Morning music
Saturday quiz
Well, 7/10 this week, thus beating political journalist John Rentoul, who scored 5/10. I did not know the answers to questions 3, 7, and 10, though I was at least in the right area re. question 7.
Tweets seen
That idea, that the online pseudo-political “grifters” (“Jack Monroe”, “Supertanskiii”, “Man Behaving Dadly”, Julia Grace Patterson etc) will have to nuance their begging appeals now that the hated “Tories” have switched places with the supposedly better but actually quite similar (in policy terms) Starmer-Labour, had occurred to me.
I doubt that the online fraudsters need to worry too much, though. Their target audience is almost begging to be cheated, and will accept as true almost any variation in the “facts” put forward. You only have to look at the lies of “Jack Monroe” over the years. Stunningly unbelievable. Like something from a book of fairy stories. Yet the “useful idiots” believe…and continue to send money to her.
There is a belief around that “mainstream” political parties must aim to be in the non-existent or notional “centre”.
Regular readers of the blog will know that I effectively never use the descriptors “right”, “left”, “centre” etc in that way.
What matters is policy, and what matters to the people is the overall effect of policy on their lives. The Conservative Party failed the people in terms of how their confused policy offering actually affected or changed, or failed to change, the lives and lifestyles of the people. Labour is about to follow suit, in my opinion.
A frequently-encountered problem in our society of pervasive b******t…
…said well-known political journalist John Rentoul in...2014. Oh…
That aged well…
Sunak is already forgotten. It is as if the little Indian money-juggler departed the stage (pursued by a bear?) years ago, rather than nine days ago.
Talking point
Not that Churchill himself wanted to finish off the British Empire. He wanted, in an ideal world, to destroy National Socialist Germany and, at the same time, the Soviet Union.
Churchill’s strategic ineptitude (seen in numerous examples throughout his career) led not only to the destruction of the German Reich, followed by the division of mainland Europe into a Stalinist sector in the East, and a basically American, or notionally Anglo-American, sector in the West, but also to the destruction of all the European empires, and thus their generally civilizing influence over Asia, Africa (including North Africa) etc
The same basic division in Europe (though into 4 national sectors) was carried out in much of Germany and Austria for several years after WW2, with the capital cities (Berlin and Vienna) likewise divided.
Vienna was divided until 1955, Berlin until 1989, and France was, as a notional Western ally, given one sector despite having been defeated in 1940, partly occupied the same year, and fully-occupied in November 1942 (and having not participated in the defeat of the German Reich).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_military_administration_in_occupied_France_during_World_War_II
The end of WW2 led directly to the collapse of European rule across the world. The colonies of Britain, France, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands etc were decolonized, some almost immediately, some much later. Thus began the environmental degradation and loss of wildlife across Asia, Africa, the Pacific etc, which situation continues even today, as do the wars, civil wars, corruptions and tyrannies of the formerly colonial territories.
Churchill, an educated and erudite man who was also completely wrong in his political judgment(s) was, so to speak, “the wrong man at the wrong time”, though the accepted System/msm narrative says the opposite, of course.
As for Britain itself after WW2, I recommend the books of the very underrated Correlli Barnett: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlli_Barnett.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlli_Barnett#Writings
As Barnett points out in one or two of those books, after WW2 Britain would have been able to do one of three things well, possibly even two of those things: maintain its status as a great power; regenerate its economy; create a Welfare State. Britain tried to accomplish all three, but was unable to do so satisfactorily. Britain had been beggared by its war against the German Reich.
These three aims or tasks (or problems) are still with us, in some or another form, today.
Britain today is the “also ran” in respect of its military power, its society (Welfare State, NHS, State education etc), and economy.
As far as Barnett is concerned, I should say that he was right far more often than he was wrong.
Incidentally, Barnett was probably denied a knighthood, a life peerage, and other official honours (he did get a CBE) by reason of his having spoken, or strongly implied, the unsayable— that Britain should never have declared war on the German Reich or, having declared war in September 1939, should have concluded an armistice sometime after Dunkirk, in mid to late 1940, before too much hurt and damage had been done in western and central Europe.
Reform UK
Reform UK’s vote suffers from being wide, indeed nationwide (though not so strong in Scotland), but shallow. 14.29% across the board could easily have meant zero seats anywhere, rather than the 5 Reform actually captured.
The LibDem vote, only 12.22% nationally, was nonetheless concentrated here and there. Result— 72 MPs.
Reform UK, to me, seems to be in a fairly good position to concentrate some of its overall support in certain parts of the country, and certain constituencies, just like the LibDems. For Reform, that would be, primarily or firstly, in the East of England and the East Midlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Full_results; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#By_nation_and_region.
In the East of England, Reform UK scored 17.5% of the vote; in the East Midlands, 18.9%.
Indeed, though Reform won no GE 2024 seats in the West Midlands or North-East England, its vote was still high— 18.1% in the former, and 19.9% in the latter (less than half a point behind the Conservative Party). Reform was also not very far behind the Conservative Party in the West Midlands.
Reform UK came second in 98 constituencies, of which 89 were won or held by Labour.
It is not impossible to surmise that, if the Conservative Party vote were to collapse further in those 98 seats, Reform UK might capture some, many, or even all of them.
That would be even more likely, arguende, if Starmer-Labour in government disappoints the mass of the people, as I believe it will.
Late tweets seen
I am glad that I am not alone in having noticed the sickening sycophancy of the “occupied” UK msm towards Starmer-Labour (though would anyway be unconcerned were I the only one).
Today, on Sky News, I caught literally seconds of the end of a piece by some sports journalist woman. Her take was that, with “England” in the final game of some football contest, and a new Labour (New Labour?) government in power, it feels (she claimed) like the dawning of a new era. I believe that was the brainless and derivative way in which she put it.
Of course, Starmer-Labour will probably be in power until 2029, so the msm drones naturally want to curry favour, but I think that the said sycophancy goes beyond even that. I think that many in the msm seriously believe that Starmer-Labour is wonderful and will bring about some minor “golden age”.
I see no real connected thinking in the msm about what happens when the UK is importing literally a million invaders every single year, about what happens when a Labour government is harder on workers, the unemployed, the sick, the disabled than has been the past 14 years of “Conservative” government (etc).
What happens when the lights go out? What happens when lawlessness finally overwhelms a fairly civilized court and legal system which evolved over long periods but which is now already swamped?
Also, with a deadhead like Lammy as Foreign Secretary, what happens to Britain’s already-tattered international standing?
What interests me is what will be happening 2025-2029 under the surface of the Labour Party pseudo-landslide Commons majority.
Who can forget Ed Miliband at Copenhagen in 2005, bleating outside the UN conference (so badly-organized that he was not allowed in at first) about the fake “3/5/7/whatever years to save the world” narrative? I also recall that little monkey, who was the President of the Maldives, jumping up and down and clapping once he realized that his country might receive millions in “climate aid” in case the Maldives sank below the waves (nearly 20 years later, though, it is still there).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives#Sea_level_rise]
Late music
Ian Robert Millard 
Starmer signs up to send British men to their deaths in zionist wars.
Presumably they tried to keep Lammy out of the shot, but he managed to photo bomb them anyway.
https://x.com/USAmbUK/status/1811707161862365621
LikeLike
Starmer and Lammy are the epitome of Labour globalist, anti-British evil. I hope both will expire soon. It really is about time this country stopped following the USA around like a demented lost puppy and thus not get involved in their incessant wars across the globe. Britain has NO conceivable national interest in going to war against Russia and possibly getting nuked in response.
The Conservative Party should be throughly ashamed of itself for dumping any semblance of real Conservatism overboard from 2010 to 2024 and thus massively helping this rancid, anti-British government obtain ‘elected’ office.
No doubt the ever stupid ‘Tories’ will blame their historic defeat on not being leftwing, PC, globalist enough and move even further in that direction. Someone needs to gently tell them that being a profoundly anti-democratic, posher version of the Liberal Democrats for the ultra-wealthy is a real political dead end and will NEVER work for them.
I, like you, believe that unless the economy revives a great deal, the cost of living becomes less of an issue, and Labour proves itself to be a competent, reforming and inspiring administration they will become seriously unpopular quite quickly. I give them a year or two before that happens.
LikeLike
Yes, why not send more young British men and women to die for the Zionist USA? Despicable at the best of times but even more so at present when the current President is a senile, old duffer not in control of his faculties and, more importantly, is a President from the anti-British Democratic Party and personally shows an ill-disguised contempt for us no doubt on account of his Irish-American roots.
The sooner ‘Sleepy Joe’ loses the better it will be for America, the world and us.
The only thing that does concern me about Trump is his attitude to climate change. Biden is better on that subject but I think the world will be safer with Trump as President with less risk of WW3 and it will be better for us to have an American President who doesn’t despise us and appears to have some genuine, friendly feelings towards this country.
LikeLike
“[Biden] personally shows an ill-disguised contempt for us no doubt on account of his Irish-American roots.”
Unfortunately, Biden has no loyalty to his Irish roots.
Biden’s only loyalty is to his (((zionist))) paymasters.
Take a look at this video montage of Biden groveling to his (((owners))) and kissing (((their))) ***.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you. Yet the most rabid zionists on twitter really really want Trump to win, they believe he will be more favourable to Israel’s desires i.e. to go to war with Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The IDF can’t even defeat Hamas, so they want the US military to go to war alongside them. Same old thing for decades.
We will see what Netanyahu says when he speaks to Congress.
LikeLike
Hello: I loved your comment about David “Mastermind” Lammy! (LOL) That man would not find his way out of a paper bag! What a numskull! Having said that, the rest of Starmer´s Cabinet is very similar…
LikeLike
Frankly, with people like Starmer, Lammy and equally globalist idiots like already forgotten Sunak in power it should come as no surprise that the armed forces of this country are having great difficulty in finding sufficient recruits and that Sunak’s idea of compulsory military service was as popular as a bucket of cold vomit with the electorate?
LikeLike
John:
I should imagine that there are relatively few young or youngish people willing to take the King’s shilling at present. What are the incentives? I mean, “incentives” in the broad sense, not only money and perks but reasons to enlist or to seek commission?
LikeLike
I can’t think of one. Why sign-up and potentially either die or be seriously maimed for a government that hates this country and its native people? Why have the sense of patriotism needed to join the forces for a state that is continually treated by its globalist governments as being a mere globalist business park/economic space and not as a REAL, distinctive COUNTRY?
Veterans are not treated sufficiently well in this country. Too many are homeless and on the streets whilst the treasonous ‘British’ government allows large numbers of 90% plus fake ‘asylum seekers’ and illegal immigrants to come here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John:
In December 2023, following my contrived “conviction” the previous month re. this blog, I had a meeting with a lady from the Probation Service re. my “pre-sentence report”.
I rather liked the lady, despite the fact that her eventual report got a number of basic biographical facts wrong, and despite her making some illogical assumptions in that report (all of which I had to correct for the sentencing judge).
However, I was early for the meeting, so went for coffee and croissant in a rather ghastly place (I think, Costa Coffee) with thudding “music”.
On exiting, I saw an Englishman who had been sleeping on the pavement in a sleeping bag (this was mid-December and cold), awake. I went over and gave the fellow a £2 coin “for a drink” (I suppose I should have said “coffee”). I suspect, an ex-soldier.
I mentioned the rough sleepers (there were at least a dozen) in that near-Central Southampton street, near the courts, to the Probation report lady (I left out the bit about giving one a coin), and she said (probably to see what I would say) that many were migrants. I just nodded, but it shows that even those who (I suspect) would want the invaders to be accommodated at UK expense understand that the mass immigration invasion is a major cause of homelessness and a major element of the overall housing crisis.
I should add that her report about me was *generally* quite positive, and recommended the sentence I eventually received (15 “rehabilitation” “days” plus a financial element— turned out to be fixed costs of £734).
LikeLike
Yes, those same, moronic, globalist, anti-British idiots of the media were gushing about that evil, anti-British wretch, Tony Bliar, in 1997 and said his adminstration was a ‘dawn of a new era’. It WAS but not for the ever suffering British who endured nation-wrecking levels of mass immigration, the PC cult become more entrenched, the beginnings of the social security system being seriously undermined and a senseless war against Iraq based-upon a LIE on his watch.
Nobody with a brain trusts the globalist media or the ‘lugenpresse’/lying press as the Germans would call them to know what is good for Britain and the British.
LikeLike
The worst thing about Winston Churchill was not his incompetence on military matters but his subservient attitude towards his (((masters))). That is why the f… bastard rejected Hitler´s magnanimous and almost unbelievably generous peace offer of 1940. In a nutshell, it was like this: Germany would evacuate all of France except Alsace and Lorraine, which would remain German. It would evacuate Holland and Belgium, retaining Luxembourg. It would evacuate Norway and Denmark. In short, Hitler offered to withdraw from Western Europe, except for the two French provinces and Luxembourg.
This is well documented in Martin Allen´s book “The Hitler-Hess Deception” (2003) So incredible was Hitler´s peace offer that the Pope´s representative in Spain (the offer went via the Vatican to the British embassy in Madrid) said to the British ambassador, Sir Samuel Hoare, “The war is over!” Of course, who would believe that someone could be as vile or mad as to reject such a generous offer?
Answer: F… Winston Churchill!
LikeLike
Claudius:
At some point in the 1930s, Churchill, who had (in 1917-1920) written about the Jewish Bolshevism of the “Russian” Revolution, was suborned by the money element. He was desperately short of money to fund his lifestyle at that time. From then on, Churchill was the centre of the “War Party” that included many prominent careerists and others, people such as the Foreign Office mandarin, Vansittart.
I once knew someone who had been in the Foreign Office in the late 1930s, and who had researched the matter. He even pointed out to me the flat near Victoria Station in London where Vansittart had lived when in London. In a square still very much tied in with persons engaged in Parliament or government or Civil Service at a high level.
David Irving had some of the Churchill stuff in his books, eg “Churchill’s War”.
LikeLike
This is a good (mainstream) book about Churchill’s personal finances. The author was given access to some of Churchill’s private papers by the Churchill family.
It’s a mainstream book, so sometimes you have to read between the lines.
But it’s undeniable that Churchill was a totally corrupt piece of sh*t.
He was basically taking (((bribes))) right and left. Often these (((bribes))) were disguised as “loans” (which Churchill never had to repay).
Other forms of (((bribes))) included paid lecture tours of the USA, contracts to write books, and being paid to write articles in various (((newspapers))).
Churchill was constantly on the verge of bankruptcy due to his wasteful lavish lifestyle, his addiction to gambling, and his tendency to irresponsibly speculate on the stock market.
Whenever Churchill was about to be bankrupt, he would run off to his (((banker))) paymasters and (((they))) would bail him out.
Needless to say, these ((((bribes))) and (((bailouts))) came with strings attached.
Churchill was required to use his considerable verbal eloquence and speaking abilities to serve (((***ish supremacist))) interests.
In the late 1930s, Churchill had squandered all of his money yet again, and (((this guy))) bailed him out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Strakosch
All of the above information can be found in the book (Amazon link at the beginning of this post).
As I mentioned, because it’s a mainstream book, you do have to read between the lines at times.
The exact time that Churchill came under the control of the (((bankers))) is hard to determine.
Even before World War 1, when Churchill was still in his early 30s, he was already widely viewed as being allied with the ***s.
In the Manchester Northwest 1908 by-election, Churchill’s opponent Sir William Joynson-Hicks basically warned voters that Churchill was a ***ish puppet.
So already in 1908, Churchill was known to be shilling for the ***ish supremacists.
Essentially it all comes down to greed.
Churchill was desperate to enrich himself to fund his lavish lifestyle and his gambling habit, and the (((bankers))) were happy to bankroll Churchill.
The (((bankers))) must have been thrilled that such a talented, eloquent, and charismatic politician came under (((their))) control so easily.
And of course (((they))) got (((their))) money’s worth, since Churchill used his rhetorical talents to manipulate and goad Britain into an unnecessary war that destroyed Western Civilization, the British Empire, and Britain itself, while establishing (((***ish supremacy))) over the West.
Churchill’s less famous sidekicks have attracted less attention and research, but it seems very reasonable to assume that they were taking (((bribes))) too.
These sidekicks include Duff Cooper, Victor Cazalet, Brendan Bracken, Robert Boothby, (((Leo Amery))), Vyvyan Adams, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Samuel Storey, Sir Roger Keyes, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Sir Robert Vansittart of the Foreign Office, etc.
After manipulating Chamberlain into finally declaring war on Germany, Churchill and his cabal next set their sights on putting Churchill into 10 Downing Street.
They were finally able to do this in the Norway debate, where a substantial number of Tory MPs voted against Chamberlain’s government, causing it to fall.
King George VI then obligingly invited Churchill to become Prime Minister.
Thus, the treasonous plot succeeded, and Churchill was able to use his position as Prime Minister to reject Hitler’s generous peace offer and keep the war going until it achieved the objectives of Churchill’s (((evil paymasters))).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Friend of Britain:
Thank you.
LikeLike
Thank you very much, Ian. I downloaded the first two volumes of David Irving’s trilogy (Churchill´s War) and I remember reading about the banker (((Strakosch))) who paid all Churchill´s debts and financed him making sure he would be a docile lackey to the (((War Party))). Practically all Churchill´s collaborators were made of the same stuff and some,like Vasintartt and Lindemann, were sadists who harboured a pathological hatred for the German people
LikeLike
You might enjoy listening to this
https://archive.org/details/churchillandthejews
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you very much!
LikeLike
Regarding the video about Biden & Israel posted by “Friend of Britain” is good to remember that 99.9 % of the US senators think alike. Let´s not forget that boot-licker called Donald Trump who many times said: “I am the best thing that ever happened to Israel”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4259234-trump-i-fought-for-israel-like-no-president-ever-before/
As in the UK, the elections in the USA are reduced to the choice of a lesser evil, and perhaps there is not such a thing…
LikeLike
If I remember correctly Roosevelt despised Churchill and he used to refer to him as “a drunken bum”. This information comes from David Irving´s “Churchill´s War”
LikeLike
Claudius:
Something like that. Alcoholic, depressive, and certainly focussed on his own interests most of the time.
LikeLike