Some Thoughts on the Corbyn Phenomenon

By Max Musson:

Most people from all political persuasions are both surprised and bemused by the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party, not knowing quite what to think.

There are those members of the public who are of a more radical left-wing persuasion who will no doubt be rather pleased by Corbyn’s success and the prospect of being able to vote for a decidedly left-wing prime ministerial candidate at the next general election, although the brighter ones will no doubt be asking themselves how such a prospect came to drop in their laps so suddenly, and so unexpectedly?

Furthermore, those of us who have for some time watched the ways in which electoral politics is so often cynically manipulated by political power brokers and the mass media will be asking much the same question but from a distinctly different perspective.

Corbyn 2Jeremy Corbyn has been a Labour Member of Parliament (MP) at Westminster for more than thirty years, but he has not been in any sense a prominent politician, playing any kind of leading role, and in fact, prior to his recent nomination as a candidate in the Labour Party leadership contest, he was virtually never mentioned in the news and was regarded by most Labour Party members and supporters as a marginalised character of little consequence. How is it then that this apparent nonentity has suddenly been catapulted from obscurity into one of the highest profile positions in British politics?

For some years now the political establishment have been increasingly aware of a declining public interest in politics, as has been indicated by falling political party memberships and falling turn-outs at election time. There has been a growing realisation that increasingly, members of the public have come to regard all of the establishment political parties and politicians as so similar that it is difficult to differentiate between them and therefore difficult to maintain any real enthusiasm for any of them. There has been a growing perception that all politicians are self-seeking and career driven — more interested in occupying lucrative political positions and exercising political power for the benefit of themselves and generous party donors, than in serving the interests of our nation.

When Tony Blair resigned the leadership of the Labour Party in 2007, there was already a perception that some of the ‘chickens’ from his foreign policy exploits; from his drive to privatise public services; and from his ‘demographic vandalism’, were already starting to ‘come home to roost’.

During the late 1990s and the decade that followed, Blair and to a lesser extent Gordon Brown had initiated a major departure from traditional left-wing Labour policies, moving the party to what media pundits like to believe is the ‘centre-ground’ of British politics – effectively out-Torying the Tories – and establishing ‘New Labour’, which later came to be seen as ‘Blue Labour’.

Once the public began to see through Blair’s naked ‘snake-oil salesmanship’ however, Blair had effectively ‘queered the pitch’ for those who were to follow and so when he vacated the Labour leadership in favour of Gordon Brown, it was something of a poisoned chalice and Brown predictably lost the 2010 general election.

When Ed Miliband then won the subsequent Labour leadership contest, pushing aside his brother David who had been the favourite to win, it was as the result of a growing reaction within the Labour Party against the Blairite and Brownite New Labour project — a reaction largely driven by the largest trade unions, who were beginning to reassert themselves and replace Lord Levy’s predominantly Jewish business friends as the Labour Party’s most influential donors. It was also a reaction in response to the jaded public opinion that I have already described.

Milliput 2However, while his policies were a little more in keeping with ‘traditional’ left-wing Labour thinking, Ed Miliband was such a poor prime-ministerial candidate that he blew his golden chance to make his mark in British politics in the general election earlier this year. Not only had Miliband moved slightly off the ‘centre-ground’ that the media and our political elite like the winning party to occupy — one of liberal-conservatism, come social-democracy — but his ‘alien’ appearance and geeky demeanour did little to endear him to the British public either.

Although he had been the eventual beneficiary of the previous Labour Party leadership election process, in which there was an ‘electoral college’, in which 33⅓rd of the vote was reserved for each of: the party members; the elected MPs and MEPs; and the trade unions, Miliband was cognisant of the resentment felt by many Labour MPs, that the unions had too much influence and in 2014, in keeping with the Collins Report into this issue, he introduced reforms including a new process for electing the party leader giving one vote per member of the party.

What no-one within the parliamentary Labour Party ostensibly appears to have realised however, is that in moving to diminish the future influence of the trades unions, the recommendations of the Collins Report would also remove the 33⅓rd of the vote reserved for MPs and MEPs, placing the destiny of the party entirely in the hands of its individual members and activists, many of whom are enthusiastic trades unionists and Labour’s most traditionally minded left-wingers.

A move designed to emasculate union influence over the Labour Party and to reduce the possibility of radical elements saddling the parliamentary party with a too extreme, ‘lame-duck’, leader appears to have produced the opposite effect.

It is claimed that Jeremy Corbyn was only nominated as a leadership candidate by his parliamentary colleagues in order to create the impression that party members had a wide range of choice of candidates, but as a consequence of the three largest trade unions throwing their support behind the most decidedly ‘old Labour’ candidate, Corbyn was transformed from rank outsider, to hot favourite and as we know, much to the apparent horror of the establishment and the parliamentary Labour Party, he has now been elected Labour Party leader.

When I first heard news that Corbyn was the front runner in the leadership election, I was rather suspicious. I am always suspicious when previously obscure individuals are suddenly catapulted from nowhere into the leadership of one of the main establishment political parties. Tony Blair was catapulted from obscurity — albeit with different window dressing — and so was David Cameron, and both of these men have been shown to have been men ‘cut from the same cloth’ — smooth-talking, ‘snake oil salesmen’ who can fake sincerity until the cows come home. Clearly, Blair and Cameron are establishment insiders and I was suspicious that Corbyn might be also. However, after much searching, and in light of the evident hostility towards Corbyn emanating from certain quarters, I am inclined to conclude that Corbyn probably is an establishment outsider, over whom our political elite fear they may have little or no influence.

This does not mean however that I regard Corbyn as any less dangerous regarding the welfare and future survival of the British people, far from it, but he is a new element that serendipity has thrown into the mix.

There has been a mixed response from the media to Jeremy Corbyn and his team, with the traditional Tory supporting newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, together with the UKIP supporting Express and most of the television channels featuring fairly caustic accounts of everything he does, criticising his appearance, his dress sense, and digging up stories of things he said an did many years ago.

Interestingly, one of the most vitriolic sources of attack upon Jeremy Corbyn has come from Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, in an article on the Daily Mail website, entitled, “Enemies of Britain… but friends of Corbyn: How new Labour leader appears to hate this country”. In this article, Pollard states, “It has become a cliche to say that Jeremy Corbyn is not fit to be the leader of the Labour Party …

“But it’s worse than that. He is barely fit to be an MP. Corbyn doesn’t just hate America, Nato and the West. He appears to hate Britain itself …

“Some things are beyond parody. And one of them is now leading the Labour Party.”

Few of the general criticisms levelled at Corbyn by Pollard, however, could not also be levelled at most other prominent Labour Party politicians. In earlier articles also published in the Mail, Pollard derided all of the potential candidates for the Labour Party leadership, declaring “Burnham’s a joke, Yvette’s a whimper: Labour’s hopefuls are a hopeless bunch”, and that “… after 115 years, the [Labour] Party’s over!”

Corbyn 3The one specific criticism, which in the eyes of organised Jewry clearly separated Jeremy Corbyn from the other Labour Party leadership contestants, and which separates him from past Labour Party leaders, is Corbyn’s past association with certain advocates for Arab and Palestinian causes who have been described as anti-Semitic or as Holocaust deniers, and it is clear that this one issue overrides all other considerations in the eyes of many Jews. The Jewish Chronicle presented Jeremy Corbyn with seven questions recently to which they demanded a reply, which Jeremy Corbyn endeavored to answer, however despite a number of Jewish activists within the Labour Party stating their support for Corbyn, Stephen Pollard and his staff do not appear to have been placated.

The Jewish Chronicle have even gone to the extent of commissioning an opinion poll of British Jews in order to establish their views regarding Jeremy Corbyn and interestingly, while the poll results showed that 67% of Jews are concerned by the prospect of Corbyn as Labour leader, the poll also revealed that when Jews hear politicians describe themselves as ‘anti-Zionist’, 44% of Jews stated that they ‘always’ assume the politician is actually ‘anti-Jewish’; a further 27% stated that they ‘often’ make that assumption; and a further 19% said ‘sometimes’.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Jeremy Corbyn’s views and the impact they have upon the writers for and viewers of the Jewish Chronicle, it is clear that Corbyn can be differentiated from political leaders like Blair and Cameron, who have in the past been catapulted from obscurity, in that he does not appear to have the financial support and sponsorship of a cabal of prominent Jews, and appears to have attained the position of leader of the Labour Party without overt support from such a source.

While it will be interesting to see how this situation plays out, it would be wrong for us to assume as I have already stated, that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to be significantly better for Britain and the British people should he ever be elected prime minister. Some of Corbyn’s aims such as the re-nationalising of our utilities industries and our railways and the use of printed banknotes rather than the issue of loan stocks to finance public works may elicit approval from most nationalists, and are a step in the right direction, but a Corbyn government would in addition to a continuation of open door immigration and the promotion of multiracialism and multiculturalism; give us more political correctness; run down our armed forces to even more laughably inadequate levels than they have reached already; create a bonanza for benefits claimants; abolish private medicine; keep us in the European Union (it is a Marxist entity after-all); and would facilitate the break-up of the United Kingdom, granting Scottish independence and the cessation of Ulster to a united Ireland.

So, how should we White nationalists view the Corbyn phenomenon?

Ostensibly, it would appear that Corbyn’s attainment of the Labour leadership is to some extent the result of the result of serendipity of misadventure, depending upon which way you view it. I am always reluctant however to accept a version of events that does not involve scheming on the part of somebody. I am reminded of the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt when he said, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

I cannot believe that in drawing up the new rules for the election of Labour Party leaders, no-one realised that this would play into the hands of the unions rather than limit their influence, and if we look to see who drafted and first recommended the changes, it was Ray Collins, Baron Collins of Highbury, a man who was until his appointment as General Secretary of the Labour Party in 2008, the Central Office Manager of the Transport & General Workers Union, a position he had held for twenty-four years. Furthermore, Collins’ recommendations were accepted and sold to the parliamentary Labour Party in part by Ed Miliband, a man who owed his own ascent to the Labour Party leadership to the support he had received from the trade unions.

Most interesting however is that Tony Blair gave his strong personal backing to Ed Miliband’s internal Labour reforms when they were introduced in February 2014, and while Tony Blair may be many things, I don’t think he is a fool. Therefore, despite Blair’s high profile denunciation of Corbyn during the leadership election, one can only assume that he was aware of the consequences of the changes introduced with his blessing.

BlairIn fact, Tony Blair must have known of the yearning among grass roots Labour activists and trade unionists for a authentic, hard-left, ‘Old Labour’ leader for the party, and he must have been aware of the great loathing with which he is regarded by those same rank and file Labour members. Surely he will have known that his denunciation of Corbyn would have the opposite effect of that which one would expect if taken at face value. Far from dissuading Labour Party activists from voting for Corbyn, Blair’s plea would have them queuing up to support Corbyn, which is precisely what happened.

With the election of Corbyn as Labour leader there is considerable disquiet among the MPs and MEPs of the parliamentary Labour Party and there have been rumours that this unhappy situation could end with a split in the Labour Party and with a sizeable number of their MPs leaving the party and either standing as independents, or joining the Liberal Democrats in a repeat of the ‘Gang of Four’ defection of the 1980s.

The effect this would have on British politics is quite interesting in that we would then have establishment political parties as follows, from political right to left: UKIP, led by authentic conservative leader, Nigel Farage; The Conservative Party, a liberal-conservative party, led by David Cameron; the newly renamed Social-Democrats (LibDems plus Labour defectors) , led by Nick Clegg or some Blairite placeman; and the Labour Party, led by an authentic socialist leader, Jeremy Corbyn with the support of the SNP led by Nichola Sturgeon.

The effect of this would be to reduce to the minimum the possibility of any one party having an overall majority in the future. It would almost guarantee perpetual coalition politics in future, along the lines of most other European Union member states, a situation that prevents strong national government and which would prevent any likelihood of a maverick member state ever leaving the union.

A further effect would be to create the illusion of choice in elections between decidedly ‘right-wing’ characters such as Farage, and decidely left-wing characters such as Corbyn and Sturgeon, with more moderate ‘left/right of centre’ parties led by the likes of Cameron and Clegg. There would be the illusion of choice with which to keep the ‘punters’ happy, while at the same time, no one party would ever be able to take decisive action and all parties would consequently be forced to defer to the EU over major policy issues.

By Max Musson © 2015

# # # #



53 thoughts on “Some Thoughts on the Corbyn Phenomenon

  1. The only real question of interest to nationalists is what effect the election of Corbyn will have on the fortunes of UKIP. The answer to that question will depend in turn on what effect he will have on the Labour party, and that at present is unknowable.

    We can hope that socially conservative White working class voters will switch from Labour to UKIP but for that to happen UKIP needs to up its appeal very considerably. The other scenario is that former Labour voters who switched to UKIP in the general election will now switch back because in Corbyn they have a leader who has something of the same anti-establishment attraction as Farage. We shall see.

  2. If Corbyn is hard left, perhaps he would enjoy watching this film to see what some of his chums get up to, from time to time?!
    Max – I suggest that you vet the film because it is certainly not suitable for children.

    1. I don’t think for a minute that Corbyn would condone what this film depicts, although the Russian revolution did feature such brutality and mass executions. It is strange that while leftists campaign vigorously and shout ‘Never again!’ where the Holocaust is concerned, they conveniently overlook the fact that Communism has resulted in far more deaths and a greater genocide than have been attributed to Nazi Germany.

    2. Jeremy Corbyn is a Socialist, not a Communist. Socialism is a perfectly acceptable political philosophy. Marx & Engels tampered with it and turned it into a perversion, they dehumanised what were originally very Christian ideas.

      1. Unfortunately, Christianity is part of the problem also.
        It is the moral universalism of Christianity and Marxian socialism that plays upon the pathological altruism of White people, leading us to be the architects of our own demise.
        It is the moral particularism of National Socialism/White racialism that is needed to ensure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of White people.

        1. ‘Marxian socialism’ is an oxymoron. National socialism is not only a hindrance but a foolish philosophy and part of your problem. Universalism is a false doctrine. George Carey, appointed by Thatcher, one of endless wolves in sheep’s clothing who comes out of the woodwork from time to time to endorse the unbiblical policies of the Tories.

          1. Marxism is a strand of international socialism and both Marxism and international socialism, together with the socialism of people like Jeremy Corbyn, embody moral universalism.
            I’m not quite sure how you would substantiate that universalism is a ‘false’ doctrine, but moral universalism is certainly an aberrant doctrine. National socialism is the only form of socialism that does not embody moral universalism.
            Lastly, I don’t see what George Carey, Thatcher, or the ‘unbiblical’ nature of Tory policy has to do with our conversation?

            1. Universalism is an issue everyone needs to correctly understand. Humanism, an offshoot of communism, is the foundation for much of what is called universalism. National socialism is not the only creed which rejects universalism. I can easily substantiate it being a false doctrine and I will, through another route. My last point had more to do with the debauched state of our country than our conversation.

  3. Surely the Corbyn phenomenom will tell you something. But you have missed it. He is the first non-establishment leader of the two main parties since Neville Chamberlain. And see how the knives are out for him even though he is pro-immigration. So what chance have you got, Papa Luigi? You should be welcoming him, for he is a refreshing change. Go to youtube and see how Tom Watson challenges David Cameron here:-

    The moment Tom Watson MP confronts David Cameron in Parliament

    And again:-

    Tom Watson Bowls Cameron

    There is only one answer for the parlous position Britain is now in but you and your ilk have rejected it.

    1. Hi Christabel,

      Thank you for responding to my article. In that article you will see that in paragraph fifteen, I state: “after much searching, and in light of the evident hostility towards Corbyn emanating from certain quarters, I am inclined to conclude that Corbyn probably is an establishment outsider, over whom our political elite fear they may have little or no influence.”
      This is an acknowledgement that Corbyn is almost certainly an honest, conviction politician, however such honesty is of little value if the views and aims of the person in question are detrimental to the interests of the British people overall. In paragraph sixteen, I continue: “This does not mean however that I regard Corbyn as any less dangerous regarding the welfare and future survival of the British people, far from it, but he is a new element that serendipity has thrown into the mix.”
      “… a Corbyn government would in addition to a continuation of open door immigration and the promotion of multiracialism and multiculturalism; give us more political correctness; run down our armed forces to even more laughably inadequate levels than they have reached already; create a bonanza for benefits claimants; abolish private medicine; keep us in the European Union (it is a Marxist entity after-all); and would facilitate the break-up of the United Kingdom, granting Scottish independence and the cessation of Ulster to a united Ireland.”
      All of this however is likely to prove of only academic interest, as it is most unlikely that Corbyn will ever become prime minister. As I indicated in my article and since that article was published further political comment has been published in the mass media indicating that moves are afoot to create a split in the parliamentary Labour Party, and this will mean that Jeremy Corbyn will only ever participate in a future government as a member of a more broadly-based and establishment controlled coalition.
      We would like to see some of Jeremy Corbyn’s policies enacted, his renationalisation of the railways and utility industries, for example; the nationalisation of the banks; and the use of ‘fiat money’ or as Corbyn calls it, ‘QE for the people’, to finance some elements of future government expenditure. However Corbyn falls short of a thorough understanding of the wider banking fraud associated with fractional reserve banking and debt-based fiscal policy, of which we are all victims, and the genetic obliteration of the British people would accelerate under a Corbyn government. There is no point ‘re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic’ if we cease to be ‘us’ — if we are replaced wholesale by Africans and Asians and the ‘Tan Everyman’.
      Lastly, Christabel, I suspect that you have been participating in a debate taking place somewhere other than on this website, and you may have some authority over who is permitted to participate in that debate, and if so, I would invite you to demonstrate your democratic credentials by arranging an invitation for me to participate in that wider debate also. That is assuming you are not afraid to ‘share a platform’ with someone of my ‘ilk’.

    2. Why? A Corbyn Labour just ensures a stronger majority for the Conservatives. Many old fashioned working class votes left in Labour will go over to the Conservatives and don’t discount some liberals going over to the Conservatives along with ethnic minority interests who view Corbyn as too extreme.

      It was far better when the vote was split between the main three. Now that the lib dems have been driven and labour a laughing stock the conservatives, which in theory should be ‘dead party’, are in a comfortable position and can rely on soundbites to keep ‘right’ wing voters on side.

      Expect a meme to go round that if Labour can’t win then minority and liberal voters should vote Conservatives to stop UKIP (which then might even be controlled oppisition!). Also expect UKIP voters to be brought to the Conservatives through fear of loony Corbyn gaining power, just like UKIP voters were brought to the conservatives over imaginery fears (in the general scheme of things) of a Labour-SNP alliance.

      I’ll give Corbyn 2.5years and he’ll be out again in favour of a more ‘acceptable’ person. If far-left apoligists blame it on the plutocratic elite or Zionists then the public, indoctrinated by the MSM, will be thankful to said plutocrats & Zionists. The left wing can also delude themselves that they are being oppressed by right wing Conservatives and ‘crypto-fascists’ UKIP while their social agendas are supported by said ‘right wing’.

      Such a multi-faceted scheme they play!

      1. What perhaps haven’t grasped here Ryan is that Tony Blair approved of Ed Miliband’s changes to the leadership election rules — changes that have given the unions and the militant left greater influence in choosing the leader. He also twice went on record urging votors to reject Corbyn, precisely the kind of leadership candidate those changes would make inevitable. This indicates that either Blair is a fool, or there has been some skulduggery taking place.
        We then need to ask ourselves why the political establishment would want to create the circumstnces in which large numbers of Labour MPs would be motivated to consider leaving the party and defecting to the LibDems?
        The only possible reason would be to create five political parties along the lines that I have indicated, and lastly, we need then only look to see who would benefit from such a realignment? Answer? … the European Union!

        1. Personally I don’t see why they would want to split the vote 4 ways (England & Wales) as it would just make them vulnerable to fringe (Galloway’s ‘Respect) and patriotic parties due to the ‘mainstream’ vote being split more ways. People might no longer vote for Party A to keep Party B out as they have historically done and perhaps would be prepared to vote for alternative parties. The growth of the SNP appears organic in my opinion and shows the potential for a once ‘fringe’ party to gain masses of support.

          Blair’s motives are for Zionists & plutocrats. As said a Corbyn Labour party and Labour defectors to the Libs Dems (which you mentioned) will ensure a Conservative majority which fulfills the interests of said groups. Likewise if establishment powers wanted the Lib Dems there to split the vote then I do question why they helped fuel a full on attack on the Lib Dems over tution fees while letting Labour & Conservatives off the hook when they break even bigger pledges.

          The Conservatives offer a far more ‘flexible’ approach to anybody with special interests. Their voters won’t care much where we intervene and will probably enjoy it (with all the propaganda put out). They can give anti-immigration soundbites and token deportation cases to placate anti-immigration members of the public while presiding over the advancement of left-liberal social agendas. Anti-immigration sounbites and austerity can then be used to fuel low level anti-establishment left wing movements which can keep any emerging patriotic parties in check.

          I don’t see EU realignment as the main reason for this. Too risky when I think an EU vote will be to stay in, predominantly due to middle Englanders and the voting of non-indegionous Brits. We are pretty alligned with the EU already, the next step would be adopting the Euro which is unlikely to happen. It’s too much to change the political strucutre of this country when they can probably achieve it through media propaganda.

  4. Hello Mr. Musson, (I say Hello, not ‘Hi’ because I am not American.)
    I did read the whole article before I commented, it would have been stupid not to.
    Be assured that Jeremy Corbyn fully understands money creation because he is closely associated with Michael Meacher who supports ‘Postive Money’ and has adopted the ideas of economists Ben Dyson and Richard Murphy.
    ‘Money Creation & Society’ Debate in UK Parliament’ on youtube, the first time in 170 years that a debate on the subject has taken place in Parliament.
    With regard to your last paragraph, you have me confused with someone else. I can easily clear this up with you when a mutual friend of ours returns from Denmark.

    1. Hi Christabel, (I say ‘Hi’ even though I’m not American, because that style of address has been accepted into common parlance, even in the UK),
      I am pleased that you read my entire article. I remain unconvinced however that Jeremy Corbyn fully understands the issues associated with money creation and fractional reserve banking because the article to which you direct us demonstrates that Michael Meacher fully doesn’t understand these issues either.
      So that you can gain a greater appreciation of what I am referring to, I would direct you to an earlier article of mine:
      In particular, I would draw your attention to the latter part of that article (but please do read the whole of it), beginning with, ‘The Securitisation of Bad Debt’, through: ‘The Market Goes Pear-Shaped’; ‘The Liquidity Crisis’; ‘Bank Failures, Rescue Packages & the Bail-Out’; ‘Financial Sleight of Hand & the National Debt’; and lastly, ‘Quantitative Easing’.
      If you can read and absorb all of that, you will have a better understanding of QE than Michael Meacher and a better understanding than possibly everyone who attended the debate in Parliament, which ended without arriving at any decision and without prompting any change of legislation or even any promise that legislation should be reviewed. Indeed there were only twenty-two people present in the chamber of the House of Commons for that debate, twenty-two out of six-hundred and fifty members of parliament. This low level of participation in this debate, including the absence of Jeremy Corbyn, demonstrates the low level of understanding of this issue and therefore low level of importance placed upon it by our elected representatives.

  5. Michael Meacher has been campaigning on this for years, had you investigated a little further you would have found his lectures on youtube and discovered that he often features the subject on his blog. To imply you know more is presumptuous. I would say you are both equally knowledgeable. I would have thought you would be glad to hear there are a few MP’s who are doing what they can to alert the public and that It is not a subject restricted to nationalists; that they finally got it into Parliamentary Debate. Whether or not the outcome was to your liking is immaterial. You can see the disappointment at the end was as acute as your own. But it is a huge step forward which your insular group could never hope to achieve. You are not the only ones fighting battles. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.

    1. The point I make is that Michael Meacher has been a full time politician, elected to the House of Commons for the last thirty-five years, and so far he has only managed to post some lectures on Youtube. The fact there was a debate in the Commons is irrelevant so long as nothing comes of it. If he had spoken to a packed house and secured the passage of a Private Member’s Bill introducing new legislation to reform the banking system, then I would have been one of the first to pat him on the back, but so far he has no more to show for his efforts than our “insular group”. A journey of 1,000 miles does indeed begin with a single step, but if every small step takes thirty-five years, you and I will have been in our graves for several millennia before that ‘journey’ is complete.
      Never-the-less, it is gratifying to find that a small number of establishment politicians do at least have some semblance of residual decency such that they are prepared to do what little they have.
      What I would most like to see is Jeremy Corbyn and Michael Meacher taking action to defend the interests of the indigenous working people of this country, who are being progressively dispossessed, displaced and race replaced by a seemingly endless tide of Third World migrants. Jeremy Corbyn has defended the rights of the Palestinians in their struggle to prevent alien people from flooding in, occupying their land and denying them self-determination, yet Jeremy says nothing when we British suffer a similar fate.

      1. Please do not belittle his achievements which amount to far more than a few lectures. He is not at the top of the hierarchy to be able to have the desired effect. A lot of hard work and time was involved in getting to the point of a Parliamentary Debate. The Economists at ‘Positive Money’ have done something never been done before, that is, the drafting of a Bill for Money Reform which is workable, one which can be passed into legislation. You can imagine there being a thoroughly organised smear campaign (from big banking interests) against its further advancement.
        The government petition against refugees entering the country (no. 106477) has reached nearly 180,000 people. Have you signed and passed it on?

        1. That is very interesting Christabel, has this draft Bill for Money Reform been published anywhere online?
          You are correct in your assumption that the banks will do all in their power to stop any such Bill from being passed and it was interesting that even with just twenty-two people in the Commons Chamber during the debate last November, there were a significant number of people who clearly either had no idea of the implications of what was being discussed or who were deliberately trying to create digressions that would disrupt the flow of the main speakers’ arguments. Should the matter be discussed again, we can expect much more of this.
          Yes, I have signed the petition and thank you for posting the link.

            1. Well rest assured that we have twenty pieces of new reforming legislation similarly drafted and awaiting an opportunity for some fictional future radical government to introduce onto the statute books! …. honestly, we really, really have! 😉

  6. Another great article Max. I am particularly impressed by your perceptive observations about how the world is really governed. Like you I am always suspicious when I see someone with no track record who seems to come out of nowhere to be placed in the leadership of one of the establishment political parties. My suspicion is that some hidden hand has placed them there with the intention of using them as stooges, (although that does not seem to be the case with Corbyn).

    Also I agree with you that the accidental theory of politics obscures the reality of how the world is really governed. In reality there are no unintended consequences, governments do not lurch from crisis to crisis with no idea where we are heading, and no development is a complete surprise. Therefore the inevitable split in the Labour Party that will result from the election of Corbyn as leader must have been intended to fragment British politics and produce coalition governments incapable of leading Britain out of the EU as you suggest.

  7. Jeremy Corbyn has promised to denounce former Labour Leader and PM, Tony Blair, as a War-monger – I’ll buy that for dollar.

    1. British Army to mutiny ?

      Interesting times, folks: Jeremy Corbyn , Labour’s new Left-wing leader, wants to pull Britain out of NATO: Here is the reaction of Britain’s Establishment, from the mouth of a British General no less:

      A government headed by opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn could face “a mutiny” from the British Army if he tries to downgrade it or pull out of NATO, a senior serving general told The Sunday Times (20. September ‘!5).

      1. Don’t forget though Richard, a future nationalist government would also want to withdraw Britain from NATO and we would probably face the same kind of resistance. Furthermore, if there was a coup to oust Corbyn, it would be someone like Dave Cameron that would be reinstalled in his place.

        1. This whole business of Britain’s membership of NATO has now become of burning relevance. It’s the NATO wars and the fear of more such wars in the Middle East that is driving all these millions of “refugees ” / immigrants towards Europe. Meantime, the newly elected left-wing Labour leader Corbyn has stepped into the affray with his demand that Britain should leave NATO and that NATO and the American military should leave Britain.
          And see the reaction from the Establishment:
          A senior serving British general Writing in the Sunday Times (20. September ’15), warns that “a government headed by opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn could face “a mutiny” from the British Army if he tries to downgrade it or pull out of NATO.”
          You are right, Max. I am very mindful of the problems that a future Nationalist government might well face. I will remind you, that in the mid-1980s Maggie Thatcher passed “Emergency” legislation to the effect that in an emergency (undefined) the Military, with or without the assistance of the US Military stationed in Britain, would be empowered to take control of vital installations, etc,. At that time, Tony Benn speaking for the Left and John Tyndall speaking for the Nationalist-Right, both warned that this “Emergency” legislation was aimed specifically at their respective movements.
          [Richard, I hope I have corrected this in the way that you hoped]

        2. Hitler was wrong not to follow the example of Joseph Stalin, the senior officers of the Heer especially were blockheaded reactionaries who caused problems for the Fuhrer at every turn and even attempted to assassinate the man on several ocassions. Our current Generals I imagine are much worse than a bunch of stuffy Prussian Conservatives. They will have been chosen, for the most part, for their political credentials and their reliability to the cause of American interventionism, amongst other things. The whole General officers corps should be vetted and the rotten apples replaced by people loyal to us.
          Personally I would be all for creating a large conscript army and using what is left of the false Queen’s volunteer force as it’s NCO cadre for the time being. The army wouldn’t like it, but it would avert the situation of a British leader having a bomb under his desk or any other such cowardly attacks.

          1. There was something on the news about a General plotting mutiny on Corbyn should it be necessary.
            I would have thought the time for that has long past, they have been hopelessly compromised & misused by politicians & haven’t done anything about it, so why now?
            As Serpent Slayer says we would need to replace the Generals & much more, as it is hopelessly compromised & not capable of winning anything.

  8. Maybe Comrade Corbyn is genuine, a political freak of nature, an outsider suddenly catapulted inside.
    But if he doesn’t compromise with TPTB then I think his political life might be short.
    They don’t care what the public might want.

    1. Please do not refer to him as ‘Comrade’ Corbyn. It is the phraseology of a corrupt and biased media. The Communist Manifesto was produced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They define it as the abolition of “all religion, all morality, the abolition of the family and all right of inheritance.” Jeremy Corbyn rejects all of this. I would say it follows that those who reject God makes them more of a communist than he is.

        1. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
          Another thing Corbyn wants to do is abolish tuition fees, introduced by Blair and raised by two thirds with Cameron. Young people are starting out their lives saddled by this debt, how will they ever be able to afford a house of their own and have children unless he is successful? Corbyn’s anti-austerity policies are not to be mocked. It was the economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) who pointed out it is vital that sufficient money in circulation, with more being spent by those at the poorer level of society, is necessary both to alleviate poverty and for the economy to thrive. For example, local small businesses such as shops rely on the poor having purchasing power to buy goods, but austerity is increasingly robbing them of their ability to buy even essentials and instead forces them to become reliant on foodbanks. This is not only grossly barbaric but ruinous for the economy. Taking away tax credits from the working poor is going to have this effect. A basic fact Osborne and other neo con dogmatists fail to grasp. More money in circulation = growth, high employment and a thriving economy.
          Despite five years of grinding austerity, the deficit is still an enormous £90bn.

          1. You are quite right Christabel and the policies that you cite as being those of Jeremy Corbyn are precisely the kind of policies that a nationalist government would introduce also.
            What makes Corbyn’s economics fail however, is that he wants open door immigration whereby the British taxpayer is crippled trying to provide those levels of welfare benefits to the migrating population of half the world. This is why international socialism is unworkable and only national socialism can work.

            1. Ofcourse! Britain has the same land mass as New Zealand who have a population of about 4 million while there are, what, is it over 70 million people on this tiny overcrowded island? It hasn’t occured to these politicians and celebrities who are now calling for us to take as many refugees as Germany that they have five times the land mass. There aren’t enough jobs and homes here as it is. It is madness.
              So how are you going to persuade the public to vote for National socialism after the horrors of WWI & II? You’ve had more than 35 years. This is where there is a wide gulf fixed between us. (And it not, as you claim the ‘only way’).

              1. Earlier in our conversation Christabel, we touched on the subject of the genocides committed in the name of International Socialism (Communism) and the public propensity to overlook such atrocities given the right circumstances. The fact that so many today seem willing to consider voting for Corbyn’s less homicidal brand of International Socialism, shows that the public are able to distinguish between different shades of Red. Logically, it should be no different where National Socialism is concerned and though the media may try to squeeze every last ‘hoorah’ from the public regarding the heroism of ‘our boys’ during World War Two, the fact is that only a tiny percentage of our people are old enough to remember the war and there is a growing irritation and resentment on the part of younger generations at the constant and shameless milking of the memory of the ‘Six Million’, as if the suffering no-one else mattered.
                Holocaust fatigue is beginning to set in and a growing number of people are opening up to the arguments of revisionist historians that there is no tangible evidence of a deliberate intent on the part of the Germans to commit genocide. Furthermore, with the Pavlovian response to Holocaust propaganda diminishing the public are gradually opening up to the idea that there are varying shades of National Socialism.
                In the final analysis, National Socialism will not need to be ‘sold’ to the White voting public. They will either embrace it or they will cease to exist:



            1. I think Walter you know only too well the answer to your question!
              Jeremy Corbyn thinks immigration is a good education for our children, though it might not be quite the one he was thinking of.

  9. 1) Not the first: earlier, faltering steps to reform, which were abandoned (why….): Douglas Carswell’s UK banking reform Financial Services (Regulation of Deposits and Lending) Bill, first reading (2010-09-15)

    2) the “Bradbury Pound” protagonists regard PositiveMoney as controlled opposition – do your own research either way.

    3) Corbyn:

  10. The right wing press have been spewing out the idea that Corbyn is unelectable. This is simply not true.
    Now that Labour have a Socialist in charge, Labour could well get back their Scottish vote. In addition, and as alluded to by Frederick Dixon, there is every likelihood that UKIP voters who have previously voted Labour will switch back. Both Farage and Corbyn have been attacked by the MSM – neither of which are wanted by the elite. Many people will pick up on this and vote for the biggest thorn in the side of the elite, which will be Corbyn. So expect UKIP’s vote to crash.
    Lastly, the people that don’t normally vote – particularly the young – may well be enthused to vote Labour. At the same time it is true, Labour will lose some voters to the LibDems. But overall, expect them to gain a lot more.
    As Max has said, there are some good things that Corbyn may do with the economy, but I feel the bad will outweigh the good. His multi-cultural fervour is a bit ‘so-what’ because all establishment politicians are the same in this regard, although shagging Diane Abbott is a bit above and beyond if you want my opinion!

  11. David (allegedly) entering a pigs head, Jeremy (allegedly) entering Diane, there seems to be a sort of balance there, a yin & yang thing going on?

  12. Interesting times Max, interesting times indeed! I am quite sure there will be a blood bath in the Parliamentary Labour Party eventually and in the Constituencies up and down the Country. The New Old Labour Leader has already backtracked on the EU referendum as we know the Blairites wholeheartedly would campaign to stay in were some on the far left would oppose it. Corbyn has also appointed people like ‘Hilary Benn’ to his Shadow Cabinet a Labour MP who supports military strikes in Syria. The lifelong Republican Corbyn is well short of being in command of the PLP.
    It is estimated that Corbyn had some 10,000 activists working for his Leadership victory and let us not forget 150,000 people have applied to join the Labour Party. Those facts are not just interesting they are potentially dangerous.

    1. Yes, I was thinking the same. I would not be surprised to find that some Labour MPs are facing de-selection and Corbyn types seeking to replace them.
      In this regard, love or loathe them, Labour are actually the most democratic of all the establishment parties.

  13. I recently saw a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party presented by Corbyn himself. It included a shot of a mixed race couple and their mixed race offspring. It may seem racist of me to mention this, but I did so because I interpret it as a signal to the white working class that Corbyn is not like them. I would go so far as to say that Corbyn is just as alienated from white van man as is Emily Thornberry.

Comments are closed.