Why I Hope That Labour Splits

The major System newspapers in the UK are now talking about two connected possible events. The first is that the Labour Party might split into two parties. The second is that new “centre” parties are about to emerge. I hope that such rumours are true. Why?

If Labour splits, Corbyn and the anti-Zionists will keep the name, organization and most funding sources of present Labour. The breakaway MPs, who might even be in the majority but will probably, in reality, number only in the dozens rather than the hundreds (Labour presently has 258 MPs), will have slender resources. Most rank and file members and supporters joined because of Corbyn and will almost all stay with him and “official” Labour.

The Zionists and pro-Zionists and doormats in Labour (the usual suspects: Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna, John Woodcock –already resigned–, Ruth Smeeth –exposed as an agent of American Intelligence and of Israel–, Luciana Berger etc) will be lucky to retain their seats. Most if not all will lose. Thus we shall be rid of at least many of the most vocal Zionist trumpets at Westminster.

As for the new “parties” speculated about, they have little chance, for several reasons. One is likely to be funded by some (I presume) Jew called Franks, who apparently has £50 million with which to play. He is said to regard himself as another Macron (and sees that as a recommendation!). These parties have no chance, because of FPTP voting, English (Welsh/Scottish) voter caution, but most of all because (though I deprecate “left-centre-right” labelling), people who are not desperate rarely look for an alternative; those who are desperate seek radical and revolutionary solutions. These “centre” parties are strategically misplaced.

If a new and truly radical social-national party emerges, though, that will have a chance…

When the misnamed “Conservative” Party is weak and led by idiots (as now), when Labour is in a similar position and split into two, when both System parties are further weakened by new parties in contention, we can strike.


11 thoughts on “Why I Hope That Labour Splits”

  1. Ha!, ha!, I was just about to post this news about a new so-called ‘centrist’ party which I learned about today from that report in the Guardian. These Zionist-Jew elements, Blairite hangers-on have very little self-awareness! How can they seriously expect some new anti-Brexit party (thus ignoring a direct democratic referendum vote of a majority of the British people) and ‘centrist’ party to succed even with decent funding of £50 million or more? Surely, if there were the right poltiical conditions at play for it to do so then the Liberal Democrats our long-standing ‘centrist’ party would be at more than 8% or so in the polls? The Lib Dems have never been that low for so long a time (the only previous period in which their poll ratings have been diabolical was 1989/1990 ie after their failed merger of the Liberal Party and SDP and before Mrs Thatcher’s mistake of the Poll Tax which enabled them to win that crucial Eastbourne By-Election and which set them up well for the general elecction of 1992). As you say, the people are sick and tired of ‘centrism’ ie globalist extremism leading to the death of our nation and there is no real appetite amongst the electoate for yet more doses of it. The ONLY real political ‘space’ at present is for a new, credible social-national party.


    1. The LibDems have been living off their hump (meaning their history as Liberal Party, and the name-recognition) for a long long time. When there were commonly and in fact usually only 3 candidates in most seats, the Liberals and then LibDems were a dustbin vote, protest vote, and I-don’t-like-the-others vote. Now they have little to offer beyond supposed unfocused sort-of softness/”niceness” which cuts no mustard after 2010-2015.


      1. Yes, you are correct about the LIberal Democrats. This is best illustrated by the fact that in my extremely Tory constituency (I’ve estimated I’m living in one of their top 30 odd safest seats) the Lib Dems once ran the local council and were in a consistent second place in parliamentary elections from 1979 to 2015 but as soon as even a distinct single issue/ globaist media-endorsed ‘puff’ party like UKIP came along they were displaced by that party and started coming third in most wards in my local borough (which makes-up the bulk of my MP’s seat) and now with UKIP having collapsed the LIb Dems have recoved a bit here which just goes to show that the LIb Dems were the respository of the ‘I hate the Tories/Labour’ vote with very few people chossing them as their first preference and supporting most of their policies. Also, of course, in South Eastern, Eastern and South-Western England they gained massively from people supporting them who would have voted Labour if that party had been in second place in these seats and they have lost this vote since the coaliton eg in 2017 Labour came second here for the first time since 1979.


  2. Yes, little Napolean 2 ie Macron with his wife who looks as if she could be his mother is hardly a recommendation! The ONLY way Macron has proven to be a big success it that he is a good frontman for the Zionist-Jew elements in France and for globalism but many French people are now growing tired of him.


  3. It is real shame the now very globalist and liberal-left CONservative Party is unlikely to split as that would help social-nationalists like us as welll. The farily small numbers of EU enthusiasts within that party are more likely to move away from politics or swallow their pride than set-up a new pro-EU Tory Party or join the pretty irrelevent Lib Dems as they may have contemplated doing before.


    1. The Conservative Party (membership) is now basically the Over-50-Years-Old-Property-Owners-And-Buy-To-Let-Parasites-Party. If you exclude persons who are not property-owners and/or who are not rentiers (aka buy to let parasites) of some sort and/or are over 50 (or even over 70), the Conservative Party (membership) would drop to a few thousand people. It has no real social base beyond the above.


  4. (O.T.)
    Blog publicising opportunity: Hitchcock wants a ready-reckoner for ‘common law’ / ‘I don’t consent’ rights, scope and application; and hinted at an interview slot for someone who can lay down the law.


    Don’t underestimate the reach of these bottom feeder shows. Might even be fun, though brief (“It’s all BS. Please spend your time more profitably by reading my blog at https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/ “).


    1. Ha. I doubt that I would be quite so direct in public, though of course that *is* what I think of these supposed “Common Law rights” which supposedly trump statute.


  5. The ‘alt media’ so-called “Common Law” disinfo train just keeps rolling along… the latest offering of ordure being from one Mike Whitby who is interviewed (presumably not under caution) by “Sven Longshanks”:
    [audio src="https://archive.radioaryan.com/AI/AI%20092818.mp3" /]
    This one assumes new heights of unsubstantiated conjecture and sheer folderol, being topped off with an allusion to the ‘birth certificate-as-security’ BS.

    Nick Griffin was interviewed 13 September by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, some discussion there of the ‘Common Law myth’ from 31’30 and @36’45 Griffin said Common Law (as so termed) is at best a diversion.. and at worst something that could get people into trouble.
    He’s a bit of an Eeyore imo (no visible political will to resist) but he did read law at Cambridge and is a competent political operator.
    [audio src="http://eurofolkradio.com/podcast-download/856815/the-andrew-carrington-hitchcock-show-779-nick-griffin-how-to-survive-in-a-liberal-dictatorship.mp3" /]

    I have a vague recollection that “Longshanks” presented or otherwise had at some point an association with the London Forum at which you yourself appeared. Perhaps you feel you should hide your light under a bushel but on this one I’d invite you to reconsider, perhaps a programme or part with “Longshanks” as a rejoinder to the Whitby ‘flat earth’ view of the world. It would be a public service.


    1. Thank you.

      I have been invited numerous times by several different online radio shows, but feel that at present I would not be advantaged by any appearance; neither would the social national cause be much advanced; for one thing, the audience is small (I presume).

      Griffin is right about this pseudo-“Common Law” nonsense (I heard part of that show). As presented, it is law as understood by people whose idea of England and law comes from “Ivanhoe” or Robin Hood films. Hobby “law” and hobby politics.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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