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.
It has always been accepted that, while subjective views of the world mean that reality may differ for different people, there exists, beyond the subjective reality, an objective reality, most of the time at least. Certain things were to be accepted, by all but the insane, as objectively true or real, and other things were regarded as untrue or unreal. Real included measurement of time, age, race, sex, and a million other things. Unreal did not have to be defined but would include direct “untruths” such as two men dressed up as a pantomime horse. These were “two men dressed up as a pantomime horse” (i.e. true), but were not “a horse” (i.e. false, or untrue).
It was never suggested that two men should not dress up as a pantomime horse and pretend to play the part of a horse on stage —or, indeed, in the street—, simply that two men dressed up as a horse are not a horse! That remains true even were the two men to sincerely believe (e.g. if insane) that they really were a horse.
Now it is true that there might be grey areas, particularly as to the future: it was true, in 1902, to say that people could not fly in heavier-than-air machines; by 1904, the same statement was untrue. There are other obvious examples. “Britain has a huge empire.” True in 1914, 1918, 1939 and even in 1945, but today (2018) not true.
Have we now moved (in the “West”, mainly) to a situation where objective reality is taking a back seat? Wishful thinking (eg the middle-aged woman who thinks that she still looks young) has always existed, but now it is sufficient merely to assert your wish for it to be superficially taken as representing fact: the male person or (far more rare) unfortunate freak of birth who “identifies” or “self-identifies” as female. Not only is such a wish-turned-“fact” to be taken seriously today (in, say, the UK) but anyone saying that a man who has had “gender re-assignment” surgery is still not, inreality, a woman, is accused of being “a bigot” uttering “hate speech”.
So it is that feministic women (with whose outlook I myself generally have little in common) and indeed many other women, and who object to women having to share exclusive facilities such as sport changing rooms, bathrooms etc with so-called “trans-women” (which might mean, eg, young girls having to undress and shower alongside middleaged –and even surgically unchanged– men posing as women, in effect), have been labelled “TERFS“, meaning “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists”; and all because the said “TERFS” are unwilling to accept as true an evident untruth.
In the Netherlands, a man of 69 wants to have his age “reclassified” officially as 49, apparently for reasons of vanity, though it has been suggested (see notes below) that in fact he is making a satirical “propaganda of the deed” attempt. All the same, how telling it is that some dimwits commenting actually support the idea that a citizen should be able simply to choose an age at whim. A moment’s thought can surely show that such an idea must lead to chaos in a developed society! Examples (scarcely necessary, surely? Perhaps they are, in an increasingly mad society…): someone of 50 wants to get the benefits available to pensioners, so “self-identifies” as a 70-y-o. Or someone aged 50 wants to be allowed to join an age-restricted-on-entry organization such as the Army, or the Boy Scouts. It’s all just so ridiculous.
Then we have the whole race question. Sometimes I can do nothing but shake my head at the mentality of those who believe or want to believe that, say, a Chinese born in London is “English” or at least “British” rather than Chinese, or that a Jew born in Paris is “French”. Even the hardcore multikulti dimwits and maniacs find it hard to go along with the corollary, i.e. that an ethnically English person born in Peking or Calcutta is thereby a “Chinese” or “Indian”! But of course now the individual can “self-identify” anyway, so that we have cases such as the mentally-disturbed (?) and certainly very odd woman who, in the swamps of American politically-correct academia, simply cosmetically changed her appearance to look a little like a light-skinned “African-American”, then built a whole minor academic career on how bad whites are and how oppressed blacks are in the USA; not that there is not at least some truth in that, but that is a big and complex question, not something black and white (no pun intended). She was exposed in the end, mainly because she had claimed to be partly-black and was not. That was a few years ago. Today, I wonder whether her plea that she was simply “self-identifying” would save her from disgrace.
Another case. Barack Obama. Obama’s mother was white (mainly British –English, Welsh, Scottish– and Irish, with some German and Swiss aspects), his father black African. In his days of political prominence, no-one in the msm wanted to think or speak of him other than as “black”, because his superficial articulacy meant that it “proved” that a “black” man could be suitable (as it at first appeared) to be President of the United States. I do not recall one instance of Obama described accurately as “America’s first mixed-race President”, but only as “America’s first black President”…
There is a whole academic milieu in which it is regarded as axiomatic that “race is a social construct”. Such people have effectively lost touch with reality, as have those who have apparently almost convinced themselves that the Romans were black!
It brings to mind the “Russian” Revolution, which was partly-Russian in its first upsurge in Spring 1917, but simply a Jewish Bolshevik coup d’etat in October 1917 (old calendar).
Updated to 2018, we still see in the UK and elsewhere the fiction that the Jew “oligarchs” who “stole Russia” in the early 1990s (Berezovsky, Abramovitch etc) are “Russians”!
In fact, there are numerous other examples of where people, including the highly –superficially– educated prefer implausible unreality to reality. One, widespread in the UK, is that the country (and Europe as a whole) can accept unlimited millions of immigrants without any diminution in employment, pay, State benefits, pensions, road and rail services, school accessibility, NHS service etc etc.
I have thought a little about where this strange and widespread distortion of reality might have originated. There is the shifting of the ground of reality caused by theoretical physics over the past century. Then there is, more concretely, the “black propaganda” of the two world wars: in WW1, the British atrocity stories (Belgian nuns raped, babies stuck on German bayonets, bodies rendered down to make soap etc). Most of those stories were “recycled” more cleverly in WW2, so that, even today, many of the simpler people in the UK still believe that Jews were made into soap, their hair used to stuff Wehrmacht greatcoats (oh, yes, the German Army loved to stuff its cold-weather clothing with unwashed and lice-ridden hair from Jews!), their skin made into lampshades or tanned into leather upholstery for armchairs… and that is before we even get to the fabled “gas chambers” or the Munchausen-like tales of Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and hundreds of other proven fakes. The cartoon below illustrates well the situation.
The story about the Emperor’s new clothes has become everyday reality in the UK and across the “West”: fail to at least pretend to believe that the “holocaust” narrative is true in all its details and numbers etc, fail to offer lip service to racial “equality” (eg IQ averages etc), fail to agree that a surgically-altered man is a woman, fail to praise the migration-invasion of Europe, fail to believe that Jews are a wonderful benefit to every nation, and you may well be in serious trouble, especially if you have or need a job or profession. You may even (like Alison Chabloz) find yourself convicted and sentenced accordingly.
Another example is the way in which the basically undemocratic and indeed tyrannical EU matrix is supported by and beloved of millions of deluded people (who often think themselves some kind of intellectual elite) and who regard the EU as a liberal bastion, despite its refusal to honour popular voting, despite its mediaeval-style “holocaust” “denial” laws and its other repressions.
No wonder that the msm is not believed, politicians are not believed, “fake news” becomes a major factor.
In any event, there is no doubt that unreality and the worship of falsity is in the ascendant. Lies are exalted and that means that Evil is exalted. This can have but one outcome.
This bloke seems deadly serious to me. Why are people refusing to respect his inner beliefs about himself? Only he can determine his own age, it's not for anyone else to say https://t.co/EvopLcrdEZ
The above does not purport to be a comprehensive listing of all the instances or situations where people prefer comforting lies (unreality) to the more bracing truth (reality). One might cite, though, to provide two connected examples, academic award inflation and UK university degrees. These are important topics.
Originally, England had but one University (Oxford, founded, in origo, 1096). Later, Cambridge (1209) and others were founded: St. Andrew’s (in Scotland, founded 1413) and (in Ireland), Trinity College, Dublin (1592). Further university expansion occurred in later centuries, particularly in the 19thC.
These expansions of university education were all driven by reality, the need to provide better-educated leaders and specialists in government, industry, science etc.
The next great university-education expansion occurred after WW2. The so-called “red brick” universities. Snobs or people concerned about standards (usually the former), such as Kingsley Amis, proclaimed that “more will mean worse”. There is still debate about that, but the old phrase “six of one and half a dozen of another” probably covers it.
Even at that stage, meaning the 1960s, university expansion in the UK was still partly driven by reality, the more complex post-WW2 society needing more people with high or higher levels of education. In fact, standards were still fairly high. Anyone who looks at the old “O” and “A” Level papers (and “S” Levels, a fortiori) from the 1950s and 1960s, even 1970s, then compares them to today’s equivalent papers can see that most UK school exams have, indisputably, become easier over the past 60 years.
The cracks in the university system which started to show in the 1960s widened thereafter. Tony Blair, the fount of so much badness in the UK, finally cracked the whole system open by allowing virtually any institution to call itself a “university” and to issue (mediaeval concept in any case) “degrees”. Now, pretty much any Tom, Dick or Sharon can get a “degree” at “uni” in some such subject as Hotels and Hospitality, Travel and Tourism, Gender Studies, Third World Studies etc. The more traditional subjects have also been dumbed-down hugely, so that about half the students now (since about 1997) “achieve” a “First”, and hardly anyone gets less than an Upper Second. As for getting a Third or a Pass degree, or even failing the exams, well, short of absenteeism or mental breakdown— impossible. Result? Degrees are now almost worthless and you only have to look at some Oxbridge graduates to see that the problem is not confined to those attending the less-prestigious institutions.
Still, most people like the unreality better than reality: students have an easier life and almost all “achieve” high marks, their teachers like the fact that they “achieve” such high numbers of high-achieving students, the institutions like the same, as does government. The statistics look great! Only thing is, this is largely unreality, a mirage.
Update, 23 November 2018
Below, a thread from Twitter which exposes the contemporary madness richly. For some of these lunatics (and I have seen nonsense of this sort on Twitter etc even from an NHS psychiatrist, one who espouses the “race is a social construct” garbage), reality does not exist except as a subjective wish-list. For them, if an African man of 70 wants to be a European woman of 30, then fine, that’s what he —sorry, “she”— is, and anyone dissenting is “guilty” of “hate speech” or “hate thought” (?) and must be punished. Even George Orwell could never have foreseen this!
Another aspect (again, see the thread…and read the whole thread by clicking on one of the tweets below) is that truth alone is not enough for many, but has to appeal to people via a kind of “support the self-styled victims” argument, as in “don’t discuss whether men can just decide that they are women, but discuss whether their doing that makes [real] women victims” (etc).
The depths of the socio-political madness can be gauged by a look at some of the tweets above, such as the one directly above by tweeter [at time of writing called] “AnarchoCatgirl”. In the old joke, if she is interested, I believe that I can offer her London Bridge at a very reasonable price!
In fact, it is interesting that it is mostly the firmest feminists who have bridled at this whole “transpeople” nonsense and reality-distortion. Feminists may not know much (in some cases) but they do know what is a woman and what is not a woman:
Looks as though others are in agreement with me: see this, written in typically-convoluted Jewish-academic style, and from a different ideological direction than my own, but attacking the same sort of madness:
The madness continues. Sometimes I feel that the only way to deal with these and other issues in the UK will be “non-peaceful” somewhere not far down the line. It may or may not be so, but I myself feel it strongly. Does that mean that it is true?
More Twitter reaction. I shall add to this as I notice relevant bits of news and comment.
Many women are wondering how and why the trans lobby has been so successful this last decade. Here's why – money – and lots of it. Seems odd that we, as taxpayers and contributors, are funding organisations actively working against our interests. https://t.co/omg88ld1bc
Trans women are in fact women. That's why "trans" is an adjective modifying "woman" to mean that a "trans woman" is one way to be a woman, much like a white woman, a straight woman, a disabled woman, etc.
— Maddie, Eschatological Nightmare (@lisaquestions) March 7, 2019
Below: someone called Marc, on Twitter, tries to stand up for truth and logic but is criticized by trans-“woman” Tara Hewitt, a half-crazed creature from the UK North West who, years ago, trolled me on Twitter, and who, supporting Scameron and Osborne’s “austerity” nonsense-economics, wanted to become a “Conservative” MP, despite “her” risibly poor educational level…
More evidence that the UK police see their role not as traditional police (keeping the public safe, investigating real crime etc) but as being a kind of poundland KGB, “investigating” peoples’s opinions and then going on to repress freedom of expression, even travelling long distances to harass or intimidate people suspected of holding or expressing the “wrong” views about society…
Below: the prophet speaks: great classic writer G.K. Chesterton foresaw today’s social madness…
We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.
A Dr Who writer @OldRoberts953 is expunged from a book by the BBC because he won’t conform to the latest transgender ideology. His views on transgenderism are probably shared by 90%+ of Brits but he’s now a Non-Person for the BBC. The net tightens around free speech. Please share https://t.co/G9fM2BK1e4
2016: Craig Telfer is ranked 200th 2017: Craig Telfer is ranked 390th 2018: Craig Telfer 'transitions to female' 2019: CeCe Telfer is national championhttps://t.co/KHXaIjhYvopic.twitter.com/Uoy72PCqkR
"She says the transgender woman, who is serving a sentence for rape of a female, groped her breasts in the prison toilets… The victim was moved to a different prison only to find her assailant had also moved there and would be sharing accommodation."https://t.co/cU0L3maVWf
The madness spreads to organizations such the the Girl Guides. Guides, Scouts, other charities (real or fake), you name it, they are all full, at higher levels, of termites who are traitors to society, evil killers of our future, Common Purpose conspirators etc:
This is not “a victimless crime”, not merely a debate in an ivory tower. Think about the 6-y-o girl who has been abused and traumatized by some teenage nut because he, said nut, wants to identify as “she”. In the future, the Third Reich will have to be revisited.
"This is an act of national cowardice by our would–be leaders, dressed up as high-minded moral superiority. Will any of them think again? While they absent themselves, women are being betrayed."
Even the academic standing against some of the madness, one Kathleen Stock, is compelled or impelled to defend truth not by saying simply “A is TRUE, B is UNTRUE”, but by entering into long philosophical and sociological exegesis. Telling…
Some of the “trans” people and extreme responses to those tweets are so off the wall that you wonder whether what is required is a psychiatrist or a machine-gun.
Time to recall the old saying “those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”. This society is running on empty.
The writer of the piece below was rude to me on Twitter, and applauded my getting expelled from in 2018, so it would be natural to put “the finger” up to him, but the topic is important, even if he himself is a flawed messenger (and I do not recall the exact details— he is not important enough for that):
“The panel said only views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism were unworthy of protections for rights of freedom of expression and thought..” Seems that the Indian in charge thinks that National Socialism is just too true!
…but even now the Daily Mail calls the rapist “she”, and “her”…
Update, 2 February 2025
The madness carries over into other socio-political areas, such as the immigration “debate”, aka migration-invasion:
My blog post (another one that has had to be added to via updates over the years) about the links connecting Jew-Zionism, “antifa” nonsense, and mental illness, has proven popular:
I’m very happy about this, but the fact that people need a Supreme Court to tell us that women are in fact women is beyond stupid. This crazy nonsense is where the liberals have dragged society. A playpen for lunatics. Stomp out every liberal policy and stop the insanity!
First of all, semblance. The msm have been attacking Labour and especially Corbyn-Labour ever since his election as Labour leader. Corbyn himself is said to be “a friend of terrorists” (from the IRA to HAMAS and Black September), a paid tool of Iran, as well as (not very crypto-) Communist and “anti-Semite”. In fact, the attacks on Corbyn have come, ultimately, from only one source, the UK Jewish-Zionist lobby. You see it on Twitter. Pretty much all of the Zionist Jews on Twitter say the same things or raise a little storm at the same time. Like a shoal of fish.
The Jewish-Zionist lobby controls the anti-Corbyn MPs in Labour. Slowly, they are being removed or are resigning. John Woodcock has resigned from Labour (though not as MP! He wants to keep getting his pay and very inflated expenses for as long as possible!); Michael Dugher resigned as MP too (and was found a suitably-lucrative job outside politics…); Simon Danczuk (like Woodcock) was mired in sex scandal –apart from anything else– and tried to get re-elected as Independent, only to be humiliated; Luciana Berger tried to get a better-paid job as Mayor of Liverpool, but failed. Others are jumping ship or being shunted toward deselection.
So there we have the semblance: the manufactured storms in the msm about “anti-Semitism” and the other stormlets re. Corbyn as IRA collaborator in the 1970s or 1980s. These mean something to an older generation, perhaps, and of course the “anti-Semite” label means something to the approximately quarter of a million Jews in the UK (hardly any of whom vote Labour now anyway).
However, the anti-Corbyn propaganda is not reaching most people under 40 and, still less, those under 30. They are mostly not much interested by the fact that Jews and/or pro-Israel persons hate Corbyn; as for the “Corbyn was pro-IRA” stuff, even if there is some truth in it, that was mostly about 40 years ago, before they were even born. The under 40s are likely to vote on the basis of reality, meaning their reality.
What do I mean by “reality”? One person’s reality is another person’s “unimportant detail” or “cloud cuckoo land”. That is what most of the msm and the “Remain” whiners failed to understand about the pro-Brexit Leave vote in the EU Referendum: for an affluent family in London or the Home Counties, what mattered was (the perception) that the UK’s economy might be depressed by Brexit, that their daughter might be prevented from taking up that unpaid intern position at a Milan fashion house, that their son might not be able to get a lucrative job as a lawyer or accountant with a transnational enterprise in Brussels, Berlin or wherever; that their holiday home in Provence might lose value; that they might not get cheap Eastern European labour to help in the house or garden; that it might take longer to drive off the ferry during holidays etc.
On the other side, a man in the North of England was asked during the Referendum campaign whether he was worried that UK GDP might suffer if the UK exited the EU. His reply: “not really, it’s only me and the dog anyway…”! Easy to scoff, but that was his reality and arguably as “real” as the paper figures for economic performance are to the staff of the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme. What matters to the soldier in the battle? That the battle was won (or lost), or that he lost his life?
Reality for huge numbers of people (potential voters) in the UK means incredibly expensive and often now basically unaffordable housing (whether rented or bought), expensive and overcrowded transport and roads, an NHS which has declined perceptibly for many years, poor pay, fewer real civil rights, a largely-destroyed social security system, a continuing migration-invasion (though perception re. that is blunted because of the huge, pervasive race-mixing propaganda everywhere, eg in TV ads).
Now when those voters vote, most are going to vote on the basis of that reality, not on the basis that Jews (who are in any case not much liked or trusted, on the whole, by most British people) dislike Corbyn or his supporters, or because Corbyn’s connections with the IRA in the 1970s were very doubtful.
The above musings explain why I think that Labour’s vote is likely to be higher than most commentators in the msm expect. In their reality, what matters is whether Labour is “anti-Semitic”, or anti-EU, or anti the (supposedly) free market, or whether “the economy” might be damaged by Brexit or by a Labour government. Those commentators inevitably think as conditioned by their own circumstances and peer group. They make £100,000 or even (in some cases) £500,000+ a year, and certainly not less than £50,000, whereas the “average” (not median) salary in the UK is only around £28,000 and many many people (either employed or not) are actually surviving on as little as half of that.
The msm commentators own their own homes, often outright; they do not have to spend a third or even half their income on rent; au contraire! Many are actually buy to let parasites themselves! They do not have to live in shared houses, or on decaying council estates.
I am willing to accept that about 25% of the voters will vote Conservative at the next general election whatever the defaults of the governments since 2010, either out of self-interest or because of an ingrained dislike of Labour (or because they see a photo of Diane Abbott on Election Day!). That percentage might even be 35%. The other 65% to 75% is in the hazard. Everything depends, in the crazy UK First Past The Post electoral system, on what happens in the 50-150 more marginal constituencies. In our electoral system, a party needs a concentration of support, a Schwerpunkt. Thus it is that the Green Party, which has about 2% support, has an MP (in Brighton…) yet UKIP, which had a nearly 12% overall vote in 2015, has no MPs.
Though no psephologist, I should say that Labour has every chance of becoming the largest party in the House of Commons after the next general election, even if falling short of a majority. Because voters will vote on their reality, not on newspaper semblance.
Final thoughts
Thinking about blocs of support, Labour has, in broad brush terms, the under-40s, maybe even the under-50s; also the ethnic minorities (except Jews); also almost anyone earning the average salary or less. I cannot see the Conservative Party winning a Commons majority.
Update, 11 December 2020
Looking at the above article more than two years after it was written, my conclusion was wrong even though my reasoning was correct. Ironic.
I underestimated the suggestive power of the mass media and overestimated the common sense of the average voter.
Having said that, only a small number of 2017 Labour Party voters moved to be Conservative Party voters in 2019. The Conservatives increased their vote over that of 2017 by only about 1 point, but Labour’s vote declined by 8 points, and nearly half of that was 2017 Labour voters refusing to vote at all in 2019.
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!
One of the pillars of a future “Threefold Social Order” society will be religious freedom. Such freedom is also said to be a pillar of our existing “Western” model of society.
“We” supposedly all agree with that ideal, meaning of course “we” white Northern Europeans. Of course, once one gets away from Northern Europe and its wider offshoots in North America, Australasia etc, that consensus ends. In the Middle East, much of Africa, South Asia etc, freedom of religion either does not exist, or exists only as a fragile plant.
In Europe, we see that the migration-invasion, and the societal takeover via a high birth rate of, in particular, Muslims, is threatening our fond belief that we have and always will have religious freedom. The pendulum is swinging. Whereas in the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic Christians repressed other religious communities and launched crusades to conquer Muslim lands (a simplification, of course, but let’s leave that aside), today the Muslims are invading Europe, not as armies (as happened several times in the past) but as migrant-invaders (immigrants, “refugees”, “asylum-seekers”, and as babies born in Europe…). If this continues unabated, we can expect to see more attempts to shut down religious freedom for non-Muslims, as shown in this cartoon:
This process can be seen in the UK. There have in fact been Muslims in the UK for a long time, at least in small numbers. An Islamic centre and cemetery was established on the edge of Woking, Surrey, in the 19thC (it can be seen just before trains enter Woking Station, on the Southern or lefthand side as the train travels from London). However, the political or societal strength has grown in more recent years, along with the numbers.
In the 1970s, the Muslim element rarely displayed itself politically. I myself recall that posters on the Underground in 1976 or 1977, advertizing the Libyan-funded film “Mohammed, Messenger of God” were often defaced, always with the same words: “Islam forbids representations”. That vandalism, along with “community” representation to the UK authorities and the film distributors, resulted in the film being renamed “The Message”.
Now, 40 or so years later, times have moved on. Despite the Muslim population of the UK only being between 5% and 6% (officially), there has been a gradual infiltration (I do not say that it has been particularly organized) into mainstream political parties, in areas where Muslim numbers are significant: parts of the North of England, the Midlands, smaller areas within London and elsewhere. The influence of Sharia law and courts has grown; the Church of England has shown itself craven (as indeed it is when confronted by the aggressive Jewish-Zionist element). In some cases, Christians wishing to display their faith, e.g. by wearing crosses etc, have been given the choice of not doing so or being dismissed.
I repeat, officially the Muslim population of the UK stands at little more than 5% (about 5.1%) so far, but a high birth rate may propel that to 10% in the short term and later to…who knows? What will then be its influence and power?
As to the Jews, in numbers they are small, somewhere between 250,000 to 280,000, though there are also very large numbers of part-Jews, many of whom have little or no day to day connection with Jewish religious practices. Their influence and power comes not from crude numbers, but from concentration in and control of key strategic areas: finance, law, politics, mainstream media and, now, large Internet organizations.
Christians and Muslims accept persons of any race into their communities, at least in principle. Both Christians and Muslims have traditionally accepted it as an article of faith that persons of other religions should be “converted”, whereas Jews do not seek converts (though some modern branches do accept small numbers, e.g. after marriage to Jews). Judaism, therefore, has never launched “crusades” or the like. The Jews do not aim to make the world Jewish, only to be the major influencing, controlling and profiting element in or over the world.
The modern Christian world of the post-Enlightenment has, in principle, accepted that people can be Christian, Muslim or Jew (or whatever else) freely. That is easy enough when it comes to beliefs, ideas, even public worship in particular buildings, though (as mentioned above) it took Europe a long time even to accept those aspects. Much of the world does not go that far.
Where things become more difficult is when the religious practice of a community contravenes the law or morality of the society as a whole. Halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, which revolt the sensibilities of thinking non-Muslims and non-Jews. Male and female genital mutilation by Muslims and Jews. The cries (now electrically amplified) of the muezzin from the minaret of the mosque. These are cases where, in my view, the demands of the society to prevent cruelty, the wish of Europeans not to hear constant mosque noise in their neighbourhood must prevail over the practices of both the Jews and the Muslims.
To take an extreme case: there were societies in the past, Aztecs, Incas, even Europeans of ancient Europe, who engaged in ritual sacrifice of humans. Would we accept such practices today just because “it is part of their religion”? I think not.
There have been problems in the recent past in relation to other religions: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their unwillingness to save the lives of their children via blood transfusion; the mental and sometimes physical cruelty to children of some small “Christian” sects such as the Plymouth Brethren; the contrived scam that is Scientology (the British government of the 1960s fought a long battle to suppress Scientology, because of its perceived cultic and controlling behaviour). There could be other examples given.
It might be said that even mainstream Christian religions have done very evil things, e.g. the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, though those involved acts not sanctioned or encouraged by the religion as such.
In the end, society, meaning the political element, must draw the line between the zone where religion holds sway and the zone where group or community religious practice must give way before the general secular law which should protect people and animals.
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.
I have previously blogged about the need to establish at least one “safe zone” in the UK, to act as a germinal ethnostate. My writings on this topic can be read on this site (under headings such as “safe zones”, “white flight”, “prepping” etc) and on my own website (http://ianrmillard.com).
[Update, 28 January 2024: please be aware that my former website address is not now operative. The present blog is on ianrobertmillard.com].
Why do I favour one safe zone in the UK rather than many? The Russian proverb is “if you chase two hares, you won’t catch one”. It is better to have 48 people living in one English county than to have 1 person living in each of the English counties. This accords with the dictum of Clausewitz: to wit, that a secure base must be established before power can be extended beyond. It also accords with the military doctrine of the Schwerpunkt or concentration of forces [lit. heavy point or main point or emphasis].
Realistically, one cannot expect every social nationalist in the UK or even in England alone to relocate to one area (I favour South West England, for reasons about which I have already blogged). People have ties which cannot always be severed easily. However, I feel that focusing on one main safe zone will allow that zone to exercize magnetic attraction and will achieve a momentum, eventually.
Present Situation
Writing in mid-2018, it seems to me that the need for the safe zone(s) becomes ever more pressing. For several reasons. I focus on the UK, but my comments refer also to the rest of the world.
UK cities are going black/brown. That is a very general statement and of course there are other groups also very numerous now, such as Chinese. In broad brush terms, the phrase is all right. At any rate, white Northern Europeans are already a minority in several English towns and cities. Continuing mass immigration and the higher birth-rate of non-Europeans will ensure that few large towns and cities will be majority white European (let alone predominantly so) by 2050. What does this mean? Politically, electorally, it means that social nationalism cannot succeed even if all white Europeans were to, say, vote for a social-national party standing in any election. The numbers would not and could not be there.
Protection and security. At present, even the most innocuous meetings by social nationalists face annoying disruption and even prevention by reason of the activities of the mindless “antifa” groups, which groups can be described as the “useful idiots” of the Jewish-Zionist lobby. (They often in fact say that they are “anti-Zionist” as well as “anti-fascist”, but strangely seem rarely or never to attack Zionist gatherings). A safe zone will ensure that the personnel are there to protect the white European social-national community, come what may. The safe zone will also provide protection and support to those affected by the over-zealous policing now current.
The presence of large numbers of social nationalists in one area will enable election of local and national representatives. This is not the main driver, but will be useful.
Protection of children from unsuitable social pressures and brainwashing.
A further reason to create a safe zone is the uncertainty in the international situation. War may yet ravage Europe. Safe zones enable survival of people and ideas.
In the past, by which I mean as far back as you want to go, but particularly the 1920s, 1930s etc, the primary method of opposing a political movement or tendency was to do so directly. Political battles on the streets, electoral contests involving propaganda and shows of strength etc; books might be written, too. One thinks perhaps of Trotsky’s book Terrorism and Communism, largely apolemic against the social-democrat Karl Kautsky. That was then. Today, while elements of the former methods still exist, new ones have come to the fore. One of these, applied particularly to (deployed against) the nationalist wing of politics, is the fake party, fake movement, fake tendency (call it what you will).
Fake Movements: example
It may be that the modern “fake movement” tactic had its genesis in the repressions of the Russian Empire in the period before the First World War. The Tsarist secret police, the Okhrana, established agents as “dissident” voices, attracting to those agents genuine dissidents. Thus society had “safety valves” and could blow off steam safely, with no danger of serious damage to the overall society or the government’s hold on the people.
There were many examples. The famous Father Gapon became one such, though it seems that, like his even more famous predecessor, Judas Iscariot, he started off as an “honest dissident” or believer in social justice. Likewise, the assassin of Stolypin was another “double agent” or double player, being both a revolutionary and an agent of the Okhrana.
Fake Movements Today: UKIP and how it was used to beat down the BNP; the Alt-Right fakery now joins with UKIP to prevent the rise of any new and real social-national party…
It is of the essence of a “fake” movement that it starts off or seems to start off as a genuine manifestation of socio-political frustration. UKIP was like that. It started life as the Anti-Federalist League, the brainchild of a lecturer at the London School of Economics, Alan Sked, whose first attempt at electioneering led to a 0.2% vote (117 votes) at Bath in 1992. UKIP itself was created in 1993. At that stage, UKIP’s membership could be fitted into one or two taxis.
By 1997, UKIP was able to field 194 candidates, yet still only achieved 0.3% of the national vote, perhaps equivalent to 1% in each seat actually contested, the same result as had been achieved in the 1994 European elections. In those 1997 contests, the Referendum Party funded by Franco-Jewish financier James Goldsmith was its main rival (beating UKIP in 163 out of 165 seats). The BNP was another rival, on the more radical, social-national side. However, the votes of all three combined would have amounted to only a few percent in any given seat.
It is at this point that an early joiner, Nigel Farage, emerges as leader. Alan Sked left UKIP, fulminating about “racism” and Farage’s meetings with BNP members etc. Farage had been the only UKIP candidate to have saved his deposit in 1997 (getting 5% at Bath, Sked’s old test-bed). Goldsmith died; most of the Referendum Party joined UKIP. “Major donors” emerged too.
In the 1999 European elections, UKIP received 6.5% of the vote; not very impressive, but enough (under the proportional voting system in use) to win 3 seats in the EU Parliament. From that time on, UKIP slowly gathered strength. In the 2001 general election, it still only had 1.5% of the national vote, but 6 of its candidates retained their deposits.
On a personal note, I missed much of UKIP’s rise. I was living out of the UK for much of 1990-1993 (mostly in the USA), again in 1996-97 (in Kazakhstan) and after I left Kazakhstan again spent much time overseas (many places, from North Cyprus to the Caribbean, the USA, the Med, the Canaries and Egypt, among others). In any case, I was not much interested in UK politics at the time. I had lunch with a girl in a pub at Romsey in Hampshire in the Spring of 2000. She told me that most of her time was spent “working on behalf of something called UKIP. Have you heard of it?” Answer no. When it was explained to me, I have to admit that I thought, secretly, that something like that had no chance. I suppose that I was both right and wrong at once.
Now, at the time when UKIP was gaining strength, after 1999, the BNP under its new leader, Nick Griffin, was also gaining strength and –in Westminster elections– doing better overall than UKIP at first. In 2001, it got over 10% of the vote in 3 constituencies (16% in one). It is important to note here that the BNP was a genuine party, proven as such by the hatred it engendered in the “enemy” camp(s): Jewish Zionists, “antifascists” (many of whom are also Jews, though some are naive non-Jews), and the System (a wide term but certainly including existing MPs, the BBC, the journalistic swamp etc).
The anti-BNP forces were trying constantly to repeat their success in destroying the National Front in the 1970s. It lived on after the 70s, but as a shell. Internal factionalism was aided and abetted by skilled enemies. Akin to cracking marble in Carrara.
Whatever may be said of Nick Griffin (and I am neutral on the subject, though certainly more sympathetic than hostile), it cannot be denied that he gave the BNP its only chance of becoming a semi-mainstream party in the manner of the Front National in France. A strategic thinker, he managed to bring the BNP to the brink of success by 2009.
Within UKIP itself, there were social-national elements as well as what I would call conservative nationalists and others who were really Conservative Party types who, being anti-mass immigration, anti-EU etc, had defected. Two of the last sort later became UKIP’s 2 MPs, both initially elected as Conservatives: Mark Reckless, Douglas Carswell. Their kind of pseudo-“libertarian” “Conservatism” was exactly the wrong position for UKIP to take and positioned UKIP somewhere near but beyond the Conservative Party, when, to really break through, it needed to go social-national.
When the BNP imploded after the disastrous post-Question Time 2010 General Election, UKIP was able to get the votes of most of those who had previously voted BNP, if only fuelled by frustration or desperation, or “better half a loaf than none”.
UKIP beat all other UK parties at the 2014 European elections, getting 27 MEPs. OFCOM then awarded UKIP “major party” status, enabling it to get huge amounts of airtime (and people still talk about Britain’s “free” mainstream media…).
UKIP however, was unable to beat its way through the British fair-seeming (but in fact as good as rigged) “First Past the Post” electoral system at the General Election of 2015. 12.6% of national vote (nearly 4 million votes), but only 1 seat (Carswell’s, at Clacton, Essex). Meanwhile, the BNP vote had collapsed even from its 2010 level (1.9%, 563,743 votes) to effectively zero (1,667 votes).
I myself had already tweeted and blogged from 2014 that UKIP had peaked. I paid virtually no attention to the BNP, which by that time was already yesterday’s news. The 2017 election brought UKIP 1.9%, whereas the BNP bumped along with statistical zero (despite having tripled its individual votes to 4,642).
Douglas Carswell, the “libertarian” Conservative faux-nationalist resigned before UKIP’s 2017 failure to take up lucrative “work” in the City of London. His work with UKIP was done, let us put it that way. As for Farage, he reinvented himself as a touring talking head, while keeping his hand in as a “nationalist” by referring to his concerns about the “US Jewish lobby” (strangely, he failed to mention the Jew lobby in the UK or France…).
Today, in 2018, with neither main System party commanding firm support, we see the System, the Zionists in particular, “concerned” about the “resurgence” of the “far right” (i.e. worried that the British people might awaken and turn to a real alternative).
So what happens? The System “operation” revs up a little: the “Alt-Right” talking heads –who rarely if ever criticize the Jewish Zionist lobby– are now flocking to join UKIP! Milo Yan-whatever-he-is-opolous, “Prison Planet” Watson, “Sargon of Akkad”, “Count Dankula” etc…all the faux-“nationalist” fakes and fuckups are going to UKIP, have in fact gone to UKIP, have all suddenly joined as members of UKIP.
Conclusion
Naturally, all this could be co-incidence, but it is very odd that the events that I have chronicled seem to have happened at just the “right” time:
UKIP rising at the same time as the BNP which was, at that time, a rapidly-growing potential threat to the System;
Nick Griffin ambushed on BBC TV Question Time;
BNP marginalized in msm while UKIP was promoted as a “threat” to LibLabCon;
UKIP given endless msm airtime so long as it was “non-racist” (it now has quite a few non-whites as prominent members and is pro-Israel etc…);
Conservative Party MPs defecting to UKIP and so (in the absence of any elected UKIP MPs) bound to take leading roles in UKIP and steer it into capitalist, “libertarian” backwaters;
as the people look ready to follow any new credible social-national party (were one to emerge a little further down the line), suddenly dead-and-nailed-to-its-perch UKIP gets a boost from those fake “Alt-Right” figures…;
Former msm “radical” talking heads such as Paul Mason turn up shouting about the UKIP/Alt-Right convergence as if the SA were marching down Whitehall.
It is just all too convenient.
Still, God moves in mysterious ways. Maybe the System, in its cleverness, will score an “own goal”. After all, that’s what the Okhrana did in pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg…
I suppose that most people reading this will have heard of Nick Griffin, formerly of the British National Party. For the benefit of those who have not, this is what Wikipedia says about him:
I have never met Nick Griffin, I have never spoken with him. My view of him is, in a nutshell, that he did very well with the BNP to make a large part of a silk purse out of what was mostly a sow’s ear. He made the BNP at least half-credible (up to 2009). He and Andrew Brons got elected as BNP MEPs. He has courage. He has intelligence, too.
On the more doubtful side, Griffin was naive enough to think that he had been invited onto BBC Question Time because the BNP had all but broken through into the magic circle of “major parties” and was being treated as such; instead, he was ambushed and trashed in a totally planned way. All those who took part in that ambush are enemies of the people. That finished the BNP.
As to what Griffin writes, I agree with much of it and in particular with much of his recent attack on the corrupted “Alt-Right” and other [what some call] “kosher nationalists”.
Griffin has reposted one or two of my tweets (though I am now expelled from Twitter) and GAB posts. I must have retweeted or reposted a couple of dozen of his.
I think that Griffin is basically right to say that the purely political fight, in the manner of the BNP, UKIP etc in the UK (he says throughout Western Europe) is now not possible. He has a point. Encroaching State/ZOG repression, Jewish Zionist influence and control, the ever-increasing hordes (armies?) of blacks and browns in the urban areas. Still, God works in mysterious ways…
Mark Collett
I had not heard of Mark Collett until this year, or possibly, peripherally, 2017. He once worked with Nick Griffin and was tried –and re-tried– (and acquitted) with him:
I have read The Fall of Western Man, Collett’s book. I agreed with almost all of it, though I was slightly underwhelmed. I do not think that Adolf Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg or Oswald Spengler have much to worry about.
I have from time to time reposted and (prior to my expulsion) retweeted Collett’s comments online. He, however, has (as far as I know) never reposted any of mine.
Leadership
Nick Griffin led the BNP; Collett led part of the BNP (the “youth wing”) and, obviously, wants to be seen as a nationalist leadership figure generally. Both men do seem to take the view that they must cultivate a slightly aloof persona in order to achieve their purposes. I have no quarrel with that, so long as the attempt does not look silly. At present (again, as far as I know) they are both generals without troops, and the fact that they both have about 35,000 Twitter followers means almost nothing. I myself, not a leader of or even a member of any party or group, had 3,000. I wonder how many of my 3,000 Twitter followers would follow me into battle– or even to a meeting in a pub? Not too many, anyway.
My point is that a political leader must of course have the aura of leadership, of slight mystery, of slight aloofness (as ever, we look to Hitler), but that must be based on the real, not merely or only that which is the result of cultivation.
Kameradschaft
In the past year or two we have seen numerous social nationalists persecuted by Zionist Jewry. I myself was disbarred in 2016, then questioned by the police in 2017, at the instigation of connected packs of Zionist Jews. Others have to date suffered more: satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz; Jez Turner of the London Forum. Turner is right now sitting in Wandsworth Prison and will not be released until Autumn.
I have seen no word of support from either Nick Griffin or Mark Collett for any one of the above-named people.
Leadership demands fealty and loyalty: the leader demands both fealty and loyalty from his troops. However, loyalty works both ways. The leader must give more than he receives. Those who would be first must be the servant of all. The duty of those who would lead social nationalism is to support all social nationalists who remain true.
Afterword
In the short time (about 5 hours) since the above was published, I have been made aware that in fact both Mark Collett and Nick Griffin have expressed support (on Twitter and GAB) on at least two occasions for Alison Chabloz, though not (as far as I know, to date) for Jez Turner. Anyone knowing differently is welcome to comment in the Comments section below.
Ian Robert Millard 