Tag Archives: EU

The Choice Is Not “Boris or Remain”: You Can Be For Brexit Yet Also Be Against Boris Johnson And His ZOG Cabinet


The UK is in an extraordinary political and Constitutional mess. What is more extraordinary is that the person who should be trying to sort it out, as Prime Minister, is not only not doing so (and is in any case incapable of doing so, being totally unfit for his office), but is actively making the situation worse.

I do not often support the words of pro-Israel drone Douglas Murray,  but he has it at least largely right here [see below]:


Boris Johnson etc

I have blogged in the recent past about Boris Johnson and also about his eminence grise, Dominic Cummings:






I have been saying for years that Boris Johnson is unfit for any office. Finally, after a decade or more, much of the the msm and also the more aware part of the public are catching up with me. I despise pretty much everything about Boris Johnson, who has been puffed for years as “Prime Minister in Waiting” by a dozy, complaisant or conspiring Press, radio and TV.

Boris is an idiot, the very words used to describe him by Israeli Embassy political intelligence officer Shai Masot, caught by Al Jazeera TV conspiring with former Labour MP Joan Ryan. The exact words? “…Boris is busy, you know. You know he is an idiot, but so far he has become the minister of foreign affairs without any kind of responsibilitiesWe like Boris”. Of course (((they))) do! Boris-Idiot will do anything that the Jewish lobby, Israel, or the “tail-wags-dog” USA want.



What is it about the UK, that an idiot is suddenly thought some kind of minor genius if he went to Eton and Oxford and can recall some of the Latin and Greek he learned at school? What is there in Boris behind the rote-learned classical Greek and the carefully-cultivated, careless “English” “upper class” persona? Which of course is largely a fake, because Boris is part-Jew, part-Circassian Turk, part God-knows-what, born in the USA, brought up partly there and also in Belgium.

Behind all the playacting, behind the Eton and Oxford, behind the pathetic am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, what is in the middle of the onion? Anything? Nothing?

Boris Johnson, as I have repeatedly said (and with increasing frustration as he has been repeatedly promoted to the level of his incompetence— the Peter Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle), Boris is unfit to be in public life at all. In fact, he has outdone the Peter Principle, in that he has been incompetent in all of the jobs he has ever had (with the arguable exception of the editorship of The Spectator), yet has talked his way, with a fair wind from connections and msm, to become journalist, editor, MP, Mayor of London, MP again, Cabinet minister, and now Prime Minister, despite having been incompetent in all or almost all of those roles.

This government is an entirely illegitimate pro-Israel regime. All of its ministers and most of its MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel. Some are part-Jew, some  full, e.g. Grant Shapps, dodgy business type from the Hertfordshire Borshch Belt, who was head of the youth wing of UK “Bnai Brith”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%27nai_B%27rith

This government is undoubtedly the least impressive in living memory. Few of its members, if any, have real or substantial achievement to their name. Some, notably East African Asian Priti Patel, incredibly now again a Cabinet minister after having been sacked by Theresa May, are or were Israeli agents, certainly agents of influence, possibly more.

There is no doubt that the Boris Johnson government is set to increase the repression of free speech where it affects Jews and Zionism. There are probably secret plans to introduce the mediaeval-style laws against “holocaust” “denial” that we see in several other European states. That alone means that Boris-Idiot and his Cabinet and his government have to be removed. Whatever it takes. At present, Boris Idiot would find it hard to introduce such repressive laws (unless with the help of Labour Friends of Israel MPs), tightening even further the repression introduced (mainly) under Tony Blair and also Theresa May. The Commons votes might not be there for that. However, were the —misnamed— Conservatives to win a Commons majority, we should expect all sorts of police-state actions to increase as the “Conservative” ranks would be padded out with unthinking newly-elected lobby-fodder.

That horrible bastard John Mann, who might well soon have been deselected by his local Labour Party anyway, has now accepted a well-paid role as the Government’s “anti-Semitism” “tsar” and will not be standing for re-election :


Note the following:

Mann, who will be based in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, claims his sole aim is to make the UK a haven for the Jewish community.” (it already is, and that is a major problem).

In her last act as prime minister, Theresa May appointed Mann, who backed Brexit and this week voted with the government to try to block emergency legislation intended to stop no-deal, as an independent adviser to the government on tackling anti-semitism.”

“Boris Johnson has since upgraded the role, underlining the importance the government attaches to the issue.” [The Times].

There you have it: Theresa May and Boris Johnson (both of part-Jew origins: one of Johnson’s great-grandfathers was an Orthodox Jew rabbi in Lithuania!) head and headed the two most pro-Jew and pro-Zionist governments in British history. Arguably the two worst-ever from other points of view too.


What about Brexit?

I have been pro-Brexit for years, well before the 2016 Referendum. Britain must try to get out of the EU “lobster-pot” (easy to enter, almost impossible to exit). I tweeted (until the Jew-Zionists had me barred from Twitter in 2018) and have blogged (since late 2016) about these matters.

Other states have voted not to go further into the lobster-pot. They were forced to “rethink” and “vote again”…Likewise, if states like Portugal and Austria elected any “far right” MPs, the EU cold-shouldered them until the “mistake” was “corrected”. The same squeeze is now being put onto Hungary and Italy. This is a tyranny, though —so far— of the “iron fist in velvet glove” variety.

As soon as the 2016 Referendum was over, I was predicting a long campaign by NWO/ZOG/EU to reverse the Referendum one way or another. Either Remain, or “BRINO” (Brexit In Name Only). I have no idea to what extent the criminal mishandling of the Brexit negotiations was deliberate, but I have my suspicions. Anyway, there it is.

The EEC was supposedly a matter of intra-Europe free trade and a customs union to facilitate that. When the UK joined the EEC and then voted (in a fixed referendum, in which the pro-EEC side had 10x the money to buy publicity etc…) to remain, in the 1970s, the bloc was still mainly beneficial. However, just as Bismarck’s Zollverein paved the way for a German unitary (unified) state in the late 19th Century, so the EEC paved the way for a transformation of the free states of Western and Central Europe into the EC and then, via Maastricht, the EU. The precursor to a one-Europe state.

I might not even object to that, were that EU superstate to be a true federation of equals and not under sinister “New World Order” [“NWO”] control, but that is not the case. NWO and “ZOG” [“Zionist Occupation Government”] work together to impose, over time, a ghastly and repressive tyranny, one that encompasses both Europe and North America and which aspires to control the whole world in time. George Orwell was a prophet. The EU is only part of the way towards the ultimate destination.


We are therefore left with a paradox: I want the UK to get out, fully out, of the EU, but also want an end to the present Boris Johnson “Conservative” government.

There is no place for my views in the present black-and-white msm narrative being put before the public, which narrative has room only for a binary choice:

  • No Deal Brexit + Boris; or
  • Remain/Brexit In Name Only/EU-approved “deal” + No Boris.

I reject that binary choice. It is just a couple of flickering shadows on the wall of the cave.

The best thing would be for the UK to leave the EU, and for the Conservatives to be heavily defeated at a general election.

There is no prospect that Corbyn and his deadheads can run a successful government either, so that might well open the door for a real social-national movement and party (which latter does not exist at present; it must first exist, naturally).

Desperate times, desperate measures. Only when people need real leadership from a social-national party and leader can that party and leader arise from obscurity to their true stature.

Update, 9 September 2019

I wrote the words below some three months ago, in an earlier blog post about Boris-Idiot. They have worn rather well, if I say so myself. Give that man a cee-gar!

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

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


Update, 28 September 2019

Gove, quite plainly either drunk or (more likely) drugged (again) in the Chamber of the House of Commons! See below


Update, 2 October 2019

“You heard it here first”…


Update, 8 October 2019

We May Be On The Brink Of Political Disintegration

In the Notes, below this article, is the text of a Guardian piece by the well-known expert on the British Constitution, Vernon Bogdanor. Worth reading, but what struck me apart from its detail was that one possibility mooted as a way out of the Brexit impasse is a so-called “government of national unity headed by someone such as Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper“. YVETTE COOPER?! You mean (he means) Yvette Cooper the expenses cheat and greedy careerist freeloader? Yvette Cooper the “refugees welcome” hypocrite, who thinks that British people should all have to put up with culturally-backward hordes invading their country, their neighbourhoods, even their own homes? (Needless to say, Yvette Cooper and her equally greedy, cheating, freeloading husband, Ed Balls, have somehow avoided sharing their own comfortable large home(s) with the migrant-invaders). Yvette Cooper, the total doormat for the Jewish-Zionist lobby?

That sounds to me more like a government of national disunity!

In fact, though it may be largely factually correct, the Guardian piece shows to what extent the mainly London-based chattering classes and msm milieux are out of tune and in fact completely out of touch with what I take to be the majority of the population.

A “government of national unity”? In order to deal with a crisis entirely inflicted upon the people by the political class and more particularly the Conservative Party? It is not so much about Brexit itself as about the way in which persons governing despite being unfit to govern have criminally mishandled Brexit. I myself favoured Leave and Brexit in 2016, and still do, but (in the immortal words of Johnny Mercer MP), this is “a shitshow” and most of it has been and is a Conservative Party shitshow.

I expect that many will see my view as unnecessarily apocalyptic. I disagree. Many opinion polls have shown how very disenchanted the voters really are, to the point where many are willing to vote for Brexit Party, a party which, apart from the UK leaving the EU, has no policies at all. That willingness, to vote for a new party without any real policies (even in outline) also supports my view that voters at present are voting against the parties they oppose, rather than for parties they support.

There is no social national party for people to support (obviously I do not bother to examine again the bad-joke “parties” of recent years: Britain First, For Britain, the rumps of the old NF and BNP etc). UKIP too, which —as I predicted since 2015— is now so “yesterday” that I almost forgot to include it. There is a political vacuum.

As it is, the voters are left, at present, with the LibLabCon parties, i.e. the System parties, and the Brexit Party. Anyone (meaning anyone white and English, or Welsh, the Scots having the faux-“nationalist” SNP) and discontented with the way the UK is, can only either refuse to participate or can vote Brexit Party as a protest (or vote of hate against the System parties).

How has it come to this, that instead of the UK leaving the EU in a fairly orderly fashion, the government and msm are now talking in terms of food shortages? This is unbelievable! Those responsible are mainly the ministers and MPs of the Conservative Party, who after all have been in power now for over 9 years, including of course the 3 years since the 2016 Referendum. It is they who have messed up the negotiations, they who have blithely said that everything will be all right, they who have been the Government. Not Labour, not the LibDems, not Brexit Party.

Now we come to Boris-idiot. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is, to me, no more acceptable or believable than food shortages as a result of Brexit. To me, he is not a legitimate Prime Minister of this country. He is totally unfit to be a prime minister of anywhere. He is only there because of the flaw in the UK’s constitutional arrangements, by which flaw a prime minister can resign without that prime minister’s successor having to call an immediate general election. In the case of Boris Johnson, he is also there because spineless Conservative Party MPs thought (I doubt rightly) that Boris-idiot was or is more “electable” than any of his opponents in the Conservative Party leadership contest, and so would give all Conservative Party MPs a better chance of electoral survival.

When you see Boris-idiot, you have to factor-in to everything that he says or writes that his primary and often only purpose is his own selfish interest.

Now we are told that Johnson is set on either leaving the EU on bare WTO terms or (if he can frighten the EU enough) getting a better “deal” than did the absurd bad-joke PM, Theresa May.

Boris-idiot’s calculation is very very obvious: if the EU makes even a slightly better offer, Boris “Tribune of the People” and “Conquering Hero” presents that to the House of Commons, which then either accepts it (so anointing Idiot as “great statesman” who would probably then win a general election if held fairly soon thereafter), or rejects it (so casting Idiot as “heroic but conspired against”).

On the other hand, if the EU refuses to make a better offer, Boris The Poundland Churchill can shake his fist at Brussels, take or try to take the UK out of the EU on WTO terms, and if that is blocked in the Commons, hold a general election, casting himself again as that “Tribune of the People” against Remainer (especially Labour, LibDem and SNP) MPs and Brussels eurocrats.

Whatever happens, keep eyes focussed on the fact that Boris Johnson is doing whatever he is doing for short-term political advantage. Having supported the fake “austerity” of his fellow part-Jews David Cameron-Levita and George Osborne, Boris Johnson now flashes the cash everywhere: NHS, police, whatever. Shallow 18th Century style largesse-politics.

Is Boris-Idiot correct in his calculations? Will be be borne back to power on a wave of anti-EU anger? I doubt it.

Let us say that there are food shortages (whether caused by Brexit, hold-ups at the ports, miscalculations by the large supermarket chains or panic-buying by the urban masses in the British cities). Who will be blamed? The EU? Perhaps, partly, at first. However, I believe that the people will also and in any event before long start to blame (and with reason) the “Conservative” government.

If the UK does not leave the EU on 31 October, then government remains paralyzed by its lack of a Parliamentary majority. If an election is then held, Brexit Party will stand in 650 constituencies and so enable the slaughter of dozens and even hundreds of Conservative MPs.

Boris Johnson is probably calculating that, if he can take the UK out of the EU on 31 October 2019, the voting public will see him (however ludicrous that may be to you and me) as a strong leader (when he is neither) who has kept to his word. He can then in effect call a general election and hope to win a Commons majority because either Brexit Party will fade away or not stand candidates, or will be sidelined by the electorate.

No doubt Johnson will hope that, like Pacific salmon who die after spawning, Brexit Party will expire, having reached its goal of a UK exit from the EU. Such a calculation may be misplaced. How Brexit Party would present itself if the UK really does leave, at least on paper, on 31 October, I am unsure. Perhaps by saying that the exit is not sure, not definite or that Brexit may possibly be reversed by an incoming government.

One thing is certain: Brexit is about more than Brexit and, that being so, Brexit Party itself, should its leader Farage so decide, could morph into a party of general faux-nationalist discontent. That sounds vague, but what is more vague than a party with neither policies nor ideology?

There is more going on than Brexit, of course. All the problems the UK has will still be there on 1 November: mass immigration (which will not stop after Brexit, far from it!), NHS decline, social security and housing defects and shortages, the increase in violent crime, social decadence and decline; and so on.

The msm and TV talking heads, the metro-“liberal” journalists, lawyers, media folk etc, all insulated by affluence, mostly London-centric, were shocked by the 2016 Referendum result, by the 2017 election results, by the immediate failure of their briefly-cherished “Change UK” pro-Jewish joke party, by Trump’s election too. In a word, these people are out-of-touch. Their experience of the years 2010-2019 is not the same as that of well over half the UK population.

My view is that a coming general election might produce a big shock again. The only thing preventing a landslide for a social-nationalist party is that, quite simply, no social national party exists.

In the no doubt upcoming 2019 or possibly early 2020 General Election, I believe that neither of the main System parties will do well. I believe that both the LibDems and Brexit Party could do well, if only as a reaction against the main two.

The two main System parties have both been losing not only loyal voters but their own raisons d’etre, and their heart.

Labour will keep the votes of the blacks and browns generally, as well as those of the public service workers and those dependent on State benefits. It may not keep the votes of those it has taken for granted for a century: the British (i.e. white) poorer people as such. They are now either voting with their feet (i.e. not voting) or voting desperately elsewhere. In 2005 or so, BNP; 2010-2015, UKIP. Now they vote, some of them, Brexit Party. I put the Labour vote as likely to be around 30%.

The Conservative Party cannot now appeal to Thatcherite-style “aspiration”. That was something real back in the 1980s. I remember sitting in a branch of Wheeler’s (fish restaurant) in Blackheath in 1986 or 1987. At the next table, a young plumber (the tables were not far apart and he was a little loud) and his girlfriend talking about his income, his house-purchase plans etc. Afterwards, my then girlfriend and I mused about the social changes then in train (a young tradesman and girlfriend eating at Wheeler’s and buying a house). Could that happen now? Perhaps, but it would be unusual, I think.

The Conservative vote nationally is now mainly that of the rich and affluent (nothing new there), which would be no more than 5% to (at most) 20% of the population. There are some older but not affluent people who still vote Conservative out of long habit, even against their own interests, but they are a dwindling stock. That is why the Conservative MPs backed Boris-idiot as their leader, because they hoped that this part-Jew public entertainer could jolly along enough unthinking voters to make up the numbers. All the same, I should not put the Conservative vote now much above 30%, and that might fall back to 20% if the UK experiences significant disruption or economic dislocation soon.

The LibDems may soon be able to corner the Remain vote in the South of England.

Brexit Party might just be the recipient of any further or renewed “roar of rage” from an electorate in pain. If that happens (meaning if Brexit Party gets at least 20% of the popular vote), then the Conservatives will soon be “an ex-party”, at least so far as government is concerned.

Many might say, so you get rid of a Conservative MP and put in a small-c conservative Brexit Party MP, what’s the difference? Well, it’s not that simple anyway (because LibDems and Labour might capture more Con seats than does Brexit Party), but the good thing is that many many evil Conservative Party MPs will be out of UK politics, many for good. Connections and career paths will be ruined. I don’t much like Champagne, but if that happened, I might make an exception. If the damage were great, I might even drink Bollinger instead of mere champagne-type such as Sekt.

A similar picture might emerge in the North as regards Labour (if Conservative voters vote Brexit Party to keep Labour out), but one thing at a time! The main thing is to cull the hundreds of Conservative Friends of Israel. And it could soon happen.

The way lies open, not far away, for social nationalism on a scale never before seen in the UK.





Update, 23 December 2020

My analysis was right, but my prediction not right as far as the chances at an election of the Conservative Party were concerned. I failed to foresee that con-man Nigel Farage would stab his own candidates and Brexit Party members in the back, and stand down virtually all Brexit Party 2019 General Election candidates, thus gifting the Conservative Party and Boris-idiot an 80-seat Commons majority.

EU Elections 2019 in Review: Labour

Labour did not do well at the EU elections: 3rd-placed with 2,347,255 votes, a 13.7% vote share, and 10 MEPs (down from 20). Labour only got two-thirds as many votes as the LibDems, and far less than half as many votes as Brexit Party attracted.

Remain whiners are saying that that happened because Labour did not proclaim itself as anti-Brexit and/or pro a second EU referendum. That is a doubtful proposition, in that it seems that more Labour voters voted Leave than Remain in 2016. What probably is correct is in saying that Labour’s message was mixed, or that Labour and Corbyn were “fence-sitting” re. Brexit (true, but what else can he do?). Parties that had a clear Brexit message (Brexit Party, LibDems, Greens) did better than those with mixed messages (Conservative and Labour). In the Russian proverb, “if you chase two hares, you won’t catch one”.

True, Change UK and UKIP had clear messages either way on Brexit and both failed miserably, but in the case of UKIP, Brexit Party simply took its votes and was seen as the bandwagon on which to jump; Change UK was just seen as a joke (there was something of that in UKIP too, it having joined with the “alt-Right” wastes of space “Sargon of Akkad” Carl Benjamin, “Prison Planet” Paul Watson and “Count Dankula” Mark Meechan).

Labour did not come in 1st place in any of the EU constituencies and, in the 5 constituencies where it came 2nd, was far behind Brexit Party (and typically with less than half of the votes of Brexit Party), with the sole exception of London, where Labour came 2nd to the LibDems (23.9% vote, LibDems on 27.2%).

Labour’s campaign was weak, and the Jewish-Zionist element was, as always, still there, sniping from cover at Corbyn and his (as far as I can see) very limited if even existent “anti-Semitism”.

Labour’s best argument in respect of Westminster elections has been, for the past 9 years, that it is not the Conservative Party. That trend has continued and strengthened under Corbyn. Is that enough?

True, Labour has policies designed to appeal to the middle-of-the-road voter (public ownership of some utilities, rail lines etc, a fairer deal for tenants, promises of more money for NHS etc).

On the other hand, if a voter wants to really give the Conservatives a kick, particularly in usually-Conservative-voting areas or in marginal Con-LibDem (Westminster) constituencies, that angry former Labour voter or floating voter might well do better to vote Brexit Party rather than Labour, because in strongly Conservative areas, Labour has no chance anyway in most years, whereas the LibDems are often the second party in such areas. Such a voter could (obviously) just vote LibDem straight off. Many voters, though, if there is a 3-way Con-LibDem-Brexit Party split (realistically), may want to vote Brexit Party rather than LibDem in the hope that a BP candidate can come through the middle to win, or because the LibDems enabled the 2010-2015 “coalition” government.

As to the impact of Brexit Party on Labour seats in the North and Midlands, I should assess it as potentially very damaging, but difficult to quantify. It is not just that Corbyn is said to be unpopular. It is also a question of Labour’s failure to stand up for (real) British people, for white neighbourhoods and communities. Labour failed to stem mass immigration and in fact encouraged it (of course, we now know from a whistleblower that Labour Jews such as Barbara Roche, and Phil Woolas, deliberately imported millions of non-European immigrants in order to destroy our race and culture).

There is also the connected fact that Labour never even admitted the nature and extent of the sexual exploitation of young girls by Pakistani gangs across the country, and particularly Northern England. In fact, Labour covered up the crimes, assisted by Common Purpose organization members in the police and in local councils.

The Labour voters who voted Green in the EU elections (held under proportional voting) will mostly return in a Westminster election (held under FPTP voting) because in the Westminster election, a Green vote is a wasted vote, without doubt.

If Brexit Party can take away 10% or more of what would otherwise be the Conservative vote, the Conservative Party is badly damaged (as when UKIP got 12% in 2015). If Brexit Party can get an overall 20%, the Conservative Party is toast except in a few very safe seats. Labour voters should therefore (whatever they think of Farage and his party) vote Brexit Party and not Labour, unless Labour is in a very strong position to win in any particular seat.

Labour has a good chance of forming a minority government or even a (small?) majority one if a general election is held soon, meaning in 2019, maybe 2020. The Conservatives are despised, divided, and weakened both internally and by the upstart Brexit Party. I blogged recently about how the Conservatives might try to limp on to 2022, when the reduction in MP numbers to 600 and accompanying boundary changes will cost Labour as many as 30 MPs. Much depends also on whether Brexit Party is a flash in the pan or a growing menace to the Conservatives.

I wrote the following after the Stoke-on-Trent by-election of 2017:

Labour has been declining for years. Corbyn is both symptom and cause. The disappearance of the industrial proletariat has swept away the bedrock underneath Labour, replacing it by the sand of the “precariat”. Labour imported millions of immigrants, who are now breeding. The social landscape becomes volatile. The political landscape too.”

I see no reason to change my view.







Update, 6 June 2019

The tweet below, from the Peterborough by-election, illustrates my often-posted belief that the Labour core vote is now largely composed of the “blacks and browns”:

More proof…

In other words, Labour is now the party of the blacks and browns.

Update, 21 September 2019

…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.”

“These groups claim to be the voice of the working class, but now they want to act as an arm of the authorities by patrolling beaches to apprehend struggling working-class people desperately trying to get to safety.

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 the fag-end “Marxism”, trying to shoehorn the facts into some 1980s polytechnic back-of-postcard Marxism-Leninism.

When I Had Lunch at an Italian Restaurant, Visited the EU Commission but Never Saw Tashkent


I am now writing about a personal experience, because I feel that some people might find it interesting anyway, and because I also feel that, inter alia, it says something about the EU and the way it operates.

The facts

In 1998, some months after my return from a several-months sojourn in Egypt, I was telephoned by someone whom I did not know, Leasor by name, who told me that my name had been suggested as someone who might be a suitable candidate for a project funded by the EU, and would I meet the next day to discuss it? I was interested, not least because I needed a job.

At the time, I was staying temporarily with my parents, at the yachting haven of Hamble, in Hampshire. As I say, I had been in Egypt for quite a while, had then spent three months penniless and effectively homeless in London (a dystopian nightmare), and since that time another lucrative work possibility, in Odessa (Ukraine), had just recently fallen through. The small financial settlement I had been paid (after having had to issue court proceedings against a Jew fraud —will blog about that another time—) was running out rapidly. So I was happy to investigate this new idea, whatever it might be.

A day or two later I was in London, lunching in a smallish and pleasant Italian restaurant in Pimlico, a stone’s throw from the Vauxhall Bridge Road. My host, Leasor (I forget his Christian name), was easy to talk to and explained that there was an EU TACIS project coming up for tender. TACIS was “Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States”, a foreign aid umbrella supposedly helping out the former Soviet republics by providing “expertise”. I regarded it as largely a boondoggle, a major aim of which was to help out not the former Soviet Union but large Western law firms, accountancy firms, “consultancy” firms and industrial concerns.

I believe that, since our telephone conversation, I had faxed my CV to Leasor, so he knew my work background, qualifications etc. He also knew that I had been, during 1995-1996, on the Committee of the Central Asia and Transcaucasia Law Association [CATLA], also connected with TACIS; the CATLA committee met every few weeks at one or another plush office of law firms in the City of London or West End. I remember that they included Clifford Chance, Norton Rose and other large firms. CATLA had been set up by UK law firms with interests in the new states recently carved out of the Soviet Union.

As for Leasor himself, I do not think that he said much about himself, save for the fact that he had been involved in a few similar deals in recent years. I am not someone who questions people closely (leaving aside my years at the practising Bar); I always think it rather rude. Neither did I enquire how he got my temporary home telephone number.

I had spent a year in Kazakhstan (1996-97), and had, a few years earlier, visited post-Soviet Moscow. This was of interest to the consortium which was bidding for the contract in Uzbekistan; also useful was my far-from-perfect but serviceable Russian language (both reading and speaking).

After lunch, Leasor took me to see his brother (in fact he had or has at least one other, but I did not know that then). His brother had been Adjutant of the 17th/21st Lancers, a smart cavalry unit now (at time of writing) not in independent existence; that brother was running what was basically a public relations outfit in a small office in Westminster. The brother or his firm would also be part of the bid consortium. I found both brothers pleasant and polite, though the ex-officer one did carry light traces of his former profession of arms in his speech and manner.

The next meeting was at the offices of yet another part of the consortium, the large law firm Simmons & Simmons, in the City of London. The meeting was chaired by its then “emerging markets” partner, a small Jew with a name so Scottish that the possessor of it should have had bagpipes and a tartan Tam O’Shanter. I had met him before. Also present was a City of London bod with a good line in convoluted financial jargon.

The project in Uzbekistan was to be based in the capital, Tashkent, the largest city in Central Asia. The title of the project was something like “Secondary Markets in Uzbekistan”. What I knew about secondary markets could be written, if not on a postcard, then certainly on a single side of paper, but no matter: the financial bod and the law firm would jointly take up that slack. My role would be to be second-in-command, so to speak, based as sole resident representative in Tashkent. All that was really required of me was legal and resident experience in the region (Uzbekistan borders Kazakhstan) and serviceable Russian. The others would be based in London.

It turned out that this was the EU’s second attempt to get a secondary market going in Uzbekistan. The first had sunk without trace, taking about £2 million in EU funding with it. I discovered that the team who had won the previous bid (I think French) had blown almost all the budget on salaries and on staying in the most expensive hotels in Tashkent, Moscow and European capitals, leaving nothing for publishing useful (educative) information or for effective liaison with the government of Uzbekistan.

20 years have now elapsed. I realized only years after the events now chronicled that, in overall charge of TACIS projects for that part of the world from 1994-1996, i.e. not so very long before I got directly involved in the region, was one Nick Clegg, since then of course MP (2005-2017), UK Liberal Democrat Party leader (2007-2015) and (2010-2015) Deputy PM, but then just a wealthy “trustafarian” whose parents had got him a job in Brussels:

He took up a post at the European Commission in April 1994, working in the TACIS aid programme to the former Soviet Union. For two years, Clegg was responsible for developing direct aid programmes in Central Asia and the Caucasus worth €50 million. He was involved in negotiations with Russia on airline overflight rights, and launched a conference in Tashkent in 1993 that founded TRACECA—an international transport programme for the development of a transport corridor for Europe, the Caucasus and Asia.” [Wikipedia].

No wonder the project for which I was recruited had failed at its first attempt! Clegg! I note also that only now, a quarter of a century later, is the “new Silk Road” coming into being. I wonder how much EU money Clegg wasted overall…

Coming back to a micro level of economics, my own proposed salary was, if I remember rightly, going to be somewhere around £100,000 (I think more) taxfree (and paid offshore), equivalent to maybe £150,000 or so taxfree today (educated guess). I think that accommodation and flights were also on offer. This was more than attractive to someone who had, that very same year, been for months all but destitute in London (where some of my adventures would make amusing reading, were I able to write them down).

So to Brussels…

The two Leasor brothers and I flew on a small business airline to Brussels. The jet was almost empty and arrived just as darkness was falling, around 1800 hrs. A confusing taxi ride through endless tunnels and we were there, in the middle of Brussels, a city to which I had never been (though I had visited Belgium itself on a number of occasions, starting in (I think) 1963, aged maybe just 7, when my family flew Sabena from Heathrow to Ostend, a service long-since discontinued).

In the morning, after an excellent dinner (Brussels is noted for cuisine) and a night in some hotel which appeared to be exclusively occupied by delegates and supplicants to the EU Commission or Parliament, we set off on foot to our own appointment with the Commission.

At the Commission (not the famous main building but a quite neglected smaller one nearby), we were ushered in eventually to a room set up like a tribunal, with EU flags on vertical poles and tables for us, the Uzbek delegation and the Eurocrats judging our bid.

The Uzbeks were a government minister (I forget now, 20+ years later, whether it was the Foreign Minister or Minister for Foreign Trade, I think the former) and his English-speaking assistant, a clever-looking young man who had “KGB” or the equivalent written all over him.

The “tribunal” consisted of a troika: the chairwoman was a French or Belgian woman, maybe 50, very much conscious of her importance (whatever that was) and looking somehow lacquered, as if her hair or face might crack if she were to fall over. There was also a besuited person of, I think, Belgian nationality and an English or maybe Scottish civil servant, looking scruffy and wearing a roll-neck jumper, making him look like the once-famous 1956 publicity shot of the young Colin Wilson, writer of The Outsider, pictured as enfant terrible of popular philosophy.

After one of the others gave an overview of our bid, it was my turn to be grilled. The main thing was to ask about my legal background and then to test my facility in Russian conversation. That was done by the minister, with help from “KGB” assistant. After a while, the KGB assistant carried on, until one of the troika interjected and said “I think that we have established that Mr. Millard has a good command of Russian…we are running short of time.” The KGB assistant wanted to carry on interrogating me but had to shut up. Not before time. The bastard had pretty much reached the outer limits of my fluency. As he subsided, he flashed me a smile and a sharp glance as if to say “I’ve got your number…”

We went back separately to London. I thought that we had done enough to win the bid, as had the brothers, but in the end it turned out that, for purely political reasons, a consortium from, if I recall, Spain had to be awarded the contract, because Spain had not had enough of a bite at the TACIS cherry…


My visit to Brussels over, I only heard once more from Leasor (the one who contacted me initially). I ended up, not long afterward, going to live for a while in the Caribbean and elsewhere. To this day, I have never visited Tashkent.

It was only much later that I started to wonder whether there had been something else behind that —superficially— purely commercial bid. Uzbekistan, like Kazakhstan, was just then, in 1998, becoming pivotal in geopolitical terms, as “Western”/NATO/NWO power rubbed up against an upsurging China, a Russia starting to be resurgent, and Islamism from the South. Maybe Professor Haushofer was at least partly correct…

Uzbekistan was under strict dictatorial control and at that time had not yet committed itself to cooperation with NATO. It might be that our bid was really an opening gambit to insert an intelligence post into Tashkent, with me as “clean” figurehead, at least at first. The project would have provided access to Uzbek ministers and advisors at or near the top level of their government.

Evidence? Not much. Was it relevant that I was called out of the blue? Not necessarily (headhunters had done that before and would do so again). Was it relevant that the Italian restaurant was near Vauxhall Bridge Road? Not necessarily. Was it in any way relevant that —as I only discovered a few years ago— the brothers were the sons of the writer James Leasor, who was a WW2 officer, later a foreign correspondent and writer of famous books on war and espionage, some of which were filmed: The One That Got Away and (filmed sub nom The Sea Wolves) Boarding Party? I suppose not. Straws in the wind, as we are in life…















Brexit. It Is Now A War— The British People Against The System

The British people were told that they and they alone would decide by referendum whether to stay in or leave the EU. Remain or Leave. No nonsense about “the Irish backstop”, no nonsense about “deals” with the EU, no ever-more complex rejigging of the UK-EU relationship, no second vote years after the Referendum (i.e. no “people’s vote”, to be held in 2019, 2020 or even later), no asking to remain in the EU for weeks, months, years after the set departure date.



Yes, the relationship between the EU and the UK is complex, but sometimes, with Gordian Knots, you just have to cut the knot. You can tie new knots later.

As I predicted at the time, Remain would immediately launch a kind of quite long term damage-limitation operation, building on the Operation Fear pre-referendum propaganda. The fear propaganda had a number of aspects:

  • No-one would be allowed to travel from the UK to EU states;
  • Before the UK was in the EU, no-one from the UK was allowed to travel to France, Germany, Italy etc without a visa;
  • No UK people could live or work in, eg, France, Spain, Italy, Germany before 1973;
  • Anyone voting Leave hates Europe and Europeans;
  • A vote for Leave is a vote for hate;
  • A Leave win would reduce most British people to poverty;

This propaganda was fuelled by even more than usually inept and wrong forecasts by hugely well-paid and hugely overvalued “erudite idiots” such as the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, a globalist Bilderberg participant of probably part-Jewish origins (see Notes, below). Ex-Goldman Sachs and carrying Canadian, British and Irish (and other?) passports, Carney and others claimed that Brexit would immediately shrink the UK economy. In reality, such forecasts did that, by causing fear and uncertainty.

Many young people, meaning loosely anyone under 30 but especially the 16-24 age group, badly let down by their pathetically poor education, really seemed to believe the above bullet-points. They really believed that a Leave result would mean that they would not even be able to visit EU countries without onerous visa requirements. In fact, listening to them (bleat) on BBC radio, one realized that many seriously believed that, if the UK left the EU, they would not be allowed entry to EU countries at all! Yes, those who believed that were/are stupid, ignorant and poorly-educated, but the immediate blame must be placed on the Remain propagandists.

There were reports in the msm and on social media about pathetic teenage girls bleating and crying because “their whole future” had been “destroyed” (by older Leave voters)! Now they would never be international models, pan-EU entrepreneurs etc! In reality, of course, 99% of the young Remain whiners never were going to get well-paid or indeed any jobs “in Europe” (as they always mis-designate the EU). The few who might, always could (I myself once had a girlfriend who, in her 1960s youth, had been on the cover of the French edition of Vogue).

The Remain fightback started immediately. Project Fear was kept going, along with new lines: “the Referendum was not really valid because it was so close” was one. Another was “turnout was only 72%, so the Leave vote was really only about 37%”…

As Leave supporters countered, what if we applied that to General Elections? Or by-elections? We have just had a by-election at Newport West. I blogged about it and later added the result details:


In that by-election, Labour won, with a vote share of 39.6% of votes cast. However, turnout was only 37.6%. In other words, nearly two-thirds of eligible voters, many no doubt disgusted by the charade of “democracy” being played out, refused to or at least did not vote. Should we say that the result is invalid, because Labour was only voted for by about 15% of the eligible electorate?…

The same is true of the vast majority of constituencies where MPs have been “elected” despite having received less than 50% of the votes. Some MPs were “elected” on votes of 30%, the result of 3-way or 4-way splits. In view of the often low turnout in elections, that means that many MPs were voted for by only a fifth or even a tenth of the eligible voters!

People who could not be bothered to vote either way in 2016 must accept the result. Leave.

We should recall that every single referendum region in England, except London, voted Leave, most by very nearly 60%-40%. In fact, in the UK only London, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain.

If you were to take out Scotland, Northern Ireland, London, Gibraltar and all non-white voters, Leave would have won, in England, by something like 75%-25%.

If there were to be another EU/Brexit referendum any time soon, Leave might in fact win all over again:


The point is that a promise was made to the British people and has been broken. Now we see that

  • The “Conservative” government has badly mishandled the 2-3 years of negotiation with the EU (was that deliberate? was that sabotage?);
  • An attempt has been made to have a “Brexit In Name Only” via a so-called “deal” which would be actually worse than just staying in the EU officially;
  • attempt(s) are made to revoke Article 50 and so to stay in the EU;
  • requests for extensions of time for departure (why?);
  • a House of Commons “legal coup d’etat” has been made, passing a law to all but outlaw Brexit, and passed by one vote, that of African convict Fiona Onasanya MP, who was recently released from prison and soon will not even be an MP! The Commons coup was arranged between Oliver Letwin MP, a Jew and former Rothschilds employee, and pro-Zionist would-be dictator Yvette Cooper MP.

In fact, the Rothschilds connection is interesting, because puppet President of France, Macron, a complete agent of Zionism, NWO and ZOG, also worked for Rothschilds.


  • There is effectively no or almost no real democracy in the UK now. People are waking up to that via the Brexit saga;
  • There is no political party, let alone one which is powerful and/or credible, which speaks for the British people;
  • Most MPs are useless, not even mediocre, and/or are just freeloading traitors; they are also, most of them, direct enemies of the British people. Many belong to secret groups of cosmopolitan manipulators.  Many are pro-Zionist and/or have Jewish-Zionist connections, spouses, sponsors etc.

There must be a new and better society and a better system of government.





http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/chronicle/AL_CHRON_1957_3.pdf [see p.38]


Update, 12 April 2019: a few thoughts about the near-future EU and local elections

The Brexit mess, so spectacularly mishandled by Theresa May and the idiotic careerists around her, may save UKIP from immediate collapse as a party, inasmuch as many British voters will want to punish the Conservative Party one way or the other. There may be a “perfect storm” for the Conservative Party, pressured on two fronts by both the Leave and Remain sides.

There will soon be elections for the European Parliament, on 23 May 2019. Recent opinion polling seems to be saying that Labour will have a landslide: initial voting intentions show Labour on 37.8% (up from 24.4% in 2016); Conservatives at 23.1% (unchanged), Brexit Party (Nigel Farage’s new party) 10%, LibDem 8%, UKIP 7.5%, Change UK (the recent Lab/Con defector MPs’ vehicle) around 4%, among others.

One has to be cautious in assuming that the above opinion poll reflects the likely outcome. The same poll seems to indicate that, after discussion, many pro-EU voters prefer Change UK (which would hit Labour and LibDem levels), while anti-EU voters may prefer either UKIP or Brexit Party.



Before the EU elections (in which the UK may not participate at all if the UK leaves the UK before 23 May), there will be local elections, on 2 May 2019. The indications are that, in those elections, Labour may also sweep the poll, with Labour benefiting not only from the “pendulum” or “see-saw” effect of elections in a system using FPTP voting, but also from abstentions by usual Con voters (or by their voting for Brexit Party or UKIP).

As far as the local elections are concerned, Labour starts the campaign with several advantages. The decade of spending cuts has finally impacted even the most true-blue Conservative areas. Labour has a army of local activists, thanks to its membership surge under Corbyn. It also has funds from the same source.

The Conservatives have few local activists now and most are beyond retirement age. The party looks tired. The Brexit mess can only be laid at the door of Theresa May and her Cabinet. The Cons will be lucky to avoid a wipeout in the areas voting on 2 May.


There are also strategic factors. The Conservative Party claims 124,000 members, which seems high (average 200 members per constituency). Most are elderly. Few are active. The median age for Conservative voters has also risen, to 52. Recent polling has shown that only 16% of voters under 35 support the Cons, and only 4% of those under 25 do so.



Brexit. What Now? What Soon? What Later?

The Big Picture Across Europe


First of all, there is the change happening all over Europe. The old parties and old certainties —going back to 1945— are being binned. New parties, new people, new ideas (and some older ones) are taking back the European space. We see nationalist and even social-nationalist parties arising and often meeting with popular support. The front-runners are Poland, Italy, and parts of Central Europe such as the Czech Republic. Elsewhere, too, alternative parties are gathering: the AfD and several even better parties in occupied and repressed Germany; France too, where would-be dictator and Rothschilds/Jewish-lobby puppet Macron is already as good as finished, and where a ferment is bubbling via the “Yellow Vest” groundswell.

The European elections will soon be held. The new forces will be strongly in the ascendant. Not far down the line (within 5 years) either the EU will disintegrate or it will be changed out of all recognition from the inside.

The migration-invasion of Europe has triggered a popular reaction which is huge and growing. Merkel and her like have lost all credibility. Economic downturn will soon sharpen the disenchantment.





The UK is only one component in the EU matrix. The whole of Europe is awakening too.


In the UK

It is clear that the conventional British system of Cabinet government, of Parliament, of System-rigged FPTP voting, is no longer fit for purpose. In fact, it has broken down. The people are angry and justifiably so! First of all, around Brexit, because they were told in 2015-2016 that they, the people, would decide whether UK remained in the EU or not. They were told that the matter would be decided by the public, voting by the traditional British method of First Past the Post voting; the matter would be decided on a simple majority. The result of the Referendum, in round figures, was 52% Leave, and 48% Remain.

David Cameron-Levita , then posing as Prime Minister of the UK, had already won two effectively rigged referenda: the Scottish Independence one, and the AV voting one. He thought that Remain would win easily.

Remain had far more money to spend, most newspapers and almost all journalists and TV talking heads favoured Remain and still do. The public, however, especially those not living comfortable, blase, cosmopolitan lives, were starting to wake up. Those whose children cannot take up unpaid “intern” careerist starter-jobs in London, or Paris, or Berlin, or Brussels, or Milan, those who have seen real pay and benefits cut back since 2010, those who have seen a harsher type of Welfare State emerge under Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and then Cameron-Levita (all international conspirators), those who have seen Pakistani (etc) gangs raping young British girls, those who have seen their country become a “multikulti” dustbin over half a century.

They, the core British people, were all waking up. They voted Leave partly because they saw that the EU is like a lobster pot: easy to enter, but in the end impossible to leave. The UK joined a trading bloc of mutual convenience in the early 1970s, but that trading bloc has become a monstrous machine for people, with repressive “holocaust” “denial” laws, Stalinist extradition procedures, its own emergent army, and an agenda of replacing white Europeans with blacks, browns, Chinese etc. The Great Replacement.

The EU is a major building block of the “New World Order” publicly proclaimed after 1989.


The Leave vote was, however, a rare chance for the voters to kick the System, that rigged political milieu under which the people have been trodden underfoot for years, decades.

Leave won the EU Referendum against all the odds and against the stacked deck. The assassination of Jo Cox, only 7 days before the vote, was immediately and untruthfully blamed on the Leave side. Jo Cox’s husband, the rapist and sex pest Brendan Cox, was key in that wrongful attribution. Until the killing, blamed (perhaps wrongly) on a supposed “far right” Leave supporter, Leave was winning in the polls (10 points ahead and gaining). The assassination reversed the polls. However, by time of polling, Leave was again gaining on Remain in some opinion polls.

There is also the point that, if you take out Scotland and Northern Ireland from the result, if you also take out the areas full of non-Brits (eg London), Leave “really” won by about 60% to 40% and maybe more, among white English people.

I predicted that the cosmopolitan conspirators at Westminster would betray their elected office. I was right. Same with the msm. Three years of nonstop System propaganda have damaged the economy and made the public fear their own shadows.

Brexit has been betrayed. A basically simple proposition has been made to seem hugely complicated, so that the “experts” (Remain MPs, journos etc) can dominate the debate and make Leave seem so complicated that it just cannot be done…

Pushback and Resistance?

A few tweets and print news reports etc from today…




If democracy is trashed in this way, the public will lose faith in it very fast. The people have now seen their sainted legislature show itself as incompetent, biased, self-interested (the single worst offender, arguably, being Boris Johnson).

Not only has UK “democracy” failed re. Brexit, but in most other respects. The country really is starting to show signs of beginning to fall apart. In those circumstances, any measures taken by social-nationalists to defend our race, culture, way of life, are justified. The next few years will prove that.



Update, 3 April 2019

Well, there we are. The System in action. “No Deal Brexit” (i.e. real Brexit) made unlawful by a coalition of MPs connected with the Jewish-Zionist lobby, ZOG and NWO: Yvette Cooper (“Labour”) and Oliver Letwin (“Conservative”) etc, all conspiring together. There is no longer even a semblance of real “democracy” in the UK and most of the MPs are enemies of the people.

Some Twitter comment:

It’s looking very like the scenario that I predicted a long time ago: a fear campaign, followed either by No Brexit or a Brexit in Name Only, with ZOG/NWO MPs from the System parties conspiring to keep the UK inside the EU (a major NWO building block), the farrago of nonsense possibly being approved by a stampeded UK population via a rigged “second Referendum”. There is no democracy in the UK and any means are legitimate to bring about national freedom.

This too (see below): has Labour just made the one big move that could swing the next General Election for it?

Brexit Blues


I am writing this on 21 March 2019, so only 8 days before the supposed exit of the UK from the European Union (which, as I write, has now apparently been deferred for 2 months; the EU would not even give Theresa May the 3 months for which she begged).

The completely unexpected (by the System) EU Referendum result of 2016 has had the System scrabbling over how to keep the UK in practice signed up to the NWO/ZOG [New World Order/Zionist Occupation Government] agenda, in which the EU is key. All of the “solutions” and “alternatives” EXCEPT real Brexit (aka “No Deal Brexit”) are part of this scrabble. The preferred NWO/ZOG idea will be to “choose” between two or three non-alternatives, probably sanctified by a pseudo-“democratic” plebiscite or “People’s Referendum”, thus presenting the coup as a popular “choice”.

Already today, the msm noise is about “a million people sign petition to stay in EU!”, without pointing out that (even assuming that the names on that petition are genuine), that is only 1 million out of about 65 million in the UK! Over 17 million bothered to get out to vote to Leave the EU, and that was enough to win the Referendum, which was supposed to decide the issue on a simple majority vote.

Britain should have left the EU on time (and still can) without this vulgarly-called “deal” nonsense. Once out, Britain could (still can) come to mutually-convenient customs arrangements with the EU bloc. Something would sooner or later, probably sooner, be agreed. Maybe something not too different from now, but we would control our borders and our laws.

The general public have been subjected to Remain “Project Fear” propaganda for about 3 years now, since before the Referendum even happened. Much has been proven to have been false, but some has been (looked at superficially) vindicated, in that a few business investment decisions have been deferred or UK plans halted. Not a shock. Business hates uncertainty. The cause for much of the drop-off in investment can be blamed not on Brexit itself, but on the uncertainty which an inept government has caused.

Now it seems that there is every chance that Brexit will be deferred for months, possibly for years, or that Theresa May’s pathetic “deal” will lead to a “Brexit in Name Only” (“Brino”), which would leave the UK actually worse off than it is at present!

At the same time, it is now said that, even if immigration from the EU is slowed, the UK must expect an increase in immigration from places such as India! As I have blogged in the past couple of years, Brexit is and means more than Brexit. The Leave vote was a protest against, yes, the EU and its control over Britain, and, yes, also against EU low-wage immigration, but very much also against globalization, against non-European immigration etc, and in favour of heritage, identity, our culture and history. In fact, the EU immigration most people opposed was not so much Polish tradesmen and French bankers, but Roma Gypsy thieves and scavengers from Central and Eastern Europe, as well as drunken thugs from parts of the Baltic and elsewhere. That, and the sheer numbers involved, which stretch UK infrastructure to breaking-point.

The complete ineptitude of the Theresa May government has led to Britain losing face very badly. May and her ministers (idiots like Boris Johnson, at first pro-EU Remain and now pretending for reasons of personal careerism to be pro-Leave) have been comprehensively outplayed by the EU Commission and the main EU political figureheads. Theresa May has lost all credibility, but with her loss of face has gone the government’s credibility (what little it had) and that of Britain as a whole.

In any event, it can be seen that, particularly focussing on Brexit, very few people think that this government has been anything other than incompetent; few seem to think highly of Labour either. That casts the politics and party politics of the next couple of years into the hazard.

As far as the basically Leave-supporting ~50% of the population is concerned, that bloc knows that it has (as I predicted) been betrayed one way or the other. In terms of what they might do to protest, probably nine-tenths of those people can be written off as pub blowhards, leaving about 5% of the UK population as seriously disenchanted with the System (though only a tiny proportion even of that group will be awake enough to see “ZOG” as the enemy). That 5% of the UK population, perhaps three million, are the important ones. They are the potential core of any new social-national movement, they are the ones who could, if the stars are in favour, overcome the System and create a national wave which can sweep away the rubbish. We must look to those few million, and perhaps at first to only 1% or 2% of them, 30,000-60,000 people, to be the vanguard of a new society.

The period between now and 2022 will be the best time that has existed since the 1930s for social nationalism, not only in the UK but across Europe.



Below, sinister NWO/ZOG mouthpiece James Naughtie weighs in with typical BBC bias…


though not without criticism…

Update, 27 March 2019

Expenses cheat, Jewish lobby doormat and pro-Israel manipulator Margaret Beckett MP speaks in the Commons in favour of a “confirmatory” referendum to prove that the stitched-up non-Brexit has been “approved” by the “people” (the fear-stampeded, tired-out, brainwashed people…). She is a thief and a fraud and a total traitor. Put her on trial.

So let’s see: Oliver Letwin MP, a Jew, used to work for Rothschilds; he is now pushing the government agenda around Brexit or fake Brexit. Macron, posing as President of France, pro-Jew, pro-Israel, and surrounded by Jew businessmen, used to work for Rothschilds. John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons, anti-Brexit, is a Jew too. What does all this mean? How hard can it be??

Has Parliamentary “Democracy” (as we have known it until now) Had Its Day in the UK?


The Brexit argument in the UK has brought to the fore divisions and truths which, until recently, had been covered up by a “politically correct” or bien-pensant “consensus” in the (largely Jew-Zionist-controlled or strongly influenced) mass media and political milieux.

Anyone who imagines that “Brexit” is just about the UK’s membership of the EU is indulging in hobby-politics and joke-politics and/or exhibiting very poor political judgment. I have blogged about this on previous occasions, eg:


UKIP is the joke party and hobby-politics party of the UK, effectively a one-trick-pony, obsessed with the EU and EU immigration but not hitting hard on non-EU immigration and only peripherally touching on other issues. However, those voters who grasped at the UKIP straw up to 2015 were voting to a large extent not for Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, not for UKIP’s clown MEPs as UK ministers, not even simply to get Britain out of the increasingly sinister EU matrix, but as a protest and shout of anger against a whole host of issues, not all of which are connected directly to the UK membership of the EU.

What Is Democracy Anyway?

“Democracy” is one of those terms which is rather imprecise and commonly misused (another is “holocaust”, usually and deliberately misused and distorted by Jew-Zionists and others as “the Holocaust”, the definite article and the capital letter supposedly differentiating any misfortunes visited on Jews in the Second World War from similar misfortunes visited on non-Jews throughout history).

In ancient Greece (for example Athens, the home of the idea of “democracy”), we see that only the relative few had full political rights.  In the 4thC BC, Attica had about 300,000 inhabitants (in the state as a whole, not just the “urbanized” polis of Athens itself). Out of that population, only about 100,000 were citizens. Out of that 100,000, only 30,000, being adult male citizens who had completed military service or similarly accepted service, were allowed to vote or to participate in political life. Women, slaves, freed slaves, children and metics (foreigners resident in Attica) were not allowed to vote etc. In other words, out of 300,000 inhabitants, only about 30,000, 10% of the whole, played a significant political role.

UK Democracy: the expansion of the electorate

In more modern times and in England/UK, we see that, though a kind of representative Parliament existed from the 13thC AD, the electorate (using the term broadly) widened over the centuries. At the time of the first great Reform Act (1832), the population of England and Wales (excluding Scotland) was about 12 million, out of which only 200,000 in counties and perhaps 20,000 more in boroughs had voting rights (see Notes, below), about 2% of the whole population (nb. population estimates of that era are not very accurate: some estimates say 400,000 in toto, so perhaps 4% of all inhabitants could vote), a far smaller percentage than in Periclean Athens! In France, the percentage with voting rights was even smaller, but was expanded hugely when universal suffrage was introduced in 1848.

The percentage expansion of the electorate in Scotland in the 1830s was far greater than applied in England and Wales. Some historians use the term “revolutionary”. I wonder whether that has perhaps had a lasting effect on Scottish socio-political attitudes down the line, even to the present day. Just a stray thought…

Further expansion of the electorate in the UK (as a whole, not just England and Wales) in the 19thC meant that, by 1912, there were 7.7 million voters, a figure that increased to 21.4 million following the Representation of the People Act 1918, which extended the franchise to most women of 30+ years, as well as to almost all men of 21+. Of course, the actual population had also increased very greatly, from 27 million in 1850 to 42 million in 1918.

In 1928, women 21-29 also gained the vote, increasing the number eligible to vote to about 27 million.

Changes in the Post-1945 era: where are we now?

UK voting qualifications have not changed substantially since 1928, except that, since 1948, university graduates have no longer had two potential votes, and the minimum voting age is now (and since 1970) 18.

There are now about 65 million inhabitants in the UK (some put the figure higher, by reason of undocumented, unregistered “illegals” etc).

Does “democracy” mean that all inhabitants of the state must be enfranchised?

The South African Example

We have seen that, in ancient Athens, only male citizens who had completed military service could vote. In “apartheid” South Africa, there was a fully-functioning democracy limited however to those of European (white) origin.

There had, prior to 1910, been non-racial forms of limited democracy in Cape Province, limited by reference to property etc. From 1910-1961, the vote was granted to all white men in South Africa, to mixed-race men in Cape Province, and to black men in Cape Province and Natal. Only white men could become Senators or MPs. White women were allowed the vote in 1930 and could serve as MPs or Senators. Blacks and “coloureds” (mixed-race) were barred from holding those offices. In 1960, the black franchise was terminated; the mixed-race franchise followed in 1968. Later, in 1984, an attempt was made to re-enfranchise the mixed-race population and to enfranchise, on a limited basis, the Indian population.

In 1992, a small majority of (white-only) voters endorsed, by referendum, the end of the apartheid system, after which South Africa adopted a different system, under which all person of 18+ years can vote or be elected. In practice, however, this led to what is effectively a one-party, typically-African state, shambolic and corrupt. The African National Congress (ANC) operates what is effectively an elected dictatorship. In the most recent election (2014), its vote declined, but it still holds 249 out of 400 seats (on 62% of the popular vote).

Under this “new” (post-1994) “democracy”, the white population of the country is under siege from both crime (racially-based) and/or (connected) “political” attack, such as the robbery, rape and murder of whites, particularly in the rural areas. Neither are the (mainly black) poor of South Africa helped by the “elected dictatorship”. Indeed, in some respects they are worse off than they were under apartheid. The “infamous” pass laws may have restricted the blacks, but also restricted crime, which has become epidemic.


The USA is supposedly a “democracy”, but in practice any Presidential candidate has to be a multi-millionaire or billionaire, or have the support of such, simply to be seen as a credible candidate, or to be able to buy TV ads (this is about the same thing, in practice). If elected, he will find that to do anything effective requires that he be not opposed by either the Congress or the Supreme Court. This rarely happens. In most cases, the separation of powers prevents anything effective, let alone radical, being implemented.

The UK


In the UK, there is “democracy” (we think). Almost everyone can vote, almost everyone can be a candidate. Yet there are impediments: the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby (special-interest group), the entrenched First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, the need for finance, and the way in which boundaries are deliberately sliced up to provide a semblance of “fairness”, but in fact to favour 2-party or sometimes 3-party “stability” over real reflection of popular opinion. There is also the fact that “main party” (System) candidates are usually carefully selected to exclude anyone with even mild social-national views. The “choice” is then put before the electorate (together with the minor candidates who almost invariably have no chance at all).

Another important aspect is that, since the Tony Blair government passed its restrictive laws, political parties have to be registered, can be fined (eg for refusing membership to certain types of person, or certain racial or national groups), and can even be “de-registered”, thus barring them from standing candidates in elections. Democracy?

Here is an example from the General Election of 2015.



The Brexit vote has exposed the sham or part-sham of British democracy. David Cameron-Levita thought that the 2016 Referendum would be easy to “manage”. He had, after all, “managed” two previous referenda: the Scottish Independence referendum and the AV-voting referendum. Third time, he miscalculated. The people, on the FPTP basis, voted about 52% to 48% for Leave. This was a shock to the System. Immediately, the Remain leaders started to demand “No Brexit”, and for a second Referendum, which would (once the voters had been exposed to enough fear propaganda) come to a different result, and/or for Parliament (most MPs being “Remain”) to just ignore the 2016 Referendum result which (they said) had been procured by fraud, lies, or post-KGB Russian trickery…

The fact is that, leaving aside the “sheeple”, the hard core of anti-Brexit Remain consists of

  • the affluent/wealthy metropolitan self-styled “elite”;
  • the big business people;
  • the Jews (most of them);
  • those who have done well financially in the 2010-2019 period;
  • the brainwashed under-30s, mostly from not-poor backgrounds, who imagine that not being in the EU somehow prevents them from getting (for most of them, non-existent) jobs in the EU, or that they will even not be allowed to travel after Brexit!
  • Those shallow little nobodies (again, mostly young or would-be young urban-dwellers) who think that it is old, unfashionable and “gammon” (white Northern European British) to support Leave or indeed to have any pride in England’s history, race and culture;
  • Almost all of those working in the msm.

These groups have become ever more severe and open in their hatred of Leave supporters. There are now open calls for the rights of, in particular, voters over the age of, perhaps, 60, to be restricted, for older people to be disenfranchised, especially if white, (real) British, or “racist” (i.e. people who see their land and culture being swamped and destroyed).

Here, for example, we see an almost archetypal Remain whiner, the broadcaster Jeremy Vine, 53, who is paid over £700,000 a year by the BBC and maybe as much as £100,000 p.a. from elsewhere (despite having been awarded only a mediocre 2:2 in English at university and then been –in my opinion– a markedly mediocre Press/radio/TV journalist).

Here’s another idiotic statement by Vine, though on an unrelated topic:


We see from examples around the world, eg South Africa, or Zimbabwe (etc) that one-man one-vote “democracy” can lead to elected dictatorship. In the UK, it has become increasingly clear that the Parliamentary democracy in place does not reflect the views of the bulk of the population, and certainly not the bulk of the white real British population, those with whose future I concern myself.

Leave may “only” have won the EU Referendum by 52%-48%, but there are nuances here: the assassination of pro-Remain MP Jo Cox, only a week before the referendum certainly had an effect, and is thought to have changed the outcome by as much as 10 points (at the time of her death, Leave was 10 points ahead of Remain in some polls); particularly as much was made of supposed secondary culpability of Leave propaganda for the attack. The referendum outcome might easily have been 60% or even 65% for Leave.

There is also the point that most “blacks and browns” and other ethnic minority voters (eg Jews) voted Remain if they voted at all. Most Scots voted Remain too (no doubt because they have a faux-nationalist SNP as a comfort blanket). Take away those Remain blocs and it might be that about 60% of white English and Welsh voters voted Leave, which might have been 70% without the Jo Cox matter.

Alternatives to Parliament Deciding Everything

I favour the Rudolf Steiner concept of the “Threefold Social Order”. As I paraphrase it, and in the contemporary UK context,

  • it means that an elected Parliament decides matters properly within the political sphere or “sphere of rights”;
  • it means that Parliament (and government) does not run the economy or economic enterprises (though it can regulate it and them); likewise, economic forces and personalities cannot rule the political sphere and/or “sphere of rights”;
  • it means that the State (or economic forces) cannot rule over the proper ambit of the sphere of spirit, culture, religion, medicine, education.

This obviously moves on from the conventional “Parliament rules supreme” idea, developed in the UK since the time of Cromwell.

We can see that Parliament in the UK is no longer fit for purpose. Those currently elected have only a limited mandate. Greater freedom and a more efficient as well as a more just society depend on proper integration of the three basic spheres: political, economic, spiritual/cultural.

There is no necessity for everyone to vote. Voting should be for citizens who are resident and who are of suitable age (I favour 21 years, at minimum). Foreigners, offspring of foreigners, persons who are mainly of non-European origin etc should not be allowed a vote.

Brexit and the future

People voted for Brexit for many reasons and fundamentally out of a lack of satisfaction with the existing way of life in the UK. That urge for something better may be the basis for social-national reform or even revolution. The British people will no more allow themselves to be treated as helots.














Update, 25 March 2021

Well, it seems that I spoke too soon in saying that the British people will no longer allow themselves to be treated like helots! The “panicdemic”, weaponized for the purpose, has (or the moment at least) put both the British people and “democracy” back in the box. Still, “the night is young”, I suppose. “Tomorrow is another day”…

The Exploding UK

The population of the United Kingdom is considered an example of a population that has undergone demographic transition – that is, the transition from a (typically) pre-industrial population with high birth and mortality rates and slow population growth, through a stage of falling mortality and faster rates of population growth, to a stage of low birth and mortality rates with, again, lower rates of population growth. This population growth through ‘natural change’ has been accompanied in the past two decades by growth through net international migration into the United Kingdom.” [Wikipedia]

I recently saw a pro-immigration poster put out, I think, by some trade union in the NHS. It said that the group of people shown on the poster (mostly but not all black/brown) were all NHS personnel who had come to the UK from other countries. The poster also said that, in the London Borough of Haringey, where the group had been photographed, there were (in round figures) some 82,000 persons who had come from other countries to the UK. The implication was that only thus is the (in Britain, near-sacred) NHS able to function.

Well, I am, in principle, pro-NHS (though I think, with reason, that quite a lot of the NHS system is barely functioning). I have no problem conceding that some of the foreign personnel in the NHS are excellent (though some others are hopeless). I am aware that the NHS has always been a major recruiter of immigrant labour. However, is that the whole story (as pro-Remain, pro-immigration people always pretend)? I say not.

The London Borough of Haringey has about 282,000 inhabitants, only 60% of whom are “white British” or Irish. If you were to take away the 82,000 immigrants already mentioned (even disregarding their offspring, and those non-English/Irish etc who are also resident in that borough), you would automatically have something like —and at the very least— something like 20,000 dwelling units available! Now multiply that appropriately across the whole of London, the whole of the UK…An end to the absurd property price valuations, an end to overcrowded hospitals, schools, transport —including roads—, an increase in pay across the board.

There is no doubt that the UK would be better off, the people of the UK would be better off, without the immigrant hordes and their offspring. Yes, on paper, the economy would perhaps be less vibrant, but most of the benefit of that at present goes to a tiny percentage of the population, just as a relatively small number of buy-to-let parasites and speculators profit from the overheated UK property market.

As for foreign NHS personnel, one has to bear in mind that the migration-invasion has placed enormous burdens on the NHS. The balance of convenience is by no means in favour of immigration. Without mass immigration, the UK NHS could easily handle the demand, particularly by training British people as doctors, nurses and ancillary personnel. Fewer British medical staff would leave (to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand etc), thus saving the State the cost of their education and training.

The same is true of all areas of society. Mass immigration penalizes the vast bulk of the British people. Big business loves mass immigration because it increases the number of consumers, results in higher prices for goods and real property, and reduces pay per labour unit.

When I was born in 1956, the UK population was estimated to be around (possibly below) 50 million. In 1990, 34 years later, the estimate was 57 million, a still very considerable increase. In 2018, the estimates have become less accurate because of the huge influxes of “migrants” (migrant-invaders) and their birth-rate, but anywhere from 66 million to 70 million. By, say, 2022? No-one knows. 75 million? This is totally unsustainable. Only those who knew England (especially) in the 1960s can appreciate what a difference and (mostly) a negative difference those extra 20 millions have made to the quality of life, environment etc in the UK and, again, particularly in England.

It is all very well saying that, because of Brexit and the stalling economy, ever-lower pay and State benefits, that the net immigration figure now is “only” about 400,000 a year instead of the half million or more per year in the past 15-20 years, but 400,000 is still the size of a very large town. Also, “net” means not 400,000 in but maybe 800,000 non-Brits in, and 400,000 desperate Brits out, fleeing the multiracial/multicultural society, desperately trying to find a basically white “Aryan” society in which to live (though most scarcely admit that even to themselves).

The UK is exploding and something has to be done.






The Race Is On To Replace Theresa May— What Else May Now Happen?

Those who have read my recent blogs on Brexit and Theresa May will have noted that I predicted (in the posts and/or in the Comments sections to the posts) that, if the Commons vote on the Theresa May Brexit “deal” were to go against the Government, as always seemed probable, one likely consequence would be that there would be a revolt among Conservative Party MPs, with the aim of ejecting her from her leadership position. That has now happened, though the Commons vote on the Brexit “deal” has not been taken, and may never be.

Theresa May as Prime Minister

I do not conceal that I am very opposed to Theresa May.

  • She has had passed repressive legislation, both as Prime Minister and in her former office as Home Secretary;
  • She is very pro-Jewish, very pro-Zionist, very pro-Israel and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel;
  • There are indications that she herself may be of partly-Jewish origin;
  • She has continued the Con Coalition (and, even before that, Gordon Brown Labour) demonization of the poor, unemployed and disabled, even to the extent of promoting dishonest and thick-as-two-short-planks Esther McVey to Cabinet as Work and Pensions Secretary;
  • She failed, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, to stop or even slow mass immigration;
  • She has shown no strategic grasp.


[Theresa May became Prime Minister after all other candidates “killed” each other]

I will say that, for a few days after having become Prime Minister, Theresa May looked like a slightly better choice than David Cameron-Levita had proven to be. She made statements in the “One Nation Conservative” vein and seemed to be willing to revisit the obviously not-working bits of Con Coalition policy, such as Dunce Duncan Smith’s pathetic and misconceived Universal Credit fiasco. However, it soon turned out that Theresa May had few ideas of her own and yet was completely inflexible.

Theresa May worked for 20 years, before entering Parliament, as a back-room bureaucrat at the BACS cheque-clearing organization. She is out of her depth as Prime Minister (in fact she was no good as Home Secretary either).

Theresa May’s brittle persona, which might be described as “barely-concealed hysterical panic”, disguised under a “Wicked Witch” outer layer, became very apparent during the General Election campaign of 2017. Afraid to show herself in public, even to the limited extent of her predecessors, her “campaign speeches” to carefully-vetted tiny groups in aircraft hangars etc were every bit as fake as those of US Presidents, and were seen as such. Her hysterical “Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!” screech turned her from a perceivedly “solid” Prime Minister to an embattled and weak one. Immediately. The 2017 election was probably lost right there.


After the 2017 election, Theresa May was a lame duck PM, dependent on the Democratic Unionist Party votes, which were bought at great expense. Without those DUP votes, Theresa May is totally powerless. The EU establishment saw that and has taken full advantage of Theresa May’s political weakness.

How Has Theresa May Survived This Long?

The answer, in my view, is that there has not been seen to be an obvious challenger for her position. She is second-rate. All right, but most of the would-be leaders and prime ministers are third-rate:

  • Clown Prince Boris Johnson: completely unfit for any public office, being acquisitive, greedy, lazy, incompetent, often rather stupid, narrowly-educated, unethical, untrustworthy, callous, as well as cosmopolitan in his origins (part-Jew, part-Turk, a bit of this and a bit of that, born in New York City); Conservative Friends of Israel; a poseur and overall a fake, a £3 note who attempts to present himself as “Prime Minister in Waiting” via an am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, but with none of the intellectual depth or personal steel; supported Remain but turned coat;
  • Sajid Javid: A Pakistani by origin, cosmopolitan business type by pre-political career; his earnings at time of departure from Deutsche Bank in 2009 are said to have been £3M a year; he owns 4 homes in the UK; someone whose judgment is very questionable, as witness his support for the masked “antifa” thugs (a remarkable stance for someone now posing as Home Secretary!); connected with that is Javid’s doormat-level support for Jews and indeed Zionists —and Israel—; Javid and his English wife took their honeymoon in Israel; member of Conservative Friends of Israel; supporter of American neo-con adventurism and “intervention”; an Ayn Rand devotee…it just gets worse; incompetent in office; supported Remain;
  • Jeremy Hunt: dark horse; smarmy snake type; possible front-runner; multi-millionaire (tens of millions); property speculator; supported Remain, but has turned coat;
  • Michael Gove: has a Jewish or part-Jewish wife, and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel; one of the most egregious expenses cheats of the pre-2010 Parliament; arguably more intelligent than most of the other likely successors to Mrs May, but often wrongheaded; dishonest; supported Leave;
  • Amber Rudd: member of Conservative Friends of Israel; complete doormat for the Israel/Jewish/Zionist lobby; wants to pass even more repressive laws targeting British patriots etc, making even reading dissident literature online a criminal offence (!); despite her financial services background, pretty thick; incompetent and dishonest in office; personally involved with African and Old Etonian MP, Kwasi Kwarteng; Remain Queen Bee;
  • Philip Hammond: dull but predictable and therefore perceived as “safe”; supported Remain;
  • Dominic Raab: a half-Jew, Raab has worked in diplomatic activity; there have been some controversial news reports about his personal behaviour; supported Leave;
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg: may or may not be a candidate; multi-millionaire and Leave luminary; may not want to give up his big City of London wealth fund operation to become PM, but the lure of the highest office is powerfully magnetic.

The above seem to be the most likely candidates to vie for the succession to Theresa May, if she cannot get 158 MPs to vote for her this evening (50% of the total).

Incredibly, some even less suitable names may want to be on the ballot paper, including

  • sex pest and doormat-for-Israel Stephen Crabb;
  • Esther Mcvey (another, yawn, Conservative Friends of Israel member); an evil associate of Dunce Duncan Smith;
  • dull nobody Andrea Leadsom;
  • even Penny Mordaunt! (but this is a contest for leadership of the Conservative Party, it is not a swimsuit competition…).

It has been the lack of alternative and credible leadership candidates that has kept Theresa May from having to face a leadership challenge; that and the fact that, should she get 158+ MPs to support her, she will be safe from challenge for a year.

At present it seems that about 110 MPs have pledged to support Theresa May, but the ballot is secret, so their support cannot be confirmed or checked. The vote is a Yes/No one.

A month ago, I should have thought (and did think) that Theresa May would win any confidence vote fairly easily, though perhaps not convincingly. Now, I doubt it, though the outcome must still be seen as uncertain. Her authority as PM, let alone as Conservative Party leader, is in shreds. Her power is non-existent, now that the DUP have as good as pulled the rug from under her government. She is disrespected by the EU, the public, her own party. She must surely go. If she does not, the Conservative Party will ebb away to nothing with her.

Life After Theresa May

Life for the UK has become very uncertain. It might even be said that the British are starting to follow Nietzsche’s dictum, and are living dangerously. It seems to be not unlikely that any successor to Theresa May might want to revoke the invocation of Article 50, thereby stopping Brexit in its tracks. After that, a new Referendum could be held. Not that I favour that course of action. I myself should prefer Britain to wake up, kick out the traitors and unwanted cuckoos in our nest, and leave the EU completely, finally. However, I am not Prime Minister.

















Update, 12 December 2018

Well, as I have repeatedly written over months and years in this blog, the “glorious uncertainty” of the racecourse is replicated in British politics. I thought, only this afternoon, that the outcome of the no-confidence vote would be close, somewhere around 50-50. In the event, Theresa May won by 200-117, so 63% of Conservative Party MPs backed her or at least were unwilling to get rid of her (at present), as against 37% who voted to dump her.

I see the vote not as MPs having confidence in Theresa May, but in having no confidence in any of the likely candidates vying to replace her.

What Now?

Theresa May now cannot be challenged in any no-confidence vote of her party for a year, i.e. until December 2019.

Theresa May still has no credibility, politically. She still has no chance of any substantial revision of her EU exit “deal”; the DUP are distancing themselves from her, which may completely paralyze her legislative programme (such as it is); she now knows for sure that 117 of her MPs have no confidence in her. In reality, few have confidence in her but are not willing to eject her right now.

Theresa May should realize that, just as she became Conservative Party leader and so Prime Minister by default and not by reason of her own merit, so she has now survived the no-confidence vote for the same reason.

There is uncertainty now as to whether the Brexit “deal”, with minor EU concessions as a figleaf, will be put to the House of Commons soon (or at all). As for revoking Article 50, that seems to be not unlikely, perhaps if any revised Brexit “deal” is voted down by the Commons, whatever Theresa May now says.

We must never forget that ZOG/NWO wants the UK to either stay in the EU or to leave the EU but on a basis of effectively still being tied to it.

Afterthought, 14 December 2018

It may be thought surprising that I left out the name of David Davis from the list of possible leaders. Back in 2008, I predicted that he might return to government as Cabinet minister and even Prime Minister. I have subsequently been proven correct in the first part; as to the second, that is now unlikely though (things being what they are…) not impossible. Davis is now 69, but the main obstacle to his being elected as Conservative Party leader and notionally then Prime Minister is that he is for Leave, most MPs are for Remain. That, and his more traditional type of Conservatism.

Update, 15 December 2018

“It’s over. If Brexit happens at all – and for the first time I’m beginning to think it won’t – it will be on terms that keep the worst aspects of EU membership. Britain will be humbled in the eyes of the world, having tried to recover its independence and been faced down. The largest popular vote in our history will be disregarded, and the nation that exported representative government exposed as an oligarchy. Plus – and I know this sounds almost trivial next to those calamities, but it matters to me – the Conservative Party might never recover.” [Daniel Hannan MEP, in the Daily Telegraph]

Update, 1 April 2019

Incredibly, Liz Truss, who only became an MP on her back, is now spoken of as a potential Conservative prime minister! This is madness!