In the Germany of the mid/late 1930s, such weather was called “Fuhrerwetter“…
Twitter trivia news
Quite a few tweets seen this morning talking about the “suspension” (expulsion?) of the “Andrea Urban Fox” Twitter account. I have seen, in the past, a few tweets from that person (who seems to be tied up with the Jew-Zionists in some way). Not one tweet was of any interest whatever. Just rubbish. Why do so many people post meaningless rubbish on Twitter, and in some cases for hours daily? I can only suppose that it gives them something to do.
I cannot remember now whether Andrea Urban Fox ever tweeted about me. I think that she may have done, critically, and several years ago. No matter, anyway.
Maybe now, if the “suspension” actually turns out to be a permanent expulsion, “Andrea Urban Fox” will find something useful to do with her day(s).
[Update, same day: that Twitter account was reinstated, for whatever reason. Twitter, apart from now being far more dull than it once was (the result of the censorship, and expulsion of interesting tweeters such as David Icke, Alison Chabloz, me —if I may be a little immodest— and many others), is a mess in terms of how it works. Will Elon Musk really proceed with its acquisition? He seems too intelligent.]
The “problem” (((problem))) is by no means confined to the USA. “They” try to get the non-whites to believe that the you-know-whos are on the side of the blacks and browns. No, they are playing the non-whites off against white Europeans, in a strategy of Zionist supremacism.
I agree with both of the above tweets. In what world are those people worth that pay? When Justin Webb returned to the UK after having spent several years in Washington for the BBC, he was asked the main difference between the UK and USA, and trotted out the old story about the younger man looking at another man”s very expensive car and exclaiming either (UK) “he should not have such a car” or (USA) “one day I shall have such a car“. Trite, tired, mediocre, and actually quite inaccurate (the story, Justin Webb, and indeed the BBC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Webb.
The BBC is out of its time, really. Its output is now certainly not of higher quality than that of its competitors, and as for it being “ad-free”, not so; it advertises itself and its output constantly, and shows government propaganda quite often (as well as in its shows).
The BBC receives excessive funding via the “licence fee” system, a tax by any other word, enforced by bailiff-like enforcement staff. Even today, there are people (often poor single mothers etc) in prison for (following court order) not paying, or being able to pay, that bloody “licence fee”.
Now I read that the best of the BBC TV channels, BBC Four, is going to be axed to save money! The only decent part of the BBC left. It really is time to get rid of the BBC’s “licence fee” funding and make it compete on a level with the other channels (now numbered in the dozens).
I might take a different view, were the BBC on a higher general cultural level, but that is not the case (even on BBC2) now, and has not been so for decades. As said, the best bit of the output, on BBC Four, is going to be axed.
As for BBC Radio— appalling. Radio 4 is almost entirely unlistenable now, while Radio 3 has been greatly dumbed down.
Get rid. Take away Justin Webb’s (and others’) rice bowls.
I recall meeting the then very young (maybe about 4-y-o, cannot quite recall) Sasha Yevtushenko, sometime in the early 1980s, when at Bournemouth with my then girlfriend, who was a friend of his mother, the third wife of the poet.
The maternal grandmother of Sasha Yevtushenko lived in some expensive part of Bournemouth, very close to the sea, and had one of those Victorian wooden beach huts in which people change for swimming, which huts now sell, sometimes, for tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. That one was on a quasi-private beach.
Despite the hot weather, we were the only people there. It was like a small cove, as I remember. I also remember the almost (?) hyperactive little boy holding the door handle from the outside, shouting out “Nilzya!” (“Not allowed!” in Russian) repeatedly and (for no reason) refusing to allow me to exit the wooden hut. There were small windows in the door. I could see him holding the handle.
What can a polite guest do? One can hardly force open the door and possibly hurt the small child, no matter how peculiar his behaviour. In the end his mother called him.
How time flies in a life: it seems not hugely long ago that an odd little boy was shouting out in Russian while imprisoning me in a beach hut. Now, the small boy is suddenly 43, and a BBC radio producer. Well, there it is; and I myself am no longer in my twenties!
“Millennial Woes” (Colin Robertson), talking in 2021 about the evil and misnamed “Hope not Hate” (((cabal))).
Seems to have been subject to censorship (or a technical defect). Try to find it online, on Odysee.
More tweets seen
Much of France is still good, still beautiful, but Paris and some other large cities and towns are now largely not French, not European, and do not deserve to exist.
The same images:
The Great Replacement. The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan. White Genocide.
…and the semi-uniformed person, presumably some kind of attendant, seems to be not much interested, certainly does not do anything (or call for help on his radio), but (on his own against about 20 untermenschen) just bleats slightly at the mainly non-white mob. Perhaps afraid of being attacked.
This is an example of why, in the future, some form of social nationalism will have to take the reins. To exterminate evil.
“He’s behind you!“…
Tweeter above failing to see that the whole “trans” nonsense of recent years is but a small part of a far-wider attempt by secret circles and cabals to destroy what is left of traditional society, particularly in Europe and other white-European-settled parts of the world, and to replace it with a “society” of dystopia— raceless, unisex, cultureless, hopeless, atomized (so easy to rule), and drugged in every way. As said many times, social nationalism must rise up to exterminate evil.
Ha ha! A one-time trainee psychiatrist (who seems to need a psychiatrist herself, in my opinion). As far as I have read here and there, she did not work for long as a doctor of any kind. No longer able to sustain the fakery of the facemask nonsense, now that most people have woken up.
Her Twitter feed is amusing, full of replies to her from cranks who are still wearing facemasks. Some really give themselves away, saying how much they love wearing their masks. Mentally-disturbed, quite obviously.
I did not see her tweeting that when this shambolic mess of a government made wearing facemask muzzles a legal requirement, and failure to comply with the facemask nonsense punishable by law.
I have remarked in the past on the blog about how doctors who become politicians or “activists” are usually a waste of space. Other examples? Dr. David Owen; Dr. Hastings Banda; Dr. Liam Fox. Dr. Evan Harris. Etc.
Shambolic. To me, after various experiences over the past decade, unsurprising, however.
In fact, it is not just the NHS hospitals and GP practices, but also dental services, central and local government generally, roads, rail, the courts, the police (a fortiori)…you name it. In down to earth language, this country’s gone to ratshit over several decades (and especially since 2010).
It is not the “fault” solely of immigrants (or immigration), or Jews, or British people becoming “wiggers” etc. It is a compendium of many causes, working together to trash the country. A Gordian Knot which, however, can be cut.
The msm were mostly polite enough not to show the whole of Caroline Henry, Police and Crime Commissioner for Nottinghamshire, a massively fat woman who is the wife of Conservative Party MP, Darren Henry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Henry].
Below, the woman’s husband, Darren Henry, MP for Broxtowe:
“In January 2022, a briefing released by the TaxPayers’ Alliance revealed Henry to be “Britain’s most expensive MP…” after £280,936 of expense claims during the 2020/2021 financial year.“
Looks like they are both, one way or another, living off the fat of the land…
I do not know whether women like that are part of a general trend, but here below is the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire,
Neither of the above women have (or had, prior to election) any experience of policing, needless to say. Britain 2022…
As a matter of fact, it seems that neither of the women noted had much to show in terms of non-political career (or indeed any career) prior to election.
Caroline Henry described herself at election in 2019 as “a businesswoman“, but no details were displayed. She is the mother of two children. As for Donna Jones, she seems to have no children, and no husband, and her only known job (except some vague “work” with Portsmouth Football Club), is that she was, from 2008-2019, a local councillor, and at one time head of the ruling Conservative Party group on Portsmouth Council.
“RAF bosses have apologised for wanting a ‘preferably not white male’ pilot to represent them at a Top Gun: Maverick press event.“
Well, if the the office bods at RAF HQ cannot find a black lesbian, preferably with physical and mental problems, to represent the RAF, perhaps they could just dress up one of the criminal Roma Gypsies in the previously-noted story, and send him out (maybe as a “trans” person)…
Idly perusing Wikipedia, I saw that the Danish Army now consists of about 25,000 men (and women), 63,000 reserves, and about 600 tracked and wheeled armoured vehicles.
Modest on the world scale, of course, but I now see that the British Army, once mighty, now has only 82,000 active personnel, little more than three times the Danish equivalent, and only 30,000 reserves.
In fact, proportionately, Denmark has far more troops than does the UK, because the population of Denmark is less than a tenth of that of the UK.
Of course, mere numbers are only part of the story in the contemporary era, where technology plays such a big part. All the same, numbers are still part of the story.
At the end of the Second World War, the total strength of the British Army was over 3 million, and even in 1980, just before the Falklands campaign, 159,000 active and 63,000 reserves.
The notional 82,000 active troops in 2021 would be the lowest muster since 1780. Of course the population was then a fraction of what it now is: even in 1801, when the first British census was taken, England and Wales had only 10.5 million inhabitants (and Ireland about 5 million, interestingly).
As said, numbers are only one factor. As said, technology is also key. So, however, are factors such as morale, motivation etc. Those, at least, have not changed since the time of Napoleon, and indeed of Clausewitz. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz.
One hears of and sees, in the cheaper newspapers, stories of how drug abuse is rife in the British armed forces, not to mention drunkenness (that, of course, is scarcely a new problem!).
The British armed forces overall have about 10% of their numbers women. How effective they are is a question for others to answer.
As to the Army generally, one sees reports that of the 82,000 active soldiers claimed, only about 50,000 are actually fit for duty. In any case, very many are what the Americans call “rear echelon” forces, not frontline fighting men. Not that that means that those rear forces are useless. Napoleon himself pointed out that “an army marches on its stomach“, and in the modern era a fighting spearhead needs a very broad rear support, everything from supply and logistics to pensions and banking.
Still, at a time when the clownish political leadership of the UK seems intent on provoking Russia, I wonder how our forces would, if push came to shove, stack up against at least the more elite Russian contingents.
Britain and all Europe should be standing with Russia at this time. Contra Zionism. Contra Islamism. Spiritual Eurasia, contra mundum, if necessary.
Well, once again I beat political journalist John Rentoul. My score was 8/10 this week. I did not know the answers to questions 6 and 7.
Tweets seen today
Exactly. Nowhere, arguably, is that more obvious than in the UK.
Sadly misguided. The places where the “hundreds of thousands” need to go, suitably prepared, are not the beaches of Kent and Sussex, but the TV studios, radio stations, the “newspaper” propaganda offices, the Westminster monkeyhouse, and other System installations of importance.
Wherever Jews have power, non-Jews eventually become victims or slaves. Look at history. The ridiculous thing is that, in the UK, many of those who oppose Jewish supremacism in Israel or occupied Palestine, effectively support the Jewish lobby in Europe, eg in the UK itself; they pay lip-service to the “holocaust” farrago, in particular, and applaud the Zionist efforts to destroy free speech.
“Millennial Woes” has now been removed from YouTube and is only on Odysee. More censorship…
Worth listening to.
Controlled-opposition kingpin Farage. Was he paid millions, or tens of millions, offshore, as a reward for stabbing his own Brexit Party in the back in 2019, thus ensuring a Boris-idiot “Conservative” government (and ensuring, also, the binning of Corbyn, so that the Jewish lobby could retake control over the Labour Party)? Maybe (I do not know). Will he get a “peerage” (absurd and almost valueless though they now are)? Maybe (I do not know). Farage’s crony, Claire Fox, is already elevated to the Lords…
Sink them all, in the Channel, if that is the only way.
Yet more music
Griffin is right. He must be— he is in agreement with me!
Good to see resistance in Rotterdam and Vienna.
Wien! Not a government window in Vienna should remain intact until the Covid police state is stood down! Kristalltag jetzt!
Took a look at the statistics for 2020. So far, tens of thousands of hits from nearly 10,000 individuals. With four full months to go until the end of the year, the number of hits already exceeds the figure for 2019 by about 7%, but the best aspect is that the number of individuals has jumped by 25%. It will be interesting to see the final figures for this year.
The number of “likes” from other WordPress users is also up, but few are ever given (on anyone’s blog) anyway. I had to laugh at the number (as of today) though: 88! True… Is it synchronicity?
Most readers of blogs do not belong to the platform, whether WordPress or other, so the number of “likes” means little. Most blogs get only a few in any given month. Likewise with comments. WordPress blogs are not like social media accounts such as Twitter.
Why does one bother? It is a way of influencing society, even if in a very small way; on the other hand, “one human soul is a big audience“, which I always think was said either by St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Dominic, or maybe even St. Augustine of Hippo, but in fact I have never been able to find the citation.
Who knows who might read my blog and be influenced by it? The next young Alexander? Perhaps a young reader who, after I leave this Earth in my present incarnation, will create the new civilization which I myself, at least so far, have been unable to bring to life and power.
A few “thoughts out of season”
I am 64 years of age in a few days’ time, though I do not —usually!— feel it. Two years until I am 66, in 2022. 2022 can be expressed as a 6 (2+0+2+2), and (by one system of numerology) the number of my name (Ian Robert Millard) is 666, though I should add that I am scarcely a —let alone the—“Beast”!
Like “the stars in their courses“, I “fight on the side of the just” (an ancient Chinese saying).
2022 is the next world-historic year. The last, 33 years before 2022, was 1989, the key year in the collapse of socialism across the world. Socialism did not collapse in one year alone, of course. It had been slowly dying for decades, indeed since the previous year in that 33-year cycle, meaning 1956 (also the year of my own birth).
When I say “socialism” here, I refer to all post-1945 varieties, from the kind of social democratic idea seen in postwar UK, Sweden, New Zealand etc through to the extreme versions seen in the Soviet Union, China, Albania etc. True, China still has and is ruled by the Communist Party, but that party rules over a society completely capitalist. Yes, there are a few unimportant remnants of ruined socialism here and there: Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela (which only became notionally socialist in the 1990s, though there were socialistic elements in Venezuelan society in the 1950s and 1960s). The point is that these countries are exceptions, and poverty-stricken exceptions. The mainstream of the world has moved on from old-style socialism.
After 1989, the Soviet Union ceased to exist as a socialist state, though the Soviet Union continued in name until 1991.
After 1989 and the —superficially— unsuccessful Tiananmen Square protest, “socialism” became a figleaf covering only, just like “aristocracy” has been for a long time in UK society. Deng Xiaoping had said that no-one cared what colour was a cat, so long as it catches mice. That was why socialism had to be superseded, because as an economic model it “does not work”.
In the UK, the social democratic idea was fully espoused after the Second World War, certainly from 1956, by all three “main parties” (the two real main parties —Conservative and Labour— and the joke Liberal Party). That consensus (“democratic socialist” Labour, in existence in essence since the late 19thC, and “One Nation” Conservatism, also deriving originally from the late 19thC and Disraeli) broke down in the 1980s.
In the 1990s, the “Conservatives” travelled to a more finance-capitalist, anti-Welfare State position. “Labour” dropped “Clause 4” (which notionally committed the party to widespread nationalization —socialization— of the economy). Within a few years, after 1997, Labour had become completely “cosmopolitan finance-capitalist” under Tony Blair and the Jew Mandelson, who declared that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich“.
While the Jew Mandelson held secret meetings with Rothschilds and “Russian” Jew oligarchs in Corfu villas and elsewhere, Attlee and Bevan rotated in their graves, and the remaining “socialist” element in Labour seethed, led by the dissident MP, Jeremy Corbyn.
Despite much talk, the “socialist” Labour element under Corbyn and, before that, Ed Miliband, was unable to struggle successfully against the Zeitgeist. The General Elections of 2015, 2017 and 2019 proved that old-style socialism is dead. That despite public disquiet at the weakening and partial dismantling of the “Welfare State”, mainly under the Conservative Party governments since 2010.
In fact, that weakening of the UK “Welfare State”, though intensified after 2010, had started long before, and was in evidence during the Blair-Brown years 1997-2010. For example, the disgraceful ATOS organization was given its first contracts not by the Conservative Party governments (2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019), but by the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (1997, 2001, 2005, 2007): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atos#Atos_Healthcare.
People in the UK tend to think that policy is made by individual governments, when in fact there has always been a “deep state” element underneath, carried on in secret, or in semi-secrecy. The influence of, inter alia, freemasonry, Common Purpose, the Jew-Zionist element, the Bilderberg element etc are all part of that. Look at Welfare State policy since, say, 1997. There have been differences between and within parties, but the main themes continued beneath the surface chatter.
As we move to the next significant year, 2022, we see that neither old-style socialism/social democracy nor finance-capitalism satisfies the needs of the people.
A new movement is required, both in the sense of a “party” or political organization, and in the sense of a movement in —and of— society.
“For the welfare of the people is the highest law” [Cicero].
Time moves on
I found this graphic from 2018, not seen for quite a while. It was produced by the Jew-Zionist (and misnamed) “Hope Not Hate” crowd. It shows those who met (in my case, once, at a clifftop cafe, because someone thought reliable had asked me) a young Swede whose real name is said to be Patrik Hermansson, and who posed in 2017 as a Swedish student called Erik Hellberg. Personally, I think that “The Rat” suits him better, but that’s just me…
It will be noted that I was placed, as if a denizen of a contemporary “Inferno“, in the circle of the “holocaust” “deniers” [bottom right of the graphic].
I tend to be rather anti-social both in the ordinary meaning and politically. I do not mix much, in fact scarcely at all. For all that, I can see that political life has moved on in the intervening <2 years.
Some people have become more prominent (Alison Chabloz for one), others have retreated from the limelight: Jez Turner, Stead Steadman, Colin Robertson (“Millennial Woes”) etc. The London Forum is inactive. The “alt-Right” in the USA (as far as I can tell —I do not keep up with all that in detail) has developed a sharper edge, it seems.
The graphic does not of course purport to be a comprehensive map of the “nationalist” side of UK/US politics. As for the work of “The Rat”, he was wasting his time. His paymasters at “Hope Not Hate” eventually produced a film, but it sank like a stone. I think (not sure) that it did get a screening on Channel 4 or Channel 5 around midnight one evening, and the same in Belgium and Sweden. I myself cannot recall seeing it.
The most interesting aspect of that graphic is what is not there: “lone wolves” in the UK and elsewhere, German rural-sanctuary nationalists and national socialists, those setting up a mini-ethnostate in the Pacific North West of the USA etc.
In fact, the behaviour of the pseudo-socialists and “antifa” idiots really highlights the sheer bankruptcy of their socio-political position or stance. They beg to be masked, muzzled, controlled, restricted by the State. They have nothing at all to offer in terms of policy or a way forward for society.
You see the same phenomena in the UK, the “anti-racist” and “antifa” types whose life revolves around trolling people on Twitter, saying negative things about those they deem “fascist” or “neo-Nazi” etc. They know nothing, have no real ideology, and put forward no programme of their own. Politically irrelevant.
…and look [below] at these idiots, sitting talking while wearing facemask muzzles! Complete idiots. This really is a ******* farce, but most people are too polite or too compliant or too brainwashed to say anything!
Listened to BBC Radio 4 Profile about Dido Harding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido_Harding. Sounds like she is the sort of person who gets into highly paid positions (eg at Talk Talk, where she was paid millions for failure) because of whom she knows rather than what she knows (or does). A modified and female example of the Peter Principle [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle], except that she has been appointed to her present position having serially failed in others. Pathetic country, pathetic government.
What a load sheeple on here. You are being conned into wearing a face mask. Didn't you see the demo in Berlin.
The fat man in his muzzle is [update: tweet gone] typical of the aggressive and/or mentally-disturbed facemask zealots who have been emboldened by the ludicrous fake “law” being misused by Boris-idiot, little Matt Hancock, Cressida Dick etc.
Below, “antifa” gassed! I’m lovin’ it (even though I think that Trump is completely unfit for public office)!
Hitchens is right as far as he goes, but fails, once again, to point out that Boris-idiot’s most significant characteristics come not from his few years at Eton (or Oxford) but from the fact that he is part-Jew, part-Turk/Levantine, born in New York City, brought up as child in Washington DC, New York and in Brussels. He is at least half-foreign, in short. Of course “Boris” is not really English in attitude, because he is not really English!
It's not 'paying for the virus'. It's paying for the lockdown policies that many of us never wanted, agreed to, or believed were necessary.
Most NHS doctors are saying nothing because, quite simply, just as Aneurin Bevan said that he had overcome the opposition of the BMA and doctors to the establishment of the NHS by “stuffing their mouths with gold” (relatively high salaries and the chance to do private work on the side etc), Boris-idiot and little Matt Hancock have stuffed the mouth of today’s NHS doctors with more gold, via immediate 4.5% pay rises for less work done…
Hitchens may or may not be aware of it, but Americans have always treated their prisoners, especially political prisoners and/or prisoners of war, very badly. Those suspected of being involved in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln were kept muzzled and with hoods over their heads for months in some cases.
Indian “clever boy”, Rishi Sunak, who was briefly touted as a future UK Prime Minister when he started throwing money around to ameliorate the effects of his own government’s policies, established the “eat out to help out” programme. 50% off, up to £10 a head, I believe. Well, I just heard anecdotal evidence:
A lady I know went to a seaside cafe/restaurant one morning recently. Her purchase was modest, a single cup of coffee. When she went to pay (£2.20), she was told that she only had to pay £1.10 because of that scheme. A woman also waiting to pay then chimed in to the effect that her family now dined out three times a week because it made eating out almost as cheap as eating in.
Well, that lady whose family use restaurants three times a week and get a discount for it may enjoy the scheme, but the whole thing is being paid for by the public as a whole; by the poor too, who may not pay much in income tax but who certainly pay VAT and, if employed, National Insurance.
Why should the people as a whole pay to subsidize the cafe visits and restaurant excursions of the rich, the affluent and the comfortably-off? Like so many government policies now, there is just no logic and no justice behind it.
A very striking piece of architecture, quite exciting, and I do not hate it as much as tweeter “Western Traditionalist”, but I hear what he (or she) says. It is a symptom of cultural decadence, for sure.
As for the “architecture” below, that really is just disgusting, and should be demolished or destroyed.
Presumably a representation of some organ of the human body (?), or maybe some sea-creature, plonked down in the midst of what seems to be a town in Southern Germany:
My attention has been caught by a recent tweet from a Brexit Party MEP previously unknown to me:
My colleague in the European parliament @MagicMagid arranged a charity dinner in support of @RefugeeRescue saving refugees in the Mediterranean. I could not attend the dinner but have instead made a donation. I urge you to do the same!
At first, I thought that that tweet was a fake and/or a parody, or perhaps tweeted in a spirit of satire. No. It is real and it is meant to be taken at face-value. The bastard really is urging Brexit Party members, supporters and voters (of which I am not and have never been one, by the way) to give money to one of the organizations ferrying migrant-invaders across the Mediterranean from North Africa to civilized Europe.
When many people who support —or did until now support— Brexit Party criticized Nielsen’s support for this people-ferrying soi-disant “charity”, the new MEP’s response was textbook System-politician:
For all those who made racist remarks in response to my earlier tweets about a charity I have supported- you have no place in the Brexit Party. We are an open, diverse and inclusive party with no space for discrimination or abuse. Get on board, or get out.
The thread of further comments on Twitter is worth reading. All UK political life is there, from well-meaning but stupid ladies (sitting in suburban or rural comfort) who just want to emote about “saving children”, and the sort of basically malicious “anti-racist” idiots (Jewish or otherwise) who want as many non-Europeans as possible to invade the EU and especially the UK, to more sensible people who see that the UK’s population has increased from about 55 million in the 1980s to about 65 million or even 70 million now, most of which is via immigration and from births not only to immigrants but also now to their children and indeed to those children’s children (a demographic time-bomb: experts now say that European-race, i.e. white, people will be in the minority in the UK by 2070 at latest. My guess? 2040. Already some British cities are minority-white).
That does not, it seems, alarm Henrik Nielsen.
Nielsen was born in 1959 in Copenhagen, is 60 years of age and was at one time the head of the anti-EU campaign in Denmark. Why he opposes the EU I do not know. He seems rather at home as an MEP.
Nielsen is married to one Sharon Ruth Bierer, also a dentist, born in London and who has been a director of dental-oriented companies in London. The name Bierer is often of Jewish origin, but not always. Nielsen and his wife have two adult children, Jacob and Laura, the latter of which is, remarkably, the policy director of Labour Leave, the Labour Party pro-Brexit organization.
Nielsen and his wife own a rather pleasant-looking villa in Puglia (Apulia), southern Italy, which they rent out at £300+ per day.
I agree there with tweeter “Reimer Bard”. Brexit Party is faux-nationalist even as compared to its previous incarnation, UKIP.
Finally, the person that Nielsen is supporting in his tweets is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magid_Magid . A Somali immigrant who claims to have funded a “gap year” by working for only 9 weeks (at 12 hours a day). I suppose that it is just about possible.
I have blogged several times before about Brexit Party, about its stellar explosion onto the UK political scene, about Farage’s impressive public meetings, about its possible impact on the Conservative vote etc; its EU elections success. I have also chronicled its lack of direct success so far in Westminster by-elections: Peterborough, and then Brecon and Radnorshire. That “close but no cigar” aspect has deflated the Brexit Party bubble somewhat, as has the noise around the person I am pleased to call Boris-Idiot and around the whole current Brexit hullabaloo.
Let’s look again at Brexit Party. It is or is owned by a private company itself controlled by Nigel Farage. In that it has similarity to Momentum, the Labour Party group, which is, or is owned by, a company itself controlled by a couple of Jews.
I have blogged before about the fact that Brexit Party is a party without policy (save for leaving the EU). That is both its strength (i.e. a clear message) and its weakness (the voting public has concerns other than just the EU and Brexit).
I have blogged about not only the strange policy-free nature of Brexit Party but also about its strange mixture of candidates. No less than three out of the Brexit Party EU elections candidates were former Revolutionary Communist Party members (one, Claire Fox, a defender of the IRA Warrington bombing, is now a Brexit Party MEP). Some Brexit Party candidates were of non-European ethnicity, and some of those are now MEPs, including a couple of Jews and a Pakistani.
It is hard to see the ethnic, cultural or ideological ties binding the Brexit Party MEPs inter se. Even the faux-“libertarian” “small state”-ism of many of them does not seem to fit all.
There seem to be more than just a few links between Brexit Party and the Trump set-up.
What is really behind Brexit Party? There is already a Brexit Party Friends of Israel organization. What is the gameplan? To offset any real nationalist upsurge by containing it in the Brexit Party box? Possibly. It worked with UKIP…
Brexit Party electorally
To my mind, the Brexit Party upsurge bubble has been, if not burst, then somewhat punctured, and so partly-deflated. Farage has made the mistake of sitting on the fence between outright support for Boris-Idiot’s supposed Brexitism, and opposition to the Conservative Party. That has weakened Brexit Party to some extent. All the same, and crucially in a situation where is is no real social-national or even small-c conservative-national party, voters in England and Wales are going to have the usual false choice in the next general election: the System parties, or joke candidates such as Monster Raving Loonies and tiny socialist or other parties, or…Brexit Party. It may be that, in desperation, many will vote Brexit Party.
At present, Brexit Party is not breaking through re. Westminster. The latest two polls (published today and yesterday) put the figures as:
make a Conservative majority of either 38 or 46 (I have taken the Scottish results as 50% SNP).
This is frightening. It means that, were there no significant change in the polling, there could be a Boris-Idiot ZOG/NWO [Zionist Occupation Government/New World Order] dystopian regime, an elected dictatorship, in place by the end of the year. If that happens, democracy in any real sense will have died and only determined non-electoral resistance will be able to fight against it.
Having said that, polling often narrows before an election, but Labour is going to have to pull its socks up “majorly” (to use a Trump-ism) if it is going to keep even its present complement of MPs. I suppose that the silver lining would be that many pro-Zionist Labour MPs would go, but that would be little comfort to the British people ruled over by a ZOG dictatorship.
What about Brexit Party itself? Its polling is running between 10% and 15%, which is nowhere. At present, it has no prospect of getting MPs and would have to raise its game to about 25% across the board before getting even a small bloc of MPs. That is not impossible, but if British people see Brexit Party MEPs (who may not even be British by origin…) lecturing them on the supposed “goodness” of supporting migration-invasion etc, the polling will not improve and may even decline in percentage terms.
No social-national party, no conservative-national party, the Conservative Party a ZOG/NWO regime in the making, Labour the party mainly of the blacks and browns, the LibDems supporting both finance-capitalism and migration-invasion, and fake-nationalist Brexit Party joining the multikulti “celebrations”…
The Remainers’ intellectual dishonesty, exposed in a tweet from an emeritus Professor of Government, no less; nailed by Andrew Neil…
Both sides fought the referendum on the basis they would regard the result as binding; and it was on that basis that people voted. Show me any Leaver or Remainer who said it was just a big state-sponsored opinion poll and could be ignored. https://t.co/ElwoARYP9X
“If you look at the more genuinely Welsh areas, especially the Welsh-speaking ones, they did not want to leave the EU,” Dorling told the Sunday Times. “Wales was made to look like a Brexit-supporting nation by its English settlers.”
I wonder what The Guardian would say about any analysis of UK voting patterns (in general elections, as well as referenda) that called areas with huge numbers of blacks and browns etc “not genuinely English”? Or described the blacks, browns, Chinese etc as “settlers”…For that matter, what about any analysis of voting patterns in North London that referred to “its Jewish settlers”?
A few more tweets
The real problem here was that direct populist democracy, i.e. the 2016 Referendum, was grafted onto the longstanding system of representative democracy (elected MPs, political parties, Parliament). It’s like a train trying to run on lines of the wrong gauge. Or to put it another way, trying to graft a pear to an apple.
WATCH | "There has been an active conspiracy by the political class to stop a real Brexit. There was a clear majority for Brexit in the referendum, however we have a House of Commons that was 75% Remain" – legendary historian David Starkey hits the nail on the head! pic.twitter.com/F1LX5Y4ICa
Here we see the News Editor for The Guardian, no less, favouring censorship of views and even thoughts (so long as those censored are white…)
One academic told me unconscious bias replaced anti-racism training partly because there was so much resistance to the latter by white staff it became viewed as counterproductive. Heaven forbid addressing this would involve some effort! Sounded like textbook white fragility.
The Indian woman noted above, Priyamvada Gopal, is apparently an academic at Cambridge University. An out and out enemy of freedom (for white Northern Europeans). She does not want compromise, dialogue, let alone academic or civil freedom of thought and speech. She is an enemy.
Last tweet for the afternoon. Fuck Ambivalence.
There should be no 'ambivalence' where the crude structures of supremacy are concerned–whether those are white, patriarchal, heterocentric, able-ness or caste.
— Priyamvada Gopal, Uppity Esquire (@PriyamvadaGopal) July 6, 2019
In fact her Twitter timeline is a useful resource, where enemies of the British people expose themselves, in effect confessionally. As I have written in other contexts, Twitter is a good reservoir of open source intelligence about many of the enemies of Europe’s future.
Since I wrote the above (some weeks ago), Douglas Murray has written this:
An interesting and valuable piece, though I have to say that I never saw Douglas Murray (very pro-Jew, pro-Zionist) standing up for my rights of belief or expression when a pack of Zionist Jews pressured the Bar Standards Board to have me disbarred a few years ago. See:
There is more than one group trying to repress opinion (or even personal belief) in the UK at the moment. I have already mentioned the Jew-Zionists, and they are probably the most dangerous, because they have infiltrated over decades into the msm, as well as law, politics and, of course, business, as well as its offshoot, advertising. There are others travelling the same way, but the Zionists are driving most of this. The “antifa” idiots, the “multikulti” partisans, the Tooting Popular Front-style self-described “leftists”, post-Marxists etc are also involved, but on the lower levels, usually; they are far less effective because far less “connected”. “Useful idiots” for the Zionists.
I described in one of the links above how I was disbarred because the Jews wanted to punish me for my expressed views, views mainly expressed then on Twitter. In fact, I had ceased practice some 7-8 years previously, so “they” did not damage my professional and other life as they intended (which is no doubt why they then tried to manipulate tame Essex Police into doing their dirty work), but that is scarcely the point. The point is that (((they))) used (misused) the Bar’s Code of Conduct (now very much more restrictive than it was in the past, when professional standards were in fact far higher….) as a political bullying tactic.
The same thing has happened to a UK-based Palestinian activist, Nazim Ali:
In short, the police and Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] declined to charge or prosecute Nazim Ali. The malicious Jew-Zionist “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [CAA] then launched a private prosecution, only for the CPS to take over that private prosecution and (as is their prerogative in law) discontinue it:
When I was disbarred, Gideon Falter, the obsessed head of the CAA, crowed that people like Ian Millard, who had the temerity to criticize Jews, would “face devastating professional consequences”, which rather proved my point that that Bar Disciplinary Tribunal case was not really about me at all, but about trying to create a precedent which could be weaponized against others, not only at the Bar but elsewhere.
The CAA tried to do somewhat the same against Alison Chabloz, the satirical singer-songwriter, inasmuch as the CAA Jews, in her case, were trying to create a precedent in respect of “holocaust” “denial” (historical revision and revisionism). The CAA director, Falter, once studied law at Warwick University, but I have no idea whether he got a degree or not (and I have not seen it said anywhere that he has any professional legal qualifications).
Now we see that Nazim Ali is going to be “tried” by the professional regulators of the pharmacists’ profession. I wonder whether Zionists drafted the no doubt quite-recently-changed equivalent of their “code of conduct”? I wonder whether Zionists are employed in key posts?
The CAA pressured the relevant professional body. That is not some “conspiracy theory”; the CAA Zionists admit it [see link above] and in fact are proud of having done so!
The Zionists are far more dangerous enemies of freedom of expression than are odd UK-based Indian “academics”, however venomous they may be.
My view can be put simply, and is that there should be complete freedom to express, to adult citizens, one’s views on politics, society and history, as a minimum. However, such civilized freedoms have their enemies, and we must deal with them, before it is too late.
Here is a case which illustrates how far the UK has gone down the path of repression: someone imprisoned for 2.5 years for putting a few stickers on lamp-posts! That, in a country where violent thugs, abusers of the elderly, and other social evildoers are routinely given non-custodial sentences!
Neo-Nazi imprisoned for two-and-a-half years over threatening sticker campaign and possession of swastika-emblazoned underwearhttps://t.co/ngSNvZufVB
Germany is already treading such a path, and has been for many years. Laws against freedom of expression politically, socially, even historically (“holocaust” “denial” laws, laws against mentioning the many positive aspects of the [Third] Reich etc. Now such repression is intensifying.
Here we see the approaching reality of “White Genocide”. It does not happen overnight. First, a few non-European immigrants, then more and more, all breeding fast. At the same time, freedom for British (or other European) people is eroded by “race relations”, “community relations”, “hate speech”, or “malicious communications” laws aimed in reality only at white people. The Jews are behind much of it, and they of course have their own agenda: to close down criticism or even plain disbelief in the “holocaust” fable and its fakery; also, to prevent opposition to Israel.
We see now (I saw 40+ years ago) where this leads: to a Britain where white people have no real political expression (just a shadow political life, ruled by Jewish influence); no freedom of expression even on legitimate political, social or historical questions; eventually, no right to exist at all.
Whites are not breeding; non-whites are. White Genocide. It’s real, it’s happening (gradually, but becoming ever-more apparent), and anyone sticking up for freedom (even in art or music) is repressed, even imprisoned. Look at the famous “banksters” mural,
now painted over because said to be “anti-Semitic”. Look at Alison Chabloz, prosecuted and persecuted for singing satirical songs. Look at me (and others), disbarred for a few tweets critical of Zionist Jewry and the way the UK is fast-declining.
Action has to be taken if any decent future in Europe is to be saved.
Good…but he should never have been harassed by the police in the first place.
Update, 14 October 2019
Below, radio loudmouth and ignoramus Julia Hartley-Brewer defends free speech. Strangely enough, she spoke not a word when I was disbarred at the instigation of a malicious pack of Jews, when Alison Chabloz was persecuted, prosecuted and convicted by connected pack of Jews, when Jez Turner was actually imprisoned by the same pack of Jews. I must be missing something. Or maybe not…
Thousands call for Piers Morgan to be fired by Good Morning Britain for ‘dehumanising’ trans people https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/13/sack-piers-morgan-petition-itv-good-morning-britain-transgender/ …
Below, what this politically-correct “offence” culture leads to: police (on the ground, the usual po-faced, politically-correct WPC…) threatening to investigate and arrest those who copy a definition out of the Oxford English Dictionary!
A comment about me, only seen by me on 24 October 2019
Strangely enough, “free speech” devotee James Delingpole seems unwilling to respond to someone’s tweet mentioning me. The Spectator and other places where he scribbles are all under Jew-Zionist influence or control, though, so it really is not so strange that his support for “free speech” has its limits…
I learned last night from a lawyer friend that to become a QC you have to show commitment to all the various 'diversity' shibboleths. This confirms my suspicion that being a QC is no longer a badge of quality but merely another form of woke enforcement.
(btw, Twitter account @ChequeShanghai seems well worth reading)
While browsing around the above, I happened to see the tweet below, in which the Jew scribbler Finkelstein (now, absurdly, elevated to the House of Lords!) makes a nuisance of himself to a young woman who retweeted me when I was still on Twitter (the Jews had me expelled in 2018). Another example of how (((they))) try to control free speech. The sad thing is that so many people fail to stand up to (((them))). I think that that will change, though…
@TracymOshea Without commenting at all about your debate with Kate Godfrey could you consider un retweeting Ian Millard?
Looks like the Shomrim (Jew private police operating out of a couple of real police stations in North London and even operating cars got up to look like real police cars and with their personnel dressed exactly like police —which is an offence, but a blind eye is turned—) may have had to find alternative accommodation…
The police, CPS etc, but especially police, seem incapable of distinguishing, or unwilling to distinguish, between “grossly offensive” (unlawful) and merely “offensive” (lawful) and tend to treat all “offensive” communications as “grossly offensive”, which runs counter to Court of Appeal and Supreme Court case authority.
This is what happens when plainly bad law, such as Communications Act 2003, s.127, is drafted and passed into statute.
I expect that their preference would be for Ali’s business and home to be demolished, as often happens in their beloved Israel (to which, however, few of “them” seem to want to relocate!).
The Jews’ next move was to get their (many) lawyers working on persuading the Professional Standards Authority to take the disciplinary part of the General Pharmaceutical Council itself to the High Court! See this jubilatory blog post by David Collier, a prominent Jew-Zionist activist for Israel who was one of only two “witnesses” against Nazim Ali: https://david-collier.com/jewish-community/
The aim is for the Nazim Ali case to be reheard and/or the “sentence” replaced by a far more severe one.
From the Jews’ point of view, the ideal outcome would be for Nazim Ali to be struck off the roll of pharmacists and also fined heavily. He would thus be deprived of profession, business and home. Almost as good as what would happen in “Israel” itself…
Below, we see the supporters of the now-again-imprisoned activist known as Tommy Robinson, scuffling with police and msm employees on College Green by the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey a few days ago.
Police move in as ‘Tommy Robinson’ supporters attack BBC broadcasters on college green. Chants of “We want our country back” pic.twitter.com/CaZszLxqVl
Reporters reported these events as though at the Storming of the Bastille, whereas in fact the clash shows a few dozen, or at most a hundred demonstrators (though the police estimated the crowd of protestors outside the Old Bailey earlier the same day as having numbered about 200).
I do not want to comment on the rights and wrongs of the Tommy Robinson contempt case, but to examine the protests to launch a wider-ranging article. I have in any case written previously about Tommy Robinson:
I should make my own position clear: Ideologically, I am not much on the same page as Tommy Robinson. For one thing, Robinson makes it clear that, like his supporters Katie Hopkins and the tribe of Anglo-American “alt-Right” wastes of space (the main British ones being “Prison Planet” Paul Watson, Carl Benjamin “Sargon of Akkad” and Mark Meechan “Count Dankula”), he is pro-Israel and pro-Jew. This despite the fact that 99.9% of Jews in the UK despise and hate him and his followers. The American “alt-Right” have a word for people like that: “cucks”. Ironic, in view of the pro-Israel stance of many “alt-Right” persons. In fact, in the clip above, you can see some idiot waving a Israeli flag!
Tommy Robinson, however, parts company with the “alt-Right” in that he is able to mobilize fairly large (by UK standards) and very combative (by UK standards) partisan followers. Admittedly, 200 is not very many, but this was on a weekday, when the bulk of Robinson’s supporters are probably working on building sites or driving white vans, if that is not too patronizing. Also, Robinson’s support seems stronger in the North West and Midlands than in London.
I have a sneaking regard for Robinson, in that he is willing to put himself out at the front, is willing to lead “in action”, has a certain courage (others disagree and say that any courage is fortified by others backing him up), and is not by any means stupid, despite some of his behaviour. Also, he has been able to create at least a loose (and undisciplined) street army, or at least a sizeable street “troop”.
Having said the foregoing, Tommy Robinson is not a serious political figure. Even leaving aside the pro-Israel-ism, a few hundred or a few thousand marchers and bottle-throwers do not a revolutionary army make. I blogged about this quite a while ago, in relation to the connected “Football Lads’ Alliance”:
A figure such as Tommy Robinson needs to lead, if anything, not a political movement but the street army of such a movement. In other words, he should be not the overall or political chief but the “street” head of a movement, and subordinate to one with a proper political programme. He himself should understand that.
When Tommy Robinson stood as “Independent” MEP candidate for North West England, he was humiliated, getting 38,908 votes out of 1,744,858 (2.24%). A couple of the “alt-Right” wastes of space also stood, notably “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin), who stood in the South West England EU constituency for “dead-parrot party” UKIP, whose group (Benjamin was one of 6) received 53,739 out of a possible 1,676,173 (3.24%).
Tommy Robinson and the “Alt-Right”— dependence on Internet platforms
An important point is that both Tommy Robinson and the “alt-Right” vloggers are highly-dependent on the Internet, and particularly social media. Those are the platforms they use in order to get views out to the public, as well as to receive donations, subscriptions etc. These are the platforms which are now being removed by the System (notionally by the platform-owning companies themselves, but this has all been co-ordinated behind the scenes, mainly by the Jewish lobby that the “alt-Right” and Robinson claim to support…).
Tommy Robinson and the “alt-Right” vloggers are not alone in now having their online platforms removed. The persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has already been barred from Twitter and YouTube, many others including ex-BNP leader Nick Griffin have gone from some platforms (though so far Griffin is still on Twitter) and I was expelled from Twitter after a co-ordinated Jew-Zionist campaign in 2018 (and am not on Facebook; neither do I have a YouTube channel).
Many others have also had video and payment platforms removed arbitrarily (usually via a fig-leaf of “you are in breach of our rules” nonsense). The Jew-Zionists are behind most of this repression of free speech.
One such is the vlogger “Millennial Woes” (Colin Robertson). Removed from YouTube though still occasionally on Twitter (not posting much and presumably only keeping an account for use as as a private message facility).
There is a general move online to restrict and, in slow stages (thus deflating resistance) to remove, in particular, nationalist or social national people and organizations from the major platforms. That applies also to the “Alt-Right” and its offshoot known as the “Alt-Lite”. In fact, it goes further than that. We have seen how the social media platform GAB was almost taken down by a concerted campaign by Jews and “antifa” terrorists acting in concert with System forces. That almost worked, but GAB managed to survive by switching providers etc. The System has not given up, however…See:
As far as Twitter is concerned, in the UK the Jewish-Zionist element, the mindless “antifa” element, and the politically-correct perpetually-offended element, which all love to “report” and denounce anyone social-national or even mildly nationalistic, have managed to reduce an interesting online platform to a boring and predictable echo-chamber. I certainly do not miss my own Twitter account, though it may be that my followers (3,000 at last count) are impoverished by not having sight of my tweets.
“Freedom” online has been diminished by, primarily, the Jewish-Zionist element. I imagine that many of my readers on WordPress will know of my own experiences in this regard:
The thing here is not just that there is a Jewish lobby, or a Zionist lobby, that tries to shut down free speech (as we now see “them” once again trying to do within the UK Labour Party), but the fact that there is a huge amount of collusion between that lobby and those who might protect freedom of expression but, increasingly, do not: the police, most journalists, professional bodies generally, the Press, the msm generally.
As I write this, there is a backlash from the Press because Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Neil Basu (half–Indian, half-Welsh, and the head of police “counter-terrorism”) warned the “free Press” not to publish leaked documents that might embarrass the government. He has been put back in his box for that, but only in respect of the Press. The general crackdown on freedom by, or with the collusion of, the police continues. In fact Basu, in the police vernacular, “has form” here. He has interfered with free speech issues on previous occasions:
Looking at his background and known history, he has no reason to be kind or even objective as far as British social nationalism is concerned. He is not alone, in any case. The police are now ceasing to be protectors of the British people and are looking more and more like their zookeepers.
Free speech and its ever-more restricted limits
In fact, we hear more and more in the msm about how “legal free speech” could and should be shut down in order to more easily police and/or pacify the crazed multikulti society being created by the forces of evil in the UK. Or as the conspiracy puts it, the “necessity” to “prevent” “legal extremism” which does not reach as far as anything prosecutable (even as far as the cobbled-together recent prosecutions of young persons engaged in political activism: juries are beginning to reject the State’s attempts to crucify young social-national activists, I note). I blogged about this a year or so ago:
In the UK, though the “antifa” idiots have made a number of violent attacks here and there, they are no doubt well-infiltrated by the State monitoring organs and have not attained the level seen in Germany, the USA etc.
However, there are some in the UK who hide behind the false label of “journalist” or “historian” and who use online accounts to incite violence by “antifa” idiots (while themselves hiding away). One such is failed supply teacher (he was sacked some years ago from his last teaching position) Mike Stuchbery, an Australian with mental illness problems (about which he tweets in order to get sympathy), and who is a notorious beggar and grifter, always asking for money from those who read his material. Below, one of his more notorious tweets (despite which Twitter has not expelled him. Ah, I see…he did not say anything about Jews. Of course…)
Mike: I’m not extreme violent left wing antifa communist who from bio loves everyone and hates no one
(for “anti-intellectuals” in those Jews’ tweets, read perhaps “those with whom I disagree” or “those with another view to me and my Jewish antifa friends”).
As seen above, Stuchbery loves to imagine those with whom he disagrees having their skulls broken in, or otherwise killed or injured. It was a different matter, however, when he set up Tommy Robinson’s wife and children for a kind of pseudo-legal “home invasion” (which failed, in the event). Robinson later turned up at Stuchbery’sown Luton-area house, at which confrontation Stuchbery had a meltdown. The “brave” keyboard warrior and “antifa” propagandist was suddenly again just an Australian ex-schoolteacher on the scrapheap, a begging grifter and fake “historian-journalist” with mental problems, blubbing because he cannot control the situation that he himself has created.
In fact, I have discovered that almost all the Jewish/Zionist, “antifa” and other nuisances on Twitter who have obsessively denounced me (and others) have mental health problems and are on medication for them, but I shall blog about them separately. Something for them to look forward to.
In parts of the USA, this “antifa” nonsense has reached levels not seen even in Germany or France. See below.
Like something out of the state of Gilead in The Handmaid’s Tale.
In relation to this, it was disturbing to many to see pro-Israel tool Sajid Javid MP, an ex-Muslim (in effect), not only appearing (as Home Secretary) at Scotland Yard and apparently being on good terms with fake charity “Campaign Against Antisemitism” members such as Stephen Silverman of South Essex (exposed in open court as a serial troll and harasser of several women) but even expressing support for “antifa”! Sajid Javid might not be the brightest tool in the box but that really was hard to believe!
When the Home Secretary of the UK openly supports violent sub-terrorists, when the police or elected officials in the UK and USA collude with Jewish manipulators and/or violent extremists of various other kinds (cf. the recent “Extinction Rebellion” demonstrations in London), “democracy” as we know it is on the way out.
So Scotland yard's new Commander is Basit Javid, who conveniently happens to be the brother of none other than Sajid Javid who as Home Secretary is in control of Scotland Yard. See how this works yet? https://t.co/GWN1Z2ZtLM
— CK #FreeTommy #1984 #TommyRobinson (@crusaderkeif) June 7, 2019
Sajid Javid's speech today https://t.co/YLGdKLK7Eh first time ever a Home Sec has held such an event at Scotland Yard? Also not often you hear ministers talk about meeting MI5 D-G every week & signing thousands of warrants
In tone, the Sun’s “report” is not unalike to the hysterical condemnations seen in the Soviet newspapers at the time of, say, the purges of 1937, the Yezhovshchina.
As for the “democracy” expressed in our system of parties and elections, it has failed. The boundaries of constituencies are rigged to create a faked “balance” between two or three similar parties, as shown below:
Then there is the selection process for candidates (PPCs). Anyone in the slightest social-national is excluded from all three “main parties”, i.e, System parties.
The House of Commons has become the home of, mostly, the very mediocre, often the uneducated, uncultured and stupid. One only has to look at the last few leadership elections of the two main System parties (the LibDems are even less impressive, though that may be hard to believe).
Take Labour: Corbyn is himself not very inspiring or impressive: poorly-educated, effectively a school dropout and, later a dropout from a polytechnic, who has very little real employment or work history, a poor grasp of history and whose wives claim that he never reads a book. Telling. Leaders are readers:
[above, Hitler reads on the terrace of the Berghof]
[immediately above, the library of Vidkun Quisling]
[some people have a bookworm, others have a book-cat…]
[above, parts of the library I once had]
Having said the above about Corbyn, look at those who tried to seize his crown! Chuka Umunna (I, admittedly rudely but oh! how truthfully!, call him Fathead Chuka), Liz Kendall (thick as two short planks and quite likely part-Jew), Andy Burnham (I suppose the best of an appallingly-poor group opposing Corbyn), Yvette Cooper (would-be dictator, hypocrite, freeloader and expenses cheat)…Later, Owen Smith MP, a little Welsh windbag, also tried to topple Corbyn and, like the previous rebels, failed.
Would any of the above-named really have had more electoral success than Corbyn? I doubt it.
Labour is now the party of the “blacks and browns”, the public service workers, and those dependent on State benefits.
Then we have the misnamed “Conservatives”. In 2015, the leadership contest to replace David Cameron (Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger) contained:
Theresa May (a hopeless Home Secretary, previously a local councillor and back-room person at the BACS cheque-clearing body; possible part-Jew);
Stephen Crabb, exposed as a serial sex-pest (and ineffective even at that) as well as so pro-Israel that he could well be termed “an agent of influence”; very poor employment record before getting into the MP racket; expenses cheat; in fact, Crabb is a complete deadhead and will probably find a place in my blog category “Deadhead MPs”;
Liam Fox: unreliable, dishonest, expenses cheat, very pro-Israel, with many links to Israel and covert US centres; considered to have generally “dodgy” lifestyle (see Notes, below);
Michael Gove: expenses cheat, pro-Israel extremist, unreliable, dishonest (and in 2019 revealed as having been a frequent cocaine abuser when he was a pro-Zionist Times scribbler prior to latching on to the MP racket);
Andrea Leadsom: nonentity.
What a useless, mostly dishonest and mostly (in fact, all) pro-Israel pack!
Then we have the 2019 Conservative leadership contest, about which I have blogged extensively already, and which, at time of writing, looks certain to be won by Boris Johnson over Jeremy Hunt. I have also blogged re. Johnson, and if I say that I think of him as Boris-Idiot, my view will be clear enough…(though I do favour leaving the EU).
We have seen, particularly in the past decade, institutions which were basically meant to be “non-political”, politicized: Civil Service, police, armed forces, the courts, the Bar (as witness my own unjustified disbarment). Below, the Financial Times agonizes about the “Conservative” approach to the Diplomatic Service, Parliament and the British Constitution.
Somehow, I cannot recall “The Secret Barrister” (((The Secret Barrister?))) or any one of “his friends and his relations” (with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan’s Trial by Jury; in fact, I have no idea of the identity of The Secret Barrister or his connections) at the Bar standing up for my rights, freedoms and civil liberties when I was wrongfully disbarred at the instigation of a pack of manipulative Jews, but “that’s life” (and what goes around comes around…eventually):
Still, his tweet gives an idea of what has happened to the justice system, at least the courts, in outline. There is also the crisis in the underfunded, undermanned, badly-run prisons, and the collapse of the Chris Grayling-idiot privatized probation service(s).
“They” are interfering with the justice system, of course, and even with how judges and magistrates are trained to handle supposed “anti-Semitism”:
Citing CAA research, Judicial College adds International Definition of Antisemitism and section on use of ‘Zionist’ as a slur to its handbook for the @JudiciaryUKhttps://t.co/qBkFwgmhlA
[above, Gideon Falter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” group and fake charity, with Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick…]
What about the people?
The British people as a whole have been, in the now much-used phrase, “left behind”, and in fact ignored, as well as being repressed, bullied, lectured to. Whether it is the exploitation of the people as employees or private renters, by speculators, whether it is the epidemic of (mainly) Muslim rape conspiracies, or the dishonouring of the votes of the BRITISH majority who voted Leave/Brexit in 2016 (and if you took away all the non-white votes and those of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Gibraltar, the Leave vote would have been at least 70%…and if you took away the cosmopolitan exclave that is contemporary London, Leave would probably have won 80%), whether it is the banning of free speech (by which I mean free speech on matters of history, society and politics), the real people of the UK are being ignored, the needs unmet, their wishes for a better life laughed at.
The Labour Party is the party of the blacks and browns and other (non-Jewish) ethnic minorities, as well as of the entrenched public service employees. It cannot help the British people.
[above, Diane Abbott MP, lampooned during her attempt to become Mayor of London in 2015. She came third, netting 16.8%, in the selection process to be Labour candidate. If Labour form the next government, she will probably be Home Secretary. Have we fallen down the rabbit-hole?]
[above, Emily Thornberry MP, Labour Shadow Cabinet member, at a Zionist dinner in London, photographed with the Israeli Ambassador. formerly a major Israeli government spokesperson, Mark Regev (centre); her husband, a High Court judge, is half-Jewish]
What about the “Conservatives”? The name is every bit as much a bad joke as “Labour”.
[above, Sajid Javid tries to use his brain]
The cartoon, below, from the George Osborne days of 2010-2015, puts the position succinctly
There is every prospect now that a Boris Johnson (“Boris-Idiot”) “Conservative”-label government will plunge the UK into crisis. I am not talking about Brexit alone (which I supported and still support, but it has been criminally mishandled) but about the sheer ineptitude not only of Boris Johnson himself (bad enough) but of those likely to be made Cabinet ministers around him, deadheads like Matt Hancock (a mediocre suited thug), Priti Patel (a proven Israeli agent as well as being as thick as two short planks), Liz Truss (who basically only became an MP on her back), Chris Grayling (a sociopath who has failed in every single government job he has been given) etc.
There is a real and pressing need now for a proper social-national party and organization in the UK. Anything is possible within the next 10 years.
Soon, sooner than many imagine, those of us still alive will be called upon to re-establish European civilization and culture. That may be hard and may be harsh, but it must be done. God mote it be!
The enemy know that the blacks and browns are breeding fast and will soon make “election politics” a waste of time for social-national parties. Look at the tweet below and its photos. Four young London-resident voters…and three out of four non-European, with the fourth possibly partly-European, maybe something such as Cypriot.
I interrupt other blog writing to address an immediate issue. The activist known as Tommy Robinson has now been banned from Facebook, he having already been barred from Twitter. That news highlights again something that I have been writing about, blogging about, speaking about (at the London Forum in 2017) and tweeting about —before I myself was banned or rather expelled from Twitter in 2018— for years, the privatization of public space.
In past ages and, indeed, until about 20 years ago, public space was literally that: the agora of ancient Athens, the forum of ancient Rome, the barricades of revolutionary France, the brief outbursts of free speech in the Russia of 1917 or the early 1990s, and Speakers’ Corner by Hyde Park in London, where a youthful Millard (aged about 21) spoke to fickle crowds a few times in the late 1970s.
Today, the traditional fora of free speech, eg in the UK, are very restricted. Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) made a speech in Whitehall in 2015. He mentioned Jews a few times. That alone was enough (triggered by the malicious Jewish Zionists who denounced him, the supine police who are now so often in the Zionist pocket, the wet CPS who are not sufficiently resistant to the Zionists’ endless whining demands, a Zionist-controlled System-political milieu, and a Bar and judiciary which are frightened of their own shadows and even more of those of the Zionists) to have Jez Turner imprisoned for a year. He served 6 months and was only recently released to live for months more under considerable restriction.
The “public space” which is now most significant is online space. Twitter, Facebook, blogging platforms etc.
I myself was expelled from Twitter last year. I had been the target of both the Jew-Zionists and mindless “antifa” (aka “useful idiots” for Zionism) for about 8 years. I have also had my freedom of expression taken away in other ways, as well as having been interrogated by the police (again at the instigation of malicious Jew-Zionists) for having posted entirely lawful comments on Twitter. I was also disbarred, quite wrongly, for similar reasons.
Alison Chabloz was persecuted, prosecuted and convicted for singing satirical songs in the manner of 1920s Berlin. She is appealing her conviction and the result of her first-stage appeal. She has also been expelled from Twitter (as well as being made subject to a court ban from social media, which bars her from posting until mid-2019).
If Twitter or Facebook ban you, you may have some limited right of appeal, if they so choose to extend it to you. You have no legal right to stay on Twitter or Facebook despite the fact that, in real terms, they are near-monopolies. Yes, I am now on GAB, but GAB has only 500,000 users, if that, whereas Twitter has perhaps 500 million! The fact that, as I believe, Twitter is largely a waste of time, is beside the point.
The point is that, beyond your very limited contractual or other rights qua customer, you have no rights in respect of Twitter or Facebook (etc). Qua citizen, you have no rights at all. You have no right to post, and if the owners or executives of those companies decide to bump you off, off you go, whether you have 50 followers, 3,000 (as I did) or a million.
The Blair law of 1998 [nb: 1998 = 666 x 3…], requiring political parties in the UK to be registered, all but killed any semblance of real political-party democracy in the UK. Now, free speech both online and offline is being, on the one hand, criminalized or subjected to other State repression (at the instigation of the Jewish-Zionist lobby), and on the other hand choked off at source, by companies (under Zionist control or influence) barring dissidents or known activists from even posting dissenting or radical views online.
As to Tommy Robinson, I am not personally one of his supporters, and I deplore his attempt to play the sycophant for Israel and Zionism, but he has some views which are valid, in my opinion.
In any case, freedom of expression is indivisible. It is facile to make arbitrary distinction between some free speech, calling it “hate speech” and so unacceptable, and other speech which is labelled “acceptable” (politically approved) speech. That is mainly hypocrisy. Even my own relatively mild postings are and always have been targeted by the enemies of freedom, of which the Zionists are the worst.
So we have, not only in England but elsewhere (eg in France, under Rothschilds cipher Macron) the same repressive tendency. Sajid Javid, Amber Rudd, Theresa May, others, are enemies of the British people and enemies of freedom of expression. They seem to want to ban all political activity and all political or socio-political expression which does not support the existing System. It is immaterial whether you call it that or “ZOG”.
The System in the UK, in France seems to think that it can slowly turn the screw on repression, controlling the political parties (or setting up “controlled” new ones, as with Macron in France and, perhaps, the “Independent Group” in the UK), preventing free speech by putting the fix into Twitter, Facebook etc, only having controlled news on or in the msm (controlled mass media outlets).
The Soviet Union tried a less subtle form of all that, and it still collapsed in the end. What the System politicians, msm faces and voices etc, fail to see is that a head of steam is building up in the UK (and France) and, if bottled up by the State and those behind the curtain, will eventually explode.
Another example. A typical pseudonymous Jew-Zionist tweeter (troll), below, exults that a very prominent pro-Corbyn Twitter account, “Rachael Swindon”, has been “suspended” (probably, like me, expelled):
Delighted to hear that the account “Rachel Swindon”, which pumped out antisemitism and whipped up hate to the delight of the Labour leadership, has now been suspended by twitter pic.twitter.com/YcSLnH16Aq
In fact, Rachael Swindon has been reinstated, though only after Twitter’s vice-President for Europe intervened. Why should such people control the online public space? Again, why should the police barge in with large boots and interfere with free speech when no threats are involved? It’s all wrong.
Below, one tweeter tells her story…
"Well i won't get arrested for joking so we can still police free speech", until it happens to you, shut up! It nearly happened to me. Heres my story and why I'll be voting Ukip from now on. I am still terrified of police to this day because of the situation i was put through pic.twitter.com/3FH9mtxvnC
The pro-Jewish lobby freeloader and careerist Tom Watson MP, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Watson_(Labour_politician) who has wormed his way to becoming Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (with his eyes on Corbyn’s purple day and night), has attacked Tommy Robinson in the House of Commons and asked YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s YouTube channel, which is his last online platform of any importance.
The excuse for Watson’s actions and statement has been the apparent fact that Robinson came to the house of one Mike Stuchbery, a failed (and sacked) supply teacher who poses as both “historian” and “journalist” online, and whose main activity seems to be online advocacy of opposition (including violence, though he usually uses weasel words) to any form of British or other European nationalism. Tommy Robinson has exposed the apparent fact that Stuchbery colluded with others to visit Robinson’s wife or ex-wife at her home. Robinson’s response seems to have been to do something similar to Stuchbery. Tom Watson, in his Commons statement, referred to Stuchbery as “journalist”, based presumably on Stuchbery’s politically-tendentious scribbles for HuffPost and other, smaller, online outlets.
In the end, if someone is prevented from making socio-political expression, that person can either subside into silence, or take other action. That other action might be peaceful, it might not be. When the repressed individual is a public figure with many thousands of supporters, those supporters may also take other action. That might include, potentially, and in the French term, “action directe” somewhere down the line.
Those (of various types: Jew Zionists, the politically correct, “antifa idiots etc) in our society, who crow at shutting down the freedom of others to make socio-political expression should, in the well-worn (Chinese?) phrase “be careful what they wish for”. The Spanish also have a phrase, a proverb in fact: “Do what you will, and pay for it.” Repression of views, not “allowing” people a public platform (and anyway, who is, for example, a blot like Tom Watson to decide who should or should not be allowed to speak?) can only lead to upheaval in the end.
It will be interesting to observe the UK political scene in the coming months and years.
A few tweets seen
A tweet with a few examples of the frequent passive but malicious incitement of violence against white people by “antifa” bastard Mike Stuchbery of Luton:
Below: Mike Stuchbery of Luton exposed yet again as a fake…
I just double-checked. He is not on 'Historical Abstracts', or 'Bibliography of British & Irish History'. These are the two main databases you would expect him to appear on. He doesn't. He isn't an historian.
Lots of tweets by @MikeStuchbery_ include "Punch a nazi" … when Andrew tate came to his door he cried like a little girl. Why not open the door and punch? Is it because Andrew's half black? … spineless fat coward. https://t.co/DrAD4hWGkE
Below: fake “historian” and “journalist” Mike Stuchbery threatens minor Northern Ireland politico David Vance with a lawsuit. Does he have any idea how much a defamation action (for example) costs? He must have got the idea of constantly threatening to “sue” from the Jewish Zionists and their useful idiots on Twitter, who are always threatening legal action, and who often invoke the “sainted” name of Israel-based “Mark Lewis Lawyer” in this regard. In reality, Lewis is a wheelchair-bound blowhard fake, recently fined by a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for his behaviour. At the Tribunal, he admitted that he often had no idea what he was doing because of his intake of prescription drugs. Oh…and Lewis’s own Counsel said that “he has no assets” and that “his sole possessions are his clothes and a mobility scooter”! See:https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/?s=mark+lewis
above, Stuchbery, who accuses others of being “precious little flowers”… (“ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee”…)
Spin it as you like, The facts are Mike tweeted punch them, punch them, never stop punching them and the hope that ANTIFA turn up to crack skulls. Disgusting Man calling for violence. Like I say Mike's a scrounging Fraud.
This individual has been proven to be an unhinged, hate-filled extremist, who has whipped-up his followers to engage in violent acts. this pathetic weasel should be charged with incitement to commit a hate crime on this evidence – pic.twitter.com/Ec2Yr9AAMM
Something called “Press Gazette” also refers to grifter Stuchbery as a “journalist” (does he have an NUJ card? I suppose that, these days, any wannabee can scribble for peanuts or for free in the HuffPost, silly little online “news” agencies, or for the (now often semi-literate) online msm “newspapers”, and then to call himself “journalist”…and in Stuchbery’s case, “historian”, too!…)
The more serious point here is that “Culture Secretary” Jeremy Wright MP thinks that he is entitled to ask YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s videos, Tom Watson MP having already done demanded the same. Freedom? Free speech? Free country? Hardy ha ha…
Update, 11 March 2019
and still the tweets keep coming…
You are my favourite tweet thus far. Mike is just an observer? Excuse me for hooting with laughter. Mike is an extremist. It’s documented all over Twitter. He earns a living from incitement not observation. Yet he refuses to take ownership of the effect he has on others.
Stuchbery (and many others on Twitter etc) really should refrain from using legal terms wrongly or pointlessly, eg, in that piece averring that Tommy Robinson defamed him. Well, that may or may not be the case, in the lay sense, but any actionable defamation requires publication. I have no idea whether in this case, Robinson published (meaning said or wrote to third parties) any of the allegedly defamatory material via video streaming etc. It seems not. Then there are all the other factors, such as the defences, one of which is that the statements, even if defamatory on their face, are true…
In any case, it costs vast amounts to sue for defamation, though in some open and shut cases it may be possible to find “no win, no fee” lawyers (in the old American parlance, “ambulance-chasers”) willing to take it on, with the help of specialized legal “insurance” (which in my view comes close to champerty, in the old Common Law sense)
In fact, I also must have missed seeing any support from Janey Godley for Jez Turner, imprisoned for making, in Whitehall, a humorous speech mentioning Jews and their history in England; neither did I notice the aforesaid Janey Godley (I had never heard of her in any regard until today) tweet anything in support of satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz, persecuted by Jewish Zionists, then privately prosecuted by them before being prosecuted by the CPS (under pressure to take over the matter…) and then convicted, in effect, of singing songs.
An example, below, of the muddled thinking of many on Twitter and elsewhere: this idiot, calling himself/herself “66ALW88” (what?) thinks that the way to preserve free speech online is for the online platform companies to “crack down” on, er, free speech online…
It's also not good for the social media platforms, either – there are already calls for regulation due to the toxicity. If they had any sense, they'd crack down on it.
Looking at @YouTube in particular, as they're still enabling SYL to do this stuff.
Below, a tweet not at all significant in itself (there are literally thousands of unthinking, purselipped nobodies like this Irish “academic”, one Fergal Lenehan, around, all waiting for the chance to denounce people, to “report” to Twitter, Facebook or police, or wanting to ban the free speech of others not signed-up to the System/ZOG mental straitjacket). It is the trend, the existence of a large bloc of such nasty idiots that is of importance.
and here (below) is a well-funded basically Jew-Zionist organization which admits that it wants, inter alia, to stop the historian David Irving from conducting lecture tours. I think the reverse: that those who oppose freedom of speech on political, social and historical topics should themselves be stopped…
The fact that Irving has done this before does not mean that we should allow him to do it again. We have plenty of advance notice to prevent it this time.
Let’s try & stop this grotesque event from happening ever again.
Now the cowardly and mentally-disturbed grifter, Stuchbery, continues to try to claim the moral high ground, which is laughable (and note the support from a political cretin, “Leftwing Revolt”, in the thread below, who is a member or supporter of “Resisting Hate” and sees nothing wrong with someone he might disagree with being attacked with an axe! Resisting hate? You could not make it up…). I might not “support” Tommy Robinson, but I prefer him a hundred times over to Stuchbery and the “useful idiots” of “antifa”!
and (below), another little shit like Stuchbery, this time a New Zealander, who positively welcomes censorship and repression (and he is, wait for it…a “writer/director” of film and theater”!). One of the weird aspects of the present time is that those most eager to see censorship and ideological repression are “creative industries” drones, writers, film and TV people etc, and journalists.
New Zealand's biggest ISP has blocked access to 8chan (among other sites) in the wake of the attacks. Just like that.
and he retweets, approvingly, this (below) announcement of New Zealand governmental censorship. I personally have no wish to see footage of the recent New Zealand massacre, but that should be my choice, not the New Zealand (ZOG) government’s.
Chief Censor David Shanks has officially classified the full 17 minute video of the fatal Christchurch shootings as objectionable.
It is illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute this material in any form, including via social media platforms.
Not everyone on Twitter agrees with the idea of censoring views and people being found guilty as soon as they are accused, however:
So you believe in a system where your proven guilty before your convicted by a judge and group of your piers. Let me give examples of places this has happened: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and Uganda during the rule Idi Amin.
and yet another virtue-signalling “journalist” who is, it seems, an enemy of both freedom of expression and of the future of the European peoples…
I spent a good part of 2 years reporting on ISIS internet and how the group uses social media — in 2019 it's mind-boggling to me how well the coordinated cross-platform effort to remove them from the internet worked and how there hasn't been a similar one for white supremacists.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [John F. Kennedy]
Update, 5 June 20199
Another random example of how the quasi-monopolies of youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc have arrogated to themselves the right to censor and banish: [Update, 22 July 2022: the tweets etc noted have now been completely deleted]
Update, 18 June 2019
A Dr Who writer @OldRoberts953 is expunged from a book by the BBC because he won’t conform to the latest transgender ideology. His views on transgenderism are probably shared by 90%+ of Brits but he’s now a Non-Person for the BBC. The net tightens around free speech. Please share https://t.co/G9fM2BK1e4
Grifter, “antifa” supporter, fake “journalist” and “historian” Mike Stuchbery is desperate to close down free speech for those with whom he disagrees politically. See his recent tweets, below. This is one of the worst enemies of freedom of expression in the UK.
YouTube shut down four major US white supremacist channels in the last 24 hours.
If they're serious about reversing the spread of radicalisation, here's four accounts in the UK they could shutter today… https://t.co/nNG4sk938a
The latest news is that some odd woman tied up with both “antifa” nonsense and Jew-Zionists has created a GoFundMe appeal on behalf of Stuchbery, supposedly so that he can sue the political activist known as Tommy Robinson.
I prefer not to comment on the proposed legal claim until I read more about the foundations for such claim. I presume that Stuchbery is doing this (the woman mentioned above may be raising funds for him but only Stuchbery himself can actually sue) because:
he knows or believes that Tommy Robinson has assets sufficient to satisfy any successful claim;
he has seen that others are already suing Tommy Robinson;
he thinks, perhaps, that a civil legal action will damage Tommy Robinson by starving him of funds;
if successful, Stuchbery will make a great deal more money than he gets at present via online begging or his part-time work in Stuttgart, where he now resides.
Were I the defendant, and leaving aside the potential substantive issues that might be in issue in the proposed case, I suppose that I should focus firstly on the fact that Stuchbery is
resident outside the strict jurisdiction (albeit still in the EU);
is a foreign national (as I understand, an Australian citizen);
has no real or other property in England and Wales;
has no means with which to satisfy any judgment on costs or in respect of any counterclaim or setoff that might be claimed by Tommy Robinson, should the Court decide against Stuchbery on one or more issues or otherwise.
I doubt that this claim will get off the ground. I certainly doubt that it will clear the probable first hurdle, as explained above, but we shall see. It appears, however, that plenty of mugs are donating to the said GoFundMe appeal at present.
Update, 25 November 2019
Stuchbery’s solicitors, Eve Solicitors (the firm is a limited company in fact, possibly in effect a one-man operation), are operating out of a rundown Victorian terrace in Bradford; several other small legal and other firms are operating nearby. The operation has only been in operation since 20 May 2019, at earliest:
The “firm” has only been at its present address since 28 September 2019, before which, i.e. from its incorporation in May until September 2019, it operated out of a tiny Victorian terraced house in a “Coronation Street” lookalike, Hudswell Street, Wakefield (Yorkshire).
The principal (and only named) solicitor is one Waseem Ahmed.
Where the name “Eve” came from, God knows. My only guess is “Adam and Eve”, as in the Cockney rhyming slang, “you wouldn’t Adam and Eve it!”
Having said that, when I was a practising barrister in London in the early-mid 1990s, I knew of Pakistani and other ethnic-minority solicitors (in London, in Luton and elsewhere) who used “English”-sounding names for their small firms. Some of them still owe me money! (Unpaid fees). I am sure that Stuchbery’s solicitor is not like that.
I looked earlier at the GoFundMe appeal set up to collect money for Stuchbery’s proposed legal claim against Tommy Robinson. So far, 262 mugs have donated a total (as of time and date of writing) of £5,209 to start the claim. I wonder whether they or others will donate the rest of the £15,000 asked for? Frankly, I doubt it, though the amount so far raised has been raised in only three days.
I doubt that the proposed lawsuit will either launch or get anywhere.
The woman who is fundraising for Stuchbery, and who seems to have all day to tweet etc, has tweeted that “As many of you know, Mike Stuchbery is about to sue #TommyRobinson for harassment. He is backed by #ResistingHate and a full legal team.“
A “full legal team”? So that would be someone called Waseem Ahmed and…?
I do not say that “Eve Solicitors” (i.e. Mr. Ahmed) is a one-man-band (though it certainly seems to be), and I cannot say that there are no legal people offering advice etc from the sidelines (what used to be known at the Bar as “cocktail party advice”), but I do know, having been at one time a practising barrister who (in the 1990s) regularly appeared (weekly, at least) in the High Court, as well as in County Courts, and more occasionally other types of court and tribunal (both then and in the 2002-2008 period), that GoFundMe £20,000 will only serve to kick off such a case and claim, if I have understood its likely nature properly. Costs rapidly escalate.
Solicitors vary in their fees, barristers likewise. Simply to issue proceedings in a High Court action (which I suppose the proposed case would probably be) would be several hundred pounds as a minimum, and many thousands of pounds in some cases:
As a rule of thumb, a barrister will get anywhere from (as minimum) £500 a day on a small civil matter in the County Court, up to many thousands of pounds per day for almost any High Court matter, though there is no “limit” as such, and some barristers, eg the top commercial silks (QCs) will be on £10,000 a day or more. The spectrum is very wide.
As those who enjoyed Rumpole of the Bailey will know, a barrister usually gets a “brief fee” (to cover all preparation and the first day, if any, in court), then daily “refreshers”. How much are they? How long is a piece of string?
One of my own last few cases was a County Court commercial matter involving a large amount of cattle feed. Now that it is long ago since I last appeared in court (December 2007; this case was not long before that), I think that I can reveal, by way of illustration, that I was paid, that time, £5,000 as a brief fee and £1,000 a day for refreshers (in fact there were no refreshers, because the matter settled on the first day in court).
I have no real idea how much the case of Stuchbery v. Robinson might cost Stuchbery in legal fees if it is ever pursued to court, but my semi-educated guess (“semi” because I have not been involved with the Bar for over a decade) is that whoever presents it in court (unless doing it for free or on the cheap) will probably want a brief fee of perhaps £5,000 (at least) and (at minimum) £500 per day refreshers. Maybe £10,000 and £1,000 per day. It can be seen that, even at the lower estimate, a 2-week hearing (10 days in court, which this well might be) is going to cost £9,500 for Counsel’s fees alone.
Solicitors’ fees also vary widely. When I myself worked (overseas) for law firms (as an employed lawyer), the firms charged for my work at anything up to USD $500 (or about £400) an hour (I myself didn’t get that, sadly, the firms did); and that was over 20 years ago. I suppose that Stuchbery’s solicitors will not be very expensive, but will probably still charge maybe £50 an hour at absolute minimum. Solicitor case preparation might take hundreds of hours. 100 hours @ £50 p.h. = £5,000.
Then there are what solicitors term “disbursements”, i.e. the expenses of the case such as issue fees, witness expenses, whatever.
You can see how £20,000 can be quickly exhausted…
However, even if Stuchbery’s solicitors (solicitor?) can launch the proposed matter and fund a couple of weeks in court (and don’t forget that the solicitor, if in attendance, will also be charging for his time there), there is the matter of what happens if Stuchbery loses. No, that is not left to chance. The lawyers for the proposed defendant, Robinson, will in that event have to have their costs covered too. Even if they only come to the same level as Stuchbery’s (which I doubt), that puts Stuchbery (and possibly others who have funded the claim) £20,000+ in the hole. It could be a great deal more. Maybe even hundreds of thousands.
Stuchbery is an Australian citizen, maybe also a German one now (I do not know). He has no real property in the UK or, as far as I know, even in Germany, where he now lives. He has no, or no substantial, monies in the UK (or anywhere?). He does not have a substantial income or a full-time job.
On the above facts, and if Robinson applies in court for that, Stuchbery is almost certain to have to provide “security for costs”, i.e. [see above] monies “paid into court” (into a court-controlled account) to cover Robinson’s costs should Stuchbery lose his case. Likewise, on the above facts, that would almost certainly have to be the whole of Robinson’s likely outlay in defending the case. Certainly tens of thousands of pounds. Possibly over £100,000.
If Robinson applies for security for costs, if the court agrees with the application, but then Stuchbery cannot come up with whatever sum is demanded (I cannot think that it would be lower than £20,000; probably far far more), then the claim (the case) will be struck out, possibly with costs awarded to Robinson.
Stuchbery will probably have to raise £40,000+ even to start his case.
I think that my readers will understand better now why I think that Stuchbery has no chance of success regardless of the merits of his case (if any).
Presumably, Stuchbery does understand that, in a case like this, witnesses (he himself, Robinson, others) will have to give evidence, be cross-examined on that, all the while with Stuchbery staying in the UK, perhaps for weeks or even a month or more.
I have never met Nick Griffin, I have never spoken with him. My view of him is, in a nutshell, that he did very well with the BNP to make a large part of a silk purse out of what was mostly a sow’s ear. He made the BNP at least half-credible (up to 2009). He and Andrew Brons got elected as BNP MEPs. He has courage. He has intelligence, too.
On the more doubtful side, Griffin was naive enough to think that he had been invited onto BBC Question Time because the BNP had all but broken through into the magic circle of “major parties” and was being treated as such; instead, he was ambushed and trashed in a totally planned way. All those who took part in that ambush are enemies of the people. That finished the BNP.
As to what Griffin writes, I agree with much of it and in particular with much of his recent attack on the corrupted “Alt-Right” and other [what some call] “kosher nationalists”.
Griffin has reposted one or two of my tweets (though I am now expelled from Twitter) and GAB posts. I must have retweeted or reposted a couple of dozen of his.
I think that Griffin is basically right to say that the purely political fight, in the manner of the BNP, UKIP etc in the UK (he says throughout Western Europe) is now not possible. He has a point. Encroaching State/ZOG repression, Jewish Zionist influence and control, the ever-increasing hordes (armies?) of blacks and browns in the urban areas. Still, God works in mysterious ways…
I had not heard of Mark Collett until this year, or possibly, peripherally, 2017. He once worked with Nick Griffin and was tried –and re-tried– (and acquitted) with him:
I have read The Fall of Western Man, Collett’s book. I agreed with almost all of it, though I was slightly underwhelmed. I do not think that Adolf Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg or Oswald Spengler have much to worry about.
I have from time to time reposted and (prior to my expulsion) retweeted Collett’s comments online. He, however, has (as far as I know) never reposted any of mine.
Nick Griffin led the BNP; Collett led part of the BNP (the “youth wing”) and, obviously, wants to be seen as a nationalist leadership figure generally. Both men do seem to take the view that they must cultivate a slightly aloof persona in order to achieve their purposes. I have no quarrel with that, so long as the attempt does not look silly. At present (again, as far as I know) they are both generals without troops, and the fact that they both have about 35,000 Twitter followers means almost nothing. I myself, not a leader of or even a member of any party or group, had 3,000. I wonder how many of my 3,000 Twitter followers would follow me into battle– or even to a meeting in a pub? Not too many, anyway.
My point is that a political leader must of course have the aura of leadership, of slight mystery, of slight aloofness (as ever, we look to Hitler), but that must be based on the real, not merely or only that which is the result of cultivation.
In the past year or two we have seen numerous social nationalists persecuted by Zionist Jewry. I myself was disbarred in 2016, then questioned by the police in 2017, at the instigation of connected packs of Zionist Jews. Others have to date suffered more: satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz; Jez Turner of the London Forum. Turner is right now sitting in Wandsworth Prison and will not be released until Autumn.
I have seen no word of support from either Nick Griffin or Mark Collett for any one of the above-named people.
Leadership demands fealty and loyalty: the leader demands both fealty and loyalty from his troops. However, loyalty works both ways. The leader must give more than he receives. Those who would be first must be the servant of all. The duty of those who would lead social nationalism is to support all social nationalists who remain true.
In the short time (about 5 hours) since the above was published, I have been made aware that in fact both Mark Collett and Nick Griffin have expressed support (on Twitter and GAB) on at least two occasions for Alison Chabloz, though not (as far as I know, to date) for Jez Turner. Anyone knowing differently is welcome to comment in the Comments section below.
Yesterday, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced updated and expanded “guidelines” on how the Crown Prosecution Service will deal with so-called “hate crime”. These new guidelines have been heavily criticized as, in effect, creating new and tyrannical law, despite the fact that the guidelines are neither primary nor secondary legislation.
In this blog post, I examine only those aspects of relevance to socio-political tweeting etc, meaning in practice those with a racial or religious element.
Part of the concern around the guidelines revolves around Alison Saunders herself. Many regard her as a sinister though incompetent figure, a “graduate” (member) of the pervasive and infiltrative organization (some say “cult”) called Common Purpose. In 2013, when Alison Saunders was CPS chief for the London area, a Freedom of Information request was made as to her connection with Common Purpose. At first, the reply was affirmative, but that was then alteredto negative:
The answer is relevant to the new CPS guidelines because the motto of Common Purpose is “Leading Beyond Authority”. In other words, the citizens of the UK cannot rely any more on law or decent public administration, because organizations such as the CPS, full of “CP” “graduates”, will, it is suspected, manipulate the regulations etc in order to achieve a desired (by them) result.
Definition of “Hate Crime”
It is vital to note that there is no statutory (or accepted Common Law) definition of “hate crime”:
“A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws.” [Wikipedia]
Wikipedia continues: “For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.”
In other words, there must first be a crime as designated by law and only then can that alleged crime (if one of those “specified”, i.e. assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) be treated by the police and CPS as a “hate crime.” The new guidelines reflect that existing position:
“The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”
“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”
It will be noted that there must first be a criminal offence. If there is not, then it matters not at all how “unfriendly”, “prejudiced” etc is the alleged perpetrator.
Further, sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether any crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is “racially or religiously aggravated.”
Incredibly, while the police and/or CPS will “flag” a case as a “hate crime”, “it is not CPS policy to remove a flag in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a sentence uplift. This in part reflects the commitment to treat hate crime seriously and to support the victim’s perception and also to encourage community confidence in reporting all such offending.”
So a crime which is “flagged” at first as a “hate crime” but for which flagging there is eventually no evidence, will still be treated, in Court, as a “hate crime”, resulting (on conviction) in a far more severe sentence. How can this be regarded as in any way just?
The guidelines now continue:
“If the case passes the evidential stage and it is a case of racial or religious hate crime, or it is motivated by discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, or religion or belief, it is more likely that a prosecution is required in the public interest.”
This is a hardening of the position taken in the earlier CPS guidance and may mean an increase in the number of prosecutions. However, there is still a requirement for a substantive crime to have been committed and there is still a requirement for sufficient evidence to support prosecution. New crimes have not been created, but the danger is that zealous CPS and –especially– police persons will get the bit between their teeth and start to ignore the basics in their quest to hunt the witches. Anyone who has read the outpourings of the UK police forces online recently will not be reassured as to their objectivity in this respect. There is an unthinking “me-too” political correctness abroad, one which seems impervious to logic, argument, reason or plain commonsense.
Other Aspects Relevant to a Charge
The CPS legal guidance for its staff can be found here:
The full details can be found via the above link but one key element is that there must be one or more identifiable “victims” of the “crime”. In other words, if there is no identifiable victim, then the matter falls in respect of the “hostility” required under the relevant statutes.
How the CPS regards freedom of expression
“In deciding upon the public interest of charging these offences it is essential that prosecutors keep in mind that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, the rights of the individual to freedom of expression must be balanced against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.”
It is noteworthy that the body of the new guidance neither mentions nor lists the Communications Act 2003, s.127 as among the statutes utilized in the prosecution of “hate crime”. However, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.145 and 146 (see hereinabove), anyone sentenced for having posted a “grossly offensive” tweet (etc) under the 2003 Act can receive a sentence uplift if the offending tweeting (etc) had a “hate crime” element (the maximum sentence being 6 months’ imprisonment, though the usual sentence is non-custodial).
One cannot analyze these matters without noting that the Zionist special-interest lobby is likely to try to pursue its political ends by abusing the new guidelines. Readers are referred to my own experience of January 2017:
I advise a defensive approach. Malicious persons, notably Zionists, try to make provocations by saying offensive things online, eg on Twitter, then (if the interlocutor replies in similar vein), reporting to Twitter, Facebook etc and even to the police. I have found that the easiest way to deal with such nuisances (in the short or medium term) is to block them (on Twitter), which tends to avoid conversations and disputes. It also means that it is much harder for the Zionists to report a tweeter to Twitter. I myself have seen, in the past few years, several Zionists lamenting that “he blocks us, so we cannot [make false accusations].” Yes, it means that the individual tweeter cannot answer back to the lying allegations the Zionists often make, but the solution is simple: just do not care what they may write about you! I don’t…
In other words, just try to avoid having any conversations with malicious Zionists or other nuisances online. Make it hard or impossible for them to make false or malicious reports to Twitter (etc) or the police.
In respect of tweets not specifically addressed to anyone, it is more difficult for those wishing to destroy freedom of expression to report them to Twitter or (a fortiori) to the police, so long as there is no evidence of direct incitement within the meaning of the relevant (1988) Act.
In extreme cases, just protect your tweets. You can also pre-block any obvious Zionists on Twitter (and most of them are indeed very obvious…).
In essence, the new social media guidelines are indeed another nail in the coffin of free speech in the UK, but are unlikely to stop socio-political comment online– which is why the conspiracy –and behind Alison Saunders stand Theresa May, Amber Rudd, secret groups, the whole #NWO and #ZOG farrago– is trying to get the big online platforms signed up to repression.
In the end, the net result of this latest silliness is likely to be a tsunami of pointless and/or malicious complaints to the police.
Update, 29 April 2019
Since I wrote the above blog post, Alison Chabloz has been convicted under Communications Act 2003, s.127, and is appealing (at time of writing, to the Divisional Court). However, the “guidelines” which are the subject of the article above do not seem to have had much practical effect in terms of changing prosecution or sentencing policy.
Much water under the bridge in relation to the Alison Chabloz case(s). To find out more, please use the search function on this blog.
In relation to repression of free speech generally, and as I predicted in the main article above, the ZOG strategy has been, not so much a tightening of laws criminalizing individual free speech, but a campaign of getting the major plaforms of social media to police free speech without any law having to be passed.
Thus we see that Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are simply expelling socio-political dissidents, and so removing both their inherent citizen-rights to free expression and (in the case of the prominent few) their online incomes. We have seen such as Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, David Icke, David Duke etc removed or largely removed from online platforms, the same also happening to less prominent people.