The creeping tyranny behind Tory row

By John Stephens.

A Conservative MP has sparked a massive media row by giving a wholly anodyne speech to a group composed of dissident Tories who espouse no policies which have not appeared in Conservative Party official election manifestoes over the years. A row which has highlighted the ideological transformation of the nature of British politics and the ever tightening totalitarian enforcement of the new ideology.

In May, The Honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg, Tory MP for North-East Somerset, addressed a meeting of the Traditional Britain Group (TBG). Rees-Mogg is a typical example of the elitist nepotism increasingly typical of the Establishment Parties. He is a City spiv – sorry “Asset Manager” – by profession and is stinking rich, having married Helena de Chair, a very wealthy heiress (no doubt for ‘love’..) He is the son of the late Lord William Rees-Mogg,former Editor of the Times. He is also on what is generally thought of as the “right-wing” of the Tory Party and has a reputation – clearly as we shall see absurdly unfounded – as a free thinking maverick.

The Traditional Britain Group is comprised of other right-wing Tories and advances policies, such as opposition to British membership of the EU and to immigration, which would once have been wholly uncontroversial within their Party. They go on to advocate the repatriation of Immigrants in terms lifted verbatim from the Conservatives’ 1970 General Election Manifesto.

They have also had the temerity to express the view that Mrs Doreen Lawrence should not be elevated to the House of Lords. Given that Mrs Lawrence’s only apparent qualification for this exalted position in the governance of our Nation is that she is Black, her late son Stephen was Black also, and he was murdered allegedly on racial grounds, this view also seems perfectly legitimate. Are all the White mothers of sons also murdered in racial attacks by Immigrants – for example at one point in Oldham according to Police figures 82% of racial attacks were on Whites by Muslim Asians – to join Mrs Lawrence in donning Ermine? If not, why not?

Liberal Conspiracy

The disclosure that the Hon. Jacob had the temerity to speak at such a meeting –albeit apparently without saying anything remotely Politically Incorrect – has now generated a massive media furore. To which the Hon. Jacob responded by an egregious display of grovelling worthy of a loyal Communist Party hack who had accidentally been caught associating with dissidents in Moscow circa 1973:

“I am shocked by the comments made by members of the Traditional Britain Group which I note from the” – aptly named it would seem! – “Liberal Conspiracy website seem to have been made after I had addressed the dinner” His Honourableness Rees-Mogg bleated.

“I can entirely disassociate myself with the Traditional Britain Group as I have never been a member or supporter” he went on, clearly mopping his brow with relief that he could thus hope to get off the hook.

The clearly not very Honourable Jacob went on to abase himself further on the BBC’s Newsnight current affairs TV programme: “I clearly made a mistake. I think the postings that we’ve recently seen” –on the TRG Facebook page opposing Immigration and questioning the elevation of Mrs Lawrence to the Peerage of England – “are so deeply disgraceful and shocking that they have no place in decent political debate.

“Mrs Lawrence is a wonderful and courageous woman who has contributed to British public life and, in any traditional view of Conservatism, she should be lauded for what she has done.” One can only be surprised that the Hon. Jacob did not go on to suggest that HM the Queen abdicate in favour of St. Doreen…

The Dishonourable Jacob then subjected himself to Revolutionary Self-Criticism: “I clearly didn’t do enough work to look into what they [the TBG] believed in.” His thought-crime was apparently compounded by the fact that he was contacted privately a couple of days before the offending speech by the KGB – sorry Searchlight magazine – and warned off giving it, but chose to disregard this comradely advice.

No doubt he will in future do as he is told by this disreputable publication, whose murky roots lie in the Communist Party of Great Britain and organised Soho crime in the 1950’s and ‘60’s and which has lost many an expensive libel case for journalists who foolishly trusted its contents, but which now clearly acts as part of the British Secret Police empowered to tell Members of Parliament what to do.

This depressing episode reveals something much more sinister than the utter moral cowardice of a chinless Tory twit. It reveals how the bounds of permissible political discourse have been changed and narrowed over the past 50 or so years. Without anyone noticing.

Traditional Britain Group

The Traditional Britain Group, as their name suggests, are essentially simply a group of traditional Tories whose views would have been wholly unexceptional, and unexceptionable, in the Tory Party of 50 years ago. They have not changed. The Tory Party has changed. Or been changed.

Now the contents of the Conservative Party’s own Manifesto 43 years ago are considered by a Conservative MP generally considered to be on the Right-Wing of the party as “so deeply disgraceful and shocking that they have no place in decent political debate”. Not merely on the wrong side of the debate, but not, crucially, to be debated at all. So much for freedom

In a further example, the Monday Club, once a perfectly respectable association within the Tory Party akin to the liberal Bow Group, was purged from the Party in 2001 because of their refusal to knuckle under to the changed, and ever-more-strictly-enforced, ideology of Political Correctness had become intolerable to the Tory leadership. Again, the Monday Club was only saying what it had always said. But that would no longer be tolerated.

All this reflects a massive subversion of society over the past couple of generations by an extremely radical social programme from which, at its inception, even the Communist Party of Great Britain would certainly have been swift to dissociate itself.

If someone had stood at, say, the General Election of 1955 on a platform of transforming Britain into what it now is, with massive immigration to the point where natives are on course to become an ethnic minority in their own homeland accompanied by the ruthless legally-enforced suppression of the least hint of “racism”, openly homosexual MPs and schoolteachers, legal “gay marriages”, many, soon most, children born out of wedlock, drugs, divorce and porn rife and in the last case mostly legalised , and so on and so forth such as we see around us today they would have received virtually no votes and been generally regarded at every level of society as deeply offensive and possibly insane. If such a candidate had said that by 2013 his bizarre programme would be the official policy of the Conservative Party and that Tory MPs who associated with anyone remotely like a 1955 Tory would have to apologise or lose the Party Whip his insanity would be deemed confirmed. But as we know he would have been right.

What happened?

What certainly didn’t happen is that the British people followed the democratic process by voting for and electing Governments pledged to such a radical transformation of society and its component citizens. A transformation without precedent in British history.

So how was it effected? On the very few occasions when this point is raised in Establishment circles, the reply is blandly that “society changed”. The truth is that society WAS changed.

Starting in the 1930’s but mainly from the 1950’s, a hard core of radical ultra-leftists, far beyond the pale of official Moscow-line Communism, organised originally around the so-called Frankfurt School of Marxist intellectuals, led by Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Juergen Habermas, formulated and advanced what they thought of as a Social Marxist ideological line, the line we now know as “Political Correctness”.

They proceeded to impose this line on society following the ideas of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, starting by a “long march through the institutions” aimed at infecting first the universities, which they did in the 1960’s, then teaching and the media, which they did in the 1970’s, then the rising generation via propaganda in the classroom, newspapers, pop music and TV, which they did from the 1980’s onward. They also in the process, emulating George Orwell’s Newspeak, proceeded to change and control the meaning of language, so that for example “diversity” meant importing Immigrants and “racism” (a word invented by Leon Trotsky in 1932) became the Ultimate Sin.

So it was, for example, that most of the hairy unwashed Trotskyist students who rioted ineffectually against Nationalists forty years ago went on to become teachers, broadcasters and other “opinion formers” afterwards. We knew that – even at the nadir of our electoral fortunes – when we stood in elections however pathetic our votes theirs, the SWP’s and CP’s and so on, were always much worse. But, unlike us, they didn’t care because they aimed to implement their ideas and impose them on society without regard for democracy, by subverting education and the media, slowly and by stealth.

This creeping Marxism might well have been stopped had it threatened the other, economic, focus of society, increasingly globalised Big Business. With, for example, demands for nationalisation or support for the existing socialist bloc. But the “New Left”, as they called themselves, increasingly abandoned the economic aspects of their programme in favour of the social. They in fact despised the ordinary working-class people the Old Left had championed as stupid, ignorant bigots whose minds must be moulded by their enlightened opinions, and sneered at what they called the “workerism” of the traditional Left and the USSR and its allies.

Instead in a “Devil’s Bargain” they sold out the economic policies of the traditional “Left” in exchange for the surrender by the traditional “Right” of its social policies, defence of the Family and National Identity etc. This suited them, and it suited global Big Business. They had a deal. To global Big Business family and national identity are uneconomic constraints on the ideal of atomised, self-obsessed “consumers” who will buy what they are told by advertising. Whilst “racism” impedes the free movement of cheap Third World labour to be exploited in the West and undercut Western workers.

In fact, across the board, from anti-racism to gay rights, objectively Social Marxist Political Correctness serves the material interests of the global Capitalist class far better than traditional Toryism – in the US – Republicanism – ever did. One wonders what old Karl Marx would have thought of his self-styled disciples thus facilitating the development of Globalism, which -and not as Lenin thought, Imperialism – has proved to be the highest stage of Capitalism. Because in the interests of the short-sighted selfish greed which Capitalism objectively serves it undermines and rots the social fabric on which any advanced technological civilization depends, Globalism is also undoubtedly the last stage of Capitalism. If we are not careful, of Western Civilization.

Boiling frogs

The imposition of the ideology of Social Marxist Political Correctness proceeded, by design, completely outside the “official” democratic process by which the public imagine they are governed, and slowly enough that at no point did they realise what was being done. One is reminded of the old adage that the best way to boil a frog is not to drop it into boiling water – for it will immediately hop out – but to leave it in cool water that you slowly, imperceptibly warm. By the time the frog notices it is in water too hot to survive, it is dead.

By the time Tories like the Traditional Britain Group realised the talons of totalitarian Political Correctness were closing about them they were powerless to resist. They had played the enemy game of avoiding confronting the enemy openly, distancing themselves from “extremists” and being “respectable” until the enemy had them at their mercy. They did not lose the debate on, say, Race and Immigration. The enemy made sure there was no debate. Now their ideas, according to an MP who is perhaps amongst the closest in the House of Commons to their “Tradition”,“have no place in decent political debate” there will be no debate.

Whilst the winners enforce their ideology by the sort of “soft totalitarianism”that sustained more traditional Marxism in Eastern Europe after Stalin. Not the gulag and the firing squad but social ostracism, loss of job and where the ruling ideology is challenged openly in public persecution by Police and Courts. Combined in recalcitrant cases by physical harassment and if required beatings administered by semi-official goon squads, in the British case organised by Searchlight, Hope not Hate and other extra-official-regime secret police groups.

Resistance by reactionary Tories who still don’t understand what has been done to them, by whom and why is likely to prove ineffectual. The more so as many of them, judging by the egregious Rees-Mogg, are utter moral cowards too frightened of the consequences even to dare to try to resist. No doubt the Hon. Jacob will be allowed make the odd witty speech denouncing the “excesses of Political Correctness” provided that from now on he steers well clear of anyone who, however confusedly, is actually trying to resist it. But even those Tories like the TBG who were not, like Cameron, active and willing servants of global Capitalism in the imposition of the PC tyranny are unlikely to do anything effective in their little dinner parties to roll it back.

Power to the People

We need to take the struggle for freedom out of back rooms to the people. As George Orwell, writing of a less subtle but no less insidious totalitarianism in 1984, put it “if there is hope, it lies in the proles”. In the ordinary British public. It is there, on the doorstep, in local communities, that the PC tyranny must be challenged. Using the “local nexus” of word of mouth augmented by the Internet, which provides access to millions on an intimate and person-to-person basis.Spurning the hopelessly corrupted and PC-controlled “central nexus” of TV and the newspapers.

Finally, we need to fight for freedom on the basis not of a confused nostalgia for long ago, before the PC shadow fell, but of a clear, articulated radical nationalist ideology, an ideology which accurately describes what has happened, who did it and why and inspiringly prescribes a better alternative which will rally those who fight for freedom…