En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

dimanche, 04 février 2018

Oborne Again: The Triumph of the Political Class


Oborne Again:
The Triumph of the Political Class


Peter Oborne
The Triumph of the Political Class
London: Simon & Schuster, 2007

Some books are born again. Every book with a political theme aims to be prophetic, and only time can reveal their success or otherwise. Orwell’s 1984, Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, Faye’s Convergence of Catastrophes are all books whose time has arrived. It is difficult to believe that one such book is a little over a decade old, but Peter Oborne’s The Triumph of the Political Class (TPC) has never been as relevant as it is today.

The book concerns itself solely with the United Kingdom, although its main thesis is relevant to the USA, as well as to the gauleiters of Europe. Oborne is a well-respected British journalist. As what is termed in Britain a lobby correspondent, he has access to the innermost workings of the ‘mother of all parliaments’, as politician John Bright described England’s governmental locus in 1865. TPC, as dazzling as it is, naturally made Oborne enemies within the very elite whose rise and victory he describes in the book. For Oborne gave the game away, like the heckler in the audience who sees and tells his fellow spectators how the magician on the stage is working his wonders, or little Toto pulling back the curtain to reveal that the Wizard of Oz is just an eccentric old man with a set of cogs and levers.

Oborne’s essential theme is that “the real divide in British public life is no longer between the main political parties, but between the Political Class and the rest.’ (p. xvii).

This class, he writes, replaced the old establishment and its standards of governance. Instead of public servants entering parliament from many walks of life, politicians in the UK are now unlikely to have worked outside of journalism, PR, advertising, or the legal profession. Very few have experience outside the world of politics, and the established route is from one of the top universities, Oxford or Cambridge, usually studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics, famously known as PPE. The next step is an internship, working for an established politician. Some may become specials advisers, or SpAds as they are known, to a working politician. This tier of government has largely replaced the function of Britain’s long-established Civil Service, and is illegitimately funded by the British taxpayer. It is also wholly politically orthodox. As Oborne emphasises, any opinions or ideological beliefs outside the accepted protocols will disable a political career before it has even begun.

This incubation of political agency has serious consequences. Politics ceases to be an active, deeply social and communitarian practice and becomes instead occupied by a technocratic cabal convinced that they are best equipped to improve the lot of others. The results of this in the UK is a country well on the way to ruination. Increasingly Sovietised, Britain – and particularly England – is being run by malevolent arch-bureaucrats, a managerial class more concerned with appearance than reality. As Orwell famously wrote, in The Lion and the Unicorn, England is a family with the wrong members in control.

Oborne credits 19th-century Italian lawyer and social theorist Gaetano Mosca with the coinage of what he called the classe politica. Mosca’s major work, Elementi de Scienzi Politica, is now seen by the new establishment as a precursor to Italian fascism under Mussolini, and this is a clear example of the ‘fascist’ or ‘far Right’ tag being applied by the Political Class and their provisional wing in the media to anyone who gives the game away.


Peter Oborne

Oborne updates Mosca’s 1896 insight, and describes how the modern Political Class – I will follow Oborne’s practice of capitalising the words in this phrase – has devoted itself to the destruction and replacement of the Establishment. Speech, vocabulary, dress, lifestyle; all of these elements serve to identify the new regime, and have been standardized to produce a homogenous tier of operatives who now serve themselves only, and their shadowy backers in the business world.

Oborne stresses that the political class is the result of a toxic amalgam of 1960s student agitation, technocracy and, in particular, Communism. Ostensibly defeated with the fall of the Berlin Wall, Communism in fact merely hibernated and emerged in a different guise. Oborne relegates his comments on Communism to a footnote, but it should not elude us. “Although Communism has enjoyed barely any electoral success in Britain during the last 100 years,” he writes, “its influence has been exceptionally strong among the governing elite…” (p. 47).

Communism, the spectre haunting Europe with which Marx famously opened the Communist Manifesto, is now a revenant. The EU is notoriously staffed, in its upper echelons at the very least, by ex-Communist sympathisers and even members. Angela Merkel’s Communist past is well known. The Red Menace never went anywhere, it just changed its livery. This lingering of Communism explains Oborne’s observation that ‘the Political Class has at all times resented and sought to destroy the free-standing status of British institutions.’ (p. 49).

And it is the destruction or infiltration of the great British institutions that Oborne delineates, as each one is shown to have fallen to this triumphal Political Class, making as it has a long march of its own of which Mao or Gramsci would have been proud. This factional overthrow serves but one purpose, that “the instinctive priority of the Political Class has been to expand the role and powers of the executive and its proxies, sacrificing civil liberties if necessary.” (p. 183).

The inevitable attacks on the British monarchy are highlighted, seen as it is by the new rulers as an archaic irrelevance whose popularity with ordinary people they despise.

Parliament, and its essential function in what was a democratic Britain, has been undermined as a direct result of the journalistic backgrounds not just of MPs, but of advisers to government. “All important announcements”, writes Oborne, “are now made through the media, and only as an afterthought through the [House of] Commons.” (p. 201).

In addition to this sidelining of an ancient democratic process, Oborne shows the way in which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had had his or her role watered down and weakened. The Political Class does not wish for scrutiny, at least not of itself. The people, of course, are another matter. Great Britain has around a quarter of the CCTV cameras in the world, far more per capita than Russia or North Korea.

The section of TPC dealing with the Political Class’s capture of the British media is exemplary of how democracy in Great Britain has been subverted. Oborne writes that the Political Class has “sought to give an almost constitutional role to the British media by building it up as an alternative to existing state institutions.” (p. 234).


In short, the British government and Her Majesty’s Opposition now use the media as a glorified advertising agency. ‘Client journalists’ now do the work Parliament used to do. This pact is compounded by a sleight of hand which effects to produce the myth of a ‘hostile media’, that is, a fourth estate which still fulfils its original role in speaking truth to power in any meaningful way. It does no such thing, of course, and any journalist who dissents from this arrangement will soon find themselves filing their copy in the backwaters of a provincial newspaper.

The role of the media in the Iraq War is focused on briefly in the book, and as an exemplar of the way in which the UK Political Class now uses the media. This war is still the most disgraceful chapter of Tony Blair’s tenure as Prime Minister, and Oborne lays out clinically the way that the British press, and the BBC, conspired to paint a flattering, Dorian Gray-like picture of Blair as war hero, when in fact it was the lies told by him and his jumped-up press secretary Alastair Campbell – very much a villain of Oborne’s book – that initiated that wholly spurious and ruinous conflict.

The great losers in this Caesarean and triumphalist rise to power are, of course, the British people. They are now treated as a set of consumerist statistics to be manipulated and triangulated. Indeed, as Oborne writes, “Members of the Political Class… regard civil society as a threat because it represents a giant area of the public domain which stands outside its control” (p. 329).

With serious calls from the likes of Tony Blair to have a second and even third Brexit referendum, the contempt that the Political Class has for the ordinary people they are supposed to represent is clear. The EU’s disdain for its citizens is even more apparent, and entire countries have already been made to vote more than once for continued membership of this corrupt bloc, the elites simply recasting the vote until it goes their way.

With British politics currently rudderless, and becoming more impotent by the week, it is tempting to herald the unravelling of Oborne’s Political Class, in the UK at least, and my only disappointment with TPC is that Oborne spends little time on technocracy, the fallacious idea that government is best suited to improve the lot of its citizens by virtue of its collective expertise. Having myself worked and clashed with management companies for the past ten years, I can see the parallels between management and government, and the willful blindness of those who believe they are the experts.

Oborne’s book is eerily prophetic, and shows what he calls the architecture of the Political Class. Any tremor which threatens to shake the whole is to be feared and attacked. In the same way that the average Republican is aghast at the victory of Donald Trump, so too the British political class would resist any attempt to alter its fundamental structure and aims, even if its own putative party were in power. Brexit is, of course, the most obvious example of resistance and, in the same way that the deep state is confounding Trump’s attempts to govern, so too the EU, in collusion with Britain’s own deep state, will not allow Brexit to happen without fighting to the last redoubt.

Towards the end of TPC, Oborne writes a paragraph that is a distant echo of Orwell’s famous statement, in his most famous book, that the only hope lies with the proles. It is profoundly to be wished for that these two great visionaries are right.

[It] is almost certain… that the next great political movement will come from outside the Political Class. Just as the Political Class has emerged from the wreckage of the party system, so it is certain to produce its own antithesis. At some stage a British politician may well discover a new language of public discourse and methodology of political engagement which communicates simply and plainly to voters. (p. 331).

Should this language and methodology ever be discovered, Peter Oborne’s prescient book will serve well both as its dictionary and instruction manual.


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: https://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/02/osborne-again-the-triumph-of-the-political-class/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1966244.jpg

lundi, 06 mai 2013

The Moral Hollowness of the Elites


The Moral Hollowness of the Elites

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

The Establishment presents itself as moral and opposed to low things like "prejudice," "narrow-mindedness," and "bigotry." This helps create a sense of arrogance that prevents them from questioning whether they have actually created a multiracial utopia or not. They are prejudiced, but against their own people. Furthermore, their unrealistic and irrational policies have brought about the very same situation that the ideology of the last sixty years was designed to prevent.

The dominant ideology since the Second World War has been multiracialism with variants like "anti-racism," enthusiasm for open borders, and other variations which are idealistic and progressive. The zealots for immigration have justified it by lies like "the economy needs it" or blaming working people, who "won't do the dirty jobs"! 

In the 1960s the New Left took over Liberalism. They kept the name but changed the content. For example, and this is profoundly important, individual rights were changed to group rights, which introduced totalitarian thinking, as group rights gave minority ("victim") groups preferential treatment over the host population ("the oppressors"). The watchwords of The New Left were “everything is political,” which reveals their totalitarian approach, and “we must change attitudes,” which uncloaks their social engineering agenda. Liberalism was effectively changed to a form of Marxist totalitarianism.

The New Left were not working-class socialists but Bourgeois-Socialists, with middle-class students serving as the apparatchiks. They eschewed economics for identity politics, which was effectively an inverse of Hitler's racial superiority ideology, as they promoted ethnic minorities, gypsies, and homosexuals - all groups that had the inverse endorsement of Hitler's disdain. These new Left Liberals were authoritarian where Classic Liberals genuinely believed in rights. The New Left took over universities in 1968 and nearly brought the French government down with riots in Paris. The London School of Economics and Berkeley in the US suffered similar occupations. Many leaders of New Left/Trotskyist groups, like Tariq Ali, then went on to become part of the new Establishment.

Up to the 1960s Liberals had undermined Western nations with guilt, but from then on it changed to hatred of their own people. Multiracialism has the same structure as Nazism, except Whites became the target group in place of Jews. It was a reaction to Hitler's attempt to exterminate European Jews and to stop that happening again. The people the Nazis persecuted were almost deified, while Whites became the scapegoats when things went wrong, as they always do now, under the term “racism.”

The New Left project was to destroy existing communities, especially the working-class communities that supported the old moderate Socialists, while using the term "communities" for their new constituency groups, the “Black” and “gay”communities.

The individual subjects of classic Liberalism were transformed into representatives of favoured groups, like “single mothers,” “lesbians,” “gays,” and “alternative life-styles.” Traditional units of organization, like the family and community, were opposed, and in their place personal freedom and sexual emancipation were promoted with little concern for the consequent unhappiness, loneliness, and deprivation. Abstract justification was all; practical consequences nothing. Schools' curricula were feminised and young White men were denied the invigoration of competition and suitable male role models.

The Liberal capitulation

This movement would have got anywhere without the support of major popular musicians of the time, like Bob Dylan and The Beatles. John Lennon donated money to the IRA and Black Panthers.

William Rees-Mogg, editor of The Times, defended Mick Jagger and Keith Richards who were on drugs charges in an infamous and cowardly article, “Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?”  In 1971 the state capitulated to the convicted editors of the counter cultural OZ magazine when the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Widgery had them brought from prison and told them that if they agreed to stop working on the magazine their appeal would be certain to succeed, which is exactly what happened, making them "martyrs who had suffered nothing" and effectively mocking the remnants of conservative power in the state.

Classical Liberals believed in rights for ethnic people and homosexuals, but Cultural Marxists instead gave them preferential treatment and started moves to to dispossess and dehumanise Whites.

This shift in the 1960s can be characterized as a change from fighting for racial equality to dehumanising Whites as haters. The term “racist” replaced “racialist.” In a book review for The Salisbury Review of Spring 2003, Sir Alfred Sherman, former speech writer for Mrs Thatcher and leader writer for the Daily Telegraph, recalled the process at work in parts of London:

I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists."


In education Liberals allowed free expression within Liberal parameters. The style of essay writing changed to favour cultural relativism, with students asked to consider the pros and cons of a case, rather than rights and wrongs. Cultural Marxists also proceeded to remove many subjects from the curriculum, especially conventional history, because forgetting our common roots and shared ancestry would make it easier for them to socially engineer us into a new people ready for their utopia. The process of dumbing-down and reducing vocabulary, so that people could only think what the elites want them to, was also favoured.

The Public Abasement of Dissidents

Cultural Marxism derived much from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, a fashionable item for middle-class students from the 1960s onward. Mentors like Herbert Marcuse and Eric Hobsbawm were open admirers of Stalin. In Marxist China and the Soviet Union dissent was typically dealt with through public show trials, where the victims publicly abased themselves and confessed their crimes. In contemporary Britain this persecution role is now in the hands of the media.

In 2007, Dr. James Watson, the 79-year-old geneticist who, with Francis Crick, discovered the structure of DNA, and who is regarded as one of the great scientists of his time, was persecuted for telling the Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really." He also said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." He claimed the genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence would be found within a decade.

The British establishment's agency of inquisition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, responded, saying it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full." Politicians moved to persecute him: "It is a shame that a man with a record of scientific distinction should see his work overshadowed by his own irrational prejudices," opined David Lammy, the Skills Minister.

The loathsome mayor of London Ken Livingstone said, "Such ignorant comments...are utterly offensive and give succour to the most backward in our society." The Science Museum cancelled a sell-out meeting it had planned to hold to honour Watson on the grounds that his remarks had gone "beyond the point of acceptable debate." Several other centres scheduled to host his talks followed suit. What a scientific argument! His employers, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island suspended him as chancellor. Scientist Richard Dawkins saw the real issue:

What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant "thought police," of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation.

Around the same time "celebrity" Jade Goody had the "wrong attitude" to Indian film star, Shilpa Shetty, in Celebrity Big Brother, and was accused of racist bullying. The programme is based on getting an assortment of diverse characters into a house and titillating the viewers to keep the viewing figures up, with bullying and personality clashes. This is the whole attraction.

Following the clash Goody was presented as "common" and a "chav,"  a derogatory term for White working class Britons, while Shetty was made into something of a saint. This set the scene for the inevitable public kowtowing and abasement before the gods of multiculturalism. Jade kept apologising, confessing publicly that she was disgusted with herself - the Cultural Marxist rulers version of a Soviet show trial.

She had to be broken in public, made to repent and show abject contrition. Jade had some Afro-Caribbean ancestry. An honest person would look for a cause other than racism, like class envy or bad manners, but there is an ideology at work which imposes the same explanation on different situations – anti-White racism.

The British state is now persecuting a dissident, Emma West. The incident that got West persecuted was a film of her being abusive on a tram against multiracialism in general but to no one in particular. This was 18 months ago and the case has since been delayed, with five scheduled hearings cancelled, not for practical or legal reasons, but because West has not suitably abased herself and maintains a plea of not guilty. West is a danger to the authorities because pleading not guilty raises the threat of the case becoming a public debate and the state wants to maintain the illusion that everyone agrees with mass immigration apart from a few nutters.

The problems we are facing stem from the moral code imposed by the Enlightenment and the replacement of an aristocratic class, based on blood and land, with secular elites united by ideology with membership dependent on thinking and saying the right things - an Ideological Caste - with pretensions to morality based on abstractions. The climatic moment was the French Revolution. Even then, the perceptive French philosopher Joseph De Maistre analysed the problem in Considérations sur la France in 1797:

I will simply point out the error of principle that has provided the foundation of this constitution and that has led the French astray since the first moment of their revolution.
The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc. I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.
....This constitution is capable of being applied to all human communities from China to Geneva. But a constitution which is made for all nations is made for none: it is a pure abstraction, a school exercise whose purpose is to exercise the mind in accordance with a hypothetical ideal, and which ought to be addressed to Man, in the imaginary places which he inhabits....
What is a constitution? Is it not the solution to the following problem: to find the laws that are fitting for a particular nation, given its population, its customs, its religion, its geographical situation, its political relations, its wealth, and its good and bad qualities?
Now, this problem is not addressed at all by the Constitution of 1795, which is concerned only with Man.

Restructuring  Peoples' Thinking

In accordance with such abstractions and the moral pretensions of those who enforce them, we are being socially engineered and traditional ways of thinking systematically broken down.  Another example: The television programme Gypsy Wars contrasted a local woman and travellers who had invaded her land. They showed her as a representative of us but then presented the travellers in such a way as to make her attitudes seem mistaken, intolerant, and extreme.

They edited out all the young Gypsy men, because they are aggressive and would garner support for the woman; the life of the village threatened by the travellers was not shown, because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman. Also, the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people, but a bit eccentric and someone who could be set up as the aggressor even though she was in fact the victim. When the police had to evict the travellers from Dale Farm in accordance with British law, the media again showed no men. This program was a casebook study of how television restructures people's thoughts to fit them into an anti-British ideology.

How do we counter the dominant ideology?

People follow the dominant elites because they appear strong and successful, and many who agree with us vote for the dominant parties for that reason. A conviction based on the knowledge that they follow in the steps of great national figures would help counter that disadvantage. For this reason it is important to emphasize traditions of opposition to multiculturalism and the fact that most of the great and the good in history have been on our side in one way or another

By linking to traditions, our people link with great historical figures, like Queen Elizabeth I and Lord Palmerston, who are role-models, as are Enoch Powell, the great 5th Marquess of Salisbury, who fought against immigration, and Sir Winston Churchill, who tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955 and wanted to fight the 1955 general election under the slogan "Keep England White."

In the US they have the precedent of Eisenhower's Operation Wetback. In 1949 the Border Patrol seized nearly 280,000 illegal immigrants. By 1953, the numbers had increased to over than 865,000, and the U.S. government had to do something about it. In 1954, agents found over one million illegal immigrants. 

The ideology of multiracialism was supposedly a reaction to Hitler's attempted extermination of European Jews, and its aim was to ensure that genocide would never happen again. But it is happening again, and it is being caused by the Western elites who pledged to stamp it out. They have been using every form of manipulation, intimidation, corruption, brainwashing, and bullying at their command. But the evils they employ in pursuit of a supposed "good" have become instead evils for the sake of evil.