We have now seen the political theatre playing what seems to be somewhere between comedy and tragedy, or perhaps an unfunny farce. The talking heads and “experts” of the msm have been scrabbling for meaning amid the obfuscation and posturing. Some “newspapers” have even resorted to “experts” in “body language”:
Where does the truth lie? Where does Boris-Idiot lie? Everywhere and non-stop?
I find it infuriating to see, on every news broadcast, that part-Jew public entertainer posing as and (literally) playing the part of Prime Minister of this country. A total charlatan.
We now keep hearing the question, as in the TV game show, “Deal or No Deal?”, and, as in that silly but somehow addictive TV show, there is no skill involved. One just opens all the boxes to see what is inside. No skill, but much calculation as to one’s own best bet. In the case of The Boris-Idiot Show, we should ignore the flim-flam of the “head to heads” with what now are supposed to be “world leaders”. All that Boris-Idiot is considering is his own position and ambition; and was there ever in British politics such an empty ambition?
What After 31 October?
Even more than David Cameron-Levita, this latest ZOG figurehead has no real plans for the people of the UK, no interest in their lives or how to improve Britain’s place in the world. All he wants to do is to be seen as Prime Minister and show off. To that end, his girlfriend has cleaned him up and tidied him up a bit, told him to cut down on the rote-learned classical Greek and Latin and the silly obscure English words from the OED, and tutored him in how to appear, even if briefly, “prime ministerial”.
As noted, Boris-Idiot is the most ZOG [Zionist Occupation Government] Prime Minister ever, and his Cabinet is the most Jewish and Zionist ever, despite the fact that most of them are not Jewish, nor even part-Jew. All (as far as I know) are members of Conservative Friends of Israel. All are also extreme finance-capitalist by ideology, though few if any have ever run a successful private business (unless you include the scams of Grant Shapps etc). They want to destroy the few rights that British citizens have qua employee or otherwise for that matter (eg free speech rights).
Johnson does in fact not much care whether “deal or no deal”, so long as the mass media narrative plays well for him. If “no deal”, then “Boris” plays the Poundland Churchill, standing up for lonely isolated Britain against the EU bullies. If the EU offers enough so that Boris-Idiot can present it as some kind of “breakthrough”, then he can play the role of popular returning Chamberlain, waving his piece of paper and proclaiming “peace in our time with the EU”.
The above two characterizations may seem facile, but that is the level Boris-Idiot is on. He has no serious political or ideological position; it is all showy nothingness, relying on simplistic formulae, 1950s or 1960s boys’ comic-paper cartoons about standing up for Britain etc, and on fooling people too stupid or uninformed to see through what is essentially a con-act. That applies to Brexit too.
I myself favour Brexit, favoured Leave in 2016 and still do, but the Brexit process was criminally mishandled by a load of idiots in the Conservative government(s), possibly deliberately, and so now we career into uncertainty.
At first, Boris was pro-EU, pro-Remain, then “sceptical” (as public opinion moved), then pro-Leave, then voted in Cabinet (during his disastrous months posing as Foreign Secretary) for Theresa May’s “deal”, then he decided that his political future would be better served by acting the part of the “battling Brexiteer”, which meant that, out of 65 million UK inhabitants, the 92,000 Conservative Party members who preferred Leave to Remain (or “Brexit In Name Only” and so Boris-Idiot to Jeremy Hunt) in effect appointed the idiot as Prime Minister, with no popular validation as yet.
If Boris thinks that he can fool people into thinking that he has “achieved” a “better deal” than the Theresa May one, he will take it, knowing that many in the UK are now uneasy at what lies ahead. That also has the advantage for Johnson that he will not have to actually organize the UK and/or try to negotiate trade agreements with other states, something at which he has no experience and probably no aptitude.
If Boris cannot get enough from the EU to fool the public, then the Poundland Churchill will reappear, taking the UK out of the EU on the WTO/No Deal basis. Simple as that. There is no thought either way for what is best for the UK and its people. Everything is “what is best for 1. Boris Johnson and (far behind…) 2. The Conservative Party?”
What will happen if a UK general election happens soon after 31 October 2019? To my mind, Boris-Idiot will have to call one fairly soon, before the economy worsens and before he is fully-exposed as being completely incompetent for his present (or any) office.
Brexit Party is key. If the UK stays formally in the EU, via an extension or otherwise, the Brexit Party will stand 650 candidates, win some seats but more importantly, prevent the Conservative Party from winning dozens and possibly 100+. That would very likely mean that the Con Party will not even be largest party in the Commons.
What if the UK does leave the EU on or before 31 October? If that happens via some stitch-up deal and is in fact Brexit In Name Only (BRINO), Brexit Party will still stand those candidates with hope of a high vote-share.
That only leaves “no deal” or “WTO” Brexit. If that happens, and if it happens without chaos, or before absolute chaos and/or economic recession ensues, then Boris the Poundland Churchill can say to Farage and Brexit Party that they should stand down their troops. Like a Pacific salmon, Farage has spawned and can now die having fulfilled his mission. Will Farage do that? If so, or maybe even if he does not, Brexit Party might have little impact on the Conservative vote, if the UK is seen to have truly left the EU. However, it might still impact the Con vote (if Brexit Party can, ironic as it would be, distance itself from Brexit as sole issue, and seek votes on a wider basis…). It is a gamble. Boris-Idiot is a gambler, a chancer.
Never has the Labour Party been lower in public esteem or public support. Not all Corbyn’s fault. The Jews have mounted an attack on Corbyn for 4 years. Some of the mud has stuck. There are other factors. Corbyn and his allies have not really stood up to the Jew-Zionists. They have continued to parrot support for the “holocaust” fakery etc. There is also the “deadhead” nature of most of the Labour MPs around Corbyn (or not). Blacks and browns prominent, but also some of the English ones. Think Kate Osamor. Think Diane Abbott. The whole package is not electorally appealing beyond the ethnic minorities, beyond some of the public service people, beyond those reliant on State benefits and pensions.
I was until recently convinced that Labour would end up as largest Commons bloc after a 2019/2020 general election. Now? I cannot say with any confidence. That might still happen. Alternatively, the Conservatives might be largest bloc, as now, but with fewer MPs. There is now even a small chance (God forbid) that, in the absence of a popular Opposition, and in the possible absence or effective absence of Brexit Party, the Conservative Party might win a majority in the Commons. Boris Johnson might just survive as Prime Minister against the odds (and against merit), and with real power.
If that were to happen, the future really would be cast into the hazard.
The above photo shows a police officer, I think a “Special” (volunteer part-time “officer”), looking at her hat, with its chequered line. Presumably a lesbian. Now, there are several points about that photo: first and perhaps most important, who in authority, or should I say “leading beyond authority”?…
Reverting to the photo at top, can the public have trust in such partisan police personnel? I think not.
This goes beyond the personal proclivities of the individuals. It is a question of the police, both institutionally, and as individual officers, espousing, publicly, controversial socio-political positions. Also, the police operating in a biased manner.
Many of those on the social-national side of UK radical politics have, in recent years, been subjected to the results of this kind of one-way-street policing, policing which is in other words biased, politically biased. I myself have had a couple of instructive encounters of the sort.
Zionist pressure groups
In early 2017, the Jew-Zionist fanatic Stephen Silverman, who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” at the small but (((well-connected))) “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”] pressure group, complained about me (on behalf of that group or cabal), to the police at Grays, in estuarial South Essex, and not far from where he lives.
[below, Grays Police Station, surely one of the ugliest buildings in England].
My experience there was the subject of a blog post a couple of years ago:
Silverman himself was unwittingly exposed as a serial troll by the CAA’s own lawyer in a preliminary hearing of the Alison Chabloz case. It turned out that Silverman had been trolling people on social media —mostly women— for years, using a number of pseudonymous Twitter and other social media accounts. “Gloating sadism” was his overall persona. He and a group of other Jews, together with a couple of part-Jew doormats, all in or connected with the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [CAA] pressure group, joined in that campaign of online and offline bullying.
That group loved to make malicious and false accusations to Twitter, Facebook etc, as well as to the police and to professional organizations. Their posts frequently predicted (((with typical sadism))), that numerous anti-Zionist people would be arrested, charged, convicted, imprisoned. The bullying campaign started around 2012 and built up to a crescendo, though as they were one by one identified, they (((typically))) backpedalled and tried to play the “victim”…
Meanwhile, now-disgraced Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis gave an interview to the Jewish Press in which he openly admitted that his intention was to “take homes away from” those he called “Nazis”, by means of “lawfare” (abuse of the laws of England for Zionist political purposes).
One person, David Carter, of Cardiff, a former executive with decades of experience working for transnational companies, and an unblemished record (i.e. no police record) was actually arrested and his home searched by duped or colluding police. He was later released “on police bail” (where he stayed for months, which was still lawful then though not now, the law on “police bail” having since been changed); his computers, used for consultancy work, were not returned for further months. He never was charged with anything.
Others were subjected to “voluntary” interviews, which in fact are scarcely voluntary at all (belatedly, and in fact fairly recently, Silverman himself was eventually asked to submit to such an interview, and agreed, but at very short notice got CAA lawyers to write to Essex Police declining; seems that he got away with it, so far).
A lady called Jo Stowell, a professional photographer from Clifton, Bristol, was not only trolled online by the same group of Jews, but was sent unwanted goods etc from sale or return operations, and was subjected to other offline bullying. She too was “asked” to attend a “voluntary” interview with the police by reason of malicious complaint(s). She agreed, attending with her solicitor. No charge was ever made. The Jewish-Zionists did manage to ruin her previously successful photography business though.
The experiences of Alison Chabloz, persecuted singer-songwriter and satirist, have been well-documented both in these blog pages and elsewhere, indeed in the national and international Press (and on TV and radio). I commend her own blog:
My own 2017 experience with the Essex Police is linked above, near top; I was also bothered, though much later, in 2018, by telephone calls from a P.C. Plod (his real name was something else…I think!) from the police of one of the most (((occupied))) parts of London. It appears that I was “accused” of having reposted, in fact completely lawfully, on the GAB social media site responses also completely lawful in themselves, posted by the owner of GAB, Andrew Torba, to a malicious Jewish woman “activist” in North London.
That Jewish woman had, laughably, attempted to intimidate Torba, a U.S. citizen whose GAB site operates from the USA and Eastern Caribbean, by threatening Torba, who is resident in the USA, with Scotland Yard! Torba’s responses started off polite and then went downhill as the woman persisted (((typically))), culminating with Torba’s suggestion that she “fuck off” or some such. She did (she had no choice!), but then tried to find scapegoats in the UK from those many who had reposted Torba’s posts (finding them funny; the tweets also rather well illustrated Hitler’s obiter dicta about the Jews being, despite what they and others often say, a very stupid people).
P.C. Plod had obviously been “got at” in some way. In fact, after having been harassed by him, I had to write to his own Borough Commander and to Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, detailing both why nothing that I had done constituted anything unlawful under English law, and as to why the complainant herself was (in relation to me) certainly wasting police time (quite deliberately); a crime, albeit minor, and possibly coming close at times (in her complaints against others) to attempting to pervert the course of justice, a far more serious crime.
Even after that, Plod still had the cheek to email me (again)! Eventually, I gave him a face-saving way out, which he took. The experience was however unsettling beyond my personal inconvenience and anger. It showed that the police in the UK now have little understanding of either the boundaries of their powers or the limits to the authorized discretion customarily granted to the police. It showed that a UK citizen not doing anything unlawful could nonetheless have his private life and rights of expression interfered with by the police— the police at the lowest level of rank, at that.
The police equation for idiots seems to go something like: “Racism” is bad, so anything we are told is “racist” should not be allowed, so alleged “racism” is to be at once treated as “hate crime” or “hate speech”, so use of the word “Jew” is probably wrong or unlawful (if used by a non-Jew or someone who is anti-Zionist), so the police should assume that any online post (by someone not Jewish) and using the word “Jew” is both racist and unlawful, so the police should immediately take action of behalf of a complainant (if Jewish) against the alleged “racist” (if not Jewish) and this gives the police the right and power to censor anything they like, whether actually lawful or not…It’s mad.
More than that. The said Plod was unwilling to accept that I (a practising barrister at one time) knew more about the relevant law than he did (I did) but I still had to detail it in my letter to his superiors in case even they were unwilling to accept that the law is what it is and is not a “leading beyond authority” instrument of flexible socio-political repression, “useful” for repressing the entirely lawful views of those whom the police institutionally, or the personal acquaintances of police individually, may wish to hit out at. I might add that P.C. Plod’s manner was impertinent and smug, as well as rather aggressive.
This tendency, of the police to go well beyond their actual powers as authorized by or under law, has started to spread in recent years. In 2013, a police sergeant in Hampshire actually tried to strongarm a local newspaper after it printed material critical of a councillor!
“Padraig Reidy, of the freedom of speech campaign group Index on Censorship, said: ‘It’s not the sort of thing that should happen in any democratic country. It’s political policing.’ Mr Satchwell added: ‘Hopefully, before it’s too late, people at the top of politics and policing will wake up to what is happening in what is supposed to be one of the most revered democratic countries in the world.’” [Daily Mail]
In respect of the malice of the Zionist CAA cabal, relatively unknown people such as me have been attacked, but so have those far better known, such as Al-Jazeera TV, Gilad Atzmon (the Jewish but anti-Zionist jazz musician) and David Icke (who scarcely needs introduction, at least in the UK).
However, as far as I know, they have not been harassed by the police. I suppose that it would backfire on the police themselves to harass those who are too famous.
The Blair-Brown governments were those that brought in the obsessive “anti-racism” which is now so pervasive. It is why we now have incidents such as the schoolgirl disqualified from an exam by an exam board because she wrote a few things about cruel “halal” slaughter of animals, which comments might be thought critical of Islam or Muslims!
and note that OCR (the exam board) weaselled thus:
“OCR said in a statement: “OCR takes all incidence of suspected offensive material against a religious group in exams very seriously and must apply rules which are set out for all exam boards in such cases.
“We accept that initially we did not reach the right conclusion and were too harsh.”
In other words, there is no freedom to say what you wish against any religion (or ethnic group) now, no matter what its adherents or members might do or how they might behave, but “we were too harsh” (in the way in which censorship of students was actually carried out…). Even the girl’s mother, while angry at what happened, blamed “an over-zealous, over-righteous examiner“, rather than the prevailing miasma of politically-correct and grey-area semi-legal repression.
We should remind ourselves that many of the greatest minds, saints and heroes of Western Civilization would probably have their words censored now in the UK. They would probably have some policeman improperly telephoning them and annoying them!
It is the web of bad law that has been the acid corroding our liberty in the UK. The Communications Act 2003, s.127 has been the facilitator for much of the repression online. It has strengthened the petty denouncers, the complainers to the police, those for whom Twitter is their little world, to be patrolled and “monitored” and from which any dissenting voices (particularly the defenders of European race and culture, and freedom) are to be removed. You can now add to Twitter the other main platforms: Facebook, YouTube etc.
When the police are not impartial arbiters, to whom can we turn? Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
In the United States, it is often said that the bedrock of civil liberty is the famous Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, alongside the First Amendment (freedom of religion, Press, speech, expression, assembly).
I have always been sceptical of the quasi-holy U.S. Constitution, that is, the way in which this man-made document, cobbled together in a tavern by a bunch of freemasons nearly 250 years ago, is regarded as Holy Writ by the Americans of today. Its “rights” have always seemed to me more apparent than real. For example, you (an American in the USA) have the right to free speech. Very true. So try exercizing it…
If you try to say something negative in the USA about the lobby of the Jews, or about their hugely disproportionate power or influence in the USA or the wider world, or about the “holocaust” hoaxes and fakery, you will almost certainly not face (direct) action from the local or state police, or from the FBI. In that respect, the USA is better than the UK and much of Europe. You may well, however, lose your job, face professional difficulties and, consequent upon those, even lose your home by reason of financial problems as the Jews and doormats thereof gang up against you, so your “freedom” is, in real terms, very constrained indeed. America, “land of freedom”?…
Likewise, yes, a United States citizen or resident may, with variations depending on what state or city he/she lives in (eg New York City as compared with most of the rest of New York state) “keep and bear [some] arms”, but your pistol or revolver, shotgun or rifle, though it may protect you against (some) criminals (ordinary or political) in your home or car (always assuming that you can both handle the weapon and deploy it in time), will certainly not protect you against the state (meaning here not the individual state but mainly the Federal Government).
If the Federal Government of the United States wants to move against an individual or a group, that person or group has no chance. SWAT squads, helicopters, even armoured cars! And that is before the main US military machine is even involved! Your pistol will not help you much under those circumstances. That is why I have only limited faith in weapons.
When the NSDAP started to gain a little local (in Munich) traction in 1920 and 1921, its meetings were routinely broken up with great violence by “Red Front” (Communist/pro-Communist) thugs, the sort that (though in rather farcical reincarnation) might be called “antifa” today. That is when the nascent NSDAP formed the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment), though at first informally:
“The precursor to the Sturmabteilung had acted informally and on an ad hoc basis for some time before this. Hitler, with an eye always to helping the party to grow through propaganda, convinced the leadership committee to invest in an advertisement in the Münchener Beobachter (later renamed the Völkischer Beobachter) for a mass meeting in the Hofbräuhaus, to be held on 16 October 1919. Some 70 people attended, and a second such meeting was advertised for 13 November in the Eberl-Bräu beer hall. About 130 people attended; there were hecklers, but Hitler’s military friends promptly ejected them by force, and the agitators “flew down the stairs with gashed heads”. The next year, on 24 February, he announced the party’s Twenty-Five Point program at a mass meeting of some 2,000 people at the Hofbräuhaus. Protesters tried to shout Hitler down, but his former army companions, armed with rubber truncheons, ejected the dissenters. The basis for the SA had been formed.” [Wikipedia, though note the (((influence))) in Wikipedia: Communist thugs are “hecklers”! The same is true of most of what you now read or hear about Mosley’s BUF rallies of the 1930s].
Also, note that Hitler’s first attempt at a “mass meeting” attracted an audience of only 70! When I gave a talk to the London Forum in 2017, there were about 100 or so there. Maybe there is hope…
“A permanent group of party members who would serve as the Saalschutzabteilung (meeting hall protection detachment) for the DAP gathered around Emil Maurice after the February 1920 incident at the Hofbräuhaus. There was little organization or structure to this group.” [Wikipedia]
“The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties. By September 1921 the name Sturmabteilung (SA) was being used informally for the group.” [Wikipedia]
Interesting too that even Wikipedia recognizes that the purpose of the SA was the protection of meetings, and not the breaking-up of the meetings of opponents.
“The Nazi Party held a large public meeting in the Munich Hofbräuhaus on 4 November 1921, which also attracted many Communists and other enemies of the Nazis. After Hitler had spoken for some time, the meeting erupted into a mêlée in which a small company of SA thrashed the opposition. The Nazis called this event the Saalschlacht (“meeting hall battle”), and it assumed legendary proportions in SA lore with the passage of time. Thereafter, the group was officially known as the Sturmabteilung.” [Wikipedia]
The SS [Schutzstaffel, or Protection Squad] was formed in 1925, with a similar defensive or protective function:
“In 1925, Hitler ordered Schreck to organize a new bodyguard unit, the Schutzkommando (Protection Command). It was tasked with providing personal protection for Hitler at NSDAP functions and events. That same year, the Schutzkommando was expanded to a national organization and renamed successively the Sturmstaffel (Storm Squadron), and finally the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad; SS). Officially, the SS marked its foundation on 9 November 1925 (the second anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch). The new SS was to provide protection for NSDAP leaders throughout Germany.” [Wikipedia]
One can well imagine that any such bodies as the SA or SS formed in the Britain of 2019, even if not uniformed, would soon be banned and their members subject to show trials.
In fact, we have seen the like, in the past couple of years, especially in relation to “a certain group of young people” the name of which I do not think that I shall use here, which young people have been put on trial for allegedly belonging to such a group. Oh yes, teenagers and other young people put on trial, and not in the local magistrates’ courts but at the Old Bailey and elsewhere! The “evidence” of their supposed organization, or at least political allegiance? Such items as cookie-cutters shaped like Swastikas, pillowcases with slogans on them etc, even the Christian name given by the parents to a baby! It seems that the ethos of Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder-General in the 17th Century, is not dead and indeed has found a home in the British police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)!
Thankfully, the (usually) good sense of the British jury has meant that most such defendants have been acquitted so far; perhaps that is why some politicians, notably Rosie Cooper MP [Lab., West Lancashire] have called for the use of “Diplock courts” (i.e. trials without juries) in political cases. If that happened, that type of court would be the first such court authorized in England itself in hundreds of years (though the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a typical piece of Tony Blair repressive legislation, does open the door to such trials). A Star Chamber for our times…
In a situation where self-defence, whether organized or individual, is criminalized by a hostile and partisan state, the only solution for social-national people is to cluster in “safe zones”, as I have blogged in the past: see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/safe-zones/
In the UK, where even personal self-defence weaponry is generally unavailable, and where the police are rapidly becoming the strong-arm section of the multikulti “diverse” (non-white non-diverse) society, the formation of a germinal ethnostate is the only way forward.
In Germany, the economy is contracting. For the first time (as far as I know) since 1945, Germany is doing worse economically than the present Eurozone states as a whole are doing (and they are not doing well either). In Italy, the League (formerly Northern League) has a plurality of support. Italy is now actively standing against the attempt of the international conspiracy to flood Europe with blacks and browns.
Meanwhile, in Italy & amid delay to confidence vote latest poll puts #Salvini League on 36% — up from 17% at election last year. Alliance with Berlusconi + far right Brothers of Italy could be on cards. Would be even harder right coalition on continent drifting right …#EUpic.twitter.com/6iZHz8V8KB
A few years ago, it seemed possible that the EU was going to collapse politically:
Now, that seems less likely, at least in the short term and on the surface, if only because the System parties and politicians across Europe are hunkering down to protect “their” project (the EU-superstate NWO/ZOG project) out of which those parties and individuals have done so well for themselves. In addition, most of the insurgent parties are at present trying to destroy the EU from within, or to alter it radically, rather than pushing for their home states to exit the EU.
Britain is a major part of the EU not only because of its economic strength (even now), but also because the UK is the ideological, attitudinal, military halfway house between the mainland of Europe and the USA.
If Britain leaves the EU on WTO terms, the economic damage to the UK will be real, but do not underestimate the damage to the EU itself. The EU project is on a knife-edge both politically and economically. Brexit might well push the EU over the edge, especially now that the world economy as a whole is slowing. The EU may not “officially” fall to pieces for a while, but in reality it is like a tree, the trunk of which has been cut through, but which has not yet crashed to the ground.
We are looking at the resurgence, not far down the line, of the core peoples of Europe. I am not talking about “civil war” as experienced by people in recent decades or centuries. We are looking at culture war, socio-economic war, race war, religious war, all tied up together, entangled. This may continue for decades once it starts. Out of it may emerge, in the end, a society of a different kind altogether. God mote it be!
As far as the UK domestic political situation is concerned, we see attempts within the pathetic and incompetent British “political class” to stop “no-deal” Brexit. If one or other such attempt succeeds, then the major System parties are toast, first and foremost the Conservative Party. Brexit Party will challenge all Conservative MPs at the next, perhaps very soon, general election. That must unseat many of them, perhaps most of them. A Conservative Party of little more than 100 MPs is now a realistic possibility. As to Labour, its core vote now cannot be much higher than 25%. Brexit Party may not get more than a few dozen MPs in the short term, but it has the possibility of changing the face of British politics forever by weakening and perhaps destroying the two main System parties, now seen as colossi on legs of straw.
Well, now we know that there was a General Election (in December 2019). In that campaign, Nigel Farage stabbed his own party, Brexit Party, in the back, by standing down all Brexit Party candidates who were standing against Conservative candidates. This all but guaranteed a Conservative Party victory.
It now seems even less likely than before that the UK will leave the EU in reality. We have the much-discussed BRINO, Brexit In Name Only, maybe for years, in most respects. However, we now have an unexpected aspect: Coronavirus. This, or rather the panicky shutdown of several countries’ economies by their own governments, has placed the EU in even more of a pickle. Watch this space.
I have just been listening to a rather disturbing Hard Talk interview on BBC World Service radio, in which BBC man Stephen Sackur interviewed the co-founder and (?) de facto leader of “Extinction Rebellion”, Roger Hallam.
I have blogged previously about Extinction Rebellion:
The Wikipedia entry is not very detailed, saying nothing about Hallam’s life before 2017 (he is, at time of writing, 53, having been born in 1966) except that:
” Hallam was previously an organic farmer in Wales; he attributes the destruction of his business to a series of extreme weather events.” [Wikipedia]
Strange. When I was about 25, I worked for a couple of weeks (unpaid) on an organic farm in West Wales. That farm, Blaencamel Farm, in 1982 a rather pathetic though beautiful 24 acres (now, I notice, 50 acres) in Ceredigion, has become (as I heard on BBC Radio 4 Farming Today a couple of years ago), a highly-successful business which is also the hub of the organic movement in that part of the world:
Apropos of nothing, I notice that the farmer at Blaencamel Farm, Peter Segger (who had previously, that is before he bought that farm in 1979, been a mainstream food industry executive, buying shiploads of Arctic fish etc), seems to have mellowed considerably and, though still recognizable, has aged considerably (haven’t we all?) in the past 37 years!
I suppose that the point is that there are numerous successful or at least sustainable organic farms in West Wales. I have no idea whether Hallam farmed 500 acres, 50, or lived on a 5-acre smallholding. I suspect nearer 5 than 500, which if so would make his farming inherently unsustainable from a strictly business viewpoint. In fact, when questioned by the Daily Mail in April 2019, Hallam said that ” ‘No-one wants to get arrested. I want to get back to my farm. I’m just a poor farmer, nothing special.” So he still has a farm? I thought that he was supposed to have lost it? Does it mean that he still owns a farm but does not farm it? We do not know.
[Update, 17 September 2020: Hallam’s Wikipedia entry now reads “Hallam was previously an organic farmer on a 10-acre (4-hectare) farm near Llandeilo in South Wales.” So it seems that my guess that Hallam’s farm was “nearer 5 acres than 500” was pretty close to the mark.]
In any event, he first came to public attention in 2017: “Between at least 2017 and early 2019 he was studying for a PhD in civil disobedience at King’s College London, researching how to achieve social change through radical movements. In January 2017, in an action to urge King’s College London to divest from fossil fuels, Hallam and another person, using water-soluble chalk-based spray paint, painted “Divest from oil and gas”, “Now!” and “Out of time” on the university’s Strand campus entrance.They were arrested in February when they again spray painted the university’s Great Hall, charged by the state with criminal damage and fined £500. In May 2019, after a three day trial at Southwark Crown Court, they were cleared by a jury of all charges, having argued in their defence that their actions were a proportionate response to the climate crisis. In March 2017, Hallam went on hunger strike to demand the university divest from fossil fuels—the institution had millions of pounds invested in fossil fuels but no investment in renewable energy. Five weeks after the first protest, the university removed £14m worth of investments from fossil fuel companies and pledged to become carbon neutral by 2025.”
Now I have no objection to older people studying, though I am surprised that King’s College London offers a Ph.D. in Civil Disobedience (is this 2019 or 1969?), but for someone in his fifties to spraypaint the interior and exterior of his college with activist graffiti seems not so much youthful as puerile.
In the Hard Talk interview, Hallam sounded fanatical and inflexible. He kept referring to “the Science” (with a capital “S”), repeating it like a religious mantra, yet he himself is not even a scientist. He referred to himself as “a sociologist” at one point. So…here we have someone who got a sociology degree from somewhere (either in recent years or perhaps in the 1980s), and is now an almost perennial student aged 53 who has taken 2 years, it seems, to get a “doctorate” in “Civil Disobedience”, and yet (in the radio interview) lectures the interviewer on the need to believe The Science (which Hallam may or may not understand and —at least judging from his rather unintelligent radio persona— probably does not). He certainly does not think that there can be any doubt about what he says that The Science tells us about “climate change” (formerly “global warming”), despite there being a degree of scientific debate on the subject.
I have to say that I found Hallam’s style disturbing. Did the Levellers of Cromwell’s time sound like that? Or the true believers in Trotsky, Lenin or Stalin, circa 1920 or 1930?
Hallam referred, in the interview, to his belief (he said “fact”) that 6 billion people would die if the UK (and the rest of the world?) did not reduce “carbon emissions” to zero by 2025. When challenged by Stephen Sackur about how that would mean that, within 6 years, the UK would have to have no (or very few) cars, planes, trains, or centrally heated (by gas) houses, Hallam just retreated into his bubble of unreality and said that it was a matter of political will! I suppose that the last country to try that was mid-1970s Cambodia, sub nom “Democratic Kampuchea”, the Year Zero society of The Killing Fields etc.
Hallam claimed that the UK produces 10% of “emissions”. That is plain wrong if he meant 10% of the world’s carbon emissions. The real figure is about 1% (he may, however, if I take the role of Devil’s advocate, have meant 10% of all EU emissions). In other words, even if the UK disappeared into a black hole tomorrow, the other 99% of “emissions” in the world would still be there. That is taking “The Science” at face value, as Hallam obviously does.
What Hallam and his fellow Extinction Rebellion types fail to see is that in fact only the removal of 90% (maybe 80%) of the world population will “save” the planet now. Man-made climate change (taking it as Extinction Rebellion believe it to be) is not caused, at root, by cars, planes etc as such, but by the billions of people in the world, as well as their farmed animals, cars, planes, central heating etc. Numbers.
I agree that there is an environmental crisis, though “global warming”/”climate change” is only part of it. I have blogged about it, as well as the need to create what would be seen as a “super-race”, i.e, evolution of the species combined with evolution of consciousness:
It is as plain as day that Hallam and many of his fellow leading Extinction Rebellion zealots are basically fanatical drop-outs and misfits, most of whom have and have had no profession or occupation (or much academic background) to speak of (see the Daily Mail report in Notes, below):
Hallam himself, ex-farmer and now a superannuated “student” aged 53: “Mr Hallam has also claimed paralysing traffic will eventually cause food shortages and trigger uprisings” [Daily Mail];
Simon Bramwell, 46-47, a former builder, now “bushcraft instructor”;
Gail Bradbrook, 47-48, a mother of two teenage children, who divorced her husband and became an “activist” after an hallucinogenic-drug trip to Costa Rica;
Tasmin Osmond, 34-35, “a veteran of ‘direct actions’ such as Occupy London, the poverty protest which set up a camp outside St Paul’s cathedral in 2011. The granddaughter of Dorset baronet Sir Thomas Lees, Omond [sic] went to Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge, where she read English.” [Daily Mail] (no actual profession or occupation ever, apparently; presumably a trustafarian);
George Barda, 43-44: “He is a post-graduate student at King’s College in London and the son of classical music and stage photographer Clive Barda…Mr Barda is also a dedicated revolutionary who camped outside St Paul’s cathedral in the Occupy London campaign. Today, he is a director of XR parent company Compassionate Revolution and regularly appears on Russia Today.” [Daily Mail]. So again no profession or occupation, another “eternal student”…;
The XR “strategy”
I see that none of those noted above, or the others reported on by the Daily Mail, are climate scientists or anything similar (Gail Bradbrook apparently has a Ph.D. in molecular biology).
More accurately, they have a “programme” for protest action, or how to create a kind of anarchic situation, but no programme for what to do if, in some parallel reality, they were to attain to political power. They say that they want 3.5% of the population to create a momentum for change. 3.5%? From where does that come? Popular “philosophy”? Some paperback sci-fi novel? A brainwave by someone such as Hallam? Or a vision seen by the lady noted in the Daily Mail report below, in Notes, Gail Bradbrook, while on ibogaine, ayahuasca, peyote or magic mushrooms? We are not told.
I do not mistake labelling for understanding, but what do we call Extinction Rebellion, ideologically? Perhaps the closest is “anarcho-syndicalism meets treehugging” (and I favour treehugging far more than I do anarcho-syndicalism).
Were Extinction Rebellion actually able to stop government, society and economy from operating in the UK, the result would indeed be the deaths of millions, not from “climate change” but from disruption of supplies of food, water, medicine, not to mention huge lawlessness. That in turn would certainly lead to political dictatorship if not tyranny, as the “huddled masses” start to cry out for, not freedom, and most certainly not for “zero emissions” (!) but for safety, security, food, water, heat etc.
Maybe these Extinction Rebellion cranks think that they and their “3.5%” of (?) “woke” “activists” will become that dictatorship (once they understand that popular mass meetings cannot run a society of more than a couple of hundred people). More likely, they would be among the first to be put up against a wall and shot.
As I said earlier, I am very much an environmentalist and very concerned about the state of the planet in that way and in other ways, but this silly “reduce emissions to zero” idea will get nowhere in itself (even if it were to be put somehow into effect worldwide). In six years? Fantasy politics. As for “Extinction Rebellion” leading some mass movement, that is also complete fantasy:
as in… “ALL TOGETHER NOW!— “WHAT DO WE WANT?”; “NO CARS, PLANES, TRAINS, DECENT FOOD, ELECTRICITY OR HEATING!”; “WHEN DO WE WANT [TO LIVE LIKE STONE AGE PEOPLE]?”— “NOW!”
I cannot see many begging for that. Certainly not Emma Thompson, achingly politically-correct actress and “XR” supporter. She would not want that (at least not for herself and her contrived multikulti “family”). My God, it might mean that she would not be able to fly First Class from LA to London to speak at the, er, Extinction Rebellion protests! She might even have to give up some of her half-dozen luxury homes around the world!
Roger Hallam, in interview, bravely opined that “young people” support XR, but quite a few of the XR activists are over 60 and most seem to be over 40 anyway, though I do not have statistics to support that provisional view. Hallam stood as an Independent for the London constituency, during the EU elections. His vote? 924 votes (out of 2,241,681), a vote-share of 0.04%, so not even a half of a tenth of one per cent… Seems that only 4 in 10,000voted for Mr. Hallam. Statistical zero. Eloquent testimony.
The Extinction Rebellion protesters were (belatedly) cracked down on by the Metropolitan Police. Not for several days, though. Why? Was the fix in, as with so-called “activist” on climate change, the weird 16 year old Swedish autistic, Greta Thunberg, who has had a remarkably smooth ride, meeting leading politicians, receiving respectful attention, despite her obvious mental problems and what seems to me to be scarcely-concealed malice. [I shall blog separately about her].
Previous claims that “we have x-years to save the planet”
Silly people ranging from Ed Miliband and Al Gore to Prince Charles all said, back in or around 2009, that “we have 3/5/7/etc years in which to save the planet”. Then the planet yawned and the silly people went away again. There is too much of an attempt, a repeated attempt, to panic us (white Northern Europeans) into accepting lives that are not worth living. Yes there are too many people on this Earth at present. My view is that the advanced peoples should live, procreate and evolve higher. The backward peoples and races (who are by far the more numerous) are not required.
Accusations of “terrorism”; analogy with Greenham Common
One senior policeman said, after the London protests, that XR was, or was close to being, “terrorist”. I think that he was right. Look at these people. Listen to the Stephen Sackur interview. These people are willing to do anything to achieve their ends, even though their ends (insofar as they have “ends”) are in fact unachievable, certainly via protests etc.
The Greenham Common women in the early 1980s thought that they were stopping cruise missiles being based in the UK, whereas their protests (which were hell for the local people— much the lesbians and/or feminists cared…) actually achieved nothing. The missiles were removed by reason of NATO-Warsaw Pact negotiations. The “Women’s Peace Camp” was a complete waste of time and effort.
“A series of meetings held during August and September 1986 culminated in a summit between United States President Ronald Reaganand the General Secretary of the CPSUMikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavík, Iceland, on 11 October 1986. To the surprise of both men’s advisers, the two agreed in principle to removing INF systems from Europe and to equal global limits of 100 INF missile warheads.
The United States and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which led to the removal of all nuclear missiles from the base. The last GLCMs at RAF Greenham Common were removed in March 1991, and the 501st TMW inactivated on 4 June 1991.” [Wikipedia]
Incidentally and incredibly, even though the last missiles left Greenham Common in 1991, even though the Americans left Greenham in 1992 and even though the UK Ministry of Defence closed the base in 1993, putting it up for sale (the area being almost all designated by 1997 as public parkland), the “Greenham Women” stayed, some of them, until 2000! To me that proves that without their having “political activism” to do, some of them had nothing to do with their time or their lives. They were unable to accept that their protests (for 19 years!) had actually achieved nothing and in any case had been superseded by large-scale international events. Like the Japanese soldier in the 1970s, fighting a lone war in the jungle, 30 years after the Pacific War had ended.
Extinction Rebellion protesters are obviously not entirely peaceful. Some are willing to use violence or force to achieve their immediate aims, eg to shut down London. Hallam has, it seems, mooted the shutting down of Heathrow Airport using drones. This is not Gandhi’s “non-violence”. If 10,000 protesters are willing to shut down London by obstruction or inertia, if 1,000 are willing to be even more disruptive, then it may be that 100 are willing to use drones or other means to attack airports, electrical supplies etc. Is it not at least possible that, out of the 10,000, 10 might be willing to use violence of a directly and unambiguously terroristic kind “to save the planet”? I would not bet against it.
We shall soon know. The big “XR” protests are scheduled for October 2019.
"A petition being submitted by hundreds of independent climate scientists and professionals from numerous countries to heads of the European Council, Commission and Parliament declares "There is No Climate Emergency."" https://t.co/NELzaEpm09
“The Metropolitan Police have described the protests as “unprecedented” in their scale and length and warned that they will arrest those breaking the law.
However, Extinction Rebellion has told its protesters not to co-operate with so that they have to hold them in the cells and cannot arrest another activist.
The group wrote on their website: “There are roughly 1,000 jail cells in London – we filled many of them in April.
“Police could often only arrest 100-200 people a day because the cells were full. If we fill them every day – the streets will remain ours. That it is why we refuse bail, to fill up the cells and to show our open defiance of the system that is killing us.”” [Daily Telegraph]
My solution? If the arrested refuse bail, then stuff them ten to a cell like they do in Egypt. And if that is not enough, stuff them twenty to a cell. This is war.
She has elected Crown Court trial (jury trial) despite the risk of a heavier sentence on conviction. She obviously hopes for a sympathetic jury. I see that the Daily Mail, itself ever-sympathetic to the middle classes, calls her a “molecular biologist” because she has a degree in the subject (though I doubt whether she has ever worked in that field or any other).
Update, 20 January 2020
Hallam now wants “a World War 2 mobilization of society”, with rationing and “confiscation of private property”. He says that “Nuremberg” trials should be set up for anyone “guilty” re. climate change, and that some people should “get a bullet in the head”.
What about people who just own a car, or central heating? Do they get a bullet too, or just deportation to re-education camps? In short, this Hallam character is not only an idiot, he is a dangerous idiot.
Epstein was one of the world's most connected men. He was attached to politicians, world leaders, celebrities & even royalty! Looks like the stories of elite paedophile rings are no longer 'conspiracy theories'. pic.twitter.com/oI6C5ZhtVK
The Jew paedophile, sex predator, rapist etc Jeffrey Epstein has committed suicide, it is claimed. The circumstances seem mysterious, as when that other Jew disgrace, “Robert Maxwell”, supposedly fell off or jumped off or was pushed off his motor yacht in the region of the Canary Islands.
The Jew Epstein has been in the firing line (not literally, as he should have been) for years:
When “Robert Maxwell” died, his daughter, Ghislaine, who was completely mixed up with Epstein for decades (from age 29 or 30; she is now 57), said that she believed her father to have been murdered. Now Epstein’s death also raises questions. He too was mixed up with some of the most famous and/or powerful figures in the US and UK: Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew…
Robert Maxwell was thought to be a (perhaps the) major MOSSAD operative in Europe. Now we see that his daughter was intimate or at least friendly with many of the world’s powerful and uber-wealthy. That does not mean that she was operating or partly operating on behalf of the Israeli state or the world Zionist conspiracy, but it does raise questions.
One has to ask why Ghislaine Maxwell has not (at least not yet) been arrested either in the UK or USA. Apparently, some of the young girls abused by the Jew Epstein used to refer to the Jewess “Maxwell” as “the Madam”. Say no more…
So why no action against her? Is this the Jew-Zionist lobby working behind the scenes of our “democracy” again?
As far as I am concerned, Prince Andrew is a useless fellow, a complete waste of space. People always say “but he fought in the Falklands!”, as if a few weeks in action (in fact merely observing; he was never under direct fire) gave the prince a free ride for life (his birth already gave him that, I suppose). Admittedly, Andrew did serve for a number of years as Lieutenant, but his service is said to have been generally underwhelming. On retirement from the Royal Navy, he was given the rank of Honorary Captain, rather than promoted as substantive Captain. In 2015, Andrew was made Honorary Vice-Admiral (I have no idea whether he gets a toy battleship to go with that).
Typical British cap-doffing, always bending over backwards to show deference to “royalty”, is still endemic in the UK. People less enamoured of the royals have commented that the Press and royal PR people have also rather (in the vulgar phrase of today) “bigged-up” the WW2 service of Andrew’s father, Philip [see Notes, below]. He has lived off the public weal and his wife’s money for 70 years!
Prince Philip and that clan may not be actual lizards (as David Icke is said to have once claimed), but looking at Philip, I can see from where the idea might have originated…
This morning, I saw an account by Sky News about the Epstein scandal that somehow contrived to avoid the use of the words “Prince Andrew”! Incredible. Needless to say, the facts that Epstein was a Jew and Ghislaine Maxwell is a half-Jewess are also absent from all TV and Press reports. (and yes, many British people, in particular, are so naive that they might not realize).
Andrew, of course, married “Fergie”, with all the consequent scandal that entailed. Now, he is or was involved with a very wealthy woman called Goga Ashkenazi, born in Kazakhstan, and who is part-Jew, part-Muslim.
Andrew finished his official time with the Royal Navy in 2001 at the age of 40, since when he has played golf, flown around the world on rather easy “missions” for charity or government (more or less freeloading, hence his nickname of “air miles Andy”) and enjoyed himself.
“The Duke of York receives a £249,000 annuity from the Queen.The Sunday Times reported in July 2008 that for “the Duke of York’s public role,… he last year received £436,000 to cover his expenses.” On 8 March 2011, The Daily Telegraph reported: “In 2010, the Prince spent £620,000 as a trade envoy, including £154,000 on hotels, food and hospitality and £465,000 on travel.” [Wikipedia]. “Not a bad little earner”…
“Earlier in 2010, it was revealed that the Kazakhstan President’s billionaire son-in-law Timur Kulibayev paid the Duke of York’s representatives £15 million – £3 million over the asking price – via offshore companies, for the Duke’s Surrey mansion, Sunninghill Park. Kulibayev frequently appears in US dispatches as one of the men who have accumulated millions in gas-rich Kazakhstan.
In May 2012, it was reported that Swiss and Italian police investigating “a network of personal and business relationships” allegedly used for “international corruption” were looking at the activities of Enviro Pacific Investments which charges “multi-million pound fees” to energy companies wishing to deal with Kazakhstan. The trust is believed to have paid £6 million towards the purchase of Sunninghill which now appears derelict. In response, a Palace spokesman said “This was a private sale between two trusts. There was never any impropriety on the part of The Duke of York”.
Libby Purves wrote in The Times in January 2015: “Prince Andrew dazzles easily when confronted with immense wealth and apparent power. He has fallen for ‘friendships’ with bad, corrupt and clever men, not only in the US but in Libya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, wherever.”
In May 2016, a fresh controversy broke out when the Daily Mail alleged that the Duke had brokered a deal to assist a Greek and Swiss consortium secure a £385 million contract to build water and sewerage networks in two of Kazakhstan’s largest cities, while working as British trade envoy, and had stood to gain a £4 million payment in commission. The newspaper published an email from the Duke to Kazakh oligarch Kenges Rakishev, (who had allegedly brokered sale of the Prince’s Berkshire mansion Sunninghill Park), and claimed that Rakishev had arranged meetings for the consortium. After initially claiming the email was a forgery, Buckingham Palace sought to block its publication as a privacy breach. The Palace strongly denied the allegation that the Duke had acted as a “fixer” calling the article “untrue, defamatory and a breach of the editor’s code of conduct.” [Wikipedia]
This is, however, not meant to be an attack on Prince Andrew, however well-merited. Let’s look at a few others in the useless rabble that now constitutes the “royals”.
I once met the Prince of Wales, at the official Residence of H.M. Ambassador in the capital city of a foreign country “East of Suez”. There were about 30 people at the reception, though I myself knew only a couple of the guests and a few of the diplomats (including the ambassador). HRH moved through the groups of informally arranged guests, saying hello to almost everyone and speaking with a few favoured people, of which I was one (my time with him probably lasted all of three minutes, though having drunk about a bottle of red wine, I cannot be sure!).
My impressions? Shorter than I expected from having seen photographs and TV news footage for much of my life. I was somewhat taller than him. I was also surprised to see that he was almost bald in places, especially the top of his head (which I could look down on as he turned away). As to personality, I should say pleasant, slightly mocking or humorous (he made a joke about the city and country, which was unexpected). Not someone difficult or rude.
I can support some of what Charles does for animal welfare and the environment, though some of the lustre rubs off when one thinks of his “sporting” slaughter of birds, foxes and other creatures (I let him off as regards salmon and trout!).
Charles has made (with expert help of course) a big success of the Duchy Originals brand, and has in general advanced the cause of organic agriculture. I do think that he in general means well, but his self-pity and preciousness (retailed in various newspaper anecdotes) does make him hard to much like as far as the public is concerned (and that is leaving aside the whole Diana and Camilla saga).
What can one say? I suppose that the, er, fag-end of a royal house always has a few “princes” of this sort. After dropping out of the Royal Marines fairly quickly, Edward decided, as Wikipedia puts it “on a career in entertainment”. A royal prince playing the theatre manager? Unglaublich… He married a public relations woman and they, apparently, have had two children together.
Someone who seems to have all the charm of her father. Nuff said. In fact, I have over the years heard some inside track, but I prefer to leave that out of this article (not least because some sources, though thought reliable, may not be).
It has been asserted that Prince Albert was half-Jewish, his real or natural father having been a Jew banker. I do not know whether there is any truth in that, but certainly some members of the Royal Family have looked quite Semitic. Princess Margaret looked very Semitic indeed. Lord Snowdon, her husband, used to make bitter remarks to her face, and about how she looked like an old Jewess, in the years when their marriage was disintegrating.
If reports can be believed, until the 21st Century dawned, all male children of the first rank of the Royal Family were actually circumcised and not even merely by a surgeon, but by a Jewish religious expert. It’s all very strange.
The links between the Royal Family and freemasonry are well-known and documented.
One can see that the British monarchy, qua monarchy (i.e. not qua a function of the “celebrity” culture), is running into the sand. The oldest generation, meaning the Queen and Prince Philip, are now not far from 100 years of age. Prince Charles is now 70 and will soon be 71.
As for Princes William and Harry, “tame thick princelings” pretty much covers it, though they are now perhaps a little old to be called “princelings”— William is now 37.
William’s marriage to Kate, though outside normal royal tradition, could be presented as sort-of within it. Kate is said to be part-Jewish, and so through the matrilineal side, i.e. which the Jews themselves accept as conferring “Jewishness”. However, that sort of thing goes over the head of the public and so, if you like, “caviar to the general”. Not so Harry’s marriage to Meghan, aka the Royal Mulatta (previously married to a Jew in California). That has the possibility (especially when combined with the couple’s absurd recent antics), to sever any bond of affection or respect still binding monarchy to “the people”.
What strikes me increasingly about the Royal Family is its sheer irrelevance both to the UK as a whole and to the people of the UK. When most subjects (as they were; now citizens) had gone through the Second World War, good and bad times economically, had only 2 or 3 TV stations, and everyone wore poppies in November, there was some kind of bond or at least link. Now, the only thing linking the “royals” with the people is that of prurient interest (of the latter in the former), a link no more strong than the people have with pop stars, Katie Price or the cast of the latest braindead “reality” show. As for the proliferating population of “blacks and browns”, very few these days have any interest in the “royals” (now that few have come directly from former colonies).
I have no great animus against monarchy as a system. It is sometimes the best system, whether absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy. However, Britain now is outgrowing this long-established institution. There is, perhaps, still a place for a constitutional figurehead, but beyond that I think that the time has come to say goodbye.
Better make it quick, before the bitch flees to Israel…
Ah…: “Her current whereabouts are unknown and sources close to her claim she planned to ‘totally disappear’.” [Daily Mail]. Right…to bloody Israel! I guessed right. Give that man a cee-gar! I wonder how long it will be before the (half)-Jewess starts screaming about “anti-Semitism”?
The Daily Mail today has an exclusive on the scandal. Beyond even the details, the photograph of “royal prince” Andrew, peering round the front door of the Jew’s mansion, is a stunning indictment in itself. Andrew, Jew’s flunkey (or should that be “Jews'”? They seem to be numerous around him)…
…it is all rather reminiscent of the 1940 German film, Jud Suss [The Jew Suss]!
note: The full version of the 1940 film Jud Suss is now censored, completely removed from YouTube (as indeed I predicted, a few years ago, would happen…). Only a few short clips (such as the one above) and the —far less hardhitting— 1934 film version of the (true) story, are still up.
However, Jud Suss is still on the Internet, though it must be sought out in quiet corners. It is well worth seeing (why else would “they” try to “disappear” it?). Here is one good copy:
Buckingham Palace PR people have released a truly pathetic exculpa on behalf of Prince Andrew, saying how “appalled” he is at the “revelation” that his friend, the billionaire Jew Epstein, was a sex criminal etc. Really, how strange. So in 2011 and 2012, when Andrew was visiting and perhaps staying in the Jew’s Manhattan mansion (and acting as the Jew’s flunkey at the door), he, Andrew, was unaware that Epstein had been convicted and imprisoned in 2008 over such matters? Hardy ha ha…It was the subject of publicity at the time and thereafter…
In fact, Epstein’s money and connections had greatly helped the Jew himself in 2008: a light sentence, mostly spent on “day release” (so prison was just somewhere less comfortable than, say, the Pierre, or the Waldorf-Astoria, in which to doss down in overnight); then early parole. The fix was in, somewhere, that much is obvious.
In other, connected, news, the Queen seems to have required the “royal prince” to fly home early from the traditional Summer break at Balmoral.
Andrew is now exposed as, at best, a complete fool and grifter; at worst (and the worst is more likely than the best), a user of procured young girls, procured for him by both the Jew rapist Epstein and Epstein’s one-time “ho”, the Jewess Ghislaine “Maxwell”, daughter of MOSSAD operative and fraudster “Robert Maxwell” (and herself quite likely “connected”). Israeli Intelligence and the Jew-Zionist web worldwide must have learned a lot and suborned many, taking the operation as a whole. The Royal Family has probably lost most of its own secrets via Andrew.
In other news, thick princeling Harry and the Royal Mulatta have just vacated the UK on their third private-jet jaunt in less than a month (the first was, laughably, to go to Sicily to a “climate-change” event!).
It occurs to me that, at one time, the “royals” of the various European states were the acme of European society, but now absurd end-of-line “royals” want to ape the Hollywood film-star lifestyle.
Worse, Harry has become a figure out of American sitcom-land, the henpecked husband whose petulant young wife runs him ragged with her absurd demands. “Royal Married With Children“…(though in fact, in this case, she is about 4 years older than her husband, 38 compared to his 34).
The royals are now squandering their life’s gold heedlessly.
Thick Andrew (all the royals are both painfully thick and cringingly uncultured) is of course “appalled” at the behaviour of his Jew billionaire “friend”, so appalled that he stayed at the Jew’s mansion, used the young girls there (almost certainly) and had nice chats with the Jew while walking in Central Park…2 years after the Jew had been convicted of sex crimes.
“Time and again, Andrew, who a courtier once reportedly described as having “a pompous level of self-importance”, has demonstrated an eye-watering lack of judgment. Palace staff have rated him the rudest of royals, according to reports. A secret cable, published on WikiLeaks in 2010, revealed a US ambassador describing Andrew speaking “cockily” during one official lunch,leading to a discussion that “verged on the rude”.” [The Guardian]
“Rightly, or wrongly, there is a perceived air of arrogance about Andrew, and he is described by various people as boorish and very self-centred,” said Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty Magazine. “Perhaps we shouldn’t be judging the book by its cover. But, certainly, that’s the impression he has given for a very long time.” [The Guardian]
The Guardian’s piece ends with an almost “sympathetic” paragraph:
“His fate is that of the typical second son, struggling to find a role. “I think despite knowing he was always going to go down the line of succession, the fact that in his youth he was second in line to the throne, and now he is wherever he is, that must be quite a blow to your confidence and feeling of importance,” said Little.”
On the other hand, the stupid arrogant bastard might actually show a little humility (I mean to the British people who have been subsidizing him all his rotten life, not to the wealthy Jews for whom he seems to behave like a doormat), not to mention gratitude to the British people (and to Fate or God, or the gods, without whose largesse “Prince” Andrew would just be a very very mediocre naval officer who would struggle to rise beyond the rank of lieutenant).
…and still it continues, with painfully thick Andrew still trying to say that he had no idea that the Jew Epstein had been convicted a couple of years previously for sex crimes (as if the police would not have known!)
Daily Mail: “A source said that when working as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment between 2001 and 2011, Andrew was asked to travel regularly to the US. Since relinquishing this role in 2011, they maintained Andrew had continued to travel to the US, but claimed that his focus, particularly with Pitch@Palaces, had been on ‘other markets’.”
A “royal prince” trying to play the Internet “entrepreneur”? Ha ha! It would be tacky even if successful. As it is, it just looks pathetic, like thicko Andrew himself and the whole “right royal” circus!
As the Irish say, “Jay-sus!”— There’s even more! “Prince” Andrew looks more and more guilty every day.
…and it looks as if I was right about the connection with Israeli Intelligence!
“In light of what is now known about Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation and sex trafficking activities, several reports from the late 1990s and early 2000s contain details long since forgotten regarding Epstein’s relationship with Prince Andrew.
“One particularly censored article that appeared in London’s Evening Standard in January 2001, for instance, gives several indications regarding the apparent entrapment of Prince Andrew as part of Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation, which is now known to have been connected to intelligence — specifically Israeli military intelligence, according to recent revelations in the case.” [Mint Press News]
Just goes to show— you can never be too “anti-Semitic”!
Prince Andrew caught “bang to rights” (again). A useless, charmless, pretentious idiot who thinks that he is terribly important. Had he not been born where and “who” he was, Andrew would be —at most— a small businessman, and an unsuccessful one at that.
Prince Andrew was not only able to remember his visit to the Woking branch of Pizza Express, but was able to say with certainty that he went there on the very day on which he is alleged to have screwed the American 17 y o trafficked by the Jew Epstein and the half-Jewess Ghislaine “Maxwell”!
Remarkable memory, to be able to recall the exact date, 18 years in the past…
Call Detective Columbo…
Apart from that, it made me laugh that Andrew went to Pizza Express. I mean, I do not expect a “royal prince” to eat drumsticks at a banquet every evening, casting the half-eaten ones over his shoulder in the manner of Henry VIII as played by Charles Laughton, or to eat only slices of cucumber washed down by champagne, like one of the cavalry officers in Anna Karenina, but…Pizza Express?…at…Woking?!
Update, 18 November 2019
Looks like thick and dishonest Andrew has dug himself deeper into a hole…
…and the popular prints are just not giving up; here (see below), a TV doctor rubbishes Andrew’s claim that he, Andrew, cannot or could not sweat by reason of having “been shot at” in the Falklands (and that’s even leaving aside the —apparent— fact that Andrew never was shot at during the few weeks that he spent in the Falklands, and that the nearest that he came to being in peril that way was when he observed from a helicopter a ship being shot at):
According to the New York Post, the “ho” “madam”, Ghislaine “Maxwell”, wanted to become la Contessa Cicogna, but failed in that. I presume that the Italian’s family were appalled at the prospect of a Jewess (actually, half-Jewess) polluting the family escutcheon…
Now it turns out that the arrogant stupid bastard has been pocketing bungs worth millions. I suppose that he wanted to try to keep up financially with his billionaire half-Jew, half-Muslim girlfriend from Kazakhstan. He must be binned (the rest of his family too). Time for some kind of republic.
Well, give that man a cee-gar! Turns out that I guessed right (I usually do, if I myself say so):
“Jeffrey Epstein’s socialite ‘madam’ Ghislaine Maxwell ‘is being hidden from the FBI in a series of safe houses because of the information she has on powerful people’“
Maxwell has remained incognito since Epstein’s arrest and death behind bars
New report claims both she and Epstein were ‘assets’ for a foreign government
Source says they funneled dirt on the rich and powerful to foreign spies
Now Maxwell may be hiding in a safehouse in Israel, the new report claims
She is a British and US citizen, and daughter of an alleged Mossad operative.“
“An explosive new report has asserted that deceased sex criminal Jeffery Epstein and his alleged ‘madame’ Ghislaine Maxwell were foreign intelligence ‘assets’, and that she is currently hiding in a safehouse in Israel.“
“She is not in the US, she moves around. She is sometimes in the UK, but most often in other countries, such as Israel, where her powerful contacts have provided her with safe houses and protection,’ the source said.“
“Born in France, Maxwell is both a U.S. citizen and British subject. Her family’s alleged ties to Israel’s national intelligence service, Mossad, have been well documented.
Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, was a Czech-born British media mogul whose financial fraud in raiding the Mirror Group pension fund was discovered after his death in 1991.
Also a British member of parliament, Robert Maxwell reportedly had ties to British intelligence, the Soviet KGB, and Mossad — and was suspected of being a double or even triple agent by British Foreign Office officials.“
Western world, wake up to the Jew/Zionist/Israel conspiracy. It’s everywhere…
Update, 7 January 2020
Seems that the “ho” “madam”, Ghislaine Maxwell, “is reportedly in hiding and being guarded round the clock by former US Navy SEALs amid fears her life is in danger.” [Daily Mirror]. In Israel? Some US Navy Seals are Jews, perhaps surprisingly. I met one myself once.
Latest about the half-Jew “ho” madam, Ghislaine “Maxwell”:
British Spoiled Brat and Child Rapist Ghislaine Maxwell is hiding in Israel. Over 8000 pages of her e-mails have been hacked. US media is doing triple back flips to avoid mentioning the entire ring was Jewish and financed by Jewish supremacists.
Well, there is not much “British” about the aforesaid “ho”: born in France of one Jew and one French parent, though educated in England (Marlborough College and Balliol, Oxford).
The story is interesting, though. I wonder whether this alleged telephone hacking had a connection to the Saudi Crown Prince, like other hacking exposed in recent weeks? I speculated some months ago that the “ho” Maxwell was hiding out in Israel, presumably under MOSSAD or Aman control.
EXCLUSIVE: 'I look for Jeffrey's type and I bring 'em home.' Prince Andrew's cousin tells how Ghislaine Maxwell bragged she recruited girls for Epstein from trailer parks and was intent on eventually marrying him https://t.co/xm9Jaj9cI9pic.twitter.com/Pybfil1gxP
These Naomi Campbell accusations have been around for years… her links to Epstein and his circle of child traffickers/rapists.. she dated Jeffrey Epstein’s good friend and even had him and Virginia Roberts (Prince Andrew accuser) and Ghislaine Maxwell attend her bday party pic.twitter.com/PAUvoBmBBj
“It is claimed in the unsealed papers that an island orgy was one of three occasions when Jane Doe #3 was forced to have sex with Andrew. The other locations were Maxwell’s London flat and and in New York.” [The Guardian]
Andrew’s motive is obvious: to try to exculpate himself; what, though, of Dershowitz? He is said to have visited the Epstein island and travelled on Epstein’s jet. He may have abused young girls himself. Whether that was so or not, was that and is that the whole story?
We know that the Jew who was mainly known as “Robert Maxwell” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell was a major MOSSAD operative. His daughter, Ghislaine, is now the prime focus of the post-Epstein inquiry, and is on trial in Federal court in New York. She, it is said, was also an Israeli agent, either MOSSAD or Aman, or both. Epstein (who has now “gone up the chimney”) the same.
We know that Israeli Intelligence co-opts Israeli and other Jew “civilians” as operatives when necessary. Look at the Dikko case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dikko_affair): “Though Israel, at the time, did not have formal diplomatic relations with Nigeria, there were less visible ties between the two nations. In particular, Nigeria was an important source of oil for Israel, and Israel was a significant supplier of arms to Nigeria. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was tasked with locating Dikko and bringing him back to Nigeria to stand trial.” [Wikipedia]
” Mossad recruited Levi-Arie Shapiro, an Israeli doctor who was a consultant anesthetist and director of the intensive care unit at HaSharon Hospital. He was to fly to London and participate in the operation. Shapiro’s job would be to drug Dikko, and insert an endotracheal tube to keep him from choking on his own vomit while being transported in a crate.” [Wikipedia]
A Jew (whether Israeli or any other nominal nationality) may be a doctor, a lawyer, or whatever, but is first and foremost a Jew and likely to do whatever Israel and its “services” want…
It may well be that the successful Epstein blackmail and suborning operation, likely to have been very productive for Israeli Intelligence, was in part facilitated by the Jew Dershowitz. I imagine that his role was, precisely, to shield Epstein (and so Maxwell and/or others) from legal inquiry from both USA and UK.
Meanwhile, Ghislaine “Maxwell”, the half-Jew (Mischling) “ho” “madam”, is pulling out all the stops to get released on bail in he USA. Seems that she is married to a Jew “tech millionaire”. The bail suggested by her legal team may be USD $30 million. Where do the Jews get such money? Is the “husband” stumping up? Is any of it from monies stolen from UK Mirror Group pensioners by the “ho’s” repulsive father, Robert Maxwell?
“Borgerson was involved with the Council on Foreign Relations.” Well, well, was he really? A slightly unusual connection for someone who spent 4 years as a US Coastguard officer, though others have said that he was a US Navy SEAL. A Jew as Navy SEAL may sound odd, but there are some; I myself met one such, about 18 years ago.
I thought that Ghislaine “Maxwell” would have played the “antisemitism” card by now, but admittedly that would be hard to justify in New York City, especially when the judge is herself Jewish! Indeed, the judge is more Jewish than Ghislaine Maxwell, who is genetically only half-Jew: her mother was a French Protestant, who “converted” to Judaism (and became fanatically pro-Jew and pro-Israel) after meeting the MOSSAD asset “Robert Maxwell”.
Update, 25 April 2021
Ghislaine Maxwell now charged with further and even more serious offences:
A rather sympathetic American documentary, by ABC:
The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell is apparently scheduled for November 2021, so it is interesting that quite sympathetic documentaries are now appearing…
I notice that that ABC doc features Robert Maxwell’s son, Ian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Maxwell], as well as journalists who are either Jewish or at least perceived by many as generally pro-Jewish.
Having said that, the film does contain material not entirely exculpatory of Ghislaine Maxwell. On the other hand, turning it around again, it might be argued that, bearing in mind what has already been exposed, the only thing for Ghislaine Maxwell to do is to limit the damage— to accept a hit, but a limited hit.
It seems that the intellectual power behind the Boris Johnson throne is one Dominic Cummings, someone who only came to my attention recently. His new eminence put me in mind of a few similar people in the recent and not so recent past.
Churchill had the egregious Brendan Bracken as his adviser and amanuensis. Bracken was, as such people often are, very strange indeed. He was born into modest but not poor circumstances in Ireland, drifted around Australia, attended Sedbergh School at age 19 (though claiming to be just 15), paying the fees himself, then left after one term, having acquired what the later KGB would have called a “legend” as an Anglo-Irishman who had attended a well-known English school (he let people believe that had been there for years).
Armed with the Sedbergh “old school tie”, Bracken became a schoolmaster at Bishop’s Stortford College in 1921, but by 1922 was a magazine publisher and editor in London. He became wealthy quite rapidly. Puzzling. Here was a young man who had presumably saved some money while in Australia, and may have had a part-share in whatever his father left, but all the same Bracken’s swift rise to wealth is a puzzle. Still, there it is.
Having attached himself to Churchill, Bracken was instrumental at the vital moment when Chamberlain resigned in 1940:
” When Bracken became aware of Churchill’s agreement to nominate Lord Halifax, he convinced Churchill that the Labour Party would indeed support him as Chamberlain’s successor, and that Lord Halifax’s appointment would hand certain victory to Hitler. Bracken advised Churchill tactically to say nothing when the three met to arrange the succession. After a deafening silence during which Churchill was expected to nominate Halifax, the latter obligingly ruled himself out and Churchill was put forward as Britain’s wartime Prime Minister, having avoided any appearance of disloyalty to Chamberlain.” [Wikipedia, and see Notes, below].
Thus this odd man “from nowhere” was not only present at the pivotal moment, but can be said to have altered the course of the Second World War on the strategic level. Had Churchill not become Prime Minister, Britain would have agreed peace with the German Reich in 1940. The whole history of Europe and indeed the world was thus altered in its course by this now-forgotten man (forgotten by the public, at least).
Bracken was MP for Paddington North (1929-1945) and for Bournemouth (1945-1951). He was Churchill’s PPS from 1940, later promoted to Minister of Information (1941-1945) and was briefly First Lord of the Admiralty in 1945. He was one of the chiefs of the Political Warfare Executive. He was elevated as a viscount in 1952. He was the publisher of, inter alia, the Financial Times, The Economist and History Today.
Bracken was rumoured to have been Churchill’s illegitimate progeny, though this seems to have been a myth not discouraged by Bracken himself. The viscounty granted was hereditary, but Bracken was unmarried and without issue. He died in 1958.
Was this the story only of a remarkably talented self-made businessman and politician or was there more to it? There are hints of the then-concealed New World Order about it all. We shall probably never know.
[As with Cummings –see below— Hilton felt the need to display his “I’m an off the wall maverick genius” persona by wearing beachwear or surf dude getup to Downing Street…]
“Hilton talked of the need to “replace” the traditionally minded grassroots membership of the Conservative Party, which he saw as preventing the party from embracing a more metropolitan attitude on social issues.”
So he was at first, in the 1990s, little better than a gopher, but then he met his wife, Rachel Whetstone. Who is she? She is described in Wikipedia as having been head of communications for Uber taxis. For a number of years until 2015, she was in a similar position at Google. She has more recently joined Netflix.
“In February 2013, Whetstone was assessed as one of the 100 most powerful women in the United Kingdom by Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio 4. Whetstone has been featured on PRWeek’s Power List several times, most recently in 2016 at number 14.” [Wikipedia]
“Whetstone is married to Steve Hilton, whom she met after an affair with Lord Astor (stepfather to Samantha Cameron, wife of former Prime Minister David Cameron) in the lead-up to the 2005 election. Cameron is no longer on speaking terms with Whetstone or Hilton.” [Wikipedia]
More interestingly, Rachel Whetstone’s grandfather was one Antony Fisher, not much known to the public, though extremely influential behind the scenes:
“Sir Antony George Anson FisherAFC (28 June 1915 – 8 July 1988), nicknamed AGAF, was a British businessman and think tank founder. He participated in the formation of various libertarian organisations during the second half of the twentieth century, including the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Atlas Network. Through Atlas, he helped establish up to 150 other institutions worldwide.”
Antony Fisher may have been at least part-Jew, and was certainly a Zionist, pro-Israel to the hilt.
Hilton was thought by many to be half-mad. He was lucky to escape with a caution and a small fine after having assaulted someone on a railway platform in England. He had been arrested after the assault and after shouting “wanker!” at staff and police. At the time, this useless creature was being paid £200,000 a year from public funds. There were other incidents of aggressive behaviour during his time at No.10.
“Andy Coulson, the former communications chief who was later jailed over phone hacking, recalled recently in the Telegraph: “I would ask, ‘So how does that work then?’ If I got an answer at all, it was along the lines of, ‘It’ll be fine – just you see.’ That was mildly irritating, as it was my team who would have to get out and sell the latest product from Steve’s dream factory.”” [The Guardian]
“Hilton’s rightwing, free-market ideas certainly infuriated Lib Dems who worked with him, as chronicled in David Laws’s book about the coalition. One Lib Dem former adviser said: “I was unfortunate enough to spend some time in Steve’s thought wigwam and it was not a pretty place. I remember him suggesting we should scrap maternity laws and invest in cloud-busting technology to improve the British weather. I certainly do not remember at any time him raising any points about the immigration policy he is now criticising.”” [The Guardian]
Hilton accomplished nothing, certainly nothing concrete, at Downing Street, and eventually decamped to the USA, where he was, laughably, taken on as some kind of visiting “professor” at Stanford:
“In March 2012, Downing Street announced that Hilton would be a “visiting scholar” at Stanford University‘s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies for a year. His last memo concerned the advocacy of severe cuts in the number of civil servants in the United Kingdom and further welfare cuts.” [Wikipedia]
At time of writing, Steve Hilton is on the American TV network, Fox News, as a talking head, and is apparently a Trump partisan.
“Had Bernie Sanders been the Democratic nominee, Hilton “probably would have supported him”. Hilton says he is not really a conservative or a liberal: “It’s hard to pin me down because I’m a bit of Bernie Sanders, a bit of Rand Paul, bit of John Kasich.” He’s pro-Trump simply because he was the candidate most likely to “shake things up”” [The Guardian]
Someone who actively likes and promotes chaos, in fact, just like Dominic Cummings [see below]
Steve Hilton, in other words, like the others examined here, is connected with cosmopolitan finance-capital and its intellectual superstructure of “think tanks” (which have proliferated over the years) and with supposed “institutes”, mostly carrying the same sort of message: internationalism, multikulti “get rich quick”-ism, destruction of tradition, race and culture, combined with State repression of those without money.
[above, Dominic Cummings: note the “I’m Too Important To Wear A Tie Or A Jacket” affectation, as with Steve “Hilton”]
As stated at the start of this blog post, I know of Cummings only what I have read. The links are either posted here below or are available easily via Google.
One thing that did interest me was the Wikipedia statement, taken from a biography of Michael Gove, that “Cummings speaks Russian and ‘is a Russophile'”. It seems that he tried to start an airline with the single route line of Samara (a large city on the Volga) to Vienna, an interesting choice of route. We are told on Wikipedia that: “After university, Cummings moved to Russia from 1994 to 1997, working on various projects. In one Russian venture, he worked for a group attempting to set up an airline connecting Samara in southern Russia to Vienna; however, the venture fell foul of the KGB, and was abandoned after only one flight.“
Well, the “KGB” bit is wrong in exact terms, because the KGB was disbanded (reorganized) in 1991. The bulk of the “internal” work of the old KGB was given to the “FSK” which later became the FSB. As to why the revamped FSK/FSB would want to interfere in the activities of a foreign or foreign-connected airline, I wonder. There are, and have been for 2-3 decades now, numerous foreign airlines operating in the former Soviet Union, flying between Russia and other states.
In the 1990s, new “babyflots” (bits of the old Aeroflot) were emerging all the time, as were ad hoc operations such as the German airline “Luftbrucke” (Air Bridge), which transported tens of thousands of “Volksdeutsche” from Kazakhstan and Siberia to new lives in the reunified Germany (those people were mostly the descendants of Germans invited to Russia by Russian tsars, notably Catherine the Great, then deported East by Stalin). Luftbrucke, if I recall aright, also flew from Samara, as also from a host of cities in Western Siberia and Kazakhstan, such as Semipalatinsk.
I find the history of Cummings interesting. He graduated from Oxford in 1994 aged 22-23, his degree being in Ancient and Modern History. The very same year he moved to Russia “where he worked on various projects” including the idea “to set up a new airline”.
I admit that I myself have never set up an airline, but I know that you cannot do it without rather a lot of money, even in the conditions of post-collapse Sovietism (I myself was briefly in Moscow in 1993 and also dealt with legal and business matters in Russia and Kazakhstan for several years).
Cummings is said to be the son of an oil rig project manager and a special needs teacher. There is no suggestion of any heavy family wealth. Cummings only left university in 1994, yet by —at latest— 1997, so 0-3 years later, was setting up an airline? In fact, how did he get into Russian-oriented business anyway, with no obvious connections or personal monies. He is able to speak Russian, though. That too raises questions.
I lived in Almaty, Kazakhstan for a year (1996-1997), meeting dozens if not hundreds (and over the years, certainly hundreds) of businessmen, lawyers etc doing work in the various ex-Soviet republics. While most of the diplomats I met spoke at least some Russian, the vast majority of businessmen and lawyers encountered knew no Russian at all really (that was true of both British and Americans). Certainly unable to undertake even simple discussions. I even met some unable to order simple food and drink.
So Cummings leaves university in the UK, where he studied ancient and modern history, somehow speaks Russian (or learns it on the ground), and is at once involved with business activities which seem to go beyond being a mere gopher for others. I have to say that I wonder whether Cummings was up to something other than just being a British graduate drifting about and getting into Russian business speculations almost by chance. Maybe the Russian security people were right to be suspicious of him, as is suggested in his Wikipedia entry.
Anyway, he is now considered to be Boris Idiot’s eminence grise, and looks it (meaning “grey”, if not particularly eminent). In fact, despite being only 47, he looks 10+ years older than me, and I am now 62. His political career is summarized here:
I have to say that I agree with his view of many of the leading political and official figures (he described Iain Dunce Duncan Smith as “incompetent”, for example).
It seems that Cummings married a lady of the North Country gentry who is or was Deputy Editor of the Spectator. They live in Islington, in what the Daily Mail is pleased to call a “£1.6 million house” (though in London, what does that mean? I lived for years in a house in Little Venice now (over)valued at £4 million! Madness). Other details about Cummings are few.
“What is clear is that this character is right now in the maelstrom of chaos and action that he loves so much. A defender quipped that he’ll be thrilled with upheaval – it’s the only way he sees people being forced into action. His friend once heard him quote Lenin: “The worse the better.” [Reaction magazine]
The Prophets of Dystopia
These “advisers” (of whom I have selected a mere few from a larger pool) and their connected “think tanks” etc are, even when some of their critique of society is justified, basically destructive. The same applies to the people themselves. Admittedly, Brendan Bracken left a less obviously destructive legacy, but then, after the huge and unnecessary war which he, from the shadows, did so much to bring about, what more need he do to be adjudged a negative force?
Look at Steve Hilton, Dominic Cummings etc. Where are their real achievements? Leaves blown away by the wind. These people may themselves have acquired riches, but only or mainly because they married wealthy wives, then used their own political attachment and profile to become highly-prized TV, radio, press and online “gurus” . They themselves have not established anything solid, whether in commerce, industry, academia, the arts, the sciences, charitable work or anywhere else. They are creatures created from the chaos and decadence in society. They prosper from the decadence and weakness of the political system in the UK and attach themselves to stupid, weak, posturing politicians vainly trying to reach to statesmanship, people such as David Cameron-Levita and Boris-Idiot. They are a symptom of dark days ahead. Social nationalism must rise up to exterminate evil and to found a better and better-organized society.
Is it fanciful to compare the sliding society we now have (look at the past few days…) and the prominence of these odd characters such as Hilton and Cummings, whose academic and patchy work histories are at best underwhelming, with the sliding Russia of the last few years before the Revolution(s) of 1917? Perhaps, but in late-Tsarist Russia too the government, civil service, certainly the politicians, were paralyzed, helpless to do anything positive, and so the influence grew of odd characters: tarot practitioners, mystics and occultists, fortune-tellers of all kinds, persons believed to have arcane knowledge and unorthodox ways to make politics work via persuasion and peculiar ideas and methods. The starets (he was never a monk or priest) Rasputin was only the most important of a whole host.
In fact, I agree with some of what Cummings has said:
“We should stop selecting leaders from a subset of Oxbridge egomaniacs with a humanities degree...” That is true, though I have nothing against degrees in the humanities, but the whole idea of the “generalist” (almost always armed with a degree from Oxford or Cambridge) has blighted UK political, cultural and even industrial life for 70 years, perhaps 100 years. The Soviet Union tended toward the same behaviour (the politically-OK “Man From Moscow” who could “direct” anything from a tyre factory to a Young Pioneer camp or the building of the Moscow Metro), and look what happened there (the Metro in Moscow admittedly being a —rare— success of the Soviet system).
Of course, the worst single example of the generalist might be Cummings’ present employer, Boris-idiot, who has proven that he is incapable of doing anything properly, but who can do it while quoting a bit of rote-learned Ancient Greek, or using an English word no-one else has ever heard of (he must trawl the OED for those silly words, I expect…what a complete waste of space he is!). As the journalist writes,
“All evidence goes out the window. The grandest ever Oxbridge egomaniac of them all (with not even a very good humanities degree, as it happens) is seeing only the flickering shadows on the news on the wall. It is not even day 14 and already we have beaten a hyper-accelerated march to the world of crap policy for political gain.“
The journalist continues, citing a recent Times article by Cummings:
“Elsewhere, in that same Times article, we read: “We must train aspirant leaders very differently so they have the skills and experience of managing complex projects.””
“And here he is, bringing in policies that would make Norman Tebbit look enlightened, working for a leader whose skill at “managing complex projects” so far extends to some rolling windowless sauna buses, a cable car to nowhere, and a ghost garden bridge that may or may not take you to a demented airport that has never and will never be built.“
Seems that my blog was (again) prescient, if I say so myself: not a day or even part of a day goes by now without someone publishing something in the newspapers about Dominic Cummings (though Steve “Hilton” is old news and Brendan Bracken ancient history).
'Sources close to the prime minister tell me that he cried when he heard the news' – fascinating @jennirsl insight into the moment Boris Johnson heard his brother was resigning in the national interest https://t.co/LUNDmcPJeR
“Through his system, as yet unexplained – “I will go into what I think this vision could be and how to do it another day” – he will turn a nation of average people into one of the most successful countries in the world. He will sweep away the suffocating postwar mainframes of politics, and build something capable of withstanding the unknown crises ahead. Or so he would wish. In truth, he may be little more than a survivalist in the woods, soldering wires together in the belief he is saving us all.
Is Dominic Cummings a visionary or a fool? The remarkable fact is that the Conservative Party has risked its future, and the country’s, on which one Cummings turns out to be.” [Harry Lambert, writing in The New Statesman]
In the Notes, below this article, is the text of a Guardian piece by the well-known expert on the British Constitution, Vernon Bogdanor. Worth reading, but what struck me apart from its detail was that one possibility mooted as a way out of the Brexit impasse is a so-called “government of national unity headed by someone such as Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper“. YVETTE COOPER?! You mean (he means) Yvette Cooper the expenses cheat and greedy careerist freeloader? Yvette Cooper the “refugees welcome” hypocrite, who thinks that British people should all have to put up with culturally-backward hordes invading their country, their neighbourhoods, even their own homes? (Needless to say, Yvette Cooper and her equally greedy, cheating, freeloading husband, Ed Balls, have somehow avoided sharing their own comfortable large home(s) with the migrant-invaders). Yvette Cooper, the total doormat for the Jewish-Zionist lobby?
That sounds to me more like a government of national disunity!
In fact, though it may be largely factually correct, the Guardian piece shows to what extent the mainly London-based chattering classes and msm milieux are out of tune and in fact completely out of touch with what I take to be the majority of the population.
A “government of national unity”? In order to deal with a crisis entirely inflicted upon the people by the political class and more particularly the Conservative Party? It is not so much about Brexit itself as about the way in which persons governing despite being unfit to govern have criminally mishandled Brexit. I myself favoured Leave and Brexit in 2016, and still do, but (in the immortal words of Johnny Mercer MP), this is “a shitshow” and most of it has been and is a Conservative Party shitshow.
I expect that many will see my view as unnecessarily apocalyptic. I disagree. Many opinion polls have shown how very disenchanted the voters really are, to the point where many are willing to vote for Brexit Party, a party which, apart from the UK leaving the EU, has no policies at all. That willingness, to vote for a new party without any real policies (even in outline) also supports my view that voters at present are voting against the parties they oppose, rather than for parties they support.
There is no social national party for people to support (obviously I do not bother to examine again the bad-joke “parties” of recent years: Britain First, For Britain, the rumps of the old NF and BNP etc). UKIP too, which —as I predicted since 2015— is now so “yesterday” that I almost forgot to include it. There is a political vacuum.
As it is, the voters are left, at present, with the LibLabCon parties, i.e. the System parties, and the Brexit Party. Anyone (meaning anyone white and English, or Welsh, the Scots having the faux-“nationalist” SNP) and discontented with the way the UK is, can only either refuse to participate or can vote Brexit Party as a protest (or vote of hate against the System parties).
How has it come to this, that instead of the UK leaving the EU in a fairly orderly fashion, the government and msm are now talking in terms of food shortages? This is unbelievable! Those responsible are mainly the ministers and MPs of the Conservative Party, who after all have been in power now for over 9 years, including of course the 3 years since the 2016 Referendum. It is they who have messed up the negotiations, they who have blithely said that everything will be all right, they who have been the Government. Not Labour, not the LibDems, not Brexit Party.
Now we come to Boris-idiot. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is, to me, no more acceptable or believable than food shortages as a result of Brexit. To me, he is not a legitimate Prime Minister of this country. He is totally unfit to be a prime minister of anywhere. He is only there because of the flaw in the UK’s constitutional arrangements, by which flaw a prime minister can resign without that prime minister’s successor having to call an immediate general election. In the case of Boris Johnson, he is also there because spineless Conservative Party MPs thought (I doubt rightly) that Boris-idiot was or is more “electable” than any of his opponents in the Conservative Party leadership contest, and so would give all Conservative Party MPs a better chance of electoral survival.
When you see Boris-idiot, you have to factor-in to everything that he says or writes that his primary and often only purpose is his own selfish interest.
Now we are told that Johnson is set on either leaving the EU on bare WTO terms or (if he can frighten the EU enough) getting a better “deal” than did the absurd bad-joke PM, Theresa May.
Boris-idiot’s calculation is very very obvious: if the EU makes even a slightly better offer, Boris “Tribune of the People” and “Conquering Hero” presents that to the House of Commons, which then either accepts it (so anointing Idiot as “great statesman” who would probably then win a general election if held fairly soon thereafter), or rejects it (so casting Idiot as “heroic but conspired against”).
On the other hand, if the EU refuses to make a better offer, Boris The Poundland Churchill can shake his fist at Brussels, take or try to take the UK out of the EU on WTO terms, and if that is blocked in the Commons, hold a general election, casting himself again as that “Tribune of the People” against Remainer (especially Labour, LibDem and SNP) MPs and Brussels eurocrats.
Whatever happens, keep eyes focussed on the fact that Boris Johnson is doing whatever he is doing for short-term political advantage. Having supported the fake “austerity” of his fellow part-Jews David Cameron-Levita and George Osborne, Boris Johnson now flashes the cash everywhere: NHS, police, whatever. Shallow 18th Century style largesse-politics.
Is Boris-Idiot correct in his calculations? Will be be borne back to power on a wave of anti-EU anger? I doubt it.
Let us say that there are food shortages (whether caused by Brexit, hold-ups at the ports, miscalculations by the large supermarket chains or panic-buying by the urban masses in the British cities). Who will be blamed? The EU? Perhaps, partly, at first. However, I believe that the people will also and in any event before long start to blame (and with reason) the “Conservative” government.
If the UK does not leave the EU on 31 October, then government remains paralyzed by its lack of a Parliamentary majority. If an election is then held, Brexit Party will stand in 650 constituencies and so enable the slaughter of dozens and even hundreds of Conservative MPs.
Boris Johnson is probably calculating that, if he can take the UK out of the EU on 31 October 2019, the voting public will see him (however ludicrous that may be to you and me) as a strong leader (when he is neither) who has kept to his word. He can then in effect call a general election and hope to win a Commons majority because either Brexit Party will fade away or not stand candidates, or will be sidelined by the electorate.
No doubt Johnson will hope that, like Pacific salmon who die after spawning, Brexit Party will expire, having reached its goal of a UK exit from the EU. Such a calculation may be misplaced. How Brexit Party would present itself if the UK really does leave, at least on paper, on 31 October, I am unsure. Perhaps by saying that the exit is not sure, not definite or that Brexit may possibly be reversed by an incoming government.
One thing is certain: Brexit is about more than Brexit and, that being so, Brexit Party itself, should its leader Farage so decide, could morph into a party of general faux-nationalist discontent. That sounds vague, but what is more vague than a party with neither policies nor ideology?
There is more going on than Brexit, of course. All the problems the UK has will still be there on 1 November: mass immigration (which will not stop after Brexit, far from it!), NHS decline, social security and housing defects and shortages, the increase in violent crime, social decadence and decline; and so on.
The msm and TV talking heads, the metro-“liberal” journalists, lawyers, media folk etc, all insulated by affluence, mostly London-centric, were shocked by the 2016 Referendum result, by the 2017 election results, by the immediate failure of their briefly-cherished “Change UK” pro-Jewish joke party, by Trump’s election too. In a word, these people are out-of-touch. Their experience of the years 2010-2019 is not the same as that of well over half the UK population.
My view is that a coming general election might produce a big shock again. The only thing preventing a landslide for a social-nationalist party is that, quite simply, no social national party exists.
In the no doubt upcoming 2019 or possibly early 2020 General Election, I believe that neither of the main System parties will do well. I believe that both the LibDems and Brexit Party could do well, if only as a reaction against the main two.
The two main System parties have both been losing not only loyal voters but their own raisons d’etre, and their heart.
Labour will keep the votes of the blacks and browns generally, as well as those of the public service workers and those dependent on State benefits. It may not keep the votes of those it has taken for granted for a century: the British (i.e. white) poorer people as such. They are now either voting with their feet (i.e. not voting) or voting desperately elsewhere. In 2005 or so, BNP; 2010-2015, UKIP. Now they vote, some of them, Brexit Party. I put the Labour vote as likely to be around 30%.
The Conservative Party cannot now appeal to Thatcherite-style “aspiration”. That was something real back in the 1980s. I remember sitting in a branch of Wheeler’s (fish restaurant) in Blackheath in 1986 or 1987. At the next table, a young plumber (the tables were not far apart and he was a little loud) and his girlfriend talking about his income, his house-purchase plans etc. Afterwards, my then girlfriend and I mused about the social changes then in train (a young tradesman and girlfriend eating at Wheeler’s and buying a house). Could that happen now? Perhaps, but it would be unusual, I think.
The Conservative vote nationally is now mainly that of the rich and affluent (nothing new there), which would be no more than 5% to (at most) 20% of the population. There are some older but not affluent people who still vote Conservative out of long habit, even against their own interests, but they are a dwindling stock. That is why the Conservative MPs backed Boris-idiot as their leader, because they hoped that this part-Jew public entertainer could jolly along enough unthinking voters to make up the numbers. All the same, I should not put the Conservative vote now much above 30%, and that might fall back to 20% if the UK experiences significant disruption or economic dislocation soon.
The LibDems may soon be able to corner the Remain vote in the South of England.
Brexit Party might just be the recipient of any further or renewed “roar of rage” from an electorate in pain. If that happens (meaning if Brexit Party gets at least 20% of the popular vote), then the Conservatives will soon be “an ex-party”, at least so far as government is concerned.
Many might say, so you get rid of a Conservative MP and put in a small-c conservative Brexit Party MP, what’s the difference? Well, it’s not that simple anyway (because LibDems and Labour might capture more Con seats than does Brexit Party), but the good thing is that many many evil Conservative Party MPs will be out of UK politics, many for good. Connections and career paths will be ruined. I don’t much like Champagne, but if that happened, I might make an exception. If the damage were great, I might even drink Bollinger instead of mere champagne-type such as Sekt.
A similar picture might emerge in the North as regards Labour (if Conservative voters vote Brexit Party to keep Labour out), but one thing at a time! The main thing is to cull the hundreds of Conservative Friends of Israel. And it could soon happen.
The way lies open, not far away, for social nationalism on a scale never before seen in the UK.
My analysis was right, but my prediction not right as far as the chances at an election of the Conservative Party were concerned. I failed to foresee that con-man Nigel Farage would stab his own candidates and Brexit Party members in the back, and stand down virtually all Brexit Party 2019 General Election candidates, thus gifting the Conservative Party and Boris-idiot an 80-seat Commons majority.
I was just watching one of the seemingly endless re-runs of the early 1970s historical documentary series, The World at War, and in particular the episode named Barbarossa (from Fall Barbarossa or Operation Barbarossa, named after Friedrich I, the Holy Roman Emperor of the 12th Century who led the Third Crusade against the infidels).
I of course remember watching the TV series when it first was broadcast, in 1973. Many will say that it is in many parts contaminated by what amounts to Jew-Zionist propaganda, and I do not dispute that. Others point out, in a connected critique, that every alleged wrong done by the German Reich and its forces is given great prominence, whereas the cruelties and barbarities of the Soviet regime are barely mentioned (I suppose that it could be argued that the most famous chronicles of those terrible times were not published in English until after The World at War was made: GULAG Archipelago, for one). The criticisms are valid, but one cannot write off The World At War because of those flaws.
The strength of The World at War was that many of the leading personalities on all sides, such as German, English and other general officers, admirals etc, some members of Hitler’s circle (eg Speer), and a host of lesser-ranked people, were all still alive in 1973, giving their filmed testimony weight and immediacy.
Anyway, this article is not meant to focus on The World at War alone, but to examine a couple of “what if?” situations, both in the war years of 1939-45 (for Russians and Americans, 1941-45) and at other times.
The drive to Moscow in 1941
When I was first in Moscow, in 1993, my assigned driver, Pasha (an insolent loutish youth, apropos of nothing) pointed out, as we drove into the city from Sheremetyevo airport, the tank trap memorial, 23 kilometres from the Kremlin on the Leningrad Highway (Leningradskoye Shosse). The memorial marks the supposed furthest point of advance of the German forces in 1941. We drove near to the Kremlin only about 15-20 minutes later.
In 1941, the town of Khimki (now effectively a suburb of Moscow) had only just (1939) been administratively created, and was little developed. Now, hundreds of thousands live close by. Even since I drove through in 1993 there has been further development. Indeed, in the photograph below, taken in a recent year, there can be seen an IKEA warehouse. What would Stalin have had to say about that?!
The proximity to central Moscow amazed me. Even if not true (as some say) that some German advance-reconnaissance motorcyclists advanced yet further, to a point where they could see the golden domes of the Kremlin churches, it is incredible to see how close the forces of the Reich came to capturing Moscow.
In 1941, flush with the victories in the West in 1940, Hitler intended to advance in Russia against 3 main objectives: Leningrad, Moscow, and also the Ukraine generally, with its huge natural resources of grain crops etc and (in the Don Basin or Donbass), coal.
Hitler at first prioritized Leningrad, followed by the Donbass, and only then Moscow. His generals disagreed, arguing that only a decisive blow against Moscow could achieve victory. There were cogent arguments for all three main objectives:
Leningrad: reasons based around morale (the city of the two 1917 Revolutions and in particular the second, Bolshevik, one; the city bearing the name of Lenin); also, the city without which the all-weather port of Murmansk could probably not be held. If Murmansk fell, there could be no Allied resupply of the Soviet Union except via the Soviet Far East. At that stage of the war, that alone might sink the Soviet regime;
Ukraine: grain supplies, coal, even oil (should German forces be able to advance beyond Ukraine; also, protection for the Romanian oilfields supplying Germany);
Moscow: in the highly-centralized Stalinist system of the Soviet Union, everything came from the centre. Indeed, in the earliest hours of Barbarossa, Soviet officers were heard in German intercepts begging Moscow for orders: “we are under attack; what shall we do?”…It might be that, were Moscow to fall, the Soviet Union would fall. Hitler himself had said that “all we need do is kick open the front door and the whole rotten structure will come tumbling down.”
I have to say that (of course with the knowledge of the decades since 1941) I would favour the Moscow option. Had Moscow fallen, the bubble of the regime would have burst. In a small way, the open panic of the NKVD and CPSU when they thought the Germans would soon be in Moscow, and which led to open rebelliousness on the part of ordinary Moscow inhabitants, leads me to think that a German capture of the city would have led to a rapid fall of the Soviet regime in all of European Russia and perhaps beyond.
In any case, without Moscow under Soviet control, Leningrad must surely have fallen too before very long.
Hitler thought that it was more important to defeat the Soviet armies in the field. European thinking, thinking from the constricted lands of Central and Western Europe. In the Russian space, those otherwise valid ideas become less valid. New armies can be (and were) raised from the vast areas beyond the Volga, beyond the Urals.
As for going for three objectives at once, it might, under other stars, have worked, but the cautious Russian proverb says “chase two hares and you will not catch one”…
Still, what if? What if Moscow had fallen in 1941? Without a two-front war, Germany could not have been defeated in the West. There could not have been the Normandy Landings of 1944, certainly not successfully. European Russia would have been under German control, and the wider expanses of the Soviet Union would probably have been invaded and taken by a Russian but anti-Soviet army such as the Vlasov Army, which might have been expanded to a formidable force. Also, the forces under Rommel in North Africa would have been able to have been hugely reinforced, with the heady strategic possibility that Rommel might have been able not only to take Alexandria, Cairo and the Suez Canal, but Jerusalem, Damascus and then drive up through the foothills of the Caucasus towards Baku and its oilfields, linking up with the forces of Army Group South driving South-East from Ukraine; German forces did occupy part of the Caucasus and even part of Kalmykia in 1942 (occupying Elista briefly).
Mainland Europe would, in that overall scenario, have avoided most of the destruction of 1941-1945. In time, there would no doubt have been peace made between the German Reich and the British Empire. The calamitous decolonization in Africa etc would have been avoided, at least until such time as it would not have had such terrible effects on human and animal inhabitants. There would be either no State of Israel, or one which would not be the hub of a worldwide Jew-Zionist web. The forces of Stalinism would never have invaded Eastern and Central Europe. There would have been no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no Cuban Missile Crisis, and Castro himself would have been seen as just another Latin American tinpot dictator (which is all he was anyway, once Soviet backup was removed) and unable to pose as a world “statesman” (BBC and Labour Party idiots please note).
What if? If only…
And now for something completely different…
What if…Beeching had never happened? Alternatively, what if rail lines had been closed but maintenance of track continued?
I wonder how many British people of the post-1960s age, let alone the (often vacant-seeming) “millennials”, have even heard of Dr. Beeching, his reports and his “Beeching Axe”? [see Notes, below]. In outline, then:
“The first report identified 2,363 stations and 5,000 miles (8,000 km) of railway line for closure, 55% of stations and 30% of route miles, with an objective of stemming the large losses being incurred during a period of increasing competition from road transport and reducing the rail subsidies necessary to keep the network running; the second identified a small number of major routes for significant investment. The 1963 report also recommended some less well-publicised changes, including a switch to containerisation for rail freight“. [Wikipedia]
Note those figures: 2,363 rail stations to be closed! Not to mention 5,000 miles of track.
“Protests resulted in the saving of some stations and lines, but the majority were closed as planned, and Beeching’s name remains associated with the mass closure of railways and the loss of many local services in the period that followed. A few of these routes have since reopened, some short sections have been preserved as heritage railways, while others have been incorporated into the National Cycle Network or used for road schemes; others now are lost to construction, have reverted to farmland, or remain derelict.” [Wikipedia]
“Beeching’s reports made no recommendations about the handling of land after closures. British Rail operated a policy of disposing of land that was surplus to requirements. Many bridges, cuttings and embankments have been removed and the land sold for development. Closed station buildings on remaining lines have often been demolished or sold for housing or other purposes. Increasing pressure on land use meant that protection of closed trackbeds, as in other countries (such as the US Rail Bank scheme, which holds former railway land for possible future use) was not seen to be practical. Many redundant structures from closed lines remain, such as bridges over other lines and drainage culverts. They often require maintenance as part of the rail infrastructure while providing no benefit. Critics of Beeching argue that the lack of recommendations on the handling of closed railway property demonstrates that the report was short-sighted. On the other hand, retaining a railway on these routes, which would obviously have increased maintenance costs, might not have earned enough to justify that greater cost. As demand for rail has grown since the 1990s, the failure to preserve the routes of closed lines (such as the one between Bedford and Cambridge, which was closed despite Beeching recommending its retention) has been criticized.” [Wikipedia]
The above long extracts from Wikipedia lay out the facts quite well. What is missing is perspective. The postwar period in the UK, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, was one of almost wholesale destruction of old buildings, streets, villages, towns and cities. In fact, postwar redevelopment changed London a great deal more than the oft-cited depredations of the Luftwaffe (most of which bomb damage was concentrated on the Thames dock areas and nearby areas which suffered collateral damage). Naturally, demolitions are sometimes inevitable and sometimes an improvement [see Notes, below], but much that was valuable has gone.
In fact, the 5,000 miles of track closures earmarked by Beeching were in addition to about 3,318 miles of railway track closed between 1948 and 1962 and also a further 1,300 miles of passenger railway between 1923 and 1939! Over 9,000 miles of track!
So “what if”? What if, for example, the rail track had been maintained? That way, were (as now are) different ideas, new technical ideas, possible (eg robot trains, no-staff trains, small ultralight trains, trains made with lighter materials, trains using solar power etc), those tracks could be the basis for new transport links and could be further linked with new track.
The expense of a railway is mostly in the staff pay, pensions etc; after that, the cost of actually running trains (fuel etc); after that, maintenance of trains, track, bridges, tunnels etc. The core maintenance can be relatively little. In the USA, this is the policy (see Wikipedia in Notes, below). Political policy which is also a national insurance policy.
Not that the trekking ways, cycleways and nature walks which often have replaced the old railways are not useful too, but most rail track destroyed has been simply ploughed over, built over or abandoned. Pity.
The LibDems won fairly decisively, but with a smaller majority than the betting might have been suggesting. I have posted several informative links below.
Why did the LibDems win, why did the Conservative Party not win?
For me, the most important aspect beyond the headline result is the fact that the Conservative ex-MP, Christopher Davies, would have won, perhaps even handsomely, were it not for the candidature of Brexit Party, which received 3,331 votes.
The LibDem majority over the Conservatives was only 1,425. In other words, had Brexit Party not been standing, the Conservatives would almost certainly have won, and probably by nearly 2,000 votes. The Brexit Party received a vote-share of only 10.5% (LibDems 43.5%, Conservatives 39%), but that was more than enough to sink the Conservative candidate.
The Labour vote has suffered a general decline in the constituency over the years (all-time high was 57.69% in 1964), but this was its lowest-ever vote-share (5.3%). I attribute that partly and perhaps mainly to tactical voting: Labour supporters voting against the Conservatives (mainly) in a situation where Labour had no real chance anyway (the Labour vote here has not exceeded 20% since 2001 (21.4%). However, the 5.3%, barely enough to retain the deposit, does tend to support my view that Labour is now the party of the blacks and browns, the public service workers and those mainly dependent on State benefits.
The Sky News Political Correspondent tweeted something interesting about the Labour vote in Brecon and Radnorshire, which had been in the 10%-18% range since 2005 and until this by-election’s collapse to 5.3%:
Lib Dem source tells me Labour vote is in freefall: “Lab vote in deposit losing territory. We will have been massive beneficiaries of that. Lots bringing up Corbyn as a reason for switching to us on the doorsteps – more than just a tactical squeeze.” #BreconByelection
Brecon and Radnorshire is almost entirely white British in demographic terms (Powys, the county in which is situated the constituency, is said to be 99.3% white British). In white British areas, Labour increasingly has no chance. Labour scarcely speaks to or for white British people now. This has implications that go far beyond Brecon and Radnorshire.
The Conservatives and Brexit Party down the line
Brexit Party is one of two parties that emerged in 2019 despite having no real policies (the other being the pro-EU, pro-Remain, pro-Jewish lobby party, Change UK, which sputtered to a halt almost immediately and now scarcely exists).
There is no doubt that the early promise of Brexit Party has somewhat blunted since its great 2019 EU elections success. The recent Peterborough by-election was nearly won, but not quite, Brexit Party losing to Labour by a mere 683 votes. Now we have another, though less unexpected, disappointment. Nigel Farage and his large meetings held before both the EU elections and the Peterborough by-election built up a head of steam and a head of expectation, but so far that pressure has just tooted into the void, at least as far as Westminster is concerned.
The political landscape has just suffered an earthquake. Boris Johnson (aka, to me, “Boris-idiot”) is now, incredibly, Prime Minister (or Fool posing as “King for a Day”), having been put there by about 92,000 Conservative Party members (out of about 50 MILLION voters, in other words by about 1 out of every 500 or so eligible voters). He has “pledged” (for what little his pledges are worth) to leave the EU “deal or no deal” by 31 October 2019. If that seems about to happen, I am assuming that the anti-“no deal”/WTO MPs will block it and/or vote for a no-confidence motion. That might in turn cause Boris Johnson to trigger a general election.
Alternatively, the EU might offer Johnson a form of words that he can present to the Commons as a workable “deal” (in the now familiar vulgar terminology). The UK can then pretend to leave the EU but in reality stay in, or kick the can down the road by means of an extension, which Johnson himself seemed to find acceptable recently. The Commons might block the former, but probably not the latter.
An extension (as mooted) might last until 2021 or even 2022. In 2022, new electoral boundaries will be in place in the UK. MP numbers are set to be reduced from 650 to 600. Those changes will hit both Labour and the LibDems hard.
If the Conservatives can hang on until 2022, their chances of survival (as individual MPs and as a party of government) look better. In the meantime, Boris-idiot can go on posing as Prime Minister, and his Cabinet of Conservative Friends of Israel, enemies of the people, can (with the help of their Labour Friends of Israel accomplices) pass more repressive laws to destroy (real) “democracy” and (real) civil rights in the UK…
That, at least, could have been the scenario had the Conservatives a majority or at least a working majority (reduced by Brecon and Radnorshire to 1 MP vote) and so able to continue as a government. As it is, whatever happens on 31 October, it cannot be long now before Labour moves a no-confidence motion. If not in November, then surely in December or early next year.
Brexit Party has not yet proven that it can win Westminster seats, but it has proven that it can prevent the Conservative Party winning. In Peterborough, the successful Labour Party candidate got 10,484 votes (30.9%). The Brexit Party got 9,801 votes (28.9%). The Conservative got 7,243 votes (21.4%). While it may be that not all of those who voted Brexit Party would, in lieu of that, have voted Conservative, most would have done; hardly any would have voted Labour, in my opinion anyway. It is clear that, without Brexit Party, the Conservatives would have won Peterborough. The same is true in Brecon and Radnorshire.
Boris Johnson may have shot Brexit Party’s fox by going all-out (supposedly) for a “no deal”/WTO Brexit if the EU does not play ball, but he has not killed that fox, just wounded it. If the UK leaves on a “no deal”/WTO basis, then Brexit Party probably will deflate to nothing, though it may reinvent itself even then. However, it seems unlikely that the majority of MPs of all parties will not block such a departure. If that happens, then Boris Johnson, however much he tries to play the Leave “tribune of the people”, will be seen by Leavers as a waste of space, “all hat and no cattle”. In that scenario, the anger of the Leave-preferring voters will devolve upon both Remain MPs and Boris-idiot. Brexit Party will then, like Antaeus treading on his native earth, be revived and take on new strength.
What Boris Johnson and the Conservatives would like is for Brexit Party to just disappear, thus leaving the Conservatives to trample all over the hopelessly-split Labour Party and the LibDems. What is more likely is that the UK will not leave the EU on any real basis by the beginning of November. Brexit Party will thus put up 650 MPs and the Conservative Party will be slaughtered. Most hard-core Leavers will vote Brexit Party, most hard-core Remainers (especially in the South) will switch to the LibDems. For Boris Johnson and the Conservatives, a two-front war. Apart from Brexit issues, anyone who believes in the Welfare State, in decent public services, in animal welfare, will not vote Conservative. Anyone hostile to Jewish Zionism, likewise.
The Brexit Party may only get 10%-20%, so say 15%, nationwide, but that alone all but destroys any hope for a majority Conservative government. My own efforts at working it out using Electoral Calculus [see Notes, below] indicate Conservative Party as largest party in Commons, but without a majority and quite possibly worse off than now.
Much depends on the LibDem vote. At present, the opinion polls show intended LibDem vote somewhere in the 15%-25% range, with latest educated guess (via Ipsos/MORI) at 20%.
That might give a Conservative majority of as much as 74. However, even if that poll is accurate, it is unlikely that the Conservatives will actually maintain a lead of 10 points over Labour. If Labour were able to achieve 30% instead of 24%, which is well within the parameters of reasonable possibility, then the Conservative Party would be 20 MPs short of a majority, i.e. worse off than now.
There again, even if Labour were still on 24%, but if Brexit Party could reach to 15% at the expense of the Conservatives on 29%, the Conservatives would be no less than 57 MPs short of a majority.
On the other hand, If Brexit Party can get 20%, LibDems 20%, Labour 25% and Conservatives 30%, the Conservatives would be about 35 MPs short of a majority.
It is a game one can play for hours.
The LibDems are back in the game, if only by default. They have much of the Remain vote, they have a (notionally) fresh and energetic leader, they have the votes of those disliking the other two main System parties as well as those of persons wishing to vote tactically. They have at least the possibility of a 50-seat bloc (again) in the Commons.
Brexit Party is not looking good as a potential party of government but it is looking effective as a way of blocking Conservative Party ambitions. A general election resulting in 30% Con, 30% Lab, 20% LibDem, 15% Brexit Party and 5% Green comes out with Labour as largest party, but 46 MPs short of majority, the Conservatives not far behind and the LibDems with perhaps about 50 MPs. On that basis, the LibDems could, as in 2010, be once again the kingmakers. Plus ca change…
Andrew Rawnsley predicting the demise, quite soon, of both Boris-idiot and the Conservative government (and party):
“As he [Boris-idiot] points the country at the cliff edge and depresses the accelerator, does prime minister Johnson have any idea where this will end? It is a mistake to think that he does. No one knows what he is really up to, including himself. In one breath, he tells us that this is “do or die”; in another, he sets the odds on a no-deal Brexit at “a million to one”;
“He [Boris-idiot] has to know that there is a strong possibility that it will mean an autumn general election. The least credible message from Number 10 is that it is not contemplating this outcome”;
“Tory strategy for winning an election makes some very big and risky assumptions. One is that the gains harvested by the Conservatives at the expense of Labour among Leave-supporting voters will outweigh Tory losses in Remain-supporting constituencies. Nearly every top Lib Dem target is a Conservative seat, while Scottish Nationalists are hoping to scalp Tory MPs north of the border. The other perilous assumption is that Nigel Farage’s party will fade away or fold up. The leader of the Brexit party is enjoying being the object of renewed attention and displays no signs of wanting to retire again. He declares that he does not trust the prime minister and he has a bitter history of mutual loathing with Number 10’s chief strategist, Dominic Cummings.”
“One lesson from the Brecon & Radnorshire by-election is that the Brexit party doesn’t have to do all that well – it polled barely a double-digit share on Thursday – to hurt the Tories. If the Conservatives could have added the Brexit party vote and that of Ukip to their tally, they would have held the seat with just over half the vote, rather than narrowly lose it to the Lib Dems. They’d hope to put a harder squeeze on the Brexit party in a general election, but couldn’t be absolutely confident. All the hazards of this strategy will be multiplied many times over if an election takes place after 31 October. In one scenario, we would still be in the EU, breaking the Tory leader’s “absolute commitment” to his party that Britain will be out “under any circumstances” and hugely boosting the Faragists.”
“In the alternative scenario, Britain has tumbled out of the EU without an agreement. That is no longer a threat or a promise. The countdown has reached zero and no deal is a reality. Even in the less chilling versions of a crash-out Brexit – the ones that don’t involve supermarket shelves being stripped bare by panic-buying and children dying for lack of life-critical medicines – I wouldn’t want to be a prime minister trying to make a case for his re-election when the country has just suffered a big economic shock and the currency is collapsing.”
“My suspicion is that the Armageddon Clock isn’t really there to count down the seconds to Brexit day. It is there to remind Boris Johnson how long he has left before it becomes too late to avoid his own doomsday.“
Of course, I myself have made, in the above and previous blog posts, similar points to those now made by Andrew Rawnsley. He, however, has the inside contacts (and public profile) which I do not have. I, perforce, have to use simply my own knowledge and powers of reason (also, I am doing this unpaid, pro bono publico!)
I should say that there is little incentive for the Brexit Party to form a pact with the Conservatives unless the Conservatives in effect gift Brexit Party at least 50 winnable seats in return for Brexit Party standing down in the other 600. Such a pact might backfire for the Conservatives in that it would
deprive the Conservatives of a number of seats which, even with Brexit Party standing, the Conservatives themselves might win; and
create a bloc of up to 50 “fourth party” Westminster MPs for the first time, so
making Brexit Party far more electorally credible in subsequent elections.
If Brexit Party candidates give up their candidature in seats where the Conservative candidates might lose if there is a Brexit Party candidate, then not only has the Brexit Party given up what might be good chances of winning in those seats, but it has restricted itself to standing only in seats where it has, arguably, little chance of winning.
In other words, a one-way electoral pact with the Conservatives almost wipes out Brexit Party’s reason for existing. It might confirm as MPs a few Conservative Eurosceptics, but no political earthquake is going to happen just because of that. The better strategy is to fight all 650 seats and see what happens. If it should be that 200+ Conservative MPs lose their seats, then good.
Update, 23 June 2020
My analysis was not too bad (as good that of Andrew Rawnsley, anyway), but nexpected events happened, as they often do: as we now know, duing the General Election campaign of December 2019, Nigel Farage, for whatever reason, decided to stand down all his Brexit Party candidates standing in Conservative-held seats. That killed Brexit Party stone dead and ensured a Conservative Party victory by default. 2017 Labour voters did not, most of them, vote Conservative, but some did, in some seats. A relative few defected to the LibDems or what was left of Brexit Party, but almost as many as all of those simply decided not to vote.
Result: a Conservative Party majority of about 80.
Nearly eight years ago, when I still had a Twitter account (read “before the Jew-Zionists prevailed upon Twitter to expel me”), I tweeted that the LibDems were finished. At that time, around 2011, the height of the Con Coalition, the LibDem careerists were signing up to pretty much everything required of them by the misnamed “Conservatives”. In fact, even now in 2019, new tales come to light about how totally supine the LibDems in coalition were: recently, for example, it was revealed that the LibDems agreed to screw down harder on the sick and disabled in return for a 5p tax on plastic shopping bags.
The public were so disgusted by the LibDems 2010-2015 that the LibDem support and vote in the country hit almost rock-bottom in 2015. The 2010 general election had seen so-called “Cleggmania” and a popular vote of 23%, resulting in 57 House of Commons seats. In fact, that 23% was only 1 point above the level achieved in 2005 under the LibDems’ former (1999-2006) leader, Charles Kennedy; the LibDems in 2010 had 5 fewer seats than they had in 2005.
Naturally, the UK’s unfair First Past The Post [FPTP] political system left the LibDems with far fewer Commons seats than they “deserved” by reference to their popular vote. 23% of the 2010 popular vote “should” have given the LibDems about 150 MPs, not 57.
The 2010 hung Parliament result gave the LibDems their chance to demand proportional representation, instead of which their leadership (Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander and David Laws, mainly) accepted from the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron-Levita, the mere promise of a referendum on Alternative Vote [AV], a halfway house between FPTP voting and proportional representation [PR].
Gordon Brown, on behalf of Labour, the then Prime Minister, was willing to offer the LibDems immediate AV, via a new law to be passed by Labour and LibDem MPs, but the LibDems instead (and to my mind inexplicably) chose the Conservative offer of a mere referendum on AV over the Labour offer of immediate AV. When they did that, it was already clear that the LibDems (so called “Orange Book” LibDems, meaning pro-finance capitalist LibDems) much preferred to make common cause with the Conservatives.
This “Orange Book” “liberalism” underpinned what the LibDems did in coalition with the Conservatives from 2010 to 2015. The “Orange Book” itself took the LibDems far from the positions of the old Liberal Party and even from those of the LibDem party itself during the time when it was in the hands of Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy.
The authors of the Orange Book favoured socio-political positions not far from those of leading members of the Conservative Party post-2000: effectively anti-Welfare State, pro-business, socially-judgmental, favouring so-called “choice” etc.
It is striking how many of the Orange Book authors have, in the years since its publication, been hit by scandal:
David Laws: found to have cheated on his Parliamentary expenses to the tune of about £40,000; many thought him fortunate not to have been prosecuted for fraud;
Chris Huhne: prosecuted and imprisoned for the very silly crime of perversion of the course of justice relating to a speeding offence [cf. Fiona Onasanya];
Mark Oaten, exposed as a coprophiliac and user of “rent boys”; since when Oaten has represented the International Fur Trade Federation, a largely Jewish body despised by animal-lovers worldwide. Oaten was also a supporter of fox-hunting.
“Only” three, but three out of only nine LibDems who wrote the Orange Book (Oaten admitted that in fact his research assistant had written his, Oaten’s, designated chapter, and that he, Oaten, had not even read that chapter, let alone the rest of the book). Of the other LibDems involved, Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg both lost their Commons seats in 2015 and 2017 respectively, gratefully then accepting lucrative directorships from transnational finance-capitalist companies.
The LibDem fortunes since the days of the Con Coalition
The LibDem popular vote crashed in 2015, sliding from its 2010 level of 23% to only 7.9%. MP numbers were slashed from 57 to 8.
In 2017, the LibDem popular vote slumped further, to 7.4%, though by the quirk of the FPTP voting system combined with the way boundaries are drawn, the LibDems actually managed to increase the number of LibDem MPs from 8 in 2015 to 12 in 2017.
The present situation
Nick Clegg took the Zuckerberg shilling (or should that be million?) and became an apologist for Facebook. He was replaced by Tim Farron, someone who was from an earlier, Nonconformist tradition within the LibDems and their ancestor-party, the Liberals. For example, “Farron was one of only two Liberal Democrat MPs to vote against the under-occupancy penalty (also known as the bedroom tax) in 2012.” [Wikipedia]. Farron was in the anti-Orange Book Beveridge Group [see Notes, below].
In 2017, Farron in turn was replaced by another Orange Book author, Vince Cable. Then, in 2019, Jo Swinson took the reins. She, though very much of the Orange Book persuasion, is more identified publicly with “socially liberal” than with “fiscally conservative” positions. Jo Swinson held the positions of PPS, and then Business Minister, during the Con Coalition period, but has managed to escape too great an identification with the social policies of the Coalition. Surprising, really, in that she
“Almost always voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the “bedroom tax”)”;
“Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices”;
“Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability”;
“Consistently voted for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support”;
“Almost always voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits“;
“Almost always voted for reducing the rate of corporation tax“
I have to say that I have always seen Jo Swinson as a ghastly bitch, who, like her husband (Duncan Hames, also a LibDem MP from, in his case only, 2010 to 2015) has been mainly a careerist type in politics; in Jo Swinson’s case, her brief period in provincial commerce before 2005 can only be seen as underwhelming, at best.
My view of Jo Swinson is, admittedly, mainly a personal impression based on what I have seen on TV etc. Her voting record on domestic UK issues must give pause, though, to those who see her as enlightened, socially compassionate etc.
Jo Swinson is a LibDem leader who does not frighten the Conservative horses. That could be key. In 2017, there were, if memory serves, 35 seats where the LibDems were in close 2nd place; there were many others where the LibDem was in close 3rd place. Most of those are Conservative-held seats. The implication is clear: if Brexit Party weakens an already-flagging Conservative vote, scores of (mainly) Conservative seats could fall, many to the LibDems. The Brexit Party is a major factor here.
Then we have the Remain vote. About 48% of the UK, famously, voted Remain. All three System parties were split in the 2016 Referendum, but the LibDems less so than the other two. As a party, the Conservative Party is now seen as basically Leave; the Labour Party is seen as sitting on the fence. That leaves the LibDems as the sole unalloyed Remain party. How that translates into votes and then into seats is another question. For one thing, people are likely to vote in any 2019/2020 general election on various issues, not only Brexit. However, Brexit is probably the one leading issue at time of writing.
The British electoral system is a bad joke. We know that a simple matter such as how the boundaries are drawn can alter everything:
In 2022, new boundaries will come into effect, along with the reduction of MP numbers to 600 (from the present 650). The Conservatives will be far less affected than Labour and the LibDems. It has been suggested that the LibDems will be all but wiped out by those changes. Perhaps, but any 2022 or later general election is still at least 2-3 years away. We are looking at the very strong likelihood of a general election within maybe only 2-3 months or so. The Conservatives would like to wait longer, but how can they, when they have a majority of one or none?
Boundaries and other factors make the popular vote indeterminative. In 2005, Labour’s popular vote was 35.2%, and the Conservative vote was not far behind (32.4%), yet Labour ended up with 355 MPs, while the Conservatives won only 198!
If the LibDems can gather to their banner the bulk of the votes of those for whom the number one issue is Brexit and for whom Remain is the only way to go, and then add those votes to the LibDem core support (which may be as low as 7%), then it is not impossible to conceive of the idea of the LibDems under Jo Swinson getting a vote at least as high as Charles Kennedy’s 22% or Nick Clegg’s 23%, and possibly even higher. As against that, many voters will not support the LibDems under any circumstances, either because the party is pro-EU Remain, or because it is seen as weak on immigration (but are the other two System parties any better?) or because most voters remember the LibDems as doormats for the Conservatives during 2010-2015.
In order to form the largest bloc in the House of Commons, the LibDems would have to get a popular vote in the region of 35% or 34%, both Lab and Con getting below 30%. Even then, the LibDems would be or might be at least 100 seats short of a majority.
As I have blogged previously, I do not think in terms of a LibDem surge, but more a concatenation of circumstances —LibDems as sole Remain party, weakening of Conservative vote because of Brexit Party, disenchantment with Labour— drawing votes away from the other parties and so to the LibDems. LibDems as largest Commons bloc? Unlikely but, now, not totally impossible.
So there it is: Jo Swinson could never work with (be in coalition with? proffer “confidence and supply” to?) Jeremy Corbyn and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn.
It’s against her “principles” to support any criticism of Jews or Israel, it seems. Pity that her principles did not extend to refusing to work with evil part-Jew manipulators such as George Osborne and David Cameron-Levita. She and most of the LibDem MPs voted for all or most of the measures which for a decade have demonized, impoverished and actually killed sick, disabled and poor people in the UK via the “welfare” “reforms” of evil part-Jap Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and the Jew “lord” Freud (etc).
I was right about Jo Swinson. My instinct told me that she is an evil bitch. I was right.
Women bore 86% of the burden of austerity that she voted through Parliament. She’s as compassionate as Ted Bundy. https://t.co/orW7WOgOVe
Some LibDems are actually saying that the LDs could get hundreds of MPs in the upcoming general election! Proof positive of their disconnection from reality. People are mostly going to vote LibDem (if at all) only as a way of hitting out at the more major parties. There is no “LibDem surge” as such, but (as I have repeatedly blogged) there is a desire on the part of many Remain partisans to vote against the Conservative Party (mainly).
I imagine that the LibDems will pick up some seats, maybe even 50, but what will prevent Jo Swinson getting 200 or becoming PM is that no-one really wants a LibDem government (well, about a tenth of the voters might…), but many more will vote LibDem negatively, to block other parties or to signal pro-EU Remain support.
Well, my prediction that the LibDems want another “Con Coalition” becomes firmer daily; the Labour reaction is scalding (or should that be “scalded?):
You’re a minority party of middle class white people, and your entitlement is showing. You’re willing to imperil everyone else for the sake of another chance at coalition government. Fuck right off. https://t.co/zBKnoYUa75
Well, my analysis in the above article was right, but the basic facts changed in that Brexit Party candidates standing in Conservative Party-held seats were ordered by their duplicitous leader, Farage, to stand down. That order applied to all Conservative-held seats, even those held by the most committed pro-EU MPs!
That decision by Farage, which betrayed his own candidates and supporters, meant that dozens of pre-election Conservative Party MPs kept their seats when, had Brexit Party stood candidates, they would have lost them to the LibDems.
The LibDems were on track to win several dozen MPs until Brexit Party self-destructed.
Jo Swinson’s decision to push for a General Election, and Corbyn’s silly willingness to be shamed into going along with that, led directly to the victory of the Conservative Party at the 2019 General Election. It led directly to Boris Johnson, a part-Jew, part-Turk public entertainer, as Prime Minister. Disastrous.
My more recent pre-General Election blogging guessed the LibDem result almost exactly. I predicted that the LibDems would get fewer than 10 seats. They got 11. So nearly right, anyway.
As for Jo Swinson, her doormatting for the Jewish lobby paid off, in that she was made a fake “baroness” and elevated to the House of Lords once she lost her Commons seat.