No races exist so how can there possibly be any differences between them? Also, let’s not forget to make social policies based entirely awarding preferences based on racial differences (which don’t exist) and to celebrate racial diversity (which doesn’t exist).
> "a Seattle businessman who made his fortune from dating websites"
Actually, for a deft and enterprising businessman (or woman), there is an under-grasped million (billion? trillion?) dollar bill lying on the pavement at the intersection of dating websites and Race Science, er, I mean genomics.
People currently pay for genetic screening to discern if there might be deleterious combinations in mating with their partner's genes. So imagine a dating site where you not only seek matches based on mutual interests, aspirations, hotness, whatever, but that could also give you a mass genetic screening with several million potential partners, not just just deleterious pairings but also beneficial pairings. As it develops it could give you a personalized globally-sifted report: "Based on your genes, these are the top 100 parings for genetic fitness...".
A eugenic state might provide incentives for favorable breeding and penalties for unfavorable breeding, so the entrepreneur would enjoy preferential government contracting.
As Elon Musk is to space and NASA, this entrepreneur could be to genomics and the eugenic state.
I suspect there are not too many inefficiencies in that regard waiting to be uncovered. There are a few areas in life where people, all polite politics to the contrary, are remarkably clear-eyed about biologic reality: dating, schools for the kids, etc.
The things people already prize in a dating market are likely very strong proxies for “beneficial pairings” (at least, as beneficial as one can obtain given one’s own offering).
For instance, one completely-unreported true stat is that black-white intermarriage rate has not increased at all since 1980. Turns out social engineers can huff and puff but hearts are stubborn things.
I don’t think that’s true but can’t be certain about it given data issues. In 2015, 14% of US newborns were multiracial - of which 10% were white-black. So 1.4% of all newborns were white-black multiracial.
By comparison, in 1980, 5% of US newborns were multiracial, but the 1980 data doesn’t break out the composition. However, given that non-black minorities were a then only about 10% of the population (vs. now about 42%), I think it’s reasonable to assume black-white infants were somewhere between 1-2% of all newborns.
> "they sure seem to be having more kids together."
That may be an illusion caused by the media insistence on shoving mulattoes into your face at every opportunity.
In the past, there was a feeling there was something slightly discreditable about spawning mulattoes, so irrespective of the mulattoes themselves, commercial media tended to avoid depicting the circumstances that brought them about.
But nowadays the feeling seems to be either that Racemixing Is Good, or that mulattoes and their congenital circumstances are a convenient compromise between all the races and mixes that make up the Global Marketplace so therefore they and their parents should feature prominently in any advertisement or mass market entertainment.
But either way, the result is the same: no media without a mulatto.
I suspect there is more genetic nuance to beneficial paring than "don't marry blacks".
For instance, Tay-Sachs disease and sickle-cell anemia are genetic diseases that can be profoundly crippling, yet without genetic screening there is no obvious way to prevent breeding these misfortunes into your progeny. Well, no way besides categorically avoiding the matrix population in which they exist (Ashkenazi and blacks, respectively). But some people specifically want to marry in those populations (typically Ashkenazi and blacks, respectively), so categorical avoidance is out of the question for them.
There is already screening to some extent for those illnesses, and has been for a while, and that can continue of course. But now with inexpensive genotyping, massive datasets, and intensive computational analysis, more numerous, more subtle, and more general genetic traits should be discernable, not just to avoid illness, but also to optimize benefits.
It may be the case that for any given man, there is one woman who is the most optimal genetic match on earth for him, and vice versa. Perhaps this has always been the case, but we couldn't read the code before. Now we can.
One can think of breeding as a game of Battleship™, but you only get a few shots per generation, so you really want those few shots to get the highest value target. In the past, without thorough genotyping and computational analysis, we were essentially shooting blind, relying on things like alcohol, low lighting, and sweaty pheromones to determine where to shoot. But now—or soon—Science can tell you who on earth really is your highest value target (best genetic match). So it's still like playing Battleship, but now you can see the other side. Only planning two kids? Aim for the Destroyer. Three kids? Get the Cruiser. Etc. Okay, the metaphor's not perfect, but you get the idea.
Suggested company name for global generational genotyping: Bene Gesserit, Inc.
People aren’t so mercenary about their breeding though and the available choice set isn’t “anyone in the world”. The decision function is constrained well before the “most optimal genetic match” issue. Are you attracted to this person? Do you enjoy their company? Are they reliable and of a similar social class? Do you live within dating distance?
You need mutual agreement on those issues before you even hit the “let’s maximize our gene compatibility”. And given that a rough meritocracy exists in the West, I would guess that people in the ‘striver’ class are, in a rough way, already maximizing their genetic match given the previous constraints.
People already seek attractive, fit, intelligent, successful companions - those are all proxies for genetic potential. So the marginal utility for a database that suggests matches based on genetics is simply not that high imo. It might uncover a few overlooked gems of course, but people already invest extraordinary time and effort into finding suitable matches.
> "but people already invest extraordinary time and effort into finding suitable matches."
Right, so what if you could get extraordinary results without the extraordinary time and effort? That should be worth a hundred bucks to you. Or a thousand? Ten thousand?
True but who cares about them? Same deal with certain subgroups of gentiles and hemochromatosis. I have relatives for whom this is an issue, carrier married a carrier
I keed, I keed. Women who want to be mothers (they still exist!) might be very interested to know which potential father is the best genetic match. That is not to say they have to marry him, but wouldn't it be funny if people who are genetically most compatible also happen to very compatible personality-wise. Members of both sexes might be grateful to be relieved of the years-long grind of predatory and deceitful dating, and just be handed a scientific list of Most Compatible Mates from which they can make a final choice based on whatever non-genetic factors please their fancy, secure in the knowledge they are still choosing from the crème de la crème for their particular genome.
As you suggest, supermodels and heiresses may or may not be interested in such a thing, but that doesn't matter. Supermodels and heiresses often evince little interest in breeding at all. But that's a general societal problem, not a problem with genotyping. Among People Who Breed, there is already interest in genetic screening. And dating services that purport to match you based on Science (whether honestly or not) already find many customers, so a service that really is based on science should do even better.
billion? Zero? huge money loser is my guess unless it pivots to something else. Almost no one consciously selects for genes. The only ones that are important are:
1. Good looks
2. (distant second) intelligence
3. (for some) athletic ability
Given how hard it is for almost everyone to find someone they like enough and are attracted to enough to settle down with, nobody is going to go for a hard filter like this before you even get to see how hot they are ;)
Right, because they couldn't. Instead they selected for the gene-proxies you list.
But now it is possible to look at the genome directly.
Beautiful and/or wealthy people get a lot of romantic interest, so they might welcome a way to filter down to the most bio-compatible.
Also, the genetic screening proposal does not just filter out unsuitable matches, it also filters in suitable matches you wouldn't otherwise know about.
It's a fun idea. I'm sure my dad would have loved it, but speaking as a physically unattractive man loaded with otherwise amazing genetics, I am skeptical you would get much uptake.
I'm not sure we have the "good looking" genes nailed down yet. It's plausible. You should try to do it. Not terribly difficult in my estimation. You could probably bootstrap it without having to invest in testing of your own. I'm pretty sure 23AndMe will let you download your own data
Yes, it's not a done deal yet. For one thing, we don't have an objective definition of "good looking". But genomics is currently the fastest advancing science, so in time we'll no doubt have a better handle on these kinds of heredity questions.
> "The Guardian’s Experts always turn out to be minor leaguers, and the minor leaguers don’t debate the crimethinkers, they just denounce them and demand censorship."
True, but the Guardian readers don't know that. They just read "'Racial purity is a fantasy concept,' said [cited expert] … [cited expert] said that 'broadly speaking there is essentially no scientific evidence' for scientific racism’s core tenets ... [cited expert] described how it traces its roots to arguments originally used to defend colonialism and later Nazi eugenics ..." etc. The readers don't know that the Guardian's cited experts are basically charlatans. The Guardian cited them! That's enough. The readers' worldview is confirmed. Mission accomplished.
The WSJ (news section) has an article on Amy Wax. They dredge up all the usual stuff and throw in a condemnation from SPLC. But the reader comments are solidly in her favour. (They attract a conservative readership because their op ed section is conservative).
In case any readers don’t know, she’s been criticized for making comments about race (similar to Steve).
>>Its supporters claim inequality between groups is largely explained by genetics rather than external factors like discrimination.
A scientific explanation instead of a Marxist explanation. That is forbidden, say the Marxists.
David Pegg looks like a poster boy for low-testosterone bugmen, with an unnaturally pressed-together head shape. Tom Burgis looks exactly the same, except in his case the vice pressed the head together from top to bottom. Talk about misshapen. These guys do not want to hear any truths about biology and evolution, since they're at an immediate disadvantage in such studies.
Hannah Devlin is a leftist woman, so she doesn't want scientific studies about the differences between men and women to be known, or studies about Blacks, the ones who enable her twisted ideology to win elections in the U.S.
Jason Wilson is Black, and his race is the most privileged in history - there has never been a society that gives generations of one race constant privileges by law, the way Blacks are given such in the U.S. Of course he doesn't want people to know any facts about race, especially not IQ, since that disproves the "Blacks don't do their homework because they're oppressed!" lie that excuses their privileges. People might demand an end to Affirmative Discrimination.
Odd how Blacks behave the same and get pretty much the same results in tests and work no matter where they live. North America, South America, Africa, Europe. It's almost as if the reason isn't the environment, but Blacks. Odd how the most successful group in Eritrea are the Tigre mixed with Arab blood. Almost as if genes matter.
I've never heard of him, but I see his whole schtick (assuming we're talking about the Jason O. Wilson who is apparently from Detroit) seems to be inspiring "Black youths", and he looks like an ADOS, so his personal benefit from promoting Blackety-blackism (the apparent point of the "Jason Wilson is Black" comment) isn't really affected if he's actually an Abo with no sub-Saharan ancestry. (How do you know this?) His Wikipedia article doesn't mention an Australian origin, btw, which proves that point.
Thanks. That one's indeed a white import from Australia. But presumably Tell, too, thought SS was talking about the the Detroit one, who's the one duckduckgo turned up, pretty much exclusively, in the politics space (also an Australian businessman and some jock, iirc). I hadn't heard of either. SS's response wasn't as informative as he maybe thought it was.
They need to tackle the heart of it. I mean race computers (pc, mac even linux) that keep finding the optimal number for genome clusters at about 6, lining up exactly with 19th century categories. This pseudoscience even currently taking place at Harvard and Stanford.
He's apparently a drug dealer in Canada. Why would a cartel operating in Canada limit itself to working with Mexican immigrants? Did the Mafia when operating in the 'Hood fail to hook up with blacks?
Humans are amazing at discerning race and sex. In a room of 50 black africans and 50 white europeans, everyone would go 100 for a 100 in sorting them. It so easy, you don't even think of it an an ability. You can detect blackness or whiteness down to an 8th mix or even less. You can identify women when they dress like men and men when they dress like women.
Blackness and whiteness correlate perfectly with black or white parents. Male and female correlate almost perfectly with sex chromosomes.
What bizarre gaslighting anti-intellectual state of mind is needed to square those obvious facts with the idea that race doesn't exist and sex isn't (actually I'm never quite sure what their argument is about sex)?
"Race science" is a weird slur. The people who use the term all seem to think that race is very important, but don't want to study it scientifically? Maybe they prefer race superstition.
The resulting film has been pulled from the London Film Festival. From the Guardian/Observer this Sunday 20th. "The organisers have taken the heartbreaking decision... due to fears about the welfare of audiences, staff and security working in the festival venues."
"Race science"...hmm, I like it.
No races exist so how can there possibly be any differences between them? Also, let’s not forget to make social policies based entirely awarding preferences based on racial differences (which don’t exist) and to celebrate racial diversity (which doesn’t exist).
> "a Seattle businessman who made his fortune from dating websites"
Actually, for a deft and enterprising businessman (or woman), there is an under-grasped million (billion? trillion?) dollar bill lying on the pavement at the intersection of dating websites and Race Science, er, I mean genomics.
People currently pay for genetic screening to discern if there might be deleterious combinations in mating with their partner's genes. So imagine a dating site where you not only seek matches based on mutual interests, aspirations, hotness, whatever, but that could also give you a mass genetic screening with several million potential partners, not just just deleterious pairings but also beneficial pairings. As it develops it could give you a personalized globally-sifted report: "Based on your genes, these are the top 100 parings for genetic fitness...".
A eugenic state might provide incentives for favorable breeding and penalties for unfavorable breeding, so the entrepreneur would enjoy preferential government contracting.
As Elon Musk is to space and NASA, this entrepreneur could be to genomics and the eugenic state.
I suspect there are not too many inefficiencies in that regard waiting to be uncovered. There are a few areas in life where people, all polite politics to the contrary, are remarkably clear-eyed about biologic reality: dating, schools for the kids, etc.
The things people already prize in a dating market are likely very strong proxies for “beneficial pairings” (at least, as beneficial as one can obtain given one’s own offering).
For instance, one completely-unreported true stat is that black-white intermarriage rate has not increased at all since 1980. Turns out social engineers can huff and puff but hearts are stubborn things.
Blacks and whites may not be intermarrying more, but they sure seem to be having more kids together.
I don’t think that’s true but can’t be certain about it given data issues. In 2015, 14% of US newborns were multiracial - of which 10% were white-black. So 1.4% of all newborns were white-black multiracial.
By comparison, in 1980, 5% of US newborns were multiracial, but the 1980 data doesn’t break out the composition. However, given that non-black minorities were a then only about 10% of the population (vs. now about 42%), I think it’s reasonable to assume black-white infants were somewhere between 1-2% of all newborns.
> "they sure seem to be having more kids together."
That may be an illusion caused by the media insistence on shoving mulattoes into your face at every opportunity.
In the past, there was a feeling there was something slightly discreditable about spawning mulattoes, so irrespective of the mulattoes themselves, commercial media tended to avoid depicting the circumstances that brought them about.
But nowadays the feeling seems to be either that Racemixing Is Good, or that mulattoes and their congenital circumstances are a convenient compromise between all the races and mixes that make up the Global Marketplace so therefore they and their parents should feature prominently in any advertisement or mass market entertainment.
But either way, the result is the same: no media without a mulatto.
People have to get married to make babies, right?
No, but doing it the other way just leads to more problems.
What Eugine said.
I suspect there is more genetic nuance to beneficial paring than "don't marry blacks".
For instance, Tay-Sachs disease and sickle-cell anemia are genetic diseases that can be profoundly crippling, yet without genetic screening there is no obvious way to prevent breeding these misfortunes into your progeny. Well, no way besides categorically avoiding the matrix population in which they exist (Ashkenazi and blacks, respectively). But some people specifically want to marry in those populations (typically Ashkenazi and blacks, respectively), so categorical avoidance is out of the question for them.
There is already screening to some extent for those illnesses, and has been for a while, and that can continue of course. But now with inexpensive genotyping, massive datasets, and intensive computational analysis, more numerous, more subtle, and more general genetic traits should be discernable, not just to avoid illness, but also to optimize benefits.
It may be the case that for any given man, there is one woman who is the most optimal genetic match on earth for him, and vice versa. Perhaps this has always been the case, but we couldn't read the code before. Now we can.
One can think of breeding as a game of Battleship™, but you only get a few shots per generation, so you really want those few shots to get the highest value target. In the past, without thorough genotyping and computational analysis, we were essentially shooting blind, relying on things like alcohol, low lighting, and sweaty pheromones to determine where to shoot. But now—or soon—Science can tell you who on earth really is your highest value target (best genetic match). So it's still like playing Battleship, but now you can see the other side. Only planning two kids? Aim for the Destroyer. Three kids? Get the Cruiser. Etc. Okay, the metaphor's not perfect, but you get the idea.
Suggested company name for global generational genotyping: Bene Gesserit, Inc.
People aren’t so mercenary about their breeding though and the available choice set isn’t “anyone in the world”. The decision function is constrained well before the “most optimal genetic match” issue. Are you attracted to this person? Do you enjoy their company? Are they reliable and of a similar social class? Do you live within dating distance?
You need mutual agreement on those issues before you even hit the “let’s maximize our gene compatibility”. And given that a rough meritocracy exists in the West, I would guess that people in the ‘striver’ class are, in a rough way, already maximizing their genetic match given the previous constraints.
People already seek attractive, fit, intelligent, successful companions - those are all proxies for genetic potential. So the marginal utility for a database that suggests matches based on genetics is simply not that high imo. It might uncover a few overlooked gems of course, but people already invest extraordinary time and effort into finding suitable matches.
> "but people already invest extraordinary time and effort into finding suitable matches."
Right, so what if you could get extraordinary results without the extraordinary time and effort? That should be worth a hundred bucks to you. Or a thousand? Ten thousand?
"yet without genetic screening there is no obvious way to prevent breeding these misfortunes into your progeny"
Both of those are autosomal recessive so not much danger from one of y'all breeding with blacks or Ashkenazi
Same deal with a lot of gentiles and e.g. hemochromatosis
> "not much danger from one of y'all breeding with blacks or Ashkenazi"
Unless you're black or Ashkenazi.
True but who cares about them? Same deal with certain subgroups of gentiles and hemochromatosis. I have relatives for whom this is an issue, carrier married a carrier
Those alone are a market of ~70 million people, including many of the most affluent and highest-spending people on earth.
And I actually think there is a good case for all 8 billion or whatever we are to use it.
I think you may have a hard time getting desirable women to sign up for a dating site like that.
That is where the Eugenic State comes in...
I keed, I keed. Women who want to be mothers (they still exist!) might be very interested to know which potential father is the best genetic match. That is not to say they have to marry him, but wouldn't it be funny if people who are genetically most compatible also happen to very compatible personality-wise. Members of both sexes might be grateful to be relieved of the years-long grind of predatory and deceitful dating, and just be handed a scientific list of Most Compatible Mates from which they can make a final choice based on whatever non-genetic factors please their fancy, secure in the knowledge they are still choosing from the crème de la crème for their particular genome.
As you suggest, supermodels and heiresses may or may not be interested in such a thing, but that doesn't matter. Supermodels and heiresses often evince little interest in breeding at all. But that's a general societal problem, not a problem with genotyping. Among People Who Breed, there is already interest in genetic screening. And dating services that purport to match you based on Science (whether honestly or not) already find many customers, so a service that really is based on science should do even better.
billion? Zero? huge money loser is my guess unless it pivots to something else. Almost no one consciously selects for genes. The only ones that are important are:
1. Good looks
2. (distant second) intelligence
3. (for some) athletic ability
Given how hard it is for almost everyone to find someone they like enough and are attracted to enough to settle down with, nobody is going to go for a hard filter like this before you even get to see how hot they are ;)
> "Almost no one consciously selects for genes."
Right, because they couldn't. Instead they selected for the gene-proxies you list.
But now it is possible to look at the genome directly.
Beautiful and/or wealthy people get a lot of romantic interest, so they might welcome a way to filter down to the most bio-compatible.
Also, the genetic screening proposal does not just filter out unsuitable matches, it also filters in suitable matches you wouldn't otherwise know about.
It's a fun idea. I'm sure my dad would have loved it, but speaking as a physically unattractive man loaded with otherwise amazing genetics, I am skeptical you would get much uptake.
> "speaking as a physically unattractive man loaded with otherwise amazing genetics, I am skeptical"
Assuming you're not already hitched up, you could think of it as a way to looksmaxx your progeny.
I'm not sure we have the "good looking" genes nailed down yet. It's plausible. You should try to do it. Not terribly difficult in my estimation. You could probably bootstrap it without having to invest in testing of your own. I'm pretty sure 23AndMe will let you download your own data
Yes, it's not a done deal yet. For one thing, we don't have an objective definition of "good looking". But genomics is currently the fastest advancing science, so in time we'll no doubt have a better handle on these kinds of heredity questions.
> "The Guardian’s Experts always turn out to be minor leaguers, and the minor leaguers don’t debate the crimethinkers, they just denounce them and demand censorship."
True, but the Guardian readers don't know that. They just read "'Racial purity is a fantasy concept,' said [cited expert] … [cited expert] said that 'broadly speaking there is essentially no scientific evidence' for scientific racism’s core tenets ... [cited expert] described how it traces its roots to arguments originally used to defend colonialism and later Nazi eugenics ..." etc. The readers don't know that the Guardian's cited experts are basically charlatans. The Guardian cited them! That's enough. The readers' worldview is confirmed. Mission accomplished.
So ... according to the Guardian, racism is now scientific?
The WSJ (news section) has an article on Amy Wax. They dredge up all the usual stuff and throw in a condemnation from SPLC. But the reader comments are solidly in her favour. (They attract a conservative readership because their op ed section is conservative).
In case any readers don’t know, she’s been criticized for making comments about race (similar to Steve).
The comment section is the best part of modern journalism.
>>Its supporters claim inequality between groups is largely explained by genetics rather than external factors like discrimination.
A scientific explanation instead of a Marxist explanation. That is forbidden, say the Marxists.
David Pegg looks like a poster boy for low-testosterone bugmen, with an unnaturally pressed-together head shape. Tom Burgis looks exactly the same, except in his case the vice pressed the head together from top to bottom. Talk about misshapen. These guys do not want to hear any truths about biology and evolution, since they're at an immediate disadvantage in such studies.
Hannah Devlin is a leftist woman, so she doesn't want scientific studies about the differences between men and women to be known, or studies about Blacks, the ones who enable her twisted ideology to win elections in the U.S.
Jason Wilson is Black, and his race is the most privileged in history - there has never been a society that gives generations of one race constant privileges by law, the way Blacks are given such in the U.S. Of course he doesn't want people to know any facts about race, especially not IQ, since that disproves the "Blacks don't do their homework because they're oppressed!" lie that excuses their privileges. People might demand an end to Affirmative Discrimination.
Odd how Blacks behave the same and get pretty much the same results in tests and work no matter where they live. North America, South America, Africa, Europe. It's almost as if the reason isn't the environment, but Blacks. Odd how the most successful group in Eritrea are the Tigre mixed with Arab blood. Almost as if genes matter.
"Jason Wilson is Black"
He's from Australia.
I've never heard of him, but I see his whole schtick (assuming we're talking about the Jason O. Wilson who is apparently from Detroit) seems to be inspiring "Black youths", and he looks like an ADOS, so his personal benefit from promoting Blackety-blackism (the apparent point of the "Jason Wilson is Black" comment) isn't really affected if he's actually an Abo with no sub-Saharan ancestry. (How do you know this?) His Wikipedia article doesn't mention an Australian origin, btw, which proves that point.
Jason Wilson, the journactivist who writes for the Guardian is, playing perfectly to stereotype, a white guy who lives in Portland:
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/wilson-jason
Thanks. That one's indeed a white import from Australia. But presumably Tell, too, thought SS was talking about the the Detroit one, who's the one duckduckgo turned up, pretty much exclusively, in the politics space (also an Australian businessman and some jock, iirc). I hadn't heard of either. SS's response wasn't as informative as he maybe thought it was.
They need to tackle the heart of it. I mean race computers (pc, mac even linux) that keep finding the optimal number for genome clusters at about 6, lining up exactly with 19th century categories. This pseudoscience even currently taking place at Harvard and Stanford.
> "keep finding the optimal number for genome clusters at about 6, lining up exactly with 19th century categories"
I thought it was 5.
Also in the 19th century?
It's up to interpretation and the method if you you're really asking but yeah anywhere between 4 and 7.
Why Nazi Eugenics? The Eugenics movement is much older than the Nazi’s. It still finds a home in the Democrats favorite organization, Planned
Parenthood. I’m sure the Guardian will be happy to publish a hit piece on that outfit.
Off-topic: Mexican drug cartels are becoming increasingly diverse and multicultural?
https://nypost.com/2024/10/17/sports/ryan-wedding-ex-olympian-accused-of-running-murderous-drug-ring/
He's apparently a drug dealer in Canada. Why would a cartel operating in Canada limit itself to working with Mexican immigrants? Did the Mafia when operating in the 'Hood fail to hook up with blacks?
Humans are amazing at discerning race and sex. In a room of 50 black africans and 50 white europeans, everyone would go 100 for a 100 in sorting them. It so easy, you don't even think of it an an ability. You can detect blackness or whiteness down to an 8th mix or even less. You can identify women when they dress like men and men when they dress like women.
Blackness and whiteness correlate perfectly with black or white parents. Male and female correlate almost perfectly with sex chromosomes.
What bizarre gaslighting anti-intellectual state of mind is needed to square those obvious facts with the idea that race doesn't exist and sex isn't (actually I'm never quite sure what their argument is about sex)?
"Race science" is a weird slur. The people who use the term all seem to think that race is very important, but don't want to study it scientifically? Maybe they prefer race superstition.
"Undercover filming has revealed..."
The resulting film has been pulled from the London Film Festival. From the Guardian/Observer this Sunday 20th. "The organisers have taken the heartbreaking decision... due to fears about the welfare of audiences, staff and security working in the festival venues."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/19/undercover-film-exposing-uk-far-right-activists-pulled-from-london-film-festival