Barmy Starmy hates his own people
Anglophobia and the Ruling Class
The Starmer government is at war with Englishness.
So is the entire British ruling class.
The entire modern Labour Party, our current ruling caste of weird Marxist Globalist lunatics, is an Anglophobic enterprise
History, the tired cliche asserts, is written by the winners.
That has been the exact opposite of the truth in the modern world. In the ancient world or the pre industrial world, it may well have been true. The conquering Normans certainly defined the standard interpretations of their victory through accounts such as that of William of Poitiers or through propaganda delivering cultural artefacts like The Bayeux Tapestry. In that, probably completed around 1080 some 14 years after the decisive Battle of Hastings, we see perhaps one of the most literal but non-manuscript examples of history being written by the winners one could think of.
“The actual physical work of stitching was most probably undertaken by women needleworkers. Anglo-Saxon needlework of the more detailed type known as Opus Anglicanum was famous across Europe.”
In everything except castle building, use of armoured cavalry troops and rapaciously organised taxation, Anglo-Saxon England was far more developed and advanced than Normandy. Anglo-Saxon manuscripts and monastic scholarship were as widely famed as its tapestry and gold work, whilst the whole reason it was coveted by Continental rivals (both Scandinavian kingdoms and a Norman Duke) was because England was a relatively stable, prosperous, and flourishing Kingdom. The reason William wanted England was the same reason he had to draw in mercenaries from across Europe to bolster his own forces (particular Breton allies)-Normandy was the poor backwater, and England the richer prize.
The women of the defeated Saxons (the pre Conquest English) stitched and sewed an entirely Norman reading of their own peoples defeat. Imagine if George Washington had ultimately lost to General Cornwallis, and then his wife Martha Washington and her children had been made to create a 231 foot long quilt decorated with images of Washington’s demise in battle.
In that world, history really was the narrative imposed by the Conqueror. But one of the great inversions of the modern world is that this idea, that the history we receive is ordinarily guided by those who have recently known the greatest success, has long been a false one. The modern western world has in fact been dominated by the narratives of the historical losers, perhaps for centuries now. Those who were defeated in the last 400 years are those who supply the primary texts, narratives and attitudes that shape modern understanding, especially in nations ‘blessed’ with Globalist leaders and progressive historical revisionism.
Take any contentious historical event, any western history with a seemingly clear set of winners and losers, and we will find that the mainstream modern understanding of it is the one held by the losers at the time of that controversy, and not the interpretation that the winners would have held of it. The Scottish Highland Clearances for example. The winners at the time viewed these clearances as the inevitable march of progress. Backwards, non productive, inefficient land use that provided less industry, profit and value was giving way to much more effective and profitable land use. Lowland Scots were leading a necessary modernisation that Highland Scots were too hidebound, too ignorant and too uneducated and unsophisticated to lead themselves.
But the understanding of the Highland Clearances in the modern world is entirely that of the losing side. The Highland Scots are romanticised and heroic victims. These were innocent and noble people forced from their own land. They were the victims of oppression. Specifically, of English oppression. Films like Rob Roy (and of course the earlier texts and legends on which it is based) are very clearly on the side of the historical losers. Series like Outlander batter home the same narrative. The Highland Clearances become a very simplistic take of English rapaciousness, avarice and evil and of the heroic nature of anyone and everyone who resisted the English. English evil. Scots good. The fact that the process was as much about internal Scottish Highland and Lowland divisions or the complicated ties between Scottish and English nobility are entirely forgotten. Whenever Hollywood gets involved in any Anglo-Celtic history, whether in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, you can be sure that the reading given is the narrative of the losers, and a heavily edited and manipulated version even of that.
The classic example, even more consistently engineered to stir old Celtic resentments and cast ALL English success in history as a kind of Rape of the World than Tim Roth’s character in Rob Roy does, is Mel Gibson’s trilogy of Anglophobic movies, Gallipoli, Braveheart and The Patriot. Born in New York and raised in Australia from Catholic Irish-American stock, Gibson was apparently raised on a diet of prejudice and loathing of the English (which presents an interesting contrast with Donald Trump’s much more Anglophile Scottish Protestant ancestry). Gibson was filming anti English narratives long before he was drunkenly offering anti Jewish ones. Gallipoli tells us that Australian World War One losses were basically solely caused by effete, useless and incompetent English officers, contrasting plain speaking Aussie machismo and courage with ‘Pommy’ snobbery and ineptitude. Braveheart presents the Norman inherited ruthlessness of an early medieval monarch like Edward I as again an English trait of militarised greed, rushing swiftly over historical realities like Scottish raids on England, Robert the Bruce being as much an Essex Boy as a Scot, and Edward I’s overlordship of Scotland being a feudal status offered to him by Scottish lords unable to resolve their own internecine squabbles. The Patriot provides us with the most disgusting and blatant anti English prejudice in the entire ouevre, particularly by depicting a real Nazi atrocity from 1944 as an English crime of the American Revolutionary War.
Taking a Nazi crime of burning people alive in a church having sealed the doors as an English crime from two centuries earlier, when no such event actually occurred, represents a sickening level of prejudice, but one which the vast majority of people, including the English, saw no problem with. Braveheart and The Patriot were enjoyed by US audiences of English descent, and by English cinema goers too, as their only film medium experience of this ‘history’. Being generally either ignorant of the real history altogether, or having only experienced similarly prejudiced material in leftist and progressive classroom texts and discussions, the modern audience could sit through their own ancestors being traduced and their own ethnicity and nation (or original Mother Country) being demonised and slandered without even realising that such criticism was unjust, that such criticism was historically inaccurate, and that such criticism builds modern Anglophobic racism in the real world too.
Many of those enjoying these movies were incapable of understanding that they, down to their very DNA, were the targets of this prejudice.
It’s true of course that there has been a general world shift towards anti white racism, based both on real historical grievances and many more invented or exaggerated ones. To some extent all white people have been affected by this. It’s been estimated that there are 500,000 racist assaults or incidents aimed at white people a year in the US. Critical Race Theory and associated woke attitudes have normalised and justified the most obvious forms of hatred and prejudice, provided that these are aimed at white people or people of white European descent. The western world has become an odd creation where places with a 80, 90 or 95% white population seriously teach that this majority is over represented if it constitutes more than 30 or 50% of a workforce. It has become a place where this majority has a legally inferior status but is still accused of oppressing others and structuring society, in a conspiratorial fashion, to its own advantage.
More seriously, if anyone ever objects to racism against white people, they are told and taught that such a thing is impossible by those being racist towards white people at that specific moment. It is rather like applying electrodes to someone’s genitals whilst informing them that they have the privilege of never being tortured. There can be few more racist positions than to believe one race is responsible for all the evils of the world, one race invented conquest and oppression, one race and only one race has ever harmed others, one race is by nature incapable of being anything other than a vicious exploiter and oppressor and one race bears an ineradicable ancestral guilt that can never be expunged while that same one race can never, ever, be the victim or the one who is oppressed.
Yet this has been the settled assumption of race legislation, university education, and the ruling classes of our western societies since the 1960s, with these prejudices manifested through affirmative action, through demands for ‘representation’ in advertising, through how drama, film and television portrays white people, and through how Marxist professors teach ‘history’ to generations of students.
This pervasive, casual, deliberate hypocrisy on racism became the legislative program and standard world view of the parties of the Left, and became too a whole industry of graft, corruption and divisive malice that almost nobody on the Right had the courage to seriously challenge. Part of the impact of the push back against DEI and the work of DOGE in exposing through auditing the amount of public funds diverted into an army of DEI pushing programmes and organisations is that this represents the first time that any branch of western government, the first time really since the end of World War Two, where some branch of officialdom in the West has dared to act against anti white and anti western majority racism.
And it has been prepared to do so in the face of absurd propaganda efforts to cast opposing this direction of racism as being itself racist. The standard tactic has been to declare that any white resistance to narratives of hate is hateful, or that objecting to being demonised is demonising others, or that pushing back against radical Cultural Marxist ideas on race and identity is itself radical and extreme. Elon Musk is prepared to expose the vast corruption of USAID regardless of whether or not the recipients of the stolen funds and the corrupt actors in the system of fraud screech at him and call him a Nazi. Donald Trump is prepared to do what is necessary to rescue US finances from Globalist Progressive fraud and waste and to do what is necessary to stop the divisive politics on race, gender and identity the Left thrives on, regardless of whether or not they call him names for doing so.
One of the global examples of this comes of course in the support both men have given to South African farmers currently threatened by the racist, white hating and genocidal attitudes of major political parties in South Africa. Previous conservative or Republican figures would not have dared boldly support innocent white farmers and their families in Africa threatened by genocide. The pervasive lack of interest in the murder and expulsion of post colonial white or Christian populations in former colonies has been driven by that pervasive racial hypocrisy which has been the consequence of Marxist and Cultural Marxist dominance of narratives. The West, as well as the worst African leaders, decided that white populations in Africa deserved vile treatment, until Trump and Musk shattered that approach:
While the Boers in Africa certainly face the currently most extreme threat from anti white racism, I return to the origins of this article by this assertion:
Anti white racism exists towards all white populations, but begins in and was founded on hatred of the English. Anglophobia provided the template of the racism that came to gradually encompass hatred of all white people, and the victim narrative that justifies or seems to justify such hypocritical prejudice has been most widely expressed, most vehemently believed, and most pervasively applied to the English and their direct descendants.
For those wanting an excellent short account of Anglophobia I refer you to Harry Richardson’s book Anglophobia: The Unrecognised Hatred. As the title suggests one of the chief points there is just how much the racist nature of anti British commentary remains unremarked upon and unnoticed, and just how little anyone else notices or cares that hatred of the ethnic English is a powerful motivating force for much of Britain’s own domestic politics and even for global culture and foreign relations. In everything from the EU’s peculiar aggression towards Britain, upper class Remain support for the EU or American understanding of the Irish Troubles, Anglophobia has been a powerful distorting force.
When history came to be written by the losers and specifically aimed with bitterness and hatred at the historical winners of past conflicts, the biggest winners to find were the English. Leftists delight in telling us that there is barely a nation on Earth that the English did not, at some point, invade. What they typically don’t tell you as part of that narrative is that these invasions were rarely the rapacious enterprises of pure conquest and exploitation they are now assumed to be. The British Empire was built as much by accident as by design, as has famously been recognised many times before. Anyone looking into it deeply enough is soon surprised by the fact that British governments at the height of their power were quite often resisting expansion. Private individuals like Cecil Rhodes pushed the expansion of Brirish colonial power. Earlier than that the very first people to formulate the idea of a British Empire were courtiers, mystics and advisors-people who might be in a monarch’s court, but not officials actually tasked with State driven plans of conquest.
Elizabethan piratical adventurers like Drake and advisory dreamers like John Dee (who also conversed with angels) were the people who first had an idea of the British Empire. Oddly swashbuckling proto-corporations like the East India Company were the people who delivered the reality of Empire. Merchants clamouring for protection made it a necessity. Foreign leaders attacking Christian missionaries and English traders and the assumed benefits of trade gave it moral arguments to exist. Even factions within most places that became colonies drove the growth of Empire more than any British plan did. The governments of Gladstone and to a lesser extent Disraeli were constantly rebuffing requests and pleas for more British intervention from the colonies and adjacent territories themselves. Even Palmerstone’s gunboat diplomacy was supposed to be reactive rather than a template for invasions.
Nevertheless the historical reality is that Britain did build the largest Empire the world has ever seen. And at the head of that, at the heart of it, was England. This process over centuries meant hundreds of battles, both military and diplomatic, it meant defeating other nations at land, by sea, and eventually in the air too. It meant humiliation for the defeated. But worse….it meant humiliation even for those who WANTED British rule. The descendants of colonial subjects who ASKED for British rule, who fought for British rule, who took on British customs and values and aped British ways, were perhaps the most affected by the writing of history by those who lost. Once the losers defined history, the winners had to be ashamed of themselves. Once later failures and sacrifices made the Empire retreat, every former friend rewrote their role.
As the Empire approached its dying days, the brightest British writers foreshadowed this post-colonial reassignment of guilt, this distancing by those who had once demanded the benefit of British attention. In EM Forster’s A Passage to India, for example, the falsely accused Dr Aziz begins as a keen advocate of British ways, a Muslim wanting to ingratiate himself with the English before becoming their most embittered and passionately cynical critic.
Few Indians today admit how many of their number actually liked British rule, and they certainly don’t boast about any ancestor who helped it. Only the Sikhs and the Nepalese, warrior cultures who respected British military competence, seem culturally honest to this day about how much ‘conquered’ lands included people who felt they were actually benefiting and joining something worthwhile. Similarly the long list of places ‘invaded’ by Britain includes places that were actually LIBERATED by Britain, freed from some OTHER actual oppressor, especially in the late stages of the British Empire, with those humiliated by rescue ending up as bitter as those humiliated by defeat. There’s an astonishing lack of gratitude from Western Europe for example surrounding the undoubted historic fact that the Empire (and English supremacy in world affairs) really ended by sacrificing itself on behalf of others.
Success breeds bitterness, and greatness is always hated by the losers of history.
It doesn’t really matter if the greatness actually was oppressive and evil, or actually was more beneficial and complex than now admitted, the process of winning itself builds envy, loathing, and resentment. Every superpower suffers from this reaction, but compare attitudes towards the Spanish or French and attitudes towards the English. The English get far more abuse for their colonial history than the Spanish do or the French do. The most brutal European colonialism, the European colonialism that DID involve horrific genocide and repeated deliberate horrors, was the Belgian rule of the Congo. Try searching on the internet to groups dedicated to hating Belgians. There aren’t many of those. Just as there aren’t many dedicated to hating the Dutch, the French, the Germans, the Portuguese, or any European colonial power except the British and the English.
There are hundreds if not thousands of sites and accounts and webpages dedicated to hating the British Empire, and these on investigation are always revealed to be really just covers for hating the English. Scots, the brilliant engineers and soldiers of Empire, aren’t blamed for it. The Welsh, again brilliant soldiers, explorers, workers of an industrial base of Empire, aren’t blamed for it, nor are the Northern Irish except by the most IRA friendly sources. Hating the British Empire is code for hating the English, just as hating Israel today is code for hating Jews.
The English, as I have said before, are the only people other than Jews to be subject to race hate theories centred on the idea that they are the secret masters of everything, that they are the manipulators and oppressors of All Others in All Ages.
Look at Truther conspiracy theories on the Five Families who rule everything. They always place the powerless figureheads of the British Royal Family at the top of this secret pyramid of power. It’s the Windsors and the Rockefellers. Look at similar Truther commentary on the banking system, the federal reserve and London’s financial hub status. There are countless online clips and films describing the fiat banking system (which is a corrupt mess, I’ll happily agree) and the kind of vast corruption now being exposed by DOGE (which is a financial conspiracy, I’ll happily agree) as The British Empire 2.0.
Us cunning English bastards plotted to keep ruling the world through secret control of the banking system. We never really lost control of America. We never really stopped malignly exploiting everyone, we just did it from banking houses and from the shadows. It’s exactly the same absurdity aimed at Jews, and I can’t think of any other ethnic group who gets that specific type of claim made against them.
Much of the online Anglophobia derives from post-colonial bitterness (especially Indian and Irish commentators) but we should acknowledge too how much hatred of the English is a distinguishing feature not just of defeated former opponents, but internally. In The Lion and the Unicorn George Orwell (who hated the Empire, but was passionately patriotic) noted that the British intellectual delighted in despising his own people. The empathy for others that is in Forster’s work 17 years earlier had become more of a loathing for your own people, with that loathing marking the holder out as sophisticated, educated, and enlightened.
Really the entire trajectory of the British post colonial story, interrupted solely by a brief Thatcherite reversal, is one in which this self-loathing fetish of a small number of intellectuals became the chief policy platform of British governance and the main ‘moral’ understanding of our educated class.
The entire modern Labour Party, our current ruling caste of weird Marxist Globalist lunatics, is an Anglophobic enterprise. Labour policy is essentially the destruction of the English. Their money is to be taken and spent on other people. Their land is to be seized and handed to other people, either incoming hordes of migrants or the tender custodianship of foreign corporations and subsidiaries of BlackRock. Their existence as a real ethnicity is to be denied. They are to be told they have no culture. They are to be told they are invaders in their own ancestral lands. They are to be ruled by every other race and identity, and never allowed to question it. They are subject to a deliberate demographic policy of eradication.
The Great Replacement Theory is of course not a ‘white supremacist’ conspiracy theory at all. It’s settled western immigration policy and has been for decades. It is what has been happening since the end of World War II. And nowhere is this policy more powerful, nowhere has it been more enthusiastically adopted and implemented, than in England, by an English middle and upper class who consider it sophisticated and kind to hate their own people and desire their extinction. When you look at Labour policies they are harmful to every British citizen, but the harm is most meant and most deliberate towards the English.
Most of the migrants invited in through open borders and demographic replacement by design settle in England, not in Wales or Scotland. Since Celtic resentment is part of the anti English coalition and still given lip service in Labour circles, the other nations of the United Kingdom have their extra spending allocations like the Barnett formula, their disproportionate representation by number of MPs, and their regional assembles and parliaments. England alone has nothing. The English pay more and receive less, by design.
Similarly, the bulk of the victims of the most disgusting examples of racism within Britain are English. English working class children. The victims of Muslim rape gangs. And then the working class English adults, made victims too by a two tier policy of policing which sees the system help migrants rape their children, then imprison them for protesting about it or mentioning it or thinking naively that they have the right to oppose it or that they still live in a free country where an opinion on it can be expressed.
Unlike the modern invention of ‘Islamophobia’, Anglophobia is real. If Islamophobia was real, it would be their children being raped and their fathers being imprisoned for protesting against those rapes. If Islamophobia was real there would have been no Muslim actions that explain fear of Muslim presence-no terrorism, no rape gangs, no Iron Age attitudes, no obvious contempt and crime. But the English have not been racist monsters, the English have not been people who attack strangers, the English have not preyed on immigrant communities. Quite the opposite. Immigrant communities have preyed on the English in every way imaginable, while middle and upper class white English politicians and journalists have sneered, laughed and encouraged it.
Nobody hates the working class Englishman, not even Irish or Indian nationalists and perhaps not even Pakistani child rapists, quite as much as an upper class white Englishman does. Perhaps it goes all the way back to where we started with the prior great disaster for the English. Perhaps the Normans and the Saxons never merged as successfully as we thought they had.
Because the white, ethnically English Labour MP of 2025 not only shares the Muslim hate of the white kaffir, he or she shares the Norman attitude towards the conquered Anglo-Saxon. He believes we deserve our sufferings, and that his infliction of them upon us is a good and moral thing. An education. A necessary and worthy change. A progress away from racism, by being savagely racist towards your own.
A lesson we must learn and which he takes gleeful joy in inflicting on us. Just as much as the Stalin supporting intellectuals of Orwell’s day, and just as much as the Hamas supporting students of the modern era, the Starmer type political leader is a person who is far more shocked and horrified by unapologetic Englishness than he is by the rape of English children. These people are not repulsed by any crime that any migrant engages in, but are repulsed by the flag of St George.
Because they are Anglophobes. Because they have an irrational hatred of the English, that their own Englishness doesn’t in the least little bit (for them) contradict.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply