UK election 2019: Labour now means inner-city lefties

UK election 2019: Labour now means inner-city lefties, by Caroline Overington.

Labour no longer means working class. Labour now means the inner-city lefties, with a tinge of trendy, and a touch of green.

There’s really no other way to read the results coming out of Britain.

The working class has deserted Labour. People who have never in their lives voted anything other than Labour – whose parents, and grandparents only ever voted Labour – have swung conservative.

Nobody can quite believe this, but Boris Johnson’s team has scooped up Blyth Valley. The Conservatives have also taken the west Cumbrian seat of Workington.

These are seats that Labour has held since … well, since before the Beatles were a thing. …

Labour used to be for steelworkers, and coal miners, and train drivers, and shop assistants, and it’s now for issues that excite the inner-city bubble.

The result is also, very clearly, punishment for Labour’s arrogance on Brexit. It was mainly the working class that voted for Brexit. They voted to leave. Their decision was met with disdain, by their own party. You want to leave? No, you must be stupid. …

It’s bloody rude, to ask the public what they want, and tell them they’re stupid for making their choice.

The great re-alignment rolls on.

UPDATE: Joanne Nova:

In the land Downunder there has been close to zero discussion about the obvious benefits in Australia of freer trade with the fifth largest economy and long time cultural partner, almost like the media (especially the ABC) don’t want to mention it.

What’s remarkable here is that 44% of Australians don’t know or don’t back a post-Brexit Trade deal [poll result]. … Why isn’t a post-Brexit deal with Britain a bleedingly obvious win for 99%?

Australia has much to gain from Brexit, but our media never mentioned that because it wouldn’t have helped Team Globalist.

Boris Johnson to win biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher as poll claims 86 majority

Boris Johnson to win biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher as poll claims 86 majority, by Natasha Clark.

The expected results mean Britain’s political chaos could finally be over, leaving Boris with the numbers to finally push his Brexit deal through Parliament in just weeks. …

And the exit polls put Britain on course for the biggest Tory win since 1987 – where they got a 102 seat majority under Margaret Thatcher. …

Labour are set to lose a string of traditional strongholds to the Tories …

The pound surged by more than two per cent on the news tonight. …

Nigel Farage said tonight his party had done a good job, despite facing picking up no seats at all. He told the BBC’s Andrew Neil: “We’ve used our influence that’s the important thing. … If we get Brexit, given that it was in the weeds back in February, we set this thing up, we’ve put it back on track, if we get there we’ve done a good job…. I’ve killed the Liberal Democrats and I’ve hurt the Labour Party.” …

One Labour candidate defending a seat in the once traditional Labour heartlands said: “The doorsteps have been grim. I’m f**ked.”

The polls said it was going to be close, but it wasn’t.

The elite tried their usual trick of biasing or exaggerating their side in the polls. This is attempting a self-fulfilling prophecy, both encouraging people to vote and to vote for them — because people are more likely to vote what they see as the winning side, sanctioned by the group.

Or maybe the silent vote got them again. Maybe we should just lie to pollsters, to really put them off and confuse them.

Every recent national election from Brexit and Trump onwards, there have always been more non-left votes than the polls predicted.

Solid rejection of Jeremy Corbyn as British vote backs Brexit

Solid rejection of Jeremy Corbyn as British vote backs Brexit, by Greg Sheridan.

Early results and the exit poll look like a thumping victory for Boris Johnson.

It also seems to be an emphatic rejection of Jeremy Corbyn and his far left Labour Party. The early voting trends have been disastrous for Labour, with socially conservative low income northern and midlands England swinging away from Labour.

There also seems to be a swing against Labour in Wales and no recovery for the party at all in Scotland.

If these results hold, Johnson emerges as a giant figure in history.

Make no mistake. This is a big moment for the whole of Western civilisation.

This is the moment, much more even than the 2016 referendum, when Britain really decided to leave the EU.

The bottom line is that no-one can possibly question the legitimacy of Johnson’s Government or the national British decision to leave the EU. Of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t try.

The globalists will claim the election result was an anti-Corbyn vote, rather than pro-Brexit. They will point out that the Remain vote was split across the Labour Party and the LibDems, whereas, because Farage dropped out, the Leave vote was concentrated in the Tories.

Who’d want to be a politician?

The Real Class War

The Real Class War, by Julius Klein.

This is a bit heavy, but this is the engine room of politics, where real things happen and opinions are shaped. Most politics is motivated my money and status, with economic conditions usually the prime (if subconscious) driver of an individual’s outlook. What’s in it for me?

Understanding these issues gives more insight than knowing the downstream froth and bubbles of who won which election. Although set in the US, it applies pretty much across the West.

However one defines the working class [the economically “left behind”?], it has scarcely any political agency in the current system and no apparent means for acquiring any. …

While a restive working class might provide fertile ground for po­litical upheavals, any fundamental transformation of Western politics will necessarily be led by increasing numbers of the “elite” who defect from the dominant policy consensus and rethink their allegiance to establishment paradigms. …

The socioeconomic divide that will determine the future of poli­tics, particularly in the United States, is not between the top 30 per­cent or 10 percent and the rest, nor even between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. The real class war is between the 0.1 percent and (at most) the 10 percent — or, more precisely, between elites primarily dependent on capital gains and those primarily dependent on profes­sional labor. …

While the top 5 or 10 percent may not deserve public sympathy, their underperformance relative to the top 0.1 percent will be more politically significant than the hol­lowing out of the working or lower-middle classes. Unlike the work­ing class, the professional managerial class is still capable of, and re­quired for, wielding political power. …

Since going off gold in the 1970s, our current paper money is manufactured out of thin air by banks to lend to customers to buy assets, which then go up in price. Hence the great bubble in all asset prices that began 1982 but has gone wobbly under the extreme debt load since the GFC in 2008. Debt want up in a parallel bubble. In an asset bubble, the returns of capital are much greater than the return on labor.

At bottom, the economy that has been constructed over the last few decades is nothing more than a capital accumulation economy. As long as returns on capital exceed returns on labor, then the largest capital holders benefit the most, inequality rises, and wealth becomes more and more narrowly concentrated. …



The performance gap of elites versus the working and middle classes has widened, but professionals outside the very top are unlikely to match the wealth accumulation of their parents. …

Many positions that require advanced degrees, large student loans, and living in expensive cities barely pay $100,000 a year. The streets of Cambridge, Massachusetts, are filled with large numbers of scientists with doctorates from pres­tigious universities working at top biotech firms or research institutes, but living seven to a house with little hope of accumulating savings. The career prospects of journalists and academics — ironic casualties of the “information economy” — are declining even more relentlessly.

When members of these professions write about embittered working-class Trump supporters in declining industries, they may as well be writing about themselves. Indeed the conspicuous embrace of “elite values” by journalists and academics is often little more than an aspi­rational attempt to remain connected to an economically distant elite — just as educated millennials’ conspicuous consumption of “ex­periences” often serves as a necessary distraction from the grim reality that most will never be able to own a home. …

Since 2000, the combination of stagnation, widening inequality, and the increasing cost of maintaining elite status has arguably had a more pronounced impact on the professional elite than on the working class, which was already largely marginalized by that point. Elites outside of the very top found themselves falling further behind their supposed cultural peers, without being able to look forward to rapid­ly rising incomes for themselves.

This underappreciated reality at least partially explains one of the apparent puzzles of American politics in recent years: namely, that members of the elite often seem far more radical than the working class, both in their candidate choices and overall outlook. Although better off than the working class, lower-level elites appear to be experiencing far more intense status anxiety.

Fueling the sharp and hard recent increase in political correctness and enforcement is much greater moral virtue-signaling competition by not-so-wealthy professionals:

As Matthew Yglesias has pointed out, “In the past five years, white liberals have moved so far to the left on ques­tions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter.” Identity issues are often considered separate from economics, yet economic anxieties are almost certainly contributing to these trends among white liberal professionals. What­ever the underlying merits of “woke” critiques and causes might be, these postures are mainly adopted in intra-elite competition for posi­tions and influence.

The personal trajectory of Elizabeth Warren, an avatar of this class in many ways, almost perfectly represents the political trajectory of the professional class: first they abandoned the Republican Party and then continued to move further into the left wing of the Democratic Party. …

The professional class follows its economic interest: left and statist under the new deal 30’s, right under Reagan, then left from Bill Clinton onwards:

The recent leftward movement of the upper middle class recalls the rightward drift that occurred in the 1970s and 80s. … By the seventies, middle-class opportunities in domestic gov­ernment and academia were shrinking. … If the federal government and the universities were no longer expanding, it was time to find a new patron for the intellectual vanguard of the professional middle class, and the neoconservatives hoped to find one in an obvious place — the corporate elite. … Republicans offered the professional class one increasingly attractive inducement: a chance to become, essentially, financial managers in the new shareholder economy. In the 1980s, these “yuppies” contributed to two Reagan landslides. …

Yet only a few years later, the Democrats under Clinton took these voters back. The Clinton Democrats left Reagan’s economic changes intact, and even accelerated them. But they gave professionals greater scope to manage “postmaterial” concerns that suited their cultural sensibilities, mainly by expanding the so-called nongovernment sector — NGOs, multilateral institutions, government-spon­sored enterprises, and other organizations that received private fund­ing for nominally public purposes. These institutions provided elite jobs and conferred prestige on the professional class, while adding a gloss of legitimacy to a financialized economy.

In the Clinton era, rising neoliberal professionals acquired not just wealth but a new public power and significance … The Republicans could only offer “greed is good” reruns, yet another book on Tocqueville, and a thin veneer of old-line WASP affectation on top of a party increasingly reliant on déclassé “values voters.”

Elite professionals flocked to the Democrats in droves and all but abandoned the Republican Party. The cost, however, was the loss of the traditional Democratic working-class base, to which the new agenda was often hostile both economically and culturally. …

Today … upper-middle-class opportunities in the corporate and financial sectors are under pressure, and these elites are slow­ly but inexorably returning to the state. Their interests remain distinct from those of the working class, but they are increasingly aligning with labor rather than capital. …

The left professionals are also deluding themselves:

Another obstacle for left-wing upper-middle-class radicals is their own debilitating false consciousness, which easily exceeds the confu­sion frequently ascribed to the working class. Instead of frankly acknowledging their own professional class interests, they project their concerns onto the working class and present themselves as altru­istic saviors — only to complain about a lack of working-class enthusiasm later. This blindness often prevents them from recognizing where their interests diverge from the purported beneficiaries of their projects and impedes their ability to effect any larger political realignment. It also exacerbates the temptation to double down on parts of the current paradigm — such as enlarging the NGO racket — which only strengthens the billionaires in the long term.

The right, lacking the professionals, became the stupid party:

The Republican Party, on the other hand, faces a very different problem — the absence of any significant professional elite, which abandoned the party long ago. …

The alienation of elite labor:

Professional class opposition to the political and economic status quo will almost certainly continue to intensify. Beyond economic pres­sures, at least two additional sources of elite anxiety will push in this direction: the emptiness of today’s professional careers and the obtuseness of the billionaire class.

As working-class jobs have become more precarious and demeaning, professional jobs have become more meaningless and depressing. Anthropologist David Graeber has defined an entire category of “bullshit jobs” and traced their proliferation throughout the corporate world and other sectors. In large part, these are make-work positions for professional elites that exist primarily to pad the prestige of those above them. These jobs are not simply menial or dull, and they are often well-paying, but they are utterly pointless and some­times even internally acknowledged as such. …

Contrary to the pervasive mythology of entrepreneurialism and crea­tivity, it is glaringly obvious to today’s professional elite that the neoliberal economy is allocating capital, and especially talent, very poorly. …

  • The legions of finance drones making utterly pointless discounted cash flow models could be far better employed designing a serious industrial policy.
  • The engineers currently laboring over algorithms to make social media more addic­tive should be funded to focus on more productive technological advances.
  • All the effort now devoted to coming up with new pricing strategies for old drugs could be directed at real medical problems, like increasing resistance to antibiotics.
  • The vast resources invested in unprofitable ride-hailing apps and real estate arbitrage could have been used to solve America’s ever-increasing public infrastructure and housing challenges. …

Slogans about “changing the world” have long since morphed into PowerPoint slides on “widening the moat.” Elites climb 99 per­cent of the way up an ever-greasier pole only to spend most of their time focusing on cutting costs and increasing share buybacks — or marketing taxi services, vaping products, and food delivery as “tech­nology.”

Government bureaucracies, to be sure, are as sclerotic and frustrat­ing as ever. But the opportunity to restructure and revitalize the state —t he only way to address the most important issues of the present — appears far more exhilarating to growing numbers of talent­ed elites than any other alternative. …

And the winners of the asset inflation lottery:

Adding insult to injury … is the absolute degeneracy of the American billionaire class. As if the present political and economic dysfunction were not enough to prove their corruption, our exalted plutocrats seem intent on publicly displaying their vacuousness.

Many of these people presumably possess some narrow technical ability, though if so, it is less and less evident. But they conspicuously lack any self-awareness, much less insight into issues of broader human concern …

Conservative donor gatherings are somehow even more pathetic. Most of the attendees are there only because they are not smart enough to recognize that the Democratic Party offers a far more effective reputation laundering service. The rest are probably too senile to know where they are at all. There is often a special irony to these events: an uninspiring ideologue is usually on hand to repeat a decades-old speech decrying Communism — recounting the horrors experienced in countries ruled by a self-dealing, incompetent nomen­klatura and marked by a decaying industrial base, crumbling infrastructure, poor education system, a demoralized populace, low confi­dence in public institutions, falling life expectancy, repeated foreign policy failures, a vast and arbitrary carceral system, constant surveillance, and even massive power outages in major cities. Imagine that.

The bold thinkers of Silicon Valley are at least as delusional. Mark Zuckerberg must be the only person in the world who still pretends to believe his self-serving banalities about “connecting people” through social media. Jeff Bezos publicly muses about the difficulty of finding a useful way to deploy his “financial lottery winnings,” while Amazon stations ambulances outside its warehouses to treat employees who collapse from exhaustion. …

What is remarkable about today’s oligarchy is not its ruthlessness but its pettiness and purposelessness. An all-consuming megalomania might at least produce some great art as a side-effect. But this collec­tion of mediocrities cannot even do that. Their political activities — whether pushing for a slightly lower tax rate or throwing money at a self-serving brand of faux progressivism — are too small-minded to be anything other than embarrassing. This class has no idea what to do with its wealth, much less the power that results from it. It can only withdraw and extract, socially and economically, while the political justifications for its existence melt away.

No driver needed: 20 tons of butter takes road trip from California to Pennsylvania

No driver needed: 20 tons of butter takes road trip from California to Pennsylvania. By Summer Lin. A technological first.

A Silicon Valley startup has completed the first coast-to-coast commercial freight trip made by a self-driving truck, according to the company’s press release. announced on Tuesday that its truck traveled from Tulare, California, to Quakertown carrying over 40,000 pounds of Land O’Lakes butter. …

The journey took less than three days and spanned 2,800 miles, according to the announcement. It also involved different weather conditions and terrains, including the “expansive plains of Kansas (and) winding roads of the Rockies.” The truck drove “primarily in autonomous mode” and a driver was onboard for monitoring and safety purposes, according to the release.

A human driver only took over for “federally mandated breaks and refueling,” a spokesperson told McClatchy News. …

Despite the milestone, it’ll still be “a few years out” until self-driving trucks are making regular deliveries across the country.

The company’s spiel:

Student expelled by law school after posting ‘It’s OK to be white’ flyers

Student expelled by law school after posting ‘It’s OK to be white’ flyers. By Jennifer Kabbany.

An Oklahoma City University School of Law student was expelled after posting “It’s OK to be white” flyers on campus.

The Oklahoman reported that the student was expelled because he was on suspension and violated the terms of his suspension when, on the night of Oct. 31, he came on campus and posted the flyers on the door and exterior of the law school building. …

The dean of the law school, Jim Roth, wrote in a statement to students and faculty the day the flyers were found: “Despite what the intentions of that message may have been, the message reminds me of one fact that I know our community embraces — it’s okay to be EVERYBODY. Exclusion and hate will not be tolerated here.” …

So offensive it isn’t protected by free speech laws

Some have questioned whether “It’s OK to be white” falls under free speech, prompting controversy and debate. As The College Fix reported earlier last month, East Tennessee State may be asking for a lawsuit by promising to prosecute its “It’s OK to be white” vandals, as posting offensive flyers in and of itself is “clearly established” as constitutional under longstanding case law.

Posting any flyer doesn’t get people expelled, so its the content that got him expelled. Everyone knows he wouldn’t have been expelled if the posters had been “It’s ok to be black” or “Black lives matter.”

In what rational or desirable world is “it’s ok to be white” offensive but “it’s ok to be black” not? Just more anti-white racism in disguise.

Glenn Reynolds:

You want more white nationalists? Because this is how you get more white nationalists.

How Dare They?

How Dare They? By Steven Hayward.

I’m still awaiting a media story that discloses the massive and organized PR operation behind St. Greta. You don’t really think she emerged spontaneously? Who pays for the travel of her retinue, for her hotel rooms and meals, and organizing the public events and other moveable feasts where she appears? I suspect she and her parents (reportedly leftist artists and actors of one kind or another) are banking some nice coin on this whole scene.

St. Greta can look forward to a great future. In fact, I predict if she keeps this up, she’ll have a shot at marking more appearances on CNN than Michael Avenatti — the media’s last great celebrity hero who they championed not for actual newsworthiness, but because he was a perfect ventriloquist dummy for the narrative they want to promote.

More net mischief:

Shame on the Liberals Who Use Greta Thunberg as a Human Shield, by Jim Treacher.

I would prefer if Trump didn’t tweet mean things about her …

They’re counting on it. That’s the whole idea. They love that Trump is yelling at her. He’s playing right into their hands.

Ed Driscoll:

It’s the bread and butter play in the left’s playbook, and partly explains why they love their “mascots of the anointed,” as Thomas Sowell dubbed them in The Vision of the Anointed.

The media declared Jon Stewart to be the second coming of H.L. Mencken, but if anyone criticized him, the clown nose went back on, and the response was “he’s just a comedian.”

To criticize Obama was to risk being called a racist, leaving John McCain in the role of the Washington Generals in 2008.

And now to criticize Thunberg is to be told “she’s just a kid.” But why would anyone take science advice from a kid?

Time Magazine wins Woke Joke of the Year Award

Time Magazine wins Woke Joke of the Year Award, by Joanne Nova. It’s the left, being teachy again:

Some teenagers risk ten years in a Chinese jail. While another risks school detention as the chosen puppet of Big Government and Big Money.

Guess which one Time Magazine thinks is more worthy?

Travis T. Jones:

Congratulations to Greta Thunberg, who proves by skipping school, not actually accomplishing anything, and having a larger carbon footprint than almost anyone in the world, you too can be praised by a failing magazine looking to virtue signal with the wokest, worst apocalypse. Ever.

Seen on Facebook:

Australian voters — volatile, disloyal and impatient

Australian voters — volatile, disloyal and impatient, by Paul Kelly. Based on the Australian National University 2019 Election Study.

The Liberal Party owns the over-65 vote, with the study showing this split 60-29 per cent ­Coali­tion over Labor. Scott Morrison has tied the “grey” vote to his ­ascendancy, an iron law that will dominate the Prime Minister’s public policy affecting this demographic.

The opposite trend occurs in the under-35 age vote. The election this year saw the lowest Liberal vote for this age group at 23 per cent, a Labor vote at 37 per cent, which is much higher but with a downward trend because the Greens vote has exploded to reach 28 per cent in this demographic. People under 35 were more likely to vote Greens than Liberal, a shocking comment on the Liberals. The Labor vote among under the under-35s is falling as the Greens steal their lunch.

Younger voters are moving to the left and older voters are moving to the right. Taking a broad sample of the nation, among the over-55 age group, 18 per cent more voted Liberal than Labor at the election (a 50-32 per cent split). This is the greatest Liberal lead in this category since the inception of the study in 1987. The Greens vote among over-55s is a dismal 3 per cent.

Ian McAllister, co-author of the study, said: “The generational divide is huge. I think in 10 to 15 years’ time we will be discussing it as the main issue in politics.”

Who does the generational divide assist in the long run? Take your pick — the young vote suggests it will favour the Labor-Greens left but this depends on the assumption that as people age into their 40s and 50s they stay progressive. The case for the Liberals is that because a greater proportion of voters will constitute the over-55 group in future years the split will suit them.

It takes time for people to learn about the world. Today’s young, especially, are indoctrinated hard in the PC fantasies.

The indoctrination was less intense when I was young, but it still took me to about 30 or 35 to realize most of what I’d been taught on certain subjects was the opposite to the truth. Just a tissues of lies and omissions designed to benefit certain groups of people. Your mileage may vary.

Some people never figure it out of course, preferring to ignore certain realities forever — especially if their jobs or social standing depends on appearing to believe the PC nonsense.

Other interesting findings:

Shorten had the second lowest popularity rating out of the 24 major party leaders since the 1987 election. …

45 per cent of men gave the Liberals a first preference vote compared with 35 per cent of women. Women, more than men, vote Labor. But the big gulf arises from their support for the Greens — women in 2019 voted Green over men 15 to 9 per cent. Women spearhead the left-progressive vote.

Yep, some women prefer big government to a man, now that they have a choice.

The End of an Epoch

The End of an Epoch, by Keith Weiner.

The Left focuses on wealth inequality, because they see one of the signs. The falling interest rate seemingly benefits those who own assets(it does not actually benefit anyone), particularly those who finance assets with dirt-cheap credit. And it harms wage-earners, by incentivizing businesses to borrowcheap to buy capital goods to replace labor.

The Right typically denies this plain fact, because they want to head the Left off at the pass. They want to foreclose on the Left’s policy: which is to impose a wealth tax. Newsflash for the Left: if you think wage earners get a bad deal now, wait ‘til you see what it’s like as you strip-mine the capital from the investors and corporations!It takes capital to pay a wage. …

Consumer price increases:

Inflation makes a weak argument for change. … The one percenters are perfectly happy if consumer prices are rising at 2%, because their assets are rising much faster than that. The wage-earners care only about the relative rate, between how fast their wages are rising and how fast prices are rising. The same for pensioners on a fixed income. And the welfare class cares only that the free food keeps flowing.

People care about rising consumer prices — but not that much. They love to complain, but then they go back to watching the game and drinking their beer.

In our era, we do not have rapidly-rising prices, except in markets that are the most distorted by nonmonetary government interference. Such as health care …


There are two problems with explaining to wealthy people how our monetary system is driving us into the abyss.

One, they are trading, and their portfolios are going up in dollar terms and purchasing power. That is, their “salary” depends on them knowing how to operate within this system, but not on identifying its fatal flaw. They substitute speculation for savings and investment — and the system rewards this behavior.

Two, they resent being told that they are participating in a destructive scheme. They may feel that they are being accused of committing evil. …

Where we draw the line is when people defend speculation as being equivalent to investing, when they normalize it. In investing, one finances new production and one’s profit comes from part of the income earned by that new production. In speculation, one’s profit comes from the next speculator’s capital. They may seem to generate the same outcome, but economically they are opposites.

We understand why people want to see their actions as being good, not just profitable but morally good. In a free market, of course to profit is to do good — there is no other way to profit. We understand why no one wants to hear “sure, you made a buck, but the world is poorer for it.” Or “it’s just a zero-sum game, and your gain is someone else’s loss.”

Leads to a poorer society:

It should be clear why we are nearing the end of an epoch. Prices have been rising for a long time, and could keep rising for an even longer time. But conversion of capital to income, to spend, is like eating the seed corn. That cannot last forever. Sooner or later, you run out. And then real misery begins.

The money system we have suits the ruling class. Asset price increases are wonderful if you own assets, but it prices many —  such as young people — right out of the asset markets, e.g. housing. And here is an awful lot of debt around, which cannot be meaningfully repaid.

What can’t go on forever, won’t:

Evans - debt to gdp ratio, 2015

The Holocaust Is Not the “Pill” to Die On

The Holocaust Is Not the “Pill” to Die On, by David Cole.

Michelle Malkin caught hell last month for not “disavowing” groyper troll Nick Fuentes. And now other rightists are catching hell for not “disavowing” Malkin. And it all started with Fuentes appearing to advocate Holocaust denial on his podcast (vaguely referencing my work in the process). …

On the Holocaust Nick Fuentes is wrong and stupid. I know kids like him; they reach out to me all the time. They talk about the “Holohoax” and how Holocaust denial is the ultimate “red pill.” Sure, Fuentes’ defenders might claim that his “Holocaust cookies” routine was mere parody, but as the “based Jew” who’s usually cited on the topic, I don’t believe it was parody at all. Fuentes was parroting the standard denial script, and his “ironic” delivery doesn’t change that fact.

There’s this one young fella — I won’t name him, but he’s very well-known on the right — and he looks at me as his ultimate “red piller.” And no matter how many times I tell him to his face that the Holocaust happened, that it’s not a hoax, and that I never said it was a hoax, he doesn’t believe me. “Right, it ‘happened’!” he winks, as though my denials of denial are part of some coy little game I’m playing. I can explain the historical facts to the guy till my face turns blue, but it doesn’t matter. He’s not interested in the facts. For him, and for an entire subspecies of far-right millennials, Holocaust denial has become a gimmick, a way to make the stuffy elders tear their hair out in rage.

It’s the ultimate way to say “Look what a naughty boy I am,” as evidenced by the smirk on Fuentes’ face as he performed his Holocaust “parody”…

If you’re a young, headstrong Trump-era nationalist, why wouldn’t you want to taunt establishment conservatives by saying exactly the things that turn them into apoplectic cowards who slavishly beg the left not to “tar” them? Who in the groyper clique doesn’t want people like Klavan and Shapiro calling them “an offense to God”? Coming from those phonies, it’s the highest compliment, the shiniest badge of merit.

I get the appeal. But take it from the “based Jew”: This is not the hill to die on. Holocaust denial is wrong. I mean factually wrong. If you’re gonna get a person of value like Michelle Malkin mixed up in your madness, do it for something that counts. I’m the first one to say, go to the mat for the truth, and lose friends if you have to. But don’t kamikaze yourself for a lie. All those denial talking points that Fuentes recited in his “parody” are false …

Invoking Holocaust denial does nothing more than distract from the genuine issues facing America today — issues involving immigration and the gradual (and in some cases speedy) Third Worlding of the West. There’s no upside to playing around with denial; embracing it indicates poor cognitive skills and even worse judgment. …

Denial is a dead-end street, and it doesn’t matter how you couch it, as “parody” or as “questions.” Dabbling in denial will give your critics something legitimate with which to cudgel you, because Holocaust denial is not supportable by facts. Don’t endanger your agenda by embracing nonsense simply because you want to look based or “naughty.” There are plenty of “dangerous” topics that can be intellectually defended from a rightist perspective: interracial crime, race and IQ, and the effects of Third World immigration on a civilized nation. Go to the mat for those. Defend the free-speech rights of Holocaust deniers (as I’ve done for thirty years), but don’t confuse them being censored with them being right.

Cuckmongers Hall And The London Bridge Massacre

Cuckmongers Hall And The London Bridge Massacre, by John Derbyshire.

The latest terrorist killings in London got me reading up on Fishmongers’ Hall. …

Fishmongers’ Hall isn’t actually that old, as buildings go in England — less than 200 years old. … Fishmongers’ Hall is respectably old, though. It acquired more respectability in WW2, when it was badly damaged by German bombs during the Blitz; and there has been a Fishmongers’ Hall on that same site since the 14th century.

The hall’s proprietor, the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers, is even older than that, with misty origins back in the Middle Ages, when practitioners of some trade or craft — in this case, the marketing of fish — banded together in guilds to protect their collective interests …

Whatever, the Company and its hall are fine mementos of old England, when she was a country inhabited mainly by a distinctive race of people — the Island Race, Sir Winston Churchill called them.

Nowadays England is a multicultural, multiracial slum, its population about as distinctive as the inhabitants of an airport departure lounge. Less than half of Londoners belong to that Island Race Churchill wrote about.

When today’s teenagers are middle-aged, less than half of England will be of that Island Race, thanks to mass immigration and differential birthrates.

And of course this is something the English are supposed to celebrate as positive — the transformation of a stuffy, dull, backward-looking population with chronic class antagonisms and lousy cuisine into a gorgeous mosaic of diversity, an affirmation of human universalism, of the absolute innate equality of all races in all the traits that matter.

If, for example, you go the website of the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers … you get a picture of ten fishmongers plying their ancient trade, eight gentlemen and two ladies.

Two of the ten are indistinct; of the other eight, five, including both the ladies, are black or mulatto. Two of the guys are very black …

English people who object to this North Korean level of brainwashing, or who merely notice the downsides — the usual high black crime rate, the Pakistani grooming gangs — are ostracized as cruel and immoral, and fired from their jobs. Sometimes they are jailed. …

I’d hate to see that synchronicity [between the US and the UK] continue to the point where America is sunk as deep in collective self-loathing and blind race denialism as England now is. If I can write or say anything to stop that happening, I will, at any rate until I’m dragged off to a labor camp for re-education. …

Then the Muslim massacred the natives:

So there was this very respectable conference going on at Fishmonger’s Hall. Then suddenly, around 2 p.m., one of the ex-prisoners attending began stabbing fellow attendees with two large knives, one of them duct-taped to his hand.

He then left the room shouting that he was going to blow the place up, exposing what looked like a suicide vest. He ran out, or was chased out, of Fishmonger’s Hall onto London Bridge, where pursuers brought him down and the police arrived and shot him dead. Two of the people he’d stabbed also died. Both were Cambridge University graduates, a male aged 25 and a female, 23 …

Killer Kahn

The stabber was, as our own media would say, and as I have no doubt some of the British media did say, a “Staffordshire man.”

This Staffordshire man was in fact a Pakistani Muslim of the fiercer kind, name of Usman Khan. He was deep into Islamic terrorism and in 2012, at age 19, was sentenced to indeterminate detention with an 8-year minimum jail term for plotting to blow up key buildings in London, including the U.S. Embassy.

Once in jail, he pretended to be reformed. The pretense was very well done, so much so he was released last December without even completing his 8-year minimum, although he had to wear an electronic tag — he was wearing it when he died. …

The aftermath of these killings was predictable — par for the course in the United Cuckdom. …

Mayor Kahn

The Mayor of London, another Pakistani Muslim also named Khan … quacked that the city would “stay resolute in our determination to stand strong and united in the face of terror.”

This is the same guy who, three years ago, told Londoners that the threat of terrorist attacks is “part and parcel of living in a big city.”

Funny, it doesn’t seem to be part and parcel of living in Warsaw, Prague, or Budapest. Why is that, Mr. Mayor?

A big thank you must go to Tony Blair, who started what is easily the highest immigration rate to the UK since before 1066. And such an excellent choice of immigrants too, from a cult that kills people who choose to leave and actively tries to convert everyone to its totalitarian ideology. Outstanding. And his aim?

Former PM Tony Blair, July 21 2007

More Kahns, please

Reminder: “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” by Tom Whitehead in 2009:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”. …

The number of white, British-born citizens in the UK is at 76% and dropping by about 1% per year. Before 2050 they will make up less than half the population. The left see this as a good thing, and to even point it out draws screams of “racist.”

Mission accomplished. Future generations salute you, Tony Blair.

Move Over Baby Jesus: The ‘Baby Muhammad’ Jihad Comes to America

Move Over Baby Jesus: The ‘Baby Muhammad’ Jihad Comes to America, by Raymond Ibrahim.

If Muhammad cannot beat the infidels on the battlefield, he’ll outbreed them — literally: Last year it was reported: “Mohammed most popular name for newborn boys in the Netherlands for second year in a row.” Muhammad is apparently also the most popular name in England. In fact, Muhammad is one of the most popular names throughout Northwest Europe.

And now, for the first time ever, Muhammad has made the list of top ten baby names in America. As the Baby Center explains: “Arabic names are on the rise this year, with Muhammad and Aaliyah entering the top 10 and nudging Mason and Layla off.”

While all this may seem innocuous enough — what’s in a name? — the fact is many Muslims see their offspring as contributions to the “struggle” to make Islam supreme, since more numbers equate more influence and power. Nor is the naming of “Muhammad” a coincidence but rather a cryptic reminder from the parents concerning whom they most revere and hope their sons emulate — namely, the founder of Islam/jihad.

Muslim women remain the primary incubators for the jihad—and many of them see it as their obligation. According to a 2008 report, “Muslim hate fanatics plan to take over Britain by having more babies and forcing a population explosion, it has been revealed. The swollen Muslim population would be enough to conquer Britain from inside, they claim.” …

A Christian Eritrean volunteer and translator who worked in migrant centers in Germany and was often assumed to be Muslim by the migrants, confessed that “Muslim migrants often confide in her and tell her about their dislike towards Christians,” and that “a number of the Muslim migrants she has spoken to have revealed a hatred for Christians and are determined to destroy the religion.” As to how they plan on accomplishing this, “Some women told me, ‘We will multiply our numbers. We must have more children than the Christians because it’s the only way we can destroy them here.’” …

The notion that more Muslim births mean more Muslim power is so ingrained among Muslims that recommendations of “family planning” in West Africa—which, despite its scarcity of resources, has the highest birthrate in the world—is regularly seen by Muslims as a Western conspiracy. ….

Not that many Western Europeans seem to care; some are even glad to see their own kind die off and be replaced by Muslims — such as Dr. Stefanie von Berg, who once exulted before the German parliament: “Mrs. President, ladies and gentlemen. Our society will change. Our city will change radically. I hold that in 20, 30 years there will no longer be a [German] majority in our city. …. And I want to make it very clear, especially towards those right-wingers: This is a good thing!

Our feminists just know these nice people aren’t serious. Our clever postmodern ruling class is never wrong about anything. They have determined that the above is just Islamophobia, and you should just ignore the demographic implications.

Will my great grandchildren will be bowing to Mecca five times a day? I was hoping for more of a Star Trek sort of future, but given the history of Islam and innovation, I think we can rule that out.