British Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oligarchy of the Unfit: Governance in the United Kingdom and the Downfall of Corbyn

The UK has a severe structural crisis in leadership:  each of the two main parties have defects that do not usually occur in tandem, but, when combined, are highly destructive.  Each is oligarchic, not democratic.  But, in contrast to most oligarchic regimes, each lacks the benefit of stability usually associated with oligarchic regimes — in other words, each are also extremely unstable.

Their oligarchic nature deprives each party of legitimacy with the broader electorate.

The instability derives from organizational defects which set each party literally against itself, and, once in power, sets the Government against itself and the other MP’s of the governing party.  This explains, in part the vacillating and ineffective leadership UK governments have shown in recent years or in times of stress.

A close examination of the electoral and organizational structures of the parties shows the wide gap between the U.S. system and the British system.  From a British point of view, a difference from   the U.S. is not always viewed as bad.  However, the “gap” here is in something crucial:  elections.  From an American point of view, there aren’t any.

Instead of “representative democracy, the term “oligarchy by quango” (with each of the parties’ central administration being the “quango”) might be a better descriptor.  In fact, an American might justifiably conclude that elections for Parliament are far less democratic today than in the times of Henry IV or Charles I.

Structural Instability.  Each party has, to an American eye, a (I) bizarre, convoluted, and highly centralized method of local Parliamentary candidate selection; and (II) since 1980 (in the case of the Labour party) and 1998 (in the case of the Conservative party) Parliamentary party leadership selection:  namely, the Parliamentary leader of the party (think Tony Blair, Boris Johnson) is selected  not by the Labour or Conservative members of Parliament but, rather, in each case by a vote of the “members” of the relevant party at annual conferences or special elections.  Thus the situation could easily arise (and has recently arisen) where the elected head of the Parliamentary party — the Prime Minister, if in government, the Leader of the Opposition, if out of government — could be despised by a large majority of his or her “fellow” Parliamentary party members.  The spectacular destruction of Corbyn, nominally the Parliamentary party leader from 2015–2017, by his own Parliamentary party and the Labour central executive at Southside or Brewers Green (take your pick),1 is a glaring example.  This goes to the “war against itself” point.

However, the main issue is that none of these actors are elected in any meaningful sense.  So much for “much representative democracy”.

Oligarchy.  Stunning as it may be to an American, the UK voter at large has virtually no say in the selection process of Labour and Tory candidates or party governing officials.  Unlike the U.S., where (in the old days) there were locally organized caucuses which morphed into (in the now days) full scale primary elections, the local voters, even by representation of intermediary bodies (e.g., the state legislature, or, in the UK, local councils) have virtually no say.  The bottom base of each party is not, as in the U.S., those members of the voting public that identify on caucus or primary day (or a few months before via registration) as a Republican or Democrat and can number in the millions or tens of millions.  Instead, it is comprised solely of the “membership” of each of the two parties.  Becoming a member is not an easy process.  It is quite a bit like the process of admission to a good lunch club.  Roughly speaking, “candidates” for membership in each of the parties are proposed by the local constituency but are approved only by the central party leadership in London.  (For the Labour Party, see Rule Book, Appendix 2, Section 1 A. and C. Labour Party Rule Book [skwawkbox.org].   For the Conservative Party, see Section 17.7, Part IV, of the Conservative Party Constitution (amended through 2021), Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf [conservatives.com]). This membership, so selected, has for most of the history of each party, been a miniscule fraction of the population of the United Kingdom.  The Labour party currently boasts about 550,000 members and the Tory party about 350,000 members — a total of 800,000 members for the two main parties that comprise most of the seats in Parliament, compared with a potential UK voting public of 32 million that turned out in the 2019 general election.

Even if these members, through so-called local “constituencies” could freely select their candidates, about 2% of the full potential electorate would be choosing the candidates.  In a sense, one could say that these constituencies “represent” the great voting public of the U.K. in making party selection.  As a comparison, even at its most restrictive, in the 1790’s, the United States permitted (via property qualifications and the like) about 12% of its electorate to vote — directly for the House of Representatives, and indirectly, through popularly elected state legislatures or the Electoral College, for the United States Senate and President, respectively.

But that is not the half of it.  In fact, the constituencies cannot freely elect candidates.  Since the candidates themselves are also subject to central party approval, no one even gets to run before a constituency unless pre-approved by London Central.

And even if the constituencies were able to freely elect any candidate of their choice, since none of the constituancy are elected by the greater voting public, but are chosen by a “lunch club” admission process, one could hardly call candidate selection “democratic” in any case.

Due to the membership selection process, one can see that the idea that anyone could be a member — so that, in theory, millions could pack the membership rolls and democratize the process — is unrealistic.  Careful selection procedures ensure no risk exists that the rabble holding distasteful opinions will be admitted .

To make things worse, each member, once admitted, is subject to expulsion by the central authorities of the party for violating the vague specifications set out in the governing rules of the parties.

In detail, the structure each party, described in seriatim, appears to work as follows.

Labour.

Until the “reforms” instituted by the Right Honorable Sir Anthony Litton Blair (aka, at his own surprising wish, “Tony”) as leader of the Party starting in 1997, the previous method of party control  giving the Trade Unions a virtual veto was changed to reduce significantly the role of organized unions.

As currently constituted, after Blair’s reforms, the Labour party is no more democratic, but, from the capitalist point of view, is in better shape since it is subject to less direct Trade Union control.2

The party is an unincorporated association governed by a “Rule Book”, see Labour Party Rule Book (skwawkbox.org)  that, in turn, sets forth in 15 Chapters the “Constitutional Rules” of the party.  Id.  Appended to this as part of the Rule Book are nine Appendices each with, one presumes, sad to say (given their contents), the force of the main body of the text.

The Labour party has the crippling defect that (I) the head of the party is technically a separate position from that of head of the Parliamentary  party and (II) the head, the Executive, and the National Executive Committee to which the Executive reports, the National Committee, are not selected by the head of the Parliamentary party or by the Parliamentary Party leader, but partly by the Annual Conference vote (theoretically at least the members at large of the party) and partly by certain interest groups (such as trade unions) and the Parliamentary wing of the party.  The Parliamentary wing of the party comprises a minority on the National Committee.  One might almost point to a new Constitutional concept when Labour are in power: “King in Trade Union”.

Tory.

The organization of the Tory party — technically “The Conservative and Union Party” — is somewhat less at odds with itself than that of the Labour Party but is, nonetheless, baroque.

The Constitution of the Conservative Party, as amended through 2021 (the “Tory Constitution”) provides for what appears to be a dual leadership structure.

The “Leader” of the Tory party (a) must be a member of the House of Commons but (b) is elected by the members of the Conservative Party in accordance with the provisions of “Schedule 2” of the Tory Constitution.  When so selected, he is the Prime Minister when in office; out of office, the leader of the opposition.  His principal duty is to “determine the political direction of the Party having regard to the views of Party Members and the Conservative Policy Forum.”  Tory Constitution, Part III (Section 11).

The selection of the Leader operates via a behind-the-scenes process, although less “behind the scenes” than it used to be.  Since 1998, the so-called “1922 Committee” — so named since it first formed in 1922 to defeat the incipient Leadership candidacy of the unfortunate Nathanial Curzon, then Foreign Minister and formerly (and famously, the Viceroy of India) nominates pursuant to its own procedures a slate of nominees — or only one nominee, if it wishes — for the position of Leader.  This slate is then put forth to the Conservative Party membership for a vote, and possibly a run-off vote if no candidate achieves a majority on the first round  (Tory Constitution, Schedule 2).

Historically, before 1965, the Queen selected the party leader, presumably with the informal advice of party “grandees”.  From 1965–98, the parliamentary party controlled.  From 1998 to now, the parliamentary party runs ballots until down to the last two; then the last two go to the party members.  But the “last two” rule is per the 1922 Committee rules, which can be changed.  It would seem under the Constitution that the 1922 Committee could bypass the Parliamentary party members totally and just directly propose a slate of 2, 3 or more.  It could also change its rules so  that the Parliamentary MPs names which the Parliamentary MPs would be whittled down, say, to 5.  The candidate receiving more than 50% of the vote becomes Leader (Tory Constitution, Schedule 2).  It is notable that, although the slate is all of the MP’s selected by “establishment folks” (who are also MP’s), the vote among the candidates is made by a membership some — or in an extreme case — all of whom are not even resident in the United Kingdom and are not UK citizens (Join Us | Conservatives Abroad).   One wonders if the Right Honorable Rushi Sunak, the previous Leader and “one-year” Prime Minister, could have better spent his time recruiting his fellow Gujaratti Indians in the northern subcontinent of India for Tory Party membership, since those in the UK don’t seem interested.  After recruiting a couple hundred million of those (with Hindustani translations on the ballots of course), he could remain Tory Leader for the rest of his life.  He would of course have to tweak the Constitution to provide that the current Leader must always be included on the 1922 Committee’s slate..  But with 200 million adherents….

The Leader, in turn, selects the “other” head of the Conservative Party — the “Chairman” of the Board of the Conservative Party.  The Board is the supreme ruling body of the Conservative Party.  It consists of 19 members, none of whom is the Leader.  The Leader selects at his own discretion 3 members of the Board:  the Chairman (above), one of the two Vice Chairmen, the Treasurer of the Party (who serves as an officer of the Party and as a member of the Board).  In addition, the Leader (a) selects one other person, subject to the approval of the Board and (b) has the right of approval over an additional person selected by the Board, giving the Leader the right to appoint three members and to have a say in the appointment of two more, for a total of five members.  The other members are the Chairman of the Conservative Party Conference, elected by the Membership (he serves as the other Vice President of the Party), the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the three Chairmen of the English, Welsh, and Scottish Conservative Parties, respectively, and the Chairman of the Conservative Councilors Association.  In addition, a member of the Tory party staff is selected by the Chairman of the Board.  So, essentially, the Board is effectively outside the control of both the Leader and the Parliamentary conservative party.  It is this confusing edifice that has the power of both candidate and membership deselection.

The Board crucially has, under Section 17.7 of the TC, the power in its “absolute discretion” to accept or refuse the membership of any prospective or current member.  The power to “refuse” membership to a current member presumably is a roundabout way of saying the Board has the power to kick out any person from Tory Party membership it wants to, including, presumably, sitting members of parliament.  If that weren’t enough, the TC rubs it in your face.  Under Article 17.22, it has the power over “[t]he suspension of membership or the expulsion from membership of any member whose conduct is in conflict with the purpose, objects and values of the Party as indicated in Part I Article 2 or which is inconsistent with the objects or financial well-being of an Association or the Party or be likely to bring an Association or the Party into disrepute.”  Well, that’s a lot of discretion!

Under  Article 17.5 of the TC, the Board has the power over “the maintenance of the Approved List of Candidates in accordance with Article 19.1 of, and Schedule 6 to, the TC (Article 19 substantially simply refers to Schedule 6).

Under Schedule 6, Sections 14–21, the Board — like its Labour Party counterpart — incredibly has the power to “withdraw” associations — that is, local conservative party constituencies — from membership, thereby disenfranchising all of the members of the local association unless the Board decides otherwise. Schedule 6, Section 20.  In other words, vote the wrong way, propose the wrong candidates, say the wrong thing, yer out, Jack!

The local Conservative “Associations” are no better.  The model rules, attached as Schedule 7 to the TC, state that

[t]he Officers of the Association may move before the Executive Council the suspension or termination of membership of the Association of any member whose declared opinions or conduct shall, in their judgment, be inconsistent with the objects or financial well-being of the Association or be likely to bring the Party into disrepute. Similarly, the Officers may move the refusal of membership of the Association for the same reasons. Following such a motion, the Executive Council may by a majority vote suspend, terminate or refuse membership for the same reason. (Emphasis added.)

Good God.  Even the toniest lunch clubs in New York do not have such discretion to decapitate members.

DISPOSING OF A LEADER

In getting rid of a leader who is Prime Minister, there are two ways:  Parliamentary and Party.

The Parliamentary method is for the Parliament as a whole to vote, apparently by bare majority, that “the Parliament has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”.  In such a case, there are 15 days in which the existing Parliament can try to find a new government.  If not, a General Election is held.

The second is for the party itself to hold a vote of “no confidence” in the Leader (not the whole government).  In the Tory party, 15% of the Tory members can petition to have a Leader no-confidence vote.  In that case the vote is by the Tory Members of Parliament (not any other Tory party members) only.  If the PM loses, a party election (by party members, not the parliamentary members) for a new leader.  However, apparently under current rules (of the 1922 Committee?), there are preliminary ballots among the Tory Parliamentary party members only (of the whole House, not just the 1922 Committee).  Once the ballot gets down to the final two, a choice between the final two is then put to the Tory party members at large.  If the PM wins, no more “no confidence” votes are permitted for a year.

In the Labor party, there is no such thing as a vote of “no confidence” in the Leader.  One challenges a sitting leader by mounting a candidate to oppose him.  If that candidate gets 20% of the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party ) membership to support him (note that this is higher than the 15% threshold required for a non-removal election), the contest is on, pursuant to rules to be jerry-rigged by the NEC (National Executive Council) of the party.  Which could be anything.  There is a lack of clarity as to whether the incumbent can automatically run, or must meet the 20% threshold in terms of PLP member nominations.  If the latter, a leader like Jeremy Corbyn could be unseated easily, because he probably would not get the requisite number of PLP member nominations, even though, if ON the ballot, he might win by a Corbynist margin of say 57% to 20% to 13% — a crushing victory among the Labor party membership.  (Corbyn in his initial run got the requisite 20% support on a fluke, mainly from members that actually supported other candidates but assumed he would lose but split the vote in an advantageous way.)  When Corbyn was challenged, barely a year into his leadership term, he obtained a ruling from NEC (which apparently by 2016 he controlled, even though he did not control the Executive Director (McDougal) who actually runs Southside) until 2018 when McDougal was replaced (even his replacement we now know worked against Corbyn) that the incumbent had a right to be on the ballot without meeting the 20% threshold, so Corbyn did not have to do what for him at that time would have been the impossible — namely, get the 51 MP’s necessary for a 20% endorsement.  This ruling has now been affirmed by a High Court ruling that now stands as substantive law effective even in the absence of an NEC ruling to that effect. [1]

Even with the incumbent’s right to run, this is madness.  It means that — as literally was the case     with Corbyn — that a Leader could be elected by the members of the party at large (a) that only 20% (or less — see below on Corbyn) support and thus (b) whose leadership could be easily challenged and subjected to re-vote at a new party conference almost on a continual basis.  Effectively, after Southside had “deselected” enough Corbynist Labour Party at large members, this is exactly what happened to Corbyn. See “What role should party members have in leadership elections?.”

DESTRUCTION OF CORBYN

So, with this as the background instability of the system, it is easier to see how Corbyn was destroyed and how, now, the former leader of Labour is no longer even a member of Labour.

However, the particular details of Corbyn’s demise can be traced in good part to his naivety and weakness.

Weakness.  His weakness was that he was hated by almost the entire membership of the PLP’s — the Labor Party MP’s.  In a normal year he would have been able to secure, at most, say 5% of the PLP’s — 15 points short of getting on an uncontested ballot for Leader.  However, for a number of later-to-be-regretted tactical reasons involving other candidates, a number of his Parliamentary adversaries endorsed him despite despising him — enough to get him over the 20% threshold.

Having thus gotten on the ballot by pure luck, the Party membership — clearly, completely out of tune with the MP’s “representing” them — elected Corbyn by a crushing majority at that year’s Party Conference.  Suddenly this reviled backbencher was Labour Party Leader!

Naivete.  For reasons best known to himself, former GMB executive, Toby McNicol, who at the time of Corbyn’s ascension to the leadership of the Labour party, held the extremely powerful position of General Secretary of the Party, despised Corbyn.  McNicol did not wish to serve under him.  Accordingly, McNicol offered to resign (again, for reasons known only to himself — perhaps a last trace of English gentlemanliness).  This was a huge gift to Corbyn and a huge “own goal” for the “New Labour” Parliamentary Labour Party establishment.  Had Corbyn accepted McNicol’s resignation and packed the Labour Party executive with his own people, Corbyn might still today be Party leader.  However, unbelievably, Corbyn did not take up this gift — he refused.  So Corbyn’s sworn enemy — McNicol — remained as General Secretary.

The result was that the Labour Party executive at Brewer’s Green, then moving offices to Southside, continued to be occupied by either New Labour bureaucrats or others — like McNicol — who apparently hated Corbyn just as much as McNicol.  Since, as noted in numbing detail above, the Party executive has the enormous power of selection and de-selection of candidates and entire constituencies and the power within extremely broad guidelines to set the terms of any leadership election or challenge, this was an enormous “own goal” on Corbyn’s part.

From that moment on, McNicol and the New Labour apparatchiks at Brewer’s Green worked as hard as they could to unseat Corbyn, as did the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), which, of course despised Corbyn as well.

The first result came in 2016 shortly after the Brexit vote.  The PLP demanded Corbyn resign.  When he refused, a meaningless “vote of no confidence” was held by the PLP, which, predictably, Corbyn lost be a huge margin.  Then PLP member Owen Johnson then got the requisite 20% of the PLP to endorse his challenge to Corbyn.

McNicol used every trick in the book to trip up Corbyn via the broad discretion granted the NEC in the Labour Party rule book.

First, he convened a meeting of the NEC without informing Corbyn that it was for the purpose of making a determination under the Labour Party rules that Corbyn, like any challenger, needed to get endorsements from 20% of the PLP to appear on the ballot triggered by the challenge.  This would have forced Corbyn out, since he would have been unable to obtain that many endorsements.  However, the Labour unions as a block voted with Corbyn, resulting in a rejection of that proposal.  Although the Executive sued to reverse the NEC ruling, the ruling was upheld by the High Court.  See above.

Second, McNicol convinced the NEC to disqualify any Conference Labour Party (“CLP”) members joining within the last six months.  The result was to disqualify about 20% of the CLP, most of whom were the late-entering Corbyn supporters.  The power of the NEC to retroactively disqualify the voting rights of these members was upheld by the Court of Appeal, after first being rejected by the High Court.  See above.

Notwithstanding these maneuvers, Corbyn won a crushing victory among the general membership and retained his leadership position.

Having failed to unseat Corbyn through “behind the scenes” rule jiggering, the PLP, and the press (who also hated Corbyn) formed a new line of attack.  Corbyn had always been a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and a critic of the Israeli occupation of the west bank.  This, and his statements in support of this position were dredged up as evidence of “anti-Semitism”.  Since the Party had foolishly made a rule prohibiting any Member from “anti-Semitism” — whatever that was at any given time — accusations of “anti-Semitism” could be deadly for any Member, including Corbyn.  At first, the Party did not accuse Corbyn directly; rather it attempted to de-select a number of Corbyn’s senior party supporters

As Chris Willimson describes, instead of rejecting these claims out of hand, Corbyn weakly agreed to punish a couple of Party members attacked and agreed to a commission of inquiry to look into these claims.  Of course, the commission would be staffed by the very Brewers Green apparatchiks, including Toby McNicol, who hated Corbyn.  Predictably, this commission was used to smear Corbyn.  In addition, it was used to deselect not only many of Corbyn’s few supporters in Parliament, but to deselect entire constituencies whose statements the Southsde folks did not like, essentially throwing out of the party anyone who supported Corbyn.  This deslection process continued long enough that, by the end of 2019, Corbyn had been fatally weakened in the CLP itself.

So instead of accepting McNicol’s resignation, bringing in a Corbyn supporter at the head of the party, and then ruthlessly expelling from Brewer’s Green its current employees and replacing them with Corbyn supporters, Corbyn now faced a Labor Executive dead set on destroying him through endless “anti-Semitism” hearings.

Notwithstanding all this, Corbyn managed to fend off these attacks to come closer to a Labour victory — in 2017 — than any leader since Blair.  However, after losing the 2019 election, and bloodied beyond belief by the PLP antisemitism war, he resigned as leader under duress.  Very promptly he was literally “deselected” and thrown out of the party, despite being one of the longest serving labor MP’s then in Parliament and having served as its leader since 2015!

Some have blamed Jewish power exclusively for Corbyn’s downfall.  However, although Jewish power may in some sense be blamed for Corbyn’s political demise, the bizarre structure of British politics, in which a man wildly unpopular among the PLP could become leader of the Party due to support by members paying 3 lbs each for the privilege, plus his own naivety and weakness, played even greater roles.

The Sad Conclusion: Support for Israel and Mass Immigraiton by Both Parties

But the implications for the desiccated state of Britain’s vaunted “mother of Parliaments” and its elective representative government albeit under a Monarchy, are dire.  The people who clearly approved Corbyn have no say.  Those who do “have their say” are immediately thrown out of the party.  The result is that, when the 36 million-strong UK electorate gets to choose, they get to choose between two candidates who (a) slavishly support Israel and (b) slavishly support massive immigration, even though polling indicates each of these objects of elite affection are wildly unpopular.

So, no, it’s not “all the Jews’”.  But any time you set up a system so centrally controlled — whether it is with the Tory or Labour parties, BBC, or CBS News, the chance that a small set of anti-social conspirators seize the levers of power for their own ends approaches 100%.

If the conspirators simply want money, then you lose money.

If the conspirators want to destroy the people itself, then the result is the destruction of the country.

That’s where you all are “English-folk”.

_______________________

1/  Brewer’s Green — apparently not Southside — was the labor central party HQ in 2015.  From April, 2012 to December, 2015 the Labor Party hq was at Brewer’s Green.  From December, 2015 to early January, 2023, it was at 105 Victoria Street in Southside, hence called familiarly “Southside”.  See Labour Party headquarters (UK) – Wikipedia .  From January 2023 to today, it has been at a series of two addresses in Southwark — not Southside.  Confusing?  Well, might as well have confusion of addresses to match the confusion in the Rules.

2/  From 1900 to 1978, new leaders chosen by parliamentary party.  In 1978, an “electoral college” method put in, with 1/2rd members, 1/3rd trade unions, and 1/3rd parliammentary members.  That apparently lasted until 2014, in which it went to [all members?}  Well it is parliamentary MP ballots to get to the top 5, then those 5 go to the party members.  That is how Corbyn got through because he was 5th out of 5 on the MP ballot, but then won the party members hands down.

[1]  Nunns, Candidate, at 323 (no citation), OR Books, 2016.  Foster v McNicol and Corbyn, High Court of Justice Queens Bench, Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 1966 (QB) (July 28, 2016).  The High Court made a substantive ruling that the incumbent need not get any nominations; it did NOT simply issue a ruling affirming NEC’s ruling on either of the grounds (a) that the NEC was the sole judge of the rules or (b) that in this case the vote of the NEC was “reasonable” interpretation of the rules. Ibid. Accordingly, the High Court decision stands as a substantive interpretation of the rules that will bind further decisions of the NEC until if and when the underlying rules are properly amended by vote of the membership.  Note that the court, noting that the Labor Party is an unincorporated association bound solely by a “contract” — namely the Rules — ruled on this as a normal interpretation of contract case.  Id.  Note, in Evangelou v. McNicol, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), on Appeal from the High Courts of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 817 (August 12, 2016), held that the NEC did have the power to retroactively disenfranchise all constituency members who had joined the party within a period of six months before the date of the NEC ruling, thus disenfranchising about 130,000 new Labor Party members from the vote.

Rulers and Rape-Gangs: How Traitors at the Top Have Imported and Incubated Non-White Evil

Where was the Queen then? Where is the King now? And where has the Church been throughout? Nowhere, that’s where. Neither the individuals nor the institution have spoken a word in condemnation of Britain’s burgeoning non-White rape-gangs or in defence of the White victims. And neither the individuals nor the institution can possibly say: “We didn’t know.”

Raped by Pakistani Muslims, betrayed by Labour’s elite: a White working-class girl in Groomed: A National Scandal (video extracts here)

By 2020, the whole country knew. The rape-gangs had been exposed repeatedly in the national media and no-one could deny knowledge. But Britain’s rulers are plainly on the side of the rapists, not of the raped. Elizabeth the Evil, Chuck the Cuck[i] and the Church of Mudzone have made that plain by their silence. Our current Labour rulers have made it plain by their sneers. The sneers in question came in response to Groomed: A National Scandal, a harrowing documentary about the rape-gangs broadcast on national television in April 2025. Lucy Powell, an elite Labour apparatchik, was asked during a radio debate whether she had seen the documentary. She immediately responded: “Oh, we want to blow that little trumpet now, do we? Yeah, OK, let’s get that dog-whistle out.” By “dog-whistle” she meant “disguised appeal to racists.” And it’s clear that Powell, who is no less than the Leader of the House of Commons, was speaking for the entire Labour elite. She and her fiercely feminist comrades all believe that it’s wrong and racist to mention the organized rape of tens or even hundreds of thousands of White working-class girls by Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs in Labour-controlled towns and cities all over Britain.

How to identify crimethink

And it’s precisely because her sneer was clear that she had to pretend the opposite. She issued an insincere and evasive apology the next day, saying: “In the heat of a discussion on AQ [Any Questions, the radio debate], I would like to clarify that I regard issues of child exploitation and grooming with the utmost seriousness. I’m sorry if this was unclear. I was challenging the political point-scoring around it, not the issue itself. As a constituency MP, I’ve dealt with horrendous cases. This government is acting to get to the truth and deliver justice.”

In fact, as I explained in “Carry on Raping,” the Labour government is acting to conceal the truth and destroy justice. And by “political point-scoring” Powell meant “any reference to the rape-gangs by a thought-criminal.” And how do we know someone is a thought-criminal? That’s easy to answer. If you refer to the rape-gangs, you’re a thought-criminal and it is therefore wrong and racist of you to refer to the rape-gangs. Catch-22, crime-thinker!

Lucy Powell, grinning defender of non-White rape-gangs

That is the official but unspoken attitude of the Labour party. At least, it was supposed to be unspoken. But Lucy Powell allowed the mask to slip. The Labour party, founded to champion the White working-class, are now dedicated and remorseless enemies of the White working-class. Like the Queen, the King and the Church of England, the Labour elite are on the side of the non-White rapists, not the White girls who have been raped. And are still being raped. As even the Guardian admits, Groomed has made it plain that the pathology continues to burgeon across the Jew-Blighted Kingdom.

Heretics against leftist orthodoxy

But Groomed also made something else plain: that not all leftists are collaborating with or trying to conceal the rape-gangs. The documentary was made by a leftist called Anna Hall, who first began work on this topic nearly thirty years ago. The documentary was broadcast by Channel 4, a thoroughly leftist station. Julie Bindel, a part-Jewish leftist lesbian journalist, began exposing the rape-gangs in the 1980s. So did the leftist politician Ann Cryer, Labour MP for the Yorkshire constituency of Keighley. The leftist social worker Jayne Senior and the leftist politician Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham, followed Cryer’s lead in the twenty-first century. Like Cryer, Bindel and Hall before them, they were denounced as “racists” and “Islamophobes.”

All these women have moral courage. That’s why they become dissidents, heretics against leftist orthodoxy—and unrepresentative of leftism as a whole. So yes, not all leftists are collaborating with the rape-gangs, but the leftist elite certainly is. Leftism as a movement has been responsible for importing and incubating this non-White evil. And the rape-gangs are only part of that evil. Importing men from the rape-friendly Third World has certainly caused huge harm and suffering to young White women. But it has also caused huge harm and suffering to elderly White women. You can be certain that these horrors described in Sweden have been taking place all over the enriched West:

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

This satire by Nick Bougas accurately reflects Sweden’s leftist reality

Sweden’s elder rape scandal

The sexual abuse of elderly women by migrant carers was shamefully ignored

In autumn last year, Sweden was shaken by a scandal that shares some disturbing similarities with the grooming-gangs scandal in Britain. It is on a far smaller scale. But in Sweden, as in Britain, it seems that many vulnerable individuals have been raped and sexually abused, while the people whose job it should have been to protect them failed to do so. What’s more, those in positions of authority sometimes downplayed or hushed up allegations because of their low view of the victims and, potentially, the identity of some of the perpetrators.

The big difference between what happened in the UK and what happened in Sweden is that the victims were not young girls. They were elderly ladies dependent on outside carers to look after them. They claim that some of these carers brutally exploited their position of trust.

The scandal broke properly in early September last year, when 84-year-old Elsa (using the pseudonym, ‘Vera’) decided to speak out in an interview with the regional daily newspaper, Upsala Nya Tidning (UNT). [She had been raped by her non-White “carer,” whom leftist officials continued to send to her home despite her repeated complaints about his disturbing behavior.] When UNT interviewed Elsa last September, she used the pseudonym, ‘Vera’, because she was so frightened of what people would think of her. But her courage proved to be a wake-up call for Uppsala and, in many ways, for Sweden as a whole. Within days, more elderly ladies started to come forward to allege that they, too, had been abused by their carers. In particular, there was Siv, also from Uppsala. She told reporters how she was regularly raped by three different carers ‘from the same [non-White] country’. One of these men was the man who raped Elsa. They didn’t just visit her when they were supposed to work, but started to turn up in the evenings, too. This went on for months. Siv says she was in shock and was fearful of saying anything to anyone — that is, until Elsa gave her interview. Soon, other media started to cover the story. And the government-backed Swedish Gender Equality Agency began compiling a report on the violent abuse of the elderly.

The abuse clearly went beyond just a few cases. UNT contacted Sweden’s Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO) and demanded to see all reports of elder sexual abuse in the Swedish care system over the past five years. It turned out that councils across Sweden had received a staggering 45 reports. Some of these reports involved more than one perpetrator abusing a single victim. Others involved several victims reporting a single perpetrator. […] In 2024, television channel TV4 interviewed an 80-year-old lady called Ylva. Sitting in a wheelchair, Ylva said that she was raped twice in 2023 by her carer. When she spoke to her home-care management, they told her to keep quiet and not say a word to anyone. She did as she was told. It was only when she saw the UNT article about Elsa a year later that she plucked up the courage to speak about it. ‘Elsa is a hero’, she said. The manager of Ylva’s home-care service continues to avoid all questions from journalists.

The cases of elder abuse just keep coming. On 13 January this year, Baasim Yusuf, a 28-year-old of Somali origin, was sentenced by an Uppsala court to eight years in prison for two cases of rape and three cases of sexual assault, all of which he filmed. Some of his victims, suffering from poor memory, did not recall what had happened to them until the police showed them the video recordings. The public anger after Elsa spoke out, unleashing a torrent of horrific allegations, has been palpable. It has been matched only by the determination of the authorities to suppress the scandal. (“Sweden’s elder rape scandal,” Spiked Online, 27th April 2025)

Delroy Easton Grant and Emmanuel Adeniji, Black gerontophile rapists imported by leftists

England has had a prolific gerontophile rapist called Delroy Easton Grant, who is a Jamaican Black. Ireland has had prolific gerontophile rapist called Emmanuel Adeniji, who is a Nigerian Black. Importing Third-World people means incubating Third-World pathologies and inflicting horror on White women of all ages. Throughout Britain’s importing, incubation, and infliction, the monarchy and the Church of England have stayed silent. That is a gross betrayal and proof that we have traitors at the top. Meanwhile, another gross betrayal took place lower in the social scale, in an institution not traditionally regarded as leftist, namely, Britain’s police. The Groomed documentary is replete with examples of how one vital virtue appears to be entirely lacking amongst the macho men of the British police, just as it appears to be entirely lacking amongst the macho men of Britain’s armed forces. It’s called moral courage and to my best knowledge no male police officer has displayed it in response to rape-gangs, just as no male soldier, sailor or airman has displayed it in response to the gayification of the military. Ordinary military men and police will readily face death and serious injury because that wins them social approval and the praise of their leaders. However, they will not openly oppose leftism because that would win them social disapproval and the condemnation of their leaders. That’s why moral courage is much rarer than physical courage.

Why have there been no strikes by ordinary British police in protest at the way their traitorous leaders have refused to allow them to enforce the law against non-White child-rapists? Yes, it’s illegal for the police to go on strike, but that is all the more reason for them to do it. Like the monarchy and the Church of England above them, the police have the power to expose evil and rally public opinion in a way that can’t be censored or denied. But like the monarchy and the Church of England, the police have never used that power. Imagine the effect of a speech by the Queen in the 1960s or ’70s in which she had denounced the invasion of her White Christian realm by violent and unproductive non-Whites from corrupt and crime-ridden Third-World cultures. And imagine the effect of strikes by the police in the same era in which they denounced the organized and officially condoned rape that was already apparent in towns and cities all over the country.

How to end Third-World pathologies

But the Queen never made such a speech and the police have never gone on such strikes. The Queen was a traitor and the police lacked moral courage. The male ones, at least. And almost all the female ones too. Maggie Oliver was an honorable exception. She was a policewoman in Manchester, but wasn’t prepared to join the rest of the force in its implicit policy of “Carry On Raping.” Manchester is one of the big cities that I’ve described as “Much Worse Than Rotherham.” Bad as the rape-gangs in Rotherham have been, their crimes have been reproduced on a much bigger scale in cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Bradford. More and more Whites are recognizing that. They’re also recognizing the complicity and collaboration of Britain’s leftist elite.

A true Queen and a true traitor: Elizabeth I (1533-1604) and Elizabeth II (1926-2022)

But most importantly, more and more Whites are recognizing that there is only one solution to the Third-World pathologies caused by Third-World people. The pathologies will expire only when the people are expelled. I gave Elizabeth the Evil that nickname because she wasn’t a true Christian and wasn’t a true queen. If she had been, she would have followed the example of her genuinely illustrious namesake from the sixteenth century. This is the true queen Elizabeth I ordering the expulsion of “divers Blackmoores” from her realm:

An open lettre to the Lord Maiour of London and th’alermen his brethren, And to all other Maiours, Sheryfes, &c. Her Majestie understanding that there are of late divers Blackmoores brought into the Realme, of which kinde of people there are all ready here to manie, consideringe howe God hath blessed this land w[i]th great increase of people of our owne Nation as anie Countrie in the world, wherof manie for want of Service and meanes to sett them on worck fall to Idlenesse and to great extremytie; Her Majesty’s pleasure therefore ys, that those kinde of people should be sent forthe of the lande. And for that purpose there ys direction given to this bearer Edwarde Banes to take of those Blackmoores that in this last voyage under Sir Thomas Baskervile, were brought into this Realme to the nomber of Tenn, to be Transported by him out of the Realme. Wherein wee Require you to be aydinge & Assysting unto him as he shall have occacion, and thereof not to faile. (See “Open letter by Elizabeth I” at the National Archive)[ii]

What Elizabeth I ordered in the sixteenth century can be achieved in the twenty-first. Non-Whites have to return where they belong. After that, we need to put the traitors on trial and ensure that Britain’s future leaders never forget that they either serve the true British or suffer the painful consequences of betraying the true British. And the only true British are, of course, the White ones.


[i]  Like his mother, Chuck the Cuck raises a fascinating question. Which is greater: his evil or his stupidity? The latter leapt to the fore in his recent claim that the Allied victory in World War 2 was a “result of unity between nations, races, religions and ideologies” and “remains a powerful reminder of what can be achieved when countries stand together in the face of tyranny.” The most important “ally” and “ideology” in the victory was, of course, the mass-murdering tyranny of Soviet Communism, which hated Chuck’s supposed religion of Christianity and had slaughtered Chuck’s relatives, the Russian royal family, in 1918.

[ii]  The Jewish historian Miranda Kaufmann has denied that “blackamoores” were expelled en masse from England. It’s part of her campaign to pretend that Blacks have long been an important part of British history, but there’s no doubt either that Elizabeth’s letter exists or that Blacks were a tiny and insignificant group in Elizabethan England.

Trial by Jewry: Asa Winstanley on Weaponizing Anti-Semitism

Weaponizing Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn
ASA WINSTANLEY
OR Books, 2023

The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.
Polish proverb

Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of Britain’s Labour Party prior to the current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, taking over in 2015 remaining leader until Labour’s comprehensive defeat in 2019. Despite losing the snap General Election in 2017, Labour exceeded expectations electorally, and Corbyn remained at the helm until 2019, when Boris Johnson’s Tories (in name, at least) won a resounding mandate. Corbyn’s tenure as leader was particularly tempestuous as he was fighting not just the old enemy in the form of the Conservative Party, but another, more shadowy foe:

The most successful attack vector against Corbyn would prove to be the narrative of a ‘crisis’ of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party.

The quote is from Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn, a book by British journalist, Asa Winstanley. Anti-Semitism, along with racism, homophobia, Islamophobia et al, is one of the new occupational hazards, a reboot of the Seven Deadly Sins for the workplace. An accusation of any one of them can lose someone their job, and politicians must tread particularly carefully. But whereas racism and transphobia bring hordes out onto the streets waving ill-written signs, the Jews are not much given to placardism. Anti-Semitism is a charge more clinically applied, but equally deadly. Corbyn’s political demise, according to Winstanley, was “death by a thousand investigations into anti-Semitism”.

The book represents seven-years’ research into Labour’s relationship with (and attack by) the Jewish lobby by Winstanley and colleagues at his website, Electronic Intifada. A long-time Labour member himself before leaving the party in disgust, Winstanley and his site represent a rare voice, one critical of Jewish presence and influence in British politics. This book shines an unwelcome light into the shadows, as when the site’s investigations revealed that “the Israeli state is arming Ukraine’s Azov Battalion—one of the world’s most dangerous Nazi armed groups.”

As soon as Corbyn took the reins of the Labour Party from the utterly hopeless Ed Miliband, there were stirrings within the British establishment the cause of which is the subject of Winstanley’s work here. Corbyn was correctly seen as a creature of the hard Left, and his reception was a frigid one. Media coverage and interviews were hostile and provocative, an ex-British Army General said that there would be mass resignations should Corbyn become Prime Minister, and both MI5 and MI6 invited the new Labour leader to “let’s get acquainted” meetings which gave him the sense there was an éminence grise working behind the scenes.

The media were cautious about Corbyn’s accession to the Labour leadership, although impressed by the party’s showing in the 2017 election. Already, though, the expected chorus warning of anti-Jew enmity had begun to build:

Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard had to face up to the reality of Corbyn’s achievements, admitting that ‘Like most pundits, I called the election completely wrongly.’ But he went on to write that the 12.8 million people who had voted for Labour ‘scare me’, implying that they were all anti-Semitic, or at least willing to tolerate Jew-hatred.

But the opposition to Corbyn, and the complex and determined campaign to depose him, had as its center of gravity the Labour leader’s lack of vocal support for Israel. It is not sufficient in British politics to pay lip-service to Israel. You must support Zionism, at least tacitly. And so Corbyn was painted into a corner before he had even begun his run at the premiership:

No matter how much Corbyn tried to pander, the Israel lobby always refused to take yes for an answer.

The ultimate aim of the Israeli lobby was to keep a genuinely Socialist Prime Minister out of 10 Downing Street, and Corbyn alarmed them: “probably more than anything else, Corbyn was known among activists for his involvement in the Palestine solidarity movement.” In fact, Winstanley’s tenacious research shows that the lobby did not suddenly turn their fire on the Labour leader once he had won the leadership contest:

Israel’s security services had set their sights on the MP at least five years before he became Labour leader and long before anti-Semitism in Labour became a newsworthy issue.

Anti-Semitism was not something that British newspapers such as The Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News suddenly discovered in the Labour Party, but rather something they at best exaggerated and at worst confected.

Much of the war over perceived racism of any kind is waged on the battlefield of language, and now that social media has amplified political commentary, use of language, vocabulary, and rhetoric is forensically examined by those who wish to use it to serve their political purposes. Winstanley is in no doubt in his choice of equivalence:

‘Do you agree that’ a certain quote, social media posting, or unfortunate turn of phrase ‘is anti-Semitic?’ became the new ‘Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?’.

The term “trope” is always in play for the Jewish lobby. Their Islamic and Black counterparts tend not to use it, Muslims perhaps because its provenance is Ancient Greek (and thus a relic from the jahiliyya, the time before Islam), Blacks because they can’t find it in their slim, one-volume dictionary of Ebonics. Thus, when Al Jazeera’s media arm produced a revealing series called The Lobby, which involved undercover reporting and recording, the response of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) was typical:

LFI [called] Al Jazeera’s series ‘a combination of lies, insinuations, and distortions’ that ‘attempted to construct a vast conspiracy involving hidden power, money and improper influence — typical anti-Semitic tropes’.

Well, sure. All Jew-critical observers understand that “hidden power, money and improper influence” are the reasons they are Jew-critical observers in the first place. It’s a little like saying that poisonous snakes possess deadly agility, sharp, canalised teeth, and lethal venom, and that these are “typical, anti-snake tropes”. If a “trope” is simply a feature, it loses its sinister overtones. It too must be weaponized. One prominent member of LFI related with pride that her son had recently got a very good job by virtue of having worked for the Labour faction. When a journalist implied that LFI might have access to some serious funding from the Jewish lobby, “She instantly lashed out: ‘It’s anti-Semitic. It is. It’s a trope. It’s about conspiracy theorists!’.”

It’s also interesting to note the name of LFI’s savior in the Labour Party when they fell on hard times:

The decline of LFI’s membership led its director, in an internal report, to write that 1992 ‘came near to seeing the end of LFI as an active body.’ Its fortunes were revived when Tony Blair took over in 1994. Blair called it ‘one of the most important organizations within the Labour movement’.

The Jewish lobby’s concerted and ultimately successful attempt to bring down Corbyn was no mere whispering campaign among Zionists. “Israeli officials often described their campaign against ‘delegitimisation’ using military language”, Winstanley writes:

According to Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, there was even a ‘war room’ at the Israeli embassy in London. Describing a map of Britain hanging on the wall, … Ravid wrote that it was like something from ‘a brigade on the Lebanese border.’ The map showed ‘the front’ (Britain’s universities) as well as ‘the deployment of pro-Israel activists and the location of ‘enemy forces’. The aim was to sabotage and divide the left in order to promote Zionist ideology, and to block the rise of democratic socialist governments overseas that would be more likely to loosen ties with Israel.

Corbyn was not the only Labour Party member to be targeted and ultimately defenestrated by the Jewish lobby, nor even the most high-profile. When Corbyn won the leadership contest, no one outside the Westminster bubble had even heard of him. Ken Livingstone, on the other hand, was a household name. The two-term London Mayor affectionately known as “Red Ken” was effectively brought down by forces using anti-Semitism as their field artillery, and two names which are never far from the Jewish lobby’s lexicon: Hitler and the Holocaust.

In an interview, Livingstone mentioned the fact that Hitler, in the early 1930s, announced his plan for Germany’s Jews, which did not involve gas chambers, but instead mass deportation to Israel. Even Reinhard Heydrich, known as the “architect of the Holocaust”, approved of Zionism (although Livingstone was not so foolish as to mention that). The interview was a classic stitch-up:

In the days, months and years to follow, Livingstone would be incessantly berated with the allegation that he had brought the Nazis into the conversation out the blue, even of being ‘obsessed’ by Hitler. But examination of the transcript shows that, in fact, it had been [the interviewer] who had raised the issue of the Nazis.

The interview was followed a familiar maneuver by the Jewish lobby: Get the interviewee onto Hitler territory and then watch closely for any slip-up. When Corbyn tried to defend Livingstone’s comments, the Jewish media pounced with trademark hyperbole. Former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks accused Corbyn of “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”. Powell, of course, never mentioned any “Rivers of blood” but rather, as a classics expert, was making an allusion to Virgil. This regular misquotation has passed into the currency both of the Left and the Jewish lobby. It has become, as our Jewish friends might say, a trope. Concerning Corbyn’s apparent defense of Livingstone, Jewish journalist Simon Heffer announced on live radio that Corbyn “wanted to re-open Auschwitz”. This is a willful and absurd misinterpretation of the situation, but it helped to put Corbyn on the defensive. Once a prominent personality is forced to start saying things like, “I’m not a racist” or, “I don’t have an anti-Semitic bone in my body”, the struggle is already slipping away from them.

Winstanley and his research team were also affected by Labour’s desperate purge of anything that even remotely resembled anti-Semitism:

At the Electronic Intifada, we saw signs of this early on, as Labour Party bureaucrats implemented what was in effect a stealth ban on party members sharing our stories.

Published in 2023, Winstanley’s book almost bring us up to the present day (in which it is possible for the staunchest Tory to feel nostalgic about Corbyn) and extends to Starmer’s accession as Party leader, as well as the clarity of his attitude towards Israel and its ever-busy lobbyists:

[Starmer’s] first act as ‘Labour’ leader was not to address the material conditions of the working classes or (with the looming threat of millions of newly unemployed) lay out his plans to combat COVID-19. Rather his top priority was assuring the Israel lobby that they were back in the driver’s seat.

The return of Israeli influence was confirmed with the first of Starmer’s minor scandals: Inviting an Israeli spy to take over as head of “social listening”, a euphemism for the surveillance of citizens on social media. “Israel and its lobby no longer needed to infiltrate the Labour Party”, writes Winstanley. “Starmer had invited them into headquarters”.

Starmer now has to serve two masters, the Jewish lobby and the Muslim Council of Britain. It seems at first glance that the mass importation of Muslims into Europe represents what people have taken to calling an “existential threat” to Europe’s Jews. An alternative view is that it is the Israel lobby which is orchestrating this invasion, and a few hospitalized Jews and damaged synagogues are collateral damage. It is even whispered that the Jewish Board of Deputies is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. But that is a tale for another day.

Winstanley’s book is both highly competent, responsible journalism, and a reminder that, for the Israeli lobby, the only thing worse than anti-Semitism is no anti-Semitism, nothing with which to gain political purchase and leverage. “Israel and its lobby”, Winstanley writes, “have always used anti-Semitism as a political weapon.”

We hear much, at least from our own quarter, about the influence of Jews at a global level and too little about the small maneuvers—the grassroots plots and plans, the targeting of individuals. The strategy used by the Jewish lobby is simple but, as the case of Jeremy Corbyn shows, devastatingly effective. One leading Jewish lobbyist explains the methods used to control both the narrative and even an entire political party:

[We] built a robust political discourse, rooted in the politics of the left, and deployed it in their own backyard.

Carry On Raping: How Leftists Are Ideal Folk to Tackle the Pathologies Created and Sustained by Leftism

Here’s an important question with an obvious answer. Who is best-placed to tackle war-crimes committed against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip? Clearly, it’s the Israel Defense Forces or IDF. The IDF have all the necessary local knowledge and experience, having been focused on the Gaza Strip for many months now, extending outreach daily to the local inhabitants, and conducting extensive remodelling of local architecture and infrastructure.

Creating a rape-gang epidemic

Next, what about crime and corruption on the island of Sicily? Who’s best-placed to tackle that? Clearly it’s the veteran civic association known as the Mafia. Again, they have all the local knowledge and experience. No-one knows more about crime and corruption on Sicily than the Mafia, as all experts are agreed. Finally, what about vampirism in the Romanian province of Transylvania? Who’s best-placed to tackle that? Clearly, it’s the respected local leader Count Dracula. His personal experience of vampirism in Transylvania stretches back many centuries, as not even his most stubborn critics will deny. Owing to a rare medical condition, the Count can’t, alas, be active by daylight, but he more than makes up for that with his energy and enterprise in the hours of darkness.

So the principle is clear. Those best-placed to tackle crimes are those responsible for or complicit in the crimes. And it’s this clear principle that has guided Britain’s Labour party in its response to the Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs that have been hard at work for decades in British towns and cities controlled by the Labour party. After Elon Musk led an outcry about the rape-gangs at the beginning of 2025, the Labour government refused to commission a national enquiry, but promised that there would be “five local enquiries.” Labour were lying, of course. They were merely buying time as they plotted to shield both themselves and their ethnic pets from further scrutiny. As I’ve pointed out in article after article at the Occidental Observer, Labour and its leftism created the rape-gangs, have sustained and protected the rape-gangs, and have absolutely no intention of stopping the rape-gangs. If the current Labour government were honest about that, it would admit that its policy on the rape-gangs can be summed up in three simple words: “Carry On Raping.”

The Grift Report extends its congratulations to fiercely feminist Labour minister Jess Phillips

But Labour isn’t honest about its policy on the Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs, of course. Leftism is an ideology of lies and evasion, so the veteran Labour politician Jess Phillips was intent on lying and weaseling throughout the speech she made to parliament about “Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation” on 8th April 2025. That date was carefully chosen, because parliament was about to shut down for the Easter Recess and the House of Commons was almost empty. Phillips has the Orwellian title of “Minister for Safeguarding Women and Girls,” which means that she is dedicated to harming women and girls. In particular, she’s dedicated to harming women and girls from the White working-class, whom the Labour party was founded to champion but now works tirelessly to destroy. In a pathological sense, here’s one of the most interesting parts of her speech:

We are developing a new best practice framework to support local authorities which want to undertake victim-centred local inquiries, or related work, drawing on the lessons from local independent inquiries like Telford, Rotherham and Greater Manchester. We will publish the details next month.

Alongside this we will set out the process through which local authorities can access the £5 million national fund to support locally-led work on grooming gangs. Following feedback from local authorities, the fund will adopt a flexible approach to support both full independent local inquiries and more bespoke work, including local victims’ panels or locally led audits into the handling of historic cases. (“Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation,” speech by Jess Phillips, 8th April 2025)

It’s hard to know where to begin responding to even that short section of Phillips’ lying and weaseling speech, but I’ll begin by noting the “£5 million national fund.” Three days after the speech, the Labour government announced that it was sending an additional £450 million in military aid to Ukraine. So Labour can devote another huge sum to a futile war in a distant foreign land infamous for official corruption and theft, but can find only a paltry sum for “locally-led work” on a pathology afflicting its own traditional supporters in Britain. Res ipsa loquitur, as we say oop north. Next, note how often Phillips used the word “local” and its variants. In every case, it could be replaced by “Labour” or “leftist.” For example, what does “locally-led work” really mean? It means “leftist-led work.” That is, the “local authorities” — the Labour authorities — responsible for the pathology of Pakistani rape-gangs will be leading the response to it.

Leftist-led audits

There has been “feedback from local authorities,” you see. That is, leftists in rape-gang redoubts have sent “feedback” to leftists in London about how local leftists can be best supported by their leftist government in “tackling” pathologies created by leftism. It’s like the IDF in the Gaza Strip sending “feedback” to Tel Aviv about “tackling” war-crimes in the Gaza Strip. Or the Mafia in Sicily sending “feedback” to Rome about “tackling” crime and corruption in Sicily. Or Count Dracula in Transylvania sending “feedback” to Bucharest about “tackling” vampirism in Transylvania. We can be sure that the IDF, the Mafia, and the Count would all be firmly in favor of “a flexible approach” and “locally led audits,” that is, audits led by themselves and therefore guaranteed to reach the right conclusions. And recall this richly resonant phrase used by Phillips: “more bespoke work.” Again, the IDF, the Mafia and the Count would most certainly want that. After all, who would be “bespeaking” about the best way to “tackle” war-crimes in the Gaza Strip, crime in Sicily, and vampirism in Transylvania? You won’t need any guesses.

Loathsome leftists in Britain: Jess Phillips and Angela Rayner

Yes, that speech by Jess Phillips was a master-class in leftist lying and weasel-words. Watching her make the speech, I was reminded once again of how well a book published in 1949 describes the psychology and behavior of leftists like Phillips in 2025. I’m talking about Orwell’s classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, of course. Jess Phillips is the Minister for Safeguarding Women and Girls. Orwell captures all the truth and sincerity of that title when he describes how, in his darkly comic dystopia, “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.” But there’s also a classic from 1886 that describes leftists in 2025. I’m reminded of it every time I see Jess Phillips and her Labour colleague Angela Rayner. The classic is Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Here’s a highly relevant quote from it:

Mr. Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile, he had borne himself to the lawyer with a sort of murderous mixture of timidity and boldness, and he spoke with a husky, whispering and somewhat broken voice; all these were points against him, but not all of these together could explain the hitherto unknown disgust, loathing, and fear with which Mr. Utterson regarded him. “There must be something else,” said the perplexed gentleman. “There is something more, if I could find a name for it. God bless me, the man seems hardly human! Something troglodytic, shall we say? or can it be the old story of Dr. Fell? or is it the mere radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent?” (Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson, 1886)

Loathsome leftists in America: Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton

Like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton in America, Jess Phillips and Angela Rayner aren’t “pale and dwarvish.” But all four of those leftists strike me as “hardly human” and fill me with “disgust and loathing.” And in each case I attribute that to the “radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent.” When Jess Phillips made that speech about “Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation,” I witnessed once again the “radiance” of her “foul soul.” And after she’d made the speech, I witnessed more radiance from the foul soul of another female leftist. But this time it was a leftist I’d never heard of: one Tessa Munt (born 1959), an MP for the Liberal Democrats (this is another Orwellian title: it really means the Illiberal Anti-Democrats). Ms Munt had been enraged by the response of a quick-thinking Conservative to Phillips’ speech. The Shadow Home Secretary Katie Lam pointed out that the Pakistani rape-gangs were clearly motivated by racial hatred of Whites and quoted one of Labour’s ethnic pets to that effect: “We’re here to fuck all the white girls.”

Tessa Munt spits out the phrase “white men” as she addresses her fellow goyim in parliament

Ms Munt wasn’t standing for that incitement to racial hatred. Or rather, she was standing for it. Quivering with indignation, she rose to her feet from the famous green benches of the House of Commons and proclaimed: “My blood is boiling as I listen to this stuff from the Conservative benches.” She then reminded the racist Tories of “people just like me, white girls who’ve suffered at the hands of white men.” The venom with which she spat out the phrase “white men” was a sight (and sound) to behold. Well, as I said, I’d never heard of Tessa Munt before, but a little research told me that I’d just witnessed this “white girl” supply a classic M.F.G. moment. In other words, Ms Munt was addressing “My Fellow Goyim.” Wikipedia, as lovingly “curated” by leftists, says that Munt’s “mother was raised within the Church of Scotland, but her family had mainly Jewish roots.”

Accordingly, Ms Munt reminds me of Denis MacShane, the slug-like leftist and bon viveur who long and devotedly served as Labour MP for Rotherham. Unfortunately, Denis was badly let down by the local police, who failed to notify him that, decade in, decade out, Pakistani Muslims had been brazenly raping, torturing, prostituting, and murdering White working-class girls in what he called his “wonderful constituency.” That is, Denis says he didn’t act because the police failed to notify him, but his credibility was sadly tarnished when he was jailed for fraud in 2013. His downfall was lamented by the Jewish Chronicle, which saluted him as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions.” The Chronicle was perfectly correct in that description. But MacShane wasn’t elected to champion rich Jews in far-off London. He was elected to champion the White working-class in Rotherham. He didn’t do that. Instead, he utterly betrayed the White working-class, just like his “beloved Labour party” as a whole.

The Judeo-leftist war on Whites and the West

In short, the Labour party doesn’t merely hate the White workers it was found to champion, but imports and incites non-White savages to rape, torture, prostitute, and murder the daughters of White workers. It then condemns anyone who notices its criminal conspiracy as “racist” and “Islamophobic.” Modern Britain is like a giant Carry On movie based on Nineteen Eighty-Four but scripted by the Marquis de Sade and directed by Jeffrey Epstein. It would, of course, be called Carry on Raping. If you don’t know the Carry On moviesCarry On Cruising from 1962, Carry On Camping from 1969, and so on — they’re classics of no-brow British comedy, cheaply made, crammed with crude innuendo, and endlessly repeated on nostalgia channels.

Trigger warning needed! Leftists are deeply concerned not by non-White rape-gangs in 2025, but by sexism in movies from 1969

But nowadays they have to be preceded by solemn “trigger warnings” about their racism, sexism and homophobia. Leftists in modern Britain are determined to tackle the harmful effects of words in decades-old movies, you see. At the same time, leftists are determined not to tackle the rape, torture, prostituting, and murder of White working-class girls by non-White men in towns and cities all over Britain. After all, the non-White men are vital footsoldiers in the Judeo-leftist war on Whites and the West. Jess Phillips, Tessa Munt and Denis MacShane would, of course, all deny that they and their fellow leftists want the non-Whites to carry on raping. But leftist deeds speak far louder than leftist words.

Heirs of the Displaced The effects of immigration on the East End before the Great War

In this essay I examine the effects of Jewish immigration on the native English in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, focusing mainly on the East End of London and drawing entirely on the work of Jewish historians.

Areas of concentration

While wealthier Jews typically lived in the West End or in country houses, poorer Jewish immigrants before 1881 had tended to converge on the East End. Those who came from 1881 onwards joined them and, as their numbers grew, they took over whole streets, then larger areas. Susan Tananbaum cites estimates of the Jewish population of London that range from 150,000 to 180,000, of whom about 100,000 lived in the East End.1 Lloyd Gartner cites higher estimates. In 1901, in the Borough of Stepney alone, he says there were nearly 120,000 Jewish residents, about 40% of its population, making it the borough of most intense immigrant concentration.2 As Geoffrey Alderman describes,

“Stepney included the areas of Whitechapel, St George’s-in-the-East, and Mile End, in which Jews had traditionally lived adjacent to the City of London, and into which the immigrants now poured just as their more prosperous English-born or Anglicized co-religionists were migrating northwards. According to the census of 1881, over three-quarters of the Russians and Poles (most of whom can be assumed to have been Jews, of course) who lived in London were located in these areas; by 1901 the proportion was just under 80 per cent. By 1901 the alien population of Whitechapel had reached almost 32 per cent; in Mile End Old Town it was nearly 29 per cent.”3

In 1899, a map of “Jewish East London” was included in The Jew in London, a study “published under the auspices of Toynbee Hall”; the map showed that “some streets north and south of the Commercial and Whitechapel Roads were almost entirely Jewish by residence”. The study stated that

“The area covered by the Jewish quarter is extending its limits every year. Overflowing the boundaries of Whitechapel, they are spreading northward and eastward into Bethnal Green and Mile End, and southward into St. George’s-in-the-East; while further away in Hackney and Shoreditch to the north, and Stepney, Limehouse and Bow to the east, a rather more prosperous and less foreign element has established itself. . . . Dirt, overcrowding, industry and sobriety may be set down as the most conspicuous features of these foreign settlements. In many cases they have completely transformed the character of the neighbourhood.”4

As Gartner describes,

“There were two spines to eastward Jewish expansion in the East End. One was Whitechapel Road (Aldgate High Street and Mile End Road at its eastern and western ends), a street of Roman origin moving east and slightly north, and the second was Commercial Road, which was hacked through courts and alleys in the mid-nineteenth century to connect the City with the docks and stretching south-east. Both slowly filled with Jewish businesses and residences. The streets branching off them were slowly infiltrated in their turn, and presently the little side turnings were also annexed into the Jewish quarter. By about 1910 the Jewish area reached its furthest extent, with the fringe of the City symbolized by Aldgate Pump as western limit, and with Cable Street to the south, the Great Eastern tracks on the northern edge, and a flexible eastern limit around Jubilee Street, Jamaica Street, and Stepney Green as its informal boundaries.

These two square miles enclosed some of the most densely populated acres in England. This was caused not only by normal overcrowding of large families and the presence of many lodgers, but was aggravated by the razing of thousands of dwellings to make room for railway facilities, street improvements, business premises, and schools. Little or no provision was made for the displaced inhabitants, who usually remained in the vicinity where they earned their livelihoods and jammed the remaining houses still further. Although wholesale demolitions for commercial purposes subsided after 1880, they continued at quite a rapid pace for such public improvements as schools and slum clearance. In other words, Jewish immigration intensified the East End’s deep-rooted problem of house accommodation by preventing the population from declining as its houses were pulled down.”5

Immigrants arriving

My last essay mentioned the reception of new immigrant Jews among those longer-established in England. It became “an anxiously desired goal of native Jewish efforts among immigrants … to lure them out of the East End and to disperse them among the smaller cities in the provinces.”6 Yet,

“Up north in Grimsby, Joel Elijah Rabinowitz retorted that the Jewish immigrant would continue to choose the London slum in spite of every inducement, because employment and fellow-Jews were to be found there. The Russo-Jewish Committee, which tried earnestly to persuade immigrants to settle away from the East End, realistically explained why the immigrants persistently ignored these blandishments:

(1) Indisposition on the part of the individual refugee to migrate to quarters where he would be mainly among strangers.

(2) Local prejudices against foreigners, and especially against refugee Jews, who are regarded as interlopers.

(3) The persistent objection of some of the refugees to obtaining a knowledge of English.

(4) The objection to the schooling of the children outside Jewish influences.”7

As in most times and places, immigrants congregated for the sake of familiarity, security and mutual support. They were from all over Eastern Europe, but Judaism and the Jewish identity bound them to one another and separated them from the English, other than geographically. Their growth in the East End was rapid and contiguous, and they became dominant over ever more territory until the numbers arriving subsided. The immigrants also intensified demand for housing and, as also seems perennial, they benefited landlords at the expense of renters, as Alderman describes:

“Inevitably, the housing shortage resulted in the raising of rents; in London as a whole rents rose between 10 and 12 per cent in the period 1880-1900, but in the East London boroughs the rise was of the order of 25 per cent. Prospective tenants might also find themselves asked to pay ‘key money’ (often dubbed ‘blood money’) to the landlord or the outgoing tenant, merely for the privilege of moving in.”8

He continues:

“That Jewish landlords were more likely than native landlords to raise rents was a fact of life; that the rents they raised were usually those of their brethren from eastern Europe was merely a plea in mitigation. The Jewish influx caused rents to rise; had it not been for the Jews, rents would either not have risen or would not have risen so much. It is also true that the clearance of slums, and their replacement by model dwellings, ensured housing for Jews at the expense of non-Jews.”9

Gartner’s more critical description pierces the blandness of aggregated and averaged statistics. He says that Jews seemed willing to pay higher rents which accelerated “the displacement of English tenants”.

“By a process of mutual cause and effect, the high rents paid by Jews invited overcrowding, which in turn further stimulated rack-renting. Nothing hindered a landlord from raising rents as he pleased or from expelling any tenant to make way for anyone whom he pleased. Matters did not improve when, as sometimes happened, the landlord was himself a Jewish immigrant. (Real estate in Jewish districts was a favoured investment for immigrants who prospered.) … [R]ents probably rose fifty per cent or sixty per cent when a street turned Jewish, with the entire difference pocketed by speculating or rack-renting landlords and partially made back by tenants who took in lodgers.”

Taking in lodgers could only exacerbate the crowding. The growth of the Jewish dominion was inexorable. Gartner continues:

“The Jews’ alien status and the higher rents which accompanied them incited severe hostility when they settled in a new street as the Jewish quarter gradually spread out. Sensing that they would soon be submerged, some of the English and Irish inhabitants moved out at once. Others remained behind to give vent to cold or hot hostility, whether by calculated snubbing or, at times, by stones thrown or windows broken. But they too presently evacuated.”10

The standard of life was diminished in other ways. According to Gartner,

“To an East End which was water-starved sometimes, unsatisfactorily inspected by public authorities, and overcrowded in decrepit or poorly built houses, the Jews brought not only an extra measure of overcrowding but a seeming ignorance and indifference to sanitary requirements. Accumulated and uncollected refuse lay in rotting piles inside and outside houses, while the interiors were often dank and malodorous from foul water closets, leaking ceilings, untrapped sinks, and cracked, moist walls.”11

A writer in the Jewish Chronicle remarked in 1880 that “[o]f the Jewish poor in the Metropolis it is probable that ninety per cent are Russians. They have the Russian habit of living in dirt, and of not being offended at unsavoury smells and a general appearance of squalor.”12 The Lancet stated that

“the presence in our midst of this numerous colony of foreign Jews gives rise to a sanitary problem of a most complicated nature. Their uncleanly habits and ignorance of English ways of living render it difficult to maintain in a wholesome condition even those more modern dwellings where the system of drainage is well organised.”13

According to Tananbaum, the socialist activist Beatrice Potter (later Beatrice Webb), who investigated the conditions of life in the East End, found that

“the Jewish ‘race’ could withstand ‘an indefinitely low standard of life’. Their working lives were characterized by ‘long and irregular hours, periods of strain, and periods of idleness, scanty nourishment, dirt and overcrowding, casual charity — all conditions which ruin the Anglo-Saxon and Irish inhabitant of the East End [yet] seem to leave unhurt the moral and physical fibre of the Jew’.”14

Nathaniel Rothschild, the first Baron Rothschild, acknowledged in 1904 that “it is unfortunately true that a large number of them [Jewish immigrants] live in the Borough of Stepney… [and] that the rooms are insanitary, that more people live in a room than ought to be’.”15

Even the cleanest of people could not have entirely surmounted the challenges of the excessive density of people. As Tananbaum describes,

“Rose Henriques, of the Oxford and St George’s Jewish (later Bernhard Baron) Settlement, described the housing as ‘dreadful … [with] staircases that stank’. ‘The tragedy was that the smells didn’t necessarily mean that the tenants were dirty people, although often they were’. Even with ‘incessant cleaning’, buildings ‘stank of generations of overcrowded bodies and of outer clothing that become odorous from long use’.”

Stepney only gained a reliable water supply in 1902, and “[a]s late as 1939, 90 per cent of Stepney’s homes lacked baths.”16 Gartner remarks of Jewish migrants in general that their movement from towns and villages into metropolitan centres had the “immediately visible result” of “a rather foul slum zone and a knotty problem of health and housing. … The physical problems of the Jewish quarters did not vanish until the areas were torn down (or, as in London, bombed out) or the Jews abandoned them.”17

Working from home

Insanitary conditions were typically accompanied by noise from home life and home-based work. Immigrants were more inclined to adapt the environment to themselves than the reverse. According to Gartner, “England was a factory country, and very few immigrants had ever worked in a factory. They had worked in little workshops back in Russia and Poland, and that is where they continued to work in England.”18 In Stepney in 1901,

“Many living quarters doubled as workshops, with hundreds of contractors working out of their homes. By day, food, garments and refuse collected in the kitchen. At night, members of the household used the room to sleep. Lily Montagu, the famed warden of the West Central Settlement, contended that overcrowded homes ‘limited the outward realisation of the joys of family life. In tenement dwellings … every corner of the home is utilised for some domestic or industrial purpose … Excepting during the hours of sleeping and feeding, most scenes of family life are enacted in the streets’.”19

According to a London County Councillor speaking to the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, a Jew in the East End “will use his yard for something. He will store rags there, perhaps—mountains of smelling rags, until the neighbours all round get into a most terrible state over it, or perhaps he will start a little factory in the yard, and carry on a hammering noise all night, and then he will throw out a lot of waste stuff, offal, or anything like that—it is all pitched out, and in the evening the women and girls sit out on the pavement and make a joyful noise . . . on the Sunday the place is very different to what the English are accustomed to.”20 In Todd Endelman’s words, “the aliens worked on Sundays, slept outside on hot summer nights, ate herring and black bread, and read Yiddish newspapers.”21 Jews working and trading on Sundays became a point of particularly fierce contention.

Jewish residents of the East End

Immigration alienated the native people. Areas that became Jewish-dominated acquired an “aura of exotic strangeness” which “provoked indignation and unease”.22 Gartner says that “[i]mmigrant Jewry formed a society apart, with standards derived from other sources than England.” Naturally this was so, as “immigrant life was an attempt to preserve with more or less adjustment the social standards and habits of home and communal life in Eastern Europe.”23 As Todd Endelman describes,

“Residents of the East End and middle class visitors alike viewed immigration as a foreign invasion, turning once-English districts into “little Jerusalems” and “little Palestines.” Native workers felt overrun and displaced as immigrants flooded in and occupied street after street. … [A] witness told the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration in 1903 [that] “the feeling is that there is nothing but the English going out and the Jews coming in.” A local borough councilor complained that as he walked through Mile End or Cable Street he saw that “the good old names of tradesmen have gone, and in their places are foreign names of those who have ousted Englishmen out into the cold.” In Whitechapel, a Christian social worker noted, “the English visitor feels himself one of a subject race in the presence of dominant and overwhelming invaders.”24

Endelman also cites an account of life in East London which saw Jews as having “predatory noses and features”, described them as “alien” and remarked that “[o]ne seems to be in a hostile tribal encampment” which “makes one afraid, not of them personally, but of the obvious tenacity, the leech-like grip, of a people who, one feels in one’s English bones, flourish best on the decay of their hosts, like malignant bacilli in the blood.”25 Certainly there is abundant evidence that Jewish interests diverged from, or were directly opposed to, those of the English and that this was most vividly and punishingly experienced by the people of the East End.

Street life

The prolific, concentrated immigrant population exceeded the available buildings and lived partly on the streets. Gartner says that

“it is difficult to speak of home life in many houses, for with one or more lodgers, several children, and perhaps grandparents and other relatives, every Jewish immigrant household was a cramped place. Eight or nine individuals shared two small rooms, and the ratio was even higher in hundreds of dwellings. Hence a large part of home life was lived out of doors by older folk seated at their doorways, by adolescents in search of fascination and adventure, and by children at play in the courts and alleys.”26

The forms of fascination and adventure ranged from the sublime to the deplorable. Gangs of youths were free to prey on more peaceable folk. As we saw in the last essay, and as Robert Henriques describes, “the Anglo-Jewish community had acknowledged the immigrants as a charge which it had met with comprehensive generosity.” However, their children came to present “a new problem”. Though many “accepted the stringent demands of orthodox Judaism learnt from their parents”, they were formally observant but lacking “faith and piety”. They dispensed with any regard for “moral obligation or the law of the land”.

“Consequently the streets in the slum districts of the East End were filled with gangs of young Jewish boys, who identified Judaism with the empty shell of ultra-orthodox observance, and who spent their evenings lawlessly roaming the streets, creating disturbances, assaulting and robbing licensed stall-holders and becoming a source of great anxiety and trouble to the police.”27

The criminality that arose out of the post-1881 immigration owed something to the pre-existing patterns of Jewish occupations. Earlier in the 19th century, according to Endelman,

“Jewish poverty went hand in hand with crime, squalid surroundings, low-status trades, and coarse behavior. In the 1810s and 1820s, there was a marked increase in the incidence of Jewish criminal activity in London, if the skyrocketing rate of Jewish convictions at the Old Bailey is any guide.”

After 1830, “the number of Jewish street criminals fell … but Jews remained active in socially marginal occupations—as dealers in battered odds and ends, worn-out clothing, rags and rubbish; as keepers of brothels, wine rooms, saloons, gambling dens, billiard rooms, and sponging houses; as fences, crimps, sheriff’s officers, prizefighters, and prostitutes.”28

Of those families who abided by the law, some parents nevertheless raised their children to be competitive, acquisitive and even deceitful, at least in regard to the goyim. Gartner says that “[t]he foreign heritage continued not only in personal and cultural life but in economic activity as well”.29 Schooling offered opportunities to ascend socio-economically, and he mentions “the consuming eagerness with which Jewish children were sent to school in neighbourhoods where neglect of children and hostility to schooling were rampant”. He cites one schoolmaster who remarked on Jewish children’s “smartness, especially in commercial things”, which exceeded that of Christian children, and said that “‘they have a perfect want of moral sense’ in respect of truthfulness.”30 Moses Angel, long-standing headmaster of the Jews’ Free School, said in 1871 that the parents of his pupils were “the refuse population of the worst parts of Europe,” living “a quasi-dishonourable life”, by which, as Endelman says, “he meant that they were street traders and thus liars and cheats.”31

According to Alderman, “[t]he leaders of the Jewish communities in London had their own special reasons for hastening the demise of the Jewish pedlar. The peddling and criminal fraternities interacted in a manner that was both embarrassing and dangerous.”32 Endelman describes how, as the 19th century proceeded, “[t]he expanding native-born middle ranks of English Jewry were filled with the children and grandchildren of peddlers, old clothes men, and market traders who had become respectable, if modest, businessmen.”33

Commercial conflict

Just as the native people, though far more numerous, were displaced from housing in the East End, so were they from commerce too. Jews as customers tended to buy from Jewish retailers who tended to buy from Jewish wholesalers; evidence of equivalent efforts on the part of the English has gone unfound. Gartner says that

“Securing a foothold was not easy, for the English street-selling trades had long traditions and recognized mores. The Jew had to wedge his barrow into a pitth (place in the street) where an English costermonger might have stood for many years. Bitter were the ‘costers’ complaints that their Jewish competitors grabbed the pitches which they had occupied for many years, did business for unfairly long hours, undersold, and generally disrupted the accepted usages of the trade. The Jews and their defenders replied that the English ‘costers’ merely hated Jews and had always excluded them from their union. … These complaints resounded loudest in Petticoat Lane when that historic London street market situated in the Jewish quarter was taken over by Jewish traders in the 1880’s and 1890’s. … Undeniably, food sellers in Petticoat Lane and their Provincial counterparts lost considerably because the neighbouring Jews did prefer to buy from Jewish dealers.”34

Impression of Petticoat Lane in the 1870s

British laws and customs were adapted for the sake of the incomers. According to Gartner,

“The greatest friction was caused by the problem of Sabbath observance for, subject to certain limitations upon Sunday hours, the Jews were legally authorized to observe the Jewish instead of the English Sabbath. It was claimed, however, that some Jewish stores and street stalls observed neither day. With the undoubted existence of some such cases as their proof, the beleaguered English tradesmen were convinced that their Jewish rivals were too grasping to keep any day of rest, and thrice-told tales of the Jew supported their views. In the Borough Councils within London, where their influence was strong, the native shopkeepers did all they could to press for stringent Sunday trading ordinances, which would have harmed Jewish tradesmen by denying them enough hours on Sunday to compensate for the hours they were shut on Friday and Saturday.’”35

Yet however strong their influence might have been at the level of borough councils, the English were unable to match “the Jewish authorities” who had already lobbied successfully at the national level for legislation:

“firstly, in two enactments in 1867 permitting workshops which closed on the Jewish Sabbath (roughly sunset Friday to nightfall Saturday) to open late on Saturday evening; secondly, through legislation passed in 1871 allowing Jewish-owned workshops to operate on Sundays provided they had closed during the Sabbath.”36

Beside patronising one another’s businesses, Jews had other means of mutual support. Endelman says that “street traders and itinerant peddlers… routinely obtained goods on credit from Jewish shopkeepers and wholesale merchants” which “allowed penniless immigrants to begin trading on their own soon after their arrival.” Jews also formed friendly societies for mutual aid. These, too, served to benefit their own community and reinforce its separate group identity. “The United Israelites and the Guardians of Faith”, Endelman says, “barred men who cohabited with non-Jewish women or were not married according to Jewish law, while the latter also excluded men who kept their shops open on Saturday mornings and personally attended to business then.”37

Jewish shopkeepers

As one-sided ethnic solidarity did its work, “English tradesmen complained vehemently as their native customers moved away before the tide of foreign Jews, from whom they could expect much less patronage.”38 Jewish shopkeepers prospered and became “the heirs of displaced English shopkeepers in the Judaized streets of the East End, Strangeways and Red Bank, and the Leylands.” Later, between the two world wars, “the aggressive marketing techniques of Jewish shopkeepers—the subtle use of advertising, ‘cut‑price’ offers, and the inducement of ‘loss‑leaders’—caused much friction”.39 In Leeds, too, Jewish market stall vendors “were criticised for unfair practices” and were stereotyped as being “responsible for abuses in trades, of engaging in underhand business practices or of sacrificing principle in the pursuit of profit”.40 The universality of such stereotypes suggests that they were often true, and the English had to imitate such tactics or yield to their unscrupulous competitors; anyone today can see whose approach, and which group, prevailed in the East End and far beyond.

As workers, Jews tended to have the same inclination to benefit other Jews where possible. As employers, they intended from the start to employ their own kind. As replacement labour, they were a weapon against English workers’ pay and conditions, which smaller-scale immigration had already driven down before the major wave arrived. According to Tony Kushner, after 20,000 Jews settled in the East End in the 1830s amid a local economic depression,

“​[t]he only way the clothing trade, boot and ​shoe trade, and to a lesser degree, the furniture industry ​could survive was to cut their wage levels so as to compete ​with provincial and foreign producers. It was to these ​industries that the immigrants flocked, and the net result ​was an intensification of the sweating system, and a ​displacement of native labour by the new arrivals.”41

When the new arrivals found their conditions intolerable, some went on strike, including cigar makers. Their masters, though of the same tribe, “being unable to procure English workmen … to submit to the lowering of wages, resort[ed] to the practice of travelling to Holland and other parts of the continent, and, exaggerating the state of the cigar trade in England, fill[ed] the poor Dutchmen’s minds with buoyant hopes of high wages.”42

Then as now, any supposed need to import workers was really a pretext for employers to benefit themselves by doing so. Gartner says that “in England, still the world’s leading industrial nation, no great new industry or undeveloped region beckoned with opportunities for employment. Moreover, there was already an adequate supply of native and Irish labour for the hard, unskilled jobs.”43 According to Endelman, “[the] stream of new arrivals … guaranteed that wages remained low[.]”44 I have not seen evidence that employers lobbied for open borders in the 19th century, but they may have learned to do so after seeing the effects of Jewish immigration.

Any real demand for Jewish workers arose entirely from Jews who had already arrived. Ethnic solidarity dovetailed with ambitions to outcompete the goyim. As Gartner says,

“The Jewish immigrant workman forewent better hours, superior working conditions, and regularity of employment of an English factory, but also Sabbath work and hostility of the native workers. He preferred to work among his own people, frequently in the employ of an old townsman or a relative.”

An early immigrant from Russia recalled that

“I came to Leeds from Russia in 1852 and was a fugitive from Russian militia men. … We had a place of worship in Back Rockingham Street and I was married there. All of those I remember in my early days came here as single men … It was the usual thing for young fellows when they had settled here to send for Russia for their parents and brothers and sisters and that is how the Jewish people made a home in Leeds.”45

As James Appell recounts, “a Kovno master tailor, Moyshe (Morris) Goodman – recognised the opportunity for enrichment in the industry on his arrival in Leeds in 1866, and made numerous trips back to his home city to recruit landsmen for his workshops.”46

The employment of illegal immigrants served to undercut even the other Jews who already made use of foreign labour. It also helped to discredit the law and normalise defiance and evasion of the state. As Gartner says, “[t]he Factory Inspector’s right of inspection, tenuous as it was, was further weakened by the reluctance of many Jewish women and girls to admit that they were working illegally. … The inadequacy of the inspecting staff, the limitations of the law, the absence of even a list of workshops, the ruses to evade the Inspector’s visits and queries, all combined practically to nullify English factory legislation in the Jewish workshops.”47
Demographic change

As the immigrants were given British citizenship and their children grew up, they began to count as voters. Historians have debated the extent to which there was and is a ‘Jewish vote’, but surely all would agree that it is much more real than any ‘white vote’, ‘English vote’ or ‘East-Ender vote’. As the largest and best-organised minority, Jews began to have their way electorally. According to Alderman,

“…the undoubtedly socialist proclivities of the bulk of immigrant Jewry and their offspring… were reflected in and symbolized by such developments as the formation in June 1918 of the Stepney Central Labour Party, the founder and secretary of which was the formidable Romanian-Jewish political strategist, Oscar Tobin; the Labour victory in the Stepney Borough Council elections of November 1919; Labour’s capture of the combined Whitechapel and St George’s parliamentary constituency at the general election of 1922; and even the appearance in the House of Commons, as a result of that same election, of the first Jewish Labour MP, Emanuel Shinwell.”48

Jews did not seize power and territory so much as use the door opened for them by British politicians, who ignored the suffering of the English of the East End and in some cases made a perverse show of gratitude to those who came and exacerbated it. The future saviour of the country distinguished himself by his pro-immigrant sanctimony. According to Gartner, referring to the debates over what became the Aliens Act of 1905,

“[T]he early Labour Party minimized nationalist appeal and scorned racism. … The Liberal Party, especially its Gladstonian traditionalists, regarded free access to England as an unshakable aspect of Free Trade, and were not to be convinced that any harm was incurred by the unobstructed settlement of immigrants. Sir Charles Dilke, most leftward of Liberals, held the general opinion of social reformers that ‘the prohibition of alien immigration is a sham remedy for very grave evils in the labour market’. A younger man who shared the same conviction, C. P. Trevelyan, studied the relation between alien immigration and sweating, and felt ‘thankful to them [aliens] for turning the searchlight of public reprobation on a system which our own people suffer in common with them’. Young Winston Churchill, then M.P. for a considerably Jewish constituency in Manchester, concluded, in common with general sentiment in his Party, that there were not

…any urgent or sufficient reasons, racial or social, for departing from the old tolerant and generous practice of free entry and asylum to which this country has so long adhered and from which it has so greatly gained.”49

A young open borders activist

The Tories came to adopt a vaguely immigration-sceptic stance after decades of unprecedented inflow, enough to siphon support from the nativist British Brothers’ League, and far short of even stopping immigration, let alone reversing it. We will elaborate on post-1881 Jews’ impact on politics in a later article.

Only infrequent comment is passed anywhere in the media or academia to lament the displacement of English East-Enders, whose descendants, typically living in Essex, our rulers despise. Of those who do comment, vagueness is still the norm, as while the area is now occupied by Bangladeshis, most people have some awareness that Jewish immigration set the precedent and that the English were habituated before the Great War to concede their land to foreign colonists.

Nearly everything alien and repulsive about the present foreign occupation of the East End was prefigured by the earlier one. We might ask, in light of the Jewish role in the arrival of the Empire Windrush, whether Bangladeshis first settled in the East End with Jewish encouragement. Perhaps so, or perhaps British governments saw the area as already ransacked and thus no loss if thrown open to barbarians again. Ministers didn’t live there, after all.

References

1

Jewish Immigrants in London, 1880-1939, Susan Tananbaum, 2014, p26

2

The Jewish Immigrant in England, 1870-1914, Lloyd Gartner, 1973, p171-2

3

Modern British Jewry, Geoffrey Alderman, 1992, p118-9. ‘Alien’ referred to those who had immigrated, not been born in Britain.

4

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p118-9. Toynbee Hall was a settlement house on Commercial Road that inspired similar ventures in the USA; it continues to operate today amid a primarily Bangladeshi population.

5

Gartner, p146-7

6

Gartner, p148

7

Gartner, p149

8

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p126

9

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p129-30. He adds that “Perhaps for this reason Samuel Montagu insisted, in making a gift of £10,000 to the LCC in 1902, that the special housing complex for Whitechapel residents which the money was used to build on the Council’s White Hart Lane estate, Tottenham, should be available ‘without distinction of race or creed’.” Montagu was of the older, wealthy Jewish ‘Cousinhood’ and worked for Jews to integrate into British society without losing their religion. Members of the Cohen, Rothschild and Henriques families took a similar view.]

10

Gartner, p157-8

11

Gartner, p152

12

Jewish Chronicle, 1st October 1880, in Tananbaum, p23-4

13

Tananbaum, p34

14

Tananbaum, p30. She continues: “Many descriptions of East End Jews emphasized racially unique characteristics, and connected it to Jews’ clannishness, commercial skills and disturbing competitive nature.”

15

Tananbaum, p30

16

Tananbaum, p34

17

Gartner, p180-1

18

Gartner, p57

19

Tananbaum, p31

20

Gartner, p157-8

21

The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000, Todd Endelman, 2002, p158

22

Gartner, p180-1 and Endelman, p158. Gartner: “Street life in the East End and the other Jewish quarters, a sort of common denominator, displayed a vividness which fascinated many outsiders although it offended the more staid native Jewish and Gentile residents. Store signs, theatrical placards, bookshops, bearded types from the old country, immigrant women wrapped in vast kerchiefs, all conferred an aura of exotic strangeness upon the Jewish area.”

23

Gartner, p166. He continues: “To a greater extent than other migrants from rural or small town environments to the big city, the Jews maintained much of the outward appearance and even the flavour of their former way of life.” This is still true of Hasidic Jews, as in Stamford Hill.

24

Endelman, p157

25

Endelman, p200

26

Gartner, p172

27

Sir Robert Waley Cohen, 1877-1952: A Biography, Robert Henriques, 1966, p68-9

28

Endelman, p82

29

Gartner, p22

30

Gartner, p230

31

Endelman, p85

32

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p11

33

Endelman, p92. He continues: “A striking illustration of this can be seen in the aforementioned orange trade. As noted, by mid-century, Jews were no longer the dominant group hawking oranges in the streets of London, having been replaced by the Irish. However, they remained prominent at the wholesale end of the trade: the fruit market in Duke’s Place, where street traders purchased oranges and nuts, was entirely Jewish. A similar development occurred in the secondhand clothing trade. Jews increasingly moved out of the lower end of the trade and into its slightly more salubrious branches, becoming pawnbrokers, slopsellers, auctioneers, salesmen with fixed premises, or stallholders in the covered wholesale exchange erected in Houndsditch in 1843. The latter was a bustling international mart, regularly attracting wholesale dealers from France, Belgium, Holland, and Ireland, as well as every city in Britain. A few entrepreneurs then made the leap from slopselling (or slopselling and pawnbroking) into manufacturing inexpensive garments. (Tailoring and shoemaking also served as launching pads for entry into the field.) The two biggest firms in England in the 1830s and 1840s were those of the Moses and Hyam families, both of which grew out of slopselling. Despite the Enlightenment hope that, in the absence of legal barriers, agriculture and the crafts would save the Jews from poverty and make them productive citizens, it was commerce that became the vehicle for the economic transformation of Anglo-Jewry, as it was in all western countries.” Alderman describes areas of later Jewish economic advancement: “Within the metropolis Jewish businessmen expanded in three broad directions. The first was in the manufacture and sale of food products (bread, cakes, dairy products), epitomized in the teashops (of which there were 200 by 1914) of J. Lyons & Co. The second was in publishing partly to serve the needs of the Jewish community but soon catering for national and indeed world markets; notable in this category was the fine art and greetings-card firm of Raphael Tuck, the Levy Lawson family that owned the Daily Telegraph, and Rachel Beer (née Sassoon), proprietor of the Sunday Times between 1893 and 1904. The third was in the distributive trades, especially chemist shops, public houses, restaurants, jewellery, clothing, grocery and furniture stores, to which perhaps the ownership of cinemas and the development of mail‑order companies ought to be added—though these were by no means primarily London‑orientated activities.” Controversy and Crisis, Geoffrey Alderman, 2008, p242.

34

Gartner, p60-1

35

Gartner, p62

36

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p9

37

Endelman, p89-90

38

Gartner, p62

39

Controversy, Alderman, p242

40

Amanda Bergen in Leeds and its Jewish Community edited by Derek Fraser, 2019, chapter 9

41

British Antisemitism in the Second World War, volume 1, Antony Kushner, 1986, p22-3. “[T]hese industries generally saw a replacement of Gentile ​with Jewish labour[.]”

42

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p9. ‘English’ and ‘Dutch’ refer to the legal nationality, not the ethnic group, of the workmen.

43

Gartner, p57

44

Endelman, p135

45

Derek Fraser in Leeds edited by Fraser, 2019, ch2

46

James Appell in Leeds edited by Fraser, 2019, ch4

47

Gartner, p69-70. Jews continued to arrive illegally at least until the Second World War, with the encouragement of some community leaders.

48

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p252

49

Gartner, p276-7. Churchill was a Tory until 1904, then a Liberal until 1925, then a Tory again. He fought against the Aliens Bill with extreme fervour.

50

Endelman, p158

News from Nowhere: HOPE Not Hate’s 2025 Report

HOPE Not Hate (HNH) are a British organization monitoring and reporting on what is described in the UK as the “far Right”. They are the British equivalent of America’s Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and fulfil a similar function, that of unofficial government adviser. That may well change for the SPLC under President Trump, but HNH are quite safe with the Starmer government in Britain as they are on-message. For the left, since they have created a totally dysfunctional society, it can only be about hope — the ever-elusive goal of a multi-ethnic utopia that is just around the corner if we could only destroy and de-legitimize White people’s interests.

In fact, they could be said to produce a large part of the message. HNH produce an annual report entitled State of Hate (SoH), and the 2025 edition has just been published. With an 11-strong production team and solid funding, SoH is lavish and exhaustively researched. It can be downloaded, but is also available in glossy magazine form. It might make a nice coffee-table ornament, an office I’m sure it will perform in parts of north London.

As a serious journalistic source, should you happen to be writing about the British far Right, SoH is first-rate. But all it really is in essence is an almanac with a very disapproving tone. The allegations are largely petty indiscretions, the “problematic rhetoric” is very often just facts unpalatable to the Left, and simply appending the phrase “far-Right” to anyone of whom you disapprove is an ideological parlour-game Orwell exposed in 1946 in Politics and the English Language.

Also, when people whine about “rhetoric”, it’s likely that they have never read Aristotle’s ars rhetorica in their intellectually sheltered lives, this being too classical and therefore too White for them. But these midwits are more powerful than one might think, and are taken extremely seriously by those who fund them. Then again, so are many writers of fiction.

Like the SPLC in the US, HNH are not officially the government’s advisers, and Starmer would rather keep things as they are. That way, HNH are deniable should they do anything too crass, which they almost did last summer. At the height of the rioting following the attack in Southport in which three young girls were butchered, HNH CEO Nick Lowles posted on X that a Muslima had had acid thrown in her face. This was simply untrue and, viewed in context, with a number of volatile situations in progress and armed Muslims taking to the streets, incredibly irresponsible. HNH were fortunate that no charges were pressed. Fortunate, or something else.

Their status as a NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) notwithstanding, HNH seem to derive a fair portion of their funding directly from governmental sources—as DOGE is finding out in the U.S. The London Mayor’s Office, under the long reign of Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan, gave money to HNH in 2019, and under the previous supposedly conservative government, HNH sent paid advisers to the Home Office to lecture its staff about extremism.

But SoH is its central pillar, and it is worth remembering that all of the various characters who appear in the 140 pages of the report have one thing in common, in the opinion of HNH; they hate. They are “haters”. Hatred is their natural habitat. Hating, of course, is what children do. “I hate you, Mummy!” It is also what ethnic adversaries do, and perhaps ethnicity is the greatest driver of genuine hatred, rather than that confected by HNH. In SoH, of course, the word “hatred” and its cognates are just stage props in a production as theatrical as it is ideological. The word “hate” itself is carefully manipulated by HNH, although hatred is an emotion understood by all. One thinks of the Messerschmitt busts which show hatred and other disagreeable emotions. This is how HOPE Not Hate wish us to be pictured in the mind’s eye of the great British public. So, let the hatred begin.

The report’s cover features two of HNH’s bêtes noires, Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, the leader of the rapidly rising Reform UK, and effectively a political prisoner respectively. As always, they both have large sections of SoH dedicated to them.

Robinson having been in prison for some time, there is not much to report on him (absent the fact that the deep state is trying to kill him in jail, which HNH are unlikely to mention). Thus, being something of a veteran of these reports, I detect a fair bit of cut-and-paste in the production of SoH 2025. But, as noted, it is exhaustive, and the updates maintain the illusion of what I called the “Pepper’s Ghost” of the British far Right, here at The Occidental Observer three years ago. Not much has changed.

HNH’s mission statement accompanies a request for donations:

“We take on and defeat nazis.

Will you step up with a donation to ensure we can keep fighting the far right?”

This is an old advertising technique as well as more evidence of the little-league neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) which infects every ward of the Leftist sanitorium. Association, verbal or typographical, is a device the Left use consistently, and they like to link certain familiar images in the minds of their followers. Nazis, far-Right, fascists, radical Right; these smear-phrases must be kept in circulation, melding and conflating into one single meaning.

As the report progresses, certain phrases recur. Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer whose crime sparked last year’s riots in England, is mentioned three times in the first 12 pages of SoH, each time with a variation on this theme:

“We are also seeing rising numbers of young men who through ideologically fluid means — picking elements of different and even contradictory ideologies — are drawn together through a desire to commit extreme violence. The Southport killer fitted this mould…”  (p. 6)

Decoded, this means that Rudakubana’s being a Muslim was, if anything, a very minor and insignificant factor in his murdering three small girls. The way HNH work is by association, whether it exists or not.

Because of this methodological need to make links in a chain, HNH particularly like structure. This is from Lowles’ editorial introduction to SoH:

[The Southport riots] were primarily a product of the ‘post-organisational’ far right. Most of the disturbances were planned organically, often by local people unaligned to any formal organisation, but who were plugged into decentralised far-right networks online. (p. 12).

Unless cretinism is either a condition you actually suffer from, or the hobby it seems to be for many on the Left, this is nonsense on stilts. What does, what can, “post-organizational” actually mean? What are “decentralized far-Right networks”? If those of us on the political Right don’t know it yet, much of our battle takes place on the terrain of language, and the ex cathedra terminology of Critical Race Theory has allowed the Left to exercise their apparent right to use language as though it were malleable and has meaning only as subject to the requirements of the user.

HNH have their own lexicon, and it is every bit as semantically fluid as one would expect:

We use the term ‘trigger events’ to describe incidents that generate large-scale reactions. These reactions spread beyond the individuals involved in the event to those in the in-group attacking the out-group: what some social psychologists call ‘vicarious retribution’.  In the case of anti-migrant hatred, trigger events are most commonly crimes committed or alleged to have been committed by people of migrant backgrounds. (p. 84).

The Southport killings are thus reduced to the status of a simple causative formula rather than the massacre of White girls by a second-generation immigrant. Language is once again co-opted in order to smear perfectly understandable reactions to horrors which are becoming increasingly commonplace across Europe.

Language is also key to the self-damning of its “far-Right” users, although the bar is set low enough to challenge the doughtiest limbo-dancer, and is not confined to political pariahs:

But crucially, this [language] is not only confined to Reform or Conservative politicians. Although far less common and extreme, Labour have at times dipped their toes in this rhetoric. In 2007 Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced a ‘British jobs for British workers’ policy, which many viewed as nativist and contrary to anti-discrimination laws. (p. 24).

As for the cast of this stage-play, hell is empty and all the devils are here. Farage and Reform UK, Elon Musk (despite not being British), Andrew Tate, GB News, Patriotic Alternative; the gang’s all here. But there are some new faces in this hall of shame.

One of the high-profile media arrivistes in this year’s SoH is Professor Matt Goodwin. He is a Jewish professional statistician with an academic background, articulate and forthright, and has found himself a target for HNH:

He [Matt Goodwin]… emphasised that the Cardiff-born murderer [Rudakubana] was ‘the son of immigrants from Rwanda’, in a clear attempt to frame the horrifying attack as a result of immigration. (p. 46).

The attacks were a result of immigration, literally and de facto, but HNH are not going to let facts stand in the way of a good story.

Goodwin merits four pages and has, it seems, been “radicalized”, another word which has been requisitioned and genetically modified by HNH. The word is immediately associated with Islamic terrorism, and HNH know this perfectly well. Thus, an equivalence is set up between a mild-mannered academic and a screaming jihadi with machete or backpack-bomb.

HNH are not entirely politically illiterate, and make the occasional astute observation. The endorsement made by Laura Loomer and Steve Bannon of Tommy Robinson’s “Unite the Kingdom” rallies in London (successful, well attended, and entirely peaceful so far, and with another planned for September) has something of an internal problem:

While Bannon and Loomer’s presence will undoubtedly excite Lennon’s [Robinson’s real name] supporters, one person who will not be impressed is Elon Musk. Bannon and Loomer have nothing but contempt for the billionaire and have been leading the MAGA campaign against his influence. (p. 43).

Musk has previously helped fund Robinson’s legal team, and HNH have correctly pointed out a potential cause of future conflict.

In the quaintly named “Rogues Gallery” section of SoH, we see all 23 White human oddities convicted last year for terrorist offences. Many of these miscreants were jailed, at least partly, for offences concerning terrorist literature. This is another flexible category, despite being defined in the UK Terrorism Act 2006:

Section 2 makes it an offence to distribute a terrorist publication with the intention of encouraging acts of terrorism. A terrorist publication is one which could be useful to a person in the commission or preparation of acts of terror, and the maximum sentence in respect of this offence is 15 years’ imprisonment.

These “terrorist publications” could be The Anarchist’s Cookbook (and often is), or it could be The Turner Diaries.

It is a racing certainty that, should you be White and in possession of proscribed literature, you will go to jail. But UK Counter Terrorism Police arrested 248 people under terrorism laws last year, including those involved in three “late stage” attacks. Who were the other 225 not mentioned in HNH’s report? From SoH:

The offences of those who were arrested range from suspicion of possessing a firearm, to those who have allegedly shared terrorist material online, and to those who were thought to be preparing acts of terrorism. (p. 68).

The faces in the Rogues Gallery speak of snake-eye genes and sub-85 IQs, but HNH are determined that these dropouts be seen as representing the vanguard of a wave of terror which could break over the righteous at any moment.

Race science is also in HNH’s crosshairs, and Edward Dutton —  of this parish — makes an appearance, something which is becoming a badge of honor for those questioning the narrative, like a duelling scar at an old German public school. HNH only recognize state-endorsed science.

If HNH’s portrait of the British far Right is in any way accurate, then what a diverse bunch they are. Odinists rub shoulders with Conservative Woman magazine. Bubbly feminist Posie Parker mingles with the skinheads of Blood & Honour (who haven’t actually existed for some time, although no one seems to have told HNH). Affable, elderly YouTuber Simon Webb, of the channel History Debunked, shares the limelight with the UVF. That’s right. This extraordinary document actually finishes its inventory of far-Right organizations with the Ulster Volunteer Force. Strange times.

I can’t recommend SoH 2025 highly enough, and for two reasons. Firstly, and as noted, it is an exhaustive inventory of anyone in the UK even vaguely to the right of Mao Zedong. If you want new pen-pals on the British political Right, this is effectively one of those old-fashioned telephone directories. I shall certainly be contacting some of the groups who have merited inclusion since SoH 2024, with a view to interviews. Thank you for the contact list, HNH.

Secondly, this document is an extraordinary snapshot — like one of those MSI brain-scans — of the pathology of the British Left and, by extension, all Westerners of that persuasion. I hope that those readers who actually know a fair bit about psychology will forgive me, but I can’t resist a bit of a layman’s prognosis. I think Lowles and most of his crew (although I would bet not all) know perfectly well that SoH 2025 is a Potemkin Village. The frontage is impressively and meticulously decorated, but there is nothing behind it. Lowles is a snake-oil salesman, a used-car dealer who understands the importance to profit of counterfeit parts and the necessity of occasionally filing the number off an engine-block. HNH is a laboratory in which is produced controlled cognitive dissonance. It is also, to use a term taken up by those who understand the mechanics of the race industry, a grift.

The best grift I ever saw was 40 years ago on Guy Fawkes’ Night (aka Bonfire Night) at a crowded railway station in England. It was traditional when I was a boy to make a dummy of Guido Fawkes, the man who attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605, and often wryly known as “the only man to enter Parliament with honest intentions”. Boys would stuff old shirts and Dad’s work trousers with rags, make a papier maché head, and toddle off to the town centre to cry “Penny for the Guy!” in the hope that passers-by would throw them a few coppers for their artistic efforts. The boys at this bustling Brighton station full of commuters returning home from work in London were doing just that, but when they asked me for money, I asked them something which was troubling me:

“Where’s the Guy?”

They looked at me with feral distrust and sloped off to ply their trade elsewhere. There was, of course, no Guy, but people still gave them money without bothering to seek out the famous effigy. This is a perfect metaphor for HNH and SoH. It is also (to me) a nice irony that the website doing much to expose HNH’s troubles is the notorious Westminster insider Guido Fawkes.

As a source of juvenile revenue, a penny for the Guy has rather dried up now, as Bonfire Night is one of several celebrations smothered by the British version of the deep state (far too many White people enjoy, or used to enjoy, the fireworks and celebrations). But HNH are also seeing a bit of a dip in their revenue stream. Their last financial report shows that they took in £417,000 last year, compared with £715,000 the previous year, and over £1 million the year before that. It will be of interest to see the next figure in the wake of the forensic accounting President Trump’s Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) is carrying out, and we perhaps discover that some of USAID’s money was finding its way across the Atlantic. In terms of HNH’s status as an employer, in place of their previous long-term contracts for employees and interns, they are increasingly offering contractual terms as short as four months.

So, another year, another SoH report. But how long can HNH and Nick Lowles maintain the illusion? And, if the grift is done, who will save us from the imaginary monsters of the British far Right?