Today’s Tory Party is indistinguishable from New Labour, and is probably more Marxist in practice than Jeremy Corbyn is in theory.
Peter Hitchens, The Mail on Sunday
If there is one lesson to be taken from this run-up to the presidential campaign of 2016, it is that a huge and growing segment of the nation does not want what the establishment of either party has on offer.
Pat Buchanan, Taki’s Magazine
There is nothing the Western political and media complex dislikes more than when its narrative is upset. This happened in the UK with Nigel Farage and, after a sustained and blatant media attack campaign against his party in general and Farage in particular, the threat of UKIP was finally nullified. It is happening now in America with Donald Trump and the Republican Party candidature. Even Fox News – an organisation laughably called Right-wing by the Pansy Left – have mobilised their forces to destroy someone plainly not of the political class. To a curious extent, and with obviously marked differences to the campaigns against Farage and Trump, the same thing is happening to the firebrand pretender to Labour’s tainted throne, Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn commits the unforgiveable sin of the modern political elites; authenticity. He may be a Marxist loon who believes that if a heavily indebted nation keeps borrowing to build infrastructure it will eventually solve its financial ills, but he does actually believe that. The rest of our empty-headed gauleiters believe whatever their focus groups, SpAds, wonks, policy advisers, fixers and other illusionists and manipulators have told them to believe that morning in order to placate the media and fool the masses. The one favour Corbyn could do all of us is to expose and reject the public relations ethos of modern politics.
Perhaps he won’t have to try too hard; conviction politics may be toxic enough. Joel Benenson, an American ‘pollster’ who has worked for the odious pairing of Obama and Hillary Clinton, is lined up to work for the Labour Party on one condition; that Corbyn is not leader. Warding off these shysters is an encouraging start for the overwhelming favourite to win the leadership election. But there may be other implications of this dark horse storming through on the rails as the finish line hoves into view.
Peter Hitchens is probably our leading popular Conservative journalist, and is to that extent despised by the Pansy Left. He is a Christian monarchist, well-spoken and erudite, and is often openly ridiculed by dullards in print, on radio and on television. I remember one particularly shrewish Pakistani heritage woman leaning in to him while he was making one of his usual closely argued and reasonable points and saying into his face: HELLO? HELLO? HELLO? as though she were implying that Hitchens was mentally defective by virtue of not sharing her own fudge-brained and self-righteous multicultural pieties. Thus the Pansy Left. Hitchens Minor (his brother was the late Christopher) has an interesting take on the Corbyn phenomenon and a salient message to the ‘Right’, or at least the so-called Tories; be careful what you wish for.
‘Corbyn for Leader’ has, of course, become the gleeful chant of the Right. Conservatives – although they are conservative in name only, like the RINOs in America – are happily joining the Labour Party in order to vote for the bearded Marxist-Leninist who counts Gerry Adams and Hamas among his friends because they believe it will administer the killing stroke to their supposed adversaries. Hitchens argues that there are two reasons why the Tories may rue the election of Corbyn as Dear Leader.
The second reason is the weaker argument. Hitchens says that without an enemy, the Conservative Party itself will begin to crack and fragment. He compares it to NATO after the fall of Communism, but I think Hitchens is having a vaporous attack of dialectics. There is no cast-iron political law that says that a party or organisation requires an enemy, a radical other, in order to define itself. In fact, this smacks rather more of the type of post-modern pabulum found in our universities, where post-modernist progressivism has replaced the inconvenience of having to think. It is the first of Hitchens’s arguments which resonates.
The problem facing the Tories, writes Hitchens, is ‘the constant risk that George Osborne’s supposed recovery finally runs out of luck, and is revealed as the conjuring trick that it is.’ For it almost certainly is a conjuring trick and, like the conjurer, Osborne knows how to distract with one hand while fooling the audience with the secret actions of the other. This country’s structural deficit is greater than that of Greece, a notoriously bankrupt country now reliving its classical battles against the barbarian hordes. Our superfatted public sector shows no signs of diminishing. Foreign aid continues to be posted into a hole in the ground. Costly and culturally inimical immigration continues apace. Scotland still leeches from English tax-payers. It cannot continue.
With this in mind, it is worth noting a tendency of that mass of people so despised by the contemporary political class; the electorate. People, en masse, do not really vote for political principles, they vote against incumbent parties with which they are disgusted and bored. In the case of the UK, that would be every post-war party that Her Majesty the Queen has invited to form a government at Westminster. This is where dialectics really does come into play. When the latest reigning bunch of mercenary stuffed suits have run out of steam and can’t fool a docile public any longer, a general election sees the other lot take the reins. It looks very much like change, even though it is not.
If Alastair Campbell despises him, Corbyn can’t be all bad. Ditto the man Hitchens calls ‘the Blair creature’. With the advent of the curious triumvirate of Farage, Trump and Corbyn, politics has done what the political class has fought so hard to disallow, despite their fork-tongued protestations to the contrary; it has become interesting again.