British Politics

Mark’s Manchester Mendacity: And Gideon’s Guide for Gullible Goyim

/30 Comments/in , /by

Mark Steyn can’t help himself. When he talks about Jews, he tells lies. He was at again after two Jews were killed when a Muslim attacked a synagogue in Manchester. Steyn had a stern warning for his readers: “Dead Jews are, ever and always, merely the warm-up act for dead infidels more generally.” That was two lies in one: first, the lie that Muslims harm Jews before they harm non-Jews; second, the lie that Steyn has no special concern for Jews. In fact, he always works to advance Jewish interests and misleads goyim about Jewish behavior. But he said that Jews are “merely” the ones harmed first.

22 Dead Goyim, Manchester 2017: “Don’t look back in anger…”

First? Does that mean time is running in reverse in Manchester? As I described in “Manchester Malady,” twenty-two people died in a Muslim suicide-bombing there in 2017. Not one of them was Jewish. And is time running in reverse in London too? Fifty-two people died in four Muslim suicide-bombings there in 2005. Again, none were Jewish that I’ve ever heard. Then you’ve got the eight people killed by Muslims on London Bridge in 2017 and the three killed by a Muslim in Reading in 2020. Plus all the other goyim murdered in ones and twos by Muslims down the decades, like the White schoolboy Kriss Donald, incinerated by Muslims in 2004, and the White schoolgirl Charlene Downes, chopped up by Muslims in 2003.

Two Dead Jews, Manchester 2025: “Jews are the canaries in the coal-mine! Strong action now!”

That’s hundreds of dead goyim and no or very few dead Jews by 2025. But Mark Steyn still claims that “dead Jews are merely the warm-up act.” He also claims that imported Muslims “pose challenges that would otherwise not have existed — for uncovered women in Oslo, for gays in Amsterdam, for Jews everywhere.” Tell me, Mark: Where are the Jews being “challenged” in the rape-gang redoubts of Rotherham, Telford and Rochdale? Did you meet any Jews when you visited Rotherham to interview a few of the thousands of young shiksas who have been raped and tortured there by Muslims? You know, the White girls you described as being “doused in [gasoline]” while Muslim men “danced around” them “taunting [them] with lit matches”?

Jews first, Goyim nowhere

Mark Steyn couldn’t interview Laura Wilson, of course, because she had been murdered by her Muslim abusers in 2010. Time is running in reverse in Rotherham too. It’s not a Jewish place and very few Jews live there or even pass through. Strangely enough, however, Jews were foremost in the concerns of the Labour MP for Rotherham, the slug-like Denis MacShane. Indeed, for MacShane Jews came first and goyim came nowhere. When he was jailed for fraud in 2013, the Jewish Chronicle saluted him as “one of the community’s greatest champions.” That’s the Jewish community, of course. Does the Chronicle care that MacShane ignored the rape-gangs and betrayed the White working-class “community” he was elected to serve?

Dr Denis MacShane, Rotherham MP and Jewish champion; Laura Wilson, Rotherham shiksa abused and murdered while MacShane worked for Jews (images from Wikipedia and London Times)

Not in the slightest. After all, who matters but Jews? However, Jews and their shabbos goyim will often feign concern for others in order to advance Jewish interests. The part-Jewish shabbos goy Mark Steyn did that after Manchester when he said dead Jews are “merely the warm-up act.” The fully Jewish Gideon Falter did it after Manchester too. He’s the Chief Executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism and he was feigning concern in the Daily Telegraph. Here is his guide for gullible goyim on how to think about the Manchester murders:

In the early days of coal mining, canaries were placed in mineshafts to warn miners of the build-up of dangerous gases that affected the birds shortly before the humans, giving the miners a chance to save themselves. If the canaries fell silent, there was no time to lose.

It has long been said that Jews are civilisation’s canaries in the coal mine. That adage has been proven right almost exactly as many times as it has been ignored.

While miners had no trouble grasping that if the canaries ceased to breathe, soon they would too, it seems harder to explain the truth of the warning that “What begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews”.

Many in Britain have noticed that something is awry lately. Extreme ideologies are increasingly expressed more confidently, with young people espousing politics that cast Britain as the villain and those who wish our country harm as heroes.

Society’s canaries have warned of these dangers for over a decade. When we founded Campaign against Antisemitism in 2014, it was amidst a wave of hatred fuelled by Islamist and far-Left extremism, and emboldened by police and regulators that were more likely to appease than use their powers. That wave of hatred and appeasement never subsided; it has built up, not organically, but through the determination of well-organised extremists whose entryism and propaganda our institutions are too gentle to repel. (“What Jews are facing today will face the whole country tomorrow,” The Daily Telegraph, 6th September 2025)

Gideon guides the gullible goyim (image of Gideon Falter from Good Morning, Britain)

Ah, the good old “canaries in the coal mine.” You see, the poor, powerless Jews always suffer first from Muslim hatred and violence, which is why they selflessly warn currently unharmed Whites that Muslims will attack Whites next. That’s why Gideon Falter solemnly tells us “What begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews” and “What Jews are facing today will face the whole country tomorrow.” Like Mark Steyn, he’s telling obvious and easily disprovable lies. Falter says: “Many in Britain have noticed that something is awry lately.” Do the 1950s count as “lately”? That was when Muslims were already conducting outreach to White girls in London and other British cities: “That night Mary had her first clients. She was auctioned as a virgin, and the highest bidder got her first, with eight others following after.” And what about 1960? Does that count as “lately” too?

On New Year’s Day 1960, three men were shot and killed and two wounded in a mass shooting at the East House public house in Sheffield, England. The killer was Mohamed Ismail, [an unemployed Somali labourer] from the colony of British Somaliland. Ismail had earlier expressed a desire to end his life but thought that suicide was not an option due to his religious beliefs. He committed the shooting in the hope that he would be arrested and sentenced to death by a British court.

[After the shooting,] Ismail barricaded himself into the pub’s toilet and was arrested there by two unarmed police constables, Gilbert Robertson and Denis Hastings. After being remanded in custody, he was determined to be insane and detained at Broadmoor Hospital for 22 months. Ismail was deported to Somalia after his release, and there he went on to shoot a judge before being killed following another mass shooting in which he killed several people. (“East House mass shooting,” Wikipedia)

Three Dead Goyim, Sheffield 1960, victims of a psychotic Somali (image from Sheffield Star)

Britain learned in 1960 that Somali Muslims are very good at two things: violent crime and living off welfare. So what happened at the turn of the century when “more than 200,000” Somalis sought residence in Britain? Well, because “most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry.” But the immigration minister Barbara Roche granted them “exceptional leave to remain.” Does Roche care that the Somali newcomers promptly followed the lead of their Pakistani Muslim forerunners and began to form rape-gangs in cities like Bristol? Again, not in the slightest. Non-White predation on Whites is a feature, not a bug, for migration mavens like Roche. After all, she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In other words, she’s one of the many Jews who regard Muslims as “natural allies” against historically Christian Whites.

Sue Berelowitz, the Jew “paid off with £134k after failing to speak out about” Pakistani rape-gangs, then “rehired as a consultant on £1k a DAY” (image from The Jewish Chronicle)

Another of those Islamophile Jews is Sue Berelowitz, the so-called Children’s Commissioner who did her best to conceal the huge over-representation of non-White Muslims in sex-crimes against White girls. Muslims and other non-Whites have been murdering, raping, parasitizing and generally blighting the lives of Whites for many decades. Jews have played a central role both in organizing the non-White immivasion and in suppressing White resistance to it. It’s no coincidence that Whites arrested during the so-called Notting Hill race-riots in 1958 found themselves up before a Jewish judge called Cyril Salmon (1903–99), who sent them off to years in jail for resisting the invasion of their homeland by low-IQ Black criminals and tax-eaters. Salmon was later made into a Baron, rising even higher in the hostile elite that imposed non-White migration on unwilling British Whites.

Rapists and wife-beaters

That was an example of how, in the lying words of Jake Wallis Simons at Spiked, “Jews have always stood up for Britain.” No, Jews like Simons have always stood up for Jewish interests, from importing non-Whites as “natural allies” to censoring, demonizing and jailing White dissidents to looting the pension funds of Whites in Britain while working tirelessly for Mossad and Israel. The pension-fund looter was Binyamin Hoch, who operated under the nom de goy of Robert Maxwell. Hoch was also a wife-beater, child-beater and sexual predator. All of those traits — financial predation, cruelty and rape — are characteristic of the “community” from which Hoch emerged. It’s a community that was spotlighted by the Jewish Chronicle a few days before the attack on Jews in Manchester:

Israeli brides are being lured to Britain and matched with violent sex abusers

Dozens of Israeli women living in the UK’s strictly Orthodox community have been brought to Britain to marry abusive men, the JC [Jewish Chronicle] can reveal. These women, some as young as 19, come from Israeli families unable to secure them a match at home and end up in the UK, married to British men with known backgrounds of abuse, violence or severe mental illness. The women are typically born into poorer families affected by illness, disability or divorce — factors that can count against them in the strictly Orthodox shidduch (matchmaking) process. The men, by contrast, belong to wealthier families — but have struggled to find a match because people in their community know their history of abuse, violence, mental health conditions or questions around their sexuality. Matchmakers present the marriages as generous opportunities for the Israeli brides; a chance for women to wed into comfort and stability abroad. […]

In the past six months, six such cases have come to light — but insiders believe the true number could be far higher. One expert helping domestic abuse survivors in the community said she has supported 12 women in similar circumstances in the last year. In written testimony shared with the JC with the women’s permission, three Israeli survivors of abuse at the hands of their strictly Orthodox British husbands share their stories.

Newlywed Chaya [name changed] arrived in the UK for what she thought was her honeymoon. The plan had been to take a short trip to meet her husband’s Dovid’s [name changed] family, then go back to Israel to continue her studies and start married life. “We met and got engaged within weeks,” Chaya said. “Dovid came from a wealthy and respected family in London — that’s what I was told.” Her family was impressed by her new husband’s status: “It seemed important to my father,” Chaya said.

But once the couple landed in London, everything changed. Chaya was taken to a grimy flat and told she would not be returning to Israel. Her passport was taken; there was no phone in the flat; and she was forbidden to drive. Chaya was trapped. Then the violence started. “He told me the UK was our new home and that I should thank him for putting a roof over my head,” Chaya said. “I was so scared of him. Every time I mentioned Israel, he would grow angry and physically assault me, so I learned that if I wanted to stay safe, I should not bring it up.”

But silence was no protection against her husband’s violence, which was worse on Shabbat, when Dovid routinely raped her, she said. […] “He wanted me to have a kid with him so I would never be able to escape him in this lifetime.” After the baby was born, the abuse continued in front of the child; sometimes Chaya was carrying the baby in her arms while Dovid beat her and threw objects at her.

When she finally mustered the courage to show other women her bruises, they rejected her pleas for help and told her to put her arms away — it was not “tznius” (modest) to show her body. Though she maintained an abiding faith in God, Chaya said her faith in the community faded. Because it was not just Dovid who abused Chaya — her husband forced her to have sex with other men for money, she said: “He would tell me that I wasn’t contributing financially to the marriage, and this was the least I could do. He made me watch him have sex with a friend’s wife and told me this was normal behaviour. He was so violent sexually, it was like watching me in pain gave him oxygen to breathe. It made him high.” […]

Rabbanit Ramie Smith has spent the past five years advocating for women like Chaya and others struggling to receive their gets [Jewish divorces]. While awareness of abuse and coercive control is growing, Smith told the JC that Israeli women brought to the UK for strictly Orthodox marriages are especially vulnerable.

“Because these girls have no family or friends to support them here, the culture is vastly different, there’s a language barrier and the majority of them do not even have access to their finances. One thing compounds on top of another which adds to their vulnerability, making them perfect victims for coercive control.”

Smith says the violent sexual abuse to which some women are subjected might leave bruising, “but without an internal examination, and with the stigma of disclosing abuse, the damage often goes unseen.” […]

Marrying a man with severe mental health needs can mean women feel additional layers of entrapment. One woman said her husband sat on a rooftop threatening to jump every day. Another was told by her husband that his clinical psychosis was caused by her desire to wait to have a child, preventing him from fulfilling the mitzvah of procreating.

“My young clients tell me, ‘I’m not a mental health nurse or psychologist, I am not staying with someone to be their carer,’” Smith said. These mental health conditions are often known about within the communities to which the men belong: “When you speak to relatives or friends, or rabbis and teachers, it’s often the case — though not always — that people will say, ‘We knew he was violent. We knew he had mental health issues,’” Smith said.

Yet the matches are arranged by families who believe they are making the right decision for their daughters. Some are deeply troubled when they realise they have guided their children towards an abuser. […]

Responding to the investigation, the victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, said: “Too often I hear of women from other countries trafficked into abusive marriages when they do not speak the language, have no support system to turn to and are trapped in violence.

“Perpetrators regularly weaponise their victims’ insecure immigration status, using the threat of arrest or deportation as a means of control. For the Jewish community, the get is harnessed as another form of coercive control, used to perpetuate abuse.”

Waxman said the fear of family courts, “where many women endure further harm and the terrifying prospect of losing their children,” is also troubling. “This is why I have long called for a firewall between the police and immigration enforcement, so victims can report abuse without fear of reprisal. I have also urged for reform of family courts, so abuse is properly identified and women and their children are protected.”

Waxman added, “Rabbis and the community have a crucial role to play in opening pathways to safety for these women. I urge anyone experiencing abuse to seek support. Help is available through organisations such as Jewish Women’s Aid and Lighthouse.”

Meanwhile, Jess Phillips, the minister responsible for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, said: “My thoughts are with the victims whose stories have come to light in this investigation — no one should be trapped in an abusive marriage, isolated from support or denied basic freedoms. That’s why, as part of our mission to halve violence against women and girls, we are introducing new statutory guidance and a legal definition of ‘honour’-based abuse to help identify and respond to these crimes.” (“Israeli brides are being lured to Britain and matched with violent sex abusers,” The Jewish Chronicle, 25th September 2025)

As Kevin MacDonald noted when he saw that story, a very important word is missing. The word is “inbreeding.” Like Muslims, Orthodox Jews are highly inbred, which explains why both “communities” suffer from disproportionate rates of mental illness and other pathologies. All of that imposes huge costs on the White majority and means that Orthodox Jews, like Muslims, are a blight on Britain, not a blessing. But that inbreeding will never be mentioned by officials like Claire Waxman and Jess Phillips, who are, of course, mouthing pious platitudes about the abuse. Nothing will be done and both the abuse and the inbreeding will be ignored when politicians are heaping praise on Jews according to the central principle of minority worship: “Every ethnic minority blesses the vile and undeserving White majority more than every other ethnic minority.”

Claire Waxman, yet another Jewish gatekeeper in high places (image from We Are Survivors)

But there’s more to note in that story. Like the “children’s commissioner” Sue Berelowitz, the “victims’ commissioner” Claire Waxman is Jewish. She’s yet another example of how Jews so often occupy strategic, gatekeeping roles in politics, bureaucracy and the media. And that’s true across the West. These gatekeeping Jews work tirelessly for Jews and against Whites. That helps explain why Orthodox Jews, like Muslims, will have license to continue preying both on their own and on the White majority. Here are some more interesting stories from the Jewish Chronicle and elsewhere (“Charedi” and “Chasidic” refer to Ultra-Orthodox Jews):

∙ Charedi father and son accused of laundering millions through illegal sale of Viagra

∙ Charedi man sentenced to nine years in prison for fraud, theft and laundering more than £10 million

∙ Chasidic leaders approved scam for families to fraudulently claim housing benefit

∙ Man jailed for laundering more than £10m through Jewish charity

∙ Orthodox charities investigated over £22m cheque-cashing scandal

∙ Police make fourth arrest in London over alleged [Charedi] crypto-scam

∙ Rabbi is jailed for £5m fraud

The same kind of psychology, and same kind of genetics, are at work in secular Jewish fraudsters like Bernie Madoff and Robert Maxwell. Such predatory behavior is what is known in Yiddish as a shande far di goyim, “a scandal before the goyim,” so some embarrassed secular Jews try to shame the perpetrators into stopping it. Their efforts are always in vain. Nothing happened after this attempt at shaming appeared in the Jewish Chronicle back in 2021:

In the UK, benefit fraud appears to be endemic in parts of Charedi communities, with housing benefit in particular being manipulated through bogus shell companies and the like in order to support an otherwise unattainable lifestyle [of intense religious study without gainful employment]. This is incompatible with the fundamental Jewish principles of truth, yashrus (being straight) and avoiding falsehood of any kind. […] The biggest problem in all this is that Charedim look so very Jewish. Their obsession with the externals means that to themselves, to the outside world, and even to many other Jews, they appear to be the quintessence of Jewish life. In fact, many of them are the antithesis of fundamental Jewish principles in so many ways. (“The lifestyle of many Charedim has become incompatible with Judaism,” The Jewish Chronicle, 28th January 2021)

The author, Daniel Greenberg, is claiming that the most Jewish Jews are in fact the least Jewish Jews. He’s wrong: those “fundamental Jewish principles of truth, yashrus (being straight) and avoiding falsehood of any kind” are perfectly compatible with benefit fraud, because it isn’t the Jewish in-group who are being defrauded. No, it’s the goyish out-group, responsible, in Jewish eyes, for millennia of anti-Semitic oppression, persecution and massacre.

The biggest Jewish scams of all

However, the worst Jewish scams don’t involve money. Instead, they involve words and laws. Across the West, Jews have run huge and deadly scams telling goyim that they live in a “nation of immigrants,” that “race does not exist” and that “diversity is our strength.” At the same time, Jews have opened the borders to non-Whites, praised, privileged and prioritized the immivaders, demonized White resistance, and passed harsh laws to suppress that resistance. All problems caused by non-Whites are simultaneously blamed on Whites and used to strengthen the security and surveillance state run by Jews.

These massive Jewish scams continue now that non-Whites are harming Jews too, many decades after they began harming Whites. After the attack in Manchester, Jews and their shabbos goyim plugged ludicrous lines like “Jews are the canaries in the coal-mine” and “Dead Jews are, ever and always, merely the warm-up act for dead infidels more generally.” They also bewailed a plague of “anti-Semitism” that was created by Jews themselves. Jews have imported Muslims as “natural allies” and it was a Jew-founded “anti-racist” organization called the Runnymede Trust that popularized the notion of “Islamophobia” in Britain.

Little refugee with interesting name

That’s why Jews and their leftist allies would have said that it was “racist” and “Islamophobic” to oppose the granting of asylum to a family from Syria in 1996. A child in that family had an interesting name: Jihad Al-Shamie, which means “Jihad of Syria” in Arabic. Little Jihad grew up and became the vile anti-Semite who attacked the Manchester synagogue in 2025 and was shot dead by the police. He was on bail for repeatedly raping one of his three wives at the time. He had very probably a police record for other crimes. And if he’d confined himself to raping non-Jewish women and breaking White laws, Jews would have seen absolutely no problem in his presence on British soil.

As it is, Jews now see a big problem with Jihad Al-Shamie, because he finally harmed people who matter, namely Jews. Not that I detected any genuine grief in the response of Jews like Gideon Falter and Jake Wallis Simons to the murders at the synagogue. No, I detected only solipsism, selfishness and a determination to exploit the murders to strengthen Jewish power and control. It was a textbook example of Jewish antifragility. When an ideology or entity is antifragile, it benefits from being attacked and from experiencing adversity. Fragile things break under pressure; antifragile things get stronger.

A house without termites

Jews are exploiting antifragility and increasing their own power when they wail about being victims of the very Muslims they have themselves imported into the West. At Jewish behest, the Labour government will now further attack free speech in Britain and order the police to restrict pro-Palestinian marches. Nick Griffin also suggests that some Jews hope to benefit from the civil wars they’re encouraging between Whites and Muslims in the West.

A few of those fascinating insects known as termites (image from Wikipedia)

If so, it would be yet another example of an officially unspeakable truth: “Jews don’t bless Britain — Jews blight Britain.” The same goes for the non-White “natural allies” whom Jews have imported to predate, parasitize and paralyze Whites. Jake Wallis Simons wouldn’t agree, of course. “What is the West without Jews?” he asked in the Spectator, as he continued to exploit the Manchester murders. His answer: “Sorry, but you can’t have one without the other.” My answer: “The West without Jews is like a house without termites.”

Appendix: How British Jews created the Manchester murders they are now exploiting

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

/17 Comments/in , /by

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.

The Repulsive Racism of Reality: Exploring the Ideological Acrobatics of Jewish Anti-Fascism

/5 Comments/in , /by

David Renton is a Jew. And a lawyer. And a veteran anti-fascist. Obviously, then, he’s far too intelligent, dialectically adept and syllogistically skilled to pwn himself in the crass fashion of the fat food-filcher Billy Bunter, one of the greatest comic characters in English literature:

[A]t that moment Nugent opened the cupboard to lift out the cake. There was no cake to be lifted out. Nugent stared at the spot where a cake had been, and where now only a sea of crumbs met the view. …

“Bunter, you podgy pirate!” exclaimed Harry Wharton. … “Where’s that cake?”

“How should I know? I never even looked into the cupboard, and I never saw any cake when I looked in, either—”

“Scrag him!”

“Boot him!”

“I-I-I say, you fellows, it wasn’t me,” yelled Bunter. “I-I expect you put it somewhere else. It wasn’t there when I ate it — I mean, when I didn’t eat it — If you think I scoffed that cake, I can jolly well say — whoooop! Whoooop! Yarooooh!” (Bunter Comes for Christmas, 1959)

“Sneers of cold command”: the Jewish anti-fascists David Renton (left) and Daniel Trilling

“It wasn’t there when I ate it” — the veteran anti-fascist David Renton would never say anything as consummately stupid and crassly self-convicting as that. But he came pretty close in a recent article he wrote about defending vulnerable non-White men from the “racist notions” of local White women in southern England:

At the start of August, I was one of the organisers of the demo outside the Thistle Barbican hotel [in London]. That protest was called by a meeting of 50 people representing around 20 anti-racist groups. We were a counter-protest to an event calling for the hotel to be closed on racist grounds. […] No far-right organisation was backing the anti-hotel protests. The motivation on their side appeared to be a hostility towards single men, which was based on racist notions about the sexuality of foreigners. The key organisers of the campaign were all women, and they had a local base. After the demo was over, activists would still face the problem of having to isolate them. All this would take time, the best the demo could achieve would be a breathing space before the real work began. (“Working with Stand up to Racism — the good, the bad, the deeply annoying,” David Renton’s personal blog, 21st August 2025)

When Billy Bunter said the cake wasn’t there when he ate it, he was convicting himself out of his own mouth. David Renton is doing the same when he admits that the “key organizers” of the “anti-hotel protests” are all local women. That is, they are women with direct experience of the behavior of young non-White men like those in the hotel. Or they have female relatives and friends whose stories they trust. But Renton has to pretend that the motivation of these women is not direct experience but “hostility towards single men, which was based on racist notions about the sexuality of foreigners.”

Censor reality, smear realists

What happened to those two core principles of the left, “Believe Women” and “Trust Women’s Lived Experience”? Well, they had to give way to two even more core principles of the left: “Reality Is Racist” and “Preach Equality, Practise Hierarchy.” When reality contradicts ideology, leftists have a simple solution: censor reality and smear realists as “racist.” Accordingly, while leftists like Renton claim to be deeply concerned about protecting women from male violence, they happily abandon White women and girls seeking protection against non-White men who are higher in the leftist hierarchy of racial privilege. Indeed, leftists go further: as rape-gang redoubts like Rotherham have proved, they will actively assist racially privileged non-White men to commit sex-crimes against racially unprivileged White women and girls.

“Hear and obey, goyim!” Jewish judge David Bean overturns a pro-White injunction (video from Vox Populi)

That is what David Renton and his fellow anti-fascists are trying to do in their “counter demonstration” against local women with “lived experience” of the behavior of the so-called asylum-seekers. The local women and girls are White, the imported men are non-White. Therefore, in leftist eyes, the non-White men should be free to prey as they please on the White women and girls. That’s why a panel of leftist judges acted for the Labour government and overturned an injunction won by a local council in Essex against a hotel housing asylum-seekers, one of whom has now been found guilty of sexual assaults against “two teenagers and a woman.” The injunction said that the hotel had to stop housing asylum-seekers, which would obviously help protect local White women. But leftists don’t want to protect White women: they want to maintain the predatory privilege of non-White men. Accordingly, the Labour government appealed against the injunction and leftist judges duly overturned it, arguing that the rights of foreign non-White men trumped all concerns of local residents. The senior judge who intoned the anti-White ruling was a Jew called David Bean, who “was educated at St Paul’s School, an all-boys private school in Barnes, London.”

Importing sex-criminals

The Jewish lawyer David Renton was educated at an even more exclusive private school called Eton, also the alma mater of the part-Jewish prime ministers Boris Johnson and David Cameron. Renton claims to have “loathed” Eton, which is why he became a revolutionary socialist and joined the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), a Trotskyist sect led by the charismatic Israeli Jew Tony Cliff (aka Yigael Gluckstein). But in fact Renton fully absorbed one aspect of Eton’s elitism. Like his supposed political opponents Johnson and Cameron, he believes that ordinary Whites should have no say over immigration and over who enters their neighborhoods. Johnson and Cameron both promised to drastically reduce immigration; Johnson and Cameron both proceeded to massively increase it.

More vibrant migrants = more sexual violence

Strangely enough, as more and more non-White men have enriched the British Isles, we’ve seen more and more rapes and other sex-crimes. We’ve also seen more and more White women join the “far right” and campaign against non-White migration. Could it be that these women are basing their opposition to non-White migration on their “lived experience” of sexual assault and harassment by non-White men? Not according to David Renton. Here’s part of a mansplaining article he wrote for the Guardian:

When we deal with the far right now, we are facing a movement that is pushing forward a group of female leaders — that feels different from five years ago, let alone 50 years since. In Islington, one of the speeches came from a woman described as running a local nursery (it was read out on her behalf). The contemporary far right is focused on pushing a single narrative about refugees, all based on the same logic — that the people in the hotel are single men, are foreigners, and on both scores are likely to be sexual predators.

This argument wins supporters, and it shields them from accusations that they are extremists. The only way to confront this is to meet it head on, by rejecting any idea that foreign men — or Muslims — are more prone to sexual offences than their British counterparts. The logic of the argument is racist — it relies on the assumption that just because they are migrants, or asylum seekers, or not white (and with no other supportive evidence), they must be more prone to sexual violence than the men who already live here.

And the simplest, one-line refutation of it is to look at the men who were arrested for offences in the various race riots that followed events at Southport last year. Of those men, a staggering 40% have been reported to the police for domestic violence. There is, in other words, probably no single group of people — not in Britain or anywhere else — who are more prone to violence against women than the people now standing outside the hotels denouncing refugees. (“Lessons from an asylum hotel counter-protest: calling our opponents ‘fascist’ doesn’t work,” The Guardian, 29th August 2025)

According to the non-local Jewish man David Renton, local White women in places enriched by “asylum seekers” are not acting on lived experience but on racist “assumptions” about non-White men. But he goes further: he is implicitly arguing that the lived experience of the White women must be that they are in more danger from the White men accompanying them on their protests. In other words, David Renton and his fellow anti-fascists know the women’s lived experience better than the women themselves do. That’s why Renton demands that we “[reject] any idea that foreign men — or Muslims — are more prone to sexual offences than their British counterparts.”

We’ve got to reject that notion because it’s based on repulsive racism against “foreign men” and “Muslims.” That’s according to David Renton in the staunchly anti-racist Guardian. Here’s something else from the staunchly anti-racist Guardian:

Poll ranks India the world’s most dangerous country for women

A survey of global experts puts Afghanistan and Syria in second and third place, with the US the only western nation in the top 10

India is the world’s most dangerous country for women due to the high risk of sexual violence and being forced into slave labour, according to a poll of global experts. Afghanistan and Syria ranked second and third in a Thomson Reuters Foundation survey of 548 experts on women’s issues, followed by Somalia and Saudi Arabia.

The only western nation in the top 10 was the US, which ranked joint third when respondents were asked where women were most at risk of sexual violence, harassment and being coerced into sex. The poll was a repeat of a survey in 2011, in which experts saw Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, India and Somalia as the most dangerous countries for women.

Experts said India moving to the top position showed not enough was being done to tackle the danger women faced, more than five years after the rape and murder of a student on a Delhi bus made violence against women a national priority. “India has shown utter disregard and disrespect for women … rape, marital rapes, sexual assault and harassment, female infanticide has gone unabated,” said Manjunath Gangadhara, an official at the Karnataka state government. “The (world’s) fastest growing economy and leader in space and technology is shamed for violence committed against women.”

Government data shows reported cases of crimes against women in India rose by 83% between 2007 and 2016, when there were four cases of rape reported every hour. The survey asked respondents which five of the 193 UN member states they thought were most dangerous for women and which country was worst in terms of healthcare, economic resources, cultural or traditional practices, sexual violence and harassment, non-sexual violence and human trafficking.

Respondents also ranked India the most dangerous country for women in terms of human trafficking, including sex and domestic slavery, and for customary practices such as forced marriage, stoning and female infanticide. India’s ministry of women and child development declined to comment. Afghanistan fared worst in four of the seven questions, with concerns over healthcare and conflict-related violence. (“Poll ranks India the world’s most dangerous country for women,” The Guardian, 28th June 2018)

The over-achieving non-White countries in that article — India, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia — have all supplied large numbers of migrants to Britain. And four of those non-White countries are majority-Muslim. But White-majority Britain itself isn’t one of the over-achievers when it comes to rape and other forms of violence against women. Nor does Britain regularly generate headlines like these in the Guardian:

∙ Third teenage girl is raped and burned alive in India in one week

∙ Rusted screws, metal spikes and plastic rubbish: the horrific sexual violence used against Tigray’s women

∙ Hundreds of women raped and burned to death after Goma prison set on fire

∙ Girls as young as nine gang-raped by paramilitaries in Sudan

∙ The living hell of young girls enslaved in Bangladesh’s brothels

∙ Raped and killed for being a lesbian: South Africa ignores ‘corrective’ attacks

∙ Activists call for state of emergency in Nigeria over gender-based violence

∙ Refugee women and children ‘beaten, raped and starved in Libyan hellholes’

∙ Mona Eltahawy: Egyptian women are sexually harassed at every level of society

So here’s a simple question: Do such articles in the Guardian show that “foreign men — or Muslims — are more prone to sexual offences than their British counterparts”?

Well, only in reality. And leftists believe that racist reality must always give way to anti-racist ideology. In any case, even if non-White men are “more prone to sexual offences” in their homelands, they immediately cease to be so when they’re resident on Western soil, which has special, supernatural qualities capable of transforming all non-Whites into fully authentic Westerners. Yes, leftists like David Renton also believe in “magic dirt,” as the leading hate-thinker Vox Day calls it. That’s why the male outsider Renton knows that local women are acting on racist “assumptions” when they object to the presence of vibrant-but-vulnerable men from countries which, according to “global experts” in the Guardian, perform so well in the competition to be crowned “world’s most dangerous country for women.”

Summarizing Semitic supremacism

Let’s sum up what we now know about the Jewish anti-fascist David Renton. He’s a Marxist materialist who believes in magic. He’s a fierce feminist who believes that White women should shut up and submit to sexual violence by non-White men. And he’s a dedicated defender of the working-class who believes that the White working-class must obey the diktats of an elite that hates them. How can we explain all these contradictions? I think there’s a big clue in the title of one of Renton’s many books. It’s called Labour’s Antisemitism Crisis: What the Left Got Wrong and How to Learn From It (2021).

What’s good for goyim is not good for Jews: Stone Toss on Jewish double standards

I think that, like his fellow Jewish anti-fascist Daniel Trilling, David Renton is interested only in defending what he sees as Jewish interests. He supports non-White migration because he thinks it’s good for Jews. And he was “one of the organisers” of the anti-fascist demonstration because he thinks pro-White activism is bad for Jews. I suggest that no other consideration truly matters to him. And certainly not the welfare of White women and girls. Those women and girls know from direct experience that “foreign men” and “Muslims” are indeed “more prone to sexual offences than their British [i.e., White] counterparts.” But so what? That’s the repulsive racism of reality. And Renton rejects reality because reality isn’t good for Jews.

I Predict a Hate-Quake: Contemplating Courage, Competence and Slow Castration

/13 Comments/in , /by

Not millions, not billions, but trillions. That’s how much the neo-Cohen war in Afghanistan cost America. The world’s most powerful and sophisticated military went to war against an ill-equipped band of in-bred Muslim tribesmen in 2001, killed, died and blew things up for twenty years, then left in 2021 having worked a miraculous transformation. America’s once ill-equipped enemy was now very well-equipped indeed. Yes, with high-tech American weaponry. It was a defeat and a debacle on a monumental, a mountainous scale. And it cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives!

Historical, humorous, horrific: Flashman (1969) contains excellent advice for would-be invaders of Afghanistan

But America could have avoided all that for the cost of a few cheap paperbacks. So could the Soviet Union before its own doomed invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. A novel called Flashman had been published by then, you see. And Flashman (1969), the debut by the late great White writer George MacDonald Fraser (1925—2008), offers some excellent advice to any superpower that plans to invade Afghanistan. The advice runs like this: “Don’t!” That’s because it’s about an earlier superpower’s doomed invasion of Afghanistan. The mighty, militarily advanced nation of Britain tried it in 1839 and, like the Soviet Union and the United States in centuries to come, experienced utter defeat and debacle at the hands of the in-bred Muslim tribesmen. The novel Flashman is three things: historical, humorous and horrific. Its protagonist, a cowardly but cunning British officer called Harry Flashman, sees the culture and customs of Afghanistan up close. In the process, he almost loses one or both of the two things that are precious to him above all else: his life and his genitals.

Ancient Afghan traditions

And why are his genitals at risk? Because he’s threatened with slow castration when he falls into the hands of an Afghan warlord, Gul Shah, whose wife Narreeman he has earlier raped. Shah gloatingly informs Flashman that Narreeman is “delicately skilled” in torture and will castrate him with “infinite artistry” as he hangs in chains in a gloomy Afghan dungeon. Shah goes on: “Afterwards, we may have you flayed, or perhaps roasted over hot embers. Or we may take out your eyes and remove your fingers and toes, and set you to some slave-work in Mogala. Yes, that will be best, for you can pray daily for death and never find it.” That’s authentic Afghanistan: it has one of the cruelest, most callous and most corrupt cultures on Earth. However, either the author or the publisher of the novel concealed one key insight into the vibrancy of Afghan life. Whilst fleeing for his life, the polyglot Flashman authenticates his disguise as a native by singing “an old Pathan song” with the lyrics “There’s a girl across the river / With a bottom like a peach / And alas, I cannot swim.” In fact, the song is about “a boy with a bottom like a peach” and refers to bacha bazi, “boy play,” the “ancient [Afghan] tradition” of pederastic rape.[1] When Flashman narrowly escapes the country alive and uncastrated, he is determined never to return. So what would this fictional character have thought about Britain not only invading Afghanistan again but also importing Afghans afterwards?

Well, Flashman is an unmitigated scoundrel, but he’s also intelligent, observant and insightful. He would have thought the re-invading of Afghanistan utterly insane and the importing of Afghans both insane and evil. But the importing has taken place on an even bigger scale than I knew back in 2021 when I wrote my article “Importing Afghanistan: A Very Stupid Idea with Very Powerful Enablers.” Using the excuse of a “data leak” that put Afghan collaborators “at risk” from the Taliban, the previous Conservative government ran a secret program to infest Britain with thousands of additional Afghans — including actual members of the Taliban and the extra-enterprising individual who had blackmailed the government over the data leak. Like the Taliban members, the blackmailer has probably been accompanied by large numbers of his “relatives.”

Kosher Conservatives

Are you surprised to hear that one of the central figures in this secret program of Afghano-infestation was a corrupt Jewish minister called Grant Shapps (born 1968), who is also an unflinching advocate of feeding ever more goyim into the meat-grinder of the Ukraine War? If you are surprised, you shouldn’t be. Britain is doing insane and evil things like importing Afghans because Britain is currently controlled by insane and evil Jews like Grant Shapps — and like Daniel Finkelstein, another powerful figure in the thoroughly kosher Conservative party. Alarmed by recent signs of White resistance in the Yookay, Finkelstein has written an article for the London Times entitled “There is no future in the politics of victimhood.”

Daniel Finkelstein, high in the hostile elite, tells British goyim not to be angry about non-White invaders

Connor Tomlinson captured all the moral and intellectual depth of Finkelstein’s article in this summary: “Ok, yes, we opened your borders against your wishes, passed laws putting you at the back of the queue for jobs and benefits in your own country, and called you a racist when you complained. But what’s the use in being upset about it?” Yes, Finkelstein thinks that the politics of victimhood should be reserved strictly for Jews and their non-White “natural allies,” not for the White gentile majority whom Jews are dedicated to denigrating, dispossessing and destroying. He says that “Mass migration was a reckless error but encouraging white majority resentment would be calamitous.” He’s lying in the first part of that sentence, truthing in the second. It will indeed be “calamitous” when Whites start fighting back against dispossession. Calamitous for Jews like Finkelstein, that is. Mass migration by hostile, unassimilable non-Whites wasn’t a “reckless error.” No, it was a deliberate policy overseen by Jews and their shabbos goyim not just in Britain but right across the West.

Now Finkelstein is worried that Whites are beginning to rise against the invasion. He’s right to be worried: as described by Edward Dutton at the Occidental Observer, the protests against “migrant hotels” and the raising of blood-red St George’s crosses are portents of fast-approaching civil war in Britain. What Enoch Powell prophesied in 1968 is now at hand. I said this at the Occidental Observer in 2016: “Brexit was only a warning tremor: the real hate-quakes are still to come.” The tremors began again in 2024, when working-class Whites rioted after a Welsh “choirboy” called Axel Rudakubana murdered and mutilated White schoolgirls in the stale pale seaside town of Southport.

Non-White predation pumps Jewish power

In response to the riots, Britain’s Jewish attorney general, Lord Hermer, and Britain’s shabbos-goy prime minister, Keir Starmer, personally oversaw the destruction of fair trials and the imposition of harsh sentences. Our corrupt elite are rightly fearful of an uprising by ordinary Whites. That’s why they’ve operated a two-tier system of justice for so long, treating White thought-criminals with maximal harshness and non-White flesh-criminals with maximal lenience. Thought-crime by Whites, or realism about racial and cultural differences, is very threatening to Jews like Hermer and shabbos goyim like Starmer. Flesh-crime by non-Whites, or murder, rape and other violence, is no threat at all. On the contrary: non-White predation and parasitism strengthen Jewish power, because they impose costs and miseries on Whites that make Whites less willing to have children and less able to organize politically. That’s why Muslim rape-gangs have operated in Britain for so long and with such impunity.

Interestingly enough, you can see this two-tier justice — harshness for Whites, lenience for non-Whites — in another of George MacDonald Fraser’s novels, Flashman in the Great Game (1975). This time Flashman finds himself in the middle of the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the justified uprising against British rule of India that happened in part because the British elite were more frightened of working-class Whites than they were of brown-skinned Indians. Serving in brown-face disguise for the Raj before the Mutiny begins, Flashman overhears a White soldier complaining about two-tier justice: “If they ’ad floggin’ in the nigger army, they’d ’ave summat to whine about — touch o’ the cat’d ’ave them bitin’ each other’s arses, never mind cartridges.[2] But all they get’s the chokey [military jail], an’ put in irons. That’s what riles me — Englishmen get flogged fast enough, an’ these black pigs can stand by grinnin’ at it.” Fraser himself explained further in an endnote:

  1. The British were, in fact, more considerate and humane towards their native troops than they were to their white ones. Flogging continued in the British Army long after it had been abolished for Indian troops, whose discipline appears to have been much more lax, possibly in consequence — a point significantly noted by Subedar Sita Ram when he discusses in his memoirs the causes of the Mutiny.

Having overheard the resentful White soldier, Flashman witnesses the fruit of the lax discipline. He’s caught up in the bloody horrors of the Indian Mutiny, which raged for months and was finally suppressed by the courage and skill of the harshly disciplined White troops. That antagonism between officers and lower ranks was — and is — partly genetic. In Victorian times, officers were on average taller and more intelligent than the men they commanded. Why so? It was not just because the officers had better nutrition but also because they had better genes.

Classic chromosomal conflict

Height remained an easy-to-read class-marker for decades to come. At the end of his memoir Going Solo (1986), the tall and aristocratic Roald Dahl describes how, during the London Blitz, a group of soldiers mistook his identity in the blackout: “‘It’s a bloody officer!’ one shouted. ‘Let’s ’ave ’im!’” The soldiers were about to attack when they realized he was wearing an RAF uniform, not an army one, and made off into the darkness. Dahl comments: “It shook me a bit to realize that this was a posse of drunken soldiers prowling around the black streets of London looking for an officer to beat up.” Marxists would rightly identify that as class conflict. But Marxists would wrongly deny that class conflict is also chromosomal conflict.[3]

You can see the same chromosomal conflict in Flashman’s fictional misadventures during the Indian Mutiny. As always, he does much more fighting and much less fornicating than he’d like, but the Mutiny allows him to further burnish his golden — and wholly undeserved — martial reputation. The same happens in the first packet of his Memoirs (as Fraser presented the Flashman novels). He escapes with life and “pecker” intact from Afghanistan thanks to luck, cunning and amoral exploitation. Yes, he exploits Sergeant Hudson, a courageous and competent White working-class soldier who was modelled on the men Fraser had served with as a private in the Second World War. Hudson’s courage and competence save cowardly Flashman and doom Hudson himself, because working-class Hudson always wants to fight and aristocratic Flashman always wants to flee. Accordingly, Hudson dies defending a small fort against the Afghans and Flashman is left alive to claim the undeserved credit. That happens again and again in the Flashman novels: Flashman, the cunning coward from the elite, claims the credit for things won by the courage and competence of men from the White working-class.

The elite sneers arrogantly and unfunnily at working-class Whites who support the Deep-State project known as the Reform Party

George MacDonald Fraser intended the novels to be entertaining and instructive, not allegorical. But I think they work as allegories of modern elite incompetence and exploitation, of modern working-class courage and competence. They also work as portents of impending civil war. Again and again during his unwanted globe-trotting, Flashman sees the truth of the simple formula set out by Chateau Heartiste: Diversity + Proximity = War. That formula is now hard at work in Britain. But who is better prepared for civil war? The effete elite, with its trigger-warnings and trans-lunacy? Or the White working-class whom that elite mocks and maligns? In the twenty-first century, the White working-class has formed the backbone of the British army just as it did in Flashman’s day. Competent and courageous Sergeant Hudson was fictional, but he was based on real men whom Fraser served with in the Second World War. The grandsons and great-grandsons of those real men are now among the protestors outside “migrant hotels” and among the flag-raisers along British streets. Some of them have military training. Some of them have expertise in engineering and electronics. And all of them are getting ever angrier about two-tier justice and non-White invasion.

In effect, they’re getting angry about slow castration, about the decades-long campaign by the hostile elite to destroy their communities, their livelihood and their future. Brexit was a warning tremor. The Southport riots were another. The real hate-quakes are about to hit. When they do, we will see why the minority elite was so right to fear the White majority. And what about the Reform Party, now riding high in the polls and widely predicted to form the next government? I think Reform is the final attempt of the Deep State to deflect, divert and dissipate the anger of ordinary Whites. With its civ-nat leader Nigel Farage, its Muslim chairman Zia Yusuf and its crop-headed, trans-friendly “Justice Advisor” Vanessa Frake, the party is obviously programmed for perfidy. But the hype-machine will not stop the hate-quakes.

[1] Note that bacha bazi was banned by the Taliban but flourished again after the American invasion.

[2] When the soldier says “cartridges,” he is referring to the new cartridges that some Hindu and Muslim troops had refused to use, believing false rumors that the cartridges were contaminated with cow or pig fat. Court martials of the disobedient troops were one of the triggers of the Mutiny. In other words, “diversity” was disastrous in the British Raj out as it has been everywhere else.

[3] In the modern British army, ineffectual young officers are nicknamed “Ruperts” by ordinary soldiers, because Rupert is a stereotypically upper-class name (like Tarquin and Sebastian).

Are the English Finally Fighting Back Against the Invasion?

/22 Comments/in , /by

English people don’t generally fly their national flag. Flying the national flag shows a need to assert yourself; it implies that you are under threat in some way and that you must mark your territory and rally the troops. Twenty years ago, when I was at university in Scotland, you’d see Scottish flags everywhere. Scotland is a small, relatively poor nation that was long ago subsumed into an England-dominated union. Of course Scotland must assert itself. England, by contrast, was secure in its own importance as the dominant nation in an empire that once ruled a quarter of the globe. You relatively rarely saw the Union Jack (the British flag) in England, let alone the St George’s flag of England.

But since the British government has deliberately allowed England to be invaded since New Labour began a de facto left-wing revolution in 1997, you have started to see more and more England flags dotted about. (The government allowed the invasion because it wishes to signal its adherence to the “marginalised” and push down the wages of English workers who decreasingly vote Labour.) The English, understandably, feel under threat: their territory is being invaded, entire areas of large cities such as London or Birmingham are, in essence, Pakistani enclaves, traditional English liberties are crushed with anti-free-speech laws to protect the Black and Muslim clients of the Labour Party, at least 25% of people in England are not White let alone ethnically English and the capital is now majority foreign. England has fallen, just as it once did to the Danes.

The Empire is long behind them and the English are realising that they, like the Scottish, must rally the troops around the flag and assert themselves if they are to survive at all. The Anti-British government of Keir Starmer is, as far as I can see, an accelerationist regime. Since 1997, the destruction of the traditional England has involved clever salami tactics, for the traitor Tony Blair was nothing if not a political genius. The transformation was too slow and too subtle for there to ever be a serious reaction.

Starmer is far less intelligent than Blair, as are those that surround him. He has made it clear to the working-class English, those who still believe in the nation, that he hates them. For getting upset about the massacre of three little girls by an ethnic-Rwandan in 2024, they are nothing more than “far right thugs” who must be jailed for their emotive tweets, even if they are immediately deleted. But if, during the process, a Black Labour councillor incites the murder of the rioters to a crowd then he is given bail (unlike Lucy Connolly, who posted an anti-immigrant tweet) and then found not guilty after the jury are directed by an openly Woke and pro-diversity female judge.

Two-tier Keir has given us two-tier justice; the Labour government despises the English people. But to continue the acceleration, “migrants” (young South Asian and African men) are permitted — hundreds of them a day — to cross from France and be processed for asylum even though France is a safe country; akin to the US accepting refugees from Canada. With nowhere else to put them, they are placed it hotels; often quite nice ones. This has meant that, very suddenly, scores of completely White towns in the shires have experienced the joys of diversity: young migrants hanging around schools and raping teenage girls; they’re not veiled, after all.

This has led to protests and riots outside “migrant hotels” with the state making this much worse by having police chaperone far-left “counter-protestors” — assorted Woke mutants with purple hair brought in to scream about how “racist” everyone is. In Nuneaton, in the Midlands, where a schoolgirl was raped, the crowd was so infuriated by them that they were literally run out of town, with the police — now widely seen as an anti-British enforcers anyway — desperately trying to protect them.

The St George’s flag was a common sight at these protests, one of which has worked: the migrant hotel in Epping (north of London, teenager raped) has been shut down. However, it appears that this set off, on about 16th August, “Operation Raise the Colours,” an idea which spread via Twitter and social contagion.

To assert that it’s England, a group of men started putting up English and British flags on lampposts in Birmingham, specifically in the White area of Northfield. This spread to Tower Hamlets in London, which is overwhelmingly Bangladeshi and where you’ll frequently see Palestine and Bangladeshi flags. To make things worse, and to make it absolutely clear that, for the authorities, England is conquered and its ideology is Woke (as symbolised by the rainbow flag, allowed to fly everywhere), Birmingham Council, which is bankrupt and can’t collect the rubbish, promptly sent in workers to remove flags, while leaving Palestine flags well alone, naturally. Tower Hamlets Council, making it clear that they are a Bangladeshi enclave, made it plain any flags (actually only British ones, though) would be immediately removed, and they were.

But, naturally, this only galvanised the campaign and underscored the point it was making; parts of England are held by foreigners and the White traitors who collaborate with them (Labour and pretty much all of the political class) to dictate to the true English. And the English must fight back. Elsewhere in Birmingham, a mini-roundabout was painted with the St George’s Flag. This was promptly removed with the anti-British BBC referring to it as “vandalised,” which it doesn’t when rainbow flags are painted in public. This led to online jokes about how potholes will be filled in if you paint them with the St George’s flag and bin bags will be collected if they are marked with the same.

Now, however, there was little stopping this outbreak of English patriotism; this mass-marking of territory. Lines of lampposts all over the country suddenly had the St George’s or Union flags flying from them. Farmers sprayed their sheep with red crosses, to be seen from motorways and country roads.

The left were put in an impossible situation. English patriotism is sufficiently popular that they can’t admit that they hate it and fear it. They want to control it; it’s allowed, occasionally, if there’s football. But spontaneous and uncontrolled, it is deeply frightening to a paranoid, authoritarian, internationalist state that despises everything about England, including the average English working man (he is a “far right thug”). Some were moved, aggressively, to say it represented an aggressive act by the “far right;” they were presumably aggressive due to the cognitive dissonance: “I hate the English even though I am one; I mustn’t but I do.” All of this is happening in a context in which serious people, such as the independent Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe, are discussing the forced remigration of immigrants.

Could England be waking up before it’s too late? I hope so. Has Starmer caused this by bringing about “too much, too soon” and openly showing his contempt for ordinary English people? Yes, he has. We can only hope that, as the summer passes and it gets colder, this “reaction” by the ordinary English against thirty years of psychological abuse by their government and its purple-haired, Karen Stasi does not fizzle out.

“Like the Roman”: Simon Heffer’s Biography of Enoch Powell

/6 Comments/in , /by

Now that immigration has become the greatest concern in the rather archaically named United Kingdom, the name of Enoch Powell is once again a familiar one in what passes for political discourse in Britain. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in a recent speech intended to show that he is suddenly concerned about illegal immigration, claimed that the UK risked turning into “an island of strangers”. He was immediately charged by the media as “channeling Powell”, who used a similar phrase in his most famous speech. This allegation spooked Starmer, who immediately disowned the speech, claiming to have been tired when he made it, and that he “didn’t really read” the speech his advisers had prepared. Some associations are just too toxic for a modern politician.

For the political Left, of course, John Enoch Powell is the Devil incarnate —he once claimed to have shown Parliament “the cloven hoof” in a debate about devolution—and the epitome of racism, despite (as Powell claimed) never having spoken about race in his life, but only about immigration.

In fact, Powell did mention race on a number of occasions, albeit incidentally and never thematically, but his vision was not what he would have accepted as a “racialist” one. He merely, and accurately, predicted an England “rent by strife, violence and division on a scale for which we have no parallel”. For today’s Parliamentary Right, and despite his status as one of the most famous Conservatives in history, Powell is an untouchable, and it is left to the dissident Right to laud Powell as a prophet without honor in his own land.

Powell did not want an official biography, believing this was the province of film stars, but his Cambridge friend Simon Heffer was accepted by the ageing politician as his biographer on condition that the book not be released in Powell’s lifetime. After Powell’s death in 1996, Heffer’s book came out two years later, a year before Tony Blair’s coronation and the beginning of the future against which Powell warned. Heffer was given access to Powell’s life, although it lacked a diary, the keeping of which Powell regarded as “like returning to one’s vomit”. Heffer added to this treasure trove by interviewing friends and colleagues. Ted Heath, the Conservative Prime Minister who called Powell a “super-egotist” and fired him as a result of the misnamed (and misunderstood) “Rivers of blood” speech, would not speak to Heffer.

Powell is remembered above all for his 1968 speech on immigration in Birmingham, but Heffer paints a broader picture of a man who excelled in everything he did. A classics scholar who took his House of Commons notes in Ancient Greek, an amateur in architecture, a noted poet, a soldier, an academic, and the speaker of half-a-dozen languages by his teenage years, Powell was a polymath who sought to put his learning to good use. Later in life, Powell also became a keen hunter at hounds, taking risks in the field but enjoying the adrenaline as a counter to the intensity of his political life.

Foremost, however, Powell was an exceptional scholar. His mother was a teacher, and Powell’s education—like John Stuart Mill’s—continued at home. His family nicknamed him “the Professor” although always referring to him as “Jack”. At the age of three he had mastered the alphabet, and ten years later, while his peers were doubtless reading comics, Powell was reading J. G. Frazer’s study of comparative religion, The Golden Bough. Later in life, on discovering another John Powell working in classics, Powell became known by his other first name, Enoch, for the rest of his life. Famously an atheist (although he would return to the Church later in life, and always referred to himself as “an Anglican”) Powell decided of the Gospel that “the historical and internal evidence would not support the narrative”. His growing love for German literature, and Nietzsche in particular, did nothing to promote religiosity in the young man. Powell read everything Nietzsche wrote, including his letters, and even admitted that his moustache was a reference to the Lutheran pastor’s son. When he flew to Australia in 1937 to take up a teaching post, the trip was a good deal more onerous than it is today, and Powell took Nietzsche’s eccentric autobiography Ecce Homo for the journey.

Powell went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, to study classics. But, on the advice of a mathematician, he also discovered economics, something which would serve him well as Finance Secretary in Harold MacMillan’s government years later. Powell read Malthus, and was impressed by the writer’s demographic insights. He was reclusive and generally shunned social company, working diligently, writing poetry, and listening to Wagner. There was a lighter side to his amusements, however, and he would mourn the death of Jacques Tati in 1982, the French comedian whose films Powell adored.

After graduating, and in search of an academic post, Powell taught in Australia, having been offered the chair of Greek at the University of Sydney in 1937. Powell was in Australia when, as he put it half a century later, “the House of Commons fawned upon a Prime Minister for capitulating to Hitler”. Two years later, Powell desperately wanted to fight in World War II, but he worried that he was on a list streaming him towards military intelligence. “I was lucky to escape Bletchley”, he observed, referring to Bletchley Park, which housed the famous British code-breaking unit led by Alan Turing and his Enigma machine. It would have been interesting to see what Turing and Powell made of one another. But in 1939 he removed that possibility by enlisting as a private soldier. “One of the happiest days of my life”, Powell recounted, “was on the 20th of October 1939. It was then for the first time I put on the King’s coat”.

As with everything he did, Powell excelled in the army, whether on the barrack square or reading Clausewitz’s On War as a means of understanding the theory of the conflict he yearned to join at the front line. Throughout his life, Powell maintained an almost morbid attachment to the wish to die fighting for his country. He reached the rank of brigadier, a title he retained in public life.

Stationed in India, Powell developed a love for that nation to the same extent he began to foster a lifelong aversion to America, “our terrible enemy”, as he described the world’s most powerful country. Powell’s view was that one of the USA’s primary aims was to end the British Empire, and he would also come to see America’s color problem as the future for Britain if immigration was not addressed. It was in India—already fluent in Urdu—that Powell first realized that his future lay in politics.

Back in England, he was interviewed by the Conservative Party and selected to fight the Parliamentary seat of Wolverhampton South West, where Britain’s housing crisis (which seems to be always with us, for one reason or another) “provided [Powell’s] first public entry into political battle”. After the war, Britain still had the slum areas it had had since the Victorian era, and Powell was determined they should be cleared. The Conservative Party in 1955 had slum-clearance as part of its manifesto, and Powell pressured them to honor that pledge.

Powell won Wolverhampton narrowly, his 20,239 votes providing a margin of victory of just 691, although in the election which followed this margin had increased to 3,196 and would rise further to over 11,000. The people liked what Powell was saying even if his Parliamentary colleagues and the media did not. Powell married his secretary, Pamela Wilson, in 1951, and Winston Churchill offered him the post of under-secretary for Welsh affairs in 1952. He turned down the great war-leader’s offer, and would not hold high office until Harold Macmillan replaced Anthony Eden in 1957 after the latter’s resignation over the Suez debacle. Macmillan made Powell Finance Secretary, perfect for a man who had read and absorbed the Austrian-British economist, Friedrich Von Hayek.

This was a good entrance on the political stage for Powell as “every spending proposal by every department came across his desk”.  Decades before such things as DOGE, Powell was determined to audit and restrain the fiscal extravagance endemic to socialism, and The Daily Telegraph noted his “Puritanic refusal to countenance increased government expenditure”. Powell himself worked with maxims which, although he would review them constantly in the manner of the rigorous academic he was, provided him with a simple formula for controlling the public weal:

What matters most about Government expenditure is not the size of it in millions of pounds, but the rate it grows at compared with the rate our production grows.

Now, in an age in which successive British governments of both parties believe that the answer to all problems is to “throw more money at it”, Powell’s firm grasp of economic principles—particularly the money supply—has long since vanished.

When Powell was made Financial Secretary, the country gained a man whose mother was most worried about Powell’s childhood proficiency in mathematics and science. They were his worst subjects, thought Ellen the teacher, although these things are relative. Powell’s weakest subjects would have been many fellow students’ strongest. As an acolyte of Hayek, Powell wanted low taxes, small government, and the end to financial aid to developing countries. “Don’t give them capital”, he said of these struggling nations, “give them capitalism”. We are reminded of the adage that to give a man a fish is to feed him for a day, whereas to teach him to fish is to feed him for a lifetime. Powell was understandably overjoyed (for him) when Hayek himself suggested in private correspondence that “all our hopes for England rest now on Enoch Powell”. That said, Hayek would question Powell’s mental stability after the Birmingham speech.

It was Harold Macmillan who first brought Powell into his cabinet, during the meetings of which the Prime Minister wryly noted that Powell “looks at me … like Savonarola eyeing one of the more disreputable popes”. Throughout Heffer’s book, it is notable that politicians of the time still had a common reference point in their shared knowledge of history. In today’s UK government of midwit lawyers, no such grounding exists. Powell was given a new role as Health Minister, in which, Heffer writes, “he unquestionably laid the foundations of a modern health service”. But Heffer’s book is always leading inexorably to the turning-point which divided Powell’s political career into two halves.

While Shadow Defence Secretary, Powell forewarned of his upcoming and (in)famous Birmingham speech. “I’m going to make a speech at the weekend”, he said, “that is going to go up ‘fizz’ like a rocket. But whereas all rockets fall to earth, this one is going to stay up”. In this he was, as always, prescient. The transformation of areas of Britain, and England in particular, into enclaves in which the native population were becoming outnumbered by foreigners was increasingly being addressed at government level, and various panaceas mooted, but Powell would prove to be the coalmine canary for attitudes towards this replacement.

Powell’s Birmingham speech in April, 1968, was explosive. His beloved Nietzsche wanted his words to be dynamite, but Powell got closer to detonation than the German philosopher. And yet the blast struck both sides of the social divide. There were two attempts by fellow Members of Parliament to prosecute Powell under the 1965 Race Relations Act (there would be many more), but at the same time dock-workers—solid union men—came out on strike in protest against Powell’s subsequent defenestration. He had a speaking commission in Europe cancelled at the express instruction of the man who invited him, but he also received 4,000 letters to his private, home address, of which just a dozen disagreed with his stance in the Birmingham speech. Former colleagues in the House of Commons disowned Powell while national polling showed 75% of British people agreed with him, while 69% disagreed with Heath’s decision to sack him. Powell had divided the country, not along racial or ideological lines, but rather along class differences. But the classes had changed. Now, there was the political class and everyone else.

Powell’s prescience was not confined to his channeling his constituency in Birmingham in 1968, which he did literally. His much-quoted line about the Black man gaining the “whip-hand” over the White man was actually a comment made by one of his constituents. Powell also foresaw the rise of the Race Relations industry as well as the use that fledgling industry would be put to by the new socialism:

There are those whose intention it is to destroy society as we know it, and ‘race’ or ‘colour’ is one of the crowbars they intend to use for the work of demolition. ‘Race relations’ is one of the fastest-growing sectors of British industry.

Powell recognized that to talk of the “race relations industry” was not analogy. It really was a part of the economy, as it is today, and even more so.

Powell also predicted the arrival of BLM in the UK, which began in 2020 after the death of career criminal George Floyd thousands of miles away in Minneapolis, confessing his surprise that America’s Black Power movement had not crossed the Atlantic, and was not coming after him. Powell’s family home was under constant police surveillance, a rarity in the 1960s. The problem of immigration was moving from statistics to the real world by which those statistics are measured and to which they ultimately apply, as areas including Powell’s own constituency became overwhelmingly non-white. The public response was moving from grumbling in the queue at the butcher to flyers reading, “If you want a nigger neighbour, vote Labour”.

Powell had rushed in where other politicians feared to tread, and had opened Pandora’s jar. (As a consummate classicist, Powell would have known that “Pandora’s box” is a mistranslation). It is only now in Britain that the political class is facing up to the necessity of talking about immigration, and it would be fascinating to know what Powell would have made of the caliber of the modern politician, particularly with so many of them being women. Powell was not really a misogynist, but his regard for women was somewhat limited, viewing them as part of the “rhetoric of poetry” at best, and unteachable at worst due to their propensity to wonder in class whether they might be distracted either by the potential rudeness of the teacher, or whether or not they found him attractive.

Powell perhaps represents the last hurrah for the direct criticism of socialism in the Houses of the British Parliament. Now, it is occasionally alluded to, but only as an embarrassing family incident everyone at the dinner-table has forgotten, so best move on. Socialism remains the greatest enemy to the freedom of those who deserve, by their history, to have that freedom, and Powell knew that. He told the London newspaper, The Evening Standard, his political priority with admirable clarity: “The important thing is to get the case against Socialism heard from every platform, as often as possible”.

A ground-note to the book that sounds on every page is the radical difference in the political class in Britain then and now. Politicians were all men, and generally men of a certain class. Powell was quite a way down the British class ladder, but his formidable intellect intimidated many colleagues into seeing him as their social equal.

Powell turned down a peerage from Margaret Thatcher, with whom his relations were wary on both sides. Asked his reaction to Britain’s first woman PM in 1979, he replied simply; “Grim”. Thatcher later described Powell as the best parliamentarian she had ever seen. His speeches became the stuff of Westminster legend, and Powell understood the power of the speech. In an era when television still played a relatively minor role in political communications, he toured the country like a 1970s rock band, sometimes giving three speeches in different locations on the same day.

His forced retirement from political office meant that he had more time for reading and writing. His poetry had been highly rated by then Poet Laureate John Masefield, as well as Hillaire Belloc, and the academic studies on which he concentrated included translations of the Gospels. He also pursued a longstanding theory that the work of Shakespeare was not that of one man which, although not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars, was grounded in long and careful study and analysis, as was every aspect of Powell’s life. Powell was modest and frugal in his lifestyle, and would have frowned on the political class’s use of luxury cars in today’s political environment. Until his involvement as Minister for Ulster rendered heightened security necessary for the Minister, Powell always walked and took the underground from Sloane Square to Westminster.

Powell was also a journalist much in demand, writing regularly for the major British newspapers (despite The Times running a leader on the Birmingham speech headed “An Evil Speech”) as well as veteran political publication The Spectator. He was even offered a place on the board of the satirical magazine Private Eye, which he turned down. Again, imagining a great meeting which never happened, it would have been entertaining to see what Enoch Powell would have made of British comedian Peter Cook, who became part-owner of the Eye in 1962.

Powell was acutely aware of the relationship, both ideal and actual, between the politician and the country he is elected to serve. Applying his scholastic standards of reasoning into this relationship, he was able to combine cynicism with accurate observation:

I am a politician: that is my profession and I’m not ashamed of it. My race of man is employed by society to carry the blame for what goes wrong. As a very great deal does go wrong in my country there is a great deal of blame. In return for taking the blame for what is not our fault, we have learned how not to take the blame for what is our fault.

Powell’s Englishness was at the heart of his belief system, and the main cause of his conflicts with both Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher, the first of whom fired him over Birmingham, and the second of whom credited him as her biggest influence along with Sir Keith Joseph. What became known as “Powellism” was at its center a defense of an England he feared would go the same way as Empire.

What is most remarkable about Powell when compared with the current crop inhabiting—one might say “infesting” —the Mother of all Parliaments is both his sheer intellect, and the application of this gift to solvable problems. He was very aware of his academic skills, and the natural advantage it gave the conscientious politician. “I owe any success I have had”, he said, “partly to an ability to go on thinking about a subject beyond the point where other people might feel they have taken it to the limit”. Now, intellectual achievement has been devalued, but a man who could faultlessly translate Herodotus was also able to render political problems as understandable both to his colleagues and to the public at large.

His health failing, Powell suffered a fall at home which led to a brain clot and delicate surgery. He was diagnosed with the early stages of Parkinson’s Disease which, although not fatal in itself, was debilitating to a man born before World War I.  When he was finally hospitalized, and being fed intravenously, he remarked that it “wasn’t much of a lunch”. He died in February, 1998, and is buried in Warwick. Would that he were living now.

Sacred Sex-Beasts: How a Rape-Gang Report is Another Step Towards Civil War in Britain

/8 Comments/in , , /by

Operation Voicer. Why is it so little known? The left could surely use it to counter the “racist narrative” that importing non-White men into the West is bad for White women and girls. Yes, Operation Voicer was the police investigation into a gang of the most depraved and disgusting sex-criminals. They were raping babies, filming their crimes, and sharing the footage on the dark web:

Police combed the suspects’ electronic communications and established that contact between them began on adult online sex forums, which are publicly accessible and legal to use. Investigators recovered Skype chat logs that recorded conversations between the men, which police described as disgusting and abhorrent. The exchanges — which were never meant to have been discovered as the men went to great lengths to destroy their online activities — included references to “nep”, a term investigators had not come across before. It is a shortening of “nepiophile”, a person sexually attracted to babies and toddlers. There were also references to controlled drugs and over-the-counter medicines, with members of the ring openly discussing what dosages were needed to drug children of different ages. (“Seven members of ‘terrifyingly depraved’ paedophile gang jailed,” The Guardian, 11th September 2015)

The White baby-rapists whose rich and vibrant gay identity was erased by the leftist media (image from the Guardian)

All of those sickening sex-beasts were White men — every last one of them. And they might still have been raping babies in 2025 if one of the gang hadn’t spontaneously confessed his crimes to the police in 2014. So why don’t the left use Operation Voicer to shame the pro-White racists who oppose non-White immigration? The answer is simple: leftists don’t do that because the baby-rapists are the wrong kind of White men. In their reports on the case, the Guardian, BBC and Wikipedia do their best to “erase” a core component of the men’s rich and vibrant sexual identity. But one word in one sentence of one Guardian report hints at the truth: “A baby, aged between three and seven months at the time of the abuse, and two boys aged around four have been identified as victims.” Can you spot the word? That’s right: it’s “boys.” The Manchester Evening News was less reticent: “A child rapist involved in a paedophile ring which sexually abused babies and toddlers was a manager at a well-known local charity […] Chris Knight worked at OutdoorLads, a social group for gay and bisexual men, for around five years until he was suspended when he was arrested in November last year [2014].”

Yes, the baby-rapists were members of what I call the Glorious Gay Community or GGC. Also members of the GGC are two men charged in June 2025 with raping a baby to death in northern England. Once again, the Guardian has done its best to erase the men’s rich and vibrant sexual identity. Unfortunately for the Guardian, it’s easy to read between the lines when the story is about two men adopting a baby boy:

A secondary school teacher has appeared in court accused of the sexual assault and murder of a 13-month-old baby boy he was adopting. Jamie Varley, 36, who was a head of year at a school in Blackpool, is also accused of a number of counts of assault, cruelty and taking and distributing indecent images relating to Preston Davey. Varley was in the process of adopting Preston along with the co-accused John McGowan-Fazakerley, 31. Both men appeared in court on Friday, nearly two years after police were called to Blackpool Victoria hospital, where the one-year-old died on 27 July 2023. (“Blackpool teacher charged with sexual assault and murder of baby,” The Guardian, 13th June 2025)

The two gay men accused of raping a baby boy to death in 2023 (photos from Twitter)

Again, the two men are White, but again they’re also gay and therefore entirely unsuitable for anti-White leftist propaganda. The left refuses to admit that pedophilia is more prevalent among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. It appears that baby-rape too is more prevalent among homosexual men. But homosexual men are a sacred minority on the left, so Operation Voicer cannot be used by leftists to counter another toxic truth about another sacred minority. The second toxic truth is that sex-crime is more prevalent among non-White men than among White men. Much more prevalent. That’s just been admitted by a leading leftist in her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. Dame Louise Casey was appointed to carry out the audit by the Labour government in January after Elon Musk criticized that government over Britain’s rape-gang epidemic. Unfortunately for Labour, Casey has been honest rather than obfuscatory. The BBC reluctantly reports some of her honesty about another sacred minority:

One small example of how Pakistani Muslim men are massively over-represented in sex-crimes (graphic from Louise Casey’s rape-gang report)

One key data gap highlighted by the report is on ethnicity, which is described as “appalling” and a “major failing”. It says the ethnicity of perpetrators is “shied away from” and still not recorded in two-thirds of cases, meaning it is not possible to draw conclusions at a national level. However, the report says there is enough evidence from police data in three areas — Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire — to show “disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds amongst suspects for group-based child sexual exploitation”.

It adds that the significant number of perpetrators of Asian ethnicity identified in local reviews and high-profile prosecutions across the country also warrants further examination. The report says more effort is needed to explore why it appears perpetrators of Asian and Pakistani ethnicity are disproportionately represented in some areas. […] The review also notes a significant proportion of live cases appear to involve suspects who are non-UK nationals or claiming asylum in the UK. (“Key takeaways from grooming gangs report,” BBC News, 16th June 2025)

The toxic truth is slowly starting to prevail over leftist lies. Not that the left is going to give up without a fight. The veteran leftist liar Polly Toynbee was still trying to hold the line — and the lying — in her response to the rape-gang report. She wrote in the Guardian that it was “inadequate” to record “ethnicity” in only “a third of cases.” I’m surprised that a writer as good as Toynbee used the feeble adjective “inadequate,” which is by no means the mot juste. And Toynbee didn’t explore how and why this “inadequacy” has arisen in leftist institutions that are usually obsessed with recording “ethnicity” and exposing “racial disparities.” She then announced: “[H]ere’s the latest from the data that has been recorded: 83% of suspects are white, 7% Asian, 5% black.”

Fancy that. Polly Toynbee doesn’t appear to read her own newspaper. Four days before her valiant attempt to carry on lying, the Guardian had published a report about the trial of a Pakistani Muslim rape-gang in the northern town of Rochdale. Here’s one line from the report: “Girl A told the jury she could have been targeted by more than 200 offenders but said ‘there was that many it was hard to keep count’.” And how many of those offenders went on trial in Rochdale? The report revealed that seven did. 7/200 = 0.035 or 3.5%. You can find the same thing in every other non-White rape-gang trial: the victims of the gangs always report far more abusers than are ever arrested and prosecuted. As I wrote at the Occidental Observer in 2018: “You’ve heard about specimen charges, selected when a criminal has committed too many offences for a court to deal with speedily and efficiently. Now meet specimen defendants, selected when a ‘community’ contains too many criminals for the authorities to charge without embarrassment.”

Seven Pakistani Muslim child-rapists out of possibly “more than 200”

I based that conclusion on reports in the Guardian. If a knuckle-dragging racist like me could understand the truth from reports in the Guardian, why couldn’t the hugely intelligent Polly Toynbee? It’s simple: because she prefers leftist lies to the toxic truth (and, of course, she isn’t really either intelligent or a good writer). But not all leftists prefer lies to truth. As I’ve also written at the Occidental Observer: “not all leftists are collaborating with or trying to conceal the rape-gangs.” I then listed some of the honorable exceptions: the journalists Anna Hall and Julie Bindel; the Labour politicians Ann Cryer and Sarah Champion; the former policewoman Maggie Oliver and the social worker Jayne Senior. Now I’ll add two more honest leftists to that list: Dame Louise Casey, who has begun to speak the truth in her just-published report on the rape-gangs, and Raja Miah, a brown-skinned Muslim from Oldham, another of the rape-gang redoubts in northern England. Raja Miah is a leftist insider who went rogue, because he refused to join the cover-up about the Pakistani rape-gangs. In other words, he refused to join the Labour party’s war on the White working-class. Then again, he’s Bangladeshi, not Pakistani.

Raja Miah, the rogue Bangladeshi leftist who refused to join Labour’s war on the White working-class (image from Andrew Gold’s channel at YouTube)

I don’t think that Bangladeshis are good for Britain, but I’m in no doubt that Pakistanis are worse. We are not all the same under the skin. Some groups, like homosexual men or non-White men, commit more and worse sex-crime than heterosexual men or White men. But Pakistanis are a lot worse than Bangladeshis. This is a toxic truth that the mainstream left has done its best to deny, decade after decade. Now the toxic truth is beginning to emerge. But there is no genuine cure for Third-World pathologies in the West except the removal of Third-World people from the West. And that won’t happen without civil war, which the evil White racist Enoch Powell prophesied long ago. In 2025 the respectable military historian David Betz expects civil war to arrive soon in Western Europe. Casey’s report is another step towards the fulfilment of Powell’s prophecy.