Truth and lies regarding the ‘Far Right’ march.
JUPPLANDIA
A shadowy group of sinister racists is destroying the country. They speak about unity, but they deliver division. They claim to be simply ordinary patriots, and they give speeches in front of the Union Jack. But the truth is they are racists, who hate people based on skin colour. They have associated with extremist elements, and they have strong links to support for racist violence, public disorder, and even terrorism. They seem to hate Jews, even though they claim otherwise.
I’m talking, of course, about the current government.
And about the British mainstream media. And about Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, David Lammy, the Justice Minister and Deputy Prime Minister (it’s a bold move to divide that IQ between two jobs), and Keir Starmer, the current Prime Minister.
We can include in this group Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and a large number of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters who have expressed extremist views and voted for extremist views.
Let’s explain my view that all of these people are racists and political extremists first. Because it’s a very serious charge, one they themselves falsely deploy at every opportunity, and it needs to be backed by evidence, something they never attempt.
Here is my first piece of evidence: the mass rape of mainly white children by mainly Pakistani Muslim men.
I think we can judge whether someone is a racist, fairly accurately, by their reaction to that mass rape of white children over decades. Labour politicians and leftists generally have that right. They think that event exposes racists just as much as I do. They think that talking about that mass rape of white children proves someone is a racist, and they think that only white racists care that so many children were raped. That must be their position, because they actively spent years demonising anyone who raised it, like Tommy Robinson, as racist. They also said themselves that they feared being called racist if they spoke about it, just like they spent years calling anyone who did speak about it racist for doing so.
Now my position differs.
I think mass raping white children is racist, personally. I think specifically targeting white children for sexual abuse and calling them white bitches and white slags and white filth (as victim testimony proves occurred) is racist.
But the people I’ve cited above, and to be fair to them much of the rest of the British middle class, don’t.
The crimes of brown skinned men who targeted white skinned children for the most disgusting sexual abuses (brutal gang rape, vicious beating, defecating and urinating on these victims, torturing them for hours at a time, cutting them, burning them, all of which is in victim accounts) have never been officially designated as race hate crimes.
The British Establishment invented new tariffs, in sentencing guidelines and in our laws, which make racially motivated crimes supposedly more serious and hideous (with an extra period of punishment) than the SAME crimes where no racial motive is acknowledged.
And then they applied that to insults, jokes, satire, rhetorical comments online and so forth when coming from white people, and refused to apply it to brown skinned men raping white skinned children while calling them white bitches.
That seems racist to me. It seems like the rapists were being racist, and it seems like the Establishment were being racist. Because how does one describe pretending that targeting white children for sexual abuse has no racial element involved, how does one explain the motivation for that obviously unjust and false response in law, without thinking that the motivation might be, simply, that the people administering the law share the opinions on white children that the people raping them had?
Your racial motivation tariffs claim that race crimes are particularly heinous, but don’t apply when the victim is white.
Isn’t that the very definition of racist discrimination in a legal code, and the kind of thing which if applied to another group, would be defined as racist within the law?
So the fact is that the ‘grooming gang scandal’ was the worst example of racism in British history. In the entirety of British history on the mainland of the UK. There has never in British history on these islands been a systematic mass rape of the children of any minority by white people. There have hardly ever been any specifically racial mass crimes on the mainland. Slavery was never legal on the mainland, from the point that Anglo-Saxon law replaced Roman law. As long as England has existed as a nation, people on British soil have been considered free. British courts actually ruled that this was the reality and the law. Brutal early Norman rulers invaded and ruled with a different idea, but were soon themselves bound within limits. Anti catholic laws were not racial laws.
So the only legally supported racial crime I can think of affecting a whole group on the mainland is the expulsion of the Jews under Edward I. That was in 1290.
Until the mass rape of white children, until that was covered up for decades, and until (as evidence now attests) the police turned away reports of the crimes, Labour whips told Labour MPs not to talk about the crimes, in some cases police officers PARTICIPATED in the crimes, and victims instead of abusers were demonised, warned off by the authorities, and threatened with the law.
Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions at the height of all that. When the decision was made not to prosecute grooming gangs and when victims were being ignored.
All of the people I mention above have spent years describing being honest about these issues as racism and have fully supported multiple highly dubious imprisonments of Tommy Robinson for being vocal on these issues.
All of them turned horrific crimes against white people, and a racist betrayal of them by the authorities, into reasons to call white people racist.
A Labour MP who laughed about these crimes and agreed that victims should “shut up for the sake of diversity” was PROMOTED by Keir Starmer and given ministerial portfolios directly related to the crimes and to the reasons why the Establishment never acknowledged the crimes as racist ones.
In all these ways the Labour Party and everyone in it are the extremists. Because they genuinely seem to think that we should ignore or quickly move on from the fact that thousands of white children were raped. They tried to deny public enquiries into it, long after their earlier efforts to silence it had failed and some of the most sickening abuses were public knowledge.
Public knowledge thanks to people like Tommy Robinson sharing the truth, while mainstream media buried the truth ‘for the sake of diversity’ (just like the councils, MPs and police, with a few rare honourable exceptions).
Here is my second piece of evidence for the opinion that the Labour Party is an extremist organisation riddled with racist views and that Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer have far more links to racism and extremism than the people on the Unite the Kingdom march.
While the ordinary people on that march were doing normal things of no harm to others, Keir Starmer was the right hand man in the Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn, and a colleague and ally of Diane Abbot. Corbyn of course supported the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah. He described known terrorists as his friends. He attended terrorist funerals, and laid wreaths for them. He shared platforms with them, and he entered years of private meetings and discussions with them while they were committing terrorism. This is all public record, regardless of denials or the pretence that Corbyn was somehow pursuing, as a backbench MP, with no authority to do so and no power to deliver anything, dialogue towards peace (he didn’t meet with pro British groups, by the way). Corbyn’s friend John MacDonnell (“It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table”) had exactly the same record.
Corbyn shared an antisemitic image, and wrote a foreword in an antisemetic book:
“…n 2011, Jeremy Corbyn wrote a foreword for a reissued edition of John A. Hobson’s 1902 book, Imperialism: A Study, which contains deeply anti-Semitic assertions. In his foreword, Corbyn described the book as a “great tome” and praised its analysis of the pressures behind Western imperialism as “brilliant, and very controversial at the time”. The book claims that European finance was controlled by “men of a single and peculiar race” who were “in a unique position to control the policy of nations” , and it explicitly references the Rothschild family, questioning whether a great war could be undertaken if they opposed it.”
His party was embroiled in multiple antisemetic scandals. With all this known, Starmer supported him and accepted posts under him.
I would remind people that hating Jews is a pretty key element of ‘Far Right’, and that actually Britain’s leading leftists have far more links to that than the average citizen has.
Only after Corbyn was no longer the party leader did Starmer show any significant disagreement with his views. But one wonders why if Corbyn’s views were so malign he had to be censured and expelled from the Party when Starmer was the leader (in May 2024), why Starmer could be part of his team, a key part of his team, before that? It becomes consistent though when you know that Corbyn was expelled for deciding to stand as an independent candidate and announcing that, and not for his long history of extremism.
In government, while not quite antisemitic and anti-Israel enough for Corbyn, Zarah Sultana and the voters they represent, Starmer’s government has responded to October 7th and Hamas atrocity by promising to recognise a Palestinian State led by terrorists, and by repeatedly condemning Israel for fighting against a terrorist organisation.
Like many leftists, and like all extreme leftists, the government seem fundamentally confused on the points that fighting terrorism is not a crime, that self defence against terrorism is morally justified, that kidnapped hostages are still being held, that Hamas uses its own as human shields, that Hamas started the war, that Israel follows civilised rules of conduct and Hamas does not, and that Jews by definition can’t be Nazis and that hating Jews, by definition, is a Nazi attitude to adopt.
All of which makes them more extreme than the people on the Unite the Kingdom march.
They have the record of support or excuses for political atrocities, hating Jews, and terrorism. They have a record for believing racist things about whites and Jews (as any cursory examination of David Lammy’s past statements or Diane Abbot’s past statements prove).
The marchers do not have any of this genuinely racist, extremist and dangerous baggage. The Labour Party does in its antisemitism record and its anti white record. But these aren’t even the worst associations senior figures in the party have had, that colleagues of Keir Starmer have had. Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt, through the organisation which is now known as ‘Liberty’, supported and assisted the Paedophile Information Exchange, a pro paedophile pressure group, in the 1970s and 1980s. These were powerful figures in the party long into Keir or Khan’s careers. Starmer of course appointed the multiple scandal Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador, after Mandelson’s Epstein friendship was well known, and only sacked him after more details of their connection were exposed.
Sadiq Khan, meanwhile, began his career as a defence lawyer apparently specialising in representing and defending Muslim terrorists and extremists:
“His law firm consulted on Moussaoui’s defence, and Khan has acknowledged representing individuals….like Louis Farrakhan and Babar Ahmad, whom he opposed extraditing to the US….
- Sadiq Khan was a consultant lawyer for Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 conspirator…
- Khan admitted to representing “unsavoury individuals” during his time as a human rights lawyer, including Louis Farrakhan and Babar Ahmad, whom he opposed extraditing to the US.
- He has been linked to events and groups associated with extremist ideologies, such as speaking at conferences with members of Al-Muhajiroun and attending meetings organized by groups linked to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but he has stated these were part of his human rights work.“
Of course all this is fine, we are supposed to agree, as everyone is entitled to a legal defence. It might be felt though that who you or your chambers choose to defend reflects on you as well. Certainly that’s the logic the Left agreed with when they were in control of guilt by association, cancel culture, and determining whether one extremist at an event makes everyone there an extremist (in the interests of honesty, in the AI research summary quote given above I have excised biased statements which present Khan’s defensive commentary on these links as objective facts. I’ll let the reader judge whether doing so is biased from me).
All that said I’ll ask these questions:
- How many of the 150,000 or many more on that march have ever defended terrorists, in terms of political agreement with the terrorists?
- How many of the 150,000 or many more on that march have represented terrorists in court?
- How many of the 150,000 or more have ever been censured for antisemitism, as senior Labour figures have been?
- How many have agreed with and spread anti Israel blood libels regarding ‘genocide’ and ‘starvation’, as many Labour leaders and voters do?
- How many have written forewords to antisemetic books?
- How many have shared platforms with members of the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah?
- How many supported these terrorist groups during bombing campaigns and after atrocities by them?
- How many on the march have been proven by anyone to subscribe to racist ideas, or to race hate theories like CRT?
- How many of the people on the march believe in racial hiring quotas and discriminatory employment laws?
- How many of the people on the march have shared, publicly, frequently and from positions of power and influence, racist ideas, racist commentary, and racist ideology in the way senior Labour figures have?
- How many have instructed the police, and had the power to see that instruction followed, to arrest people whose views they disagree with?
- How many have employed people linked to a paedophile, or worked for and in alliance with a pro paedophile pressure group?
So now that we have those questions in mind, and now that we know there is 1. Lots of evidence that the government is composed of extremists, and 2. No evidence that the United the Kingdom marchers are extremists, let’s see what Sadiq Khan, who has happily defended actual terrorists, says about ordinary people on a peaceful protest march:
And let’s compare that to what a more honest minority voice says, to what is the truth about the marchers:
“The most alarming aspect of the event was just how normal the vast majority of the marchers were. I spent an hour or two amongst them and my own impression was that they were mostly the sort of people that you’d meet in a country pub, or in half time queuing for the loo at football or at a concert. There was a sprinkling of black and brown faces and the event was brought to a close by a gospel group singing ‘Jerusalem’.”
Sounds horrifying, doesn’t it?
Sadiq Khan, unlike Trevor Phillips, did not attend. He let his hypocritical prejudice do the talking, rather than letting his feet doing any walking or, his mind any expanding.
But when the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality knows you are talking total shit, when someone whose whole career was in the leftist dominated race awareness, racial equality and race representation grift knows that the people you are calling Far Right aren’t, the game may very well be up.
This article (Unite the Kingdom? It’s Going to be Difficult.) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: x.com
••••
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