Category Archives: Corbyn, Jeremy

The superstitions that beget terror

Dalrymple says of the 2019 London Bridge stabbing:

If it had been an episode in a novel by a social satirist, it would have been dismissed as too crude or absurd.

He writes that public discussion in the wake of the outrage reveals three superstitions that, thanks to the activities of criminologists, sociologists, psychologists, and others, are deeply ingrained in the public mind:

  1. Terrorists are ill and are both in need of and susceptible to ‘rehabilitation’, as if there existed some kind of moral physiotherapy that would strengthen their moral fibre, or a psychological vaccine that would immunise them against terrorist inclinations.
  2. Once terrorists have undergone these technical processes or treatments, it can be known for certain that the treatments have worked, and that some means exists to assess whether the terrorists still harbour violent desires and intentions.
  3. There exists a way of monitoring terrorists after their release that will prevent them from carrying out attacks, should they somehow slip through the net.

Usman Khan

These notions are, of course, false,

though they have provided much lucrative employment for the tertiary-educated and have contributed greatly to Britain’s deterioration from a comparatively well-ordered society to a society with one of the West’s highest rates of serious crime.

Their broad public acceptance

is evident in the remarks of Jeremy Corbyn, who, after the attack, said that terrorists should undergo rehabilitation rather than serve full prison sentences.

The father of the slain young criminologist said that he would not want his son’s death to be ‘used as a pretext for more draconian sentences’. Dalrymple comments:

Decadence can go little further.

Even if Corbyn loses, millions will have voted for this

Labour’s frightening manifesto

Reading it, Dalrymple realises

how close Britain might be to a catastrophe that would make the Brexit episode seem of minor importance.

If Labour wins,

the party will inaugurate a quasi-totalitarian government. Chávez-admirer Jeremy Corbyn’s deputy, John McDonnell, is an admirer of Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky, whom he has described as the greatest influence on his worldview.

Labour, Dalrymple notes,

lives in a world in which, when you increase taxes, your tax receipts rise in exact proportion to the percentage increase: the taxed do not change their behaviour.

If Labour were elected and tried to put its proposals into practice, there would be

  • capital flight
  • capital controls
  • loss of confidence
  • complete absence of investment
  • forced investment (requiring ever higher taxes)
  • government control over the economy to pay for it
  • emigration of anyone who can earn a living elsewhere

The ensuing chaos and degradation

would swiftly exceed anything previously seen in the UK. The prospect of a military coup, with the support of a large part of the population, would not be far-fetched; nor, if in the meantime the government had managed to suborn or dissolve the armed forces, would be a slide into Venezuelan conditions, in the name of social justice.

Britain’s noxious Leftist opposition party

Dalrymple points out that Britain’s opposition Labour party is as divided as are the Conservatives. The Labour leader

was, until recently, ardent for leaving the European Union, which he believed to be a capitalists’ club. He changed his mind for reasons that he has so far not condescended to disclose.

Irrespective of what its MPs actually believe about Brexit, Labour’s main concern, Dalrymple explains,

is to force an election that it believes it can win, a victory that would soon make Brexit seem like a minor episode on the road to ruin.

The majority of Labour MPs

want first to bring about the downfall of a Conservative government and second to prevent Britain leaving the European Union without an agreement—what might be called the leaving-the-Union-without-leaving option. But they want the first more than they wanted the second, so under no circumstances can they accede to anything that Theresa May negotiates.

A Lenin minus the intelligence

Dalrymple writes that an evening with Angela Merkel, Theresa May or Emmanuel Macron

would be as entertaining as dentistry without anæsthetic,

but

it would be like an evening with Oscar Wilde by comparison with an evening with Jeremy Corbyn.

Dalrymple notes that political correctness has

so eviscerated the exercise of wit that dreariness is no obstacle to political advancement and may be of advantage to it. The dreary are inheriting the Earth.

Corbyn

has even managed to make his private life, which has been far from straightforward, uninteresting. He could make murder dull; his voice is flat and his diction poor, he possesses no eloquence, he dresses badly, he has no wit or even humour, he cannot think on his feet. He has negative charisma.

Dalrymple discerns that Corbyn’s alleged concern for others

has a strongly, even chillingly, abstract or ideological flavour; he is the Mrs Jellyby de nos jours, but with the granite hardness of the ideologue added to Mrs Jellyby’s insouciance and incompetence.

For Corbyn,

goodness consists solely of sticking rigidly to some abstract principle or other, no matter the cost to others. It is enough to send shivers down your spine.

His

probity, cruelty or stupidity might appeal to monomaniacs, but it presages terrible suffering for millions if ever he were to achieve power: for no merely empirical evidence, no quantity of suffering, would ever be able to persuade him that a policy was wrong or misguided if it were in accord with his abstract principle.

This explains

his continued loyalty to the memory of Hugo Chávez and to his successor. What happens to Venezuelans in practice is of no interest to him whatsoever, any more than the fate of Mrs Jellyby’s children was of interest to her. For Corbyn, the purity of his ideals is all-in-all and their consequences of no consequence.

Corbyn

formed his opinions early and has never allowed any personal experience or historical reading to affect them.

He

reads not at all: in this respect, he is a Trump of the Left. He has remained what he was from an early age, a late 1960s and 70s student radical of the third rank.

His outlook on life

is narrow, joyless and dreary. He is the kind of man who looks at beauty and sees injustice. He has no interests other than politics: not in art, literature, science, music, the theatre, cinema—not even in food or drink. For him, indeed, food is but fuel: the fuel necessary to keep him going while he endlessly attends Cuban, Venezuelan, or Palestinian solidarity meetings.

Corbyn

  • hates his country and has never been heard to utter a complimentary word about it
  • despises any tradition that has not emanated from the working class, preferably in the days of its destitution
  • wants to dissolve the armed forces
  • believes that man is born rich but everywhere is poor, so that it is poverty and not wealth that needs the greater explanation. He has been heard to say that it is welfare that makes a country prosperous, without any concomitant recognition that wealth has to be created
  • wants unlimited immigration with the automatic right of immigrants to unlimited welfare whatever the numbers involved, as restitution for the past wrongs of colonialism

An anti-Semite, he

  • consorts with Holocaust deniers
  • is fond of Hamas and Hezbollah
  • is a member of a private anti-Semitic Facebook page
  • tolerates the grossest anti-Semitic insults of Jewish members of the Labour party
  • is obsessed with the Palestinian question which far exceeds his interest in any other foreign policy matter
  • has failed to recognise a mural painted in the East End of London (in a borough more than a third of whose population is Moslem) as anti-Semitic though it could have come straight out of the pages of the Stürmer

The only group he has ever implied are alien to Britain are ‘British Zionists’, whom he has accused of lacking an English sense of irony,

though they had probably, as he put it, lived in the country all their lives. He has never said that the Moslem bombers of the Manchester Arena lacked an English sense of irony. His own sense of irony is not very marked: he is about as funny as Walter Ulbricht.

Dalrymple points out that there are two good reasons why Corbyn should be anti-Semitic.

  1. There are 10 times as many Moslems in Britain as Jews. The latter are electorally important in one or two constituencies; by contrast, Moslems, who are highly concentrated in certain areas, are important in 30 constituencies, and their vote could easily swing an election.
  2. It accords with his conception of the world. He believes that capitalist society is not merely imperfect, in need of reform, but so unjust that it needs abolition and replacement. It is an unjust social order, in which the privileged rule unjustly and hoard wealth which rightfully belongs to others. They must be expropriated. It took one generation, two at most, for Jews to go from poverty to prosperity—the same is true of the Sikhs. For Corbyn, this is not proof of the openness of British society, but of conspiracy and illicit influence, for only conspiracy can explain success in the fundamentally unjust, closed society of his Weltanschauung. His is the kind of mind to take the reasoning of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion seriously. For him, differences of outcome among groups, whether advantageous or disadvantageous, can arise only from injustice, which it has been his duty since the age of 17 to right.

Why has so dismal a man become popular? The main reason, Dalrymple explains, is that

he promises six impossible things before breakfast to people who think they will not have to pay for them, and such people can always be found because discontent springs eternal.

Corbyn, says Dalrymple,

is a fine example of that peculiar modern type, the man who is bad, uninteresting and important, for whom lack of scruple is probity. Mass emigration, as well as mass immigration, is but an election result away.

The socialist menace

Britain’s Labour party, writes Dalrymple, wishes to provoke a general election, which it believes that it would win. Were it to do so,

it would bring to power people who admire the Venezuelan model and believe in confiscation as the path to universal prosperity.

They would make Brexit

seem like a minor detail in the history of British difficulties.

The abominable McDonnell

Dalrymple notes that the historical figures that John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn’s second-in-command, most admires are Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky. McDonnell wishes the nationalisation of land, railways and public utilities,

which can be done only through rates of taxation so high that they would amount to the nationalisation of everything—with a resultant economic collapse—or by outright confiscation, destroying any faith in the rule of law for generations. It could also be done by agreeing on a price of sale and then inflating the currency afterwards, so that billions will not buy you an egg.

Dalrymple states that an economic disaster, far from deterring such a government,

would be of enormous advantage to it,

its purpose being

the exercise of control in the name of irreversible social and political change.

McDonnell’s nationalised industries

will be owned and run by the workers, just as they were supposed to be owned and run after the Russian Revolution. The state will wither away, as in Marxist theory (though not in Soviet practice), once all power has been handed to him.

The Labour Party

will not be just another political party in a competitive, pluralistic polity. It will be modelled on vanguardist movements from the glorious history of the 20th century.

McDonnell, says Dalrymple,

makes clear his commitment to and desire for socialist monomania.

The arrival in power of men such as Corbyn and McDonnell will, Dalrymple points out,

produce an immediate crisis, which they will blame on capitalism, the world economic system, the Rothschilds, and so forth. They will use the crisis to justify further drastic measures.

There will be

wholesale, de facto confiscation of houses. It is but a short step to communal flats or the nationalisation of bathrooms. Other charming proposals include the erection of tower blocks of public housing flats in old villages and leafy suburbs, à la Ceaușescu. If everyone cannot enjoy beauty, why should anyone?

Brexit bungled. Corbyn coming!

New red dawn

Britain braced for full socialisation

Thanks to the Brexit imbroglio, writes Dalrymple, England

could soon be Venezuela without the oil or the warm weather. The stunning incompetence of the last two Tory prime ministers, David Cameron and Theresa May, might result in a Labour government, one led by Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has long admired Hugo Chávez for having reminded him—though not the people of Venezuela—what governments can do for the poor and the achievement of social justice.

Vehemence is the tribute egotism pays to guilt

Jeremy Corbyn compares the Israeli government to the Nazi, appears to mean it, and is applauded by many for doing so

The easy resort to the most extreme possible descriptions of people and actions that one detests seems, writes Dalrymple,

to be a characteristic of our times.

This combination of moral imprecision and verbal inflation has occurred in the West

with the large expansion of tertiary education.

The word fascist has come to be used

lightly, almost joyously, to describe anybody or any policy which conflicts with the moral orthodoxy of the moment.

Its employment

obviates the need to examine and refute arguments, just as no one needs (or is able) to refute a paranoid delusion.

The label

by itself is enough to stifle discussion, a word without definite meaning but with a connotation like the grin of the Cheshire Cat that remains when all else of that creature has melted away.

Vehemence, Dalrymple notes, is

the tribute that egotism pays to guilt. I ought to feel the wrongs of the world deeply because that is how good people feel them: therefore if I express myself strongly enough I will at least appear to be good. The stronger the words the deeper the feeling I appear to feel.

For instance,

a possible future prime minister of Great Britain, Jeremy Corbyn, compares the Israeli government to the Nazi, appears to mean it, and is applauded by many for doing so.

What sort of moral idiot embraces Marxist dogmas?

Answer: the Jeremy Corbyn type

By about 1936, writes Dalrymple, communism in Russia had brought

  • two massive famines causing the deaths of millions
  • routinely more executions in a day than Tsarism performed in a century (and this from the very first moment of Bolshevik power)
  • the establishment of vast forced labour camps in which hundreds of thousands had already died
  • the utter decimation of intellectual life

It is, he points out,

a myth that none of this was known or knowable at the time: on the contrary, it was all perfectly well known, if widely ignored.

What sort of moral idiot embraced communist dogmas? It is intrinsically unlikely, Dalrymple points out,

that a man espouses a totalitarian doctrine of proved and indisputable viciousness and violence from a love of peace and a dislike of poverty.

Attention is often drawn to the economic and political context in which Western European and American communists and fellow travellers operated, suggesting that in the context,

any generous-minded and generous-hearted man concerned about the fate of the world might have made the same decision.

This, says Dalrymple, is false. Communists in the West swallowed many things without any of them impinging on them in the slightest, such as, to name but a few:

  • the famines
  • the show trials
  • the Gulag
  • the Great Terror
  • the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact
  • the ludicrous cult of Stalin’s personality
  • the removal of entire populations
  • the Doctor’s Plot
  • the show trials in Czechoslovakia, Romania and elsewhere in Eastern Europe
  • the Berlin and Hungarian uprisings

The fact is, says Dalrymple, that those who become communists were attracted by precisely those aspects of communism that would repel most decent people, namely,

  • its violence and ruthlessness
  • its suppression of all views inimical to it
  • its cruel wholesale restructuring of society according to the crude and gimcrack ideas of arrogant, ambitious but profoundly mediocre intellectuals

What many communist utopians dreamed of was

  • mass murder
  • deportations
  • suppression of people who differed from them
  • complete control over the lives of everyone

Friend of would-be génocidaires

Dalrymple writes that Jeremy Corbyn’s

failure to condemn anti-Semitism in his party

and his

penchant for consorting in friendly fashion with extremist anti-Zionists of genocidal instincts

are cause for anxiety among British Jews to an extent not known since the time of Mosley.

No one can say for certain whether the man’s anti-Semitism is

a sincerely held prejudice or a matter of electoral calculation. (There are more than 10 times as many Muslims in Britain as Jews, and it makes electoral sense to appeal more to Muslims.)