An extract from an article of 2013 by George Monbiot:
“You could argue that an intensification of farming is a response to rising population pressure: the need to produce more food has caused greater damage to wildlife. But this is where the madness kicks in: much of the habitat destruction for which farm policies are responsible has little or nothing to do with producing food.
The uplands of Britain are astonishingly unproductive. For example, 76% of the land in Wales is devoted to livestock farming, mostly to produce meat. But, astonishingly, by value Wales imports seven times as much meat as it exports. Six thousand years of nutrient stripping and erosion have left our hills so infertile that their productivity is miniscule. Even relatively small numbers of livestock can now keep the hills denuded.
Without subsidies, almost all hill-farming would cease. That’s not something I’m calling for, but I do believe it’s time we began to challenge the system and its outcomes. Among them is a policy that’s almost comically irrational and destructive.
The major funding that farmers receive is called the single farm payment, which is money given by European taxpayers to people who own land. These people receive a certain amount (usually around £200 or £300), for every hectare they own. To receive it, they must keep the land in what is called “Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition” (GAEC). It’s a term straight out of 1984.
Among the compulsory standards in the GAEC rules is “avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land”. What this means is that if farmers want their money they must stop wild plants from returning. They don’t have to produce anything: to keep animals or to grow crops there. They merely have to prevent more than a handful of trees or shrubs from surviving, which they can do by towing cutting gear over the land.
If they want to expand the area eligible for this subsidy, and therefore make more money, they must get their tractors out and start clearing vegetation. From my kayak in Cardigan Bay I have often watched a sight that Neolithic fishermen would have witnessed: towers of smoke rising from the hills as the farmers burn tracts of gorse and trees in order to claim more public money. The single farm payment is a perfectly designed scheme for maximum ecological destruction.”
[Why Britain’s Barren Uplands Have Farming Subsidies To Blame, George Monbiot, The Guardian]
George Monbiot is quite right about subsidized farming. In relation to the upland and hill areas [relatively similar areas, but often taken to be different in terms of specific UK farming conditions: https://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/know-your-sheep/uk-sheep-farming/], the farming lobby will say that the land there is only suitable for sheep, so if the UK wants to produce food at a maximized level, then sheep farming is essential and can only exist if subsidized.
There are various aspects to all this, most of which are addressed in the George Monbiot article (above). The upland/hill areas are not very productive (generally, the higher they are above sea level, the less productive); they can support food animals other than sheep, in principle (deer, highland cattle, game birds etc) if not denuded of vegetation; the upland and hill farmers are only surviving by reason of a fairly generous (they might disagree) but environmentally-mad subsidy system.
In broad terms, the single farm payment gives the farmer on average about £150 an acre (2019 value), so a small farmer (and most UK upland and hill farms are small), who has about 200 acres, will get about £30,000 in subsidy (leaving aside the various official or other definitions of what constitutes a “subsidy”— see Notes, below). The actual net profit from farming itself on such a farm comes to something like £3,000, maybe even less. It’s minimal. Some farmers have only 100 acres, thus reducing their subsidy-income to maybe £15,000 and their real farming income to as little as £1,500.
The conclusion, surely, is that subsidies should be eliminated. They are disastrous for wildlife, give the country little in terms of food production and in fact give the already-wealthy farmers on the more favoured lowlands the bulk of the money (a large estate of say 10,000 acres might receive as much as £1,500,000 a year in EU subsidy). However, this article is about rewilding and reafforestation, not an overview of the whole agricultural sector.
There are UK and EU “subsidies” or grants for such activities as tree planting, but these are far less generous than the ones given for (nominal or actual) farming.
It seems harsh, on the face of it, that small farmers should face having to give up their way of life (in some cases, a way of life that has generations of history and custom behind it), but they will have been preceded after all by those working in other sectors, including coal mining, steel production etc, and now retail work. Why should huge amounts of public money be provided to farmers just because they bleat that without the money they cannot survive and would have to get other work?
The irony is that most farmers vote “Conservative” and are among those most ready to talk about “welfare” “scroungers” etc! It often seems to me that farmers generally want it both ways, to receive money from public funds merely as an entitlement for being holders of land (either freeholders or tenants), but on the other hand want no official interference with how they farm, because they run private businesses!
It has long been accepted that the farming lobby, and especially the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) is one of the most effective lobby groups in UK politics at national level.
Alternative uses for marginal land
After WW1, the UK was almost denuded of forest, having only 5% cover. The government set up the Forestry Commission in 1919 to address the domestic timber shortage, rather than for aesthetic or environmental reasons. Thus were born the typical blocks of forest seen in Northern England, Scotland, Wales: mostly Norway Spruce and Sitka Spruce. Though better than nothing, such coniferous reafforestation does not do much for wildlife, though the trees themselves can be, if not cut, longlasting (a Norway Spruce in Sweden may be the oldest —though regenerated— tree on Earth, dating back nearly 10,000 years).
The forest cover in the UK has increased markedly since 1919, to about 13% of land. The Forestry Commission itself and its now-devolved Scottish equivalent manage nearly 2 million acres of forest and, in some areas, have replanted with broadleaf trees which will encourage a greater biodiversity.
In addition, there have been a few large-scale initiatives formulated and put into action. There are a number of “community forests” (some created from bits and pieces of land) not all in public ownership but all of which have some public access: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_forests_in_England
The Heart of England Forest (mostly in Warwickshire) is one superb initiative, the vision of one man, the late Felix Dennis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dennis].
In addition, some very large and altruistic landowners, such as a Dane who owns over 220,000 acres in Scotland alone (over a dozen Highland estates), have exciting plans both for reafforestation and for wildlife recovery, even to the extent of importing wolves, lynx, bears, beavers etc.
There are many smaller projects around, such as the wood created by Brian May, the Queen guitarist, in Dorset, being planted and growing on land May bought as a gift in trust, and which was originally going to be a housing estate (nb. were Britain not flooded with unwanted immigrants and their offspring, it would not be thought “necessary” to build on beautiful areas of countryside).
George Monbiot has written about how upland forests and woods (or even areas of smaller vegetation such as bushes) delay the passage of rainwater to lower levels, protecting those lower levels from destructive floodwater.
Wild areas can provide food for people. Not just game animals, birds and fish (if permitted and/or in time of dire necessity), but mushrooms, fruits, wild vegetables etc.
Forests not only have amenity and aesthetic value, but are havens for wildlife of all types. In particular, the parts of the country that are relatively marginal for farming should be far more heavily wooded than they are. Animals, birds, fish, insects all thrive, given half a chance.
There are huge areas of the UK suitable for rewilding and/or re-afforestation. Not only in Scotland. Wales is especially blessed with upland and hill areas suitable for such projects. There are parts of England also suitable, such as the South West peninsula, within which there are areas where the population is surprisingly sparse, such as the Hartland Peninsula in West Devon, on the Atlantic coast. It is true also of the moors of Devon and Cornwall, but they tend at present to be under National Park or other restrictive control.
Rewilding and reafforestation are not inimical to the livelihoods of existing local people, who can derive benefit via catering to tourists, managed and sustainable forestry, wildlife protection jobs etc; whereas the present land use often benefits only small groups of farmers and landowners (via subsidies, and/or via the use of land for commercial driven shoots).
Rewilding is not just a matter of afforestation. Other types of landscape can also be rewilded: marshes, river estuaries etc. However, the forest is the key, whether it be managed forest or forest left to grow completely wild.
The above photo shows a police officer, I think a “Special” (volunteer part-time “officer”), looking at her hat, with its chequered line. Presumably a lesbian. Now, there are several points about that photo: first and perhaps most important, who in authority, or should I say “leading beyond authority”?…
…allowed police officers to take part in what, in the broad sense, is a political, meaning socio-political, or cultural-political, march or demonstration?
Common Purpose
This, below, is the very dangerous woman who is or has been the figurehead for much of such socio-political tendency in the past three decades:
Reverting to the photo at top, can the public have trust in such partisan police personnel? I think not.
This goes beyond the personal proclivities of the individuals. It is a question of the police, both institutionally, and as individual officers, espousing, publicly, controversial socio-political positions. Also, the police operating in a biased manner.
Many of those on the social-national side of UK radical politics have, in recent years, been subjected to the results of this kind of one-way-street policing, policing which is in other words biased, politically biased. I myself have had a couple of instructive encounters of the sort.
Zionist pressure groups
In early 2017, the Jew-Zionist fanatic Stephen Silverman, who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” at the small but (((well-connected))) “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”] pressure group, complained about me (on behalf of that group or cabal), to the police at Grays, in estuarial South Essex, and not far from where he lives.
[below, Grays Police Station, surely one of the ugliest buildings in England].
My experience there was the subject of a blog post a couple of years ago:
Silverman himself was unwittingly exposed as a serial troll by the CAA’s own lawyer in a preliminary hearing of the Alison Chabloz case. It turned out that Silverman had been trolling people on social media —mostly women— for years, using a number of pseudonymous Twitter and other social media accounts. “Gloating sadism” was his overall persona. He and a group of other Jews, together with a couple of part-Jew doormats, all in or connected with the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [CAA] pressure group, joined in that campaign of online and offline bullying.
That group loved to make malicious and false accusations to Twitter, Facebook etc, as well as to the police and to professional organizations. Their posts frequently predicted (((with typical sadism))), that numerous anti-Zionist people would be arrested, charged, convicted, imprisoned. The bullying campaign started around 2012 and built up to a crescendo, though as they were one by one identified, they (((typically))) backpedalled and tried to play the “victim”…
Meanwhile, now-disgraced Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis gave an interview to the Jewish Press in which he openly admitted that his intention was to “take homes away from” those he called “Nazis”, by means of “lawfare” (abuse of the laws of England for Zionist political purposes).
One person, David Carter, of Cardiff, a former executive with decades of experience working for transnational companies, and an unblemished record (i.e. no police record) was actually arrested and his home searched by duped or colluding police. He was later released “on police bail” (where he stayed for months, which was still lawful then though not now, the law on “police bail” having since been changed); his computers, used for consultancy work, were not returned for further months. He never was charged with anything.
Others were subjected to “voluntary” interviews, which in fact are scarcely voluntary at all (belatedly, and in fact fairly recently, Silverman himself was eventually asked to submit to such an interview, and agreed, but at very short notice got CAA lawyers to write to Essex Police declining; seems that he got away with it, so far).
A lady called Jo Stowell, a professional photographer from Clifton, Bristol, was not only trolled online by the same group of Jews, but was sent unwanted goods etc from sale or return operations, and was subjected to other offline bullying. She too was “asked” to attend a “voluntary” interview with the police by reason of malicious complaint(s). She agreed, attending with her solicitor. No charge was ever made. The Jewish-Zionists did manage to ruin her previously successful photography business though.
Jo Stowell
The experiences of Alison Chabloz, persecuted singer-songwriter and satirist, have been well-documented both in these blog pages and elsewhere, indeed in the national and international Press (and on TV and radio). I commend her own blog:
My own 2017 experience with the Essex Police is linked above, near top; I was also bothered, though much later, in 2018, by telephone calls from a P.C. Plod (his real name was something else…I think!) from the police of one of the most (((occupied))) parts of London. It appears that I was “accused” of having reposted, in fact completely lawfully, on the GAB social media site responses also completely lawful in themselves, posted by the owner of GAB, Andrew Torba, to a malicious Jewish woman “activist” in North London.
That Jewish woman had, laughably, attempted to intimidate Torba, a U.S. citizen whose GAB site operates from the USA and Eastern Caribbean, by threatening Torba, who is resident in the USA, with Scotland Yard! Torba’s responses started off polite and then went downhill as the woman persisted (((typically))), culminating with Torba’s suggestion that she “fuck off” or some such. She did (she had no choice!), but then tried to find scapegoats in the UK from those many who had reposted Torba’s posts (finding them funny; the tweets also rather well illustrated Hitler’s obiter dicta about the Jews being, despite what they and others often say, a very stupid people).
P.C. Plod had obviously been “got at” in some way. In fact, after having been harassed by him, I had to write to his own Borough Commander and to Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, detailing both why nothing that I had done constituted anything unlawful under English law, and as to why the complainant herself was (in relation to me) certainly wasting police time (quite deliberately); a crime, albeit minor, and possibly coming close at times (in her complaints against others) to attempting to pervert the course of justice, a far more serious crime.
Even after that, Plod still had the cheek to email me (again)! Eventually, I gave him a face-saving way out, which he took. The experience was however unsettling beyond my personal inconvenience and anger. It showed that the police in the UK now have little understanding of either the boundaries of their powers or the limits to the authorized discretion customarily granted to the police. It showed that a UK citizen not doing anything unlawful could nonetheless have his private life and rights of expression interfered with by the police— the police at the lowest level of rank, at that.
The police equation for idiots seems to go something like: “Racism” is bad, so anything we are told is “racist” should not be allowed, so alleged “racism” is to be at once treated as “hate crime” or “hate speech”, so use of the word “Jew” is probably wrong or unlawful (if used by a non-Jew or someone who is anti-Zionist), so the police should assume that any online post (by someone not Jewish) and using the word “Jew” is both racist and unlawful, so the police should immediately take action of behalf of a complainant (if Jewish) against the alleged “racist” (if not Jewish) and this gives the police the right and power to censor anything they like, whether actually lawful or not…It’s mad.
More than that. The said Plod was unwilling to accept that I (a practising barrister at one time) knew more about the relevant law than he did (I did) but I still had to detail it in my letter to his superiors in case even they were unwilling to accept that the law is what it is and is not a “leading beyond authority” instrument of flexible socio-political repression, “useful” for repressing the entirely lawful views of those whom the police institutionally, or the personal acquaintances of police individually, may wish to hit out at. I might add that P.C. Plod’s manner was impertinent and smug, as well as rather aggressive.
This tendency, of the police to go well beyond their actual powers as authorized by or under law, has started to spread in recent years. In 2013, a police sergeant in Hampshire actually tried to strongarm a local newspaper after it printed material critical of a councillor!
“Padraig Reidy, of the freedom of speech campaign group Index on Censorship, said: ‘It’s not the sort of thing that should happen in any democratic country. It’s political policing.’ Mr Satchwell added: ‘Hopefully, before it’s too late, people at the top of politics and policing will wake up to what is happening in what is supposed to be one of the most revered democratic countries in the world.’” [Daily Mail]
In respect of the malice of the Zionist CAA cabal, relatively unknown people such as me have been attacked, but so have those far better known, such as Al-Jazeera TV, Gilad Atzmon (the Jewish but anti-Zionist jazz musician) and David Icke (who scarcely needs introduction, at least in the UK).
However, as far as I know, they have not been harassed by the police. I suppose that it would backfire on the police themselves to harass those who are too famous.
The Blair-Brown governments were those that brought in the obsessive “anti-racism” which is now so pervasive. It is why we now have incidents such as the schoolgirl disqualified from an exam by an exam board because she wrote a few things about cruel “halal” slaughter of animals, which comments might be thought critical of Islam or Muslims!
and note that OCR (the exam board) weaselled thus:
“OCR said in a statement: “OCR takes all incidence of suspected offensive material against a religious group in exams very seriously and must apply rules which are set out for all exam boards in such cases.
“We accept that initially we did not reach the right conclusion and were too harsh.“
In other words, there is no freedom to say what you wish against any religion (or ethnic group) now, no matter what its adherents or members might do or how they might behave, but “we were too harsh” (in the way in which censorship of students was actually carried out…). Even the girl’s mother, while angry at what happened, blamed “an over-zealous, over-righteous examiner“, rather than the prevailing miasma of politically-correct and grey-area semi-legal repression.
We should remind ourselves that many of the greatest minds, saints and heroes of Western Civilization would probably have their words censored now in the UK. They would probably have some policeman improperly telephoning them and annoying them!
It is the web of bad law that has been the acid corroding our liberty in the UK. The Communications Act 2003, s.127 has been the facilitator for much of the repression online. It has strengthened the petty denouncers, the complainers to the police, those for whom Twitter is their little world, to be patrolled and “monitored” and from which any dissenting voices (particularly the defenders of European race and culture, and freedom) are to be removed. You can now add to Twitter the other main platforms: Facebook, YouTube etc.
When the police are not impartial arbiters, to whom can we turn? Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
In the United States, it is often said that the bedrock of civil liberty is the famous Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, alongside the First Amendment (freedom of religion, Press, speech, expression, assembly).
I have always been sceptical of the quasi-holy U.S. Constitution, that is, the way in which this man-made document, cobbled together in a tavern by a bunch of freemasons nearly 250 years ago, is regarded as Holy Writ by the Americans of today. Its “rights” have always seemed to me more apparent than real. For example, you (an American in the USA) have the right to free speech. Very true. So try exercizing it…
If you try to say something negative in the USA about the lobby of the Jews, or about their hugely disproportionate power or influence in the USA or the wider world, or about the “holocaust” hoaxes and fakery, you will almost certainly not face (direct) action from the local or state police, or from the FBI. In that respect, the USA is better than the UK and much of Europe. You may well, however, lose your job, face professional difficulties and, consequent upon those, even lose your home by reason of financial problems as the Jews and doormats thereof gang up against you, so your “freedom” is, in real terms, very constrained indeed. America, “land of freedom”?…
Likewise, yes, a United States citizen or resident may, with variations depending on what state or city he/she lives in (eg New York City as compared with most of the rest of New York state) “keep and bear [some] arms”, but your pistol or revolver, shotgun or rifle, though it may protect you against (some) criminals (ordinary or political) in your home or car (always assuming that you can both handle the weapon and deploy it in time), will certainly not protect you against the state (meaning here not the individual state but mainly the Federal Government).
If the Federal Government of the United States wants to move against an individual or a group, that person or group has no chance. SWAT squads, helicopters, even armoured cars! And that is before the main US military machine is even involved! Your pistol will not help you much under those circumstances. That is why I have only limited faith in weapons.
Past history
When the NSDAP started to gain a little local (in Munich) traction in 1920 and 1921, its meetings were routinely broken up with great violence by “Red Front” (Communist/pro-Communist) thugs, the sort that (though in rather farcical reincarnation) might be called “antifa” today. That is when the nascent NSDAP formed the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment), though at first informally:
“The precursor to the Sturmabteilung had acted informally and on an ad hoc basis for some time before this. Hitler, with an eye always to helping the party to grow through propaganda, convinced the leadership committee to invest in an advertisement in the Münchener Beobachter (later renamed the Völkischer Beobachter) for a mass meeting in the Hofbräuhaus, to be held on 16 October 1919. Some 70 people attended, and a second such meeting was advertised for 13 November in the Eberl-Bräu beer hall. About 130 people attended; there were hecklers, but Hitler’s military friends promptly ejected them by force, and the agitators “flew down the stairs with gashed heads”. The next year, on 24 February, he announced the party’s Twenty-Five Point program at a mass meeting of some 2,000 people at the Hofbräuhaus. Protesters tried to shout Hitler down, but his former army companions, armed with rubber truncheons, ejected the dissenters. The basis for the SA had been formed.” [Wikipedia, though note the (((influence))) in Wikipedia: Communist thugs are “hecklers”! The same is true of most of what you now read or hear about Mosley’s BUF rallies of the 1930s].
Also, note that Hitler’s first attempt at a “mass meeting” attracted an audience of only 70! When I gave a talk to the London Forum in 2017, there were about 100 or so there. Maybe there is hope…
“A permanent group of party members who would serve as the Saalschutzabteilung (meeting hall protection detachment) for the DAP gathered around Emil Maurice after the February 1920 incident at the Hofbräuhaus. There was little organization or structure to this group.” [Wikipedia]
“The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties. By September 1921 the name Sturmabteilung (SA) was being used informally for the group.” [Wikipedia]
Interesting too that even Wikipedia recognizes that the purpose of the SA was the protection of meetings, and not the breaking-up of the meetings of opponents.
“The Nazi Party held a large public meeting in the Munich Hofbräuhaus on 4 November 1921, which also attracted many Communists and other enemies of the Nazis. After Hitler had spoken for some time, the meeting erupted into a mêlée in which a small company of SA thrashed the opposition. The Nazis called this event the Saalschlacht (“meeting hall battle”), and it assumed legendary proportions in SA lore with the passage of time. Thereafter, the group was officially known as the Sturmabteilung.” [Wikipedia]
The SS [Schutzstaffel, or Protection Squad] was formed in 1925, with a similar defensive or protective function:
“In 1925, Hitler ordered Schreck to organize a new bodyguard unit, the Schutzkommando (Protection Command).[1] It was tasked with providing personal protection for Hitler at NSDAP functions and events. That same year, the Schutzkommando was expanded to a national organization and renamed successively the Sturmstaffel (Storm Squadron), and finally the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad; SS).[10] Officially, the SS marked its foundation on 9 November 1925 (the second anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch).[11] The new SS was to provide protection for NSDAP leaders throughout Germany.” [Wikipedia]
One can well imagine that any such bodies as the SA or SS formed in the Britain of 2019, even if not uniformed, would soon be banned and their members subject to show trials.
Contemporary happenings
In fact, we have seen the like, in the past couple of years, especially in relation to “a certain group of young people” the name of which I do not think that I shall use here, which young people have been put on trial for allegedly belonging to such a group. Oh yes, teenagers and other young people put on trial, and not in the local magistrates’ courts but at the Old Bailey and elsewhere! The “evidence” of their supposed organization, or at least political allegiance? Such items as cookie-cutters shaped like Swastikas, pillowcases with slogans on them etc, even the Christian name given by the parents to a baby! It seems that the ethos of Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder-General in the 17th Century, is not dead and indeed has found a home in the British police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)!
Thankfully, the (usually) good sense of the British jury has meant that most such defendants have been acquitted so far; perhaps that is why some politicians, notably Rosie Cooper MP [Lab., West Lancashire] have called for the use of “Diplock courts” (i.e. trials without juries) in political cases. If that happened, that type of court would be the first such court authorized in England itself in hundreds of years (though the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a typical piece of Tony Blair repressive legislation, does open the door to such trials). A Star Chamber for our times…
Conclusion
In a situation where self-defence, whether organized or individual, is criminalized by a hostile and partisan state, the only solution for social-national people is to cluster in “safe zones”, as I have blogged in the past: see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/safe-zones/
In the UK, where even personal self-defence weaponry is generally unavailable, and where the police are rapidly becoming the strong-arm section of the multikulti “diverse” (non-white non-diverse) society, the formation of a germinal ethnostate is the only way forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_court “[Lord Gardiner‘s Minority Report as part of the Parker Report in March 1972 found “no evidence of [intimidation] or of perversity in juries”.[7] The report marked the beginning of the policy of “criminalisation”,[8] whereby the State removed legal distinctions between political violence and normal crime, with political prisoners treated as common criminals. The report provided the basis for the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which, although later amended (with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 and subsequent renewals), continued as the basis for counter-terrorist legislation in the UK.” [Wikipedia]
As I write, persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz is once again in court, being sentenced after a notorious Jewess supported by the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (yet again…) made a malicious allegation against her, using (as noted above) the “bad law” known as Communications Act 2003, s.127.
I myself quite recently had to chase off the Jew nuisance who calls himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” for the “CAA”; a ludicrously grand title for someone who is one of only a handful of Jews posing as an important organization. The whole pack really consists of only a few dozen (if that many) fanatical Jew-Zionists.
“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.
I was reminded yet again (not that I require the reminder) of the migration-invasion of the UK, having seen a Daily Telegraph article written some 6 years ago (2012), just recently tweeted or retweeted by (ironically) a Jew-Zionist extremist. To read the full article, see Notes, below.
What the article says
In that Daily Telegraph article, the authoress writes that
“I feel like a stranger where I live.”
I am living in a place where I am a stranger.”
“Muslims…it feels as if they have taken over.”
“There are, of course, other Europeans in my area who may share my feelings but I’m not able to talk to them easily about this situation as they are mostly immigrants, too.”
“I suspect that many white people in London and the Home Counties now move house on the basis of ethnicity, especially if they have children. Estate agents don’t advertise this self-segregation, of course. Instead there are polite codes for that kind of thing, such as the mention of “a good school”, which I believe is code for “mainly white English”. Not surprising when you learn that nearly one million pupils do not have English as a first language.”
“I, too, have decided to leave my area, following in the footsteps of so many of my neighbours. I don’t really want to go. I worked long and hard to get to London, to find a good job and buy a home and I’d like to stay here. But I’m a stranger on these streets and all the “good” areas, with safe streets, nice housing and pleasant cafés, are beyond my reach. I see London turning into a place almost exclusively for poor immigrants and the very rich.”
“…now, despite the wishful thinking of multiculturalists, wilful segregation by immigrants is increasingly echoed by the white population – the rate of white flight from our cities is soaring. According to the Office for National Statistics, 600,000 white Britons have left London in the past 10 years. The latest census data shows the breakdown in telling detail: some London boroughs have lost a quarter of their population of white, British people. The number in Redbridge, north London, for example, has fallen by 40,844 (to 96,253) in this period, while the total population has risen by more than 40,335 to 278,970. It isn’t only London boroughs. The market town of Wokingham in Berkshire has lost nearly 5 per cent of its white British population.”
“It’s sad that I am moving not for a positive reason, but to escape something. I wonder whether I’ll tell the truth, if I’m asked. I can’t pretend that I’m worried about local schools, so perhaps I’ll say it’s for the chance of a conversation over the garden fence. But really I no longer need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant racists of us all.”
So finally the authoress, obviously by nature something akin to what the Americans might term, mutatis mutandis, a “Country Club Republican” (meaning “liberal conservative”) has to concede that “I no longer need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant racists of us all.”
The only thing to be added to her article itself is that it is 6 years since she wrote it. The statistic given of 600,000 white British or mostly British who left (fled?) London in the decade before the article was written could probably be updated to 1M or more now.
Personal Experiences and Thoughts
The Daily Telegraph article focusses on the Muslim influx into London. Firstly, that influx has been far greater in percentage terms in some of the post-industrial Northern towns and cities; secondly, the writer says that “Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim, with the majority of them young families. That is not, in reality, a great number.”
In what world is a million (now? God knows…) not a great number? In what world is nearly 13% (now, what?) of the population (and growing fast as those “young families” breed) not huge? The lady writer so obviously wants to be “nice”, and not to “offend” etc, but I fear that desperate times betoken desperate measures. Nice polite sentiments are, well, nice and polite, but we have to face facts with both clear thought and clear expression of thought if Western civilization is to survive.
The Daily Telegraph guest writer prefers to focus on the Muslims as a population bloc (and, though unsaid, population bomb), but effectively ignores the multitude of other races, ethnicities and nationalities that now comprise part of the London population. Africans, West Indians, Chinese etc, a giant multikulti Pandora’s Box. We hear much now about the explosion in youth “gangs” and “knife crime” etc (almost all of which is carried out by blacks and other non-whites), and the System msm and political milieu becomes ever more hysterical with calls to restrict and get rid of…knives! In the old phrase, “’nuff said”!
I once lived in London, starting in Little Venice in 1976 (at age 19; I returned intermittently and that was the main area in which I lived over the years), eventually living in a number of different areas, some good, some not so good: Blackheath, Lee, Lewisham, East Dulwich, Tulse Hill, New Cross, Holland Park. The house in which I first lived, in Little Venice, was valued at £100,000 when sold to the lessee c.1980. It was sold in 2005 (by my friend who bought the freehold c.1980) for £1.4M…That same house, or at least identical Victorian semi-detached villas with good gardens in the same road, were valued in 2018 at up to £4M! A 40x increase in “value” in less than 40 years! A low to average pay in 1976 would have been about £100 per week; similar work would today pay perhaps £400 or £500 a week. In other words, pay has increased, for most people, at a face value of perhaps 4x or 5x over those 40 years, but the cost of a house by 40x! Rent has increased similarly.
Mass immigration is only one of the factors that have driven up the cost of London housing, but it is a major one and probably the most important. The wealthier parts of London now house largely a cosmopolitan crowd of Chinese, “Russians” (many of which are in fact Jews from Russia), Israelis, Arabs, you name it. In fact, large swathes of expensive housing are owned but kept empty by absentee foreigners. The poorer parts (such as in the Daily Telegraph article) are now flooded and indeed swamped by a motley mob of blacks, browns and others (and also whites from the poorer parts of Europe).
Little Venice has changed from, in 1976, being a fairly affluent, in places wealthy, and also rather intellectual (because of the BBC studios in the outer part of Maida Vale, perhaps), inner suburb, to a now very wealthy enclave (one cannot list the famous pop stars, theatrical people, film stars, “entrepreneurs” etc who now live there, so numerous are they). However, this “island” is surrounded by a black/brown sea in all directions North and West. Even in the 1990s, if a school trip party from the nearby areas were to be encountered at Warwick Avenue Underground Station, there were few if any white children.
I myself saw what was coming, decades ago. I stayed in London (for much of the time, though I was sometimes overseas, at times resident in the country or in the USA) until I left to live in Kazakhstan on kommandirovka (work contract) for a year (1996-1997). Others I knew in London had started to leave by then.
One couple, the sister and brother in law of a lady I knew, lived in Catford, South London, in what was probably the only decent road there: a leafy enclave of large detached Victorian or perhaps Edwardian houses. They, professed Labour supporters and, I think, members, no doubt “anti-racist” etc (I was warned not to talk politics with them, and I think that they had been given a similar warning!) were able, for a while, to live there an comfortably affluent life (he a partner in a City of London law firm, she a housewife –though I daresay never accepting such a label– and Open University student) and able also to put out of mind the enveloping near-jungle that started at the end of their own road. They relocated to rural Kent in the 1990s, pleased to discover that their Catford residence could be sold to their advantage, allowing them to buy a country house complete with acres of manicured grounds, a swimming pool, tennis court, stables (and horses) etc, somewhere near Tonbridge.
I doubt that the above couple would ever have said (even between themselves, probably) that there was a racial element to their relocation (escape?); more likely to have cited fresh air, space, less noise, better schools for their two children etc (and would never have linked those factors, at least consciously, to the racial-ethnic one…).
The lady whose sister and brother in law are mentioned above also relocated out of London, in the late 1990s, having contracted a marriage or quasi-marriage. She and her “partner”, to use the contemporary word, sold their London homes (in his case in the “bandit country” of the Seven Sisters neighbourhood of North London) and bought a house in Brighton. Neither of them, I am sure, would ever mention ethnic-related crime as one reason to move (they were both strong “anti-racists” and she is the only woman ever to have walked out on me at a restaurant, the result of an ideological disagreement at the –now and sadly closed-down– Luba’s Bistro in Knightsbridge). More likely to be mentioned: sea air, a less frenetic life etc…
Thirdly, a barrister I knew, who also relocated, also to the South Coast, in the early 2000s, together with his very charming wife and then-young children: another Labour Party member (and one-time Islington councillor, who was offered but declined the chance of a safe seat in the Commons under Blair), I am sure that the reasons which he or his wife might give for having moved out of London would be fresh sea air, space, good schooling for their two children etc; certainly nothing to do with the ethnic swamping of London. They may even believe that themselves. Call me a cynic…
It may or may not be significant that in all three of the above cases, one person from each couple had to commute a considerable distance daily to London. Obviously, those people thought that the trouble and extra travel expense was worth it.
Another case: someone I had known from school, who bought a house (later two others) in South London, rented rooms, converted two houses into flats, starting around 1980. He eventually married and then, around 2000, moved out of London to what the Daily Mail might call “leafy Buckinghamshire”. I do not know whether he would say that racial or ethnic swamping was a cause of his relocation or not; he would probably cite cultural factors. Like the others above, he and his wife are bringing up their children (indeed, by now have brought them up) in a basically white English racial and cultural milieu.
There are similar relocations constantly, from London and other UK urban centres to the country, to Australasia etc. Few of those fleeing or, put less dramatically, relocating, are very “political”; if they were, there might be no need for “white flight”!
Safe Zones
I have previously blogged about the need for English (to a lesser extent, Welsh and Scottish) people to relocate to “safe zones” and in particular to the one major zone which I propose in the South West of England. This is not exclusively a racial imperative. It is also a social and cultural one.
I have been criticized by old-thinking persons who say that English people should “stay and fight” (at least politically). Such people still think in terms of starting a political party, printing leaflets (in the digital age!), holding meetings, and canvassing voters “on the doorstep” just like System party MPs and candidates pretend to do at election time as part of the meaningless flim-flam of System party politics. Well, how has that worked out? The NF tried it in the 1970s (before the Internet). Result? Nothing. The BNP tried it in the 1990s and 2000s. Result? Almost nothing (and eventually nothing). UKIP tried it and is still trying it with its few members. Result? Nothing, really.
How is it possible to fight or struggle politically for social nationalism in a city such as London which is majority non-white/non-European? A doomed struggle. That is what faces us in most UK urban concentrations.
There must be a concentration of forces, to enable a new future to be developed. Not just “white flight” away from certain ways of life, but advance to a new society.
Further to the above, I saw the youtube video below, which is self-explanatory and also hilarious, as virtue-signalling Swedes tie themselves in knots trying to backtrack after lying that they would, if asked, accept a “refugee” into their homes as a staying guest. It reminded me of all those enemies of the people in the UK, who are constantly telling (other) British people to give up their living standards or even their own homes to (mostly fake) “refugees”. You know some of the worst of them: Yvette Cooper, Lily Allen, Billy Bragg, the jew “lord” Dubs etc.
Now look at these virtue-signalling Swedish morons!
and here (below) is the Peter Hitchens view. Sadly, not a social nationalist, but he does castigate mass immigration
Update, 3 June 2019
I am probably wasting my time talking about a random tweet seen, especially when it is typical of thousands, but anyway…
Nicely put! 🙂 I am one of those Brits living in Europe and fighting for the rights of my children and grandchildren to enjoy FOM.
which is in a very pleasant and quiet (and European-race) corner of France (the village or town has fewer than 3,000 inhabitants). Hardly any non-Europeans live anywhere in the whole region.
This woman is tweeting in support of a Romanian girl who wants to stay in the UK, where the Romanian has been living for 7 years (probably at State expense in part, possibly as cheap labour in part) and who is doing a PhD (on “migrants in the UK”! You could not make it up!). Judging from the photos tweeted, the Romanian girl is at least real Romanian, not one of the horde of Roma Gypsies with Romanian or other passports.
My attitude? I have no objection to the odd (real) Romanian coming to or staying in the UK; n.b. not Roma Gypsies, not in the millions (of any kind of person). As for the tweeters supporting mass immigration, “idiots”, “bien-pensants”…..”well-meaning fools” pretty much covers it. Look at the Woolf woman, wishing yet more swamping of the UK… from her rural idyll in one of the most scenic and prosperous (and unswamped) parts of Western France!
I suppose that I should add that I myself was resident in France (Finistere-Nord, Brittany) for several years, but there again (unlike many of those who are swamping the UK) I am of European race and culture, did not use the French social security or free health system, brought money into France rather than exporting funds from France and was never in trouble with the police (save for one minor nonsense “crime”, an on-the-spot speeding ticket, when I was caught doing nearly 100 mph on a dual-carriageway with a speed-limit of about 65 mph).
These idiots tweeting their virtue-signalling tend to equate British pensioners, business owners, or expat residents (working part-time in the UK or elsewhere if working at all), with (often non-European) cheap labour, fake “refugees”, criminals, scavengers etc! Such hypocritical and (at least in their own minds) “well-meaning” idiots are some of the gravediggers of Europe’s future.
Update, 27 June 2019
A Daily Telegraph property report published this week.
“Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) said that “property prices are a big deal” and the main cause of internal migration from London. “Obviously people also want a better quality of life, but they also want access to good schools, to live in rural areas and to get away from the stabbings.”“[Daily Telegraph]
“Neil Park, head of the ONS’s population estimates unit, said: “In the last two years, population growth in the UK has been at its lowest rate since 2004.”
“For the fifth year in a row, net international migration was a bigger driver of population change than births and deaths”
The racial-ethnic aspects of migration by English people out of London are not mentioned directly once in the (immediately above) Daily Telegraph report. It’s all “better schools”, “fresh air”, “leisure opportunities”, “knife crime” etc. Same old…meaning same hypocrisy and same unwillingness to face the truth.
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]
What is written here should be taken in the context of my own belief about historical cycles and in particular that of 33 years. For me, the 33-year cycle is now of great importance. 1923, 1956, 1989, 2022. The last great change in the world took place not so much in as pivoting around the year 1989, and was, in its major effect, the fall of socialism (of all kinds) and its replacement by what might be characterized as globalized finance capitalism. By “socialism”, I mean every kind of socialized socio-political ideology and its practical application.
Soviet socialism and its historical offshoots (whether in China, Albania, Cuba, South-East Asia etc) fell to pieces, replaced by a basically capitalist ethos (sometimes ruled by the same or similar people and even keeping some of the same symbols and slogans, as in China and Cuba).
Soviet-style (Marxist-Leninist) socialism fell, in and after 1989, but it did not fall alone. Social-democratic “socialism” also fell, or just fell apart. Across Western Europe (the same is generally true in Central and Eastern Europe), social-democratic parties have been in decline since 1989.
Socialism, Social-Democracy and Globalist Finance-Capitalism in the UK from 1989
In the UK, the Labour Party erased Clause IV of its Constitution (the clause providing for a socialized society) in 1995. For the next 20 years, the UK Labour Party was not only “socialist” only in implied name, but increasingly also only “social-democratic” in implied name. By 2010, there was virtually no clear water between the Labour and Conservative parties. Both espoused similar globalist finance-capitalist principles, even openly. Indeed, though this blog post is not the place in which to detail it, both Labour and Conservative competed to shout the loudest about how much they loved transnational business and wanted to attract the wealthy and uber-wealthy to the UK, while making a sport of demonizing the poor, the unemployed and disabled, many of whom are reliant on State benefits and services etc.
It may be that the Corbyn phenomenon, resisting going further down the globalist finance-capitalist path, is a sign that that the 1989-2022 era has now run out of steam in the UK, as elsewhere. Much of Corbynism is a nostalgic attempt to go back to the 1970s, but its importance lies not in what it is but in what it is not.
Transnational Enterprises Profiting from Europe
Europe (EU and otherwise) has failed to properly address the profiteering of huge transnational enterprises, whether traditional or Internet-age. They have not been taxed properly or effectively, have played the various European legal and taxing jurisdictions off against each other, and have often treated their employees shabbily.
It should not be forgotten that large-scale capitalist enterprises profit from mass immigration, which provides millions of new consumers, i.e. potential customers, lowers rates of pay, and helps to create, in the American phrase, a “hardscrabble” society which favours finance-capitalism.
It will be recalled that Adolf Hitler referred to “the Aryan ideal of creative work”. As against that, there stand the two pillars of non-Aryan time-employment— on the one hand, various forms of coerced work, ranging from outright slavery to “wage slavery” doing mechanistic labour or running after numbers and/or money; on the other hand, idleness (either unemployment with no cultural or other opportunities and little money, or the luxurious idleness of the decadent wealthy).
Transnational and Other Large Enterprises Promoting the Multiracial Society
There has been a long-term conspiracy to destroy the racial basis of Europe. This goes back at least as far as Coudenhove-Kalergi and his notorious Plan. The international conspiracy is heavily embedded in the so-called “European Union”. One only has to look at the last few years’ “migration-invasion” of Europe. It has been encouraged by all the usual System suspects, from Yvette Cooper and other MPs of the UK, to Angela Merkel, to Jewish groups who have actually organized “aid” to bring “refugees” to the EU and UK! One active example has been the Labour Party “peer” and Jew “lord” Alfred Dubs (an expenses cheat, apart from anything else), who himself came to the UK in 1938 as a child of 6 (his father having bravely fled from Prague and abandoned his family).
There again, when the flow of migrant-invaders was not fast enough for the purposes of the conspiracy, Angela Merkel made her (in fact illegal under EU law) invitation to “refugees” to invade Europe, triggering an even greater and sudden influx from Africa and Asia.
Equally egregiously, we have seen so-called “humanitarian” organizations and actual navies (such as the British) ferrying migrant-invaders to Europe across the Mediterranean. This was presented to the UK/EU public as “rescue at sea” when the reality is that many of the migrant-invaders were picked up by EU naval vessels or those of NGOs only a few miles from the coast of Libya and ferried to Italy, France etc.
There has been a massive campaign in mainland Europe to make the migrant-invaders (mostly young or young-ish men) acceptable, particularly to girls in Germany, Scandinavia etc. Government agencies in Germany, Sweden etc have even put out sex instruction booklets showing cartoon Africans having sex with blonde European girls in various positions! We must be clear about this: this is treason to Europe’s future. The harshest penalties are appropriate. Those who put out such propaganda are evil and must face justice.
Turning to the UK (I do not know whether it applies elsewhere; it probably does), we see that every or every second or third TV ad now shows a mixed-race couple (usually black man with white woman) and/or family, as if that is the norm in the real world. Of course it is not, but it is that kind of demography that is the aim of the thought-manipulators in the msm, ad agencies etc. How many of those are, shall we say, “members of a certain tribe”? Many, to say the least. Such television advertisements do notreflect society as it now is, but attempt to create such a mixed-race society by normalizing the production of mixed-race children, and normalizing the mixed-race family in the collective mindset.
This admixture to the European DNA is justified to fools by the idea that Europeans are not having enough children, so that the “Great Replacement” of Europeans by non-Europeans (via migration-invasion and high birth rate) in Europe is somehow justified. That kind of dummy reasoning leaves out the fact that Europeans are specifically discouraged from having children (especially with each other): promotion of birth-control, abortion, the LGBT-whatever narrative, all of which making it impossible economically — and even socially— for women to be stay-at-home mothers, and making it impossible economically for most European-race men to afford to support a family through paid work.
Resistance
The present situation has to be reversed. Safe zones throughout Europe, leading to the creation of germinal ethnostates, must be part of the solution. After 2022, a New Order will start to arise in Europe. We shall be the masters then.
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.
Ian Robert Millard 