Brexit, Defence, environment, ethnostate, free speech, immigration, prepping, Russia and Russian relations, safe zones, society, The Great Replacement, Threefold Social Order, Uncategorized, white flight

Europe Will Soon Be In Chaos– We Can Create A New Civilization From That

5 Comments

First Postulate: Collapse

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!

Defence, historical, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, Uncategorized

There Should Have Been An Honourable Peace in 1939 or 1940

Leave a comment

The Background

September the 9th, 2018. 79 years and 8 days since the famous German attack on the Polish radio station at then Gleiwitz; 79 years and 6 days since Britain (and so the entire British Empire) and France declared war on Germany; about 78 and a bit years since the German defeat of France, since the British retreat from Dunkirk; 78 years since the air Battle of Britain.

What weakens the usual System-history narrative about the history of those times is the a priori assumption or, if you like, a Grundnorm [basic underlying concept or belief, often unquestioned or deliberately made impossible to question], that the declaration of war by Britain and France was unquestionably both “the right thing to do” and unavoidable.

The typical, conventional System view, as displayed above, is of course grounded on an even deeper-held belief or Grundnorm, that is that the German government of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP was so evil that it had to be destroyed. That view (at the time and really until the 1970s at least –talking about British attitudes–) was based on the opinion that Germany was again trying, for the second or third time in memory, and as a continental power, to take over mainland Europe. More recently, the more Jewish-influenced attitude has held sway, because of the Jewish control or veto over the worlds of publishing, academia, politics, msm etc in the West: that Germany had to be confronted and defeated because of its policy re. Jews.

The whole “Germany had to be defeated because of the ‘holocaust'” nonsense is of quite recent date. Not often (i.e. never) mentioned to the brainwashed masses or to their equally brainwashed offspring in British schools, is the fact that not one of the world leaders or the most important military leaders (e.g. Churchill) made any mention of “extermination programmes” or “gas chambers” in their spoken remarks or post-war written memoirs. The Jewish-Zionist element has taken control of the historical narrative and completely twisted it. That is why “they” hate any historical revisionism. They present a weight of mutually-quoting fakery as if it were a weight of evidence. In any case, even the Zionist propagandists do not claim any German “extermination plan” or programme for the Jews  until 1941.

Returning to war and peace in 1939-40, we see that the big picture shows a world far more than today split between European empires. The British Empire ruled between a quarter and a third of the world. Most of the rest (leaving aside the Soviet Union, the USA and China) was ruled by other Europeans: empires of the French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Belgians. The depredations of the early imperial days had begun to give way to the idea of stewardship. The native peoples were beginning to be looked after, the wildlife the same. All that (which became so positive in the 1950s) was ruined by the Second World War and its aftermath. Decolonization, globalist finance-capitalism etc have been disastrous for the peoples and environment of Africa, South America, Asia.

In Europe too, we see how disastrous was the decision to go to war in 1939. Immense destruction, huge loss of life (some estimates say 80 million), cruelties, hardship etc. Also massive economic dislocation.

We often hear half-baked nonsense about how “the war” stimulated inventions and technological progress. Most of this is either not true or is at best half-true. In both Europe and USA, huge strides were being made in the 1930s. What the war did was to change priorities: planes built for speed rather than comfort, housing built on a utilitarian rather than an aesthetic basis etc.

In the UK, much nonsense is talked about the Welfare State in this regard. In fact, social housing (which had existed in limited forms for centuries) was being created on quite a large scale in the UK of the 1930s, particularly in and around London. As for the NHS etc, that was already being prepared in studies etc, though the war may have concentrated minds and so on.

The Phoney War

The Phoney War, also called the Bore War and (in Germany) Sitzkrieg, lasted from September 1939 to April 1940. At that point, few people, even in the armed services of either side (meaning UK/Germany) had been killed. Any bitterness or venom (mainly on the British side and stirred up by relentless propaganda) was small compared to what existed later. There could, after Dunkirk, have been an honourable peace, an armistice. Germany could then have turned its full attention to destroying Stalin’s regime the following year. The Russian people would eventually have come to a concordat with the German Reich. Only the Jewish commissars etc would ultimately have lost out.

Conclusion

Britain lost out hugely by going along with Churchill’s ridiculous adventurism. Terrible loss and turmoil during the years of war, 10 years of “austerity” after the war ended. The perceived “need” (in fact a conspiracy) to import blacks and browns in the 1950s and thereafter in order to make up for those killed and injured in that wholly unnecessary war. Slow poisoning of the folk.

Britain and France declared war on Germany, ostensibly, to protect the independence of Poland. It never happened. Poland was split between the German Reich and the Soviet Union at first, later taken entirely by the Reich, then later still taken entirely by the Soviet Union. Instead of one or two weeks of war, Poland was strafed by 6 years of it. Only since 1989 has Poland regained anything like full political sovereignty. When I myself visited Poland on several occasions in the late 1980s, one still met older Poles who might mention those worthless guarantees of 1939.

Had an honourable peace been found in 1939 or 1940, the British Empire would have wound down more gradually, as would the other European empires. There would not have been so much war and misery across the world, the American cultural death-impulse would not have been so powerful and destructive; also, the environment would not have suffered anything like as badly. Above all, Europe would be fully European and have a fully-European future.

Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Conservative Friends of Israel, elections, free speech, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, Party Politics, Uncategorized

Give Them An Inch And They Take A Mile

8 Comments

As I have been predicting, it seems that the Labour Party will soon adopt in full or almost-full measure, the “IHRA” “definition” of “anti-Semitism”, which the Jew-Zionists claim as the “international definition”, even though only about 30-35 states, out of nearly 200 in the world, have “adopted” it.

I have written, on previous occasions, that even if Labour “adopted” this Zionist-drafted “definition”(strange that there is no “international definition” of being anti-European, anti-white, anti-British etc, only “antisemitic”… well, maybe not so strange!), that would not be the end of it. The Jews would then move on to demand more and more, until they achieved their strategic objective– to remove Jeremy Corbyn and to regain full control of the Labour Party, which control they lost when Corbyn became –against the odds– Labour leader in 2015.

Today, Margaret “Hodge” MP, a Jewish Zionist (and Labour Member of Parliament), laid it on the line: even if the IHRA “definition” is accepted in full, it will not satisfy the Jew-Zionists. What will? Ah, yes, the head of Jeremy Corbyn, served in all its non-kosher glory on a silver platter. That is what they really aim at.

Ideally, Labour should just tell the Zionists to go whistle for their stupid “definition” and, in fact and in general, should tell them where to get off. I doubt that that will happen. For one thing, Momentum, the ginger group so much part of Corbyn’s backing force, is run by (in fact is actually owned by a private company of) the Jewish Marxist Jon Lansman. Though Lansman seems to be far from typical, blood is thicker than water. Indeed, only yesterday, Lansman had the damned cheek (Jews call it “chutzpah”) to suggest that “Jeremy” should get “training” in how not to be “anti-Semitic”!

I have seen no response from Corbyn to this idea that he should subject himself to Jew-Zionist brainwashing. I suppose that he will continue the way he has gone so date: sitting on the fence between openly challenging the Jewish Zionist lobby and its shibboleths (in particular, the “holocaust” narrative and industry), and becoming an out-and-out doormat for the Jew-Zionist lobby (in the manner of most Labour MPs).

If only Corbyn had the confidence to appeal to the rank and file Labourites who back him! Many, true, have been brainwashed by Zionist infiltration of propaganda into schools, msm etc (not to mention fiction masquerading as fact, as in, e.g,, Schindler’s List and the like), but even some of those are now waking up:

https://twitter.com/BarbAdams66/status/1036527228950138882

In fact, many of the better Labour people on the ground are not very far from social nationalism, though the brainwashing so evident everywhere now would prevent most from seeing that.

If the Jews get what they want and have Corbyn removed (or forced to resign), then Labour will probably do worse rather than better in any general election of the near future. On the other hand, if Corbyn stays but as effectively a prisoner of the Zionist lobby, he will –accurately– be seen as a weak leader. The voters will turn away from that.

The next general election is Labour’s to lose, and it begins to look as if it may do just that. I had thought that Labour would be the largest party in a hung Parliament. Now I am not so sure.

Update, 6 November 2019

A good typical example of how the Jew-Zionist lobby demands this or that, wears down resistance by constant bullying or whining and then, having got what it wants, moves on to the next demand and is perennially unsatisfied:

Update, 27 July 2021

Well, I think that I can claim that the above blog post from three years ago has been proven to be pretty accurate! Give that man a cee-gar!

Party Politics, Uncategorized

The Rift in the Labour Party Deepens

6 Comments

I recently blogged here about why I hope that the Labour Party splits into at least two main parties (it has already split into factions):

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/why-i-hope-that-labour-splits/

My conclusion in that piece was that, should Labour split, then so to speak “official” Labour will triumph, because it has

  • the name-recognition;
  • the “validity” of being “official” Labour; as well as
  • the funding from trade unions and –equally important now that Labour is again a mass party with 500,000+ individual members and supporters– the rank and file; and also
  • most of the party organization.

“Official” Labour also has Jeremy Corbyn. True, his academic background was very poor, his post-academic work background very sketchy,  his achievements as MP few; and yet he is quite popular among not only Labour members and supporters but also with at least 25% or so of the voting public.

Labour is still sitting between 37% and 40% in the opinion polls polling “voting intention”, about the same as the Conservative Party, so it seems that, for voters who prefer Labour as a label for which to vote, Corbyn is at least not a very offputting factor.

Contrast that with the proposed “Centrist” or “Provisional Labour” party: would-be “leaders” such as thick chancer/careerist Liz Kendall (Zionist and probably part-Jew), or shallow (and half-Nigerian) Chuka Umunna (who burst into tears when he realized that even standing for election as leader was not as easy as he thought).

Such a “Provisional” Labour Party of the supposed “Centre” (meaning pro-Zionist and not really socialist) would have no substantial financial or property assets, no organization in place, few members and supporters (no more than perhaps 20,000 at best), no real name-recognition, and only those MPs willing to jump ship from “official” Labour.

Most present Labour MPs know perfectly well that to leave Labour means forfeiting their seats at the next General Election. The few who have left already were no-hopers anyway: Zionist mouthpiece John Woodcock MP, a depressive, who has turned a once substantial Labour majority into a wafer-thin one and who was facing sex-pest allegations before he jumped ship; Frank Field MP, 76 years old and whose basically pro-Conservative views would have led to his deselection anyway; a few other doormats-for-Zionists who knew that their political careers were going nowhere (eg Michael Dugher).

It will be “interesting” to see how Woodcock and (if he stands) Field do at the next General Election. Either they will be soundly defeated by “official” Labour, or if running Labour close (which I doubt) will let in a third candidate, probably Conservative. If they have to stand as individuals and not even as candidates for “Provisional” Labour, their results will probably be laughable and they will be defeated easily by “official” Labour, as happened to sex-pest freeloader Simon Danczuk.

I imagine that there might be an attempt to form a “Centrist” party, but that only a few dozen present Labour MPs will defect to it. Corbyn, if he keeps his nerve, is unassailable in his position, and will be until or if he loses (badly) a general election.

Any Labour split will be good for social nationalism, though only if a movement and party can emerge to speak for and fight for the British people. In fact, the Jewish-Zionist hysteria around Corbyn’s supposed “anti-Semitism”, and the associated Jewish-controlled and/or influenced mass media campaign against Corbyn and Labour has done much to awaken people to the Zionist menace which permeates Western societies. People are starting to notice just how many editors, journalists, heads of PR and communications companies, ad agencies etc in the UK are Zionist Jews…

I feel happy at the turn of events. Excited too.

Update, 3 November 2023

Well, much water under the bridge in the past 5 years. The huge operation launched by Israeli Intelligence and the UK Jewish lobby eventually defeated Corbyn and his supporters. The 2019 General Election went badly for Labour. After that, Corbyn was replaced by Keir Starmer, a complete Jewish-lobby puppet.

Labour has (in effect) split, though. The Corbyn wing has either left Labour or has stayed though powerless. The incompetence of the Conservative Party looks like delivering a massive GE 2024 victory (by default) for Starmer.

Party Politics, Uncategorized

Labour, the Jews and the British Resistance

3 Comments

Those unfamiliar with my views and work should note that I myself am not, neither have I ever been, a Labour Party member, supporter or voter.

We have seen the relentless attacks on present Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn ever since he was, as if by a miracle, elected and then re-elected. Those attacks have recently intensified to fever pitch, with clips of remarks by Corbyn given wall-to-wall publicity in the Jewish press (both the Jewish community press and the mainstream media or “msm”); The demand now comes that Labour must adopt the so-called “international definition” of “anti-Semitism”, which was drafted by Zionists and which has in fact been “adopted” by only about 30 states in the world (out of the nearly 200 that exist).

There are signs that the Labour Party apparat is going to cave in on the “IHRA” “definition”.

In a sense, this surrender will have limited effect, in that it will be used mostly to control and expel rank and file Labour Party members, who will then become, or become more, “anti-Semitic”…The bigger picture is that any partial cave-in on principle by Labour would make the field of possibility for social nationalism more fruitful. Just as many socialists and communists in Weimar Germany became convinced National Socialists, so those either expelled or let down by Labour might become the most convinced followers of social nationalism; at least the European-race “white” ones. As Jack London said, “I am a socialist, but a white man first.”

I have no doubt that, should Labour adopt this “definition” (which effectively means that “anti-Semitism” –which is, a priori, thought “bad”– consists of whatever Zionist Jews say that it does…) the Jewish-Zionist cabal on Twitter etc will crow, but also that the overall political effect will be close to zero.

One cannot put new wine into old bottles. The old parties of the System are losing credibility fast. The same is true of their leaders: a recent opinion poll on their popularity (actually, unpopularity!) asked would Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn be best Prime Minister, but the result was interesting– Theresa May about 35%, Corbyn only 25%, but “don’t know” nearly 40%!

A new party might not achieve immediate success now, but when the right situation develops, it could take off like a wildfire— and the System parties will be unable to control it. The Zionists will be swept aside by a wave of popular support for the new party, and a new era will begin.

Party Politics, Uncategorized

Why I Hope That Labour Splits

11 Comments

The major System newspapers in the UK are now talking about two connected possible events. The first is that the Labour Party might split into two parties. The second is that new “centre” parties are about to emerge. I hope that such rumours are true. Why?

If Labour splits, Corbyn and the anti-Zionists will keep the name, organization and most funding sources of present Labour. The breakaway MPs, who might even be in the majority but will probably, in reality, number only in the dozens rather than the hundreds (Labour presently has 258 MPs), will have slender resources. Most rank and file members and supporters joined because of Corbyn and will almost all stay with him and “official” Labour.

The Zionists and pro-Zionists and doormats in Labour (the usual suspects: Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna, John Woodcock –already resigned–, Ruth Smeeth –exposed as an agent of American Intelligence and of Israel–, Luciana Berger etc) will be lucky to retain their seats. Most if not all will lose. Thus we shall be rid of at least many of the most vocal Zionist trumpets at Westminster.

As for the new “parties” speculated about, they have little chance, for several reasons. One is likely to be funded by some (I presume) Jew called Franks, who apparently has £50 million with which to play. He is said to regard himself as another Macron (and sees that as a recommendation!). These parties have no chance, because of FPTP voting, English (Welsh/Scottish) voter caution, but most of all because (though I deprecate “left-centre-right” labelling), people who are not desperate rarely look for an alternative; those who are desperate seek radical and revolutionary solutions. These “centre” parties are strategically misplaced.

If a new and truly radical social-national party emerges, though, that will have a chance…

When the misnamed “Conservative” Party is weak and led by idiots (as now), when Labour is in a similar position and split into two, when both System parties are further weakened by new parties in contention, we can strike.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/20/prospect-new-uk-party-grows-westminster-political-cracks-brexit

Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Party Politics, Uncategorized

Corbyn and the Jew-Zionist “Claque”

4 Comments

In the past couple of years and particularly the past couple of months, I have blogged about Corbyn and the Labour Party, and the attack on both by the Jewish-Zionist element (including some MPs who are not actually Jewish but who are part of the “depose Corbyn” plot(s)). Now we have seen about a month or so of highest-level abuse and “active measures” by that Zionist lobby and against Corbyn and the Labour Party he leads. The allegations of “anti-Semitism” and “pro-terrorism” are in every MSM newspaper every day and are frequently on TV, radio etc. I wonder why?…

Leaving aside rhetorical questions, we see that, as I predicted, the anti-Corbyn campaign this time is not slackening much. “They” know that their star is waning. Their one hope is to depose Corbyn and the one way left to do that is to get him to resign. The other methods have already been tried— a coup by MPs, then a second attempt. Those failed and then Corbyn’s success in at least having dozens of new MPs elected at the 2017 General Election cemented him into position as Leader. The “anti-Semite Corbyn” campaign by the Jewish-controlled and/or influenced msm may have been part of the reason why as many as 50,000 Labour members and supporters have recently left the party, but that still leaves Labour with at least 500,000 members and maybe as many as 540,000. That compares to 124,000 reported by the Conservative Party (though many think that the real figure is as low as 50,000).

In the Vienna theatres and concert-halls of the 19thC, as well as those of Paris and elsewhere, there was a well-organized “claque”:

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

The Zionist-controlled msm as a whole is rather like the “claque”. One could include in that claque connected Jews on Twitter, most of whom are members or supporters of the malicious “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” fake “charity”.

The opinion polls at present (August 2018) show the two major System parties close together in popular support, though Labour may have a slight edge again now, as the constant anti-Corbyn propaganda becomes counter-productive.

The Zionist Jews are appalled, having thought that their constant propaganda on msm would cause a huge dip in support for Labour and so build pressure on Corbyn to resign or face yet another leadership bid from some pro-Zionist doormat. The failed and laughed-at plotters of the recent past, such as Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna and little Stephen Kinnock are still at it, plotting in luxury farmhouses against their own party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6033473/Dozen-Labour-MPs-secret-plot-oust-Corbyn-hatch-plans-144-night-farmhouse.html

In the end, what the Zionists fear is that Corbyn and Labour will be thoroughly labelled as “anti-Semitic” yet go on to win the next general election, thus proving that the people themselves are sick of the Jewish-Zionist element.

What does this all mean for social nationalism? A weak government under Corbyn (who is unlikely to win an outright majority) can only favour us. Labour members, supporters, voters will blame the Zionists (not unfairly) for having put Labour down. On the other hand, a Conservative Party government (probably also minority) will be the focus of mass hostility, along with its Zionist controllers.

I doubt that Corbyn will resign, for all the pressure put on him. He has come too far against all the odds. That favours us, overall, because in the end, it means that the Zionists will not control both main System parties.

The British people will need an effective and social-national government.

Gott mit Uns.

Notes

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/08/03/their-last-throw-of-the-dice/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/07/30/what-way-now-for-the-labour-party/

Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Paul Watson, Prison Planet, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

Twittering To The Birds

5 Comments

It has now been about three months since I was expelled from Twitter. Am I chafing under the restriction? No.

Most Twitter users regard removal from Twitter as akin to being cast into outer darkness, a phenomenon to be feared (if it happens to them), to be protested against (if it happens to those whom they regard as ideological friends), to be laughed at and celebrated (if it happens to those they dislike, hate, or oppose ideologically).

Twitter is in fact a habit akin to having a piece of chocolate with your morning coffee. I used to love posting my views and comments on the affairs of the day, as well as posting favoured music and art. Self-expression. I used to think also that I was, at least in a small way, influencing the national and even international debate. That might have been so, but only to a very limited degree.

My Twitter account had just under 3,000 followers when it was eliminated by the Twitter organization. The absurdity of imagining that you are much influencing society is shown when it is considered that –to take just one example and one which comes into my mind— a mentally-disturbed Jewess whose Twitter account is replete with long complaints about her illnesses, alcohol consumption, problems with the DWP, and those she dislikes politically (including me!), as well as pictures of her dogs and photographs of owls, actually has 500 more Twitter followers than had my account, with its –as I would like to believe, anyway!– intelligent, pithy views and comment on politics, strategy and society. She does follow thousands, though, whereas I followed only a few dozen accounts. The present Prime Minister, Theresa May, has 598,000 Twitter followers, while Jeremy Corbyn has no less than 1.84 million.  To extend the idea to absurdity, take the One Direction pop group: they have 31 million Twitter followers.

A superficial view might be to imagine that someone with many thousands (or, a fortiori, millions) of Twitter followers has huge influence or impact upon society, upon political views etc. A moment’s thought shows that even if that be true, the influence and impact comes out of what the tweeter does offline, certainly off Twitter, not what he or she posts on Twitter. Theresa May’s Twitter influence is a mere adjunct to her position as Prime Minister. As to such as “One Direction”, were they not well known as entertainers, their influence (whatever it may be) would be close to a zero point.

I keep in touch with comment on Twitter, read about this and that, largely out of habit, but am no longer fooled by the idea that those tweeting are influencing many outside their own existing circle (or “echo chamber”). I sometimes look at the tweets of the Jew-Zionist cabal on UK Twitter. The same few dozen idiots, mostly concentrated in parts of North London, still tweeting pretty much what they were tweeting five years ago— to as little effect.

Another example, that of the “Alt-Right”: “Prison Planet” Watson, meaning Paul Joseph Watson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson, a young-ish (about 38-y-o) blogger and vlogger (and who does not accept the “alt-Right” label now), tweets to his 904,000 Twitter followers from (as I read somewhere) a basement flat in the Battersea area. Consider that: 904,000 followers, when the Prime Minister of the country only has 598,000… On the other hand, who of the two has more real influence, let alone real political power? That is not even a question.

Another point is that many “celebrity” or would-be celebrity tweeters buy huge numbers of followers, in an attempt to “big up” (in the inelegant phrase of the day) their Twitter profile and so (they hope) their real-world profile. To take one example, not entirely at random: a certain well-known Jew-Zionist solicitor, very vocal about “anti-Semitism” etc, (and who is or was wont to scream imprecations to me and others about how we should die and how he looks forward to our deaths) had about 5,000 Twitter followers when I became aware of the bastard’s existence (around 2012). That follower count increased to about 80,000 within one week! I wonder how much those “followers” cost him and whether the fake total helped him to pose as a hot-shot lawyer and almost a “public figure”? At any rate, he now has about 20,000 “followers”. His fakery does not stand alone, there are many whose “follower count” is hugely inflated, but I seriously doubt the utility of doing things like that.

There is another point. Many Twitter users follow literally thousands of accounts, so the influence of any one account on the follower is likely to be very small.

It might be asked why I am now on GAB if I think that being on Twitter is a waste of time. GAB has only 500,000 users, against Twitter’s 400 million. I am on GAB mainly because it is possible to communicate with others of similar views easily, either publicly or privately (as on Twitter). In addition, I want to support a genuine free-speech platform.

Mao opined (later printed in the “Little Red Books”) that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”:

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

That may not be the whole truth, but political power certainly does not grow out of tweets on Twitter.

Further thoughts [22 August 2018]

I just saw that privileged, superannuated schoolgirl-type and politico-social one-trick-pony Caroline Criado-Perez has no less than 46,200 Twitter followers! There are innumerable similar examples on Twitter.

See also: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-pseuds/

 

 

Alt-Right, animal welfare, ethnostate, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Reminiscences and Musings, society, The Great Replacement, Threefold Social Order, Uncategorized

Where Are The Limits Of Religious Freedom?

4 Comments

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:

CX9ZsZOWEAAky2e

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.

ethnostate, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

Could A New Party Triumph?

5 Comments

We are now hearing speculation about part of the UK Labour Party splitting off and forming a new so-called “centrist” party: pro-Israel, pro-Jewish lobby, Blairite. Washed-up ex-Labour MP (still clinging on as “independent” MP for the salary, expenses, pension and gratuity rights, and freebies) John Woodcock made a doomed-to-fail plea for such a party recently.

The fact is that only those expelled from Labour or about to be will join Woodcock. Electoral reality is that Corbyn and his supporters retain and will retain the name “Labour” and all its worldly goods, including name-recognition. True, Labour has in recent decades done some very bad things, such as importing millions of blacks and browns with the deliberate aim of destroying white British (there is no other British) society. However, Labour is still living, electorally, off the hump of the creation of the NHS, and other more positive policies of the increasingly remote past.

In other words, Corbyn and his people will stand at the next general election as “Labour” and will be elected or otherwise on that basis. Even if the rebels can organize themselves into “Labour Centre” or some such in the years or, probably, months before that next general election, few if any will be elected in a contest where huge numbers of voters just look at the label: “Labour”, “Conservative” etc, even though the real or original Labour and Conservative parties disappeared decades ago.

What about some other and completely new party? In France, Macron started “his” own party, En Marche, but Macron is merely a figurehead for ZOG and the New World Order [NWO]. Rothschilds bankrolled Macron. His “pop-up” party was not a grassroots upsurge but as manufactured and marketed as sliced bread. Still, the success of En Marche in getting elected was a pointer to the fading popularity of the old System parties.

In the UK, the same frustration and anger fuelled, first, the BNP in the decade up to 2010 and then, up to 2015, the “nationalism-lite” UKIP. Only the semi-rigged British FPTP electoral system saved Labour and Conservative from a devastating UKIP upsurge. On a proportional voting basis, UKIP would not have had 1 MP in 2015 but, at minimum, 70 MPs. In fact, because voters would know that their UKIP votes were not wasted under a pr voting system, UKIP might well have received twice the number of votes that it actually did (nearly 4 million) and so would have ended up with as many as 150 MPs.

All that is water under the bridge now, but there was a recent opinion poll which indicated (though in other words) that about 38% of UK voters would be willing to vote for a generally nationalist pro-Brexit new party and that 24% would, right now, be willing to vote for an “anti-immigration” and “far right” party. I have always fought the use of the misleading “far right”, “right”, “centre”, “left”, “far left” spectrum terminology, but there it is.

It is clear to me that there is a possibility for a truly social-national party to succeed in the UK and particularly in England (and Wales too, probably). It would have to be set up on a very strict and disciplined basis, with power centralized, though an organizational structure of regions might also work. Anything too “democratic” just lets in the forces of opposition: well-funded Jewish Zionist attacks etc, leading to splits. We have seen that in the National Front, British National Party and UKIP.

The party I envisage must be financially secure through its own members, simply and clearly organized, and ideologically clear. Such a party would, in the chaotic conditions ahead, be able to position itself for a bid at national leadership.

Proposals for a new society…