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

Marine Le Pen will not put up with any nonsense from BBC reporter

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

Trump’s lewd video: An evolutionary comment

What Trump said:

“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p—y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

So now we have a media frenzy, the theme of which is that Trump has shown himself to be a horrible sexist and abuser of women. “Rape culture in a nutshell” as a writer in the Huffington Post would have it.

As usual, it’s a moral indictment. Of course, moral indictments of Trump have been routine ever since he entered the race, often centered on race and immigration. But now the chorus is deafening. So much so that quite a few Republicans (mainly those who never supported him or did so only reluctantly — i.e., the GOP establishment cuckservatives) are now (surprise!) deserting him.

The implicit assumption here is that the women involved are passive, helpless creatures who are being assaulted by the big bad hairy ape. Heaven forfend! Fainting couch feminism at its finest.

Spare me. Read more

On Europe and “the Faith”

PopeFrancis

“Too often you have not been welcomed…Forgive the closed-mindedness and indifference of our societies, which fear the change of lifestyle and mentality that your presence requires.”
Pope Francis, 2016.

“Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe…I say again, renewing the terms, The Church is Europe: and Europe is The Church.”
Hillaire Belloc, 1920. 

Over the years my attitudes towards race and religion have unfortunately brought me into conflict with many Christians, some of whom have been very close to me. Closest to home, my wife is an evangelical Christian. Like many of her co-religionists, she believes much of what she is told in church, not only in terms of what is written in the Bible, but also in the social instructions her church issues in order to steer its flock towards a “good” and “moral” Christian life.

My wife and I are opposites in many respects. She is fully aware of my own agnosticism, and is equally aware of my positions on racial, religious and political matters. Possessing an abundance of good qualities as a wife and mother, I don’t think I am doing her a terrible injustice by stating that she doesn’t completely understand the complexities of the subject matter I routinely explore. To her, the thing that matters most is that my attitudes are “good.” It is the “moral” merit of my positions that she is most interested in, and because she is a Christian the question of how “moral” my opinions are is entirely dependent on how closely they fit with the Christian moral worldview  —  as taught to her by her church. Thus, when we discuss this or that aspect of the news she will often ask of my opinions: “Yes, but is that a good attitude to have? Is that displaying forgiveness? Isn’t your heart too hard?” If the discussion continues, it frequently evolves into a debate between (my) facts and (her) moral feelings. Read more

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan: White Genocide by Design (Part 2)

europa

 

Is it ‘Goodbye Europe’? . . . Or is there still time?

Though no one has accused him of being Jewish, Count Kalergi emerges as one of the twentieth century’s most outstanding philosemites: more Jewish than the Jews, if it’s possible to imagine that.

In proclaiming that the Jews were now the spiritual aristocrats of the world—that they had supplanted the spineless and “dilapidated”  non-Jewish feudal aristocracy after the French Revolution—Count Kalergi made it clear that the Jews were to rank foremost in any future world government. A future world without Jews at the top of the pyramid, dispensing wisdom and justice, was inconceivable to him. The Jews were to be the movers and shakers, the crème de la crème. They would give the orders, and the rest of the world would bend the knee and obey.

If you think all this sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, rest assured it is not. Count Kalergi’s principal ideas had impeccable intellectual antecedents. There is nothing “conspiratorial” about cosmopolitanism or internationalism, one world government, and the push toward a “United States of Europe” seen as a stepping stone to one-world government. In an excellent 2-part essay by Canadian writer Clare Ellis, on which I have relied heavily, she speaks in her opening paragraph about “a pan-European economic order that essentially suppresses ethnic European bonds in favour of cosmopolitan ideals,” adding in her second paragraph: “The non-ethnic based European Union was envisioned as the first step toward the eventual unification of humanity under a World Federation in perpetual peace.” Read more

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan: White Genocide by Design (Part 1)

kalergi

Go to Part 1

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz recently remarked that Europe was on the brink of a “cataclysmic event“. What could this be?

On the face of it, Stiglitz appears to be predicting the imminent death of Europe. But this is deceptive. Europe is not going anywhere. It will still be Europe as long as its individual states remain intact. What Stiglitz is predicting is the death of the idea of a future federalist pan-European superstate: a multilingual leviathan with a single currency, the euro, and no border controls between its individual statelets. This continental superstate, the United States of Europe, is seen as an analogue to the United States of America.

Stiglitz makes his gloomy prediction because he is disappointed by Brexit, the momentous decision of the British people to free themselves from the tentacles of the European superstate. Stiglitz fears that other nations in the EU bloc could get similar dangerous ideas. With Brexit, 17 million people said ‘NO!’ to being ruled over by autocratic foreigners in another country, many of them unelected bureaucrats of dubious provenance and with repugnant ideologies.

“Today [October 1, 2016] is exactly 100 days since Britain voted to leave the European Union,” Quentin Letts writes in his Saturday Essay for the Daily Mail, revealing how the momentous words of the BBC announcer ‘We’re out’ almost made him freak out when he first heard the good news at 4.40am on Friday, June 24. “I sat on my bed and burst into tears of joy,” he recalls. “Our country had voted to escape the alien prison of Brussels and its anti-democratic Commission. We were free.”

Stiglitz and his kind would not have approved the upsurge of populist sentiment symbolized by Brexit, obviously believing that referenda should only be taken seriously when the votes of the masses coincide with the special interests of the ruling elite.

We are talking here about the clash between two completely incompatible world views: between those who, on the one hand, believe that nations states are important and should retain their sovereignty and border controls, and those who, on the other hand, believe passionately that nation states are not important and should be phased out of existence. The latter group, who wield great influence right now, believe that nationalist sentiments are to be discouraged and that nationalism is an unmitigated evil. To this very powerful elite, in which the Jews happen to find themselves ensconced among the upper echelons, it is cosmopolitan internationalism that matters. Read more