Category Archives: society

Aspects of the New Society

Political and economic organization

The basic template will be taken from the guidance given by the great mind of Rudolf Steiner, in his Threefold Social Order, sometimes called the Threefold Social Organism or simply Social Threefolding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_threefolding.

In other words, the key is finding the right relationship between the functioning of the economy (fundamentally private rather than State-run) and the rights of citizens. That does not mean that a few strategic economic areas or enterprises, or those of direct impact on the population (eg some utility companies, some railways etc) can never be State-owned or at least heavily State-regulated.

Population

An advanced society cannot be built on a backward population. The UK and other European societies of the future can only exist and advance if at least fundamentally European. The mass immigration from outside Europe has been disastrous and has greatly set back (especially Western and Central) Europe and, therefore, the world. However, we are where we are. We cannot say “10% of our population is non-European and so we cannot create a better society”. It has to be admitted that at some level, the non-European population within the general population might be so numerous that society can only decline or collapse. Tipping-points exist. The UK may not be very far from that tipping-point now. Certainly the major cities are close to it. For the purposes of this blog post, though, we must just keep in mind that there is an iron necessity for a (fundamentally) European population.

Education

According to the principles of the Threefold Social Order, education is within the spiritual-cultural sphere. It should be run neither by the State nor for private profit. That is not to say that it should not be regulated or unable to accept private monies via fees etc. It should not be taxed but accepted as having charitable or at least non-profit status.

It might be objected that, in the UK, private education tends to perpetuate social differences. There is some truth in that, but not much. The major drivers of inequality (apart from race and culture) are those of family capital and income. The education of children is rather a red herring in terms of the equality-inequality debate. There is also the point that parents (and children themselves) have the right to choose. The fact that choice may be rationed by available money does not destroy that right, but challenges both the State and society as a whole to make the means available to support educational choice.

The whole concept of the university “degree” should be looked at. This is a mediaeval concept which has probably outlived its usefulness. Bachelor, Master, Doctor, these have more in common with the Europe of Nostradamus than the Europe of 2017. In the UK, the true value of a university degree has been lowered (indeed rendered in some cases valueless) by award inflation and the mere fact that half the population now has some kind of degree.

Methods and conditions of work

The citizen must be protected from exploitation. That is a primary duty of the State. That means that maximum hours must be laid down. There might be flexibility within that, for example by laying down a weekly maximum of hours (say, 40 hours, but it might be 35 or even 30) but permitting the employer/employee to agree how those hours should be fulfilled within the working week: 5 x 8, or 4 x 10, even 3 x 13.33, or a work-week split into different hours on different days.

There is an argument to keep at least one day, traditionally of course Sunday, relatively free from work and commercial activities. There must be a rhythm to the week and a fallow day promotes that. Obviously, there are exceptions which would have to exist.

Basic Income

Robotics, computerization, automation are developments, the advantages of which are going mainly to a few within society. At the same time, they are destroying, for many, work as a way of getting even a basic living (in the UK, this was recognized years ago and led to the introduction of Working Tax Credits etc). The nexus between work and pay is dissolving.

The answer is the introduction of a measure of “basic income” not in any way dependent upon or conditional upon work done, availability for work etc. In that way, most of the expensive bureaucracy around social security or “welfare” can be eliminated: large buildings in every town, huge numbers of low-grade staff doing repetitive work processing applications, snooping  on and monitoring claimants etc. Whether a basic system should have tested aspects added for disability etc is a matter for debate. As to the amount of money given, again a matter for discussion. Perhaps £10,000 or £15,000 per person per year on present values.

In the UK, Basic State Pension is a form of Basic Income which already exists. Child Benefit is another form of Basic Income. Neither are conditional upon the income or capital earned or held by the recipient.

Contrary to what many still believe, basic income has the potential to free “entrepreneurship”, volunteering and ordinary “work more to get more” within the working-age population.

Transport

Here we are hostages to technology. It may be that driverless cars will soon exist in large numbers. It may be that lighter-than-air craft will be brought into service on a scale hitherto unknown. We do not know for sure. As matters stand, it seems clear that new initiatives are required in the field of railways (including driverless, light, ultralight and miniature), as well as wide canals for passenger and freight transport. There are trains in tubes being developed in the USA which may travel at 800 mph. All one can do is keep open to the future of transport while suggesting suitable policy for now.

Religion or spiritual belief

Religion should be (and is, in more advanced parts of the world) a question of individual choice. It is not for the State, or a dominant theocracy, to lay down what a citizen should believe or adhere to. However, that does not mean that the State cannot regulate or ban certain practices of religious groups. Thus toleration of religion as such need not import toleration of backward practices such as genital mutilation.

Conclusion

These few paragraphs are not meant to be a comprehensive manifesto but a springboard for ideas.

If Scotland Becomes “Independent”, Will England Be A One-Party State?

Analysis

There now seems at least a possibility (again) that Scotland might withdraw from the United Kingdom. Leaving aside what “Independence” means for Scotland in this context, let us examine what it means in practical political terms for England and the rest of the British Isles.

The present House of Commons has 650 Members (to be reduced to 600, possibly by 2020). 330 are Conservatives, 230 Labour (229+1 vacant seat last held by Labour), SNP 54, Liberal Democrats 9, Democratic Unionist 8, Sinn Fein 4 (in abstention; do not vote), Plaid Cymru 3, SDLP 3, Ulster Unionists 2, UKIP 1, Green 1, “Independent” 4 (being MPs such as Simon Danczuk who have had the whip withdrawn), Speaker 1.

It will be seen that while the present Conservative majority is notionally 11 (leaving aside the Speaker, who votes only when there is a tie), Sinn Fein do not attend or vote, so the real majority is 15.

If Scotland leaves the Union, the 650 MPs in the House of Commons will have their number reduced by 59, of which 54 are SNP, 2 SNP  MPS but who are suspended (and under police investigation) and 3 LibLabCon (1 each). It can be seen that, on the pure mathematical basis, that would mean that the Conservatives would have, on present figures, 329, with all other MPs (except Sinn Fein and the Speaker) numbering 257: Conservative majority 72.

Most of the Westminster seats presently occupied by SNP MPs were, until 2015, Labour seats, so it can be seen what a mountain Labour would have to climb to replicate its Commons strength or anything like it were Scotland to break away from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

That, however, is not the end of Labour’s catastrophe. The reduction of Commons seats from 650 to 600 is expected to reduce Labour numbers by as much as 30 in any case and to almost wipe out the Liberal Democrats. If that were to be so and if the 59 Scottish MPs were not there, then the Commons would be 541 and might be about 310 Conservative, 200 Labour, 26 others (plus Sinn Fein -4- and the Speaker). Effective Conservative majority of 74.

Labour is at present polling at about 25%. There is no obvious reason why Labour should do markedly better any time soon and certainly none to expect a vote percentage much above 30%. That would, on the new boundaries, probably give Labour about 150 seats, possibly far fewer. It is not impossible that Labour could end up with as few as 100 seats out of 541. However, even if Labour were to have 150 seats out of 541 (effectively, out of 536), that would make Labour little more than a niche party, albeit with the title “the Opposition”.

The existence of the SNP in the House of Commons gives declining Labour the hope that the next general election might provide at least the possibility for a Labour minority government of some kind, with tacit SNP support, assuming that Labour could at least somewhat improve its position electorally. Without SNP MPs in the Commons, that slim hope is dashed and Labour broken with it.

Speculation and Hope

If, sometime around 2020, the Conservative Party has maybe 350 MPs in a 541-MP post-boundary changes, post-Scottish Independence, post-Brexit House of Commons, England (plus Wales etc) becomes a one-party state in all but name. Elected dictatorship. The only hope then for positive change will be the emergence of a new movement based on social nationalism, the only ideology which can unite England as a country and as a people, meaning at least the 85+% who are white Northern Europeans, together with those willing to accept European culture.

The Way Forward for Social Nationalism in the UK

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

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

“The Decisive Point”

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

The Gaining of Political Power in the UK

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

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

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

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

The Party

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

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

Elections

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

Safe Zones

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

The Decisive Time

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Matters

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

The Internet: Privatization of Public Spaces

I have been concerned for some years about how “public space” on the Internet is really just privately-owned space. Offline, there are sometimes concerns raised about how parks and other spaces, which are usually open to the public, are made less than fully open to the public by the imposition of charges, fees or conditions. In fact, there have in the past often been fees and conditions imposed on entry to parks etc, but in those cases those unable or unwilling to comply could go elsewhere. That is not always so online.

In the offline world, there are public markets and competition between marketplaces in various ways. Online, though the same may be true superficially, the reality is that a few key players operate in a quasi-monopolistic manner. Facebook, Twitter, ebay, Amazon have little real competition. The private individual is granted access to these spaces essentially at the will or whim of the proprietor. If expelled, the individual has no redress save appeal (and not by right) to the website itself. There are no means to go to law to enforce re-admittance, because the relationship between the website and the individual is one based on contract and the contractual power lies with the website.

Taking Amazon and intruding a personal note to make the argument more concrete, for 2 or 3 years (up to 2011 or 2012) I reviewed books on Amazon (at one time I owned over 2,000 books and bought one every few days). I was on the Amazon UK “Top 100 reviewers” list and the vast majority of those who voted or commented liked my reviews and found them helpful. Very few hated what I wrote but one of that tiny handful (literally about 3 or 4 people) was a Jew who objected to some of my reviews because they examined events 1933-45 from a revisionist (truth-seeking) perspective. This person trolled virtually every review I wrote, “commenting” sarcastically on each, insulting me as well as my reviews, trying to bait me to argue with him (with the obvious idea of then screaming “antisemitism!” and “hate speech” and getting me chucked off Amazon, of course. “They” do the same on Twitter etc).

After about 2 years, the aforesaid Jew (who, by the way, operated under a pseudonym, as the same sort of trolls often do on Twitter) managed to interest the Jewish Chronicle in his complaint. The Jewish Chronicle wrote about my reviews, the attention resulting in my being barred from reviewing books on Amazon. About a third of my reviews were removed. Oddly enough, those reviews were removed en bloc. Most had nothing to do with the 1933-1945 era, National Socialism, Jews, Israel etc. There was no possibility of appeal, not even to the site itself.

I then started to review books on the American Amazon site. The same occurred before long, except that this time the same Jew must have contacted Amazon directly after complaining about me under my reviews (all of them…), because all of those reviews on the US site disappeared overnight and I was barred without warning. No appeal, no explanation. So much for American “free speech”!

The above illustrates the problem. While there are other online booksellers, some of which allow reviews, in the end the reviewer, the citizen, is there as guest of the website and can be chucked off at any time. Amazon’s position is quasi-monopolistic, yet it is not merely a retailer but a provider of what amounts to a public intellectual forum.

Twitter is the same: if someone is barred from Twitter, he is effectively muzzled, his right of freedom of expression taken away. He has no redress (though Twitter itself does give a possibility of appeal). It is not good enough to say that “other sites exist”. Twitter is in a global quasi-monopolistic position.

Tellingly, the Zionists and others (but mostly Zionists) often make the point that barring someone from Facebook, Twitter etc is not an attack on free speech because those sites are “private platforms” and can get rid of unwanted authors at will.

The privatization of public online space is wrong. The solution is to give the citizen a legal right to appeal against removal from any website which has more than x number of users or subscribers. The present situation is an unwarranted extension of the economic sphere into the sphere of law and rights.

Free Speech: Individuality and Collectivity

Rudolf Steiner often spoke of the ever-increasing individualism in our age (that period which he named the “Fifth Post-Atlantean Age”, which started around 1400 AD and is due to run until about 3500 AD). This is an inevitable continuing process and will bring many benefits if people are guided by conscience. However, if people are not guided by individual conscience, the forces of the individual will tear apart society.

Against the forces of individualism stands “society”, which encompasses law, unwritten “laws” of convention and expectation and also the powers of the State (which holds itself out as the concrete expression of the people as a whole).

Society is, of course, a good thing. In proper measure, it makes possible and supports such aspects of life as law, public order, organized help for the sick, disabled, elderly, poor etc. It is a structure which supports the family, too. It also provides, via the State,  the structure for defence against outside forces (hostile states, natural calamities etc). However, if taken too far, society and/or the State becomes oppression, involving the repression of individual liberty in various ways (most obviously, perhaps, suppression of free speech or other freedom of expression).

Society restricts freedom of speech. It is hard to imagine a society beyond the most primitive or germinal in which complete freedom of speech exists (eg spoken or written threats against the person). On the other hand, when society (the State, or perhaps a religious or political cult) prevents individual expression, reasonable restriction becomes unreasonable repression. One thinks, perhaps, of the more extreme socialist states of the 20th Century, such as the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao Tse-Tung, Albania under Enver Hoxha, Cuba under Fidel Castro. The same was true of anti-socialist tyrannies such as Nicaragua under Somoza.

Particular emergency conditions may lead to a temporary tightening of what is regarded as acceptable free speech. In the Second World War, the various combatants restricted free speech considerably. In the UK, those who spoke out against the war or government policy faced both prosecution (State) and persecution (society generally). Even the USA, with its famous Constitutional safeguards, clamped down on freedom of expression.

As in other fields of life, we can see that the tension between the demands of the individual qua individual and those of the collective results in what amounts to a compromise. It is a question of either where society (in practice, usually the State, but possibly a smaller community such as a town or even a family) decides where the line is drawn, or where the individual draws the line, based on conscience or preference and regardless of where the State and/or society has drawn it.

Most people, most of the time, obey the dictates of the collective. Were that not so, law could not exist except as a facade with nothing behind it (cf. Stalin’s Russia etc); neither could the State or its power, in the end. On the other hand, the individual must always obey conscience and it therefore becomes vital to distinguish between individual conscience and individual wilfulness or egoism. No outside force can decide what is conscience and what is wilfulness or egoism. The individual, the individual human soul, is the only judge or arbiter here. Where the individual and the collective collide, the results can range from martyrdom of the individual to reform or even revolution affecting the collective.

Where do I myself, as both individual and citizen (i.e. part of the collective) draw the line? For me, freedom of expression about social, political and historical matters should be absolute. Other forms of expression (eg threats, libels, fraudulent misrepresentations) can be (and commonly are) restricted to a greater or lesser extent.

It follows from the above that I prefer the approach taken in the United States to that of most EU states (including the UK). Restrictions on freedom of expression are often imposed for or from outwardly “good” motives, but rapidly become a slippery slope with evil results. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Notes

  1.  http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Simplicity or Excess?

The spectrum stretching from simplicity through moderation to excess is perennial. Even today, people use Sparta, Athens and Corinth (or, sometimes, Babylon) to illustrate the different lifestyles and societies pertaining to each. In the past, societies have had to enact sumptuary laws in times of economic prosperity, in order to restrain the outward show of wealth by the rich or by those with wealth but who were not also of high social rank.

It is not necessary to go back to ancient Sparta to find societies where a drab uniformity or conformity has been enforced. The socialist societies of the 20th century were cases in point: China, from 1949 to –roughly– 1989, with its hundreds of millions dressed superficially identically in Mao suits (though in fact small differences such as the materials used or the tailoring still indicated rank or status), was the template. Other examples were Albania, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge etc. To a lesser extent, the Soviet Union and its satellites. Those societies have passed into history now.

The opposite idea, the society of excess or of conspicuous consumption, is the dominant mode at present. Indeed, some of the “worst” (least aesthetic?) expressions of excess are to be seen in precisely those countries so long repressed into austere uniformity, such as China, where it is now not uncommon to see people who are able to spend hundreds or thousands of pounds on a single car and millions of pounds on a house or apartment.

The wealth generated by globalized capitalism, by computerization, automation, robotics etc has resulted in a global class of “owners” whose everyday excess is in stark contrast to the lives of the vast majority: private jets and helicopters, massive motor “yachts” the size of ocean liners, multiple houses and estates, very expensive cars etc. The wealthiest resident of London is said to be a Ukrainian Jew worth somewhere around £15 BILLION. Fifteen thousand million pounds. When one considers what a sum of even one million pounds means to the average British citizen, that sort of figure is put into perspective.

On a lower but still opulent level are the “celebrity” TV faces etc, often better known than the ultra-rich. Occasionally, their financial level is spotlighted by a news report, as when the Sky News person Kay Burley was reported to have spent a few hundred pounds on a bottle of wine in a restaurant.

Somewhere in the middle, between severity and excess, we have a society where moderation does not become austerity and where comfort does not slide into decadence. Where that is, is not always easy to say. What might be regarded as great comfort to many would seem like pinched poverty to, say, a Donald Trump, to a “Russian” Jew oligarch or, a fortiori, to the King of Saudi Arabia or the Sultan of Qatar.

In the societies of Scandinavia, it has long been thought socially-unacceptable to flaunt wealth; the same could be said of Switzerland. The same was so in the Roman Republic before it became the Roman Empire notorious for decadent excess.

It is necessary, of course, to distinguish between wealth and the outward show of wealth. However, both should, ideally, be moderated, in the interests of social cohesion and, indeed, social functioning.

Basic Income will moderate poverty; caps on income, capital and landowning will moderate both excessive wealth and the flaunting show of wealth. The society of the future will not be one of a few wealthy people and a large number of poor people; neither can it be one of enforced uniformity. It must be a society in which everyone has enough and some have more than enough but without thereby being or seeming vulgar.

The Labour Vote and the Effects of Insecurity and Mass Psychology in UK Politics Today

At present, across the advanced world, there is starting a political ferment. In the UK, attention has been focussed on the EU Referendum, Brexit, mass immigration and the economy. The backdrop for all that has been the decline of popular support for System parties in general and the Labour Party in particular.

There have been two contrasting by-elections recently: Richmond Park; Sleaford and North Hykeham. One, a very pro-Remain constituency which has only ever had Liberal Democrat or (one, Zac Goldsmith) Conservative MPs; in the other, Leave captured 62% of the Referendum vote in a constituency which has never had anything other than Conservative MPs. In both of these by-elections, the Labour vote bombed.

I have blogged about the results of both by-elections: Richmond Park

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/thoughts-on-the-richmond-park-by-election/;

Sleaford and North Hykeham

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/the-sleaford-by-election-post-poll-view/.

We hear various reasons put forward as to why the UK Labour Party is not gaining or regaining the support of the people. Some blame Corbyn and his ideology and connections; others make the valid point that Labour support was sliding even before Corbyn became leader. Labour did poorly in both 2010 and 2015 General Elections.

I should like to put forward the following idea: that Labour is sliding in public esteem and support for a more basic reason than ideology or even perceived competence. Labour is sliding because the people generally have no faith in its power or even willingness to protect them.

A primary function of the State, which predates even the State itself as we now know it, is the ability and willingness to protect the people from external danger. This primary function was, over time, added to. The State was expected not only to defend against other states and rampaging bands, but also to keep order within its own borders, to promote justice and fairness; also, eventually and in general, to keep the people fed and housed, their children educated, the national culture protected and promoted. These incidents of State functioning are now basic, even in those states which operate on a more or less laissez-faire ur-ideology.

The protective functions of the State are also transferred to or expected to be carried out by the ruling political parties, both those actually in government and those which aspire to government.

Apply the above to the Liberal Democrat Party. For decades, it had built up a respectable support base. It proclaimed all sorts of virtuous policies, said it would protect people in every way, acquired 62 MPs by 2005, yet was all but wiped out in the 2015 General Election after having engaged for 5 years in the “Con Coalition”. Why? It was because people expected the LibDems to protect their interests against the more savage manifestations of Conservative government: spending cuts, callousness toward the poor, unemployed, disabled etc. The LibDems (despite protests) did not, overall, do that. Their punishment was condign: to be reduced to a rump of 8 MPs (now 9, by reason of the special circumstances of the Richmond Park by-election), with effectively no hope of recovery.

Now we look at Labour.

Welfare State

The Labour reaction to the attack on the Welfare State which an earlier Labour Party had done so much to support was to join in the “me-too” mass media and Conservative Party onslaughts on the disabled, on the unemployed, on all those dependent on State assistance (except the Royal Family, the subsidized farmers and the increasing swamp-floods of immigrants). Time after time, Labour MPs, especially those who had been ministers or who were shadow ministers, supported the most callous “reforms” to the social security system. Many Labour MPs either supported the Conservatives in the Commons (even more so after the 2015 General Election) or failed to oppose measures such as the Bedroom Tax. Indeed, it was Alastair Darling, James Purnell, Stephen Timms etc (all Labour ministers) who brought in the dreaded, hated and incompetent ATOS organization in the first place.

Conclusion: Labour failed, both in Government and in Opposition, to protect those most dependent on the Welfare State. Reaction? Those people deserted Labour in droves, either going to (at first) BNP, then (later) UKIP, or dropping out of voting altogether. They will not vote Labour now, despite Corbyn’s support for them, because they have no faith in his (in effect) being elected as PM and because most Labour MPs are still a rabble of pro-neoliberal, anti-Welfare State me-too-ers and fakes.

Pay and Living Standards

In government, Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown advanced the interests of the wealthy or affluent above those of the rest of the population, in the hope of general improvement of the economy. A pathetic version of trickle-down theory. Income and capital inequality soared. Gordon Brown’s Working Tax Credits and other tax credits ameliorated this to some degree, though at the cost of taxes and taxpayers subsidizing, in effect, low-paying businesses–and on a huge scale. Welfare for Business. Mad.

Pay has continued to decline or stagnate for most people, but Labour has no answer for that problem and is judged on its record. There is no sense that Labour stands with the poor working people (or middling people who are becoming poor).b-cisxdiqaa7qj_-jpg-large

Another factor in this is the continuing rise in rents as against pay. When the cost of rent in the private sector is added in, pay has slumped almost as much as has the Labour vote.

Result? Voters have no confidence either that Labour pay policy works or even that Labour is somehow “on their side”. This belief in the uselessness or untruthfulness of Labour has led many either to prefer Conservative policy on the economy as well as (if, arguably, bizarrely) on pay, or to cease bothering to vote at all.

The proletariat scarcely exists now in the UK and has been replaced by a more volatile “precariat”, without loyalty to the former certainties of class, background, region, or even race and culture.

Mass Immigration

Here Labour has no cards to play.  It deliberately imported millions of immigrants, (mainly non-European, i.e. non-white) under Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown, not only to provide big business with cheap labour and more consumers but also to destroy British (especially English) race and culture [see Tom Bower, Broken Vows: Tony Blair — The Tragedy of Power]. Whistleblowers exposed this treason far too late and, it has to be said, the swamping has continued under the misnamed “Conservatives”, right up to today.

Those behind the Labour Government’s immigrant-importation were and are traitors and include, among many others, these two then ministers:

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

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

The Jewish Zionist Barbara Roche was particularly culpable. The voters of her once-safe Labour constituency realized (years before Tom Bower’s book came out) that she hated English (and all European) race and culture– they voted her out in 2005 and she has never returned to Parliament, despite lobbying hard for either another Labour candidacy or a peerage. She had inherited a 20,000+ Labour majority in 1992. Straw in the wind?

Labour MPs are still lobbying for more immigration! Even those, such as Yvette Cooper, now belatedly paying lip-service to “having a discussion” about it (as the hordes break down the gates!) are “refugees welcome” dimwits and promoters. Most Labour MPs are not even interested in talking about mass immigration, let alone actually doing anything about it. Corbyn and his absurd or joke “front bench” will never even talk about the swamping of England, except to support it. Angela Rayner and the freeloading moneygrasper Diane Abbott are two names that come to mind.

The cartoonists have hit upon Labour’s immigration madness many times, yet all Labour MPs say is that the people need to have the “benefits” of immigration “explained” to them. Patronizing and wrongheaded.

161214-matt-web_3139193a

ctgqcfywiaa6yvr

The result of Labour’s immigration non-policy and its attacks (both now and in government) on English and British race and culture? Millions of former Labour voters voting for UKIP, for the Conservatives (who at least pay lip-service to slowing the rate of immigration despite doing nothing much in a practical way) or not bothering to vote at all.

Conclusion

On the big issues for most voters, meaning living standards and social protection generally and immigration (bearing on race, culture, identity, NHS, schools transport, crime etc), Labour is not only NOT protecting the British people, but is still actively against most of what is in the popular interest.

The “instant karma” of all that is that the people withdraw their support and withdraw their votes. Richmond Park and Sleaford were just the start, in fact not even that: Scotland is already a Labour Party-free zone, pretty much (Labour is only 4th in the polls there now, on a pathetic 15%).

One has to wonder what sort of people would now vote Labour. Some ethnic minorities, some public sector workers, some traditionally-minded (older? maybe not: older people have seen the devastation caused by mass immigration over decades) Northern voters. Not much of a mass-support base.

On the basis of the latest polls showing 25% support, Labour would have about 180 seats (out of 650) on present boundaries and only 140 (out of 600) on the proposed new ones.

Labour is on the way out. It has betrayed the trust of the people and deserves to be obliterated. The people rightly feel that they are not protected by Labour.

A new social national party must arise, to protect the people and to create and preserve a new form of State in England and Wales.

cqsbrinweaalitk