Morning music
Saturday quiz
Well, this week 7/10, thus just beating political journalist John Rentoul, who scored 6/10. I did not know the answers to questions 6, 7, and 10. I admit that my (correct) answers to q.’s 4 and 9 were educated guesses.
Blog readers
I am always interested to see from where hits on the blog come. In the past week, from 16 different countries (inc. UK). Of course, with advances in technology, you cannot say for sure where readers are located; some may be, say, in Australia but appear to be in the USA, but I daresay most locations are accurate.
I was just looking at the apparent location of readers since I started the blog towards the end of 2016, so 8 years ago. Readers from 155 countries and territories in the world, so from about three-quarters of the world. There are 195 states in the world, plus some extra territories that do not have that status (such as Antarctica— and, yes I have had the odd hit from there, presumably from some scientist at a polar research base).
I have occasionally mused on who it might be in (inter alia) Lesotho, Antarctica, Greenland, Burkina Faso, the Aaland Islands (maybe I can guess who that particular one is), American Samoa, Chad, Tadjikistan, or Congo-Kinshasa, that is reading my thoughts and ideas.
The largest number of hits has always been from the UK, though (about 70%, with a further 10% from the USA).
The readership of the blog, on a daily basis, is still modest, never reaching over a thousand on any one day, and often not reaching even a hundred (I do not publicize the blog anywhere, and am not on Twitter/X or Facebook etc), but I have always taken the view that “one human soul is a big audience“.
Talking point
My own experiences (in part):
Talking point
Tweets seen
There is a good possibility that that dog will be the most welcome border-crosser, and the least problematic.
Risible how System political scribblers, ivory-tower academics etc really still think that elections in the 2020s are still won by ridiculous local political footsoldiers knocking on doors, disturbing and and irritating householders, or by the voters reading the absolute shite put out on leaflets etc. This is 2024, not 1924…
John Rentoul seems unsure. He neither endorses nor dissents. He probably imagines that people actually read those (mostly) LibLabCon leaflets at election-time. Wrong; most, maybe 99%, go in the bin unread.
As for “average age 61, opposed to net zero“, what about “almost all (real) British” (as well)?
As far as I know, the Kiev regime has not claimed any successes since its very costly incursion into the Kursk region of Russia a few months ago.
Political interference (direct or indirect) in sentencing.
“My landmark legal victory against @BristolUni is being appealed. My case established that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. The University wants to overturn this. But if we win at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, we’ll strengthen this precedent, which is invaluable and necessary for pro-Palestine campaigners across Britain and beyond.
I need to raise at least £75k for the appeal. If you can help, please contribute here: https://fightingfund.org/supportmiller.”
“They” never change.
“If you want to know how vile @hopenothate, @lowles_nick & researcher, ex-Nazi @MattHopeNotHate Collins are, here’s your chance. Charlene Downes body has never been found. Gang r*ped at 13 by 100, mainly Pakistani heritage men, she probably was murdered & her body put through a kebab mincer in Blackpool. No one has ever been convicted. Ten years later in 2013 her mother Karen failing to get justice went on a march & was associated with the BNP. Collins went out of his way to trash her, & his piece has the menacing title of: “Time for a police investigation”. What odious people. https://hopenothate.org.uk/2013/12/18/time-for-a-police-investigation-karen/.“
Blast(s) from the past
I just re-read the blog post about the infamous New Zealand massacre, which happened nearly 6 years ago, in 2019. Apparently, that blog post has had a rather small, disappointingly-small, number of hits; frankly, I think it is still worth reading. Anyway, here it is:
See also Ruth Smeeth, also a Hope not Hate figure, now (risibly) elevated to the totally-degraded House of Lords as “Baroness” Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Smeeth. A half-Jewish Zionist agent.
Is there anything that “they” do not steal or want to steal?
Late music
Ian Robert Millard 
A long time ago my wife told me: “If the British government offered me a nobility title I would refuse it immediately. (A) Almost anyone has one (B) Most of them are degenerate “artists”, moronic “celebrities” or corrupt politicians”
In other words: Why any decent British man or woman would like to be in the company of such trash?
LikeLike
Claudius:
I can only agree.
LikeLike
Thank you for the article about Syria from thecradle.co, it seems to be an excellent website. Yes, these sadistic monsters will NEVER change.
By the way, the answer to question No.6 was “el pato” (the duck) You have to be a hell of a rider to play this well.
https://www.globetrotting.com.au/pato-the-national-sport-of-argentina/#:~:text=Juego%20del%20pato%2C%20more%20commonly,one%20farm%20to%20the%20next!
LikeLike
Claudius:
Rough riders…
My own experiences on horses (as a child in Australia, and once later, in my mid-twenties, in the mountains of Corfu) were not such as to enthuse me to repeat the experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was also my case… (LOL)
LikeLike
I read your post of 2019 about the Christchurch shooting. Your analysis is spot on as it was Brenton Tarrant´s definition of the pathetic, pseudo-nationalist party lead by that fraud called Marine Le Pen (a female version of Nigel Farage)
Tarrant was a misguided, but well-meaning, fool. Shooting people does not solve problems, unless you are in power. Serious, deep political action and reform can only be made from a position of power. As is to be expected you will not find a word in favour of Tarrant in (((Google))) , you need to go to Yandex or other search engines.
LikeLike
Claudius:
It seems to me that Tarrant was/is a serious man, ideologically fairly sound (as far as I know, anyway) who made a disastrous error of judgment, as well as a moral and ethical error. If only he had chosen another path of action.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I agree with you. It is very sad that he decided to do what he did. He acted like a “kamikaze” but he was not scorted by dozens or hundreds of equally minded comrades; therefore his action was useless and gave the enemy an excuse to act.
LikeLike
Marine Le Pen and her party are leagues ahead of Farage and company. Farage is basically a warmed-up Tory which is why Reform UK will never get anywhere. Her party, the Rassemblememt National (RN), has a real, coherent nationalist philosophy and solid principles whereas Reform UK does not. Unlike the RN, Farage and his oufit can not attract large numbers of working-class voters away from Labour/socially democratic parties.
Farage has never put the hard work into any of his outfits and so far shows no sign of doing so in regards to Reform UK. This might be why Musk will probably not fund Reform UK. He would want a return on his investment and knows that Farage is unlikely to provide one. Musk probably knows that Britain isnt a genuine democracy is any real way ie our ridiculously undemocratic electoral system shared with Belarus for effing sake which means new parties even well-led ones with real coherent ideologies, decent funding ect struggle to get off the ground. Britain is a largely fake democracy and always has been.
https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk
LikeLike
I have just come across a very interesting video, which justifies my contempt/hatred for the British royal family.
LikeLike
The British royal family are disgusting. They are traitors who enjoy a life of extreme luxury, while happily allowing their own people to be genocided and replaced by the evil (((REDACTEDS))).
Indeed, the royals even celebrate the replacement and genocide, by denouncing “racism”, and by celebrating and praising immigration and multi-racialism.
Elizabeth gave royal assent to every single piece of anti-White legislation passed by parliament, including the notorious “hate speech” laws which enable the government to imprison anyone who stands up to defend the White race.
Not once did any of the royals make a single comment to defend the indigenous British people.
The royals are total and complete traitors. None of them have ever said a single word to support the defenseless, voiceless little White girls who have been raped by muslims and africans.
It is mind-boggling that some British “patriots” continue to venerate this family of traitors.
The last patriotic British monarch was Edward VIII. He should never have given in to the (((manufactured))) pressure to abdicate. if Edward VIII had remained on the throne, it is possible that war could have been averted and Western civilization saved.
Instead, Churchill’s obedient little puppet George VI became king, and proceeded to allow the politicians to maneuver the UK into a war which bankrupted Britain, destroyed the Empire, ruined Western Civilization, and established (((REDACTED))) global supremacy.
LikeLike
Friend of Britain:
I concur…
LikeLiked by 1 person
For some reason the Reply button on Ian’s reply to my comment is missing. This comment is a reply to Ian’s reply.
In my view, history has shown that hereditary monarchies tend to become corrupt, self-interested, and even traitorous, with the hereditary monarchs eager to conserve their own wealth and status, and the institution of the monarchy, above all else.
Thus, the hereditary monarchs don’t care about the wellbeing and survival of their subjects, as long as the monarchy survives and the royal family gets to keep their wealth and status.
This is evident with the European monarchies: all they are concerned with is enriching themselves, and preserving the monarchy which is the source of their wealth and status.
The royals couldn’t care less about what happens to the indigenous European people.
As long as there are taxpayers funding the luxurious lifestyle of the royals, the royals don’t care who those taxpayers are.
The hereditary monarchies have contentedly allowed the (((REDACTEDS))) to rape the countries, and import millions of violent immigrants to genocide and replace the indigenous White population.
Over the centuries, the vast majority of hereditary monarchs have been venal, self-centered, and corrupt.
For that reason, I view the institution of hereditary monarchy as harmful to the White race.
I much prefer the “fuhrer” principle, where a leader emerges to lead the race, and gains support not due to heredity, but due to the leader’s loyalty to the race and bravery in defending the race, as shown by the leader’s actions.
The leader’s legitimacy should derive from his/her loyalty to the race and his/her bravery and courage in defending the race.
As long as the leader remains loyal to the race and bravely leads the race to victory, the race will naturally support the leader.
If the leader is disloyal, traitorous, corrupt, etc, then the support of the people will melt away, and the leader’s legitimacy will disappear as the people become disillusioned with the leader.
The leader, knowing this, will have every incentive and motivation to remain loyal to the race, and be faithful to the interests of the race.
I believe that this system, where the legitimacy of the leader is derived from the leader’s loyalty to the race and their leadership qualities (bravery, integrity, etc) in fighting for the race, is far preferable to the principle of hereditary monarchy, where the monarch derives their legitimacy due to heredity and thus feels free to betray the people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are a constitutional Monarchy which effectively means they are powerless. They have no real powers unlike the Prince of Lichtenstein. King Charles has no authority to do anything in the same way as Frank Steinmeier of Germany can’t order Chancellor Scholz to do things he does not want to do.
LikeLike
The (((system))) tolerates and even encourages the rapes of little White girls by muslims/africans, and on the rare occasions that the rapists are prosecuted, gives the rapists derisory sentences, for several reasons:
-the evil (((REDACTEDS))) who control the (((system))) WANT White girls/women to be raped, because the rapes advance the (((goal))) of White genocide.
-the evil (((REDACTEDS))) are jealous of White people, so (((they))) enjoy seeing White people violated, degraded, and humiliated.
-the rapes of White girls and White women harm the morale of the White race. The rapes make White women feel degraded and worthless, while emasculating White men by showing White men that they can’t protect their own women. Since most men are hard-wired to protect women, being forced to stand by and watch as your women are raped is very emasculating and soul-destroying. Thus, the mass rapes of White women is a tool used by the evil (((REDACTEDS))) to break the morale and spirit of White people.
-triumphalism: by allowing and encouraging the rapes of White girls/women, the (((REDACTEDS))) are basically flaunting (((their))) supremacy and throwing it in the faces of White people, with the message: “you have been conquered and there is nothing you can do about it!”
-reward for the muslim/african foot soldiers: the (((REDACTEDS))) reward and encourage (((their))) diversity foot soldiers by allowing and encouraging (((their))) foot soldiers to rape White girls/women.
-Since the rapists are simply doing the genocidal bidding of their (((masters))), the (((masters))) have no interest in prosecuting the rapists. Prosecuting the rapists would discourage future rapes of White girls/women, and the (((system))) WANTS the rapes to continue, so of course the (((system))) has no interest in prosecuting the rapists.
The occasional instances where the rapists are prosecuted are simply intended to deceive White people into believing that justice still exists under the (((system))).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your analysis in both cases: A) The corrupt nature of hereditary monarchy and B) The hateful nature of the System is coherent and correct.
I have been a keen student of European history since I left secondary school almost 45 years ago. I read as much as I could and my knowledge of English and French widened the scope of my studies enormously. After a decade of reading I became convinced that hereditary monarchy was/is a system that fosters corruption and incompetence because it does not matter how stupid and useless a monarch may be, he will still be revered by the corrupt and cowardly courtiers who benefit of such a system.
By the outbreak of WW1 all European monarchies (with the exception of Russia) were contaminated and controlled by the ancient (((enemies))) of the White race. Of course, the magnitud of the infestation varied according the countries; in Germany, and particulalrly in Prussia, the nobility was hostile to the (((invaders))) but in general ALL the royal families consisted mainly of spoiled, decadent and lazy cowards who could not give a damn for the welfare of their subjects. The same applies to the majority of the so-called “nobility” who, in their desperation to keep their luxurious, decadent lifestyle, married the daughters of prominent Jewish bankers, poisoning their blood and forfeiting their political power for ever.
The result of this shameful decadence and cowardly surrender was evident during WW2 where ALL the vile monarchs (with the exception of the honourable Leopold III of Belgium) whose countries were invaded by Germany fled to London to lick the boots of Rothschild. The rare exception was Christian X of Denmark who stayed but was very anti-German. The (((Allies))) rewarded him for his “heroic” resistance by letting him to keep his pathetic throne.
LikeLike
Well, I would have been anti-German too if I had been the King of Denmark, Norway or Belgium. After all, Hitler did invade those countries even though all of them declared they wanted to maintain their neutrality. Hitler stupidly invaded the British Crown Dependency ie not a formal part of the United Kingdom but still British Channel Islands even though they have no military value whatsoever.
LikeLike
If Hitler had any commonsense or military brains he would have left the completely strategically useless and basically ROYAL FAMILY owned? Jersey, Alderney, Sark and Guernsey islands alone and invaded Gibraltar and the Isle of Wight instead. Apparently, German generals wanted to try and capture the Isle of Wight which if they had put the plan into operation may have been successful and been a good place to put the Royal Navy’s base at Portsmouth out of action thereby increasing the chance of the mainland coming under their control.
LikeLike
John:
I have never seen that idea. The Isle of Wight could never have been held and resupplied on any other than a very short-term basis.
LikeLike
The story was in the ‘Daily Diana’ or that learned and well respected ‘newspaper of record’ The Daily Express for short! I digress!😂😂😂🙄🙄🙄🙄 Apparently, the history section of the Isle of Wight’s Wikipedia entry also mentions it. That may be so but even a short while holding it may have been enough time to bomb the Portsmouth naval base relentlessly and thereby destroy its ability of being the main means of protecting the English Channel approaches which were an impediment to a succcesful invasion of the mainland.
Perhaps if the Germans had been succesful in doing that the King might have found some way of dismissing Churchill and his government.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Wight
LikeLike
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/isle-of-wight.html
LikeLike
For some reason the Reply button on John’s posts is missing. This is a reply to John’s posts.
“They are a constitutional Monarchy which effectively means they are powerless.”
Britain is a constitutional monarchy, but nobody duct-taped Charles’ and Elizabeth’s mouths shut to prevent them from speaking. They, and other members of the royal family, had every opportunity to speak up to defend the indigenous British people and advocate for the survival of the indigenous Britain people. A few words from the Queen expressing her concern over the immigrant invasion would have put immense pressure on the politicians to cut off immigration.
Instead, the cowardly corrupt monarchs (George VI, Elizabeth II, Charles III) said absolutely nothing as the traitorous politicians imported millions of violent immigrants to rape, murder, and demographically replace the indigenous British people.
Actually, the monarchs did WORSE than staying silent: the monarchs ACTIVELY assisted and enabled the genocide of the indigenous British people, by giving royal assent to countless laws allowing the flood of immigrants into Britain, and the “hate speech” laws that enable the government to imprison anyone who speaks up to defend the survival of the White race.
The British monarchs (and the other European monarchs) are so cowardly and treasonous that they obediently gave royal assent to ALL the traitorous laws designed to genocide the indigenous European peoples.
And not only that: the royals openly celebrate the genocide by praising and celebrating racial diversity, immigration, and multiracialism.
Since the royals are so cowardly, self-centered, corrupt, and traitorous that they aren’t willing to say a single word to defend the survival of their own people, then there is absolutely no point in having a monarchy, and it should be abolished and replaced by an elected president or whatever.
“King Charles has no authority to do anything in the same way as Frank Steinmeier of Germany can’t order Chancellor Scholz to do things he does not want to do.”
As mentioned above, nobody duct-taped Charles’ or Elizabeth’s mouths shut to prevent them from speaking up to oppose the genocide of their own people.
In the past 80 years, the British monarchs haven’t said a SINGLE word to advocate for the survival of their own people, or to oppose the genocide. Not a SINGLE word.
Elizabeth and now Charles are constantly speaking at anti-White events and praising diversity and multiracialism, but they couldn’t be bothered to say a SINGLE WORD to speak up for the million voiceless little White girls who have been raped by muslims/africans.
The royals are self-centered cowardly traitors, who curry favor with the (((REDACTEDS))) in exchange for being allowed to keep their thrones, wealth, and luxurious lifestyles.
What Elizabeth SHOULD have done is force a constitutional crisis when asked to rubber-stamp anti-White laws. Refuse to give royal assent, and publicly announce that she will not give royal assent to treasonous laws which harm her people. Announce the dissolution of parliament and new elections in which traitors would not be allowed to stand for office. In such a constitutional crisis, the overwhelming majority of the British people would have backed the Queen against the traitor politicians. The Queen would have been regarded as a national hero on par with Boudicca or Alfred the Great. That is what Elizabeth SHOULD have done.
Instead, Elizabeth meekly and obediently gave royal assent to every single anti-White law. She was a traitor and a coward who valued her wealth and status and her lavish lifestyle above the survival of her own people.
LikeLike
Oh I forgot to mention: Elizabeth added insult to injury by giving knighthoods, peerages, and other titles to countless traitor politicians.
Before she died, she even appointed one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair as a Knight of the Garter, an honor which is her personal choice to make.
Blair is the Prime Minister who really opened the borders completely, turning the inflow of immigrants from a flood into an absolute tsunami. Additionally, Blair (with the full connivance of the Traitor Tories) is the one who fully codified anti-White (((cultural marxism))) into the British political, governmental, law enforcement, and judicial system.
Elizabeth chose to reward Traitor Blair by appointing him a Knight of the Garter, Britain’s highest honor.
Her decision to award Blair the Garter in 2022 was a final “F*** you!” from the traitorous queen to the indigenous British people she betrayed.
LikeLike
With regard to the Channel Islands (Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, etc): it made sense for the Germans to occupy the islands during WW2.
These islands are quite close to the coast of France. In fact, the islands are much closer to France than they are to Britain.
If left unoccupied, the Channel Islands would have served as forward military bases for the (((Allies))), making the invasion of France from the sea even easier for the (((Allies))) than it was.
Additionally, the (((Allies))) could have built submarine bases, airfields, and other military infrastructure on the islands, making it even easier for them to strike German forces in Northern France and along the French coast.
Due to the close proximity of the Channel Islands to the French coast, it was necessary for the German forces to occupy the islands during the war. Failing to deploy German forces on the Channel Islands would have been a huge strategic mistake, which would have made the invasion of France much easier for the (((Allies))).
In the end, it didn’t really make a difference since (((operation overlord))) unfortunately succeeded.
But deploying German forces on the islands during the war was the sensible military decision.
LikeLike
You are profoundly wrong. The Channel Islands have absolutely NO military value whatsoever and this was the case then and in every circumstance both in 1940 and now that remains the case. Indeed they were left undefended because of those facts. Hitler was a CLASS A MORON to invade them not only because doing do had no strategic benefit and only a very minor and frankly pathetic propaganda value but also because invading a CROWN DEPENDENCY no less (even invading a crown COLONY like Gibraltar would have been less of a stupid move) only served to increase the backing of the Royal Family and the military for Churchill and his government which up to that point was less than 100%. Leaving the Channel Islands alone could have created the conditions for a coup of some sort or a parliamentary revolt against Churchill from within the Conservative Party. Most Tories of that era hated his guts and would have preferred the more diplomatic and less aggressive Lord Halifax or Rab Butler to be PM instead.
LikeLike
The Channel Islands as well as being a CROWN DEPENDENCY were then as they are now a ‘home away from home’ for Britain’s mega-rich. Though they were not a tax haven as such then as now it was still the case that Britain’s very wealthy went to live there. Those are the kind of aristocrats and extremely rich who hated Churchill the most and some of them, particularly the aristocratic ones, formed the backbone of the so-called ‘fifth column’ existing in Britain which viewed the war as none of our business and who thought we should be neutral and that Churchill and other politicians like him were grotesquely irresponsible warmongers.
So, all in all, invading the Channel Islands and occupying them was the most stupid and self-defeating IDIOCY on Hitler’s part. Invading Gibraltar or any other other British territory other than the CROWN DEPENDENCY of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man would have made more military sense ect.
LikeLike
And, just as importantly if not more so, much more sense in that other sense of getting Churchill out of office and being replaced by a more diplomatic and amenable person like Lord Halifax or Rab Butler.
LikeLike
Hitler and the Germans in common with Americans and others around the world then and now simply do not understand the United Kingdom eg even now many Germans who really should know better as they are Europeans use the term England when they should refer to the United Kingdom instead. No doubt Hitler mistakenly thought the Channel Islands were an integral part of the United Kingdom. This is not the case. They are a CROWN DEPENDENCY which means they have their own internal self-government and parliament which is how they became a tax haven for the ultra-rich and do not have MPs in the House of Commons. The Islanders have British citizenship even though they are not governed by the British government. They are basically an historical leftover from when the British Royal Family governed/owned parts of France.
LikeLike
The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are CROWN DEPENDENCIES and therefore not formal parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which is the name of the entire British state/country. They are deeply associated with the Royal Family through history. Indeed, if anything, the Monarchy is MORE associated with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man than they are with England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. This means Hitler really was a total MORON to have invaded them.
As for the Royal Family itself, I can see some arguments for becoming a Republic but also some for remaining a constitutional Monarchy. The fact is if you have a Republic then the position of Head of State should be clearly differentiated with being the head of the government which to my mind it is not in the US. Also, many Presidents are elected directly by the people which means there would be debates as to which electoral system would be best to elect them, such a person would normally belong to a certain party unless the position would be formally only allowed to be filled by independent candidates and then a directly-elected President would be someone a large percentage of the population could not relate to or even actively despise such as President Clinton would have been or President Trump was from 2016 to 2020 and will be again soon. Having a non political and unelected Head of State can be a means where a population can rally around them in a time of crisis and be a focal point for national unity whereas an elected and normally a party figure would not be.
Would we have been able to rally around a President Thatcher, President Bliar or, God Forbid, a President Cameron, Sunak, Truss or Boris The Buffoon? Having a President David Beckham as some cretins in this country would elect would make us even more of an international laughing stock than we are now.
Perhaps the best arrangement for a Head of State is having an unelected Monarch with some reserve powers that are only used very occasionally like the semi-constitutional Monarchy of Liechtenstein has.
You can support the British Monarchy as an INSTITUTION without necessarily endorsing the present Royal HOUSE of WINDSOR. Perhaps, we could replace King Charles and company with a new Royal House? An aristocrat like that young chap, the Duke of Westminster, who owns most of Mayfair and Belgravia could found a new dynasty?
LikeLike
A President Starmer anyone? Yes, why not have a throughly immoral and frankly evil, so-called ‘human rights lawyer’ (a SICK JOKE to be sure) as Head of State who endorsed the criminal paedophilia of Jimmy Saville, the cover-up of mainly Muslim gang rapists and who effectively STILL does now and the evil of Zionist Israel and its cut-off of the most essential means of human life ie water to Palestinians.
LikeLike
One thing I will say in favour of our new Monarch, King Charles III, is that according to the Guardian newspaper and other sources he is, apparently, a supporter of Proportional Representation/fair votes and has been for some time. The Guardian ran a story in 1991 describing his support for a fair voting system in which he believed it would enable more longterm stability for the economy and collaboration in government. Who can say he is wrong to believe that?
In stark contrast, his mother, the late Queen, was a good, little, undemocratic Tory and backed the continued use of the out of date and plainly unfit for purpose First Past The Post electoral system.
https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk
LikeLike
Further illustrating that the Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are NOT parts of the United Kingdom though still British islands is the fact that King Charles III is known by official titles in these places which he is not within the UK ie he is the ‘Lord of Man’ in the Isle of Man and something else in the Channel Islands.
I am probably wrong though I am not sure about it when I say the Royal Family may ‘own’ these islands though being Crown Dependencies may just indicate they have a particularly deep and historical relationship with them.
The British Constitution such as it is is not written down in one codified document as virtually every other country apart from New Zealand has. It should be. This sort of thing should not be a ‘magical mystery tour’ for British citizens.
LikeLike
I believe I am correct in stating that it was not until the 1960’s that both the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man became international financial centres and tax havens. The Channel Islands have though always been a favoured place of residence for Britain’s ultra-wealthy mainly on account of their better climate than Great Britain. I think also because of the low crime rates. Jersey and Guernsey used the birch until the 1960’s and the Isle of Man had it in the 1970’s and did not abolish hanging untill as late as 1993.
LikeLike
John:
Since the 1920s, it seems, though probably for the very few back then (when UK tax was much lower, making “tax havens” less attractive):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_services_in_Jersey#'Tax_haven'_status
LikeLike
Tax which could be lower were it not for anti-British governments involving us in wars with no real British national interests at stake and driving up the national debt like Bliar did in 2003 with his ridiculous war in Iraq for American/Israeli interests. Does the US show any gratitude for us over our suppport? Well, Biden did not. All we got from him was a chip on the shoulder attitude Irish-Americans often show towards us and troublemaking over the NI Protocal arrangements during our pointless exit from the EU.
LikeLike
Monaco is another attractive destination for Britain’s ultra-rich to reside in and, again, not only because it is a tax haven.
The Principality is one of the world’s safest countries with a very low crime rate due to huge numbers of CCTV cameras and a highly-paid, well-led, NON PC and LARGE police force:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco_Police_Department
https://monaconow.com/security/a-top-priority
I wonder how often Monaco police officers spy upon people’s Twitter and Facebook accounts and arrest people instead of doing REAL police work?🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
LikeLike
https://monaconow.com/security-a-top-priority.
Who says that having a Monarchy and moreover ones with real powers like Monaco and Liechtenstein have can’t be a good, appropriate form of government for a country and do them a power of good? Monaco, Liechtenstein and the more constitutional one in Japan show this is possible. Republics sound ideal in theory and they are more rational but they often have their problems as the USA shows when always around half the population hates the incumbent President and a minority may wish to take their hatred so far the President ends up dead through assasination.
LikeLike
“You can support the British Monarchy as an INSTITUTION without necessarily endorsing the present Royal HOUSE of WINDSOR. Perhaps, we could replace King Charles and company with a new Royal House?”
The problem is that hereditary monarchy is a system which enables the monarch to betray the people, because their legitimacy derives from heredity, rather than from the support of the people.
Thus, the hereditary monarch feels free to betray the people when it is expedient to do so, knowing that he/she will still retain their hereditary right to rule.
That is why every single European monarch since WW2 has been a full-blown traitor.
The “fuhrer” principle, where a leader emerges and the race coalesces behind the leader due to the leader’s proven loyalty to the race and bravery/integrity in leading the race (as shown by his/her actions) is a much better system.
This is because the leader, knowing that his/her legitimacy is dependent on his/her ongoing loyalty to the race, has every incentive to remain loyal to the race.
If the leader betrays the race and starts supporting immigration or currying favor with the (((REDACTEDS))) or other forms of treason, then the support of the race for that leader will melt away, as the people become disillusioned and look for a new leader to rally behind.
The leader, knowing this, has every motive to remain loyal to the race.
That is why the “fuhrer” principle is a much better system than hereditary monarchy.
“An aristocrat like that young chap, the Duke of Westminster, who owns most of Mayfair and Belgravia could found a new dynasty?”
Unfortunately, as I recently learned from one of Ian’s posts, the Duke of Westminster is 1/8 (((REDACTED))). Additionally, he also has distant African ancestry, being the descendant of an African who was adopted by one of the Russian tsars in the 1700s.
Having the (((Duke of Westminster))) on the throne would be even worse than the current royal family. Undoubtedly, (((he))) would do everything he can to advance (((REDACTED))) supremacy, while the BBC would loudly trumpet that the king is a member of Diversity and demand that British people show their loyalty to the king by supporting even more Diversity.
LikeLike
I doubt it. One of his ancestors as the Duke of Westminster was a prime ‘Nazi’ and ‘anti-semite’ in Britain in the 1930’s. Infact, he was notorious for these opinions.
Anyway, the present Duke from what I have read about him seems to be a very decent young man despite his extreme multi billionaire wealth. He involves himself in the local community of Chester where his family’s ancestral pile is located and has given large donations to charities and to the NHS during the Covid 19 crisis. I think he would make a better PM or Head of State than the worthless, far poorer, anti-British cretin and public menance that is the ANTI human rights ( certainly when it comes to Britons) lawyer, Keir Starmer.
The present Duke of Westminster has that sense of obligation that some members of the aristocracy still have towards the poor and disadvantaged.
In Britain, it is the middle-classes who often create a lot of this country’s problems and who hate their own country and people eg lawyers like Starmer NOT members of the landed gentry like the Duke of Westminster.
LikeLike
I do not really want to have a dictator ruling Britain either as that would be rather un British but then as Tory and (most disgracefully of all) Labour scum refuse point blank to turn us into a genuine, modern, democracy with Proportional Representation/fair votes that every other country in Europe has apart from France AND BELARUS for effing sake then a dictatorship might become a plausible and valid option. Something does need to change though since Britain is becoming more and more like Weimar Germany with failed governments one after the other though, of course, Weimar Germany WAS a real democracy unlike Britain and too much of one since you only needed about 1% of the national vote to get into its parliament.
LikeLike
John:
There are times when, at least for a while, a dictator or “lord protector” is necessary, in order to carry out drastic surgery on the body politic.
LikeLike
It isn’t a well-known fact but Britain/England did have a dictator once ie Cromwell. It would be better to have a dictatorship than remain a largely fake ‘democracy’ like we are now and it would be HONEST at least.
Britain’s current political system underpinned as it is by the archaic, decades out of date, unfit for purpose, profoundly undemocratic, stand alone, ‘pure’ First Past The Post electoral system is clearly failing this country hugely and it needs to be significantly overhauled. The system is a millstone around Britain’s collective neck. It only serves the interests of far too many anti-British, often corrupt, lazy, intellectually vacuous, timeservers on the Tory and Labour benches in parliament. I mean what sort of halfway credible country had Boris-Idiot as PM or has Angela Raynor as a deputy PM? These useless non entities are the product of Britain’s archaic electoral system.
LikeLike
John:
Not well known? I think that Cromwell is one of the few leading figures of English history who *is* well-known to the Average Joe, along with Queen Victoria, Charles II, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Richard the Lionheart.
LikeLike
As in the Lord Protector Cromwell who ruled for about a decade before the Monarchy was restored.
LikeLike
Or a government of Independents for up to three years to change the irrational lottery of our archaic, undemocratic electoral system and then dissolve themselves and call a general election under the new Proportional Representation system.
LikeLike
I agree. A dictatorship is far from the ideal but sometimes they are necessary for short periods or a bit longer and they can do some good eg not many people in this country know that South Korea was once one of the world’s poorest countries and then a military dictatorship came to power in the 1960’s and laid the foundations for ‘The Miracle on The Han River’ ie that country’s economic rise to being the industrial superpower it is now with its world renowned companies of LG and Samsung and export-led economy.
LikeLike
The threshold for a decent electoral system whether a formally imposed one by law or by the inherent design of it should be from a low of 2% as it is in well-governed Denmark to a maximum of 5% as in Germany and New Zealand. The ideal seems to be around the 3% (Israel has one of 3.25%) to 4% level like Austria, Sweden, Norway have. At that percentage you don’t waste too many votes and discourage people from voting for small parties too much but it still prevents the election of too many tiny micro parties which would fracture the political environment excessively and make the election of stable and effective governments too hard to form.
LikeLike
Perhaps, people have a vague idea of who he was but do not know that he was, in effect, a dictator and for that period of time we were not a Monarchy. The only time we have not been one.
LikeLike
Ha, ha, have you seen Musk’s latest sarcastic post on Twitter/X? Our ‘Dear Leader’, Sir ‘Two Tier’ Kier, with only a small shread of real public support ie a pathetic vote share of just 33.7% on a poor turnout of 60% will not like that!
Fancy, Musk informing his 200M plus followers that he is a South African of partial BRITISH descent from working class origins and therefore he has an interest in what happens here which Keir Starmer should take into account. Musk has every right to be concerned about our situation and comment upon the profoundly undemocratic and totalitarian inclinations of Starmer and too many Labour and so-called Conservative politicians. He has ancestral connections to this country after all.
LikeLike
Apparently the evil, anti-British tosser that is ‘Sir’ Keir Starmer had a relative who died very recently. If only he would kindly do so too. I am sick and tired of this anti-British Castlemaine XXXX who virtually no one elected. He is a vicious, totally self-serving, constantly lying even to his own wretched party let alone us, corrupt, totalitarian, profoundly undemocratic, supremely arrogant, arsehole. If only he would just eff off and die in office. We have not had a PM die in No.10 since as long ago as 1908 and it needs to happen again.
LikeLike
I see that the weirdo liberal-left globalist fanatic from Brighton, Mr Nick Reeves, is ranting about Elon Musk again. Why does he not take action by permanently deleting or never using his Twitter/X account again and move to Blue Sky social? Why would he not take that principled stand and not continue to help that notorious ‘fascist’, Elon Musk, by staying on Twitter/X?
Hypocrite!
This bloke is truly deranged even by the normal standards of liberal-left globalist nutters:
LikeLike
John:
Will take a look.
LikeLike
Boycott Tesla he says! But I thought many, if not all, good little liberal-left globalists were concerned about the environment and therefore were all in favour of the ‘green transition’ and electric vehicles? Admittedly, Tesla is not the only manufacturer of electric cars but it is one of the main ones.
Any self-respecting liberal-left globalist should boycott and stop using Twitter/X as that social media platform is a very large part of Elon Musk’s ultra-extreme wealth and the means he uses to annoy globalist polticians like Two Tier Kier but I guess they don’t do this because the other platforms have virtually no users compared to Musk’s company.
LikeLike
See how that idiot, Nick Reeves, got his tweet totally WRONG about Sir Oswald Mosley’s rally in Earl’s Court in July 1939. It WAS a PEACE rally. Mosley’s policy was for Britain to STAY OUT of any European dispute and for a policy agenda of heavily-armed neutrality. He told his followers that if the Nazis invaded us their duty was to, “resist the foreign aggressor with every fibre of their being”. In the sense of wanting the Europeans to just get on with their boring, interminable disputes and for us to not get involved he could be said to have been Britain’s original Eurosceptic. Oh, and for the attention of this cretin who obviously laps-up all the media lies about Mosley without questioning them at all it is a little known fact that some of the very earliest British casualties of WW2 were members of Mosley’s party/organisation called the BUF.
LikeLike
He says he is a former Tory. No wonder the Conservative Party is now a totally sick joke and a shadow of what it once was when outright liberal-left globalist idiots like him were members. The Conservative Party has had a big problem of Liberal Party/Liberal Democrat infiltration for a very long time ie Churchill who was never a real Tory at heart like Baldwin or Chamberlain but a Liberal to the modern day with people like Heseltine or even Thatcher with regard to her economic policies rather than her social views which were, in the main, traditionally Tory.
LikeLike
I hope Nick Reeves is a member of the Make Votes Matter group and gives donations to them because if he really wants us to rejoin the EU then Britain will have to bring its current largely fake ‘democracy’ into the 20th let alone the 21st Century by introducing Proportional Representation /fair votes before the EU is likely to accept any EU membership application bid. They wouldn’t want a member with an archaic, largely fake ‘democracy’ modelled for effing sake on that of Belarus in this regard to be a member and because of this silly, out of date electoral system cause constant trouble as we did from 1973 to 2020 and carp on the sidelines blocking initiatives such as a common European army ect and not playing a full part in the organisation and then agitating to leave once again forty years later. Truth be told, our membership was doomed from day one in 1973 because of First Past The Post. Even the mighty Germany wouldn’t be able to make its membership of the EU a success if they had an electoral system which ‘wastes’ MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of votes at EVERY single general election. Because of using Proportional Representation Germany and the other EU countries can deal with the demands of EU membership and adapt their economic policies in particular to cope whereas we were not able to do so because FPTP prevents new parties with different economic ideas etc from even entering the supposed national parliament let alone playing a role in government.
LikeLike
Look how Nick Reeves repeats the slander that Mosley was under the control of Hitler. That is a total LIE. Even Attlee’s government after conducting an investigation found NO evidence whatsoever that Mosley received funding from the Nazis or Mussolini’s fascists. Mosley was a dedicated and passionate British patriot and unlike ‘former’ globalist Liberal Party member Churchill and others served his country with distinction in the trenches of WW1 like Harold Macmillian did as well. Indeed, having seen so many of his friends get killed or grievously injured he wanted to avoid another bloodbath. Mosley was injured severely once as well.
LikeLike
John:
Many ill-informed people believe that, had German forces conquered Britain, Hitler would have made Mosley the political leader of the country. Not so. Hitler rather laughed at Mosley’s typically British adherence to the law, and anyway had no wish to promote Mosley. Hitler’s idea of a suitable PM for the UK was Lloyd George. MI5 also believed LG was interested in the position, if offered, despite having been retired for two decades. LG had seen the Reich and been very favourably impressed.
Frankly, I myself would think more highly of Mosley had he had less adherence to UK law and more adherence to Hitler’s viewpoints and the possibilities which might have arisen, but one has to bear in mind that, for all its social problems etc, Britain was still, in the 1930s, a great power. The bitterness of having been invaded and degraded by Afro-Asian (etc) hordes had not yet happened…
LikeLike
Mosley’s BUF was a completely home grown movement filled with 99% British people and received NO foreign funding AT ALL. All its supporters and members wanted was the ‘land fit for heroes’ Lloyd George promised us after WW1. Needless to say, we are still waiting for it to be delivered.
LikeLike