“The British military risks becoming irrelevant if it continues to focus on “missiles and tanks” as the main threats to the UK, the head of the Army has warned.”
“The army must “update and change the rules of war” according to the Chief of the General Staff, to be able to tackle new threats like cyber attacks, whilst also deterring countries that rely on heavy firepower.”
“General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said a focus on high-tech weapons that are no use against low-level threats like fake news and subversion “leaves us close to a position of dominant irrelevance”.”
“The main threat is not missiles and tanks, it is the weaponisation of globalisation, and those elements of globalization that have hitherto made us prosperous and secure: the mobility of goods, people, data and ideas.”
“Secure borders, or living on an island, are no guarantees against the corrosive and intrusive effect of disinformation, subversion and cyber.”
“The Army head suggested that traditional concepts of warfare were “increasingly redundant”.”
General Carleton-Smith fails to mention, at least specifically, mass immigration (and the subsequent and consequent births) as a factor impacting the very survival of the UK as a state, a country, a society.
Of course, if he did mention it in that context, he would be sacked.
At one time, the UK was a fairly cohesive society. Now it is not. It is a seething volcanic caldera, disguised only by a thin and disintegrating crust.
Look at what happened just today (4 June 2019):
A Trump supporter is milkshaked by a hostile crowd in Parliament Square.
A baying mob of anti-Trump “protesters” bait and then attack what seems to be a lone middleaged man. A porcine woman leads the abusive and violent multi-ethnic pack, shouting “nazi scum!” repeatedly into his face. I suppose that he was brought up not to punch a woman in the face, even one like her.
Look at the policewoman (or PCSO) who not only does not attempt to arrest the milkshake-thrower but looks terrified, before she is pushed aside by the crowd as an irrelevance. The police are just useless these days. That “officer” made no attempt to protect a citizen standing in the street outside Parliament itself. Well, in the end, she is just one woman in a clown outfit.
Incidentally, I am not exactly a Trump fan myself; that is another issue.
We often think that the UK is becoming a police state. How is that reconciled with the imminent social breakdown I am predicting? In fact, the two go together, and both are linked to the now-fragmented UK society.
As society becomes fragmented, the easy-going policing of the past has to change to try to contain the chaos just below the surface. In addition, anything which disturbs the surface calm, or relative calm, has to be criminalized. So we see that, as the foreign invading hordes and their offspring have multiplied in number, so have the penalties increased for anyone who suggests that they should not be in the UK, or should be removed one way or another.
This started in the 1960s with the first Race Relations Act (1965), and became increasingly more oppressive with subsequent Acts (1968, 1976, 1985, 2000, 2003). It is clear why: the threat of public order upheaval, as more and more “blacks and browns” (and others) arrived in the UK and started to breed.
Free speech, freedom of expression generally, freedom of choice (eg in offering employment, or housing or whatever) “had” to be curtailed for reasons of “preserving the Peace” and in order to keep up the pretence that the multi-ethnic/multicultural society can work, albeit at the expense of a certain loss of civic freedom.
There was also the realization that, as the non-British and indeed non-European populations expanded in size, they had to be pandered to, not “offended” etc, not because the reverse would be impolite or undiplomatic, but because those increasingly huge populations might rise up against the white British people who “allowed” them to come to the UK (though most of the British opposed mass immigration; it was always the System and its politicians etc that caused the influx and its problems).
It was and still is the Jewish Zionist element that was and still is behind much of the legal repression and the “ethnic” influx itself (“The Great Replacement”).
Over the years, the censorship of speech and restriction of actions has expanded from races and “ethnicities” to other parts of the general population: religions, sexual orientations etc.
You can now say, or post online, relatively innocuous views, only to find that you are not only faced with a virtual (online) mob baying for your blood, but also quite likely with a policeman at your door or on the telephone. My own experiences include this:
If you say something that offends the general orthodoxy, you may lose your job, your professional status, your liberty.
The satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz lost her job —singing for a cruise line— simply because her views supposedly offended some Jews, even though her views had nothing to do with that job. Later, she sang satirical songs about some of the hundreds (if not thousands) of “holocaust” fake stories. That resulted in a farcical cycle of police persecution, prosecutions, eventual trial, conviction, sentence, appeal and now (at time of writing) further appeal.
Jez Turner set up the London Forum discussion group. He also made a speech in Whitehall in 2015, recalling how the Jews had been expelled from England more than once (and hoping that they might yet be removed again). Put on trial in 2018. Convicted. His punishment? A year in prison (he served 6 months).
I too was subject to action (by the same Jew-Zionist element): see above, and also
The Zionist campaign against free speech and free historical enquiry is being resisted, but the mere fact that such repression of free speech exists is very significant.
In the last few years, the privatization of public space has led to the abuse of power by the main online platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc), and even the organizations behind or around such platforms: paypal, patreon, and so on.
When Twitter started to remove “unwanted” opinion from its pages, many turned to GAB, only to find that there was a strong and focussed attempt by the ZOG powers to destroy GAB. So far, it has survived. However, the campaign against free speech continues, and shows no sign of abating:
Indeed, even a joke made (and posted online) about a Guy Fawkes event in a suburban garden can result in a police raid, evidence “bagged up” as for a murder case etc. Am I making this up to prove my point? No.
Measures against free speech and freedom of expression are just, overall, a symptom of what is happening. By that I mean the fragility of civil society generally. We see that, as the police “crack down” on social media posts or stickers put up on university campuses (incredibly, some young people got 4 years in prison for the latter, quite recently), comments made in blogs etc, in the real world of the UK, crime and especially violent crime is getting out of control: London infested by mainly black and brown “moped raiders” and “scooter raiders” and muggers, “road rage” incidents, brawls etc. The courts are far more lenient, usually, on those real crimes than they are on the fake crimes or notional crimes of pretended offence.
I have seen over the years how thin the veneer of society is in the UK. As long ago as the petrol protests of 2000, I noticed that that veneer was already very very thin indeed. Fights breaking out over the fuel pumps etc.
The police cover has been reduced, and while the police seem to be enthusiastically noting and acting upon reports of anyone seriously (or even unseriously, thinking of the dog taught to do a “Hitler” salute! The owner got a heavy fine…) criticizing the failing multikulti society (or the Jews that are mainly behind it), they seem far less interested in the traditional role of the police, i.e. investigating real crime and keeping safe the citizenry.
As for the armed services, they seem to be going the same way. Reduced in numbers, and with their focus on the approved shibboleths of the “multi-everything” society: multi-ethnic, multicultural, LGBT-whatever friendly, with confused aims, ever-lowering standards and little ability to counter either conventional threats or new dangers.
There again, what are the armed forces actually defending? We are now at the 75th anniversary of the Normandy Landings. There may be disputes about whether the Second World War ever need have happened, about whether an honourable armistice between the British Empire and the German Reich might have been concluded in 1940, but leaving all that aside, the British servicemen and civilians of that era (albeit bamboozled by Churchill and his cabal, so be it…) knew, at least in their own minds, what their own society was! Something like the picture given in the popular song There’ll Always Be An England:
Is there a British society at all now? There are bits and pieces still operative, but the society as a whole is now a jigsaw. There are fissures and rifts and splits everywhere. Racial, ethnic, religious, ideological, sexual, economic etc. Some always existed, but not to this extent.
So we see a situation where, at the very time when the society itself is not a coherent whole, the forces which might compel civic obedience and discipline are not numerous or powerful enough to do so, despite theoretically strict laws relating to various areas.
What will happen in a situation (which might come sooner than many imagine) in which the population is without luxuries or even necessities? Who will control those seething and uncontrolled masses? Not the depleted Army. Not the very depleted police.
A social national movement does not exist in the UK. It may be that the only way for one to exist will be for its existence to become the only way for the whole society to exist.
This may be the most important article that I have written, or will write, for my blog. It goes beyond the usual matters of personal experiences, party politics, ordinary events in society, analysis of historical events etc.
I have been thinking of writing this article for some time. I always get distracted. It will examine, as well as can be done in brief format, whether our present society, culture, civilization, even species, can survive even in the short-term (here meaning the next few decades). It will also suggest some possibilities covering the next few years, next few decades and also a longer-term human future.
General Background
Living in the world, we accept, as the default position, that which we have known all our lives. We consider that to be natural or normal. However, a moment’s thought tells us that that is not so.
As is known (though by no means universally accepted, and still a subject for debate), the Atlantean period ended about 10,000 years ago. The most advanced people of that period were not the latest in time (the Seventh Race) but the Fifth Race, the Aryans. The remnants of that race emigrated from what is now the North Atlantic area to parts of the Earth where they founded new colonies. The main one was that of ancient (pre-Vedic) India.
The foundations of modern Europe lie with the Aryans and their post-Atlantean, post-Aryan descendants:
“The place where Europe began: Spiral cities built on remote Russian plains by swastika-painting Aryans”
“Desolate: The Bronze Age cities were built some 4,000 years ago by the Aryans in a 400 miles long region of the Russian Steppe.”
“The Aryans’ language has been identified as the precursor to a number of modern European tongues. English uses many similar words such as brother, oxen and guest which have all been tracked to the Aryans.” [Daily Mail report]
‘These ancient Indian texts and hymns describe sacrifices of horses and burials and the way the meat is cut off and the way the horse is buried with its master. If you match this with the way the skeletons and the graves are being dug up in Russia [on the border of Siberia and Kazakhstan], they are a millimetre-perfect match.’ [Bettany Hughes, TV historian, in UK Daily Mail].
During our own Post-Atlantean Age, the line of cultures (in the sense of different “civilizations”) has travelled through a succession of Aryan-founded cultures: ancient Indian, ancient Persian, then the Egypto-Babylonian-Chaldean (etc), Graeco-Roman, and now our own, which might be called “Germanic-Anglo-Saxon-American”.
The clue lies in language. The Indo-European language family stretches from present-day India to the British Isles and Iceland and back across Russia and Siberia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
Our own present culture started around 1400 AD (or, in the alternative, “CE”). Its first fruits were a relatively brief recapitulation of the preceding culture, the Graeco-Roman. This recapitulation was what we term the Renaissance, and started in the homeland of the Romans, Italy.
In the future (postulated as expected to start around 3500 AD), another great culture will arise, based on the Slavonic or Slavic peoples; however, that takes us beyond the scope of this present study.
Present orthodox scientific consensus re. human or near-human presence in Europe
Some Changes During the Past 10,000 Years
This is not meant to be a comprehensive study (which would have to be at least of book length). I should like to highlight a few things as a foundation for what I shall write hereinbelow.
in Europe, the human population seems to have been small, perhaps very small, until quite recent times (meaning times more recent than 10,000 years ago). The famous Lascaux cave paintings (present-day SW France) are believed to date from perhaps 15,000 years ago.
Leaving aside detailed consideration of yet more ancient times, the details of which are even more speculative, let us concentrate on the time between that period usually known as the Bronze Age (that is, the period which started no more than 5,000 years ago and in Northern Europe more recently, less than 4,000 years ago, and continued to as recently as 500 BC), and the present day.
Half of the Present-Day Inhabitants of Europe Descend from One Bronze Age Man
Recent advances in archaeological technology, DNA etc have established that over half of the present European population is descended from only one Bronze Age individual, who lived about 4,000 years ago.
In fact, studies seem to show that most present-day Europeans are descended from only three such Bronze Age “kings”, “nobles” etc (in fact, such titles are nothing more than journalistic guesses). Indeed, if present-day non-Europeans and part-Europeans (resident in the Europe of today) are taken out of the equation, the proportion descended from those few might well be far higher.
This is not the place in which to speculate about what events caused only 3 individuals to be the progenitors of most of the European population living today. That speculation is better left to others with wide knowledge of palaeontology, archaeology etc. In any case, that is not the point of this article. The fact remains that almost everything we know as our present culture originated, genetically, from those few men and their families. As a 1930s poster had it, “National Socialism, The Expression of our Biological Knowledge”.
Just think about that: everything, pretty much, that we accept as the human-created world around us, from planes to cars to our housing, to our philosophies, sciences etc, comes from those few people, whose descendants are now the European peoples, and also many of the Americans, Australians etc in the world. Yet those ancient people themselves of course knew nothing of what has become our world.
Ways of Life
Many tourists visit ancient ruined temples, fortresses, whole cities, whose inhabitants fled or were killed, hundreds or even thousands of years ago. In some cases, natural phenomena such as interruption of water supply caused places to be abandoned. More commonly, the cause is found in the military or social collapse of a society. One does not have to visit such places as El Djem, Dougga, Karnak, Babylon, Susa, the great temples of South-East Asia, the ruined cities and pyramids of the Aztecs and Mayans, to realize that even the most developed civilizations sometimes just stop.
In England (and Britain as a whole), for example, we have the remains of several previous cultures:
When the Romans left Britain (410 AD is the usual date, but the decline of Roman Britain was a gradual process over very many decades on either side of the date of departure of the last legion), the existing inhabitants and later the incoming Saxons etc had to start anew. They were not equipped to continue Roman civilization and its way of life. Britain only started to climb to anything like the Roman level a thousand years later. Indeed, in some ways, Britain only reached a Roman level of lifestyle some 1,500 years after the Romans left, in the 19th and 20th centuries: central heating, good roads, a good level of general education, running water for the urban populations etc.
The biggest mistake that can be made in this area is to imagine that fallen societies are always replaced by more sophisticated, more advanced, more civilized societies. In fact, the usual situation is expressed by the staggered spiral. A period of advance is not infrequently followed by a retrograde motion, before another and greater advance can be made. So the Graeco-Roman period reached its greatest outward extent, only to decline internally, lapsing into weakness and decadence, before collapsing entirely; invaded and largely destroyed by peoples less civilized, who however had within them the seed of later greatness. “Dark Ages” followed, followed by several centuries of the upbuilding of culture by the “new” peoples before those peoples rediscovered antiquity in the Renaissance, which then led on to the Enlightenment and to a civilization of a new and different kind: scientific, interested in practical matters, which however incorporated into itself the earlier culture.
In terms of exploration of the world from Europe, we know that Columbus reached the islands of the Americas in 1492, and that Africa, Australia etc were only really explored by Europeans in the 19thC, so only about 150 years earlier than today, whereas Antarctica was actually unknown until sighted by a Russian ship in 1820.
Where We Are Now
It may be that our present (Fifth Post-Atlantean Age) culture has reached, or shortly will reach, its highest point, despite having run less than a third of its course. A vast array of scientific discoveries have been made since this age started in the early 15thC. Those discoveries have been exploited for both martial and ordinary economic uses. In the field of transport alone, there have been developed cars, motorcycles, trucks, tanks, trains, planes, rockets, powered sea-going craft, submarines, helicopters, hovercraft etc. In medicine, we have had the discovery of bacteria, of pasteurization, immunization, disinfection, advanced surgery (one only need think how primitive even basic anatomy was until the late 19thC), body scanning, antibiotics, organ transplants, powerful analgesics, homeopathy (controversial though that may be), DNA etc. All within the past 200 years or so, and much of it within the past 100.
The population of the Earth is now at what appears to be its greatest-ever extent, certainly in recorded history:
“The highest population growth rates – global population increases above 1.8% per year – occurred between 1955 and 1975, peaking to 2.06% between 1965 and 1970.[5] The growth rate has declined to 1.18% between 2010 and 2015 and is projected to decline further in the course of the 21st century.” [Wikipedia]
The 10 most populous countries contain about 60% of the population of the world, India and China having about 36% (with Bangladesh and Pakistan, over 40%) of the total.
As we see, the population of the world, though still growing, is growing at a fairly slow rate now, though still huge in terms of numbers. It may be that almost all those who were sent to (re)incarnation in order to experience the high point of our age (now nearly a third of the way through its course) are on Earth or recently have been.
What Might Cause the Immediate or Very Swift Collapse of the Present World Order and/or European Society, As Well As Population Reduction?
Many will speak of climate change, but that, in itself (leaving aside to what extent it exists— and what is the cause of it if it exists), will not change anything significant in terms of social order in Europe in the next 10-30 years.
Then there is the possibility of a strike by a large object from space, such as a meteor. Impossible to quantify. Some scientists say that the odds are shortening.
Another possibility is a massive tsunami, which might be provoked by a seismic collapse in the area West of the Canary Islands. If that happened, it would dwarf the recent Asian tsunamis and wipe out much of the population in Western Europe.
Pandemic: with the gradual lessening of effectiveness of antibiotics, this must be a possibility.
The most likely large-scale event to affect Europe in the next few years would be war between Russia and NATO, provoked by NATO as the armed wing of the New World Order. NATO troops, especially American, with a small number from Britain’s depleted spearhead, now often go on “exercise” on the very borders of Russia (Latvia, Ukraine etc) and have even been deployed there on a longer-term basis. Were a NATO-Russia war to occur and to go nuclear, parts of Europe would be devastated. The UK, still after 75 years “America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier” (in the words of Roosevelt), would be all but annihilated as the major strategic targets were destroyed: submarine bases in Scotland, the various early-warning stations, US airfields and other facilities in the UK, large ports etc.
However, even nuclear devastation (so long as it did not cause a nuclear winter) would not necessarily be the end of the story. The Japanese cities hit by atomic bombs in 1945 and almost entirely devastated were rebuilt and are now thriving: photos below show Nagasaki by night and by day, c.2018
photo below shows Nagasaki industrial district after the American atom bombing in 1945
photos below: Hiroshima after atom bomb attack in 1945, and then today
In fact, such destruction was not confined to areas hit by atom bombs. In Japan, Germany and elsewhere, the devastation from conventional bombs and deliberately-created firestorms was quite as bad. Below, Tokyo and Dresden, 1945:
Both Tokyo and Dresden are now once again thriving and heavily-populated cities, of course.
It is common knowledge that the nuclear weapons of today are far more powerful than those used against Japan in 1945. However, the principle is the same. In fact multiple warheads would destroy the same areas, those of the highest strategic importance; other areas would be affected only indirectly, especially those likely to be upwind (in the UK, Wales, Cornwall, Devon, the Western areas of Britain generally).
Chernobyl
The medical and other effects of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster have been terrible for very many people, especially in the Ukraine, especially those who lived near Chernobyl or under the path of its pollution. However, people generally do live unaffected by it, not only in Kiev (which was upwind of the “plume” of radioactive dust) but even (illegally or unofficially) within the “exclusion zone” (mostly now-elderly people who returned against orders to their former homes in the less built-up areas).
Below, before and after photos of the same street corner in Pripyat, the nearest town (until the disaster, 49,000 inhabitants) to the Chernobyl nuclear plant.
Below, Pripyat today, in summer— a ghost town…
In fact, despite radiation and some undesirable genetic mutations and cancers, the animal population in the contaminated Exclusion Zone (i.e. nearly 20 miles in all directions from the Chernobyl reactors, an area the size of Hampshire, or 10 times the size of the Isle of Wight) has flourished since humans fled. Species rarely seen before 1986 are now almost commonplace: Przewalski’s horse, bears, wolves, elk, wild boar, lynx, among others.
Thinking The Unthinkable
Since 1945, the peoples of the world have, with reason, thought of nuclear war as the worst possible eventuality. The powers-that-be (on all sides) have encouraged that view. It has been part of the nuclear stalemate, the nuclear peace during the Cold War. Mutually Assured Destruction.
From the Kremlin to the White House, from Pugwash to Helsinki, from the Rand Corporation through Iron Mountain to Chatham House, and from Herman Kahn to Bertrand Russell, the post-1945 peace and standoff has been secured, in part, by the consciousness that nuclear war might well mean destruction of not only all human civilization but of all life on Earth. What if, though, that “Ur-fact” or Grundnorm is in fact only a partial truth?
Only a maniac could speak of nuclear war lightly. However, might our basic culture, if not the hugely-complex civilization based on it, be able to survive a major nuclear war? Not to think lightly of that possibility, and certainly not to promote it as a way forward, but might we (as a race or people), like the animals of Chernobyl, survive and eventually thrive if it happened?
Gaia
The “Gaia Hypothesis” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia#Modern_ecological_theory., that is, that the Earth is to some extent self-regulating (or even “alive” as an organism) was popularized from 1979 by the British scientist, environmentalist and futurist James Lovelock, but the essence of it, in more spiritual form, had been noted long before, notably by Rudolf Steiner, in some of his lectures. The latter also said that from time to time the Earth shrugs off unwanted irritants as a large animal does parasites from its body.
When we look at the Earth over the course of the present Fifth Post-Atlantean age, i.e. from about 1400 AD to the present day, we see how a relatively unspoiled natural world has been gradually polluted and abused. In 1400, even Western Europe had vast forests, few of which still exist to their original extent. That was even more true of Eastern Europe and Russia. Australia, New Zealand had not been discovered by Europeans; neither had the Americas, in effect, though in fact the Vikings knew of North America, had even visited it, but (for good reason) the Vatican suppressed that knowledge as long as it could, thus delaying for several centuries further European connection to the Americas.
The oceans were still pristine in 1400, and have become progressively more polluted and overfished in the past 600 years. Plastic waste has become almost ubiquitous on both land and sea.
As for the animal kingdom, many scientists think that we are living in a period of extinctions, a “Great Mass Extinction” of life on Earth. Unlike previous mass extinctions, this one is being caused mainly by human activity. We have all seen the struggle to protect the great (and small) animals of Africa, Asia etc, and those of the oceans.
Europeans have awoken to the world environment and its crisis, but that has mainly not been the case among the backward peoples: Chinese, Indians, Africans etc (speaking in group terms). Europe is at least now struggling to help the environment, but is outnumbered many many times over by the Chinese, Indians etc, most of whom have little understanding of the need for stewardship of the Earth, and who accuse the “West” of hypocrisy for its high per-capita consumption.
The human population of the Earth 10,000-12,000 years ago has been estimated as having been anything from 1 million to 15 million. In other words, speculation. The Roman Empire c.500 AD may have contained 50 or 60 million inhabitants, and China contained (another estimate) perhaps 100 million. The estimate for the whole world at the beginning of our age (c.1400 AD) is around 350 million. Now (2019) the world contains nearly 8 billion (8,000,000,000) people. Twenty times the population of 600 years ago, and those people are almost all each consuming hugely more than did people of former times. Something surely has to give.
The Path Ahead
I have blogged previously about the need for “safe zones” as a germinal ethnostate in the UK. I note that, in Germany, USA and elsewhere, others seem to have come to the same conclusion. People of social-national views are at least thinking about withdrawing from the present society and creating their own autonomous or semi-autonomous societies in rural areas. In its basic form, this idea is “white flight” and has been happening for half a century in North America; it happens now in the UK, Germany, France too. In more sophisticated form, the idea takes shape more consciously, not simply “white flight” away from the present society but also to the beginnings of a new society.
My past blog posts on the subject of “safe zones” etc:
Nick Griffin, one-time head of the BNP, has written about how conventional politics is finished in Western Europe. He places his trust in the durability of the white Northern European family: the production of children to maintain the bloodlines or, as some term them, “les rivieres pourpres”. While I cannot agree with him if he thinks that organization is unnecessary (I suspect that he does not go that far), it is certainly true that setting up little political parties, or having pleasant social evenings with like-minded political people etc is a dead duck at present, though we must never forget that Adolf Hitler was member number 7 of the DAP which became the NSDAP. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
In the end, the future may be ours if we as a group have children who can bear our bloodlines into the future. In this study, I noted that one man long ago, about 4,000 years ago, is now known to have been the progenitor of over half of all European people alive today. I also noted that two other men were the progenitors of most of the rest of the people of European ethnicity who now live. Those three men created our present Europe and therefore most of the advanced world civilization of today. Three men!
It may be that a mere few people or even one couple will, through their children, be the transmitters of les rivieres pourpres into the future, that our present civilization will soon descend into bloodshed and chaos, but that the few who matter will survive and then create the future through their own bloodlines and via the culture and knowledge which they possess.
“You carry in your blood the holy inheritance of your fathers and forefathers. You do not know those who have vanished in endless ranks into the darkness of the past. But they all live in you and walk in your blood upon the earth that consumed them in battle and toil and in which their bodies have long decayed.
Your blood is therefore something holy. In it your parents gave you not only a body, but your nature. To deny your blood is to deny yourself. No one can change it. But each decides to grow the good that one has inherited and suppress the bad. Each is also given will and courage.
You do not have only the right, but also the duty to pass your blood on to your children, for you are a member of the chain of generations that reaches from the past into eternity, and this link of the chain that you represent must do its part so that the chain is never broken.
But if your blood has traits that will make your children unhappy and burdens to the state, then you have the heroic duty to be the last. The blood is the carrier of life. You carry in it the secret of creation itself. Your blood is holy, for in it God’s will lives.”
[SS Verlag: material for instruction of the Hitlerjugend]
The former BNP leader, Nick Griffin, has of late been making the point that ordinary political action is a waste of time for social nationalists anywhere in Western Europe, because the “blacks and browns” etc are too numerous, thus making electoral success unlikely. That is certainly the case, at least superficially, in the UK. The non-white population of the UK is now over 10%, though concentrated in the cities, some of the cities, some neighbourhoods of those cities. In a few towns and cities, the non-white population is in excess of 50% of the population as a whole. It can probably be said that, once the non-white population exceeds –arguably– 20% of the UK population as a whole, the possibility of peaceful transition to social nationalism has disappeared, and the possibility of triumph through the ballot-box has disappeared.
Nick Griffin’s solution to the above problem seems to be, if I have not misunderstood his position, that white Northern Europeans (and also East and Central Europeans etc) should have more children! Griffin places the family in the forefront.
I have no quarrel with what I take to be Griffin’s position, except that it is too simplistic. The migration-invasion is gathering pace, and by that I mean not only the rusty tankers and open boats crossing the Mediterranean, but also the “lawful” immigration taking place in various ways. Huge numbers of non-Europeans are now being born across Europe. The European population, as matters stand, is unable to keep up with the pace of invasion and occupation. In addition, the simple biological-demographical imperative, though crucial, does not stand alone.
Merely having a white population is insufficient. I agree in principle with the dictum “race is the root, culture is the flower”: having a white Northern European population is the sine qua non; but at the same time , having that population is the starting point, not the end-point. We must have an advanced society too. That does not occur automatically and pre-supposes, in our present age, political power in the hands of only white Northern Europeans. Thus we come full circle.
It was in facing, intellectually, the above-delineated dilemma, that I understood that the main answer in the short term and medium term is for the social national element to cluster in “safe zones”. It is already happening in Germany. In the safe zone (though nowhere is completely safe under the NWO/ZOG dystopian police state), forces can be gathered.
Europe is approaching a crisis-point. By 2022, that point will have been reached. Depending on events, the population of the continent after 2022 may be only a small fraction of what it now is. Remember that 60% of Europe’s present population (and that means about 70% or more of its truly European population) is descended from, it has been revealed, only one so-called “Bronze Age king”! (see Notes below). It may well be that, perhaps as long ago as 5,000 years before today, though perhaps as recently as 2,500 years before the present day, a mere handful of people created families, then clans, tribes, nations and finally national states in Europe.
Rudolf Steiner, toward the end of his life [d. 1925] predicted, in answers to questioners, that in the 21st Century, Europe would be devastated. One lady asked whether she might be reincarnated with him in the Europe of that time. His answer was “only if you are willing to walk with me across Europe, across broken glass.”
Those who imagine that the answer to the present difficulties of the UK and Europe generally lies in forming a political party and then somehow achieving political power in the “acceptable” way, are very mistaken. A political movement must form, yes, and “all roads lead to Rome”, but in the end we may face the necessity of establishing a new Europe out of chaos. In such a scenario, we should be faced also with iron necessities. Beyond the harshness, though, lies a new land and a new society based on the latter-day or post-Aryan, or European. In that realm, only the blood counts. The couples who produce European children now are contributing to the founding of a new and, in time, better civilization.
Well, 2022 and now 2023 have come and almost gone, and no major war has as yet affected the western and central parts of Europe, though parts of eastern Europe are now at war. What will 2024 and 2025 bring?
Many reading this may ask how Europe is going to be in chaos soon. After all, for all its problems, Europe is still one of the best places in the world to live, which is precisely why so many non-Europeans are invading the continent as immigrants of various sorts, so how could it soon be in chaos?
One factor is that very migration-invasion, though it alone, on the scale so far seen, is not quite enough to tip Europe as a whole into chaos. Likewise, the “invasion by birth” to the non-Europeans presently resident in Europe, though it is starting to have a very negative effect on societies across Europe, is a slow and gradual degradation of the racial stock and society, and not something that has an immediate determinative effect.
Another factor is that of social or societal breakdown, the result of alcohol and drug abuse, crime and the loosening bonds of traditional or institutional morality. Again, this does not have an immediate effect on the large scale, but weakens the society gradually. Thus we see, for example, that the wish of individuals to (in the American phrase) “pursue happiness”, or to not be “offended” (even when offence is actually and actively sought in a kind of masochistic game) now often trumps the needs of the society as a whole.
Marriage as an institution (eg in the UK) has been weakened by various “reforms” over the past few decades: the equivalence given to “civil partnership”; the creation of the “gay marriage” which now has exactly the same rights (in the UK) as actual, real or traditional marriage; the financial impossibility for most (heterosexual) married couples to decide that the mother of children should actually look after those children full-time.
Again, freedom of expression on social, political, historical and religious topics, a key pillar of the modern “Western” (racially and culturally European) tradition, is being weakened. Speaking in very general terms, Jews (certainly Zionist Jews) want to prevent free speech where it examines the “holocaust” fakery etc, or where it criticizes the (increasing) Jewish stranglehold over the mass media, publishing, System politics, the financial sector, the legal professions. The Muslims, though less active in repressing free speech than the Jews, wish to prevent criticism of Islam. A multitude of “doormats” in Parliament, the police, central and local government work away trying to repress free speech in the ostensible interest of a “community cohesion” which now scarcely exists.
All of the above are factors to be taken into account, alongside financial and/or economic collapse (which even the mainstream media are now reporting on as a serious short-to medium term likelihood). However, the primary key factor in any general collapse of society in Europe in the near future is likely to be a major war. We have seen an acceleration of rhetoric against Russia by the System political parties and msm in recent years. Any major war in Europe will be between NATO (in reality the New World Order conspiracy or NWO) and Russia.
Russia has been for several years improving its armed forces and still has huge numbers of personnel which it can place in the field. It is no longer weak. Many commentators note the economic weakness of Russia, but that did not stop Stalin from conquering half of Europe. As to who would “want” a war (the other argument often heard), who “wanted” a war in 1914, a war which started or at least was triggered because an Austrian archduke was shot by a semi-literate anarchist youth in one of the least civilized parts of Europe? For that matter, despite the build-up of tension in the 1930s, war was by no means “inevitable” in 1939. It could have happened in 1938, in 1936, or even in 1934. The worthless “guarantees” extended to Poland by Britain and France primed the gunpowder, but it was the decision by, fundamentally, the British Government (ruled largely by Jews and freemasons) that lit the fuse. War did not have to happen between the German Reich and Britain in 1939. It did happen, though, nicht wahr?
We have become used to the idea that nuclear weapons will never be used, certainly not in Europe. A major conflict in Europe, once triggered, will see everything being used in the end, even if the start of that conflict is conventional. Every UK and US staff college modelling exercise that tried to think about what another major war would be like ended up with the use of conventional forces at first, followed by “tactical” and finally “strategic” nuclear weapons.
What Could Europe Look Like After a Major War?
That depends on how long any conflict lasts, on whether indeed nuclear weapons are used (and on what scale), and on how the war goes. The Chinese position would be crucial, both in terms of the war and in terms of whatever follows the war. Would China wait until NATO –meaning mainly the USA– is devastated, and until Russia too is devastated, and then pick up the pieces? In those circumstances, China could end up ruling most of the present-day Russian Federation as well as states such as Kazakhstan (where I myself spent a year in 1996-97).
In any event, war on any but a small scale would leave Europe’s major cities either destroyed or in a state of chaotic anarchy. The economic dislocation would lead to mass rioting, civil war(s), huge criminality. Then what? Europe is not Haiti, not black Africa. Chaos in Europe is only the harbinger of a new order.
Second Postulate: A New Order Based on European Race and Culture
At time of writing, the non-European racial/ethnic elements in Europe are said to comprise about 3% to 5% of the entire population of the continent (including European Russia). However, this percentage is rapidly increasing via both migration-invasion and invasion-by-birth. There is time to save Europe, but not unlimited time.
In a situation where the formerly-existing power-structures have collapsed and where there is chaos, more or less, a radical and “extreme” solution will find favour. A social-national movement could take power in the various parts of Europe, because the power-structures opposing us will have been weakened or even destroyed. Likewise, the stranglehold of the Jewish-Zionist element over msm, corrupt System politics etc, finance and the rest will be as good as ended. In short, we can do this!
Europe after a major conflict will be without direct help (and direct interference) from a possibly-largely-destroyed United States. It will have to find its own way back and its own way forward. Racial-cultural communities, safe zones, citizens’ militias etc… and from all that, a new order and a new Europe!
I have previously blogged about various aspects of the proposed “safe zone” or zones which might become the hub of social national activity in the UK. I have explained how the “safe zone” might be created, perhaps most likely by one person, couple or family buying an estate, farm, house, business or whatever in the selected geographical area, then other people gravitating to the same part of the country.
The ideal would be an estate which might include a main house, ancillary or secondary accomodation, houses, cottages, agricultural land, perhaps a separate business such as a garden centre, hotel or whatever (which might give employment to some of those supportive of the safe zone project). For example, I once had a lease of this house in Cornwall:
That house, a mid-19thC construction, originally (certainly by 1900) had a 5,000 acre estate, which by the time I lived there (2002 and 2003) had reduced to about 100 acres, most of which was woodland inhabited by reclusive deer. My own lease included only 4 acres (gardens and woodland) and did not include the secondary accomodation such as the North and South Lodges at the ends of the (more than 1 mile long) private road or driveway, 2 detached houses, and a few flats within or over the stable block.
It can be seen that such a house would be a fine hub for the safe zone project. The original relocators could live in that house, with supporters employed on whatever land surrounded it or in the nearby town (in that case, the nearest town was about 4 miles away) and living in the secondary accomodation or elsewhere nearby.
Such a house has the space to host meetings: the photos show the exterior colonnaded entrance to, and the interior of, the ballroom, which was itself larger than the whole of my present humble home…).
As suggested above, such rural areas sometimes have businesses available which require staff: garden centres, nurseries, motels, hotels, pubs etc; there might be scope in the nearby villages and towns too. It might not be very long before a thriving hub of social nationalism exists. Suitably-qualified people might get jobs in local schools or local government, even in the police, NHS facilities, or in the fire brigade.
Once the safe zone has progressed that far, it is likely that other land can be bought, other estates or farms. Compare it to a painting-by-numbers set: one by one, the blank bits are filled in.
Naturally, a considerable amount of money is required to start such a project. The hub (estate, farm or at least smallholding) would cost (in Devon or Cornwall) anything from £1M upward, depending partly on the acreage. Agricultural land is valued at present in the range £5,000 to £15,000 an acre, so a house with even 100 acres will probably cost at least a million pounds and quite possibly as much as five millions.
Realistically, several million pounds would be needed to initiate the safe zone project.
However, once operating, the safe zone will thrive. All supporters would “tithe”, as happens commonly in religious organizations etc. If even 100 people are sacrificing a tenth of their (net) income and even if their average income is only £30,000 a year gross (maybe £20,000 net), that still gives the project an annual income of £200,000 at a fairly early stage.
Once more than a few dozen people are involved in the project and resident in its territory, thought can be given to taking over local councils. From there, in electoral terms, the local and regional objective would be to get rid of existing System MPs and replacing them with social national candidates, whether overtly or covertly.
There is more. As the reputation of the safe zone spreads, the trickle of relocators will become a flood. At that point, the safe zone mutates into the germinal ethnostate.
Back in the 1970s, a slogan sometimes heard was “if they’re black, send them back!”, a reference to the removal from the UK of what might be called “the blacks and browns” who had come to the UK in increasing numbers since 1945. Indeed, the 1970s (the time perhaps most significant in my own initial political development) was the halfway point between the almost entirely white Britain of my childhood (I was born in 1956) and the Britain largely composed of non-whites which emerged in the 1980s and has carried on in ever-intensifying form to the present day.
The slogan of course referred to repatriation, a policy of groups and parties such as the National Front, and a policy which, at that time, was quite feasible, because most of the “blacks and browns” (etc) had been born outside the UK and still held their original citizenship. Increasingly, this has ceased to be the case, as the “ethnic minorities” have continued to breed prolifically within UK borders. The policy of repatriation thus became unfeasible, because the states from which the ancestors had travelled to the UK would be unwilling to accept large (in some cases huge) numbers of persons whose only connection with that state might be a grandparent or great-grand-parent.
The point is not only that a social-national government would have found it hard to implement a repatriation policy logistically, but that (real) British people found it hard to take seriously political parties which had repatriation as a major plank of policy.
The above is even more true today, when, for example, London is majority non-British and arguably majority non-white. Surveys usually give statistics only for “persons born outside the UK”, or “born to mothers born outside the UK”, whereas an ever-increasing number of persons of foreign origin (including non-whites) are born in the UK. One can see that, down the line, London could have the vast majority of its population non-white and yet the statistics might still paint a less stark (and less true) picture, because those hordes will have been born in the UK and to parents also born in the UK.
It is increasingly hard to see any political, that is electoral, success for social nationalism in British urban areas, because a high proportion, perhaps a majority, of voters are non-white. The only alternative scenario might be one of civil war in which the whites defeat the non-whites. That is a doubtful proposition both in its premise and in its outcome, at least in the cities.
We do not know what might happen in the future to make some form of resettlement of non-whites in Africa or Asia a possibility. It may be that that becomes a feasible policy for a social national government. At the present it cannot be a policy put before the public unless at least the broad outlines of the way to the outcome are drawn.
For the moment, the way forward is for social nationalists to cluster in safe zones, or areas of relative ethno-cultural purity, to create a germinal ethnostate there; then, later, to attempt a takeover of the general UK society.
I have previously blogged about the need to establish at least one “safe zone” in the UK, to act as a germinal ethnostate. My writings on this topic can be read on this site (under headings such as “safe zones”, “white flight”, “prepping” etc) and on my own website (http://ianrmillard.com).
[Update, 28 January 2024: please be aware that my former website address is not now operative. The present blog is on ianrobertmillard.com].
Why do I favour one safe zone in the UK rather than many? The Russian proverb is “if you chase two hares, you won’t catch one”. It is better to have 48 people living in one English county than to have 1 person living in each of the English counties. This accords with the dictum of Clausewitz: to wit, that a secure base must be established before power can be extended beyond. It also accords with the military doctrine of the Schwerpunkt or concentration of forces [lit. heavy point or main point or emphasis].
Realistically, one cannot expect every social nationalist in the UK or even in England alone to relocate to one area (I favour South West England, for reasons about which I have already blogged). People have ties which cannot always be severed easily. However, I feel that focusing on one main safe zone will allow that zone to exercize magnetic attraction and will achieve a momentum, eventually.
Present Situation
Writing in mid-2018, it seems to me that the need for the safe zone(s) becomes ever more pressing. For several reasons. I focus on the UK, but my comments refer also to the rest of the world.
UK cities are going black/brown. That is a very general statement and of course there are other groups also very numerous now, such as Chinese. In broad brush terms, the phrase is all right. At any rate, white Northern Europeans are already a minority in several English towns and cities. Continuing mass immigration and the higher birth-rate of non-Europeans will ensure that few large towns and cities will be majority white European (let alone predominantly so) by 2050. What does this mean? Politically, electorally, it means that social nationalism cannot succeed even if all white Europeans were to, say, vote for a social-national party standing in any election. The numbers would not and could not be there.
Protection and security. At present, even the most innocuous meetings by social nationalists face annoying disruption and even prevention by reason of the activities of the mindless “antifa” groups, which groups can be described as the “useful idiots” of the Jewish-Zionist lobby. (They often in fact say that they are “anti-Zionist” as well as “anti-fascist”, but strangely seem rarely or never to attack Zionist gatherings). A safe zone will ensure that the personnel are there to protect the white European social-national community, come what may. The safe zone will also provide protection and support to those affected by the over-zealous policing now current.
The presence of large numbers of social nationalists in one area will enable election of local and national representatives. This is not the main driver, but will be useful.
Protection of children from unsuitable social pressures and brainwashing.
A further reason to create a safe zone is the uncertainty in the international situation. War may yet ravage Europe. Safe zones enable survival of people and ideas.
I have blogged previously about people of social national views relocating to “safe zones” or to a (germinal) ethnostate possibly to be centred on the South West of England (Cornwall and Devon, as well as Somerset and Dorset):
In various blog posts, I have covered issues of practical relevance such as how such a safe zone or germinal ethnostate might be started, how it might be maintained (even if the rest of the UK and Europe faces disaster or social collapse) and how the safe zone might have real political influence even within the present society. Now I should like to address what the advantages are for an individual, couple or family relocating in the next few years.
It can be taken as read that most people willing to relocate to a “safe zone” will be discontented in some way, or in various ways, with their existing lives, lifestyles or with at least some aspects of the existing society. It is not hard to imagine that many living in Britain’s decaying urban sprawls will find the idea of relocating to, say, Cornwall attractive. What, however, are the other benefits?
For one thing, the relocated people will be living in a milieu where many of their neighbours, employees, employers, co-workers are of similar viewpoint, at least in broad outline. Secondly, there is the fact that the South West of the UK is still an area where most of the existing inhabitants are English or British or at least European in ethnic origin and in culture. Thirdly, a social national community, even if at first loose or spread out, provides a support structure and defensive barrier for those under attack from the existing UK State or from the Zionist infestation. Fourthly, for those with children, there will be the chance to have their offspring educated in free schools etc set up by the community. This last is not a matter of “indoctrination” as such, but rather of protecting the children from the negative and decadent influences now so pervasive in the wider society.
In my view, there can be created a zone within the UK which will over time exercize a magnetic attraction.
Update, 21 July 2019
Saw this from USA. Not bad, though obviously drafted with American conditions in mind.
Recent months have seen devastation from hurricanes. The Caribbean area has been the worst-hit. Most of those islands are now, with help from major states as well as from charities and individuals, bouncing back. Puerto Rico is still suffering from the effects, partly because it is the largest of the worst-affected islands, partly because the US Federal Government response has been sluggish.
In Europe, it is unlikely that we shall suffer in any major way from hurricanes, but there is a quite-high chance that our societies will suffer from the dislocations caused by war and/or socio-economic collapse. Many will say that this cannot happen or would not affect at least the more civilized parts of Europe. Are they sure? It is still just within living memory that parts of Europe were devastated twice by the very major conflicts of 1914-18 and 1939-1945. Apart from those wars, there have been others: the war between the Bolsheviks and others from 1918-1922 (Russia, Ukraine, Poland, East Prussia); the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939); the Balkan War(s) of the 1990s. That is not even taking into account smaller armed conflicts such as the Hungarian Uprising and subsequent Soviet invasion (1956) or disruptions of an economic or other nature. The recent and continuing “migration-invasion” of Europe by non-Europeans comes to mind.
An individual or small group within a society, not holding political power, cannot do much to steer such events; neither can an individual or small group easily defend itself either directly or in terms of subsistence. However, there are possibilities, if prepared for in advance. In Puerto Rico, while most of the population suffered (at time of writing many continue to suffer) from shortages of water, food, from lack of electricity, vehicle fuel and medical help, others have been able to weather the storm, both literally and metaphorically, far better.
In Puerto Rico and elsewhere, those who survived without suffering more than they had to were those whose homes were solid, who had stocks of food, fuel and medical supplies and who were as far as possible “off-grid”. Twitter carried innumerable stories of despair and triumph, such as the farmer who powers his farm using solar power from his own solar array. For him, the fact that the electricity distribution network was not working (for weeks) was not directly relevant.
In the UK and across Northern Europe, the same applies. I have blogged previously about how people on farms, country estates and elsewhere might be able, not only to survive social collapse, but also to help to preserve culture and civilization during what could be an extended period without central control, help, law, order. As during WW2 rationing, those best off might be people living in rural areas, especially those already “prepped”:
electrical power and hot water from solar panels, heat exchanges, small wind turbines, small hydropower plants; there are also ways of producing limited amounts of electricity via pedal-powered and hand-operated wind-up systems; temporary back-up might involve small petrol or diesel generators.
water purification systems; solar stills; temporary back-up via stocks of bottled water: bottled water lasts, at a minimum, 2 years and in many cases is still drinkable without treatment after 4 –or more– years and even after that can still be used after simple treatment such as addition of drops of potassium permanganate or by running it through a filter and purification system, or by boiling it as required. In fact, most rural farms and estates have access to springwater supplies etc.
food home-grown or produced. This of course depends on having land on which to grow it and will be much easier if the preppers already do it on their own estates and farms (or the land around ordinary houses). How much land is required is not fixed and depends on the required diet, the land type and quality etc, but can be as little as half an acre per person and quite likely even a smaller area– https://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/how-much-land-is-needed-to-be-self-sufficient . In addition, there will be food backup via stocks of tinned food, dried foods and, for those whose diet encompasses them, foods from fishing and shooting: fish, shellfish, venison etc. A further source would be from permaculture sources: nut-bearing trees, wild berries and so on.
Internet. This may be interrupted or even cease to exist for a time, though it is likely that service will continue in some form or be rebuilt eventually; a major resource in terms of useful techniques, as well as in holding together spread-out communities and the rebuilding –if necessary– of the wider society. Also, a way of offering or asking for help.
medical help: as on expeditions etc, you can never have too many doctors or nurses. A further advantage to having doctors on board before disaster strikes the general society is that doctors can order supplies of drugs unavailable without prescription and, should they so decide, stockpile them. While few individuals will be able to afford their own operating theatre, a social-national community might be able to fund doctors to set up one before it is required.
transport: vehicle fuel can be stored, but may not last very long. Electric cars and other vehicles are still novel; when they are available, anyone with an electrical supply and a charger will be able to charge them and so continue to have the use of cars, trucks, tractors etc.
I have left out the question of arms. As the law now is in the UK, most people are not permitted arms beyond shotguns and in some cases rifles. Obviously, farmers and landowners will usually have such weapons. In a situation of collapse, arms will probably become available. In any event, any larger or more complex weapons (eg mortars, tanks) require persons with the requisite military training. In short, it is unnecessary for the germinal ethnostate to have arms beyond those customarily available to all rural communities in the UK (other European countries are far less strict).
We in the germinal ethnostate will be in a good position not only to survive but to found a new society if we prepare in the right way and in good time.
“The talent of the strategist is to identify the decisive point and to concentrate everything on it, removing forces from secondary fronts and ignoring lesser objectives.”
Those words of Clausewitz are often taken to encapsulate the essence of strategy. How are they applied to the socio-political question in the UK (England, primarily) from the social-national point of view?
“The Decisive Point”
The “decisive point” or objective, ultimately, is the formation of a British ethnostate as an autonomous part of a Eurasian ethnostate based on the Northern European and Russian peoples. However, within the UK itself and before that, the objective must first be drawn less widely, as political power within the UK’s own borders.
The Gaining of Political Power in the UK
The sine qua non of gaining the sort of political power required is the existence of a political party. More than that, a party which is uncompromizing in its wish to entirely reform both State and society.
History is replete with examples of states which have seemed not even just powerful but actually eternal, yet which have collapsed. Ancient Rome, though perhaps not a “state” in our modern sense, is perhaps the one most embedded in the Western consciousness. More recently, the Soviet Union and its satellite states. In between those two examples (but among many others) we might cite the pre-1914 European “settlement” based on the empires and kingdoms which collapsed during and after the First World War: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire.
The main point to understand is that, in situations of crisis on the large scale, it is not the political party with the most money, erudition, developed policy or even membership that comes out on top, but the party with the most will or determination. That means the most disciplined party under the leadership of the most determined leader.
It is better to have a party consisting of only 1,000 which is tightly-disciplined and self-disciplined than one of 100,000 which is a floundering mass of contradictions. When a national crisis occurs, such as 1917-1921 in Russia or 1929-1933 in Germany (to take two obvious examples), the people instinctively turn to the party perceived to be strongest, not strongest in numbers, money, intellectuality or number of members, but strongest in the will, the will to power.
The Party
A party requires leadership, members, ideology, policy and money. Everything comes from the leadership and the membership, in symbiosis. In practical terms, this means that policy is open to free discussion, up to the point where a decision is made as to what is party policy as such. Also, it has to be understood that a party requires money as a tank or armoured car requires fuel. To have endless fundraising drives, hunts for wealthy donors etc demeans and dispirits the membership. Having a “tithing” system renders such other methods unnecessary. The members sacrifice an agreed amount of their post-tax income, such as 10%. The party organizes itself and its message to the general population using that money.
As a rule of thumb in contemporary Britain, it might be said that, on average, each member will provide something like £2,000 per year to the party. A party of even 1,000 members will therefore have an annual income of £2 million, enough to buy not only propaganda and administration but real property as a base. By way of comparison, the Conservative Party in 2017 has an income of about £3.5 million.
Elections
It must be understood that elections are only one way to power, but they are indispensable in England, for historical-cultural reasons. A party which cannot win elections loses credibility rapidly once that party is large. In the initial phase, no-one expects the party to win Westminster or even local council seats, but after that, it has to win and so grow, or deflate as the BNP did and as UKIP is doing now. The problem small parties have under the English electoral system is that a Westminster seat can be won only with, at a minimum, about 30% (and usually 40% or more) of votes. The insurgent party is in danger of spreading itself too thinly, in every way. UKIP’s history illustrates the point: in 2015, about 12% of votes cast (nearly 4 million), but only the one MP with which they, in effect, started. The answer is to concentrate the vote. That is done by concentrating the members and supporters of the party geographically.
Safe Zones
I have blogged previously about the creation of safe zones and especially one primary safe zone (possibly in the South West of England). If the members and supporters of the party gradually relocate into that zone or zones, many things become easier, from protection of buildings, meetings, exhibitions etc to the election of councillors and MPs. I have also blogged about the magnetic attraction such a safe zone might exercise over people in the UK as a whole.
The Decisive Time
The “decisive time” cannot be predicted. In Russia, Lenin (at the time in foreign exile) thought that the 1905 uprising was “the revolution”. He was wrong. He also thought that the first (February, old-style) 1917 uprising was not “the” revolution. He was wrong again. It was.
Lenin had to hurry back to Russia (arriving belatedly in April 1917, old-style) not only to try to take control (he failed in that and had to foment his own coup d’etat in October 1917) but to avoid being sidelined and so becoming an almost irrelevant footnote to history.
In Germany after 1929, Hitler likewise was not in control of events. In the end, economic near-collapse and political turmoil gave him the chance to win enough votes (33% in 1932) to form a coalition government which led on to full power in 1933, after the NSDAP achieved a higher –though still minority– popular vote (44%).
In other words, both Lenin and Hitler were the pawns of Fate while striving to be the masters of events. They had something in common though: highly-disciplined and ideologically-motivated parties behind them.
Practical Matters
At the age of 60, the last thing which is convenient for me is to form a political party. I have no need of such an activity as a hobby or absorbing interest. I am coming to the idea out of duty, out of a realization that something has to be done and out of an understanding that something can be done, if Fate concurs. I am not willing to compromize on overall ideology or on the way things are organized within such a party. I shall only establish a political party (which may become a movement) if it can be done on a serious basis. However, there is a need for a party to speak for the British people and there is a widening political vacuum in which such a party can thrive and grow.
Update 15 April 2019
In the two years since I wrote the above blog post, my view has not changed, that is
a political party and movement is needed;
there is at present no such party;
such a party can only be established if done on a serious basis;
I myself still do not have the means with which to found such a party; but
a political party and movement is —still— needed…
Update, 8 March 2023
All factors mentioned in the previous update remain the same.
Ian Robert Millard 