Jeremy Corbyn typifies the contemporary Left. He is, if you like, the SJW’s grandad. Born into an affluent middle-class family, he pretends to be the voice of the working class, like so many of his Leftist contemporaries: Ken Loach, whose premiere of I, Daniel Blake Corbyn attended, is a prime example. Of course, when these people put their fists in the air and shout about the working class, they invariably deconstruct the White working class of Great Britain, and Loach’s aforementioned film, which Corbyn lauded, is a prime example, although that is for another article. The White working classes are ‘soooo yesterday’ and these people have moved on to the minority groups displacing and abusing Britain’s indigenous working class. Unfortunately, those same native workers – and voters – seem largely not to have noticed.
Corbyn is an interesting case study: over the past few months, he seems to have been developing himself into a British Bernie Sanders. Far from being deluded in his rhetoric that often suggests he actually won the General Election, he is pushing an idea – the idea that the democratic vote only matters when the extreme Left wins. It is an idea that has been pushed by SJWs on university campuses all over the Western World. And make no mistake, his election campaign, which saw the Labour Party resurgent, was aimed at young SJWs and their pet ethnic minorities. Unlike former party leaders, Corbyn has been quick to get up to speed with Leftist youth culture, which is why Labour was quick on the draw in the battle of memes and why he has now taken to the stage to speak at Glastonbury. Continue reading →
By virtue of being alive, I feel obligated to those who have made my material existence possible in the first place. This sense of obligation and responsibility does not stop short of my immediate family but extends to every sage, warrior, and innovator who have fought to preserve my people and the land I live on.
For those of us fortunate enough to have grown-up with some semblance of parental involvement and guidance, most of what struck us as unfair at the age of six probably make perfect sense to us as reasonably mature adults. We understand that the limitations placed upon us were, for the most part, entirely for our own benefit. Boundaries kept us safe from harm, behavioural expectations ensured that we were fit for society, rules and regulations provided us with a sense of security and stability, and denial made us all the more appreciative of any privileges we did receive. As the years went by, parental authority softened and we were afforded more and more of our little freedoms; freedom to choose, freedom to decide, and freedom to accept this or reject that. Of course, these newly granted liberties turned out to be conditional. ‘With freedom comes responsibility’, as the saying goes. Without self-restraint, self-denial and the ability to self-limit, freedom gives way to chaos, therefore freedom is absolutely out of the question. And so our parents guide, nurture and provide for us as children, while our duty to them is to stand as the fruits of that labour, provide them grandchildren, and to offer them care in their old age. It is through a sense of responsibility and obligation that we ensure that life consistently improves for each successive generation. Families, and by extension, communities, nations and empires are built and sustained through self-sacrifice, not self-indulgence. As soon as the individual is elevated above the community that birthed and sustained him, that community starts to decay.
“There’s no avoiding the looming presence of U.S. culture on Canada, but our differences are substantive, concrete and homegrown. Our universal health care. Our social welfare system and collective sensibilities concerning the role of government, taxation and property rights. Our official bilingualism and take on multiculturalism. Our accommodations of Quebec’s cultural aspirations and of aboriginal rights and governance. Our rejection of gun culture — no constitutional right to bear arms here — and our liberal take on issues like abortion, capital punishment, drug enforcement and gay rights.”
“But English Canada, at least, never really found its footing as one of those nations [with a strong sense of identity]. (French Canada did, an essential point of difference.) Lucky for us, it is now too late, and we have no choice but to establish ourselves as something different – a culture that is many cultures, many stories, in a place that stretches across a continent and is richly occupied… ere we are in 2016, when few dispute any longer the unseemly length of English Canada’s colonial hangover. For the first century of nationhood, we didn’t bother moving away from imported and inherited customs and thinking, a stark disavowal of lived history and geography. Canada in the 21st century is certainly an energized place by comparison… we must get past one easy misconception – the outdated nation-state model – and one harder reality: the historic comfort level among Canadians with conceiving of themselves as parts of smaller, cozier self-definitions, as well an attendant incuriosity about who else lives reasonably nearby. The launching point for this project is obvious. Indigenous Canada is where we all live, in terms of geography, spirit, and history. In order for that to be real and meaningful, we must start with the stark: that a cultural genocide occurred, and most of us were unaware or, perhaps, just not concerned enough. Artistic expressions of these truths are necessary, and can only help. Overall, Canada as an experimental cultural space requires the right spirit in order to take shape. That spirit, simply, is an openness to having your history unsettled and your mind changed. As well, a certain comfort level with complexity and irresolution is probably good.”
“There is no core identity, no mainstream Canada… There are shared values – openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.”
The above are quotes from a journalist, the CEO of a pro-immigrant cabal, and the current prime minister of Canada. My country is being destroyed from within and I know this is true of a great many White countries, but to an outsider, at least, it appears as if most of them have a greater chance of resistance than Canada. This seems especially true in Europe, where the inhabitants can look back to thousands of years of historical inheritance.
One of the most pernicious facts of politics is that the left has every incentive to encourage the spread of mediocrity, degeneracy and failure. The essence of the political left is egalitarianism; the view that all humans are “equal”. It is vital then to ask then, who favours egalitarianism? Aside from the leftist political and cultural elite who directly stand to increase their power from it, the people who most benefit from egalitarianism are those who are resentful or failing. People who are doing well don’t want to be dragged down to the level of equality, but those doing badly gain from being elevated to a position of equality. Therefore, the political left has an extremely strong incentive to increase the number of people who are failing in society or who perceive themselves as such. If we examine the political platform of the left, this pattern occurs time and time again.
The Western world’s love of technology is a Faustian bargain. Trapped within the commercial world, the democratic majority tend only to see the sides of technology that bring material pleasure and instant gratification; a trend that is only accelerating into greater social atomisation with individuals adrift in various virtual worlds. Liberal capitalism and socialism have been condensed into an Anglo-American ‘communitarianism’, which sees man reduced to a consumer of commodities. In the process, modernity’s foundational neurotic need for material satiation is reinforced. The status quo reduces the individual’s life aims to profit, excluding any traditional, holistic good. Our good impulses towards caring for the health of the whole are channelled into ineffectual ’causes’, from donations to sustain the sick and impoverished half a world away, to endless campaigns in the never-ending struggle for equality. Man, for all his technics, is an inadequate animal. The notions of progress, evolution and betterment have been a blind alley into the dead-end of herd morality and egalitarian delusions. ‘Science’ is pulled up as a trump card of atheists and other humanistic crusaders, invariably to condemn traditional social standards that maintain a semblance of social order, but never in favour of ‘scientific racism’ or to recognise the myriad biochemical realities which account for the many disparities between the sexes. Indeed, the most damaging aspect of the progressive mind is an inability or unwillingness to recognise when reality conflicts with the popular utopian viewpoint or dream. Beneath this staunch denial is the deeply held belief that truth is subject to change (if not entirely subjective), that man and nature are malleable, and that history has and will continue follow a linear trajectory. To them, mankind is being pulled in exactly the right direction, moving quickly towards the land of milk and honey.