All posts by Ian Millard

I have been a voice crying in the wilderness, but I sense now that the people will soon be ready to listen, in the UK and across Europe. Born in the English county of Berkshire and brought up both there and in Sydney, Australia, I have had a varied and sometimes challenging life. I could not list all the jobs I have done, from the most basic labouring and menial work through to advising international enterprises and appearing as a barrister in the courts of England, including the High Court. I have lived and/or worked in numerous countries, including the USA (where I qualified as attorney at the Bar of the State of New York), France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Egypt (and other parts of the Middle East), Turkey and the Caribbean. Many reading this will be aware that in October 2016 I was disbarred (in England), after a Jewish Zionist pressure group made official complaint about me (in 2014) to the Bar Standards Board. The complaint related to 7 tweets (out of, at the time, about 155,000) which I tweeted from my Twitter account (@ianrmillard). I shall write about the Kafkaesque process which led eventually to my disbarment in more detail on the blog, though only to clear the air and to lay out the full facts omitted from the accounts given by the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Independent, Huffington Post, Metro etc. My main aim in blogging is to comment on current events and trends; also, even more importantly, to put forward ideas and policies for a new or better society. I disparage the terms "left" or "left wing", "right", "far right" etc. These are outdated and, in an era in which politics is becoming more nuanced in the UK, Europe and elsewhere, misleading. The same applies to terms such as "Nazi", "neo-Nazi" etc. Speaking for myself, while there was much that was valuable and good in the work of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP and in German "volkisch" politics generally, there is no need to defend everything that every National Socialist did from 1933-1945. The National Socialists were fighting the horrifying Stalinist version of socialism and, also, the debt-oriented finance-capitalism of the "West". That fight was both necessary and honourable. The fight now moves to the needs of the 21st Century. For me, the template for the new society is contained, in outline, in the Threefold Social Order first explained after the First World War by that great genius Rudolf Steiner. I urge all British people to join the struggle for national freedom. There are dark forces, often posing as "good", which must be vanquished.

UK System Parties Struggle For Relevance


The next UK general election must be held by mid-2022 at latest. Pundits have suggested every time between Autumn 2018 and that date. I myself incline to the view that the next general election will be in late 2018 or Spring 2019, but I have no great faith either way.

What interest me are the prospects for social nationalism and I assess them, at present, as close to zero, assuming a general election in 2018 or 2019. Why? Primarily because there is not only no credible social national party, but in effect no social national party at all.


What is left of UKIP is being pushed as a fake “alternative” by those who have no interest in actually having a social national government in the UK: conservative “nationalists”; “alt-right” “social media” weirdos (who never criticize Israel or the Jewish Zionist lobby, or put forward any policies for a better society) such as “Prison Planet” Watson and “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin; as well as various others who actually wish to prevent a social national movement developing.

Does UKIP have any chance of resurgence if, for instance, Brexit turns out to be a fraud (as seems likely)? If what is meant by “resurgence” is an increase, perhaps even a doubling or tripling, of its vote percentage, yes; if what is meant is a breakthrough and the election of a bloc of UKIP MPs, no.

At present, after 25 years of activity, UKIP has no Westminster MPs (out of 650), 2 members of the London Assembly (out of 25), and 4 members of the Welsh Assembly (out of 60), as well as 17 MEPs (out of 73 in the British contingent). The last will of course disappear next year even on a nominal Brexit. In 2015, UKIP managed a Westminster vote of 12.6%, which fell back to 1.8% in 2017. In order to get back to the 2015 position, UKIP would have to increase its vote 7-fold (and even then probably be unable to get even one single MP elected).

UKIP has been a winner for the System: it took votes and attention away from the BNP prior to 2010 and has taken the wind out of the sails of social nationalism by, to mix metaphors, diverting the waters of popular discontent angry at mass immigration, the EU, globalism etc. All that popular discontent was diverted into a “safe” channel– not “anti-Semitic” and, in fact, not really even anti-immigration. UKIP after 2010 fielded numbers of ethnic minority candidates. At one point, the favoured candidate to take over the party leadership was one Steven Woolfe MEP, of both Jewish and “African-American” descent. Woolfe had become an MEP in 2014 (UKIP’s peak year) after having come third (with only 13% of the vote) in the North West, which result points to the essentially shallow support that UKIP had even at its peak.

As to the small parties trying to swim in nationalist waters, none has any weight or credibility.

For Britain

“For Britain”, the narcissism vehicle of Irish lesbian ex-secretary Anne Marie Waters, is an anti-Islam one-trick-pony and one, er, woman band, pretty much. Not only has it few members (at an educated guess a hundred or so), but its popular support is effectively non-existent: leader Ms. Waters managed a derisory 1.2% (266 votes) at the Lewisham by-election of 2018, coming 7th in the poll. “For Britain” actually expelled a local election candidate because of alleged links to both National Action and Generation Identity. To make matters worse, that information had come from the partly-Zionist-funded “Hope Not Hate” “antifa” snoop-group. The conclusion is obvious: from every point of view, “For Britain” is a waste of space.

Britain First

Britain First is the most important broadly supposedly nationalist party and is said to have perhaps 1,000 members. It is not, to my mind, credibly social-national, being pro-Israel and expressing support for Jews in the UK. Its leaders are not known for intelligence or cultural depth. Its actions, such as invasion of mosques, throwing bacon at mosques etc are little removed from a Monty Python level of tactics and activity. It has done abysmally in all elections contested to date and in fact has (since 2017) been deregistered as a political party. Another waste of space from an electoral point of view.


All other “nationalist” parties and groups (English Democrats, the rumps of the British National Party and National Front etc) are tiny and not worthy of consideration. One possible exception is Generation Identity, but that is not a political party. Other small but non-nationalist parties and groups are of no importance.

System Parties

It is clear that the next general election will be fought among the long-established System parties. Even UKIP will play only a walk-on role: its likely vote of 1% or 2% is unlikely to make an electoral impression in any but the few most marginal seats.

Conservative Party

The Conservative Party can now be characterized as “donkeys led by donkeys”, with not a lion in sight, unless is included the moth-eaten toy lion called Boris Johnson. The Conservative Party’s best electoral argument is that it is not the Labour Party.

Britain teeters on the brink of social breakdown. The “Conservative” governments since 2010 have slashed spending on police, the legal and justice systems, social security, housing etc. In the past, “law and order” was the Conservative Party’s trump card. Now all that is left is a barrage of empty words.

Who now votes Conservative as a natural thing? The few percent of very wealthy individuals? The –maybe– 25% of the population who are relatively affluent? Buy-to-let parasites? I get a sense that formerly loyal groups —pensioners, ex-military, Brexit supporters, anti-immigration small-c conservatives, suburban homeowners— are deserting the Conservative Party in droves. They may not vote Labour or even LibDem, but are not going to make much effort to vote Conservative. If the Conservatives are only going to get their core 25%-30% vote out, they are in trouble.


Labour is damaged by being seen (and all the more under Corbyn) as the party of mass immigration, though that is not entirely fair: the Conservatives first triggered the post-1945 immigration trickle that became a flood much later; the Conservatives have presided over enormous volumes of immigration, most obviously since 2010 (despite  –again– empty words against the invasion). In fact, the Labour Party that deliberately imported millions of non-white immigrants was that of Tony Blair, not that of Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour’s strength is that its present policies, such as rail nationalization, utilities regulation, building social housing etc, resonate with a population that has seen living standards fall for a decade.

Labour may lose 30 seats in the 2022 boundary changes, but 2022 seems a long way off at present…

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems were mortally wounded by joining with the Conservatives in the 2010-2015 Con Coalition. At present, their only strength is that some voters in the South of England will vote LibDem rather than Conservative, when they would not vote Labour.

The LibDems presently have 12 MPs, but the boundary changes set for 2022 will cost them as many as 8 seats. The LibDems have been there before, but not for many decades and that was in a political milieu where the typical election in a constituency would be a three-way split; now five or six parties, plus minor and joke candidates, contend. If the LibDems lose 8 seats, that will be close to the end. It was noticeable that their recent Conference was attended almost exclusively by the over-60s and indeed over-70s.


If a general election is held in 2018 or 2019, the likely result is a hung Parliament, probably with Labour as the largest party. If a social national party can be founded within the next two years, it has every chance of attaining power within a decade.



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

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!

There Should Have Been An Honourable Peace in 1939 or 1940

The Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Phoney War

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


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

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

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

Give Them An Inch And They Take A Mile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rift in the Labour Party Deepens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour, the Jews and the British Resistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I Hope That Labour Splits

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

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

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

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

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

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