So now I move to consider the Green Party for England and Wales, which did well in the EU Elections. 2,023,380 votes and a vote share of 11.76%, resulting in 7 MEPs (up from 3).
Green Party, which came 4th in the UK, beat the Conservative Party easily and ran the Labour Party pretty close for 3rd place. In three of the constituencies (East of England, South East and South West) the Greens came in 3rd-placed.
The Green Party, despite its pitiful disorganization, had a fairly clear message: pro-EU, pro-mass immigration (in effect), and of course known for its championing of animal welfare and environmentalism. One should not assume that all Green Party voters are voting primarily for the EU and/or mass immigration. The core Green Party support is for animal welfare and/pr animal rights, and for environmental protection. In my opinion, in these recent elections the Green Party tripled and possibly quadrupled its core vote as noted in Westminster elections.
I have blogged previously about how there has always been a link between Green issues and social nationalism:
The surge in Green Party support in the recent EU elections can be put down mainly to former Labour voters who are also Remain partisans voting Green partly because of dissatisfaction with Labour’s Brexit stance (trying to ride two horses at once) and partly as a tactical vote in places where Labour has little chance anyway, as in much of the South of England. The increase may also in part have been due to increased public concern over “climate change”, species depletion and pollution of the oceans.
Most of the support for Green Party displayed in the EU elections will disappear in the next general election, but there may be a tactical or other carryover. In 2017, the Green Party received votes amounting to 1.6% of the national vote, though that underestimates Green Party support because Green Party does not contest all seats; also, there is a separate Green Party for Scotland. Having said that, the Greens did better in 2015, with a vote share of 3.6%.
The Green Party has one MP, Caroline Lucas, who may or may not retain her seat in future general elections. It also has 1 House of Lords member, 2 London Assembly members (out of 25) and 363 local councillors (out of 19,023 in England and Wales). Its membership is said to top 43,000.
There is no evidence that Green Party is about to become a major player.
Extinction Rebellion, David Attenborough, and the debate
In the past days, the “Extinction Rebellion” troops have brought Central London to a halt. I am interested in the protest, not because of its own puerile idea that it will actually accomplish anything, but for other reasons: interesting how limited the official (police) reaction was at first, before millions of Londoners started to get angry at their daily life being disrupted; interesting how the protests have dovetailed with more Establishment propaganda (and I use the term purely neutrally), such as the David Attenborough film trailed below; interesting too how easily the London streets were “taken over”.
I should say immediately and in brief what is my own view of climate change.
I think that there is little doubt that climate change is happening. In particular, the Earth may well be warming. It has both warmed and cooled in the past, both in periods of geological time and in the relatively short time that humans have been on the Earth. In fact, we know from written records and necessary implications that there has been a considerable variation even in the last few hundred years, over the past 1,000 years, over the past 2,000 (etc).
In the times of the Vikings, Greenland was exactly that, albeit briefly, and in the 11th and 12th centuries had farms, homesteads etc, as recent archaeological discoveries have confirmed. The “Mediaeval Warm Period”, c.950-c.1250 AD also meant that vines could be grown successfully in Britain. It is said to have been the warmest period in Europe since the “Roman Warm Period” (c.250 BC to c.400 AD), which of course covers both much of the time of the ancient Greek or Hellenistic Period and then the flowering of both the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.
More recently, there was the “Little Ice Age”, which is rather elastic: c.1300 AD to the second half of the 19thC , but within those 550+ years, three colder periods, especially the one starting in 1650, famous for ice fairs on the Thames, skating on ponds in the Low Countries (as shown in Old Master paintings) etc. There is a good representation of the former in the 1947 film Wicked Lady [see Notes below; the Thames ice fair scene starts just before 00:59:05 and ends at about 01:03:05].
It is noteworthy, by the way, that the warmer periods of Europe’s history have been the more prosperous and the more peaceful too, overall, though not without exceptions.
Obviously, human beings cannot tolerate temperatures too cold or too hot. We require temperate or relatively temperate climatic conditions.
Let us say (i.e. assume) that the orthodox scientists are correct and that there is “climate change” amounting to “global warming”. Then we move to causation: what is causing the warming? The scientific establishment has established a dogma which says that human activities, specifically emissions of carbon, are the predominant causes. Dissident scientists etc point to sunspots or other causes.
Let us further say/assume that the more-officially-approved scientists are right and that human activity is the cause of the putative climate change/global warming. What can be done? There consensus breaks down.
The huge new economies of Asia do not want to stop polluting if that means that industrial output slows, because in India that would mean destitution for untold millions, and in China would mean, very likely, economic collapse and political revolution.
In fact, China at least is doing much in terms of reducing “emissions” (assuming that therein lies the problem) but here we come up against the real cause of most of the environmental problems of the world today: too many people, and too many farm animals to feed carnivorous populations, as well as too much energy used to warm or cool those enormous populations, the world population having grown about 20 times larger since the start of our age (the 5th Post-Atlantean Age) around 1400 AD.
I blogged not too long ago about the overall problem facing the world:
The obvious answer to the present or upcoming world crisis, which crisis includes, but not exclusively, mass extinction of creatures, “emissions” (assuming that they are of the importance the scientific establishment thinks), spoliation of land and oceans, is a huge reduction of the human population of the Earth. The main question, apart from whether it will happen, is by what method it could (will?) happen.
From the sublime to the ridiculous…
So we come back to “Extinction Rebellion” and their London protest. I am sure that most of them are well-meaning, even if totally and laughably up their own a***s, in the contemporary phrase. Many of these people are all too easy to ridicule. Emma Thompson, with or without her designer non-European adoptee, flew in (no doubt First Class) from LA to protest about people like her flying all over the place for trivial reasons; maybe it is thought OK if you are a millionairess and actress who lives in houses and villas in Hampstead, Bute (Scottish Highlands), Ibiza or France, when not in Beverly Hills or Bel-Air.
The reaction to the poseurs has been vitriolic in places:
Emma Thompson joins Extinction Rebellion climate change protest. She flew in from L. A last night and landed at Heathrow. Today she will help fuck holidays, meetings, funerals and reunions….pompous privileged pillock
Emma Thompson jets back from birthday celebrations in LA to join environmental protests. Ha ha ha! What hypocrisy! Yet the idiots regard her as some Messiah and lap it all up. #ExtinctionRebellion
“Geri the Gerbil” seems to assume that the Extinction Rebellion protests will actually accomplish anything re. “climate change”. No, let alone “save the planet”! Obviously they change nothing at all.
Here’s another one (see below) defending Emma Thompson, while urging people to sell their second homes and stop holidaying overseas (mixed message? Emma Thompson has about 4 or 5 luxury homes, including 2 or 3 overseas, and flies frequently, sometimes on private jets…). Maybe the clue is in the “Costa del Sol” part of the tweet by tweeter “Caroline” , i.e. it’s OK for a wealthy and terminally politically correct theatrical like Emma Thompson to fly all over the world, have half a dozen houses in several different countries etc, but woe betide you plebs from having a tiny concrete villa on a Spanish costa and taking an EasyJet there a couple of times a year! Shades of Emily Thornberry’s “White Van Man” gaffe, perhaps.
I might respect Emma Thompson more if she just said “it would be better to have a tenth of the present world population” (I might even agree with that, especially if those left were mainly European) or “international flights and second, third or fourth homes are OK for a few rich people like me, but not for the million…”
Why target Emma Thompson with criticism. Nearly everyone flies everywhere nowadays. She is high profile. Isn't her presence worth the carbon? Cancel all your holidays in the Costa del Sol and sell your second homes abroad. Everyone's greed is killing our planet https://t.co/NmX4VMA4wU
— 🍃💚🍃Caroline Shah – fighting for what is right (@Justwantclarity) April 19, 2019
Well, I cannot reproduce the full range of idiocy on display here, but here are just a couple of other deluded fools anyway:
And what about this one (below), one Natasha Cox? She loves London being closed down because the atmosphere is lovely, there is no traffic, and there is dancing! She is evidently not an economic scientist! Where does one even start with such people?! Smiling and being well-meaning are both good, but not nearly enough…
What interests me is that the Extinction Rebellion mobs were at first not stopped by the police: some police “officers” even danced with some of the protestors. I wonder what would happen if a few thousand social nationalists took over Central London. Would the police be so easygoing? I think not. Is it a class thing, because so many of the protestors seem to have come from rural or suburban enclaves where some no doubt live in comfort on their trust funds or buy-to-let incomes? The police are now belatedly getting a little tougher:
The serious disruption the Extinction Rebellion demonstrations are causing to people in central London and beyond is unacceptable and we completely understand the concern it is causing to those who are disrupted by it https://t.co/dS2NOnbPsy
Another point that interested me, watching some self-righteous fellow on TV news today explaining why this direct action protest was the right method, was his assertion that MPs, society etc had to be forced to do what the protestors would like to see. Whatever one may think of their views (and I am not completely out of sympathy with them —social nationalism has always been quite “green”:
the fact is that this protest has a quite strong sub-terroristic edge under the surface “non-violent civil disobedience” stuff. If ten thousand (?) people are willing to shut down Central London “peacefully”, it may be that 1% of them, say 100, might be willing to do some very non-peaceful things. I merely pose the question.
Conclusion
The Extinction Rebellion protests will not change or expedite government policy, will not convince many not already convinced, and might cause others to be even more resistant to the environmental movement, which has some excellent aspects but which is terribly confused.
It is clear that only a mass sweeping away of the world population can accomplish the rescue of the planet and its life.
"A petition being submitted by hundreds of independent climate scientists and professionals from numerous countries to heads of the European Council, Commission and Parliament declares "There is No Climate Emergency."" https://t.co/NELzaEpm09
Illusion is something that many prefer to reality, as this cartoon indicates:
“They want not only their daily bread but also their daily illusion.” [Adolf Hitler, talking about many Germans during the decadent Weimar Republic of 1918-1933]
The Green Party
This blog article was prompted by a tweet that I happened to see, tweeted by one Jonathan Bartley, the “co-leader” of the Green Party.
David Davis is wrong on @BBCr4today that all parties are in a worse state than they have been for years. @TheGreenParty membership is growing, we are polling higher than our best ever general election result and have a record number of councillors on a record number of councils.
The Green Party is so large and important now that it has to have not one but two “co-leaders”. Well, jesting aside, there must be some other reason (almost certainly something very very silly) that necessitates two leaders, the other “co-leader” being one Sian Berry.
Bartley seems to have come from an affluent background. He graduated from the LSE aged 23, thereafter floating around Westminster as researcher etc until he founded the think-tank, Ekklesia. He does not seem to have done (or have needed to do) any other work of much substance between the founding of Ekklesia in 2002 and being elected as Green Party co-leader in 2016.
Deputy Leader is 34-year-old Amelia Womack, who was elected to her party position aged 29, having never been elected to any public position (not even as local councillor); neither has she ever had a paid job of any kind, it seems. She is a candidate in the upcoming Newport West by-election:
Now the facts are (i.e. the reality is) that the Green Party of England and Wales, founded 1990, has 1 MP (out of 650), 1 member of the House of Lords (out of 781), 3 MEPs (out of 64 English/Welsh seats), 2 London Assembly members (out of 25), and 178 local councillors (out of 19,023).
The Green Party is polling at somewhere around 5% nationally (it has been as low as 2% in recent years), and only has its one MP by reason of the unusual demographics and the (in 2010, when Caroline Lucas was first elected) 4-way voting split in the constituency of Brighton Pavilion:
In other words, the Green Party is like a tame rat on a wheel. Lots of activity and noise, but nothing really achieved. It’s not that I am opposed to all Green Party policies. I like some of its environmental policies, its support for Basic Income, its concern for animal welfare etc. There has, after all, always been connection between what are now called “green” ideals and social-nationalism. I have even blogged about it:
Where I cannot accompany the Green Party is in its apparent belief that open borders are good, mass immigration of inferior peoples into Europe is good, or that the EU is mostly very good for the UK.
I agree with the Greens when they say that FPTP voting is unfair on them (as on, in the past, UKIP, the BNP and the National Front, among others). Even 5% of votes should give the Greens around 30 MPs, whereas they may soon struggle to retain their one (though Caroline Lucas is a known TV face and probably will stay for a while). However, to say that UK political life is unfair is really just a pathetic bleat even if true (which it is).
At some point, reality will have to dawn on the Green Party members (surprisingly, nearly 40,000 of them). Or maybe not. I think that many Green Party members probably like their nursery politics game, which they must know in their hearts can never lead to serious results; but it makes them feel good and virtuous.
The Green Party is not about to get MPs elected or sweep the country in any way. The Green Party will simply continue as it is, a virtue-signalling pressure group pretending to be a political party. However, relatively few British people will vote for a party that supports both mass immigration and UK membership of the EU; neither will voters give credence to a party which has no one clear leader and which seems to be a refuge (even in its top-most ranks) for perpetual students and/or virtue-signalling and hugely self-deluded persons.
The Nationalist Milieu
It is often said that the plethora of food programmes on TV are a kind of “food porn” for people who rarely if ever cook. Well, the so-called “far right” (I myself never use terms such as “Left”, “Right” etc) or nationalist political tendency is rather like that: the Zionists, their “useful idiot” “antifa” offshoots, the msm too, and of course the System apparatchiki such as police, all like to say that there is a huge “danger” from “far right extremism” etc. If only! In reality, what exists at present is a mixture of hobby politics, “I’m the leader!” (of 2.5 people) parties, and politically-tinged 1970s football hooligan groups, together with System politics under nationalist camouflage (as with UKIP).
People of my vintage (b.1956), will recall (the now notorious) Gary Glitter singing “I’m the leader!” in 1973, a psychology characteristic of both “I’m the Leader!” parties and, usually, “hobby parties” (though every successful political party has to have a credible leader).
The English Democrats
I am starting with the English Democrats because they seem to me to epitomize the “hobby politics” sort of party. They claim(ed) to have over 2,000 members (2015), though I daresay that even that was a gross overestimation. I personally only ever heard of one member by name (my mother-in-law’s former neighbour), and he was a very strange man, a retired pilot aged about 70 (c.80, now). I would not be surprised if that man were fairly typical of the English Democrats’ members.
The English Democrats were founded in 2002. Their best electoral result was in the Mayoral race at Doncaster in 2009, which they won. They would also have won in 2013, had the Mayor not resigned from the English Democrats not long before the election. He still stood but as Independent and lost to Labour by only 590 votes, the EDs having put up their own candidate, who received 4,615 votes.
Police and Crime Commissioner elections have been their second best (highest vote-share just over 15%). In local elections, they have reached over 10% here and there, with their leader, Robin Tilbrook, receiving 18.2% of the vote in an election for the Epping Forest District Council. In Westminster elections, all results have been below —far below— 1% (in 2017, about a tenth of 1% in each of the seven seats contested).
The English Democrats have few policies, and those so bland that they could be espoused by several other parties, including System ones. Even the “English Parliament” idea has been mooted by System MPs occasionally.
“[Robin Tilbrook’s] party agitates for anyone living in England. His notion of Englishness is akin to American notions of “Americanness” – that you can be from any ethnic background and still wrap yourself in the flag.” [from an American newspaper interview]. So someone straight off the boat from God knows where is “English”, so long as living in England, according to that idiot! Even his professed “Euroscepticism” is very muted (and is based on the disproportionate amount of EU funding going to non-English parts of the UK).
The English Democrats are the “hobby politics” party par excellence. Mr. Tilbrook will never be blacklisted by the msm, nor targeted seriously by “antifa” or the Jewish lobby. He will never be interrogated by the police. He has in fact been invited onto TV occasionally and given a polite hearing, e.g. on BBC Daily Politics. He is even a Freeman of the City of London (awarded 2011)! Members of the EDs can write letters to the Daily Telegraph and talk at the bar of their golf clubs without let or hindrance. A waste of time worthy of P.G. Wodehouse.
For Britain Movement
I have blogged about “For Britain” previously. This party, though partly on the right track in terms of policy, is basically a one-trick pony. “You can have any colour so long as it is black!” [Henry Ford, re. the Model T car]; with “For Britain”, you can have any policy so long as it is anti-Islamism. Not that I oppose that view, but it is not enough.
For Britain is not exactly a “hobby politics” party, but it is really just a one-man or one-woman band, closely aligned with the policy-free beer-bottle throwers of the English Defence League and their one-time leader, the person usually known as Tommy Robinson.
The leader of For Britain, Irish lesbian former secretary Anne-Marie Waters (“Maria” originally), certainly has some followers, and For Britain has some members, as witness the local election campaign poster linked below, but how many is unclear. Probably fewer than 100. Quite possibly only about 50.
“The party fielded fifteen candidates in the 2018 local elections, none being elected.[11] The party came last in almost all the seats it contested.[12] In June 2018, the party expelled one of its local election candidates after Hope Not Hate linked him to the proscribed neo-Nazi group National Action and the white nationalist group Generation Identity“
[Wikipedia]
So “For Britain” (which says, pathetically, to the Jew-Zionist lobby, “look, we’re pro-Israel!” in the forlorn hope that the Jews will not hate it), sacked someone at least active enough to get up from his chair and stand as a candidate, simply because the unpleasant “Hope Not Hate” crowd fingered him!
As for Anne-Marie Waters, she herself stood in the Lewisham East by-election of 2018, receiving 266 votes (1.2% of votes cast; 7th place, behind Labour, LibDem, Con, Green, Women’s Equality and UKIP, but just ahead of Christian People, Monster Raving Loony, and 5 other minor candidates). “For Britain” is no good even as a protest vote in a by-election!
Sometimes, I wonder whether this or that group, party or movement or “leader” is not a put-up-job by the enemy, but in reality the likelihood is that these people are just deluded, indulging in near-pointless political activity. Having said that, it suits “Hope Not Hate” and the other manipulators of “antifa” idiots to have something to point at and say, “Look! Nazis/neo-Nazis/Fascists!” (etc).
Who, who would join something as one-dimensional, as limited, as “For Britain”? God knows. Not many have joined, anyway.
UKIP
Well, here we are at last out of the “hobby politics” and “I’m the Leader” areas, though plenty of UKIP members are hobby politicos. UKIP, though, is the real thing: a functioning political party, conservative-nationalist, and which at one time had two or three MPs (albeit temporary cast-offs), still has 7 MEPs (out of a possible 73), as well as 1 member of the House of Lords, 3 Welsh Assembly members (out of a possible 60) and 101 local councillors (out of a possible 20,712).
UKIP might have broken through to a measure of power in 2015 but did not, and now never will. It peaked in 2014. A succession of poor leaders (the present one is slightly better than those that followed Farage) crippled already-failing UKIP, whose membership, at one time reaching 50,000, is now somewhere below 23,000. UKIP has always been semi-tolerated by the System (inc. the Jew-Zionist lobby) and has now gone over to a basically one-trick-pony policy position which is not far from the offerings of Tommy Robinson, Anne-Marie Waters and the whole effectively pro-Jew and pro-Israel “alt-Right”/”alt-Lite” crowd (the British ones of prominence have in fact recently joined UKIP: “Prison Planet” Watson, “Count Dankula” Meechan, “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin. All wastes of space).
To join or support UKIP now, except perhaps as a way of protesting pointlessly in an election, is just silly. It could not get one MP in 27 years (leaving aside the Conservative few who defected briefly), not even in 2015 when it was voted for by 1 out of every 8 voters! The voting system is rigged and flawed, and that suits the System parties very well.
UKIP’s vote in 2015 (nearly 4 million votes) fell to less than a seventh of that in 2017.
UKIP too is in the realm of political unreality, at least as far as elections are concerned.
How to go toward a realistic political viewpoint
The short to medium term future is uncertain and likely to bring revolutionary change to the world. I recently blogged about this:
As far as UK politics is concerned, it is clear that the major urban areas are no-go zones for nationalist parties, at least in respect of getting MPs elected. They can only be viewed as recruitment pools at present.
To pretend that a movement or party can be founded, then play the game of System politics, is otiose. UKIP tried that —and was semi-System anyway— yet failed utterly in any attempt to gain power (though I concede that UKIP did obliquely achieve the holding of and result of the 2016 EU Referendum, which result however is now being cynically betrayed by cosmopolitan conspirators such as the Jew Letwin and the virtue-signalling hypocrite Yvette Cooper… even as I write).
The fast-breeding ethnic minorities, including mixed-race elements, are collectively only a few decades away from becoming the majority in the UK. In some cities and towns, they are already the majority. That fact alone makes ordinary democratic politics a no-win situation for social-nationalism.
A social-national movement must be built from the ground up, and on a basis of reality, even if that reality looks, at present, like the sheerest fantasy.
In fact, UKIP came third, exactly where it was in the previous two general election contests at Newport West, and while its 8.6% of votes looks good vis-a-vis 2017 (2.5%), UKIP got 15.2% in 2015:
This was just a by-election protest vote and a pretty muted one.
The Greens came 6th, with 924 votes (3.9%).
As for “For Britain Movement”, its candidate came last out of the 11 candidates, getting 159 votes (0.7%). This party is wasting the time of its few members.
Update, 9 April 2019
Judicial Review cases are never dealt with in days. We will hear next week what the government has to say in Reply but only then will the High Court list the first hearing. We are applying for the hearing to be "Expedited". We have a strong case that the UK is Out of the EU!
— English Voice 🏴 (@EnglishVoice) April 7, 2019
The EDs are claiming that the UK is already out of the EU and have launched a judicial review application to “prove” the same. Rarely has wish so directly confronted political reality.
Update, 12 April 2019; a few thoughts about the near-future EU and local elections
The Brexit mess, so spectacularly mishandled by Theresa May and the idiotic careerists around her, may save UKIP from immediate collapse as a party, inasmuch as many British voters will want to punish the Conservative Party one way or the other. There may be a “perfect storm” for the Conservative Party, pressured on two fronts by both the Leave and Remain sides.
There will soon be elections for the European Parliament, on 23 May 2019. Recent opinion polling seems to be saying that Labour will have a landslide: initial voting intentions show Labour on 37.8% (up from 24.4% in 2016); Conservatives at 23.1% (unchanged), Brexit Party (Nigel Farage’s new party) 10%, LibDem 8%, UKIP 7.5%, Change UK (the recent Lab/Con defector MPs’ vehicle) around 4%, among others.
One has to be cautious in assuming that the above opinion poll reflects the likely outcome. The same poll seems to indicate that, after discussion, many pro-EU voters prefer Change UK (which would hit Labour and LibDem levels), while anti-EU voters may prefer either UKIP or Brexit Party.
Before the EU elections (in which the UK may not participate at all if the UK leaves the UK before 23 May), there will be local elections, on 2 May 2019. The indications are that, in those elections, Labour may also sweep the poll, with Labour benefiting not only from the “pendulum” or “see-saw” effect of elections in a system using FPTP voting, but also from abstentions by usual Con voters (or by their voting for Brexit Party or UKIP).
As far as the local elections are concerned, Labour starts the campaign with several advantages. The decade of spending cuts has finally impacted even the most true-blue Conservative areas. Labour has a army of local activists, thanks to its membership surge under Corbyn. It also has funds from the same source.
The Conservatives have few local activists now and most are beyond retirement age. The party looks tired. The Brexit mess can only be laid at the door of Theresa May and her Cabinet. The Cons will be lucky to avoid a wipeout in the areas voting on 2 May.
There are also strategic factors. The Conservative Party claims 124,000 members, which seems high (average 200 members per constituency). Most are elderly. Few are active. The median age for Conservative voters has also risen, to 52. Recent polling has shown that only 16% of voters under 35 support the Cons, and only 4% of those under 25 do so.
Returning to UKIP etc, the Brexit Party will obviously have the effect of splitting the Leave/Brexit hard core.
Update, 17 April 2019
The “For Britain” “Movement” (can 50 people be a “movement”?) has posted on GAB that they are not “far right” (whatever that means) and in some ways are no more “extreme” than Margaret Thatcher and not even really “socially conservative”. Oh dear…pretty pathetic.
I don’t know why I am even wasting 10 minutes of my ever-shorter lifespan examining this fake “movement” with its 50 members, especially after its recent (latest) electoral debacle at the Newport West by-election (last-placed out of 11 candidates; 159 votes, which represented 0.7% of votes cast).
Still, it confirms what I wrote in the original blog post, I suppose…
Update, 10 May 2019
Harold Wilson was right: “a week is a long time in British politics”. In the five weeks since the above article was written, at least two matters of importance have occurred
the local elections trashed the Conservatives (who lost over 1,300 seats), but Labour more or less stood still (losing 82 councillors), which was interpreted as failure by many;
Brexit Party burst into life and now has 100,000 members (by any other name).
This may be the most important article that I have written, or will write, for my blog. It goes beyond the usual matters of personal experiences, party politics, ordinary events in society, analysis of historical events etc.
I have been thinking of writing this article for some time. I always get distracted. It will examine, as well as can be done in brief format, whether our present society, culture, civilization, even species, can survive even in the short-term (here meaning the next few decades). It will also suggest some possibilities covering the next few years, next few decades and also a longer-term human future.
General Background
Living in the world, we accept, as the default position, that which we have known all our lives. We consider that to be natural or normal. However, a moment’s thought tells us that that is not so.
As is known (though by no means universally accepted, and still a subject for debate), the Atlantean period ended about 10,000 years ago. The most advanced people of that period were not the latest in time (the Seventh Race) but the Fifth Race, the Aryans. The remnants of that race emigrated from what is now the North Atlantic area to parts of the Earth where they founded new colonies. The main one was that of ancient (pre-Vedic) India.
The foundations of modern Europe lie with the Aryans and their post-Atlantean, post-Aryan descendants:
“The place where Europe began: Spiral cities built on remote Russian plains by swastika-painting Aryans”
“Desolate: The Bronze Age cities were built some 4,000 years ago by the Aryans in a 400 miles long region of the Russian Steppe.”
“The Aryans’ language has been identified as the precursor to a number of modern European tongues. English uses many similar words such as brother, oxen and guest which have all been tracked to the Aryans.” [Daily Mail report]
‘These ancient Indian texts and hymns describe sacrifices of horses and burials and the way the meat is cut off and the way the horse is buried with its master. If you match this with the way the skeletons and the graves are being dug up in Russia [on the border of Siberia and Kazakhstan], they are a millimetre-perfect match.’ [Bettany Hughes, TV historian, in UK Daily Mail].
During our own Post-Atlantean Age, the line of cultures (in the sense of different “civilizations”) has travelled through a succession of Aryan-founded cultures: ancient Indian, ancient Persian, then the Egypto-Babylonian-Chaldean (etc), Graeco-Roman, and now our own, which might be called “Germanic-Anglo-Saxon-American”.
The clue lies in language. The Indo-European language family stretches from present-day India to the British Isles and Iceland and back across Russia and Siberia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
Our own present culture started around 1400 AD (or, in the alternative, “CE”). Its first fruits were a relatively brief recapitulation of the preceding culture, the Graeco-Roman. This recapitulation was what we term the Renaissance, and started in the homeland of the Romans, Italy.
In the future (postulated as expected to start around 3500 AD), another great culture will arise, based on the Slavonic or Slavic peoples; however, that takes us beyond the scope of this present study.
Present orthodox scientific consensus re. human or near-human presence in Europe
Some Changes During the Past 10,000 Years
This is not meant to be a comprehensive study (which would have to be at least of book length). I should like to highlight a few things as a foundation for what I shall write hereinbelow.
in Europe, the human population seems to have been small, perhaps very small, until quite recent times (meaning times more recent than 10,000 years ago). The famous Lascaux cave paintings (present-day SW France) are believed to date from perhaps 15,000 years ago.
Leaving aside detailed consideration of yet more ancient times, the details of which are even more speculative, let us concentrate on the time between that period usually known as the Bronze Age (that is, the period which started no more than 5,000 years ago and in Northern Europe more recently, less than 4,000 years ago, and continued to as recently as 500 BC), and the present day.
Half of the Present-Day Inhabitants of Europe Descend from One Bronze Age Man
Recent advances in archaeological technology, DNA etc have established that over half of the present European population is descended from only one Bronze Age individual, who lived about 4,000 years ago.
In fact, studies seem to show that most present-day Europeans are descended from only three such Bronze Age “kings”, “nobles” etc (in fact, such titles are nothing more than journalistic guesses). Indeed, if present-day non-Europeans and part-Europeans (resident in the Europe of today) are taken out of the equation, the proportion descended from those few might well be far higher.
This is not the place in which to speculate about what events caused only 3 individuals to be the progenitors of most of the European population living today. That speculation is better left to others with wide knowledge of palaeontology, archaeology etc. In any case, that is not the point of this article. The fact remains that almost everything we know as our present culture originated, genetically, from those few men and their families. As a 1930s poster had it, “National Socialism, The Expression of our Biological Knowledge”.
Just think about that: everything, pretty much, that we accept as the human-created world around us, from planes to cars to our housing, to our philosophies, sciences etc, comes from those few people, whose descendants are now the European peoples, and also many of the Americans, Australians etc in the world. Yet those ancient people themselves of course knew nothing of what has become our world.
Ways of Life
Many tourists visit ancient ruined temples, fortresses, whole cities, whose inhabitants fled or were killed, hundreds or even thousands of years ago. In some cases, natural phenomena such as interruption of water supply caused places to be abandoned. More commonly, the cause is found in the military or social collapse of a society. One does not have to visit such places as El Djem, Dougga, Karnak, Babylon, Susa, the great temples of South-East Asia, the ruined cities and pyramids of the Aztecs and Mayans, to realize that even the most developed civilizations sometimes just stop.
In England (and Britain as a whole), for example, we have the remains of several previous cultures:
When the Romans left Britain (410 AD is the usual date, but the decline of Roman Britain was a gradual process over very many decades on either side of the date of departure of the last legion), the existing inhabitants and later the incoming Saxons etc had to start anew. They were not equipped to continue Roman civilization and its way of life. Britain only started to climb to anything like the Roman level a thousand years later. Indeed, in some ways, Britain only reached a Roman level of lifestyle some 1,500 years after the Romans left, in the 19th and 20th centuries: central heating, good roads, a good level of general education, running water for the urban populations etc.
The biggest mistake that can be made in this area is to imagine that fallen societies are always replaced by more sophisticated, more advanced, more civilized societies. In fact, the usual situation is expressed by the staggered spiral. A period of advance is not infrequently followed by a retrograde motion, before another and greater advance can be made. So the Graeco-Roman period reached its greatest outward extent, only to decline internally, lapsing into weakness and decadence, before collapsing entirely; invaded and largely destroyed by peoples less civilized, who however had within them the seed of later greatness. “Dark Ages” followed, followed by several centuries of the upbuilding of culture by the “new” peoples before those peoples rediscovered antiquity in the Renaissance, which then led on to the Enlightenment and to a civilization of a new and different kind: scientific, interested in practical matters, which however incorporated into itself the earlier culture.
In terms of exploration of the world from Europe, we know that Columbus reached the islands of the Americas in 1492, and that Africa, Australia etc were only really explored by Europeans in the 19thC, so only about 150 years earlier than today, whereas Antarctica was actually unknown until sighted by a Russian ship in 1820.
Where We Are Now
It may be that our present (Fifth Post-Atlantean Age) culture has reached, or shortly will reach, its highest point, despite having run less than a third of its course. A vast array of scientific discoveries have been made since this age started in the early 15thC. Those discoveries have been exploited for both martial and ordinary economic uses. In the field of transport alone, there have been developed cars, motorcycles, trucks, tanks, trains, planes, rockets, powered sea-going craft, submarines, helicopters, hovercraft etc. In medicine, we have had the discovery of bacteria, of pasteurization, immunization, disinfection, advanced surgery (one only need think how primitive even basic anatomy was until the late 19thC), body scanning, antibiotics, organ transplants, powerful analgesics, homeopathy (controversial though that may be), DNA etc. All within the past 200 years or so, and much of it within the past 100.
The population of the Earth is now at what appears to be its greatest-ever extent, certainly in recorded history:
“The highest population growth rates – global population increases above 1.8% per year – occurred between 1955 and 1975, peaking to 2.06% between 1965 and 1970.[5] The growth rate has declined to 1.18% between 2010 and 2015 and is projected to decline further in the course of the 21st century.” [Wikipedia]
The 10 most populous countries contain about 60% of the population of the world, India and China having about 36% (with Bangladesh and Pakistan, over 40%) of the total.
As we see, the population of the world, though still growing, is growing at a fairly slow rate now, though still huge in terms of numbers. It may be that almost all those who were sent to (re)incarnation in order to experience the high point of our age (now nearly a third of the way through its course) are on Earth or recently have been.
What Might Cause the Immediate or Very Swift Collapse of the Present World Order and/or European Society, As Well As Population Reduction?
Many will speak of climate change, but that, in itself (leaving aside to what extent it exists— and what is the cause of it if it exists), will not change anything significant in terms of social order in Europe in the next 10-30 years.
Then there is the possibility of a strike by a large object from space, such as a meteor. Impossible to quantify. Some scientists say that the odds are shortening.
Another possibility is a massive tsunami, which might be provoked by a seismic collapse in the area West of the Canary Islands. If that happened, it would dwarf the recent Asian tsunamis and wipe out much of the population in Western Europe.
Pandemic: with the gradual lessening of effectiveness of antibiotics, this must be a possibility.
The most likely large-scale event to affect Europe in the next few years would be war between Russia and NATO, provoked by NATO as the armed wing of the New World Order. NATO troops, especially American, with a small number from Britain’s depleted spearhead, now often go on “exercise” on the very borders of Russia (Latvia, Ukraine etc) and have even been deployed there on a longer-term basis. Were a NATO-Russia war to occur and to go nuclear, parts of Europe would be devastated. The UK, still after 75 years “America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier” (in the words of Roosevelt), would be all but annihilated as the major strategic targets were destroyed: submarine bases in Scotland, the various early-warning stations, US airfields and other facilities in the UK, large ports etc.
However, even nuclear devastation (so long as it did not cause a nuclear winter) would not necessarily be the end of the story. The Japanese cities hit by atomic bombs in 1945 and almost entirely devastated were rebuilt and are now thriving: photos below show Nagasaki by night and by day, c.2018
photo below shows Nagasaki industrial district after the American atom bombing in 1945
photos below: Hiroshima after atom bomb attack in 1945, and then today
In fact, such destruction was not confined to areas hit by atom bombs. In Japan, Germany and elsewhere, the devastation from conventional bombs and deliberately-created firestorms was quite as bad. Below, Tokyo and Dresden, 1945:
Both Tokyo and Dresden are now once again thriving and heavily-populated cities, of course.
It is common knowledge that the nuclear weapons of today are far more powerful than those used against Japan in 1945. However, the principle is the same. In fact multiple warheads would destroy the same areas, those of the highest strategic importance; other areas would be affected only indirectly, especially those likely to be upwind (in the UK, Wales, Cornwall, Devon, the Western areas of Britain generally).
Chernobyl
The medical and other effects of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster have been terrible for very many people, especially in the Ukraine, especially those who lived near Chernobyl or under the path of its pollution. However, people generally do live unaffected by it, not only in Kiev (which was upwind of the “plume” of radioactive dust) but even (illegally or unofficially) within the “exclusion zone” (mostly now-elderly people who returned against orders to their former homes in the less built-up areas).
Below, before and after photos of the same street corner in Pripyat, the nearest town (until the disaster, 49,000 inhabitants) to the Chernobyl nuclear plant.
Below, Pripyat today, in summer— a ghost town…
In fact, despite radiation and some undesirable genetic mutations and cancers, the animal population in the contaminated Exclusion Zone (i.e. nearly 20 miles in all directions from the Chernobyl reactors, an area the size of Hampshire, or 10 times the size of the Isle of Wight) has flourished since humans fled. Species rarely seen before 1986 are now almost commonplace: Przewalski’s horse, bears, wolves, elk, wild boar, lynx, among others.
Thinking The Unthinkable
Since 1945, the peoples of the world have, with reason, thought of nuclear war as the worst possible eventuality. The powers-that-be (on all sides) have encouraged that view. It has been part of the nuclear stalemate, the nuclear peace during the Cold War. Mutually Assured Destruction.
From the Kremlin to the White House, from Pugwash to Helsinki, from the Rand Corporation through Iron Mountain to Chatham House, and from Herman Kahn to Bertrand Russell, the post-1945 peace and standoff has been secured, in part, by the consciousness that nuclear war might well mean destruction of not only all human civilization but of all life on Earth. What if, though, that “Ur-fact” or Grundnorm is in fact only a partial truth?
Only a maniac could speak of nuclear war lightly. However, might our basic culture, if not the hugely-complex civilization based on it, be able to survive a major nuclear war? Not to think lightly of that possibility, and certainly not to promote it as a way forward, but might we (as a race or people), like the animals of Chernobyl, survive and eventually thrive if it happened?
Gaia
The “Gaia Hypothesis” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia#Modern_ecological_theory., that is, that the Earth is to some extent self-regulating (or even “alive” as an organism) was popularized from 1979 by the British scientist, environmentalist and futurist James Lovelock, but the essence of it, in more spiritual form, had been noted long before, notably by Rudolf Steiner, in some of his lectures. The latter also said that from time to time the Earth shrugs off unwanted irritants as a large animal does parasites from its body.
When we look at the Earth over the course of the present Fifth Post-Atlantean age, i.e. from about 1400 AD to the present day, we see how a relatively unspoiled natural world has been gradually polluted and abused. In 1400, even Western Europe had vast forests, few of which still exist to their original extent. That was even more true of Eastern Europe and Russia. Australia, New Zealand had not been discovered by Europeans; neither had the Americas, in effect, though in fact the Vikings knew of North America, had even visited it, but (for good reason) the Vatican suppressed that knowledge as long as it could, thus delaying for several centuries further European connection to the Americas.
The oceans were still pristine in 1400, and have become progressively more polluted and overfished in the past 600 years. Plastic waste has become almost ubiquitous on both land and sea.
As for the animal kingdom, many scientists think that we are living in a period of extinctions, a “Great Mass Extinction” of life on Earth. Unlike previous mass extinctions, this one is being caused mainly by human activity. We have all seen the struggle to protect the great (and small) animals of Africa, Asia etc, and those of the oceans.
Europeans have awoken to the world environment and its crisis, but that has mainly not been the case among the backward peoples: Chinese, Indians, Africans etc (speaking in group terms). Europe is at least now struggling to help the environment, but is outnumbered many many times over by the Chinese, Indians etc, most of whom have little understanding of the need for stewardship of the Earth, and who accuse the “West” of hypocrisy for its high per-capita consumption.
The human population of the Earth 10,000-12,000 years ago has been estimated as having been anything from 1 million to 15 million. In other words, speculation. The Roman Empire c.500 AD may have contained 50 or 60 million inhabitants, and China contained (another estimate) perhaps 100 million. The estimate for the whole world at the beginning of our age (c.1400 AD) is around 350 million. Now (2019) the world contains nearly 8 billion (8,000,000,000) people. Twenty times the population of 600 years ago, and those people are almost all each consuming hugely more than did people of former times. Something surely has to give.
The Path Ahead
I have blogged previously about the need for “safe zones” as a germinal ethnostate in the UK. I note that, in Germany, USA and elsewhere, others seem to have come to the same conclusion. People of social-national views are at least thinking about withdrawing from the present society and creating their own autonomous or semi-autonomous societies in rural areas. In its basic form, this idea is “white flight” and has been happening for half a century in North America; it happens now in the UK, Germany, France too. In more sophisticated form, the idea takes shape more consciously, not simply “white flight” away from the present society but also to the beginnings of a new society.
My past blog posts on the subject of “safe zones” etc:
Nick Griffin, one-time head of the BNP, has written about how conventional politics is finished in Western Europe. He places his trust in the durability of the white Northern European family: the production of children to maintain the bloodlines or, as some term them, “les rivieres pourpres”. While I cannot agree with him if he thinks that organization is unnecessary (I suspect that he does not go that far), it is certainly true that setting up little political parties, or having pleasant social evenings with like-minded political people etc is a dead duck at present, though we must never forget that Adolf Hitler was member number 7 of the DAP which became the NSDAP. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
In the end, the future may be ours if we as a group have children who can bear our bloodlines into the future. In this study, I noted that one man long ago, about 4,000 years ago, is now known to have been the progenitor of over half of all European people alive today. I also noted that two other men were the progenitors of most of the rest of the people of European ethnicity who now live. Those three men created our present Europe and therefore most of the advanced world civilization of today. Three men!
It may be that a mere few people or even one couple will, through their children, be the transmitters of les rivieres pourpres into the future, that our present civilization will soon descend into bloodshed and chaos, but that the few who matter will survive and then create the future through their own bloodlines and via the culture and knowledge which they possess.
“You carry in your blood the holy inheritance of your fathers and forefathers. You do not know those who have vanished in endless ranks into the darkness of the past. But they all live in you and walk in your blood upon the earth that consumed them in battle and toil and in which their bodies have long decayed.
Your blood is therefore something holy. In it your parents gave you not only a body, but your nature. To deny your blood is to deny yourself. No one can change it. But each decides to grow the good that one has inherited and suppress the bad. Each is also given will and courage.
You do not have only the right, but also the duty to pass your blood on to your children, for you are a member of the chain of generations that reaches from the past into eternity, and this link of the chain that you represent must do its part so that the chain is never broken.
But if your blood has traits that will make your children unhappy and burdens to the state, then you have the heroic duty to be the last. The blood is the carrier of life. You carry in it the secret of creation itself. Your blood is holy, for in it God’s will lives.”
[SS Verlag: material for instruction of the Hitlerjugend]
“The population of the United Kingdom is considered an example of a population that has undergone demographic transition – that is, the transition from a (typically) pre-industrial population with high birth and mortality rates and slow population growth, through a stage of falling mortality and faster rates of population growth, to a stage of low birth and mortality rates with, again, lower rates of population growth. This population growth through ‘natural change’ has been accompanied in the past two decades by growth through net international migration into the United Kingdom.” [Wikipedia]
I recently saw a pro-immigration poster put out, I think, by some trade union in the NHS. It said that the group of people shown on the poster (mostly but not all black/brown) were all NHS personnel who had come to the UK from other countries. The poster also said that, in the London Borough of Haringey, where the group had been photographed, there were (in round figures) some 82,000 persons who had come from other countries to the UK. The implication was that only thus is the (in Britain, near-sacred) NHS able to function.
Well, I am, in principle, pro-NHS (though I think, with reason, that quite a lot of the NHS system is barely functioning). I have no problem conceding that some of the foreign personnel in the NHS are excellent (though some others are hopeless). I am aware that the NHS has always been a major recruiter of immigrant labour. However, is that the whole story (as pro-Remain, pro-immigration people always pretend)? I say not.
The London Borough of Haringey has about 282,000 inhabitants, only 60% of whom are “white British” or Irish. If you were to take away the 82,000 immigrants already mentioned (even disregarding their offspring, and those non-English/Irish etc who are also resident in that borough), you would automatically have something like —and at the very least— something like 20,000 dwelling units available! Now multiply that appropriately across the whole of London, the whole of the UK…An end to the absurd property price valuations, an end to overcrowded hospitals, schools, transport —including roads—, an increase in pay across the board.
There is no doubt that the UK would be better off, the people of the UK would be better off, without the immigrant hordes and their offspring. Yes, on paper, the economy would perhaps be less vibrant, but most of the benefit of that at present goes to a tiny percentage of the population, just as a relatively small number of buy-to-let parasites and speculators profit from the overheated UK property market.
As for foreign NHS personnel, one has to bear in mind that the migration-invasion has placed enormous burdens on the NHS. The balance of convenience is by no means in favour of immigration. Without mass immigration, the UK NHS could easily handle the demand, particularly by training British people as doctors, nurses and ancillary personnel. Fewer British medical staff would leave (to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand etc), thus saving the State the cost of their education and training.
The same is true of all areas of society. Mass immigration penalizes the vast bulk of the British people. Big business loves mass immigration because it increases the number of consumers, results in higher prices for goods and real property, and reduces pay per labour unit.
When I was born in 1956, the UK population was estimated to be around (possibly below) 50 million. In 1990, 34 years later, the estimate was 57 million, a still very considerable increase. In 2018, the estimates have become less accurate because of the huge influxes of “migrants” (migrant-invaders) and their birth-rate, but anywhere from 66 million to 70 million. By, say, 2022? No-one knows. 75 million? This is totally unsustainable. Only those who knew England (especially) in the 1960s can appreciate what a difference and (mostly) a negative difference those extra 20 millions have made to the quality of life, environment etc in the UK and, again, particularly in England.
It is all very well saying that, because of Brexit and the stalling economy, ever-lower pay and State benefits, that the net immigration figure now is “only” about 400,000 a year instead of the half million or more per year in the past 15-20 years, but 400,000 is still the size of a very large town. Also, “net” means not 400,000 in but maybe 800,000 non-Brits in, and 400,000 desperate Brits out, fleeing the multiracial/multicultural society, desperately trying to find a basically white “Aryan” society in which to live (though most scarcely admit that even to themselves).
I have been interested for several, indeed many, years in the socio-political effects of the AI/robot/computer revolution, which effects started to be felt as long ago as the 1960s, accelerated in the 1980s, but which still mushroom, and may be considered to be still in the youthful stage of development.
I happened to see an online article which was about 25 types of human work likely to be largely replaced by robots. Some were unsurprising, such as Data Entry Clerks and Bookkeepers, others less so (as a former barrister, I noticed “Lawyers” with interest!). I did not expect to see “Farmers” on the list, though in fact much agricultural work has already moved from human and animal labour to robotic or at least automated: sophisticated machines now already sow, harvest and process agricultural produce. Some of the most delicate tasks can still not be effectively automated without loss of quality, but that will probably change. The picking of grapes is done today as it has been since the dawn of recorded history– by hand. The best tea is also still picked by hand, though experiments have been made with automation: the Soviet tea industry tried it back in the 1970s (“on Georgia’s sun-dappled hills”, as Lermontov had it).
Looking ahead, one can see that many more jobs will be automated. Even now, that is leaving many either with no jobs, or with “McJobs”, minimum-wage bottom-of-barrel jobs. Increasingly, there will be discontent as those who have either no job or a job which does not cover even basic necessities become more numerous. At present, in the UK, those who have existed on poor pay have had that pay topped up via “tax credits” etc (and/or, now, the cretinous “Universal Credit” pipedream of Iain Dunce Duncan Smith), administered by a shambolic and punitive bureaucratic regime. That can and will be taken over by a Basic Income, paid without reference to whether the individual is trying to find work or better work.
The essence of the plan in respect of AI etc is that automation creates economic surplus. That surplus, at present, is today then distributed mostly to shareholders and higher executives, by means of dividends, pay and capital gains (eg via share options). That surplus or benefit should be shared out with the employees of the enterprise and with the people in general, via the mediation of the State. Not forgetting the need for an economic enterprise to have reserve funding for R&D etc.
Basic Income will give to all citizens at least a measure of the financial and life security currently enjoyed by only the wealthy, the “trustafarians” etc. It will enable those who want more than the basic minimum to work for that extra money, those who want to volunteer or do charitable work to do so and yet still subsist, those who want to think or write to create. As for those who only want to loaf, they do that under any system (including the present one) and at least Basic Income makes society quiescent.
The cost of Basic Income is high, but the cost of administering and paying out the present “welfare” system is hugely high too! Admin, snooping, interrogating, complex payment structures etc.
Taken to absurdity, one could envisage a society entirely dystopian, where no human workers are needed at all. The machines (etc) then produce goods and services which cannot be bought and paid for, because the humans have no work and therefore no pay and therefore no disposable income.
In such a scenario, either goods and services have to be given away free of charge to the humans unable to pay for them, or the humans need to be given money-value for which they have not directly worked. Basic Income.
The present society is already exhibiting a trend to work which pays little or nothing and a connected trend to an amelioration of the effects of that first trend (via State welfare, pensions, tax credits etc).
In the end, Basic Income is essential, because the robotics/AI revolution is loosening the nexus between work and pay.
The former BNP leader, Nick Griffin, has of late been making the point that ordinary political action is a waste of time for social nationalists anywhere in Western Europe, because the “blacks and browns” etc are too numerous, thus making electoral success unlikely. That is certainly the case, at least superficially, in the UK. The non-white population of the UK is now over 10%, though concentrated in the cities, some of the cities, some neighbourhoods of those cities. In a few towns and cities, the non-white population is in excess of 50% of the population as a whole. It can probably be said that, once the non-white population exceeds –arguably– 20% of the UK population as a whole, the possibility of peaceful transition to social nationalism has disappeared, and the possibility of triumph through the ballot-box has disappeared.
Nick Griffin’s solution to the above problem seems to be, if I have not misunderstood his position, that white Northern Europeans (and also East and Central Europeans etc) should have more children! Griffin places the family in the forefront.
I have no quarrel with what I take to be Griffin’s position, except that it is too simplistic. The migration-invasion is gathering pace, and by that I mean not only the rusty tankers and open boats crossing the Mediterranean, but also the “lawful” immigration taking place in various ways. Huge numbers of non-Europeans are now being born across Europe. The European population, as matters stand, is unable to keep up with the pace of invasion and occupation. In addition, the simple biological-demographical imperative, though crucial, does not stand alone.
Merely having a white population is insufficient. I agree in principle with the dictum “race is the root, culture is the flower”: having a white Northern European population is the sine qua non; but at the same time , having that population is the starting point, not the end-point. We must have an advanced society too. That does not occur automatically and pre-supposes, in our present age, political power in the hands of only white Northern Europeans. Thus we come full circle.
It was in facing, intellectually, the above-delineated dilemma, that I understood that the main answer in the short term and medium term is for the social national element to cluster in “safe zones”. It is already happening in Germany. In the safe zone (though nowhere is completely safe under the NWO/ZOG dystopian police state), forces can be gathered.
Europe is approaching a crisis-point. By 2022, that point will have been reached. Depending on events, the population of the continent after 2022 may be only a small fraction of what it now is. Remember that 60% of Europe’s present population (and that means about 70% or more of its truly European population) is descended from, it has been revealed, only one so-called “Bronze Age king”! (see Notes below). It may well be that, perhaps as long ago as 5,000 years before today, though perhaps as recently as 2,500 years before the present day, a mere handful of people created families, then clans, tribes, nations and finally national states in Europe.
Rudolf Steiner, toward the end of his life [d. 1925] predicted, in answers to questioners, that in the 21st Century, Europe would be devastated. One lady asked whether she might be reincarnated with him in the Europe of that time. His answer was “only if you are willing to walk with me across Europe, across broken glass.”
Those who imagine that the answer to the present difficulties of the UK and Europe generally lies in forming a political party and then somehow achieving political power in the “acceptable” way, are very mistaken. A political movement must form, yes, and “all roads lead to Rome”, but in the end we may face the necessity of establishing a new Europe out of chaos. In such a scenario, we should be faced also with iron necessities. Beyond the harshness, though, lies a new land and a new society based on the latter-day or post-Aryan, or European. In that realm, only the blood counts. The couples who produce European children now are contributing to the founding of a new and, in time, better civilization.
Well, 2022 and now 2023 have come and almost gone, and no major war has as yet affected the western and central parts of Europe, though parts of eastern Europe are now at war. What will 2024 and 2025 bring?
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!
A woman journalist or opinion-writer of whom I had not previously heard, one Clare Foges, has suggested in an article in The Times that the leaders of the UK and Western Europe might learn from political “strongmen” (she cites an eclectic mixture: Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Duterte).
About the Writer
Having not previously heard of the writer, I did a quick Internet search. The surname suggests a Jewish origin, and someone of the same name posted this online in 2000:
It seems that Clare Foges wrote speeches for David Cameron-Levita and others prior to the 2010 election and immediately after it. She has also written at least one book for small children.
Having now read a little about her, I should say that she seems to have some intelligence, though perhaps not enough, or not enough knowledge, for the matters she discusses in print. Her understanding of society and politics seems shallow. She gave an interview to the Evening Standard in 2015. In it, she proposes, inter alia, better pay (!) for MPs, who “give up well-paid careers” etc. Ha ha! She really should take a look at the collection of misfits, also-rans and chancers who comprise many (not all, admittedly) of the more recent MPs!
Indeed, in 2017 she herself wanted to become an MP, for the fairly safe Conservative seat of the Isle of Wight, but withdrew after having been shortlisted:
In fact, the then-incumbent MP had hardly “given up a well-paid career”, having been a geography teacher in comprehensive schools for most of his life:
In short, my provisional view is that the writer of the article is, at 37 or 38, someone who for whatever reason has fallen between the cracks, who might have become something in the political realm, even perhaps an MP (and after all, her background as pr/”comms” “intern”, sometime children’s book writer, “Conservative” speechwriter, amateur poetess and (?) professional scribbler on politico-social issues is no worse than that of many “Conservative” or “Labour” MPs, and better than some) but has not.
The Issues Raised
What are we to make of this article suggesting that the UK needs leadership informed by “strongmen”? Duterte is the Philippines leader who has presided over a campaign of extra-judicial killing of drug gangsters etc. Erdogan is the political-Muslim Turkish dictator (by any other name) who is dismantling the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. Putin and Trump are too well-known to need any introduction even to those who take little interest in politics.
The main issue, surely, is that government must govern. It must be effective. Ideally, there will be checks and balances: law, due process, civil rights, property rights (within reason); however, in the end, a useless government has no right to exist.
Political leaders (including dictators) emerge for reasons. In broad brush terms, Putin emerged because Russia under Yeltsin had become a chaotic mess. Pensioners and other poor people were starving or dying from cold or lack of food, by the million. Public sector workers were being paid almost nothing. Jew carpetbaggers had flocked to Russia like a cloud of locusts (or vultures) and were stealing and cheating everything, pretty much. “Russian” Jew “oligarchs” ruled from “behind the throne” and had tricked their way into “ownership” of vast oilfields, diamond and gold mines, heavy industries. Putin began to claw back some of that. Pensioners who had been getting (USD) $5 a month under Yeltsin, now (2018) get $400. People are at least paid for work. Chechen and other gangsters have been stamped on and many killed or imprisoned. Russia has flourished compared to the 1990s.
Erdogan is someone for whom I myself have little sympathy, not least because I value the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. However, Erdogan has improved the lot of the poor, we read, while the economy has improved under his rule.
Trump likewise seems an egregious person generally, and even more egregious as a leader of a government and as a head of state. However, his rise (fuelled by his own huge fortune, of course) was not based on nothing. Many people in the USA are living in poverty. I read that 40% of Americans now require US governmental foodstamps! Many jobs (as, increasingly, in the UK and elsewhere) are “McJobs”, precarious and badly-paid. The drug epidemic is out of control. Illegal immigration had run wild since the 1980s. Whether Trump can deal with these problems and others, with the “separation of powers” American system, is doubtful, but the dispossessed and marginalized, among others, voted for him to try.
The Missing Leaders
Clare Foges cited Trump, Putin etc, but not the controversial leaders of the 20th Century: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao etc. They all took harsh measures but also did a huge amount that was positive. Hitler in particular saved Germany from degradation, removed Jew exploiters from the economy, the professions, the mass media; built autobahns (the first in the world); created air and airship travel routes; vastly improved animal welfare; planned new and better cities and national parks; put Germany to work and (for the first time) gave workers rights such as decent breaks at work, Baltic and other holidays in Germany, and also foreign holidays including cruises. Decent homes were built on a huge scale.
Britain could do worse than follow Hitler’s lead, introducing some updated and English/British form of social nationalism.
Stalin was far harsher as a leader and as an individual than Hitler or Mussolini, though Mao might be considered far worse (but of course he was non-European). Stalin however (like Hitler) was put back domestically by war. Stalin did recreate the industrial sector, which was booming before the First World War but which Bolshevism all but wiped out as a thriving economic sector. Stalin’s major mistake (apart from his cruelties and brutalities etc) was to allow the agricultural sector to be ruined via Collectivization, the legacy of which is only now being very slowly erased.
Mussolini did a huge amount for Italy. His posturing on balconies etc is what people now think of when his name is mentioned, but he eliminated the Mafia (until the Americans caused its revival after 1943, releasing the imprisoned leaders and followers), started to get rid of the terrible urban slums (unfortunately more were created as a result of the Anglo-American invasion of 1943); Mussolini also created an advanced scientific and industrial sector, mainly in the North. Famously, he also greatly improved the railways, and “made the trains run on time” (both truth and metaphor). Now, the wartime propaganda of the Western Allies and Stalin is all that most people outside Italy know– Mussolini as clown. Ironic that a real clown (the leader of the Five Star Movement) is now a major political figure in Italy!
The UK has been pretty much left to rot since 2010. The Blair government, though repressive and in the pocket of the Jewish-Zionist lobby, tried to modernize infrastructure generally. New buildings were constructed: hospitals, libraries, schools. Credit where due.
The David Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger government of idiots was not only the most pro-Jewish/Zionist government Britain has ever had, (until Theresa May became Prime Minister), but also the least-effective of modern times (again, until that of Theresa May?). It not only failed to do anything new and decent, but also failed to maintain that which already existed, in every sector, from libraries and schools to the air force and navy.
The lesson surely is that government must be effective. If it is not, the State stands in peril. The people eventually demand action. They are beginning to demand it now.
The article by Clare Foges is, it seems to me, a sign of the times, or a straw in the wind. The political times in Britain are a changin’…
Another Clare Foges article. She seems to be very much of her time, meaning 2010-2015, as in this Cameroonesque piece of sort-of social Darwinism. I think that Clare Foges can be written off as a serious commentator.
According to the Daily Mail, Clare Foges is “a devout Christian”. She may still be of part-Jewish ancestry (see above). My other query about the “devout Christian” bit is how does a “devout Christian” want to put IVF couples ahead of people needing NHS treatment for serious conditions just because they drink, smoke etc? Is that “Christian”? Even evil Iain Dunce Duncan Smith is said to be “devoutly Christian”…Yeah, right!
In the end, I suppose that it scarcely matters whether Clare Foges is this or that…and I just noticed that her Daily Mail bio was written by the egregious Andrew Pierce, so we can probably discount it…
She has certainly written columns in The Times [of London] several times, but is not on that newspaper’s list of its 29 “key” columnists. I have just taken a look on the Internet, and not seen anything online written by her as Times columnist in the past months (since August 2018), though her Linked-In profile avers that she is still a Times columnist. I did see a piece from November 2018 published in The Sun “newspaper”.
I have just seen that Clare Foges has been writing a column for The Times about once per week in recent months. I had not noticed, never now reading that newspaper (does anyone?I suppose some still do).
I have previously blogged about various aspects of the proposed “safe zone” or zones which might become the hub of social national activity in the UK. I have explained how the “safe zone” might be created, perhaps most likely by one person, couple or family buying an estate, farm, house, business or whatever in the selected geographical area, then other people gravitating to the same part of the country.
The ideal would be an estate which might include a main house, ancillary or secondary accomodation, houses, cottages, agricultural land, perhaps a separate business such as a garden centre, hotel or whatever (which might give employment to some of those supportive of the safe zone project). For example, I once had a lease of this house in Cornwall:
That house, a mid-19thC construction, originally (certainly by 1900) had a 5,000 acre estate, which by the time I lived there (2002 and 2003) had reduced to about 100 acres, most of which was woodland inhabited by reclusive deer. My own lease included only 4 acres (gardens and woodland) and did not include the secondary accomodation such as the North and South Lodges at the ends of the (more than 1 mile long) private road or driveway, 2 detached houses, and a few flats within or over the stable block.
It can be seen that such a house would be a fine hub for the safe zone project. The original relocators could live in that house, with supporters employed on whatever land surrounded it or in the nearby town (in that case, the nearest town was about 4 miles away) and living in the secondary accomodation or elsewhere nearby.
Such a house has the space to host meetings: the photos show the exterior colonnaded entrance to, and the interior of, the ballroom, which was itself larger than the whole of my present humble home…).
As suggested above, such rural areas sometimes have businesses available which require staff: garden centres, nurseries, motels, hotels, pubs etc; there might be scope in the nearby villages and towns too. It might not be very long before a thriving hub of social nationalism exists. Suitably-qualified people might get jobs in local schools or local government, even in the police, NHS facilities, or in the fire brigade.
Once the safe zone has progressed that far, it is likely that other land can be bought, other estates or farms. Compare it to a painting-by-numbers set: one by one, the blank bits are filled in.
Naturally, a considerable amount of money is required to start such a project. The hub (estate, farm or at least smallholding) would cost (in Devon or Cornwall) anything from £1M upward, depending partly on the acreage. Agricultural land is valued at present in the range £5,000 to £15,000 an acre, so a house with even 100 acres will probably cost at least a million pounds and quite possibly as much as five millions.
Realistically, several million pounds would be needed to initiate the safe zone project.
However, once operating, the safe zone will thrive. All supporters would “tithe”, as happens commonly in religious organizations etc. If even 100 people are sacrificing a tenth of their (net) income and even if their average income is only £30,000 a year gross (maybe £20,000 net), that still gives the project an annual income of £200,000 at a fairly early stage.
Once more than a few dozen people are involved in the project and resident in its territory, thought can be given to taking over local councils. From there, in electoral terms, the local and regional objective would be to get rid of existing System MPs and replacing them with social national candidates, whether overtly or covertly.
There is more. As the reputation of the safe zone spreads, the trickle of relocators will become a flood. At that point, the safe zone mutates into the germinal ethnostate.
Ian Robert Millard 