British Politics

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

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

Militant parasites

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

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

Populism in the Liberal Mind: A Review of Brexit: The Uncivil War

I recently had the opportunity to watch Channel 4’s made-for-TV movie The Uncivil War, which recreates the story of the June 2016 British referendum on withdrawal from the European Union, commonly known as “Brexit.” Personally, I am not a fan of biopics and docudramas covering very recent history. More time needs to pass before we can get the perspective necessary to judge events. In the case of this film, the storytelling is very much distorted by the contemporary manias of the liberal mind. That is instructive in itself.

The film stars Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, Dr. Strange . . .) as Dominic Cummins, the chairman of the official Leave Campaign. Cummins is portrayed as brilliant, irascible, and indeed intellectual (he’s spent all spring reading Thucydides and Tolstoy, we are told with no subtlety). He’s a maverick, who would flourish if only the suits would let him play by his own rules, a typical TV trope. Cummins is too smart, too ahead of the curve for the old-fashioned British politicians to understand. He’ll have to impose his online campaign strategy by hook or by crook. And he did so, with great success. We are never shown Cummins’ motivations in leading the charge for Brexit. He comes across as largely amoral.

As depicted in the film, Cummins’ main strategic decisions are twofold. First, the rejection of any collaboration with Nigel Farage and UKIP. For you and me, Farage may be a funny bloke to watch on TV, but he and UKIP are a pretty thin gruel indeed. Hovever, for the writers of Uncivil War, these folks are already beyond the pale. They are no more than unscrupulous troglodytes. In particular UKIP financier Arron Banks, played by Lee Boardman, is portrayed as gratuitously vicious and petty. Second, a ban on explicit discussion of immigration by the Leave Campaign. Instead, Leave would emphasize the EU’s cost to the UK (allegedly £350 million per week) and potential Turkish membership of the EU. (That’s a good dog whistle, since Turkey is, ridiculously, an official candidate country to join the EU, although is unlikely to join for the foreseeable future.) These two strategic decisions tell you how policed things are in mainstream UK politics. Read more

A Tartan Tyranny: Censorship and Silence in the Virtue-Signalling Scottish Police State

Race isn’t a social construct, but here’s something that is: the so-called United Kingdom. In fact, it’s precisely because race exists that the U.K. is a construct rather than a nation. The native Whites of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are genetically distinct, which is why those regions are all genuine nations (ultimately from Latin nasci, “to be born”). If I travel from England to Scotland or Wales, I feel as though I’m going to a different country.

Concept vs Reality

That’s because I am going to a different country. And I like the feeling. I fully support the concept of Scottish and Welsh independence. For example, I would be delighted to see an independent Wales where the Welsh language and Welshness were re-born and re-invigorated. An independent Scotland would be more complicated and perhaps there should be two of them, split between the Gaelic-speaking Highlands and the Scots-speaking Lowlands.

But I chose my words carefully: I fully support the concept of Scottish and Welsh independence, but I utterly oppose what would be the modern reality. If Scotland and Wales won independence in the near future, they would be run by traitorous left-wing governments and would open their borders to the Third World. That’s already happened in independent southern Ireland, where the Jewish immigration minister Alan Shatter welcomed in many thousands of Blacks and Muslims. Their low average IQs and high average criminality are now inflicting serious harm on Ireland, as the hate-blogger Irish Savant has often documented.

A Scottish shabbos goy

Alan Shatter will one day, I hope, be put on trial for crimes against the Irish people. But Shatter couldn’t be charged with treason, because he was never Irish in the first place. He was always loyal to his own Jewish race and its interests. However, someone who can be charged with treason is the Scottish shabbos goy Tony Blair, who came to power with Jewish money and diligently served Jewish interests throughout his time as prime minister. Blair’s thuggish and Machiavellian press-secretary Alastair Campbell told the Jewish Chronicle that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” That “community” is small in numbers but gigantic in power, influence and wealth. In fact, you could define Blair’s New Labour party as an alliance between hostile Jews and renegade Scots against England and English traditions.

One English tradition that Jews like Peter Mandelson and Scots like Tony Blair wanted to destroy was the tradition of free speech. Authoritarianism and collectivism are stronger north of the border, where Christianity took a much sterner and stricter form after the fall of Catholicism. Although the Church of England burnt and beheaded enthusiastically in its early days, it became a mild and tolerant institution known for its fence-sitting and equivocation, not for hell-fire sermons and heresy-hunting. Calvinistic Scottish Protestantism was quite different and it’s unsurprising that Scotland witnessed “the last mass execution for witchcraft in western Europe.”

A curse on the Campbells

Scottish politicians like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Reid brought those authoritarian traditions south to London to meet the authoritarian traditions of Jews like Lord Levy, Peter Mandelson and David Miliband. But the dim and narcissistic Blair was a front-man in New Labour, not a genuine leader. He followed orders from much more intelligent and forceful men like Lord Levy, who funded him, and Alastair Campbell, who oversaw his propaganda and choreographed his acting. Campbell was born in England but is ethnically Scottish and remained true to the clan whose name he bears. Historically, the Campbells are notorious in Scotland for their treachery in the Massacre of Glencoe against the Clan MacDonald. Alastair Campbell became notorious in England for his Machiavellian ways and was central to the lies and deceit that took Britain into the Iraq War.

The Machiavellian Alastair Campbell

Nowadays Campbell is central to the campaign to nullify or reverse Brexit, which Scotland didn’t vote for and which the Scottish “First Minister” Nicola Sturgeon strongly opposes. Sturgeon leads the collectivist and authoritarian Scottish National Party (SNP), but the “independence” planned by the Scots Nats would be a thoroughly Orwellian affair. They want to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom so that it can come more firmly under the rule of the European Union (EU). Read more

Poison for the Goyim: More Hysteria and Hyperbole about Labour Anti-Semitism

Jeremy Corbyn has a beard. So has Jonathan Sacks. But this shared philopogony hasn’t brought the two men closer together. Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of Britain and, to be fair, I think we would be better off if more Jews were like him. He doesn’t seem to hate Whites and the Christian religion in the way so many of his co-ethnics do.

Battle of the Beards

But that doesn’t mean Sacks is a reasonable or objective man where his own race is concerned. He can be ethnocentric and apply double standards with the best of them, as he’s just proved by his comments on his fellow beardie:

Jeremy Corbyn is “an anti-Semite” who has “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate”, the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has said. In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman, the peer described Corbyn’s recently reported 2013 remarks on “Zionists” as “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”.

Sacks, who was chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, added: “It was divisive, hateful and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”

At a speech made at the Palestinian Return Centre in London in 2013, Corbyn said of a group of British “Zionists”: “They clearly have two problems. One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.” (Corbyn’s “Zionist” remarks were “most offensive” since Enoch Powell, says ex-chief rabbi, The New Statesman, 28th August 2018)

Jonathan Sacks is given an award by the war-criminal Tony Blair

Enoch Powell predicted that mass immigration would lead to race war. Jeremy Corbyn said that some Zionists don’t get “English irony.” Whether or not you agree with Powell, is it reasonable to compare the words of the two men? Are they “hateful” and “divisive” in a similar way? I’d say no, they’re obviously not, and the vast majority of British Whites probably agree with me.

Sacks doesn’t agree with me, and he has the Community with him, according to the Jewish Chronicle: “Reform Rabbi Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead Synagogue said that, while the Enoch Powell analogy may have shocked people, ‘it accurately reflected what most British Jews feel.’” Read more

Burkas and Buffoons: Boris Johnson, Baroness Warsi and the War on White

Have you ever seen a scorpion try to sting a stone? Me neither. But I’ve seen something very like it. It was an article in the Guardian with the headline: “‘They’ve brought evil out’: Hungary’s poll on migration divides a nation.” The article excoriated the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán for “whipping up xenophobic sentiment,” “spreading hate,” “sowing tension,” “spreading poison,” and making “Hungary’s small minority population even more uncomfortable.”

Foot-soldiers in the War on White

With articles like that, the Guardian has been trying to inject verbal venom into Hungarian politics. It wants to paralyse Hungary’s natural and healthy desire to put its own people first and preserve its unique ethnic character, culture and history. But the Guardian is a scorpion trying to sting a stone. Its verbal venom dribbles harmlessly away, because shrieking about “racism” and “divisive politics” simply doesn’t work in Hungary. Why not? Well, the article itself mentioned one central reason: the “small minority population” there. Thanks to its sensible refusal to accept Third-World immigrants, Hungary doesn’t have large numbers of resentful outsiders ever-ready to condemn native White Hungarians for their ideological sins and to demand harsh laws against hate speech and discrimination.

Sadly, Western nations like Britain, Australia and the United States are no longer like Hungary. They all have fifth columns of resentful outsiders imported by the hostile elite to serve as foot-soldiers in what might be called “The War on White” – on White people, culture, history, traditions, self-confidence and self-worth. Sometimes the foot-soldiers are literally violent, like the Pakistani Muslims who stabbed and burned a 15-year-old White boy to death in Scotland or the Blacks who raped, tortured and stabbed a 16-year-old White girl to death in England. But sometimes the foot-soldiers are ideological, like the Korean SJW Sarah Jeong, whom the New York Times has happily accepted onto its editorial board despite her long history of spreading “hate and poison” against Whites.

The Brown Baroness

Another ideological foot-soldier in the “War on White” is the vacuous but vindictive Muslim peer Sayeeda Warsi, who was once appointed by David Cameron to serve as nominal co-chair of the British Conservative party. The real boss was the Jewish businessman Lord Feldman. Like Cameron’s meddling in Libya, the appointment of Warsi backfired spectacularly. She did not meekly accept her intended role of ethnic token and tried to get the Tories to follow Muslim interests. That was unacceptable: like Labour under Blair, the Tories are a wholly owned subsidiary of Zion Incorporated. Warsi noisily resigned in a dispute over Israel and began to wage a guerrilla campaign on the Tories from the House of Lords. In June 2018 she claimed that the party is “poisoned by Islamophobia at every level.” In August she joined the chorus of execration that greeted an “Islamophobic” newspaper column by the Tory politician Boris Johnson. He wrote that, while he did not agree with a ban on burqas recently imposed in Denmark, he thought that women who wore them looked like “letter-boxes” and “bank-robbers.”

The Brown Baroness, Sayeeda Warsi

Read more

Labour’s Gas-Chamber Blues: Pink Berets vs “F***ing Anti-Semites”

You could call him a killing joke. I’m talking about Enver Hoxha, the communist dictator who ruled Albania with an iron hand from 1944 until 1985. Like Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, he was a joke outside his own domain and a murderous horror inside it. To outsiders, even his surname was comic: it was written with an x but was pronounced “Hojja.”

Maggie’s Choice: Protect children or assist paedophiles?

The pronunciation of his name spawned another joke. In the 1980s, the far-left London council of Islington was headed by a rich Jewish woman called Margaret Hodge. In tribute to her dictatorial ways, she was nicknamed “Enver.” But life was no joke for many children in the care-homes under Hodge’s control. The children were being abused by men like Peter Righton, the founder of the gay Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), who once said: “Every Islington care-home manager knows I like boys from 12.” Righton’s tastes were shared by a network of homosexuals who flourished in the pro-minority regime of Islington Council.

Dame Margaret “Enver” Hodge

When it comes to a choice between protecting children and assisting minority sex-criminals, Labour councils do not hesitate. They assist the sex-criminals every time. That happened in Rotherham with Muslim rapists and it happened in Islington with gay rapists. The Daily Mail reports that: “Staff who raised concerns were accused of racism and homophobia, and often hounded out of their jobs. Some … received death threats. Almost 30 council employees accused of child sex crimes were allowed to take early retirement (on generous pensions) instead of being subjected to formal investigations or referred to the police.” Hodge herself refused to fund proper investigations and condemned a newspaper report into the abuse as a “sensationalist piece of gutter journalism.” Read more

Power without Scrutiny: The Jewish Privilege that Poisons Democracy

Who is Ehud Sheleg? What is CFI? Nine out of ten British voters wouldn’t have a clue. Maybe ninety-nine out of a hundred wouldn’t. Their ignorance is very unhealthy, because CFI and Mr. Sheleg have enormous power in Britain. CFI have been controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics ever since 2010, when the so-called Conservative party won a general election against the so-called Labour party.

Two wings, one vulture

Before that, it had been LFI controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics. And what are CFI and LFI? Well, you might call them the two wings of one vulture: CFI stands for Conservative Friends of Israel and LFI stands for Labour Friends of Israel. Although the vast majority of Brits are not even aware that these organizations exist, one group is very aware: the traitorous political elite.

Aspiring Prime Minister Sajid Javid at CFI

You do not get to the top in British politics without getting very close to either CFI or LFI. The Jewish Chronicle has boasted that Conservative Friends of Israel is now “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster.” Under Tony Blair, the biggest lobbying group was Labour Friends of Israel. Ambitious politicians flock to join these organizations and there’s never any need to announce who the chief speaker will be at their annual dinners. As the Guardian pointed out in 2007, Read more