Well, here we are…not on Merry Christmas but (maybe) near Happy New Year. Time for a few stray thoughts about the year passing away, the year(s) ahead, and about where UK society and the world may be going.
I am going to be adding to this throughout the day, in a stream of consciousness way, not in any particular order or with any fixed structure.
Bush fires in Australia
As a child of 10-13, I lived in Sydney, on the North Shore (Mosman/Cremorne), in the late 1960s (2-3 years). I recall seeing bushfire damage in the Ku-ring-gai Chase area (many miles to the North) once or twice (may have been a controlled burn fire gap), but only once saw an actual bushfire, and that was when my family drove up to Queensland in 1968. Somewhere in the Northern coastal part of New South Wales. We drove through an area with fire on both sides of the highway (Australia had no motorways then outside Sydney). That cannot of course be compared to the almost apocalyptic pictures we now see on TV from NSW and Victoria.
Temperatures? Well, I do recall that, one day, in Sydney, the news was full of how the next day would be the hottest ever recorded in Sydney. I think it got to 112F (44C). One day only, as far as I can remember. I think that that was in December 1967 or January 1968. I see from Wikipedia that Sydney’s record high, more recently, is recorded as having been 45C. So not very different.
Where it is now different is that such extreme heat now seems to go on for weeks or even months. I have heard so from members of my family who have visited Sydney a number of times in the past 20 years or so (a few even live there). They have no doubt that Australia is far hotter now than it was in the late 1960s. As I say, it is now not a question of isolated very hot days but of relentless heat every year for months at a time.
No-one had aircon in their home then!
For me, the question of “climate change” or “global warming” resolves into:
Is the climate worldwide getting hotter?
Is human behaviour part (or even all) of the causation?
What if anything can be done to ameliorate the effects, or even halt the process?
For me (obviously not a scientist and/or “expert”), again, the answers (provisionally) seem to be:
There is evidence that there is a warming trend worldwide, but the evidence is far from conclusive;
Human behaviour may be part of the causative trigger, but is unlikely to be the whole or only reason why the Earth’s atmosphere etc is warming (assuming that it is);
Human behaviour might make a difference but only if the really large-scale industrial powers, with overwhelmingly huge populations, cease to exist or to exist in the way that they now do. I am talking about, mainly, China and India.
What I can be certain about is that ridiculous rants by the likes of Greta Thunberg, and the kind of pathetic sub-terrorism indulged in by Extinction Rebellion will achieve nothing at all. I have blogged about these already:
For me, it is clear that the problem is, at root, the huge human population on the Earth now, which is twice as large as it was even in 1970 and about twenty times what it was at the start of our present age (the Fifth Post-Atlantean) in or about 1400 AD.
I feel that a huge “correction” in coming. In fact, I am rather glad that I shall probably be discarnate when it happens, though I do feel a responsibility, not to do anything to prevent it (I have no power to do so anyway), but to plant a seed which may one day burst into life as a new super-race and super-culture.
The collapse of the recent “climate change” summit was inevitable. The large polluting countries, chief among them China and India, cannot do enough (on the premise that cutting back on “emissions” actually helps), the USA will not do much, so the international System and the System msm concentrate on the peripheral issues, such as “emissions” of carbon from countries such as the UK, Australia etc. The UK only produces about 1% of global carbon “emissions” anyway, so it scarcely matters, in reality, what the UK does. That is even more true in respect of Australia.
Russia and “the West”
Russia today is not the Soviet Union. It is merely a large nation-state which sits somewhere between being a regional power and being a superpower.
The Soviet Union wanted to take over the world and certainly Europe in the 1920s, 1930s and even 1940s. By the 1950s, its leaders knew that that would probably never happen. Just as the Schlieffen Plan solidified into the trench warfare of the First World War after 1914, the revolutionary and later at least expansionist aspirations of the Soviet Union had solidified by the late 1940s into the Cold War rivalry with the US-led “West”. After 1989, that had all but stopped but was then replaced by a Russian-nationalist ideology.
As it now is, Russia is not going to invade Europe, but NATO is encircling (has encircled) Russia, and is pushing. Don’t push Russia too far. It now has hypersonic missiles and is years in advance of the Americans. The new missiles can hit American targets within 15 minutes.
“The general who oversees U.S. nuclear forces, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, said in February that hypersonic missiles can strike America within 15 minutes, half the time of ballistic weapons” [Bloomberg]
The lesson is obvious: stop poking Russia with a sharp stick.
In terms of conventional arms too, if need be, Russia can place 4 million men in the field, and even its active forces dwarf those of Europe and are more effective as well. As for the Americans, they have technology and numbers, but do they have real will?
The New World Order tried to swallow Russia in the decade after 1989. It failed, thanks to the upsurge in Russian nationalism under Putin and also thanks to the Islamist upsurge.
Russia is unlikely to be the aggressor (in Europe) but do not underestimate its power.
Some people make the mistake of saying “Russia’s economy has fundamental weaknesses, therefore it is militarily weak”. A mistake made throughout history. The Medes and the Persians. The Spartans and the Persian Empire etc. Stalin said of the atom bomb, “we must have it even if we have to eat grass”…(cf. North Korea).
China
One of the jokes of recent years was the spectacle of the then UK Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, a former fireplace salesman, interrupting playing with his pet spider (yes, really…) to threaten both Russia and China with his meagre forces! What a total idiot! He even threatened to send one of Britain’s few (about 20) capital ships to the South China Sea! That would really frighten China, which has about 700 naval ships and submarines, and over 700 naval aircraft! Not to mention 255,000 sailors:
I have blogged a great deal about the recent General Election. No point in regurgitating all that. Still, worth recalling that the 2019 Conservative vote only increased by 1.2 points over 2017. The Labour vote fell by 8 points. All the same, Corbyn did as well or better than Miliband or Brown, in national vote percentage terms, and not far short of Blair. Unfortunately for Corbyn, the national vote percentage is not the only factor.
The General Election of 2019 reinforced my view that Labour is now a niche party for the “blacks and browns” as well as public service people. It has no broad appeal. That however may change. Had only 18-24 y o voters voted, Labour would have captured almost all seats in England and Wales, and at least half of those in Scotland. The Conservatives would, by contrast, have no seats at all, not one. Is that a straw in the wind? Was 2019 the “last hurrah” for Labour, for the Conservatives, or for both?
The roots of the Conservatives in their new Northern seats are very shallow. Look at Hartlepool, a Labour seat even now. Labour received over a third of the vote, but both Con and Brexit Party over a quarter. Volatile, like all of the North and Midlands now.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Labour, if radical, could bounce back and, with new voters coming up and retired elderly ones dying, seize back the field, all but wiping out a Conservative Party which in some respect is as weak as Labour.
In the last couple of years, we have seen Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) convicted and (incredibly) imprisoned merely for making a humorous reference to Jews in a public speech, and the satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz convicted and briefly imprisoned (the matter is still in part under appeal as I write) for singing humorous songs!
What we face in the UK is an intensification of the assault on free speech, which is actually now being placed in the hands of police supposedly investigating “terrorism”! One man was convicted in 2019 of putting up “neo-Nazi” stickers on lamp-posts. Sentence? 2.5 years! Another was imprisoned for 2 years merely for posting remarks o Twitter and Facebook. The judge in that case was unwise enough to say that the harsh punishment was “to deter others”. A poundland Judge Jeffreys…
Etc
There is a huge amount still to say, but no more time today.
Merry Christmas to my blog readers (and to the pagans among you, “Merry Wolfmoon”! I hope that I got that right…)
Farage: did he stab his own candidates in the back for a knighthood?
It doesn’t remotely matter what we think. Nige and Boris did a deal- right after Boris said he wouldn’t do a deal with Nige 😂 IT’S HAPPENING https://t.co/FLQYudZOR6
My reading of Farage is that he would prefer a million or two stashed in BVI or Panamanian accounts to an official honour of that sort, but who knows (either way…)?
Aimez-vous Brahms?
Interesting article on falling life expectancy in the UK
“Austerity in the UK was a political choice made in the summer of 2010. Its effects have been devastating.”
“The UK has reduced public spending to 36% of GDP by the end of 2019 from a peak of 41% in 2006. Today, rates of public spending in the UK as a whole are only a fraction above those of the US. Almost every other country in the EU spends more on its public services than the UK does; almost every other country in Europe now has a lower infant mortality than the UK.” [The Correspondent]
“A man has been accused of attacking 16 cats, nine of which were killed over the space of eight months in Brighton.
Sussex police charged Steven Bouquet, 52, a security guard, with 16 counts of criminal damage relating to the wounding or killing of 16 cats between between 2 October 2018 and 1 June 2019.
The charges are part of Operation Diverge, the force’s investigation into a number of cat deaths in the city of Brighton and Hove.
Bouquet, who was also charged with possessing a knife in a public place, is due to appear at Brighton magistrates court on 23 January.
The South East district crown prosecutor, Sally Lakin, said: “Following a spate of attacks on cats in the Brighton area, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has authorised Sussex police to charge Steven Bouquet with 16 charges of criminal damage, relating to attacks on 16 cats, nine of which were killed and seven were seriously injured.
“The allegations relate to incidents which took place between 2 October 2018 and 1 June 2019. This is a complex case and this decision was made following a careful review of all of the evidence presented to us.”
The CPS said it had carefully considered which charges would be most appropriate in the case and concluded the defendant should be charged with criminal damage.
“This does not in any way detract from the seriousness of the offence or the great distress these incidents will have caused the owners of the cats,” the CPS said. “However, under current legislation, cats and other animals are deemed as property.”
The charge of animal cruelty was thought inappropriate as the defendant was not the owner of the cats. It would also attract a lesser sentence than criminal damage.” [Guardian]
Not a very Christmas-y story, but one which deserves to be reported more widely (and no comment from me, the trial process not having even started, let alone concluded).
Today I reflect on the General Election and its aftermath.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of any of the System parties, and I did not, as such, support any of the System parties in this election.
In my Polling Day blog, I made the point that the opinion polls, with their variations and taking into account error margins, might have meant either a Conservative majority of over 100 or a hung Parliament with the misnamed “Conservatives” as short of a majority as -40.
I felt that the election was impossible to call, but at the same time felt a responsibility to the readers of this blog (not a huge number, but today I have had, so far, about 250 hits from about 100 different people, apparently situate in the UK and US, Germany, Hong Kong, various other states, even Burkina Faso) to make a judgment call.
I was wide of the mark. I thought that either the “Conservatives” would get a majority of perhaps 10 MPs, or that the election would produce a hung Parliament.
In respect of the other parties, I was closer: I said that the SNP would return with over 50 MPs (48), that the LibDems would get fewer than 10 (11) and that Brexit Party, stabbed in the back by its own leader and founder, would just implode and get no MPs (exactly correct).
Labour
I have blogged repeatedly that all the main (System) parties in the UK have run beyond their properly-allotted time.
The tweet below is from a mentally-disturbed “antifa” person who used to troll me, or about me, endlessly when I was on Twitter, but I agree with him on this point:
Seeing so many Northern working class seats being lost to Tories. Conned into voting for a man and a party who couldn't care less about them. It's tragic.
Like the North did after a decade of Thatcher, they'll realise, soon.
There had been, for 4 years prior to the election, a campaign on radio, TV, in the Press, on social media by —mainly— Jew-Zionists against Corbyn and Labour.
The Jewish campaign against Corbyn intensified after Boris Johnson (himself, inter alia, part-Jew) called this election.
The Jewish campaign included a rant by Chief Rabbi (I prefer Chief Pharisee) Ephraim Mirvis, who talked about “our nation losing its soul”. What nation? Mirvis was born in South Africa, spent most of his life in Israel, moved to Ireland in the 1980s or 1990s and only washed up on UK shore in the mid/late 1990s.
All the (as Rupert Murdoch said several years ago, Jewish owned or run) “British” Press was part of the campaign against Corbyn to a greater or lesser extent.
Labour policies were scarcely put to the voters in the mainstream media.
In addition:
Labour has for some many years been becoming, not entirely but to a large extent, the party of the “blacks and browns”.
Labour favours something close to “open borders”; disastrously wrongheaded
Diane Abbott: Labour minders put her in near-Purdah during the campaign but she must have been worth a million or more votes…to the Conservatives…
The tweet below, by “Champion Puffa”, made me laugh! He’s right, too!
[2020 note: the tweet was later deleted, it seems, and referred to pathetic African talking head puppet “Femi Sorry”]
She seems to imagine that the Grenfell matter, unpleasant as it was, remains some kind of major concern for the British people, who mostly felt sorry for the victims but understood that many of them were not even supposed to be in the UK (were not lawfully resident here). Emma Dent Coad is now an ex-MP, because she did not understand that.
There is a kind of echo chamber on Twitter, Facebook etc, which makes the Labour partisans blind to realities, not least because former tweeters such as myself are expelled from Twitter (since mid-2018 in my case, after having been conspired against by an unholy alliance of Zionist Jews and “socialist” Labour supporters).
Look at the tweet below, posted by “Dr.” Louise Raw (apparent main activity: tweeting all day, like so many “antifa” types). She correctly points out the exploitative finance-capitalist regime which will now intensify under Boris-idiot, but thinks that the answer is “unions”, which after the 1980s became useless. Mass immigration killed them as effective organizations, just as mass immigration is killing the NHS, congesting rail and road, making schools burst at the seams etc. Yes, doctors and nurses are imported in large numbers (why are we not training our own?) but immigrants are also huge users of NHS services. Huge users…
Be warned-the Tories will be coming for the unions. Join one if you can, and get active. We will need them. pic.twitter.com/nix9cUi5vE
Labour lost out in the North and Midlands partly because there is no industrial proletariat left. Also, why would the present Northern and Midlands masses vote for the party of blacks such as David Lammy, Diane Abbott, Kate Osamor, Dawn Butler? Why? There is no reason…
Labour activists and leaders (Corbyn, McDonnell) seem to be “anti-Israel”, but still willing to parrot Israeli/Jewish “holocaust” nonsense etc. Cognitive dissonance.
Labour’s Jewish and Zionist MPs were still attacking Corbyn even during the campaign. Sex pest depressive and ex-MP John Woodcock joined up with expenses cheat fraud and ex-MP Ian Austin to trash Labour.
Why would people vote for nasty “antifascist” thugs like John McDonnell? No reason…
Brexit: this was in fact not a reason not to vote Labour and the post-Election polling supports that, except that Brexit was to some extent a code, which meant STOP IMMIGRATION! Is Labour listening? No.
As a matter of fact, despite all of the above (and more), 32.2% of the voters that voted still voted Labour.
A third of the British people that bothered to vote, and so more than a third of the voting England-resident population (though including blacks and browns) voted for Labour despite the tsunami of Jewish or Jewish-directed propaganda fed to them in the Press, and on BBC, Sky News etc.
The future
54% of 18-24 year olds voted Labour. Labour may have a chance of rebirth there, but unless it hits much harder against embedded Zionism in the UK, rotting away our msm, our institutions, law, politics etc, Labour will be wasting its time.
Labour would have done much better in this election, maybe even won, had there not been this constant Jewish-Zionist attack day after day after day.
Conservatives
Former Conservative MPs, ministers, even a Prime Minister (John Major) etc begged the public to think before voting and to vote Labour or at least not Conservative! That failed. Why?
the appeal was to thought; the “moronic masses” operate mainly on emotion or just unconscious willing.
Brexit was a code word with a varied content (I write as someone in favour of Brexit) but those behind “Boris” were using it as an emotional trigger to bypass thought.
Voters in many —mainly white— parts of England and Wales understood that Labour has ceased to much represent them, their race, culture, identity. Not true everywhere, not so of every Labour MP, but true enough in many areas.
This was not a vote for the Conservatives (whose vote only went up by about 1 point) but against Labour (whose vote collapsed by 8 points).
What else? Well…
There is the point that voters did not have a social-national party for which to vote. They had Labour, certainly “social” but only partly national. They had the LibDems, a party of the suburban middle classes. They had the Conservatives, posing as “nationalist” slightly, or they had Brexit Party, the founder and leader of which killed it by turning it (in Chinese Red Guard language) into a “running-dog” of the Conservatives. Faced with that choice, many chose Con over Lab.
Labour ignored the mass rape of white English girls by various kinds of black-brown riff-raff over a period of 20+ years. That has damaged Labour, in some parts of the country, as badly as the child abuse scandals have damaged the Roman Catholic church.
LibDems and Brexit Party
As I forecast, the LibDems have been much diminished (again) and Brexit Party effectively killed off.
Jo Swinson thought that, by doormatting for the Jew-Zionists, she would find favour. She did— with the Jews. However, the British voters had no interest in that, and just saw a Con-lite woman and a party without a real identity.
Brexit Party? Farage is just a con-man with a good speaking style. He killed his own party, cheated its members out of money and hope, and has no future in the UK, politically. A con man pure and simple. By standing down Brexit Party candidates facing Conservative opponents, he dishonoured himself and left ALL his candidates high and dry. A silly little man with a big voice, and a big hat to sit on his big head.
What now?
The present Cabinet is a Zionist Occupation Government [ZOG], and there is every chance of this government becoming an elected dictatorship. The electoral system is a bad joke. This government is not really legitimate. It cannot be fought with ordinary means such as an election in 5 years’ time. In that time, this government may have imposed a dystopia even worse than that of the past 9+ years.
Are there any good aspects to the election results?
A few.
Israeli and American “confidential contact” Ruth Smeeth lost her seat. It was good to hear her anger, but the stupid creature apparently was unwilling to consider that her own behaviour over the past 4 years was a major reason why Labour just lost and so why she herself has now been binned, probably for good.
A couple of other “Labour Friends of Israel” women ex-MPs had to be led away from the count crying (for themselves), having lost their salaries, expenses, political careers etc. Ha ha! That really made me laugh!
Several other Labour ex-MPs tied up with the Jewish lobby lost their seats: Angela Smith, Anna Turley, Caroline Flint etc. Ha ha! Great news!
Luciana Berger failed to get a new seat in Golders Green, London. Good. She will not suffer, though (she comes from a wealthy Jewish family and has a wealthy Jewish husband).
Anything else?
Pity that Jess Phillips and Stella Creasy are still in place.
In the end, the “Conservatives” only got about (fewer than) 14 million votes; Labour received well over 10 million. The result was an outcome caused largely by msm bias, Jewish lobby interference and a broken electoral system.
Final word
I see people from both Lab and Con sides and from elsewhere waking up to the necessity of protecting race and culture. Beginning to wake up. Who knows what will happen in that very significant year 2022? Hitler only got 2.6% of the national vote in Germany in 1928.
We can yet win the future.
Not “conservative”, not “socialist”, but a social-national future.
Sweden examined, as social democracy becomes multikulti dystopia
This, below, was sent to me earlier this year via “social media” and is about the emergent Swedish dystopia. I reproduce it (with covering note) exactly as I received it:
“@ianrmillard this was the Gab post (just another thing about the Swedes)”
“I was an exchange student in Sweden a few years back. It was weird, creepy and depressing. There was an ever present ambience of fear in the people. A cult like monoculture of political correctness and complete cognitive dissidence. Cars burning, gang shootings, skyrocketing rape, robbery etc etc etc. This stuff was almost unheard of 20 years ago there. I am ethnically Asian (chopsticks rice… you know a real Asian) that’s why I wanted to see the Nordic culture while I was working on my thesis. I quickly found out that there is more Nordic culture in Minnesota then in Sweden. All I saw were hijabs, kabab kiosks and menacing gangs of MENA kids/dudes roaming the streets. The creepiest part was how the ethnic swedes were reacting to the shitstorm around them. Swedes would talk about anything except for what was relevant. Of course I got called a racist for asking questions. Yeah me the Asian guy who’s married to a Jewish girl with mixed kids. Okay so what’s important in Sweden? Glad you asked: Putting guys in prison for not having a WRITTEN CONSENT when they change sexual positions with ie their wife during sex… I shit you not! Please look it up! How about firing dudes for refusing to wear a pussy hats at work or putting a 75 year old woman in prison for speaking her mind about immigrants sexually assaulting her. Oh yeah let’s not forget about the 91 year old man who got convicted too. Swedish media is so monolithic, controlled and polarized that it make Vox look unbiased. My whole Sweden experience can be summed up as a fucked up Stephen King movie where it is never day or night. Just a somber Kafkaesque fog of melancholy and fear emanating from the walking dead as they lumber around in cold rainy darkness. So depressing. BUT WHY!?”
Forget the Americanisms, the poor grammar, the spelling mistakes etc. I am no longer shocked that something like the above could flow from the pen of someone (anyone) with, as it seems, a “doctorate”. Forget all that. Focus on the main issues.
First of all, I concede that I have never actually been to Sweden, unless you count that time, now amusing for me, when I was refused entry to Sweden at the port of Malmo. Yes, Sweden at that time (1982) actually refused entry even to bona fide visitors, let alone to hordes of migrant-invaders!
This blog post is about more serious general matters than my own occasionally picaresque life experiences, but in outline, I was going to Helsinki and decided to get a ferry from Travemunde Skandinavienkai, which at that time was on the border of the DDR (East Germany) and West Germany [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travem%C3%BCnde], to Malmo; My idea was then to meander around the whole of the Gulf of Bothnia to Finland, hitch-hiking until I reached Helsinki. The sort of decision one probably has to be quite young (I was 25) to make…Anyway, my “plan” was shattered by a Swedish immigration officer, who decided that I had insufficient funds to be allowed into their social-democratic paradise. I was cast out (in effect deported, back to West Germany) and to this day have never seen Sweden (or Finland) except on TV and film.
I had seen odd TV documentaries about Sweden, and had read one rather critical book in or about 1970, but my idea of Sweden was of somewhere fairly socially advanced, technologically advanced, environmentally conscious etc. Modern shoebox-shaped white concrete and glass institutes, clinics etc, staffed by beautiful blonde girls in white uniforms, would pretty much sum up my idea of the country. This was long before the books and films of the Nordic noirs, of detective Wallander and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (which, particularly the Wallander TV series, pretty much ruined my view of Sweden).
Over the past 15 years, not only Wallander etc spoiled my mental view of Sweden and its society. I heard, at second-hand, about the gangs of immigrants making life hell for many Swedes, especially young ones having to interact with the invaders (including “invaders” born in Sweden…) in the neighbourhoods and schools of Gothenburg (Goteborg) and Malmo.
Since then, Sweden has been invaded on an even bigger scale by huge numbers of fake “refugees”, who in many cases actually turned down offers of asylum in Germany and even Denmark in order to reach Sweden.
Not that the invasion by non-Europeans and consequent social near-collapse is confined to Sweden. The Netherlands, Germany, UK, France, you name it.
Sweden, though, seems to have gone mad to an even greater extent than “Western” Europe (Central Europe too). Swedish society has perhaps been softened up by decades of social-democratic and “liberal conservative” government. “Anti-racism”, ever more mad feminism, some bastard progeny of self-flagellating Protestantism turned secular, perhaps.
In fact, a great deal of the whole debate in Sweden about the migration-invasion has been poisoned by such hand-wringing fake altruism. These people take pride in destroying their own race and culture in the name of some secular “saintliness” which is based on them lying to themselves and others. Look:
Pathetic bastards who probably think of themselves as well-meaning, or as the French say, bien-pensant.
The Jewish element is at the forefront of the encouragement of migration-invasion. There are quite a number of Jews in Sweden, mostly in Stockholm. Some are subsidized propagandists working away to destroy Europe’s race and culture. One of the most notorious is the appropriately-named Barbara Lerner Spectre:
We have seen at least two of the roots of the Swedish sickness (Protestant do-good-ism turned secular, and the Jew-Zionist “Messianic” element), and they fit in perfectly with the evil Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan:
but to those two already-noted strands must be added the social-democracy that ruled Sweden for so long. It gave Sweden many positive things, but in the end was simply unable to defend the Swedes against incursion by degenerate and alien forces.
Sweden went from being a rather socially-conservative society in the pre-WW2 period to being more liberal, with a relatively generous Welfare State in the 1950s and 1960s, but then fell into widespread degeneracy socially, sexually and politically in the 1970s. After that, Sweden’s superficially-successful but internally decadent society was unable to say no to the immigrant hordes.
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” [Matthew 7:6, King James Authorized Version].
Now Sweden is facing an existential threat:
Even the above documentary from RT [Russia Today] contains misplaced though understandable compassion (a European trait, after all), but remember that Biblical quotation…
Sweden is not in fact the source of the degeneracy and evil sweeping across Europe, but it is, arguably, the most contaminated EU country from the migration-invasion point of view. It merely shows in exaggerated form the same influences and effects that exist in other parts of Europe (and especially the EU states). What marks Sweden out is the authoritarian pro-multikulti State apparat, which has even taken away children from parents thought to oppose the migration-invasion. Also, the “journalists” in Sweden are almost all completely dependent and docile. We see the same situation in the UK, as with the scandal of Pakistani Muslims (mostly) sexually abusing young English girls. The same non-response from social workers, police, the compromised political element, the drug-abusing msm “journalists” etc.
The Sweden Democrats are now the third-largest party in the Riksdag [73 seats out of 349; the largest party, the Social Democrats, have 107].
Also, the air in Sweden may be cleaner if (as I read somewhere) the evil Barbara Lerner Spectre has actually returned to Israel. I do not know whether that is so, however. She may still be in Sweden.
It is all very well saying that the Spectre creature is a harmless crank, but in Sweden she has obviously had considerable influence, has received royal decorations from the infested Establishment etc.
“And rival storms abroad are surging
From sea to land, from land to sea.
A chain of deepest action forging
Round all, in wrathful energy.
There flames a desolation, blazing
Before the Thunder’s crashing way:
Yet, Lord, Thy messengers are praising
The gentle movement of Thy Day.”
[Archangel Michael, from the Prologue in Heaven, Faust, by Goethe]
(Today is Michaelmas)
Greetings to all good-willing readers of my blog! Slava!
*Und Stürme brausen um die Wette
Vom Meer aufs Land vom Land aufs Meer,
Und bilden wüthend eine Kette
Der tiefsten Wirkung rings umher.
Da flammt ein blitzendes Verheeren
Dem Pfade vor des Donnerschlags.
Doch deine Boten, Herr, verehren
Das sanfte Wandeln deines Tags.
The above photo shows a police officer, I think a “Special” (volunteer part-time “officer”), looking at her hat, with its chequered line. Presumably a lesbian. Now, there are several points about that photo: first and perhaps most important, who in authority, or should I say “leading beyond authority”?…
…allowed police officers to take part in what, in the broad sense, is a political, meaning socio-political, or cultural-political, march or demonstration?
Common Purpose
This, below, is the very dangerous woman who is or has been the figurehead for much of such socio-political tendency in the past three decades:
Reverting to the photo at top, can the public have trust in such partisan police personnel? I think not.
This goes beyond the personal proclivities of the individuals. It is a question of the police, both institutionally, and as individual officers, espousing, publicly, controversial socio-political positions. Also, the police operating in a biased manner.
Many of those on the social-national side of UK radical politics have, in recent years, been subjected to the results of this kind of one-way-street policing, policing which is in other words biased, politically biased. I myself have had a couple of instructive encounters of the sort.
Zionist pressure groups
In early 2017, the Jew-Zionist fanatic Stephen Silverman, who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” at the small but (((well-connected))) “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”] pressure group, complained about me (on behalf of that group or cabal), to the police at Grays, in estuarial South Essex, and not far from where he lives.
[below, Grays Police Station, surely one of the ugliest buildings in England].
My experience there was the subject of a blog post a couple of years ago:
Silverman himself was unwittingly exposed as a serial troll by the CAA’s own lawyer in a preliminary hearing of the Alison Chabloz case. It turned out that Silverman had been trolling people on social media —mostly women— for years, using a number of pseudonymous Twitter and other social media accounts. “Gloating sadism” was his overall persona. He and a group of other Jews, together with a couple of part-Jew doormats, all in or connected with the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [CAA] pressure group, joined in that campaign of online and offline bullying.
That group loved to make malicious and false accusations to Twitter, Facebook etc, as well as to the police and to professional organizations. Their posts frequently predicted (((with typical sadism))), that numerous anti-Zionist people would be arrested, charged, convicted, imprisoned. The bullying campaign started around 2012 and built up to a crescendo, though as they were one by one identified, they (((typically))) backpedalled and tried to play the “victim”…
Meanwhile, now-disgraced Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis gave an interview to the Jewish Press in which he openly admitted that his intention was to “take homes away from” those he called “Nazis”, by means of “lawfare” (abuse of the laws of England for Zionist political purposes).
One person, David Carter, of Cardiff, a former executive with decades of experience working for transnational companies, and an unblemished record (i.e. no police record) was actually arrested and his home searched by duped or colluding police. He was later released “on police bail” (where he stayed for months, which was still lawful then though not now, the law on “police bail” having since been changed); his computers, used for consultancy work, were not returned for further months. He never was charged with anything.
Others were subjected to “voluntary” interviews, which in fact are scarcely voluntary at all (belatedly, and in fact fairly recently, Silverman himself was eventually asked to submit to such an interview, and agreed, but at very short notice got CAA lawyers to write to Essex Police declining; seems that he got away with it, so far).
A lady called Jo Stowell, a professional photographer from Clifton, Bristol, was not only trolled online by the same group of Jews, but was sent unwanted goods etc from sale or return operations, and was subjected to other offline bullying. She too was “asked” to attend a “voluntary” interview with the police by reason of malicious complaint(s). She agreed, attending with her solicitor. No charge was ever made. The Jewish-Zionists did manage to ruin her previously successful photography business though.
Jo Stowell
The experiences of Alison Chabloz, persecuted singer-songwriter and satirist, have been well-documented both in these blog pages and elsewhere, indeed in the national and international Press (and on TV and radio). I commend her own blog:
My own 2017 experience with the Essex Police is linked above, near top; I was also bothered, though much later, in 2018, by telephone calls from a P.C. Plod (his real name was something else…I think!) from the police of one of the most (((occupied))) parts of London. It appears that I was “accused” of having reposted, in fact completely lawfully, on the GAB social media site responses also completely lawful in themselves, posted by the owner of GAB, Andrew Torba, to a malicious Jewish woman “activist” in North London.
That Jewish woman had, laughably, attempted to intimidate Torba, a U.S. citizen whose GAB site operates from the USA and Eastern Caribbean, by threatening Torba, who is resident in the USA, with Scotland Yard! Torba’s responses started off polite and then went downhill as the woman persisted (((typically))), culminating with Torba’s suggestion that she “fuck off” or some such. She did (she had no choice!), but then tried to find scapegoats in the UK from those many who had reposted Torba’s posts (finding them funny; the tweets also rather well illustrated Hitler’s obiter dicta about the Jews being, despite what they and others often say, a very stupid people).
P.C. Plod had obviously been “got at” in some way. In fact, after having been harassed by him, I had to write to his own Borough Commander and to Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, detailing both why nothing that I had done constituted anything unlawful under English law, and as to why the complainant herself was (in relation to me) certainly wasting police time (quite deliberately); a crime, albeit minor, and possibly coming close at times (in her complaints against others) to attempting to pervert the course of justice, a far more serious crime.
Even after that, Plod still had the cheek to email me (again)! Eventually, I gave him a face-saving way out, which he took. The experience was however unsettling beyond my personal inconvenience and anger. It showed that the police in the UK now have little understanding of either the boundaries of their powers or the limits to the authorized discretion customarily granted to the police. It showed that a UK citizen not doing anything unlawful could nonetheless have his private life and rights of expression interfered with by the police— the police at the lowest level of rank, at that.
The police equation for idiots seems to go something like: “Racism” is bad, so anything we are told is “racist” should not be allowed, so alleged “racism” is to be at once treated as “hate crime” or “hate speech”, so use of the word “Jew” is probably wrong or unlawful (if used by a non-Jew or someone who is anti-Zionist), so the police should assume that any online post (by someone not Jewish) and using the word “Jew” is both racist and unlawful, so the police should immediately take action of behalf of a complainant (if Jewish) against the alleged “racist” (if not Jewish) and this gives the police the right and power to censor anything they like, whether actually lawful or not…It’s mad.
More than that. The said Plod was unwilling to accept that I (a practising barrister at one time) knew more about the relevant law than he did (I did) but I still had to detail it in my letter to his superiors in case even they were unwilling to accept that the law is what it is and is not a “leading beyond authority” instrument of flexible socio-political repression, “useful” for repressing the entirely lawful views of those whom the police institutionally, or the personal acquaintances of police individually, may wish to hit out at. I might add that P.C. Plod’s manner was impertinent and smug, as well as rather aggressive.
This tendency, of the police to go well beyond their actual powers as authorized by or under law, has started to spread in recent years. In 2013, a police sergeant in Hampshire actually tried to strongarm a local newspaper after it printed material critical of a councillor!
“Padraig Reidy, of the freedom of speech campaign group Index on Censorship, said: ‘It’s not the sort of thing that should happen in any democratic country. It’s political policing.’ Mr Satchwell added: ‘Hopefully, before it’s too late, people at the top of politics and policing will wake up to what is happening in what is supposed to be one of the most revered democratic countries in the world.’” [Daily Mail]
In respect of the malice of the Zionist CAA cabal, relatively unknown people such as me have been attacked, but so have those far better known, such as Al-Jazeera TV, Gilad Atzmon (the Jewish but anti-Zionist jazz musician) and David Icke (who scarcely needs introduction, at least in the UK).
However, as far as I know, they have not been harassed by the police. I suppose that it would backfire on the police themselves to harass those who are too famous.
The Blair-Brown governments were those that brought in the obsessive “anti-racism” which is now so pervasive. It is why we now have incidents such as the schoolgirl disqualified from an exam by an exam board because she wrote a few things about cruel “halal” slaughter of animals, which comments might be thought critical of Islam or Muslims!
and note that OCR (the exam board) weaselled thus:
“OCR said in a statement: “OCR takes all incidence of suspected offensive material against a religious group in exams very seriously and must apply rules which are set out for all exam boards in such cases.
“We accept that initially we did not reach the right conclusion and were too harsh.“
In other words, there is no freedom to say what you wish against any religion (or ethnic group) now, no matter what its adherents or members might do or how they might behave, but “we were too harsh” (in the way in which censorship of students was actually carried out…). Even the girl’s mother, while angry at what happened, blamed “an over-zealous, over-righteous examiner“, rather than the prevailing miasma of politically-correct and grey-area semi-legal repression.
We should remind ourselves that many of the greatest minds, saints and heroes of Western Civilization would probably have their words censored now in the UK. They would probably have some policeman improperly telephoning them and annoying them!
It is the web of bad law that has been the acid corroding our liberty in the UK. The Communications Act 2003, s.127 has been the facilitator for much of the repression online. It has strengthened the petty denouncers, the complainers to the police, those for whom Twitter is their little world, to be patrolled and “monitored” and from which any dissenting voices (particularly the defenders of European race and culture, and freedom) are to be removed. You can now add to Twitter the other main platforms: Facebook, YouTube etc.
When the police are not impartial arbiters, to whom can we turn? Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
In the United States, it is often said that the bedrock of civil liberty is the famous Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, alongside the First Amendment (freedom of religion, Press, speech, expression, assembly).
I have always been sceptical of the quasi-holy U.S. Constitution, that is, the way in which this man-made document, cobbled together in a tavern by a bunch of freemasons nearly 250 years ago, is regarded as Holy Writ by the Americans of today. Its “rights” have always seemed to me more apparent than real. For example, you (an American in the USA) have the right to free speech. Very true. So try exercizing it…
If you try to say something negative in the USA about the lobby of the Jews, or about their hugely disproportionate power or influence in the USA or the wider world, or about the “holocaust” hoaxes and fakery, you will almost certainly not face (direct) action from the local or state police, or from the FBI. In that respect, the USA is better than the UK and much of Europe. You may well, however, lose your job, face professional difficulties and, consequent upon those, even lose your home by reason of financial problems as the Jews and doormats thereof gang up against you, so your “freedom” is, in real terms, very constrained indeed. America, “land of freedom”?…
Likewise, yes, a United States citizen or resident may, with variations depending on what state or city he/she lives in (eg New York City as compared with most of the rest of New York state) “keep and bear [some] arms”, but your pistol or revolver, shotgun or rifle, though it may protect you against (some) criminals (ordinary or political) in your home or car (always assuming that you can both handle the weapon and deploy it in time), will certainly not protect you against the state (meaning here not the individual state but mainly the Federal Government).
If the Federal Government of the United States wants to move against an individual or a group, that person or group has no chance. SWAT squads, helicopters, even armoured cars! And that is before the main US military machine is even involved! Your pistol will not help you much under those circumstances. That is why I have only limited faith in weapons.
Past history
When the NSDAP started to gain a little local (in Munich) traction in 1920 and 1921, its meetings were routinely broken up with great violence by “Red Front” (Communist/pro-Communist) thugs, the sort that (though in rather farcical reincarnation) might be called “antifa” today. That is when the nascent NSDAP formed the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment), though at first informally:
“The precursor to the Sturmabteilung had acted informally and on an ad hoc basis for some time before this. Hitler, with an eye always to helping the party to grow through propaganda, convinced the leadership committee to invest in an advertisement in the Münchener Beobachter (later renamed the Völkischer Beobachter) for a mass meeting in the Hofbräuhaus, to be held on 16 October 1919. Some 70 people attended, and a second such meeting was advertised for 13 November in the Eberl-Bräu beer hall. About 130 people attended; there were hecklers, but Hitler’s military friends promptly ejected them by force, and the agitators “flew down the stairs with gashed heads”. The next year, on 24 February, he announced the party’s Twenty-Five Point program at a mass meeting of some 2,000 people at the Hofbräuhaus. Protesters tried to shout Hitler down, but his former army companions, armed with rubber truncheons, ejected the dissenters. The basis for the SA had been formed.” [Wikipedia, though note the (((influence))) in Wikipedia: Communist thugs are “hecklers”! The same is true of most of what you now read or hear about Mosley’s BUF rallies of the 1930s].
Also, note that Hitler’s first attempt at a “mass meeting” attracted an audience of only 70! When I gave a talk to the London Forum in 2017, there were about 100 or so there. Maybe there is hope…
“A permanent group of party members who would serve as the Saalschutzabteilung (meeting hall protection detachment) for the DAP gathered around Emil Maurice after the February 1920 incident at the Hofbräuhaus. There was little organization or structure to this group.” [Wikipedia]
“The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties. By September 1921 the name Sturmabteilung (SA) was being used informally for the group.” [Wikipedia]
Interesting too that even Wikipedia recognizes that the purpose of the SA was the protection of meetings, and not the breaking-up of the meetings of opponents.
“The Nazi Party held a large public meeting in the Munich Hofbräuhaus on 4 November 1921, which also attracted many Communists and other enemies of the Nazis. After Hitler had spoken for some time, the meeting erupted into a mêlée in which a small company of SA thrashed the opposition. The Nazis called this event the Saalschlacht (“meeting hall battle”), and it assumed legendary proportions in SA lore with the passage of time. Thereafter, the group was officially known as the Sturmabteilung.” [Wikipedia]
The SS [Schutzstaffel, or Protection Squad] was formed in 1925, with a similar defensive or protective function:
“In 1925, Hitler ordered Schreck to organize a new bodyguard unit, the Schutzkommando (Protection Command).[1] It was tasked with providing personal protection for Hitler at NSDAP functions and events. That same year, the Schutzkommando was expanded to a national organization and renamed successively the Sturmstaffel (Storm Squadron), and finally the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad; SS).[10] Officially, the SS marked its foundation on 9 November 1925 (the second anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch).[11] The new SS was to provide protection for NSDAP leaders throughout Germany.” [Wikipedia]
One can well imagine that any such bodies as the SA or SS formed in the Britain of 2019, even if not uniformed, would soon be banned and their members subject to show trials.
Contemporary happenings
In fact, we have seen the like, in the past couple of years, especially in relation to “a certain group of young people” the name of which I do not think that I shall use here, which young people have been put on trial for allegedly belonging to such a group. Oh yes, teenagers and other young people put on trial, and not in the local magistrates’ courts but at the Old Bailey and elsewhere! The “evidence” of their supposed organization, or at least political allegiance? Such items as cookie-cutters shaped like Swastikas, pillowcases with slogans on them etc, even the Christian name given by the parents to a baby! It seems that the ethos of Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder-General in the 17th Century, is not dead and indeed has found a home in the British police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)!
Thankfully, the (usually) good sense of the British jury has meant that most such defendants have been acquitted so far; perhaps that is why some politicians, notably Rosie Cooper MP [Lab., West Lancashire] have called for the use of “Diplock courts” (i.e. trials without juries) in political cases. If that happened, that type of court would be the first such court authorized in England itself in hundreds of years (though the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a typical piece of Tony Blair repressive legislation, does open the door to such trials). A Star Chamber for our times…
Conclusion
In a situation where self-defence, whether organized or individual, is criminalized by a hostile and partisan state, the only solution for social-national people is to cluster in “safe zones”, as I have blogged in the past: see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/safe-zones/
In the UK, where even personal self-defence weaponry is generally unavailable, and where the police are rapidly becoming the strong-arm section of the multikulti “diverse” (non-white non-diverse) society, the formation of a germinal ethnostate is the only way forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_court “[Lord Gardiner‘s Minority Report as part of the Parker Report in March 1972 found “no evidence of [intimidation] or of perversity in juries”.[7] The report marked the beginning of the policy of “criminalisation”,[8] whereby the State removed legal distinctions between political violence and normal crime, with political prisoners treated as common criminals. The report provided the basis for the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which, although later amended (with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 and subsequent renewals), continued as the basis for counter-terrorist legislation in the UK.” [Wikipedia]
As I write, persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz is once again in court, being sentenced after a notorious Jewess supported by the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (yet again…) made a malicious allegation against her, using (as noted above) the “bad law” known as Communications Act 2003, s.127.
I myself quite recently had to chase off the Jew nuisance who calls himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” for the “CAA”; a ludicrously grand title for someone who is one of only a handful of Jews posing as an important organization. The whole pack really consists of only a few dozen (if that many) fanatical Jew-Zionists.
Today is the 75th anniversary of the attempt made to assassinate Adolf Hitler at his headquarters in East Prussia, the Wolfsschanze (Wolf’s Lair), now situated within the borders of post-1945 Poland.
I blogged last year about matters around the event and around those times more generally:
What is there to add? Perhaps a reminder that human manifestations on this Earth do not last forever. The film, below, shows what the sprawling headquarters of 1944 is like today: as abandoned and lost as the cities of the Aztecs or the Mayans.
On the other hand, the devastated cities of the Germany of 1944 and 1945 are today thriving governmental, commercial, cultural and residential centres, with populations again in the hundreds of thousands or even millions.
[above, Dresden in 1945]
[above, Berlin in 1945; area shown is the Unter den Linden boulevard in central Berlin]
[above, Berlin in 1945; area shown is the Reichskanzlei or Reich Chancellery]
The above photographs show the devastation resulting from war. Today, those same areas are prosperous, busy, thronged with inhabitants. Some of the old has been replaced, some kept, adapted to contemporary usage.
The same is true of ideas. Both the practical and the spiritual-cultural achievements of National Socialism were huge, enormous, particularly when it is considered that they were achieved within only 6 years of peace, the years 1933-1939. SIX YEARS!
We do not need to copy or indeed defend everything that was done by, or in the name of, the Reich. Indeed, many of the flaws of the Reich, or supposed flaws, existed and in fact were even more glaring in both the West and the Soviet Union of the 1930s. The Zeitgeist streamed over the world as a whole, like the jetstream.
In 2019, we honour what was good in the Reich, what worked for the German people and the peoples of all Europe. The rest, we do not need. Times move on. Some challenges remain; others, newly emerged, have to be faced for the first time.
We honour the past and stand ready to create the future.
Below, we see the supporters of the now-again-imprisoned activist known as Tommy Robinson, scuffling with police and msm employees on College Green by the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey a few days ago.
Police move in as ‘Tommy Robinson’ supporters attack BBC broadcasters on college green. Chants of “We want our country back” pic.twitter.com/CaZszLxqVl
Reporters reported these events as though at the Storming of the Bastille, whereas in fact the clash shows a few dozen, or at most a hundred demonstrators (though the police estimated the crowd of protestors outside the Old Bailey earlier the same day as having numbered about 200).
I do not want to comment on the rights and wrongs of the Tommy Robinson contempt case, but to examine the protests to launch a wider-ranging article. I have in any case written previously about Tommy Robinson:
I should make my own position clear: Ideologically, I am not much on the same page as Tommy Robinson. For one thing, Robinson makes it clear that, like his supporters Katie Hopkins and the tribe of Anglo-American “alt-Right” wastes of space (the main British ones being “Prison Planet” Paul Watson, Carl Benjamin “Sargon of Akkad” and Mark Meechan “Count Dankula”), he is pro-Israel and pro-Jew. This despite the fact that 99.9% of Jews in the UK despise and hate him and his followers. The American “alt-Right” have a word for people like that: “cucks”. Ironic, in view of the pro-Israel stance of many “alt-Right” persons. In fact, in the clip above, you can see some idiot waving a Israeli flag!
Tommy Robinson, however, parts company with the “alt-Right” in that he is able to mobilize fairly large (by UK standards) and very combative (by UK standards) partisan followers. Admittedly, 200 is not very many, but this was on a weekday, when the bulk of Robinson’s supporters are probably working on building sites or driving white vans, if that is not too patronizing. Also, Robinson’s support seems stronger in the North West and Midlands than in London.
I have a sneaking regard for Robinson, in that he is willing to put himself out at the front, is willing to lead “in action”, has a certain courage (others disagree and say that any courage is fortified by others backing him up), and is not by any means stupid, despite some of his behaviour. Also, he has been able to create at least a loose (and undisciplined) street army, or at least a sizeable street “troop”.
Having said the foregoing, Tommy Robinson is not a serious political figure. Even leaving aside the pro-Israel-ism, a few hundred or a few thousand marchers and bottle-throwers do not a revolutionary army make. I blogged about this quite a while ago, in relation to the connected “Football Lads’ Alliance”:
A figure such as Tommy Robinson needs to lead, if anything, not a political movement but the street army of such a movement. In other words, he should be not the overall or political chief but the “street” head of a movement, and subordinate to one with a proper political programme. He himself should understand that.
When Tommy Robinson stood as “Independent” MEP candidate for North West England, he was humiliated, getting 38,908 votes out of 1,744,858 (2.24%). A couple of the “alt-Right” wastes of space also stood, notably “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin), who stood in the South West England EU constituency for “dead-parrot party” UKIP, whose group (Benjamin was one of 6) received 53,739 out of a possible 1,676,173 (3.24%).
Tommy Robinson and the “Alt-Right”— dependence on Internet platforms
An important point is that both Tommy Robinson and the “alt-Right” vloggers are highly-dependent on the Internet, and particularly social media. Those are the platforms they use in order to get views out to the public, as well as to receive donations, subscriptions etc. These are the platforms which are now being removed by the System (notionally by the platform-owning companies themselves, but this has all been co-ordinated behind the scenes, mainly by the Jewish lobby that the “alt-Right” and Robinson claim to support…).
Tommy Robinson and the “alt-Right” vloggers are not alone in now having their online platforms removed. The persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has already been barred from Twitter and YouTube, many others including ex-BNP leader Nick Griffin have gone from some platforms (though so far Griffin is still on Twitter) and I was expelled from Twitter after a co-ordinated Jew-Zionist campaign in 2018 (and am not on Facebook; neither do I have a YouTube channel).
Many others have also had video and payment platforms removed arbitrarily (usually via a fig-leaf of “you are in breach of our rules” nonsense). The Jew-Zionists are behind most of this repression of free speech.
One such is the vlogger “Millennial Woes” (Colin Robertson). Removed from YouTube though still occasionally on Twitter (not posting much and presumably only keeping an account for use as as a private message facility).
There is a general move online to restrict and, in slow stages (thus deflating resistance) to remove, in particular, nationalist or social national people and organizations from the major platforms. That applies also to the “Alt-Right” and its offshoot known as the “Alt-Lite”. In fact, it goes further than that. We have seen how the social media platform GAB was almost taken down by a concerted campaign by Jews and “antifa” terrorists acting in concert with System forces. That almost worked, but GAB managed to survive by switching providers etc. The System has not given up, however…See:
There are now other “free speech” fora emerging, such as “Free Speech Extremist”[https://freespeechextremist.com/main/all] but these have few users compared to Twitter, Facebook etc.
As far as Twitter is concerned, in the UK the Jewish-Zionist element, the mindless “antifa” element, and the politically-correct perpetually-offended element, which all love to “report” and denounce anyone social-national or even mildly nationalistic, have managed to reduce an interesting online platform to a boring and predictable echo-chamber. I certainly do not miss my own Twitter account, though it may be that my followers (3,000 at last count) are impoverished by not having sight of my tweets.
“Freedom” online has been diminished by, primarily, the Jewish-Zionist element. I imagine that many of my readers on WordPress will know of my own experiences in this regard:
The thing here is not just that there is a Jewish lobby, or a Zionist lobby, that tries to shut down free speech (as we now see “them” once again trying to do within the UK Labour Party), but the fact that there is a huge amount of collusion between that lobby and those who might protect freedom of expression but, increasingly, do not: the police, most journalists, professional bodies generally, the Press, the msm generally.
As I write this, there is a backlash from the Press because Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Neil Basu (half–Indian, half-Welsh, and the head of police “counter-terrorism”) warned the “free Press” not to publish leaked documents that might embarrass the government. He has been put back in his box for that, but only in respect of the Press. The general crackdown on freedom by, or with the collusion of, the police continues. In fact Basu, in the police vernacular, “has form” here. He has interfered with free speech issues on previous occasions:
Looking at his background and known history, he has no reason to be kind or even objective as far as British social nationalism is concerned. He is not alone, in any case. The police are now ceasing to be protectors of the British people and are looking more and more like their zookeepers.
Free speech and its ever-more restricted limits
In fact, we hear more and more in the msm about how “legal free speech” could and should be shut down in order to more easily police and/or pacify the crazed multikulti society being created by the forces of evil in the UK. Or as the conspiracy puts it, the “necessity” to “prevent” “legal extremism” which does not reach as far as anything prosecutable (even as far as the cobbled-together recent prosecutions of young persons engaged in political activism: juries are beginning to reject the State’s attempts to crucify young social-national activists, I note). I blogged about this a year or so ago:
In the UK, though the “antifa” idiots have made a number of violent attacks here and there, they are no doubt well-infiltrated by the State monitoring organs and have not attained the level seen in Germany, the USA etc.
However, there are some in the UK who hide behind the false label of “journalist” or “historian” and who use online accounts to incite violence by “antifa” idiots (while themselves hiding away). One such is failed supply teacher (he was sacked some years ago from his last teaching position) Mike Stuchbery, an Australian with mental illness problems (about which he tweets in order to get sympathy), and who is a notorious beggar and grifter, always asking for money from those who read his material. Below, one of his more notorious tweets (despite which Twitter has not expelled him. Ah, I see…he did not say anything about Jews. Of course…)
Mike: I’m not extreme violent left wing antifa communist who from bio loves everyone and hates no one
Stuchbery retweeted the tweet(s) below only an hour before I wrote these words.
They actually don’t care how history remembers them. What they care about is what will happen to them personally in the immediate future. Remind them. https://t.co/0JuF7SI3Of
(for “anti-intellectuals” in those Jews’ tweets, read perhaps “those with whom I disagree” or “those with another view to me and my Jewish antifa friends”).
As seen above, Stuchbery loves to imagine those with whom he disagrees having their skulls broken in, or otherwise killed or injured. It was a different matter, however, when he set up Tommy Robinson’s wife and children for a kind of pseudo-legal “home invasion” (which failed, in the event). Robinson later turned up at Stuchbery’sown Luton-area house, at which confrontation Stuchbery had a meltdown. The “brave” keyboard warrior and “antifa” propagandist was suddenly again just an Australian ex-schoolteacher on the scrapheap, a begging grifter and fake “historian-journalist” with mental problems, blubbing because he cannot control the situation that he himself has created.
In fact, I have discovered that almost all the Jewish/Zionist, “antifa” and other nuisances on Twitter who have obsessively denounced me (and others) have mental health problems and are on medication for them, but I shall blog about them separately. Something for them to look forward to.
In parts of the USA, this “antifa” nonsense has reached levels not seen even in Germany or France. See below.
Like something out of the state of Gilead in The Handmaid’s Tale.
In relation to this, it was disturbing to many to see pro-Israel tool Sajid Javid MP, an ex-Muslim (in effect), not only appearing (as Home Secretary) at Scotland Yard and apparently being on good terms with fake charity “Campaign Against Antisemitism” members such as Stephen Silverman of South Essex (exposed in open court as a serial troll and harasser of several women) but even expressing support for “antifa”! Sajid Javid might not be the brightest tool in the box but that really was hard to believe!
When the Home Secretary of the UK openly supports violent sub-terrorists, when the police or elected officials in the UK and USA collude with Jewish manipulators and/or violent extremists of various other kinds (cf. the recent “Extinction Rebellion” demonstrations in London), “democracy” as we know it is on the way out.
So Scotland yard's new Commander is Basit Javid, who conveniently happens to be the brother of none other than Sajid Javid who as Home Secretary is in control of Scotland Yard. See how this works yet? https://t.co/GWN1Z2ZtLM
— CK #SearchingForTheTruth (@ck1984ishere) June 7, 2019
In tone, the Sun’s “report” is not unalike to the hysterical condemnations seen in the Soviet newspapers at the time of, say, the purges of 1937, the Yezhovshchina.
As for the “democracy” expressed in our system of parties and elections, it has failed. The boundaries of constituencies are rigged to create a faked “balance” between two or three similar parties, as shown below:
Then there is the selection process for candidates (PPCs). Anyone in the slightest social-national is excluded from all three “main parties”, i.e, System parties.
The House of Commons has become the home of, mostly, the very mediocre, often the uneducated, uncultured and stupid. One only has to look at the last few leadership elections of the two main System parties (the LibDems are even less impressive, though that may be hard to believe).
Take Labour: Corbyn is himself not very inspiring or impressive: poorly-educated, effectively a school dropout and, later a dropout from a polytechnic, who has very little real employment or work history, a poor grasp of history and whose wives claim that he never reads a book. Telling. Leaders are readers:
[above, Hitler reads on the terrace of the Berghof]
[immediately above, the library of Vidkun Quisling]
[some people have a bookworm, others have a book-cat…]
[above, parts of the library I once had]
Having said the above about Corbyn, look at those who tried to seize his crown! Chuka Umunna (I, admittedly rudely but oh! how truthfully!, call him Fathead Chuka), Liz Kendall (thick as two short planks and quite likely part-Jew), Andy Burnham (I suppose the best of an appallingly-poor group opposing Corbyn), Yvette Cooper (would-be dictator, hypocrite, freeloader and expenses cheat)…Later, Owen Smith MP, a little Welsh windbag, also tried to topple Corbyn and, like the previous rebels, failed.
Would any of the above-named really have had more electoral success than Corbyn? I doubt it.
Labour is now the party of the “blacks and browns”, the public service workers, and those dependent on State benefits.
Then we have the misnamed “Conservatives”. In 2015, the leadership contest to replace David Cameron (Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger) contained:
Theresa May (a hopeless Home Secretary, previously a local councillor and back-room person at the BACS cheque-clearing body; possible part-Jew);
Stephen Crabb, exposed as a serial sex-pest (and ineffective even at that) as well as so pro-Israel that he could well be termed “an agent of influence”; very poor employment record before getting into the MP racket; expenses cheat; in fact, Crabb is a complete deadhead and will probably find a place in my blog category “Deadhead MPs”;
Liam Fox: unreliable, dishonest, expenses cheat, very pro-Israel, with many links to Israel and covert US centres; considered to have generally “dodgy” lifestyle (see Notes, below);
Michael Gove: expenses cheat, pro-Israel extremist, unreliable, dishonest (and in 2019 revealed as having been a frequent cocaine abuser when he was a pro-Zionist Times scribbler prior to latching on to the MP racket);
Andrea Leadsom: nonentity.
What a useless, mostly dishonest and mostly (in fact, all) pro-Israel pack!
Then we have the 2019 Conservative leadership contest, about which I have blogged extensively already, and which, at time of writing, looks certain to be won by Boris Johnson over Jeremy Hunt. I have also blogged re. Johnson, and if I say that I think of him as Boris-Idiot, my view will be clear enough…(though I do favour leaving the EU).
We have seen, particularly in the past decade, institutions which were basically meant to be “non-political”, politicized: Civil Service, police, armed forces, the courts, the Bar (as witness my own unjustified disbarment). Below, the Financial Times agonizes about the “Conservative” approach to the Diplomatic Service, Parliament and the British Constitution.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) April 4, 2019
Somehow, I cannot recall “The Secret Barrister” (((The Secret Barrister?))) or any one of “his friends and his relations” (with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan’s Trial by Jury; in fact, I have no idea of the identity of The Secret Barrister or his connections) at the Bar standing up for my rights, freedoms and civil liberties when I was wrongfully disbarred at the instigation of a pack of manipulative Jews, but “that’s life” (and what goes around comes around…eventually):
Still, his tweet gives an idea of what has happened to the justice system, at least the courts, in outline. There is also the crisis in the underfunded, undermanned, badly-run prisons, and the collapse of the Chris Grayling-idiot privatized probation service(s).
“They” are interfering with the justice system, of course, and even with how judges and magistrates are trained to handle supposed “anti-Semitism”:
Citing CAA research, Judicial College adds International Definition of Antisemitism and section on use of ‘Zionist’ as a slur to its handbook for the @JudiciaryUKhttps://t.co/qBkFwgmhlA
As we have seen (see above), the UK police (certainly some areas or parts of the police) are well-infiltrated now, and politicized to a degree never seen before:
Thank you to our friends at the @JewishPoliceAs for hosting us at their annual #Chanukah party at New Scotland Yard, where we discussed concerns over antisemitism and the Chanukah message of hope and resilience with @MetPoliceUK Commissioner Cressida Dick pic.twitter.com/VoT7hx1DK0
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) December 7, 2018
[above, Gideon Falter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” group and fake charity, with Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick…]
What about the people?
The British people as a whole have been, in the now much-used phrase, “left behind”, and in fact ignored, as well as being repressed, bullied, lectured to. Whether it is the exploitation of the people as employees or private renters, by speculators, whether it is the epidemic of (mainly) Muslim rape conspiracies, or the dishonouring of the votes of the BRITISH majority who voted Leave/Brexit in 2016 (and if you took away all the non-white votes and those of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Gibraltar, the Leave vote would have been at least 70%…and if you took away the cosmopolitan exclave that is contemporary London, Leave would probably have won 80%), whether it is the banning of free speech (by which I mean free speech on matters of history, society and politics), the real people of the UK are being ignored, the needs unmet, their wishes for a better life laughed at.
The Labour Party is the party of the blacks and browns and other (non-Jewish) ethnic minorities, as well as of the entrenched public service employees. It cannot help the British people.
[above, Diane Abbott MP, lampooned during her attempt to become Mayor of London in 2015. She came third, netting 16.8%, in the selection process to be Labour candidate. If Labour form the next government, she will probably be Home Secretary. Have we fallen down the rabbit-hole?]
[above, Emily Thornberry MP, Labour Shadow Cabinet member, at a Zionist dinner in London, photographed with the Israeli Ambassador. formerly a major Israeli government spokesperson, Mark Regev (centre); her husband, a High Court judge, is half-Jewish]
What about the “Conservatives”? The name is every bit as much a bad joke as “Labour”.
[above, Sajid Javid tries to use his brain]
The cartoon, below, from the George Osborne days of 2010-2015, puts the position succinctly
There is every prospect now that a Boris Johnson (“Boris-Idiot”) “Conservative”-label government will plunge the UK into crisis. I am not talking about Brexit alone (which I supported and still support, but it has been criminally mishandled) but about the sheer ineptitude not only of Boris Johnson himself (bad enough) but of those likely to be made Cabinet ministers around him, deadheads like Matt Hancock (a mediocre suited thug), Priti Patel (a proven Israeli agent as well as being as thick as two short planks), Liz Truss (who basically only became an MP on her back), Chris Grayling (a sociopath who has failed in every single government job he has been given) etc.
There is a real and pressing need now for a proper social-national party and organization in the UK. Anything is possible within the next 10 years.
Soon, sooner than many imagine, those of us still alive will be called upon to re-establish European civilization and culture. That may be hard and may be harsh, but it must be done. God mote it be!
The enemy know that the blacks and browns are breeding fast and will soon make “election politics” a waste of time for social-national parties. Look at the tweet below and its photos. Four young London-resident voters…and three out of four non-European, with the fourth possibly partly-European, maybe something such as Cypriot.
and look at these tweets below, look at the crowd registering to vote in South London! Not a white face anywhere (yes, in the cartoon there are a few whites, but not in the real crowd photographed…).
Some of yesterday's highlights from our voter registration drive at Trinity Baptist Church, South London. 😃
“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.
Look at what happened just today (4 June 2019):
A Trump supporter is milkshaked by a hostile crowd in Parliament Square.
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.
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.
Nature's sublime experience with its terrifying beauty of incomprehensible power threatens our human finiteness with the infinitude of spaces. Human speech fails to fully describe its vast power likewise it cannot be defined ethically [good or evil]. pic.twitter.com/Ng5NB1nkOB
Ian Robert Millard 