Anyone who grew up in the British Isles from the 1970s to the 1990s will understand what is meant by “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, and will know that the IRA stands for the Irish Republican Army. From at least 1969 until 1998, this Catholic paramilitary organization was the leading cause of terrorism in the UK, using bombs, punishment beatings, and targeted assassinations. The IRA were backed by their political masters in Sinn Féin. The name “Sinn Féin” means “ourselves”, or “we ourselves”, and they had common cause with the IRA against the British, particularly in the 1970s. The IRA was routinely referred to as “the provisional wing of Sinn Féin”, often shortened to “the Provos”. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were the famous political figureheads of Sinn Féin, the Reverend Ian Paisley the loudest voice on the Loyalist side. It was a bad time for the Emerald Isle.

Then, this paramilitary outfit began to evolve. The Provisional IRA became the Continuity IRA, then the Real IRA, then broke from the old guard completely in 1997, merging with an organization called Republican Action Against Drugs in 2012 to form the New IRA. This in itself was an interesting merger, as the original IRA were known to raise funds by selling drugs. But the IRA under any name have been fairly quiet since the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in 1998, at least compared with the height of The Troubles.

The GFA was partly political theater on the part of Tony Blair, keen to be viewed as a peacemaker early into his tenure as Prime Minister. Perhaps he had already planned his “sexed-up” Iraq document on Saddam’s non-existent WMD (which drew the UK into the Iraq War), gauged the likely effect on his legacy, and wished to pre-empt it. But that is for another day. The GFA was hailed as peace in our time but, true to Blair’s signature style of politicking, it is a slippery document.

The GFA knitted three political and geographical bodies together: The Northern Ireland Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council, and the British-Irish Council. It has kept the peace, more or less, for over a quarter of a century, but that peace is theoretically a fragile one. No one policy instrument defines the role and status of Northern Ireland, but the aggregate legislation states that they have to live together with southern Ireland, or Éire, and the British, and any public disagreement is permissible under the terms of this union of political entities. The aim was union, of course, political if not geographical, but there was a sub-textual purpose to this new triumvirate; to take away the core mission of the IRA and stop the violence. And, despite isolated terrorist incidents, the peace has held. Until now, perhaps.

In July of this year, a 25-year-old law student called Isabella Perrie-Sullivan was arrested by police attempting to cross the Irish border northwards with 25 pounds of explosives in a bag in her car. The arrest was the culmination of intelligence which indicated dissident action following the pattern of that associated with the IRA. The IRA had some of the best bomb-makers in the world. These weren’t Muslims with backpacks that fizzle but fail to explode, or Baader-Meinhof clowns blowing themselves up. These were experts. A bombing campaign with this level of expertise could kill a lot of people. This year, the New IRA have already attacked two Northern Irish police stations with car-bombs. The old Republican mission statement to rid Ireland of the British, and thus to attack Loyalists, is assumed still to be in place, but a new theory as to the New IRA’s intentions in a changed world is slowly forming.

The New IRA may no longer have the British in their sights directly, but instead allegedly have a new target: immigrants. The statistics coming out of Ireland, despite the best efforts of the Irish government to hide or distort them, are sobering. It is estimated that 25% of the population of Éire, are now immigrants. Of the seven women murdered south of the border in the first half of this year, six were killed by migrants. These acts of violence are only part of the story. The Irish are becoming aware that their entire culture is being changed by design. It is becoming apparent with every new atrocity that the Irish are becoming more aware that they are a chapter of the Great Replacement. So, where does the New IRA come in?

The video which has kicked this wasps’ nest purports to be by the New IRA and features another aspect which will alert and alarm the Irish government in that it is not single-issue. The balaclava-clad speaker, flanked by armed comrades, makes it clear that the influx of migrants is their main driver:

 “To the people of Newry, Mourne and Down: we, the New Republican Movement, have watched our councillors and MLAs over the past 12 months.

​“The level of disrespect shown to the people who put you into power, this cannot be ignored any longer.

​“We are proud men of Ireland, we are patriots.

“Your policies and decision-making regards to flooding our communities with undocumented military-aged men is not acceptable.

​“We will not sit back any longer and watch our culture and religion destroyed by the people we put in power.

​“Also the sexual indoctrination of our children in schools has not went unnoticed either.

​“The New Republican Movement will take immediate action against anyone who threatens our way of life and the safety of our women and children.

​“We have your addresses and know your movements.

“Every one of you are legitimate targets as of today.

“The New Republican Movement, 28th of the 11th, 2025.”

It comes weeks after a video was circulated on X purporting to show a different Irish republican right-wing group, the Irish Citizen Army, which also depicted three men in front of a tricolour delivering a similar anti-immigration message.

“Andrew” posted a video on August 3. He is an ex-intelligence operative who speaks of the reputation the IRA had with the British Army, who saw them as “not just formidable, but unbeatable”. As with all major terrorist groups, the IRA were a many-headed hydra which presented the British Army with two major and paradoxical problems. Arrest or kill them and they create martyrs to the cause, powerful fuel for terrorists. Read the story of hunger-striker Bobby Sands, who died in 1981. Fail to stop the “Rah”, as the IRA were known colloquially, and the bombs keep going off. A top IRA operative once famously said that, while the British needed to get lucky every day to stop the Republicans, the IRA only had to get lucky once. The IRA’s soldiers were known to be efficient, ruthless, and incredibly violent. If they turn their attentions to migrants, it will be the worse for those who supposedly “just want a better life”.

Cynics might suggest that the IRA attempting to rid Ireland of migrants the way St. Patrick was said to have cast out the nation’s snake population serves a further purpose, and this concerns the British. Any migrants forced out of Ireland can only go to mainland Britain, unless the people-smuggling gangs have an inflatable which will make it across the Atlantic. They are likely to stay there. This will appeal to those in the New IRA who retain the animus of the old IRA, as it will put England in particular in the grip of a pincer movement of immigration. Events in the autonomous Spanish city of Ceuta, which has become a holding-pen for tens of thousands of immigrants wanting to enter mainland Europe, is another threat to the UK, as many of those migrants want to get to Britain. Recently, some would go on to Northern Ireland, walk across the porous and largely unguarded border to the south, and thus re-enter the Schengen Zone of the EU. If this border becomes manned by men in balaclavas carrying AK-47s, it would no longer be a viable route. These men would be unlikely to have had much DEI training, but they will know how to shoot to kill.

The return of the IRA would put the Irish government in a precarious position. Having shown themselves unwilling to take action against migrant criminals, if they suddenly took swift decisive action against actual Irishmen, they run the risk of starting a genuine civil war. But if they back off, they run a different type of risk, that age-old religious divisions might heal, or at least hostilities may be suspended. Then, if the wider populace sees that the IRA are expelling immigrants where the government clearly had no intention of doing so, that is a powerful win for the Republicans.

All of this could be a hoax, a ruse, or the work of mischief-makers. But the Irish government will know that it could be the real thing and, even if the New IRA is not planning to target migrants, it may inspire others to do so. The recent near-decapitation and blinding of a disabled man in Belfast, allegedly by a Sudanese immigrant, led to nights of rioting reminiscent of 1969, when Catholics and Protestants fought each other and the PSNI (Police Service Northern Ireland). Syndicated news sources wrote that “The New IRA are plotting to capitalize on tensions around migration and could use the anxieties to launch an intimidation campaign against vulnerable communities”. The way this is framed implies that these anxieties and tensions are somehow groundless but evades the obvious point that it is the native Irish who are currently feeling like a vulnerable community. Irish YouTubers such as No Risk No Reward, County Gains, Derek Domino, and Peter Dooley Dublin report on almost daily attacks and sexual assaults on Irish people.

The phrase “the fighting Irish” is well-founded. From the battles of 1916, Michael Collins and his colleagues, and The Irish Citizen Army, Irishmen — and women — will not simply roll over as the populations of Europe have done, and a possible knock-on effect of any anti-migrant action taken by the New IRA will be giving British government ministers sleepless nights. The British may be inspired by any Republican action and follow suit. Danny Tommo is an anti-immigration activist reportedly holding training camps for young, White, Englishmen, and is actively recruiting. Despite the government’s boast that it is moving immigrants out of hotels, these military-age men are actually being moved into disused army facilities. They are, quite literally, being barracked.

In many ways, parts of England are now under occupation every bit as real as that which inspired the Irish Republican Army. There may be no troops on the streets of London or Birmingham, and armored patrol vehicles are nowhere to be seen, at least not yet. But shops are filling high streets which are clearly being used to launder money, pubs and churches are closing, with many having been the subject of planning applications and intended to become mosques, and ever-increasing crime, particularly against women (almost unbelievably, an elderly was allegedly raped recently in the UK by a migrant). Occupation by an invading force creates resistance — a historical given. In middle-class areas, to which the government is turning to house illegal immigrants, many of whom no one knows anything about, the British government know that a few hundred residents in a leafy village will offer no resistance. They will be middle-class and probably voted Green or Liberal Democrat, so Labour are in no danger of losing votes by enraging the locals.

The new British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is already proving that, when it comes to word salad, he is a master-chef. The phrase “political rhetoric” is regularly misused in the UK media to mean “language” or “vocabulary”, but classical rhetoric was far more sophisticated than simply explaining how to use a dictionary. Rhetoric deals with how language is employed in order to obtain desired effects in the audience. Aristotle puts it most clearly in his Rhetoric:

It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion.

Burnham has so far managed to avoid serious press scrutiny, but on the rare occasions he is pinned down, what comes out of his mouth — apart from lyrics by The Smiths — is pure filler. The art of political speaking now is largely concerned with how to take up time while saying nothing of substance, and Burnham has this down to a fine art. Here is an excerpt from a recent interview, in which the PM is asked about the concerns of residents in a small English town called Piddington, population around 350, who are about to have a migrant camp housing 1,200 young Muslim men placed in the center of a town so small it still qualifies as a “hamlet”:

Well, I have begun to become aware of the campaign in Piddington, and I am absolutely prepared to meet Rex [a seven-year-old boy who wrote to the PM warning of the effects of the new camp].  I will listen to what people are saying and respond to the concerns they are putting forward. I don’t know the issue yet in detail, but in some ways, as I understand it, it is about creating a secure space. … It’s obviously going to be challenging, but I am prepared to listen…

On and on it goes, and I won’t subject you to all of it. It is meaningless drivel dressed up as managerial expertise. But there was one short section that repays inspection:

We cannot have a situation where it’s only the poorest communities in the country that receive all of the dispersal of refugees and asylum-seekers. I do believe all parts of the country need to work to play their part. It’s a challenging issue … and I will look into the issues for the good people of Piddington.

Play their part. It’s almost as though this was a dramatic production, complete with writer and director. Anna Turley is the Government Minister responsible for the invasion force still referred to as “asylum seekers”. As with almost all politicians, she is keen to tell us what her government’s policy is “about”, and Burnham’s stated intention to disperse immigrants to small rural areas is apparently “about fairness”. Small, tightly knit white communities must, she says, take their “fair share” of aggressive, military-age Muslim men, some of whom statistically will be rapists and murderers. We are all aware of what fairness is: equality of opportunity, where appropriate and conducive to the social good. Freedom for all, for example, seems fair, but if that extends to violent criminals, then it becomes unfair to those put at risk by the freedom of those with a predisposition to violence. That is another subject, and no less relevant than immigration, but the idea that there is a “fair share” in terms of violent invaders — often placed near children’s schools — will be difficult for the “good people of Piddington” to process.

Burnham also mentions that he will “address legitimate concerns”, implying that there will be illegitimate concerns. These will probably take the form of social media commentary for which even more White English people will be jailed. But although Burnham has buried his core message in meaningless verbal slop, what he has said is very important for its inevitable consequences. The peasants have revolted before in England, and I refer you to 1381. Now it may be time for a middle-class revolution, and it may be that violent action taken by an Irish band of men everyone thought had faded into history could convert an awful lot of people to the idea of direct action.

The British government has just extended contractual arrangements with various property companies which will ensure that immigration will continue until 2039. There are two important implications of this long-term plan. The first is the simple economic pledge. Immigration is costing the UK a fortune. Many fortunes. What will the compound be like 13 years hence? Secondly, this is more deliberate provocation. And the action of provocation often produces an equal and opposite reaction.

There might be a name for the toleration of illegal violence if it serves to protect ordinary people. London’s most notorious criminals, the Kray Twins, were loved by many residents in the east end of London because they kept peace on the streets and in the houses. They protected ordinary people from crime in a way the police could not do. A burglar today would not think twice today about breaking and entering, not with the state of British policing. But if they knew that Ron and Reg would staple their hands to a snooker table with kitchen knives if they caught them, it’s a lot more of a deterrent than a suspended jail sentence. If the New IRA can provide the same level of violent, ruthless protection to the ordinary, innocent white Irish, they may become just as revered. In Dublin, there are migrants in tents camped beneath statues of Irish rebel heroes who fought for Irish freedom, and these symbolic occupations are not going unnoticed.

One of many ironies about this simmering situation is the role of Sinn Féin. Affiliations have changed since the IRA were known as the “provisional wing” of the party. One nickname for the IRA was “the Provos”. Now, Sinn Féin are all for unlimited immigration, and they have gone from being the IRA’s effective employer to being the enemy. They will be nervous, as the IRA didn’t just blow up random civilians and kneecap informers with power-tools. They killed MP Airey Neave and Lord Mountbatten, then five more people in 1984 — including another MP — at Brighton Hotel in an attempt to kill Margaret Thatcher. Also in 1984, the IRA famously bombed Harrod’s, London’s famous department store in which I was working at the time the 80lb car-bomb went off, killing six (including three police officers) and wounding 86 others.

The Troubles were one of the ugliest chapters in Irish history, and there were violent and ruthless men both on the Republican side, and that of their Loyalist/British enemy. My father was a documentary filmmaker for The Ministry of Defence in the 1970s. Filming in Belfast, he was spoken to by an SAS commander and given clear rules as to what he could and could not record. He pointed at Dad’s cameraman’s equipment, then patted his own Armalite rifle. “If that goes off in my direction”, he said, “this goes off in yours”. What may be coming may not be The Troubles 2.0, but it may trigger something equally violent.

King Charles III has just invited yet another Prime Minister (PM) to form a government of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The current monarch must be becoming accustomed to receiving these visits at Buckingham Palace. He had thought his coronation would just mean more visits to hospitals and mosques to take his mind off his appalling family, but new PMs are keeping him busy.

As for the latest Leader of His Majesty’s Government, when Charles assumed the throne, he must have been hoping for a stayer, a Thatcher or a Blair. They were the twentieth century’s longest-serving PMs, each in office for over a decade. But the King seems to spend a disproportionate amount of time granting the formal request every elected (or unelected, as we shall see) PM must make of the monarch to form a government. It wasn’t always like this.

Charles’ great-great-great grandmother, Queen Victoria, reigned for 64 years, from 1837 to 1901, and saw 10 PMs pass through office. Queen Elizabeth II beat Victoria’s monarchical record, reigning for 70 years and seeing 15 PMs come and go, from Churchill to Liz Truss, whose 44-day tenure as Conservative PM is the shortest in British political history. Statisticians will note the ratio of monarchs to PMs over time increasing in favor of the latter. King Charles III has currently held the throne for a few weeks shy of four years, and four Prime Ministers have already exchanged the keys to 10 Downing Street in that time. One more, and that will be half the number in office during Victoria’s reign, which was 16 times as long, at the time of writing. Even Larry, the Downing Street cat and chief mouser, has seen off six PMs and is on his seventh. Britain is beginning to make Italy look politically stable.

This will be the UK’s ninth PM this century, the fourth in four years, and the fifth to enter office mid-term and unelected since the turn of the millennium. This compares with eight mid-term replacements during the whole of the 20^th century, beginning in 1902 when Lord Salisbury handed over the office of PM to his nephew, Lord Balfour. Salisbury was 72 and in poor health, exacerbated by grief following the death of his wife. His name was Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, and his exemplary act of political nepotism gave birth to a colloquialism which survives in England to this day; “Bob’s your uncle”. This means that something has worked out perfectly and to your advantage. “You want to arrange a mortgage? Go to the building society, fill in a form, and Bob’s your uncle!”. The new handover of power may lead to similar sayings being coined, but they are unlikely to be as affectionate.

All British Prime Ministers enter office with the promise of political change, but the most significant change this century was introduced with the last PM to enter office last century. When Anthony Charles Lynton Blair was elected Labour Prime Minister in 1997, however, the first thing he changed was his name. “Call me Tony”, he famously told an interviewer, and Tony Blair was born, the man veteran journalist Peter Hitchens never refers to as anything other than “the Blair creature”. British politicians are notoriously leery of looking as though they come from too many rungs up the class ladder, and Blair was not the first Labour grandee to ruffle up his name the way Boris Johnson ruffles up his hair. He wasn’t even the first Tony.

In the 1970s, Labour MP Anthony Wedgwood-Benn made the same diminutive move to obscure his origins, and was always known as Tony Benn (unless his name appeared in the Socialist Worker newspaper, which is just as hard Left as its title suggests). Benn’s family was in part descended from Josiah Wedgwood, whose pottery and ceramics are world-famous, and in the 1970s it was still deemed more authentic for Labour politicians to be miners’ sons rather than descended from the landed gentry. It is an incidental curiosity of American 19^th-century English that “tony” was a slang word meaning something or someone who is fashionable, stylish, wealthy, and associated with high society. “Oh, they live in a very tony part of town”.

So, who is the latest British PM? Following the resignation of Sir Keir Starmer, who served the shortest term of any Labour premier in the century and a quarter the party has existed, a new PM has been voted in. Well, by around 25,000 of the electorate, anyway. This new PM will be Andy Burnham, whose CV reads: University, intern to an MP, policy adviser to an MP, MP, Mayor, MP. He has never been outside the Westminster bubble. Burnham was the former Mayor of Manchester, where despite being White English, he was nick-named “the first Muslim Mayor of Manchester” by uncharitable Right-wingers who found him over-friendly to the city’s Mohammedan hordes. Manchester also saw many, many White, underage girls raped and abused by groups of Pakistani-heritage men on Burnham’s watch (which gave him control over the police) in one of the most notorious “grooming gang” areas of the many spread across once-English cities. Manchester’s population has changed in line with Britain’s other main cities, and is now largely composed of Mirpuri Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. These are clan enclaves, and therefore valuable voting blocs for Labour. As Dr. David Starkey, the much-cancelled “historian of the Right”, puts it rather more acerbically:

The foothills of the Punjab have translated themselves into the villages of Manchester.

Burnham recently became a sitting Member of Parliament (MP) and thus eligible for the office of PM when he was handed a safe seat after the incumbent MP stepped down to make way for him. He duly won, and took office on July 20. The consensus opinion on the British political Right (such as it is) tallies with a line from the song Won’t Get Fooled Again, by English rock band The Who: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. Others are not so sure. Viewed in the terms of the neo-Marxist authoritarianism currently suffusing British politics, Starmer may just have been the warm-up act.

There are many reasons to find Burnham’s accession spurious. Firstly, he is unelected in anything but a local by-election. The MP who stood down in Makerfield to make way for Burnham was Josh Simons. As a member of activist think-tank Labour Together — now Think Labour — Simons asked the Intelligence Services to investigate journalists who wrote negative pieces about Labour Together. But in standing down in order to give Burnham both his seat and the premiership, Simons wasn’t acting solely for the good of the party. Burnham has allegedly guaranteed him a top position on twice the salary Simons made as an MP. The “quid” is famously slang for the British pound, but no one in British politics does anything without a quid pro quo. The horse-trading that goes on when a new administration is formed revolves around rewarding loyalty, especially after what was effectively a palace coup, as Burnham’s coronation clearly was. The famous “sources at Westminster” have been whispering that Burnham had been planning Starmer’s ouster for a year. As for his new administration, welcome to government by midwit.

Burnham has made some appointments which show that this going to be a government of none of the talents. Angela Rayner, who was formerly Deputy PM to Starmer, returns to her old portfolio as Minister for Housing. She was forced to step down from the role nine months ago when it was discovered that she had failed to pay stamp duty on her own property. Louise Haigh will be the new Deputy PM, and is also a convicted fraudster. Part of her new remit would have been to keep an eye on ethics and fraud in the public sector. This part of her portfolio has been quietly removed. David Lammy, a stupid Black man even by the standards which currently obtain, was the interim Deputy PM, as well as being the Justice Minister who set in motion legislation to remove the right to trial by jury. Burnham has removed him, sending him to the back-benches where he can continue to bleat about reparations. Burnham must have realized that even the public were aware that Lammy was a talentless DEI hire. Lammy has been replaced at the Justice Ministry by Alex Norris, who has no legal expertise or experience whatsoever, which should stop him getting in the way. As Norris takes office, his Ministry of Justice is fighting in the courts to prevent the release of data relating to crimes broken down by ethnicity which would embarrass Labour’s non-White voters. A Black face or two in high office used to be mandatory, but it is not so important now for PMs to have Blacks in their administration just for the optics. Muslims are this season’s fashion.

Shabana Mahmood is a Muslim MP and was Home Secretary under Starmer. As she says on record, she “puts Islam at the center of everything I do”. She stays in position. She and Wes Streeting, a homosexual who was a great friend of the disgraced Peter Mandelson and who is the new Defense Minister, were caught on a “hot” microphone laughing and joking about the government’s “early release” scheme, which will see 6,000 violent criminals back on the streets before their due time. Burnham has already had to apologize for that, doubtless at the suggestion of his new Muslim Wormtongue. Ali Milani is now working directly for Burnham as a policy adviser. He chairs the Muslim Network and was pictured campaigning with New York Mayor Zoran Mamdani. He calls the grooming gang scandal a “vile racist campaign” which “puts Muslims in serious danger”.

Dame Antonia Romeo, memorably described by Rupert Lowe as “the queen of woke”, supervised the Islamic network in the Home Office, oversaw “non-binary awareness workshops” (involving paid time off at the Home Office), organized a round of “LGBT allyship emails”, and made sure the Pride flag was flown from government buildings. She is now the cabinet Secretary, the most senior Civil Servant in the country. Ed Miliband as Foreign Secretary is one of many members of the Fabian Society in the new Cabinet. Lucy Powell is Education Secretary. She described the grooming gang scandal, or rather any mention of it, as “dog-whistle politics”. Ruth Smeeth, now a senior Cabinet member, worked with the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, who work tirelessly to bring down Elon Musk’s X. The Comms team at Number 10 is stocked with technocrats with experience in the field of smothering information. Hayden Monroe, now a policy adviser, is the former campaign director for ex-New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern. She it was who told the Kiwi public during Covid that they must trust the government as their “single source of truth”. Sarah Brown worked for Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London and clear fifth-columnist. She becomes Director of Communications.

Burnham’s Cabinet contains more Oxbridge graduates than any other, and this says as much about Britain’s most venerable universities as it does about government. Quite apart from the midwit gallery of Burnham’s newly appointed Cabinet, the important posts are to do with communications, and this is where the new PM’s appointments take a more sinister turn.

Matthew McGregor, Burnham’s new Director of Political Strategy, is a former director of HOPE not Hate (HnH). This is an activist smear group similar to America’s SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) and ADL (Anti-Defamation League). I have written about them many times here and elsewhere, as well as reviewing the last three editions of their annual report, State of Hate. Their tactics are questionable, to say the least. During the Southport riots, for example, the CEO of HnH, Nick Lowles, released a story that a Muslim woman had had acid thrown in her face. This was absolutely untrue and Lowles later admitted as much. But he justified his inflammatory lie by claiming that an anti-racist message was “put out there” as a result and the invented story was therefore acceptable. He then told the press that “Right-wing” marches were planned in a hundred towns. Again, this was total fabrication, but it kept the idea of the “far-Right” in the public consciousness. HnH do, on occasion, have to tread carefully. After the recent murder of Ann Widdecombe, their defamatory and inflammatory page on the former MP was quickly taken down.

McGregor has also worked with 38 Degrees, an online activist project which advocates for the banning of what they deem undesirable commenters from social media altogether, and the Good Law Project. They tried to block the Brexit referendum by petitioning the Supreme Court to rule that the vote was unconstitutional. They also worked on and for Obama’s campaign, in what seems like a clear breach of American law concerning election interference, and will have done nothing to improve the tattered “special relationship” Starmer did much to erode. McGregor is also on the board of the charity Reprieve, which actively lobbies against the stripping of British citizenship from so-called “ISIS brides”, such as Shamima Begum, who left Britain to go and marry an ISIS fighter, and is currently fighting to return to Britain. This policy of refusing to grant citizenship is deemed “fundamentally racist” by Reprieve, a stance McGregor presumably endorses as a board member. He is now in charge of government policy. McGregor — also said to be very keen on tackling anti-Semitism — is to be Burnham’s new Director of Political Strategy, effectively director of psy-ops.

Allison Phillips is also on the board of HnH, and is to be Burnham’s “Director of Transition”. She wrote a series of articles for Leftist warhorse New Statesman which shows that she has Nigel Farage and Reform UK as rent-free tenants of her every waking hour. Edward Dutton, of this parish, has produced many videos on HnH for his channel, The Jolly Heretic, and they repay inspection. This recent piece on McGregor shows exactly what HnH represent, and therefore the significance of what is a major appointment in Burnham’s incoming administration. Anyone deemed by HnH to be far-Right can expect an even rougher ride than they got under Starmer. Burnham’s new strategy team is full of what political commentator Conor Tomlinson calls “embedded apparatchiks.” HnH were always the unofficial government adviser on race and the largely mythical far Right. Now their operatives are installed at the highest levels of government and the Civil Service.

What of the British economy? Burnham is coming into office with an economy in debt to the tune of £3 trillion. The Treasury Labour have had the IMF (International Monetary Fund) on speed-dial for some time. Treasury officials, at their first meeting, will inform the new PM that inflation is gradually climbing, the national debt exceeds GDP (Gross Domestic Product), and £153 million is to be given to Pakistan in foreign aid. Even the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) has warned against further tax rises, but it looks as though Burnham has no choice. The welfare bill in the UK recently outstripped the tax weal, £333 billion against £331 billion. This means exactly what it appears to mean: once welfare recipients are paid off, many of them illegal immigrants, there is no money left for the NHS, defense, infrastructure, public sector wages and all the other slices of the fiscal pie taxation is supposed to cover. With debt higher than GDP (a large slice of which is swallowed up just repaying interest) and personal taxation already at its highest level since Britain was rebuilding after World War 2, money has to be found somewhere, as continued borrowing at current levels is not sustainable. Burnham has indicated a new wealth tax, and it may come as a surprise to many to discover that they are suddenly “wealthy”. Fiscal responsibility was one of the first casualties of this century’s political program, and accountability wasn’t far behind.

Accountability is mentioned by the political class in inverse proportion to the level of accountability to which they are subjected. Burnham has already given every indication that he intends to avoid accountability as much as is possible. His coronation was neatly handled by the Labour Party, who have fineigled the accession so that Burnham became PM on the day that Parliament goes into recess for the summer. He won’t face the “opposition” until mid-September. His first interview was not with a lobby journalist or newspaper editor, but with Gary Lineker, an ex-England football player who is now a TV pundit who refers to the Falkland Islands by their Spanish name; Las Malvinas. However, despite attempts to assemble a communications and strategy team (far more important than the Cabinet, which is largely theatrical) under the radar, early appointments give a clear indication of Burnham’s plans.

Burnham is taking a baton a long time in the forging. The Labour Party we see dismantling White Britain today began its project proper with the “New Labour” government of Tony Blair. This change in direction was the ultimate result of a movement which, perhaps, began in 1968 with the student rioting in Paris which almost brought down De Gaulle’s government, and the Prague Spring. It is a type of neo-Communism, with its Marxist dialectic of oppressor/oppressed transposed from class to race. Labour’s current incarnation, under Andy Burnham, will be further to the Left than Starmer’s, which is why Burnham has been playing the role of a cheeky, chummy northerner. He quotes lyrics from and plays music by famous Manchester bands The Smiths and New Order. He dresses in black sports jackets and black T-shirts and is rarely seen in a tie. He loves football. He’s playing the “ordinary bloke” card which was one of the few bits of optics Blair could never quite pull off. But Burnham is not an ordinary bloke. He is an avowed Socialist, and made his affiliations clear with his appointments and acknowledgements in his first week in power, indeed with his very first speech.

After he was declared Labour Party leader, and therefore PM, by his Muslim Home Secretary, Burnham was clear as to who he wanted to thank first: “All our affiliated trade unions, all our Socialist societies”. It all sounds very working-class, but the White working class will not interest Burnham except to further deplete and demoralize them. As he is a northerner, Burnham may be familiar with lyrics other than those of 80s pop bands. One in particular is an old satire of the consequences of advancement, and will undoubtedly apply to the latest British PM:

The working class can kiss my arse.
I’ve got the foreman’s job at last.

.

Andy Burnham will fail. That’s a very safe bet: the new British prime minister will fail. The only questions are how badly and how quickly he’ll fail. He’s like a naked man armed with a water-pistol and eager for battle with a grizzly bear, a saber-tooth tiger and a large swarm of killer-bees. In other words, he’s eager to govern the Yookay, a racially and religiously fractured country that’s replete with Third-World pathologies and is speeding ever faster towards bankruptcy and civil war. And what is he armed with? A degree in English Literature, for Shoah’s sake! Burnham is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with absolutely no grasp of the importance of STEM and the complexity of politics. He’s a perfect example of someone who believes that words rule the world and that symbollox are supreme.

Burnham vs Bear: the new narcissist will certainly fail (images from Pixabay, Unsplash and Wikipedia)

That’s why his senior adviser will be not the highly intelligent and knowledgeable Dominic Cummings, but the highly devious and dishonest Matthew McGregor, an activist from that devotee of the Deep State, the anti-racist group Hope Not Hate. The name of that group is another excellent example of leftist logolatry, of woke word-worship. The crypto-communists of Hope Not Hate use word-webs against the intractable biological reality of racial difference. That’s why they support “hope” and oppose “hate,” you see. It’s words over world again. Their crypto-communist comrade Andy Burnham has spoken of his mission to put “hope in every heart.” It’s a fatuous, flatulent phrase that reminds me irresistibly of a previous leftist leader armed with a logocentric degree and a deep trust in the supremacy of symbollox.

Risible rhetoricians

Yes, the EngLit-ter Andy Burnham is very like the lawyer Barack Obama, another intellectually mediocre narcissist who offered “Hope and Change” to a country speeding towards bankruptcy and civil war. Obama didn’t rescue America, of course. Instead, he stamped pedal to the metal on the Highway to Hell. Burnham will do the same in Britain. That’s why I’d compare Barack O-Burnham with the famous hard-rock band Deep Purple. Like Barack Obama and Andy Burnham in the political world, Deep Purple entered the musical world on a mission to succeed. Unlike Obama and Burnham, the members of Deep Purple understood their world and the route to success there. They needed to competently and convincingly apply a simple formula: play very loudly on themes of speed, excitement and humor that would appeal to young men across the Western world.

Two deceivers doomed to failure: risible rhetoricians Barack Obama and Andy Burnham

Deep Purple understood their world and achieved enormous success. Determined Poseur Barack Obama did neither. Nor will Determined Poseur Andy Burnham. Deep Purple succeeded because they were highly competent musicians. The Determined Poseurs have and will fail because they’re risible rhetoricians. The members of Deep Purple enthusiastically applied a self-devised dictum of ELTEE – “Everything Louder Than Everything Else.” At the same time, they knew that ELTEE was just a clever joke. Like “square triangle” or “sane leftist,” it describes an impossibility. Its semantics are self-referential, which is why it seems to explode in the mind so oddly and amusingly: “The drums are louder than the guitars and the guitars are louder than the drums, and the vocals are louder than both, and both are louder than the vocals…”

A biochemist who says “Bollocks” to biology: the Oxford trans-fetishist Matt Rattley

There are political equivalents of “Everything Louder Than Everything Else.” Think of slogans like “Diversity Is Our Strength” and “Transwomen Are Women.” Like ELTEE, those slogans describe impossibilities; unlike ELTEE, they’re accepted as sacred truths by millions of deluded people. Andy Burnham still accepts “Diversity Is Our Strength” as a sacred truth, but is no longer proclaiming so loudly that “Transwomen Are Women.” That’s typical of Burnham: politically speaking, he’s what the late leftist lunatic Tony Benn called a weathervane, not a sign-post. Weathervanes swing with the political wind; sign-posts always point in the same direction. The toxicity of transgenderism is becoming more and more obvious, which is why Andy Burnham has swung against it.

A malevolent meteor-malefactor

But Burnham still refuses to be honest about transgenderism, which is why he hasn’t highlighted a transloony from his own neck of the woods. Burnham is from Merseyside, the district around Liverpool in north-west England. So is a transloony called Darren Rigby, who’s currently in jail for threatening “to massacre pupils at schools for girls in response to the treatment of ‘transwomen’.” Like Burnham, Darren Rigby believes in rhetoric over reality. As you read some of his rhetoric, bear in mind that he was addressing it to girls who live very near the town of Southport and the scene of Axel Rudakubana’s murder-and-mutilation in 2024:

Poisonous punim, malevolent meteor-malefactor: Darren Rigby’s evil ideology is easy to read in his face.

Darren Rigby, 21, specifically targeted all-girls schools when he sent a series of messages threatening to “shoot and stab all of your girls,” and referred to the students using the slur “TERFs,” a derogatory acronym which stands for “trans exclusionary radical feminist.”

Rigby was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court on June 1 [2026] after he admitted to making threats to three girls’ schools across Merseyside over the space of a week in January. In each case, Rigby contacted school officials via email and threatened to murder students in retaliation for the plight of trans-identified men, commonly referred to as “trans women.”

As reported by The Southport Lead, the court heard that Rigby described the “oppression” of “trans women,” but had had no prior interaction with anyone affiliated with the schools he targeted. The only link connecting the schools was the fact that they were exclusively for females. […] In the first incident, which occurred on January 19, Rigby claimed he was already hiding inside the Holly Lodge Girls’ College in West Derby and waiting to attack. The only way to prevent students from being slaughtered, Rigby said, would be for the women and girls to make a public apology to “trans women.” Police were called and the school was forced to shut down for the day. […]

On January 23, Rigby contacted Greenbank High School in Southport. The court heard that an email was sent at 12:53pm which warned that he would massacre the girls in attendance in order to make a point about “misgendering trans women like me.” It continued: “I am on my way to the school with a revolver and a machete and I’m going to shoot and stab all of your girls. You TERFs are going to learn to stop mocking, deadnaming and misgendering transwomen like me. If anyone attempts to stop me, they will be shot and I will release a blood agent into the school which will poison you.” […]

Three days later, January 26, Rigby sent threats to The Belvedere Academy in Liverpool. At 8:30am, headteacher Julie Taylor was informed that a threatening message had been sent during the night. The email read: “I have managed to gain access to the school and I’m now hiding somewhere in the school with a crossbow and a sword. When your girls come into school I will be jumping out. I’m going to kill every girl and woman staff member I come across.” The academy was placed in lockdown for the day. (“UK: Trans Activist Jailed for Sending Death Threats to Schools for Women and Girls,” Reduxx, 4th June 2026)

The faces are different, the malevolence is the same: leftist narcissists Darren Rigby and Andy Burnham

Yes, like Andy Burnham, Darren Rigby believes in rhetoric over reality. Unlike Andy Burnham, Rigby isn’t good-looking and you can easily read the malevolence of his ideology in his face. But you can’t easily read about Rigby’s ideology in the mainstream media. The fiercely feminist Guardian didn’t report on his crimes at all. Elsewhere, the BBC and others did their best to conceal his transgenderism and his grievances. Leftists are determined to make Darren Rigby a meteor-malefactor, a criminal who flashes through the headlines and disappears for ever because his crimes do not serve the leftist cause.

But imagine if he had been a “far-right” supporter of Andrew Tate or Tommy Robinson and had made threats of violence to some of the Muslim girls’ schools springing up all over the Yookay. He wouldn’t have been a meteor malefactor then, but a permanent and regularly re-reported exhibit in the Hyperdrome of Hate. “Heads We Win, Tails You Lose” — that’s one of the two central principles of leftism. The other is “Preach Equality, Practise Hierarchy.” Those are malevolent principles and leftist Andy Burnham believes firmly in both of them. The  malevolence of his ideology isn’t visible in his face, but have no doubt that it’s there in his brain. The malevolence of Burnham’s ideology is just as certain as the failure of his premiership.