At time of writing, we cannot escape talk of “Brexit”: the May “plan” or “deal” (i.e. Brexit In Name Only), “No Deal Brexit” (real Brexit), “Citizens’ Vote” aka “Second Referendum” (no Brexit, and rubberstamped via a plebiscite of stampeded and fearful voters) etc.
We have seen a plethora of statistical analyses, forecasts, assertions, particularly from the better-funded “Remain” side, as to the economic effect of various types of Brexit. There has been less attention paid to the socio-political effects. In addition, it may be that the wood is becoming obscure, obscured by the trees.
My View
Perhaps I should proclaim my own viewpoint first of all: the UK joined the EEC (supposedly) as a way of trading freely within the bloc. EEC became EC, various add-ons came into effect, then there was Maastricht, after which the EC became the EU, all without the peoples of the various “EU” states ever having had a say, except in Ireland, Denmark and France (which held referenda). In Denmark, two referenda had to be held before the “right” result was obtained; in France, there was a 50.8% vote in favour, rather lower than the UK’s Leave majority vote (52%, or for pedants, 51.89%) in the UK’s 2016 Referendum.
The EU has become a dictatorial, oppressive and repressive bloc, largely under the control or very strong influence of the Jew-Zionist element. Its “holocaust” “denial” laws echo the laws against heresy or blasphemy in the Europe of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. From being a bloc of European race and culture, it has gradually been subverted by transnational finance-capitalism, Zionism etc, and has attempted to continue with the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, in other words the destruction of European race and culture and the “Great Replacement” of Europeans (i.e. of…us) by those of backward race and culture. Thus we saw Angela Merkel inviting migration-invasion by “blacks and browns” under the cloak of being “refugees” (which few actually were or are). This was deliberate, not the “mistake” many imagined. Merkel is a Charlemagne (Coudenhove-Kalergi) Prize-winner!
In the words of Coudenhove-Kalergi himself:
“The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian–Negroidrace of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”
The above would in fact spell the end of Europe as a positive evolutionary force. Europe would go the way, indeed, of the ancient Egyptians and others— become decadent, mixed-race; finally, both race and culture disappearing, leaving behind only half-understood monuments, relics and ruined buildings, and a degenerate race crawling over the ruins.
As for those who have influence and control in and over the EU, we see a bunch of freeloading hypocrites, Jew-Zionists and doormats for Zionism, including the now-dead paedophile Leon Brittan, Nick Clegg, “lord” Neil Kinnock (and let’s not forget his grasping wife “lady” Glenys…) etc etc.
The EU is not “Europe”, but a caricature of it.
For several reasons and including all of the above, I came down on the Leave side in the 2016 Referendum.
The 2016 Referendum
Whatever may be said about “lies” and “fake news” (and there was at least as much on the Remain side as on that of Leave), the vote was honestly counted and the result was, in round figures, 52% Leave, 48% Remain. Britain voted to leave the EU, and it matters not at all that a certain proportion failed to vote at all, or that 48% is “nearly” half, or that it was “so close” as to be a draw (a particularly pathetic argument in a country with Britain’s First Past The Post traditions and voting system).
The Years Since the 2016 Referendum
David Cameron-Levita had complacently assumed that Remain would win the Referendum easily. He was as out of touch on that as he was generally. Clueless. Once the Referendum produced the “wrong” result, I assumed (it turns out correctly) that the ZOG/NWO conspiracy would do what it has done in previous cases (in other countries), which is to hold another vote or to make sure that Brexit became meaningless.
The British public has now been subjected to 2-3 years of fear-propaganda to soften it up for either “Brexit In Name Only” or a so-called “final vote” (aka “people’s vote”), i.e. a Second Referendum which will, they hope, produce the right result, i.e. Remain.
Part of all that is the notion that Leave voters were idiots or at least not as educated as Remain voters (a doubtful proposition) and that they did not really understand why they were voting Leave.
My Views About That
Most people who voted Leave in 2016 did so partly because the EU has become a tyrannical octopus and/or because the UK has been flooded by low-wage labour and also riff-raff thieves and parasites such as Roma Gypsy clans from countries now in the EU such as Bulgaria, Romania etc.
Many also voted Leave as a proxy for voting against the System political parties, and in particular the Conservative Party with its evil attacks on the disabled etc and its general faux-“austerity” (for the poor only), trashing of public services etc; the LibDems too, with their craven and self-seeking support for the Conservative government 2010-2015, and their support for mass immigration. Not that the Labour Party was not a target too. Many Labour seats were heavily Leave, especially in the North of England, where the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs were humoured by Labour for so long. That may have nothing to do logically or officially with the issues in the Referendum, but in the real world, there were many reasons, valid in their own way, for voting Leave. People “wanted their country back”. The Referendum was a way to make the System listen for once.
What Might Happen if the 2016 Referendum is not Honoured…
Those voting Leave and who still want out now may number 55% of the electorate, 50% or 45%. Estimates vary and opinion polls are unreliable, though it seems unlikely that Leavers are fewer than 45% of the electorate, at lowest. Leavers were always more committed, more angry than Remainers. A vocal but small minority of Remainers have pushed the agenda for nearly 3 years now. You see them on Twitter, mostly the same sorts of people (several but not many types). Pseudo-liberalistic lawyers, “media folk” etc. As for the Jews, while some individual Jews favour Leave, most support Remain. As a group, Jews are for Remain, for the EU and its repressions, against UK national sovereignty, against the real British people.
It should be added that, while most non-UK EU citizens were barred from voting in the 2016 Referendum, Irish (and some other EU) citizens resident in the UK could vote, as could all the ethnic minorities in the UK so long as the voters concerned were resident in the UK and either UK or Commonwealth state citizens.
I leave aside consideration of why Scotland voted Remain: if Scotland thinks that “independence” means leaving the UK but becoming a province of the increasingly-repressive EU (and allowing non-European migration-invasion too) then one can only shake one/s head despairingly. However, if only votes in England in 2016 are taken into account, Leave won by about 55% to 45%. If the votes of ethnic minorities are then taken out, the figure can be estimated to be something like 60% to 40%. In short, Leave was a valid result.
If the Leave vote is dishonoured, however and whyever that happens, there will be a backlash. That backlash may not be only about leaving the EU or remaining in it, but will import other issues: mass migration-invasion, “austerity”, the trashing of public services, pay, the now-punitive “welfare”/DWP system, the crimewave by non-whites (some English too). The 2016 Referendum was about more than the EU simpliciter; the backlash will be the same.
As to what form any backlash will take, “those who live will see”…
The Jew-Zionist lawyer (solicitor) Mark Lewis, best known for the UK phonehacking cases of some years ago, is facing a disciplinary tribunal under the auspices of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, and is trying to have part of the case against him thrown out on the specious basis that he was “merely responding” to rude comments about him by “a Who’s Who of neo-Nazis” (as if that were a defence? Oh well, let’s leave that aside…he’s not my solicitor, thank God!). I post the link to the Law Society Gazette report below.
I should add that I am neither party nor witness in those disciplinary proceedings.
I shall be blogging further about this unpleasant individual, probably in considerable detail, at a later time. For the moment, I shall confine myself to saying that
Mark Lewis started to send me a small number of abusive tweets (unprompted by any tweets from me to him) in 2012 or 2013. I did not reply in kind and blocked him on Twitter;
Lewis’s then wife (a short-lived marriage), one Caroline Feraday (a “Z List” would-be “celebrity” about 20 years ago) was in fact the first to abuse me on Twitter, having seen a tweet by me about the “WW2 Jewish looted art” “restitution” scam, reported on by the Radio 4 Today Programme. Lewis joined in her hysterical abuse against me. (The marriage failed after less than a year and after a few years —in 2018— she had a child by another man in Southern California, to where she —and Lewis, for a while, in 2013— had relocated);
I had to block both Caroline Feraday and Mark Lewis on Twitter because of their unpleasant abuse; I should add that, until they started to abuse me online, I had never heard of either of them;
Some time after I blocked Mark Lewis on Twitter, I was informed (and saw evidence from his own online output) that he had tried to make complaint against me to the Metropolitan Police in or around 2013. I know the name of the police officer who was (in Lewis’s words) “dealing with the case”, a woman who had previously served in the Royal Military Police. The complaint failed (in fact, I was not even contacted by the Metropolitan Police);
Mark Lewis is or was a leading member of, and office-holder in, two Jew-Zionist organizations, UK Lawyers for Israel [UKLFI] and the so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism [CAA]. The first cabal (UKLFI) made complaint against me to the Bar in 2014 (6-7 years after I ceased practice, a purely political and malicious complaint based on a small number of tweets, none of which were addressed to any individual but were general comments on society). I was disbarred in 2016 as a result of that complaint. The second cabal (the CAA) has tried on several occasions to have me prosecuted, via malicious complaint to Essex Police [see link below] and elsewhere (but now is itself under investigation by the police in relation to several matters);
Mark Lewis has from time to time posted other rude or abusive comments about me online, the last being about a year or two ago;
Mark Lewis is supposedly now relocating to Israel, and the London law firm which employed him for a couple of years, Seddons, parted company with him a while ago.
Unfortunately, I was unaware until recently that Lewis was being “tried” for abuse online against others, and was only aware today that Lewis had made preliminary application to throw out the case in part on the basis that he was merely “replying” to abuse by “neo-Nazis” (in which category he apparently places me). In my case, I was tweeted by Lewis; I was neither rude nor insulting, still less abusive to Lewis, yet he was –unprompted– horribly rude and abusive to me, as was his short-term and hysterical then wife, though she soon moved on and concentrated on (risibly) trying to convince her Twitter followers —mostly bought– that she was still, really, a “celebrity” (apparently a few people still remember her reporting on London traffic congestion etc);
It is important to underline that I was never even rude, still less abusive, to Lewis. His abuse was unprompted, unexpected both in itself and in its ferocity, and not the result of anything I tweeted to him (he addressed me “out of the blue”).
I await the results of the disciplinary proceedings with interest.
Lewis apparently has given evidence that, at times, he “had no idea what he was doing” because of the drugs he was prescribed! Glad that he is not my solicitor!
Psychotic (or maybe the MS he has afflicts mind as well as body); he himself, at trial, blamed drugs for some nasty tweets, but he stands by those shown above!
Update 26 November 2018
Lewis was given a fairly lenient penalty by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for his sins: £2,500 fine plus £10,000 costs. Pity he was not struck off the solicitors’ roll. He admitted that he sometimes has no idea what he is doing because of prescription drugs. He’s on the way out.
On Twitter, the whole UK Twitter Jew Zionist cabal (many of them lawyers, several of them Jews with not obviously-Jewish names) is out in force, defending Lewis’s behaviour. Take a look on Twitter under “Mark Lewis” or “@mlewislawyer”.
Also, compare the lenient treatment given to Lewis (whose ferocious abuse was aimed at named individuals and addressed directly to them) to that meted out to me, disbarred for tweeting 7 (reduced to 5) tweets critical of or mocking Jew Zionism!
Jews immediately set up crowdfunding pages for Lewis. Already, about £8,000 has been given (by Jews, presumably and judging from names of donors) and it seems likely that the SRA financial penalty and costs will all be paid that way. Lewis may even make a profit on it all! I cannot imagine that Lewis and his “carer”/”partner” Mandy Blumenthal (a property “investor”) are exactly short of money anyway.
Not sure how he's managing to get away with his behaviour I remember seeing him and his wife on TV, lying through their teeth over having to leave the country They're still here I note
The division is sharp: Jews and a few “useful idiot” non-Jews supporting Lewis (I dare say that most are unaware of the true facts of Lewis’s persistent and long-term abuse of people or have been misled by the story his Counsel put forward on his behalf); non-Jews mostly not supporting his position.
Here for example, we see Aisha Ali-Khan, an oddly pro-Lewis Muslim woman (and married to a one-time policeman, himself given a suspended sentence for a criminal offence as well as dismissed from the police), supporting him. She often calls on Twitter for the prosecution of supposed “anti-Semites” etc. Strange hypocrisy: she herself has been imprisoned two or three times for contempt of court, harassment and so on. Maybe she considers Lewis, as another abuser, to be a kindred spirit! I forgot to mention that, at one time, she was assistant to ex-Labour and Respect former MP George Galloway. I wonder what she was up to…
Today, @sra_solicitors tribunal have found @MLewisLawyer guilty of defending himself against 3 year campaign of hatred by anti-semites &slapped w/ £12500 in costs. Mark is one of the most hardworking,decent lawyers I have ever met-pls donate & share this:https://t.co/b4K9XYopWK
Pathetic minor academic Ben Gidley (another Jew-Zionist), here posing as one of his other Twitter faces, “Bob From Brockley” (yet another of his aliases is “@antinazisunited”; he was also “@TheSoupyOne” but was expelled from Twitter for –again!– harassment! Those Zionist Jews never seem to learn…), and here supports Lewis in reply to Katie Hopkins, dragging me into it all! Note that my featured tweet is not addressed to Lewis…In fact Gidley/BobFromBrockley is once again wrong: I have not been on Twitter for about 7 months now; I no longer have an account. Ben/Bob also falsely implies that I was part of “a concerted campaign” to harass Lewis. No…in fact I never tweeted to him except perhaps (and politely) once, when Lewis started his campaign against me (mostly from the shadows).
The people @MLewisLawyer told to fuck off were literally Nazis, engaged in a concerted campaign of antisemitic harassment against him. (Most of them have since been suspended from Twitter – these are among the few left). Now why would you see him as the bad guy here? pic.twitter.com/dd8RAKKzAW
and it seems that Mandy Gargoyle is not very well thought of, either.
Here is some pseudonymous Jewess, “Anna”, attacking Katie Hopkins, and also persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz. I have seen tweets identifying “Anna” (and other accounts) as… Mandy Gargoyle, but I have no idea whether she is or not. Maybe not: probably straight from Tel Aviv, judging by the poor English (eg Alison Chabloz as someone’s “son“!). No matter. [note, 29 November 2018: the Twitter account “Anna” has now disclaimed being Mandy Blumenthal, though claiming that she is “honoured” that “one antisemite” “keeps on” making the association. No idea who that might be….I’m looking but not finding, today].
So Alison Chabloz is someone's son. Hopkins should now be ostracized by the jewish community and keep her gobshit mouth out of our buisiness
Here’s an amusing one. Jew (odds-on) who thinks that Lewis should not have been prosecuted by the SRA because tweeting in a personal and not professional capacity.
Context is everything. Mark Lewis was responding to a message to him, wishing him dead. ( I believe one of many). His response was equivalent to “and the same to you!” The SRA clearly got it wrong! Mark Lewis was tweeting in a personal NOT professional capacity.
Well, I pleaded that (inter alia) when Jew-Zionists had the Bar Standards Board “prosecute” me (2014-2016). The tribunal decided (quite wrongly on the facts) against me. I never held myself out as barrister on my Twitter profile or in any of the 5 supposedly offending tweets (none of which was addressed to a named individual). Lewis has always (typical…) self-promoted as a “lawyer” (solicitor) on his Twitter profile. I shall be blogging about the so-called “top lawyer” in greater detail at a later date.
Anti-Zionist Jew, Gilad Atzmon, mentions Lewis and his behaviour here:
Dear friends, I need your support. In March I was sued for libel for suggesting that ‘Antisemitism is a business plan.’ The case has now settled but I am left with a huge hole in my pocket. I guess that this is an important battle for all of us..https://t.co/fqMZ2nbdjJ
This is an amusing one, from Simon Myerson QC, who is part of the Jewish Zionist troll group called “@gnasherjew” on Twitter. My impression over the years is that he constantly tweets “as a Jew”, but here he claims not! In fact, his Twitter profile used to self-describe as “ocean-going Zionist QC”, a neat way of wearing his Jewishness on his sleeve while also bragging (about being both a QC and an ocean yachtie).
I don’t post specifically as a Jew very often. But @sra_solicitors is covered in shame tonight. They picked on a Jew subject to racist abuse. They punished him as a solicitor for responding to death threats. Being a Jew first isn’t acceptable, apparently. Truly contemptible.
Then the weird psycho-Barrister Simon Myerson blustered in and kept telling me to "Listen to the Jews"!! Accused me of antisemitism after about 2 tweets when I asked for evidence of this antisemitism. Then he stalked me for about 2 months after I blocked him
— ʍֆ ɢ wants #CeasefireNOW 🕊🇵🇸 (@Grombags) August 3, 2018
Update, 3 December 2018
The Jews continue to pile in for Lewis. Twitter is still full of Jews wishing Lewis well in his move to Israel (supposedly the day after tomorrow), and Legal Business magazine here quotes a lawyer saying things helpful to Lewis. Was the lawyer a Jew, one wonders?
“The partner added: ‘Is it the role of the SRA to intervene in Twitter rows? This is a case about boundaries, and it suggests that the SRA’s boundaries are in a different place to that of the public.’”
Well, how very supportive. Where were all these supporters of free speech when the Jew-Zionists had me disbarred for 5 tweets about society generally?
In fact not every tweeter has supported Lewis and his appalling behaviour:
Good to see this scumbag lawyer and abusive prick getting fined by his Professional Body
— ICJ says Israel is guilty of Genocide (@TheBirmingham6) December 2, 2018
Update, 4 December 2018
Another Jew lawyer weighs in on Lewis’s side, at the same time wishing him bon voyage to Israel…
@mlewislawyer Solicitor Mark Lewis flags up the almost impossible challenges of responding to vile anti-Semitic abuse when working in a heavily regulated profession. I wish him every happiness in his new life in Israelhttps://t.co/81gXhz5jOH
In fact, Lewis’s remarks seem to be almost incoherent. It is not clear whether that is because of disjointed RT News editing, the long flight to Israel, the effects of his medication on his brain (as mentioned in his recent “trial” before the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority) or some other cause (such as any degenerative effects on the brain caused by progressive MS). It has occurred to me several times over the past 6 years that Lewis’s brain might have been affected by some side-effect of his MS condition itself, but I do not know enough about MS or medicine generally to say whether that is possible (I read that it is, though) or likely. He often seems to me to leave rationality behind.
What would “Golda Meir” have said?
Anyway, here’s someone calling himself “Golden Anglo”, a tweeter who seems to be yet another critic of Lewis and his attitude etc…
Some (a random selection of) very recent tweets about Lewis and Blumenthal (funny though how RT News seems to have swallowed the same bs as the “British” msm about how Lewis is or was a “top lawyer”…)
Theatrical PR. I saw an article on Twitter from around 2015 where Blumenthal said she was 'looking around for a property in Israel' where she hoped to relocate to "in a few years' time". Anti-Corbyn stunt, that is all!
Lewis may or may not have a house in Israel (yet), but he certainly has or had (I suspect still has) an apartment, as he admitted in this 2011 interview with the [London] Evening Standard:
“I was devastated,” he says. “I’d been turned down for so many jobs, I’m thinking to myself, I can’t go on any more, you can only get so many knockbacks. I’m giving in and going to my flat in Israel and retire in Eilat.”
In other words, Lewis (and Blumenthal) now exhibit their primary (in fact, really, only) loyalty, i.e. to the state of Israel and to their fellow-Jews. Yet Jews always say that it is “anti-Semitic” to say that Jews have (even) dual loyalty, let alone that they put Jewry and Israel first, before the host country (in this case, the UK). Here we have a typical case: while in the UK, Lewis and Blumenthal were “British” “patriots”, even putting themselves above real British people in that regard, but as soon as they have emigrated to Israel, Europe (not just the UK) is “finished”, “anti-Semitic”, “unsafe” and Britain is not a home for the Jews but just a “Hotel California” where they spent a few years, or a few generations…
The people I despise are the British ones who, out of naivety, or bribery, or fear of career repercussions etc, doormat for the Zionists. Most barristers, for example, are either such doormats or are silent through fear of being blackballed by the Jewish-Zionist lobby in the legal professions, and particularly by Jewish solicitors who might withhold work. The same applies in the world of entertainment and the msm in general.
Update, 8 December 2018
Tweeters are still commenting…
UK is celebrating their departure. Pair of twats.
— Phil aka Daniel Blake ex-Lab crank (@wirralphil1) December 7, 2018
It's fine, we don't need these types in the UK. I'm pleased they've gone.
— Fierce, Lord Pankake#GTTO @SWLABR@universeodon.com (@Tweeting_Twite) December 7, 2018
They've actually gone this time? Are we certain they are not coming back? Wonderful! I felt extremely unsafe while those 2 were spewing their bile in the UK.
…and Lewis’s ex-wife Caroline Feraday cannot stop herself from commenting! Well, why not? After all, he cannot slap her from Israel!
Who gets on a flight with a great big flag, I thought…..but looking at the flight board, it appears they haven’t just landed at all…did they fake the big arrival? #bonkerspic.twitter.com/wMCDqDXFl1
Meanwhile, Lewis answers one of hundreds of critical tweeters. Note that he —a Jew born and brought up in Manchester, UK— describes the Jews as “my people”: he’s left behind the fiction that he is “British” except in terms of one of his passports (he now proudly holds up his new (?) Israeli one). He’s an Israeli now even officially. I hope, though without much confidence, that he now shuts up about UK matters.
History lesson for you, your country Ireland supported the jackbooted Nazis whilst they killed my people. Don’t lecture me.
…and Mandy Gargoyle has now joined in, trying to intimidate a tweeter who is tweeting under a pseudonym. She is not very intelligent. Just as well. Malice and intelligence would be harder to laugh off.
Meanwhile, dirty little pro-Zionist propagandist Douglas Murray blogs in favour of Lewis. His brief piece made me laugh out loud, so credit where due! Lewis, says he, never sought limelight for himself! Hardy ha ha! “Modest” (ha ha!), “self-effacing” (ha ha ha!), “cerebral” (what on Earth is Murray on?!), “upholding…the principles of a free and fair society” (!). Ah, so that was what Lewis and his fellow Jew Zionists (of “UK Lawyers for Israel” and “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”) were doing when they had me disbarred for daring to tweet the truth, when they had Alison Chabloz prosecuted for singing songs, when they had Jez Turner imprisoned for speaking the truth in a public speech…
“Though he was near to limelight, he never sought it for himself. A modest, self-effacing and cerebral figure, his career was not about seeking personal notoriety, but of practising the law, representing his clients and upholding what he saw to be the principles of a free and fair society.”
Here below, at the foot of this section, is one of Lewis’s tweets about me, from over 2 years ago. As you, the reader, will see, he refers to me as “failure as a barrister and as a human being”, among other things.
I suppose that most people who read that tweet were unaware of the irony: until Lewis got onto the “phonehacking” wagon, he himself was at rock-bottom. He had parted company with a firm of solicitors in Manchester under unclear circumstances (rather a theme…see below), had been divorced (ditto), and in or about 2009 was only making about £9,000 a year (as he admitted to a newspaper interviewer a few years later).
The phonehacking stuff paid off, and soon Lewis was busily “creating” a legend as “top lawyer”. The phonehacking stuff did not last long of course. Technology moved on and phonehacking is now just a footnote in legal history (it’s a purely UK story anyway: hardly anyone in the USA has heard of it). Lewis left his next firm, in London (where he was a “consultant”), under acrimonious circumstances (he much later sued that firm and they countersued, but it is not publicly known how that ended, the matter presumably having been settled and sealed).
Lewis married, in 2013, one-time local radio presenter Caroline Feraday. “Top lawyer marries celebrity”, or at least that is how the narrative went. Stories were seen in the Press about how Lewis “had clients in the USA” to where he and la Feraday would be relocating (to her new apartment in West Hollywood, no less). She, in her turn, seemingly had various Hollywood opportunities lined up, the newsreading public was told. She already had a part in a TV sitcom arranged —had “been cast” in it—, the gullible (?) readers were told. More than that! She was busy “writing a book”, which was to be turned into a film and “several studios are interested…”
Lewis, the Daily Mail’s tame showbiz reporter was told by Feraday, had clients in the U.S. and would “commute” between LA and London. As 1950s people were wont to say, “get you!”…
Lewis and Feraday moved to West Hollywood, flying Virgin Upper Class (well, after all, they were, er, “celebrities”, weren’t they?) to LA. They joined the West Hollywood branch of the Soho House club, on Sunset Boulevard. “Celebrities” have more than a few thousand Twitter followers, of course, so they both “acquired” tens of thousands of new “followers”, Lewis ending up after a week or so with about 80,000!
Sadly, all that hype seemed to disappear like a mirage in Death Valley. La Feraday never did get into an American sitcom (or if she did, it must have bombed, or been pulled immediately…there never was one, I am guessing). I have no idea whether she ever got any part in American film or TV. Her breathless “look at me, people—a celebrity in sunny Hollywood!” Twitter account said nothing (that I saw, anyway) about her getting a acting part, but that is unsurprising. After all, why should an acting part on American TV, or in a film, go to someone without any acting experience, and who was nearly 40? The supposed book deals and film options also vanished without trace.
As for Lewis, his brave new Californian world crumbled into ashes. American lawyers soon realized that Lewis (unlike, er, me) had never qualified at the Bar of any American state and so was not qualified to practise in California (or any other state). Those lawyers made sure that the California Bar was aware of the foregoing. The upshot (whatever the causes…and I have heard a few stories) was that the marriage foundered after only a year (including a few months in LA) and Lewis returned to the UK in 2014 with his tail between his legs.
By the following year, Lewis had joined the well-known London law firm, Seddons, as a partner (salaried “partner”, not equity partner). At the time, I was surprised that Seddons had taken him on, but there it is. He left in 2018, just as it became known that he was coming up for “trial” in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (where he was found guilty on all charges). Seddons’ statement was that Lewis had resigned as a partner because of his upcoming “aliyah” (emigration) to Israel (he is now an Israeli citizen).
Lewis’s second ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, stayed on in LA, did some amateur comedy appearances there and a few 2-minute reports about the Oscars etc for the British local TV news show, BBC South-East Today (cheaper than actually sending someone, I suppose), and eventually had a child in 2017 by another man.
Lewis is now an Israeli citizen and resident (he has or had a flat there). He is not now a partner or employee of any law firm in the UK and has stated that he will not seek admission to whatever Bar may exist in Israel. He has a degenerative progressive medical condition and is, apparently, on medication.
[note: much material about Lewis, including some newspaper coverage, has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet, or at least from Google searches]
It has always been accepted that, while subjective views of the world mean that reality may differ for different people, there exists, beyond the subjective reality, an objective reality, most of the time at least. Certain things were to be accepted, by all but the insane, as objectively true or real, and other things were regarded as untrue or unreal. Real included measurement of time, age, race, sex, and a million other things. Unreal did not have to be defined but would include direct “untruths” such as two men dressed up as a pantomime horse. These were “two men dressed up as a pantomime horse” (i.e. true), but were not “a horse” (i.e. false, or untrue).
It was never suggested that two men should not dress up as a pantomime horse and pretend to play the part of a horse on stage —or, indeed, in the street—, simply that two men dressed up as a horse are not a horse! That remains true even were the two men to sincerely believe (e.g. if insane) that they really were a horse.
Now it is true that there might be grey areas, particularly as to the future: it was true, in 1902, to say that people could not fly in heavier-than-air machines; by 1904, the same statement was untrue. There are other obvious examples. “Britain has a huge empire.” True in 1914, 1918, 1939 and even in 1945, but today (2018) not true.
Have we now moved (in the “West”, mainly) to a situation where objective reality is taking a back seat? Wishful thinking (eg the middle-aged woman who thinks that she still looks young) has always existed, but now it is sufficient merely to assert your wish for it to be superficially taken as representing fact: the male person or (far more rare) unfortunate freak of birth who “identifies” or “self-identifies” as female. Not only is such a wish-turned-“fact” to be taken seriously today (in, say, the UK) but anyone saying that a man who has had “gender re-assignment” surgery is still not, inreality, a woman, is accused of being “a bigot” uttering “hate speech”.
So it is that feministic women (with whose outlook I myself generally have little in common) and indeed many other women, and who object to women having to share exclusive facilities such as sport changing rooms, bathrooms etc with so-called “trans-women” (which might mean, eg, young girls having to undress and shower alongside middleaged –and even surgically unchanged– men posing as women, in effect), have been labelled “TERFS“, meaning “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists”; and all because the said “TERFS” are unwilling to accept as true an evident untruth.
In the Netherlands, a man of 69 wants to have his age “reclassified” officially as 49, apparently for reasons of vanity, though it has been suggested (see notes below) that in fact he is making a satirical “propaganda of the deed” attempt. All the same, how telling it is that some dimwits commenting actually support the idea that a citizen should be able simply to choose an age at whim. A moment’s thought can surely show that such an idea must lead to chaos in a developed society! Examples (scarcely necessary, surely? Perhaps they are, in an increasingly mad society…): someone of 50 wants to get the benefits available to pensioners, so “self-identifies” as a 70-y-o. Or someone aged 50 wants to be allowed to join an age-restricted-on-entry organization such as the Army, or the Boy Scouts. It’s all just so ridiculous.
Then we have the whole race question. Sometimes I can do nothing but shake my head at the mentality of those who believe or want to believe that, say, a Chinese born in London is “English” or at least “British” rather than Chinese, or that a Jew born in Paris is “French”. Even the hardcore multikulti dimwits and maniacs find it hard to go along with the corollary, i.e. that an ethnically English person born in Peking or Calcutta is thereby a “Chinese” or “Indian”! But of course now the individual can “self-identify” anyway, so that we have cases such as the mentally-disturbed (?) and certainly very odd woman who, in the swamps of American politically-correct academia, simply cosmetically changed her appearance to look a little like a light-skinned “African-American”, then built a whole minor academic career on how bad whites are and how oppressed blacks are in the USA; not that there is not at least some truth in that, but that is a big and complex question, not something black and white (no pun intended). She was exposed in the end, mainly because she had claimed to be partly-black and was not. That was a few years ago. Today, I wonder whether her plea that she was simply “self-identifying” would save her from disgrace.
Another case. Barack Obama. Obama’s mother was white (mainly British –English, Welsh, Scottish– and Irish, with some German and Swiss aspects), his father black African. In his days of political prominence, no-one in the msm wanted to think or speak of him other than as “black”, because his superficial articulacy meant that it “proved” that a “black” man could be suitable (as it at first appeared) to be President of the United States. I do not recall one instance of Obama described accurately as “America’s first mixed-race President”, but only as “America’s first black President”…
There is a whole academic milieu in which it is regarded as axiomatic that “race is a social construct”. Such people have effectively lost touch with reality, as have those who have apparently almost convinced themselves that the Romans were black!
It brings to mind the “Russian” Revolution, which was partly-Russian in its first upsurge in Spring 1917, but simply a Jewish Bolshevik coup d’etat in October 1917 (old calendar).
Updated to 2018, we still see in the UK and elsewhere the fiction that the Jew “oligarchs” who “stole Russia” in the early 1990s (Berezovsky, Abramovitch etc) are “Russians”!
In fact, there are numerous other examples of where people, including the highly –superficially– educated prefer implausible unreality to reality. One, widespread in the UK, is that the country (and Europe as a whole) can accept unlimited millions of immigrants without any diminution in employment, pay, State benefits, pensions, road and rail services, school accessibility, NHS service etc etc.
I have thought a little about where this strange and widespread distortion of reality might have originated. There is the shifting of the ground of reality caused by theoretical physics over the past century. Then there is, more concretely, the “black propaganda” of the two world wars: in WW1, the British atrocity stories (Belgian nuns raped, babies stuck on German bayonets, bodies rendered down to make soap etc). Most of those stories were “recycled” more cleverly in WW2, so that, even today, many of the simpler people in the UK still believe that Jews were made into soap, their hair used to stuff Wehrmacht greatcoats (oh, yes, the German Army loved to stuff its cold-weather clothing with unwashed and lice-ridden hair from Jews!), their skin made into lampshades or tanned into leather upholstery for armchairs… and that is before we even get to the fabled “gas chambers” or the Munchausen-like tales of Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and hundreds of other proven fakes. The cartoon below illustrates well the situation.
The story about the Emperor’s new clothes has become everyday reality in the UK and across the “West”: fail to at least pretend to believe that the “holocaust” narrative is true in all its details and numbers etc, fail to offer lip service to racial “equality” (eg IQ averages etc), fail to agree that a surgically-altered man is a woman, fail to praise the migration-invasion of Europe, fail to believe that Jews are a wonderful benefit to every nation, and you may well be in serious trouble, especially if you have or need a job or profession. You may even (like Alison Chabloz) find yourself convicted and sentenced accordingly.
Another example is the way in which the basically undemocratic and indeed tyrannical EU matrix is supported by and beloved of millions of deluded people (who often think themselves some kind of intellectual elite) and who regard the EU as a liberal bastion, despite its refusal to honour popular voting, despite its mediaeval-style “holocaust” “denial” laws and its other repressions.
No wonder that the msm is not believed, politicians are not believed, “fake news” becomes a major factor.
In any event, there is no doubt that unreality and the worship of falsity is in the ascendant. Lies are exalted and that means that Evil is exalted. This can have but one outcome.
This bloke seems deadly serious to me. Why are people refusing to respect his inner beliefs about himself? Only he can determine his own age, it's not for anyone else to say https://t.co/EvopLcrdEZ
The above does not purport to be a comprehensive listing of all the instances or situations where people prefer comforting lies (unreality) to the more bracing truth (reality). One might cite, though, to provide two connected examples, academic award inflation and UK university degrees. These are important topics.
Originally, England had but one University (Oxford, founded, in origo, 1096). Later, Cambridge (1209) and others were founded: St. Andrew’s (in Scotland, founded 1413) and (in Ireland), Trinity College, Dublin (1592). Further university expansion occurred in later centuries, particularly in the 19thC.
These expansions of university education were all driven by reality, the need to provide better-educated leaders and specialists in government, industry, science etc.
The next great university-education expansion occurred after WW2. The so-called “red brick” universities. Snobs or people concerned about standards (usually the former), such as Kingsley Amis, proclaimed that “more will mean worse”. There is still debate about that, but the old phrase “six of one and half a dozen of another” probably covers it.
Even at that stage, meaning the 1960s, university expansion in the UK was still partly driven by reality, the more complex post-WW2 society needing more people with high or higher levels of education. In fact, standards were still fairly high. Anyone who looks at the old “O” and “A” Level papers (and “S” Levels, a fortiori) from the 1950s and 1960s, even 1970s, then compares them to today’s equivalent papers can see that most UK school exams have, indisputably, become easier over the past 60 years.
The cracks in the university system which started to show in the 1960s widened thereafter. Tony Blair, the fount of so much badness in the UK, finally cracked the whole system open by allowing virtually any institution to call itself a “university” and to issue (mediaeval concept in any case) “degrees”. Now, pretty much any Tom, Dick or Sharon can get a “degree” at “uni” in some such subject as Hotels and Hospitality, Travel and Tourism, Gender Studies, Third World Studies etc. The more traditional subjects have also been dumbed-down hugely, so that about half the students now (since about 1997) “achieve” a “First”, and hardly anyone gets less than an Upper Second. As for getting a Third or a Pass degree, or even failing the exams, well, short of absenteeism or mental breakdown— impossible. Result? Degrees are now almost worthless and you only have to look at some Oxbridge graduates to see that the problem is not confined to those attending the less-prestigious institutions.
Still, most people like the unreality better than reality: students have an easier life and almost all “achieve” high marks, their teachers like the fact that they “achieve” such high numbers of high-achieving students, the institutions like the same, as does government. The statistics look great! Only thing is, this is largely unreality, a mirage.
Update, 23 November 2018
Below, a thread from Twitter which exposes the contemporary madness richly. For some of these lunatics (and I have seen nonsense of this sort on Twitter etc even from an NHS psychiatrist, one who espouses the “race is a social construct” garbage), reality does not exist except as a subjective wish-list. For them, if an African man of 70 wants to be a European woman of 30, then fine, that’s what he —sorry, “she”— is, and anyone dissenting is “guilty” of “hate speech” or “hate thought” (?) and must be punished. Even George Orwell could never have foreseen this!
Another aspect (again, see the thread…and read the whole thread by clicking on one of the tweets below) is that truth alone is not enough for many, but has to appeal to people via a kind of “support the self-styled victims” argument, as in “don’t discuss whether men can just decide that they are women, but discuss whether their doing that makes [real] women victims” (etc).
The depths of the socio-political madness can be gauged by a look at some of the tweets above, such as the one directly above by tweeter [at time of writing called] “AnarchoCatgirl”. In the old joke, if she is interested, I believe that I can offer her London Bridge at a very reasonable price!
In fact, it is interesting that it is mostly the firmest feminists who have bridled at this whole “transpeople” nonsense and reality-distortion. Feminists may not know much (in some cases) but they do know what is a woman and what is not a woman:
Looks as though others are in agreement with me: see this, written in typically-convoluted Jewish-academic style, and from a different ideological direction than my own, but attacking the same sort of madness:
The madness continues. Sometimes I feel that the only way to deal with these and other issues in the UK will be “non-peaceful” somewhere not far down the line. It may or may not be so, but I myself feel it strongly. Does that mean that it is true?
More Twitter reaction. I shall add to this as I notice relevant bits of news and comment.
Many women are wondering how and why the trans lobby has been so successful this last decade. Here's why – money – and lots of it. Seems odd that we, as taxpayers and contributors, are funding organisations actively working against our interests. https://t.co/omg88ld1bc
Trans women are in fact women. That's why "trans" is an adjective modifying "woman" to mean that a "trans woman" is one way to be a woman, much like a white woman, a straight woman, a disabled woman, etc.
— Maddie, Eschatological Nightmare (@lisaquestions) March 7, 2019
Below: someone called Marc, on Twitter, tries to stand up for truth and logic but is criticized by trans-“woman” Tara Hewitt, a half-crazed creature from the UK North West who, years ago, trolled me on Twitter, and who, supporting Scameron and Osborne’s “austerity” nonsense-economics, wanted to become a “Conservative” MP, despite “her” risibly poor educational level…
More evidence that the UK police see their role not as traditional police (keeping the public safe, investigating real crime etc) but as being a kind of poundland KGB, “investigating” peoples’s opinions and then going on to repress freedom of expression, even travelling long distances to harass or intimidate people suspected of holding or expressing the “wrong” views about society…
Below: the prophet speaks: great classic writer G.K. Chesterton foresaw today’s social madness…
We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.
A Dr Who writer @OldRoberts953 is expunged from a book by the BBC because he won’t conform to the latest transgender ideology. His views on transgenderism are probably shared by 90%+ of Brits but he’s now a Non-Person for the BBC. The net tightens around free speech. Please share https://t.co/G9fM2BK1e4
2016: Craig Telfer is ranked 200th 2017: Craig Telfer is ranked 390th 2018: Craig Telfer 'transitions to female' 2019: CeCe Telfer is national championhttps://t.co/KHXaIjhYvopic.twitter.com/Uoy72PCqkR
"She says the transgender woman, who is serving a sentence for rape of a female, groped her breasts in the prison toilets… The victim was moved to a different prison only to find her assailant had also moved there and would be sharing accommodation."https://t.co/cU0L3maVWf
The madness spreads to organizations such the the Girl Guides. Guides, Scouts, other charities (real or fake), you name it, they are all full, at higher levels, of termites who are traitors to society, evil killers of our future, Common Purpose conspirators etc:
This is not “a victimless crime”, not merely a debate in an ivory tower. Think about the 6-y-o girl who has been abused and traumatized by some teenage nut because he, said nut, wants to identify as “she”. In the future, the Third Reich will have to be revisited.
"This is an act of national cowardice by our would–be leaders, dressed up as high-minded moral superiority. Will any of them think again? While they absent themselves, women are being betrayed."
Even the academic standing against some of the madness, one Kathleen Stock, is compelled or impelled to defend truth not by saying simply “A is TRUE, B is UNTRUE”, but by entering into long philosophical and sociological exegesis. Telling…
Some of the “trans” people and extreme responses to those tweets are so off the wall that you wonder whether what is required is a psychiatrist or a machine-gun.
Time to recall the old saying “those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”. This society is running on empty.
The writer of the piece below was rude to me on Twitter, and applauded my getting expelled from in 2018, so it would be natural to put “the finger” up to him, but the topic is important, even if he himself is a flawed messenger (and I do not recall the exact details— he is not important enough for that):
“The panel said only views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism were unworthy of protections for rights of freedom of expression and thought..” Seems that the Indian in charge thinks that National Socialism is just too true!
…but even now the Daily Mail calls the rapist “she”, and “her”…
Update, 2 February 2025
The madness carries over into other socio-political areas, such as the immigration “debate”, aka migration-invasion:
My blog post (another one that has had to be added to via updates over the years) about the links connecting Jew-Zionism, “antifa” nonsense, and mental illness, has proven popular:
I’m very happy about this, but the fact that people need a Supreme Court to tell us that women are in fact women is beyond stupid. This crazy nonsense is where the liberals have dragged society. A playpen for lunatics. Stomp out every liberal policy and stop the insanity!
I recently re-read Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness– A Soviet Spymaster, the autobiography of General Pavel Sudoplatov, who was, inter alia, the brains behind such complex secret operations as the acquisition, in the 1940s, of atomic and nuclear technology from the USA and UK; he also oversaw such sanguinary plots as –and most notoriously– the assassination of Trotsky in Mexico in 1940.
I last read Sudoplatov’s book in 1994, the year of its first hardback publication. On first reading, I did not, perhaps, pay enough attention to the part of the book near the end, dealing with Beria and the Politburo in general after the death of Stalin in 1953.
It might be said that to examine the beliefs and intent of Beria is otiose now that 65 years have passed since his death by summary execution. Also, unsurprisingly, few tears have been shed for him since his death. He was in many ways monstrous: this article is of course limited in scope by reason of, inter alia, lack of space. Beria’s crimes of a political nature were on a vast scale. His more personal crimes were also many and included the regular abduction and rape of women and girls, including some young schoolgirls. Having said that, his swift “trial” (in secret and without defence representation) and the immediately-following execution was a purely political action ordered by those with political records in many ways as bad (Khrushchev, for one).
I start from the following premises:
that Western and/or Westernizing conspirators funded and oversaw the Bolshevik coup d’etat in October 1917 (old calendar);
that the same cabals set up the Soviet system in the 1920s as a quasi-religious movement (in style) which was atheist (in content);
that the quasi-religious character of Bolshevism slowly started to dissipate after the death of Lenin in January 1924, replaced at first by a pseudo-intellectual Marxism-Leninism (incorporating a personality-cult), then by a revival of “Holy Russia” and nationalistic propaganda (mixed with the foregoing) during the war of 1941-45. Finally, there came a late efflorescence of the Stalin personality cult mixed with pan-Slavism between 1945 and Stalin’s death in 1953;
that in the (significant number) 33 years from 1956 (the year of Khrushchev’s Secret Speech denouncing Stalinism as a personality cult etc) to 1989, Sovietism continued to decay ideologically, until it finally collapsed into a pile of dust.
Beria, ideologically
Beria was born in Merkheuli, near Sukhumi, which latter was a prosperous resort in late-Tsarist times. His family was not poor. It may be important that (in contradistinction to Russia), the Black Sea littoral was part of the Alexandrine Greek polity and, later, the Eastern Roman Empire. A more cosmopolitan milieu than that of Russia and one which existed for more than a thousand years prior to the first foundation of Kievan Rus.
That area, Abkhazia (geographically a part of Georgia, though historically distinct), was the location of the legendary Golden Fleece and is said to have been the birthplace of wine.
In the Soviet era, peasants were able to (in effect) own their own agricultural or horticultural plots of up to 0.5 hectare (about an acre or so). This was put into law in the mid-1930s. “Special districts” (particularly in Georgia) could have plots as large as 1 hectare (2.2 acres) officially and slightly more unofficially. By 1939, these small plots (only a few percent of the land area of the Soviet Union) produced at least 21% of all Soviet agricultural produce (and a far greater percentage of fruits etc). Some estimates from later times (the 1970s) put the real figure as high as 40%.
The “garden plots” or “household plots” had become important in Georgia/Abkhazia since the end of serfdom in 1865 (serfdom in some parts of the Russian Empire lasted for some years after the formal abolition of 1861).
Beria (b.1899) thus grew up in a milieu quite different from his later Russian and Ukrainian colleagues.
Beria was, as a youth, involved, when a student in Baku (again, a very “capitalist” and cosmopolitan city which, after a long history, had boomed pre-1914 by reason of the oil finds), with both the Bolsheviks and the Azeri anti-Bolshevik Musavat movement, which had Muslim, Turkic and general reformist roots and ideology.
It has been alleged against Beria that he had been involved with British Intelligence in Baku in or around 1919. Not impossible. Baku was of huge strategic importance during the First World War.
Likewise, at his drumhead trial in 1953, it was alleged that Beria favoured soft relations with National Socialist Germany or was even a “traitor” who helped Germany militarily and diplomatically (see the Wikipedia article, below).
Anthroposophy and other Germanic cultural connections
Beria was friendly toward the writer Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, who was educated partly at Berlin University (graduating in 1918) and spent the war years 1914-1918 in Germany and Switzerland as well as France. Gamsakhurdia may well have met Rudolf Steiner (d.1925) at that time, when Steiner was constructing the First Goetheanum (at Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland).
In the 1920s, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia was for 3-4 years a political prisoner in the Solovki concentration camp on the Solovetsky Islands. He would almost certainly not have survived the purges of the 1930s without Beria’s protection.
The son of Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, became President of Georgia in the first democratic elections following Soviet rule. He is generally considered to have been an Anthroposophist, and wrote, among other works, Goethe’s Weltanschauung from the Anthroposophic Point of View [pub. Tbilisi 1985].
Beria’s Preferred Policies
Beria was not an idealist, but a practitioner of Realpolitik, par excellence. This enabled him not only to implement Stalin’s repressions without conscience, but also to see the aspects of Soviet life that were not working.
Had Beria succeeded Stalin,
he would have brought back a large measure of private ownership, or at least operational ownership, into agriculture. That would have hugely improved Soviet agriculture, whereas Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands scheme was mainly an expensive and ecologically-negative failure;
because Beria was not an ideologue, he would have had no qualms in ending the Cold War early. He would have been, to cite Mrs Thatcher’s view of Gorbachev, someone “with whom the West could do business.” That might have meant no Vietnam War, no Soviet support for so-called “Liberation” movements in Africa, no Cuban Missile Crisis, no Berlin Wall;
while Beria would certainly have ruthlessly stamped down on domestic political opposition, he would not have repeated Stalin’s mistaken policy (implemented partly by Beria himself) of arresting millions of people for effectively no reason;
Beria would have (as Sudoplatov notes) allowed the non-Russian republics a greater degree of independence, thus creating an earlier and more feasible “Commonwealth of Independent States” [CIS], albeit that they would not be “states” but autonomous or semi-autonomous republics.
Beria would have concentrated the KGB (its later name) and GRU on useful intelligence gathering and not on playing spy games and fomenting pseudo-Marxist revolts in Africa, Latin America etc.
Conclusion
While it might stick in the craw of many to conclude that Beria would have made a far better ruler of Russia than uneducated Khrushchev with his half-baked huge projects and his bang-shoe-on-table style of diplomacy, the facts speak for themselves.
A British scribbler, one Alex Marshall (formerly of The Guardian, now at time of writing apparently “Europe Culture Editor” for The New York Times) wrote a book called The Caucasus Under Soviet Rule, in which he wrote that “Personally propagating a bizarre Rudolph Steiner-inspired cult of anthroposophy, [Zviad] Gamsakhurdia…[etc]”.
Poorly written, for a start: “Anthroposophy” requires upper-case “A”, just like, say, “Roman Catholicism”. Marshall spells Rudolf Steiner, “Rudolph”, just as those who make fun of Hitler often write his name “Adolph” in petty denigration; also, “a bizarre” should be (if written at all) “the bizarre”.
Marshall’s words sound like a polemic against Anthroposophy, that movement which has achieved so much (though that fact is still not well-known to the masses in the Anglophone countries). To write off Anthroposophy as “a bizarre cult” is itself bizarre: think biodynamic agriculture, Waldorf [Rudolf Steiner] education etc.
I note that Marshall’s book, at least according to some reviewers, contains a number of other factual errors.
In fact, Shevardnadze, who overthrew Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was a ruthless “ex”-Soviet apparatchik who reintroduced large-scale repression into already-chaotic Georgian political life. He was the preferred candidate of the New World Order, completely under the “Western” thumb. I myself was slightly acquainted at one time (c.1995) with one of Shevardnadze’s advisers, who –like me– was on the Committee of the Central Asia and Transcaucasia Law Association [CATLA], a body active in the 1990s and which was supported by the British Government and large London-based law firms with interests in those regions.
Max Hill Q.C. is on the brink of taking up his role as D.P.P., in succession to Alison Saunders. It is too early to say what his official attitude will be in relation to political “crime”, “thought crime” and freedom of expression. While he has made some quite liberal remarks in the past in connection with Muslims, Islamists etc, he has also referred to “far right fanatics”, a meaningless phrase which is often used by Zionists and their msm doormats to label social nationalists and others.
Already, the unpleasant Zionist fanatics of the so-called “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” or “CAA” (themselves under police investigation for stalking, harassment and abuse of charitable status) have taken to Twitter etc in an attempt to put pressure on the new DPP. They want him to prosecute anyone criticizing Zionist individuals and groups under the UK’s draconian laws against so-called “hate speech” etc. Indeed, one of their doormats in the msm (himself apparently a Jew) has already publicized on Twitter and on the LBC (radio station) website a file relating to various “cases” where the police and/or CPS have not prosecuted mostly rather innocuous tweets and other online postings.
The Zionists of the CAA are using the entirely unrelated shooting event in Pittsburgh, USA to try to shut down legitimate freedom of expression in the UK…and are being aided and abetted by other Zionists in the decadent UK mass media milieu.
The new DPP, before he listens to any of the CAA’s nonsense, should bear in mind that, quite apart from the various alleged illegalities perpetrated by CAA persons (and which are currently under police investigation), the CAA has made a number of frivolous and indeed malicious complaints (to the police, to the CPS, to Twitter etc) against quite a large number of people, including David Icke, Al Jazeera TV, the Jewish anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon, and even against me. In fact, in its 4+ years of operation, the CAA has only scored two “victories” of any significance, to wit against Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) and against the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz (who is in any case presently appealing both conviction and sentence).
The CAA’s membership numbers are secret, but thought by many to number only a few hundred, certainly not many more if its Parliament Square and other demonstrations are anything to go by. Crowds numbering between 50 and 200 individuals.
In order to assist Max Hill Q.C. and his staff in any deliberations, I commend my own experience of victimization by these Jewish-Zionist and pro-Israel fanatics. The events described took place in January 2017, so nearly two years ago now, and the blog post dates from about 18 months ago.
The Jew Stephen Silverman of South Essex, the so-called “Head of Enforcement” at the “CAA” (“Campaign Against Antisemitism”) fake charity, and who was exposed in open court (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) as a pseudonymous troll and stalker of women, has recently been complaining that the DPP will not meet with Silverman or his colleagues (who include Joe Glasman, an evil snooper, and Stephen Applebaum of Edgware, North London, soi-disant “film critic” and house husband; Applebaum was also a very malicious and pseudonymous troller and stalker of women before he was exposed).
If it is true that the DPP will not agree to have his ear bent by the CAA trolls, it must be because, at long last, the CPS (and police?) are waking up to the maliciousness of these Jews, and to their politically-motivated “lawfare” against those with whom they disagree (“those whom they hate” would be more accurate).
In Pittsburgh, someone has apparently shot some Jews in a synagogue. His motives need not concern us. What does concern me is how the System has seized upon the event as an excuse to censor social media comment. In particular, the enemies of freedom have taken the opportunity to attack and try to shut down GAB [https://gab.com/home], at which the alleged shooter is said to have maintained an account.
Within hours of the shooting, both GAB’s hosting service, Joyent [https://www.joyent.com/] as well as Paypal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal] withdrew services from GAB in a blatant attempt to destroy GAB, which is a small (and freer) version of Twitter.
The rationale for this censorship conspiracy (and of course it is obvious which tribe is behind it) is that GAB is somehow (unspecified) responsible for the Pittsburgh shooting event because the alleged shooter had a GAB account!
Now these days almost everyone has a social media account. The mass killer, Anders Breivik, had a Facebook account. There was no conspiracy or clamour to shut down Facebook after he shot about 80 people a few years ago.
In fact, it turns out that the alleged perpetrator of the Pittsburgh event also had accounts on both Facebook and Twitter! However, neither Facebook nor Twitter are facing any threat of close-down, unlike Gab; neither are the hardcore Jewish Zionists on those platforms calling for any such shut-down. Only Gab is facing destruction…Surely even the “antifa” idiots can see that there is something fishy here?
In other words, the attack on GAB is purely political and is being led, basically, by the Zionist element, which is trying to remove any space wherein social-national or “white nationalist” views can be expressed. Twitter has already purged thousands of its most interesting accounts (including my own) after Jews complained. Now GAB is under threat for not purging the same sort of views. It has nothing to do with violence or supposed incitement to violence. Most GAB posters do not incite violence (far less than do the more extreme Jewish Zionists and their “antifa” “useful idiots”). It is a purely political attempt to prevent any social-national or even traditional-type nationalist views from being expressed anywhere.
It is sobering to look at Twitter and see how the mob is baying for the blood of GAB. Many of the most fervent supporters of censorship are those whose predecessors would have gone to the barricades in defence of freedom: journalists, TV presenters, academics, writers, film directors etc. Many are not Jews but “useful idiot” types, completely bamboozled (but withal aware that to stand against Zionism is often not a good career move in a milieu where “they” have a stranglehold…).
What happens when people are denied a voice, even where that voice is small? Let history judge.
Addendum
When I spoke at the London Forum in February 2017, I used the last part of my talk to raise the point, only since then raised by others (both in UK and especially USA), about what I called “the privatization of public space” online. As I explained in that talk, what I meant was that a very few huge online enterprises now act as near or quasi-monopolies: Facebook, Twitter, Amazon (in respect of book reviews etc), ebay. If the citizen is thrown off those sites and/or barred from expressing opinion, his right to self-expression has been denied him, and that remains true even if there are small websites where he can still comment. The citizen has no right of redress qua citizen, only as a “customer” of those sites. That amounts to no right at all when it comes to freedom of expression.
There should be a right of appeal to an independent agency or tribunal, or to the courts. At present, the large online companies can arbitrarily remove a person from posting, without appeal even in-house in most cases. Those who say that these are private enterprises and have the right to remove whomsoever they wish are missing the point. Risibly, such unthinking and/or malicious people often think of themselves as the “tolerant” and “freedom”-loving ones…their glee at GAB being shut down tells the true story, though. They simply wish to repress freedom of expression for those with whom they (in, often, their smug ignorance) disagree on political, social or historical matters.
Below: Gab comments via its Twitter account (and retweets supporters)
The ENTIRE internet had the same freedoms of @getongab from 1991 until about five years ago. Despite free speech being fettered everywhere online in the past few years it has not made the world safer – crazy people still commit acts of violence even if you silence them online…
Meanwhile, the Jewish-Zionist element is holding conferences about how to “manage” the news and how to present those whom they hate…it seems that the spirit of Pravda and Komsomolskaya Pravda is not dead…
Really excited to be taking part in the Media Forum on "Normalising hate – how should journalists cover the far right?" @goldsmithsuol
If you're in London on the 14th of November, come and join us for this timely discussion!https://t.co/iANULyb7vl
“Free speech” in the Britain of 2019! Note (in the above newspaper report) the robotic refusal of Humberside Police to apologize or engage with the free speech argument, even now. Sinister is the right word for this.
Believe it or not, this idiot (Paul Bernal, see tweet below) is a law lecturer! I feel sorry for his students at the University of East Anglia! According to his definition, even Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China had “free speech” (you could *say* whatever you liked, but as a consequence might get shot..). What an idiot!
Time for the regular reminder that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
A (arguably the) pre-eminent revisionist historian, and a man of great integrity, Robert Faurisson has died at the age of 89. Predictably, the usual tasteless jackals took the opportunity to gloat and laugh on the Twitter echo-chamber and elsewhere. (((They))) give themselves and their character away so easily. Ignore them.
The work of this courageous fighter for truth will now be disseminated to ever-wider readerships. I start that here and now by posting the English-language edition of his unpublished book about the “holocaust” controversy etc.
Faurisson’s Wikipedia entry (obviously, Wikipedia is tainted on certain topics by having been infiltrated by Jewish Zionists, but the more basic biographical facts are usually correct):
The former BNP leader, Nick Griffin, has of late been making the point that ordinary political action is a waste of time for social nationalists anywhere in Western Europe, because the “blacks and browns” etc are too numerous, thus making electoral success unlikely. That is certainly the case, at least superficially, in the UK. The non-white population of the UK is now over 10%, though concentrated in the cities, some of the cities, some neighbourhoods of those cities. In a few towns and cities, the non-white population is in excess of 50% of the population as a whole. It can probably be said that, once the non-white population exceeds –arguably– 20% of the UK population as a whole, the possibility of peaceful transition to social nationalism has disappeared, and the possibility of triumph through the ballot-box has disappeared.
Nick Griffin’s solution to the above problem seems to be, if I have not misunderstood his position, that white Northern Europeans (and also East and Central Europeans etc) should have more children! Griffin places the family in the forefront.
I have no quarrel with what I take to be Griffin’s position, except that it is too simplistic. The migration-invasion is gathering pace, and by that I mean not only the rusty tankers and open boats crossing the Mediterranean, but also the “lawful” immigration taking place in various ways. Huge numbers of non-Europeans are now being born across Europe. The European population, as matters stand, is unable to keep up with the pace of invasion and occupation. In addition, the simple biological-demographical imperative, though crucial, does not stand alone.
Merely having a white population is insufficient. I agree in principle with the dictum “race is the root, culture is the flower”: having a white Northern European population is the sine qua non; but at the same time , having that population is the starting point, not the end-point. We must have an advanced society too. That does not occur automatically and pre-supposes, in our present age, political power in the hands of only white Northern Europeans. Thus we come full circle.
It was in facing, intellectually, the above-delineated dilemma, that I understood that the main answer in the short term and medium term is for the social national element to cluster in “safe zones”. It is already happening in Germany. In the safe zone (though nowhere is completely safe under the NWO/ZOG dystopian police state), forces can be gathered.
Europe is approaching a crisis-point. By 2022, that point will have been reached. Depending on events, the population of the continent after 2022 may be only a small fraction of what it now is. Remember that 60% of Europe’s present population (and that means about 70% or more of its truly European population) is descended from, it has been revealed, only one so-called “Bronze Age king”! (see Notes below). It may well be that, perhaps as long ago as 5,000 years before today, though perhaps as recently as 2,500 years before the present day, a mere handful of people created families, then clans, tribes, nations and finally national states in Europe.
Rudolf Steiner, toward the end of his life [d. 1925] predicted, in answers to questioners, that in the 21st Century, Europe would be devastated. One lady asked whether she might be reincarnated with him in the Europe of that time. His answer was “only if you are willing to walk with me across Europe, across broken glass.”
Those who imagine that the answer to the present difficulties of the UK and Europe generally lies in forming a political party and then somehow achieving political power in the “acceptable” way, are very mistaken. A political movement must form, yes, and “all roads lead to Rome”, but in the end we may face the necessity of establishing a new Europe out of chaos. In such a scenario, we should be faced also with iron necessities. Beyond the harshness, though, lies a new land and a new society based on the latter-day or post-Aryan, or European. In that realm, only the blood counts. The couples who produce European children now are contributing to the founding of a new and, in time, better civilization.
Well, 2022 and now 2023 have come and almost gone, and no major war has as yet affected the western and central parts of Europe, though parts of eastern Europe are now at war. What will 2024 and 2025 bring?
The video of my talk to the London Forum on 4 February 2017.
The Zionist evil had the whole London Forum youtube channel closed down, but brave patriots have now reposted this video. Please spread this video as widely as possible to kick the Zionists in the snout, as they deserve!
Update, 19 July 2019
I just noticed that that YouTube channel has now also been closed. The basically Jewish Zionist censorship continues and intensifies. I think that we all know that there is only one way to restore freedom of socio-political expression to the Western world…
One of the pillars of a future “Threefold Social Order” society will be religious freedom. Such freedom is also said to be a pillar of our existing “Western” model of society.
“We” supposedly all agree with that ideal, meaning of course “we” white Northern Europeans. Of course, once one gets away from Northern Europe and its wider offshoots in North America, Australasia etc, that consensus ends. In the Middle East, much of Africa, South Asia etc, freedom of religion either does not exist, or exists only as a fragile plant.
In Europe, we see that the migration-invasion, and the societal takeover via a high birth rate of, in particular, Muslims, is threatening our fond belief that we have and always will have religious freedom. The pendulum is swinging. Whereas in the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic Christians repressed other religious communities and launched crusades to conquer Muslim lands (a simplification, of course, but let’s leave that aside), today the Muslims are invading Europe, not as armies (as happened several times in the past) but as migrant-invaders (immigrants, “refugees”, “asylum-seekers”, and as babies born in Europe…). If this continues unabated, we can expect to see more attempts to shut down religious freedom for non-Muslims, as shown in this cartoon:
This process can be seen in the UK. There have in fact been Muslims in the UK for a long time, at least in small numbers. An Islamic centre and cemetery was established on the edge of Woking, Surrey, in the 19thC (it can be seen just before trains enter Woking Station, on the Southern or lefthand side as the train travels from London). However, the political or societal strength has grown in more recent years, along with the numbers.
In the 1970s, the Muslim element rarely displayed itself politically. I myself recall that posters on the Underground in 1976 or 1977, advertizing the Libyan-funded film “Mohammed, Messenger of God” were often defaced, always with the same words: “Islam forbids representations”. That vandalism, along with “community” representation to the UK authorities and the film distributors, resulted in the film being renamed “The Message”.
Now, 40 or so years later, times have moved on. Despite the Muslim population of the UK only being between 5% and 6% (officially), there has been a gradual infiltration (I do not say that it has been particularly organized) into mainstream political parties, in areas where Muslim numbers are significant: parts of the North of England, the Midlands, smaller areas within London and elsewhere. The influence of Sharia law and courts has grown; the Church of England has shown itself craven (as indeed it is when confronted by the aggressive Jewish-Zionist element). In some cases, Christians wishing to display their faith, e.g. by wearing crosses etc, have been given the choice of not doing so or being dismissed.
I repeat, officially the Muslim population of the UK stands at little more than 5% (about 5.1%) so far, but a high birth rate may propel that to 10% in the short term and later to…who knows? What will then be its influence and power?
As to the Jews, in numbers they are small, somewhere between 250,000 to 280,000, though there are also very large numbers of part-Jews, many of whom have little or no day to day connection with Jewish religious practices. Their influence and power comes not from crude numbers, but from concentration in and control of key strategic areas: finance, law, politics, mainstream media and, now, large Internet organizations.
Christians and Muslims accept persons of any race into their communities, at least in principle. Both Christians and Muslims have traditionally accepted it as an article of faith that persons of other religions should be “converted”, whereas Jews do not seek converts (though some modern branches do accept small numbers, e.g. after marriage to Jews). Judaism, therefore, has never launched “crusades” or the like. The Jews do not aim to make the world Jewish, only to be the major influencing, controlling and profiting element in or over the world.
The modern Christian world of the post-Enlightenment has, in principle, accepted that people can be Christian, Muslim or Jew (or whatever else) freely. That is easy enough when it comes to beliefs, ideas, even public worship in particular buildings, though (as mentioned above) it took Europe a long time even to accept those aspects. Much of the world does not go that far.
Where things become more difficult is when the religious practice of a community contravenes the law or morality of the society as a whole. Halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, which revolt the sensibilities of thinking non-Muslims and non-Jews. Male and female genital mutilation by Muslims and Jews. The cries (now electrically amplified) of the muezzin from the minaret of the mosque. These are cases where, in my view, the demands of the society to prevent cruelty, the wish of Europeans not to hear constant mosque noise in their neighbourhood must prevail over the practices of both the Jews and the Muslims.
To take an extreme case: there were societies in the past, Aztecs, Incas, even Europeans of ancient Europe, who engaged in ritual sacrifice of humans. Would we accept such practices today just because “it is part of their religion”? I think not.
There have been problems in the recent past in relation to other religions: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their unwillingness to save the lives of their children via blood transfusion; the mental and sometimes physical cruelty to children of some small “Christian” sects such as the Plymouth Brethren; the contrived scam that is Scientology (the British government of the 1960s fought a long battle to suppress Scientology, because of its perceived cultic and controlling behaviour). There could be other examples given.
It might be said that even mainstream Christian religions have done very evil things, e.g. the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, though those involved acts not sanctioned or encouraged by the religion as such.
In the end, society, meaning the political element, must draw the line between the zone where religion holds sway and the zone where group or community religious practice must give way before the general secular law which should protect people and animals.
Ian Robert Millard 