The Jew paedophile, sex predator, rapist etc Jeffrey Epstein has committed suicide, it is claimed. The circumstances seem mysterious, as when that other Jew disgrace, “Robert Maxwell”, supposedly fell off or jumped off or was pushed off his motor yacht in the region of the Canary Islands.
The Jew Epstein has been in the firing line (not literally, as he should have been) for years:
When “Robert Maxwell” died, his daughter, Ghislaine, who was completely mixed up with Epstein for decades (from age 29 or 30; she is now 57), said that she believed her father to have been murdered. Now Epstein’s death also raises questions. He too was mixed up with some of the most famous and/or powerful figures in the US and UK: Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew…
Robert Maxwell was thought to be a (perhaps the) major MOSSAD operative in Europe. Now we see that his daughter was intimate or at least friendly with many of the world’s powerful and uber-wealthy. That does not mean that she was operating or partly operating on behalf of the Israeli state or the world Zionist conspiracy, but it does raise questions.
One has to ask why Ghislaine Maxwell has not (at least not yet) been arrested either in the UK or USA. Apparently, some of the young girls abused by the Jew Epstein used to refer to the Jewess “Maxwell” as “the Madam”. Say no more…
So why no action against her? Is this the Jew-Zionist lobby working behind the scenes of our “democracy” again?
Prince Andrew
As far as I am concerned, Prince Andrew is a useless fellow, a complete waste of space. People always say “but he fought in the Falklands!”, as if a few weeks in action (in fact merely observing; he was never under direct fire) gave the prince a free ride for life (his birth already gave him that, I suppose). Admittedly, Andrew did serve for a number of years as Lieutenant, but his service is said to have been generally underwhelming. On retirement from the Royal Navy, he was given the rank of Honorary Captain, rather than promoted as substantive Captain. In 2015, Andrew was made Honorary Vice-Admiral (I have no idea whether he gets a toy battleship to go with that).
Typical British cap-doffing, always bending over backwards to show deference to “royalty”, is still endemic in the UK. People less enamoured of the royals have commented that the Press and royal PR people have also rather (in the vulgar phrase of today) “bigged-up” the WW2 service of Andrew’s father, Philip [see Notes, below]. He has lived off the public weal and his wife’s money for 70 years!
Prince Philip and that clan may not be actual lizards (as David Icke is said to have once claimed), but looking at Philip, I can see from where the idea might have originated…
This morning, I saw an account by Sky News about the Epstein scandal that somehow contrived to avoid the use of the words “Prince Andrew”! Incredible. Needless to say, the facts that Epstein was a Jew and Ghislaine Maxwell is a half-Jewess are also absent from all TV and Press reports. (and yes, many British people, in particular, are so naive that they might not realize).
Andrew, of course, married “Fergie”, with all the consequent scandal that entailed. Now, he is or was involved with a very wealthy woman called Goga Ashkenazi, born in Kazakhstan, and who is part-Jew, part-Muslim.
Andrew finished his official time with the Royal Navy in 2001 at the age of 40, since when he has played golf, flown around the world on rather easy “missions” for charity or government (more or less freeloading, hence his nickname of “air miles Andy”) and enjoyed himself.
“The Duke of York receives a £249,000 annuity from the Queen.[68]The Sunday Times reported in July 2008 that for “the Duke of York’s public role,… he last year received £436,000 to cover his expenses.”[69] On 8 March 2011, The Daily Telegraph reported: “In 2010, the Prince spent £620,000 as a trade envoy, including £154,000 on hotels, food and hospitality and £465,000 on travel.” [Wikipedia]. “Not a bad little earner”…
“Earlier in 2010, it was revealed that the Kazakhstan President’s billionaire son-in-law Timur Kulibayev paid the Duke of York’s representatives £15 million – £3 million over the asking price – via offshore companies, for the Duke’s Surrey mansion, Sunninghill Park. Kulibayev frequently appears in US dispatches as one of the men who have accumulated millions in gas-rich Kazakhstan.[100]
In May 2012, it was reported that Swiss and Italian police investigating “a network of personal and business relationships” allegedly used for “international corruption” were looking at the activities of Enviro Pacific Investments which charges “multi-million pound fees” to energy companies wishing to deal with Kazakhstan.[101] The trust is believed to have paid £6 million towards the purchase of Sunninghill which now appears derelict.[101] In response, a Palace spokesman said “This was a private sale between two trusts. There was never any impropriety on the part of The Duke of York”.[101]
Libby Purves wrote in The Times in January 2015: “Prince Andrew dazzles easily when confronted with immense wealth and apparent power. He has fallen for ‘friendships’ with bad, corrupt and clever men, not only in the US but in Libya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, wherever.”
In May 2016, a fresh controversy broke out when the Daily Mail alleged that the Duke had brokered a deal to assist a Greek and Swiss consortium secure a £385 million contract to build water and sewerage networks in two of Kazakhstan’s largest cities, while working as British trade envoy, and had stood to gain a £4 million payment in commission.[102] The newspaper published an email from the Duke to Kazakh oligarch Kenges Rakishev, (who had allegedly brokered sale of the Prince’s Berkshire mansion Sunninghill Park), and claimed that Rakishev had arranged meetings for the consortium. After initially claiming the email was a forgery, Buckingham Palace sought to block its publication as a privacy breach.[103] The Palace strongly denied the allegation that the Duke had acted as a “fixer” calling the article “untrue, defamatory and a breach of the editor’s code of conduct.” [Wikipedia]
This is, however, not meant to be an attack on Prince Andrew, however well-merited. Let’s look at a few others in the useless rabble that now constitutes the “royals”.
Prince Charles
I once met the Prince of Wales, at the official Residence of H.M. Ambassador in the capital city of a foreign country “East of Suez”. There were about 30 people at the reception, though I myself knew only a couple of the guests and a few of the diplomats (including the ambassador). HRH moved through the groups of informally arranged guests, saying hello to almost everyone and speaking with a few favoured people, of which I was one (my time with him probably lasted all of three minutes, though having drunk about a bottle of red wine, I cannot be sure!).
My impressions? Shorter than I expected from having seen photographs and TV news footage for much of my life. I was somewhat taller than him. I was also surprised to see that he was almost bald in places, especially the top of his head (which I could look down on as he turned away). As to personality, I should say pleasant, slightly mocking or humorous (he made a joke about the city and country, which was unexpected). Not someone difficult or rude.
I can support some of what Charles does for animal welfare and the environment, though some of the lustre rubs off when one thinks of his “sporting” slaughter of birds, foxes and other creatures (I let him off as regards salmon and trout!).
Charles has made (with expert help of course) a big success of the Duchy Originals brand, and has in general advanced the cause of organic agriculture. I do think that he in general means well, but his self-pity and preciousness (retailed in various newspaper anecdotes) does make him hard to much like as far as the public is concerned (and that is leaving aside the whole Diana and Camilla saga).
Prince Edward
What can one say? I suppose that the, er, fag-end of a royal house always has a few “princes” of this sort. After dropping out of the Royal Marines fairly quickly, Edward decided, as Wikipedia puts it “on a career in entertainment”. A royal prince playing the theatre manager? Unglaublich… He married a public relations woman and they, apparently, have had two children together.
Princess Anne
Someone who seems to have all the charm of her father. Nuff said. In fact, I have over the years heard some inside track, but I prefer to leave that out of this article (not least because some sources, though thought reliable, may not be).
It has been asserted that Prince Albert was half-Jewish, his real or natural father having been a Jew banker. I do not know whether there is any truth in that, but certainly some members of the Royal Family have looked quite Semitic. Princess Margaret looked very Semitic indeed. Lord Snowdon, her husband, used to make bitter remarks to her face, and about how she looked like an old Jewess, in the years when their marriage was disintegrating.
If reports can be believed, until the 21st Century dawned, all male children of the first rank of the Royal Family were actually circumcised and not even merely by a surgeon, but by a Jewish religious expert. It’s all very strange.
Freemasonry
The links between the Royal Family and freemasonry are well-known and documented.
Overall view
One can see that the British monarchy, qua monarchy (i.e. not qua a function of the “celebrity” culture), is running into the sand. The oldest generation, meaning the Queen and Prince Philip, are now not far from 100 years of age. Prince Charles is now 70 and will soon be 71.
As for Princes William and Harry, “tame thick princelings” pretty much covers it, though they are now perhaps a little old to be called “princelings”— William is now 37.
William’s marriage to Kate, though outside normal royal tradition, could be presented as sort-of within it. Kate is said to be part-Jewish, and so through the matrilineal side, i.e. which the Jews themselves accept as conferring “Jewishness”. However, that sort of thing goes over the head of the public and so, if you like, “caviar to the general”. Not so Harry’s marriage to Meghan, aka the Royal Mulatta (previously married to a Jew in California). That has the possibility (especially when combined with the couple’s absurd recent antics), to sever any bond of affection or respect still binding monarchy to “the people”.
My view
What strikes me increasingly about the Royal Family is its sheer irrelevance both to the UK as a whole and to the people of the UK. When most subjects (as they were; now citizens) had gone through the Second World War, good and bad times economically, had only 2 or 3 TV stations, and everyone wore poppies in November, there was some kind of bond or at least link. Now, the only thing linking the “royals” with the people is that of prurient interest (of the latter in the former), a link no more strong than the people have with pop stars, Katie Price or the cast of the latest braindead “reality” show. As for the proliferating population of “blacks and browns”, very few these days have any interest in the “royals” (now that few have come directly from former colonies).
I have no great animus against monarchy as a system. It is sometimes the best system, whether absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy. However, Britain now is outgrowing this long-established institution. There is, perhaps, still a place for a constitutional figurehead, but beyond that I think that the time has come to say goodbye.
There it is: The Jews Epstein and “Maxwell” both admitted that they were gathering blackmail materials on the rich and famous. This must be connected with Israeli Intelligence.
Better make it quick, before the bitch flees to Israel…
Ah…: “Her current whereabouts are unknown and sources close to her claim she planned to ‘totally disappear’.” [Daily Mail]. Right…to bloody Israel! I guessed right. Give that man a cee-gar! I wonder how long it will be before the (half)-Jewess starts screaming about “anti-Semitism”?
The Daily Mail today has an exclusive on the scandal. Beyond even the details, the photograph of “royal prince” Andrew, peering round the front door of the Jew’s mansion, is a stunning indictment in itself. Andrew, Jew’s flunkey (or should that be “Jews'”? They seem to be numerous around him)…
…it is all rather reminiscent of the 1940 German film, Jud Suss [The Jew Suss]!
note: The full version of the 1940 film Jud Suss is now censored, completely removed from YouTube (as indeed I predicted, a few years ago, would happen…). Only a few short clips (such as the one above) and the —far less hardhitting— 1934 film version of the (true) story, are still up.
However, Jud Suss is still on the Internet, though it must be sought out in quiet corners. It is well worth seeing (why else would “they” try to “disappear” it?). Here is one good copy:
Buckingham Palace PR people have released a truly pathetic exculpa on behalf of Prince Andrew, saying how “appalled” he is at the “revelation” that his friend, the billionaire Jew Epstein, was a sex criminal etc. Really, how strange. So in 2011 and 2012, when Andrew was visiting and perhaps staying in the Jew’s Manhattan mansion (and acting as the Jew’s flunkey at the door), he, Andrew, was unaware that Epstein had been convicted and imprisoned in 2008 over such matters? Hardy ha ha…It was the subject of publicity at the time and thereafter…
In fact, Epstein’s money and connections had greatly helped the Jew himself in 2008: a light sentence, mostly spent on “day release” (so prison was just somewhere less comfortable than, say, the Pierre, or the Waldorf-Astoria, in which to doss down in overnight); then early parole. The fix was in, somewhere, that much is obvious.
In other, connected, news, the Queen seems to have required the “royal prince” to fly home early from the traditional Summer break at Balmoral.
Andrew is now exposed as, at best, a complete fool and grifter; at worst (and the worst is more likely than the best), a user of procured young girls, procured for him by both the Jew rapist Epstein and Epstein’s one-time “ho”, the half-Jewess Ghislaine “Maxwell”, daughter of MOSSAD operative and fraudster “Robert Maxwell” (and herself quite likely “connected”). Israeli Intelligence and the Jew-Zionist web worldwide must have learned a lot and suborned many, taking the operation as a whole. The Royal Family has probably lost most of its own secrets via Andrew.
In other news, thick princeling Harry, and the Royal Mulatta, have just vacated the UK on their third private-jet jaunt in less than a month (the first was, laughably, to go to Sicily to a “climate-change” event!).
It occurs to me that, at one time, the “royals” of the various European states were the acme of European society, but now absurd end-of-line “royals” want to ape the Hollywood film-star lifestyle.
Worse, Harry has become a figure out of American sitcom-land, the henpecked husband whose petulant young wife runs him ragged with her absurd demands. “Royal Married With Children“…(though in fact, in this case, she is about 4 years older than her husband, 38 compared to his 34).
The royals are now squandering their life’s gold heedlessly.
and now, reverting to Andrew’s very strange behaviour and lifestyle, it turns out that Andrew hosted Epstein at Balmoral, while the Monarch was in residence, at that!
Thick Andrew (all the royals are both painfully thick and cringingly uncultured) is of course “appalled” at the behaviour of his Jew billionaire “friend”, so appalled that he stayed at the Jew’s mansion, used the young girls there (almost certainly) and had nice chats with the Jew while walking in Central Park…2 years after the Jew had been convicted of sex crimes.
“Time and again, Andrew, who a courtier once reportedly described as having “a pompous level of self-importance”, has demonstrated an eye-watering lack of judgment. Palace staff have rated him the rudest of royals, according to reports. A secret cable, published on WikiLeaks in 2010, revealed a US ambassador describing Andrew speaking “cockily” during one official lunch,leading to a discussion that “verged on the rude”.” [The Guardian]
“Rightly, or wrongly, there is a perceived air of arrogance about Andrew, and he is described by various people as boorish and very self-centred,” said Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty Magazine. “Perhaps we shouldn’t be judging the book by its cover. But, certainly, that’s the impression he has given for a very long time.” [The Guardian]
The Guardian’s piece ends with an almost “sympathetic” paragraph:
“His fate is that of the typical second son, struggling to find a role. “I think despite knowing he was always going to go down the line of succession, the fact that in his youth he was second in line to the throne, and now he is wherever he is, that must be quite a blow to your confidence and feeling of importance,” said Little.”
On the other hand, the stupid arrogant bastard might actually show a little humility (I mean to the British people who have been subsidizing him all his rotten life, not to the wealthy Jews for whom he seems to behave like a doormat), not to mention gratitude to the British people (and to Fate or God, or the gods, without whose largesse “Prince” Andrew would just be a very very mediocre naval officer who would struggle to rise beyond the rank of lieutenant).
…and still it continues, with painfully thick Andrew still trying to say that he had no idea that the Jew Epstein had been convicted a couple of years previously for sex crimes (as if the police would not have known!)
Daily Mail: “A source said that when working as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment between 2001 and 2011, Andrew was asked to travel regularly to the US. Since relinquishing this role in 2011, they maintained Andrew had continued to travel to the US, but claimed that his focus, particularly with Pitch@Palaces, had been on ‘other markets’.”
A “royal prince” trying to play the Internet “entrepreneur”? Ha ha! It would be tacky even if successful. As it is, it just looks pathetic, like thicko Andrew himself and the whole “right royal” circus!
…and it looks as if I was right about the connection with Israeli Intelligence!
“In light of what is now known about Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation and sex trafficking activities, several reports from the late 1990s and early 2000s contain details long since forgotten regarding Epstein’s relationship with Prince Andrew.
“One particularly censored article that appeared in London’s Evening Standard in January 2001, for instance, gives several indications regarding the apparent entrapment of Prince Andrew as part of Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation, which is now known to have been connected to intelligence — specifically Israeli military intelligence, according to recent revelations in the case.” [Mint Press News]
Prince Andrew caught “bang to rights” (again). A useless, charmless, pretentious idiot who thinks that he is terribly important. Had he not been born where and “who” he was, Andrew would be —at most— a small businessman, and an unsuccessful one at that.
Prince Andrew thought that “it was the right and honourable thing to do”, to stay with the convicted Jew sex predator Epstein. In the immortal word of “Manuel”, “Que?”.
Prince Andrew was not only able to remember his visit to the Woking branch of Pizza Express, but was able to say with certainty that he went there on the very day on which he is alleged to have screwed the American 17 y o trafficked by the Jew Epstein and the half-Jewess Ghislaine “Maxwell”!
Remarkable memory, to be able to recall the exact date, 18 years in the past…
Call Detective Columbo…
Apart from that, it made me laugh that Andrew went to Pizza Express. I mean, I do not expect a “royal prince” to eat drumsticks at a banquet every evening, casting the half-eaten ones over his shoulder in the manner of Henry VIII as played by Charles Laughton, or to eat only slices of cucumber washed down by champagne, like one of the cavalry officers in Anna Karenina, but…Pizza Express?…at…Woking?!
Seems that Andrew met the “ho” “madam” Ghislaine “Maxwell” as recently as June 2019! Looks as though they were discussing legal strategems, aka “how are we going to get out of this?”
Well, they could always take a cruise off the Canary Isles together…
…and the popular prints are just not giving up; here (see below), a TV doctor rubbishes Andrew’s claim that he, Andrew, cannot or could not sweat by reason of having “been shot at” in the Falklands (and that’s even leaving aside the —apparent— fact that Andrew never was shot at during the few weeks that he spent in the Falklands, and that the nearest that he came to being in peril that way was when he observed from a helicopter a ship being shot at):
According to the New York Post, the “ho” “madam”, Ghislaine “Maxwell”, wanted to become la Contessa Cicogna, but failed in that. I presume that the Italian’s family were appalled at the prospect of a Jewess (actually, half-Jewess) polluting the family escutcheon…
Now it turns out that the arrogant stupid bastard has been pocketing bungs worth millions. I suppose that he wanted to try to keep up financially with his billionaire half-Jew, half-Muslim girlfriend from Kazakhstan. He must be binned (the rest of his family too). Time for some kind of republic.
Well, give that man a cee-gar! Turns out that I guessed right (I usually do, if I myself say so):
“Jeffrey Epstein’s socialite ‘madam’ Ghislaine Maxwell ‘is being hidden from the FBI in a series of safe houses because of the information she has on powerful people’“
Maxwell has remained incognito since Epstein’s arrest and death behind bars
New report claims both she and Epstein were ‘assets’ for a foreign government
Source says they funneled dirt on the rich and powerful to foreign spies
Now Maxwell may be hiding in a safehouse in Israel, the new report claims
She is a British and US citizen, and daughter of an alleged Mossad operative.“
“An explosive new report has asserted that deceased sex criminal Jeffery Epstein and his alleged ‘madame’ Ghislaine Maxwell were foreign intelligence ‘assets’, and that she is currently hiding in a safehouse in Israel.“
“She is not in the US, she moves around. She is sometimes in the UK, but most often in other countries, such as Israel, where her powerful contacts have provided her with safe houses and protection,’ the source said.“
“Born in France, Maxwell is both a U.S. citizen and British subject. Her family’s alleged ties to Israel’s national intelligence service, Mossad, have been well documented.
Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, was a Czech-born British media mogul whose financial fraud in raiding the Mirror Group pension fund was discovered after his death in 1991.
Also a British member of parliament, Robert Maxwell reportedly had ties to British intelligence, the Soviet KGB, and Mossad — and was suspected of being a double or even triple agent by British Foreign Office officials.“
Western world, wake up to the Jew/Zionist/Israel conspiracy. It’s everywhere…
Update, 7 January 2020
Seems that the “ho” “madam”, Ghislaine Maxwell, “is reportedly in hiding and being guarded round the clock by former US Navy SEALs amid fears her life is in danger.” [Daily Mirror]. In Israel? Some US Navy Seals are Jews, perhaps surprisingly. I met one myself once.
Latest about the half-Jew “ho” madam, Ghislaine “Maxwell”:
Ryan Dawson@RyLiberty
British Spoiled Brat and Child Rapist Ghislaine Maxwell is hiding in Israel. Over 8000 pages of her e-mails have been hacked. US media is doing triple back flips to avoid mentioning the entire ring was Jewish and financed by Jewish supremacists.
Well, there is not much “British” about the aforesaid “ho”: born in France of one Jew and one French parent, though educated in England (Marlborough College and Balliol, Oxford).
The story is interesting, though. I wonder whether this alleged telephone hacking had a connection to the Saudi Crown Prince, like other hacking exposed in recent weeks? I speculated some months ago that the “ho” Maxwell was hiding out in Israel, presumably under MOSSAD or Aman control.
“It is claimed in the unsealed papers that an island orgy was one of three occasions when Jane Doe #3 was forced to have sex with Andrew. The other locations were Maxwell’s London flat and and in New York.” [The Guardian]
Andrew’s motive is obvious: to try to exculpate himself; what, though, of Dershowitz? He is said to have visited the Epstein island and travelled on Epstein’s jet. He may have abused young girls himself. Whether that was so or not, was that and is that the whole story?
We know that the Jew who was mainly known as “Robert Maxwell” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell was a major MOSSAD operative. His daughter, Ghislaine, is now the prime focus of the post-Epstein inquiry, and is on trial in Federal court in New York. She, it is said, was also an Israeli agent, either MOSSAD or Aman, or both. Epstein (who has now “gone up the chimney”) the same.
We know that Israeli Intelligence co-opts Israeli and other Jew “civilians” as operatives when necessary. Look at the Dikko case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dikko_affair): “Though Israel, at the time, did not have formal diplomatic relations with Nigeria, there were less visible ties between the two nations. In particular, Nigeria was an important source of oil for Israel, and Israel was a significant supplier of arms to Nigeria. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was tasked with locating Dikko and bringing him back to Nigeria to stand trial.” [Wikipedia]
” Mossad recruited Levi-Arie Shapiro, an Israeli doctor who was a consultant anesthetist and director of the intensive care unit at HaSharon Hospital. He was to fly to London and participate in the operation. Shapiro’s job would be to drug Dikko, and insert an endotracheal tube to keep him from choking on his own vomit while being transported in a crate.” [Wikipedia]
A Jew (whether Israeli or any other nominal nationality) may be a doctor, a lawyer, or whatever, but is first and foremost a Jew and likely to do whatever Israel and its “services” want…
It may well be that the successful Epstein blackmail and suborning operation, likely to have been very productive for Israeli Intelligence, was in part facilitated by the Jew Dershowitz. I imagine that his role was, precisely, to shield Epstein (and so Maxwell and/or others) from legal inquiry from both USA and UK.
Meanwhile, Ghislaine “Maxwell”, the half-Jew (Mischling) “ho” “madam”, is pulling out all the stops to get released on bail in he USA. Seems that she is married to a Jew “tech millionaire”. The bail suggested by her legal team may be USD $30 million. Where do the Jews get such money? Is the “husband” stumping up? Is any of it from monies stolen from UK Mirror Group pensioners by the “ho’s” repulsive father, Robert Maxwell?
“Borgerson was involved with the Council on Foreign Relations.” Well, well, was he really? A slightly unusual connection for someone who spent 4 years as a US Coastguard officer, though others have said that he was a US Navy SEAL. A Jew as Navy SEAL may sound odd, but there are some; I myself met one such, about 18 years ago, at Charleston, South Carolina.
I thought that Ghislaine “Maxwell” would have played the “antisemitism” card by now, but admittedly that would be hard to justify in New York City, especially when the judge is herself Jewish! Indeed, the judge is more Jewish than Ghislaine Maxwell, who is genetically only half-Jew: her mother was a French Protestant, who “converted” to Judaism (and became fanatically pro-Jew and pro-Israel) after meeting the MOSSAD asset “Robert Maxwell”.
Update, 25 April 2021
Ghislaine Maxwell now charged with further and even more serious offences:
[President Clinton, a complete NWO/ZOG puppet, mired in sleaze of all kinds, greets the paedophile Jew criminal and Israeli Intelligence asset Epstein, and his “ho”, the half-Jew Israeli asset Ghislaine Maxwell, at the White House in 1993]
The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell is apparently scheduled for November 2021, so it is interesting that quite sympathetic documentaries are now appearing…
I notice that that ABC doc features Robert Maxwell’s son, Ian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Maxwell], as well as journalists who are either Jewish or at least perceived by many as generally pro-Jewish.
Having said that, the film does contain material not entirely exculpatory of Ghislaine Maxwell. On the other hand, turning it around again, it might be argued that, bearing in mind what has already been exposed, the only thing for Ghislaine Maxwell to do is to limit the damage— to accept a hit, but a limited hit.
[the Jew Epstein, smugly smirking in front of one of his private jets. It is good to know that the evil Jew exploiter was sent “up the chimney” not so many years later]
Update, 9 December 2021
Below, a photograph admitted into evidence in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, showing her giving the Jew exploiter Epstein a foot massage on one of his private jets:
Guilty on 5 out of 6 charges. Forecast to be sentenced to (up to) 65 years. These being Federal offences, parole chances are minimal. An appeal has been or is in process of being lodged.
Update, 15 January 2022
Ghislaine Maxwell may get a retrial, based on apparent procedural and other problems to do with some of the jurors. Meanwhile, sentencing has been set down for 28 June 2022.
In other news, Andrew Windsor, the thick bully and freeloader (etc) formerly known as “Prince”, has lost a number of military and other titles and ranks (including effectively, though not officially, “HRH”), and may even lose his title “Duke of York”.
If and when Andrew is completely reduced to the ranks, it may send a shiver down the spines of other “Royal Family” members on the right royal gravytrain, especially but not exclusively the minor ones.
“Seems that the person formerly known as Prince (Andrew) is probably going to request a civil jury in the case brought against him by one of the victims of the Jew Epstein. To my mind, this is a strategy unlikely to succeed. I am still nominally an attorney at the New York Bar, though I have never practised law in that state (I passed the exam 32 years ago), but my view about this matter comes more from my knowledge of Americans themselves.
Andrew Windsor is on the wrong side tactically: British, as against his accuser, an American. A man as against a woman, in a generally feministic part of the world. An older man as against a younger woman. An hereditary foreign “royal” as against a US-born-and-bred US citizen. Very wealthy, as against someone without inherited wealth, and brought up in either a “trailer” or a very modest house.
Does Andrew Windsor really think that a civil jury in New York City will be on his side? Maybe this is a tactic to gain time while his lawyers find out how much the lady’s price might be. A great deal more than the rent of a Manhattan apartment and a free seat on a private jet, anyway.“
So Andrew Windsor, “formerly known as Prince”, has settled the civil suit brought in New York by Virginia Giuffre (as was). Rumours abound that the settlement is around £12M in British money.
“EXCLUSIVE: Bill Clinton’s special advisor who let Jeffrey Epstein into the White House seven times and flew on the Lolita Express dies at 59 – the latest associate of the former President to suffer an early demise“
Ehud Barak…[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak]. Now there’s a name not quite in sync with the others. I wonder what he was up to, bearing in mind the Israeli Intelligence connection with both the Jew Epstein and the half-Jew Ghislaine “Maxwell”.
Unless either an appeal happens (and is successful), or a pardon is granted by the U.S. President, Ghislaine Maxwell will be incarcerated until she is 80 years old (2041). There is no parole, as such, in the U.S. Federal system, only in individual states’ systems. However, an inmate can get nearly 2 months “credit” for every year served, dependent on behaviour, so on a 20-year sentence a couple of years might get shaved off.
It is all starting to come out. Names are being revealed. I notice that a very high proportion of the guilty are Jews. I think well over half. Yet in the American population, only 2.4% “identify” as Jewish. So the proportion of Jews visiting the Jew Epstein’s island was about twenty times their proportion in the US population…
Of course, the main traffickers have already been well and truly dealt with. Epstein himself has gone “up the chimney”, and the half-Jewess Ghislaine Maxwell is likely to be in US Federal prison until she is over 80 (she is presently 62). She still faces a further Federal trial (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghislaine_Maxwell), so may be sentenced to a further term, though she will probably be released while still under 85…
I am sure that the Israelis would welcome her back. After all, they allowed her unpleasant and fraudulent Jew father, Robert “Maxwell”, to be buried on the supposedly sacred Mount of Olives in Jerusalem (presumably for his services to MOSSAD etc), though Ghislaine Maxwell is said to believe that MOSSAD or other Israeli agency murdered him and then passed it off as suicide or accident (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell#Death).
“Prince Andrew is ‘terrified’ to visit the US in case he is arrested amid calls for a fresh FBI probe into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, sources claimed last night.
The disgraced Duke of York has barely left Britain in nearly six years, with insiders claiming he fears arrest, civil lawsuits, or being subpoenaed if he travels abroad.
The 64-year-old’s anxiety has only deepened following the release of court documents that have sparked demands for a fresh criminal probe into Epstein’s network.
Andrew has always denied allegations of sexual misconduct but paid millions in an out-of-court settlement to Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre in 2022.
In 2020, the FBI asked the Home Office for assistance in questioning Andrew, but the investigation was put on hold last year.
However, fresh scrutiny has emerged after High Court documents last week revealed an email exchange between Andrew and Epstein in February 2011, in which the prince wrote: ‘We’ll play some more soon.’
The Duke of York sent a bombshell email pledging to ‘keep in close touch’, despite claiming he had ceased all contact with the American financier weeks earlier, it has emerged.
The new evidence suggests Andrew may have lied in his infamous Newsnight interview.
He insisted to Emily Maitlis in the disastrous 2019 grilling at Buckingham Palace that he had stopped seeing Epstein in early December 2010, when they were photographed walking through New York’s Central Park.
The Duke said: ‘I never had any contact with him from that day forward.”
Meanwhile, useless and nasty parasite “Prince of the Blood” Andrew was invited recently to attend Church with Charles, Camilla etc. Semi-rehabilitation exercise?
“Jeffrey Epstein was a very wealthy man, but exactly how wealthy and where that money came from remains shrouded in mystery.
Newly unearthed emails last week shone light on Epstein’s role as freelance client development officer, acting as a channel between political figures and business titans, greasing up the former with lifestyles they could not afford and the latter with avenues of political influence.
…the questions about the source of Epstein’s wealth have never been fully resolved. He was worth nearly $600m at his death, thanks mostly to two wealthy billionaire clients – Victoria’s Secret founder Les Wexner and, later, Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black – as well as Johnson & Johnson heiress Elizabeth “Libet” Johnson, sister of former US ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson.
Between his collection of lavish homes in New York, Palm Beach and Paris, two private Caribbean islands, two jets and helicopter, Epstein held nearly $380m in cash and investments, according to his estate.
That wealth arrived suddenly. According to associates, until the end of the 90s, Epstein was living in a two-bedroom apartment on Manhattan’s Upper East Side close to the river. It was only when Maxwell arrived from London that his lifestyle was dramatically elevated.
Epstein moved to a townhouse on 68th Street and later to a 28,000-sq-ft mansion on 71st Street, later transferred to him by Wexner in 2011.
Steven Hoffenberg, a former business partner of Epstein convicted of running a Ponzi scheme, claimed that Maxwell’s father, disgraced press baron Robert Maxwell, introduced his daughter to Epstein in the late 1980s.“
“Revealed: 100 new Epstein emails ‘that could destroy’ Prince Andrew: Cache of ‘devastating’ messages between the Duke and convicted paedophile unearthed in US probe“
“Fergie’s Epstein lies exposed in bombshell email: She publicly apologised for taking abuser’s cash and vowed to cut ties with him, then weeks later told him: I only said it to save book deals.”
Apparently, that was the Jew Ehud Barak, whose presence at “Lolita Island” has been known for years. An evil bastard once part of Israel’s special forces attack and assassination group.
Well, I have just watched a Netflix documentary (4 hour-long episodes) about the case of the Jew Epstein etc. It ends with the indictment of the half-Jewish Ghislaine Maxwell, after the supposed suicide of Epstein, so misses out her conviction and sentence.
Fairly good as a documentary, and it kept the interest, but it completely failed to investigate the Israeli intelligence and espionage connections. Not one word…
In fact, despite almost all the main characters on the “guilty” and/or allegedly guilty side (Epstein, Maxwell, Dershowitz, many many others) having been Jews or (in Ghislaine Maxwell’s case) half-Jews, the word “Jew” was, I think, not uttered even once. Of course, not all of the alleged abusers were Jews (Andrew Windsor, Bill Clinton etc) but many were, and most if not all of those connected in other ways to Epstein were Jews, even those who were not American (e.g. “lord” Mandelson).
No mention of MOSSAD, Aman, the Trilateral Commission, or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Still, it was good to reflect, while watching, on the fact that the Jew Epstein has gone up the chimney, and that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in a U.S. prison, albeit now in a “Club Fed” soft one, and may remain there for much of the rest of her life.
Update, 9 March 2026
More about the evil of the half-Jew criminal, Ghislaine “Maxwell”:
I was just watching one of the seemingly endless re-runs of the early 1970s historical documentary series, The World at War, and in particular the episode named Barbarossa (from Fall Barbarossa or Operation Barbarossa, named after Friedrich I, the Holy Roman Emperor of the 12th Century who led the Third Crusade against the infidels).
I of course remember watching the TV series when it first was broadcast, in 1973. Many will say that it is in many parts contaminated by what amounts to Jew-Zionist propaganda, and I do not dispute that. Others point out, in a connected critique, that every alleged wrong done by the German Reich and its forces is given great prominence, whereas the cruelties and barbarities of the Soviet regime are barely mentioned (I suppose that it could be argued that the most famous chronicles of those terrible times were not published in English until after The World at War was made: GULAG Archipelago, for one). The criticisms are valid, but one cannot write off The World At War because of those flaws.
The strength of The World at War was that many of the leading personalities on all sides, such as German, English and other general officers, admirals etc, some members of Hitler’s circle (eg Speer), and a host of lesser-ranked people, were all still alive in 1973, giving their filmed testimony weight and immediacy.
Anyway, this article is not meant to focus on The World at War alone, but to examine a couple of “what if?” situations, both in the war years of 1939-45 (for Russians and Americans, 1941-45) and at other times.
The drive to Moscow in 1941
When I was first in Moscow, in 1993, my assigned driver, Pasha (an insolent loutish youth, apropos of nothing) pointed out, as we drove into the city from Sheremetyevo airport, the tank trap memorial, 23 kilometres from the Kremlin on the Leningrad Highway (Leningradskoye Shosse). The memorial marks the supposed furthest point of advance of the German forces in 1941. We drove near to the Kremlin only about 15-20 minutes later.
In 1941, the town of Khimki (now effectively a suburb of Moscow) had only just (1939) been administratively created, and was little developed. Now, hundreds of thousands live close by. Even since I drove through in 1993 there has been further development. Indeed, in the photograph below, taken in a recent year, there can be seen an IKEA warehouse. What would Stalin have had to say about that?!
The proximity to central Moscow amazed me. Even if not true (as some say) that some German advance-reconnaissance motorcyclists advanced yet further, to a point where they could see the golden domes of the Kremlin churches, it is incredible to see how close the forces of the Reich came to capturing Moscow.
In 1941, flush with the victories in the West in 1940, Hitler intended to advance in Russia against 3 main objectives: Leningrad, Moscow, and also the Ukraine generally, with its huge natural resources of grain crops etc and (in the Don Basin or Donbass), coal.
Hitler at first prioritized Leningrad, followed by the Donbass, and only then Moscow. His generals disagreed, arguing that only a decisive blow against Moscow could achieve victory. There were cogent arguments for all three main objectives:
Leningrad: reasons based around morale (the city of the two 1917 Revolutions and in particular the second, Bolshevik, one; the city bearing the name of Lenin); also, the city without which the all-weather port of Murmansk could probably not be held. If Murmansk fell, there could be no Allied resupply of the Soviet Union except via the Soviet Far East. At that stage of the war, that alone might sink the Soviet regime;
Ukraine: grain supplies, coal, even oil (should German forces be able to advance beyond Ukraine; also, protection for the Romanian oilfields supplying Germany);
Moscow: in the highly-centralized Stalinist system of the Soviet Union, everything came from the centre. Indeed, in the earliest hours of Barbarossa, Soviet officers were heard in German intercepts begging Moscow for orders: “we are under attack; what shall we do?”…It might be that, were Moscow to fall, the Soviet Union would fall. Hitler himself had said that “all we need do is kick open the front door and the whole rotten structure will come tumbling down.”
I have to say that (of course with the knowledge of the decades since 1941) I would favour the Moscow option. Had Moscow fallen, the bubble of the regime would have burst. In a small way, the open panic of the NKVD and CPSU when they thought the Germans would soon be in Moscow, and which led to open rebelliousness on the part of ordinary Moscow inhabitants, leads me to think that a German capture of the city would have led to a rapid fall of the Soviet regime in all of European Russia and perhaps beyond.
In any case, without Moscow under Soviet control, Leningrad must surely have fallen too before very long.
Hitler thought that it was more important to defeat the Soviet armies in the field. European thinking, thinking from the constricted lands of Central and Western Europe. In the Russian space, those otherwise valid ideas become less valid. New armies can be (and were) raised from the vast areas beyond the Volga, beyond the Urals.
As for going for three objectives at once, it might, under other stars, have worked, but the cautious Russian proverb says “chase two hares and you will not catch one”…
Still, what if? What if Moscow had fallen in 1941? Without a two-front war, Germany could not have been defeated in the West. There could not have been the Normandy Landings of 1944, certainly not successfully. European Russia would have been under German control, and the wider expanses of the Soviet Union would probably have been invaded and taken by a Russian but anti-Soviet army such as the Vlasov Army, which might have been expanded to a formidable force. Also, the forces under Rommel in North Africa would have been able to have been hugely reinforced, with the heady strategic possibility that Rommel might have been able not only to take Alexandria, Cairo and the Suez Canal, but Jerusalem, Damascus and then drive up through the foothills of the Caucasus towards Baku and its oilfields, linking up with the forces of Army Group South driving South-East from Ukraine; German forces did occupy part of the Caucasus and even part of Kalmykia in 1942 (occupying Elista briefly).
Mainland Europe would, in that overall scenario, have avoided most of the destruction of 1941-1945. In time, there would no doubt have been peace made between the German Reich and the British Empire. The calamitous decolonization in Africa etc would have been avoided, at least until such time as it would not have had such terrible effects on human and animal inhabitants. There would be either no State of Israel, or one which would not be the hub of a worldwide Jew-Zionist web. The forces of Stalinism would never have invaded Eastern and Central Europe. There would have been no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no Cuban Missile Crisis, and Castro himself would have been seen as just another Latin American tinpot dictator (which is all he was anyway, once Soviet backup was removed) and unable to pose as a world “statesman” (BBC and Labour Party idiots please note).
What if? If only…
And now for something completely different…
What if…Beeching had never happened? Alternatively, what if rail lines had been closed but maintenance of track continued?
I wonder how many British people of the post-1960s age, let alone the (often vacant-seeming) “millennials”, have even heard of Dr. Beeching, his reports and his “Beeching Axe”? [see Notes, below]. In outline, then:
“The first report identified 2,363 stations and 5,000 miles (8,000 km) of railway line for closure, 55% of stations and 30% of route miles, with an objective of stemming the large losses being incurred during a period of increasing competition from road transport and reducing the rail subsidies necessary to keep the network running; the second identified a small number of major routes for significant investment. The 1963 report also recommended some less well-publicised changes, including a switch to containerisation for rail freight“. [Wikipedia]
Note those figures: 2,363 rail stations to be closed! Not to mention 5,000 miles of track.
“Protests resulted in the saving of some stations and lines, but the majority were closed as planned, and Beeching’s name remains associated with the mass closure of railways and the loss of many local services in the period that followed. A few of these routes have since reopened, some short sections have been preserved as heritage railways, while others have been incorporated into the National Cycle Network or used for road schemes; others now are lost to construction, have reverted to farmland, or remain derelict.” [Wikipedia]
“Beeching’s reports made no recommendations about the handling of land after closures. British Rail operated a policy of disposing of land that was surplus to requirements. Many bridges, cuttings and embankments have been removed and the land sold for development. Closed station buildings on remaining lines have often been demolished or sold for housing or other purposes. Increasing pressure on land use meant that protection of closed trackbeds, as in other countries (such as the US Rail Bank scheme, which holds former railway land for possible future use) was not seen to be practical. Many redundant structures from closed lines remain, such as bridges over other lines and drainage culverts. They often require maintenance as part of the rail infrastructure while providing no benefit. Critics of Beeching argue that the lack of recommendations on the handling of closed railway property demonstrates that the report was short-sighted. On the other hand, retaining a railway on these routes, which would obviously have increased maintenance costs, might not have earned enough to justify that greater cost. As demand for rail has grown since the 1990s, the failure to preserve the routes of closed lines (such as the one between Bedford and Cambridge, which was closed despite Beeching recommending its retention) has been criticized.” [Wikipedia]
The above long extracts from Wikipedia lay out the facts quite well. What is missing is perspective. The postwar period in the UK, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, was one of almost wholesale destruction of old buildings, streets, villages, towns and cities. In fact, postwar redevelopment changed London a great deal more than the oft-cited depredations of the Luftwaffe (most of which bomb damage was concentrated on the Thames dock areas and nearby areas which suffered collateral damage). Naturally, demolitions are sometimes inevitable and sometimes an improvement [see Notes, below], but much that was valuable has gone.
In fact, the 5,000 miles of track closures earmarked by Beeching were in addition to about 3,318 miles of railway track closed between 1948 and 1962 and also a further 1,300 miles of passenger railway between 1923 and 1939! Over 9,000 miles of track!
So “what if”? What if, for example, the rail track had been maintained? That way, were (as now are) different ideas, new technical ideas, possible (eg robot trains, no-staff trains, small ultralight trains, trains made with lighter materials, trains using solar power etc), those tracks could be the basis for new transport links and could be further linked with new track.
The expense of a railway is mostly in the staff pay, pensions etc; after that, the cost of actually running trains (fuel etc); after that, maintenance of trains, track, bridges, tunnels etc. The core maintenance can be relatively little. In the USA, this is the policy (see Wikipedia in Notes, below). Political policy which is also a national insurance policy.
Not that the trekking ways, cycleways and nature walks which often have replaced the old railways are not useful too, but most rail track destroyed has been simply ploughed over, built over or abandoned. Pity.
My conclusion was that the Conservatives are unlikely to “win” a general election in the sense of achieving a House of Commons majority, but that it is not unlikely that the Conservative Party might, after a general election in late 2019 or early 2020, still be the largest party, i.e. the party with the largest number of MPs.
Until recently, I thought that Labour would probably be the largest party in the Commons after a 2019/2020 general election; now I am unsure. I still think that Labour might beat the Conservatives in terms of numbers of MPs, but the chances must now be close to 50-50.
I now want to lay out my thoughts about Labour’s chances
Just as the Conservative Party has been running out of rank and file members and also (good) ideas for several decades, the Labour Party, though in recent years, under Corbyn, increasing its membership and activist support base, has at the same time been —-what would be the correct term?–laagering or hunkering-down or being concentrated in ever-fewer loyal constituencies. The membership of the Conservatives is still getting older on average (the majority now being over 51, and almost 50% being 65+ years old), whereas the Labour membership is more evenly-aged and far greater in numbers. The Conservatives can muster, at least on paper, about 160,000, whereas Labour has over 500,000 members or registered supporters. All the same, Labour now has 247 MPs, while the Conservative Party has 311.
It is a truth universally acknowledged…that it is better to win 2 constituencies barely than it is to win 1 constituency by a huge majority. That in a nutshell is the problem faced by both major System parties but particularly Labour:
“Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party now has the 10 of safest seats [sic] in the UK, according to a new House of Commons analysis of marginal constituencies…The briefing adds that the number of very safe seats – those won by a margin of over 50 per cent – increased by 21 in 2015 to 37 in June’s election. Labour have all of the top 28.” [The Independent]
Piling up votes in safe seats does nothing, or very little, for a political party under the British “First Past The Post” [FPTP] electoral system. Labour is piling up empty votes. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Labour is now, to a large extent “the party of the blacks and browns” and other ethnic minorities (except Jews). The tendency of the ethnic minorities to huddle in concentrations, whether for historical, economic, cultural or other reasons, has resulted in concentrations of the Labour vote in areas already historically Labour-voting.
Another aspect to the above is the flight of white English people out of areas becoming “diverse” (in reality, changing from white non-diverse to non-white non-diverse), thus concentrating in those “ghetto” constituencies (or particular wards within constituencies) the “ethnic” vote.
Coming to Brexit, Corbyn has managed to sit on the fence so far. More Labour voters voted Remain than voted Leave, but more Labour constituencies voted Leave than voted Remain, another proof of the concentration of the Labour vote.
In one sense, Corbyn’s fence-sitting means that Labour can in theory appeal to both Leave and Remain voters; in practice, it may make Corbyn and so Labour seem undecided and indeed the victim of events, rather than the setter of the agenda.
Beyond all that, though, Labour has a policy message which might appeal to many, if it can be heard: nationalization or more regulation of public utilities and rail transport, curtailment of the excesses in the private-rental housing sector, an end to the demonization, bullying and even quiet killing by neglect of the disabled, sick, unemployed etc.
Even if Labour is the party of “blacks and browns”, that voter bloc, when combined with the votes of public service workers and those dependent on State benefits, must in theory add up to a vote of something like 30%.
Many commentators have said that, after a period of fragmentation, voters are returning to the main two parties. They say that because, in 2017, the main two parties got 89.1% of the popular vote (Conservative Party 48.8%, Labour Party 40.3%). This consolidation, however, was the result of specific factors which no longer apply.
In 2017, the LibDem popular vote slumped further from its post-Con Coalition collapse in 2015: from 7.9% in 2015 to 7.4% in 2017. Likewise, UKIP, having attained 12.6% in 2015, fell back to 1.8% (UKIP contested only 378 seats). In other words, Con and Lab were really the only two games in town in 2017.
The situation today is very different. The LibDems can appeal on several fronts: to Remainers, because the Liberal Democrat Party is the only unalloyed Remain party of any importance; to those who dislike both main System parties; to the “socially liberal” in London and the South of England (mainly). The LibDems are therefore in theory able to draw from the dissatisfied of both Labour and Conservative. It is important to understand that this is not a “LibDem surge”, more a negative vote against the two main System parties and Brexit Party, though also a vote for a clearly pro-EU party, the only one left [in England].
Then we have Brexit Party. Its mere existence, even on 10% or 15% of the nationwide popular vote, means that the Conservative Party can almost certainly not get a Commons majority. If Brexit Party stands (as promised) in 650 seats and gets an average 20%, then Conservative MPs will die like flies as their seats are taken by the LibDems, by Labour and, in a few cases, by Brexit Party itself.
Labour is fighting against the Jewish-Zionist contrived “antisemitism” protest or faked “storm”. That is not too interesting to the general public, but may support a wider narrative about “Corbyn the extremist”, someone supposedly not patriotic, a supporter of radical and in some cases very unpopular causes in the past. There again, there is the public scepticism about whether Corbyn can do the job of Prime Minister. However, it might be said in response that if Boris-idiot can do it, why can Corbyn not do it? That does rather beg the question, though…
Looking at the electoral picture in the round, I think that Labour will be able to mobilize its core vote of maybe 25%, maybe beyond that to 30%. The Conservative vote is tied to Brexit Party. If BP stands in 650 seats and if BP can get 15%, then I cannot see the Conservative Party getting more than about 30%. The LibDems will siphon off quite a few Remainer votes from both Lab and Con; overall that LibDem vote might amount to 15% or even 20%. “Socially-liberal” Jo Swinson is very pro-capitalist and her party might be an option for pro-EU former Conservative voters as well as some pro-EU and anti-Corbyn Labour ones.
The upshot seems to be that any 2019 or early 2020 general election might produce a Commons with Labour as largest party but as many as 60 MPs short of a majority; alternatively, a Conservative bloc far larger than that of Labour but still about 10 short of a majority. In other words, about where things are now.
My conclusion is that Labour might “win” in the sense of becoming the largest party in the Commons, but cannot at present get a majority.
This, below, is all too typical of the sort of person now prominent in “Labour” and what is left of the trade unions:
“Riccardo La Torre, firefighter and Eastern Region Secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, branded the coast patrol “despicable” and said: “These have-a-go, racist vigilantes have no place in any kind of enforcement or emergency activities and will only serve to make conditions and tensions worse.”
So “Riccardo La Torre” (que?), a regional secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, thinks that migrant invaders from Africa and the Middle East are “working class people, trying to get to safety”?!
From, er, France? There you have in a nutshell, the craziness that is much of “Labour” now. Alien migrant-invaders are “working class people” who should be allowed to occupy the UK at will (and be subsidized too)! Note the fag-end “Marxism”, trying to shoehorn the facts into some 1980s polytechnic back-of-postcard Marxism-Leninism.
Update, 23 September 2019
This creature might well be Home Secretary under a Labour government…
I start this examination of the new Boris Johnson government by posting part of an interview with Nicholas Soames MP [Con, Mid Sussex] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Soames
Any brief perusal of my above blogs about Boris Johnson will show that I am unremittingly hostile to him, despite the fact that I have always favoured Brexit (which he also now does, though only or mainly because it suits his narcissistic ambitions). What I want to do in this blog article is to examine those he has chosen to be in and around his Cabinet. I cannot examine every one for reasons of space and length, so I have chosen to focus on a few key players, as well as on the overall thrust of this new Cabinet.
Priti Patel
Thick as two short planks, Priti Patel is now a “British” Cabinet minister, having been saved from spending her life serving customers behind the counter of a Kampala grocery shop by her parents having immigrated to the UK, “several years” before Idi Amin became Ugandan leader in 1971.
Priti Patel is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, and was exposed as being effectively an agent of Israel only 2 years ago. This daughter of Indian immigrants, this Israeli agent, this expenses-freeloader (she “employed” her husband part-time, on expenses, from 2014-2017) and supporter of harsh and cruel policies is now going to rule over British people as Home Secretary.
Hard to believe that an MP, let alone a Cabinet minister, could be as plainly thick as Priti Patel really is, but the fact that she is has been proven time and again. Example:
Now Minister of State for Housing, not normally a Cabinet post, but it seems that she is either being treated as a member of the Cabinet or is at least attending. It will be recalled that she was partly responsible for implementation of the ghastly “bedroom tax” created by [Conservative Friends of Israel] Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and jew “lord” Freud.
McVey is someone who was willing to accept and promote the attacks on the poor, disabled and unemployed (and the elderly) during her previous time in government. She is also a member of Conservative Friends of Israel. She is yet another one who is as thick as two short planks, her cartoon view of the world being expressed in a Liverpudlian accent almost impossible to understand.
Half-Jew, though supposedly not brought up culturally Jewish. Hard-faced careerist. As far as I know, another member of Conservative Friends of Israel. Has visited and worked in Israel/Palestine.
Sajid Javid, a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, is so pro-Israel that he even spent his honeymoon there, despite he and his wife both being non-Jewish. As Home Secretary (2018-2019), he made the astonishing assertion that he supports the violent “antifa” thugs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
and he has been seen at Scotland Yard events alongside Jewish Zionist “activists” such as Stephen Silverman of the malicious “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA” cabal (Silverman being someone who has been exposed in open court as a serial troll and harasser, and who used pseudonyms to disguise his identity while doing that). Silverman and the CAA attempt to influence government and police policy in favour of Zionism and Israel, working with groups such as “UK Lawyers for Israel” etc, the memberships of which often overlap.
Javid, unsurprisingly in view of his background, thinks that mass immigration has benefited the UK!
Javid became a director of Deutsche Bank in 2000, leaving in 2009, by which time that bank had become one of the main “drivers” (causes) of the worldwide banking crisis:
This person, Sajid Javid, is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Cabinet minister in charge of government finances, tax, overall financial strategy etc. Very worrying…
Grant Shapps
Jew and member of Conservative Friends of Israel. Exposed in 2012 as having used two pseudonyms in order to basically cheat members of the public by selling them dodgy business and self-improvement courses! He even got into the Palace of Westminster using those false IDs! In fact the Jew has a history of dodgy business dealings, tax dodging and cheating the public.
Now Shapps has been appointed to the Cabinet as Transport Secretary! You really could not make it up. Speaking of transport, when will my train arrive?
This “government” is, in the immortal words of Johnny Mercer MP (applied to Theresa May’s tenure) a “shitshow”. In fact, if the Theresa May government was a “shitshow”, Boris-idiot’s one is going to be a total shitshow!
Not a Cabinet minister, but the new Government Chief Whip, who attends Cabinet and is a key figure, especially in a government with no majority and even with Democratic Unionist Party [DUP] support only a majority of 3 or 4, which will probably soon be 1 or 2, depending on the result of the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election and whether Charlie Elphicke MP [Con, Dover] is allowed to remain on bail (and so vote in the Commons), having been charged with three sexual assaults against two women:
The Guardian journalist and Chief Political Correspondent, Jessica Elgot (a Jewish Zionist who, if memory serves, blocked me on Twitter before I was expelled), has penned this cheerful piece about Spencer:
Jessica Elgot’s Guardian piece somehow neglects to mention that “Spencer attracted criticism in early 2015 after suggesting that a man with learning difficulties who had been left without food or power after being sanctioned for arriving four minutes late at the benefit office should “learn the discipline of timekeeping“” [Wikipedia]; or that
“In January 2016, Spencer was one of 72 MPs who voted down an amendment in Parliament on rental homes being “fit for human habitation” who were themselves landlords who derived an income from a property.” [Wikipedia]
This is a disaster of a Cabinet, a disaster of a government, led by a part-Jew public entertainer who probably should never have been even a backbench MP, certainly never have become even a junior minister, let alone a Cabinet minister. That such a person is now Prime Minister of the UK, and leader of one of the two main System parties, is an indictment of that same political system. The political and electoral systems are broken. The House of Commons is full of trash.
What else? Well, as we have seen, all those examined (including Boris-idiot) are Conservative Friends of Israel, with at least one (I think maybe three) being in effect Israeli agent(s) of influence (if not more). The same will be true of the rest of the Cabinet.
This is not only the most pro-Jewish Lobby, pro-Israel Cabinet ever, but the least truly British (in any real sense; yes, they have British passports; actually, some have or had others, like Boris-idiot, who actually was a US citizen with a US passport until quite recently!); Sajid Javid— Pakistani; Dominic Raab— part-Jew, Priti Patel— Indian.
“Johnson’s maternal great-grandfather was a Russian Jewish immigrant named Elias Avery Lowe.” [Breaking Israel News]
““I feel Jewish when I feel the Jewish people are threatened or under attack, that’s when it sort of comes out. When I suddenly get a whiff of antisemitism, it’s then that you feel angry and protective.” [Boris Johnson]
“In addition to his Jewish ancestry, Johnson has even stronger ties to Israel through his Jewish stepmother, Jennifer Kidd Johnson, who married his father Stanley in 1981.
In 1984, Johnson, age 20, and his sister Rachel spent six weeks in Israel, volunteering on Kibbutz Kfar Hanasi, approximately 22 miles north of the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel.
The visit was coordinated by Michael Comay, a career Israeli diplomat and close family friend of Johnson’s stepmother. Comay and his wife Joan connected the Johnson siblings with the overseas volunteer program at Kibbutz Kfar Hanassi.” [Breaking Israel News]
Several of those appointed to Cabinet, including Raab, Priti Patel and Liz Truss, were co-authors of the notorious booklet Britannia Unchained, their credo being unrestrained finance capitalism and the British people as slaves to usurers and employers:
“Britain needs to adopt a far-reaching form of free market economics, with fewer employment laws”;
“The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music.” [Wikipedia]
Well, I agree about the football and pop music etc, but the rest postulates as an ideal a dystopian economic slave-society (is that surprising, when you see that the booklet was written mostly by those from non-British, non-European backgrounds, societies where slavery and serfdom are still ubiquitous: India, Pakistan etc?)
What now?
So unfree is the UK already, that if I were to print what I really believe should be done to remove this government of evil, I should probably have the police at my door.
In terms of what might happen politically or electorally to remove this unelected System dictatorship led by Boris-idiot, it is a grace from God that its Commons majority is almost non-existent even with its bought (by Theresa May) DUP support. Soon it will have no majority in the Commons even with those bought DUP votes.
The Brexit dilemma is the first matter. It is suggested that Boris-idiot will try to leave the EU either without agreement with the EU, or with an agreement not much different than that Theresa May agreed, but which was rejected by the Commons. The probability must be that the same will happen again. If so, Johnson will before long face a no-confidence vote, which probably but not necessarily will lead to a general election. Johnson thinks that he can win such an election. Not if Brexit Party stands 650 candidates as promised. Brexit Party may sink the Conservative Party even if it itself fails to win a single seat.
On the other hand, if Boris Johnson makes an electoral pact with Nigel Farage, eg guaranteeing Brexit Party a free run in say 50 seats in return for the reverse in the remaining 600, that is a gamble which threatens to destroy the Conservative party as a main national party contesting all seats. It also risks creating a far more powerful because far more credible Brexit Party.
What if Johnson in effect caves in, accepting a poor “deal” with the EU (assuming that the Commons approve it)? That would be the end of Johnson as Prime Minister even if he were able to cling on for a while. At the next general election, he would probably lose his own seat, as would 100 or even 200 of his MPs.
What about other matters unconnected directly with Brexit? The Conservative majority is now effectively gone already, with quite a few anti-Boris MPs likely to abstain on critical votes. This “government” scarcely has the strength to be called “lame duck”.
It is worth noting that the Conservative Party has not managed to win a really substantial majority at a general election since the 1980s, though in 1992 and 2015 it had enough MPs to rule (leaving aside Brexit) without serious interruption (which is why Mrs May’s decision to hold a snap election in 2017 was such a great error).
In the end, Britain needs social nationalism. This weak and stupid government of aliens is the opposite, a would-be tyranny of non-Brits, non-Europeans, and pro-Israel dystopians. It is evil and must go.
[above, Boris-idiot with some (full) Jews, including notorious paedophile, now deceased, Greville Janner]
[above, Boris-idiot, one of whose great-grandfathers was an Orthodox Jew rabbi in Lithuania, puts on his “ancestral” skull-cap at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Looks now as if Jehovah granted his wish! Still, be careful what you wish for…]
I was musing on exactly why Boris-idiot has appointed so many of what Ronnie Reagan might have described as “misfits, looney tunes and squalid criminals” to his Cabinet. Yes, they are mostly Leave supporters; yes, they are mostly those who supported Johnson in the Conservative Party leadership contest; but I think that there is another reason.
In my view, Boris-idiot was limited in his choice because so many potential ministers and Cabinet ministers simply would not and will not serve under Johnson. In fact many who served under Theresa May did not wait to see whether they might be reappointed or given other jobs. They ruled themselves out.
There are two or three aspects to this:
Many MPs and most former ministers despise Boris-idiot and simply cannot see him as a real Prime Minister of this country. They know that he was out of his depth as Foreign Secretary and that he is even more out of his depth as Prime Minister;
MPs mostly know very well that this government of crazies cannot last long, firstly because of its crazy and/or plain thick Cabinet ministers. When it falls, they do not want to be contaminated by association with it;
also, this government cannot last long because the Parliamentary arithmetic scarcely adds up even now. Once the Brecon and Radnorshire seat is lost (1 August 2019, this coming Thursday) and if Charlie Elphicke is convicted, later this year or early next year, of the sexual assault of two different women, the Government will have no majority at all, even with the DUP support bought by Theresa May. There is every chance that this government will be gone by Christmas. When that happens, the Conservative Party will probably either lose to Labour (i.e. get fewer seats), or at any rate get fewer seats than it now has. Either way, Boris will be gone as Prime Minister, his ignominious parody PM act having lasted only a few months.
Look at those who are now in Cabinet and in other ministerial posts! I have blogged already about some: Priti Patel as Home Secretary! This is a bad dream! Sajid Javid; Esther McVey!…; Grant Shapps…; Dominic Raab; Liz Truss (!); GAVIN WILLIAMSON…WHAT?!…the idiot who plays with his pet spider and wanted our troops to face the Russian Armed Forces with guns mounted on tractors or in the back of furniture lorries!…; even bloody Nadine Dorries is a minister of state now! Nadine Dorries, who was one of the biggest expenses freeloaders in the Commons, “employing” her recently-graduated daughters at the highest pay level permitted [in 2019, that level is £50,000 p.a.], and allowing one of them at least to occupy the taxpayer-funded flat in Central London meant to be for the MP’s own use, whereas Nadine Dorries actually commuted back daily to Bedfordshire (by rail, First Class, and of course again on expenses)! She also got all three (herself + 2 daughters) expensive new laptops and telephones etc on expenses! This is like a TV sketch writer’s joke!
I have little doubt that, just as his shambolic term as Mayor of London spawned the political comedy show The Thick of It, Boris Johnson’s term as Prime Minister will generate another political sit-com. The British people may not see the joke.
Well, enough for today, but anyone who saw Boris-idiot making promises of rail lines in Northern England when he was speaking in Manchester today saw a person well out of his depth, putting on a “prime ministerial” act and failing to raise to even a decent am-dram level. As a speaker, Johnson is poor (though his ad-lib humorous style might be OK for after-dinner speechifying). Content? Very poor. Delivery? Amateur and unconvincing.
Finally, one must ask why so many Conservative MPs voted for this clown to be their leader. I think that the answer is that most of the other candidates were also very poor, and even the few with potential to do the job of PM (leaving aside my firm ideological opposition to them) had impediments, such as that they were Remain supporters (eg Rory Stewart) or unconvincing recent Leave convertees (Jeremy Hunt and maybe Stewart), or with a negative public image (Michael Gove, a one-time cocaine abuser, as well as a flagrant expenses cheat in the 2005-2010 Parliament and possibly later).
The vote for Johnson, by most Conservative MPs, was a gamble, the gamble that the public entertainer and bullshitter can “reach the voters other MPs cannot reach”. I think that the Conservative Party is about to lose its shirt.
Update, 28 September 2019
Michael Gove, seen intoxicated through drink or drugs in the Chamber of the House of Commons recently! This is becoming just bizarre! (ignore the silly “Nazi newspapers” comment by the tweeter. “Nazi newspapers”? If only…!)
Noticing that very many people from across the world have recently been hitting this mid-2019 blog post, I have decided that I should update it.
Well, since my article was posted, much water under bridge. My analysis, though correct in itself, was blown out of the water when political snake-oil salesman Nigel Farage stabbed his own party in the back during the 2019 General Election campaign by standing down most Brexit Party candidates, and thus gifting to “Boris” an apparent “landslide” victory and, as a consequence, an 80-seat House of Commons. Farage’s action has, as an extra consequence, probably finished off the Labour Party.
As to Brexit Party itself, Farage closed it down, having effectively killed it. He then started another party, “Reform Party”, which he then abandoned to its miserable fate. Farage is now to be seen promoting investment ideas online. Politically washed up (but wealthy…).
Some other matters have changed since I wrote the main post.
Charlie Elphicke [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Elphicke#Sexual_assault_charges_and_conviction] tood down as MP, was convicted and (in September 2020) imprisoned for 2 years. Arguably harsh for his very inept and minor sexual assaults. He will be released soon, after he has served 1 year. His now ex-wife was selected as candidate to replace him in 2019, and is now the MP in his place.
Both Sajid Javid and Esther McVey have left government but remain as MPs.
One of the 5 tweets that got me disbarred at the instigation of a pack of Jews was that describing Michael Gove MP as “a pro-Jew, pro-Israel expenses cheat”. I am very glad to be able to post the key words yet again (as I do from time to time), now with the addition “who is also a dishonest, cocaine-snorting little degenerate with a Jewish wife.”
Major Candidates
I have decided now to blog about the main rivals for Theresa May’s threadbare purple as leader of the Conservative Party. I start with Gove.
Michael Gove
[above, Gove enjoys the company of Jew paedophile and rapist, the now-deceased one-time Labour MP and (later) “lord”, Greville Janner, at a Zionist social gathering]
Gove was adopted, his origins not publicly known. He was a journalist before becoming an MP. At that time, he showed his adherence to the Israeli cause by participating in a pro-Israel demonstration in Trafalgar Square.
It seems that, like —sadly— too many of “our” mainstream media scribblers, Michael Gove was a fairly frequent abuser of cocaine before (only before?) his Jewish Zionist backers got him onto the System political racket as an MP.
For several years, Gove had a relatively low public profile as MP, despite his promotion to Shadow Cabinet in 2007, after only 2 years as a backbench MP. He was one of the most blatant (though far from the worst) expenses cheats and blodgers exposed in 2009: he and his Jewish or part-Jewish wife, Sarah Vine (a Daily Mail columnist), claimed as detailed here:
Gove is an active member of Conservative Friends of Israel. He is a non-Jewish Zionist, completely in the pocket of the Jewish Zionist lobby. He has always supported UK “intervention” in the Middle East and elsewhere (eg Libya).
Gove was Boris Johnson’s campaign manager (in effect, Johnson’s deputy) in the Conservative leadership contest of 2016, but stabbed Johnson in the back at the crucial moment, causing maximum damage to the leadership bid that he, Gove, had been supporting until that moment.
Gove’s wife has said that he cannot do as much as boil a kettle. Well, Einstein was like that and look how he benefited humanity. Oh, no, wait…
Conclusion: A doormat for Zionism and the Jewish lobby; intelligent, but not as intelligent or cultured as he and his backers believe him to be. A driven careerist. Completely untrustworthy. Not reliable in any way (except in his support for Israel, which for me is a negative). Administratively, probably competent. Otherwise unfit for the office of Prime Minister.
[above, Boris Johnson “praying” at the “Wailing Wall” in Jerusalem]
Boris Johnson, aka Boris-Idiot, has wanted to be Prime Minister for a long time. A melange of different ethnicities, he is partly-European, partly-Turkic, partly-Jew: his maternal great-grandfather was an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in Lithuania! Three generations on, the Eton and Oxford “fiddler on the roof” was born in New York City to a father who worked for the World Bank and was later a Conservative MP.
Boris Johnson has been a backbench MP twice, without having distinguished himself. He has been Foreign Secretary and was terrible at it, incapable of doing the job properly. He has been a journalist-trainee (at the Times— sacked for making up a quotation), a journalist (at the Telegraph— where he was known for making up news) and an editor (The Spectator-— where he was notorious for absenteeism, lateness, making the staff make up for his defaults, also rude and unpleasant to the staff, and spent much of his time, in office hours, out of the office screwing lightweight airhead Spectator scribbler Petronella Wyatt).
Johnson has always had to face accusations of incompetence, complacency, laziness, lack of serious thought and application, as well as charges of dishonesty. These traits have characterized Johnson from his days at Eton right up to his shambolic and quite brief time as Foreign Secretary. A further trait has been appointment by reason of connections, rather than merit.
Johnson, who spent his childhood and youth amid the wealthy without himself really being of (very/extremely) wealthy background, is obsessed with scrabbling for as much money as he can get, and apparently gets (on top of MP salary and expenses) £250,000 per year for writing garbage in the Telegraph, which garbage he cobbles together once a week in about one and a half hours. One has to wonder at the motivations of the Telegraph’s editor or, perhaps being more significant, owners. The Telegraph is owned by the Barclay Brothers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay] who both favour Brexit and would no doubt find it very useful to have a UK Prime Minister obligated to them. Johnson tried to be Mayor of London and MP at the same time, in order to double his salary.
Boris Johnson is not prepared to do the preparation necessary to avoid egregious and avoidable mistakes. Two that come to mind are the water-cannon he bought as Mayor of London (unusable because not approved by the Home Office, a fact that Johnson did not bother to find out in advance) and Johnson’s painful mishandling of the Zaghari-Ratcliffe case:
Johnson will do almost anything to become Prime Minister. Though probably genuinely at least cynical or sceptical about the EU, he has fluctuated between Leave and Remain for most of the past two decades, and only committed himself to Leave when it became politic so to do.
“He’s lied his way through life, he’s lied his way through politics, he’s a huckster with a degree of charm to which I am immune”
[Anon., said to be a Cabinet minister, quoted in The Times of Israel]
Johnson, like 80% of Conservative MPs, is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel. In 2017, an Israeli employed by the Israeli Embassy in London, Shai Masot, was covertly filmed talking about how he had a million pound slush fund for “friendly” Westminster MPs, and how he wanted to have others “taken down”.
The Jew Masot talked to a “British” traitress and/or agent, one Maria Strizzolo (an aide to Jew Zionist “Conservative” MP Robert Halfon), about Boris Johnson, who, said Masot, was OK. “Ah, Boris…Boris…is good; he is solid on Israel. Of course, Boris is an idiot…” (and smirks…).
After being openly talked about like that, Boris Johnson just laughed it off in the Commons. He knows that he needs the Jew-influenced “British” msm to publicize him and support him. What’s a few insults from his Jewish “friends” anyway?
As MP and as Mayor of London, Boris was rumoured to have been an occasional drug abuser and, more often, a stalker of women in supermarkets etc. After having been (in the Minder appellation) “‘Er indoors” for many years, his (second) wife, a half-Indian woman, finally chucked him out in 2018.
Apparently, Johnson rarely if ever reads a book or anything beyond newspaper opinion columns. His pathetic attempts to pull rank on the plebs and make himself seem cultured by using Latin or classical Greek words fell flat after a few years. People saw through it.
Johnson’s latest girlfriend, whom he will probably marry, is a Conservative backroom PR woman who has smartened him up, cut his hair, put him on a diet and generally made him look less like a clown. She cannot do much about what is in his head, though.
Johnson has something in common with Donald Trump. Nothing that he says can be taken at face value. In fact, the sharp-eyed Jews have not had difficulty noticing that:
“Johnson’s…actions have done little to assuage liberal Britons. Last year, he came under heavy attack from Jewish community leaders after he described Muslim women wearing burkas as looking “absolutely ridiculous” and like “letter boxes” and “bank robbers.” The Jewish Leadership Council said Johnson’s words were “utterly disgraceful,” while a leading rabbi accused him of “racism with a smile.” The Jewish Chronicle compared the former foreign secretary to a “bar-room bigot”.” [The Times of Israel]
Now we see that Johnson is again trying to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.
Conclusion: Boris Johnson is a basically rootless character. Ethnically somewhat “diverse”, born in New York City, brought up in Belgium and England, educated with the (very) wealthy while not being quite one of them [cf. David Cameron-Levita, who was heir to a fortune in the tens of millions of pounds], Boris is always the slight outsider. He is pro-Israel mainly because it is convenient to be so (though he is part-Jew). His am-dram Bertie Wooster impression is no doubt an attempt to fit in with an England where he still does not wholly belong. The same is true of his equally am-dram but totally empty Winston Churchill impression and mimicry (he even affects a slightly-hunched posture at times). As a politician, he makes a good public entertainer. Driven. Unreliable. Incompetent. His Uxbridge seat may not be safe. Unfit to be Prime Minister, however looked at.
Jeremy Hunt
The most serious main contender for Conservative Party leader, as I identified some time ago.
From an English background, Hunt is distantly related both to the Queen and to one-time Labour government minister and founder-leader (1930s) of the British Union of Fascists and (1950s) Union Movement, Sir Oswald Mosley. Born into an old Establishment family (his father was an admiral).
Politically, Hunt has had a fairly meteoric career. Elected as MP in 2005 (at age 39), he was made a Shadow minister almost immediately, promoted to Shadow Cabinet minister in 2007 and, as soon as the Conservatives formed the Con Coalition in 2010, appointed Cabinet minister (Culture Secretary 2010-2012, Health Secretary 2012-2018, Foreign Secretary 2018-present).
Hunt has by far the widest experience of government of the present contenders.
Hunt’s wife is Chinese, yet he has on occasion criticized the Chinese government.
Conclusion: Probably the most serious contender for Conservative leader if one forgets about level of public profile (Boris Johnson’s trump card). A smarmy snake type, but (despite gaffes here and there) reasonably competent (when compared to Johnson, especially). It would be surprising were he not one of the final two candidates.
Sajid Javid
By origin Pakistani Muslim, Javid could be described as an apostate, having said that:
“My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity.” [Wikipedia]
Javid is not a practising Muslim and he drinks alcohol. One of his brothers died from ingestion of alcohol and codeine.
Javid has been a devotee of the “philosophical selfishness” of so-called “Objectivism”, the “philosophy” invented by Jewess Ayn Rand.
“Philosopher and theologian John Milbank commented [about Javid]: “It is extraordinarily disturbing that any mainstream politician should express any admiration for Ayn Rand. We should be concerned that someone like Sajid Javid can now hold high office within the United Kingdom.” [Wikipedia]
Javid was an international banker for about 18 years, rising by 2009 (when he quit to pursue his political ambitions) to an income of some £3 million a year. At least it can be said for Javid that his political career is not motivated by money-grubbing (cf. Johnson and, to some extent, Gove). Whether being an international banker is quite as impressive as it sounds, after the debacle of 2007-2008, is a matter for debate.
It was a shock to many that Sajid Javid, as Home Secretary no less, expressed support for the “antifa” thugs and snoopers. It shows either malice or, more likely (?) ignorance. I saw a Twitter photo of Javid at a Metropolitan Police event at which some of the most notorious Jew-Zionist trolls and troublemakers were in attendance.
Javid is yet another Conservative MP who belongs to Conservative Friends of Israel.
“Javid is regarded as one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in the Cabinet and is a long-time supporter of Conservative Friends of Israel.” [Wikipedia]. He even went there on his honeymoon!
“Javid’s strong record of speaking out against anti-Semitism has earned him plaudits from leading Jewish communal figures” [Wikipedia]
“In 2015, at a Board of Deputies of British Jews hustings event, Javid stated that publicly funded cultural institutions that boycott Israel risk having their government grants cut.[81] Citing a boycott of the UK Jewish Film Festival[82] by the Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn, Javid said: “I have made it absolutely clear what might happen to their [the theatre’s] funding if they try, or if anyone tries, that kind of thing again.” [81] British playwright Caryl Churchill raised concerns about political interference in the arts and questioned: “All Charlie Hebdo? Except when freedom of expression means freedom to criticise Israel.”
[Wikipedia]
Conclusion:
Sajid Javid seems to be a genuine Leaver/Brexiteer. Put another way, a convinced globalist…in favour (unsurprisingly) of immigration into the UK. A complete doormat for the Jews and Israel, too. Intelligent…up to a point. Seems to be another one who is either narrow or has idees-fixes: Israel, Ayn Rand etc. May be administratively competent. As potential Prime Minister, a Pakistani-origined capitalist-globalist who supports Israel, the Jewish lobby, the mindless “antifa” idiots and the outlook of Ayn Rand, is not my idea of the right selection.
Dominic Raab
Raab is half-Jewish (and half-English) but was brought up culturally mainly English, including Church of England, and in –perhaps appropriately– Gerrard’s Cross, Buckinghamshire, the next rail stop from Beaconsfield, one-time seat of deracinated Jew Benjamin Disraeli, later Lord Beaconsfield, who became both Conservative leader and then, in 1868, Prime Minister.
Raab has a background in law (a degree and solicitor’s qualification, as well as a 2-year training term with Linklaters, a leading City of London firm), the Foreign Office (5-6 years) and as adviser for 3-4 years to Conservative Shadow Cabinet ministers. He was elected MP in 2010.
Raab has had a turbocharged career in Parliament, being involved with numerous serious policies and initiatives, including cross-party ones. Evenhanded (on the surface) re. Israel, he has criticized the most egregious excesses of the Zionists, in particular the settlement movement. He reached the Cabinet in 8 years.
Raab was involved with the Britannia Unchained booklet, which might be said to endorse what some have termed a “Zionist slavemaster agenda” for the British people.
Raab is a sincere Leaver/Brexiteer.
I assess Raab as hard and indeed ruthless.
Conclusion: Another rather rootless person. Not quite Jew, not quite full English. Probably competent in terms of administrative and executive ability, but there have been allegations that he bullies his staff. Seems doubtful whether he can much impress the British voters, and his suggestion of forcing a WTO Brexit through via the prorogation of Parliament (something not done, for purely tactical political reasons, and as far as I know, since Cromwellian times), must give pause to those who would support him as potential Prime Minister.
Other candidates
There are a number of other candidates, though it may be that few if any can get 8 MPs (increased from 2 to cull the numbers) to support their candidatures. I have already blogged, a while ago, about Rory Stewart, arguably the most interesting candidate individually:
though I note that some msm commentators have now expressed some of the same doubts as I did some time ago, and wondering whether his whole adds up to the sum of his parts, basically.
Should other candidates get through the initial process, I shall also examine them (or should that be “turn on them”?).
Overview
The Conservative leadership contest is yet another “shitshow” (in the elegant word of Johnny Mercer MP). The Conservatives cannot organize Brexit, cannot even organize their own leadership election effectively! They certainly cannot run the country properly. I wonder how long they can cling to government.
Another point comes to mind, in relation to various issues but, for example, Gove’s cocaine abuse. MSM commentators and talking heads all saying that the public don’t really mind if journalists, MPs, Prime Ministers, snort drugs. I wonder. There may be plenty of people who think that frequent abusers or users should be machinegunned , if only as a public health measure. I merely pose the question…
There is a real and growing rift between the “socially liberal” metro-people and the other “tribes” in the UK.
[example: the Political Correspondent of Sky News does not regard it as significant that at least two of the main contenders for the Conservative Party leadership were habitual cocaine abusers!
As for the Conservative Party, it seems bizarre that a few hundred MPs, and then what amounts to about 40,000 70 and 80 year olds, can elect a party leader who will then automatically become Prime Minister and may serve until 2022 without any need to be endorsed by the whole people.
Boris Johnson has just “pledged” (whatever little weight that carries in the mouth of a congenital liar like him) to cut taxes for the 5%-10% of the adult population with gross incomes above £50,000 a year. He thus addresses directly the affluent and wealthy people who, as members of the Conservative Party, are about to elect the leader of that party. People who would benefit from any such policy.
To put it another way, Boris Johnson has just made it more likely that he will be elected Conservative Party leader, but at the same time has made it even less likely than it already is that the Conservatives will win the next general election. In fact, they will probably not even be the largest party in the Commons after a general election. They might not even be the second-largest party.
I wonder what the mass of voters (90%+) who earn less than £50K a year gross will think about a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson that prioritizes tax cuts for the affluent and wealthy 10% at the expense of the other 90%? If only 10% of voters vote Conservative next time, it is “Goodnight Vienna” for the Conservative Party; and Boris Johnson, in his modest-majority Uxbridge seat, will be one of the first to fall.
After the first ballot, the three least-supported candidates have been eliminated: nonentity Andrea Leadsom, ex-accountant Mark Harper, and dishonest (and thick-as-two-short-planks) Esther McVey.
As previously said, you can have any Model T Ford car as long as it is black, and you can have any Conservative MP as leader so long as he or she is pro-Jew and pro-Israel. In fact, the voting record of the candidates shows identical voting on a number of important issues; for example [see tweet below]
Rory Stewart MP on Marr. It seems that, in polling of Conservative Party members, he is now second-placed (after Boris-Idiot). That would seem to prove what I have previously written, that Boris Johnson’s “popularity” is no more than the outcome of his 20 years of publicity largely generated by himself. Stewart has matched that, or tried to match that, via a social media blitz.
I have written about Stewart individually and I see no reason to alter anything I wrote then (except that I thought then that Stewart would have more MPs behind him), at the beginning of May of this year:
Stewart has more self-belief than Hancock (and more intelligence). He is still standing and may be gaining ground. For him it is all or nothing. He has ruled out serving in a Boris Johnson Cabinet, and it is hard to see Boris appointing him anyway. Boris does not like to see his idiocies floodlit.
To me as an observer, it seems that Gove is probably out of the running now, as is Sajid Javid. Be grateful for small mercies. That leaves, realistically, Johnson, Hunt, Raab and Stewart.
I had thought that Stewart would find more support among MPs than he has done so far. However, assuming that Johnson will be in the top two, Stewart now has a 3/1 chance of being there too. I had thought Hunt the obvious second-place candidate at the end. Now, well, we shall see.
Stewart is basically pro-EU, so it is hard to see Conservative Party rank and file members voting for him on that basis, but on most other bases he scores over Johnson.
Whoever becomes Conservative Party leader, this is a party going nowhere but down.
Update, 17 June 2019
Well, as I guessed a couple of days ago, Rory Stewart has gained ground, at least in the betting, though the betting exchanges’ and bookmakers’ odds are often not a reliable guide to political results (see the EU Referendum, the Trump election, the recent Peterborough by-election etc).
Stewart is now at 2nd place in the betting to be next Conservative leader, though only at 16/1. Boris Johnson is favourite at around 1/5 odds-on (Hunt 20/1, Gove 46/1, Raab 85/1, Javid 120/1).
By all accounts, Stewart did well in the TV debate (Johnson the sole absentee, obviously afraid of being exposed as an idiot and incompetent, as well as wanting to seem to be the “presidential” figure above the fray).
Update, 19 June 2019
The latest “debate” on TV was held. I heard a few minutes. Boris Johnson…what a complete idiot. Is that really the best that can be offered for potential Prime Minister? God help the UK…
The tax plans of both Johnson and Hunt are mad. Anyway, there it is…
A piece in The Guardian (see below), by Jessica Elgot, a Jewish Zionist journalist (who used to block me when I had a Twitter account). She refers to Rory Stewart as a “Black Watch veteran”. Not sure what the hard core of that very tough regiment would say to that; after all, Stewart only spent 5 months, if that, in that regiment (as a probationary short service 2nd lieutenant). Still, the inside track on the Con leadership campaign is interesting. Seems that my 3 May blog about Stewart hit the spot, pretty much.
Well, Rory Stewart is out of the race, which means that, until or unless Boris Johnson leaves frontline politics, his career is stalled again. He pledged not to serve in a Johnson Cabinet, and, as I blogged previously, it is doubtful that Johnson will appoint him to anything significant.
That leaves Johnson, Hunt, Gove, Javid.
Gove has said that he would serve under Johnson. As usual, willing to do whatever it takes to keep the career going and the salaries rolling in (a Cabinet minister gets about £75,000 a year on top of the MP salary of about £80,000; also, a ministerial car, a large and staffed country house in several cases).
I doubt whether Gove will be one of the final two; neither can I see Sajid Javid making the cut. That would leave Johnson and Hunt. The assumption is that Boris-Idiot would be be given a triumph by all those retired affluent Conservative Party members across the UK, all 100,000 or so of them (about 1 in maybe every 500 UK people belong to the Con Party). The assumption may or may not be right. If Hunt is the alternative, he may yet be in with a chance.
As to Boris-Idiot, this completely incompetent and clueless fool may well be posing as Prime Minister soon. Good grief…
The final ballot having been held, the two candidates still standing are Boris-Idiot and Jeremy Hunt. Exactly what I predicted at the start (see above), though I was beginning to wonder whether Rory Stewart might make it into the final showdown.
Everyone is now assuming that the conclusion is already cut-and-dried. Probably, though Hunt may do better than expected as runner-up.
I find myself wondering about why it is that Boris Johnson has managed to shrug off all the (entirely justified and proven) allegations about his drug abuse, sex life, incompetence, lies etc. I think that the answer(s) are as follows:
Boris took drugs. Gove took drugs. Boris has been unaffected, while Gove has been diminished, ending up looking like a squalid and rather silly little figure. Why? I think because people are not comparing like with like. If Mick Jagger, at age 65 or for that matter (and as now) 75, plays around with some young girl, well, people just shrug and say “that’s what he’s like, he’s always been so”, or “that’s rock music for you”. Now, if some, say, respectable vicar, bank manager or headmaster does the same or even somewhat less, he will be pilloried, because people do not expect such behaviour from their local vicar or whatever. I think that that is part of the answer. People assume that louche Johnson might have snorted cocaine, but few not in the know thought it of apparently straitlaced Gove;
Gove has policy in mind. He is at home in the world of policy. Johnson has no real policy (or indeed ideology, or indeed belief in anything). So why do most people prefer Boris-Idiot? Because emotion is stronger than intellect, and will is stronger than emotion. Boris does not appeal on the intellectual level (how could he?!) which is Gove’s stronghold; he, Boris, appeals to emotion, whether to people liking his public persona, or his “dogwhistling” re Muslims, those two combined neatly and amusingly in his “Muslim women looking like” pillar-boxes or letter-boxes. It could even be said that Boris is appealing to the Will, to an inchoate Englishness (even though Boris himself is, at highest, only part-English);
Of course, the political fusion of all three parts of human mentality and being, meaning Will, emotion and intellect, was personified by Adolf Hitler. Obviously Hitler “bestrides the narrow world like a colossus”, even today, and was a titan compared to a silly creepy grubber like Boris Johnson, but there we are: “history repeats itself, first tragedy, second time farce.”
Well, here we are on 6 June 2019. Peterborough by-election day, but also the 75th commemoration of the Normandy Landings, aka D-Day. There has been wall-to-wall coverage on BBC News, ITV News and Sky News.
Preamble
This is not the place in which to discuss whether the Second World War could have been avoided (on the Western Front, in Western Europe generally; I think that it could have been). This is not the place in which to discuss whether the British Empire and the German Reich could have concluded an honourable armistice after the Fall of France (I think that they might have done; Germany made about ten separate offers).
It is important to note that these anniversaries are made use of by the Jewish Zionist element. Which is partly why they are pushed so hard on TV. Another chance to remind the masses about “the Nazis”, about how bad they supposedly were, and about how “necessary” it was to declare war on Germany, and eventually to defeat “the Nazis” (and so, Germany).
My own father was too young to be in the armed forces for much of WW2, though he was, near the end of the war, recruited by lot as a “Bevin Boy” (he was born and brought up in County Durham), and worked both in coal mining and later a shipyard (after the war, he became a professional footballer). Ironically, that service, far from the front lines of the war, killed him about 70 years later (via exposure to asbestos in a shipyard).
My maternal grandfather served as a soldier throughout WW2 and was both at Dunkirk and, rather later, in Burma.
Overview of my outlook re. the Second World War
My view of the war, even leaving aside my general sympathy with National Socialism in terms of ideology and aspiration, is that, on the Western Front, it need not have happened and should not have happened. I believe the same about the First World War, incidentally.
More
Born in 1956, I was brought up, as people were then, with “the War” as a constant backdrop. My grandfather talked scarcely at all about his war service with the British Expeditionary Force in 1939-40, or with the Army in Burma for much of the rest of the war, though it affected his health. He did give the odd bit of advice when I, aged maybe 7 or 8, was laying out my little Airfix plastic soldiers (various armies, but including, I think, German, British Eighth Army, Japanese and US Marines). I remember a couple of his comments, such as that patrolling soldiers should always be following one another in a line if in jungle, never abreast.
Had my grandfather not already been in uniform by reason of having been in the Territorial Army in 1939, he might never have served actively in the war at all, being at the time 38 or 39 years old (the usual cut-off age was 41). That’s Fate…
As mentioned above, people of my age who were brought up in the 1950s and 1960s always had “the War” there, around, like the woodsmoke and burning leaf smell of autumn in those days. The Germans were regarded by children of my age as honourable enemies (unlike the Japanese) and not some force of malign and almost cosmic evil, as the Jews try to make out now.
The Jewish “holocaust” propaganda and historical distortion that is now pervasive had not then really started in a big way. Also, the unspoken narrative was that Britain had suffered and struggled and “won the war”. The —in fact, overwhelming— input of the USA and the Soviet Union was popularly regarded (not only by children) as being at best no more (even taken together!) than that of the UK.
Churchill (as myth) hung over the scene like a Mount Rushmore presidential sculpture or —with apology to Jane Russell— like a thundercloud, only equalled by the leader of the “German hordes”, Hitler.
The UK at that time (1960s) was still basically homogenous racially, certainly outside London or some port cities. In places like Reading, where I was born, and on the edge of which I lived until age 10 (my family was then in Sydney for 3 years), there were few blacks and browns (in fact, barring a family of Anglo-Indians whom we knew, there were almost none). The only black I recall seeing in England in the early/mid 1960s was the NHS consultant at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading who treated me for hearing impairment at age 7 or 8. He was from somewhere in the Caribbean. The country was then still a nation. The various war anniversaries were just part of the landscape, along with Trooping of the Colour, the Royal Tournament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tournament), the University Boat Race, Ascot, the Queen etc.
Today
Today, the UK is split and fissured racially, ethnically, economically, ideologically. It is scarcely a nation at all.
Today, with the “D-Day” ceremonies, the old Establishment or old Britain had its day in the sun: the unthinking royalists, the BBC and other msm, the remnants of the British armed forces (both of WW2 vintage and from today’s depleted armed services).
Though today’s ceremonies were in similar format to those of the past, there was, despite the wall-to-wall BBC/ITV/Sky news coverage, an end of the season feel. I wondered how many millions were really watching the seemingly endless TV.
I very much doubt that any but a tiny percentage of the ethnic minorities watched the shows today. Fewer will have understood the background even in the cartoon form presented by the TV people (Good v. Evil etc).
I would be prepared to bet that less than 1% of the population under 25 years of age watched more than a minute or two of the news coverage about the ceremonies in England and France. Same applies to most persons of non-European origin.
What we see here are two UKs: there is
the official, Establishment UK, together with the msm and the Jewish Zionist element (who latch onto anything “Second World War” as an opportunity to re-demonize National Socialist Germany); and the few now very elderly people who were at least in their teens in 1944; and there is also
the real UK, which is vastly more numerous and mostly has no interest in what happened in 1944.
In fact, it occurs to me that that division (between those who regard today’s ceremonies as hugely important, and those who regard them as of no interest or importance) reflects the change in UK society, and also that in UK politics. There is a chasm between what, say, the BBC or Sky think important, and what the bulk of the public think. A difference of orientation, of what is in the emotional life and which will eventually change political life.
As I write, Trooping of the Colour, held today, is not trending on Twitter (not that Twitter is the world) anything like as much as the Michael Gove cocaine scandal. Point made, I think. These events (Trooping of the Colour, WW2/WW1 anniversaries etc) have some significance for the elderly, perhaps to some extent for those who (like me, aged 62) prefer not to think of themselves as elderly quite yet; for some (a minority) of white (i.e. real) British/English people, but not at all for the “broad masses” and certainly not, speaking in group terms, for the ethnic minorities.
Yet the System is still trying to interest the people in such things. Look at this tweet by Tom Newton Dunn of the Sun “newspaper” [below]: May Bank Holiday changed date next year.
The fact is, that moving a one-day holiday to a different date is not going to have much if any impact on the public, whatever amount of “news coverage” (propaganda) is pumped out. It just does not now have much emotional impact on most people in the UK, not even those of (real) British origin (and let’s not pretend that the Africans, West Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese etc in the UK are somehow at one with the descendants of the Huguenots or those of long-ago Viking/Norman origin etc…).
As the Second World War recedes in memory and time, these commemorations become ever less relevant. The Jewish Zionist element has latched onto them in a parasitic way, as a method of pursuing its anti-Third Reich, anti-anti-Semitism message, along with pushing the “holocaust” fable and industry. It has less resonance with every year that passes, though.
It is the measure of the national self delusion still abroad that the question as to whether “D-Day” could be mounted today, in 2019 [see tweet below], could ever be asked!
Tobias Ellwood MP [Con, Bournemouth East] may have reached the exalted rank of Army captain (Royal Greenjackets), but either is ignorant of history, strategy and geopolitics, or (far more likely) is talking in this manner in order to boost the MOD budget. He cannot seriously imagine that Britain could ever mount another Normandy Landings operation! In fairness to Ellwood, he does write:
“But we must not kid ourselves. Pressures on the defence budget since the end of the Cold War have left us with one deployable division of 35,000 personnel who could not fight a sustained campaign without allied support.” [The Sun]
In fact, Britain on its own would have been unable to do “D-Day” even in 1944 without huge American, Canadian (etc) assistance. The very first day, ie “D-Day” itself, airborne soldiers (mainly British, American, and Canadian) numbering 24,000 were dropped into battle. Behind them, the rest of the 150,000-strong assault force.
That of course was not the entirety of Allied forces, which numbered in the millions across the world. The total of engaged participants on all sides has been estimated at 100 millions.
Britain now (as Ellwood writes) has 1 deployable brigade of 35,000. That, leaving aside rear echelon and headquarters contingents of every kind, is pretty much the usable British Army now, though official figures state 81,500 regulars and 27,000 reserves (former TA):
Compare the figures: in 1945, over 3 million (in the Army alone, not including other arms); in 1980, just before the Falklands campaign, 222,000 (mostly regulars, at that); even in 2010, 155,000. Now the Army (regular and reserves) numbers about 108,000 officially and probably greatly fewer in reality. The Army, Navy, Air Force are losing 2,000 men and women a year.
Then there is the lift capacity, by air and sea. Hugely depleted.
The fact is that the UK could not even repeat the Falklands re-invasion today, the British Task Force fleet then consisting of 127 ships, including 43 Royal Navy vessels (the last figure not being the whole of the Royal Navy by any means). Today, the Navy only claims about 74 ships worldwide, and only 31 of those are large combat vessels and submarines (the rest are small vessels such as minesweepers, patrol launches etc).
In 1939, the Navy had over 1,400 ships. That figure did not include supply ships. “By the end of the [Second World] war the Royal Navy comprised over 4,800 ships, and was the second largest fleet in the world” [Wikipedia].
I get the impression that there is a sizeable and entirely ignorant part of the British public (and it seems to include Gavin Williamson MP, until recently Defence Secretary!)…
…which actually believes that the UK could “take on” Russia, or China, or both! I see tweets urging British intervention in Syria, for example. Even in the (madly stupid) British bombing of Libya some years ago, the UK was dependent on French and Italian help.
These delusions have political consequences.
Update, 11 June 2019
Point proven? [see tweet below]. Note how this Bengali woman, Ash Sarkar, persists in saying “we” and “us” and “our” [British], just because she was born in the UK (assuming that she was)… talk about “cultural appropriation”!
Well, the Iranians have seized British-registered ships in the Gulf of Hormuz. Bad boys. Oh, wait…turns out that not one of the officers and crew are British, and anyway this is tit-for-tat because the British seized an Iranian ship at Gibraltar “on suspicion” that it might be breaking the sanctions regime imposed basically by the USA. In fact, this whole incident was caused at root by that idiot Trump having torn up the agreement with the Iranians re. uranium enrichment. Looks like “perfidious Albion” has been superseded by “unreliable Yankee-Doodle”…
The relevant point here is that the UK Foreign Secretary (Jeremy Hunt) is talking about “consequences” for Iran, but in reality all that the UK can do is rattle sabres a little and freeze funds in the City of London. Britain cannot do much in terms of gunboat diplomacy for a very cogent reason— Britain has few gunboats.
“The British military risks becoming irrelevant if it continues to focus on “missiles and tanks” as the main threats to the UK, the head of the Army has warned.”
“The army must “update and change the rules of war” according to the Chief of the General Staff, to be able to tackle new threats like cyber attacks, whilst also deterring countries that rely on heavy firepower.”
“General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said a focus on high-tech weapons that are no use against low-level threats like fake news and subversion “leaves us close to a position of dominant irrelevance”.”
“The main threat is not missiles and tanks, it is the weaponisation of globalisation, and those elements of globalization that have hitherto made us prosperous and secure: the mobility of goods, people, data and ideas.”
“Secure borders, or living on an island, are no guarantees against the corrosive and intrusive effect of disinformation, subversion and cyber.”
“The Army head suggested that traditional concepts of warfare were “increasingly redundant”.”
General Carleton-Smith fails to mention, at least specifically, mass immigration (and the subsequent and consequent births) as a factor impacting the very survival of the UK as a state, a country, a society.
Of course, if he did mention it in that context, he would be sacked.
At one time, the UK was a fairly cohesive society. Now it is not. It is a seething volcanic caldera, disguised only by a thin and disintegrating crust.
A baying mob of anti-Trump “protesters” bait and then attack what seems to be a lone middleaged man. A porcine woman leads the abusive and violent multi-ethnic pack, shouting “nazi scum!” repeatedly into his face. I suppose that he was brought up not to punch a woman in the face, even one like her.
Look at the policewoman (or PCSO) who not only does not attempt to arrest the milkshake-thrower but looks terrified, before she is pushed aside by the crowd as an irrelevance. The police are just useless these days. That “officer” made no attempt to protect a citizen standing in the street outside Parliament itself. Well, in the end, she is just one woman in a clown outfit.
Incidentally, I am not exactly a Trump fan myself; that is another issue.
We often think that the UK is becoming a police state. How is that reconciled with the imminent social breakdown I am predicting? In fact, the two go together, and both are linked to the now-fragmented UK society.
As society becomes fragmented, the easy-going policing of the past has to change to try to contain the chaos just below the surface. In addition, anything which disturbs the surface calm, or relative calm, has to be criminalized. So we see that, as the foreign invading hordes and their offspring have multiplied in number, so have the penalties increased for anyone who suggests that they should not be in the UK, or should be removed one way or another.
This started in the 1960s with the first Race Relations Act (1965), and became increasingly more oppressive with subsequent Acts (1968, 1976, 1985, 2000, 2003). It is clear why: the threat of public order upheaval, as more and more “blacks and browns” (and others) arrived in the UK and started to breed.
Free speech, freedom of expression generally, freedom of choice (eg in offering employment, or housing or whatever) “had” to be curtailed for reasons of “preserving the Peace” and in order to keep up the pretence that the multi-ethnic/multicultural society can work, albeit at the expense of a certain loss of civic freedom.
There was also the realization that, as the non-British and indeed non-European populations expanded in size, they had to be pandered to, not “offended” etc, not because the reverse would be impolite or undiplomatic, but because those increasingly huge populations might rise up against the white British people who “allowed” them to come to the UK (though most of the British opposed mass immigration; it was always the System and its politicians etc that caused the influx and its problems).
It was and still is the Jewish Zionist element that was and still is behind much of the legal repression and the “ethnic” influx itself (“The Great Replacement”).
Over the years, the censorship of speech and restriction of actions has expanded from races and “ethnicities” to other parts of the general population: religions, sexual orientations etc.
You can now say, or post online, relatively innocuous views, only to find that you are not only faced with a virtual (online) mob baying for your blood, but also quite likely with a policeman at your door or on the telephone. My own experiences include this:
If you say something that offends the general orthodoxy, you may lose your job, your professional status, your liberty.
The satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz lost her job —singing for a cruise line— simply because her views supposedly offended some Jews, even though her views had nothing to do with that job. Later, she sang satirical songs about some of the hundreds (if not thousands) of “holocaust” fake stories. That resulted in a farcical cycle of police persecution, prosecutions, eventual trial, conviction, sentence, appeal and now (at time of writing) further appeal.
Jez Turner set up the London Forum discussion group. He also made a speech in Whitehall in 2015, recalling how the Jews had been expelled from England more than once (and hoping that they might yet be removed again). Put on trial in 2018. Convicted. His punishment? A year in prison (he served 6 months).
I too was subject to action (by the same Jew-Zionist element): see above, and also
The Zionist campaign against free speech and free historical enquiry is being resisted, but the mere fact that such repression of free speech exists is very significant.
In the last few years, the privatization of public space has led to the abuse of power by the main online platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc), and even the organizations behind or around such platforms: paypal, patreon, and so on.
When Twitter started to remove “unwanted” opinion from its pages, many turned to GAB, only to find that there was a strong and focussed attempt by the ZOG powers to destroy GAB. So far, it has survived. However, the campaign against free speech continues, and shows no sign of abating:
Indeed, even a joke made (and posted online) about a Guy Fawkes event in a suburban garden can result in a police raid, evidence “bagged up” as for a murder case etc. Am I making this up to prove my point? No.
Measures against free speech and freedom of expression are just, overall, a symptom of what is happening. By that I mean the fragility of civil society generally. We see that, as the police “crack down” on social media posts or stickers put up on university campuses (incredibly, some young people got 4 years in prison for the latter, quite recently), comments made in blogs etc, in the real world of the UK, crime and especially violent crime is getting out of control: London infested by mainly black and brown “moped raiders” and “scooter raiders” and muggers, “road rage” incidents, brawls etc. The courts are far more lenient, usually, on those real crimes than they are on the fake crimes or notional crimes of pretended offence.
I have seen over the years how thin the veneer of society is in the UK. As long ago as the petrol protests of 2000, I noticed that that veneer was already very very thin indeed. Fights breaking out over the fuel pumps etc.
The police cover has been reduced, and while the police seem to be enthusiastically noting and acting upon reports of anyone seriously (or even unseriously, thinking of the dog taught to do a “Hitler” salute! The owner got a heavy fine…) criticizing the failing multikulti society (or the Jews that are mainly behind it), they seem far less interested in the traditional role of the police, i.e. investigating real crime and keeping safe the citizenry.
As for the armed services, they seem to be going the same way. Reduced in numbers, and with their focus on the approved shibboleths of the “multi-everything” society: multi-ethnic, multicultural, LGBT-whatever friendly, with confused aims, ever-lowering standards and little ability to counter either conventional threats or new dangers.
There again, what are the armed forces actually defending? We are now at the 75th anniversary of the Normandy Landings. There may be disputes about whether the Second World War ever need have happened, about whether an honourable armistice between the British Empire and the German Reich might have been concluded in 1940, but leaving all that aside, the British servicemen and civilians of that era (albeit bamboozled by Churchill and his cabal, so be it…) knew, at least in their own minds, what their own society was! Something like the picture given in the popular song There’ll Always Be An England:
Is there a British society at all now? There are bits and pieces still operative, but the society as a whole is now a jigsaw. There are fissures and rifts and splits everywhere. Racial, ethnic, religious, ideological, sexual, economic etc. Some always existed, but not to this extent.
So we see a situation where, at the very time when the society itself is not a coherent whole, the forces which might compel civic obedience and discipline are not numerous or powerful enough to do so, despite theoretically strict laws relating to various areas.
What will happen in a situation (which might come sooner than many imagine) in which the population is without luxuries or even necessities? Who will control those seething and uncontrolled masses? Not the depleted Army. Not the very depleted police.
A social national movement does not exist in the UK. It may be that the only way for one to exist will be for its existence to become the only way for the whole society to exist.
[above, Rory Stewart, many years ago in Afghanistan, consciously reprising Lawrence of Arabia; he was sometimes called both “Florence of Arabia” (in Iraq) and “Florence of Belgravia” (because of his well-connected and wealthy background)]
Introduction
My attention was caught by the BBC Politics tweet below.
Rory Stewart MP [Con, Penrith and Borders], who until yesterday was Minister of State for Prisons, a political dead-end, now can be said, appropriately enough, to have jumped free with one bound, and is now Secretary of State for International Development, a position again not quite in the front rank but a Cabinet post all the same. From his new elevation, Stewart has wasted no time in declaring his candidature for Conservative Party leadership.
I have been interested in Stewart and his political career for several years. I was puzzled as to why someone who appeared to have so many advantages (wealth, family influence, expensive education, pre-political career moves, a degree of public prominence etc) seemed to have run into the sand as an MP. However, it may be that he was playing a long game which will yet bring him to the highest office.
I do blog about MPs individually, but mostly those I term “deadhead MPs”. Stewart is certainly not one of those. However, his CV is almost too obviously brilliant. He seems to have almost too many talents, qualifications and virtues to be true. I do, perhaps unfairly, harbour a suspicion that the sum of his many parts may not quite add up to the same amount.
“After graduating, Stewart joined the Foreign Office.[11] He served in the British Embassy in Indonesia from 1997 to 1999, working on issues related to East Timor independence, and was appointed at the age of 26 as the British Representative to Montenegro in the wake of the Kosovo campaign.” [Wikipedia]
Stewart is believed to have been, like his father, an officer of the Secret Intelligence Service [SIS], a fact alluded to by David Dimbleby on BBC Question Time. Stewart neither agreed nor demurred. Still, a touch of the James Bonds impresses the common herd, I suppose…
[above, Brian Stewart, the father of Rory Stewart, wearing the badge of a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (CMG), the 4th-highest order of chivalry in the UK (if excluding two now-dormant orders, the Order of St. Patrick and the Order of The Star of India)]
“After the coalition invasion of Iraq, he became the Coalition Provisional Authority Deputy Governorate Co-Ordinator in Maysan and Deputy Governorate Co-ordinator/Senior Advisor in Dhi Qar in 2003, both of which are provinces in southern Iraq.[9] He was posted initially to the KOSB Battlegroup then to the Light Infantry.[12] His responsibilities included holding elections, resolving tribal disputes, and implementing development projects.[12] He faced growing unrest and an incipient civil war from his base in a Civil-Military Co-operation(CIMIC) compound in Al Amarah, and in May 2004 was in command of his compound in Nasiriyah when it was besieged by Sadrist militia.[9] He was awarded an OBE for his services during this period. While Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the International Coalition’s inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake.” [Wikipedia]
Full marks for honesty, but not for perspicacity. Let’s look at the above again: Stewart joined the FCO (and/or SIS) in 1995-96 and by 1999, at age 26, he is British Representative in Montenegro, at that time emerging from nearly a decade of ex-Yugoslav conflict.
This is rather remarkable. Why was a 26-y-o appointed to this rather important strategic post? Even more remarkably, perhaps, Stewart was then posted to Iraq in the immediate post-invasion era, and was rather famously deputy-governor of an Iraqi province at the age of 28. As noted above, he even “saw action” to some extent when his compound was besieged by militia fighters.
“From 2000 to 2002 he travelled on foot through rural districts of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Nepal, a journey totalling around 6000 miles, during which time he stayed in five hundred different village houses. He had previously walked across West Papua in 1998,[115] and has since made a number of long walks through Cumbria and Britain. He also travelled into Libya a day after the fall of Colonel Gaddafi.” [Wikipedia]
“In late 2005, at the request of the Prince of Wales and Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan,[15] he established, as Executive Chairman, the Turquoise Mountain Foundation, a human development NGO, in Afghanistan, and relocated to Kabul where he lived for the next three years restoring historic buildings in the old city of Kabul, managing its finances, installing water supply, electricity, and establishing a clinic, a school and an institute for traditional crafts.[4] Stewart was awarded the Royal Scottish Geographical Society‘s Livingstone medal in 2009 “in recognition of his work in Afghanistan and his travel writing, and for his distinguished contribution to geography”.[16] Stewart stepped down as Executive Chairman of the Turquoise Mountain Foundation in May 2010.” [Wikipedia]
By any standards, Stewart’s life up to age 33 at least (he is now 46) was packed with achievements and adventures. Not many UK MPs could lay claim to anything even a tenth as interesting and varied (note my blogs about “deadhead MPs”). Indeed, it seems that, in 2008, a Hollywood studio (Studio Canal/Brad Pitt) actually bought the film rights to do a biopic of Stewart, starring, it was envisaged, Orlando Bloom as Stewart! No film has been made (yet).
This is not the British politics we know! This is somewhere in the realm of John Buchan and Sidney Reilly, a post-imperial Great Game pastiche.
Stewart’s second book, The Prince of the Marshes: and other Occupational Hazards of a Year in Iraq, also published as Occupational Hazards: My Time Governing in Iraq, describes his experiences as a Deputy Governorate Co-ordinator in Iraq.[4] The New York Timescritic William Grimes commented that Stewart “seems to be living one of the more extraordinary lives on record”, but for him the “real value of the new book is Mr. Stewart’s sobering picture of the difficulties involved in creating a coherent Iraqi state based on the rule of law”.[126] Stewart’s books have been translated into multiple languages.
Stewart’s reflections on the circumstances under which outside military and political intervention in countries’ internal affairs may or may not hope to achieve positive results were distilled in a 2011 book, Can Intervention Work?, co-authored with Gerald Knaus and part of the Amnesty International Global Ethics Series. He has also written about theory and practice of travel writings in prefaces to Wilfred Thesiger‘s Arabian Sands,[127]Charles Doughty‘s Arabia Deserta[128] and Robert Byron‘s The Road to Oxiana.[129]
In 2016, he published The Marches, a travelogue about a 1,000-mile walk in the borderlands separating England and Scotland, known as the Scottish Marches, and an extended essay on his Father, Brian Stewart.[130] The Marches was long listed for the Orwell Prize, won the Hunter Davies Lakeland Book of the Year,[131] was a Waterstones Book of the Month,[132] and became a Sunday Times top ten bestseller.” [Wikipedia]
I suppose that many would be well satisfied to have done even one or two or three of the things noted above. Stewart has dozens of accomplishments and successes to his name. A few more are:
“His 2008 cover article in Time magazine, where he debated presidential candidates Obama and McCain, arguing against a troop surge in Afghanistan, has been shortlisted for an American Journalism Association Award
Afghanistan: The Great Game – A Personal View by Rory Stewart, a documentary in two parts that tells the story of foreign intervention by Britain, Russia and the United States in Afghanistan from the 19th century to the present day,which aired on BBC2 and which won a Scottish BAFTA (2012).[139]
Border Country: The Story of Britain’s Lost Middleland, which investigates the rift created by Hadrian’s Wall, and the issues of identity and culture in a region divided by the fabricated border, which was singled out for praise by David Attenborough.”
“Stewart speaks some French, Persian (Dari), and Indonesian. He has also studied at school, in the Foreign Office, and on his Asian travels, Latin, Greek, Russian, Chinese, Serbo-Croat, Urdu, and Nepali languages. He acknowledges that the latter three languages are “very rusty“;
He has lectured at Harvard and even advised Hillary Clinton…;
He is a karate expert (level unknown) and belongs to the Special Forces Club in London, some of whose members were in WW2 secret work, some were in the military and naval special forces, some ex-intelligence personnel —and there are also some who are rumoured to be just gold-plated fakes and fantasists;
“His speech about hedgehogs in Parliament in 2015[39] was named by The Times and The Telegraph as the best parliamentary speech of 2015 and described by the Deputy Speaker as “one of the best speeches she had ever heard in Parliament” [Wikipedia]
Stewart is married to an American woman who had previously been married to a fellow NGO worker. One of the children of the Stewarts was delivered by Stewart himself without medical assistance.
Stewart once tweeted to me about something, several years ago, and was very polite, something that I value. I do not attribute that entirely to the influence of the Dragon School or, indeed, Eton. He seems to know how to behave (though not all agree, I have heard).
Thoughts
Stewart’s stellar career stalled after he became an MP in 2010. Having said that, he has chaired Commons committees, been promoted slowly but surely, and Wikipedia notes that he attended the Bilderberg cabal along with George Osborne. Not that being a Bilderberg attendee is a guarantee of lasting political success (cf. Nick Boles MP) but it does indicate that the primary powers behind the Western throne consider that a person is of interest.
This is Rory Stewart’s moment of opportunity. He has seized it. Once Theresa May leaves office, the Conservative Party will elect a new leader. Stewart is the international System candidate nonpareil. I should not be surprised were he to win a first ballot outright, bearing in mind the collection of fools, knaves, deadheads and frauds likely to oppose him in the contest:
Penny Mordaunt, best known for diving in a swimsuit (she looked good, so be it…) and for being a reserve naval sub-lieutenant;
Michael Gove, pro-Jew, pro-Israel fraud and expenses cheat (I tweeted that once and it was one of 5 tweets that had me disbarred at the instigation of the Jew lobby, so it pleases me to repeat it!);
Boris Johnson (aka Boris Idiot), who proved as Foreign Secretary that he cannot hold down high office;
Andrea Leadsom, a nonentity;
Jeremy Hunt, smarmy clever snake and tipped to take May’s purple;
Amber Rudd, yet another dimwit, though she thinks herself terribly clever. Pro-Israel, pro-EU, pro-immigration. Was involved personally with Kwasi Kwarteng, the “African at Eton” (well, one of them), who has now married, or is about to marry, a younger Amber Rudd lookalike. Amber Rudd’s own seat may well be lost next time;
Philip Hammond, careful calculating Remainer;
Dominic Raab, part-Jew, pro-Brexit, hardfaced and careerist.
There may be others. There would have been Gavin Williamson (who has the self-confidence of the stupid) and Stephen Crabb (sex pest, expenses cheat and so pro-Israel that he could be termed “an agent of influence”) but both of those have ruled themselves out by their egregiously poor behaviour. Deadheads.
It scarcely needs to be said that, as social nationalist and thinker into the future, I am not on the same page as Rory Stewart, so obviously NWO/ZOG in orientation is he, and whose MP voting record etc is far from entirely to my liking. He also wanted the UK to remain in the EU and now seems to want to “leave” but not really leave: Brexit in name only (BRINO). However, there is no doubt that he is the standout candidate now to replace Theresa May, which means that he could be Prime Minister by the Autumn.
Military? Does 5 months as an instant 2nd lieutenant count? Or is that a reference to Stewart’s “secret war” posts?
A few more thoughts, 4 April 2019:
It seems that Stewart favours immigration:
“One farmer told Stewart, “All illegal immigrants should be rounded up and on the first ship out.” Some voters might expect their Conservative candidate at least to nod, but Stewart said, “Hmm,” and changed the subject. After leaving that house, he said quietly, “Actually, I’m rather in favor of immigration.” [The New Yorker]
So he favours (mass?) immigration. That would chime with those Bilderberg/Davos linkages. Also, it is all very well for a spoiled son of the “British Establishment” (father was a high-ranking SIS officer; Stewart lives in a country house surrounded by a small estate of a hundred acres or so) and who has always had access to effectively any money or anything he wanted without struggle or effort, to be OK about the mass of British people being replaced by blacks, browns, Chinese etc; and having to live with those basically backward peoples, share limited housing, road/rail space etc. Not to mention the effect on rates of pay, and the huge strain on public services, education, NHS, “welfare” etc.
Stewart is quite consciously remote from the concerns of the British people. He has put in huge effort on his adventures and career, but has never had to. Big difference.
I seriously wonder now, looking at or studying Stewart, whether he is right for the office of Prime Minister. Yes, it is very impressive to have run an Iraqi province (effectively or not, though?…) or part of Kabul (ditto) when only 28 or 30-ish, it is impressive to have walked across Afghanistan etc. It is impressive to have all those literary and other medals. However, how far does that get you in terms of being a British Prime Minister?
As a matter of fact, is it really that impressive to have been deputy governor of an Iraqi province when you were (some say) no bloody good, accomplished almost nothing and got a transfer a few months later to a more congenial post elsewhere in Iraq? I do not know the truth of it all, and I may be unfair or simply mistaken here, but I wonder whether Stewart’s other great accomplishments have a rather thin layer of reality under the surface glitter?
Impressive though those career highlights are, I am unsure as to whether Stewart really does have what it takes to be Prime Minister of this country in 2019 or 2020, as distinguished from being in that high office in a John Buchan political landscape circa 1912, and as a kind of Richard Hannay, a Hannay who is playing the role of an earlier and English/Scottish type of “Jack Ryan”, the American adventurer-patriot who eventually becomes President in the bestselling books of Tom Clancy.
I have spent some time (by my standards anyway) in preparing and writing and rethinking this picture of Rory Stewart. He disturbs me more than he reassures me: he seems rather fixated on himself, his own psychology, his motivations, his own (enormous and not denied by the man himself) ambition.
It worries me that, in the interviews and profiles I have read, Stewart says much about himself, his achievements, his accomplishments (or allows them to be known…), but little about the needs of the world, of Europe, of the European peoples, of the British people. I see little or nothing in terms of policy, or wider ideas, just a self-view that he is the right sort of chap to run the UK. That sounds like a more impressive sort of David Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger to me, and that worries the hell out of me.
Parris is not only remote from the concerns of the British people (though in his case the remoteness comes not from ancestral hauteur but is the self-consciously created la-di-da-ness of the fastidious metropolitan gay), but is also a pro-immigration Remainer who thinks that ruling the UK should be left to people like him and his affluent, cosmopolitan, pro-multikulti friends. Trouble is, it has been, and look at the result! (Parris himself, elected in 1979, was reprimanded by Mrs Thatcher for having replied to a constituent that she should count herself lucky to have a council house, whatever its flaws…), though he stayed on as an MP until 1986.
I started off thinking that Rory Stewart was, judging objectively, far and away the best candidate to replace Theresa May. I still think that he is by far the most accomplished candidate, but I the more I read about him, the more doubts and suspicions I have. I am also disturbed that some of the Jewish lobby on Twitter seem to favour him.
In the end, no System party or candidate has the right to rule the UK. Social nationalism must triumph.
Oh, dear…(see below): I am thinking now that Stewart is rapidly using up his credit with at least some of the public, though in the end the ones who will vote for a new Conservative Party leader will be, initially, the Con MPs in the Commons, not Joe Public. It may be that Stewart will be seen as the ideal “Stop Boris” candidate, someone to rally to. I do not know what level of MP support he now has. I presume some, or why would he risk being humiliated? On the other hand, he does strike me as a very ambitious gambler and chancer.
The tweeter above is yet another who seems to think that Stewart’s 5 months as a gap-year “officer” on probation is something real, rather than a kind of adventure holiday for the gentry. Unless the tweeter, like others, takes the term SIS “officer” at face value, rather than as a conventional designation (cf. police “officer”, council “officer” etc).
Update, 25 May 2019
Well, here we are after Theresa May’s announcement of departure, and Rory Stewart is on all msm outlets. He has put the knife into Boris-Idiot and may have damaged the latter’s campaign. Opinion on Stewart himself is divided, half seeing his accomplishments and character, half seeing his gaffes. The tweet below is more favourable than not to him
On the other hand, I saw Stewart on TV, saying that “we” must build 2 MILLION (!) houses. My reaction? “Only because the UK has imported millions of unwanted immigrants, who are breeding fast; and Britain CONTINUES to import huge numbers, even in 2019!”
I see no willingness in Bilderberg/Davos Stewart to take on mass immigration. In fact, he seems to support it. The negative effects will scarcely impact him or his family, after all, in his listed Borders country house…
Ah…another tweeter who raises points against Stewart:
and, below, the sort of statement that comes easier to those who have never been poor, hungry, desperate etc…Almost clownish coming from someone who has been an MP and whose votes, with those of other Conservatives and LibDems, enabled the attacks on the unemployed and disabled since 2010…
Stewart seems to be an engaging fellow, at least on the surface, but the more I see of him, and the more that I read about his voting record and views, the less I like him ideologically or politically.
Update, 1 June 2019
Ah, I see that I am not alone in thinking that Stewart’s accomplishments and achievements are perhaps not quite all that they seem on paper:
“Though few would speak on the record, there is a broad critique of Stewart that his biography is a little overegged and certainly self-regarding – leading to a nickname, a member of his wider social circle confides, of “Florence of Belgravia”.” [The Guardian]
“Though Stewart has claimed to know “what it feels like to be in the army”, for instance, he spent only a gap year stint in the Black Watch and did not see active service. He can often give the impression his role in Iraq was rather more important than the reality, according to someone who witnessed his work there (“He was regarded as a pretty competent mid-ranking Foreign Office official … He wasn’t a nonentity and I think the view in Iraq was that he was conscientious, but he wasn’t Lawrence of Arabia.”).” [The Guardian]
“Several well-placed observers of Stewart’s time in Afghanistan point out that his much-discussed Afghan walk, the origin of his reputation as an expert on the region, was a month spent crossing a comparatively safe part of the country (“Other people would call it a walking holiday,” notes one).” [The Guardian]
“In general, he has done a lot and it’s all very impressive,” says someone who observed Stewart at close quarters in Kabul. “But it’s not quite as impressive and remarkable as he allows people to think. This is not necessarily all his doing, but the willingness of others to project things on to him … All sorts of journalists wrote up the Turquoise Mountain Foundation [Stewart’s Afghan NGO, which aimed to preserve local crafts] as the most amazing project in Afghanistan, when it was actually a rather low impact thing that affected the lives of a small number of people.” [The Guardian]
“…to his credit he does not dissemble when asked directly about his experience (“It was unbelievably brief,” he told the New Yorker of his time in the Black Watch.)” [The New Yorker; The Guardian]. So not even 5 months? Sounds as though it was somewhere between the 5 months previously claimed and, er, what? A week? A month? A few months?
“Claims this week to have “negotiated in Iraq, negotiated in Afghanistan” provoked “snorts of derision”, the former Afghanistan correspondent Jon Boone tweeted. “Who with, the Kabul guild of potters and calligraphers?” [The Guardian]
Maybe Stewart should not have exposed his gilding to the very harsh light of scrutiny.
A few more thoughts
Since I penned the main blog post, much has happened. Stewart has come under more scrutiny, but also has travelled the country (the UK, not Afghanistan) doing Twitter vox pop chats with random passers-by. At least he is not afraid to do that. He is becoming better-known to the public and apparently now has a few Conservative MPs supporting him; but not many. As to the bookmakers, some have him as 66/1 for “next Conservative leader”, though Betfair betting exchange has him at 12/1, which strikes me as more realistic (making that 66/1 a value bet if you can get it)
“Speaking in her personal capacity – and not in her current role as chief executive of the Jo Cox Foundation – Catherine Anderson told The Courier she was drawn to Rory’s internationalism.” [The Courier]
A few more endorsements like that and it’s Goodnight Vienna to Stewart!
Ah…seems that Catherine Anderson is “an aspiring Conservative MP” who used to be “Chief of Staff” and Campaign Manager for (drum roll…) Rory Stewart! In fact she worked for Rory Stewart for nearly 9 years!
Well, the first ballot has been held and Rory Stewart is still standing. Just. 4th from bottom. All below him (McVey, Leadsom, Harper) eliminated (though only from the contest, sadly…). So far, only 19 MPs voted for Stewart. His immediate prospects look bleak, inasmuch as Boris-Idiot, someone with no real vision, ability, ideas, ideals, nor even basic decency, is the frontrunner still. Boris has 114 craven MPs backing him, so far.
What does it say about the Conservative Party and, to a lesser extent, the UK (England, mainly) that a blot like Boris Johnson may soon be Prime Minister? I am not talking about his character alone, but also his actual ability to be effective. Still, there it is…
Update, 17 June 2019
Well, as I guessed a couple of days ago, Rory Stewart has gained ground, at least in the betting, though the betting exchanges’ and bookmakers’ odds are often not a reliable guide to political results (see the EU Referendum, the Trump election, the recent Peterborough by-election etc).
Stewart is now at 2nd place in the betting to be next Conservative leader, though only at 16/1. Boris Johnson is favourite at around 1/5 odds-on (Hunt 20/1, Gove 46/1, Raab 85/1, Javid 120/1).
By all accounts, Stewart did well in the TV debate (Johnson the sole absentee, obviously afraid of being exposed as an idiot and incompetent, as well as wanting to seem to be the “presidential” figure above the fray).
Having said that, Stewart will have to pull off a considerable coup even to be one of the final two, though that now seems a 50-50 possibility.
Update, 19 June 2019
Well, Rory Stewart is out of the race, which means that, until or unless Boris Johnson leaves frontline politics, his career is stalled again. He pledged not to serve in a Johnson Cabinet, and, as I blogged previously, it is doubtful that Johnson will appoint him to anything significant anyway.
That leaves Johnson, Hunt, Gove, Javid.
Looks as though arguably the worst candidate is about to win…
Having said that, Stewart has staked his claim to be taken more seriously somewhere down the line. System politicians, like revolutionary ones, are all seeking to catch the right wave, like surfers.
Update, 20 June 2019
Just saw this tweet, posted 2 days ago. Worth reading; one has to take its veracity on trust, not ever having heard of the tweeter, and the emailer mentioned remaining unnamed.
So Rory Stewart is standing down as MP for Penrith and Borders at next election. He has also resigned from the Conservative Party. Reasons not given. Maybe, in the end, he just was not hungry enough, which would explain why he did not want further ministerial preferment, or to seek the role of PM, but does not explain why he has also decided not to continue as MP; neither does it explain why he has also resigned from the Conservative Party. Perhaps the situation will be clarified in due course.
Update, 5 October 2019
Ah…mystery solved. Stewart is intending to stand for the post of Mayor of London.
He has obviously seen how Boris-Idiot used the position to keep his profile high until he was ready to re-enter the Westminster fray.
The other main candidates are already known: Sadiq Khan, the present Mayor, for Labour, and Shaun Bailey, the West Indian who will be the Conservative candidate. Sadiq Khan has the support of the msm, the Jewish lobby etc, as a Labour mayor who is rather anti-Corbyn. Shaun Bailey may be seen by the blacks as rather an “Uncle Tom”, and there are still questions around missing or misapplied funds of a “social enterprise” he set up in 2006: the monies missing were never accounted for; other monies, amounting to the bulk of spending by the organization, went on “travel and subsistence”, probably for Bailey himself. No criminal charges or civil claims were ever brought, though.
Despite Khan’s poor record as Mayor, he is probably well-placed vis-a-vis Bailey. Now that Rory Stewart has entered the fray, Bailey is holed below the waterline and his candidature will inevitably sink. Whether Rory Stewart can beat Khan and the other candidates (the LibDem being the main also-ran) is an open question.
London is a mainly non-white city now, and an English candidate (well, Anglo-Scottish) like Stewart may find this an uphill slog. On the other hand, Khan is not a popular figure, Stewart is a fresh and now politically non-aligned contender who, however, has high public recognition and profile. I do not think that he can be written off here, and if that is so, his wider ambition, to be Prime Minister, may survive the presently wintry conditions.
Update and addendum, 10 October 2019
Thank to an alert and well-informed blog reader, I can now add a significant addendum to my study of Rory Stewart:
So it turns out that, notwithstanding the listed country house in the Scottish Borders, notwithstanding the almost caricature “country gentry” persona, Stewart is part-Jew! It now is clear that he is what the Reich called a “Mischling”, in his case one-quarter, his maternal grandfather having been “a Jewish doctor from Wimbledon”, whose own parents were Jews from Romania who arrived in London after having lived in New York City for a while.
Well, now it becomes clearer: the self-publicizing (shades of Boris Johnson…), the liking for “fancy dress”, eg tribal costume and being photographed posing in it, the pro-immigration stance, the Davos and Bilderberg linkages.
More than that: Stewart’s wife, Shoshana Stewart, is half-Jewish. In fact, the “half” in question is the maternal half, which means that, according to the way that Jews themselves calculate ancestry, his wife is “Jewish”, simpliciter; that also means that, according to Jewish custom, Stewart’s children are Jewish (though of course we non-Jews decide such designations according to genetic science, meaning that his children are in fact three-eighths Jewish, if my mathematical calculation is right, which often is not the case; anyway, no matter if the right answer is three-eighths or something else, the exact proportion changes nothing). According to the Jewish Chronicle report, above, Stewart and his wife and children celebrate Jewish religious holidays as well as the main Christian ones.
I smelt a rat about Stewart when I saw that the vocal Jew cabal on Twitter all seemed to favour him during the Conservative leadership contest, but it did not occur to me that he himself was part-Jew. I thought that his odd and dark looks came from Western Scottish origins (as they presumably do, in part). I thought that the Jews were supporting Stewart because of his “liberal” Conservatism…
How do these facts, concealed or at least not publicized until now, affect Stewart’s London Mayor election bid? Damaging, I think. While the Jews of North London will probably support him now, the far greater number of Muslims and others who commonly disfavour Jews will probably not vote for him (despite the fact that the present Mayor of London and Labour Party candidate, Sadiq Khan, a Muslim by origin, has been a complete doormat for the Jewish lobby for years).
Fair comment, surely, if one looks at Rory Stewart’s voting record as an MP (2010-2019).
Without taking away from his interesting and accomplished background, as detailed in my lengthy blog hereinabove, my feeling at the moment is that Rory Stewart is basically an oleaginous, dissembling, part-Jew shit.
Update, 6 April 2020
Stewart is no longer standing as candidate for Mayor of London:
So once again Rory Stewart is the nearly man: nearly something important in SIS or FCO, nearly Conservative Party leader, nearly Mayor of London. Sometimes a candidate has to stick in there and await Fate. Had Stewart not huffed off and resigned as MP after losing out to, ultimately, Boris Johnson, his time might have come, after Johnson messes up even more, which is inevitable.
I always recall being in the USA during the 1992 US Presidential Election campaign. At one point, Clinton was placed third of the three major candidates in the opinion polls. A poor third, at that. He stuck it out (admittedly, what else could he do?) and, after Ross Perot dropped out, beat George Bush snr. for the Presidency, being inaugurated in 1993.
[addendum, 31 October 2021: my point about Clinton sticking to it applies more forcefully to Ross Perot, which I should have explained better. Had Perot shown more resilience, and stuck to it, he might easily have become President and thus, as a non-Republican/Democrat candidate, made history. As it was, he dropped out, later claiming that sinister forces had threatened him and his family. Who were they? NWO/ZOG?].
Years earlier, Clinton, who at 31 had been a very young Governor of Arkansas, was defeated there after one 4-year term. Undeterred, he tried the next time and was re-elected. A stayer.
I should think that this spells the end of Rory Stewart as a potential political leader. What does it mean for the London race? I have not followed it closely, but it must give the Conservatives a better chance, despite their candidate being a West Indian with a very dodgy background in terms of near-fraud (though he has never been charged with anything).
Sadiq Khan was running at 8/1 on (1/8) with the bookmakers. Rory Stewart was at 11/8. Shaun Bailey, for Conservative Party, at 20/1. Now that Stewart is gone, I imagine that Sadiq Khan will go out to about 1/6, and Shaun Bailey go in to about 10/1 or so. Despite his poor record, Sadiq Khan is unlikely to lose to Shaun Bailey.
In a John Buchan story, the Stewart or “Hannay” character would no doubt “retire” from public life only because he would be secretly saving the Empire from imperial Russia, or imperial Germany, or would be thwarting a dastardly plot involving transnational conspirators. In fiction, he would save the Empire, then either be knighted or (and/or) be appointed Chief of the Imperial Secret Service. In real life? I have no idea. Stewart is now, or was until recently, teaching at Yale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart#Post-political_career.
Had Stewart retained his MP-status, he might now be in again with a real chance of leading his former party. Having decided not to continue as MP, he is necessarily out in the cold.
Update, 9 July 2022
Just read an appreciation of Stewart from the Tatler (2016, expanded and updated 2019). Don’t think I saw it before today. Written by Quentin Letts [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Letts].
Frankly, nowhere as complete, or as good, as my own assessment, if I say so myself. As for it containing “everything you need to know about Rory Stewart“, I think not! For one thing, no mention of the part-Jewish background, and no mention of the fact that his wife is half-Jewish.
Update, 2 April 2023
Well, in the end, the London Mayoral Election was held in 2021. There were 20 candidates, both Independents and those from political parties. In the run-off, Sadiq Khan (40%), beat Shaun Bailey (35.3%) in what turned out to be a close-run thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_London_mayoral_election.
As for Rory Stewart, now 50, he has pottered around doing podcasts in the past couple of years. He also moved to Jordan in 2021 with his wife and children, apparently to do work connected with his Turquoise Mountain charity.
That article mentions that Stewart is (or was, in September 2021, when the article was written) thinking of possibly standing again as a London mayoral candidate in 2024. I doubt that he will. The 2024 election will be run on FPTP lines, giving an outsider (in his case, as a non-party candidate) fewer chances.
Overall, it seems to me that Rory Stewart’s political career is finished, in all likelihood.
“Anyone with the slightest interest in politics should get a copy of Rory Stewart’s political memoir.
Not because he had a particularly long or even influential career: just nine years in Parliament and only months in the Cabinet. But you will learn more about the nature of Westminster machinations and how government actually works (or doesn’t) from this volume than from those of many more illustrious politicians. In terms of the quality of writing, there has been nothing to approach it since the diaries of Alan Clark (who never made it to the Cabinet at all).
But whereas Clark was a genuinely bad person — part of the attraction, perhaps — Stewart is a fundamentally good man, even if his self-belief, touching on the messianic, occasionally made him appear preposterous.”
[Dominic Lawson in the Daily Mail].
Interesting that Stewart was apparently in SIS/MI6 for several years, and that Dominic Lawson was said to have been a long-term SIS/MI6 source: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Lawson. Lawson is 17 years older than Stewart, in fact born the same year as me— 1956.
However, the allegations about Lawson do refer mainly to the 1990s and focus partly on the Balkans, particularly (ex-) Yugoslavia. Stewart joined FCO/SIS in the mid-1990s, and was posted to Montenegro in, I think, 1999. Tenuous link, perhaps nothing…
“This silly little man has delusions of grandeur“, “I cant wait to see the back of Khan, but Rory Stewart god help us“, “Gottle of Gear“, “Nay ,nay ,thrice times nay.“, “The guy’s a joke, and not a funny one“, “Please no, he’s a right weirdo” and “Oh no! Not this opportunist” are among some of the more polite.
Rory Stewart has now written his latest book. His profile is high enough even in 2023 to ensure msm interest and comment (not all favourable, though):
Behind a paywall, but I include it for the sake of completeness.
[Rory Stewart, 2023]
I expect that I shall buy the book secondhand off Amazon, once it reduces to about £5 or £2. The price for the new and unreleased (until 14 September) book has already declined from the original £22 to £16 or so.
I am not now in the new-book-buying classes (and prefer hardbacks) so the Amazon website is a great boon for me.
Not long ago, I bought the memoirs of Gorbachev, a heavy tome; great value at about £5 including postage from a used-book company on Amazon.
I have now bought another book: £2.80 only, and also including the postage. Hard to believe. One wonders how they make a profit, but then (to coin a phrase) I never was much of a businessman!
I met the author a few times in the 1980s. Frankly, a rather pompous man whom I (even more frankly) found rather unpleasant in a minor way, but his book might be interesting. As for the author, he is now deceased.
(about how Stewart is now angling for both a peerage and a ministerial portfolio from Starmer…).
Stewart’s ambition and careerism are both relentless, if inconsistent.
Actually, in terms of individual jobs or posts, I should say that Stewart (despite his many accomplishments) is a “quitter”, but behind that is his already-noted enormous ambition, “looming like a thundercloud over the scene“…
An old friend of mine used to quote her deceased husband (ex-Guards officer, ex-Royal Flying Corps, WW1, d. circa 1970): “if you throw a Jew out of the door, the Jew will sneak back through a window“… Of course, Stewart is only part-Jew.
Stewart once again proving the truth of the old adage about how it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people assume that you are an idiot, than speak and thus confirm it…
I had meant “Deadhead MPs” to be indeed “occasional” in these blog pages, but the “democratic” deadheads are so prevalent now, and so prone to getting themselves into trouble and into the newspapers, that I have had to write more often about them than I had at first intended.
Gavin Williamson’s background
So we move to Gavin Williamson. Where to start? At the beginning, I suppose: Williamson was born in 1976, in “bracing” Scarborough. His parents were both public sector office workers. Comprehensive school was followed by the University of Bradford, where he read Social Sciences. He was involved with the rowdy and eventually shut down Conservative Students organization, of which he was penultimate Chairman.
Williamson must have graduated in 1997 or 1998. The next we hear of him is in 2001, in North Yorkshire, where he was a county councillor for a while. He is also at that time involved in Conservative Party activities in Staffordshire and Derbyshire.
There is an obscurity about Williamson. We do not know what non-political jobs he has done, save for having been Managing Director of a fireplace manufacturer, Elgin & Hall, for a while (until 2004) and then Managing Director of and shareholder in Aynsley China, a Stoke on Trent china manufacturer founded in 1775 and which was dissolved in 2014. It seems, again, obscure as to when Williamson’s connection was severed, but between 2005 and his election as MP in 2010, he was also Managing Director of an architectural design firm or company. So we are told.
Am I missing something here? Williamson came from modest origins, his academic background seems to have been at best mediocre, there is no evidence in the public domain (that I have seen) of family wealth, yet here is Williamson, still in his twenties at that, becoming managing director of three separate companies in three different industries or areas of commercial activity, despite the fact that his academic background was in Social Sciences, nothing to do with business, industry, china manufacture, pottery, architecture or design. He is even described as “co-owner” (major shareholder?) of a china manufacturer. Where did he get the capital? Very odd.
It is likely that Williamson is a freemason, but all the same, his being appointed to those jobs (all seemingly within about 5-6 years) is a little strange, somehow.
Parliament
Williamson made a racing start in the House of Commons from election in 2010. He became a Parliamentary Private Secretary or PPS to a minister in 2011, again (this time to a Cabinet minister) in 2012, then made another career leap in 2013, becoming PPS to the Prime Minister (David Cameron-Levita).
In 2016, he supported Theresa May in her leadership bid, mainly (we are told) in order to stop Boris Johnson. In return, upon her victory, May made Williamson the Government Chief Whip.
In 2017, following the resignation of drunk and sex-pest Michael Fallon as Secretary of State for Defence (I feel another blog post in this series coming on…), Williamson was appointed to replace him.
Secretary of State for Defence
It was after having been appointed to Cabinet that Williamson’s lack of serious academic, political and intellectual background began to tell, resulting in a series of blunders and gaffes. The Sun “newspaper” reported that “
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has ‘lost the plot’ over barmy plan to put guns on tractors
Other crazy ideas include disguising mobile missile defence systems as Coca-Cola lorries and transforming old commercial ferries into beach assault craft”
and continued:
“DEFENCE Secretary Gavin Williamson has stunned military chiefs with crackpot ideas to solve an equipment crisis — including fitting tractors with guns. Williamson‘s department faces a shortfall of £20billion in its budget for new equipment.”
“A source said: “The man is out of his mind. No one knows what to do.”
As the MoD struggles to deal with a budget black hole, Williamson has been accused of hatching a series of crackpot schemes to solve an equipment crisis.
According to several senior sources they include:
MOUNTING “really expensive guns” on tractors and disguising mobile missile defence systems as Coca-Cola lorries;
BUYING old commercial ferries and transforming them into beach assault craft, and;
WASTING thousands of hours of civil service time on plans to launch his own medal“
The source added: “We need billions and serious ideas to tackle serious problems.
“Yet Williamson is mucking about with his spider and coming up with crazy suggestions. The man is out of his mind.
“His behaviour is totally bizarre and no one knows what to do.”
“Williamson took over at the MoD in November. The source added: “Everyone had so much hope in him. It all looks so misplaced now.”
Defence chiefs now fear Williamson’s bizarre regime has torpedoed any hope of the MoD getting desperately needed extra money out of the Treasury.
It needs £1billion more a year just to keep the armed forces at their present size — and it has to somehow fill a potential £20billion budget deficit in its £179billion ten-year equipment plan.
But sources say ex-furniture salesman Williamson’s failure to grapple with the detail and refusal to heed expert advice is proving disastrous.”
“It is feared he also scuppered any chance of a financial aid package by briefing against the Treasury and boasting he could “make or break” Theresa May as PM.
Williamson’s idea for armed tractors is said to have come at a summit on the equipment budget.
A source said: “Gavin just came out with it. He said, ‘Can’t we buy tractors and put really expensive guns on them?’ People were open-mouthed. Others didn’t know where to look. It was totally bizarre.”
Williamson has since denied making the comment.”
“But insiders say it was just one of a stream of nonsensical suggestions.
He allegedly outlined the disguised missile trucks during a meeting with his Polish counterpart to discuss the renewed Russian threat.
A source said: “The idea was to have an HGV with the livery of the Coca-Cola brand — but inside would be a missile defence system.
“His plan was missiles systems disguised as soft drinks delivery trucks. No one really knows why.” [The Sun]
More:
Williamson thought that a proper way to respond to the Spanish government over Gibraltar was to fire paintballs at Spanish Navy gunboats;
Williamson responded to Russian comments about the Skripal affair by saying that “Russia should just shut up and go away”, hardly a suitable response, neither tough (bearing in mind Russia’s alleged behaviour) nor intelligent (bearing in mind Russia’s enormous and growing strength!);
Williamson “threatened” to send a warship (one of maybe a dozen or so that the UK now has) to the South China Sea, to intimidate China…That would really frighten a country that has 512large ships, about 800 naval aircraft alone, and a quarter of a million sailors! (see the link in the Notes, below, for details of the truly fearsome Chinese order of battle on the high seas).
In Williamson’s very silly mental landscape, throwing around schoolboy remarks about paintballs, shutting up nuisances with a throwaway remark and disguising mobile missile-carriers as Coca-Cola trucks serve as brainstorming, I suppose…
Now, of course, Williamson has been sacked for supposedly having leaked secret talks in the National Security Council (NSC). He denies having done so. As Mandy Rice-Davies said, in another context, “well he would, wouldn’t he?”
What can we learn from this farce?
For me, there is much that could be learned, were there politicians with the ability to learn.
First of all, I am concerned less about the leak, or who did it, than the fact that a mediocre little careerist like Williamson could ever become an MP, let alone minister, let alone Cabinet minister. It must be something to do with freemasonry and/or the Israel lobby (is Williamson a member of Conservative Friends of Israel? Odds-on…).
Secondly, I am concerned that the now-ex Secretary of State for Defence has so much time on his hands that while in office he can spend a quarter of an hour telling his contact at the Daily Telegraph all about his day (or whatever). Also, was that mobile telephone secure?
As soon as the leak scandal blew up, I thought “either Williamson or Fox”. Fox probably learned his lesson when Cameron-Levita caught him leaking years ago.
South Staffordshire is one of the safest Conservative seats. Williamson got 69.8% of the votes cast in 2017.
What now?
Williamson has been replaced by Penny Mordaunt, though the reason remains obscure. Surely her stints as naval “reservist” sub-lieutenant were not taken into account? Rory Stewart MP, arguably a better candidate, was also elevated, but to another ministry.
As to Williamson himself, there are now calls for him to face police action and possible prosecution. Theresa May would rather avoid that, in the runup to the EU elections, but time will, of course, tell. Watch this space.
I doubt whether Williamson can ever recover from this whole situation, though he will be able to stay on as MP unless sacked by his local Conservative association. He will not be seen on the Conservative front benches again, though.
Well, I was wrong. Not about Willamson as such, but the parting comment that his frontbench Conservative career had finished. Incredibly, Boris-idiot has appointed Williamson as Secretary of State for Education! So this twerp is actually posing as a Cabinet minister again! At first I was incredulous, but there again, you have a complete idiot as Prime Minister, and a bunch of total fuck-ups as Cabinet ministers anyway: Priti Patel, Matt Hancock, Sajid Javid, Liz Truss, Grant Shapps (!), that little pissant Robert Jenrick, Dominic Raab, Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom, Amber bloody Rudd, the idiotic James Cleverly, Liz Truss (!), Theresa Villiers (a doormat for the Jew-Zionist lobby even in a Cabinet stuffed with Zionists and pro-Zionists) etc…
…and…among those who sit in on Cabinet without being members, Nadine Dorries (I mean, how lowbrow can you go?) and even, on occasion, apparently, ah…the fellow who runs the Wetherspoon’s pub chain! Who is not even an MP!
Among the rest of the Cabinet and the occasional attendees, I suppose that Williamson does not stand out as impossibly half-witted. No, he fits in just fine…
“Ian Millard has left the building”…
Update, 4 March 2022
Williamson was dismissed as Education Secretary in 2021; also dismissed from Cabinet and Government.
A useless freeloader, personifying the broken UK political system.
Update, 25 May 2024
“From the next general election, Williamson’s current seat of South Staffordshire will be split, with Williamson being selected as the Conservative candidate for the newly formed constituency of Stone, Great Wyrely and Penkridge. Philip Catney, a senior politics lecturer at Keele University described the newly formed constituency as a safe seat, with a Conservative MP being “guaranteed a job for life”.[94]
On 4 September 2023 Williamson was told by a Parliamentary independent expert panel to apologise to the House of Commons and to take behavioural training. The panel concluded that he had abused his power when he sent Morton text messages in 2022.[95]“
[Wikipedia]
An “eccentric” but not a pleasant one. Useless idiot.
I have thought for a week or so before writing this. As one would expect, there has been an outpouring of virtue-signalling (accompanied by State repression or threats thereof) not seen since the Anders Breivik event in Norway eight years ago. I wanted to write not only about the Christchurch shooting itself, and about the perpetrator, but also about surrounding events and the overall context. I also want to examine the moral and ethical aspects.
Firearms
There are many mass shootings in the world. The USA alone seems to have one on a weekly if not daily basis (and those are only the ones which are reported heavily). The anti-gun lobby focusses on ease of access in the USA, New Zealand etc. Obviously, if a disturbed (or other) person cannot acquire firearms, then he cannot shoot people; he can, however, stab them, blow them up, drive at them etc.
Firearms events have more victims, usually. Having said that, one could say “ban cars, because some people misuse them”, to which the answer would no doubt come, “people need cars, they don’t need guns”. Well, true, though still arguable. It all depends on where society decides to draw the line. In the UK, since the late 1990s, it has been almost impossible to own lawfully-held firearms (except shotguns and, in some cases, certain types of hunting rifle). That was not always the case.
“Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 with the exception of Northern Ireland. Dunblane was the UK’s first and only school shooting. There has been one spree killing since Dunblane, the Cumbria shootings in June 2010, which involved a shotgun and a .22 calibre rifle, both legally-held. Prior to Dunblane though, there had only been one mass shooting carried out by a civilian in the entire history of Great Britain, which took place in Hungerford on 19 August 1987.” [Wikipedia]
Note that. In the entire history of Great Britain there have only been three mass shootings, yet the government took the opportunity to ban most firearms (at which time there had only been two such events in British history), and did so with the apparent agreement of a majority, probably high, of the general public, most of whom know nothing about firearms, have never so much as seen one (other than on TV), and who were stampeded by the publicity around the 1996 Dunblane school murders.
At one time, there was little regulation of firearms in the UK:
“Following the assassination of William of Orange in 1584 with a concealed wheellock pistol, Queen Elizabeth I, fearing assassination by Roman Catholics, banned possession of wheellock pistols in England near a royal palace in 1594.[73] There were growing concerns in the 16th century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use in England and Wales.[74]
The Bill of Rights restated the ancient rights of the people to bear arms by reinstating the right of Protestants to have arms after they had been illegally disarmed by James II. It follows closely the Declaration of Rights made in Parliament in February 1689.[75] The Bill of Rights text declares that “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law”.” [Wikipedia]
“British common law applied to the UK and Australia, and until 1791 to the colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of common law.”
Starting in 1903, there were restrictions placed on purchase of certain firearms (mainly pistols), subsequent Acts of 1920, 1937, 1968 and 1988 tightening the law in other respects too.
It is worth noting that, following the two 1997 Acts, which effectively banned private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) and required surrender of thus-affected weapons, 57,000 people (0.1% of the population) handed in 162,000 weapons and 700 tons of ammunition! In other words, one maniac with a few weapons became the trigger (so to speak) for a law which affected at least 57,000 people all of whom had held and used their weapons peacefully until then!
I personally was not affected by the ban, though I was at one time (mid 1970s/mid 1980s) a member of the Kensington Rifle and Pistol Club in London. In the UK and/or other countries, I have fired a variety of weapons, including the 7.62 R-1 automatic/semi-auto rifle (there was a switch on the side), semi-automatic pistols including the 9mm Browning Hi-Power and numerous others in .32 and .22 calibre, and also revolvers such as the Colt .32, .38 and .357 Magnum, and have handled (overseas and mostly long ago, again in the 1970s and 1980s) others, such as the famous Uzi submachinegun and some Warsaw Pact automatic weapons. Despite that, I am not in fact particularly interested in firearms (or any weapons) and, even in the unlikely event of the 1997 Acts being repealed, would probably not bother to join a gun club. As far as shotguns are concerned, I have used them in Ireland and in England (in England only for clay pigeon, because I disapprove of shooting birds and animals for sport or “fun”). I myself have never privately owned any firearm.
I doubt that many people now even know that there used to be public ranges in England, where for a small fee, people could take their own weapons and fire them. I went once (in 1976) to the one at Dartford (Kent), quite near what was then a (disused?) mental hospital. Now the area is probably either a housing development or perhaps might be the present Dartford Clay Shooting Club, which (I just saw on Google) seems to be at or near the same location (it is not an area that I know, though).
Most British people have never fired nor even seen a firearm and that does tend to colour their reaction.
In the USA, things are of course very different. The old English Common Law right to bear arms is written into the U.S. Constitution, though muddied by the famous words about “a well-regulated militia” etc. Leaving aside the legal and quasi-theological arguments revolving around that Amendment, it always seemed to me when I lived there (in New Jersey) that it was odd for many American states to require people to have a licence to own or at least drive a car, but not a pistol, shotgun or something even more dangerous.
In the UK, people tend to say, “look at the USA: easy ownership of guns and a massacre every week!”, but that has to be set against the fact that tens and probably hundreds of millions of Americans own firearms. Probably the vast majority have never received even the most basic training. True, there are huge numbers of crimes committed with firearms in the USA, but simply banning guns (as in some other countries) is a simplistic solution which might leave American citizens helpless. Societies differ. I met an American lady, a blonde with startlingly blue eyes, in the Caribbean. She said that she had a large silver-plated semi-automatic pistol (I forget the marque), which she kept under her pillow. I never got to see it, by the way!
As far as New Zealand is concerned, its gun ownership laws were lax compared to the UK or even Australia, but huge numbers of New Zealanders (about 5% of the population, 250,000 out of 5 million) own at least one weapon. New Zealand is a country about 10% larger than the UK but with only about 5 million inhabitants. Much of the country is rural. There had never been a massacre there such as the one recently perpetrated in Christchurch by Brenton Tarrant.
First impressions, Muslims in the UK and NZ, the history, the demographics
When the Christchurch attack happened and the news organizations started to report, my first surprise was to hear that New Zealand has 50,000 Muslims living there! That figure may seem small, but is still 1% of the whole population.
In the UK, there were at one time effectively no Muslims, though trade with Muslim lands, evidenced by coins, goes back at least as far as the time of King Offa in the 8th Century. All the same, there were only a few Muslims in England, mostly diplomats, traders etc, for centuries, e.g. in the Tudor and Stuart periods (15th-17thC), until sailors from British India (mostly Bengal) known as lascars started to spend time in ports such as London, Bristol, Liverpool etc in the 19thC. There may have been 10,000 at any one time, but few were permanent residents. The Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle occasionally mention lascars, not infrequently preceded by words such as “rascally”.
The first small mosque in England was built in Woking (Surrey) in 1889 (it’s still there, quite near the railway station), having been built there adjunct to an Islamic burial ground. The first mosque in London only appeared in 1924. By 2007, there had been established 1,500 mosques in the UK! Now, in 2019, the figure is even greater: 1,750 [BBC statistic]. 250 more mosques in little more than a decade…
[please see addendum at foot of this blog post]
As to the population figures, England and Wales had 50,000 Muslims in 1961. That was then around 0.1% of the whole population. A decade later, in 1971, there were 226,000, a quadrupling, then by 1981, 553,000; 1991, 950,000. Doubling every decade at that point. Then 1.6 million in 2001; 2.7 million by 2011 and, a mere three years later in 2014, well over 3 million.
The present number of UK-based Muslims is not officially known but is around 3.5 million.
So in the UK, 50,000 Muslims became (via immigration and births) 3.5 million within little more than half a century. New Zealand has 50,000 now. New Zealand has different immigration and other factors as compared to the UK, but will New Zealand, a land of only 5 million people now, have a population of Muslims alone of 3.5 million by, say, 2075 or 2100? It cannot be dismissed out of hand. At that point, the Muslims would be already dominant even if the general NZ population will by then have grown to, say, 10 million (twice its present level). Yes, that projected third of the population could in fact be the dominant bloc. A laser is powerful because its light is concentrated and disciplined, not diffuse.
The intention of the shooter
It seems that the perpetrator of the massacre had been travelling, perhaps using inherited monies, for 7 years. Information given out by the msm indicates that Tarrant was “radicalized” not while a member of some group or party, but by events witnessed while travelling around Europe and, finally, in New Zealand itself.
The manifesto of Brenton Tarrant, The Great Replacement, will not be reproduced here. It is found with ease on the Internet, via Google or the like. I do not want to give anyone hostile the excuse to say that, by posting it on here, I am somehow “encouraging” terrorism or political violence. It does seem very repressive that major Internet platforms have been pressured to remove his manifesto, and have acquiesced.
Reading that manifesto, the motivation of Brenton Tarrant seems to be almost impersonal on the face of it. It has elements of sacrifice and self-sacrifice. It shows determination (he has that in common with Breivik). As to education or erudition, I do not think that he lays claim to much, but there is intelligence manifest in the document. He has learned (whatever might be said about that) from his travels.
Politically, Brenton Tarrant describes himself as an “ethno-nationalist”. He also says (the manifesto is mostly written in Q & A format):
“Were/are you a nazi?
No, actual nazis do not exist.They haven’t been a political or social force anywhere in the world for more than 60 years.”
That is a good point. As Hitler said, “National Socialism is not for export.” Hitler also remarked to his last secretary, Traudl Junge, and others, in 1945, that German National Socialism was finished, but that something with the same essential core might emerge “in a “hundred years” and then “take hold of the world with the force of a religion”. Well, here we are in 2019, 100 years after the founding of the NSDAP, though of course we are only 74 years from the end of the Reich.
Tarrant also describes himself as an “eco-fascist” as well as writing that he is at one with many of the policies expounded by Oswald Mosley. A word of explanation might be useful here. I knew someone who was at one time quite well acquainted with Mosley. She always said that he was basically an intellectual who saw himself as a “man of action” (“Action” was also the name of Mosley’s newspaper). Mosley of course was also a “man of action”, who had flown in the First World War (where he was a fellow-officer of the aforesaid lady’s husband in the Royal Flying Corps), but he, arguably, made too much of sports, fencing, physical fitness generally, as a politician. That was the Zeitgeist of the 1930s though, not only in Germany and Italy but in the UK, where lidos and indoor public swimming pools etc proliferated.
Mosley was once described as someone who could have been a great prime minister of the UK, for either [System] party. He was unwilling to accept mass unemployment, so resigned from the Labour Party (under which he was a government minister).
Mosley is now remembered, in the public mind, in the “cartoon” version put out by a largely Jewish mass media: the sneering Fascist demagogue in his black uniform. As with all important lies, of course, there was a kernel of truth in that.
As to Tarrant’s “eco-fascism”, there has always been linkage between “green” politics, environmentalism etc, and social nationalism. See:
In fact, the author Henry Williamson, who wrote Tarka the Otter, combined Englishness, support for Mosley and support for German National Socialism with being an early environmentalist and, in essence, “green” activist:
Tarrant declares in his manifesto that he will not kill NZ police. He kept to that and allowed himself to be captured. He also makes the following point:
“Were/are you a supporter of Brexit?
Yes, though not for an official policy made. The truth is that eventually people must face the fact that it wasn’t a damn thing to do with the economy.That it was the British people firing back at mass immigration, cultural displacement and globalism, and that’s a great and wonderful thing.”
Amen to that.
He adds, re. Marine le Pen’s party in France:
“Were/are you a supporter of Front National?
No,they’re a party of milquetoast civic nationalist boomers, completely incapable of creating real change and with no actual viable plan to save their nation.“
Rather oddly, Tarrant says that one Candace Owens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Political_views was a major influence. I had to look up her details. I myself see nothing of any real interest there, but this blog post is about the New Zealand attack and its author, not me.
As to the psychology of Brenton Tarrant, hard to say. True, he shares some characteristics with other “rampage killers”, being marginalized by society, not having a solid career or place in society, not having a solid marriage or other relationship either. He seems to be sane and in fact makes some very good if obvious points in his manifesto. No doubt the New Zealand state’s psychiatrists will find suitable labels to attach…
The reaction of the New Zealand state, msm and public
Once the initial shock of the massacre ebbed, there was a wave of sympathy for the victims, especially in New Zealand itself. Looking at the TV news, one can see how warm-hearted the New Zealanders are, though it is all too easy to see a crowd of a few hundred and assume that it represents a whole country. The New Zealanders have proven that they have a heart. It is far more doubtful as to whether they have a head. Like Australia, New Zealand has gone from being an entirely white European society (albeit grafted onto an existing “native” one) to a developing multikulti mess, but the extent of that is probably slight enough in terms of numbers and percentages (so far) that most New Zealanders are unaware of it. I cannot say.
The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, immediately started virtue-signalling on an epic scale, wearing Arab dress and insisting that even women police officers did the same. It was rather chilling to see an armed policewoman carrying her automatic rifle and wearing the Arab hijab. Reminiscent of the ISIS barbarians.
Stray thoughts
Many of those who virtue-signalled like mad about the people shot in New Zealand scarcely noticed, I think, the many killed recently by American or British bombers when the ISIS barbarians were under attack. The ISIS fighters had to take their chances, perhaps their camp-followers too, but what about uninvolved civilians? What about small children also killed by the assaults on towns such as Raqqa?
Then take another example: the Second World War bombings (on both sides, though the Allied bombing was far worse, in Germany, both in terms of numbers killed and in terms of intensity). In Japan, the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have supported the war effort, may also have been related to soldiers or whatever, but were themselves not combatants. Their children even less so.
[above, Dresden 1945]
To attribute blame becomes difficult. That is why human beings cling to the conventional. Many will have seen The Night of the Generals, which is based around questions like that: in the midst of a massive war, where thousands are being killed monthly or weekly, and where the Wehrmacht resistance to Hitler is in the background (with its premise that Hitler must die for the greater good…), an investigation is launched into the murder of a prostitute.
If conventional morality says that it is justified for a state to kill civilians and even civilian children for some larger end result, then perhaps the same argument could be used by an individual who massacres civilians whom he regards as either “the enemy” or “collateral damage” to achieve some larger end? The moral question which looked so clear superficially becomes opaque.
For me, the NZ shooting was unpleasant, unnecessary and possibly counter-productive. Tarrant obviously disagrees with that conclusion. All one can say is that the large-scale movements of population will continue until someone says or enough people say NO.
Ian Robert Millard 