Category Archives: historical

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.

elections, historical, Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, society, Uncategorized

Tipping Points in Politics and Life

1 Comment

We have all heard of the theatrical cliche of the actor who achieves “overnight success”, having in fact worked hard against all the odds for years. The same is often true of writers, painters and other artists. Not forgetting scientists. It was Edison who, on the failure of his (supposedly) 2,000th lightbulb experiment, is said to have said: “I have not failed. I have just discovered the 2,000th way not to invent the incandescent lightbulb.” At a later time, he of course succeeded. Many things follow the pattern: a long period of non-movement, then sudden success (or sudden failure of something, often after long stagnation).

One can call this a tipping-point, or characterize it by some other metaphor. The aircraft which suddenly fails by reason of metal fatigue, the ship which finally turns over after ice has built up on its external structure in Arctic waters, the huge empire which “suddenly” staggers and falls. On the other hand, there is that actor with his “overnight” success, that composer whose works suddenly find favour, the small political group which “suddenly” rises to prominence and power.

The Bolsheviks were a small group of societal rejects mostly living in internal or external exile, or in prison. Many were not even Russian. Jews predominated in their higher councils (despite forming only 10% of the entire membership), but there were also Georgians and others. In fact, the Bolshevik Party only had 8,400 members in 1905 and, though that increased to 46,100 by 1907, by 1910 the numbers had slipped back to about 5,000. Few would then have imagined either that the mighty Russian Empire would collapse or that the tiny faction of Bolsheviks could seize control of what was left. We know the rest: a failing war and an impoverished population, an initial attempt by others at “moderate” revolution and then a coup d’etat by one small group in one corner of a vast empire.

The lesson: a small and marginalized group, disciplined ideologically and practically, can both seize power and institute an entirely new form of society, once that tipping point or crisis point has been reached.

In post-WW1 Bavaria, Adolf Hitler became the 7th member of the German Workers’ Party [DAP], which may also have had an unknown number (estimates vary from mere dozens to as many as 15,000) of loose supporters in the beerhalls of 1919 Munich.

By 1923, this tiny and marginalized group was able to attempt the Beer Hall Putsch [aka Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch], but it is important to note that, despite the support of Ludendorff and a few other notables, the actual number of putschists involved was small: the main march headed by Hitler was only 2,000-strong (immediately after the putsch failed, 3,000 students from the university also marched in support and to lay wreaths). Indeed, even had the putsch succeeded, Hitler would only have taken power in one city of one region within the German state as a whole.

The membership of the NSDAP grew steadily, reaching 108,000 by 1928. Electorally, however, the NSDAP was doing worse in 1928 (receiving only 2.6% of the national vote) than it had done in 1924, no doubt a reflection of the growing prosperity in the intervening years (i.e. since the infamous hyperinflation finished in 1924). Despite that poor showing, once the Great Depression started to affect Germany after 1929, the NSDAP was able to gain the trust of ever-more voters: the vote in 1932 was 37% and then 33% (in the two elections of that year), growing to 44% in 1933. Adolf Hitler then took full power, having been appointed Chancellor in 1932.

A different example: UKIP grew from a few people in a pub in 1991 to a peak in the 2012-2015 period, but has not the ideological discipline or revolutionary intent to “seize power” even by electoral means. It missed its chance and will probably not get any further. Still, its growth, in the UK context, is interesting. Its founder, Alan Sked, was a former Liberal candidate who stood as “Anti-Federalist” candidate for the seat of Bath in 1992 (i.e. after UKIP had been formed), receiving 117 votes [0.2%].

UKIP had virtually no members until the late 1990s, though by 2015 the membership had grown to nearly 50,000 (now 30,000). As for its vote share, that grew to nearly 13% by 2015, but the UK’s unfair “First Past The Post” [FPTP] electoral system meant no gains.

FPTP voting itself illustrates the “tipping point” idea, as happened in Scotland: the SNP had fairly good support for decades, but few MPs until the tipping point was reached. Now it has 50% support, but almost 100% of Westminster seats. Why was the tipping point reached? Cultural identity rising, living standards falling, entrenched Labour failing. The point was reached–and the Labour vote collapsed.

UKIP has the same problem. So long as it has only 10% or even 15% of votes, it cannot get more than one or two MPs. Were it to get to 25% support, the situation would tip and UKIP would have perhaps 100 MPs. Except that that will probably not happen…

In fact, the Bath constituency mentioned above is instructive: Alan Sked got only 117 votes (0.2%) in 1992; in 2015 the UKIP candidate received nearly 3,000 votes (over 6%), but was still only 5th (Sked came in 6th in 1992)

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

The difference between UKIP’s situation and that of the Bolsheviks or NSDAP is that UKIP has no really firm ideological or organizational structure. Even if society came to a political tipping point, UKIP might well be unable to take advantage of that.

A new and properly-run social nationalist party could take most of the votes of UKIP as well as those which formerly went to the BNP and others. That however, could only ever be a foundation for electoral success. That success itself would depend on the rising star of the new party meeting the fading star of the old parties. It is a question of timing and of Fate. The tipping point for the whole society would be key.

historical, Reminiscences and Musings, Uncategorized

Castro and Cuba

3 Comments

I had no intention of writing about Cuba or Castro following the recent death of “Fidel”. However, the public and mass media reaction, much of it an outpouring of adulation and “me-too” faux-liberal compromise, has impelled me to write.

There is no doubt that Cuba before Castro was corrupt and, for many, poor. Before Castro there was Batista and before Batista, Prio (Carlos Prio Socarras), of whom the British historian Hugh Thomas wrote, memorably, in his mammoth history of the country, that he “fell like a rotten fruit, full of its own corruption.” Prío himself later said of his presidency: “They say that I was a terrible president of Cuba. That may be true. But I was the best president Cuba ever had.”[see Arthur M. Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. New York: Houghton Mifflin (2002) p 216].

Prio was in fact someone who tried to keep to constitutional proprieties and it was his decision not to act extra-judicially which allowed the harsher figure of Batista to seize power in 1952, Prio himself having been elected (by free and contested election) in 1948.

Cuba in the 1950s was sometimes described as somewhere between a Latin American country and a detached, poorer, part of the United States, the latter for long its effective suzerain.

It would be easier to make a quick judgment of Castro’s rule had the United States not (and typically) engaged in ham-fisted great-power and quasi-colonialist geopolitics over the island. Those American interventions continue to muddy the waters: attempts to assassinate Castro, the Bay of Pigs “invasion” of 1961; above all, the partial embargo (which Cuba called a “blockade”) imposed initially in 1960.

No-one can say for sure whether Cuba would be much different had it had the chance to trade freely with the USA, its neighbour and natural main trading partner. Probably not much. Venezuela is another and more recent example of the inability of a Latin American socialist economy to perform adequately for long.

The  bien-pensant “usual suspects” in the UK (the absurd Tariq Ali, Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn etc) are now saying that the Castro dictatorship was sort-of acceptable because Cuba had good education and good medical services. On that basis, they should be very kind indeed to German National Socialism, which provided the same and in fact far more (and with far less repression, in reality).

In fact, long before the Soviet subsidy disappeared, Havana was falling to pieces, as were the Cuban roads and railways. I myself had fleeting and peripheral contact with Cuba, otherwise seen by me only from the sea (between Cuba and the Bahamas) and the air (flying over Cuba between Tampa, Florida and Grand Cayman).

I was asked, when a practising barrister in London circa 1995, to help a scientific start-up based at Porton Down, Wiltshire, the high-security  biological warfare facility, then recently partly-privatized. A small company of scientists had a bacterium which turned biomass into fuel (unscientific me calling it the turning of straw into gold). I thought of Cuba with its sugar-cane detritus, lack of fuel and high technical-education levels. Unfortunately, the Cuban Embassy in London did not respond, unlike the Ukrainian: I visited Porton Down with the then Ukrainian Ambassador, Mr. Komisarenko [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serhiy_Komisarenko]. Nothing came of that in the end, but it seems that, in more recent years, a company called Havana Energy, headed by ex-Labour Party MP Brian Wilson, has been producing energy that way in Cuba. The Cuban Embassy’s unresponsiveness told me all I needed to know about the Cuban bureaucracy: unalert, lethargic, useless, bearing in mind the country’s crying need for fuel.

Since the early 1990s, Cuba has gradually been moving towards a capitalist economy. No doubt that process will continue. Eventually, some kind of greater rapprochement with the USA will happen.

In this blog post, I am more interested in the puerile reaction of the kind of people in the UK who are letting off Castro on human rights and economic efficiency because Cubans have a health service and a school system. Jeremy Corbyn has excelled himself in ignorant misunderstanding. He just digs himself deeper with every statement.

The mass media and in particular the BBC is, as one might expect, doing its bit to eulogize about Castro, saying that he “turned a small island into a major force in world affairs.” Where does one start in unpacking such nonsense?

The reaction to Castro’s death tells me something else: those in the UK who think themselves “socialist” are willing to turn a blind eye to historical, political and economic realities so long as the label is right.

Update, 5 January 2019

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6558991/Rich-kids-COMMUNISM-Fidel-Castros-model-grandson-flashes-wealth-European-vacations.html

environment, historical, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

Robotics Might Save the Railways

Leave a comment

The rail system in the UK is a mess. Start from basics: rail travel, when it started (in England, in the world) in the 19th century, was a fast expanding private enterprise system of competing lines. These lines (companies) solidified into an efficient cartel by the time of the First World War. During the war itself, the railways were under State control (and until 1921). The Railways Act 1923 put the de facto private cartel on a statutory basis, with four large railway companies running virtually all passenger and freight services. Profitability waned with the coming of cars and road freight so that, by the time of nationalization in 1948, losses threatened. This became reality in 1955, when British Rail recorded its first operating loss.

The “modernization” plans adopted from 1955 culminated in the Beeching Report of 1963 and the subsequent and consequent closures of lines, services and stations. More than a third of passenger services were closed down. The closures of railway stations were even more dramatic: out of 7,000 stations, more than 4,000 were shut.

The 1990s privatization was carried out in a manner so poorly-conceived that only free-market ideologues who knew little of the realities of how to run a railroad could ever have decided upon it. I do not propose to delve into the detail here (and I myself am no expert anyway), except to say that there seems to be a good case for re-nationalization, possibly on a low-compensation or even an expropriation basis.

What of the future? We see that, all over the world, even in the UK, that driverless train transport, indeed driverless transport generally, is becoming common. Many British people will have travelled on limited forms of automated transport such as the Docklands Light Railway or the monorail at Gatwick Airport which connects the main terminal with another. It would be possible to run many more light rail and ultralight rail services on new branch lines, connecting with existing mainline stations and lines. Indeed, computerized and robotized ultralight narrow-gauge trains could run from towns, villages and suburbs not presently connected to rail, such lines terminating at an existing railway station. A whole huge new web of public transport could come into operation in this manner, eventually becoming more dense even than the railway system that existed before the 1960s. At the extremities, such lines could be narrow-gauge and the trains very small, perhaps single carriage. The expense, though considerable, would be worthwhile, knitting together a country which has become dislocated.

Road transport will be the dominant mode for the foreseeable future, but if an enhanced branch line network can take even 10% of passenger journeys off the roads, the cost of the new system will perhaps have been justified on that basis alone.

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, animal welfare, Brexit, environment, ethnostate, historical, historical revisionism, prepping, Reminiscences and Musings, safe zones, society, Uncategorized, wildlife

Social Nationalism and Green Politics

32 Comments

There has always been a strong connection between the current now known as social nationalism and what is now called the “green” movement.

The famous author Henry Williamson [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Williamson#Politics], who lived in North Devon and wrote the story Tarka the Otter, was a member of the British Union of Fascists, visited Germany during the 1930s and was, by any other name, a National Socialist.

It is well known that Walther Darre [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Walther_Darr%C3%A9] was “green” and that he represented a definite current within German National Socialism.

The only state, to date, to have banned cruel experiments on animals outright was National Socialist Germany. The anti-vivisection law was the first law or one of the first few laws passed by Hitler’s government. Cartoons showed Goering (another National Socialist and leading conservationist) and animals saluting, with captions such as “Heil Goering!”, “Even the animals vote for the Fuhrer!” and “Vivisection verboten!”goeringanimals

A leading, though at the same time once-obscure thinker, who espoused both National Socialism and animal welfare (etc), was Savitri Devi [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi], whose work is now again coming to attention. Her ideas and books even have websites devoted to them: https://www.savitridevi.org/last_man_french.html and https://www.savitridevi.org/.

The connection is not surprising. What is now termed social nationalism is organic, built on the natural order and having respect for the creatures of the land, water and air as well as (contrary to Zionist propaganda) the relatively backward racial groups and peoples of our Earth. The hero Leon Degrelle [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Degrelle] put the latter point very well after the Second World War:becwoaeccaazenq

It is striking to see that there is very often an overlap, for example on Twitter, between those who are protective of animals and those who are strongly social-nationalist. Brigitte Bardot is a name which comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot.

The new society in Europe will be nationalist; it will also be for Europe’s European future (though anti-EU); it will be green and it will be socially-just.

Notes:

https://www.kn-online.de/Nachrichten/Hamburg/Voelkische-Siedler-Die-Bio-Nazis-von-nebenan

Update, 28 June 2020

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/28/german-far-right-infiltrates-green-groups-with-call-to-protect-the-land?CMP=share_btn_tw

Update, 26 May 2021

Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Wallop,_9th_Earl_of_Portsmouth#Organic_movement; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Wallop,_9th_Earl_of_Portsmouth

Alt-Right, Defence, ethnostate, historical, historical revisionism, Jewish lobby in UK, Russia and Russian relations, society, Uncategorized

NATO Must Not Attack Russia

President Bush snr. proclaimed the “New World Order” [NWO] openly in 1990. The Soviet Union was not dissolved until the following year, but had in fact died in 1989, 33 years (significantly) after Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” of 1956, which denounced Stalinism and introduced the “Thaw”.

The ruling circles of the West (variously called the Wise Men of the West, the Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy, the NWO-Zionist consensus etc) were behind the fall of the Russian Empire in February 1917 and the Bolshevik takeover in October 1917. That is not to say that they were able to control events completely. They wanted the Jew, Trotsky (L.D. Bronstein) to take over eventually from the part-Jew, Lenin (V.I. Ulyanov), but reckoned without an even more ruthless evil character, the Georgian, Stalin (J.V. Djugashvili).

Stalin’s seizure of power in the mid-1920s was not ideal from the point of view of the Western conspirators. It stabilized or froze the political situation and the decline in social and family life in Russia and its dependent territories. The Soviet regime became even more conservative during the course of the 1941-45 conflict with the German Reich. Russian Orthodox religion was allowed (under controlled conditions), national patriotism held sway. Marxism was embalmed alongside Lenin’s “waxwork”.The original plan of the Western circles had been that Marxism-Leninism would take over all of Eastern and Central Europe, as far as the Rhine. What stopped that was

  1. in Russia, Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country” policy; and
  2. in Germany, the rise of National Socialism under Adolf Hitler.

The end of the Second World War saw Europe split between East and West. Central Europe was squeezed out. Germany was divided into East and West. Berlin was symbolically divided into East and West. This was deliberate.

In time, the Sovietized “East” (including those Eastern parts of Central Europe), moved to a position which was not far from various forms of social democracy under a socialist-communist mantle. This did not suit the Western “consensus”, which therefore decided to collapse the post-1945 “international settlement”. The Soviet Union, whose citizens were more affluent than they had ever been, fell gradually into social decadence and corruption until the state was ready to have as its anointed leader a man who would sit complacently at its head and watch it implode: Gorbachev.

When George Bush senior proclaimed the New World Order, he was giving voice to the latest global plan of the ruling Western circles: to rule over a globalized world economy. Politics would be merely the instrument by which finance-capitalism would triumph, sweeping away regional, national and local economies, customs, religions and social cohesion. Only money, that is, concentrations of capital, would count.

The plan worked for several years. Socialism in all forms had died in 1989 and Russia was swept along with the finance-capitalist tide, even though the majority of Russians were poorer in most ways than they had been under late-Sovietism. When a rump of pro-Soviet parliamentarians and officers (supported by most Russians, probably) tried to take back power in 1993, the corrupt and drunken Yeltsin ordered massive and bloody assaults on the Duma and other installations. Bush snr. called that an affirmation of “democracy”.

Below the surface, Russians were tiring of their diminished country being a playground for gangsters and exploitative Jewish “oligarchs”, a place in which American companies and other carpetbaggers (again, often Jewish) could strut about, a place where Moscow schoolgirls dreamed of being, not artists, doctors, scientists or mothers, but hard-currency prostitutes. Ten years after the proclamation of the New World Order, the Russian economy having collapsed, a new President of Russia, Putin, started to rebuild Russian pride and self-confidence. At the same time, the New World Order suffered its second and equally massive blow when Islamist fanatics flew planes into the World Trade Center in New York City. That attack (whether “helped along” one way or another or not), was a sign of Islamist strength gathering worldwide.

Another decade passed. The Western circles made a huge mistake in invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Further errors were made in Libya and Syria, instigated by Israel, whose lobby of Jewish Zionists and pro-Israeli non-Jews has a stranglehold in Washington. Israel wanted to destroy or degrade the armies of all potentially harmful states, but its gain was the West’s loss.

The Western circles then decided to arm even Islamist anti-Assad forces in Syria. At the same time, the government of Ukraine, corrupt and weakened by years of Zionist infiltration, was deposed and replaced by a complete “ZOG” [“Zionist Occupation Government”]. Eastern Ukraine, in part, broke away. The NWO (mainly though not exclusively American in terms of its military reach and leadership elements) is attempting to foment war in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, as well as in Poland, the Baltic States and in Syria.

Hillary Clinton wanted and vowed to “confront Russia in Syria”. She was a corrupt puppet of the NWO and Israel. Donald Trump’s defeat of her was divinely ordained, no matter that the man himself is unfit to be a head of state or government. The danger now is that the NWO will try to hedge him about with NWO satraps. There is still a huge danger that the NWO, via NATO, will push Russia into a war which would devastate Europe, as well as wide areas of both Russia and the USA.

All those who wish for the West to come to peaceful concord with Russia must stand up now against what amounts to a conspiracy to cause a Third World War.

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

Fortress-Centres of Culture and Science

2 Comments

In the Dark Ages, the flame of civilization and culture was kept burning in fortified centres: walled cities, monasteries etc. It may be that the time has come to think in terms of “back-up” for the knowledge and human expertise that we take for granted today.

What does that mean in practical terms? There can be little doubt that, were a breakdown of law and order to occur (whether as a result of war or natural calamity), the British cities would probably become chaotically lawless in a short space of time, especially if fuel, food, water or utilities were unavailable.

It seems to me that those inclined to social-nationalism should think in terms of relocating to areas some distance from major cities, to small towns and villages where like-minded people can become either the majority or a strong minority. Such clusters of people can take over the local councils, local businesses and farms, as well as doing the usual run of employed work which they might do in the cities where they, perhaps, now live.

The idea has the following merits:

a. Political (electoral or other) bases can be created, with voting weight;

b. The clustering effect would enable concerted action;

c. In the event of catastrophes in the wider world, these centres would become the places looked to by the wider masses for leadership.

Clausewitz said that, in order to extend power, one must first have a secure base. It is that that social-nationalism lacks at present in the UK. The above proposal aims to address that lack.

 

 

Alt-Right, animal welfare, Brexit, ethnostate, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, prepping, Russia and Russian relations, society, Threefold Social Order, Uncategorized

A New Civilization For Eurasia

1 Comment

From the defeat of the German Reich in 1945, which destroyed, at least temporarily, the idea of Central Europe (and so split Europe between East and West, symbolically in Berlin itself), an international order comprising such organizations as the IMF, World Bank, United Nations Organization etc has been the skeleton of the “West”.

The “East”, meaning the Marxist-Leninist world of the Soviet Union, China and their offshoots, fell to pieces after 1989. The present necessity for both Europe/Eurasia and the world in general, is for, not the faked-up and largely Zionist-controlled “New World Order” made public by the first President Bush in 1990, but a REAL New Order which will be a synthesis of the best of the former and existing ideologies (National Socialism, “private enterprise” capitalism, socialism/communism), together with and held together by an acceptance of the general principles of Rudolf Steiner’s Threefold Social Order (cf. the works of Valentin Tomberg et al).

This will be a social order which reconciles the superficially conflicting demands of social cohesion (collectivity) and individual human rights (individuality). Spiritually, the new social matrix will accept the right of every individual to his or her own spiritual path, while protecting the right of society as a whole not to be placed under the tyranny of any particular religion.

Geographically, the new social order will be based in, though not limited to, Northern Europe and Russia/Siberia. Ethnically, the new civilization will be based on, but not limited to, those of White Northern European racial background. The important factor will be culture and not race; however, race must, for many centuries, play its important part as foundation for the new society.

I call upon all those interested in the future of Europe and the world to come together in this enterprise.