British Politics

Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s “England”—Translated and with an Introduction by Alexander Jacob


Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855–1927) is best known for his cultural history Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Foundations of the Nineteenth Century; Munich, 1899) as well as for his studies of Kant, Goethe, Wagner, and Heinrich von Stein. But his several tracts written during World War I[1] are interesting in their own right as documents of German nationalist literature that prefigure the doctrines of German supremacy propounded by the Conservative Revolution of the Weimar Republic as well as by the National Socialists. Of the works dating from the war, Kriegsaufsätze (War Essays; Munich, 1914)—from which the present essay is taken—was indeed the first.[2]

Chamberlain’s essay on England is a study of the psychological bases of England’s imperial edifice as well as of its war aims in World War I. He notes that, whereas the world has been accustomed to considering Germany as a militaristic aggressor, it is in fact the imperial ambitions of England that are the principal impetus of the war. This exercise in psychological study of national character Chamberlain undertakes by highlighting, first, the social divisions in England that have informed the aristocracy and the rest of the population and, secondly, the gradual transformation of an originally insular people into an ocean-faring people intent on international trade and colonial exploitation.

The ruling class in England has, since the Norman invasion, been the French aristocracy, which, being a minority that accepted only a few Saxon and Danish families into its rather exclusive circle, did not mingle fully with the local Anglo-Saxon population. There was little interaction between them and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon population, and the social superiority of the Normans was established in a clear and unmistakable manner expressed not only in their different physiognomies but also in their linguistic expression. The aloofness of the French rulers, however, later seeped down to the classes below the aristocracy as well so that the well-known English ‘reserve’ was eventually observable throughout the population.

The government of the nation was always in the hands of the aristocracy alone and the Lower House never represented the people even when, around 1600, it gained more powers, for these powers were to benefit only the lesser aristocracy, constituted of the younger sons of nobles, and not the population as a whole. The attitude of both the traditional rulers, represented by the Conservative Party, and the relative newcomers, represented by the Liberals, was, further, one of open hostility. This is especially observable during elections when both parties customarily employed armed ruffians to intimidate the supporters of their opponents. Thus, as Chamberlain, declares:

In England’s politics two brutalities stand opposite and complement each other: the raw violence of the class used to ruling and the elementary brutality of the entire uncultivated masses who, as described above, are nowhere associated with anything higher.

Chamberlain’s description of English parliamentarianism indeed contradicts Oswald Spengler’s idealisation of the ‘old style’ of English politics dominated by aristocrats and gentlemen (see below).

More significant is the transformation of the entire nation into a sea-faring one even though the Anglo-Saxons originally had little interest in marine activities and had to be forced to develop a taste for the sea through legislation under the Tudors. However, once they had discovered the advantages of overseas trade by observing the successes of the Spanish, Dutch, and French colonial enterprises, England too began to develop its own merchant navy. What is important to note is that, in its international adventures, the English evidenced a singular proclivity to underhanded means of conquest involving piracy and cheating. When the English went to war, it was always to protect their trade interests. As Chamberlain points out, the English

have founded colonies where the countries stood empty or were inhabited only by naked savages; others they snatched through contracts from the Dutch, French, Spanish or—for example, Malta—through breach of contract. India was subjugated by Indian troops; England has never undertaken campaigns of conquest through force of arms, like the Spanish and the French. The Englishman does not, like Alexander or Caesar, conduct wars for the sake of glory. ‘To England’, says Seeley, ‘war is throughout an industry, a way to wealth, the most thriving business, the most prosperous investment, of the time.

The battles that Marlborough distinguished himself in during the eighteenth century were conducted to maintain a base slave-trade and Bolingbroke’s avowed foreign policy with regard to the continent in the same period was to contrive crises that would lead the European powers to war mutually against one another.

The immorality that marked England’s commercial undertakings was accompanied by a rapid decline in the traditional agricultural life of the nation. This resulted in a degeneration of the moral character of the English population as a whole:

With the total decline of country life and with the equally perfect victory of the sole God of trade and industry, Mammon, the genuine, harmless, naïve, heart-warming cheerfulness has disappeared from England.

Thus, nowadays

one finds in England no stateliness, no broad good-natured humour, no cheerfulness; everything is hatred, noise, pomp, pretentiousness, vulgarity, arrogance, sullenness and envy.

Meanwhile, the increased wealth of the nation allowed the English colonialist to be converted into a Nietzschean bully:

As soon as the brave Anglo-Saxon peasant was transformed into a pirate the blond beast appeared, as the German philologist glimpsed in his crazy dream; and as soon as the refined noble of the 15th century had lost ‘intellectual interests’ and had become covetous of gold, there arose the heartless slave trader who was different from the Spanish men of violence only in his hypocrisy. There is nothing more brutal in the world than a crude Englishman; he indeed possesses no other support than his crudeness. Mostly he is not a bad man; he has openness and energy and optimism; but he is ignorant as a kaffir, does not undergo any schooling in obedience and respect, knows no other ideal than ‘to fight his way through’.

Simultaneously, the coarsening of manners that took place abroad was reflected at home in the dissipation of the traditional aristocracy in base commercial activities:

This crudeness has slowly imbued almost the entire nation from the bottom to the top—as is always the case. Even fifty years ago it was an offence against class dignity if a member of the nobility took part in industry, trade and finance; today, the head of the oldest and greatest house of Scotland, brother-in-law of the king, a banker!

And the refined manners of the aristocracy came to serve only as a disguise for people whose ‘moral compass has lost its north.’ A further level of immorality was attained when the British government allowed the British East India Company to acquire colonial territory through devious, if not criminal, means that were justified only by the increased revenues of the Company and the steadily increasing rank of Britain among the European nations:

the temptation to enormous power on the basis of immeasurable wealth was too strong; in the nobility and in the circles related to it one soon was not able to distinguish between right and wrong. The same man who would never have deviated from scrupulous decency committed every crime in the supposed defence of the fatherland.

Chamberlain gives as examples of this indecent conduct of the British imperialists the case of Warren Hastings, who felt no qualms at all in committing all manner of political atrocities by allying himself with unscrupulous Indian potentates until, in 1788, he was formally arraigned in a famous impeachment trial that included the Member of Parliament Edmund Burke as the lead prosecutor. However, the trial was forced to drag on for ten years and ended with a final acquittal of Hastings. Hastings’ misconduct, indeed, was not unique to the eighteenth century and foreshadowed the deception exercised by Sir Edward Grey during World War I, when Britain sought to depict Germany as the aggressors whereas there was evidence, according to Chamberlain, that Britain had indeed been contemplating an attack on Belgium even before the Germans undertook one.

*   *   *

The relation between the ruthless nature of the politics and foreign policy of Britain and its evolving national character that Chamberlain highlights in this essay was reiterated by the German conservative thinkers Werner Sombart (1863–1941) and Oswald Spengler (1880–1936). Sombart, the German economist and social philosopher, is noted today for his several pioneering works on the capitalistic ethos. However, in his war-time tract Händler und Helden (Munich, 1915), he focused on the vital difference between the English character and the German that Chamberlain had pointed to in the first year of the war.

Writing to inspire young German soldiers in their combat against the English forces, Sombart considers the world war started in Central Europe between Austria-Hungary, in July 1914, to be essentially one between England and Germany.[3] For it is, in his view, an ideological, or even ‘religious’, war between the English worldview and the German. The sociological and cultural significance of the war, according to Sombart, is the radical difference existing between the English “trader spirit,” which aims at achieving mere “happiness” through the negative virtues of “temperance, contentedness, industry, sincerity, fairness, austerity … humility, patience, etc.,” all of which will facilitate a “peaceful cohabitation of traders,” and the “heroic spirit” of the Germans which aims at fulfilling the mission of the higher self-realisation of humanity through the positive, ‘giving’ virtues of “the will to sacrifice, loyalty, guilelessness, reverence, bravery, piety, obedience, goodness”—as well as the ‘military virtues’, for “all heroism first fully develops in war and through war.”[4]

War for the English has always been a chiefly commercial enterprise, whereas for the German it is a defence of his soul from the deadening influence of this same commercial spirit. In order to reveal the essential mercantile nature of the English nation, as well as of the war that it had recently embarked on in Europe, Sombart first points to the fact that the English have, through the ages, had no higher philosophy than a utilitarian and eudaimonistic one.[5] This is demonstrable by a perusal of the works of the major English thinkers from the Elizabethan empiricist Francis Bacon (1561–1626) to the more recent evolutionary biologist and sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903).

Bacon’s utilitarian views are indeed geared to the acquisition of comfort as a source of human happiness. And it is this desire for comfort that, according to Sombart, informed the British trading enterprises around the world from the beginning of the sixteenth century onwards which, in turn, consolidated the mercantile mentality of the British nation as a whole. The British empire built on these considerations is thus only a mechanical aggregation of commercial interests and not informed by any ideal civilizing impulses. The wars conducted by the British are also essentially trade wars that seek to punish violations of the ‘contracts’ established by them with other nations for their international commercial purposes. Sombart thus maintains that one of the principal causes of the First World War was Britain’s need to eliminate the threat posed by German industry to its colonial empire.

Like Chamberlain and Sombart, the Neoconservative Oswald Spengler too, in his essay, “Preussentum und Sozialismus(“Prussianism and Socialism,” 1919), considered the so-called Marxist socialism as one based on alien, English and Jewish understandings of society and generically different from the genuine socialism of the Prussian state. The socialism of the English is demonstrated by Spengler to be a Viking-like individualism which has encouraged the colonial rapacity of the British Empire and the mercantile ruthlessness of its leaders. The Norman conquest of England had put an end to the Anglo-Saxon way of life and introduced the “piracy principle” whereby “the barons exploited the land apportioned to them, and were in turn exploited by the duke.”[6] The modern English and American trade companies are indeed enchained to the same motives of profiteering:

Their aim is not to work steadily to raise the entire nation’s standard of living, it is rather to produce private fortunes by the use of private capital, to overcome private competition, and to exploit the public through the use of advertising, price wars, control of the ratio of supply and demand.[7]

The Marxist doctrine, being a product of the Jewish mind, which is characterised by ‘resentment,’ is based on envy of those who have wealth and privileges without work, and so it advocates revolt against those who possess these advantages. It is thus essentially a negative variant of the English ethos. It is not surprising, therefore, that the worker in the Marxist doctrine is encouraged to amass his own profits through private business, so that, as Spengler puts it, “Marxism is” indeed “the capitalism of the working class.” The Marxian solution to boundless private property is also a negative one: “expropriation of the expropriators, robbery of the robbers.”[8] This is based on the “English” view of capital, wherein

the billionaire demands absolute freedom to arrange world affairs by his private decisions, with no other ethical standard in mind than success. He beats down his opponents with credit and speculation as his weapons.

The Marxist system is thus the “final chapter of a philosophy with roots in the English Revolution, whose biblical moods have remained dominant in English thought.”[9] In fact, as he goes on to say, “a biblical interpretation of questionable business dealings can ease the conscience and greatly increase ambition and initiative.”[10] While the industrialists engage in commerce with “money” as a commodity, the workers do the same with “work.”

In the Prussian state, on the other hand, work is not a commodity, but a “duty towards the common interest, and there is no gradation—this is Prussian style democratisation—of ethical values among the various kinds of work.” The Prussian sees property not as private booty, but as part of a common weal, “not as a means of expression of personal power but as goods placed in trust, for the administration of which he, as a property owner, is responsible to the state.”

The significance of the notion of the national state is completely ignored by Marx in his focus on “society.” Parliamentarianism is not only inappropriate in a monarchical state such as the Prussian but it is a tired and outmoded system which has lost the glory lent it by the “gentlemen” and aristocrats who once ruled German and British politics. Now

the institutions, the sense of tact and cautious observance of the amenities, are dying out with the old-style people of good breeding. . . . The relationship between party leaders and party, between party and masses, will be tougher, more transparent, and more brazen. That is the beginning of Caesarism.[11]

On the other hand, the Prussian form of socialism is based entirely on the notion of the primacy of the state, which is indeed the ideal of the Teutonic knight, diametrically opposed to the roving plunder of the Viking:

The Teutonic knights that settled and colonised the eastern borderlands of Germany in the Middle Ages had a genuine feeling for the authority of the state in economic matters, and later Prussians have inherited that feeling. The individual is informed of his economic obligations by Destiny, by God, by the state, or by his own talent . . . Rights and privileges of producing and consuming goods are equally distributed. The aim is not ever greater wealth of the individual or for every individual, but rather the flourishing of the totality.[12]

While English society is devoted to “success” and wealth, the Prussian is devoted to work for a common national goal:

The Prussian style of living . . . has produced a profound rank-consciousness, a feeling of unity based on an ethos of work, not of leisure. It unites the members of each professional group—military, civil service, and labour—by infusing them with a pride of vocation, and dedicates them to activity that benefits all others, the totality, the state.[13]

We see therefore that Chamberlain’s war essay on England had a major influence on the emphasis on the immoral nature of English commerce that is evident in the Neoconservative thinkers of the Weimar Republic.[14] More comprehensively than Sombart or Spengler, however, Chamberlain offers us insights also into the historical transformations of the British national character that underlay the several ill effects of this empire.

Part 2: Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s “England.”

Alexander Jacob obtained his Master’s in English Literature from the University of Leeds and his Ph.D. in the History of Ideas from the Pennsylvania State University His post-doctoral research was conducted at the University of Toronto while he was a Visiting Fellow at the departments of Political Science, Philosophy, and English Literature of the University of Toronto.

His scholarly publications include De Naturae Natura: A Study of Idealistic Conceptions of Nature and the Unconscious, Franz Steiner, Stuttgart, 1992, (2nd ed. Arktos Media, 2011), Indo-European Mythology and Religion: Essays, Melbourne, Manticore Press, 2019, Nobilitas: A Study of European Aristocratic Philosophy from Ancient Greece to the Early Twentieth Century, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, 2001, and Richard Wagner on Tragedy, Christianity and the State: Essays, Manticore Press, 2021.

He has also published several English editions of European thinkers such as H.S. Chamberlain, Edgar Julius Jung, Alfred Rosenberg, Charles Maurras and Jean-François Thiriart.

[1] These include Politische Ideale (1915) [tr. A. Jacob, Political Ideals, University Press of America, 2005], Die Zuversicht (1915), Deutsches Wesen (1916) and Ideal und Macht (1916).

[2] This collection was translated by Charles H. Clarke as The Ravings of a Renegade (London, 1915). The other essays in it are ‘German Love of Peace’, ‘German Freedom’, ‘The German language’, ‘Germany as the leading power of the world’, and ‘Germany’.

[3][3] Germany joined forces with Austria-Hungary against Russia in August 1914, and Britain declared war against Germany when the latter invaded Belgium in the same month in order to gain access to France.

[4] Werner Sombart, Händler und Helden: Patriotische Besinnungen, Munich: Duncker und Humblot, 1915 [translated A. Jacob, Traders and Heroes, London: Arktos, 2021].

[5] Sombart particularly recalls Nietzsche’s similar low evaluation of the English mind and its typical representatives: They are not a philosophical race, these English. Bacon signifies an attack on the philosophical spirit in general, Hobbes, Hume and Locke a degradation and devaluation of the concept of a ‘philosopher’ for over more than a century.[5]

[6] Oswald Spengler, ‘Prussianism and Socialism’, in Selected Essays, tr. D.O. White, Chicago, 1967, p.62.

[7] Ibid., p. 63. This is the essential evil of the modern geopolitical phenomenon of Atlanticism.

[8] Ibid., p. 118.

[9] Ibid., p. 97. What Spengler does not explicitly observe here is that the biblical mode of thought which directed Puritan capitlistic industry is in fact a basically Jewish, voluntaristic one deriving from the conception of the universe as created by a Pantokrator who rules the creation with his Will as a personal Lord (see E. Zilsel, ‘The Genesis of the Concept of Physical Law’, in Philosophical Review, no. 51 [1942], p. 247ff). For a discussion of the Jewish origins of this concept as well, see Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, tr. T. Parsons (London : George Allen & Unwin, 1930).

[10] ‘Prussianism and Socialism’, loc.cit., p. 97.

[11] Ibid., p. 89. This depiction of European parliamentarianism is derived from Chamberlain’s other essay on ‘Germany as the leading power of the world’ in Kriegsaufsätze.

[12] Ibid., p. 62.

[13] Ibid., p. 47.

[14] Unfortunately, the moral corruption infusing the British Empire up to the First World War has continued beyond this war into the present day through the shadowy commercial empire that the Bank of England has maintained on the basis of revenues secretly channelled into the banks in the City of London from the tax havens in the former colonies of Britain in the Caribbean and elsewhere (see Nicholas Shaxson, Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who stole the World, London, 2011.)

Freedom-Fighters for Tyranny!: How “Race-Blind” Libertarianism Is an Ally of Race-Obsessed Wokism

“The left can be divided into three groups: the stupid, the deluded and the evil.” That’s the best summary of left-wing politics that I know. The only difficulty can be in deciding who on the left belongs where. For example, Hillary Clinton and Merrick Garland are clearly evil. But is the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn merely stupid or deluded? It’s hard to tell. However, I’m becoming clearer about one of the noisiest groups on the British left: the fearless freedom-fighters who gather under the flag of Frank Furedi at the web-zine Spiked Online.

Charismatic crypto-rabbis

I used to think that the Spiked collective might be mostly deluded or stupid rather than evil. But their dishonesty gets more glaring by the day, so it gets harder to give them the benefit of the doubt. And their dishonesty is at its worst on the topics of race and mass migration. Spiked grew out of a Trotskyist cult called the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which had broken away from a larger Trotskyist cult called the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). And just as Leon Trotsky (né Lev Bronshteyn) was Jewish, so were Tony Cliff (né Yigael Gluckstein), the founder of the SWP, and Frank Richards (né Ferenc Füredi), the founder of the RCP. All three men are excellent examples of a long-standing pattern identified by Kevin MacDonald in Jewish intellectual life: that of the charismatic crypto-rabbi-guru who recruits, indoctrinates and closely controls a group of devoted disciples.

In Trotskyism and other branches of communism, the disciples of the crypto-rabbis tend to be either Jewish or drawn from another disaffected minority, like Irish Catholics, that seeks power over and revenge on the racial and religious majority. This attraction to authoritarian leftism may even be partly genetic. For example, the Hitchens brothers, Christopher and Peter, didn’t know that they were half-Jewish until long after both had been members of Yigael Gluckstein’s earlier Trotskyist cult, the International Socialists (IS). The self-important gas-bag Christopher Hitchens never repented his support for the mass-murderer Trotsky. He merely updated it when he became a neo-conservative and cheerleader for Israel-friendly wars in the Middle East. Peter Hitchens, by contrast, has genuinely repented of his Trotskyism and regularly apologized for it. He issued this mea culpa in the Daily Mail back in 2013:

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly “vibrant communities”. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots. …

When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as “racists”. What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?

To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as “racist”. And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and – later on – cheap builders and plumbers working off the books. It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.

They were no threat to us. The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists. I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too). (How I am partly to blame for mass immigration, The Daily Mail, 1st April 2013)

In short, authoritarian leftists love mass immigration because mass immigration strengthens authoritarian leftism. Big business loves mass immigration too, because it drives wages down and destroys the cohesion of the working-class. That’s why the highly authoritarian and business-friendly New Labour opened Britain’s borders to both Eastern Europe and the Third World under the malevolent guidance of the anti-White Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche. But another Jewish member of Blair’s government, Maurice Glasman, didn’t share Roche’s love of open borders and hatred of the White British. In 2011, Glasman lamented what he called “a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working-class.” He said of mass immigration: “obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.”

A simple solution to any border crisis

Like Peter Hitchens, the Spiked collective know all about authoritarian leftism and why it supports Third-World immigration. After all, they’re former Trotskyists too (or not so former). But do they ever mention their personal experience during their incessant railing against “Critical Race Theory” and other forms of leftist lunacy? Do they explain why authoritarian leftists are such enthusiasts for open borders and the maximum movement of maximum Muslims into Western nations?

No, they don’t. And not only do they keep quiet about why authoritarian leftism loves open borders: they loudly express their own love of open borders. For example, as the Belarussian tyrant Alexander Lukashenko tried to force migrants across the Polish border, Spiked explained how “The EU has brought the border crisis on itself.” Spiked’s solution to the problem is breathtaking in its simplicity: there would be no border crisis if there were no borders. The European Union should simply accept anyone who wants to come here, thereby removing any opportunity for tyrants like Lukashenko to cause trouble.

The last line of the defence

And if some of the vibrant newcomers then try to commit terrorism, well, Spiked has two responses to that. If the attempt isn’t successful, Spiked will celebrate “the incredible heroism of ordinary people” who “are our last line of defence against barbarism.” That was their rhetoric after a failed-but-never-removed asylum-seeker called Emad al-Swealmeen attempted a suicide-bombing in Liverpool and was foiled by a White taxi-driver called Dave Perry. Spiked didn’t, for obvious reasons, consider that ordinary people would not have to be the last line of defence if the first line of defence – secure national borders – were in place. When you don’t have barbarians entering your country, you have no problems with barbarism.

Spiked have another response when the newcomers successfully translate desire into deed and commit terrorism on a large or small scale. After the mass-murder at the Manchester Arena in 2017 and the mensch-murder of a Tory MP in 2021, Spiked had the same response: we must push aside political correctness and have a fierce and fearless “debate” about Islamism and the terrorism it inspires. For obvious reasons, Spiked never mention that the people who don’t want such a debate are the same people who want maximum Muslim migration. And who are those people? Authoritarian leftists, of course. Unlike Spiked, authoritarian leftists can see how good Muslim migration is for authoritarian leftism and its campaign to censor and control public discourse. Or do Spiked see the truth but refuse to admit it? I’m starting to think that dishonesty is a much better explanation of their behavior than delusion.

The power of “parents”

For example, after the Republican Glenn Youngkin won a “shock victory” in the Virginia gubernatorial election, Spiked attributed his success to “the parents’ movement.” But they neglected to qualify the noun “parents” with a certain crucial adjective. They analyzed Youngkin’s victory under the headline “The parents’ revolt in Virginia,” then explained that “parents have had enough of woke education.” The article used the unqualified word “parents” again and again, and triumphantly concluded that “In Virginia at least, the parents’ movement has defied the sneering and derision to secure its first big electoral upset. More power to them.” But who was directing “sneering and derision” at the “parents”? Why, it was the authoritarian left. However, the authoritarian left weren’t sneering at and deriding them simply as “parents,” but specifically as “white parents.”

And the authoritarian left were right: It was Whites in general and White parents in particular who secured the Republican Youngkin’s victory over the Democrat Terry McAuliffe. As the authoritarian leftist Michael Harriott explained in the Guardian: “Nearly nine out of 10 Black Virginians voted for McAuliffe, as did two out of three Hispanic and Asian voters. Youngkin didn’t simply win the white vote; he won only the white vote.” That was Harriott’s emphasis: “only the white vote.” But Spiked dishonestly concealed that crucial truth. Parents in general aren’t revolting against wokism and Critical Race Theory (CRT): White parents are. If only non-Whites voted in Western elections, wokism would win everywhere. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians don’t oppose wokism. Why would they? Wokism demonizes Whites and deifies non-Whites. It says that Whites are greedy, selfish and oppressive, that all their so-called achievements are the result of theft and fraud, and that non-Whites are the moral superiors of Whites and deserve endless compensation for all that they have suffered from White evil.

Water-pistols at a gun-fight

By being dishonest about the true nature of CRT and the other “excesses” of anti-racism, Spiked are assisting the cause of the authoritarian left. They are freedom-fighting for tyranny. In another article, they’ve announced: “If we are to rediscover a sense of social solidarity, we need to reject racial thinking in all its forms.” In other words, Spiked want Whites to attend a gun-fight armed with water-pistols. Leftists are not going to abandon “racial thinking.” Why would they? It has been very successful in advancing their authoritarian agenda and it appeals strongly to an ever-growing part of Western electorates: non-Whites. Why would Blacks accept responsibility for their own failures when they can blame Whitey? Why would successful Chinese and Indians abandon wokism when it guarantees them more success, more power and more opportunity to import their relatives from abroad?

But Spiked do occasionally (albeit obliquely) admit the truth about the harm caused to social solidarity and traditional Western freedoms by mass immigration and ethnic enrichment. As I’ve described previously, their crypto-rabbi Frank Furedi has praised Eastern European nations like Poland and his birthplace Hungary for successfully resisting “woke politics.” But he doesn’t explain why Poland and Hungary are resistant to an ideological infection that is ravaging Western nations like Britain, America and France. He’s being dishonest, just as he’s trained his disciples to be. He won’t admit that Poland and Hungary resist wokism because they have not been ethnically enriched. They are still true nations whose secure borders contain overwhelming majorities of Whites with a common history, genetics, language, culture and religion.

“Getting real about Islamist terrorism”

Suppose that the European Union took Spiked’s insane advice and solved every “border crisis” by abolishing its borders, whereupon Poland, Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe became enriched with millions of Muslims and other non-Whites. What would happen? It’s obvious: woke politics would begin to flourish there and so would Third-World pathologies like terrorism and violent crime. And Poland and Hungary wouldn’t be able to follow more of Spiked’s advice and have a fearless “debate” about their newly acquired pathologies. Why not? Because the woke left there would use the same non-Whites who were causing the pathologies to argue that any such debate would be “divisive” and “discriminatory.”

That’s how it works in Britain and all other ethnically enriched Western nations. The more non-Whites you have, the less you are able to “debate” the pathologies caused by non-Whites. But suppose that we could somehow have such a debate. According to libertarian Spiked, “We need to get real about Islamist terrorism.” There are serious problems festering in our vibrant Muslim communities thanks (they claim) to mistaken leftist policies. So what can the solution be except much stricter policing and monitoring of Muslims and much more interference in their lives? It seems that Spiked want us to strengthen the authoritarian security and surveillance state. I don’t think Muslims will react well to that. And I myself don’t want to police and monitor Muslims more strictly. I don’t want to police and monitor them at all.

No Third-World people, no Third-World pathologies

I want to do what Hungarians and Poles do: admire Muslims and their vibrant behavior from afar. That is, I want Muslim immigration to end and all Muslims currently on Western soil to return where they belong. As Hungary and Poland clearly demonstrate, when you have no Third-World people on your soil, you have no Third-World pathologies and no justification for authoritarian leftists to maintain an aggressively anti-racist, anti-White security state. Just as it’s impossible to make omelettes without eggs, it’s impossible to justify “Critical Race Theory” and “Islamophobia Awareness” when there are no vulnerable non-Whites to be protected from White oppression. When Spiked simultaneously support limitless liberty and maximum Muslim migration, they are supporting an obvious contradiction. And it becomes harder and harder to believe that they don’t realize this. Take these stirring words by the Spikedster-in-Chief Brendan O’Neill, as he explains “why the elites are so desperate to avoid discussing radical Islam”:

At root, they want to protect their ideology of multiculturalism from serious democratic interrogation. And thus they must quell, with distraction and dire warnings, any kind of public scrutiny of how divided and tense Britain has become under this system of cultural and ethnic separatism, to such an extent that religious violence is now a fairly regular occurrence in our society. (David Amess and the terrorism amnesia industry, Spiked-Online, 29th October 2021)

Spiked Online editor Brendan O’Neill

O’Neill must be well aware that “the elites” began evading “serious democratic interrogation” way back in the 1950s, when mass immigration from the Third World was imposed on the unwilling White majority. After the far-sighted Enoch Powell spoke out against the Third-World invasion in 1968 and prophesied the ever-growing conflict it would cause, he became the most popular politician in the country. But traitorous politicians in all the mainstream parties vilified Powell as a “racist” and refused to listen either to him or to the White majority that supported him. The former Labour deputy-leader Roy Hattersley has openly boasted that “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist [my White constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all [Third-World] immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

Supporting what they oppose

And New Labour, the most woke and authoritarian British government to date, opened the borders precisely because, in Maurice Glassman’s words, it “was hostile to the English working-class.” The elites wanted Third-World immigration to advance an authoritarian, anti-White agenda. And their plan has worked perfectly. The same people behind the “multiculturalism” so passionately opposed by O’Neill and his comrades are behind the mass immigration so passionately supported by O’Neill and his comrades. Spiked claim to support ordinary people and to oppose the elite and its wokism. In fact, they are enemies of ordinary people and allies of the elite and its wokism.

O’Neill has also said this: “Solidarity is incredibly important in people’s everyday lives, as are the communal networks that tie people together. Anything that threatens solidarity is incredibly dangerous.” If O’Neill looks at any ethnically enriched Western nation, he will see that nothing does more harm to “solidarity” and “communal networks” than mass immigration by non-Whites practising radically different cultures, speaking unintelligible languages, following alien religions, and committing far higher levels of violent and acquisitive crime. But solidarity-supporting O’Neill doesn’t oppose solidarity-destroying immigration: he passionately supports it.

Freedom-fighting Bolsheviks

This leads me to apply some simple logic. There are three possibilities: either Brendan O’Neill and his comrades are stupid or they’re deluded or they’re evil. I don’t think they’re stupid and they aren’t deluded when, among many other examples, they deliberately conceal the true nature of the “parents’ revolt” in Virginia. So I conclude that Spiked are evil.

I also conclude that I was stupid ever to think otherwise. After all, Spiked are unrepentant disciples of the mass-murderer Leon Trotsky. If they’d come to power as the Revolutionary Communist Party, they would have created the same horrors as the freedom-fighting Bolsheviks created in the Soviet Union. And you can be sure that if the mass-murdering tyrants Lenin and Trotsky were alive today, they would be passionate supporters of open borders. After all, nothing is better for authoritarian leftism than Third-World immigration. Why else do authoritarian leftists love open borders so much?

Murder of a Mensch: Cuckservatives, Crypto-Jews and Catch-22s

The central aims of leftism are very simple: to win power, to punish its enemies, and to destroy the West. The central principle of leftism is also very simple: “Heads we win; tails you lose.” Whatever works for leftism is ruthlessly exploited; whatever works against leftism is ignored or reversed. For example, minor infractions or perfectly legal acts by the right are labelled serious crimes and harshly punished; serious crimes by the left and its favorites are censored or brazenly lied about.

Self-defense is no offense

Americans have seen this leftist principle hard at work since the self-inflicted death of the Black thug George Floyd in May 2020. During the Summer of George, Black Lives Matter (BLM) and its antifa allies rioted, looted, burned, and murdered for months on end with both the complicity and the approval of leftist media and officialdom. Their very serious crimes went unchallenged and unpunished. Thanks to the self-righteous anti-police campaigning of BLM, murders have risen sharply among young Black men, the very group the left claim to be seeking to protect from “police brutality.” And all this is censored or brazenly lied about by the left.

He looks sinister because he is sinister: US Attorney-General and Jewish supremacist Merrick Garland

But when a misguided right-wing mob trespassed briefly in the US Capitol in January 2021, the left reacted as though the Apocalypse were upon us. The trespass was “domestic terrorism,” a “deadly assault” on democracy itself, and, according to the Jewish leftist Rebecca Solnit, nothing less than a “coup attempt.” And even as Black and antifa thugs walk the streets unmolested, Solnit’s co-ethnic Merrick Garland, the sinister Jewish Attorney-General in Biden’s Bolshevik cabinet, has poured huge resources into fighting “white supremacy.” The Capitol trespassers have been tracked down and imprisoned, often in solitary confinement and in filthy conditions, before they go on trial on inflated and unjust charges. Also in jail is Kyle Rittenhouse, the young right-winger who coolly and expertly defended his life against a murderous assault by three people, including two Jews, one of whom was a convicted pedophile. If Rittenhouse were non-White or antifa, he would have been released long ago and his deadly shooting would have been accepted as a perfectly legal act of self-defence against bloodthirsty thugs. “Heads we win; tails you lose.”

Somali enrichment strikes again

Across the Atlantic in Britain, the same power-hungry leftists apply the same principle. But even I was taken aback by the leftist reaction to the murder of the supposedly right-wing Conservative politician Sir David Amess on October 15, 2021. The alleged murderer is Ali Harbi Ali, a Muslim “of Somali heritage” (in smarmy leftist parlance) and the murder took place soon after Angela Rayner, Labour’s fiery (and possibly psychopathic) deputy leader, had described Conservatives as “scum … homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum.” You might think this was embarrassing for the left: a right-wing White man is murdered by a Black Muslim shortly after a left-wing White woman “dehumanizes” right-wing White men. Not a bit of it: the leftist media ignored Rayner’s remark and used the murder to campaign loudly for more censorship of right-wing “hate.”

When a Somali Muslim murders a “much loved” politician, this might appear to be yet more evidence that critics of Third-World immigration are correct. But not to the left, for whom David Amess’s murder is yet more evidence that we must try harder to silence critics of Third-World immigration. After the murder, leftists constantly invoked the saintly Labour MP Jo Cox and her murder by a “right-wing extremist” in 2016. The leftist Andrew Marr “spent his Sunday morning show on the BBC questioning the Home Secretary [Priti Patel] about online anonymity.” There is so far no evidence that “online anonymity” played any role in the murder, but Marr takes his ideas on political discourse straight from the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four: “It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.”

A cuckservative cucks

And if you had judged by one BBC Radio news-broadcast, the true victim of Amess’s murder was the still-very-much-alive left-wing Black MP Diane Abbott, who was interviewed caringly about the abuse she suffers online. But I’ll freely admit it: I feel much more sympathy for Diane Abbott than for David Amess. Abbott isn’t a traitor; Amess was a traitor. She’s Black and she works for Black interests; he was White and he worked against White interests. I’m happy to see Abbott satirized and mocked, but I don’t think she should receive foul-mouthed abuse and threats of violence. I don’t think David Amess should have been stabbed to death either, but I cannot feel any sorrow at what happened to him. He was a cuckservative whose official website proves that he was complicit not only in his own murder but also in the murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing of countless ordinary Whites, past, present, and to come:

A cuckservative cucks: David Amess supports “refugees” and an anti-White leftist charity

Sir David Joins British Red Cross To Celebrate Refugee Week

On Monday 17th June [2019], Sir David Amess MP met with the British Red Cross to mark Refugee Week 2019 and hear about the challenges facing those as they rebuild their lives in the UK.

The Southend West MP took the opportunity to speak with the charity’s refugee ambassadors, who shared their own stories fleeing conflict and persecution. Sir David learnt about the challenges faced by those arriving in the UK, and what more the Government can do to help refugees resettle, work and study here.

The event marked the start of Refugee Week (17th-23rd June), and the launch of the British Red Cross’ “Every Refugee Matters” campaign. Aiming to highlight the issues that many refugees face, the charity have produced a new film along with those with first-hand experience of the challenges in UK asylum system.

Speaking after the event, Sir David said: “I am proud to be supporting the work of the British Red Cross this Refugee Week, and the brilliant work they do helping those most in need rebuild their lives here in the UK. Speaking to the refugee ambassadors was an invaluable experience to hear directly from who have had first-hand experience of some of the barriers blocking them from working, accessing education and healthcare. It is vital that we are able to help and provide protection to the world’s most vulnerable.” (Sir David Joins British Red Cross To Celebrate Refugee Week, 18th June, 2019)

[David Amess comments on] Black Lives Matter

I have received many emails about the events in America which we have seen unfolding on our TV screens. I have been shocked, horrified and repulsed at the murder of a US citizen by a policeman, with three officers standing by and doing nothing to help. Absolutely unforgivable in every respect. I was deeply moved by the appearance of the brother of George Floyd, who visited the scene of the murder and appealed for peace and calm. I do hope he is listened to. I absolutely despair at American politics at the moment and have made representations to government Ministers. I have also added my name to the cross-party letter to Liz Truss asking the government to freeze exports of riot control equipment to the United States. (Black Lives Matter, 4th June 2020)

Amess was supposedly a right-winger, but there was nothing right-wing about his support for “refugees” and Black Lives Matter. Those posts at his website prove that he was a cuckservative allied with leftism, which is why the Guardian, without the slightest trace of irony, called him a “much loved” politician and “devout Catholic.”

Fake Catholic, fake Pope

I strongly disagree with the Guardian’s second claim: Amess was a fake Catholic whose pro-refugee and pro-BLM views chimed perfectly with those of the Anti-Pope currently occupying the throne of St Peter. If Amess had been genuinely right-wing and genuinely Catholic, the Guardian and the rest of the leftist media would have hated him and found it difficult to conceal their satisfaction at his death. True Christians are not loved or respected by enemies of Christianity, as Christ himself prophesied: “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)

Anti-Pope Francis kisses the feet of Muslim invaders

And if Amess had been a genuine Catholic, he would never have been called a “real mensch” by one of his many Jewish fans:

Jewish groups express shock over ‘horrific’ killing of MP Sir David Amess

Jewish groups have expressed their “profound sorrow” at the killing of Conservative MP Sir David Amess. In a statement, the Board of Deputies said they were devastated to hear that Sir David had died following a stabbing at his constituency surgery.

“We will never forget Sir David’s long and deep friendship to our community. Our hearts go out in profound sorrow to his wife Julia and children Katie, Sarah and David Jr,” they said. Steve Wilson, CEO of United Synagogue, said the parliamentarian’s murder was “horrific and chilling”. … The Jewish Leadership Council expressed their shock. “He always had a very strong and warm relationship with his local Jewish community. Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time,” they said. Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Education Trust, said: “We are shocked and saddened at the tragic loss of Sir David Amess MP. A long time supporter and campaigner for the Holocaust Educational Trust, joining us at every gathering, and encouraging us in everything we did. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this difficult time.”

Southend rabbis also paid respect to the MP. Rabbi Geoffrey Hyman of Southend shul described Sir David as “a real mensch”. He said: “We are absolutely devastated by the murder of Sir David Amess, our local MP. He had a very close relationship with our Jewish community here in Westcliff. Always supportive and sympathetic to our members and causes. He attended numerous events at our synagogue. We are deeply saddened and send our condolences to his dear family…. May he rest in peace.”

Sir David previously served as the honorary secretary of Conservative Friends of Israel. From the 1980s, he campaigned for the erection of a statue honouring Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Hungarian Jews from deportation while the country was under Nazi occupation. Eventually he succeeded, and in 1997 Queen Elizabeth unveiled the statue, located outside Western Marble Arch Synagogue. Earlier this year, speaking at the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, Sir David said although he was a Catholic, “there is Jewish blood in each and every one of us,” and he “would certainly have been proud to have been born a Jew.” (Jewish groups express shock over ‘horrific’ killing of MP Sir David Amess, The Jewish Chronicle, 15th October 2021)

So Amess’s death was the murder of a mensch. He was a dedicated shabbos goy and worked hard for Jews—who have always been the greatest and most implacable enemies of Christianity and the Catholic church. Amess was a traitor to both his race and his religion.

Harvey’s little helper

Or perhaps he wasn’t. Like the saintly leftist Jo Cox, Amess was little-known in Britain before his murder. But he did hit the headlines in 2017 when he appeared to support the Jewish sex-criminal Harvey Weinstein. His parliamentary office issued this unequivocal statement in Amess’s name: “The recent revelations that countless starlets have apparently been assaulted by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein are dubious to say the least. Whilst it has no doubt always been the case that some individuals have achieved their big break via the casting couch, this sudden flurry of alleged inappropriate advances beggars belief. Just as with the claims against Jimmy Savile here in the UK, why did no one say anything until now?”

When the statement was criticized, Amess blamed a mix-up by his staff and claimed that he hadn’t authorized or said anything of the kind. I find that hard to believe. But why would a “devout” “right-wing Catholic” like Amess support a sleazy leftist Jew from anti-Catholic Hollywood? Perhaps the Jewish Chronicle answered that question when, following its tribute to the murdered mensch, it reported that “Sir David Amess MP is believed to have had Sephardi [Jewish] ancestry. … According to information from the The Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain, the MP was a descendant of Sephardic families through his mother, Maud, who died in 2016, aged 104. While Sir David was a staunch and practising catholic [note lower case], who often referenced his faith in his work in parliament, he had ties to Sephardic Jews going back hundreds of years.”

Bound by blood

So perhaps Amess was a crypto-Jew rather than a cuckservative. The Jewish Chronicle certainly wants to believe he was, because Jews like to reassure themselves that their control of Western politics doesn’t rely only on the buying and blackmail of goyish politicians. Some of their agents are bound to them by blood, not simply by Benjamins. Prime minister Boris Johnson and his predecessor David Cameron are known to be part-Jewish. I suspect that the former prime minister Theresa May has Jewish ancestry too. The former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has himself claimed to have “some Jewish ancestry” and others have suggested that Denis MacShane, the former Labour MP for Rotherham, had a Jewish father. Before being jailed for fraud in 2013, the staunch feminist MacShane ignored the rape and prostitution of White working-class girls by Muslims in his Yorkshire constituency while working assiduously for rich Jews in far-off London.

Then there’s the former Conservative minister George Osborne, who discovered late in his career that he was halachically Jewish through his maternal grandmother. This prompted the Jewish politician and journalist Danny Finkelstein to wax lyrical on “That mysterious sense of Jewish connection,” because he had felt close to Osborne before learning that they were both Jewish. So Osborne was a crypto-Jew, not simply a cuckservative. Osborne’s attitude to mass immigration is certainly Jewish: in 2017 he “revealed that, despite having pledged to reduce immigration in both its 2010 and 2015 general election manifestos, the Tory leadership secretly abandoned this ambition long ago.” Well, it was secret to the goyim who were voting for the Conservatives, but not to Jewish organizations like the Board of Deputies, which regularly meet with senior politicians to discuss “matters of concern to the Community.” After these meetings, Jews like to put out trophy-photos that implicitly gloat about their control of British politics. Here’s one of those trophy-photos featuring the obnoxious Hindu Home Secretary Priti Patel:

Priti Patel with the Board of Deputies and other Jewish supremacists

Patel has no loyalty to Britain or to British Whites, only to herself and to the Jews whose support she needs to realize her political ambitions. She’s an intellectually undistinguished authoritarian with a very harsh and unpleasant personality — indeed, her own husband calls her “my personal piranha.” But you can be sure that she performs the goy-grovel most eagerly and becomingly at all her meetings with Jews.

The authoritarian spiral

Under the guidance of her Jewish masters, Patel is currently overseeing the creation of an Online Harms bill, which seeks to fight “horrific terrorist and extremist content.” In other words, she wants more and harsher censorship of those who claim, for example, that Jews have undue influence in British politics. But Patel herself has shown again and again that she clearly recognizes Jewish control of British politics. In 2017 she had to resign from Theresa May’s cabinet when it was revealed that she had undertaken a long series of secret and unminuted meetings with Israeli politicians and officials, supervised by the Jewish peer Lord Polack, former director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). But she bounced back to a bigger and better position when Boris Johnson became prime minister. Patel simultaneously knows about Jewish power and wants to criminalize any discussion of that power.

The murder of the mensch David Amess will help her plans for more pro-Jewish censorship. One of David Amess’s cuckservative colleagues has asked for his memory to be honored by “David’s law,” to “crack down on social media abuse of public figures and end online anonymity.” This is the authoritarian spiral so beloved of Jews and the left. Third-World immigration inevitably spawns Third-World pathologies like terrorism and crime, which are then used to justify ever more censorship and surveillance of those who criticize Third-World immigration. Some right-wing and libertarian journalists have tried to strike back by pointing out that Amess’s murder has not been shown to have had any connection with “social media abuse” and “online anonymity.”

Migration strengthens censorship

But Amess’s murder does seem to have an intimate connection with the Religion of Peace and its ever-growing presence on British soil. Harbi Ali Kullane, the father of the alleged killer, was a member of the political elite in his Muslim homeland, like the Chechen father of the Boston bombers in America, and lives in an exclusive area of London. The Guardian reports that he is regarded by fellow Somalis as “a committed anti-extremist [and] a liberal, open-minded man, who was not very religious.” Kullane has obviously done very well out of his migration to Britain, but can we say the same of Britain itself? The Guardian and other leftists will not try to answer that question, much to the disquiet of the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill, who believes passionately in both free speech and open borders. In a hard-hitting column written within hours of Amess’s death, O’Neill asked: “Can we now have an honest discussion about Islamist terrorism?”

Can we? Well, no, we can’t. O’Neill and libertarians like him don’t understand (or pretend not to understand) the Catch-22 that applies to non-White enrichment. The more non-Whites you have in your country, the more they will reproduce the pathologies of their homelands and the less you will be able to discuss those pathologies, let alone try to end them. This isn’t difficult to understand. True nations like Hungary, Poland and Slovakia don’t have big problems with suicide-bombers, rape-gangs, and stabby Somalis. Indeed, they don’t have any such problems at all. Why not? Because they haven’t been enriched by millions of non-Whites and haven’t been initiated into a leftist-Jewish cult of minority-worship. That cult is difficult to establish in the absence of non-Whites, which is why leftists in all those nations are eager to welcome “refugees,” establish the cult, and open the borders. So far, they haven’t succeeded.

Serving leftism from beyond the grave

The crypto-Jew and crypto-leftist Sir David Amess also welcomed “refugees,” who are mostly healthy young men of low social value and high criminal potential. Amess is gone now, seemingly cut short in his cuckservative prime by a stabby Somali and certainly mourned on all sides of British politics. But even in death he’s providing a valuable service to his former Jewish masters and leftist allies. His “shocking murder” will be used to justify more censorship, more surveillance, and more minority-worship. “Heads we win; tails you lose.”

This leftist principle isn’t intellectually sophisticated, but it’s been very effective across the West. When the left is in power, leftism advances. When the so-called right is in power, leftism advances just the same. If you want to see how that works, look no further than that “real mensch” Sir David Amess, the “devout Catholic” who was “much loved” by those who hate Christ and the Catholic church.

Funding Both Sides: How Jewish Money Controls British Politics

It’s very easy to criticize Boris Johnson, the current prime minister of Britain and leader of the so-called Conservative party. Johnson is dishonest, devious and a dedicated shabbos goy. He serves Jews rather than Whites and Israel rather than Britain.

MP Portraits Project in The Reasons Room..

Sir Keir Starmer, Creature of the Swamp

But there is one pit of depravity that Johnson has never plumbed and one crime against decency that has never besmirched his soul. He’s not now and never has been a lawyer. His dishonesty is natural, not nurtured, and he did at least try to reform Britain’s lawyer-and-humanities-graduate-infested government bureaucracy. He’s surrendered now and appointed a Jewish swamp-creature called Dan Rosenfeld as his Chief of Staff. But he did try. Keir Starmer, the current Labour leader, will never surrender because he’ll never fight. He sides automatically with government bureaucracy and slithered easily to the top of it during the previous Labour government.

Toasting the President of Israel

Starmer became head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Britain’s very politically correct overseers of the law, under Tony Blair. In other words, he is a lawyer. And that’s a very bad sign for working-class Whites whom the Labour party was explicitly founded to defend. Like the lawyer Tony Blair and the lawyer Barack Obama before him, Starmer heads a party that supposedly champions the downtrodden workers against the greedy bosses. But the Labour and Democratic parties long ago abandoned the workers to side with the bosses. And that means that they side with Jews against Whites. Blair and Obama both rose to power on a tide of Jewish money and media support. Starmer hopes to do the same. He’s married to a Jewish woman and has performed the goy grovel enthusiastically at the Jewish Chronicle:

Labour leadership frontrunner Sir Keir Starmer has revealed he participates in Friday-night dinners with his family, at which his proudly Jewish father-in-law says prayers. Speaking to the JC [Jewish Chronicle], the Holborn and St Pancras MP said he felt comfortable attending family and communal “barmitzvahs, weddings, and funerals”.

The married father of two children also said he had “no issue” with standing for the traditional toast to the president of the state of Israel at Jewish weddings. He told the JC: “I don’t have any issue with that — or with any of the traditions.” (Sir Keir Starmer opens up about his family’s Friday night dinners, The Jewish Chronicle, 5th March 2020)

Note that Starmer has a knighthood, which is a sure sign that the hostile elite sees him as no threat. When he spoke to the Jewish Chronicle, he was campaigning to replace Jeremy Corbyn, a politician who will never receive a knighthood because he isn’t interested in Jewish money and has never followed Jewish orders. Indeed, in a well-regulated world Corbyn would never have become Labour leader, because he had little support in the party’s pro-Jewish senior ranks. But he was put on the leadership ballot to make it look more diverse and won an easy but unexpected victory, because he was very popular with ordinary Labour members.

The Unwatched Web: how rich Jewish organizations control British politics

When he became Labour leader, Corbyn didn’t end the party’s tradition of working tirelessly against the interests of Whites. But he did end the party’s tradition of working tirelessly for the interests of Jews. And that’s why he was demonized as an “anti-Semite” and finally driven from office. Starmer isn’t going to make Corbyn’s mistakes. Not only is he married to a Jew, he has happily accepted money from at least one very rich Jewish businessman. In April 2020, the Jewish Chronicle reported that Starmer “had been targeted by hard-left activists after it emerged that Sir Trevor Chinn, a Jewish philanthropist, had donated £50,000 to his leadership campaign.” The activists were making the horrific allegation that Starmer would somehow be influenced by the Zionist Chinn simply because Chinn had given him large sums of money and helped him become Labour leader.

Jewish Philanthropist Sir Trevor Chinn

As all decent people know, that isn’t how rich Jews operate. They give money to politicians out of pure goodness of heart and with absolutely no expectation of return. Who but a vile anti-Semite would think that Chinn was trying to control or influence Starmer in any way? As the Jewish Chronicle pointed out, Chinn is a “philanthropist.” He works for the greater good of humanity, just like the Jewish “property developers” Zak Gertler and Richard Desmond, who have given large sums to the Conservative government. It’s pure coincidence that Tories “accepted a donation from Richard Desmond shortly after Jenrick approved plans for a £1bn housing development by the property developer.” In his previous incarnation as a pornographer, Desmond also donated large sums to Tony Blair’s Labour government.

Buying both sides

Desmond’s donations to both Conservatives and Labour are further proof that rich Jews are impartial philanthropists — Desmond obviously ignores politics and gives for the love of giving. Of course, no-one accused Jeremy Corbyn of being influenced by Jewish money because he didn’t accept any. But that’s precisely why he had to be demonized and driven out of the Labour leadership. Unless Jewish millionaires like Chinn, Gertler and Desmond are funding both sides of British politics, how can people be made to understand that Jewish money comes with no strings attached?

During the previous Labour government, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were ardent Zionists because they accepted the justice of Israel’s cause, not because Labour’s chief fund-raisers were first the Jew Michael Levy and then the Jew Jonathan Mendelsohn (both are now members of the House of Lords). And during the current Conservative government, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson have been ardent Zionists because they too accept the justice of Israel’s cause, not because the Conservatives’ chief fund-raisers have been first the Jew Sir Mick Davis and then the Jew Sir Ehud Sheleg.

“Israel first, Britain second!” — Tory Party Treasurer Sir Ehud Sheleg

Despite the importance of his role as Conservative Party Treasurer, the Jewish millionaire Ehud Sheleg is almost unknown to the general public. Few people would even recognize his name. Even fewer know that he is an Israeli citizen, born in Tel Aviv, and has openly stated that Britain takes second place in his affections: “I was brought up, albeit in Israel, with the sentiment of very strong ties to Britain. In the family of nations, this has to be my favourite one. Second to my homeland, of course.” But why should anyone be interested in such biographical trivia? Only a vile anti-Semite would suggest that Sheleg might seek to influence government policy for the benefit of Jews and Israel, rather than for the benefit of Whites and Britain.

Keir Starmer certainly isn’t going to raise any uncomfortable questions about Sheleg’s role in the Conservative government. He would be denounced as an anti-Semite if he did, of course, but that doesn’t explain Starmer’s silence. He’s silent because he doesn’t see anything wrong in Israel-firsters like Sheleg and Chinn being in control of British politics. Starmer has a Jewish wife and is funded by Jewish millionaires. Like Boris Johnson and Tony Blair, he’s a wholly owned subsidiary of Zionism Inc. I don’t think he will ever become British prime minister, but if he does, we will hear a familiar refrain: “Meet the new boss — same as the old boss!” Britain’s anti-White and pro-Jewish politics will proceed as before. Gold guides goyim and Jewish money controls British politics. See above.

Dissolving Identity to Destroy the West: The Leftist War on Identity, Nationality and Biology

Emma Raducanu, the female winner of the 2021 US Tennis Open, is half-Romanian and half-Chinese. She was born in Canada and raised in London. She’s definitely a fine athlete, a skilful tennis-player, and an attractive and charming young woman. But here’s something she definitely isn’t: British. And it’s precisely because she isn’t British that lots of other people who aren’t British either have been eager to pretend that she is British and to celebrate her victory.

A strongly ethnocentric Jew

By celebrating Raducanu, they were really celebrating themselves. After all, narcissism is an essential part of leftism. Sathnam Sanghera, an Indian journalist at the London Times, peddled an obvious falsehood: “Half Romanian, half Chinese. Born in Canada, brought up in the UK. Immigration enriches us, and always has ….” Tell that to the White working-class girls of Rotherham and many other places. But who cares about them? Certainly not Sathnam Sanghera. Another Indian, the actor Adil Ray, tweeted: “Emma Raducanu the immigrant from a Romanian, Chinese, Canadian family grand slams the haters. This is the Britain we love.” No, it’s the Britain you love to destroy. And the Jewish comedian David Schneider showed off his comic skill with: “Bloody immigrants! Coming over here, making it from qualifying to win the US Open without dropping a set.”

The anti-White and anti-British Jewish comedian David Schneider

Like Sanghera and Ray, Schneider is not interested in Raducanu as an individual or as a fine sportswoman. No, he sees her merely as a tool for the dilution — and ultimate destruction — of Britishness. He’s a perfect example of the central Jewish role in the war on White identity. Jews hate and feel envy for Whites, Christianity and Western civilization. They feel unsafe in strong White nations with clear identities, because they stand out. That’s why they invented lying propaganda like “nation of immigrants” and “Diversity is Our Strength.” David Schneider seeks to deny ethnic and national identity to Whites while himself being a strongly ethnocentric Jew. According to the Jewish Chronicle, he “studied for a PhD in Yiddish drama at Oxford” and “even performed a Yiddish comedy routine for Jewish Book Week.” He’s written a play about the Moscow State Yiddish Theatre and how its performers fell victim to Stalin’s “absolutely random and brutal” purges. Many millions of people suffered and died under Stalin, but Schneider is concerned about the small minority of them who were Jews.

Which is fine. He’s Jewish and naturally enough he puts Jews first. I don’t object to that. But I do object to strongly ethnocentric Jews like Schneider having any power or influence in White nations. He should be in Israel, not Britain. He isn’t British and his hostility towards White British goyim was apparent long before his unfunny comments on Emma Raducanu’s victory. Like Nick Cohen, another ugly and anti-White non-British Jew, he has never stopped condemning and campaigning against Brexit. He doesn’t want Britain to be independent and in control of its own destiny.

Brexit didn’t go far enough

And in fact I half-agree with him. I don’t want Britain to be like that either. But that doesn’t mean I want Britain back in the European Union. No, for me Brexit didn’t go far enough. I want Scexit and Wexit too. That is, I want Scotland and Wales to become independent nations, free of both European and English domination. But I want an independent Scotland and Wales only if leftist nation-wreckers like the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru aren’t in charge. They pretend to be nationalist parties, but they would, in typical leftist fashion, destroy what they claim to care about most. The SNP and Plaid Cymru would open the borders of Scotland and Wales to the Third World, flooding the true White Scottish and Welsh with hostile and violent outsiders.

But I can heartily agree with one of their central arguments for independence: that Britishness isn’t a genuine identity and the United Kingdom isn’t a genuine nation. No, it’s an unnatural and unhealthy union of nations. Scotland, Wales and Ireland were “united” with England by conquest and force. And if Scotland and Wales became independent, I think relations between the Scots, Welsh and English would improve. It’s partly because the United Kingdom is indeed an “artificial construct” that leftists have been able to argue successfully for the Britishness of outsiders like Emma Raducanu.

Lying propaganda from Germany: Blacks and other non-Germans are described as “typical Germans”

But she isn’t British in any true sense, as her own Twitter biography openly attests: “london|toronto|shenyang|bucharest.” London is merely where she happened to end up with her Romanian father and Chinese mother after she was born in Toronto. If she’d stayed in Canada and won the US Open, Canadian leftists would undoubtedly have been celebrating her as wholly and authentically Canadian. But Canada is like Britain: it’s another unnatural union, another artificial construct. And so leftists there find it easy to dilute national identity as they move towards their ultimate aim of abolishing White nations. To counter that leftist subversion, I would like Francophone Quebec to become independent of the Anglophone provinces. But that isn’t going to happen soon. Scottish and Welsh independence aren’t going to happen soon either. After all, Britain has a Conservative government and the Conservative party is firmly opposed to what it calls the “break-up” of the Union.

Tory party? No, Torah party!

But “Conservative party” is an Orwellian name, proclaiming one thing while really standing for its opposite. Just as the modern Labour party hates the working-class, the modern Conservative party hates deep-rooted tradition and loves nation-wrecking globalism. That isn’t surprising, because it’s a thoroughly kosher party, funded and controlled by Jews to serve Jewish interests rather than those of British Whites. The former Conservative prime minister David Cameron once joked that “There are so many Jews at the top of Britain’s Conservative party, that it should be known as the Torah party rather than the Tory party.” He also said that “My values are Jewish values.” Cameron is part-Jewish. So is Boris Johnson, the current Tory prime minister. He’s also part-Turkish. Meanwhile, the other three most important posts in government are held by the Indian Hindu Rishi Sunak, who is Chancellor, the Indian Hindu Priti Patel, who is Home Secretary, and the Jew Dominic Raab, who is Foreign Secretary (or he was when I began writing this article).

None of those four is British and only Johnson has any genuine White ancestry. None of them should have power and influence in a White nation, but that’s precisely why they’re at the top of government. They were put there by Jews to serve Jewish interests, because Jews and their money control the Tory party. Here’s a very interesting fact. Since the year 2000, at least six very rich Jews have served as Treasurer of the Conservative Party: Ehud Sheleg (the current Treasurer), Sir Mick Davis (the previous one), Stanley Fink, Sir Stanley Kalms, Richard Harrington and Howard Leigh. I find that a very interesting fact. You probably do too. But the mainstream media in Britain don’t seem to find it interesting. After all, any mainstream journalist who dared mention it — let alone draw any conclusions from it — would first be deafened by shrieks of outrage, then driven into obscurity and poverty.

Typical English Rosenfeld

In other words, Jews enjoy what I’ve previously called “Booty Without Scrutiny.” They obviously control the not-at-all Conservative government, just as they controlled the previous Labour government. But nobody is allowed to say so or ask whether Jewish control is a good thing. The only acceptable response to Jews in modern Britain is the goy grovel. And all Tory goyim know this: Michael Farmer, who was Tory Treasurer from 2011 to 2015, became “Christian deputy chair of The Council for Christians and Jews in 2016.” In other words, he grovels before Jews (and may be part-Jewish or crypto-Jewish, like many apparent goyim in public life). But Jewish control of the Conservative party extends far beyond the post of Treasurer. A disproportionate number of Tory chairmen have been Jewish, like Andrew Feldman and Grant Shapps. And when the race-realist Dominic Cummings was forced out of BoJo’s government, he was replaced as Chief of Staff by a Jew called Dan Rosenfeld. The leftist New Statesman has called Rosenfeld the “anti-Cummings,” because where Cummings despised and tried to reform the incompetent and heavily leftist Civil Service, Rosenfeld was once part of it, working for both Labour and Conservative ministers. He will never seek to end either the incompetence of the Civil Service or its leftism.

Dan Rosenfeld, Jewish swamp-creature

Rosenfeld is, in fact, what Americans would call a “swamp-creature,” thoroughly at home in the anti-White, anti-Christian and anti-Western swamp of the Deep State, which combines government bureaucracy, the intelligence services, and globalist banking and capitalism. The swamp  bubbles, squelches and stinks on both sides of the Atlantic. After leaving the Civil Service, Rosenfeld spent five years at the Bank of America, then worked as “global head of corporate clients” for a little-known organization called Hakluyt, a “private intelligence agency founded by former MI6 officers.” MI6 is the overseas arm of Britain’s intelligence services and, like the CIA in America, is best described as a government-run crime-syndicate. After working with bankers and spooks, Jewish Dan Rosenfeld became Chief of Staff for Boris Johnson, just as Jewish Ron Klain became Chief of Staff for Joe Biden.

Feminists ignore a horrific femicide

Rosenfeld is no more British than Ron Klain is American. He has always been a strongly ethnocentric Jew, proudly stating that Judaism is “central to his life.” In his youth he belonged to RSY-Netzer, a Jewish youth movement, and he recently served as chair of World Jewish Relief, a charity that works hard to transfer money from goyim to Jews. Now that he’s BoJo’s Chief of Staff, will Rosenfeld work impartially and honestly to serve all the people of Britain? Unlike David Schneider’s comedy, that question should definitely raise a laugh. Rosenfeld will work to serve Jewish interests, which entails that he will work against White and Christian interests.

But there’s an interesting media connection in Rosenfeld’s life. His Jewish wife Jessica is the daughter of Alex Brummer, a senior journalist at the Daily Mail. That newspaper is far from being White nationalist, but it’s one of the dwindling number of mainstream sources that declines to censor or ignore inconvenient facts in the way leftists want them to be censored or ignored. For example, there’s recently been a disturbing news story in Britain about a “controlling and jealous” husband, one Damien Simmons, who murdered his estranged wife, Denise Keane-Simmons, by dousing her with gasoline and setting her on fire. Before that, he’d stalked her and subjected her to revenge porn. You’d expect Britain’s feminists to be all over this horrific murder and the “toxic masculinity” that inspired it, particularly because Denise Keane-Simmons was Black and an immigrant from Trinidad and Tobago. That should make her particularly worthy of solidarity and mourning from the Sisterhood.

A remarkable immigrant whom leftists aren’t interested in: the brutal and sadistic wife-incinerator Damien Simmons and his victim

But it didn’t. Alas, Damien Simmons is also Black and from Trinidad and Tobago, so his toxic masculinity has not been “interrogated” by the fierce and fearless feminists at the Guardian. But the Daily Mail covered the story in detail. The Guardian doesn’t seem to have mentioned it at all. And on the same day that the Mail celebrated Emma Raducanu’s remarkable achievement in the US Open, it covered another remarkable story of immigrant achievement that will never appear in the Guardian or be hailed by narcissistic leftists on Twitter. On September 12, 2021, the Mail serialized part of a book by Colin Sutton, the senior policeman who caught perhaps the most prolific rapist in British history.

Another remarkable immigrant

But the rapist wasn’t remarkable only for the extent of his crimes: he was remarkable also for the age of his victims. The Black Jamaican Delroy Easton Grant was a gerontophile who sexually assaulted “hundreds of elderly [White] victims in their own homes over two decades.” Many of those Whites — Grant attacked both women and men — will have died prematurely from their physical and psychological injuries. All of them paid a horrible and unnecessary price for the non-White immigration so beloved of the left and the hostile elite.

Another remarkable immigrant whom leftists aren’t interested in: the mass gerontophile rapist Delroy Easton Grant

Unlike St Stephen Lawrence, the victim of an extremely rare White-on-Black murder, the prolific gerontophile rapist Delroy Easton Grant is almost unknown among the British public. The Guardian and other leftist outlets would be happy for him to be completely unknown. After all, his horrific crimes destroy the leftist lie about how “immigration enriches us, and always has done.” So does the horrific murder committed by the wife-incinerator Damien Simmons, because Blacks and other non-Whites commit crimes of violence at much higher rates than Whites. That’s why leftists do their best to turn non-Whites like Grant and Simmons into meteor-malefactors, who flash through the headlines and then disappear forever from public consciousness.

First dissolve nationality, then biology

In other words, what begins as a leftist lie about “enrichment by immigration” ends in horrific suffering for women, whose welfare the left claim to care about passionately. The leftist lie states that immigrants can be “just as British” as Whites whose ancestry on these islands stretches back millennia. No, they can’t. The Romanian-Chinese Emma Raducanu isn’t British and nor are the Jew Dan Rosenfeld and the Black Delroy Easton Grant.

Leftist lies about nationality lead directly and inevitably to leftist lies about biological sex. But no, sexually perverted men like the Israeli Jew Jonathan Yaniv are not women and are not lesbians. Borders between races, religions and sexes are good things. They protect the weak and prevent the strong being weakened. That’s why leftists want to destroy those borders. Leftists don’t serve the Good, the Beautiful and the True: they serve the Evil, the Ugly and the Lie. They want chaos and crime in Western nations, because they want to rule the ruins.

Blacks Bless the Benighted West: The Sacred Central Principle of Modern Western Politics and Culture

Two views on non-Whites are permitted in the modern West. The first view is leftist and rules the media, academia, law, education, government bureaucracy, big business, sports and all leftist parties. It states: “Non-Whites are a limitless blessing and whites are cruelly oppressing them.” The second view is cuckservative and states: “Non-Whites are a limitless blessing and whites no longer oppress them as cruelly as they once did.”

Whitey in the Woodpile: The eleven members of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

It was the second, cuckservative view that was laid out for the people of Brave New Britain in the recently published report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED). But the cuckservative conclusions of CRED were no surprise. After all, Britain has a cuckservative government and it appointed the commissioners who wrote the report. The part-Jewish, part-Turkish prime minister Boris Johnson and his fellow Friends of Israel knew what they wanted and the commissioners have duly supplied it: “We no longer see a Britain where the system is deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities. … The Commission believes that if [our] recommendations are implemented, it will give a further burst of momentum to the story of our country’s progress to a successful multicultural community — a beacon to the rest of Europe and the world.”

Shred the CRED

Yes, the report claims that Britain, with its rape-gangs, suicide-bombers and acid-throwers, will serve as a beacon to European nations like Hungary and Poland, which don’t have rape-gangs, suicide-bombers or acid-throwers because they haven’t been enriched by non-White immigration. But just as predictable as the fatuities of the report has been the response of Britain’s cuckservatives and leftists. Cuckservatives have warmly welcomed the report and leftists have loudly condemned it. The report was variously described in the Guardian as “disturbing,” “nonsensical,” “deeply cynical,” “egregious,” “poisonously patronising,” “historically illiterate,” “insulting to our intelligence,” and, of course, “divisive.”

All smiles and happy collaboration: typically leftist propaganda on a typically cuckservative report

For leftists, it is always “divisive” when someone disagrees with them. But BoJo & Co. were careful to avoid one potential complaint from the left: they followed a strict leftist rule by ensuring that the Commissioners were almost all non-White. And so it was that the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities was itself a glaring — and entirely unaddressed — example of a “Race and Ethnic Disparity.” In a country that is still about 80% White, the Commissioners had to be 90% non-White because it is non-Whites who decide how wonderful non-Whites are and how much of a blessing mass immigration has been. The White majority doesn’t get a vote on that.

“Heroic” murderers, rapists and pimps

And never has had a vote. After all, if Whites had been allowed to vote on whether Britain should allow mass immigration by non-Whites, they would overwhelmingly have voted “No.” And don’t take just my word for it: the treasonous leftist politician Roy Hattersley, a former deputy leader of the Labour party, proudly announced in 2013 that he had refused to support “what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted [in 1964] — the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants.” The CRED report did not discuss this sensible White resistance to non-White immigration, except in so far as White resistance cast a literally “heroic” light on non-Whites. On page 7 of the report, we meet one of the giants of contemporary literature:

[Black] Poet and activist Linton Kwesi Johnson describes the early mass Black presence in the UK as having 2 phases or eras. The first was the 1950s Windrush arrival from the Caribbean, this he called the ‘heroic’ period, when literally doors were closed in the faces of the new Black settlers who heroically battled in the face of adversity. [Note clumsy prose and punctuation.] The children of those settlers … who came of age in the 1970s and 1980s he calls the ‘rebel’ generation, this featured running battles with police and a breakdown in community relations, which continues to have a negative legacy. [More clumsy prose.] The spirit of rebellion continued last summer during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. This was a revolt that engulfed the world. We have to acknowledge the spirit of BLM was the original trigger for our report. (Report by Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, March 2021)

The talentless and unintelligent Linton Kwesi Johnson

“Poet and activist” Linton Kwesi Johnson (born 1952 in Jamaica) didn’t mention that the “Black settlers” also “heroically battled” to raise the abysmally low rates of murder, rape, robbery, pimping and anti-social noise in stale, pale 1950s and ’60s Britain. Or that they battled on behalf of the predatory Jewish landlord Peter Rachman (1919–62), who would install violent and noisy Blacks to drive White tenants out of houses he wanted to buy or convert into flats. But Johnson’s omissions aren’t surprising. Here is a sample of the patois poetry that has won him acclaim and honours for decades:

Inglan is a Bitch

W’en mi jus’ come to Landan toun
Mi use to work pan di andahgroun
But workin’ pan di andahgroun
Yu don’t get fi know your way around.

Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no escapin it
Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no runnin’ whey fram it.

Mi get a lickle jab in a bih ’otell
An’ awftah a while, mi woz doin’ quite well
Dem staat mi aaf as a dish-washah
But w’en mi tek a stack, mi noh tun clack-watchah.

Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no escapin it
Inglan is a bitch
No baddah try fi hide fram it. (Inglan is a Bitch)

Linton Kwesi Johnson is, of course, a leftist and will not agree with the report’s findings. But talentless and unintelligent Blacks like him had to appear before the Commission because negrolatry is an essential part of minority worship in general. Blacks are the most harmful, obnoxious, unintelligent, unattractive and unproductive of all minorities. In other words, they are the group that least resembles Whites, which is precisely why the hostile Jewish elite selected Blacks for transformation into the archetypal saintly victims of White oppression. As Kevin MacDonald has documented, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in America was run and funded not by Blacks, but by Jews. In Britain, the Jewish lawyer Anthony Lester (1936–2020) proudly described how he brought the American model of minority worship to Britain:

In Search of Something Better: Anthony Lester recalls the creation of the Commission for Racial Equality

In 1964, on my return from witnessing the “Long Hot Summer” of civil rights action in the American South, I helped found CARD (the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination). We campaigned for effective legislation to combat racism in Britain. The first measure — the Race Relations Act 1965 — was hopelessly narrow and lacked teeth, so we fought for something better. When CARD was taken over by militant extremists, in December 1967, Jim Rose [another Jewish lawyer] and I founded the Runnymede Trust to combat racial prejudice and promote policies for overcoming racial discrimination and disadvantage. Labour’s second measure, the Race Relations Act 1968, was broader in scope but still lacked teeth. So again we campaigned for something better. (Catalyst magazine, 20th November 2006)

Anthony Lester, Baron of Bullshit

By “better,” Lester meant “better for invading non-Whites, worse for native Whites.” He was praised in his Guardian obituary as “the author of the groundbreaking legislation on racial and gender equality introduced in Britain by Harold Wilson’s Labour government in the 1970s.” Alas, the obituary also noted “a sad coda to his career,” arising “from a complaint by the author and charity worker Jasvinder Sanghera, who waived her right to anonymity to assert that in 2006 she had been subjected to sexual harassment by Lester and … offered a peerage in exchange for sexual favours.”

No mention of Muslim rape-gangs

Lester, who became a Baron in 1993, strenuously denied the accusations, but it was yet another example of how Jews have been vastly over-represented among those accused of sexual predation in recent years. This “Race and Ethnic Disparity” was definitely not examined in the CRED report, which also declined to examine any other kind of “Disparity” about those who commit crime and those who are its victims. For example, the report did not investigate the statistical anomalies whereby non-Whites murder and rape Whites at higher absolute rates than vice versa. And so the hard-working Muslim rape-gangs of Rotherham and many other British towns and cities were not mentioned in the report. In fact, the word “rape” appears only in a footnote on page 146. There was no discussion, therefore, of that remarkable representative of the heroic Black settlement of Britain, the mass gerontophile rapist Delroy Easton Grant, who may have sexually assaulted hundreds of elderly White women after his arrival here from Jamaica.

Heroic Black rapist Delroy Easton Grant

Grant certainly caused the premature death of some of those women, but he wasn’t a deliberate murderer like the Black rapist Leroy Campbell, who raped and murdered a White nurse, Lisa Skidmore, after previously serving a so-called “life-sentence” for rape and other offences. The judge who gave him a second (and perhaps genuine) life-sentence said this: “Miss Skidmore had to suffer the pain and terror of being raped by someone in her own home before she died. This was a sustained incident lasting over two hours. There was a significant degree of planning that went into the commission of these grotesque offences. Your actions on that day have had a most dramatic effect on a number of people.”

Meteor malefactors

But the Black genius for vicious crime is by no means confined to rape and murder. For example, three enterprising young Blacks were jailed in 2018 for a “‘shocking’ spree of brutal robberies … across London” in which they had sprayed “acid and alkali” into the faces of their victims. The three young Blacks did not express remorse for their crimes, probably because they didn’t feel any. Black psychopathy and its probable genetic roots were something else that the CRED report did not discuss.

Heroic Black rapist-murderer Leroy Campbell

But that’s unsurprising. High-achieving Blacks like Delroy Grant, Leroy Campbell and the acid-throwers of London are not celebrated in Brave New Britain. They are what you might call meteor malefactors, whose misdeeds flash across the headlines and then vanish forever. But Black criminals have been having “a most dramatic effect” on the White majority ever since Blacks began arriving here in the 1950s against the clearly expressed opposition of the White majority. The CRED report did not discuss this prolonged Black predation on Whites or undertake the admittedly herculean task of estimating how many Whites have been murdered, raped, beaten and otherwise harmed by Blacks during the heroic Black settlement and subsequent Black rebellions.

A cuckservative and her controllers: Priti Patel with convicted Jewish fraudster Sir Gerald Ronson and
Jewish Board of Deputies leader Marie van der Zyl

But the Commission wasn’t set up by the cuckservative government to investigate the harm done to Whites by Blacks. As I pointed out at the beginning, both leftists and cuckservatives are agreed on the sacred central principle of politics and culture: that Blacks Bless the Benighted West. Leftists and cuckservatives merely disagree about whether Whites are as evil and oppressive towards non-Whites as they used to be. Cuckservatives don’t think Whites are, but Whites are still forbidden to have any say on how wonderful Blacks in particular are.

That’s why the Commission itself was headed by a Black, Dr Tony Sewell, who thereby gave the whole proceedings that essential glow of Numinous Negritude. At least, he did so in cuckservative and libertarian eyes. To leftists, however, Sewell is a “coconut” (brown on the outside, white on the inside), “race traitor” and “house negro” working for Whitey. How dare Sewell suggest that Britain was not “institutionally racist” and that minorities could achieve success by their own efforts despite White racism?

Crushing the left, ending the racism racket

The Marxist libertarian Brendan O’Neill hastened to the defence of Sewell and other non-Whites behind the report, condemning the “identitarian bigots” who were accusing Sewell and others of betraying their own kind. O’Neill threw up his hands in horror at “the racial conformism outrageously demanded by sections of the left” and spoke darkly of “the rise of a kind of woke racism.” In other words, he was firing the most powerful weapon in the cuckservative and libtard armoury: the deadly and devastating argument that leftists are the real racists. Well, people like O’Neill think it’s a devastating argument. Of course, they’ve been using it for decades and it’s never had the slightest effect, but they remain eternally optimistic that with just one or two more repetitions it will crush the left and end the “racism racket.”

It won’t, of course. Nor will this cuckservative report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. One big reason for that was noted by Commissioners themselves: “We recognise that building a confident, successful multi-ethnic society is a huge and difficult endeavour.” In fact, it’s an impossible endeavour, but even if it were merely “huge and difficult,” one glaring question would remain unaddressed. Why did Britain need to become a “multi-ethnic society”? What was lacking in the land of Shakespeare, Newton, Milton, Darwin, Watt, Hume and many other giants of art, science and philosophy before it became “multi-ethnic”? What overwhelming advantages has Britain gained by importing huge numbers of illiberal tribalists with low average IQs from corrupt, violent and intellectually void countries like Pakistan, Jamaica and Somalia?

No action by cuckservatives

No advantages whatsoever, that I can see. But I and many others can plainly see the huge disadvantages of mass immigration from the Third World. They include suicide bombing, rape-gangs, honour killings, female genital mutilation, inbreeding, exotic diseases, censorship, political corruption and the massive transfer of White taxes to subsidize unproductive but fast-breeding non-Whites. And thanks to imported non-White pathologies — and the hard work of Jewish activists like Anthony Lester — ever-harshening laws have been passed to restrict the free speech and free association of British Whites, even as an immoral and voyeuristic surveillance state pries ever more closely into their private lives.

The Report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities is not going to mitigate any of those pathologies, let alone end them. As I pointed out at the beginning, the leftist view of race relations — “Blacks are Saints, Whites are Demons” — rules the media, academia, law, education, government bureaucracy, big business, sports and all leftist parties. This cuckservative government isn’t going to make any attempt to change that. For example, Tamara Finkelstein, a high-flying Jewish bureaucrat who is the “Joint Senior Sponsor of the Civil Service Jewish Network,” has supported Black Lives Matter (BLM) on an official government Twitter account and issued the stirring call to “fight racism.” Have she and similar promoters of “far-left identity politics” been reprimanded in any way? Not in the slightest. After all, Tamara is the sister of the high-flying Conservative peer Daniel Finkelstein and her commitment to “anti-racism” is almost certainly the same as his.

Like sister, like brother: the anti-White Jews Tamara and Daniel Finkelstein

And it was the so-called Conservative prime minister Theresa May who added “Stephen Lawrence Day” to Britain’s religious calendar. The day honours Britain’s new patron saint, a Black teenager who died after being stabbed twice by a gang of “white racists” in 1993. It was a very rare and unusual crime, because Blacks are overwhelmingly murdered by other Blacks, not by Whites. Blacks also murder Whites much more often than the reverse. But none of that matters to the martyr cult of St Stephen Lawrence, which endlessly repeats the lie that Whites are an ominous and ever-present threat to non-Whites and their welfare.

Martyr vs Meteor Murders: Stephen Lawrence is eternally remembered as the
far more numerous White victims of non-Whites are forgotten

Will the so-called Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson remove Stephen Lawrence Day from the calendar? Of course not. Nor will Johnson or any other cuckservative criticize the Stephen Lawrence Research Centre, which is working to further demonize Whites and sanctify non-Whites at De Montfort University in the ancient British city of Leicester:

The Stephen Lawrence Research Centre aims to drive forward conversations that will shape and influence how we think about race and social justice. It intends to honour the enduring legacy of Stephen Lawrence’s life and his family’s ongoing pursuit of justice by asking new questions, debating critical issues, raising awareness, and advocating to bring about positive change. …

National Stephen Lawrence Day 22 April

The 22 April 2018 marked the 25th anniversary of the senseless murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young man who had a bright future ahead of him.

At the memorial service to celebrate his life, the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, announced the annual national commemoration of Stephen Lawrence Day which is to be held each year on 22 April.

Schools and their communities are invited to use the memory of Stephen’s life and legacy as an opportunity to empower young people in their care to live their best life. Find out how to get involved. …

Stephen Lawrence Research Centre news and events

An evening with Baroness Doreen Lawrence: Bringing Legacy to Leicester

Ahead of Stephen Lawrence Day, 22 April, Baroness Lawrence will be joined by [the Trotskyist race-baiter] Imran Khan QC [Queen’s Counsel], educators, students and community leaders for a discussion on how Stephen’s legacy is inspiring a change for good across the nation. (Propaganda and mendacity issued by the Stephen Lawrence Research Centre)

Martyr’s mother: Black Baroness Doreen Lawrence

Baroness Doreen Lawrence is the martyr’s mother, an utterly undistinguished and intellectually void Jamaican woman who has been lavishly honoured and celebrated by Brave New Britain, and is treated as the fount of all wisdom on matters of race and racism. The Guardian was delighted to report that Baroness Lawrence, who was ennobled by the treasonous shabbos-goy Tony Blair, has joined the “Shred the CRED” campaign. She has condemned the recent report for “giving racists the green light.” That’s how she expresses her gratitude for cuckservative pandering and Theresa May’s creation of Stephen Lawrence Day.

Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan, long-forgotten White victims of horrific racist murders

In complete contrast to the saintly Doreen Lawrence, White mothers who have lost children to racially motivated murder, often in far worse ways, are never honoured or celebrated in Brave New Britain, and are never consulted on matters of race and racism. There is no “Kriss Donald Research Centre” to honour the White Scottish teenager who was kidnapped, repeatedly stabbed, and incinerated by Pakistani Muslims in 2004. And there is no “Mary-Ann Leneghan Research Centre” to honour the White English teenager who was raped, tortured and repeatedly stabbed by five Blacks and an Albanian Muslim “asylum-seeker” in 2005.

Britain is a Land of Lies

Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan were the victims of meteor murder. The horrible details of their prolonged and agonizing deaths flashed through the British media and then vanished forever, because no mainstream institution in Brave New Britain is interested in the truth about mass immigration from the Third World. Blacks and other non-Whites are not a blessing to Britain. They are a curse imported against the will of the White majority by the hostile Jewish elite and its treasonous gentile collaborators. The overwhelmingly non-White Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities could never admit this. It has no more interest in the truth about non-Whites than the cuckservative government who appointed it.

Like all other Western nations, Britain is a Land of Lies where liars rule, minority-worship is mandatory throughout public life, and non-Whites impose huge and growing costs on the White majority. And what should we do in the face of the lies, ugliness and evil currently rampant in the West? I think Vox Day’s advice is good. We should devote ourselves ever more firmly to what the great Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc called the “indissoluble Trinity of Truth, Beauty and Goodness.”

Hate-Filled Hindu: Priti Patel is Sycophantic to Jews, Psychopathic to Whites

Shakespeare got it wrong. “There’s no art to find the mind’s construction in the face,” says King Duncan in Macbeth (c. 1606), meaning that psychology can’t be read from physiognomy. But Shakespeare never saw Priti Patel, the British-born Indian Hindu who currently serves as Home Secretary. When you look at Patel’, do you see gentleness, humility and good-nature? I doubt it:

The pernicious punim of Priti Patel, high-T fem-pol

No, Priti Patel looks like what she is: a nasty piece of work. As I said in “A Shameless Shabbos-Shiksa,” she’s a high-T fem-pol, that is, a female politician with typically elevated levels of testosterone. She’s aggressive, ambitious and entirely without principle or loyalty to the country of her birth. That makes her an ideal shabbos-shiksa, or gentile servant, for Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), which the Jewish Chronicle described as “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster” (i.e., British politics). Lord Polak, CFI’s very powerful but little-known chief, steered Patel to a long series of secret meetings with important Israeli politicians. That definite conspiracy was finally exposed in 2017 and Patel lost her job as International Development Secretary in Theresa May’s government of grovelling goys.

Working for Jewish interests

What happened at the meetings? Only Patel and her Jewish puppet-masters know, but she certainly wasn’t conspiring with Jews to benefit British Whites. After the scandal broke, she should have been prosecuted as an agent of a foreign power and permanently excluded from politics. But that isn’t how things work in Brave New Britain. Instead, Patel bounced back to a much bigger and better job in Boris Johnson’s government of grovelling goys, in which the very powerful but little-known treasurer is the Israeli plutocrat Ehud Sheleg. Patel is now Home Secretary, supposedly overseeing law, immigration and border security for Britain, in reality working for Jewish interests as she has always done. And now she’s back at the centre of another scandal, this time about her obnoxious behaviour towards White civil servants. An official report found that she had broken the ministerial code of conduct by bullying staff and should therefore resign for the second time from the cabinet.

However, Boris Johnson decided that the rules needn’t apply to his fellow Friend of Israel, and Patel is still there. There are rumours that she’ll lose her post soon for incompetence, but obnoxiousness was not a problem. After all, she’s not been obnoxious to the only people who matter in Brave New Britain: the tiny Jewish minority that funds and controls the Conservative Party and that wields hugely disproportionate influence in the media and academia. Patel has risen to high office by being sycophantic to Jews and psychopathic to Whites.

Death-goddess Kali with White men’s heads

And she may well be a full psychopath, like a disproportionate number of politicians and of the lawyers who are massively over-represented in Western politics. For example, Patel has a psychopathic indifference to truth. She knows from the inside that Jews have controlled the Conservative government under Johnson, May, and Cameron just as they previously controlled the Labour government under Blair and Brown. That’s why she had so many secret meetings with Israeli politicians. But she would instantly condemn anyone who named and opposed the very Jewish control that she has so carefully allied herself with and worked to strengthen. Indeed, she would be happy to imprison anyone telling the truth about Jewish control. Psychopaths don’t care about truth or morality: they care about power. And some psychopaths like to exercise power in sadistic ways, as Patel did when she shouted and swore at her White staff. Which brings me to another image from Brave New Britain:

Death-goddess Kali with White men’s heads

That painting, called Housewives With Steak Knives (1985), is a “self-portrait … as the multi-armed Hindu Goddess Kali” by Sutapa Biswas, another Indian Hindu currently enriching Brave New Britain. Do you think the painting shows hostility towards White men? I do and I would link the psychology of Sutapa Biswas, as revealed in her painting, to the psychology of Priti Patel, as revealed in her behaviour towards White civil servants. Of course, no mainstream commentator in Britain would dare suggest that Patel’s Hinduism and Indian genetics have played any role in her obnoxious behaviour. But here at the Occidental Observer, the Home of Hate, I’m suggesting exactly that.

Pernicious parallels

After all, a very similar scandal has happened before. In 1998, a female Hindu lawyer called Kamlesh Bahl was appointed Deputy Vice President of the Law Society and was expected to rise swiftly to become its President. But Bahl was dismissed in 1999 after accusations that she was a power-crazed bully who terrorized and humiliated her White staff in just the way that Priti Patel is accused of doing.

And just as Patel got her big job despite being known to have bullied staff in her previous ministries, Bahl got her big job despite being known to have bullied staff when she was head of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Like Patel, Bahl had non-White privilege. And to round off the parallels, Bahl denied that she had done anything wrong just as Patel has done. I don’t think these parallels are coincidental. Like Kamlesh Bahl, Priti Patel is a hate-filled alien invader whose genetics and psychology are rooted in India, not in Britain.

Don’t accept immigrants from India

India is a fascinating and complex region in all manner of ways, from religion to genetics (as I acknowledged in my discussion of the Parsi Indian Freddie Mercury). But one thing is certain amid all that complexity: India is a very bad place for any Western nation to accept immigrants from. Its culture is both hugely corrupt and horrendously cruel, as one of England’s greatest writers saw long ago. Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936) was born in India and recorded life there with sharp insight and understanding. Leftists call him a racist; I call him a realist. You can see some of his realism about India in the short-story collection Plain Tales from the Hills (1888). One of the stories, with the ironic title “Beyond the Pale,” begins with these lines: “A man should, whatever happens, keep to his own caste, race and breed. Let the White go to the White and the Black to the Black. Then, whatever trouble falls is in the ordinary course of things — neither sudden, alien, nor unexpected.”

Leftists would call that racist; I call it realist. And I think it applies to the trouble caused by Priti Patel and Kamlesh Bahl. Kipling would have been horrified to see mass immigration from India into the West. And rightly so. His story “Beyond the Pale” is about a love-affair between a White British man called Trejago and a Brown Indian widow called Bisesa. At first Trejago sees some of the beauty and charm of India. Then, following a quarrel with his brown-skinned lover, he sees a little of the horror:

A week, and then three weeks, passed without a sign from Bisesa. Trejago, thinking that the rupture had lasted quite long enough, went down to Amir Nath’s Gully for the fifth time in the three weeks, hoping that his rap at the sill of the shifting grating would be answered. He was not disappointed.

There was a young moon, and one stream of light fell down into Amir Nath’s Gully, and struck the grating, which was drawn away as he knocked. From the black dark, Bisesa held out her arms into the moonlight. Both hands had been cut off at the wrists, and the stumps were nearly healed.

Then, as Bisesa bowed her head between her arms and sobbed, some one in the room grunted like a wild beast, and something sharp — knife, sword or spear — thrust at Trejago in his boorka. The stroke missed his body, but cut into one of the muscles of the groin, and he limped slightly from the wound for the rest of his days. (“Beyond the Pale”)

“Genius” is an over-used word, but I’m happy to apply it to Rudyard Kipling. His ability to understand the multitudinous realities of India was matched by his ability to describe those realities. He didn’t portray Whites as inexcusable sinners or non-Whites as immaculate saints. Instead, he was a realist, which is why he’s now called a racist. But I can see no hate or malice in his stories about brown-skinned Indians. Indeed, “The Story of Muhammad Din,” about the life and death of a tiny Muslim boy, must be one of the most moving and compassionate stories ever written – and without the insincerity and sentimentality that accompany leftist minority-worship.

Leftism mandates blindness to reality

But although Kipling could sympathize with brown-skinned Indians and recognize their full humanity, that did not make him think that Indians and Whites are the same under the skin (or that White Germans and White Brits are the same). Like Charles Dickens, another literary genius, Kipling did not allow his enormous powers of sympathy to blind him to reality. But modern leftism mandates blindness to reality. That’s why the leftist Guardian can report that “India remains the most unsafe country for women in the world, with a woman raped every 20 minutes,” while simultaneously supporting unlimited immigration from India. This would ensure that India’s vibrant rape-culture found new settings, just as Pakistan’s rape-culture has been successfully transplanted to Britain.

In short, the Guardian claims to oppose rape while supporting the non-White immigration that massively increases rape. Its readers and journalists don’t recognize the contradiction. Thanks to minority-worship, leftists apply the Orwellian principle of crimestop, which “means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to [minority-worship], and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.”

Racism is realism

And although British leftists have condemned Priti Patel and her bullying, none of them would acknowledge that she is yet another example of the harm done by mass immigration. As an Indian Hindu and shabbos-shiksa, Priti Patel supports the highly ethnocentric governments of Israel and India while working against the legitimate ethnic interests of Britain’s fast-shrinking White majority. Patel is bad for Britain, like the part-Jewish, part-Turkish prime minister Boris Johnson and like her fellow Indian Hindu Rishi Sunak, who came to the post of Chancellor from Goldman Sachs and the highly Jewish and globalist world of banking.

It is not racist to say that these aliens are bad for Britain: it is realist. Or rather, racism is realism. It is both rational and realistic to understand that race is a valid scientific concept and has huge consequences for politics, culture and criminality. Rudyard Kipling understand those obvious truths and Rudyard Kipling would have been entirely unsurprised by Muslim rape-gangs and the malign behaviour of the Indian Hindus Priti Patel and Kamlesh Bahl. But the West is no longer governed by the thinking of far-sighted White geniuses like Kipling and Dickens. Instead, the West is governed by the thinking of subversive Jewish charlatans like Karl Marx and Franz Boas.

Priti Patel pleads for power at Conservative Friends of Israel

And that’s why Britain has a hate-filled Hindu called Priti Patel at the top of government. Her sadistic behaviour towards her White staff is a portent of what will happen right across the West as Whites lose control to their non-White enrichers. Patel is bad for Britain and doesn’t belong here, which is precisely why, in true psychopathic fashion, she sniffed out and bowed before the hidden centre of power in her party: Conservative Friends of Israel. And Jews were delighted to recruit her as a shabbos-shiksa. They know that outsiders like Patel have no loyalty to or concern for British Whites.

But you won’t see anyone in the mainstream media speak these obvious truths. After all, this is Brave New Britain, where it’s against the law to speak the truth about Jewish control and minority malice. And who oversees the law in Brave New Britain? You’ve seen her pernicious punim already in this article: it’s Priti Patel, Home Secretary, Friend of Israel and Foe of Whites.