---

Socialists and communists, the political left, reject authentic, traditional values such as loyalty, masculinity and family, and replace them with inauthentic, ideological concepts like imaginary genders and transnational institutions.

The same pattern of inauthenticity is seen in left-wing leadership, where leaders like Andy Burnham, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are worshipped not for their individual qualities but for serving the Party’s quest for power.

Burnham’s rise to power is marked by fakeness. He has used a “working man” image and regionalism to connect with voters, while actually prioritising his personal ambitions in Westminster.  His inauthenticity is further demonstrated by the controlled, choreographed environment in which he gives his public speeches, Jupplandia writes.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

Andy Burnham’s Crowning Moments

By Jupplandia

Table of Contents

The Background (What They Hate And What They Love)

One way to explain what the political left (“Left”) is about is to look at the things they tell you have no meaning, and the things they tell you have massive meaning, and compare the two.

Look at all the things they tell you don’t matter or are wicked – loyalty to your own people, traditional masculinity, fatherhood, motherhood, love of your own country, the traditional Nation State, history, tradition, Christianity, family values.

They go through a checklist of all the things that provide real, rooted stability and identity, and one by one, they poison or destroy them.

Then look at all the things they say do matter – imaginary invented genders, newly imported migrants, modern transnational institutions, contemporary race-obsessed theories, other countries they have never visited, purely ideological creations.

Everything long-lasting, objectively real, proven and meaningful and inherited – what might be called the solid foundations of the world – is meaningless, arbitrary and easily dismissed. The more concrete and real it has been over centuries, the more solidly it has stood the test of time, the less real it is for them.

While the more recently imagined, invented and immaterial a thing is, the more rootless and meaningless it is, the more purely theoretical, delusional, or fictive it is, the more recently or artificially it popped into existence, the more that wisp of air is treated as a solid ground.

Whether it’s family, or faith, or nation, or masculinity, or femininity, or economics or anything you can think of, what we see from the Left is a determined rejection of what is tried, true, real and natural, and a substitution of what is untried, untrue, unreal and unnatural. The authentic is always replaced by an inauthentic mocking copy, a recent and far less worthy and beneficial substitute.

Instead of the nuclear family, you have a sort of freak loyalty ethos, where you are told that polyamorous sex covens will be held together purely by shared politics and large quantities of KY jelly. The family is replaced by gatherings of the morally or spiritually broken, by gangs or by activist cells, or by shadow-families which are smashed together arrangements of strangers. The binding between them is not one of blood, but theory and temporary convenience.

With faith, the old, established, Western religion is to be replaced by a hollow, cynical, sneering nihilism that considers itself sophisticated the more enervating and soulless it becomes, or by new fanaticisms built on nothing, or by (increasingly) the rival Islamic faith that has always been from its creation the most barbaric and worthless religion on Earth. A fake version of Christianity plays a significant part of this too, a version where compassion for those suffering abroad is used as cover for the cruelest betrayals of the innocent within the West, a Christianity where every traditional meaning and instruction is recast as modern progressive dogma and where Communists in robes insist that Jesus would have agreed with Hamas or that the primary lesson of the Bible is that people should take Pride in their sexual fetishes. Patriarchal Islam, transgenderism and LGBTQ+ sermons from the pulpit can all be embraced at once simply because they are mockeries of what Western faith once was and valued.

Masculinity? Labelled toxic, and replaced with “real men enjoy sharing their wives and cry about the fate of African asylum seekers.” Men are forced or encouraged to be as effeminate and weak as possible, to be submissive, to turn to deviant sexualities or to become hyper-emotional hysterics incapable of forming and protecting families and told that transferring all their remaining instincts of protection towards strangers, absurd causes, and the Party makes them righteous and good. We end up with an absurd formulation whereby real men, according to progressives, like migrants, the EU and pegging.

Femininity and womanhood? Robbed of its most natural and benign and beautiful purpose, told that the creation of life and the miracle of love is nothing but a bondage and a form of slavery, and that murdering your own pre-birth offspring in the least natural act of all is an inalienable right and the definition of freedom. Given a compensatory and entirely fake sisterhood, which again is usually simply a cover term for Party-directed conformity and piety surrounding a set of false and insane principles.

And of course, both are attacked simultaneously, the strength of men sapped and the beauty of women mocked, by the substitution of the transsexual and the transvestite for the male and the female, either authentic women replaced by screaming harridans of political hysteria or men pretending to be women and giving a grotesque performance of what femaleness is. What was sold to women as liberation meant a reduction in respect and consideration, not an increase in either, with the freedom to be a frequently discarded and soon discredited sexual toy taking the place of genuine shelter and sympathy within a loving marriage. And the end point of it all was that everything unique and meaningful and mysterious about women is now supposed to be something a man with an uncommon fetish can replicate and replace.

Even on economics, really, what you have is the natural, organic forms of exchange that work and enrich and develop the world, replaced with the more recent, artificial, purely ideological constructs that never work and always ultimately fail in the real world. You go from a theory that looks at how things actually operate to a theory that tells you how things should operate, and which then pretends that violence and force and coercion can make it so and perfect the imperfectible. For all capitalism’s faults, it delivers general prosperity and improvement, while aligning naturally with human nature and instinct. For all the idealistic promises of socialism and communism, they utterly ignore human nature and thereby deliver both economic and moral ruin.

On the nation state and nationalism, we see old organic connections spurned, real loyalties abandoned and people told that their loyalty is not to their kith and kin but to imported strangers as alien as possible and as unlike them as possible. The real nation is discarded and the transnational institution is preferred. The citizen is reduced in meaning and the non-citizen is the person the nation now serves.

Every time, we see something that works, replaced with something that doesn’t, something real and natural destroyed and something false and unnatural preferred.

But Isn’t This About Andy Burnham?

All this may seem a long way from Andy Burnham’s coronation march towards Number 10, but it’s actually part of the same general process whereby the authentic is switched for some inauthentic copy that means nothing.

The only difference is that when it comes to their leaders, there isn’t someone real to turn to, because anyone real would not be in a leading position within a progressive leftist party in the first place. Leadership. therefore, becomes the swapping of one synthetic fabrication for another, in the hope that the less familiar one is less soiled. That’s what happens when unpopularity and public revolt make a change of leader expedient. And since everything about progressive leftism (except the pursuit of power) functions on the shallowest surface level imaginable, any person “leading” the movement is simply a place-holding symbol, with no specific individual loyalty attached to them. They can be worshipped, but what’s being worshipped is the extent to which they serve the general quest for total power, and not anything genuinely personal to them.

American Parallels

To a great extent, we have already seen the leftist progressive combination of surface reading and total inauthenticity play out in the US before it has been so obviously aired in Britain.

Obama, for example, was worshipped for being black (again, inauthentic, since he was mixed race … it is always a substitute). His lounge singer smoothness really wasn’t as convincing as all that, and his folksy charm became exceedingly brittle whenever anyone bothered to directly challenge it. Yet to the Left, he was Cicero in speech, and Plato in thought, and Jesus in compassion, merely because he pretended it was so, and they were told it was so, and nobody else so effectively served and delivered the political power of Progressivism in its capture of America. ANY black or mixed race leader capable of forming a sentence and not hideous to look at could have been switched for Obama with the same effect and the same programmed devotional response.

The rapid switch from ‘Biden is sharp as a tack to Biden must go’ shows us, in a different way, how inauthentic all leftist leadership is and how power-driven all leftist commentary on which people are worthy is. Joe was a ‘Good Man of Perfect Clarity’, until he was an obvious electoral liability, and then he wasn’t. Since he served the Party by stepping aside, he regained the status that had just been taken from him, and became a living saint again (perhaps the patron saint of corrupt causes, or dementia). Instantly, he was again ‘A Good Man’. That Tim Walz was put forward as “a real man” and ‘Cackling Kamala’ was instantly the embodiment of hope is part of the same phenomenon.

The Left’s leaders really aren’t ever known as individuals by the Left (any more than anyone else is). They are place-holding shallow symbols representing positive abstracts (Hope, Change) or group identities whose “worth” is seen only so long as it serves the interests of the Party.

Now to Britain’s parallels, and Britain’s illustration of the inauthenticity of leftist leadership dramas.

From Kier to Andy

Kier Starmer is, of course, barely a human being. He’s a leftist progressive human rights robot. I fully suspect that when not operational in public, he gets switched off and stored in an understairs cupboard like a Dyson vacuum cleaner. Even the Left sensed his creepy roboticism, but since they themselves have ruthlessly suppressed genuine human awareness, they struggled to understand what it is that was wrong with Keir. Confused and, as always, unwilling to admit error, they settled on the compromise of “he’s a Good Man, but failed to connect with the public” (note that “connect.” It wasn’t human connection. It was more like plugging in the machine properly so the right message spits out).

Keir mirrors Biden. Sheer banal lack of imagination functions in a similar fashion to the memory fogs of dementia. Like Biden, Keir was given power he didn’t really earn. What Biden got by fraud, Starmer got by default. Like Biden, Starmer’s reign was cut short by an internal party coup when he became too publicly hated. “Fuck Joe Biden” and “Starmer is a Wanker” being shouted by crowds wherever they went are essentially regional variations of the same public realisation regarding fraudulent and malign leaders being foisted upon them. And like Biden, Starmer spent a lot of his period in power delivering a very rapid decline and an even more rapid slide into authoritarianism while claiming to be fighting extremism. Both lectured the majority of their population on how evil they are, both raged against the “Far Right.”

What of Burnham?

Well, if Burnham has a US comparator, then he is probably closer to Tim Walz than Kamala. But it’s the general inauthenticity that dominates. Burnham had a bit more warmth about him than Starmer, but not a lot. It’s the difference between a Cyberman from Dr. Who and an ingratiating and oleaginous vicar from a Jane Austin novel. There is a marvellous British character actor who has played such roles and other comic ones, a guy called David Bamber. In a British sitcom from the 1990s called ‘Chalk’, Bamber starred as an amoral, incompetent, energetic head teacher full of false positivity, trying and failing to disguise that he was something of a howling void. That is Andy Burnham with a heavy dose of fake Mancunian-Northern “working man” image thrown in.

If we look at Burnham’s Progress so far, every step along the way reeks of fakeness.

Burnham’s Progress

An aligned plotter stepped down to give Burnham his chance at becoming a Member of Parliament (“MP”) again. That means that MP lied to his constituents when he was elected and said he would serve them. The MP was actually serving a Labour Together plot. Burnham then ran for election in Makerfield, but the whole time his focus was on Westminster and Downing Street. He tells Makerfield they matter and he will serve them, but it’s purely a stepping stone, effectively abandoned as soon as he won (if anyone thinks Makerfield will be the putative PM’s focus from now on, they are mad). This, of course, has also betrayed Burnham’s claims when running for the post of Mayor of Manchester, which he casually discarded as soon as a route to Downing Street appeared.

Laughably, Burnham uses regionalism and “Manchester lad from your cobbled streets” bullsh*t as his selling point. In his big vision speech, he spoke about his casual attire as clothing “those Westminster types refer to as my Manchester clothes.” It was a truly pathetic explosion of fakeness. I can’t imagine any Labour MP sneering at jeans and sneakers as being “Manchester clothes.” It wasn’t as if Burnham was dressed like Liam from Oasis or like Shaun from the Happy Mondays. He was wearing what every 50-something male wears at the weekend. There was nothing specifically Manchester about the outfit he had on.

But think of it in the context of what he’d just done, why he was there, and what is authentic and what is fake.

He’s literally just dumped Manchester to run off to London where the real power is, like a guy who ditches his fat girlfriend when he’s got a chance at a swimwear model. He’s literally just told everyone that Westminster matters more to him, been helped by Westminster power players and a Westminster-based conspiracy, and been welcomed into London by an adoring crowd of Westminster MPs.

Manchester is a suit of clothes, an image, a front, not a real place he gives a sh*t about. The great regionalist drops everything when the chance comes to get back to London.

How did he conduct his Makerfield campaign? He avoided all questions and got flustered and nasty when a real journalist got into one of his events. Everyone he met was hand-picked to be there. So far as real enquiry went, he hid in his basement.

How did he handle his first big speech since becoming the Anointed One? A hand-picked audience, no debate, no questions allowed from the media, a completely controlled and choreographed location, and a lot of surface-only markers. The venue was symbolically chosen (the People’s History Museum in Manchester). All of it a cosplaying farce-rush to London, a creepily Pod People welcome from Labour MPs acting as if this nerdy figure is a rock star, a signing on as an MP with a puerile joke exchange as Burnham and a “heckler” exchange Month Python’s Life of Brian lines (possibly the greatest indicator ever given that none of these people have matured beyond the age of 14), then rush back to Manchester to pretend that he still cares.

All of it is fakery, all of it inauthentic. That speech? Waffle, platitudes, third-rate leftist boilerplate about hope and change. The only solid commitments so far are ones that will bankrupt the country (nationalisation moves) and ones that will speed up sectarianism and the break-up of the UK (more powers to Mayors). Even the leftism is essentially fake, it devours itself. A museum of the working class, curated by, delivered by and enjoyed by the middle class. A place to go and marvel at Michael Foot’s donkey jacket (a failure who achieved nothing, and who wasn’t working class), while the actual working class are excluded from the event.

This is what Labour thinks will save them, and us? This 56-year-old Cambridge graduate nerd with the comedy references of a 14-year-old and the kind of politics that sees ‘Michael Foot’s donkey jacket’ as important JG which has studiously avoided real people throughout an undemocratic and unopposed march to power?

About the Author

Jupplandia is a pseudonym for Daniel Jupp, a British author and political commentator.  He is a contributing editor at Country Squire magazine and the author of ‘A Gift for Treason: The Cultural Marxist Assault On Western Civilization’, ‘Gates of Hell: Why Bill Gates Is the Most Dangerous Man in the World’ and ‘F*ck the Planet: How to Resist the Great Reset in the Trump Era’.