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.

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.

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:

• British Jews and Muslims are natural allies, Dr Richard Stone, The Independent, 15th August 2001
• Jews and Muslims are natural allies against religious discrimination, Daisy Khan and Rabbi Burton Visotzky, The Hill, 24th August 2017
• Former CST boss will help Muslim group battle Islamophobia, The Jewish Chronicle, 10th April 2014
• Muslims and Jews face a common threat from white supremacists. We must fight it together, Jonathan Freedland and Mehdi Hasan, The Guardian, 3rd April 2019
• Both Feeling Threatened, American Muslims and Jews Join Hands, Laurie Goodstein, The New York Times, 5th December 2015
• Jewish women ‘stand shoulder to shoulder’ with Muslim women over Islamophobic abuse, The Jewish Chronicle, 19th April 2018
• Jewish and Muslim women pledge to work together to combat hate, The Jewish Chronicle, 24th April 2018
• Jews and Muslims should unite in fight against racism, The Jewish Chronicle, 28th March 2018
• Board president Marie van der Zyl pledges to be ‘committed ally’ of Muslims at interfaith Iftar, The Jewish Chronicle, 13th July 2018
• Our Jewish community must do more to support Muslims attacked by Islamophobes, The Jewish Chronicle, 8th August 2018
• Jews and Muslims ramp up alliances in wake of Trump’s election, The Jewish Standard, 15th November 2016
• This young Jewish woman and a young Muslim woman teach schoolkids about racism, The Jewish Chronicle, 7th February 2019

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.”