saying that he also had something called a shastar, basically a larger blade. And there's some dispute about whether this all fits into the religious obligations, and they're having to call in experts on seekism to explain all this because that's what it means to be British in 2026. You have to call in these people to explain these bizarre folk ways so you can understand how foreigners get special rights that you don't get. Now it is worth noting seikhs really do as part of their religion they have to carry a certain kind of a blade. This is part of the religion and seekism is not that old. Oh this is an ancient noteworthy tradition. 15th century not that old. Oxford was founded in 1096.
The Anglo-Saxons were coming into Britain in the fifth century. It's a lot older. I'll give you another older tradition. So this right here, this is a variation of a Sax. You see different variations of this. When we think of the Anglo-Saxons, we usually shorten that to just Anglo, right? But it was the Saxons, too. Get short changed. These are people from northern Germany and the North Sea coast who created England out of Britain. Why were they called Saxons?
Because they carried things like this.
This is why these people had the name.
That's how important it was to their identity. And it was so important to them that it defined them as a people, as their core characteristic. They were the knife people. They were the swordmen. This is what the Saxons were.
They were a warrior culture. This is who they were. If you're English, this is who you were. Now, I would say if an object gives its very name to your people, that's pretty important to that people's culture. And yet, think about this as a kind of thought experiment.
What if somebody said, "We as English people, the descendants of Saxons, have a religious obligation to carry this on our person at all times. I can take this anywhere. Doesn't matter." Oh, I'm not allowed to bring a weapon in. This is my religion. This is my identity.
This is what gave me my name. Why not? I mean, the Sikhs carry a blade on their person at all times. So, don't tell me about, oh, well, it's about the rule of law applying to everyone. That's not true. The legitimacy of special exceptions is already taken for granted.
It's already being taken for granted at this murder trial. So don't scoff. What do you mean? Why should that be allowed?
Everyone takes this for granted. But if the English said, "No, this is who we are. We are going to carry that around.
This is our symbol of who we are. We are free men and the mark of the free man is that he's armed. This goes back to the Germanic warrior bands that built this country and by the way created the idea of democracy. The idea of the arms bearing men having a say in how they're governed that was core to Northern Europe.
It'd be considered absurd.
You would never get away with that.
Why? Why would it be considered absurd?
Why can you not even imagine it? Why does it come off? And let's admit it, it comes off as lar, as bizarre, as weird, as comical even. And yet, when somebody else does this, we take it perfectly for granted. Well, this guy has to have a beard and a turban and a knife at all times. Oh, okay. It makes sense. Why?
This group of far more recent creation, which arguably has no business being in the country at all, but they have a right to these things. And we need to change our laws and traditions and everything else just to accommodate them. Not just in this. Think of militaries throughout the West that have changed rules regarding things like facial hair because foreigners just don't want to obey the rules. And so everybody goes, "Okay." But if a white guy said, "Well, I have this tradition."
The reaction is, "Well, yeah, but you don't count. It's just dismissed." Why?
And one reason for this is that whites and whites alone went in for individualism. And this idea that the rules apply to everyone and this idea that that we have to abide by this belief even when it's clear nobody else does. We take a weird kind of pride in it. Look at these foreigners with their strange folk ways. Isn't that adorable?
I however am enlightened. I have no culture. I have no identity. For I am just a democratic citizen. Somehow that gives you like a status boost. But in reality that's not true at all. You're just a slave. you're just subsidizing everybody else's lifestyle. The truth is that there's a connection between the idea of weaponry and identity because identity is a weapon. Pride is a weapon.
It's a blade to be used against those who wish you harm. And it is a more important weapon than mere physical force. The mere fact of being able to carry something like a blade suggests that you have a certain measure of state power and collective identity and power comes from that. People have to take you seriously. Why shouldn't Saxons have a tangible expression of that?
Particularly the very thing that gave them their name.
Of course, that won't happen anytime soon. And you're always seeing this on social media. What is the right-wing response? Well, seeks shouldn't get a special exemption. But you know what?
They are going to keep their special exemption. After the 2024 elections, there were 11 seeks in parliament.
There's more of them in there than explicit British nationalists in their own parliament. That is the reality of where we are. And people like Tommy Robinson who organized that large Unite the Kingdom rally just a few days ago.
He always praises the Sikhs because they're not Muslim. They're a check against Islam. But it's not about Islam.
It's not even about seekism. It's not even about how we can oppose whatever enemy or whatever takeover. It's a deeper question.
Who is England for? Who are the English?
What are their roots? What is their identity? Who are their leaders? This is not some abstract question. And this is not pointless philosophy. The model of British government that exists right now depends upon liaison with various community leaders. Well, who was Henry Noak's community leader? Did he have one? Did he have a community at all?
Because if not, you're just going to keep getting this. It doesn't stop until the point of total negation, of total annihilation. Don't tell me that we are individuals operating with equal rights.
There's not a country in the West that operates that way, especially not England. The law requires that we recognize race and operate as part of a tribe. And don't talk to me about Islam as the end all be all great enemy of nationalism in Europe. It's ultimately a symptom. It's a symptom imposed by those who actually run our countries. But even that is a symptom because if you say, well, why do we have a hostile elite or why do you have people who are indisputably English, not just going along with it, but leading the way? is because if a people has no sense of itself, it's already been subverted. We can't just be about protecting liberalism from its own excesses or saving the system from itself. And it can't just be, oh, we oppose Islamization or whatever cultural change you don't like, because that's downstream of much bigger stuff. It's not even something like that poem everyone loves to quote, when the Saxon began to hate. It's bigger than that, too. It's about when did the Saxon begin? Who are the Saxons? Who are the English? Who are whites? What defines us? What are our interests? Who are our leaders? What do we want? We better have answers to those questions because right now, those are the questions that matter in politics. Like the blade that gave the Saxons their name. Identity is a weapon. And if you don't have it, like Henry Noak, you will find yourself unilaterally disarmed in a fight for your survival.
Hey guys, quick reminder before we continue. You can follow Identity Politics on Rumble, Odyssey, YouTube X, and Tik Tok. And if you want to make sure you never miss an episode, sign up for our email list. If you believe in this work and you want to help us stay fully independent, you can support us directly on Kofi. We offer bronze, silver, gold, and white membership tiers, or you can give a onetime contribution, whatever works for you.
Every bit of support helps fund production, research, and our ability to speak freely without corporate or platform pressure. All the links are in the description below. Now, back to the show.
My guest today is my longtime friend Lydia Brimlo. She's been writing about the recent indictments of the Southern Poverty Law Center. And unlike some in this sphere, some of you might have heard that interview with Sam Dixon I did, she thinks this could really have some huge implications, especially when it comes to discovery. Now, this is something that concerns all of us because ultimately lawfare is basically the way politics is conducted in the United States. This is something she knows all too well and I hope we can learn some lessons from her experience and her judgment. Lydia joins us now.
Check it out. Well, Lydia, thank you so much for joining us here today. I got to say I was I agree with you in that I think the Southern Poverty Law Center indictment is actually going to be a big deal for us, but I know there are a lot of people who think that it's either going to be nothing or that somehow it actually serves the interests of our enemies. But as you point out, it really comes down to discovery. So the people who are sort of shortch changing this, the people who think this isn't a big deal, what exactly are they getting wrong about all this? Well, you know, I guess I take a a nuanced view in the sense that maybe it isn't a big deal in the sense that so much of my experience with lawfare comes down to the judge and is the judge going to take it seriously or not? And right now they have of course motions in front of judges to um you know throw this off and there's a logical possibility that they could succeed in doing that at which point it wasn't much of a big deal. My position is I don't care. Um it's a good sign. Anything they have to do that spends their money that uh wouldn't otherwise be used against us is a good thing regardless is whether it's a big deal. Um, and of course it could be a very big deal. It could be a very big deal. Uh, one of the things that has emerged since I wrote my last uh piece is that not only is the DOJ going after them, which is what I was writing about, but the AG of Alabama has also opened an investigation and has filed several subpoenas. And that is ultimately what did V dare in because the compliance and the discovery were so ownorous. And of course the SPLC is rich. Um and so it likely just the compliance and discovery are unlikely to do them in but it's not going to do them any favors. I mean the piece that I wrote that was originally in the American Free Press didn't talk about my personal experience with SPLC at all. That's like the tempting thing people want to do. You know, look at my wounds. Um and uh I have a lot. But um my the the real question is does it hurt the SPLC and does it benefit the historic American nation? And it obviously hurts the SPLC even if they're able to throw it off. It damages their reputation. It is almost certainly going to alarm some of their donors. It makes it more difficult for people who activists, politicians, people of influence, business owners to take their accusations of extremism seriously because the these things are in the headlines. Um, so where in the past you had situations uh like Heidi Byrick calling up puredly conservative organizations and saying, "Did you know that soand so actually has, you know, bad ideas that are scary and we're going to write about it?"
>> Been through that. Oh yeah, been through that. Um, in the past that was deadly to her career. Now, um, it's nothing.
>> Unless the individual on the receiving end of this information is an activist themselves, uh, it's not going to go anywhere. I mean, today, I don't even know if it's concluded. There's actually a congressional hearing on the SPLC going on right now. Um, and you know, examining the problems with the SPLC.
That's an objective win. I mean, just take it. I did. Part of what bugs me about some of these and you know, forgive me for being harsh. SPLC called me positive and celebratory and I take that like on principle. That's my brand and this is something that's worth celebrating. And when you have um you know two options of a world and one is where the SPLC is not indicted and one is where the SPLC is indicted. I think we all know which one we would take regardless of the outcome. I mean this is worthy of celebration unconditionally.
But it doesn't even have to be unconditionally. There were already some major wins. And when you have a path, you know, if you were to sit down on a whiteboard and write out how do we get where we want to be, this has to be one of the steps, you know, right? Maybe it's just one step.
>> Um, somebody commented on peter peter brimmolo.com under my article, "Oh, it's just an indictment." Um, >> well, yeah, everything's just an indictment until it's >> like, yes, sure you're right now. Is it like as opposed to what, you know? I mean, right?
>> Should we um unindict them? I mean, come on. And in the game of who's having the most fun right now, it's those of us who wanted them to be indicted, >> right? I mean, what do you hope I guess expect would be the wrong word because we don't really know, but what do you suspect, maybe that's the best word, to find out during discovery? because obviously there's a lot of stuff that has been said and then and there's a lot of people who have sort of a shared interest in misreporting what's being advocated here. So, you have the indictments and a lot of people just sort of in the conservative movement, what we might call conservatism, said, "Well, this proves that the entire alt-right or race realism or even the more hardline elements of immigration restriction, it was all fake. It was all a Democratic op. They were all spies.
They were all working for the SPLC. this thing is all fake. And then you also have within some of the hardline elements of our movement saying, "No, no, no. This is also a trick." Like, "This is red meat for the base because Trump's not doing X, Y, and Z, and this is a way to get people on side. It's best not to fall for it." And I think what's kind of gotten lost in all of this is the the actual detail of what exactly were they funding and who exactly were they funding and how did this whole thing work? Because the actual case, like the thing that they're being indicted for is you're telling donors, we are shutting down these groups and there is a case to be made that precisely the most optically unfriendly groups are more or less being funded by these guys. And this is something those of us who had been writing about it for a while when you would look at say the hate group list and you'd be looking at it and you'd say it's one guy and somehow this one guy has turned into four groups. Half these groups don't even exist.
>> This is all just entirely made up. And that by itself is fraudulent because you're using that to justify to donors this is why we need more money. Look, hate groups have doubled in two years or whatever it is that they're saying. Do you suspect you're going to get like a a real revelation of something you didn't know from Discovery or do you think that it's just they've been doing this model all along? We've all kind of seen it and now this is the first time that like the government actually bothered to notice.
>> Well, I would actually quibble with you.
I don't think that's what this case is about. I think that is the most headline, you know, that's what's been picked up in all the headlines on the left and the right. Um, and the first thing you talk about is like, oh, the whole thing was, you know, an a, right?
You know, the funding means that people don't really care about their own communities. I mean, that's obviously like a low IQ take, which is just [ __ ] On the other hand, um, I don't think that it's without benefit. Uh, there are, you know, most people are not us. Most people are not true believers.
And I know a lot of people that are were still are still kind of spooked by Charlottesville even though the truth has come out. And so it may be fake news that Charlottesville was a left-wing op. But isn't it also possible that that gives spooked people a little bit of room >> to say, "Hey, maybe I can care about things like Confederate statues and replacement migration and all these kind of stuff without being Charlottesville scary because that was the SPLC that did that."
>> Yeah. I'm not saying that it's true, but I'm saying that it might not be all bad.
And um it's not actually that clear to me how it damages us except that we all believe in what's true.
So there's that part. But to go back to the nuts and bolts of the indictment.
Uh, I read the indictment and as somebody who ran the back office of a 501c3, what jumped out to me was not the lying to the donors and the sending of money to the extremist groups that went against their mission. It was the lying to the banks. It was saying to the banks some an individual as of yet unnamed who went on to be the CFO of the SPLC walked into a bank and opened five bit fraudulent bank accounts with fraudulent EIN numbers that you know so I don't know if you've ever had to open a corporate bank account or a nonprofit bank account but you have to bring like certifications from the board that you are in fact the officer who has been given permission to do this and it's signed and then you have your little thing from the Secretary of State saying you're a legitimate business and all this kind of stuff. And I first became aware of this, I don't know, a long time ago when I was not trying to open an account, but I was trying to pay somebody who had done legit like tech work for us. And he wanted to get paid, you know, via wire. And I went to the bank. Gosh, this must have been 10 years ago. And they were like, "What are you paying him for?"
>> And, you know, being a paranoid dissident, I was like, "Why are you asking me? It's none of your business."
And they're like, "Look, I I don't actually I could not care less, but you know, because of both campaign finance reform and the Patriot Act and all this kind of stuff, like do you see I have to write something on the line, lady." And >> the thing is lying is a crime and it's a serious crime. It's like, you know, you're not allowed to lie to the FBI, right? That's what I've heard. I mean, it's like per it's a it's like perjury in the sense that the lie itself is a crime and then every like because there's the lie and then there's the lie that that the um the influence of the lie like it influenced a bank to do a certain thing on the basis of this this falsity and then there's each individual wire that was transferred there. So you have that and then you have so I don't even know how they were able to do that because in my experience the banks comply. I mean they that's what they're good at. That's why you use a bank because they know how to do the things. But um a few years after they open the bank account the the bank was like wait a minute this seems weird you guys SPLC what's going on? And they shut all the bank accounts down. And there's actually an email where somebody within the SPLC acknowledges, yes, these are all our bank all but these bank accounts are were actually associated with us. They were not independent LLC's. Blah blah blah. So it's like it's pretty cut and dry. I mean, you know, how did they take down Al Capone?
>> Yeah. Right.
>> It wasn't for murder.
>> Right. Right. And this is one of these things where if you're trying to run what is and this was always implicit in their brand, you know, the intelligence report, right? like, oh, we're actually like a super secret domestic spy agency and everything else, it's like, well, you can say whatever you want, but when you start moving money around in a certain way and you try to act like you're the CIA or something, that's that's not something you can actually do. I mean, because, as you point out, >> and it and it goes to this question of arrogance and feeling like you're above the law, which frankly a lot of leftists feel because >> they are. I mean above the law, >> you know, we know that they were working with the FBI. Did they think they were the FBI?
>> You know, I mean, there's a >> there's there's a question there of like they didn't have to do this. They could have >> paid in I could see, you know, just for a second if I put on a sympathetic hat and I don't want to just say death, death, death to the SPLC. Um, like I can see an argument that they would have paid informants. Sure, why not? Right.
Um, they're an intelligence operation, >> right?
>> So, why would they need to lie about that, especially to a bank?
>> Yeah. Right. Because that is fundamentally what it's about. I mean, the, as you point out, the headlines are one thing and the way people are interpreting this, but that's not really what the case is about. The case is about financial crimes.
>> The case is about lying to banks and engaging in wire fraud. Yeah.
I mean, if they if they wanted to push it, you know, I think just judging from my personal experience with having to defend VDAR and having fiduciary obligations to VDAR and other nonprofits, you know, fiduciary duty of a board member of a nonprofit is to the mission. And if you are found, you know, having acted in a way that is self-interested or is somehow negligent or even I mean you can get prosecuted for ignorance if you're on the board like if there were materials available just you know pure hypothetical if you know you it turned out there was some financial issue and as a board member you weren't involved in it but you also never read the financials you know meeting after meeting you were just like yeah sure it looks fine to me like you be prosecuted for that. So there is a a level at which somebody could argue that giving money to extremist groups was in violation of the board members fiduciary obligations to the SPLC.
It strikes me that that's a weak case, but it's not not a case. Um what's pretty cut cut and dry is this banking issue.
>> Right. Well, that's that's an interesting thing. I mean, it would be a weak case, but I mean, again, now we're getting in the hypotheticals, and we're just going to have to wait and see because there there are two ways to go about this. I mean, if you were saying, well, we're paying for an informant.
We're paying for somebody to basically be a spy in this group, and spies don't work for free, so we're paying this guy, and he's going to do this kind of thing, and this is how we take down the group for the inside or whatever. You can imagine justifying that. But, of course, then why why cover it up? Why not just tell the bank that and it's fine? But you there's also another way which and we'll have to wait and see how this goes where the people that you're paying are also out there essentially creating the headlines for you.
>> So like the guy that you're paying >> there's a interest, >> right? Right. The guy that you're paying goes out there and says some like crazy thing, you know, dropping racial slurs in full view of the camera and whatever else and then you are writing an article being like, "Oh, isn't it horrible that these extremists are doing stuff?" but he's working for you, >> right?
>> So, you know, at that point it does become a mission conflict where like you're not It'd be like if American Renaissance was like paying a black nationalist to go out there and say like death to white people and then like I write a book about like look at this evil guy and like that becomes like a >> FBI does it all the time, right?
>> Well, yeah, but the FBI is the FBI.
>> I think that the SPLC thought they were the FBI.
>> Yeah. Yeah. He who is sovereign makes the exception, but if you're a nonprofit, you're not actually sovereign. But I mean, they they essentially were up until recently. I mean, this is one of the things where people elections have consequences, right? I mean, this would not have happened if you did not have the regime change of 2024. I mean, you would have they would have just kind of kept going.
If anything, you probably would have seen that partnership intensify. And God knows, if you look at the internal politics at the FBI right now, it's pretty intense. And this doesn't even get into some of the other groups.
Forget like CIA and deep state or whatever else people want to obsess about with foreign policy and things like that. I mean, let's just talk about what's happening domestically. I mean, you look at a group like the ADL. I mean, that was something that worked with the FBI for a long time. A lot of people are saying, you know, is the shoe going to drop with that? But there's still some partnership there. And the bigger question is that the way democracy seems to work now is that the government sort of outsources the things it's not allowed to do to the NOS's. I mean obviously we don't need to go on that with refugee resettlement, but we both know how that works, >> right?
>> But this also increasingly has to do with like law enforcement. And at a certain point, how can you not run into issues like this? because you have these groups that are are technically not part of the government, but de facto that kind of are, >> right?
>> And they're also taking sides, which really is not supposed to be how law enforcement works. I mean, the law should be the law regardless, but as you and I both know, that is not the way the so-called rule of law actually works in this country. It's always a question who justice system for sure. Um, and SPLC may be finding that out for themselves.
uh you know in the sense that they have been floating above all kinds of enforcement for decades and wreaking all kinds of havoc havoc and that may not have been obvious to them in in that sense at the time. I do want to um go back to something that you asked and I got a little distracted like you didn't say what's the best case scenario but like what do I think might happen?
>> Um I'll put it this way. What I would love to see happen is that not only through the DOJ but also through the attorney general of Alabama, the discovery is very thorough. And uh you know the thing about uh in the piece I wrote called it's all happening for the SPLC which is on peterbrallo.com I pointed out that you know to get an indictment you just need to have a snapshot investigation to say something happened like they're being indicted for ABC but in Discovery it's an ongoing investigation and so where all they needed and if you read the indictment You see, they don't have anything from the SPLC because there haven't been subpoenas, there hasn't been discovery, there haven't been depositions, they haven't had any of that. All they had was conversations with the banks. And so now that on the basis of the conversations with the banks, which are external to the ST SPLC, they have their foot in the door with the SPLC. And so whereas that initial indictment was a snapshot, when they start getting discovered against SPLC, it's going to be like a live stream. you know, here are all of our emails, all of our phone records, all of our, you know, promotional materials.
They're going to have to fight like we did about their donor names and their, you know, they're going to have a, I would think, a pretty hard time defending pseudonmous uh given the nature of the charges, defending pseudonmous sources. But um it's in that sweet spot that we will start to know what else did they do. You know, right now it's funding extremism, which in and of itself is not a crime. Uh but lying to banks is a crime. That's all they have. Well, what if we come up with other things? You know, other kinds of financial problems are not unlikely.
They have a weird They have weird financial habits in the first place. And it's just not the case that the kind of people who are comfortable operating the way that they operate have like one crime. You know, like my first piece was called there's never just one cockroach.
And the the first cockroach that we know in the SPLC's Hate House is wire fraud.
Um I think it's very likely that we will find evidence of torches interference. I think we will, it's very likely that we will find all kinds of other things we can't even imagine right now. And uh that's why I just can't wait to see I can't wait to see what else. You know, it's it's just getting law enforcement's interest and foot in the door. That's the major win. It's it's not even although I think the wire fraud charges are serious, that's not even the issue.
It's the fact that now we get to find out what else is there, >> right? So as excited and as all the speculation that people were going over already, this isn't even the beginning.
Like it hasn't even be started yet in terms of what we could find out.
>> No. Now that said, it's all up to a judge, >> right? And that's just it. I mean, you know, you get some judge who's like, "Well, I like them, so it's fine." The SPLC's position is that the DOJ lied in their indictment and so or in their coverage of the indictment and so they have reason to believe that the DOJ lied at the grand jury and so they have petitioned the court to turn over the typically sealed transcripts of the grand jury testimony that got the indictment. that has not been ruled on.
It's in front of a judge, uh, a white woman who was born and raised in Alabama. I believe she went to University of Alabama. Uh, in her private, she's a Trump appointee judge.
In her private practice, she focused on labor and civil rights law, but it looks like her civil rights practice was focused on like defending corporations and stuff like that, like defending people. Uh, she's married, she has children. I believe her whole family is white. Um, I haven't, you know, I don't have a ton of information on her. You just don't know. But at least she's not like >> could be worse. Like, we have reason to hope that she's going to understand what law and order means and what crime and, you know, innocence mean and that she's not going to just let them off. But um I'm afraid my experience and Sam Dixon's experience, him as a lawyer, me as a victim of lawfare is that much of the time uh the law is irrelevant and the facts of the case are irrelevant. It's up to the judge to decide whether or not they feel like enforcing the law. But my experience, which has been just black across the board, >> right, >> was in New York and the SPLC's in Alabama. And those are universes a part.
I mean, you know, obviously it's a logical possibility that things go sideways and they don't get um the justice they deserve, but uh you know, it's different in Alabama with the kind of judge that I'm describing.
>> Right. Right. Right. I mean, and doesn't that just tell you everything? I mean, just you running down the facts of this, and this is something uh, you know, your husband told me to do when I would be looking into cases and stuff is who appointed the judge, right?
>> What's the background? What are the kinds of things I talked about before?
And it's amazing how nobody ever did that. Like, you never see that. I mean, now now you kind of do because of all these judges like >> because of all these crazy things, >> right? Right. But that only happened like in the last couple years. Really, the second Trump term is the only time you've seen you start seeing that happen. But in like 2019 or something or even 2023, if you brought up, well, the judge was appointed by this and that, people would say like, well, why is that relevant? That's and it's like that's the only thing that's relevant like what the law says. It's like >> the appointments you you sometimes wish the appointments were more consequential like who appointed you, HAVE YOU NO LOYALTY?
>> YEAH.
But uh you know when you look at the constellation of data points for a certain judge's identity you you can have hope or despair uh at least in in the initial phase.
>> Well certainly that's how Supreme Court nominations go. I mean this is one of the things is that fundamentally products of of the Anglosphere whatever our ethnic origins.
I think we're both Irish, but we're still fundamentally products of like, well, the rule of law should be a thing and like with the way the law is worded should actually matter and the judge the background of the judge shouldn't make a big difference.
>> Equality under the law.
>> Yeah. And like but the problem is if one side doesn't operate that way, that side wins no matter what. I mean, it's like the prisoners dilemma thing where if like one side just keeps doing it and the other side doesn't, like we all know who's going to win. So, you sort of you sort of have to operate this way even if you don't want to. Like, how do you take a step back and get like a functional legal system again? I mean, I would ask you that question, but I think the answer is you kind of don't. I mean, it's just sort of a existential conflict at this point. I mean, is that too pessimistic?
>> Well, it's a big question. Um, and I think ultimately it's like a spiritual question, right? I mean, >> you're talking about the you can't have a successful nation without without a a functioning judicial system. And uh you you know, do we have a functioning judicial system right now?
Do we have a functional nation? Um, these aren't these aren't things with simple questions, but obviously I think that the first step is to make sure to the most extent that you can that the population that is supporting the justice system that is purportedly a part of the nation uh understands itself and recognizes its own identity and you can't do that with the kind of diversity that America has now. So, you know, the first step is to get immigration under control, to have mass deportations, to, you know, celebrate what it is to be a part of the historic American nation, make it clear that we don't have only a negative identity. This is something that's a little frustrating for me now.
um you know the the things that VDER advocated for for so long which is uh a immigration full immigration moratorum and mass deportations and get rid of anchor babies and get rid of birthright citizenship even retroactively. I mean I don't think anybody could out hardline us on the immigration question but that is only like a negative identification of what it means to be American. It's like a you know you're subtracting things out of it and to be an American there are positive identifiers as well.
you come from a certain you know people and you have certain habits and certain ways of mind and certain traditions and certain festivals and I mean you know there are things that you can say yes this is instead of no this isn't and we haven't we we have not regained this sense of yes this is which you know not to get too far off the track here I think is part of why this 250th celebration seems like it's kind of falling flat because like people don't really know what we're celebrating even even people right?
>> Who have been, you know, are are part of the historic American nation. They're like, "Yeah, but where is it?" I >> Yeah, you got to go looking for it. I mean, you you have you can still find it, but you have to like go looking for it, and you also can't tell anyone because you get the feeling that if you actually find something cool, the New York Times is going to send in a team of reporters to like sue everybody, you know, write hit pieces and destroy everything. Oh, I mean I would say something a little different, which is that so many people have been raised, you know, it's like the fish in the water is unaware of the water.
>> People who've been raised in the context of a normal American culture. I mean, I'm here in the backwoods of West Virginia. I grew up in the backwoods of Texas. Um, you know, you don't actually know that that's what it is. Uh, you just think, oh, well, that I mean, that was my childhood. That's what, you know, that's what things are like. You don't you don't have any reason to be like that is America and that is you know I I want these particular things especially when you're told um through every you know channel that there is no American culture even by I mean right-wingers say this like to disparage America because they're like post America >> and um you know for me that might be useful in some sort of rhetorical intellectual exercise, but I personally am not post America. I don't have anything else. And um so, you know, being told that, oh, America's doesn't have any cuisines other than hamburgers and hot dogs, which is totally uh wrong, by the way. I could sure should write a whole article about American cuisine and stuff like that. You know, you you can only take it for so long without forgetting that you have a real culture and that a lot of us were raised in it and a lot of it are actually giving it to our children. We just don't know how to identify it. It doesn't it doesn't have a label.
>> And yeah, and you the rot in the institutions does seem downstream of the the cultural rot. I mean, as you point out, the 250th anniversary does seem to be kind of a dud for well, also just the sheer fact that so many people who are in this country are not American and and know that they're not American. I mean, they'll tell you that they're American.
And one of the understated things from an institutional point of view was that >> the Trump administration basically had to start from scratch because you had like a whole Biden team in there for it.
And of course, had Harris won, it would have been this is how evil the country is. America's a crime scene. As she said, you know, really the only Americans are slaves and Indians and whatever, both kinds of Indians, and this is the only thing that we're about.
And now you're having to do like the whole thing all over again.
>> But that that kind of like related cultural institutional rod now is in the core system. And the problem is like the one thing that you're probably going to have to deal with at some point in your life when you deal with power, when you deal with politics, when you deal with the system, it's the courts. And it's just the thing that I don't think a lot of people get is how arbitrary it is what's going to happen to you if you get sucked into this system depending on which judge you're before, what area of the country you're in, the whether the press decides to pick up on the coverage or not. I mean, how many cases have we seen in this country where the DA rules something, then the press starts writing on it, and they just reverse it. I mean, in theory, the law is supposed to be immune to public pressure. In practice, of course, it's not.
>> As somebody who's just gone through hell, and I know you probably can't talk about it too much, but I mean, if there was anything going forward you would advise people like how to protect themselves somewhat, what would it be?
>> Jurisdiction is everything.
>> Yeah. Um, >> yeah, that's that's probably what I would say, too. Maybe the SPLC will learn that to sorrow with Alabama.
>> Right.
>> Right. Um, >> that's really that's all you basically it, you know, don't be a criminal. I wasn't a criminal. That doesn't protect you. Uh, right. You know, the the best thing that you can do is doicile in a place where you have some hope that that judges will be impartial, >> right?
>> And um beyond that, there's nothing.
>> Yeah. I think it's it's depressing advice, but I think it's advice that at some level we all kind of know. I mean, everybody who's watching this at some level knows that if you're in a deep blue city or something and even if it's a open and shut self-defense case, you're just screwed. I mean, it just doesn't >> it just doesn't matter in terms of what it is.
>> At best, maybe you'll you'll be okay if like nobody in the press notices and it doesn't become like a giant racial issue or something. But once that happens, it's the end of the world. But I mean in theory then you look at like the rest of the world and what's what's really depressing is in so much of the rest of the world mostly I've been talking about the United Kingdom today and it seems even worse in some places.
>> Oh it's definitely worse. I mean there was a phase in the right on the right where people were like oh I'm you know America's so bad we're just going to have to move somewhere else. I can't stand it here. I'm like where else is better? Like maybe one place. I will say that, you know, when we weren't sure if Trump was going to win his second term and, you know, we might be facing a Camala Harris presidency, Peter and I uh went and visited, you know, El Salvador and we're like might be okay. I mean, it was it the prospect was terrifying. It's not something that I wanted to do. Um, but the prospect of my family having to live with Camala Harris as president when we had already learned what it was like to be under Leticia James as attorney general. Um, I just didn't want to be here that but my idea was that then we could come back, you know.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> When when we maybe had dodged a bullet or or wait to see how things were. But even then, you know, when I was looking at it, it was like, well, you know, this place is cleaned up and nice right now, and my crypto friends are interested in it, but this is profoundly unstable, and you know, what kind of life are my children going to have? Um, the only appeals that it had were uh that it wasn't difficult at all for my Texas family to access, so I wouldn't be completely cut off. And I also um could while there was no uh cultural richness because they've been at war for ever and there are no resources, you know, for to raise a family in. And by that I don't mean like I what I there's like no housing, there's like no schools, there's no no anything. But I did know that ultimately I would be a I would not be persecuted.
I would not be persecuted. And that was my only >> bar um as far as like what would be the standard. And I could not have told you of another place that where I be less persecuted. Like if that's the if that's what you're looking for, then the trade-off is like, okay, I'll just give up literally everything else. Um, and thank God, uh, Trump won the election. I mean, it hasn't saved us from lawfare, but at least things haven't gotten worse for us.
>> Right. Right.
>> I mean, I think of something Peter had me read, which was the biography Churchill wrote of Lord Malber, like really, really long one. And I mean, Yeah, I know. It's a great book. And I have my problems with Church Hill, but he he was a good author at least with that one. But he one of the things that Peter said about it, and I always remember this because it's just one of those things that stuck with me ever since is just when you're reading about the way these guys lived, you know, around the time of the Glorious Revolution, all these sorts of things.
It was just taken for granted that, well, I'm participating in public life.
So, there's a pretty good chance I'm going to go to jail at some point and then maybe I'll get sprung from jail and be a high government official and then maybe after that I'll be executed, but then my kid might get to do something, you know, like just this kind of craziness.
>> Well, that's now too.
>> Yeah. And we've never had to deal with that. But now, I think everybody sort of understands like, no, this is this is pretty much how it is now. Like, >> oh yeah, >> there's always like a 5% chance someone's going to kick in the door and be like, well, you said the wrong thing on the internet, so the break.
>> Well, even if you don't say anything >> very obviously wrong, I mean, I think Spencer Pat running for mayor of Los Angeles is experiencing that, you know, as if it's not bad enough that his house was burned down by, you know, incomp incompetent communists. Or maybe they were too competent as communists. I'm not sure.
>> Yeah, right. It was deliberate. I mean, they were they were pretty competent as far as setting a big fire goes. got to give him that.
>> And you know, being unable to rebuild and having to live with all these complaints that people have about LA, like you know, their kids stepping on needles in the park, blah, blah, blah.
Like, now he's getting death threats and his children have had to go into hiding, you know, like this is what happens. And I've talked to I have several friends that are now in the administration or in you know government uh related jobs and individually they have all said to me I've had to talk to my spouse about what happens if I get thrown in jail. Um I've had to consider changing my children's last names. I've, you know, we they're planning for these horrific contingencies um in a way that is much more explicit, I think, than it has been in the past.
>> Yeah. I mean, people kind of knew last time like, oh, they're going to it was a big deal when they indicted Trump on various things and then Trump gets in and now these other people are getting indicted, you know, enemies of him. But now >> it's you sort of understand it where it's like, okay, the guy's playing at that level. they're going to do this to each other, but it's never going to be taken that seriously or whatever else.
But now we're in a situation where you could, it doesn't matter how low you are on the totem pole. It doesn't matter if you're on the totem pole at all. You're just perceived perceived to be on the other team by the other side. Like >> things that you had no participation in, things that you have no involvement in, like that could be the thing that determines the rest of your life.
>> And well, that's what happened. You know, we had no participation and no involvement in Charlottesville. And yet that was the beginning of the end for Vair because within days we got kicked off of PayPal, you know. I mean it was it was just an excuse and um of course or no was that yeah I mean it was just we've been persecuted for so many things we weren't involved and I had to make sure that timeline was right. um >> guilt by no association. I mean that's >> by fantastical association uh disassociation but the um you know it it does it it it gets to be crazy. I mean to bring it back to the topic at hand I think that this indictment of the SPLC and then the ongoing investigation the ongoing investigation is going to be so important. first of all that the judge make sure that it happens and secondly that the people who are doing the investigation are motivated to find other crimes and I think they are I really do think they are um they know that they've kicked a hornet's nest and uh to see what comes out that that kind of thing is the only thing that's going to stop uh the just increasing momentum that you're talking about of the risks of public life and the risks of just even being a part of the historic American nation at all. Um, and so for that reason, excuse me, for that reason, um, it's an unconditional good.
>> I do think that the only way, this is the weird thing, like the only way we can sort of bring things back to normal is escalation in the short term. Because if you say like, hey, if you act this way, you might get indicted if the shoe's on the other foot. Then maybe at some point you can be like, okay, maybe let's all take a step back. Maybe let's go back to the way things are. But if you have one side that's just getting away with it over and over and over again, as the SPLC has for God knows how many decades, why would you ever stop?
Why not just keep doing it? Right.
>> I mean, I think I think one thing that Orwell said, which uh not said directly, but >> I mean, the main takeaway of 1984 is that >> the reason that repression happens at some level was because it's fun. It's just fun to push other people around.
The purpose of power is power.
>> And I think like that's really underestimated when people look at the left. Like, why are they doing this kind of thing?
>> Because it's fun to screw with people and feel like you're more powerful than they are. And the only way to stop them is be like, yeah, but what if it happens to you, too? I think for many on the left, it's just a possibility they've never even considered because why would they?
>> Why would they? That never happens to them. It never happens to them. No, I think you're right. Um I think that's a startlingly close to a compromise that I've ever heard you say like, "Oh, maybe we just hard in the short term and then we loosen up." Um >> I mean, I'm I'm a peaceful moderate, especially these days online. I'm like I'm a harmless fuzzball compared to like everybody out there now.
I'm a centrist. Sensible centrist as they call it.
>> Oh, the world has changed a lot.
>> Yes. But this is this is what it's going to take though. I mean, people do need to understand like there do have to be consequences imposed on these kinds of groups. And of course, just from a movement perspective, and I this will be the last thing that I'll ask. And we don't really know, but from a legal perspective, is there a way that we're actually going to find out who I mean, let's just say it, who the traitors were because at least with Charlottesville, you've got somebody who was clearly from what the indictment said. And again, >> be overly fair. SPLC says they're lying.
>> Maybe the DOJ is lying. Maybe they got something wrong. But according that's very possible, right?
>> Sure.
>> But I don't want to just like, you know, assume. But according to the DOJ, there was somebody who was not only involved with Charlottesville, but was basically transporting people and arranging transportation, which suggest some sort of not organizer, not one of the speakers probably, not anybody maybe anybody had heard of, but somebody who was was doing >> in a helpful circle. Yeah.
>> Right. Was was right >> organizing in some ways. And it's frankly of pretty profound interest to all of us to know who that was.
>> Sure. I don't know. uh whether they're going to open up those names or not. Um I really couldn't say. The one the one that was interesting to me was that the guy who was I guess a part of the National Alliance and they paid him to trespass, break in, steal documents, copy them and then return them. I mean again those are actual crimes. Um, and I don't know what their culpability is for, you know, paying him to do that.
Obviously, if a man hires somebody to kill his wife, he is also culpable for that murder, >> right?
>> Um, you know, I don't know how these things transfer. Uh, you know, that's something that I I wrote in um the piece that was in the American Free Press under the question of does it harm the can can this in any way harm the historic American nation? I think ultimately no. But there is a question of who were the traitors and what information did they give over. I mean it's unavoidable the the carnage that the SPLC was able to wreak in people's lives and they did that through gaining information. And so if you know you had a traitor who was giving over information about you know people's opinions, people's political views, people's associations, not about their criminal activity. We're not talking about the mob here and they were ruining their lives. I mean on a personal level, people are very interested to know who that was. Um I just don't really have any context for knowing how likely it is that we'll get to know those names. But um you know, I think that whatever information they handed over must have long since been exploited because the SPLC was not overly like they weren't like I don't I don't have the impression that if they knew of some like secret sect of evil white nationalists that they were going to like put it under a bushel, you know?
I think anything they had, they put it out there. They like to see people get purged as quickly and as and as ugly as possible and and and so I I doubt that any of that stuff could hurt now. It may just be of interest. Now this morning I had a terrible revelation about a potential way it could harm us. Uh I like Peter and I like to talk about logical possibilities which are distinct from realistic possibilities. But yesterday >> Well, it's a good thing I never harp on worst case scenarios.
You know me, >> you know, yesterday there was this big announcement that Trump's uh settlement with the IRS includes, you know, almost $2 billion set aside that citizens can apply for or I don't know who citizens maybe also organizations can apply for if they feel they were unjustly targeted by their government by the federal government. So um obviously J6ers and I would think probably some PTA during COVID parents and Liberty or whatever they were all kinds of people >> even like proifers right it was like some random Catholic >> mass >> um >> and so it's not they haven't made any um you know communications or information available about how you apply for that money uh we're all very interested but um you know if the SPLC gets a crooked judge and they say this is an unfair prosecution from the DOJ and the judge is like, "You know what? You're right.
Dismissed. What if the SPLC turns around and is like, "Yeah, Trump, we're applying for money." So, again, >> I would count nothing out. I would count nothing out. Anyone Anyone who underestimates the insanity and arbitrary nature of the American legal system just does not have enough.
>> Well, I mean, I saw James Comey was like, "Hey, can I apply?" And um you know, I don't know. They haven't announced the rules yet, Comey, but uh you'll have to get in line. I think it's not going to be a short line.
>> No, it's not. These days, unfortunately, the way to get ahead in America is to have an inn with somebody. And that's the problem with the country, the way the country is developing. I mean, it's we're all just downstream of power and it becomes a war of all against all. And that's the tragedy of this whole thing.
But to end it on an optimistic note, the only way we get better is if the worst abusers actually are forced to pay a price. And then that's probably the only way we can take a step back and actually have a free society again, which I seem to remember when I was a little kid, but maybe I was just naive. I think like my generation is the last one who even knows what that was like.
>> I remember it. It was fun.
>> Yeah, it was fun while it lasted. Is that true of everything?
>> Lydia, where can people find your writings? How can they support you?
Where can they find what you're saying about these cases and other matters?
>> Oh, thank you. Everything that I write is going to be published on uh Peter's new project which is peterbralow.com.
I am still the president of the Vair Foundation but unfortunately we don't have publishing ability there at this point. Um my job there is just to respond to lawyers and uh legal demands and pay their bills. So um if if I have any updates about that, it's all going to be on peterblo.com.
Peter and I are being sued by Leticia James. Um, in addition to Vidair being sued, there are actually two lawsuits going on, uh, the culmination of four years of investigation. She actually, um, it's a civil lawsuit. She did not find any crimes, but, uh, you can support mine and Peter's legal fund at gives.com.
And you can support Vares at givesgo.com.
So, whatever um is more appealing to you, it's most welcome in every case.
So, um yeah, you can read me at petermallow.com or help us help us fight Leticia James.
>> Well, she's facing her own legal problem, so we'll see what happens on that front, too.
>> She was.
>> All right, Lydia, thank you so much.
Appreciate everything. One of the themes that I try to emphasize here is that any cultural practice, no matter how retrograde or patriarchal or reactionary gets a pass if it comes to non-whites.
So, I did an audio episode on how this works for you subscribers on the Kofi recently talking about the discussion on X with The Last Samurai. People were debating all this kind of stuff. Now, the thing is with The Last Samurai, it's an insanely reactionary movie.
Patriarchy, the cast system, monarchy by divine right, these and other things are all good and honorable and noble. Why?
because non-whites are doing them. Or take even more fictional ones. Think of the historical phenomenon that was Black Panther. You remember how the media went nuts with that. The fictional Wakanda, and don't tell blacks it's fiction. They got a lot writing on this. Wakanda's ruled again, sacred bloodline. You fight your way to the throne. There's no democracy. There's no equality. But that's fine. Why? Because it's Don Whites and therefore it's good. But this even extends to the real world and practices that I don't think even those of us who are far right or reactionary would defend. But liberal journalists will defend it. So from the BBC, because we're picking on the British regime today, selling children to survive.
Afghan fathers forced to make impossible choices. You see, they're the victims.
It's your fault, really. The article says, quote, "In Afghanistan today, a staggering three in four people cannot meet their basic needs, according to the UN. Unemployment is rife, healthc care struggling, and the aid that once provided the basics for millions, has dwindled to a fraction of what it once was. The country is now facing record levels of hunger with 4.7 million, more than a tenth of Afghanistan's population, estimated to be one step away from famine. Now, why? Again, it's your fault. So, they tell the stories of all these people who are suffering.
Here's one of the examples. Quote, "Just two years ago, Sed was getting some help. Back then, he and his family, like millions of other Afghans, received food aid, flour, cooking oil, lentils, and supplements for children. But massive cuts in aid over the past few years, have deprived a large majority of this life-saving assistance. The US, once the top donor to Afghanistan, cut nearly all aid to the country last year. Gee, I wonder why. Many other key donors have also significantly reduced contributions, including the UK. Current UN figures show that the aid received so far this year is 70% lower than in 2025.
Why could that be? What exactly are we supposed to do in this situation?
Apparently, we're just supposed to keep funding this forever. And if we don't, this happens. Quote, Sed Ahmed tells us he has already been forced to sell his 5-year-old daughter Shika after she got appendicitis and a cyst in her liver. I had no money to pay the medical expenses, so I sold my daughter to a relative. He says Shika's surgery was successful. The money for it came from the $200,000 Afghani, $3,200 she has been sold for. If I had taken the whole sum at that time, he would have taken her away. So I told him to just give me enough for a treatment now in the next 5 years, you can give me the rest, after which you can take her, explained say unquote. Libertarian ethics, I guess, selling your kid for $3,000. The point is even selling your kids can be packaged as heroism or at least sympathetic.
Why? The overall intent is to get you roped into paying for something. How is this aid supposed to be delivered? Are we supposed to invade Afghanistan again?
Are we supposed to kill people to make sure that these people get this stuff?
Are we going to do this all over again?
Who knows? It's impolite to even ask these questions. What's important is that this is your fault. This is on you.
And even the most basic moral fundamentals, you shouldn't sell people.
This doesn't apply anymore. Pay up, Whitey. Understand? Every news article has a spoken or unspoken premise. If it's white people, generally the article is going to be something like, "Here are some people doing something interesting or cool. How can we get the government to shut them down? Here's somebody saying something. How can we financially ruin them or shut them up? How can we incite somebody to attack them?" But if it's foreigners, it doesn't matter what they're doing because journalists don't believe they really have agency. The question is, how can we make you pay for it? How can we have a kind of permanent colonialism except you don't actually govern them or get anything or build anything useful. You just pay and subsidize their reproduction, which of course makes things worse in the long run forever.
Can't go on like this. Do not take these appeals to guilt seriously. Recognize the agenda. And just like identity can be a weapon, so can guilt. feminism, equality, democracy, these and all the other sacred values go right out the window if they can be used against you.
You are under no obligation to listen to the arguments or the hysterical whailing of those people who want to destroy you.
All journalists are bastards. Don't listen to these people. I'm Kevin Deanna. We'll talk again real soon.
All right, guys. That's it for today's episode of Identity Politics. If you found this valuable and you want to see more of this kind of work, here's how you can help. First, follow the show and share it with people who need to hear it. We're on Rumble, Odyssey, YouTube X, Tik Tok, and you can also grab the RSS feed. Sharing it is the fastest way for us to grow. Second, sign up for our email list so we can always stay in direct contact no matter what the platforms decide. And most importantly, if you believe in our mission and want to keep it going, please consider supporting us on Kofi. You can donate once or subscribe at the bronze, silver, gold, or white level. Every contribution, big or small, helps keep identity politics independent and alive.
All the links are in the description below. Thanks for watching. Thanks for supporting. We'll see you next time.
Related Videos
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
