|
|
|
Looking for a crack in the edifice
About this time tomorrow night we will know something new about a question which nationalists ask themselves whenever conversation drifts onto electoral politics. What does it take - indeed, is it even possible - for a minor party to win a Westminster seat under First Past The Post? The United Kingdom Independence Party, a one issue party of disaffected, golf-club Tory Eurosceptics, is thought by some to be in with a shout of overturning the disgraced Denis MacShane’s majority in one of the safest Labour seats in the country. That is unlikely, and probably highly so. But there appears to be a tide flowing for change in the constituency. The Labour Party has taken an enormous knock in the town, and to continue voting for it requires either a considerable act of political faith or pig ignorance. In the past the party has always been able to rely on a heavy supply of both. Anyway, I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the by-election. A solid result for UKIP would be third. But it would not surprise anyone if they finished one place higher, ahead of the Tories. They don’t have to win to provide at least a partial answer to the question, “What does it take ...” But they do have to get close. That, though, would require both a collapse in the Labour vote (currently running nationally at 43%, while UKIP is at a record 11%) and a major shift of Tory, Libdem and Labour votes to the challenger. Comments:2
Posted by You MUST vote UKIP. on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:05 | # Yes. My fingers are firmly crossed, and I’ve got the feeling that this might be the breakthrough that UKIP so badly needs (and which the BNP could never, ever do) to ‘break the mould of British politics’, as they used to say about that other political firework the SDP, back in the day (and who incidentally kept Thatcher in for a score of years). There have been many, many false dawns in the past ,and the useless arrogant race traitoring Tories have been esconce in the job of ruling England for the past 300+ years, but somehow i have the inliking of a feeling that we are on the verge of something big, very big, possibly a permanent realignment of UK politics. The worm has turned and all that (incidentally an excellent and hilarious ‘Two Ronnies’ sketch from 1976 that featured Diana Dors as a feminazi commandant and the Tower of London - an ad hoc male concentration camp, re-named ‘Barbara Castle’). We ahve just witnessed the most cataclysmic and apopcalyptic change in English history (ie third world racial replacement). It stands to reason that such a change provokes an equal response. 3
Posted by For THEIR sake, vote UKIP! on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:05 | # Did anyone here catch Newsnight the other night? A certain Nick Boles MP used the opportunity of a Newsnight report to wax lyrical about his desire to concrete over an area of prime English farm-land, verdant countryside, the size of the entire county of Devon, in order to house the proles in Letchworth Garden City style. Paxman was at his usual barking, snapping, growling Jack Russell Terrier best - best damn man the BBC has got, and worth his salary (unlike many others I could mention). Anyhow, the ‘elephant in the room’ (immigration) was ignored until Nick Boles inadvertantly mentioned it, and Paxman, wisely, let him run off on it. 4
Posted by Nick Dean on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:12 | # Yaxley-Lennon is not a political prisoner, he’s a lout. And he’s not on our side, he’s on the Jews’. 5
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:45 | # I already pointed out the crack in the edifice in “Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments”. The desperate situation in the US cannot be addressed short of violence. This is not (yet) the case for parliamentary governments. 6
Posted by Bill on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:38 | # Well it’s all over and already the dogs can be heard in the distance. Yesterday I hung about at BBC news times for any news emanating from Rotherham. Nary a peep! Rotheram along with the two other bi-elections were buried under the Leverson landslide, whether this was all planned or not who knows? Either way, it was move along there, nothing to see, move along please. Rotherham had been Ron Pauled. It wasn’t until the following day (today 30/11/12) that all three election’s results were brought to the surface almost as an afterthought, even then it was in the wake of even more Leverson. Farage had as little as 20 seconds (I didn’t count) with a BBC man before the caravan moved on. We all knew the results wouldn’t matter, how could they? Vote any colour you like and you get liberalism, so what’s the bloody point? To sum up, Rotherham simply didn’t live up to its billing, it fizzled out like a damp squib. The only encouragement was UKIP’s increased percentage of the vote, which can only auger well for the future. Farage has got to make every utterance into the mainstream microphone count, for it is he, and he alone, who can say the things the British people want to hear. A concern of mine that I have not aired so far and that is Farage seems almost welcome into the parlour of the BBC, H.I.G.N.F.Y. and Question Time are odd places to be welcomed into if you say the sort of things Farage says. Still, as they say oop north, it’s early doors yet! 7
Posted by Bill on Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:09 | #
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/ukip-surge-progressive-majority As I keep saying, we ain’t been here before.
8
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:32 | # A small crack imo. I don’t think very safe Labour seats like Rotherham are the best UKIP target - even though they ought to be for immigration reasons - nor very safe Conservative ones either. I think the best targets will turn out to be swing seats where there’s a lot of both disaffected Conservative and Labour voters. 9
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 02:16 | # Also you can’t rely on individual leaders. If you change the minds of individuals at the base then the superstructure will adapt to conform. 10
Posted by Bill on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:23 | # There is a piece over at Auster’s VfR where he is saying that now the 1965 immigration act has achieved its purpose (as expressed in Obama’s re-election) it is now socially safe (media) to discuss that its work is done. IOW’s it’s too late to do anything about it we’ve won. Get over it! I get there’s a touch of this thinking over here and I’m mistaking it for something else. 11
Posted by Bill on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:54 | # @ 8
If the brouhaha of the children who were in the care of UKIP supporters and whom Rotherham Social Services labelled as racist had not been revealed, then Rotherham would have been just another run of the mill bi-election. But mysteriously, it just so happened a major newspaper broke the story and as usual, anything pertaining to child abuse (as it was interpreted) British people hit the roof. This was a game changer for the Rotherham run of the mill bi-election. It became a hornet’s nest poked big-time. The media-fest had begun, UKIP were on a role. To me, this was a get out of jail free card moment for Farage to do his stuff and start landing some heavy blows, alas the very next day the whole Rotherham exercise had been put on hold as it was totally eclipsed by the Leverson inquiry. (Now there’s a funny thing) By the time Rotherham was back in the news the circus had left town, leaving Farage with only a few soundbites in the wind. Ah well, just another run of the mill bi-election. 12
Posted by Bill on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:19 | # Telegraph. Janet Daley The corridors of power, the inner party. Is it a bird? Is it a Plane? Is it David Icke? Is it the BBC? Who controls Britain? Or should the question be who controls the world? Ms. Daley doesn’t say beyond it could be the left, or it could be the right. As always, it’s what these journos don’t say that is the most enlightening. 13
Posted by Bill on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 21:00 | # I think it is safe to say UKIP are now seen by the electorate as the natural successor to the BNP. It is 31/2 years since the crowning success of Griffin and Brons winning seats in the EU parliament, from since which the BNP have slipped steadily into insignificance. Caveat. Never say never. I find it difficult in finding a defining moment for Farage and his party, perhaps it is difficult because there hasn’t been one. For me personally and perhaps for many more it is Farage’s gutsy You Tube performances in the EU parliament, berating all and sundry EU head honchos into submission. OK, perhaps not quite submission, for these people are such narcissists it’s unbelievable. Let us assume that in the coming months UKIP’s momentum makes steady progress, how will they get treated by the BBC? As I posted somewhere recently, Farage seems at home in the viper’s den and in return the BBC seem to treat him as a human being, unlike Nick Griffin. Could UKIP withstand a full on racist Nazi onslaught from the BBC? Could any party survive the wrath of the Beeb? I think the media has got to be neutered if democracy is to be reclaimed, but that’s for the future. Is UKIP the surfboard to ride any future waves of support, or will they be a bridge to something more substantial down the line? In general, the political situation is deteriorating steadily, I get the impression things could blow at any time. Liberal discourse is visibly weakening as the screams of racism loses its venom, predictably the cry of racist is becoming more yesterday and they have nothing to replace it with. I think we’re winning the war of discourse. Things are looking a little brighter just at this moment. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 23:36 | # Well Bill, politics is a big world and we only get to see a very small part of it. But in that little part which I see, the enemy’s argumentational nakedness is badly exposed. We are winning the war of discourse on the patches of soil that we can fight it. Whether we are lighting a fuse thereby, and setting off a chain of political explosions that will rock the enemy and allow our advance is another matter. To sketch the way forward, the revolutionary war is, first, a war of discourse by which the people are freed from the neo-Marxist/anti-racist dogma; and break the bounds of speech and association. That is the first stage, the stage we are at now and it will not be completed until there is a widespread demand to ditch Establishment pee-cee and anti-racism. The second stage is the revelation of a reawakened sense of ethnicity and belonging pursuant to that, which is the subject of Graham and James’s interesting discussion on Soren’s London thread. The third stage is a political revival of a broadly nationalist nature. Thus, for example, if UKIP in its present multiracialist form takes seats then it indicates that stage two has not been completed. But if UKIP can be emboldened by the changing public discourse and self-awareness to state that demographic replacement of the English - or British - is a fact and is wholly unacceptable, then political revival will follow. At this juncture, I’ll state that political revival does not mean a regnant nationalism. UKIP’s historical function is to kill the Conservative Party in its present liberal form. It is only by removing the possibility of Conservatives ever taking power that their hegemonic, anti-white social politics will be dropped. A UKIP success will force the political right to reconstitute itself along new lines and via principles that flow from the people’s interests. Then a genuine choice can be put before the electorate, and the right will have every opportunity of slaying the Labour Party. Only at this point might we enter upon the fourth stage, which is power and implementation of policies for the reclamation of England and the re-sovereignisation of the English people. Or Britain/British if you prefer, and if the Scots have not seized their independence. 15
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 01:19 | #
Agree with GW that the main value of UKIP is in killing the globalist form of the Conservative party. It’s an important part of the overt aspect of the battle but can’t achieve much more than that unless the ground is changed much more fully by the more covert cultural warfare aspect. 16
Posted by FB on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 04:20 | # I don’t know much about Nigel Farage. What do you make of the man, GW? Is he a closet ethno-nationalist, anti-liberal traditionalist, or yet something else. Give as your sketch of the man for us foreigners who haven’t been paying much attention to him and his outfit. 17
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:02 | # Ahhh, now this is the kind of thread I like ... meaty and relevant. More, please. I don’t understand some of the comments, however. Didn’t UKIP have a very good night? No one expected them actually to win, did you? Aren’t there elements within the Tories that are racially sound? Basically, how different is UKIP from the Tory Right? And where do both stand on UK dissolution, which seems to this friend from the other side of the world to be of paramount strategic importance (second only to ending the invasion itself)? Anyway, caught this gem from the rancid Guardian link:
My God, I’m an average Englishman!! The bolded portion is my agenda exactly!! I understand UKIP is actually very strong on defence as well! Wonderful!
18
Posted by Bill on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:34 | # United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP. History Founding and early years
. More. 19
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:17 | #
Yes they did. Their chance of winning was always low. It was the fact they had a chance at all that was the significant part and that is what has given them a jump in relevance.
They’re an ill-fitting mixture of 1950s conservative and modern libertarian right united by hostility to the EU. The reason they could possibly make an impact is there’s a large pool of disaffected voters from other parties for them to draw on. It’s not really a nationalist outfit and certainly not ethno-nationalist but it could conceivably win elections whereas the Conservatives in their current globalist form can’t. If you look at things in terms of base and superstructure they’re much more superstructure than base but getting out of the EU part of the superstructure effect the base also so that’s why they’re worthwhile from a nationalist point of view imo. Also if they start to look like a threat the multicult’s guns will all turn on them which will provide breathing space to the BNP or equivalent explicit nationalist party. Currently we’re in the middle of an envelopment from the globalist right and the marxist left. This is the key problem from a superstructure point of view. If UKIP can take out the globalist right part of the pincer that makes it easier. 20
Posted by INSIST on UKIP on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:51 | # IMHO, UKIP are the default English nationalist party - the party that all of us on MR have been pining for for years, but alas, like the No. 19 bus, it never turned up. In other words, UKIP is the politics that dare not speak its name. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:42 | # Freidrich, I haven’t studied Farage very closely. But he is very interesting. And rare - a professional politician, an undeniably impressive and polished performer, yet someone not at all confected and machine-like in that all-too-familiar Westminster way. He seems to be someone you might easily fall into conversation with in the pub or on the train home from work. He tells the truth, which is a rarity in itself. He has the essential qualities to become that English oddity, a national treasure. If he keeps beasting the plastic men of the EU plutocracy in such a joyfully disrespectful and entertaining way he probably will. Politically, he is a Tory, not a nationalist. I would say his political foundations are patriotism and the love of freedom. His opposition to the EU is visceral, not intellectual. Very like Maggie, I think he just doesn’t like being pushed around, and he particularly doesn’t like being pushed around by a cabal of unimpressive failed foreign politicians who have got together and worked out a way to harm everything he, Farage, loves. As do we. UKIP are highly dependent on him, despite having some other useful operators. He doesn’t have what it takes to be a national leader. But he can serve his country by serving his party, which is already something none of the other party leaders can say. 22
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 04 Dec 2012 04:09 | # @Insist on UKIP I think they’re a useful vehicle in certain ways and you may be right they could turn out to be more useful than i expect. I don’t want to sound like i’m knocking anyone who wants to get involved. Bear in mind there will likely be an attempt at demonizing them though so people on nationalist sites downplaying the nationalist aspect and playing up trashing the Conservative globalists aspect may have some small spin value. 23
Posted by Bill on Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:00 | # For whatever reasons the BNP find themselves where they are, they are not in a position to influence the present narrative. But as I say, never say never. The BNP’s ‘We want our country back’ resonated with a huge section of the British population, I don’t see what Farage is saying has quite the same resonance, get out of Europe and reduce (or put on hold) immigration. Perhaps Farage is saying he wants his country back but is playing a cannier game than Griffin. Griffin’s central plank was anti jehad which made him not much different to all the other anti jehad sites. With the decline of the BNP and the rise and rise of UKIP, all seems a natural progression. But you could equally say with the BNP sidelined on the neutered bench, TPTB would have to invent a replacement, not even invent one actually as UKIP fitted the bill perfectly. After all, they need to provide an outlet for the plebs to rid themselves of all that angst. Besides, the elites always express a preference to control both sides. UKIP and Farage are getting a free pass in the media, in fact it is the Telegraph that has been saturating its comment threads with UKIP related uncritical comment. Farage, like Griffin will be forced to tread the tightrope of political correctness which is just another way of saying he will have to accept humiliation and bend the knee to the opponent’s rules of the game. Until such a time UKIP (whoever?) can lock horns on equal terms or more, then we’ll all be having sand kicked in our face for evermore. Farage may do it, if only he can dish it out as in the EU arena, I would love to see it and so would most of the nation, for they have been forced fed craw till they’ve choked. My heart tells me half a loaf is better than no bread, but my head tells me keep my powder dry. GW Your summation of Farage seems sound. Question. How did we get Cameron? What is he? Was Thatcherism libertarian? Neocon? liberal? Globalist? Or what? 24
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:30 | # UKIP is an interesting phenomenon in British - but actually English politics (they have no support or serious operation outside of England). I think their rise demonstrates a great deal of often unexpressed, somewhat inchoate, discontent with ‘them’. The ‘them’ being the traditional political elites and their incredibly stifling consensus - which could be summed up as neo-liberalism plus multiculturalism - the precise proportions in the mixture ‘on offer’ shifting slightly between the three main parties. Of course what has changed the dynamic is the coalition. The effect of Liberal Democrats going into government and supporting what most people (outwith brain-dead Tory loyalists) would now describe as a wretched Prime Minister leading an equally wretched administration is not to be underestimated. Why? Well the Lib Dems have utterly trashed their USP and made their brand toxic for many years to come. How so? Well for those outside the UK it will seem odd indeed but the Lib Dems gathered support from both ex-Labour and ex-Tory voters and very few from ‘committed’ or ideologically grounded Lib Dem supports (they are rarer than hen’s teeth). This is how it worked in the UK system under First Past the Post (FPTP). In most UK parliamentary constituencies the FPTP system means that only two out of the three main parties can win the seat. The Lib Dems cannily played the game so that seats where the Tory party was unlikely to win they attempted to get those Tory voters to vote for them (and hence try to block the Labour candidate). In Tory held seats in which the Labour party was unlikely to ever win they did the opposite and attempted to get Labour voters to back them in a ‘stop the Tory’ block. The rise of such ‘tactical voting’ has been significant and a really important factor in the Lib Dems winning enough seats to be a substantial block at Westminister. However, the trick of being ‘yellow Tories’ or ‘progressives’ as and when local conditions required could only work against a national background of the Lib Dems cultivating an image based around the notion that they were ‘above’ the ‘petty squabbling’ of the two major parties. In fact the Lib Dems liked - at least nationally - to be above ‘politics’ as such - pragmatic, open-minded, willing to take on board ‘good ideas’ no matter where or from whom they etc., a kind of political blank space or Rorschach test. Thus the national image gave them locally a great deal of ‘wiggle room’ to be ideologically promiscuous as local circumstances required. Now of course for deeply political and ideologically engaged people this will seem odd - but they are full on liberals etc., yes but remember most of the voting public are disinterested in politics as such, informationally impoverished - often through choice (so called ‘rational ignorance’), and hence made their voting choices on the most flimsy of ‘impressions’ and superficial PR. Now add into the mix that in a FPTP system like the UK’s there has generally always been a very minor but opportunistic ‘third’ party that attempts to position itself as the ‘protest party’ - the people you vote for if you want to send ‘them’ a message you’re not happy. So all of these factors have been slowly building and working their way through the system culminating in the 2010 election result in which - highly unusually under FPTP systems - did not result in a party holding an outright majority of the constituencies. This left the Lib Dems as king-makers and they made their choice. But in an instant their USP and brand were completely trashed. Getting into bed with what is now a highly unpopular and not terribly competent Tory party looks to have been a catastrophic error of judgement. Why? Look at by-elections and local council elections. Seats in which the Lib Dems might normally expect to come 2nd or 3rd have seen them humiliated and coming in 5th, 6th, 7th etc. Support for them has seriously collapsed. Key factors are that Labour leaning voters that ‘tactically’ supported the Lib Dems - for example many university students - feel completely betrayed. Equally many Tory voters feel very angry at the Lib Dems for propping up the dismal and ‘wimpish’ Cameron. And finally the ‘protest’ vote of “I don’t like the two main parties” group feels angry as the Lib Dems are “just as bad as the other two”. Hence if the collapse of Lib Dems is real, this opens up a potential space for a new ‘protest vehicle’ with perhaps up to 20% of the electorate ‘up for grabs’. For UKIP to maximally exploit this opportunity will of course require some rather adroit political maneuvering and some analytical insight on their part. I have my doubts but we shall see. It would be interesting to know - as of now and their recent upswing - which demographic groups (middle-class ex-Tory, working-class ex-Labour, Dail Mail readers etc.) and in what proportions, actually vote and support UKIP? 25
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:17 | # Bill
Long-term i think the BNP’s biggest success was to get the existence of the grooming into the public arena.
Half of them 1950s Daily Mail Conservative and half of them globalist. GL
A lot of the people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the north and southwest weren’t idealogically in tune with them and with the problems in the EU coming to the fore UKIP actually makes a better fit. 26
Posted by Bll on Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:36 | # Wandrin @ 25 I’ve been trying to get a handle on where Cameron comes from. Thatcherism was born out of the collapse of the post war consensus, business needed to be liberated from the constraints of socialist centralisation. Hence wholesale selling off public utilities to the private sector, millions unemployed as a result. Workers became middle class overnight by buying their council (social) houses. I remember these days well, Thatcher made it easier for owners to get rid of employees, voluntary redundancy was encouraged, I took my redundancy and paid off my mortgage at aged 31. I remember wet bobs (wets) and dries in Thatcher’s cabinet (Daily Mail conservatives) and globalists as you put it. I was never sure who was what. I remember Reagan – Thatcher meetings with Gorbachev, perestroika and glasnost, the coming down of the wall and the end of history. I remember the Falklands war, ‘I counted them all out and I counted them all back’ said one accompanying BBC commentator from the carrier Ark Royal. I remember Geoffrey Howe humiliating Prime Minister Thatcher in a televised parliamentary debate where Howe accused her of treachery. The end was in sight from that moment on. Along comes John Major as Thatcher tearfully waved farewell, the conservatives staggered on, became more corrupt and finally fell to Tony Blair’s New Labour. Something funny happened during this period, not many people had spotted what had happened even less put a name to it. Blair’s New Labour was business and City friendly and Thatcher was his hero, New Labour were neo-liberal economically and welfare/ immigration friendly socially. I’d never heard of the term cultural Marxist. It’s fairly clear when and how New Labour became neo-liberal/Marxist socially and embraced an American style neoconservative foreign policy. Their supposed fallow years in opposition were not so fallow as it turned out. But it is far from clear during this period how conservatism ditched its core traditions and adopted liberal/cultural Marxism socially. Where did Cameron get his ideas (instructions) from to change conservatism and stand it on its head? At least Blair changed his party’s name and openly ditched his core supporters in a clause 4 moment. It is useful to be reminded here of how the media (BBC) pounced on Cameron’s unscripted speech at the leadership contest to propel him into the public eye and become adored by the blue rinse brigade. Cameron retained his party’s name and waited before dissing his supporters, back tracking on promises, going walkabout and generally giving them the two fingers behind his back. So who is Cameron? What is he? To whom does he owe his allegiance? To what end? Cameron must have known from the beginning he was on a hiding to nothing, how could it be otherwise? He’s been sussed and branded a traitor like Blair and Brown before him. He must have known he would be a one term prime minister right from the start. Will Cameron survive until 2015? *I have heard it said that 20% of a given crowd will unquestionably believe anything suggested to them by authority, and conversely, 20% will react with suspicion and reticence, which leaves the middle 60% open to persuasion. Lots for UKIP to go at there. *I think this was in the field of suggestibility of hypnosis. 27
Posted by Zeke on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:46 | #
Or was it simply the financing of rent seeking from which the usual crowd made massive commissions? Looting the nation by privatizing pension funds amongst other assets. http://prospect.org/article/bloody-mess-0 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/toxic-bank-goldman-sachs-web-763345 28
Posted by Dude on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:53 | # http://extremisproject.org/2012/12/why-nick-griffin-and-the-bnp-are-not-back/ 29
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 01:09 | # I don’t think Thatcherism was one single thing. Some of them were people who simply thought the unions had got out of hand while others like Keith Joseph were laying the foundations for the destruction and looting of Britain now that YKW had reached the economic heights - a process of looting that Major, Blair and now Cameron continued.
He’s a whore for the banks like Blair - an empty suit. He doesn’t come from anywhere. 30
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:27 | #
I think tory voters are a lot more than 50% Daily Mail small ‘c’ conservatives but once the election dust settles the globalists turn out to be in control then and now. In the same way most small ‘s’ socialist Labour voters are not voting for cultural marxism but it turns out to be what they get when they win an election. 31
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:36 | #
Yeah, i meant the Thatcher cabinet. The voters are more like 90% Daily Mail and 10% globalist. The Cameron cabinet is 90% globalist. 32
Posted by Zeke on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 06:46 | #
Thatcherism was definitely shaped, as Greece will be, by the austerity measures initiated by the Wilson/Callaghan Labour government that received the largest bailout in history from the IMF to save the UK from impending bankruptcy in 1976. The “Winter of Discontent”, elderly dying for lack of coal and heat, was the motivation that drove the Labourites out of power, however, the commitment to austerity and sale of public assets that made Thatcher notorious was a direct result, IMO, of the IMF (the US Fed and Germany) imposing sanctions on a British government looking default and monetary collapse squarely in the eye. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4553464.stm The “Barber boom”...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Barber#Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer Liberalize the banking sector injecting easy money into the system, tighten controls forcing collapse of the property sector etc., offer salvation through bailout in return for taxpayers financing the looting of the public sector by rent seekers. Thatcher appears simply as a puppet, carrying water for the IMF and its cohort. raising taxes and throwing British pension plans, British rail, buses and water, for example, upon the auction block. 33
Posted by Zeke on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:14 | #
34
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:41 | # Zeke, Well, I’m no expert in UK politics, but I think, from what political stuff I’ve randomly read over the decades, that Thatcher did a good deal more than that (and I’m not talking about the Falklands distraction, or even her admirable stand against Soviet aggression). Do you think the UK economy would have been better in her absence?! Labor, as well as Labour, was ruining Britain. I recall those times well - the Marxist Neil Kinnock and his ilk, constant greedy labor strikes, garbage piling up, despair over the future, etc. Those state enterprises ought to have been privatized - and a lot more, too. One doesn’t have to agree with the misguided, statist/globalist agenda of ‘financialization’ (which was imposed in the US just as much as in the UK), and which represents a phony laissez-faire, to recognize the failure of large state enterprises not subject to market discipline. There is an enormous empirical literature on this, as well as one’s personal experience of the differences between customer/profit driven enterprises, and the surly attitudes of govt “workers” (compare the treatment and normal efficiency you’ll get from a private business versus a typical experience at the local Dept of Motor Vehicles - esp when there is no small-town, communal ambience or set of personal relations to ‘run interference’ against normal bureaucracy). Indeed, what you call throwing state enterprises on the auction block is the only way at this point to save America (and perhaps UK, too). Thanks to Obama, we now have a doubled (in a mere 4 years), $16+ trillion national debt. I have been proposing for years that only asset sales (privatizations) can save us (even if they are one-offs; beyond that, economic growth must be encouraged through deregulation, greater resource extractions, and tax simplification + business/investment tax reduction, OTOH, and massive social spending cuts, OTOH). I actually sent an email to the Romney campaign over the summer telling those idiots that Mitt ought to play up the very real dangers of our spiraling debt, and pledge to reduce it substantially through gradual Federalization/privatization of govt assets (eg, the entire airport system), with the proceeds specifically earmarked for retiring debt (not for covering the annual budget deficit, itself unprecedented, and which is solely the result of excessive and wasteful socialist “entitlement” expenditures, growing exponentially on autopilot). I suspect Cameron ought to be doing the same thing (and this is particularly true for the eurozone reprobates: Greece, for example, should be auctioning off the entirety of many of its lovely islands, all proceeds going to pay debts - there must be punishment for experiments in socialism, and it must be borne by the wastrels responsible, not, obviously their innocent creditors). National patriots would do far better emphasizing racial and cultural nationalism, including the economic costs of immigration, as against dividing whites by pitting property and business owners and taxpayers against public services recipients and assorted parasites. 35
Posted by Bill on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:23 | # My parents were decidedly of working class, of basic education and employment. My father was a brewery dray-man and my mother, before becoming a housewife, served in a branch of a national high street chain of family grocers. Unusually, (for people of working class) my parents were staunch conservative, (now there’s a term you don’t here much of these days) and it is from these humble beginnings I too became a tribal conservative and voted as such until well into my 50’s, whereupon I lost what interest I had in politics and opted to just get on with my life. My interest did not resurface until Blair and mass immigration came on the scene and here I am. When reading the Telegraph threads I am struck by the number of comments lamenting the passing of Mrs Thatcher, for according to some, (perhaps many) say she was the next best thing to Churchill, and Britain has gone downhill ever since. Now I find these sentiments most strange, is not Britain’s present predicament testament to the direct results of the implementation of Thatcherism (Reagan) that we find ourselves in today? What did Thatcher do about immigration? Not much as I recall, even with Enoch Powell’s warnings still echoing in the corridors of Downing Street.. What did Thatcherism do to counter the long march? Nothing is the answer I would give. So why is Thatcher so revered and missed by so many, even by those who are distraught with what they rail about in their comments? I don’t get it. It’s funny how Cameron’s and Obama’s careers have mirrored each other, Obama, previously unheard of, snatched from obscurity and propelled into orbit by the media, sound familiar? Yes it is! Cameron certainly came from somewhere, he just didn’t magic himself into Downing Street. Afterthought. Social Democracy (post war consensus) somewhere along the way morphed into Cultural Marxism, which in turn allied itself with Islam, which, just to add confusion, joined forces with Global Neo-iberalism. Hey ho. 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:24 | # Dude, the Extremis website looks like just another Jewish product. Who is behind it? 37
Posted by Bill on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:00 | # Gerry Gable. 25.08.2012.
38
Posted by Bill on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:02 | # These academics just don’t get it. The rise of UKIP - What does it all mean? 39
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:29 | #
A depressingly insightful remark. It’s all about hatred (Marxists, Muslims) and contempt (globalists) for the ordinary folk. Marxists undermine ... Muslims colonize ... neoliberals sell out for easy money. Damn the all! No one will save us but ourselves alone. 40
Posted by "UKIP-on-sea is just sooo bracing!" on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:25 | # IMHO, UKIP are merely the British manifestation of something we are seeing all over northern and central Europe ie specifically anti-immigration parties (for some reason always dubbed ‘populists’ by the antis) which have formed as a backlash, nothing more, nothing less against the disasterous mass immigration policies imposed by the elitists. 41
Posted by Dude on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:53 | # No idea GW, but it does seem that way yes, but I think still interesting, even if only to mentally put their hypotheses to the test. We need some number crunchers and psephological analysis ourselves. Also interesting that many days later they have not posted either of the general comments I made there taking some of their perspectives to task. 42
Posted by Dude on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:27 | # Further The Extremis Project Ltd is a company with two directors 1) Dr Matthew Goodwin, Assoc Prof, University of Nottingham Dr Matthew Goodwin is Associate Professor of Politics, and specialises in the areas of extremism, British and European politics, and public attitudes toward immigration and minorities. His PhD supervised by Roger Eatwell. 2) Anthony Painter, freelance writer for Policy Network and elsewhere. Both appear to be of our tribe though not of course politics. Without downloading the CH documents, I am not sure of their finances. I wonder how they intend to finance their project. 43
Posted by Bill on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:42 | # From Conservative Home website. I’m not sure if this is the same author of link @ Dude 28. The following amply demonstrates how brainwashing and culture distortion of generations of youngsters has affected the way we think. From 66% down to 28%...
44
Posted by Dude on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:42 | # OK, I have finished on my detour now, but LOL at Metapedia! Whoever these guys are, they make me smile every few months. 45
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:13 | # Zeke - Pedantic note: British Rail survived Thatcher and was privatised under Major. Today the physical rail infrastructure is still state owned and many of the railway operating companies only make a ‘profit’ through subsidy. This is quite different to gas, water etc 46
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:03 | # Bill, from your quote - “Whereas 66% of the 60+ Tory base say they would be swayed by a party that promised to halt immigration, the equivalent figure among those aged 25-39 drops to 45%, and then to 28% among 18-24 year olds.” One day those 18-24 year olds will be 25-39 year olds and for many the attitudes will have changed to be more in line with current 25-39 year olds. Once they have children, own property etc their views about the invasion wont be quite as sanguine as when they were fresh faced 18 year olds. The assumption of these surveys is that attitudes formed at one age will carry through unchanged over the years. Of course there is some truth in that but its not as fixed as some would have us believe. 47
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:40 | #
You may be right. The survivalist argument in itself wins hands-down. It’s just a question of finding a form of words to express it that doesn’t trigger the anti-white brain-washing. If anyone manages it then there could be a very sudden change.
48
Posted by Dude - Interview with Génération Identitaire on Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:01 | # http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/europa-nostra/ 49
Posted by Bill on Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:01 | # Telegraph’s Janet Daley has this last couple of weeks been writing some insightful stuff, this weeks piece is entitled The West is signing its own death sentence. She says…
I interpret this as saying the tacit understanding between (right’s) Global neo-liberal capitalism funding of (left) cultural Marxism is bankrupting the system. In short, unfettered capitalism’s funding of the left liberal Marxist overthrow of Western civ cannot be sustained. It will run out of money. The welfare state and mass immigration is crippling the system. 50
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 09 Dec 2012 08:06 | # Will the UK be leaving the EU? How should Britain’s possible departure be viewed from a nationalist perspective? I assume British patriots want out, even if UK’s economy becomes somewhat less prosperous as a result. What if Scotland leaves the UK, and Britain leaves the EU? What would happen to England? Would Ulster in this case move towards unity with Ireland (or with Scotland)? Would Wales try to go it alone? If all that was left of the current UK/EU situation was a nation consisting of England and Wales, would that be good for nationalists? Certainly it would be interesting, and rather similar to the US. Increasingly, we have (what I long predicted -) a white party (in demographic fact, if not (yet) in ideological principle), and a white leftist/united nonwhite party. It seems to me that in an England/Wales-only confederation, UKIPers would return to the Tories (bolstering the Tory Right); Labour would essentially become a white leftist, Welsh (and would it eventually get displaced in Wales by Plaid Cymru, as with Scotland and the SNP?), and nonwhite party; and that English ethnonationalism would have a fighting chance to get something done in England, as the Tories would now be the clear majority. I’d like to hear from British commenters on all this. 51
Posted by daniels on Sun, 09 Dec 2012 08:25 | # and a white leftist/united nonwhite party. It seems to me that in an England/Wales-only confederation, UKIPers would return to the Tories (bolstering the Tory Right); Labour would essentially become a white leftist, Welsh (and would it eventually get displaced in Wales by Plaid Cymru, as with Scotland and the SNP?), and nonwhite party; and that English ethnonationalism would have a fighting chance to get something done in England, as the Tories would now be the clear majority. I’d like to hear from British commenters on all this.
52
Posted by FUCK the Tories, Vote UKIP! on Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:08 | # In the long term, the effect of uncontrolled third world immigration on Britain will be exactly the same as in the United States, namely, it will most definitely ensure the absolute political hegemony of the immigrationist political party. Only in our case it’s Labour instead of the Democrats and we’re (as ever) 20 years behind the Yanks. I view the UKIP phenomenom as a kind of backlash, the last death throes of the great beast, or perhaps HMS Hood firing its last doomed salvo. 53
Posted by I Implore you to vote UKIP on Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:11 | # Cameron simply hasn’t got the guts to offer up the in/out EU referendum that Farage rightly demands. 54
Posted by Dude on Sun, 09 Dec 2012 23:15 | # http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/spent-force3f/4400706 Honest interview with Frank Furedi on what is the modern left. Discusses the shift whereby now the lead ideological actor is the state and the individual, the public and the idea of liberty are the enemy. 55
Posted by daniels on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 04:09 | # “the’ modern left” There is no “the” left, in the sense of its being a found object beyond the union of a particular group of people. 56
Posted by Dude on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:23 | # I take your point Daniels, but the interview is still an interesting outline of the current position of what in general usage is understood by “the left” - that broad group of people who subscribe to a similar set of assumptions and desires. The discussion on the change of attitude towards the state and the shift in what is valued. 57
Posted by Bill on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:48 | # The ‘Modern left is surely liberalism or cultural Marxism if you prefer. The left are very much alive and in the driving seat. Same old, same old control freaks. The top tier have evolved into an elite oligarchy. Others are brainwashed uni types gone green fascist. Who would have wagered the the new, new left would be the new fascism? The old left plebs have gone UKIP or BNP. That’s assuming the question is what it says on the tin. 58
Posted by Bill on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:16 | # The natural extension from @ 57 is Britain’s (West’s) politics is heading the way of America. A rainbow coalition of non-whites against whites will ensure a right leaning politics will never be elected. In fact we’re fast approaching this scenario. I suspect the name conservative will lapse when Cameron is gone. Does this mean nationalism is no brainer? When whites are eclipsed, liberals will need a new oppressor and so it will go on. A bit like ten green bottles…. 59
Posted by Dude on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:27 | #
True Bill, but contrary to what Mr Furedi is saying, just down the road from me, the left was ever thus was it not? It has just become harder for them to deny it now they have firmly attached themselves to the public sector octopus and there is no left-wing bugbear (such as Thatcher) to point out and scream. Their oppositional politics is reduced to the EDL and various imagined social inequalities. 60
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:34 | # Frank Furedi is it? A slimy ‘Hungarian’ of dubious origins that was (is?) the leader of a bizarre sect called the “Revolutionary Communist Party” that for some reason or another have redefined themselves as libertarians. And Rand positively cited in a positive light? Seriously gentlemen she really is only for semi-intelligent teens that are not half as clever as they think they are. Rand represents a deeply immature, superficial and essentially teenage sensibility that is not fit for politically and intellectually mature people (grown-ups in other words). 61
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:27 | # no better answers to my post @50? Disappointing. 62
Posted by Dude @ Lister on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:37 | # “Frank Furedi is it?” Your meaning? Interviewed by the post-Marxists of Spiked in a transitional leftist period. It has interest for those curious, how sections of the left see themselves at present, how they are interpreting the culture and also includes much self-deception. Listen or not. Not sure where Rand enters, but Standpoint the ‘right wing’ publication under which banner the interview was conducted is a largely Jewish staffed enterprise. 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:42 | # Leon,
Cameron is talking about a possible referendum some years down the line on approving new, looser membership terms he says he will negotiate with the EU as it moves towards fiscal union. There is no commitment to an in/out question. He has, in any case, deceived the electorate before. He cannot be trusted.
As a blood-sucking parasite, we would be well rid of it. It impoverishes Europe’s nations, btw - except Germany who do very nicely out of exporting their base-costs to the rest of Europe but not their advanced industry and work ethic.
Scotland seems unlikely to leave the union. Britain will not be given an opportunity any time soon to leave the EU. The Ulster protestants are not nearly ready to think about a unified Ireland. Come back in a hundred years. Make that two hundred. The Welsh will do what the English do. They may not like it but they know they have no choice.
If that happened it could be good for nationalism. But I’m not sure that nationalists ever prosper when the mainstream right is in power. I think they need a leftist government, and without Scotland in the union there might never be one if the party remained unreconstructed in its multiracialism and anti-racism. Short of the coming white minoritisation, of course, but that’s still decades away. 64
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:48 | # GW, Are you saying if Scotland exits, and the Tories become dominant, that won’t provide an opening for the anti-immigrant Tory Right? Why can’t nationalists (perhaps I’m speaking loosely here: those who want to stop the nonwhitening of England) infiltrate and come to dominate the Conservatives? What after all is the goal here: to have an openly nationalist party come to power, or to stop the alien conquest of Britain/England via immigration and multiculturalism? In the US, I don’t care if some electorally nonexistent party of the Far Right ever emerges. I just want the Republicans to become pro-white (de facto, if not officially). Personally, my sense is that getting rid of Scotland would give both countries a better shot at ethnocultural renewal. Would a free Scotland really start throwing open its borders to Third World immigrants? And if it did, how long before there would be an electoral backlash? I think independence would only increase ethnocultural identity, which in turn could only decrease enthusiasm for nonwhite immigrants. OTOH, without the Labour monkey to worry about, I think the Tories could move Right, and would, esp on immigration. Why wouldn’t they? Both Labour and Lib Dems seem absolutely worthless on immigration (like the American Democrats: there are no more “conservative Democrats”; every one at the national level is now a racial Hard Leftist), and this as a matter of principle. Republicans are not pro-immigrant out of of principle, but cowardice and greed (for campaign donations from evil interests which want endless cheap labor, mainly to destroy working class wage rates). I suspect the Tories are similar. I think both English and Scottish WPs should very much want Scotland to leave.
65
Posted by Dude in Belize on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:55 | # Maybe not Belize for you Leon if this video linked in whoismcafee.com’s blog (John McAfee of software fame) is anywhere near true. 66
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:16 | # Oh, I believe it. That video actually describes the dysgenic future of much of the world. I think some Islamic nations might avoid this fate at the price of Khomeinist theocratic authoritarianism, and some Asian ones due to their combined cognitive superiority, racial nationalism (which inspires them to keep out immigrants; eg, Japan), and sheer numbers (China). I was never the one to advocate Belize as a White Zion possibility (that was commenter “uh”), for many obvious reasons. White Zionists have to support themselves, and can do so far better in the US or Europe than most Third World countries (I do agree with some who think Uruguay is a distinct possibility). I am much more of a realist than most at MR (and the WN internet generally). The real point of WZ is WP ingathering, followed by the push for secession and sovereignty. I suspect WPs will never get their act together, and that the ultimate fate of the white race will be extinction via miscegenation, with extermination of the last holdouts. I have stated this belief many times over many years, and nothing suggests I am wrong (if anything, its likelihood grows yearly). 67
Posted by Dude on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:07 | # Leon. As I commented elsewhere here today, I think there is a need for a global European fellowship wherein all members are brothers (and sisters). A freemasonic group without the occultic flummery and arcane rituals, perhaps through which may develop a cohesive diasporic philosophy and share community and mental, emotional and physical resources. This may aid your desired project when numbers and time are propitious and when hope for the homeland has largely departed. 68
Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:10 | # Leon, Would a White Zion not be vulnerable to attack by - for want of a better term - the NWO? All those racially-conscious Whites in the one place… 69
Posted by Bill on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:23 | # With the rise of UKIP the question of immigration will loom large from now until 2015, loom larger than ever before. The battle is now game on for the mother of dutch auctions between the mainstream parties. In today’s Telegraph Labour’s Ed Miliband signals what’s in store.
Labours much vaunted flirtation with the promising Blue Labour idea earlier bit the dust when immigration was required to be stopped even if only temporarily, the project was quickly shelved when Keith Vaz et al had an attack of the vapors. The next idea to roll off the assembly line was a One Nation Britain but that was stillborn and no more was heard. Hey Ho! Cameron’s Tories will be no doubt be casting around forever to unearth the magic elixir to bring about a renaissance in 2015. The thing is, can liberalism allow any slack on what is surely its most potent weapon of mass destruction? It is a fact that all mainstream parties will hit the glass wall when trying to restrict immigration. Will the plebs be fooled again? 70
Posted by Bill on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:24 | # The rise of the UKIP in the polls—what does it mean? Paul Weston vs Alexis Zarkov slug it out over at VfR 21st December 2012. Me, Who is Alexis Zarkov? Alexis Zarkov writes:
More @ http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024061.html#comments 71
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:18 | # I’ve heard Farage condemn the ongoing Islamization of Britain in no uncertain terms. He’s also called for a halt in immigration particularly from members of the EU like Poland, where a Pole can enter the UK and immediately apply for housing and benefits.
72
Posted by Bill on Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:01 | # Griffin’s deconstruction of the BNP has created a vacuum whereby potentially millions of British whites are marooned bereft of serious political representation of their world view. How has it come to pass whereby millions of whites across the world are experiencing the same problem? (Ok-OK rhetorical) Aside. It is now apparent that Cameron’s Britain is now the sole (EU?) gung-ho protagonist for regime change in Syria. Watch this space! This ain’t no Libya. Obama, it appears, is having second thoughts. Is it something Putin has said? http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2909-viewpoint-syria-ndash-is-britain-on-a-slippery-slope http://www.thedailybell.com/28491/Is-Putin-Freedoms-Champion-or-Foil-for-the-West Post a comment:
Next entry: Analysis of Secession Talk Gets It All Wrong
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Bill on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 05:49 | #
Farage I must admit has crept under my radar, it is only the fairly recent discovery of his plain speaking (to say the least) video exploits in the EU parliament that he has grabbed my attention.
Farage is unique in among today’s mealy mouthed politicians, he uses language that I can understand, he’s the nearest politician that comes even close to telling like it is.
It doesn’t really matter who wins these bi-elections, it is Farage’s golden opportunity to to become a star in a dull political firmament.
This is Farage’s one off chance of a lifetime, will he seize the moment? I think he can, I think he will.
He is an Englishman.
Go for it Farage, Go Man Go!