On this day a year ago
Well, this week, political journalist John Rentoul scored only 4/10, but I did little better at 5/10; one of my worst efforts. I did not know the answers to questions 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10, and though I did get the answer to question 7, it was a pure guess (having said that, I really knew the answer to question 1 but, by reason of tiredness, could not bring it to mind).
I happened to see on TV a minute of some meaningless speech by the part-Jew, part-Levantine liar and chancer currently posing as Prime Minister.
One often hears that “all politicians are liars“, with which view I do not agree anyway, at least not un-nuanced, but even in the ranks of what Hitler called “dirty democratic politicians“, “Boris” Johnson stands out as a liar on an epic level of untruthfulness.
What does “Boris” sell? Hope? Not really. Just a vague “it will all be OK” nothingness. There is not even any skill to his untruthfulness. It is the lying of the con-man whose victims really know that they are being conned.
In the speech, of which I saw and heard a short TV clip, “Boris” emitted words empty of meaning, belief, or even basic plausibility. He is someone who (contrary to what was said about him by the sycophantic msm years ago) has little real culture or education, or even intelligence.
The prime ministers of the past certainly varied in ability, culture, and intelligence, but most of them, in retrospect, were at least plausible as real prime ministers. Take the 1960s/1970s: Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, Wilson (again, by then in poor health), Callaghan, and finally Margaret Thatcher. All very different inter se, but all able to lay claim to at least some genuine weight. What a contrast to Boris-idiot.
Incidentally, I noticed that that TV report showed “Boris” either arriving or leaving somewhere. Surrounded by guards. At least half a dozen; I think maybe seven or eight. Very indicative of the fact that not a few people would like to have a go at him. Again, a huge contrast with the past.
Look at the picture below: September 1966, and Prime Minister Harold Wilson is holidaying modestly in the Scilly Isles. Accompanying him at the quayside at Hugh Town, St. Mary’s (island) is one solitary bodyguard (almost out of shot, at right), pistol concealed under a jumper tied around his waist in cricketing style.
Wilson was far from universally-popular. In the area where my family lived (Berkshire/Oxfordshire border) he was pretty well disliked, to say the least. Not despised though (by most), I think, and no-one (as far as I know) wanted to attack him physically, or assassinate him.
People in the 1960s might not all have supported, or even trusted, Wilson, but few would think that he was nothing but a total incompetent, who had lied outright to become PM, and then continued to do so while in office, and while accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Now look again at fake “Boris”.
That kind of criticism of Basic Income always comes from those who have never been desperate for a few pounds, and/or those who have never been angry at being stuck in the Kafka-esque bureaucratic snoop-state which is the world of the DWP.
…which is why System creatures such as Denis MacShane (fraudulent ex-MP, Jewish-lobby puppet) oppose proportional representation— it is too democratic.
There have been growing parallels, since the late 1960s or early 1970s, between Britain and the society of Weimar Germany in the 1920s. Not exact parallels in all areas, but enough to make one think.
Why would Russia use as a weapon something that leaves 90% of those infected alive and soon-recovered?
There’s one answer only, but one cannot promote it online…
Interesting railway history documentary
In other words, a pseudo-elected tyranny, with part-Jew, part-Levantine criminal “Boris” as pathetic yet sinister tyrant.
Had the GRU and other Russian state organs done their job properly, Zelensky and his cabal would have been eliminated days before any Russian troops crossed the artificial frontier.
1928 in the Soviet Union: the calm before the storm.