Jew World Order

The recent floods in the north of England will have caused loss and distress to many, and one must naturally sympathise with those who have been caught up in it, regardless of their politics; but, like it or not, here we are presented with a most apt metaphor for the greater problems facing our society. In York, an ancient walled city particularly hard hit by flooding, a bunch of rather well-to-do NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard), most of whom will vote ‘liberal’ (Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative, makes no difference), now have to face some cold, hard reality: in this case, a river flood. It’s nice that the affluent are not spared the ravages of Mother Nature, a great leveller and humbler of Men.

Deflection Instead of Defence

As is the common response to any consciousness-raising incident, be it terrorism or some natural disaster, the obvious metaphor is occluded by a neat deflection. Much is made by the media of the fact that the UK government invests considerably in foreign aid in an ineffective attempt to reduce or halt migrant flows, while at the same time neglecting to invest in British communities, especially in the north of England. To have to suffer the consequences of what amounts to Third World flood defences in a First World country, while sending billions in foreign aid to the ruling elites of actual Third World countries, is rather galling, and will understandably prompt popular outrage of the kind now expressed in the headlines of middle market newspapers; however, the reason flood defences have failed in the north of England is not because of cash diversions to the Third World, but due to government incompetence. That having been observed, there is some substance to the outrage. The UK has historically spent countless billions on foreign aid, and from 2013, committed itself to spending 0.7% of its GDP on aid in the future. Yet we still have significant numbers of “refugees” and economic migrants coming here from Third World countries, in fact more than ever before. The aid given does not appear to be addressing the fundamental problems of Third World societies, which are large wealth disparities and lack of development, nor has it dampened the enthusiasm of the Left for mass migration to the West by the world’s poorest. How can this be explained?

The Profit Motive

To put the matter in blunt, simple terms – foreign aid is not necessarily foreign aid. In some instances, our aid funding makes local problems worse, and there is evidence that this is deliberate. Much of the money seems to be nothing more than a form of bribery, either directly, or indirectly via concessions from foreign governments, to enable UK businesses to gain contracts. These bribes may or may not pass muster under the anti-bribery laws, but organised bribery is what it is. If the decision was ever taken to halt or significantly reduce “foreign aid”, you can be sure that the strongest objections would come, not from the Left, but from the UK’s business community – from such august “conservative” bodies as the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors. The lobbying would be particularly vociferous from large companies that work in sectors such as energy and civil engineering, because Third World governments and investors need to make large-scale capital investments and will often engage Western contractors. It is also safe to say that aid has become a business in its own right. At least £60 billion will be spent by the UK government on overseas development in the next five years, making foreign aid a lucrative industry. Humanitarian agencies and ‘consultants’ stand to make millions.

One possible conclusion from all this is that Third World aid doesn’t work in achieving the objectives that the Left wants, but even if it did achieve those objectives, we are still left with the significant point that there is no moral or legal obligation on the UK government to support the Third World or indeed British businesses in this way. As a Nationalist, I cannot support bribes to foreign governments to help them prop up their lower IQ societies. For neo-Malthusian reasons, I believe we should simply allow Nature to take its course and not interfere in the development of other cultures. This is not out of intentional cruelty. I mean no ill to Africans or Asians, and though non-involvement might result in cruelties in the short-term, our meddling can only lead to greater problems further down the line, including the possibility that unspeakable cruelties might be inflicted on us. No good favour goes unpunished. There is no guarantee that a more affluent and technically advanced Nigeria, let’s say, will fully embrace the kind of liberal decadence that we have here in the West and become a sort of African version of Japan. It’s a very different society, with a different historical context, and in its own way, quite conservative and traditionalistic. Some of these countries that we are helping will not return the favour in kind – in fact, one imagines they would be quite keen to do the opposite.

Indigenous Destruction

Both foreign aid and support for ‘mixed-racial’ multi-culturalism are two sides of the same destructive coin and reflect decisions taken by Western politicians for a number of complex reasons. But it is not good enough to make the simplistic comparison that the press pretend can be made between sub-standard flood defences at home and foreign aid investment abroad, and anyway, notwithstanding my own objections, one can see that a reasonable person might support foreign aid for economic and strategic reasons. What isn’t reasonable is supporting this aid for the apparent reason of reducing or halting migration to this country, while flooding this country with migrants and affecting to deny that this will have any negative effect on our society. It has to be either one or the other. Either the aid does help to reduce migrant flows, in which case we should (reluctantly) direct more aid abroad if it meets that objective, while measuring the results; or, it doesn’t achieve that objective, in which case the aid either has to stop or a more transparent case made for it.

We know we will not hear this kind of consistency and transparency from the Left. Migrants will continue to flood here, not because of the Left, but because of people within the business community who want cheap labour and general wage depression; but, the Left will continue to support this for political, cultural, racial, ethnic and ideological reasons, masking their co-incidental support for big business and capitalism with lofty rhetoric. Those indigenous Europeans who oppose the destabilising effects of what amounts to a post-modern system of slavery are scorned and sneered at, and in some cases even criminally punished. Meanwhile, those who support the destruction of their own societies are lauded as moral paragons, in line with the rhetoric they use for themselves.

Maskelling Reality

Witness the Labour and Co-operative MP for York Central, a certain Rachael Maskell, hold forth on the sustainability of the 2015 migrant flooding, demanding that we plebeians accept a decline in public services to accommodate thousands more fake refugees from the Third World:

Said the plucky MP:

We must keep going until we really are at saturation point, because what does it matter if we have to wait another week for a hospital visit, or if our class sizes are slightly bigger or if our city is slightly fuller. What does it matter if things are slightly more challenging, if we have to pay a little bit more into the system. Surely it is worth it to see those lives being restored again.

What does it matter indeed, Rachael? What does it matter to carpet-baggers like you from the south-east of England who can buy £320,000.00 houses, moving 200 miles north to contest a parliamentary seat, within days of it being announced that the incumbent won’t be seeking the Labour candidacy? For people with financial means like that, it most likely doesn’t matter – at least, not for now. Such people are shielded from the ordinary struggles and frustrations of everyday folk and can afford to preach from a literal pulpit.

Maskell’s rhetoric serves a special function, in that it is designed not so much for the ordinary mass-mind, but more for the type of affluent white liberal who might give her political and media support. Maskell is signalling to these people that she is one of them. For the masses, Maskell’s rhetoric is meant to discourage further thought or engagement. The average Joe and Jennifer Bloggs is supposed to take her views as morally superior and beyond critical examination. Maskell, and people like her, are not directly to blame for putting us on a trajectory towards Third World status, but they are supporting it and giving the whole process a necessary patina of political and moral credibility. The floods, then, add a touch of realism to the whole project. We are starting to get into the spirit of things: Britain really is starting to feel like a Third World country. The cause of the flooding in York is believed to be a failure in the flood barrier which, would you believe, got flooded – rather ironic. Questions are being asked about the competence of the Environment Agency. One would hope that questions will also be asked about Rachael Maskell and her apparent support for cuts in public services, which she wants to impose on us so that we can entertain fake refugees. The flood victims in York repeatedly express their exasperation at their plight, and a common theme develops: they assumed there would be no flooding, they put their faith in a government agency, it never occurred to them that they could suffer. They thought it couldn’t happen to them, only to somebody else. Does this type of mentality remind us of something else recently current and newsworthy? It’s the complacency of the affluent white liberal middle-class type. The tropes have been repeated exhaustively: ‘Diversity for thee, but not for me’, ‘As long as it doesn’t happen in my backyard’, and ‘As long as it doesn’t affect my [job/children/village/whatever]’.

People who voice their support for a migrant flood either never believe that bad things will affect them, or they assume it will be a ‘nice’ sort of diversity: a few civilised non-whites here and there, and maybe some local vibrancy, but not too much. These liberal white supremacists live in places like York, that is, in the nicer, pleasanter parts of England, because they can afford to. They vote for politicians like Rachael Maskell. For them, diversity means a Chinese takeaway, or the amiable and helpful Indian gentleman who owns the off-licence, or the amenable Polish au pair, or mosques in far-away cities, or multi-racial newsreaders, or that nice black man at the local college. Non-whites are not invaders denying us our birthright, but ‘people who help us’. The sepia-coloured vision brought forth is of a ‘civilised diversity’, resembling in its naïveté something out of a Ladybird book, in which nice, clean, well-spoken white people are allowed to condescend to everybody else. There is no analysis, no awareness of the fact that non-whites are politically conscious and have their own needs.

White liberals are shielded from an awareness of agendas, both by their own wish to remain ignorant – to not ‘look beneath the rock’ – and by the helpful rhetoric of politicians like Rachael Maskell, which plays to their inherent narcissism and an inner conviction, deluded though it may be, that the reason they, as white Europeans, believe in these things is because they are ‘good people’ and that those who do not are ‘bad people’, especially if they, too, are white. This mixture of willful self-delusion and acquiescence in dreamy delusions manufactured by others is a refined, almost scientific process, and can certainly be observed and measured empirically. We might give it its own name: maskellisation, i.e. the deceitful use of moral rhetoric by (mostly) white, liberal-minded politicians who wish to hide their true agenda, and the acceptance and co-option of this rhetoric by affluent and ambitious whites.

Conclusion

In the context of mass immigration, we might summarise the ‘white’ Left’s agenda as follows:

• economic: the maximisation of profit for big business and farmers by minimising wages and using pliable, non-unionised immigrant labour to lower working conditions;
• political: the destruction of reactionary and conservative England, so as to maximise the support base for left-wing and centre-left type politics;
• financial: the need to ensure personal opportunities for employment and consultancy in government and the Third Sector (i.e. creating victims and talking down to poor people);
• classist: hatred of, and self-interested antagonism towards, the white working class;
• sexual: raw hatred of men, especially white men, which is actualised through immigration, as this emasculates men within the native population, which in turn contributes to overall objectives;
• racial supremacist: disdain for white working class people, hatred for European civilisation and its achievements, and a wish to create a new non-white proletariat class that can be ‘helped’ and condescended-to by a public sector salariat working for a strong state. [Of course, Jews and other non-whites also have an obvious vested interest in racial diversity];
• psychological: a need to feel superior to non-whites and condescend to ‘victim’ groups, especially if they can be brought into the West so that they can benefit from munificent left-wing paternalism.

Many of the ‘ordinary’ people of York who have been caught up in the river flood are complicit in maskellisation, and have adopted the shared delusional state of white middle-class racial liberals. Whether through their jobs and careers, or due to their voting and social habits, they work against the interests of their own native people, and thus against themselves and their progeny. They never conceive of multi-racialism as a ‘flood’ or as a destructive force that ruins communities and regresses society. That would be racist and abhorrent.  They live out their safe, bubble lives in comfort, laughing and sneering at the concerns of ordinary working people and the alienated and dispossessed. I’m glad that some of them now have to face a bit of reality, some divine vengeance for their soft and decadent lives and callous attitudes. They have rubbed the noses of the white working class in enforced diversity, now they can have some pain. And there will be more to come. Just like King Canute’s credulous barons, these people will only learn their lesson when the tide is up to their ankles and they can see the throne sinking.