Source: Bigstock

My all-time favorite example of electoral interference came in 1997, when Zimbabwe’s former president the Reverend Canaan Banana was scurrilously accused of several acts of homosexual abuse, leading to the truly unimprovable front-page headline “MAN RAPED BY BANANA.”

Some viewed this as no more than a nefarious attempt to hobble any future candidacy of Canaan by smearing his name with false allegations, tactics many MAGA supporters say have since been tried out against Donald Trump by female accusers with political axes to grind too. From “MAN RAPED BY BANANA” to “WOMAN RAPED BY ORANGE,” maybe?

Labour’s Love Lost
The latest example of interference in an American election, meanwhile, comes not from Russia or China, as per the usual stereotype, but from its alleged closest ally, Great Britain. In the final run-up to this week’s knife-edge presidential vote, it emerged that the governing left-wing U.K. Labour Party was apparently sending around 100 staff members across the Atlantic to campaign for the Democrats and Kamala Harris in swing states like North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

A woman with the characteristically English name of Sofia Patel, billed as being “Head of Operations at The Labour Party,” a role I guess George Soros must recently have vacated, provided the telling email address labourforkamala@gmail.com for any activists who were interested to apply via. “Let’s show those Yanks how to win elections!” Patel said. I think the current British model for doing so is importing millions of people with names like “Patel” to act as a reliable ethnic client vote for the left-wing antiwhite parties, a tactic I reckon Kamala’s Democrats have already mastered perfectly well by themselves.

“This is illegal,” tweeted prominent Trump supporter Elon Musk, but it seems it probably isn’t; at least not if foreign mercenaries like the Patel Battalion aren’t specifically paid for their efforts. But, of course, it depends what you mean by “paid.” Patel’s email specifically said “we will sort your housing” and referred to having “ten spots available” for transatlantic helpers in North Carolina. As the Trump team reasonably argued when registering a complaint, this all clearly suggests an official Labour or Democrat “expenditure of resources,” at the very least. Whether or not getting your accommodation covered amounts in effect to receiving payment is for the authorities to decide—and we all know that the authorities will say, “No, because it’s being done for Kamala, not Donald.”

That said, if it probably isn’t illegal, it probably should be. As former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, British-born himself, said in his best cockney accent, Labour’s actions were “a bloody outrage.” On the other hand, Labour Party Employment Minister Alison McGovern told Sky News, “This is a normal thing that happens in elections.” Really? Which other foreign votes has the Labour Party been interfering in abroad without our knowledge, then? Next time someone on the British left spuriously accuses Vladimir Putin of facilitating the Brexit vote via unasked-for online meddling, Vlad should just parrot back, “This is a normal thing that happens in elections,” and tell anyone who doubts it to contact labourforkamala@gmail.com to receive official U.K. government confirmation of the fact.

President Evil
As Labour’s Kamala campaigners were all (at least officially) unpaid volunteers, it appears likely most will have been either know-nothing teenage lefty students with far too much time on their hands, or else recent purple-pubed university graduates in their early 20s who think the election of Donald Trump would mean the immediate imposition of fascist rule across the globe, rather than any actual adult Labour MPs—although, as Britain’s current wood-brained Foreign Secretary David Lammy has specifically smeared Trump as a “neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath” in the past, possibly the difference in mental capacity and political maturity between the two groups is not as wide as one might perhaps have hoped.

Yet indoctrination into a state of fanatical Trump Derangement Syndrome begins young in England. Trump’s natural state of popularity amongst British schoolchildren should be sky-high, as, unlike in America, the word “trump” is infant Anglo baby slang for “fart,” making him by rights every bit as popular amongst the under-10s as the late President Bumwilliepoopoo of Lesotho. That’s why, in October, Corbridge Church of England First School in Northumberland organized a corrective tie-in U.S. election event called an “ostracision.”

A Year Four group‚ i.e., 7- and 8-year-olds, nominated (or more likely were pushed into nominating) four world leaders who “they felt did not set a good example,” namely Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson, and Donald Trump, all of whose political careers I’m sure the tots were every bit as intimately familiar with as they are with the rival ins and outs of the worlds of Peppa Pig, Paw Patrol, and Pokémon. Then they had to vote which ones were most deserving of being ostracized. The final decision in this prepubescent plebiscite, which was obviously not made with any teacher input or guidance whatsoever, was that Donald and Boris were by far the worst.

Letters Bomb
The next logical step should have been getting the kids to tamper directly in other people’s business by enlisting them all to write long, impassioned, and highly patronizing letters to U.S. voters in swing states, imploring them not to vote for the Evil Orange Hitler. Unfortunately, their entire time in Corbridge Church of England First School thus far having been devoted toward teaching them how best to hate supposed “fascists,” none of the students actually knew how to write a letter anyway.

In any case, this particular method of U.K.-based electoral interference in U.S. affairs had already been tried out, with ironic results, back in the 2004 Bush v. Kerry presidential race, when Britain’s rough version of the NYT, The Guardian, launched its deeply unsuccessful “Operation Clark County.” Here 11,000 readers were persuaded to email or write to registered swing voters across the in-play Ohio county in question, urging them not to vote for George Dubya. The end result? Voters moved decisively toward Bush, handing him victory in Clark County by 1,620 votes, a greater swing in favor of the Republicans taking place there than in any comparable Ohio area.

Some quite notable Brits mailed missives Ohio-wards too. Professional fossil-fondler Richard Dawkins paid for a stamp, warning that, if Bush won, Americans abroad would have to affect a Canadian accent through pure shame, pleading that “We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you.” Dawkins signed off by trumpeting his then title as “Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.” Richard may have understood science very well, but he certainly didn’t possess much understanding of basic human voter psychology here.

Best-selling writer of distinctly unthrilling spy thrillers John le Carré likewise informed his own unsolicited matched-up pen pal that “Probably no American President in all history has been so universally hated abroad as George W. Bush,” to which the recipient no doubt then replied, “I don’t care how they feel about him abroad, John, I’m voting for him to be President of the United States of America, not Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.” By alienating and annoying Clark County residents like this, The Guardian may very well have pushed them into voting Republican just to spite their arrogant limey junk-mailers.

Return to Sender
To prove this is what happened, you only have to examine the replies from irritated Ohioans and other offended Americans The Guardian and its condescending letter-writers received back in their turn. My favorite read as follows: “I hope your earholes turn to arseholes and shit on your shoulders.” So many similar responses did The Guardian receive that it managed to eke an entire, effort-free article (whose lazy style I hereby shamelessly imitate below) out of simply copy-and-pasting some of the most florid, abusive, and dentistry-related ones like these:

“Have you not noticed that Americans don’t give two shits what Europeans think of us? Each e-mail someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies…. I don’t give a rat’s ass if our election is going to have an effect on your worthless little life. I really don’t. If you want to have a meaningful election in your crappy little island full of shitty food and yellow teeth, then maybe you should try not to sell your sovereignty out to Brussels and Berlin, dipshit. Oh, yeah—and brush your goddamned teeth, you filthy animals.”

“I HAVE BEEN TO YOUR COUNTRY, THE COUNTRY OF MY ANCESTORS, AND I KNOW WHY THEY LEFT. MAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A TOOTH CAPPED.”

“Fuck off and die asshole!!!!!”

“Perhaps there is something wrong with you. Perhaps it is your teeth.”

“Please be advised that I have forwarded this to the CIA and FBI.”

“As a US citizen, I want to advise you that you and anyone that participates in subverting the US presidential election can be criminally charged and perhaps even charged as spies.”

Those final two there could easily have been sent off to Labour PM Sir Keir Starmer’s bulging mailbag in 10 Downing Street by angry U.S. swing voters today.

Political Black Mail
This whole affair is like history repeating itself, especially when you examine The Guardian’s original 2004 article explaining their plan, provocatively entitled “My Fellow Non-Americans…,” in which, besides advocating a mass campaign of overseas letter-writing and emailing, they openly say things like “We’ve identified ways to give money to your preferred candidate, even though direct campaign contributions from foreigners aren’t allowed.” So have Starmer’s Labour Party in 2024, critics like Musk and Gorka may argue.

So what was The Guardian’s specific advice about how to illegally influence a U.S. election from the comfort of your yurt in leafy North London? By carefully proceeding as follows:

American law forbids foreigners from giving money to affect the outcome of a federal election—except that, on closer inspection, it doesn’t. You’re banned from donating to the campaigns themselves, or to many of the independent campaigning groups that fight explicitly on behalf of one candidate. So you need to identify officially non-partisan groups whose activities, nonetheless, have the practical effect of helping one candidate over the other.

Translation: Bung $100 to the NAACP so they can bus in the Afro electorate to ballot booths en bloc, the darkies all vote Democrat, don’t they? The Guardian actually gave a specific website link, postal address, and phone number for the NAACP donations department. To avoid accusations of bias, they also provided similar contact info for the presumed Republican voters of the Christian Coalition of Ohio, but as with the NYT, I don’t think The Guardian has any right-wing or Christian readers at all, so this was just an obvious sop to avoid legal action, as perhaps was the subsection editor’s subsequent claim the whole thing was just “a bit of a joke” and “a lighthearted attempt to make some quite serious points.”

As for myself, I was going to end by advising you all from my own English base to go out and vote for Trump just to get one back at these dreadful people, but given the previous pleasing reverse-psychology example of Operation Clark County, I think I’d better settle for lying through my rotten teeth and telling you all to vote Harris-Walz instead.