On Marching and Demonstrating

Should social nationalists march or demonstrate? My answer is the qualified, “only if the march or demonstration looks credible and maybe not even then”. What does that mean?

Some older people reading this will recall the National Front marches of the 1970s, with their aspiration to “a forest of Union Jacks”. Those marches were sometimes “credible” (meaning large enough not to be laughed at by hostile elements or the public generally) but had their drawbacks. All marchers were photographed (openly) by State security staff, as well as by the Press and/or Jewish Zionist snoopers. The police usually decided on the route in consultation with the organizers, as is usual now. The whole show was State-controlled. The resulting publicity was usually quite unfavourable, partly because the violence caused by anti-NF protesters tainted the NF marchers themselves, partly because of the unremittingly-hostile Press coverage, partly because many of the public could not see why such marches had to happen, disrupting superficially “peaceful” areas.

Unfavourable publicity from biased mainstream media, Jewish/Zionist provocation, public incomprehension. All of these were not new even in the 1970s. Mosley and the BUF faced similar problems in the 1930s. The uniformed marches remain controversial today, with even some who look kindly upon them blaming them for the relatively poor showing of the BUF in elections. The same is said of the famous rally at Olympia in 1934. After that, election results worsened and, importantly, the Daily Mail withdrew its support. BUF membership, which at one time had approached 50,000, dropped to 8,000 by 1935 (though at time of repression and involuntary disbandment in 1940, numbers had recovered to 20,000).

That was then and a different UK political milieu, but it can probably be said that Mosley and the BUF would have done better in terms of public perception without marches and, indeed, political uniforms (banned by the Public Order Act 1936).

The milieu today is one in which the Internet plays an important role. The mainstream media are losing ground in public visibility. The printed Press is dying: the Independent no longer publishes on paper, The Guardian begs its dwindling readership for donations. Where do public marches have a place?

It will be remembered that, a couple of years ago, a misguided young man started pushing on Twitter and elsewhere for marches against the Jewish influence in London, particularly North London and specifically in the (Orthodox Jew) Stamford Hill area and (later, in 2015) in the Golders Green neighbourhood. Some might say that that boat has well and truly sailed!

I opposed the idea on Twitter as soon as I became aware of it, not because I have any great liking for Jews of any kind, but for three main reasons:

  • firstly and most importantly, because such marches would probably be small, have to be protected by the ordinary police and make social nationalism look pathetic;
  • secondly, because the public would see such activity (especially through the msm lens) as an “unprovoked” attack on the Jews of those parts of London; and
  • thirdly, because it is the duty of social nationalists to put forward a vision of a better society, not to make futile gestures of a negative nature towards groups, even alien groups.

The result was all too predictable: the first event was abandoned (the organizer having been banned by the authorities from entering within the M25 area); the second “march” was moved on the say-so of the police, to at least 7 miles from Golders Green. In the end, about 10 “marchers” held a static demonstration in a Central London street. The organizer (Joshua Bonehill) was absent, having been arrested. He was later convicted of “incitement” of “racial hatred” against Jews and is still in prison.

A sorry tale, though it seems that that young man has reconsidered his position while in prison and has come to the conclusion (according to his Wikipedia entry) that the thing to do is to try to build a political base in the rural area from which he originated (southern Somerset). Better.

Can marches etc ever be useful these days? I think that the answer, at least on a 99% basis, must be “no”. The trade unions have raised marches numbering 500,000 against UK “austerity” cuts, without effect. Going back further, the anti-Iraq War march of 2003 in London is said by some to have topped a million (others say 500,000), while in Rome, the figure was 3 million. Overall, the anti-Iraq War protests of 2003 are said to have been “the largest protest event in human history” [Wikipedia]. Result? No change of policy by government(s) at all.

My conclusion from the above is that public protests are a distraction from real political activity.

Problems of Finance in Social Nationalist Politics

System political parties in the UK have sources of finance which are well known: wealthy donors, membership dues, fundraising drives, donations from big business or trade unions, as well as “Short money”, i.e. State monies given to parties depending on the number of MPs they have in the House of Commons. Smaller political parties, without many or any MPs, have to rely on trying to get large and smaller donations as well as collecting money from their members via subscriptions, collections and/or sale of items such as newspapers, magazines or, in some cases, memorabilia etc. There is another way.

When I lived in the United States in the early 1990s, I discovered that not only did many suburbs or little townships have countless churches (the names of which were unknown to me, usually), but that most of these churches were replete with cash. I was told that that was because they insisted, often, on the practice of “tithing”, i.e. the members had to give a proportion (usually 10%) of their income (post-tax income, usually) to the church to which they belonged. As a result, these churches had full-time staff, real property, vehicles etc. They were also able to help out members of the church fallen on hard times and had no difficulty raising the funds to print books. Some even owned radio and TV stations!

Returning to UK politics, were a social-national party or movement to operate the same system, the funds would be available for both pure political activity and wider work. A party might have as few as 100 full members, the income of which, after tax, might be only about £20,000 each (approx. UK average), but even that tiny party would, on the premises, have an annual income of £200,000. Small by the standards of the System parties or even UKIP, but still significant. A party with 1,000 members might have an annual income of £2 million. Now you’re talking…Such an income would enable a party to do more than conventional political activity. It could, for example, buy houses and flats wherein some of its members could live. The rents would thus go to the party, not to some buy-to-let parasite. This would also assist morale and esprit de corps.

Another way in which such income can help a political organization is in allowing it to operate a commercial arm and so not only make operational surpluses (“profits”), but also provide employment to members who need jobs.

As in many marriages, difficulties and dissent in political parties often arise out of money troubles. The tithing system is a way of avoiding that. A well-funded party is a credible party in a way that a shoestring organization can never be. An air of serious purpose pervades such a body.

It might be objected that it will be hard to persuade people to give up their (in many cases) hard-earned money. If so, their commitment must be questioned. There are enough “hobby politics” organizations around already. Most will never amount to anything. If someone wants to belong to something as a hobby, then fine, go do it..elsewhere. If, on the other hand, someone wants to belong to a serious movement, with a serious world-view, a serious plan and a serious chance of accomplishing something, then the need for tithing must be apparent and will be accepted by those most able to carry out the objectives set.

 

The Organization of Community

When new social-national communities emerge, as they will in the coming years, the question is posed as to their organization.

It is important to note that, in the UK, a social-national community will not, in general, be anything akin to a commune, paramilitary encampment or religious settlement such as a monastery or convent. It will be a community which interpenetrates the existing or pre-existing ordinary village, suburb, town or city. The template can best be explained in relation to what might happen when social nationalism arrives in a large village or small town.

Scene

A social nationalist with capital buys a country house or estate, somewhere near a small English or Welsh town. He or she needs workers or retainers to help with the house, grounds, park, perhaps farmland too. Those people are sourced from the wider social-national community in the UK. At the same time, these people gradually infiltrate the local community, not in any sinister way, but by doing the things that they would have done wherever they lived: sending their children to local schools, joining local non-political groups (am-dram, allotments, churches, residents’, neighbourhood watch etc).

Other social nationalists arrive, buying houses locally, renting property, getting jobs or living off pensions or even State benefits. Some buy or rent farms, cafes, pubs, shops. Some start to work in the local offices of larger enterprises, in the local Jobcentre (if any), or in the local council offices. Others are able to work from home, thanks to the Internet.

Nothing alarming or noisy happens. There are no marches, demonstrations, or other disruptions. People get on with normal life. Underneath the surface, however, there is purposeful movement, a current beginning to flow. There are meetings, discussions, social events; nothing too large or noisy. In time, the social nationalists number in the hundreds and are a significant proportion of the local population, with more gravitating to the area every week. The time has then come for overt political action.

A by-election for a council ward is held. Few of the original local inhabitants even bother to vote. A social nationalist is elected, either under Party banner, as “Resident”, or “Independent”; even perhaps under System party aegis.

The local council is taken over before very long. Social nationalists are then in the driving-seat locally. The area and the wider region becomes a magnet for social-national people from across the UK as it becomes known as a place where censorship and hostile opposition is unknown or swiftly checkmated. The local librarian is a social nationalist, the Mayor, the schoolteachers, the council officials, the friendly innkeeper and his wife, the sub-post office people.

The election for Westminster is held and the social nationalist candidate is elected, perhaps under social nationalist party banner. By this time, the national press, radio and TV is trying to spread lies about the people in the movement, but can do nothing against a solid phalanx of believers, living, working and acting in a situation where the Zionists and others can do nothing substantial to harm or impede them. Locally, social nationalists run an Internet radio station, even local transmitted radio, as well as the local free newspaper. It is not long before the movement spreads throughout the whole region. People of like mind are fleeing London, Manchester, Birmingham etc so that they can live in such a region. A mini-ethnostate has been created.

The story does not end there, but on a wider stage.

Social Nationalism and Green Politics

There has always been a strong connection between the current now known as social nationalism and what is now called the “green” movement.

The famous author Henry Williamson [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Williamson#Politics], who lived in North Devon and wrote the story Tarka the Otter, was a member of the British Union of Fascists, visited Germany during the 1930s and was, by any other name, a National Socialist.

It is well known that Walther Darre [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Walther_Darr%C3%A9] was “green” and that he represented a definite current within German National Socialism.

The only state, to date, to have banned cruel experiments on animals outright was National Socialist Germany. The anti-vivisection law was the first law or one of the first few laws passed by Hitler’s government. Cartoons showed Goering (another National Socialist and leading conservationist) and animals saluting, with captions such as “Heil Goering!”, “Even the animals vote for the Fuhrer!” and “Vivisection verboten!”goeringanimals

A leading, though at the same time once-obscure, thinker who espoused both National Socialism and animal welfare (etc) was Savitri Devi [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi], whose work is now again coming to attention. Her ideas and books even have websites devoted to them: https://www.savitridevi.org/last_man_french.html and https://www.savitridevi.org/.

The connection is not surprising. What is now termed social nationalism is organic, built on the natural order and having respect for the creatures of the land, water and air as well as (contrary to Zionist propaganda) the relatively backward racial groups and peoples of our Earth. The hero Leon Degrelle [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Degrelle] put the latter point very well after the Second World War:becwoaeccaazenq

It is striking to see that there is very often an overlap, for example on Twitter, between those who are protective of animals and those who are strongly social-nationalist. Brigitte Bardot is a name which comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot.

The new society in Europe will be nationalist, it will, also, be for Europe and its future (though anti-EU), it will be green and it will be socially-just.

NEW COMMUNITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES FOR SOCIAL NATIONALISTS

The large cities of England are becoming no-go zones for social nationalism. Repressive anti-free-speech laws, politically-indoctrinated police and, above all, the increasing hordes of non-Europeans make cities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester (let alone such as Bradford or Leicester) unwelcoming. In London, the Jews have even established their own police force (under the cover of a help-the-police Neighbourhood Watch scheme). This body, apparently known as the “Shomrim”, has marked “police” cars, uniformed “officers” and, it is said, operates from real police stations in Barnet and elsewhere. In the Muslim areas of the large cities, it would be a brave individual who would undertake any political activities of a social-nationalist or anti-immigration nature, even if as mild as, say, supporting UKIP.

Electorally, social-nationalists are isolated and, especially since the implosion of the BNP, almost certain to receive fewer than 5% of votes, even in local council elections. UKIP is scarcely social-nationalist, garnered 3.8 million votes, yet failed to win a single new MP in 2015.

Socially, English and Welsh people (I leave Scotland aside) find that their children, if in State schools, are in a milieu which is not British and are subjected to brainwashing propaganda dressed up as education, while they themselves live in a “multicultural” mess which can only get worse.

There is already “white flight” from the large cities of England to the smaller cities and towns and to the rural areas generally.
Let us build on this existing trend.

What I propose is that social nationalists cluster in one or two or a few areas, where we can order society the way we want, educate children the way we want, have electoral weight and other political influence.

Those who have capital can buy houses, businesses, farms, estates. Those without capital and dependent on paid work, pensions, or State benefits can relocate to similar circumstances as those in which they currently live. An organised movement will be able to assist with contacts, jobs and business links etc. An internet radio station can be established without State interference. Even a “normal” (albeit regulated and censored by OFCOM) local radio can be set up and a local newspaper established.

Once there is a credible social national party, it can take over the local council(s) without much difficulty and in time depose whoever is the System party MP to elect a real social-national MP (or MPs).

A thriving base for social nationalism will exist, spreading influence nationwide, attracting even more like-minded people. If two or more such bases are established, the same applies, but concentration is key.

I have had several places or regions suggested as the most suitable. There may be a number of suitable parts of England or Wales; I personally favour the South West, an area which I know, where I have lived and which has always been sympathetic to British and/or English national sentiment.

I welcome all useful or constructive contact and comment on how to start this ball rolling.

NATO IS OBSOLETE

Long before he won the U.S. Presidential election, Donald Trump described NATO as “obsolete”. That exactly describes it. After the end of the Second World War, NATO was established in order to confront the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact. The United States stood with Western European allies. An attack on any of those states of Western and Northern Europe would result, via Article 5 of the NATO treaty, in a response, including possible nuclear response, from all NATO members including, crucially, the USA.

Half a century after NATO was founded, socialism died. The Soviet Union imploded. At that point, a genuinely new relationship might have been established between Russia and the United States and its dependent allies. As it was, Russia was invaded by a horde of carpetbagging business chancers (often Jewish) and similarly-staffed US and UK (mainly) corporate entities. The West took the chance to loot, batten upon and spy the bejesus out of Russia.

The result, a quarter-century on, is that Russia, having to some extent regained its self-respect and strength, now confronts the West, including NATO. Meanwhile, NATO has expanded far from its Atlantic roots and interferes far and wide. Its membership has expanded to include states such as Poland and Lithuania. At the same time, NATO (USA) has established bases and stationed missiles on the ground of some of the former Warsaw Pact and now NATO members.

It is important to understand what this means: if any NATO member is attacked, all other NATO states are obliged to retaliate to defend that member. What that now means is that a small conflict between Poland and Russia or even between, say, Lithuania and Russia, could and probably would draw in the USA and UK, leading to a major war, which war might, in all probability, go nuclear.

The absurdity and the danger is clear. A border skirmish or a misunderstanding might trigger a short but devastating war, the ultimate consequences of which are incalculable. The worst-hit country might be the UK, which still hosts numerous U.S. bases.

Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was an aggressive and (despite “Socialism in one country”) expansionist entity, founded on a premise of world Marxist-Leninist revolution; its military doctrine favoured attack. Russia now is completely different, has no wish to take over the world and has no ideology beyond that of patriotic nationalism. It is not the same threat as was the Soviet Union.

The conclusion is obvious: NATO must disband. In the meantime, the USA should either leave NATO or demand removal (or at least the softening) of Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

THE CASE FOR BASIC INCOME

Jesus Christ said that the poor are always with us (part of society). Whether that be accepted or not in absolute terms, the fact remains that, in practice, there is always the necessity to deal with “the submerged tenth”. In Soviet Russia, the solution was make-work jobs and, if that failed, part of the GULAG system. In finance-capitalist “Western” societies, there is the illusion of “aspiration” and “opportunity”: people need not be without (sufficient) income if they work. This theory or ideology leaves aside those who cannot work, whether because sick, disabled or unable to find remunerative or sufficiently remunerative employment.

Robotics and computerization are advancing. Some studies say that a third of present jobs in countries such as the UK will disappear by about 2030 (some say “only” 25%). It may well be that other jobs will not appear to take up the slack. Millions may be left unemployed. At present, lack of income means that unemployed people (as well as the sick and disabled) have to jump through hoops in a degrading and largely pointless bureaucratic exercise in order to receive often very modest State-provided benefit payments. The system is not only expensive because of those payments, but because of the huge bureaucratic machinery that is built in to the process. There is a better way. Basic Income.

The Basic Income idea is that all citizens receive a regular payment, regardless of circumstances. In short, the payment is unconditional, meaning not withheld if the recipient does not have a job, look for a job, can do a job. Basic Income replaces all (or, in some versions, some) existing social welfare payments.

Basic Income is being trialled in some areas of Europe: in parts of Switzerland, Finland, the Netherlands. In Alaska, all permanent residents receive a small Basic Income payment annually (at present, about $2,500), monies routed from oil revenues.

Basic Income could be tweaked, so that persons on incomes above a certain level have an equivalent amount taken via the tax system; another idea would be to give a higher-tier Basic Income to the disabled (though that would mean some form of assessment and judgment). Alternatively, Basic Income could be paid only to those without income or capital, topping up income to a certain or decided level. That is, in fact, more or less what happens now in the UK, but without the present system’s bureaucracy, unpleasantness, snooping, harassing etc (made far worse since the Iain Duncan Smith regime of 2010-2016).

It is objected that Basic Income would mean that people would just be unwilling to work. Is that so? First of all it might depend on the level of Basic Income. Economic realities would probably limit Basic Income to no more than about £15,000 p.a. It might be as little as £10,000 (either per person or per household). Many will, at that level, find plenty of incentive to work if they can. Also, it is rarely heard that people should not receive inheritances or trust incomes because they might be made lazy thereby. Lottery winners in the UK usually start businesses, carry on working for pay or do charity work.

In fact, in the UK, there are already payments somewhat analogous to Basic Income. State Pensions are already paid to all person over a decided age, with extra “State Pension Guarantee Credit” money paid to those whose income and capital is below a certain level. Child Benefit was formerly paid to all persons who have children (regardless of income) and still is paid, though now with a (quite high) income cutoff point.

The cost of Basic Income is lessened by the removal of large numbers of pointless jobs in the (UK) Department of Work and Pensions etc and by the elimination of the need for large numbers of “Jobcentres” and other buildings and their upkeep. Housing Benefit will not exist, so greedy buy-to-let parasites will not be subsidized by taxpayers via taxation revenues). That alone will save billions of pounds.

A person receiving Basic Income will be able to look for work honestly (rather than in order to tick a Jobcentre box) and with confidence, will have money for transport, clothing, food. The disabled will not have to undergo degrading tests in order to receive the “basic level” of Basic Income (medical report from GP should be sufficient anyway). The more fortunate, who have income or capital anyway, will (if receiving Basic Income), will be able to spend more (stimulating the economy) and/or start their own businesses.

In short, it will become clear in time that Basic Income is the way forward in the UK.

%d bloggers like this: