What Way Now For The Labour Party?

Recent News in Respect of the Attack on Corbyn-Labour

The Jewish Lobby (Zionist Lobby, Israel Lobby) attacks on Corbyn and Labour become almost hysterical now that “they” see that they are probably not going to get their own way. The Zionist-drafted anti-free-speech “IHRA definition of anti-Semitism” is at least unlikely to be adopted in full by Labour. More significantly, the almost insane howling of the Jews about Corbyn and Labour is awakening huge numbers of people to the alien bloc in their midst. In many ways this is the best that social nationalists could have hoped for.

Some supposedly-influential Jews on social media are calling for “silencing” (by laws or elsehow) of “holocaust” “deniers” (people who favour free examination of historical  facts and narratives); others say that only those British people who sign up to what the Zionists say about anything and everything should be allowed to stand in elections for public office. This is a direct attack by a Jewish Zionist bloc upon the freedoms that remain to the British people. In fact, it is a declaration of war against the British people.

The sheer gall is what hits one. The British people are being put in a position where their rights, freedoms, race, culture and country are being taken away by those of an alien and repressive mindset.

A New Party?

Some Zionist Jews are now calling openly for the maybe 200 anti-Corbyn and/or pro-Zionist Labour MPs to break away and to form a new “centrist” (read pro-Israel/Jewish Lobby) party. The problems with that for them would be that:

  • At the next general election, which may yet be as early as this year, the breakaway MPs would not be able to stand for election as “Labour Party”, and that is still (arguably, surprisingly) a valuable electoral asset in much of the country;
  • Of the 200 anti-Corbyn MPs, only a tiny handful (probably 10-20) would be able to get re-elected without being covered by the Labour label. Many will have seen what happened to Simon Danczuk once Labour ditched him– he is now scratching a living here and there and living off his MP pension and gratuity (in his case fairly modest, he having only been an MP for 7 years). I doubt that many Labour MP freeloaders and expenses-blodgers will want to follow Danczuk into the black hole of obscurity and the Jobcentre…
  • To gamble that the voters of the UK will vote for a “centrist”, pro-Israel or latter-day “Blairite” party, even if it could stand 200 candidates (the money presumably coming from the you-know-whos…) is a long-shot. For one thing, official (Corbyn-)Labour will be standing its candidates and in many cases will defeat the new party. Also, there is the point that to split the vote between Labour and a new party might be to let in a third, usually the Conservative candidate.
  • When push comes to shove, I doubt that many Labour MPs will jump. Those calling for it, like John Woodcock, are already finished as Labour MPs and probably as MPs at all.

Likely Outcome

The likely outcome of events is that Corbyn-Labour will triumph over the Zionistic element. The upcoming general election will quite likely leave Labour as largest party in a hung Parliament but with no majority, and so weak. Fruitful field for social nationalism.

The Latest Turn of the Screw

Today, a collection of System MPs in a Select Committee of the House of Commons decided that the Internet in the UK is too free, despite the increasing censorship seen (I myself having fairly recently been expelled from Twitter). They want new laws to force the platforms such as Twitter, Facebook etc to somehow prevent “fake news” and the “wrong” kind of opinions being seen or heard. They are animated by the election of Donald Trump and by the Leave vote in the EU Referendum which occurred in the UK. Oh, and they want to stop “interference by foreign countries” in UK politics…

I can see why one Californian film mogul referred to a similar delegation of British MPs that he met (about 20 or so years ago) as “yawningly dull Little Englanders”. These MPs seem to think that they can pass laws in their little Parliament of fools which will control the Internet. In reality, the USA will not pass such laws, most of them anyway, because of a thing called the US Constitution. The EU might, in its little Parliaments or in its completely undemocratic Brussels version, or by Commission decree, pass such laws, but I doubt it.

As for “foreign interference”, they mean Russia, mainly, but not a word is said about the pervading and continuing Israeli interference in UK politics. Only one documentary (on Channel 4, about 8 years ago) examined the Jewish Israel lobby in the UK. Al Jazeera TV did another recently, only for paid Israel drones in Westminster to laugh it off.

We do not have a “fake news problem” (unless is meant by that the msm). We have another problem, which might be called a “Zionists in the woodwork” problem.

The System MPs would love the Internet to be (even more) muzzled. They love it when honest people cannot put forward social-national views. They are mostly now enemies of the British people.

Notes

What Do People Need?

On rereading Andrei Amalrik’s Involuntary Journey To Siberia of 1970, all sorts of impressions were received, most not at all new: the lack of freedom in the Soviet Union, the Kafka-esque Soviet legal system, the primitive life lived by Russian kolkozhniki (collective farm inhabitants) in Siberia etc.

However, at the end of the book, the author’s sentence for being a “social parasite” (5 years internal exile –2.5 years of which to be hard labour on a collective farm or elsewhere–) is quashed on appeal, Amalrik returns to Moscow with the wife whom he in fact married in Moscow and during his exile (because he was allowed compassionate leave from the collective farm or kolkhoz to visit his unwell father). He applies to the housing people in his district and, after some difficulty when he has to share with others, is given a flat with a decent bathroom and telephone.

Now, we are often told and quite rightly that Soviet people generally lived poorly, had to share, in many cases, their accommodation by living in communal flats or kommunalki (usually large flats expropriated from affluent persons during and after the Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent Civil War, though in fact some such shared apartments pre-dated Bolshevism), sharing kitchens and bathrooms etc and given, at best,one room per person (it was usually worked out, in theory, at so many square metres per person or family).

All of the above is true, but when one looks at the situation in 2018 Britain, many are not much better off, and some are worse off. Would a prisoner released from incarceration in the UK be given a flat, even a small one? The most he could expect would be B&B accommodation of a markedly poor sort, and to be put on a local authority waiting list, probably behind a horde of “refugees”, “asylum-seekers” and other riff-raff.

In fact, look at how many British people with full-time jobs live! Many in shared houses and flats, or in bedsit rooms. No better off than Soviet citizens! How many “hardworking” (the label of the past few years) people are living in not very nice shared accommodation in the UK, living off pot noodles and the like?

To go off at a tangent, this “hardworking” thing has become a joke: for example, school students all deserve (increasingly meaningless) “A” “grades” in exams because “they have all worked so hard”. Doesn’t matter if they are thick as two short planks and know only force-fed “facts” (often incorrect, as in the case of “holocaust” “history” etc). They are “hardworking” and so are the “deserving” academic poor. They therefore “deserve” to attend a “uni” where they will also “work hard” to “achieve” an almost meaningless “degree” (an equally-meaningless “First”, in half the cases) before –for many–getting a minimum wage (or not much better) job…

The above thoughts should impel us to think about what people need in a basic way, about what should, arguably, be the State-provided or guaranteed minimum.

Ideally, everyone should live in a decent house or flat, free of worries, with pleasant neighbours if any, while doing work which benefits society. That of course is a counsel of perfection, but that fact should not stop us from aiming at a higher and better form of living for all citizens.

For me, everyone should at least have a home, preferably one where there is reasonable space, reasonable peace, reasonable access to green gardens or wider Nature. Living space should be regarded as a human right, not as a way for buy to let parasites to make profits from the need of others. Everyone should have access to telephone and Internet. Everyone should have access to cheap or free public transport, at least in the local area and arguably within a 20-mile radius of home. Everyone should have (up to a determined cap) free water, electricity, heating. Beyond that, everyone should also have a “basic income”, even if only (in today’s money) £20 a week.

We can move to a society where the basics are provided. When people have the basics, they can work to get more, or to improve aspects of society in other ways.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Amalrik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Involuntary-Journey-Siberia-Andrei-Amalrik/dp/0156453932#customerReviews

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=Andrei+Amalrik&search-alias=books-uk&field-author=Andrei+Amalrik&sort=relevancerank

 

 

Leadership, Dictatorship and The Need For Effective Government

Dix5gSdWkAAinaz

A woman journalist or opinion-writer of whom I had not previously heard, one Clare Foges, has suggested in an article in The Times that the leaders of the UK and Western Europe might learn from political “strongmen” (she cites an eclectic mixture: Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Duterte).

About the Writer

Having not previously heard of the writer, I did a quick Internet search. The surname suggests a Jewish origin, and someone of the same name posted this online in 2000:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/boards/localities.ceeurope.austria.Prov.vienna/167.588/mb.ashx.

It seems that Clare Foges wrote speeches for David Cameron-Levita and others prior to the 2010 election and immediately after it. She has also written at least one book for small children.

Having now read a little about her, I should say that she seems to have some intelligence, though perhaps not enough, or not enough knowledge, for the matters she discusses in print. Her understanding of society and politics seems shallow. She gave an interview to the Evening Standard in 2015. In it, she proposes, inter alia, better pay (!) for MPs, who “give up well-paid careers” etc. Ha ha! She really should take a look at the collection of misfits, also-rans and chancers who comprise many (not all, admittedly) of the more recent MPs!

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/clare-foges-the-woman-who-put-words-in-david-camerons-mouth-10437029.html.

Indeed, in 2017 she herself wanted to become an MP, for the fairly safe Conservative seat of the Isle of Wight, but withdrew after having been shortlisted:

https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2017/05/exclusive-foges-joins-fox-in-withdrawing-from-isle-of-wight-selection.html.

In fact, the then-incumbent MP had hardly “given up a well-paid career”, having been a geography teacher in comprehensive schools for most of his life:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Turner_(politician)#Early_life_and_career

and that MP (also an expenses freeloader…) then “stepped down” after having “become a laughing stock” by reason of his quasi-matrimonial situation:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11334299/MP-battling-to-save-seat-in-toxic-Tory-rebellion-after-fiancee-moves-in-with-his-aide.html.

In short, my provisional view is that the writer of the article is, at 37 or 38, someone who for whatever reason has fallen between the cracks, who might have become something in the political realm, even perhaps an MP (and after all, her background as pr/”comms” “intern”, sometime children’s book writer, “Conservative” speechwriter, amateur poetess and (?) professional scribbler on politico-social issues is no worse than that of many “Conservative” or “Labour” MPs, and better than some) but has not.

The Issues Raised

What are we to make of this article suggesting that the UK needs leadership informed by “strongmen”? Duterte is the Philippines leader who has presided over a campaign of extra-judicial killing of drug gangsters etc. Erdogan is the political-Muslim Turkish dictator (by any other name) who is dismantling the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. Putin and Trump are too well-known to need any introduction even to those who take little interest in politics.

The main issue, surely, is that government must govern. It must be effective. Ideally, there will be checks and balances: law, due process, civil rights, property rights (within reason); however, in the end, a useless government has no right to exist.

Political leaders (including dictators) emerge for reasons. In broad brush terms, Putin emerged because Russia under Yeltsin had become a chaotic mess. Pensioners and other poor people were starving or dying from cold or lack of food, by the million. Public sector workers were being paid almost nothing. Jew carpetbaggers had flocked to Russia like a cloud of locusts (or vultures) and were stealing and cheating everything, pretty much. “Russian” Jew “oligarchs” ruled from “behind the throne” and had tricked their way into “ownership” of vast oilfields, diamond and gold mines, heavy industries. Putin began to claw back some of that. Pensioners who had been getting (USD) $5 a month under Yeltsin, now (2018) get $400. People are at least paid for work. Chechen and other gangsters have been stamped on and many killed or imprisoned. Russia has flourished compared to the 1990s.

Erdogan is someone for whom I myself have little sympathy, not least because I value the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. However, Erdogan has improved the lot of the poor, we read, while the economy has improved under his rule.

Trump likewise seems an egregious person generally, and even more egregious as a leader of a government and as a head of state. However, his rise (fuelled by his own huge fortune, of course) was not based on nothing. Many people in the USA are living in poverty. I read that 40% of Americans now require US governmental foodstamps! Many jobs (as, increasingly, in the UK and elsewhere) are “McJobs”, precarious and badly-paid. The drug epidemic is out of control. Illegal immigration had run wild since the 1980s. Whether Trump can deal with these problems and others,  with the “separation of powers” American system, is doubtful, but the dispossessed and marginalized, among others, voted for him to try.

The Missing Leaders

Clare Foges cited Trump, Putin etc, but not the controversial leaders of the 20th Century: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao etc. They all took harsh measures but also did a huge amount that was positive. Hitler in particular saved Germany from degradation, removed Jew exploiters from the economy, the professions, the mass media; built autobahns (the first in the world); created air and airship travel routes; vastly improved animal welfare; planned new and better cities and national parks; put Germany to work and (for the first time) gave workers rights such as decent breaks at work, Baltic and other holidays in Germany, and also foreign holidays including cruises. Decent homes were built on a huge scale.

3396AD3500000578-3561575-Hitler_had_lived_in_Munich_just_before_World_War_I_and_remained_-a-1_1461778976380.jpg

an-automobile-on-the-sweeping-curves-everett

Chancellery2DietrichEckartBuhneVW3

Britain could do worse than follow Hitler’s lead, introducing some updated and English/British form of social nationalism.

Stalin was far harsher as a leader and as an individual than Hitler or Mussolini, though Mao might be considered far worse (but of course he was non-European). Stalin however (like Hitler) was put back domestically by war. Stalin did recreate the industrial sector, which was booming before the First World War but which Bolshevism all but wiped out as a thriving economic sector. Stalin’s major mistake (apart from his cruelties and brutalities etc) was to allow the agricultural sector to be ruined via Collectivization, the legacy of which is only now being very slowly erased.

Mussolini did a huge amount for Italy. His posturing on balconies etc is what people now think of when his name is mentioned, but he eliminated the Mafia (until the Americans caused its revival after 1943, releasing the imprisoned leaders and followers), started to get rid of the terrible urban slums (unfortunately more were created as a result of the Anglo-American invasion of 1943); Mussolini also created an advanced scientific and industrial sector, mainly in the North. Famously, he also greatly improved the railways, and “made the trains run on time” (both truth and metaphor). Now, the wartime propaganda of the Western Allies and Stalin is all that most people outside Italy know– Mussolini as clown. Ironic that a real clown (the leader of the Five Star Movement) is now a major political figure in Italy!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beppe_Grillo.

Britain 2018

The UK has been pretty much left to rot since 2010. The Blair government, though repressive and in the pocket of the Jewish-Zionist lobby, tried to modernize infrastructure generally. New buildings were constructed: hospitals, libraries, schools. Credit where due.

The David Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger government of idiots was not only the most pro-Jewish/Zionist government Britain has ever had, (until Theresa May became Prime Minister), but also the least-effective of modern times (again, until that of Theresa May?). It not only failed to do anything new and decent, but also failed to maintain that which already existed, in every sector, from libraries and schools to the air force and navy.

The lesson surely is that government must be effective. If it is not, the State stands in peril. The people eventually demand action. They are beginning to demand it now.

The article by Clare Foges is, it seems to me, a sign of the times, or a straw in the wind. The political times in Britain are a changin’…

Notes

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/3tMvnMp3DFW3z99Zvc7WC3T/clare-foges

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/clare-foges-the-woman-who-put-words-in-david-camerons-mouth-10437029.html

A critical article from the New Statesman:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/07/sorry-clare-foges-dictatorship-isn-t-just-character-flaw-it-s-crime

Another critique of her views:

https://www.property118.com/clare-foges-anti-landlord-the-times/comment-page-4/

She was desperate to become an MP but no-one wanted her:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11436355/Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind-resigns-Kensingtons-next-MP-might-be-this-woman.html

Another Clare Foges article. She seems to be very much of her time, meaning 2010-2015, as in this Cameroonesque piece of sort-of social Darwinism. I think that Clare Foges can be written off as a serious commentator.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/put-feckless-patients-at-the-back-of-nhs-queue-5hnlqqstg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267901/Clare-Foges-The-raven-haired-poet-ice-cream-seller-wrote-PMs-big-speech.html

Further thoughts, 6 December 2018

According to the Daily Mail, Clare Foges is “a devout Christian”. She may still be of part-Jewish ancestry (see above). My other query about the “devout Christian” bit is how does a “devout Christian” want to put IVF couples ahead of people needing NHS treatment for serious conditions just because they drink, smoke etc? Is that “Christian”? Even evil Iain Dunce Duncan Smith is said to be “devoutly Christian”…Yeah, right!

In the end, I suppose that it scarcely matters whether Clare Foges is this or that…and I just noticed that her Daily Mail bio was written by the egregious Andrew Pierce, so we can probably discount it…

Incredibly, she is appointed OBE!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-blocks-david-cameron-speechwriter-claire-foges-from-joining-party-to-oust-jeremy-corbyn_uk_58d90195e4b03787d35a3d08?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_cs=Y57ohgKaElO9EWmxBHKC1w

Looking at her photos and her behaviour, I think that she is probably at least partly-Jewish.

Her Twitter comments (read the thread):

She has not tweeted since April 2018.

She writes in The Times, but also as freelance pr person…

http://www.finelinelondon.com/

She has certainly written columns in The Times [of London] several times, but is not on that newspaper’s list of its 29 “key” columnists. I have just taken a look on the Internet, and not seen anything online written by her as Times columnist in the past months (since August 2018), though her Linked-In profile avers that she is still a Times columnist. I did see a piece from November 2018 published in The Sun “newspaper”.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/clare-foges-906a4676

Update, 9 November 2020

I have just seen that Clare Foges has been writing a column for The Times about once per week in recent months. I had not noticed, never now reading that newspaper (does anyone?I suppose some still do).

How Can There Be International Large-Scale Politico-Social Change by 2022?

I have been re-reading Involuntary Journey to Siberia, by Andrei Amalrik [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Amalrik], a Soviet dissident better known for his short book Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? (both works were published illegally outside the Soviet Union in 1970, a fact which resulted in a 5-year sentence of hard labour and then internal exile in Kolyma).

Leaving aside the fact that the slowly increasing repression of free speech and free political activity in the UK of 2018 is mirroring (albeit in slightly milder form) that of the Soviet Union of 1970, it occurred to me –not for the first time– how hard it is to predict, accurately, sudden or large-scale socio-political and socio-economic change.

When I read Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?, which was in or about 1980 (the year Amalrik himself died, a result of his own careless driving in Spain), I thought that the thesis was possible but would take far longer, probably 20 years longer. I thought that there would be a gradual collapse. I was wrong; so was Amalrik, but only by 5 years –in reality– or by 7 years (formally). Sovietism and all other forms of old-style socialism across the world died in 1989 in real terms, though in official terms the Soviet Union coughed to a halt only in 1991. This was perhaps appropriate: the Soviet Union was established formally only in 1922, though everyone thinks of it in terms of its having been established de facto in 1917.

It should now be added that all the “experts”, “Sovietologists”, “Kremlinologists”, Foreign Office bods, SIS bods, journalistic scribblers etc (all the ones I ever heard of, anyway) laughed at Amalrik and his book. The “East-West” Cold War set-up seemed set in stone. The Soviet Union was a granite monolith. They had been brought up in it or on it, most of them, most having been born in the 1930s and 1940s: nothing would happen suddenly. They were wrong. A combination of factors brought about not only the swift collapse of Soviet power, as well as the Soviet “empire” worldwide and particularly in Europe, but also that of all forms of ordinary old-style socialism, from the CPSU through to the pre-Kinnock/Blair UK Labour Party.

Lenin thought that the revolution in Russia was upon him in 1905; he discounted the real upheaval in 1917 and very nearly missed the boat. Hitler also thought that his time had come in 1923; when it did arrive, in 1932-33, he was uncertain at times about it.

I happen to believe now that we are in a current of (about, approximately) 33-year history. 1923, 1956, 1989, 2022. If I am right, the year 2022 will bring about another huge change in economics, politics, society, the world order generally. Think of how, say, China has changed since 1989. Russia too. Even the UK has changed hugely since 1989. The finance-capitalist “reforms” under Mrs. Thatcher had not started to affect most people outside the formerly industrialized North of England, South Wales etc. The mercantilism and commercialization that has happened since 1989 has changed the UK profoundly, in most respects in a not-good way, though there have been positive changes as well.

In brief, and without pretending to be comprehensive, one can say that, in the UK since 1989, the professions have largely become businesses, that the State has, at least in part, abandoned many who need help, that the UK (especially England) has largely become a non-white society, that the Jew-Zionist influence over mass media, politics and other areas of life has become pervasive and destructive, that there has been a general coarsening of thought, of cultural life, of behaviour.

UK politics has, since 1989, gone through the changes outlined above with the following results

  • Labour has had a quarter of a century of what amounts to control by New World Order/Zionist Occupation Government NWO/ZOG types: Kinnock, Blair, Brown, before collapsing under Ed Miliband; its MPs are still mostly of that type and Jeremy Corbyn is finding it hard to completely defeat the Jew-Zionist/Israel-First lobby within his own party. The Old Labour members and MPs still exist, but only just. Few now have ever done industrial work; many have never done non-political work at all, unless one includes management consultancy, public relations, “comms”, “organizing” what remains of trade unions, pseudo-academia etc.
  • The Conservative Party is now almost devoid of real members. The average age of members is somewhere around 70 if not 75. The membership figures are now kept secret, but it seems that a party which once had 4 MILLION members (in the 1950s) now has about 20,000. A Potemkin village with no-one living there. A mirage.
  • Other parties are even worse off. The LibDems have surely had their day except as a tactical vote for discontented voters trapped in “safe seats” occupied by parties they do not like. The graphics explain it.C3l1gk9XAAMHAwF

C64bh5XW0AIWYgy.jpg

  • UKIP was the populist answer to the gulf between governed and governing. However, the totally unjust voting system defeated it (in any case, UKIP had few answers to Britain’s real problems, was pro-ZOG/NWO, and by the time it deflated after 2014, even had non-white candidates! Some called it “kosher nationalism”). UKIP’s 2015 result said it all: 3.8 MILLION votes, 1 MP (former Conservative Douglas Carswell, an entryist, in my view).
  • Real British nationalism of a more social national type has hit rock bottom. The BNP failed in 2010 and collapsed in 2015. There are now only a handful of parties of general “nationalist” type, all of which are jokes, only one of which (Britain First) has more than 500 members.
  • The people are divided into a minority of wealthy and/or affluent who have doubled or tripled their capital over even the past decade, and the rest, many of whom are paying through the nose for poor rented places in which to live, who make rubbish money from jobs which (like their rented homes) are without security; their votes mean almost nothing, their views mean less, and they are just disposable labour units in an unfair society.

It Could Happen

An opinion poll has just been published saying that 24% of UK voters would vote for an “extremist” “far right”, “anti-Islam” and anti-mass immigration party. 38% want a real Brexit and would vote for any new party promising it (credibly, presumably). Leaving the tendentious wording aside, there we have it! The prize is right in front of us!

It could happen that

  • Brexit either happens on WTO terms, or fails to happen, causing massive discontent;
  • Russia and NATO get into actual conflict in Eastern Europe;
  • Corbyn becomes Prime Minister but with no majority; or
  • Some Conservative Party idiot-MP becomes a weak PM; and
  • The people are pushed beyond endurance on real pay, rents etc.
  • Mass immigration is not stopped or even increases.
  • Zionist exploiters are exposed even more than they have been.

In those circumstances, a credible and very radical social national party can take power and start to clear away the rubbish. 2022 and thereafter. Then we can see across Europe removal of the migration-invaders, removal of finance-capitalist parasites, a better society in Europe (inc. UK) with decent work, pay, Basic Income, animal welfare etc.

The prize is before us! 

The 20th of July

I cannot let the 20th of July pass by without a few words. On 20 July 1944, discontented officers tried to kill Adolf Hitler. Transposed (arguably pointlessly) to a British context, that would be equivalent to discontented British officers trying to kill Winston Churchill and the King (Hitler being both head of government and head of state). In fact, it is at least arguable that both the UK and mainland Europe would have been better had that happened (in 1940, when Germany offered honourable armistice between the Reich and the British Empire but was refused by Churchill and his circle). There would then have been no devastation throughout Europe, certainly in Western Europe, no carpet bombing of German and other cities (eg some French ones, largely destroyed by Allied bombing and shelling: Brest, Le Havre etc).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10877137/D-Day-French-torn-over-criminal-British-and-American-D-Day-bombings-of-Caen.html

Above all, Stalinism might well have been destroyed or at least contained. Sovietism would not have been allowed to invade the East and Centre of Europe.

Do not imagine that there were no British senior officers who despised and hated Churchill. Lord Alanbrooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff and (from 1944) Field Marshal makes his distaste for Churchill’s charlatanry clear in his diary.  However, officers such as he were imbued with automatic-reflex loyalty to, not the head of government, but the King as head of state. They probably never thought of mutiny, still less assassination.

On the German side, most of the senior officers plotting against Hitler were content to do his bidding while the German forces were in the ascendant; when Germany started to fail, though, they thought in terms of surrendering on the Western Front, at the same time as holding on on the Eastern Front, thus saving Germany and much of the rest of Europe from what actually later happened, the savagery and barbarism of the Red Army engaged in wholesale murder, rape and looting, followed by the icy grip of Soviet socialism.

Those “disloyal” senior officers of the Wehrmacht (and some others, such as Canaris) were not motivated solely or even mainly by self-interest or their class-interest as aristocrats (not all were aristocrats; among the middle-class ones were Rommel and Canaris), but by a concern for what they conceived to be the ultimate focus of their loyalties– the future of the German state and German people, as well as, beyond that, European culture and civilization generally, threatened by Sovietism which, at that time, was Stalinism.

History is not black and white. National Socialism was a very fine movement overall, but not without flaw. The General Staff and other plotters likewise cannot simply be written off as “traitors” even though, from one point of view, they were. Their point of view, i.e. that Germany was losing the war on at least two fronts, was accurate to that extent. Where they went wrong was in assuming that the USA and UK (and their dependent entities, as well as hangers-on such as de Gaulle) would in fact conclude a separate peace, separate from the Soviet Union. That was pie-in-the-sky thinking. The Allies had already proclaimed, at Casablanca, that only “unconditional surrender” would be acceptable,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_Conference

so the plotters would have had to throw themselves entirely on the mercies of the Western Allies and Stalin, were they to have eliminated Hitler. Even so, it is arguable that that might have been a better result for Germany and the rest of Europe than what actually transpired in 1945. However, that is to look with the benefit of what is now known. At the time, things must have looked very different, especially in Germany itself.

Hitler might have won out, even at the last moment, in terms of the conventional battlefield. The new jet fighters might have turned the tide, had they existed in sufficient numbers; new tanks were outclassing Soviet and Western models; above all, the East-West tension that blew up as soon as Germany was defeated in 1945 might have, in that final year, spelled the end of the alliance between the West and the Soviet Union and given Germany what is now called wriggle-room.

Having said all that, Germany would have been devastated to an even greater extent had it continued to fight after, at latest, the Summer of 1945. The Jewish scientists who created the atom bomb did so on the basis that it would be used against Germany, not, primarily, Japan. Had Germany started to defeat the Western Allies and Soviet forces on the ground and in the air in mid-1945, Berlin and other cities would have been attacked by atom bombs and destroyed; admittedly, in the case of Berlin, Hamburg etc, let alone Dresden, the difference might have been only academic:

Dresden1945

[Dresden after the UK/US bombing, 1945]

The key point is that Germany was not making atomic weapons and had no means with which to do so. It had been checkmated.

So there we have it. I cannot approve (and my approval is irrelevant either way) the actions of the backstabbers of 20 July 1944: Meine Ehre heisst Treue, but the plotters of that time were not all-“good” or all-“bad” in motive or action. As Wolfram von Eschenbach says in the introductory part of Parzival, “blame and praise alike befall when a dauntless man’s spirit is black and white mixed, like the magpie’s plumage”…

History has its own judgment. As Schiller observed, die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht [“the history of the world is the judgment of the world”].

We honour the past but advance to the future.

Adolf-Hitler-1889-1945-German-statesman

 

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged…

This blog post has been triggered by my happening to have seen a couple of minor news items while idly browsing the Internet. The first reported that my old head of chambers –shall we call him M.B.?– from when I practised as a barrister in Exeter (2002-2007), has been elevated to the Bench as a Circuit Judge and is now styled His Honour Judge M.B.

The other news item was that the old (dating from 1905) Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court and police station have been turned into “a luxury boutique hotel”. Sign of the times.

These reports have led me to muse on some of my own experiences with the judicial classes.

M.B. will probably make an effective judge. An erudite civil lawyer, I met him when I decided to stop being an employed lawyer (a situation I was in, intermittently, from 1996 through to 2002) and re-start Bar practice in England. I had been living and/or working overseas for much of those six or seven years, and in London, where at one time I was the leaseholder of property in Gray’s Inn (I lived at that time at Higher Denham, Buckinghamshire, from where I travelled in by rail from Denham Golf Club halt to Marylebone, a short journey lasting about 20 minutes).

I was in Kazakhstan for a year (1996-97) and after that also lived in or made shorter visits to a number of other countries: Egypt (where I lived for a while in Aswan, on a remote Red Sea beach under canvas, in a flat in Alexandria and in the desert oasis of Siwa); Turkey (I drove UK-Turkey-UK in 2001, which was quite an adventure at times: France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, a 4-month trip); the USA (based in Charleston, South Carolina, but I also stayed for a while in Tampa, Florida); Qatar; Liechtenstein; the Channel Islands, the Eastern Caribbean (several islands); the Cayman Islands, Minorca, Czech Republic, Northern Cyprus etc.

I remember one member of my future chambers remarking at my interview that my CV read in parts like that of James Bond. I had to point out that any resemblance between me and James Bond was purely co-incidental and very implausible (and not only because I have never belonged to any secret service!). Still, I joined that set and in general found it OK, though at first it (and so I) had very little work. I had taken on the lease of one of the largest country houses in North Cornwall and liked the relaxed lifestyle of the Cornwall/Devon upstream Tamar River area.

As to M.B., not long after I joined the set, M.B. and I won a multi-day action in contract and trust together (though appearing for different people) at Plymouth County Court. After that, we did appear on opposite sides a couple of times during my 5 years in chambers, but he lost out despite being (arguably) a better advocate and (unarguably) a better lawyer than me.

I may as well add that, despite what some Jewish individuals claimed after I was disbarred in 2016 (about 8 years after I had left chambers and ceased Bar practice!), M.B. and the other fellow members of chambers (with one, possibly two exceptions: see below) did not want me to leave chambers, whether for political or any other reasons. Indeed, M.B. wanted me to stay on despite my having decided to resign.

In fact, I was commuting on a weekly or 2-weekly basis across the Channel to Finistere, where my wife and cats were living. This resulted in financial strain, in that I was only available for half the time, was paying out large amounts for ferries (return trip with car, luxury cabin too, about £300 return, every week or so…), hotels in the UK for 10-20 nights per month; also, putting the seal on it all, I was starting to have “discussions” with the Revenue (which only ended in 2012).

My only misgivings about M.B. as a judge would be that, firstly, he tends to stick with black-letter law; in my view, he is unwilling to bend the law to fit the justice of the case. Whether that is a strength or a weakness is a matter for debate. Secondly, when I decided to leave chambers, I quite liked the idea of remaining as a door tenant [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_tenant] and M.B. said that that would not be a problem and implied (indeed expressed, though in some other words) that it would be nodded through, but that the correct form would be for me to resign my tenancy first and then apply for door tenancy, though approval would “in my case” be automatic. However, when it came to it, a couple of new tenants (I believe) cut up rough because one was married to some kind of Indian and was very hostile to (what he assumed were) my political views; I think (guessing) that a recent ex-pupil (a humourless bespectacled woman with an invisible sign round her neck saying “Politically-Correct Virtue-Signalling Christian”) may also have blackballed me.

In the event, the door tenancy would have been a waste of time because the Revenue was on my back at a cross-Channel distance. Still, that made me think that M.B. was not necessarily reliable, a thought that had occurred previously once or twice.

Now to another judge of sorts. Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court, long before it was (quite recently) turned into a luxury boutique hotel, was for some years often presided over by one Jacqueline “Jackie” Comyns, a notoriously despotic “stipendiary magistrate” (the rank now renamed “District Judge Criminal”). Her reputation was fearsome. I only appeared once in front of this gargoyle: I was “briefed” at 11 am to appear at 12! That was in 1993. I read the brief on the way to court. The defendant had refused to get off a defective bus and had then assaulted the conductor and gone on to smash the side window of a police car. She was pleading guilty. At court, the case came on minutes after my arrival. The magistrate interrupted my mitigation to ask some petty question about the defendant. I did not know the answer, having not had time for a brief conference. Instead of simply asking the defendant for the information, this ghastly frustrated prize bitch, sitting on her seat of petty power, told me venomously that Counsel had to be properly prepared when appearing in her court, and told me to go ask the defendant! I did, the pitying or amused eyes of dozens of police, court staff, members of the public on me as I traversed the unusually large courtroom and extracted the information.

I was told that that magistrate was going to be elevated to the Circuit bench in Essex, but that turned out to be wrong, because I see from the Internet that she was still dispensing justice from Thames Mags (on the other, i.e. North, side of the river from Tower Bridge Mags) as recently as 2013, the year that she retired (aged 70).

The problem of “judge-itis” (the tendency to be a despot sitting on the pedestal of power) is worse, usually, the further down the pecking order you go. It is rarely found in the higher courts. At one time (1993-1995) I appeared on a frequent basis, at least once weekly, in the High Court. If I had a problem, it was never because the judge was reprising am-dram Nero or Caligula. In the County Courts, the problem is occasionally encountered. HH Judge Overend, the presiding civil judge for Devon and Cornwall until 2006, was often a horrible despot when seated (at Plymouth County Court, usually), but in his case his bullying manner (and apparent tendency to make up his mind before you had finished —or even started– speaking) was mitigated by fairness and compassion for those suffering (so long as they were not Counsel!). The barristers of the South West used to describe bruising encounters with him as one having been “Overended”…I have to say that on the odd occasion when he saw me outside court, he did always nod affably and even briefly smiled at times.

The magistrates’ courts are often the zoos where the wildest judicial animals roam their constricted territories. I once saw a stipendiary magistrate in London refuse bail to a defendant who was in court on a stretcher and on a drip !

Other judges have the opposite tendency, a pretty fatal one for a judge, a difficulty in deciding anything, especially if it would involve penalizing (eg imprisoning) those who break court orders. Judges whose Bar practice was entirely in civil work tend to fall victim to this; at least, that was my experience.

I have to say that I only found a few judges who were completely impossible. One was not a judge proper, i.e. the lady who presided over Tower Bridge Mags; another was one whose name escapes me now, but who sat at Uxbridge County Court 25 years ago. His connection with justice was, as far as I could see, purely formal. A horrible man. The many others, particularly on the High Court bench, might not always have seen eye to eye with me on the law or facts, but were almost always courteous in manner and impressive in their grasp.

Notes

How Would the Safe Zone Become A Germinal Ethnostate?

I have previously blogged about various aspects of the proposed “safe zone” or zones which might become the hub of social national activity in the UK. I have explained how the “safe zone” might be created, perhaps most likely by one person, couple or family buying an estate, farm, house, business or whatever in the selected geographical area, then other people gravitating to the same part of the country.

The ideal would be an estate which might include a main house, ancillary or secondary accomodation, houses, cottages, agricultural land, perhaps a separate business such as a garden centre, hotel or whatever (which might give employment to some of those supportive of the safe zone project). For example, I once had a lease of this house in Cornwall:Polapit Tamar House

carriageentrancePolapit
drive1

That house, a mid-19thC construction, originally (certainly by 1900) had a 5,000 acre estate, which by the time I lived there (2002 and 2003) had reduced to about 100 acres, most of which was woodland inhabited by reclusive deer. My own lease included only 4 acres (gardens and woodland) and did not include the secondary accomodation such as the North and South Lodges at the ends of the (more than 1 mile long) private road or driveway, 2 detached houses, and a few flats within or over the stable block.

It can be seen that such a house would be a fine hub for the safe zone project. The original relocators could live in that house, with supporters employed on whatever land surrounded it or in the nearby town (in that case, the nearest town was about 4 miles away) and living in the secondary accomodation or elsewhere nearby.

Such a house has the space to host meetings: the photos show the exterior colonnaded entrance to, and the interior of, the ballroom, which was itself larger than the whole of my present humble home…).

t_BallroomEntrance
t_Ballroom1
t_Ballroom2

As suggested above, such rural areas sometimes have businesses available which require staff: garden centres, nurseries, motels, hotels, pubs etc; there might be scope in the nearby villages and towns too. It might not be very long before a thriving hub of social nationalism exists. Suitably-qualified people might get jobs in local schools or local government, even in the police, NHS facilities, or in the fire brigade.

Once the safe zone has progressed that far, it is likely that other land can be bought, other estates or farms. Compare it to a painting-by-numbers set: one by one, the blank bits are filled in.

Naturally, a considerable amount of money is required to start such a project. The hub (estate, farm or at least smallholding) would cost (in Devon or Cornwall) anything from £1M upward, depending partly on the acreage. Agricultural land is valued at present in the range £5,000 to £15,000 an acre, so a house with even 100 acres will probably cost at least a million pounds and quite possibly as much as five millions.

Realistically, several million pounds would be needed to initiate the safe zone project.

However, once operating, the safe zone will thrive. All supporters would “tithe”, as happens commonly in religious organizations etc. If even 100 people are sacrificing a tenth of their (net) income and even if their average income is only £30,000 a year gross (maybe £20,000 net), that still gives the project an annual income of £200,000 at a fairly early stage.

Once more than a few dozen people are involved in the project and resident in its territory, thought can be given to taking over local councils. From there, in electoral terms, the local and regional objective would be to get rid of existing System MPs and replacing them with social national candidates, whether overtly or covertly.

There is more. As the reputation of the safe zone spreads, the trickle of relocators will become a flood. At that point, the safe zone mutates into the germinal ethnostate.

Update, 29 September 2019

https://www.kn-online.de/Nachrichten/Hamburg/Voelkische-Siedler-Die-Bio-Nazis-von-nebenan

Update, 26 July 2020

Saw this… https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/neo-nazis-plot-to-win-over-small-villages-in-germany-through-settlers-10162589.html

Update, 3 May 2021

Which Way Politically After Brexit?

It seems to be a virtual certainty that, during 2019, “Brexit” will –at least in name– take place. What that means is still uncertain. It has just been revealed that Theresa May and others have been secretly working to undermine the substance of Brexit and to make it appear as if Britain has left the EU while in reality tying it ever closer.

As soon as the EU Referendum was held, when the result favoured Leave, I assumed that the ZOG/NWO cabals would attempt to subvert it. The Referendum was planned as a public relations exercise, cleverly channelled so that “the people” would rubberstamp the UK’s continuing EU membership. David Cameron (aka David Cameron-Levita) miscalculated. As punishment, he was booted out under the figleaf of resignation, and is now an obscure fringe figure in British politics.

The Theresa May government has little legitimacy. Theresa May inherited her mantle as PM, and then lost credibility during and after the 2017 General Election. She now clings to power by juggling the House of Commons votes of her own rebellious MPs and those of the Democratic Unionist Party (which latter have been, in effect, bought).

Fate now takes a hand. As with Cameron-Levita, Theresa May has few of the attributes necessary to be a Prime Minister. She has made a mess of both the Brexit negotiations and her own plot to “leave” the EU while really staying in it. As a result, she has become something close to a laughing stock with the public.

It is possible that the UK will leave, or as Remainers always say, “crash out” of the EU on the basis of World Trade Organization [WTO] rules. It is possible, though unlikely, that the UK will “leave” the EU (but in effect stay) under the “Chequers” plan of Theresa May. It is possible, though very unlikely, that not even a nominal Brexit will happen.

I do not here want to examine the possible economic consequences in detail, but to look at the political future in the short to medium term.

There has already been a backlash from the public in the 9 days since the Chequers plan was announced. In the old phrase, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Was that Mark Twain? According to my brief Internet query, no. Abraham Lincoln.

The opinion polls are already starting to move against Theresa May and the Conservatives vis a vis Labour. Labour has pulled a couple of points ahead for the first time in months. The revelation (which only burst upon the public prints yesterday) that Theresa May has been presiding over a secret plot to nullify Brexit will sink her and her party, in my opinion. So far, the Conservatives have been able to rely on the Corbyn Factor (which includes the Diane Abbott Factor etc) to put many voters off voting Labour. Now? Those people might or might not vote Labour, but many will not vote Conservative. They might abstain, they might vote Labour, they might even vote UKIP, which has experienced a rare poll boost in the past week or so.

UKIP is washed up, as I have been tweeting and blogging since 2014. However, it will still stand a small number of candidates in any general election held in 2018 or 2019 and those candidates will take the edge off the Conservative vote. The same is true of any candidate who is anti-EU.

The present weak Conservative government can surely only decline in popularity from here. As I have recently (and previously) blogged, the voters at present are mainly voting against parties rather than for them. A voter may abstain from voting Conservative or make a protest vote rather than voting Labour (or LibDem, bearing in mind that the LibDems are pro-EU).

The electoral mechanics in the UK are such that the result of any general election mirrors the “glorious uncertainty” of the racecourse. However, the present likelihood is that no party will have an overall majority, or that either Labour or Conservative will have a very small majority. That would be not dissimilar to the present situation, where in 2017 the Conservatives won 317 seats; however, a formal majority would require a party to win 326 seats but in fact (because Sinn Fein’s 7 MPs do not attend and so do not vote) 320 for a bare practical majority. Theresa May is 3 MPs short; hence the DUP arrangement.

My present feeling is that, while Labour will never be able to get a working majority in any election in the next couple of years, it could end up as (probably marginally) the largest party and so be able to form a weak minority government of some kind. This would be the best outcome for social nationalism, so long as a credible social national movement can emerge.

On the above premises, a half-cocked Brexit might lead to continuing mass immigration (including non-white immigration), economic slowdown, general malaise and administrative chaos. People will be dissatisfied, and disgusted by the System. On those premises, a real social national movement could gather strength enough to challenge the System by 2022.

A Few Thoughts About The Next Few Years In British Politics

Present Situation

I see no significant change from the situation obtaining immediately after, or even prior to, the 2017 General Election. Neither main System party has broken through to clear water with the public; both are trapped in the ice of public cynicism and/or disapproval.

Labour Party

The Labour Party may have been able to recruit hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic members and supporters in the past few years (and that is more than it was able to do under the Blair/Brown Zionist control of yesteryear), but there is no sign that it has much (if at all) broken through beyond the traditional Labour heartlands. It sits in the range 37%-42% in the opinion polls. Corbyn-Labour is ideologically-incapable of seeing or accepting that having so many “blacks and browns” in high positions (examples include Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler) is one factor killing Labour’s wider electability. Not just the fact that such people are black or whatever, but the fact that they seem so unintelligent and/or uneducated. The two mentioned were also egregious expenses freeloaders and still try to grab as much money as they can.

The attack on Labour by the Jew-Zionist element mostly goes over the head of the masses of voters, but the venom seen in the msm (put there by the Jew-Zionists and doormats thereof) may affect Labour’s electability in marginal seats. Labour is still stuck with a Parliamentary party which is mostly hostile to its leader, Corbyn. The resultant impression of division is bound to affect Labour’s vote, as does its pro-immigration stance.

Conservative Party

The Conservatives are still led, or at least headed by Theresa May, who is only there by reason of the lack of an obvious alternative leader; she was in fact only elected as Leader by default, as this cartoon shows well.

CnLGOc5XYAALLJd

There remain vast swathes of Conservative-voting Britain, especially in Southern Britain, where, however unpopular the Conservatives are, no other party is more popular. That applies a fortiori to Labour. The Cons sit around 39%-43% in the opinion polls.

UKIP

UKIP was making significant inroads into Conservative Britain before the semi-rigged First Past The Post electoral system defeated it in 2015, when it should have (under any fair system) have gathered in about 70 MPs, but in fact only got one. As I predicted even before the election, UKIP had peaked. Now, the only reason to include it in a blog post such as this is for reasons of completeness. It may be able to climb slightly higher in the opinion polls from its recent low of 3% (the latest outlier has it at 6% but the polls overall are at 3.3%); this is mere “dustbin voting” and protest voting. UKIP is now effectively finished, irrelevant.

Liberal Democrats

The Con Coalition finished the LibDems. The only bright spots for them are that some young and naive first-time voters might choose their “pick and mix” policies as attractive to them; and that some pro-EU Con voters might vote LibDem in places where the sitting Con MP is a “Brexiteer”; but the overall effect will be small. Presently in the opinion polls between 8% and 11%, which is not enough to retain more than a few MPs.

Social Nationalist Parties

There is no social-national party which can be described as even marginally credible. The two which are now most visible are very small and without wide public support. The Anne Marie Waters vehicle, For Britain, a UKIP offshoot, is a sideshow of a sideshow; a complete irrelevance. It is also a “one-trick pony”, basically an anti-Islamist group, despite attempts to present a wider policy offering. As Wikipedia puts it:

“The party fielded fifteen candidates in the 2018 local elections, with none being elected.[9] The party came last in almost all the seats it contested.”

The article continues:

“Waters contested the Lewisham East by-election, receiving 266 votes (1.2% of the total) and losing her deposit.[12]

Membership is thought to be around 200.

As for Britain First, while in some respects better run and more credible as an organization (it is said to have 1,000 members), it is ideologically suspect, having declared itself pro-Israel and pro-Jew. Like “For Britain”, Britain First seems to have anti-Islamism as its main point. Electorally, it too has been a washout: it last contested a Westminster seat in 2014, when Deputy Leader Jayda Fransen stood at the Rochester and Strood by-election:

UKIP won the by-election. Britain First finished 9th of 13 candidates, with 56 votes (0.14%), finishing below the Monster Raving Loony Party (with 151 votes, 0.38%) and above the Patriotic Socialist Party (with 33 votes, 0.08%).[53]” [Wikipedia]

Britain First also put up its leader, Paul Golding, as candidate for Mayor of London:

“On 27 September 2015, Paul Golding announced that he would stand as a candidate in the 2016 London mayoral election. He received 31,372 or 1.2% of the vote, coming eighth of twelve candidates.[55]” [Wikipedia]

The Next General Election

The next UK General Election may come as early as 2018 itself, or in 2019. It is unlikely to be later. Many will be voting against the party they dislike more or most, rather than for the party they like the most. Many may abstain and, while that will not affect seats heavily for one System party or another, it will affect marginal seats.

My present view is that the likely result will be a hung Parliament and a House of Commons possibly with Labour as the largest party, but without a majority. Labour will prove incapable of governing effectively or well and will be weak on immigration. That may then open the door to radical social nationalism.

The Future

Britain seems set for economic and social turbulence, revolving around the questions of race, culture, immigration, social standards, standards of living and issues around free speech. A credible social national movement could take off in the short-term to medium-term (2018 to 2022 and beyond), but that will require leadership, ideology, discipline and belief, as well as money and organization.