British Politics

Black Saints, White Demons: The Martyr-Cult of Stephen Lawrence

You read it here first. In 2013, my article “The Ruling Stones” pointed out that England had a new patron saint: Stephen Lawrence, the Black teenager murdered by a White gang in 1993. What I said five years ago has now become an official reality. The British prime minister Theresa May has announced an annual “Stephen Lawrence Day” on 22nd April, just before St George’s Day on 23rd April. The shabbos shiksa May was indulging in conspicuous minority worship, trying to overcome the damage done to her cuckservative government by the so-called “Windrush scandal.”

What’s up with the Brits?

However, it’s plain that Stephen Lawrence Day has been deliberately placed in the calendar as an attack on White Englishness. St George was England’s old patron saint and 23rd April is also the traditional birthday of William Shakespeare, the archetypal English genius. John Derbyshire put it like this at VDare: “No more of that white supremacist nonsense! The 23rd now dwells in the shadow of the 22nd, Stephen Lawrence Day.”

Mainspring of the martyr-cult: Dr Richard Stone

Derbyshire went on to express his usual bemusement at the state of his motherland: “What on earth is the matter with the Brits, that they have elevated this one regrettable but insignificant killing into a great holy martyrdom?” As I explained in “The Ruling Stones,” it wasn’t the Brits. Rather, it was a small but highly energetic minority that is hostile to the Brits. The guiding intellect behind the martyr-cult of St Stephen Lawrence has been an SJW called Dr Richard Stone, whose own website describes him as “a leading expert in social cohesion, anti-racism, and Islamophopia” and “a regular speaker around Europe at conferences on these topics.” Dr Stone is a part of an anti-White, pro-minority network that wields power at the highest levels of government not just in Britain but right across Europe. Read more

In the Land of Lies: Seeing, Saying, and Pseudotopia, Part 2

 “Yo blud, wot you mean?”

All of this is a direct result of mass immigration, as the journalist Mary Wakefield has admitted in the cuckservative Spectator:

In the [London] Evening Standard, Wayne, an ex-gangster from Plumstead, gave an interview in which he explained that the resettled kids from war zones had upped the ante in gangland. ‘In the last ten years, since the Somalis and the Congolese came to London, they taught us a whole new level of violence. These people had seen family members mutilated, so when they said, “I’m gonna smash you up”, us guys would be shouting, “Yo blud [i.e., blood-brother], wot you mean?” and they would just pull out a blade and juk [stab] you in the chest. It upped the speed and level for us British-born guys. We had to arm up to protect ourselves. It created an upward spiral.’

Not Amber Rudd, not Sadiq Khan nor Theresa May would ever speak publicly about this, for fear of seeming racist. But isn’t that in itself racist? It implies that the problem is somehow to do with skin colour, when any poor kid forced into a civil war might well be brutalised by it. We absolutely have a duty to offer asylum to children fleeing horrific circumstances, but we also have a duty to acknowledge the increased dangers the police face as a result. If we don’t, these multiply. (An odd new feeling has crept up on me — sympathy for the police, The Spectator, 21st April 2018)

Why do we “absolutely have a duty to offer asylum to children fleeing horrific circumstances”? In fact, we don’t have any such duty at all. To suggest otherwise is mawkish virtue-signalling that would have been dismissed with contempt not only by that great conservative hero Winston Churchill, but by all mainstream politicians well into the twentieth century. Somalia and the Congo are a very long way from Britain and the “children fleeing horrific circumstances” passed many safe places en route to this country. Now that they are here, they are reproducing the savage and barbarous culture of their homelands.

Virtue-signalling and vibrancy

Is that a surprise? Not to anyone with eyes in their head and brains between their ears. But in the Land of Lies, the wilfully blind are King. And I’m sure that the virtue-signalling Mary Wakefield and her family rarely, if ever, encounter that Somali and Congolese culture at first hand. They will live at a safe distance from the enriched areas of London, allowing the “absolute duty” of welcoming enrichers to fall on other people.

But let’s give the Spectator some credit: it also publishes the Islamophobe Douglas Murray, who has criticized Muslim immigration and even gone so far as to mention the Jewish role therein. He has recently asked a very important question: “Why do politicians refuse to tell it how it is on immigration?” Sadly, his answer was wholly inadequate. The subheading to his article ran: “It is the one issue where our leaders deny the wishes of their citizens.”

That’s like saying that food is the “one issue” where a dog-owner denies the wishes of his dog. If the dog wants food and doesn’t get it, then the owner proves that he is unfit to own a dog. He is failing to meet the dog’s most basic and important need. Similarly, if politicians “deny the wishes of their citizens” on immigration, they prove not only that they are unfit for office but that they are acting with conscious treachery. Immigration is not just “one issue” among many: it is, as Enoch Powell pointed out half-a-century ago, of vital, existential importance, altering a nation and its future in the most direct and intimate way. Read more

In the Land of Lies: Seeing, Saying and Pseudotopia, Part 1

It seems such an obvious truth: In regione caecorum rex est luscus — “In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.” But the English writer H.G. Wells turned the proverb on its head in his short-story “The Country of the Blind” (1904), one of the cleverest and most profound ever written. Wells’ story describes a sighted mountaineer who, while climbing in the Andes, discovers a hidden valley where the inhabitants have been blind for generations.

Seeing is Sinful

Does the sighted mountaineer become king of the valley? Far from it. Socially speaking, his faculty of sight isn’t merely a disadvantage but a dangerous curse. The blind tribesfolk are not impressed by his claims to possess an additional and superior sense:

He spoke of the beauties of sight, of watching the mountains, of the sky and the sunrise, and they heard him with amused incredulity that presently became condemnatory. They told him there were indeed no mountains at all, but that the end of the rocks where the llamas grazed was indeed the end of the world; thence sprang a cavernous roof of the universe, from which the dew and the avalanches fell; and when he maintained stoutly the world had neither end nor roof such as they supposed, they said his thoughts were wicked. (“The Country of the Blind”)

It turns out that, in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is a heretic. It would be even worse in a land where, for religious reasons, people merely pretended to be blind. Or rather: it is indeed worse in a land of pretended blindness. Britain is like that. So is the rest of the ethnically enriched West. It is heretical to comment on certain highly visible aspects of the world. Instead, we have to pretend that they’re not there and either remain silent or state the opposite of the truth.

“There is only one race — the human race!”

Britain is not a Utopia but a Pseudotopia — a Land of Lies. The biggest and foulest lies swirl in the vast sewer of what the left would call “racial discourse.” Here are a few of those lies:

  • There is only one race — the human race.
  • All races are equal in intellectual, moral and civilizational potential.
  • Mass immigration from the Third World enriches the stale pale nations of the First World.
  • Any White resistance to ethnic enrichment must be crushed before it leads to a Second Holocaust.
  • When non-Whites fail, it can only be because of White racism.

Stephen Lawrence, Black martyr

These lies are reinforced constantly by every medium of official propaganda and public education, but sometimes the storm of mendacity rises to a hurricane. Britain has experienced one of those hurricanes in 2018. First, this year is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the martyrdom of our new patron saint, St Stephen Lawrence, the Black teenager who was murdered by a White gang in London in 1993. Second, the government is accused of mistreating members of the so-called Windrush Generation, that is, the saintly non-White immigrants who began arriving in Britain after the Second World War. Read more

Reflections on the Chabloz Case

I’ll sing my way to court in high heels and a frock
Give the press a winning smile from inside the dock…
      Alison Chabloz song, Find me guilty

Mr Gideon Falter, 34, who runs the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAAS) was the chief witness for the Crown Prosecution service’s (CPS) against the British minstrel Alison Chabloz. On January 10th at Marylebone Magistrate’s Court we heard him swear the oath, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He then proceeded to give the court various hearsay conjectures, about what effect Ms Chabloz’ songs might be exerting, upon unspecified persons.

He averred for example that they were ‘spreading anti-semitic hatred’ and were ‘inciting to racial hatred.’ The Court was not given evidence for this,[1] nor advised where or in whom these emotions were being generated. Should he not have called witnesses to testify in support of these conjectures, or better still a psychologist to affirm that they were or had been generated?

The Court was advised of one offensive performance by Ms Chabloz, where she sang her songs ‘(((Survivors))) and ‘Nemo’s anti-Semitic Universe’ namely the London Forum in   2016 (September 24th). A problem here could be the signs of mirth and riotous applause in response to the songs: did this really show what Mr Falter had been alleging, or if not, what did?

She was recently introduced as ‘The brilliant comedienne and singer/songwriter Alison Chabloz,’ by Richie Allen, on his popular radio show (18 January).

The point of satire, is that it makes people laugh. Britain has a long tradition of satire from William Hogarth in the 18th century to Private Eye in the present time. Its future is surely at stake in this trial.

In October of 2017 she was arrested and jailed (or, ‘held in custody’) for 48 hours, for posting a video of herself singing a song. This had allegedly broken her ‘bail conditions’. As Ms Chabloz observed, “As far as I am aware, I am the only artist in modern British history to have been jailed for the heinous crime of composing and singing satirical songs which I uploaded to the Internet.”

We live in a society where just about any sacred belief is liable to be satirised for entertainment value, and those being satirised have not generally sought recourse to legal action. When punk-rock bands savagely mocked the Royal family for example, no-one prosecuted them. Read more

A Shameless Shabbos-Shiksa: Priti Patel Shills for Israel

If you thought Harvey Weinstein looked creepy, take a look at Stuart Polak:

Stuart Polak of CFI

Lord Polak, as Stu became thanks to David Cameron, is currently receiving some unwelcome attention in the British media. For such a small minority, Jews certainly get involved in a lot of scandals, don’t they? However, Lord Polak hasn’t been molesting women or, as might seem more likely, molesting children and small animals. Instead, as a proud and patriotic British Jew, he’s been busy on behalf of the only nation that matters to him: Israel. He was director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) for twenty-six years. The Jewish Chronicle, no less, has described how “under his guidance, CFI became the biggest lobbying group in Westminster, holding lunches for 700 guests, making countless Downing Street visits, and developing contacts throughout Israel and the Middle East.”

Vibrant Vacation

The scandal he’s now in goes like this. In August this year, he was present at unauthorized and unrecorded meetings held between Israeli officials and the International Development Secretary Priti Patel, a high-testosterone female politician who had taken her prime-ministerial ambitions on holiday to Israel. Among others, she met the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Yuval Rotem of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, and Gilad Erdan, Minister for Public Security, Information and Strategic Affairs.

High-T fem-pol: the vibrant Priti Patel

Those are important people, but she didn’t bother to involve her own government in the meetings or to have any minutes taken. What was she up to? Well, inter alia she seems to have been discussing ways to send more British taxpayers’ money into Israeli bank accounts. And a lot of that money already heads there: “It’s a little known fact that over 20 per cent of the medicines that the NHS [National Health Service] uses come from Teva, an Israeli company, and it’s rising, heading towards 25 per cent.” Patel wanted to fund the Israeli army’s aid work in the occupied Golan Heights, which isn’t recognized as Israeli territory even by the very pro-Zionist Conservatives, and to give British aid money to Israeli organizations working in Africa.

Would all that have been good value for money? Who cares? What matters is that it would have been good for Israel and for Patel herself, who could then have relied on more help from Conservative Friends of Israel with her political ambitions. Read more

If Elected Party Leader, Zionist Anne Marie Waters Will Sound UKIP’s Death Knell, Part 2

Over the past few years Ann-Marie Waters, an Irish LGBT activist, backed by Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media, Tommy Robinson and a cabal of Jewish nationalists with irrefutable ties to American Neoconservative organisations, has advanced upon the British political scene.

Waters, an ardent Marxist, first entered the fold as the spokesperson for the British-based left wing National Secular Society (NSS), attacking her host nation’s traditional mores, Christian faith and British values. Waters pushed the usual litany of aggressive LGBT demands that Cultural Marxists routinely package as genuine civil rights grievances from her position with the NSS.

Recognising the fact that she needed the backing of an established political organization, to make any real headway in British politics, Waters then joined the Labour Party where she set her sights on standing in Britain’s parliamentary elections.

Things progressed until Waters’ dogmatic allegiance to the advancement of LGBT causes and hostility towards Islam (the latter quite sensible but unusual on the left) eventually proved to be fatal her chances of becoming part of the Party’s inner circle.

Waters’ refusal to embrace every last aspect of society-destroying liberalism ultimately resulted in resounding electoral failure, and in her being pushed out of the Party. Read more

If Elected Party Leader, Zionist Anne Marie Waters Will Sound UKIP’s Death Knell, Part 1


Within the next few months, United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) members will be asked to elect a leader to replace Paul Nuttall, the Catholic conservative, mildly pro-Zionist Member of European Parliament for North West England, who resigned after leading the party off a cliff at the last General Election.

It’s fair to say that Nuttall was neither intellectually equipped, nor politically astute enough to lead a defanged UKIP into the Brexit negotiation period, as evidenced by his inability to achieve the slightest electoral success in 2017.

UKIP’s share of the vote, which reached a staggering 4 million when I stood as a prospective Member of Parliament for West Lancashire in 2015, collapsed at this year’s General Election — with both the Labour Party, from whom UKIP had previously siphoned off hundreds of thousands of voters from disenfranchised White working class communities in the north, and fiercely patriotic English Conservatives, whom UKIP had targeted down south, hacking large swathes of support back from Nuttall’s party.

In fact, Nuttall’s inability to put his personal stamp on the populist party resulted in UKIP losing over 80% of its vote (from 12.6% in 2015 to 2% in 2017), its membership rumored to have dropped by more than half, and the party Farage had built from scratch all but relegated to a footnote in the annals of British history and dustbin of British politics. Read more