Here we are with the end of 2024 in sight, and we’ve had nearly six months of the worst British government, led by the worst Prime Minister, backed up by the worst collection of callow, mindless Members of Parliament in living memory. We knew it was going to be bad, but we really didn’t know how bad it would be. The Conservative Party is to blame. It had fourteen years to undo the damage left behind by the Blair/Brown governments of 1997-2010 and it did nothing.
The ex-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak didn’t need to call the election when he did. It was obvious that the Conservative Party were going to lose but he could at least have left a few rocks in the road for Labour that would have slowed them down. But no, Sunak put self and party before the nation. He knew what was coming down the track from his globalist masters and he decided he wanted none of it. He didn’t want to be the Prime Minister of heavy, destructive taxation, the war on farmers and globalist land grabs, so he 'went to the country’ early to hand over the baton smoothly to the communist regime now installed in Westminster.
By virtue of my birth and immediate family heritage, I really ought to be a socialist but I’m not. Both my parents and my extended family were firmly of the Glasgow working class and many of them had socialist, or even Marxist, political views. My father was different. He had managed to tread an upwardly mobile path in life which put my parents firmly among the middle classes. It rubbed off on me. I’m not only not a socialist but I hate socialism with a passion.
We may have had the Conservative Party forming the government in Britain for 49 of the 74 years since the end of the Post-War Attlee Labour government but it has done nothing to turn Britain irrevocably away from being the basically socialist-leaning country it has been since 1945. It’s not as if it hasn’t had the opportunity. Instead, it bought into the post-war consensus that ‘progress’ was inevitable, whatever ‘progress’ is. It took Britain into the EU and failed to honour the greatest democratic vote in our history by achieving a ‘clean Brexit’ to get us out again. Even Margaret Thatcher, who tamed the trade unions and privatised state-owned industries, didn’t go as far as abolishing the NHS and dismantling the Welfare State. She may have wanted to, but she wasn’t allowed to because there were too many ‘wets’ in the Conservative Party. It shouldn’t be forgotten that, prior to the Falklands War in 1982, so-called ‘Tory Grandees’ were actively plotting to get rid of her. Once she had overseen the winning of that war she was untouchable for two more elections.
It was while I was at university that I realised that there was some real political tension within British society. This was the era just after the Sorbonne riots of 1968 in Paris, of anti-Vietnam war protests at the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square in London, of drugs, of free love, the Age of Aquarius and general mockery of all things traditional, especially the Christian religion. Students were forever sitting in, dropping out, smoking pot and foolishly getting in the way of large Springbok rugby players during anti-apartheid protests. Since I was an uncomplicated rugby player and supporter in those days I didn’t much like that last bit. Politics should be kept out of sport was my view. That battle has been lost and politics is all-pervasive in sport now.
One thing I fairly rapidly came to a conclusion about was that whatever it was that most of my fellow students and many of my tutors believed in the very early 1970s, I didn’t share their beliefs. Whatever it was they stood for, I didn’t stand with them. I coped by staying away from it as much as possible, by avoiding arguments in tutorials, doing the minimum work and turning up for exams. I already knew what I wanted to do in life and I was focussed on that. I left university with an education in economics which was based entirely on Keynesian macro-economics but without having read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations or heard of Hayek, Von Mises and Austrian economics. All that has since been put right.
Those who have read my earlier pieces ‘On Our Current Political Mess’, ‘The Wicked Witch of Westminster’ and ‘After the Farmers’ Demonstration in London’ will probably not be surprised by where I’m going with this.
After something like 55 years of being politically aware and trying to reach the Nirvana of financial independence I have come to some inescapable conclusions about socialism. The main one is that socialism is only a halfway house through which the political left wishes to transition us all slowly so that we don’t notice. Socialism is not the destination; the destination is full-blown communism according to the teachings of Karl Marx. The left has taken the Fabian approach of little by little up to now but recently we have seen the other side of the Fabians - when striking, strike hard. The planned tax raids on family farms and private pensions are pure Marxism.
Socialism is not a pioneer of a better or finer world. It cannot be. It is no more than the plunderer of what it has taken civilisation thousands of years to create. It does not build, it destroys. Destruction is its very essence. It produces nothing. It only consumes what the social order based on private ownership of the means of production has created. Each step towards socialism exhausts itself in the destruction of what already exists. It is then unable to build its utopia. The ruins of the USSR were testament to that.
Contrary to the efforts of Socialism and Communism, progressive capital formation is the only means through which the condition of the great masses can be permanently improved. Socialism and its associated destructionism aims to use up accumulated capital so as to achieve present wealth at the expense of the future. The policy of destructionism is the policy of the spendthrift who dissipates his inheritance regardless of the future. In doing so it pulls everything to the centre to create an all-powerful state while leaving the population in deprivation. The state’s nomenklatura live luxurious lives; the rest do not.
There are many examples of countries ruined by socialism. The first is Sweden. At the turn of the 20th Century, it was a great entrepreneurial society with a high level of economic liberty. This is the country in which Sandvik, Volvo and Saab were created. By the 1950s, Socialism started to eat up capital and the country began to live off the efforts of previous generations. By 1992, the Swedish Central Bank had had to raise interest rates to 500% to defend the Krona. It has been trying to escape ever since. A second is Venezuela, once the richest country in South America until it turned to Socialism in 1950s with each president a bigger Castro-loving commie than the last. Peronist Argentina is another example of a once-rich land brought low by the destructive, redistributive urges of socialism and statism. Argentina may at last have unearthed its saviour in Javier Milei.
One of Marx’s maxims is that all politics is the continuation of war by other means. Socialist parties who have followed Marxian principles have adopted elaborate techniques of agitation. We can see the stirring up of electoral excitement, the buying of votes with spending promises, the gerrymandering of electorates, street demonstrations and even terrorism. The activities of such cancers as Antifa and BLM and the phenomenon of screaming students demanding the ‘no platforming’ of political opponents are typical. It generates fake news and recruits so-called ‘celebrities’ from among the literati and entertainment industries to promote its principles. They are the recruiting sergeants for socialism and feeble minds follow them.
The people who have hailed with great enthusiasm the writings of Karl Marx which called for the destruction of all cultural values have brought us to the verge of a great social catastrophe. One can name hardly a field the Marxists have not penetrated. Art, education especially, and surprisingly, churches are dominated by Marxism. In government, labour legislation, high taxes, compulsory social insurance, unemployment insurance, inflation and nationalisation are all used as the means by which private wealth can be attacked.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation
Vladimir Lenin
Taking a look at the Communist Manifesto, it contains the following proposed policies:
- Abolition of private property
- Heavy progressive income tax
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance
- Confiscation of the land of those who speak out against the government
- Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state.
- Centralisation of communication and transportation
- Nationalisation of all land and capital
- Free education in government schools
How much of that list has been adopted in some measure by Western governments? Pretty much all of them at one time or another. What a recipe for destructionism.
Today’s Marxists have given up on the working classes. They failed to rise and provide the revolutionary army the Marxists wanted because most of them are patriotic and believe in striving for a better life for themselves and their families. In other words, they are human. The revolution didn’t fly with them because the working classes didn’t want to take over the factories. They just wanted a pay rise and better working conditions. The revolutionaries consequently have not only abandoned them, they have decided to destroy them and that is what we see now being done by mass migration which bears down heavily on the native working class.
Today’s Marxists - cultural Marxists, neo-Marxists - call them what you will, it matters not, lost the economic argument with the fall of Soviet communism in the early 1990s. What did they do? They sank their fangs into the Green movement so that they might seek to destroy capitalism in the name of Mother Nature. They came up with the idea of Oppressor: Oppressed. Here we see that all oppressors are white heterosexual males and the oppressed are everyone else. They had already picked up Antonio Gramsci’s idea of the Long March through the institutions of Western culture. They went through the schools, the universities, the media, the churches and all departments of the state, bent on the destruction of Western culture. It is exactly the same path that Mao was on - getting rid of Old ideas, Old culture, Old habits, Old customs. The reason why the workers didn’t rise, they think, is because western culture and Christianity blinded them to the Marxist truth - a hegemonic power which maintains consent to the capitalist order. Therefore, western culture and Christianity must be destroyed.
It has been going on for a long time. By the late 1980s the revolutionaries of ‘68 were the academics and administrators in the universities. They fed their students Marxist indoctrination, turned out activists, got them to protest, and conceded to their manufactured demands. This is how University of California, Berkeley got rid of its Western Civilisation course to the accompaniment of the inane chanting of “Hey hey, ho ho, western civ has got to go.” It went, to be replaced with Race, Class and Gender Studies.
They then set about getting rid of the rest of the “dead white male European academic agenda” to the mantra of “We need more multiculturalism”. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean more Thomas Sowells. It just means hiring more Marxists from different race and cultural backgrounds. The same thing has been done here.
We need to beware of euphemisms such as ‘progressive’. When you see ‘progressive’ read ‘communist’. The main propaganda trick of supporters of the ‘progressive’ agenda is to blame capitalism for every failure in the present and to extol the virtues of more socialism as the remedy. The ‘progressives’ have never attempted to prove their false dogmas because they cannot. All they do is play the man, or woman, call them names and cast suspicion upon their hinterlands and motives. This we see when any critic of the climate agenda is said to be in the pay of ‘Big Oil’. The irony is that it is powerful families who made their money from oil, such as the Rockefellers and the Gettys, who are financing this nonsense. Unfortunately, the average Joe or Jill in the street cannot see through these stratagems. The liars are afraid of the truth coming out, so they must suppress it by all means at their disposal.
These Marxists may call themselves progressives, but they would force on us a system of rigid observance of routine and resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they wish to abolish liberty. We see that with the attack on free speech. They call themselves democrats, but dictatorship is what they want because socialism can only be imposed by dictatorship, so anti-human are its characteristics. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make government omnipotent and global. They promise the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic council office, every man and woman a subordinate clerk in the Bureau of Sustainability.
To the masses, the promises of socialism sound so enticing. The wealth of the country, they think, is a fixed pie and everyone can have a bigger share, they say. It just has to be collected and redistributed from the centre. That is the rationale for crushing levels of taxation. Thus, many will continue to work for socialism, helping thereby to bring about the inevitable decline of the civilisation which the nations of the West have taken thousands of years to create.
Lenin’s other proposed weapon is inflation which is an inherent characteristic of fiat currency. Always and everywhere inflation is the result of a deliberate policy of creating too much money. Such inflationism is not an isolated phenomenon; it lies at the heart of the politico-socio-economic philosophies of our time. The Bank of England even has an inflation target set at 2%. Why not 0%? Today a pint of beer in a pub will cost £5. When I was a student, £5 would keep me fed and watered for a week; when I was a boy, it paid for a week’s groceries for the family. Inflation is the deliberate money trick by which people are robbed of real wealth. ‘Inflation-busting' pay-rises may be handed out, but it is always in arrears, after the inflation has bitten, and they are soon recovered to the government and its favoured corporations by increases in taxation and yet more inflation.
The other aspect to this is to restrict the supply of certain goods and services which has the effect of driving up their prices. This is not strictly inflation, which applies to the overall money supply; it is the raising of the cost of certain items, so they take a greater slice of peoples’ income to purchase. We have seen this already with the price of some food items and we may see it again quite soon. There is much talk of ‘bird flu’, an engineered outbreak of which will provide the perfect excuse for the mass slaughter of farm-yard fowl resulting in the driving up of the price of barn-reared and free-range chickens or even render them unavailable.
On the other hand, free-market capitalism, not corporatist stakeholder capitalism beloved by the World Economic Forum, means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism entails government control of every aspect of individuals’ lives and the unrestricted supremacy of government in its capacity as central board of production management.
Capitalism and socialism are thought to be two distinct patterns of social organisation. However, private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory, not merely contrary ideas. Therefore, a society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two distinct social systems; it chooses between social co-operation through the market and the ultimate disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men and women can live productive and fulfilling family lives as the human beings they are.
Many people in Britain are morosely contemplating a long four and a half years until we have the chance to rid ourselves of the Starmer Regime, but things may not be that bad. 2025 is going to be an interesting year, and 2026 after that, and 2027. President Donald J Trump’s total victory in November’s US elections will have repercussions worldwide once his administration takes office. In 2016 he didn’t really know what he was doing, and he was beset by Democrat lawfare suits. He didn’t know who to bring into government, who to listen to, and who to ignore. He does now.
President Trump will be focussed on the domestic matters he must fix following the disastrous Biden presidency. This means there is serious potential for a hurricane to blow across the Atlantic. Especially when his new ‘Border Tsar’, Tom Homan, starts his promised mass deportation of illegal migrants. It’s going to be an uncomfortable time for the Starmer Regime, especially the dullard Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, whose position is surely untenable. Trump will go for energy security and the chances are he will scrap the Paris climate accord and take no part in future CoP junkets. This will hole Miliband below the waterline. Then there’s RFK jnr and the ‘vaccines’.
Nor will Starmer find succour in the EU, a failed superstate, this would be EUSSR. His instinct is to take Britain back into that corrupt, sclerotic organisation but I don’t think he dare try. He may attempt to draw us closer to the EU, but he would be doing so at a time when the populace in many continental countries is moving rapidly to the right to defend themselves against mass migration. He and his tribe may not like what they see there in the coming years. Following the recent Christmas market attack in Magdeburg the mood in Germany is grim. Forced repatriation (remigration) is going to be on the cards. Apart from that, the economies of both Germany and France, the engines of the EU, are in deep trouble and countries such as Denmark are beginning to question their membership. Both the EU and its Euro may not be here in ten or fifteen years.
In Britain, a younger generation, especially young native men who are excluded by DEI policies, are beginning to see what a socialist government really means. And they don’t like it. We told them, those of us who lived through the 1960s and 1970s, but they wouldn’t listen. They’re listening now. There is a woeful lack of any quality on the government front bench (Rachel Reaves, Angela Rayner, Yvette Cooper, oh, please!). One shudders to think who might take over if Starmer is deposed. There are mutterings already about his leadership (or lack of it) among Labour MPs and powerbrokers. Then there is the Southport cover-up. There is something really huge and nasty in that woodshed. There is every chance this appalling government will not last five years.
As we get ready to welcome 2025, the fight back is about to begin in earnest against authoritarian collectivism. Whether it’s communism or fascism (aka stakeholder capitalism) it doesn’t matter, they are two cheeks of the same ugly backside. But there is a third, very nasty, collective authoritarianism - Islam. Expect Trump to pick up in the Middle East where he left off.
On that upbeat note, a Happy and Prosperous New Year to all.
