I interrupted writing a longer article to write this brief piece. I am in fact unsure whether it is worth the effort, but I should regret not saying something about this typical piece of propaganda presented as documentary film.
I made the mistake of watching what passed for a documentary, presented by Alice Levine, a Jewish woman who has apparently (I had not previously heard of her) presented a number of TV and radio shows. Wikipedia says this about her:
I wasted an hour watching this. In the film, London-based Jewish media person Alice Levine spent a week, or at least a few days, living at the house of Jack Sen, a British nationalist activist. The house is in Southport, Lancashire.
I do not know Jack Sen, though I have heard of him. I believe that we exchanged a couple of tweets several years ago, when I still had a Twitter account. He stood as UKIP candidate in West Lancashire in 2015 and, despite being disowned by UKIP after he tweeted something of a critical nature to then Labour Party MP for Liverpool Wavertree, the Zionist Jewess Luciana Berger, achieved an honourable 6,058 votes (12.2%), and thus retained his deposit.
I have to say that I myself would never invite a Jewish (or even non-Jewish) media person into my home, let alone agree to that person staying for days. I can only assume that either Jack Sen is one of those who thinks that “no publicity is bad publicity”, or he received a fee for his participation. I cannot imagine any other motivation.
The film introduced Jack Sen’s mother (also resident there) and his charming Ukrainian wife and little daughter.
The Alice Levine person, when in bed in the room she was allocated, seemed to wear several layers of clothing. Whether that was because the house was cold, or because she did not want Sen to take “sleeping with the far right” too literally, must remain a puzzle!
There was, of course, no attempt to let Jack Sen properly explain his socio-political outlook. One of the problems with this kind of show, for the subject (“victim”), is that not only does the interviewee not know what will be raised by the interviewer, but also what will be left out of the finished product.
I found Jack Sen to be somewhat eccentric, though that was obviously deliberately amplified by the programme-makers. This was, after all, a week compressed into an hour. He seems to be a basically decent person, to my mind, at least on the personal level. I am unwilling to speculate that he is not. “The soul of another is a dark wood” (Russian proverb), in the end. I am aware that many distrust him and his motives, but I cannot comment either way.
At one point, Alice Levine “discovers” from Sen’s mother (I would bet that her researchers discovered the fact well before she ever arrived at Sen’s house) that his original name was Dilip Sengupta, Sen’s father having been either Indian or half-Indian, a fact mentioned by Sen himself to Ms. Levine. The mention of the name(s) to Sen made him angry. He did not present himself well at that point. He allowed the Jewess to provoke him. Later, she tried to give the impression that she was afraid of Sen, which I very much doubt was the case.
It was obvious that Alice Levine had no idea of life outside her comfortable careerist bubble. She went from a comfortable childhood in Nottinghamshire to the University of Leeds and straight into TV and radio. Jack Sen’s background (not much explored in the film) has obviously been more difficult.
Sen did not (out of politeness, or hospitality?) put Alice Levine on the spot about her Jewish origins, beliefs, attitudes etc. Having said that, I was surprised that she was offered pork by Jack Sen (even I found that rather insensitive!) and even more surprised that she apparently ate it.
At any rate, Alice Levine obviously lives in a bubble where everyone thinks and feels much as she does. In a word, biased. She evidently found it challenging even to think that many do not share her multikulti views. She was unwilling to be challenged on Skype or similar by Nick Griffin.
I had to laugh at it all. If Alice Levine thinks Jack Sen “extreme”, what would she make of me, I wonder?
This attempt to copy Louis Theroux was a waste of time, unenlightening. It is the sort of “documentary” that taxpayer-subsidized Channel 4 does. Dull, really.
I was reminded yet again (not that I require the reminder) of the migration-invasion of the UK, having seen a Daily Telegraph article written some 6 years ago (2012), just recently tweeted or retweeted by (ironically) a Jew-Zionist extremist. To read the full article, see Notes, below.
What the article says
In that Daily Telegraph article, the authoress writes that
“I feel like a stranger where I live.”
I am living in a place where I am a stranger.”
“Muslims…it feels as if they have taken over.”
“There are, of course, other Europeans in my area who may share my feelings but I’m not able to talk to them easily about this situation as they are mostly immigrants, too.”
“I suspect that many white people in London and the Home Counties now move house on the basis of ethnicity, especially if they have children. Estate agents don’t advertise this self-segregation, of course. Instead there are polite codes for that kind of thing, such as the mention of “a good school”, which I believe is code for “mainly white English”. Not surprising when you learn that nearly one million pupils do not have English as a first language.”
“I, too, have decided to leave my area, following in the footsteps of so many of my neighbours. I don’t really want to go. I worked long and hard to get to London, to find a good job and buy a home and I’d like to stay here. But I’m a stranger on these streets and all the “good” areas, with safe streets, nice housing and pleasant cafés, are beyond my reach. I see London turning into a place almost exclusively for poor immigrants and the very rich.”
“…now, despite the wishful thinking of multiculturalists, wilful segregation by immigrants is increasingly echoed by the white population – the rate of white flight from our cities is soaring. According to the Office for National Statistics, 600,000 white Britons have left London in the past 10 years. The latest census data shows the breakdown in telling detail: some London boroughs have lost a quarter of their population of white, British people. The number in Redbridge, north London, for example, has fallen by 40,844 (to 96,253) in this period, while the total population has risen by more than 40,335 to 278,970. It isn’t only London boroughs. The market town of Wokingham in Berkshire has lost nearly 5 per cent of its white British population.”
“It’s sad that I am moving not for a positive reason, but to escape something. I wonder whether I’ll tell the truth, if I’m asked. I can’t pretend that I’m worried about local schools, so perhaps I’ll say it’s for the chance of a conversation over the garden fence. But really I no longer need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant racists of us all.”
So finally the authoress, obviously by nature something akin to what the Americans might term, mutatis mutandis, a “Country Club Republican” (meaning “liberal conservative”) has to concede that “I no longer need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant racists of us all.”
The only thing to be added to her article itself is that it is 6 years since she wrote it. The statistic given of 600,000 white British or mostly British who left (fled?) London in the decade before the article was written could probably be updated to 1M or more now.
Personal Experiences and Thoughts
The Daily Telegraph article focusses on the Muslim influx into London. Firstly, that influx has been far greater in percentage terms in some of the post-industrial Northern towns and cities; secondly, the writer says that “Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim, with the majority of them young families. That is not, in reality, a great number.”
In what world is a million (now? God knows…) not a great number? In what world is nearly 13% (now, what?) of the population (and growing fast as those “young families” breed) not huge? The lady writer so obviously wants to be “nice”, and not to “offend” etc, but I fear that desperate times betoken desperate measures. Nice polite sentiments are, well, nice and polite, but we have to face facts with both clear thought and clear expression of thought if Western civilization is to survive.
The Daily Telegraph guest writer prefers to focus on the Muslims as a population bloc (and, though unsaid, population bomb), but effectively ignores the multitude of other races, ethnicities and nationalities that now comprise part of the London population. Africans, West Indians, Chinese etc, a giant multikulti Pandora’s Box. We hear much now about the explosion in youth “gangs” and “knife crime” etc (almost all of which is carried out by blacks and other non-whites), and the System msm and political milieu becomes ever more hysterical with calls to restrict and get rid of…knives! In the old phrase, “’nuff said”!
I once lived in London, starting in Little Venice in 1976 (at age 19; I returned intermittently and that was the main area in which I lived over the years), eventually living in a number of different areas, some good, some not so good: Blackheath, Lee, Lewisham, East Dulwich, Tulse Hill, New Cross, Holland Park. The house in which I first lived, in Little Venice, was valued at £100,000 when sold to the lessee c.1980. It was sold in 2005 (by my friend who bought the freehold c.1980) for £1.4M…That same house, or at least identical Victorian semi-detached villas with good gardens in the same road, were valued in 2018 at up to £4M! A 40x increase in “value” in less than 40 years! A low to average pay in 1976 would have been about £100 per week; similar work would today pay perhaps £400 or £500 a week. In other words, pay has increased, for most people, at a face value of perhaps 4x or 5x over those 40 years, but the cost of a house by 40x! Rent has increased similarly.
Mass immigration is only one of the factors that have driven up the cost of London housing, but it is a major one and probably the most important. The wealthier parts of London now house largely a cosmopolitan crowd of Chinese, “Russians” (many of which are in fact Jews from Russia), Israelis, Arabs, you name it. In fact, large swathes of expensive housing are owned but kept empty by absentee foreigners. The poorer parts (such as in the Daily Telegraph article) are now flooded and indeed swamped by a motley mob of blacks, browns and others (and also whites from the poorer parts of Europe).
Little Venice has changed from, in 1976, being a fairly affluent, in places wealthy, and also rather intellectual (because of the BBC studios in the outer part of Maida Vale, perhaps), inner suburb, to a now very wealthy enclave (one cannot list the famous pop stars, theatrical people, film stars, “entrepreneurs” etc who now live there, so numerous are they). However, this “island” is surrounded by a black/brown sea in all directions North and West. Even in the 1990s, if a school trip party from the nearby areas were to be encountered at Warwick Avenue Underground Station, there were few if any white children.
I myself saw what was coming, decades ago. I stayed in London (for much of the time, though I was sometimes overseas, at times resident in the country or in the USA) until I left to live in Kazakhstan on kommandirovka (work contract) for a year (1996-1997). Others I knew in London had started to leave by then.
One couple, the sister and brother in law of a lady I knew, lived in Catford, South London, in what was probably the only decent road there: a leafy enclave of large detached Victorian or perhaps Edwardian houses. They, professed Labour supporters and, I think, members, no doubt “anti-racist” etc (I was warned not to talk politics with them, and I think that they had been given a similar warning!) were able, for a while, to live there an comfortably affluent life (he a partner in a City of London law firm, she a housewife –though I daresay never accepting such a label– and Open University student) and able also to put out of mind the enveloping near-jungle that started at the end of their own road. They relocated to rural Kent in the 1990s, pleased to discover that their Catford residence could be sold to their advantage, allowing them to buy a country house complete with acres of manicured grounds, a swimming pool, tennis court, stables (and horses) etc, somewhere near Tonbridge.
I doubt that the above couple would ever have said (even between themselves, probably) that there was a racial element to their relocation (escape?); more likely to have cited fresh air, space, less noise, better schools for their two children etc (and would never have linked those factors, at least consciously, to the racial-ethnic one…).
The lady whose sister and brother in law are mentioned above also relocated out of London, in the late 1990s, having contracted a marriage or quasi-marriage. She and her “partner”, to use the contemporary word, sold their London homes (in his case in the “bandit country” of the Seven Sisters neighbourhood of North London) and bought a house in Brighton. Neither of them, I am sure, would ever mention ethnic-related crime as one reason to move (they were both strong “anti-racists” and she is the only woman ever to have walked out on me at a restaurant, the result of an ideological disagreement at the –now and sadly closed-down– Luba’s Bistro in Knightsbridge). More likely to be mentioned: sea air, a less frenetic life etc…
Thirdly, a barrister I knew, who also relocated, also to the South Coast, in the early 2000s, together with his very charming wife and then-young children: another Labour Party member (and one-time Islington councillor, who was offered but declined the chance of a safe seat in the Commons under Blair), I am sure that the reasons which he or his wife might give for having moved out of London would be fresh sea air, space, good schooling for their two children etc; certainly nothing to do with the ethnic swamping of London. They may even believe that themselves. Call me a cynic…
It may or may not be significant that in all three of the above cases, one person from each couple had to commute a considerable distance daily to London. Obviously, those people thought that the trouble and extra travel expense was worth it.
Another case: someone I had known from school, who bought a house (later two others) in South London, rented rooms, converted two houses into flats, starting around 1980. He eventually married and then, around 2000, moved out of London to what the Daily Mail might call “leafy Buckinghamshire”. I do not know whether he would say that racial or ethnic swamping was a cause of his relocation or not; he would probably cite cultural factors. Like the others above, he and his wife are bringing up their children (indeed, by now have brought them up) in a basically white English racial and cultural milieu.
There are similar relocations constantly, from London and other UK urban centres to the country, to Australasia etc. Few of those fleeing or, put less dramatically, relocating, are very “political”; if they were, there might be no need for “white flight”!
Safe Zones
I have previously blogged about the need for English (to a lesser extent, Welsh and Scottish) people to relocate to “safe zones” and in particular to the one major zone which I propose in the South West of England. This is not exclusively a racial imperative. It is also a social and cultural one.
I have been criticized by old-thinking persons who say that English people should “stay and fight” (at least politically). Such people still think in terms of starting a political party, printing leaflets (in the digital age!), holding meetings, and canvassing voters “on the doorstep” just like System party MPs and candidates pretend to do at election time as part of the meaningless flim-flam of System party politics. Well, how has that worked out? The NF tried it in the 1970s (before the Internet). Result? Nothing. The BNP tried it in the 1990s and 2000s. Result? Almost nothing (and eventually nothing). UKIP tried it and is still trying it with its few members. Result? Nothing, really.
How is it possible to fight or struggle politically for social nationalism in a city such as London which is majority non-white/non-European? A doomed struggle. That is what faces us in most UK urban concentrations.
There must be a concentration of forces, to enable a new future to be developed. Not just “white flight” away from certain ways of life, but advance to a new society.
Further to the above, I saw the youtube video below, which is self-explanatory and also hilarious, as virtue-signalling Swedes tie themselves in knots trying to backtrack after lying that they would, if asked, accept a “refugee” into their homes as a staying guest. It reminded me of all those enemies of the people in the UK, who are constantly telling (other) British people to give up their living standards or even their own homes to (mostly fake) “refugees”. You know some of the worst of them: Yvette Cooper, Lily Allen, Billy Bragg, the jew “lord” Dubs etc.
Now look at these virtue-signalling Swedish morons!
and here (below) is the Peter Hitchens view. Sadly, not a social nationalist, but he does castigate mass immigration
Update, 3 June 2019
I am probably wasting my time talking about a random tweet seen, especially when it is typical of thousands, but anyway…
Nicely put! 🙂 I am one of those Brits living in Europe and fighting for the rights of my children and grandchildren to enjoy FOM.
which is in a very pleasant and quiet (and European-race) corner of France (the village or town has fewer than 3,000 inhabitants). Hardly any non-Europeans live anywhere in the whole region.
This woman is tweeting in support of a Romanian girl who wants to stay in the UK, where the Romanian has been living for 7 years (probably at State expense in part, possibly as cheap labour in part) and who is doing a PhD (on “migrants in the UK”! You could not make it up!). Judging from the photos tweeted, the Romanian girl is at least real Romanian, not one of the horde of Roma Gypsies with Romanian or other passports.
My attitude? I have no objection to the odd (real) Romanian coming to or staying in the UK; n.b. not Roma Gypsies, not in the millions (of any kind of person). As for the tweeters supporting mass immigration, “idiots”, “bien-pensants”…..”well-meaning fools” pretty much covers it. Look at the Woolf woman, wishing yet more swamping of the UK… from her rural idyll in one of the most scenic and prosperous (and unswamped) parts of Western France!
I suppose that I should add that I myself was resident in France (Finistere-Nord, Brittany) for several years, but there again (unlike many of those who are swamping the UK) I am of European race and culture, did not use the French social security or free health system, brought money into France rather than exporting funds from France and was never in trouble with the police (save for one minor nonsense “crime”, an on-the-spot speeding ticket, when I was caught doing nearly 100 mph on a dual-carriageway with a speed-limit of about 65 mph).
These idiots tweeting their virtue-signalling tend to equate British pensioners, business owners, or expat residents (working part-time in the UK or elsewhere if working at all), with (often non-European) cheap labour, fake “refugees”, criminals, scavengers etc! Such hypocritical and (at least in their own minds) “well-meaning” idiots are some of the gravediggers of Europe’s future.
Update, 27 June 2019
A Daily Telegraph property report published this week.
“Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) said that “property prices are a big deal” and the main cause of internal migration from London. “Obviously people also want a better quality of life, but they also want access to good schools, to live in rural areas and to get away from the stabbings.”“[Daily Telegraph]
“Neil Park, head of the ONS’s population estimates unit, said: “In the last two years, population growth in the UK has been at its lowest rate since 2004.”
“For the fifth year in a row, net international migration was a bigger driver of population change than births and deaths”
The racial-ethnic aspects of migration by English people out of London are not mentioned directly once in the (immediately above) Daily Telegraph report. It’s all “better schools”, “fresh air”, “leisure opportunities”, “knife crime” etc. Same old…meaning same hypocrisy and same unwillingness to face the truth.
The Brexit argument in the UK has brought to the fore divisions and truths which, until recently, had been covered up by a “politically correct” or bien-pensant “consensus” in the (largely Jew-Zionist-controlled or strongly influenced) mass media and political milieux.
Anyone who imagines that “Brexit” is just about the UK’s membership of the EU is indulging in hobby-politics and joke-politics and/or exhibiting very poor political judgment. I have blogged about this on previous occasions, eg:
UKIP is the joke party and hobby-politics party of the UK, effectively a one-trick-pony, obsessed with the EU and EU immigration but not hitting hard on non-EU immigration and only peripherally touching on other issues. However, those voters who grasped at the UKIP straw up to 2015 were voting to a large extent not for Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, not for UKIP’s clown MEPs as UK ministers, not even simply to get Britain out of the increasingly sinister EU matrix, but as a protest and shout of anger against a whole host of issues, not all of which are connected directly to the UK membership of the EU.
What Is Democracy Anyway?
“Democracy” is one of those terms which is rather imprecise and commonly misused (another is “holocaust”, usually and deliberately misused and distorted by Jew-Zionists and others as “the Holocaust”, the definite article and the capital letter supposedly differentiating any misfortunes visited on Jews in the Second World War from similar misfortunes visited on non-Jews throughout history).
In ancient Greece (for example Athens, the home of the idea of “democracy”), we see that only the relative few had full political rights. In the 4thC BC, Attica had about 300,000 inhabitants (in the state as a whole, not just the “urbanized” polis of Athens itself). Out of that population, only about 100,000 were citizens. Out of that 100,000, only 30,000, being adult male citizens who had completed military service or similarly accepted service, were allowed to vote or to participate in political life. Women, slaves, freed slaves, children and metics (foreigners resident in Attica) were not allowed to vote etc. In other words, out of 300,000 inhabitants, only about 30,000, 10% of the whole, played a significant political role.
UK Democracy: the expansion of the electorate
In more modern times and in England/UK, we see that, though a kind of representative Parliament existed from the 13thC AD, the electorate (using the term broadly) widened over the centuries. At the time of the first great Reform Act (1832), the population of England and Wales (excluding Scotland) was about 12 million, out of which only 200,000 in counties and perhaps 20,000 more in boroughs had voting rights (see Notes, below), about 2% of the whole population (nb. population estimates of that era are not very accurate: some estimates say 400,000 in toto, so perhaps 4% of all inhabitants could vote), a far smaller percentage than in Periclean Athens! In France, the percentage with voting rights was even smaller, but was expanded hugely when universal suffrage was introduced in 1848.
The percentage expansion of the electorate in Scotland in the 1830s was far greater than applied in England and Wales. Some historians use the term “revolutionary”. I wonder whether that has perhaps had a lasting effect on Scottish socio-political attitudes down the line, even to the present day. Just a stray thought…
Further expansion of the electorate in the UK (as a whole, not just England and Wales) in the 19thC meant that, by 1912, there were 7.7 million voters, a figure that increased to 21.4 million following the Representation of the People Act 1918, which extended the franchise to most women of 30+ years, as well as to almost all men of 21+. Of course, the actual population had also increased very greatly, from 27 million in 1850 to 42 million in 1918.
In 1928, women 21-29 also gained the vote, increasing the number eligible to vote to about 27 million.
Changes in the Post-1945 era: where are we now?
UK voting qualifications have not changed substantially since 1928, except that, since 1948, university graduates have no longer had two potential votes, and the minimum voting age is now (and since 1970) 18.
There are now about 65 million inhabitants in the UK (some put the figure higher, by reason of undocumented, unregistered “illegals” etc).
Does “democracy” mean that all inhabitants of the state must be enfranchised?
The South African Example
We have seen that, in ancient Athens, only male citizens who had completed military service could vote. In “apartheid” South Africa, there was a fully-functioning democracy limited however to those of European (white) origin.
There had, prior to 1910, been non-racial forms of limited democracy in Cape Province, limited by reference to property etc. From 1910-1961, the vote was granted to all white men in South Africa, to mixed-race men in Cape Province, and to black men in Cape Province and Natal. Only white men could become Senators or MPs. White women were allowed the vote in 1930 and could serve as MPs or Senators. Blacks and “coloureds” (mixed-race) were barred from holding those offices. In 1960, the black franchise was terminated; the mixed-race franchise followed in 1968. Later, in 1984, an attempt was made to re-enfranchise the mixed-race population and to enfranchise, on a limited basis, the Indian population.
In 1992, a small majority of (white-only) voters endorsed, by referendum, the end of the apartheid system, after which South Africa adopted a different system, under which all person of 18+ years can vote or be elected. In practice, however, this led to what is effectively a one-party, typically-African state, shambolic and corrupt. The African National Congress (ANC) operates what is effectively an elected dictatorship. In the most recent election (2014), its vote declined, but it still holds 249 out of 400 seats (on 62% of the popular vote).
Under this “new” (post-1994) “democracy”, the white population of the country is under siege from both crime (racially-based) and/or (connected) “political” attack, such as the robbery, rape and murder of whites, particularly in the rural areas. Neither are the (mainly black) poor of South Africa helped by the “elected dictatorship”. Indeed, in some respects they are worse off than they were under apartheid. The “infamous” pass laws may have restricted the blacks, but also restricted crime, which has become epidemic.
The USA
The USA is supposedly a “democracy”, but in practice any Presidential candidate has to be a multi-millionaire or billionaire, or have the support of such, simply to be seen as a credible candidate, or to be able to buy TV ads (this is about the same thing, in practice). If elected, he will find that to do anything effective requires that he be not opposed by either the Congress or the Supreme Court. This rarely happens. In most cases, the separation of powers prevents anything effective, let alone radical, being implemented.
The UK
In the UK, there is “democracy” (we think). Almost everyone can vote, almost everyone can be a candidate. Yet there are impediments: the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby (special-interest group), the entrenched First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, the need for finance, and the way in which boundaries are deliberately sliced up to provide a semblance of “fairness”, but in fact to favour 2-party or sometimes 3-party “stability” over real reflection of popular opinion. There is also the fact that “main party” (System) candidates are usually carefully selected to exclude anyone with even mild social-national views. The “choice” is then put before the electorate (together with the minor candidates who almost invariably have no chance at all).
Another important aspect is that, since the Tony Blair government passed its restrictive laws, political parties have to be registered, can be fined (eg for refusing membership to certain types of person, or certain racial or national groups), and can even be “de-registered”, thus barring them from standing candidates in elections. Democracy?
Here is an example from the General Election of 2015.
Brexit
The Brexit vote has exposed the sham or part-sham of British democracy. David Cameron-Levita thought that the 2016 Referendum would be easy to “manage”. He had, after all, “managed” two previous referenda: the Scottish Independence referendum and the AV-voting referendum. Third time, he miscalculated. The people, on the FPTP basis, voted about 52% to 48% for Leave. This was a shock to the System. Immediately, the Remain leaders started to demand “No Brexit”, and for a second Referendum, which would (once the voters had been exposed to enough fear propaganda) come to a different result, and/or for Parliament (most MPs being “Remain”) to just ignore the 2016 Referendum result which (they said) had been procured by fraud, lies, or post-KGB Russian trickery…
The fact is that, leaving aside the “sheeple”, the hard core of anti-Brexit Remain consists of
the affluent/wealthy metropolitan self-styled “elite”;
the big business people;
the Jews (most of them);
those who have done well financially in the 2010-2019 period;
the brainwashed under-30s, mostly from not-poor backgrounds, who imagine that not being in the EU somehow prevents them from getting (for most of them, non-existent) jobs in the EU, or that they will even not be allowed to travel after Brexit!
Those shallow little nobodies (again, mostly young or would-be young urban-dwellers) who think that it is old, unfashionable and “gammon” (white Northern European British) to support Leave or indeed to have any pride in England’s history, race and culture;
Almost all of those working in the msm.
These groups have become ever more severe and open in their hatred of Leave supporters. There are now open calls for the rights of, in particular, voters over the age of, perhaps, 60, to be restricted, for older people to be disenfranchised, especially if white, (real) British, or “racist” (i.e. people who see their land and culture being swamped and destroyed).
Here, for example, we see an almost archetypal Remain whiner, the broadcaster Jeremy Vine, 53, who is paid over £700,000 a year by the BBC and maybe as much as £100,000 p.a. from elsewhere (despite having been awarded only a mediocre 2:2 in English at university and then been –in my opinion– a markedly mediocre Press/radio/TV journalist).
Do we need a maximum age for voters? We have an aging population and as a result so-called "grey voters" have a huge influence over the outcome of elections and referendums.
We see from examples around the world, eg South Africa, or Zimbabwe (etc) that one-man one-vote “democracy” can lead to elected dictatorship. In the UK, it has become increasingly clear that the Parliamentary democracy in place does not reflect the views of the bulk of the population, and certainly not the bulk of the white real British population, those with whose future I concern myself.
Leave may “only” have won the EU Referendum by 52%-48%, but there are nuances here: the assassination of pro-Remain MP Jo Cox, only a week before the referendum certainly had an effect, and is thought to have changed the outcome by as much as 10 points (at the time of her death, Leave was 10 points ahead of Remain in some polls); particularly as much was made of supposed secondary culpability of Leave propaganda for the attack. The referendum outcome might easily have been 60% or even 65% for Leave.
There is also the point that most “blacks and browns” and other ethnic minority voters (eg Jews) voted Remain if they voted at all. Most Scots voted Remain too (no doubt because they have a faux-nationalist SNP as a comfort blanket). Take away those Remain blocs and it might be that about 60% of white English and Welsh voters voted Leave, which might have been 70% without the Jo Cox matter.
Alternatives to Parliament Deciding Everything
I favour the Rudolf Steiner concept of the “Threefold Social Order”. As I paraphrase it, and in the contemporary UK context,
it means that an elected Parliament decides matters properly within the political sphere or “sphere of rights”;
it means that Parliament (and government) does not run the economy or economic enterprises (though it can regulate it and them); likewise, economic forces and personalities cannot rule the political sphere and/or “sphere of rights”;
it means that the State (or economic forces) cannot rule over the proper ambit of the sphere of spirit, culture, religion, medicine, education.
This obviously moves on from the conventional “Parliament rules supreme” idea, developed in the UK since the time of Cromwell.
We can see that Parliament in the UK is no longer fit for purpose. Those currently elected have only a limited mandate. Greater freedom and a more efficient as well as a more just society depend on proper integration of the three basic spheres: political, economic, spiritual/cultural.
There is no necessity for everyone to vote. Voting should be for citizens who are resident and who are of suitable age (I favour 21 years, at minimum). Foreigners, offspring of foreigners, persons who are mainly of non-European origin etc should not be allowed a vote.
Brexit and the future
People voted for Brexit for many reasons and fundamentally out of a lack of satisfaction with the existing way of life in the UK. That urge for something better may be the basis for social-national reform or even revolution. The British people will no more allow themselves to be treated as helots.
Well, it seems that I spoke too soon in saying that the British people will no longer allow themselves to be treated like helots! The “panicdemic”, weaponized for the purpose, has (or the moment at least) put both the British people and “democracy” back in the box. Still, “the night is young”, I suppose. “Tomorrow is another day”…
Not for nothing is (or was) France called La Belle France. If I had to name a country which, for me, challenges the better parts of England for its countryside, it would be France, where I myself lived for 4 years (in North Finistere, Brittany), commuting by car ferry to the UK every week or so. My first holiday away from my parents was a 3-week stay in Paris in 1971, aged 14/15. I stayed in the –at the time, not very smart– Rue de l’Arbalete, in the 5th Arrondisement on the Left Bank, near the Sorbonne, the Ecole Normale Superieur and the Jardin des Plantes, in which park I spent quite a lot of time looking at chess games, wandering about, sometimes drinking a strange green carbonated mint-drink. In other words, I like France (and often its people) very much, despite French bureaucracy and, at times, hugely irritating inflexibility.
The Present Situation
Now we see that many of the French cities are intermittently burning, that there are violent clashes between protesters and riot police in the streets, including the Champs-Elysees and the Boulevard St. Germain. There have been mobs running through the Tuileries, a ministry stormed, at one point the Jeu de Paume (museum/gallery) on fire. The number of protesters on the streets before Christmas 2018 was around 30,000. Now, in early January 2019, we are are seeing 50,000 and more. What is going on?
Macron and His Regime
We must understand that the current President of France, Macron, is the evil “genius” whose “reforms” have caused the uprising (for such it is becoming). However, the present situation is one which has roots going back to 1989 (when socialism in various forms died across the world), to the establishment of the Fifth Republic in 1958, to that of the Fourth Republic in 1946, and indeed to the fall of the Third Republic in 1940, with the consequent establishment of the Vichy government (in power from 1940 to 1944 and governing about half of the territory of France itself, as well as overseas possessions).
The “democratic” basis of the Fifth Republic has always been shaky, but it is arguable that France is more “democratic” now than it has ever been, at least since 1940: the President is now elected every 5 years (changed from 7 in 2000), and is elected directly by the voters, whereas from 1958-1962, the President, at that time de Gaulle, was elected by an “electoral college”. This “democratic” accolade is perhaps an omen, however: the last very “democratic” France, the Third Republic, collapsed from its own weakness and division, first amid an undeclared civil war between the Popular Front and its many and various opponents, then from external invasion, as the German forces swept across Northern France in 1940.
Macron and his pop-up “movement”, En Marche, did not come out of nowhere. Like other fake “movements” across Europe and the former Soviet Union (eg the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine), Macron’s was funded by Jewish cosmopolitan financial circles. Macron himself worked for Rothschild et Compagnie Banque from 2008-2012. In those four years, and another after he left Rothschilds, Macron is said to have made about (possibly more than) 3 million Euros.
Let’s retrack and look at Macron more personally. He went to a Jesuit school, where, aged 15, he met a woman teacher, married with children and aged 39. This woman became romantically and sexually involved with him (sexually —supposedly— only after he turned 18, by which time she was 42 —and if you believe that, you will believe anything…), and left her husband and three children, later marrying Macron (in 2007, when he was 30 and she 54).
Macron only stopped being a student when aged 27, in 2004. He became an “inspector of finances”, a post at a high level in the civil service. He formed a strong connection with a Jewish businessman called Alain Minc, who lent Macron 550,000 Euros in order to buy an apartment in Paris. When Macron left the ministry, he had to buy himself out of his contract. That cost 50,000 Euros. Did that sum also come from Minc?
Here is what puzzles me about Macron: he reminds me of the young Faust, whom Mephistopheles calls “an intelligent youth whom it is easy to instruct”, if I recall the quotation aright. Thus we have the still-young Macron, only 29 and from, though not a poor background, not one of wealth either. He graduates, from the last of several institutions, aged 27, and within 2 years is lent over a half million Euros by a Jewish businessman, not even for a business idea but to buy personal real property. Not just any Jewish businessman, though. Minc has been on the supervizory board of Le Monde and has also been an advisor to several leading politicians in France, including Nicolas Sarkozy.
The oddness does not end there. In the same year, 2006, one of the wealthiest women in France, Laurence Parisot, who was head of MEDEF, the French equivalent of the CBI in the UK, offered the young Macron, who at 29 was still only 2 years from having been a student, the job of managing director of MEDEF (he declined). Laurence Parisot was also head of the bank BNP Paribas.
What else of note do we know about Macron? Well, in 2018 he was awarded the annual Charlemagne Prize, the first recipient of which (in 1950) was none other than Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the evil mind behind the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan! Other recipients of the Prize have included Jean Monnet, the godfather of the EU, who received it in 1953, Konrad Adenauer (1954), Winston Churchill (1955), Edward Heath (1963; he brought the UK into the EEC, predecessor of the EU, in 1973), Henry Kissinger (1987), Tony Blair (1999), Bill Clinton (2000), Jean-Claude Juncker (2006), Angela Merkel (2008), Donald Tusk (2010), Martin Schulz (2015), Pope Francis (2016) and the very influential globalist and supporter of finance-capitalism (and alleged to have been an agent of the British SIS), Timothy Garton Ash (2017).
Macron’s En Marche “movement” was, it is alleged, initially bankrolled by the Rothschilds. 5-6 months before the foundation of En Marche in April 2016, Macron visited Israel.
Macron came to power because the French were tired and disaffected, estranged from the System parties. Marine le Pen of the Front National was thought to have a good chance of victory in the 2017 Presidential Election, so perhaps En Marche was formed by the System and Zionists partly in order to head her off.
Macron and those behind him intended to destroy much of what remains in France of “socialist”/social democratic policy as well as the relaxed lifestyle (including restricted business hours, hours of work etc) which is so much part of France’s appeal for those who live there.
Macron conceals his harshness behind a superficially-pleasant manner, but his mask has dropped, repeatedly. He said, for instance, that there are only two types of people, the “important” and the “nothings”. Such words have not been spoken openly in France for many many years. They call to mind 1789 without the cake!
Macron seems to despise the French people and to be sanguine about their replacement by blacks and browns, another thing that links him to Coudenhove-Kalergi, Tony Blair, Angela Merkel (etc) and to the Jewish-Zionist lobby.
There has been a migration-invasion of France and it continues. It was foretold in fiction decades ago, in the book The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail.
The French people have woken up to Macron and to the cosmopolitan finance-capitalist globalists behind him. His approval rating was said to be 25% in late 2018, and may now be as low as 15%. 80% of French approve the Gilets Jaunes or Yellow Vests.
What Now?
What happens now is an open question. The Yellow Vests appear to have wide popular support, far beyond the 50,000 who are fighting on the streets, demonstrating, or standing vigil by roads etc. The government is about to take severe and even harsh measures. It remains to be seen whether such measures contain dissent or whether they will ignite an uprising of the poor and middle classes against the wealthy (relatively) few, against the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby, and against the EU and other manifestations of the NWO (New World Order) and ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government).
[Addendum, 10 January 2019:I should add that what may prevent the Yellow Vests from developing beyond a mere protest movement is that they appear, as a group, to have no real ideology and little organized direction (not sure about the latter), but something more organized (in both senses) may develop.
Since the original blog post was published, the Yellow Vests have faded away, and Macron has been re-elected (2022), with 58.55% against Marine le Pen on 41.45%. A good result for Ms. le Pen, but nowhere near good enough.
I am moved to write this by a couple of stimuli. First of all by a UK Labour Party National Executive Committee delegate (I think on the NEC as “youth” representative) to some recent conference in Cuba, and who said something like how wonderful it was to be in a country which showed how real socialism worked.
The second impetus came from an interview I heard on BBC World Service radio: an interview with an “artist” of whom I had never heard, called Tania Bruguera. Apparently, her father had been a Cuban diplomat and politician, and had actually handed her over aged 7 (or maybe I misheard and it was 17) to the security police with the statement that she had said anti-“Fidel” things and that the security police should do with her what they liked. She now says that that was a result of the Cuban system of selfish save-your-own-neck denunciation (rather than her own father being a complete shit, which is what she probably really thinks).
I looked up her “art” (“installations”, “performance art” etc). Unimpressed. To me, it looks like talentless rubbish. Having said that, she has the right to do it, which right is not accepted in Cuba. She is allowed to travel fairly freely. These days, she gets hassled and threatened, at times arrested, though not simply shot or chucked into a concentration camp or prison, which is what might have happened in the 1960s or 1970s.
There is the nagging feeling that Corbyn and many around him actually view states such as Cuba, 1980s Nicaragua, or even the Venezuela of recent years as success stories. I have previously blogged about Corbyn’s almost fossilized politics and policies, as well as his friendly or supportive attitude towards Cuba:
As regular readers of this blog will know, I am not totally hostile to Corbyn and at least some of his supporters (vis a vis the misnamed “Conservatives”), inasmuch as the Corbynists want to create a more equitable society in the UK, want to control or remove the Jewish-Zionist influence which has been so pervasive since about 1989, want people to have decent health, housing, social security etc. The devil, however, is in the detail.
The intellectual inconsistency of many of the Corbynists is shown by the fact that while they oppose Jewish exploitation of and behaviour toward the Palestinian Arabs, they ignore the same pattern when Jews exploit British, German or French (or Russian!) people; they also often still unthinkingly parrot “holocaust” propaganda. Corbyn and John McDonnell are themselves prime examples.
Another example: Most people accept that, in any market economy, more labour available means lower unit labour cost. Many of the Corbyn-Labour people disagree. They say that mass immigration makes no real difference to pay, even at the lower levels. Employers are to blame for exploiting employees and government is to blame for not simply setting a high minimum pay level. Faced with that kind of economic illiteracy, one tends to shake head and refuse to argue. Those people, though, genuinely think that all that has to be done for paradise to descend is for the State to lay down and enforce pay levels and, indeed, price levels.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said, many years ago, that one can have a welfare state, and one can have open borders (and consequent mass immigration), but one cannot have both. When will Labour MPs and members wake up to this?
While there is room for relatively minor tinkering with pay and prices (minimum pay, enforced cheap prices in targeted areas such as public transport etc, even Basic Income —which I favour—), for the State to overwhelm the economic sphere is to invite the economic paralysis that caused even Cuba (and, famously, 1980s China) to introduce quasi-free market reforms, as indeed did Lenin himself in the Soviet Union, via his New Economic Policy of the 1920s. Complete State control of the economy leads to shortages or even economic collapse, as we see in Venezuela. I do not see much understanding of these truths in Corbyn or McDonnell.
It is in relation to mass immigration that we see the madness most obviously. In a sense, this is unsurprising. Polls have shown for some years that Labour is mainly voted for by the “blacks and browns”, in the sense that the one demographic which is very pro-Labour is that of the ethnic minorities (except the Jews, who hate Corbyn’s anti-Zionist tendencies).
I should not let anyone reading this go away under the misapprehension that I “prefer” the Conservatives to Labour. I oppose both main System parties, and Labour is at least (in parts, in some senses) anti-Zionist now. I also despise what the Conservatives have done since 2010 to trash society. However, anyone who thinks that Labour is a real alternative need only look at the total deadheads around Corbyn. Look at Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler (both of whom might well be Cabinet ministers under a Corbyn prime ministership!), or the recently disgraced MPs Kate Osamor and Fiona Onasanya (the latter will almost certainly be in prison soon). Not only blacks, by the way: Angela Rayner, for example, would probably be a Cabinet minister under a Corbyn government. Words start to fail…
I favour Labour over Conservative not because I imagine that Labour’s idiots are actually able to operate a government, but because
Corbyn and many of his supporters are now fighting directly against Zionism here in the UK, not merely in the Middle East; and
a weak government under Corbyn can lay the ground for social nationalism.
Notes
The title of this blog post of course refers back to the 1920 Leninist pamphlet usually referred to as Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder [Детская болезнь “левизны” в коммунизме], perhaps more accurately translated as The Children’s Illness, “Leftism”, in Communism. However, in using the words “infantile” and “disordered” to refer to some aspects of “Corbynism”, or some people in Corbyn-Labour, I do so advisedly…
I thought to include a few examples. Here’s one. Stupid enough to state on UK TV that she is “literally a Communist”! Hardy ha ha…but note that her absurd statement did not make her a pariah, despite the hugely bloodstained history of Communism/Socialism. Now what if she had said that she was “literally a National Socialist”? Hm…Ash Sarkar’s statement did not prevent her from continuing to write for major newspapers occasionally, and also to appear on TV from time to time. The Jewish influence over the mass media is right in front of us, and in the case of TV, “literally”!
Senior Editor @novaramedia. Literature bore. Anarcho-fabulous. Muslim. THFC. Walks like a supermodel. Fucks like a champion. Luxury communism now!“
Here is her Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Sarkar which, unbelievably, states that she “lectures in global politics at Anglia Ruskin University” [former Anglia Polytechnic].
Wikipedia adds that “Sarkar’s great-great-aunt, Pritilata Waddedar, was a Bengali nationalist and an active participant in armed struggle against the British Empire in 1930s Bengal. Her grandmother is a hospital carer…Her mother is a social worker who was an anti-racist and trade union activist in the 1970s and 1980s. Sarkar’s mother helped “organise marches…“
“The Times has described her as “Britain’s loudest Corbynista“…and Dazed magazine said she is one of “the voices resetting the political agenda in the UK”.” [Wikipedia]
Basically, an enemy of the British people.
and take a look, or rather listen, to one “Liz from Leeds”, whose incredibly naive and just plain wrong (inaccurate, ahistorical) idea of, inter alia, “why Soviet socialism failed” is actually unintentionally funny. “Novara Media” (the collective of Corbyn supporters Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani etc) tweeting that “Liz from Leeds” was correct! [the black woman shown is the TV show presenter]
and here is another idiot, Hevreziya-Something, attempting to sound like a real “Communist” (who thinks that he –sounds more like she, but apparently not– can be “Anarchist” and –a male–“Feminist”, and a “Populist” etc all at the same time!…oh, and an economist…once he has finished school, that is, though he claims to have been commenting for years; age does not preclude political infantilism, I suppose)
he offers political advice in the tweet below, which made me laugh out loud (the bit about a General Strike in UK and USA, but the first tweet is also amusingly naive):
Well, I think that I shall draw a veil over that particular “Communist/Anarchist/Populist” now! He/she probably has to go and wash its hair or something…
The trouble is that there are literally thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands, quite as stupid. Most support Labour. Many, such as Ash Sarkar and the Hevreziya-someone tweeter, above, are of non-European origin, but there are many others, such as the Englishwoman tweeting below, calling herself “Countess Helen Nonny Nay” [since this blog post was written, altered to Cringing Peasant Helen NonnyNay], who thinks that white British families who want a better life should just “fuck off” as the UK welcomes the dregs of Africa and Asia to our shores…
I don't care if a whinging family decide to move to Australia or not. Go on, fuck off! Or stay here – it makes no difference to me.
Caught out by background TV while doing my dusting. 💃
— Dr Nonny (indistinct chatter) (@nayright12) January 3, 2019
Actually, the sad thing is that some of these people have their hearts sort-of in the right place in some respects— animal welfare, a better society, anti-Jew-Zionism (though most are still brainwashed by the “holocaust” scam/myth). The white Northern European ones would support social-nationalism were they not so indoctrinated and silly.
Update, 6 January 2019
Another idiot, Laurie Penny, who was at one time on TV occasionally (like Owen Jones), until even msm people realized that (like Owen Jones) she is pretty much a one-trick pony…
Do these people, the Owen Jones’s, the Laurie Penny’s etc, realize that their intolerance (yes, their intolerance) might one day not only bring society (the Social Contract) crashing down, but bring down the skies on their own little worlds? I doubt it.
but then, the resistance…
Marxism-Leninism as a political force was destroyed or ebbed away to nothing by 1989 and a host of (other) devils have rushed in to fill the vacuum…
In the end, a complete cleansing of UK (and world) society will have to take place.
Further Update, 6 January 2019
I happened to see the photo below, a kind of “family portrait”: Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bastani in what is perhaps a room designed with reference to either “luxury Communism” or tasteless tat. You decide…
Below, Andrew Neil nails Ken Livingstone on Venezuela…
"If all that's true, it would be appalling, but I have watched America impose sanctions… an appalling impact on their country" @ken4london on how Alan Johnson & Esther McVey reacted to his #bbctw film
Not that everything said by Ash Sarkar (or Aaron Bastani) is wrong. This, below, is right (because grounded in reality, not incorrect theory):
It just really brought home to me that so many people in this country are in similar positions: trapped in low-paid and precarious work, up to their eyeballs in debt, with children and families to care for, but no avenue into quality employment.
What Ash Sarkar and her ilk cannot accept, if only because it might imply that they themselves should clear out of the UK, is that mass immigration is, ultimately, “white genocide” by replacement of real British (i.e. white) people by blacks, browns and others.
He's no different to you: another foreign invader with a massive chip on their shoulder and an even greater inferiority complex. You hate this nation and its people, but are happy to reap its benefits.
— DeAndre DeShawn DeWilliams (@PaddyThePinko) March 1, 2019
Here we see some reaction to Ash Sarkar’s and Owen Jones’s doormatting for the Jewish lobby…
Seems that “someone” sees a vacancy in the msm-approved “licensed Bolshevik” slot previously occupied by Owen Jones (usually by Owen Jones; sometimes Laurie Penny or others). That way, the msm can say, “look! We are open to all shades of opinion, even radical and revolutionary ones!”, while in fact only inviting the kind of people who are in reality completely harmless to the ZOG/NWO System. Non-white or Jewish faux-rebels. White social-nationalists are, of course, banned…
Update, 20 July 2019
A late entrant, a comedienne (for the brainwashed, that’s “comedian”, apparently…), of whom I have never heard but who I am sure is very proud to have 130K Twitter followers (and I am sure at least a few dozen regularly read her tweets…). She believes in “anti-fascist action” and intimidating anyone standing up for free speech.
and, quelle surprise, she has been contracted at various times for those present gravediggers of culture, Channel 4 (usually a gravedigger) and the BBC (sometimes a gravedigger).
…from the Independent, reporting on beach patrols at Dover; all too typical of the sort of persons now prominent in “Labour” and what is left of the trade unions:
“Riccardo La Torre, firefighter and Eastern Region Secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, branded the coast patrol “despicable” and said: “These have-a-go, racist vigilantes have no place in any kind of enforcement or emergency activities and will only serve to make conditions and tensions worse.”
So “Riccardo La Torre” (que?), a regional secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, thinks that migrant invaders from Africa and the Middle East are “working class people”, who are “trying to get to safety”?!
Safety from, er, France? There you have in a nutshell, the craziness that is much of “Labour” now. Alien migrant-invaders are “working class people”, who should be allowed to occupy the UK at will (and be subsidized too)!
Note particularly the fag-end “Marxism”, trying to shoehorn the facts into some 1980s polytechnic back-of-postcard Marxism-Leninism.
I have, in the recent and fairly recent past, blogged about various MPs in a House of Commons where, increasingly, to be mediocre is a standard few can reach. See Notes, below. I have now decided to blog from time to time about a few more deadhead MPs, starting with recently-convicted Fiona Onasanya.
Now let us be clear: people in the UK, especially in the mainstream media [msm] tend to bend over backwards to be fair to ethnic minorities and especially blacks. You see it on quiz shows and in TV interviews and elsewhere. You see it even more in that echo-chamber of the pathetic “me too” “socially-liberal” multikultis, Twitter.
Some of the deadhead MPs (indeed, most) are white; however, the black ones can rely on getting a fairly easy ride from the msm until they really push the boat out in terms of stupidity, aggression or general uselessness. See, for example, Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler, Kate Osamor and now Fiona Onasanya.
Fiona Onasanya
Fiona Onasanya, a black African (Nigerian origin) but born in Cambridgeshire, and now 35 years old, is usually described as having been “a commercial property solicitor” prior to having been selected as a Labour PPC (prospective Parliamentary candidate) then elected as MP. I suppose that most people merely accept that bland potted bio, but in fact it is only superficially true.
Fiona Onasanya was Admitted to the ranks of solicitors in November 2015, at the age of 32. Prior to that (but exactly when, I do not know) she attended the University of Hertfordshire on an LL.B course, and then the University of Law (former College of Law) in order to qualify as a solicitor.
So what did Fiona Onasanya do between the ages of 18 and 32? A first degree and then Solicitors’ course together add up to about 4 years. That leaves 10 years outstanding. Her constituency website is not at all illuminating. Her Wikipedia entry states that she was a County Councillor in Cambridgeshire from 2013. That of course pays an allowance these days, as well as expenses (such as fuel for a car). Fiona Onasanya was also Deputy Leader of the Labour Group on that council, which pays extra (exactly how much, I do not know, but there are councillors with “extra responsibilities” that make a modestly good living out of it). At any rate, there seem to be 8-10 “missing years”, for which there may or may not be a good explanation.
Fiona Onasanya’s (self-drafted?) Wikipedia entry states that “She worked as a solicitor at Eversheds, Howes Percival, Nockolds and DC Law, specialising in commercial property law”, but she can have been little more than an office gopher. She worked for 4 different law firms in only 18 months! Probably no good and did little more than make coffee and read up on “diversity” regulations etc…
As for her selection as Parliamentary candidate, it seems to me that to have selected Fiona Onasanya, especially for somewhere like Peterborough, was almost an insult to the people of that city, 82.5% of whom are white, while only 2.3% are black (and little more than half of those are black African).
It now appears that there was no proper selection process. Here are tweets from the Political Correspondent of Channel Four News, Michael Crick, on the subject:
Fiona Onasanya, found guilty today, is one of the 36 new Labour MPs in 2017 – like Jared O’Mara In Sheffield Hallam – whom Labour picked without a proper selection process in 2017 – no interview, no speech, no selection by local members. Just picked by a small NEC panel.
I have confirmed it was left-winger Pete Willsman who effectively chose Fiona Onasanya on the small Labour NEC panel which met to pick candidates at the 2017 general election for the eastern region. https://t.co/nkloN6umN3
The meeting lasted a gruelling six hours, in which the NEC panel simply read people's CVs. The panel didn't meet or interview any of the people they picked. https://t.co/wad8pZHrvw
Fiona Onasanya was prosecuted for perversion of the course of justice, a charge which has brought a number of MPs to a prison cell, among them Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne (the latter on very similar facts to the present case).
Fiona Onasanya was lucky in her first jury, when the jury could not agree, even on the required 10-1 majority basis (one juror became unwell during trial). There must have been blacks and/or Labour Party partisans on that jury! Its prolonged deliberations and weekend adjournment brought hundreds of mocking tweets (heedless of “contempt of Court”), such as one which suggested that the jury would be sequestered for the weekend “in the local mental hospital”, so open-and-shut was Onasanya’s case. In fact, the second jury did not take long to find her guilty.
Since then, Fiona Onasanya has compared herself to Biblical figures who faced courts, such as Jesus Christ and Daniel, and to others who (apparently unknown to avid Nigerian church-goer Fiona) never faced courts at all (Moses, Joseph etc).
Fiona Onasanya faces a prison sentence. Though perversion of the course of justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the relevant judicial guidelines indicate between 4 months and 36 months, with 12 months not uncommon in cases where the defendant lied about the identity of a car driver. Chris Huhne got 8 months, and that was on a guilty plea and far simpler facts (a simpler conspiracy). Jonathan Aitken got 18 months, also on guilty pleas, but his offence, in fact 2 offences, were intrinsically more serious, arguende.
If Fiona Onasanya is sentenced to a year or more in prison, she will be forced to vacate her seat (though in theory an MP so forced out can re-enter if again elected). The judge’s sentence will therefore either trigger a by-election, or keep Fiona Onasanya in her seat (at least until the next General Election). Jeremy Corbyn has given a broad hint that she faces deselection before that election anyway. Without the Labour label, she would probably get only a handful of votes.
My guess, albeit an educated guess, is that Fiona Onasanya will get a year or more of imprisonment. Why? Apart from the bare offence, she not only pleaded Not Guilty in both trials but also made up a complicated story with her brother (guilty of several similar offences), part of which was to blame an entirely innocent young Russian of whom they knew. He was saved from possible (indeed probable, arguably) prosecution only because he was visiting his family in Russia at the material time. The failure of the first jury to agree was plainly perverse and flew in the face of a plethora of convincing circumstantial and other evidence.
As to Fiona Onasanya’s future outside politics, it looks bleak: if imprisoned, she will undoubtedly be struck off the solicitors’ roll (that is a likelihood in any case). She is now 35. If imprisoned, she could be 37 when released. It looks as if the dole queue beckons. Either that or digging up potato from the heavy soil of Cambridgeshire.
On today’s date, Fiona Onasanya MP was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, which means that she will actually be in prison for about 6 weeks minus days in court and in police custody, so probably about a month in the end, if that. Her brother got 10 months.
I am surprised at the leniency of the sentence, in that she deliberately set out on a course of deception, tried to blame someone else for the offence and pleaded Not Guilty despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence, thus necessitating two expensive trials (the first jury being unable to agree on a verdict).
In his very similar trial a few years ago, Chris Huhne got 8 months on a Guilty plea! As a former practising barrister who has (long ago, in the early/mid 1990s) conducted Crown Court criminal trials (though I was always more civil and commercial), I am aware that every sentencing is different because every defendant is different, but the anomaly here is stark. Fiona Onasanya gets about a third of Huhne’s sentence despite her crime being worse on the facts, despite having pleaded Not Guilty (twice). Is it because she is black? Or because she is a black woman? Vicky Pryce (see below) was a woman, after all, and she got 8 months, not 3, and for less. I read much about “white privilege”. Hardy ha ha.
Vicky Pryce got 8 months for having done less than either her husband or Fiona Onasanya. Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhne both actually served 9 weeks in prison before being released early, not the strict 4 months as might have been expected.
Reading the judge’s remarks in the Onasanya case (see tweet below), it is clear that he was floundering in trying to find a reason to suspend the sentence, but in the end could not, so made the sentence as lenient as he felt was possible.
Judge to Fiona Onasanya's barrister on suggestion of suspended sentence: "I'm in difficulty."
"If she wasn't an MP or wasn't in a position of responsibility, she would go inside. It's not one law for those in a position of power, and another for those who are not,"
The lenient sentence means that, until removed by the electors of Peterborough, Fiona Onasanya will continue to collect about £1,000 a week after tax, whether in prison or not. She will also continue to get her flat rent, utilities etc paid for via Parliamentary expenses!
The only way to remove her early would be for 10% of Peterborough electors to demand that via a Petition of Recall, which would trigger a by-election. She has been expelled by Labour, which supports such a petition. However, it will take months both to organize the petition and then for a by-election to be held.
In fact, latest news is that the Recall Petition cannot even be started until Fiona Onasanya has finished her appeal process, which might be months or even (potentially) years. For all that time she will be dragging down £1,000 a week after tax, despite the fact that her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course).
I suppose that there will be a General Election soon anyway and that, if this waste of space stands, she will get only about 10 votes, or at least only a few hundred (depending on how many Africans in Peterborough are totally stupid).
The Onasanya case proves yet again what a load of useless trash many MPs are now. In this case, her only known jobs are 18 months working as trainee (making the tea?) at a few law firms. At the age of 35. We should find some island somewhere and start deporting. Tristan da Cunha? Target number? In the millions.
Well, I had no idea that the Attorney-General reads and takes account of my blogging! Only joking…but it seems that the A-G is considering whether to refer Fiona Onasanya’s sentence to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient”.
Fiona Onasanya, still an MP and likely to remain one until the next general election, was released after only 28 days in prison. I guessed right on that.
Update, 5 March 2019
Fiona Onasanya lost her appeal, in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against conviction. In theory, she might appeal to the Supreme Court, but it is unlikely that that would be allowed, there not being (as it seems) grounds for such appeal. It is doubtful too whether legal aid would be forthcoming for it, and Fiona Onasanya has no means with which to pursue a privately-paid appeal, though it occurs to me that it is in her financial interest, possibly, at least to make application to appeal, in that, as noted here above, she is getting (net of tax) about £1,000 (in pay) and a similar amount for her London rent, utilities etc paid to her (on Parliamentary expenses) for every week in which she still sits as MP, despite disgrace, despite conviction, despite imprisonment, despite the fact that “her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course)“. Typical. Most of Africa is in near-chaos for the same reasons, because most blacks are incapable of organization…
So far, there have been no active moves made to start the procedure of recall, because the criminal appeal process is still active, even if only notionally. I expect that Fiona Onasanya will be able to hang on as MP until the Summer, if not until the end of the year. To stop her clinging on until the next general election, there has to be the political equivalent of stamping on her fingers, meaning
an end to the appeals process;
a Recall Petition in proper form;
a petition signed by at least 7,000 people in Peterborough;
The deadhead has now made a video appealing to Peterborough voters to keep her as MP. She really must think that the people of Peterborough are as thick as she is! My guess? If there is a recall petition before a General Election, then I think that it will be voted for overwhelmingly, and that, in the subsequent by-election, she will get a vote of somewhere around 2%. Of course, in the meantime, because she is appealing her conviction, she is still receiving her over £77,000 p.a. salary, plus expenses such as a paid-for London flat (with all utilities, Council Tax etc also paid for).
The creature (Fiona Onasanya) could not pronounce “eligible” or “ineligible”, saying “illegible” (i.e. did not know the difference!).
She is still on Twitter, and still tweeting as if the axe will not soon fall on her whole life and lifestyle!
Update, 30 April 2019
It seems all but inevitable that tomorrow a recall petition will approve the sacking of Fiona Onasanya and the calling of a by-election which might result in Brexit Party scoring a hit:
BREAKING: Constituents in Peterborough opt to remove their MP Fiona Onasanya- 19,261 signed the petition which will trigger a by-election. pic.twitter.com/xeZUJSm0xF
It would be incredible if Farage stood for the seat and captured it (despite the fact that “Brexit Party” is obviously rather far from my position ideologically).
Update, 7 May 2019
The by-election will be held on 6 June 2019 (the anniversary of the Normandy Landings of 1944! You couldn’t make it up!) and, while Nigel Farage will not be standing, the Brexit Party will be putting up a candidate. Nominations close on 9 May. Look at the rally below. According to local newspapers, nearly 2,000 people. In a provincial city. In England.
Peterborough rally for the Brexit Party. When was the last time British politics saw something like this?? Astonishing. They’re doing three rallies a week! pic.twitter.com/YVUlQnhTdw
Change UK London Rally vs Brexit Party Peterborough Rally. One made lead story on BBC News, the other didn’t even feature. That’s right. The tiny one made the front page, the massive one didn’t. Why’s that I wonder? pic.twitter.com/0MVGwgUoly
— The Other Nigel. My truth. (@TheOtherNigel) May 7, 2019
(In fact, the photo there may not be of Brexit Party’s meeting)
As for Fiona Onasanya, she has now been removed as MP, and will almost certainly be expelled (struck off) from the solicitors’ profession (in which she only practised for about a year anyway). She is already effectively forgotten and will soon be back on the dole.
Update, 8 August 2019
Fiona Onasanya has, as expected, now been struck off the solicitors’ roll.
The fact that creatures like Fiona Onasanya were and still are selected as Labour candidates was one major reason why Labour started to slide from being a major party to becoming a niche party appealing to blacks, browns, public service workers and a few other groups.
Update, 5 October 2022
At the by-election necessitated by the removal of Fiona Onasanya as MP, Labour’s new candidate, Lisa Forbes, won narrowly from Brexit Party. pushing the Conservative Party candidate into third place. However, at the General Election of 2019, some 6 months later, Lisa Forbes was unseated by the same Conservative candidate (and Brexit Party relegated to a poor fourth place): see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
“I have now authored and published a book about my journey into politics, Parliament and prison entitled ‘Snakes & Adders’ (see http://www.fionasanyaa.co.uk), currently release monthly newsletters to subscribers, host workshops and am seeking to establish trauma informed care support for women in prison.
Outside of the political arena, I am an active member of my church, an avid reader and seek to encourage, inspire and assist others utilising the experience I am privileged to have.”
“The population of the United Kingdom is considered an example of a population that has undergone demographic transition – that is, the transition from a (typically) pre-industrial population with high birth and mortality rates and slow population growth, through a stage of falling mortality and faster rates of population growth, to a stage of low birth and mortality rates with, again, lower rates of population growth. This population growth through ‘natural change’ has been accompanied in the past two decades by growth through net international migration into the United Kingdom.” [Wikipedia]
I recently saw a pro-immigration poster put out, I think, by some trade union in the NHS. It said that the group of people shown on the poster (mostly but not all black/brown) were all NHS personnel who had come to the UK from other countries. The poster also said that, in the London Borough of Haringey, where the group had been photographed, there were (in round figures) some 82,000 persons who had come from other countries to the UK. The implication was that only thus is the (in Britain, near-sacred) NHS able to function.
Well, I am, in principle, pro-NHS (though I think, with reason, that quite a lot of the NHS system is barely functioning). I have no problem conceding that some of the foreign personnel in the NHS are excellent (though some others are hopeless). I am aware that the NHS has always been a major recruiter of immigrant labour. However, is that the whole story (as pro-Remain, pro-immigration people always pretend)? I say not.
The London Borough of Haringey has about 282,000 inhabitants, only 60% of whom are “white British” or Irish. If you were to take away the 82,000 immigrants already mentioned (even disregarding their offspring, and those non-English/Irish etc who are also resident in that borough), you would automatically have something like —and at the very least— something like 20,000 dwelling units available! Now multiply that appropriately across the whole of London, the whole of the UK…An end to the absurd property price valuations, an end to overcrowded hospitals, schools, transport —including roads—, an increase in pay across the board.
There is no doubt that the UK would be better off, the people of the UK would be better off, without the immigrant hordes and their offspring. Yes, on paper, the economy would perhaps be less vibrant, but most of the benefit of that at present goes to a tiny percentage of the population, just as a relatively small number of buy-to-let parasites and speculators profit from the overheated UK property market.
As for foreign NHS personnel, one has to bear in mind that the migration-invasion has placed enormous burdens on the NHS. The balance of convenience is by no means in favour of immigration. Without mass immigration, the UK NHS could easily handle the demand, particularly by training British people as doctors, nurses and ancillary personnel. Fewer British medical staff would leave (to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand etc), thus saving the State the cost of their education and training.
The same is true of all areas of society. Mass immigration penalizes the vast bulk of the British people. Big business loves mass immigration because it increases the number of consumers, results in higher prices for goods and real property, and reduces pay per labour unit.
When I was born in 1956, the UK population was estimated to be around (possibly below) 50 million. In 1990, 34 years later, the estimate was 57 million, a still very considerable increase. In 2018, the estimates have become less accurate because of the huge influxes of “migrants” (migrant-invaders) and their birth-rate, but anywhere from 66 million to 70 million. By, say, 2022? No-one knows. 75 million? This is totally unsustainable. Only those who knew England (especially) in the 1960s can appreciate what a difference and (mostly) a negative difference those extra 20 millions have made to the quality of life, environment etc in the UK and, again, particularly in England.
It is all very well saying that, because of Brexit and the stalling economy, ever-lower pay and State benefits, that the net immigration figure now is “only” about 400,000 a year instead of the half million or more per year in the past 15-20 years, but 400,000 is still the size of a very large town. Also, “net” means not 400,000 in but maybe 800,000 non-Brits in, and 400,000 desperate Brits out, fleeing the multiracial/multicultural society, desperately trying to find a basically white “Aryan” society in which to live (though most scarcely admit that even to themselves).
Those who have read my recent blogs on Brexit and Theresa May will have noted that I predicted (in the posts and/or in the Comments sections to the posts) that, if the Commons vote on the Theresa May Brexit “deal” were to go against the Government, as always seemed probable, one likely consequence would be that there would be a revolt among Conservative Party MPs, with the aim of ejecting her from her leadership position. That has now happened, though the Commons vote on the Brexit “deal” has not been taken, and may never be.
Theresa May as Prime Minister
I do not conceal that I am very opposed to Theresa May.
She has had passed repressive legislation, both as Prime Minister and in her former office as Home Secretary;
She is very pro-Jewish, very pro-Zionist, very pro-Israel and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel;
There are indications that she herself may be of partly-Jewish origin;
She has continued the Con Coalition (and, even before that, Gordon Brown Labour) demonization of the poor, unemployed and disabled, even to the extent of promoting dishonest and thick-as-two-short-planks Esther McVey to Cabinet as Work and Pensions Secretary;
She failed, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, to stop or even slow mass immigration;
She has shown no strategic grasp.
[Theresa May became Prime Minister after all other candidates “killed” each other]
I will say that, for a few days after having become Prime Minister, Theresa May looked like a slightly better choice than David Cameron-Levita had proven to be. She made statements in the “One Nation Conservative” vein and seemed to be willing to revisit the obviously not-working bits of Con Coalition policy, such as Dunce Duncan Smith’s pathetic and misconceived Universal Credit fiasco. However, it soon turned out that Theresa May had few ideas of her own and yet was completely inflexible.
Theresa May worked for 20 years, before entering Parliament, as a back-room bureaucrat at the BACS cheque-clearing organization. She is out of her depth as Prime Minister (in fact she was no good as Home Secretary either).
Theresa May’s brittle persona, which might be described as “barely-concealed hysterical panic”, disguised under a “Wicked Witch” outer layer, became very apparent during the General Election campaign of 2017. Afraid to show herself in public, even to the limited extent of her predecessors, her “campaign speeches” to carefully-vetted tiny groups in aircraft hangars etc were every bit as fake as those of US Presidents, and were seen as such. Her hysterical “Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!” screech turned her from a perceivedly “solid” Prime Minister to an embattled and weak one. Immediately. The 2017 election was probably lost right there.
After the 2017 election, Theresa May was a lame duck PM, dependent on the Democratic Unionist Party votes, which were bought at great expense. Without those DUP votes, Theresa May is totally powerless. The EU establishment saw that and has taken full advantage of Theresa May’s political weakness.
How Has Theresa May Survived This Long?
The answer, in my view, is that there has not been seen to be an obvious challenger for her position. She is second-rate. All right, but most of the would-be leaders and prime ministers are third-rate:
Clown Prince Boris Johnson: completely unfit for any public office, being acquisitive, greedy, lazy, incompetent, often rather stupid, narrowly-educated, unethical, untrustworthy, callous, as well as cosmopolitan in his origins (part-Jew, part-Turk, a bit of this and a bit of that, born in New York City); Conservative Friends of Israel; a poseur and overall a fake, a £3 note who attempts to present himself as “Prime Minister in Waiting” via an am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, but with none of the intellectual depth or personal steel; supported Remain but turned coat;
Sajid Javid: A Pakistani by origin, cosmopolitan business type by pre-political career; his earnings at time of departure from Deutsche Bank in 2009 are said to have been £3M a year; he owns 4 homes in the UK; someone whose judgment is very questionable, as witness his support for the masked “antifa” thugs (a remarkable stance for someone now posing as Home Secretary!); connected with that is Javid’s doormat-level support for Jews and indeed Zionists —and Israel—; Javid and his English wife took their honeymoon in Israel; member of Conservative Friends of Israel; supporter of American neo-con adventurism and “intervention”; an Ayn Rand devotee…it just gets worse; incompetent in office; supported Remain;
Jeremy Hunt: dark horse; smarmy snake type; possible front-runner; multi-millionaire (tens of millions); property speculator; supported Remain, but has turned coat;
Michael Gove: has a Jewish or part-Jewish wife, and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel; one of the most egregious expenses cheats of the pre-2010 Parliament; arguably more intelligent than most of the other likely successors to Mrs May, but often wrongheaded; dishonest; supported Leave;
Amber Rudd: member of Conservative Friends of Israel; complete doormat for the Israel/Jewish/Zionist lobby; wants to pass even more repressive laws targeting British patriots etc, making even reading dissident literature online a criminal offence (!); despite her financial services background, pretty thick; incompetent and dishonest in office; personally involved with African and Old Etonian MP, Kwasi Kwarteng; Remain Queen Bee;
Philip Hammond: dull but predictable and therefore perceived as “safe”; supported Remain;
Dominic Raab: a half-Jew, Raab has worked in diplomatic activity; there have been some controversial news reports about his personal behaviour; supported Leave;
Jacob Rees-Mogg: may or may not be a candidate; multi-millionaire and Leave luminary; may not want to give up his big City of London wealth fund operation to become PM, but the lure of the highest office is powerfully magnetic.
The above seem to be the most likely candidates to vie for the succession to Theresa May, if she cannot get 158 MPs to vote for her this evening (50% of the total).
Incredibly, some even less suitable names may want to be on the ballot paper, including
sex pest and doormat-for-Israel Stephen Crabb;
Esther Mcvey (another, yawn, Conservative Friends of Israel member); an evil associate of Dunce Duncan Smith;
dull nobody Andrea Leadsom;
even Penny Mordaunt! (but this is a contest for leadership of the Conservative Party, it is not a swimsuit competition…).
It has been the lack of alternative and credible leadership candidates that has kept Theresa May from having to face a leadership challenge; that and the fact that, should she get 158+ MPs to support her, she will be safe from challenge for a year.
At present it seems that about 110 MPs have pledged to support Theresa May, but the ballot is secret, so their support cannot be confirmed or checked. The vote is a Yes/No one.
A month ago, I should have thought (and did think) that Theresa May would win any confidence vote fairly easily, though perhaps not convincingly. Now, I doubt it, though the outcome must still be seen as uncertain. Her authority as PM, let alone as Conservative Party leader, is in shreds. Her power is non-existent, now that the DUP have as good as pulled the rug from under her government. She is disrespected by the EU, the public, her own party. She must surely go. If she does not, the Conservative Party will ebb away to nothing with her.
Life After Theresa May
Life for the UK has become very uncertain. It might even be said that the British are starting to follow Nietzsche’s dictum, and are living dangerously. It seems to be not unlikely that any successor to Theresa May might want to revoke the invocation of Article 50, thereby stopping Brexit in its tracks. After that, a new Referendum could be held. Not that I favour that course of action. I myself should prefer Britain to wake up, kick out the traitors and unwanted cuckoos in our nest, and leave the EU completely, finally. However, I am not Prime Minister.
Well, as I have repeatedly written over months and years in this blog, the “glorious uncertainty” of the racecourse is replicated in British politics. I thought, only this afternoon, that the outcome of the no-confidence vote would be close, somewhere around 50-50. In the event, Theresa May won by 200-117, so 63% of Conservative Party MPs backed her or at least were unwilling to get rid of her (at present), as against 37% who voted to dump her.
I see the vote not as MPs having confidence in Theresa May, but in having no confidence in any of the likely candidates vying to replace her.
What Now?
Theresa May now cannot be challenged in any no-confidence vote of her party for a year, i.e. until December 2019.
Theresa May still has no credibility, politically. She still has no chance of any substantial revision of her EU exit “deal”; the DUP are distancing themselves from her, which may completely paralyze her legislative programme (such as it is); she now knows for sure that 117 of her MPs have no confidence in her. In reality, few have confidence in her but are not willing to eject her right now.
Theresa May should realize that, just as she became Conservative Party leader and so Prime Minister by default and not by reason of her own merit, so she has now survived the no-confidence vote for the same reason.
There is uncertainty now as to whether the Brexit “deal”, with minor EU concessions as a figleaf, will be put to the House of Commons soon (or at all). As for revoking Article 50, that seems to be not unlikely, perhaps if any revised Brexit “deal” is voted down by the Commons, whatever Theresa May now says.
We must never forget that ZOG/NWO wants the UK to either stay in the EU or to leave the EU but on a basis of effectively still being tied to it.
Afterthought, 14 December 2018
It may be thought surprising that I left out the name of David Davis from the list of possible leaders. Back in 2008, I predicted that he might return to government as Cabinet minister and even Prime Minister. I have subsequently been proven correct in the first part; as to the second, that is now unlikely though (things being what they are…) not impossible. Davis is now 69, but the main obstacle to his being elected as Conservative Party leader and notionally then Prime Minister is that he is for Leave, most MPs are for Remain. That, and his more traditional type of Conservatism.
Update, 15 December 2018
“It’s over. If Brexit happens at all – and for the first time I’m beginning to think it won’t – it will be on terms that keep the worst aspects of EU membership. Britain will be humbled in the eyes of the world, having tried to recover its independence and been faced down. The largest popular vote in our history will be disregarded, and the nation that exported representative government exposed as an oligarchy. Plus – and I know this sounds almost trivial next to those calamities, but it matters to me – the Conservative Party might never recover.” [Daniel Hannan MEP, in the Daily Telegraph]
Update, 1 April 2019
Incredibly, Liz Truss, who only became an MP on her back, is now spoken of as a potential Conservative prime minister! This is madness!
@BBCr4today Liz Truss was on Radio 4 this morning and was simply dreadful. For a cabinet minister it was embarrassing. What on earth have we become when these mediocrities are running our country? #LizTruss#brexit
— capitano coffee #NHSBlueheart 💙 (@capitanocoffee) April 1, 2019
Liz Truss: Tory leadership candidate: Just imagine; Prime Minister Liz Truss: God forbid, politics can’t foist this Tory dimwit as the country’s leader😳🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪can it?😱😱
Well, now we know that, in between 2019 and now, Britain had to endure 3 years of shambolic “Boris” Johnson, followed by 6 weeks of Liz Truss, “ably” supported by Woollyhead Trussbanger (Kwasi Kwarteng), who together managed to tip the UK into a downward economic spiral in only a few weeks.
Now we have diminutive Indian former money-juggler, Rishi Sunak, as “Prime Minister”. This is not looking good.
One sometimes hears contestants on quiz shows asked “which BBC radio drama series was started in order to inform farmers about what they should be doing?” Answer: The Archers. What is less well-known is that the same method is now used across the mass media and especially on TV to push the “multiracial society”.
I am not an avid or regular watcher of TV soaps such as Emmerdale. However, I have noticed on odd occasions over the years that such serial dramas or melodramas are being used to push the multiracial/multicultural society which has been a major part of the System gameplan for many decades.
Gradually, black and brown characters are introduced, to the extent that these rural communities (such as that portrayed in Emmerdale) have to have blacks, Asians (as well as gays, lesbians, drug-abusers, mixed-race relationships etc) to a far greater extent than exist in any real country village. A few years ago, “activists” complained that there were no blacks and browns in Midsomer Murders. Guess what? There now are…
The above nonsense is not confined to TV soaps, either…
The wish to virtue-signal the usual rubbish about “inclusivity” etc reaches a high level (I hesitate to say “apotheosis”) in the period dramas such as Inspector George Gently, Grantchester, Endeavour etc. I was born in 1956 (in Reading, Berkshire), was living in those years right on the Berkshire/Oxfordshire border and the only black person I can remember even seeing in the early 1960s was the NHS ear, nose and throat consultant whom I attended a few times aged about 7, at the Royal Berkshire Hospital (he was from the Caribbean). Yet if you were to watch, say, Grantchester, there are blacks and South Asians etc (not to mention gays) aplenty in that little Cambridgeshire village c.1950! The same is true of, say, Endeavour, the prequel to Inspector Morse.
Why is all this important? Because people who were not around in this or that year of the past get at least some of their ideas of that past time from such dramas shown on TV, or in the cinema. Why else would Hollywood Jews such as Spielberg continually make films showing a basically untrue picture of the Second World War? They want to imbue the public with certain (fake) “facts” and so affect and influence socio-political thoughts, words and actions today. Those who live in the British countryside today know that the real percentage of black and brown residents there is small; the number of inter-racial relationships or marriages even smaller, perhaps vanishingly so. Yet day after day, the British TV audience is washed over with waves of falsity in this regard. Brainwashing in slow time.
Then there are the TV ads. The brainwashing here has become so blatant that quite a number of people on social media, and who are the opposite of social-national in political attitude, have protested; even a couple of (Labour) MPs have said that it is absurd that pretty much every ad now seems to show a mixed-race family or an inter-racial one (usually with a black man as “father figure” or “husband”, and an English —i.e. white— woman, often blonde, as “mother”/”wife”). Sainsbury’s, Halifax, you name it. There are dozens of examples, so many that it cannot be mere co-incidence…
Why? Well, we have to start with the fact that media studies courses at universities and colleges, particularly in the large cities, attract rather many Jewish students, who are usually actively “anti-racist” (except in terms of their own arrogant Jewish-Zionist “racism”, which is often ingrained). Those students go on to join TV companies, ad agencies etc. Also, less obviously, there are secret or occult forces working behind the scenes to push what is sometimes termed the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan or agenda [see Notes, below]. When the whole advertising industry comes up with almost identical ads, something is going on.
Take a look at the Halifax ad at the foot of this blog post: black “father”/”husband”, white “wife”, in an advanced state of pregnancy.
It must be emphasized that these ads (and soaps etc) do not just reflect UK society but are designed to create a new —multiracial, “multicultural”— society. Multiracial families of the sort shown in countless ads do exist but are relatively rare. The aim of the ads and the soaps and other presentations is to normalize inter-racial relations, mixed-race offspring and, ultimately, to destroy the white Northern European race or ethnicity; in the UK, in mainland Europe, throughout the world.
The infected areas of our society have to be purged or cleansed; this type of evil propaganda must be rooted out wherever found.
The evil must be stopped in its tracks.
Finally, it probably has to be pointed out that the aim of social-nationalism is not to promote “hate” (as the Zionists and their mindless “antifa” dupes tend to aver) but to create the conditions necessary for a quantum leap of the advanced part of the human species. This could never be accomplished out of a mixed-race or non-European population. There has to be the right ethnic foundation. That is why the forces of Evil oppose us.
A Nigerian working in advertising in the UK actually admits that I am right, in effect:
“Greater diversity
This year, amidst the discussion in the industry about whether “Buster the boxer” orWes Anderson won Christmas, one important aspect of the seasonal campaigns has been largely overlooked – their diversity.
There wasn’t much variation to the themes, which typically revolved around traditional subjects such as family gatherings, celebrations, and (surprise, surprise) the joy of giving. However the diversity of people featured in the ads themselves stood out. For example, this year’s John Lewis campaign wasn’t just a departure for the brand because it was funnier than usual; it featured a black family for the first time. Currys PC World also cast a black family for its ad. Sainsbury’s animated tale featured a family of mixed ethnicities. Boots showcased a diverse array of women who work on Christmas day. Not to be outdone, Amazon portrayed the charming friendship of a Christian priest and a Muslim imam.
The John Lewis Christmas ad featured a black family for the first time
That wasn’t all. This year’s House of Fraser’s Christmas ad looked more like a Beyoncé video and M&S made Mrs Claus the star of its campaign. Meanwhile Pret A Manger produced a no-frills spot to highlight their apprenticeship scheme for the homeless, featuring a woman from an ethnic minority background who was forced out onto the streets by her own community because of her sexuality.
Step in the right direction
While it is easy to get cynical about these things, I see it as welcome progress. Diversity has been one of the hottest topics in advertising over the last year, with increasing calls for a more representative industry. Initiatives such as the Great British Diversity Experiment sought to prove that greater diversity leads to better creativity. If these Christmas campaigns are anything to go by, it seems that the message is getting through…
In post-Brexit Britain these ads also send out a covertly political message. Much of the marketing communications industry was in shock after the vote to leave the EU, with many wondering if more could have been done to counteract the negative sentiment that emerged during the referendum campaign.”
In other words, the people behind these ads promoting “diversity” (black-brown monoculture and the trashing of our European society, in reality) have a distinct socio-political agenda and their output is only incidentally selling this or that bank, supermarket etc; the ads are poisonous socio-political propaganda using “commercial cover”. More than that, these traitors to Europe’s peoples and future are acting in concert. Consensus. Conspiracy.
One “Matthew Chapman” on the same subject:
“The festive ad offerings from John Lewis, M&S and Morrisons all feature multi-ethnic families, while Sainsbury’s and Tesco show a wide range of people from different races and religions. Debenhams, meanwhile, created a film that reimagines the Cinderella love story and stars a black man and white woman.“
(He seems to like the fact that a traditional European tale has been trashed).
I want to know why on practicality every British TV advert we have a Mixed race family ? What is all this propaganda about ITV Channel 4 Channel 5. This is pure anti whiteism against the British population and insults intelligence. This is NOT a racist tweet just a question?
A reader of my blog who lives in Argentina writes recently by way of comment:
“Yes, Ian, I remember reading it [the article above]. Very good, as usual.
Strangely enough, Mark Collett made a video showing that some of the biggest retailers in the UK modified their diversity-driven Christmas’ ads last December as a consequence of negative comments they got from customers over the 2018 Christmas campaign that was full of blacks and browns.
Having said that, the majority of whites in the UK, like those in Australia or the US, are brainwashed idiots unwilling to react. I think it is a sign of the times.
Regarding that English Civil War memorial [in Worcester] vandalized by the BLM crowd, I agree with you. The brainless morons must have believed that it was about the US Civil War, showing their colossal ignorance, but what can you expect from riff-raff like that? That is “progressive” (Marxist) education for you.“
Update, 14 January 2026
Hey @Grok is this real ad from Denmark? What is he saying in this video. Translate in full to English please.
They have gaslit us with the alternative definition of “whitewashing” for so long, yet it’s actually making US and OUR history disappear and made a mockery of! https://t.co/H27ixP6HDy
I came late to the Kate Osamor party. I had vaguely heard the name. One of the blacks that Jeremy Corbyn considers are worthy of ministerial office (though until Corbyn-Labour’s electoral success, only shadow-ministerial). The newspaper stories about “MP’s son charged with drug dealing” etc caught my eye only peripherally. In the past week, however, the trickles and leaks increased to a flood, as the dam burst.
The facts:
Kate Osamor was elected for the very safe Labour seat of Edmonton in 2015;
Kate Osamor MP employed her son, one Ish [Ishmael] Osamor, now 29, in her Parliamentary office, on a salary believed to be between £40,000 and £50,000;
“Ish” Osamor’s job is as Senior Communications Officer (get that— “Senior“…);
Kate Osamor’s total staffing costs for her office were over £145,000 in 2017-2018 (for? Unspecified. Another family member? Uncle Remus? We do not know);
Ishmael Osamor was, before sentence, a councillor in the Borough of Haringey (which is not a completely unpaid post: many councillors get generous expenses as well as an “allowance” which in some cases can be tens of thousands of pounds per year); in fact, “Ish” Osamor was a “Cabinet member” of the council, which means that he got extra money, probably a fairly generous “allowance” amounting to a salary;
Ishmael Osamor was arrested and charged with the drug supply offences in September 2017, before he was elected as a councillor! Banana republic UK! Words fail…;
Ishmael Osamor was convicted in September 2018 of possession of drugs with intent to supply and received the (to many, ludicrously lenient) sentence of 200 hours of “community service” (picking up litter etc), and £400 costs; even the sentencing judge said that 3-4 years imprisonment “would be the usual sentence”…;
Kate Osamor wrote to the trial judge in September 2018 requesting leniency for her convicted son; she claimed more recently that she had no idea until a week ago that her son was even on trial! In other words, she lied straight out;
Kate Osamor was doorstepped by a reporter from The Times; she responded by telling him that she “should have come down here with a bat and smashed your face in”, followed by “fuck off”. She then threw a bucket of water over him and made a malicious complaint of stalking against him to the local police;
Kate Osamor finally resigned as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development;
Latest news is that she intends to stay on as MP, and that her son is still en poste as “Senior Communications Officer”;
Kate Osamor repeatedly tried to edit and censor her Wikipedia page, as a result of which Wikipedia barred her from editing;
In other Osamor family news, Kate Osamor’s mother has just been elevated to the joke “peerage” as a “baroness” in the House of Lords! She was nominated by Jeremy Corbyn on behalf of the Labour Party.
The Kate Osamor Scandal: Wider Issues Arising
I have often tweeted (before Twitter expelled me at the behest of the Zionist cabal) and blogged about the poor quality of MPs (and “peers” for that matter) now. I often wonder just how low the quality-level can fall. Parliament always had on its benches (especially the green-leather ones) a few frauds, mountebanks and charlatans, from Horatio Bottomley on (before him, too). However, the bulk of MPs used to be at least decently mediocre, with a few genuine stars here and there. The Commons is now full of people who not only would find it hard to have a decent career or job outside, but in many cases have proven that!
Let us look at this case (to examine all the deadheads in the Commons —and now the Lords— would take far too long). There are also numerous MPs who have abused the expenses system, in effect defrauded the people: Nadine Dorries and Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, to name just two. Smith claimed for his wife’s “salary” for years even though she never turned up to do a day’s work! Nadine Dorries claimed for the maximum she could at all times and even made faked claims for a generous “salary” for her effectively unqualified two daughters, one of whom also lived in a rented luxury apartment paid for out of Nadine Dorries’ expenses and supposedly for the MP’s use! This blog post is, however, not the place for all that.
It appears from Wikipedia etc that Kate Osamor was born in 1968 and, after having read “Third World Studies” at West Ham Technical Institute (renamed Polytechnic of East London in 1989 and, since 1992, the University of East London), “worked for The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people.[9] She then worked for 15 years in the NHS; she was a GP practice manager before becoming an MP.” [Wikipedia].
If that is true, she worked in the NHS from 2000-2015. [edited October 2019:Wikipedia now says that Kate Osamor was studying from 2003, graduating in 2006]. So she spent 11 years at the Big Issue? Or was she breeding in those years? We do not know.
[Update, 12 December 2018: a more recent edit of Kate Osamor’s Wikipedia entry says that in fact she was a practice manager for only 2 years, and some kind of “executive assistant” or clerk for 9 years, making 11, rather than 15, years in toto in the NHS. So that leaves 15 years unaccounted for…].
[The chronology of Kate Osamor’s life, and especially her work background, seems very unclear, on the face of it. Suspicious?]
Now, what about Kate Osamor’s mother, the recently-elevated “baroness”? She seems to have spent her time in the UK (having arrived, age unspecified, from her native Nigeria) agitating for what amounts to black power (eg defending those charged with the savage Broadwater Farm riots) and based in a law centre in the Haringey area. Well, not all her time: she also produced several children. Now she styles herself “Martha, Baroness Osamor, of Tottenham in the London Borough of Haringey, and of Asaba in the Republic of Nigeria.” Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, it is said. That is what UK society now is— mad.
Let’s not forget “Ish” Osamor. I have no idea what kind of academic or work background he may have, but I doubt that it all amounts to very much, and he has been “working” for his mother in Westminster, we are told, since 2015, when he would have been 25 or 26. £40,000 or even £50,000 p.a.: not bad for a twenty-something with, as it seems, little or no experience of any work.
We are talking about the legislature of what is still one of the most important countries of the world. It is now packed with completely unqualified, uncultured, unsuitable rubbish.
The Effect on Labour Party Electoral Chances
“Corbyn is always surrounded by a pack of black or brown women.” So I have heard here and there. That does mirror what is or has been my impression. The Jews, at least most of them, hate Corbyn because he is anti-Zionist (“they” say he is “anti-Semitic”), whereas I favour his anti-Zionism, though it is weakened by his lip-service re. the “holocaust” fable and his unwillingess to come right out against the Jewish Zionist lobby in the UK.
On the other hand, it is clear that Corbyn’s core support comes from the “blacks and browns” and also from those who could be described as “politically-correct” and/or those whose ideology could be described by the title of the 1920s pamphlet “Left-wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder” [which can also be translated as the slightly different-meaning “…a Disease of Childhood”, but no matter].
On Twitter, there have been thousands of tweets supporting Kate Osamor and many urging her return to the Shadow Cabinet! All the idiots such as faux-revolutionary Owen Jones are supporting her, because they say that a drugs offence is a minor matter, that her lies etc (not to mention nepotism) are not worthy of criticism and that she had every right to tell a reporter to “fuck off”, or to say that she should be bashing in his head with a bat, and to throw water on him. Well, I myself dislike today’s so-called “journalists”, after having been doorstepped by the Daily Mail in 2016 the day after the Jew-Zionists procured my disbarment, but I just told the little round-skulled creature to get lost. He did.
The point is that the Owen Jones’s of this world will accept almost everything that a pseudo-socialist black woman MP does, because her identity makes her immune.
I expect that the bulk of the Corbyn-Labour ranks will support Kate Osamor and the others like her around Corbyn. One thinks of Dawn Butler and, a fortiori, Diane Abbott. However, beyond right-on Twitter, beyond the Westminster bubble, beyond London, there are millions and millions of people, especially white English and Welsh and Irish people (some Scots too; as to the rest, is it something in the water? The Scots have their faux-nationalist SNP as a security blanket, I suppose) who look at these deadheads around Corbyn and think “wait a moment…I want rid of the Conservative Party, but Labour is as alien in its own way, maybe more alien…”.
The ethnic minority women (mainly women, but not entirely: Clive Lewis MP –etc– too, and he supports Kate Osamor…of course…) around Corbyn must be worth a million votes —maybe each!— to the Conservatives. They are a major millstone round the neck of Labour, electorally. True, there are others, not black or brown, who are also completely unsuitable, such as Angela Rayner. I am talking about the overall impression given to the voters. It is not good.
I still think that Labour has a good chance of becoming the major party in the Commons after a general election in 2019, though without a majority. Labour has little chance of a majority however unpopular the Conservatives are, because of the way the 650 constituencies are composed. After 2022, the cut-down Commons of 600 constituencies will make a Labour majority even less likely. Hung Parliaments may well be the norm now. That makes social nationalist growth a good possibility.
I think that, especially as white English/British people, we have to look seriously now at Parliament as it is, and those in it, and consider whether it can be reformed, or whether it needs to be removed in its present form and content.
“It can not of been easy“? I hope that no reader of this blog is so ill-educated as to require the correction (“it cannothave been easy”). What is genuinely frightening is that nonsense people such as Kate Osamor (with or without drugdealing, freeloading sons or uncles Remus) might be ruling us within a few years, or even a few months. I suppose that it is unlikely that Kate Osamor will very soon now resume her position as a member of the Shadow Cabinet, but just consider how far into the pit Labour (and we, as a nation) have fallen, that this ignorant, semi-literate, foul-mouthed, violent and drug-connected (not to mention non-European) woman was ever considered to be suitable to occupy a place in the Shadow Cabinet! Such individuals should not even be MPs!
The “useful idiots” in academia etc are still supporting Kate Osamor! Look at this one, a white woman (or “he/she”?) , a “Research Support Officer” at a UK university, but who seems not only to be obsessed by blacks and their supposed merits, but who, in her Twitter profile, describes herself as a “Black Atlanticist”!
@KateOsamor is a hero of the grandest proportions. Shame on those that would condemn her for continuing to occupy a council property (as is her right). My grandparents’ generation was able to thrive thanks to social housing. We need to build more to ensure sustainable futures.
Leave aside the social housing point, but “a hero of the greatest proportions”? I say that “those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”…the UK?
“Idle Thoughts of An Idle Fellow”…
Is Kate Osamor on good terms with fellow black Labour MP Fiona Onasanya? Did Fiona ever buy her stuff from “Ish”?
“Ish” Osamor has now vowed to become an “anti-drugs” campaigner! Hey, clever move! That could be a “nice little earner”! It might even develop into a quango/taxpayer-funded career…What clever little [n******] “Ish” and his freeloading mama, Kate, are!
Well, we now know that the House of Commons is not going to be cut down to 600 MPs, not in time for the expected 2024 General Election anyway.
At date of writing, Kate Osamor is still a Labour Party MP, though her chances of higher office are now minimal. Corbyn is gone, and has even been deselected as Labour candidate for Islington, and Keir Starmer will not appoint Kate Osamor to anything even if Labour does triumph in 2024.
Update, 20 September 2025
Well, she is still there, still pulling it in via pay, expenses, freebies etc:
Ian Robert Millard 