The Value of Victimhood: Liverpool, Labour and Lucky Luciana Berger

The English port of Liverpool is famous for three things: soccer, music and violence. Historically it falls within the boundaries of Lancashire, but culturally it has never fitted there. It’s always been too self-assertive and idiosyncratic, so much its own place that its inhabitants go by two names. Formally, they’re Liverpudlians; informally, they’re Scousers.

Militant parasites

As the media clichés have it, Scousers are fiercely proud of their city and fiercely tribal in their politics. And their politics have always been left-wing — sometimes very left-wing. When George Orwell talked about “Irish dock-labourer[s] in the slums of Liverpool” in The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), he said that you can “see the crucifix on the wall and the Daily Worker on the table.” The Daily Worker was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain (now the paper is called The Morning Star). In the 1980s, Liverpool was the home of a Trotskyist group called the Militant Tendency, or Militant for short, which tried to infiltrate the Labour party and use Labour’s far greater power and prestige for revolutionary ends.

In biological terms, as I suggested in “Verbal Venom,” Militant were a tiny parasite trying to subvert the nervous system of Labour and divert Labour’s resources to their own use. If Militant activists had stood openly as Trotskyists, they had no chance of winning elections and entering local councils or parliament. Wearing a Labour mask, they could win elections and enter power. And that’s exactly what they did in Liverpool, where they won control of the city council. But their parasitic infiltration of the wider party failed: Labour woke to the threat and fought off Militant’s entryism, as this Trotskyist tactic is called.

Yigael Gluckstein, aka Tony Cliff

International Socialists

You shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Militant was founded and run by a Jewish Trotskyist called Ted Grant, because Jews have always been over-represented among leaders and organizers on the far left. But they’ve not always been willing to advertise their Jewishness. Ted Grant’s real name was Isaac Blank. He adopted a gentile name to run an organization staffed largely by gentiles, just like Tony Cliff of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP), whose real name was Yigael Gluckstein (or Ygael Gluckstein). This is the Jewish tactic of linguistic camouflage or crypsis.

Jewish revolutionaries like Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev used crypsis earlier in the twentieth century: their real names were Lev Bronstein, Hirsch Apfelbaum and Lev Rozenfeld (see also the race-denying Jewish anthropologist with a very goyish name indeed, Ashley Montagu, né Israel Ehrenberg). And like Ted Grant’s Militant, Tony Cliff’s International Socialists, the forerunner to the SWP, attempted entryism on the Labour party. Indeed, Cliff may have explicitly acknowledged the parallel between entryism and biological parasitism: he allegedly said of the International Socialists’ presence in Labour that “We live like lice in its hair.”

Subversion from above

Isaac Blank and Yigael Gluckstein tried to subvert Labour from below. They failed. Other Jews tried to subvert Labour from above. Unlike Blank and Gluckstein, they succeeded, with dire consequences for the native Whites of Britain. Michael Abraham Levy, now Lord Levy, was a music impresario who funded Tony Blair’s rise to power and then, with other Jews like Barbara Roche, ensured that Labour followed Jew-friendly policies on open borders and the Iraq War. Levy is not well-known compared to Blair, but Jewish manipulators often prefer to work from the shadows using a gentile front-man. Here is the possibly Jewish author David Osler describing the genesis of New Labour:

Levy’s importance to Blair can hardly be overstressed. The two first met at a dinner party in 1994, given by senior Israeli diplomat Gideon Meir, and Levy soon became the politician’s tennis partner. After financially backing Blair’s leadership bid from his own pocket, the following year he was entrusted with setting up the so-called Labour Leader’s Office Fund blind trust to finance the Leader of the Opposition’s private office. Although not a trustee, Levy had the job of bagman. No press release was issued proclaiming the fund’s establishment. Its existence only became public knowledge with an article in the Sunday Times in November 1996. The Blair camp was quick to defend its integrity. One unnamed spokesperson argued: “It is not a secret fund, it is a blind trust, which means that no one in the office knows who the donors are. Certainly not Tony.”

Certainly not Tony? Given that details of four prominent businessmen backers were published in the newspaper, that argument hardly passed muster. Among those named were the late Sir Emmanuel Kaye and Sir Trevor Chinn. The other two persons named by the Sunday Times as Labour Leader’s Office Fund donors — printing millionaire Bob Gavron and Granada Television’s Alex Bernstein — both subsequently secured peerages. That all four of the backers, as well as Levy himself, were Jewish was a point picked up on by commentators as diverse as the Jerusalem Post and the British National Party.

There are further Jewish connections. The trust’s books were handled by London accountants Blick Rothenberg, which also looks after many major Israeli companies operating in Britain. The Conservatives allege that Maurice Hatter, chairman of IMO Precision Controls, also gave to the trust. Hatter is known for certain to have given £1m to government education initiatives, £10,000 to Labour election funds and £25,000 towards Frank Dobson’s abortive London mayor campaign.

Late [Jewish] publisher Paul Hamlyn was already a substantial Labour donor and is also likely to have given to Blair’s blind trust. He was friend of both Gavron and Levy, who later extracted from Hamlyn a £2m donation to the party proper in 2000. (“Taking It On Trust,” from Labour Party PLC: New Labour as a Party of Business, David Osler, 2002)

Tony Blair rose to power on a geyser of gelt, the Yiddish term for “money” (gelt has a hard g, like the related English word “gild”). Once Blair was in power, he was a willing and dedicated shabbos goy, the Yiddish term for a gentile who follows Jewish orders. The Jewish anti-racist Barbara Roche became Minister for Immigration and opened the borders to the Third World; the slippery Jewish lawyer Lord Goldsmith became Attorney-General and backed the disastrous and hugely expensive neo-conservative war on Iraq. After Blair left office, Jewish banks and companies quickly made him a millionaire with an office in Tel Aviv. Meanwhile, the shabbos goy Gordon Brown, under the control of the Jewish businessman Sir Ronald Cohen, continued to follow Jewish orders as Blair’s successor in Number 10.

Long-haired Luci from Liverpool

But those happy pro-Jewish days are over in Labour, whose current leader Jeremy Corbyn is a Pal of Palestine, not a Friend of Israel. Corbyn would never have won the leadership in a properly regulated party, because he would never have been on the ballot. But he was placed there as a token representative of the far left. Unfortunately, he proved not so token after all and easily won the leadership election. For once, the party’s leader had been chosen by ordinary Labour members, rather than by rich Jews like those who funded Tony Blair (see above). Since his victory, Corbyn has proved unwilling to obey Jewish orders or make Jewish interests his first concern. Accordingly, he has been barraged with accusations of anti-Semitism, as I’ve described in articles like “Poison for the Goyim” and “Labour’s Gas-Chamber Blues.” He’s faced and easily defeated a leadership challenge, because he remains popular with ordinary Labour members. Jews and their supporters are dismayed that these ordinary members see Jews as rich and powerful Whites, not as a persecuted minority whose eternal victimhood entitles them to run Labour for their own ends.

Long-haired Luci from Liverpool: the Guardian chooses an image of Luciana Berger looking very Jewish

Two of Corbyn’s chief critics in Labour are the Jewish MPs Margaret Hodge, a millionairess from London, and Luciana Berger, who is also from London and was formerly director of Labour Friends of Israel. But Luciana brings us back to Liverpool, because she represents part of the city in parliament. She has no genuine connection with her constituency, because she’s a rich, privately educated middle-class Londoner who was imposed on the local party from outside. The Jewish Chronicle has rightly said that the Yorkshire town of Barnsley is “not a Jewish place.” Exactly the same is true of Liverpool. Instead, it’s “the most Catholic city in England.” A rich Jewish Londoner like Luciana Berger is not suitable as MP for Liverpool Wavertree.

“One of the community’s greatest champions”

That’s why I would draw a parallel between Luciana Berger and Denis MacShane (né Matyjaszek), who served as Labour MP for the Yorkshire town of Rotherham. MacShane is an Oxford-educated shyster with expensive tastes and globalist politics. He had no genuine connection with the Yorkshire constituency he served. But like Liverpool Wavertree, Rotherham is a safe Labour seat and was guaranteed to return him to parliament, election after election. Once in parliament, he could do what really mattered to him: defend Jewish interests and expand Jewish power. When he left office in disgrace, prosecuted and jailed for fraud in 2013, the Jewish Chronicle said that “the Jewish community … should mourn Denis MacShane’s fall from grace,” because he was “one of its greatest champions” and had been an “active campaigner … fighting racism and totalitarianism.”

But MacShane had not been one of the “greatest champions” of Labour’s traditional constituents, the White working-class. During his 18 years as MP for Rotherham, he did nothing to stop the Muslim rape-gangs preying on and prostituting working-class White girls. He has made the weaselly claim that “no one came to him directly with a problem,” but Jayne Senior, a whistle-blowing social worker in Rotherham, contradicts this, saying that she “wrote MacShane a briefing paper on the issues, ahead of a conference they both attended on child grooming.” MacShane is a proven liar and convicted criminal, so it’s very easy to believe Senior’s claim. MacShane served as MP for Rotherham not because he had any wish to serve the White working-class, but because it was a safe Labour seat and would ensure him a long career in parliament to work on behalf of Jews.

Truth is no defence

If MacShane hadn’t been caught falsifying his expenses, he would still be in parliament with Luciana Berger, whose relationship with Liverpool is exactly the same as his was with Rotherham. Liverpool Wavertree is a safe Labour seat and will ensure Berger a long career in parliament to work on behalf of Jews. That does not mean representing the wishes of ordinary Labour members in Liverpool, who recently made an attempt to pass “motions of no confidence” against Berger: “One of the motions accused her of ‘continually using the media to criticise the man [Jeremy Corbyn] we all want to be prime minister’. The other said she was ‘continually criticising our leader when she should be working for a general election and opposing the Tories’.” The accusations are perfectly true. Indeed, they don’t go far enough: Berger would prefer the Tories to win the next election. In a recent radio interview she “refused to say whether she thought Corbyn becoming prime minister would be good for Britain.” Plainly, she doesn’t think it would.

But truth is no defence when Jewish interests are being challenged. The no-confidence motions in Liverpool were greeted with “outrage” and “huge anger among the party’s parliamentarians and Jewish supporters.” So was the entirely truthful accusation that Berger is a “disruptive Zionist.” Luciana was being “bullied” by her local party, cried the anti-Corbynists. It was yet another Jewish screeching moment and it proved completely successful. As the Jewish Chronicle gloated: “late on Friday [8th February 2019], just as Shabbat was coming in, it was announced the motions had been withdrawn and the extraordinary meeting where they were to be debated had been cancelled.” Luciana Berger had successfully presented herself as a victim and beaten an implicitly gentile challenge to her role as Jewish agent in parliament.

Luci in the Press as Victim: Berger with a police escort at the 2018 Labour Conference

But she finds it easy to present herself as a victim partly because she’s had so much help from misguided White nationalists in the United Kingdom. Berger has been the target of sustained and often foul-mouthed or threatening abuse on social media. If the abuse didn’t exist, I think she would want to invent it, because it has been very helpful to the Jewish cause. You could call her Lucky Luciana, because she has been fortunate in her enemies. It is excellent propaganda for Jews when a young Jewish woman like Berger is abused and threatened by White nationalists, some of whom are literal neo-Nazis.  It is also excellent propaganda for Jews when Berger is abused and threatened by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. Do you think the Jewish Chronicle was upset to use a photo of Berger with a police escort at the Labour Party Conference in 2018?

A plea to the left

I don’t think the newspaper was upset — I think it was delighted. Victimhood has enormous value in modern politics, which is precisely why Jews are so hostile to Jeremy Corbyn. He and his supporters refuse to see Jews as victims. The Jewish activist Jonathan Freedland has complained bitterly about this in the Guardian: “On the left, black people are usually allowed to define what’s racism; women can define sexism; Muslims are trusted to define Islamophobia. But when Jews call out something as antisemitic, leftist non-Jews feel curiously entitled to tell Jews they’re wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic — and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.”

Freedland then spoke from the heart: “So this is my plea to the left. Treat us the same way you’d treat any other minority. No better and no worse. If opposition to racism means anything, it surely means that.” In other words, he wants the left to see Jews as victims and allow them to define anti-Semitism in whatever way they please. Alas! The left stubbornly persist in seeing Jews not as a powerless and persecuted minority, but as a rich and powerful White group that is actively persecuting the Palestinians in Israel. Tony Blair is so pro-Israeli that he made a sycophantic speech at the funeral of the former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, a hard-line right-winger and alleged war-criminal. But unlike Blair, Jeremy Corbyn isn’t interested in becoming a millionaire, so Jewish wealth has no power over him. Worse still from the Jewish point of view, accusations of anti-Semitism also seem to have no power over him. After all, it’s difficult to smear him as a bigot when he has such impeccable anti-racist and pro-minority credentials. He is very popular with non-Whites and his Shadow Home Secretary is the Black radical Diane Abbott, who was once his sexual partner and remains one of his closest allies.

Scrutinizing Scruton

With the large and unmistakably Black Diane Abbott at his side, Corbyn has so far defeated his enemies’ attempts to paint him as a hate-thinker. Luciana Berger, Margaret Hodge and other anti-Corbynistas will not give up, but it must be worrying for them that accusations of anti-Semitism, usually so effective, are failing to bring Corbyn and his supporters to heel. Indeed, Lucky Luciana didn’t have any more luck when she tried to use the same accusation against the Conservative party. In November 2018, the Tories announced that they were making the philosopher Sir Roger Scruton “chair of a government housing commission.” Labour immediately went digging for dirt on Scruton and uncovered a speech he had made in Hungary back in 2014. He had criticized the Jewish billionaire George Soros and said that “Many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros empire.”

Scruton’s criticism of Soros was measured and legitimate, and his claim about the “Budapest intelligentsia” was entirely true. However, as I pointed out above, truth is no defence against a charge of thought-crime. Affecting to be horrified by the speech, prominent Labour politicians demanded Scruton’s resignation or dismissal on the ground that he had promoted anti-Semitism. Their campaign was unsuccessful, even though one of his attackers was Luciana Berger, who said: “An individual who peddles antisemitic conspiracy theories has no place advising government about anything.” Scruton and his supporters indignantly denied that he or the speech was anti-Semitic in any way, but Berger’s comment was a chance for Scruton to show how good he is as a philosopher. He failed the chance miserably, because he did not condemn her opportunism or draw out the implications of her accusation.

Israel Is Their Home

From Scruton’s point of view, it was highly dishonest and opportunistic of Berger to accuse him of anti-Semitism. It’s a grievous accusation that should never be made lightly or in pursuit of party advantage. Berger broke both rules. And she did not make the accusation as an individual: she is a prominent member and defender of “the community,” as the Jewish Chronicle so often calls it. But “the community” made no objection to what she said. It was obvious, then, that Jews don’t mind when their champions make dishonest accusations of anti-Semitism for party advantage. Furthermore, Berger sought advantage for the Labour party, although Jews in Britain now “overwhelmingly back” the Conservative party. It was obvious that Jews don’t mind dishonest accusations of anti-Semitism even when such accusations are directed at their own favoured party.

This is not difficult reasoning. A veteran philosopher like Scruton should have been able to conclude that dishonest accusations of anti-Semitism are central to Jewish culture and politics. But if Scruton did reach that conclusion, he kept shtum (the Yiddish word for “mute”). I would suggest that Scruton is either not good at philosophy or not good at standing up for the truth. Luciana Berger, of course, has no interest at all in the truth. Like Margaret Hodge and Denis MacShane, she’s interested only in defending Jewish interests. That’s fine in its place, but its place is Israel, not Liverpool. Berger doesn’t care about Liverpudlians or any other British Whites. She doesn’t belong in Britain and she should accept Benjamin Netanyahu’s heart-felt invitation: “I want to tell every Jew in France and in Europe that Israel is your home.”

14 replies
  1. Bob Matthews
    Bob Matthews says:

    Margaret Hodge is not just a millionaire – she is a member of the super-rich and powerful “Oppenheimer” family. She was also instrumental in helping to defeat the BNP in Barking and Dagenham!

  2. A M
    A M says:

    This is an excellent article. A professor of politics said on Danzig(Gdansk) ‘ there is no place like it in Britain, it is very political, he paused ‘except Liverpool’ though Gdansk which brought down communism is ten times more political. The British press always reported Liverpool as an example of tolerance toward ethnic minorities…until they found otherwise and proclaimed it ‘Britain’s most racialist city. they had got it wrong for years I knew they had. There followed a plethora of articles and reports on the place. The best of the former was titled ‘Britain’s white city which showed that blacks preferred to go for nights out to the liberal and very different Manchester. Identity was important in Liverpool, English, Irish, Welsh, etc. among many radio reports, a black man said it was a very racist place but often subtly expressed, He said that whenever he left the office he could hear uncontrolled hoots of laughter as they talked about him.This was quite innocuous compared to what I had witnessed there.

  3. English far-right nationalist
    English far-right nationalist says:

    Liverpool doesn’t fit in with England because it’s not an English city, it’s an Irish Catholic city and completely out of step with the rest of England in almost every way and proud of it.

  4. Bruno
    Bruno says:

    Interesting article. Hats off to the author. This is fascinating and other individuals should be composing similar pieces. This lets us know what’s going on in other countries. Essentially it provides information about the biggest danger to EuroMan. Anyone who has traveled around Europe or rubbed shoulders with parliamentarians comprehends transnational networking by “the media’s best of all people.” Take away Z influence and there would be no question of EuroMan’s survival.

  5. Elizabeth
    Elizabeth says:

    No matter how the criticisms are delivered, they won’t be well received. It just means that anyone outside the preferred circle is expected to and can be made to be shtum. Hence we have had Rotherham etc. We are all voiceless like a patient etherized upon a table

  6. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Langdon’s comments on Jews in Britain are of course correct. But I think he’s naive in assuming Corbyn is ‘anti-Semitic’ and the other similar phrases. He’s a Jew and associates with Jews. He says nothing about any Jew frauds; it’s obvious he represents just another turns of the Jewish screw.

    If anyone’s interested you might try my look at ‘Owen Jones’, another Jew or Jew puppet ‘journalist’—
    big-lies.org/jews/articles-on-jews.html
    and look at the piece on Corbyn, two or three years earlier. There’s an analogy with Blair, also pushed by Jews. And Trump for that matter. Don’t be taken in again.

  7. Graham Wellington
    Graham Wellington says:

    “Jews in Britain overwhelmingly back the Conservative party”

    David Cameron said:

    “There are so many jews at the top of the Conservative party that it should be known as the TORAH PARTY rather than the Tory party.”

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      If you check you’ll find the so-clled ‘Labour’ party was set up by Jews, supported Jew wars, supported Jew immigration, supported non-European immigration, and all the rest of it.
      .
      Different subject: Langdon insultingly says Liverpool is famous for soccer, music and violence. In fact it was a principal port to the Atlantic, and to the Manchester ship canal. With all the consequences of that.
      .

  8. Neil c
    Neil c says:

    Excellent article. I was curious to see what Tobias looked like, I googled him and the first picture up was Ed Milliband-Some kind of secret joke!

  9. Vehmgericht
    Vehmgericht says:

    Well gorgeous pouting Luciana has today quit Corbyn’s insuffiently On-Message Labour to help found a party more to her liking.

    It shall be seen whether her Wavertree constituents have learned their lesson!

    • jerry cornelius
      jerry cornelius says:

      They have declared the new party a private entity meaning that they do not have to declare who is funding them.

  10. Captain John Charity Spring MA
    Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

    Luciana Berger demonstrates to the nation that Jews are the victim minority by splitting Labour apart right on the cusp of defeating the dissarrrayed Tory Party ensuring a decade of Tory (((austerity, corporate plunder and Neoconservative wars))).

    Mission accomplished Ms Berger!

    Every.Fecking.Time.

  11. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    Jewish radicals and communists feared and hated fascism not because it was the extreme opposite of leftism and socialism but because it welded socialism and nationalism together. Jewish radicals and communists hated traditionalist reaction and capitalism less because (1) arch-traditionalism had no chance in the modern world and was fated to die and (2) capitalism ultimately favors Jews and urbanites and divided the national folk between rich class and lower classes.

    In contrast, fascism brought together nationalism and socialism, a truly potent mix. Also, it allowed capitalism for nationalist businessmen.

    That should be the path of the New Revolution.

    We need Social-Nationalism. It would say only nationalists and patriots get to practice capitalism. Globalists must be taxed to oblivion; they get full dose of socialism.

    Why should nationalists and patriots get capitalist rights? Because nationalism is intrinsically socialist. Nationalism tempers capitalism with socialism because it protects the bargaining power of the national work force. Globalism means companies can just ship jobs overseas or bring in tons of foreign scabs to undermine national workers. Globalism hands all the cards to the capitalists.
    But because nationalism forces capitalists to favor national folk over all others, there is a socialist element in national capitalism.

Comments are closed.