The Organization of Community

When new social-national communities emerge, as they will in the coming years, the question is posed as to their organization.

It is important to note that, in the UK, a social-national community will not, in general, be anything akin to a commune, paramilitary encampment or religious settlement such as a monastery or convent. It will be a community which interpenetrates the existing or pre-existing ordinary village, suburb, town or city. The template can best be explained in relation to what might happen when social nationalism arrives in a large village or small town.

Scene

A social nationalist with capital buys a country house or estate, somewhere near a small English or Welsh town. He or she needs workers or retainers to help with the house, grounds, park, perhaps farmland too. Those people are sourced from the wider social-national community in the UK. At the same time, these people gradually infiltrate the local community, not in any sinister way, but by doing the things that they would have done wherever they lived: sending their children to local schools, joining local non-political groups (am-dram, allotments, churches, residents’, neighbourhood watch etc).

Other social nationalists arrive, buying houses locally, renting property, getting jobs or living off pensions or even State benefits. Some buy or rent farms, cafes, pubs, shops. Some start to work in the local offices of larger enterprises, in the local Jobcentre (if any), or in the local council offices. Others are able to work from home, thanks to the Internet.

Nothing alarming or noisy happens. There are no marches, demonstrations, or other disruptions. People get on with normal life. Underneath the surface, however, there is purposeful movement, a current beginning to flow. There are meetings, discussions, social events; nothing too large or noisy. In time, the social nationalists number in the hundreds and are a significant proportion of the local population, with more gravitating to the area every week. The time has then come for overt political action.

A by-election for a council ward is held. Few of the original local inhabitants even bother to vote. A social nationalist is elected, either under Party banner, as “Resident”, or “Independent”; even perhaps under System party aegis.

The local council is taken over before very long. Social nationalists are then in the driving-seat locally. The area and the wider region becomes a magnet for social-national people from across the UK as it becomes known as a place where censorship and hostile opposition is unknown or swiftly checkmated. The local librarian is a social nationalist, the Mayor, the schoolteachers, the council officials, the friendly innkeeper and his wife, the sub-post office people.

The election for Westminster is held and the social nationalist candidate is elected, perhaps under social nationalist party banner. By this time, the national press, radio and TV is trying to spread lies about the people in the movement, but can do nothing against a solid phalanx of believers, living, working and acting in a situation where the Zionists and others can do nothing substantial to harm or impede them. Locally, social nationalists run an Internet radio station, even local transmitted radio, as well as the local free newspaper. It is not long before the movement spreads throughout the whole region. People of like mind are fleeing London, Manchester, Birmingham etc so that they can live in such a region. A mini-ethnostate has been created.

The story does not end there, but on a wider stage.

Social Nationalism and Green Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

Update, 28 June 2020

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

NEW COMMUNITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES FOR SOCIAL NATIONALISTS

The large cities of England are becoming no-go zones for social nationalism. Repressive anti-free-speech laws, politically-indoctrinated police and, above all, the increasing hordes of non-Europeans make cities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester (let alone such as Bradford or Leicester) unwelcoming. In London, the Jews have even established their own police force (under the cover of a help-the-police Neighbourhood Watch scheme). This body, apparently known as the “Shomrim”, has marked “police” cars, uniformed “officers” and, it is said, operates from real police stations in Barnet and elsewhere. In the Muslim areas of the large cities, it would be a brave individual who would undertake any political activities of a social-nationalist or anti-immigration nature, even if as mild as, say, supporting UKIP.

Electorally, social-nationalists are isolated and, especially since the implosion of the BNP, almost certain to receive fewer than 5% of votes, even in local council elections. UKIP is scarcely social-nationalist, garnered 3.8 million votes, yet failed to win a single new MP in 2015.

Socially, English and Welsh people (I leave Scotland aside) find that their children, if in State schools, are in a milieu which is not British and are subjected to brainwashing propaganda dressed up as education, while they themselves live in a “multicultural” mess which can only get worse.

There is already “white flight” from the large cities of England to the smaller cities and towns and to the rural areas generally.
Let us build on this existing trend.

What I propose is that social nationalists cluster in one or two or a few areas, where we can order society the way we want, educate children the way we want, have electoral weight and other political influence.

Those who have capital can buy houses, businesses, farms, estates. Those without capital and dependent on paid work, pensions, or State benefits can relocate to circumstances similar to those in which they currently live. An organised movement will be able to assist with contacts, jobs and business links etc. An internet radio station can be established without State interference. Even a “normal” (albeit regulated and censored by OFCOM) local radio can be set up and a local newspaper established.

Once there is a credible social national party, it can take over the local council(s) without much difficulty and in time depose whoever is the System party MP to elect a real social-national MP (or MPs).

A thriving base for social nationalism will exist, spreading influence nationwide, attracting even more like-minded people. If two or more such bases are established, the same applies, but concentration is key.

I have had several places or regions suggested as the most suitable. There may be a number of suitable parts of England or Wales; I personally favour the South West, an area which I know, where I have lived and which has always been sympathetic to British and/or English national sentiment.

I welcome all useful or constructive contact and comment on how to start this ball rolling.

Update, 28 October 2019

NATO IS OBSOLETE

Long before he won the U.S. Presidential election, Donald Trump described NATO as “obsolete”. That exactly describes it. After the end of the Second World War, NATO was established in order to confront the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact. The United States stood with Western European allies. An attack on any of those states of Western and Northern Europe would result, via Article 5 of the NATO treaty, in a response, including possible nuclear response, from all NATO members including, crucially, the USA.

Half a century after NATO was founded, socialism died. The Soviet Union imploded. At that point, a genuinely new relationship might have been established between Russia and the United States and its dependent allies. As it was, Russia was invaded by a horde of carpetbagging business chancers (often Jewish) and similarly-staffed US and UK (mainly) corporate entities. The West took the chance to loot, batten upon and spy the bejesus out of Russia.

The result, a quarter-century on, is that Russia, having to some extent regained its self-respect and strength, now confronts the West, including NATO. Meanwhile, NATO has expanded far from its Atlantic roots and interferes far and wide. Its membership has expanded to include states such as Poland and Lithuania. At the same time, NATO (USA) has established bases and stationed missiles on the ground of some of the former Warsaw Pact and now NATO members.

It is important to understand what this means: if any NATO member is attacked, all other NATO states are obliged to retaliate to defend that member. What that now means is that a small conflict between Poland and Russia or even between, say, Lithuania and Russia, could and probably would draw in the USA and UK, leading to a major war, which war might, in all probability, go nuclear.

The absurdity and the danger is clear. A border skirmish or a misunderstanding might trigger a short but devastating war, the ultimate consequences of which are incalculable. The worst-hit country might be the UK, which still hosts numerous U.S. bases.

Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was an aggressive and (despite “Socialism in one country”) expansionist entity, founded on a premise of world Marxist-Leninist revolution; its military doctrine favoured attack. Russia now is completely different, has no wish to take over the world and has no ideology beyond that of patriotic nationalism. It is not the same threat as was the Soviet Union.

The conclusion is obvious: NATO must disband. In the meantime, the USA should either leave NATO or demand removal (or at least the softening) of Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

THE CASE FOR BASIC INCOME

Jesus Christ said that the poor are always with us (part of society). Whether that be accepted or not in absolute terms, the fact remains that, in practice, there is always the necessity to deal with “the submerged tenth”. In Soviet Russia, the solution was make-work jobs and, if that failed, part of the GULAG system. In finance-capitalist “Western” societies, there is the illusion of “aspiration” and “opportunity”: people need not be without (sufficient) income if they work. This theory or ideology leaves aside those who cannot work, whether because sick, disabled, or unable to find remunerative or sufficiently remunerative employment.

Robotics and computerization are advancing. Some studies say that a third of present jobs in countries such as the UK will disappear by about 2030 (some say “only” 25%). It may well be that other jobs will not appear to take up the slack. Millions may be left unemployed. At present, lack of income means that unemployed people (as well as the sick and disabled) have to jump through hoops in a degrading and largely pointless bureaucratic exercise in order to receive often very modest State-provided benefit payments. The system is not only expensive because of those payments, but because of the huge bureaucratic machinery that is built in to the process. There is a better way. Basic Income.

The Basic Income idea is that all citizens receive a regular payment, regardless of circumstances. In short, the payment is unconditional, meaning not withheld if the recipient does not have a job, look for a job, can do a job. Basic Income replaces all (or, in some versions, some) existing social welfare payments.

Basic Income is being trialled in some areas of Europe: in parts of Switzerland, Finland, the Netherlands. In Alaska, all permanent residents receive a small Basic Income payment annually (at present, about $2,500), monies routed from oil revenues.

Basic Income could be tweaked, so that persons on incomes above a certain level have an equivalent amount taken via the tax system; another idea would be to give a higher-tier Basic Income to the disabled (though that would mean some form of assessment and judgment). Alternatively, Basic Income could be paid only to those without income or capital, topping up income to a certain or decided level. That is, in fact, more or less what happens now in the UK, but without the present system’s bureaucracy, unpleasantness, snooping, harassing etc (made far worse since the Iain Duncan Smith regime of 2010-present).

It is objected that Basic Income would mean that people would just be unwilling to work. Is that so? First of all it might depend on the level of Basic Income. Economic realities would probably limit Basic Income to no more than about £15,000 p.a. It might be as little as £10,000 (either per person or per household). Many will, at that level, find plenty of incentive to work if they can. Also, it is rarely heard that people should not receive inheritances or trust incomes because they might be made lazy thereby. Lottery winners in the UK usually start businesses, carry on working for pay or do charity work.

In fact, in the UK, there are already payments somewhat analogous to Basic Income. State Pensions are already paid to all persons over a decided age, with extra “State Pension Guarantee Credit” money paid to those whose income and capital is below a certain level. Child Benefit was formerly paid to all persons who have children (regardless of income) and still is paid, though now there is an income cutoff point (at a fairly high level).

The cost of Basic Income is lessened by the removal of large numbers of pointless jobs in the (UK) Department of Work and Pensions etc and by the elimination of the need for large numbers of “Jobcentres” and other buildings and their upkeep. Housing Benefit will not exist, so greedy buy-to-let parasites will not be subsidized by taxpayers via taxation revenues). That alone will save billions of pounds.

A person receiving Basic Income who wishes to work will be able to look for work honestly (rather than in order to tick a Jobcentre box) and with confidence, and in the meantime will have money for transport, clothing, food. The disabled will not have to undergo degrading tests in order to receive at least the “basic level” of Basic Income (medical report from GP should be sufficient anyway). The more fortunate, who have income or capital, will (if receiving Basic Income), will be able to spend more (thus stimulating the economy) and/or start their own businesses.

In short, it will become clear in time that Basic Income is the way forward in the UK.

A Floor or a Ceiling?

The Front National in France, other broadly social-national parties of the European mainland and (in England and Wales) UKIP are not “ceilings” (end results) but “floors” (starting points). Their function is to disrupt the political status quo and to awaken as far as they can the voting populations of the various European states. Naturally, that is not how they themselves see their role.

The case of UKIP is telling. UKIP came into a political milieu in Britain where (in the 1990s) there were only “three main parties” and a high majority of those who voted voted for them. Below the surface, though, there was growing but unfocussed discontent and alienation. Turnout in general elections, which peaked at 83.9% in 1950, fell (on the wider franchise after 1966) to a low of 59.4% by 2001, though it recovered slightly to 66.1% by 2015. An equally-telling fact is that the proportion of voters who voted and who voted for one of those “three main parties” fell steadily and is still falling. In broad terms, a third of eligible voters did not vote at the 2015 General Election; of those who did vote, about 75% voted for LibLabCon (UK-wide results), with another 12.6% voting for UKIP.

UKIP peaked in 2014, failed to break through in 2015 and is now declining fast in every way. Its 2016 by-election results have been poor, its donors are going and its membership falling. I addressed the UK political vacuum in an earlier blog post. However, UKIP has succeeded in a more major way than did the BNP and not only because UKIP scored 21 MEPs as against the BNP’s 2.

UKIP created an atmosphere across the country in which social nationalism might start to thrive, despite the fact that UKIP, as a party, is not really social-national.

UKIP, despite being now more or less washed-up, is a floor. On that floor a movement can be built. The Front National in France is not at all in decline (au contraire) but is also a basis for a movement, rather than the movement itself. The FN is, however, likely to become or coalesce with such a movement, whereas UKIP will just fade away even if it can score a few election victories in the 2016-2020 period. The importance of both parties, however, is that they have changed the atmosphere. Social nationalism is now not a fringe ideology. It stands ready, once the right vehicles arrive, to take command across Europe. In Britain (specifically England and Wales), there is a crying need for such a social national movement and I believe that it will emerge, will arise and will, eventually, seize power.

NATO Must Not Attack Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Vacuum in England and Wales

The System parties (Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats) and the upstart would-be System party (UKIP) are all now dying. The decline of the main three parties started long ago and continues.

The Conservative Party once had millions of members (in the 1950s) and was embedded in wide areas of British life. It now has (officially) 149,000 members, but its membership base is composed almost entirely of people over the age of 70 (very many over 80 years of age). It rides high in the opinion polls at present, but its apparent strength is a facade behind which is no depth. Few young people are Conservative voters, still less members. The opinion poll ratings have far more to do with Labour’s recent implosion than its own real popularity. Theresa May is a cautious and uncreative woman, who has few policy ideas and little (if any) vision. Eventually, her government must fail.

Labour was the party of the industrial proletariat and of the “labouring classes” in general. In the Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) of 2016, the proletariat of bygone days, industrial, communitarian, solidly loyal, has been replaced by a hand-to-mouth “precariat”who cannot see their future more than a month or two ahead, if that. Many in fact have sunk into what Marx termed the “lumpenproletariat”. The fact that “licensed” faux-revolutionaries such as the scribbler and TV talking head Owen Jones try to make these rootless, cultureless masses into a new “proletariat” (as in his book, “Chavs”) shows only the emptiness of the concept.

There are about 30 million people in employment in the UK, of which, now, only about 7 million belong to trade unions. Another pillar of traditional Labour Party support gone.

Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn: to me, that showed that its ordinary members and supporters understood that change was necessary in the UK. Corbyn is anti-Zionist (though does not want to take on the Zionist lobby in the UK in respect of either the faked “holocaust” narrative or in relation to the economic power of the lobby). Most Labour MPs are pawns of Zionism to a greater or lesser extent. Corbyn’s leadership has drawn in half a million enthusiastic members but, in most parts of the country, few new voters. If opinion polls are accurate, it seems that, now, only about quarter of the electorate will even consider voting Labour. Then we have the probability of boundary changes before 2020.

It is likely, that in a post-2019 House of Commons consisting of 600 MPs, Labour will have only about 150. In other words, even with SNP and other support, Labour will be unable to form a government even on a minority basis.

Corbyn-Labour is halfhearted (whether pro or anti) on the EU and favours –in effect–unrestricted immigration, both EU and non-EU. Many virtue-signalling Labour MPs have even openly supported further invasion by “refugee” hordes, including those already living in completely “safe” states such as France. These stances (and Labour’s poor opposition to State benefit changes) mean that Labour’s electability is likely to fall still further.

The Liberal Democrats, already dismissed by most voters after their craven performance in the Con Coalition of 2010-2015, can also be easily dismissed here. They have lost huge revenues along with their MP losses in 2015 (Short money etc) and the fall in numbers of LibDem local councillors. The LibDem support for the EU, trying to overturn the Brexit referendum result (in all but name) and support for mass immigration, together with boundary changes, might reduce their MP numbers to close to zero soon.

UKIP peaked in 2014, failed (by reason, so be it, of an unfair electoral system) to break through in 2015 and has now lost all credibility by reason of the circus of clowns vying for its leadership . Labour’s decline might yet lead to isolated UKIP wins, even Westminster wins, but UKIP’s day is done. Recent local and two or three Westminster by-elections chart the decline.

All of the above means that there is a political vacuum in the UK. That vacuum is not going to be filled by UKIP, could never be filled by UKIP (which failed to go full social-national after 2014). There is a place for a new movement, one which at present does not exist. If the world spins out of control, if the EU and UK economies tank, as may very well happen before 2020, social nationalism can surge into its rightful position of command. A new movement must start to emerge: social, national, green, pro-European but anti-EU, anti-New World Order, anti-Zionist. Such a movement can succeed and –I believe– will advance to victory.

Fortress-Centres of Culture and Science

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

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

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

The idea has the following merits:

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

b. The clustering effect would enable concerted action;

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

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

 

 

Proposals for a new society…

%d bloggers like this: