“I went to school on the train endless strikes waiting on cold platforms for hours. Then returned home to a house with power cuts no heating hot food it was a nightmare for at least 10 years“— who can guess on what the lady I quote was, in a semi-literate fashion, commenting? The Second World War? Surely not: that only lasted for 6 years. The Siege of Leningrad? No, that lasted for a shorter period yet— 2 years, 4 months. What, then? In fact the lady in question was commenting, in the online Daily Mail, on the UK railways and, in the wider sense, on the UK generally in the 1970s.
Well, it certainly sounds like it was awful. The problem with that, though, is that it is in fact not true. The trains in England (where I lived; Wales and Scotland were similar) were not subject to “endless” strikes (though there were certainly far more than is now the case) and the station platforms were no colder than they are now. What about “power cuts”, “no heating [or] hot food”?
The Reality
The “Three Day Week” only lasted for 3 months (January-March 1974) and only commercial users of electricity were cut off or required to cease using electrical power. Most domestic users were unaffected. Newspaper printing, supermarkets and hospitals were also exempt. In other words, if the lady quoted at top is not simply making up her story of hardship (or failing to remember accurately), the reasons must lie elsewhere. Maybe her parents failed to pay their electricity bill! Only joking…In fact, two years before that, there had been announced (on 16 February 1972) a rolling programme of area outages (including domestic users) but peace broke out 2-3 days later (midday on 19 February 1972) so, again, few domestic users were affected, though a minority had seen limited outages earlier, in early February.
There was, also, the “Winter of Discontent”, which occurred in the winter of 1978-79, but in fact (in its acute phase) was only effective in January and early February 1979. In reality, we are talking about weeks rather than months. Neither domestic nor commercial users of electricity lost power; gas and coal users were likewise unaffected.
So there we have it: the lady commenting on these matters at top seems to be a victim of selective amnesia when she regards a decade of her childhood as having been an awful ten years without rail travel, heating, lighting etc. The “decade” in question turns out to have been affected for about 2-4 months out of 120…
In fact, the amnesiac lady is not alone. Time and again we read about how the UK spent much of the 1970s in the dark, in the cold, without public transport, without food, rubbish uncollected and dead bodies unburied. It’s nonsense, but many really believe it, even those who were there, which is worrying…I should add that I myself was there, having been born in 1956; by the way, those “dead bodies unburied” did exist briefly (for a few days) in the winter of 1978-79, but only in two or three small areas of Liverpool and Manchester. Less noxious rubbish did pile up, but not for very long and not everywhere.
This fake history, that the 1970s were a decade of “socialist” chaos and dislocation, is quite entrenched now. This canard has wings! The various “Conservative” newspapers in the UK repeat it as an article of faith.
Other Fake Memories
No, I am not going to blog, here anyway, about the “holocaust” scammers and delusionals. I want to focus on a few other things. One persistent idea (which I have even seen said and written by journalists and TV talking heads older than me) is that Britain had no decent food until about 20 years ago! It’s just nonsense! Another is that life was harder for people in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s than it now is. More nonsense. In, say, the 1970s, people mostly had secure jobs, which paid enough to live on; there were no such things as foodbanks; social security was far better overall, the disabled and unemployed were not bullied by DWP jobsworths; the mass immigration which is making the UK (especially parts of England) into a human zoo had not really begun to snowball; workers had fixed hours, which included decent lunch breaks of 1 hour (often interpreted generously); there was no such thing (for most employees) as being on call after hours, in the evenings or on weekends and holidays. In addition, it was far easier (for anyone qualified) to access higher education.
Conclusion
There is a wave of unreality around. I have a –perhaps idiosyncratic– theory that the various kinds of lies or lying fake “facts” that people are often now expected to believe (“holocaust” fakery, the idea that races and peoples are all somehow “equal”, the idea that National Socialism was “evil” etc) have affected the general sense of truth in society, so that many cannot detect lies, and indeed often lie to themselves as well as others about recent history and even about their own experiences.
I have just now watched a BBC TV show, Putin’s Russia with David Dimbleby. In the programme, Dimbleby goes around Moscow interviewing a variety of people and asking their opinion of V.V. Putin. He started off by interviewing a lady who has had, I think, 10 children, thus ensuring her a medal, significant State financial benefits and a title which is different from but in essence the same as the old Stalin-era one, Mother Heroine of the Soviet Union. Fairly predictable opening gambit.
Dimbleby interviewed a number of dissidents: Yevgenia Albats, a fairly obvious Jewess and anti-Putin journalist; then another woman, who was arrested for 5 minutes, then released without charge, for going to the Duma (Parliament) with a satirical cardboard cutout of a pro-Putin politician accused informally of sexual offences. Hardly Stalinist repression: the same could happen in the UK. Finally, he interviewed an anti-Putin think-tank personage, who says that, while there probably was government interference in the recent Russian Presidential election, Putin would have won anyway. The dissident political figurehead Navalny was mentioned by Dimbleby. Navalny’s poll ratings have usually been well below 20% and his electoral showing as Presidential candidate was about 1%.
On the pro-Putin side, Dimbleby interviewed a smoothly duplicitous Russian Orthodox prelate who would not have been out of place in the Roman Catholic Curia c.1600. It should come as no surprise that the Russian Orthodox Church supports the Russian state. After all, the slogan of late-Tsarist official Pobedonostsev was Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality [Православие, самодержавие, народность]. The Russian Orthodox Church Church (that is, the small part not repressed during the Jewish-dominated years of the Revolution, Civil War, 1920s New Economic Policy and 1930s Stalinism) supported Stalin –or pretended to– during the 1940s, though ignorant peasant Khrushchev again repressed the Church during the late 1950s, the “Thaw”, a period otherwise thought of as “liberal”.
Dimbleby also visited a class of children being taught weapons handling and maintenance, mixed with some patriotism and religion, an ironic twist on non-urban America. Dimbleby went on to talk with others: one ultra-nationalist whose interview was short and not-so-sweet; a group of young people, all Putin supporters. However, his most telling interview was with an Englishman working for RT, who was comfortable with his job and role.
It was pretty irritating to see Dimbleby, mouthpiece of the BBC, which is itself a mouthpiece for the UK Government and (like the UK government) riddled with Jew-Zionists, criticize lack of journalistic and individual liberty in Russia. He himself was party to the planned ambush of (arguably, naive) Nick Griffin on BBC TV Question Time, which (again, arguably) finished off the BNP, until then on a roll. Dimbleby was scathing about what happens in Russia to those who say the “wrong” things. Perhaps he missed the several recent criminal trials in the UK of anti-Zionist dissidents such as Jez Turner of The London Forum (sentenced to 1 year’s imprisonment for making a speech partly about Jews), or Alison Chabloz, convicted of singing satirical songs about the “holocaust” scam and the Jewish fraudsters who make money out of it. Ironically, Alison Chabloz is in court in London tomorrow, for sentence. The last two people named have also had their Youtube channels taken down. Alison Chabloz has also (like me) been expelled from Twitter. “Long live freedom”…
Anyone who was in Russia or the Russophone area in the 1990s (I was: a week in Moscow in 1993, a year in Almaty, Kazakhstan, in 1996-97) knows that, at that time, Russia was a wreck of a state, looted by (mainly) Jews. People starved by the million, especially the elderly. Yeltsin was a corrupt puppet. Putin may not be the perfect philosopher-king, and he does have both personal and ideological flaws, but his rule was and still is necessary.
Postscript
Dimbleby also criticized the lack of an independent judiciary in Russia. I was unable to compare that to the English system, in particular to the Alison Chabloz case, in which the defendant, a satirical singer-songwriter persecuted by the Jewish-Zionist lobby, was in court for –in effect– singing songs, because the matter was still before the court. Now that she has been sentenced, I can mention the fact that, at first, she was before the Chief Magistrate for London, one Emma Arbuthnot. The latter is married to a Conservative Party MP who, like 80% of such, is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel; the couple have been on all-expenses-paid trips to Israel. Alison Chabloz, via her lawyers, objected to Mrs Arbuthnot presiding, and she recused herself (stepped down from the case). Arguably better than Russia, but not much.
I had occasion to visit a small NHS facility recently. It was a lovely, quiet unit, with only about a dozen or so patients, those patients living, prior to discharge, in several large “bays” and a few individual rooms. The unit was surrounded by flower gardens with small flowering trees and a few classical statues. Beyond that (out of sight) was a very small town (little more than a village) and the countryside of Southern England. If you have to go to a hospital, you could do worse. So why am I blogging about this?
While waiting to go in to see the patient in question, I perused the literature rack by the nursing station. One leaflet caught my eye. I have it before me as I write. Under the NHS logo and the name of the NHS foundation trust running the unit at the strategic level, the title:
PREVENT
[the words contained within a shield device; with two hands –dark blue and light blue (the old KGB colour..ironic) and perhaps (?) representing white and non-white– clasped]. The leaflet was then sub-headed:
Preventing vulnerable people from being drawn into terrorism
Inside the leaflet:
What is Prevent? Prevent is part of the government’s counter terrorism strategy; aiming to prevent people of all ages from being radicalised and drawn into terrorism.
The leaflet continues:
What kind of extremism does Prevent aim to deal with? It aims to deal with all forms of extremism; for example far right extremism, animal rights extremism and religious extremism.
So we see that “terrorism” has already been conflated with or replaced by “extremism”, an even less easily-defined idea. Moreover, we see that Islamist terrorism, the only kind actually posing even a slight threat to public order in the UK, is not mentioned by name (no doubt that would be called “Islamophobic”…) and only coyly implied, sub nom “religious extremism”. No doubt the Jewish Zionist fanatics, who go in their hundreds to be trained by the Israelis in Israel, are not considered “extremists”, “terrorists” etc. No, they just go to an alien society to be trained in the use of weapons and in the techniques of killing with bare hands (oh, and of course, how to “bring down” British MPs thought not to be pro-Israel or pro-Jew…).
Who are these “extremists” in pole position in the Prevent leaflet? Ah, yes, the “far right” (also left undefined, presumably social nationalists, those who hate mass immigration and the trashing of the UK by certain groups and types) as well as those who hate the cruelties inflicted on the animal kingdom by some humans and by human society; but let us now return to the leaflet:
What are some of the possible signs of radicalisation?
you may notice changes in the person’s behaviour or mood;
the person’s appearance may change and they may spend excess [sic] time on the internet;
the person may start to express extreme political or radical views;
the person may become withdrawn or have a change in their circle of friends.
So now we have travelled from “terrorism” and even “extremism” to people who have or may have merely “radical” points of view about, say, the disastrous effect that mass immigration has had on the UK, or about the exploitation and cultural contamination carried out by Jew-Zionists, or even about animal welfare.
The leaflet then asks what the reader might do should he or she actually suspect that another person has changed lifestyle or perhaps have acquired “radical” views:
NOTICE: Be aware of an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation, any change in behaviour or ideology. An ideology is a set of beliefs an individual may have. [this section of the leaflet also contains the iconic alien-looking “all-seeing eye” motif…]
CHECK: If possible and appropriate check out any concerns with the individual…your line manager and the [NHS] safeguarding team. [this section of the leaflet contains a motif of a magnifying glass with a little humanoid figure inside the lens…]
SHARE: You need to share your concerns with the [NHS] safeguarding team. They can advise you on any relevant partner agencies who will need to be contacted. [note “will need to be contacted” not “may need”…presumably police, MI5 etc].
The leaflet then goes on to list telephone numbers and internet contact details, before ending with these dystopian remarks, which would not have been out of place in an early 1970s BBC Play For Today, or perhaps George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four:
What happens to my referral? [“my referral”, note, not “my denunciation”, “my informing”, my accusation” etc…]. Prevent referrals are shared with the MASH (multi-agency safeguarding hub) or [name of city] SPA (single point of access) depending on where the individual lives. Referrals are then screened for acceptance in to the channel process.
What is channel?
Channel is a multi-agency process whereby professionals and partner agencies can share resources and expertise. The aim of channel is to work with the individual to reduce risk. If your referral is accepted into the channel process you may also be asked to attend the channel meetings to share relevant information as part of effective multi-agency working.
I have sometimes been accused of being, inter alia, a “grammar Nazi”, and am, of course, (also) appalled by the poor English displayed in the leaflet. I have no idea by whom the leaflet was written. Perhaps the Home Office and MI5 are now less likely to recruit graduates from Oxford or Cambridge, or perhaps the near-illiteracy shown is just a function of the UK’s sliding educational standards. The main impression given, though, is that of a police state operation which would be recognizable to an official of Stalin’s Russia or any similar society. The saving grace is probably that it is not (though I am guessing) very efficient.
Indeed, shorn of the millennial “nudge”-government, fake “sharing caring” and armchair psychology nonsense, the leaflet could be seen simply as a method of recruiting agents…
Finally, think about where this leaflet was found– not in a prison, a government office, nor even in a university library, but in a normal NHS clinical environment in the heart of the South of England…
I write in a condition of profound dissatisfaction with the situation on the broadly nationalist wing of British, European and world politics. Yesterday, someone whom I have only met twice but who has made a favourable impression on me, Jez Turner [Jeremy Bedford-Turner] of the London Forum, was found guilty of incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 after a Crown Court trial, being then sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, meaning that he will be incarcerated for nearly 6 months, all for making a harmless speech about Jews.
Also yesterday, the latest hearing in the Alison Chabloz case took place, legal argument prior to the judgment, which is expected on 25 May. Most reading this will know that Alison Chabloz is being prosecuted, in effect, for singing songs.
As with the Turner case, that of Alison Chabloz has been promoted by the malicious Jew-Zionist group calling itself the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” or “CAA”, which organization has previously (and unsuccessfully) tried to have others, including me (and David Icke, and Al Jazeera TV etc…) prosecuted:
The outcome of the Alison Chabloz trial is of huge importance not only for the future of free speech in terms of socio-political expression, but also in terms of artistic expression. A “guilty” verdict (from the single magistrate) would chill lampooning, making fun of politicians and events and, frankly, would cause the UK to become something pretty close to a police state.
Nick Griffin’s Booklet
I have no particular animus against Nick Griffin (whom I have never met). He did well, alongside Andrew Brons, to get the BNP into the position where it could get two MEPs (Griffin and Brons) elected in 2009, but in my view he underestimated the sheer dishonesty (and determination) of those who opposed him and the BNP. He also seems to have thought that soft-pedalling on the “holocaust” revisionism would mean that the Jew-Zionist element would lay off a little. That was naive, as was assuming that he was invited onto BBC Question Time just like many another guest, when the object of the exercise was to ambush him and trash him and, via him, the BNP. Having said that, Griffin was one of the outstanding people in a party not over-endowed with the well-educated and reasonably credible.
I mention Griffin here because I was sent, yesterday, a pdf version of a booklet by him:
I found the contents disturbing and challenging. I agreed readily with some of them, indeed the majority; with others, particularly the attack on Jez Turner, I disagreed, though I concede that I am in no special position in terms of inside knowledge.
Griffin’s main arguments against many of the “alt-Right” personalities and entities struck a chord with me. I have from the start been suspicious of any and all “nationalists” who are pro-Israel, loudly “anti-Nazi” (though Griffin himself is guilty of a certain amount of that latter) or who somehow find a way of squaring the circle and reconciling being a “white nationalist” with support for Israel. This pathology is particularly seen in the USA, where it is not seen as odd to be a “nationalist”, a pro-Israel blockhead (“holocaust” belief and all…) and a kind of anti-government “rebel” all in one, mixed in with a bit of Bible study and membership of the National Rifle Association.
Griffin correctly points out the Zionist/System infiltration into nationalism in Europe too: Front National, Geert Wilders etc. In the UK, we have seen the so-called “nationalism” of UKIP and smaller offshoots, of which the one now promoted most widely is the “For Britain” party, headed by an Irish lesbian ex-secretary called Anne Marie Waters. To paraphrase-quote a general in the film Lawrence of Arabia, For Britain is a sideshow of a sideshow, a one-trick pony “party” which has no prospect of mass appeal or electoral success.
Many see the promotion of so-called “kosher nationalists” as a way of diverting the nationalist torrent. My problem with that analysis is that, so far at least, there is no nationalist torrent (in the UK). That may change, but at present the single great fact of British nationalism or, as I prefer, social nationalism, is that its support in the wider population is minimal. Again, that may change: in 1928, the NSDAP received only 2.6% of the national vote in Germany, lower than it had managed several years before; however, by 1932 that vote had become 33% and in 1933 (by which time Hitler was already Chancellor) 44%. In the UK, there have been governments –with working majorities in the House of Commons– which have been elected on less than 30% of the popular vote.
The Alt-Right
I have had no personal contact with the “Alt-Right”, unless there is included my February 2017 talk to the London Forum (which was on YouTube until that organization caved in to Jewish-Zionist pressure and removed the London Forum YouTube channel in its entirety…”long live freedom”…). I find myself in sympathy with much of what Nick Griffin says in his booklet about odd young men with odd lifestyles, swinging (if such be the bon mot) between braindead “libertarianism” and a (sort-of) white nationalism mixed with pro-Israel sympathies. These people set off alarm bells for me. I find it telling that such people are all in favour of “free speech” until it comes to those such as Jez Turner and Alison Chabloz (and me) who are hated by the Jewish Zionists. We are, at best, ignored, even when on trial or in other peril. Big alarm bells…
The Answer
The answer, for me, is straightforward in principle but complex and difficult to put into effect:
A political organization must exist. Voters cannot vote for a party that does not exist. It may be that such a party faces insuperable obstacles in a rigged system, but it must exist. At present, no such party exists;
The social national population must cluster in one or more “safe zone” areas of the UK. I have blogged fairly extensively about this on WordPress.
The present situation is intolerable: Jew-Zionists and “anti-fascists” (often the same) try to shut down even the limited free speech that exists now in the UK. Meanwhile, the major cities are going black-brown, with births to those populations outpacing those to the white northern Europeans. A new way forward must be found.
Had I written an article with such a title in 1978 or 1988, or even 1998, the reader might have been justified in laughing. However, since (to specify a year) 1989, when –or soon after which– President Bush snr proclaimed openly the American/ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) New World Order, and especially since Tony Blair’s ascendancy in 1997, the British state and society has slid ever faster down the slope towards what amounts to a muffled totalitarianism.
The Blair government introduced a number of repressive statutes, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (extending snooping powers)
and the Communications Act 2003, which has provisions (s.127 etc) under which tweets, emails, Facebook posts etc can be criminalized as, inter alia, “grossly offensive”. It is this Act which is currently being used against the satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz.
The Blair government was not persuaded that it should introduce a “holocaust” “denial” law in the UK (or could easily pass one through Commons and Lords), but the Jewish Zionist organizations and lobbyists are currently using existing laws such as s.127 of the Communications Act 2003 to introduce one by the back door, in co-ordination with the misnamed “international definition” of “anti-Semitism”.
I have previously written about my experience of being interviewed by the police for tweeting socio-political tweets
and have also written about how the Jewish Zionist lobby (and the Theresa May/Amber Rudd government of clowns in the pocket of that lobby) is abusing the ever-tighter “regulation” of professions (another Blair/Brown era feature) to suppress freedom of expression, as when I was disbarred in 2016:
Now the suppression or repression of opinion becomes both harsher and stealthier. The large platforms for opinion have been persuaded to remove dissenting voices. Youtube, in the past week, has removed numerous popular and broadly “nationalist” channels, including that of the London Forum, which had 7,000 subscribers and had had 500,000+ views. Singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has had her youtube channel removed from many countries, including the UK. Others have suffered similarly. Facebook and even Twitter are also caving in.
What to Do
There are no “digital rights” to speak of that go beyond simple contract law. If a quasi-monopoly such as ebay, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon wants to expel a user or prevent his opinions being seen, that can be done at will (and is being done, now). Several years ago, at the behest of the Jewish lobby, I was prevented from posting further book reviews on Amazon (UK and US sites, by the way…so much for American “freedom”!): on the UK site, a third of my reviews were removed, quite arbitrarily (many were non-political) and I was barred from posting, despite having been a “top 50” reviewer. I have one Jew (it was only one, at first) to thank for that, he having involved the Jewish Chronicle, which then wrote against me, nagging at Amazon UK; on the Amazon USA site, all my reviews were removed without warning (one can guess why: a Jew-Zionist working for Amazon USA…).
The same is true of Facebook and Twitter: if they decide to remove someone, however popular, that person has no right of appeal (certainly no legal right, in any court).
So what to do as this ZOG repression intensifies… I have written previously on this blog about how I believe that the main chance for social nationalism is to concentrate its people and forces in one area of the UK (I have suggested the South West of England). I firmly believe that. It is a way to cluster, to defend and to infiltrate the social and political key points. To some extent, it removes the need for social media. In any case, social media can only assist a political movement, not create one, nor sustain it to victory. We need boots on the ground.
This evening, I watched a show called something like “The Real Marigold Hotel”, in which four elderly once-“celebrities” went to a country (in this case, Cuba) in order to see what facilities might be available for retired people. As such, as a “documentary”, it was very superficial and lacking depth, though entertaining. What interested me was the society in general.
The Cuba –actually just Havana– shown (and I have never been there, though I am quite well acquainted with its history of the past century and, in the manner of Sarah Palin, have glimpsed it from the air and from the sea) was in fact largely the stereotype: old American cars in pastel pink and blue, decrepit but charming colonial mansions, palm trees etc.
The old people went to cultural classes and talked to Cubans in parks. It struck me anew that any society is a package: Cuba has some culture (both European and its own mixture incorporating the Caribbean and African, as well as that of the USA.
The Havana shown was one where the parks were (on the face of it) safe to visit, the people well-educated (one or two Cubans carefully making the point that their good education had been free, as were the classes available to the elderly).
Most people know that the Cuban healthcare system is also very good, both in relative and absolute terms. On the other hand, and as the TV programme noted, the Internet is tightly controlled, requires a card (no doubt traceable..) and is mostly only available in “wi-fi” areas such as certain parks; not so many have home Internet connection.
It is perhaps pointless to reiterate what most of us know in terms of the Cuban police state (which –in all the documentary films I have ever seen– is so pervasive that it is invisible: you never see the hand of the State in plain sight, though it is there all right).
So there you have the Cuban package: low crime rate (supposedly), no obvious disorder, at least some rather polite, cultured citizens, good education and healthcare etc (one Cuban did say that it was better before the supportive Soviet Union collapsed), as well as a certain charm.
As against that, a socialist state which controls the news and Internet tightly, imprisons dissidents for years (not to mention the large number who, in the late 1950s and 1960s, were just shot); a socialized economy which (leaving aside the effect of American embargo) was and largely is hopelessly inefficient at providing consumer goods. Travel restrictions, too.
Let us take a different case. The German Reich in the 1930s was intolerant of dissidents too, though it was far more tolerant than was the Soviet Union under Stalin or, indeed, Cuba under Fidel.
The National Socialist state imprisoned some dissidents or placed them in concentration camps such as Dachau (though few now know that many served short sentences, such as 3 months, there, and were not there indefinitely). Others were encouraged or more or less forced out of the country. There was a generally militarized ethos. How could a state both German and quasi-socialist be anything else?
In the Reich, there was state interference in culture (though, again, far less than, say, in the Soviet Union). Consumer production was given a lower priority than rearmament (“Guns Before Butter”), though large projects for the benefit of the people were also pushed into the foreground: the Autobahnen; the VW “people’s car”; the 1936 Olympics; a huge programme of educational and cultural events; the Kraft durch Freude [“Strength through Joy”] programme of Canary Islands cruises and Baltic beach holidays for the people (at a time when, in the UK, most people who had a holiday at all were corralled into poky Blackpool guest houses…); better nutrition for young people, too.
The National Socialist Reich was hugely beneficial for most Germans, certainly compared to what existed in the Weimar period. The Reich solved the inflation problem, the unemployment problem, the decadence problem and, yes, what it termed “the Jewish question”.
In the UK at the same time, there was greater ostensible “freedom”: elections every 5 years, the freedom to eat daily at the Ritz or at the Savoy Grill (if one had the funds..), no obvious book censorship (though, behind the scenes, there was much, not least via the Jewish element, even then). There was officialtheatre and cinema censorship (via the Lord Chamberlain’s office) and there was also, of course, grinding poverty (especially outside the South East), and a very repressive justice and prison system; not to mention the pervasive class system and its inequities.
No state, no political system is “perfect”. All have flaws, and all (most, at least) have benefits (though what might be the benefits of living in, say, North Korea or the Congo might be disputed). The aim can only be to do the best with what is available at the material time. We take everything as a package, as a whole.
Someone, possibly Auden, remarked once that “people are worth more than their opinions” (in relation to the Comintern/NKVD agents of the 1930s active in the British universities). There is something in that. On Twitter, for example, I have noticed that people bitterly divided politically will often still support, separately, such causes as animal welfare or environmental improvement. Wider than that, I am willing to see that some of those who attack my views (and, often, me personally) are, in some cases –and like me– interested in the welfare of the more downtrodden parts of the population. Sadly, most of those who attack me –and this particularly applies to the Jewish Zionists– are unwilling to see the slightest good in me or my views. I can only assume that to do so would weaken their assertion that anything connected with social nationalism (and, a fortiori, National Socialism) is irredeemably evil and without any good in it at all.
Adolf Hitler was of different mind. He accepted into the ranks of the NSDAP and SA, even into the SS, many who had been his enemies. People, in other words, who wanted a better society but who at first did not accept that National Socialism would create one.
In the Soviet Union, from 1917 onward, many who fought Bolshevism or were at least opposed to it were later shot, imprisoned or exiled as so-called “former people”, others however were allowed to stay as free as anyone could be under Sovietism. Some even became members of the CPSU and/or the officer corps of the Red Army, at least until the purges of the late 1930s. Beria’s own past was full of ambiguities. During the 1941-1945 war, the vast majority of Russians fought and struggled together (whatever one may think of that).
In the UK at present, I can see that many want positive social change and that many (sometimes the same people) want to preserve the better aspects of the existing society. These people belong to Labour (especially the Corbyn wing), the Green Party, the LibDems, UKIP, even the Conservative Party. I trust that, when a real social national movement comes into existence, these people or many of them will feel able to join with me in the rebirth of this country.
In Fawlty Towers, Basil Fawlty has to keep reminding his wife and staff, “whatever you do, don’t mention the War” (because German guests might be offended). In contemporary Britain, that injunction has become “don’t mention the Jews!” unless, of course, in terms that stress the huge benefits which they (according to they themselves) confer upon any nation hosting them.
The latest famous figure to fall foul of the “rule” has been Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader. In fact, what he said was hardly even controversial, surely: that the well-funded Jewish lobby has a hugely disproportionate influence over US politics. As far as I know, he did not have the courage to mention that the same is true in the UK.
Farage has been the subject of the usual Jewish-Zionist storm that breaks if anyone “mentions the Jews”. They want the money, the influence, the power, but not the “recognition ” of it by non-Jews.
In the UK at present, there are several people who face trial, possibly even imprisonment, for “mentioning the Jews”.
Naturally, one has to tread carefully for fear of being in contempt of court in circumstances where trials are upcoming.
Alison Chabloz, satirical singer, after having been attacked and trolled mercilessly for 3-4 years by Jewish Zionists, was eventually prosecuted privately by the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” for alleged offences under the much-criticized “bad law” of the Communications Act 2003, s.127. Faced with that coup de main, the Crown Prosecution Service, which had not prosecuted her for her songs (without getting into the legal niceties of the charge), had the choice of allowing the private prosecution to run, taking over the prosecution and dropping it, or taking it over and continuing it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution, drop the then-existing charges (drafted by Zionist lawyers) and substitute new charges. So far the case, which started in late 2016, has not run its course. One notorious Jew-Zionist pest, who was a prosecution “witness”, has now been dropped by the CPS for being in fact “an unreliable witness” and there will now be a further court hearing on several points of law before the matter (possibly) goes to trial in January 2018 or thereafter. All because a lady sang some songs…
British nationalist Jeremy Bedford-Turner [Jez Turner] has now been committed for trial on the more serious charge of “incitement to racial hatred”, having made a brief speech in 2015 (2015!) in Whitehall, in which speech he is alleged to have mentioned the Jews…
The Crown Prosecution Service, having had the matter referred to them by the police on a complaint by the same “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”, initially refused to prosecute Jez Turner, so the “CAA” took the CPS to the High Court on a judicial review application. In the event, the CPS caved in, presumably so as not to set a precedent. The matter was “re-examined” and prosecution initiated.
Jez Turner appeared this week in the magistrates’ court and was committed for trial in the Crown Court at Southwark.
It is not without note that we in the UK live under a government which is very much tied in with the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby. Theresa May and Amber Rudd are strongly pro-Israel and do not deny that fact. It seems that Theresa May is in fact half or quarter Jewish herself (on the maternal side). At least, that has been credibly suggested. She and Amber Rudd have stated that they intend to criminalize even people merely reading “far right” (social nationalist) “propaganda” (views, analysis) online! Police state dystopia…
Talking of police states and repressions instigated by Zionists, many may have read previously my own experience of early 2017:
and many other people have been subjected to similar experiences in the past few years. I was disbarred after a malicious and politically-motivated complaint from, essentially, the same type of “person”, masquerading as “UK Lawyers for Israel”. See:
Race and culture are among the hottest topics of the moment. From the migration-invasion of Europe to the American wave of the alt-right, to the elections in European states, there is a ferment which will not calm. As social-nationalists, standing first and foremost on the racial-cultural front line, we must be clear where we stand in terms of attitude.
It disturbs me when I see unpleasant and too-general remarks made even about the basest of race-types. We must never forget that, as Adolf Hitler himself said in another context, “there is the individual, but beyond the individual is the race.” The individual comes out of a race; he is made by it, formed by it, is in most cases brought up and educated by it and by the nation which is part of the race. However, the individual can transcend the race-group (equally, can descend from it). German National Socialism itself recognized this reality when it granted a relatively small number of persons, who were not Aryan, the status of “honorary Aryan” or Ehrenarier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan
We today, even those of us who are social-national in political orientation, are yet not National Socialists in the same sense as those who fought for European humanity in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. We today have our own path forward. At the same time, to put it in Biblical language, we “honour our father and our mother” and that means that we honour National Socialism as the ground from which we sprang.
Leon Degrelle, the political leader, front-line fighter and thinker, had this to say on the subject after National Socialism in its original phase had passed into history:
There is no need for social nationalists to utter insults at blacks, Jews or members of other groups, except where that is justified and/or where it makes a political or social point. I do not want to concentrate on the American socio-political situation. I am not American, have not lived or worked there for many years and am focussed on Europe and Russia. However, we have to recognize that American society is very different from our European society. American society has had a relatively recent history of slavery, of genocide (the American Indians, aka Native Americans), of a civil war in which 3% of the population died, of the resistance to the social consequences of that war in the South, that resistance being, in part, the Ku Klux Klan, and so on.
American politics has become far more bitter, far more polarized, particularly in language, than is generally the case in Europe. There is also the point that there is a far wider spectrum of education and culture in the USA than pertains in most parts of Europe, or even Russia.
For me, it is natural to regard the non-European races as distinct and as having their own paths to the future, while equally recognizing the necessity (for all races) for the leading role of European humanity. For some Americans, this is perhaps less obvious and those other races seen as purely enemy contingents.
Social nationalists must take every opportunity to refute the lie (often though not always made by Jewish Zionists) that we base our political philosophy on “hate”. We ourselves know that that is not so, but often the public is bamboozled by the Jewish Zionists into believing the lie. For example, we wish not to be ruled or owned or influenced by the Jewish Zionist element, but that is, if you like, “defensive” in nature.
Our attitude to race and culture is one of recognition of evolution and involution. Our European race is generally still evolving, as is the “Russian”, “Slavonic” or “Slavic” race which (important point) will not come into its plenitude for another 1,500 years. Other races in this world are stagnant or are degenerating. The prime motive force behind social nationalism is to evolve the race and nation to higher levels and to destroy any threats to that evolution. This is a positive, not a negative, political world-view.
In the future, European and Euro-Slavic humanity will have powers of soul, of mind, which today would be regarded as magical. This is the point to which we as a people have been striving.
When we see the sacred Swastika, we must understand it to be a symbol of evolution, of our evolution.
Yesterday, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced updated and expanded “guidelines” on how the Crown Prosecution Service will deal with so-called “hate crime”. These new guidelines have been heavily criticized as, in effect, creating new and tyrannical law, despite the fact that the guidelines are neither primary nor secondary legislation.
In this blog post, I examine only those aspects of relevance to socio-political tweeting etc, meaning in practice those with a racial or religious element.
Part of the concern around the guidelines revolves around Alison Saunders herself. Many regard her as a sinister though incompetent figure, a “graduate” (member) of the pervasive and infiltrative organization (some say “cult”) called Common Purpose. In 2013, when Alison Saunders was CPS chief for the London area, a Freedom of Information request was made as to her connection with Common Purpose. At first, the reply was affirmative, but that was then alteredto negative:
The answer is relevant to the new CPS guidelines because the motto of Common Purpose is “Leading Beyond Authority”. In other words, the citizens of the UK cannot rely any more on law or decent public administration, because organizations such as the CPS, full of “CP” “graduates”, will, it is suspected, manipulate the regulations etc in order to achieve a desired (by them) result.
Definition of “Hate Crime”
It is vital to note that there is no statutory (or accepted Common Law) definition of “hate crime”:
“A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws.” [Wikipedia]
Wikipedia continues: “For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.”
In other words, there must first be a crime as designated by law and only then can that alleged crime (if one of those “specified”, i.e. assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) be treated by the police and CPS as a “hate crime.” The new guidelines reflect that existing position:
“The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”
“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”
It will be noted that there must first be a criminal offence. If there is not, then it matters not at all how “unfriendly”, “prejudiced” etc is the alleged perpetrator.
Further, sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether any crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is “racially or religiously aggravated.”
Incredibly, while the police and/or CPS will “flag” a case as a “hate crime”, “it is not CPS policy to remove a flag in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a sentence uplift. This in part reflects the commitment to treat hate crime seriously and to support the victim’s perception and also to encourage community confidence in reporting all such offending.”
So a crime which is “flagged” at first as a “hate crime” but for which flagging there is eventually no evidence, will still be treated, in Court, as a “hate crime”, resulting (on conviction) in a far more severe sentence. How can this be regarded as in any way just?
The guidelines now continue:
“If the case passes the evidential stage and it is a case of racial or religious hate crime, or it is motivated by discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, or religion or belief, it is more likely that a prosecution is required in the public interest.”
This is a hardening of the position taken in the earlier CPS guidance and may mean an increase in the number of prosecutions. However, there is still a requirement for a substantive crime to have been committed and there is still a requirement for sufficient evidence to support prosecution. New crimes have not been created, but the danger is that zealous CPS and –especially– police persons will get the bit between their teeth and start to ignore the basics in their quest to hunt the witches. Anyone who has read the outpourings of the UK police forces online recently will not be reassured as to their objectivity in this respect. There is an unthinking “me-too” political correctness abroad, one which seems impervious to logic, argument, reason or plain commonsense.
Other Aspects Relevant to a Charge
The CPS legal guidance for its staff can be found here:
The full details can be found via the above link but one key element is that there must be one or more identifiable “victims” of the “crime”. In other words, if there is no identifiable victim, then the matter falls in respect of the “hostility” required under the relevant statutes.
How the CPS regards freedom of expression
“In deciding upon the public interest of charging these offences it is essential that prosecutors keep in mind that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, the rights of the individual to freedom of expression must be balanced against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.”
Other Thoughts
It is noteworthy that the body of the new guidance neither mentions nor lists the Communications Act 2003, s.127 as among the statutes utilized in the prosecution of “hate crime”. However, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.145 and 146 (see hereinabove), anyone sentenced for having posted a “grossly offensive” tweet (etc) under the 2003 Act can receive a sentence uplift if the offending tweeting (etc) had a “hate crime” element (the maximum sentence being 6 months’ imprisonment, though the usual sentence is non-custodial).
One cannot analyze these matters without noting that the Zionist special-interest lobby is likely to try to pursue its political ends by abusing the new guidelines. Readers are referred to my own experience of January 2017:
I advise a defensive approach. Malicious persons, notably Zionists, try to make provocations by saying offensive things online, eg on Twitter, then (if the interlocutor replies in similar vein), reporting to Twitter, Facebook etc and even to the police. I have found that the easiest way to deal with such nuisances (in the short or medium term) is to block them (on Twitter), which tends to avoid conversations and disputes. It also means that it is much harder for the Zionists to report a tweeter to Twitter. I myself have seen, in the past few years, several Zionists lamenting that “he blocks us, so we cannot [make false accusations].” Yes, it means that the individual tweeter cannot answer back to the lying allegations the Zionists often make, but the solution is simple: just do not care what they may write about you! I don’t…
In other words, just try to avoid having any conversations with malicious Zionists or other nuisances online. Make it hard or impossible for them to make false or malicious reports to Twitter (etc) or the police.
In respect of tweets not specifically addressed to anyone, it is more difficult for those wishing to destroy freedom of expression to report them to Twitter or (a fortiori) to the police, so long as there is no evidence of direct incitement within the meaning of the relevant (1988) Act.
In extreme cases, just protect your tweets. You can also pre-block any obvious Zionists on Twitter (and most of them are indeed very obvious…).
The ultimate and longer-term protection for social nationalists lies in future relocation to “safe zones”, as I suggest on my website: http://ianrmillard.com/social-national-communities, which will then limit the powers of the wider State.
In essence, the new social media guidelines are indeed another nail in the coffin of free speech in the UK, but are unlikely to stop socio-political comment online– which is why the conspiracy –and behind Alison Saunders stand Theresa May, Amber Rudd, secret groups, the whole #NWO and #ZOG farrago– is trying to get the big online platforms signed up to repression.
In the end, the net result of this latest silliness is likely to be a tsunami of pointless and/or malicious complaints to the police.
Update, 29 April 2019
Since I wrote the above blog post, Alison Chabloz has been convicted under Communications Act 2003, s.127, and is appealing (at time of writing, to the Divisional Court). However, the “guidelines” which are the subject of the article above do not seem to have had much practical effect in terms of changing prosecution or sentencing policy.
Much water under the bridge in relation to the Alison Chabloz case(s). To find out more, please use the search function on this blog.
In relation to repression of free speech generally, and as I predicted in the main article above, the ZOG strategy has been, not so much a tightening of laws criminalizing individual free speech, but a campaign of getting the major plaforms of social media to police free speech without any law having to be passed.
Thus we see that Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are simply expelling socio-political dissidents, and so removing both their inherent citizen-rights to free expression and (in the case of the prominent few) their online incomes. We have seen such as Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, David Icke, David Duke etc removed or largely removed from online platforms, the same also happening to less prominent people.
Ian Robert Millard 