Category Archives: free speech

elections, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

They Go Like Sleepwalkers, whence Providence Dictates

5 Comments

Adolf Hitler once remarked that he went like a sleepwalker to wherever Providence or Fate dictated. A cynic might ask why, in that case, did Germany lose the Second World War. I have thought about this over the years, coming to the conclusion (decades ago now) that Germany’s bitter defeat saved not only Germany itself but all Central Europe and even all Europe from terminal disaster.

As is well-known, the atom bomb scientists working on the Manhattan Project (the British end being known as “Tube Alloys”), were almost all Jews who had fled from or anyway left Europe to live in the USA. Their motivation was to create a weapon which would obliterate National Socialist Germany. Japan was but an afterthought.

So focussed were the Jew atom bomb scientists on Germany’s destruction, that when it seemed possible in mathematical theory that detonation of the first bomb in the desert of the South Western USA would cause the world’s atmosphere to catch fire, destroying all life on Earth, those Jews decided to proceed. A sombre fact indeed.

Had Germany not been forced to surrender by complete military defeat, it would have seen its main cities destroyed by atom bombs. The air, water, soil of much of Central Europe would have been contaminated for decades, in fact for centuries. Seen like that, the bitter defeat and humiliating  surrender was a saving grace in the end.

Why do I bring up these facts? Because I want to make the point that agencies above the human level act on what might be seen as “purely” earthly concerns: war, politics etc.

Move now to the present UK political scene. Less than 2 years ago, Jeremy Corbyn, an eccentric and –his critics said– extremist radical, was persuaded to stand in the Labour Party leadership contest and agreed purely because he wanted to have his kind of politics at least represented. It was uncertain as to whether Corbyn would even be allowed to become a candidate, because to stand, a candidate required nomination by 15% (35) of Labour MPs. Corbyn did not have even that much support. In the end, he was nominated, not only by the few who supported him, but by a number of MPs who did not support him and who had no intention of voting for him. Reflect on that. A number of MPs who were anti-Corbyn still nominated him and without those nominations Corbyn would not even have been on the ballot. As it was, Corbyn only managed to scrape onto the list with 36 nominations (inc. his own), the last a few minutes before nominations closed.

Once on the ballot, Corbyn’s support mushroomed and he won easily, overwhelmingly. The same happened when there was a challenge to his leadership the following year. Events happened by which his opponents were wrongfooted. There seemed to be an aura of invincibility around Corbyn and his campaign. Indeed, in 2015, Conservatives were urged by Toby Young and others to join Labour under the £3 offer scheme and then vote for Corbyn, on the premise that a Corbyn leadership would sink Labour!

Mainstream media commentators seemed unable to fathom Corbyn’s appeal. Journalist Janan Ganesh, for example,  wrote that Corbyn’s election “spelled disaster” for Labour. I wonder if he wishes now that he had spiked that opinion!

Coming up to the 2017 General Election, the polls predicted Labour’s worst-ever disaster, with its MP bloc being reduced from 230 to as few as 150. Some predicted an even lower number. That general perception of Labour’s defeat persisted until about two weeks before Election Day, when the Prime Minister, Theresa May, suddenly destroyed both her own carefully-crafted public persona and her party’s chances. The bursting of the Conservative Party balloon was palpable. The polls immediately narrowed and by Election Day were showing the parties almost neck and neck. We should, again, reflect on this: Theresa May, for no reason, destroyed her own party’s campaign. For me, “the Hand of God” is shown here.

The eventual result of the General Election was a Labour MP bloc of 262, up from 230 and something few had seen coming. As for the Conservatives, though some loyalists said that “Labour lost”, that was and is not how it feels. The Conservatives lost 13 seats (317 won, down from 330) and their House of Commons majority. Corbyn’s stock rose and he is now said to be higher in public esteem than Theresa  May, while Labour is higher in the polls than the Conservatives.

Taking it as a fact, for the purposes of argument, that higher forces are protecting Corbyn, why would that be so? After all, he is some kind of agnostic, it seems, is not overtly religious or spiritual and does not on the surface seem to have anything to commend him to what Schwerin von Krosigk termed “the Angel of History”. All one can say to that is the admittedly-platitudinous comment that “God moves in mysterious ways”. There are a few ideas that come to mind: the Conservative Party may now be prevented from imposing a Jewish-Zionist repression on freedom of expression on the Internet, for one thing. It is also far less likely that the UK can get involved in Israel-instigated wars or attacks in other parts of the world.

It may be, also, that it is necessary that the UK has to have a weak System government, so as to gradually open the door to social nationalism and a completely different society down the line. I cannot say. All I can say is that it seems as if Corbyn does enjoy a degree of “divine protection” and it will be fascinating to see how that plays out in the coming months and years.

Brexit, Deadhead MPs, elections, free speech, historical revisionism, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

John Woodcock, Barrow and Furness and the General Election 2017

17 Comments

It has been announced that John Woodcock will be allowed to stand for the seat of Barrow and Furness. He has therefore survived a serious threat of deselection, having said publicly that no-one should vote Labour in the General Election (presumably excluding from his exhortation those voting for him).

John Woodcock

Woodcock, now 38, is one of those MPs who has never had a non-political job, unless is counted a brief spell as a trainee journalist on The Scotsman. Personal details are “a little vague”, but he was born in Sheffield and attended the University of Edinburgh. After his time at The Scotsman, Woodcock was an aide to John Hutton, the MP for Barrow and Furness from 1992-2010 and now in the House of Lords. He was also (2009-2010) a Special Adviser (SpAd) for the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He was elected as Labour (strictly speaking, Labour and Co-operative) MP for Barrow and Furness in 2010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodcock_(politician)

As MP, Woodcock has been associated mostly with the Israel lobby and was even Chair of (Parliamentary) Labour Friends of Israel from 2011-2013. He prefers to talk more about his self-serving support for Trident (the submarines for which are built in Barrow-in-Furness, the main population centre in the constituency).

Woodcock’s entries in the House of Commons Register of Members’ Interests show donations from the governments or agencies of Israel, China and Kurdistan:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=24837

Woodcock is one of the most anti-Corbyn Labour MPs and was until 2015 the Chair of Progress, the Blairite group. He has repeatedly called for the removal (as Labour leader) of Jeremy Corbyn and has been associated with the most anti-Corbyn of the Labour plotters, including Liz Kendall (who stood against Corbyn in the second Labour leadership election, receiving 4.5% of the vote and coming last out of the four contenders). Woodcock has denied that he had some kind of affair with Liz Kendall, though rumours persist. At present he is involved with fellow-depressive Isabel Hardman of the ultra-Conservative Spectator magazine.

Woodcock’s depressive illness is said to have been triggered by what his own political website describes as “a nasty fall from his attic ladder”, a Fawlty-esque vision, arguably: falling off an attic ladder hardly compares with, say, the WW2 Arctic Convoys, the Normandy Landings, the Siege of Leningrad or the Battle for Berlin. He is, it seems, separated from his wife, mother of his children.

Woodcock is intolerant not only of dissent generally but of views in conflict with his own, especially where Jews and Israeli interests are concerned. I declare an interest here: the fake “revolutionary” scribbler Owen Jones tweeted to Woodcock in 2015 that he should block me. Woodcock complied immediately!

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/633675878342492160

[Update, 13 June 2024: looks as though Owen Jones has belatedly expunged the said tweet].

So there we have Labour’s 2017 General Election candidate for Barrow and Furness: a not very popular, pro-Israel, pro-China Blairite, whose marriage collapsed because of his behaviour and who is currently involved with another depressive case, which lady is an ultra-Conservative scribbler. Not very appealing.

Barrow and Furness: political analysis

It is possible to think of Barrow and Furness as being now a marginal Lab-Con constituency despite the fact that, since Labour’s win in 1945, the Conservatives have only won twice (1983, 1987). The Labour majority that Woodcock inherited was 5,208. Woodcock’s tenure as MP reduced that in 2015 to 795 on a similar turnout. The 2010 Labour vote share was 48.1% (Con 36.3%); the 2015 Labour vote share was 42.3% (Con 40.5%).

The Liberal Democrat vote share of 10% in 2010 was slashed to 2.7% in 2015. It is hard to see that increasing much, bearing in mind that the Barrow and Furness area voted Leave in the EU Referendum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36598819

Woodcock is strongly Remain and that again pits him against most Barrow voters.

The UKIP vote in 2010 was a fairly miserable 1.9%, but was elevated in 2015 to 11.7%, enough to achieve a third place. However, it is unlikely that that relative success can be repeated. The majority of 2015 UKIP voters will probably defect to the Conservatives, especially now that they scent blood vis a vis removing Woodcock.

Other parties are not very significant. The BNP and Greens both stood in 2010, both losing their deposits. The Greens also stood in 2015, more than doubling their vote (but only to 2.5%).

Conclusion and Prediction

Labour will struggle to hold the seat. Woodcock is not considered to be a very good constituency MP and will be, so to speak, handicapped by his mental issues and by the fact that many Labour voters may prefer to stay at home rather than vote for him.

Woodcock (and so, Labour) has the advantage of being pro-Trident in a pro-Trident constituency, but (barring the Greens) that is a given for candidates in Barrow and Furness.

The 2015 Conservative vote increased by about 4 points over that of 2010. Earlier votes were far below this level: 1997 27%, 2001 30%, 2005 31%. The direction of travel has been upward for 20 years. If the Conservatives can add the votes of UKIP defectors to those of their own loyalists, they can win if enough formerly Labour voters either vote Conservative or stay at home. The Conservative candidate is the same as in 2015, which may help their cause.

Overall, the Conservatives have a good chance of scoring their first win at Barrow and Furness since 1987.

Update (15 July 2018)

I am updating the above for two or three reasons, not least because, of all my blog posts, this one has –to my surprise– been the most read (by nearly 1,000 people, to date).

In the 14 months since I wrote the original post above, Woodcock retained his seat at Barrow and Furness at the 2017 General Election, though only scraping home by 209 votes. John Hutton, Woodcock’s predecessor (and one-time employer) had enjoyed majorities of as high as 14,497 (in 1997) and had left Woodcock a majority of 6,037 (in 2005). Woodcock’s first (2010) majority was 5,208, which reduced to 795 in 2015 and to 209 in 2017.

In 2017, the Labour vote was 22,592 and the Conservative vote was 22,383. I think that I can claim that my original analysis was accurate despite Labour having pipped Conservative to the post. The Labour vote increased from 42.3% in 2015 to 47.5% in 2017 (but the Conservative vote also increased, from 40.5% to 47%). UKIP’s vote decreased from 5,070 votes (11.7%) to a mere 962 votes (2%) in 2017. The LibDem vote stayed exactly the same in percentage terms (2.7%). The only minor candidate in 2017 was a Green (whose vote share fell from 2.5% in 2015 to 0.8% in 2017).

Meanwhile, Woodcock has been investigated by Labour and the police over multiple claims of sexual harassment. It was reported in April 2018 that he was “planning to resign the Labour whip”, not (of course…) because of the sex allegations, but because of continuing concerns about Jeremy Corbyn! However, he obviously calculated that that would be the end of his already-stalled “high-flying” and “high profile” System political career. Were Woodcock to stand at Barrow as Independent or Independent Labour or Pro-Israel Labour, I imagine that he would be lucky to get 100 votes. He needs Labour hugely more than Labour needs him. In fact, Woodcock is a millstone round Labour’s neck. The voting figures make that clear. After the latest scandal, Woodcock is surely unelectable.

On 30 April 2018, Woodcock was suspended from the Labour Party pending conclusion of the inquiry into his behaviour. In late June 2018, Woodcock refused to appear before a Labour Party tribunal to explain or defend himself. His political future now appears to be non-existent. He will probably face deselection (at last); if not, it is unlikely that the voters of Barrow and Furness will elect him again. No doubt some Jewish and/or Zionist organization will arrange a well-paid sinecure for him whatever happens. The same has been done for other (and at least equally useless) disgraced MPs. Woodcock has done work for Israeli organizations previously.

Woodcock continues to tweet prolifically, as if he were still looking forward to a big political future, but tweets from Labour supporters and members are mostly very critical.

Notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrow_and_Furness_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

https://order-order.com/people/john-woodcock/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5675423/Arch-Corbyn-critic-John-Woodcock-suspended-Labour-party.html

Further Update (18 July 2018):

John Woodcock has resigned from the Labour Party as of today’s date (18 July 2018), though he makes no mention of resigning the seat which the Labour label alone gave to him. Typical…As an Independent, his vote at Barrow would be a couple of hundred at best and he would have no chance, yet this useless pro-Israel parasite and freeloader is going to hang on until the next general election in order to maximize his pay, expenses and pension benefits. Labour and Barrow are well rid of him.

ds3 

Further update (25 January 2019)

Parasitic freeloader Woodcock is still tweeting, trying to present himself as the sort-of “Labour” MP for Barrow and Furness, despite having left Labour. I had assumed that he would be given a well-paid sinecure by the Zionists, as has happened to others (eg Michael Dugher), but it may be that he intends to try to fight the seat as a wild card Independent, on the basis that the vote is split between Labour and Conservative and that he might just squeeze in through the middle. Doomed, in my view, though…

In the meantime, he is getting pay, “expenses” and, no doubt, more money from elsewhere (he’s had quite a bit from Israel in the past). Also, the longer he spends as MP, the more money he will get when finally removed (gratuity, pension etc).

Note:

https://www.ft.com/content/1082473a-3979-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec

Update, 1 May 2019

Woodcock continues to tweet, nominally, as MP, though he must know that his time is very nearly up (this year, if there is a general election, which seems more likely than not). In the meantime, he tweets against Labour (which he joined —or should that be “infiltrated”?…Let’s say “joined”, a more pleasant and less loaded word…— as a student twenty-odd years ago; he tweets for Israel and the Jewish Zionist interest etc. After all, he might find that useful when he needs a job…which might be rather soon.

Update, 8 May 2019

I missed this, Woodcock’s latest misadventure…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-47775073

Update, 8 October 2019

Woodcock continues to attack Corbyn and the Labour Party, despite (or because of) the likely proximity of a general election in which Woodcock himself, if he stands, will be bumped out of Parliament. I wonder whether he was in Tel Aviv recently…My only question is what sort of lucrative sinecure the Jews will find for Woodcock after the electors of Barrow and Furness kick him out. Public relations/”comms”, as in the case of other ex-Labourites such as John McTernan? Head of some commercial or trade org, as with Michael Dugher? “They” sometimes pay their servants well. Personally, I should be unable to endure the dishonour, but that’s me…

Update, 28 October 2019

Woodcock is still going through the motions of being an MP, even questioning party leaders on their intentions. I wonder why he bothers. Do the Israelis tell him what to ask? Whatever the truth, his time is nearly up…

ds5

Update, 5 November 2019

Well, there it is. As I have blogged, “they” have arranged a suitable position for the sex-pest depressive, a position in which he will be able to doormat for Israel and the Jew-Zionist lobby— and be well-paid for it…

Update, 27 April 2020

Woodcock did not stand as Independent or whatever (Supporter of Israel?) in 2019, having been appointed by Boris Johnson as (presumably well-paid) “Special Envoy” on “Far Right” “Extremism” only a week before the 2019 General Election. The Jew/Israel lobby in action once again.

At that election, the Conservative Party candidate, one Simon Fell, won with a vote-share of 51.9%.

https://www.simonfell.org/about-simon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fell_(politician)

There seems to be relatively little hard information about Fell, who also contested Barrow and Furness in 2015 and in 2017. Provisional assessment: a dogged stayer.

The Labour Party vote dropped sharply, whether poisoned by Woodcock or by the Jewish lobby msm campaign against Corbyn. Both, I suppose; connected. The Labour vote-share was 39.3%. That gave Fell and the Conservative Party a majority of 5,789.

The Greens, LibDems and Brexit Party also stood candidates in 2019, all of whom lost their deposits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrow_and_Furness_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

As for Woodcock himself, he has not been in the news recently. Presumably, he is snooping away in his new position. He does tweet, though, still plugging away for the Jewish lobby…

 

Update, 6 August 2020

It was announced recently that Woodcock would join 37 others (most equally unmeritorious) as a fake “lord” in the House of Lords, elevated by Boris-idiot. “For services to the Jewish lobby”? Peculiar expenses fraudster and doormat for Israel, Ian Austin, is another one of the 38. So Woodcock now has not only his paid sinecure, snooping on British nationalists, but also over £300 a day taxfree any time that the House is sitting and he manages to crawl through the door. Woodcock has reached peak parasite.

Update, 20 June 2023

Woodcock is now “Lord Walney”, and his tweets (including all the tweets above-exhibited from years ago) are now tweeted not by “John Woodcock” but by “Lord Walney”.

free speech, historical, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Stray memories of life at the English Bar, Uncategorized

Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Darcus Howe and the MSM: Cultural Musings

25 Comments

Introduction

The deaths of two people came to notice particularly in the past week. One person had been a significant cultural influence in the Soviet Union, was world-famous, is still oft-quoted. The other was a West Indian immigrant to the UK, best known for his support for black rioters, gangster criminals and others, as well as his assault on British cultural norms.

The first was Yevgeny Yevtushenko [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Yevtushenko] about whom The Guardian newspaper published this by way of obituary: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/02/yevgeny-yevtushenko-obituary.

The second was one Darcus Howe: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcus_Howe], about whom the Guardian said this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/02/darcus-howe-writer-broadcaster-and-civil-rights-campaigner-dies-aged-74.

It can surely be seen that even the Guardian was unable to make out Darcus Howe as being a greater cultural figure or a more positive one than Yevtushenko.

Comment and Personal Musing

I knew neither of the two recently deceased. I had heard of Yevtushenko vaguely, en passant, as a child and teenager, about the poet who was able to fill stadia in Russia with fans listening to his declamations. Black and white pictures from Life magazine and books. Later, in my twenties, I knew a few people who had been well-acquainted with Yevtushenko in Moscow. I even met his third wife on a couple of occasions during that time and once swam with her and her children (Yevtushenko’s) in a semi-private wooded beach area in some expensive part of Bournemouth, on England’s southern coast.

I never met Yevtushenko himself, though I heard plenty about him. His private life was messy, not always commendable, but that is hardly unusual in the biographies of poets and artistic people generally. One cannot judge a poet primarily by his private life (think of Byron etc). At a distance, he seemed to me to be a Soviet cultural windvane, able to change direction not so much with the prevailing wind but at the moment before it changed. Thus Yevtushenko was seen by some , e.g. Irina Ratushinskaya [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Ratushinskaya] as an “official poet”, with all the moral compromise and material benefits which that term implied; by others, as a brave and anti-official –even a little bit anti-Soviet– quasi-dissident.

Certainly Yevtushenko was willing to argue even with such as Khrushchev on occasion. He was lucky, perhaps, to have been born in 1932 and not 1922 or 1912. He escaped Stalinism to a large extent. Also, he was born and mainly brought up in Siberia, where (ironically) the Stalinist pressure was slightly less. Having said that, he lived in Moscow from age 18, studied there, was never in political trouble. I once heard privately that his mother had been an informant (“secret co-worker”) for the KGB and went weekly to an address not far from the Lubyanka to receive her stipend, signing for it on a list which had all the other names blanked out via a kind of stencil. Perhaps. That would not imply, however, that Yevtushenko himself was implicated with such work (and as I heard it, his mother only went through the motions anyway, giving little but avoiding conflict).

Certainly, Yevtushenko lived rather well by Soviet and indeed Western material standards. Robert Conquest [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest] described that as “well-rewarded collaboration”. By the 1970s, if not before, he had a house or “dacha” at Peredelkino [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peredelkino] with (I believe I was told), 4 or maybe 5 bedrooms –unheard of luxury in the Soviet Union for all but the highest-regarded citizens. He also had an apartment near the Kremlin with no less than (from memory) 14 rooms (a friend of mine was offered the chance to stay there for a week while it was unoccupied; she returned to London gushing about how wonderful it was and how she had not realized that people in the Soviet Union lived like that!); the apartment had been occupied at one time, I was told, by Beria [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria] though Beria did have a mansion in Moscow, perhaps in addition. Yevtushenko also had a house on the Black Sea, situated, I believe, at Yalta.

Yevtushenko is now known for several “soundbites”, in today’s terminology, as much as for his poems: “in Russia, a poet is more than a poet”; and the 1962 lines usually slightly changed to (and improved?) “double and triple the guard on Stalin’s tomb, lest he return….and with him, the past” [http://osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/60-4-47.shtml].

Whatever one’s view of Yevtushenko, there is no doubt that he was a significant cultural figure, who personified the changes in the Soviet Union from Stalin’s rule, through the Thaw of the 1950s and early 1960s and on to the retrenchment which led up to Gorbachev, corrupt laxity and then complete collapse. Yevtushenko himself spent his later years living partly in the USA, paid generously by the University of Tulsa (Oklahoma) and the City University of New York (CUNY). A weathervane to the last.

As to Darcus Howe, I know little of him beyond a few items recently read, though I do recall that rather menacing figure on “British” TV from time to time, always promoting the idea that the blacks in the UK had been and were oppressed by white British people and culture.

I cannot imagine that Howe ever contributed much to the UK, though others, in the mainstream media especially, seem to think otherwise. On Twitter, the death of Yevtushenko was like an express train at night, flashing quickly through a country station (Zima Junction?) without stopping. Darcus Howe’s death was trending for far longer. The mainstream TV and radio almost ignored Yevtushenko’s death (and life), while eulogizing about the life of the West Indian rioter and troublemaker. Channel 4, the tax-subsidized “independent” channel, was especially loud in its praises.

Where the msm did notice Yevtushenko’s death, the reports concentrated mainly on his poem “Babi Yar”, about the death of Jews in the Ukraine during the war with Germany. Typical.

The cultural sickness of the West can be seen in the juxtaposition of the two recent deaths and how they have been treated. The time must come when real merit is respected, when people are able to properly discriminate between what is worthwhile and what is not. Most of the existing cultural organizations and faces must be removed.

Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Irving, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

My Visit to the London Forum

6 Comments

Background

Some time ago, in late 2016, I was invited to address the London Forum. At that time I had only very peripherally heard of it. This is how it describes itself:

“The London Forum is a non-party aligned conference group for nationalists, identitarians, thinkers and commentators from across the Right.”

https://identityforum.org.uk/the-london-forum/

and it is connected with the online publisher, The Identity Forum, https://identityforum.org.uk/, which says of itself:

“By publishing original work on identity, culture, race, tradition, metapolitics and other topics of interest, our goal is to provide a forum which produces engaging, insightful, high-quality content.”

At the time of my invitation, I had just been disbarred, despite having not actually practised at the Bar for over 8 years, despite having what the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal described as an unblemished record as a barrister (including commendations from the Bench and favourable mention in the main legal directories), despite many other factors in my favour. The complaint against me had been made by a Jewish-Zionist organization, “UK Lawyers for Israel” and related to (in the end) 7 tweets posted (out of some 150,000 at the time). I intend to blog about my case in detail another time. Suffice to say that I accepted the invitation to speak to the London Forum, despite convenience and ease suggesting that I decline.

I had endured “15 minutes of fame” (two days or so, in reality) in late October 2016, as parts of the Press went mad about the (supposedly) “neo-Nazi” barrister and his punishment (presented to an unwitting newspaper readership as getting my “just deserts”, of course). Did I really want more mainstream media attention stoked by Zionist extremists and their hysteria? Not really. Exhibitionism is not a large part of my personality. However, I conceived it to be my duty to speak up, not for myself but for freedom of expression in the UK, under attack from various quarters but especially from the Zionist element.

On the Day

So it was that I went to the London Forum on Saturday 4 February 2017, as one of half a dozen speakers addressing an audience of perhaps 100 people in a large tourist hotel in Kensington. Most of those who spoke can be seen and heard on the London Forum youtube channel, along with speakers from earlier events:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEwrMR1v4vK-LAp4805x6Bg

The reception was warm and the meeting, which started at 1200, proceeded peacefully, though occasionally a very faint chanting could, just about, be heard. It transpired that that scarcely audible chanting was from about 30 masked “antifa” idiots who had congregated outside the main entrance of the hotel. The London Forum was happening one floor up and on the other side of the building. I later discovered that, at first, there were only a few police personnel sent to deal with the rentamob, which had been summoned, no doubt by a Zionist, via tweets; the “activists” were probably overflow from the much larger (40,000-strong) anti-Trump march which happened slightly earlier. It seems that the fools were under the impression that the London Forum was “a secret neo-Nazi gathering”, a description which found its way into the bad-joke online rump “newspaper”, The Independent, a day or so later.

The meeting carried on, most of the audience being entirely unaware of the small protest happening one (atrium) floor down and on the other side of the hotel. The meeting ended at its scheduled time of 1700 hrs. By that time, the main public areas of the hotel had been flooded with what seemed to be about 60 police, including a police medic (I saw the back of his jacket), vans outside and a helicopter whirling overhead. A senior-looking officer (no high-vis jacket, a cap) seemed to have taken charge. He (I was told) gave the order to clear away the would-be “revolutionary” snowflakes from the hotel by issuing a “Dispersal Order” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_Behaviour_Act_2003#Dispersal_zones], after which the snowflakes presumably went home to mama or to wherever they lodge (several that I saw on the Internet, days later, seemed to be foreign). Certainly, by the time the meeting participants left the hotel, the “antifa” idiots had all (all 30!) melted away like real snowflakes.

Aftermath and thoughts

The Press, TV, radio largely ignored both the meeting and the pathetic though noisy protest. The Independent “newspaper” (now online only after its circulation dropped in early 2016 to about 20,000) carried a piece by one Niamh Mcintyre, a student-journalist. Her piece got almost everything wrong: the maybe 30 “antifa” idiots were “80” in the Independent’s “report” and the (open to all bona fide people) London Forum was “a secret neo-Nazi gathering”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/neo-nazi-meeting-london-richard-spencer-alt-right-fascist-activists-white-supremacists-a7563021.html

Niamh Mcintyre’s “report” also said that previous London Forum speakers had included Max Weber. This was remarkable, in view of the fact that Max Weber died in 1920!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber

I think that the poor snowflake meant Mark Weber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weber

I saw tweets from Niamh Mcintyre, Independent “newspaper” “journalist” (student) to “London Antifascists” and similar “antifa” idiots, asking “what is happening?” [at the hotel] and requesting comment. At no time (right up to now) were any participants or London Forum officials asked for comment or information, it seems. However, the “antifa” idiots’ comments were printed uncritically by the Independent, even one calling for “direct action” (terrorism and intimidation) to “close down” free speech even in a private forum.

After I tweeted (Wednesday 8 February 2017) about the Independent’s ignorance and lack of journalistic ethics (not checking basic facts, not getting both sides or several sides of a story, bias etc), the egregious error of “Max Weber/Mark Weber” was removed from the Independent online report, but the rest of the nonsense is still up, including a claim that the idiots caused the meeting to close early. Untrue. It carried on to the scheduled end .

The Metro free newspaper carried a slightly more, though not very, accurate report:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/07/neo-nazis-allowed-to-hold-secret-meeting-at-central-london-hotel-6432405/

though it saw fit to add a laughable extra line about how it had warned the hotel that “ethnic minorities” and staff might be in danger! Journalism died one day and was replaced by something else…The Metro “newspaper” also described how the London Forum had previously “hosted” “infamous holocaust denier..Max Weber” (who died in 1920!). Not very surprising that newspapers are dying, when they employ the ignorant to make up “fake news”…

Did “antifa” achieve anything? No. The London Forum took place, the videos of speeches are online and (equally importantly) free speech was upheld.

What if the police had not been there? Well, the “antifa” idiots were few (possibly, at peak, 35) in number whereas the audience, speakers and LF security (pretty fit and skilled) numbered well over a hundred. The “antifa” may have got off lightly. They are just the “useful idiots” for others (Zionists) and of no importance.

Freedom of expression on social, political and historical topics must be protected,

c4jxgm2ukae7tt_Update, 9 September 2018

Readers of the above blog post may have noticed that the links for London Forum and Identity Forum are not working. This is because YouTube decided, having been pressured by the Jew-Zionist lobby, to remove those channels in their entirety. The leading light of the London Forum, Jez Turner [Jeremy Bedford-Turner] was prosecuted after the CPS was taken to court on a judicial review application by the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism”, yet another pack of Jewish Zionists in the UK. This is what we are up against: a stealth police state and its private equivalent, which have little or no legitimacy and which must be overthrown.

Update, 6 January 2018

I have seen my own speech to the London Forum posted online recently, so it may be that patriots have posted all the London Forum speeches or talks somewhere or other.

free speech, historical, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

The Internet: Privatization of Public Spaces

5 Comments

I have been concerned for some years about how “public space” on the Internet is really just privately-owned space. Offline, there are sometimes concerns raised about how parks and other spaces, which are usually open to the public, are made less than fully open to the public by the imposition of charges, fees or conditions. In fact, there have in the past often been fees and conditions imposed on entry to parks etc, but in those cases those unable or unwilling to comply could go elsewhere. That is not always so online.

In the offline world, there are public markets and competition between marketplaces in various ways. Online, though the same may be true superficially, the reality is that a few key players operate in a quasi-monopolistic manner. Facebook, Twitter, ebay, Amazon have little real competition. The private individual is granted access to these spaces essentially at the will or whim of the proprietor. If expelled, the individual has no redress save appeal (and not by right) to the website itself. There are no means to go to law to enforce re-admittance, because the relationship between the website and the individual is one based on contract and the contractual power lies with the website.

Taking Amazon and intruding a personal note to make the argument more concrete, for 2 or 3 years (up to 2011 or 2012) I reviewed books on Amazon (at one time I owned over 2,000 books and bought one every few days). I was on the Amazon UK “Top 100 reviewers” list and the vast majority of those who voted or commented liked my reviews and found them helpful. Very few hated what I wrote but one of that tiny handful (literally about 3 or 4 people) was a Jew who objected to some of my reviews because they examined events 1933-45 from a revisionist (truth-seeking) perspective. This person trolled virtually every review I wrote, “commenting” sarcastically on each, insulting me as well as my reviews, trying to bait me to argue with him (with the obvious idea of then screaming “antisemitism!” and “hate speech” and getting me chucked off Amazon, of course. “They” do the same on Twitter etc).

After about 2 years, the aforesaid Jew (who, by the way, operated under a pseudonym, as the same sort of trolls often do on Twitter) managed to interest the Jewish Chronicle in his complaint. The Jewish Chronicle wrote about my reviews, the attention resulting in my being barred from reviewing books on Amazon. About a third of my reviews were removed. Oddly enough, those reviews were removed en bloc. Most had nothing to do with the 1933-1945 era, National Socialism, Jews, Israel etc. There was no possibility of appeal, not even to the site itself.

I then started to review books on the American Amazon site. The same occurred before long, except that this time the same Jew must have contacted Amazon directly after complaining about me under my reviews (all of them…), because all of those reviews on the US site disappeared overnight and I was barred without warning. No appeal, no explanation. So much for American “free speech”!

The above illustrates the problem. While there are other online booksellers, some of which allow reviews, in the end the reviewer, the citizen, is there as guest of the website and can be chucked off at any time. Amazon’s position is quasi-monopolistic, yet it is not merely a retailer but a provider of what amounts to a public intellectual forum.

Twitter is the same: if someone is barred from Twitter, he is effectively muzzled, his right of freedom of expression taken away. He has no redress (though Twitter itself does give a possibility of appeal). It is not good enough to say that “other sites exist”. Twitter is in a global quasi-monopolistic position.

Tellingly, the Zionists and others (but mostly Zionists) often make the point that barring someone from Facebook, Twitter etc is not an attack on free speech because those sites are “private platforms” and can get rid of unwanted authors at will.

The privatization of public online space is wrong. The solution is to give the citizen a legal right to appeal against removal from any website which has more than x number of users or subscribers. The present situation is an unwarranted extension of the economic sphere into the sphere of law and rights.

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Irving, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

Free Speech: Individuality and Collectivity

4 Comments

Rudolf Steiner often spoke of the ever-increasing individualism in our age (that period which he named the “Fifth Post-Atlantean Age”, which started around 1400 AD and is due to run until about 3500 AD). This is an inevitable continuing process and will bring many benefits if people are guided by conscience. However, if people are not guided by individual conscience, the forces of the individual will tear apart society.

Against the forces of individualism stands “society”, which encompasses law, unwritten “laws” of convention and expectation and also the powers of the State (which holds itself out as the concrete expression of the people as a whole).

Society is, of course, a good thing. In proper measure, it makes possible and supports such aspects of life as law, public order, organized help for the sick, disabled, elderly, poor etc. It is a structure which supports the family, too. It also provides, via the State,  the structure for defence against outside forces (hostile states, natural calamities etc). However, if taken too far, society and/or the State becomes oppression, involving the repression of individual liberty in various ways (most obviously, perhaps, suppression of free speech or other freedom of expression).

Society restricts freedom of speech. It is hard to imagine a society beyond the most primitive or germinal in which complete freedom of speech exists (eg spoken or written threats against the person). On the other hand, when society (the State, or perhaps a religious or political cult) prevents individual expression, reasonable restriction becomes unreasonable repression. One thinks, perhaps, of the more extreme socialist states of the 20th Century, such as the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao Tse-Tung, Albania under Enver Hoxha, Cuba under Fidel Castro. The same was true of anti-socialist tyrannies such as Nicaragua under Somoza.

Particular emergency conditions may lead to a temporary tightening of what is regarded as acceptable free speech. In the Second World War, the various combatants restricted free speech considerably. In the UK, those who spoke out against the war or government policy faced both prosecution (State) and persecution (society generally). Even the USA, with its famous Constitutional safeguards, clamped down on freedom of expression.

As in other fields of life, we can see that the tension between the demands of the individual qua individual and those of the collective results in what amounts to a compromise. It is a question of either where society (in practice, usually the State, but possibly a smaller community such as a town or even a family) decides where the line is drawn, or where the individual draws the line, based on conscience or preference and regardless of where the State and/or society has drawn it.

Most people, most of the time, obey the dictates of the collective. Were that not so, law could not exist except as a facade with nothing behind it (cf. Stalin’s Russia etc); neither could the State or its power, in the end. On the other hand, the individual must always obey conscience and it therefore becomes vital to distinguish between individual conscience and individual wilfulness or egoism. No outside force can decide what is conscience and what is wilfulness or egoism. The individual, the individual human soul, is the only judge or arbiter here. Where the individual and the collective collide, the results can range from martyrdom of the individual to reform or even revolution affecting the collective.

Where do I myself, as both individual and citizen (i.e. part of the collective) draw the line? For me, freedom of expression about social, political and historical matters should be absolute. Other forms of expression (eg threats, libels, fraudulent misrepresentations) can be (and commonly are) restricted to a greater or lesser extent.

It follows from the above that I prefer the approach taken in the United States to that of most EU states (including the UK). Restrictions on freedom of expression are often imposed for or from outwardly “good” motives, but rapidly become a slippery slope with evil results. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Notes

  1.  http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Alt-Right, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

Reports and Lies

1 Comment

We are accustomed to reading the most arrant nonsense about Adolf Hitler. According to this stream of black propaganda (which started as long ago as the 1920s), Hitler was savage, unforgiving, tyrannical, vituperative, uneducated, a down-and-out from the gutter, a house-painter, sexually perverse, an erotomaniac, impotent, excessively interested in women, a gay, mad, sometimes mad, occasionally mad, only interested in his own material benefit, a tax dodger, even harsh toward his beloved dog, Blondie!

In Hitler’s own lifetime, a pack of lies was spewed out by his enemies: Jewish elements and interests; the Communists and Socialists who, many of them, supported or condoned Stalinism; also journalists working, in effect, for those same groups. During the Second World War, both the Soviet Union and the Western Allies maintained huge ministries and agencies dedicated to “black propaganda”. After 1945 the baton was passed to the increasingly prevalent Jewish or Zionist lobby and its major offshoot, the “holocaust” industry, aided by historians who knew that their careers depended on not challenging the approved narrative.

The “Hitler was a house-painter” story seems to have come from a Jesuit priest who was taken to hear Hitler in Munich in or about 1920. He asked what Hitler was (at that time Hitler had few followers and was unknown outside the city); the answer came, “I think that he is a painter of houses” (no doubt a garbled version, heard somewhere, of Hitler’s pre-WW1 life as a struggling art student and painter). In the 1930s, Churchill took up that false version of Hitler’s life as a young man, no doubt calculating that English snobbery would be inherently biased against a political leader with a past involving painting houses or the like. Even today, one occasionally sees reference to Hitler “painting houses”.

The idea that Hitler was “mad” came from an anti-Hitler newspaper editor (probably the half-Jewish scribbler Konrad Heiden), who, in the 1930s, told the American correspondent and anti-Hitler propagandist William Shirer (who posed as an historian after 1945) that Hitler was a “Teppichfresser” (“carpet-chewer”), meaning prone to bouts of insanity when he would supposedly curl up in rage on the carpet and chew the edge of the same. A complete invention, which has coloured the popular view of Hitler ever since, though even the Jewish historians no longer make the exact allegation.

As to the stories and speculations about Hitler’s  sex life, I should imagine that every possibility has now been explored by journalists and historians eager to reduce Adolf Hitler to a sort of freak show. Needless to say, the most likely possibility (that Hitler was “normal” but unenthusiastic) is of little interest, being unlikely to sell books or newspapers.

A more recent allegation has been that Hitler was a drug addict. Again untrue, though there is at least a kernel of fact underpinning this one, in that Hitler’s doctor, Morell, was a medical innovator who did tend to experiment on his patients. Hitler demanded results; Morell tried to provide them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Morell#Substances_administered_to_Hitler

(actually, though many have quailed at Morell’s preparations, such as the ones that included “intestinal bacteria”, these were the basis for the now-popular “active” yoghurt health drinks for the stomach now found next to the milkshakes in every UK supermarket).

What about Hitler as a vengeful tyrant? This seems to rest mainly on his reaction to the 1944 plotters, who, in the midst of Germany’s fight for survival, saw fit to blow up Hitler and the German High Command at Rastenburg in East Prussia (now in Poland). Yes, they were executed, some cruelly, it seems, but would it have been much different in, say, England, had Churchill been blown up by “traitors” at Ditchley Park (in, perhaps, 1940), alongside his military and naval chiefs?

In reality, Hitler was not a vengeful type. Anton Drexler, the locksmith who founded the then DAP which Hitler joined in 1919, had a serious quarrel with Hitler in 1921. He wrote a letter accusing Hitler of “acting like a Jew, twisting every fact” (!), was removed as head of the party (replaced by Hitler) and was given a purely figurehead position until he resigned in 1924, after which he was elected to the Bavarian Parliament for another party, serving as elected member until 1928. Despite that, Drexler was readmitted to the NSDAP in 1933, honoured (though not given any political position) and died peacefully in 1942. One cannot imagine Stalin treating a similar case the same way!

Another example. The first reports about an attempted putsch in Munich in 1923 (the Beer Hall Putsch, also known as the Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch), reached the ears of a police commander called Sigmund von Imhoff, who contacted the Reichswehr commander of the city and seized the telephone and telegraph exchange. He was probably the most important reason that the putsch failed (amid bloodshed, Hitler himself being injured as the main march was brought to a halt).

One can well imagine what Stalin, on attaining power, would have done with an officer such as von Imhoff, but under Hitler he was not punished. On the contrary, he was promoted to Police General in 1933 and, in WW2, seconded to the Luftwaffe with the rank of Major General (he died in Bavaria in 1967).

This article could be ten times or a hundred longer, so many lies about Hitler and the Reich have been told and continue to be told. However, the few examples above perhaps will give pause to those who imagine that they have been told the truth about those world-historic events of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.

ethnostate, free speech, prepping, safe zones, society, Uncategorized, white flight

The Veneer of Social Order

4 Comments

Living in a country such as the UK, basic social order has been taken for granted for centuries. Even during the economic and political upheavals of the 1920s and 1930s, or during the Second World War, disorder was only briefly and occasionally present. The 1950s and 1960s brought the odd street battle (not always political), but real life continued. The same was true of the 1970s and 1980s, where the occasional skirmish between political opponents or industrial disputants and/or the police was something that people for the most part watched on television, in between a variety show and Match of The Day. The relatively few riotous disorders in a few black neighbourhoods in London and elsewhere did not directly affect many citizens.

In those past decades, there were certainties: pretty much everywhere had a police station (even a village would have a “police house” with one or two constables). Every village had a sub-post office, every town had at least one main post office. Emergency calls for ambulances were quickly answered and took people to Accident and Emergency departments and hospitals which were usually efficient, with quiet wards and plenty of staff. Courts were places of seriousness and, in larger towns, some grandeur. Social security offices were there to help the poor, unemployed, disabled and destitute.

Now look. The UK’s social fabric has worn very very thin. Police are concentrated in large police stations and headquarters and are rarely seen on the streets. I myself happened to need to report something recently (in a small town in Southern England) and went to the large police station only to find that it shut daily at 1800 hrs and was staffed (as far as could be seen) by one woman aged (it appeared) in her sixties, certainly late fifties, in a uniform bearing the rank “Station Support Officer”, i.e. not even a policewoman. Admittedly, another and very pleasant woman, with a charming yet efficient telephone manner, called later to take details, but she was based in some other part of the county.

Many will recall the petrol disputes and consequent shortages which happened a few times in the Tony Blair years. I myself saw, in 2000, scenes verging on the anarchic, simply because the petrol stations were running out of fuel.

Again, take the health service, with its crowding, its noisy hospitals, its bureaucracy, its ever-lengthening response times and waiting lists. Or look at the courts (those not closed down, of which there have been literally hundreds in England and Wales). Instead of imposing and beautiful buildings imparting a sense of “the majesty of the law”, we find that many courts are housed in ugly utilitarian edifices. In addition, many citizens are now priced out of justice by high fees.

Then we have the governmental functions that interface with members of the public on a vast scale: the almost inhuman DWP created or coarsened by Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, the Jew “Lord” Freud etc., the HMRC and its (even more shambolic) administration. To call these organizations “not fit for purpose” is to be kind.

We have examined the now-skeletal police service; the same is true of the armed services, such as the British Army. What would happen if there were a truly big challenge to public and social order? Could the State cope? I think not.

For the above reasons and several others, I favour the creation of a mini-ethnostate in one or more parts of the UK, possibly starting in the South West of England. I have written about the idea in several of my blog posts on this site as well as on my own website:

http://ianrmillard.com/social-national-communities

If the social order breaks down in the UK, the “safe zone” that I propose will be a redoubt, an area where public and social order can be maintained, together with culture, civilization, a decent life. From this defended region can come the call to the rest of the UK to re-establish society and State.

Alt-Right, historical, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

On Marching and Demonstrating

1 Comment

Should social nationalists march or demonstrate? My answer is the qualified, “only if the march or demonstration looks credible and maybe not even then”. What does that mean?

Some older people reading this will recall the National Front marches of the 1970s, with their aspiration to “a forest of Union Jacks”. Those marches were sometimes “credible” (meaning large enough not to be laughed at by hostile elements or the public generally) but had their drawbacks. All marchers were photographed (openly) by State security staff, as well as by the Press and/or Jewish Zionist snoopers. The police usually decided on the route in consultation with the organizers, as is usual now. The whole show was State-controlled. The resulting publicity was usually quite unfavourable, partly because the violence caused by anti-NF protesters tainted the NF marchers themselves, partly because of the unremittingly-hostile Press coverage, partly because many of the public could not see why such marches had to happen, disrupting superficially “peaceful” areas.

Unfavourable publicity from biased mainstream media, Jewish/Zionist provocation, public incomprehension. All of these were not new even in the 1970s. Mosley and the BUF faced similar problems in the 1930s. The uniformed marches remain controversial today, with even some who look kindly upon them blaming them for the relatively poor showing of the BUF in elections. The same is said of the famous rally at Olympia in 1934. After that, election results worsened and, importantly, the Daily Mail withdrew its support. BUF membership, which at one time had approached 50,000, dropped to 8,000 by 1935 (though at time of repression and involuntary disbandment in 1940, numbers had recovered to 20,000).

That was then and a different UK political milieu, but it can probably be said that Mosley and the BUF would have done better in terms of public perception without marches and, indeed, political uniforms (banned by the Public Order Act 1936).

The milieu today is one in which the Internet plays an important role. The mainstream media are losing ground in public visibility. The printed Press is dying: the Independent no longer publishes on paper, The Guardian begs its dwindling readership for donations. Where do public marches have a place?

It will be remembered that, a couple of years ago, a misguided young man started pushing on Twitter and elsewhere for marches against the Jewish influence in London, particularly North London and specifically in the (Orthodox Jew/Hasid) Stamford Hill area and also (later, in 2015) in the Golders Green neighbourhood. Some might say that that boat has well and truly sailed!

I opposed the idea on Twitter as soon as I became aware of it, not because I have any great liking for Jews of any kind, but for three main reasons:

  • firstly and most importantly, because such marches would probably be small, have to be protected by the ordinary police and make social nationalism look pathetic;
  • secondly, because the public would see such activity (especially through the msm lens) as an “unprovoked” attack on the Jews of those parts of London; and
  • thirdly, because it is the duty of social nationalists to put forward a vision of a better society, not to make futile gestures of a negative nature towards groups, even alien groups.

The result was all too predictable: the first event was abandoned (the organizer having been banned by the authorities from entering within the M25 area); the second “march” was moved, on the say-so of the police, to at least 7 miles from Golders Green. In the end, about 10 “marchers” held a static demonstration in a Central London street. The organizer (Joshua Bonehill) was absent, having been arrested. He was later convicted of “incitement” of “racial hatred” against Jews and is still in prison.

A sorry tale, though it seems that that young man has reconsidered his position while in prison and has come to the conclusion (according to his Wikipedia entry) that the thing to do is to try to build a political base in the rural area from which he originated (southern Somerset). Better.

Can marches etc ever be useful these days? I think that the answer, at least on a 99% basis, must be “no”. The trade unions have raised marches numbering 500,000 against UK “austerity” cuts, without effect. Going back further, the anti-Iraq War march of 2003 in London is said by some to have topped a million (others say 500,000), while in Rome, the figure was 3 million. Overall, the anti-Iraq War protests of 2003 are said to have been “the largest protest event in human history” [Wikipedia]. Result? No change of policy by government(s) at all.

My conclusion from the above is that public protests are a distraction from real political activity.

Alt-Right, environment, ethnostate, free speech, prepping, Reminiscences and Musings, safe zones, society, Uncategorized, white flight

The Organization of Community

2 Comments

When new social-national communities emerge, as they will in the coming years, the question is posed as to their organization.

It is important to note that, in the UK, a social-national community will not, in general, be anything akin to a commune, paramilitary encampment or religious settlement such as a monastery or convent. It will be a community which interpenetrates the existing or pre-existing ordinary village, suburb, town or city. The template can best be explained in relation to what might happen when social nationalism arrives in a large village or small town.

Scene

A social nationalist with capital buys a country house or estate, somewhere near a small English or Welsh town. He or she needs workers or retainers to help with the house, grounds, park, perhaps farmland too. Those people are sourced from the wider social-national community in the UK. At the same time, these people gradually infiltrate the local community, not in any sinister way, but by doing the things that they would have done wherever they lived: sending their children to local schools, joining local non-political groups (am-dram, allotments, churches, residents’, neighbourhood watch etc).

Other social nationalists arrive, buying houses locally, renting property, getting jobs or living off pensions or even State benefits. Some buy or rent farms, cafes, pubs, shops. Some start to work in the local offices of larger enterprises, in the local Jobcentre (if any), or in the local council offices. Others are able to work from home, thanks to the Internet.

Nothing alarming or noisy happens. There are no marches, demonstrations, or other disruptions. People get on with normal life. Underneath the surface, however, there is purposeful movement, a current beginning to flow. There are meetings, discussions, social events; nothing too large or noisy. In time, the social nationalists number in the hundreds and are a significant proportion of the local population, with more gravitating to the area every week. The time has then come for overt political action.

A by-election for a council ward is held. Few of the original local inhabitants even bother to vote. A social nationalist is elected, either under Party banner, as “Resident”, or “Independent”; even perhaps under System party aegis.

The local council is taken over before very long. Social nationalists are then in the driving-seat locally. The area and the wider region becomes a magnet for social-national people from across the UK as it becomes known as a place where censorship and hostile opposition is unknown or swiftly checkmated. The local librarian is a social nationalist, the Mayor, the schoolteachers, the council officials, the friendly innkeeper and his wife, the sub-post office people.

The election for Westminster is held and the social nationalist candidate is elected, perhaps under social nationalist party banner. By this time, the national press, radio and TV is trying to spread lies about the people in the movement, but can do nothing against a solid phalanx of believers, living, working and acting in a situation where the Zionists and others can do nothing substantial to harm or impede them. Locally, social nationalists run an Internet radio station, even local transmitted radio, as well as the local free newspaper. It is not long before the movement spreads throughout the whole region. People of like mind are fleeing London, Manchester, Birmingham etc so that they can live in such a region. A mini-ethnostate has been created.

The story does not end there, but on a wider stage.