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.

5 thoughts on “What Way Now For The Labour Party?”

  1. I agree with the conclusion of this piece. Do individual MPs really have personal cachet with the voters or is their support founded on the brand? Given the skim milk denizens of the HoC today decidedly the latter, but I’m the first to admit that the gullibility of the electorate by gifted imposters and fakers shouldn’t be underestimated. Here’s one example.

    Trebitsch Lincoln got himself elected as Liberal MP for Darlington in 1910 aged 30 despite having been a juvenile criminal in his native Hungary before emigrating to Canada to work as a missionary and later becoming a CofE curate, and (later still) being a German agent in WW1 and WW2 and among other roles, a Buddhist abbot in Shanghai! [all of which I divine as: sub rosa espionage].

    In any “case Labour Anti-Semitism” is just Kabuki Theatre for the Amalakites. First, the only anti-Semitism (sic) in the UK is the assault on their amour propre presented by Labour’s dogma of egalitarianism; second:


    As for a successor to the Labour Party, is there a germ of hope in this or is it too far off and in any event yet more controlled opposition?



    PS: Longshanks didn’t initiate the 1290 expulsion, the commons gave up to him a fifteenth of their wealth to procure it and there was a bargain, since dishonored in the breach:



    1. I know about Trebitsch Lincoln. In fact, c.1985 or 1986, I had a possibility to read on BBC Radio 4 a 20-min piece I wrote about him. In the end, it did not proceed, but (co-incidence?) a year later a book about him appeared…


  2. Definitely a cohencidence (© Arnold Leese). I think I may have once seen the book (by some US Jewish academic?) in a London discard but foolishly passed it by.

    If you still have an academic taste for the law one subject that would be a public service to address might be deconstructing the faux-common law BS being propagated, to promote in time-honoured fashion, FUD, and more specifically imo, to distract from meaningful political pursuits and the promotion of greater (accurate) knowledge of our money system (and ultimately its reform).
    Here we have it again:


    – the otherwise genial sounding “Paul English” promoting the notion previously scotched that somehow the public had to consent to statutes to be bound by them. This fellow in particular has persevered with this idiocy to such a degree that I now seriously consider him a Leeds Jew and/or some kind of operative.

    He also peddled the US-originated “birth certificate as traded security” and “legal name”/strawman twaddle, disinfo which the zogbots at UK Column News and the British Constitution Group haven’t been shy about promoting in the past. It’s all very well to get into jury nullification* but these ideas are quite beyond the pale and it beggars belief that “English” and his fellow host “Hitchcock” don’t know them to be untruths. (I also find it strange that Hitchcock though self avowedly a former policeman doesn’t automatically cite the UK professional villain’s “no comment” and instead recites the verbose Metzgerian “I have nothing to say”).

    This drivel has permeated everywhere, I was even regaled with it by someone in a pub in the (offshore) southerly British Isles a couple of years ago.

    * http://ukcriminallawblog.com/jury-nullification-do-the-right-thing/

    I received these a few years ago, and yes, there is more.

    BBC – ‘Legal Name Fraud’ billboards

    Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument







    http://theobamacrat.com/tag/sovereign-citizen-movement/ [semble since deleted, extract:
    “The concept of a sovereign citizen originated in the Posse Comitatus movement as a teaching of Christian Identity minister William P. Gale. The concept has influenced the tax protester movement, the Christian Patriot movement, and the redemption movement — the last of which claims that the U.S. government uses its citizens as collateral against foreign debt.” [etc etc]

    Concerning “Gale”:

    Another theme embraces the idea that the stone of scone or whatever is supposed to be under the coronation chair is a facsimile, the original allegedly having been stolen, and that this fact annuls all legislation consented to by all monarchs since the date of its removal. Those promoting the idea don’t seem acquainted with the ease with which the courts accepted as legitimate the post-1688 government and laws which jurisprudentially have presumably weightier objections to their validity….?

    [Not for publication – I had got it into my head that you may have moved one time in circles including one or other of its proponents, but there again I may be confusing you with someone else. Anyway as stated, the subject itself seems potentially worthy of informed examination some time, assuming the necessary level of interest.]


    1. I think that you must, as you say, be confusing me with someone else. I was politically-inactive from about 1979 through to about 2008 (when I understood anew the existential dangers facing Europe) or maybe 2012 (when I started to tweet prolifically at age 56, ironically the age at which AH died).

      As for this “common law” nonsense, all it boils down to is that some simpleminded people think that their construction of the meaning of some historical event invalidates any subsequent laws and regs not based on that meaning. It is nonsense. The Americans have similar people who say that they do not have to pay taxes because XYZ “in Constitution” etc. An over-reliance on bits of paper and construction thereupon.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s