Category Archives: society

Boris Johnson, Brexit, elections, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Party Politics, Rishi Sunak, society, The Great Replacement, the Great Reset, Uncategorized

The Conservatives, Boris Johnson, Upcoming Political Events and the Currents in Society

85 Comments

We come soon to the culmination of the farcical Conservative Party leadership election, the result of which will be decided by a simple majority of the supposed 140,000 (possibly only 100,000, though a few say 160,000) members of that party. About 1 in every 300 or 400 UK adults is a Conservative Party member. If two-thirds vote in the leadership election, that means that not only the Conservative Party leader but also the Prime Minister –by default– is about to be elected by perhaps 50,000 or 60,000 people, in other words by about 1 in every 900 adults in the UK. There is something bizarre and even sick about this.

At time of writing (5 July 2019) it looks as if Boris Johnson (for me, Boris-Idiot is the right label…) will win easily. Others say that the race may be closer than most have thought. Either way, very few if any are predicting a win for Jeremy Hunt.

I have blogged before about the contest and also about a few of the main protagonists. Most relevant now would be these:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/12/boris-a-story-for-our-times/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/the-conservative-party-leadership-contenders-in-outline/

Returning to my first paragraph, I happened recently to hear some Radio 4 Today Programme interviewer, perhaps Nick Robinson, asking Conservative Party members in Wales their views on what I see as the tragi-comic “leadership” contest. There were about half a dozen or so, all from one local Conservative Association.

Only one in that group was thinking of voting for Hunt; the rest all preferred Boris-Idiot. Only one struck me as in any way thoughtful, a young man (the only one, in fact, who seemed to be of under pensionable age) who was not much taken with either candidate.

What interested me most about that group was the incredible level of both political ignorance and socio-political unreality. One old bird, who sounded around 80, opined (re. Brexit) “we got through two world wars, we can get through this, and I think that Boris is the man to bring the country together.”

Where does one even start to unpack nonsense of that sort? First of all, it implies that Britain somehow endured two massive wars and came out OK (if not “victorious”), whereas in fact the two main open conflicts of the 20th Century crippled the UK and mortally-wounded the British Empire (qua empire), a fact concealed by the very great overall improvement in British living standards since 1914.

Then there is that bit about “Boris” being the politician (surely even the aforesaid old bird cannot regard the idiot as a “statesman”?) who can “bring the country together”. What country is that? Can people really be that blind? There is no “country” to speak of any more. What there is is a geographic space, inhabited by a motley collection of races, ethnicities, social groups, “tribes” (both social and ethnic), lifestyles etc. I do not think that even the old descriptive term “classes” really fits any more. Society has fallen apart to the extent that the idea of a “working class”, a “middle class” or “middle classes”, let alone an “upper class” or “aristocracy”, is not just lacking in credibility but is actually pathetic. That is even if we leave aside the race question.

What is the “working class” now? Anyone who receives less than a designated income? The bottle-throwers of the EDL? “White van man” with his artisan trade and his purchased council house or tract home, complete with Sky TV and an above-ground pool in the back garden? The “chavs” or “chavscum”, with their sub-American “culture” of baseball caps, untaxed cars and drug use? The officially-bullied and taunted unemployed or disabled? The blacks and browns?

Faux-revolutionary scribbler and metro-gay propagandist Owen Jones was unable to shoehorn these new types into the traditional Marxist categories, so conflated proletariat and lumpenproletariat in his book “Chavs: the demonization of the working class“. Unable to find enough steel workers, miners and trawlermen to constitute a viable “working class”, Jones ropes in whatever he can from the poorly-incomed “precariat”: call centre workers, unemployed, retail staff, low-paid office bods etc.

Then we have the “middle class”, or as used to be said, “the middle classes”. Prior to World War Two, these strata were fairly well defined: the “upper” middle-classes (fringing on the gentry and even aristocracy), with their successful, long-established business firms (The Forsyte Saga), Oxford/Cambridge education (Brideshead Revisited, Zuleika Dobson etc), careeerism in the Diplomatic Service, the Bar, the higher ranks of the medical profession, the armed services. Then there were the “middle middles” in management, small business ownership etc. The “lower middle class”, meaning the lower ranks of management etc, were a vast throng, sometimes only distinguishable from “the workers” by the wearing of a tie.

In America, these terms are (certainly now) either not used, or used differently.

Then we have the “aristocracy” and “gentry”, the latter sometimes termed (as late as the 1950s, in novels by the likes of Agatha Christie) as “the County” (the older, more significant, or wealthy landed families in any particular county). This stratum was already being infiltrated by foreign or alien elements as early as the 19th Century.

Winston Churchill was famously half-American. He was not alone. Many ancient or at least old houses admitted an American admixture, usually for reasons of money. Even some Jewish and part-Jewish women married into the English and Scottish nobility. One well-known example was the 6th Duke of Carnarvon, whose ancestral home, Highclere Castle, is today used as the fictional Downton Abbey on TV. His mother’s biological father was a Rothschild: “Rothschild provided a marriage settlement of £500,000 and paid off all Lord Carnarvon’s existing debts.” [Wikipedia] Tens of millions in the money of today.

The 2nd Duke of Westminster was incensed by the way in which Jews were infiltrating the British aristocracy, and (according to his third wife, Loelia) was writing a book on the subject, which book has, regrettably, never been published.

The society which now exists in Britain, especially in England and Wales, is a mixture of the old pre-1939 society, that which developed between 1939 and —arguably— 1979 or 1989, and that which has since emerged.

I think that we have to be quite clear here. At present, we do not have a functioning or sustainable society in the UK. The appearance of one owes much to the older, pre-1989, way of doing things, to institutions which still exist, though badly-wounded: the monarchy, the police, the armed services, the NHS, the Civil Service, local government. The people who grew up in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and even 1960s are carrying on as if Britain is a unified country. It is not. It is a mass of contradictions and absurdities.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in the late 1980s and early 1990s (officially, 1991), huge numbers of people in factories, on farms, attending country rail stations, driving trams, carried on working even though in many cases they were not being paid. The society carried on under its own momentum for a while. Britain is like that socially, politically. More and more parts of British society are either not working properly or are not working at all, but many have not fully woken up to that fact.

If the working classes and to a large extent the middle classes have been replaced by the “chavscum” and “precariat”, the short-term contract people, the here-today-gone-tomorrow little businesses etc, then the former “gentry”, “aristocracy” (insofar as the term has meaning in Britain) and even royals have just become functions of the cosmopolitan wealth-soaked “celebrity” culture, in which it is hard to distinguish between a film star, a pop star, a TV talking head, a Premier League footballer and his WAG, Gary Lineker, Prince Harry or the Royal Mulatta.

As far as the Royal Family are concerned, it is noticeable how there is an almost-complete gulf between the older royals, such as the Queen and Prince Philip and the present generation, with Prince Charles and the others a kind of halfway house. The older royals are recognizably “royal”. One might or might not be “royalist”; that is another question, but no-one could mistake the Queen and consort (whether one “likes” them or not) for “ordinary citizens”.

By the time you get to Prince William and “Kate”, or Harry and the “Royal Mulatta”, there is very little that marks them out as “royal” at all, unless it is ingrained public acceptance (propped up by the msm) and their own huge sense of entitlement, brought home most recently by the endless boring soap opera of Harry, the £2.5 million refurbishment of his new house (work paid for, in effect, by the people) , and the various rumours and tabloid interest around “the Royal Mulatta” (a mixed-race woman, formerly a Hollywood TV actress, and formerly married to an American Jew).

The present generation of “royals” are scarcely “royal” at all: they are educated in ordinary (if expensive) schools and universities, live lives which are carefully crafted to at least seem “ordinary” most of the time, and seem to feel that they can do largely as they please in terms of marriages, children etc.

In fact, it could well be said that the only thing linking the attitudes of the present three generations of royals is their sense of entitlement.

When we look at the more “ordinary” people of the UK, do we see there a “country” which is “united” or which might be “unified” (leaving aside the question of whether a clown like Boris Johnson could “unify” anything)? I think not.

The racial question is also hugely-important. Can a multikulti society survive and thrive? I think not; not for long. People used to point at the USA. Well, look now. Falling to pieces. Britain is about 87% “white” (mainly English), but even that figure is doubtful. If you take out Scotland, and Wales, and Northern Ireland, that figure, now for England alone, shrinks alarmingly. Huge cities and large towns in England now have a minority of inhabitants who are really English.

Looking again at Boris-Idiot:

“The Balliol College Register for 1983 contains an entry that begins: “JOHNSON Alexander Boris de Pfeffel: JOHNSON, Boris – b. 19 June 1964. New York. American. Generally known while at Balliol as Boris Johnson. Eton; Balliol 1983–7.” [Daily Telegraph]

Note that. “American”. At that time, Johnson was considered to be an American, born in the USA, with an American passport, and brought up in the USA and Belgium as well as the UK.

“Johnson was born to British parents on 19 June 1964 in Manhattan‘s Upper East Side in New York City.[4] His birth was registered with both the U.S authorities and the city’s British Consulate, thereby granting him both American and British citizenship.[5] His father, Stanley Johnson, was then studying economics at Columbia University.[6]

Johnson’s maternal grandfather was the lawyer Sir James Fawcett.[7] Johnson’s paternal great-grandfather was Circassian–Turkishjournalist Ali Kemal[8][9][10] who was a secular Muslim; his father’s other ancestry includes English and French, including descent from King George II of Great Britain.[11] Johnson’s mother was Charlotte Fawcett;[12] an artist from a family of liberal intellectuals, she had married Stanley in 1963, prior to their move to the U.S.[13] She is the granddaughter of Elias Avery Lowe, a palaeographer, who was a Russian Jewish immigrant to the U.S.,[14] and Helen Tracy Lowe-Porter, a translator of Thomas Mann. Johnson’s maternal great-grandfather was a Lithuanian Jew and Orthodox Jewish rabbi.”

“In reference to his varied ancestry, Johnson has described himself as a “one-man melting pot” – with a combination of Muslims, Jews, and Christians as great-grandparents.”

[Wikipedia]

We see, time and again, and reflective of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [usually called a “forgery” but better described as “literary fantasy reflecting facts and real events”], that those assigned leading political positions by the New World Order [NWO] and ZOG [“Zionist Occupation Government”] are not Jewish as such but part-Jew. Boris Johnson is one example. David Cameron [Cameron-Levita] was another. Theresa May another. Sarkozy too. This all fits in with the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, which underpins the EU.

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

Wikipedia:

“In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), written in 1925, [Coudenhove-Kalergi] 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–Negroid race 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. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.”

[Wikipedia]

There you have it: a black-brown-white mulatto dustbin race, ruled over by Jews and part-Jews, and/or by freemasons. That is their vision of EU Europe, including the UK. Now you see how it is that the 2016 Referendum result has led to delay, vacillation, huge fear propaganda, plans to hold a second referendum, blah blah blah. All because this goes beyond trade, beyond co-operation. It is a massive international and cosmopolitan conspiracy.

“Hitler did not share the ideas of his Austrian compatriot. He argued in his 1928 Secret Book that they are unfit for the future defence 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]

As so often, Hitler has been proven to be right. The EU, that “pacifist-democratic pan-European hodgepodge state” is indeed unable to oppose the American expansionism which is in fact better termed NWO/ZOG expansion. It was planned to be like that, secretly. The EU does not stand in opposition to the USA (meaning the NWO) but is at the higher levels tied in with it.

The EU has already begun “the Great Replacement”, the replacement of decent, progressive, evolving European peoples with the backward black and brown peoples who will make suitable slaves for the planned robotic and AI-oriented superstate or “European space” of the near or medium-term future. Below, one aspect of that:

An injection of millions of blacks and browns into the heart of white Northern Europe.

Not for nothing did Angela Merkel, a recipient of the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize [sanitized as the “Charlemagne Prize”]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_Prize

decide to break EU law and to “invite” untold millions of blacks and browns etc to invade EU territory. This is all part of the plan.

CSwbJ9yWwAAdQ73

CgFqWSRXEAICTlz

This continues, though now not much publicized. Meanwhile, EU “leaders” [NWO puppets such as Macron] recently met in Marrakesh, where they “decided” to funnel millions more migrants “legally” into the EU, thus not so much disturbing the invaded European peoples. At the same time, they decided to make any criticism of it illegal. The real decisions are of course taken earlier, behind closed doors.

Returning to the UK, to the Conservative leadership farce etc, there seem to be various possibilities when Johnson wins and, however briefly, becomes Prime Minister. The first thing to understand is that Boris-Idiot is no strong character, but a weak and vacillating one. I cannot be sure, but I think that he will probably agree to something with the EU, then try to sell it to the British people as a huge improvement on Theresa May’s “deal”. I doubt that he will, in any real sense, take the UK out of the EU in October 2019. If he does, it will almost certainly be a con-trick. Brexit In Name Only.

One has to ask oneself why the msm have been promoting Boris-Idiot as “Prime Minister in Waiting” for years and years, despite his obvious unfitness for any kind of high office.

Should Boris Johnson really try to take the UK out of the EU on WTO terms, his time as Prime Minister will be measured in weeks not months. It only takes 3 or 4 Conservative MPs to abstain in a confidence vote to effectively remove Boris Johnson as PM. Or for 2 or 3 Conservatives to vote against their own government.

If that were to happen, there would be a general election and one of the first seats to fall would be that of Boris Johnson himself, at Uxbridge. It will be recalled how Johnson at first signed up to the Theresa May “deal” (he wanted to stay in the Cabinet…). How much more will Johnson want to cling on as Prime Minister! He has no honour, no real ideas (beyond schoolboy ones such as garden bridges, cablecars over the Thames, water-cannon, Boris Island etc). He has no ideals, no real ideology. He is also administratively incompetent. He is very likely going to be the worst prime minister the UK has ever had, certainly for the past century or more.

Boris Johnson is looking to be not only one of the least-worthy and least-fitted persons ever to hold that great office of Prime Minister of the UK, but also one of the weakest. Johnson will be a prisoner of Remain-favouring MPs. He has no real desire to Remain or Leave. All that matters to him is being Prime Minister for as long as possible, not to accomplish anything, but just to be there (and to get the perks etc). Money in terms of salary etc is not the main thing, in fact he might lose out, though only temporarily. Memoirs can be penned later and millions paid…

Will Johnson last as PM (assuming that he even gets that far)? Probably not. He is being pulled in various directions, by the DUP whose votes he will need, by the pro-Remain MPs, by the EU. He is as weak as weak could be, politically.

The likelihood must be a 2019 general election.

Ctdcka4WAAApkQ6

C7_6DhaW4AA5xQV

Beyond that, there is a crying necessity for a serious social-national movement in the UK.

Notes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48854280

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/05/tory-leadership-latest-news-boris-johnson-jeremy-hunt-hustings/

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chav

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_2nd_Duke_of_Westminster#Political_ideology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loelia_Lindsay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Herbert,_6th_Earl_of_Carnarvon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almina_Herbert,_Countess_of_Carnarvon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

https://archive.org/details/TheProtocolsOfTheLearnedEldersOfZion

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/mass-hysteria/

Typically, the Jews look only to their own interests, and the Conservative Party leadership farce is no exception to this rule:

https://www.thejc.com/news/news-features/brexit-schmexit-how-jewish-are-boris-johnson-and-jeremy-hunt-1.486180

The Jewish Chronicle at least admits to it: “we rate them on the only scale that matters [their Jewishness and/or attitude to the Jews]”

Boris Johnson is liked more than disliked by Conservative Party members (+31%) but greatly more disliked than liked by voters as a whole (-19%)…

Who knows what the future holds for Europe and the world?

bq-5c87ada639494

Update, 9 July 2019

Having watched the above clip, either Boris Johnson is on cocaine, which would be worrying, or he is not, which would be even more worrying. What more can one say? This is somehow an area beyond ideology. It was once said that the Soviet Union was divided into the drinkers and the non-drinkers. Now Britain, whatever its other divisions, divides into, on the one side, those who see that an idiotic, uncontrolled, madly-ambitious, conscienceless incompetent, without ideas or ideals, is about to become, incredibly, Prime Minister of this country, and on the other side, those who either do not see, are too stupid to understand what Boris-Idiot is, or are totally deluded (or both, or all).

If anyone wanted to be convinced of the complete decadence of “democracy” in the UK, I should think that the Boris-Idiot/Jeremy Hunt “debate” (schoolboy level spout-fest) would be enough, judging from –admittedly– the bits that I myself have now seen. As for the audience, they seemed to love Boris-Idiot, I suppose because they, like mobs and crowds of plebs down the ages, from the days of the Roman Empire and even Republic, want to be entertained, want to be pandered to, and above all do not want to have to think seriously.

A small selection of Twitter vox pop

The lady below sets the bar low! What a stupid woman!

https://twitter.com/prixsalop/status/1148713350861336576

Someone [below] is awake, anyway…

Another who is not asleep…

As I predicted some time ago, Boris Johnson, Boris Idiot, shows weakness in every way. Here is his latest indication.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/10/kim-darroch-effectively-sacked-by-johnson-on-the-orders-of-trump?CMP=share_btn_tw

Johnson is a doormat for for the USA and for Israel.

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1148960286478667776

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/boris-johnson-shows-that-hes-donald-trumps-poodle

Update, 15 July 2019

Ha. Here we are…https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7248815/Next-EU-chief-Ursula-von-der-Leyen-says-agree-Brexit-delay.html

Update, 18 July 2019

What more can one add?…

Update, 24 July 2019

Boris-Idiot won by about 92,000 votes to about 48,000. Clear but not overwhelming. “Boris” will therefore become PM today or tomorrow, unless some public-spirited chauffeur runs over him in a ministerial limousine.

92,000 elderly Conservative members have decided that they want Boris-Idiot as Prime Minister. The other 65 million UK residents have no say. All that UK voters can do, in any future Westminster election, starting today, is vote any way except Conservative. 

The reaction has been sharp and is not confined to those who want to Remain in the EU.

Foreign or near-abroad reaction?

Update, 21 June 2023

If I say so myself, my blog post above has proven prophetic…

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Brexit, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Carl Benjamin, Count Dankula, David Icke, free speech, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, London Forum, Mark Meechan, Reminiscences and Musings, Sargon of Akkad, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

Repulsive Jo Brand, Repulsive BBC

11 Comments

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.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48640411

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.

alison

CnDUXkuVMAExy6n

She was prosecuted and eventually convicted, though is appealing her conviction and sentence; see

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/alison-chabloz-the-show-goes-on/

  • 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

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

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:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/16/jo-brand-joke-are-we-all-disgusted-tunbridge-wells

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?

…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.

Yet another System-subsidized “humorist” (apparently— I’ve never heard of the idiot) below:

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…

…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…

Fucking doormat for Zionist Jews…

While this silly woman, below, thinks that Jo Brand is a saint, apparently. You stupid creature, the BBC will still not employ you, you thick plank!

[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!

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?

https://twitter.com/LovattMo/status/1139286012058882050

Here, below, the columnist Allison Pearson answers the tweet of Jew Zionist scribbler Hugo Rifkind:

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…

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1139417967400144897

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1139258131333169152

https://twitter.com/JackBMontgomery/status/1139947205681393665

https://twitter.com/AndraSneddon/status/1139441404231475200

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”.

https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1139244350402113536

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!

Nekrassov with another point which applies not only to Jo Brand but a hundred or more others:

https://twitter.com/StirringTrouble/status/1139864753424216064

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?

Notes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5d38c003-c54a-4513-a369-f9eae0d52f91

Update, 19 June 2019

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!

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lammy#Controversies_and_criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Green

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.

Update, 11 July 2019

Latest:

Alison Chabloz talks from her piano…

https://alisonchabloz.com/2019/07/11/fighting-back-and-winning/

Update, 28 January 2020

Predictable System bias.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7935063/Jo-Brands-joke-unlikely-incite-crime-rules-Ofcom.html

Update, 27 June 2025

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”.

Boris Johnson, Brexit, Deadhead MPs, elections, free speech, Ian Millard, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

Boris, A Story for Our Times…

9 Comments

The time has come for me to write about the most incredible charlatan and mountebank the UK has seen since the days of Horatio Bottomley.

The background we all know (though when I say “we”, of course I diplomatically pretend to mean “all British people” but in fact mean “the tiny minority who take a serious interest in how the country and society they themselves live in is run”).

In outline, therefore: the UK has a combined political and electoral system that no longer really works. Part of that is the sclerosis of the major political parties of the System.

The LibDems, heirs to the great late 19th and early 20th Century Liberal Party, failed in 2010 to demand (as they had the power to do) some form of proportional electoral system. They are flagging, though may benefit from not being Conservative or Labour, if Brexit Party grows stronger.

Labour is doing well within its boundaries, as the party of the public services and of the “blacks and browns”. In terms of MP numbers, Labour under Corbyn is doing about as well as it has generally done in the past, if one excludes the Tony Blair years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)#UK_General_Elections

though it may struggle to get a popular vote much above 30% in future.

Then we have the Conservatives, for long considered “the natural party of government”, but which now struggles to attract votes from anyone much under pensionable age, or from those not in the most affluent 10%-20% strata of the population. Its MPs are mediocre or worse, and its ministers no better. The leading contender to take Theresa May’s purple is now Boris Johnson. He is the leading contender because the Conservative Party is terminally sick. In its healthier days, someone like Boris Johnson would not even be an MP, let alone promoted (briefly, disastrously) to Foreign Secretary; the idea of someone like him becoming Prime Minister would be a joke, rather like that of The Simpsons, c. 1993, casting Donald Trump as a future President of the USA. Jokes are dangerous!

A serious point from Lewis Goodall. It has been a long time since the Conservative Party had anything like a solid majority in the House of Commons (1992; arguably, 1987). 27 or even 32 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections

So we now consider the candidate considered most likely to lead the Conservative Party after July-August 2019.

I have in fact already blogged about Boris Johnson and some of the other would-be Conservative Party leaders:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/the-conservative-party-leadership-contenders-in-outline/

Boris Johnson: a few tweets from journalists, commentators etc

https://twitter.com/bexin2d/status/1138401617248698369

[Below, Boris Johnson, the part-Jew public entertainer, clowning and posing as the great patriot…]

https://twitter.com/ajimmydixon/status/1129019292601769984

“After the briefest of honeymoons,” he wrote, “the voters would quickly start to wonder how this spectacularly incompetent braggart, with a Churchill complex but no Commons majority, had ended up in Downing Street in the first place.”

There was a Mafia leader in New York once, John Gotti, who at one time enjoyed the newspaper-invented title “The Teflon Don”, because he was always being arrested and even charged with serious crimes, but who always seemed to get away with whatever. No charges stuck. There is something of that in Boris Johnson.

“Matthew Engel in The Guardian notes [Bottomley’s] ability to charm the public even while swindling them; one victim, cheated of £40,000, apparently insisted: “I am not sorry I lent him the money, and I would do it again”. If London had had a mayor in those days, says Engel, Bottomley would have won in a landslide.”

A transparent reference to the (one-time) Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Johnson seems able to shrug off, not so much allegations against him, but allegations proven beyond all doubt and repeatedly, against him.

Boris Johnson, journalist trainee (sacked), journalist (sacked), Spectator editor (hopeless, largely absent), MP twice, Shadow minister (sacked), Foreign Secretary (“resigned”), Mayor of London (useless). That’s before we even look at detail, or about his personal failings (easily available elsewhere, so no need to again detail them here).

One of the most risible aspects of Boris Johnson is his am-dram reprise of Churchill. Johnson affects not only the voice (slightly) at times, but (also occasionally) the solid buffalo-like massed body posture, hunched, looking down etc. I may have my trenchant criticisms of Churchill’s historical role, but the man was a titan compared to Boris Johnson!

There is something sick here about the Conservative Party, the UK, and the UK’s political system. The Conservative Party consists now of between 50,000 and 120,000 mostly elderly, mostly affluent persons, who are going to vote on a leader. The majority will vote and a majority of those will elect the leader. In other words, about 40,000 or so of those elderly people will, in effect, elect the next Prime Minister of the UK, a position which the “elected” candidate may hold for nearly three years, until 2022!

What kind of fake “democracy” is that?!

What will happen if Boris Johnson wins this contest?

Either Boris Johnson will take the UK out of the EU without a trade “deal” with the EU in place (I am sanguine on that score), in which case there is every chance of his losing a House of Commons confidence vote either immediately or not very long afterward, or Johnson will renege on his meaningless “pledge”, in which case he will be giving Brexit Party a gift worth rubies. Either way, the Conservative Party will be toast. Any loss of a confidence vote will result in a general election in which the Conservative Party might well be wiped out.

The Daily Express (meaning the Jew who owns the Daily Express) has been pushing an opinion poll which says that a Boris Johnson Conservative Party might win a landslide 140-seat House of Commons majority. That is very unlikely, for several reasons.

What Britain needs is a powerful social-national movement. So far, there have been mere straws in the wind only. No movement, no party exists, as yet. An inevitably-disastrous Boris Johnson government might create the socio-political conditions for one to emerge.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Bottomley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gotti#%22The_Teflon_Don%22

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/12/boris-johnson-is-every-bit-as-dull-and-evasive-as-his-minders-hoped

(“It’s quite something when Liz Truss, Gavin Williamson and Chris Grayling are three of the brightest people in the room.“)

(“No, he didn’t want to talk about his record at the Foreign Office. Probably because his tenure had been an unmitigated disaster. Rather, he wanted to claim other people’s achievements during his time as London mayor as his own.”)

(“Just as the event threatened to unravel, Johnson remembered his instructions and dashed for the exit. Some journalists shouted that the whole event had been a total disgrace, but for Boris it had done the business. He had got through the day more or less unexamined. Onwards and downwards, further into the cesspit of Tory party politics.”)

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/16/boris-johnson-said-f-families-7-7-terror-attacks-9970567/?ito=article.desktop.share.top.twitter?ito=cbshare

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-tory-leadership-contest-brexit-steve-baker-conservatives-a8955631.html

(“This was the Tory party in survival mode, reduced to its basest instinct. Things were serious now. The Tory party had decided it must live, and so everything else must die.”)

(“All dignity dispensed with. All integrity gone. Survival is everything.”)

(“The most telling fact of the speech was how bad it was. Boris Johnson is on his best behaviour, but bad behaviour is all he is.“)

(“What was he offering exactly? There was something or other on “investing in the infrastructure this country so badly needs”. His current record on infrastructure is an utterly pointless cable car in east London that recent TfL research showed is used by precisely six actual commuters. ​It now serves alcohol in the evenings to try and stay afloat.

Then there are the rolling windowless sauna buses, and his decision to make himself chief executive of the London Legacy Development Corporation, and personally see through the execrable Olympic Stadium deal with West Ham United – the only aspect of London 2012 over which he had any executive control, and the only aspect considered to be an utter failure.”)

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/877583434184609796

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/why-conservatives-deserve-face-extinction-if-they-make-boris-johnson-prime

We keep hearing that “Boris Johnson has the ability to be Prime Minister, but does he have the necessary character?”

My response is “where has Boris Johnson proven that he has the ability?”; on the contrary, he has, if anything, proven that he has not the ability.

Afterthought, 20 June 2019

It occurs to me that some readers, on reading my assertion that Boris Johnson is the most egregious charlatan and mountebank since Horatio Bottomley, may object “what about Robert Maxwell?”, and it is true that Johnson does invite comparison with “Maxwell”.

However, Maxwell was a far more organized and intelligent figure, and in some respects far more sinister (he is supposed to have been Israel’s chief secret operative in Europe). Also, though “Maxwell” was indeed an MP (in the UK) for 6 years (1964-1970), Britain in those days was still decently “anti-Semitic” and (rightly) somewhat “prejudiced” against “Maxwell” (though Britain still allowed him to become an MP, defraud pensioners etc). No-one would ever have even thought of “Maxwell” as a potential Prime Minister.

It is true that Maxwell was every bit as much of a charlatan as Boris Johnson is, but there was an element of seriousness or even tragedy in Maxwell that does not exist in Boris-Idiot. I don’t suppose that anyone would entrust Boris with millions to invest, neither would he know what to do with it, though his incompetence in every sphere would still ensure that every penny was lost! One could ask, “then why is Boris being entrusted with the fate of the whole country?” God knows. I don’t.

Update, 21 June 2019
Seems that Boris-Idiot and his girlfriend/fiancee (?) had what the police used to call “a domestic”, the neighbours then calling the police emergency line 999. “Our” next Prime Minister”… He is as fit for that position as I might be to take Olympic gold (in any sport).
Update, 22 June 2019
Surprise! (not)
Update, 25 June 2019
Update, 30 June 2019
Johnson may never become Prime Minister even if he wins the absurd contest with Jeremy Hunt:
Update, 24 July 2019
Well, the idiot has been appointed Prime Minister, most of the Cabinet of Theresa May has resigned, others have been sacked. I shall blog separately about this disastrous new Cabinet of “kings and queens for a day” when it is complete. I just note now that Boris-Idiot has appointed, as Home Secretary, one of the traditional “Great Offices of State”, Priti Patel, who is non-European, thick as two short planks, and a proven Israeli agent. We no longer have freedom of speech in the UK; otherwise I would express what I think should happen to her. I therefore content myself with observing that, had it not been for Idi Amin, she would now be serving customers from behind the counter of a Kampala grocery shop.
Britain is now officially in big trouble.
Ctdcka4WAAApkQ6
Brexit, by-elections, elections, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

Peterborough By-Election: post-poll analysis and thoughts

11 Comments

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).

Tweets etc

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1136962411666321410

Below, illustrating my point that Labour’s core vote is now “the blacks and browns”

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/notes-from-the-peterborough-by-election/

https://gab.com/Fosfoe/posts/YldMYkx4cXRRdlpGM2NqWE40QjNYZz09

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Forbes_(politician)

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/peterboroughs-new-mayor-says-prison-stint-should-be-forgotten-as-he-prepares-to-become-citys-first-citizen/

http://participator.online/articles/2019/06/peterborough_byelection_postal_voting_questions_20190611.php

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1140260185446989824

Defence, historical, historical revisionism, Jewish lobby in UK, Reminiscences and Musings, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

A Few Thoughts About 6 June 1944 and also (mainly) About 6 June 2019

Leave a comment

Foreword

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.

In the early 1960s, my grandparents never missed All Our Yesterdays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Our_Yesterdays_(TV_series) and I usually watched it with them.

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.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevin_Boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Beach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/31/secondworldwar.nationalarchives

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10336126/Nazis-offered-to-leave-western-Europe-in-exchange-for-free-hand-to-attack-USSR.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_War_Cabinet_Crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1940/07/19/Hitler-offers-Britain-peace-or-destruction/6824181303557/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2433733/How-Nazis-offered-peace-treaty-World-War-II-meant-selling-Russians.html

Update and further thoughts, 8 June 2019

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.

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!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9232117/tobias-ellwood-calls-for-defence-budget-increase/

“Struggle” to mount D-Day again?! Ha ha!

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II

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):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army#Modern_army

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].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy#1939%E2%80%931945

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#British_Task_Force

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!)…

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/02/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-gavin-williamson-story/

…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”!

and see: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/01/disordered-and-infantile-people/

Update, 21 July 2019

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.

Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Defence, ethnostate, free speech, Party Politics, prepping, safe zones, society, Uncategorized, white flight

How Long Before UK Society Breaks Down?

Leave a comment

I happened to see comments of General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, the Chief of the General Staff [see Daily Telegraph link, below]:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/04/british-military-risks-irrelevance-doesnt-adapt-future-army/

“The British military risks becoming irrelevant if it continues to focus on “missiles and tanks” as the main threats to the UK, the head of the Army has warned.”

“The army must “update and change the rules of war” according to the Chief of the General Staff, to be able to tackle new threats like cyber attacks, whilst also deterring countries that rely on heavy firepower.”

“General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said a focus on high-tech weapons that are no use against low-level threats like fake news and subversion “leaves us close to a position of dominant irrelevance”.”

“The main threat is not missiles and tanks, it is the weaponisation of globalisation, and those elements of globalization that have hitherto made us prosperous and secure: the mobility of goods, people, data and ideas.”

“Secure borders, or living on an island, are no guarantees against the corrosive and intrusive effect of disinformation, subversion and cyber.”

“The Army head suggested that traditional concepts of warfare were “increasingly redundant”.”

General Carleton-Smith fails to mention, at least specifically, mass immigration (and the subsequent and consequent births) as a factor impacting the very survival of the UK as a state, a country, a society.

Of course, if he did mention it in that context, he would be sacked.

At one time, the UK was a fairly cohesive society. Now it is not. It is a seething volcanic caldera, disguised only by a thin and disintegrating crust.

Look at what happened just today (4 June 2019):

A baying mob of anti-Trump “protesters” bait and then attack what seems to be a lone middleaged man. A porcine woman leads the abusive and violent multi-ethnic pack, shouting “nazi scum!” repeatedly into his face. I suppose that he was brought up not to punch a woman in the face, even one like her.

Look at the policewoman (or PCSO) who not only does not attempt to arrest the milkshake-thrower but looks terrified, before she is pushed aside by the crowd as an irrelevance. The police are just useless these days. That “officer” made no attempt to protect a citizen standing in the street outside Parliament itself. Well, in the end, she is just one woman in a clown outfit.

Incidentally, I am not exactly a Trump fan myself; that is another issue.

We often think that the UK is becoming a police state. How is that reconciled with the imminent social breakdown I am predicting? In fact, the two go together, and both are linked to the now-fragmented UK society.

As society becomes fragmented, the easy-going policing of the past has to change to try to contain the chaos just below the surface. In addition, anything which disturbs the surface calm, or relative calm, has to be criminalized. So we see that, as the foreign invading hordes and their offspring have multiplied in number, so have the penalties increased for anyone who suggests that they should not be in the UK, or should be removed one way or another.

This started in the 1960s with the first Race Relations Act (1965), and became increasingly more oppressive with subsequent Acts (1968, 1976, 1985, 2000, 2003). It is clear why: the threat of public order upheaval, as more and more “blacks and browns” (and others) arrived in the UK and started to breed.

Free speech, freedom of expression generally, freedom of choice (eg in offering employment, or housing or whatever) “had” to be curtailed for reasons of “preserving the Peace” and in order to keep up the pretence that the multi-ethnic/multicultural society can work, albeit at the expense of a certain loss of civic freedom.

There was also the realization that, as the non-British and indeed non-European populations expanded in size, they had to be pandered to, not “offended” etc, not because the reverse would be impolite or undiplomatic, but because those increasingly huge populations might rise up against the white British people who “allowed” them to come to the UK (though most of the British opposed mass immigration; it was always the System and its politicians etc that caused the influx and its problems).

It was and still is the Jewish Zionist element that was and still is behind much of the legal repression and the “ethnic” influx itself (“The Great Replacement”).

Over the years, the censorship of speech and restriction of actions has expanded from races and “ethnicities” to other parts of the general population: religions, sexual orientations etc.

You can now say, or post online, relatively innocuous views, only to find that you are not only faced with a virtual (online) mob baying for your blood, but also quite likely with a policeman at your door or on the telephone. My own experiences include this:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

If you say something that offends the general orthodoxy, you may lose your job, your professional status, your liberty.

The satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz lost her job —singing for a cruise line— simply because her views supposedly offended some Jews, even though her views had nothing to do with that job. Later, she sang satirical songs about some of the hundreds (if not thousands) of “holocaust” fake stories. That resulted in a farcical cycle of police persecution, prosecutions, eventual trial, conviction, sentence, appeal and now (at time of writing) further appeal.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/alison-chabloz-the-show-goes-on/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/alison-chabloz-the-fight-for-freedom-of-expression-goes-on/

Jez Turner set up the London Forum discussion group. He also made a speech in Whitehall in 2015, recalling how the Jews had been expelled from England more than once (and hoping that they might yet be removed again). Put on trial in 2018. Convicted. His punishment? A year in prison (he served 6 months).

I too was subject to action (by the same Jew-Zionist element): see above, and also

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

The Zionist campaign against free speech and free historical enquiry is being resisted, but the mere fact that such repression of free speech exists is very significant.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/the-campaign-against-antisemitism-caa-takes-a-serious-hit/

In the last few years, the privatization of public space has led to the abuse of power by the main online platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc), and even the organizations behind or around such platforms: paypal, patreon, and so on.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/03/the-knives-are-out-for-freedom-of-expression-and-more/

When Twitter started to remove “unwanted” opinion from its pages, many turned to GAB, only to find that there was a strong and focussed attempt by the ZOG powers to destroy GAB. So far, it has survived. However, the campaign against free speech continues, and shows no sign of abating:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/tommy-robinson-banned-on-facebook-the-repression-of-free-speech-online/

Indeed, even a joke made (and posted online) about a Guy Fawkes event in a suburban garden can result in a police raid, evidence “bagged up” as for a murder case etc. Am I making this up to prove my point? No.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/06/a-country-gone-mad/

Measures against free speech and freedom of expression are just, overall, a symptom of what is happening. By that I mean the fragility of civil society generally. We see that, as the police “crack down” on social media posts or stickers put up on university campuses (incredibly, some young people got 4 years in prison for the latter, quite recently), comments made in blogs etc, in the real world of the UK, crime and especially violent crime is getting out of control: London infested by mainly black and brown “moped raiders” and “scooter raiders” and muggers, “road rage” incidents, brawls etc. The courts are far more lenient, usually, on those real crimes than they are on the fake crimes or notional crimes of pretended offence.

I have seen over the years how thin the veneer of society is in the UK. As long ago as the petrol protests of 2000, I noticed that that veneer was already very very thin indeed. Fights breaking out over the fuel pumps etc.

The police cover has been reduced, and while the police seem to be enthusiastically noting and acting upon reports of anyone seriously (or even unseriously, thinking of the dog taught to do a “Hitler” salute! The owner got a heavy fine…) criticizing the failing multikulti society (or the Jews that are mainly behind it), they seem far less interested in the traditional role of the police, i.e. investigating real crime and keeping safe the citizenry.

As for the armed services, they seem to be going the same way. Reduced in numbers, and with their focus on the approved shibboleths of the “multi-everything” society: multi-ethnic, multicultural, LGBT-whatever friendly, with confused aims, ever-lowering standards and little ability to counter either conventional threats or new dangers.

There again, what are the armed forces actually defending? We are now at the 75th anniversary of the Normandy Landings. There may be disputes about whether the Second World War ever need have happened, about whether an honourable armistice between the British Empire and the German Reich might have been concluded in 1940, but leaving all that aside, the British servicemen and civilians of that era (albeit bamboozled by Churchill and his cabal, so be it…) knew, at least in their own minds, what their own society was! Something like the picture given in the popular song There’ll Always Be An England:

Is there a British society at all now? There are bits and pieces still operative, but the society as a whole is now a jigsaw. There are fissures and rifts and splits everywhere. Racial, ethnic, religious, ideological, sexual, economic etc. Some always existed, but not to this extent.

So we see a situation where, at the very time when the society itself is not a coherent whole, the forces which might compel civic obedience and discipline are not numerous or powerful enough to do so, despite theoretically strict laws relating to various areas.

What will happen in a situation (which might come sooner than many imagine) in which the population is without luxuries or even necessities? Who will control those seething and uncontrolled masses? Not the depleted Army. Not the very depleted police.

A social national movement does not exist in the UK. It may be that the only way for one to exist will be for its existence to become the only way for the whole society to exist.

Notes

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/strange-death-europe-immigration-xenophobia

https://gab.com/ianrmillard/posts/47468129

https://gab.com/LionoftheNorth/posts/47563842

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html

 

 

Brexit, by-elections, elections, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

EU Elections 2019 in Review: Conservative Party

4 Comments

The Conservatives were the big losers of the 2019 EU Elections in the UK: 1,512,809 votes, a vote-share of 8.8%, 4 MEPs (down from 19), 5th-placed after Brexit Party, LibDems, Labour and Greens.

The Conservatives were in 5th place in most of the 11 EU constituencies. Their best results were in Scotland, East of England, South East England and South West England, in all of which they were placed 4th, the largest vote-share being in Scotland (11.6%).

This was the worst nationwide result for the Conservatives since the party was officially formed in or about 1832, the year of the first Reform Act (some date its foundation by reference to the publication of the Tamworth Manifesto by Sir Robert Peel in 1834; no matter).

Since the 2019 EU elections (last week), much has happened: Theresa May staying on temporarily as a ghost PM, but having resigned as Conservative leader in advance (effective 7 June 2019); between one and two dozen candidates scrabbling for her purple, with Boris Johnson (“Boris Idiot”) in the lead. More significantly, only 40% of 2017 Conservative voters aver that they will vote Conservative at the next general election, and a YouGov poll taken a week after the EU elections resulted thus:

(UKIP and CHUKUP both on 1%; I have taken SNP support in Scotland as 40%, Con 20%).

If that poll reflects the next general election, the House of Commons would be hung: largest party would be Labour (186 seats), then Brexit Party (184 seats), then LibDem (116 seats). The Conservatives would have 86 seats, only 30 ahead of the SNP.

Note that, though: 86 seats! That would be the smallest MP contingent ever for the Conservatives, easily beating the smallest so far, following the General Election of 1997, at which the Conservatives scored 165 seats on a vote-share of 30.7%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections

Many cannot forgive the Conservatives the cruel “welfare” policies of 2010-present. I am at one with that. The “Conservative” ministers responsible should be put on trial at some future point.

However, the uncaring policies of the Con-Coalition and of the Theresa May government did not directly affect the majority of the population. What has affected the majority has been the starvation of large areas of other public spending: police (albeit that I think that much police effort is misdirected), NHS, justice system etc.

Then there is the sheer ineptitude of so many Conservative ministers. Chris Grayling alone! How many times does that obvious sociopath have to mess up before he is sacked and booted back onto the backbenches? God knows. He is still a Cabinet minister today, despite having messed up at Transport, Justice and Employment, as well as in other roles! The Labour Party has alleged that Grayling alone has mis-spent nearly £3 BILLION in public funds, the Probation Service fiasco merely being his latest failure. “Failing Grayling”.

Grayling is not alone. One only has to think of Esther McVey, dishonest and thick as two short planks. Others abound. Iain Dunce Duncan Smith comes to mind…

Again, the UK (ie the Conservatives) adopted the wrongheaded “austerity” policies of 2010-present, which have not only made the country so much more threadbare but are in in contrast to those of other EU countries (except Greece), which have recovered, and grown so much faster, in recent years.

Now, as Theresa May is banished to the land of the political shades, a mass of idiots (mainly) is scrabbling to tear off her purple. The eventual field may number as many as 20.

The dilemma the Conservatives have is that they can

  • elect a leader who is Remain or “Soft-Brexit” (Brexit In Name Only), and then very likely get slaughtered when they eventually find the courage to hold a general election (perhaps not until 2022 or until Brexit Party deflates, which latter may never happen); or
  • elect as leader a Brexiteer (or, like Boris Johnson, a fake Brexiteer), which will mean that his/her attempt to exit the EU on WTO terms will trigger a vote against in the Commons and then a confidence vote, which, with a number of Remain Conservatives abstaining, or even voting against the Government, will mean that the Government must fall and a general election held, at which the Conservatives will probably be slaughtered. Catch-22.

The Conservatives really are in trouble, and it could be terminal. The newspapers (look at the Daily Telegraph) are full of articles saying how the Conservatives have no decent leadership candidates, no ideas, no overarching “story” or ideology etc.

Who now votes Conservative? According to opinion polls, only 4% of under-25s, and only 16% of under-35s. The bulk of Conservative voters are retired people, often in their 70s, 80s, 90s. A rapidly-depleting contingent.

Then we have income and capital demographics. The Conservatives are desperately trying to appeal to renters, students etc, by bringing in “helpful” measures to match Labour promises. I doubt that these late ploys will be very effective.

As to “culture wars” aspects, the Conservatives have failed to prevent the continuing migration invasion, are very much identified with the Jewish Zionist and City of London speculator element, and have lost their traditional supporters by supporting “socially liberal” policies such as gay marriage and all the “multikulti” stuff. One MP personifies all that, though he is not alone (far from it): Nick Boles MP, Bilderberg attendee, Remainer, expenses cheat and blodger (he even claimed on expenses to have Hebrew lessons so that he could communicate with his Israeli boyfriend!); he wants to continue with mass immigration, building millions of rabbithutches on the countryside for the influx and their offspring. Goodbye England!

On 6 June, there will be held the very important Peterborough by-election. Peterborough is or was a Con-Lab marginal.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/notes-from-the-peterborough-by-election/

In 2017, a black African woman, Fiona Onasanya, was foisted on the people of Peterborough by the Labour Party machine in London. It turned out that she was not only yet another MP whose CV was partly a fake, but that she was totally incompetent and useless (5,000 unanswered emails from constituents were found by the assistant she then hired, which lady is now suing Onasanya in the Employment Tribunal).

Onasanya was only removed as MP following a petition triggered by her conviction for perverting the course of justice; she spent 28 days of a lenient 3-month sentence in prison. That did not stop her from not only getting her pay, free London flat, bills paid etc until she was kicked out, but she even voted maliciously against Brexit in the Commons, while still wearing her electronic tag!

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/21/deadhead-mps-an-occasional-series-the-fiona-onasanya-story/

Labour has a lot to live down in Leave-supporting Peterborough. However, their present candidate, Lisa Forbes, a trade union woman, is 2nd favourite (after the odds-on Brexit Party candidate) to win the by-election. At time of writing, 4/1. At the start of the campaign, Labour was Evens favourite with the bookmakers, so is struggling.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1134470/peterborough-byelection-labour-candidate-gordon-brown-nigel-farage-hustings-brexit

As to the Conservatives, who only lost to Labour in 2017 by 607 votes, their stock has fallen, or should I write “plunged”? 25/1 today with the bookmakers. My analysis is that Brexit Party is being supported on its merits as anti-System but also supported as the best way to keep Labour out. That is, even Conservative voters who prefer their usual party to Brexit Party are going to vote Brexit Party to keep Labour out. At the same time, Remain voters (including former Con Remainers) are clustering round the LibDems (whose odds have fallen from 70/1 a week ago to 12/1 today). The Conservatives are therefore being deserted both by Brexit-favouring voters and Remain-favouring voters.

If Brexit Party wins at Peterborough, that will confirm that 2019 is the beginning of the end for the Conservative Party. If Brexit Party can get 10% at the next general election (assuming before 2022), the Conservative Party is unlikely to get a majority. If Brexit Party gets 20%, then the Commons will have, probably, three or even four English parties with substantial blocs of MPs (and also the SNP). Above 20%, and the Brexit Party effectively replaces the Conservatives (and maybe Labour, to a lesser extent) in the Commons.

Both Labour and Conservatives are fading from relevance, partly for the same reasons, partly for different reasons. The Conservatives face the immediate threat of near-extinction. They now look as if their days are numbered.

slipperyslope1

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamworth_Manifesto

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Peel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#UK_general_elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling#Government_Minister_(2010%E2%80%93)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling

Afterthought, 4 June 2019

I watched “63-Up”, the latest in the TV experiment that follows a group of people born, as chance would have it, the same year as me (1956), a film about them being made every 7 years. The sort of original-thinking TV project that is rarely if ever attempted today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(film_series)

The subjects are now all 62 (like me) or 63. One of those featured today was a young London East-Ender, Tony Walker [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(film_series)#Tony] who had been a jockey and a taxi driver. Politically, what interested me is that the subject said that, as an adult, i.e. since the late 1970s, he had always voted Conservative, but now would never do so again. Why? Not for economic reasons: he had done well in aspirational terms, had moved from East London proper to relatively leafy South Woodford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Woodford,

https://www.pettyson.co.uk/area-guides/south-woodford

and even had a holiday home in Spain.

The subject, Tony, was never going to vote Conservative again because he wanted the UK to be free of EU control but also because he evidently has woken up to the fact that globalist puppet-masters are pulling the strings. I do not know what other issues were or are of importance to him, and in a sense it hardly matters. What does matter, as we look at events politically, is that Tony and a million other Tonys are not voting Conservative in the next UK general election. People like him do not vote Labour these days, so where? In the film, he even said that the Greens might get his vote (to me, surprisingly). The film would have been made a few months ago, before the advent of Brexit Party and its rise to pre-eminence, but I think that I can guess where Tony’s vote is going next time…

The Conservatives are now revealed by events and their own actions as a bunch of clowns, who have failed on Brexit, failed on everything. They cannot even run the election for their own leader effectively! I really believe that the Conservatives, even more than Labour and the LibDems, are heading for the scrap-heap, rapidly.

Brexit, Conservative Friends of Israel, elections, free speech, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

Ding-Dong, The Witch is Dead

20 Comments

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…

Cm3s14vW8AA8yIk

Czg6Vs0XgAQQTOE

[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]

CmmGfz5WgAAWy1m

theresam

Bso85QHCEAA1yun

Update, 23 July 2019

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.

Alt-Right, Brexit, free speech, Ian Millard, immigration, Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Peter Hitchens and His Views

31 Comments

I am impelled to write a few words about Peter Hitchens after having just seen an interview with Owen Jones [see below], which interview dates from 2017.

I have already written a blog post about Owen Jones:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/a-brief-word-about-owen-jones/

To examine the views and influence of Hitchens in detail would necessitate a blog article of inordinate length, but Wikipedia has a considerable amount of information about him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

I should like to focus mainly on a few matters raised in that interview.

As to Hitchens himself, he is an odd fellow, apparently fairly well-educated. His family background had elements of tragedy (his mother bolted with an unfrocked priest, and the couple later died via a suicide pact in an Athens hotel). Not mentioned in the interview is that Hitchens (like Owen Jones) has part-Jewish roots, his maternal grandmother having been half-Jewish, in that her mother was Jewish. It was on that basis that Hitchens’ even more eccentric brother, Christopher, declared himself in latter years to be “Jewish” (taking the traditional Jewish course of deciding via the matrilineal side alone).

The interview mentions his having attended a naval school, but that must have been in early years, he then having attended The Leys School, Cambridge, an institution which has schooled a number of well-known people: at least one Rothschild, a few kings (albeit from Bahrain and Tonga), a number of MPs and journalists (in some cases both, as with Martin Bell).

Hitchens then went on to the City of Oxford College (a college of further education) and finally to Alcuin College, part of the University of York.

It may be that the university education and milieu that Hitchens found in Alcuin College permanently influenced his attitude. Wikipedia says of Alcuin College that,

“From early days of the college an uproar for secession of the college from the remainder of the university has been present.[3] It is a self-styled Separatist Movement and at times presented as a running gag at the University of York about Alcuinites….For many years Alcuin College was very much the outcast on the university campus, the only college physically separate from the others except for a bridge from the library…“

The photograph of Alcuin College in winter shows an almost Soviet bleakness and isolation.

Alcuin_College_in_Snow_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1691889

Hitchens, though characterizing himself in the Owen Jones interview as having been a “joiner” in his youth, has also been an outsider, defector and maverick. I wonder whether he applied to the University of York because Oxford and/or Cambridge (in both of which cities he had attended school) refused his application, or perhaps he made no application to Oxbridge because (I speculate) his developing extreme socialist views made him reject such “bourgeois” places of learning. A better interviewer than Owen Jones, such as the late and great Brian Walden, might have explored all that.

Hitchens was from 1968 (aged 17) to 1975, a member of the Trotskyist “tendency” called the International Socialists [IS], the forerunner of the Socialist Workers’ Party [SWP]. He joined two years before he went to York. Later, in his forties, he became a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party, but only for the six years 1997-2003, and —typically— at the very nadir of Conservative fortunes, which is interesting, psychologically. Does he court unpopularity? Does he deliberately express unpopular or contrary views?

Hitchens is known as what might fairly be called a “reactionary”, someone who thinks that Britain was a better place in the 1950s, no ifs no buts. In fact, I believe that I watched him say that or something like that on TV once. My own view is different, that some aspects of life in the UK are better now, though many are certainly worse. This blog post is about Peter Hitchens, not Ian Millard, but in my view, things that are better now than in the 1950s (which I scarcely remember, having been born in 1956) or the early 1960s (which I certainly do remember) would include

  • central heating as the norm;
  • wider selection of fruits and vegetables (and in general a healthier or at least more varied diet);
  • less antiquated snobbism;
  • more understanding of animal welfare;
  • far easier access to information (via Internet);

Whereas, on the other side, the aspects of British life now that mean that UK life is worse (than in the early 1960s, anyway) are (and Hitchens has a point, because it is a longer list by far)

  • the general pressure of life now (of course, I was a child in, say, 1963, so my perception is affected to that extent but I think the judgment is still valid);
  • pervasive lack of freedom of expression;
  • pervasive “political correctness” etc;
  • the cost of living, though that is a complex question; it includes
  • the cost of real property both for sale and rent, and the impossibility for most people to buy a property without family money;
  • British people swamped by mass immigration;
  • real pay and social benefits etc generally reducing;
  • hugely less choice of employment for most people;
  • many people in full-time work unable to live on the poor pay offered;
  • unwanted millions of immigrants and their offspring;
  • congested roads and railways (and refer to the above line);
  • a huge new mixed-race population;
  • a huge amount of crime;
  • public and private housing shortages (refer to immigration, above);
  • huge numbers of drug-contaminated persons;
  • workers exploited in terms of having ever-shorter lunch breaks etc, “on call” after hours etc;
  • public services near to collapse in some respects;
  • intensive farming, with consequent harm to wildlife;
  • standards in all areas (NHS, schools, social security, Westminster MPs, police etc) falling like a stone

We often hear (eg from very young Remain whiners) that, eg, “foreign travel is easier now”, whereas that is mostly illusion. True, there were some silly aspects “back then”, such as being restricted as to foreign currency taken on holiday (you even had to have the amount, bought from somewhere like Thomas Cook, written in your passport!), and that silliness (a kind of postwar sacred cow) lasted until Mrs Thatcher stopped it in 1979 or 1980! Yes, true, but that was about it.

If you listen to Remain whiners (esp. the under-30s), you read or hear that Brexit will mean either no visa-free travel to the EU states, or no travel allowed at all! They really believe that, pre-1972, British people were almost imprisoned, as if Cuban, Chinese or Soviet citizens!

Until blacks and browns abused it in the 1980s to import relatives illegally, you used to be able to get a “British Visitor’s Passport” from post offices for a small amount; the passport was valid for short visits to almost all Western European states (not many people went to Eastern Europe as tourists until the 1990s). I had one in 1978 or 1979, in between possession of two ordinary passports, when I wanted to travel to France at short notice. I think that it cost about £5 and took about 5 minutes to be issued at Lanark Road Post Office, Little Venice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#The_British_visitor’s_passport

Transport to the European mainland: true, there were no budget airlines as such in the 1950s, 1960s, but there were routes and ways not now in existence: in the 1950s and 1960s, people could take their cars by air to France! The main route was Lydd (Kent) to Amiens. This was not only for the rich: 5,000 cars (20,000 passengers) as early as 1950, and over 50,000 cars (250,000 passengers) by 1955 (incredible when you recall that rationing lasted until 1955!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_City_Airways#The_1950s

Yes, you might have to show your passport or wave it (you still do…)

There were excellent hovercraft services (though only from 1970-2000) across the Channel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoverspeed

The idea that some Remain whiners have that young people will be unable to travel if the UK leaves “Europe” (meaning the EU) is laughable to those who know. As a child I travelled with parents; and then (from 1971) as a teenager, I travelled alone to Paris, Amsterdam etc. No visa required, UK not in EEC (the then EU).

I might add that it actually takes longer to fly to Paris in 2019 than it did in 1970 or even 1960!

Anyway, back to Hitchens and his views.

True, the early 1950s did still have rationing (until 1954), the result of the stupid and terrible war against the German Reich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Timeline

One cannot say that Hitchens approves of that aspect of 1950s lifestyle, though, and (if I understand him aright), he thinks that the British war against Germany could have been avoided, but I may be mistaken here. He certainly thinks that of the First World War, which he says, surely rightly, destroyed British naval supremacy and economy.

Where Hitchens is certainly mistaken is in saying (in the interview) that Churchill’s refusal to countenance the German peace proposals of 1940 was “unquestionably the right and moral thing to do”. Oh really? Right and moral, to continue a war only started because triggered by a treaty obligation that could never have been fulfilled (the Anglo-French worthless “guarantee” to Poland) and when an honourable peace via armistice was on the table?

Such a peace might have been bought at the price of German victory in the East, but would that have been so bad? The destruction of the Stalin/Bolshevik regime? The saving of most of Eastern Europe from both wartime destruction and post-1945 Stalinism? The prevention of the enormous damage, loss of life and hurt across Western and Southern Europe and North Africa? Hitchens says, however, that he is “sceptical” about Churchill overall.

Hitchens is on surer ground when he says that British history has gone, in that no-one knows British history. He cites David Cameron-Levita being unable to translate the two words “Magna Carta” from Latin! After 6 years at Eton! That was when “Scameron” was a guest on the Letterman Show. Shaming for the whole country. Not just the Magna Carta bit. Cameron came over more like a part-Jew public entertainer (and not a good one) than a British statesman. Oh…wait…

[the bit about Magna Carta starts around 8 minutes in]

Scameron was also proven, though I think on another occasion, not to have heard of the Bill of Rights! Hitchens cites an apparently intelligent 6th-former whom he met, and who had passed exams in English History, and yet who did not know which side Oliver Cromwell was on during the English Civil War!

I have had similar encounters. Few people under 40 now know even the most basic facts about British history, and less about European history generally. An indictment of the British educational system. One should, though, be wary of thinking that this kind of ignorance developed overnight. I recall having a brief conversation with a South London couple I met by a swimming pool in Sousse, Tunisia, in 1986, and who, it transpired, had no idea at all that what is now Tunisia had been (part of) a Roman imperial province. Not knowing who was Nelson or Drake, though, is arguably of a different order.

Hitchens says, again correctly, that “we” “have no idea now what it means to be English or British”, but does not go on to examine the racial implications. Come to think of it, that may be one reason why so many people in the UK want to denounce others to Twitter, Facebook, the police, employers etc for holding the “wrong” views, i.e. because the denouncers have no idea of the English historical struggle for free speech (John Hampden etc…) and no respect for it.

CxDUqlFWgAAY3LX

D635NrZW0AAGWQo

scan25

Owen Jones talks about how open-minded (he says…) Corbyn is, and implies that he, Jones, is the same. Oh yes? Take a look at my blog post about him…

Hitchens himself is really little different. He once had a short and at first reasonable discussion with me on Twitter about the early Zionists, in 2017 or 2016, but then a Jew tweeted to him about how I was apparently an evil “neo-Nazi”, after which, just like Owen Jones, inter alia, Hitchens blocked me. I was unaware then that Hitchens is part-Jew, though not to the extent that would have rendered him liable to sanctions under the 1936 Nuremberg law(s), his maternal grandmother having been only part-Jew (Mischling) and his maternal grandfather not a Jew. In fact, under those laws he would even have been able to work as a journalist.

Hitchens says that Enoch Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech “was a disgrace”. Why? He dislikes its tone, it seems. What about its truth, though? He also says that “the intermarriage [resulting from immigration] is great”. I begin to wonder what major part of modern British society he does dislike, when push comes to shove! To be fair to Hitchens, he does disapprove of the ghetto communities established by Pakistanis and others in, mainly, the Midlands and North of England. He is certainly not “white nationalist”, let alone social-national. If he were, he would be sacked at once. Long live freedom!…

An area in which I do find myself largely in agreement with Hitchens is in intervention by the “West” (in my terms, “NWO/ZOG”) in the affairs of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya. He opposes it. That’s something.

As to Russia, Hitchens seems to take an objective view (informed by better historical knowledge than most msm scribblers), eg:

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/russia/

I apprehend that Hitchens likes the social conservatism of most Russians.

So what is my overall view of Peter Hitchens? I should say that he is someone of considerable intellect, though nowhere near as intelligent as he himself imagines. Someone of considerable education, but who imagines that he knows more and better than almost anyone else, and believes that it is his role in life to pronounce on the truth of any given social, political, historical or ethical topic. Someone who harks back to a supposed golden age prior to, perhaps, 1959, or 1989 (at very latest). Someone who sees what is wrong in the present society but appears to have no programme or (Heaven forbid!) ideology to move from here to there (to a better society).

Hitchens takes a reasonable view such as “the family is a good thing” and tests it to destruction. Likewise, in his critique of both socialism and the contemporary Conservative Party, he goes to an extreme, saying that the Conservative Party is “extreme Left-wing”, by which he means “socially liberal”. He defends traditional marriage and his arguments here have force.

Hitchens thinks that the Conservative Party is dying (understandable, looking at its MPs and ministers) but, yet again, goes to an extreme, wishing that it could have lost the 2010 General Election so that it might have died, and so made room for a new and socially-conservative party. I wish that it had lost too, but for other reasons!

Hitchens reminds me of two other scribblers of note, Peter Oborne and (now rather forgotten) Paul Johnson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Oborne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)

All three are often intuitively correct on some issues, risibly mistaken on others. They are alike in other ways, too. As the Russians say, they are all “Maximalisti”.

Hitchens (like Owen Jones) blocked me on Twitter for ideological reasons. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) makes a very comfortable living from the System msm. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) poses no danger to the existing state of affairs, despite making much noise. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) is a mass media pussycat pretending to be a tiger.

I like to read Hitchens’ words occasionally. He is often right, not always. However, his words are commentary, not inspiration. He says in the interview that Britain is finished and that the only serious history of contemporary Britain will one day be written in Chinese! Maybe, but God moves in mysterious though sometimes sanguinary ways. As a Christian and a student of history, Hitchens should know that.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin_College,_York

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(UK)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Walden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Early_life_and_education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Jewish_identity

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/mass-hysteria/

Hitchens’ most recent Mail on Sunday article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7045469/PETER-HITCHENS-green-seats-prove-careering-catastrophe.html

Other recent articles by Hitchens:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6993553/PETER-HITCHENS-time-view-police-just-like-failed-industries.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7019091/PETER-HITCHENS-country-slowly-choked-death-rights-wrongdoers.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7070715/PETER-HITCHENS-did-warn-Marshmallow-Lady.html

Hitchens’ recent book (which I have not yet read, but which promises to be at least as myth-shattering as those of the unjustly neglected historian Correlli Barnett)

Update, 18 September 2020

Since the above was written, Peter Hitchens has been almost a lone voice struggling against the “Coronavirus” panic and the allied government-proclaimed fear propaganda.

Update, 24 April 2022

Hitchens is now in the small minority of public figures unwilling to go along with the msm noise against Russia, and for Ukraine (meaning the Kiev regime of the Jew-Zionist Zelensky).

free speech, immigration, Reminiscences and Musings, society, The Great Replacement, The Great Reset, the Great Reset, Uncategorized, white flight

Sentencing As Virtue-Signalling

3 Comments

I do not often blog about criminal court cases, but this one caught my eye.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-16/sad-man-jailed-for-daubing-racist-graffiti-on-african-familys-door/

On the face of it, a clear case, with no doubt about the immediately-relevant facts. The defendant admitted to the crime and was sentenced to a year in prison. There are some nuances, however.

Obviously, criminal damage cannot be tolerated, and it is certainly not very nice and certainly not very polite to daub words on the door of a neighbouring dwelling; but to my mind the sentence was harsh.

The defendant was sentenced to a year in prison and will therefore be released in 6 months’ time, possibly earlier. The chances are that he will lose his local authority home. I have no idea what possessions or companion animals he may have, but unless he has friends or family somewhere to look after them, they too will be lost. He will come out of prison with nowhere to go, and may not be rehoused if some local penpusher decrees that he made himself homeless by his own actions.

That is part of the background. Then we have the point that the defendant had no previous convictions save for a silly one, 27 years previously, involving a “sick-note”.

In view of the fact that the local authority would probably take the crime to be a breach of lease terms or conditions, and so would take away the defendant’s home anyway, would it not have been more just simply to have given this defendant a suspended sentence?

This looks like kicking a man when he is down. At the same time, we see the courts daily giving thugs, thieves etc non-sentences. Of course, this was a “racial” crime…the courts have obviously been told to treat any offence having a “racial” element more seriously (harshly), in an attempt to keep the doomed multikulti society from falling to pieces.

I noticed, also, that the victims were from the Congo. Again, I do not know the full facts, but it is odds-on that what we have here are either “refugees” or economic migrants who have left Africa in order to settle in the UK. Odds-on, again, that the British people (including the defendant) are paying for the victims to live here and breed.

The case above reminds me of one about 25 years ago in Hammersmith, in which a man was driven half-mad by the incessant noise of blacks and their “music”, parties etc in the flat above his dwelling; so much so that he burned them out, killing several. He got a sentence, I think, of about 10 years for manslaughter and arson. Again, the act can scarcely be “justified”, perhaps, but it can be understood. Legally, provocation does not exist and provides no defence in such a case. In real-life terms, though, I think that many will feel a little sorry for such a defendant.

There is a further point: the defendant in the immediate case in question felt the need to say that he is not “racist” (perhaps after consultation with solicitors or Counsel). So even he himself felt the need to “virtue-signal”! If he or his advisers thought that a display of “contrition” and “I’m not racist” protesting would mitigate the sentence, they seem to have been mistaken.

There is also the point that, as hundreds of thousands of blacks and browns etc flood into the UK every year, and as politicians bleat about the “need” to destroy what is left of the countryside in order to build little boxes for migrants on agricultural land and forested land, very many fully-entitled British people are homeless (after today’s sentence, add another one, 6 months down the line).

I am at present also preparing a blog post about Peter Hitchens, who thinks that the UK is doomed in terms of its present society. I suppose that most of us hope that he is wrong. I also suppose that he is probably right.

Proposals for a new society…