My attention is caught by a Daily Mail report, which claims that “allies of” Tom Watson MP are confident that Corbyn will “be forced to” step down as Labour leader, after which Watson would face John McDonnell in a leadership contest which Watson would win. Watson would then take Labour back to its “Centrist” Blair-Brown supposed heyday (Watson preferring Brown to Blair, perhaps), after which the voters of Britain would cast their votes for the reborn “moderate” Labour Party and sweep Watson into Downing Street.
Where does one start, in unravelling such nonsense? I suppose, with the fact that Corbyn, having become leader of the Labour Party by some kind of miracle (speaking objectively and meaning a series of events not easily explicable in terms of materialistically-influenced logic), then was challenged and again won very convincingly.
It is necessary at this point to understand that the opposition to Corbyn has come, from the start, almost entirely from the Jewish or Jewish-Zionist element both within and outside Labour, from Jews and from persons who, while not all Jewish or part-Jewish, are completely under the control of that Jewish-Zionist lobby. A few examples? Sex-pest depressive John Woodcock MP (who left Labour once an inquiry was announced into his personal behaviour; ethnic status not entirely certain), Wes Streeting MP, Ruth Smeeth MP (Jewish, former employee of the Israeli lobby and propaganda organization called BICOM; “confidential contact” of the US Embassy in London —“source” according to Wikileaks), Rachel Reeves MP (ethnic status not completely certain), Angela Smith MP (now not in Labour), Joan Ryan MP (not now in Labour), Margaret Hodge MP (Jewish), Luciana Berger MP (Jewish, a poisonous Zionist; not now in Labour), fathead Chuka Umunna MP (half-Nigerian; not now in Labour), Jess Phillips (ethnic status not entirely certain), Liz Kendall MP (ethnic status not entirely certain) etc.
There are many others in the anti-Corbyn cabal. Most if not all of the MPs in that group belong (or did while members of the Labour Party) to Labour Friends of Israel.
The Labour “anti-Semitism” storm is entirely the creation of a “claque”, an organized body of cheerers and booers, mostly of Jewish and/or Zionist origins and connections. It is being pushed constantly by the Zionist-permeated “British” mass media. The aim is to get Corbyn to resign. That is the only way in which Corbyn can now be unseated.
This weekend, Watson was on the “controlled” mass media, eg the Andrew Marr Show, pushing the Zionist line:
Marr himself is of course completely signed-up to the “System” and to the “multikulti” society. Ecce the great “liberal”…
The Zionists used to control both main System parties. They have, since 2015, lost full control of one. They wish to get that control back. However, their fallback position would be to make Labour seem (or be) “unelectable”. In that event, the misnamed Conservatives would succeed electorally and so continue to form the government (which would be fine in the view of the Zionists: only about 5% of Jews now vote Labour).
Moving to the Daily Mail hypothesis: why should Corbyn step down? No-one can force that. The aim seems to be what is now termed “gaslighting” of Corbyn, to destroy his confidence and increase a sense of powerlessness. I think, though, that Corbyn’s enemies are underestimating his resilience.
Corbyn may be no intellectual, nor a particularly good speaker (though there are plenty of worse ones in the Commons), but he has resilience in spades, and the hide of a rhinoceros (he has had to have had that, over the past 4 years). He probably does feel like Julius Caesar in the Ides of March, with so many Labour MPs who hate him and plot against him surrounding him (including his own Deputy, Watson, whom Corbyn has no power to remove). I doubt, however, that Corbyn will step down while there is a chance that he might become Prime Minister. Don’t forget that Corbyn put himself up for Labour leader when no-one in the msm, no-one in the Westminster bubble, no TV or radio talking head “expert” thought that he had a chance.
Let us see what would happen if Corbyn were to step down: surely McDonnell would beat Watson? After all, Corbyn has so far beaten all “moderate” opponents easily:
In 2015, Corbyn won with a vote of 59.5%, beating Andy Burnham (19%), Yvette Cooper (17%) and Liz Kendall (4.5%);
In 2016, Corbyn beat Owen Smith MP 61.8%-38.2%, others having dropped out in ignominy (Smith is now so obscure that I have seen nothing of him in the msm since he was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet two years ago);
Were the contest to be a straight McDonnell/Watson one, I have little doubt that McDonnell would win. The Corbyn loyalists who are now the bulk of the membership would see to that. The Daily Mail suggests, surely risibly, that thick-as-two-short-planks Angela Rayner might contest and win such election. If she did, that would finish Labour almost as effectively as would the anointing of Diane Abbott! (Married name “Rayner”; unsure what her position is re. Jewish-Zionist lobby).
I myself come to this as an uninvolved though (as some would say) not entirely disinterested observer. I have never been a Labour member, supporter or voter. My main interest in Corbyn and Corbyn-Labour is in its having become a fairly strong anti-Zionist caucus, though terribly weakened by the cognitive dissonance of having to believe that those suffering under Jews/Zionists in the Middle East are right to fight them but, at the same time, (brainwashed into) believing that those exploited by Zionists in Europe (or who refuse to allow Zionists to control them or to destroy the European ethno-cultural stock) must not fight them (certainly not literally) because that would be “antisemitic“!
I also see Corbyn-Labour as one stepping-stone to a social-national movement not far down the line.
McDonnell and Corbyn both give lip-service to the “holocaust” narrative, play along with all that farrago of fakery and contrived emotionalism etc. They do not seem to see (may be too stupid to see) that such lip-service opens the door to Zionism. Witness the way in which Corbyn has been forced to start expelling loyal Labour members and supporters because they are judged (initially by the online Jewish-Zionist claque/cabal) to have tweeted or said something “anti-Semitic”! Labour also adopted the Zionist-drafted “international definition” of “anti-Semitism” (only in fact “adopted” by about 35 states out of 200). Why? Weakmindedness? Laziness? Was it the work of Zionist agents in Labour?
At any rate, the damage has been done and the “claque” (led by the malicious “CAA” cabal) is already crowing online. Corbyn should have felt his own power and just told the Zionists (“international definition”, “holocaust” nonsense and all) to get lost. He did not do that and now the evil pack is again baying for his blood…
The situation is not beyond repair. If Corbyn wins out, then good, the political situation will develop and the so-called “Overton Window” will have moved. If Corbyn loses and especially if Watson or someone under his sway becomes Labour leader, then that could be good in another way, by disgusting Corbyn’s most committed supporters and by rendering Labour even less “electable” than it now is (perhaps so opening up the political waterfront generally).
After all, “moderate” (hardy ha ha) ZOG/NWO tool Gordon Brown lost a general election, as did Ed Miliband. Corbyn so far may have “lost” one general election, but that 2017 “loss” has weakened the Conservatives greatly.
Do Watson’s supporters really think that he could lead the Labour Party to victory? I suspect that that is not the priority for “those behind the curtain”. “They” want rid of Corbyn and a pro-Israel leader installed. Whether Labour does well electorally is of little or no interest to them.
below: Chris Williamson MP doing exactly the wrong thing! Giving in to the Jew-Zionist lobby instead of speaking out clearly against it! Thick dork! Does he really think that he buys any credit from the Jews? They will still hate him whatever he says! If only Labour MPs had the guts to “just say no” to “them”!
A personal message and sincere apology from me regarding my recent remarks on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. pic.twitter.com/2qaNCOVqGk
and here, below, we have the result of not coming out clearly and decisively against the Jew-Zionists! Labour is now far behind the misnamed “Conservatives”…and all because Corbyn, McDonnell and (eg) Chris Williamson are incapable of really hitting the Jew-Zionist lobby hard! You have to be clear and decisive! Also, Corbyn should bin the blacks and browns in the Shadow Cabinet and start again (he will not do that, though, and seems oblivious to the fact that most voters do not want Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler and other deadheads ruling them)
Plenty of water has passed under the bridge. The General Election of December 2019 was lost. The Conservative vote (percentage) scarcely increased, but the Labour percentage vote collapsed (though still at a higher level than it was in both 2010 and 2015: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn#2019_general_election_and_resignation.
At time of writing, the ineptitude of the Rishi Sunak “Conservative”-label government has led to Labour being high in the opinion polls, about 50% to 25%.
Those who read my blog regularly will know that I am far from being an unalloyed fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I think him wooden and not a genuine political thinker, someone who is stuck somewhere between the crypto-Communism of the Michael Foot era and the ideological madness of the contemporary self-described “Left” (I myself never use terms such as “Right”, “Left” as useful descriptors), the crazies who have rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of old-style socialism in and after 1989.
You get the idea.
Corbyn is, in short, a bit of a joke. I have blogged about him, and what I call Corbyn-Labour, in the recent past. He and his party are also in favour of, or not opposed to, mass immigration and the “multikulti” society.
I have little time for Corbyn as a political leader, as such. His poor intellectual level and Lego-brick level of understanding of society and international politics and geopolitics give little confidence.
On the other hand, there is or was something not entirely unpleasantly familiar about Corbyn. As I have blogged and (before I was expelled from Twitter) tweeted about him, he is a recognizable 20th century English type: the bearded “socialist” from the provinces (in Corbyn’s case, transplanted aged about 22 to London), wearing his Lenin cap, reading the Morning Star, Tribune and the Guardian, protesting against 1980s South African apartheid or Israeli West Bank settlements etc, supporting Castro-Cuba, “revolutionary” 1980s Nicaragua, “socialist” Venezuela etc.
Corbyn’s type, with variations, could be observed from around the time of the First World War, and up to the present day, in its “natural surroundings”: the Durham Miners’ Gala, the Tolpuddle Martyrs annual event, the conferences of the Labour Party and TUC, local constituency Labour parties, CND marches, steam rallies, heritage railways, allotments. So much of a “type” is Corbyn that he could easily be imagined included in a series of “English types” in the Edwardian cartoon tradition, complete with outsize head and a little descriptive caption.
Corbyn’s elevation to the Labour leadership was, as I have also blogged, little short of miraculous. Since 2015, Corbyn has also managed to fight off repeated Jew-Zionist attempts to unseat him. What do “they” want? They want Corbyn gone so that Jew-Zionists, lobbyists and placemen can once again control Labour. “They” already control the misnamed “Conservative” Party and have done since at least the end of the Thatcher era; until Corbyn’s accession, “they” controlled Labour too. They want that control back.
We have seen recently how some of Corbyn’s enemies in the Commons started to capitulate and leave the Parliamentary Labour Party, committing political hara-kiri
At the same time, however, Corbyn-Labour has made the mistake of trying to conciliate, making concessions to the Jew-Zionist element. It did that before, when it surrendered to “them” over the so-called “international” “definition” of “antisemitism” (in fact, adopted by fewer than 40 states out of about 200). Now Corbyn-Labour has given in on Chris Williamson MP and has suspended him.
Chris Williamson MP occasionally (maybe two or three times only) retweeted my tweets when I still had a Twitter account. However, when the Jew-Zionists noticed that fact, they criticized him for it, after which he stopped retweeting me and may have (I forget) blocked my account. Weak. It showed weakness in relation to the Jews. I have not forgotten that.
Now Corbyn, John McDonnell and some of their closest allies (as well as swathes of “useful idiots”) in Labour labour under the same cognitive dissonance problem: Corbyn and many of his supporters see what the Jewish-Zionist lobby is trying to do, want to fight against it, but at the same time tie their own hands behind their collective back by saying that they oppose “antisemitism” and are only against Israeli depredations and behaviour rather than being in any way hostile to Jew-Zionist lobby activity in the UK (or France etc).
Corbyn and most of Labour also go along with the largely-debunked “holocaust” narrative as well. It all just plays into the hands of the Zionist lobby, which controls or near-controls many Labour MPs. Yes, some have left (Luciana Berger, Joan Ryan, Angela Smith, Ian Austin, Chuka Fathead) and their political careers are finished. However, there are many like them still in place and reporting back: Stella Creasy is just one example. Mary Creagh, Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall also come to mind, inter alia, as do the outright Jewish Zionists such as Margaret Hodge.
Since Chris Williamson was suspended, the whole Jewish “claque” on Twitter and in the Press (in fact, in the msm generally) has gone mad again about Corbyn, “anti-Semitism” in Labour etc. It’s odd: we are told constantly that there is no “Jewish lobby”, and that individual Jews tweet or scribble purely as individuals, yet when something like this crops up, they all go the same way instantly, like a shoal of fish.
Corbyn-Labour, for all its flaws, is the only game in town right now for striking against the enemies of our British and European future. It can pave the way for social-nationalism down the road.
This is a crisis for Corbyn and his allies. They must either fight back against the encroaching, whining, pleading, manipulating and angrily-demanding Zionist lobby, or be “cribbed, cabined and confined”, imprisoned in a Zionist-constructed box made out of “antisemitism” allegations, “holocaust” fakery and a raft of trickster-drafted “definitions”, “regulations” and inhibition of free speech. Just say no!
Here we see the Jewish anti-Corbyn “claque-storm” in its “tweetstorm” mode, exemplified by this tweet, in which a Jewish woman wants the Labour Party to either disenfranchise its Sheffield Hallam branch (by putting it into “special measures”, i.e. ruling it from London), or to remove (or remove the rights of) the 40 members who voted for a statement (only 1 person voted against). You see the problem: the 40 English people count for less than the one Jewish or pro-Jewish one…If Labour did that across the country, it would be left without active members, the footsoldiers that win elections.
A good typical example of how, if you give “them” an inch, (((they))) take a mile: the Jew-Zionist lobby gets what it wants re. Chris Williamson, but then whines or blusters about how it is too little too late. Their next demand will soon be uttered…
Fiona Sharpe, spokesman for @LabourAgainstAS, said: ‘The decision of Labour's NEC ruling body not to allow Chris Williamson to stand as the Labour candidate for Derby North is too late in coming and totally inadequate. 3/6
When I wrote the above article, I thought that 30 or 35 states had “adopted” the “IHRA” definition of “antisemitism”. In fact, and as I now know, the true figure is only about 15, out of 200 states.
We hear rumblings about Labour and possibly the Conservatives splitting and thus engendering a new “Centrist” party, possibly even two new parties. If that were to happen, it would of course be good from the social-national viewpoint. We need the political monolith to crumble and to fracture.
We see from the latest polling that, when asked who would be better as Prime Minister of the UK, 39% answer Theresa May, 19% prefer Jeremy Corbyn, but 40% say Don’t Know. This is perhaps a clearer picture of the real state of public opinion than “which party will you vote for at the next general election?”, which, at present, polls as seen below:
The variations in “main party” support show uncertainty but also dissatisfaction. That is surely the mood today: a useless and unpleasant Government, a useless and half-crazed Opposition, and no other party with the support or credibility to present an alternative. Another very recent poll indicated that nearly 80% of voters say that none of the “main parties” speak for them or represent them (I am assuming that the LibDems are also still taken to be a “main party” despite the obvious fact that the LDs are totally washed-up)..
We are told that there may be splintering, with MPs from both of the (real) main System parties ready to jump ship.
Labour Party
I have blogged previously (see my WordPress archive) about how I feel that supernatural forces (yes, sounds weird, but look at what happened, in detail…) put Corbyn –who in himself is entirely unfitted– into office as Labour leader. Looked at with cold objectivity, Corbyn is lucky to be an MP, let alone the leader of his party: his school career was an abject failure, and his tertiary education (at a poor polytechnic, reading Trade Union Studies, a real Mickey Mouse degree), lasted only a year before he dropped out. His work history before he became an MP was likewise risible: he spent a few weeks as a reporter for a rural local newspaper in Shropshire, the Newport and Market Drayton Advertiser (does anything really ever happen in such bucolic surroundings?) before, at age 19, spending 2 years or so overseas, firstly –for 1 year– as a youth worker and teacher of geography in Jamaica for the VSO aid organization (volunteers get flights, accommodation and pocket money); he then toured Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.
To digress a little into the speculative, was this relatively early exposure to the women of Jamaica and South America a factor in Corbyn’s later sexual interest in blacks and Latinas? He had, famously, an affair with Diane Abbott, and later married a Chilean political dissident, with whom he had two children.
After returning to the UK, Corbyn embarked on his “Trade Union Studies” Mickey Mouse degree, but, as noted, dropped out after one year. He then became a trade union organizer, mostly for NUPE, the union which mainly consisted of lower-paid public sector workers, such as hospital cleaners. That seems to have lasted months rather than years.
Incredibly, despite his very poor academic and work background, he was appointed a member of a district health authority at the age of 23 or 24. He also became a Labour councillor. He was elected to Parliament nearly a decade later, at age 33, in 1983.
Corbyn has never organized anything effectively beyond, arguably, a few small demonstrations and marches. The recent revelations from his former wives and associates to that effect and in respect of his scarcely ever reading a book, or even bits and pieces (not even Marxist theory etc), certainly chime with my view, formed mostly over the past few years (though I was aware of him since the 1980s), that he is intellectually poor, no great thinker, and not even passably interested in ideas (that was where I felt that Corbyn’s predecessor, Ed Miliband, scored to some extent, albeit that of course I would never in any way “endorse” a Jew as a UK political leader).
It is clear that Corbyn, and so Corbyn-Labour, has few policy ideas beyond what amount to a rehash of the Labour Party policies of the 1970s and 1980s, though refreshed slightly via books such as The Spirit Level and theoretical policies such as Basic Income (not that I myself oppose those, as far as they go).
One funny aspect of the Corbyn/Labour debate is that many “Corbynists” or “Corbynites” spend much time decrying the “racism” of (real/white) British people, yet think that the fact that Corbyn is always surrounded by blacks and browns (both in and outside Parliament) will have no effect on whether voters will decide to support Labour at the next General Election! A word to the wise….it will.
The Jew-Zionist element of course “has it in for” Corbyn and so Labour. Most of the MPs who are anti-Corbyn most actively are Jews and/or are pro-Jew, pro-Israel and/or have received monies from Israel or Israeli sources in the past (or still do). There have been repeated attempts to unseat Corbyn as Labour leader. These have all failed, but have obviously damaged Labour’s standing among the voters. Now there is persistent media chatter about the formation of a breakaway party. The Zionist or pro-Zionist MPs are in the forefront. How many will actually leave Labour is doubtful. Four or five are regularly mentioned in the msm, always including half-Nigerian fathead Chuka Umunna, who was so overwhelmed by scrutiny of his private life when he stood for the Labour leadership in 2015 that he burst into tears and withdrew, only 3 days in. Very impressive…
It has to be doubted whether even the most anti-Corbyn MPs, such as Zionist Luciana Berger, will abandon the Labour label, when push comes to shove. I am sure that she and others will have noted the fate that overtook teen-girl-spanking Simon Danczuk after he was deselected: as Labour candidate in 2015, he received 20,961 votes, but as Independent in 2017, only 883. Danczuk came 5th out of 6 candidates and, with a vote-share of only 1.8%, lost his deposit. Danczuk now seems to tweet about Bangladesh, so is presumably being paid to promote Bangladeshi things somehow, while his ridiculous ex-wife, Karen, has lost her well-paid fake job as Danczuk’s “assistant” and is either living on the dole or subsisting off occasional “z-list celeb” tabloid stories about her grisly sex life, romances, exercise routine etc. No wonder that the “redtop” Press is sliding to oblivion!
It may be that only MPs who have already been chucked out of Labour, or who face deselection, or who jumped before they were pushed (such as pro-Israel sex-pest John Woodcock), will take the shilling (or shekel). [for more about Woodcock, see Notes, below]
I doubt that many if any Labour MPs in safe-ish Labour seats will jump ship`to stand as candidates for a new “Centrist” party, especially if it is mainly Jewish in MPs and membership (thus creating the impression of being a doomed political ghetto). It could only succeed if at least a significant minority of MPs were to join; say 30. Fewer than that and the new party would have no credibility with the electorate. In any event, in few constituencies would such a party have a chance of success. More likely, the new party would open up the contest, allowing unexpected candidates to win. In some cases, the winner will be the Conservative candidate.
Many older people (like me now, I suppose!) recall the SDP and its swift demise: in 1981, the SDP had 29 MPs, all except one owing their “SDP” seats to having been elected under the Labour banner (the one exception was a Conservative). In the first general electoral test, in 1983, the 29 were whittled down to 6, then again to 5 in 1987.
Conservative Party
One reliable fact to hang on to in respect of the misnamed Conservative Party is that most of its MPs are, and have long been, spineless. Not for nothing was Mrs Thatcher described as “the only man in the Cabinet”. Few will throw away safe seats with majorities of thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) in order to protest about Brexit (whether from a Remain or Leave direction). One of the few might be Anna Soubry, who with her small majority of 869 may have little to lose. Still, one has to ask whether she would really join with even pro-Zionist “Labour” “centrists” in a new party, especially if few (or no) other Conservative Party MPs join her. The Member for Broxtowe (or, as I prefer, “the Member for Plymouth and Angostura”) has little incentive to jump, really, at the age of 62. Still, you never know.
Conclusion
This is not going to happen. If I am wrong on that and it does happen, the MP contingent will be all or almost all from Labour. The SDP all over again.
One aspect which I think will sink the supposed “centrists” is that people are starting to get very angry in the UK, especially England, about immigration and its negative consequences, about Jew-Zionist influence and control over mass media, politics, law etc, about Brexit and how the 2016 Referendum result has been betrayed, and about how this rotten “Conservative” government has failed to organize anything in respect of it; also about how the government and politicized police are allowing serious crime to flourish while at the same time persecuting people who make speeches (Jez Turner) or sing satirical songs (Alison Chabloz) or even post silly Internet jokes (“Count Dankula”). People are sick of potholed roads, of public transport both expensive and packed (often with non-whites), of being ripped off by utility companies, banks, you name it.
In other words, people want solutions, even “extreme” ones, not another version of what already exists. In the next few years will arrive the best chance for social nationalism since the 1930s.
Well, it seems that I was wrong about Luciana Berger being unlikely to leave Labour. She has resigned from Labour (though not as MP), alongside useless creature Chuka Umunna, Angela Smith, Ann Coffey, Chris Leslie, Mike Gapes and Gavin Shuker. Out of the seven, three Jewish, one or two maybe part or “crypto”. The others are all doormats for Zionist cabals.
I shall post a separate blog post about this now, but I note a few points:
Mike Gapes MP, a Zionist Jew (who blocked me on Twitter without my ever having tweeted to him);
Chuka Umunna MP (see post above) and: “In August 2018, The Guardian reported that “Umunna and fellow Labour MP Chris Leslie, are widely believed to be laying the groundwork for the creation of a new [political] party although both have denied this.”[68] In October 2018, it was announced that Umunna would serve as the chairman of a new centrist think tank called Progressive Centre UK. It was revealed that he would be earning £65,000 a year for his work on the advisory board” [Wikipedia]; and “Umunna is associated with the Labour Friends of Israel; along with Liam Byrne, he made an official visit to Israel in October 2012 as part of the LFI’s UK-Israel Economic Dialogue group” [Wikipedia];
Angela Smith MP: pro-Zionist, very very interested in money (an expenses cheat)…“[Angela Smith] is one of 98 MPs who voted unsuccessfully to keep their expense details secret in 2007. She defended her vote on the grounds that it would help member-constituent confidentiality, and to help prevent the private addresses of MP’s being readily available to the public.[18]In 2009, Smith was one of the MPs whose expenses were highlighted by The Daily Telegraph during the Parliamentary expenses scandal, as she had submitted expenses claims for four beds for a one bedroom flat in London.[19]
Smith employs her husband as her Senior Parliamentary Assistant on a salary up to £40,000 [now £50,000].[20] The practice of MPs employing family members has been criticised by some sections of the media on the lines that it promotes nepotism.[21][22] Although MPs who were first elected in 2017 have been banned from employing family members, the restriction is not retrospective – meaning that Smith’s employment of her husband is lawful.” [Wikipedia];
Gavin Shuker MP, a pro-Zionist of Jewish or part-Jewish origins, though he was also apparently a “pastor” of some small Christian sect in Luton at one time;
Ann Coffey MP: pro-Zionist. “During the expenses scandal of 2009 it was revealed that Anne Coffey claimed £1000 per month for the interest on the mortgage of her London home and £160 per month for a cleaner.[8][9] In addition to her salary of £60,000 in 2007 she claimed £150,000 for staff salaries and office costs plus reimbursable expenses” [Wikipedia];
Luciana Berger MP: prominent Zionist Jewess;
Chris Leslie MP: careerist Blair-Brown drone and pro-Zionist.
Thoughts about the resignations:
The seven MPs were almost all living on borrowed time. Luciana Berger faced a (withdrawn) vote of no-confidence only recently. Mike Gapes is 66 (only 4 years older than me, but he looks about 20 years older). Ann Coffey is 72. The others were facing possible deselection. Chris Leslie, a typical bland careerist, obviously saw that his career in Parliament had ground to a halt, with no possibility of ministerial preferment even in a Labour government.
This is a Zionist group mass media event rather than a Labour “split”. Labour still has 241 MPs. The 7 departees will all lose their seats at the next general election. They have not formed a party, as yet anyway, and, as I blogged, would have no chance of success if they did.
I watched a BBC2 TV documentary about Venezuela. Something like Venezuela: Revolution in Ruins. I was of course au fait with the way in which other revolutions in history developed and, in many cases, degenerated: Russia/Soviet Union, China, Cambodia/Kampuchea, Ethiopia, Cuba etc, even France (from 1789). However, I especially wanted to understand better why this country, Venezuela, rich in oil, huge in area, fertile, with a coastline on the Caribbean, a number of scenic islands and also a huge exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the Law of the Sea, should be in such a condition that 3 million or more, 10% of its population, have now fled, that large numbers of its inhabitants are starving, or rummaging for food in trash cans or dumps, or are foraging wherever they can.
Why are basic items such as loo roll, bread, milk, even fruit (in a tropical country where many fruits grow wild) effectively unavailable? Why are basic medicines not available? Why is oil being imported when Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, exceeding even those of Saudi Arabia?
There is a natural human desire to make excuses for states espousing the overall values (superficially) espoused by the judging person. Thus we see pro-“socialist” people defending the Soviet record on human rights, living standards or generally, despite the early [Russian Civil] War Communism (under which strikers and others were shot, and anyone late for work could be imprisoned or sent to a labour camp), despite the Leninist and Stalinist repressions, the “GULAG Archipelago”, the Cheka/OGPU/GPU/NKVD/KGB etc. Thus we see people (British, other Europeans, North Americans, others) today defending Castro’s dictatorship in Cuba, despite the large number of persons shot, imprisoned or driven out under socialist rule.
The usual excuses for the failure of an old-style Marxist-Leninist socialist state are that:
foreign intervention ruined the economy and/or made the new regime more severely repressive than it otherwise would have been;
one or more individuals usurped or misused the power which properly belonged to “the people” and/or the “true” socialists;
existing private enterprises or wealthy persons either left the country (with their wealth) or stayed in the country and profiteered; in both cases, these parasitic classes of people sabotaged the socialist economy.
We can look at a few well-known examples to illustrate the syndrome.
Russia
Here is a typical example of a self-deluding socialist, one “Liz from Leeds”, heard via telephone on some daytime TV show (the black woman shown is the presenter):
Aaron Bastani and Ash Sarkar are supporters of Corbyn-Labour and part of a collective called Novara Media. I wrote about them —and others— in this article:
In that clip, hereinabove, “Liz from Leeds” asserts that Soviet socialism failed because
“14 foreign armies smashed it” and then
“Stalin took over and imposed a state-capitalistic totalitarian state”.
(and, by the way, “revolutionary” talking-head Ash Sarkar, on the show as a guest, and who teaches Global Politics at a former polytechnic —!—, can be seen nodding in apparent agreement at this ahistorical nonsense!).
“Liz from Leeds” obviously has little or no real knowledge of what seems to be her main interest, because:
the Intervention by “Western” powers in Russia only started to occur in July 1918, about 8 months after the start of the Russian Civil War. By that date, the various factions in the Civil War had already been fighting for months;
the largest and most powerful foreign contingent, the Czechoslovak Legion, eventually had 40,000 soldiers (93% Czech, 7% Slovak) in Russia, but this was not a foreign army in the sense of a state-controlled force. Czechoslovakia only declared independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire in December 1918. The Czechs etc were in Russia because they had been fighting with the Russian Empire against the Central Powers (including Austria-Hungary) in the First World War.
all this in a country of vast extent (over 90x the size of the UK), encompassing 11 time zones, in which the Bolshevik forces numbered some 5.5 million (and the White or anti-Bolshevik forces about 2.4 million).
in other words, the Intervention was fundamentally a side-show in the Russian Civil War. The war started in late 1917, eight months before Intervention, and continued until late 1922, two years after almost all Allied forces had left in 1920 (though Japanese forces occupied small parts of the later-termed “Soviet Far East” until 1922, and part of Sakhalin Island until 1925); in fact, the larger contingents, such as the 23,000 Greek troops in and around Odessa (to protect Black Sea Greeks), were only there for three months;
while Intervention affected the development of the Soviet Union (established late 1922), it did so mainly in the psychological sense. In fact, there were still outbreaks of anti-Soviet fighting as late as 1934 (in Central Asia), but there was no foreign backing for that. It was purely local and regional.
As to personality-cult etc, Stalin expanded the slave-state aspects of the Soviet Union, but that already existed: Lenin and his fellow-Communists (Jews and part-Jews, mostly, such as Dzerzhinsky) set up that system as soon as they seized power (in one fairly small corner of the Empire, i.e. Petrograd and Moscow, initially): executions on a vast scale, prison camps, prisons, labour camps, secret police and so on;
the Soviet Union was “State Capitalism”, but that was not the creation of Stalin. It was there from the very start of Lenin’s rule;
even the system of “nomenklatura”, with its gradations of special rations (the best being the Kremlin Ration [Kremlyovsky Payok], which developed under Stalin into a whole sector of special-privilege shops, apartments, health services etc), started during the Civil War: http://www.polithistory.ru/en/visit_us/view.php?id=1735
As to sabotage by parasitic classes, the Bolsheviks first destroyed (killed, exiled, imprisoned) the Imperial Family, then the aristocracy and the wealthy merchant class, but then moved on to those peasant families who were more affluent than average (the “kulaks“), then later to the peasantry as a whole (via Collectivization). Eventually new targets had to be found: a myriad of Diversionists, Deviationists, Trotskyists etc. “Enemies of the people”. By that time, most of the “former people” of pre-1918 had been exiled overseas, killed, imprisoned, or reduced to complete poverty in internal exile. Few existed in Soviet territory, outside camps and prisons, after the 1930s.
[Addendum: re-reading this in 2021, I realize that some people may object that Dzerzhinsky was not Jewish. Wikipedia describes his parents as “ethnically Polish”. Sadly, Wikipedia is not infallible. Though Dzerzhinky’s parents were technically second-generation “noble” under the Tsarist meritocratic honour system (Lenin’s father was “ennobled” for service as a schools inspector), and mainly of Polish origin, Dzerzhinsky’s father was part-Jew (as was Lenin’s mother)].
The “Liz from Leeds” school of cod-history is based on small nuggets of truth as well as large measures of wishful thinking. The Tsarist system was in need of reform; there were huge inequities; there was a foreign Intervention, though very limited, composed arguably of 12 mostly small forces rather than “14 armies” (and never intended to actually overthrow Bolshevism); there was the cult of personality (though it predated Stalin’s supremacy and was the child of Lenin, Trotsky/Bronstein and others in the early 1920s); there were wealthy or not-poor classes who could to some extent be described as parasitic (especially the absentee and rentier nobles). It is worth remembering that, pre-1914, the Russian economy was booming, and looked like overtaking Europe and North America before long.
However, the Soviet Union was badly flawed from its inception, and its evil seed was Marxism-Leninism. The idea that the political sphere (the State) should rule over both the economic sphere and the sphere of spirit, culture, education, medicine, was wrong in conception and was bound to lead to a greater or lesser disaster. The same mistaken conception brought low other lands (eg Cuba) and, our present interest, Venezuela.
In fact, the syndrome, in less savage or severe forms, also applies to the social-democratic regimes in Europe, such as the post-1945 British governments. Harold Wilson of the Labour Party blamed “speculators” and “the Gnomes of Zurich” (Swiss bankers) for the UK’s economic problems of the 1960s and mid-1970s, rather than nationalized industries and subsidies paid to industry and agriculture.
Below, a cartoon for “Liz from Leeds” and her colleagues in (?) the local social workers’ union or comprehensive school staff-room:
Cuba
The same applies to Cuba: socio-economic inequities, leading to revolution. That revolution elevating personalities (Fidel, Che etc). State takeover of the economy, including all major industry and agriculture. Eventually, shortages, corruption (you don’t think that Castro lived like the poor mulatto saps he ruled, do you?), repression. Cuba even had ineffective foreign (US) interventions: the Bay of Pigs botched “invasion” by proxy, the sanctions regime imposed by the USA (termed “Blockade” by Castro); attempts to assassinate Castro in various absurd ways (eg poisoned ice-cream). As for scapegoating, the Cuban regime has blamed American policy, counter-revolutionary Cubans based in Miami, but also Cubans in Cuba and who wanted to leave in the 1960s and 1970s, which people were called gusanos (“worms”).
The Cuban economy was kept afloat by Soviet subsidy (direct subsidy and also via preferential pricing of Cuban agricultural exports to the Soviet Union) until the early 1990s. Cuba then had to introduce a free-market element to the economy, in order to prevent complete collapse.
Venezuela
So we return to Venezuela. Again, socio-economic inequities led to demands for reform. Eventually, a revolution by election happened, in 1998, in this case led by an Army general, Hugo Chavez. I have no idea what Chavez was like as a general (though judging by his botched first coup d’etat, in 1992, not very effective), but as a political leader I regard him as having been a blundering clown, sometimes well-meaning, genial, friendly, sometimes sinister and frightening. In fact, with his televized clowning, inability to master facts, and populist emoting, he was reminiscent of a certain British politician, one who is superficially on another ideological page— Boris Johnson.
As the TV documentary I saw noted, Venezuela’s oil wealth bankrolled the social programmes which improved the lot of many of the poorer Venezuelans. Chavez was voted into power by 56% of the population, mostly the poor and some of the “disenchanted middle class”.
No attempt was made to diversify the economy. When oil prices fell, Venezuela went into a spiral. The tensions within the country worsened, many left (the wealthy by air to the USA and other countries, the middleclass nouveaux pauvres and the real/always-been poor by car or on foot to neighbouring countries).
The US sanctions on Venezuela have enabled the Venezuelan government, now under Maduro, to claim, however implausibly, that those sanctions largely caused the economic collapse.
Chavez expropriated and redistributed land, again with “good intentions”, but the net result has been both a falling-off in food production and a great fall in dollar-exports, which in turn restricted the supply of foreign imports of food (and other goods).
Chavez blamed “speculators and hoarders” for the problems, imposed price controls, replaced private supermarkets by a chain of 16,000 State shops and supermarkets, which however now have almost bare shelves. Chavez also nationalized large food producers. The result has been a breakdown in food supply. Children are starving, adults and children alike scavenge in the trash for anything to eat. The Roman Catholic Church has asked those who discard any food waste to label it so that people can rummage in the rubbish dumps and trash cans for it. Meanwhile, the government set up 6,000 soup kitchens.
Thoughts
I have never been to Venezuela (nor any part of Latin America south of Panama), and I have only known one person who has visited the country (a girlfriend who attended a week-long international conference in Caracas in the 1980s). My views are therefore taken from what I have read and what I have watched on TV.
It is clear to me that Venezuela’s problems are, at root, political. There was always poverty there, but the cure has been worse than the illness. Chavez was a political clown, who had no idea how to run a government, let alone an economy, but who decided, amid clowning and behaving like a public entertainer, to take the reins of the economy firmly in his own hands. He took over the oil industry, agriculture, food production and distribution, imports and exports generally, even banking. He tried to run industries himself or via equally-inept cronies.
The result has been disastrous. Thousands and quite possibly millions may have died from lack of food and medicine, as well as via militarized repression (the troops always look fit and well-fed…). To my mind, those responsible for this politico-economic disaster could not complain were they to be taken out and shot. Chavez himself died a few years ago; his daughter is apparently one of the wealthiest women in the world. Before people start praising Chavez, they might start to ask where those hundreds of millions of dollars came from.
What Chavez should have done would have been to
regulate, tax, but not operate businesses;
by all means nationalize oil production, as a national strategic asset, but employ only experts experienced in upstream and downstream oil to operate it;
work with landowners (existing landowners and new entrants) to maximize and diversify domestic food production; set a cap on acreage held by any one family;
revalue the currency;
create social programmes from taxes raised, not directly from oil revenues.
All the same, there are those in British political life who praised Chavez: Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn, to name the two most prominent. They have been quiet about Venezuela for a while now, as that country slides into chaos, but some of their colleagues still beat the drum. Here is Chris Williamson MP (whom I am loath to impliedly criticize, because he is pro-animal welfare, and used to retweet me on Twitter occasionally; and because the Jew-Zionists hate him, but truth conquers all):
(in fact, the Venezuelan government has only hit 24% of its housing target, though the programme itself may be OK in principle).
It seems to me that the only thing to do in Venezuela is to rip up the Chavez-Maduro system and begin ad novum. That means a different government, an all-out war on crime, corruption and disorder, a private-enterprise economy (except for oil production), a clear and effective tax system, an appeal for all Venezuelans now overseas to return and to help rebuild. Also, the government has lost control of the borders of the State and has lost control of the streets. Gangs are rampant. Firing squads may be necessary. An effective border force must be set up. Above all, consumer goods and/or including food must be prioritized, urgently. In this case, butter before guns, up to a point at least.
Racial Aspects
Racial aspects are important. Cuba was ruled by Spanish-descended Europeans and to some extent also mestizos, until Castro drove most of them to the USA or elsewhere. Now Cuba has a far higher percentage of blacks than it had in 1959. Venezuela is about 54% mestizo, only 43% white (and that figure is out of date; there must be far fewer white people now).
Could It Happen Elsewhere?
Never say never. Russia was booming only four or five years before it fell into civil war and despair under Lenin. Cuba, though corrupt and unequal, was in a far better state in the 1940s and 1950s (even though plagued by the Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky etc) than it is now. From what I have seen on TV, much of Havana seems to be just falling apart, literally. As to Europe, who knows? Reasonably-civilized Yugoslavia fell into civil war and bloody chaos only 25 years ago.
Now that Europe has been invaded by untermenschen, who are breeding, who knows what lies ahead? Britain is increasingly non-white, while the real British (white) population is, in my view at least, less and less cultured. You only have to look at those who are now MPs. Many MPs, and not only Labour Party ones, would not have been seen in the Palace of Westminster before the 1990s, unless working as cleaners or office staff.
As to economy, we have seen that Corbyn-Labour (yes, well-meaning, as were many radicals and revolutionaries prior to taking power) has praised Castro, Chavez, even Lenin and Trotsky! British Labour Party policy may not go as far as that which Labour leaders have praised in other lands, but never say never…
Listening again to painfully naive “Liz from Leeds”, it occurs to me that her definition of “Communism” could apply to almost any self-describing political movement, as well as to, say, Christianity. In fact, Valentin Tomberg [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Tomberg], whose mother and pet dog were both killed (tied to a tree and shot) by those lovely kind Communists after the Bolshevik Revolution, made the point in one of his works that it was the small “Christian” element in Communism that made people willing to support it and struggle for it.
“Communism” as defined by “Liz from Leeds” is the sort of platitudinous wishful thought that might be heard on Radio 4’s Thought For The Day. Stalin once cut short a discussion (which must have been unwittingly hilarious) among his mostly useless Politburo members, as to what “Socialism” (the earlier stage, in Marxist theory) was, by saying “I’ll define Socialism for you— it’s where the Red Army halts its trucks!”
21 January 2019: a few more thoughts
Some reading the above article may imagine that my being opposed to fossilized 20thC socialism must mean that I am a free-market anti-communist and nothing more. Not so. My views favour policies which are social, rather than socialist. For me, economic enterprises must be regulated and taxed (and that is the business of government), but not directly run by the State. By the same token, the world of business must not interfere with the organs of the State, must not buy or own politicians or civil servants.
29 January 2019
It occurs to me that Che Guevara was at least to some extent in the real world, unlike most of those who admire him…
Andrew Neil on BBC2 This Week nails Ken Livingstone to the mast…
"If all that's true, it would be appalling, but I have watched America impose sanctions… an appalling impact on their country" @ken4london on how Alan Johnson & Esther McVey reacted to his #bbctw film
Below, an interview with Venezuelan quasi-dictator Maduro. While he is probably right to say that the USA would like to have a firmer superpower grip on Venezuela, Maduro cannot explain Venezuela’s fall into chaotic poverty by reference to that American wish or strategy. He’s an idiot…
President Maduro tries to make a BBC journalist understand the political war that the US extreme right is waging against Venezuela. pic.twitter.com/fNQZplj1W1
Venezuela's health crisis is so bad that patients who go the hospital need to bring their own food and medical supplies, like syringes and scalpels, as well as their own soap and water, says a new report. https://t.co/dFRcpuS4X5
"While migrants and cocaine leave Venezuelan shores in growing quantities, food and medicines travel the other way, for purchase by those in Venezuela who still have access to hard currency," writes @JerryMcdermott:https://t.co/InI2XAYPi3
Well, the Venezuelan rebellion has failed, mainly because the Army would not back it. Also it seems that the leader of the uprising, who now hides out in the Spanish Embassy in Caracas, is a silly ineffective fellow. We saw something similar in Zimbabwe, when the opposition to Mugabe years ago was led by a silly and thick African (supposed) “liberal” (later killed in the USA, in a plane crash). The lesson is that a dictator may be opposed by less wicked people but those possibly better people may simply be ineffective.
Meanwhile, for the Venezuelan poor (i.e. almost all inhabitants), the agony (caused mainly by simplistic socialism) continues:
Venezuela’s fall is the single largest economic collapse outside of war in at least 45 years, economists say https://t.co/EP1bJWFTJV
Here is another little twit of the same or similar tribe, one “Chris#WeBackCorbyn/@Socialist_Chris”:
Criminals, thieves and worse. I wouldn't even allow them to stand.
I don't agree with fascist parties being allowed to take part in democratic elections, considering they stand for dismantling democracy in the first place.https://t.co/p7BY8nQeUy
— Chris (still a socialist) (@Socialist_Chris) July 16, 2019
To understand the fullness of this idiot’s repressive ideological fanaticism, you have to read the whole thread. He thinks that parties or people which are “fascist” (as decided by him? as decided by a troika of secret police officers? as decided by a Stalinist-style fixed meeting of “activists”?) should be barred from elections or other political activity.
“Socialist Chris” seems very limited in his mentality. His derivative and flawed narrative about being intolerant of intolerance is not only hackneyed in the extreme, but is dependent on him or people like him deciding what is “fascist” (and so unacceprable…to him). He says that “you cannot compare fascism and socialism”. In a sense, true. Many 20thC types of “socialism” were far worse (more repressive, more evil, less effective in any field but repression) than Fascism (eg Mussolini, Franco) or even (different from “Fascism”), National Socialism.
Those books, and thousands of others, show that when relatively undiluted “socialism” takes power (whether by force or election), political freedom vanishes. That has been true in every instance of importance, from the Soviet Union and China to Cuba and Venezuela.
I suppose that “Socialist Chris” would make the usual excuses (see above) re. all that. He cannot see that “socialism” in the 20th (and now 21st Century, as far as “socialism” has even existed since 1989) is and has been far more repressive than either “fascism” or National Socialism, and that both Fascism and National Socialism achieved far more for the people than Marxist (etc) “socialism”, and in far less time.
An idiot, and yet looking at his tweets, I see that he makes much of having written a “dissertation” (on post-1945 “fascism”). No university mentioned. Maybe Oxford, maybe Cambridge, maybe the God-Knows-Where University of Travel and Tourism, who knows? No mention of a specific profession or occupation, just that he works up to 13 hours a day (which seems doubtful, but maybe that’s life in a call centre…I wouldn’t know).
Here’s another idiot, supporting “Socialist Chris”:
What happens if they stand, win and then remove the vote? You know, without telling you before they won that election that they would seek to do so?
Ahh sure don't worry about it, it'll never happen again, we've all learned so much. 🙄 https://t.co/QmxlVKHLdV
— Chris (still a socialist) (@Socialist_Chris) July 16, 2019
Marxist “socialists” wouldn’t do that, would they? Remove the vote from people? Never! Ha ha! No, they would more likely seize power forcibly in the first place, then label all opposition “fascist” (and so barred from existing at all), then hold meaningless “votes” in elections containing only approved non-“fascists”…
It is worrying that someone such as “Socialist Chris” can undergo primary, secondary and tertiary education, including as it seems a valueless “Master’s degree” and even perhaps a pointless “doctorate”, yet still be unable to reason. But that is where we are…
Update, 25 August 2013
Here’s another idiot, one @eshaLegal. A lawyer? If so, remarkably ill-informed about modern history, especially that of the Soviet Union, Stalin etc. Seems to be an Indian or Pakistani living in the USA. Read the thread to see others put her right (more or less right), anyway.
Victims of Stalinism? You mean Nazi war criminals? You want us to remember Nazi war criminals along with Nazi victims?
There now seems to be a serious chance that there will be a general election in the first few months of 2019, something I predicted (though not with great confidence) in previous blogs over the past year.
In previous blog posts, even recently, my prediction was that any general election in 2018 or 2019 would result in a hung Parliament but with Labour as largest party. The end result would then probably be a Labour minority government.
The Daily Mail seems to think that an early 2019 General Election, possibly as early as March, would result in a crashing defeat for the Conservative Party.
What has caused this situation is not so much Brexit, or the fear of Brexit, as the sheer incompetence of the present Government. Look at one of the least competent Cabinet Ministers (even in a poor Cabinet), Chris Grayling, who has been a member of this Cabinet and the two previous ones! A typically-psychopathic type, if I may play the armchair psychologist, who has messed-up in every job that he has ever had. Here he is explaining or rather not explaining what the Government will do if (when) Theresa May’s pathetic “deal” is rejected by the Commons:
"You don't have to tell me what plan B is, but you do have one right?" – Transport Secretary Chris Grayling says Theresa May's brexit deal is not perfect but doesn't go into detail about the Government's plan B if it is voted down, or whether plan B even exists #Ridgepic.twitter.com/jr3W3JlAHI
Incompetence is a killer vote-loser for any government. Taking the years 2010-2019 as effectively one government and not three, we can see incredible incompetence across the board, from social security/”welfare” issues, pensions, HS2, transport (especially rail) generally, nuclear power, the Brexit mess (failure to prepare for a WTO Brexit from the beginning), continuing mass immigration, NHS issues…you name it.
True, many (including me) have little confidence in the competence of any Corbyn-led Labour government, but will the voters prefer to vote for Corbyn-Labour, which might be incompetent, or for a “Conservative” Party which has been proven, in spades, to be incompetent and incapable?
What about Brexit itself? It may be that Brexit, though certainly a major issue for the voters, will not play to the decisive advantage of either party. About half the country favour Remain, about half prefer Leave, with divisions in both main camps. It should be recalled, though, that “Brexit” and “Leave” are to some extent manifestations of dissatisfaction with the general way in which Britain is working, or rather not working for many many people.
My money at this stage is still on a hung Parliament with Labour as largest party, because there are huge numbers of people who will not vote Labour (ever, anyway, whatever), others who will not vote for a Labour Party led by Corbyn, yet others who will not vote for a Labour Party in which deadheads such as Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler might well become Cabinet ministers.
Even psephologists struggle with election predictions. It is the “Glorious Uncertainty” of both the English racecourse and the (mainly) English electoral system. Raw percentages count for only so much, because of First Past The Post voting and the way that boundaries are sliced up.
In the end, the “True Blue” and “Deepest Red” constituencies are not the deciders. The marginal constituencies decide. How many marginals depends. Some put true marginals at 50 (out of 650), others at 100 or even 150.
One has to make an educated guess. My guess is based on the fact that life has become progressively tougher (financially and in other ways) for most people over the past 8 years; in fact the past 10 years, 2 of which were Labour, but mostly the past 8, which have been years of “Conservative” rule. In those years, only the most wealthy or affluent 10%, maybe even 5%, have really prospered, as seen in the cartoon below from the days of the Con Coalition
The roads are potholed, the railways expensive and chaotic, the social welfare system has become both cruel and shambolic, mass immigration continues all but unabated, education has become a joke, pay in real terms is greatly less than it was in 2010, let alone 2005, crime is often not even investigated by the police, and most local authorities are both cash-starved and incompetent. The Army has shrunk to 78,000 men (and women, now), and the same is true, mutatis mutandis, of Navy and RAF.
Does any of the above encourage people to vote Conservative? I think not. They might not all vote Labour, and there are no other options with much credibility, but it may be that enough people will either vote Labour or stay home to give Corbyn-Labour a majority. I am tempted to predict that. On balance, though, I think that I stick with hung Parliament as my present prediction, always recalling, as Harold Wilson famously said, that “a week is a long time in British politics”.
Below, an amusement: me aged 9 or maybe just turned 10, with then PM Harold Wilson. St. Mary’s, Scilly Isles, September 1966. I am the eldest boy in the photo.
Who, politically and intellectually, is Owen Jones?
Owen Jones is one type of creature that I cannot bear. It is not because he claims to be a “socialist” idealist (yet seems very interested in money and careerism); not because he likes to give out the impression that he comes from humble origins (though his mother is a university professor); not because he talks constantly about the (mostly) Northern working class and industrial culture of the past (when he himself is a narcissistic gay who lives in a gentrified part of East London and makes a rather comfortable living by scribbling and being a TV talking head); and so on. It is because, overall, he strikes me as being a £3 note, and I cannot tolerate fakery.
Owen Jones comes from a background of Marxist politics: a grandfather who was apparently a fellow-traveller of the CPGB (the Communist Party) and parents who were Trotskyists and members of Militant, the extreme socialist group founded by, inter alia, a Jew called Isaac Blank, who took on the protective colouration of a British-sounding name (“Ted Grant”) .
Owen Jones graduated from Oxford University in 2005, and was awarded a Master’s degree (M.St: one requiring time in class and a thesis but no exam) in 2007. After that he worked as a researcher for John McDonnell MP and started to write for a number of paper and online publications. He also wrote a book called Chavs: the demonization of the working class.
I am at a disadvantage here, not having read Jones’s book, but it seems to me that he is probably making a cardinal error in confusing the proletariat with the lumpenproletariat (if such terms any longer have meaning).
At any rate, it seems to me strange that Owen Jones did not move on from being a Parliamentary researcher to active politics as a Labour MP. It may be that, at that time (pre-2010), he would not have found favour in what was still very much a Blair-Brown Labour Party.
Jones used his profile as a radical Labourist to try to oppose the Con Coalition of Conservative and LibDems, and their “austerity” policies. He founded, with other high-profile Labour persons (and a few others, such as Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP), The People’s Assembly Against Austerity. That failed, inevitably. Marches rarely achieve anything. About 50,000 (its supporters said 150,000) marched, on a date in 2015, a smaller number having gathered in 2014 outside BBC HQ. Result? Nothing.
Speaking for myself, I can agree with some of what Owen Jones says and writes, such as his words contra the appalling policies of the Con Coalition. However, he really has nothing much to say in a positive way. Jones seems obsessed by the kind of issues which permeated institutions such as Collet’s London Bookshop in the 1970s: the rights of ethnic minorities, gays etc.
As for Jews etc, I was rather surprised, in 2015, to see Jones tell the Blairite MP John Woodcock (now not a Labour MP, following sex pest scandals) to block me on Twitter. Woodcock and Jones were at opposite ends of the Labour Party, so that was unexpected.
(FYI, “That guy” was me! Oh…and, yes, sex pest mental case and paid Israel tool Woodcock did block me!)
However, I now see the connection: Woodcock is very pro-Israel and has received funding from Israeli sources. Jones, it now turns out, is himself part-Jew! See the tweets and photograph below…
Oh shut up Rachel – Baddiel attack dog(just kidding). On a serious note if this was alan sugar was black and u said owen jones was racist for what he said, i wud personally take that as u beong a condescending liberal.
Jones was rather hostile to Corbyn as Labour leader, writing that no-one would vote for him, but changed his tune once he saw that Corbyn was firmly seated as Labour leader and, moreover, that Labour had done better than expected in the 2017 General Election. However, he has at the same time now begun to tweet and write against “anti-Semitism”, though characterizing it as a function of the “hard Right” rather than Corbyn-Labour “Left”. Like most contemporary scribblers, Jones finds it impossible to ditch the outdated “Left/Right” dichotomy.
I've been getting increasing numbers of these anti-Semitic dogwhistles (sometimes attached with the ever pleasant standard threats of violence and death). Jews, of course, were often traditionally targeted as the sinister puppetmasters behind socialism. pic.twitter.com/SGI1SdIzfV
Owen Jones is a bit of a political butterfly. He speaks and writes eloquently against the trashing of the welfare state and UK society generally, yet seems sanguine about mass immigration by backward peoples, does not like it when people notice that not a few of the worst finance-capitalist exploiters are Jews, and he seems to have poor political judgment generally.
There was a time, about 8 years ago, when Owen Jones was widely tipped to become a Labour MP and even a future Labour Party leader. One does not hear that now (well, I do not, anyway). There was once a cynical saying about Brazil, to the effect that “Brazil is the country of the future…and always will be!”. There is something like that in Owen Jones: the Boy Wonder or “Wunderkind” of UK socialist politics, always taking on the tired old System. The key word being “always”…Not many can maintain the Peter Pan effect perpetually. The gloss has become a little tarnished.
Owen Jones at 26 seemed to many Labour rank and file supporters or members to have a far greater future than he now appears to have at 34. That at least is my impression. It may be telling that his Wikipedia entry is quite packed in the years up to and including 2014; after that, nothing much. His star has definitely waned. He is on TV far less often now (at least to my mind) and only The Guardian seems to continue to await his words with bated breath. He may have missed the bus in terms of becoming an MP, though I would not rule that out if he applies for a seat fairly soon.
Not that Owen Jones is struggling. His (2015) Guardian salary may only have been around £40,000 a year (and maybe not hugely more now), but his second book, The Establishment, published in 2014, is said to have earned Jones nearly half a million pounds, which even after tax must have been worth about £300,000 or so. Chavs (2011) also sold well.
Politicians can and do write about politics. Writers can and sometimes do become active political players, but only if they chime with the times. I wonder whether Owen Jones still does.
Update, 5 January 2019
In case anyone is in any doubt about my view on Owen Jones, I can add that I view him as a “licensed Bolshie”, completely harmless to the System, which is why he is (or was, until he became a bloody bore) invited so often onto TV politics shows. Having someone like Jones (or Ash Sarkar, or various others) on a TV discussion show makes the point that “we believe in free speech! Look, we even have revolutionaries on sometimes!”, when in fact only the harmless are allowed on, especially if they make fools of themselves. That is also why educated social nationalists are not welcome…
Below, a few tweets about the “People’s Assembly”, which I thought had died off, but seems to be, notionally, still going. Here (see tweets below) we see Owen Jones speaking to what seems to be about 10 people in Trafalgar Square on 12 January 2019. His opponents should have just let him get on with it (but filmed the farcical sight). I have seen more people queuing to get into a cinema matinee on a wet Wednesday!
The online-only “newspaper”, The Independent, claimed that “several thousand anti-fascists marched”. Well, they must have…er…marched on! Jones got a little applause and a few hoots at the end. Maybe, being kind, 50 people rather than 10. I notice that his supporters on Twitter do not dare to show how few people were in the crowd, if crowd is the bon mot… “Knot” of supporters, perhaps.
Objective observers and journalists attending the “People’s Assembly” tweeted that only a few hundred were there— that is, until Jones started to speak! (then there were about 10, ha ha!)
As a speaker, self-important Jones reminds me not so much of Lenin, Hitler or Mosley, but more of Sir Roderick Spode, leader of the Black Shorts in the Jeeves and Wooster stories, as filmed by British TV in the early 1990s! The funniest thing is that he takes himself so very seriously.
Perhaps the most hilarious aspect of all is that Owen Jones, and those few or few hundred or (if anyone believes The Independent these days) few thousand “marchers”, seem to believe that a pathetic demo/march of this sort accomplishes something. In fact, in a real civil war, Jones and his motley crew would be defeated in about five minutes.
Update, 24 May 2019
Fair’s fair. I can agree with Owen Jones here [see clip below], with the exception of the bit about the Windrush people (who should all be repatriated):
and here (see video report linked below) is Owen Jones at the recent Olympia rally of the Brexit Party. Very amusing. What would he not give to have a tenth of that audience at one of his speeches?!
“I’m obviously very concerned and worried – not simply about my own personal safety, but of others, and the fact that the far right feels increasingly emboldened and far right-types are feeling increasingly prepared to resort to thuggery and violence.”
A few points come to mind:
Jones may have been attacked for some other, some non-political (or even personal), reason (it seems that the attackers made no remarks during the attack);
Jones talks about “far-right” violence, which in fact scarcely exists in the UK, but fails to mention the extreme violence perpetrated by the anti-British groups such as “antifa” idiots and Jewish extremists (see the links about the “43 Group” and the “62 Group”, below);
Jones has always supported “no-platforming”, i.e. the sometimes violent refusal to let so-called “far right” people speak, write, or even comment on social media. Jones might like to reflect on proverbs or sayings such as “what goes around comes around” and the Biblical comment that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” (an old saw that has certainly stood the test of time);
Jones certainly stays up drinking late (by my standards, anyway!); 2am/3am?
[note that the above two links only tell part of the story, because Wikipedia has been well and truly infiltrated by Jew-Zionists in terms of those exercizing monitoring and editorial functions: for example, the latter article, about the “62 Group” does not mention Jew-Zionist criminal Gerry Gable’s conviction for having broken into the apartment of historian David Irving in the 1960s; Irving of course was never engaged in “violence” against Jews or anyone else].
…and freeloading grifter Mike Stuchbery, a sacked temporary teacher who now poses as both journalist and historian, tweets, below, about the reported attack on Jones:
With such a high-profile journalist as @OwenJones84 being subject to a premeditated attack, it's worth remembering that journalists were among the very first targets of fascists – some murdered in direct retribution for their criticism. /1 pic.twitter.com/8OCWBBWtB2
Here’s Stuchbery again, tweeting from his armchair or dining chair and supporting “justified” use of violence by “antifa” thugs (idiots):
Yes, Antifa may seem uncouth. Yes, they sometimes use violence. Sure, sometimes they drown out other voices. They're not here to bring balance to the Force though, dickheads – they're here to get rid of modern-day fascists! pic.twitter.com/IGULUBnfG6
Owen Jones has a few things in common with grifter Mike Stuchbery. “They don’t like it up them, Captain Mainwaring!”. When Stuchbery planned a stunt involving the invasion of the home of Tommy Robinson’s family (and I myself am no “supporter” of Robinson) and that stunt backfired, the brave “antifa” keyboard warrior, Stuchbery, who incited German “antifa” to “crack skulls”, break bones and “punch them, keep on punching, never stop” etc quickly became a “victim”. He has learned much from the Zionists, it seems…
I dare say that Owen Jones will monetize his bruises from the recent attack for years ahead, talking in print and on TV and radio about that terrible time when the “far right” attacked him etc…
I am moved to write this by a couple of stimuli. First of all by a UK Labour Party National Executive Committee delegate (I think on the NEC as “youth” representative) to some recent conference in Cuba, and who said something like how wonderful it was to be in a country which showed how real socialism worked.
The second impetus came from an interview I heard on BBC World Service radio: an interview with an “artist” of whom I had never heard, called Tania Bruguera. Apparently, her father had been a Cuban diplomat and politician, and had actually handed her over aged 7 (or maybe I misheard and it was 17) to the security police with the statement that she had said anti-“Fidel” things and that the security police should do with her what they liked. She now says that that was a result of the Cuban system of selfish save-your-own-neck denunciation (rather than her own father being a complete shit, which is what she probably really thinks).
I looked up her “art” (“installations”, “performance art” etc). Unimpressed. To me, it looks like talentless rubbish. Having said that, she has the right to do it, which right is not accepted in Cuba. She is allowed to travel fairly freely. These days, she gets hassled and threatened, at times arrested, though not simply shot or chucked into a concentration camp or prison, which is what might have happened in the 1960s or 1970s.
There is the nagging feeling that Corbyn and many around him actually view states such as Cuba, 1980s Nicaragua, or even the Venezuela of recent years as success stories. I have previously blogged about Corbyn’s almost fossilized politics and policies, as well as his friendly or supportive attitude towards Cuba:
As regular readers of this blog will know, I am not totally hostile to Corbyn and at least some of his supporters (vis a vis the misnamed “Conservatives”), inasmuch as the Corbynists want to create a more equitable society in the UK, want to control or remove the Jewish-Zionist influence which has been so pervasive since about 1989, want people to have decent health, housing, social security etc. The devil, however, is in the detail.
The intellectual inconsistency of many of the Corbynists is shown by the fact that while they oppose Jewish exploitation of and behaviour toward the Palestinian Arabs, they ignore the same pattern when Jews exploit British, German or French (or Russian!) people; they also often still unthinkingly parrot “holocaust” propaganda. Corbyn and John McDonnell are themselves prime examples.
Another example: Most people accept that, in any market economy, more labour available means lower unit labour cost. Many of the Corbyn-Labour people disagree. They say that mass immigration makes no real difference to pay, even at the lower levels. Employers are to blame for exploiting employees and government is to blame for not simply setting a high minimum pay level. Faced with that kind of economic illiteracy, one tends to shake head and refuse to argue. Those people, though, genuinely think that all that has to be done for paradise to descend is for the State to lay down and enforce pay levels and, indeed, price levels.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said, many years ago, that one can have a welfare state, and one can have open borders (and consequent mass immigration), but one cannot have both. When will Labour MPs and members wake up to this?
While there is room for relatively minor tinkering with pay and prices (minimum pay, enforced cheap prices in targeted areas such as public transport etc, even Basic Income —which I favour—), for the State to overwhelm the economic sphere is to invite the economic paralysis that caused even Cuba (and, famously, 1980s China) to introduce quasi-free market reforms, as indeed did Lenin himself in the Soviet Union, via his New Economic Policy of the 1920s. Complete State control of the economy leads to shortages or even economic collapse, as we see in Venezuela. I do not see much understanding of these truths in Corbyn or McDonnell.
It is in relation to mass immigration that we see the madness most obviously. In a sense, this is unsurprising. Polls have shown for some years that Labour is mainly voted for by the “blacks and browns”, in the sense that the one demographic which is very pro-Labour is that of the ethnic minorities (except the Jews, who hate Corbyn’s anti-Zionist tendencies).
I should not let anyone reading this go away under the misapprehension that I “prefer” the Conservatives to Labour. I oppose both main System parties, and Labour is at least (in parts, in some senses) anti-Zionist now. I also despise what the Conservatives have done since 2010 to trash society. However, anyone who thinks that Labour is a real alternative need only look at the total deadheads around Corbyn. Look at Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler (both of whom might well be Cabinet ministers under a Corbyn prime ministership!), or the recently disgraced MPs Kate Osamor and Fiona Onasanya (the latter will almost certainly be in prison soon). Not only blacks, by the way: Angela Rayner, for example, would probably be a Cabinet minister under a Corbyn government. Words start to fail…
I favour Labour over Conservative not because I imagine that Labour’s idiots are actually able to operate a government, but because
Corbyn and many of his supporters are now fighting directly against Zionism here in the UK, not merely in the Middle East; and
a weak government under Corbyn can lay the ground for social nationalism.
Notes
The title of this blog post of course refers back to the 1920 Leninist pamphlet usually referred to as Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder [Детская болезнь “левизны” в коммунизме], perhaps more accurately translated as The Children’s Illness, “Leftism”, in Communism. However, in using the words “infantile” and “disordered” to refer to some aspects of “Corbynism”, or some people in Corbyn-Labour, I do so advisedly…
I thought to include a few examples. Here’s one. Stupid enough to state on UK TV that she is “literally a Communist”! Hardy ha ha…but note that her absurd statement did not make her a pariah, despite the hugely bloodstained history of Communism/Socialism. Now what if she had said that she was “literally a National Socialist”? Hm…Ash Sarkar’s statement did not prevent her from continuing to write for major newspapers occasionally, and also to appear on TV from time to time. The Jewish influence over the mass media is right in front of us, and in the case of TV, “literally”!
Senior Editor @novaramedia. Literature bore. Anarcho-fabulous. Muslim. THFC. Walks like a supermodel. Fucks like a champion. Luxury communism now!“
Here is her Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Sarkar which, unbelievably, states that she “lectures in global politics at Anglia Ruskin University” [former Anglia Polytechnic].
Wikipedia adds that “Sarkar’s great-great-aunt, Pritilata Waddedar, was a Bengali nationalist and an active participant in armed struggle against the British Empire in 1930s Bengal. Her grandmother is a hospital carer…Her mother is a social worker who was an anti-racist and trade union activist in the 1970s and 1980s. Sarkar’s mother helped “organise marches…“
“The Times has described her as “Britain’s loudest Corbynista“…and Dazed magazine said she is one of “the voices resetting the political agenda in the UK”.” [Wikipedia]
Basically, an enemy of the British people.
and take a look, or rather listen, to one “Liz from Leeds”, whose incredibly naive and just plain wrong (inaccurate, ahistorical) idea of, inter alia, “why Soviet socialism failed” is actually unintentionally funny. “Novara Media” (the collective of Corbyn supporters Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani etc) tweeting that “Liz from Leeds” was correct! [the black woman shown is the TV show presenter]
and here is another idiot, Hevreziya-Something, attempting to sound like a real “Communist” (who thinks that he –sounds more like she, but apparently not– can be “Anarchist” and –a male–“Feminist”, and a “Populist” etc all at the same time!…oh, and an economist…once he has finished school, that is, though he claims to have been commenting for years; age does not preclude political infantilism, I suppose)
he offers political advice in the tweet below, which made me laugh out loud (the bit about a General Strike in UK and USA, but the first tweet is also amusingly naive):
Well, I think that I shall draw a veil over that particular “Communist/Anarchist/Populist” now! He/she probably has to go and wash its hair or something…
The trouble is that there are literally thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands, quite as stupid. Most support Labour. Many, such as Ash Sarkar and the Hevreziya-someone tweeter, above, are of non-European origin, but there are many others, such as the Englishwoman tweeting below, calling herself “Countess Helen Nonny Nay” [since this blog post was written, altered to Cringing Peasant Helen NonnyNay], who thinks that white British families who want a better life should just “fuck off” as the UK welcomes the dregs of Africa and Asia to our shores…
I don't care if a whinging family decide to move to Australia or not. Go on, fuck off! Or stay here – it makes no difference to me.
Caught out by background TV while doing my dusting. 💃
— Dr Nonny (indistinct chatter) (@nayright12) January 3, 2019
Actually, the sad thing is that some of these people have their hearts sort-of in the right place in some respects— animal welfare, a better society, anti-Jew-Zionism (though most are still brainwashed by the “holocaust” scam/myth). The white Northern European ones would support social-nationalism were they not so indoctrinated and silly.
Update, 6 January 2019
Another idiot, Laurie Penny, who was at one time on TV occasionally (like Owen Jones), until even msm people realized that (like Owen Jones) she is pretty much a one-trick pony…
Do these people, the Owen Jones’s, the Laurie Penny’s etc, realize that their intolerance (yes, their intolerance) might one day not only bring society (the Social Contract) crashing down, but bring down the skies on their own little worlds? I doubt it.
but then, the resistance…
Marxism-Leninism as a political force was destroyed or ebbed away to nothing by 1989 and a host of (other) devils have rushed in to fill the vacuum…
In the end, a complete cleansing of UK (and world) society will have to take place.
Further Update, 6 January 2019
I happened to see the photo below, a kind of “family portrait”: Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bastani in what is perhaps a room designed with reference to either “luxury Communism” or tasteless tat. You decide…
Below, Andrew Neil nails Ken Livingstone on Venezuela…
"If all that's true, it would be appalling, but I have watched America impose sanctions… an appalling impact on their country" @ken4london on how Alan Johnson & Esther McVey reacted to his #bbctw film
Not that everything said by Ash Sarkar (or Aaron Bastani) is wrong. This, below, is right (because grounded in reality, not incorrect theory):
It just really brought home to me that so many people in this country are in similar positions: trapped in low-paid and precarious work, up to their eyeballs in debt, with children and families to care for, but no avenue into quality employment.
What Ash Sarkar and her ilk cannot accept, if only because it might imply that they themselves should clear out of the UK, is that mass immigration is, ultimately, “white genocide” by replacement of real British (i.e. white) people by blacks, browns and others.
He's no different to you: another foreign invader with a massive chip on their shoulder and an even greater inferiority complex. You hate this nation and its people, but are happy to reap its benefits.
— DeAndre DeShawn DeWilliams (@PaddyThePinko) March 1, 2019
Here we see some reaction to Ash Sarkar’s and Owen Jones’s doormatting for the Jewish lobby…
Seems that “someone” sees a vacancy in the msm-approved “licensed Bolshevik” slot previously occupied by Owen Jones (usually by Owen Jones; sometimes Laurie Penny or others). That way, the msm can say, “look! We are open to all shades of opinion, even radical and revolutionary ones!”, while in fact only inviting the kind of people who are in reality completely harmless to the ZOG/NWO System. Non-white or Jewish faux-rebels. White social-nationalists are, of course, banned…
Update, 20 July 2019
A late entrant, a comedienne (for the brainwashed, that’s “comedian”, apparently…), of whom I have never heard but who I am sure is very proud to have 130K Twitter followers (and I am sure at least a few dozen regularly read her tweets…). She believes in “anti-fascist action” and intimidating anyone standing up for free speech.
and, quelle surprise, she has been contracted at various times for those present gravediggers of culture, Channel 4 (usually a gravedigger) and the BBC (sometimes a gravedigger).
…from the Independent, reporting on beach patrols at Dover; all too typical of the sort of persons now prominent in “Labour” and what is left of the trade unions:
“Riccardo La Torre, firefighter and Eastern Region Secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, branded the coast patrol “despicable” and said: “These have-a-go, racist vigilantes have no place in any kind of enforcement or emergency activities and will only serve to make conditions and tensions worse.”
So “Riccardo La Torre” (que?), a regional secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, thinks that migrant invaders from Africa and the Middle East are “working class people”, who are “trying to get to safety”?!
Safety from, er, France? There you have in a nutshell, the craziness that is much of “Labour” now. Alien migrant-invaders are “working class people”, who should be allowed to occupy the UK at will (and be subsidized too)!
Note particularly the fag-end “Marxism”, trying to shoehorn the facts into some 1980s polytechnic back-of-postcard Marxism-Leninism.
I have blogged previously about Corbyn, Labour etc. About Corbyn, I have not much changed my view, which is that
Corbyn is someone with an almost pathetic level of formal (and also, judging from his pronouncements, informal) education, someone with what at least appears to be a poor knowledge-base even in respect of those areas where he seems to think himself knowledgeable (eg the 1930s, Fascism, National Socialism, Marxism, Mosley, the Second World War and so on);
Corbyn was never expected to be more than a back-bench Labour MP and (in the view of many) an infantile crypto-Communist nuisance (perhaps more “anarcho-Communist”), and who was more likely to appear in the now-all-but-defunct pages of Militant (now, The Socialist), Tribune, Lobster or Private Eye than in the commentary columns of the more serious newspapers;
Corbyn’s election as Labour leader had something supernatural about it, in that he was only able to get the necessary 35 nominations to stand in the contest because he was nominated by a number of MPs who had no intention of voting for him!
Corbyn’s nomination was (to use the Leninist metaphor) the spark that created a raging conflagration in Labour;
Corbyn has, on the one hand, energized Labour’s activist base and “created” a party of between 500,000-600,000 members (though pre-2015 Labour did have a total of about 550,000 full members, affiliated members and registered supporters, of which 147,000 were full members); on the other hand, there is no evidence that Corbyn-Labour has solid support in the country as a whole;
The Jewish-Zionist element has tried to unseat Corbyn several times, by holding a second leadership election, as well as by a relentless msm and social media campaign;
As I predicted throughout would happen, Corbyn saw off all challenges despite his being a poor leader (indeed, scarcely a leader at all) and despite the relentless Jew-Zionist assault on his leadership; this again indicates the supernatural nature of, not Corbyn himself, but his placement as Labour leader. Corbyn is there for a reason;
Despite his strange fuzzy “sort-of-Marxist” or almost anarcho-syndicalist ideology (as it seems to me), Corbyn is actually not as alien a figure to many voters as are or were the “entitled” trustafarians David Cameron-Levita, George Osborne (both part-Jew, in fact) and Nick Clegg, with their cosmopolitan sheen of wealth, easy road to fame, inherited money and foreign origins. Corbyn is in fact, as I have said before, a recognizable English/British type, with his Lenin-meets-engine-driver caps, his vegetable-growing allotment, his non-Oxbridge bicycling etc. At any point from the 1920s or even the Edwardian age to the present day, such a figure might be encountered on, indeed, local allotments, in local Labour constituency parties, at the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ commemoration, the Durham Miners’ Gala, at steam fairs or on heritage railway lines, not forgetting marches and demonstrations in solidarity with this or that obscure foreign cause.
I have thought for some time, certainly since 2015, that voters in England (and maybe Wales, and even Scotland) today are voting (if at all) against and not for this or that party. I now see more mainstream commentators taking up that baton. Someone on the BBC World Service radio made the same point in the past week.
The Jew-Zionist lobby has thrown everything at Corbyn from “antisemitism” (which may even have rebounded to his advantage!) to his silly pro-IRA linkage in the 1970s and 1980s. Nothing has worked. Labour has not overtaken the Conservative Party by much (if at all) but has not collapsed in the opinion polls either. Likewise, the shambolic performance of the Conservative Party in government has not collapsed the Conservatives in the polls. To my mind, that is because there are huge numbers who are going to vote against parties rather than for them. That means tactical voting to exclude the most disliked party in any given constituency.
To me, it is telling that, when asked to give a thumbs-up or down re Corbyn as PM, he scores only about 25%; Theresa May scores slightly better, maybe 35%, but “Don’t Know” beats both of them at about 40%.
The odds must favour a hung Parliament. Neither main System party is now in a position to deliver a killer blow, though much depends on whether the SNP vote continues to decline or whether it holds up enough to maintain a serious voting bloc. It looks as if the SNP will hold on to at least 30 MPs, maybe more.
What is holding Labour back more than anything is the corona of “deadhead” MPs (many, though by no means all, black or brown) around Corbyn. The “Diane Abbott effect” has been seen in spades recently, with the Fiona Onasanya and Kate Osamor scandals.
In the end, I think that Corbyn has a good chance of being the next Prime Minister, though at the head of a minority government, so long as the next general election occurs before boundary changes kick in in 2022.
“Man proposes, God disposes”…as someone (Mark Twain?) once wrote. My blog post was right in almost everything but its main prediction! In fairness, it was written over a year before the disastrous General Election of 2019, which propelled Boris-idiot into real power as Prime Minister, a role which, at time of writing, he has been unable to fulfil with any credibility.
I came late to the Kate Osamor party. I had vaguely heard the name. One of the blacks that Jeremy Corbyn considers are worthy of ministerial office (though until Corbyn-Labour’s electoral success, only shadow-ministerial). The newspaper stories about “MP’s son charged with drug dealing” etc caught my eye only peripherally. In the past week, however, the trickles and leaks increased to a flood, as the dam burst.
The facts:
Kate Osamor was elected for the very safe Labour seat of Edmonton in 2015;
Kate Osamor MP employed her son, one Ish [Ishmael] Osamor, now 29, in her Parliamentary office, on a salary believed to be between £40,000 and £50,000;
“Ish” Osamor’s job is as Senior Communications Officer (get that— “Senior“…);
Kate Osamor’s total staffing costs for her office were over £145,000 in 2017-2018 (for? Unspecified. Another family member? Uncle Remus? We do not know);
Ishmael Osamor was, before sentence, a councillor in the Borough of Haringey (which is not a completely unpaid post: many councillors get generous expenses as well as an “allowance” which in some cases can be tens of thousands of pounds per year); in fact, “Ish” Osamor was a “Cabinet member” of the council, which means that he got extra money, probably a fairly generous “allowance” amounting to a salary;
Ishmael Osamor was arrested and charged with the drug supply offences in September 2017, before he was elected as a councillor! Banana republic UK! Words fail…;
Ishmael Osamor was convicted in September 2018 of possession of drugs with intent to supply and received the (to many, ludicrously lenient) sentence of 200 hours of “community service” (picking up litter etc), and £400 costs; even the sentencing judge said that 3-4 years imprisonment “would be the usual sentence”…;
Kate Osamor wrote to the trial judge in September 2018 requesting leniency for her convicted son; she claimed more recently that she had no idea until a week ago that her son was even on trial! In other words, she lied straight out;
Kate Osamor was doorstepped by a reporter from The Times; she responded by telling him that she “should have come down here with a bat and smashed your face in”, followed by “fuck off”. She then threw a bucket of water over him and made a malicious complaint of stalking against him to the local police;
Kate Osamor finally resigned as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development;
Latest news is that she intends to stay on as MP, and that her son is still en poste as “Senior Communications Officer”;
Kate Osamor repeatedly tried to edit and censor her Wikipedia page, as a result of which Wikipedia barred her from editing;
In other Osamor family news, Kate Osamor’s mother has just been elevated to the joke “peerage” as a “baroness” in the House of Lords! She was nominated by Jeremy Corbyn on behalf of the Labour Party.
The Kate Osamor Scandal: Wider Issues Arising
I have often tweeted (before Twitter expelled me at the behest of the Zionist cabal) and blogged about the poor quality of MPs (and “peers” for that matter) now. I often wonder just how low the quality-level can fall. Parliament always had on its benches (especially the green-leather ones) a few frauds, mountebanks and charlatans, from Horatio Bottomley on (before him, too). However, the bulk of MPs used to be at least decently mediocre, with a few genuine stars here and there. The Commons is now full of people who not only would find it hard to have a decent career or job outside, but in many cases have proven that!
Let us look at this case (to examine all the deadheads in the Commons —and now the Lords— would take far too long). There are also numerous MPs who have abused the expenses system, in effect defrauded the people: Nadine Dorries and Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, to name just two. Smith claimed for his wife’s “salary” for years even though she never turned up to do a day’s work! Nadine Dorries claimed for the maximum she could at all times and even made faked claims for a generous “salary” for her effectively unqualified two daughters, one of whom also lived in a rented luxury apartment paid for out of Nadine Dorries’ expenses and supposedly for the MP’s use! This blog post is, however, not the place for all that.
It appears from Wikipedia etc that Kate Osamor was born in 1968 and, after having read “Third World Studies” at West Ham Technical Institute (renamed Polytechnic of East London in 1989 and, since 1992, the University of East London), “worked for The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people.[9] She then worked for 15 years in the NHS; she was a GP practice manager before becoming an MP.” [Wikipedia].
If that is true, she worked in the NHS from 2000-2015. [edited October 2019:Wikipedia now says that Kate Osamor was studying from 2003, graduating in 2006]. So she spent 11 years at the Big Issue? Or was she breeding in those years? We do not know.
[Update, 12 December 2018: a more recent edit of Kate Osamor’s Wikipedia entry says that in fact she was a practice manager for only 2 years, and some kind of “executive assistant” or clerk for 9 years, making 11, rather than 15, years in toto in the NHS. So that leaves 15 years unaccounted for…].
[The chronology of Kate Osamor’s life, and especially her work background, seems very unclear, on the face of it. Suspicious?]
Now, what about Kate Osamor’s mother, the recently-elevated “baroness”? She seems to have spent her time in the UK (having arrived, age unspecified, from her native Nigeria) agitating for what amounts to black power (eg defending those charged with the savage Broadwater Farm riots) and based in a law centre in the Haringey area. Well, not all her time: she also produced several children. Now she styles herself “Martha, Baroness Osamor, of Tottenham in the London Borough of Haringey, and of Asaba in the Republic of Nigeria.” Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, it is said. That is what UK society now is— mad.
Let’s not forget “Ish” Osamor. I have no idea what kind of academic or work background he may have, but I doubt that it all amounts to very much, and he has been “working” for his mother in Westminster, we are told, since 2015, when he would have been 25 or 26. £40,000 or even £50,000 p.a.: not bad for a twenty-something with, as it seems, little or no experience of any work.
We are talking about the legislature of what is still one of the most important countries of the world. It is now packed with completely unqualified, uncultured, unsuitable rubbish.
The Effect on Labour Party Electoral Chances
“Corbyn is always surrounded by a pack of black or brown women.” So I have heard here and there. That does mirror what is or has been my impression. The Jews, at least most of them, hate Corbyn because he is anti-Zionist (“they” say he is “anti-Semitic”), whereas I favour his anti-Zionism, though it is weakened by his lip-service re. the “holocaust” fable and his unwillingess to come right out against the Jewish Zionist lobby in the UK.
On the other hand, it is clear that Corbyn’s core support comes from the “blacks and browns” and also from those who could be described as “politically-correct” and/or those whose ideology could be described by the title of the 1920s pamphlet “Left-wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder” [which can also be translated as the slightly different-meaning “…a Disease of Childhood”, but no matter].
On Twitter, there have been thousands of tweets supporting Kate Osamor and many urging her return to the Shadow Cabinet! All the idiots such as faux-revolutionary Owen Jones are supporting her, because they say that a drugs offence is a minor matter, that her lies etc (not to mention nepotism) are not worthy of criticism and that she had every right to tell a reporter to “fuck off”, or to say that she should be bashing in his head with a bat, and to throw water on him. Well, I myself dislike today’s so-called “journalists”, after having been doorstepped by the Daily Mail in 2016 the day after the Jew-Zionists procured my disbarment, but I just told the little round-skulled creature to get lost. He did.
The point is that the Owen Jones’s of this world will accept almost everything that a pseudo-socialist black woman MP does, because her identity makes her immune.
I expect that the bulk of the Corbyn-Labour ranks will support Kate Osamor and the others like her around Corbyn. One thinks of Dawn Butler and, a fortiori, Diane Abbott. However, beyond right-on Twitter, beyond the Westminster bubble, beyond London, there are millions and millions of people, especially white English and Welsh and Irish people (some Scots too; as to the rest, is it something in the water? The Scots have their faux-nationalist SNP as a security blanket, I suppose) who look at these deadheads around Corbyn and think “wait a moment…I want rid of the Conservative Party, but Labour is as alien in its own way, maybe more alien…”.
The ethnic minority women (mainly women, but not entirely: Clive Lewis MP –etc– too, and he supports Kate Osamor…of course…) around Corbyn must be worth a million votes —maybe each!— to the Conservatives. They are a major millstone round the neck of Labour, electorally. True, there are others, not black or brown, who are also completely unsuitable, such as Angela Rayner. I am talking about the overall impression given to the voters. It is not good.
I still think that Labour has a good chance of becoming the major party in the Commons after a general election in 2019, though without a majority. Labour has little chance of a majority however unpopular the Conservatives are, because of the way the 650 constituencies are composed. After 2022, the cut-down Commons of 600 constituencies will make a Labour majority even less likely. Hung Parliaments may well be the norm now. That makes social nationalist growth a good possibility.
I think that, especially as white English/British people, we have to look seriously now at Parliament as it is, and those in it, and consider whether it can be reformed, or whether it needs to be removed in its present form and content.
“It can not of been easy“? I hope that no reader of this blog is so ill-educated as to require the correction (“it cannothave been easy”). What is genuinely frightening is that nonsense people such as Kate Osamor (with or without drugdealing, freeloading sons or uncles Remus) might be ruling us within a few years, or even a few months. I suppose that it is unlikely that Kate Osamor will very soon now resume her position as a member of the Shadow Cabinet, but just consider how far into the pit Labour (and we, as a nation) have fallen, that this ignorant, semi-literate, foul-mouthed, violent and drug-connected (not to mention non-European) woman was ever considered to be suitable to occupy a place in the Shadow Cabinet! Such individuals should not even be MPs!
The “useful idiots” in academia etc are still supporting Kate Osamor! Look at this one, a white woman (or “he/she”?) , a “Research Support Officer” at a UK university, but who seems not only to be obsessed by blacks and their supposed merits, but who, in her Twitter profile, describes herself as a “Black Atlanticist”!
@KateOsamor is a hero of the grandest proportions. Shame on those that would condemn her for continuing to occupy a council property (as is her right). My grandparents’ generation was able to thrive thanks to social housing. We need to build more to ensure sustainable futures.
Leave aside the social housing point, but “a hero of the greatest proportions”? I say that “those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”…the UK?
“Idle Thoughts of An Idle Fellow”…
Is Kate Osamor on good terms with fellow black Labour MP Fiona Onasanya? Did Fiona ever buy her stuff from “Ish”?
“Ish” Osamor has now vowed to become an “anti-drugs” campaigner! Hey, clever move! That could be a “nice little earner”! It might even develop into a quango/taxpayer-funded career…What clever little [n******] “Ish” and his freeloading mama, Kate, are!
Well, we now know that the House of Commons is not going to be cut down to 600 MPs, not in time for the expected 2024 General Election anyway.
At date of writing, Kate Osamor is still a Labour Party MP, though her chances of higher office are now minimal. Corbyn is gone, and has even been deselected as Labour candidate for Islington, and Keir Starmer will not appoint Kate Osamor to anything even if Labour does triumph in 2024.
Update, 20 September 2025
Well, she is still there, still pulling it in via pay, expenses, freebies etc:
I am not, nor have I ever been, a member, supporter or voter for the Labour Party;
No feelings (of any importance) were hurt in the creation of this blog post
Background
The latest opinion polls have Labour at around 40%, with the Conservative Party at a couple of points ahead, perhaps only one point. This is remarkable, after a year (in fact three years) in which Labour has been pretty much demonized. The Jewish-Zionist element in the Press, on TV and radio, on social media too, has attacked Jeremy Corbyn and Labour nonstop, with a constant whine about “anti-Semitism” and other aspects of Corbyn’s and others’ supposed beliefs or behaviours.
At the same time, many Labour MPs, perhaps the majority, have tried on several occasions to unseat Corbyn and to install a Labour leader who is more acceptable to the Jewish-Zionist lobby. So active have been some “Labour”-label MPs in plotting against Corbyn that newspapers discovered that they rented a regular “safe house” in the countryside where they could conspire in secret.
I have previously blogged about how it seemed “destined” for Corbyn and the anti-Zionists to take over Labour: how Corbyn was only able to be on the ballot paper the first time because several MPs who had no intention of voting for him yet nominated him! Even so, Corbyn only got the exact number of nominations he required (plus his own vote). That exactitude speaks to me of supernatural intervention (see my own similar experience of 1978 below this blog post).
Why is it necessary for Corbyn to lead Labour? Why would a Corbyn premiership be a good thing?
Until Corbyn took over as Labour leader, the Jewish-Zionist element controlled both main System parties in the UK. Now, “they” control only one, whereas Labour is fitfully breaking free (though its leaders still feel the need to offer lip-service to the “holocaust” narrative etc).
The best aspect of Corbyn leading Labour is that hundreds of thousands of recent Labour members and supporters now exist, many of whom have been radicalized, not so much by Corbyn or Labour as such, but by the fact that they now see through the Zionist influence and power working against and inside Labour (ex-Israel propaganda employee Ruth Smeeth MP, Jess Phillips MP, disgraced alleged sex pest John Woodcock MP, John Mann MP, Chuka Umunna MP etc). Those Labour supporters have in many cases been radicalized, ironically, by the sheer hate-filled dishonesty of the Zionist fanatics themselves. Those hundreds of thousands are not, and are not yet ready to go, overtly social-nationalist, but they have cast off most of the shackles of Zionist mind-control and that is very significant for the future.
A Corbyn-Labour government would take the whole UK politico-social matrix to the brink. Power would be cast into the hazard, and that can only be good for those of us sacrificing, thinking and fighting for the future in the as yet shadowy ranks of social nationalism.
Labour’s Chances
In 2022, boundary changes will reduce presently Labour seats by about 30. Only a few Conservative MPs will be affected (and the LibDems will be all but wiped out). Labour may struggle if 2022 is the date of the next General Election. However, there is every chance of a General Election in 2019, just as the possibly chaotic Brexit events are occurring. The economy is about to tank. Big investors are pulling out of the UK. London properties in the highest priced categories are not selling. Huge numbers of families are going to be hit even harder shortly by reason of the implementation of the botched Iain Dunce Duncan Smith “Universal Credit” “reform”. All of that plays to Labour’s advantage.
Against the above, all that the Conservative Party has in its quiver is yet more lip-service about controlling mass immigration (which the “Conservatives” have failed to do in 8 years; words are cheap…) and negative public relations about Corbyn, Labour etc. My assessment is that even the existence of Diane Abbott and other ethnic minority deadheads as potential Cabinet ministers (!) may not be enough to win over for the Conservative Party the floating voters in marginal seats, and they are the ones that count.
My conclusion is that, albeit probably on a minority-government basis, Labour will be in power and Corbyn in Downing Street before 2022 and quite likely by mid-2019.
Final Word
In the blog post above, I promised to give an example of when I myself was the subject of what might be called “Divine intervention”. I could give a number of examples, but here is one: after returning from Rhodesia in 1977, and doing some part-time or short-term jobs in the UK for a year or so, I conceived the idea in January 1979 of visiting a mountain in the far West of Ireland, on the Dingle Peninsula (then not the tourist destination that I believe it now is). I had no money at all, really, and the First Class rail and ship ticket would be £126 in the money of the time. At that moment, I received a tax refund, from work done at least 2 years previously, of exactly £126! I had not applied for any refund. Makes you think…
Update, 19 January 2022
Well, I was right about a general election in 2019, but wrong about the result of the General Election of 2019. I had, perhaps, underestimated the influence of Britain’s basically Jewish-controlled msm on the mass of the voters. Also, the msm was constantly puffing stupid “Boris” Johnson as a dynamic and charismatic “prime minister in waiting”.
We know that happened from there. “Boris” won that election, and has been pretty disastrous. Meanwhile, Labour was retaken by the Israel lobby under puppet Labour leader Keir Starmer.
Final note: those proposed boundary changes have been scrapped.
Ian Robert Millard 