On Saturday there was yet another Islamic terror attack on the United Kingdom. Another four British people were slaughtered and forty-eight wounded by Muslims on British shores. (Three Muslims were also killed by the police.)
How would Jeremy Corbyn, as Prime Minister, deal with these Islamic attacks?
Firstly, he'd import another one million or more Muslims from Syria and elsewhere. Secondly, he'd stamp down very heavily on “Islamophobia” (or “racism”) in order to make sure that more Islamic bombings and killings were likely to occur. He'd also increase the strength and jurisdiction of the socialists in British Gramscian/Alinskyite “institutions” to tackle Islamophobia and defend “innocent Muslims”. That's precisely what's happened up until now.
Yet Corbynites and Corbyn himself have cynically, opportunistically and hypocritically pretended that this increase in terror is a result of the “underfunding of the police”. How perverse is that? These are the very same people who see the police as an “arm of the capitalist state”. They also say that “Theresa May and the Tories have been weak on terrorism”. These are also the people who reacted very virulently when anyone did actually come down strongly on Islamic terrorism. You can't win.
Thus Corbynites boiling it all down to police funding - as well as Western interventions in the Muslim world - further infantilises Muslims and places the blame firmly on the shoulders of the Wicked West. In a classic Marxist analysis, Islam is made into a mere “epiphenomenon of capitalist material conditions”.
Indeed some Corbynites have called the last Islamic attack in Manchester a “false flag operation” carried by the Conservatives – or others – to help their election campaign. Then again, these socialists support Corbyn “by any means necessary”. That is, “the end” of electing Corbyn “justifies the means”. No wonder they support – or at least rationalise and justify – Islamic terrorism.
I'm not a futurologist. (As Corbyn's hero, Karl Marx, saw himself.) Nonetheless, I'm not alone in predicting the future. All politicians indulge in predicting the future. They can hardly afford not to. Corbyn himself has predicted (an unstated) utopia after his election. Corbyn, however, knows that it would be embarrassing to use the actual word “utopia”. Best to stick to the concept [utopia] or imply utopia instead. (Corbyn hasn't given a date for the completion of his socialist utopia.)
Thus all I'm doing (in the following) is what all politicians – and most laypersons – do. Nonetheless, I have a mountain of reasons for my predictions. Sure, these reasons themselves don't necessitate the future. Very few things can necessitate the future. David Hume - the great Scottish philosopher - said that it's logically (or philosophically) illegitimate to even predict that the sun would rise in the morning. Nonetheless, he also said that non-logically (or non-philosophically) it's very wise to expect the sun to rise.
So who needs logical necessities when we're talking Jeremy Corbyn's Marxist socialism? Despite that, I still can't say that I know that the things I'm about to adumbrate will happen. All I can say is that I believe that they'll happen. And, as I said, I have very many reasons for this.
Corbyn and British History
In the past there have been many times that British people have been distressed by the possibility of a particular politician becoming Prime Minister. For example, the British people even rejected Winston Churchill just after he'd helped us win a war. Just before Tony Blair's reign, people found the idea of yet another Conservative becoming PM (after 18 years of “Tory rule”) very disconcerting. (Hence Blair's victory.)
However, this is the first time that so many Brits have believed that were a particular politician to be elected, Great Britain would quite literally be destroyed. (Not, of course, overnight.) It's true that many British people were also virulently against Margaret Thatcher; although that wasn't the case before her election - unlike the case with Corbyn. After all, Thatcher at one point presided over three million unemployed; serious riots; and there was the massive miners' strike. Nevertheless, these were relatively local fluctuations (if large ones) within a general equilibrium. Not everyone suffered. Indeed many people prospered under Thatcher. It can even be argued - on account of her three election victories (in 1979, 1983 and 1987) - that very many Brits loved her (at least until 1987 onwards).
During Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan's (Labour Prime Ministers) reign there were many national and regional strikes. There was also the infamous 1978/9 Winter of Discontent. Unemployment was high under Callaghan too. In 1979, unemployment and inflation were higher than under Edward Heath.
You need to go back to the 1960s or even the 1950s to see an almost-perfect (if relative) equilibrium in British politics.
The case of Jeremy Corbyn is very different.
Many believe that this man will literally destroy Britain. This won't be a case of local disequilibriums such as strikes, high rates of employment, inflation, small-scale riots (in particular areas), etc. This will be catastrophic. These words may appear to be an example of end-times stuff. (Indeed end-times stuff of the very kind, in fact, that's preached by many Corbynites and socialists.) Yet we should bear in mind the fact that every socialist regime in the 20th and 21st centuries has either failed or become an outright dictatorship.
(Note: No Labour leader in the past presided over a socialist state/country; and Scandinavian countries are “social democracies”, not socialist states.)
So why the catastrophising?
Other than the historic failures of all the previous socialist regimes, there are very many reasons for being a catastrophist when it comes to Corbyn's socialist rule.
Take Corbyn's position on immigration and “open borders”.
Corbyn is an InterNational Socialist. This means that in order to remain faithful to his own ideology of internationalism, he'll need to allow literal open borders. That would mean, at a guess, that within the first few years of his rule another two million or more immigrants will be allowed in. Most of them would probably be Muslims from Syria and other Muslim countries. Many of them will “hate the West” and use this socialist-given opportunity to destabilise the United Kingdom – as many Marxist socialists have been doing throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Not only that: the legions of Leftist leaders and activists will have been given more power by Corbyn to cease all verbal and political action against home-grown Islamic terrorists.
Alongside all that, Corbyn and his Red Guards will stamp down even more heavily on right-wing views and “Islamophobia”. The worse the Islamic violence becomes, the more the Left will silence commentary on that violence. And then that violence and chaos will inevitably increase. As that happens, Corbyn will need to strengthen state-socialist power; which he'll need do for many other reasons too.
There already is rampant political correctness in British society. That will increase under Corbyn. How? By imprisoning more political dissidents – members of UKip, the EDL, Britain First, and even some Tories.
The Leftist “no platform” policy is already uncontrolled in our universities and other public arenas. People are banned, stopped from speaking, professors are sacked, etc. What will Corbyn do to strengthen and widen this Leftist no-platform politics? It's hard to say; though I suspect that he'll use it to clamp down even more on the inevitable criticisms of immigration and Islam. Indeed he may even use it to clamp down on the criticisms of himself and his state-socialism.
What will the Conservative Party be doing during this downturn in the state of the nation? Tory commentators and journalists will, as ever, carry on electioneering and writing articles in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph. What will that achieve under Corbyn?
Why do I think these extreme and terrible things about Corbyn?
For a start, this man is no shrinking violet or pacifist.
Corbyn supported and cheered the Soviet Union, Castro, Mao's China, the sadist Che Guevara, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Hamas, Hezbollah, and so on. All these states and people were committed to violence and oppression. All these states and people also put socialism or Islam before lives and political freedom. Many have had to suffer and die for “social[ist] justice” and “equality”. Many dissidents have have to be imprisoned for questioning the “people's will”.
Corbyn has also befriended, supported and worked on behalf of the IRA at meetings, demos and “celebrations”. These “men of violence” (many were Marxist socialists like Corbyn) committed their violent acts for what they saw as a noble cause; as socialists have always done.
Corbyn will bring about more terror. He'll increase his support for Iran and other Muslim states. He'll make the army impotent; though he may need it to protect his socialist state. He'll also take more control of the police and impose more socialist values upon it. The police will then become a servant of Corbyn's socialism; as it's already a servant of political correctness.
Now all that is not a happy prospect.
1 Corbyn has promised everything to almost everybody. He'll need tens of billions of pounds to do this. Taxing the rich into the ground won't solve all his financial problems or help create his socialist utopia. Thus the economy will fail. The state will then take control of more private industries and the economy will worsen yet more. Unemployment will rise and poverty will increase. The right-wing will react more militantly to all this; to which Corbyn will again increase socialist-state power...