Doom of the Dumb: Tea for Two, Bosh for Nosh and Why the Left Will Lose

Dominic Cummings: Part of the reason for the incoherent forcefulness against the white rioters last year from a regime that is in deep-surrender-mode against pro-Holocaust marchers, rape gangs and criminals generally, is a mix of a) aesthetic revulsion in SW1 at the Brexit-voting white north and b) incoherent Whitehall terror of widespread white-English mobs turning political and attracting talented political entrepreneurs. They’re already privately quaking about the growth of Muslim networks. The last thing they want to see is emerging networks that see themselves as both political and driven to consider violence.

“Everything louder than everything else.” That was the artistic ideal of the tinnitus-inducing rock band Deep Purple. It has the brain-bewildering pseudo-semantics of a Zen koan, so it’s appropriate that it was said in Japan by the guitar great Ritchie Blackmore. He was joking back in the 1970s, but there’s no joke in the 2020s when leftists follow their political ideal: “Everything dumber than everything else.”

Diff’rent strokes, folks!: Peruvian Paddington has a passion for marmalade sandwiches, Jamaican Delroy Easton Grant had a passion for
raping old White women

And when I say “dumber,” I mean it. Exhibit #1: an arctocentric appeal by the Labour politician Stella Creasy (born 1977). Arctocentric means “centered on bears” and Creasy centered her appeal on Paddington Bear, a children’s character whose books describe how he made a happy life in England after arriving here as a refugee from “darkest Peru.” Paddington is short, dresses in a battered hat and child’s coat, and loves marmalade sandwiches. In a video for the Platinum Jubilee in 2022, he had tea for two with our dear departed Queen, Elizabeth the Evil. Note that Ms Creasy was 47 years old when she invoked Paddington Bear in condemning a proposal that British citizenship be denied to illegal migrants:

So if you have your very expensive application [for citizenship] rejected […] because you fled because there isn’t a safe route, because you got on a boat, because that was safer than being in the country that you [were], I don’t think the British public would think that’s right. After all, don’t forget that was Mo Farah [a British-based Somali athlete]. It’s easy to blame immigrants, it’s much harder to recognize the truth of the matter. Absolutely, there are organized criminal gangs. We should brook no call with anybody who has any sympathy for them. We want to stop the boats. You don’t stop the boats by treating people who are now in the UK and part of our communities as second-class citizens. I have great faith in the British public. They are compassionate, decent people. After all, we are also the nation that takes great pride in the apocryphal story of Paddington. Paddington was a stowaway from Peru and he went to have tea with the Queen. Wasn’t that a beautiful British moment that everybody celebrated? (“We should welcome small boat migrants to Britain… because we welcomed Paddington: Labour MP bizarrely claims fictional bear would be denied UK citizenship under toughened Home Office rules,” The Daily Mail, 12th February 2025)

The arctophilic Stella Creasy, an atypically attractive but typically dishonest and dumb leftist fem-pol, and her “Jewish partner” Dan Fox

Have you got that? Stella Creasy is arguing that because an “apocryphal”[1] bear called Paddington had tea with the Queen in a video, Britain must accept unspecified numbers of young male migrants from the most corrupt, illiberal, rape-friendly and economically unproductive cultures on Earth. It was a staggeringly, stupendously stupid thing to say. She had warmed up for it by saying that illegal migrants shouldn’t be treated as “second-class citizens.” But they aren’t “citizens” and treating them as “second-class” is perfectly legitimate. If a nation draws no distinction between citizens and foreigners, it has abolished itself and annulled its own laws.

Checkmate for racists and Islamophobes

So what’s not to like for leftists? Abolishing White nations has been the “project” of leftists like Stella Creasy for many decades. And any dumb argument will do to advance that central leftist cause. I’d never come across the argumentum ex urso before,[2] but I had come across “Any Exception Disproves the Rule.” Creasy used that more familiar argument when she mentioned Mo Farah, a Somali ex-refugee who took his place alongside British giants like Newton, Galton, Shakespeare and Dickens by running fast in light-weight shoes. The argument goes like this: Somali Mo Farah runs fast and wins medals, therefore the rampant criminality, corruption and welfare dependency of other Somalis in Britain ceases to matter. Q.E.D. For example, there are Somali rape-gangs destroying the lives of White schoolgirls in Britain. But: Mo Farah is Somali and can run fast, so it’s checkmate for racists and Islamophobes!

That’s a dumb argument, but Creasy deployed it anyway. Then she adapted it and made it dumberer. Mo Farah really exists and really can run fast. Paddington Bear doesn’t exist and his “beautiful British moment” with the Queen was entirely “apocryphal.” However, the obvious dumbness of Creasy’s pro-migrant rhetoric wasn’t the only thing worthy of note. There was also the underlying deceit. Creasy also said: “I have great faith in the British public. They are compassionate, decent people.” What she meant was: “I have great contempt for British whites. I trust that they are stupid enough to accept my bullshit about immivaders.” Like all mainstream leftists, Creasy worships words and believes that words control reality. Saying a thing makes it so.[3] But she’s also trying to use what I’ve called verbal venom. That is, she’s trying to use sycophancy and sentimentality to paralyze the will of British Whites and stop them fighting against their own dispossession. She isn’t addressing non-Whites when she talks about the “British public” being “compassionate, decent people” and when she invokes the “beautiful British moment” of ickle Paddington meeting the lubbly Queen. No, she’s addressing Whites and trying to manipulate them into passivity so that non-Whites can continue their predation and parasitism on Whites.

Another leftist word-worshiper oh-so-archly crushes populist protest (“wankpuffin” is the sort of twee twattery the repulsive half-Jew
Stephen Fry would use)

But I don’t think Creasy genuinely cares about non-White immivaders either. What she was really trying to do was to advance Jewish interests. Her “partner” is the publicity-shy Zionist Jew Dan Fox, a former director of Labour Friends of Israel. Creasy has obviously followed the same strategy as the Labour leader Keir Starmer and the would-be Conservative leader Robert Jenrick, both of whom made sure to marry Jews as they worked for the top job.[4] Any gentile who wants to advance in British politics must grovel before the group that funds and controls British politics, namely, Jews.

Be kosher or be krushed

The former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to perform the goy-grovel, which is why he was relentlessly demonized in the media, then overthrown by the shabbos goy Keir Starmer and expelled from the party. And what does Wikipedia say about Stella Creasy? It says she was “a vocal critic” of Jeremy Corbyn. Okay, Corbyn believes in open borders for non-White rapists, murderers and tax-eaters just as fervently as Creasy does, but that’s only the first part of what makes a politician kosher. Corbyn didn’t supply the second part. He doesn’t believe in making Jewish interests his first and overwhelming priority, so he had to go.[5] As all British prime ministers since at least Churchill have known, the goy-grovel is the price of power. If Corbyn had goy-groveled, he might well be prime minister now. Instead, the prime minister is Keir Starmer, goy-groveler supreme.

Keir Starmer and the three Ukrainian rent-boys who allegedly set fire to his property (see video at Youtube)

But Starmer hasn’t done well since Jews bestowed the premiership on him. On the one hand, he’s fallen out with a twink trio of Ukrainian rent-boys (British slang for young male prostitutes). On the other hand, he’s fallen out with the White working-class, who have abandoned Labour and embraced the Reform Party. But have no fear, dear Keir — there’s a simple way to regain working-class support and crush Reform at the next election! Or so a “policy and communications specialist” called James Baggaley has suggested in one of the most serious and intellectually respected forums of the British left. Yes, after a fat fancier of fried food appeared on the BBC, Baggaley acclaimed the fried-food fancier in the New Statesman, the august leftist organ whose pages have been graced by intellectual giants like Bertrand Russell, John Maynard Keynes and Christopher Hitchens.[6] Let’s see if Baggaley has been worthy of his illustrious predecessors:

Bosh for nosh! Big John moobingly tackles a knotty crisis or two (bosh is a cry of approval or celebration; nosh is “food”)

Speak for England, Big John

In the face of racist attacks, the food influencer represents a form of patriotism that is modest and decent.

For John Fisher, the racist vandalism at The Dragon House Chinese restaurant in York was an attack on England. Speaking out to his over 62,000 followers on X, Fisher, otherwise known as Big John, Bosh Soldier, said, “Where is this takeaway? I wouldn’t mind visiting to show support.” Fisher was responding to a local man, a window cleaner, who had gone down to scrub off the graffiti, which included “Go Home” scrawled alongside badly drawn St George’s flags. “Well done to the window cleaning company for helping out,” Big John added.

Big John, as his X bio says, is “Leader of the Bosh Soldiers of the Romford Bull Army. Dad to heavyweight boxer Johnny, and Henry, William, and Hetty.” And if that is no clarification, he is England’s spiritual leader when it comes to the Saturday night Chinese takeaway. He is an influencer whose main output is videos of him ordering and then eating orders from his local takeaway, accompanied by the catchphrase “bosh”. He has a huge following and is widely seen as an English everyman, a very modern John Bull.

And in his response and subsequent posts, as well as his appearance on Newsnight on Friday, this everyman has managed to do something no politician has since the recent uptick in racist attacks. In a very ordinary and everyday way, he managed to speak up for a kind of modern English identity, one that is both accepting of difference and proud of its communities and nation.

In recent months, it has felt that the towns of England, many of which prided themselves on wearing their identity lightly, have adopted a tone and rhetoric more characteristic of Belfast, where flags and competing ideologies fight for supremacy. It should go without saying that it’s possible to be a proud Englishman or woman without the need to force onto others a defined vision of what that England might be. After all, tolerating different stories has its own tradition. And yet, recently, it seems that politics, and in particular the progressive side of politics, has struggled to meet the moment. […]

But why is it that a social media star like Big John is able to connect with the public and tackle the knotty crisis of the moment, while politicians find it so hard? Well, for one, John hasn’t sought to impose his ideology or speak about some abstract historical event or figure. He doesn’t claim some grand moral vision or seek out political rhetoric. He speaks authentically about the community he’s from and his love of a particular aspect of modern England.

Authenticity sits at the heart of his message. And in an age when brands, culture, and sports mobilise ordinary messages which rely on authenticity, John is doing just that, speaking from the heart about something we all share: a cheeky Chinese and being decent to one another, no matter their background. At the same time, political newspeak remains firmly rooted in the abstract. Meaningless lines are given and empty speeches made. This leaves politicians unable to reach the public or tell a story. […] Big John’s appearance on Newsnight, in which he said, “I’m associated with Chinese takeaways, but I would have felt the same if it were an Indian, Caribbean, Mexican, Greek, or Turkish one. People who are working here shouldn’t be targeted like that; nobody should be targeted like that.” has garnered over 12 million views on X alone.

It all shows there is a country, or at least part of it, yearning to transcend the tidal wave of rage, hate, and division — a country that can care about migration while respecting one another’s differences and hold its patriotism lightly. It just requires someone to speak for England in the way John Fisher has. (“Speak for England, Big John,” The New Statesman, 9th September 2025)

I find that article about Big John very reassuring. Yes, it’s very reassuring to know that idiots like James Baggaley are advising the British left on how to stem the toxic tide of populist protest. It’s very reassuring that the New Statesman will publish his idiocy without the slightest trace of irony and that readers of the New Statesman will read it without bursting into roars of disbelieving laughter.

The unassimilable immivasion

The New Statesman represents the intellectual cream of the British left. But those highly intelligent leftists don’t object when an idiot like Baggaley peddles blatant bullshit to them.[7] Is Baggaley seriously claiming that “Big John” has “tackled the knotty crisis of the moment”? Yes, he is. Or he’s pretending to, at least. A fat proletarian fancier of fried food has appeared on the BBC, uttered a few vapid sentimentalities while being patronized by a middle-class journalist, and behold — “the knotty crisis” of the unassimilable immivasion has been “tackled.” Big John is “authentic,” you see. He’s fat, speaks with a working-class accent, and loves him his Chinese food.

The Black enricher Kasim Lewis did not truly commit two rape-murders, because “we all share” the principle of “being decent to one another”

But Big John don’t discriminate, do ’e? Nah, he himself underlined the breadth of his love for vibrant New Britain: “I’m associated with Chinese takeaways, but I would have felt the same if it were an Indian, Caribbean, Mexican, Greek, or Turkish one.” That’s the glory of modern Britain: all them tasty effnick cuisines. Nyom, nyom! Rape-gangs, suicide-bombings and acid-throwings are a small price to pay for such culinary treasure. Not that rape-gangs truly exist or that suicide-bombings and acid-throwings truly happen in the glorious modern YooKay. They don’t. At least, not in the best and deepest sense — the leftist sense, that is. After all, Big John was, in Baggaley’s words, “speaking from the heart about something we all share: a cheeky Chinese and being decent to one another, no matter their background.”

Repulsive reality vs leftist fantasy

If “we all share” the principle of “being decent to one another, no matter their background,” then how could Pakistanis ever have raped and tortured White schoolgirls in Rotherham? Or Libyans ever have blown up White schoolgirls in Manchester? Or Afghans ever have thrown flesh-eating chemicals into women’s and children’s faces in London? Okay, in mere reality those things have all happened, but what matters more: repulsive reality or leftist fantasy?

These “Slovakian” Gypsies do not truly rape a White schoolgirl, because “we all share” the principle of “being decent to one another”

Obviously, leftist fantasy matters more. Infinitely more. Like Stella Creasy, James Baggaley is a firm believer in leftist fantasy, not in repulsive reality. Like Creasy, he’s also a firm believer in verbal venom. He’s aiming his sycophancy and sentimentality at Whites, not at non-Whites, and he’s trying to paralyze the will of Whites to resist dispossession. For both Creasy and Baggaley, passivity is “decent.” And like Creasy’s, the obvious dumbness of Baggaley’s rhetoric is accompanied by underlying deceit. He was lying when he said that Big John was “speaking from the heart.” In fact, the fat prole was speaking from the gut, from a crude and entirely self-centered attachment to Chinese food.

That’s why we should note the significance of Baggaley’s phrase “a cheeky Chinese.” It’s an adaptation of the advertising slogan “a cheeky Nando’s,” where Nando’s is a fast-food chain and cheeky means “impromptu” or “slyly self-indulgent.” That is what Baggaley is drawing on to advance his idiotic argument: the manipulative, ethics-free rhetoric of fast-food advertising. It’s also an example of how the supposedly intellectual left justify their love of “diversity” by the two things that make the most sensual and sub-rational appeal to our egos, namely, food and music.

A bearded leftist word-worshiper called Thomas Benjamin Wild Esq has a devastating message for racists, transphobes et al: “I think you’re an absolute cunt!” (See “Time to make hate shameful again. Fck Fascism!”)

We should also note the hypocrisy of Baggaley and the BBC. They patronized the prole Big John because he is urging passivity on his fellow proles. If he’d been urging action against the immivasion instead, leftists would have mocked him as “gammon.” That’s the snobbish, anti-prole term aimed at supporters of Brexit and the Reform Party. They’re red-faced and fat, you see, so they look like gammon, a fatty red form of pork.

Natural allies against bigoted Whites

But I suspect that, as with Stella Creasy and Paddington, there’s a hidden ethnic agenda to Big John’s promotion of passivity to his fellow proles. Are they really his fellow proles? Stella Creasy’s “partner” is Jewish and a former director of Labour Friends of Israel. I think Creasy was trying to advance Jewish interests in her rhetoric about Paddington Bear. Creasy may even have Jewish ancestry herself, just as Big John may have Gypsy or Traveller ancestry. He’s fat, stupid and has a son who is a boxer. That sounds like a Gypsy to me.[8]

If I’m right, then Big John’s support for non-Whites has the same motivation as his love of Chinese food: self-interest. Like Jews, Gypsies see non-Whites as “natural allies” against the bigoted White majority who object to the parasitism and predation of minorities. Unlike Jews, Gypsies don’t have enough Machiavellian skill and verbal intelligence to import and privilege “natural allies” by subverting politics and the media. Big John got onto the BBC and into the New Statesman not by his own efforts, but because leftists liked his message of passivity for proles. And I was very pleased to see him getting that publicity. The left are truly getting desperate if they’ll claim that a fat fried-food fancier “speaks for England” and can “tackle the knotty crisis of the moment.” Like Stella Creasy and the rest of the mainstream left, James Baggaley thinks that all problems of race and immigration can be solved by following the principle of “Everything dumber than everything else.”

Demonic Dominic

Keir Starmer and his Labour government think the same. After all, Creasy is part of that government and idiots like Baggaley are advising it. That’s very reassuring for White nationalists like me. I’m also reassured by the accurate predictions of someone who isn’t an idiot like Stella Creasy and James Baggaley. Unlike them, Dominic Cummings believes in repulsive reality, not in leftist fantasy. And after Cummings published the following realism in May 2025, “Britain’s slide” continued exactly as he predicted:

Inside the intelligence services, special forces (themselves under attack from the Cabinet Office and NI Office as they operate as our last line of defence […]), bits of Whitehall, and those most connected to discussions away from Westminster, there is growing, though still tiny, discussion of Britain’s slide into chaos and the potential for serious violence including what would look like racial/ethnic mob/gang violence, though the regime would obviously try to describe it differently. Part of the reason for the incoherent forcefulness against the white rioters last year from a regime that is in deep-surrender-mode against pro-Holocaust marchers, rape gangs and criminals generally, is a mix of a) aesthetic revulsion in SW1 at the Brexit-voting white north and b) incoherent Whitehall terror of widespread white-English mobs turning political and attracting talented political entrepreneurs. They’re already privately quaking about the growth of Muslim networks. The last thing they want to see is emerging networks that see themselves as both political and driven to consider violence. Parts of the system increasingly fear this could spin out of control into their worst nightmare. In No10 meetings with the Met on riots, I saw for myself a) the weird psychological zone of how much order rests not on actual physical forces but perceptions among a few elites about such forces that can very quickly change, and b) how scared the senior police are at the prospect of crucial psychological spells being broken. We can see on the streets that various forces have already realised the regime will not stop them. What if this spreads? Whitehall’s pathology has pushed it to the brink of this psychological barrier and many of them know it.

Aspects of the situation are tragi-comic. E.g if you talk to senior people in places like UAE [United Arab Emirates], they tell you that bigshots in that region now tell each other — don’t send your kids to be educated in Britain, they’ll come back radical Islamist nutjobs! Our regime has spent thirty years a) destroying border control and sane immigration (including the Home Office’s jihad against the highest skilled, whom they truly loathe discussing and try to repel with stupid fees etc) and b) actively prioritising people from the most barbaric places on earth (hence immigration from the tribal areas most responsible for the grooming/rape gangs keeps rising) and c) funding the spread of those barbaric ideas and defending the organisations spreading them with human rights laws designed to stop the return of totalitarianism in Europe. In parallel, they’ve started propaganda operations with the old media to spread the meme that our ‘real danger’ is the ‘far right’ (code for ‘white people’). As Tories and Labour have continued their deranged trajectory, they have provoked exactly the reactions they most feared including the spreading meme that our regime itself has become our enemy and the growing politicisation of white English nationalism. […]

Starmer is speed-running Sunak’s demented combination of a) massively raising the salience of immigration/boats with b) a set of policies that everyone who understands the details knows cannot possibly do what he’s promising.

Why is he doing it? Because, like Sunak, he’s caught between a) political advice that the country is enraged over immigration/boats and wants action, b) the adamantine priority of the dominant faction in Whitehall — i.e the force that actually orients 99% of policy — is maintaining 1) the HRA [Human Rights Act] / ECHR [European Court of Human Rights]-judicial review system and 2) the cross-party HMT [His Majesty’s Treasury] / OBR [Office of Budget Responsibility] / university-endorsed immigration / asylum Ponzi. Being a Dead Player optimised to ‘defend the institutions’ at all costs however pathological, Starmer has, aping Sunak, synthesised the political advice of McSweeney and the priority of the officials/lawyers actually running No10/70WH and generated his own version of Sunak’s demented combination.

If you’re not in the meetings, you can’t accurately estimate the relative levels of dishonesty and self-delusion involved. Obviously there are officials and lawyers in the meetings who understand reality and are happy to feed ministerial delusions, as they did with Cameron, May, Boris and Sunak. And there are odd unusual officials who could bluntly tell the truth: PM, so there is no confusion, what you’re announcing cannot possible do what you claim. I know Sunak was super-delusional, not lying, only because I spoke to him in person twice. And of course many politicians develop weird super-position personalities, where they sort-of-know and sort-of-lie to themselves such than an impartial observer can rarely conclude either ‘they’re lying’ or ‘they’re deluded’: it’s a bit of both. It’s how many cope when promoted to jobs far beyond them. And it’s very poorly understood among business elites who always overrate the rationality of political players and underrate the prevalence of this super-position-personality phenomenon which means widespread avoidance of the real issues in meeting after meeting to an extent the median business elite has little experience of outside companies heading for bankruptcy. I suspect there’s more conscious dishonesty with Starmer than Sunak but the result is sure to be the same: political disaster. (“People, ideas, machines XII: Theories of regime change and civil war,” Dominic Cummings’ Substack, 28th May 2025)

Dominic Cummings says “political disaster.” I say “Doom of the Dumb.” Leftism is an ideology of idiocy built on obviously stupid assertions like “Transwomen are women,” “Diversity is our strength” and “Wasn’t that a beautiful British moment that everybody celebrated?” In short, leftism is built on words and wind. But don’t get me wrong: words are wonderful things. The point is that words are tools. Like knives or hammers or guns, you can use them well or use them ill. If you use them to describe reality, you’re using them well. If you use them to deny reality, you’re using them ill. Again and again, leftists use words to deny reality. They worship words because by warping words they seek to feed their power-lust and narcissism. But leftists will wail in woe because they worship words. The future belongs to repulsive realists, not to weavers of word-webs.

Appendix: How Leftists Portray Proles Who Don’t Preach Passivity

Leftists use AI to create a gammon with bulldog, cigarette and can of Stella Artois (a strong beer associated with wife-beating)

Unfunny mockery of fat, ignorant gammon who, unlike scientifically literate leftists, believe in race but not in transgenderism

More mockery of fat, ignorant gammon in the supposedly right-wing London Times — the witch is Nigel Farage

[1]Creasy doesn’t appear to know that the primary meaning of apocryphal is “dubious, illegitimate.”

[2]The argumentum ex urso means “argument from a bear,” that is, an argument that invokes a bear to support its claims. Compare the argumentum e silentio, or “argument from silence.”

[3]The corollary of “Saying a thing makes it so” is “Not allowing a thing to be said makes it not so.” That’s why the left tries to silence “racists,” “sexists,” “Islamophobes” and everyone else who speaks the truth about sacred groups rather than peddles leftist lies.

[4]  Both Starmer and Jenrick are also rumored to be secretly gay. See “Starmer’s Rent-Boy Riddle” and this discussion of Jenrick at Neo-Krat.

[5]Note that Corbyn may himself be partly Jewish. For example, his brother, Piers Corbyn, looks like an anti-Semitic caricature from Der Stürmer. Jewish ancestry would help explain Corbyn’s unswerving xenophilia and implacable hostility to White interests.

[6]Wikipedia isn’t being ironic when it lists Hitchens among the great figures who have written for the New Statesman. But I am being ironic when I list him as an intellectual giant of the left. Please see “Gasbags Are Not Great: Christopher Hitchens as Crypto-Rabbi.”

[7]You will not be surprised to hear that Baggaley has an academic colleague called Jake Cohen, who is “Project Manager” of “Progressive Ecosystem” and whose pronouns are “They, them.” See the “Our Team” page at UCL (University College London).

[8]However, the boxer-son, Johnny Fisher, has been to university, which isn’t typically Gypsy. Or wouldn’t have been in earlier decades, when academic standards were much higher.