Bend It Like Bennett: Genuflecting to Jewish Power
The gang of four are down to two. I want to look at one of the two survivors: the playwright
Alan Bennett
(born 1934). In the 1960s, with Peter Cook, Dudley Moore and Jonathan
Miller, he enjoyed enormous success with the satirical show
Beyond the Fringe
on both sides of the Atlantic. One of their targets was the stale pale
male Britain of their childhoods. Here’s an entry from Bennett’s diary
in 1982:
7 September. Douglas Bader dies. I used to imitate him in Beyond the Fringe
as part of the Aftermyth of War sketch, coming downstairs with a pipe
and exaggeratedly straight legs (though I never quite dared make them as
stiff as they should have been). One night I was hissed and was very
pleased with myself. (Writing Home, Faber & Faber, 1994)
Douglas Bader
was a fighter-pilot who lost both legs in a flying accident before
World War II. Wearing artificial legs, he became a hero during the war
and then a fixture of the British establishment. He was a symbol of
courage, perseverance against the odds and bluff, stoical manhood. But
it did Bennett no harm to mock him. Quite the reverse. The success of
Beyond the Fringe
was a sure sign of shifting power: a new liberal establishment was
taking over. It now rules cultural life in Britain, and Bennett is one
of its fixtures.
Liberal icon Alan Bennett
This is an irony that he has never explored in his writing. Probably
he doesn’t even recognize it. Like Woody Allen in America, Bennett
carefully cultivates an image of himself as a gauche, neurotic outsider.
In both cases, the image is highly misleading. The enormous success of
Bennett and Allen demonstrates this paradox: in the modern West,
outsiders are insiders. The key to the paradox is Jewish power and its
hostility to the majority. By identifying himself as an outsider,
Bennett signals to
powerful Jews in the media that he will not defend the majority. He practises oligolatry, or the worship of minorities I discussed in “
Power and Perversion.”
Advertisement
But piety about minorities is useless to an ambitious playwright if
it is not well-publicized. Every year, Bennett publishes extracts from
his diaries in the highly liberal
London Review of Books (
LRB), which is the British equivalent of the
New York Review of Books. Bennett’s direct and uncomplicated prose is refreshing amid the usual posturing gasbags who write for the
LRB,
but that’s part of his shtick: he’s playing the down-to-earth
Yorkshireman. He’s also playing the decent and caring liberal. Here’s an
entry from his diary in 1980:
6 March, London. I come through Heathrow
[airport] and in the queue parallel to mine an Indian family is held up
at Immigration, the father thin, dark, with burning eyes, being
questioned by a woman so stone-faced she could be at the East German
border rather than at Heathrow. There are several sons, looking languid
and beautiful, and the mother with a small child in her arms. (Writing Home, 1994)
You see? Bennett is on the side of oppressed minorities. He thinks
that immigration control has a nasty whiff of totalitarianism. And his
comments on the languid beauty of the sons are another signal to his
liberal readership. Bennett is homosexual, but not in the mould of a
conservative writer like H.H. Munro (1870–1916), who wrote under the
pen-name of Saki. Munro identified with the White British majority, not
with the Jewish minority here. He criticized Jewish power in stories
like “
The Unrest Cure” and “
A Touch of Realism,” which joke about antisemitism rather than deplore it. He even described the British Empire as a “suburb of Jerusalem” in “
Reginald at the Theatre.” Bennett, by complete contrast, wants Jews to know that he feels their pain. Here’s a diary entry in 1984:
16 April, Yorkshire. A bank clerk counts me out
some notes and scarcely pausing in his counting, puts aside the more
dog-eared ones as he does so. With about as much thought, and for
exactly the same reason (the practical use of this object is almost
over), the SS officer on the platform at Auschwitz separated out the
sick for immediate extermination. (Op. cit.)
Is Bennett Holocaust-aware? You bet he is. He does not criticize
Jewish power or even acknowledge its existence. Instead, he mourns for
Jewish victimhood. He was at it again in 1999:
28 January. I switch on the Antiques Roadshow
[a programme in which members of the public bring antiques for free
valuation] where someone is showing the expert a drawing by E.H.
Shepard, the illustrator of Winnie the Pooh. It’s a cartoon or
an illustration dated 1942, entitled ‘Gobbling Market’ and meant as a
satire on black marketeers. It was for [the humorous magazine] Punch but it could have easily have been for [the Nazi propaganda newspaper] Der Stürmer,
as all the black marketeers are strongly Semitic in features, some as
demonic as the worst Nazi propaganda. The expert makes no reference to
this, except to say: ‘It’s very strong.’ When the owner bought the
drawing he’d had the chance of getting a Winnie the Pooh cartoon instead: that would have appreciated in value a great deal but ‘Gobbling Market’ not at all, which is encouraging. (Untold Stories, Faber & Faber, 2005 — “Gobbling Market” is a pun on Christina Rossetti’s poem “Goblin Market”)
“Gobbling Market” (1942): based on reality?
Again, Bennett is almost parodically pro-Jewish. His comments are a perfect example of “
Point-and-splutter,”
in which no attempt is made to refute a claim about reality. Instead,
the claim is held up as self-evidently wicked, with its truth or
falsehood dismissed as irrelevant. But was Shepard right to suggest that
black marketeers were predominantly Jewish? Bennett writes as though
the question cannot even be considered: under oligolatry, minorities are
exemplars of virtue, never of vice.
In his diaries and elsewhere, Bennett’s constant message is that he
is not on the majority’s side. He has genuflected to Jewish power
throughout his career, advertising his pro-Jewish, pro-minority piety in
venues like the
London Review of Books. And he’s been
well-rewarded for it. He’s now a very rich man by the standards of his
working-class boyhood in the Yorkshire city of Leeds. Unlike many Whites
of his generation, he can easily afford an encounter with vibrancy like
this:
Alan Bennett: how I was conned out of £1,500
Alan Bennett has described for the first time how he was targeted by
pickpockets who conned him out of £1,500. The celebrated playwright
described how he had just withdrawn the money from the bank when two
women approached him, supposedly to help him clean ice cream which had
been spilt down the back of his coat. But far from being the thoughtful
action of a pair of kindly strangers, the offer of help was an act
designed to give the thieves the opportunity to remove the money from
Bennett’s coat pocket.
Bennett said he had just withdrawn the money to pay his builders and
walked into Marks & Spencer when the two women … tried to help him
wipe the ice cream off his coat. … “The ice cream (coffee-flavoured)
seems to have got everywhere and they keep finding fresh smears of it so
that I take my jacket off too to clean it up. No more being found, I
put my jacket on again, thanking the women profusely, though they brush
off my gratitude and abruptly disappear. I go back to the car, thinking
how good it is that there are still people who, though total strangers,
can be so selflessly helpful, and it’s only when I’m about to get into
the car that I remember the money, look in my inside pocket to find, of
course, that the envelope has gone.”
After reporting the loss to the police Bennett was told the
pickpockets were most likely Romanian and that the con is common enough
to have been given the name “Mustard Squirter”.
It was thought he was spotted at the bank and followed into the shop.
Bennett recognised they were “very good at their job” but said: “Quite
hard to bear is that I have to go back to the bank to draw out another
£1,500 or the builders will go unpaid.” He added: “The casualty, though,
is trust, so that I am now less ready to believe in the kindness of
strangers.” (Alan Bennett: how I was conned out of £1,500, The Daily Telegraph, 13rd December 2010)
By “Romanian” the police almost certainly meant “gypsies.” After a
lifetime extolling the virtue of oppressed minorities, Bennett
discovered in 2010 that they’re fully capable of vice too. Indeed, of
predation. Thanks to mass immigration, millions of British Whites have
suffered crimes by people who would never have been here if Britain were
a genuine democracy. It isn’t: as Gerald Warner
pointed out at
Breitbart,
“in 1968 the political class abandoned representation of the majority”
that opposed mass immigration, and “identified itself exclusively with
the elitist 11 per cent minority” that supported it.
Bennett has always been part of the elitist minority. In 2010, like Tony Blair’s
daughter Kathryn
in 2013, he discovered that elitism does not guarantee immunity.
Luckily for him, his encounter with vibrancy wasn’t violent, but some
old people don’t long survive non-violent robberies. The shock and upset
can prove fatal, particularly if the lost money is irreplaceable.
Bennett is rich and can easily afford the loss, so he identifies the
“casualty” as “trust,” because he is “now less ready to believe in the
kindness of strangers.”
But why should gypsies be “kind” to a non-gypsy like Bennett? He suffers from the typical liberal delusion that his own
narcissistic individualism is somehow natural to human beings. After all, there’s only one race:
the Human Race. We’re all the same under the skin. Except that we aren’t. Gypsies are an in-bred, collectivist group (see
here,
p. ixff) who see an elderly White Briton like Bennett as prey, not as a
fellow human being who is owed respect and consideration. Similar
in-breeding and collectivism are at work in Bennett’s home county of
Yorkshire, where
large networks of Pakistani Muslims have preyed on White schoolgirls for decades.
As an out-bred, individualist group, the White British have tended to
rely on public institutions like the police to protect them from crime.
In cities like
Rotherham and
Oxford,
the police have betrayed them, corrupted by the same pro-minority
liberalism displayed by Alan Bennett. Homosexuals like Bennett are not
automatically indifferent to the majority and its welfare, but
narcissism and indifference do seem to come more easily to them. Bennett
has no children and no stake in the future. His interests have always
centred on himself and on the historical Britain that created him but
which he sees through a lens of opportunistic hostility and resentment.
The future survival of Britain plainly doesn’t concern him. He is
rich enough to insulate himself from non-White immigration and he
divides his time between a big house in London and a big house in
Yorkshire, with frequent trips to hotels and big houses elsewhere. He is
not interested in the welfare of White schoolgirls in Yorkshire. He
didn’t go to school with girls there and he didn’t have any sexual
interest in them.
We are all familiar with the idea that many Whites suffer from
pathological altruism,
but there are other pathologies as well. A great many of our
politicians are quite the opposite of pathological altruists. They are
sociopaths who care for nothing but their own career —
Bill Clinton and
Tony Blair
come to mind. And closely related, if not identical, is the pathology
of narcissistic self-absorption exemplified by Alan Bennett.
While caring not at all for the exploited girls of Rotherham, his
boys-only grammar school in Leeds has continued to inspire his work. He
wrote a play called
The History Boys
(2004) based on his experiences there, which was turned into a film in
2006. This is how Bennett’s work came to the attention of the
Jewish-American commentator
Larry Auster, who described the film thus:
The History Boys and Britain’s path to national suicide
If you don’t believe that the British elites despise their country,
their culture, their history, and secretly or openly wish to have done
with it all, see The History Boys. Not that I’m recommending
it. It is an unpleasant experience, among other things the most explicit
attempt by a movie to normalize homosexuality that I’ve seen. And the
homosexuality it normalizes is far from the “nice,” “wholesome”
homosexuality — presented as a model of moral uprightness and
psychological health in comparison with the desperate neuroses of the
heterosexual main characters —that has been the standard, pro-gay fare
of Hollywood over the last decade or so. It is a homosexuality that is
by turns depressing and nasty, even evil. Yet the movie approves of all
of it, as do all the characters. Even the ostensible subject of the film
— how eight boys in an undistinguished high school in northern England
receive special preparation for their entrance exams to Oxford and
Cambridge — is imbued with a homosexualist ethos, turning intellectual
life and the experience of learning into either a hollow cynical game or
a vampy theatrical exercise. As I said, by the time the movie ended,
the realization hit me that the British elites that created a movie like
this, that praised and recommended a movie like this, seek with cold
and deliberate malice the destruction of their country. (The History Boys and Britain’s path to national suicide, View from the Right, 2nd December 2006)
I haven’t seen the film, but I trust what Larry Auster says about it.
Bennett may not consciously seek the destruction of Britain, but he is a
willing tool of those who do. Mass immigration and minority worship
will also destroy the audience for his own work, but why should he care
about what happens after he is dead? When he visited Leeds Grammar
School in the 1980s, he found that “the only encouraging feature was the
number of clever Asian boys, who obviously now rival the Jewish boys as
the intellectual elite” (
Untold Stories, diary for 14 April
1998). Bennett has no attachment to his own race, whose history and
culture he is happy to benefit from and be inspired by, but not to
defend and preserve. For all his carefully cultivated image of
diffidence and shyness, Bennett is in fact a typical liberal: he’s an
intensely self-centred and egotistical man.
His interest in schoolboys is one sign of that, but so is his
interest in old women, about whom he has written sympathetic plays like
Talking Heads (1987) and
The Lady in the Van
(1999). Despite his sympathy, Bennett is again writing about his own
life: his experiences with his mother and aunts in northern England and
with the eccentric bag-lady who camped in the garden of his large house
in London. He observes and writes about the loneliness and mental
illness old women often suffer. That’s why so many old women are
dedicated fans of his. His sympathy may well be genuine, but, like his
Holocaust-awareness, it’s also good for his career.
What would not be good for his career would be a play about how old
women have suffered from mass immigration. How many thousands have
experienced vibrant crime as Bennett himself did? How many have died or
had their lives destroyed as a result? That’s not a subject that
powerful media Jews would find acceptable, because it’s about majority
suffering and minority crime. And while Bennett was happy to write about
paederasty in
The History Boys, he will never explore the exotic sexual behaviour found in this case:
Delroy Easton Grant is a convicted
rapist accused of carrying out a series of offences of burglary, rape
and sexual assault dating between October 1992 and May 2009 in the South
East London area of England. Grant, also known as the Minstead Rapist
and latterly the Night Stalker, is thought to have been active since
1990, and had a distinctive modus operandi, preying on elderly women who
lived alone. He is suspected of over 100 offences from 1990 to the
present. In 1998, the Metropolitan Police launched the dedicated
Operation Minstead team to investigate the crimes, based out of Lewisham
police station. … As of 2009, the operation was the largest and most
complex rape investigation ever undertaken by the Metropolitan Police.
On 24 March 2011, the Jamaican-born Grant, a Jehovah’s Witness and
father of eight from Brockley who was a carer for his disabled wife, was
found guilty on all counts. The following day he was given four life
sentences and ordered to serve a minimum of 27 years in prison. (Delroy Easton Grant, Wikipedia)
Raping elderly Whites: Delroy Grant
The Minstead Rapist would be a fascinating subject for a play, but if
Alan Bennett ever noticed the case, he almost certainly forgot about it
soon afterwards. The vast majority of White Britons will be in the same
position. Like the brutal murders of the White schoolchildren
Kriss Donald,
Charlene Downes and
Mary-Ann Leneghan, the mass rape of elderly White women is a story that appears briefly in the headlines and then vanishes. Unlike the murder of
Stephen Lawrence,
it isn’t kept in the public consciousness and no respectable mainstream
writer seeks to explore the implications of anti-White crime.
Instead, mainstream writers bend it like Bennett: they genuflect to
Jewish power, kneeling at the altar of oligolatry, worshipping Britain’s
vibrant minorities and disdaining Britain’s White majority. That’s
certainly the route to personal success, but the consequences for
Britain’s future are disastrous. When Alan Bennett was robbed by
Romanian gypsies, he had a chance to see the truth about his own liberal
narcissism. As one would expect, he didn’t take it. He’s central to the
liberal establishment, and he doesn’t care about the future of Britain
as a White nation.
But what rose to power will also fall. In the 1960s, Bennett
represented liberalism, the wave of the future. Today that wave is
receding. The interesting question is what will replace it.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/bend-it-like-bennett-genuflecting-to-jewish-power/
