One thing that caught my attention recently was an article by our old friend, Tony Blair in the New York Times.
Blair has put himself –or is (((being))) put, at the forefront of a so called ‘centrist’ campaign against what he correctly describes as a popular revolt in the West, culminating in Trump’s election and Brexit, which he of course opposes.
While Blair’s new political activity should be a cause for great concern, there is an immediate silver lining to this cloud. It suggests there really aren’t that many people corrupt and debased enough who can actually take on this role. Blair, despite his absolutely soiled track record with the public, finds himself regularly reused as a frontman for the forces of globalization and anti-whiteness.
The modus operandi of this populism is not to reason but to roar. It has at times an anarchic feel. Yet it has also mobilized a powerful media behind it. Its supporters welcome the outrage their leaders provoke.
The causes of this movement are the scale, scope and speed of change. This is occurring economically as jobs are displaced and communities fractured, and culturally as the force of globalization moves the rest of the world closer and blurs old boundaries of nation, race and culture.
Not that the ‘change’ itself is a bad thing. It’s just the ‘speed’ of racial and national blurring that’s the problem. Blair’s view has always been that if you ‘mitigate’ the effects of globalization, i.e: placate whites with more worthless jobs in call centers or government, provide them with more state handouts, devalued degrees, and more CCTV cameras to try to dissuade blacks, Somalis and Muslims from raping white women, the underlying objections will just go away and whites will welcome their displacement and everything will be fine. They will simply exchange their human dignity, race, culture and values for things that will only hurt them more. Just explain to them it’s ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’. That’s basically Blair’s modus operandi.
Blair goes on:
The same dynamics are splintering the left, too. One element has aligned with the right in revolt against globalization, but with business taking the place of migrants as the chief evil. They agree with the right-wing populists about elites, though for the left the elites are the wealthy, while for the right they’re the liberals.
This leftist populism is a profound error. It has no chance of matching the populist appeal of the right, and it dangerously validates some of the right’s arguments. This only fuels a cynicism that depresses support for the more progressive parts of the left’s program.
Blair’s entire career has been as a fanatical apologist and Mr Fixit for these elites, and that means trying to nullify any arguments against things elites want, like globalization, white genocide and war. What Blair is really saying here, is that our arguments are extremely sound. They are so sound, that parts of the Left have actually found a way to agree with them. That means they are not a ‘nutty right wing conspiracy’, rather they have an observable objective basis, and that makes them extremely dangerous. One of the strategies of people like Blair is to drive a wedge between the Right and the sections of the Left who have the capacity to agree with us, so there can never be any political consensus against these elites that Blair represents.
But this left tendency has gained from the seeming paralysis of the center. The parties and politicians of the center have become the managers of the status quo in an era when people want change. So, the center — in both its center-right and center-left camps — is marginalized, even despised.
It’s despised because it’s caused immense harm. Firstly, the ‘center’ – center-left or center-right, is really just another version of the Left as far as its most zealous ideological advocates are concerned.
‘The center’ is a consolidation of the power between different vectors; extremes of global capitalism on the one hand and ‘social justice’ on the other, that were once at odds with each other, but are now merged into one toxic blob.
Particularly, the center has become ideologically dominated by the cultural goals of the Left, which rely on the cover it provides to appear less-threatening, utilizing less-obvious language to obscure its intentions.
So this ‘center’ is not really a center as it has a specific direction: towards more immigration, diversity, globalization and degeneracy. It never goes away from it. Sure the center-right will pay lip service to going the other way to get votes from whites, but it never actually does anything.
The term ‘center’ is dishonest as the objectives of its most staunch advocates are not politically neutral. The phrase provides legitimacy and cover, making it seem reasonable and moderate rather than its own kind of fanaticism.
After that, the center is really just a coalition of reality-denying white cucks, virtue-signalling to one another demonstrating how eager they are to flood their countries with hostile raping retards from the Third World, and to appease organized Jewish power.
Even when some of them don’t really want to flood their countries with the Third World, the center-right is so scared of being called racist and bigoted it can’t actually stop it anyway. This means the center is not actually in control of any of its own policies. It’s an empty political position, where many of its representatives hold no political authority of their own, where they have deferred power and choices to other groups and lobbyists, the centrists’ role simply being to appease the demands of those other groups. It’s a form of signalling and obedience.
The question is, will this be a temporary phase, perhaps linked to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and Sept. 11, and will politics soon revert to normal, or has a new political age begun?
There are fragments of truth even in what Blair says. I wonder if Blair too sees 9/11 as a necessary component in laying the foundation for some of things we see today?
The party structures on both sides of the Atlantic have their origins in the Industrial Revolution and the debates engendered by that epoch about socialism and capitalism, the market and the state. These parties have endured because the roots they put down were very strong. But now, there are different distinctions than those simply of traditional right and left.
When I was growing up, people like my dad were conservative; and that meant economically and socially. Today, many such voters don’t fit that old stereotype. They may be pro-private enterprise and conservative on economics in traditional terms, but they’re also socially liberal — in favor, for instance, of gay rights. And there are those who used to vote left, but who are culturally illiberal and now don’t mind voting for parties of the wealthy.
Although they sometimes go under other names like ‘Western values’, it’s race and identity that are now naturally and rightfully emerging as the critical fault lines. Old stereotypical notions of left or right, were indeed once relevant in the near mono-racial era of Tony Blair’s father when everyone was white.
Today, a distinction that often matters more than traditional right and left is open vs. closed. The open-minded see globalization as an opportunity but one with challenges that should be mitigated; the closed-minded see the outside world as a threat.
Make no mistake, black violence, Muslims blowing themselves up and raping white children are a threat. The sewage of diversity is a threat. The debasing effects of diversity on white institutions is a threat. Unteachable schools, ‘no go zones’ are a threat. Laws to facilitate and protect diversity and to facilitate white displacement are a threat. And white genocide is a very big, very real threat. The ‘open-minded’ people pushing these policies do so exactly because they are a threat, while ‘progressive’ gentile whites who support these policies, or claim to, are damaged goods, hate themselves or are simply not grown up enough to deal with the reality of the world as it is. So their views cannot be accepted as having a legitimate basis. Like it or not, they have to be denied any political say at all.
This distinction crosses traditional party lines and thus has no organizing base, no natural channel for representation in electoral politics.
Again, because it’s racial. It’s much more fundamental.
So this leaves a big space in the center. For the progressive wing of politics, the correct strategy is to make the case for building a new coalition out from the center. To do so, progressives need to acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of those voters who have deserted the cause of social progress: on immigration, the threat of radical Islamism and the difference between being progressive and appearing obsessive on issues like gender identity.
It’s not enough to ‘acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of voters’, you actually have to STOP doing things that injure them. If you refuse to stop, you will be stopped.
The politics of the progressive center has not died, but it needs reinventing and re-energizing. For liberal democracy to survive and thrive, we must build a new coalition that is popular, not populist.
‘Popular’ means it’s manufactured, spun and where a corrupt media can be relied upon to issue favorable propaganda. But no it has died. It’s died morally and ideologically. The ‘progressive center’ basically means a Jewish and oligarchical center having a disproportionate influence over the policies of white governments to suit their own interests. It means pushing immigration, diversity and selling degeneracy to whites to distract them while it’s happening. The ‘liberal democracy’ Blair espouses, which has to a large extent become an elite ‘dog-whistle’ for white genocide, doesn’t deserve to survive. It deserves to die.
But you know what ? I think it’s great Blair has put himself forward as a champion of ‘liberal democracy’ and left-centrism. It just shows how completely morally bankrupt the mainstream Left is if they will tolerate this soiled wretched perverter as their spokesperson.
This was the same problem that dogged Hillary Clinton in the election. A large swathe of liberal America just couldn’t accept that she was not actually electable. So they told themselves ‘she was the lesser of two evils’. Fuck off.
If I was Blair, I would would be genuinely concerned about this new populism. Last time, when I said the right place for Blair is hanging from a lamppost, I wasn’t being flippant. Blair’s concerns about where this new ‘roaring’ revolt may lead are quite real. If the forces that are protecting and promoting Blair are sufficiently overturned, Blair will inevitably be hanging from a lamppost.