I am often to be found ranting about the lack of education (in the real sense), culture or plain commonsense in the connected worlds of politics, journalism and law, as well as at the steep decline in quality in those areas and generally. Thus it was with a cynical sneer that I read the statements made by Cabinet ministers (!) this past week and in other recent weeks. Take a look at this piece from The Guardian (a pro-Remain article, but leave that aside).
“I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.” [Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab];
“My wife would say [my Lego collection is] far too large, but I find Lego therapeutic … Everybody who does any difficult or stressful job needs a way to switch off. We all have different ways. Mine is Lego.” [Culture Secretary (!), Jeremy Wright];
“I freely admit that when I started this job, I didn’t understand some of the deep-seated and deep-rooted issues that there are in Northern Ireland. I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland, people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa.” (!)[Karen Bradley, Northern Ireland Secretary].
There are hundreds of other examples from the last 8 years of total incompetence. Iain Dunce Duncan Smith alone contributed dozens, though his metier is more in complete executive incompetence mixed with graft and outright fraud. He may never have been promoted beyond Lieutenant in the Guards, but he did manage to learn the Guards officers’ knack of sounding authoritative despite complete ignorance and despite being as thick as two short planks.
One of the more honest (perhaps— some disagree) of recent Conservative Party MPs, Johnny Mercer, not long ago called the Theresa May government-of-fools “a shitshow”! Blunt Army language, but can anyone now disagree?…
Things are really coming to a head now with this sorry excuse for a government. Either Brexit is going to be in name only, or it will happen but under conditions of chaotic incompetence, thanks to this government’s inability to do its job.
It really does say something about the Theresa May government that until his self-interested resignation recently, the “great intellectual” in it was supposed to be Boris Johnson, who has not once been able to do competently any one of the jobs given to him by reason of his privileged background. This is a man whose idea of appearing intelligent and cultured is (or was, until people generally started to laugh openly at it) quoting bits of rote-learned Latin and Greek and dog-whistling classical-history soundbites. The amazing thing is that, until very recently, Johnson’s self-publicized image as “Prime Minister in Waiting” was actually taken seriously by the msm and so the masses. Indeed, few were willing to point out that Johnson was a walking self-parody, with his classical crammer-college allusions and his pathetic am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, right down to the gruff comments and slight stoop. He even copied Churchill’s gait sometimes!
Well, thank God for small mercies: it now seems that even Boris Johnson himself has now accepted that he will never be Conservative Party leader and so will never be PM either. Only about 20 or 30 MPs would back him and so he would not be in the top two places. About 5th-ranked, probably.
Most MPs can scarcely be called mediocre, let alone competent. That applies equally to Labour, but this Government stands or falls on its own record. Labour has every chance of being largest party in the Commons quite soon, perhaps by some date in 2019.
The situation now seems to be that the Brexit-in-name-only scenario may not pass the Commons. The Democratic Unionists [DUP] will not accept Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of the UK, and if forced to that will simply oppose the Government (or abstain) on all other legislation. Collapse of Government not long after.
Alternatively, if a real no-deal Brexit happens, unprepared for and resulting, in the words of Johnny Mercer MP, in “a shitshow” economically, then a situation of both economic and social turmoil might be brought about within months.
Social nationalism can only prosper from now on.
Update, 20 June 2019
Well, on rereading this for the first time since writing it, and because I noticed that it had had a few hits recently, I have to admit that I underestimated the level of stupidity of the Conservative Party MPs and membership. The exceptional (crazy) Westminster politics of the hour have brought about a crazy result (probably): Boris Johnson now looks quite likely to become Conservative leader and so, by default, Prime Minister next month.
Update, 3 December 2023
In the words of Macmillan, “Events, dear boy”… Events and “Conservative” MPs conspired to get “Boris” Johnson elected (by Con Party members) as Con Party leader, and so Prime Minister. As we now know, he then won the 2019 General Election and, on resignation in 2022, was replaced by absurd and vacant “ho”, Liz Truss, who in turn was replaced after about 6-7 weeks by Indian money-juggler Rishi Sunak.
Despite having underestimated Johnson’s chances of becoming Prime Minister, I think that the original blog post stands up quite well.
As to the others mentioned in that original post, half-Jew bully Dominic Raab is standing down as MP in 2024, after being found guilty of bullying civil servants, and after 13-14 years as MP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Raab.
Jeremy Wright was sacked (by Johnson) after only a year in post as Culture Secretary, but is still an MP and fairly likely to remain one unless the swing to Labour in 2024 is huge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Wright.
Karen Bradley was dismissed from Cabinet in 2019 but remains an MP and, like Wright, has a notionally very safe seat.
First of all, semblance. The msm have been attacking Labour and especially Corbyn-Labour ever since his election as Labour leader. Corbyn himself is said to be “a friend of terrorists” (from the IRA to HAMAS and Black September), a paid tool of Iran, as well as (not very crypto-) Communist and “anti-Semite”. In fact, the attacks on Corbyn have come, ultimately, from only one source, the UK Jewish-Zionist lobby. You see it on Twitter. Pretty much all of the Zionist Jews on Twitter say the same things or raise a little storm at the same time. Like a shoal of fish.
The Jewish-Zionist lobby controls the anti-Corbyn MPs in Labour. Slowly, they are being removed or are resigning. John Woodcock has resigned from Labour (though not as MP! He wants to keep getting his pay and very inflated expenses for as long as possible!); Michael Dugher resigned as MP too (and was found a suitably-lucrative job outside politics…); Simon Danczuk (like Woodcock) was mired in sex scandal –apart from anything else– and tried to get re-elected as Independent, only to be humiliated; Luciana Berger tried to get a better-paid job as Mayor of Liverpool, but failed. Others are jumping ship or being shunted toward deselection.
So there we have the semblance: the manufactured storms in the msm about “anti-Semitism” and the other stormlets re. Corbyn as IRA collaborator in the 1970s or 1980s. These mean something to an older generation, perhaps, and of course the “anti-Semite” label means something to the approximately quarter of a million Jews in the UK (hardly any of whom vote Labour now anyway).
However, the anti-Corbyn propaganda is not reaching most people under 40 and, still less, those under 30. They are mostly not much interested by the fact that Jews and/or pro-Israel persons hate Corbyn; as for the “Corbyn was pro-IRA” stuff, even if there is some truth in it, that was mostly about 40 years ago, before they were even born. The under 40s are likely to vote on the basis of reality, meaning their reality.
What do I mean by “reality”? One person’s reality is another person’s “unimportant detail” or “cloud cuckoo land”. That is what most of the msm and the “Remain” whiners failed to understand about the pro-Brexit Leave vote in the EU Referendum: for an affluent family in London or the Home Counties, what mattered was (the perception) that the UK’s economy might be depressed by Brexit, that their daughter might be prevented from taking up that unpaid intern position at a Milan fashion house, that their son might not be able to get a lucrative job as a lawyer or accountant with a transnational enterprise in Brussels, Berlin or wherever; that their holiday home in Provence might lose value; that they might not get cheap Eastern European labour to help in the house or garden; that it might take longer to drive off the ferry during holidays etc.
On the other side, a man in the North of England was asked during the Referendum campaign whether he was worried that UK GDP might suffer if the UK exited the EU. His reply: “not really, it’s only me and the dog anyway…”! Easy to scoff, but that was his reality and arguably as “real” as the paper figures for economic performance are to the staff of the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme. What matters to the soldier in the battle? That the battle was won (or lost), or that he lost his life?
Reality for huge numbers of people (potential voters) in the UK means incredibly expensive and often now basically unaffordable housing (whether rented or bought), expensive and overcrowded transport and roads, an NHS which has declined perceptibly for many years, poor pay, fewer real civil rights, a largely-destroyed social security system, a continuing migration-invasion (though perception re. that is blunted because of the huge, pervasive race-mixing propaganda everywhere, eg in TV ads).
Now when those voters vote, most are going to vote on the basis of that reality, not on the basis that Jews (who are in any case not much liked or trusted, on the whole, by most British people) dislike Corbyn or his supporters, or because Corbyn’s connections with the IRA in the 1970s were very doubtful.
The above musings explain why I think that Labour’s vote is likely to be higher than most commentators in the msm expect. In their reality, what matters is whether Labour is “anti-Semitic”, or anti-EU, or anti the (supposedly) free market, or whether “the economy” might be damaged by Brexit or by a Labour government. Those commentators inevitably think as conditioned by their own circumstances and peer group. They make £100,000 or even (in some cases) £500,000+ a year, and certainly not less than £50,000, whereas the “average” (not median) salary in the UK is only around £28,000 and many many people (either employed or not) are actually surviving on as little as half of that.
The msm commentators own their own homes, often outright; they do not have to spend a third or even half their income on rent; au contraire! Many are actually buy to let parasites themselves! They do not have to live in shared houses, or on decaying council estates.
I am willing to accept that about 25% of the voters will vote Conservative at the next general election whatever the defaults of the governments since 2010, either out of self-interest or because of an ingrained dislike of Labour (or because they see a photo of Diane Abbott on Election Day!). That percentage might even be 35%. The other 65% to 75% is in the hazard. Everything depends, in the crazy UK First Past The Post electoral system, on what happens in the 50-150 more marginal constituencies. In our electoral system, a party needs a concentration of support, a Schwerpunkt. Thus it is that the Green Party, which has about 2% support, has an MP (in Brighton…) yet UKIP, which had a nearly 12% overall vote in 2015, has no MPs.
Though no psephologist, I should say that Labour has every chance of becoming the largest party in the House of Commons after the next general election, even if falling short of a majority. Because voters will vote on their reality, not on newspaper semblance.
Final thoughts
Thinking about blocs of support, Labour has, in broad brush terms, the under-40s, maybe even the under-50s; also the ethnic minorities (except Jews); also almost anyone earning the average salary or less. I cannot see the Conservative Party winning a Commons majority.
Update, 11 December 2020
Looking at the above article more than two years after it was written, my conclusion was wrong even though my reasoning was correct. Ironic.
I underestimated the suggestive power of the mass media and overestimated the common sense of the average voter.
Having said that, only a small number of 2017 Labour Party voters moved to be Conservative Party voters in 2019. The Conservatives increased their vote over that of 2017 by only about 1 point, but Labour’s vote declined by 8 points, and nearly half of that was 2017 Labour voters refusing to vote at all in 2019.
Many reading this may ask how Europe is going to be in chaos soon. After all, for all its problems, Europe is still one of the best places in the world to live, which is precisely why so many non-Europeans are invading the continent as immigrants of various sorts, so how could it soon be in chaos?
One factor is that very migration-invasion, though it alone, on the scale so far seen, is not quite enough to tip Europe as a whole into chaos. Likewise, the “invasion by birth” to the non-Europeans presently resident in Europe, though it is starting to have a very negative effect on societies across Europe, is a slow and gradual degradation of the racial stock and society, and not something that has an immediate determinative effect.
Another factor is that of social or societal breakdown, the result of alcohol and drug abuse, crime and the loosening bonds of traditional or institutional morality. Again, this does not have an immediate effect on the large scale, but weakens the society gradually. Thus we see, for example, that the wish of individuals to (in the American phrase) “pursue happiness”, or to not be “offended” (even when offence is actually and actively sought in a kind of masochistic game) now often trumps the needs of the society as a whole.
Marriage as an institution (eg in the UK) has been weakened by various “reforms” over the past few decades: the equivalence given to “civil partnership”; the creation of the “gay marriage” which now has exactly the same rights (in the UK) as actual, real or traditional marriage; the financial impossibility for most (heterosexual) married couples to decide that the mother of children should actually look after those children full-time.
Again, freedom of expression on social, political, historical and religious topics, a key pillar of the modern “Western” (racially and culturally European) tradition, is being weakened. Speaking in very general terms, Jews (certainly Zionist Jews) want to prevent free speech where it examines the “holocaust” fakery etc, or where it criticizes the (increasing) Jewish stranglehold over the mass media, publishing, System politics, the financial sector, the legal professions. The Muslims, though less active in repressing free speech than the Jews, wish to prevent criticism of Islam. A multitude of “doormats” in Parliament, the police, central and local government work away trying to repress free speech in the ostensible interest of a “community cohesion” which now scarcely exists.
All of the above are factors to be taken into account, alongside financial and/or economic collapse (which even the mainstream media are now reporting on as a serious short-to medium term likelihood). However, the primary key factor in any general collapse of society in Europe in the near future is likely to be a major war. We have seen an acceleration of rhetoric against Russia by the System political parties and msm in recent years. Any major war in Europe will be between NATO (in reality the New World Order conspiracy or NWO) and Russia.
Russia has been for several years improving its armed forces and still has huge numbers of personnel which it can place in the field. It is no longer weak. Many commentators note the economic weakness of Russia, but that did not stop Stalin from conquering half of Europe. As to who would “want” a war (the other argument often heard), who “wanted” a war in 1914, a war which started or at least was triggered because an Austrian archduke was shot by a semi-literate anarchist youth in one of the least civilized parts of Europe? For that matter, despite the build-up of tension in the 1930s, war was by no means “inevitable” in 1939. It could have happened in 1938, in 1936, or even in 1934. The worthless “guarantees” extended to Poland by Britain and France primed the gunpowder, but it was the decision by, fundamentally, the British Government (ruled largely by Jews and freemasons) that lit the fuse. War did not have to happen between the German Reich and Britain in 1939. It did happen, though, nicht wahr?
We have become used to the idea that nuclear weapons will never be used, certainly not in Europe. A major conflict in Europe, once triggered, will see everything being used in the end, even if the start of that conflict is conventional. Every UK and US staff college modelling exercise that tried to think about what another major war would be like ended up with the use of conventional forces at first, followed by “tactical” and finally “strategic” nuclear weapons.
What Could Europe Look Like After a Major War?
That depends on how long any conflict lasts, on whether indeed nuclear weapons are used (and on what scale), and on how the war goes. The Chinese position would be crucial, both in terms of the war and in terms of whatever follows the war. Would China wait until NATO –meaning mainly the USA– is devastated, and until Russia too is devastated, and then pick up the pieces? In those circumstances, China could end up ruling most of the present-day Russian Federation as well as states such as Kazakhstan (where I myself spent a year in 1996-97).
In any event, war on any but a small scale would leave Europe’s major cities either destroyed or in a state of chaotic anarchy. The economic dislocation would lead to mass rioting, civil war(s), huge criminality. Then what? Europe is not Haiti, not black Africa. Chaos in Europe is only the harbinger of a new order.
Second Postulate: A New Order Based on European Race and Culture
At time of writing, the non-European racial/ethnic elements in Europe are said to comprise about 3% to 5% of the entire population of the continent (including European Russia). However, this percentage is rapidly increasing via both migration-invasion and invasion-by-birth. There is time to save Europe, but not unlimited time.
In a situation where the formerly-existing power-structures have collapsed and where there is chaos, more or less, a radical and “extreme” solution will find favour. A social-national movement could take power in the various parts of Europe, because the power-structures opposing us will have been weakened or even destroyed. Likewise, the stranglehold of the Jewish-Zionist element over msm, corrupt System politics etc, finance and the rest will be as good as ended. In short, we can do this!
Europe after a major conflict will be without direct help (and direct interference) from a possibly-largely-destroyed United States. It will have to find its own way back and its own way forward. Racial-cultural communities, safe zones, citizens’ militias etc… and from all that, a new order and a new Europe!
The Jewish lobby (aka Israel lobby, Zionist lobby etc) have been pulling out all the stops to trash Corbyn, to make him resign or to surround him by Labour MPs, officials, NEC members, “advisers” etc who can restrain him, control him and maybe depose him.
The lobby has been gunning for Corbyn since he was first elected as Labour leader. I have previously blogged about that in some detail. “They” failed to prevent Corbyn’s election, then failed again (to prevent his re-election). In between, the lobby has applied maximum pressure on Corbyn himself, in order to try to force a resignation. They have also tried to remove key Corbyn supporters. The latest attempt to topple him even had the head of Labour group Momentum [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum_(organisation)], Jon Lansman [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lansman], a Jew, reduce support for Corbyn in the key area of supposed “anti-Semitism”. Momentum itself is actually controlled by a private company ultimately controlled by Lansman:
In addition, John McDonnell MP, ambiguous if not favourable to Jews, and an ambitious man who (for the first time) is within sight of a ministerial and possibly prime ministerial role, has been prevailed upon to pressure Corbyn in person. He is, arguably, Corbyn’s closest ally in the House of Commons.
The most recent manufactured storm around Corbyn and Labour has been set in motion after Labour refused to adopt the so-called “international definition of anti-Semitism” promoted by a Zionist body called the “IHRA” (which tries to ban all critical examination of the “holocaust” narrative and fakery thereof). In fact, though 30-40 (ZOG-occupied) states have adopted the definition, 155-165 have not (there is dispute about the numbers).
The storm now raging as I write has been a revelation even to me, as I realized anew how deeply the Zionists have burrowed into the structure of the UK, especially in the fields of politics, law and the mass media. Not every journalist-scribbler, editor, msm CEO, lawyer, TV/radio talking head etc is a Jew; it just seems very like it…
At time of writing, it seems that Corbyn is going to tough it out, seem to give in in part, while actually withdrawing from the fray so that the Jew-Zionists have nothing against which to press. Corbyn must have studied Sun-Tzu!
This is surely the last throw of the dice for the Jewish Zionist lobby trying to unseat Corbyn. The assault this time has been frenzied. The reason is clear: Labour recently was ahead of the Conservatives in the polls, though it is at time of writing in second place again by reason of the contrived msm storm. Labour has every chance of at least forming a minority government after the next general election. If that happens, Corbyn will be Prime Minister and the Zionists (for the first time since at least 1989) will not control or very strongly influence the British Government politically. This is their last throw.
Looking back at this post after three years, I see that my basic analysis was correct, even though I was wrong in predicting that a 2018 or 2019 general election would result in a minority Labour government. That would have happened had a few connected events not intervened.
Brexit Party was formed, gained huge support initially, could have stormed to power had a destined leader been its leader, but failed because it did not become social-national and simply stayed as quasi-Conservative. Its leader, snake-oil salesman Farage, then stabbed Brexit Party in the back in 2019 by standing down most candidates, thus almost guaranteeing a Conservative Party win. The rest is history.
As for Labour, of course Corbyn was deposed by what amounts to a Jewish lobby operation, probably assisted by Israeli organs of intelligence and security. The new-ish Keir Starmer Labour Party is suffused with pro-Israel MPs; Starmer himself is married to a Jewish woman, and their children are being brought up as if fully-Jewish.
In the past, by which I mean as far back as you want to go, but particularly the 1920s, 1930s etc, the primary method of opposing a political movement or tendency was to do so directly. Political battles on the streets, electoral contests involving propaganda and shows of strength etc; books might be written, too. One thinks perhaps of Trotsky’s book Terrorism and Communism, largely apolemic against the social-democrat Karl Kautsky. That was then. Today, while elements of the former methods still exist, new ones have come to the fore. One of these, applied particularly to (deployed against) the nationalist wing of politics, is the fake party, fake movement, fake tendency (call it what you will).
Fake Movements: example
It may be that the modern “fake movement” tactic had its genesis in the repressions of the Russian Empire in the period before the First World War. The Tsarist secret police, the Okhrana, established agents as “dissident” voices, attracting to those agents genuine dissidents. Thus society had “safety valves” and could blow off steam safely, with no danger of serious damage to the overall society or the government’s hold on the people.
There were many examples. The famous Father Gapon became one such, though it seems that, like his even more famous predecessor, Judas Iscariot, he started off as an “honest dissident” or believer in social justice. Likewise, the assassin of Stolypin was another “double agent” or double player, being both a revolutionary and an agent of the Okhrana.
Fake Movements Today: UKIP and how it was used to beat down the BNP; the Alt-Right fakery now joins with UKIP to prevent the rise of any new and real social-national party…
It is of the essence of a “fake” movement that it starts off or seems to start off as a genuine manifestation of socio-political frustration. UKIP was like that. It started life as the Anti-Federalist League, the brainchild of a lecturer at the London School of Economics, Alan Sked, whose first attempt at electioneering led to a 0.2% vote (117 votes) at Bath in 1992. UKIP itself was created in 1993. At that stage, UKIP’s membership could be fitted into one or two taxis.
By 1997, UKIP was able to field 194 candidates, yet still only achieved 0.3% of the national vote, perhaps equivalent to 1% in each seat actually contested, the same result as had been achieved in the 1994 European elections. In those 1997 contests, the Referendum Party funded by Franco-Jewish financier James Goldsmith was its main rival (beating UKIP in 163 out of 165 seats). The BNP was another rival, on the more radical, social-national side. However, the votes of all three combined would have amounted to only a few percent in any given seat.
It is at this point that an early joiner, Nigel Farage, emerges as leader. Alan Sked left UKIP, fulminating about “racism” and Farage’s meetings with BNP members etc. Farage had been the only UKIP candidate to have saved his deposit in 1997 (getting 5% at Bath, Sked’s old test-bed). Goldsmith died; most of the Referendum Party joined UKIP. “Major donors” emerged too.
In the 1999 European elections, UKIP received 6.5% of the vote; not very impressive, but enough (under the proportional voting system in use) to win 3 seats in the EU Parliament. From that time on, UKIP slowly gathered strength. In the 2001 general election, it still only had 1.5% of the national vote, but 6 of its candidates retained their deposits.
On a personal note, I missed much of UKIP’s rise. I was living out of the UK for much of 1990-1993 (mostly in the USA), again in 1996-97 (in Kazakhstan) and after I left Kazakhstan again spent much time overseas (many places, from North Cyprus to the Caribbean, the USA, the Med, the Canaries and Egypt, among others). In any case, I was not much interested in UK politics at the time. I had lunch with a girl in a pub at Romsey in Hampshire in the Spring of 2000. She told me that most of her time was spent “working on behalf of something called UKIP. Have you heard of it?” Answer no. When it was explained to me, I have to admit that I thought, secretly, that something like that had no chance. I suppose that I was both right and wrong at once.
Now, at the time when UKIP was gaining strength, after 1999, the BNP under its new leader, Nick Griffin, was also gaining strength and –in Westminster elections– doing better overall than UKIP at first. In 2001, it got over 10% of the vote in 3 constituencies (16% in one). It is important to note here that the BNP was a genuine party, proven as such by the hatred it engendered in the “enemy” camp(s): Jewish Zionists, “antifascists” (many of whom are also Jews, though some are naive non-Jews), and the System (a wide term but certainly including existing MPs, the BBC, the journalistic swamp etc).
The anti-BNP forces were trying constantly to repeat their success in destroying the National Front in the 1970s. It lived on after the 70s, but as a shell. Internal factionalism was aided and abetted by skilled enemies. Akin to cracking marble in Carrara.
Whatever may be said of Nick Griffin (and I am neutral on the subject, though certainly more sympathetic than hostile), it cannot be denied that he gave the BNP its only chance of becoming a semi-mainstream party in the manner of the Front National in France. A strategic thinker, he managed to bring the BNP to the brink of success by 2009.
Within UKIP itself, there were social-national elements as well as what I would call conservative nationalists and others who were really Conservative Party types who, being anti-mass immigration, anti-EU etc, had defected. Two of the last sort later became UKIP’s 2 MPs, both initially elected as Conservatives: Mark Reckless, Douglas Carswell. Their kind of pseudo-“libertarian” “Conservatism” was exactly the wrong position for UKIP to take and positioned UKIP somewhere near but beyond the Conservative Party, when, to really break through, it needed to go social-national.
When the BNP imploded after the disastrous post-Question Time 2010 General Election, UKIP was able to get the votes of most of those who had previously voted BNP, if only fuelled by frustration or desperation, or “better half a loaf than none”.
UKIP beat all other UK parties at the 2014 European elections, getting 27 MEPs. OFCOM then awarded UKIP “major party” status, enabling it to get huge amounts of airtime (and people still talk about Britain’s “free” mainstream media…).
UKIP however, was unable to beat its way through the British fair-seeming (but in fact as good as rigged) “First Past the Post” electoral system at the General Election of 2015. 12.6% of national vote (nearly 4 million votes), but only 1 seat (Carswell’s, at Clacton, Essex). Meanwhile, the BNP vote had collapsed even from its 2010 level (1.9%, 563,743 votes) to effectively zero (1,667 votes).
I myself had already tweeted and blogged from 2014 that UKIP had peaked. I paid virtually no attention to the BNP, which by that time was already yesterday’s news. The 2017 election brought UKIP 1.9%, whereas the BNP bumped along with statistical zero (despite having tripled its individual votes to 4,642).
Douglas Carswell, the “libertarian” Conservative faux-nationalist resigned before UKIP’s 2017 failure to take up lucrative “work” in the City of London. His work with UKIP was done, let us put it that way. As for Farage, he reinvented himself as a touring talking head, while keeping his hand in as a “nationalist” by referring to his concerns about the “US Jewish lobby” (strangely, he failed to mention the Jew lobby in the UK or France…).
Today, in 2018, with neither main System party commanding firm support, we see the System, the Zionists in particular, “concerned” about the “resurgence” of the “far right” (i.e. worried that the British people might awaken and turn to a real alternative).
So what happens? The System “operation” revs up a little: the “Alt-Right” talking heads –who rarely if ever criticize the Jewish Zionist lobby– are now flocking to join UKIP! Milo Yan-whatever-he-is-opolous, “Prison Planet” Watson, “Sargon of Akkad”, “Count Dankula” etc…all the faux-“nationalist” fakes and fuckups are going to UKIP, have in fact gone to UKIP, have all suddenly joined as members of UKIP.
Conclusion
Naturally, all this could be co-incidence, but it is very odd that the events that I have chronicled seem to have happened at just the “right” time:
UKIP rising at the same time as the BNP which was, at that time, a rapidly-growing potential threat to the System;
Nick Griffin ambushed on BBC TV Question Time;
BNP marginalized in msm while UKIP was promoted as a “threat” to LibLabCon;
UKIP given endless msm airtime so long as it was “non-racist” (it now has quite a few non-whites as prominent members and is pro-Israel etc…);
Conservative Party MPs defecting to UKIP and so (in the absence of any elected UKIP MPs) bound to take leading roles in UKIP and steer it into capitalist, “libertarian” backwaters;
as the people look ready to follow any new credible social-national party (were one to emerge a little further down the line), suddenly dead-and-nailed-to-its-perch UKIP gets a boost from those fake “Alt-Right” figures…;
Former msm “radical” talking heads such as Paul Mason turn up shouting about the UKIP/Alt-Right convergence as if the SA were marching down Whitehall.
It is just all too convenient.
Still, God moves in mysterious ways. Maybe the System, in its cleverness, will score an “own goal”. After all, that’s what the Okhrana did in pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg…
The UK train is hitting the buffers. The train crash has been slow, long in coming, but it is now starting to happen.
Decades of decadence, mass immigration, political corruption, Zionist takeover of the legal system, cultural sickness in all mass media (fostered by Zionist infiltration at all levels) etc now result in manifestations that are becoming apparent even to the voting public.
The public has little idea, even now, of the causes, but it sees the effects: National Health Service creaking, beginning to fall to pieces; the housing market effectively closed to most of those who wish to buy a house or even an apartment; sky-high rents paid to speculative parasites by employees and others; congested roads and trains; cities full of those of alien race and culture; schools which brainwash children with “multiculti” propaganda and “holocaust” lies.
Those few (including me) who saw this coming as long ago as in the 1970s (in my case) or even 1960s, were and still are marginalized by a mass media system which is thoroughly corrupted. The same is true of the political system and, increasingly, of the professions, where to speak up at all invites expulsion: see
The Zionists are behind much of this and are now trying to shut down free speech and comment across social media– as happened long ago in the mass media.
The question that now has to be asked is what, in the next 4-5 years, will be the political result of the slow but accelerating collapse of British society in all areas?
It is clear that specifically English (leaving aside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) voters are now, in a semi-rigged “First Past The Post” electoral system, voting against parties rather than for them. There is little enthusiasm for any of the System parties, let alone the more or less washed-up UKIP, Liberal Democrats and Greens, but there is determination to block parties by voting tactically for the party most likely to achieve that in any given seat.
Beyond the wish to block unwanted parties and candidates, there is a general and growing dissatisfaction. Above all, the “Middle Classes” are joining the “workers” and the marginalized at the bottom.
That can only help Labour, despite the misgivings many feel about its MPs and leaders (the obvious example being Diane Abbott). The success of the Corbyn faction and its vanguard, Momentum, may unsettle some voters, but may give rise in others to the feeling that at least Labour is fairly solid ideologically, not a chaotic mess. That is bound to play to Labour’s advantage electorally. Contrast with the Conservatives. This cartoon portrayed the way in which Theresa May achieved office by default:
The next general election will probably favour Labour, though probably not enough for it to win a majority in the House of Commons. After that, one can foresee continuing mass immigration, continuing slide in public services, continuing disparity in wealth. That will be the moment when a social-national party can strike. First of all, one must exist, however.
I am not an economist; neither am I, at least in terms of occupation and/or formal training, an historian. I say that from the outset simply because it may be objected that, especially in terms of economics, I have no intellectual locus standi, despite the fact that most predictions made by economists turn out to be inaccurate. Also, “two economists, three opinions”…
Bitcoin
So, Bitcoin. Bitcoin was invented in 2008, possibly in Japan, by someone (or a group) whose provenance and even real name or names remain unknown:
Money is an almost metaphysical thing. Different societies have used seashells, precious metals etc as money, the key characteristic being the relative rarity of the commodity used. In China (in the 7th Century under the Tang dynasty), paper currency was invented, and later more widely introduced in the 11th Century (Song Dynasty), where it was encountered by Marco Polo and others, who introduced the idea to Europe.
Paper currency was, at first and for a long time, backed or notionally backed by precious metals, notably gold. Paper money only became generally acceptable in Europe a thousand years after its invention in China. The natural scepticism of the people was overcome both by its convenience and by its credibility, that credibility not only bolstered by its supposed convertability into gold or silver but also by the draconian penalties visited upon those who counterfeited the notes.
These factors underpin all money, credibility or popular belief in its value being the core.
Speculative Bubbles
One could go wider and say that credibility and belief underpin all valuation of assets, whether money assets, real property or other property in which the population is impelled to invest. Time and again there have been speculative bubbles: in currencies, in shares, in housing, in undeveloped land, in metals and even in such things as tulip bulbs (17thC Holland).
A good history of these bubbles and other mass events of the sort was penned in 1841 after the South Sea Bubble and was reprinted after the Wall Street Crash of 1929: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (and reprinted since, eg in the early 1980s)..
Since that book came out, since its 1930s reprinting, other bubbles have come and gone. Among the more noteworthy was the “Silver Bears” bubble of the 1970s
and also many and various real property bubbles across the world.
Bitcoin Goes Viral
At first, back in 2008, Bitcoin was valueless, worth nothing at all. It was just electrical impulses on a machine, effectively. It was still of small value three years later:
“The price of bitcoins has gone through various cycles of appreciation and depreciation referred to by some as bubbles and busts.[129][130] In 2011, the value of one bitcoin rapidly rose from about US$0.30 to US$32 before returning to US$2.[131] In the latter half of 2012 and during the 2012–13 Cypriot financial crisis, the bitcoin price began to rise,[132]reaching a high of US$266 on 10 April 2013, before crashing to around US$50.[133] On 29 November 2013, the cost of one bitcoin rose to a peak of US$1,242.[134] In 2014, the price fell sharply, and as of April remained depressed at little more than half 2013 prices. As of August 2014 it was under US$600.” [Wikipedia]
Wikipedia continues:
“Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns
Various journalists,[79][144] economists,[145][146] and the central bank of Estonia[147] have voiced concerns that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. In 2013, Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, stated that “a real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion.”[148] A 2014 report by the World Bank concluded that bitcoin was not a ‘deliberate’ Ponzi scheme, but that it did thus far meet the “standard definition of a speculative bubble”.[149]:7 The Swiss Federal Council[150]:21 examined the concerns that bitcoin might be a pyramid scheme; it concluded that “Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.” In July 2017, billionaire Howard Marks referred to bitcoin as a pyramid scheme.[151]
On 12 September 2017, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, called bitcoin a “fraud” and said he would fire anyone in his firm caught trading it. Zero Hedge claimed that the same day Dimon made his statement, JP Morgan also purchased a large amount of bitcoins for its clients.[152]
Speculative bubble dispute
Bitcoin has been labelled a speculative bubble by many including former Fed ChairmanAlan Greenspan[153] and economist John Quiggin.[154]Nobel Memorial Prize laureate Robert Shiller said that bitcoin “exhibited many of the characteristics of a speculative bubble”.[155] Journalist Matthew Boesler in 2013 rejected the speculative bubble label and saw bitcoin’s quick rise in price as nothing more than normal economic forces at work.[156] Timothy B. Lee, in a 2013 piece for The Washington Post pointed out that the observed cycles of appreciation and depreciation don’t correspond to the definition of speculative bubble.[131] On 14 March 2014, the American business magnate Warren Buffett said, “Stay away from it. It’s a mirage, basically.”[157]
Two lead software developers of bitcoin, Gavin Andresen[158] and Mike Hearn,[159] have warned that bubbles may occur. David Andolfatto, a vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, stated, “Is bitcoin a bubble? Yes, if bubble is defined as a liquidity premium.” According to Andolfatto, the price of bitcoin “consists purely of a bubble,” but he concedes that many assets “have bubble component to their price”.[53]:21 Speculation in bitcoin has been compared to the tulip mania of seventeenth-century Holland. Comparisons have been made by the vice-president of the European Central Bank, Vítor Constâncio, by JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon,[160] by hedge fund manager Ken Griffin of Citadel,[161] and by former president of the Dutch Central Bank, Nout Wellink.[162] In 2013, Wellink remarked, “This is worse than the tulip mania […] At least then you got a tulip [at the end], now you get nothing.”[163] On 13 September 2017, Jamie Dimon compared bitcoin to a bubble, saying it was only useful for drug dealers and countries like North Korea.[164] On 22 September 2017, a hedge fund named Blockswater subsequently accused JP Morgan of market manipulation and filed a market abuse complaint with Financial Supervisory Authority (Sweden).[165]
Bitcoin started to reach escape velocity in late 2016, going from hundreds of U.S. dollars to thousands. At time of writing (December 2017), a single Bitcoin is valued at over $14,000 [USD], or £10,500 [Pounds Sterling]. People who “invested” less than £100 several years ago have seen their stock suddenly rise to be “worth” as much as £100,000. Those who have risked more (in some cases a million pounds or more) now find themselves in theory able to buy small or even medium-size nation-states lock, stock and barrel.
What Do We Know About Bitcoin?
Bitcoin’s origins are obscure, to the extent that journalists and others have researched, investigated and written about the names of possible founders and organizers without having come to a definite conclusion;
Bitcoin is almost useless as a popular currency: its explosion in “value” has made it unusable for any transaction not involving, at the least, tens of thousands of pounds;
Bitcoin, though supposedly limited in overall amount or number, has seen security breaches which, at the push of a button (putting it simply), have at least briefly increased the supply of Bitcoin.
Conclusion
Bitcoin is a classic speculative bubble or, alternatively and perhaps even better put, pyramid scheme. The people who got in early and stayed in are sitting on mirage-fortunes; those who have “invested” more recently will probably lose everything they put in. At the moment of writing, Bitcoin is probably nearing its peak. When it starts to fall rapidly, the panic will probably wipe it out entirely.
The surely inevitable collapse of Bitcoin will take down more than just Bitcoin itself. It may affect the stability of the economy more generally. Beyond that, if (as Bitcoin proponents and/or “investors” say–and their anger at any criticism is perhaps born of subconscious desperation), Bitcoin is as “credible” as any “ordinary” currency (and that is Bitcoin’s strongest point), then the upcoming crash of Bitcoin could take with it much public confidence in the value of the world’s major currencies too. Our major currencies are no longer backed by gold or silver and have only the value we put upon them. We exchange stones for bread. Our currencies are themselves castles in the air and “such things as dreams are made on”.
We recall the hyperinflation of early 1920s Germany, and I myself saw, on several visits to 1980s Poland, how the slide of the zloty affected that country politically and socially. The fate of Bitcoin is not just about Bitcoin.
At the time of writing of my own 2017 blog article, a single Bitcoin was “worth”, i.e, valued at, about £10,500 pounds sterling. At time of writing today, 1 Bitcoin is worth just over £2,853 pounds sterling, somewhat above a quarter of the former figure, and only about a sixth of the 2017 peak.
Update, 19 November 2020
I update my post purely because, in the uncertain conditions of 2020, I see that the article is receiving more hits. Sign of the times?
I have nothing to add to the article itself, but as of today, Bitcoin is trading at just under £13,398 (pound sterling) and at USD $17,730.
Radio 4 Today interviewed an expert in cryptocurrencies, who himself has made tens of millions of pounds from them. He expects a crash. I expected one three years ago. Never happened, though the value did plummet before recovering and climbing further.
As of today, 20th February 2021, 1 Bitcoin is valued at not far short of £40,000!
I notice that Alison Chabloz accepts Bitcoin donations; I hope that she got some before the price rocketed, and still has them. If so, she may have a windfall. https://alisonchabloz.com/how-to-donate/
Today, Bitcoin recovered from USD $44,000 to USD $46,000 after having fallen from USD $52,500. An indication of the underlying volatility.
All the same, I am wondering whether, so far from being somehow “anti” the international money system, Bitcoin might not in reality be controlled by it…
Certainly, the genesis of Bitcoin has the feeling of “legend” (in either sense) about it (supposedly created by a Japanese whose identity has never been confirmed. Perhaps…).
Well, I have to admit that my 2017 prediction of a Bitcoin collapse was, though accurate-seeming in 2019 (when the price dropped to a mere sixth of its 2017 peak) wrong in terms of its later rise.
Incredibly, as of today, the price of 1 Bitcoin is £49,700 (Pound Sterling) or USD $64,627!
I can only suppose that the surge in “value” (rather, in price) of Bitcoin reflects the world situation, the instability of the world economy, and therefore the instability of world traditional currencies.
Gold is also at a record high at present.
All the same, if there were a major war, a world war (a fortiori, a nuclear war), and assuming that any human society and economy were to survive, Bitcoin would probably disappear in a flash (literally), as the Internet is destroyed, taking Bitcoin with it.
Human paper currencies would also disappear, at least for a while, in that scenario, but gold would still hold at least some value, presumably. At least you can hold a lump of gold in your hand, or put it in your rucksack…
A couple of days ago, a huge march took place through Central London. It was organized by an entity called the Football Lads’ Alliance [FLA], of which I had not previously heard. The march was supposedly “against extremism”. One presumes that, by “extremism” was meant “Islamist extremism” and I have no quarrel with a march against that (though the march will achieve nothing), but I wonder how many of those marching will understand that, for Israel doormats such as Amber Rudd, measures against Islamist terrorism are actually designed to catch (also) those who oppose Jewish-Zionist supremacism in the UK and elsewhere and who are fighting for Britain, for real Europe and for the survival and future of Western civilization?
We have been here before, with the English Defence League [EDL], another fake “patriotic” body which, strangely or perhaps not so strangely, saw no need to oppose Israel and Zionism, and in fact expressed support for both.
It will be recalled that, in 1905, the proletarian protesters of St. Petersburg were led by Father Gapon, who was also an agent of the Okhrana (Russian secret police).
So there it was, this 40,000-strong (some reports said 75,000) march, expressing opposition to ill-defined “extremism” and professing support for the System, indeed demanding stronger measures against “extremism”. What is really behind such a manifestation? Was the march (and the pop-up “FLA” itself) something which was set up by “the authorities” as a safety-valve to allow some discontented English people (and almost all seem to have been white men, not all young) a way of “protesting” without actually changing anything? Perhaps it started as something real and is just being controlled.
The Press reported that some FLA marchers were saying things such as “Muslims, gays, we don’t care– if they are with us. It’s all based around football.” When the level of political awareness is on such a primitive level of utter meaninglessness, it is unsurprising that these people are easily led. It was no surprise to see that Tommy Robinson, late of the EDL, was there and at times “mobbed” by fans.
The marchers may have been unhappy at the state of Britain, but were unwilling to do anything much active, still less violent, on the march, not even to the EDL-extent of throwing a few bottles. The police reported no arrests.
The chances are that the majority of the marchers would be, if under proper discipline and if led by those with an ideology –of any sort, almost, though social-nationalist would be best– an effective street army. As it is, all that the FLA seems to be is a loud claque, the object of which is to support the increasing repression of the existing order, the System, rather than to topple it.
The newspapers did not pay much attention to the FLA march and, as far as I know, it went unreported on television. There may be several reasons for that. It was peaceful, so there was no “if it bleeds, it leads” imperative. There again, with such an ill-defined purpose as “opposing extremism”, there is nothing ideological to invite analysis.
So there it is: no ideology, no real purpose, no political aim as an organization. This is a waste of time, but, more importantly, a wasted opportunity.
Update, 22 March 2026
I thought that the “Football Lads’ Alliance” had disappeared many years ago, but it seems not completely. Saw this [below]:
Well, there it is. The remnant of the so-called “Football Lads’ Alliance” making common cause with the “antifa” loonies. The Jew-Zionist hand shown up clearly…
One of the many minor but telling irritations of the present day is the extent to which American phrases and linguistic usage has infiltrated everyday English English. I say that despite having lived and worked in the United States (work sourced both in the USA and elsewhere) alongside American people. In fact, I am (despite the best efforts of parts of the Jewish Zionist lobby, including the crazed scribbler Louise Mensch) still a member of the New York Bar, at least on paper (I never practised there).
It was back in the early 1990s when I first heard someone (a West Indian woman) use the term “train station” to designate what everyone I knew until then had called a “railway station” or sometimes “rail station”. When I questioned the term, she replied that she had never heard such places called anything but “train stations”. My theory was that that was the influence of latter-day American films, particularly those shown on Sky. Maybe. Since then, “train station” has become ubiquitous, even on the BBC.
One might say, “what does it matter?” whether railway stations are called “railway stations” or “train stations”. However, language does matter. Whole treatises have been written on the power of transformative vocabulary. The American military machine and its political masters used to be expert at that (far more so than the British). “Operation Desert Shield” conveyed a message; “Operation Desert Storm” a different one, a changed one. Sometimes it became awkward if pushed too far, as in the phrases used in the Vietnam War: “bodycount”, “free fire zone”, “friendly fire” and many others became notorious; some are still in use today.
Such manipulative use of language is common elsewhere. The linked worlds of special operations and espionage have given us “plausible deniability” etc, and that is before we even look at the sleazy swamp of the political milieu. I do not want to go off-track too far and lose my point in the morass of “hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “helping people back to work” (indeed the ghastly “world of work” itself) etc.
Words create a mental landscape, they shape a society as surely as the architecture of our cities and, to be rather topical, public statuary.
It matters whether the influx of millions of non-Europeans into Europe and other European-inhabited lands is described as a “desperate” “movement” of “refugees” or as a “flood” of “migrant-invaders”, indeed as a “migration-invasion” (my favourite) or simply as an “invasion”.
It matters if “social security” (in the British use of the term), meaning a “safety net” or system available to those who need it (and, importantly, into which most if not all of those using it have paid, one way or another) is then changed to “welfare”, a term which gives the impression of money or food thrown at (probably undeserving and probably useless) eaters, who are, again, “probably” taking money from “the taxpayer” (not even “the State”).
It matters if “free speech” is in many cases re-designated as “hate speech” and/or “hate crime”.
So we return to “thank you for your service”…one of the least meaningful phrases around. An American affectation, which seems to say, “this person served in ‘the military’ in some capacity and so we regard him –or her– as heroic.” It of course bears little relationship to reality. Most service personnel, even in a war, are not anywhere near the “front-line” or active fighting areas. Indeed, many American service personnel never even leave the shores of the USA. In Britain, that idea crept in during the Falklands campaign, when anyone who had been to the Falklands in uniform became, ipso facto, a “Falklands hero”, courtesy of the Sun “newspaper”.
No-one disputes that a modern military system requires large numbers of accountants, lawyers, dentists, administrative people, pension experts etc, as well as cooks, drivers and the more obviously martial occupations of fighter pilot, tank commander, infantry soldier and commando. They all “do their bit”, in the English phrase of yesteryear. However, it seems strained to say “thank you for your service” to people who spent their entire service researching legal cases in Washington D.C., or fixing the plumbing on an Air Force base in Texas.
One notices that some scribblers who are very adherent to the Atlanticist or “New World Order” viewpoint are among the worst offenders (people such as Louise Mensch). In fact, it could be said that “thank you for your service” goes beyond affectation and constitutes an attempt to further Americanize the mentality of the British.
So it is that I plead for people to avoid the use of “thank you for your service”, even when addressing those who should be in that sense respected.
Those who follow me on Twitter, WordPress etc will know that I never use the now-outdated terms “Right”, “Left”, “far-Right” etc. Politics is more nuanced now. There are not two monolithic ideological blocs facing each other. However, others do still use such terms, for what they are worth. Those who self-describe as “left”, as well as some “liberals” and “socialists”, have been celebrating the rigged election (rigged via propaganda and hullabaloo) of a French presidential election candidate, Macron, who should be their worst nightmare.
In Macron, we see someone who believes in the virtually untrammelled movement of money across the world. He describes French culture as non-existent, he wants to destroy most of the rights of French citizens in respect of employment, State benefits and in respect of their culture. You would think that such a person would be anathema to the so-called “left”, yet most of the latter in France supported and voted for him rather than voting for Marine le Pen, not even abstaining. Their counterparts in England applaud Macron, because he opposed Marine le Pen.
As in other political matters, the role of the Jewish Zionist element is key.
In the UK, the upcoming General Election is likely to be a “landslide by default”, with the misnamed “Conservatives” sweeping all before them as their main rivals (UKIP, Labour) implode (the LibDems being unlikely to figure except as peripheral players). Again, the self-described “left” has nothing effective to say. Its supporters prefer to laugh at the demise of UKIP (and in general the failure of non-Conservative nationalist parties) rather than offer the British people anything by way of effective opposition to the Conservative regime under Theresa May.
The Labour Party is now widely expected to achieve no more than 150 or so seats, a prediction I made a year ago. Some predict as few as 125. Labour is declining from what it was until 2010, with a self-view and image as a national or UK-wide party, to that of an English and Welsh party focussed around and supported by, mainly, some ethnic minorities and public sector workers.
The self-described “left” favours many things which most British people do not: mass immigration, open borders, globalized movement of people, of money, of employment. These are also favoured by the Conservative Party and the LibDems.
The people have been left out. They are the victims not only of the rootless cosmopolitan finance-capitalists but of those who have claimed until now to speak for the people: the “left”/”socialist”/”liberal” political parties and the trade unions tied in with the “socialist” or “social democratic” political parties. The whole journalistic milieu, pretty much, can be added to the mix, as can a good deal of the “media” world generally, including entertainers etc.
The “Left”, “liberals”, non-national “socialists” etc are now not speaking for the people of Britain (or any part of Europe). Their pretensions are exploded. They can only applaud the anointing of a completely-manufactured fake and puppet, such as Macron, just as they applaud the finance-capitalist EU (and imagine that it will somehow protect “rights”, despite “holocaust” “denial” laws, arbitrary cross-border arrest etc), just as they applaud mass immigration and just as they want open borders so that the detritus of the failing post-1945 international order can flood across Europe, destroying everything in its path.
The fall of the pretensions means that, soon enough, nothing will stand in the way of pan-European (but anti-EU) social nationalism. It will speak for the people and it will be heard.
Update, 20 July 2019
I was right about the direction of travel, though wrong about Labour’s likely performance at the 2017 General Election.
Update, 5 July 2021
The 2019 General Election confirmed the essential accuracy of my analysis. Labour has lost most of the English people; it even seems to have lost some of the Muslims, now that it is under Jewish-lobby control again.
As for Macron, he is very much on the back foot with the French people.
The next general election will probably favour Labour, though probably not enough for it to win a majority in the House of Commons. After that, one can foresee continuing mass immigration, continuing slide in public services, continuing disparity in wealth. That will be the moment when a social-national party can strike. First of all, one must exist, however.
