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?

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

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

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

Gasping with Goldsmith

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

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

The hidden hand of Jews

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish generals in the War on Whites

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

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

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

Margaret Hodge grins at the goyim in Labour Friends of Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good ones don’t outweigh the bad

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

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

The rule of Jews

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

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