British Politics

Hate-Bacon Holocaust: Where Jews Lead, Muslims Follow

/20 Comments/in , , , /by

In Britain today, it takes a heart of stone to read about the suffering of Jewish students without laughing. The Jewish Chronicle has just published “Exclusive research” showing a “shocking volume of assaults, abuse and threats” suffered by Jews at British universities. Among the incidents that the Chronicle deems worthy of note are that “A student at Swansea University found bacon taped to her door in university halls in 2022” and that “At Cambridge University, a student said during one dinner, a peer ‘asked me to turn to the side so that he could gauge the size of my nose’.”

Senior Sacred Minority

I’m cherry-picking the hate-bacon and nose-gauging, of course, but nowhere does the article mention murder, rape or serious injury. Jewish students are not suffering a fraction of what White children have suffered in places like Glasgow, Southport and Rotherham. Nor does the article admit that Jews have engineered their own misfortune. Jewish students in Britain are being hate-baconed and nose-gauged by non-Whites and their allies because of Israel’s oppression of non-White Palestinians. And who was responsible for non-White immigration from the Third World, which the White majority always opposed and never voted for? It was Jews, of course. Who created minority worship, which was intended to demonize the White majority and sacralize minorities? It was Jews, of course, wanting to install themselves as Senior Sacred Minority.

How to end anti-Semitism for ever

Alas for Jews, the non-Whites whom they fondly regarded as “natural allies” haven’t accepted their Jew-assigned role. As I pointed out at the Occidental Observer in 2019, Muslims and other non-Whites regard Jews as “Hyper-Whites with Hyper-Privilege” and not as a fellow persecuted minority. On the contrary, they regard Jews as arch persecutors. Given the amount of high explosive recently rained by Israel on the Gaza Strip, it’s easy to see their point. I don’t myself agree with those who accuse Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians, whom I’d rank with Pakistanis as societal pathogens. But I again find it amusing that Jews are wailing about the accusation. Who was it first used noisy accusations of genocide to gain political advantage and claim moral superiority? It was the Jews again. Their solipsism and arrogance blinded them to the obvious possibility that their own self-serving tactics would be taken up and used against them. That possibility has been realized: Muslims and other non-Whites have turned out not to be “natural allies” of Jews but natural enemies. One insightful — and honest — Jew wouldn’t have been surprised by this. The late Jonathan Sacks, once Britain’s Chief Rabbi, admitted in 2007 that Jews were the inventors of “identity politics” and founders of the Victimhood Olympics:

Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007; emphasis added)

“We’re disloyal to real, pure, white America”

That’s why I have no sympathy for Jewish students enduring hate-bacon attacks at Swansea and nose-gauging requests at Cambridge. Jews are not suffering a fraction of what Whites have suffered for decades at the hands of Muslims, Blacks and other non-Whites imported by our treacherous elite under Jewish orders and with full Jewish approval. The minor Jewish suffering bewailed by the Jewish Chronicle is entirely their own fault. So is the minor Jewish suffering bewailed in America. As the Horus Substack notes, the Jewish writer Bari Weiss has openly admitted the central role of Jews in the war on Whites and the West: “The far right says we are the greatest trick the devil has ever played. We appear to be white people. We look like we’re in the majority, we’re incredibly successful, but in fact … we’re disloyal to real, pure, white America. And in fact, we’re loyal to Black people and brown people and Muslims and immigrants.”

Semitic synergy: how Jews use and abuse Muslims to benefit themselves

But somehow killer quotes like that always escape the notice of the Semito-sycophants who rush to the defence of Jews after their non-White pets turn on them. The same Semito-sycophants ignore the central role of Jews in the war on free speech. For example, mainstream conservatives and libertarians in Britain have recently condemned Labour’s plans to impose an official government definition of “Islamophobia.” The conservative political scientist Matt Goodwin has said that “Labour’s crackdown on ‘Islamophobia’ is yet another crackdown on free speech.” He’s right. The Trotskyist libertarians at Spiked Online have warned that “New rules on ‘Islamophobia’ would chill discussion about anything even tangentially related to Islam.” They’re right too. And both Goodwin and Spiked describe how the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims first proposed the definition in 2019. But neither Goodwin nor Spiked mention a killer quote by the homosexual Labour MP Wes Streeting, who co-chaired the APPG on British Muslims. Streeting proclaimed that the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia was “presented within a framework resembling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.”

Parallel pathologies

You can trust Streeting on that, because he was also co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism. I described Streeting’s labours for Jews and their natural allies in my article “Free Speech Must Die!,” where I explored the way Jews have guided Muslims in their joint campaign to censor and silence Whites. After all, it’s very easy to find proof of that. But Britain’s noisy mainstream defenders of free speech have always been silent about who guides Muslims. In other words, those staunch opponents of censorship have censored themselves. So let’s look more closely at what they refuse to discuss, namely, the leading Jewish role in the war on free speech. The University of Bradford has very helpfully put “Definitions of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia” on the same page at its website, drawn respectively from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Anti-Semitism and the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Working Definition of Islamophobia. Even the most myopic mainstream conservatives and libertarians will see how the deplorably vague and elastic definition of Islamophobia, which they loudly condemn, was directly modelled on the deplorably vague and elastic definition of anti-Semitism, which they either support or keep quiet about. To make the parallels even more clearer, I’ve inter-woven examples of the hate-speak and hate-think that Jews and Muslims say the government must crush:

  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
  • Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, e.g. loyalty tests.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
  • Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic. (“Definitions of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia” at Bradford University)

But Bradford University doesn’t mention two inconvenient facts: that Jews in Britain support Israel’s military massacre-machine; and that Muslims are now the chief anti-Semites in Britain. Like the rest of our current political and academic elite, the university wants to pretend that Jews and Muslims are united in powerless victimhood, both groups suffering from the cruel and irrational hate of the White majority. The current elite are very anxious to stop thought-crime against Jews and Muslims, but have no concern whatsoever about stopping flesh-crime against Whites.

Bradford University supplies another perfect example of that, because it does nothing to address horrific misogyny and patriarchy on its own doorstep. Like the town of Rotherham, the city of Bradford is in Yorkshire. The Muslim rape-gangs that made Rotherham infamous around the world have done much worse in Bradford. After all, Bradford is a much bigger place and has many more Muslims. The Labour party has controlled both Bradford and Rotherham for decades, collaborating with the rape-gangs and betraying the White working-class whom the party was founded to defend.

The great David Irving speaks the truth about World War Two

Now Labour want to expand their betrayal by imposing a definition of Islamophobia that will further censor discussion of Muslim pathologies. But no conservatives and libertarians in the mainstream will admit the obvious: that Jews are responsible for the presence of Muslims in Britain, the proliferation of Muslim pathologies, and the free-speech-chilling definition of Islamophobia.

Nor will those conservatives and libertarians admit that Jews have led the way for Muslims in another front of the war on Whites and the West.

The rape and sexual enslavement of White women by Muslims were long preceded by the White Slave Trade, which Jews created before the Second World War, and by the pornography industry, which Jews created after the Second World War for the same reason: to turn shiksas into shekels. Jews and Muslims are homies in hate. But while they both claim to suffer hate from Whites, they’re both lying. What really unites them is that they both direct hate at Whites. That’s why neither Jews nor their Muslim bio-weapons belong in the West. As a wise man once said: the world is divided into those who know who opened the gates of Toledo and those who don’t.

Piranha Patel and the Highway to Hell: Why More and More Jews Support Donald Trump’s Politics of Hate

/10 Comments/in , /by

“Pretty Vacant” is a song by the Sex Pistols. It inspired the Guardian columnist John Crace to invent the nickname “Priti Vacant” for the politician Priti Patel (born 1972), an Indian Hindu woman who’s high in the British Conservative party. Crace thinks she’s stupid. Apart from our shared passion for the mighty Spurs, I don’t agree on much with John Crace. But he’s right about Priti Patel. She is indeed stupid. You can see her stupidity very clearly in a video that has — we must all hope — hammered a further nail into the electoral coffin of the Tory party.

Priti Vacant on Never Mind the Ballots

On a right-wing podcast called Never Mind the Ballots, Patel was asked to apologize for the way the Tories promised again and again to reduce immigration, then proceeded to massively increase it. She refused to do so, despite the glaring fact of Tory betrayal. In 2019 the part-Jewish Friend of Israel Boris Johnson won a landslide majority with the votes of working-class Whites, former Labour supporters who naïvely believed his promises about lowering immigration. Johnson rewarded those Whites for their trust not by doubling or tripling immigration, but by quadrupling it. If justice is done, he will one day be hanged or receive a life-sentence for that brazen betrayal.

Piranha Patel tells stupid lies on migration to right-wing voters

So will the other traitors in his government, prominent amongst them a certain vacant dindu Hindu. As Patrick Flynn pointed out in the Spectator: “Johnson’s chief lieutenant in creating the highest immigration levels ever was Priti Patel, his loyal home secretary who ushered in a series of liberalising measures in direct contravention of the manifesto promise and broader commitments made during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.” But Patel didn’t merely refuse to apologize for the way the Tories sent Britain zooming down the highway towards a Third-World Hell of crime, corruption and chaos. No, she managed to suggest that it was the Tories who were owed an apology for being criticized. She claimed that, under her guidance, Britain had imported “the brightest and the best.” In fact, Britain had imported masses of unskilled workers from the corrupt, violent and disease-ridden Third World.

Third-World Flood: how fake Labour and fake Conservatives betrayed White voters on immigration

Until they are deported, those workers — and their even more numerous dependants, whom the Tories also welcomed in — will be a permanent burden on Britain’s economy and public services, never a benefit to them. But Patel’s claim about “the brightest and the best” was worse than simply a lie: it was a blatant and easily refuted lie. Unlike a typical Western politician, Patel didn’t train as a lawyer and so she can’t slime and slither her way successfully through a difficult interview.

Hormonal Harpies: Priti Patel and three other high-T Western fem-pols (Nancy Faeser, Julia Klöckner and Mary Butler)

As John Crace says: she’s stupid. So how did she rise to join the elite of the Tory party? John Crace could never explain that, because he would have to discuss two heretical topics, namely, HBD (Human Biological Diversity) and Jewish control of British politics. First of all, although Patel is an atypical politician in not being a lawyer, she is a typical politician in another way. Or she’s a typical female politician at least. Her brain and personality have been shaped by elevated levels of testosterone, as her massive, masculinized face clearly reveals. Accordingly, she has lots of ambition and aggression. Particularly aggression. Her own husband calls her “my personal piranha.” As Home Secretary, she was very good at two things: betraying White voters and bullying White civil servants.

Never Mind the Polaks

After all, White welfare doesn’t matter in British politics. Quite the opposite: politicians are rewarded for harming White welfare. But Patel’s very harsh and unpleasant personality melts most becomingly into servility and sycophancy when she deals with a group whose welfare most certainly does matter in British politics. And which group is that? You won’t need any guesses. As I described in “A Shameless Shabbos Shiksa” back in 2017, Patel did something remarkable when she served as International Development Secretary. She performed the goy grovel so gauchely and grotesquely that she had to resign from a government of grovelling goys. Serving Jewish interests is essential for any British gentile who wants to make it to the top of politics, but Patel made her servility too obvious. Accompanied by the very creepy-looking Lord Polak, a veteran director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), she repeatedly had unauthorized and unrecorded meetings with important Israeli officials like Benjamin Netanyahu.

Powerful Polak’s pernicious punim: the official portrait of Stuart Polak, veteran director of Conservative Friends of Israel

The full extent of these meetings is still unknown. What was discussed at them isn’t known at all. But Patel wanted to become prime minister and knew that she couldn’t do it without being certified as kompletely kosher. Now, you can be sure that other Tories have done the same as Patel for the same reason. The difference is that she made her goy-grovel too obvious and had to resign. Compare the more intelligent Suella Braverman (born 1980), another Indian in the Tory elite who wanted to become prime minister. Unlike Patel but like the current Labour prime minister, Braverman trained as a lawyer and, like Keir Starmer again, is much better than Patel at being sly and slippery. This undoubtedly explains another parallel between Starmer and Braverman: they’ve both married Jews. So has Robert Jenrick (born 1982), another lawyer and another wannabe PM in the Shadow Cabinet of the Nigerian Kemi Badenoch, yet another energetic practitioner of the goy-grovel.

Kemi Badenoch performs the goy-grovel at Holocaust Central, Yad Vashem in Israel (image from Jewish News)

Unlike Piranha Patel, Jenrick refuses to defend the Tories’ record on immigration. Indeed, he resigned from Rishi Sunak’s government because, he claimed, Sunak wasn’t doing enough to defend Britain’s borders. The resignation was very interesting, because it showed that Jenrick has aligned himself with a key shift in Jewish thinking on Third-World migration. Whether or not he is Jewish or part-Jewish himself, as I strongly suspect, Jenrick is certainly married to a Jew and is obviously dedicated above all else to serving Jewish interests. He is funded by the Israeli billionaire Idan Ofer and has said that “the Star of David should be displayed at every point of entry to the UK to show” that “we stand with Israel.” That’s why Jews swarmed like wasps to his defence when a hate-thinker criticized his Semito-servility:

Jewish organisations have expressed outrage that a complaint made to the Conservative Party over the language used by a “repeat offender” former minister has been dismissed. Sir Alan Duncan, who served as foreign minister under Theresa May, had been the subject of an official complaint to the party after he said that Robert Jenrick, whose wife is Jewish and was born in Israel, took his “script” from “the Israelis”. …

In April this year [2024], Duncan was suspended by the Conservative Party for telling broadcaster Nick Ferrari on LBC that that pro-Israel group Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) “has been doing the bidding of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, bypassing all proper processes of government to exercise undue influence at the top of government”. In July, the JC revealed that he had his membership restored.

Reacting to the latest dismissal of the complaint against Duncan, the Jewish Leadership Council’s chief executive Claudia Mendoza revealed that the organisation had written to the party’s chairman to express concern about his language. She added: “We are deeply disturbed that yet another unacceptable remark has been made by Sir Alan without rebuke by the Conservative Party. His comments lean into centuries-old antisemitic tropes and should not be tolerated.” (“Outrage as Tories ignore Alan Duncan’s remarks on Israel,” The Jewish Chronicle, 18th December 2024)

Claudia Mendoza is using the fascinating new syllogism I explored in “Reality is Racist: Fighting Hate-Logic with Stereotype Denial.” The syllogism runs like this: If reality is racist, all decent people must reject reality. In this case, because the obvious reality of Jewish behavior conforms to negative stereotypes about Jewish behavior, we must reject the reality rather than accept confirmation of the stereotype. Jews want Alan Duncan punished and expelled from the Conservative party not because he is lying about CFI and Jenrick, but because he is speaking the truth. So why hasn’t he been punished and expelled? I’d suggest that the Tories don’t want to make Duncan into a martyr and shed even more unwelcome light on Jewish control of the party.

Hamas is a Gas

Be that as it may, Duncan is absolutely right to say that Robert Jenrick takes his “script” from “the Israelis” and is a slavish servant of Jewish interests. And yet Jenrick has also become an opponent of Third-World immigration. The shabbos goyim Boris Johnson and Priti Patel opened the borders even wider to the Third World under Jewish orders and with full Jewish approval. After all, Jews have long regarded non-Whites, and Muslims in particular, as “natural allies” against the traditionally Christian Whites whom they blame for millennia of unjustified persecution. But that was before the attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023, which was loudly celebrated by Muslims and other non-Whites currently residing in the West. After watching Hamas-fans marching in cities like New York, London and Paris, some important Jews concluded that Jews need to end their traditional support for non-White immigration and for anti-White ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). That’s why the very philo-Semitic Donald Trump is actually trying to fulfil his election promises in his second term as president. He isn’t defending the welfare of Whites, he’s defending the welfare of Jews.

Robert Jenrick is a British representative of the same shift in Jewish thinking. Yes, it’s axiomatically good to harm Whites, but not if Jews are harmed too. As I pointed out at the Occidental Observer in 2019, the problem is that Muslims and other non-Whites regard Jews as “Hyper-Whites with Hyper-Privilege” and not as a fellow persecuted minority. Some leftist Jews, like the repulsive pseudo-comedian David Baddiel, think that the solution to this problem is to shriek ever louder that Jews are too a persecuted minority. But such shrieks aren’t convincing from rich and successful Jews like Baddiel. So other Jews have decided that the solution is to embrace hyper-whiteness and curtail uppity non-Whites by bringing hate-politicians like Donald Trump to power. That also explains the support given by Trump’s ally Elon Musk to the hate-politician Alice Weidel, the leader of Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

“Badenoch Out, Jenrick In”

The very ambitious Robert Jenrick wants to ride the same Jewish support for hate-politics in Britain. I predicted at the Occidental Observer in October 2024 that, thanks to her energetic goy-grovelling, the Nigerian Kemi Badenoch would become leader of the Conservative party. I was right. Now I predict that Jenrick will sooner or later replace Badenoch as leader. After all, he’s convincing as an opponent of open borders. Badenoch isn’t. Like Piranha Patel, she whooped with glee as the Tories stamped pedal to the metal on the Highway to Third-World Hell. And she’s proving useless as Tory leader. Yes, she’s more intelligent than Piranha Patel, but it’s not difficult to be more intelligent than Patel. Unfortunately for her, she has more than high testosterone in common with the Piranha. Like Patel she didn’t train as a lawyer and so she’s been no match for the slippery lawyer Keir Starmer. All of this is why I predict “Badenoch Out, Jenrick In.”

Robert Jenrick performs the goy-grovel at Conservative Friends of Israel (image from CFI)

But even with Jenrick as leader, the Tories may not be able to overcome Nigel Farage and Reform, the British equivalents of Trump and MAGA in America or Weidel and the AfD in Germany. I think Farage is likelier to be Britain’s next prime minister than Jenrick. And much likelier than Badenoch. Hate-politicians like Trump, Weidel and Farage are rising all over the West. It would be very naïve to think that Trump and Company are rising despite Jewish power in Western politics and media, rather than because of it. But as Kevin MacDonald has pointed out: White nationalists should agree that a shabbos goy like Donald Trump is vastly preferable to a shabbos shiksa like Kamala Harris (also a lawyer and also married to a Jew). Yes, Jews would still prefer that Western nations were zooming down the Highway to Third-World Hell. It’s just that they’ve realized that Jews will be even less welcome there than Whites will be.

Trahison des clercs: civil servants waging class war on White Britons

/3 Comments/in , /by

In the aftermath of the jailing of Axell Rudakabana, the son of Rwandan asylum-seekers who massacred young girls outside a dance class in Southport, the authorities are doing their usual tactic of obfuscating and generalising. Society is being encouraged to attribute the horrific incident to ‘knife crime’ and harmful content online. Meanwhile, the vague but selective concept of ‘hate’ is used, more in reference to those reacting to the killings than to the killer himself.

How does a political establishment, which never tires of reminding us of the murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence three decades ago, manage to make White Britons the focus of criminal intervention, when this was clearly a case of anti-White racism? To the professional-managerial class, with its progressive (or rather subversive) values, racism is only perpetrated by White people. So a Black murderer found to have expressed motives of White genocide (and following an Islamist terror manual) was not racist – how could he be?

The only image presented in mainstream media of the suspect was a school photograph, depicting a smartly-dressed 12-year-old angelic choirboy. Not just a normal kid, Rudakabana had performed on a BBC television series. He was identified as the son of a Rwandan couple, given sanctuary in this country on fleeing the civil war (nothing was mentioned about his father’s role in this conflict).

Axell Rudakabana, Then and Now

In August last year, around the time of the Southport carnage, Yvette Cooper, appointed as home secretary in the newly-elected Labour government, ordered a review towards development of a new counter-extremism strategy.  The report was leaked to the Policy Exchange think-tank, who divulged its disturbing contents.

According to the official narrative, the Southport incident unleashed a wave of racist rioting across the land. The protests were certainly about more than the latest cause of outrage: the long-running scandal of Pakistani rape gangs preying on White working-class girls, previous random killings by migrants, as at Nottingham, instances of terrorism such as the Manchester Arena bombing, and the grossly insulting and expensive housing of illegal immigrants in four-star hotels. But the establishment view was summarised by a magistrate who jailed someone with the remark: ‘I have no idea what you were protesting about’.

The report referred to ‘alleged’ ‘grooming gangs’. The inverted commas around this term were not for the same reason that I use them. From my perspective, this is a shady euphemism to mask the truth of mass racially-motivated gang rape. From the institutional perspective, it’s because the existence of the gangs is exploited by the ‘far right’, so it must be doubted, if not invalidated. This is extremely offensive to the thousands of victims, who don’t feel ‘allegedly’ traumatised. And it defies fact: hundreds of Pakistani-origin men were convicted and jailed for abusing these girls. In some instances the rapists had referred to their prey as ’White trash’.

The concept of ‘two-tier policing’ is dismissed by the report as ‘right-wing extremist narrative’. White working-class people are not permitted to complain about the destruction of their culture and livelihood by institutionally-favoured immigrants. Indeed, the report focused on boosting existing protection for minorities under the Equality Act. Furthermore, it opposed the outgoing Conservative government’s policy to abolish police recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’. Labour ministers want to curb expression of allegedly Islamophobic and anti-Semitic ideas, whether lawful or not. Denigrating White people is fine, to the extent of barring them from jobs or services, or blaming them for being stabbed, raped or murdered.

A new offence of ‘harmful communication’ likely to cause psychological harm is recommended by the report. The scope of extremism is to be broadened to include misogyny and conspiracy theories.  The establishment is determined to shift the focus from the racially-motivated Black and Muslim violence to make the White working class the biggest threat to a multicultural society.

A few days ago Unity News Network revealed that a hotel in Loughborough owned by a senior civil servant has been repurposed for housing illegal immigrants. Irfan Hemani, a deputy director for cyber security, is profiting from the huge taxpayers’ burden of this relentless influx.  But it would be a mistake to see this primarily as a problem of Muslims abusing positions of power to support an Islamic takeover of Britain.

The real problem is that the civil service is run by the White progressive class, whose treachery to their country and fellow citizens is boundless. They despise the White people below them on the socio-economic hierarchy. They would probably regard Axel Rudakabana as a victim of his upbringing in a racist country. The worst crime, in their eyes, was not the stabbing of eleven innocent primary-school girls, but the ordinary White folk who dared to complain. This is truly le traison des clercs.

Black Biology Matters: The Southport Killer Was Created by Leftist Lies

/14 Comments/in , /by

Behind their smarm and sentimentality about the three dead little girls in Southport, leftists like Keir Starmer and journalists at the Guardian simply don’t care. They didn’t become leftists because they believe in Truth, Beauty and Goodness. No, they became leftists because leftism supplies the only things that truly matter to them: power, privilege, and fuel for their insatiable narcissism.

“Vile individual.” That is how Sir Keir Starmer, Britain’s leftist prime minister, has described Axel Rudakubana, the teenaged Rwandan Black who horrifically murdered three White schoolgirls in Southport last year. Starmer is wrong. Rudakubana isn’t vile. He’s pathetic. He didn’t choose to be born in Britain. He didn’t choose to possess the Black genetics that made him much more susceptible both to psychosis and to committing violent crime. Like the many Black killers who came before him and the many Black killers who will come after him, he is a product of Black biology, which evolved in Africa and should never have been exported from Africa.

Psychotic Black Killer #1: Axel Rudakubana and his victims

That’s why the only “vile individuals” in the story of the Southport killer are leftists like Keir Starmer. For decades they’ve made conscious choices to import and incubate Third-World pathologies on British soil against the clear opposition of the White majority. They’ve sacralized non-Whites, incited non-Whites to hatred and resentment against Whites, and demonized everyone who speaks the truth about non-White pathologies. Rudakubana’s horrific murders were the fruit of leftism and leftist lies. His psychosis is clearly visible in the now infamous photo of him taken after his arrest. With his crazed hair and twisted expression, Rudakubana looks utterly and appropriately alien. After all, he’s Black and Britain is White. Rudakubana is a glaring and ugly example of a great but forbidden truth: that Black Biology Matters. And it matters because it creates Black pathologies like murder, rape and educational failure.

Race is real

Leftism is founded on one of the biggest lies in history: that that all human groups are the same under the skin. Reality says the opposite: that we are very different under the skin because adaptation to wildly diverse environments has altered not just our skin-color and physiology but also our brains and psychologies. Ask yourself: Is it even remotely plausible that the Black natives of sun-blessed, fertile Rwanda and the non-Black natives of icy, oxygen-starved Tibet are the same under the skin? No, of course it isn’t. Rwandans and Tibetans look very different and behave very differently, because they’re very different under the skin — and under the skull. And that isn’t just because they’ve evolved in very different environments: it’s also because they’ve interbred with different species of hominid. Tibetans have genes from Neanderthals and Denisovans, two distinct species of human. Rwandans don’t have those genes, but they do have genes from distinct hominid species in Africa.

Even the Jewish pseudo-scientist Stephen Jay Gould couldn’t have lied away the effects of interbreeding with different species. Gould endlessly claimed that “human equality is a contingent fact of history,” mendaciously arguing there had been too little time for the human brain to evolve in distinct ways after the departure of Homo sapiens from Africa. He was wrong then and he’s even wronger now. Not only has there been ample time for humans in Rwanda and Tibet to evolve differently in their very different environments, those humans have interbred with different hominid species that have been separated for even longer. The Rwandan Black Axel Rudakubana was born in the White nation of Wales, but that did not make him Welsh or White. He was created by his Black genetics and committed brutal murder because of his Black genetics. Black Biology Matters. It’s responsible both for the low average IQ of Blacks and for the high average criminality of Blacks. But Rudakubana was only a vehicle for evil, not the creator and sustainer of that evil. The creators and sustainers are leftists like Starmer, whose ideology of lies and deceit is still denying racial reality and still ensuring that more indigenous Whites will be killed by more imported non-Whites in future.

Psychotic Black Killer #2: Valdo Calocane and his victims

Because leftism is an ideology of lies, leftists like Starmer have to crush anyone who tells the truth about the way Blacks blight Britain. Just imagine how leftists would react to anyone in the mainstream who pointed out the obvious parallels between what Axel Rudakubana did in the town of Southport in 2024 and what Valdo Calocane did in the city of Nottingham in 2023. Both Rudakubana and Calocane were Black, both were psychotic, and both murdered three people in horrific fashion. The psychotic Black Joshua Jacques went one better. He murdered four people in horrific fashion. He then had his precious Black identity erased by the leftist Guardian, which called him merely a “London man” in its headline:

Psychotic Black Killer #3: Joshua Jacques and his victims

London man who killed girlfriend and her relatives as ‘sacrifice’ jailed for life

A man who claimed he stabbed his girlfriend and three of her family members as a “sacrifice” has been jailed for life with a minimum term of 46 years for their murders. Joshua Jacques, 29, had consumed drugs and alcohol when he attacked Samantha Drummonds and her family with a knife in their home in south London in April 2022, the Old Bailey heard. Police found the bodies of Drummonds, 27, her mother, Tanysha Ofori-Akuffo, 45, grandmother Dolet Hill, 64, and Hill’s partner, Denton Burke, 58, after being alerted to a disturbance by a neighbour.

Officers found Burke’s body at the foot of the stairs and the three women “heaped together” in the kitchen. Mr Justice Bryan said Jacques had committed the “horrific catalogue of murders” after using skunk cannabis. … The court heard that Jacques took 3gm of skunk cannabis a day and refused to consider cutting down, saying he would carry on smoking marijuana “even if it killed” him.

At the scene, armed officers discovered Jacques naked and lying in the upstairs bathroom in a praying position, screaming “Allah, take me!”, “Kill me now”, “Get rid of me”, and “God please forgive me”. Later, at Lewisham hospital, he said: “I ain’t even in the wrong, I did them for sacrifice,” and warned: “I will do something stupid again.” (“London man who killed girlfriend and her relatives as ‘sacrifice’ jailed for life,” The Guardian, 1st March 2024)

What astonishing coincidences! Three individuals drawn from Britain’s tiny Black minority have slaughtered ten people in the same horrific fashion thanks to the same homicidal psychosis. But the coincidences don’t end there. It is now emerging that Axel Rudakubana was free to murder because the authorities failed to act on repeated warnings about his potential for harm, just as they failed to act on repeated warnings about Valdo Calocane and Joshua Jacques. Indeed, this seems to be a settled rule: each time a psychotic Black commits a horrific murder in Britain, it will emerge that the authorities failed to act on repeated warnings about the Black in question. That happened after a psychotic Black murdered the White schoolgirl Christina Edkins. And after a psychotic Black murdered the White father Lee Pomeroy. And after a psychotic Black murdered the White scientist Jeroen Ensink.

Cretinous rap is truly Black

But let’s be fair: Blacks do not have to be psychotic to commit horrific murders. The Blacks responsible for a blood-bath in the London district of Ilford were not psychotic, but they would have gone two better than Rudakubana and Calocane if they’d been able:

Non-psychotic Black killers who tried for five and slaughtered two

Two rappers were fatally stabbed and shot repeatedly in what jurors were told was a scene of “bloody carnage”. The Old Bailey heard Saydi Abu Sheikh, 23, and Zakariya Jeilani Mohamed, 31, were left dead or dying in a bedroom after the five-minute “revenge” raid in Ilford, east London, last October. A third man was shot through the head but lived. Two more managed to escape. … Minutes after the attack in Henley Road, a white Mitsubishi Outlander, allegedly used by the attackers and containing a small pile of clothes, was set alight in nearby Ronnie Lane. …

Police and paramedics found a “scene of bloody carnage” when they arrived at the address a few minutes later, [the prosecuting lawyer John Price] said. “In an upstairs room were two young men, both dead or dying. They had each been shot and stabbed many times,” he said. “A third young man, gravely wounded, had been left for dead. Though he sustained a gunshot wound which had passed through his head, he was to survive. It was later discovered that a fourth man had run from the back of the house when a group of attackers armed with guns had forced their way in. A fifth man was even more fortunate. Before the gunmen were able to force their way into the room, he had concealed himself between a bed and the wall. Almost miraculously, his presence there went undetected by the gunmen.” (“Ilford rappers found in scene of bloody carnage, jury told,” BBC News, 1st November 2023)

The Blacks Axel Rudakubana and Valdo Calocane killed three people; the Black Joshua Jacques killed four; the Blacks in Ilford would have killed five if they’d been able. But it’s important to note a big difference between the killings in Ilford and those committed by Rudakubana, Calocane and Jacques. The victims in Ilford were not innocent. As any honest observer will recognize, the BBC was being euphemistic when it described the murdered men as “two rappers.” In other and more honest words, they were two thuggish criminals who celebrated their thuggery and crime with an ugly and stupid Black genre of rhythmic noise and shouting called rap. That genre is a much more authentic expression of Black biology than, say, jazz or blues, which were created when Blacks were much more under White influence and control. Performing jazz and blues requires the ability to play non-Black instruments and master the rules of a non-Black musical system. Performing rap requires the ability to shout crude rhymes against deafening rhythms. It’s improvisational, inane, and celebrates violence.

In other words, it’s both a product of Black biology and an exacerbator of Black biology. Rap both expresses and incites the Black biological tendency to violence. That’s why I predict that the alliterative annihilator Joshua Jacques is also a fan or performer of rap. After all, he was a thuggish criminal who was described as posing a threat of “serious harm” to the public. Jacques was certainly a fan of something else that interacts disastrously with Black biology, namely, cannabis. Part of the reason that Blacks are more susceptible to psychosis is that Black brains are harmed more by drugs like cannabis and cocaine. Examine some remarks made by the judge who sentenced Jacques for his remarkable achievements in the field of extreme violence:

Mr Justice Bryan said Jacques had committed the “horrific catalogue of murders” after using skunk cannabis. Addressing Jacques in the dock, the judge said he had inflicted the murders “in the most brutal of circumstances on three generations of the same family” after increasing his daily intake of the drug. He said Jacques’ offending had been contributed to by cannabis abuse, and that he was “well aware” of the impact of it on his mental health. He added: “It is a salutary lesson to all those who peddle the myth that cannabis is not a dangerous drug. It is, and its deleterious effect on mental health and its potential to cause psychosis is well-established.” (“London man who killed girlfriend and her relatives as ‘sacrifice’ jailed for life,” The Guardian, 1st March 2024)

I agree with the judge about cannabis and that “salutary lesson.” But I am absolutely certain that the judge would not agree with me if he heard me adapt his words like this: “Jacques’ quadruple killing is a salutary lesson to all those who peddle the myth that Blacks are a blessing to Britain. They are not, and their vastly disproportionate tendency to commit murder, rape and other violent crimes is well-established.”

Clown Jewels

Indeed, not only would the judge disagree with me: he would happily send me to jail if I spoke those words in public or displayed this simple truth in public: BLACKS BLIGHT BRITAIN. Leftists like him would call that “hate speech,” because truth is hate to those who hate the truth. The BBC hates the truth, which is why I often encounter a great irony when I visit the BBC website for stories about pathological Black behavior. The BBC is a jewel in the crown of Clown World, which is why visitors to the site will often be greeted by the following image of a grinning Black woman:

The grinning Black woman who greets visitors to the BBC website

I saw that grinning Black woman again when I was looking for stories about the psychotic Black killer Joshua Jacques. The woman promotes a leftist lie: that Blacks Bless Britain. Jacques reveals the ugly reality: that Blacks Blight Britain. And what about another jewel in the crown of Clown World, namely, MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence service? Before I visited the MI5 website recently, I made a little prediction to myself: “I bet the front page has prominent blacks on it.” I then visited the MI5 site and laughed out loud at what I found there:

Worshipping Blacks at mendacious MI5, a crown jewel of Clown World

More negrolatry at Clown Jewel MI5

MI5 is lying when it says “The people of MI5 work to keep the country safe.” In fact, they do the opposite, because they work on behalf of Clown World, the vast system of leftist lies that imports and incubates Third-World pathologies in White nations like Britain. But MI5 isn’t just lying, of course. It’s also spying. It’s central to  the surveillance state created by leftists in response to Third-World pathologies like Muslim terrorism. The cycle goes like this: First leftists import and incubate evil, then justify further evil by the evil they’ve imported and incubated.

Leftists pursue power, not truth

It’s a perfect cycle from the leftist point of view: evil feeds evil and enhances the power of leftists to create more evil. We can see the cycle at work once again in the proposals the Labour government is making in response to the Southport killings. The killings by a Black will be used to justify more surveillance of Whites and more censorship of Whites who speak the truth about non-White pathologies.

But the killings will not be used by leftists to criticize either non-White immigration or Islam, the imported ideology that directly inspired Rudakubana. He was the “shy son of evangelical Christians,” according to the leftist Guardian, but he found murderous Islam much more congenial than mild Christianity. Behind their smarm and sentimentality about the three dead little girls in Southport, leftists like Keir Starmer and journalists at the Guardian simply don’t care. They didn’t become leftists because they believe in Truth, Beauty and Goodness. No, they became leftists because leftism supplies the only things that truly matter to them: power, privilege, and fuel for their insatiable narcissism.

Send Blacks back

But I try to follow the truth, which is why I would never make the ludicrous claim that all problems in Britain are caused by non-Whites like Blacks, Muslims and Jews. That claim would be clearly untrue. For example, the White homosexual pedophile Thomas Hamilton shot sixteen children to death in 1996. And the story of an apparent White committing a horrific multiple murder has also been in headlines this month. Kyle Clifford killed three women in 2024, stabbing one to death and shooting the two others with a crossbow. He is also accused of raping one of the women. And his older brother Bradley Clifford is a killer too.

I’d be interested to know if Kyle Clifford has Gypsy or similar non-White ancestry, but let’s suppose he’s fully White British. That would not alter the statistical facts. Horrific murders by Whites are rare in White-majority Britain. Horrific murders by Blacks are routine in White-majority Britain. Also routine in White-majority Britain are the rape and sexual enslavement of Whites by non-White Muslims. Non-Whites like Blacks and Muslims inflict vastly disproportionate harm on Whites, which is why non-Whites do not belong here and must return to their homelands.

Finishing the Job: Starmer the Pabloite

/11 Comments/in , /by

This is the tale of three men, a Russian, a Greek, and an Englishman, separated in time but united by doctrine. The first was Jewish, born Lev Bronstein, although he is better known to history as Leon Trotsky. After leading the Red Army to victory in the Russian Civil War, Trotsky became Lenin’s right-hand man, and after Lenin’s death was left as a rival to Stalin for leadership of the new Soviet. Stalin exiled Trotsky in 1928 and, after travelling rootlessly through Turkey, France, and Norway, the exile settled in Mexico. In August, 1940, an assassin dispatched by Stalin attacked Trotsky with an icepick. Whether or not the killing was quite as dramatic as that portrayed in the 1972 movie The Assassination of Trotsky, starring Richard Burton as the Russian and Alain Delon as NKVD agent Frank Jacson, is one for the historians. Trotsky survived the initial attack, but died in hospital days later, reportedly saying at the last that, “I think Stalin has finished the job he started”. Trotskyism, however, was still very much alive.

The second of the main proponents of Trotskyism was a Greek, Michalis Raptis, who was born in 1911 and later took the pseudonym Michel Pablo. Heavily involved in Greek Trotskyism, Pablo was also exiled, in 1936 when Greece fell under military rule, although he and his wife escaped and made their way across Europe to Paris. There, when France was occupied by the Nazis, he continued his work for the Trotskyist cause. After the war, he became General Secretary of the Fourth International, founded by Trotsky in Paris in 1938. After Pablo’s death in Greece in 1996, where his funeral was a state affair, he was perhaps best remembered for the political concept of “entryism”  (like neocons joining the GOP and moving it to the left on social issues.

The third man is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Keir Starmer. Although he is leading the Labour Party, and thus the country, in an increasingly authoritarian fashion, it might seem excessive to place him in the lineage of Trotsky. As a term of abuse for those seen to be on the political hard left in Great Britain, “Trot” has always been just behind “Bolshevik”. But Starmer’s past is the subject of two mysteries. Firstly, what is his connection with “Pabloism”, and, secondly, why is virtually no one in the British media talking about it?

The 1980s saw Starmer in his twenties and entering on a career in the law, his choice of guildsmen consistent with his political leanings. He became Secretary of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers rather than the alternative, the Society of Labour Lawyers, and there was one major difference of opinion between the two organizations. The latter did not approve of what was occurring and had occurred in the Soviet Union, while Starmer’s favored professional body very much did, this schism going as far back as the 1940s. As well as his fledgling legal career, Starmer also turned his hand to political journalism.

The International Marxist Tendency was a Parisian Pabloite group whose British chapter was named Socialist Alternatives. A magazine of the same name was published from 1986 to 1987 and was co-edited by Starmer. Pablo himself was among the contributors and, in its five issues, eight articles were penned by Britain’s future Prime Minister.

Starmer’s program for the redefinition of socialism had as its center of gravity trade unionism, but Socialist Alternatives also introduced a new political perspective, highlighting the potential for new and supposedly oppressed societal factions to bolster the socialist cause. The new socialism, the magazine and its co-editor held, “will necessarily have to be rooted in the anticapitalist alliance of all the emancipatory movements.” Looking to broaden the potential socialist base, Starmer foreshadowed his and Labour’s current abandonment of the White working class, insisting that “the working class exists beyond its historical base amongst white, male workers”. “Today the challenge to the status quo comes from protest movements which are not singularly based on class but represent a wide variety of social groups”, he wrote. These groups seem very familiar in modern Britain, comprising “environmentalists, tenants associations, ethnic minorities, feminists, gays, nuclear disarmers etc.”. This is an obvious deviation from Marxism. The workers were, at least nominally, championed by the Communists, whereas Starmer and his cabinet have made their hatred of the White working class in Britain absolutely clear, and these new “marginalized” groups are favored by today’s elitist, metropolitan Labour Party in a way its old base is not. When not running a Pabloite magazine, however, Starmer found time to experience socialism at ground level.

In 1986, in his mid-twenties, Keir Starmer attended a Communist work camp in what was then Czechoslovakia. This was at the height of the cold-war clampdown on free speech, and playwright Václav Havel was among those jailed for speaking out against Communism. This has echoes in contemporary Britain, where the issue of freedom of speech — and criticism of government policy in particular — is a hot-button topic. One union not favored by the British Government is The Free Speech Union, founded by journalist Toby Young, who report the following:

Pubs and other customer-facing businesses may ban discussions on contentious topics, such as Christians expressing deeply held beliefs about sex and marriage or feminists defending women’s sex-based rights, to avoid breaching Labour’s proposed workers’ rights reforms, the UK’s equality watchdog has warned.

The “rights” supposedly being defended are those of hospitality-industry workers not to be offended, which is held to be tantamount to “harassment”. No clear definition of “offense” exists in British law.

The Left-wing establishment in Britain has provided covering fire for Starmer and his Pabloite past. In a laudatory puff-piece on Starmer four months before the General Election that, while it didn’t exactly sweep Starmer and Labour to power, at least allowed him to pocket the keys to 10 Downing Street, Labour stalwart Andrew Marr discusses Starmer via a hagiography written by the dubious Tom Baldwin. There is no mention of Starmer’s dalliance with the hard Left, instead jumping straight from his taking up the law to his becoming DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), and even then neglecting to mention the Muslims he defended and which are now causing a stir among Starmer’s critics. Baldwin also makes much of Starmer’s supposedly financially impoverished childhood, growing up as was claimed in a poor part of the county of Surrey.

This is fanciful, to say the least. Starmer grew up in Oxted, a town I knew well as I grew up at the same time a few miles away, and Oxted hosted our nearest cinema. We knew it as the town where the rich kids lived. As a matter of fact, I was at school with Starmer, a year above him at Reigate Grammar School in the same county, having gained my place by virtue of an examination-based scholarship. It is a great surprise to me that such a conservative school could have produced such a radically Left-wing Prime Minister. Starmer also mentioned ad nauseam during his election campaign that his father was a toolmaker, invoking images of back-breaking hard graft wielding a farrier’s hammer in some infernally hot workshop. In fact, Starmer senior — with whom the current PM had a cold and distant relationship — owned a tool-making company. This type of class-based cosmetics is familiar in British politics, but what of the more salient chapters of Starmer’s past outside these feeble attempts to bracket him with the working class he so reviles? Why are the British mainstream media almost entirely uninterested in the radical socialist past of its current, controversial Prime Minister?

In an article from 2020, when Starmer was the front-runner for the Labour leadership, The Daily Mail quoted an unnamed Labour MP as calling today’s Prime Minister a “posh Trot”, as well as referencing Socialist Alternatives, but the paper has kept quiet on the subject since. So much for the MSM.

Also in 2020, an article from the hard Left dismissive of Starmer’s past associations actually describes accurately the MSM’s oblivious stance towards the PM today:

Was Keir Starmer a Trotskyist? Or a follower of Michel Pablo and therefore a ‘Pabloite’? Is there a difference? Indeed, who was this ‘Michel Pablo’ and what on earth is ‘Pabloism’?

Does anyone care?

Indeed. The piece goes on to describe Pablo’s approval of the success of Mao and Tito, and the notion of “client states” inspired a concept which links Pablo to Starmer:

This led to [Pablo] putting forward an idea of ‘deep entryism’ (entryism ‘sui generis’ [‘of a special type’]) where Trotskyists would join mass Communist Parties and seek to influence their development without revealing their politics openly.

Rather than a “mass Communist Party”, Starmer chose Britain’s Labour Party.

And what of the British right-of-center politicians, such as they are? Professor Matt Goodwin is a near-permanent fixture on Right-of-center British media, and is becoming a force within Reform UK, whose political star is very much in the ascendant, and at whose party conference Professor Goodwin recently spoke. Professor Goodwin goes after Keir Starmer personally — a national pastime at present — from about 13:00 in the video, and since his academic background is in statistics, he is tethered to facts and figures in a way rare in the political class. If any man was going to expose Starmer’s Trotskyite past, surely this was Professor Goodwin. And he didn’t mention it. That the Prime Minister of the UK was formerly connected with hard-Left doctrine ought to be a serious weapon, particularly for a party eclipsing the Tories. One wonders what the media response might be were Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform and himself tipped as a future Prime Minister, found to have been an avid reader of Julius Evola.

The only British journalist even to have mentioned the fact that Starmer was or had been a Pabloite, and so by extension a Trotskyite, is the veteran writer Peter Hitchens, the surviving younger brother of the late Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens becomes more curmudgeonly as he gets older and more jaded politically, but he is evermore forthright. The reason he gives for the media’s radio silence on Starmer’s radical political past is a simple one:

They don’t understand it. Most people who write about politics in this country are politically illiterate.

This is unlikely to lead to many lunch invitations from journalistic colleagues, but Hitchens does understand both his profession and politics. In particular, he understands Trotskyism because, in his youth, he was himself a Trotskyist, a fact he has never tried to conceal and which gives him his insight into Starmer.

Starmer is portrayed in the British press as “boring”, but he is psychologically fascinating. Asked his favorite book or poem in an interview, he seemed slightly surprised at the question, and said he had neither. What kind of person doesn’t have a favorite piece of literature? There is something autistic about the man, as though he doesn’t function at the human level, but instead as a sort of AI program. Peter Hitchens describes the PM as “an extremely dogmatic person”, which is accurate as far as it goes, but he is more doctrinaire than simply dogmatic, and this makes him absolutely suited to the hard Left.

Contemporary Britain is, of course, a very different place from the Soviet Union. One of the main points of difference between Trotsky and Stalin was that, while Bronstein favored a period of capitalism in order to bring down that very edifice, Stalin did not. Starmer seems to be with Stalin in despising capitalists. The rich are now leaving Britain at record levels due to his policies, with millionaires exiting the country in 2024 at a level 150% higher than that of 2023.

Starmer is not the first PM in recent history to have fallen under the spell of Trotsky. Tony Blair, whose New Labour began the project of which the Starmer administration is the continuity version, was himself drawn to Trotskyism after reading the first volume of Isaac Deutscher’s biographic trilogy of the Russian, as a 2017 Guardian article revealed:

‘Here’s this guy Trotsky who was so inspired by all of this that he went out to create a Russian revolution and changed the world. I think it’s a very odd thing – just literally it was like a light going on,’ Blair told Reflections with Peter Hennessy on Radio 4.

While Starmer has always been branded a “Corbynite”, or a follower of Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader prior to his tenure, seasoned watchers of British politics will recognize Blair as the PM’s true mentor. It may still be that a torch lit in Soviet Russia, kindled in Greece and Paris, and one that so illuminated Tony Blair, has been passed on to Sir Keir Starmer, and may not be extinguished before the job is finished.

The Labour Party’s tolerance for child sexual abuse

/3 Comments/in , /by

Ivor Caplin, a member of parliament of the ruling Labour Party in the UK, was arrested last week. Allegedly, he had arranged to meet a boy in Brighton for sexual relations, only to be caught by paedophile hunters. This case is not unusual in a political party that has shown itself more than tolerant of child sexual abuse.

In 1974 prominent Labour politicians, who sensed that the sexual revolution of the Sixties would continue to overturn conservative mores, backed the Paedophile Information Exchange, a body that demanded decriminalisation of sex with minors down to the age of four. Notably involved was feminist Harriet Harman. PIE is no more, but be in no doubt that perversion prevails, with sexualisation of children licensed by transgender ideology and equality law.

All major political parties have had paedophile problems. The Conservative government of the 1970s was led by Ted Heath, who was strongly suspected of taking boys. The Liberal Party had Cyril Smith, an abuser of almost Jimmy Savile level. But the Labour Party seems to particularly attract adults with a penchant for kids. The website labour25.com, named after twenty-five people who held positions in Labour who were imprisoned for child sex offences, contains gory details of seventy-six abusers from the party.

Here are a few examples.

Former school governor and Labour councillor Alec Dyer-Atkins was arrested by the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit for downloading 42000 illegal images, including some extremely brutal abuse. He was a member of Shadows Brotherhood, an international paedophile ring. He was sentenced to two years in prison in 2003. Dyer-Atkins is one of many who were both Labour politicians and school governors or teachers, thus having optimal access to children to exert their depravity. Another one is Nelson Bland, who walked free from Reading Magistrates Court in 2004 after admitting 16 counts of making indecent images of children.

In several cases the abusers worked with Labour Party leaders. In 2006 Peter Tuffley, who advised Hazel Blears in the New Labour government, got fifteen months in jail for kidnapping a 13-year-old boy for sex, after grooming him online. The judge told Tuffley that he had no excuse as his mentor David Blunkett had enacted a law against grooming as home secretary. In 2001 Martyn Locklin, a leading Labour activist in Tony Blair’s seat in Sedgefield, County Durham, was jailed for fifteen years for a series of offences against teenage boys, including rape.

Eric Joyce, former Labour MP, was given a suspended sentence in 2020 for making an abusive film of children as young as 12 months(!).  Here is another troubling feature of the cases: soft punishment for abhorrent crimes, particularly in comparison with the harsh sentences for people who made Facebook posts or attended protests following the Southport murders (arguably, not even passing the threshold of crime).

The list goes on and on. Perhaps most notorious was Lord Janner. In 2021 an independent enquiry into sexual abuse found that police had failed to investigate allegations against the Labour peer. Greville Janner was a MP for Leicester from 1970 to 1997, when he was ennobled. Eventually he was charged with 22 offences of indecent assault and buggery, but director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders ruled that it was not in public interest to prosecute Janner due to his dementia. He died in 2015.

It would be an exaggeration to state that the Labour Party is a nest of paedophiles. But the refusal of Sir Keir Starmer’s government to launch a national enquiry into the so-called grooming gangs that have rampaged in towns and cities across the land is not surprising when you consider the predilections within its ranks.

Of course, Labour politicians don’t see the world like you or I do. They take the side of any minority group at odds with traditional norms. They regard conservative reaction to mass immigration or transgenderism as ‘hate crime’, and would happily fill prisons with critics of sex crimes committed by migrants or homosexuals, rather than the offenders themselves.

The response of metropolitan liberals to reports of the Pakistani-origin rape gangs and their victims is distaste for anyone describing the gangs as Pakistani or referring to their deeds as rape rather than the euphemistic ‘grooming’. Jess Phillips, the ardent feminist now serving in the Home Office, prefers to blame White men for misogyny, while defending Muslims (during the protests after the Southport killings, she praised the hordes of Pakistani men who brandished weapons and intimidated White people). The Guardian recently compiled a feature on the eighty female victims of murder by males last year, under the banner of a campaign to prevent violence against women and girls. The three girls killed in Southport were not included.

It’s almost as though privileged moralisers regard the industrial-scale traumatising of poor White working-class girls as cultural enrichment, as interracial mixing, and a slap in the face to racists. And there is a similar theme in the sexual abuse of boys by men: if you complain you are risking accusation of homophobia. Or anti-Semitism, because another theme here is the involvement of perverted Labour politicians in Jewish causes.

In 2018 Ivor Caplin was appointed as chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement, at the time that this body was undermining the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Say what you like about the unpatriotic socialist Corbyn, but he was not fiddling with kids. Lord Janner served as president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Did powerful Jewish influence give Janner immunity from prosecution? Furthermore, are such perverted politicians exploited through blackmail?

Silencing and smearing of people who speak out on child sexual abuse is damaging society. Concerns are suppressed by parliamentarians while the likes of Labour peer Lord Ahmed perpetrated the very crime himself. I am not masking the presence of child abusers in Conservative and other parties, but it seems that Labour has more than its share of paedophilia. What chance of protection do girls have from prime minister Starmer, who as director of public prosecutions failed to prosecute the BBC predator Jimmy Savile and to pursue the Pakistani rape gangs, while leading a party plagued with men who take boys?

Hermer’s Harmers: The Hidden Jewish Handle of the Rape-Gang Scandal

/7 Comments/in , /by

Richard Hermer must be utterly horrified. He’s the Jewish Attorney-General for the current Labour government and in 2024 he delivered the Bingham Lecture, a little-known but highly important event in Britain’s legal calendar. The title of his lecture was “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism” and Hermer hammered away tirelessly on his central theme. As I pointed out in “Kritarchs on Krusade,” he used the phrase “rule of law” nearly seventy times, loudly and proudly proclaiming that “the rule of law is the bedrock on which” democracy rests.

Hermer, Goldsmith, Garland and Dreyfus, four Jewish Attorney-Generals who believe in the rule of leftism, not the rule of law

That’s why Hermer must be so horrified by the renewed scandal about non-White Muslim rape-gangs. Once again the British media have been full of stories about how the sacred rule of law, bedrock of democracy, has not applied for decades in towns and cities up and down the country. No, the opposite has applied: the rule of crime. Decade after decade, police, politicians and social workers have done nothing as non-White Muslim men have committed highly serious crimes against working-class White girls. Indeed, the authorities have been worse than inactive: they have collaborated with the crimes. When White fathers sought to rescue their daughters from rape and sexual exploitation by non-White men, the police arrested the fathers and left the non-White men free to continue their rape and torture. The local council in Rotherham, most infamous but far from largest of the rape-gang hotspots, determinedly sacked, censored and silenced those who tried to expose the horrors taking place there.

Gasping with Goldsmith

And worse still from Richard Hermer’s point of view, this trashing of the sacred rule of law took place under the aegis of his own beloved Labour party. He must be boiling with indignation at how his own party has actively and atrociously betrayed the very working-class folk it was founded in 1900 to champion and protect. So surely Richard Hermer has not remained silent about the scandal. Surely he has thundered forth denunciations of both the trashing of the rule of law and the betrayal of the White working-class by the laughably misnamed Labour party. Indeed, we can confidently expect that Peter Goldsmith, another Jewish legal giant, has joined Hermer in denouncing the trashing of the rule of law. Goldsmith must be gasping with horror too, because like Hermer he served as Attorney-General in a Labour government that allowed the rule of law to be abandoned and its traditional supporters to fall victim to atrocious crimes.

So have Hermer and Goldsmith, those two leftist legal giants and shining ornaments of the Jewish community, made any speeches or issued any statements about the scandal? Have they demanded the restoration of the rule of law to the town and cities where, decade after decade, it has been unforgivably and abominably ignored? Of course they haven’t. That’s because leftist lawyers like Hermer and Goldsmith don’t practise what they preach. As I pointed out in “Kritarchs on Krusade,” Hermer believes in the rule of leftism, not the rule of law. And the rule of leftism has been working perfectly in all the towns and cities ruled by rape-gangs and abandoned by the rule of law. Leftism preaches equality and practises hierarchy. In the leftist hierarchy of race, non-White Muslim men are far above White working-class girls and women. In the leftist hierarchy of religion, Islam is sacred and Christianity is septic. That’s why the Labour council and Labour MP in Rotherham did not lift a finger to protect the White girls being raped, tortured and sometimes murdered by non-White Muslim men.

The hidden hand of Jews

But there’s an additional factor, something unaddressed even by the commentators who have denounced the rape-gangs and demanded the restoration of the rule of law. This additional and unaddressed factor is in fact not just central to the scandal but the underlying cause of the scandal. What is it? It’s the role of Jews and Jewish ideology. The Labour MP for Rotherham who ignored the rape-gangs was called Denis MacShane. When he was jailed in 2013 for fraud, he was saluted by the Jewish Chronicle in London as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions.” But MacShane wasn’t elected to champion Jews in far-off London. He was elected to champion the White working-class in Rotherham, a decidedly un-Jewish town in the northern county of Yorkshire. MacShane belonged to the Labour Party, not the Judaic Party. And he has often proclaimed himself to be a staunch feminist.

Denis MacShane, a so-called Labour MP who worked for Jews, committed fraud and utterly betrayed the White working-class (image from Wikipedia)

So why did MacShane not serve those he was meant to serve? Why did he abandon White working-class girls to rape, torture and murder at the hands of non-White Muslim men? Because he unflinchingly follows the modern priorities of what he has called “my beloved Labour party.” Labour long ago abandoned its founding principles and became a vehicle for serving Jewish interests, not the interests of the White working-class. Leftist Jews regard Muslims as “natural allies” against Whites, therefore the Labour party has refused to protect its traditional White working-class supporters from Muslim predation. Even among White nationalists, too many people fail to understand the Jewish role in Labour’s Islamophilia. For example, Mark Gullick has written an interesting and insightful article about the scandal called “Protecting Brand Islam.” But he doesn’t mention Jews once in the article. That’s why he made a serious error and a significant omission when he wrote this:

The current definition of Islamophobia was drawn up by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, they being the only ethnic or religious minority to be afforded their own such cross-party parliamentary committee. It reads as follows: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” (“Protecting Brand Islam,” Counter Currents, 6th January 2025)

Denis MacShane would correct Gullick at once, because Muslims are not “the only ethnic or religious minority to be afforded their own such cross-party parliamentary committee.” Jews were there first. In 2006 MacShane chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, which, as he proudly noted, “was hailed as a model of its kind and changed government policy.” Yes, it was a model for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPGBM), just as that “definition of Islamophobia” had an earlier Jewish model. Wes Streeting, the homosexual Labour politician who co-chaired the APPGBM, proudly noted that its definition of Islamophobia — “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” — was “presented within a framework resembling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.”

Jewish generals in the War on Whites

In other words, the leftist sacralization of “Brand Islam” has been inspired by and modelled on the sacralization of Brand Jew. As I noted in “Free Speech Must Die!,” Streeting went on to claim this: “Contrary to myth, the definition I helped devise isn’t a threat to free speech.” He was lying, of course. The definition is a very serious threat to free speech. Streeting and his fellow leftists wouldn’t have “devised” it otherwise. Jews regard Muslims as “natural allies” in part because Muslims also hate free speech. In effect, Muslims are footsoldiers in a war on Whites and the West overseen by Jewish generals. Like Blacks, Muslims are a non-White group with a low average IQ and low average levels of educational attainment. Like Blacks, Muslims could never have gained their current heights in the leftist hierarchy without the active help of Jews, who are much more powerful, intelligent and verbally skilled. If you want to see Jews working to lift Muslims and lower Whites, here are a few headlines:

Britain’s non-White Muslim rape-gangs exist because of Jews and Jewish ideology. Britain’s non-White Muslim rape-gangs have operated with impunity for the same reason. But Muslims aren’t, of course, the only minority whom Jews regard as “natural allies.” Therefore Muslims aren’t the only minority in Britain to whom the “rule of law” has not applied. Margaret Hodge, another member of the Jewish elite, headed a Labour council in London that, just like the Labour council in Rotherham, granted a sacred minority permission to prey on children with impunity:

Margaret Hodge grins at the goyim in Labour Friends of Israel

In 1985, Margaret Hodge, Islington’s then leader, introduced a “positive action” drive to recruit gay and minority ethnic people into Council jobs, including sensitive roles working with children. So far so good. But an independent inquiry into the Council revealed how this well-intentioned policy heralded an end to effective recruitment checks and became a strong disincentive to challenging bad practice.

Recruitment in Islington was overseen by an Equal Opportunities Unit which set about removing the safeguards that might have stopped a prolific child abuser infiltrating a children’s home. … The positive discrimination policy had serious unintended consequences, the inquiry found. Staff were able to exploit children for their own purposes while managers felt unable to discipline or dismiss staff from marginalised communities. “It cannot be a coincidence that of the 32 staff named in these records, a number fall within these groups,” the report said.

“Intelligent and well-meaning women even categorically advised the council that gay men were less likely to abuse children than heterosexual men. Those raising safeguarding concerns were vilified as homophobic,” according to Eileen Fairweather, the journalist who broke the story of the abuse. What followed was years of violence and abuse of exceptionally vulnerable children in Islington-run homes. The two-part Evening Standard exposé revealed pimps and predatory child abusers were both visiting, and staying in, children’s rooms. Accounts from former residents described rapes and beatings.

Children were given drugs, introduced to porn, impregnated and abused into prostitution. Their stories were supported by staff who had tried to blow the whistle. The Standard accused Islington of a “slavish adherence to a confused ideology” which allowed abusers to shelter behind gay rights and meant that Islington could dismiss its critics as “bigots”.

Concerns about pimps of African Caribbean heritage were dismissed as racist. In contrast, Neville Mighty — a Jamaican-born whistle-blower who was one of the first to try to stop the abuse — was himself accused of inappropriate behaviour, and sacked. Margaret Hodge’s response was to dismiss the Standard’s reporting as “gutter journalism”. Her attitude was typical of Islington’s “Stalinist reluctance” to study the facts when they failed to fit the theory. “If gays are oppressed, then all gay men are good, was its simplistic credo,” Fairweather wrote in the Independent in 1995. “Men who hurt boys were not ‘gay’ — they were paedophiles.” (“Beware the false victim: History shows the folly of insisting that certain classes of people can do no wrong,” The Critic, May 2023)

What happened in Islington under a Labour council is exactly like what happened in Rotherham under a Labour council: “Children were given drugs, introduced to porn, impregnated and abused into prostitution.” In Islington, those “raising safeguarding concerns were vilified as homophobic” and racist. In Rotherham, those raising safeguarding concerns were vilified as “Islamophobic” and racist. In Islington, it was Brand Homo at work. In Rotherham, it was — and is — Brand Islam. But those two brands are in fact antithetical. Muslims hate homos, so you can’t understand what is going on until you recognize that what’s really at work is Brand Jew. In Islington, homosexuals and Blacks were the sacred minorities released from the rule of law to rape and exploit as they pleased. In Rotherham, the sacred minority were — and still are — Muslims. But in both places, the sacred minorities are footsoldiers in a war on the White heterosexual majority directed by Jewish generals.

The good ones don’t outweigh the bad

It isn’t a coincidence that the Labour head of Islington council was a Jew just as the Labour MP for Rotherham was “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions.” Minorities were released from the rule of law in Islington and Rotherham because of Jewish ideology, which insists that minorities are virtuous and the White heterosexual majority are villainous. But it’s also important to note that the article about child-rape in Islington was written by a Jewish journalist called Julie Bindel, who herself acknowledged the “Jamaican-born whistle-blower” Neville Mighty. Bindel and Mighty have worked against the harm done by Jewish ideology.

That’s why we can never claim that all Jewish and Black individuals are actively harmful to Whites. But we can certainly claim that Jews and Blacks, as groups, do grossly disproportionate harm to Whites and that we would be far better off without them. The good ones, like Bindel and Mighty, do not outweigh the harm done by the bad ones. It’s not even close. And unless the good ones call out the harm done by the bad ones, the good ones are complicit in that harm. The Jewish journalist Larry Auster did call out his fellow Jews for their central role in the war on Whites and the West. The Jewish journalist Julie Bindel does not do that.

The rule of Jews

And despite her courageous stand against some aspects of leftist lunacy, Julie Bindel still promotes the central dogmas of leftist lunacy when she says “… the problem is neither immigration nor a particular racial or religious group. The problem is the incompetence of those tasked with protecting the most vulnerable in our society and a criminal justice system that is geared to fail all victims.” Contra Bindel, the problem is indeed immigration and is indeed the pathologies of non-Whites and Muslims. And as Bindel herself has repeatedly shown, leftism is not guilty of “incompetence” but of active collaboration with non-White and homosexual child-rapists.

Those rapists can be described as Hermer’s harmers, that is, as minority footsoldiers in a war on Whites and the West directed by Jewish generals like Richard Hermer, Attorney-General in a Labour government that hates the White working-class. Despite his fetishistic invocation of the “rule of law,” the Jewish legal giant Richard Hermer is not at all horrified by the decades-long trashing of the rule of law in favor of non-White Muslim rape-gangs. On the contrary, Hermer has worked tirelessly to maintain the trashing. When Jews like Hermer say “rule of law,” they mean “rule of leftism” and they think “rule of Jews.”