Category Archives: Party Politics

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.



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.

Corbyn and the Jew-Zionist “Claque”

In the past couple of years and particularly the past couple of months, I have blogged about Corbyn and the Labour Party, and the attack on both by the Jewish-Zionist element (including some MPs who are not actually Jewish but who are part of the “depose Corbyn” plot(s)). Now we have seen about a month or so of highest-level abuse and “active measures” by that Zionist lobby and against Corbyn and the Labour Party he leads. The allegations of “anti-Semitism” and “pro-terrorism” are in every MSM newspaper every day and are frequently on TV, radio etc. I wonder why?…

Leaving aside rhetorical questions, we see that, as I predicted, the anti-Corbyn campaign this time is not slackening much. “They” know that their star is waning. Their one hope is to depose Corbyn and the one way left to do that is to get him to resign. The other methods have already been tried— a coup by MPs, then a second attempt. Those failed and then Corbyn’s success in at least having dozens of new MPs elected at the 2017 General Election cemented him into position as Leader. The “anti-Semite Corbyn” campaign by the Jewish-controlled and/or influenced msm may have been part of the reason why as many as 50,000 Labour members and supporters have recently left the party, but that still leaves Labour with at least 500,000 members and maybe as many as 540,000. That compares to 124,000 reported by the Conservative Party (though many think that the real figure is as low as 50,000).

In the Vienna theatres and concert-halls of the 19thC, as well as those of Paris and elsewhere, there was a well-organized “claque”:

The Zionist-controlled msm as a whole is rather like the “claque”. One could include in that claque connected Jews on Twitter, most of whom are members or supporters of the malicious “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” fake “charity”.

The opinion polls at present (August 2018) show the two major System parties close together in popular support, though Labour may have a slight edge again now, as the constant anti-Corbyn propaganda becomes counter-productive.

The Zionist Jews are appalled, having thought that their constant propaganda on msm would cause a huge dip in support for Labour and so build pressure on Corbyn to resign or face yet another leadership bid from some pro-Zionist doormat. The failed and laughed-at plotters of the recent past, such as Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna and little Stephen Kinnock are still at it, plotting in luxury farmhouses against their own party.

In the end, what the Zionists fear is that Corbyn and Labour will be thoroughly labelled as “anti-Semitic” yet go on to win the next general election, thus proving that the people themselves are sick of the Jewish-Zionist element.

What does this all mean for social nationalism? A weak government under Corbyn (who is unlikely to win an outright majority) can only favour us. Labour members, supporters, voters will blame the Zionists (not unfairly) for having put Labour down. On the other hand, a Conservative Party government (probably also minority) will be the focus of mass hostility, along with its Zionist controllers.

I doubt that Corbyn will resign, for all the pressure put on him. He has come too far against all the odds. That favours us, overall, because in the end, it means that the Zionists will not control both main System parties.

The British people will need an effective and social-national government.

Gott mit Uns.


Could A New Party Triumph?

We are now hearing speculation about part of the UK Labour Party splitting off and forming a new so-called “centrist” party: pro-Israel, pro-Jewish lobby, Blairite. Washed-up ex-Labour MP (still clinging on as “independent” MP for the salary, expenses, pension and gratuity rights, and freebies) John Woodcock made a doomed-to-fail plea for such a party recently.

The fact is that only those expelled from Labour or about to be will join Woodcock. Electoral reality is that Corbyn and his supporters retain and will retain the name “Labour” and all its worldly goods, including name-recognition. True, Labour has in recent decades done some very bad things, such as importing millions of blacks and browns with the deliberate aim of destroying white British (there is no other British) society. However, Labour is still living, electorally, off the hump of the creation of the NHS, and other more positive policies of the increasingly remote past.

In other words, Corbyn and his people will stand at the next general election as “Labour” and will be elected or otherwise on that basis. Even if the rebels can organize themselves into “Labour Centre” or some such in the years or, probably, months before that next general election, few if any will be elected in a contest where huge numbers of voters just look at the label: “Labour”, “Conservative” etc, even though the real or original Labour and Conservative parties disappeared decades ago.

What about some other and completely new party? In France, Macron started “his” own party, En Marche, but Macron is merely a figurehead for ZOG and the New World Order [NWO]. Rothschilds bankrolled Macron. His “pop-up” party was not a grassroots upsurge but as manufactured and marketed as sliced bread. Still, the success of En Marche in getting elected was a pointer to the fading popularity of the old System parties.

In the UK, the same frustration and anger fuelled, first, the BNP in the decade up to 2010 and then, up to 2015, the “nationalism-lite” UKIP. Only the semi-rigged British FPTP electoral system saved Labour and Conservative from a devastating UKIP upsurge. On a proportional voting basis, UKIP would not have had 1 MP in 2015 but, at minimum, 70 MPs. In fact, because voters would know that their UKIP votes were not wasted under a pr voting system, UKIP might well have received twice the number of votes that it actually did (nearly 4 million) and so would have ended up with as many as 150 MPs.

All that is water under the bridge now, but there was a recent opinion poll which indicated (though in other words) that about 38% of UK voters would be willing to vote for a generally nationalist pro-Brexit new party and that 24% would, right now, be willing to vote for an “anti-immigration” and “far right” party. I have always fought the use of the misleading “far right”, “right”, “centre”, “left”, “far left” spectrum terminology, but there it is.

It is clear to me that there is a possibility for a truly social-national party to succeed in the UK and particularly in England (and Wales too, probably). It would have to be set up on a very strict and disciplined basis, with power centralized, though an organizational structure of regions might also work. Anything too “democratic” just lets in the forces of opposition: well-funded Jewish Zionist attacks etc, leading to splits. We have seen that in the National Front, British National Party and UKIP.

The party I envisage must be financially secure through its own members, simply and clearly organized, and ideologically clear. Such a party would, in the chaotic conditions ahead, be able to position itself for a bid at national leadership.