I’m monitoring what is happening in countries that have elected secular left fascists, such as Canada, Australia and the UK. In these countries, the leaders are focused on governing from their emotions. They feel a desperate need to signal their virtue to others. This typically results in throwing open the borders to unskilled refugees and illegal immigrants. And taxpayers get the bill for it.

This time, we’ll turn to the UK. The most important thing to understand about the UK is that they don’t like Christianity or conservatism. In order to cancel out the votes of Christians and conservatives, the secular left political parties that have been running the UK for decades opened their borders to unskilled migrants from Middle Eastern countries, like Pakistan and Afghanistan. The story is told in Douglas Murray’s book “The Strange Death of Europe”. Basically, Labour Minister Barbara Roche crafted permissive immigration policies in order to make Britain “truly multicultural” and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.” Here is an article from the UK Telegraph about it.

As a result of these policies, massive child sex-trafficking rings were started up in many, many major British cities. When the British taxpayers complained that their daughters were being raped, the British police refused to investigate, because they didn’t want to appear “racist”. Today in the UK, much like in Nazi Germany, there is one permissive legal system for allies of the secular leftist fascists, and one tyrannical legal system for enemies of the secular leftist fascists. Now let’s see how it’s working out for them.

Consider this article from Free Speech Union:

Local officials have raised concerns about a lack of transparency after it emerged that Warwickshire Police advised councillors not to disclose the immigration status of two men remanded in custody over the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton, citing fears of inflaming community tensions.

The guidance, reportedly issued to avoid inflaming community tensions, has prompted renewed warnings about the impact on democratic accountability when the full range of consequences of immigration policy are obscured from public view.

Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, was arrested on Saturday 26 July and charged the following day with two counts of rape. He appeared before Coventry Magistrates’ Court on Monday 28 July and was remanded into custody.

Four days later, Mohammad Kabir, also 23, was arrested in Nuneaton and charged with kidnap, strangulation, and aiding and abetting the rape of a girl under 13. He appeared before magistrates on Saturday 2 August and was also remanded into custody. Both men are due to appear at Warwick Crown Court on 26 August.

Just to be clear, the article states that the police advised city councillors not to reveal to the public the suspects’ asylum background because “it might inflame community tensions”. So, in case you thought that the police had learned their lesson from the child sex-trafficking scandals, you would be wrong. It continues on, because the need for secular leftists to virtue signal continues on. You can deduce what secular leftists believe about protecting women and girls from these actions. They’re misogynists.

First, note the effects of bad policing: crime has skyrocketed in the UK:

Crime rates are soaring in the UK. In the year to March 2025, shoplifting hit its highest level since records began, up 20 per cent to more than 530,000 offences. And theft from a person rose 15 per cent to over 151,000 cases.

The UK Telegraph explains how police advise law-abiding taxpayers about crime:

Dame Diana Johnson, the policing minister, said products such as bottles of alcohol should not be displayed at the front of stores because people will steal them.

It comes amid growing pressure on the police to tackle a shoplifting epidemic, with a record high of nearly three thefts carried out every minute in the year to March. …

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Dame Diana said: “I think we need to have that neighbourhood police presence. I think stores need to play their part in making sure that items that are high value are not at the front of the store because that is an issue in some stores, that they put bottles of alcohol at the front of the store which obviously people will nick.

“If they are going to steal to resell they will nick items like that. So I think it is not just one thing here, it has to be an approach with the retailers, with the Government and with the police to work together.” …

Dame Diana also warned against members of the public stepping in to confront and tackle shop thieves as she said it was not “appropriate”. …

Yes, in the UK, you cannot purchase and carry a firearm to defend yourself, like you can in the United States. And that’s why the violent crime rates have skyrocketed in the UK. Only the criminals have weapons. The law-abiding victims of criminals don’t. We would never put up with this in the United States, but in the UK, they actually elect secular left fascists to make their laws.

But my post today is about the UK police themselves. What do they do about crime?

The issue of shoplifting has risen to prominence in recent days after the Telegraph disclosed that Rob Davies, a North Wales shopkeeper, after repeated thefts had put up a handwritten note in his store that read: “Due to scumbags shoplifting, please ask for assistance to open cabinets.”

But officers from North Wales Police attended his retro shop in Wrexham and told him to consider changing the wording because it was offensive.

It has also emerged that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has advised retailers that putting up images of thieves in a local area “may not be appropriate” because it could violate suspects’ data rights. …

This is the priority of the UK police – how to make the world more comfortable for criminals. They spend your money, and they risk your life, because they have such a strong need to virtue signal.

So, let this be a lesson to us as Americans. We don’t want to elect people who govern with their feelings. That would be a mistake. Instead, you should move yourself and your family to the most conservative parts of the country. Conservative states, like Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, etc. The police are laser-focused on protecting you. The conservative states have the best police forces. Taxpayers get good value for their money there. As for the UK, it’s a third world country run by idiots. Never travel there.

If you’re a fan of Knight and Rose Show, then you’ll have noticed that we have skipped a few weeks without publishing a show. And this is not our fault! Rose and I have recorded a couple of shows, and sent them off to our sound guy. But the sound guy is busy gallivanting all over the world, climbing mountains and running marathons! So, let me try to keep you entertained with a new post.

So, there was a recent issue of Salvo magazine that was mainly concerned with the 100th Anniversary of the Scopes Monkey Trial, which occurred in Dayton, TN. Because Rose and I are huge fans of Salvo magazine, we decided to ask the Executive Editor of Salvo to come on and tell us about it. Her name is Terrell Clemmons. I’ve met her in real life and blogged about her a few times before, too. So I hope you will get that episode, soon.

Anyway, the issue #73 of Salvo is filled with interesting articles, but one of them stood out to me: this article by Richard Townsend. He’s done a bunch of research about the Scopes Trial and about William Jennings Bryan. In the movie, “Inherit the Wind”, Bryan is portrayed as an idiotic Biblical literalist. But, just like Darwinism, the facts are very different from the myths.

Here’s the article from Salvo #73.

It says:

Bryan was one of the most famous Americans of the early 20th century. He ran for president as the Democratic Party nominee in 1896, 1900, and 1908, losing all three elections, but gaining a large, loyal constituency that never lost its devotion to him. He was influential in national politics from 1890 until his death in 1925. It is hard for people living in the 21st century to grasp how influential he was and how effectively he advocated for his beliefs.

And here was his reason for wanting to be the prosecutor at the Scopes Trial:

For Bryan, [World War 1] displayed a danger associated with the prevalence of materialistic thinking associated with Darwin’s theory. The beliefs that everything happened by chance and that death determined the most-fit species’ survival had led, at least in part, to grotesque violence. Those factors changed Bryan’s ambivalence into action. He saw Darwin’s theory to be the causal force driving societal decay; it had to be opposed.

Actually, the theory of evolution was very significant for many of the aggressive tyrants of the 21st century. They seemed to latch on to the ideas of different “races” of people struggling against each other for survival. Definitely, the German and Japanese leaders were influenced by Darwinian evolution, and embraced Social Darwinism. Both regimes took the concept of “survival of the fittest” and applied it directly to their militaristic aggression.

When you watch propaganda movies like “Inherit the Wind”, you don’t get the facts. These movies are shown in public schools, by unionized public school teachers. They have an agenda, and their agenda isn’t to tell the truth to children. Far from being a young-Earth literalist, William Jennings Bryan had 4 scientific reasons for doubting evolution. Read below, and ask yourself, have these been resolved by the scientific progress of the last 100 years? Or are they even bigger problems now (for the naturalist / materialist) than they were before?

1. Origin of life:

Bryan saw this as a major hurdle, one Darwin brushed aside with a rhetorical flourish as he theorized a “warm little pond.” Bryan was not convinced.

Those who reject the idea of creation are divided into two schools, some believing that the first germ of life came from another planet and others holding that it was the result of spontaneous generation. Each school answers the arguments advanced by the other, and as they cannot agree with each other, I am not compelled to agree with either.6

Bryan clearly did not agree that the case was closed on the origin of first life.

We did an episode on the origin of life with Dr. Fuz Rana, President of Reasons to Believe.

2. Genetics and Morphology:

Little was known about how genetics worked in Bryan’s lifetime, but Mendelian genetics had morphed into the neo-Darwinian synthesis incorporating genetic mutation with natural selection. The “neo-Darwinian synthesis” terminology became standard usage after Bryan’s passing, but the concepts were being circulated in his lifetime. Bryan didn’t buy it and used a watermelon illustration to explain his doubts.

I was eating a piece of watermelon some months ago and was struck with its beauty.… One [seed], put into the ground, when warmed by the sun and moistened by the rain, takes off its coat and goes to work; it gathers from somewhere two hundred thousand times its own weight, and forcing this raw material through a tiny stem, constructs a watermelon. It ornaments the outside with a covering of green; inside the green it puts a layer of white, and within the white a core of red, and all through the red it scatters seeds, each one capable of continuing the work of reproduction. Where does that little seed get its tremendous power? Where does it find its coloring matter? How does it collect its flavouring extract? How does it build a watermelon?

Until you can explain a watermelon, do not be too sure that you can set limits to the power of the Almighty and say just what He would do or how He would do it. I cannot explain the watermelon, but I eat it and enjoy it.9

Bryan’s argument was that a watermelon seed contains “power” (which we now know to reside in the genetic code) to build a specific fruit, another watermelon. The structure of the plant and its fruit are the morphology (shape and structure) of the vine that produces the watermelon. And Bryan knew that the process was unexplained.

We did an episode about biological information with Dr. Casey Luskin, from the Discovery Institute.

3. Chemistry and Evolution:

One early idea about nature’s ability to generate new complex features was that the chemistry of life naturally tended toward such complex coding. Bryan doubted that was the case. He wrote this comment in his planned closing argument, later published after his death:

Chemistry is an insurmountable obstacle in the path of evolution. It is one of the greatest of the sciences; it separates the atoms, isolates them and walks about them, so to speak. If there were in nature a progressive force, an eternal urge, chemistry would find it. But it is not there. All of the ninety-two original elements are separate and distinct; they combine in fixed and permanent proportions. Water is H2O, as it has been from the beginning. It was here before life appeared and has never changed; neither can it be shown that anything else has materially changed.12

In short, Bryan said that there was no chemical imperative to life.

We talked about chemical evolution in our episode with Dr. Fuz Rana.

4. No Definitive Proof of Origin of Any New Species:

Bryan discussed the problem of an organism’s deviating from the tendency toward stasis—the continuity of features and body plans found in previous generations of a species. He suggested that no evidence had been presented to validate the claim of new species arising naturally. He cited a letter in which an acquaintance had claimed that “nearly all scientists seemed to accept Darwinism.”14 Bryan countered that “many evolutionists adhere to Darwin’s conclusions while discarding his explanations.… [They] accept the line of descent which [Darwin] suggested without any explanation whatever to support it.”15 To paraphrase, Bryan said there was no convincing evidence to support Darwin’s theory of species arising through materialistic, undirected means.

We did an episode on the fossil record with Dr. Gunter Bechly, also of Discovery Institute.

In our podcast, we’ve met with guests to talk about each of these problems with the Darwinian naturalistic / materialistic origins theory, and what we found was that in each case, the progress of science made the problems worse for naturalism / materialism. So, far from the progress helping the naturalist / materialist, it’s actually made it worse for them. The simplest self-replicator got MORE complex. We found MORE stasis and MORE biological big bangs in the fossil record. Things got worse… for the Darwinists.

Anyway, read the article, maybe check out the rest of the issue, and if our sound guy ever comes back from vacation, then you can finally get the episode that we did on this topic! Like, share, comment and subscribe, in the meantime. We talked a lot more about the Social Darwinism angle in the podcast.