Tag Archives: 1917

Diary Blog, 18 March 2022

Morning music

On this day a year ago

Thought for the day

We are the Pilgrims, master; we shall go
Always a little further; it may be
Beyond that last blue mountain barred with snow
Across that angry or that glimmering sea.

[James Elroy Flecker, The Golden Journey to Samarkand]

More music

[IRA volunteers, 1920]
[Black and Tans —an officer and a private soldier— question a suspect, Ireland, 1920; note that the soldier has a fully-cocked revolver, probably a Webley, as well as his main long weapon; the officer too may well be holding a weapon in his right hand. Note also the body of a woman, as it seems, lying behind them in the road]

More poetry

Now I go East and you stay West
   And when between us Europe lies
I shall forget what I loved best
   Away from lips and hands and eyes.

[James Elroy Flecker, The Sentimentalist].


The horrible bloody mess gets worse. The Russian General Staff and GRU, as previously blogged, both need shaking up. Much. Also, it seems obvious that those orgs, and the FSB, and possibly SVR, are (to quote Major Strasser in Casablanca) “riddled with traitors“, in this case probably in the pay of Western intelligence agencies.

Russia has been here before, in the First World War, when a combination of incompetence, negligence, and treachery led to huge losses against the German Empire of the time.

The lost war, effectively a lost war, of 1914-1917 led directly to the first Revolution of early 1917, followed some months later by the Leninist/Bolshevik seizure of power.

As previously blogged, if Russian forces had executed in Kiev and elsewhere the kind of swift and overwhelming Blitzkrieg and coup seen in Kabul in 1979, there would have been almost no civilian harm, little bloodshed, and we would not be seeing the present agony, which will be made even worse now by the funnelling of Western arms to the forces of the Kiev regime.

As the military commentators in London and Washington have noted recently, and many others saw weeks ago, the Russian military machine is sluggish, as it has been throughout much of Russian history. I admit that I myself thought that the reforms and upgrading since 2005 must have improved Russia’s capabilities. Seems that I was too optimistic in that. If so, I was not alone. Putin, too.

The problem Russia has may lie partly in the inflexibility of its officer training. When German forces attacked Russia in 1941, intercepts of Red Army communications recorded Red Army and Air Force officers frantically asking Moscow by radio and telephone, “We are under heavy attack by German forces. What shall we do?

The German officers of the 1930s and early 1940s, including general officers, were famous for their quick reactions and boldness, which resulted in stunning victories on all fronts.

The Israeli Army (IDF) learned lessons from the Germans of WW2. It is said that their General Staff officers in training are given a week to formulate a plan of attack on specific criteria of geography, forces, equipment, supply etc. A day before the presentation, they are told that the criteria have changed radically; they are ordered to formulate a new plan. A short time before the presentation, perhaps only 10 minutes, they are told that the situation on the ground has changed completely again, and that a new plan must be immediately adopted. The exercise then proceeds on that basis.

That is the kind of flexible improvization that the Russian command structure seems to lack.

Present situation:

[state of play as of 17/18 March 2022]

As blogged yesterday, Kryvyi Rih [Krivoy Rog] is the only large urban area between where the Russian forces west of the Dnieper now are, and Kiev. However, the distance in between is 260 miles.

If the Russians can take Krivoy Rog, and hold it (the pre-invasion population was 635,000), then the southern flank of Kiev lies open.

The Russians cannot lose the war, as such, unless they become so depleted in men, arms, and supplies that they have to withdraw from areas now under their control or, ultimately, into Russian Federation territory. That last would be taken to be a defeat in the whole enterprise, and is very unlikely.

The Ukrainians, by contrast, cannot win the war in the sense of defeating the whole Russian Army, Navy, and Air Force, but what they can try to do is to hang on to their main fortress-cities of Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa, and Dnipro [former Dnepropetrovsk], the four largest cities of Ukraine, and to carry on a kind of guerrilla war (but with advanced weaponry) elsewhere, as well as denying Russia occupation of most of western Ukraine.

Next moves? I cannot see Putin simply giving up. That would be psychologically and indeed politically crushing for him. In any case, his forces are carrying out the present plan, but at only glacial speed.

Kiev is slowly being encircled. Other cities, in the east and south, the same. There is a slow, agonizing, vice-grip closing on the southern coastal cities. Odessa is being rocketed and shelled now, from the sea.

All of the southern and eastern cities (except Odessa), and Kiev, must be running out of food. The Russian forces may also be running low, but can be resupplied.

The Ukrainians (Kiev regime) say that Kiev cannot now be taken. A bold claim. I have no idea whether that claim is true. Is there a city which cannot be taken?

There is, I suppose, a “Devil’s alternative” possibility, that Putin will all but destroy the remaining eastern and southern cities, and drive out the whole Ukrainian population of those cities to the west and to other countries. That would be a terrible thing to do, a terrible thing to happen.

Tweets seen

As expected. How long, though, can a city continue to resist when food stocks run very low? There were 400,000 civilians stuck in Stalingrad when the city was attacked. Stalin refused to allow evacuation. However, the Soviet forces and others could be resupplied, up to a point, across the Volga.

If Kiev were to be surrounded, which as yet has not happened, the Russian forces would interdict resupply to the city, which still has, it seems, about a million civilians and others within its boundaries.

I am presuming that, following bombardment, the battle-hardened Syrian mercenaries being recruited by Putin via President Assad of Syria will be used for the inevitably brutal close-combat penetration into the central parts of Kiev.

An example of the human cost of the war. The Kiev regime has made the most of the public relations aspects of the conflict, to which (outside Russia itself) Putin seems oblivious and uncaring.

Putin may consider that there is no point now in trying to show any better side to the world. That being so, he may have few scruples in pulling out all the stops to achieve something that can look (especially within Russia itself) like “victory”.

As for the peace talks, it seems doubtful that they can succeed, even in bringing about a temporary all-Ukraine ceasefire.

If a ceasefire occurs, it gives the Ukrainian side the opportunity to import more free advanced weaponry from the USA, UK and elsewhere. True, the Russians would have the same kind of opportunity (resupply of arms and ammunition from plants and factories in Russia), but they need it less. Hard to see how a ceasefire could benefit the Russian side.

The Zelensky government is not going to agree that the “Russian” provinces of the southeast can break away and either join Russia as annexes, or become autonomous republics of Ukraine, let alone independent republics.

Likewise, Russia gains little from any Ukrainian pledge (even if credible) not to apply or to join NATO, in view of the fact that NATO at present is disinclined to admit Ukraine anyway.

If Russia withdraws its forces from Ukraine, it will have, without question, lost this war, and Ukraine will in time then build up a formidable army, and maybe even a nuclear weapons capability.

There is another point: even were there to be a quasi-permanent “peace” agreement going beyond a mere temporary ceasefire, the Western sanctions will continue, perhaps indefinitely; certainly as long as Putin rules Russia. Where, then, is his incentive to sue for peace?

More tweets seen

Anyone who still believes a single word that issues from the part-Jew/Levantine liar and chancer “Boris” is beyond hope.

How absolutely disgusting. The parents or whoever else did this should be whipped.

“Come, friendly Russian bombs…” (with apologies to John Betjeman…).

Spring, and the arrival of eternal hope.

P & O Ferries



What shabby behaviour by the P & O management and ownership. Where is decency? Where is loyalty?

Interesting that news organizations seem wary of giving even the name, let alone personal details, of P & O management. They must be in fear that “action directe” may occur…


I used to travel almost every week cross-Channel, usually on the excellent Brittany Ferries from Plymouth, occasionally from Poole or Portsmouth. Had to go P&O from the Kent ports a few times. Rubbish.

Late tweets

Long live freedom!“…oh, no, wait…

This whole “trans” thing has become completely ridiculous.

That “banned” tweet should be copied and pasted everywhere by every thinking British person. After all, if it wakes up even one person…(especially if that one person then takes action for the future of race and culture).

The deliberately-chosen “wrong questions”…

Late music

[panorama of Kryvyi Rih/Krivoy Rog, Ukraine]

Diary Blog, 1 May 2021

Afternoon music

[Petrograd 1917]

Tweets seen

Communism“? Socialism, surely? I thought that Hitchens was once a Marxist (Trotskyist)?

“From the sublime to the ridiculous”, 1960s Prime Minister Harold Wilson almost invariably smoked a pipe in public to show that he was one of “the people”, whereas in fact he preferred cigars (Havanas), not a very “proletarian” choice (even in Cuba).

[Prime Minister of the UK, Harold Wilson, 1966, at Hugh Town, St. Mary’s, Isles of Scilly, with me (aged 9, or just 10, on far left of photo), brothers, and bodyguard (almost out of shot, far right)]

Unwilling to register with the Independent, I cannot read that article, but the conclusion seems (based on the quoted remark) to be right. Starmer, the Jewish Lobby puppet, is (as I predicted from the start) hopeless and as dull as ditchwater, but he is no more “the problem” for Labour than was the rather different Corbyn.

Labour’s problem is that there is no longer a “proletariat” or (in the old sense) a “working class”, there is no more a bloc “Labour vote”, there are no more, or very few, “working class communities”, as such, no nationalized industries of any size, and no great loyalty to Labour, even in its traditional North and North-East heartlands.

The Labour Party itself has changed out of all recognition since its highest point of popularity in 1945. From being a largely socialist party, it moved to social-democracy and then, arguably, in the 1990s under Blair, ditched even that. It became really just a label (or as the egregious waste of space, freeloader, and careerist, Jess Phillips MP, put it, “just a ****ing rose“). Rather like those Latin American countries where the almost-identical parties distinguish themselves by colour: the Blancos v. the Colorados. Like football teams, or the racing silks in the Hippodrome at Byzantium.

It is hard to see now for what the Labour Party stands. Starmer seems to be saying that he supports almost all of what Boris-Idiot’s maladministration does, but that “Boris” should do it better!

In fact I saw a satirical comment to the effect that, were the “Conservative” misgovernment to reintroduce workhouses, Labour under Starmer would agree, but cavil that that should be done more efficiently and slightly more humanely! A joke? Yes, sort-of…but then look at the attack on the unemployed, disabled etc over the past 15-20 years. Which party really started that? Labour…Yes, the “Conservative” Jew-lobby regime of David Cameron-Levita made it worse, but all that nonsense started under Gordon Brown and his lunatic misgovernment, via Alastair Darling, Stephen Timms etc. They, not the Conservatives, brought in the crazily dysfunctional —and also dishonest— ATOS carpetbaggers, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_Capability_Assessment#History.

As I have often said, Labour is now basically the party of the blacks and browns and/or public service workers, which is why Labour eulogizes the NHS constantly (though the NHS is a very hit-and-miss service overall).

Really, one has to ask (again), “what (and who) is Labour for?”

I imagine that the victor in the upcoming local elections will be apathy, with few people turning out to vote.

This is the moment when a social-national party might make hay. If a social-national party actually existed. A real one, I mean, not the joke ones presently around.


Well, this week I did no better than John Rentoul; we both scored only 4/10 (though if I were to follow Rentoul’s usual practice, I could award myself an extra half-point for knowing that Father Ted was set on an Irish island, though I did not know its name). I had no idea as to questions 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10.

Late tweets

Shchi [щи], or Russian cabbage soup, is one of those things that can be either very pleasant or not very pleasant, other examples being borshch [борщ](beetroot soup), kvass [квас](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvass) etc.

I suppose it is true of some British foods too. In the end, it is, of course, a question of taste. De gustibus non est disputandum. I like oysters; many do not. I like caviar (when afforded); many do not. I like (boiled and then fried) buckwheat kasha (probably because I ate it daily at one time, long ago); many do not, and think such a choice very odd indeed.

I have no particular animus against Boris-Idiot’s latest “ho” (to use the amusing American black term), but it is scandalous if (and it seems that) the woman has any but purely peripheral and personal influence on national affairs. After all, with the best will in the world, she got to her present position of influence on her back, to put it perhaps slightly crudely and…well, let’s leave that there! Suffice to say that she has never been elected, or even appointed, to any position of significance (and, no, I do not regard her unsuccessful period pumping out propaganda for Conservative Party HQ as that).

The woman likes animals, we are told. I approve heartily of that; and if (as it seems from what I have seen in photos) she has no taste, or employs an expensive interior decorator who has no taste, well…that is the way of the world. If her refurbishment at Downing Street is more “nouveau” than simply new, well…again…these things happen.

I should not like to tar Carrie Symonds with the brush justly censuring Boris-Idiot, but that immunity disappears if, as often claimed, she is interfering with, or even deciding, policy.

Late music

Diary Blog, 8 March 2021

Looks like being a generally quiet day.

Tweets seen

Someone needs a history lesson. I dislike having to correct those, with some of whose views I might be in agreement, but tweeter “@TimWhit22501381” is quite wrong in his dates.

Nikolai II or Nicholas II was in fact killed much later, on 17 July 1918. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II_of_Russia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_II_of_Russia#Execution.

While I do not dispute the murderous nature of the Bolsheviks, nor necessarily the numbers killed under Bolshevik and Soviet rule (though numbers are always unreliable), the Bolsheviks took power in a coup d’etat about 6 months after the first revolution of 1917.

History is important. Historical facts are important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution#February_Revolution; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution#October_Revolution; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family

It is true that the Afrikaaners were a hard people to like (I met quite a few in 1977, when I was in Rhodesia), but the black Africans are not capable of maintaining a civilized society of the “Western” (i.e. white European-origined) type.

The other parts of black Africa quite quickly reverted to savagery or chaos after colonies became “independent” “states”, and after most white people left. What is in black (sub-Saharan) Africa that is not savage or chaotic is, for the most part, like that because European people keep things going, either because they were born there and stayed, or are operating businesses or farms there, or are working for charities and other NGOs in those countries.

South Africa once had about a quarter of its population white. That declined to about 8.9% by 2011 and will no doubt be far less today. I have heard 6% mooted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa.

South Africa continues to decline, as it must under non-European rule. Slower, true, than has been the case in the rest of black Africa, because the proportion of Europeans is that much higher (Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, never had more than about 5% of its population white, a figure now far less than 1%, in fact around a quarter of one percent).

The South Africans I really cannot bear are the English South Africans, who were always whining about both the Afrikaaners and the blacks, and about apartheid, which had its flaws but also its merits.

Now, in the UK, we see many of those English-speaking South Africans working here (eg as doctors in the NHS). They display no intent to return to work in the fake “rainbow nation” beloved of the international conspiracy, yet pretend to love what South Africa has become, and decry “racism”…

If only the South African whites had voted differently in the early 1990s and had rejected what amounted to the ANC/Mandela takeover. The whites-only referendum was close; it might have gone the other way. Then, with Soviet support (money and arms) for the ANC, SWAPO etc gone, South Africa would have been able to crush rebellion and to survive, reforming itself slowly and intelligently, under white European control.

More tweets

I am more concerned that the vaccine may affect the fertility of the white European populations. I do not say that that is so, but that it may well be so.

Will there be another clip, from this year? Or in 2022?


Time for English courts, as well as the police and Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] to awaken to the attempts by Jew-Zionists, and connected individuals, to abuse the English police, courts, and legal system in order to destroy free speech. They openly call it “lawfare”. https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/; https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

More “Great Replacement” propaganda

Yet more propaganda aimed at the destruction of our white European race and culture: the Google graphic for International Women’s Day (today, 8th of March) shows a large brown/black hand grasping an obviously white and obviously female hand (with painted nails). I suppose that it will be claimed that both hands are supposed to be female and that the picture shows “solidarity” or some such. Deliberately ambiguous…

Google's Doodle celebrates a series of women's "firsts" throughout history (Google)

Not only Rassenschande— another act of war against the future of Europe.

Late-afternoon music

Late music

Diary Blog, 8 August 2020, including thoughts about the apparent suddenness of revolutions

The above musical fossil, dating from 1977, displays contrived (?) sentiments about “revolution”. As late as 1977, elements of the Soviet state were pretending to be all about proletarian revolution!

I recall commenting to my then girlfriend, about 1982, how the Soviet Union (where I had never been) seemed fossilized; I referred as example to the masthead of Pravda, which showed the cruiser Aurora, the naval vessel which, in October 1917 (old-style), fired the first shot signalling the Bolshevik seizure of power in Petrograd.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Aurora].

[the cruiser Aurora, as shown on the medal, the Order of the Red Banner; the words say “October Revolution”]

My then girlfriend, though certainly not Communist, disagreed with my analysis (that the Soviet Union was fossilized), and she had in a sense the advantage of me, having lived there for a number of years up to about 1978 or so and knew it, in general, far better than me. Still, I was right and she was wrong. Why?

There is a natural human tendency to accept that tomorrow will be at least similar to today. The daily commuter who goes on the train every day, until he dies unexpectedly overnight, or hits the Lotto.

The “Russian” Revolution seems today to have been almost inevitable, looking back over a century, and perhaps even two centuries (i.e. from the Decembrist revolt of 1825 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decembrist_revolt]. Hindsight is always so.

The Russians of 1917, most of them, were taken by surprise when the first (February, old-style) 1917 Revolution happened. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution]. Lenin, in exile, dismissed it as unimportant, or at least not as “the” predicted revolution (once-bitten, twice-shy, perhaps, Lenin having said, inaccurately, in 1905, that the uprising in that year was “the” revolution): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution

In 1917, having heard of the revolution, Lenin only arrived in revolutionary Petrograd 2 months later! He then started to organize the coup d’etat which occurred 6 months later and which is now known as the “October Revolution” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution].

When Lenin arrived in Petrograd, he had, in all Russia, probably only between 10,000-50,000 members in his Bolshevik faction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks#Demographics_of_the_two_factions. Lenin prevailed because his faction had discipline, and because he was unwilling to compromise.

My point here, though, is that it is hard to tell when significant and even —perhaps especially— seismic change will occur, in society or in the world as a whole. Lenin managed to seize power in late 1917 mainly because the real revolution, earlier in the year, had not stabilized into a firm and effective government. Lenin was not the creator or instigator of that first event, in fact he was irrelevant in respect of it.

Turning from events in 1917 to those toward the end of the Soviet period, the Soviet Union had given up the idea of revolution decades before: after the death of Stalin in 1953, and arguably since the exile and —1940— death of Trotsky, or even earlier (“Socialism in one country” was mooted as far back as 1924, and put into practice, in part, in the 1930s).

The “revolution” stuff after that was strictly for the naive: foreign fools and, in the Soviet Union itself, mostly Young Pioneers (akin to the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides of Britain) and maybe a few Komsomol members.

Yet the image, right up to the collapse of 1989 and the official dissolution of 1991, both outside the Soviet Union and to some extent, officially, within it, was that the Revolution, in some sense, was still guiding the society, along with the Marxism-Leninism still published and taught everywhere (but in reality ignored and/or privately scorned).

The slow collapse of Sovietism was taken by some influential scribblers and “thinkers” in the West as a signal that Western finance-capitalism and “liberal democracy” had triumphed, forever. The name that stands out is the Japanese-American Francis Fukuyama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama, and his book, The End of History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man.

In my own unpublished work of 1990, I said that Fukuyama was simplistic and wrong. No-one took any notice of course, because the book was never published, and anyway I was an unknown, completely obscure, whereas Fukuyama was (according to System blurbs and drones) a “respected scholar” etc. Yet I was right and he was wrong.

In fact, a few people do seem to have agreed with my view: “Authors like Ralf Dahrendorf argued in 1990 that the essay gave Fukuyama his 15 minutes of fame, which will be followed by a slide into obscurity.[14][15] “[Wikipedia]

The West has the same problem as had the Soviet Union: an inability to accept its own sclerosis.

The future is, perhaps ipso facto, unexpected. In 1928, the NSDAP got 2.6% of the national vote in Germany. Hitler was considered a joke by many both in Germany and outside. As he later said, “They were laughing at [me and National Socialism] but they are not laughing now!

What about that 2.6% vote? In 1932, it became 33%, and then, in 1933, 44%. Hitler was Chancellor, unchallenged, and everything changed in Germany and in Europe.

Moving to the UK of 2020, there are parallels. The Coronavirus situation has been blown up out of all proportion, allowing the System (not only in the UK, but across the “West”) to attempt a “Reset” of the Western world. The political sphere in the UK has been frozen. People cannot gather, or even easily talk face to face.

Parliament is not in any real sense sitting; in fact Parliament has been sidelined, unable or unwilling to scrutinize new “laws”, laws passed not by Parliament, but rammed through as secondary legislation, using obscure statutes, and by a would-be despotic government headed by the biggest idiot of the lot, the part-Jew (ex?) public entertainer, Boris Johnson, aka Boris-idiot, sitting on his pediment (of a Conservative Party majority of 80).

In other words, Parliament may still exist but its useful life in its present form has ended. Not just the Commons: the House of Lords now has nearly 800 members. The quantity is a problem, but so is the quality. Boris-idiot has added 38 “peers” just recently. Our “legislators” now include cricketer “lord” Ian Botham, pseudo-intellectual “baroness” Claire Fox of the Brexit Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party (!), and many many other deadheads, such as the failed bra-designer “entrepreneuse”— and so many others that I do not choose to list them all.

What about the Monarchy? It is being held together as a once-respected institution by a public relations effort and by the fact that the Queen is still there. The Queen is a link with the past, with Britain as it was when it was 99% white, and when it however had a global empire etc.

There are efforts being put in to make the public believe that “King Charles III” (already nearly 72) and then “King William V” (now 38) will take the place of the present Queen. On paper, perhaps, but not in terms of mass psychology.

Of course we also have the lesser lights and hangers-on, such as the dim “cuck” Harry and his “Royal Mulatta”, entitled arrogant idiot and doormat for several Jews, Andrew, and theatrical am-drammer Edward; and their stupid spoiled offspring.

Then we have the other pillars of English life, on paper: the Bar, the “free” Press, the Church of England etc. All now facades, mere Potemkin villages.

Will this present society survive the coming years? I think not. True, there is at present little sign of upheaval in the UK, despite the above-mentioned matters, despite mass immigration (migration-invasion), despite Boris-idiot inviting 4 million Chinese to come to live here, despite everything. That may not be the last word, though.

Was there obvious sign of imminent political upheaval in the Germany of 1928? No. In fact, Germany seemed to have finally found stability both economically and politically by 1928. Then came the Wall Street Crash followed by the Great Depression.

Was there obvious sign of upheaval in the Russia of, say, 1916? Some, by reason of the war with the Central Powers, and the consequent poverty and general discontent. However, if you take it back to 1913, there was no such sign.

“Extremist” solutions to Britain’s problems may be unpopular in 2020; by 2022 or 2023, they may be the only ones that seem to make any sense.

Tweets seen

If Israel is eventually defeated, and passes into history, that will still not be the [redacted…]

God, that horrible cruel ape! I have often thought that T.E. Lawrence, “Lawrence of Arabia”, has a lot to answer for. Had Lawrence not fanned the flames of Arab nationalism and indeed Saudi nationalism, the Western states, and in fact maybe even just the European empires, could easily have taken the oil of Arabia and the surrounding region for the use of the advanced part of the world, and without having to give vast sums to any of the Arabs. Most of the wealth of the Arabs has been squandered anyway, one way or the other.

I may dislike (and oppose) the Jews, speaking generally, but I despise most of the Arabs.

A thought out of season

Statistics show that the Chinese have, as a national group, the highest IQ in the world, higher even than Northern Europeans. It is true that some of their achievements, both ancient and modern, are hugely impressive, yet I have to say that (with the arguable exception of a nuclear scientist I once met in the USA), all those that I have met personally or observed have seemed to me to be dimwits. Maybe I have just been unfortunate.

Tweets seen


That little bastard is up to everything: former near-top employee of Common Purpose (so supported by that conspiracy), doormat for the Jewish/Israel lobby (so always supported by “them”); also supported by the gay lobby. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant#Personal_life.

As the tweet says, he was a major expenses cheat and is still an avid expenses freeloader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant#Expenses_claims_scandal

The sort of careerist who would be an early casualty in any real reform of Westminster.

Three words: the Great Reset; or if you prefer, the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan.

Late music

The Way Forward for Social Nationalism in the UK

The talent of the strategist is to identify the decisive point and to concentrate everything on it, removing forces from secondary fronts and ignoring lesser objectives.”

Those words of Clausewitz are often taken to encapsulate the essence of strategy. How are they applied to the socio-political question in the UK (England, primarily) from the social-national point of view?

“The Decisive Point”

The “decisive point” or objective, ultimately, is the formation of a British ethnostate as an autonomous part of a Eurasian ethnostate based on the Northern European and Russian peoples. However, within the UK itself and before that, the objective must first be drawn less widely, as political power within the UK’s own borders.

The Gaining of Political Power in the UK

The sine qua non of gaining the sort of political power required is the existence of a political party. More than that, a party which is uncompromizing in its wish to entirely reform both State and society.

History is replete with examples of states which have seemed not even just powerful but actually eternal, yet which have collapsed. Ancient Rome, though perhaps not a “state” in our modern sense, is perhaps the one most embedded in the Western consciousness. More recently, the Soviet Union and its satellite states. In between those two examples (but among many others) we might cite the pre-1914 European “settlement” based on the empires and kingdoms which collapsed during and after the First World War: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire.

The main point to understand is that, in situations of crisis on the large scale, it is not the political party with the most money, erudition, developed policy or even membership that comes out on top, but the party with the most will or determination. That means the most disciplined party under the leadership of the most determined leader.

It is better to have a party consisting of only 1,000 which is tightly-disciplined and self-disciplined than one of 100,000 which is a floundering mass of contradictions. When a national crisis occurs, such as 1917-1921 in Russia or 1929-1933 in Germany (to take two obvious examples), the people instinctively turn to the party perceived to be strongest, not strongest in numbers, money, intellectuality or number of members, but strongest in the will, the will to power.

The Party

A party requires leadership, members, ideology, policy and money. Everything comes from the leadership and the membership, in symbiosis. In practical terms, this means that policy is open to free discussion, up to the point where a decision is made as to what is party policy as such. Also, it has to be understood that a party requires money as a tank or armoured car requires fuel. To have endless fundraising drives, hunts for wealthy donors etc demeans and dispirits the membership. Having a “tithing” system renders such other methods unnecessary. The members sacrifice an agreed amount of their post-tax income, such as 10%. The party organizes itself and its message to the general population using that money.

As a rule of thumb in contemporary Britain, it might be said that, on average, each member will provide something like £2,000 per year to the party. A party of even 1,000 members will therefore have an annual income of £2 million, enough to buy not only propaganda and administration but real property as a base. By way of comparison, the Conservative Party in 2017 has an income of about £3.5 million.


It must be understood that elections are only one way to power, but they are indispensable in England, for historical-cultural reasons. A party which cannot win elections loses credibility rapidly once that party is large. In the initial phase, no-one expects the party to win Westminster or even local council seats, but after that, it has to win and so grow, or deflate as the BNP did and as UKIP is doing now. The problem small parties have under the English electoral system is that a Westminster seat can be won only with, at a minimum, about 30% (and usually 40% or more) of votes. The insurgent party is in danger of spreading itself too thinly, in every way. UKIP’s history illustrates the point: in 2015, about 12% of votes cast (nearly 4 million), but only the one MP with which they, in effect, started. The answer is to concentrate the vote. That is done by concentrating the members and supporters of the party geographically.

Safe Zones

I have blogged previously about the creation of safe zones and especially one primary safe zone (possibly in the South West of England). If the members and supporters of the party gradually relocate into that zone or zones, many things become easier, from protection of buildings, meetings, exhibitions etc to the election of councillors and MPs. I have also blogged about the magnetic attraction such a safe zone might exercise over people in the UK as a whole.

The Decisive Time

The “decisive time” cannot be predicted. In Russia, Lenin (at the time in foreign exile) thought that the 1905 uprising was “the revolution”. He was wrong. He also thought that the first (February, old-style) 1917 uprising was not “the” revolution. He was wrong again. It was.


Lenin had to hurry back to Russia (arriving belatedly in April 1917, old-style) not only to try to take control (he failed in that and had to foment his own coup d’etat in October 1917) but to avoid being sidelined and so becoming an almost irrelevant footnote to history.

In Germany after 1929, Hitler likewise was not in control of events. In the end, economic near-collapse and political turmoil gave him the chance to win enough votes (33% in 1932) to form a coalition government which led on to full power in 1933, after the NSDAP achieved a higher –though still minority– popular vote (44%).

In other words, both Lenin and Hitler were the pawns of Fate while striving to be the masters of events. They had something in common though: highly-disciplined and ideologically-motivated parties behind them.

Practical Matters

At the age of 60, the last thing which is convenient for me is to form a political party. I have no need of such an activity as a hobby or absorbing interest. I am coming to the idea out of duty, out of a realization that something has to be done and out of an understanding that something can be done, if Fate concurs. I am not willing to compromize on overall ideology or on the way things are organized within such a party. I shall only establish a political party (which may become a movement) if it can be done on a serious basis. However, there is a need for a party to speak for the British people and there is a widening political vacuum in which such a party can thrive and grow.

Update 15 April 2019

In the two years since I wrote the above blog post, my view has not changed, that is

  • a political party and movement is needed;
  • there is at present no such party;
  • such a party can only be established if done on a serious basis;
  • I myself still do not have the means with which to found such a party; but
  • a political party and movement is —still— needed…

Update, 8 March 2023

All factors mentioned in the previous update remain the same.