A Floor or a Ceiling?

The Front National in France, other broadly social-national parties of the European mainland and (in England and Wales) UKIP are not “ceilings” (end results) but “floors” (starting points). Their function is to disrupt the political status quo and to awaken as far as they can the voting populations of the various European states. Naturally, that is not how they themselves see their role.

The case of UKIP is telling. UKIP came into a political milieu in Britain where (in the 1990s) there were only “three main parties” and a high majority of those who voted voted for them. Below the surface, though, there was growing but unfocussed discontent and alienation. Turnout in general elections, which peaked at 83.9% in 1950, fell (on the wider franchise after 1966) to a low of 59.4% by 2001, though it recovered slightly to 66.1% by 2015. An equally-telling fact is that the proportion of voters who voted and who voted for one of those “three main parties” fell steadily and is still falling. In broad terms, a third of eligible voters did not vote at the 2015 General Election; of those who did vote, about 75% voted for LibLabCon (UK-wide results), with another 12.6% voting for UKIP.

UKIP peaked in 2014, failed to break through in 2015 and is now declining fast in every way. Its 2016 by-election results have been poor, its donors are going and its membership falling. I addressed the UK political vacuum in an earlier blog post. However, UKIP has succeeded in a more major way than did the BNP and not only because UKIP scored 21 MEPs as against the BNP’s 2.

UKIP created an atmosphere across the country in which social nationalism might start to thrive, despite the fact that UKIP, as a party, is not really social-national.

UKIP, despite being now more or less washed-up, is a floor. On that floor a movement can be built. The Front National in France is not at all in decline (au contraire) but is also a basis for a movement, rather than the movement itself. The FN is, however, likely to become or coalesce with such a movement, whereas UKIP will just fade away even if it can score a few election victories in the 2016-2020 period. The importance of both parties, however, is that they have changed the atmosphere. Social nationalism is now not a fringe ideology. It stands ready, once the right vehicles arrive, to take command across Europe. In Britain (specifically England and Wales), there is a crying need for such a social national movement and I believe that it will emerge, will arise and will, eventually, seize power.

NATO Must Not Attack Russia

President Bush snr. proclaimed the “New World Order” [NWO] openly in 1990. The Soviet Union was not dissolved until the following year, but had in fact died in 1989, 33 years (significantly) after Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” of 1956, which denounced Stalinism and introduced the “Thaw”.

The ruling circles of the West (variously called the Wise Men of the West, the Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy, the NWO-Zionist consensus etc) were behind the fall of the Russian Empire in February 1917 and the Bolshevik takeover in October 1917. That is not to say that they were able to control events completely. They wanted the Jew, Trotsky (L.D. Bronstein) to take over eventually from the part-Jew, Lenin (V.I. Ulyanov), but reckoned without an even more ruthless evil character, the Georgian, Stalin (J.V. Djugashvili).

Stalin’s seizure of power in the mid-1920s was not ideal from the point of view of the Western conspirators. It stabilized or froze the political situation and the decline in social and family life in Russia and its dependent territories. The Soviet regime became even more conservative during the course of the 1941-45 conflict with the German Reich. Russian Orthodox religion was allowed (under controlled conditions), national patriotism held sway. Marxism was embalmed alongside Lenin’s “waxwork”.The original plan of the Western circles had been that Marxism-Leninism would take over all of Eastern and Central Europe, as far as the Rhine. What stopped that was

  1. in Russia, Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country” policy; and
  2. in Germany, the rise of National Socialism under Adolf Hitler.

The end of the Second World War saw Europe split between East and West. Central Europe was squeezed out. Germany was divided into East and West. Berlin was symbolically divided into East and West. This was deliberate.

In time, the Sovietized “East” (including those Eastern parts of Central Europe), moved to a position which was not far from various forms of social democracy under a socialist-communist mantle. This did not suit the Western “consensus”, which therefore decided to collapse the post-1945 “international settlement”. The Soviet Union, whose citizens were more affluent than they had ever been, fell gradually into social decadence and corruption until the state was ready to have as its anointed leader a man who would sit complacently at its head and watch it implode: Gorbachev.

When George Bush senior proclaimed the New World Order, he was giving voice to the latest global plan of the ruling Western circles: to rule over a globalized world economy. Politics would be merely the instrument by which finance-capitalism would triumph, sweeping away regional, national and local economies, customs, religions and social cohesion. Only money, that is, concentrations of capital, would count.

The plan worked for several years. Socialism in all forms had died in 1989 and Russia was swept along with the finance-capitalist tide, even though the majority of Russians were poorer in most ways than they had been under late-Sovietism. When a rump of pro-Soviet parliamentarians and officers (supported by most Russians, probably) tried to take back power in 1993, the corrupt and drunken Yeltsin ordered massive and bloody assaults on the Duma and other installations. Bush snr. called that an affirmation of “democracy”.

Below the surface, Russians were tiring of their diminished country being a playground for gangsters and exploitative Jewish “oligarchs”, a place in which American companies and other carpetbaggers (again, often Jewish) could strut about, a place where Moscow schoolgirls dreamed of being, not artists, doctors, scientists or mothers, but hard-currency prostitutes. Ten years after the proclamation of the New World Order, the Russian economy having collapsed, a new President of Russia, Putin, started to rebuild Russian pride and self-confidence. At the same time, the New World Order suffered its second and equally massive blow when Islamist fanatics flew planes into the World Trade Center in New York City. That attack (whether “helped along” one way or another or not), was a sign of Islamist strength gathering worldwide.

Another decade passed. The Western circles made a huge mistake in invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Further errors were made in Libya and Syria, instigated by Israel, whose lobby of Jewish Zionists and pro-Israeli non-Jews has a stranglehold in Washington. Israel wanted to destroy or degrade the armies of all potentially harmful states, but its gain was the West’s loss.

The Western circles then decided to arm even Islamist anti-Assad forces in Syria. At the same time, the government of Ukraine, corrupt and weakened by years of Zionist infiltration, was deposed and replaced by a complete “ZOG” [“Zionist Occupation Government”]. Eastern Ukraine, in part, broke away. The NWO (mainly though not exclusively American in terms of its military reach and leadership elements) is attempting to foment war in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, as well as in Poland, the Baltic States and in Syria.

Hillary Clinton wanted and vowed to “confront Russia in Syria”. She was a corrupt puppet of the NWO and Israel. Donald Trump’s defeat of her was divinely ordained, no matter that the man himself is unfit to be a head of state or government. The danger now is that the NWO will try to hedge him about with NWO satraps. There is still a huge danger that the NWO, via NATO, will push Russia into a war which would devastate Europe, as well as wide areas of both Russia and the USA.

All those who wish for the West to come to peaceful concord with Russia must stand up now against what amounts to a conspiracy to cause a Third World War.

Political Vacuum in England and Wales

The System parties (Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats) and the upstart would-be System party (UKIP) are all now dying. The decline of the main three parties started long ago and continues.

The Conservative Party once had millions of members (in the 1950s) and was embedded in wide areas of British life. It now has (officially) 149,000 members, but its membership base is composed almost entirely of people over the age of 70 (very many over 80 years of age). It rides high in the opinion polls at present, but its apparent strength is a facade behind which is no depth. Few young people are Conservative voters, still less members. The opinion poll ratings have far more to do with Labour’s recent implosion than its own real popularity. Theresa May is a cautious and uncreative woman, who has few policy ideas and little (if any) vision. Eventually, her government must fail.

Labour was the party of the industrial proletariat and of the “labouring classes” in general. In the Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) of 2016, the proletariat of bygone days, industrial, communitarian, solidly loyal, has been replaced by a hand-to-mouth “precariat”who cannot see their future more than a month or two ahead, if that. Many in fact have sunk into what Marx termed the “lumpenproletariat”. The fact that “licensed” faux-revolutionaries such as the scribbler and TV talking head Owen Jones try to make these rootless, cultureless masses into a new “proletariat” (as in his book, “Chavs”) shows only the emptiness of the concept.

There are about 30 million people in employment in the UK, of which, now, only about 7 million belong to trade unions. Another pillar of traditional Labour Party support gone.

Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn: to me, that showed that its ordinary members and supporters understood that change was necessary in the UK. Corbyn is anti-Zionist (though does not want to take on the Zionist lobby in the UK in respect of either the faked “holocaust” narrative or in relation to the economic power of the lobby). Most Labour MPs are pawns of Zionism to a greater or lesser extent. Corbyn’s leadership has drawn in half a million enthusiastic members but, in most parts of the country, few new voters. If opinion polls are accurate, it seems that, now, only about quarter of the electorate will even consider voting Labour. Then we have the probability of boundary changes before 2020.

It is likely, that in a post-2019 House of Commons consisting of 600 MPs, Labour will have only about 150. In other words, even with SNP and other support, Labour will be unable to form a government even on a minority basis.

Corbyn-Labour is halfhearted (whether pro or anti) on the EU and favours –in effect–unrestricted immigration, both EU and non-EU. Many virtue-signalling Labour MPs have even openly supported further invasion by “refugee” hordes, including those already living in completely “safe” states such as France. These stances (and Labour’s poor opposition to State benefit changes) mean that Labour’s electability is likely to fall still further.

The Liberal Democrats, already dismissed by most voters after their craven performance in the Con Coalition of 2010-2015, can also be easily dismissed here. They have lost huge revenues along with their MP losses in 2015 (Short money etc) and the fall in numbers of LibDem local councillors. The LibDem support for the EU, trying to overturn the Brexit referendum result (in all but name) and support for mass immigration, together with boundary changes, might reduce their MP numbers to close to zero soon.

UKIP peaked in 2014, failed (by reason, so be it, of an unfair electoral system) to break through in 2015 and has now lost all credibility by reason of the circus of clowns vying for its leadership . Labour’s decline might yet lead to isolated UKIP wins, even Westminster wins, but UKIP’s day is done. Recent local and two or three Westminster by-elections chart the decline.

All of the above means that there is a political vacuum in the UK. That vacuum is not going to be filled by UKIP, could never be filled by UKIP (which failed to go full social-national after 2014). There is a place for a new movement, one which at present does not exist. If the world spins out of control, if the EU and UK economies tank, as may very well happen before 2020, social nationalism can surge into its rightful position of command. A new movement must start to emerge: social, national, green, pro-European but anti-EU, anti-New World Order, anti-Zionist. Such a movement can succeed and –I believe– will advance to victory.

Fortress-Centres of Culture and Science

In the Dark Ages, the flame of civilization and culture was kept burning in fortified centres: walled cities, monasteries etc. It may be that the time has come to think in terms of “back-up” for the knowledge and human expertise that we take for granted today.

What does that mean in practical terms? There can be little doubt that, were a breakdown of law and order to occur (whether as a result of war or natural calamity), the British cities would probably become chaotically lawless in a short space of time, especially if fuel, food, water or utilities were unavailable.

It seems to me that those inclined to social-nationalism should think in terms of relocating to areas some distance from major cities, to small towns and villages where like-minded people can become either the majority or a strong minority. Such clusters of people can take over the local councils, local businesses and farms, as well as doing the usual run of employed work which they might do in the cities where they, perhaps, now live.

The idea has the following merits:

a. Political (electoral or other) bases can be created, with voting weight;

b. The clustering effect would enable concerted action;

c. In the event of catastrophes in the wider world, these centres would become the places looked to by the wider masses for leadership.

Clausewitz said that, in order to extend power, one must first have a secure base. It is that that social-nationalism lacks at present in the UK. The above proposal aims to address that lack.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: