Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".
While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".
One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".
Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."
TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.
"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.
Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."
Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."
"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.
Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".
The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".
It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.
The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.
It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.
The simple solution to that would be responding with "And? You have nigger blood from the past 4 generations, you leave." but we don't live in a nice world.
Generally speaking, when it comes to Reform UK, there are currently two audiences;
There's us, the informed lot who will do the research and cross check, critique and comment.
Then there's the uninformed who watch garbage on BBC, ITV, Sky etc. and believe what the idiot box in the corner says. When 23% of them think that Winston Churchill was a fictional character, for example, it is a very damning indictment of the level of intelligence of some of our Britbongs.
What Reform UK will have to do is move to capture most of the uninformed - the flotsam and jetsam types who aren't invested in Politics and are quite 'hey ho' in their attitudes. If Reform UK are seen as the party to vote for, they'll vote for them because telly says so.
However, it means reigning back on some of the stronger policies until the paradigm has shifted from the worship and acceptability of the 'non intelligentsia' to a society which acknowledges and rewards hard work, effort and the pursuit of knowledge.
Reform UK cannot, for example, market themselves to people who don't understand or appreciate the significance of issues such as the migrant invasion but if they can work on the less harsh policies such as lowering the cost of living and tax reductions first, then these people might be more willing to go 'ahhh okay then' - they know about money, if nothing else, and the more that they have and the more advantageous that is then Reform UK will be accepted more readily and win over a good chunk of the almost literal 'floating' voter.
As a TLDR - you can't offer 'extra strength lager' to a youngster who hasn't yet acquired the test for even a mild IPA pint of beer.
Most of us on KiwiFarms know what we think of Nigel and Reform UK and whether we would vote for him in the future, but we are still a smaller percentage than the 'ordinaries' and the uninvested.
I agree with you. Personally I wouldn't call the market system capitalist but that's more quibbling over terms really. I'm assuming we are really talking about the same thing - a market economy with private people owning the businesses.
Yeah. I'm not up to scratch with the black and white meanings of systems. I know what i mean in my head, whether that means what it means I have no idea. offering people the opportunity to make money in a private market, of which tax is collected from the companies to help fund the country.
NK does exactly this. Now what does the media tell us to think about NK?
That aside, I do think the systems we are describing could sort out the issue of all the brown here. And as I mention above, I think a lot of it could be done peacefully via economically disadvantaging them. It would be made clear they are not part of the new system. Many would leave just as they see the new system rising. I think people underestimate how big a population flow you can get out without force. It can be just as big as the flows in which happened without force.
Some force would be needed initially and the public backlash would have to be ignored to start with, then disarmed by showing the immediate benefits to no browns.
The force would be needed because those who would now be at a disadvantage, who are so used to being protected, would kick off and cry like kids. That's when the pepper spray, water cannons and severe beatings come into play.
then the economic pressure, the social stigmatization (not part of the society), and then as I have said, when the number is manageable enough you deport the remaining to some shithole in Africa. that threat alone would get many more to leave to somewhere else. it could be done in ten years I reckon with a strong leader.
As soon as the UK stops handing money out to people for free, the spongers and free-loaders will go elsewhere. It's why millions of afghanis didn't flock to azerbaijan and why the albanians aren't rushing to move to chad.
Impossible. The misinformed will be informed with misinformation, handed out by plants placed within the party to discredit it. It has already happened in smaller areas. The more popular reform become, the more of their MP's councillors or party representatives will say "hitler was right" and "gas all niggers".
This is how BNP was stopped in the early 2000's.
Generally speaking, when it comes to Reform UK, there are currently two audiences;
There's us, the informed lot who will do the research and cross check, critique and comment.
Then there's the uninformed who watch garbage on BBC, ITV, Sky etc. and believe what the idiot box in the corner says. When 23% of them think that Winston Churchill was a fictional character, for example, it is a very damning indictment of the level of intelligence of some of our Britbongs.
What Reform UK will have to do is move to capture most of the uninformed - the flotsam and jetsam types who aren't invested in Politics and are quite 'hey ho' in their attitudes. If Reform UK are seen as the party to vote for, they'll vote for them because telly says so.
However, it means reigning back on some of the stronger policies until the paradigm has shifted from the worship and acceptability of the 'non intelligentsia' to a society which acknowledges and rewards hard work, effort and the pursuit of knowledge.
Reform UK cannot, for example, market themselves to people who don't understand or appreciate the significance of issues such as the migrant invasion but if they can work on the less harsh policies such as lowering the cost of living and tax reductions first, then these people might be more willing to go 'ahhh okay then' - they know about money, if nothing else, and the more that they have and the more advantageous that is then Reform UK will be accepted more readily and win over a good chunk of the almost literal 'floating' voter.
As a TLDR - you can't offer 'extra strength lager' to a youngster who hasn't yet acquired the test for even a mild IPA pint of beer.
Most of us on KiwiFarms know what we think of Nigel and Reform UK and whether we would vote for him in the future, but we are still a smaller percentage than the 'ordinaries' and the uninvested.
Yeah I completely agree. Its the next step on what will be a difficult struggle to take back our own lands. Hungary was under Turkish rule for 150 years. There would have been a time in that when the people thought it was impossible to overcome, but they did eventually.
At some point on the path back it becomes clear to most people that a shift has happened, and becomes culturally known that mutts won't be part of what's coming. That would bring most miscegenation to a halt. Once the snowball starts to roll down the hill it picks up speed and get. Once there is a racial solidarity again everything becomes easier.
We would have to come up with something liek the rat says:
We would have to pick an arbirtary bar for people. no brown blood for over 4 generations means about 3% of dna. So could set an abritary over than 5% of non-european blood and you have to go.
But yeah it seems impossible partly due to the fact isn't possible within the neoliberal capitalist system. But it is possible in that system to get to a point where a new system can happen. and then it become possible. And once that gets going it becomes just as inevitable as the mass immigration was under neoliberalism.
But neoliberal usury capitalism must go as our goals are impossible under it
There's an article on the daily Mail website showing a selfie of an Indian couple and their three kids who were moving to the UK. The Husband had a job and his family were moving to join him.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Absolutely hilarious. Yes I know dead kids is sad but seriously fuck right off. We're fucking full. The NHS being able to exploit workers from third world shitholes is a massive problem and does nothing to force them to actually deal with their litany of issues.
There's an article on the daily Mail website showing a selfie of an Indian couple and their three kids who were moving to the UK. The Husband had a job and his family were moving to join him.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Absolutely hilarious. Yes I know dead kids is sad but seriously fuck right off. We're fucking full. The NHS being able to exploit workers from third world shitholes is a massive problem and does nothing to force them to actually deal with their litany of issues.
Get the fuck out of here with the g*rman bollocks, this is a bri'ish thread for bri'ish people.
I'm all for going full Cromwell on certain persons arses but when it comes to hiterlshit I have no tolerance and neither should anyone else, it's a loser ideology by and for losers, and worst of it's bloody continental.
We would have to pick an arbirtary bar for people. no brown blood for over 4 generations means about 3% of dna. So could set an abritary over than 5% of non-european blood and you have to go.
No need to get scientific, one drop rule stuff is amerimutt autism and leaves too many edge cases, we're already a land of mongrels ourselves to some extent but it's important to set standards; there is nothing with the pencil test.
So without giving away the grand design, how many of you Reform UK lot are secretly movementarian extra spicey types do you reckon? Cause if it's not literally just you and a few others guys I noooticed I'd give it about 2 weeks from the next scheduled "far hard alt right" terror attack that you're all v&.
Get the fuck out of here with the g*rman bollocks, this is a bri'ish thread for bri'ish people.
I'm all for going full Cromwell on certain persons arses but when it comes to hiterlshit I have no tolerance and neither should anyone else, it's a loser ideology by and for losers, and worst of it's bloody continental.
No need to get scientific, one drop rule stuff is amerimutt autism and leaves too many edge cases, we're already a land of mongrels ourselves to some extent but it's important to set standards; there is nothing with the pencil test.
So without giving away the grand design, how many of you Reform UK lot are secretly movementarian extra spicey types do you reckon? Cause if it's not literally just you and a few others guys I noooticed I'd give it about 2 weeks from the next scheduled "far hard alt right" terror attack that you're all v&.
I support the return of the UK as it should be, and as I knew and loved it - free of migrant rapists, woke idiots and literal spastics ruining the governance of what should be the best country in the world.
I support that regardless of who is in charge of the party - and yes, whilst I support Farage, he is not the be all and end all.
Yes, I am movementarian in that I want to move away from the current way of fast tracking the ruining of my country and Reform UK are important as the means to the end - the option being them or the UK being literally raped to death in a few decades.
I have no choice other than to back the largest party who are the most likely to at least give me the chance of what I want.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Frankpledge and the Saxon-style "ancient freedoms" way of doing things, get rid of literally everything N*rman that I don't like and ditch anything post 1200, formalize it in writing and whatever you'd call that is what I'd want.
Yes, I am movementarian in that I want to move away from the current way of fast tracking the ruining of my country and Reform UK are important as the means to the end - the option being them or the UK being literally raped to death in a few decades.
Yeah I think that's both a strength and a weakness of niggel's little big-tent; he's attracting a lot support from various sources but nobody actually believes in it in and of itself. It is absolutely ripe for factionalism, already sort of happened with the Lowe split, can you imagine the blood and gore if the locals results translate to national and there's a sudden schism then? Discipline is at a solid zero.
support the return of the UK as it should be, and as I knew and loved it - free of migrant rapists, woke idiots and literal spastics ruining the governance of what should be the best country in the world.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Frankpledge and the Saxon-style "ancient freedoms" way of doing things, get rid of literally everything N*rman that I don't like and ditch anything post 1200, formalize it in writing and whatever you'd call that is what I'd want.
Honestly, with these things you both mention I reckon the rest would work itself out by the character of the people of the british isles. Without the foreign and outside interference that has gone on for hundreds of years, our own way of life would naturally happen and it would be for maximal freedom for the people and for a decent country, unlike the shithole we currently have
But I do think some kind of charismatic leader is needed to get there.
Honestly, with these things you both mention I reckon the rest would work itself out by the character of the people of the british isles. Without the foreign and outside interference that has gone on for hundreds of years, our own way of life would naturally happen and it would be for maximal freedom for the people and for a decent country, unlike the shithole we currently have
But I do think some kind of charismatic leader is needed to get there.
At that point we have to hope that the people get so angry that we don't go back to the uniparty, but we lurch further to the hard right. And that gives the power to someone who is willing to get rid of the Neoliberal system completely. That man can tell every brownoid to fuck right off and rebuild the system for the British people.
Our current situation really is just the West as a whole experiencing whiplash from the Cold War to it's soft-end in the mid 80s.
There's a ton of dominos that answers how A go to B, and why B enabled C, and so on, but it's by and large how hands-off countries were with corporations, how dependent they had become on them for the backbone of their economy during the Cold War, ignoring consolidation in the name of the "free market", being similarly unconcerned at how interlinked and mired in foreign interests they were all becoming, and being forced to abide by their principles when in the name of fiduciary responsibility they relocated industries abroad to cut down on costs (Deng began opening up China in 1978 ).
You really cannot overstate how retarded everything become as a consequence of this globally.
When China opened up it's 800+ million pop workforce to the rest of the world, they completely destroyed every other well-off nation's industry in the process and fucked their domestic situations up for the next 50-60 years (still ongoing).
Due to the aforementioned corporate dependency, governments had to offer enticement to keep some jobs domestic (unemployment spiked in the US, France, UK, West Germany, etcetera in the 80s motivating this) so you saw slashed corporate taxes (yet raised income taxes, since company profits =/= individual profits from said company, which just makes the problem of stakeholder profit-chasing even worse), floodgates opening to immigrants to suppress wages and increase the size of a potential consumer market (as well as providing gibs so said immigrants could definitely become consumers), and so on.
I wouldn't ban private ownership, I'd make it so ownership of businesses was exclusively private, giving the owner of said company individual responsibility to run it well and hopefully imbibe more domestic loyalty — A British CEO of a British company, as opposed to an Indian CEO of a British company (this logic also applies to nations!), which also prevents foreign acquisition and thus changing loyalties.
Publicly owned corporations I.E. those with shareholders, stakeholders, investors and so on, are not inclined to benefit the consumer nor the worker long-term due to the ongoing practice of "short-termism" in the corporate world. The dreaded "line must go up" regarding the country's GDP yet lack of tangible increasing in people's wellbeing is well-observed, and it applies to corporations too. If decreased costs increases a companies profits for that quarter, the value of an investor's holding in it goes up, at which point they can sell, make a profit, and then buy into another company and repeat the process. By removing this need for constant growth, companies won't have to take action that is detrimental to both consumers and employees in order to keep revenues high. And since corporations are loyal to their shareholders, it potentially means loyalty to foreign interests; a man from India, China, or even America, couldn't give less of a shit that closing a factory in the UK means fewer jobs for people if it bumped revenue enough to make a return on his investment, or if a foreign CEO will get a bonus for a job well done.
At this point increase corporate taxes, but decrease income taxes, so instead of taking 2 billion of a company's 20 billion profit, yet taking 40% of the individual's earnings from said company (20 million out of 50 million), take a larger slice of company profit but let the person's income remain relatively untouched. This not only positively impacts everybody in the country by lowering taxes, but the owner's incentive to keep at it isn't hurt as much by having a ton of their earnings taken from them.
Regarding immigrants, there's the optically clean way of reducing their numbers:
1. Ban their cultural/religious practices for humane/safety reasons (no "face coverings"(niqab/halal), no "cruel slaughtering of animals" (halal/kosher), no circumcision unless medically necessary in under 18s (yeah, they do that too))
2. Remove the option of citizenship entirely for those who wish to retain their original citizenship, making the option of visa-free stay impossible for those with split loyalties. They must also never be allowed to benefit from the state's social services and welfare, and must pay for anything that would ordinarily be free for a citizen (like the NHS).
3. Then if they're still an issue collectively, ban them. If Nigeria can do it, so can we.
The whole "State subservience to corporations" was even noted Addy H by the way.
The deeper reasons why it was possible to foist upon the people
this absurd notion of ‘peacefully conquering the world through
commerce’ lay in the generally sick condition of the whole body
of German political thought. This also shows how it was possible
to put forth the maintenance of world peace as a national aim.
The triumphant progress of technical science in Germany, and
the marvelous development of German industries and commerce,
led us to forget that a powerful state was the necessary prerequisite
of that success. On the contrary, certain circles went even so far
as to promote the theory that the state owed its very existence to
these phenomena-that it was, above all, an economic institution
and should be structured according to economic interests.
Therefore, it was held, the state was dependent on economic
structure. This condition of things was praised as the healthiest
and most natural arrangement. But the truth is that the state, in itself, has nothing whatsoever
to do with any definite economic conception or development.
Unfortunately he spergs about Jews thereafter. My biggest gripe with people like Big M (Marx) and Addy is that they make good points and observations but they often bungle a conclusion, and their solutions are often too complex or insane to their own detriment.
For example, in 4.3 Acquisition of New Land (quoted below), Hitler believed there had to be balance between urban and rural populations for a healthy economy, and once that balance is achieved, industries would return to a state of healthiness as farmers benefit industrialists and vice versa. But it doesn't necessarily work nowadays when much of the work done on farms is more than capable of being done by machinery, never mind the fact you're making it necessary that some of the population might potentially be locked into being worse off than the rest, and that such a proposal requires conquest of foreign land to be tenable.
The principle of acquiring new territory on which to settle the
surplus population has many advantages to recommend it,
especially if we look to the future.
In the first place, it’s impossible to overestimate the need to
maintain a healthy peasant class, as the basis of the national
community. Many of our present evils have their origin
exclusively in the imbalance between urban and rural populations.
A solid group of small-and mid-scale farmers has always been the
best protection against social disease. Moreover, this is the only
solution that guarantees the daily bread of a nation, within the
framework of its domestic national economy.
With this guaranteed, industry and commerce would recede
from their present unhealthy position of dominance, and would
take their due place in the economy, adjusting the balance between
supply and demand. They would no longer constitute the basis of
national subsistence, but would be supporting institutions. By
fulfilling their proper role–to adjust the balance between national
production and consumption–they allow the nation to be more or
less free from foreign countries. This ensures the freedom and
independence of the nation, especially in times of difficulty.
Such a territorial policy, however, cannot be fulfilled in the
Cameroons, but rather exclusively here in Europe. One must
calmly and squarely face the truth that it certainly cannot be
Divine Will to give 50 times as much land to one nation as to
another. In the present case, one mustn’t allow existing political
borders to distract attention from what should exist on the basis of
eternal justice. If this earth has sufficient room for all, then we
should have that share of the land that is absolutely necessary for
our existence.
But people will not do this willingly. Then the right of selfpreservation comes into effect. And when attempts to settle the
difficulty in an amicable way fail, then the fist must take by force.
Hitler also makes a similar concession to Marx as you by the way (at least as I read it).
In 8.5 Fight Against International Capital:
When I heard Gottfried Feder’s first lecture on ‘breaking
interest-slavery,’ I understood immediately that here was a truth
of transcendental importance for the future of the German people.
The absolute separation of stock exchange capital from the
national economy would make it possible to oppose the
internationalization of the German economy without at the same
time attacking capital per se. Doing so would jeopardize the
foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was
developing in Germany, and I realized then that the hardest battle
we would have to fight would not be against the enemy nations,
but against international capital.
I began to study again, and thus it was that I came to truly
understand the substance and purpose of the life–work of the Jew
Karl Marx. His Capital became intelligible to me now for the first
time. I now exactly understood the Social Democrats’ fight
against national economics-a fight that was to prepare the ground
for the hegemony of a true international and stock exchange
capital.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Frankpledge and the Saxon-style "ancient freedoms" way of doing things, get rid of literally everything N*rman that I don't like and ditch anything post 1200, formalize it in writing and whatever you'd call that is what I'd want.
Yeah I think that's both a strength and a weakness of niggel's little big-tent; he's attracting a lot support from various sources but nobody actually believes in it in and of itself. It is absolutely ripe for factionalism, already sort of happened with the Lowe split, can you imagine the blood and gore if the locals results translate to national and there's a sudden schism then? Discipline is at a solid zero.
That's why, despite the fact that I hugely admire Nigel and what he's done, I hope that he steps down within three years of being elected as PM.
By then, Reform UK will have hopefully done the following:
* Agreed on a long-term successor for Nigel and united the right-wing tribes into a solid Right Wing party which stands for common sense rather than 'common purpose'.
* Built up a solid lead in Government and have become accepted as the main party of the United Kingdom with backing from people, business and industry.
* Ensured that Reform UK is not just an old farts outfit and have youngsters as MP's, Council Leaders and in the Civil Service - the continuity needs to happen long after Nigel, Richard and co. have gone.
Even with a few years of Nigel being less than perfect, it will still be better than the current alternative.
Let's have an analogy of this - years ago, Wrexham FC were going nowhere and virtually bankrupt (as was UKIP under Alan Sked) but today they are one league away from the Premier League under the guidance of Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney (in the same vein, UKIP, The Brexit Party and Reform UK have been successful with Nigel and his team).
We can't ignore that, despite the silly splits and needless incidents, Nigel has done what very few people can ever dream of achieving and he has given a voice to those like me who are sick and tired of the country I love being fucked over. Yes, the sun does not shine out of his arse, but to many he is seen as a hero and more than likely the next PM.
I agree about factionalism, which is why Nigel can only be an Alec Douglas-Home type PM - a few years, sort out the issues, retire (his health's not brilliant and the toil of his job will catch up with him sooner rather than later) and pass the baton on.
I am more relaxed about Nigel's chances, despite the choppy waters of recent times; just ask yourself how will Labour and the Tories recover after Reform UK take power? They won't - they'll refuse to learn lessons, blame and hate the people and death spiral because 'our way only right way'. As for the others - Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid and SNP... they will somehow have to form an opposition and their infighting and factionalism will be a lot worse because each one believes that only they can be right - that thing called compromise is deemed as a weakness, and it will be their eventual downfall.
IMO if you're going for some flavour of Fascism you could at least use a local variant. Mosley is right there, dude. 100 Questions on Fascism answered is a short read. He also emphasised that different nations tailored it to their specific country, so it's not universally applicable.
4. Why is the Movement called Fascist ?
Fascism is the name by which the modern Movement has come to be known in the world. It
would have been possible to avoid misrepresentation by calling our Movement by another name.
But it was more honest to call it Fascism and thus to let everyone know exactly where we stood.
It is up to us to defeat misrepresentation by propaganda and explanation of the real policy and
method of Fascism as it will operate in Britain. In the long run straightforward dealing is not
only honest but also pays best. The alternative name for the modern Movement is the National
Socialism used in Germany. But the German Movement also is known throughout the outside
world as Fascist, which is the name commonly used to describe the phenomenon of the modern
Movement whether in Britain, Germany or Italy. National Socialism and Fascism in my view are
the same Movement, finding different expressions in different countries in accord with different
national and racial characteristics. For seven years in the Labour Party before founding Fascism
in Britain, I fought for a National Socialist Policy in contradistinction to the International
Socialism of that Party
(To a nationalist, comparing another country to your own is high praise)
The traditional tendency of British diplomacy ever since the
reign of Queen Elizabeth has been to systematically employ
every possible means to prevent any one European power from
dominating over the others and, if necessary, to break it by means
of armed intervention. The only parallel to this has been the
Prussian army's tradition. England made use of various military
means to carry out its purpose, choosing them according to the
actual situation or the task to be faced; but the determination and
willpower to use them has always been the same.
(Doesn't blame treaty of Versailles on us and says we were caught off guard by German collapse, and the politician's hands were tied on what they could do due to France and years of propaganda)
When the German Revolution occurred, England’s fears of a
German world hegemony came to a satisfactory end.
Since then, it has not been in English interests to see Germany
totally erased from the geographic map of Europe. On the
contrary, the astounding collapse that took place in November
1918 confronted British diplomacy with a situation that at first
appeared impossible.
For four-and-a-half years, the British Empire fought to break
the presumed prevalence of a continental power. A sudden
collapse now occurred that removed this power from the picture.
That collapse exposed the lack of even a basic instinct of selfpreservation, such that European equilibrium was unhinged within
48 hours: Germany destroyed, and France the first European
continental power.
Taking this as a starting-point, anyone who investigates alliance
possibilities for Germany must come to the conclusion that there
remains no other option except to approach England. The
consequences of England’s war policy were, and are, disastrous
for Germany, but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that, today,
England has no necessary interest in the destruction of Germany.
Indeed, on the contrary, England’s diplomacy must, from year to
year, tend more towards curbing France’s unbridled lust after
hegemony. Now, an alliance policy cannot be pursued by bearing
grudges, but it can be rendered fruitful by taking account of past
experiences.
(Says we'll have a harder time of things due to how infiltrated by Jews we are, yet we push back)
Things are harder in England. In that country of ‘the freest
democracy,’ the Jew exerts an almost unlimited dictatorship,
indirectly, through public opinion. And yet there is a perpetual
struggle between advocates of British state interests and the
proponents of Jewish world-dictatorship.
Though, his section on England/Britain has my favourite piece of indirect foreshadowing (referring to the alliance with Japan):
The gigantic American state-colossus, with its enormous wealth
of virgin soil, is much harder to attack than an encircled German
Reich. If the die were to be cast and an ultimate decision reached,
England would be doomed if it stood alone. Therefore they
eagerly reach for the yellow fist and cling to an alliance that, from
a racial viewpoint, is perhaps unpardonable; but from a political
viewpoint it represents the sole possibility of reinforcing Britain’s
world position in the face of the upsurging American continent.
IMO if you're going for some flavour of Fascism you could at least use a local variant. Mosley is right there, dude. 100 Questions on Fascism answered is a short read. He also emphasised that different nations tailored it to their specific country, so it's not universally applicable.
I've only just started getting into this branch of thought. When I was younger, I was a proper Tory Boy conservative. I remember I couldn't believe how people fell for Tony Blair. And then the conservatives elected Cameron as party leader, and I just noped out of politics completely.
I ended up getting all the way to individual forms of market anarchism. But a bit like what Mencius Moldbug said, you get mugged by reality. The desire for freedom that led me to market anarchism is there, but I realised it needs to be chauvinistic, i.e., for the people of the lands I am from. My variant of it comes from the reality of who I am and the people I'm from.
I'd want the best for other peoples and races, and I don't want us to get involved in their shit, but I don't think that the freedom that my people are capable of is what those other races are. I also realised more and more that this means that some kind of system to keep those others out is needed and to maintain the structure that freedom resides in.
There's a branch of thought I've found very interesting called National Anarchism, which some English guys came up with. It's an attempt to reform National Socialism but without the crazy totalitarian authoritarianism. I've also just started listening to some Mosley speeches. I used to listen to Jonathan Bowden's talks back in the day and just started listening to them again.
Basically, I want the ancient freedoms of the British people, but that can function in the modern world with other states and countries that exist. I'm fine with a national organisation, but I can't stand needless authoritarianism, snobbishness, or managerialism.
Therefore, the state or nation should serve the commonwealth of all its people of the isles. Which is why, despite being on the folk-anarchist side (think the ancient folks' heroes rebelling against the enclosures kind of stuff), I do see that having a nation that can nationalise coal or oil or rail, etc., and use the money to aid our people's flourishing and defence is also important. I'd also hope the different white groups of the british isles can keep their individuality but also see themselves and brothers and stop fighting each other. I heard that in Northern Ireland the proddies and catholics are fighting the invaders together, which made me smile.
Just trying to work out the fine details, I guess. Anarcho-Chauvinism where the chauvinism represents having enough of a national organisation or state to protect and maintain our lands and to help the people flourish, and the anarchism represents the maximum freedoms within that.
or something. I dunno. I guess it doesn't need a name. its more of a vague feeling that a lot of people have, I think, something that people feel about how our lands should be and how our people should live, but it hasn't been like that for a long, long time. We have an ancestral memory of how it should be.
Take a look at how the US is dealing with the deportation rioting in cities that are 50% non-white and you see the big looming problem for any government that wants to crack down hard on immigrants and drag them screaming out of their house.
There is absolutely no fucking way they'd be able to put a dent in Wakefield, Blackburn, Burnley or Bradford before a bobby is beheaded in the streets. It's over, we have left it far too late and there are genuine enclaves that will take hundreds of years to cleanse. The best you can do it buy as big a detached house you can get (so no chance of Pakis moving in next door) and riding it out.
I hate to sound defeatist but if Trump with a huge fucking majority, the majority of the nation on his side and literally going after people who genuinely shouldn't be in the country results in this much carnage then I can't imagine how much shit we'd get if we decide to send the family of a rapist back to Bangladesh.
