Will fighting-age migrants form a New Model Army for tyrannical governments?

 

Will fighting-age migrants form a New Model Army for our tyrannical governments?

A guest post by Niall McCrae:-

 

Why do they come, all these fit young men posing as refugees? Are they really economic migrants in search of a better standard of living for them and the families they left behind?  Conspiracy theorists see this as manifestation of the Kalergi Plan, an alleged strategy for demographic replacement of white Europeans. But there is another sinister explanation.

 

When citizen journalist James Harvey of Voice of Wales website went to the Copthorne Hotel in Cardiff to report on a mass arrival of immigrants sent by the Home Office, he was told by nervously officious staff not to come near the premises. However, he asked a few questions anyway, such as the origin of the incomers. When Italy was mentioned, Harvey concluded that these were not refugees but illegal aliens.

 

The video of this reportage was scrutinised by police, and Harvey received a telephone call warning him to delete it. This was because the term ‘illegal alien’ was likely to cause offence to someone, in which case police would be compelled to arrest him. As David Clews remarked in interview with Harvey on Unity News Network, this was applying the dystopian notion of ‘pre-crime’.

 

The steadily increasing flow of immigrants across the English Channel is troubling to a large proportion of society, while lauded by a noisy minority of woke activists with their slogan ‘refugees welcome here’. Under a Conservative government, with a Home Secretary who pledged a clampdown, the dinghy-loads continue to arrive daily.  Tens of thousands have been picked up by the navy and lifeboat service this year. But the topic is taboo, and anyone raising it in the workplace or social gathering risks being outcasted for ‘far-right’ xenophobia.

 

Silence is golden for the government. Useful idiots are even better. As a trade union rep I am often defending employees against disciplinary charges for ‘wrong-think’, and passing remarks on the dramatically changing demography of Britain or uncontrolled immigration can lead to dismissal. For example, one of our members was reported for complaining about the daily crossings of the English Channel by hundreds of Albanian men. A snitch told the management that he had remonstrated with the accused, saying that these people needed to move to be safe. In fact, the accuser is supporting law-breaking: these are illegal immigrants, and it is likely that some are involved in the hard drugs trade, known to be run by Albanian gangsters. Furthermore, did this virtue-signaller believe that France, or the EU, is too dangerous?

 

It is obvious that this illegal transit is not only being allowed, but facilitated by the powers-that-be. A clue to the motive is in the ending of the trucker’s protest against the Covid-19 mandates in Ottawa earlier this year. For 23 days the street outside the Canadian parliament was blocked by giant rigs that normally traverse the vast northern plains. Justin Trudeau was apoplectic, smearing the truckers and their thousands of supporters as racist, misogynist and fascist. These men and women showed great courage and commitment in the constantly freezing temperature, making a stand for civil rights.  The police did not have good reason to intervene, as it was a peaceful protest. The chief of Ottawa police resigned, probably because he refused to make a move. Eventually the national guard was sent in, and protestors were brutally arrested.

 

As they were threatened by batons and guns, protestors observed that many of the men in Robocop-style uniform did not appear to be Canadian. Indeed, a plane in United Nations livery had flown into North Shore in Ontario just before the militaristic attack. Trudeau, apparently, had used foreign mercenaries against his own citizens. This was as unprecedented as was his freezing of truckers’ bank accounts. The Canadian cabinet, as World Economic Forum leader Klaus Schwab boasts, is well and truly penetrated by his globalist organisation. 

 

Joe Biden’s administration recently announced a huge recruitment drive for tax collectors, with applicants prepared to use ‘lethal force’ when necessary. How would the 87 thousand positions be filled by the IRS? A ready source is the free-for-all entry at the Mexican border. Men from south and central America, many with experience in militia and drug gangs, are ideal for breaking into homes and battering the Trump-voting occupants.

 

The German government announced that the army will be on the streets from 1^st October onwards, as civil unrest is expected due to fuel and food shortages (manufactured crises in pursuance of the Great Reset and Net Zero). Again, Germany can call upon a large supply of foreigners who will be less reluctant to violate the locals. This has already been seen in the rallies against the Covid-19 tyranny: the most aggressive and inhumane members of the riot police appeared to be from abroad (eastern Europe or beyond).

 

There is a strong sense among the awake that something big is about to happen. The Channel hoppers are almost exclusively fighting-age men; many have the hardened look of soldiers. The sensitivity of this deliberate influx from Albania and other counties of traditional machismo culture is not necessarily to maintain the dogma of multiculturalism, but because anyone like James Harvey asking too many questions could blow the lid off the real reason for their arrival.

 

My guess is that this vast young male influx is to populate a New Model Army, for which internal military action is planned in the near future. The migrant force could be used to deter and quash protests against government-induced poverty, and to remove dissidents to internment camps. Devoid of social bonds in the host culture, they will intimidate and bludgeon civilians without sympathy. The USSR used troops from other republics for the same reason. 

 

The inversion of D-Day is under way, and a beach head is already established.

 

 

 

 

 

PARLIAMENTARY ANTI-FREE SPEECH ACTIVISM

 

PARLIAMENTARY ANTI-FREE SPEECH ACTIVISM

 

Looking beyond the current froth of the Conservative leadership election it is noteworthy how large a majority there seems to be in parliament across all the British Establishment parties, to crack down on free speech and on many traditional English civil liberties. 

 

The On-Line Harms Bill in particular is a Bill that would give concern to any who cares at all for free speech.  In addition to that, there is the clamp down on the right to protest whereby you will be able to get up to 10 years imprisonment for taking part in a protest where you could “Annoy” somebody!  You might think that annoying those people that you are protesting against might be the obvious purpose of such a protest! 

 

We also have the whole “Cancel Culture” phenomenon whereby those members of the Statist Multi-culturalist Establishment who now control many of our public institutions are able to prevent people hearing any contrary narrative.  There was also, of course, the whole Orwellian displacement of free speech during the “Pandemic”.  We were not allowed to protest or otherwise tweet. Also we were not allowed to even tweet anything that disputed their narrative. Anything broadcast on any of the Mainstream Media which challenged the narrative was also banned.

 

We can see where all this is heading towards.  It may not be long before anyone challenging the new British Establishment, or Multi-culturalism, or Globalism, or Internationalism, is likely to be arrested.

 

We saw some of that with a Reclaim activist who merely re-tweeted Laurence Fox’s jokey meme transforming the LGBGTQ+ flag into a Swastika being arrested by Hampshire Police for the possibility for having “Offended” somebody.

 

England was once known for our Rule of Law and our Freedoms - but no longer.  The British authorities think that the Rule of Law is us doing what they tell us to do, which shows us how far gone they are, as the whole point of the Rule of Law was that the authorities were restricted in what they could do by Law. 

 

It is however, as it often is, worth delving back into history to see whether there are any parallels in the past. 

 

I have recently been reading extracts from William Cobbett’s “Rural Rides” from the 1820’s.  William Cobbett was amongst many other attributes of this very able man, a radical politician, who was then called radical for being in favour of universal suffrage i.e. the right of everyone to vote!

 

In 1819 the Parliament passed a series of Six Acts which made it the crime of sedition even to criticise Parliament.  The consequence was that William Cobbett, along with many other “radical” politicians, was regularly being arrested and sometimes locked up for simply criticising the Government and Parliament. 

 

It did take 12 years of campaigning to succeed in getting the enactment of the Great Reform Act in 1832 which brought Cobbett into Parliament and onto the Front Bench and radically changed politics.  By the end of that century we had universal manhood suffrage and less than 100 years later in 1927, we had universal adult suffrage. 

 

The point that I am making is that looking back into history we can now barely imagine the mind-set of a Parliament which opposed widening the franchise so viciously that it would have its opponents locked up! 

 

This is a vivid example of just how wrong headed the current Establishment approach may be in criminalising its opponents.  They are thereby demonstrating that they do not really have very good arguments for their position!

 

Of course, if they did have good arguments, they would be using them, rather than trying to close down our arguments which they fear are likely to beat theirs!

 

My message therefore is don’t be discouraged.  However bad the positon may appear to be now it doesn’t mean that the counter arguments are lost.

 

 

IS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE COMING?

 

IS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE COMING?

 

With all the comments in the Mainstream Media about the cost of living crisis it was very interesting to see in the excellent Daily Unherd email newsletter an excellent article by Thomas Fazi entitled “Civil disobedience is coming”. 

 

For those that don’t get Unherd I reproduce the whole article below as it is well worth reading.

 

 

Britain may be recovering from a heatwave, but its politicians are already fearful that winter is coming. Only now, more than 170 days since the war broke out, are policymakers realising the potentially catastrophic implications of their gung-ho approach towards Russia.

Just last week, it was revealed that the UK government is preparing for a “reasonable worst-case scenario” over the winter in which below-average temperatures and gas shortages could force authorities to trigger emergency gas-saving measures, including organised blackouts for industry and even households. And this is as energy prices continue to spiral out of control: this winter, the average annual energy bill for a typical household is expected to reach £4,200, or about £350 a month — more than double what households are currently paying and a four-fold increase on the average bill paid just a year ago.

 

The social consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic, potentially pushing 10.5 million households — a third of the total — into poverty, exacerbating what is already the UK’s worst cost-of-living crisis in decades. Yet even when faced with a campaign of civil disobedience, calling on people to cancel their energy direct debits, the government hasn’t been able to come up with anything better than offering households a one-off £400 discount on their fuel bills in October (and a bit more for those on means-tested benefits). Downing Street’s “strategy” to get through the winter seems to be to hunker down and hope for the best.

 

For all the Brexiteer’s talk of “taking back control”, the post-Brexit political establishment doesn’t appear to be in control at all. They’re not alone, however. All European countries, to varying degrees, are facing the disastrous consequences of what will go down in history as one of the greatest political miscalculations ever — the idea that Europe could weaponise Russian gas supplies without shooting itself in the foot. As the social and economic costs continue to mount, several countries are now preparing for blackouts and energy rationing this winter.

 

And all European leaders, not to mention the technocrats in Brussels, after sleepwalking into this crisis, seem equally clueless about how to get out of this rut. France, for example, is usually considered less exposed due to its reliance on nuclear energy — and yet, incredibly, nuclear output this winter is expected to be 25% below that of a normal year, due to maintenance and repairs taking longer than expected.

Overall, the entire European political class is proving to be catastrophically ill-equipped to deal with the increasingly complex, interdependent and crisis-ridden reality of our 21st-century world. Indeed, manufacturing new crises, or worsening existing ones, seems to be what they do best. What we need is knowledge, vision, wisdom, and self-restraint — in short, a forward-thinking politics geared towards improving the material and spiritual lives of everyone, including those yet to be born. Instead, what we have is short-termism, ignorance, arrogance, mediocrity, and self-interest — a politics completely divorced from the needs and interests of the majority of citizens.

 

Observing the actions of our governing elites conjures up the unsettling image of a monkey handling a shotgun — or a nuclear weapon. Indeed, it’s rather terrifying to witness the apparent fatuity with which Western governments today take decisions affecting the lives of millions — from lockdowns to proxy wars with Russia — without any serious democratic debate and discussion.

 

How did the West, the birthplace of the democratic nation-state, reach such poor levels of statecraft, and equally poor levels of democracy? The two things, it turns out, are connected.

In many ways, what we are witnessing is, in Gramscian terms, an “organic crisis” of the economic-political regime that has dominated Europe, and the West more in general, over the past 30 years. That is, a “comprehensive crisis” — at once economic, political, social and ideological — that lays bare fundamental contradictions in the system that the ruling classes are unable to resolve.

 

Neoliberalism is primarily considered an economic project associated with processes of liberalisation, including privatisation, deregulation and wage compression. However, it is also, and perhaps most importantly, a political project: the elites’ anti-democratic response to the ideologically charged and highly contestatory politics of the Seventies and early Eighties. In sum, it has entailed a progressive expulsion of the masses (not just workers but also non-dominant sectors of the economy, such as SMEs) from the democratic decision-making process, in line with the project outlined in the 1975 Crisis of Democracy Trilateral Commission report.

 

The latter argued that Western societies were plagued by an excess of democracy, which the authors proposed to resolve not only through a reduction of the bargaining power of labour, but also through “a greater degree of moderation in democracy” and a greater disengagement (“non-involvement”) of civil society from the operations of the political system through the diffusion of “apathy”. This second objective was achieved primarily through a gradual depoliticisation of economic policy: that is, through the removal of macroeconomic policy from democratic parliamentary control and the separation of the “economic” from the “political”.

 

A central feature of this process of depoliticisation was the surrendering of national prerogatives to supranational institutions and super-state bureaucracies — first and foremost the European Union. In this sense, the process of European integration shouldn’t be understood as the result of the machinations of an evil supranational bureaucracy, but rather as a process of self-imposed reduction of sovereignty by national elites aimed at constraining the ability of popular-democratic powers to influence economic policy.

As Chris Bickerton has eloquently argued, joining the EU transforms a nation-state into a member state. Whereas a nation state is a vertical unit, with elites gaining legitimacy through representing the citizens (and enjoying a social connection with a wider section of society that is much deeper and richer than mere electoral superiority), a member state is a horizontal unit, in which elites seek legitimacy and policy direction from their interactions with the elites of other member states and officials in international institutions. This transformation involves a move to post-political, technocratic forms of governance.

 

There is no denying that this project has been a success, resulting in a near-complete curtailment of democratic participation — understood, in most basic terms, as the ability of citizens to have a collective say on the direction of society. However, we have now reached the point where this project has become too successful for the system’s own good. This relentless process of de-democratisation has resulted in our political elites becoming increasingly captured by Big Business and increasingly insulated from the needs of workers and the economy at large. Indeed, several Western leaders aren’t just puppets in the hands of ruling capitalist elites — they are direct representatives of such elites, such as in the case of Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi. Western countries are no longer democracies; they are plutocracies.

 

However, as economic policies have become tailored to the interests of a handful of immensely powerful mega-corporations, any sense of the collective or national interest was lost. A small elite was allowed to accrue immense wealth and power, while laying waste to our societies’ workforce, industrial capacity, public services and vital infrastructures, leaving our countries poorer, weaker and dependent on foreign (and increasingly hostile) nations for the supply of everything from energy to food to basic medical supplies.

 

The interests of this small financial-corporate elite were always at odds with those of the rest of us. And we have now reached the point where they have become so divorced from the latter that they threaten the very survival of society itself — we have, in other words, entered a phase of self-cannibalisation of Western capital. One need only think back to the pandemic and how a handful of Big Tech and Big Pharma companies pushed for measures that made them mind-bogglingly rich, even at the cost of causing incalculable damage to our societies and economies; or how Western oil companies today are exploiting the energy crisis to rake in record profits, even at the cost of driving the rest of the economy into the ground.

 

And they are able to get away with it precisely because they have effectively taken control of our state apparatuses. At the same time, the depoliticisation of Western societies means that increasingly “apathetic” citizens allow their leaders to get away with almost anything, in a perverse positive feedback loop.

 

The West’s survival depends on freeing ourselves from the grip of this parasitic, cancerous elite — and of their political henchmen. This, in turn, requires nothing less than a democratic revolution. Many had hoped that Brexit, with its promise to “take back control”, could be the first step in a process of democratic rejuvenation of the country, by making elected officials directly accountable to the British people for their decisions. The Conservatives have betrayed this promise.

 

“Rather than opening up areas of policy to democratic scrutiny, the Brexit vote seems to have pushed the government in the opposite direction, a determination to avoid democratic scrutiny as much as possible,” notes academic Tara McCormack. This was demonstrated by the way the governing class exploited Covid and then Ukraine to embrace a politics of emergency that permitted it “to carry on avoiding democratic accountability to the electorate”.

And yet Brexit’s promise of “taking back control” — the idea that citizens can and should have a fundamental role in deciding policy, and that the latter’s role should ultimately be to address people’s needs — remains a powerful one. Indeed, it’s arguably the only thing that can save Britain — and the West as a whole. In the short term, this means forcing the government, including through civil disobedience, to take serious action to solve the energy crisis in the interests of the people, for example by bringing energy suppliers into public ownership, which would allow authorities to better control energy prices. In the longer term, it means taking the struggle to the heart of the political establishment itself. If this doesn’t happen, it’s all but certain that the lights will go out this winter — and Europe will enter a new Dark Age