The British Election
The most interesting contrast to emerge from the recent British election is not the gap between the winning Conservatives and Labour, who lost badly. It is the difference between the elections of 2017 and 2019.
In 2017, the hapless Mrs. May, then the Conservative Prime Minister, tried the same thing Boris Johnson did this year. She called an election in order to get a solid majority in Parliament so she could make Brexit happen. Instead, the Conservatives lost seats, forcing them into a coalition government and making Brexit impossible. Why did it turn out so differently just two years later?
Mrs. May was an Establishment Conservative, similar to Establishment Republicans here. Her policies were geared toward Globalism and the big businesses such as finance that benefit from Globalism. She played nice at meetings of European leaders, duly parroted the shibboleths of cultural Marxism and had nothing to say to the traditional Labour voters in the north of England.
Boris Johnson, in contrast, is a populist, similar in many ways to President Trump. He was able to appeal to traditional Tory and Labour voters alike. He promised to make decisions and act where Mrs. May had dithered. He played the bull in the European Union’s china shop, taking pleasure in tossing and goring Eurocrats and Establishment European leaders alike. He seemed to care little for Political Correctness, standing instead for “Britain First,” or even “England First,” a point not lost on the Scots (who are massively subsidized by the English). Many English voters who had been Labourites on economic issues were swayed by the cultural message of “let’s keep England English.” As President Trump understands, at least in times of relative prosperity, culture trumps economics.
These factors were, I think, more important in shaping the election’s outcome than were Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn’s neo-Marxism. They represent a broad political movement that is growing throughout the West. More and more Europeans and Americans are rejecting cultural Marxism and all its works, including mass immigration, loser worship and the pretense that race, ethnicity, and culture do not matter. They are proud of their nation’s history, including in England's case running most of the world for several centuries and doing a rather good job of it, better, certainly, than those who came after them (King George would never have dreamed of taxing Americans as heavily as “their own” government taxes them now).
Establishment parties and politicians are going to have to adjust to the rise of a real Right or be sidelined. In Europe, we see a combination of both. In Germany, the faux-conservative CDU is losing ground, as are the Social Democrats, and the real Right AFD is now the opposition in the Reichstag (as it will be called again when the AFD wins a majority. In France, Monsieur Macron can only envy President Trump’s popularity ratings. Italians are again finding much to admire in the Duce.
What does it all add up to? To the defeat of cultural Marxism, a.k.a. political correctness or “multiculturalism”. Soon, throughout the West, majorities will be handing their governments to parties that reject the self-loathing cultural Marxism demands, the dismissal of proud nations’ history as just tales of “oppression”, the use of government power to put non-Whites and immigrants over native Whites, the flooding of orderly countries with agents of disorder. The cultural Marxists have overreached and are on a ballistic course toward history’s wastebasket. As they perceive that course, they respond by becoming more demanding, more shrill and more absurd. People have seen the man behind the Left’s curtain, Karl Marx, now dressed in failed cultural policies instead of failed economic policies. Their reaction is, “Ptui.”
As the line from Cabaret goes, the future belongs to me.
Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like? Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.