Liberal pundits sensitively agonise over, but invariably end up backing, policies designed to benefit the bankers and arms manufacturers, and ones that wreak havoc domestically and abroad. They are the “useful idiots” of modern western societies. Jonathan Cook.
In January George Soros sponsored a wave of demonstrations against the new POTUS, Donald Trump. These included some ‘Women’s Marches’, ostensibly with a feminist orientation. The Women’s Marches promoted a generic anti-Trump message along with LGBT rights, abortion, immigration, girl power – there was little or no mention of war. To reinforce their message of female empowerment, women were encouraged to wear pink ‘pussy hats’ representing vaginas, with some whole vagina outfits appearing as well.
Incongruously, the Women’s March on Washington was led by Linda Sarsour, who wears hijab and is an active supporter of the Saudi regime, arguably the most oppressive of all governments to women.
What on earth is going on?
The New Liberalism.
There is a new wave of ‘political correctness. Its proponents are commonly referred to as far left, but are not left in any traditional sense, viz a concern for workers rights, social equality, free speech and tolerance, and an anti-war orientation. The thrust of the new liberalism is identity politics, minority rights, and an aggressive approach to any opponents.
Gender ‘Equality’ – Female Empowerment
The modern feminism still has political aims, such as women-only short lists – the assumption being that the only reason women are not fully represented in parliament is purely because of a glass ceiling, rather than career and lifestyle choices.
The need for female empowerment, to counter the evil of male power is given wide expression:
Female self-expression has been seen as a priority, with women wearing vagina costumes or vagina hats, or tee-shirts with slogans referring to menstruation. Women’s lib. reached a new level when a woman used vaginal yeast to make bread.
Men, or at least masculinity, are seen as essentially undesirable. A Pennsylvania State University sociology professor recently argued that eating meat perpetuates “hegemonic masculinity” and “gender hegemony.” There is a trend for US universities to offer seminars for men on how to deprogram themselves of their so-called “toxic masculinity.” Even the US army, in order to combat ongoing problems of sexual abuse, chooses to use terms like ‘hypermasculinity‘ rather than the gender neutral ‘sexual aggression’.
Cooperation between the sexes is of course out of the question:
Transgender rights are a major priority, on the assumption that a desire to be born into a different body is common and normal, despite the facts of mammalian biology.
People can demand to be treated as a different gender, purely on the basis of how they feel. As a consequence people who are physically male but claim to be transgender may participate in international sports as women and often able to use the same toilets as little girls.
In the UK, anybody who identifies as a woman, even without a cervix, must be invited to have a cervical smear. Pedophile Toni Fly was only reflecting the spirit of the times when he demanded that the prison he was held in give him tampons and female underwear after he pronounced himself to be transgender, even though the victim of his abuse had given birth to a child.
Language is expected to accommodate transgender rights, with a campaign for truly gender-free language. Hence the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office is pushing for the United Nations to refer to pregnant people rather than pregnant women.
In the UK, the Church of England is encouraging children to explore their gender identity, and transgender lessons are given to two year olds. Some US schools are making transgenderisation part of the syllabus, spotlighting children who come out as transgender.
A Swedish library has employed a transgender gay couple to read to children. According to the couple, ‘the choice of stories will reflect the notion that it is not obligatory for the boys to wear blue and for the girls to dress in pink’ – whether this will encourage boys to rise above traditional (but hitherto waning) stereotypes and wear pink, or have the opposite effect is a matter of debate.
Cultural Sensitivity – Anti-racism – Empowerment of Racial Minorities
In August 2015 the lid came off a long suppressed problem in Rotherham, Yorkshire, when it was revealed that gangs of men, almost all of Asian descent, were grooming girls as young as 10 for sex (Jay Report here). In dealing with the problem the Rotherham authorities prioritised a perceived need for “sensitivity” in dealing with minorities over any moral requirement to protect the rights of children.
A similar situation is apparent in the handling of female genital mutilation in Britain, theoretically banned but still widespread in some communities. No-one has ever been convicted of the crime – teachers and health professionals are failing to report cases of fgm, presumably for reasons of cultural sensitivity, thereby ensuring the practice continues.
Opposition to racial stereotyping is an area where, apparently, it is impossible to be too careful. Thus the Dr Seuss Museum in Springfield, Massachusetts agreed to remove a mural with what many would consider a cute picture of a Chinese running, but which they saw as “jarring racial stereotype of a Chinese man who is depicted with chopsticks, a pointed hat and slanted slit eyes.” Andy Yee, a local businessman, offered to buy the mural if it is removed. “That’s my ancestors coming to this country in the 1930s.”
Some American schools have removed the classics To Kill a Mocking Bird and Huckleberry Finn, deeming them racist despite the sympathetic treatment they give to African Americans. The BBC has banned It Ain’t Half Hot, Mum for the same reasons.
While Huckleberry Finn may be banned because Mark Twain uses a term for Afro-Americans in common parlance at the time (“nigger”), deliberately using racist terminology about white people is encouraged. Stereotyping all white people as ‘white imperialists’ is common, with an implication that ‘whiteness’ is a disease that should be wiped out.
Academic Noel Ignatiev was involved in the founding of a magazine Race Traitor whose purpose was to ‘destroy the social construct known as the white race‘.
The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.’ (Noel Ignatiev)
So obnoxious is the fact of whiteness that any habits that can be associated with whiteness (no matter how dishonestly) are intrinsically racist. Two professors at San Diego State University recently claimed that farmers’ markets in urban areas are weed-like ‘white spaces where the food consumption habits of white people are normalized’ and thus responsible for oppression – there is apparently a correlation between the ‘whiteness of farmer’s markets’ and gentrification. So using markets designed to offer fresh food of quality is a choice related to colour, specifically whiteness, rather than class, income or opportunity.
White supremacy is of course closely associated with masculinity.
Open borders – Migrant rights
George Soros, who funded the Women’s Marches, is heavily committed to open borders and the mass displacement of people. Thus anyone who questions the wisdom of encouraging hundreds of thousands of able-bodied males to abandon their own countries for one on a different continent is far right, a fascist, a neo-Nazi. Hence the virulent campaign against the anti-EU, anti-immigration party UKIP, spear-headed by Soros’s Hope not Hate.
European governments have responded to concerns about rising crime rates has been to protect migrants from prosecution from crimes – a spectacular, but not unique, example being the reluctance to convict an Iraqi refugee who raped a 10-year old boy in Austria.
On 7 February 2018 the US airforce launched missile strikes at Syrian positions killing over 100 soldiers, in retaliation for the Syrian army attacking a combined SDF/ISIS force, according to Syrian special force the ISIS Hunters. The war-crime does not feature at all in the the social media accounts of Britain’s Stop the War Coalition, or supposed pacifist Jeremy Corbyn.
George Soros, who backs the anti-Trump movement and many ‘liberal’ causes, has sponsored colour revolutions throughout the world, and is a funder of much of the propaganda designed to justify open war on Syria. The liberal movement, however, has addressed this apparent contradiction by avoiding the issue of war. The reviled Trump is not criticised for his bellicose speeches about North Korea and Iran, not was he ever praised for saying that he wanted to get along with Russia. Clinton and Obama are not condemned as warmongers, but revered because they aren’t Trump.
There were no big Dump Obama marches in the US after Nato destroyed Libya, no Dump Cameron marches in the UK. Barack Obama visited the UK three times (2011, 2014, 2016) after declaring war on Libya, twice after Nato intentions and operations in Syria were clear. If there were huge anti Obama marches in London, they didn’t make the news. On at least one occasion he met with ‘anti-war activist’ Jeremy Corbyn, and had an ‘excellent discussion’, according to Corbyn. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn claims to have a policy of less interventionism, however it is notable that its 2017 manifesto still contains language hostile to Russia, and there are no plans to reduce the military budget.
There wasn’t a peep out of the ‘left’ when Corbyn fundraised for the White Helmets, well exposed as a Foreign Office propaganda construct and staffed by murderous thugs.
There will always be people telling lies, but in a society where everyone is able to speak freely we will be better placed to tell truth from fiction. (Alan Buttle)
The idea of free speech has for a long time been tempered by the provision that it should not be offensive (hate speech) or an incitement to crime. However the concept of “hate speech” is seen to justify the suppression of just about any opposing views if grounds can be found for finding them fascist, neo-nazi, or simply nationalist.
The hostility to free speech on alternative views achieves two things: it shuts down debate on specific issues, and the accumulating precedents undermine the concept of free speech as a principle, so it is becoming normal to oppose the concept of free speech on principle.
It is impossible to talk about free speech in today’s climate without referring to intimidation.
The Normalising of Violence
Violence in order to suppress opposition is part of the new political landscape, being claimed as justified in order to combat “hate”. Opposition to mass immigration, for example, is automatically seen as an expression of ‘hate’ or ‘fascism’. Suppression of alternative views and the closing down of free speech is achieved through name-calling, intimidation and violence.
Antifa describe themselves as ‘militant antifascists’
‘We believe in direct action. […] We believe in being proactive when it comes to fascist violence, which means confronting fascist organizing before they have a chance to put their ideas into action, and taking fascist threats seriously’ (Antifa)
If one defines fascism as seeking to achieve political ends through violence and intimidation, then Antifa is a fascist organisation.
At Berkeley University of California where Milos Yiannopoulos was expected to speak in February 2017, ‘direct action’ translated into $100,000 worth of damage. In April a speech by Ann Coulter at the university was cancelled to avoid similar violence.
On 27 August 2017 a universally agreed as peaceful, pro-Trump, pro-free speech rally in Berkeley was violently attacked by ‘anarchists’. It appears that the police protecting the rally decided, when faced with chants of ‘cops and Klan go hand-in-hand!‘ that discretion was the better part of valour and got out of the way.
Despite protestations on their part, Hope not Hate is frequently accused of instigating violence. Hope Not Hate has connections with the fascist organisation Antifa – HNH founder Nick Lowles is said to have been a member of Anti-fascist Action -and there is evidence that HNH works with Antifa to intimidate political opponents, through moral blackmail, name-calling and intimidation.
The ‘bash for hope and love’ concept was to the fore when left-wing activists closed down events associated with Germany’s anti-immigration party (ADL) at the Frankfurt Book Fair: they shouted “Nazis out’ and held up signs like ‘Still loving books, still not loving hate.’
Language is now inflammatory and threatening as a matter of course: ‘fuck fascists’, ‘make fascists afraid again’, ‘make racists afraid again’, ‘smash racism’, ‘Nazi scum’ ‘fascist scum’.
War is Peace, Hate is Love: Corbyn and the Inclusiveness Fraud
Marine le Pen and Donald Trump […] are racists, authoritarian, small-minded and backward-looking. They embody the energy of hatred. The principles that underpin internationalism – cooperation, solidarity, unity, empathy, openness – these are all just elements of love. (Zoe Williams)
The mantras of Corbyn’s Labour, repeated again and again, are togetherness, inclusiveness, solidarity, hope. The words of Jo Cox, who fought so hard for British support for the war on Syria, gave rise to the slogans ‘more that unites us’ and ‘more in common’.
Jeremy Corbyn, like Hope not Hate, uses the word hate a lot. When in November last years he accused Theresa May of complicity in whipping up hatred against migrants, he used the words hate, hateful, or hatred at least seven times.
Of course what Corbyn is doing is whipping up hatred against people who oppose mass immigration, branding them as ‘far-right’.
The majority of people in Britain oppose mass immigration because of concern for social fabric, concern for the consequences of overloading the already poorly functioning social welfare and health systems, fear of job losses, and fears that the arrival of large numbers of males of a similar age and education who have been travelling in a pack for months could mean a spike in crime. None of these reasons constitute racism. Corbyn is slandering a large body of people in order to create resentment and division.
The Human Rights Fraud
The ‘human right’s aims of the new liberals are designed to impact negatively on the majority, and on other minorities.
It is clear that many of the human rights positions profess to empower a group, while at the same time disempowering other minorities or the majority; children’s rights in particular are compromised.
The liberal concept of human rights for physically male adults, which is that they should use women’s toilets if they feel like it, transgresses the rights of children, and grown women using those same toilets. The concept of statutory rape is increasingly undermined in Britain and Europe.
Fundamental principles of feminism, gender equality and acceptance are endangered – can a little girl play with a truck, or a little boy wear a pink tee-shirt, without risking suggestions that s/he has gender identity issues?
It can be seen that the question of ‘right’ is selective and perverted. Leniency towards the rape of a child is not ‘liberalism’. The Rotherham case is not about ‘political correctness gone mad’ – it is designed to create anger and racism. (Rothertham is in South Yorkshire, whose police force has already been shown to be corrupt in the case of Hillsborough, and almost certainly Orgreave).
Questions also need to be asked about the exploitation of children, especially the imposition of male guilt on small boys.
The hypocrisy regarding human rights is underscored once again by British Labour’s Manifesto 2017, which states: ‘In our discussions with different governments, including China, Egypt, the Gulf States, Myanmar, the Philippines, Russia and Turkey, we will urge respect for human rights and the rule of law.’ No promises about putting pressure on Saudi Arabia then.
The contradictions are deliberate and are designed to be anti-intuitive and indigestible. People are intended to be alternately revolted, confused, insecure, defensive, frustrated, helpless, angry, to feel a sense of powerlessness in the face of fraud and injustice.
The ‘Love Migrants’ Fraud – Another Tool to Create Division
Given Nato’s involvement in the wars that cause refugees, and the support of Nato countries for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, we can discount the idea that Western governments or globalist forces are motivated by humanitarian concerns. That globalists want mass migration because they need the labour, or because they want to drive down wages by creating unemployment, is more feasible.
However, they want more. The purpose of accepting huge numbers of immigrants from foreign cultures, and the manifest policies of encouraging crime amongst racial minorities, is to create racism and division, in order to shatter the cohesion of society, to weaken the labour movement long-term, to weaken nationalism, and to weaken all opposition.
The claimed sensitivity to other cultures is blatantly fraudulent. The vulgar slogans and attire, offensive to the majority of indigenous women, serve to alienate immigrants totally from the majority culture.
The promotion of the mass movement of people is not a celebration of the much vaunted ‘diversity’ – it is designed ultimately to break down national and cultural identities, in order to facilitate a single European and ultimately a single world government.
The New Fascism
The new ‘liberalism’ is policed by a fascist movement designed to suppress opposition and free speech and achieve its political ends through moral blackmail, intimidation or violence its political ends. The aim is to
- shut down all dissent
- encourage violence
- create a disempowered and fragmented society.
as part of a wider goal to eliminate national boundaries, in order to progress a globalist agenda. The real purpose of the globalist agenda may only become clear when it has been fulfilled.
To be continued …