If such comparisons have any value at all, it would be possible to say, that the Duke of Wellington was not as significant a man, as Oliver Cromwell, in the history of England. Both of them were military commanders who did not lose a battle, and eventually assumed overall rule over the British Army; both were for a time in command of the entire country whether as Prime Minister or as Dictator, in fact both served for a time as Dictator. And both saved the nation from foreign invasion, and established or increased its formal empire.
What makes Wellington less outstanding, is that he was already part of what could flatly be called a cartel, which already ruled Britain. While, Cromwell was forced to create a governing class and give it victory.
Wellington’s rise to Colonel of the 33rd, was owing to his connection to his brother, who was, when he went to India, the governor general of that part of it which belonged to the East India Company. The brothers belonged to an aristocracy which had ruled Britain since the time of Cromwell. Wellington was born in the British territory of Ireland, as one of its chief landowning families. And in this way, it is possible to see what I mean, when I say that Britain was ruled by a cartel. He was a member of a class, a ruling group, who assisted one another to positions of leadership and rule, over what they saw as their territory.
Throughout his life, Wellington never thought twice about maintaining that order of aristocratic rule of the country, ownership of the land, by a few property magnates. The Duke more than most, saw it as their purpose to manage the country, in the service of its corporate personality, namely the King.
Reading his biography (*), I have been impressed by the then constitutional arrangement, which allowed the interaction of the Prime Minister with the King, and we are able to see, what Britain was like, when its constitution was working, on behalf of the monarch and his supporters. It was the employment of the prime minister, to chose from among the MPs in parliament, the most efficient men who could serve as ministers, in order to pass legislation, which would be pleasing to the King. If any prime minister, could not find sufficient talent, and could not sway the House, to pass the legislation which was needed, then it was imperative that the prime minister resign, because he could not fulfil his purpose.
During Wellington’s period in office as prime minister, in the early 1830s, there were three major problems which needed resolution. The difficult position he found himself in at that time, was that each of these problems had a solution, which was not to the benefit of that old cartel, the aristocratic order of things. He had to allow change, but in such a way, that it was not too harmful to his class.
The three problems were these: the social unrest caused by the Corn Laws; the disruption in Ireland owing to the ban on Catholics serving in government; and finally, the existing demand for a Reform Bill, which would extend the right to vote to more of the lower classes, and prevent MPs from merely being appointed in many of the Tory constituencies known as ‘rotten boroughs’. Neither of these three problems had a solution favourable to the Tories such as the Duke himself, and the King, at that time William IVth, also resisted any change.
After coaxing the monarch into accepting the right of Catholics to have the vote and representation, the Duke failed to support the Reform Bill, and so was forced to step down, since he could not gather enough support or votes, to resist that Bill. His reason was, that making changes to the system of nominating MPs, would destroy the old England; to allow votes in the cities and among the working class, would see the end of rule by the landowners. With respect to the Corn Law, which allowed the English landowners a monopoly on the sale of that food, he had no part to play.
A speech of his, before his resignation, which he gave in a spirit of defiance, seemed to others of his party, to express an absurd misunderstanding of how Parliament worked; he spoke in Parliament as if he were an officer in command of an obedient army, and he in this way made himself absurd and fit only for resignation and failure.
The changes to the nation, were being advocated by the Whig party, who required more power for the industrial business class, and needed more seats to represent the new cities, such as Manchester. What lies behind the urgency of each of these matters, was the pressure of the population, which threatened revolution and uprising. In effect, if the changes to the order of things could not happen peacefully and according to process in those years, then there would be violent disorganised widespread destruction of the restless and changing nation.
That the cartel whose passing Wellington oversaw, had ruled the nation well, is to my purpose. They had ruled the nation in a patriotic way, by and large, because the nation was their own property. They had title to the land, and not to land in any other country; the country was literally their property. That the King’s family were not originally British, tended toward making it more obvious, that the Commons and Lords were the true rulers of the nation. It is true, that money dominated their interests to an extent, and that they supressed the people, in order to retain their control. But they never betrayed the nation; they never allowed foreigners in to the country, nor favoured populations and people, other than the British.
Wellington’s chief object of concern, was nevertheless, not the people; he did not have the interest of the British people as the immediate object of his concern. Rather, it was the King that he considered himself to serve. The King to whom obedience was the first duty of the aristocracy. It would be possible to say, that the King was the single place where the land and the people were focused. In her biography, ** makes the recurrent observation, that the Duke saw himself as an ‘bonded servant’ of the Crown. He considered himself to be a mere labourer in the service of the nation, as represented by the King.
Now, what allowed Wellington to become Prime Minister, and to be leader of the Lords, was not his political skill in itself, which was not his vocation. Rather, as everyone knows, he defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, as the general in command of the allied troops there, in 1815. He was first of all a soldier. He became the commander of the British Army, because he had successfully led the Army already, for around a decade, in Spain against Napoleon’s marshals. And prior to that, he had learned to lead large formations in the methods of contemporary warfare, in India.
The character of generalship in that era, was a kind of massive game of chess. The weapons at the disposal of the commander of an army, could be seen in the interactions of the British and French armies on the Peninsula, which were spent advancing not to acquire territory, but to destroy the enemy’s assets, its army formations, in brief and large scale battles involving tens of thousands of obedient men. A commander might attack and capture a town, then retreat from it; since, his objective was not to acquire land, but to force the enemy to run out of men and supplies. So, organised advance and retreat in formation, meant success, while disorganisation meant he loss of equipment, and men. The general aimed to chose the correct opportunity and place, to engage in battle, in such a way that conditions were favourable to him, and not to the enemy. Bagehot pointed out about the British Army’s foremost military commanders, fifty years later, that their job was more administrative and logistical, than straightforwardly martial.
He was roughly fifty years of age at the time of Waterloo, and leaving the service at a time when he was known around the world as the man who defeated Napoleon, he was a natural choice to be Foreign Secretary on England’s behalf, in the newly liberated Europe; which was his entry into political service. After his first term in office from ** to **, he was again called back to serve when Peel’s government fell, and he served for a while, without a Cabinet, and, so to speak, as a single agent in charge of all aspects of the British government. Which is why he was referred to with, correctly, but only for reasons of humour, as a Dictator.
In his life time, and because of the character of the new age which was emerging, he was considered the greatest Englishman alive. It could be said, that the ideal of the stoic, quiet, decisive Englishman, derived entirely from his example; the self-reliant, honest, scrupulous, individualistic leader, who showed no emotion, but only an immovable determined calm, as it was developed throughout the Nineteenth century, originates with him.
His principle genius, was in the management of an army and engagement in battles, on his own terms. In those days, political disputes between nations, were decided in pitched open battles in which one side attempted to destroy the other, and make it retreat in chaos. It could be said, that because of the compliant nature of the people in those times, then once their aristocratic leader had been defeated, and their professional army made to flee the field, then the people of each nation, saw no further reason to rise up or continue the fight. Formal battles of attrition lasting no more than a couple of days by and large, could determine the fate of a nation. Political rivalry had once been between kings, and the armies the king could field, and it remained so.
The relationship of the majority of the people to their king and their cartel of elite aristocrats, was a deferential subservient one, such as a rule by a cartel would suggest. Wellington, was known for his compassion for his officers and private soldiers, and while he succeeded so well in war, it was because he was attentive to provisioning them, and making sure they were efficient; he achieved this by caring about them. Still, the majority of his massive forces were drawn from the class of desperate men who had no other possible occupation. They were the notorious ‘scum of the earth’. They were not armies of citizens, but armies of subordinates, in which only the senior officers had any right to call themselves free Englishmen.
It is worth while for me, to outline a few distinguishing characteristics of the Duke. He was the kind of man who did everything himself. He shaved himself; he designed his own boots. He did his own reconnaissance’s prior to any battle. He spent life in the field on horseback, rather than in a carriage, or occupying a grand mansion. He tended to do his own reconnaissance and planning, and provision his soldiers for every eventuality; he had that kind of character, which was prepared to get its hands dirty, in order to ensure success. He is known to have taken short naps before a battle, being sure that everything was in order. He wrote his own dispatches back to London, late into the night, like a junior officer. He was one of the first of what came to be known around the world, as the English gentleman.
He was short in his speech, and courteous at all times. And he expected absolute obedience to his commands, sensibly given after careful reflection; because he had already tended toward working out exactly how he should direct the battle, so he implicitly expected every subordinate to follow that plan.
Wellington was compassionate, and provided for his men. Yet, this was a doubled edged thing, and did not spring from compassion for its own sake; he cared for the men, because they were an instrument, which should be kept in good order and not wasted. His principle of efficiency and making no bones about empty ceremony, but rather pursuing what was pragmatically possible and what would work, can be seen in the fine details, such that it characterised him entirely. For instance, he wore a plan grey frock coat, unadorned with medals or other regalia and signs of power, on the battlefield. And, one detail which I almost forgot, his men loved him. The men loved him for the same reason that his country loved him: he was able to win battles, and when he was in charge, the British soldier knew that he was in safe hands, being used only in order to defeat the enemy, and not for some other purpose, such as the distracting pride of his commander. Stupid incompetent generals are the worst thing a soldier can contemplate. He had been in charge of the Army for so many years, and seen them so competently through so many battles, that his own men tended to cheer his arrival on the battlefield, and the moral of the British units rose or fell, as they knew whether they were following Wellington’s orders, or those of someone else.
At the time of the Peninsula War, which Wellington had decided on his own initiative to initiate against he occupying French, there were at least 95 regiments of foot at this disposal; and, the lack of welfare, and the population growth in England and Ireland was such, that each battalion could sometimes number a thousand men. And, although they were out of work, and of the scum of the earth class, they were expected to behave according to Wellington’s principles. Above all, he would not allow any looting. So, while the French lived off the land, and took what they needed, Wellington had to expect money and provisions from the government and taxation. When his soldiers were found to be behaving in a way, which would alienate the Spanish, French, or Portuguese natives, he had his men flogged, or in some cases, executed. Again, his idea was, that the war could only be won with the support of the population; and perhaps it would be possible to say, that he had no inherent compassion for them, but only for their support.
It is noteworthy, that the Whigs were continually in danger of shutting off his supplies. And, both the Peninsula and the Waterloo campaigns, were paid for with loans to the state, by the private banks of the Rothschilds; Wellington had to arrange his own provisions and money for the army. At that time, there was no income tax, and the government expenditure did not go much further than expenses for the military campaigns. As it had been for centuries, indeed. The first income tax was experimentally tried out, in the 1840s. And it was for this reason, that when he had successfully defeated the French in Spair, and marched on Paris through France, which led to the abdication of Napoleon to Elba, his army was almost immediately disbanded by Parliament. So that, when a year later, the French once again threatened Europe, only around half of his army could be called on to serve.
In this way, we see how England or Britain, retained its independence from France by means of warfare, initiated by a military commander of genius, from among the ranks of its aristocracy. And it successfully avoided revolutionary socialism, by means of careful gradual change to its constitutional arrangements, by the striking of bargains between King, Lords, MPs, and people. These things were possible, because the rulers of the land, were also its owners, and they did not want to share or give it up to foreigners. Here we see the successful survival of Britain, in this ownership of the land by a cartel, which was successful, and tolerated. We also see it passing away.
--
It would be right to ask, whether a cartel or a certain class of people, today rule England in the same way. And my answer would be, that there is such a rule. It would be possible to show, that the threats of violence against he people, are now directed downwards, and that the people are not asking for revolution. They are being destroyed for no sensible reason. It would also be possible to say, that the ruling cartel do not seem to be particularly British, and to doubt that they have any British sympathies or ownership at all. They are internationalists, and they are carrying out a hybrid war on the British people and the country. It should be easy to demonstrate this, by contrasting the situation today, with what it was two hundred years ago, during the time when Wellington and his class, were dominant. My thesis shall be, that Britain is under attack, and is at war already. It is a hybrid war.
The differences between the Britain of that era, and this, are stark, but not inexhaustible. First of all, in the early 1800s, parish funds were the only remedy, for those who had no employment or family. Which is why the armies which Wellington could call on, were so large; soldiers joined in order to be kept fed and clothed. Parishes were dominated by the local church, which organised funds for the destitute, from local taxes. When the government stepped into this territory, as the land was depopulated and the rural poor were forced into the new cities, the workhouse was created, which was a form of imprisonment for those without the means to support themselves.
The poor and unemployed are not, in our time, used as sailors and soldiers, or put to work in industry; rather, they are given from the general national tax collection. And, the results of elections and the activity of politicians, is largely concerned with how much these people receive, and where the money will come from. This is perhaps, the most important distinction between Wellington’s time and ours: the efficient tax collection of the state, and its distribution to the lower half of the population, in the form of social welfare and state provision of facilities. In a word, socialism, or communism. And the cartel which runs Britain, is, generally, across all social classes, communistic.
It would be possible to say, that in our day, politicians are somehow, powerless before the universal vote. They are not in command of the nation. There is no one class which commands the nation, but rather, an impersonal socialistic total mobilisation of the population is at work, which has recently been called ‘the social contract’. The social contract, when it is spoken of today, means the nation’s hive-like compact between all people, that they will be looked after by each other, under supervision of the government’s tax and distribution systems. It is not a contract, because there is no choice about entering into it, I would say. And, there is nobody in real command of it, by which I mean, if anyone has a decisive idea to put into action, that idea will not be put into action.
The nation, also, is unable and sees it as unnecessary to have an armed expeditionary forces. Lacking an armed forces, and with a Prime Minister whose only job it is, to find income to pay for the sick, the unemployed, and the elderly, we can see, that Parliament is not in control of the nation. And, without an armed forces of any use, there does not also seem to be, a nation.
Nevertheless, the history of one remains, and the relatives of the British are still inhabiting the island. It is my contention, that they are being subjected to a war and destruction by the state. But who does that to them, and why? For, if we were to consider that the individual ought to be free to chose his own destiny, and for instance, look after his property, and his nation in the way he sees fit, and that this is no longer possible, then we can already say, that the individual is at risk; but the entire population is only a set of individuals, and hence, they are all in danger.
If the state is in command of most of the money and property of a nation, then it depends on the benevolent wishes of that state, whether the people prosper. And, I would say, that the state is not benevolent.
That a war is going on against the British people, is clear from the invasion of people from outside Europe which not only has happened, but continues every day. And, in addition, the downgrading or replacement of the people is beyond question. The constant harassment of the native British people is obvious. But it is not usually spoken of as a war. That is why it is remarkable, that the idea of hybrid war is frequently spoken of today in other contexts. Hybrid war is the nature of war in this decade; and it is being practiced against the British by their what is nominally their own state. War by means of deception, replacement, by thefts of the property of the British, to give it to the new population.
The great modification to the country, which represents an act of war, took place when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. That was the period in which the immigration began. Yet, it continued with those who came after, so that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson (2019-2022) saw further vast increases. It also saw increases in the payment of welfare, or, in other words, an increase in the power of the state government.
But we have already said, that these men are not really in charge. What characterises the period of Blair’s rule, was the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were wars for the United States, and they showed, that in addition to not ruling Britain, Blair’s overt policy, was to ally Britain to anther country. And, additional to this, his and succeeding governments, forced the ever more intense alliance, with the European Union. In effect, British politicians became irrelevant because, with each succeeding year, the alliance with Europe, grew in intensity. Another characteristic of our age, is the powerful influence of the City of London, which could be said, to have replaced the physical empire of Britain, with a financial one. The City of London does not really need Britain, and is populated largely by foreigners and foreign money. And yet, it is the chief industry of the nation.
So, membership of NATO has reduced the army. Membership of the EU has reduced the parliament. The dominance of the banking sector has reduced the need for a people of Britain. And the people of Britain have been downgraded or replaced, with every succeeding year. I think this is where we are, and these factors are consented to, by and large. The population, whose wishes have motivated the political choices of the state for the past thousand years, is kept happy, with debt-derived welfare payments, so that anywhere up to a quarter of the population is unproductive when it could be so, and silent in the face of this destruction.
It's unhelpful to frame this as a class war, if anyone is doing so. It's more like the confrontation of the Anglo-Catholic establishment, which intensified its hold on England, in the 1630s, and the Calvinists and other individualist oddballs, variously and religiously motivated. If this were a sort of ruling class vs. the people, then a feeling of fear would persuade that ruling class, to compromise. Fear of class revolution, usually forces an establishment to concede some territory.
But there's no compromise, because the ruling establishment is not a class. It's a belief system, which anyone can join or leave. If Cummings is right, then the belief that they are right, will allow them, to go to more or less any lengths to crush Farage, and people like him.
You can see that this is not a traditional class struggle, by the fact that Farage and Tice, and many others of their type, are wealthy productive independent people. And, so are a vast majority of their supporters. My experience tells me, that most Reform supporters and candidates are successful business owner-types.
And, on the other side, their opponents, men such as Tony Blair, and Keir Starmer, are also wealthy men, who believe in money and free enterprise, and so on. It's not a class struggle.
What this is, is a difference of Belief. On the one side, those who believe in the EU and global citizenship along Kantian lines. On the other side, people who broadly believe in the story of mankind laid down in Genesis, where man must work, have his own plot of land, have his own children, and die, in a particular nation.
You could say, that Reform believes in sin and work; while the globalists believes that mankind has taken God's place, that 'mankind' is limitless and aspires with a kind of faith to assume divine attributes. The opponents of Farage, are the kind of people, who consider war a thing of the past, and who are ready to discuss how the sexual difference between men and women is also perhaps not set in stone. They are global internationalist humanitarians, with a firm ethical commitment, where the ethos is derived from global citizenship (and open borders).
This is a fundamental difference of opinion, which will not come to a compromise position of development by one side giving way. But, I do think, that the Reform type of man, has been giving way, absent mindedly. The war has been waged on him and his ideals, without his noticing. Which is why, I think Farage's angry formal resignation, is more like an act of guerilla war, a drastic sudden awakening, than a bit of conventional political manoeuvring.
I would also point out, that it is a contradiction and a paradox, if one were to say, that the internationalists are running a national parliament. You can hardly believe that such a thing could take place. Let us say, that MP X, is elected by Town X. And he goes to the British parliament, in order to represent the International Order. You would scratch your head about this, since the MP X, is meant to represent town X. So, why is he actually representing global humanity?
Such things are obviously possible, as Farage himself proved, in a different context. For, he was elected to be an MEP a few years back, and went to the European parliament, with the specific intention of destroying the EU and the EU Parliament. That's going on in Britain, by the majority of people in the House of Commons and Lords. From my point of view, that's a crime; but from their point of view, it is based on their Belief system.
I suppose that there is only one way that the word ‘war’ could be given to this situation, as follows: if any man believes the Britain has an independent future, belonging to the British people, then it will be necessary to fight for it, by making changes which only violent force can bring about. The challenge is too great for merely political action, since the chances of such political action finding success, are too remote. The British people and the country is being destroyed. And only violent action can save it.
--
It is possible to see, what would happen to Britain, if it were to try to reverse its destruction, and to make those changes which oppose the state of things; I mean, if Britain were to leave the EU, leave NATO, properly police the financial complex and buy back all of its overseas currency. It would assume the position of Russia, or Iran, and it would eventually be attacked by the other nations, in my view.
The financial interests, and the EU globalising instinct of the various nations, have shown themselves, to collude in the attack on Russia, because Russia is not part of the debt-matrix world, and does not open itself to exploitation of its resources. Russia is not suffering the same four or five anti-national things that Britain suffers, and so it is said to be an enemy. And it is my guess, that if Britain were to throw off the EU, NATO membership, financialization, and the ideology of the universal citizen, then to other nations, it would come to resemble Russia, and would suffer Russia’s fate. We see who hybrid war on Britain, turns into a hot war, when, when the ruling caste fails to fall in line with the global project.
Which cartel rules Britain today, and therefore, is the face of the enemy? This not exactly Parliament. It is not precisely the EU, although the EU is a barely concealed enemy of the independent United Kingdom.
Banking and bankers do not form a ruling class. Money is not a person or a people. Typically, when a man sets out to sort out how something bad happened in politics, they say ‘Follow the Money’, by which they mean, see who was dealing with money, and where it was sent, and you will find the guilty men.
But in this case, I think that since there are no particular guilty men, but rather a system of belief, we will find money there just because money follows important people. If we follow the money, so to speak, we shall find that the money is following. And by this, I mean to say, that those who deal with money as an occupation, such as bankers and the City, are likely to be indifferent to the ethical situation.
Respecting the ethics of internationalists, versus the ethics of nationalists, there will be a difference of opinion, about what is ethical. Ethics are those rules, which one must follow, in a particular place, they are the rules of dwelling in a land, a particular historical place. British people have their own ethical rules. And internationalists, have different ethical rules. By definition, since they dwell in different historically determined lands.
So, I don’t blame the banks or bankers, or even the City. I would expect the City to assist either side of this war, since money follows success.
There is no sense in making a scape-goat of the Muslims, either, even though they are inimical. They are not the mastermind, but only visitors to the country. And the socialists and Marxists are few in number, and have no direct power. And, if any individual man, like say, a Wellington, were to hold back the forces of globalisation, then his country would likely become an enemy to the nations which surround it.
Now we ask, isn’t attack the best form of defence? It is almost as if, in order to give a face to the enemy, and resolve all the other problems, one would have to start a war, and see what comes out. Just as a surgeon might have to do investigative work on a body, by cutting into it, and doing moderate amounts of harm, before finding the root of an illness in the body, so in order to fix Britain as a nation, some organised violence would be necessary. My suggestion would be the invasion of France. That would revive England’s historical destiny, and destroy all of these historical illnesses. It would collapse NATO, the EU, the international City, and the unemployment culture, and give a reason to throw out the disloyal, in one movement. For, whatever elements reside in Britain which are not loyal to it, would become apparent immediately.
As a means of reviving the nation’s character it would work; and perhaps, this is the solution that I personally have in mind somewhere in my mind. And I ask: would it be worth reviving England, at this cost? To return England to its ancestral independence and character, you have to do the same things as ancestrally occurred. Coincidental to my composing this article, an article has today appeared in the Spectator magazine, predicting that, as the United States withdraws its protective umbrella away from Europe, the most immediate and eternal danger shows itself again, on the continent: European nations will soon begin fighting one another. And in the same movement, it would be possible to have the chance, of also reviving Europe as a whole. As Machiavelli said of Italy, it must be united into a single country, and can only be united successfully, with a legitimate authority, by war and the superiority of one particular state.
Do I therefore say, that France is the enemy, with whom we are already at war? It is true, that the French do send around 1,000 young aggressive and uncontainable men to our country every day, most days. And to that extent, they are an enemy. But France is not intrincially or alone the cause of Britain’s loss of identity and ownership of itself. France, after all, suffers the same problems as Britain. Nevertheless, what if the salvation of both nations, as the joining of the one to the other, after a fight in which one of the nations, submitted to rule by the other?
And in the meantime, we must admit, that the internationalists are the ‘cartel’ which rules Britain. They destroy it, because it has obligations to the rest of the world in various ways, and they facilitate the payment of those obligations. They have no real choice. They are the ‘internationalist’ class; university, finance, government, bureaucrat types. I believe that this class of people, would not support a war with France; and they would justify their position, by revealing, that they are neither British, nor French, but a species of disloyal internationalists, who prefer to war on Britain, as they have historically been doing for a few decades.
It would also make it necessary to put aside our current style or class of political leaders. Our political leaders are not marked out by belonging to a class, or an interest. They can only in some cases be said to even be British at all. They are just people, these days. People who are already famous as politicians. People who have the knack of being a politician. They do not represent the rich, or the poor, or the aristocratic class, or the merchants. They are offered jobs because they have a desire to have those jobs, and have got to the front of the queue. Running our country is to them, an occupation, with wages, perks, and a certain celebrity. It is similar to the way in which Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Tory Party: she had served her time, had got into the right job, so that when there was a vacancy for party leader, she was one of the three or four possible candidates. It’s indicative of the irrelevance of the political role in general, that not everyone can do it: only those who are already in the game.
It is true, that Mrs Thatcher carried out two or three tasks, which other men could not have achieved, namely the Falklands war, the destruction of the Unions, and the opening of the City. But her route to power is marked by merely personal ambitions, and being in the right place at the right time. There was no sense of destiny, and no command that her class should serve Britain as its duty.
It is also similar to the way in which Enoch Powell became an MP and almost the Prime Minister. He wanted to be in charge, and he presented himself as such; but he at least had a concrete and difficult aim, to begin with, namely, to rule the India as Viceroy, and later, to maintain the House of Commons as a place where the nation was governed, according to the tradition. Nevertheless, it was personal effort which got him there, and not any objective standard which selected him. In his position, another man might have worked to destroy Britain, as many politicians today see their role.
One could say, with absolute right, that the political class have this universal aim for Britain: to maintain its benefits for the people who live there. Its independence is not an aim, nor, you could say, is its existence, except as an accidental requirement. It might be said, that British politicians as we now have them, cannot be trying to destroy Britain and its parlaiemtn. But this is quite possible, and is actually happening. An example of how a politicians can be elected to rule, and then attempt to destroy what he is ruling, is see in the example of Nigel Farage. He was elected to the European parliament, where he worked every day, to destroy the parliament and the EU. I blieve the same is going on in Britain, where a majority of government members, spend every day trying to destroy Britain, and make its parliament redundant and empty of purpose.
--
To conclude, I think war in Europe, in order to establish dominance over the continent is inevitable. On Britain’s own terms, fought in the right way, it is also highly desirable. It will bring about a return of our national history and character, and it will also bring about a revival of the character of the rest of the confinement in this new age. Whether Britain first needs a patriotic government, or whether it first needs to attack France, doesn’t matter, if the question is, which shall we try to do first. The one will bring about the other. It will root out the enemy, and make them flee our country. It will invent a patriotic government, and give purpose to our people, as of old. And, Europe needs to be united.
The sooner this is done, the better, since as time passes, the other European nations will have the same idea, and the battle for supremacy over the continent will be longer and harder, the more time is spent inactive now. As things stand, one nation is likely to dominate the others, in most cases without a shot being fired, since most of Europe is still under the illusion that the United States is in charge of foreign affairs; and, most of Europe does not want any trouble, or destruction of its national assets.
Pitt fought Revolutionary France for the obvious reason, that its revolutionary Jacobin ideology threatened the British way of life, and his class feared the importation of revolution. They feared communism. Communisim has now arrived across all of Europe, and our ancestors would have said, that war alone will solve this problem. The revolution had to be stopped, so that it did not spread. But the immediate problem was that France had occupied the Netherlands, and threatened Britain’s trade with the continent and its sea-lanes.
And, to return to Wellington, we could ask: Does France or Europe in general, threaten the livelihood of a particular class of our nation? Does France constitute an enemy of any kind? Does it affect our trade? Or, is France forever a non-hostile state, as far as we are concerned? In fact, is there any real difference between France and England anymore, and has the EU done its principle task? Obviously, the French do send to Britain around 60,000 hostile men every year; but this is not considered an act of war. I think that sooner or later, and sooner is better, Britain should prepare for war with France.
I don’t see any way of restraining the ambitions of the British internationalists, and preventing and overturning the mass and destructive replacement of the British people, other than by resorting to war. War with France, is preferable to war of British people against themselves.
The aim of the war against France, would be to bring about, in both France and England, rule by a cartel of people, who have its interests at heart, and not the interest of humanity in general, and open borders, and limitless free trade. A war with France, would likely bring out those elements in France, which support the nation, and would make the internationalists irate and bring them to the surface, in both countries.
The first thing to do, having successfully defeated the French Army, would be to repatriate several hundred thousand economic illegal migrants, back to France. After that, the French authorities would be forced, to repatriate them either to Spain, Germany, or Africa.
In order for the Armed forces of Great Britain to win that war, with France, then a class of efficient, patriotic men, would be needed; and, that class of men and women who prefer international global humanity, and do not recognise any nation as sovereign, would declare themselves, and be removed from any position where they can any further harm our country.
But the details of how the war would unfold, and who would be employed in it, and what the aftermath would be, are for another time. END
-----