“We want your votes, you miserable scum.” That has long been the private attitude of the Labour party to the White working class. Now a senior Labour MP has made it public. No wonder Ed Miliband is said to have been “incandescent.” You’ve heard of point-and-splutter. Here’s some point-and-sneer, a photograph tweeted by a Labour MP called Emily Thornberry during the Rochester by-election, which has just given UKIP its second MP. She was sneering at White working-class patriotism, as expressed by the red cross of St George, England’s patron saint. But there’s more to the photo than that. She was expressing contempt for White working-class men in particular. “White van man” is a shorthand in England for self-employed tradesmen who carry their tools around in a white van. They’re rough, they’re crude and they’re not politically correct.

That’s why the modern Labour party hates them, as a Labour peer called Lord Glasman admitted in 2011:

In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. [Labour’s] commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters … were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class. (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)

Labour is as hostile to the White working-class as ever, but is desperate to pretend otherwise. Thanks to her arrogance and stupidity, Emily Thornberry has let the mask slip. She’s a close ally of Ed Miliband and you can be sure that they hold exactly the same views. After all, he’s the millionaire son of a Marxist academic and she’s the millionaire wife of a high-flying lawyer. Before becoming an MP, she was herself a “human rights” lawyer, part of a parasitic state bureaucracy governed by cultural Marxism and funded by White tax-payers’ money.

She’s also a typical masculinized, high-testosterone left-wing female politician: overweight, unattractive, short-haired and deep-voiced. She reminds me of the torturer Rosa Klebb in the James Bond book From Russia with Love (1957). I’d trust her with power as much as I’d trust Bernie Madoff with my wallet. In October last year, she was expressing deep concern for “victims of sexual violence.” Prosecutions for rape are falling while the rape-rate is rising. That’s why she vowed a future Labour government would appoint a “domestic and sexual violence commissioner” to fight on behalf of victims.

There are certainly a lot of victims in Brave New Britain, but who is to blame for that? Cultural Marxists like Emily Thornberry, of course. They’ve imported sex-criminals from the Third World and then actively assisted their crimes. When Nick Griffin warned that Muslim rape-gangs were operating in Yorkshire, the Labour government tried to send him to jail. It was a Labour council in Rotherham that oversaw decades of Muslim depravity. And Rotherham is merely the tip of the iceberg. Labour politicians like Emily Thornberry pretend to care about sex-crime while actually promoting it.

Those who suffer worst are Labour’s traditional supporters: the White working-class. They’re raped, murdered and robbed by vibrant low-IQ immigrants from the Third World. They’re also impoverished by high-IQ immigrants from countries like Poland, who earn far more money in Britain than they can back home. That’s why they’ll work for less and accept worse conditions. Not something that socialists should support. Even the Guardian is starting to notice that mass immigration is not an unmixed blessing:

Much of the fuss about migration has focused on its short-term economic impact: it is variously alleged to be crowding the low-skilled out of jobs (Ukip) or to be essential for growth or short-term fiscal receipts (the left and big business). … The important effects of immigration are social and long term, not economic and short term. The key long-term social effects are probably on the overall size of the population and its diversity. As to population size, Britain is already one of the most crowded countries in Europe, and there is a sound environmental argument for protecting quality of life by discouraging further substantial increases. As to diversity, it involves a trade-off: as it increases, variety is enhanced but cohesion reduced. Variety is good but, unfortunately, as cohesion erodes voters become less willing to support generous welfare programmes. (Now is the time to slow down immigration, The Guardian, 4th November 2014)

Note the reference to the biological reality, noted many times on TOO as a cost of multiculturalism: people are reluctant to contribute to public goods like “welfare programmes” when the recipients are not like themselves. Lack of ethnic cohesion means less support for public goods.

And note that surreal pro-immigration alliance: “the left and big business” — also quite apparent in the U.S. as the Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal, and their minions in Congress campaign for open borders along with the ethnic activists, MSNBC and the New York Times. The left used to champion the workers against the bosses. Now it champions the bosses against the (White) workers.

Emily Thornberry, a rich “human rights” lawyer who hates ordinary Whites, is a perfect example of this reversal in Labour’s priorities. The party is stuffed with Marxists who love Mammon: lawyers, pseudo-academics, “equality” activists and other members of the parasitic bureaucrat-class. They consume without producing, specializing in hot air, false promises and self-enrichment. George Orwell summed them up many years ago in Animal Farm:

Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer — except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs. Perhaps this was partly because there were so many pigs and so many dogs. It was not that these creatures did not work, after their fashion. There was, as Squealer was never tired of explaining, endless work in the supervision and organisation of the farm. Much of this work was of a kind that the other animals were too ignorant to understand. For example, Squealer told them that the pigs had to expend enormous labours every day upon mysterious things called “files”, “reports”, “minutes”, and “memoranda”. These were large sheets of paper which had to be closely covered with writing, and as soon as they were so covered, they were burnt in the furnace. This was of the highest importance for the welfare of the farm, Squealer said. But still, neither pigs nor dogs produced any food by their own labour; and there were very many of them, and their appetites were always good. (Animal Farm, 1945)

But Orwell’s satire applies to all mainstream parties in modern Britain. The Conservatives were delighted by Emily Thornberry’s blunder in Rochester, because it distracted attention from the way they lost an election they had promised they would win. But what is the Conservative attitude to “White Van Man”? Equally contemptuous, equally dismissive. Here’s the Tory Matthew Parris sneering at the people who would soon elect UKIP’s first MP in Clacton:

This is Britain on crutches. This is tracksuit-and-trainers [i.e., sports-shoes] Britain, tattoo-parlour Britain, all-our-yesterdays Britain. So of course UKIP will do well in the by-election. My aim, though, is not to deny UKIP its likelihood of victory. They make a good fit for Clacton. Somebody has to represent the static caravans and holiday villages, and the people and places that for no fault of their own are not getting where a 21st-century Britain needs to be going. Nor do I deny that we Conservatives, if we tried hard enough, could get some of these voters back. There are many in a place like this who might be attracted again to the Tories by a noisy display of hostility towards immigration-and-Europe, political correctness and health-and-safety: hostility to a Britain that has forgotten the joys of Ken Dodd [a 1960s comedian], meat pies, smoking in pubs and the Bee Gees. No, my aim is to ask this: is that where the Conservative party wants to be? Is it where the Tories need to be if they’re to gather momentum in this century, rather than slowly lose it? Or do we need to be with the Britain that has its career prospects ahead and not behind, that can admire immigrants and want them with us, that doesn’t want to spend its days buying scratchcards and its evenings smoking in pubs, that’s amazed at all the fuss about whether gays should marry, that travels in Europe and would hesitate to let those links go? I’m not arguing that we should be careless of the needs of struggling people and places such as Clacton. But I am arguing — if I am honest — that we should be careless of their opinions. (Matthew Parris’s Year Zero attitudes owe more to Pol Pot than conservatism, Breitbart, 11th October 2014)

Parris is a gay journalist who was once a Tory MP. His comfortable life isn’t threatened by cheap imported labour. On the contrary, it’s enhanced. And as James Delingpole pointed out at Breitbart, he would never dare talk like that about non-Whites. After all, they represent the vibrant future, where twenty-first century Britain “needs to be going.” The British Prime Minister David Cameron, a former public-relations man, shares Matthew’s shining vision of a multi-coloured United Kommunity:

David Cameron has said he wants to see an ethnic minority Prime Minister to prove “Britons of all backgrounds can achieve.” The Prime Minister told an audience at an awards ceremony yesterday, that there was not enough racial diversity in Britain’s top positions. Mr Cameron was speaking at the GG2 Leadership Awards, which shortlist the most influential Asian people in the country. Culture secretary Sajid Javid, who is tipped to be Mr Cameron’s successor, was also present at the ceremony. The Telegraph reported that Mr Cameron told the event: “Let us think big about what Britons of all backgrounds can achieve. When I hear ‘sir’, ‘your honour’ or ‘right honourable’, I want them to be followed by a British Asian name. One day I want to hear that title ‘Prime Minister’ followed by a British Asian name.” During the ten minute speech he referred to Mr Javid as “the brilliant Asian man who I asked to join the Cabinet.” He added: “Doesn’t it say something that in two generations you can go from coming to our country with so little to sitting around the Cabinet table. That is the sort of country we are building in the United Kingdom.” Mr Javid’s father Abdul immigrated to Britain from Pakistan in 1961 with only £1 in his pocket. His MP son went on to make a £20 million fortune as a managing director at Deutsche Bank, before involving himself in Conservative party politics. Mr Cameron continued: “In Britain today there are still too few people from ethnic minorities in top positions. The absence is glaring in the boardrooms of the FTSE250, in the Chambers of the Houses of Parliament, football managers’ benches, on High Court judges benches, and in our fighter jets, our naval ships, our armed battalions around the world and I am clear this has to change, not to tick boxes, not to fill quotas but to realise our full potential. Britain will only be the best it can be when all its people are able to be all that they can be.” (Cameron in call for ethnic minority PM to prove ‘Britons of all backgrounds can achieve’, The Independent, 5th November 2014)

Cameron didn’t mention the remarkable achievements of ethnic minorities in other areas: murder, rape and fraud, for example. Non-White Muslims of the same ethnicity as Sajid Javid are world-beaters at all three. And why did Cameron not point to the success in Britain of the world’s most oppressed and persecuted minority? Both chairmen of the Tory party, Grant Shapps and Lord Feldman, are Jewish. So is Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour party. So are vastly disproportionate numbers of politicians, journalists, judges, lawyers and academics. The native White British are under-represented in positions of power and influence in Britain, not hugely over-represented like Jews. Why does Cameron — who is himself part Jewish — not highlight this wonderful example of minority achievement?

Because Jewish power is off-limits for discussion in the modern West. Examine this story about donations to the Labour party:

The Labour party is facing desertion by Jewish donors and supporters because of Ed Miliband’s “toxic” anti-Israeli stance over Gaza and Palestine. In a fresh headache for the Labour leader, it is understood that Mr Miliband has been warned that Jewish backers are deserting the party in droves over what community leaders perceive to be a new, aggressive pro-Palestine policy at the expense of Israeli interests. One prominent Jewish financial backer, a lifelong Labour supporter, said he no longer wanted to “see Mr Miliband in Downing Street or Douglas Alexander as Foreign Secretary”. A senior Labour MP warned that Mr Miliband now had a “huge if not insurmountable challenge” to maintain support from parts of the Jewish community that had both backed and helped fund Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s election campaigns. At the same time, a former cabinet minister privately admitted that Labour’s fundraising efforts were in disarray. The former minister said the party would struggle to raise anywhere near the £19m a party is entitled to spend under electoral law in the run-up to next May’s poll. “We will have to pass the begging bowl round to the unions,” they said. “That would send a bad signal. In return, they [the unions] would demand to call the shots on policy.” Donations from the Jewish community have been worth hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to the Labour Party. Several previous donors told The Independent on Sunday that they and others are now very unlikely to support the party. They spoke on condition of anonymity. … A number of Jewish former Labour supporters also compared Mr Miliband’s stance on Gaza unfavourably with David Cameron’s, which, they suggested, had been calibrated to ensure that prominent Tory Jewish supporters stayed on board. (Labour funding crisis: Jewish donors drop ‘toxic’ Ed Miliband, The Independent, 9th November 2014)

Note that claim about the trade unions: If they fund Labour, they will “demand to call the shots on policy.” That’s perfectly logical. After all, why should the unions give money unless Labour adopts policies that they like?

But does the same logic apply when Jews fund both sides of British politics? Of course not! That’s a “shocking” slur against selfless philanthropists:

Campaigners against antisemitism have attacked reaction to a Sunday newspaper story which suggested Jewish donors were abandoning Labour over Ed Miliband’s stance on the Gaza conflict. The Independent on Sunday’s front page story carried the headline “Jewish donors drop ‘toxic’ Miliband” and claimed communal support for the party had ebbed away. The newspaper did not directly quote any party sources providing evidence that the desertion by Jewish supporters had led to financial problems for the party. But it did quote one unnamed long-term Jewish donor who said they did not want to see Mr Miliband as Prime Minister, or Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander in the Foreign Office. Another ex-donor, also unnamed, claimed attempts to arrange a fundraising dinner for Jewish Labour supporters had failed. The source was quoted as saying “prominent members of the community, who are quite wealthy” now found Mr Miliband “too toxic”. The party has been under fire in recent months following criticism of Israel from Mr Miliband and Mr Alexander during the Gaza conflict, and the party’s support for Palestinian statehood in a Commons vote last month. The Independent on Sunday piece led to widespread coverage elsewhere in the media. A BBC News review discussed the article and [referred] to a “Jewish lobby”. Presenter Tim Willcox went on to claim, unprompted, that prominent British Jews would not want to pay the so-called mansion tax. Gideon Falter, chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “The idea that a wealthy Jewish lobby uses money to manipulate political policy is a centuries-old antisemitic trope. The BBC’s unchallenged promotion of this slur is a shocking example of what many Jews feel is institutional antisemitism by the broadcaster. Many people have contacted us to express their outrage. The BBC claimed that the ‘Jewish lobby’ is thwarting a ‘principled’ foreign policy position, but there is no factual basis for this accusation. Also, with no evidence at all, the BBC claimed that wealthy Jews are challenging taxation proposals to hang onto their mansions.” (Anger after claims that Ed Miliband is losing Jewish support, The Jewish Chronicle, 10th November 2014

Have you got that? Rich Jews give huge sums of money to both sides of British politics and expect nothing in return. Nothing at all. And they certainly don’t expect to influence policy on Israel. Anyone who says otherwise is an antisemite and will be denounced by Gideon Falter, a tireless Jewish activist. But what about the Labour MP John Mann? He was one of the horny-handed sons of toil who condemned Emily Thornberry’s sneering contempt for the White working-class:

Labour backbencher [junior MP] John Mann said the tweet was ‘embarrassing’ for Mr Miliband and the party, but he insisted the leader’s swift action was a ‘big moment’. On Ms Thornberry’s tweet, Mr Mann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘It was horrendous. It insults people like me, it insults the people I know — my friends and family — Labour voters across the country because white vans, England flags, they’re Labour values and actually pretty routine Labour values for most of us.’ (Labour MP is FIRED from Shadow Cabinet over ‘outrageously snobby’ tweet of terraced house flying three St George’s flags, The Daily Mail, 20th November 2014)

But how genuine is John Mann’s concern for the White working-class and “routine Labour values”? Not genuine at all, I would suggest:

ALEISA FISHMAN: British Member of Parliament John Mann describes himself as representative of the community he serves in Bassetlaw, England: white, secular, and primarily working class. Despite the fact that there is not a single Jewish person among his constituents — or perhaps because of that fact — Mann believes it absolutely proper that he serves as chair of the British Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism. Welcome to Voices on Antisemitism, a podcast series from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum made possible by generous support from the Oliver and Elizabeth Stanton Foundation. I’m your host, Aleisa Fishman. Every other week, we invite a guest to reflect about the many ways that antisemitism and hatred influence our world today. From London, here’s John Mann. JOHN MANN: The Jewish community is the canary in the cage [i.e., coal-mine] for all of us, because the racists will never just stop with abusing the Jews. Once they’ve abused the Jews, if they feel they can get away with that, they’ll move on to another section of society, and then another, and another. And history has repeatedly proven that, first the Jews then the rest. But whether it’s antisemitism or any other form of racism, it requires the majority to fight against it and not to leave it to the minority who are the ones who are on the receiving end of that racism. (John Mann — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 10th September 2009 [text re-arranged for clarity])

John Mann is just like Denis MacShane, the former MP for Rotherham: he pretends to care about the White working-class while actually working for a group that despises the White working-class. MacShane was committing fraud to fund his pro-Jewish work in Europe while Muslim rape-gangs were operating year after year in Rotherham, the district he represented. Mann, who like MacShane is not Jewish, gives interviews to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum while his White constituents in Bassetlaw are enriched in similar ways.

If he worked on behalf of Whites instead, he would be denounced by Jewish activists as a racist, not praised and rewarded by them: “In May 2009 John Mann received the American Jewish Committee’s Jan Karski Award in recognition of his commitment to fighting antisemitism in all of its forms.” Emily Thornberry is politically kosher in the same way. Her attitude to “White Van Man” reflects an age-old Jewish attitude to the peasants: they’re crude, they’re dangerous, they have to be fooled, manipulated and exploited, but never allowed any power. Thornberry achieved high office in Labour not despite of but because of her contempt for Labour’s traditional supporters. Her only mistake was to make that contempt obvious in public. That’s why Ed Miliband was so angry: he’s equally contemptuous, if not more so, given his impeccable credentials as scion (and here) of the Jewish left; but he needs working-class votes to win power. When Matthew Parris sneered at “Britain on crutches,” he proved that the Conservatives think the same way.

Unfortunately, UKIP aren’t the solution to the corrupt and anti-White mainstream parties, as I pointed out in Diseased Defectors. But UKIP are a sign that snow is “beginning to shift on the high slopes.” An avalanche is on its way and the political landscape in Britain will look very different when it has passed. Like the Democrats in America, the Labour elite is an unstable coalition of predators and parasites. The by-election in Rochester was caused by a Conservative MP defecting to UKIP, but its most important moment was the sight of a Marxist lawyer removing the Labour party’s mask. Emily Thornberry revealed Labour’s true contempt for its White working-class supporters. Her arrogance and stupidity may prove very helpful to the White cause. Perhaps we should all show our appreciation by sending her a box of chocolates.

Kosher ones, naturally.