Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Right Attitude to Race and Culture

Race and culture are among the hottest topics of the moment. From the migration-invasion of Europe to the American wave of the alt-right, to the elections in European states, there is a ferment which will not calm. As social-nationalists, standing first and foremost on the racial-cultural front line, we must be clear where we stand in terms of attitude.

It disturbs me when I see unpleasant and too-general remarks made even about the basest of race-types. We must never forget that, as Adolf Hitler himself said in another context, “there is the individual, but beyond the individual is the race.” The individual comes out of a race; he is made by it, formed by it, is in most cases brought up and educated by it and by the nation which is part of the race. However, the individual can transcend the race-group (equally, can descend from it). German National Socialism itself recognized this reality when it granted a relatively small number of persons, who were not Aryan, the status of “honorary Aryan” or Ehrenarierhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan

We today, even those of us who are social-national in political orientation, are yet not  National Socialists in the same sense as those who fought for European humanity in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. We today have our own path forward. At the same time, to put it in Biblical language, we “honour our father and our mother” and that means that we honour National Socialism as the ground from which we sprang.

Leon Degrelle, the political leader, front-line fighter and thinker, had this to say on the subject after National Socialism in its original phase had passed into history:

becwoaeccaazenq

There is no need for social nationalists to utter insults at blacks, Jews or members of other groups, except where that is justified and/or where it makes a political or social point. I do not want to concentrate on the American socio-political situation. I am not American, have not lived or worked there for many years and am focussed on Europe and Russia. However, we have to recognize that American society is very different from our European society. American society has had a relatively recent history of slavery, of genocide (the American Indians, aka Native Americans), of a civil war in which 3% of the population died, of the resistance to the social consequences of that war in the South, that resistance being, in part, the Ku Klux Klan, and so on.

American politics has become far more bitter, far more polarized, particularly in language, than is generally the case in Europe. There is also the point that there is a far wider spectrum of education and culture in the USA than pertains in most parts of Europe, or even Russia.

For me, it is natural to regard the non-European races as distinct and as having their own paths to the future, while equally recognizing the necessity (for all races) for the leading role of European humanity. For some Americans, this is perhaps less obvious and those other races seen as purely enemy contingents.

Social nationalists must take every opportunity to refute the lie (often though not always made by Jewish Zionists) that we base our political philosophy on “hate”. We ourselves know that that is not so, but often the public is bamboozled by the Jewish Zionists into believing the lie. For example, we wish not to be ruled or owned or influenced by the Jewish Zionist element, but that is, if you like, “defensive” in nature.

Our attitude to race and culture is one of recognition of evolution and involution. Our European race is generally still evolving, as is the “Russian”, “Slavonic” or “Slavic” race which (important point) will not come into its plenitude for another 1,500 years. Other races in this world are stagnant or are degenerating. The prime motive force behind social nationalism is to evolve the race and nation to higher levels and to destroy any threats to that evolution. This is a positive, not a negative, political world-view.

In the future, European and Euro-Slavic humanity will have powers of soul, of mind, which today would be regarded as magical. This is the point to which we as a people have been striving.

When we see the sacred Swastika, we must understand it to be a symbol of evolution, of our evolution.

TorchSwastika

Advertisements

Stray Thoughts about Transport in the UK

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a country house in a heavily wooded part of Southern England. Even using a map, I nearly failed to find the way. A modern version of Parzival, –in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s great work–, who gets lost in the trackless forests around the Castle of the Grail. The “B”-road was left behind as I took a quite narrow lane at an acute angle. A few miles further on and an easily-missed small sign almost at ground-level told me to turn off onto a lane so narrow that it was more like a track, tarmacked long ago (probably in the 1960s) and never repaired. Uneven, with large potholes. The forest pressed in on all sides. A stag with magnificent antlers ran across  and into the dense wood as the car approached at a slow 5-10 mph. Squirrels were there aplenty, as were many birds. After what seemed miles, the destination was suddenly in front of me.

That experience made me wonder what roads would be like in a future of automated cars, buses, passenger drones controlled by computers, lighter than air craft akin to Zeppelins, automated trains etc.

One could imagine a future where the roads are scarcely used and so not funded, or perhaps only the motorways or major highways funded. A network of automated rail, light rail, branch lines, narrow gauge, ultralight trains, Thames river services etc. Commuters (if they still exist) travelling easily by those means, such as airships docking on top of high towers or buildings, ultralight trains going to almost every street or road. Conventional roads might become a thing of the past, especially if commuting and travelling regularly by car become uncommon.

It is not necessary to travel far back in time (say, 1800) to find a Britain in which roads were in most cases almost unusable most of the time. It may happen again. Society moves on. Until the Beeching cuts of the 1960s (and the others in the 1950s and even prior to that), there were many railway lines in existence which, today, are all but forgotten.

The alternative vision is that roads will still be necessary even if vehicles become computer-controlled. We wait to see. In the meantime, we speculate.

Priorities in State Funding

Preliminaries

We have, in the UK, been subjected to a so-called “austerity” spending regime for about 7 years now, the burden (in reality) of which has fallen on the poorer citizens, if only because there is an almost irreducible minimum which anyone requires in order to survive in a basic civilized way in our society. It matters not that a statistician may say that the wealthiest have seen their incomes fall more than the poorest, because if a rich man has a discretionary income of, say, a half-million a year (and many have 10x that) and if that is reduced by, say, 20%, he still has hundreds of thousands of pounds beyond what is necessary even on an opulent level of expenditure. The poor man on a net income of, say, £10,000, suffers directly (meaning in terms of food, shelter, transport) if his income is reduced by only 10% or even 1%. The figures for income do not in any case take account of the huge rise in the capital of the UK’s wealthier citizens in the past decade or two.

It can probably be agreed generally that the State has and must have spending priorities, even in less “austere” times. While money is not the fixed or finite amount kept (as the simpler people seem to believe) in a large chest at the Treasury or in the Bank of England, there is, over time, a limit to State expenditure no matter what system of government exists.

The above being so, we should examine what should be the spending priorities of the proposed ethnostate. We already know the priorities of the present “Conservative” government: a reduced social security “welfare” roll, tax breaks for the wealthier citizens, expenditure on Trident submarines, HS2 high-speed train line etc.

The Expenditure Priorities of the Ethnostate

Firstly, the proper defence of the realm. That means defence services under British control (unlike Trident). In the absence of multilateral disarmament, that has to include nuclear weapons, though there are cheaper alternatives to Trident. A Navy which has the capacity to guard the British coasts (rather than those of supposed allies halfway around the world). An Army of suitable size for defence but not one to be used in support of American or Israeli geopolitical aims. The same for the Air Force. Defence in the wider sense too: internal security, meaning a police force which has as its aim the preservation of public peaceful order, rather than enforcement of some decadent pseudo-liberal agenda; also, security agencies focussed on protecting the public.

Secondly, a healthy population (that that population should be fundamentally white European is a given). The health of the population requires clean air and water first. That requires State regulation and supervision. After that, healthy food: State support in various ways for organic and biodynamic agriculture and horticulture; discouragement of unhealthy foodstuffs (eg via taxes, imposts etc). Then there is the question of encouraging the population to take moderate exercise: State funding of, not Olympic athletes and other careerists, but facilities for the generality of the population, meaning health clubs, sport clubs, swimming pools, properly-policed and well-kept parks (for walking exercise as well as general public amenity); National and regional parks, for the same reason. Information services to the public, ranging from general health education through to suitably-healthy food recipes etc.

Thirdly, funding for a health service. The overriding necessity for a healthy population, as well as the impulse to compassion, indicates the necessity for a free-at-point-of-use health service akin to the N.H.S. This blog post is concerned with spending, so here is not the right place to address the great changes that should take place in the N.H.S., both attitudinally and otherwise. Suffice to say that the health service must be properly funded, so that where the preventive health measures are insufficient, medication and surgery are available.

Fourthly, education. Education should be a matter for personal or family choice in terms of curriculum, type of educational philosophy or particular school or university, but the State should only subsidize what is useful for the State as instrument of the people, the nation, the race. Thus private/independent schools must be allowed to exist and (subject only to the welfare of the pupils) free from “national curriculum” and the like, but the State need not subsidize them beyond allowing them tax-free status, which they already enjoy. Likewise, students must be allowed to attend university freely in terms of choice of institution and course taken, but the State can choose which students, which courses, which institutions to subsidize. For example, it may be that the State gives the top 10% of students (however assessed) full tuition and maintenance grants, others less generous provision, still others nothing at all. These others would have to find loans or other funding. Another example: the State might decide to give financial subsidy to certain courses and not others: perhaps to Engineering and Chemistry rather than to American Literature or Gender Studies.

Fifthly, transport. It should not be the business –and certainly not a priority– of the State to fund luxury travel for the few. Concorde was an error, albeit that it was a tremendous technical achievement: State subsidy so that a relatively small number of extremely wealthy persons could save time crossing the Atlantic to New York or Barbados. Subsidy in development, in manufacture and in terms of ticket pricing. Wrongheaded all the way through. HS2 is a less-egregious but similar error. Transport must be improved in the UK, not by “high-speed” rail, but by a web of more ordinary or standard rail lines. These can be supplemented by a further network of branch lines, probably light rail and ultralight or narrow-gauge rail. Technology is moving to the point where these can be unmanned trains, especially on branch lines where safety is not a major issue.

There should be dug a network of very wide canals for freight transport. These will also have environmental benefits and might also be used for passenger transportation.

The possibilities of lighter-than-air travel (Zeppelins) have not been fully explored. This form of transport might have great use for commuter and other passenger transportation. Government may need to help.

Bus travel should be maintained, at least at a basic level, throughout the country. It knits together rural and urban areas and may need subsidy.

There is an argument for local or even regional travel to be free up to a certain radius. Modern technology in terms of ID cards, pay cards etc makes this administratively possible.

Sixthly, though its place in the list might be disputed, Basic Income. The level at which this can be paid depends on the overall economy, but it is now becoming clear that, with advances in robotics and computerization, the nexus between work and pay is loosening. Citizens, whether old, sick, disabled, unemployed or otherwise, all need a basic amount of money in order to exist. A “floor”. The regressive “welfare” “reforms” of recent years are absurd and unreal as well as being unjust. It is time for the State dismantle the huge (and hugely expensive) DWP bureaucracy and to keep only that which pays out money (as well as a core of investigators to deter real large-scale fraud).

The above list should enable the State to promote a healthy, sheltered, fed, clothed and protected population capable of advancing toward a higher level in terms of evolution.

The Future of Work and Pay

It was, I think, that great genius Rudolf Steiner who first made the point that work in ancient times (meaning here the 4th Post-Atlantean Age which finished in the early 15th Century AD) was a matter, fundamentally, of slavery, or, to put it another way, of bond. The typical worker was a slave or serf, who worked because he or she was forced to work. There was no pay as such, but some form of food, shelter and clothing was provided. Any monetary reward was in the form of discretionary gratuity, not a matter of right. The worker belonged to the owner or master.

Not everyone was a slave, obviously. Apart from the slave-owning classes, there were those who were free citizens or subjects, who worked in various fields and were paid for doing so, but these were a minority.

Over the centuries and particularly since the Renaissance, in our 5th Post-Atlantean Age, the typical form of labour is that of paid work. The worker works and, in return, (i.e. transactionally) is paid money. This did not suddenly change in 1415 (supposedly the notional year of change from 4th to 5th Post-Atlantean Age), but was gradual and in some respects even today is not complete. For example, it was until very recently common in the UK for farm workers to be paid small wages, but to receive free accomodation, tied to the job. The “tied cottage”. Likewise, there have been retrograde movements alongside the general movement forward. The various Communist-inspired societies of the 20th Century were in that sense backward, but found that people would not work or work effectively as slaves. Thus, in the Soviet Union, “War Communism” did not last long and was replaced by the New Economic Policy in the 1920s. Stalinism tried to turn the clock back by collectivizing most agriculture and by having millions literally slaving in the so-called “GULAG Archipelago” of labour camps, but at the same time had to pay most workers at least some form of salary. In the Soviet joke, “we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.” In some parts of the world (some Caribbean islands etc, parts of Russia too) the slave or serf of the 19th Century was only forced to work for the master’s benefit for part of the week, the rest of the time being free to farm or forage for himself.

The Soviet labour system was of course partly an outcome of previous Russian history. Few now know that serfdom in Russia was actually brought in, in its harshest forms, after 1400; indeed, the strictest forms were introduced after 1600: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia.

In Russia, as in the United States, the problem with slavery, serfdom and similar forms of servitude, was their economic inefficiency and social demerit. In North America, which had had, from its beginnings in British colonial rule, slavery applicable only to blacks, there was, nonetheless, a lesser form of “slavery” or “serfdom” known as “indentured servitude”, which applied to white people (usually English): https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Indentured_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia. This form of forced labour lasted until the end of the 18th Century but had largely died out by the time the USA declared itself independent of Britain. At one time, over half of the white population of Virginia (where the system was probably at its most common), was forced labour. Indentured servitude was finally outlawed by the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; it continued elsewhere (notably in the Caribbean) until the mid-19th Century.

Even in the late 20th Century, there were attempts here and there to introduce forced labour as an economic model for the whole of a society. The Khmer Rouge “Year Zero” society in “Kampuchea” (Cambodia); North Korea (in part); rebel-held parts of South America. The generality of the world, however, had, by 1989, moved on. Russia and China moved to a typically “Western” pay-for-labour system. Europe had been evolving such a system for many hundreds of years.

The 6th Post-Atlantean Age will bring in, as a general way of life, the system of “work as free gift”. This seems Utopian today, of course. The Greeks and Romans (even their greatest thinkers) could hardly if at all conceive of a society without slavery; neither, it seems, could some of the landowners in the Americas or the Caribbean as late as the early 19th Century. Thomas Jefferson himself struggled with the practicalities of a society without slaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Slavery.

Now, when we speak of the 6th Post-Atlantean Age, that will not start until about 3500 AD, long in the future. However, just as paid work existed even in Roman times (even in the Roman Republic, some 1500 years before the start of the 5th Post-Atlantean Age), work as free gift can exist in places even today. When people volunteer for work in charity shops, on environmental projects etc, we see small flashes of that future world.

Consciousness is vital: to volunteer for a charity is something of the future; however, to be forced to work in a charity or elsewhere, in order not to have State benefits cut off, as in the policies implemented by Iain Duncan Smith and the Jew “Lord” Freud, is something from the previous Age and can properly be described as evil (being, in the “theological” sense, in error).

“Man cannot live by bread alone”. Profound words which, however, leave out the necessary addendum, “Man needs bread in order to live on Earth”. In the earlier Age, “bread” (i.e. the means of earthly subsistence) was supplied (in principle) by the owner of the work force. In the present Age, “bread” is bought by the work force for money and in return for work. In the future Age, work will be given freely. In return, the society will give freely to supply the necessities of life. Karl Marx had an intimation of this in his famous axiom, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need.

We in the more advanced countries stand in 2017 at a point where computers, robotics, indeed the organization of society generally, lead to a situation where many forms of human labour may very soon not be at all required and will be taken over by inorganic or hybrid machines. What then happens to the huge numbers of people displaced from the labour market? The conventional answer, the “Iain Dunce Duncan Smith” answer is that such people (possibly half the population of the UK by 2050 or even 2030) will be forced to “seek [non-existent] work” or be more or less starved and made homeless.

Not only is the conventional approach unjust, but it will inevitably lead to social and political upheaval on a scale not seen for decades, if ever (at least in the UK). There has to be a social mechanism by which people are supported economically whether they have paid work or not. Here we have, at present, “tax credits” and other forms of social security or “welfare” benefits, including the “unconditional” or “non-judgmental” forms such as Child Benefit and State Pension.

Basic Income must come and eventually will come. It will enable people to exist, at least on –indeed– a basic level without needing to sell their labour in order to survive. Not all will offer work somewhere where it is needed, as a “free gift”. Some, however, will. It is a question, in the individual as in society at large, of the evolution of consciousness. The key point is that Basic Income is a societal and an economic necessity.

“Thank You For Your Service!…Have A Nice Day!”

One of the many minor but telling irritations of the present day is the extent to which American phrases and linguistic usage has infiltrated everyday English English. I say that despite having lived and worked in the United States and (in the USA and elsewhere) alongside American people. In fact, I am still (despite the best efforts of parts of the Jewish Zionist lobby, including the crazed scribbler Louise Mensch) still a member of the New York Bar, at least on paper (I never practised there).

It was back in the early 1990s when I first heard someone (a West Indian woman) use the term “train station” to designate what everyone I knew until then had called a “railway station” or sometimes “rail station”. When I questioned the term, she replied that she had never heard such places called anything but “train stations”. My theory was that that was the influence of latter-day American films, particularly those shown on Sky. Maybe. Since then, “train station” has become ubiquitous, even on the BBC.

One might say, “what does it matter?” whether railway stations are called “railway stations” or “train stations”. However, language does matter. Whole treatises have been written on the power of transformative vocabulary. The American military machine and its political masters used to be expert at that (far more so than the British). “Operation Desert Shield” conveyed a message; “Operation Desert Storm” a different one, a changed one. Sometimes it became awkward if pushed too far, as in the phrases used in the Vietnam War: “bodycount”, “free fire zone”, “friendly fire” and many others became notorious; some are still in use today.

Such manipulative use of language is common elsewhere. The linked worlds of special operations and espionage have given us “plausible deniability” etc, and that is before we even look at the sleazy swamp of the political milieu. I do not want to go off-track too far and lose my point in the morass of “hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “helping people back to work” (indeed the ghastly “world of work” itself) etc.

Words create a mental landscape, they shape a society as surely as the architecture of our cities and, to be rather topical, public statuary.

It matters whether the influx of millions of non-Europeans into Europe and other European-inhabited lands is described as a “desperate” “movement” of “refugees” or as a “flood” of “migrant-invaders”, indeed as a “migration-invasion” (my favourite) or simply as an “invasion”.

It matters if “social security” (in the British use of the term), meaning a “safety net” or system available to those who need it (and, importantly, into which most if not all of those using it have paid, one way or another) is then changed to “welfare”, a term which gives the impression of money or food thrown at (probably undeserving and probably useless) eaters, who are, again, “probably” taking money from “the taxpayer” (not even “the State”).

It matters if “free speech” is in many cases re-designated as “hate speech” and/or “hate crime”.

So we return to “thank you for your service”…one of the least meaningful phrases around. An American affectation, which seems to say, “this person served in ‘the military’ in some capacity and so we regard him –or her– as heroic.” It of course bears little relationship to reality. Most service personnel, even in a war, are not anywhere near the “front-line” or active fighting areas. Indeed, many American service personnel never even leave the shores of the USA. In Britain, that idea crept in during the Falklands campaign, when anyone who had been to the Falklands in uniform became, ipso facto, a “Falklands hero”, courtesy of the Sun “newspaper”.

No-one disputes that a modern military system requires large numbers of accountants, lawyers, dentists, administrative people, pension experts etc, as well as cooks, drivers and the more obviously martial occupations of fighter pilot, tank commander, infantry soldier and commando. They all “do their bit”, in the English phrase of yesteryear. However, it seems strained to say “thank you for your service” to people who spent their entire service researching legal cases in Washington D.C., or fixing the plumbing on an Air Force base in Texas.

One notices that some scribblers who are very adherent to the Atlanticist or “New World Order” viewpoint are among the worst offenders (people such as Louise Mensch). In fact, it could be said that “thank you for your service” goes beyond affectation and constitutes an attempt to further Americanize the mentality of the British.

So it is that I plead for people to avoid the use of “thank you for your service”, even when addressing those who should be in that sense respected.

How the Bar of England and Wales Became a Dustbin

I recognize, in writing about the Bar and having been myself disbarred for political reasons last year, that I shall probably be accused of some species of sour grapes. Not so. My disbarment in late 2016 at the instigation of a pack of Jewish Zionists had no practical effect on me beyond a couple of days of newspaper and Twitter nonsense. I ceased practice at the English Bar in 2008 and last appeared in court (Central London County Court, a three-day construction case) in December 2007. The views I am about to express were mine, in essence, then too.

What is “the Bar”, what is its purpose or role and what prompts me to call it “a dustbin”?

There is no point in going into long history or explanation. It is enough to say that the English Bar grew organically out of British history and society intimately connected with the struggle for free speech against the tyrannical tendency inherent in monarchical rule. I suppose that, today, a figure such as John Hampden is less well known by, e.g. schoolchildren than, say, Nelson Mandela, just as the founder of modern nursing, Florence Nightingale, has been eclipsed by the minor figure of Mary Seacole (who set up a tea-room in the Crimean War). “They established brainwashing and called it education.”

At any rate, it can be said that the institution of the Bar, meaning the independent Bar, the Bar independent of the State, grew at least partly out of that struggle for the rights of the individual as against the power of the State. Free speech was part of it, as were the rights of property (set against the mediaeval feudal system of royal and baronial –etc– patronage).

It is this very independence of the Bar which has now largely been destroyed, though remnants remain. The Bar has become entangled with the State. Civil and criminal legal aid, in many ways very useful for society and individual persons (criminal defendants, and those making or defending a civil claim), yet has had the effect of making the Bar dependent on State patronage. The proliferation of quangos requiring chairpersons and/or legal advisers has made many barristers further dependent, financially, on the State, in effect at least. Finally, the adoption of a Zionist-drafted and/or influenced “Code of Conduct”, increasingly draconian in its enforcement and enforced by an increasingly-active regulatory body (the Bar Standards Board) has made many at the Bar afraid of their own shadows.

When I was a student of law, I graduated (aged 30) in 1987. At that time, there was only one place to take the then “Bar Finals course” (a one-year course for most students)– the Inns of Court School of Law, located in Gray’s Inn. That was inconvenient for those whose usual residence was far from London, but it had the merit that barristers emerged from the same institution and often acquainted to some extent with each other. Though there were over a thousand students, many were foreign citizens almost all of whom would return to practise law in their home countries (many eventually to lead those countries politically, or even to found states, as did Gandhi and Jinnah).

During the 1990s, the Bar Finals course, sub nom Bar Vocational Course, was changed to be less academic, more practical. There were benefits to that in terms of the confidence of young barristers, but the drawback was that, bluntly, it became easier to become a barrister.

The Inns of Court School lost its monopoly under the influence of globalism and ensuing legislation, the Bar being regarded as just another “business” offering “legal services” to “consumers”. Soon a multitude of “service providers” (universities, former polytechnics etc) offered “Bar” courses. That remains the case today. A barrister now is simply someone who has acquired two pieces of paper: a “degree” of some sort and a certificate that the requisite Bar course has been completed (and few fail these days…).

The only thing preventing untold thousands more practising at the Bar is the pupillage bottleneck, but many are now allowed to “complete pupillage” in places like government departments, so it is perfectly possible to have substandard barristers (practising in court and advising people) who have a degree from a place which is little more than a degree mill, a Bar qualification which is given to almost all who take the course and a pupillage as an office bod in, say, a provincial government department building.

There has always been a space and vacancy problem at the Bar, both for practising barristers and pupil-barristers: until recent years, barristers were often squashed into inadequate rooms in the Inns, four or more to a room in some chambers. That is less acute now because chambers are able to exist, even in London, outside the Inns. However, that too has led to problems. Sets of barristers were established outside the Inns of Court. Some were good, others less good. One example in the 1990s called itself “Brick Lane Chambers” and was composed largely of Bangladeshis and others unable to work elsewhere. It was given a subsidy by the notorious  Tower Hamlets Council, based on numbers of “legal service providers” available, the idea being to increase “legal service provision” in an area supposedly without much.

I knew a barrister (still in practice today) whose name was fraudulently added to the “Brick Lane Chambers” list in order for those chambers to get extra money from the local council. She was not alone. She complained and her name was taken off the list, but no action was taken by the local council or the Bar itself in respect of a deliberate and egregious fraud. At that time, the Bar had already embarked on its “let’s not annoy the ethnic minorities” journey.

As a Bar student, I proposed (but not officially) a different idea, which would have safeguarded the Bar’s integrity: to found a fifth Inn of Court. That, however, would have involved huge cost, for one thing. It also would have required the clearance of a large site in Central London. Instead, sets of poor barristers started above laundromats and in shopfront premises (others moved from the Inns into far better circumstances).

Now we come to the regulation of the Bar. The Code of Conduct, once a slim volume, perfectly workable and focussed on trust and integrity, became a thick sheaf of papers packed with the politically-correct shibboleths of the day. It has, in its application, destroyed the independence of mind of the Bar. I refer the reader to my own experience:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

As to recruits to the Bar, many now are brainwashed into a politically-correct mindset and (bearing in mind the pressure on pupillages and tenancies) few are willing to do anything but condemn those who (like me) are thought to have controversial views. They fail to see that their doormatting to the Jewish-Zionist element will not help most of them much. When I was at school in the 1970s, there were about 5,000 practising barristers; when I was Called to the Bar (1991) there were about 10,000 or so, I believe. Now that figure is something like 18,000! Meanwhile, criminal and other legal aid has been slashed and “solicitor-advocates” appear in court too. The result has been that the prestige of the Bar has plummeted. I do not regret that I no longer practise.

For the public, for society, the result of the Bar’s fall has been that the service available is more limited, poorer and that that independent voice of an independent barrister is muted. Just as, in the journalistic milieu, “journalists” of today (particularly online) are often twenty-somethings with no real training or education, their heads full of politically-correct nonsense, the Bar is now full of “barristers” who are really just barristers on paper, men of straw (women too), without real substance. The “journalists” thus cravenly welcome censorship and the “barristers” are unwilling to be seen as even listening to contrary views, let alone standing up for freedom of expression.

The British Countryside under the Future Ethnostate

A few months ago, someone won about £100 million on one of the lotteries. I have no idea who that was, or whether his (or her) use of the monies won will go beyond the usual and indeed banal new house, new car, holiday in the sun scenario, but that massive win led me to thoughts beyond the determination to buy more tickets myself.

For example, £100M would buy somewhere around 10% of the land area of the Isle of Wight (along with country houses, farmhouses etc). Alternatively, a fairly large part of Scotland could be bought (multi-thousand-acre Highlands or Islands estates now selling for, in some cases anyway, only a few million pounds).

The above thoughts led me in turn to consider how the UK countryside could be changed for the better under a different kind of state. A ban on hunting, certainly; a ban on commercial shooting too. Along with those, there would probably have to be a reordering of rural land ownership. There would be, to start, a cap on the acreage any one individual, company, trust or family could own. This is not the place to get exact about figures, but the maximum land acreage held would obviously have to differ in different parts of the UK: a thousand acres in the Scottish Highlands is not to be equated with the same amount in Surrey.

The subject of farming subsidies has to be addressed. The present situation which (in essence) rewards landowners simply for holding (owning) land is unjust, achieves little and is a waste of public monies. It transfers monies from people in general to those who, in most cases, are already wealthier. It also has poor ecological or environmental results.

George Monbiot, the writer and environmental activist, has raised the issue of the present system of subsidizing hill farmers to own land (on which they usually produce sheep). Withdrawal of subsidy would mean that most such small and relatively poor farmers would go out of business. However, that unfortunate fact should not be the determining factor. The hillsides can be allowed to revert to forest, either by simply leaving the hills to rewild, or in a more controlled way, by selective planting of trees and other plants. This would have several benefits, including upstream flood control.

There may be some scope for limited subsidy on the basis of farmers setting aside areas for nature (this was once part of the UK farming subsidy scheme). There should also be a wildlife grid consisting of strips and blocks of (in many cases) privately-held and maintained wild or rewilded land, organized however by a state commission. The idea of the wildlife grid would be to allow animals and birds to travel easily across the country, free from interference. The grid would interface with areas already given considerable protection, such as the existing national parks.

There may be the opportunity to experiment with less-usual forms of land-holding, such as collectives of “New Age” or other persons, to be given leases by the State (as freeholder) for various terms of years. The average age of a British farmer is now 59. There must be ways found to rejuvenate the personnel in agriculture.

There would be the possibility, under a different governmental philosophy from that now dominant, to encourage production of fruit and vegetables and to discourage the production of meat, particularly under harsh industrialized conditions.

There could be State encouragement of very small scale horticultural production, e.g. by giving tax relief for people giving over part of their house gardens to the growing of fruits and vegetables. It is estimated that, in the UK, agricultural land amounts to some 42 million acres; however, private gardens and small parks amount to about 10 million. In past wartime situations, part of that acreage has been intensively cultivated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden

The Soviet Union in the 1970s permitted private plots of up to (in some Soviet republics and toward the end of the Soviet period) about 5 acres, though the usual limit laid down in 1935 was around an acre (2+ acres in “special districts”, particularly in countries like Georgia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_plot. In the 1970s, the private plots were about 2% of all utilized agricultural land, but produced 40% of the produce of the Soviet Union. Instructive.

Another area where there could and should be huge improvement in the UK is the production of nuts, particularly those suited to the prevailing climatic conditions: chestnuts, walnuts, hazelnuts. In fact, those upland areas no longer farmed for sheep by subsidized small farmers would be ideal for such trees on the large scale. In Kyrgyzstan, there are natural walnut forests. Why not in the UK too?

So we see the possible future take shape: a UK with greater forest cover, with greater wild or rewilded acreage, with many private householders cultivating part of their gardens, perhaps using small greenhouses too. In the rural areas, traditional farming being supplemented by new collectives of cultivators. A wildlife grid to make the natural world safer and more prolific. More small-scale hydropower and solar-power schemes. More vegetable, fruit and nut production, not so much emphasis on meat and dairy produce. Greater linkage via the Internet.

It is clear that, in the countryside as in other areas of national life, change must come.