Tag Archives: NWO

Alt-Right, Brexit, free speech, Ian Millard, immigration, Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Peter Hitchens and His Views

31 Comments

I am impelled to write a few words about Peter Hitchens after having just seen an interview with Owen Jones [see below], which interview dates from 2017.

I have already written a blog post about Owen Jones:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/a-brief-word-about-owen-jones/

To examine the views and influence of Hitchens in detail would necessitate a blog article of inordinate length, but Wikipedia has a considerable amount of information about him:

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

I should like to focus mainly on a few matters raised in that interview.

As to Hitchens himself, he is an odd fellow, apparently fairly well-educated. His family background had elements of tragedy (his mother bolted with an unfrocked priest, and the couple later died via a suicide pact in an Athens hotel). Not mentioned in the interview is that Hitchens (like Owen Jones) has part-Jewish roots, his maternal grandmother having been half-Jewish, in that her mother was Jewish. It was on that basis that Hitchens’ even more eccentric brother, Christopher, declared himself in latter years to be “Jewish” (taking the traditional Jewish course of deciding via the matrilineal side alone).

The interview mentions his having attended a naval school, but that must have been in early years, he then having attended The Leys School, Cambridge, an institution which has schooled a number of well-known people: at least one Rothschild, a few kings (albeit from Bahrain and Tonga), a number of MPs and journalists (in some cases both, as with Martin Bell).

Hitchens then went on to the City of Oxford College (a college of further education) and finally to Alcuin College, part of the University of York.

It may be that the university education and milieu that Hitchens found in Alcuin College permanently influenced his attitude. Wikipedia says of Alcuin College that,

“From early days of the college an uproar for secession of the college from the remainder of the university has been present.[3] It is a self-styled Separatist Movement and at times presented as a running gag at the University of York about Alcuinites….For many years Alcuin College was very much the outcast on the university campus, the only college physically separate from the others except for a bridge from the library…“

The photograph of Alcuin College in winter shows an almost Soviet bleakness and isolation.

Alcuin_College_in_Snow_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1691889

Hitchens, though characterizing himself in the Owen Jones interview as having been a “joiner” in his youth, has also been an outsider, defector and maverick. I wonder whether he applied to the University of York because Oxford and/or Cambridge (in both of which cities he had attended school) refused his application, or perhaps he made no application to Oxbridge because (I speculate) his developing extreme socialist views made him reject such “bourgeois” places of learning. A better interviewer than Owen Jones, such as the late and great Brian Walden, might have explored all that.

Hitchens was from 1968 (aged 17) to 1975, a member of the Trotskyist “tendency” called the International Socialists [IS], the forerunner of the Socialist Workers’ Party [SWP]. He joined two years before he went to York. Later, in his forties, he became a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party, but only for the six years 1997-2003, and —typically— at the very nadir of Conservative fortunes, which is interesting, psychologically. Does he court unpopularity? Does he deliberately express unpopular or contrary views?

Hitchens is known as what might fairly be called a “reactionary”, someone who thinks that Britain was a better place in the 1950s, no ifs no buts. In fact, I believe that I watched him say that or something like that on TV once. My own view is different, that some aspects of life in the UK are better now, though many are certainly worse. This blog post is about Peter Hitchens, not Ian Millard, but in my view, things that are better now than in the 1950s (which I scarcely remember, having been born in 1956) or the early 1960s (which I certainly do remember) would include

  • central heating as the norm;
  • wider selection of fruits and vegetables (and in general a healthier or at least more varied diet);
  • less antiquated snobbism;
  • more understanding of animal welfare;
  • far easier access to information (via Internet);

Whereas, on the other side, the aspects of British life now that mean that UK life is worse (than in the early 1960s, anyway) are (and Hitchens has a point, because it is a longer list by far)

  • the general pressure of life now (of course, I was a child in, say, 1963, so my perception is affected to that extent but I think the judgment is still valid);
  • pervasive lack of freedom of expression;
  • pervasive “political correctness” etc;
  • the cost of living, though that is a complex question; it includes
  • the cost of real property both for sale and rent, and the impossibility for most people to buy a property without family money;
  • British people swamped by mass immigration;
  • real pay and social benefits etc generally reducing;
  • hugely less choice of employment for most people;
  • many people in full-time work unable to live on the poor pay offered;
  • unwanted millions of immigrants and their offspring;
  • congested roads and railways (and refer to the above line);
  • a huge new mixed-race population;
  • a huge amount of crime;
  • public and private housing shortages (refer to immigration, above);
  • huge numbers of drug-contaminated persons;
  • workers exploited in terms of having ever-shorter lunch breaks etc, “on call” after hours etc;
  • public services near to collapse in some respects;
  • intensive farming, with consequent harm to wildlife;
  • standards in all areas (NHS, schools, social security, Westminster MPs, police etc) falling like a stone

We often hear (eg from very young Remain whiners) that, eg, “foreign travel is easier now”, whereas that is mostly illusion. True, there were some silly aspects “back then”, such as being restricted as to foreign currency taken on holiday (you even had to have the amount, bought from somewhere like Thomas Cook, written in your passport!), and that silliness (a kind of postwar sacred cow) lasted until Mrs Thatcher stopped it in 1979 or 1980! Yes, true, but that was about it.

If you listen to Remain whiners (esp. the under-30s), you read or hear that Brexit will mean either no visa-free travel to the EU states, or no travel allowed at all! They really believe that, pre-1972, British people were almost imprisoned, as if Cuban, Chinese or Soviet citizens!

Until blacks and browns abused it in the 1980s to import relatives illegally, you used to be able to get a “British Visitor’s Passport” from post offices for a small amount; the passport was valid for short visits to almost all Western European states (not many people went to Eastern Europe as tourists until the 1990s). I had one in 1978 or 1979, in between possession of two ordinary passports, when I wanted to travel to France at short notice. I think that it cost about £5 and took about 5 minutes to be issued at Lanark Road Post Office, Little Venice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#The_British_visitor’s_passport

Transport to the European mainland: true, there were no budget airlines as such in the 1950s, 1960s, but there were routes and ways not now in existence: in the 1950s and 1960s, people could take their cars by air to France! The main route was Lydd (Kent) to Amiens. This was not only for the rich: 5,000 cars (20,000 passengers) as early as 1950, and over 50,000 cars (250,000 passengers) by 1955 (incredible when you recall that rationing lasted until 1955!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_City_Airways#The_1950s

Yes, you might have to show your passport or wave it (you still do…)

There were excellent hovercraft services (though only from 1970-2000) across the Channel.

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

The idea that some Remain whiners have that young people will be unable to travel if the UK leaves “Europe” (meaning the EU) is laughable to those who know. As a child I travelled with parents; and then (from 1971) as a teenager, I travelled alone to Paris, Amsterdam etc. No visa required, UK not in EEC (the then EU).

I might add that it actually takes longer to fly to Paris in 2019 than it did in 1970 or even 1960!

Anyway, back to Hitchens and his views.

True, the early 1950s did still have rationing (until 1954), the result of the stupid and terrible war against the German Reich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Timeline

One cannot say that Hitchens approves of that aspect of 1950s lifestyle, though, and (if I understand him aright), he thinks that the British war against Germany could have been avoided, but I may be mistaken here. He certainly thinks that of the First World War, which he says, surely rightly, destroyed British naval supremacy and economy.

Where Hitchens is certainly mistaken is in saying (in the interview) that Churchill’s refusal to countenance the German peace proposals of 1940 was “unquestionably the right and moral thing to do”. Oh really? Right and moral, to continue a war only started because triggered by a treaty obligation that could never have been fulfilled (the Anglo-French worthless “guarantee” to Poland) and when an honourable peace via armistice was on the table?

Such a peace might have been bought at the price of German victory in the East, but would that have been so bad? The destruction of the Stalin/Bolshevik regime? The saving of most of Eastern Europe from both wartime destruction and post-1945 Stalinism? The prevention of the enormous damage, loss of life and hurt across Western and Southern Europe and North Africa? Hitchens says, however, that he is “sceptical” about Churchill overall.

Hitchens is on surer ground when he says that British history has gone, in that no-one knows British history. He cites David Cameron-Levita being unable to translate the two words “Magna Carta” from Latin! After 6 years at Eton! That was when “Scameron” was a guest on the Letterman Show. Shaming for the whole country. Not just the Magna Carta bit. Cameron came over more like a part-Jew public entertainer (and not a good one) than a British statesman. Oh…wait…

[the bit about Magna Carta starts around 8 minutes in]

Scameron was also proven, though I think on another occasion, not to have heard of the Bill of Rights! Hitchens cites an apparently intelligent 6th-former whom he met, and who had passed exams in English History, and yet who did not know which side Oliver Cromwell was on during the English Civil War!

I have had similar encounters. Few people under 40 now know even the most basic facts about British history, and less about European history generally. An indictment of the British educational system. One should, though, be wary of thinking that this kind of ignorance developed overnight. I recall having a brief conversation with a South London couple I met by a swimming pool in Sousse, Tunisia, in 1986, and who, it transpired, had no idea at all that what is now Tunisia had been (part of) a Roman imperial province. Not knowing who was Nelson or Drake, though, is arguably of a different order.

Hitchens says, again correctly, that “we” “have no idea now what it means to be English or British”, but does not go on to examine the racial implications. Come to think of it, that may be one reason why so many people in the UK want to denounce others to Twitter, Facebook, the police, employers etc for holding the “wrong” views, i.e. because the denouncers have no idea of the English historical struggle for free speech (John Hampden etc…) and no respect for it.

CxDUqlFWgAAY3LX

D635NrZW0AAGWQo

scan25

Owen Jones talks about how open-minded (he says…) Corbyn is, and implies that he, Jones, is the same. Oh yes? Take a look at my blog post about him…

Hitchens himself is really little different. He once had a short and at first reasonable discussion with me on Twitter about the early Zionists, in 2017 or 2016, but then a Jew tweeted to him about how I was apparently an evil “neo-Nazi”, after which, just like Owen Jones, inter alia, Hitchens blocked me. I was unaware then that Hitchens is part-Jew, though not to the extent that would have rendered him liable to sanctions under the 1936 Nuremberg law(s), his maternal grandmother having been only part-Jew (Mischling) and his maternal grandfather not a Jew. In fact, under those laws he would even have been able to work as a journalist.

Hitchens says that Enoch Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech “was a disgrace”. Why? He dislikes its tone, it seems. What about its truth, though? He also says that “the intermarriage [resulting from immigration] is great”. I begin to wonder what major part of modern British society he does dislike, when push comes to shove! To be fair to Hitchens, he does disapprove of the ghetto communities established by Pakistanis and others in, mainly, the Midlands and North of England. He is certainly not “white nationalist”, let alone social-national. If he were, he would be sacked at once. Long live freedom!…

An area in which I do find myself largely in agreement with Hitchens is in intervention by the “West” (in my terms, “NWO/ZOG”) in the affairs of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya. He opposes it. That’s something.

As to Russia, Hitchens seems to take an objective view (informed by better historical knowledge than most msm scribblers), eg:

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/russia/

I apprehend that Hitchens likes the social conservatism of most Russians.

So what is my overall view of Peter Hitchens? I should say that he is someone of considerable intellect, though nowhere near as intelligent as he himself imagines. Someone of considerable education, but who imagines that he knows more and better than almost anyone else, and believes that it is his role in life to pronounce on the truth of any given social, political, historical or ethical topic. Someone who harks back to a supposed golden age prior to, perhaps, 1959, or 1989 (at very latest). Someone who sees what is wrong in the present society but appears to have no programme or (Heaven forbid!) ideology to move from here to there (to a better society).

Hitchens takes a reasonable view such as “the family is a good thing” and tests it to destruction. Likewise, in his critique of both socialism and the contemporary Conservative Party, he goes to an extreme, saying that the Conservative Party is “extreme Left-wing”, by which he means “socially liberal”. He defends traditional marriage and his arguments here have force.

Hitchens thinks that the Conservative Party is dying (understandable, looking at its MPs and ministers) but, yet again, goes to an extreme, wishing that it could have lost the 2010 General Election so that it might have died, and so made room for a new and socially-conservative party. I wish that it had lost too, but for other reasons!

Hitchens reminds me of two other scribblers of note, Peter Oborne and (now rather forgotten) Paul Johnson.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)

All three are often intuitively correct on some issues, risibly mistaken on others. They are alike in other ways, too. As the Russians say, they are all “Maximalisti”.

Hitchens (like Owen Jones) blocked me on Twitter for ideological reasons. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) makes a very comfortable living from the System msm. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) poses no danger to the existing state of affairs, despite making much noise. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) is a mass media pussycat pretending to be a tiger.

I like to read Hitchens’ words occasionally. He is often right, not always. However, his words are commentary, not inspiration. He says in the interview that Britain is finished and that the only serious history of contemporary Britain will one day be written in Chinese! Maybe, but God moves in mysterious though sometimes sanguinary ways. As a Christian and a student of history, Hitchens should know that.

Notes

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin_College,_York

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(UK)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Early_life_and_education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Jewish_identity

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

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

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/mass-hysteria/

Hitchens’ most recent Mail on Sunday article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7045469/PETER-HITCHENS-green-seats-prove-careering-catastrophe.html

Other recent articles by Hitchens:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6993553/PETER-HITCHENS-time-view-police-just-like-failed-industries.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7019091/PETER-HITCHENS-country-slowly-choked-death-rights-wrongdoers.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7070715/PETER-HITCHENS-did-warn-Marshmallow-Lady.html

Hitchens’ recent book (which I have not yet read, but which promises to be at least as myth-shattering as those of the unjustly neglected historian Correlli Barnett)

Update, 18 September 2020

Since the above was written, Peter Hitchens has been almost a lone voice struggling against the “Coronavirus” panic and the allied government-proclaimed fear propaganda.

Update, 24 April 2022

Hitchens is now in the small minority of public figures unwilling to go along with the msm noise against Russia, and for Ukraine (meaning the Kiev regime of the Jew-Zionist Zelensky).

Brexit, free speech, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

Brexit. It Is Now A War— The British People Against The System

16 Comments

The British people were told that they and they alone would decide by referendum whether to stay in or leave the EU. Remain or Leave. No nonsense about “the Irish backstop”, no nonsense about “deals” with the EU, no ever-more complex rejigging of the UK-EU relationship, no second vote years after the Referendum (i.e. no “people’s vote”, to be held in 2019, 2020 or even later), no asking to remain in the EU for weeks, months, years after the set departure date.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqAk4iGcARw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAn9Dw_srPA

Yes, the relationship between the EU and the UK is complex, but sometimes, with Gordian Knots, you just have to cut the knot. You can tie new knots later.

As I predicted at the time, Remain would immediately launch a kind of quite long term damage-limitation operation, building on the Operation Fear pre-referendum propaganda. The fear propaganda had a number of aspects:

  • No-one would be allowed to travel from the UK to EU states;
  • Before the UK was in the EU, no-one from the UK was allowed to travel to France, Germany, Italy etc without a visa;
  • No UK people could live or work in, eg, France, Spain, Italy, Germany before 1973;
  • Anyone voting Leave hates Europe and Europeans;
  • A vote for Leave is a vote for hate;
  • A Leave win would reduce most British people to poverty;

This propaganda was fuelled by even more than usually inept and wrong forecasts by hugely well-paid and hugely overvalued “erudite idiots” such as the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, a globalist Bilderberg participant of probably part-Jewish origins (see Notes, below). Ex-Goldman Sachs and carrying Canadian, British and Irish (and other?) passports, Carney and others claimed that Brexit would immediately shrink the UK economy. In reality, such forecasts did that, by causing fear and uncertainty.

Many young people, meaning loosely anyone under 30 but especially the 16-24 age group, badly let down by their pathetically poor education, really seemed to believe the above bullet-points. They really believed that a Leave result would mean that they would not even be able to visit EU countries without onerous visa requirements. In fact, listening to them (bleat) on BBC radio, one realized that many seriously believed that, if the UK left the EU, they would not be allowed entry to EU countries at all! Yes, those who believed that were/are stupid, ignorant and poorly-educated, but the immediate blame must be placed on the Remain propagandists.

There were reports in the msm and on social media about pathetic teenage girls bleating and crying because “their whole future” had been “destroyed” (by older Leave voters)! Now they would never be international models, pan-EU entrepreneurs etc! In reality, of course, 99% of the young Remain whiners never were going to get well-paid or indeed any jobs “in Europe” (as they always mis-designate the EU). The few who might, always could (I myself once had a girlfriend who, in her 1960s youth, had been on the cover of the French edition of Vogue).

The Remain fightback started immediately. Project Fear was kept going, along with new lines: “the Referendum was not really valid because it was so close” was one. Another was “turnout was only 72%, so the Leave vote was really only about 37%”…

As Leave supporters countered, what if we applied that to General Elections? Or by-elections? We have just had a by-election at Newport West. I blogged about it and later added the result details:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/28/the-newport-west-by-election/

In that by-election, Labour won, with a vote share of 39.6% of votes cast. However, turnout was only 37.6%. In other words, nearly two-thirds of eligible voters, many no doubt disgusted by the charade of “democracy” being played out, refused to or at least did not vote. Should we say that the result is invalid, because Labour was only voted for by about 15% of the eligible electorate?…

The same is true of the vast majority of constituencies where MPs have been “elected” despite having received less than 50% of the votes. Some MPs were “elected” on votes of 30%, the result of 3-way or 4-way splits. In view of the often low turnout in elections, that means that many MPs were voted for by only a fifth or even a tenth of the eligible voters!

People who could not be bothered to vote either way in 2016 must accept the result. Leave.

We should recall that every single referendum region in England, except London, voted Leave, most by very nearly 60%-40%. In fact, in the UK only London, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain.

If you were to take out Scotland, Northern Ireland, London, Gibraltar and all non-white voters, Leave would have won, in England, by something like 75%-25%.

If there were to be another EU/Brexit referendum any time soon, Leave might in fact win all over again:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1110603/Brexit-news-BBC-UK-Diane-Abbott-Theresa-May-Labour-Party-European-Union

The point is that a promise was made to the British people and has been broken. Now we see that

  • The “Conservative” government has badly mishandled the 2-3 years of negotiation with the EU (was that deliberate? was that sabotage?);
  • An attempt has been made to have a “Brexit In Name Only” via a so-called “deal” which would be actually worse than just staying in the EU officially;
  • attempt(s) are made to revoke Article 50 and so to stay in the EU;
  • requests for extensions of time for departure (why?);
  • a House of Commons “legal coup d’etat” has been made, passing a law to all but outlaw Brexit, and passed by one vote, that of African convict Fiona Onasanya MP, who was recently released from prison and soon will not even be an MP! The Commons coup was arranged between Oliver Letwin MP, a Jew and former Rothschilds employee, and pro-Zionist would-be dictator Yvette Cooper MP.

In fact, the Rothschilds connection is interesting, because puppet President of France, Macron, a complete agent of Zionism, NWO and ZOG, also worked for Rothschilds.

Conclusions

  • There is effectively no or almost no real democracy in the UK now. People are waking up to that via the Brexit saga;
  • There is no political party, let alone one which is powerful and/or credible, which speaks for the British people;
  • Most MPs are useless, not even mediocre, and/or are just freeloading traitors; they are also, most of them, direct enemies of the British people. Many belong to secret groups of cosmopolitan manipulators.  Many are pro-Zionist and/or have Jewish-Zionist connections, spouses, sponsors etc.

There must be a new and better society and a better system of government.

Notes

https://web.archive.org/web/20130726214724/http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.html

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

https://www.hebrewsurnames.com/KEMPER

http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/chronicle/AL_CHRON_1957_3.pdf [see p.38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Result

Update, 12 April 2019: a few thoughts about the near-future EU and local elections

The Brexit mess, so spectacularly mishandled by Theresa May and the idiotic careerists around her, may save UKIP from immediate collapse as a party, inasmuch as many British voters will want to punish the Conservative Party one way or the other. There may be a “perfect storm” for the Conservative Party, pressured on two fronts by both the Leave and Remain sides.

There will soon be elections for the European Parliament, on 23 May 2019. Recent opinion polling seems to be saying that Labour will have a landslide: initial voting intentions show Labour on 37.8% (up from 24.4% in 2016); Conservatives at 23.1% (unchanged), Brexit Party (Nigel Farage’s new party) 10%, LibDem 8%, UKIP 7.5%, Change UK (the recent Lab/Con defector MPs’ vehicle) around 4%, among others.

One has to be cautious in assuming that the above opinion poll reflects the likely outcome. The same poll seems to indicate that, after discussion, many pro-EU voters prefer Change UK (which would hit Labour and LibDem levels), while anti-EU voters may prefer either UKIP or Brexit Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1112942/european-elections-voting-intentions-uk-conservative-labour-brexit-party

Before the EU elections (in which the UK may not participate at all if the UK leaves the UK before 23 May), there will be local elections, on 2 May 2019. The indications are that, in those elections, Labour may also sweep the poll, with Labour benefiting not only from the “pendulum” or “see-saw” effect of elections in a system using FPTP voting, but also from abstentions by usual Con voters (or by their voting for Brexit Party or UKIP).

As far as the local elections are concerned, Labour starts the campaign with several advantages. The decade of spending cuts has finally impacted even the most true-blue Conservative areas. Labour has a army of local activists, thanks to its membership surge under Corbyn. It also has funds from the same source.

The Conservatives have few local activists now and most are beyond retirement age. The party looks tired. The Brexit mess can only be laid at the door of Theresa May and her Cabinet. The Cons will be lucky to avoid a wipeout in the areas voting on 2 May.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/11/conservative-mps-may-boycott-european-election-campaign

There are also strategic factors. The Conservative Party claims 124,000 members, which seems high (average 200 members per constituency). Most are elderly. Few are active. The median age for Conservative voters has also risen, to 52. Recent polling has shown that only 16% of voters under 35 support the Cons, and only 4% of those under 25 do so.

 

 

Brexit, historical, immigration, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

On Recent Events in France

83 Comments

Foreword

Not for nothing is (or was) France called La Belle France. If I had to name a country which, for me, challenges the better parts of England for its countryside, it would be France, where I myself lived for 4 years (in North Finistere, Brittany), commuting by car ferry to the UK every week or so. My first holiday away from my parents was a 3-week stay in Paris in 1971, aged 14/15. I stayed in the –at the time, not very smart– Rue de l’Arbalete, in the 5th Arrondisement on the Left Bank, near the Sorbonne, the Ecole Normale Superieur and the Jardin des Plantes, in which park I spent quite a lot of time looking at chess games, wandering about, sometimes drinking a strange green carbonated mint-drink. In other words, I like France (and often its people) very much, despite French bureaucracy and, at times, hugely irritating inflexibility.

The Present Situation

Now we see that many of the French cities are intermittently burning, that there are violent clashes between protesters and riot police in the streets, including the Champs-Elysees and the Boulevard St. Germain. There have been mobs running through the Tuileries, a ministry stormed, at one point the Jeu de Paume (museum/gallery) on fire. The number of protesters on the streets before Christmas 2018 was around 30,000. Now, in early January 2019, we are are seeing 50,000 and more. What is going on?

Macron and His Regime

We must understand that the current President of France, Macron, is the evil “genius” whose “reforms” have caused the uprising (for such it is becoming). However, the present situation is one which has roots going back to 1989 (when socialism in various forms died across the world), to the establishment of the Fifth Republic in 1958, to that of the Fourth Republic in 1946, and indeed to the fall of the Third Republic in 1940, with the consequent establishment of the Vichy government (in power from 1940 to 1944 and governing about half of the territory of France itself, as well as overseas possessions).

The “democratic” basis of the Fifth Republic has always been shaky, but it is arguable that France is more “democratic” now than it has ever been, at least since 1940: the President is now elected every 5 years (changed from 7 in 2000), and is elected directly by the voters, whereas from 1958-1962, the President, at that time de Gaulle, was elected by an “electoral college”. This “democratic” accolade is perhaps an omen, however: the last very “democratic” France, the Third Republic, collapsed from its own weakness and division, first amid an undeclared civil war between the Popular Front and its many and various opponents, then from external invasion, as the German forces swept across Northern France in 1940.

Macron and his pop-up “movement”, En Marche, did not come out of nowhere. Like other fake “movements” across Europe and the former Soviet Union (eg the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine), Macron’s was funded by Jewish cosmopolitan financial circles. Macron himself worked for Rothschild et Compagnie Banque from 2008-2012. In those four years, and another after he left Rothschilds, Macron is said to have made about (possibly more than) 3 million Euros.

Let’s retrack and look at Macron more personally. He went to a Jesuit school, where, aged 15, he met a woman teacher, married with children and aged 39. This woman became romantically and sexually involved with him (sexually —supposedly— only after he turned 18, by which time she was 42 —and if you believe that, you will believe anything…), and left her husband and three children, later marrying Macron (in 2007, when he was 30 and she 54).

Macron only stopped being a student when aged 27, in 2004. He became an “inspector of finances”, a post at a high level in the civil service. He formed a strong connection with a Jewish businessman called Alain Minc, who lent Macron 550,000 Euros in order to buy an apartment in Paris. When Macron left the ministry, he had to buy himself out of his contract. That cost 50,000 Euros. Did that sum also come from Minc?

Here is what puzzles me about Macron: he reminds me of the young Faust, whom Mephistopheles calls “an intelligent youth whom it is easy to instruct”, if I recall the quotation aright. Thus we have the still-young Macron, only 29 and from, though not a poor background, not one of wealth either. He graduates, from the last of several institutions, aged 27, and within 2 years is lent over a half million Euros by a Jewish businessman, not even for a business idea but to buy personal real property. Not just any Jewish businessman, though. Minc has been on the supervizory board of Le Monde and has also been an advisor to several leading politicians in France, including Nicolas Sarkozy.

The oddness does not end there. In the same year, 2006, one of the wealthiest women in France, Laurence Parisot, who was head of MEDEF, the French equivalent of the CBI in the UK, offered the young Macron, who at 29 was still only 2 years from having been a student, the job of managing director of MEDEF (he declined). Laurence Parisot was also head of the bank BNP Paribas.

What else of note do we know about Macron? Well, in 2018 he was awarded the annual Charlemagne Prize, the first recipient of which (in 1950) was none other than Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the evil mind behind the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan! Other recipients of the Prize have included Jean Monnet, the godfather of the EU, who received it in 1953, Konrad Adenauer (1954), Winston Churchill (1955), Edward Heath (1963; he brought the UK into the EEC, predecessor of the EU, in 1973), Henry Kissinger (1987), Tony Blair (1999), Bill Clinton (2000), Jean-Claude Juncker (2006), Angela Merkel (2008), Donald Tusk (2010), Martin Schulz (2015), Pope Francis (2016) and the very influential globalist and supporter of finance-capitalism (and alleged to have been an agent of the British SIS), Timothy Garton Ash (2017).

Macron’s En Marche “movement” was, it is alleged, initially bankrolled by the Rothschilds. 5-6 months before the foundation of En Marche in April 2016, Macron visited Israel.

Macron came to power because the French were tired and disaffected, estranged from the System parties. Marine le Pen of the Front National was thought to have a good chance of victory in the 2017 Presidential Election, so perhaps En Marche was formed by the System and Zionists partly in order to head her off.

Macron and those behind him intended to destroy much of what remains in France of “socialist”/social democratic policy as well as the relaxed lifestyle (including restricted business hours, hours of work etc) which is so much part of France’s appeal for those who live there.

Macron conceals his harshness behind a superficially-pleasant manner, but his mask has dropped, repeatedly. He said, for instance, that there are only two types of people, the “important” and the “nothings”. Such words have not been spoken openly in France for many many years. They call to mind 1789 without the cake!

Macron seems to despise the French people and to be sanguine about their replacement by blacks and browns, another thing that links him to Coudenhove-Kalergi, Tony Blair, Angela Merkel (etc) and to the Jewish-Zionist lobby.

There has been a migration-invasion of France and it continues. It was foretold in fiction decades ago, in the book The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail.

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

The French people have woken up to Macron and to the cosmopolitan finance-capitalist globalists behind him. His approval rating was said to be 25% in late 2018, and may now be as low as 15%. 80% of French approve the Gilets Jaunes or Yellow Vests.

What Now?

What happens now is an open question. The Yellow Vests appear to have wide popular support, far beyond the 50,000 who are fighting on the streets, demonstrating, or standing vigil by roads etc. The government is about to take severe and even harsh measures. It remains to be seen whether such measures contain dissent or whether they will ignite an uprising of the poor and middle classes against the wealthy (relatively) few, against the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby, and against the EU and other manifestations of the NWO (New World Order) and ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government).

[Addendum, 10 January 2019: I should add that what may prevent the Yellow Vests from developing beyond a mere protest movement is that they appear, as a group, to have no real ideology and little organized direction (not sure about the latter), but something more organized (in both senses) may develop.

Notes

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

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13500/france-in-free-fall

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1069233/macron-news-yellow-vest-protests-french-police-bullets-luc-ferry-latest-update

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46788751

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2019/01/yellow-vests-won-t-let-emmanuel-macron-take-back-control

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethe%27s_Faust

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_Prize#Recipients

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_(France)

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

bq-5c358d87a25e2

Ecce! The successor to “le roi soleil” Louis XIV, Napoleon, Petain and Charles de Gaulle!

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1081836029563363328

https://gab.com/Anchoress-of-the-Isle/posts/eWNuSjQyc3MwYWovYVBBUm5WcHBSZz09

Update, 17 January 2024

Since the original blog post was published, the Yellow Vests have faded away, and Macron has been re-elected (2022), with 58.55% against Marine le Pen on 41.45%. A good result for Ms. le Pen, but nowhere near good enough.

See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/17/emmanuel-macron-speech-press-conference-education-schooling-changes-screen-time-new-cabinet

ethnostate, historical, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, safe zones, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Globalist Finance-Capital and the Connected MSM “Celebrates” (and Profits from) the Destruction of Our European Society

8 Comments

Foreword

What is written here should be taken in the context of my own belief about historical cycles and in particular that of 33 years. For me, the 33-year cycle is now of great importance. 1923, 1956, 1989, 2022. The last great change in the world took place not so much in as pivoting around the year 1989, and was, in its major effect, the fall of socialism (of all kinds) and its replacement by what might be characterized as globalized finance capitalism. By “socialism”, I mean every kind of socialized socio-political ideology and its practical application.

Soviet socialism and its historical offshoots (whether in China, Albania, Cuba, South-East Asia etc) fell to pieces, replaced by a basically capitalist ethos (sometimes ruled by the same or similar people and even keeping some of the same symbols and slogans, as in China and Cuba).

Soviet-style (Marxist-Leninist) socialism fell, in and after 1989, but it did not fall alone. Social-democratic “socialism” also fell, or just fell apart. Across Western Europe (the same is generally true in Central and Eastern Europe), social-democratic parties have been in decline since 1989.

Socialism, Social-Democracy and Globalist Finance-Capitalism in the UK from 1989

In the UK, the Labour Party erased Clause IV of its Constitution (the clause providing for a socialized society) in 1995. For the next 20 years, the UK Labour Party was not only “socialist” only in implied name, but increasingly also only “social-democratic” in implied name. By 2010, there was virtually no clear water between the Labour and Conservative parties. Both espoused similar globalist finance-capitalist principles, even openly. Indeed, though this blog post is not the place in which to detail it, both Labour and Conservative competed to shout the loudest about how much they loved transnational business and wanted to attract the wealthy and uber-wealthy to the UK, while making a sport of demonizing the poor, the unemployed and disabled, many of whom are reliant on State benefits and services etc.

It may be that the Corbyn phenomenon, resisting going further down the globalist finance-capitalist path, is a sign that that the 1989-2022 era has now run out of steam in the UK, as elsewhere. Much of Corbynism is a nostalgic attempt to go back to the 1970s, but its importance lies not in what it is but in what it is not.

Transnational Enterprises Profiting from Europe

Europe (EU and otherwise) has failed to properly address the profiteering of huge transnational enterprises, whether traditional or Internet-age. They have not been taxed properly or effectively, have played the various European legal and taxing jurisdictions off against each other, and have often treated their employees shabbily.

It should not be forgotten that large-scale capitalist enterprises profit from mass immigration, which provides millions of new consumers, i.e. potential customers, lowers rates of pay, and helps to create, in the American phrase, a “hardscrabble” society which favours finance-capitalism.

It will be recalled that Adolf Hitler referred to “the Aryan ideal of creative work”. As against that, there stand the two pillars of non-Aryan time-employment— on the one hand, various forms of coerced work, ranging from outright slavery to “wage slavery” doing mechanistic labour or running after numbers and/or money; on the other hand, idleness (either unemployment with no cultural or other opportunities and little money, or the luxurious idleness of the decadent wealthy).

Transnational and Other Large Enterprises Promoting the Multiracial Society

There has been a long-term conspiracy to destroy the racial basis of Europe. This goes back at least as far as Coudenhove-Kalergi and his notorious Plan. The international conspiracy is heavily embedded in the so-called “European Union”. One only has to look at the last few years’ “migration-invasion” of Europe. It has been encouraged by all the usual System suspects, from Yvette Cooper and other MPs of the UK, to Angela Merkel, to Jewish groups who have actually organized “aid” to bring “refugees” to the EU and UK! One active example has been the Labour Party “peer” and Jew “lord” Alfred Dubs (an expenses cheat, apart from anything else), who himself came to the UK in 1938 as a child of 6 (his father having bravely fled from Prague and abandoned his family).

There again, when the flow of migrant-invaders was not fast enough for the purposes of the conspiracy, Angela Merkel made her (in fact illegal under EU law) invitation to “refugees” to invade Europe, triggering an even greater and sudden influx from Africa and Asia.

Equally egregiously, we have seen so-called “humanitarian” organizations and actual navies (such as the British) ferrying migrant-invaders to Europe across the Mediterranean. This was presented to the UK/EU public as “rescue at sea” when the reality is that many of the migrant-invaders were picked up by EU naval vessels or those of NGOs only a few miles from the coast of Libya and ferried to Italy, France etc.

There has been a massive campaign in mainland Europe to make the migrant-invaders (mostly young or young-ish men) acceptable, particularly to girls in Germany, Scandinavia etc. Government agencies in Germany, Sweden etc have even put out sex instruction booklets showing cartoon Africans having sex with blonde European girls in various positions! We must be clear about this: this is treason to Europe’s future. The harshest penalties are appropriate. Those who put out such propaganda are evil and must face justice.

Turning to the UK (I do not know whether it applies elsewhere; it probably does), we see that every or every second or third TV ad now shows a mixed-race couple (usually black man with white woman) and/or family, as if that is the norm in the real world. Of course it is not, but it is that kind of demography that is the aim of the thought-manipulators in the msm, ad agencies etc. How many of those are, shall we say, “members of a certain tribe”? Many, to say the least. Such television advertisements do not reflect society as it now is, but attempt to create such a mixed-race society by normalizing the production of mixed-race children, and normalizing the mixed-race family in the collective mindset.

This admixture to the European DNA is justified to fools by the idea that Europeans are not having enough children, so that the “Great Replacement” of Europeans by non-Europeans (via migration-invasion and high birth rate) in Europe is somehow justified. That kind of dummy reasoning leaves out the fact that Europeans are specifically discouraged from having children (especially with each other): promotion of birth-control, abortion, the LGBT-whatever narrative, all of which making it impossible economically — and even socially— for women to be stay-at-home mothers, and making it impossible economically for most European-race men to afford to support a family through paid work.

Resistance

The present situation has to be reversed. Safe zones throughout Europe, leading to the creation of germinal ethnostates, must be part of the solution. After 2022, a New Order will start to arise in Europe. We shall be the masters then.

Notes

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

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/11/tax-big-tech-companies

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Dubs,_Baron_Dubs

 

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

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

5 Comments

First Postulate: Collapse

Many reading this may ask how Europe is going to be in chaos soon. After all, for all its problems, Europe is still one of the best places in the world to live, which is precisely why so many non-Europeans are invading the continent as immigrants of various sorts, so how could it soon be in chaos?

One factor is that very migration-invasion, though it alone, on the scale so far seen, is not quite enough to tip Europe as a whole into chaos. Likewise, the “invasion by birth” to the non-Europeans presently resident in Europe, though it is starting to have a very negative effect on societies across Europe, is a slow and gradual degradation of the racial stock and society, and not something that has an immediate determinative effect.

Another factor is that of social or societal breakdown, the result of alcohol and drug abuse, crime and the loosening bonds of traditional or institutional morality. Again, this does not have an immediate effect on the large scale, but weakens the society gradually. Thus we see, for example, that the wish of individuals to (in the American phrase) “pursue happiness”, or to not be “offended” (even when offence is actually and actively sought in a kind of masochistic game) now often trumps the needs of the society as a whole.

Marriage as an institution (eg in the UK) has been weakened by various “reforms” over the past few decades: the equivalence given to “civil partnership”; the creation of the “gay marriage” which now has exactly the same rights (in the UK) as actual, real or traditional marriage; the financial impossibility for most (heterosexual) married couples to decide that the mother of children should actually look after those children full-time.

Again, freedom of expression on social, political, historical and religious topics, a key pillar of the modern “Western” (racially and culturally European) tradition, is being weakened. Speaking in very general terms, Jews (certainly Zionist Jews) want to prevent free speech where it examines the “holocaust” fakery etc, or where it criticizes the (increasing) Jewish stranglehold over the mass media, publishing, System politics, the financial sector, the legal professions. The Muslims, though less active in repressing free speech than the Jews, wish to prevent criticism of Islam. A multitude of “doormats” in Parliament, the police, central and local government work away trying to repress free speech in the ostensible interest of a “community cohesion” which now scarcely exists.

All of the above are factors to be taken into account, alongside financial and/or economic collapse (which even the mainstream media are now reporting on as a serious short-to medium term likelihood). However, the primary key factor in any general collapse of society in Europe in the near future is likely to be a major war. We have seen an acceleration of rhetoric against Russia by the System political parties and msm in recent years. Any major war in Europe will be between NATO (in reality the New World Order conspiracy or NWO) and Russia.

Russia has been for several years improving its armed forces and still has huge numbers of personnel which it can place in the field. It is no longer weak. Many commentators note the economic weakness of Russia, but that did not stop Stalin from conquering half of Europe. As to who would “want” a war (the other argument often heard), who “wanted” a war in 1914, a war which started or at least was triggered because an Austrian archduke was shot by a semi-literate anarchist youth in one of the least civilized parts of Europe?  For that matter, despite the build-up of tension in the 1930s, war was by no means “inevitable” in 1939. It could have happened in 1938, in 1936, or even in 1934. The worthless “guarantees” extended to Poland by Britain and France primed the gunpowder, but it was the decision by, fundamentally, the British Government (ruled largely by Jews and freemasons) that lit the fuse. War did not have to happen between the German Reich and Britain in 1939. It did happen, though, nicht wahr?

We have become used to the idea that nuclear weapons will never be used, certainly not in Europe. A major conflict in Europe, once triggered, will see everything being used in the end, even if the start of that conflict is conventional. Every UK and US staff college modelling exercise that tried to think about what another major war would be like ended up with the use of conventional forces at first, followed by “tactical” and finally “strategic” nuclear weapons.

What Could Europe Look Like After a Major War?

That depends on how long any conflict lasts, on whether indeed nuclear weapons are used (and on what scale), and on how the war goes. The Chinese position would be crucial, both in terms of the war and in terms of whatever follows the war. Would China wait until NATO –meaning mainly the USA– is devastated, and until Russia too is devastated, and then pick up the pieces? In those circumstances, China could end up ruling most of the present-day Russian Federation as well as states such as Kazakhstan (where I myself spent a year in 1996-97).

In any event, war on any but a small scale would leave Europe’s major cities either destroyed or in a state of chaotic anarchy. The economic dislocation would lead to mass rioting, civil war(s), huge criminality. Then what? Europe is not Haiti, not black Africa. Chaos in Europe is only the harbinger of a new order.

Second Postulate: A New Order Based on European Race and Culture

At time of writing, the non-European racial/ethnic elements in Europe are said to comprise about 3% to 5% of the entire population of the continent (including European Russia). However, this percentage is rapidly increasing via both migration-invasion and invasion-by-birth. There is time to save Europe, but not unlimited time.

In a situation where the formerly-existing power-structures have collapsed and where there is chaos, more or less, a radical and “extreme” solution will find favour. A social-national movement could take power in the various parts of Europe, because the power-structures opposing us will have been weakened or even destroyed. Likewise, the stranglehold of the Jewish-Zionist element over msm, corrupt System politics etc, finance and the rest will be as good as ended. In short, we can do this!

Europe after a major conflict will be without direct help (and direct interference) from a possibly-largely-destroyed United States. It will have to find its own way back and its own way forward. Racial-cultural communities, safe zones, citizens’ militias etc… and from all that, a new order and a new Europe!

Alt-Right, elections, immigration, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, The Great Reset, the Great Reset, Uncategorized, white flight

Society, Politics and the Mental Landscape

5 Comments

It has been proven that to take away the familiar and known from an individual is to disorientate that person. It is a well-practised method of breaking down a prisoner for interrogation, for example (sensory deprivation etc). A less harsh form, usually, is recruit training in armies and similar organizations. However, the same is true in societies generally. When the familiar is taken away, society suffers something akin to a nervous breakdown. The singer Morrissey has commented recently that England now is little more than a memory.

In the UK, we have seen how society was already struggling with the importation of millions of immigrants even before 1997, when the Tony Blair Zionist government (ZOG puppet government) took power. It is now a matter of record that a deliberate decision was taken by the Tony Blair government to import further millions of immigrants, mostly non-Europeans, in order to destroy Britain as it has been and to a limited extent still is; to destroy the racial and cultural roots and foundations of our country. White genocide.

That policy, spearheaded by two corrupt Jews, Phil Woolas and Barbara Roche (both now removed from Parliament), has been successful. Britain is now, at least in part, an ethno-social dustbin. The millions imported have been breeding, prolifically. Recent reports and studies estimate that the UK will become majority non-white by 2050. If one takes England alone, the date can probably be reduced to around 2040. Already, some English cities are English in name and history only or are getting that way: London is already majority non-white (native-born population: 44%), Birmingham and Manchester are rapidly following (57% and 66%), while smaller cities such as Leicester and Bradford are already, like London, mainly non-white.

The above ethno-cultural changes have destabilized the national mental landscape. The change has been accompanied by a propaganda campaign stealthily making use of “soaps” and TV advertizing. The mixed-race family is presented as the norm. Even Midsomer Murders, the archetypal Middle England comedy-drama detective series, was forced, after criticism, to put blacks and browns into the cast lists. This is (as with TV ads) not really reflective of reality but the creation of a new “reality”. Social engineering.

The wrenching apart of the accepted “mental landscape” does not end with the racial-cultural question. It is far wider. It includes the gratuitous renaming of commercial and trade union organizations. Thus the old trade unions, with their easy to understand names and functions, have become amorphous huge conglomerations with names that mean little, such as “Unison”, “Unite” etc, and have abandoned their members’ interests to pursue a politically-correct agenda involving “anti-racism”, “anti-sexism”, promotion of mass immigration etc.

In the same way that the trade unions have been corrupted, so commercial enterprises have been renamed and somehow displaced. Norwich Union insurance becomes “Aviva”, and so on.

The result of this dislocation of the mental landscape on the large scale has been the rupturing of the connection between the people as a whole and the mainstream political parties. The Conservative Party, which once had a membership in the millions, now numbers only a few tens of thousands and is still sliding. Labour, which was going the same way, has recovered under Corbyn to about 450,000, but its popular vote has not recovered. The Liberal Democrats are a very small party in terms of both members and votes. UKIP too has fallen back, in its case to almost nothing, but the fact that it briefly mushroomed into a threat to the older parties indicates that the voters are no longer anchored to System parties. However, a non-System party credible enough to come to the fore has not yet emerged.

Another symptom of the mental-landscape dislocation is seen in the notionally “nationalist” direct-action operations carried out by the “lone wolf” dissidents. The highest profile case is probably that of Thomas Mair, who killed Jo Cox MP a few years ago. In his case, the sheer dislocation suffered by society seems to have triggered a determination to make a point through forceful action.

More significantly, the lack of secure anchorings in society may lead to a volatile political milieu in which a social-national party could be formed, become popular and then move to attain power within a relatively few years.

Alt-Right, Brexit, elections, ethnostate, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

A Floor or a Ceiling?

Leave a comment

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.

Alt-Right, Defence, ethnostate, historical, historical revisionism, Jewish lobby in UK, Russia and Russian relations, society, Uncategorized

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.

Alt-Right, animal welfare, Brexit, ethnostate, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, prepping, Russia and Russian relations, society, Threefold Social Order, Uncategorized

A New Civilization For Eurasia

1 Comment

From the defeat of the German Reich in 1945, which destroyed, at least temporarily, the idea of Central Europe (and so split Europe between East and West, symbolically in Berlin itself), an international order comprising such organizations as the IMF, World Bank, United Nations Organization etc has been the skeleton of the “West”.

The “East”, meaning the Marxist-Leninist world of the Soviet Union, China and their offshoots, fell to pieces after 1989. The present necessity for both Europe/Eurasia and the world in general, is for, not the faked-up and largely Zionist-controlled “New World Order” made public by the first President Bush in 1990, but a REAL New Order which will be a synthesis of the best of the former and existing ideologies (National Socialism, “private enterprise” capitalism, socialism/communism), together with and held together by an acceptance of the general principles of Rudolf Steiner’s Threefold Social Order (cf. the works of Valentin Tomberg et al).

This will be a social order which reconciles the superficially conflicting demands of social cohesion (collectivity) and individual human rights (individuality). Spiritually, the new social matrix will accept the right of every individual to his or her own spiritual path, while protecting the right of society as a whole not to be placed under the tyranny of any particular religion.

Geographically, the new social order will be based in, though not limited to, Northern Europe and Russia/Siberia. Ethnically, the new civilization will be based on, but not limited to, those of White Northern European racial background. The important factor will be culture and not race; however, race must, for many centuries, play its important part as foundation for the new society.

I call upon all those interested in the future of Europe and the world to come together in this enterprise.