Limitation of Permitted Income

Social inequality is inevitable in any human society. All that one can hope for and, more pertinently, legislate for, is a decent and reasonable measure, so that inequality does not become excessive or grotesque.

Social inequality arises out of and is maintained by inequalities in both capital and income. Today I address only income. My contention is that the maximum post income tax income must be capped at (2016 values) £200,000 per annum. Needless to say, only a relative handful of UK citizens actually receive anything like that after tax; the average is closer to £20,000. Still, it is important that the huge incomes which a few have, be lopped off at that level or, arguably, at one even lower, for the preservation of some sense of social contract in society. That is a more worthwhile reason for this policy, rather than just the (often criticized) aim of raising more tax revenues, which might not even happen, taking things in the round.

The work of all citizens should be valued, by society, by the citizens themselves (valuing the work of others and having a modest pride in their own contribution, too). When a few award themselves or are awarded incomes in the many hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds per annum, the whole fabric of society is gradually ripped to shreds.

There is another and oft-discussed policy to complement the above maximum-income cap. That second aspect is the concept that the pay of the highest employee or office-holder in an enterprise or a public service should not exceed that of the lowest-paid employee of the same body by more than a certain decided multiple. To my mind, that multiple should be 10x, that referring to post-income-tax income.

The above two policies will go far to knitting society together. There will be anomalies, special cases etc, but the important point is that the general idea will  be accepted by all or almost all…and will work practically.

On Marching and Demonstrating

Should social nationalists march or demonstrate? My answer is the qualified, “only if the march or demonstration looks credible and maybe not even then”. What does that mean?

Some older people reading this will recall the National Front marches of the 1970s, with their aspiration to “a forest of Union Jacks”. Those marches were sometimes “credible” (meaning large enough not to be laughed at by hostile elements or the public generally) but had their drawbacks. All marchers were photographed (openly) by State security staff, as well as by the Press and/or Jewish Zionist snoopers. The police usually decided on the route in consultation with the organizers, as is usual now. The whole show was State-controlled. The resulting publicity was usually quite unfavourable, partly because the violence caused by anti-NF protesters tainted the NF marchers themselves, partly because of the unremittingly-hostile Press coverage, partly because many of the public could not see why such marches had to happen, disrupting superficially “peaceful” areas.

Unfavourable publicity from biased mainstream media, Jewish/Zionist provocation, public incomprehension. All of these were not new even in the 1970s. Mosley and the BUF faced similar problems in the 1930s. The uniformed marches remain controversial today, with even some who look kindly upon them blaming them for the relatively poor showing of the BUF in elections. The same is said of the famous rally at Olympia in 1934. After that, election results worsened and, importantly, the Daily Mail withdrew its support. BUF membership, which at one time had approached 50,000, dropped to 8,000 by 1935 (though at time of repression and involuntary disbandment in 1940, numbers had recovered to 20,000).

That was then and a different UK political milieu, but it can probably be said that Mosley and the BUF would have done better in terms of public perception without marches and, indeed, political uniforms (banned by the Public Order Act 1936).

The milieu today is one in which the Internet plays an important role. The mainstream media are losing ground in public visibility. The printed Press is dying: the Independent no longer publishes on paper, The Guardian begs its dwindling readership for donations. Where do public marches have a place?

It will be remembered that, a couple of years ago, a misguided young man started pushing on Twitter and elsewhere for marches against the Jewish influence in London, particularly North London and specifically in the (Orthodox Jew/Hasid) Stamford Hill area and also (later, in 2015) in the Golders Green neighbourhood. Some might say that that boat has well and truly sailed!

I opposed the idea on Twitter as soon as I became aware of it, not because I have any great liking for Jews of any kind, but for three main reasons:

  • firstly and most importantly, because such marches would probably be small, have to be protected by the ordinary police and make social nationalism look pathetic;
  • secondly, because the public would see such activity (especially through the msm lens) as an “unprovoked” attack on the Jews of those parts of London; and
  • thirdly, because it is the duty of social nationalists to put forward a vision of a better society, not to make futile gestures of a negative nature towards groups, even alien groups.

The result was all too predictable: the first event was abandoned (the organizer having been banned by the authorities from entering within the M25 area); the second “march” was moved, on the say-so of the police, to at least 7 miles from Golders Green. In the end, about 10 “marchers” held a static demonstration in a Central London street. The organizer (Joshua Bonehill) was absent, having been arrested. He was later convicted of “incitement” of “racial hatred” against Jews and is still in prison.

A sorry tale, though it seems that that young man has reconsidered his position while in prison and has come to the conclusion (according to his Wikipedia entry) that the thing to do is to try to build a political base in the rural area from which he originated (southern Somerset). Better.

Can marches etc ever be useful these days? I think that the answer, at least on a 99% basis, must be “no”. The trade unions have raised marches numbering 500,000 against UK “austerity” cuts, without effect. Going back further, the anti-Iraq War march of 2003 in London is said by some to have topped a million (others say 500,000), while in Rome, the figure was 3 million. Overall, the anti-Iraq War protests of 2003 are said to have been “the largest protest event in human history” [Wikipedia]. Result? No change of policy by government(s) at all.

My conclusion from the above is that public protests are a distraction from real political activity.

Problems of Finance in Social Nationalist Politics

System political parties in the UK have sources of finance which are well known: wealthy donors, membership dues, fundraising drives, donations from big business or trade unions, as well as “Short money”, i.e. State monies given to parties depending on the number of MPs they have in the House of Commons. Smaller political parties, without many or any MPs, have to rely on trying to get large and smaller donations as well as collecting money from their members via subscriptions, collections and/or sale of items such as newspapers, magazines or, in some cases, memorabilia etc. There is another way.

When I lived in the United States in the early 1990s, I discovered that not only did many suburbs or little townships have countless churches (the names of which were unknown to me, usually), but that most of these churches were replete with cash. I was told that that was because they insisted, often, on the practice of “tithing”, i.e. the members had to give a proportion (usually 10%) of their income (post-tax income, usually) to the church to which they belonged. As a result, these churches had full-time staff, real property, vehicles etc. They were also able to help out members of the church fallen on hard times and had no difficulty raising the funds to print books. Some even owned radio and TV stations!

Returning to UK politics, were a social-national party or movement to operate the same system, the funds would be available for both pure political activity and wider work. A party might have as few as 100 full members, the income of which, after tax, might be only about £20,000 each (approx. UK average), but even that tiny party would, on the premises, have an annual income of £200,000. Small by the standards of the System parties or even UKIP, but still significant. A party with 1,000 members might have an annual income of £2 million. Now you’re talking…Such an income would enable a party to do more than conventional political activity. It could, for example, buy houses and flats wherein some of its members could live. The rents would thus go to the party, not to some buy-to-let parasite. This would also assist morale and esprit de corps.

Another way in which such income can help a political organization is in allowing it to operate a commercial arm and so not only make operational surpluses (“profits”), but also provide employment to members who need jobs.

As in many marriages, difficulties and dissent in political parties often arise out of money troubles. The tithing system is a way of avoiding that. A well-funded party is a credible party in a way that a shoestring organization can never be. An air of serious purpose pervades such a body.

It might be objected that it will be hard to persuade people to give up their (in many cases) hard-earned money. If so, their commitment must be questioned. There are enough “hobby politics” organizations around already. Most will never amount to anything. If someone wants to belong to something as a hobby, then fine, go do it..elsewhere. If, on the other hand, someone wants to belong to a serious movement, with a serious world-view, a serious plan and a serious chance of accomplishing something, then the need for tithing must be apparent and will be accepted by those most able to carry out the objectives set.

 

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.

Proposals for a new society…

%d bloggers like this: