White Working Class

The need for a White Minorities Movement

The 2011 census revealed that across London, Leicester, Luton and Slough, approximately 4.5 million White British people already live as a minority. The release of the census results was significant as it legitimised what British Nationalism has been saying for years about the extent of mass immigration. No longer can opponents of demographic change be smeared as playing on peoples fears or as ‘racist’ by advocates of structural racism theories as if we had ‘White Privilege’, why would we allow ourselves to become a minority?

Now provides the perfect opportunity to launch a movement representing these new white minorities as being a localised minority but a majority of the population nationally enables us to warn of the dangers of demographic change whilst we still have time to motivate the remaining majority to do something about it.

Brexit changes everything- not just because UKIP is now out of the picture- but most crucially because politicians can no longer use discussing Eastern European immigration as a way to talk about immigration without mentioning demographic change. By combining our traditional cultural and security focused arguments with social, economic and political arguments against demographic change we can back the main parties into a corner as, whilst the main parties can try to argue that immigration is good for voters through bringing in tax receipts to pay for pensions, they can’t say the same about their own voters becoming a minority.

People only vote for the main parties as they think they are the only ones capable of governing, providing economic security and safeguarding public services. If we can prove that the rapid demographic change the main parties support undermines this, then we can build a mass movement. It’s impossible to argue in favour of becoming a minority without the main parties exposing their hatred of their own population.

So what does becoming a minority mean really mean for peoples everyday lives? Read more

Working-Class Zero: The Political Autism of Alan Moore and His Labour Party Friends, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

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.

diane-abbott

Diane Abbott

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. Read more

Working-Class Zero: The Political Autism of Alan Moore and His Labour Party Friends, Part 1

alan-moore1

Alan Moore

Genius. It’s an over-worked term in modern popular culture, quickly bestowed on any musician, artist or writer who becomes famous or influential. But there are people for whom it seems appropriate. The British writer Alan Moore is one of them. In his prime, this proud son of Northampton bestrode the world of comics like a colossus, imagineering, innovating and inspiring like a combination of Hieronymus Bosch, H.P. Lovecraft and William Burroughs. He was, and remains, a master of both words and images, synergizing the verbal and the visual to create worlds of wonder for his millions of awestruck fans.

Alan Moore is a genius. It doesn’t sound wrong to say that.

Goodthinkful liberals

At least, it doesn’t sound wrong if you are one of those many fans. But I’ve never felt the Moore magic myself. I’ve tried masterpieces of his like Watchmen (1987) and V for Vendetta (1985) and found them over-written, pretentious and confused. And I thought this long before I became a crazed political extremist. When I first read Watchmen I was a goodthinkful liberal too, resolutely opposed to racism, sexism and homophobia.

That was then. Now I reject Moore not just as a writer but as a thinker too. His art is adolescent and so are his politics. Like the Yorkshire playwright Alan Bennett, he makes much of his humble origins and the simplicity and decency of his working-class parents. And like Bennett, he unflinchingly supports all the forces in British politics and culture that most despise the working class and people like his parents.

On the upside, those same forces will shower riches on any talented working-class writer who demonstrates his goodthinkfulness and collaborates with them in their anti-prole endeavours. As I pointed out in “Bend It Like Bennett,” Alan Bennett is a rich man who was well able to afford a wallet-lightening encounter with some vibrant Romanian Gypsies. Alan Moore is also rich: he has recently donated £10,000 to help a friend bring his “African wife” over from Mozambique. The British government were asking the friend to prove that he had the “minimum income threshold” required to support a foreign wife.

Moore thought there was “some unpleasant racial issue” in his friend’s difficulties, concluded that “racism” was at work, and expressed his “continuing incredulous disgust over the manner in which Mr Cousins and his wife Paula have been kept separate for what is now a period of years.”

In short, Moore was virtue-signalling, secure in the knowledge that his donation and the opinions that accompanied it would bring him nothing but approval and admiration from his fellow liberals. Read more

The Riddle of Rotherham: “Mad Ash,” White Trash and the Hostile Elite

The Yorkshire town of Rotherham, that hotspot of vibrancy, is back in the news. A gang of Pakistani Muslims (and two White women) have just been jailed for what the judge described as an “appalling catalogue” of sex-crimes against under-aged White girls. The ringleader, Arshid “Mad Ash” Hussain, received 35 years; his brothers Basharat and Bannaras received 25 and 19 years respectively. According to their victims, the gang seemed to “rule Rotherham,” committing brazen crimes “with impunity” for two decades. And there are lots more like them. A lawyer has said: “This trial is just the first of many and it is the tip of a very big iceberg.”

“Tip of a very big iceberg”: Mad Ash & Co.

“Tip of a very big iceberg”: Mad Ash & Co.

The Rotherham Triangle

And there you see one of the deep mysteries about the vibrant rape-gangs of modern Britain. In smarmy liberal terminology, the Rotherham criminals are of “Pakistani heritage.” Pakistan was once part of the British Raj, an empire created when India was conquered by relatively small numbers of Whites from vast numbers of non-Whites. Whatever your opinion of British imperialism, this was an impressive military and strategic achievement. The higher intelligence, technology and organization of Whites gave them a decisive advantage over less intelligent and less organized non-Whites. Read more

“Vote for Us, You Miserable Scum”: Mammon, Marx and Miliband

“We want your votes, you miserable scum.” That has long been the private attitude of the Labour party to the White working class. Now a senior Labour MP has made it public. No wonder Ed Miliband is said to have been “incandescent.” You’ve heard of point-and-splutter. Here’s some point-and-sneer, a photograph tweeted by a Labour MP called Emily Thornberry during the Rochester by-election, which has just given UKIP its second MP. She was sneering at White working-class patriotism, as expressed by the red cross of St George, England’s patron saint. But there’s more to the photo than that. She was expressing contempt for White working-class men in particular. “White van man” is a shorthand in England for self-employed tradesmen who carry their tools around in a white van. They’re rough, they’re crude and they’re not politically correct.

That’s why the modern Labour party hates them, as a Labour peer called Lord Glasman admitted in 2011:

In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. [Labour’s] commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters … were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class. (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)

Read more

Race and the 2014 election

Race again loomed large in the 2014 elections. The CNN exit polls showed that Whites of all age groups, both sexes, and all social classes voted Republican. White males: 64%-33%: White women: 56%-42% (likely much higher for married White women if past trends held); Whites 18–29: 54-43%. Whites without a college education voted 61–31 for Republican House candidates. (These are underestimates because voters counted as White include groups, such as Jews and Middle Easterners, who neither identify or vote like Whites.)

As Thomas Edsall notes,

It has not escaped the notice of political analysts that 72 percent of whites without college degrees — a rough proxy for what we used to call the white working class — believe that “the U.S. economic system generally favors the wealthy.” Or that on Nov. 4, these same men and women voted for Republican House candidates by a 61-31 margin.

Similarly, the overwhelmingly white electorates of Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota voted decisively in referendums to raise the minimum wage while simultaneously voting for Republicans, whose party has adamantly rejected legislation to raise the minimum wage. (“The Demise of the White Democratic Voter”)

Whites are deserting the Democratic Party, but that doesn’t mean they advocate plutocratic policies traditionally associated with Republicans. They are voting Republican even though Democrats are generally seen as the party of the non-wealthy and are far more likely to advocate policies like minimum wage hikes.

And Obamacare. The problem with Obamacare from the standpoint of Whites is that they are well aware that a disproportionate share of the costs will be borne by people like them, while a disproportionate share of the benefits will go to poor non-Whites. Edsall again:

Obamacare shifts health care benefits and tax burdens from upper-income Americans to lower-income Americans, and from largely white constituencies to beneficiaries disproportionately made up of racial and ethnic minorities.

So once again we come up against biological realities — that people are less likely to contribute to public goods that will disproportionately benefit people unlike themselves. This is a well-known cost of multiculturalism. Why should White voters want a law they know will benefit non-Whites far more than themselves? In fact, immigrants are major beneficiaries of Obamacare, accounting for 42% of the growth of Medicaid since 2011.

Race is never part of the explicit rhetoric of White opposition to policies that disproportionately benefit non-Whites — it tends to be expressed as opposition to the federal government, the welfare state, taxation, and the desire for better schools, or even perceived moral issues like abortion and homosexuality. But at the implicit level, the aversion to contributing to public goods for non-Whites is the overriding motivation for opposition to Obamacare. When Republicans shut down the US government over Obamacare, it was widely perceived as motivated by Whites concerned that poor non-Whites would disproportionately benefit from the law, while it would increase taxes on Whites. Read more

A Plague for the Proletariat: How the Workers’ Party Betrayed Its Own

 

Hating the workers: Ed Miliband and his shadow cabinet]

Hating the workers: Ed Miliband and his shadow cabinet]

The clue’s in the name: the Labour party was founded to fight alongside the trade unions on behalf of the British working-class.  You can see the roots of the alliance forming when a mining company in Scotland tried to import foreign workers at the beginning of the twentieth century. One of Labour’s greatest future heroes spoke up for the men whose wages were being undercut:

Trade Unions were openly hostile, claiming that the newcomers’ lack of English made them a danger at work; the Glasgow Trades Council declared the Lithuanians in Glengarnock as “an evil” and wrote to the TUC [Trades Union Congress] demanding immigration controls to keep them out.

Even a figure such as Keir Hardie, founding father of the Labour Party, led a fierce, xenophobic campaign against the Lithuanians. Hardie, as a leader of Ayrshire miners, wrote an article for the journal, The Miner, in which he stated that: “For the second time in their history Messrs. Merry and Cunninghame have introduced a number of Russian Poles [as the Lithuanians were described] to Glengarnock Ironworks. What object they have in doing so is beyond human ken unless it is, as stated by a speaker at Irvine, to teach men how to live on garlic and oil, or introduce the Black Death, so as to get rid of the surplus labourers.” (Lithuanians in Lanarkshire, BBC History, February 2004)

Keir Hardie wasn’t being “xenophobic.” He was doing exactly what a Lithuanian socialist would have done if the situation had been reversed: standing up for the workers he was elected to serve. By the time Tony Blair became Labour leader in 1994, all that old-fashioned socialist nonsense had been discarded. Now the Labour party champions the downtrodden bosses against the oppressive workers. Read more