A vote for UKIP

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 05 January 2013 19:13.

One of the arguments I am disseminating regularly these days is that a vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party, notwithstanding the obvious deficiencies of its platform, is the most productive for a Brit who loves not just his country but his people.  As usual this argument is framed within the English context.  It goes something like this, as posted this evening on the thread to Janet Daly’s current DT piece, The Tories can win if they put real people first:

There are two issues arising from Janet’s analysis.

First, the Conservative Party is a party of the City, big business and, like the other two mainstream parties, global elitism.  These are the interests Conservatives serve today.  They cannot turn to serve the people without turning away from their present beneficiaries.  They will never willingly do so.

The only event that can produce change here is the confiscation of any potential Conservatives possess to form another government.  If Conservatives are sufficiently electorally degraded, the political right will re-form - it must.  And that’s where the people’s interests come into the equation, for no party will gain support by openly declaring for narrow elite interests.

That is why a vote for UKIP is the most valuable vote you have.

The second question arising from Janet’s article is this: who are these people she refers to?  We no longer live in an England of distinct class interests; we no longer live in a white England but in a slowly browning England.  The immigrant populations do not have the same interests as the English - the exact opposite, in fact.

So the problem for the right is this: it can serve a people but not the people ... not all the people.  It cannot serve two masters.  Thus the will to political power necessarily becomes entrapped in the rising racial consciousness of the English people. The more awake are the English, the more the right must reflect that in its politics.

In the absence of a nationalist revolution, this is the way to the future life of ethnic England.  It is deliverable.  It may be the only possible result of all the dynamics in play at this time.  If not ... if it fails, the next grab for English freedom and life in the MultiCult will be the final one; and it won’t be political at all.

Now, if one accepts the logic here the next thing to watch for is how successful UKIP is in the run up to the 2015 election.  If the support achieved at the last round of by-elections is maintained or increased the destruction scenario can become a reality for the Tories. Yes, general elections are a much more difficult ask for a minor party than mid-term by-elections.  Yes, David Cameron will be able to nibble away at the softer end of UKIP’s support by his “negotiations” over a new relationship for Britain within the EU.  But still, the damage that has been done by Cameron to his party is unprecedented - he truly is to Conservatism what Tony Blair was to Labour.  I find it hard to believe that he will not pay some substantial electoral costs.

Of course, I may only be grasping at a few nationalist straws.  What else is there for an Englishman to do, frankly?



Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 22:12 | #

the damage that has been done by Cameron to his party is unprecedented - he truly is to Conservatism what Tony Blair was to Labour (GW)

Could you or others elaborate on this? From my limited foreign perspective, I understand that Cameron is doing nothing much that nationalists would want (though didn’t his govt reduce immigration just a bit?). But how has he hurt the Tories? By trying to stem the debt crisis, which is really, as in the US, a spending crisis? Someday soon, any Western leader’s patriotism will be measured in part by his willingness to resist special interest pleading and ACTUALLY REDUCE the size of government expenditures. Economic law is what it is, and cannot merely be wished or voted away.

Or has he committed some more specifically racial evil?

And why do you compare him to Blair, who was evil, of course, but also remarkably successful as Labour leader? Where would Labour be today without him?



Posted by FUCK the Tories and Vote UKIP! on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:02 | #

Well, a ‘bad’ nationalist party is better than no nationalist party at all, and the hope is that UKIP represents a pogramme of stealth and gradualism, a slow introduction, if you will, that opens the door to a ‘new politics’ with the gap being pushed ever wider as the years roll by - the hard bit is unlocking the door in the first place , and it’s here that (hopefully) UKIP are the magic skeleton key, indispensible, downright useful and if lost or stolen, irreplaceable. That’s why I’ve invested so much of my hopes nad dreams on Mr. Farage and his merry band. In contrst to Nigel’s magic key, Griffin (despite my 5 year ago self invested just as much hope in his unlikely form), was never moe than a DM’d bovver boy, wearing a comedy pickelhaube, bashing away at the back door of middle Engalnd with a sledgehammer, and leaving behind a nasty little smell in the process.
    UKIP, evidently run by some very clever people are playing it just right at the moment - a cuddly, cheeky, in-your-face quintessentially English party (the England of the Home Counties, the Two Ronnies, word play and razor sharp wit), with (importantly) no hint of ‘malice’ or ‘menace’.
  - For God’s sake UKIP don’t ruin it. If the magic key is lost, no force on earth will get the guardian dragon of St. George ever to issue a replacement.


Posted by Bill on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:15 | #

The wrecking ball that is Cameron just doesn’t compute unless one understands his modus operandi is to continue Brown’s scorched earth policy.  Last time I opined he must have accepted the poisond chalice of being a one term prime minister, how could it not be so?

One can hardly claim any other motive for his crass alienation of his core support, that is unless he has something up his sleeve down the line such as as suspending the ‘democratic’ process and forming an emergency coalition.

I would love to be a fly on the wall of a Telegraph editor’s office for a day, (pity Jim’s gone , he might have fixed it for me.)  Who decides and at what level and which Telegraph columnist will be detailed to write on what topic for the day?  Does Ms. Daley have a choice?

Columnist like Janet Daley must think their world has fallen down around their ears, all those years when they could write whatever tripe came into the heads without a chance of any criticism from their readers.  With the coming of the Internet they’re on a hiding to nothing.  Surely they know we know that their sycophantic garbage is seen for what it is, but apparently no, for it just keeps on coming.

British politics continues to unravel and will increasingly do so, the only consistent coherent message being received is the destruction of Britain, to what aim only a few people grasp.

Farage is to UKIP what Griffin is to the BNP.  The whole of the immediate thrust of sounding of the trumpet of awareness to the British people rests on the slight shoulders of UKIP’s leader Nigel Farage, for it is he, who, (like Griffin) will be the media’s screen face of resistance

Farage surely can do no worse than Griffin.  At the height of Griffin’s prominence as the face of the BNP he accessed ever more media exposure, culminating in the BBC Question Time fiasco which brought him down and humiliated millions of potential BNP sympathisers.

This is the threshold where Farage is about to stand, let battle commence.

Is Farage the man or is he bought and paid for like the rest?  This hard hitting piece I only found yesterday says that he is. 


This vehement anti EU (website?) tells it like no other, I issue the usual caveat as I don’t know who they are.

UKIP and the BNP are honeytraps to neutralise activists: UKIP is riddled with Freemasons and Common Purpose like a cancer, and the BNP controlled by the Edgar Griffin (father) and son Nick Freemasonry family. The 350,000 freemasons and the 40,000 strong Common Purpose Organisation are the (mostly unknowing) footsoldiers of the EU in Britain. (Which makes the BNP the easiest party to clean up - get rid of the Griffins, and put in a real anti-EU leadership.)


Posted by Bill on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:40 | #

It’s a Sunday afternoon, I’m socked in with leaden skies, the pace is slow, I turn to this in my favorites.

It’s unique, it’s self explanatory, it’s magnificent, it’s superb, it’s my refuge.

La Traviata im Hauptbahnhof Zürich


Posted by Bill on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:44 | #

Oops! - @ 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsyIuaVKnXwtry this.


Posted by Paul on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 14:28 | #

Here’s your UKIP candidate for West Midlands 2009. What a joke!



Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:52 | #

Vote UKIP - Get Labour.

Until a Left Nationalist party exists on the left of British politics to draw votes from the labour party, which is what the BNP and Respect used to do and both are now electorally defunct, then a vote for UKIP will merely bring back the Labour Party.

UKIP are a Trans-Atlantacist Party who want us to swop domination by the EU for the US, the Euro for the Dollar.

They do not want to change the system, they want to join it - they are just new pigs jostling for a space at the old trough.


Posted by Paul on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:35 | #

Electorally defunct you say?]http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2012/12/29/british-freedom-party-de-registered-by-electoral-commission.aspx] http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2012/12/29/british-freedom-party-de-registered-by-electoral-commission.aspx[/url]


Posted by Bill on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:37 | #

Zero tolerance to the right has been left’s policy for decades, as a result there is no right political representation, it has long been filtered out of the system.

Social liberalism (political correctness) in lock-step with globalist neo-liberal economics is the only game in town.  The West’s political regime is so ruthless it must be safe to conclude that a small fry like UKIP has been neutered and are fully corralled in the globalist pen.  I am also not wholly convinced of Farage’s harangues in the Brussels’s cockpit, when Van Rompuy sits there looking unconvinced with a sly smile tracing his lips.

The bottom line tells us we know nothing with any certainty, our hearts hope and our heads deny.

I don’t get this handle if you vote UKIP you get Labour (BTW is it still New Labour or have they quietly reverted back to simply Labour.)  Then so what?  The whole bloody shooting match is Left anyway, so what difference does it make.  If UKIP plays the the bad cop (in the eyes of the political establishment) then at least it will be a bellwether as to the leanings of where the people stand.

What to do?

It’s got to be a vote for UKIP, there is nobody else.  Of course the real answer is simply don’t vote at all, give them the finger - not in my name.  But they won’t.


Posted by Bill on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:31 | #

Nigel Farage.

It’s started.

“Five years from now, Ukip will have changed the face of British politics,” Farage says.

This morning’s Guardian.




Posted by Remember to Mention 'UKIP' when replying to Advert on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 04:28 | #

I have to agree with Bill.
The criticism that voting for UKIP will ‘let in Labour’ - as those dirty bastards at the Daily Mail have already started crowing (together with personal attacks - typical Daly Mail style - at Farage), is not really valid or acceptable. It’s a double negative, in fact.
- Under the UK’s flawed electoral system (which the Tories fought tooth and nail to preserve), there can only be one winner at Westmnster - everyone else gets sweet FA, no matter if they loose by 10 votes or 10 million votes.
  Nothing terrifies the Tories more than being deprived of power (which they expect ‘as of right’). The only way the Tories can survive vote nobbling by UKIP is to move to the right on immigration and Europe, possibly by making a pact with UKIP.
Anti-immigrationists can only win with the UKIP bandwagon. If Labour get in again and are dumb enough to play their dirty immigration trick again, then they will pay a very, very heavy price from a unified anti-immigrationist right, which this time will have some balls and backbone and tell it like it is.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 09:52 | #

Look isn’t GW advocating for a strategically important act of ‘creative destruction’ in terms of the Tory Party?

So we get a Labour government for five years - big deal. Is it all that important if with have right-liberals or left-liberals in power? Not really - what is really important is that political ‘fresh air’ gets into the system and that means crippling one of the two main parties. It seems, in the English context, that it’s the Tories that are vulnerable to such a challenge (I will return to this point in one moment).

In order for new political parties etc., to enter a crowded stage one of the two main parties has to effectively die. This is particularly true under our UK wide system of ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) for UK general (all UK) elections - it’s quite unlike the forms of PR we now have for devolved elections in Scotland and for our elections for EU representatives.

Yet it might seem impossible that big ‘mainstream’ parties really do atrophy and die.

However, in the Isles we have at least three examples.

1) The death of the Liberal party (as one of the big two) replaced by the Labour Party in the 1920s/30s

2) The death of the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland (in part by the rise of the SNP). In the 1950s the SNP consisted of about dozen eccentric literary intellectuals and the Tories had over 50% of the popular vote. How times change (almost literally no-one in Scotland now votes Tory) - and the SNP is now slowly killing off Labour too in Scotland.

3) On a more minor scale within Northern Ireland the main nationalist party (the SDPL) and the main Unionist party (the UUP) prior to the peace process have, post the peace process, been almost totally replaced as the local top dogs by Sinn Fein and the DUP respectively.

Now why in particular are the Tories weak? Well some short term factors are in play. They are seen as being both ‘nasty’ but also by even their own yardsticks as dreadfully incompetent. Cameron and the Bullingdon club boys are just wretched at that basic level of being able to metaphorically tie one’s own shoelaces. They (the Tories) are maladroit in the extreme - unlike say a Tony Blair who in art or technique of being a successful modern politician was a master of the game. Cameron is an amateur in comparison.

A more medium term problem is the European issue. For around twenty years now the Tory party has talked big on how much it dislikes the EU - throwing rhetorical ‘red meat’ on the subject willy-nilly. But the moment of truth is near. The Great British public wants a referendum on the question - and that the question is in/out. An in/in referendum (of some sort) is not acceptable across the majority of Tory commentators/newspapers (see http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/tory-eurosceptics-insist-in-in-poll-is-unacceptable.19832286)

But now all these ‘hard-line’ Tory Euro-sceptics are backtracking like crazy. Take for example one Boris Johnson – someone that both intellectually and physically might pass for a real-life version of Piltdown Man.

Recently Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to use his full name gave the most sophist like interview to the BBC in which he said yes he was hard-line Euro-sceptic and he did want an in/out referendum but that he would campaign for a yes to staying in the EU as it’s in Britain fundamental interests. Now recall Mr Johnson had prior to his formal entry in political life spend over decade as a so-called journalist writing vituperative polemics against the EU. The massive bad faith and utter hypocrisy of the Tory elite on the EU is in the process of being completely exposed. People will be very angry indeed that they have been taking in by them on this one.

In the longer term the Tories are in deeper decline. The two party system is losing its grip on UK politics with the proportion of votes that either the Tory party or the Labour party can gain being quite a bit lower that at the height of the system (when it was generally 50% Conservative, 50% Labour - or very nearly so).

But the Tories have been ‘hollowing out’ themselves in a more profound way than the Labour party. An obscure study from 1994 by three political scientists examined the demographics of Tory party members and activists, along with those of ‘hardcore’ Tory loyalist voters (the base) along with a survey of the attitudes to a wide range of political questions in these groups. It’s called “True Blues: Politics of Conservative Party Membership” (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/True-Blues-Politics-Conservative-Membership/dp/0198277865/) which at the time as a politically obsessed undergrad I read during a summer vacation.

It was fascinating reading. The Tory party at the level of hardcore voters, party members, and activists were very much older than general population, they had very ‘old fashioned’ social attitudes on many issues (especially in comparison to averages from the general public on the same subjects and even when statistical controlling for age-cohort effects) and interesting they had significantly more ‘collectivist’ outlook than the Tory party elite. For example, the ordinary Tory members had as high a positive regard for the NHS as average members of the Labour party and I think marginally higher than the general UK population.

The Tory party of 1994-ish as an organisation that is actually connected to ‘ordinary people’ was in trouble. Yes it membership was rapidly ageing in comparison with the general population, and yes it pool of activists (and potential activists) was in decline, but the real killer was that almost no younger people were joining the party. The study concluded that unchecked such trends would potentially see the longer term ‘death’ of the Tory party. Once it had been one of largest mass-membership party in Western European politics with significantly large numbers of young people joining the party and one of the most electorally successfully political parties in Western Europe – but now it was in real decline (or at risk of such decline). This is in 1994 – all laid out in an obscure book by some academics so safely ignored by just about everyone.

The study also suggested these trends would eventually diminish the ability of the Tory party to compete in elections. They provided fairly compelling evidence that strong local party ‘machines’ were a key factor in maximizing electoral performance – contrary to the superficial view that all that matters is media coverage in determining elections. The ground game, as American’s call it, was something that no party can afford to ignore.

Now journalistic opinion has caught up with these processes/insights – see Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s sardonic ‘The Strange Death of Tory England’ or even this report - ‘Tory membership has collapsed under Cameron’ (see http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron).

Also to back up the thesis of the ‘slow death’ of the Tory Party is its pattern of performances in UK general elections. I think since 1992 the overall trend is downward in terms of percentage share of the vote both in losing and winning (that is the losses have been much heavier and the wins much weaker in terms of vote share). Take 1945 (a landslide for Labour but the % share was Tory 40% - Labour 49%); 1959 (Tory win with 49% - Labour 44%); 1983 (Tory win with 42% - Labour on 28% - historically nearly a ‘fatal election’ for Labour); 1992 (Tory win with 42% - Labour 34%); 1997 (Tory loss with 31% Labour 43%); 2001 (Tory loss with 32% - Labour 41%); 2005 (Tory loss with 32% - Labour 35%).

Now we come to 2010. Under very favourable circumstances – an unpopular Labour party (‘time for a change’ etc.) a Prime Minister that was personally very unpopular (Gordon Brown) and loathed by large sections of the media, the background of a massive global economic crisis and deepest recession in the UK that anyone can remember how did the Tories do?

They couldn’t win a majority of one in the House of Commons. Whilst the Labour party repeated its truly dreadful 1983 share (28%) the Tories recorded a ‘massive’ 36% of the vote. Again recall another pattern of UK elections is that the first victory in the electoral cycle is the heaviest with stasis and/or decline across following elections until defeat. So at the likely high-point of their electoral cycle the Tories can only get to the mid 30s in share of the vote – that’s a long way from previous peaks at 42%, let alone at 49%. Add to the mix the very high proportion of Tory seat won in 2010 on wafer-thin majorities, I wouldn’t bet on Cameron and his gang being around post 2015 in Downing Street.

The conclusion of all of this is that it is the Tory party that is, structurally, the much weaker of the two main ‘all UK’ political parties. Imagine a scenario in which the Tories have ruled over five years of economic stagnation (at best), betrayed the Euro-sceptics part of the population over the EU, put all their energy into saving the Union and yet as the party of Empire ‘lost’ Scotland, then they may be in such low spirits that the political equivalent of the Dignitas clinic is required.

Still the point is under our present system (FPTP) for a minor political party to have a chance of power one of the old ones must be brought to it knees and effectively killed or given such a ‘near-death’ experience that it radically reformulates itself. The vulnerable party is the Tory party – so much so I can see them cynically ‘converting’ to the idea of PR at some point in the future. And if the formal rules of the Westminster game change in such a way then all bets are off as to what the longer-term consequences would be for presently ‘minor’ parties.


I was going to write a response to Leon Haller but it got upto around 3000 words so I might reformulate it into a front page item.

Just on non-linear systems, complexity theory and complex adaptive systems I’ve been reading the likes of Stuart Kauffman since my undergrad days. Very interesting stuff.

Incidently within economics is there is very interesting book by the economic thinker Paul Ormerod called ‘The Death of Economics’ in which he presents a powerful case that ecological models (such as the Lotka–Volterra equations - first-order, non-linear, differential equations frequently used to describe the dynamics of biological systems like predator-prey cycles and so on) fits core economic datasets – like the relationship over time between inflation and unemployment etc., far better than any neo-classical model (with far greater precision and much more conceptual elegance). Of course Ormerod studies complexity, networks, non-linear systems/feedback loops etc., all of which don’t exist in the world of Robinson Crusoe as ‘economic man’.


Posted by Dude on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:12 | #

IMO the best thing about the rise of UKIP is the rise of a party that can disrupt the two party system, to however gently challenge party tribalism.

Why is this happening, due to the merits of UKIP and their political wisdom? No. It is largely media driven, arguably as an strut to bolster the creaking political system.

Secondly, while reservations are sensible, this research by Ashcroft is interesting to scan read. Many UKIP supporters, if the research is to be trusted, are less concerned about Europe and more drawn to the ‘British’ cultural signals, that emanate from UKIP.

They have challenges to overhaul their policies and stop being the Dad’s army (in the apt words of the DM’s Peter Hitchens) of British politics, but if the research is true then it would suggest, they are tapping into both ex-Conservatives as well as old-Labourites and people who normally subscribe to other political persuasions too.

P.S. I think Mr Barnes above is wrong. We need a party that speaks to ethnicity, not to rehearsing workers vs bosses arguments from yesteryear.


Posted by Dude on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:13 | #

Odd. Managed to wipe some of my last post including the link. See below



Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:56 | #

Look any ‘nationalist’ movement has to take the political form of a ‘catch-all’ party. Along the lines of “we represent the whole of the nation” but it cannot be empty rhetoric - it does have to be real in having real-world positive benefits for every strata of society. Given most people are not plutocrats presenting one’s position via the ideological tropes of plutocratic elites is dumb politics.

We need more of the ‘free-market’ - yes to more and more ruthless competition in every sphere of life is effectively what that ideological trope is really saying politically - less social protection, less communitarianism, more “your only an atomistic individual actor in the market and that’s all life is about - look out for number 1” (less ‘we’ space and more ‘I’ space). So from a nationalist ideological perspective rampant ‘free-marketry’ is utterly self-defeating and incoherent of ANY nationalism’s core premise; namely the ‘we’ exists - the collective ‘whole’ has an ontological reality and is in some ways is the most important element of life. The whole is prior to it’s individual parts.

So when people at an ideological level drone on about the ‘free-market’ at least a good number of people will ‘read’ this narrative at some vague level along the lines of “what we really need more of parasitism of Wall Street or the City then?” Why on Earth does anyone think that will have serious traction with Mr. and Mrs. Economically Average - let alone their friends Mr. & Mrs. Below Economically Average is beyond me.

The philosopher Simon Critchley has been working on the idea of political theology due to as he sees it the deep dissatisfaction with liberalism that almost is tangible in Western European societies (including bog-standard Hayekian right-liberalism and globalisation/free-markets ‘are all’ style discourse of the Haller’s of this sorry world). But recently Critchley (an anarchist of sorts) made the point that the rise ‘conservative’ social democracy (as seen in Denmark) is effectively the most (to use his terms) ‘insidiously racist’ and thus on the ground the most effective form of particularist politics in Europe today.

That’s something I’ve been thinking about for longer than Critchley - the political formulation and sustainability of the ‘in-group’ and the mechanism required for reciprocal loyalty- how this can work in a modern context - and I hate to break the news to dumbass WN’s but simply ‘being white together’ and nothing more in terms of the ‘politics of solidarity’ is not enough by any means to be ideologically effective.

Think on - all mass societies will experience a form of political axiality. Those that think the ‘left’ are the source of all problems are ideological buffoons. Every modern or post-modern mass society will have a left and right of some sort. To capture the people’s loyalty, as a whole, one has to incorporate this insight into one’s politics - that is part why I call myself a ‘radical centrist’ (but not a liberal centrist - an ethno-communitarian one).

The question is of what type of left (or right); what is the foundational ‘ontological’ territory that the terms left and right will operate within? The medium or idiom in which the axiality is expressed is far more important than the inevitable and unavoidable axiality itself.

Right now (pardon the pun) that foundational premise or medium is that of liberal political theory/ontology. So down with both right-liberals and left-liberals if one is serious about a post-liberal politics (note post not pre-liberal - we simply cannot recreate that past as the past - it’s not an option contra buffoonish ‘traditionalists’).

It’s post-modernity after modernity not pre-modernity (such as the bizarro ideal-world of Mr. Bowery et al. deadly duels and all); or some foundationally religious revival - sociologically no society under the conditions of modernity (let alone post-modernity) can possibly foundationally understand itself in the religious terms of say the the middle age; i.e. the notion that Christianity is an unquestionably solid meta-narrative explaining everything in the world – the social, the cultural, the political etc., which cannot be imagined or convinced of as being in error or not true. The Nietzschean insight – that WE have killed God in that socio-cultural sense of we can never return to that (in retrospect) naïve position of total trust in the Christian meta-narrative as true beyond all reasonable doubt. The radical historicity of Daesin prevents it. At the risk of being pretentious we must deal with the actual territory in which historic Daesin finds itself – technologically, scientifically, conceptually/philosophically, socio-culturally not some previous modality of being. We can’t recreate the Roman world or the Athens of Plato, or the American of 1795 (or whatever) in toto.

It’s an impossible task, thus in political terms a form of masturbatory ‘displacement activity’ – that is why when I hear chatter about the socio-political ‘centrality’ of Christianity I stop paying serious attention because a deluded fool (of sorts) is speaking. Even a highly articulate and educated ‘fool’ like Mr. Haller. And of course God might be objectively real – but that form of Christianity is dead to historic Daesin. Yes individuals might buy into that story but no social totality (under the background conditions we confront and are thrown within) will at any deep ‘ontological’ level ‘buy into’ that story anymore – hence Christainity is of no substantively positive meta-political importance. In fact it may be deeply negative as a political form – it is a radically universalistic doctrine – and if you think as a universalist in one domain it’s far more likely one will implicitly adopt that modality of thought elsewhere via various mechanism of transcription etc.,; especially if one claims that conceptual model of reality (as such) to be of foundational importance for everything else!

To sum up: contemporary conservatism is right-liberalism with conservative mood music to trick the gullible - one can only get more liberalism if one stays within its narrow ideological confines.



Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:09 | #

Forgive the typos in my last coupe of posts (but not the thoughts lol) - typing too quickly and not reading them properly before posting as I’m pressed for time at the moment.

Catch you all later.


Posted by Bill on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:04 | #

Where in the overall consideration of world politics is Conservatism today in relation to the totalitarian grip of universal liberal hegemony, which we all know has captured (hi-jacked) the political system from Alaska to New Zealand?

Britain’s existential threat has been engineered by stealth and subterfuge, in fact this is the hall-mark of the way the instigators operate, even the name liberal itself is a scam.  Trouble is, as I have so oft repeated, the entire plot (for that is what it is,) has been achieved by guile.  But by its very nature could not go on indefinitely before being inevitably revealed to a world audience.

After all, they could hardly go on hiding millions of people who didn’t look like us, which is typical liberal thinking - ignore reality.

Despite the tsunami of stuff written at such places as here at MR, there are still millions of British people (I’m restricting myself here to GB.) who though suspecting something is in the air haven’t a clue as to what’s happening and how it will translate into their lives.

Which brings me neatly to the roll of the mainstream media (MSM.)

In order to give some meaning in their life in this modern age, our people are hooked on the teat of the MSM, and as such, their only source of information is through that very media, which, in turn gives them their world view and opinion on everything.  They are balefully unaware that the media is an integral component of an organisation whose raison d’etre is to fashion them to enjoy their servitude.  As Huxley so succinctly prophesied.

And here for me is the rub.  By far and away the biggest obstacle to hastening widespread public awareness is the media in all its guises, the media’s control of public dissemination is absolute, and coupled with the most accomplished practitioners of deception, our people are deprived of the information needed to prepare and defend themselves.

Even a cursory scroll down the Telegraph comment threads tell me that we have a monumental uphill struggle to spread the menacing plight we’re all in.  In fact I am convinced it cannot be accomplished by the Internet alone, it must come from without, and that’s where Nigel Farage and UKIP can seriously dent the balance of power in the battle for hearts and minds.

In the present uber liberal climate Conservatism is dead.  The main reason why it hasn’t shuffled quietly off this coil is down to the stealth and subterfuge mentioned earlier.  At least Cameron could have done the decent thing and renamed his party the New Tories.

With the BNP sidelined and replaced by UKIP the Battle for Britain has clearly entered a new phase, whether engineered by elites or just random good fortune it is of no matter, it is game on. 

With Griffin as history, this new phase will see the BBC having to raise its game yet again,  for Farage is no Griffin walkover.

No swastikas, no knuckle dragging baggage, the BBC will have to devise a whole new strategy including some of the old ones like the bog standard fascist Nazis.

I believe most of the British people are conservative by nature,  with a thousand years of history dwelling in these isles how could they not be?  If the media denounce the long suffering salt of the earth British as fascist or Nazi then it’s curtains for the BBC.

Will UKIP’s Farage deliver?  The game’s afoot, let us observe the coming spectacle.


Posted by DanielS on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:26 | #

Graham, this was a good post - thank you. You made some important points in a deep way.

I can certainly agree that we cannot go backwards and you make an articulate distinction there between post-modern as opposed to going back to something pre-modern - the syndrome of the wailing modernist, desperately overcompensating, trying to get back to modern or even pre-modern foundations.

However, that observation, true though it is, was a bit misplaced as your first comment on my first post -


You had said that you were tired, so I forgive you!

While there is a historical sequence observed in that post, there are inferences drawn as well which point to a different way of handling and looking upon the social - there is no going backwards; rather a way forward is drawn.

As for your being a centrist, well. I see “the left and right” as being parts in a process which at their best will feedback upon each other - however, the Left would be the favored bias as it encompasses the social group, unlike the liberal narrative which you rightly say that we are caught in rather this is the difference -  the social acknowledgment of the reality of our social involvement, indebtedness and responsibility. The Right would be encouraged as expression of our gifts and the honored position to contribute inspiration, leadership, discovery and new resources for the people. While it can take on a large measure of independence, unequal enjoyment and exploration at its peak, it should gracefully fold back into the social whole of being from time to time and then fully, in time, recognizing its indebtedness to kinfolk. The left, those who are in less fully functional forms, will be responsible to comply with certain duties; and to make-do within a reasonably established basis - but a basis will allow them to evolve so that they will not be utterly crushed by competition in the event of bad luck; and may have an honest chance to develop potentials.

As for WN not being enough, well, in the broad stroke of European it must be enough, because it is our people and way of life that our being threatened in total and alliance is advisable, probably even necessary toward the end of our survival. However, there are those subdivisions that divide and align at the same time - the nations; the smaller regions and the communities.

It is in these smaller subdivisions where your something “more” than “dumbass” White Nationalism will take concrete form and expression.

Sufficient rootedness and coordination in our defense (and to avoid conflict in assortocracy), will in all likelihood require the broader form however, at least to the Nation level.

I don’t see a conflict with the Euro-DNA Nation and your aims.



Posted by It's GOT to be UKIP on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:31 | #

        ‘Piltdown Man’ was a famous hoax perpetrated by an amateur archaeologist in a vain-glorious bid for fame (as I sure you know).
‘twas a 14th century cranium raided from a church crypt, ‘blacked-up’, incongrously wedded to a chimp’s lower jaw - on second thoughts the Johnson comparison is valid (perhaps it should be chimp cranium and human jaw), considering that the comicak chimera fooled the cream of Britain’s anthropoligial establishment for 50 years.


Posted by Do Yourself A Favour and Vote UKIP! on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:45 | #

One factor more or less completely overlooked in all this pontificating about the future of British politics is the rising clout of the ‘ethnic’ vote (shades of Obama 2012), to the inevitability that the ethnic vote will be *the* decisive factor in UK elections - which will happen much sooner than most think (already London with its myyriad of constituencies is over 50% ethnic).
  - The ethnic vote, of course, will go to Labour - the most outwardly and explicit immigrationist party, and to no one else, no matter how hard they bow, grovel, scrape and pander. So by mid century, you can bet your boots on permanent, hegemonic, one-party Labour rule, and also, inevitably, the immigrationist party (Labour) will abolish all immigration controls whatsoever in order to pander to its client base. Then, it will really be ‘Goodnight Vienna’.
  The Tories had a chance to nip this all in the bud back in the 60s - but did nothing. This is the final nemesis, the reward for cowardice and inaction.
The bifurcation of British politics will be racial. Opposing Labour and its immigrationist stance will emerge a nationalist opposition which will harden and harden in its outright resistance against race replacement. How that plays out, I do not know. But politics will never be the same again - that’s impossible, things have gone too far and the battle lines are being drawn right now this minute - in the 50% ethnic cradles of Britain’s new-born.


Posted by Bill on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:59 | #

Dude @13

IMO the best thing about the rise of UKIP is the rise of a party that can disrupt the two party system, to however gently challenge party tribalism.

Yes it’s certainly is, best spanner in the works for a long time.  No ducking it either, it’s head on.

Why is this happening, due to the merits of UKIP and their political wisdom? No. It is largely media driven, arguably as an strut to bolster the creaking political system.

Ive suggested it’s the elites.  Since the BNP are out of the picture the elites need to invent a new boogie man.  Everything is planned (so they say) - just random good fortune?  Doubt it.

If Farage is serious (a big if.)  The BBC (media) will go into overdrive two fisted, they will give no quarter, too much blood and treasure has been invested in this enterprise.

NATO will be on full alert.


Posted by Bill on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:13 | #

Dude @ 13

Forgot to ask.  Do you comment at Hitchen’s DM column?

No need to answer if you don’t want to.


Posted by Dude @ Bill on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:13 | #

Hello Bill

I think that I have, once or twice but not in a while. Didn’t really see the point much.


Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:15 | #

Yes I know what Piltdown man was – so it’s implied that Boris Johnson is a cheap fake which lacks authenticity or integrity – just which part of his skull is chimp and which part human is an open question.

However, Boris like just Tony Blair, is what we might dub an ‘honest liar’. The honest liar believes what he is saying at the time he is saying it – no matter how intellectually dishonest, incoherent etc., it might be. The honest liar intellectually knows it’s a massive lie he is telling, but emotionally this fact doesn’t register hence he is psychologically unconcerned about his lies – thus cannot be shamed.

One of the reasons for Gordon Brown’s painfully awkward public image was that he couldn’t master this ‘skill’. Yes he lied but he couldn’t convince himself that he wasn’t a liar – thus his ‘uncomfortable in his own skin’ image. Brown radiated discomfort in the way that Blair (and people like Boris Johnson) transmit ease. Blair’s vacuous charisma compelled attention, even as it induced hatred; but Brown was unbearable to watch. There was a fundamental wrongness about Brown that raised a shudder. 

Blair – who presented the strange spectacle of a post-modern messianism - never had any beliefs that he had to recant on, Brown’s move from Presbyterian socialist to neo-liberal New Labour supremo had been a long, arduous and painful process of genuine repudiation and denial.

As one commentator has argued, “Whereas, for Blair, the embrace of neo-liberalism involved no great personal struggle because he had no previous beliefs to dispose of, for Brown it involved a deliberate decision to change sides. The effort, one suspects, damaged his personality.” Blair was the Last Man by nature and inclination; Brown become the Last Man, the dwarf at the End of History, by force of will.

The honest liars, the Blairs, Boris Johnsons, Obamas, Reagans etc., are above all brilliant ‘political actors’ – the quintessential skill required for success in modern politics – perhaps for the politics of any age?

But our political actors (and the lines they deliver) are more day-time soap-opera than Shakespearian.

UKIP are no better in this regard - they could be a useful vehicle but are NOT the destination. Farage is a 4th rate political pygmy - but potentially a useful one despite himself.


Posted by Bill on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:29 | #

Blair was Britain’s first post-modern prime minister and head of Britain’s first-postmodern government.

Clinton was the first post-modern head of any government and introduced the kool-aid to a British faction of politicians that later became known in Britain as New Labour.

Clinton, ( I did not have sex with that women) Obama (yes we can) Blair (tough on crime tough on the causes of crime) Brown (that woman) Cameron (they’re all fruitcakes) Bozo Johnson (?)

Post-modern liberalism is why we’re in this madhouse.

It’s late and I might be back on this one tomorrow.


Posted by Bill on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 05:39 | #

I’m back.  See 25 above.

Where was I?

1997.  Blair swept into power astride a tsunami wave of new improved post-modern liberalism.

God had been pronounced dead more than a hundred or more years ago, and yet it wasn’t until Blair’s New Labour came to power the old order in Britain was openly targeted for destruction.

Welcome to the New Age of post-modern liberalism.

If there is no God then the shackles of Christianity are released and man becomes his his own arbiter of all things personal.  Right and wrong is what you think it is, one becomes one’s own policeman, one’s own legal system.  All within the ring-fence of liberalism’s golden cage of course.

Defy the new liberal gods and stray outside the fence then you become a Nazi, a fascist, a pariah.

The central tenets of liberalism’s non discrimination and relativism is proving a recipe for total disaster for the Western world, just look around you here in Britain or indeed anywhere in the Western world.

Blair’s New Labour heralded in the new era of sophistry, euphemistically relabelled spin.  Blair the master spin-doctor was the new liberal Wizard of Oz.  follow me down the yellow brick road.

It all ended in tears of course.  Tnd the mantle was passed to Brown the dour Scot, who apparently had a penchant for hurling his I-pod at his nearest aid in a fit of pique.  Brown didn’t last long and seamlessly handed the baton to the new Blair.  Meet David Cameron.

The revolving blue door/red door ensures the chaos and destruction continues unhindered, maybe the unexpected ray of hope in the unlikely guise of UKIP will go some way to break this cycle of despair.

We shall see.

The Convergence of Liberalism and Socialism in the Twentieth Century: A Conservative Analysis



Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:34 | #

Of course, I may only be grasping at a few nationalist straws.  What else is there for an Englishman to do, frankly?

Find a weak spot and kick it till it breaks. All we can do for now.


Posted by Drongo Fruitcake on Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:07 | #

@ Graham Lister, January 07, 2013, 12:56 PM:

There are some quite profound things being said in your post, and they are similar to thoughts that I have had myself.

Atomised individualism is sterility; it is reproductive, and thus racial, nihilism.

Furthermore, I agree that a group of people simply “being white together” does not mean that they necessarily share common ideological or social values or goals. It doesn’t even mean that they will even like each other!


Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:59 | #

Back to UK politics:

Today’s piece from TE’s Bagehot is unbelievable in what it posits about political openings for nationalists:


Present tense

Tory modernisers are launching a renewed campaign. It is overdue

Jan 12th 2013 | from the print edition

AS THE blood and dust began to settle after the Conservatives’ third consecutive election defeat, in 2005, the party started facing up to a big problem. British voters agreed with it on many issues. They, like the Tories, disliked immigration, the European Union, welfare scroungers and bothersome government. But they also disliked Tories, for their perceived aloofness, nastiness and hostility to public services. Asked by focus groups to select images they associated with Britain’s oldest party, voters chose Rolls-Royces, tweed suits and bowler hats. “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” the Tories had asked during the campaign. Maybe, voters replied; but we still don’t want you.

David Cameron, who became leader in the midst of this crisis, set about detoxifying, or “modernising”, the party. He vowed to fight climate change (an early photo opportunity was with huskies in the Arctic) and promote gay rights, overseas aid and volunteerism; he swore to protect the NHS. Under his direction, the Tories toned down traditional griping over the death of grammar schools and sovereignty lost to the EU. Mr Cameron imposed an informal ban on talk of “bringing things back”. [LH: “asshole”] The idea was to show that Tories were, after all, sympathetic and modern. It was also to bring the party closer to the political centre. To some degree, it worked. Opinion polls showed Mr Cameron to be consistently more popular than his party. For this reason, its grumpy right-wingers, though largely unimpressed by his ideas, suffered him. Yet in government since 2010, at the head of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, Mr Cameron’s modernising mission has seemed increasingly at risk of falling apart.

That is partly due to his own weakening enthusiasm for it, but chiefly to the dire exigencies of the times. By comparison with Britain’s economic troubles, Mr Cameron’s “touchy feely green agenda”—as even a firm supporter of the prime minister’s ideas describes it—can seem trifling or inappropriate. One or two of its parts, notably Mr Cameron’s garbled enthusiasm for volunteerism, have run into the sand. Others, including the government’s costly environmental and foreign aid policies, appear increasingly unaffordable at a time of rising energy bills and closing public libraries. They also risk exacerbating a hitherto unaddressed cause of the party’s toxicity: its association with privilege. According to one poll, 64% of voters think the Tories look after “the interests of the rich, not ordinary people.” Ill-conceived coalition policies have done further reputational damage to the centrists’ cause. It is unclear whether the Tories get more credit for ring-fencing the NHS budget or brickbats for launching an unpromised and incomprehensible reform of the health service. So have coalition rivalries. That many of Mr Cameron’s detoxifying ideas are shared by the Lib Dems, whom Tory right-wingers loathe, has encouraged noisy attacks on them.

Worst of all, austerity has led the Tories into new bouts of nastiness. Thus an ongoing row over trimming the welfare budget. Some Tories—including George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer and an occasional moderniser—have characterised a real-terms cut in benefits, which Parliament approved on January 8th, as a triumph for working folk over scroungers. The fire in the euro zone, which has inspired voluble Tory Euroscepticism, has had a similar effect. On both issues, cantankerous Tories are in line with public opinion. Some firmly believe that harping on them will deliver the majority that Mr Cameron could not.

Yet the party’s history of electoral failure suggests they are wrong. Even when voters like the Tories’ policies, they do not like them to appear cruel or, in the case of Europe, obsessed with an issue that few Britons consider a top priority. This was underlined by a startling piece of polling that helped kick-start Mr Cameron’s makeover of the party. It suggested that voters shared the Tories’ tough views on immigration by two to one; but when informed that the measures they demanded were existing Tory proposals, they opposed them by the same ratio. And polls suggest the Tory brand is repugnant to many. One, in 2011, found that 70% of people would consider voting Labour; only 58% could bear to vote Conservative.

The retreat of Mr Cameron’s modernising project is therefore bad news for the Tories. Yet, at the beginning of a year that promises more mean-spiritedness and rancour in British politics, there are signs that the modernisers are stirring. Mr Cameron’s speech to the party conference in October struck many as a restatement of detoxifying intent: “It’s not enough to know our ideas are right,” he said. “We’ve got to explain why they are compassionate too.” A decision to hold a long-promised vote to legalise gay marriage, which is expected in February, has offered additional encouragement, even though many Tory MPs will vote against the motion.

The Tory modernisers’ great need is now to refit their policies to hard times— to attend to the needs of those struggling with welfare cuts and the rising cost of living. This aspiration, often termed “blue collar modernisation”, answers the most acute criticism of Mr Cameron’s agenda, that it is too lofty, metropolitan and inconsiderate of Britain’s strugglers. A forthcoming book —“Tory Modernisation 2.0”—to which arch-modernisers including the MPs David Willetts and Francis Maude have contributed, includes many promising proposals on how to go about it, including loosening planning restrictions, unleashing development in deprived post-industrial cities, bringing down energy bills and public transport costs, and much else.

This thinking is welcome, and lamentably overdue. Britain has endured a sluggish economy and a steep rise in the cost of living, to which millions are struggling to adjust. That Mr Cameron’s modernising acolytes appear to have given such little thought to their difficulties is not compassionate. Nor, for a party with a serious image problem, is it shrewd.

Will someone explain to me why this article, if correct, does not suggest an opening to the Tories’ nationalist Right?


Posted by Bill on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:10 | #

I posted elsewhere Conservatism has been expunged from Western politics, it has been purged from the system, surely you can see it has received the same treatment in your country.

This doesn’t mean conservatism no longer exists, of course it does, as I said only the other day Britain is a conservative nation especially among the older people, the young ones have imbibed copiously the university progressive kool-aid and are a different kettle of fish.  I still think Britain can pull it off right now but leave it much longer and the chance will be gone.  Same goes for America too.

To me, modern Conservatism is Globalism pure and simple, everything else follows.  Cameron is Blair MK II.  Where do they find them?

There is no way (under present conditions) can they change course, too much has been invested in the Globalist project.

The only chink of light at present is UKIP, whose original core support were exiled disaffected Tories at odds with Britain being in the EU.  Nigel Farage is their leader.

I openly admit that UKIP has crept under my radar as I have never taken much interest in their activities, it is only Farage’s recent performances in the EU parliament that has attracted my attention.

I used to vote conservative up until the 90’s but by then I was older and wiser and dropped away from the scene.  It was only at the onset of huge increases in immigration under Blair that prompted me to ask WTF was going on.  And here I am.

IMO, the EU is the blueprint for the up coming NWO and Cameron is a fully paid up member, he is a laughing stock among the Telegraph commentariat and lacks credibility, he’s finished.

As for UKIP, it’s all work in progress.


Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 20:14 | #

Yes, but if “Bagehot” is correct, there must be a huge opening for a UKIP surge were it to get tough on immigration, no?


Posted by Bill on Sun, 13 Jan 2013 04:09 | #

The battle for the hearts and minds of the British people to love their servitude and join the European Union is entering its final phase.

Cameron is revealing his hand as the old guard Tory europhiles are wheeled out to scare the people into submission.  Heseltine and Clarke what a couple of shysters they are.

Is Cameron going to give Britain an Irish vote of in or out to secure a 2015 victory, only to have the EU reject the verdict and have to vote again, and again if necessary until Britain vote the correct way?

What will UKIP do in such a pressure cooker? The Mail is pulling out all the stops in today’s Mail

We’d be MAD to leave Europe: David Cameron’s covert battle against the ‘madness’ of cutting ties with EU



Posted by Insist on UKIP. on Sun, 13 Jan 2013 04:45 | #

I fucking hate the Daily Mail.


Posted by Mick Lately on Sun, 13 Jan 2013 07:38 | #

Some of you will probably have seen the following in the DT, but here they are anyway:

Eric Pickles: Influx of migrants will ‘cause problems’ for the housing market


Ed Miliband: no referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU


Posted by Mick Lately on Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:48 | #

It seems that the moderators have been busy on those DT threads, but comments like the following still get through:

40 minutes ago

We shouldn’t just stop immigration, it’s time we started repatriation.

We are being colonised on a huge scale by, often hostile, alien races and cultures.The survival of the white indigenous people of Britain is at stake here.


Posted by Bill on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:35 | #

It is vital UKIP inextricably links Europe with Britain’s loss of sovereignty, with mass immigration and global government.

One must become synonymous with the other in the minds of the British people.


Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:45 | #

Some sane comments on the following threads in the Guardian:

Labour can afford to push harder on immigration

UKIP: the party that’s coming in from the cold


Posted by CS on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:08 | #

Getting the UK out of the communist EU would be a huge step in the right direction. If I lived in the UK I would forget about voting for the BNP and vote for UKIP. If and when the UK is out of the EU, then start moving on immigration and other things.


Posted by Mick Lately on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:36 | #

Over a year old but let’s remind ourselves of what’s at stake here:

Statement by EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström on International Migrants Day


“On the occasion of International Migrants Day (Sunday 18 December), let me reiterate that the diversity brought by immigrants is a source of dynamism and of cultural richness for our economies and societies.

Europe is changing. We cannot afford to ignore the role immigration plays for our growth and for European competitiveness in the global arena - Migrants contribute to the economies of their receiving countries, as employees, entrepreneurs, consumers and investors, while increasing the diversity of our societies.

We must also acknowledge the role immigration will play in the future. Our continent is facing a demographic problem - our society is growing older and there are fewer hands to work in many trades. We need to be realistic: if we want to maintain our standard of living in the future, legal migration, offering the skills we need to make Europe prosperous, has to be part of the solution.

Integration is key for making immigration a success. It requires effort and commitment both from the host societies and from the migrants themselves. The objective of granting comparable rights, responsibilities and opportunities for all should be at the heart of our integration policies. There can be no excuse – be it political or economic – for failing to respect the rights of everyone living in Europe.

Unfortunately, as the recent attack against migrants in Italy shows, migrants in the EU are too often targeted by campaigns based on hate and xenophobia. I have on many occasions expressed my concern about xenophobic groups who build their rhetoric on negative opinions about immigrants, creating a hostile environment. Only strong political leadership can help to counter such demagogic and racist propaganda. On the occasion of the International Migrants Day, let me reiterate my call to EU leaders to stand up for diversity and for the importance of having open, democratic and tolerant societies.

My bold for emphasis.

There it is: race replacement of Europeans (“immigration” + “integration” = [final] solution to “demographic problem”) as official EU policy and [EU super] state repression (”Only strong political leadership”) of opposition and resistance (“xenophobic groups”).

Lest we doubted it: this is really happening.


Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:11 | #

Just a scrap:

‘In Or Out? PM Pledges EU Exit Vote By 2017’

Note also that the baby shown in ‘A child for the 22nd century?’ isn’t White.


Posted by Bill on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 05:59 | #

persons25It seems a whole lot more than 22 days since GW raised his thoughts in the form of this post on what is more or less the question, can UKIP transform British politics?

All has been quiet on the UKIP front since the Rotherham Bru hah-hah, the roll of distant thunder has reduced reduced to a mere grumbling on the distant horizon.  Is Farage and UKIP getting the Ron Paul treatment?  My current thinking is, it is to soon say.

Maybe the BBC (media) aren’t too sure how to play this tricky card, or maybe they do but are not revealing their strategy and playing it close to their chest.

Not a day goes by that doesn’t reveal what a complete mess our politic is in, the big three parties cannot hold and the new kid on the block UKIP, is eying up its chances under the auspices of its leader Nigel Farage.

Nigel Farage is an unknown quantity whom circumstances have thrust him into the arena as a potential challenger to the rapidly decaying old order.

Can Farage meet the challenge of the moment, can he become Britain’s Pied Piper and lead a growing yearning for someone of courage to change our ever waning fortunes for the downtrodden British people?

Let there be no doubt, personal courage will be required in spades by Farage if he is to do battle with the BBC in the months ahead, does he have what it takes?  We’ve all seen the savage beating dished out by the BBC to Griffin’s now defunct BNP.

Farage has the potential to hold the main parties to ransome, he’s got the big three by the short and curlies, the big question is, will he have the balls to squeeze?

I get the feeling Britain is on the cusp of great political and cultural change, a change which can go in many directions, it is too early yet to make any sense of it, all but I feel we’re approaching momentous time ahead.


Posted by Bill on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:09 | #

As I see it or Trying to get my three blackberries in a row - and yes -  I do get round to UKIP

Modern Western politics has morphed into right neo-liberalism and left neo-liberalism, which in the aggregate is the synthesise of capitalism and communism,  Capitalism’s hegemony still reigns supreme in this heady mix simply because the left could not survive without the (funding) from its new found partner’s corporate coffers.

Does left and right still exist?  Not in the traditional sense perhaps, now that Christianity has been deconstructed (debunked in today’s parlance,) left and right in modern times is distilled into the haves and the have nots, not much change there then I hear you say.

With the West’s Christian religion gone, its replacement is post-modern left liberalism.  So what is left liberalism?

Here are a few clues.

At street level here in Britain, left liberalism is the championing of minorities over the dominant hegemony of the host nation, it is the premier league of victimology where ethnic minorities trump the indigenous whites.  Left liberalism is the European Union writ large, it is mass immigration from over 180 different countries across the globe, it is political correctness that blights our everyday lives, it is relativism in the guise of spin, lies and illusion, it is overflowing prisons, it is high unemployment for the indigenous whites, especially the young and unskilled.  It is affirmative action which relegates whites to second class citizens, it is confirmation of our politician’s loathing of who we are.  It is confirmation of the desire of our elites to see us gone and replaced!

If all of the above is a mere sketch of what left liberalism is about, then what of right liberalism?

Today’s right liberalism in Britain is masquerading as Cameron’s conservatives.  Like Christianity, old time conservatism has been purged from the public political/conscience.  Old time conservatism has been declared unfit for purpose in the 21st New Age century.  As I have posted before, at least Blair had the ‘decency’ to re-brand the old left as New Labour, and yet Cameron, who is liberal/globalist (whatever?)  has the cheek to masquerade still under the old Tory party banner.  No wonder conservative voters are non-plussed!

Make no mistake, Cameron is all things to all people, it all depends what audience he is addressing at the time. He’s a Conservative, he’s a Liberal, a Eurosceptic, Globalist, Neoliberal, Traditionalist, Internationalist, Europhile, Corporatist, Transnationalist etc. etc. Cameron is a Blair clone,  he is the ubiquitous post modern politician.  He’s ephemeral, he’s a hollowed out suit, he’s a casual back of an envelope relativist.  Just like Blair.  To see his adoring sycophants at the party conference giving him a standing ovation - was sickening).

In essence, right neoliberalism consists of global capitalism spearheaded (mainly) by an association of central bankers, corporate transnationals and many more, all back-stopped by the media and politicians of all stripes.

Politics has been transformed and is now the personal and has become big business. Peoples politics today are subjected to and reduced to big business practices which in essence transfers vast wealth from the national coffers (peoples taxes) to private capital in the form of privatisation.  The aim is all human behaviour is to be commodified and to be profited from.

It it is this transformation that has altered our politics, it is for this reason there is no real difference between the parties outcomes.  It is the reason why politics no longer requires politicians of conviction.  Today’s politicians are professional chancers out to further their careers and make a quick buck, all have their eye on the main chance.  All that is required is to bribe the electorate with a shopping list of desires.  If we all now live in a world of instant gratification then nothing transcends the immediate, no after life, no right or wrong, no stigma, no greater aspiration than to consume, acquire, and exist for the moment.

The liberal left are the priests of the New Age religion and therefore do not have to justify their bona fides to the plebs.

So where does UKIP come into all of this?  Ah! I thought you would never ask.

As just stated, present day politicians are not required to possess any conviction or vision of how things should be,  all that is required is for them to get elected to the levers of power and great reward -  just bait the hook and hope the voters bite.

Does Nigel Farage fit this description?  Hmm?  No, actually, I don’t think he does. (He says with tongue in cheek)

It’s so easy these days to get hoodwinked into believing almost anything, what with politicians and the mainstream media all singing from the same song sheet, it is indeed a strong willed person who can resist the oppressive preaching and do gooding engirneering that enters our living rooms 24/7.

And yet, to me,  UKIP’s, leader Nigel Farage doesn’t fit the modern politician’s image,  to me,  he has an air of genuineness about him and an air of conviction of what he says.  He says he loves his Britain and I believe he does.

I do hope I’m right.

PS.  I v. recently came across New(?) Labour’s rolled out plans for the 2015 election campaign titled ‘One Nation.’

The one day wonder idea of ‘Blue Labour’ died the death of the Mayfly only to rise again as Ed Milibands’  ‘One Nation,’ which is nothing more than a re-branding of ‘Blue Labour,’ which in turn was a sort of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ or if you prefer Communitarianism.  To cap it all, the latest John Cruddas think tank opus ‘One Nation’  it seems, is a back to the future of the 1950’s without the mass immigration.(If only)


This is what UKIP will be facing in 2015.

PPS.  Parts of this post would be equally at home in GL’s ‘The Trap.’


Posted by Bill on Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:11 | #

Well it’s all over, leaving the pundits plenty to chew on as to where now?

Is UKIP’s Eastleigh performance to be compared with BNP’s Barking and Dagenham, is this the end of the beginning?

If it is it’s going to be a hard slog, three generations of BBC television has done its work well, over 70% of the brainwashed voters of Eastleigh voted for the very people who have brought this country to its knees.

Whilst mentioning the BBC, who are the media backing for 2015, who are they figuring will be a safe pair of hands to carry the globalist agenda forward?  Dodgy Dave has blown it, he’s a busted flush and the media will call for his head, I wonder what name will emerge and become an overnight sensation to lead Britain in the Brave New World.  Miliband doesn’t have that ring to it.

The BBC gave no air time to Eastleigh on any news I looked at, if they did I must have missed it when I blinked.

It will be most interesting to see how the media will handle Farage and UKIP, in the coming months.  Ron Paul may become the verb of future politics here in Britain.

The hubris and arrogance of the political elite will not rein in the galloping ambitions of the globalists, they’re gonna go for broke pretty soon, they cannot lose momentum now, the naive 70%+ voters of Eastleigh, like the rest of Britain will be on a steep learning curve.  They ain’t seen nothing yet.

And of Farage, what of he?  Farage disappeared as quickly as he arrived, remember Rotherham?  Seems a long time ago now.  As I say it will be interesting to see how the media will react to him and his party,  more to the point, how will Farage deal with the media?  Will he tell it like it is or will he play the BBC’s game.

These really are interesting times.

Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me

Next entry: Selentag and The Twelfth Night
Previous entry: Husserl, Heidegger & Modern Existentialism

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


Play that Funky Music White Boy commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:14. (View)

Tara Westover commented in entry 'American Experience: Ruby Ridge' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 07:31. (View)

If you're watching this... commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 04:32. (View)

99.6% European commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 03:50. (View)

99% European/ 38% Great Britain commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 03:22. (View)

Camille & Kennerly commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:40. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 04:42. (View)

The White Class is holistic commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:26. (View)

Ieva Baltmiskyte commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:39. (View)

Are The Finns European? commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:44. (View)

Green Sleeves commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:40. (View)

Jerry Cantrell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:59. (View)

Nutshell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:41. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:32. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:16. (View)

Blue on Black commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:12. (View)

2016 commercials commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 06:27. (View)

Like a bad neighbor, State Farm is there commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:40. (View)

2018 Olympic Hockey Tournament commented in entry 'Winter Olympics not diverse enough for US media' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:38. (View)

Taken For Granted commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 02:42. (View)

Commercials: "resistance is futile" commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:10. (View)

The Mountain Between Us commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:27. (View)

Kristy Boden commented in entry 'Two more London attacks' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:54. (View)

JF interviews Todd Lewis commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:26. (View)

The Rooster commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:06. (View)

Uncomfortable Bear commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:23. (View)

Nikolas Cruz commented in entry '"What We Don't Know - Motive." Likely: revenge against societal incoherence, lack of accountability' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 02:09. (View)

Maccabees commented in entry 'The alternative right's big tent, already too inclusive - includes Jews as well' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:57. (View)

Max Musson article mapped commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:14. (View)

8,606 fake refugees so far in 2018 commented in entry 'More Than A Thousand Illegal Immigrants Reach Europe In First Week Of 2018' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:52. (View)

Orson commented in entry 'Serial killer white-out' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:58. (View)

Toba commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:02. (View)

Allman, Wetton, Coryell, Holdsworth commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 10:14. (View)

Invisible men commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:28. (View)