British Politics

The Irrepressibility of Ethnopolitics and the Death of the Labour Party

Newton’s third law of motion is, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Sometimes this applies to politics as well as physics, as we see with the present perilous state of the Labour Party, which has been reacting to its previous co-option by globalists and metropolitan elites, by going in the opposite direction towards a politically naïve grass-roots upsurge, combined with strong hints of counter-Semitic sentiment.

This is the true story behind the surprising rise of Jeremy Corbyn, who has now been re-elected leader with an increased majority over his oily and unlikable challenger Owen Smith. (Yes, the Labour Party seems to have an unfortunate oversupply of charisma-deficient beta types who inevitably end up contesting these make-or-break leadership contests.)

The Labour Party has long faced the same dilemma as America’s Democrat Party, namely an egalitarian ethos that empowers those whose stake in the party is pure enthusiasm over those who have a more substantial and financial stake in the party — the party elites — while also marginalizing the interests and opinions of the voter base.

Because of the threat to electability that this presents, the Democrats came up with their “super delegate” system, a way for the corrupt, pragmatic, and power hungry centrists at the top to retain control, something they pulled off with little difficulty in the case of the Bernie insurgency. Read more

Theresa May — Friend of Israel and the Organized Jewish Community

Anyone wondering about the priorities of Mrs Theresa May should follow her actions from the moment she learned she was to become Britain’s next Prime Minister.
Her first act was to sign a pledge committing her to remember the Holocaust and “stand up to hatred and intolerance”. And her second  was to spend the evening before her confirmation by the Queen at a private dinner at the home of Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis.
Whatever else awaits the British people, they can be under no doubt that their new leader is once again a true Friend of Israel.

In a parliamentary career marked by cowardice and a tendency to go along with whichever political wind is blowing, it is hard to say which has been Mrs Theresa May’s most inglorious moment.  Was it her decision, as Home Secretary, to throw open Britain’s borders and allow immigration to arise to record levels — after being elected specifically on a promise to reduce it?  Perhaps it was her plans to target “non-violent extremists” via blacklists, internet free-speech restrictions and movement bans?

For many nationalists, the most egregious moment in this wretched woman’s career came in a speech she gave at the Finchley United Synagogue in April 2015 when she defiled the memory of British servicemen killed in Palestine 1939 — 1948 by praising, instead, their Jewish terrorist killers.

So as today we celebrate the independence of the state of Israel and pay our respects to those who have fought so hard for it…. We remember the sacrifice of those who fought to achieve and protect that independence….

Thus the woman about to become the British Prime Minister tarnished the sacrifice of an estimated 784 British servicemen, police and crown officers killed in what is — for the Friends of Israel — one of the most embarrassing episodes in British colonial history (see Note below). She did not even have the decency to deliver this stab in the back behind closed doors. Read more

Brexit — the shockwaves continue: UKIP rising as Labour heads toward oblivion, Israel Lobby emerges triumphant

Has Britain’s referendum victory been stolen?  The forces of darkness have quickly reasserted themselves and the portents are now very grave.  Both the outgoing prime minister David Cameron and his possible successor Boris Johnson are both now saying trade must come before immigration curbs.  Nigel Farage, the face of Brexit, has accused them of backsliding but may himself have been already “frozen out” out of the European exit negotiations by more establishment figures in the broad Brexit alliance.

This would only confirmed the growing suspicions about the real motives behind the Conservatives who had so belatedly joined the Leave camp. Boris Johnson was worryingly vague about any change of European freedom of movement rules saying “It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so.” If there is a stab in the back then it is an inside job.

But it is the statements made by two prominent UKIP members, two prominent Leave members, one UKIP one Conservative, that have really caused alarm.  Both Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan are still committed to freedom of movement across Europe which essentially negates the entire point of the referendum in the minds of most voters.

Both Carswell, who is an MP, and Hannan, who is an MEP,  are prominent conservative writers with strong free market affiliations and City of London connections.

But in fact both men have been sniping at Farage and questioning his leadership long before the referendum. At the height of the campaign Carswell was pouring abuse on his party leader, not least for a gritty refugee poster, and he then went to opine that Farage was “not a serious person.”

The Offensive Ad

The offensive poster

But while both men are disloyal to Nigel Farage and worryingly “flexible” on the core issue of immigration, there are some causes to which they do display unquestioned loyalty. Both are staunch friends of Israel and have gone out of their way to reassure the Jewish community that, whatever happens, they do not need to worry.

Read more

The Future of British Nationalism After Brexit

Brexit-Grexit-EU-Cartoon

Brexit has come and gone, and like Wellington said of the Battle of Waterloo it was a “damn close run thing.” Indeed, that was one of the reasons I supported Scottish independence two years ago — to stop Scotland dragging England to the left on important issues like this. (My other reason was so that Scotland could discover on its own — and rather painfully I suspect — the limits of leftism when not buttressed by a larger non-socialist entity).

But what about the fallout from Brexit and its effect on British nationalism? Yes, it gets us out of the EU and shakes the foundations of the still incomplete Tower of Babel. But what lessons can we learn from it, and what directions should nationalists take?

Perhaps the most interesting point about the Brexit Referendum is the political vacuum it revealed. All the main parties, except UKIP, officially backed the defeated cause. That’s right — the Conservative Party, Labour Party, and Lib Dems, as well as the SNP and Plaid Cymru, supported REMAIN. But, even with a higher turnout than in a general election, they failed to get their way.

What does this mean? It means that practically the entire British political establishment was not aligned with the wishes of the majority of the British voting public. Read more

Britain says no

brexit

Cucked reactions to the Brexit vote

“Bliss was it to be alive.,.” the words of poet William Wordsworth seem appropriate on a morning when Britain woke up to find the world had turned upside down — and our ruling elite had been given a decisive bloody nose. The British people’s narrow but definite rejection of the European Union is the biggest upset since Churchill was rejected by the voters in 1945.

The country seems in shock this morning. Red-eyed female presenters on the BBC look as if they have suffered a close family bereavement and the commentators are scrambling around trying to make sense of it all but there is no doubt who they are blaming: David Cameron, the “heir to Blair” himself and a man who had sworn to make Britain safe for the financial and bureaucratic elites.

In a system in which the defining characteristic of politicians must always be the ability to successfully sell lies to the voters, Cameron finally failed to deliver. He had come to power on a promise to reduce annual net immigration to under 100,000 and instead it had soared to an official 310,000 (unofficially it much higher than 500,000). While ordinary people were aghast, Cameron had merely shrugged his shoulders and said his hands were tied by Europe.  For generations, British politicians had got away with this. Then he allowed himself to be talked into a referendum. You can see the rationale. The voters had fallen for it repeatedly and there seemed no reason to think they would not do so again. Read more

The #StolenReferendum: How Cameron & Co have ruthlessly exploited the murder of MP Jo Cox to save their skins and the EU ‘Project’

Remain

Britain’s vote on Europe looks set to go down in history as the ‘Stolen Referendum’. As the Remain campaign’s ruthless exploitation of the appalling murder of MP Jo Cox continues, big business, banks and other Remain enthusiasts are increasingly confident of coming out on top in Thursday’s historic poll.

Yet such a victory will have been bought at a terrible price — a blatant triple fraud against the democratic process, perpetrated with the enthusiastic support and involvement of all three leaders of the UK’s old established governing political parties and of the overwhelmingly dominant political force in Scotland.

The damage such a consensus for deceit and election rigging will do to faith in the democratic process is incalculable.

The first great Establishment electoral fraud in the now terminally polluted campaign was in place even before the sorry farce began: In a shameless re-run of the corruption that discredited the UK’s first In/Out referendum, in 1975, the contest was drastically skewed by the fact that every household received two documents in favour of EU membership (one from the Government and one from the Europhile campaign) compared to just one from the campaign for independence. Read more

Dreams of Eurocide: Non-White Immigration as a Weapon of Race-War

Martin Luther King had a dream. So did Europe’s compassionate and caring Jewish community. After the Second World War, they thought that importing millions of Muslims would give them staunch allies against the White Christians who had persecuted them so unfairly for so long. With Muslim help, they hoped to bring about Eurocide: the death of White Christian Europe and its replacement by a rainbow continent firmly under Jewish control.

This dream of a progressive alliance was still alive in 1995, when the radical Franco-Jewish director Matthieu Kassovitz released a searing indictment of France’s racism and xenophobia:

The film was called La Haine (Hate) and was the story of three young men in one of the wretched housing projects outside Paris, commonly referred to as la banlieue. The three lads were a north African, a black guy and an eastern European Jew/ … They were cheeky, funny and likable — a gang of what the French call “branleurs”, which is literally translated as “wankers” but really means young guys who mess about. The core of the story was, however, that they were also full of rage — against the police, but ultimately against a society that has pushed them to the margins. Much of the film’s comedy as well as its social comment comes from the gang’s misadventures in central Paris, a world as distant and alien to them as America.

la haine

The plot is relatively simple, centring on the fact that Vinz, the angry young Jew, has got hold of a gun stolen from the police. He threatens to use it against them if his mate Abdel dies from his injuries after being held in police custody. When Abdel does die, Vinz’s moment for revenge comes when he has the chance to kill a neo-Nazi skinhead. He backs away, however, and finally hands the gun over to Hubert, the black boxer who is the most philosophical of the gang and totally against violence. The film ends with Vinz being accidentally shot dead by a policeman, who is taunting him with a gun. The shocking and powerful final scene is a standoff between Hubert and cop pointing guns at each other; the scene is framed by the traumatised face of Saïd, the north African member of the trio, and a voiceover saying that this is the “story of a society falling apart”. (La Haine 20 years on: what has changed?, The Guardian, 3rd May 2015)

Read more