For those who have never heard of her, Jo Brand is a terminally unfunny comedienne, the sort of artiste the BBC have specialized in for the past 20-30 years.
Jo Brand is highly political and supports the Labour Party.
Recently, Jo Brand made comments that she excused later as “a joke”, to the effect that Nigel Farage and other basically (even mildly) nationalist political candidates should have acid thrown over them. Wikipedia has the following description of the matter:
“In June 2019, Brand was featured in the BBC Radio 4 comedy show Heresy, after a number of European election candidates had been doused with milkshakes during campaign walkabouts the previous month. Brand said “Why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?” She later added: “That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milk shakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.”[32] The BBC later defended Brand, explaining “the jokes made on Heresy are deliberately provocative as the title implies” and that they were “not intended to be taken seriously.”[33] Acting Prime Minister Theresa May said the BBC should explain why a Jo Brand joke about throwing battery acid was “appropriate content” for broadcast[34] and the BBC later announced that the remark would be edited out of any future broadcasts. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that it had “received an allegation of incitement to violence that was reported to the MPS on 13 June”.[35] and that they were investigating the matter.[36][37] Appearing at an event in Henley, Oxfordshire, on the same day, the comedian was said to have apologised for making the joke, saying “Looking back it probably was somewhat a crass and ill-judged joke that might upset people.” It was understood that the allegation reported to the police was not made by Nigel Farage or the Brexit Party. Ofcom said it has received 65 complaints about the episode of Heresy.[38] The police dropped the investigation two days later.” [Wikipedia]
Jo Brand was talking (no doubt well-paid for it too) on a BBC radio show hosted by the Jewess Victoria Coren.
Afterwards, the BBC removed the clip from public access. The Jew comic David Baddiel (the show’s “creator”, again no doubt very well paid for all of this degenerate nonsense) said that the BBC was “cowardly” in removing the comments.
Strangely enough, Baddiel is often heard complaining about jokes….about Jews.
Jo Brand is obviously a disgusting woman (I thought that a long time prior to the recent “joke” and still think it). Britain is in the midst of a spate of horrible acid (and strong alkali) attacks, in which victims have been killed or seriously injured and/or disfigured for life by criminal attackers.
These types of attack were unknown until mass immigration destroyed Britain. Even the massaged statistics of the System say that white people (still the large majority of the population) only perpetrated about 30% of the attacks; non-whites, despite being only a minority of the population, perpetrated 70% of such attacks. White people (i.e. real British people) were the victims in about 50% of cases. This type of crime has been imported from other parts of the world, and the UK courts are only now, belatedly, starting to hand down suitably condign sentences.
Coming back to the repulsive Jo Brand, she thinks that throwing milkshakes over political opponents is “just pathetic”, by which she plainly means that the attacks do not hurt or damage enough. How could someone with her attitudes ever have been a psychiatric nurse, as she is said to have been for a decade?
In fact, the “milkshakes” (which are mostly not even milk-based but are a glutinous mixture sold to the masses by McDonalds and the like), do considerable damage to clothing, and more importantly are an affront to the victim’s dignity and rights as human being and as citizen. Which, of course, is why the perpetrators do it. The attackers are always smug, narcissistic “me too” types like Jo Brand. They are always Remain whiners, always pro-mass immigration, and usually have jobs in the mass media or public services (when not students).
To imply, as Jo Brand does, that to throw a fast-food “milk”-shake over someone is nothing, and by no means painful enough, is to incite violence for political motives. There is no other explanation for it.
As to Brand’s “apology”, designed as a fig leaf so that BBC etc can carry on giving her (via her tax-dodging private company) licence-payers’ money so that she can carry on boring and repelling the public, it carries no weight whatever. Would any “ordinary” (in fact, far more valuable) citizen be let off so easily by the police on the plea that “I only said that acid should be thrown because I was joking”? I think not.
Let us look at a few people whom the police or professional bodies have not let off for making remarks, or for singing amusing songs etc:
Alison Chabloz sang amusing satirical songs about, inter alia, the many proven “holocaust” fakes.
She was prosecuted and eventually convicted, though is appealing her conviction and sentence; see
Jez Turner made a humorous speech in Whitehall in 2015, during which he suggested that Jews should be (again) ejected from the UK. Prosecuted in 2018 and actually imprisoned (!) for a year (released on licence after 6 months);
Vlogger Mark Meechan, aka “Count Dankula”, was convicted in Scotland of having taught his pug dog to give the “Hitler” salute, then posting the film online. Fined £800 and refused permission (needed in Scotland) to appeal; the fact that I regard him (and other “alt-right” vloggers) as complete wastes of space does not change the fact that he should never have been prosecuted;
I myself was questioned by the police after politically-motivated Jews complained that tweets I was said to have posted were “grossly offensive” (they could not bag me, though, and I continue to post as I see fit, though not on Twitter: the Jews managed to procure my expulsion from that platform); in a related case, effectively the same pack of Jews (though notionally different because using a different organizational name), had me disbarred
The Jo Brand case is another item in the indictment against the BBC, the degenerate msm milieu in general (cf. the Gove confession) and UK society today. There must be, some day soon, a chistka or purge (a “cultural revolution”, if you like) to destroy msm degeneracy and its practitioners and profiteers, to wipe out evil of this kind and restore European culture to TV, radio, Press and book publishing. Online too.
In the meantime, I wait to see whether Jo Brand herself will be confronted by a milkshake. I wonder whether, in that event, she will see the “joke”?
News reports and what people have been saying
First, a half-hearted defence of Jo Brand from (yet another) Jewess, this time in The Guardian:
and here [below] is the Jew Baddiel defending Jo Brand (and of course his show, from which he makes yet more money from the BBC…and as he will, no doubt, in future); but where was he when my free speech was trashed? Where was he when Alison Chabloz was persecuted and prosecuted for singing songs?
“I am suspicious of outrage, because I think, ‘are you really outraged? Are you really stomping about in your house furious, or are you just wanting to be heard on social media?’” – Comedian David @Baddiel on the reaction to Jo Brand's battery acid joke.#newsnightpic.twitter.com/SpT7IGJsAw
…and (what a shock) here is Ricky Gervais, another one who has never stood up for Alison Chabloz etc (though admittedly he did so for the waste of space “Count Dankula”, and his silly saluting dog film….); and, on another but not directly relevant point, I do like his support for animal welfare etc.
It's obvious to me that Jo Brand would never actually throw battery acid on anyone. It's even more obvious that she would never waste any of her fucking milkshake.
Yet another System-subsidized “humorist” (apparently— I’ve never heard of the idiot) below:
"Can you imagine the reaction if I had said the same thing as Jo Brand?" says Nigel Farage, a non-comedian who has non-jokingly endorsed the use of rifles in front of non-joking crowds in non-joking rooms full of non-joking people who non-jokingly defend rape jokes.
That one [above] seems to ignore the fact that both milkshake and acid attacks occur all too often; semi-conservative politicians like Nigel Farage are in fact not “picking up rifles”.
Here’s another one, Gyles Brandreth , defending Jo Brand. Funny how these bastards all make large amounts of money from the BBC…
Talk about over-reaction! Jo Brand is a big-hearted & brilliant person – and her joke was OBVIOUSLY a joke. (I heard it at the time.) https://t.co/DdmsSTr1k0
…and [below] yet another defender of Jo Brand: Jew, atheist, gay, and…yes, as expected (I had to look up the bastard on Wikipedia) another who makes his income from BBC work. The BBC is now a corrupt mess and should be dropped down a black hole.
And here is another member of the London msm club, Adam Boulton, of Sky News. Strange, I must have missed his defence of, say, Alison Chabloz and her songs (or, for that matter, his defence of my tweets of years ago). That’s right, Adam Boulton did not defend freedom of expression. “They” would not have approved…
No. Jo Brand is a decent and funny woman. She miscued with the way she expressed herself and has apologised. She was not trying to advocate violence just as Danny Baker had no racist intention. Try not being so priggish. We all make mistakes and pay the price. https://t.co/vDl1XPA0NF
[Update, 4 September 2020. Seems that I was wrong; the BBC has now thrown a few crumbs her way: “In 2020, she and fellow comedian Fern Brady started a podcast for the BBC called Wheel of Misfortune, which is obviously based in [sic] the Wheel of Fortune.” [Wikipedia]]
“Count Dankula”/Mark Meechan [below] exposes the hypocrisy of those who defend Jo Brand but not, er, him! Fair enough, but where were you, Mr. Meechan, when Alison Chabloz was facing persecution and prosecution? Where were you, on your precious “social media”, when I myself was traduced in the msm? Nowhere. So that’s where you are and will stay: nowhere!
I'm honestly really enjoying all the hypocrisy coming from people who came after me but are defending Jo Brand.
"Jo is a comedian and free speech in comedy is important"
"What about Dankula?"
"Well you see that's different because *verbal diarrhea*"
This one (below) apparently reviews newspapers on Sky News sometimes. Seems that she cannot reach even their usual low standards, never having heard (it seems) of Alison Chabloz, Mark Meechan, or the fellow whose family was subjected to a police raid because they made a joking remark about a Guy Fawkes bonfire in their own garden. Or are edgy “jokes” OK unless they mention Jews and Gypsies?
Here, below, the columnist Allison Pearson answers the tweet of Jew Zionist scribbler Hugo Rifkind:
I don’t mind what Jo Brand said. I do mind that the double standard is: Leftwing makes nasty remark: oh, free speech, no one cares Rightwing does same: Hate speech! Sinister! Fascist! Get them sacked. https://t.co/aoPK8m278p
In fact, it seems that a great number of people do not approve of the so-called “joke” by Jo Brand (the bitch wouldn’t know a joke if it splattered all over her…). Strangely enough, few if any of her critics make money out of the BBC…
Here is the moment Jo Brand mocked Carl Benjamin for making an offensive joke promoting a police investigation. "I think it shocking that politics has been reduced to vile personal attacks" she added. pic.twitter.com/0E9xthuvjc
I just think #jobrand and others who inhabit these right-on patronising middle class circles and say things just to get cheap laughs from their metropolitan elite pals, should think about what they are saying and maybe realise ‘it’s not all about them’https://t.co/mYQgwePD0h
and here’s another BBC hypocrite: Jimmy Carr. Makes millions (literally) from the BBC and other msm, was exposed as a tax-dodger in 2012, but tries to pose as both somehow “radical” and as terribly “edgy”.
Here’s another example of Jimmy Carr humour, laughing at British service personnel who have been badly-injured:
“In October 2009, Carr received criticism from several Sunday tabloid newspapers for a joke he made about British soldiers who had lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that the UK would have a strong team in the London 2012 Paralympic Games.[34] Carr defended his own joke as “totally acceptable” in an interview with The Guardian.”
[Wikipedia]
Why is he still around? The little bastard only jokes at the expense of those who cannot fight back. Why has no serving soldier or ex-military person *explained* the matter to Jimmy Carr?
Alexander Nekrassov not mincing his words! Go, Sasha!
Jokes aside that ugly leftist cunt #JoBrand did incite hatred against Farage and his party. Mind you, the whole #BBC network incites hatred daily against whites, conservatives, followers of 3 major faiths, normality, sanity and common sense. Disgusting cesspit of far-left filth.
— Alexander Nekrassov (@StirringTrouble) June 13, 2019
Nekrassov with another point which applies not only to Jo Brand but a hundred or more others:
A stray thought: does Jo Brand fantasize about acid being thrown on people she dislikes, or with whom she disagrees, because her own face already looks as though acid has been thrown on it?
Below, rent-a-mouth BBC ignoramus James O’Brien defends disgusting Jo Brand. Apparently, it’s OK to “joke” about Nigel Farage having battery acid thrown at him, because “it was on a comedy show”. Funny, I never saw O’Brien and his type stand up for Alison Chabloz and her comedic songs…Must be that it’s OK to joke about acid being thrown —on a named person who has already had other stuff thrown on him recently— but not OK to lampoon the proven Jewish frauds and fakes of the “holocaust” mythus…(we really are just “occupied” in this poor country…)
[Update, 4 November 2021: Looks as though the BBC had O’Brien delete his tweet. No surprise there; I would only be surprised had O’Brien the courage of his convictions].
…and now look at who’s looking for trouble!
Tim so you are clear. I would pour whatever I can get my hands on, on an avowed White Supremacist. My ancestors died fighting this shit. I don’t give two bloody hoots what your apologist arse thinks about it. (that’s me being polite) You lay down with dogs you get fleas. https://t.co/njmNNmzq8p
His ancestors “died fighting” what he is pleased to call “this shit” (meaning white civilization), he says. Thus speaks David Lammy MP, barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, to which I myself belonged before the Jew Zionist cabals procured my disbarment in 2016, an injustice no doubt applauded by barrister Lammy (he only practised actively at the Bar for a few years, and at a very low level, doing the simplest criminal cases).
When did his “ancestors” “die fighting”? In African tribal wars, or attacking the police at the 1980s Broadwater Farm riots; or in more recent gang activity? I do not know the bastard’s background in detail, so cannot guess. Lammy seems to want a fight himself, judging by the inflammatory nature of his tweets. He obviously has a violent nature. In fact he supports corporal punishment too. He is out of place in the UK, in Europe.
I think that at one time Lammy hoped to become the first black Attorney-General, but was beaten to it by Patricia Scotland (who was rubbish, and went on on to be rubbish at the Commonwealth Secretariat as well, but that is another issue). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Scotland#Expenses_controversy . The price of so-called “diversity”? Labour’s travails since 2009 and his own odd behaviour seem to have put paid to Lammy’s ministerial ambitions. He was (briefly) a Minister of State (non-Cabinet) under crazed bully and psycho case Gordon Brown, but now is just a backbencher and will stay one. Still, not a bad little earner for someone whose huge ignorance is regularly highlighted.
One has to question whether a society like that of the UK can survive, when its key and/or prestige institutions prefer such as David Lammy to someone like me, when the BBC and its highly-paid drones pay lip-service to incitement to horrific violence, and when those guilty have mostly so far got away without having been taken down.
Cowardly #JoBrand moves from encouraging people to post shit through letterboxes to #acidattacks – literally & legally terrorism, but don't expect PC Plod to lift a finger. If it makes you angry, stop paying the #BBC licence fee!https://t.co/7ANhESvxee
Never say never: cretinous “diversity hire” David Lammy is now Foreign Secretary! What an insult to the white people who built this country! He is a total idiot, and totally ignorant. Just a puppet on a stick, marked “diversity”.
Well, I got it wrong vis a vis the headline result. I thought that the Brexit Party would win and indeed enjoy a near-walkover. In the event, Brexit Party had to accept a close 2nd place. As the Americans are supposed to say, “close but no cigar”.
The result of the Peterborough by-election
The result was:
Labour 10,484 votes, a vote share of 31% (down from 48% in 2017);
Brexit Party 9,801 (29%);
Conservative Party 7,243 (21%, down from 46% in 2017);
LibDems 4,159;
Green 1,035;
UKIP 400.
All others, nine in number, received fewer than 200 votes each, most below 100.
In retrospect, my own prediction was badly misled by the betting (which even on the day showed Brexit Party as very heavily odds-on) and by the large and impressive meetings Farage held in the city (one with 2,000 in the auditorium).
I was right about the Conservatives coming third and the LibDems in fourth etc. Still, irritating to have misread the main contest, close as it was. No cigar for me, either.
Why did Brexit Party lose at Peterborough?
In my previous blogging on the specific subject of this by-election, and on other topics, I have made the point that the UK now has cities (including London) where the white population (let alone the British white population) is less than 50%. Peterborough still has, supposedly, about 80% white population, but at least 10% are from other parts of Europe. The white British part of the population is below 70% of the whole, possibly as low as 60%.
There is also the point that the city and constituency are not delineated the same; part of the city is not within the constituency.
When a city has more than a token non-white presence, a nationalist party of any kind will struggle to win elections there, and that applies even if (as is the case with Brexit Party) the party is not social-national, has no racial or ethnic principles or policies, and even if (as with Brexit Party) some of its actual candidates are black or brown.
It is not only that, in general, the “blacks and browns” will not vote for even a mildly (and notionally) “patriotic” party such as Brexit Party (let alone a social-national party) because they fear that party. The point is that the vast majority of ethnic minority voters have little or no real connection with Britain, its society, its history, its culture etc. They are, in a word, alien to Britain. Look at how even those adhering to the far-longer-standing Jewish community are always “threatening” (“promising”?) to flee from the UK if their demands are not met. They are not really rooted here; the roots of the “blacks and browns” are shallower yet.
Thus, in Peterborough, one can surmise that few blacks, Muslims etc voted Brexit Party. Why should they? Why would they? Brexit Party is hardly the British National Party. It offers no implied threat to the minorities, but it is broadly conservative-nationalist in ethos, and that is enough for the ethnic minorities to vote elsewhere, mainly for Labour.
I have been blogging and tweeting for several years about how the UK part of the “Great Replacement” (of whites by non-whites) means that elections become a no-win situation in much of the UK. That was true, for example, in the Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency in 2017. In the by-election of that year, Gareth Snell, a spotty unpleasant Twitter troll, was the Labour candidate. Paul Nuttall stood for UKIP. Snell beat Nuttall, Labour beat UKIP, by only 2,620 votes. The Pakistani Muslim community locally, numbering over 6,000, almost all (always) vote Labour, a cohesion enforced by dodgy postal ballots and “community” exhortations (eg in local mosques) to vote Labour. Local Muslims 6,000+, Labour majority 2,620…
In other words, without those 6,000 or more Muslims (and others), Nuttall and UKIP would have won Stoke-on-Trent Central easily. As it was, UKIP faded and, at the General Election of 2017, Labour won again, against the Conservatives in 2nd place. Labour won by 3,897 votes. Point made, I think.
Now look at Peterborough. The postal votes were very high (who knows who really fills in the forms?) but even leaving that aside, we see that Brexit Party lost to Labour by 683, in a constituency where the non-European ethnic minorities number perhaps as many as 20,000. “It was the w**s wot won it!”, to paraphrase the famous Sun headline of 1992.
Non-white ethnic minority population in the constituency—10,000-20,000. Votes for Labour in the by-election—10,484
In fact, Labour only won Peterborough by 607 votes at the 2017 General Election, thus propelling useless African ex-“solicitor” Fiona Onasanya into Parliament.
The Future
Labour is, as I have often noted before, now the party, in terms of core vote, of the ethnic minorities (excluding Jews), of the metropolitan “socially liberal” types, of public service workers or officials. The real hard core is mainly the blacks and browns, and the public service people. Labour struggles to win votes wider than that core. Labour won Peterborough in the by-election on a vote-share of only 31%.
Brexit Party has suffered a bad blow. Had it won at Peterborough, its momentum would have carried on. Now, its future seems unclear. It may continue and may yet win seats, but Peterborough was a very good chance despite the ethnic minority vote, and Brexit Party fluffed it.
The LibDems almost quadrupled their 2017 3.3% vote to about 12%, but are still well behind the 2010 days of “Cleggmania”, in which they scored nearly 20% at Peterborough. My opinion? There will be no LibDem revival, at least not on a big scale. Most voters are getting angry. “Centrism” is not the flavour of the times.
The Conservatives were the big losers, as in the EU elections. They achieved what might be regarded as, had it been elsewhere, a respectable 3rd place on a vote-share of 21%, 7,243 votes, only 3,000 or so behind the Labour victor; but Peterborough has mainly been a Conservative seat since 1945. It had a Conservative MP as recently as 2 years ago.
If this result were to be replicated nationwide, there would be little left of the Conservative bloc in the House of Commons. Seats would fall either to Brexit Party, or to Labour (or in a few cases, to LibDems).
Final words
Strategically, a Brexit Party win would have been my preference, in that, down the line, it would expedite the break-up of the “LibLabCon” “three main parties” scam. Having said that, the Conservatives were rightly cast down, while at least the Labour MP elected seems to be to some extent against the Jewish Zionists (though pretty invertebrate when “challenged” on that).
Below, illustrating my point that Labour’s core vote is now “the blacks and browns”
Brilliant canvassing sessions in Peterborough for our fantastic @UKLabour candidate @LisaForbes_ with colleagues from Peterborough and our extended #LabourFamily
In 2008, Labour activist Tariq Mahmood was jailed for trying to rig an election in Peterborough with postal votes. Here he is last night wearing a Labour rosette at the Peterborough by-election count, and he's been photographed with their candidate @LisaForbes_. Very disturbing!
Well, here we are on 6 June 2019. Peterborough by-election day, but also the 75th commemoration of the Normandy Landings, aka D-Day. There has been wall-to-wall coverage on BBC News, ITV News and Sky News.
Preamble
This is not the place in which to discuss whether the Second World War could have been avoided (on the Western Front, in Western Europe generally; I think that it could have been). This is not the place in which to discuss whether the British Empire and the German Reich could have concluded an honourable armistice after the Fall of France (I think that they might have done; Germany made about ten separate offers).
It is important to note that these anniversaries are made use of by the Jewish Zionist element. Which is partly why they are pushed so hard on TV. Another chance to remind the masses about “the Nazis”, about how bad they supposedly were, and about how “necessary” it was to declare war on Germany, and eventually to defeat “the Nazis” (and so, Germany).
My own father was too young to be in the armed forces for much of WW2, though he was, near the end of the war, recruited by lot as a “Bevin Boy” (he was born and brought up in County Durham), and worked both in coal mining and later a shipyard (after the war, he became a professional footballer). Ironically, that service, far from the front lines of the war, killed him about 70 years later (via exposure to asbestos in a shipyard).
My maternal grandfather served as a soldier throughout WW2 and was both at Dunkirk and, rather later, in Burma.
Overview of my outlook re. the Second World War
My view of the war, even leaving aside my general sympathy with National Socialism in terms of ideology and aspiration, is that, on the Western Front, it need not have happened and should not have happened. I believe the same about the First World War, incidentally.
More
Born in 1956, I was brought up, as people were then, with “the War” as a constant backdrop. My grandfather talked scarcely at all about his war service with the British Expeditionary Force in 1939-40, or with the Army in Burma for much of the rest of the war, though it affected his health. He did give the odd bit of advice when I, aged maybe 7 or 8, was laying out my little Airfix plastic soldiers (various armies, but including, I think, German, British Eighth Army, Japanese and US Marines). I remember a couple of his comments, such as that patrolling soldiers should always be following one another in a line if in jungle, never abreast.
Had my grandfather not already been in uniform by reason of having been in the Territorial Army in 1939, he might never have served actively in the war at all, being at the time 38 or 39 years old (the usual cut-off age was 41). That’s Fate…
As mentioned above, people of my age who were brought up in the 1950s and 1960s always had “the War” there, around, like the woodsmoke and burning leaf smell of autumn in those days. The Germans were regarded by children of my age as honourable enemies (unlike the Japanese) and not some force of malign and almost cosmic evil, as the Jews try to make out now.
The Jewish “holocaust” propaganda and historical distortion that is now pervasive had not then really started in a big way. Also, the unspoken narrative was that Britain had suffered and struggled and “won the war”. The —in fact, overwhelming— input of the USA and the Soviet Union was popularly regarded (not only by children) as being at best no more (even taken together!) than that of the UK.
Churchill (as myth) hung over the scene like a Mount Rushmore presidential sculpture or —with apology to Jane Russell— like a thundercloud, only equalled by the leader of the “German hordes”, Hitler.
The UK at that time (1960s) was still basically homogenous racially, certainly outside London or some port cities. In places like Reading, where I was born, and on the edge of which I lived until age 10 (my family was then in Sydney for 3 years), there were few blacks and browns (in fact, barring a family of Anglo-Indians whom we knew, there were almost none). The only black I recall seeing in England in the early/mid 1960s was the NHS consultant at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading who treated me for hearing impairment at age 7 or 8. He was from somewhere in the Caribbean. The country was then still a nation. The various war anniversaries were just part of the landscape, along with Trooping of the Colour, the Royal Tournament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tournament), the University Boat Race, Ascot, the Queen etc.
Today
Today, the UK is split and fissured racially, ethnically, economically, ideologically. It is scarcely a nation at all.
Today, with the “D-Day” ceremonies, the old Establishment or old Britain had its day in the sun: the unthinking royalists, the BBC and other msm, the remnants of the British armed forces (both of WW2 vintage and from today’s depleted armed services).
Though today’s ceremonies were in similar format to those of the past, there was, despite the wall-to-wall BBC/ITV/Sky news coverage, an end of the season feel. I wondered how many millions were really watching the seemingly endless TV.
I very much doubt that any but a tiny percentage of the ethnic minorities watched the shows today. Fewer will have understood the background even in the cartoon form presented by the TV people (Good v. Evil etc).
I would be prepared to bet that less than 1% of the population under 25 years of age watched more than a minute or two of the news coverage about the ceremonies in England and France. Same applies to most persons of non-European origin.
What we see here are two UKs: there is
the official, Establishment UK, together with the msm and the Jewish Zionist element (who latch onto anything “Second World War” as an opportunity to re-demonize National Socialist Germany); and the few now very elderly people who were at least in their teens in 1944; and there is also
the real UK, which is vastly more numerous and mostly has no interest in what happened in 1944.
In fact, it occurs to me that that division (between those who regard today’s ceremonies as hugely important, and those who regard them as of no interest or importance) reflects the change in UK society, and also that in UK politics. There is a chasm between what, say, the BBC or Sky think important, and what the bulk of the public think. A difference of orientation, of what is in the emotional life and which will eventually change political life.
As I write, Trooping of the Colour, held today, is not trending on Twitter (not that Twitter is the world) anything like as much as the Michael Gove cocaine scandal. Point made, I think. These events (Trooping of the Colour, WW2/WW1 anniversaries etc) have some significance for the elderly, perhaps to some extent for those who (like me, aged 62) prefer not to think of themselves as elderly quite yet; for some (a minority) of white (i.e. real) British/English people, but not at all for the “broad masses” and certainly not, speaking in group terms, for the ethnic minorities.
Yet the System is still trying to interest the people in such things. Look at this tweet by Tom Newton Dunn of the Sun “newspaper” [below]: May Bank Holiday changed date next year.
Excl: Next year's May Day bank holiday being moved to Friday so the whole nation gets the day off to mark 75th anniversary of VE Day – May 8, 1945https://t.co/2DSAnSfiPb
The fact is, that moving a one-day holiday to a different date is not going to have much if any impact on the public, whatever amount of “news coverage” (propaganda) is pumped out. It just does not now have much emotional impact on most people in the UK, not even those of (real) British origin (and let’s not pretend that the Africans, West Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese etc in the UK are somehow at one with the descendants of the Huguenots or those of long-ago Viking/Norman origin etc…).
As the Second World War recedes in memory and time, these commemorations become ever less relevant. The Jewish Zionist element has latched onto them in a parasitic way, as a method of pursuing its anti-Third Reich, anti-anti-Semitism message, along with pushing the “holocaust” fable and industry. It has less resonance with every year that passes, though.
It is the measure of the national self delusion still abroad that the question as to whether “D-Day” could be mounted today, in 2019 [see tweet below], could ever be asked!
…”These commemorations allow us reflect. It is a stark reminder of the perils we face if we drop our guard. The haunting question is – could we do it all again?” His article here: https://t.co/iOA1zUmqW9
Tobias Ellwood MP [Con, Bournemouth East] may have reached the exalted rank of Army captain (Royal Greenjackets), but either is ignorant of history, strategy and geopolitics, or (far more likely) is talking in this manner in order to boost the MOD budget. He cannot seriously imagine that Britain could ever mount another Normandy Landings operation! In fairness to Ellwood, he does write:
“But we must not kid ourselves. Pressures on the defence budget since the end of the Cold War have left us with one deployable division of 35,000 personnel who could not fight a sustained campaign without allied support.” [The Sun]
In fact, Britain on its own would have been unable to do “D-Day” even in 1944 without huge American, Canadian (etc) assistance. The very first day, ie “D-Day” itself, airborne soldiers (mainly British, American, and Canadian) numbering 24,000 were dropped into battle. Behind them, the rest of the 150,000-strong assault force.
That of course was not the entirety of Allied forces, which numbered in the millions across the world. The total of engaged participants on all sides has been estimated at 100 millions.
Britain now (as Ellwood writes) has 1 deployable brigade of 35,000. That, leaving aside rear echelon and headquarters contingents of every kind, is pretty much the usable British Army now, though official figures state 81,500 regulars and 27,000 reserves (former TA):
Compare the figures: in 1945, over 3 million (in the Army alone, not including other arms); in 1980, just before the Falklands campaign, 222,000 (mostly regulars, at that); even in 2010, 155,000. Now the Army (regular and reserves) numbers about 108,000 officially and probably greatly fewer in reality. The Army, Navy, Air Force are losing 2,000 men and women a year.
Then there is the lift capacity, by air and sea. Hugely depleted.
The fact is that the UK could not even repeat the Falklands re-invasion today, the British Task Force fleet then consisting of 127 ships, including 43 Royal Navy vessels (the last figure not being the whole of the Royal Navy by any means). Today, the Navy only claims about 74 ships worldwide, and only 31 of those are large combat vessels and submarines (the rest are small vessels such as minesweepers, patrol launches etc).
In 1939, the Navy had over 1,400 ships. That figure did not include supply ships. “By the end of the [Second World] war the Royal Navy comprised over 4,800 ships, and was the second largest fleet in the world” [Wikipedia].
I get the impression that there is a sizeable and entirely ignorant part of the British public (and it seems to include Gavin Williamson MP, until recently Defence Secretary!)…
…which actually believes that the UK could “take on” Russia, or China, or both! I see tweets urging British intervention in Syria, for example. Even in the (madly stupid) British bombing of Libya some years ago, the UK was dependent on French and Italian help.
These delusions have political consequences.
Update, 11 June 2019
Point proven? [see tweet below]. Note how this Bengali woman, Ash Sarkar, persists in saying “we” and “us” and “our” [British], just because she was born in the UK (assuming that she was)… talk about “cultural appropriation”!
At some point, baby boomers are gonna have to stop invoking a war they never fought in. pic.twitter.com/uKFGXB4D8T
Well, the Iranians have seized British-registered ships in the Gulf of Hormuz. Bad boys. Oh, wait…turns out that not one of the officers and crew are British, and anyway this is tit-for-tat because the British seized an Iranian ship at Gibraltar “on suspicion” that it might be breaking the sanctions regime imposed basically by the USA. In fact, this whole incident was caused at root by that idiot Trump having torn up the agreement with the Iranians re. uranium enrichment. Looks like “perfidious Albion” has been superseded by “unreliable Yankee-Doodle”…
The relevant point here is that the UK Foreign Secretary (Jeremy Hunt) is talking about “consequences” for Iran, but in reality all that the UK can do is rattle sabres a little and freeze funds in the City of London. Britain cannot do much in terms of gunboat diplomacy for a very cogent reason— Britain has few gunboats.
UKIP was finished off finally by the 2019 EU elections.
UKIP received a national vote of 3.6%. It lost all of its MEPs.
I was never very taken by UKIP, with its unwillingness to take on the Jewish Zionist element, with its obvious “conservative nationalist” orientation, with its unwillingness to go fully social-national (or even to the extent of Marine le Pen’s Front National), with its multi-ethnic candidate list and Conservative-lite socio-economic policies. However, UKIP was a stepping-stone to a future, and was at least non-System, though aspiring to join the other System parties (rather than defeat them and then annihilate them).
I have blogged since well before 2017, and tweeted (until barred/expelled from Twitter), that UKIP peaked in 2014 and, after having been cheated by FPTP voting at the 2015 General Election, was sliding to irrelevance and oblivion.
My analysis has turned out to be correct. After Nigel Farage left UKIP, it was led, poorly, by others (Diane James, Paul Nuttall, Henry Bolton) before being taken over by Gerard Batten.
Batten is, in my view, UKIP’s best leader since Farage, but has made the mistake of tying UKIP’s precarious fortunes to “Tommy Robinson”, and also to “alt-Right” wastes of space such as “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin), “Prison Planet” (Paul Watson) etc. This was a massive strategic error.
First of all, from my point of view, both Tommy Robinson and the “alt-Right” bad jokes are pro-Jewish, or at least pro-Zionist, pro-Israel. Leaving even that aside and focussing on electoral fundamentals, the UKIP vote relied on nationally-oriented “normal” people, mostly middle-class or working-class (to use somewhat outdated terms). Suddenly, UKIP is associated with Tommy Robinson and thus, by implication, with the tattooed beer-bottle-throwers of the (now defunct) “English Defence League” [EDL]; also with those rather unhealthy-seeming souls of the “alt-Right” vlogging scene, with their extreme “libertarian” views. They always seem to be people who live in darkened rooms with their computer screens, eating fast food and probably drinking carbonated beverages… Once Joe Public associated the likes of those basement-dwellers, and also the EDL-style bottle-throwers and brawlers, with UKIP, UKIP was dead in the water electorally.
True, the NSDAP had the SA, but they were a (more or less) disciplined force, with a command structure, under orders, and guided by both their superiors and political principles.
Tommy Robinson stood for the EU Parliament not as UKIP candidate but as himself, and received c.39,000 votes, though that was a vote-share of only 2.2% [but see Notes, below]. UKIP also contested the North West England election, receiving 3.6% of the votes. The UKIP list for the South West England constituency (which list included “Sargon of Akkad” Carl Benjamin) received a vote of 3.2%.
There is now nowhere for UKIP to go. Its present order of battle includes 29,000 party members (2018 statistic), 1 member of the House of Lords (out of 780), 2 members of the Welsh Assembly (out of 60), and 62 local councillors (out of 20,249).
UKIP cannot even go social-national now, because it has tried to set itself up as non-“racist” etc. Its “conservative nationalism” has been taken over by Farage and Brexit Party. It carries 26 years of baggage. As a party, it is defunct.
I should urge UKIP members who want a real way forward to read my blogs about, for example, creating a social-national base area in England.
UKIP sacked its last leader, Gerald Batten, and is now “led” by someone called Richard Braine [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Braine_(politician)], who has decided not to bother to attend his own party conference because only 450 tickets were sold instead of the expected 900!
What a total deadhead! Apart from anything else, Adolf Hitler’s first public speech was heard by only a handful, and the next, more organized one, attracted an audience of only 70! This Braine fellow (I had not heard of him until today) has no respect for his own loyal members.
UKIP has been washed up for at least 4 years. What surprises me more than anything is that even 450 people were willing to pay out for conference tickets, travel, and maybe hotels, to attend a conference for UKIP, which now stands for precisely nothing and is polling at under 1%.
I am going to blog about all of the significant parties which took part in these recent EU elections, even those that carry little political weight. I start with Change UK [CHUKUP].
Change UK is significant despite carrying little weight, in that its MPs (all ex-Con and Lab defectors, of course) and voters seem to be coming from a “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” direction and thus will be taking votes from other parties, notably Conservatives, as well as Labour and LibDems.
I have blogged previously about Change UK. I wrote in April that it seemed to be washed up almost as soon as it emerged into existence:
I see no reason to alter that view! However, the continued existence of CHUKUP does not mean that its relatively few votes will not have any effect. After all, a vote for CHUKUP is the absence of a vote for LibDems, Conservatives, or even Labour.
As to the EU Elections, Change UK ran a campaign that was a joke even by small-party standards. “Rallies” with audiences of 40, 20, 6, and even, in one place, 2 people! Pitiful. At the same time, Nigel Farage of Brexit Party was pulling in crowds of up to 3,000 people, sometimes twice a day! They were even paying for the privilege of hearing him!
Change UK, in terms of MPs, has been a kind of dustbin for a few MPs (I believe 11) most of whom were unwanted by their own local parties. Several were at one time barristers or solicitors. Others have other professional backgrounds. Few if any are poor or from impoverished backgrounds. That seems to be the case with CHUKUP’s supporters and candidates too. There also seems to be a very strong Jewish element. Twitter is the natural habitat for Change UK’s people.
I have previously blogged about the Hampstead/Highgate/Blackheath (etc) milieux in which the Change UK people seem to swim. Some wag tweeted weeks ago about how Change UK candidates all seemed to have come from the cafe at Waitrose.
In fact the above characteristics were all neatly displayed when a fruit-seller by Hampstead Heath overground station was rude to Jessica Simor QC, Change UK candidate for London:
Democracy only functions if everyone feels they have a right to participate – well done for standing up and being counted @JMPSimorhttps://t.co/10WKTeUI4E
Some tweets commenting on the above incident were more interested in the exotic plenitude of the fruit on offer from that shop! In fact, there’s no mystery about that: apart from being in an affluent neighbourhood and opposite one entrance to Hampstead Heath itself (where people might eat fruit while strolling), the Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, is nearby. Do people still take fruit to patients? I assume so.
Well, in the event, Change UK only got 2.8% of the vote nationwide. It was at the bottom of the poll almost everywhere. In fact, it polled only 4.7% even in Broxtowe, the area where Anna Soubry is the MP (boundaries not perfectly aligned). Next Broxtowe election…goodnight Vienna.
Elsewhere, the Change UK candidates were trashed even more. For example, Kate Godfrey, the Zionist tweeter who once tried to blog and blag her way to a comfortable Labour MP career, became a Change UK candidate for the East Midlands, but has crashed and burned. I suppose that we shall see her try the LibDems next.
The day before the elections, the Interim Leader of Change UK, Heidi Allen MP, said that Change UK should “merge” with the LibDems. I doubt that that made a huge difference to the relative vote shares, but it certainly vindicates my view of last month that Change UK is doomed and, in fact, pointless.
Some LibDem/Remain partisans have made the point that the votes that went to Change UK deprived the LibDems of local wins and even MEPs.
In Wales, the LibDems would have gained another MEP had it not been for the votes going to Change UK.
As for the Twitter reaction, I have had much amusement reading the tweets of Remain whiners, all trying to prove that Brexit Party did not really win these elections at all, because if you add up the votes going to LibDems, Change UK and Greens (etc?), that total beats the Brexit Party vote. Some go further to aver that that means that the British people do not want to leave the EU and that the whole Brexit process should be halted…
Really hacked off with @bbc for #EUelectionresults reporting. The Brexit Party are NOT the winners. Libdems and Greens have equal votes to BP. Labour have more votes than Tories. The winner tonight is #Remain.#Brexit is the loser. Britain is demanding a #PeoplesVote
— Bakehouse Cottage aka Helen #FBPE (@Bakehouse2016) May 27, 2019
and this well-known Jewish scribbler (see below) is experiencing severe angst as he pretends that the vote was about Leave v. Remain only (and that –guess what?–Remain won!). Ha ha!
Brexit has LOST the election. MEP seats now projected: 33 Brexit plus Tories versus 37 anti-Tory Brexit. Vote share looks like 54-45 in favour of Remain. Ignore BBC propaganda about Brexit Party landslide. Remain unequivocally won this election!!
So what now for Change UK? As I blogged previously, Change UK is doomed partly because it is just a dustbin for MPs unwanted elsewhere and for votes by well-meaning but very silly people with no political sense at all. I have seen this before, in the 1980s, when the SDP (which at least was a genuine party) failed very quickly.
Strategically, Change UK will get (has got) nowhere because
politics is moving away from vague “centrism”;
anyone wanting to stay in the EU and support a “non-extreme” party can vote LibDem.
Change UK may be able to merge with its more successful LibDem rival, but only if it acts quickly, while the CHUKUP MPs still hold their seats. After the next general election, there will be no Change UK MPs. Most of Change UK’s support, such as it is (about 600,000 votes, nationwide), will just go to the LibDems or to Remain-voting Conservatives anyway, and fairly soon.
Ha ha! Jessica Simor QC making herself look very silly (again)…
Harry hasn’t worked there for years. He’s one of the best reporters in Westminster. Not everything happens because of a plot. You’re a QC, stop behaving like a conspiracy loon
and here [below] is a CHUKUP candidate, Emma Jane Manley, “celebrating” (with horrible Zionist careerist Kate Godfrey) the fact that the two of them, with three others, came seventh (!) in the election for the East Midlands area. 41,000 votes? Brexit Party got over 452,000! The LibDems got 204,000. Even UKIP, in sixth place, received 58,000. Brexit Party vote share was over 38%; even UKIP got nearly 5%; CHUKUP? 3.47%. Game over.
I find myself unable to resist adding this tweet by Kate Godfrey, mainly because it really does show up the incredibly poor level of education today in the UK, as well as the kneejerk anti-“racism” of the brainwashed “millennial” airheads featured…As for Kate Godfrey, CHUKUP candidate, and Change UK, the desperation is palpable. Next time, she should try press-gangs to try to recruit voters. Anna Soubry would like that. Actually, though, there never will be a next time: Change UK will not survive the next general election, and I should not be surprised to see Kate Godfrey attach herself to some other vehicle, perhaps the LibDems, before that.
Note the tone: somewhere between patronizing and self-deluding: “awesome” young women who are so bloody ignorant that they do not even know that EU elections are taking place! Let alone who Nigel Farage is! Oh, but “racism”…oh yes, they oppose that (whatever it is), because they have had their empty little heads stuffed —at school and in the msm— with the “anti-racist” drivel, for years. As for the idea that those bimbos are really, actually, going to vote, ha ha!
Meanwhile, in the real world, “Change UK” is running at 1% in the opinion polls for the next general election.
Update, 4 June 2019
Well, Change UK has now split in half, 6 of its MPs have left and will apparently be “Independents” again (having been elected as Labour or Conservative). I expect that they will join the LibDems in the end.
Anna Soubry, now the “leader” of the “party”, appeared on TV to talk about the split etc. She looked drunk (again). Sigh. Maybe she was just “tired and emotional”…
The only aspect that surprises me is that CHUKUP has 100,000 registered supporters, if the Independent report is correct.
Here we see Leave UK laughing at Anna Soubry and Change UK:
You've got to feel sorry for poor old @Anna_Soubry – she's just as good as Sadiq Khan at being a stone cold loser, but gets no recognition for it because she's too irrelevant for Trump to know who she is!
— Sky News Politics (@SkyNewsPolitics) June 4, 2019
My advice to Anna Soubry is that she should just open another bottle and forget this idea that she is some kind of political leader and influencer, when she is little more than a political bad joke.
Douglas Carswell enjoys rubbernecking the car crash:
What a bunch of clowns and rejects. Not one of the cowards with the guts to put themselves up for re-election to let their voters pass judgement on them!
Some typically obtuse Remain whiners and metro-liberal idiots in the msm still have not learned any lessons, though:
As I said earlier, I’m sorry to see Change UK split, especially because the reason/problem why ex-Labour MPs left has not been solved – if anything, it’s got worse. There’s still a need for a progressive centre left party in British politics.
Jane Merrick needs it presented A-B-C style: British-politics-has-less-and-less-space-for-vague-“centrism”…
As for the tweet below, I seriously thought it a parody, but it seems not!
It's no longer the party they joined. They're not leaving Change UK The Independent Group, Change UK The Independent Group has left them. An emotional moment—quitting the party they love. At least they're bloody _doing_ something & standing up for their values. Politics is broken https://t.co/dHx8UPl2Id
— Edmund Griffiths (@EdmundGriffiths) June 4, 2019
Here’s another one. These silly silly people really think that Twitter is incredibly important! This one thinks that a bit of “rebranding” and some intensive tweeting and Change UK will somehow be resurrected! Ha ha!
Below, a more erudite analysis (from February) than the tweets of the Remain whiners, but one which, unlike my own blog posting, did not predict the early end of Change UK with certainty.
Why did The Brexit Party succeed and ChUK fail? There's much more to it than strategy. I think this from February has held up pretty well:https://t.co/PLM9VbuBsk
Usually, the Daily Express “newspaper” can be ignored, but the story linked below is not without interest. Drunken idiot MP Anna Soubry expresses her disillusionment with Fathead Chuka and says that she thinks that he “is the future of our country”! Whatever she is drinking today, I think that I need some too! In what parallel universe is that mixed-race, smug, dim nonentity and publicity hound going to be “the future” for any country? He has a meltdown trying to decide which louche nightclub to visit! Fathead Chuka is a dead loss, but even now it seems that Anna Soubry cannot fully see that.
In any event, Change UK, now a total dead parrot, with a new name which I have forgotten —not that it matters– is yesterday’s news. Not really worth updating, but the report amused me.
There are now only half a dozen Change UK MPs left, the rest having either decided to leave politics or join the LibDems.
Update, 14 November 2020
Late update. In the General Election of December 2019, CHUKUP, rebranded as Independent Group for Change, put up 3 candidates, each one losing badly (average vote-share 6%).
Five days later, Anna Soubry announced that the party was disbanding. She then went for a swim in another vat of booze.
Well, that’s Theresa May gone. Or not. She may have given up the nominal leadership of the misnamed Conservative Party, but it seems that she will not be leaving the office of Prime Minister until July. Presumably, the hunt for her successor will start immediately.
What have I liked about her time as Prime Minister? Nothing much. In fact nothing.
Theresa May was (if possible) even more in the pocket of the Jewish-Zionist lobby than was David Cameron-Levita. She was the same when Home Secretary. Under her, malicious Zionist organizations gained even more influence in the UK. In fact, she could not even make her resignation speech without telling some cheesy anecdote about herself and Nicholas “Winton” (Wertheim), who imported about 700 Jewish children into the UK in 1939.
As for the rest of the content of the Theresa May resignation speech, it seemed to be about some other country, not about the UK at all. In that other country, the economy is apparently buoyant, the people happy and united, the “austerity” “necessary” in the recent past has been banished and everything is wonderful.
I am sure that the millions of British people who are homeless and/or literally (in many cases) starving, who cannot pay inflated rents, let alone think of buying a house (even with a mortgage), who are paid peanuts when working, who are subject to a Kafka-esque regime of callousness and cruelty if unemployed or disabled, would love to live in that other country Theresa May lauded to the skies.
In Theresa May’s speech, no mention was made of the country where the racial stock has been deliberately contaminated, where millions of unwanted immigrants continue to flood in, where nothing now seems to work properly (from road and rail to the NHS, the police, the educational system) and so on.
No mention was made of the country where, under her, as both Home Secretary and Prime Minister, freedom of expression has been restricted even more than it was under David Cameron-Levita, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.
This hateful woman has now gone or is about to go, presumably hoping that her political spawn, such as Amber Rudd, will follow in her footsteps.
Well, I have some news for her. She has as good as destroyed the Conservative Party and may well prove to be its last elected Prime Minister. Ah… I knew that, in the end, I would find something good to say about her…
[above, Theresa May with the Israeli Ambassador and his wife. Theresa May, like 80% of Con Party MPs, is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, and is herself suspected of being part-Jewish by origin]
No hope of change with a new PM either UN poverty expert hits back over UK ministers' 'denial of facts'https://t.co/Q4TQMUP1kr
Theresa May is likely to resign as Prime Minister tomorrow, 24 July 2019. Her successor is likely to be Boris Johnson, incredibly…
Update, 27 December 2022
Well, three and a half years on, we see that “Boris” Johnson did indeed succeed Theresa May; in turn, Johnson was succeeded briefly by Liz Truss, and now by Rishi Sunak, both the first non-white Prime Minister and the richest (£750M, apparently). Theresa May remains on the backbenches, a critical presence, rather like Edward Heath during the Thatcher era of the 1980s.
3,000 people paid £2.50 to hear Nigel Farage speak. How many System politicians can get 3,000 to hear them speak? In fact, few would even get an audience of 300. Maybe 30, but only if entry were gratis. In fact, many of those listening to Farage had also paid a voluntary £25 donation to Brexit Party (read the report).
The size of the rally was not quite as impressive as those of Mosley in the 1930s, but you can’t have everything!
On 16 July 1939, Mosley addressed 30,000 at Earl’s Court in West London.
Returning to our contemporary political reality, here are the latest opinion poll readings:
Note the variation between the YouGov and ComRes polls. There is usually variation, but not such wide variation. The YouGov poll is the more recent, relying on polling done in the past 3 days (19-21 May). It shows Brexit Party at 37%. The Conservatives have slumped to a miserable 5th place, on merely 7%! This is incredible! As for Labour, it has been overtaken by the LibDems.
Obviously, EU elections are not the same as Westminster ones, but I think that we are seeing more here than the sort of EU election surge that we have seen before with both UKIP and to a lesser extent and long ago (in 1989) the Green Party.
Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, but then so are “statistics”. I concede that I meet few people these days, but everyone that I do meet, or encounter, or hear, is voting Brexit Party in the EU election.
I am inclined to believe that, with only a day to go, Brexit Party is still, even now when it is polling around 37%, being underestimated. I should not be surprised were Brexit Party to top 40% on Thursday.
It is clear that the most fixated Remainers are gravitating to the LibDems, with most of the rest voting Labour. The new party, Change UK, has sunk like a stone and I shall be surprised if it gets a vote of 5% (as polling indicates). Its “rallies” have all been tiny meetings, with audience numbers often in single figures. Even its main London meeting audience (disregarding journalists) only numbered about 40.
MSM scribblers and the Twitterati wastes of space are now discussing as to whether the EU elections constitute a kind of referendum on UK EU membership. How can it be, when the Labour, Conservative and even Green parties are internally split?
It is clear to me that the EU election in the UK will be dominated by Brexit Party candidates. What is really significant is that Brexit Party doing really well will give it a launching pad for Westminster.
The important poll will be the Peterborough by-election on 6 June. If Brexit Party can win that, it will be on its way.
People are angry about what has happened in and to this country over decades, since 1989 particularly. Finally they have realized that the guilty parties are literally that, the political parties (and their own apathy, but let’s not look in the mirror…). The Conservatives, having destroyed so much over the past decade, are the primary target for the wrath of the people, including that of many who until recently were themselves voting Conservative.
Brexit and its betrayal has finally crystallized the feelings of disappointment and treachery.
The Conservatives are facing a perfect storm in the EU elections:
the pathetic Prime Minister, Theresa May;
the mediocre or poor level of most other leading Conservative MPs;
Brexit, fake Brexit, and betrayal of the popular decision in the 2016 Referendum;
the rise of Brexit Party to near 40% in vote-share and perhaps, on the day, beyond;
the defection of Conservative pro-EU/Remain voters to the LibDems
The real crisis for the Conservative Party will come after the EU elections. The Peterborough by-election was noted above. The Conservative Party is rated by the bookmakers as no better than a 20/1 shot for that by-election. Incredible when one considers that from 2005-2017, Peterborough had a Conservative MP who was beaten in 2017 by only 607 votes (1.3%). Even when Peterborough had Labour MPs in the 1990s, 1980s etc, the Conservatives were always closely second-placed.
Then there is the Conservative Party membership, officially 124,000 but most of those are people in the sixties, seventies, eighties or even nineties. The active membership may be no more than a few thousand. This is important for several reasons: lack of canvassers etc, lack of subscriptions, but also the fact that, once Theresa May goes, if MPs cannot elect a new Conservative leader outright, the top 2 in the MPs ballots will go for general membership vote. Who will the aged Conservative membership pick? Will their chosen leader be in any way acceptable to the British public as a whole? That seems doubtful.
What an odd system, when a Prime Minister can resign and then be replaced by some new leader, chosen by about 150 Conservative MPs or —at most— by maybe 60,000 aged Conservative Party members, and who then becomes Prime Minister automatically, with no obligation to call a general election until 2022!
People in the UK are outgrowing both the present political/electoral system and the existing System parties.
Using Electoral Calculus [ https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html ], that Panelbase poll indicates that a general election held now would produce the following result: Brexit Party bloc of 19 seats. Labour majority of 44 seats. Conservative loss of 132 seats, including those of Amber Rudd, Nicky Morgan, Justine Greening, Stephen Crabb, Boris Johnson, Grant Shapps etc. Happy time! (except for the Labour majority, but the Cons have to be stamped on now; should have happened long ago)
Update, 23 May 2019
Election day, 1800 hrs. I happened to see an interesting Twitter thread analysis from a journalist. From a couple of days ago. Read the whole thread.
THREAD: On the rise of the Brexit Party and what it means for Brexit and British politics.
That’s it, there are no more Brexit Party rallies planned before polling day. I’ve been to half a dozen of them across the country, from the very first week to the end.
It will be be seen above that the videos of Mosley’s massive 1939 rally in London are now “not available” because YouTube (aka, for many, “JewTube”) has closed the account. This is part of a huge censorship campaign now spreading across the Internet. (((They))) are behind it. It is a covert censorship, banning and barring operation to close down free speech in the UK and across the Western world. It affects, inter alia, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon; many others too.
In view of the duty to fight the evil noted, I have posted, below, other links.
At first blush, it may seem strange that I am focussing today on Andrea Jenkyns MP [Con, Morley and Outwood], in that she wants to leave the EU, is an animal-lover and a vegetarian. I support, in essence, all three positions. Also, she has chronic medical conditions, and I always feel sorry for people suffering in that way. However, “there is no religion higher than Truth” and so on, so I am writing about her, though —after thought– I have decided not to include her in my blog category “Deadhead MPs: An Occasional Series”. That decision may reflect mercy more than justice, but so far she falls just the right side of the line.
“Jenkyns was born in Beverley, Humberside. After leaving school at 16, Jenkyns secured employment at Greggs bakery as her first job.[4] When 18, Jenkyns’ father sent her photo off to a beauty pageant and she got into the final for Miss UK.[5] Over the subsequent years Jenkyns changed employment a number of times, performing a number of different roles at different businesses. Her employment history has included being a secondary school music teacher and an executive with a management training company.” [Wikipedia]
What does that show? Not necessarily that she is unacademic or unintelligent. There are reasons, or were, why people drop out of school early (I believe that it is now more or less mandatory for them to stay until 18). In her thirties she did study for a degree (for what it may be worth these days): International Relations and Politics. Her Wikipedia entry does not say that she was awarded the degree or finished the course at the University of Lincoln. It seems that she may have finished the degree over time at the Open University. She was also awarded a diploma in Economics from the Open University, but only when in her forties (she will be 45 in June 2019).
Andrea Jenkyns is a singer and songwriter, who even had a musical hit in South Central Asia at one time.
I started this study thinking that I would find Andrea Jenkyns rather mediocre and even one of my “deadhead MPs”, but find that I slightly warm to her. She is evidently genuinely interested in animal welfare, and got into politics, it seems, from a recognition that the NHS needed to improve its standards, particularly hygiene standards in hospitals, her own father having perished from having developed MRSA.
Sadly, like so many MPs, Andrea Jenkyns seems to think that proper preparation is unnecessary. Not so. Lack of preparation can make you look rather silly.
"I don't fear the WTO!" insists Andrea Jenkyns, mere seconds after being exposed to the apparent kryptonite of simple questions and demonstrating that her pitiful knowledge of the subject barely goes beyond the acronym itself.
Her husband, Giacomo “Jack” Lopresti MP, a former Army reservist, would be able to tell her about the military acronym “the 5 Ps” (PPPPP) (“Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance”); the less polite version has 6 Ps.
Nearly three years of Brexit and ERG ‘star’ Andrea Jenkyns still hasn’t done her basic homework. The arrogance of these people is staggering https://t.co/rYlN4yoffm
Andrea Jenkyns is absurd. Nothing going on there at all. Nothing. I think we should all start demanding *a lot* more from our MPs. https://t.co/SeYPeUSv6Y
As mentioned above, I myself strongly favour Leave/Brexit, but the performance of dunce-like Conservative Leave MPs (some of them) makes me fume: Iain Dunce Duncan Smith is another such.
On the even more negative side, it seems that Andrea Jenkyns is a member (like 80% of Con Party MPs) of Conservative Friends of Israel. Her husband, Jack Lopresti, is another one.
As to her future, her constituency is a Con-Lab marginal created in 2010 and held until 2015 by Labour big-hitter and Bilderberger, Ed Balls. Morley and Outwood has had Con and Lab (Labour and Cooperative) within a couple of points of each other in 2010 and 2015, but in 2017 Andrea Jenkyns won with a bigger margin (50.7% as against 46.7% voting Labour). The third-placed (and only other in 2017), the LibDems, scored worse in 2017 than they had in 2015 (2.6% from 3%). This is a trend seen across the country.
UKIP scored 16.5% in 2015, but did not stand in 2017. There is every prospect that, if Brexit Party stands any time soon, that it could outdo UKIP’s 2015 result. It is doubtful that Brexit Party could win, but a vote amounting even to 10%, let alone 16.5% or more, would be enough to destroy the Conservative majority.
There is every reason to think that, unless Brexit Party lets her off the hook by not standing a candidate at the next general election, Andrea Jenkyns will have to add “MP” to her other and previous short-lived employments.
Reading the above again, and again watching Andrea Jenkyns squirm in that Daily Politics clip, I think that I probably was too kind in not including her as a “deadhead MP”. Still, there it is.
Andrea Jenkyns has been given an unexpected gift from the Gods inasmuch as Brexit Party is now not standing against her in the 2019 General Election. That may help her to hang on.
Update, 21 December 2019
The gods again smiled on Andrea Jenkyns: Brexit Party did not field a candidate, Labour’s vote collapsed from 46% of the total to 35%, and so Andrea Jenkyns was re-elected with a increased majority and no less than 56.4% of the total vote.
Andrea Jenkyns, with her husband (or ex-husband; it seems unclear), Jack Lopresti [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lopresti] are both Con Party MPs, and both are also members of Conservative Friends of Israel. His constituency (also to be fought on new boundaries) may be “safer” than his wife’s or ex-wife’s, but whether safe enough to save Lopresti from also having to stack shelves is an open question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filton_and_Bradley_Stoke_(UK_Parliament_constituency). His only real job prior to becoming an MP was in his family’s ice-cream business (he is of Sicilian origin).
Andrea Jenkyns and Jack Lopresti. Both pro-Israel and the UK Jewish lobby. Kick them both into the political gutter, dear voters.”
Labour 44%, Con 23%, Reform UK 20.4%. Even had all the Reform voters voted for her, Andrea Jenkyns would still have lost. Looks like she has had her 9 years of high pay, good expenses, and other perks. She will probably end up stacking shelves.
The political realities and tendencies of 2025, Reform UK, and Eastern England being as they are, there is every chance that Andrea Jenkyns will win election to that post.
Update, 2 May 2025
Well, there it is. Once again, Andrea Jenkyns, former Greggs employee (etc) has been saved from stacking shelves at Lidl by electoral success. She is now the Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, a name reminiscent of the inventions of P.G. Wodehouse.
Incidentally, Jack Lopresti, Andrea Jenkyns’ ex-husband, is now sitting at a desk in Kiev doing some kind of military-connected work for the Kiev regime:
“A Tory MP who lost his Westminster seat in the general election last year is now serving in the Ukrainian military.
Jack Lopresti was the MP for Filton and Bradley Stoke, in South Gloucestershire, until Labour’s Claire Hazelgrove secured victory in 2024.
Mr Lopresti, 55, said on social media he was now volunteering for the International Legion of Ukraine, Defence Intelligence.
“It’s a huge honour and an immense privilege for me to serve in the Ukrainian military and be able to help the gallant and amazing Ukrainian people in any way I can,” he said.
Mr Lopresti previously served in the UK Army Reserve as a corporal, and said he was focusing on charity work in the country, supporting veterans, foreign relations and diplomacy and weapons procurement – as well as military duties.“
A comet has appeared in the UK’s political skies. Its name is Brexit Party. It is running at about 30% in the opinion polls re. the EU elections to be held on 23 May 2019, while in respect of Westminster elections, it is on about 15%. The EU elections may not be of much importance except as a popularity contest, but for a new party without any policies at all (except to get out from under the EU) to be at 15% indicates a groundswell of public disquiet which may have huge consequences one way or another in domestic UK politics.
[note: even as I write, the polling figures above are out of date! One very recent poll now has Brexit Party at 34% for the EU elections and 20% re Westminster voting intention, with Conservatives only on 19% for Westminster and 13% for the EU elections; has the Conservative vote ever been that low? I think not; even in the Blair-Labour landslide of 1997, the Conservatives polled in the actual election at 30.7%].
It now looks as though some of my early blogging was prescient indeed, if I myself may say so. “Give that man a cee-gar”!
Exclusive Telegraph poll: for the first time Brexit Party is in second place in general election polling – BP on 20%, Tories on 19% – on course to win 49MPS – Tories lose over 130 seats including Johnson and Rudd – Labour in minority governmenthttps://t.co/YGVFr3Y6bL
The Brexit Party gets more popular by the day, with 34% now intending to back them in the European elections – more than the Labour and Conservative Parties COMBINED. The 17.4m have been betrayed by our political class for years, and now we're going to MAKE them listen!
There are signs of panic in the main System parties:
“A ComRes poll for the Sunday Telegraph showed that if a Westminster general election were called, Labour would reap the largest share of the vote with 27%; the Brexit party would garner 20% ahead of the Conservatives on 19%. The Liberal Democrats would win 14%, followed by ChangeUK (7%) and the Greens (5%) with Ukip trailing on 2%.” [The Guardian]
I come from a certain direction: I recall the limited but real popularity of the National Front [NF] in the mid-1970s, and saw at first hand how outside forces made use of internal dissensions in order to destroy the NF as an effective party and movement. I believe (though without having any direct or personal knowledge) that similar events may have happened to explode the British National Party [BNP].
The National Front and BNP were both broadly social-nationalist, whereas UKIP is broadly nationalist but lacking the para-socialist element ideologically. Brexit Party has taken on UKIP’s “nationalist” or “patriotic” mantle despite having no published policies at all beyond leaving the EU.
It is easy to speculate about why the course of events happens, harder to pin down the exact or even approximate facts. Many casually blame, or designate as important, the operations of Zionists, Israel, MI5, SIS, MOSSAD, unnamed State agencies, freemasons, occult spiritual groups etc.
Every party or movement has internal tensions. As a John le Carre character remarked, “Jesus Christ only had 12 agents, and one of those was a double” [meaning “double-agent”].
The art of influencing events from the shadows is not to be identified or identifiable as a moving force.
Coming back to Brexit Party, there are known facts. The extraordinary political showman (as some would have it, “snake-oil salesman”), Nigel Farage, was leader of UKIP for decades. He in fact was in UKIP almost at the start, and is often termed one of the founders, though he was not the actual founder, who was an academic called Allan Sked.
“Sked is a member of the British-American Project, which exists to promote Britain’s political ties to the U.S.” [Wikipedia].
“During the administration of President Bill Clinton in the US, the Australian journalist John Pilger attacked the BAP as an example of “Atlanticist freemasonry.” He asserted in November 1998 that “many members are journalists, the essential foot soldiers in any network devoted to power and propaganda.” [Wikipedia].
Here is one msm drone who belongs to that British-American Project:
Yes, that’s right. Yasmin-Alibhai-Brown, the supposedly “radical”, “anti-imperialist” “journalist” (in fact, totally unqualified and inexperienced in true journalism, just a ranting loudmouth).
Another member of the very same organization is BBC journalist James Naughtie, most of whose views are, at least superficially, totally different from those of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown…
The British-American Project contains a large number of UK-based (and other) journalists (and others), of supposedly diverse views. I wonder if their views and motives are as “diverse” as they seem to be at first blush.
Only today, on the Andrew Marr Show [BBC 1 TV], Marr tried to trash Nigel Farage and Brexit Party, but Farage was able to crush Marr easily in the end.
System drones like Marr do not seem to understand that populist movements such as UKIP (a few years ago) or Brexit Party (now) are the last chance for the System to listen to the British people and so avert an explosion of justified political hatred which will, otherwise, roll over them like a tank over a cockroach.
Marr’s own (rarely admitted) views:
A typical pro-NWO, pro-ZOG, pro-EUmsm drone, paid until recently a million pounds a year by the BBC out of your “licence fee” (enforced tax) monies (apparently somewhat less now, after public uproar about the absurd salaries paid by the BBC to key propagandists).
Was the secret aim of UKIP to draw off nationalist sentiment from parties such as the BNP, i.e. to neutralize effective political opposition to NWO [New World Order] and ZOG [Zionist Occupation Government] in the UK by containing it, controlling it, monitoring it? Or was UKIP just a typically English amateur effort which mushroomed into something bigger. Or both of those?
Already, in looking at UKIP, we see the difficulty of unravelling the skein of motives: secret forces, public faces, ambitions, ideals, various personalities etc.
As recently as last year, Alan Sked said that “I founded UKIP. It’s a national joke now and should disappear.” [The Guardian]. Is that just sour grapes from a founder left behind? Is there anything else there? Had UKIP “done its job”, and so could be binned?
Until 2010, the BNP did better in all or almost all elections than did UKIP. It is hard to recall that, now that the UKIP star has risen and fallen and now that the BNP is just a tiny handful of back-room zealots. In its heyday, the BNP was more successful by far than UKIP. The BNP even had two MEPs (Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons).
Brexit Party is UKIP, but a UKIP which, like a snake, has shed its “skin” of various unwanted people, unwanted history etc and, unlike the snake, miraculously become far far more powerful, far more slick, far more able to capitalize on its “unique selling point”, the sheer hatred which many many people now feel for UK society as it now is (and also for the EU dictatorship).
Farage is the star of Brexit Party, as he was when in UKIP. Look at the clip below. Farage enters a hall packed with supporters. It echoes in a minor key the entrance of Adolf Hitler into the hall at the end of the 1935 Leni Riefenstahl film Triumph of the Will.
The Brexit party turned up in Newport, south Wales last night. A true Labour heartland. Usually. https://t.co/NoBovPxNCv
Farage can draw large crowds, as in this recent rally at Peterborough, where 2,000 supporters are said to have paid£10 each just to hear Farage speak. Few other politicians in the UK could get 200 (or even 20, in many cases) to turn up to hear them, even for free!
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
Farage is the key to this. No Farage in UKIP means, effectively, no UKIP. Were there no Farage in Brexit Party, that party would also rapidly cease to exist.
Despite his public profile, Farage is to some degree an enigma. A metals trader, he was in employment as recently as 2003 and possibly even after that. He was elected as an MEP in 1999. He seems to have been a “Eurosceptic” (anti-EU) for a long time, voting Green Party in 1989: the Green Party was, at that time, Eurosceptic and not pro-mass-immigration. One wonders whether, had it not become a kind of middle class virtue-signallers’ party, Green Party might have had greater political success.
Farage created UKIP (not founded perhaps, but created) in his own image: anti-EU, free marketist (softened for tactical purposes), English more than British, not social-national, not “racist” (racialist), despite Farage making a few innocuous comments that only echoed what most white British people believe or feel. Brexit Party may or may not follow those lines, but we cannot say for sure, because Brexit Party, almost uniquely, has published literally no policies at all, save for Brexit itself.
I say “almost uniquely” because the surely-doomed Change UK, which can be taken to be the opposite pole to Brexit Party, also has no published policies (beyond staying in the EU). This is in fact consonant with earlier blogs and, until I was expelled from Twitter, tweets, i.e. that people in the UK, at least in England and Wales, are now voting against rather than for parties; voting tactically to block parties they dislike, rather than supporting the party they like. I have blogged before about this and how it is an outcome of the ludicrous UK electoral system.
I take Farage to be sincerely anti-EU, anti-socialist, possibly anti-immigration, but not to have any sophisticated socio-political or economic ideas. I have said before that Farage does not understand politics well, a surprising statement in view of his stellar public political performance. What I meant is that he has not developed any ideology, as such; neither has he a political programme; also, he has not much developed a party machine (with UKIP; we shall see what happens with Brexit Party).
I take Farage at face value, more or less; the same with his mass following. As to others, I am looking and seeing a strong Jewish element. Brexit Party already has a “Brexit Party Friends of Israel” group. There are other indications; the Brexit Party Treasurer is indirectly connected by marriage to the Rothschilds:
Brexit Party not only has Jewish influence but is open in general to persons of other and various ethnicities. Many candidates are not really British, certainly not of British origin.
Good afternoon Mr. Umunna. I am a candidate for the Brexit party. I am partly of Pakistani origin. There are many candidates of mixed ethnicity in our terrific party. You have the wrong end of the stick. May we pls meet to discuss your prejudices? Anytime that suits you. Pls say https://t.co/W6IdKODVMQ
Despite its paucity of policy and its multi-ethnic candidate list, many of those who support Brexit Party and also many of those who oppose it seem to think that it is somehow “nationalist”. It may be, but only in the very broadest sense.
In respect of candidates, one aspect I find very odd is that, out of about 60 or so Brexit Party EU election candidates, Brexit Party has no less than 3 who are former members of the (1978-1997) Revolutionary Communist Party. Remarkable from a tiny party which had so few members. If I were to suggest State involvement here, it would be without any real evidence, but it does give me pause all the same.
The Great Replacement, otherwise known as “migration-invasion” of Europe, is no mere “conspiracy theory”. United Nations and EU documents have laid out the conspiratorial globalist plan time and again. Only recently, EU and other political heads met in Marrakesh, Morocco, to pledge to assist African and Asian invasion of Europe, to replace European populations with alien black and brown populations.
This anti-white, anti-European campaign was built into the EU right from the start and conflated with the idea of a European “superstate”:
Jean Monnet was one of the principal freemasonic architects of the EU:
“Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet (French: [ʒɑ̃ mɔnɛ]; 9 November 1888 – 16 March 1979) was a Frenchpolitical economist and diplomat.[1] An influential supporter of European unity, he is considered as one of the founding fathers of the European Union. Jean Monnet has been called “The Father of Europe” by those who see his innovative and pioneering efforts in the 1950s as the key to establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, the predecessor of today’s European Union.[2] Never elected to public office, Monnet worked behind the scenes of American and European governments as a well-connected pragmatic internationalist.” [Wikipedia]
“He was the first to be bestowed Honorary Citizen of Europe by the European Council of the European Union, for extraordinary work to promote European cooperation on 2 April 1976. Following this he became the first person alive to be pictured on a German stamp who was not also a German head of state.” [Wikipedia]
“In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), written in 1925, he describes the future of Jews in Europe and of European racial composition with the following words:
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroidrace of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. […]
Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process.”
“Nazis considered the Pan-European Union to be under the control of Freemasonry.[27] In 1938, a Nazi propaganda book Die Freimaurerei: Weltanschauung, Organisation und Politik was released in German.[28] It revealed Coudenhove-Kalergi’s membership of Freemasonry, the organization suppressed by Nazis.” [Wikipedia]
“Hitler did not share the ideas of his Austrian compatriot. He argued in his 1928 Secret Book that they are unfit for the future defense of Europe against America. As America fills its North American lebensraum, “the natural activist urge that is peculiar to young nations will turn outward.” But then “a pacifist-democratic Pan-European hodgepodge state” would not be able to oppose the United States, as it is “according to the conception of that commonplace bastard, Coudenhove-Kalergi…”” [Wikipedia]
There are secret occult forces behind the founding and expansion of both USA and EU. They are not exclusively Jewish or Zionist, but there is a strong link, as there is to Freemasonry, and also to other groupings not publicly named. Forces of Evil.
Look at the tweet below, from the World Economic Forum at Davos, and retweeted by a pro-EU public relations drone, and which purports to show a wonderful “economic plan” to create a “trade route” (corridor) from Malta and the Mediterranean to Scandinavia. What is the real purpose here? To create a funnel from Africa to Northern Europe, through which migrant-invaders will be funnelled through the heart of Europe to destroy it racially and culturally.
The EU was never meant to be just a mutual-benefit trade bloc. It was always meant to be a monolithic superstate in which the white European populations could be mixed, eventually, with blacks and browns. Of course, that was never conveyed to the peoples of Europe, only to the self-appointed “elite”. In fact, some naive people supported the EU (and still do) because they imagined that it was European in race and culture and not only in geography. Thus we see the deliberate conflation by Remain drones, in the msm or on social media, of “EU” and “Europe“, as in “if Brexit happens, we shall be leaving Europe“, rather than “…leaving the EU.” The UK is part of Europe and always will be; it need not be part of the already-dictatorial EU superstate, which is deliberately importing the culturally inferior by the million.
How is it possible, though, for bothEU and Brexit Party to be heavily influenced by the same forces (ZOG, NWO etc)? Think of a bet whereby you could, in a two-horse race, win whichever horse puts its nose in front. Likewise, in the UK there are or were two or three main parties. The fix was/is into all of those parties. It does not matter (or did not, until Corbyn took over Labour) which party wins, because ZOG/NWO is embedded in all three “main parties” (things are changing now, though).
Brexit Party may have been partly set up with secret aims in mind, but these plans do not always go as planned. Brexit Party has mushroomed, almost exploded, in a way which was perhaps unforeseen even by Farage himself. These things happen in history. The events of the Russian Revolution spiralled out of control, or to use a different metaphor, spread like a wildfire from its modest beginnings in one city in the corner of a huge empire.
Why are voters flocking to Brexit Party? It cannot be because of Brexit Party’s policies, because it has none, or at least only one. I identify these factors:
the wish to have the Referendum of 2016 properly respected and complied with; but beyond that
the wish to hit out at the System parties and especially the mis-named “Conservative” Party, which under the influence of Jewish Zionism and globalism has trashed the UK (especially England and Wales) to the point where nothing works properly, where most people have neither security nor freedom, where the population is only about half really British now, and where standards in all areas are dropping like a stone (NHS, transport, education, real pay, State welfare benefits, animal welfare, environment etc). There is also the repression on thought and socio-political expression. “Free speech” scarcely exists now in the UK.
The wish to lash out is very strong now. The people can see that Brexit Party has the popular support to make it a credible vote at both EU and (so far) Westminster elections. People know (whether intellectually or instinctively) that a vote for Brexit Party is one that hits the Conservatives hard, much harder than voting, say, Labour. In any case, Labour itself is not supported by most people (not so much for policy reasons as because white English people especially do not like what they see around Corbyn: the blacks and browns, the semi-literate Angela Rayner types who would be in Cabinet, the creaking 1970s comic-book “Marxism” etc).
A vote for Brexit Party hits the Conservative Party hard not only in areas where Labour is strong but in areas where the Conservatives have prevailed for decades. As I blogged previously, if (as polls suggest) the Conservatives lose 60% or even 50% of their votes, they will lose 50-200 seats, to Labour, to Brexit Party itself, and, here and there, to the Liberal Democrats. That means (as I also blogged previously and to which the msm is now catching up) that
Brexit Party may actually win some —possibly 50, even 100— seats at Westminster;
The Conservative Party, which has outlived its usefulness, will fade and go the way of the Liberal Party after the First World War; and
Labour will (as I have predicted for 2 years) probably be largest party in the Commons, but will be unable to do whatever it wants, because it will be a minority government (almost certainly). People may well prefer that to a majority Labour government.
It can probably be said that, in Westminster constituencies where Labour is not now the first or second party in elections, even former Labour voters would be better to vote Brexit Party than to vote Labour, because in “Conservative” Westminster constituencies, a vote for Labour is going to be a wasted vote, whereas a vote for Brexit Party will quite possibly help to unseat the Conservative MP in question.
Speaking now from a social-national viewpoint, why do I welcome Brexit Party?
That is a simple question to answer. No matter what forces may be behind Brexit Party, no matter what forces influence it, its importance to me lies in its ability to smash the “three main parties” scam-system in the UK. A weak government, esp. Labour, would open the way to real social nationalism in a way never seen before.
The unreality of the “Remain” crowd can be gauged by the tweet below. Like so many of the twitterati, this fellow over-values Twitter. He actually thinks that he is achieving something by having a few hundred or a few thousand other Remain whiners in his echo-chamber retweet or “like” his pointless tweet. Result? Nothing, but he feels warm and justified. In fact, he is a public relations man whose Twitter output is largely a one-sided and pro-EU song of praise. I predict that 24 May 2019 will not be a pleasant day for him!
Looks as if Boris Idiot and Amber Rudd might both lose their seats at the next General Election. Conservative MPs will not be voting for either of them to be leader if there is every chance that they might lose their seats…Happy day!
Curtice: "The [Conservative] party faces the prospect of nothing less than a mass defection that could leave it with by far its worst ever result in a UK-wide ballot"https://t.co/PW0KpRPHiv#EP2019#brexit
Someone called Casper Hughes, writing in The Independent [see below], says that Brexit Party will have no effect on Westminster elections. That statement, I think, is probably wrong. For the following reasons:
first of all, like most unthinking scribblers and talking heads of the present time, he has not managed to free himself from the idea that there is a spectrum going from “far left” through “hard left”, “soft left”, “centre-left”, “centrist”, then to “centre-right”, “rightwing”, “hard right” and finally the —demonized— “far right”;
Casper Hughes labels, simplistically, a huge group as “rightwing voters”. It’s a meaningless phrase; it shows lack of real understanding;
politics is more nuanced now. People from all parts of the outdated “right”/”left” spectrum can, for example, be allied on animal rights, environment, economic outcomes (and even policies: rail and utility renationalization for example). It was Jack London who said “I am a socialist, but a white man first”;
it is a mistake to imagine that Brexit Party support is all about Brexit. The System betrayal of the EU Referendum result is one example of how the System has, in vulgar terms, shat on the white British people over and over, especially in the past 30 years or so. The Brexit Party is a chance (like the 2016 EU Referendum itself) to kick the System “parties” (which form, to a large extent, one party with 2-3 faces).
people are currently (since at least 2015) voting against, not for. The article does to some extent acknowledge that. That means that people are voting not for Brexit Party and its sole policy, but to stamp on Con and Lab (and LibDem) as well as voting —yes— for Brexit, i.e. to leave the EU properly, without strings;
people generally now realize that a conspiracy is stealing Brexit, against the “democracy” we are supposed to have in the UK; they want to fight against that; the traditional voters for the “main parties” are not as dominant as they were. In 1950, 97% voted LibLabCon. Now? Maybe 50%;
also, many traditional voters feel betrayed: Labour betrayed its core vote by turning into the Blair finance-capitalist, mass immigration, “ignore-Pakistani-child-rapists” “New Labour” or fake-Labour party. The Conservatives betrayed their core vote by continuing with mass immigration, by increasing taxes to an extent not seen under Blair —or even Callaghan in the 1970s—, by destroying much of the mental landscape that made England England, by conspiring to dishonour the 2016 Referendum result, and in other ways;
the article says in terms that the present situation is a re-run of UKIP in 2014-2015. It is not. People saw that UKIP was cheated in 2015 (1 in 8 people voted UKIP in 2015 and were cheated by a rigged electoral system) and are angry at that, but even more angry at the corruption, freeloading and dishonesty of the main 2 parties, as well as at their incompetence and arrogance;
the article supposes that the so-called “right-wing” voters will “coalesce” around the misnamed “Conservatives” as a “stop Corbyn” tactic. Don’t count on it. After 3 years of Jewish propaganda contra Corbyn, Labour is riding higher than ever; and many former Con voters actually like many Corbyn-Labour policies;
the article says that Brexit Party is unlikely to win many if any Westminster seats. Let’s see. The SNP was founded in 1934, and did not get many MPs until 2015, before which it often had 0, 1, 2 or a few MPs most of the time (81 years!); then it reached that FPTP tipping point and had 59. Brexit Party may or may not get to the tipping point, but the idea is no longer ludicrous, if it opposes, say, Labour under Corbyn and Conservative Party under whoever (possibly Boris-Idiot);
the very fact that Boris Johnson is spoken of as possibly Prime Minister is proof enough that the System is sick and the Conservative Party terminally so;
the article seems to imagine that if Brexit Party gets only the same vote as UKIP in 2015, then its effect is meaningless. No, because even if Brexit Party gets the 12% UKIP got in 2015, and if the others stack up as Lab 35%, Con 35%, LibDem 10%, that leaves the Conservatives, though largest party, 32 seats off a majority: https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html (only a couple of points more for Labour and Labour are largest party, though 18 off a majority);
the article’s conclusion is predicated on traditional tribal Conservative loyalty, but that is breaking down fast and very many older voters are dying. A recent poll said that less than half of 2017 Conservative voters intend (at present…) to vote Con next time. That would cull anything up to 200 Conservative MPs if it were to become reality;
the EU elections will be a guide, the Peterborough by-election even more important.
I noticed that the article ends on an uncertain note.
If actual voting reflected that, the Conservatives would lose about 172 seats and be left with about 145; Labour would be the largest party in the Commons, with 297 MPs (up 35), and Brexit Party would have a bloc of 105 MPs. LibDems might have 18. That would mean Corbyn as Prime Minister of a minority (or coalition) government, 29 seats short of a Commons majority.
Brexit Party is now holding two rallies daily! Not pathetic little meetings like those of Change UK (a Change UK meeting yesterday had 9 people on the podium and 5 —yes, 5— people in the audience!) Here is the Thursday May 16 2019 Brexit Party meeting in Willenhall, West Midlands, a town with a population of about 29,000; the meeting had about 1,000 attending, obviously mostly locals:
and here (same day!), another Brexit Party meeting in the same region, in Wolverhampton, this time with 1,200 attending! So at least 2,200 people had turned out to support Brexit Party in the same region and on the same day! This seems unstoppable, whatever some msm twitterati and chatterati are saying!
Nigel Farage about to go on stage in Wolverhampton. Hall managers tell me around 1200 are here. Every seat is taken. Supporters are having to stand around the walls. pic.twitter.com/xZshL2LgNW
— Christopher Hope📝 (@christopherhope) May 16, 2019
Meanwhile, at a Change UK “rally” (8 members of the public and 2 reporters? Or was it 5 members of the public and 5 reporters?…)
Now we’ve seen the enthusiasm of the people for Chuka and Soubry’s great party I assume we’ll be seeing less of them on #marr, #bbcqt and #BBCR4today… but I won’t hold my breath pic.twitter.com/TlZ9uVgCAT
Here we are. Election day. Every indication shows Brexit Party powering ahead, leaving Con, Lab, LibDems, let alone Greens and Chukup, in its wake and floundering. I saw an interesting Twitter thread analysis about it all (see below):
THREAD: On the rise of the Brexit Party and what it means for Brexit and British politics.
That’s it, there are no more Brexit Party rallies planned before polling day. I’ve been to half a dozen of them across the country, from the very first week to the end.
The Peston show on ITV got a psephologist to work out what would happen in the (unlikely but possible) contingency that the next general election saw the same voting as the recent EU elections. The result? Brexit Party 441 seats, Conservatives 1 seat!
Well, much water under the bridge! Brexit Party was polling around 12% when Farage decided to pull 317 Brexit Party candidates only 4 weeks before the election. That was followed by another 38. That, in return for a worthless promise from Boris Johnson, a man of no credibility, no integrity, a useless beneficiary of the UK’s sick political system.
Farage‘s ridiculous decision (taken unilaterally and without consultation with the candidates themselves, who had all paid to be considered as candidates) collapsed Brexit Party overnight. Farage killed his party as surely as if he had shot it in the neck.
Now, at time of writing, Brexit Party is in the polls at around 4% and, with 3 weeks to go, is not a serious contender in the General Election. Brexit Party might have won a number of seats while depriving the Conservatives (mainly) of a number of others, but now will be lucky to win even in those constituencies where it had a chance (e.g. Hartlepool).
Why did Farage destroy his own party? I am not the conspiracy theorist some imagine but I do speculate whether this is some kind of Russian operation.
Russia, we are told, wants the UK out of the EU (and, in Putin’s wildest dreams, NATO). Taking that as correct, it may be that Russian strategists were (are?) hoping for “hard Brexit” or “no deal Brexit” (real Brexit), because it weakens the EU (as part of the New World Order or “NWO”) and because a real Brexit might both cause economic/political discontent in the UK down the line and also stimulate Scottish nationalism, with the possibility that Scotland might break off from the UK, and then possibly (probably) decommission the nuclear missile submarine bases there. A break-up of the UK would be a stunning coup for the Russian state in terms of Atlantic geopolitics.
Still speculating, if an immediate “hard Brexit” seemed likely to be blocked by Parliament’s Remain majority in the event of another hung Parliament, then Russian strategists might have decided to strengthen Conservative Party chances by taking out Brexit Party.
Brexit Party is a dictatorship of one man, Farage. To take Brexit Party out of the General Election, Farage alone had to make that decision. He did. So the question is why did Farage take that decision? To my mind, there is no logical reason based on ordinary politics why Farage should take the word of a proven and continual liar such as Boris Johnson. On the other hand, if Farage is or has become an agent under control, then it makes perfect sense.
How do we know that Farage has not been promised (or even paid already) a large sum (£20M is good, £50M is even better) offshore? It makes sense in baldly venal terms but it also makes sense for Farage politically, if Farage has become convinced that a Boris prime ministership with a large majority would result, in a year or two, in a “hard” or even “no deal” Brexit. That way, Farage gets a secret fortune and the political result he has wanted to see since the early 1990s.
True, Farage is wealthy anyway (is supposed to be), but so what? As to whether the Russians would pay really large sums for such purposes…well, the wife of an “oligarch” paid the Conservative Party £160,000 just to have a tennis game with Boris Johnson and David Cameron-Levita. On that basis, £50M to change the whole course of British policy and strategy seems cheap at the price.
There is no direct evidence that Farage is an agent of the Russian state, but he has been shown to have close links with some leading “oligarchs” etc. The Russia of Putin is not the Soviet Union. It operates partly via the uber-wealthy who are beholden to Putin; the Soviet Union operated in this sense in a different way, bureaucratically, via the KGB and its predecessor agencies (NKVD etc), GRU and, pre-WW2, the Comintern.
As we have seen (google, or see my earlier blogs), Boris Johnson, like Farage, is or has been close to some Russian or Russian-Jew “oligarchs”. Then there is the role of Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s “adviser” (who however has been reported as having actually overruled Johnson on some occasions!). I blogged about Cummings a few months ago: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/08/10/les-eminences-grises-of-dystopia/
There have been those who have implied that Cummings is a kind of Russian agent. My previous assumption was that he might have been an agent of SIS (British agent rather than salaried officer, perhaps, but who knows?) for a while (when he was in Russia for about 3 years after having graduated from university) but again that was just my speculative thought. Still, one would not necessarily preclude the other, especially over time.
I have no evidence that Farage has been paid a huge bribe by Russia; I have no evidence that Cummings has, either. Still, I do wonder. “Thoughts are duty free”, even in the EU…
There is, of course, also the fact that the British Intelligence assessment of some connected matters is not going to be released until after the General Election. It has been held up by Johnson and Cummings. Why?
So here we are again, in the “deadhead MPs” zone. The problem I have is that so very many MPs are now deadheads, meaning MPs who fall below the bar even for mediocrity. Mediocrity alone does not qualify an MP to be immortalized here. The MP must be outstandingly poor. How to say where that line is set, when so many now qualify? Anyway, having already chosen a number of MPs to participate in this series, here is a well-deserving example: Jess Phillips MP [Lab, Birmingham Yardley].
Jess Phillips
Background
Jess Phillips is the daughter of two “socialist”-oriented persons, who apparently walked around naked all the time at home, in front of their children. Very odd. Even the East Germans (some of them) only did that on specified Baltic beaches. The online magazine, Conservative Woman, commented thus:
“‘Teach girls at school about orgasms, says Labour MP’. That startling newspaper headline, alone, would have been sufficient for most readers to guess that the source was an interview given by that shameless self-publicist Jess Phillips.“
“Her interview also revealed that not only was Phillips brought up in a ‘naked household . . . an environment where nothing was embarrassing’, today in her own home she often goes around nude. Jess further boasts of being ‘open about sex’ with her two sons, currently aged 10 and 14, which must be delightful for them, though it is unclear whether or not she is clothed during their intimate chats.”
“If Phillips’s tale of home nudity is actually true and not a wind-up, far from being charmingly eccentric, it is revolting. Were a father revealed to be exposing himself to school-age daughters, with whom he frankly discusses sex, it would likely be career-ending, certainly for an MP, and might also interest both social services and police.”
“But don’t expect Jess Phillips to have her collar felt – she won’t be wearing one.”
Readers of the profile were not complimentary to Jess Phillips:
“Phillips is as mad as a barrel of polecats anyway. The fact that people actually vote for her is astonishing.”
and
“I’d like to like Jess Phillips, because at least she seems to have an infectious laugh. The trouble is, I remember her laughing also at male suicide statistics. Seemed to think it funny that suicide is the leading cause of death in British men aged 20-49. Not so funny really.”
It seems that her parents, though “socialist”, set up a private company in order to make money out of the NHS, her mother having been Deputy Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation and Chair of South Birmingham Mental Health Trust. That private company was active from 2003 until at least 2010, but is now defunct. Jess Phillips’ mother died in 2011.
Jess Phillips attended a local grammar school for girls, then the University of Leeds (Economic and Social History and Social Policy, a “soft” degree); she then took a post-graduate diploma in Public Sector Management at the University of Birmingham.
“At 16 I was a raver, a party animal to say the least. Weekends would start early on a Friday night, round at my friend’s house where we’d get ready. Then we’d be out, maybe to a local party at someone’s house. Then on Saturday it was an all-night rave until the wee small hours of Sunday.”
The only known jobs done by Jess Phillips are working for her parents until 2010 (when she was 29), and (from 2010) working as a business development manager at Women’s Aid domestic abuse charity. It is unclear for how long this position lasted. In the 2010-2015 period, Jess Phillips was also engaged in paid political activity as a councillor and as a member of at least two local quango panels. On occasion, Jess Phillips has made reference to having done waitressing and other work, but I think that we can be sure that we are talking days or weeks rather than months or years, assuming that she ever did those jobs at all.
Jess Phillips is married to one Tom Phillips. They have two children. I have been unable, as yet, to discover whether her husband is of Jewish or part-Jewish origin or indeed whether she herself is.
Controversies as MP
Jess Phillips
was selected as candidate not by open competition but via an approved “all-women shortlist”;
is a member of Labour Friends of Israel and has made a number of pro-Jewish interventions; Jews on Twitter etc often seem to give her support (may be part-Jew);
invented an altercation with Diane Abbott MP in which, Phillips claimed, “‘I roundly told her to fuck off.’ When asked what Ms Abbott did after that suggestion, Ms Phillips replied: ‘She fucked off.'” According to Diane Abbott in a January 2018 Guardian interview: “Jess Phillips never told me to fuck off. What was extraordinary is that she made a big deal of telling people she had”. Phillips later apologised.” [Huffington Post]
“Phillips told Owen Jones in December 2015 that she had told Corbyn and his staff “to their faces: ‘The day that … you are hurting us more than you are helping us, I won’t knife you in the back, I’ll knife you in the front‘”, if it looked as though he was damaging Labour’s chances of winning the next general election. Responding to criticism about her use of language, Phillips said on Twitter: “I am no more going to actually knife Jeremy Corbyn than I am actually a breath of fresh air, or a pain in the arse” [Wikipedia]
walks around in the nude at home, despite having two sons living with her;
has quarrelled with UKIP MEP candidate Carl Benjamin aka “Sargon of Akkad”, who said, in 2015, that “he would not even rape her”. Jess Phillips has now dredged that up, four years later, and has been making her usual and no doubt well-paid round of the TV and radio studios in order to make more publicity for herself out of it; she has even made complaint to the police about it, four years on (and, no doubt coincidentally, during the EU election campaign)!
has threatened several times to resign from the Labour Party but somehow never quite manages to do it (see below for details of how much money she drags down solely by being an MP);
“In July 2018 it was reported that Phillips served as deputy editor of The House, the in-house Parliamentary magazine published by the Dods Group, which had been purchased by Conservative Party donor and former Tory vice-chairman Michael Ashcroft, earning an annual salary of £8,000 for two hours’ work per month.” [Wikipedia]. So she does maybe 2 hours work each month for that obscure magazine, which pays her about £700 per month, i.e. about £350 an hour. Not bad compared to most of her poverty-stricken constituents, who are probably lucky to get £10 a hour!
draws a salary of £80,000 and also claims a quarter of a million pounds each year in expenses, most of which consists of “staff pay”, which includes £50,000 a year paid to her husband as “Constituency Support Manager” (house husband?); she also claims about £30,000 a year for accommodation (about 50% more than average);
constantly makes the rounds of TV studios, radio studios, Press interviews (all or mostly paid…)
Ambition
“In March 2019, she said: “I think I’d be a good prime minister” and that “I feel like I can’t leave the Labour Party without rolling the dice one more time. I owe it that. But it doesn’t own me. It’s nothing more than a logo if it doesn’t stand for something that I actually care about – it’s just a f***ing rose.” [Wikipedia]
Conclusion
The mystery is (or would be, were it not so common in the House of Commons now) why this ignorant, uncultured, foul-mouthed creature was ever thought suitable to be an MP. Birmingham Yardley is a safe Labour seat, and it seems that no way exists for her to be removed, unless her local Labour Party deselects her. Incredibly, despite her saying time and again that Labour means nothing to her, she has been reselected. She makes a very good living out of being a caricature loudmouth MP, and I see no possibility that she will leave Labour unless another party offers her a continued sinecure. Unfortunately.
Jess Phillips is the Left's equivalent of Boris Johnson – using irreverence and edginess as a substitute for ability, more interested in being a media celeb than in the hard graft of political ideas and debate, courting publicity at every opportunity. Why do people fall for it?
In case people think that I select only tweets hostile to Jess Phillips, here is one from (another) “Labour” and pro-Zionist doormat, Stella Creasy MP (Labour Friends of Israel etc), who wants to make “misogyny” [meaning trenchant criticism of any female, female MP that is] a “hate crime”! Note: Stella Creasy and Jess Phillips are both personal friends and members of Labour Friends of Israel.
It makes me want to tear stuff up and go all boudicca that this is happening to @jessphillips – I'll settle for now for making misogyny a hate crime so these idiots can be tackled and ensuring there's jacobs crackers and edam on tap whenever she needs next door x https://t.co/17XM6SJf6x
and here is another tweet supporting Jess Phillips, this time from vastly privileged System mouthpiece Dan Snow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Snow , the son of BBC talking head Peter Snow. Dan Snow: St. Paul’s School, Balliol College, Oxford, married to the second daughter of the 6th Duke of Westminster (who was one of the richest men in Britain). “Snow presented his first programme in October 2002 just after graduating from university, co-presenting the BBC’s 60th anniversary special on the Battles of El Alamein with his father” [Wikipedia]. “With his father”?…Oh, that’s handy… Nepotism Central…Also a Remain drone (of course), Dan Snow thinks that making a silly remark should “instantly” disqualify a political candidate! He’s a well-educated, er, idiot…(correction, a well-educated and above all well-connected idiot).
Feeling so sad and helpless about the @jessphillips assault discourse. It should obviously be instantly disqualifying. That it isn't shows there is evil in our politics. I would never have believed it of my country.
and here’s another, but this time obscure, idiot who also believes that only “approved” and uncontroversial candidates should be allowed. Oh, right, like in Asian fake “democracies” such as China…
of course you are in an 'obvious box' – your politics are those of a careerist politician. You could be any number of Parties. I would suggest that your eye is on the main chance for Jess Phillips, not the people of Britain who you say you serve…? #RevolvingDoor
I have to admit that I found the following tweet rather funny!
Just leaving Westminster and and man ran down the street along side me asking me about why Carl Benjamin shouldn't be able to joke about my rape. Shouting "I pay your wages".
First The Times gave us Phillips as glamorous & seductive, now we have her looking like a prison warden. No matter how the media portray Phillips they'll never persuade us she's anything other than a publicity seeking opportunist. pic.twitter.com/7RlPDPNz7r
I expect that the judge and police/CPS will turn a blind eye. I myself think that she should suffer some penalty. What an incredibly stupid woman she is.
Update, 15 November 2023
🚨🚨 BREAKING: Jess Phillips has RESIGNED from Keir Starmer's front bench after voting for a Gaza ceasefire pic.twitter.com/x1zRT2v2Vr
Maybe liberalism’s children are starting to realise that multiculturalism has been a disastrous social experiment that no one wanted and that will destroy every society it’s forced upon. https://t.co/9qRLKK25TC
It just occurred to me that, with Jess Phillips, the apple did not fall far from the tree. She, like her parents, combines pseudo-socialism with grabbing as much money as possible, and with using Labour Party networking in order to do that.
I saw tweets about her today:
This is exactly the same kind of whataboutery and denialism that enabled the rape gangs to begin with https://t.co/Ol7CYZmIhy
Just a straight-out enemy of the future of white Europe.
Update, 25 October 2025
The second is from all 6 survivors switalskis represent both on the panel and 2 that have resigned, outlining the concern both from on the panel and that led to people leaving the panel. pic.twitter.com/7hgIXsCGEj
Ian Robert Millard 