Brexit. It Is Now A War— The British People Against The System

The British people were told that they and they alone would decide by referendum whether to stay in or leave the EU. Remain or Leave. No nonsense about “the Irish backstop”, no nonsense about “deals” with the EU, no ever-more complex rejigging of the UK-EU relationship, no second vote years after the Referendum (i.e. no “people’s vote”, to be held in 2019, 2020 or even later), no asking to remain in the EU for weeks, months, years after the set departure date.

Yes, the relationship between the EU and the UK is complex, but sometimes, with Gordian Knots, you just have to cut the knot. You can tie new knots later.

As I predicted at the time, Remain would immediately launch a kind of quite long term damage-limitation operation, building on the Operation Fear pre-referendum propaganda. The fear propaganda had a number of aspects:

  • No-one would be allowed to travel from the UK to EU states;
  • Before the UK was in the EU, no-one from the UK was allowed to travel to France, Germany, Italy etc without a visa;
  • No UK people could live or work in, eg, France, Spain, Italy, Germany before 1973;
  • Anyone voting Leave hates Europe and Europeans;
  • A vote for Leave is a vote for hate;
  • A Leave win would reduce most British people to poverty;

This propaganda was fuelled by even more than usually inept and wrong forecasts by hugely well-paid and hugely overvalued “erudite idiots” such as the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, a globalist Bilderberg participant of probably part-Jewish origins (see Notes, below). Ex-Goldman Sachs and carrying Canadian, British and Irish (and other?) passports, Carney and others claimed that Brexit would immediately shrink the UK economy. In reality, such forecasts did that, by causing fear and uncertainty.

Many young people, meaning loosely anyone under 30 but especially the 16-24 age group, badly let down by their pathetically poor education, really seemed to believe the above bullet-points. They really believed that a Leave result would mean that they would not even be able to visit EU countries without onerous visa requirements. In fact, listening to them (bleat) on BBC radio, one realized that many seriously believed that, if the UK left the EU, they would not be allowed entry to EU countries at all! Yes, those who believed that were/are stupid, ignorant and poorly-educated, but the immediate blame must be placed on the Remain propagandists.

There were reports in the msm and on social media about pathetic teenage girls bleating and crying because “their whole future” had been “destroyed” (by older Leave voters)! Now they would never be international models, pan-EU entrepreneurs etc! In reality, of course, 99% of the young Remain whiners never were going to get well-paid or indeed any jobs “in Europe” (as they always mis-designate the EU). The few who might, always could (I myself once had a girlfriend who, in her 1960s youth, had been on the cover of the French edition of Vogue).

The Remain fightback started immediately. Project Fear was kept going, along with new lines: “the Referendum was not really valid because it was so close” was one. Another was “turnout was only 72%, so the Leave vote was really only about 37%”…

As Leave supporters countered, what if we applied that to General Elections? Or by-elections? We have just had a by-election at Newport West. I blogged about it and later added the result details:

In that by-election, Labour won, with a vote share of 39.6% of votes cast. However, turnout was only 37.6%. In other words, nearly two-thirds of eligible voters, many no doubt disgusted by the charade of “democracy” being played out, refused to or at least did not vote. Should we say that the result is invalid, because Labour was only voted for by about 15% of the eligible electorate?…

The same is true of the vast majority of constituencies where MPs have been “elected” despite having received less than 50% of the votes. Some MPs were “elected” on votes of 30%, the result of 3-way or 4-way splits. In view of the often low turnout in elections, that means that many MPs were voted for by only a fifth or even a tenth of the eligible voters!

People who could not be bothered to vote either way in 2016 must accept the result. Leave.

We should recall that every single referendum region in England, except London, voted Leave, most by very nearly 60%-40%. In fact, in the UK only London, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain.

If you were to take out Scotland, Northern Ireland, London, Gibraltar and all non-white voters, Leave would have won, in England, by something like 75%-25%.

If there were to be another EU/Brexit referendum any time soon, Leave might in fact win all over again:

The point is that a promise was made to the British people and has been broken. Now we see that

  • The “Conservative” government has badly mishandled the 2-3 years of negotiation with the EU (was that deliberate? was that sabotage?);
  • An attempt has been made to have a “Brexit In Name Only” via a so-called “deal” which would be actually worse than just staying in the EU officially;
  • attempt(s) are made to revoke Article 50 and so to stay in the EU;
  • requests for extensions of time for departure (why?);
  • a House of Commons “legal coup d’etat” has been made, passing a law to all but outlaw Brexit, and passed by one vote, that of African convict Fiona Onasanya MP, who was recently released from prison and soon will not even be an MP! The Commons coup was arranged between Oliver Letwin MP, a Jew and former Rothschilds employee, and pro-Zionist would-be dictator Yvette Cooper MP.

In fact, the Rothschilds connection is interesting, because puppet President of France, Macron, a complete agent of Zionism, NWO and ZOG, also worked for Rothschilds.


  • There is effectively no or almost no real democracy in the UK now. People are waking up to that via the Brexit saga;
  • There is no political party, let alone one which is powerful and/or credible, which speaks for the British people;
  • Most MPs are useless, not even mediocre, and/or are just freeloading traitors; they are also, most of them, direct enemies of the British people. Many belong to secret groups of cosmopolitan manipulators.  Many are pro-Zionist and/or have Jewish-Zionist connections, spouses, sponsors etc.

There must be a new and better society and a better system of government.

Notes [see p.38]

Update, 12 April 2019: a few thoughts about the near-future EU and local elections

The Brexit mess, so spectacularly mishandled by Theresa May and the idiotic careerists around her, may save UKIP from immediate collapse as a party, inasmuch as many British voters will want to punish the Conservative Party one way or the other. There may be a “perfect storm” for the Conservative Party, pressured on two fronts by both the Leave and Remain sides.

There will soon be elections for the European Parliament, on 23 May 2019. Recent opinion polling seems to be saying that Labour will have a landslide: initial voting intentions show Labour on 37.8% (up from 24.4% in 2016); Conservatives at 23.1% (unchanged), Brexit Party (Nigel Farage’s new party) 10%, LibDem 8%, UKIP 7.5%, Change UK (the recent Lab/Con defector MPs’ vehicle) around 4%, among others.

One has to be cautious in assuming that the above opinion poll reflects the likely outcome. The same poll seems to indicate that, after discussion, many pro-EU voters prefer Change UK (which would hit Labour and LibDem levels), while anti-EU voters may prefer either UKIP or Brexit Party.

Before the EU elections (in which the UK may not participate at all if the UK leaves the UK before 23 May), there will be local elections, on 2 May 2019. The indications are that, in those elections, Labour may also sweep the poll, with Labour benefiting not only from the “pendulum” or “see-saw” effect of elections in a system using FPTP voting, but also from abstentions by usual Con voters (or by their voting for Brexit Party or UKIP).

As far as the local elections are concerned, Labour starts the campaign with several advantages. The decade of spending cuts has finally impacted even the most true-blue Conservative areas. Labour has a army of local activists, thanks to its membership surge under Corbyn. It also has funds from the same source.

The Conservatives have few local activists now and most are beyond retirement age. The party looks tired. The Brexit mess can only be laid at the door of Theresa May and her Cabinet. The Cons will be lucky to avoid a wipeout in the areas voting on 2 May.

There are also strategic factors. The Conservative Party claims 124,000 members, which seems high (average 200 members per constituency). Most are elderly. Few are active. The median age for Conservative voters has also risen, to 52. Recent polling has shown that only 16% of voters under 35 support the Cons, and only 4% of those under 25 do so.



16 thoughts on “Brexit. It Is Now A War— The British People Against The System”

  1. Good article – i don’t know who is worse “Letwin” or the physically and mentally challenged “Berkowitz” – I suppose you couldn’t put a fag paper between them? Off topic – this made my blood boil! Although hypocritical of the Mail – which still supports Diversity and Immigration, which is responsible for incidences like this!


    1. Re that rapist-deportation thing, how weak the “authorities” are now! Why were the mutinous tourists not arrested and taken away (preferably with a few clubs to the head), and the deportee sedated then flown to Somalia at once?

      As for the Jews Letwin and Bercow, I think that it is debatable to what extent Bercow is part of the ZOG set-up, despite his exalted rank and ethnic origin. Letwin is another matter— up to his neck in it all.


      1. Though I am not a fan of the Liberal Democrat party it is a shame they have never taken his seat. Their English goy candidate did come very close to doing so in 2001 and Letwin’s seat still has a substantial Lib Dem vote in it (the LDs came second, albeit it rather distant, even after their debacle of 2017)

        There are too many of the Zionist Jews and assorted globalist goys in the Tory Party now.


      2. Letwin’s seat is populated largely by persons who vote purely out of financial self-interest. Conservative Party *claims* to be the low-tax party. Das ist’s!


    1. Of course it is “thought crime”. The System wants people to be afraid. That is not an accidental side-effect, but the very core of such measures. It means that those who decide whom to prosecute have huge and arbitrary power. For example, a teenager might look at something online and then be subjected to police attention and even trial, if the ideology is one that the authorities want to target. Even now we see very circumstantial evidence used to convict young people of offences which did not even exist a few years ago, which convictions the ZOG courts then use as a basis for a heavy sentence.


  2. Yes i suppose the “system” needs it’s “show trials” even at a local level! What concerns me is the fact that “some” young men, who as we know can be quite “impulsive” – think alcohol, drugs, relationships could be ensnared by this legislation. Throw in for example – NS flags, memorabilia and anti-immigrant views and the police, tabloid media would have a field day – such as National Action etc! As you allude to, there is potentially a lot propaganda value to made from this type of legislation – not to mention victims


    1. You must have noticed the recent Jack Renshaw trial’s outcome. Yes, he had admitted planning to kill the MP, and pleaded guilty on that, but was effectively *acquitted* (jury failed to agree verdict at least, so not quite acquittal, but in practice almost as good) of having belonged to National Action after the proscription. Equally interesting, the other two defendants were also not found guilty (hung jury) on that charge. The msm all but ignored those “acquittals”.

      As a former barrister (or as the Jews would have it, “vile disgraced ex-barrister”!) it occurred to me that Renshaw might have been acquitted on the preparation of murder charge too had he pleaded that he was just shooting his mouth off in front of his friends in the pub, and never had seriously intended to kill that MP. However, I concede that I know only the few details given out by the msm. Perhaps he and his Counsel had their reasons.


  3. Yes i was always puzzled as to why Renshaw pled guilty to that allegation as it seemed very “circumstantial” i.e the weapon he bought plus his big talk in a pub as presumably he could have potentially claimed it was for self defense and the comments were him sounding off under the influence, however as you say perhaps there was other evidence or reasoning? I know a couple of the rags claimed he was a paedophile who tried to groom a couple of younger boys but i only scanned through the “overlong” mail article so i don’t know – an odd case! Re. Internet censorship did you see this?


    1. The System (ZOG/NWO) is using emotive things such as “protecting children” to repress free speech. The mask of evil is really coming off.

      The only evidence that matters in a trial is that adduced at trial. In this case there was a trial on the National Action matter but not on the preparation to commit terrorism matter, because Renshaw pleaded guilty. The facts seem to have been that he bought a sword and shot off his mouth in pubs. I wonder whether he might have been acquitted or not convicted had he played the “silly young man defence” which may not be a legal defence but in reality might have had a run in it, especially with his baby face!


  4. It has always puzzled me about the claim the Tories make about being “the low tax party” as it was the Conservatives who brought in: prescription charges, dental charges, v.a.t, v.a.t on clothing and probably other “backdoor” taxes too!


    1. Well, they would say that NHS charges, “bedroom tax” etc are not real taxes (though of course people still have to pay them). The “Conservatives” do raise taxes but shift the burden from the rich to the poor. Look at the recent rise in income tax threshold: it benefits the poorest slightly but the richest (and generally affluent) more. If there were no “threshold”, the monies saved could be used for higher benefits, pensions or for a Basic Income.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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