Once upon a time I had a debate with a number of nationalists over the prospect of America's first black president in 2008. A number of acquaintances demanded everyone vote for "the white guy," John McCain, whose 36 year long career as top traitor in Congress was finally brought to an end when Satan appointed him Secretary of State in 2018.
The logic was that Barack Obama was going to rule like Robert Mugabe, bring back Southern Reconstruction except this time for all white people, and launch nuclear missiles at Europe (someone actually suggested this). But to this day, the closest America has come to giving amnesty to every illegal immigrant within our borders was when McCain teamed up with Bush in 2007 for "immigration reform," only for the bill to fail when a Democrat killed it via poison pill. Knowing what we knew about John McCain even back then, it would've been impossible for America to have survived 8 years of his presidency without a world war with Russia, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, or countless other countries he and his boyfriend Lindsey Graham have demanded America bomb as soon as possible in the Senate.
In retrospect, as bad as Obama was (and he was awful), McCain would've been much worse. He would've provided the GOP enough partisan cover to pass the Gang of 8, his complete lack of regard for American lives and money viz-a-viz Israel would've made Trump look like Yasser Arafat, he would've unleashed Wall Street on the general public even more than it already does. I didn't vote for Obama, but I sure am glad he beat McCain.
Talking to friends in Britain, today's election is stuck is a similar no-win situation. The race is being widely panned as a choice between giving Boris an arm or Corbyn taking a leg. If we adjust the saying to fit some of the election's themes like terrorism and Israel, its more like either your foreskin or your head.
Anecdotally, nationalists I've talked to are split 3 ways: 1/3 won't vote, 1/3 are pinching their nose for Johnson, 1/3 are choosing the mystery door of Corbyn.
Bottle Blonde John McCain
One critique of Corbyn is that the Cold Warrior (for the other side), if elected, will be privileging BAME's (a new made up term intended to bloc up non-whites) ahead of whites, unleash a new wave of draconian "hate speech" prosecutions, and invite a flood of mass migration.
They have good reason to believe this. Corbyn in his younger years was a leading organizer in groups like the "Anti-Nazi League," a precursor to Antifa. He has acquiesced to the metropolitan and wealthy "Blairite" bugmen that have taken his party hostage on immigration and gender ideology, although not completely (the root of their "anti-Semitism" charges). Corbyn wants a second referendum on Brexit.
But Boris Johnson is a proven anti-white demagogue himself.
As Mayor of London (elected in 2008), Boris Johnson cheered the anarchist and communist campaign of terror against elected officials of the British National Party. On his blog, he openly encouraged physical attacks on Nick Griffin in 2009. He personally intervened to ban the BNP from various public events they were entitled to attend.
In 2012, Johnson joined together with open communist Kevin Livingstone to "no-platform" BNP candidate Carlos Cortiglia from a BBC Mayoral debate, even though UKIP and Lib Dems had no issue with his presence.
On free speech, we don't know what Corbyn would do exactly, but we have the documents on the Tories. It was Theresa May who demanded new internet "hate speech" laws. Even May's conservative equivalents in America have blamed her for the death of free expression in Britain. Corbyn voted for the Investigatory Powers Bill (the most radical attack on civil liberties in modern British history), but the Tories authored it.
Last April, Boris Johnson's fellow conservative, Sajid Javid, authored an "online harms white paper" proposal that would cluster political speech in with child pornography and appoint a myriad of Jewish and leftist groups to decide what can and cannot be said online. The Guardian, no friend of free speech, went so far as to compare it to "North Korean" style internet regulation.
On immigration, Johnson has always been for open borders. The Conservative Party is notoriously weak on immigration, yet Johnson has historically been extreme even by Tory standards as a standard-bearer for race-replacement. He has gone so far as to say "I am the only British politician who will admit to being pro-immigration" during a time when public support for immigration was souring.
Here, Corbyn, thanks in part to "New Labour" baggage (produced by Tony Blair's handler, the Jew Peter Mandelson, who is now vocally "NeverCobyn"), refuses to put a ceiling in his manifesto on how many immigrants they will be letting in, but neither will Johnson's Tories. The Tories have done a masterful job in creating the impression that they oppose immigration during election campaigns without providing substantial policy proposals, much less direct results.
On crime, it's obvious that Corbyn's policies will encourage it, but the ongoing black knife-crime crisis has nobody to blame but the Tories.
As Home Secretary, Theresa May oversaw massive budget cuts to British police that lowered their salaries by 20% and heavily discouraged the "stop and search" tactic because it "targeted" blacks. When police officer associations protested and predicted these policy changes would cause the crime rate to spike (and it did), May dismissed them as "racist."
In other words, when you filter campaign rhetoric out, Labour and Tories are in consensus about these issues. Neither is willing to represent the will of the white majority here.
On foreign policy, Corbyn's hardline anti-imperialism and non-interventionism (the real reason Jews in Britain hate him) is far more appealing than Boris Johnson, who is a warmongering Zionist neo-con that was trying to encourage Trump into attacking Iran after just two months of being Prime Minister.
On economics, Corbyn's plan to nationalize vital industries, give employees a reason to work by mandating 10% of business stocks be shared, protect national industry, and decrease the work week to 32 hours are all far superior to Johnson's neo-liberal capitalist plans to sign a bunch of mini-"NAFTAs", empower the City of London with tax cuts and deregulation, and erode labor rights in the name of raising the GDP nobody will benefit from but the 1%.
The companies Corbyn wants to nationalize were state-owned until Margaret Thatcher. Water, gas, transportation and telecommunications companies rip British consumers off, outsource jobs, run the companies into the ground, then demand the British taxpayer either bail them out. In many cases, these privatized firms end up being controlled by outsiders by selling their shares to foreign state owned enterprises.
When it comes to Brexit, Johnson claims he will do what the Tories have been promising for four years and finally leave the European Union. Truth be told, Johnson's post-Brexit proposals are so awful they have made remaining look appealing. It is possible, but unlikely, that Johnson will leave the EU without granting a second referendum just like what Corbyn is campaigning on.
Corbyn is a life long Eurosceptic and has until recently opposed free movement (what British workers are angry about). He was browbeat into taking a more pro-EU stance, but he has not been the pro-EU champion the Brussels wing of British plutocracy thought they had.
Worst of all, Johnson has turned today's election into a referendum on "anti-Semitism" as much as one on Brexit. A Corbyn victory would splash cold water on Jews, who have elected themselves Royal Guards with the right to veto candidates outside of 10 Downing.
Corbyn's immigration platform and lack of support for Brexit will destroy him with the white working class, however. While he still has a chance for a last minute comeback, were it not for his stance on these two non-essential, pro-capitalist positions (pro-immigration and being pro-EU), Corbyn's populist insurrection would've won by a landslide.
When weighing all of the above, Corbyn is, like Obama in 2008, the lesser of two evils.
Source: National Justice
Our commenting rules: You can say pretty much anything except the F word. If you are abusive, obscene, or a paid troll, we will ban you. Full statement from the Editor, Charles Bausman.