Nigel Farage

Source: Gage Skidmore

Did you know that, in the run-up to the nation’s looming General Election on 4 July, there has been a sudden mass outbreak of neo-Nazism right across the United Kingdom? No? That’s because there hasn’t. But this has not prevented mainstream British media and politicians hysterically claiming otherwise, and all thanks to the supposed malign, fascistic influence of one man in particular: former Chief Brexiteer and current leader of the insurgent start-up Reform Party, Nigel Farage.

How is Nigel a Nazi? Well, he isn’t, so the smear just has to be essentially invented out of nothing.

The Great Reform Act
The current U.K. Government (for the next five minutes, at least) are the supposedly right-wing Conservative (or Tory) Party, of which Farage was a onetime member, back in the days of Margaret Thatcher, when the organization was still in some sense actually conservative in its outlook. In the decades since, the Party has moved steadily to the left and treated its own natural voters like Nigel with ill-disguised contempt, particularly with their constant false promises to end mass immigration.

This has been going on for fourteen solid years now, meaning the Conservatives appear headed for the worst General Election result in their entire history—some achievement for the oldest political party in the world. But their disappointed former voters were left in a quandary. Who to vote for, if not Tory? Surely not the left-wing Labour Party, or the even more left-wing Lib Dems or Greens?

A month before polling day, the democratically disenfranchised were thrown a sudden lifeline when Nigel Farage made an abrupt return to the electoral fray, taking up leadership of Reform and agreeing to stand to become an MP. Suddenly, voters now had an actual right-wing, anti-immigration option to vote for, eating into the Conservatives’ old voter base substantially.

This would never do. The cozy post-Blairite Uniparty consensus being newly threatened, the agents of the Establishment sprang into action to combat such a menace in the only way they knew how: begin shouting “NIGEL IS A NAZI!!” and hope voters were stupid enough to fall for it.

We Will Slight Him on the Beaches
First of all, the Uniparty tried to tar Farage as a fascist by…criticizing him for claiming Britain’s current PM, Rishi Sunak, didn’t have enough respect for those who had lain down their lives to fight against fascism during WWII. After Sunak foolishly left the official 80th-anniversary commemorations of D-Day early on 6 June, Farage disparaged him as “not fit to lead the country” as he was “not patriotic” and “doesn’t understand our culture.”

Why? Because he’s a big brown Indian? No, explained Nigel, because, as Rishi’s early exit showed, “he is utterly disconnected by class, by privilege, from how the ordinary folk in the country feel. He revealed that, I think spectacularly, when he left [the beaches of] Normandy early.”

The standard Uniparty response was just to yell “RACISM!” with no actual proof of the fact. You’d have thought Farage had asked the same question often misremembered as once having been posed by the proudly non-PC British comedian Bernard Manning during an old TV chat-show appearance: “Where were the Pakis on D-Day?” (Actually, Bernard said, “There were no Pakis at Dunkirk,” which apparently is untrue, there were a few; it’s just that, like Sunak, they all went home early, so Manning didn’t notice.)

Mel Stride, the Tory Work and Pensions Secretary, said he was “very proud” to have a “British-Asian” PM, and that as such he felt “very uncomfortable” with the supposed racial overtones of Nigel’s words, saying he appeared to be “suggesting things”—i.e., that Sunak was himself a Paki coward, who wasn’t really truly British at all, just as Manning had once suggested.

Whistling in the Darkie
Labour Party politicians soon joined in the public suttee ritual against Nigel likewise, with Shadow Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood—a typical D-Day dodger herself, by the sound of it—opining that this was “a classic Nigel Farage trick.”

How so? Cunningly, Führer Farage had said something not racist about Rishi Sunak—a surprising feat indeed, for a supposed neo-Nazi. However, by saying something not racist, Farage was simply giving himself plausible cover to say something actually racist silently, via words he did not even utter, in what Mahmood called “a bit of a dog-whistle.”

Dog-whistles are ostensibly noiseless, only able to be detected by the superior ears of sensitive canines, not humans. Racist dog-whistles supposedly operate similarly, seeming non-racist to normal human ears, but being detectable as racist to the primed racial radar of neo-Nazi fellow travelers.

Hence, when Nigel accurately accused the out-of-touch Westminster bubble-inhabitor Rishi Sunak of being an out-of-touch Westminster bubble-inhabitor, what he was really saying was “Bernard Manning was right: Where were all the Pakis like Rishi on D-Day?” even though he wasn’t, and nobody normal could hear these words at all, only those classic Uniparty running dogs Shaban Mahmood and Mel Stride. In truth, it’s not the fascists who hear the dog-whistles nowadays—it’s actually their supposedly “less extreme” (but far more paranoid) political peers.

The UnHerd Majority
Extraordinarily, some voters failed to perceive that footage of a man not saying anything racist was actually secretly footage of a man saying something racist, and the slanders fell on deaf ears. What was really needed were photos of Nigel in full SS uniform, taking a crafty dump in Auschwitz and wiping his bum on a photo of Anne Frank, but lamentably these did not exist.

Uniparty opponents could have tried claiming that, by wearing an ordinary suit and tie, Nigel was actually sending out a sartorial dog-whistle that he was covertly wearing official SS Tötenkopf-emblazoned underpants beneath, and socks with knitted images of Hermann Goering on them, but settled upon targeting his fellow hapless Reform MP candidates as being undercover Nazis instead.

First to be spuriously “outed” [sic] was Ian “Final Solution” Gribbin, standing for parliament in East Sussex, whose years-old user comments beneath articles on U.K. op-ed site UnHerd were combed through by the offense archaeologists of the BBC, finding he had made shockingly sexist comments to the effect that, as women had longer average life expectancies than men, they were “the sponging gender,” being “subsidized” by male taxpayers to “merely breathe,” scurrilously therefore suggesting “depriving women of health care until their life expectancies are the same as men.”

Well! Is that just the kind of policy platform of medical genocide we can expect to see in any future Reform Reich? Not really, because, as the Party wearily pointed out, Herr Gribbin was merely joking, making deliberately absurd suggestions about killing old women with his tongue placed “so firmly in his cheek one should be able to spot it from 100 yards.”

But maybe his joke was a dog-whistle one, so obviously a joke that it was actually wholly serious? After all, in other sickening UnHerd posts, Gribbin had suggested Britain would be “in a far better state today” if the nation had “taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality” prior to WWII, “but oh no, Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people.” Reform’s wholly unconcerned response was that this opinion was “probably true.”

I’ve often thought so myself, of late, given that Europe would increasingly seem to be headed toward some kind of miserable potential future unspoken dictatorship divvied up between imported Islamists and domestic white neo-Marxists. Given the choice, I’d honestly rather have to live under Nazism: It would be safer for the Jews, for one thing.

I’d far prefer having to live under none of the above, of course, and I’m sure so would Gauleiter Gribbin, who says he was just making deliberately provocative points to spur debate. Indeed, you may well argue it was precisely to prevent any such horrific prospect coming to pass that he was actually standing for high office in the first place. What have the Conservatives or Labour done to stop the rise of domestic Islamofascism lately?

Candid Candidates
Next up was The Times, Britain’s (former) newspaper of record, which unearthed news that around one in ten Reform candidates were Facebook friends with a highly obscure fantasist named Gary Raikes, founder of the tiny New British Union neofascist organization, who seems to enjoy ranting at a lectern surrounded by red lightning-rune banners and pretending to be Sir Roderick Spode. Other “shocking” revelations were that, online, some wannabe Reform MPs had occasionally typed naughty words, denied climate change, or “reposted an Islamophobic conspiracy theory”—generally media code for “He noticed that the Great Replacement is happening.”

Best of all was Matthew Warnes, Reform candidate in Mansfield, who called a Polish man a “job-stealing twat that can’t read English.” If the Polack in question can’t read English to know this, how can he possibly be offended? Warnes also changed his Facebook profile picture to that of Nintendo’s Super Mario, explaining: “Don’t be a racist, be like Mario…. [He] jumps like a black man and grabs coins like a Jew.” Isn’t that just a heartening celebration of multiculturalism in action?

When Farage was confronted with evidence of all this during a radio appearance, he basically just shrugged and told the presenter to die of herpes. Asked if he would withdraw support from a candidate who had said “Islam and Nazis are the same thing,” Nigel replied, “Probably not…. Winston Churchill…thought the same thing.” The only regret the interviewer got out of him was “I can only apologize that not all our candidates have been to Eton [or] Oxford.”

When it emerged another Reform candidate had advised welfare-scrounging black people to stop “grifting the race-card” and instead “get up off your lazy arses” and work for a living like everyone else does, we were all supposed to be shocked. Instead, Nigel simply implied that, outside of the hermetically sealed worlds of media and politics, this is just how ordinary people actually think and speak, a fact Uniparty automatons appear to have wholly forgotten.

Signs of The Times
The latest fake “unmasking” of a Reform Nazi is that of psychologist Jack Aaron, whom The Times reported had described Hitler as “brilliant” online. Yet it transpired he simply meant Hitler was a “brilliant” campaigner and speechifier, who was able to persuade the German people to march to his demented drum—when The Times contacted him, Aaron clarified he thought Hitler “evil.” As the presumably Jewish Aaron further explained, Hitler had “brilliantly” succeeded in “killing many members of my own family,” so it was unlikely he would be his No. 1 fan.

To simply report he had called Adolf “brilliant” out of context, Aaron told The Times, would be a “grossly irresponsible and frankly malicious type of journalism, a dog-whistle presented in a context where people might construe I thought he [Hitler] was a good or admirable man, which I don’t think.” So what was The Times’ subsequent print headline (the only part of the story many subscribers will actually read)? “Candidate defends ‘brilliant Hitler’ posts.” Oh. I thought Farage’s detractors were meant to absolutely hate fascism-related dog-whistles? Not when they’re the ones blowing them.

The end result of this whole lugenpresse campaign? In polling conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Partei first being exposed as the NSDAP in disguise, Reform overtook the Conservatives in the polls for the first time ever, thereby becoming the second most popular voting bloc in the land, at least temporarily.

Amusingly, it turns out that, the more you tell British people Nigel Farage is Adolf Hitler, the more they actually want to vote for him. I certainly do.