EXPOSING JACK SEN AND CHANNEL 4's "SLEEPING WITH THE FAR RIGHT"

It might have been described as a postmodern tragi-comedy. Instead of a flawed king, we had Jack Sen, the man who would be king, a figure made both ridiculous and yet plausible. As with all postmodernist theatre, it lacked the great truths of the Ancient Greek stage, but it was theatre nonetheless and the personae involved were actors playing parts. Among the supporting cast were the overbearing mother Faye Lowley, like a postmodern Olympias to Jack Sen's Alexander, but more....well....lowly, and the interviewer and presenter Alice Levine, like a Jewish chorus whose wisdom and commentary are false. Indeed, it ought to come as no surprise that many falsehoods and lies were perpetrated during Channel 4's "Sleeping with the Far Right", which we will now expose, as well as delving into the purpose of what the documentary was meant to serve.

 

 

We on the proper racialist Right knew the documentary was in the pipeline for some time (see below). Sen himself requested that the documentary be made and that ought to set the alarm bells ringing. Having constantly pestered the British National Party to make documentaries about him while he was briefly a member, one reason for his enthusiasm was undoubtedly his narcissism, which he displayed throughout the documentary, preening himself and engaging in feats of strength in attempts to impress his visitor, to whom he was so obviously attracted. Who can forget the cringeworthy moment he "accidentally" wandered into Levine's sleeping quarters naked but for a towel? That is Jack Sen all over: opportunistic, narcissistic, self-gratifying and obvious, with just enough lack of intellect not to know how obvious he is. And therefore it is very easy to see through his other reason for his eagerness in participating in a show he must have known was set up to discredit his ideas; Jack Sen is not and has never been a nationalist at all.

 

 

He appeared out of thin air, parachuted into politics about four years ago. No one had ever heard of him, yet suddenly he was standing for UKIP in the West Lancashire constituency and making trouble for the party, deliberately getting himself in the press with a rant about candidate Luciana Berger's Jewish ethnicity. This was very odd, because UKIP have always been nothing but philo-Semitic and wished to portray themselves as such. This then was a very easy way to destroy that image and for the press to reconfigure them as anti-Semites right before a general election. The reason no one had heard of him was that he had not been in the country since he was a small boy, having been born as Dilip Sengupta in Glasgow before moving to New York. The documentary unveiled his real Indian name as though it were some sort of great revelation, but Julie Lake and I had made this common knowledge well over two years ago. The whole scene where Dilip's mother revealed his heritage and name and Dilip's reaction to it was pure theatre. Alice Levine had to have known beforehand, because Sengupta even plastered the fact he is mixed all over his own European Knights Project website, and his real name had become common knowledge. So why was Sengupta so taken aback? Again, pure theatre.

 

But it does not stop there, because there are still lies being perpetrated. Jack Sen/Dilip Sengupta is not one quarter Indian as the documentary and Faye Lowley claim, but half Indian, and his father Shyamal Sengupta was full-blown Bengali. Indeed, Dilip's paternal uncle and cousins still live in India. While Dilip's name change in 2015 was mentioned, the fact he had only been in the country since that time was omitted. His sister Anita still lives in America and works for NASA and is genuinely intelligent, unlike her brother. Then there was another oddity. Dilip mentioned that they had lived in a multicultural heavily-Jewish area in America (Old Bethpage, New York, as it happens), but why had they settled there? And why was Faye Lowley, Dilip's mother, constantly wearing sunglasses? Was there something in her looks she wished to hide? Where had I heard her manner of speaking before?

 

 

Hmmm, you know, her looks are suggestive of something, but I just can't quite place it.... She does also seem quite a peculiar kind of British nationalist in this photo too, doesn't she? Where are all the white folk? And why, if she is so fond of Britain and the British, had she married an Indian man? If things don't make sense, it is because we are being sold falsehoods. No, these are not British nationalists at all. Then there is the fact that, contrary to how he portrayed himself on the programme, Sengupta is very boastful of his "mixed heritage", to the point where he also hates those of pure White European backgrounds, as this little exchange on the website Stormfront shows:

 

 

Again, that is very bizarre behaviour for someone Alice Levine is trying to claim is an evil white racist, who is not even White. That seems more like the behaviour of an evil anti-white racist, which Levine claims doesn't exist. And what about his image as a good Christian family man? Here he is telling us he is a philanderer, although I suspect a rather unsuccessful one given that scene with the towel. What must his wife think? Ah, except that Ukrainian woman in the programme is now his ex-wife, but the programme makers did not think to tell us that. It must have slipped their mind....or something. Strange also that they were filming just as Levine was supposedly getting out of bed, with an unimpeded shot that managed to take in both Levine and Gengupta. Sengupta of course, being the narcissistic control freak that he is, kept his wife under a regime of systematic abuse in which he even controlled her Facebook account, once sending me this little gem in which he pretended to be his wife in order to racially abuse me as a white man:

 

 

So why did he send me this abuse? Why did he make up libellous claims about the National Front's Julie Lake in the Stormfront post above? Why did his mob seen in the café scene organise a campaign against her outside her house while her husband was dying of cancer? Why did Sengupta inform Hope Not Hate of the location of a Southwest Forum meeting last year, which Antifa thugs then attacked? And why did he report me to the police for hatespeech? Did he not say in the documentary, "We don't target anyone on the Right, obviously"? Indeed, he made many reports to Merseyside Police to try to get the following nationalists prosecuted for alleged hatecrimes: Julie Lake, Max Musson, Matt Tait, Chris Telford, Jez Turner and Nick Grifford, along with myself and others. With many of us he also repeatedly used another tactic: he stalked us around the internet and tried to incite us into a "fight", while lying to the police that we had threatened his family. The idea was to have the police waiting for us when we came to meet him. Again, it was all so obvious. He also attempted to dox me and others to the violent Leftist extremist paramilitary group Hope Not Hate, who promptly told everyone that he'd been feeding them information, as they regard him as a power-hungry crank and thought it would be a bit of a wheeze to expose him.

 

 

Even the faux-nationalist wolf tattoo was fake (see above) and his height a lie. So why was he allowed to get away with so much? Why was there the scene in which he gave his sob story about his crisis of identity, his ethnic confusion and "not having an own" group. It was after all treated with some sympathy, but surely that contradicts the narrative Alice Levine wishes to sell. Why did she make herself look like an anti-white Jewish bigot when talking about "packs" of white men, which both Sengupta and Nick Griffin seized upon? She could, after all, have edited that scene out. The answer is that I believe she wanted to make Dilip Sengupta plausible to nationalists as the new face of British nationalism, behind whom Nick Griffin would be pulling the strings as ever, leading nationalism into yet another cul-de-sac. He has, after all, brought two nationalist parties to their knees so far in his career and now works with Sengupta on his latest failing project Resistance Radio. Imagine that: a so-called racialist nationalist leader working with a non-White who has been exposed time and again as antagonistic to the cause. One might wonder if his endeavours in hamstringing British nationalism haven't been deliberate.... 

 

But there are some so-called "civic nationalists" who, if unaware of the information I have just given about him, would admire the fact Sengupta stood up to Alice Levine, that he seemed genuinely principled. But as said, it is pure theatre, well-rehearsed by the cast. "Civic nationalists" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are easily fooled by such interlopers, always looking as they are for the next "based" ethnic minority, and I do not blame Levine and Sengupta so much for the mischief they cause, for they are Other and are naturally antagonistic to our cause; I reserve greater blame for those in the nationalist movement who invited Sengupta into the fold, into the BNP and into the London Forum, those who participated in his book, who invited him to meetings and attended his, who should have known better. As the fool in King Lear says: "Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise."