The Conservatives, Boris Johnson, Upcoming Political Events and the Currents in Society

We come soon to the culmination of the farcical Conservative Party leadership election, the result of which will be decided by a simple majority of the supposed 140,000 (possibly only 100,000, though a few say 160,000) members of that party. About 1 in every 300 or 400 UK adults is a Conservative Party member. If two-thirds vote in the leadership election, that means that not only the Conservative Party leader but also the Prime Minister –by default– is about to be elected by perhaps 50,000 or 60,000 people, in other words by about 1 in every 900 adults in the UK. There is something bizarre and even sick about this.

At time of writing (5 July 2019) it looks as if Boris Johnson (for me, Boris-Idiot is the right label…) will win easily. Others say that the race may be closer than most have thought. Either way, very few if any are predicting a win for Jeremy Hunt.

I have blogged before about the contest and also about a few of the main protagonists. Most relevant now would be these:

Returning to my first paragraph, I happened recently to hear some Radio 4 Today Programme interviewer, perhaps Nick Robinson, asking Conservative Party members in Wales their views on what I see as the tragi-comic “leadership” contest. There were about half a dozen or so, all from one local Conservative Association.

Only one in that group was thinking of voting for Hunt; the rest all preferred Boris-Idiot. Only one struck me as in any way thoughtful, a young man (the only one, in fact, who seemed to be of under pensionable age) who was not much taken with either candidate.

What interested me most about that group was the incredible level of both political ignorance and socio-political unreality. One old bird, who sounded around 80, opined (re. Brexit) “we got through two world wars, we can get through this, and I think that Boris is the man to bring the country together.”

Where does one even start to unpack nonsense of that sort? First of all, it implies that Britain somehow endured two massive wars and came out OK (if not “victorious”), whereas in fact the two main open conflicts of the 20th Century crippled the UK and mortally-wounded the British Empire (qua empire), a fact concealed by the very great overall improvement in British living standards since 1914.

Then there is that bit about “Boris” being the politician (surely even the aforesaid old bird cannot regard the idiot as a “statesman”?) who can “bring the country together”. What country is that? Can people really be that blind? There is no “country” to speak of any more. What there is is a geographic space, inhabited by a motley collection of races, ethnicities, social groups, “tribes” (both social and ethnic), lifestyles etc. I do not think that even the old descriptive term “classes” really fits any more. Society has fallen apart to the extent that the idea of a “working class”, a “middle class” or “middle classes”, let alone an “upper class” or “aristocracy”, is not just lacking in credibility but is actually pathetic. That is even if we leave aside the race question.

What is the “working class” now? Anyone who receives less than a designated income? The bottle-throwers of the EDL? “White van man” with his artisan trade and his purchased council house or tract home, complete with Sky TV and an above-ground pool in the back garden? The “chavs” or “chavscum”, with their sub-American “culture” of baseball caps, untaxed cars and drug use? The officially-bullied and taunted unemployed or disabled? The blacks and browns?

Faux-revolutionary scribbler and metro-gay propagandist Owen Jones was unable to shoehorn these new types into the traditional Marxist categories, so conflated proletariat and lumpenproletariat in his book “Chavs: the demonization of the working class“. Unable to find enough steel workers, miners and trawlermen to constitute a viable “working class”, Jones ropes in whatever he can from the poorly-incomed “precariat”: call centre workers, unemployed, retail staff, low-paid office bods etc.

Then we have the “middle class”, or as used to be said, “the middle classes”. Prior to World War Two, these strata were fairly well defined: the “upper” middle-classes (fringing on the gentry and even aristocracy), with their successful, long-established business firms (The Forsyte Saga), Oxford/Cambridge education (Brideshead Revisited, Zuleika Dobson etc), careeerism in the Diplomatic Service, the Bar, the higher ranks of the medical profession, the armed services. Then there were the “middle middles” in management, small business ownership etc. The “lower middle class”, meaning the lower ranks of management etc, were a vast throng, sometimes only distinguishable from “the workers” by the wearing of a tie.

In America, these terms are (certainly now) either not used, or used differently.

Then we have the “aristocracy” and “gentry”, the latter sometimes termed (as late as the 1950s, in novels by the likes of Agatha Christie) as “the County” (the older, more significant, or wealthy landed families in any particular county). This stratum was already being infiltrated by foreign or alien elements as early as the 19th Century.

Winston Churchill was famously half-American. He was not alone. Many ancient or at least old houses admitted an American admixture, usually for reasons of money. Even some Jewish and part-Jewish women married into the English and Scottish nobility. One well-known example was the 6th Duke of Carnarvon, whose ancestral home, Highclere Castle, is today used as the fictional Downton Abbey on TV. His mother’s biological father was a Rothschild: “Rothschild provided a marriage settlement of £500,000 and paid off all Lord Carnarvon’s existing debts.” [Wikipedia] Tens of millions in the money of today.

The 2nd Duke of Westminster was incensed by the way in which Jews were infiltrating the British aristocracy, and (according to his third wife, Loelia) was writing a book on the subject, which book has, regrettably, never been published.

The society which now exists in Britain, especially in England and Wales, is a mixture of the old pre-1939 society, that which developed between 1939 and —arguably— 1979 or 1989, and that which has since emerged.

I think that we have to be quite clear here. At present, we do not have a functioning or sustainable society in the UK. The appearance of one owes much to the older, pre-1989, way of doing things, to institutions which still exist, though badly-wounded: the monarchy, the police, the armed services, the NHS, the Civil Service, local government. The people who grew up in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and even 1960s are carrying on as if Britain is a unified country. It is not. It is a mass of contradictions and absurdities.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in the late 1980s and early 1990s (officially, 1991), huge numbers of people in factories, on farms, attending country rail stations, driving trams, carried on working even though in many cases they were not being paid. The society carried on under its own momentum for a while. Britain is like that socially, politically. More and more parts of British society are either not working properly or are not working at all, but many have not fully woken up to that fact.

If the working classes and to a large extent the middle classes have been replaced by the “chavscum” and “precariat”, the short-term contract people, the here-today-gone-tomorrow little businesses etc, then the former “gentry”, “aristocracy” (insofar as the term has meaning in Britain) and even royals have just become functions of the cosmopolitan wealth-soaked “celebrity” culture, in which it is hard to distinguish between a film star, a pop star, a TV talking head, a Premier League footballer and his WAG, Gary Lineker, Prince Harry or the Royal Mulatta.

As far as the Royal Family are concerned, it is noticeable how there is an almost-complete gulf between the older royals, such as the Queen and Prince Philip and the present generation, with Prince Charles and the others a kind of halfway house. The older royals are recognizably “royal”. One might or might not be “royalist”; that is another question, but no-one could mistake the Queen and consort (whether one “likes” them or not) for “ordinary citizens”.

By the time you get to Prince William and “Kate”, or Harry and the “Royal Mulatta”, there is very little that marks them out as “royal” at all, unless it is ingrained public acceptance (propped up by the msm) and their own huge sense of entitlement, brought home most recently by the endless boring soap opera of Harry, the £2.5 million refurbishment of his new house (work paid for, in effect, by the people) , and the various rumours and tabloid interest around “the Royal Mulatta” (a mixed-race woman, formerly a Hollywood TV actress, and formerly married to an American Jew).

The present generation of “royals” are scarcely “royal” at all: they are educated in ordinary (if expensive) schools and universities, live lives which are carefully crafted to at least seem “ordinary” most of the time, and seem to feel that they can do largely as they please in terms of marriages, children etc.

In fact, it could well be said that the only thing linking the attitudes of the present three generations of royals is their sense of entitlement.

When we look at the more “ordinary” people of the UK, do we see there a “country” which is “united” or which might be “unified” (leaving aside the question of whether a clown like Boris Johnson could “unify” anything)? I think not.

The racial question is also hugely-important. Can a multikulti society survive and thrive? I think not; not for long. People used to point at the USA. Well, look now. Falling to pieces. Britain is about 87% “white” (mainly English), but even that figure is doubtful. If you take out Scotland, and Wales, and Northern Ireland, that figure, now for England alone, shrinks alarmingly. Huge cities and large towns in England now have a minority of inhabitants who are really English.

Looking again at Boris-Idiot:

The Balliol College Register for 1983 contains an entry that begins: “JOHNSON Alexander Boris de Pfeffel: JOHNSON, Boris – b. 19 June 1964. New York. American. Generally known while at Balliol as Boris Johnson. Eton; Balliol 1983–7.” [Daily Telegraph]

Note that. “American”. At that time, Johnson was considered to be an American, born in the USA, with an American passport, and brought up in the USA and Belgium as well as the UK.

Johnson was born to British parents on 19 June 1964 in Manhattan‘s Upper East Side in New York City.[4] His birth was registered with both the U.S authorities and the city’s British Consulate, thereby granting him both American and British citizenship.[5] His father, Stanley Johnson, was then studying economics at Columbia University.[6]

Johnson’s maternal grandfather was the lawyer Sir James Fawcett.[7] Johnson’s paternal great-grandfather was CircassianTurkishjournalist Ali Kemal[8][9][10] who was a secular Muslim; his father’s other ancestry includes English and French, including descent from King George II of Great Britain.[11] Johnson’s mother was Charlotte Fawcett;[12] an artist from a family of liberal intellectuals, she had married Stanley in 1963, prior to their move to the U.S.[13] She is the granddaughter of Elias Avery Lowe, a palaeographer, who was a Russian Jewish immigrant to the U.S.,[14] and Helen Tracy Lowe-Porter, a translator of Thomas Mann. Johnson’s maternal great-grandfather was a Lithuanian Jew and Orthodox Jewish rabbi.”

In reference to his varied ancestry, Johnson has described himself as a “one-man melting pot” – with a combination of Muslims, Jews, and Christians as great-grandparents.”


We see, time and again, and reflective of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [usually called a “forgery” but better described as “literary fantasy reflecting facts and real events”], that those assigned leading political positions by the New World Order [NWO] and ZOG [“Zionist Occupation Government”] are not Jewish as such but part-Jew. Boris Johnson is one example. David Cameron [Cameron-Levita] was another. Theresa May another. Sarkozy too. This all fits in with the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, which underpins the EU.


In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), written in 1925, [Coudenhove-Kalergi] describes the future of Jews in Europe and of European racial composition with the following words:

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The EurasianNegroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. […]

Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.”


There you have it: a black-brown-white mulatto dustbin race, ruled over by Jews and part-Jews, and/or by freemasons. That is their vision of EU Europe, including the UK. Now you see how it is that the 2016 Referendum result has led to delay, vacillation, huge fear propaganda, plans to hold a second referendum, blah blah blah. All because this goes beyond trade, beyond co-operation. It is a massive international and cosmopolitan conspiracy.

“Hitler did not share the ideas of his Austrian compatriot. He argued in his 1928 Secret Book that they are unfit for the future defence of Europe against America. As America fills its North American lebensraum, “the natural activist urge that is peculiar to young nations will turn outward.” But then “a pacifist-democratic pan-European hodgepodge state” would not be able to oppose the United States, as it is “according to the conception of that commonplace bastard, Coudenhove-Kalergi…”


As so often, Hitler has been proven to be right. The EU, that “pacifist-democratic pan-European hodgepodge state” is indeed unable to oppose the American expansionism which is in fact better termed NWO/ZOG expansion. It was planned to be like that, secretly. The EU does not stand in opposition to the USA (meaning the NWO) but is at the higher levels tied in with it.

The EU has already begun “the Great Replacement”, the replacement of decent, progressive, evolving European peoples with the backward black and brown peoples who will make suitable slaves for the planned robotic and AI-oriented superstate or “European space” of the near or medium-term future. Below, one aspect of that:

An injection of millions of blacks and browns into the heart of white Northern Europe.

Not for nothing did Angela Merkel, a recipient of the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize [sanitized as the “Charlemagne Prize”]

decide to break EU law and to “invite” untold millions of blacks and browns etc to invade EU territory. This is all part of the plan.



This continues, though now not much publicized. Meanwhile, EU “leaders” [NWO puppets such as Macron] recently met in Marrakesh, where they “decided” to funnel millions more migrants “legally” into the EU, thus not so much disturbing the invaded European peoples. At the same time, they decided to make any criticism of it illegal. The real decisions are of course taken earlier, behind closed doors.

Returning to the UK, to the Conservative leadership farce etc, there seem to be various possibilities when Johnson wins and, however briefly, becomes Prime Minister. The first thing to understand is that Boris-Idiot is no strong character, but a weak and vacillating one. I cannot be sure, but I think that he will probably agree to something with the EU, then try to sell it to the British people as a huge improvement on Theresa May’s “deal”. I doubt that he will, in any real sense, take the UK out of the EU in October 2019. If he does, it will almost certainly be a con-trick. Brexit In Name Only.

One has to ask oneself why the msm have been promoting Boris-Idiot as “Prime Minister in Waiting” for years and years, despite his obvious unfitness for any kind of high office.

Should Boris Johnson really try to take the UK out of the EU on WTO terms, his time as Prime Minister will be measured in weeks not months. It only takes 3 or 4 Conservative MPs to abstain in a confidence vote to effectively remove Boris Johnson as PM. Or for 2 or 3 Conservatives to vote against their own government.

If that were to happen, there would be a general election and one of the first seats to fall would be that of Boris Johnson himself, at Uxbridge. It will be recalled how Johnson at first signed up to the Theresa May “deal” (he wanted to stay in the Cabinet…). How much more will Johnson want to cling on as Prime Minister! He has no honour, no real ideas (beyond schoolboy ones such as garden bridges, cablecars over the Thames, water-cannon, Boris Island etc). He has no ideals, no real ideology. He is also administratively incompetent. He is very likely going to be the worst prime minister the UK has ever had, certainly for the past century or more.

Boris Johnson is looking to be not only one of the least-worthy and least-fitted persons ever to hold that great office of Prime Minister of the UK, but also one of the weakest. Johnson will be a prisoner of Remain-favouring MPs. He has no real desire to Remain or Leave. All that matters to him is being Prime Minister for as long as possible, not to accomplish anything, but just to be there (and to get the perks etc). Money in terms of salary etc is not the main thing, in fact he might lose out, though only temporarily. Memoirs can be penned later and millions paid…

Will Johnson last as PM (assuming that he even gets that far)? Probably not. He is being pulled in various directions, by the DUP whose votes he will need, by the pro-Remain MPs, by the EU. He is as weak as weak could be, politically.

The likelihood must be a 2019 general election.



Beyond that, there is a crying necessity for a serious social-national movement in the UK.


Typically, the Jews look only to their own interests, and the Conservative Party leadership farce is no exception to this rule:

The Jewish Chronicle at least admits to it: “we rate them on the only scale that matters [their Jewishness and/or attitude to the Jews]”

Boris Johnson is liked more than disliked by Conservative Party members (+31%) but greatly more disliked than liked by voters as a whole (-19%)…

Who knows what the future holds for Europe and the world?


Update, 9 July 2019

Having watched the above clip, either Boris Johnson is on cocaine, which would be worrying, or he is not, which would be even more worrying. What more can one say? This is somehow an area beyond ideology. It was once said that the Soviet Union was divided into the drinkers and the non-drinkers. Now Britain, whatever its other divisions, divides into, on the one side, those who see that an idiotic, uncontrolled, madly-ambitious, conscienceless incompetent, without ideas or ideals, is about to become, incredibly, Prime Minister of this country, and on the other side, those who either do not see, are too stupid to understand what Boris-Idiot is, or are totally deluded (or both, or all).

If anyone wanted to be convinced of the complete decadence of “democracy” in the UK, I should think that the Boris-Idiot/Jeremy Hunt “debate” (schoolboy level spout-fest) would be enough, judging from –admittedly– the bits that I myself have now seen. As for the audience, they seemed to love Boris-Idiot, I suppose because they, like mobs and crowds of plebs down the ages, from the days of the Roman Empire and even Republic, want to be entertained, want to be pandered to, and above all do not want to have to think seriously.

A small selection of Twitter vox pop

The lady below sets the bar low! What a stupid woman!

Someone [below] is awake, anyway…

Another who is not asleep…

As I predicted some time ago, Boris Johnson, Boris Idiot, shows weakness in every way. Here is his latest indication.

Johnson is a doormat for for the USA and for Israel.

Update, 15 July 2019

Ha. Here we are…

Update, 18 July 2019

What more can one add?…

Update, 24 July 2019

Boris-Idiot won by about 92,000 votes to about 48,000. Clear but not overwhelming. “Boris” will therefore become PM today or tomorrow, unless some public-spirited chauffeur runs over him in a ministerial limousine.

92,000 elderly Conservative members have decided that they want Boris-Idiot as Prime Minister. The other 65 million UK residents have no say. All that UK voters can do, in any future Westminster election, starting today, is vote any way except Conservative

The reaction has been sharp and is not confined to those who want to Remain in the EU.

Foreign or near-abroad reaction?

84 thoughts on “The Conservatives, Boris Johnson, Upcoming Political Events and the Currents in Society”

  1. Hey, don’t be too harsh on that old bird! She probably thinks, from the perspective of her age group, that Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt are both nice and decent young chaps fresh out of public school (and with regard to Jeremy Hunt I would be inclined to agree with her. Perhaps though Jeremy is just a touch TOO nice to be an effective PM?) So, what could possibly go wrong with either of them in No.10? Does it really matter that one of them is a circus clown?

    I think the younger man in your article has it correct. Both candidates leave much to be desired and are far from ideal but at least Jeremy Hunt would probably be competent in the job. If only Jeremy was a social conservative and not one of these very numerous Liberal Democrat’s infiltrators inside the Conservative Party.

    P.S. Being an 80 year old member of the Tory Party is not particularly noteworthy! It is practically middle-aged!

    Look at this chap here who is even a President of a local branch😁😀😀😀😀:

    Or this lady who stood as a local council candidate this year:

    A sense of public service is not to be sniffed at especially when it comes at that age and combined with long life experience. I wonder if she was elected?😀😀😀👌👌👌

    Our country is in safe hands with these people effectively choosing our next PM!

    On a more serious level, I think they will quickly regret choosing the clown as the country is probably not in the mood to accept someone who will be out of his depth as PM and this is especially so when you consider that Boris wouldn’t be the first Tory PM to fit this description recently ie John Major, David Cameron and most of all Teresa May. In short, they HAVE TO get this choice right both for their own sake’s but more importantly for our country’s.


    1. I concede that, at age 62 (in September, 63) I am hardly in a position to channel the jeunesse, whether doree or otherwise. I suppose that (up to a point…) age is how you feel (or, as Groucho Marx put it, as old as the woman you feel…).

      Wisdom (if any), culture (if any), knowledge and experience (ditto) are worth as much as youthful enthusiasm. Some people, though, *are* too young for serious politics, and some are too old.

      There is no doubt that Boris Johnson as PM is a cruel joke. Even the former Chief of SIS, Sawers, implied as much today, publicly.

      Politics matter, matter more than most British people believe. I was in Poland several times in the late 1980s, saw its decline to the point where the State, notionally very powerful, became powerless.

      I saw Russia (only Moscow) in 1993 and then again in 2007. Huge changes, initially caused by political change. I have seen other places in flux. It does matter what ideology is supreme or accepted, it does matter *who* is at the head of affairs.

      A significant point of importance is the gap between what that relatively tiny group of Conservative Party “activists” and members want to see done, and the perspective of the other 99% and more of the country, bearing in mind that only 1 in 400 or 500 people eligible to vote belongs to the Conservative Party.


  2. I have rarely, if ever, agreed with John Major, but he surely had it correct when he stated, “serous times call for serious prime ministers”.


    1. Major was and is of course tied in, as most “Conservatives” are, with the Israel lobby, but in one respect I do have time for him. He has been down there, where all too many of the UK population are or have been. Born in a poor neighbourhood, brought up partly in rented rooms etc. Not the silver spoon of a Cameron-Levita, a George Osborne, not the easy smoothed path for even the untalented (stand up, Ed Vaizey MP etc). Major was a bit of a nincompoop, but that is relative when you look at the Boris Johnsons, the Priti Patels, the Matt Hancocks, the Esther McVeys etc.

      If, as Heraclitus said (I think, better check that with Boris…), “character is destiny”, then the Conservative Party is well and truly screwed!


      1. Yes, I do think you have to admire John Major in one respect ie he wasn’t born into money, didn’t go to an elite public school yet brought himself up by his own bootstraps by taking a correspondence banking course etc and became a British PM.

        I think if David Cameron and George Osbourne hadn’t fronted the referendum campaign then the Remain campaign may well have won. George Osborne’s increasingly lurid predictions of economic catastrophe grated with many especially Labour voters in places like Sunderland. I believe at least a part of the leave vote in these areas was a kind of ‘up yours’ vote against austerity which was perceived by these voters in a more worse way than it would have been otherwise because it was instigated and maintained by upper middle-class posh ex public schoolboys like David Cameron and George Osbourne. Cameron had a bit of Old Etonian arrogance about him and this is why he just couldn’t see that referendum result coming yet his own policy of austerity should have been thought of by him as one reason why the leave result wasn’t a possibility that could have been entirely discountered.

        Yes, in what possible universe could someone like Esther McVey be considered to be cabinet material let alone be able to stand for her party’s leadership? The party of Salisbury, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain etc has fallen a very long way!

        Esther McVey is basically only around the cabinet table not only because the Conservative Party lacks many people of real talent but also because she has a scouse/Merseyside accent and that should bring in a few much needed votes in North Western England.


  3. Yes, politics certainly does matter and it is unfortunate and can be dangerous that more Britons don’t take an interest in it compared to the French for instance.

    I think this is a good saying ‘you may take little or no interest in politics BUT politics will almost certainly take an interest in you.’


    1. In the past, apart from wars etc, the British might think that to engage in political life was a choice, like joining a group of am-dram people. However, that attitude is rather an outdated luxury now.


  4. Of course as it collates various monthly national opinion polls it fluctuates but at the moment that Electoral Calculus website is predicting that Coco The Clown will be returned as the member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip by a margin of 3.6% over Labour if an election was called today.


    1. To anyone with a few half-functioning brain cells it is obvious that the village idiot of Uxbridge and South Ruislip can’t be trusted and he will promise quite literally anything to anyone in order to ascend the greasy pole of British politics and to fulfill his demented desire (which he has had since he was a teenager at Eton College) of becoming Britain’s PM.

      As for that article you posted, I see that unsurprisingly the ‘modern’ Conservative Party (more like tenth rate Liberal Democrat’s for slow learners) has adopted that absurdly widely drawn definition of what constitutes ‘anti-semitism’.

      Oh for the good old days when Tories were Tories and you could not mistake them for the old Liberal Party/Liberal Democrats:


  5. Yes, there is a huge gulf between the older Royals and the younger ones. It is fortunate that the Queen Mother is not with us still. She was a lady of impeccable breeding and class and no doubt would have had a stroke or a heart attack to see what her great grandson had brought home. Meghan is quite simply common trailer park Yankee trash and wholly unsuitable to be a member of what is supposed to be OUR Royal Family rather than a more expensive version of Dallas or Dynasty.

    God, I sound like your typical envious and bitchy woman here when discussing Meghan but that is my opinion of her and that opinion would still stand even if she was a white American.

    Kate is ok. Yes, her background isn’t of the nobility but when compared to Meghan she is of a different universe.

    I think the Queen Mother’s death will be viewed in the years ahead as the beginning of the end for the Royal Family.


    1. Story about Queen and Queen Mother. About 30 years or more ago, my mother, who was then a Member at Ascot, took a little girl (my then girlfriend’s daughter, aged about 9, I think) to the meeting in Autumn or Winter (I forget), when the Queen used to give out chocolates to children. There was a crush of children and sharp-elbowed parents. Little girl managed to find a place. Queen came along giving out chocolates (those Cadbury’s Milk Chocolate bars, the very thin ones). Child received one from Queen, thanked her; Queen moved on. Not long after, Queen Mother came along and looked sharply at little girl. “Has the Queen already given you chocolate, child?” Little girl was too tongue-tied to answer, so Queen Mother reluctantly, as if conferring a gift of rubies, gave her another chocolate bar, with the words “All right, child, there you are.”


  6. So, barring a miracle, the probably senile dementia- afflicted (no, I’m NOT laughing as it is an atrocious disease which with a bit of luck scientists will soon find more effective treatments and an eventual cure for) elderly Tory Party membership will elevate this clueless and overly ambitious cretin to be the country’s PM instead of the yes rather staid BUT competent Jeremy Hunt .

    Well, I say this, I hope if they do no sensible person in this country will regard the Tory Party from now onwards as anything other than a selfish, self-centered, grotesquely irresponsible fringe and joke party that deserves to suffer every electoral setback it possibly can.


    1. Like much else in Britain, the Conservative Party has been living off its past glories and reputation for a long time. True of Labour too. The corrupt msm still panders to these faltering parties but history is moving on. In the 1950s, the Cons were a mass movement with millions of members. Now, somewhere between 100,000 and (it is claimed) 160,000. Unrepresentative in every way.


  7. Silly Tory members don’t trust Jeremy Hunt. They think he is still a Remainer. Hunt is now someone who supports Brexit. He is a self-made businessman who will get the job done in his own quiet yet determined way. What is better, Tories? Someone like Hunt who will do it albeit a perhaps a bit slowly whilst preserving the United Kingdom or someone like Boris who wlll mess the process up and will fail to complete it as he will go about it a bull in a china shop, smash up the UK and no doubt stubble into a general election?


    1. I also distrust Jeremy Hunt, but he is a recognizable figure, meaning the English careerist from an Establishment background. Perhaps a smarmy snake, but capable, on the whole. You see what you get with Hunt. Boris-Idiot is different. A semi-British version of Khrushchev: blundering, silly, uninformed, a publicity-hound and (in the case of Boris) rootless, without ideas or ideals, and focussed only on his own shallow needs.


  8. Silly Tory members don’t trust Jeremy Hunt as they believe he is still a Remainer. That is wrong. Hunt is now someone who supports Brexit. Hunt is a self-made businessman who has made a lot of money running a successful business and has quite a degree of experience as a Foreign Secretary whom other EU foreign secretaries and those in the wider world trust . He is used to getting things done. He will get this job done too in his own non-flashy, quiet yet determined way. There is no sensible comparison to be made between what Jeremy Hunt has managed to achieve in his life and in government and that of Boris Johnson.

    What is better, Tories? Someone like Hunt who will complete the job albeit a bit more slowly whilst preserving our United Kingdom or someone like Boris who will make a mess of the process, fail to complete it as he will go about it like a bull in a china shop, smash up the UK and no doubt stumble into a general election?

    The answer as to who you should choose should be obvious!


  9. The last time the Tories spurned the chance to have Her Majesty’s Foreign Secretary as PM was in 1940 when we should have had The Earl of Halifax (Edward Fox) instead we got half-Yank Winston Churchill who was as blind as a bat, too trusting of American intentions towards this country, had no real ability to see into the future at all, lost us a great deal of blood and treasure and an Empire but WAS a flashy showman so that was all right then, wasn’t it? All in all a bit like an earlier Boris Johnson but with more of an IQ and less of a clown! This just goes to show how truely abysmal Boris is!


    1. As I have commented previously or elsewhere, while I make, to say the least, trenchant criticism of Churchill, his policies, his effect on the world, he was a titan compared to Boris-Idiot! Boris Johnson is like an am-dram impression of Churchill in a provincial talent competition. Slight superficial resemblance, but none of the substance or depth. I speak as someone entirely opposed to Churchill’s policies, especially in respect of the German Reich.

      Boris Johnson was unable to hold down the job he did (was supposed to do) as Foreign Secretary, so how could he do anything positive as Prime Minister?

      BTW, I saw this:


      1. As far as I can see Boris Johnson has made a complete Horlicks of every job he has ever been given in politics and his pre-politics life draws a blank as well. If we thought David Cameron was bad and incompetent we have seen nothing compared to the Eton Mess this total chancer will do:

        Perhaps, the time has now come where we should seriously consider instituting a blanket ban on persons from Eton College becoming PM?

        If only the Queen could just refuse to appoint the oaf?

        It won’t do this country any good to have this imbecile as PM. When he goes to the EU they will refuse to even talk to him after pausing for some giggles and thinking to themselves what the hell happened to that once serious country to have an utter clown as its new PM.


      2. As you say. Boris-Idiot would have had a marginally better chance of not being laughed at from the start, had he not been (well, posed as) Foreign Secretary for 2 years. Now, all significant foreign powers have seen him and know that he (and so the UK) is a joke, to be handled easily and without difficulty.

        There is a good chance that the EU will decide not to offer anything, BUT what the EU might just do is give Boris-Idiot a straw at which to clutch, something marginally better than Theresa May’s “deal”, so that Idiot can return to Westminster waving his paper and crying “an EU deal in our time!”. What may scupper it all is this absurd Irish difficulty. The DUP are tough and will not compromise. The EU cannot compromise (and the Irish government will rebel and use its veto if necessary).

        Take a look at Matthew Goodwin’s Twitter output. There are a couple of tweets of recent days showing graphs re. the polarization of the UK around Brexit. Total.

        The msm is hitting at Corbyn hard now. They are trying to get him to resign or for those around him to ditch him. He has spent his whole life seeking power, as much as you can have in a political milieu or system such as the UK’s. He is a “Marx on a postcard” quasi-communist. He will not abandon his unholy grail of power. As to those around him, they are toast if Corbyn goes. The Tom Watson Jew-lobby etc will dump them all if Corbyn goes. They know it.

        In fact, though Labour is going down gradually, it is still polling not too badly when compared to the Conservatives, though it is telling how volatile and varied the opinion polling now is. We are at the start of something big, not the end of a smallish “populist” tantrum.


    2. Churchill destroyed two empires (the German Reich and the British Empire). He boosted two new quasi-imperial states (the USA and the Soviet Union). His actions were only part of a bigger picture, true, but nonetheless significant. Had the UK not declared war on Germany in September 1939, France would also have stayed its hand. Poland would still have been defeated and then split between Germany and Soviet Union, of course, and Germany would still have invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 or possibly earlier, and with every chance of crushing Stalinism forever.

      Had the above happened, there would have been no war in Western Europe, no *world* war at all, probably. The Soviet Union would have collapsed and eventually been more or less as it is today, but weaker and more obviously influenced by Germany. The millions of victims of Stalin post-1941 would have been saved. There would have been no war in North Africa, Greece etc. No war in Italy either: as late as mid-1940, Churchill was trying to get Mussolini to join the Allies. The French Vichy Government was still accorded neutral status by the Americans in the early 1940s, until Germany occupied Vichy France territory; the Vichy government even had a consulate and legation in Washington DC until not long before the end of the war (see the “Cynthia” spy case: ).

      Most of the destruction and human misery of WW2 could have been avoided had Britain either not declared war on Germany in 1939, or had Britain agreed an honourable armistice with the German Reich in 1940, after the Fall of France.

      Those pushing for war in 1939-40 and defending Churchill now are either misled and naive British people, or Jews.

      On the above scenario, there could have been no Cold War post-1945, no Vietnam war, no occupation of Eastern and parts of Central Europe by Sovietism, no nuclear standoff USA/USSR. The European empires would have lasted far longer in Africa and Asia; there would have been almost no warfare in those regions, and far less environmental damage.

      Finally, had Britain not declared or pursued war in 1939-40, Britain itself would have developed in a far more prosperous way, without rationing (which lasted until 1955, of course!), with more money around to fund the social programmes which were already mooted in the 1930s (NHS, social housing etc) but which are usually wrongly (somehow) attributed to “the War”.


  10. If Tory Party members don’t wake up in time and cease to impose this goon upon the nation we can only hope God intervenes and Boris suffers a nasty accident as that now looks to be the only way of disaster being avoided.


      1. Yes, those underpasses in Paris aren’t noteworthy for their safe designs! If only Boris the Buffoon would replicate his clownish antics during the London Olympics and this time fall off and break his neck.


  11. What is the bloody point in the tax payer funding expensive secret services like MI5/Ml6 if they can’t prevent cretins like Boris becoming PM and posing a severe danger to this country?


    1. Most secret services *are* expensive. The question is whether they are good value (are worth it). They (both SIS and MI5) would say that it is not within their remit, i.e. is simply not their job, to parry any potential threat to the UK coming from the incompetence of an elected politician, not to mention that that politician is or soon will be leader of a major and old-established System party. They would certainly not see it as their job to remove him.


      1. Didn’t the secret services try to undermine Harold Wilson when he was PM? Why should Tories be exempt?


      2. There may have been small groups in either or both (MI5/SIS) that wanted Wilson gone, but I doubt that there was an institutional conspiracy. Wilson was becoming demented in the mid-1970s. He told two journalists at Downing Street to “go to Charing Cross Road. See a blind beggar on a street corner. Kick that beggar. He may tell you something, lead you somewhere…” See:

        God knows what the scribblers thought of Wilson’s Buchan-esque advice, which echoes The Thirty-Nine Steps or Greenmantle.

        I heard a story in the mid-1980s from someone who attended a State Banquet at the Banqueting House in Whitehall. A large and powerful Soviet delegation was there; ministerial level. At one point, a Soviet minister leant to his Brit counterpart and said “we were sorry to hear that Harold Wilson has deteriorated so badly”, and the Brits just nodded sombrely. This was about 9 years, I think, after Wilson’s resignation. Interestingly, the British *public* were not told what the Soviet government evidently knew. D-notice, maybe.

        Having said that, there were Soviet agents of varying kinds around Wilson. Mostly, not all, Jews. Kagan, Sternberg/”Plurenden” etc. Labour MPs too.


    1. Your link does not work, but I found the article:

      Made me laugh when Boris-Idiot said that Trump is unfit to be US President. A true comment but odd coming from Boris, unfit as he is for any job beyond scribbling rubbish. I think that we can guess why the Daily Telegraph (read, “the Barclay brothers”) pay him hundreds of thousands a year to scribble nonsense once or so per week. It has nothing at all to do with his “literary” output, everything to do with the possibility (now, likelihood) that he is going to become PM.

      Yes, everyone who has worked with Boris (worked at the same time as him, because Boris himself does very little) has blasted him, whether in public or privately.

      Only some majority of about 140,000 Conservative Party members, so maybe 80,000 or 90,000 (if that) are going to, in effect, “elect” “our” new Prime Minister. This has nothing at all to do with “democracy”. It is closer to a mild form of Sovietism. The bastard has no legitimacy, no right to pose as Prime Minister.


      1. A bit rich coming from the man-child who is already being dubbed on the Continent as ‘mini-Trump’ (god knows why though because despite the messy blond haircuts being similar at least Trump does attempt to put America FIRST and Boris would never put us first as that would constitute a ‘dangerous lurch towards nationalism and the Right’)

        Trump ran some successful businesses before becoming President as well .WHAT has The Clown done here before exerting himself as the Tory candidate for the very safe Tory seat of Henley-Upon-Thames?


      2. As you say. Boris Idiot was a trainee journalist and journalist (sacked as both), an editor (only of The Spectator; absent much of the time, often screwing the daughter of Woodrow Wyatt, Petronella, who now seems rather sad despite her occasional articles saying in effect what a wonderful champagne lifestyle she leads). As an MP he was of course sacked from the Opposition front bench at least once and is said to be of little direct use to constituents. As London mayor, many say that he was no good either. Basically, Boris is bad news in general, but if he finally sends the Conservative Party and its MPs into perdition, I shall be happy.


  12. Boris Johnson is so much of a thick, incompetent and utterly gormless prick he thinks ILLEGAL immigrants should be given an amnesty and be allowed to stay and thereby be effectively REWARDED for their CRIMINALITY. So much for the Conservative Party proclaiming themselves the ‘party of law and order’!

    Illegal immigrants should be rounded up and deported and we should have planes filled to the brim with these CRIMINALS taking off from Heathrow 24 hours a day and seven days a week.


    1. I agree. What Johnson is doing here is getting rid of a problem by saying that it is not a problem (even though it is). Then he need do nothing about it. Johnson comes from that lazy, entitled stable. The David Cameron-Levita type, the Ed Vaizey type. The Scameron “government” of fools had several like that in quite high positions. The crony club.

      If you say that illegal immigrants should not be here, then you have to find a way to locate them and eliminate them, if only by flying the bastards home at State expense. Johnson can just sign a “pledge” or put forward some “law” two paragraphs long and “at a stroke”, he has no immediate political problem to deal with: no endless legal appeals, no idiot passengers trying to “save” the deportees by interfering with aircraft, no critical UN or EU or Amnesty reports etc.

      Having said that, any British person who does NOT want those bastards in the UK knows where not to put their next X— NOT by “Conservative Party” anyway…( not by voting Labour, either)…Boris-Idiot is about to do huge damage, first of all to the party in which he lives as a parasite.


  13. The Japanese government has no qualms about doing this but then they have a government whose motto is Japan FIRST and they haven’t allowed an illegal immigration problem to develop as far as our moronic governments have in the first place.

    I wonder if one of Boris The Buffoon’s first actions upon becoming PM will be to expel the Japanese Ambassador to the United Kingdom? After all, shouldn’t we demonstrate our repugnance towards such an obviously ‘nasty’ and Nazi/fascist’ country?


    1. The Japanese people and government have a demographic problem, the ageing Japanese population. We in the UK (and across Europe) have a different demographic problem, the UK (and Europe-resident) population becoming black/brown/Chinese (etc). The Japanese have chosen the better way, despite its difficulties. Technology and social tinkering may solve their problem. Our problem may not be solve-able, or only by a civil war scenario (which may now develop over time).


      1. I agree. I’m a big admirer of the Japs (notwithstanding the fact they are non-whites and they were undoubtedly very cruel and wicked to British service personal during WW2). We should try and emulate them from having strict AND ENFORCED border controls, capital punishment (they have a pretty mild and sensible system in most respects ie the sentencing guidelines: and even some of the ways they organised their economy so that the country had an economic miracle post WW2 and became an economic superpower.

        Japan is a shining example of successful moderate nationalist policies.


      2. Their judicial system is odd and harsh to our eyes (eg once under arrest, you can be and often are held for weeks of intense interrogation by police) but it seems to suit the Japs, and they seem to have little crime compared to the UK.


  14. The Japs even still have a Royal Family that is dignified and they can look up to unlike Britain’s which is now a Americanised, classless and globalist worldwide laughing stock akin to an overly expensive episode of Dynasty or Dallas.


    1. Even a cynic, or sceptic perhaps, like me would never have believed that “a prince of the blood” would ever marry an American mulatta who was not very long ago married to an American Jew!


      1. Are we sure he is Prince Charles’s and Princess Diana’s son? He doesn’t look anything like them! Surely, it is Prince Harry Hewitt?


  15. Apparently, the Conservative Party is so incompetent that not only do we get a shambolic government that can’t run things properly they can’t even organise their farcical ‘leadership’ elections properly either since some of their mostly geriatric and senile dementia addled members are getting more than one ballot paper each! God almighty! Such is the fate of nations decided! It is bloody depressing and disturbing!

    Why don’t they disband the party since it doesn’t preserve the things ordinary people want preserving and make room for better parties? They will, at long last, do a public service then.


    1. It *is* depressing. Both main System parties are in terminal decline. The LibDems are just a kind of “dustbin of hopes” and of votes (and unwanted MPs like Chukup Chuka).


      1. If there is a God, why doesn’t he speed-up their demise and do Britain a favour? Those Brits with brains simply don’t want these moronic, utterly incompetent, clownish (one to have a REAL clown as PM soon), virulently anti-British nation-wrecking scum parties to be on the scene any longer and deciding our country’s future. Be gone and good bloody riddance!


      2. It is.

        Frightening, though, to think that that idiot (Chukup Chuka) might well have been a government minister had Corbyn lost to Owen Smith and had Labour done better at elections in recent years.

        Similar idea: sex perv/pest/bully Mark Clarke( ) very nearly got elected at Tooting in 2010. Had that happened, there was every chance that Clarke might have attained junior ministerial office by 2015, and then, who knows? The system is sick (I believe that Clarke was last year or in 2017 sacked by Unilever for more sex-pesting, so he is finished politically anyway; however, his acolytes, eg scribbler Andre Walker, and psycho type Sam Armstrong (acquitted of rape, controversially, at the end of 2017) are still around on the fringes of Westminster. The latter is or was director of communications at the Henry Jackson Society


  16. Yes, Japan has a low crime rate and in particular a low violent crime rate .This is because they have an effective police force which concentrates on apprehending REAL criminals and bringing them to court ie not like CONServative Party-misruled ‘Britain’ which has police officers who sit on their arses all day long looking at mean un-PC tweets on Twitter, stringent punishments for criminal behaviour including hanging and a non diverse population that is naturally law-abiding.


  17. It makes me laugh when you hear demented Tories whinge and complain about Sadiq Khan and how he is a bad Mayor and is misruling London. Yes, he is but no Tory mayor is likely to be any better not that any Tory will ever become the Mayor of London again since there are too few whites in the city now to provide any substantial backbone to the Tory vote and at any rate Boris only won in 2008 and 2012 because BNP and UKIP voters put him as their second preference.

    Sadiq Khan can’t do much much about that cesspit’s stabbings etc not without far harsher penalties for violent crime at the national level including capital punishment and even having that probably would only reduce it a little. The fact is If you import the Third World from backward dumps you will, over time, get Third World crime levels

    So, London’s increasingly disturbing violent crime level isn’t just to do with having Sadiq Khan as its mayor but also because cretinous Tory governments have failed to control Third World migration properly in the past.


    1. Of course. Obviously, I have no time for Sadiq Khan (though he did the whole country a favour by defeating Mark Clarke at Tooting in 2010), but as you say, if you import the backward nations, you get their usual behaviour patterns. In fact, it is surprising that London’s crime problem is not far worse even than it is, given both the black/brown/gypsy/white chavscum population in many areas, combined with the excessive wealth in others. A few years ago, the wealthiest UK resident was a Ukrainian Jew who lives or lived in Kensington, and who was worth, I think, £15 BILLION! When you think what one million pounds is… and that chimney-dodger had or has about fifteen thousand million!


      1. Yes, Britain has a crime problem with some elements of our own people too so this isn’t just a Third World/foreign population problem.

        Some property crimes are probably worsened by an exceptional disparity between people on the basis of their wealth or non wealth but not violent crime.


  18. I’m an enthusiast for the virtues of capital punishment (ha, ha, you may have guessed!) I would bring it back for the crime of High Treason as well as for more normal crimes. It is an utter disgrace that Labour had it abolished even for crimes like treason (though smart on their behalf taking into account Bliar’s Wars etc). I would use either the firing squad or what is probably the best method ie the time-honoured British method of long-drop hanging as this seems to me the most humane method of dispatching the worst criminals. Pre-1964 we Brits managed to get this method down to an art form so much so in fact that murderers were executed in as little as 7 seconds thereby reducing any distress caused to prison officers and the condemned.

    I don’t know for the life of me why the Yanks don’t use hanging as they inherited from us instead of employing that lethal injection malarkey.


    1. America uses lethal injection or electric chair because capital punishment can then be presented as “modern”, “humane”, “scientific” etc, even though it is anything but. In fact, the Saudi sharp sword method is actually more humane than these “scientific” American ways of dealing out death, though the average Joe in the USA would never believe it.

      The American methods are fairly appalling, akin to torture and certainly “cruel and unusual punishment” as mentioned in the US Constitution (which is a joke, really, on the whole).

      In fact, hanging was common in many US states at one time, and was used in some States (eg Washington state) until quite recently. The method of hanging was far crueller than the post-1900 British, though. I have read the accounts of Pierrepoint and Sid Dernley (I think the name was).

      Yes, you are more enthusiastic about executing people than am I. I concede that many deserve it (justice) but say that in many cases we should go beyond justice and offer mercy.


      1. The electric chair is probably the worst method. That is just plain cruel and this is even when it is done correctly let alone the horrific pain it can cause when such executions have been botched ie there have been cases in Florida when the condemned has more or less caught fire with flames shooting out of the head etc. Executions using lethal injection have also been fraught with problems ie difficulties finding the veins with the result the execution takes an inordinate amount of time and increases the distress of the person being put to death to the drugs only partially working thereby requiring additional injections which can cause significant pain before the prisoner expires.

        Simply put, there is no need for these methods at all and they shouldn’t be used because they are cruel, inefficient, take too long, increase the mental and physical distress of the condemned and those who witness the execution, are liable to being botched etc.

        If we as a society approve of the state using capital punishment and putting into their hands the power of ending a person’s life the very least we can do is seek to make executions as civilised as we can possibly make them as if we don’t we fall into the same moral category as the murderer etc.

        No, the only suitable methods are long-drop British style hanging, the firing squad (though perhaps we reserve that for military executions as in the past) and maybe the guillotine which was last used in France as recently as 1977!


      2. Dereck Bentley should definitely have been offered mercy as different interpretations could have been put upon upon his alleged words, “Let him have it, Chris”. I half suspect the law was allowed to take its course in 1953 because Home Office officials wanted to end capital punishment and, of course, that case gave a powerful impetus to the anti-hanging and pro-abolition lobby.


  19. Of course, whilst we are members of the EU there is no possibility of hanging ever returning as the EU puts an explicit ban on capital punishment being used by its members. WHEN we are free of EU rule we can then consider the issue once again though I think we may also need to end our membership of the Council of Europe too.

    That being said, even once again as a fully self-governing country there is little prospect of the penalty being available to the courts since parliament is filled to the brim with left-liberals. Personally, I’ve always thought that one reason many MPs loathe hanging and would seek to prevent its return is not only on account of the usual reasons they give but because having the death penalty would show in stark form the numbers of murders committed by blacks and asians versus whites and that would never do and also because hanging may cause ethnic riots to happen and worsen racial tension. It is probably true to say capital punishment works better in more homogeneous societies though Singapore has been known to use it extensively and they are pretty diverse..


  20. In order to tackle crime more effectively we need to increase the efficiency and visibility of the police and increase their numbers so that what criminals fear most ie being caught happens more often and they are brought to trial, increase prison capacity, have harsher sentences including capital punishment and longer terms of imprisonment with more of them comprising LIFE MEANING LIFE with the possibility of parole being denied more often etc.

    Also, it would be wise to crack down hard on immigration as the social dislocation and alienation from society ie increasing our sense of not being at home and not truely being connected with each other it can lead to can be an ideal breeding ground for crime to grow in.

    No doubt one reason Japan has a lower crime rate than we do is because society there hasn’t been uprooted by vast waves of immigration and therefore they aren’t as alienated from each other as we are. In short, Japan’s society is composed of more social ‘glue’. This means your average Japanese person has more of a sense of belonging to a common society and is thus more considerate of others and therefore more reticent about harming it through criminal actions.


  21. For some people, particularly violent offenders, prison IS the most appropriate place for them as it DOES remove them from general society by depriving them of their liberty so they can’t violently assault an innocent person etc on the streets again (although being in prison doesn’t prevent an imprisoned thug from murdering a prison officer and that is one reason we need hanging restored)

    As Michael (‘Something of the Night About Him’) Howard once put it (back in the good old days when Tory conference debates about law and order were fun to watch😀👌😁), “Prison Works”!😃


    1. For me, prevention is better than cure. The root causes of crime (once beyond Original Sin) are social inequality combined with a society obsessed by money and status symbols, a chaotic and racially-mixed population, lack of accepted religious or ethical rules.

      Prison does *not* work, contrary to what Michael “Howard” said. Prison creates criminals or worse criminals, and also (in the UK today) drug addicts.

      Before WW2, in England, sentences were generally a great deal shorter than they now are. There was far less crime, though, because society was more homogenous (and white).

      I constantly notice a strange dichotomy: on the one hand, very long sentences, or unnecessary custodial sentences, for some crimes (particularly sexual ones and some acquisitive ones), yet on the other hand, absurdly lenient and often non-custodial sentences for many crimes of very considerable violence etc.

      Example from last week’s newspapers: a woman who called the police to say that a neighbour was attacking her with a machete. She was stupid enough to leave the line open as she told her boyfriend that she was making up a story to get the neighbour arrested. Armed police burst into that neighbour’s house. No machete was found. The woman later admitted her lie. Result? 12 month “community order” and 50 hours unpaid work. Had the police found a machete next door and had the 999 call not been left open by the woman, that neighbour would probably have been convicted, and would probably have been sentenced to imprisonment.

      Likewise, one reads stories about men (often silly idiots) of varying ages, who get involved with (often willing) girls of 15, who are often only weeks or a few months below the age of consent laid down by law. A custodial sentence is the norm. Often years not months. Ridiculous.

      The point is that imprisonment is a clumsy instrument of social restraint, and in many cases used inappropriately, with sentences of, say, 3 years (18 months actually in prison) handed down when a sentence of 1 year would be as effective. That is why the UK has many more prisons now than in, say, 1980.


      1. I agree that we should seek to prevent crime occurring in the first place and place great emphasis upon that. I believe that one reason Singapore has a low crime rate and in particular a low violent one isn’t just to do with that country’s rigorous criminal justice system and the fact judges there regularly hand down harsh sentences including hanging but also because it is a very authoritarian society in general eg I wouldn’t be at all surprised if schools there had good discipline levels so children grow-up knowing boundaries and learning to keep within them.

        I understand the point about prisons being ‘universities of crime’ etc. However, Michael Howard was surely right to say prison works in the sense that at least violent thugs when they are locked-up can’t physically assault innocent people on the streets as previously when they were free thus incarcerating them inside a prison cell does prevent them from committing further violent offences in general society and it must deter at least some potential violent thugs from committing the sort of crimes that would attract those sentences. In the case of violent criminals, we as a society shouldn’t be afraid of locking criminals up and if we have to increase prison capacity in order to do that then so be it.

        Having a more disciplined society starting with schools and the government helping mothers and fathers to be good parents who are able and willing to discipline their children would help as well.

        Mass, uncontrolled immigration also helps to break the social bonds of a society, makes people more selfish etc and that can be a breeding ground for crime.

        London is pretty much beyond all help now so it is imperative we have far tougher immigration controls to prevent that nightmare from spreading to still relatively low crime rate and less diverse areas elsewhere. Just as one bad example of the violent crime rate cesspit which was our national capital city occurred only about a week ago eg a pregnant mother was stabbed to death!


      2. As you say, London and other large cities may be impossible to salvage. The “germ” in the Petri dish looks and in fact (in a moment of time) *is* harmless. Look at the photos of the Windrush immigrants of 1948: the men in jackets, white shirts, ties, the women likewise dressed decently.

        Fast-forward to 2019, and we see that these pleasant and even charming colonial subjects later became the progenitors of some of the literally millions of blacks now in the UK, many of whom are at best useless, some of whom are (in the collective) a kind of social cancer expressed in violent crime, evil degenerate “music”, very bad behaviour in the streets etc. One has to look at the big picture, not take exceptional and acceptable cases as the norm.

        In my earlier blog posts, I proposed that the more motivated white English people should start to relocate to “safe zones” (I proposed Cornwall and Devon as one). Race is not the only issue, but “race is the root, culture is the flower”.


      3. Similarly ridiculous is the Public Order act 1986 and it’s draconian punishments for thought crimes – speaking about Jewish influence or for putting a few stickers on lampposts criticising diversity and mass immigration etc!


      4. “They” jump upon and corrupt every law. Laws which in themselves might be not unreasonable, were “they” not around, themselves become instruments of political bullying, coercion and control.


  22. Executions also work in that they permanently remove a criminal from society and so prevent any possibility of such a person from murdering again or committing any other form of dastardly criminal deed. Also, provided a sentence of capital punishment doesn’t take long to administer to the criminal (ie unlike the utter farce of waiting years and years and having innumerable appeal processes like in the USA) as was the case in this country before the death penalty was abolished hanging a criminal shouldn’t cost too much money!


  23. We should stop importing people from severely backward counties like Somalia with their low IQ levels (which in the case of that country are bordering on mental retardation levels) Just imagine if we were out of the EU and out of the Council of Europe and thus able to restore judicial hanging and we had it without protections against people with mental retardation being hanged (needless to say I DO NOT advocate those protections being removed) we would be hanging an awful lot of them when they committed a capital crimes.

    Yes, if you have a low quality population with inherent tendencies to commit crimes ie many Third Worlders you are going to have a situation liable to produce high crime rates in general and a high violent crime rate in particular.


      1. Indeed. It is scary to think what sort of subhuman scum you could come into contact with on the streets of our former capital city. This criminal behaviour is totally degenerate and vile. London is in desperate need of a huge fumigation exercise to clear subhumans like that off the streets.

        I am not extremely familiar with all the ins and outs of Singaporean law and the punishments they have there but I think the sentences this despicable crime would attract might well involve a few strokes of the rattan cane, more lengthy terms of imprisonment or even capital punishment for attempted murder.

        Labour, Lib Dem’s, Greens and nowdays the globalist liberal-left Conservative Party would all say these Third World origin people have ‘enriched’ us! Frankly, I profoundly disagree that these people have enriched us AT ALL.


      2. I agree in principle, though I know little of the laws of Singapore. I am not sure that I would like to live there (and have never been there even briefly), though I find their social engineering interesting.


      3. pps: just saw this: African woman, illegal immigrant, caught defrauding the State, still here (WHY?) and not only eating money herself but living with a son who “will need lifelong NHS care” so obviously the bitch is going to be here indefinitely. This one backward African woman and her son will cost the British people millions by the end, and then maybe the son will take over and start breeding too…


  24. Having a supposedly responsible public figure like potential PM Boris Johnson openly advocating a reward for lawbreaking ie allowing illegal immigrants to stay sends out all the wrong messages not just to illegal CRIMINALS like illegal migrants but to ALL potential criminals.

    Employers who knowingly employ illegal migrants should face lengthy prison sentences (even though they aren’t guilty of a violent offence) of ten to twenty years just like the French sentence them for.

    British employers who do this are immoral scoundrels who should be viewed as criminals and be punished. They should consider themselves lucky they live in soft touch Britain and not in Singapore where the crime of aiding and abetting illegal immigration can get you not just a long prison term but also some strokes of the rattan cane!


  25. Frankly, what we do as a society to people who are so intrinsically evil that they consider stabbing to death a pregnant woman as happened in London the other week as in any way acceptable behaviour? People like that are beyond any form of successful rehabilitation so locking them up is useless. I say we execute them and thereby prevent them from killing again ie a prison officer or breeding similar scumbags. Also, we can save some money on their incarceration costs as, sadly, prison spaces don’t come cheap. Really, I think considering the state of London eugenics has something to be said for it.


    1. I am not without sympathy for your point of view. I cling to my anti-capital punishment view like the shipwrecked seaman to his flotsam, as the waves of London (and Manchester etc) disorder threaten to inundate my idealism…


  26. The CONservative Party and Labour have done more harm to London than Adolf Hitler and Herman Goering did with their V1 rockets and the Luftwaffe.

    To be honest, I think the only thing to do with Stab City-Upon-The-Thames now would be to encourage the remaining sensible white non-PC people to leave and then invite either the Luftwaffe or the RAF to bomb it flat and start again or we give up and allow the city to become an independent city state so that its residents with their loony-left PC globalist viewpoints don’t infect the rest of British politics as they have been doing.

    In fact, I see that a separatist political party advocating such a stance as independent city state status has just been set-up according to Wikipedia and the Electoral Commission website.


  27. Judicial hanging as practiced in Britain before it was abolished in 1964 was a quick and relatively humane process that lessened physical and mental harm to the condemned person and mental anguish to the prison officers and the executioner:

    In my opinion, if you have the sentence of capital punishment available to the courts our duty as a society is to make the process of execution as civilised a process as we can make it and not to impose unnecessary brutality or cruelty upon the condemned person as in the USA with their electric chair or lethal injection methods.

    Trust the Yanks to make what should be a fairly humane process unnecessarily complicated and brutal!

    I think the only acceptable methods of capital punishment are long-drop hanging as we done or the firing squad.


  28. Indeed, Bob Matthews. The British state has become TOO powerful in some ways and that is under the Conservative Party. This is strange since that party has long ceased to be a genuine conservative minded party ie adhering to socially conservative principles and policies and has become infiltrated by these weird Libertarian types ( a strange political philosophy that is basically an American import to these shores)

    YET, libertarians are supposed to be in favour of freedom of speech etc and REDUCING the power of the state in society! Trust the Tories to go against one of the few areas libertarianism makes sense ie protecting freedom of speech and thought but also having TOO much of this philosophy in other areas of policy where it doesn’t ie lack of sufficient deterrents to criminal behaviour and in some aspects of economic policy.

    I see that only today another three Labour Party figures have resigned because, of course, Jeremy Corbyn is Britain’s latter-day answer to Julius Streicher!


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s