Why Boris Won, Why Comissar Corbyn Lost

It was about Brexit.

And Brexit was about immigration.

And immigration, to quote Steve Bannon:

... is to flood the zone with cheap labour, and the reason is because the elites don’t give a fuck about African Americans and the Hispanic working class. They don’t care about the white working class either. You’re just a commodity. So they have unlimited labour and they’re paying you nine bucks an hour. ‘Let more guys in and, by the way, it’s bigger markets.’ It destroys the working class. That’s what we’ve got to protect. Once we show working-class people of every ethnicity and race that you being a citizen you get a special deal, you get that realignment."

But why didn't Labour, understand that?

Because the Labour Party, or left, in Britain, like America's Democrats, comprises two groups. There's what the Brits call the working class, what in America is the blue-collar class, and what the Commies call the proletariat. These are the people with the least education, the roughest jobs and the lowest wages.

Then there's the revolutionary thinkers, the intellectuals and the organizers of the revolution, which is to say the Labour Party's Corbynite faction, widely backed by public sector workers, the bureaucrats, teachers, nurses, doctors, university professors, all folks with powerful unions, good salaries, job security, index-linked pensions. These are the "educated" folks with a Clintonite contempt for the deplorables, which is to say the common people who oppose the destruction of their communities by an mass influx of immigrants of alien race, religion and culture.

The Labour Party under Corbyn thus represents not what is understood by the term workers, but mainly a privileged caste of what in the Soviet Union were known as the Nomenclatura. These are a people who benefit from cheap immigrant labor and the off-shoring of jobs, because it slows the rise in the cost of living.

It is also the class that, in the Soviet Union, led to an economic implosion and which, wherever such a class exists, strives mightily to increase its own importance and power by burdening the common people with ever increasing taxes to fund ever more badly managed public interventions in every sphere of life.

Folks in Britain's declining industrial cities realizing what Corbyn and his followers were about, voted accordingly.

Related:
CanSpeccy: How Britain's Working Class Ditched Corbyn's Labour Party
VOE: Norwegian gov't awards Islamists 100,000 euros to convert Christian church to a mosque
VOE: Belgium: Migrant population in Ghent doubles in 4 years

Liberal Humbug On Human Racial Differentiation

Previously, I explained the liberal position on the question of race, thus:

First nation Canadian. Image source 

Liberals and other agents of the New World Order, like hard-line Communists, are revolutionaries who seek to establish a system of global governance. The difference between the two is that the globalization aimed at by liberals will subordinate all humanity to the moneyed elite, the bankers, the billionaires and the chiefs of the giant corporations, whereas Communist revolution aims to serve the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is to say the Nomenclatura* for whom tyranny means thousands of comfy bureaucratic jobs with lots of power and privilege.

Innuit girl and pup. Image source.

To both classes of revolutionary, the great obstacle to their dream is the nation state that declares the right of the people in any geographic area with the means to defend themselves to rule themselves as they see fit, which means maintaining control of the borders to prevent occupation of the territory by invaders or an uncontrolled flow of immigrants, and the preservation of the religious and cultural tradition of the people.

To the revolutionaries, there is a simple solution to the problem of the nation state and the desire of the vast majority of the people of the world to live among their own kind in accordance with their traditional manners, morals and forms of governance. It is to insist that there is no such thing as the nation, that all humanity is one race, and that it is simply bunk to claim that the English, say, have a privileged status in England,

Chinese. Image source

or that the Amerindians of Canada have legal and moral rights to control over their traditional lands and the freedom to live on those lands according to their own beliefs and traditions.

Since the racial differentiation of humanity is obvious for all to see, and its denial is as idiotic as the denial of the naked emperor's nakedness by the sycophantic courtiers, the issue of race is a cause of embarrassment to every liberal. This is evident over at the Unz Review where the Saker tells us:

I don’t even believe that the concept of “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.

Mbuti forest dwellers of the Congo. Image source

Suuuure. And the Saker cannot tell the difference between a Chinese and a Australian aboriginal, or between an Eskimo and a Sephardic Jew, or between a San bushman and a pigmy.

But then Steve Sailer, who also appears over at the Unz Review, opened a recent post thus:

One of the weirder contradictions of contemporary dogma is the belief that race does not exist combined with the government’s obsession with counting everybody by self-identified race. If race doesn’t exist, you’d think that, say, the Obama Administration would be under a lot of pressure from its supporters to dump the racial/ethnic classification system. Strangely enough, it never seems to occur to all the True Believers to ask their friends running the federal government to change the system.

San boy and girl. Image source

The reason for the weirdness Sailer does not explicitly address, although his article provides conclusive government-supplied genetic evidence, if that were needed, to confirm the reality of human racial diversity.

What is obvious, however, is that the US Government uses information on the racial composition of the population in ways that serve to destroy the dominant position of the European population of America. This it does by means of affirmative action, forced integration, political correctness, Roe versus Wade, immigration law enforcement, or rather non-enforcement, criminalization of acts of conscence in accordance with Christian belief, white shaming, black history, and other measures to disadvantage certain races, particularly the Europeans, relative to others. 

Thus, we have the answer to the conundrum Sailer raised. The US and its European subordinate states need information on the racial diversity of their populations in order to destroy it. The goal is full racial mongrelization. Or as former French President and future Presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has already instructed the fast dying European population of France. "Métissage: it is an obligation," 

Indigenous Australian. Image source

So that's why liberals continue to deny the reality of race, for otherwise, as I stated in an apparently censored comment on Sailer's Unz Review post:

... mass immigration of philoprogenitive non-Europeans to European countries with indigenous populations with a far-below replacement fertility would have to be acknowledged for what it is: genocide.

And there is nothing surprising about liberals denying the reality of race while decrying those who oppose the genocide of the European peoples as racist, since nonsensical hate speech is the basic coin of liberal debate.

English. Image source

Europeans who oppose the destruction of their own race and culture need to realize that today’s liberal is either a self-hating European or a settler immigrant. In either case, they are, morally, the Nazis of the present era.

———

* The Nomenclatura of the Soviet Union was a class of bureaucrats that could be hired or fired only at the will of Communist Party. Positions held by members of the Nomenclatura were thus political appointments requiring not competence or integrity, but only grovelling subservience to the political elite. The Nomenclatura is thus an appropriate label for the top tier of Western bureaucrats such as university presidents (e.g., Michael Arthur, Provost of University College London), school principals, healthcare system managers, etc.

Related: 

Pope angered Merkel by calling Europe ‘barren’

Marko Rubio May be Robotic, But About Obama the Marxist Wrecker, He's Right

Marco Rubio has been widely ridiculed for his repetitive attack on Barack Obama during the February 8, Republican Presidential candidates' debate in Manchester, New Hampshire. Here's what he said — four times:

And let's dispel once and for all this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world. That's why he passed Obamacare, and the stimulus, and Dodd Frank and the deal with Iran. It is a systematic attempt to change America.

Search the media and YouTube for comment and you will find almost universal derision and contempt for Rubio's robotic repetition. Which is odd if you think about it. I mean, if you have a revolutionary in the White House, isn't that worth pointing out, and pointing out over and over again until folks actually get it? Not according to the US media, evidently. But then the US media are controlled by the same people who control Obama: social Marxists or plutocrats employing the techniques of social Marxism, with the same objective as V.I. Lenin: a global system of control imposed by violence, intimidation, and brainwashing.

So, no, Rubio's error was not to repeat himself, but to state a truth that must not be told.

Not that Rubio's remarks were other than the proverbial wisdom from the mouths of babes and sucklings. His objective was to please a Republican audience with an attack on Barack Obama, a Democrat funded by the same interests that control him. And like Obama, Rubio wants to flood the US with Third-World immigrants and thus to "Make America more like the rest of the world."

The Money Power controls all parties and every candidate for election. That's there intention, anyhow. Quite where Donald Trump stands seems uncertain, though, one suspects that he would be wise to stand where his back is well covered.

Related:

The Frankfurt School and the War on the West