The British breakfast programme, Good Morning Britain, hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid, both of whom have always held staunch liberal views. Of that there is no question, in fact, one need not look any further than 2012 where Morgan was unceremoniously decimated by Jewish conservative Ben Shapiro regarding control. However, both Morgan and Reid revealed such views to the British public when they attempted to carry out a character assassination of Tory backbencher, Jacob Rees Mogg, on September 6, 2017.
First and foremost, to call Mogg a Tory is almost an insult, given how the party has become a carbon copy of the Labour party, courtesy of numerous bourgeoisie Blairites the party now possesses. Thus, Mogg in truth is a true conservative reminiscent of Powell, Thatcher and the few but favourable areas of Winston Churchill. The man is anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion, traditional positions unfavourable in modern Britain. Furthermore, Mogg upholds traditional views and roles with regards to men and women, claiming that he has never and will never learn to raise a new-born child simply because that role is reserved for both his wife and the family “nanny.” Nonetheless, the Somerset MP has accumulated vast support over the past three years due to his genuine authenticity and impeccable demeanour during both political speech and public debate, with vast areas of such support coming from the millennial generation.
Nevertheless, he has been labelled a “thoroughly modern bigot,” a fanatic, and a threat to the stability of the British Isles on an almost universal scale. Many of these accusations have cited the fact that he holds personal views based heavily upon traditional British values. You see, the United Kingdom is afflicted with the same terminal illness which has to date been responsible for the collapse of several European nations and countless academic and government institutions both in Europe and North America: cultural Marxism.
This disease manifests itself in the following manner: an eagerness to promote equally all cultures except that of the country it finds itself in, a feat accomplished only through the vector of white guilt. Thus, the parasite consumes its host and in its absence, implements a bizarre and deadly concoction of third-world barbarism such as Islam mixed with postmodernist perversities like grown men identifying as 6-year-old girls and parents refusing to acknowledge the gender of their new-born child. This malignant virus provided the shameful atmosphere which was to dominate the interview between Jacob Rees-Mogg and the shylock duo of Morgan and Reid.
The interview was intended to focus on the current state of the Brexit, a democratic decision reached by the British people that has subsequently been undermined and arguably betrayed by numerous politicians of both Labour and Tory affiliation. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a firm supporter of democracy and thus is one of the few remaining politicians who seeks to leave the EU under the conditions that were outlined in the vote that took place last year. However, rather than discuss the will of the British people, the BBC attempted to assassinate the character and subsequently the political career of their guest.
Repeatedly, attempts were made to force him to say he was against gay marriage and abortion, phrases deemed as heretical in a society that allegedly prides itself on freedom of expression and tolerance for all to seek to join it. To make their agenda abundantly clear, both hosts cited the fact that the rather gormless Tim Farron, former leader of the completely illiberal and undemocratic liberal democrat party received heaps of condemnation from both supporter and colleague alike following his opposition to same-sex marriage, eventually leading to his resignation.
This is in effect an effort once more from the BBC to stifle any visible signs of a return to the socially conservative Great Britain of old, a tactic implemented recently following the snap election that took place earlier this year where, despite the Conservatives gaining the highest number of seats since 1983 with a rather abysmal manifesto, they were quick to print page after page plastered with celebratory images of Labour’s very own socialist scruff Jeremy Corbyn, suggesting perhaps that a left-wing revolution was on the horizon. In reality, however, despite performing much better than what was expected, Labour were and still are very much so without a mandate.
Furthermore, much outrage was produced following the announcement that Theresa May relied significantly on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland in order to establish her party’s slim majority. The outrage following this announcement was both amusing and very revealing. Firstly, it displayed how truly little the British Government actually cares about my nation, as the DUP’s own website crashed as a result of swarms of google searches on courtesy of the British public, eager to discover what the abbreviation stood for. Secondly, despite proving to be wildly incompetent with regards to public spending, the DUP are fiercely socially conservative, even for a relatively conservative country like Northern Ireland, a reality vehemently opposed by numerous media outlets. Therefore, the British establishment are facing the possibility of a return to a truly conservative Kingdom, and through the leftist media are attempting to halt this process via excessive scaremongering and public shaming.
However, it is important to note at this point that all of this outrage, whether faux or genuine, has been a reaction to an individual or an organisation merely holding conservative personal beliefs. In no manner, shape or form has Jacob Rees-Mogg expressed a desire to impose them upon others or show any clear allegiance with any radical element of his beliefs, nor will the DUP be able to implement such beliefs on English society. Thus, it is puzzling as to why the following politician has not only received next to no widespread media condemnation, but as in fact reached a position of power as a result of holding beliefs that in fact do require condemnation; Sadiq Khan.
Sadiq Khan, the mayor of the English capital, has allowed for sharia courts to be implemented within his constituency. Whilst it would be an exaggeration to argue that it constitutes no separation of church and state, it is certainly a step in that direction, and with the sheer number of economic migrants flooding our borders, the fear of a city undergoing total islamification is not an irrational one. However, not only does Khan allow for third-world legislative systems to take place in a developed nation, he has also in fact shared a stage with barbarians who embrace this system, appearing alongside Yasser al-Sirri at a 2003 political conference, a man responsible for training the ring leader behind the devastating 7/7 attacks in London. Furthermore, Khan served as a lawyer for 3 British Muslims who attempted to revive an outlawed Egyptian terror group in April of 2002. In his defence of the 3 men in question, Khan cited that they were merely reading the teachings of the terror group as opposed to actively recruiting for them.
Last, but not least, Khan has brushed aside not only the threat of Islamic terrorism but actual attacks themselves, stressing that it is merely “part and parcel” of living in a thriving city such as London. In spite of all of this, Khan has faced minimal criticism, often with those providing said criticism being labelled as Islamophobic. Indeed, Khan is a skilled orator as a result of being well-versed in English Law and has amassed popularity amongst the liberal bourgeoise who populate the capital due to his friendly demeanour and defiance in response to the potential policies outlined by Donald Trump, but the question remains; how exactly has this man been treated as a saint despite such a mountain of controversy bearing over him? The answer is really quite simple; he is not a white man, for unlike proponents of Islam, a political doctrine that has swept the earth multiple times throughout the centuries and to this day, implementing barbarism and leaving only societal and physical devastation, all white men possess “white privilege” and therefore are inherently much worse.
The liberal British establishment is on its last legs, and as a result is at its most provocative, thoroughly condemning any shade of support or sign of progress for anything remotely pro-homogeny and anti-diversity. They claim to be against “radical” politics and views, with being anti-immigrant, anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion amongst them, yet they simultaneously support a “politician” who seeks to import and uphold beliefs which include the execution of homosexuals, no separation of church and state and the death penalty for women who have been raped, given that women are lower than animals according to Islamic scripture. Regardless of your personal views on such areas, for state media to condemn one group which promotes none of the above whilst allowing another who embrace all three to fester and grow is hypocrisy as an art form.
Therefore, whilst it may not be a giant leap towards a homogenous kingdom, the prospect of having in place a truly socially conservative government upholding an isolationist position with regards to foreign policy would indeed be a step in the right direction. Would said government be of an ethno-nationalist persuasion? Certainly not, at least not to the public eye. However, such a government would indeed be much more sympathetic to the cause and even allow for such views to finally fall under the category of free speech as opposed to hateful rhetoric, one only has to look as far as Hungary and Poland to witness this in all of its splendour. Furthermore, true social conservatism and the values it upholds cater highly to traditionalism, a valuable element of alternative right politics.
Thus, in the example of the United Kingdom, whilst the political route inevitably will be a long and tedious journey in comparison to the raw energy that encapsulates activism, it along with individuals such as Jacob Rees-Mogg provide a gateway for traditionalist policy, rhetoric and roles to flourish and serve as a bulwark against the declining moral values of the liberal west and the highly incompatible values shared by those arriving from the third-world.