Resolute enemies of the working-class
Does Jeremy Corbyn intend to listen to working-class concerns and reverse New Labour’s policies on immigration? Not in the slightest. And give him his due: in his recent speech to the Labour Party Conference, he was completely open about Labour’s intentions. He said that a Labour government would “provide extra funding to communities that have the largest rises in population,” and he refused to make “false promises” about reducing immigration, let alone ending or reversing it.
In other words, open borders will continue if he wins a general election. Under Corbyn, the Labour party remains “hostile to the English working class.” To underline the point, Corbyn has appointed three resolute enemies of the White working class to senior positions in his shadow cabinet. The Black supremacist Diane Abbott has become Shadow Home Secretary and the rich Hindu lawyer Shami Chakrabarti has become Shadow Attorney General. They join the rich feminist lawyer Emily Thornberry, who was already Shadow Foreign Secretary.
Abbott has repeatedly demonstrated her hostility to Whites during her time in parliament (but was happy for her son to have an expensive private education among them). Thornberry has publicly sneered at “White Van Man,” a symbol of the working-class builders, plumbers and electricians whose incomes have been badly harmed by cheap labour from Eastern Europe. Anxious not to be left out, Chakrabarti has publicly sneered at “Essex Man,” another symbol of the White working-class.
The views of Jews
Chakrabarti was speaking to a Jewish audience at the Labour party conference, begging them not to abandon the party: “Please don’t go. Don’t leave me here, don’t leave me locked in a room with Essex man. … I don’t want to be left alone with people who lack the vision and views that you and I bring to this party as members of minority groups.” Chakrabarti’s minority supremacism and hostility to the White working class will cause her no problems in Corbyn’s Labour party.
Quite the reverse. But “anti-Semitism” is allegedly a serious problem in Labour. Corbyn denounced it in his conference speech and Chakrabarti recently wrote an “independent” report discussing its manifestations in the party. She concluded it wasn’t a serious problem and was accused of overseeing a “whitewash” by her Jewish critics. In fact, the report was a “brownwash”: anti-Semitism in Labour, as elsewhere in Britain, has increased because of Muslims, who somehow fail to see Jews as “natural allies,” despite the best efforts of anti-White Jewish activists like Jonathan Freedland and Dr Richard Stone.
The Brown-Supremacist Baroness
Chakrabarti has long been a heroine of progressive politics in Britain. She was once head of the “civil rights” group called Liberty, where she allegedly campaigned to defend the individual against the overweening state. She was not a member of the Labour Party when Corbyn asked her to write her exculpatory report on anti-Semitism, but she quickly joined it “in order to gain members’ ‘trust and confidence’.”Despite his opposition to hereditary peerages, Jeremy Corbyn almost immediately elevated her to the House of Lords as “Baroness Kennington.”
If you think that was a quid pro quo, you’re obviously racist, misogynist and rampantly Hindu-phobic. Corbyn has now appointed her as Shadow Attorney General and angered Jews even more. But Chakrabarti will continue to follow a Jewish agenda on “civil rights.” If Labour win power and she becomes the real Attorney General, will she reverse decades of highly illiberal laws against “hate speech”?
Well, maybe not. Is the Pope a Baptist? If Labour win power, the laws against thought-crime will be harshened, not repealed.
Fighting for Women’s Rights
By appointing women like Abbott, Thornberry and Chakrabarti to his shadow cabinet, Corbyn has underlined his hostility to the White working-class in general and White working-class men in particular. This won’t worry Alan Moore and Alan Bennett, because their politics are based on narcissism and self-interest, not on reality. Recall Moore’s comment about “working class principles and values.” One very strong working-class principle is hatred of sex-criminals, particularly those who prey on children or the elderly.
Labour’s support for mass immigration has allowed thousands of sex-criminals into Britain. The astonishingly prolific gerontophile rapist Delroy Easton Grant came here from Jamaica. Muslim rapists from Pakistan and other Third-World nations have been preying on White working-class girls for decades, as detailed in a comprehensive study called “Easy Meat”: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery (2014). The Labour party has not merely connived at these crimes, but collaborated with them: working-class parents in Rotherham who tried to get help from the authorities were accused of racism and even arrested by the police.
As I pointed out in “Bend It Like Bennett,” Alan Bennett will not be writing any plays about Delroy Grant and his many elderly victims. Nor will Alan Moore be writing about the working-class girls raped and sometimes murdered by Muslims and other non-Whites. He has been accused by some of his fellow liberals of a “rape-fixation,” but that’s an example of the intra-liberal feuding I discussed in “Comrades and Cannibals.” For liberals, the ideal way to win an argument is not by using facts and logic, but by convicting their opponent of sexism, racism, homophobia or some other blasphemy against goodthink.
Virtue-signalling versus reality
Moore has defended his references to sexual violence by saying that he is condemning, not condoning or titillating: “I have known a distressing number of women, including women who are or have been close to me, who have been raped, sexually assaulted or otherwise threatened with sexual violence.” If those women are typical of the general population, a disproportionate number of them will have been attacked by non-Whites. But with honourable exceptions like the lesbian feminist Julie Bindel, liberals will not acknowledge the startling over-representation of non-Whites among sex-criminals.
Alan Moore certainly doesn’t acknowledge it: in typical liberal fashion, he wrings his hands about the “60,000 [reported] rapes in the UK” and about “actual incidents of rape” being “possibly two or three times as high.” But he’s merely virtue-signalling. One big reason that the genuine working-class oppose mass immigration is that it increases sexual violence. They’ve believed the overwhelming evidence rather than the rhetoric of the “progressive” left. But working-class opposition to mass immigration was futile because they trusted and supported the Labour party.
Student of science
The uncomfortable truth for Alan Moore and Alan Bennett is that “racist and xenophobic” parties like UKIP and the British National Party are far more faithful to “working class principles and values” than the Labour party ever has been in the modern era. It was a Labour council that covered up the Rotherham horrors and a Labour government that prosecuted the BNP leader Nick Griffin when he tried to publicize them. At the same time, the proudly working-class Moore and Bennett were growing rich by collaborating with a hostile elite that despises working-class Whites.
The betrayal is particularly acute in Moore’s case because he is supposed to be an avid student of science, someone who closely follows scientific advances and cleverly incorporates them into his work. But he ignores the true richness and complexity of human biology in favour of politically correct myths. In reality, human beings are not all “the same under the skin.” The White working-class are genetically distinct from the Third-World immigrants whom the Labour party and other traitors have welcomed into Britain. Inter alia, they are innately more intelligent and less inclined to clannishness. But there are also genetic distinctions between working-class Whites in different parts of Britain.
Effete and parasitic
This complexity is lost in the vapid, politically correct biology of charlatans and fraudsters like Stephen Jay Gould. But I myself don’t want to romanticize or be sentimental about the working-class. If the genetic theories of Gregory Clarke are correct, Alan Moore and Alan Bennett may owe their intelligence and talent to descent from successful, entrepreneurial, hard-working Whites, not from horny-handed sons of toil in the Middle Ages. They might want to think otherwise, but reality isn’t shaped by feelings, much as liberals might want it to be. Moore’s feeble grasp of reality is evident when he speaks of “massive groundswells of popular support” for Corbyn and Bernie Saunders.
Corbyn with another vibrant New Briton
Those “groundswells” are not taking place in the working-class. Genuine working-class people in Britain think Corbyn is “weird” and condemn his republicanism and lack of patriotism. Corbynistas and “Bernie Bros” are disproportionately drawn from groups whom the working-class regard as effete and parasitic: academics, students, lawyers, social workers, journalists, bureaucrats and so on—the liberal-left establishment.
In fact, it’s Donald Trump who rides a “massive groundswell of popular support” and faces massive opposition from the elite. Moore thinks the “laughably disproportionate torrent of ridicule and demonization that politicians like Corbyn are being subjected to” is proof that Corbyn has the elite worried. What about the worse “ridicule and demonization” directed at Trump and Nigel Farage? Like Labour in Britain, the Democratic party in America is hostile to its traditional working-class supporters. Like the greedy and corrupt lawyer Tony Blair, the greedy and corrupt lawyer Hillary Clinton combines cultural Marxism with slavish obedience to the plutocratic globalist elite.
Betraying their own
And like Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders would have not championed the working-class if he’d won the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Labour and the Democrats are Orwellian parties, firmly opposed to the “working class principles and values” that have defined them historically. Moore claims that “Jeremy Corbyn is about the only current political figure that the working class that I grew up among could have recognised as such.” That is nonsense, as is proved by Corbyn’s alliance with rich, anti-working-class lawyers like Emily Thornberry and Shami Chakrabarti.
But if Alan Moore and Alan Bennett had condemned Labour and defended the White working-class, their careers would have been over. When Moore offers “the very best of luck to Jeremy Corbyn, to Momentum, and to the Labour Party,” he simultaneously betrays the working-class and cements his own reputation for progressive virtue. The same applies to Michael Moore in the United States. The war against Whites is massively incentivized and working-class writers are richly rewarded for betraying their own.
“Who watches the watchmen?” Moore asked in his most famous masterpiece. Here’s another question for him: “Who works for the working-class?”