It’s time to ask if the surprise outcome of the 2024 US Presidential Election reflects a growing rift between different factions within the technocratic elite or if it’s only a psyop to engineer a low-level civil war between rednecks and cosmopolitan Americans. Many still believe Trump, with Robert F Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard in his team, will rein in the Deep State and put the interests of ordinary Americans first before the grandiose nation-destroying plans of the woke illiberal intelligentsia. Others, especially on this side of the big pond, believe Elon Musk bought the election and will use the second Trump Presidency to abolish democracy. This is odd because both Elon Musk and RFK claimed that if the Harris / Walz ticket won, this could be the end of American democracy as we knew it. Authoritarians have a habit of always accusing their adversaries of the same crimes they commit themselves. Senior figures behind Kamala’s ill-fated campaign, from John Kerry to Bill Gates himself, talked openly about overturning the first amendment to ward off the omnipresent danger of malinformation. What we are witnessing are the death throes of the American Dream of freedom and democracy, with both concepts reduced to little more than commodities.
I once believed electoral outcomes could change the balance of power. Alas we witness a mere pantomime of engineered outcomes. In 1979 many disgruntled leftwingers wondered how Maggie Thatcher could appeal to the aspiring working classes. The next year Ronald Reagan captured the imagination of the American middle classes. By the time the pendulum swung the other way and Tony Blair entered 10 Downing Street with a whopping majority, it became obvious to me he only did so because he had big business on his side. Indeed, since 1974 Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has backed the winning horse. After backing the Tories from 2010 to 2019, the Sun newspaper flipped again to back the uncharismatic Sir Keir Starmer.
Before the results of the recent 2024 US Presidential race rolled in, one thing was certain in my mind. The multi-trillion-dollar Military-Biotech Industrial Complex would not relinquish power without a fight. If the winner posed a threat to the big banks and corporations, the Deep State would move heaven and earth to prevent him or her from entering office. With Queen Kamala, they had their perfect puppet, who judging by her performance over the last four years, would do nothing to hold her string-pullers to account.
Yet despite his rhetoric about draining the swamp and his promises to clamp down on corruption in the 3-letter agencies, Donald Trump appointed Susie Wiles, a longstanding political lobbyist whose former clients included Pfizer and Big Tobacco. The self-obsessed orange man may have cold-shouldered his former neocon Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and UN ambassador, Nicki Haley, but judging by his choice of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, and Christian Zionist, Mike Huckabee, as US Ambassador to Israel, the US Deep State looks set to pivot away from direct confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and to support Israel in an all-out war with Iran. Will this make World War Three more likely as most key Middle East countries, such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt too, are now aligning in the BRICs bloc. We may well be witnessing a rift in the Western Military Industrial Complex between the neoconservative Israel-First faction and the neoliberal anti-Russian faction. Just as the US manoeuvres its way out of the Ukrainian quagmire and Vice President elect, JD Vance, threatens to stop subsidising the defence of its European NATO allies because they fail to uphold American values of free speech. Meanwhile former Dutch PM and new NATO Secretary, Mark Rutte, has threatened to expel the US from NATO if they agree a compromise with Russia to end the war over Eastern Ukraine. This may mark a shift from a US-centred world to a multipolar world with European elites now more belligerent than their American counterparts, but with only 7 weeks of his tenure to go, Biden authorised airstrikes over Russia with the UK ready to deploy its Storm Shadow missiles in an escalation that could further drain NATO’s resources.
Some pinned their hopes on Matt Gaetz, an outspoken social conservative able to speak truth to power over Mossad’s potential involvement in the mysterious death of Jeffrey Epstein, but had to stand down amid sexual misconduct allegations.
Another sign of the times is the hysterical reaction to the appointment of Robert F Kennedy Jnr as Secretary of Health and Human Services. This seemed to annoy some faux-progressive commentators much more than Trump’s electoral success. Carole Cadwalladr took to X (formerly Twitter) to call RFK not only a vaccine-denier, but a fluoride-denier (rather ironic as fluoridation is not common in continental Europe). By the Guardian journalist’s warped logic, if you demand transparency, accountability and above all, liability from multibillion-dollar corporations, you are somehow denying people the benefits of the last century of scientific advances. It turns out RFK has never opposed vaccination if it has passed the strictest safety trials. Every debate about the safety and effectiveness of the coercively administered covid shots with Fauci fans always ends with references to the polio outbreak of the mid 20th century and the dramatic decline since the late 1950s. Yet by far the biggest factor is rapid decline in infant mortality over the last 70 years has been better sanitation. Children born in the 1960s and 70s were among the healthiest in history. Lifelong disabilities or chronic illnesses reached historic lows after post-war slum clearances and urban renewal, until a curious reversal of fortunes since the late 1980s when the incidence of neurological disorders and allergies started to increase. This happened to coincide with a massive expansion in the childhood vaccine schedule, most notably for MMR, and legislation to give vaccine manufacturers blanket immunity for any injuries or deaths that can be attributed to vaccines. In most Western nations, it is up to governments to pay damages. Of course, there are many other potential causes of rising health conditions such as processed foods, additives and, possibly, exposure to electronic gadgets and radiation. While people are living longer, most adults over 30 are now on one form of regular medication or another (that’s most over 50s on statins, beta blockers and/or diabetes drugs and a growing number of middle-aged adults on psychoactive meds). However, RFK would not only have to contend with the combined might of BigTech and BigPharma, but also with Trump’s choice of Surgeon General, Dr Janette Nesheiwat, a covid vaccine evangelist. I fear other global events or manufactured scandals may prevent RFK from having much influence.
The next administration may well have to deal the collapse of the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency. All it takes is for China and Saudi Arabia to sell off US T-Bonds (treasury bonds) if the US continues to support Israeli aggression or bombs Iran on its behalf. The US Deep State can then blame the ensuing economic meltdown on Trump and let vulture funds asset-strip the nation.
Cognitive dissonance in an era of high-tech surveillance
In the ongoing debate on the sustainability of high levels of rapid migration in terms of infrastructure and social cohesion, one trend just caught my eye. All of a sudden and from some quite unexpected quarters, we hear talk of deportation, something almost unthinkable outside the fringe ethno-nationalist right until recently. In a radical departure from the old consensus that immigration has to be managed and, when economic and environmental circumstances allow, openly welcomed, mainstream opinion leaders have now started to publicly advocate reversing the last twenty odd years of rapid de-acculturation by sending home unassimilated newcomers in their midst. Bastions of social democracy and global convergence like Sweden and Denmark have changed their tune and begun to deport criminals and long-term welfare claimants with an immigrant background. My main concern has always been with destabilisation or any policy that can undermine the hard-won freedoms and way of life of settled communities to advance agendas that mainly benefit global corporations to the detriment of the little people.
By and large the concept of free movement is a good thing, but like all good things has its limitations. Should the homeless be free to set up camp in your garden or squat in your house while you’re away? Should holidaymakers be free to park their caravans in wildlife reserves or on cultivated fields? Should grown men be free to wander into women’s changing rooms? Should property developers be free to build on parks or green spaces for profit or to accommodate growing demand for affordable housing? There are obvious limits in complex societies on the extent to which we can encroach on other people’s spaces and undermine their self-determination and traditions. Most disputes over land affect less than 1% of the Earth’s total landmass where over half of the global population dwell and most of the other half live in the approximately 12.5% of land considered arable with only a tiny fraction inhabiting remote settlements scattered around the next 30% of resource-exploitable land. That leaves around 56% of the remaining terrain mostly uninhabitable or unused due to extreme conditions such as deserts, tundra or high mountains. Yet that 1% assigned to the urbanosphere is nearly as large as the combined area of France, Germany, Poland and Italy.
The same progressive opinion leaders who hailed the wonders of our interconnected humanosphere, made possible by automotive, aeronautical and cybernetic technology, now want us to scale back to a more sustainable lifestyle, but sustainable for whom? How can they simultaneously promote mass migration to the most highly developed regions of the world and greater restrictions of our freedom to travel around our own neck of the woods? The same big businesses that sold us the dream of carefree motoring, suburban houses and regular holidays abroad, are now selling us smart green technology as millions of middle-class Westerners adapt to a minimalist lifestyle. Historically people have emigrated to find a better quality of life, but with the civilisational decline of the once affluent West that may no longer be the case. Sooner or later, something has to give in the clash between autochthons and international commuters. The mercantile classes behind the 18th and 19th century expansion of European empires have evolved into a network of global technocrats who owe no allegiance to their home countries. They have already pivoted from favouring the Western middle classes in the era of mass consumption to exploiting a vast pool of aspirational migrant labour in the shift from a mixed high-wage and high-skill economy to controlled subsistence micromanaged by tech multinationals. However, if they can pivot once for strategic reasons, they can pivot again and abandon new groups of commoners.
Just as the business elites have betrayed the Western working classes, they can easily ditch their army of globetrotting contingent workers to favour only a much smaller coterie of top-tier engineers and social governance analysts. However, at the dawn of the AI revolution with the transfer of power to a handful of tech giants, we are also witnessing the demise of the global superpower that has dominated the world’s cultural landscape for the best part of a century and reached its pinnacle in the early 1990s after the fall of the former Soviet Union.
The recent Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine marked a turning point in the balance power between G7-centred international community and the now expanded BRICS bloc, which is in the process of setting up a rival international banking system. Before 2020 the world seemed set on a trajectory of convergence with Africa, China, India and South America all falling within orbit of US-founded tech giants and banking cartels. While the Western middle classes would lose their relative privileges, the emerging technocracy would remain unipolar. Indeed, many critics of a one-world government saw the tech censorship of the lockdown years as a shift towards a more Chinese style of global governance. While the big nations of the Global East and South may have many authoritarian traits, they have not succumbed to woke ideology. The transgender craze with its assault on natural procreation has failed to make inroads in most of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. White guilt has only infected countries with a recent history of colonialism or racial segregation. On current trends, we may soon wonder how long Africans will want to move to Europe or North America.
The whole progressive rationale for mass migration hinged on the challenges of an ageing population with a low birth rate as a means to increase the tax base and allegedly to pay for our pensions. Alas with net migration running at 750,000 a year, the establishment has stopped pretending most newcomers are high-income professionals. The cost of accommodating asylum seekers alone amounted to a staggering 5.4 billion in 2023, while new projections show the average newcomer to the UK will cost the treasury much more in their lifetime than they pay in taxes. If the AI revolution displaces most lower and medium-skilled workers leaving only core competency workers (an upper crust of well-remunerated engineers, scientists, doctors, policy consultants and administrators) as essential workers outside the UBI control grid, there will no longer be any need to import cheap labour or boost the economy artificially through greater aggregate consumer demand.
As we shift from a skills-based consumer economy, affording ordinary workers greater personal freedoms, to a more eco-compliance-driven economy, local governance teams will want to restrict people’s freedom of movement by limiting access to cars, long-distance trains and aeroplanes as we saw in the covid-scare years. The trick is to get everyone within the same control grid, which is much more pervasive in the more developed regions of the world.
We are at a critical juncture in human civilisation. A major geopolitical shift away from the US-centred world order is coinciding with the growing concentration of power in billionaire technotarians who advocate high-tech eugenics and view the masses as little more than zoo animals. Alas I see a split in our technocratic masters. Some are still hedging their bets on the survival of American exceptionalism and mass consumerism. Others are content to adopt the Chinese model of epistocracy with a vanguard group of social scientists manufacturing consent among a pacified populace. Both groups exploit our conflicting desires for free movement and social cohesion to continue to divide and rule. They can pose on the left or on the right. They can advocate open borders or mass deportations, but the end game is still total surveillance.
On almost the same day as Israeli military forces attacked Lebanon and destroyed the 14th century Great Mosque of Khan Younis in Gaza, a knifeman attacked 14 young revellers, killing at least 3, at a Christian festival, celebrating ethnic diversity, in the West German town of Solingen. Within 24 hours it emerged the perpetrator was a 17-year-old asylum seeker who pledged allegiance to ISIS and sought revenge for the German government’s complicity in Israeli war crimes.
The total civilian death toll since 7th October 2023 now exceeds 40,000 and some estimates show that collateral damage to essential infrastructure may have caused 160,000 more deaths. In a parallel timeline, Hamas fighters broke through Israeli defences and killed 1139 military personnel and civilians and took over 100 hostages. Ever since there have been regular protests across the Western world against Israeli war crimes, with reports of attacks against Jewish communities such as the recent firebombing of a synagogue in the Southern French seaside town of La Grande Motte.
This comes only three weeks after riots following the stabbing of 11 young girls, with 3 fatalities, in Southport. Online rumours, labelled misinformation, circulated that the perpetrator was a Muslim asylum seeker, leading some angry local residents to protest outside the nearest mosque. It turns out the perpetrator grew up in Cardiff with Rwandan parents. The official narrative suggests he suffered from a mental illness. Sir Keir Starmer’s administration reacted by clamping down on the alleged far-right with a special focus on social media posts that may incite hatred. It turns out rumours about the Southport killer being a Muslim asylum seeker that spread from the Channel3Now network did not emanate, as initially reported on the BBC and Sky TV, from Russian sources or far-right organisations. The claim actually came from a Pakistani Web developer, Farhan Asi, whose motives may well have been to trigger revenge attacks in the full knowledge that the police would blame anti-Islam protesters. It’s not inconceivable that said operative could have been working for the British secret services, as I doubt normal Pakistanis, many with relatives in the UK, would want to see internecine warfare or more police repression. Western governments are quite happy to play a game of bait and switch between rival ethno-religious groups. The German government has recently arrested the publisher of the right-leaning Compact magazine for publishing official crime statistics as it may incite hatred against new ethnic minorities, while also apprehending leftwing activists, with many from new immigrant communities, for protesting peacefully against Israeli war crimes, under the pretext of antisemitism.
We now have four parallel narratives to explain the breakdown in peaceful coexistence:
Extreme right-wingers are spreading misinformation to destabilise society.
Radical Islamists want to eradicate infidels and destroy Judeo-Christianity.
Israel, along with the Western ruling elites, wants to eradicate Palestinians and subjugate Muslims worldwide.
We have an urgent mental health crisis among young males.
All narratives lead us in the same direction, towards a more tightly controlled and militarised society with more advanced surveillance, social engineering and censorship. Of course, the mainstream media is the prime source of fake news and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is much more nuanced than just a straight battle between good and evil and must be viewed in the wider context of the growing concentration of power in Big Tech.
The last narrative may often seem a convenient cover for more sinister motives, but may also empower the state to expand its surveillance grid to every aspect of your private life. We could soon be required to carry a digital health app on our mobile device. Such a device may be as small as wristwatch or even just an embedded microchip. It could contain data not only of genuine medical conditions or vaccines, but also of any mental health conditions and required treatment. Ingestible sensor technology already exists to track your compliance with medication regimes. The spectre of kitchen-knife-wielding maniacs approaching children’s playgrounds could justify the installation of embedded microchip access control (EMAC) systems around all public spaces, either denying access to non-compliant individuals or immediately alerting the police of their presence. While many may welcome such measures to protect children against predators, administrations can abuse such innovations not only to limit medical freedom and privacy, but to track dissidents. Imagine not being allowed to enter your local pub or café because you have not taken your neuroleptic meds to suppress politically incorrect thoughts. This is no longer science fiction.
It hardly matters if some groups fear far-right racists, while others fear Muslim fundamentalists, Zionists, rabid antisemites or psychiatric patients on the loose. Whichever version of reality you choose to believe, more technocracy will be the solution. Once you’re trapped in the digital surveillance grid, your personal worldview is inconsequential to the powers-that-be, a mere character trait that may need medical attention.
Could the spectre of the elusive far-right be the new covid?
These days left and right-wing refer more to your cultural outlook than your class allegiance. If anything, the richer you are in Western Europe, the more likely you are to identify with the progressive left and the poorer you are the more likely you are to harbour politically incorrect views.
By any fair historical standards, the indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles have never been more tolerant of racial and sexual diversity, if these are the new metrics of progress, and probably more tolerant than the peoples of most other countries. Millions of native Britons of all political persuasions have close friends or relatives who are black, Asian, mixed-race and/or gay. Many leading figures in the so-called alternative right, such as David Kurten or Ben Habib, are non-white and many others, like David Starkey or Peter Whittle, are openly gay. Yet we’re supposed to believe gay-bashing Neo-Nazis have whipped up racial tensions by spreading fake news. Countless polls have shown that while most voters want to live peacefully with their neighbours from different ethnic backgrounds, most believe current levels of net immigration are too high. Many other common concerns such as unaffordable housing, overburdened public services and social cohesion are all linked to migratory pressures. Very few would advocate mass deportations of anyone but hardened criminals, but millions, including many Labour voters, would like to see net annual immigration levels brought down to under 100,000 a year. Even with zero-net-migration (e.g. 200,000 in either direction), we would still need to build more houses and infrastructure as well as invest in better community relations, ensuring that the much-maligned white working classes are not left behind. White working class boys are now the least likely to graduate from university, falling behind their British-Afro-Caribbean peers.
As I write, rising food prices have reignited sectarian violence in Bangladesh with mobsters burning down the homes of the country’s Hindu minority. As bad as recent riots in English towns may have appeared, they led to relatively few casualties, if we exclude the murders of three young girls that triggered angry protests in the first place.
Controlled Opposition
So why is the mainstream media obsessed with the mythical far-right, personified by Tommy Robinson also known as Stephen Yaxley Lennon? It turns out Tommy’s main beef is not with people of other races or sexual orientations at all, but with Islam. His hometown of Luton has experienced a rapid demographic shift from mostly white British in the 1970s to a white-minority town today as confirmed by the 2021 census. The growing Muslim community, mainly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent, dominate the town’s inner and western districts. Anyone growing up there since the 1980s would have had a hard time at school as a white supremacist. My mother taught in a primary school in the Bury Park district that went from around 50% Muslim in 1980 to 95% Muslim by the end of the 1980s. Over the next three decades this trend spread to other schools, prompting an exodus of other Lutonians to the outer suburbs and surrounding market towns.
In his infinite wisdom, Mr Yaxley Lennon chose to collaborate with the well-funded Israel lobby via the deceptively labelled and allegedly socially conservative Canadian outfit, Rebel Media. They’ve bankrolled many of Tommy’s court cases over allegations of grievous bodily harm or contempt of court. Mr Yaxley Lennon started the now disbanded English Defence League as a reaction to local protesters shouting “burn in hell” during a home-coming parade for soldiers who had served in Iraq around 2009. Does that mean he supported the invasion of Iraq and failed to understand the close ties between the Military Industrial Complex, the Israel lobby and proponents of mass migration? As much as the establishment media vilify him, I think the Tommy Robinson ™️ brand is controlled opposition, a safety valve for the pent-up anger of the settled working classes, yearning for a bygone interlude of post-imperial Cool Britannia with its iconic mix of rock and reggae bands superimposed on a landscape of industrial decline, creeping Americanisation, half-hearted urban renewal and quirky insular customs.
On the sidelines, genuine ethnonationalists and racial segregationists do exist. Their positions vary from those who advocate monoculturalism within stable nation states to those who want to restore monoracial societies in Western Europe. Britain First, which is not exclusively white, may come close to the first tendency, while only fringe outfits like Patriotic Alternative support the latter. Both tendencies may advocate some form of repatriation or population exchange, although historically such exchanges have seldom been peaceful. However, none of the fringe right-wing groups openly supported the riots or urged their followers to burn asylum seeker hotels. Those calls came from hasty social media posts. In the recent past, many virtue-signallers have wished death on the unjabbed and a journalist by the name of David Aaronovitch called for the murder of Donald Trump, two weeks before an attempted assassination on the former President. This is the same towering intellect who not only supported all of Tony Blair’s wars, calling opponents pro-Saddam fascists, but also wrote a book attacking conspiracy theorists, Voodoo Histories. If you scour social media sites, you’ll see plenty of death wishes directed at undesirables or the perceived enemies of progress. Any violence attributed to the far-right came from feral gangs of disillusioned and largely apolitical youngsters as well as a few agitators who egged on small groups of hotheads on the margins of otherwise peaceful protests. The only examples of online incitement to mindless violence came from some unexpected sources, such as the wife of a Tory councillor, Lucy Connelly, who wrote on X/Twitter “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******* for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it” in the immediate aftermath of the Southport stabbings. These are not the musings of a hard-headed activist of any political persuasion, but outpourings of anger and emotional turmoil. Of the over one thousand people arrested and fast-tracked for sentencing, are many with long-term psychological traumas. A 69-year-old alcoholic was condemned to 32 months in jail for violent disorder and possessing a truncheon, while a 22-year-old young man with learning difficulties got a 26 months jail sentence for smashing windows of nearby residential properties. Meanwhile rapists, muggers and murderers have been released early after only 6 or 12 months in jail for much more serious crimes.
Intellectual Diversity
In the not-too-distant past, we could more easily respect a wider diversity of opinions on the key ethical, scientific and economic issues of the day, as long as we adhered to common social etiquette. I know for a fact many of my Church-going neighbours in the 1970s considered homosexuality a sin, opposed abortion and had not yet embraced colour-blind multi-racialism, largely because most people were, outside of London and a few other urban districts, still boringly pale-skinned, especially in leafy suburbs and small market towns.
I grew up in a staunch Labour household. My father believed he stood up for ordinary working people of all creeds and colours. He campaigned against Britain’s membership of the European Economic Union and supported greater public ownership. We would discuss politics at the dinner table. For a while my elder brother would try to outdo my father’s newfound radicalism. He joined the Young Socialists, supported unilateral nuclear disarmament, opposed US imperialism and took a stand against the racism of the anti-immigration National Front, which had started to pick up protest votes from the disillusioned working classes, although seldom more than 5%. A large map of Palestine showing the expansion of Israel into the occupied territories bedecked his bedroom wall. Apart from occasionally trying to point out their hypocrisy on some matters, I didn’t really engage in meaningful political debate until the age of fourteen when my brother dragged me along to the large Rock against Racism concerts in London and later introduced me to the National Union of School Students with its campaigns for school councils, getting rid of school uniform, banning corporal punishment, ending religious education and providing more explicit sex education. Two of my brother’s comrades persuaded me to attend the union’s small conference. One belonged to the tiny Communist Party (of Great Britain) and the other hung out with the trendier Socialist Workers’ crowd. I may have been the youngest attendee. Indeed, most were either radical organisers in their 20s or sixth-formers (aged 16 to 18) eager to enjoy the free gig and disco laid on that evening. Later in 1978, I would get expelled from high school for distributing NUSS magazines with articles on the joys of masturbation and homoeroticism, both taboo subjects among many Catholic families. I still recall my head teacher’s words: “You’re not mature enough to understand the consequences of this propaganda. You’re being used. You’ll have your say when you’re older.”.
Anti-racism was one of many rebellious causes that sought to break ranks with Britain’s imperial past and its new role as junior partner of US imperialism, with its covert support for racially segregated South Africa and its proxy wars in Angola, Mozambique and elsewhere. The establishment had not yet fully rebranded itself. Then in 1979, the Southern English working classes rejected Labour as Maggie Thatcher wrapped herself in the Union Jack and promised council house tenants could buy their homes. The new government let failing industries go bust, privatised many state-owned businesses and presided over soaring unemployment. To this day, millions in Scotland, Wales and Northern England hate Thatcher for destroying the country’s industrial heartlands. Labour took a turn to the old radical left, calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament and leaving the EU. For a short while, Labour was ahead in the polls. Then in April 1982, Argentina, under General Leopoldo Galtieri’s military junta, invaded the Falkland Islands. Within a week, Margaret Thatcher’s government sent a task force to recapture the sparsely populated islands 300 miles east of Patagonia. The mass media cheered on the war effort, with dissent confined to a few columns in the Guardian or radical leftwing press. Although Michael Foot supported the war effort, because it highlighted the importance of a strong navy and conventional weapons, the Tories rose in the polls and won a landslide victory in 1983 on the back of jingoism. The suppressed truth is that successive British governments had neglected the Falkland Islands, with only 1600 permanent inhabitants in 1982. In the late 1970s, amid IMF-imposed budgetary constraints, British diplomats had considered transferring sovereignty to Argentina and leasing the islands back to keep alive their outpost around Port Stanley. The Falklands war represented the last gasp of Rule Britannia just as most of British industry came under multinational control. While the UK government spent countless billions to defend the self-determination and customs of a couple of thousand Islanders, it neglected the plight of once proud working-class communities back home unable to adapt to the fast-paced gig economy and often trapped in a vicious cycle of welfare dependence and family breakdowns with a steady brain drain of the best and brightest. Whole neighbourhoods lay mainly empty with boarded-up terraced houses, only to be resettled by new culturally diverse communities, sowing the seeds of future internecine conflict in the event of economic meltdown on a comparable scale to that seen before the breakup of Yugoslavia.
End goal of Surveillance
Some may rejoice at the new government’s focus on far-right thugs as retribution for past colonial crimes, but once the precedent has been set to police private communications for hints of racism that may, in theory, incite violence, it can be applied to any type of dissent. Lincolnshire Police gave the game away by charging 40 year-old Wayne O’Rourke with “anti-establishment rhetoric” in the wake of anti-mass-migration protests. Everyone from the Prince of Wales to the Archbishop of Canterbury has joined a chorus of condemnation not only against reactionary plebs, but against the one tech billionaire, Elon Musk, who still allows free speech on his X/Twitter platform. When the likes of Alastair Campbell, whose dodgy dossier on WMDs persuaded MPs to back UK involvement in the invasion of Iraq, join forces with woke broadcaster, Carol Vorderman, to call on the government to censor social media, you know something is wrong. By now, it must be crystal clear the establishment no longer hides behind the garb of Britishness, except when commemorating the world wars of the last century or celebrating sporting achievements. It has fully embraced global technocracy and sees angry free-thinking plebs as obstacles in their plans to reengineer society.
As recent experience with the demonisation of covid sceptics and anti-Gaza-genocide protesters has shown, it will not stop there. Public health, antisemitism, women’s rights and/or transphobia can be easily invoked to silence critics of mandatory vaccination, Israeli war crimes, abortion, puberty blockers or gender self-identification. All these positions are essentially anti-establishment. The establishment wants medical mandates, an expansion of the war machine (and not just in support of Israel), easier abortion and moves towards transhumanism without natural procreation. However, different cultural groups may stand against these policies. Opposition to abortion and LGBTQ education comes both from devout Christians and Muslims. On current trends, opposition to assisted dying services may also be deemed far-right, a new synonym for heretical.
Just like covid, the symptoms of far-right thinking keep changing and the bug itself is almost impossible to detect without magnifying its strands. It may mean anything from football hooliganism and drunken thuggery to social conservatism or principled opposition to a one-world government. You could test positive for far-rightness by criticising any of the establishment's 2030 Agenda goals for sustainable development.
How the managerial classes exploit social tensions to expand surveillance and censorship
In just four weeks, Sir Keir Starmer’s new administration has revealed, in case there was any doubt, its true authoritarian intents as it seizes the opportunities provided by a series of angry protests and riots to clamp down on what it likes to call the far right. If you get your news from the likes of BBC, ITV, or Sky News, you may be forgiven for thinking that the violence only kicked off among feral white youths and hard-right activists exploiting internet rumours about the origin of a 17-year-old accused of stabbing 11 girls, leading to the tragic deaths of three girls. Yet only two weeks ago, the same progressive opinion leaders failed to criticise the police force’s lack of action regarding arson, looting, and rioting among non-indigenous ethnic communities in Harehills, Leeds, and Whitechapel, London. The police stood back from both outbreaks of communal violence, only arresting a few suspected troublemakers after the events. In Leeds, the trigger for civil unrest was the removal of a child from a Roma family accused of neglect. The other disturbance occurred within Tower Hamlets’ Bangladeshi community over ongoing civil unrest between pro- and anti-government factions in Bangladesh. Yet millions of ordinary people on social media have noticed the application of two-tier policing.
Establishment politicians, whether they play for the red, blue, yellow, or green teams, want to blame rogue elements within the settled working classes for the adverse effects of their own social engineering policies. Intriguingly, they also target social media outlets for allowing the open dissemination of video footage, often taken with pervasive smartphones, or rumours based on conflicting reports from citizen journalists. They want to regain tight control of the flow of information, just like they did during the 2020 virus scare. In some ways, the far right is the new covid; any measures are justified to stop the spread. Technocrats will redefine politically incorrect opinions as mind viruses that should be treated in the same way as pathogens that target other body parts.
Yet we’d be wrong to conclude that our rulers have sided with any of the rival ethno-religious communities or care more about refugees than they do about older age pensioners struggling to keep warm in winter. They do not. They may temporarily appease an identity group to achieve a medium-term goal, but once that group has outlived its usefulness, they will happily scapegoat any of its uncooperative members who are unhappy with the next phase of social engineering.
Over the weekend, we saw many rival protests across UK towns and cities. In Belfast, Irish republicans and British Unionists united to express their opposition to rapid mass migration. The infantile left, often manipulated by the SWP (Socialist Workers’ Party) and various Soros-funded open-borders organizations, were also out, chanting "refugees welcome" while waving both Palestinian and LGBTQ++ flags. Oddly, I can sympathise with both sides, who share the same enemies. Paradoxically, many of the same forces that support the US-centred Military-Industrial Complex’s collusion with Israeli war crimes also support mass migration as well as the endless promotion of transgenderism. Alas, we also saw marches by the newly formed Muslim Defence League, allegedly defending Muslim communities from the so-called far right, who protested outside mosques after the fatal stabbing of three young girls in Southport, based on rumors that the assailant was a Muslim asylum seeker. It turns out he grew up in Cardiff with Rwandan parents. Some black-clad masked MDL marchers carried weapons, which the police asked them to deposit in the nearby mosque. They resembled brownshirts from the 1930s in everything but median skin tone and symbology. While some MDL marchers may have protested against Israeli attacks on Gaza, none would share the Western progressive position on LGBTQ++ rights, and many would gladly roll back women’s rights. Nuance is something the infantile left of my youth struggles to understand. They categorise people into oppressors and the oppressed. If you are female, gay, transgender, black, a refugee, and/or Muslim, then you are oppressed. If you oppose radical feminism, access to puberty blockers, mass migration, or the building of more mosques, then you must be an oppressor. It doesn’t occur to them that most Africans and Middle Easterners hold traditional family values and have greater in-group loyalty than most of the British patriots they label as far right. Neither does it occur to them that members within their beloved victim groups may hold different opinions. Why should all black people succumb to the same kind of groupthink that often afflicts affluent white progressives? Why should all lesbians embrace Islam or want to sleep with trans-identifying biological males? The regressive left hates the likes of Candace Owens or Dominique Samuels, both proud Christians more in tune with traditional African-American or Caribbean values than your average BLM activist.
I fear things could soon turn nastier as the government is forced to impose unpopular tax rises and cutbacks in core services in order not only to pay off the spiralling £2.7 trillion debt, including over £400 billion for the covid lockdowns alone, to fund ongoing wars with Russia and in the Middle East. The settled working classes will not take kindly to the spectre of brand-new subsidised homes built in their neighbourhoods to facilitate the ongoing process of ethnic erasure through mass migration, making everyone more dependent on the technocratic master class. We must have the common sense to understand the trap that has been set for us. Our enemies are not the pawns of a global chess game, but those who manipulate us. They want to see Muslim Defence League ruffians fight it out with Britain First crusaders to justify more censorship and surveillance that will, perversely, empower global technocrats to commit unspeakable crimes against humanity with impunity.
What a big surprise. The blob has engineered another colour revolution. Nominally the leader of the blue team, Rishi Sunak, conceded defeat to the leader of the Red Team, the charmless Sir Keir Starmer of Davos. If you only watched the BBC, ITV or Sky News you might be forgiven for thinking Starmer had been swept into 10 Downing Street by a whirlwind of popular discontent with fourteen years of Tory mismanagement. Now at long last, we’d have a caring government in power that would reverse the austerity the nasty Tories imposed on us. Once again Britain would welcome newcomers from around the globe with open arms, as the country realigns itself with the European Union, builds a high-tech green utopia and joins NATO’s progressive forces in their battle to spread the joys of drag queen story time to Eastern Ukraine. No sooner had Sir Keir settled into his prime-ministerial home than he elevated lockdown king and former head of research at GlaxoSmithKline, Sir Patrick Vallance, to the House of Lords and then gave him a cabinet post as Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology. By sheer coincidence, last year Sir Paddy Vallance had accepted a role with the Tony Blair Institute.
Yet despite favourable media coverage and a massive online advertising campaign, Labour failed to win over many hearts and minds, except as fallout from widespread disillusionment with the SNP in Scotland and with the Tories in England. Only a couple of months ago, Sir Keir Starmer’s Party was riding as high as 46% in the opinion polls. Yet in the event, only 59.9% could be bothered to vote, including postal votes, and only 33.7% of those supported an official Labour candidate. Indeed under Sir Keir Starmer, Labour got fewer votes than it did in 2019 under Corbyn and yet it won more than twice as many seats owing to the distortions of the First Past the Post system.
Year
Popular votes
% of voters
% turnout
% of electors
Seats
1997
13,518,167
43.2
71.3
30.8
418
2001
10,724,953
40.7
59.4
24.2
412
2005
9,552,376
35.2
61.4
21.6
355
2010
8,609,517
29.0
65.1
18.9
258
2015
9,347,324
30.4
66.4
20.2
232
2017
12,877,918
40.0
68.8
27.5
262
2019
10,269,051
32.1
67.3
21.6
202
2024
9,704,655
33.7
59.9
20.2
411
If we drill down, a different picture emerges. Labour only gained in two areas. In Scotland as former Labour voters return to the fold after lending their votes to the SNP over the last decade. Central belt voters have distrusted the Tories since the Thatcher era. The Scottish protest vote went largely to Reform despite its association with British Unionism. The SNP got only 9 seats with 30% of the vote, while Labour won 37 out of 57 seats with only 35.3% of the vote. In the southern English shires Labour’s share increased marginally helping it to unseat many Tory MPs with as little as 26.48% of the vote as the remainder was so even split among the Conservatives, Reform and independents. Labour only regained its traditional Red Wall seats because many who lent their votes temporarily to the Tories to get Brexit done either stayed at home or voted Reform. Indeed, Reform did best in some of the most economically deprived areas of Eastern and Northern England.
One of the biggest surprises came from the cosmopolitan urban constituencies with large Muslim populations. This is where Labour did best under Jeremy Corbyn. Although George Galloway lost in Rochdale, five independent candidates won on a Pro-Palestine ticket. In Luton South, Labour’s share declined from 51.8% to 35.4% shedding votes to an independent and a Workers’ Party candidate with 14 and 8.1% respectively and both standing on a pro-Palestine ticket. Sir Keir Starmer himself lost around 18.9% to Andrew Feinstein and the former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, won as an independent.
If we had proportional representation or even a French-style two round contest, the outcome would have been very different. Labour won with 40% or less in 122 constituencies and in 175 constituencies the combined Conservative and Reform vote share would have beaten the winner, but to be fair we may have to add the LibDem votes to Labour’s.
However, this assumes the traditional left-right paradigm that places Reform on right and the Worker’s Party on the left. A more honest appraisal would be rank parties by the social class of their supporters. The Conservatives may still have a bedrock of support from affluent boomers in their 60s and Labour still do better in urban areas among the managerial classes, but the Greens and LibDems did best either in posh neighbourhoods or places with large student or post-graduate populations. A top-to-bottom spectrum might look more like this:
LibDems and Greens
Trendy upper middle classes, students and business leaders
Labour
Billionaire bankers, media moguls, conformist managerial classes, social workers and some welfare-dependents often via postal votes
Conservatives
Conformist suburban, rural middle classes and property traders
Workers’ Party & Independents
Rebellious working classes and some small business owners
Reform
Rebellious working classes and some maverick business leaders
When it comes to transferring more power to remote technocrats at the World Health Organisation, rejoining the EU, transgenderism in primary schools, clamping down on free speech, raising green taxes on the lower middle classes or going to war with Russia, another pattern emerges. Upper middle-class Labour, LibDem and Green supporters are much more likely to support these policies, while Reform and Workers’ Party supporters are more likely to oppose them. Only on Israel and mass migration do we see distinctive tribal loyalties come to the fore among Britain’s disparate lower classes and only on Israeli war crimes do the Greens still take a firm stance against the Military Industrial Complex.
By now it should be crystal clear that there is no grassroots support for extreme centralisers who have embedded themselves in the UK government with the full blessing of the Tony Blair Institute.
If Rishi Sunak cared about his parliamentary career, he could not have picked a worse time for a General Election. The main opposition party, Labour, is hardly united. Its former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is standing as an independent. Its activists are in open rebellion against the party's failure to condemn Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Then on every issue that really matters to ordinary working people, such as affordable housing, job security and unsustainable migratory flows, NewNew Labour have only promised more of the same, albeit dressed up in empty Obama-style rhetoric about change and green new deals. The current Tory chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, could have written Labour's manifesto.
Yet just one week into the campaign, Rishi announces an epic vote loser, the introduction of National Service for 18 year olds, with a choice of military or community service. Unsurprisingly, community service means helping to deliver prescriptions. Great, young adults will have a choice of serving the Military Industrial Complex in proxy wars with Russia and/or China, or serving the Biotech Industrial Complex by handing out happy pills and, probably, helping with the next jabbathon. The pundits claim Rishi was trying to appeal to patriotic Reform voters, who tend to respect the armed forces, but the most fervant supporters of war with Russia call themselves liberal progressives.
I suspect when Sir Keir enters 10 Downing Street, as the polls would suggest he will with the full blessing of big business and the BBC, on 5th July, he will wait a few weeks to announce the outcome of some Royal Commission on youth employment and roll out Rishi's plan just before admitting we are indeed at war with the Great Eastern Bear. Will there be some false flag event ascribed to Russia in a NATO country that will draw what's left of the UK armed forces into a hot war?
Meanwhile artificial intelligence and outsourcing have hit the once affluent middle classes, at least judging by the IT contract market.
Why do so many seemingly intelligent young professionals still believe the mainstream parties offer any choice? Labour's only selling point is that they're not Tories. I think they're all working for the same team. We saw that over the covid scam. Stage-managed general elections are a great way to bury unpopular decisions such as agreeing to the WHO's controversial Pandemic Treaty. While Rishi and Keir tour the British Isles in front of TV cameras, the Civil Service carry on the business of actually running the country.
How the Global Elites are setting us up for endless civil strife.
The current incumbent of 10 Downing Street, Rishi Sunak, addressed the nation on the day after a by-election result that humiliated the establishment parties. Before the Rochdale by-election, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party seemed poised to win a thumping majority at the next general election, largely through apathy as supporters of the conventional alternatives would rather stay at home and only a small minority of traditional small-c conservatives would back the right-wing-labelled Reform Party.
It seems the Tory high command do not want to win the next general election. They care more about prolonging the war over Ukraine, appeasing Israel and promoting new mRNA injections than addressing any of the practical concerns their voters may have.
The infamous Rwanda Plan to stem the tide of undocumented migrants crossing the English Channel was not only designed to fail but would have entrenched the concept of global governance sending NGO-trafficked opportunists from countries as far afield as Afghanistan and Albania to the African country most favoured by the institutions of global technocracy. Unsurprisingly, Tony Blair is a regular visitor. I wonder if a future UK governance team will resurrect the plan to deal with indigenous dissidents or will we end up in Greenland, Antarctica or some godforsaken high-tech re-education camp in the middle of the Australian outback? It’s a globalist solution to a globalist problem. Our technocratic overlords do not care either about settled communities or about migrants, but exploit the fears and anxieties of both groups to consolidate their control of resources and ultimately their power to determine who thrives and who expires. They do not like strong and close-knit communities able to manage fine without help from the Global Mafia.
The era of mass consumerism got us hooked on the products of a complex planet-wide supply chain that relied on infrastructure controlled by a handful of large corporations. The automotive revolution could not have happened without massive economies of scale. You may sell handcrafted trinkets online but you need to import the raw materials, advertise on social media, dispatch your creations efficiently and accept digital payments to stand a chance of earning a living in the cybersphere. We were lured into a false sense of security in a new world of ubiquitous brand names with their deceptive diversity that displaced earlier mosaics of farms, workshops, open-air markets, independent shops, places of worship and theatres that expressed a custom mix of intersecting cultural influences. Before smartphones connected over half of humanity into a single control grid, the world remained a maze of human mysteries with almost infinite variation. Of course, over many centuries of colonial empires we had gradually grown together but more in the fashion of interlocking cultural paradigms than an earth-enveloping universalism that trumps traditional values passed down through generations.
Given recent authoritarian trends across the Western world, casual observers may welcome scenes of large gatherings of wishful-thinking citizens in cities across Germany chanting “Everyone together against fascism” (or “Alle zusammen gegen den Faschismus”). Were they protesting against censorship or the proposed banning of a major political party represented in the Bundestag? Did they want to defend the right to demonstrate against war crimes in the Middle East? Apparently not, the state-funded organisers, posing on the progressive centre-left, wanted to rally upstanding citizens against any alternatives to the UniParty, embodied by the Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and Greens. Just as radical leftists welcomed a small decline in support for the much-maligned Alternative für Deutschland, the police shut down an international conference on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Former Greek Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, was among many high-profile attendees banned from Germany. Official explanations for such actions would not have been out of place in the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany). They had to suppress all open criticism of Israeli military operations in Gaza to prevent any resurgence of antisemitism and thus avoid a recurrence of the Holocaust. Objective truth matters little to such apparatchiks. It matters not one jot that many Jews, critical of the Israeli government, were in attendance or that ICJ had concluded that the risk of genocide in Gaza, after over 30,000 civilian deaths, is plausible.
In our upside-down world, the centrists beat the drums of war and the alleged extremists, whether notionally on the left or right, oppose it. While many bankers still support the US/UK/EU/Israel axis, some influential global actors, such as George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, have coopted the Palestinian cause, calling for coordinated international action to force a ceasefire and oust the Netanyahu government. This is the regime-change narrative, the notion that there is some higher authority that can override any national government. Whatever the problem may be, the proposed solutions are always more centralised control. For the WEF, it’s heads we win and tails we let the BRICS alliance win against the old West.
Last month, the world’s movers and shakers met up in the Swiss ski resort of Davos. Nominally elected politicians posed with billionaire technocrats and functionaries of unaccountable global organisations like the WHO to discuss how to manage the restless plebs. Hot on their agenda, besides climate change, future pandemics and universal digital ID, was the perceived threat of disinformation, misinformation and malinformation. The last neologism is particularly ominous. They are not only concerned with information that may be factually incorrect, but with indisputable facts which, if disseminated, would incriminate them. Information must now not just be manipulated, but actively suppressed for the greater good of the elite’s long-term plans for humanity.
While the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, shared the stage with Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla, and, without a hint of irony, welcomed the prospect of rolling out a mass injection campaigns within 100 days of the next pandemic, his colleague, Grant Shapps posing as Secretary of State for Defence, made a high-profile speech to prepare us for war with Eurasia. A week later General Sir Richard Shirreff appears on British TV screens to advocate conscription in the build-up to a military conflict with Russia allegedly to defend freedom and democracy.
How can these professional charlatans, who have both on numerous occasions revealed their ignorance on basic science and geopolitics, claim to represent the hapless citizens of the United Kingdom? Who voted to impose medical martial law and digital IDs or to wage war with Russia, Iran and/or China when our armed forces can barely defend our borders? Did we not vote to take back control? How does bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen solve any of the practical challenges we have at home? Do our political speech writers think we all suffer from collective amnesia? Have we somehow forgotten that the UK not only armed Saudi Arabia to the hilt, but the RAF helped train its pilots as they launched airstrikes over Northern Yemen? Why on earth would Houthi rebels be disrupting shipping in Red Sea as Israel flattens Gaza?
In the same week the Indian multinational, Tata Steel, announced it would close the blast furnaces in Wales, as government and opposition politicians prioritise their Net Zero agenda. Did it occur to anyone that we will need an awful lot of steel and aluminium not only to build new energy infrastructure but to fight all the wars our rulers want to pursue.
The days of US military supremacy are over. What happened to the promises of a joint NATO-Ukrainian victory over the Eastern invaders? How could Russia win if its economy is supposedly a basket case economy and its military budget only a tenth of the USA’s mighty $800 outlay? In reality, the Russian bear is only weak if we measure its power in American greenbacks. In terms of raw materials, it’s the richest country in the world with a manufacturing base now larger than France’s and a highly skilled workforce. Western sanctions have barely affected Russia as it deepens its alliances with China, India, Iran and many resource-rich African countries. What we’re witnessing is much more complex than an eastward shift in the economic centre of gravity or a transition to a multipolar world order dominated by China. Many analysts mistakenly assume the western wing of the Military-Biotech Industrial Complex wants to defeat its eastern wing. American tech giants depend on the East Asian manufacturing base. Where do you think all the servers, laptops and mobile phones we need to power the Fourth Industrial Revolution are made? If they’re not assembled in China itself, chances are they’re made in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or Vietnam, all within China’s orbit. Re-localising manufacturing to Western Europe requires plentiful cheap energy, which is now in shorter supply. Europe’s industrial powerhouse, Germany, has had to absorb a double whammy, with the destructions of Nordstream II gas pipeline depriving it of cheap Russian gas and its government’s ideological pursuit of Net Zero policies. Germany even decommissioned its last nuclear reactors in May 2023. You need a hell of a lot of wind turbines and solar panels to power a car manufacturing plant. Unsurprisingly major manufacturers are now relocating to regions with lower energy costs. With highly automated production lines, skilled labour is less of an issue these days.
Now it appears the collective West, as some call NATO and its partners, has abandoned Ukraine to refocus its attention on securing trading routes in the Middle East. Yet Colonel Douglas MacGregor not only foresaw a Russian victory over Ukraine, he’s now predicting the humiliation of the Israeli government and its closest allies, leading sooner or later to WW3 with catastrophic consequences for millions of Europeans accustomed to the relative safety that followed the end of WW2. Amidst all turmoil, governments at loggerheads over the Ukrainian or Palestinian questions, are working almost in lockstep to trap their citizens into a digital control grid. The freest countries in the coming decades may well be those with incompetent governments, shoddy infrastructure and non-compliant citizens not dependent on the central banking system and able to fend for themselves without state handouts or NGO intervention. Adversity builds resilience and cosiness builds helplessness. Many Africans may live in ramshackle huts, but they have learned how to cope in the event of power cuts. By contrast most Europeans would be helpless without emergency generators kicking into action within hours of a power outage. When downtown Auckland (New Zealand) experienced a power failure in February 1998, most of the district’s 6000 inhabitants had to find alternative accommodation and city workers either worked from home or from relocated offices. Residents averted catastrophe only because people could easily move to well-provisioned surrounding neighbourhoods and emergency services acted promptly to deploy backup generators and restore full capacity within 40 days. A city the size of London may not be so lucky in the event of a catastrophic power failure resulting from enemy airstrikes.
I doubt Western intelligence agencies believed an outlay of over $200 billion could easily defeat the Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine. As Julian Assange observed very astutely about the protracted Western intervention in Afghanistan, the aim was not military victory, but to transfer funds to the military industrial complex in a perpetual war against elusive enemies. Not only has the US Deep State armed and trained many of its official enemies to destabilise rival regimes, as it did with Mujahedeen in Afghanistan back in the 1980s, it needs enemies to justify its existence. “War is a Racket”, wrote Smedley D. Butler in 1935. The global elites need the spectres of Putin and Islamic Jihadists to scare the masses into submission. “If we don’t support Ukraine, defeat Houthi militias in the Red Sea or stand up to Iran, we will lose our cherished freedoms and prosperity”, cry the same neoliberals who oversaw the outsourcing of Western manufacturing to the Far East, the downsizing of the Western working classes and colluded with Big Tech to suppress all dissent to the socially and economically destructive lockdowns and biotechnological coercion of the 2020-23 pseudo-pandemic and are busy rolling out hate speech laws to ban all criticism of transgender ideology and ethnic cleansing.
The Western mainstream media has exploited the curious death of the fringe opposition Russian leader, Alexei Navalny, of a sudden cardiac arrest to beat the drums of war against Russia. Little do they care that Western support for Zelenksy's regime has led to the early deaths of over 400,000 Ukrainians and possibly over 270,000 Russian fatalities. We're being primed for World War Three, which this time may see the planned destruction of the Western World as we knew it.
Who could benefit most from civil unrest among rival factions who choose to believe radically divergent narratives?
For postmodern Zionists, Israel can never do any harm, only try desperately to defend Israel’s right to exist and to combat genocidal terrorists hiding among civilians who may also be responsible for aiding and abetting mass murder. Inevitably, Israeli propagandists seldom miss an opportunity to evoke the Nazi Holocaust and accuse their opponents of antisemitism. This narrative appeals not only to those who may have a vested interest in Israeli exceptionalism, but also to most mainstream politicians in North America and many in Western Europe. They choose to turn a blind eye to collateral damage caused by Israeli airstrikes and incursions and to overstress the crimes attributed to Hamas and their alleged sympathisers. Apparently, calling for a ceasefire will only empower Hamas. We must let the IDF surgically cleanse the Gaza Strip of all undesirables to save the Jewish homeland. Anything less would be antisemitic.
The trouble is many nationalists, social conservatives and Christians have fallen for this rhetoric too as they feel threatened by the growth of political Islam. Many talk of their country’s Judaeo-Christian culture. Alas they find themselves in bed with global Zionists, who have long advocated the phasing out of nation states everywhere, except Israel, promoted mass migration and alternatives to traditional two-parent families. Bibi Netanyahu may have courted Donald Trump and Eastern European nationalists like Viktor Orbán, but he also has close links with investment bankers and the upper echelons of the Biotech Industrial Complex, neither of whom believe in self-determination at any level of human organisation.
That’s not to say those on the other side of the toxic Israeli-Palestinian debate are any better. Some hardcore protesters blame the native working classes for crimes committed by the Israeli armed forces or for the repercussions of the Balfour Declaration and later Anglo-American military adventurism in the region. While we may observe Saudi Arabia has shifted its allegiances from the West to the BRICS block, it still expects the same degree of social conformity from its citizens with a strict enforcement of sharia law for the masses, but convenient exemptions for the aristocracy and wealthy ex-pat communities. As much as Muslim leaders preach solidarity and Islamic values, they’ve collaborated with international bankers and the Western military industrial complex. Until China brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the British Royal Air Force was training Saudi Air Force pilots to bomb Northern Yemen with Eurofighter typhoons. As Mark Curtis documented so well in Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, the West has often armed and funded proponents of Islamic fundamentalism as the best means of pacifying the populace and suppressing dissent. Islamic Pakistan is in the process of expelling 1.7 million Afghan refugees with barely a murmur of protest from Western NGOs. Some of us can still remember when the US and UK armed and trained the Mujahadeen, who later morphed into the Taliban, to fight the Soviet Union’s occupation. Now Saudi Arabia no longer depends on American and European money, they’re free to realign with Iran against Israel. If the Lebanese Hezbollah joins the conflict with Iranian supports, things could turn very nasty. As Scott Ritter and Douglas MacGregor have observed, given the Collective West’s current weakness in the closing stages of the war over Eastern Ukraine, Israel may well lose the war without an immediate ceasefire.
The Western ruling classes are no better than their Arab counterparts. They’re busy managing the staged downsizing of their once powerful economies with little regard to defending their self-determination or borders. The armed forces of all major Western countries are fully integrated into NATO, AUKUS and/or the EU, who over the last three decades have been mainly engaged in often counterproductive global policing operations. As the balance of power heads east and south with growing competition over strategic resources, populist leaders will seek retribution against the Old World Order or what the Neocons once called the New American Century, with the working classes paying the heaviest prices. You can bet American attitudes to foreign policy will change once Saudi Arabia imposes an oil embargo on Israel’s allies, which will drive up prices at the pump.
Delusions of Grandeur
Many self-defined British patriots, who have fallen out of favour with the UK’s globally minded metropolitan elites, have sided with the Israeli government. Some may genuinely believe they share a common struggle with Israel to defend their homeland against hostile Islamists who threaten the liberal enlightenment. Yet the most influential friends of Israel among British parliamentarians are by and large supportive of both mass immigration and multiculturalism with the mirage of gay nightclubs and casinos happily plying their trade alongside Mosques and Kebab shops. The stage is set for a turf war between rival factions of commoners identifying with different faiths. One adheres to British exceptionalism, long abandoned by the upper classes, and the other either to Islamism or some brand of international socialism, both subservient to global banksters.
Many feared the large National March for Palestine in London today would end in violence. In the event there were skirmishes with the police on the side-lines with one reported stabbing of a counter-protester holding up a sign reading “Hamas is Isis”. I fear both may have been agent provocateurs, for neither would have existed without Western military intervention and both may well have created, at least in part, by American and/or Israeli secret services.
How long can Western leaders keep up the pretence that Israel is only acting in self-defence. Emanuel Macron, the darling of global governance think tanks, has broken ranks and called for a ceasefire. Do they realise the game is up? Is this just a dress rehearsal for the next phase of destabilisation, as Sonia Poulton suggests?
Tribal Skirmishes
I've read conflicting reports of rightwing thugs attacking the police as they kept them apart from the main pro-ceasefire march and of pro-Palestine protestors harassing poppy sellers and throwing fireworks at the police. Rebel News circulated a video clip of a masked protestor claiming that "Hitler knew how to deal with the Jews". Was he an actor? Other clips on social media show Israelis, speaking in Hebrew with English subtitles, calling for the eradication of non-compliant Palestinians. Whatever happened to interethnic tolerance or the great melting pot of humanity? The mainstream media outlets still deny spreading such hatred. Pro-Israeli opinion-leaders like to claim only Hamas oppress Gaza residents, while pro-Palestinians claim many Jews both in the West and in Israel itself support their cause. Whichever way, it's hard to reason with people who believe the other side wants to exterminate them. Yet the ruling classes seem to get along fine. Netanyahu had no qualms about flying to Moscow last December to meet Vladimir Putin. Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is happy to cultivate good relations with his counterparts in Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US and Europe. By contrast, on the ground rival groups blame either Islam or Zionism for their woes. To keep the peace, our local administrators will inevitably use hate-speech laws to clamp down on dissent as they preside over falling living standards.
