Jess Phillips is a typical masculinized high-testosterone leftist female politician. She’s also typical in that she follows a script written nearly eighty years ago by a man called George Orwell. In his most famous novel, Orwell described how “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.”
Jess Phillips, a masculinized high-T leftist fempol, with three of the White girls she and her party helped to murder
What Orwell meant as a satirical rebuke is a settled reality for modern leftists. Jess Phillips is the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls in the current Labour government. Naturally enough, then, she works to encourage violence against women and girls on behalf of a party that hates the White working-class whom it was founded to defend. Phillips believes in the right of non-White rapists to carry on raping, not the right of White women and girls to be protected against non-White rapists. She has refused to commission any government enquiry into the industrialized abuse of White working-class girls by Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs in Labour-controlled towns and cities all over ethnically enriched England. For perfectly obvious reasons, feminist Phillips does not want any discussion of how and why these working-class Whites ended up dead while they were supposedly under the protection of Labour MPs and Labour councils:
14-year-old Charlene Downes, who was raped and prostituted by Muslims in the Labour constituency of Blackpool before being murdered by her Muslim “boyfriends” and probably turned into kebab-meat.
15-year-old Victoria Agoglia, was raped and prostituted by Muslims in a Labour constituency in Manchester and deliberately addicted to heroin before dying of an overdose.
16-year-old Lucy Lowe, who was raped and prostituted by Muslims in the Labour constituency of Telford before being burned alive with her mother Eileen and her 17-year-old sister Sarah when her Muslim “boyfriend” set her house on fire.
17-year-old Laura Wilson, who was raped and prostituted by Muslims in the Labour constituency of Rotherham before being repeatedly stabbed by her Muslim “lovers” and then thrown into a filthy canal to drown.
The Yorkshire town of Rotherham is, of course, the most infamous example of how Labour collaborated with non-Whites as they raped and prostituted White working-class girls. But much worse has gone on in other town and cities controlled by Labour. Rotherham’s staunchly feminist Labour MP, Denis MacShane, is nevertheless a perfect example of how and why Labour betrayed its traditional supporters. He worked tirelessly for rich Jews in far-off London while ignoring the White working-class girls being raped, tortured, and murdered by Pakistani Muslims in what he called his “wonderful constituency.”
Great champions for Jews
When MacShane went to jail for fraud in 2013, he was saluted as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions” by the journalist Martin Bright in the Jewish Chronicle. Bright got it right. So did the billionaire Elon Musk when he said that Jess Phillips should follow MacShane into jail for betraying women and girls. But Musk should call for the entire leftist elite to be jailed, from the slippery lawyer Tony Blair, a dedicated shabbos goy, to the slippery lawyer Keir Starmer, also a dedicated shabbos goy, to the very well-paid “Children’s Commissioner” Sue Berelowitz, a Jew who “denied there was a disproportionate problem with gangs of British Asians grooming young girls for sex.” Labour and other leftists have worked to harm the White working-class just as they’ve worked to harm ordinary women. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, understands that. So, it appears, does one of the world’s richest women. The leftist mega-millionaire J.K. Rowling tweeted this in response to the scandal about Jess Phillips’ refusal to safeguard women and girls:
The details emerging about what the rape gangs (why call them ‘grooming’ gangs? It’s like calling those who stab people to death ‘knife owners’) did to girls in Rotherham are downright horrific. The allegations of possible police corruption in the case are almost beyond belief. (Tweet by J.K. Rowling, 2nd January 2025)
It’s almost as though Rowling has read what I wrote about her at the Occidental Observer: “I admire leftists like J.K. Rowling for standing up to the small clown-cult of transgenderism. But she ignores the far greater harm done to women by the giant clown-cult of trans-Westernism. It’s as though she’s complaining about the common cold while cholera is raging.” Just as transgenderism is the lie that men can be women and occupy female spaces, so trans-Westernism is the lie that non-Whites can be Westerners and occupy White nations.
Guide for the Perplexed
I think it’s very significant that an influential leftist like Rowling now understands how her own ideology has betrayed and harmed women not just by siding with sexually perverted men but also by siding with sexually rapacious non-Whites. But there’s a lot more for Rowling and company to understand about leftist collaboration in what Nigel Farage has called the “mass-rape abomination.” They’re beginning to see how badly Labour has betrayed the White working-class, but they don’t yet see how long this betrayal has been going on.
For the answer to that, Rowling should turn to another – and much better – female writer, the late and definitely great Jennifer Worth (1935-2011). In her hugely successful Call the Midwife: A True Story of the East End in the 1950s (2002), Worth included a chapter whose title and toxicity hasn’t been analyzed or publicized in great detail by leftists. You will understand why when I tell you that its title was simply “Zakir” and its toxicity arose from its honest portrayal of the way non-White men were preying on White working-class girls many decades ago.
First pretence, then predation
Zakir is the name of a Muslim Asian who “grooms” a young White girl called Mary with pretended love and concern. Even when she sees that Zakir is in harsh control of other White girls, she doesn’t realize what he is planning to do:
Mary thought, “He likes me the best. He doesn’t like those girls. They look a nasty bunch anyway. But I am his special friend,” and a warm glow flooded over her. Each time Zakir returned, he showered Mary with smiles, his beautiful white teeth flashing and his dark eyes gleaming. … 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. The next day Zakir put his arm around her, and told her that he was very pleased with her. He flashed his smile at her and her heart melted. She lived off this smile, and the others he condescended to give her, for months. (Call the Midwife:A True Story of the East End in the 1950s)
Worth is describing the modus operandi of countless similar non-White predators in Britain, who first pretend love and concern to fool naïve White girls, then turn into vicious predators and pimps. Mary was soon working as a prostitute for Zakir, whose pretended love turns into sadistic abuse and exploitation. Zakir had destroyed the lives of dozens of White girls before Mary and would go on to destroy the lives of dozens more. And that was merely one non-White predator-pimp in London in the 1950s. In other words, the “mass-rape abomination” was already flourishing seventy years ago.
How did the feminist Labour party respond as its traditional supporters were attacked and had their lives destroyed? By ignoring the raped working-class Whites and championing the non-White rapists. In 2013, Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, asked this question in the Guardian: “Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted – the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants?” His answer was an emphatic “No.” What “most of the country” wanted, traitorous politicians like Hattersley refused to supply. As he boasted in a later article: “For most of my 33 years in [parliament], I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy – otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”
Keir Starmer and Roy Hattersley with their Jewish wives (images from Sky News and Daily Mail)
It’s no coincidence that Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife just like Keir Starmer, the current leader of Hattersley’s party. Labour was founded to champion the White working-class but was long ago taken over by Jewish money and Jewish ideology. It now works to harm the White working-class and help the non-White predators whom Jews regard as their “natural allies” in their war on Whites and the West. That’s why Labour and all other mainstream leftists have been collaborating with non-White rape-gangs for so many decades. It’s good that J.K. Rowling has started to understand the truth about the Labour party and her own ideology, but she still has a long way to go.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Tobias Langdonhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTobias Langdon2025-01-05 09:15:062025-01-05 09:15:06Labour Fights for Rapists’ Rights: How the Non-White “Mass-Rape Abomination” Was Flourishing 70 years Ago
Sir John Major was Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1990 to 1997, and only ever an interim premier after Margaret Thatcher was ousted. All he is really remembered for is that he signed the Maastricht Treaty, which began Britain’s entry into the EU, and the fact that his father was a circus trapeze-artist. Major resembled a cricket commentator (and does in fact love the game) who had gone to the wrong job interview and accidentally ended up as PM.
One off-the-cuff remark of his, however, is worth revisiting in the current British climate of simmering anger over uncontrolled and apparently uncontrollable immigration to the UK, 80% of which is from outside the EU. Only around 16% of that figure enter the UK on professional work visas. Many of them are completely undocumented and are not in any way identifiable, having discarded their passports and phones during their crossing from France via the English Channel. All can be confident that these will be replaced with British versions of both. For how much longer will the British people continue to show the tolerance which is demanded of them by the state?
Step on an Englishman’s foot, said the former PM, and he will apologize. Step on his foot again, and he will apologize. Step on his foot a third time and he’ll knock you down. The first is seen as an accident, the second as an unfortunate repetition of that accident which, while it tries the patience, is tolerable. The third, however, is provocation, and demands an appropriate response. That is the position today’s White Englishmen find themselves in. Where are we in Major’s homily? How many times have English feet been stepped on, and when will the third arrive?
There can be little doubt that a main component of Labour’s de facto open borders immigration policy is intended to provoke the British people, and particularly the English. Starmer wants to “wind the English up”, to use the vernacular, and his party’s current immigration policy echoes the infamous phrase used by Labour’s Andrew Neather in 2009 — albeit critically — when he stated that Labour wanted mass immigration “to rub the Right’s noses in diversity”. Today’s Labour Party have more sinister motives than Neather’s revelation, and intend to rub every White, British, indigenous nose in the same ordure.
The United Kingdom is, of course, composed of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But in the context of immigration, when “the UK” is mentioned, this invariably means England. Criticism of the British Empire, similarly, is not aimed at the Welsh, but always at the villains of the piece — any piece — the English. Immigrants do not risk their lives and their life savings travelling across Europe and crossing the English Channel in dangerous and unsuitable craft to live in Cardiff or Belfast. They are almost all Muslims, and wish to join the ummah in London or Birmingham, England’s capital and second city respectively, and both well on the way to becoming micro-caliphates. And they serve two purposes for Britain’s deep state: Their role in Renaud Camus’ Great Replacement, and the provocation, and resulting dissident violence, that the same deep state wishes to inflict on the White British. Starmer made good use of the rioting after the murders of three little girls in Southport at the start of his premiership, jailing many first-time “offenders” for social media posts (correctly) stating that the alleged killer was a Muslim.
Examples of this goading are numerous, but we will begin with the leading indicator of immigration, the statistics themselves. Whether or not it was Mark Twain who quipped that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics” is one for the literary historians, but the phrase may as well be wrought in iron over the entrance to the UK’s ONS, or Office for National Statistics.
A novel way in which immigration figures are manipulated is by releasing upwardly revised figures at a later date. Thus, although the net annual immigration figures to June 2023 were originally given by the ONS at 740,000, these have been revised to 906,000, and this reconfiguration allows two things to happen. Firstly, Labour can blame the “error” on the last Conservative government, allowing Starmer to accuse them of conducting an “open borders experiment” as though they themselves were not doing exactly that. This also allows Labour to claim — correctly, given the revised figure — that the same figure to June 2024, 728,000, has dropped by 20%. Thus, Labour can claim to have reduced immigration figures — a promise every incoming government this century has campaigned on — and also to be a credible alternative to the Tories rather than the other side of the same uniparty coin.
The last Conservative government had as its worthless maxim “Stop the boats” but, as the BBC points out, “Labour replaced [former Prime Minister] Rishi Sunak’s ‘stop the boats’ slogan with its own three-word mantra: ‘Smash the gangs’.” Since the election, Keir Starmer has talked about “smashing the business model of the people-smuggling gangs” working in France, as though talking like the Incredible Hulk proves his resolve. And these are not “people smugglers”. Anything smuggled is hidden, and these migrants are very visible. Strangest of all is the idea of “smashing” a business model. The business model for the migration business is incredibly simple. Migrants pay a great deal of money, in cash, to people who provide inflatable boats in which they travel to the UK. There is no contract, no necessity to offer a guarantee (and therefore no legal protection or insurance for the migrants), and it is unlikely that much business time is wasted filling out tax returns. If there is competition for your business, you shoot them, or they shoot you. The Home Office, like every other branch of British government, is obsessed with models to the extent that they now believe them to be real, and somehow able to be “smashed”.
But the boats remain unstopped and the gangs unsmashed. Where, then, do the British government intend to house these anonymous arrivistes as they join the backlog of unprocessed asylum applications? It shouldn’t be hard to create temporary accommodation. During the early days of the Covid pandemic, the British government quickly built a number of “Nightingale hospitals” at a cost of half a billion pounds, a fraction of the current annual cost of housing immigrants. Now that Covid is in the past, these could surely be decommissioned and used instead to house immigrants.
But over summer, 2020, one issue came to define the narrative around the Nightingales – quite simply, they were not seeing many patients. And now, one year after they were built, many of the facilities are either being decommissioned or repurposed as mass vaccination centres or diagnostic centres.
Where, then, are the immigrants to be housed? Presumably, the government would wish to tread carefully and not to show migrants as somehow receiving preferential treatment over, say, Britain’s thousands of homeless people, many of them ex-army. Not so. Let’s take a break and visit a hotel. Depending on what you are used to, the sixteenth-century Madeley Court Hotel in Telford, Shropshire, is both beautiful and luxurious. If you happen not to be an illegal immigrant to Britain, however, you won’t be staying there any time soon, as it is all booked up for the foreseeable future. The “availability” link on its website states that the booking facility is “not accessible” as “some required settings are not defined”. It’s the kind of statement you might expect from HAL, the computer in Kubrick’s 2001.
This report from Britain’s Daily Mail shows the hotel in all its glory, and also informs the reader that it is currently block-booked with immigrants, many of whom have lived there since the time that the Nightingale hospitals were still in existence. One Muslim gentleman interviewed by a citizen journalist had an interesting take on the economic cost of immigration. Speaking from his hotel — which film stars used to do — the man said that, “We don’t know who pays for it. But we don’t need to”. There are other ways of paying, of course. The local people will not be able to enjoy the hotel’s famous Christmas dinner this year, for example, as it has been cancelled.
The Mail’s report is also of interest for what it shows of the media’s collusion with government over what is usually termed the “far Right”. The paper is careful not to show any editorial disapproval of this luxurious accommodation for people who have never paid — and likely never will — into the UK tax system.
Instead, it writes, “The outrage was generated… by a string of right-wing commentators on social media… [and] many social media users have expressed anger” at the arrangement. It is “Right-wing” commentators who are angry, not the newspaper once ridiculed for its levels of outrage.
That there is an immigration industry in the UK has been known for some time, whispered rather than spoken aloud. They have everything one might expect in an industry, those on the front-line, those in the board-room, and those doing the marketing. That would be the media. There has been an interesting incursion recently, a Venn-like overlap between the circle of activism and that of the communicative professions. There are activist journalists now as well as activist university lecturers and public-sector chiefs. The Mail’s piece is more subtly pro-government than the BBC, say, but it is still a part of the immigration industry.
This also shows the importance of alternative media and their role in the government’s provocative use of immigration to rile the indigenous English. Yorkshire Rose are citizen journalists who visit migrant hotels, and below is a video of their visit to Madeley Court. I have watched a number of these videos, and there is a theme. Every video features a confrontation with security staff, and almost all the security guards featured are foreign to the UK. They are often surly and aggressive, and regularly tell those filming that they are on private property. Technically, that is correct, although hotel grounds have public right of access, otherwise it is difficult to see how guests could get from their car to their room. Usually, this type of video would be quickly taken down, but these remain. They are integral to the government’s program of stepping on English toes a third time.
There remains a tendency in the British media, alternative as well as what there is of right-of-center outlets, to attribute increasingly uncontrolled immigration as a sign of government incompetence. Terms such as “crazy”, “insane”, “lack of common sense” are regularly used to describe the influx and government failure to stop it. There is more than an element of the Dunning-Kruger Effect here, in which a person believes themselves far more capable of performing a task or job than they actually are. It simply is not credible to view uncontrolled immigration as government incompetence. It is intentional, malevolent, and designed to cause problems for the indigenous British firstly at a local level, and later at a national one.
I have discussed the British uniparty here at The Occidental Observer, and there is a clear sense that 14 years of nominally Conservative government was intended to prepare for Starmer’s accelerated program of flooding Britain with migrants, like a warm-up act for a rock band. This illusory transfer of power allows the two regimes to work retrospectively in tandem.
What might be termed “malevolent immigration” differs between the US and the UK. For America, the primary physical danger is Latino gangs and the cartels, in the UK it is Islam. The logistics of housing ever-more Muslim immigrants means that, along with the lack of employable skill-sets and low social capital the UK is importing, Muslim immigrants also bring their sectarian differences with them. Finding yet another hotel for 200 ungrateful migrants is difficult enough, but further complicated if 100 of them are Sunni and 100 Shia. And so, the British people have internecine tribal squabbles to look forward to in their city centers as well as the more general threat to their security and that of their children. Diversity is not seen as “our strength” in Arabic countries. And, day by day, the numbers increase.
There are approximately 110,000 British soldiers barracked in the UK. In the year ending September 2024, almost 100,000 immigrants claimed asylum, and there are several times that figure in the country, many unaccounted for, many anonymous and unverifiable. One of the most popular phrases used to describe the new arrivals is “fighting-age men”. How many standing armies comparable to the British Army have already been assembled? And when might they be mobilized?
The final, intolerable stepping on of English feet may be foreseen in Germany’s recent atrocity in Magdeburg, in which a Saudi immigrant mowed down pedestrians at a Christmas market. At the time of writing, five victims are dead and a further 200 injured, many seriously. It is a complicated case — Taleb A is “far right” only in that he doesn’t like Muslim religiosity but his beef was with Germany because they didn’t allow enough people like him to immigrate. Many Germans have taken to the streets to voice their displeasure. Should such an event occur in England — surely an inevitability — the English may feel that their feet have been stepped on for the third and final time.
Indeed, a similar event happened in London on Christmas day, although the police assure us that it was an isolated incident and not terror-related. It will interesting find out his background—if the police are kind enough to release the details.
Regarding Taleb A.:
He was critical of German authorities, saying they had failed to do enough to combat the “Islamism of Europe.” He has also voiced support for the far-right and anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party [then why kill German Christians].
Some described Taleb as an activist who helped Saudi women flee their homeland. Recently, he seemed focused on his theory that German authorities have been targeting Saudi asylum seekers.
“To the AfD, I can only say: Any attempt to exploit such a terrible act and to abuse the suffering of the victims is despicable,” the Social Democrat (SPD) politician told the newspapers of the Funke Media Group in comments published on Wednesday.
She added, “It only shows the character of those who do such things.”
Following the attack on the Magdeburg Christmas market last Friday, the AfD held a rally in the city on Monday, which, according to police reports, was attended by around 3,500 people.
AfD chairwoman Alice Weidel, referring to the perpetrator identified as Taleb A, said that anyone who despises the citizens of the country that grants them asylum “does not belong with us.” During the event, chants of “Deport! Deport! Deport!” were repeatedly heard.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Mark Gullickhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngMark Gullick2024-12-26 08:02:142024-12-26 08:02:14Immigration as provocation
These latest shocking immigration figures (see the Daily Telegraph report below) and the huge cost burden on Britain’s economy, built up after 14 years of Conservative Party rule.
The pro-Tory Party media assert “It might have been even worse had Labour been in power for the past 14 years”. But that is speculation. The fact is that it built up to current levels under a succession of Conservative Party governments.
Boris Johnson must take especial blame. Apart from not seriously attempting to “get Brexit done” as he promised — he was so inactive on that front that he actually frustrated “a real Brexit”. He also ignored increasing immigration levels in order to please the Tories’ business backers who wanted, as ever, a constant supply of cheap labour.
Johnson still poses as a right-wing patriot, but in messages to London’s Jewish community in 2008, when standing for the leadership of the Greater London Council, he regaled them with details of his Turkish-Jewish ancestry and his ardent support for Jewry.
The by now traditional Conservative Party policy of betraying the British people over immigration was put into overdrive by Johnson’s successor, Rishi Sunak. He had made himself a billionaire as an executive of the Wall Street-based Jewish international usurers Goldman Sachs and is from an Indian-Hindu immigrant family. How could we expect a man with Sunak’s background to bear down on coloured immigration?
Out of office since last July, the Tories have recently elected an Afro-Nigerian woman, Kemi Badenoch — also big on anti-immigration promises — to lead them. In my first draft of this article I confused Badenoch with one of her competitors for the Tory leadership, the Asian Suella Braverman.
In a sense, my error made a point: The Conservatives are now so politically bankrupt and devoid of talent that in their recent leadership election they presented the membership with a choice between:
A Nigerian-African woman (Badenoch) whose husband is a Western Isles Scot;
An Asian woman (Braverman) whose husband, Rael Braverman, is a Jew. In a 2023 interview given in the HQ of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST), Suella described her husband as “a proud Jew and Zionist”.
An apparently ethnically-British man, Robert Jenrick, who married an Israeli Jewess and whose children are being brought up as Jews. (This compares exactly with Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s marital arrangements); and
Tom Tugendhat, whose self-description is quoted in the left-leaning Wikipedia: “… a Catholic who identifies with Jewish people”. “Identifies”? What does that mean, exactly? His paternal grandfather was an Austrian Jewish émigré from Vienna, who converted to Catholicism — by no means the first Jew to do that, a fact which prompted the Roman Catholic Church in medieval times to create ‘The Holy Inquisition’, but I digress…
What a bunch!
This array of candidates perhaps explains a fact revealed in The Guardian’s 2nd November report of the Tory leadership election:
The contest revealed Conservative party membership appears to have fallen by almost a quarter over the past two years with the 95,000 people who voted in this year’s contest a record low.
The Tories have lied about immigration since 1950s
The Conservatives have been lying to the indigenous British people about “restricting” immigration since the days of the last Winston Churchill-led administration in the 1950s. By deploying a mixture of intimidation and bribery, that last Churchill government frustrated an effort by Sir Cyril Osborne MP to get the issue of coloured immigration debated in the House of Commons.
For full details of how they did that, see the last chapter of historian Andrew Roberts’ 1994 book Eminent Churchillians. The chapter includes the memorable sentence:
… and so the greatest demographic change in theentire history of the British nation was achievedwithout any democratic ratification whatever …
I should add that Roberts — now ‘Lord’ Roberts — now wishes he had never written that book, as he has become a professional Jews’ lick-spittle and Tory Party toady.
Decades ago Roberts was ‘right wing’ enough to entertain Ian Smith, then Prime Minister of Rhodesia, to dinners at his posh Chelsea home on occasions when Smith was in London to negotiate with the British government over Rhodesia’s “Unilateral Declaration of Independence”. Smith’s government had declared its ‘UDI’ in order to escape the catastrophe of Black majority rule inflicted on South Africa.
Roberts has appeared at the Hoover Institution with like-minded other holders of the ‘Order of the Brown Nose’ such as British historian Niall Ferguson, whose internationalist credentials include a Black/Asian wife.
Lord Andrew Roberts
Niall Ferguson
From the end of World War II neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party has ever put into any of their general election manifestos a policy of turning Britain into a multi-racial society. So the British electorate has never been allowed to grant or deny a mandate for such a development. Thus the multi-racial horror that has been imposed on us has no democratic legitimacy. Moreover, laws were enacted to try and prohibit and criminalise trenchant criticism of multi-racialism.
What is democratic about any of that?
Allison Pearson and the ‘Knock-on-the-Door’
It is as a result of the attempt to criminalise “Racist Thought Crime” initiated by the Race Relations Act that the Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson got a ‘Knock on the Door’ from two members of Essex Police last Remembrance Sunday asking her to accompany them to the local Police Station.
The cops wanted her to make a statement concerning a Tweet she had posted a year ago on X which might have been a “Non-Crime Hate Incident”, or might even have been a full-blown act “… intended or likely to incite racial hatred, contrary to the Public Order Act as amended by the Race Relations Act…” — an ‘offence’ for which I was convicted on two counts and sentenced to six months in jail (suspended) by Mr Justice Figgis at Kingston Crown Court in 1978.
In her voluminous, self-congratulatory, writings about the incident, Ms Pearson does not indicate she has any awareness that the ‘Knock on the Door’ to which she was subjected was the inevitable (indeed, the “intended”) outcome of the thinking behind The Race Relations Act; or any idea that the Race Relations Act was:
a proposal circulated as a booklet during the 1950s under the title The Group Libel Bill by the Board of Deputies of British Jews; and then
developed by a team of Jewish lawyers into the first version of The Race Relations Act; and that
all subsequent amendments to that Act have all been drafted by Jewish lawyers with connections to the Board of Deputies.
Why, you may ask, are all these Jewish-connected matters so relevant to Ms Pearson?
This apparent ignorance of, or shyness about, the Jewish origins of the ‘Police State’ oppression about which Ms Pearson so rightly complains, is strange bearing in mind her close association with the Jewish community, as this item reveals:
National Jewish Assembly – Thursday 7th November 2024:
Allison Pearson tells National Jewish Assemblythat the Jewish community is not alone
200 people attended a Zoom event organised by the National Jewish Assembly (NJA) on the subject of the October Declaration and the formation, last month, of British Friends of Israel. The guest speaker was Allison Pearson, the well-known Daily Telegraph journalist who was one of its founders.
…[snip]…
When on 20th April 1968 Enoch Powell MP spoke up for the British people about immigration, the then Conservative leader Edward Heath sacked him from all his party posts and set about trying to get him de-selected from his Wolverhampton constituency. Eventually, Powell had to decamp to Northern Ireland to secure a Unionist-voting constituency to retain a place in the House of Commons.
Yet in the 1970 general election, when Heath became Prime Minister, the Conservative Party’s manifesto included six categorical promises to restrict immigration and regulate the settlement of those allowed to enter. Among these were that immigrants “would not automatically be granted permanent right of settlement” and would not be allowed to settle in places already over-burdened with immigrants.
Not the slightest attempt was made to implement any of those six promises — but then Heath was a notorious liar. How can we forget his assertion that “Membership of the European Common Market does not involve Britain in any loss of essential national sovereignty”! What is “non-essential national sovereignty”?
I should add that Powell helped me in May 1973 when I stood as the National Front candidate in a by-election for the West Bromwich constituency, achieving 16.02 per cent of the poll — the first time, before or after World War II, that a racial-nationalist candidate ‘saved a deposit’ in a UK Parliamentary election, which was then set at 12.5 per cent (nowadays it’s 5 per cent). Powell publicly refused an invitation to speak at a meeting held in support of the Conservative Party candidate who, like me, was beaten by the Labour Party candidate.
Thatcher’s “sympathy” for those who feared Britain was being “swamped”
In the run-up to the 1979 general election the Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher MP declared on TV how much she “sympathised with those who feared that Britain was being swamped by immigration”, thereby implying that if elected, she would take action to allay those fears. It was by that trick that she drew to the Conservative Party votes which might otherwise have gone to the National Front which had 303 candidates standing in that election.
Only seven weeks after the Conservatives’ election victory Mrs Thatcher allowed thousands of Vietnamese “refugees” to flood into Britain. So the first of the “boat people” arrived on Britain’s shores in 1979, not decades later, as many people imagine.
Thatcher justified this betrayal on the grounds that the Vietnamese were “entrepreneurs”. She was a one for cupboards full of cash!
On arrival, many of these Vietnamese did indeed turn to money-making enterprises: most notably — as numerous court reports bear witness — the factory-scale production of illegal drugs such as cannabis. They accelerated the growth of cannabis plants by using powerful lighting systems illegally linked to other peoples’ electric power supply! Very “entrepreneurial”!
Thatcher’s betrayal was perpetrated on the advice of civil servant Neville Nagler, head the Home Office department which advised the government on race relations matters. On his retirement Nagler became the CEO of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
The British people must never again trust the Conservative Party on the issue of immigration. This is not a plea to support the Labour Party or the Liberal-Democratic Party. Far from it. All of these Establishment parties have conspired together, along with the mainstream media, international big business and sundry Socialist, Communist and Trotskyite parties, to convert our country into a multi-racial dump.
This is being done to Britain and other White-European nations not just to give international big business termite-style raceless, nationless cultureless colonies to exploit, but to achieve by means of race-mixing and miscegenation the elimination of White-European people as an ethnic group on this planet.
The big secret behind all this is that there is another ethnic group which sees itself as the rightful — indeed, the God-appointed “Chosen People” — to rule the world. They see White-European people as a threat to their destiny. Race-mixing — for all others, but not for themselves! — is their weapon of their choice.
A new and radical approach to reversing the treason and subversion that has been foisted on the indigenous British people — and White people generally — must be commenced, and very soon.
The questions arise: Does a vehicle exist to achieve that purpose?
If not, how can it be constructed? What methods should it employ?
Net migration hit a record high of nearly one million last year, 170,000 more than previously thought, updated estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) have revealed.
Net migration – the number of people entering the UK minus those leaving – reached 906,000 in the year ending June 2023, according to the ONS, which has revised the figure up from a previous estimate of 740,000.
However, the data show net migration is falling and is down by 20 per cent to 728,000 for the year ending June 2024, the most recent figures show.
The decline covers the year before the election when the Tories cracked down on migration, with measures including bans on foreign workers and students bringing dependents, increases in the skilled worker salary threshold from £26,200 to £38,700 and curbing shortage occupation visa schemes.
The ONS said the total for the year to June 2023 had been revised upwards by 166,000 from the initial estimate of 740,000 because of more data becoming available.
It reported that better analysis of the number of refugees from Ukraine and improved information on the migration behaviour of people arriving from outside the EU had also impacted estimates.
‘Beginning to fall’
A similar change has been made by the Office of National Statistics to the figure for net migration in the year to December 2023, which was initially said to be 685,000, but is now thought to be 866,000 – an increase of 181,000.
The ONS said that while remaining high by “historic standards”, net migration is now “beginning to fall” in the wake of the measures introduced at the beginning of this year.
Non-EU nationals accounted for 86 per cent – just over 1 million – of the 1.2 million people who entered the country in the year to June 2024. EU nationals made up 10 per cent or 116,000, and returning Britons accounted for 5 per cent.
Of the 479,000 people who left the UK in the year ending June 2024, around 44 per cent – 211,000 – were EU nationals and 39 per cent or 189,000 were from non-EU countries. Some 16 per cent, or 79,000 were Britons.
Meanwhile, separate Home Office figures showed government spending on asylum in the UK stood at a record £5.38 billion in 2023/24, up 36 per cent from £3.95 billion in 2022/23.
Braverman: We need radical change
Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, said:
“A 20 per cent drop in immigration since June 2023 is a result of the changes I fought for and introduced in May 2023 as home secretary.
“That’s when we started to turn the tide. But 1.2 million arrivals a year is still too high. This is unsustainable and why we need radical change.”
Alp Mehmet, the chairman of MigrationWatch UK, said:
“Net migration of 728,000, while lower than it was in 2023, is still far too high and unsustainable. Moreover, the modest fall has little to do with anything that Sir Keir Starmer and his Home Secretary have done.
“It is now essential that net migration is quickly reduced as close as possible to zero, if we are to avoid further tensions in the housing sector, the NHS and other services already in crisis.
“Meanwhile, the changing nature of society that inevitably follows rapid mass immigration will put the cohesion we have long enjoyed at ever greater risk.”
Martin Webster is a long-time British patriot and activist who aims to preserve the traditional White British people.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Martin Websterhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngMartin Webster2024-12-08 07:35:392024-12-08 07:56:52After all those promises, the fruit of 14 years of Conservative Party rule: Immigration has hit an all-time high
Albion is a poetic name for Britain. I think it sounds better on the tongue and sits better in the mind. Why does it sit better? Because it’s related to the Latin word albus, meaning “white,” and refers to the White Cliffs of Dover. Albion therefore means the White Land. And you can read that in two senses: as referring both to the White Cliffs that guard Britain and to the White folk who built Britain.
Entrance to Albion: The White Cliffs of Dover (image from Wikipedia)
So the name Albion is poetically perfect. It sonorously proclaims that Britain is either White or nothing. The corrupt and malevolent elite that currently rules Britain have opted for the latter. They want Britain to be nothing, which is why they have unleashed a flood of mud on Albion. Mud is brown or black, not white. Mud clogs and chokes, smothering life and wrecking machinery. That’s why “flood of mud” is a perfect metaphor for the Brown and Black folk who are pouring across Britain’s borders and abolishing Albion. If the flood isn’t stopped and reversed, Britain will become Mudzone, not Albion. And the same will apply across the West. America and France, Germany and Italy, will become crime-and-corruption-crippled Mudzones, not peaceful, prosperous and productive White nations.
Working for Mudzone
But why is this happening? Like Albion, all the other countries I’ve mentioned are supposed to be democracies governed by the will of the people. Decade after decade, the people have willed that Third-World immigration end and even be reversed. But the politicians who are supposed to enact the will of the people have ignored them and the flood of mud has not merely continued but massively increased. One of those politicians has openly boasted of his betrayal. In 2013, Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, asked this question in the Guardian: “Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants?”
His answer was an emphatic “No.” What “most of the country” wanted, traitorous politicians like Hattersley refused to supply. As he boasted in a later article: “For most of my 33 years in [parliament], I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”
“Above all people on earth”
By mainstream standards, Hattersley was a staunch democrat in the Labour Party. Yet he spent all his time in politics ignoring the will of the people and attacking the interests of the working-class. However, his behavior wasn’t as Orwellian as it might appear. Yes, the Labour Party is now really the Big-Business Party, but Hattersley is in fact a genuine democrat, someone who believes wholeheartedly in the kratia of the demos, the rule of the people. It’s just that the people in question aren’t the White natives of Britain. No, they’re the people described in this famous verse of the Bible:
For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)
The Chosen People are of course the Jews. It is not a coincidence that Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife just like Keir Starmer, the current Labour prime minister. In Greek, “chosen people” can be translated as ἐκλεκτός δῆμος, elektos dēmos. In the modern West, democracy is really eclectocracy, rule of the Chosen People. That’s why the so-called Conservative Party in Britain promised voters again and again to reduce migration, but raised migration to unprecedented heights. And so Rajeev Syal, the so-called “home affairs editor” of the Guardian, has just reported that “Net migration to the UK hit a record high in 2023 of 906,000 in a period covering Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s premierships, revised estimates show.”
Meet Grandfather Sholem
The part-Jewish Boris Johnson and the fully Indian Rishi Sunak were eclectocrats, not democrats. They enacted the will of the Chosen People, not the will of the people. And if you want to know the will of the Chosen People, just read a fascinating article in the Jewish Chronicle from January 2020. The title of the article was “Jewniversity: Sarah Fine” and the subheading ran like this: “Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity.” Can you guess Sarah Fine’s line on “national identity”? Of course you can. She wants to destroy the national identity of Britain and turn Albion into a Mudzone. As you read David Edmonds’ summary of her ideas, remember that the Talmudic re-definition and inversion are meant strictly for Britain and other White nations. They emphatically do not apply to Jewish Israel:
I usually ask the subjects of this column — “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response. But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.
Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved [to this] country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?
To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely? Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.
On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.
But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?
But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.
Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.
Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?
Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.
She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (“Jewniversity: Sarah Fine,” The Jewish Chronicle, 2nd January 2020)
The Israeli Likud party boasts about excluding strangers with the “Israel-Egypt Fence” (note that Hebrew adverts are read from right to left)
Ah yes, that famous xenophilia from the Jewish Bible or Torah, which Jews so often trot out to explain their enthusiasm for open borders. But this enthusiasm is strangely selective. As I described in “Trashing the Torah,” it doesn’t exist in Israel, which rigorously excludes “the stranger” with high-tech fences. And Israel is currently oppressing millions of “strangers” in Gaza with high explosive and high-velocity bullets. Consider some hypothetical goyim who want to move to Israel. Is protecting the Israeli way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Iqbal’s and grandfather Mbongo’s desire to move there?
Israel showing compassion for the stranger: bomb-devastation in Gaza City, 2023 (image from Wikipedia)
Of course it does! The non-White migration that’s mandatory for Britain is forbidden in Israel. But that apparent double standard is really a single standard of “What’s best for Jews?” Sarah Fine is “culturally Jewish” but retains the arrogance and ethnocentrism of the religiously Jewish idea that Jews are the Chosen People, “above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” The Jew David Edmonds obviously shares her arrogance and ethnocentrism. In summarizing Fine’s work, he talks about “democracy” and the right of the demos in Britain to control migration.
He then asks us to consider a hypothetical Jew in Eastern Europe: “[I]s it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.” Well, yes, by any sane and natural standard, it is obvious that “the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored.” As his very name proclaims, he isn’t British. He’s a foreigner, born and bred in a foreign country, speaking a foreign language and following a foreign religion and culture. The voice of “grandfather Sholem” has absolutely no right to be heard in Britain. Not by any sane and natural standard. Sholem’s interests are not the same as a native Brit, as is obvious from reading Fine and Edmonds.
Jews judge, goyim grovel
But the Jews Sarah Fine and David Edmonds aren’t applying sane and natural standards. They don’t merely want the voice of grandfather Sholem to be “heard” in Britain. They want it to prevail over the voices of the White British. As Edmonds asks: “[I]s protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?” His answer for Britain is no, it doesn’t: if grandfather Sholem wants to move here, he must be allowed to do so. In other words, the White British have no right to exclude anyone from anywhere on earth from entering Britain.
All that matters is a stranger’s “desire to move here.” Whether it’s grandfather Sholem or grandfather Iqbal or grandfather Mbongo, the White British have no right to keep anyone out. That’s what Jews think. And because Jews control politics in Britain, that’s why Albion is being flooded with mud. The current Labour prime minister, Keir Starmer, is married to a Jew. His party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. The current Conservative leader is Kemi Badenoch, a Nigerian who performed the goy-grovel at Yad Vashem, the central shrine of Holocaustianity. Like Starmer’s Labour, her party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. In the modern West, democracy means eclectocracy, rule by the Chosen People.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Tobias Langdonhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTobias Langdon2024-12-02 06:33:412024-12-03 02:11:39Abolishing Albion: How True Democracy Mandates a Flood of Mud for Britain
On June 1, 1381, thousands of English rural laborers descended on the capital of London, the first martial event in what would come to be known as the Peasants Revolt. Over 650 years later, a somewhat less bloody rebellion showed itself in the same city, these latter-day peasants facing similar fiscal provocation to their 14th-century forerunners. Tens of thousands of small farmers descended on London to protest the latest in a series of government policies seemingly designed to destroy the farming industry in Britain, at least in its current form.
The rally was at Westminster, home of government, mother of all parliaments. It was snowing, which would have depleted attendance had this been a pro-Palestine march, but these people are farmers. Being outside in bad weather is what they do. Their plight has attracted a well-known celebrity to their cause — a modern sine qua non for the protesting classes — in Jeremy Clarkson, for many years the presenter of a hugely popular TV motoring show, Top Gear. Clarkson himself bought a farm, and although he acknowledges his relative financial independence compared with the average farmer, he is popular, articulate and conservative. There is a very English rebellion afoot.
As with the Peasants Revolt, the farmers are rebelling over taxation. But whereas Richard II was trying to raise money to fight France, Sir Keir Starmer wishes to wage war on his own people, the people he was elected to serve less than five months ago (albeit it with only 20% of the electorate voting for his party). The PM’s method of raising the royal revenue is much the same as Richard’s but, not having any serfs to subjugate, he is sending his tax-gatherers after the small farmer. Well, at least he will avoid the Hitler comparisons that bedevil President-elect Donald Trump. Even Hitler looked after the small farmer.
In its recent budget, the government announced that a 20 percent inheritance tax would be levied on all UK farm property worth over £1m, as of April 1, 2026. Those incurring the tax would have a decade to pay it off. Now, a million is chump change in most sectors of the UK property market, but in terms of farm land it will hit two-thirds of the total of the roughly 209,000 British farms, and it won’t be the quaint old farmhouse that pushes up the value of the property. The average UK farm is worth a little over £2m, and farm land is a treasure trove to property developers, who are financially equipped to market aggressively. Farms which have been in families for generations will now be left financially underwater, and therefore easy and rich pickings for hawkish developers.
A case can be made that farming hasn’t changed essentially since British land workers operated under the feudal system at the time of the Peasants Revolt. But while the methods of this primary, extractive industry have remained largely unchanged, the land farmed has not. “Buy land”, suggested Mark Twain. “They’ve stopped making it”. Indeed, but they haven’t stopped ascribing value to it, value which may and does change over time. To a farmer, a hundred acres is his equivalent of the fixed plant of a factory. He grows crops on the land and he sells what the cattle don’t eat. That’s farming, it’s what the land is for. But for the property consortiums even now roaming the length and breadth of the land, assessing and auditing and circling round farmsteads like vultures, a hundred acres is a big block of flats and a supermarket.
Farm land in the UK has proved a good, stable investment in the past 20 years. In 2004, it was worth £3,000 per acre, rising to £7,000 in 2014 to £9-10,000 today. But that is its value as farm land. Business consortiums will have long been planning a land-grab of British farms, with the full backing of government, and they will be in a financial position to operate outside market parameters and make a lot of farmers an offer they can’t refuse. This is a government-assisted buyers’ market for the new land barons as they buy out what remains of the old ones.
In fact, this whole legislative instrument is designed to impact farmers’ finances negatively. Supposing 10% of small farmers decide to sell up in the wake of the new tax, a scenario quite possible and even probable. Not only does the value of farm land drop concomitantly in a saturated market, but even the price of plant and other chattel assets would drop, as one in ten small British farmers all try to sell their tractors at once. A tractor costs around a quarter of a million pounds, a combine-harvester half a million. This is not selling off the office furniture in a fire sale.
It should not be suggested, however, that the current British government has no money available to invest in farming, or that it is failing to invest that money. Why, it has just signed off £536m as an aid package to help farmers grow food for consumption in the UK. It’s just that the farms happen to be in Africa, Asia, and South America, including recipients in Brazil, the world’s eleventh richest country. Some of the money is said to be going towards “carbon capture” farming, so the dispossessed, last generation of farmers in the UK have got that going for them.
The satirical image the British have of farmers is rooted in a past of class war, when the landed gentry had money. But the upper-middle class, gentleman farmer, in his new Range Rover and expensive Barbour jacket, doesn’t really exist outside of situation comedy. Farming is as tough and visceral as it ever was, and as for wealth creation, that is not what farming seems to most UK farmers. It is estimated that small farms make 1–2% of their value annually as profit, and the average farmer earns a shade under £40,000, around £5,000 more than the national average. Given the variables factored into farming, that is not much of a slush fund should one become necessary. Nor is it much of a financial reward, despite the vestigial, reflex class response of the metropolitan Leftist elite who run contemporary British politics and its provisional wing in the media.
The Left are acting as contrarily as ever over the farmers’ plight. Where once the media and the Party would have got behind the working man as a default position, the temperament of the Labour Left has changed in recent decades, led as this revolution was by the Blair government. Farmers now are subsumed under the category “white working class”, and so despised on two fronts by Labour. They are also an easy target as they represent White industrial secession. You just don’t get Black or Muslim farmers, so there is no problem with the ethnics as far as Labour and their acolytes are concerned. If there were Black or Muslim tillers of the soil in significant numbers, farming would be the best protected, most lavishly funded industry in Great Britain.
This synchronizes, as ever, with the response of the media complex. Ex-Labour spin-doctor John McTernan, a man who made a living under Tony Blair altering and manipulating facts and figures to make them fit for consumption by the public, gives a flavor of the metropolitan attitude to the plight of the farmers. He suggested Starmer do to the farmers what Thatcher did to the miners (Starmer disowned him, but that means nothing). That is, in the popular mind, decimate the industry and force men out of the pit, perhaps getting your enforcers to rough them up a bit while you’re there. He suggests that farming is an industry we can do without, but that’s not what he means. He means it’s an industry in the wrong hands.
Whose hands would be the right ones, for our globalist overlords? Veteran maverick politician George Galloway was one of many emphatically not on the political Right to suggest that the UK is due to be sold off to BlackRock, Bill Gates, and other financial super-predators. Gates has bought up a lot of American land, and allegedly has land here in Costa Rica. As Kissinger said, control the food, control the people. And if Britain really is on the market, then the British Left thoroughly approve.
Veteran Left-wing journalist Will Hutton, writing inevitably in The Guardian, does not see farmers as the stewards of the countryside they so clearly are, but is of the opinion that they “have hoarded land for too long”, as though small farmers were sick old misers gloating over a casket of jewels. In fact, farmers are fighting so that they can pass on the land, and its stewardship, to a new generation — the very opposite of miserliness. There is more than a whiff of revenge for the Brexit vote from the Left, as farmers are widely perceived to have typically voted to leave the EU.
This attack on farmers also dovetails neatly with a wider assault on the British countryside. For the past few years, regular pieces have appeared in the mainstream press claiming that “the countryside is racist”. A new piece of spurious research will show that Blacks and Muslims are under-represented o’er hill and dale, the courtier press will dutifully report it, and debates will creak into action on chat shows once again. It’s the familiar, gormless, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy it always is, they even have their own warped syllogism:
A sector of society without a sufficient number of Black people is therefore racist.
The countryside does not feature a sufficient number of Black people.
Therefore, the countryside is racist.
I discount the fact that, for the vast majority of White folk enjoying the countryside, the absence of Blacks is a much-desired feature, not a glitch. The “racist countryside” trope reveals two key aspects, two ascriptions, which feature in all these faux-exclusionist charades. Firstly, Whites are always and already guilty of this bucolic apartheid. Secondly, the absence of Blacks in the countryside can only be because of racism, and not due to the moral agency, or decision-making abilities, of Blacks. Liberals do not believe in such things. In the parched and perverted landscape of the Leftist mindset, that is the sole reason there are almost no Black farmers. It is not that Blacks are culturally unsuited to farming due to their hunter-gatherer genetic predisposition, or even that they choose not to pursue that career path. It is because Britain is irredeemably racist. It is irredeemably racist, as a matter of fact, just not in the way the Leftist believes. Anti-Whiteness is at the core of the Labour strategy to defarm Britain.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, is, we are constantly reminded, the first woman to hold the post. She is also alleged to have falsified her CV to get on in her chosen career, claiming that she was an economist for a major bank during a period when she was actually a teller for a lesser banking concern. This kind if deception is, it seems, an entry-level requirement for today’s political class. On the subject of inheritance tax and farms, however, she treated the viewing public to a rare and candid event. This took the form of an explanation, on camera, by a British Chancellor, of exactly why a new tax is being levied, and what will happen to the tax weal generated. The money raised from the farmers, Reeves said, as though explaining arithmetic to the problem child in a fourth-grade class, will be used to help pay for the NHS. The implication here is that farmers should be grateful for “free” healthcare, and should be made to pay for it, despite the fact that everyone already pours income tax into this fiscal black hole, farmers included.
Calculators flickered across the internet, and it was soon established that the likely revenue from inheritance tax on farms, expressed annually, would pay for 25 hours of NHS provision. The farming industry is dealt a blow that might finish it, but at least we get a day’s worth of paying diversity officers.
And what would be the ultimate fate of the land? Is it simply required for housing, with some estimating that the country needs to build a house every two minutes just to keep pace with rising demand? What else could it be used for? There are rumors. In fact, the political scene in the UK at present is positively Elizabethan — the first Elizabeth, not her recently departed successor — and the court, as they say, is awash with rumor. And the loudest whisper is that of “new towns”. These were first tried in the 1960s and 70s as a way of rationalizing the overspill from the cities, a never-expanding suburbia that was packaged rather than allowed to sprawl. But these new towns were for the White, indigenous citizens of the UK — that was an unspoken guarantee. This was long before the present day, in which everything down to and including urban planning is geared to operate in opposition to the wants and needs of native Whites. If one rumor in particular is anywhere near the truth, that farm land is required for building new estates for immigrants, then the UK’s cold civil war may be about to turn hot.
This Labour Party is governing like it’s the 1970s. They don’t grasp that if the government makes announcements that are gross distortions of reality, it no longer takes a couple of intrepid gumshoe reporters burning the midnight oil to expose it six months later. The real facts and figures will be all over YouTube by noon, and this is the main reason Labour is going after big tech. Thus, when Reeves dismissed the inheritance tax as affecting only about 500 farms — and implying that these would be the richest holdings — it didn’t take long before the actual figures of farms affected was going viral. The truth is that roughly two-thirds of Britain’s farms will be crippled by this new tax, brought in just when arable food supply chains have been so adversely affected by the Russian incursion into Ukraine. Does Starmer think he can get away with this, considering he has already risked the nation’s ire by removing winter heating payments from the elderly? Yes, he does, and for a simple reason.
This has all the makings of a one-term administration. The question is simple; is it intended that way as just another globalist chess move? Tory politician Rab Butler famously said that a week is a long time in politics, but in four years and with a comfortable bilateral mandate, Labour can achieve a great deal more ruinous policy before the next general election, which might be a perfect one to lose, particularly for Starmer. The Labour Party can be real wreckers, not the ones invented by Stalin. Then they can all just walk away and write their memoirs.
Sir Keir Starmer has been compared to Stalin for reasons other than the mere similarity of their names. “Stalin” means “man of steel”, but it is difficult to see just which alloy Starmer is formed of. On the level of personality, the British PM’s lack of any discernible charisma whatsoever is fascinating in itself. There is something subtly sinister about a man who, when asked what his favorite book or poem was, looks surprised at the question and says he has neither. He answers questions as though quoting from old NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) text-books. This is Tourette’s Syndrome as government policy.
But the British farmers are not kulaks, at least not yet, and the Peasant’s Revolt 2.0 involves polling rather than pitchforks. The popularity of both the Labour Party in power and Sir Keir Starmer personally have plummeted to record depths. On November 23, a petition was started on the official UK Government website asking for a second General Election. These petitions are theoretically considered for debate in the House of Commons if they reach 100,000 signatories, although this rarely if ever happens. It is a sort of virtual democracy, like a video game rather than the real thing, there but not there, like an online Speaker’s Corner where you can get it all off your chest but affect nothing. 24 hours later, the number of signatures approached a million, and after 48 hours it had passed the two million mark and is still rising at the time of writing. This may not be the men of Kent storming the City of London in 1381 and putting heads on pikes, but these exercises are a good litmus test of national sentiment, and if the polls and the punditry continue to pile up against Starmer and his fragile-looking government, they may wake up to find, once again, that the peasants are revolting.
There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society—not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard.
The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s
After its first five years in operation, the British Broadcasting Company became the wholly state-controlled British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927. John Reith, the first chief executive, wrote in 1924 of his “high conception of the inherent possibilities of the service” and later asserted that “‘the brute force of monopoly’ was a necessity in British broadcasting.”1 As a preponderance of politicians and civil servants as well as the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association agreed, the grant of the BBC’s first Royal Charter in 1927 and Reith’s ascent to the position of Director-General were virtually unchallenged. The brute force would fare better than the higher conception.
The Company, originally a cartel of radio set manufacturers, had been lucrative for its directors, but the Post Office had sanctioned their privileges for questionable reasons, and after the agreed period of royalties and having established the state enforcement of the licence fee, and under a government less obliging to Marconi and GEC, the Company was reformed into a ‘public corporation’. Reith himself was the leading advocate of the novel concept which, as with David Sarnoff and RCA in the USA, happened to provide him with a personal fief of immense influence. Reith’s “higher conception” consisted in a belief in “democratic aim, not in democratic method”, not aiming to give the public what they wanted, and still less any choice, but rather what he thought best for them.2 The BBC licence fee, originally a device to compel listeners to deliver royalties to the manufacturers’ cartel, served after the BBC’s incorporation to compel them to fund the state broadcaster while all other would-be broadcasters were prohibited.
The Public Corporation
The BBC’s official history describes Reith as desiring an organisation “independent” of the market and of governments.3 This has only ever been the case in the formal sense that the corporation depends directly on the crown instead, but the powers of the crown have for centuries been exercised by the government anyway. As Tom Mills describes, “renewals of the Royal Charter, as well as the appointment of BBC governors and trustees, have formally been made by an Order of the Privy Council” using “the residential powers of the absolutist state which have never been subject to democratic controls” and which are, “in essence, absolutist decrees of the central government, signed-off by the monarch of the day.”4 The government also grants the corporation its licence fee increases.5 The BBC could be deprived of funding or closed by any government that wished to do so, but none ever has; the idea of public corporations was initially embraced by leftists, but the Conservative Party exists to consolidate the gains of their faux-opponents.6
Reith’s BBC consciously strove to present itself as a kind of conglomerated person with whom the public would identify and whom they would trust. In Asa Briggs’ words, early BBC staff wanted “to ensure that people felt—without thinking—that the BBC was theirs.”7 Announcers were soon, by some listeners, “thought of as the BBC, for it was they who mediated between the listeners and the programmes.”8 Announcers were deemed the best placed of all BBC employees “to build up in the public mind a sense of the BBC’s collective personality.” They would represent “[t]he BBC itself” and its own “policy and ideals”.9 An article in the Spectator in 1936 said that “The BBC has a personality of its own, pervasive and unmistakable, and it affects its reactions to public events, to education, to entertainment, and to the arts: it is the foundation of its policy.”10 The Corporation was and is, as with any media organisation, unavoidably biased in whom it recruits, what its editors select to report and omit and how it allocates programme time. However, it developed the ability to appear objective to many viewers while expressing approval or disapproval by the variation of announcers’, presenters’ and newsreaders’ tones of voice and, in documentaries, the use of background music and lighting.11 The more trusting or unthinking elements of the public are subliminally persuaded by such methods.
Reith was chosen by the BBC’s first board of directors, but as they receded in importance, he grew, and standard histories of the corporation speak of ‘Reithianism’ as its founding ideology. This blurs the reality, but Reith was certainly a formative factor. He was a Presbyterian who served in and supported the Great War.12 His diary and memoirs show that he opposed unionisation at the BBC and in his previous job, had “no particular feelings about Communism”, privately sympathised with Adolf Hitler at times and made occasional favourable remarks about Benito Mussolini. Yet in 1939 he described himself as a “Gladstonian liberal”.13 He wrote in October 1942 that Winston Churchill was a “bloody swine” and “the greatest menace we’ve ever had” with “country and Empire sacrificed to his megalomania, to his monstrous obstinacy and wrongheadedness.”14 His insistence on formality, elocution and a privileged position for Christianity are commonly said to characterise the BBC during and long after his tenure, but his own political and cultural views do not appear to have become those of the organisation.
John Reith
Crusading
Reith appears to have concerned himself primarily with broadcasting per se; he did not attempt to control all the BBC’s output or those he began to disagree with in the 1930s—people he had also hired and had come to rely upon. As Asa Briggs says, “The BBC’s philosophy owed an immense amount to one man: the BBC’s programmes were the work of many men of extremely varied experience and outlook.”15 He describes them as “men and women who ‘believed in broadcasting’ almost as a social and cultural crusade.”16 They also, more or less frankly, saw broadcasting as a means of indoctrination and intended to use it as such. As early as 1925, the leading Fabian Beatrice Webb had written that wireless had “a stupendous influence… over the lives of the people” and “might become… a terrible engine of compulsory conformity … in opinion and culture” but asserted that the BBC’s use of its influence was “eminently right”. Hilda Matheson, after six years at the Corporation, wrote in 1933 that “Broadcasting is a huge agency of standardization, the most powerful the world has ever seen.”17 Labour politician Herbert Morrison, later Home Secretary under Winston Churchill, had from the BBC’s earliest days “demanded that broadcasting … should be publicly owned and controlled.”18 In 1946, Morrison described broadcasting as “at least as powerful a vehicle of ideas as the printing press” and acknowledged that “the body which decides what goes into a broadcasting programme has an enormous power for good and evil over the minds of the nation” and averred that “that power must not fall into the wrong hands”, out of the right ones.19
After it began to be allowed to broadcast ‘controversial’ programmes from 1927 and as it became involved in education, nearly all the department heads and editors Reith’s BBC hired ensured that the political and cultural output was routinely leftist.20 An early producer of ‘controversial’ programming, Lionel Fielden, wrote that “[w]e really believed that broadcasting could revolutionize human opinion.”21 Charles Siepmann, the second Head of Talks, was in his own words “fanatically devoted”; he believed that
“broadcasting was the greatest miracle in human history… everything that any man had ever written down on paper, every note of music that had ever been composed was now universally available. This was what you might call ‘the new age of cultural communism’. And I believed that.”
Charles Siepmann
Siepmann referred to his own “progressive outlook” and “the progressive policies that both Hilda and I were pushing very hard indeed”. He lamented that Reith agonised too earnestly over balance and didn’t share Siepmann’s “very, very sensitive social conscience”. Siepmann remarked that his own “sense of balance” was “to redress the ultra-conservatism of the culture of that time… my theory of balance ‘was subversive in the sense that it was disruptive of the old Conservative clique” and the “Conservative Mind”.22
BBC Education and Talks
The BBC founded several publications, of which Radio Times continues today. Its first and formative editor from 1927 was Eric Maschwitz, son of a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, whose career, like many BBC employees, included spells in broadcasting, the movie and music industries, the intelligence services, and wartime sabotage and terrorism under the Special Operations Executive. The Listener, founded in 1929, was an “educational periodical”, a printer of BBC Talks and a vehicle for the Corporation’s ‘cultural mission’. “By 1935 its circulation had reached 52,000, more than that of the New Statesman and the Spectator combined.”23 Richard Lambert was the first editor, having previously been, with Siepmann, the BBC’s representative on the Council for Adult Education, which the BBC funded to promote socialists including G D H Cole, John Sankey, William Temple and Harold Laski.24 Lambert employed Janet Adam Smith, later of the Fabian New Statesman, and the homosexual Joe Ackerley as assistant editors; his team’s use of The Listener to promote homosexual and communist poets like Cecil Day-Lewis, Wystan Auden, John Lehmann, Stephen Spender and Herbert Read provoked complaints from readers.25 Christopher Isherwood, another favourite poet, was a close associate of the Berlin-based pro-transgender, anti-nationalist activist Magnus Hirschfeld.26
Auden, Isherwood and Spender
Talks were originally a sub-division of BBC Education (which also included religion and early news operations), but “…in January 1927 the Control Board decided that a separate “Talks Section’ should be formed, quite distinct from education, news, and religion, with Miss Matheson in charge. She remained there until January 1932, leaving a very powerful imprint on the BBC.”27 Matheson was hired personally by Reith, first as an assistant in Education, then as the first Director of Talks in 1927. The BBC’s news operations began at the same time, initially merely repeating press agency reports. According to Kate Murphy, Matheson was “part of London’s cultural and intellectual elite” and “[her] approach to Talks reflected her liberal and progressive viewpoint.”28 She was also a feminist, a lesbian and a Soviet sympathiser who used her position to promote the views of her friends, lovers and comrades, especially members of the subversive Bloomsbury group and the socialist Fabian Society.29 Lionel Fielden was her main producer, also homosexual, anti-imperial and a supporter of Mohandas Gandhi, whom he promoted on BBC radio in India.
According to Asa Briggs, “[t]he early members of the Talks Department introduced to broadcasting some of its most brilliant performers—Harold Nicolson, Vernon Bartlett, Ernest Newman, Stephen King-Hall, Raymond Gram Swing, and John Hilton.”30 Simon Potter adds that “Matheson invited influential and pugnacious figures from the world of politics to speak on air, including Winston Churchill and Harold Nicolson, as well as cultural figures like HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw.”31 John Hilton was “an ardent trade unionist” admired by communists including Guy Burgess with whom he later collaborated at the BBC; both were recruited into the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).32 Nicolson, King-Hall, Bartlett and Churchill were all vociferous proponents of an anti-German foreign policy.33 Socialists were consultants as well as guests. “‘I remember best the trinity of EM Forster, Desmond McCarthy and HG Wells,’ Lionel Fielden has written, ‘who all gave us freely of their time and wise counsels, and would sit round our gas fires at Savoy Hill, talking of the problems and possibilities of broadcasting.’” 34 Nicolson was not only a guest but the husband of Matheson’s lover, Vita Sackville-West. Beatrice and Sidney Webb were central members of the Fabian Society and apologists for the Soviet Union during its most tyrannical period. George Bernard Shaw, also a Fabian socialist and Soviet sympathiser, was a proponent of racial mixing who cursed and derided ‘anti-Semites’ with the same canards used by The Times in 1882: “Anti-Semitism is the hatred of the lazy, ignorant, fat-headed Gentile for the pertinacious Jew who, schooled by adversity to use his brains to the utmost, outdoes him in business.”35 HG Wells, another defender of the Soviets, was given BBC airtime by Matheson to advocate for a world state and the end of nations.36 Matheson’s “pugnacious figures” also included the Marxist and Zionist Harold Laski, the Soviet agent EF Wise, the ‘Red Countess’ of Warwick, the Quaker and socialist Philip Noel-Baker, Ernest Bevin, the militant feminist Viscountess Rhondda and the pro-Soviet ‘pacifist’ and Focus member Norman Angell, as well as John Maynard Keynes, Leonard Woolf, EM Forster and others of the Bloomsbury circle. William Beveridge, a Liberal by party though a Fabian socialist in deed, “gave six talks on unemployment in 1931, following on a general series on the same subject.”37
Hilda Matheson
Asa Briggs writes that “[u]nder Hilda Matheson the BBC employed speakers of every persuasion, but this did not save it from charges of ‘leftwing bias’.”38 Briggs, a pro-BBC historian, was perhaps merely re-wording Matheson’s own statement in 1933 that “[a]n impression of left-wing bias is always liable to be created by any agency which voices unfamiliar views. … It does not always follow that the ideas themselves are of the left. In practice, they usually hail from every point of the compass.”39 As Ronald Coase said in 1950, “The fact that the Corporation has been criticised by the Right and the Left hardly proves, as many of its supporters contend, that it is impartial; of itself it merely shows that the Corporation has not been consistently at one of the extremes.”40 The Corporation leaned strongly to the left as soon as it began to broadcast opinionated content and was merely occasionally told to cancel one talk or disinvite a particularly aggravating speaker. I find no record of any nationalist or fascist being invited to give talks, and there were not even many Tories. All figures ‘of the right’ invited to speak on the BBC appear to have been anti-German.41 Ian McIntyre refers to Churchill as one of the “mavericks of the right”, a true if understated description in the sense that Churchill’s affectations and associations were vaguely right-wing but his deeds and legacy were the opposite.42 Lord Lloyd, first head of the British Council, an anti-fascist cultural propaganda body spun out of the Foreign Office, who spent the latter half of the 1930s agitating for war against Germany, was regarded within the BBC as of the “extreme right”.43 The BBC ‘balanced’ anti-German Soviet sympathisers with anti-German Soviet collaborators. The war, or the wars, against Germany, both of which Lloyd and Churchill supported, did more than any other events in history to empower the left and socialism, as Neville Chamberlain had predicted and striven to avoid.
Marxists and communists
Matheson’s contumacy toward Reith, especially in regard to criticism from the Daily Mail of her promotion of her comrades, resulted in her resignation. The New Statesman predictably blamed “official and orthodox pressure” which kept out “the expression of new ideas”, though “paid a tribute to the BBC as a whole” which, after all, was still a state monopoly and thus a castle to be held.44 Matheson was succeeded as Director of Talks by another leftist, the “like-minded” Charles Siepmann, of whose spell Briggs writes that “the same charges” of left-wing bias “were frequently repeated, and the Corporation found it desirable to seek ‘rightwing speakers’ who would offset criticism.”45 The dearth of such speakers actually broadcasting suggests that the Corporation went no further than ‘finding them desirable’. Instead, the socialist JB Priestley was given space for a “personal comment”, Winston Churchill warned about the ‘threat’ of Germany, and “An excellent series called Whither Britain? … was broadcast in 1934 (with Wells, Bevin, Shaw, and Lloyd George among the speakers) and this was followed later in the year by a series on The Causes of War (with, among others, Lord Beaverbrook, Norman Angell, Major Douglas—of Social Credit fame—and Aldous Huxley).”46
Eventually Siepmann, like Matheson, was, as Kate Murphy describes, “censured for being too radical”, i.e., “transferred to the role of Director of Regional Relations” in 1935.47 Hilda Matheson objected in the Observer, seeing him as her continuation.48 In Siepmann’s new remit, the largest of the BBC’s regions was BBC North, for which the Programme Director, EAF Harding, on his appointment in 1933, had “raided the Manchester Guardian” for its journalists “and with the full co-operation of WP Crozier, the editor” had drawn upon “the services of a number of the Guardian’s leaderwriters and reporters as North Regional broadcasters.”49 The strongly left-wing Guardian is the newspaper most read at the BBC today, vastly out of proportion to its sales to the public, and the BBC long sought to recruit to the greatest extent possible from among Guardian readers. Under Siepmann, John Coatman had been “deliberately brought in” by Reith for the role of the BBC’s Chief News Editor “as ‘right wing offset’ to ‘balance’ the direction of talks and news” but “showed no sign of doing so”; Coatman “insisted on his own independence as a maker of policy”.50 Richard Maconachie, “a man of conservative views” became Head of Talks in 1936, formally senior to the Director of Talks. According to Ben Harker, “His Director of Talks, Norman Luker, was by contrast a liberal intrigued by the far left” who “was keen to create a platform for a Marxist analysis of the issue” of class and wanted to reorient talks to appeal to the same audience as the anti-fascist Picture Post, edited by Istvan Reich, a Jewish political exile from Hungary, and the Left Book Club run by the Jewish communist publisher Victor Gollancz. Luker was a long-standing friend of the Cambridge Apostle, homosexual, Soviet spy and producer at the BBC, Guy Burgess. The robustness of the “right-wing offset” was evident in the rejection of Luker’s preferred Marxist lecturer, the Cambridge communist don Maurice Dobb; instead Luker had to settle for Arthur Horner, a member of the Communist Party’s central committee and a trade unionist. Dobb had, at any rate, already appeared “periodically” on the BBC earlier in the decade. Horner, in his broadcast in November 1938,
ranged freely from Marx’s theory of class struggle as the engine of history, through to an explication of the Communist Party’s line on fascism, to a description of the Spanish Civil War as militarized class struggle, and into a justification of the Moscow Trials as revolutionary justice against counter-revolution. His talk, which was published unedited in the BBC’s in-house magazine The Listener, concluded with a familiar Popular Front appeal for what he called ‘the cultural, clerical and professional classes’ – generally the assumed audience for National Programme Talks – to come over to the working class in the struggle against capital and fascism”51
BBC North
The BBC also issued Marxist propaganda via other avenues. As Ben Harker describes, communists coveted the BBC’s “growing cultural and political influence in the 1930s” which drew upon “its increasing significance in the construction of British identity, notably in its power to fashion the national narrative.”52 Fortunately for them, when the Corporation began to establish regional divisions in 1933, BBC North, the largest, became a “cauldron of Marxist and left-wing mischief” under its first Programme Director, the avowed Marxist EAF Harding.53 The producer Olive Shapley, the folk singer AL Lloyd, the thespian and director Joan Littlewood and her husband the singer and actor Ewan McColl (born Jimmie Miller) were central figures and all were members of the Communist Party of Great Britain. According to Shapley, Harding was also a “comrade”.54 The North producer Geoffrey Bridson was merely a close friend and a sympathiser who didn’t join the party but was introduced to Harding by the Comintern propagandist Claud Cockburn, inventor of the myth of the Cliveden Set.55 Shapley, though she left the party after university (as did Guy Burgess), continued as an agent of the cause, moved to New York in 1941, and interviewed guests like the subversive Eleanor Roosevelt and the singer Paul Robeson, later winner of the Stalin Prize, for the BBC’s Children’s Hour. According to Harker, “It was Harding’s view that all radio was propaganda: broadcasts which failed to give voice to the working class silenced it, those which failed to address structural inequalities shored up the status quo.”56 Harding broadcast propaganda without subtlety. Documentaries like May Day by Bridson simply issued a communist reading of history, one which led inexorably toward The Revolution.57 The North team produced programmes about Chartism that coaxed the listener toward the same conclusion: working Britons had not yet completed their revolution. The Classic Soil, proudly memorialised by the BBC today, was an overt vindication of the 19th-century writings of Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto and Capital, read by Ernst Hoffman, an anti-fascist immigrant from Germany.58 Shapley, the producer, later described her own work as “probably the most unfair and biased programme ever put out by the BBC”.59
Olive Shapley and Eleanor Roosevelt on Children’s Hour
Soviet espionage
From its founding in 1917, the Soviet Union had engaged in ceaseless attempts to dissolve and undermine Britain and the empire, using the Comintern, espionage, front groups and the assistance of sympathisers.60 As John Costello says, referring to the late 1920s and early 1930s, “Stalin’s lust for obtaining secret intelligence endowed [the] OGPU and its “organs” with unrivaled power, and he stepped up the pressure to expand the penetration of foreign governments. The primary target was Britain—the main adversary, in Stalin’s eyes[.]”61 The OGPU was the successor of the Cheka and predecessor of the NKVD and KGB. The Soviet penetration strategy came to centre upon upper-class students at Cambridge and Oxford who were best-placed to enter the civil service; the infamous ‘Cambridge Five’ and others better concealed, were thus recruited. With some awareness of the threat, the most conservative elements at the Security Service (MI5) held meetings with the BBC in 1935 which “set in motion a system of political vetting” to cover new BBC employees which was “formalised with a written agreement in 1937.”62 The vetting was insufficient; in any case, MI5 itself had employed subversives like Hilda Matheson during the Great War and since.63 The Soviet spy Guy Burgess was appointed as a producer of BBC Talks in June 1936 and was recruited to work for MI6 during his time there.
The intelligence services contained genuine opponents of the left, but the social worlds of their agents, Foreign Office employees and other civil servants, Cambridge Apostles, overt and covert communists, the Bloomsbury group, and upper class homosexuals all appear to have blended together, as is exemplified by Burgess himself. Burgess later made Anthony Blunt, a fellow Apostle, homosexual and Soviet spy, a frequent guest on the BBC, and elevated the already-high status of the bisexual anti-fascist Harold Nicolson at the corporation. Jews were prominent in the same circles. Burgess met the philosophers AJ Ayer and Isaiah Berlin, both later to work in MI6, at a dinner party hosted by Felix Frankfurter.64 Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild, was another Apostle; according to Victor’s sister Miriam, Burgess was one of “the many people” whom her mother Rózsika, “assisted or supported by periodic and regular payments” for unclear reasons. Another was the Comintern agent Rudolph Katz.65 Victor Rothschild joined MI5 in 1939 (or before); the following year, Anthony Blunt was recruited on Rothschild’s recommendation.66
Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild
The suitability of Cambridge University as the prime location for Soviet recruitment owed much to the concentration of homosexuals among teaching staff and students. The Apostles, who included the amoralist philosopher GE Moore and others of the Bloomsbury group, had in earlier decades become “obsessed by homosexuality”, and several members “pursued what they called ‘the higher sodomy.’”67 “Higher” referred to their disdain for romantic love as well as their general sense of superiority. The Apostles were already a secret society, and homosexuality was actively prohibited in Britain until the 1960s. Some of those who practiced it formed “extensive underground ‘old boy networks’” which “reached out like a cobweb across the pinnacles of the British Establishment, with connections in Whitehall ministries, the universities, the foreign service, the church, and the armed services”; “several of the lines of this web of homosexual influence were spun by Apostles who, by the twenties, had anchored themselves firmly in the upper reaches of Whitehall” and “offered great opportunities to any blackmailer—or spy—who gained admission.” Jack Hewit, a lover of Burgess, first met him at a homosexual party in the War Office in 1936 at which Rudolph Katz was a guest.68 Burgess was extremely promiscuous and engaged in exchanges of love letters with ‘conquests’ to use as compromising material.
John Costello identifies Edward Marsh as “the leading behind-the-scenes string-puller in the interwar years” who “ascended the senior ranks of the civil service while pursuing his avocation as one of London’s leading literary impresarios”. Marsh
was always ready to pull strings and arrange favors for eligible Cambridge men of intellect, talent, and good looks. Successive generations of Apostles, including Blunt and later Guy Burgess, discovered this to their advantage. The Marsh network included bureaucrats, publishers, parliamentarians, and prominent members of London society. Marsh was longtime personal secretary to Winston Churchill, to whom ‘dear Eddie’ would attach himself like a faithful hound whenever Churchill had a ministry.69
Edward Marsh and Winston Churchill
Much of the same was true at Oxford University, where prominent dons like Maurice Bowra, aware of their closeness to Soviet intelligence agents, referred to themselves as being in the ‘homintern’; Bowra referred to Wadham, his college, as Sodom. During the Second World War he became a frequent guest on the BBC. Marxist members of the homosexual networks based in Cambridge, Oxford and London, including Roger Fulford and Kemball Johnston, attained positions in MI5 where they were able to influence their superiors in favour of members of the Communist Party.70
Popular Front
Though some communists may have been excluded from working at the BBC by MI5’s vetting, the corporation’s programmes were already used to support an effectively pro-Soviet foreign policy long before 1937. Winston Churchill is cited as one of a few right-wing speakers who disprove that the corporation was left-wing, but he exceeded the BBC in its fervour for the anti-German cause. In November 1934, Churchill was invited by the BBC to broadcast a speech in which he forebode the “destruction of the British Empire” and “Teutonic domination” of “our people” unless Britain sought allies to achieve “[p]eace… founded upon preponderance” by “mak[ing] ourselves at least the strongest Air Power in the European world.”71 This was, not by chance, the same demand as that of the civil service faction headed by Robert Vansittart and Warren Fisher that furtively supplied Churchill with false estimates of Britain and Germany’s military strengths.
The week after Churchill’s radio speech, the British arm of Samuel Untermyer’s Anti-Nazi Council was founded, and the following October it held a large demonstration in Hyde Park; the BBC broadcast the speeches by Eleanor Rathbone, Clement Attlee, Walter Citrine, JBS Haldane and Sylvia Pankhurst, all socialists or communists. There was no BBC Talk given by Oswald Mosley to ‘balance’ Churchill and no coverage of demonstrations against communism or hostility toward Germany. The BBC covered the events of the largest such demonstrations, those of the British Union of Fascists, by spotlighting the blackshirts’ eviction of hecklers and invaders. The BUF’s Olympia rally in 1934 occurred at the same time the BBC began to be allowed to create its own news reports. The ludicrous myth of the BUF intentionally causing violent disruption of its own events has endured.
Oswald Mosley and BUF members
From 1936, BBC Television broadcast selected newsreels from Gaumont and Movietone, the latter being a subsidiary of Wilhelm Fuchs’ Fox Corporation and the former owned by Isidore Ostrer. Ostrer was, according to Nicholas Pronay and Philip Taylor, “the most skilful and clear-minded manipulator of the propaganda potential of the newsreel”; as Gaumont also produced films and owned many cinemas, the effect of his skills was amplified greatly.72 Fuchs and Ostrer were both descended of Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire. The British film industry and cinemas were largely Jewish-owned through the 1920s and 30s.73 Burgess, before being hired by the BBC, was recruited to work for the Soviet NKVD probably by Arnold Deutsch, a cousin of Oscar Deutsch, the founder and owner of Odeon Cinemas and a referee for Arnold’s immigration application.74
The BBC, especially the North division, effectively joined the Popular Front, a Soviet anti-fascist initiative, and thereby aligned with the aims of the international Jewish alliance agitating for regime change in Germany and with organised Jewry in Britain, whose activists secured special privileges. According to Geoffrey Alderman, “An agreement … was reached with the BBC which undertook to submit” to the Board of Deputies of British Jews “the scripts of any programme “of Jewish interest” before the programme was broadcast.” The agreement was part of the Board of Deputies’ Defence Committee’s anti-fascist strategy which also included “intelligence-gathering, media-monitoring and co-operation with the Special Branch.”75 In the spring of 1938, recalling 1881, “a Mansion House Fund and innumerable appeals on behalf of refugees from Austria, Germany and Czecho-Slovakia were broadcast from the BBC and in the British Press.”76
According to William West, “The BBC and its staff… took an essentially Communist line” at the time of the Spanish Civil War which indicates how “the more sinister activities of Burgess and his circle remained unremarked.”77 During the Sudetenland crisis of September 1938, Burgess was the producer responsible for planned anti-German speeches by Harold Nicolson which were cancelled under pressure from the Cabinet Office, which was loyal to Neville Chamberlain, and the Foreign Office under Halifax who was still for peace with Germany at the time.78 Producing ostensibly non-political programmes about the countries of the Mediterranean, Burgess also collaborated with the Marxist academic EH Carr and tried to involve Winston Churchill, of whom he was “a keen supporter” though the latter withdrew in anger at being required to moderate his belligerence.79 According to West, “the line followed by Burgess and EH Carr in the BBC’s Mediterranean series was close to [Anthony] Eden’s…”.80 Eden “had broadcast to the world his welcome” of the Soviet Union to the League of Nations in 1934 and, alongside Churchill, was the most prominent Tory supporter of an alliance with the Soviets; Eden was particularly friendly to Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister, while Churchill liaised more with Ivan Maisky, the ambassador in London to whom he had been introduced by Vansittart.81 In contrast to its pro-Soviet slant, the BBC refused to broadcast or even acknowledge the impassioned radio speech from Verdun by the Duke of Windsor, the abdicated King Edward VIII, for peace between Britain, France and Germany in May 1939.82
Guy Burgess
Propaganda and black operations
As the BBC aligned with Jewish and Soviet policy, it applied its “power to fashion the national narrative” in accordance with the propaganda bodies of the British state, staffed and governed increasingly by anti-fascists, which were used to counter Italian and German (not Soviet) propaganda. The most overt, the British Council, was an initiative of Rex Leeper, head of the Foreign Office’s News Department and payee of the Soviet-aligned Czech government; he introduced Churchill to the Anti-Nazi Council, which Churchill renamed the Focus, in April 1936. The BBC’s Empire Service and foreign language broadcasting were launched to work to the same purpose as the Council. Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939, but the propaganda war was underway at least two years earlier when the Focus member Lord Lloyd, another figure of the “extreme right” who sided with the extreme left in foreign policy, became chairman of the Council.83 Anti-fascism and sympathy for the Soviet Union were already embedded institutionally in Britain long before the Anschluss, ‘Munich’ or Kristallnacht.
Section D of MI6 was created in March or April of 1938 “to provide lines of communication for covert anti-Nazi propaganda in neutral countries”, to “organise and equip resistance units, support anti-Nazi groups” and enact “sabotage, covert operations, and subversive propaganda.” Guy Burgess was employed by Section D, the first of a chain of propaganda bodies established by the British state which presented Jewish emigrants from Central Europe as friends of and spokesmen for Britain. Vansittart, Claude Dansey of MI6, Churchill and the Focus had been using the same people for (often fabricated) intelligence and propaganda for some years. As Andrew Lownie describes, “Section D used a series of front organisations, such as the news agency United Correspondents, which produced innocuous but anti-Nazi articles for circulation to newspapers around the world, and Burgess worked with writers such as the Swiss journalist Eugen Lennhof and the Austrian writer Berthe Zuckerkandl-Szeps.”84 In Section D, John Costello says, “Burgess appears to have been the main fount of ideas and principal producer of clandestine programming. In compiling the careful assembly of propaganda talks, variety shows, and hit records, he was assisted by Paul Frischauer, an Austrian refugee, and his wife, who were members of an anti-Hitler group in London.”85 The “radio war” consisted initially of illegally broadcasting Chamberlain speeches into Germany on Radio Luxembourg, owned by Isidore Ostrer and run by Eva Siewert, a Jewish lesbian and Soviet sympathiser.86
The covert counterpart of the British Council and an adjunct of MI6 and the BBC was the Joint Broadcasting Committee, which operated in sufficient secrecy as to be unknown to MI5. According to Lownie, “The JBC was very much a BBC operation. It was run by Hilda Matheson… assisted by Isa Morley, the foreign director of the BBC from 1933 to 1937. Burgess was number three and represented Section D’s interests. In March 1939 Harold Nicolson joined the Board.” Angus Hambro, a Tory MP from an established Jewish banking family, was also a member. “JBC staff were authorised to use BBC studios”, and though “scripts were prepared by JBC staff, many were read by prominent exiles such as the writer Thomas Mann, or later by well-known actors such as Conrad Veidt”, both married to women of Jewish ancestry. Burgess also recruited John Bernal, a Jewish communist and a science don at Cambridge, as well as Edvard Benes, the former Czech Prime Minister and a friend and ally of Stalin, to record speeches for the JBC.87
Conclusion
There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society – not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard. The weakest period for the anti-fascists was in 1938, as Chamberlain’s Cabinet Office actively subdued them; Guy Burgess resigned from the corporation in frustration. Yet after Lord Halifax joined the war party, Chamberlain was isolated in the Cabinet and Parliament and cornered into adopting anti-German policies. The ensuing war enabled Churchill to form not only a government in May 1940, but a new anti-fascist regime which has ever since imposed a false version of history via the BBC and the education system. The ‘maverick of the right’ was the best friend the left have ever had.
Horus is the pen name of a British historian. He posts his essays on Substack. Please subscribe.
The Birth of Broadcasting, Asa Briggs, 1961, p180-2. Reith sought to apply the “brute force of monopoly” beyond Britain, as British law alone could not prevent commercial stations broadcasting into Britain from transmitters abroad, which they did through the 1930s. The BBC lobbied via the International Broadcasting Union for the greatest possible restrictions on Radio Luxembourg, Radio Normandie and others, and did so with the support of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, but Radio Luxembourg exceeded the BBC’s listening figures at times and only ceased operations when its facilities were effectively nationalised after Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939. Under Reith, the BBC had only broadcast for a few hours on Sundays and the content was mostly religious while Radio Luxembourg played more dance music. See The Golden Age of Wireless, Asa Briggs, 1965, p92, 360.
McIntyre, p99, 217, 250. ‘The Trumpet of the Night’: Interwar Communists on BBC Radio, Ben Harker, History Workshop Journal, Volume 75, Issue 1, Spring 2013, p82
Briggs, Golden Age, p13. One early element of the “social and cultural crusade” was to expose the public to subversive artists, writers and musicians. In music, as Asa Briggs describes, the BBC chose “the hazardous enterprise of introducing to the British listener Schönberg and Webern as well as Bartok and Stravinsky. In music it was always among the avant-garde…” Briggs, Golden Age, p171-2
Briggs, Golden Age, p124. “The place of adult education in the BBC’s central organization was never secure. In February 1931 it hived off from the Talks Department and became a separate department under the direction of Siepmann; in February 1932 it became a department of a new Talks Branch when Siepmann replaced Hilda Matheson as Director of Talks; in September 1934 it was fully merged in the Talks Branch, losing its departmental identity. Behind these vicissitudes there were not only personal differences but deeper uncertainties about what exactly was the relationship between Talks and organized adult education.” Briggs, Golden Age, p222
Harold Nicolson was the son of Arthur Nicolson, a diplomatic protégé of King Edward VII. Stephen King-Hall was a future Labour MP and publisher of the anti-German London Newsletter which shared an audience with publications of the Focus and the Comintern; he was “a frequent broadcaster”. Briggs, BBC, p119
Bernard Shaw, Michael Holroyd, 1998, chapter 2, 3. Shaw “was to define fascism as ‘State financed private enterprise’ or ‘Socialism for the benefit of exploiters’. From the 1930s onwards Shaw chose to call himself a communist: ‘that is, I advocate national control of land, capital, and industry for the benefit of us all. Fascists advocate it equally for the benefit of the landlords, capitalists and industrialists.’”
Briggs, Golden Age, p126-7. Wells speaking on BBC radio. The Listener praised Wells as a man “who can see the future”; presumably the producers who chose him were prescient too.
Briggs, Golden Age, p43. Matheson continued: “How is the inevitable fear they provoke to be reconciled with the spirit of open-minded enquiry which is inseparable from all education, from any search after truth?’”
Interview with Olive Shapley, 1984, p3-4 and Broadcasting a Life, Olive Shapley, 1996, p37. From the latter, referring to her first meeting with Harding where he asked her to stay behind: “‘When the room was empty apart from the two of us, he extended his hand and said, ‘Welcome, comrade.’ I was never a very devout communist, but I could tell that I was among friends.’”
Though they had small resources and were about to engage in war on several fronts, the Bolsheviks commenced espionage against Britain immediately after the coup. Chapter 5, ‘Exporting the Revolution’, of John Costello’s book The Mask of Treachery gives a summary. See also chapters 1-5 of Giles Udy, Labour and the Gulag.
Mills, p42. “The practice was maintained for fifty years, abandoned only in 1985 after being exposed by a team of investigative journalists. Much of what is known about political vetting, stems from the revelations at that time and the declassified BBC files that have become available since.”
Costello, p299-300. Costello suggests that Burgess worked for the Rothschilds’ own intelligence network as well as MI6 and the NKVD:
“Since private intelligence was an essential element of the Rothschild business operation, what better cover could they give their latest recruit in 1935 than to characterize Burgess as an investment counselor and dispatch him as their private spy to monitor the Anglo-German Fellowship? Information about threats to the House of Rothschild resulting from secret deals between British sympathizers and the Third Reich would more than justify the hundred guineas a month paid to Guy Burgess.
Victor Rothschild had implicit faith in his Cambridge friend because he, like Blunt, knew of Burgess’s true loyalties. But Burgess’s volatile enthusiasms would help persuade his right-wing friends that he had recanted his earlier Marxism. His homosexual appetite would prove an exploitable talent when it came to sharing the bed of a pro-German Tory well placed to pull strings and advance an ambitious young man’s career. Nor should it be forgotten that Rudolph Katz, with his own extensive network of homosexual and Comintern contacts, also contributed to Rothschild’s private intelligence network that, at the time, shared with Stalin a common enemy: Hitler.” Costello, p303-5
Winston Churchill – the Greatest Briton, Parliament Archives. Churchill – “After he had given his talk in the 1934 Causes of War series there were complaints that he had delivered a ‘gratuitous attack on Germany’, and one writer said that it was ‘in need of far more censorship than Professor Haldane’s’, a talk on the extreme left.’” Briggs, Golden Age, p146
Truth Betrayed, WJ West, 1989, p40. Burgess’ friend Kim Philby, who worked for MI6 and the NKVD simultaneously, was The Times’ correspondent during the civil war and MI6’s head of undercover operations in Spain and Portugal during the world war. Burgess and Philby both worked for MI6’s propaganda-focused Section D and, like Eric Maschwitz, the sabotage-focused Special Operations Executive in 1939 and 1940. In 1934 Philby had married Litzi Friedmann, a communist from Vienna and an associate of the Soviet spy Edith Tudor-Hart. By 1941, when Burgess rejoined BBC Talks, the corporation was under the control of Churchill’s government and hired Burgess precisely because he was pro-Soviet.
In November 1938, according to the ambassador to Italy, Eric Drummond, the 7th Earl of Perth, BBC presenters used tone of voice to mock Chamberlain and praise Anthony Eden. West also says that “There had been a number of concerted attacks on Chamberlain by the BBC, usually in the form of selective reporting of speeches and debates.” See West, p166, including note 101.
Alderman, New Directions, p165. See also West, p111. Reith had been the leading advocate of the International Broadcasting Union, in the violation of which the BBC now collaborated.
Lownie, chapter 13. The JBC had a “strong focus” on “securing British propaganda broadcasts on the American networks.” American networks also had their own plans. “The covert side, where Burgess largely worked, produced programmes for distribution in enemy countries, working with Electra House. Burgess was responsible for a variety of programmes that were recorded on large shellac discs and then smuggled in the diplomatic bag or by agents into Sweden, Liechtenstein and Germany, and broadcast as if they were part of regular transmissions from the German stations themselves.” The ‘Chaos of the Ether’ had gone from a myth to a tactic. About the JBC, see also Murphy, Behind the Wireless, chapter on Hilda Matheson, and West p118, 140.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Horushttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngHorus2024-11-25 07:12:052024-11-25 08:11:47The Engine of Compulsory Conformity: The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s
Although he was found guilty of lying, albeit by a manifestly biased parliamentary enquiry based on a report by a civil servant who went on to work for the Labour Party, there is an extent to which you know where you are with former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson. I’ve had a soft spot for him since 2003 when I submitted an article to The Spectator, which he edited. Rather than ignore it or send out a standard rejection letter, Boris took the trouble to the write back, explaining why he liked the piece but why it was not quite suitable for his magazine. For that is what Boris is about; the Shakespearian jester-type who makes other people feel good and who, through this comedy persona, is able to get away with things which would finish off ordinary politicians.
Charisma is often a response to profound sadness and it buoys up the charismatic as much as it does his audience. This is clear in Boris’ long-awaited brick of a memoir Unleashed, which, in my view, vies with John Major: The Autobiography as the most readable Prime Ministerial memoir ever penned. The key difference is that Major is extremely self-aware, sometimes disarmingly honest, and shares with us the many poignant moments from his early life that have made him who he is. Boris doesn’t dream of doing anything like that, and, let’s face it, you wouldn’t expect him to. There is nothing about his extremely unhappy and difficult childhood in which he was part deaf and lived in an isolated farm house with parents who violently despised each other. To the extent he looks at his childhood at all, it’s jolly memories of his brief time at a state primary school.
As I’ve said, the point is to take us on a jolly jape. Boris is particular good at this, due his comedic brilliance. The Supreme Court judge who tried to scupper Brexit, and who wore a silver spider-shaped brooch is referred to as “the curse of Spiderwoman,” while the UK’s anti-Brexit Establishment are “prune-lipped Pharisees.” Boris is self-aware enough to concede that he is “gaffe-prone,” but, then, he would concede this; it is part of his comic charm and of his cunning: Appear a tad helpless and people will love you. The women will want to mother you, the men won’t see you as a real threat and so will underestimate you, or they’ll believe that they can obtain true power with you as the comic frontman. And before you know it, you’re Conservative Mayor of London (a Labour city), and then Prime Minister, winning a large majority, including numerous seats in safe Labour areas, breaking the deadlock and finally bringing Brexit about.
Boris admits, though, that, secretly, he’s worked hard to get there, but even here there is comic camouflage and poetic skill: “Some people have a knack for being in the right place at the right time. They just happen to be under the tree when the apple plops into their lap. Some people have to bash and butt at the base of the tree for an awfully long time until the exhausted apple stalk can bear the weight no longer. I am definitely in the second category.” In many ways, these sentences encapsulate Boris’ rhetorical brilliance. There are so many layers to this. We are invited to imagine a genius – Isaac Newton – sitting beneath the apple tree, yet this is contrasted with the onomatopoeic “plop,” and the comedically scatological dimensions of this word. We then imagine someone like Newton, perhaps Boris in a late-seventeenth wig, bashing at the tree of UK politics and its apple of being the UK’s premier – with a self-deprecating nod to his being overweight – until it just gives up and, exhausted, says, “Okay, Boris, old bean, you can be Prime Minister.” It is this kind of skill with which he ascended so high and did so relatively quickly.
Boris also wants to transport us to an idealised old England in which he was our Shakespearian Fool leader. He achieves this, for example, by frequently quoting canonical poetry, such as Thomas Gray’s “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard,” about dead peasants and the talents they wasted confined to a tiny village. Johnson, apparently deeply moved by this poem, uses it to explain why he wanted to “level up” the British education system, so he manages to boast about a supposed achievement of his premiership. But he’s managed to make it not seem like bragging, because he’s beguiled us into being in an idyllic English country churchyard with him in which he is a shaman, into which the spirit of Englishness has somehow entered; his recent Turkish ancestry not with-standing.
I could give many other examples of this skill, but it also means that we are intellectually disarmed. He justifies his ludicrous green policies on the basis of Pascal’s Wager. We should be fervent environmentalists just in case the climate change alarmists are correct. This is an absurd comparison. He is suggesting that we should make life less enjoyable, more expensive and more difficult just in case Woke fanatics are right. By the same “just in case” logic, Boris should have shut the borders the moment there was the slightest hint of Covid-19. By the same logic, there is evidence that multiculturalism leads to inter-group violence and the collapse of society, so it’s quite obvious what he should have done “just in case.” The problem is that he is so bumblingly likeable and persuasive that he makes you actively not want to seriously scrutinise him, which is part of his political genius. As I motorist, I cannot stand cyclists, yet he is an avid cyclist and he almost makes me sympathise with them with his Romantic portrayal of their vocation.
All of this, though, permits him to smuggle in the fact that, on many issues, he is secretly rather based, and he can do this because of the way he has charmed people. For example, in Chapter Two he dares to look at intelligence and the extent to which it is genetic. Politicians have been fired for saying as much. “As I close my eyes and wait for the judgment of the examiners on myself, I feel I am in the presence of some ineluctable biological-process. I have read somewhere that intelligence like other human qualities reverts to the mean (Was it H.J. Eysenck that gave me that idea? Eysenck it was.).” To those “in the know” he is making it clear that he understands the biological realities, he is scientifically literate and he is based. For the more purple-pilled, pathetic conservative reader, there is the pun to soften the blow and to permit Boris to pretend he was joking all along. He even explores, indirectly, the issue of Incels and their causes (women are more educated than men but want to marry hypergamously in terms of education), though Boris makes out that someone far cleverer than he has explained this to him and he is just blithely accepting it: “In his view, there are complex reasons for the drying up of social mobility, not least the habit of ‘assortative mating’, by which female graduates tend to only marry men who are themselves graduates. . . . The only way to break the cycle of assortative mating . . . is for more female graduates to be encouraged to marry hod-carriers and dustbin men . . .”
And he also traffics in some seriously interesting stuff, such as that the Queen did not die of “old age” but rather of bone cancer. She’d known she was dying for a year and, of course, it’s all been covered up. A friend of mine, a consultant geriatrician, told me at the time that the state of the Queen’s hands strongly implied treatment for some kind of cancer, so I am inclined to believe Boris on this one.
But the problem is, his rhetorical skill and charisma mean that I’m inclined to believe him on most things, even though I know, deep down, that I have been manipulated by this self-serving autobiography wherein he never displays genuine weakness and never looks honestly, or at all, at his painful and rogue-ish, womanising personal life. Instead, you sit down in a pub with him and have a laugh, forgetting that he needlessly closed those pubs for the best part of two years, backing down to shrill, manipulative voices opposing the very sensible policy of herd immunity. Such is Boris’ skill and charisma, on such evident display in 700-plus pages of Unleashed.
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
Jess Phillips, a masculinized high-T leftist fempol, with three of the White girls she and her party helped to murder
Sue Berelowitz, the leftist Jew who said “Screw you!” to working-class Whites (image © Lucy Young/REX from Daily Mail)
Keir Starmer and Roy Hattersley with their Jewish wives (images from Sky News and Daily Mail)
Entrance to Albion: The White Cliffs of Dover (image 
The Israeli Likud party boasts about excluding strangers with the “Israel-Egypt Fence” (note that Hebrew adverts are read from right to left)
Keir Starmer performs 
