“Treason is a matter of timing”, Talleyrand is supposed to have said. A remark which perhaps goes down better in some countries than others, though really it has universal application. I suppose that it has two basic elements: treason; timing.
We all think that we know what “treason” means, but in fact there have been various definitions throughout the world and throughout history. We hear, in Robin Hood films and the comments columns of newspapers, the term “high treason”, for example, but outside the ranks of (some) lawyers, linguists and historians, the “high” seems just hyperbole to most people. The meaning, to most, can be said to be “caviar to the general”, above their heads.
In Germany and other Germanophone countries, there were traditionally two types of treason, Landesverrat [“Country Treason”] and the more serious Hochverrat [“High Treason”].
In fact, in the past, the main difference between the two, from the point of view of the captured perpetrator, was that he would be put to death in a somewhat less unpleasant manner for “Landesverrat“! Cold comfort, perhaps.
High Treason was doing such acts as to take over the State, or place the State under the rulership of another state; the lesser kind of treason would be to do acts such as helping the enemies of the State, giving secret information to those enemies, fighting on their side etc.
I suppose that one could, cynically, add the word “attempt” before the above “to take over the State”, inasmuch as a successful attempt to take over a state is not regarded as “treason” by the successful new rulers, and so the State itself, but as merely an incident of history. Only unsuccessful (“high”) traitors are punished; the successful ones punish others…
Other countries have other definitions of treason.
“The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its English translation.
The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:
“when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir”;
“if a man do violate the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir”;[28][29]
“if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere”; and
“if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King’s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices”.
Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21), provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:
“if any person or persons … shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown … from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging”.
[Wikipedia]
These “heads of treason” are now largely of historical interest, and the acts commonly charged via other laws, but it will be recalled that, after the 1994 book, Princess in Love, by the Jewess Anna Pasternak, about the affair between Princess Diana and the (by then, ex-) Guards officer James Hewitt, was published, an enterprising reporter from the Sun “newspaper” tried to make a citizen’s arrest of Hewitt for treason, for “violating the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir”! That would have made for an interesting incident, but Hewitt kept his front door firmly shut.
Treason. Were the officers involved in the 20 July 1944 plot to kill Hitler “traitors”? Hitler thought so! German law (as it was in 1944) also said yes. In fact, I am not convinced that German law as it now is would acquit the plotters (though I concede that my knowledge of German law is at best fragmentary). I blogged once or twice about those events:
These matters have been discussed more in Germany and France than they have in the UK. Nuances of loyalty have been tested more on the European mainland. The events around the Reich and the Second World War led to shades of meaning not always understood in the UK. In France during WW2, there was a spectrum of loyalties ranging from monarchist (!) and extreme conservative, through Gaullist and moderate conservative, to social democrat, to socialist, to Communist (pro-Stalin) and Trotskyist. Not all were hostile to Vichy and/or Germany. To give just one example, Francois Mitterand was supposedly both a “resistant” and part of the Vichy government, peripherally.
Some Frenchmen were not only pro-Vichy but pro-National Socialist. A relative few, perhaps 11,000, volunteered for SS Charlemagne:
Honourable pro-German Frenchmen such as Christian de la Maziere were not, in their own eyes, “traitors”, any more than were, in their own eyes, German officers such as von Stauffenberg.
Of course, the masses like simplicity. In the UK, they were told that Mosley was a traitor (though of course never tried as such), and I suppose that a number of simple people still believe what they have heard based on that wartime propaganda.
Take another case: “George Blake” (born Behar, a half-Jew). Traitor? Many would say so, on the basis that he was in British service and even had a British passport:
These nuances seem rather un-British, but they would not perplex the spymasters of the 16th Century, such as Walsingham, used as he and his opponents were to ideological allegiance crossing national or state lines; in that era, allegiance based, usually, on religion.
What about timing? Well, of course, sometimes timing, as Talleyrand expresses, is what makes treason, treason. The officers who plotted against Hitler and survived became acceptable in postwar West Germany.
Timing is important in so many things. I was rereading a book I had not seen for about 25 years, In the Gunsight of the KGB. A quite compelling story of how a professor of Marxism-Leninism, Ushakov, was arrested for anti-Soviet agitation (being a dissident), released by administrative error, then fled to avoid re-arrest and certain long imprisonment. The half of the book that deals with his flight and then escape across the heavily-guarded Soviet-Turkish border is a good read; the rest, which deals with his views about Sovietism and upcoming events, is rather poor.
Timing is especially instructive here: Ushakov fled in 1984, if memory serves. Now, today, we know that had he avoided arrest in some lawful way, he would have been able to travel freely in about 7 years. Had he been imprisoned, he would have been released by the late 1980s if not before. He, however, did not know that!
How could he have guessed that the whole Soviet system (which he still fears in his book, regarding it as almost all-powerful and able to hoodwink the West easily: the Golitsyn syndrome) would crash to nothing after 1989, the State itself being dissolved by 1991?
In fact, Ushakov was unlucky also in that his book came out in August 1989, only a couple of months before the collapse of the Berlin Wall, followed by that of socialism across Eastern and Central Europe and then in the Soviet Union itself. Ushakov’s book was therefore obsolescent by the time it hit the bookshelves (though the adventurous first half is still, even today, of interest). Ushakov therefore fell into obscurity, whereas he might well otherwise have followed, in a minor way, in the footsteps of more famous dissidents, escapees and defectors, such as Bukovsky.
We all stand within the bounds of time and space. At present, our world seems almost immutable, but beware the hubris of thinking that our Western society will continue forever (“The End of History” fallacy). In fact, I should say that there is every chance that the world we know will not be around in its present form for much longer.
A nice story, but also one which highlights how living creatures are treated as disposable commodities in our society.
Another point is that, in times of distress or trouble, these creatures will be very useful to humans on the micro-level. A basic thing for prepping.
The DEFRA regulations (applicable in the UK) are that anyone can keep up to 50 chickens without having to register the flock and then maybe have to comply with various regulations. Some countries are more restrictive if the area is deemed “residential” (eg Australia allows only 6 chickens per “residential area” property).
Chickens are a useful food source (meaning that they supply eggs). I understand that a hen foraging for itself will lay about one egg every day or two, so an average-size family could get more than enough eggs from fewer than a dozen hens.
A useful fact to know is that it is not necessary to feed chickens commercially-sold chickenfeed such as corn (maize), millet or other grain. A small number of chickens can forage for themselves in a fairly small area. They also like boiled leftover human food such as potato, carrot etc, especially if mashed.
nb. Feeding “catering waste” to chickens is now banned in the UK, but that does not apply to household leftovers fed to the household’s own birds not for sale to the public.
Out in Indiaahhh…
What terrifies me about evil in this world is that at this moment it is much more organized than the forces of good.
This is the RSS marching in India today. They are paramilitary Hindu Nationalist extremists.
This appears to be a combination of the already allocated Flexible Homelessness Support Grant (£200m – in place annually since 2017) and the already allocated Homelessness Reduction Grant (£63m – introduced Feb 2018).
When I first went to Kazakhstan in 1996, the runway of the airport at Almaty (former Alma-Ata, the capital city at the time) was very short. Before landing, the pilot advised all passengers to adopt the crash position (head between or towards knees, and arms braced on seat in front), though he was good enough to explain why, and that we were not actually about to crash. The landing itself was rather sudden, with much braking and swerving and engine noise.
That was then. Since then, Almaty airport burned down, was rebuilt, the main runway increased in length (I believe); also, the capital was moved to Astana, which has now been renamed Nur-Sultan (the first name of the President, Nazarbaev, who was even in office when I lived in Almaty, 22-23 years ago!). Nur-Sultan has a harsher climate than Almaty. It is the second-coldest capital in the world in winter, with a record low of nearly -55C.
Something else just noticed
Horrible creatures of evil crowing because “their” manipulations lost Labour the election (or made any —arguably— inevitable loss much worse):
Below, a good example of that which the (ironically, a Jew) inventor of the fraudulent “psycho-analysis” claptrap (a pseudo-science), Sigmund Freud, called “transference”:
…but not the panellists or audience. No, that degenerate pack of “me too” rabbits were all laughing and clapping at the harridan’s “anecdote”. For them it was funny. In ancient Rome, torture of animals and people in the arena was funny.
In our unfree country, I am not allowed to publish what I think should be done to all those in that studio, laughing at the economic and psychic exploitation of the employee in question. You, my readers, will have to imagine what I think should happen.
What I can say is that the UK needs a real and deep cultural purge, starting with the “celebrities”, the TV “comedians”, the whole radio, TV and print mafia.
Here’s another example of why Britain needs a cultural purge, in fact a cultural revolution:
Remember when teen magazines just had free lip gloss and pictures of boy bands everyone liked and now it's a bunch of creepy dudes grooming 13 year olds to think they should be doing anal https://t.co/461g336BLs
In fact, that magazine, Teen Vogue, has in the past printed material supporting mentally-disturbed “antifa” bastard and violence-inciter Mike Stuchbery, who was quite falsely puffed in the magazine as an “historian”…I wonder what sort of (((people))) run Teen Vogue? I think that we can guess: “them”.
While the fox-hunt is a colourful spectacle, redolent of Old England, Trollope, Surtees, Galsworthy, Evelyn Waugh etc, it is now morally and socially indefensible.
If the hunts are unwilling to move to pure draghunting, they must be closed down forever.
[above, the young Millard, c.1958…]
“Manchurian Candidates”
My son, who is a Marine told he cannot go anywhere on base with TV that is not playing Fox News. He said they are not allowed to change the channel.
He went on about how everyone around him seemed completely brainwashed washed.
I have often mused, in the past decade or so especially, about how and especially why the UK population seems so supine.
Cut real pay back hugely? No reaction.
Destroy the Welfare State bit by bit? No great interest or resistance.
Make people work unpaid hours, whole days, be “on call” evenings and weekends? People just accept it (and I don’t mean just doctors, emergency personnel etc. People who work for undistinguished colleges, office bods really, etc…).
Close down 300+ courts, many hundreds of police stations, 500+ public libraries? Not worth resisting, it seems.
No free speech? No-one interested.
Continuing invasion of the UK by black/brown (etc) hordes (13 million in 22 years)? Not of much interest to the majority, despite the fact that pay, benefits, housing, transport, public security etc are all negatively affected, and hugely so.
— Elena Haskins, Authentic American (@ElenaHaskins) December 25, 2019
Interesting. I have often wondered whether Mother Teresa was very good or very evil. Naturally, one’s instinct is to think “very good”, but there are disturbing aspects to her:
“There is no such thing as a right not to be offended, the outgoing chairman of the UK’s leading press regulator has said.”
“Sir Alan Moses, a former lord justice of appeal, said freedom of speech must trump individual feelings of distress or hurt caused by unpleasant opinions.”
“If you’re the victim of something that is deeply offensive, it is the most unpleasant, uncomfortable thing that you can imagine,” the 74-year-old told The Times. “But what we have to acknowledge is that, in striking the right balance in this country, there is no right not to be offended.” [The Independent]
“Confidential contact”…that was the designation that the U.S. Embassy gave to Ruth Smeeth, the Jew-Zionist “Labour”-label MP, who lost her seat at the recent General Election.
In the future, we shall know the names of the MPs around today who are agents of the CIA and MOSSAD.
More of the same (as Geoffrey Robinson may be finally going to get his wings clipped…):
Merry Christmas to my blog readers (and to the pagans among you, “Merry Wolfmoon”! I hope that I got that right…)
Farage: did he stab his own candidates in the back for a knighthood?
It doesn’t remotely matter what we think. Nige and Boris did a deal- right after Boris said he wouldn’t do a deal with Nige 😂 IT’S HAPPENING https://t.co/FLQYudZOR6
My reading of Farage is that he would prefer a million or two stashed in BVI or Panamanian accounts to an official honour of that sort, but who knows (either way…)?
Aimez-vous Brahms?
Interesting article on falling life expectancy in the UK
“Austerity in the UK was a political choice made in the summer of 2010. Its effects have been devastating.”
“The UK has reduced public spending to 36% of GDP by the end of 2019 from a peak of 41% in 2006. Today, rates of public spending in the UK as a whole are only a fraction above those of the US. Almost every other country in the EU spends more on its public services than the UK does; almost every other country in Europe now has a lower infant mortality than the UK.” [The Correspondent]
“A man has been accused of attacking 16 cats, nine of which were killed over the space of eight months in Brighton.
Sussex police charged Steven Bouquet, 52, a security guard, with 16 counts of criminal damage relating to the wounding or killing of 16 cats between between 2 October 2018 and 1 June 2019.
The charges are part of Operation Diverge, the force’s investigation into a number of cat deaths in the city of Brighton and Hove.
Bouquet, who was also charged with possessing a knife in a public place, is due to appear at Brighton magistrates court on 23 January.
The South East district crown prosecutor, Sally Lakin, said: “Following a spate of attacks on cats in the Brighton area, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has authorised Sussex police to charge Steven Bouquet with 16 charges of criminal damage, relating to attacks on 16 cats, nine of which were killed and seven were seriously injured.
“The allegations relate to incidents which took place between 2 October 2018 and 1 June 2019. This is a complex case and this decision was made following a careful review of all of the evidence presented to us.”
The CPS said it had carefully considered which charges would be most appropriate in the case and concluded the defendant should be charged with criminal damage.
“This does not in any way detract from the seriousness of the offence or the great distress these incidents will have caused the owners of the cats,” the CPS said. “However, under current legislation, cats and other animals are deemed as property.”
The charge of animal cruelty was thought inappropriate as the defendant was not the owner of the cats. It would also attract a lesser sentence than criminal damage.” [Guardian]
Not a very Christmas-y story, but one which deserves to be reported more widely (and no comment from me, the trial process not having even started, let alone concluded).
Corbyn is still trying to say to the Jews, “hey, man! Respectttt!”. What an idiot. “They” will hate you whatever you say. Anyway, why wish them “Happy Hanukah”?
Many misguided Christians think that the Jewish religious festival of “Hanukah” is somehow analogous to Christmas, the profound Christian religious festival of birth and peace. Wrong. “Hanukah” is, like most other Jewish religious festivals, an ethno-nationalist celebration of resistance and victory (of Jewish triumphalism if you like), in this case the rebellion of the Jews against their Greco-Syrian overlords in the 2nd Century B.C. (or “B.C.E.”):
What was the Jewish response to Corbyn’s olive branch? “Jeremy Corbyn‘s annual ‘happy Hannukkah’ message to Jews in Britain and around the world has prompted a furious reaction from, amongst others, the editor of a Jewish newspaper, who told the Labour leader: ‘go f*** yourself!’“… [Daily Mail]
Need one say more? Corbyn has seen and experienced the way in which the Jewish lobby has conspired against him and the Labour Party for over four years. Why give them the satisfaction of throwing a peaceful greeting back in your face? Just cold-shoulder them.
As with the Diane Abbott situation, Corbyn seems incapable of learning from experience…
Meanwhile, Labour leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey is attacked by the Daily Mail (which seems to be afraid of her…):
“Labour frontrunner Rebecca Long-Bailey has said her political outlook was shaped by watching her father worry about losing his job at Salford Docks
But the Shadow Business Secretary, born in September 1979, would only have been two when the docks closed in 1982.” [Daily Mail]
Well, if Jews can be terribly upset about the death or disappearance of remote relatives that they never even met, and indeed who died or disappeared long before they, the descendants, were even born, why should Rebecca Long-Bailey not…? (well, you get the idea…).
Priti Patel “to be given power over sentencing” [Daily Mail].
Looks like there is something rotten in the state of Boris…
Blyth Valley
I am reading “mainstream” analyses saying, as my blog did in the days since the General Election, that the Conservatives only have those Northern and Midland seats “on loan”, though I do not use that term. I said that the Cons have “shallow roots” there.
The msm are still trying to say that huge numbers of voters turned to the Conservatives; but we know that the Conservative vote increased by a mere 1.2% nationally over 2017. The real story was and is the collapse of trust in Labour and support for Labour. It is probably true that the Con vote increased in those Northern and Midland areas by more than the national average, and did not increase, or it fell, in some other areas.
In the most striking result, perhaps, Blyth Valley went Con after 69 years (the seat was established in 1950 and won by Lab, by Alfred Robens who later, as Lord Robens, was chief of the National Coal Board).
The 2019 Con vote, however, only increased by 5.8% over 2017. The real story is earlier: the Con vote increased from 13.3% in 1997 to 15.9% in 2001, was 13.9% in 2005, and 16.6% in 2010; not much difference. However, the 21.7% the Cons got in 2015 jumped to 36.9% in 2017, then 42.7% in 2019.
What happened? What happened was that national sentiment increased and “proletarian” old-style “socialist” sentiment took second place to that.
Only once in the 69 years did the Conservatives come 2nd where there was a third candidate at Blyth Valley, and that was in 1960 when an Independent stood. The Conservative Party has otherwise always come 3rd or 4th.
In 2010, there was an identifiable “national” vote at Blyth Valley: BNP 4.4%, UKIP 4.3%, English Democrats 0.8%. So 9.5% in toto (Conservatives 13.3%, LibDems 27.2%, Lab 44.5%).
In 2015, only UKIP represented a kind of “national” vote, and received 22.3%, beating the Conservatives (21.7%). Lab won with 46.3%. You can see that Labour only beat the combined UKIP/Con vote by a couple of points.
In 2017, no UKIP or other “national” party, and Labour’s vote surged to 55.9%, easily beating the Conservatives’ 36.9%, but in 2019, Brexit Party stood, getting 8.3%, and the Labour vote collapsed to 40.9%, allowing the Conservatives to win on 42.7%.
For me, the dynamics are clear. The Brexit vote only went partly to Brexit Party (which also was probably perceived as not fully “national”. The Conservatives benefited, though —as said above— by only 5-6 points over 2017. Turnout was 3 points down from 2017. The Brexit Party votes were probably from former Labour voters. Labour only lost to the Cons at Blyth Valley by 1.8 points. Those 8.3% Brexit Party votes were crucial. Had Brexit Party not been there, the vote would have been closer by far; Lab might have won.
The old “proletarian” certainties have disappeared at Blyth Valley, along with the coal mines. Only traces remain. That has cut the ties binding the voters to Labour.
Leaving the Brexit issue aside, as presumably will be the case next time, it can be seen that Blyth Valley will either revert to Labour or may go to a new party, so long as it is both “national” and “social”…
That may be the case in most of the new “Conservative” seats.
NHS
What was that that Boris-idiot was saying about “no plans to sell off NHS”?
Dan Hodges, faux-proletarian, who lives in his mother’s house in Blackheath (she being the once-famous actress, Glenda Jackson), describes Corbyn supporters as “parasites”…So speaks the scribbler who scribbles for the Mail on Sunday (formerly for the Sunday Telegraph) and of whom Wikipedia says: “Hodges is the son of the actress and former Labour MP Glenda Jackson and her then husband Roy Hodges.[4] He worked as a parliamentary researcher for his mother between 1992 and 1997, describing it as ‘straight-forward nepotism’.” “His former colleague Mehdi Hasan described his…role with The Daily Telegraph as one where he “now performs the role of the right’s useful idiot”. “In 2014, Hodges co-founded the Migration Matters Trust, a pro-immigration pressure group chaired by Barbara Roche, Lord Dholakia and Nadhim Zahawi and run by Atul Hatwal.”
We're used to the insults @RichardBurgon I've been alive nearly 61 years & I've been insulted more times, in more ways (boot-girl, deluded, cult-member, racist, idiot, moron, parasite….) in the past 3 yrs than in the previous 58 put together.
The perhaps vulgar term “futurology” is better than the publication’s chosen one (“futurism”, which is easily confused with, well, “Futurism”… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism)
“We can take coal out of a mine, but we can never put it back. We can draw oil from subterranean reservoirs, but we can never refill them again. We are spendthrifts in the matter of fuel and are using our capital for our running expenses. In relation to coal and oil, the world’s annual consumption has become so enormous that we are now actually within measurable distance of the end of the supply. What shall we do when we have no more coal or oil!” [Alexander Graham Bell, speaking in 1917].
We see from the above that even the greatest inventive minds often predict incorrectly. “Peak oil” has been predicted for over a century. The only certainty is that any specified commodity is limited in quantity, at least on this planet.
There again, the reality is that, for all human exploration and scientific discovery, we do not know a great deal for sure about what lies under our feet. The deepest mines in the world go only about 2.5 miles from the surface of the Earth, while the deepest natural caves go not even as deep as that.
Of course, most of us “know”, having read it, or been told it at school, that the Earth is composed, at most basic, of Crust, Mantle, and Core. The Crust is supposed to be between 20-30 miles thick (Continental; Oceanic 3-6 miles). Some estimates say 43.5 miles at thickest.
The deepest mine is 2.5 miles deep (it is planned to go 1-2 miles deeper). So the deepest below the surface any human being has actually been is maybe 3 miles, whereas the Continental crust is as much as 43.5 miles. So human beings have only been one-seventeenth (or one-fifteenth) as deep as the extent of even the crustal zone of the Earth.
The deepest boreholes on Earth still go only about 8 miles deep:
Human ideas of what lies below the Crust rely on a mixture of observation, analogy, mathematical, physical and chemical experimentation, surmise, and simple speculation. The deeper the layer, the less is actually known.
“The inner core was discovered in 1936 by Inge Lehmann and is generally believed to be composed primarily of iron and some nickel.
The liquid outer core surrounds the inner core and is believed to be composed of iron mixed with nickel and trace amounts of lighter elements.
Note the language: “is generally believed to be“, “is believed to be“, “recent speculation suggests that…” and so on. That is not to disparage the immense amount of work done by highly intelligent and qualified persons, but the bottom line is that they do not know.
We have seen that human intrusion into the Earth, even remotely (via drill) goes only 8 miles deep. The radius of the Earth is taken to be 3,963 miles. So humans have only penetrated 1/495th into the Earth (and by actual human visitation, 1/1321). We do not really know what is there.
There have been alternative views of what lies deep in the Earth. Rudolf Steiner postulated a number of layers (I think nine) under the surface:
He claimed to be aware of these layers via his clairvoyant gifts.
There is no conclusion to this brief article. I just wanted to remind myself and others that there is a huge amount that we do not yet know about the way our world is.
Although there are lots of people in Northern Ireland who are concerned about the future under Boris Johnson, his decision to sack Karen Bradley will be universally welcomed. It is rare to achieve such widespread cross-community consensus on anything in Northern Ireland. pic.twitter.com/ziZmJxW0bv
Karen Bradley is the Conservative Party MP for Staffordshire Moorlands, and has been since the constituency boundaries were changed for the 2010 General Election, making the seat a safe seat for the Conservatives. Her share of the vote increased from 45.2% in 2010 to 58.1% in 2017.
Unlike most MPs, Karen Bradley represents an area not far from where she was born. She went to a comprehensive school and then to Imperial College, where she graduated in Mathematics (B.Sc.).
There is little information about Karen Bradley’s family or parents. Her origins seem modest, at any rate.
Karen Bradley worked in tax for Deloitte and KPMG, for a total of 16 years; she also worked for 3 years as a consultant in the same field, but gave up and rejoined KPMG. I think that we can be sure that Karen Bradley does know about how to calculate tax.
Karen Bradley is married (husband’s occupation unknown to me); they have two children.
Upon election as MP in 2010, Karen Bradley joined the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee (MPs on such committees get more pay). At least she would understand the tax questions.
There is no record that I have seen of her criticizing or even questioning the cruel system of “welfare” (social security) put in place by Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, the Jew “lord” Freud etc after 2010. On the contrary, she has always voted to make the poor (if unemployed, sick or disabled, at least) poorer.
The Germans have a saying: “put a beggar on a horse and he rides it to death”.
Karen Bradley became a Government Whip in 2012, a traditional home for mediocre MPs.
Karen Bradley was appointed junior minister at the Home Office in 2014 and then, in the turmoil following the 2015 General Election and the subsequent election of Theresa May as Conservative Party leader, she was appointed Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
It may be that Theresa May wanted to appoint women to senior posts.
MPs, like generals, need luck in their careers. I doubt that many, in 2010, would have predicted that Karen Bradley would go from not even being an MP in early 2010 to being a member of the Cabinet only six years later. She certainly had luck; however, the luck ran out:
“During the cabinet reshuffle in 2018, Bradley was appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland after the resignation of James Brokenshire due to ill health. Matt Hancock replaced her as Culture Secretary. In July 2018 she came under criticism in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for failing to take action on British government discrimination against former soldiers and police. Andrew Murrison challenged her on her account of what she had done, and she said she would write to him. Sylvia Hermon commented: “I wait and wait for letters.”[12]“
[Wikipedia]
“In September 2018 she was criticised for admitting in an interview for House magazine, a weekly publication for the Houses of Parliament, that she had not understood Northern Irish politics before being appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. “I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland – people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa,” she said.“
[Wikipedia]
The newspapers were soon full of views about Karen Bradley, the vast majority very critical, using words such as “shamefully ignorant,”, “a slow learner”, “should resign”, “should not be in job” etc.
Karen Bradley did not even understand that Northern Irish voters mostly vote on sectarian lines! Hopeless…
“Attracting widespread and sustained criticism, Karen Bradley united the political classes in their belief that she was inept, ineffectual, gaffe-prone and completely out of her depth,” said Deirdre Heenan, professor of Social Policy at Ulster University.” [BBC]
“Media appearances by Mrs Bradley became infrequent and brief.” [BBC]
In the end, though, Karen Bradley’s loyalty to Theresa May and the Conservative Party (she has almost always voted with her party) saved her until Theresa May was replaced by Boris Johnson, who sacked her at once:
It is not hard to be Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Lazy half-Jew chancer Ed Vaizey blagged it for years. Karen Bradley did the same. It became clear, though, when she was appointed to Northern Ireland, that she had received at least one promotion too many. She was out of her depth in Cabinet. She had to go.
What now for Karen Bradley?
I was unsure as to whether Karen Bradley was enough of a deadhead to make it into the hallowed halls of my Deadhead MPs series. She might have been assessed as merely mediocre. However, her performance at the Northern Ireland Office has sealed her fate and provided her entry ticket to this blog series.
I imagine that we have seen the end of Karen Bradley as a member of the Government, whether under Boris Johnson or anyone else. However, she has a safe seat in the Staffordshire Moorlands, seems to be popular there and so will no doubt continue to be, as a constituency MP, merely mediocre most of the time, rather than a deadhead.
Karen Bradley became almost invisible after she was sacked from Cabinet in 2019. A wise tactic, because it saved her from having her evident unsuitability for office being again underlined.
Having said that, Karen Bradley actually increased her vote share in 2019, to 64.5% (Labour 26.9%).
At the 2024 General Election, Karen Bradley’s vote share fell to 35.4% (Labour 32.6%, Reform 23.2%).
Next time? Hard to say. The Conservative Party is now in the trough of despair, but so is the Labour Party. Reform, though, is booming, and it may well be that, next time around, Reform will take votes from both Lab and Con, and thus put Mrs. Bradley out of a job. Open question.
“And rival storms abroad are surging
From sea to land, from land to sea.
A chain of deepest action forging
Round all, in wrathful energy.
There flames a desolation, blazing
Before the Thunder’s crashing way:
Yet, Lord, Thy messengers are praising
The gentle movement of Thy Day.”
[Archangel Michael, from the Prologue in Heaven, Faust, by Goethe]
(Today is Michaelmas)
Greetings to all good-willing readers of my blog! Slava!
*Und Stürme brausen um die Wette
Vom Meer aufs Land vom Land aufs Meer,
Und bilden wüthend eine Kette
Der tiefsten Wirkung rings umher.
Da flammt ein blitzendes Verheeren
Dem Pfade vor des Donnerschlags.
Doch deine Boten, Herr, verehren
Das sanfte Wandeln deines Tags.
The UK is in an extraordinary political and Constitutional mess. What is more extraordinary is that the person who should be trying to sort it out, as Prime Minister, is not only not doing so (and is in any case incapable of doing so, being totally unfit for his office), but is actively making the situation worse.
I do not often support the words of pro-Israel drone Douglas Murray, but he has it at least largely right here [see below]:
I have been saying for years that Boris Johnson is unfit for any office. Finally, after a decade or more, much of the the msm and also the more aware part of the public are catching up with me. I despise pretty much everything about Boris Johnson, who has been puffed for years as “Prime Minister in Waiting” by a dozy, complaisant or conspiring Press, radio and TV.
Boris is an idiot, the very words used to describe him by Israeli Embassy political intelligence officer Shai Masot, caught by Al Jazeera TV conspiring with former Labour MP Joan Ryan. The exact words? “…Boris is busy, you know. You know he is an idiot, but so far he has become the minister of foreign affairs without any kind of responsibilities…We like Boris”. Of course (((they))) do! Boris-Idiot will do anything that the Jewish lobby, Israel, or the “tail-wags-dog” USA want.
Re Pete Willsman and Israeli Embassy plot to interfere in UK politics This is Israeli spy (now expelled) talking to Labour traitor Joan Ryan of @_LFI Ryan : "What happened to the names we put into the Embassy, Shai" Masot : "We've got £1m…"pic.twitter.com/QekirLRyU0
— ICJ says Israel is guilty of Genocide (@TheBirmingham6) May 31, 2019
What is it about the UK, that an idiot is suddenly thought some kind of minor genius if he went to Eton and Oxford and can recall some of the Latin and Greek he learned at school? What is there in Boris behind the rote-learned classical Greek and the carefully-cultivated, careless “English” “upper class” persona? Which of course is largely a fake, because Boris is part-Jew, part-Circassian Turk, part God-knows-what, born in the USA, brought up partly there and also in Belgium.
Behind all the playacting, behind the Eton and Oxford, behind the pathetic am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, what is in the middle of the onion? Anything? Nothing?
Boris Johnson, as I have repeatedly said (and with increasing frustration as he has been repeatedly promoted to the level of his incompetence— the Peter Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle), Boris is unfit to be in public life at all. In fact, he has outdone the Peter Principle, in that he has been incompetent in all of the jobs he has ever had (with the arguable exception of the editorship of The Spectator), yet has talked his way, with a fair wind from connections and msm, to become journalist, editor, MP, Mayor of London, MP again, Cabinet minister, and now Prime Minister, despite having been incompetent in all or almost all of those roles.
This government is an entirely illegitimate pro-Israel regime. All of its ministers and most of its MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel. Some are part-Jew, some full, e.g. Grant Shapps, dodgy business type from the Hertfordshire Borshch Belt, who was head of the youth wing of UK “Bnai Brith”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%27nai_B%27rith
This government is undoubtedly the least impressive in living memory. Few of its members, if any, have real or substantial achievement to their name. Some, notably East African Asian Priti Patel, incredibly now again a Cabinet minister after having been sacked by Theresa May, are or were Israeli agents, certainly agents of influence, possibly more.
There is no doubt that the Boris Johnson government is set to increase the repression of free speech where it affects Jews and Zionism. There are probably secret plans to introduce the mediaeval-style laws against “holocaust” “denial” that we see in several other European states. That alone means that Boris-Idiot and his Cabinet and his government have to be removed. Whatever it takes. At present, Boris Idiot would find it hard to introduce such repressive laws (unless with the help of Labour Friends of Israel MPs), tightening even further the repression introduced (mainly) under Tony Blair and also Theresa May. The Commons votes might not be there for that. However, were the —misnamed— Conservatives to win a Commons majority, we should expect all sorts of police-state actions to increase as the “Conservative” ranks would be padded out with unthinking newly-elected lobby-fodder.
That horrible bastard John Mann, who might well soon have been deselected by his local Labour Party anyway, has now accepted a well-paid role as the Government’s “anti-Semitism” “tsar” and will not be standing for re-election :
“Mann, who will be based in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, claims his sole aim is to make the UK a haven for the Jewish community.” (it already is, and that is a major problem).
“In her last act as prime minister, Theresa May appointed Mann, who backed Brexit and this week voted with the government to try to block emergency legislation intended to stop no-deal, as an independent adviser to the government on tackling anti-semitism.”
“Boris Johnson has since upgraded the role, underlining the importance the government attaches to the issue.” [The Times].
There you have it: Theresa May and Boris Johnson (both of part-Jew origins: one of Johnson’s great-grandfathers was an Orthodox Jew rabbi in Lithuania!) head and headed the two most pro-Jew and pro-Zionist governments in British history. Arguably the two worst-ever from other points of view too.
What about Brexit?
I have been pro-Brexit for years, well before the 2016 Referendum. Britain must try to get out of the EU “lobster-pot” (easy to enter, almost impossible to exit). I tweeted (until the Jew-Zionists had me barred from Twitter in 2018) and have blogged (since late 2016) about these matters.
Other states have voted not to go further into the lobster-pot. They were forced to “rethink” and “vote again”…Likewise, if states like Portugal and Austria elected any “far right” MPs, the EU cold-shouldered them until the “mistake” was “corrected”. The same squeeze is now being put onto Hungary and Italy. This is a tyranny, though —so far— of the “iron fist in velvet glove” variety.
As soon as the 2016 Referendum was over, I was predicting a long campaign by NWO/ZOG/EU to reverse the Referendum one way or another. Either Remain, or “BRINO” (Brexit In Name Only). I have no idea to what extent the criminal mishandling of the Brexit negotiations was deliberate, but I have my suspicions. Anyway, there it is.
The EEC was supposedly a matter of intra-Europe free trade and a customs union to facilitate that. When the UK joined the EEC and then voted (in a fixed referendum, in which the pro-EEC side had 10x the money to buy publicity etc…) to remain, in the 1970s, the bloc was still mainly beneficial. However, just as Bismarck’s Zollverein paved the way for a German unitary (unified) state in the late 19th Century, so the EEC paved the way for a transformation of the free states of Western and Central Europe into the EC and then, via Maastricht, the EU. The precursor to a one-Europe state.
I might not even object to that, were that EU superstate to be a true federation of equals and not under sinister “New World Order” [“NWO”] control, but that is not the case. NWO and “ZOG” [“Zionist Occupation Government”] work together to impose, over time, a ghastly and repressive tyranny, one that encompasses both Europe and North America and which aspires to control the whole world in time. George Orwell was a prophet. The EU is only part of the way towards the ultimate destination.
We are therefore left with a paradox: I want the UK to get out, fully out, of the EU, but also want an end to the present Boris Johnson “Conservative” government.
There is no place for my views in the present black-and-white msm narrative being put before the public, which narrative has room only for a binary choice:
No Deal Brexit + Boris; or
Remain/Brexit In Name Only/EU-approved “deal” + No Boris.
I reject that binary choice. It is just a couple of flickering shadows on the wall of the cave.
The best thing would be for the UK to leave the EU, and for the Conservatives to be heavily defeated at a general election.
There is no prospect that Corbyn and his deadheads can run a successful government either, so that might well open the door for a real social-national movement and party (which latter does not exist at present; it must first exist, naturally).
Desperate times, desperate measures. Only when people need real leadership from a social-national party and leader can that party and leader arise from obscurity to their true stature.
I wrote the words below some three months ago, in an earlier blog post about Boris-Idiot. They have worn rather well, if I say so myself. Give that man a cee-gar!
“We keep hearing that “Boris Johnson has the ability to be Prime Minister, but does he have the necessary character?”
My response is “where has Boris Johnson proven that he has the ability?”; on the contrary, he has, if anything, proven that he has not the ability.”
The above photo shows a police officer, I think a “Special” (volunteer part-time “officer”), looking at her hat, with its chequered line. Presumably a lesbian. Now, there are several points about that photo: first and perhaps most important, who in authority, or should I say “leading beyond authority”?…
…allowed police officers to take part in what, in the broad sense, is a political, meaning socio-political, or cultural-political, march or demonstration?
Common Purpose
This, below, is the very dangerous woman who is or has been the figurehead for much of such socio-political tendency in the past three decades:
Reverting to the photo at top, can the public have trust in such partisan police personnel? I think not.
This goes beyond the personal proclivities of the individuals. It is a question of the police, both institutionally, and as individual officers, espousing, publicly, controversial socio-political positions. Also, the police operating in a biased manner.
Many of those on the social-national side of UK radical politics have, in recent years, been subjected to the results of this kind of one-way-street policing, policing which is in other words biased, politically biased. I myself have had a couple of instructive encounters of the sort.
Zionist pressure groups
In early 2017, the Jew-Zionist fanatic Stephen Silverman, who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” at the small but (((well-connected))) “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”] pressure group, complained about me (on behalf of that group or cabal), to the police at Grays, in estuarial South Essex, and not far from where he lives.
[below, Grays Police Station, surely one of the ugliest buildings in England].
My experience there was the subject of a blog post a couple of years ago:
Silverman himself was unwittingly exposed as a serial troll by the CAA’s own lawyer in a preliminary hearing of the Alison Chabloz case. It turned out that Silverman had been trolling people on social media —mostly women— for years, using a number of pseudonymous Twitter and other social media accounts. “Gloating sadism” was his overall persona. He and a group of other Jews, together with a couple of part-Jew doormats, all in or connected with the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [CAA] pressure group, joined in that campaign of online and offline bullying.
That group loved to make malicious and false accusations to Twitter, Facebook etc, as well as to the police and to professional organizations. Their posts frequently predicted (((with typical sadism))), that numerous anti-Zionist people would be arrested, charged, convicted, imprisoned. The bullying campaign started around 2012 and built up to a crescendo, though as they were one by one identified, they (((typically))) backpedalled and tried to play the “victim”…
Meanwhile, now-disgraced Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis gave an interview to the Jewish Press in which he openly admitted that his intention was to “take homes away from” those he called “Nazis”, by means of “lawfare” (abuse of the laws of England for Zionist political purposes).
One person, David Carter, of Cardiff, a former executive with decades of experience working for transnational companies, and an unblemished record (i.e. no police record) was actually arrested and his home searched by duped or colluding police. He was later released “on police bail” (where he stayed for months, which was still lawful then though not now, the law on “police bail” having since been changed); his computers, used for consultancy work, were not returned for further months. He never was charged with anything.
Others were subjected to “voluntary” interviews, which in fact are scarcely voluntary at all (belatedly, and in fact fairly recently, Silverman himself was eventually asked to submit to such an interview, and agreed, but at very short notice got CAA lawyers to write to Essex Police declining; seems that he got away with it, so far).
A lady called Jo Stowell, a professional photographer from Clifton, Bristol, was not only trolled online by the same group of Jews, but was sent unwanted goods etc from sale or return operations, and was subjected to other offline bullying. She too was “asked” to attend a “voluntary” interview with the police by reason of malicious complaint(s). She agreed, attending with her solicitor. No charge was ever made. The Jewish-Zionists did manage to ruin her previously successful photography business though.
Jo Stowell
The experiences of Alison Chabloz, persecuted singer-songwriter and satirist, have been well-documented both in these blog pages and elsewhere, indeed in the national and international Press (and on TV and radio). I commend her own blog:
My own 2017 experience with the Essex Police is linked above, near top; I was also bothered, though much later, in 2018, by telephone calls from a P.C. Plod (his real name was something else…I think!) from the police of one of the most (((occupied))) parts of London. It appears that I was “accused” of having reposted, in fact completely lawfully, on the GAB social media site responses also completely lawful in themselves, posted by the owner of GAB, Andrew Torba, to a malicious Jewish woman “activist” in North London.
That Jewish woman had, laughably, attempted to intimidate Torba, a U.S. citizen whose GAB site operates from the USA and Eastern Caribbean, by threatening Torba, who is resident in the USA, with Scotland Yard! Torba’s responses started off polite and then went downhill as the woman persisted (((typically))), culminating with Torba’s suggestion that she “fuck off” or some such. She did (she had no choice!), but then tried to find scapegoats in the UK from those many who had reposted Torba’s posts (finding them funny; the tweets also rather well illustrated Hitler’s obiter dicta about the Jews being, despite what they and others often say, a very stupid people).
P.C. Plod had obviously been “got at” in some way. In fact, after having been harassed by him, I had to write to his own Borough Commander and to Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, detailing both why nothing that I had done constituted anything unlawful under English law, and as to why the complainant herself was (in relation to me) certainly wasting police time (quite deliberately); a crime, albeit minor, and possibly coming close at times (in her complaints against others) to attempting to pervert the course of justice, a far more serious crime.
Even after that, Plod still had the cheek to email me (again)! Eventually, I gave him a face-saving way out, which he took. The experience was however unsettling beyond my personal inconvenience and anger. It showed that the police in the UK now have little understanding of either the boundaries of their powers or the limits to the authorized discretion customarily granted to the police. It showed that a UK citizen not doing anything unlawful could nonetheless have his private life and rights of expression interfered with by the police— the police at the lowest level of rank, at that.
The police equation for idiots seems to go something like: “Racism” is bad, so anything we are told is “racist” should not be allowed, so alleged “racism” is to be at once treated as “hate crime” or “hate speech”, so use of the word “Jew” is probably wrong or unlawful (if used by a non-Jew or someone who is anti-Zionist), so the police should assume that any online post (by someone not Jewish) and using the word “Jew” is both racist and unlawful, so the police should immediately take action of behalf of a complainant (if Jewish) against the alleged “racist” (if not Jewish) and this gives the police the right and power to censor anything they like, whether actually lawful or not…It’s mad.
More than that. The said Plod was unwilling to accept that I (a practising barrister at one time) knew more about the relevant law than he did (I did) but I still had to detail it in my letter to his superiors in case even they were unwilling to accept that the law is what it is and is not a “leading beyond authority” instrument of flexible socio-political repression, “useful” for repressing the entirely lawful views of those whom the police institutionally, or the personal acquaintances of police individually, may wish to hit out at. I might add that P.C. Plod’s manner was impertinent and smug, as well as rather aggressive.
This tendency, of the police to go well beyond their actual powers as authorized by or under law, has started to spread in recent years. In 2013, a police sergeant in Hampshire actually tried to strongarm a local newspaper after it printed material critical of a councillor!
“Padraig Reidy, of the freedom of speech campaign group Index on Censorship, said: ‘It’s not the sort of thing that should happen in any democratic country. It’s political policing.’ Mr Satchwell added: ‘Hopefully, before it’s too late, people at the top of politics and policing will wake up to what is happening in what is supposed to be one of the most revered democratic countries in the world.’” [Daily Mail]
In respect of the malice of the Zionist CAA cabal, relatively unknown people such as me have been attacked, but so have those far better known, such as Al-Jazeera TV, Gilad Atzmon (the Jewish but anti-Zionist jazz musician) and David Icke (who scarcely needs introduction, at least in the UK).
However, as far as I know, they have not been harassed by the police. I suppose that it would backfire on the police themselves to harass those who are too famous.
The Blair-Brown governments were those that brought in the obsessive “anti-racism” which is now so pervasive. It is why we now have incidents such as the schoolgirl disqualified from an exam by an exam board because she wrote a few things about cruel “halal” slaughter of animals, which comments might be thought critical of Islam or Muslims!
and note that OCR (the exam board) weaselled thus:
“OCR said in a statement: “OCR takes all incidence of suspected offensive material against a religious group in exams very seriously and must apply rules which are set out for all exam boards in such cases.
“We accept that initially we did not reach the right conclusion and were too harsh.“
In other words, there is no freedom to say what you wish against any religion (or ethnic group) now, no matter what its adherents or members might do or how they might behave, but “we were too harsh” (in the way in which censorship of students was actually carried out…). Even the girl’s mother, while angry at what happened, blamed “an over-zealous, over-righteous examiner“, rather than the prevailing miasma of politically-correct and grey-area semi-legal repression.
We should remind ourselves that many of the greatest minds, saints and heroes of Western Civilization would probably have their words censored now in the UK. They would probably have some policeman improperly telephoning them and annoying them!
It is the web of bad law that has been the acid corroding our liberty in the UK. The Communications Act 2003, s.127 has been the facilitator for much of the repression online. It has strengthened the petty denouncers, the complainers to the police, those for whom Twitter is their little world, to be patrolled and “monitored” and from which any dissenting voices (particularly the defenders of European race and culture, and freedom) are to be removed. You can now add to Twitter the other main platforms: Facebook, YouTube etc.
When the police are not impartial arbiters, to whom can we turn? Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
In the United States, it is often said that the bedrock of civil liberty is the famous Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, alongside the First Amendment (freedom of religion, Press, speech, expression, assembly).
I have always been sceptical of the quasi-holy U.S. Constitution, that is, the way in which this man-made document, cobbled together in a tavern by a bunch of freemasons nearly 250 years ago, is regarded as Holy Writ by the Americans of today. Its “rights” have always seemed to me more apparent than real. For example, you (an American in the USA) have the right to free speech. Very true. So try exercizing it…
If you try to say something negative in the USA about the lobby of the Jews, or about their hugely disproportionate power or influence in the USA or the wider world, or about the “holocaust” hoaxes and fakery, you will almost certainly not face (direct) action from the local or state police, or from the FBI. In that respect, the USA is better than the UK and much of Europe. You may well, however, lose your job, face professional difficulties and, consequent upon those, even lose your home by reason of financial problems as the Jews and doormats thereof gang up against you, so your “freedom” is, in real terms, very constrained indeed. America, “land of freedom”?…
Likewise, yes, a United States citizen or resident may, with variations depending on what state or city he/she lives in (eg New York City as compared with most of the rest of New York state) “keep and bear [some] arms”, but your pistol or revolver, shotgun or rifle, though it may protect you against (some) criminals (ordinary or political) in your home or car (always assuming that you can both handle the weapon and deploy it in time), will certainly not protect you against the state (meaning here not the individual state but mainly the Federal Government).
If the Federal Government of the United States wants to move against an individual or a group, that person or group has no chance. SWAT squads, helicopters, even armoured cars! And that is before the main US military machine is even involved! Your pistol will not help you much under those circumstances. That is why I have only limited faith in weapons.
Past history
When the NSDAP started to gain a little local (in Munich) traction in 1920 and 1921, its meetings were routinely broken up with great violence by “Red Front” (Communist/pro-Communist) thugs, the sort that (though in rather farcical reincarnation) might be called “antifa” today. That is when the nascent NSDAP formed the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment), though at first informally:
“The precursor to the Sturmabteilung had acted informally and on an ad hoc basis for some time before this. Hitler, with an eye always to helping the party to grow through propaganda, convinced the leadership committee to invest in an advertisement in the Münchener Beobachter (later renamed the Völkischer Beobachter) for a mass meeting in the Hofbräuhaus, to be held on 16 October 1919. Some 70 people attended, and a second such meeting was advertised for 13 November in the Eberl-Bräu beer hall. About 130 people attended; there were hecklers, but Hitler’s military friends promptly ejected them by force, and the agitators “flew down the stairs with gashed heads”. The next year, on 24 February, he announced the party’s Twenty-Five Point program at a mass meeting of some 2,000 people at the Hofbräuhaus. Protesters tried to shout Hitler down, but his former army companions, armed with rubber truncheons, ejected the dissenters. The basis for the SA had been formed.” [Wikipedia, though note the (((influence))) in Wikipedia: Communist thugs are “hecklers”! The same is true of most of what you now read or hear about Mosley’s BUF rallies of the 1930s].
Also, note that Hitler’s first attempt at a “mass meeting” attracted an audience of only 70! When I gave a talk to the London Forum in 2017, there were about 100 or so there. Maybe there is hope…
“A permanent group of party members who would serve as the Saalschutzabteilung (meeting hall protection detachment) for the DAP gathered around Emil Maurice after the February 1920 incident at the Hofbräuhaus. There was little organization or structure to this group.” [Wikipedia]
“The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties. By September 1921 the name Sturmabteilung (SA) was being used informally for the group.” [Wikipedia]
Interesting too that even Wikipedia recognizes that the purpose of the SA was the protection of meetings, and not the breaking-up of the meetings of opponents.
“The Nazi Party held a large public meeting in the Munich Hofbräuhaus on 4 November 1921, which also attracted many Communists and other enemies of the Nazis. After Hitler had spoken for some time, the meeting erupted into a mêlée in which a small company of SA thrashed the opposition. The Nazis called this event the Saalschlacht (“meeting hall battle”), and it assumed legendary proportions in SA lore with the passage of time. Thereafter, the group was officially known as the Sturmabteilung.” [Wikipedia]
The SS [Schutzstaffel, or Protection Squad] was formed in 1925, with a similar defensive or protective function:
“In 1925, Hitler ordered Schreck to organize a new bodyguard unit, the Schutzkommando (Protection Command).[1] It was tasked with providing personal protection for Hitler at NSDAP functions and events. That same year, the Schutzkommando was expanded to a national organization and renamed successively the Sturmstaffel (Storm Squadron), and finally the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad; SS).[10] Officially, the SS marked its foundation on 9 November 1925 (the second anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch).[11] The new SS was to provide protection for NSDAP leaders throughout Germany.” [Wikipedia]
One can well imagine that any such bodies as the SA or SS formed in the Britain of 2019, even if not uniformed, would soon be banned and their members subject to show trials.
Contemporary happenings
In fact, we have seen the like, in the past couple of years, especially in relation to “a certain group of young people” the name of which I do not think that I shall use here, which young people have been put on trial for allegedly belonging to such a group. Oh yes, teenagers and other young people put on trial, and not in the local magistrates’ courts but at the Old Bailey and elsewhere! The “evidence” of their supposed organization, or at least political allegiance? Such items as cookie-cutters shaped like Swastikas, pillowcases with slogans on them etc, even the Christian name given by the parents to a baby! It seems that the ethos of Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder-General in the 17th Century, is not dead and indeed has found a home in the British police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)!
Thankfully, the (usually) good sense of the British jury has meant that most such defendants have been acquitted so far; perhaps that is why some politicians, notably Rosie Cooper MP [Lab., West Lancashire] have called for the use of “Diplock courts” (i.e. trials without juries) in political cases. If that happened, that type of court would be the first such court authorized in England itself in hundreds of years (though the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a typical piece of Tony Blair repressive legislation, does open the door to such trials). A Star Chamber for our times…
Conclusion
In a situation where self-defence, whether organized or individual, is criminalized by a hostile and partisan state, the only solution for social-national people is to cluster in “safe zones”, as I have blogged in the past: see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/safe-zones/
In the UK, where even personal self-defence weaponry is generally unavailable, and where the police are rapidly becoming the strong-arm section of the multikulti “diverse” (non-white non-diverse) society, the formation of a germinal ethnostate is the only way forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_court “[Lord Gardiner‘s Minority Report as part of the Parker Report in March 1972 found “no evidence of [intimidation] or of perversity in juries”.[7] The report marked the beginning of the policy of “criminalisation”,[8] whereby the State removed legal distinctions between political violence and normal crime, with political prisoners treated as common criminals. The report provided the basis for the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which, although later amended (with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 and subsequent renewals), continued as the basis for counter-terrorist legislation in the UK.” [Wikipedia]
As I write, persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz is once again in court, being sentenced after a notorious Jewess supported by the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (yet again…) made a malicious allegation against her, using (as noted above) the “bad law” known as Communications Act 2003, s.127.
I myself quite recently had to chase off the Jew nuisance who calls himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” for the “CAA”; a ludicrously grand title for someone who is one of only a handful of Jews posing as an important organization. The whole pack really consists of only a few dozen (if that many) fanatical Jew-Zionists.
Ian Robert Millard 