Sacred Destabilization • Part Two: Resources

By: Eric • August 16, 2022



“The gullibility of the average citizen, his willingness to accept what is told him if it is said loudly enough and with sufficient force is well-known. Mass psychology and mob determination have been exploited down the age….But this negative receptivity can be easily turned to good ends as bad.”

–The Spiritual Hierarchy, Lucis Trust, 1982

What Motivates Them?

The battle is real and the enemy is the system. The word system carries a great weight and what we will do here is show the signs of what the system has accomplished and what the system is aiming for. Power; securing power comes from resources. Control over the resources gives the system power. Maintaining, enhancing and expanding the reach of the system comes with carte blanche authority over the resources.

We have reached a point I strongly feel is their endgame.

Because now…the resource….is YOU.


“Man must be either the Anvil or the Hammer—let each make his choice, and then complain not…

If you are the Hammer, strike your fill…

Otherwise the Anvil – and STAND YOU STILL.

-Theron Q DuMont – “Mastermind

THE CONFLICTS OF GLOBALIZATION • Charles O. Lerche III

Written 25 years ago (source article has been taken offline)

We live in a world that is simultaneously shrinking and expanding, growing closer and farther apart….National borders are increasingly irrelevant. And yet globalism is by no means triumphant. Tribalisms of all kinds flourish. Irredentism abounds (Attali, 1991: 117).

Because of the great increase in the traffic in culture, the large-scale transfer of meaning systems and symbolic forms, the world is increasingly becoming one not only in political and economic terms…,but in terms of its cultural construction as well; a global ecumene of persistent cultural interaction and exchange. This, however, is no egalitarian global village (Hannerz, 1991: 107) (emphasis added).

The pace of global change is extremely rapid, and even those trained to track and analyze it have difficulty keeping up with new developments. However, trends are regularly observed and named, and these new terms become “buzz words” in the lexicons of governments, academia and the media. Such a term is globalization. Though it is, admittedly, rather vague, and the phenomena it is employed to describe extremely diverse, it does express a prevailing sentiment at century’s end that our lives are increasingly influenced by forces which have transcended borders, and which, precisely because of their scope and power, are changing, irreversibly, life on this planet. All levels of society are being reshaped by this process: the individual may find her/his livelihood threatened or identity thrown into question; localities and whole regions are forced to recreate themselves or die in the face of new economic forces; and nation-states themselves experience steadily decreasing freedom of action and ever closer ties to each other.

At the moment there is a serious contradiction between the fact that globalization is in full swing, and the fact that existing processes of global governance lack sufficient power, authority and scope to regulate and direct this process toward beneficial ends. As a result globalization is often disruptive and inequitable in its effects. It has also posed new challenges for existing public institutions while at the same time weakening their autonomy and support; and, paradoxically, provided the means for those it excludes culturally or economically to organize against its subordinating and homogenizing force. Many analysts have pointed to the turbulent nature of this planetary process and to the increasing frequency and variety of reactions to it. Drawing on this literature, this paper first attempts to clarify various aspects of globalization and then considers its potential for generating social conflict and unrest. Subsequently, human needs theory, as developed and applied by John Burton, is used to explore some of the roots of these conflicts and, finally, globalism is put forth as a positive, and potentially corrective, dimension of globalization.

Globalization: A Closer Look

Definitions
There are a variety of definitions and descriptions of globalization, which, though overlapping in many respects, do emphasize different dimensions of the process. Robertson’s is one of the first and the most general:

Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole…both concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole in the twentieth century (Robertson, 1992: 8).

Anthony Giddens’s adds an important dimension to the picture by emphasizing the interactive, or dialectical dimensions of the process:

Globalization can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. This is a dialectical process because such local happenings may move in an obverse direction from the very distanced relations that shape them. Local transformation is as much a part of globalisation as the lateral extension of social connections across time and space (Giddens, 1990: 64).

However, it is in regard to business and economics that the term “globalization” is most frequently invoked. What is referred to here is:

“…a qualitative shift toward a global economic system that is no longer based on autonomous national economies but on a consolidated global marketplace for production, distribution, and consumption;” (Holm and Sørensen, 1995: 5)

in which

“…distinct national economies are subsumed and rearticulated into the system by essentially international processes and transactions” (Hirst and Thompson, 1992).

The primary vehicles for this process have been the increasing transnationalization of production, and the resulting rise in influence of multinational enterprises, and even more importantly, the explosion in the volume and scope of transactions on international financial markets. In this regard, consider the following commentary on contemporary change in the banking industry:

Banking is rapidly becoming indifferent to the constraints of time, place and currency…an English buyer can get a Japanese mortgage, an American can tap his New York bank account through a cash machine in Hong Kong and a Japanese investor can buy shares in a London-based Scandinavian bank whose stock is denominated in sterling, dollars, Deutsche Marks, and Swiss francs (Waters, 1995: 89).

And one of its most often noted effects is the homogenization of consumer markets around the world, at least in certain areas–the so-called “McDonaldization” of global consumption.

Critiques
Though often touted as representing the height of economic rationality, globalization has also been portrayed as having a very dark side. Critics repeatedly point out that the contemporary form of globalization , driven by economic power, clearly promotes the hegemony of Western culture and corporations; puts jobs and communities at risk in the rich countries and exploits cheap labor in the poorer countries; increases threats to the environment; and undermines the foundations of democracy and social stability by subjecting national political institutions to forces of economic change beyond their control. Furthermore, as a recent volume of essays (Holm and Sørensen, 1995) has highlighted, globalization is uneven both in its processes and in its effects. It produces concentrations and deprivations which, in the aggregate, constitute an increasingly well-defined global power structure.
Claude Ake, a leading African critical thinker, has argued in this regard that:

Economic forces are constituting the world into one economy and, to a lesser extent, one political society. Nations participate in global governance according to their economic power, which is coextensive with their rights. The global order is ruled by an informal cabinet of the world’s economically most powerful countries; its law is the logic of the market, and status in this new order is a function of economic performance (Ake, 1995: 26).

Critics also argue that there is a neo-liberal ideology of globalization which serves to “normalize” the process – to make it seem natural, inevitable and beneficial. Thus, while it is clearly in the particular interest of big multinational and global corporations to be free to move money, factories and goods around the planet seeking access to the cheapest factors of production, the most congenial regulatory environments and the most lucrative markets, the ideology of globalization promotes the belief that the interests of humanity and even of the earth itself will also be best served if world markets are:

“.left unfettered by ethical, moral, social, or environmental considerations.” (Ritchie, 1996)

In an analysis of the North American Trade Association as a case study of both the ideology and practice of globalization, economist Robert MacEwan presents data from the United States and Mexico to substantiate what he calls the “social failures” which are produced by the trade pact: greater income inequality, environmental damage and the decline of democratic control:

Greater income inequality is not the only social failure generated by the success of globalization generally and by NAFTA particularly. Environmental destruction is surely exacerbated with the success of globalization. The greater mobility of capital makes it more and more difficult for citizens of any one political unit to organize and use their government to impose regulations on polluting firms (MacEwan, 1994: 2).

Finally, he argues that globalization has a negative impact on the quality of politics and public life by placing restrictions on governments’ powers to intervene in their own economies, and, thereby:

“..limiting people’s power to exercise political control over their economic lives” (MacEwan, 1994: 2).

Though one should not necessarily take all this criticism at face value, it does reflect what can go wrong as corporations and capital have acquired the means to move and operate on a much broader scale. Furthermore, it conveys a sense of alarm that the nation-state as an institutional structure cannot cope effectively with these new developments, and, in fact, finds its own priorities and policies heavily influenced, if not dictated, by them. The question then arises, who will articulate and defend the public interest against the global reach of private financial and commercial interests, when the latter go too far? For instance, all but the most laissez-faire of economic thinking argue that governments must intervene to protect the public when markets fail, i.e. when they are no longer free and competitive. However, efforts to implement such a strategy at the global level, through various multilateral and international institutions, have achieved little. Consequently, world markets have become increasingly concentrated in major sectors.

Furthermore, while there is a case to be made for reducing expensive and inefficient government regulatory structures, the lack of adequate regulatory standards applying across borders does provide an incentive for multinational firms to choose less-regulated operating environments, and involves countries seeking foreign investment in a:

“race for the bottom” competition to see who can provide the most “free” and least regulated business environment (The Economist, July 1995: 114).

In the negative characterization of globalization, and this judgment becomes even more plausible when globalization is evaluated as an “engine” of social conflict.

Globalization and Conflict

Though the previous discussion is suggestive, the link between globalization and conflict requires further explication. Much of the literature distinguishes between conflicts which focus on issues of culture and identity, and others which appear to be primarily economic, and the discussion that follows adopts this approach while acknowledging that in practice the two elements are interrelated. Conflicts of world views and interests should not, however, be seen as inherently threatening or negative. Indeed many of the tensions of social change are largely unavoidable, and some are undoubtedly creative in their effects. At the same time, however, the analysis which follows suggests that if the human needs and rights issues involved are not adequately addressed, the incidence and intensity of social conflict associated with globalization are likely to increase steadily in the years ahead.

The Interplay of Ideology, Biology, Guilt and Shame • Age of Treason (January 19, 2014)

Source: TANSTAAFL

In whatever happened to european tribes? hbd* chick posits that Christianity discouraged inbreeding, which in turn triggered the dissolution of European tribalism and consequent shift in emphasis to the nuclear family.

We can see in this the give and take between ideology and biology – the roots of identity are genetic, but memes, over generations, do shape the underlying gene pool. To the extent outbreeding produces a relative shift in identity rather than simply destroying it, this also provides a partial, biological explanation for why Whites tend toward both broader (nationalist, racialist) and narrower (individualist) forms of identity. An even more proximate and substantial cause lies in decades of anti-White propaganda, and it encourages more extreme shifts, whether outward into humanism or inward into solipsism.

hbd* chick has been writing thought-provoking articles about the nature and origins of Europeans for some time. This article on European tribalism is from 2011, part of her inbreeding in europe series. More recently she has written about what she calls the outbreeding project, a subset of her general theory of the west – all based on the realization that clannishness goes hand in hand with consanguinity.

Two of her more recent posts, more on the origins of guilt in northwestern european populations and the transition from shame to guilt in anglo-saxon england (and “core” europe), are a critique of Peter Frost’s The origins of Northwest European guilt culture and Part II.

Frost begins Part I by noting the crucial difference between shame and guilt:

Shame is the primary means of behavioral control in most societies. If you are seen breaking a social rule, you will feel shame, and this feeling will be reinforced by what people say and do (gossiping, malicious looks, spitting, ostracism, etc.). Shame is much less effective if you break a rule without being seen or if you merely think about breaking a rule.

Guilt is more important in European societies, particularly those of Northwest European origin. It operates even when you act alone or merely think about breaking a rule. Behavior can thus be regulated in all possible situations with a minimum of surveillance.

Put more plainly, shame is the means by which more particularist/collectivist non-Whites maintain group cohesion, whereas guilt is the means by which more universalist/individualist Whites are encouraged to selflessly maintain a civil society in which everyone but Whites can thrive. Shame is something groups inflict upon themselves, for their own benefit, whereas guilt-tripping is a weapon of group warfare, used by non-Whites to discourage White group cohesion in any form between family and race.

Ironically, Frost cites Ruth Benedict on how shame compares to guilt:

Ruth Benedict first made the distinction between “shame cultures” and “guilt cultures”. Pervasive feelings of guilt are part of a behavioral package that enabled Northwest Europeans to adapt to complex social environments where kinship is less important and where rules of correct behavior must be obeyed with a minimum of surveillance.

Benedict helped establish cultural anthropology, which has since largely displaced physical anthropology, substituting jewish pilpul and narrative for the objective science developed by Northwest Europeans. If nothing else Benedict’s cultural theorizing helps explain her own mindset, moved by her “guilt culture” to work with members of a “shame culture” – jews like her mentor Franz Boas, her colleague Gene Weltfish and a swarm of other social science activists who were more or less openly obsessed with advancing the interests of their own tribe.

In order to prevail these cultural anthropologists literally made up stories and falsified data. They shamelessly leveraged tribalist networking, using their power and authority to advance pseudo-science while denouncing, shunning, defunding and otherwise tearing down their opponents. What’s more, they never expressed the slightest twinge of shame or guilt about it. They were far too busy feeling morally righteous about themselves and their cause.

The “behavioral package” of jews is adapted to parasitism. They do not empathize with their hosts. They will use shame, guilt, or any other mechanism they can in order to marginalize their enemies and hijack or hoodwink others into serving their interests. In contrast to Whites, who actually do feel guilt and shame each other mercilessly over “racism”, jews feel guilt and shame each other for not being obsessed enough about what’s best for the jews.

Frost argues that Northwestern European “guilt culture” predates Christianity. hbd* chick argues the origins are more recent, a consequence of the avoidance of cousin marriage. I’m intrigued by the subject and recognize some truth in both arguments. What leaves me vaguely annoyed is the calm Northwestern European detachment with which they discuss the subject. The “guilt culture” is only one facet of White pathology, the more general attribute of which is the absurd pretense that everybody is, or with enough effort on our part can become, “us”. The affliction isn’t unique to either Northwestern Europeans or Christians. It also, frankly, doesn’t seem to be either shame or guilt which keeps Whites who are so intelligent and knowledgeable about history and science and conscious of Northwestern European distinctiveness from taking more notice of the jew elephant in the room.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the main mechanism lies even deeper in the psyche, below guilt and shame. In pain. In the fear of pain. In the fear of even mentioning those things we suspect might cause us pain. Here too I can see the interplay of evil thoughts and breeding. The dysgenic consequence of two centuries of fratricidal revolution and war selecting out Europe’s most fearless and noble. The sterile fruit of parasite-fomented, parasite-serving materialism and “enlightenment”.

Tanstaafl at 1/19/2014 11:58:00 PM

The unprecedented consolidation of the modern media industry has severe consequences • Helen Johnson

Source: Miscellany News

When President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term “military-industrial complex” in his Farewell Address to the nation on Jan. 17, 1961, he did more than warn against the “acquisition of unwarranted influence” and the “disastrous rise of misplaced power.” In fact, he alluded to how we might avoid such a dangerous threat: “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Eisenhower was right to emphasize the importance of an “alert and knowledgeable citizenry.” Without this key aspect of democracy, the people are unable to hold their government accountable or influence its decision-making—including, and perhaps especially, decision-making regarding war. In the United States, our free press is entrusted with keeping us “alert and knowledgeable.” The freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy.

The First Amendment is meant to serve as a check against government control over the marketplace of ideas and dissemination of information. The American press prides itself on being independent and unbiased, which is meant to ensure that the public gets fairly neutral reporting and a truthful account of the news regardless of who may be involved. Justice Brennan summarizes this notion in the majority opinion of New York Times Company v. Sullivan: “[D]ebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and [this] may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” The concept of free media is intrinsically tied to democracy. The United States was founded on the principle of government by consent of the governed; a free press that keeps the citizenry informed of the happenings in government is what allows the “governed” to give their consent and make informed decisions when voting for elected officials.

For debate on public issues to be uninhibited and the marketplace of political ideas to be free, the logical conclusion is the more the better—more newspapers, more television stations, more editors, more writers and more independent, local media owners. This ensures that as many people’s voices as possible are heard, and that those in charge of media outlets are more likely to be locally based and familiar with their areas and communities. However, the consolidation of media conglomerates over recent history has moved us in the opposite direction.

In 1983 there were 50 dominant media corporations. Today there are five. These five conglomerates own about 90 percent of the media in the United States, including newspapers, magazines, book publishers, motion picture studios and radio and television stations. As of 2020, the five media giants are AT&T (Time Warner, CNN, HBO), Comcast (NBC Universal, Telemundo, Universal Pictures), Disney (ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Marvel Studios), News Corp (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Post) and ViacomCBS (CBS, Paramount Pictures).

Many of the mergers that allowed for the consolidation within the media industry happened after winning antitrust approval from the Justice Department. An extreme lack of regulation regarding media companies has resulted in the media giants managing to secure major holdings in all forms of media, including newspapers, radio and television stations and movie studios. In his book “The New Media Monopoly,” Ben Bagdikian writes that “[t]his gives each of the five corporations and their leaders more communications power than was exercised by any despot or dictatorship in history.” The benefits of consolidation for company owners and shareholders are clear: the fewer the owners, the larger each one’s share of the billion-dollar media industry. Additionally, the larger the media giants grow, the more impossible it is for smaller, independent outlets to stay afloat.

The consolidation of media power extends beyond just mergers and monopolies. The big media giants oftentimes have interlocking directorates—which is when the same people serve on the board of directors of more than one company. According to a study by Aaron Moore in the Columbia Journalism Review in 2003, News Corporation, Disney, Viacom and Time Warner had 45 interlocking directors. The dominant five media conglomerates in 2004 had a total of 141 joint ventures. Although there is no recent compilation of data for the interlocking directorates of the big five media conglomerates today, Moore’s study is indicative of a constant pattern within the industry.

No analysis of the concentration of media power and the corporations that control today’s messaging would be complete without a close look at big tech and the internet. The huge tech companies of today have produced another form of power concentration and broadened the reach of major media conglomerates. Because of the internet, today’s news media reaches more Americans than ever before, while being controlled by the smallest number of owners in history.

The rise of the internet has also led to the tech giants accumulating an obscene amount of power over which media we consume. Unlike the conglomerates like AT&T, Comcast, Disney, etc. (and the news outlets they control), tech companies don’t produce the content we see—they control what we view. The market power of platforms like Google and Facebook is obscene: Facebook and Google combined account for over 70 percent of users directed to the websites of major news publishers. On its own this may seem trivial, but the rise of fake news, intense polarization and increased acceptance of conspiracy theories imply otherwise. The power held by huge tech giants only serves to magnify the impact that media conglomerates have over messaging.

The implications of the extreme consolidation of media power are extensive. First, the largest source of political money comes from corporations, and the media conglomerates are some of the largest corporations in the world. In the Forbes 2020 ranking of the world’s largest public companies, AT&T came in 11th, Comcast 27th, and Disney 36th. ViacomCBS and News Corp trailed the top three, at 472nd and 1737th, respectively. The tech companies are also at the top of the list. Alphabet (Google’s parent company) comes in 13th in the world and Facebook sits at a comfortable 39th. The market values of these companies range from $5.8 to $919 billion.

These billions upon billions equal more influence in political discourse and elections. Money determines the winning issues and candidates in American politics, so the larger the corporation, the stronger the influence. But no other industry is as directly linked to voting patterns as the media industry. Their product is the messaging that dictates the issues and candidates that dominate the national arena.

What this means is that not only do the media giants contribute money to campaigns, they also cover them. They report, record, narrate, document and broadcast them. Consequently, the political power of media conglomerates grows exponentially with their size and wealth; the larger the corporation, the greater its political influence through both monetary power and messaging. The greater the political power of the media giants, the more easily they lobby and influence the government to slash regulations, grant antitrust approvals and pass laws that increase their corporate domination.

One such law is the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The Telecommunications Act amended the Communications Act of 1934 and was the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in over 60 years. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the goal of the law was to “[l]et anyone enter any communications business––to let any communications business compete in any market against any other.” In effect, the legislation deregulated the broadcasting and telecommunications markets. The media giants benefited immensely from the Telecommunications Act and lobbied extensively for its passage—which is why it should come as no surprise that major news outlets completely failed to cover the legislation.

Concentrated media power not only affects which issues take the spotlight in the news, but their power in the entire realm of politics. Political parties and elected officials are keenly aware of the almost-absolute control of media giants in the news. Big money in other industries already holds gross power over elected officials due to campaign financing—add to that the fear of unfavorable news coverage, and it is no surprise that bills like the Telecommunications Act are passed easily.

The consequences of concentrated political influence among the media conglomerates is more far-reaching still. Media giants have the power to not only shape public debate, ensure the passage of favorable legislation and bend elected officials to their will, but also to bolster entire ideologies. One must look no further than Fox News. The American cable news television channel was spawned by Australian-American Rupert Murdoch, i.e. media mogul and creator of the empire that includes News Corp and Fox Corporation.

Fox News was launched on Oct. 7, 1996, as a conservative news network and is now the dominant cable news network in the United States. At the end of 2019, it averaged 2.5 million primetime viewers and was the top-rated network in all of cable for the fourth year in a row. According to a study published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, there was a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000, and Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News. Fox News exemplifies the dramatic effect the news media has on the electorate and what happens when one media mogul with a political agenda builds an empire that becomes one of the largest media corporations in the world.

With the consolidation of media power, the pool of people that control the vast majority of the industry is ever shrinking. The smaller the pool that controls the news media, the narrower the information reported. Not only is the news oftentimes duplicative and always bound to the outlet’s parent corporation, but the media giants’ cartel-like relationships mean that the differences in reporting between each conglomerate are minor as well. These narrowed choices will themselves be biased by corporate interests. As noted, the political power held by the dominant media firms is readily used to make conditions more favorable for their growth and profit; likewise, they use their messaging power to enhance the social and economic values that are favorable to the corporate world.

Additionally, media giants are not only global corporations themselves, but are invested in other million- and billion-dollar industries. They are not stand-alone companies with isolated interests. Media conglomerates make money off of advertising, which holds influence over reporting and broadcasting. Beyond even this, however, the media giants have physical and financial ties to other industries. Interlocking directorates, revolving doors of personnel and financial stakes and holdings connect the corporate media to the state, the Pentagon, defense and arms manufacturers and the oil industry. Our free press, which assures “government by consent of the governed,” is in bed with the captains of industry and profiteers of war.

Visualizing COVID-19 as an Enterprise Fraud Construct and Continuity of Government Implications — Political moonshine

Graphics that visually demonstrate the COVID-19 as an enterprise fraud construct and continuity of government implications.… Read More Visualizing COVID-19 as an Enterprise Fraud Construct and Continuity of Government Implications

Visualizing COVID-19 as an Enterprise Fraud Construct and Continuity of Government Implications — Political moonshine

Patriot Alternative – “Our Plan” – British Activist Platform

Patriotic Alternative

Our Plan
Below you will find our plan for a healthy, successful and prosperous United Kingdom. The below points cover a variety of areas including education, law, health, the environment, immigration and the media.

  1. The British People
    The British people are made up of the English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh. These are the indigenous peoples of the United Kingdom and only they have an ancestral claim to it. The United Kingdom is the only place where the British people, and they alone, can realise their natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination. As such, we will pass a Nation State Law to enshrine this principle and ensure the British people never become a minority or second class citizens in their ancestral homeland.

There will be a government commission to identify and overturn all policy that discriminates against the indigenous people.

  1. Immigration, Asylum and Border Control
    The British people have the right to protect and control their borders and control migration into the UK as they see fit. The UK is one of the most densely populated countries in the Western world and this negatively impacts the indigenous population in a number of ways. There will be a complete halt to all immigration unless under exceptional circumstances.

Exceptional circumstances would include, but not be limited to: foreign diplomats, highly skilled people in urgent demand, and people with a shared ethnic and cultural background who can prove British ancestry.

The UK has no legal or moral obligation to take any refugees or asylum seekers from nations that do not lie on her borders. As such, the UK’s commitment to taking refugees would apply only to those descended from European nations or from other parts of the world who have a shared ethnic and cultural background or who can prove British ancestry – a notable example being white South Africans.

The UK has a right to enforce its own laws – including its immigration laws. Those living in the UK illegally have broken the law and must leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Any legal migrant who commits a serious criminal offence will also be deported – with no exceptions.

  1. Demographics of the UK
    Demographic trends forecast that the indigenous people of the UK will be a minority by 2060. To counter this trend, those of immigrant descent who have obtained British passports will be offered generous financial incentives in order to return to their ancestral homelands. This process will be carried out in a way that is mutually beneficial to both the British people and returnees.

The UK should be governed by the British people for the benefit of the British people. Never should a foreign power be allowed to unduly influence the way the British state conducts its affairs. Equally, no immigrant-descended person should ever be allowed to take decisions regarding the ethnic composition of the UK.

  1. Freedom of Expression
    Freedom of speech will be enshrined for all British citizens. So-called ‘hate speech laws’ will be overturned immediately and all those imprisoned under such legislation will be freed and have their criminal records expunged. The only exception to this will be those who promote violence or terrorism.
  2. Family Values
    The central building block of our nation is the traditional, nuclear family, which consists of a mother, father and children. The traditional family will be promoted as an ideal to be striven for and emulated. No public body will promote any alternative as either equal or superior to the traditional family. To that end, children will be protected from exposure to sexualised material or LGBT propaganda in all public institutions.

Public places should be free of nudity, sexual activity and indecent material. Pornography will only be sold in licenced establishments, which will be regulated to keep the material away from children. Internet pornography will be banned as far as is practicable.

The so-called ‘grooming scandal’ continues to be one of our greatest sources of national shame, and we will establish a full investigation to punish not only the perpetrators, but also the politicians and police who turn a blind eye as our children are abused.

  1. National Languages
    All sign posts, government documents and other written information will only be printed in English and other native languages where appropriate.
  2. Our Welfare System
    We propose a complete overhaul of the current state welfare system, which should be a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times, not a way of life. A new means-tested system of benefits will be created, which would only be available to those who speak fluent English or other native languages where appropriate.
  3. Our NHS
    Our NHS is a cornerstone of British life and should always remain publicly owned and run. However, sweeping management reforms are necessary to improve the service to the public and maximise frontline care and support for doctors and nurses.

The NHS is funded by the British people and is therefore bound to provide health care only to British citizens; there will be an end to ‘health tourism’.
Wages in the NHS must at least keep pace with inflation, and we are committed to training ever more British doctors and nurses. No one should work in the NHS unless they can speak fluent English. Those patients requiring interpreters must arrange and pay for any such services.

  1. The Education of Our Children
    The state system of education needs to be drastically overhauled, with a key priority being the reduction of class sizes. British history will be restored as a central pillar of every child’s education. There will also be a shift in focus to practical skills and traditional educational methods. All education will include physical fitness and sport, in which all able children would be required to take part. Only English and other native languages will be used by teachers in lessons (except the teaching of foreign languages). Children who do not speak English (or Welsh in Wales or Gaelic in Scotland) will not be eligible for state education and state funded schools will not pay for interpreters.

It will be prohibited for any school to promote anti-white propaganda such as ‘white privilege’ and ‘systemic racism’; British children will not be taught to hate themselves or their ancestors. Teachers are there to teach, not impart their own political views.

Private schooling and homeschooling will remain options to those who want them as part of a standardised national examination system.

  1. Religious Life in the UK
    The British people have the right to religious freedom, including the right to worship freely and wear religious symbols and clothing in public places. However, the UK is a Christian country and Christianity is an integral part of our cultural heritage and will continue to be promoted accordingly. The state will also acknowledge ancient, native pre-Christian influences and protect sites of cultural significance to our ancestors.
    Private enterprises have the right to restrict their employees’ display of any religious symbols as they see fit. Those resigning on the grounds of religious objections to working practices will no longer be instantly eligible for state benefits. Employers will no longer be forced to provide prayer rooms or special conditions for religious groups.

The right to religious freedom must never undermine the rights and safety of the British people. As a matter of public safety, full-face coverings will be banned in public and there will be no religious exception to this.

Religious beliefs do not grant parents the right to physically harm or mutilate their child; child genital mutilation will be outlawed and those carrying out such practices will be prosecuted.
There will be a complete ban on the construction of any places of worship funded by foreign sources. There will also be an investigation into the funding of religious buildings established in the last ten years. Those found to have been funded by foreign sources will be closed immediately.

  1. Animal Welfare
    The way we treat animals is a measure of our quality as human beings, so we commit to producing a full charter for the protection and well-being of animals living within captivity. Unnecessary testing on live animals will be outlawed, as will vivisection and other such cruel practices. There will also be a complete ban on the non-stunned slaughter of animals, including Halal and Kosher slaughter. Slaughterhouses continuing to use these methods will be shut and the owners prosecuted. The importation of such ritualistically slaughtered meat will also be banned.

We will also take measures to vastly reduce factory farming, such as promoting and subsidising traditional and natural farming methods.

We will encourage food self-sufficiency to reduce our nation’s reliance on food imports. This will include protecting British territorial waters and ensuring they are fished exclusively and responsibly by British fishermen.

  1. Our Precious Natural Environment
    The UK’s beautiful and rich natural environment is part of our ancestral inheritance. A strong connection to the natural world is integral to our physical and mental health. As immigration is halted and illegal migrants are deported, this will ease the pressure for new housing. There will also be large incentives for developers to redevelop existing urban sites that are no longer in use or have fallen into disrepair, and much stricter planning laws to protect undeveloped green land. A healthy and vibrant people needs space and should never be forced into small, cramped living conditions, which only serve to crush the spirit.
  2. Housing
    The demand for social housing has risen greatly due to mass immigration and the birth rate of the immigrant population. It will no longer be available to those who cannot speak fluent English or other native languages and priority for social housing will be given to those in employment or who are otherwise invested in the area in which they live. We will renew existing social housing.

House and land prices have risen drastically over the last few decades, which is again largely due to mass immigration and large amounts of land and property being purchased by foreign nationals. The government will place strict limits on foreign investors owning land or property within the UK.

  1. Our Right to Work
    We believe in the importance of British jobs for British workers, because work is important for our people’s well-being and self-esteem. Not only will companies be heavily fined for employing illegal immigrants, but we will protect important British industries and companies. Companies will be encouraged to pay a fair living wage and treat workers with respect and dignity.

Large multinational corporations that operate within the UK will be incentivised to buy British goods and use British services wherever possible and will be fully investigated to ensure they are not evading tax. The days of multinational companies making billions in the UK while paying pennies in tax will end.

  1. The Financial Extortion of Our People
    Huge numbers of our people now live in a never-ending cycle of debt, which often leads to depression, stress and the breakdown of families. We will regulate lenders and the financial services industry to ensure that British people are never again trapped in debt they can neither understand nor afford to service. An economy cannot be built on credit and a happy, prosperous and free people must be free of the chains of usury and debt.
  2. The Law of Our Land
    The judiciary and legal system will be free of politically correct influence and cases will be dealt with on the basis of the facts and the injury caused to the victim. Judges and magistrates who are found to have used the legal system in order to push a political agenda will be relieved of their duties.

Capital punishment will be reinstated as an option for murderers and serious sexual offenders, where DNA evidence or other irrefutable evidence is presented. All foreign-born criminals or those of migrant descent who are not British citizens who have committed serious offences will be deported immediately after their sentence is completed.

  1. ‘Foreign Aid’
    We will cease all so-called ‘foreign aid’ commitments immediately and spend these billions of pounds protecting our most vulnerable citizens, including the homeless, the disabled and pensioners.
  2. The Media
    We will establish a government commission to look into various practices of the mainstream media, including collusion between political parties and the owners of media companies, politically motivated hiring within the industry, foreign ownership, and foreign government influence. We believe the BBC has long been failing to provide neutral content in line with its public service remit, and we will hold a public consultation concerning the abolition of the TV Licence.
  3. Crime
    All British citizens have the right to defend both themselves and their property. Anyone who chooses to break into another person’s home or business does so on the understanding that the owner has the right to use sufficient force to defend themselves as they deem necessary. The police and the courts will no longer criminalise people defending themselves and their property.
  4. Our Armed Forces
    We will ensure that the British armed forces are generously funded to defend both the UK’s borders and territories overseas. We will never again involve them in foreign conflicts where Britain has no direct interest. Too many precious lives have been lost in recent decades and too much money spent on conflicts that should never have been fought.

We will maintain the production of arms here in the UK to ensure we are both self-sufficient and protect the many thousands of related British jobs. We will also ensure that British service personnel are given the very best equipment to ensure they can do their job effectively.

Once British service personnel retire from active duty, we have a responsibility to ensure that they transition fully and safely back into civilian life. As such, we will fully fund organisations to help former service personnel achieve this, including any necessary physical rehabilitation and counselling. We will never forget the huge debt we all owe to our brave servicemen and servicewomen.

We will enact a policy of National Service for all young people for 12 months in either the Army, Navy, Royal Air Force or in care homes assisting pensioners or those with disabilities. There would also be options available for those with disabilities or other special requirements. Those who refuse National Service will be barred from working for the state and would lose the right to stand for election.

Figures on Left and Right Come Out in Support of Unpopular Anti-Iran Antagonism – Eric Striker

Source: https://national-justice.com/figures-left-and-right-come-out-support-unpopular-anti-iran-antagonism

A number of figures in the alt-media and extreme-left movement have surprised their audiences by rationalizing the Trump administration’s Israeli-directed push towards war with Iran. 

The consensus between high profile voices on the Zionist “far-right” and anarcho-neocon “far-left” in America and Britain reflect the party line in Israel, where even Amir Peretz of the ostensibly left-wing “opposition” Labor party hailed the Pentagon’s decision to assassinate Maj. General Qassem Soleimani by luring him to Iraq under the false pretense of peace negotiations. 

Spencer Sunshine, a self-proclaimed anarchist and prominent voice in the American “antifa” scene who has been accused of Zionist entryism in the past, took to twitter to reiterate Sean Hannity’s script on the killing: that the Iranians brought it upon themselves by “antagonizing” America and “meddling” in Iraq. It speaks to the state of the modern coopted left that somebody like Sunshine can express the Israeli government’s line and still survive the scrutiny of his peers. Sunshine is very suspicious of anti-war sentiment due to the fact that Jews like Sheldon Adelson and Jared Kushner are responsible for our over-the-top Iran policy. He has spent much of his career fighting what he calls “left-wing anti-Semitism” (principled anti-Zionism).

Caroline Orr, another fanatical Jewish supporter of “antifa,” chastised “fellow” leftists for ignoring Soleimani’s supposed “slaughter” of Syrians during the fight to save the country from ISIS. After some pushback, Orr is backpedaling, but her initial approval shows the Jewish nexus between the virulent anti-white forces on the left and the appetite for war against Iran on the so-called right. She also has made a name for herself for promoting fake news about “Russiagate” and attacking anti-war presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.

While a branch of the left led by “tankies” (Workers World Party and Revolutionary Communist Party) behind the ANSWER coalition are adamantly against imperialism, many anarchists and “democratic socialists” support the CIA-led protest groups we have seen in recent months in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, which have largely subsided but were intended to purge pro-Iran political factions. These groups are meant to incite a civil war, so these left-wing voices basically support regime change as well, just not by a full US ground invasion.   

The ANSWER coalition’s anti-war protests that erupted across America were small, showing that the left is not passionate about opposing this conflict. Figures like AOC and high ranking advisors in the Bernie Sanders campaign all attended the Zionist Dov Hikind’s march against black “anti-Semitism” yesterday, but not any of the anti-war rallies. 

On the other side of the coin, Anne Marie Waters of the “For Britain” group has fully embraced an invasion of Iran. Waters, a remnant of the largely Jewish funded “counter-jihad” movement, does not bother to articulate what the West stands to gain from such a conflict. Her only argument is a neo-liberal desire to impose gay plutocracy on the unwilling Iranians so that Israel can safely continue its expansionist foreign policy. 

Mike Cernovich, who made a name for himself in 2016 in part for his non-interventionist views on Syria, has been  reduced to an Iraq-war era Toby Keith style jingo. He got so much pushback that he too was forced to “clarify” his opposition to war overnight.  

Alex Jones of InfoWars has released a new conspiracy theory claiming that the Jews who control Donald Trump’s government had to set off a chain-reaction that will lead to a regional conflagration in order to prevent World War III. According to Jones, the Obama administration is responsible for tensions with Iran by engaging with diplomacy with the country instead of attacking it. His audience isn’t buying it. Over half of the reactions on his Bitchute video on the topic are negative. 

Nick Fuentes of the Youtube show “America First” has also come under fire for recent statements on Telegram. While he prefaces his statements by saying he technically opposes a full war with Iran, he followed this by cheerleading threats by Zionists in Washington to bomb ancient Persian cultural sites, calls Iran a “degenerate Muslim shithole,” celebrates “America bullying ppl and throwing around missiles”, and comes to the defense of the “American-led” globalist military order, which Trump himself repeatedly criticized throughout his life and, as Tucker Carlson has said, won the presidency in large part by running against it.

The mealy-mouthed Charlie Kirk of TPUSA, a libertarian-Zionist think-tank Trump has recently adopted to engage in outreach for his 2020 campaign, tepidly approved of Washington’s hit on Soleimani, but has also come out in support of full military withdrawal from Iraq.  

Any military entanglement with Iran polls very poorly in America. 

The latest  opinion research finds that almost 70% of Americans believe heightened tensions with Iran are entirely the fault of the Trump administration. Even after Trump and Mike Pompeo accused Iran of attacking the oil fields of “ally” Saudi Arabia on September 14th, 75% of Americans responded that a war with Iran was completely unwarranted. 

While a vocal minority of people are eager to see explosions and dead Arabs at any cost, the majority of Americans understand that a war with Iran will not be like Afghanistan or Iraq. Public support is also not anywhere near where it was for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Such a conflict will be felt at home, either through Iranian sleeper cells attacking US targets, large numbers of dead American soldiers in the Middle East, or exploding food and gas prices. The argument that killing Soleimani has made Americans safer was widely mocked after the State Department put out a subsequent statement  telling US citizens to get out of Iraq immediately. 

White workers have no stake in this Israeli-dictated war. The current failure of the left and right to hold a full-throated line against the coming catastrophe is why a third position is needed now more than ever