British Politics

The Labour Party’s tolerance for child sexual abuse

/3 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

Here are a few examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/7 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

Gasping with Goldsmith

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

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

The hidden hand of Jews

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish generals in the War on Whites

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

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

Margaret Hodge grins at the goyim in Labour Friends of Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good ones don’t outweigh the bad

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

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

The rule of Jews

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

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

Labour Fights for Rapists’ Rights: How the Non-White “Mass-Rape Abomination” Was Flourishing 70 years Ago

/14 Comments/in , /by

Jess Phillips is a typical masculinized high-testosterone leftist female politician. She’s also typical in that she follows a script written nearly eighty years ago by a man called George Orwell. In his most famous novel, Orwell described how “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.”

Jess Phillips, a masculinized high-T leftist fempol, with three of the White girls she and her party helped to murder

What Orwell meant as a satirical rebuke is a settled reality for modern leftists. Jess Phillips is the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls in the current Labour government. Naturally enough, then, she works to encourage violence against women and girls on behalf of a party that hates the White working-class whom it was founded to defend. Phillips believes in the right of non-White rapists to carry on raping, not the right of White women and girls to be protected against non-White rapists. She has refused to commission any government enquiry into the industrialized abuse of White working-class girls by Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs in Labour-controlled towns and cities all over ethnically enriched England. For perfectly obvious reasons, feminist Phillips does not want any discussion of how and why these working-class Whites ended up dead while they were supposedly under the protection of Labour MPs and Labour councils:

  • 14-year-old Charlene Downes, who was raped and prostituted by Muslims in the Labour constituency of Blackpool before being murdered by her Muslim “boyfriends” and probably turned into kebab-meat.
  • 15-year-old Victoria Agoglia, was raped and prostituted by Muslims in a Labour constituency in Manchester and deliberately addicted to heroin before dying of an overdose.
  • 16-year-old Lucy Lowe, who was raped and prostituted by Muslims in the Labour constituency of Telford before being burned alive with her mother Eileen and her 17-year-old sister Sarah when her Muslim “boyfriend” set her house on fire.
  • 17-year-old Laura Wilson, who was raped and prostituted by Muslims in the Labour constituency of Rotherham before being repeatedly stabbed by her Muslim “lovers” and then thrown into a filthy canal to drown.

The Yorkshire town of Rotherham is, of course, the most infamous example of how Labour collaborated with non-Whites as they raped and prostituted White working-class girls. But much worse has gone on in other town and cities controlled by Labour. Rotherham’s staunchly feminist Labour MP, Denis MacShane, is nevertheless a perfect example of how and why Labour betrayed its traditional supporters. He worked tirelessly for rich Jews in far-off London while ignoring the White working-class girls being raped, tortured, and murdered by Pakistani Muslims in what he called his “wonderful constituency.”

Great champions for Jews

When MacShane went to jail for fraud in 2013, he was saluted as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions” by the journalist Martin Bright in the Jewish Chronicle. Bright got it right. So did the billionaire Elon Musk when he said that Jess Phillips should follow MacShane into jail for betraying women and girls. But Musk should call for the entire leftist elite to be jailed, from the slippery lawyer Tony Blair, a dedicated shabbos goy, to the slippery lawyer Keir Starmer, also a dedicated shabbos goy, to the very well-paid “Children’s Commissioner” Sue Berelowitz, a Jew who “denied there was a disproportionate problem with gangs of British Asians grooming young girls for sex.” Labour and other leftists have worked to harm the White working-class just as they’ve worked to harm ordinary women. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, understands that. So, it appears, does one of the world’s richest women. The leftist mega-millionaire J.K. Rowling tweeted this in response to the scandal about Jess Phillips’ refusal to safeguard women and girls:

The details emerging about what the rape gangs (why call them ‘grooming’ gangs? It’s like calling those who stab people to death ‘knife owners’) did to girls in Rotherham are downright horrific. The allegations of possible police corruption in the case are almost beyond belief. (Tweet by J.K. Rowling, 2nd January 2025)

Sue Berelowitz, the leftist Jew who said “Screw you!” to working-class Whites (image © Lucy Young/REX from Daily Mail)

It’s almost as though Rowling has read what I wrote about her at the Occidental Observer: “I admire leftists like J.K. Rowling for standing up to the small clown-cult of transgenderism. But she ignores the far greater harm done to women by the giant clown-cult of trans-Westernism. It’s as though she’s complaining about the common cold while cholera is raging.” Just as transgenderism is the lie that men can be women and occupy female spaces, so trans-Westernism is the lie that non-Whites can be Westerners and occupy White nations.

Guide for the Perplexed

I think it’s very significant that an influential leftist like Rowling now understands how her own ideology has betrayed and harmed women not just by siding with sexually perverted men but also by siding with sexually rapacious non-Whites. But there’s a lot more for Rowling and company to understand about leftist collaboration in what Nigel Farage has called the “mass-rape abomination.” They’re beginning to see how badly Labour has betrayed the White working-class, but they don’t yet see how long this betrayal has been going on.

For the answer to that, Rowling should turn to another – and much better – female writer, the late and definitely great Jennifer Worth (1935-2011). In her hugely successful Call the Midwife: A True Story of the East End in the 1950s (2002), Worth included a chapter whose title and toxicity hasn’t been analyzed or publicized in great detail by leftists. You will understand why when I tell you that its title was simply “Zakir” and its toxicity arose from its honest portrayal of the way non-White men were preying on White working-class girls many decades ago.

First pretence, then predation

Zakir is the name of a Muslim Asian who “grooms” a young White girl called Mary with pretended love and concern. Even when she sees that Zakir is in harsh control of other White girls, she doesn’t realize what he is planning to do:

Mary thought, “He likes me the best. He doesn’t like those girls. They look a nasty bunch anyway. But I am his special friend,” and a warm glow flooded over her. Each time Zakir returned, he showered Mary with smiles, his beautiful white teeth flashing and his dark eyes gleaming. … That night Mary had her first clients. She was auctioned as a virgin, and the highest bidder got her first, with eight others following after. The next day Zakir put his arm around her, and told her that he was very pleased with her. He flashed his smile at her and her heart melted. She lived off this smile, and the others he condescended to give her, for months. (Call the Midwife: A True Story of the East End in the 1950s)

Worth is describing the modus operandi of countless similar non-White predators in Britain, who first pretend love and concern to fool naïve White girls, then turn into vicious predators and pimps. Mary was soon working as a prostitute for Zakir, whose pretended love turns into sadistic abuse and exploitation. Zakir had destroyed the lives of dozens of White girls before Mary and would go on to destroy the lives of dozens more. And that was merely one non-White predator-pimp in London in the 1950s. In other words, the “mass-rape abomination” was already flourishing seventy years ago.

How did the feminist Labour party respond as its traditional supporters were attacked and had their lives destroyed? By ignoring the raped working-class Whites and championing the non-White rapists. In 2013, Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, asked this question in the Guardian: “Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted – the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants?” His answer was an emphatic “No.” What “most of the country” wanted, traitorous politicians like Hattersley refused to supply. As he boasted in a later article: “For most of my 33 years in [parliament], I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy – otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

Keir Starmer and Roy Hattersley with their Jewish wives (images from Sky News and Daily Mail)

It’s no coincidence that Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife just like Keir Starmer, the current leader of Hattersley’s party. Labour was founded to champion the White working-class but was long ago taken over by Jewish money and Jewish ideology. It now works to harm the White working-class and help the non-White predators whom Jews regard as their “natural allies” in their war on Whites and the West. That’s why Labour and all other mainstream leftists have been collaborating with non-White rape-gangs for so many decades. It’s good that J.K. Rowling has started to understand the truth about the Labour party and her own ideology, but she still has a long way to go.

Immigration as provocation

/24 Comments/in , /by

Sir John Major was Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1990 to 1997, and only ever an interim premier after Margaret Thatcher was ousted. All he is really remembered for is that he signed the Maastricht Treaty, which began Britain’s entry into the EU, and the fact that his father was a circus trapeze-artist. Major resembled a cricket commentator (and does in fact love the game) who had gone to the wrong job interview and accidentally ended up as PM.

One off-the-cuff remark of his, however, is worth revisiting in the current British climate of simmering anger over uncontrolled and apparently uncontrollable immigration to the UK, 80% of which is from outside the EU. Only around 16% of that figure enter the UK on professional work visas. Many of them are completely undocumented and are not in any way identifiable, having discarded their passports and phones during their crossing from France via the English Channel. All can be confident that these will be replaced with British versions of both. For how much longer will the British people continue to show the tolerance which is demanded of them by the state?

Step on an Englishman’s foot, said the former PM, and he will apologize. Step on his foot again, and he will apologize. Step on his foot a third time and he’ll knock you down. The first is seen as an accident, the second as an unfortunate repetition of that accident which, while it tries the patience, is tolerable. The third, however, is provocation, and demands an appropriate response. That is the position today’s White Englishmen find themselves in. Where are we in Major’s homily? How many times have English feet been stepped on, and when will the third arrive?

There can be little doubt that a main component of Labour’s de facto open borders immigration policy is intended to provoke the British people, and particularly the English. Starmer wants to “wind the English up”, to use the vernacular, and his party’s current immigration policy echoes the infamous phrase used by Labour’s Andrew Neather in 2009 — albeit critically — when he stated that Labour wanted mass immigration “to rub the Right’s noses in diversity”. Today’s Labour Party have more sinister motives than Neather’s revelation, and intend to rub every White, British, indigenous nose in the same ordure.

The United Kingdom is, of course, composed of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But in the context of immigration, when “the UK” is mentioned, this invariably means England. Criticism of the British Empire, similarly, is not aimed at the Welsh, but always at the villains of the piece — any piece — the English. Immigrants do not risk their lives and their life savings travelling across Europe and crossing the English Channel in dangerous and unsuitable craft to live in Cardiff or Belfast. They are almost all Muslims, and wish to join the ummah in London or Birmingham, England’s capital and second city respectively, and both well on the way to becoming micro-caliphates. And they serve two purposes for Britain’s deep state: Their role in Renaud Camus’ Great Replacement, and the provocation, and resulting dissident violence, that the same deep state wishes to inflict on the White British. Starmer made good use of the rioting after the murders of three little girls in Southport at the start of his premiership, jailing many first-time “offenders” for social media posts (correctly) stating that the alleged killer was a Muslim.

Examples of this goading are numerous, but we will begin with the leading indicator of immigration, the statistics themselves. Whether or not it was Mark Twain who quipped that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics” is one for the literary historians, but the phrase may as well be wrought in iron over the entrance to the UK’s ONS, or Office for National Statistics.

A novel way in which immigration figures are manipulated is by releasing upwardly revised figures at a later date. Thus, although the net annual immigration figures to June 2023 were originally given by the ONS at 740,000, these have been revised to 906,000, and this reconfiguration allows two things to happen. Firstly, Labour can blame the “error” on the last Conservative government, allowing Starmer to accuse them of conducting an “open borders experiment” as though they themselves were not doing exactly that. This also allows Labour to claim — correctly, given the revised figure — that the same figure to June 2024, 728,000, has dropped by 20%. Thus, Labour can claim to have reduced immigration figures — a promise every incoming government this century has campaigned on — and also to be a credible alternative to the Tories rather than the other side of the same uniparty coin.

The last Conservative government had as its worthless maxim “Stop the boats” but, as the BBC points out, “Labour replaced [former Prime Minister] Rishi Sunak’s ‘stop the boats’ slogan with its own three-word mantra: ‘Smash the gangs’.”  Since the election, Keir Starmer has talked about “smashing the business model of the people-smuggling gangs” working in France, as though talking like the Incredible Hulk proves his resolve. And these are not “people smugglers”. Anything smuggled is hidden, and these migrants are very visible. Strangest of all is the idea of “smashing” a business model. The business model for the migration business is incredibly simple. Migrants pay a great deal of money, in cash, to people who provide inflatable boats in which they travel to the UK. There is no contract, no necessity to offer a guarantee (and therefore no legal protection or insurance for the migrants), and it is unlikely that much business time is wasted filling out tax returns. If there is competition for your business, you shoot them, or they shoot you. The Home Office, like every other branch of British government, is obsessed with models to the extent that they now believe them to be real, and somehow able to be “smashed”.

But the boats remain unstopped and the gangs unsmashed. Where, then, do the British government intend to house these anonymous arrivistes as they join the backlog of unprocessed asylum applications? It shouldn’t be hard to create temporary accommodation. During the early days of the Covid pandemic, the British government quickly built a number of “Nightingale hospitals” at a cost of half a billion pounds, a fraction of the current annual cost of housing immigrants. Now that Covid is in the past, these could surely be decommissioned and used instead to house immigrants.

A report by The King’s Fund in 2021, however, shows that the hospitals were not even considered as migrant housing:

But over summer, 2020, one issue came to define the narrative around the Nightingales – quite simply, they were not seeing many patients. And now, one year after they were built, many of the facilities are either being decommissioned or repurposed as mass vaccination centres or diagnostic centres.

Where, then, are the immigrants to be housed? Presumably, the government would wish to tread carefully and not to show migrants as somehow receiving preferential treatment over, say, Britain’s thousands of homeless people, many of them ex-army. Not so. Let’s take a break and visit a hotel. Depending on what you are used to, the sixteenth-century Madeley Court Hotel in Telford, Shropshire, is both beautiful and luxurious. If you happen not to be an illegal immigrant to Britain, however, you won’t be staying there any time soon, as it is all booked up for the foreseeable future. The “availability” link on its website states that the booking facility is “not accessible” as “some required settings are not defined”. It’s the kind of statement you might expect from HAL, the computer in Kubrick’s 2001.

This report from Britain’s Daily Mail shows the hotel in all its glory, and also informs the reader that it is currently block-booked with immigrants, many of whom have lived there since the time that the Nightingale hospitals were still in existence. One Muslim gentleman interviewed by a citizen journalist had an interesting take on the economic cost of immigration. Speaking from his hotel — which film stars used to do — the man said that, “We don’t know who pays for it. But we don’t need to”. There are other ways of paying, of course. The local people will not be able to enjoy the hotel’s famous Christmas dinner this year, for example, as it has been cancelled.

The Mail’s report is also of interest for what it shows of the media’s collusion with government over what is usually termed the “far Right”. The paper is careful not to show any editorial disapproval of this luxurious accommodation for people who have never paid — and likely never will — into the UK tax system.

Instead, it writes, “The outrage was generated… by a string of right-wing commentators on social media… [and] many social media users have expressed anger” at the arrangement. It is “Right-wing” commentators who are angry, not the newspaper once ridiculed for its levels of outrage.

That there is an immigration industry in the UK has been known for some time, whispered rather than spoken aloud. They have everything one might expect in an industry, those on the front-line, those in the board-room, and those doing the marketing. That would be the media. There has been an interesting incursion recently, a Venn-like overlap between the circle of activism and that of the communicative professions. There are activist journalists now as well as activist university lecturers and public-sector chiefs. The Mail’s piece is more subtly pro-government than the BBC, say, but it is still a part of the immigration industry.

This also shows the importance of alternative media and their role in the government’s provocative use of immigration to rile the indigenous English. Yorkshire Rose are citizen journalists who visit migrant hotels, and below is a video of their visit to Madeley Court. I have watched a number of these videos, and there is a theme. Every video features a confrontation with security staff, and almost all the security guards featured are foreign to the UK. They are often surly and aggressive, and regularly tell those filming that they are on private property. Technically, that is correct, although hotel grounds have public right of access, otherwise it is difficult to see how guests could get from their car to their room. Usually, this type of video would be quickly taken down, but these remain. They are integral to the government’s program of stepping on English toes a third time.

There remains a tendency in the British media, alternative as well as what there is of right-of-center outlets, to attribute increasingly uncontrolled immigration as a sign of government incompetence. Terms such as “crazy”, “insane”, “lack of common sense” are regularly used to describe the influx and government failure to stop it. There is more than an element of the Dunning-Kruger Effect here, in which a person believes themselves far more capable of performing a task or job than they actually are. It simply is not credible to view uncontrolled immigration as government incompetence. It is intentional, malevolent, and designed to cause problems for the indigenous British firstly at a local level, and later at a national one.

I have discussed the British uniparty here at The Occidental Observer, and there is a clear sense that 14 years of nominally Conservative government was intended to prepare for Starmer’s accelerated program of flooding Britain with migrants, like a warm-up act for a rock band. This illusory transfer of power allows the two regimes to work retrospectively in tandem.

What might be termed “malevolent immigration” differs between the US and the UK. For America, the primary physical danger is Latino gangs and the cartels, in the UK it is Islam. The logistics of housing ever-more Muslim immigrants means that, along with the lack of employable skill-sets and low social capital the UK is importing, Muslim immigrants also bring their sectarian differences with them. Finding yet another hotel for 200 ungrateful migrants is difficult enough, but further complicated if 100 of them are Sunni and 100 Shia. And so, the British people have internecine tribal squabbles to look forward to in their city centers as well as the more general threat to their security and that of their children. Diversity is not seen as “our strength” in Arabic countries. And, day by day, the numbers increase.

There are approximately 110,000 British soldiers barracked in the UK. In the year ending September 2024, almost 100,000 immigrants claimed asylum, and there are several times that figure in the country, many unaccounted for, many anonymous and unverifiable. One of the most popular phrases used to describe the new arrivals is “fighting-age men”. How many standing armies comparable to the British Army have already been assembled? And when might they be mobilized?

The final, intolerable stepping on of English feet may be foreseen in Germany’s recent atrocity in Magdeburg, in which a Saudi immigrant mowed down pedestrians at a Christmas market. At the time of writing, five victims are dead and a further 200 injured, many seriously. It is a complicated case — Taleb A is “far right” only in that he doesn’t like Muslim religiosity but his beef was with Germany because they didn’t allow enough people like him to immigrate. Many Germans have taken to the streets to voice their displeasure. Should such an event occur in England — surely an inevitability — the English may feel that their feet have been stepped on for the third and final time.

Indeed, a similar event happened in London on Christmas day, although the police assure us that it was an isolated incident and not terror-related. It will interesting find out his background—if the police are kind enough to release the details.

Regarding Taleb A.:

He was critical of German authorities, saying they had failed to do enough to combat the “Islamism of Europe.” He has also voiced support for the far-right and anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party [then why kill German Christians].

Some described Taleb as an activist who helped Saudi women flee their homeland. Recently, he seemed focused on his theory that German authorities have been targeting Saudi asylum seekers.

And of course the left want to ignore any connection to immigration:

“To the AfD, I can only say: Any attempt to exploit such a terrible act and to abuse the suffering of the victims is despicable,” the Social Democrat (SPD) politician told the newspapers of the Funke Media Group in comments published on Wednesday.

She added, “It only shows the character of those who do such things.”

Following the attack on the Magdeburg Christmas market last Friday, the AfD held a rally in the city on Monday, which, according to police reports, was attended by around 3,500 people.

AfD chairwoman Alice Weidel, referring to the perpetrator identified as Taleb A, said that anyone who despises the citizens of the country that grants them asylum “does not belong with us.” During the event, chants of “Deport! Deport! Deport!” were repeatedly heard.

After all those promises, the fruit of 14 years of Conservative Party rule: Immigration has hit an all-time high

/8 Comments/in , , /by

These latest shocking immigration figures (see the Daily Telegraph report below) and the huge cost burden on Britain’s economy, built up after 14 years of Conservative Party rule.

The pro-Tory Party media assert “It might have been even worse had Labour been in power for the past 14 years”. But that is speculation. The fact is that it built up to current levels under a succession of Conservative Party governments.

Boris Johnson must take especial blame. Apart from not seriously attempting to “get Brexit done” as he promised  — he was so inactive on that front that he actually frustrated “a real Brexit”. He also ignored increasing immigration levels in order to please the Tories’ business backers who wanted, as ever, a constant supply of cheap labour.

Johnson still poses as a right-wing patriot, but in messages to London’s Jewish community in 2008, when standing for the leadership of the Greater London Council, he regaled them with details of his Turkish-Jewish ancestry and his ardent support for Jewry.

The by now traditional Conservative Party policy of betraying the British people over immigration was put into overdrive by Johnson’s successor, Rishi Sunak. He had made himself a billionaire as an executive of the Wall Street-based Jewish international usurers Goldman Sachs and is from an Indian-Hindu immigrant family. How could we expect a man with Sunak’s background to bear down on coloured immigration?

Out of office since last July, the Tories have recently elected an Afro-Nigerian woman, Kemi Badenoch  — also big on anti-immigration promises — to lead them. In my first draft of this article I confused Badenoch with one of her competitors for the Tory leadership, the Asian Suella Braverman.

In a sense, my error made a point: The Conservatives are now so politically bankrupt and devoid of talent that in their recent leadership election they presented the membership with a choice between:

  • A Nigerian-African woman (Badenoch) whose husband is a Western Isles Scot;
  • An Asian woman (Braverman) whose husband, Rael Braverman, is a Jew. In a 2023 interview given in the HQ of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST), Suella described her husband as “a proud Jew and Zionist”.
  • An apparently ethnically-British man, Robert Jenrick, who married an Israeli Jewess and whose children are being brought up as Jews. (This compares exactly with Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s marital arrangements); and
  • Tom Tugendhat, whose self-description is quoted in the left-leaning Wikipedia: “… a Catholic who identifies with Jewish people”. “Identifies”? What does that mean, exactly? His paternal grandfather was an Austrian Jewish émigré from Vienna, who converted to Catholicism — by no means the first Jew to do that, a fact which prompted the Roman Catholic Church in medieval times to create ‘The Holy Inquisition’, but I digress…

What a bunch!

This array of candidates perhaps explains a fact revealed in The Guardian’s 2nd November report of the Tory leadership election:

The contest revealed Conservative party membership appears to have fallen by almost a quarter over the past two years with the 95,000 people who voted in this year’s contest a record low.

The Tories have lied about immigration since 1950s

The Conservatives have been lying to the indigenous British people about “restricting” immigration since the days of the last Winston Churchill-led administration in the 1950s. By deploying a mixture of intimidation and bribery, that last Churchill government frustrated an effort by Sir Cyril Osborne MP to get the issue of coloured immigration debated in the House of Commons.

For full details of how they did that, see the last chapter of historian Andrew Roberts’ 1994 book Eminent Churchillians. The chapter includes the memorable sentence:

… and so the greatest demographic change in the entire history of the British nation was achieved without any democratic ratification whatever …

I should add that Roberts — now ‘Lord’ Roberts — now wishes he had never written that book, as he has become a professional Jews’ lick-spittle and Tory Party toady.

Decades ago Roberts was ‘right wing’ enough to entertain Ian Smith, then Prime Minister of Rhodesia, to dinners at his posh Chelsea home on occasions when Smith was in London to negotiate with the British government over Rhodesia’s “Unilateral Declaration of Independence”. Smith’s government had declared its ‘UDI’ in order to escape the catastrophe of Black majority rule inflicted on South Africa.

Roberts has appeared at the Hoover Institution with like-minded other holders of the ‘Order of the Brown Nose’ such as British historian Niall Ferguson, whose internationalist credentials include a Black/Asian wife.

Lord Andrew Roberts

Niall Ferguson

From the end of World War II neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party has ever put into any of their general election manifestos a policy of turning Britain into a multi-racial society. So the British electorate has never been allowed to grant or deny a mandate for such a development. Thus the multi-racial horror that has been imposed on us has no democratic legitimacy. Moreover, laws were enacted to try and prohibit and criminalise trenchant criticism of multi-racialism.

What is democratic about any of that?

Allison Pearson and the ‘Knock-on-the-Door’

It is as a result of the attempt to criminalise “Racist Thought Crime” initiated by the Race Relations Act that the Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson got a ‘Knock on the Door’ from two members of Essex Police last Remembrance Sunday asking her to accompany them to the local Police Station.

The cops wanted her to make a statement concerning a Tweet she had posted a year ago on X which might have been a “Non-Crime Hate Incident”, or might even have been a full-blown act “… intended or likely to incite racial hatred, contrary to the Public Order Act as amended by the Race Relations Act…” — an ‘offence’ for which I was convicted on two counts and sentenced to six months in jail (suspended) by Mr Justice Figgis at Kingston Crown Court in 1978.

In her voluminous, self-congratulatory, writings about the incident, Ms Pearson does not indicate she has any awareness that the ‘Knock on the Door’ to which she was subjected was the inevitable (indeed, the “intended”) outcome of the thinking behind The Race Relations Act; or any idea that the Race Relations Act was:

  • a proposal circulated as a booklet during the 1950s under the title The Group Libel Bill by the Board of Deputies of British Jews; and then
  • developed by a team of Jewish lawyers into the first version of The Race Relations Act; and that
  • all subsequent amendments to that Act have all been drafted by Jewish lawyers with connections to the Board of Deputies.

Why, you may ask, are all these Jewish-connected matters so relevant to Ms Pearson?

This apparent ignorance of, or shyness about, the Jewish origins of the ‘Police State’ oppression about which Ms Pearson so rightly complains, is strange bearing in mind her close association with the Jewish community, as this item reveals:

National Jewish Assembly – Thursday 7th November 2024:

Allison Pearson tells National Jewish Assembly that the Jewish community is not alone

200 people attended a Zoom event organised by the National Jewish Assembly (NJA) on the subject of the October Declaration and the formation, last month, of British Friends of Israel. The guest speaker was Allison Pearson, the well-known Daily Telegraph journalist who was one of its founders.

…[snip]…

When on 20th April 1968 Enoch Powell MP spoke up for the British people about immigration, the then Conservative leader Edward Heath sacked him from all his party posts and set about trying to get him de-selected from his Wolverhampton constituency. Eventually, Powell had to decamp to Northern Ireland to secure a Unionist-voting constituency to retain a place in the House of Commons.

Yet in the 1970 general election, when Heath became Prime Minister, the Conservative Party’s manifesto included six categorical promises to restrict immigration and regulate the settlement of those allowed to enter. Among these were that immigrants “would not automatically be granted permanent right of settlement” and would not be allowed to settle in places already over-burdened with immigrants.

Not the slightest attempt was made to implement any of those six promises — but then Heath was a notorious liar. How can we forget his assertion that “Membership of the European Common Market does not involve Britain in any loss of essential national sovereignty”! What is “non-essential national sovereignty”?

I should add that Powell helped me in May 1973 when I stood as the National Front candidate in a by-election for the West Bromwich constituency, achieving 16.02 per cent of the poll — the first time, before or after World War II, that a racial-nationalist candidate ‘saved a deposit’ in a UK Parliamentary election, which was then set at 12.5 per cent (nowadays it’s 5 per cent). Powell publicly refused an invitation to speak at a meeting held in support of the Conservative Party candidate who, like me, was beaten by the Labour Party candidate.

Thatcher’s “sympathy” for those who feared Britain was being “swamped”

In the run-up to the 1979 general election the Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher MP declared on TV how much she “sympathised with those who feared that Britain was being swamped by immigration”, thereby implying that if elected, she would take action to allay those fears. It was by that trick that she drew to the Conservative Party votes which might otherwise have gone to the National Front which had 303 candidates standing in that election.

Only seven weeks after the Conservatives’ election victory Mrs Thatcher allowed thousands of Vietnamese “refugees” to flood into Britain. So the first of the “boat people” arrived on Britain’s shores in 1979, not decades later, as many people imagine.

Thatcher justified this betrayal on the grounds that the Vietnamese were “entrepreneurs”. She was a one for cupboards full of cash!

On arrival, many of these Vietnamese did indeed turn to money-making enterprises: most notably — as numerous court reports bear witness — the factory-scale production of illegal drugs such as cannabis. They accelerated the growth of cannabis plants by using powerful lighting systems illegally linked to other peoples’ electric power supply! Very “entrepreneurial”!

Thatcher’s betrayal was perpetrated on the advice of civil servant Neville Nagler, head the Home Office department which advised the government on race relations matters. On his retirement Nagler became the CEO of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

The British people must never again trust the Conservative Party on the issue of immigration. This is not a plea to support the Labour Party or the Liberal-Democratic Party. Far from it. All of these Establishment parties have conspired together, along with the mainstream media, international big business and sundry Socialist, Communist and Trotskyite parties, to convert our country into a multi-racial dump.

This is being done to Britain and other White-European nations not just to give international big business termite-style raceless, nationless cultureless colonies to exploit, but to achieve by means of race-mixing and miscegenation the elimination of White-European people as an ethnic group on this planet.

The big secret behind all this is that there is another ethnic group which sees itself as the rightful — indeed, the God-appointed “Chosen People” — to rule the world. They see White-European people as a threat to their destiny. Race-mixing — for all others, but not for themselves! — is their weapon of their choice.

A new and radical approach to reversing the treason and subversion that has been foisted on the indigenous British people — and White people generally — must be commenced, and very soon.

The questions arise: Does a vehicle exist to achieve that purpose?

If not, how can it be constructed? What methods should it employ?

=======================================================================================================

Daily Telegraph – Friday 29th November 2024

Net migration hit record high of almost one million last year
Spending on asylum also reached a record £5.38 billion – up 36 per cent

by Charles Hymas, Home Affairs Editor

Net migration hit a record high of nearly one million last year, 170,000 more than previously thought, updated estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) have revealed.

Net migration – the number of people entering the UK minus those leaving – reached 906,000 in the year ending June 2023, according to the ONS, which has revised the figure up from a previous estimate of 740,000.

However, the data show net migration is falling and is down by 20 per cent to 728,000 for the year ending June 2024, the most recent figures show.

The decline covers the year before the election when the Tories cracked down on migration, with measures including bans on foreign workers and students bringing dependents, increases in the skilled worker salary threshold from £26,200 to £38,700 and curbing shortage occupation visa schemes.

The ONS said the total for the year to June 2023 had been revised upwards by 166,000 from the initial estimate of 740,000 because of more data becoming available.

It reported that better analysis of the number of refugees from Ukraine and improved information on the migration behaviour of people arriving from outside the EU had also impacted estimates.

‘Beginning to fall’

A similar change has been made by the Office of National Statistics to the figure for net migration in the year to December 2023, which was initially said to be 685,000, but is now thought to be 866,000 – an increase of 181,000.

The ONS said that while remaining high by “historic standards”, net migration is now “beginning to fall” in the wake of the measures introduced at the beginning of this year.

Non-EU nationals accounted for 86 per cent – just over 1 million – of the 1.2 million people who entered the country in the year to June 2024. EU nationals made up 10 per cent or 116,000, and returning Britons accounted for 5 per cent.

Of the 479,000 people who left the UK in the year ending June 2024, around 44 per cent – 211,000 – were EU nationals and 39 per cent or 189,000 were from non-EU countries. Some 16 per cent, or 79,000 were Britons.

Meanwhile, separate Home Office figures showed government spending on asylum in the UK stood at a record £5.38 billion in 2023/24, up 36 per cent from £3.95 billion in 2022/23.

Braverman: We need radical change

Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, said:

“A 20 per cent drop in immigration since June 2023 is a result of the changes I fought for and introduced in May 2023 as home secretary.

“That’s when we started to turn the tide. But 1.2 million arrivals a year is still too high. This is unsustainable and why we need radical change.”

Alp Mehmet, the chairman of MigrationWatch UK, said:

“Net migration of 728,000, while lower than it was in 2023, is still far too high and unsustainable. Moreover, the modest fall has little to do with anything that Sir Keir Starmer and his Home Secretary have done.

“It is now essential that net migration is quickly reduced as close as possible to zero, if we are to avoid further tensions in the housing sector, the NHS and other services already in crisis.

“Meanwhile, the changing nature of society that inevitably follows rapid mass immigration will put the cohesion we have long enjoyed at ever greater risk.”

Martin Webster is a long-time British patriot and activist who aims to preserve the traditional White British people.

Abolishing Albion: How True Democracy Mandates a Flood of Mud for Britain

/9 Comments/in , , /by

Albion is a poetic name for Britain. I think it sounds better on the tongue and sits better in the mind. Why does it sit better? Because it’s related to the Latin word albus, meaning “white,” and refers to the White Cliffs of Dover. Albion therefore means the White Land. And you can read that in two senses: as referring both to the White Cliffs that guard Britain and to the White folk who built Britain.

Entrance to Albion: The White Cliffs of Dover (image from Wikipedia)

So the name Albion is poetically perfect. It sonorously proclaims that Britain is either White or nothing. The corrupt and malevolent elite that currently rules Britain have opted for the latter. They want Britain to be nothing, which is why they have unleashed a flood of mud on Albion. Mud is brown or black, not white. Mud clogs and chokes, smothering life and wrecking machinery. That’s why “flood of mud” is a perfect metaphor for the Brown and Black folk who are pouring across Britain’s borders and abolishing Albion. If the flood isn’t stopped and reversed, Britain will become Mudzone, not Albion. And the same will apply across the West. America and France, Germany and Italy, will become crime-and-corruption-crippled Mudzones, not peaceful, prosperous and productive White nations.

Working for Mudzone

But why is this happening? Like Albion, all the other countries I’ve mentioned are supposed to be democracies governed by the will of the people. Decade after decade, the people have willed that Third-World immigration end and even be reversed. But the politicians who are supposed to enact the will of the people have ignored them and the flood of mud has not merely continued but massively increased. One of those politicians has openly boasted of his betrayal. In 2013, Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, asked this question in the Guardian: “Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants?”

His answer was an emphatic “No.” What “most of the country” wanted, traitorous politicians like Hattersley refused to supply. As he boasted in a later article: “For most of my 33 years in [parliament], I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

“Above all people on earth”

By mainstream standards, Hattersley was a staunch democrat in the Labour Party. Yet he spent all his time in politics ignoring the will of the people and attacking the interests of the working-class. However, his behavior wasn’t as Orwellian as it might appear. Yes, the Labour Party is now really the Big-Business Party, but Hattersley is in fact a genuine democrat, someone who believes wholeheartedly in the kratia of the demos, the rule of the people. It’s just that the people in question aren’t the White natives of Britain. No, they’re the people described in this famous verse of the Bible:

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)

The Chosen People are of course the Jews. It is not a coincidence that Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife just like Keir Starmer, the current Labour prime minister. In Greek, “chosen people” can be translated as ἐκλεκτός δῆμος, elektos dēmos. In the modern West, democracy is really eclectocracy, rule of the Chosen People. That’s why the so-called Conservative Party in Britain promised voters again and again to reduce migration, but raised migration to unprecedented heights. And so Rajeev Syal, the so-called “home affairs editor” of the Guardian, has just reported that “Net migration to the UK hit a record high in 2023 of 906,000 in a period covering Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s premierships, revised estimates show.”

Meet Grandfather Sholem

The part-Jewish Boris Johnson and the fully Indian Rishi Sunak were eclectocrats, not democrats. They enacted the will of the Chosen People, not the will of the people. And if you want to know the will of the Chosen People, just read a fascinating article in the Jewish Chronicle from January 2020. The title of the article was “Jewniversity: Sarah Fine” and the subheading ran like this: “Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity.” Can you guess Sarah Fine’s line on “national identity”? Of course you can. She wants to destroy the national identity of Britain and turn Albion into a Mudzone. As you read David Edmonds’ summary of her ideas, remember that the Talmudic re-definition and inversion are meant strictly for Britain and other White nations. They emphatically do not apply to Jewish Israel:

I usually ask the subjects of this column — “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response. But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.

Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved [to this] country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?

To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely? Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.

On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.

But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?

But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.

Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.

Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?

Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.

She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (“Jewniversity: Sarah Fine,” The Jewish Chronicle, 2nd January 2020)

The Israeli Likud party boasts about excluding strangers with the “Israel-Egypt Fence” (note that Hebrew adverts are read from right to left)

Ah yes, that famous xenophilia from the Jewish Bible or Torah, which Jews so often trot out to explain their enthusiasm for open borders. But this enthusiasm is strangely selective. As I described in “Trashing the Torah,” it doesn’t exist in Israel, which rigorously excludes “the stranger” with high-tech fences. And Israel is currently oppressing millions of “strangers” in Gaza with high explosive and high-velocity bullets. Consider some hypothetical goyim who want to move to Israel. Is protecting the Israeli way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Iqbal’s and grandfather Mbongo’s desire to move there?

Israel showing compassion for the stranger: bomb-devastation in Gaza City, 2023 (image from Wikipedia)

Of course it does! The non-White migration that’s mandatory for Britain is forbidden in Israel. But that apparent double standard is really a single standard of “What’s best for Jews?” Sarah Fine is “culturally Jewish” but retains the arrogance and ethnocentrism of the religiously Jewish idea that Jews are the Chosen People, “above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” The Jew David Edmonds obviously shares her arrogance and ethnocentrism. In summarizing Fine’s work, he talks about “democracy” and the right of the demos in Britain to control migration.

He then asks us to consider a hypothetical Jew in Eastern Europe: “[I]s it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.” Well, yes, by any sane and natural standard, it is obvious that “the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored.” As his very name proclaims, he isn’t British. He’s a foreigner, born and bred in a foreign country, speaking a foreign language and following a foreign religion and culture. The voice of “grandfather Sholem” has absolutely no right to be heard in Britain. Not by any sane and natural standard. Sholem’s interests are not the same as a native Brit, as is obvious from reading Fine and Edmonds.

Jews judge, goyim grovel

But the Jews Sarah Fine and David Edmonds aren’t applying sane and natural standards. They don’t merely want the voice of grandfather Sholem to be “heard” in Britain. They want it to prevail over the voices of the White British. As Edmonds asks: “[I]s protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?” His answer for Britain is no, it doesn’t: if grandfather Sholem wants to move here, he must be allowed to do so. In other words, the White British have no right to exclude anyone from anywhere on earth from entering Britain.

Keir Starmer performs the goy-grovel at Labour Friends of Israel (image from LFI)

All that matters is a stranger’s “desire to move here.” Whether it’s grandfather Sholem or grandfather Iqbal or grandfather Mbongo, the White British have no right to keep anyone out. That’s what Jews think. And because Jews control politics in Britain, that’s why Albion is being flooded with mud. The current Labour prime minister, Keir Starmer, is married to a Jew. His party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. The current Conservative leader is Kemi Badenoch, a Nigerian who performed the goy-grovel at Yad Vashem, the central shrine of Holocaustianity. Like Starmer’s Labour, her party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. In the modern West, democracy means eclectocracy, rule by the Chosen People.

The Peasants’ Revolt 2.0

/6 Comments/in , /by

On June 1, 1381, thousands of English rural laborers descended on the capital of London, the first martial event in what would come to be known as the Peasants Revolt. Over 650 years later, a somewhat less bloody rebellion showed itself in the same city, these latter-day peasants facing similar fiscal provocation to their 14th-century forerunners. Tens of thousands of small farmers descended on London to protest the latest in a series of government policies seemingly designed to destroy the farming industry in Britain, at least in its current form.

The rally was at Westminster, home of government, mother of all parliaments. It was snowing, which would have depleted attendance had this been a pro-Palestine march, but these people are farmers. Being outside in bad weather is what they do. Their plight has attracted a well-known celebrity to their cause — a modern sine qua non for the protesting classes — in Jeremy Clarkson, for many years the presenter of a hugely popular TV motoring show, Top Gear. Clarkson himself bought a farm, and although he acknowledges his relative financial independence compared with the average farmer, he is popular, articulate and conservative. There is a very English rebellion afoot.

As with the Peasants Revolt, the farmers are rebelling over taxation. But whereas Richard II was trying to raise money to fight France, Sir Keir Starmer wishes to wage war on his own people, the people he was elected to serve less than five months ago (albeit it with only 20% of the electorate voting for his party). The PM’s method of raising the royal revenue is much the same as Richard’s but, not having any serfs to subjugate, he is sending his tax-gatherers after the small farmer. Well, at least he will avoid the Hitler comparisons that bedevil President-elect Donald Trump. Even Hitler looked after the small farmer.

In its recent budget, the government announced that a 20 percent inheritance tax would be levied on all UK farm property worth over £1m, as of April 1, 2026. Those incurring the tax would have a decade to pay it off. Now, a million is chump change in most sectors of the UK property market, but in terms of farm land it will hit two-thirds of the total of the roughly 209,000 British farms, and it won’t be the quaint old farmhouse that pushes up the value of the property. The average UK farm is worth a little over £2m, and farm land is a treasure trove to property developers, who are financially equipped to market aggressively. Farms which have been in families for generations will now be left financially underwater, and therefore easy and rich pickings for hawkish developers.

A case can be made that farming hasn’t changed essentially since British land workers operated under the feudal system at the time of the Peasants Revolt. But while the methods of this primary, extractive industry have remained largely unchanged, the land farmed has not. “Buy land”, suggested Mark Twain. “They’ve stopped making it”. Indeed, but they haven’t stopped ascribing value to it, value which may and does change over time. To a farmer, a hundred acres is his equivalent of the fixed plant of a factory. He grows crops on the land and he sells what the cattle don’t eat. That’s farming, it’s what the land is for. But for the property consortiums even now roaming the length and breadth of the land, assessing and auditing and circling round farmsteads like vultures, a hundred acres is a big block of flats and a supermarket.

Farm land in the UK has proved a good, stable investment in the past 20 years. In 2004, it was worth £3,000 per acre, rising to £7,000 in 2014 to £9-10,000 today. But that is its value as farm land. Business consortiums will have long been planning a land-grab of British farms, with the full backing of government, and they will be in a financial position to operate outside market parameters and make a lot of farmers an offer they can’t refuse. This is a government-assisted buyers’ market for the new land barons as they buy out what remains of the old ones.

In fact, this whole legislative instrument is designed to impact farmers’ finances negatively. Supposing 10% of small farmers decide to sell up in the wake of the new tax, a scenario quite possible and even probable. Not only does the value of farm land drop concomitantly in a saturated market, but even the price of plant and other chattel assets would drop, as one in ten small British farmers all try to sell their tractors at once. A tractor costs around a quarter of a million pounds, a combine-harvester half a million. This is not selling off the office furniture in a fire sale.

It should not be suggested, however, that the current British government has no money available to invest in farming, or that it is failing to invest that money. Why, it has just signed off £536m as an aid package to help farmers grow food for consumption in the UK. It’s just that the farms happen to be in Africa, Asia, and South America, including recipients in Brazil, the world’s eleventh richest country. Some of the money is said to be going towards “carbon capture” farming, so the dispossessed, last generation of farmers in the UK have got that going for them.

The satirical image the British have of farmers is rooted in a past of class war, when the landed gentry had money. But the upper-middle class, gentleman farmer, in his new Range Rover and expensive Barbour jacket, doesn’t really exist outside of situation comedy. Farming is as tough and visceral as it ever was, and as for wealth creation, that is not what farming seems to most UK farmers. It is estimated that small farms make 1–2% of their value annually as profit, and the average farmer earns a shade under £40,000, around £5,000 more than the national average.  Given the variables factored into farming, that is not much of a slush fund should one become necessary. Nor is it much of a financial reward, despite the vestigial, reflex class response of the metropolitan Leftist elite who run contemporary British politics and its provisional wing in the media.

The Left are acting as contrarily as ever over the farmers’ plight. Where once the media and the Party would have got behind the working man as a default position, the temperament of the Labour Left has changed in recent decades, led as this revolution was by the Blair government. Farmers now are subsumed under the category “white working class”, and so despised on two fronts by Labour. They are also an easy target as they represent White industrial secession. You just don’t get Black or Muslim farmers, so there is no problem with the ethnics as far as Labour and their acolytes are concerned. If there were Black or Muslim tillers of the soil in significant numbers, farming would be the best protected, most lavishly funded industry in Great Britain.

This synchronizes, as ever, with the response of the media complex. Ex-Labour spin-doctor John McTernan, a man who made a living under Tony Blair altering and manipulating facts and figures to make them fit for consumption by the public, gives a flavor of the metropolitan attitude to the plight of the farmers. He suggested Starmer do to the farmers what Thatcher did to the miners (Starmer disowned him, but that means nothing). That is, in the popular mind, decimate the industry and force men out of the pit, perhaps getting your enforcers to rough them up a bit while you’re there. He suggests that farming is an industry we can do without, but that’s not what he means. He means it’s an industry in the wrong hands.

Whose hands would be the right ones, for our globalist overlords? Veteran maverick politician George Galloway was one of many emphatically not on the political Right to suggest that the UK is due to be sold off to BlackRock, Bill Gates, and other financial super-predators. Gates has bought up a lot of American land, and allegedly has land here in Costa Rica. As Kissinger said, control the food, control the people. And if Britain really is on the market, then the British Left thoroughly approve.

Veteran Left-wing journalist Will Hutton, writing inevitably in The Guardian, does not see farmers as the stewards of the countryside they so clearly are, but is of the opinion that they “have hoarded land for too long”, as though small farmers were sick old misers gloating over a casket of jewels. In fact, farmers are fighting so that they can pass on the land, and its stewardship, to a new generation — the very opposite of miserliness. There is more than a whiff of revenge for the Brexit vote from the Left, as farmers are widely perceived to have typically voted to leave the EU.

This attack on farmers also dovetails neatly with a wider assault on the British countryside. For the past few years, regular pieces have appeared in the mainstream press claiming that “the countryside is racist”. A new piece of spurious research will show that Blacks and Muslims are under-represented o’er hill and dale, the courtier press will dutifully report it, and debates will creak into action on chat shows once again. It’s the familiar, gormless, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy it always is, they even have their own warped syllogism:

  • A sector of society without a sufficient number of Black people is therefore racist.
  • The countryside does not feature a sufficient number of Black people.
  • Therefore, the countryside is racist.

I discount the fact that, for the vast majority of White folk enjoying the countryside, the absence of Blacks is a much-desired feature, not a glitch. The “racist countryside” trope reveals two key aspects, two ascriptions, which feature in all these faux-exclusionist charades. Firstly, Whites are always and already guilty of this bucolic apartheid. Secondly, the absence of Blacks in the countryside can only be because of racism, and not due to the moral agency, or decision-making abilities, of Blacks. Liberals do not believe in such things. In the parched and perverted landscape of the Leftist mindset, that is the sole reason there are almost no Black farmers. It is not that Blacks are culturally unsuited to farming due to their hunter-gatherer genetic predisposition, or even that they choose not to pursue that career path. It is because Britain is irredeemably racist. It is irredeemably racist, as a matter of fact, just not in the way the Leftist believes. Anti-Whiteness is at the core of the Labour strategy to defarm Britain.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, is, we are constantly reminded, the first woman to hold the post. She is also alleged to have falsified her CV to get on in her chosen career, claiming that she was an economist for a major bank during a period when she was actually a teller for a lesser banking concern. This kind if deception is, it seems, an entry-level requirement for today’s political class. On the subject of inheritance tax and farms, however, she treated the viewing public to a rare and candid event. This took the form of an explanation, on camera, by a British Chancellor, of exactly why a new tax is being levied, and what will happen to the tax weal generated. The money raised from the farmers, Reeves said, as though explaining arithmetic to the problem child in a fourth-grade class, will be used to help pay for the NHS. The implication here is that farmers should be grateful for “free” healthcare, and should be made to pay for it, despite the fact that everyone already pours income tax into this fiscal black hole, farmers included.

Calculators flickered across the internet, and it was soon established that the likely revenue from inheritance tax on farms, expressed annually, would pay for 25 hours of NHS provision. The farming industry is dealt a blow that might finish it, but at least we get a day’s worth of paying diversity officers.

And what would be the ultimate fate of the land? Is it simply required for housing, with some estimating that the country needs to build a house every two minutes just to keep pace with rising demand? What else could it be used for? There are rumors. In fact, the political scene in the UK at present is positively Elizabethan — the first Elizabeth, not her recently departed successor — and the court, as they say, is awash with rumor. And the loudest whisper is that of “new towns”. These were first tried in the 1960s and 70s as a way of rationalizing the overspill from the cities, a never-expanding suburbia that was packaged rather than allowed to sprawl. But these new towns were for the White, indigenous citizens of the UK — that was an unspoken guarantee. This was long before the present day, in which everything down to and including urban planning is geared to operate in opposition to the wants and needs of native Whites. If one rumor in particular is anywhere near the truth, that farm land is required for building new estates for immigrants, then the UK’s cold civil war may be about to turn hot.

This Labour Party is governing like it’s the 1970s. They don’t grasp that if the government makes announcements that are gross distortions of reality, it no longer takes a couple of intrepid gumshoe reporters burning the midnight oil to expose it six months later. The real facts and figures will be all over YouTube by noon, and this is the main reason Labour is going after big tech. Thus, when Reeves dismissed the inheritance tax as affecting only about 500 farms — and implying that these would be the richest holdings — it didn’t take long before the actual figures of farms affected was going viral. The truth is that roughly two-thirds of Britain’s farms will be crippled by this new tax, brought in just when arable food supply chains have been so adversely affected by the Russian incursion into Ukraine. Does Starmer think he can get away with this, considering he has already risked the nation’s ire by removing winter heating payments from the elderly? Yes, he does, and for a simple reason.

This has all the makings of a one-term administration. The question is simple; is it intended that way as just another globalist chess move? Tory politician Rab Butler famously said that a week is a long time in politics, but in four years and with a comfortable bilateral mandate, Labour can achieve a great deal more ruinous policy before the next general election, which might be a perfect one to lose, particularly for Starmer. The Labour Party can be real wreckers, not the ones invented by Stalin. Then they can all just walk away and write their memoirs.

Sir Keir Starmer has been compared to Stalin for reasons other than the mere similarity of their names. “Stalin” means “man of steel”, but it is difficult to see just which alloy Starmer is formed of. On the level of personality, the British PM’s lack of any discernible charisma whatsoever is fascinating in itself. There is something subtly sinister about a man who, when asked what his favorite book or poem was, looks surprised at the question and says he has neither. He answers questions as though quoting from old NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) text-books. This is Tourette’s Syndrome as government policy.

But the British farmers are not kulaks, at least not yet, and the Peasant’s Revolt 2.0 involves polling rather than pitchforks. The popularity of both the Labour Party in power and Sir Keir Starmer personally have plummeted to record depths. On November 23, a petition was started on the official UK Government website asking for a second General Election. These petitions are theoretically considered for debate in the House of Commons if they reach 100,000 signatories, although this rarely if ever happens. It is a sort of virtual democracy, like a video game rather than the real thing, there but not there, like an online Speaker’s Corner where you can get it all off your chest but affect nothing. 24 hours later, the number of signatures approached a million, and after 48 hours it had passed the two million mark and is still rising at the time of writing. This may not be the men of Kent storming the City of London in 1381 and putting heads on pikes, but these exercises are a good litmus test of national sentiment, and if the polls and the punditry continue to pile up against Starmer and his fragile-looking government, they may wake up to find, once again, that the peasants are revolting.