Non-English folks maybe do not know the name Tony Blair. How could a ill-reputed English prime minister be of any importance in anyone life’s (while following the Queen of England drama is much more fun)? The reason is quite simple. The world we live in is the world shaped by Blairist Third way . More than anyone, Blair symbolized the first immigration floodgates opening, the multicultural society, weird economic austerity, but above all: incoherent politics set to favour the International rootless class and the xenoi against the white people.
The term Third Way is usually known in our circles as a synonym for Fascism or some form of anti-Left and anti-Right progressivism (in the Heideggerian sense), which it is without any doubt, both logically, historically and practically wise. It is important to know, however, that journalists today are mostly ignorant of everything outside their narrow world, and assume the word has never been used before. As they are the opinion makers of politicians, the term has been recycled in some occasion to indicate policies that are neither “old left” – read socialism- nor “right-wing”. This usage is of course wrong, as the term usually covers liberal policies, which were historically the first left, opposed at the time to reactionary though, and then to socialism. One very interesting 2000 paper highlights the main pseudos ideas of this “ideology” (which you can find another reference HERE):
The idea of a ‘third way’ is one of a number of attempts by Labour modernisers to find a synthetic term or language to capture New Labour politics. New Labour has been projected as the party of ‘one nation’ concerned with ‘the many not the few’, and as a government capable of undertaking a programme of modernisation to build a ‘new Britain’. Ideas of ‘stakeholding’ and ‘social exclusion’ and the emphasis placed on ‘community’ have also figured prominently. The idea of a third way is attractive to Labour modernisers because it appears to challenge conventional notions of a political Left and Right – and thus reinforces the ‘newness’ of New Labour. Speaking just a month after Labour’s landslide victory in 1997 to a meeting of the European Socialists’ Congress in Mälmo, Sweden, Blair said: “Our task today is not to fight old battles but to show that there is a third way, a way of marrying together an open, competitive and successful economy with a just, decent and humane society” (Blair 1997).
However, as we know, Blair didn’t make “inclusive Britain”, he just made Britain accept millions of wakandans and pakis that ruined the Britons. Even more, he helped the richest get even richer. A paper about the 10 years Blair tenures reads :
“… in 1997 the top 1 per cent of the British population owned 20 per cent of the wealth of the entire country, by 2006 this had risen to 21 per cent of a total value which had nearly doubled in size. […] In 2008, studies reveal that more than 13 million people in the UK (22% of the population) were living in households below this low-income threshold. The number of people living below the low-income threshold has increased steadily since 2004. The number of people on low incomes is still slightly lower than in the early 1990s but is much greater than in the early 1980s. Since 2004, the situation has deteriorated and, among EU countries, the UK has one of the highest proportions of its population in relative low income.”
No real economic change happened for white people and the richest just got richer. Meanwhile, the country got ruined, average wages fell. Yet the most important point of Blairite politics is not really his politics, which we know, but his absolutely incoherent discourse, which covered a very coherent anti-white and anti-workers.
Blair, all along his tenure, kept sending uncoherent messages, trying to catch every possible vote. This meant using buzzwords that would fire all kind of people, even outside its own electorate. For instance, he is the one who started using the term “patriotic”, which he tried to claim without success from the right. He is also the one who imported the American usage of feelings in politics, using terms such as generosity, unity, compassion. The heavy lift of the work was of course done by journalists, that started using meaningless sentences all around. For instance, in the above article, Blair is defined as : ” One result is that no one [like Blair] has managed to construct an idiom in which proper pride in country and culture can coexist with tolerance, generosity of spirit and unyielding opposition to jingoism in all its forms.”. The “opposition to jingoism” is particularly comical as we are talking about the man who participated actively (second only to the Americans), in the Kosovo anti-Serb War and the Afghani and Iraqi invasion. When Blair started his tenure, most journalists were actually in love with his totally incoherent politics, as it mirrored their own. When journalists – which in most cases unironically believe to be in the upper class – started feeling the effects of the policies they advocated in their everyday lives, the break up was sudden and extremely brutal.
Brits eventually got very tired of Blairism and has since awarded our worst enemies, the Conservatives, an almost uninterrupted 15 years reign. Blairism didn’t however die. Conservatards kept all its heritage, without changing anything at all. It even got exported, with Gerhard Schröder basically copied Blair and handed as well the government to Merkel. Merkel even copied Blair completely incoherent politics. Macron is nothing but a newer, gayer, less lizardy* Blair. Most people with an actual memory have grasped the similarity early on. Exactly like Blair, Macron keeps having extremely incoherent positions. On one side, for instance, he keeps the anti-nazi propaganda alive, and at the same time, he glorified in a few instances the president of then-occupied France, the Marshal of France Pétain. The image featured above collects all actual quotes from Macron. And yet, there are some people on the right in France that still defend Macron.
In general, trying to trust the Establishment is losing game. Please stop trying to lose in purpose.
* joking of course*