Well, things have certainly gone downhill fast in the UK and across the Western world as the build-up to 2022 continues. In the UK, an increasingly obvious police state; also, the likelihood of a new “austerity” drive from 2022, with “the virus” (and “rule flouters”) blamed rather than the 2010-2019 scenario of the “banking crisis” (with, in the UK, and ludicrously, the unemployed and disabled etc getting the blame for both the failure of the finance-capital system and also the subsequent and completely unnecessary “austerity” policies).
Then we have the msm propaganda retailed mainly in TV soaps, “dramas”, ads etc: the mixed-race couples and offspring, the increasingly bizarre LBGTXYZ stuff; all of that.
What else? Well, the attack on free speech, spearheaded by, though not confined to, the Jew-Zionist element. We have now seen the President of the United States (leaving aside his general unworthiness) actually expelled from Twitter, Facebook etc, and even his tweets from the official U.S. Presidential Twitter account taken down by Twitter staff!
All this supposedly to “make the world safe for democracy”, in effect. Where have we heard that before?!
In the UK, both high-profile and many lesser-known people have been prevented from posting on social media, among them Katie Hopkins, David Icke, Alison Chabloz, Ian Millard (me). Many many thousands of people.
Only today we see that the Parler platform has been killed off by a cartel of huge transnational enterprises, all signed up to the international conspiracy: Apple, Google, Amazon, etc.
All of the above is part of the working out of the “Great Replacement” and the connected “Great Reset” (and the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan). It is a conspiracy on a monumental scale.
I do enjoy watching the idiots demand all white racists be banned from social media. Do they not realize this didn’t start online? Some things are timeless, we don’t need internet. It does make things fun though.
…and the message to Trump in the dying days of his Presidency must be, “PARDON those who stormed the Capitol, PARDON Assange, PARDON Snowden, and PARDON all social-national and allied prisoners suffering in US Federal prisons.”
You are very correct and its sad that so many have just accepted it. Younger generations can protest about nasty comments they hear from politicians, but not care enough about real ACTIONS, that take their basic freedoms away. How depressing.
Well, @dpjhpodges, 'South London' is a broad category including both Dulwich and New Cross. Do you perhaps *not* live in a council flat with five children? It might affect your perception, and make it easier for you to support mass house arrrest than it otherwise would be. https://t.co/zORZOtIFYN
Quite. “Lockdown” life is easy for msm scribblers who, in the case of Dan Hodges, lives in a large detached house (with large garden) in Blackheath, with his wife, children and mother, the actress Glenda Jackson [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenda_Jackson].
An extraordinary thing to say @dpjhodges. It assumes there is only one possible government response to the virus, and that it is right. The whole *debate* (until the current attempt to shut it down) was about whether the strangling of our society was justified or proportionate. https://t.co/8ctkZB8cH2
Watched this astonishngly good film the other night for the first time since 1978. One of the few remakes better than the original (which is good). A brilliant allegory of the growth and triumph of intolerance. https://t.co/RuGMcmceXW
1/2 @dpjhodges 'Cross party support' is meaningless when the parties share the same ideology. Medical and scientific questions are not decided by majorities. As for huge public support, the Munich pact and the Suez adventure had those too. https://t.co/WE2m8D97s4
A good headline point. The atomization of Western society is exemplified by the dictatorial supposedly “anti-virus” measures, which in the UK soon may see it become a crime to leave your house more than once per week. I have no idea whether 100%, 50% or only 10% of people would actually comply, and how many, or what percentage, might turn to direct action against the installations of the State. We shall have to wait to find out.
People such as Peter Hitchens (with whom I agree on some issues), people such as conservative nationalists (with whom I agree on some issues) and others think that we are trying to “have a debate“, and that those behind or supporting the “Great Replacement”, “Great Reset” etc are mere intellectual opponents, who are being unfair in closing down platforms, websites, Twitter accounts etc.
Wrong. This is not the Oxford Union, and we are not in the columns of the Spectator or the New Statesman. This is a war, a war which white Northern Europe and its peoples, and those offshoots in North America, Australasia etc have to win. A war for existential survival. This is, in effect, White Genocide, if we fail.
The war may be mainly a “cold war” so far, but that will not last forever. Eventually it will be a real war, and not one such as we have, for the most part, known since the 18th Century. More like those wars written about in the Old Testament, and in the ancient Indian (early post-Aryan) sacred texts such as the Bhagavad-Gita. Dualistic conflict. Good against Evil.
"What's happening?" prompts my Twitter feed. But if I said exactly what's going on with #COVID19, I'd probably get kicked off Twitter. So watch this short clip, and decide for yourself whats happening…. pic.twitter.com/2dGlNC4Koz
The destruction of our economy and civil society, the forced joblessness of thousands, the mass delay of cancer treatment and the throttling of school and university education are serious matters @dpjhodges. You engage (if it can be so called) as if it was a cartoon strip in Viz. https://t.co/kvjRSxS5Ph
Most people will comply out of fear of being fined, or because of social pressures whipped up by Government and msm propaganda. A minority will evade, or in some cases openly confront. A small minority will hit back in a serious way.
There's a good more intolerance. The sky is darkening. I'm accused of stirring up hatred and having blood on my hands. And the strange case of the vanishing twitter followers: My conversation with @Iromg Mike Graham on @TalkRadio. https://t.co/3aKbAjyxpH
Thinking about Unity Mitford, who died 72 years ago yesterday, some aspects of her life struck me especially.
This, below, struck me: both re Adolf Hitler’s very open daily schedule…and the fact that Unity sat near him for 10 months before being invited to join him!
“She was obsessed with meeting Hitler, so she really set out to stalk him.
She set her mind on getting Hitler, and she discovered that Hitler’s movements could be ascertained. It’s one of the extraordinary things about Hitler’s daily life that he was so available to the public. You knew which café he’d be in, you knew which restaurant he’d be in, which hotel, and he would just go and meet people over sticky buns and cakes, and it was possible to meet him like that. And he was in the habit of eating in the Osteria Bavaria in Munich and she started sitting in the Osteria Bavaria every day. So he would have to come into the front part of the restaurant where there was this English girl.[4][5]
“After ten months, Hitler finally invited her to his table, where they talked for over 30 minutes, with Hitler picking up her bill.” [from Channel 4 documentary, Hitler’s British Girl, published in Wikipedia]
We often see “documentaries” (incredibly biased and basically Jewish-Zionist propaganda), or lying “history” in the “Lugenpresse/Judenpresse“, to the effect that Hitler was always afraid of assassination, took huge security measures etc, but here, even in such a film (on Channel 4, no less), the producers are so keen to traduce Unity Mitford that they forget to lie about Hitler himself, for once!
True, and after a number of failed assassination attempts, Hitler’s security was improved from the mid-1930s, and more so during the Second World War itself, but he himself was a fatalist, who believed both in Fate (Schicksal) and in his own personal fate and destiny.
Unlike Stalin, Hitler was not afraid of the people that he ruled or, rather, in Hitler’s case, led.
That snippet about how Unity Mitford met Hitler does show her extreme persistence: to sit in a cafe-restaurant every or almost every day for nearly a year in order to be in close proximity to Hitler shows a devotion which is very telling.
The fact that Hitler was able to let his whereabouts be known in advance to the public (and the regularity of his attendances in favoured places) shows that not only was Hitler unafraid of the people who put him into office, but that there were few who wanted to attack him. Here was an assassin’s dream target, someone who lets his whereabouts be known in advance, and who often goes to the same places day after day, yet sits safely amid the German people.
The few assassination attempts of later years were perpetrated by Jews and/or Communists and/or persons of disordered mind, until the British Intelligence organizations tried their hand in 1939 and during the War itself. They failed, though (typically).
What also struck me is the synchronistic nature of it all: UnityValkyrie were her names given at birth, a birth which took place in the small Canadian town of Swastika!
One must remember that that birth occurred in August 1914, long before the world knew of Hitler, the NSDAP, or the Third Reich. Hitler himself volunteered, in that same month, to enlist in the List Regiment of the Bavarian Army, the First World War having started about 5 weeks before.
The Swastika, in 1914, was an esoteric symbol in more ways than one. Most people in Europe would have been ignorant of its existence. As for the town of that name, its naming is lost in the mists of history.
[above: Swastika, Ontario, as it is today and, below, as it was in 1918]
Incredibly, the settlement of Swastika, Ontario, was not named by Unity’s father, who had an interest in one of the gold mines situated there (though not the nearby one which made Harry Oakes, much later murdered in the Bahamas, one of the richest men on Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Oakes
Unity’s father was David Freeman-Mitford; his father had been a Wagnerian, and personally acquainted with both Richard Wagner and Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
Unity Mitford descended through the spheres to incarnate at Swastika and to be named Unity Valkyrie. In fact, her other name, Unity, also seems to me to be significant, symbolizing the union or alliance which might have been, but sadly never was, between two great empires, the British Empire and the new German Reich.
Every human being has personal attributes, personal flaws, characteristics arising or becoming manifest through their worldly ancestry, and the society and culture into which they incarnate. We must look beyond this to see the bigger picture.
Reminds me of the “shopping riots” in England a decade ago. The trigger there was the “unfortunate” death of a black gangster in a “taxi” (gangster transport) at the hands of the London police. Soon thousands of (mainly) blacks and half-castes were roaming all over London stealing anything not nailed down, and burning down buildings at random.
The msm were careful to say “bands of white and black youths” because a few deracinated and useless white (ish) chavscums were there, amid the black mobs. As for “youths”, some were 40 or 50 years old (the Windrush generation? Just after that time?).
It is true that some of the American police are very forceful, and some are also trigger-happy (perhaps unsurprising now that many are trained by and in the manner of the Israel occupation forces “police”), but at the same time, the USA is very very different from the UK, something even those who holiday there fail to see (I myself am still nominally an attorney of the NY Bar, and in the past I lived in the USA on and off as well as travelling there on legal business —NJ, NY, SC and FLA). Some of its criminals are very vicious.
Great tweet from #Shrewsbury Cathedral. But do remember that "the Lord helps those who help themselves".
No point praying for the atheist liberal elite to allow services. Just go ahead & hold them. Tell Caesar to keep his secular nose out of matters of Faith#EndCovidScamNowhttps://t.co/8Lphc2BEFC
I like the photograph and the sentiment. As for the exact words, well “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”, per Oscar Wilde, and Griffin did have the decency to use quotation marks…
'Those who accepted this subjection were free, thanks not to themselves but to forebears who preserved their liberty from threats within and without. Then this generation came, and undid the work of a thousand years in a few weeks.' https://t.co/DMKw2uvXTQ
[above: Britain’s toytown police deal with a serious sunbathing incident on the South Coast] [cf. Britain’s new poundland KGB, as seen in the arrests of Alison Chabloz, the satirical singer-songwriter, most recently arrested and mishandled only a week ago; a dozen goons invaded her bedroom; she was held for 8 hours before being released on “police bail”, her telephones etc taken from her for technical snoop purposes]
'Next, I greatly fear, will come the stage when the same swooning, fawning faith in authority transfers itself to the measures needed to pay for the economic disaster we have inflicted on ourselves.' https://t.co/DMKw2uvXTQ
I should say that, not only is Hitchens right, but that it is almost inevitable. The “British” population (in fact I would call only about 2/3 “British” anyway) have shown themselves to be serfs at heart. Also, a decade ago they accepted without question the perceived “need” (which we now see was no “need” at all) for the poor, disabled, and unemployed to be brutalized, upset, put into destitution and, in some cases, starved to death, and all because they were somehow responsible for the world banking crash…and how did the “British” people know that? Because a part-Jap Friends of Israel MP called Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, a fraudster, embezzler and freeloader, said so, backed up by two Friends of Israel part-Jews, David Cameron-Levita and George Osborne, who had both lied their way into the centre of government.
'Far more worrying has been the response of the …chattering classes. They just sit in their large back gardens, sipping at misted glasses of Waitrose Chablis, enjoying the seemingly endless holiday from ordinary life which has been granted to them.' https://t.co/DMKw2uvXTQ
You *expected* it to make sense @thepocketgod? Touching, but unwise. This a is a government surfing a giant wave of panic, a wave it created with its own misinformation and alarmism. It's just trying to stay on top, not worrying about you. https://t.co/sMarBRXHXn
Hitchens right again. The faith that “the plebs” have in the Government is in a way touching, though also pathetic. The manufactured fear of “the virus” (that in fact kills only about 1 in 2,000 of the population…) has translated itself into that pathetic reliance on what “the authorities” say, whether the person in “authority” is Boris-idiot (posing, ludicrously, as Prime Minister), little Matt Hancock (former tea boy at the Bank of England, now posing as Health Secretary), or the local toytown police, cruising around telling people not to sunbathe, use parks, or even drive cars or ride motorcycles to enjoy a drive somewhere on the empty (emptied) roads .
— CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt (@CNNThisMorning) May 29, 2020
The Protocols of Zion and the British aristocracy
The Protocols are often described (by Jew-Zionists or those working for them) as “a forgery”. It would be more accurate to describe them as “literary fantasy” based on a matrix of fact. For example:
“The aristocracy, who by right shared the labour of the working classes, were interested in the same being well-fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in the opposite, i.e., in the degeneration of the Gentiles. Our strength lies in keeping the working man in perpetual want and impotence; because, by so doing, we retain him subject to our will and, in his own surroundings, he will never find either power or energy to stand up against us. Hunger will confer upon Capital more powerful rights over the labourer than ever the lawful power of the sovereign could confer upon the aristocracy.” — Protocols; protocol 3.; Shanks’ translation
“Under our auspices the populace exterminated the aristocracy which had supported and guarded the people for its own benefit, which benefit is inseparable from the welfare of the populace. Nowadays, having destroyed the privileges of the aristocracy, the people fall under the yoke of cunning profiteers and upstarts.” — Protocols; protocol 3.; Shanks’ translation
“It gave us the possibility among other things of playing the ace of trumps—namely, the abolition of privileges; in other words, the existence of the Gentile aristocracy, which was the only protection nations and countries had against ourselves. On the ruins of natural and hereditary aristocracy we built an aristocracy of our own on a plutocratic basis.” — Protocols; protocol 1.; Shanks’ translation
Doesn’t that sound familiar? If it be said “but Britain (eg) still has an aristocracy“, my answer is “does it?“. What is called an aristocracy in the UK is in fact something fake, or 90% fake. Look at the “British aristocracy” and you find that most titles only go back to the first quarter of the 20th Century. Not to Richard the Lionheart. Not even Elizabeth I. Not even, the vast bulk of them, George III, nor even Victoria!
Indeed, quite a few “aristocrats” in the UK today not only have a considerable admixture from the Americas, but even outright Jewish elements. One example is the family that own Highclere Castle, the place used in Downton Abbey. In fact, the old Lord Carnarvon, the 6th Earl, was rather proud of his part-Jew background (a quarter, but possibly half) and referred to it more than once in his amusing and sensationalist memoirs.
Take another example, the Duke of Westminster. The present Duke, one of the richest men in Britain, is the 7th Duke. The dukedom only goes back to 1874! The family did have titles before that date, but the first was only granted in 1622 and was merely a (bought for cash) baronetcy.
Ironically, the 2nd Duke was obsessed with the Jewish infiltration into the aristocracy, a fact noted by his estranged Duchess in her autobiography:
“During the run-up to World War II, he supported various right-wing and anti-Semitic causes, including the Right Club. “His anti-Semitic rants were notorious,” according to a biographer of Coco Chanel.[15] In her book The Light of the Common Day, Lady Diana Cooper reminisces back to 1 September 1939. She and her husband, the prominent Conservative Duff Cooper, were lunching at London’s Savoy Grill with the Duke of Westminster. She recalls:[16] “when he [the Duke of Westminster] added that Hitler knew after all that we were his best friends, he set off the powder-magazine. “I hope,” Duff spat, “that by tomorrow he will know that we are his most implacable and remorseless enemies”. Next day “Bendor”, telephoning to a friend, said that if there was a war it would be entirely due to the Jews and Duff Cooper.”
“The Duke, known for his pro-German sympathies, was reportedly instrumental in influencing his former mistress, Coco Chanel, to use her association with Winston Churchill to broker a bilateral peace agreement between the British and the Nazis.[17] It was in late 1943 or early 1944 that Chanel and her current lover, Nazi espionage agent Baron Hans Gunther von Dinklage, undertook such an assignment. Code named “Operation Modellhut”, it was an attempt through the British Embassy in Madrid, via Chanel, to influence Churchill, and thereby persuade the British to negotiate a separate peace with Germany. This mission as planned ultimately met with failure, as Churchill had no interest.” [Wikipedia]
Hey! Yeah! BBC political genius and Today Prog would-be top dog @bbcnickrobinson finally notices existence of Lord Sumption , last year's BBC Reith Lecturer, now ignored by most major BBC programmes (guess which?) since he began attacking the shutdown of the country. https://t.co/xuM1DpuFsh
The revolution happened long ago. But most people, not understanding Marxism and its adaptability, didn't notice. Details all here. Nobody believes it, but every fact here is verifiable. https://t.co/ZlYmwTZQeHhttps://t.co/oh89YD8Wpx
It has died a death where I live, but then it never really got off the ground here anyway. What a stupid ritual…
I do @stevek26367321 . I am still told at least once daily that the throttling of the economy and mass house arrest were needed 'to reduce pressure on the NHS'. There is no evidence at all that they did so, but people take it on trust because the govt says it & assume it is true. https://t.co/7Ylsj5qHuv
Hitchens tweeting in support of the legal challenge to the probably unlawful “lockdown” toytown dictatorship. Glad to see that that fund has almost reached its goal (it’s about 80% attained), but the real challenge to the “lockdown” is already slowly happening, inasmuch as the English people (and Scottish and Welsh? the Scots seem a poor lot these days) are (as I predicted about 2 months ago) slowly simply ignoring the restrictions.
There is no mass march against the “lockdown” but public pressure, via gradual ignoring of the Boris-idiot “rules”, has now pressured the Government of idiots into giving way, though wanting to make it seem that Boris-idiot, his Cabinet of clowns and the toytown police are “really” still in charge.
That public pressure has come from more and more people waking up to the nonsense of “lockdown”, though the majority have still not thought through this: “hey, if only 1 person in every 2,000 dies from the virus, then I’m probably going to be OK even if I get infected“.
That of course is all the more true for anyone under 60. Small children have a —something like— 15 million to 1 chance of dying from it. Even people in their thirties have a tiny chance of dying from it. All the more so now that the virus has peaked (and may have peaked in early April!).
As a result of all this, people are not protesting, or marching, or even writing angry emails to “their” MPs. What they are doing is going out whenever they feel like it to wherever they want. The only problem is that hardly anything is open. If shops and cafes were open, millions would be flocking to them (until the money runs out, which for many may not be far away).
The Government (of idiots) is not in charge of anything. The whole thing is a gigantic con-trick.
Britain's double shame: coronavirus deaths and economic collapse | Simon Jenkins https://t.co/Scs4z5YO45
“Britain’s policy on coronavirus has clearly been disastrous. The press might trumpet America’s 100,000 deaths. But America is a big country and, on the most sensible generalised measure of “excess deaths per million”, Britain’s rate is not just three times America’s but possibly the worst in the world, at 890 against American’s roughly 250. Even its deaths per million are higher than America’s.
“Johnson and Hancock remain in denial over the apparent reasons for this, that thousands of Britons appear to have died after being ejected or turned away from NHS hospitals, either dumped into care homes or having vital operations postponed. Thousands more may have died at home, through being terrified by Johnson into not seeking hospital care at all.”
“This saga is approaching its end and there must be a reckoning. Perhaps some lives have been saved by lockdown. If so, it is strange that countries that rejected it, from Sweden to Taiwan, have seen a lower death rate than Britain. Meanwhile the longer lockdown lasts, the faster its cost rises towards the staggering total of £200bn. How many lives might that have saved? “
“With budget deficit now predicted to reach 17% of GDP, Britain now faces a double humiliation: the world’s highest coronavirus death rate and the worst resulting economic collapse. Johnson likes blood-curdling “worst-case scenarios”. Mine is that this will prove to be Britain’s most catastrophic and costly policy failure in modern times.“
I agree with all of that. Boris-idiot and “financial genius and future PM” Rishi Sunak will now march the plebs —for whom they have nothing but contempt— into the valley of the shadow, “ably” assisted by little Matt Hancock (if he survives in Cabinet).
And the idiots, some of them, will probably still be standing outside their homes, clapping…
Still, this ludicrous misgovernment might just lead to a social-national upsurge by 2022 and, by Grace of God, victory in the end.
The new emergency legislation being put forward has a life of, at present, 2 years, until 2022, despite the assertion by Boris-idiot that the Coronavirus crisis might last only for 3 months more, i.e. until June 2020. Already, local elections have been deferred for a year. It may be that NWO/ZOG dictatorship is planned, not only in the UK, but across Europe. I would not rule out civil or social war by 2022.
#StopHoarding
Twitter is doing what it does best, namely allowing people to tweet well-meaning and totally ineffective pleas. In this case, under hashtag #StopHoarding, to those who imagine that they need 500 loo rolls and a mountain of pasta and bottled water.
As I have blogged on previous days, there is (possibly reasonable) bulk-buying and there is (wholly unreasonable) panic-buying. Yesterday, at 1900 hrs, I visited the little village shop about 2 miles from me, and which I have noted in previous posts. It shuts at 1930. I bought almost the last loaf of bread, a bunch of bananas, some locally-produced asparagus and a few lottery tickets.
I wanted to see whether Waitrose in the nearest town was offering much, and mistakenly thought that it closed at 2100 on Thursday. Turned out that it closes at 2000 on Thursdays, so I arrived with only 10 minutes to get anything I wanted. That being so, I was unable to see whether shoppers had stripped the shelves bare again. I did notice that there was not a single egg left, not even the more expensive ones from rare breed chickens, with sky-blue shells. I myself bought only (again) almost the last loaf of bread and a reduced-price (99p reduced from £2-75) North African vegetable and cous-cous salad thing (which turned out to be quite tasty).
I think that this panic-buying can be halted by supermarkets only allowing one item or pack of anything per shopper. Inconvenient, yes, and some would then go to half a dozen places to evade the rule, but most would not and it would restore equilibrium.
Free speech
Well done, @HullLive [http://hull-live.co.uk], and well done “Will Wright of Hull”, whoever you are. The truth is rarely seen in the newspapers in the UK.
Socialism, National Socialism, “National Communism” and Social Nationalism
“Socialism” has almost as many meanings as “democracy”. We still see people with pedestrian understanding writing or tweeting about how “socialism” is and can only be something akin to the Marxist-Leninist setup of the period before the great change(s) since 1989. Those people say that German “National Socialism” was not “real” socialism. Yet German National Socialism gave the German people a great deal more in every way, both economic and cultural, than did either Weimar Republic social democracy or post-1945 Soviet-style DDR (East German) socialism.
Of course, socialism in the Soviet Union had various faces at various times, from Civil War times (1918-21) when militarization of the workforce was the norm (“War Communism”) to the New Economic Policy of the 1920s under which a controlled form of capitalism and private enterprise was permitted, to the harsh centralized system of Stalin in the 1930s and 1940s, a less severe version in the 1950s to 1980s, and then the fall of the various forms of socialism, all over the world, from 1989.
Hitler took a broad view of the term “socialism”, regarding it as meaning, broadly, “the common weal”. He was not hidebound by artificial or arbitrary “definitions” of what socialism means. For him, what mattered were results. So long as the German people were well-fed, housed, educated, organized etc, he was content.
For me, policy matters, as do results. Artificial theory matters less. I was, at one time, in the mid-1970s, accused of not being so much a National Socialist as a “National Communist”, in other words accused of over-valuing the role of the State. I demur. However, the State does have its rightful place (as seen in the Threefold Social Order concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_threefolding).
We in the UK have seen in the past decade what happens when the role of the State is cast aside or into the background. Now, with the Coronavirus crisis, we see that the State, in its weakened condition, is unable to properly fulfil its role of guardian of the people (“…for the welfare of the people is the highest law“— Cicero).
What is now required is what might be called “social nationalism”, not old-style State socialism but a system whereby the State, in its proper place, protects and serves the people and, as part of that, regulates but does not actually run economic enterprises and markets. “Nationalism”? All that that means is that the political organization is rooted in our basically “Aryan” European culture, history and way of life.
Basic Income
A group of 500 academics have signed an open letter to Govt: "It is time for Govts to enact emergency universal basic income, ensuring that everyone in their jurisdiction has enough money to buy the food & other essentials they need to survive.” #UBIhttps://t.co/LjrOLx9pm8
So little Matt Hancock, clearly out of his depth, has been told to “recall” retired doctors and nurses. My thoughts:
the Government has no power to order such recall, only to request it;
retired NHS staff are almost all over 60, many over 70, and so are far more likely to fall victim to Coronavirus and to be seriously affected if they do contract it;
the above is obviously far more likely to happen in the often not very hygienic conditions of a UK NHS hospital.
Worth reading, certainly, but of course the Jew scribbler never once mentions the racial divisions or aspects.
Stuttgart view
A snapshot of Stuttgart life under Coronavirus, from “antifa” cheerleader Mike Stuchbery, who was all but run out of the UK on a rail in 2018.
Message getting through in Stuttgart. Far less seniors out, only folks heading to the supermarket. Saw less than five joggers. We may be okay. This path is usually crowded by those running. pic.twitter.com/C5aBoo48YE
Stuchbery, “writer”, “journalist”, “historian” (all self-descriptions) and one-time schoolteacher, apparently does not know the difference between “less” and “fewer”.
A midnight ramble through Casablanca and beyond
[above: La Marseillaise trumps Der Wacht am Rhein in Casablanca]
You have to wonder if we had cherished and protected our wildlife what a bond of friendship and a force of nature we could have been https://t.co/l53Izq97sG
We are going to end up with food imported which is not allowed now because of animal welfare and human health issues.. mark my words. Listen to the language softening us up. Liam Fox just defending chlorine washed chickens. Chlorine used because of awful conditions they reared in
Food can be produced more cheaply outside the EU in countries with poorer animal welfare. If we cave in to US demands to stop labelling the country of origin, our farmers will have to drop their own standards to compete with imports. So even UK chicken could end up chlorinated.
You so t know. US also pressing to remove “ known source” labelling. Also it will go into schools, hospitals, processed foods.. it’s an awful step backwards. https://t.co/NfPm9K7JoM
In past decades, people would probably have been shouting, writing etc about how a government behaving like this should be shot etc, but today, people are scared of the police arriving at their door at the slightest provocation (e.g. an angry or even simply dissenting tweet, or Facebook post, or remark made in public or even in private).
The non-European real terrorists have over the years symbiotically worked with the Zionists and others who wish to repress our freedom of expression; new repressive laws are in place, the police and courts are becoming hysterical…the net result is that we can have a quasi-tyrannical and completely dishonest dystopian government such as that run by Boris-idiot and his lunatic-in-chief, Cummings, and yet citizens are actually afraid even to say anything really “edgy” about what should be done about it. All one sees are bleats on Twitter, mostly as weak as water.
As to the food story, It may even be that there is an occultic high-Masonic aspect to this: the wealthy able to eat properly, be healthier, as a class or group also ruling over the “pleb” masses eating junk food, pop tarts, pot noodles, fried chicken and McD hamburgers etc. Already, people in the wealthier parts of the UK live about 10 years longer and also longer in good health than those in depressed parts of the North of England. The same is true of the USA.
Alison Chabloz
The persecuted singer-songwriter can be heard on Internet “radio”, European Freedom, this evening (4 February 2020) at 1900 hrs:
Show notes for tonight's (Tue) stream at 7 pm UK with @nastymutant and Alison Chabloz EF #11: Censors, Oligarchs and Plutocrats with Alison Chablozhttps://t.co/KbrvYxi79q
I suppose that those who are now being expelled from the Labour Party at the behest of the Jewish lobby feel badly about it, but they are really being done a favour. Corbyn had his points, but was terribly weak in fighting back against the Israel/Zionist/Jewish lobby. He never did take the fight to them, and even persisted in paying lip-service to the absurd “holocaust” farrago. McDonnell was even worse. Now, all but about 4 or 5 Labour MPs have signed up to the so-called “International Definition” of so-called “Antisemitism” (in fact adopted so far by fewer than 20 states out of 200).
Labour is a waste of space now. A waste of time too. Why would any real British activist in any case support a party which is now really just for the blacks and browns? A party which supports mass immigration too. We have seen that many former Labour voters rejected Labour in the recent 2019 General Election. Those voters mostly did not vote Conservative; they just did not vote Labour.
The USA, “land of freedom”…
“Cancer patient with four weeks to live is jailed for 10 months for stealing food” [Daily Mirror]
I was just watching one of the seemingly endless re-runs of the early 1970s historical documentary series, The World at War, and in particular the episode named Barbarossa (from Fall Barbarossa or Operation Barbarossa, named after Friedrich I, the Holy Roman Emperor of the 12th Century who led the Third Crusade against the infidels).
I of course remember watching the TV series when it first was broadcast, in 1973. Many will say that it is in many parts contaminated by what amounts to Jew-Zionist propaganda, and I do not dispute that. Others point out, in a connected critique, that every alleged wrong done by the German Reich and its forces is given great prominence, whereas the cruelties and barbarities of the Soviet regime are barely mentioned (I suppose that it could be argued that the most famous chronicles of those terrible times were not published in English until after The World at War was made: GULAG Archipelago, for one). The criticisms are valid, but one cannot write off The World At War because of those flaws.
The strength of The World at War was that many of the leading personalities on all sides, such as German, English and other general officers, admirals etc, some members of Hitler’s circle (eg Speer), and a host of lesser-ranked people, were all still alive in 1973, giving their filmed testimony weight and immediacy.
Anyway, this article is not meant to focus on The World at War alone, but to examine a couple of “what if?” situations, both in the war years of 1939-45 (for Russians and Americans, 1941-45) and at other times.
The drive to Moscow in 1941
When I was first in Moscow, in 1993, my assigned driver, Pasha (an insolent loutish youth, apropos of nothing) pointed out, as we drove into the city from Sheremetyevo airport, the tank trap memorial, 23 kilometres from the Kremlin on the Leningrad Highway (Leningradskoye Shosse). The memorial marks the supposed furthest point of advance of the German forces in 1941. We drove near to the Kremlin only about 15-20 minutes later.
In 1941, the town of Khimki (now effectively a suburb of Moscow) had only just (1939) been administratively created, and was little developed. Now, hundreds of thousands live close by. Even since I drove through in 1993 there has been further development. Indeed, in the photograph below, taken in a recent year, there can be seen an IKEA warehouse. What would Stalin have had to say about that?!
The proximity to central Moscow amazed me. Even if not true (as some say) that some German advance-reconnaissance motorcyclists advanced yet further, to a point where they could see the golden domes of the Kremlin churches, it is incredible to see how close the forces of the Reich came to capturing Moscow.
In 1941, flush with the victories in the West in 1940, Hitler intended to advance in Russia against 3 main objectives: Leningrad, Moscow, and also the Ukraine generally, with its huge natural resources of grain crops etc and (in the Don Basin or Donbass), coal.
Hitler at first prioritized Leningrad, followed by the Donbass, and only then Moscow. His generals disagreed, arguing that only a decisive blow against Moscow could achieve victory. There were cogent arguments for all three main objectives:
Leningrad: reasons based around morale (the city of the two 1917 Revolutions and in particular the second, Bolshevik, one; the city bearing the name of Lenin); also, the city without which the all-weather port of Murmansk could probably not be held. If Murmansk fell, there could be no Allied resupply of the Soviet Union except via the Soviet Far East. At that stage of the war, that alone might sink the Soviet regime;
Ukraine: grain supplies, coal, even oil (should German forces be able to advance beyond Ukraine; also, protection for the Romanian oilfields supplying Germany);
Moscow: in the highly-centralized Stalinist system of the Soviet Union, everything came from the centre. Indeed, in the earliest hours of Barbarossa, Soviet officers were heard in German intercepts begging Moscow for orders: “we are under attack; what shall we do?”…It might be that, were Moscow to fall, the Soviet Union would fall. Hitler himself had said that “all we need do is kick open the front door and the whole rotten structure will come tumbling down.”
I have to say that (of course with the knowledge of the decades since 1941) I would favour the Moscow option. Had Moscow fallen, the bubble of the regime would have burst. In a small way, the open panic of the NKVD and CPSU when they thought the Germans would soon be in Moscow, and which led to open rebelliousness on the part of ordinary Moscow inhabitants, leads me to think that a German capture of the city would have led to a rapid fall of the Soviet regime in all of European Russia and perhaps beyond.
In any case, without Moscow under Soviet control, Leningrad must surely have fallen too before very long.
Hitler thought that it was more important to defeat the Soviet armies in the field. European thinking, thinking from the constricted lands of Central and Western Europe. In the Russian space, those otherwise valid ideas become less valid. New armies can be (and were) raised from the vast areas beyond the Volga, beyond the Urals.
As for going for three objectives at once, it might, under other stars, have worked, but the cautious Russian proverb says “chase two hares and you will not catch one”…
Still, what if? What if Moscow had fallen in 1941? Without a two-front war, Germany could not have been defeated in the West. There could not have been the Normandy Landings of 1944, certainly not successfully. European Russia would have been under German control, and the wider expanses of the Soviet Union would probably have been invaded and taken by a Russian but anti-Soviet army such as the Vlasov Army, which might have been expanded to a formidable force. Also, the forces under Rommel in North Africa would have been able to have been hugely reinforced, with the heady strategic possibility that Rommel might have been able not only to take Alexandria, Cairo and the Suez Canal, but Jerusalem, Damascus and then drive up through the foothills of the Caucasus towards Baku and its oilfields, linking up with the forces of Army Group South driving South-East from Ukraine; German forces did occupy part of the Caucasus and even part of Kalmykia in 1942 (occupying Elista briefly).
Mainland Europe would, in that overall scenario, have avoided most of the destruction of 1941-1945. In time, there would no doubt have been peace made between the German Reich and the British Empire. The calamitous decolonization in Africa etc would have been avoided, at least until such time as it would not have had such terrible effects on human and animal inhabitants. There would be either no State of Israel, or one which would not be the hub of a worldwide Jew-Zionist web. The forces of Stalinism would never have invaded Eastern and Central Europe. There would have been no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no Cuban Missile Crisis, and Castro himself would have been seen as just another Latin American tinpot dictator (which is all he was anyway, once Soviet backup was removed) and unable to pose as a world “statesman” (BBC and Labour Party idiots please note).
What if? If only…
And now for something completely different…
What if…Beeching had never happened? Alternatively, what if rail lines had been closed but maintenance of track continued?
I wonder how many British people of the post-1960s age, let alone the (often vacant-seeming) “millennials”, have even heard of Dr. Beeching, his reports and his “Beeching Axe”? [see Notes, below]. In outline, then:
“The first report identified 2,363 stations and 5,000 miles (8,000 km) of railway line for closure, 55% of stations and 30% of route miles, with an objective of stemming the large losses being incurred during a period of increasing competition from road transport and reducing the rail subsidies necessary to keep the network running; the second identified a small number of major routes for significant investment. The 1963 report also recommended some less well-publicised changes, including a switch to containerisation for rail freight“. [Wikipedia]
Note those figures: 2,363 rail stations to be closed! Not to mention 5,000 miles of track.
“Protests resulted in the saving of some stations and lines, but the majority were closed as planned, and Beeching’s name remains associated with the mass closure of railways and the loss of many local services in the period that followed. A few of these routes have since reopened, some short sections have been preserved as heritage railways, while others have been incorporated into the National Cycle Network or used for road schemes; others now are lost to construction, have reverted to farmland, or remain derelict.” [Wikipedia]
“Beeching’s reports made no recommendations about the handling of land after closures. British Rail operated a policy of disposing of land that was surplus to requirements. Many bridges, cuttings and embankments have been removed and the land sold for development. Closed station buildings on remaining lines have often been demolished or sold for housing or other purposes. Increasing pressure on land use meant that protection of closed trackbeds, as in other countries (such as the US Rail Bank scheme, which holds former railway land for possible future use) was not seen to be practical. Many redundant structures from closed lines remain, such as bridges over other lines and drainage culverts. They often require maintenance as part of the rail infrastructure while providing no benefit. Critics of Beeching argue that the lack of recommendations on the handling of closed railway property demonstrates that the report was short-sighted. On the other hand, retaining a railway on these routes, which would obviously have increased maintenance costs, might not have earned enough to justify that greater cost. As demand for rail has grown since the 1990s, the failure to preserve the routes of closed lines (such as the one between Bedford and Cambridge, which was closed despite Beeching recommending its retention) has been criticized.” [Wikipedia]
The above long extracts from Wikipedia lay out the facts quite well. What is missing is perspective. The postwar period in the UK, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, was one of almost wholesale destruction of old buildings, streets, villages, towns and cities. In fact, postwar redevelopment changed London a great deal more than the oft-cited depredations of the Luftwaffe (most of which bomb damage was concentrated on the Thames dock areas and nearby areas which suffered collateral damage). Naturally, demolitions are sometimes inevitable and sometimes an improvement [see Notes, below], but much that was valuable has gone.
In fact, the 5,000 miles of track closures earmarked by Beeching were in addition to about 3,318 miles of railway track closed between 1948 and 1962 and also a further 1,300 miles of passenger railway between 1923 and 1939! Over 9,000 miles of track!
So “what if”? What if, for example, the rail track had been maintained? That way, were (as now are) different ideas, new technical ideas, possible (eg robot trains, no-staff trains, small ultralight trains, trains made with lighter materials, trains using solar power etc), those tracks could be the basis for new transport links and could be further linked with new track.
The expense of a railway is mostly in the staff pay, pensions etc; after that, the cost of actually running trains (fuel etc); after that, maintenance of trains, track, bridges, tunnels etc. The core maintenance can be relatively little. In the USA, this is the policy (see Wikipedia in Notes, below). Political policy which is also a national insurance policy.
Not that the trekking ways, cycleways and nature walks which often have replaced the old railways are not useful too, but most rail track destroyed has been simply ploughed over, built over or abandoned. Pity.
Today is the 75th anniversary of the attempt made to assassinate Adolf Hitler at his headquarters in East Prussia, the Wolfsschanze (Wolf’s Lair), now situated within the borders of post-1945 Poland.
I blogged last year about matters around the event and around those times more generally:
What is there to add? Perhaps a reminder that human manifestations on this Earth do not last forever. The film, below, shows what the sprawling headquarters of 1944 is like today: as abandoned and lost as the cities of the Aztecs or the Mayans.
On the other hand, the devastated cities of the Germany of 1944 and 1945 are today thriving governmental, commercial, cultural and residential centres, with populations again in the hundreds of thousands or even millions.
[above, Dresden in 1945]
[above, Berlin in 1945; area shown is the Unter den Linden boulevard in central Berlin]
[above, Berlin in 1945; area shown is the Reichskanzlei or Reich Chancellery]
The above photographs show the devastation resulting from war. Today, those same areas are prosperous, busy, thronged with inhabitants. Some of the old has been replaced, some kept, adapted to contemporary usage.
The same is true of ideas. Both the practical and the spiritual-cultural achievements of National Socialism were huge, enormous, particularly when it is considered that they were achieved within only 6 years of peace, the years 1933-1939. SIX YEARS!
We do not need to copy or indeed defend everything that was done by, or in the name of, the Reich. Indeed, many of the flaws of the Reich, or supposed flaws, existed and in fact were even more glaring in both the West and the Soviet Union of the 1930s. The Zeitgeist streamed over the world as a whole, like the jetstream.
In 2019, we honour what was good in the Reich, what worked for the German people and the peoples of all Europe. The rest, we do not need. Times move on. Some challenges remain; others, newly emerged, have to be faced for the first time.
We honour the past and stand ready to create the future.
I am moved to write this by a couple of stimuli. First of all by a UK Labour Party National Executive Committee delegate (I think on the NEC as “youth” representative) to some recent conference in Cuba, and who said something like how wonderful it was to be in a country which showed how real socialism worked.
The second impetus came from an interview I heard on BBC World Service radio: an interview with an “artist” of whom I had never heard, called Tania Bruguera. Apparently, her father had been a Cuban diplomat and politician, and had actually handed her over aged 7 (or maybe I misheard and it was 17) to the security police with the statement that she had said anti-“Fidel” things and that the security police should do with her what they liked. She now says that that was a result of the Cuban system of selfish save-your-own-neck denunciation (rather than her own father being a complete shit, which is what she probably really thinks).
I looked up her “art” (“installations”, “performance art” etc). Unimpressed. To me, it looks like talentless rubbish. Having said that, she has the right to do it, which right is not accepted in Cuba. She is allowed to travel fairly freely. These days, she gets hassled and threatened, at times arrested, though not simply shot or chucked into a concentration camp or prison, which is what might have happened in the 1960s or 1970s.
There is the nagging feeling that Corbyn and many around him actually view states such as Cuba, 1980s Nicaragua, or even the Venezuela of recent years as success stories. I have previously blogged about Corbyn’s almost fossilized politics and policies, as well as his friendly or supportive attitude towards Cuba:
As regular readers of this blog will know, I am not totally hostile to Corbyn and at least some of his supporters (vis a vis the misnamed “Conservatives”), inasmuch as the Corbynists want to create a more equitable society in the UK, want to control or remove the Jewish-Zionist influence which has been so pervasive since about 1989, want people to have decent health, housing, social security etc. The devil, however, is in the detail.
The intellectual inconsistency of many of the Corbynists is shown by the fact that while they oppose Jewish exploitation of and behaviour toward the Palestinian Arabs, they ignore the same pattern when Jews exploit British, German or French (or Russian!) people; they also often still unthinkingly parrot “holocaust” propaganda. Corbyn and John McDonnell are themselves prime examples.
Another example: Most people accept that, in any market economy, more labour available means lower unit labour cost. Many of the Corbyn-Labour people disagree. They say that mass immigration makes no real difference to pay, even at the lower levels. Employers are to blame for exploiting employees and government is to blame for not simply setting a high minimum pay level. Faced with that kind of economic illiteracy, one tends to shake head and refuse to argue. Those people, though, genuinely think that all that has to be done for paradise to descend is for the State to lay down and enforce pay levels and, indeed, price levels.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said, many years ago, that one can have a welfare state, and one can have open borders (and consequent mass immigration), but one cannot have both. When will Labour MPs and members wake up to this?
While there is room for relatively minor tinkering with pay and prices (minimum pay, enforced cheap prices in targeted areas such as public transport etc, even Basic Income —which I favour—), for the State to overwhelm the economic sphere is to invite the economic paralysis that caused even Cuba (and, famously, 1980s China) to introduce quasi-free market reforms, as indeed did Lenin himself in the Soviet Union, via his New Economic Policy of the 1920s. Complete State control of the economy leads to shortages or even economic collapse, as we see in Venezuela. I do not see much understanding of these truths in Corbyn or McDonnell.
It is in relation to mass immigration that we see the madness most obviously. In a sense, this is unsurprising. Polls have shown for some years that Labour is mainly voted for by the “blacks and browns”, in the sense that the one demographic which is very pro-Labour is that of the ethnic minorities (except the Jews, who hate Corbyn’s anti-Zionist tendencies).
I should not let anyone reading this go away under the misapprehension that I “prefer” the Conservatives to Labour. I oppose both main System parties, and Labour is at least (in parts, in some senses) anti-Zionist now. I also despise what the Conservatives have done since 2010 to trash society. However, anyone who thinks that Labour is a real alternative need only look at the total deadheads around Corbyn. Look at Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler (both of whom might well be Cabinet ministers under a Corbyn prime ministership!), or the recently disgraced MPs Kate Osamor and Fiona Onasanya (the latter will almost certainly be in prison soon). Not only blacks, by the way: Angela Rayner, for example, would probably be a Cabinet minister under a Corbyn government. Words start to fail…
I favour Labour over Conservative not because I imagine that Labour’s idiots are actually able to operate a government, but because
Corbyn and many of his supporters are now fighting directly against Zionism here in the UK, not merely in the Middle East; and
a weak government under Corbyn can lay the ground for social nationalism.
Notes
The title of this blog post of course refers back to the 1920 Leninist pamphlet usually referred to as Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder [Детская болезнь “левизны” в коммунизме], perhaps more accurately translated as The Children’s Illness, “Leftism”, in Communism. However, in using the words “infantile” and “disordered” to refer to some aspects of “Corbynism”, or some people in Corbyn-Labour, I do so advisedly…
I thought to include a few examples. Here’s one. Stupid enough to state on UK TV that she is “literally a Communist”! Hardy ha ha…but note that her absurd statement did not make her a pariah, despite the hugely bloodstained history of Communism/Socialism. Now what if she had said that she was “literally a National Socialist”? Hm…Ash Sarkar’s statement did not prevent her from continuing to write for major newspapers occasionally, and also to appear on TV from time to time. The Jewish influence over the mass media is right in front of us, and in the case of TV, “literally”!
Senior Editor @novaramedia. Literature bore. Anarcho-fabulous. Muslim. THFC. Walks like a supermodel. Fucks like a champion. Luxury communism now!“
Here is her Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Sarkar which, unbelievably, states that she “lectures in global politics at Anglia Ruskin University” [former Anglia Polytechnic].
Wikipedia adds that “Sarkar’s great-great-aunt, Pritilata Waddedar, was a Bengali nationalist and an active participant in armed struggle against the British Empire in 1930s Bengal. Her grandmother is a hospital carer…Her mother is a social worker who was an anti-racist and trade union activist in the 1970s and 1980s. Sarkar’s mother helped “organise marches…“
“The Times has described her as “Britain’s loudest Corbynista“…and Dazed magazine said she is one of “the voices resetting the political agenda in the UK”.” [Wikipedia]
Basically, an enemy of the British people.
and take a look, or rather listen, to one “Liz from Leeds”, whose incredibly naive and just plain wrong (inaccurate, ahistorical) idea of, inter alia, “why Soviet socialism failed” is actually unintentionally funny. “Novara Media” (the collective of Corbyn supporters Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani etc) tweeting that “Liz from Leeds” was correct! [the black woman shown is the TV show presenter]
and here is another idiot, Hevreziya-Something, attempting to sound like a real “Communist” (who thinks that he –sounds more like she, but apparently not– can be “Anarchist” and –a male–“Feminist”, and a “Populist” etc all at the same time!…oh, and an economist…once he has finished school, that is, though he claims to have been commenting for years; age does not preclude political infantilism, I suppose)
he offers political advice in the tweet below, which made me laugh out loud (the bit about a General Strike in UK and USA, but the first tweet is also amusingly naive):
Well, I think that I shall draw a veil over that particular “Communist/Anarchist/Populist” now! He/she probably has to go and wash its hair or something…
The trouble is that there are literally thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands, quite as stupid. Most support Labour. Many, such as Ash Sarkar and the Hevreziya-someone tweeter, above, are of non-European origin, but there are many others, such as the Englishwoman tweeting below, calling herself “Countess Helen Nonny Nay” [since this blog post was written, altered to Cringing Peasant Helen NonnyNay], who thinks that white British families who want a better life should just “fuck off” as the UK welcomes the dregs of Africa and Asia to our shores…
I don't care if a whinging family decide to move to Australia or not. Go on, fuck off! Or stay here – it makes no difference to me.
Caught out by background TV while doing my dusting. 💃
— Dr Nonny (indistinct chatter) (@nayright12) January 3, 2019
Actually, the sad thing is that some of these people have their hearts sort-of in the right place in some respects— animal welfare, a better society, anti-Jew-Zionism (though most are still brainwashed by the “holocaust” scam/myth). The white Northern European ones would support social-nationalism were they not so indoctrinated and silly.
Update, 6 January 2019
Another idiot, Laurie Penny, who was at one time on TV occasionally (like Owen Jones), until even msm people realized that (like Owen Jones) she is pretty much a one-trick pony…
Do these people, the Owen Jones’s, the Laurie Penny’s etc, realize that their intolerance (yes, their intolerance) might one day not only bring society (the Social Contract) crashing down, but bring down the skies on their own little worlds? I doubt it.
but then, the resistance…
Marxism-Leninism as a political force was destroyed or ebbed away to nothing by 1989 and a host of (other) devils have rushed in to fill the vacuum…
In the end, a complete cleansing of UK (and world) society will have to take place.
Further Update, 6 January 2019
I happened to see the photo below, a kind of “family portrait”: Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bastani in what is perhaps a room designed with reference to either “luxury Communism” or tasteless tat. You decide…
Below, Andrew Neil nails Ken Livingstone on Venezuela…
"If all that's true, it would be appalling, but I have watched America impose sanctions… an appalling impact on their country" @ken4london on how Alan Johnson & Esther McVey reacted to his #bbctw film
Not that everything said by Ash Sarkar (or Aaron Bastani) is wrong. This, below, is right (because grounded in reality, not incorrect theory):
It just really brought home to me that so many people in this country are in similar positions: trapped in low-paid and precarious work, up to their eyeballs in debt, with children and families to care for, but no avenue into quality employment.
What Ash Sarkar and her ilk cannot accept, if only because it might imply that they themselves should clear out of the UK, is that mass immigration is, ultimately, “white genocide” by replacement of real British (i.e. white) people by blacks, browns and others.
He's no different to you: another foreign invader with a massive chip on their shoulder and an even greater inferiority complex. You hate this nation and its people, but are happy to reap its benefits.
— DeAndre DeShawn DeWilliams (@PaddyThePinko) March 1, 2019
Here we see some reaction to Ash Sarkar’s and Owen Jones’s doormatting for the Jewish lobby…
Seems that “someone” sees a vacancy in the msm-approved “licensed Bolshevik” slot previously occupied by Owen Jones (usually by Owen Jones; sometimes Laurie Penny or others). That way, the msm can say, “look! We are open to all shades of opinion, even radical and revolutionary ones!”, while in fact only inviting the kind of people who are in reality completely harmless to the ZOG/NWO System. Non-white or Jewish faux-rebels. White social-nationalists are, of course, banned…
Update, 20 July 2019
A late entrant, a comedienne (for the brainwashed, that’s “comedian”, apparently…), of whom I have never heard but who I am sure is very proud to have 130K Twitter followers (and I am sure at least a few dozen regularly read her tweets…). She believes in “anti-fascist action” and intimidating anyone standing up for free speech.
and, quelle surprise, she has been contracted at various times for those present gravediggers of culture, Channel 4 (usually a gravedigger) and the BBC (sometimes a gravedigger).
…from the Independent, reporting on beach patrols at Dover; all too typical of the sort of persons now prominent in “Labour” and what is left of the trade unions:
“Riccardo La Torre, firefighter and Eastern Region Secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, branded the coast patrol “despicable” and said: “These have-a-go, racist vigilantes have no place in any kind of enforcement or emergency activities and will only serve to make conditions and tensions worse.”
So “Riccardo La Torre” (que?), a regional secretary of the Fire Brigade Union, thinks that migrant invaders from Africa and the Middle East are “working class people”, who are “trying to get to safety”?!
Safety from, er, France? There you have in a nutshell, the craziness that is much of “Labour” now. Alien migrant-invaders are “working class people”, who should be allowed to occupy the UK at will (and be subsidized too)!
Note particularly the fag-end “Marxism”, trying to shoehorn the facts into some 1980s polytechnic back-of-postcard Marxism-Leninism.
I was just reading a few appreciations of Paddy Ashdown, the one-time LibDem leader, who recently died. I tend to adhere to the saying de mortuis nihil nisi bonum, but when it comes to political people, kindness must sometimes give way to clarity.
In fact, I rather liked Paddy Ashdown, at least in parts (not that I ever actually met him). I certainly feel more respect for him than I ever could feel for the idiots who preceded and followed him (Thorpe, Steel, Kennedy, Campbell, Clegg etc, though I do have time for Jo Grimond, whose interesting and erudite memoirs I reviewed on Amazon years ago; Grimond was by far the best of the Liberal/LibDem leaders, to my mind).
I feel that Ashdown was a great deal more honest than most System politicians, for one thing. Also, he was an idealist, and someone willing to put a mission above his (and his family’s) comfort: not many men in their mid-thirties would leave a comfortable and perhaps promising SIS/FCO career to get involved in the hurly-burly of UK politics, particularly for something as marginal as the then Liberal Party (at the time it had only 13 Commons seats, despite having garnered nearly 20% of the popular vote in both of the two 1974 General Elections). Ashdown gave up a pleasant diplomatic/intelligence near-sinecure based in Switzerland to take ordinary jobs in the Yeovil (Somerset) area while pursuing his political mission. When his employer folded, nearly a decade later, Ashdown applied unsuccessfully for 150 jobs. When elected MP for Yeovil in 1983, he had been unemployed for 2 years and was doing unpaid volunteer work as part of a programme for the long-term unemployed.
Not that I agreed with much of Ashdown’s policy-set: Ashdown was a politician for an England which was disappearing even in the 1970s. He seems to have been sanguine about mass immigration, for one thing. I doubt that he was ever anti-Zionist in any sense (certainly not my sense). Ashdown was no intellectual and not (to my mind) a policy person. Neither was Ashdown intellectually honest in a way that might match what I still perceive to be his personal integrity (leaving aside the “Paddy Pantsdown” episode). Certainly, amid the pathetic rabble called the LibDems, Ashdown could hardly fail to be seen as a star, just as the young Bill Clinton, with his Georgetown, Oxford and Yale academic background, could not fail to shine in the intellectual backwater that is Arkansas.
Yes, much can be laughed at in Ashdown, not least his absurd sense of his own importance and weight, as when he was or tried to be (using my own parody-title for him) “the Lord High Panjandrum of the Balkans and Afghanistan”, but without at least some elevated sense of self-worth, Ashdown would never have tried to be a political leader in the first place, I suppose.
So why am I talking about Ashdown, when this blog piece is supposed to be about the creation of a social-national movement?
What caught my attention about Ashdown as politician was that he only got elected as MP in 1983, after about 8-9 years of trying; also, once he was an MP, it only took him 5 years to become the leader of his party (admittedly tiny in terms of MP numbers).
One of the precepts of the American “self-help” guru Anthony Robbins is that “most people overestimate what they can accomplish in a year and underestimate what they can achieve in ten years.” That is very true. Examples are all around in history.
Famously, Hitler joined the NSDAP as “Member no.7” in 1919. A year later, it was still of little importance even in its home city, Munich. By 1923 Hitler had attempted the Beer Hall Putsch, which went down in shambolic ignominy; by 1928, 9 years after its foundation, the NSDAP could still only raise a national vote of 2.6%. However, Hitler had built a party and beyond that, a whole volkisch movement. It only needed the right conditions in which to flourish. The Depression provided that, together with the widespread feeling against the Jewish exploitation of the German people: by 1930, the NSDAP had a vote of 18%, by 1932 of 33%, and by 1933 of nearly 44%.
Lenin’s serious revolutionary political activity could be said to have begun with the establishment of Iskra [The Spark] in 1900. Though by 1910, Lenin was still politically marginal, he was considered to be one of the leaders of the Marxist tendency, at least. However, both Bolsheviki and Mensheviki together numbered only 8,400 by 1910 (perhaps 75% of whom were under 30 years of age). Once again, though, the important point is that a party, albeit split, existed and, once the disastrous Russian participation in the European war of 1914 onward had destroyed the strength of the Tsarist government and society, that party could take over the existing uprising in 1917 and perform a coup d’etat later the same year.
Other examples? How about “Solidarity” in Poland? Founded by a small number of workers in Gdansk (former Danzig) in 1980, by 1989 it was the governing party in Poland.
UKIP was formed in 1993 and had become an organized though marginal party by 2003. UKIP never did break through. It peaked in 2014 and deflated from 2015. What stopped UKIP from taking power was not only the UK’s totally unfair First Past the Post electoral system (though that did not help). What stopped UKIP was, first, that it was and (to the extent that it still exists) is not a revolutionary, nor even radical, party/movement; also, there has been no truly “triggering” event comparable to the First World War, the Great Depression etc in the UK of the late 20th/early 21st centuries.
Even if the future for the UK and Europe is a kind of multifaceted civil war, a political party or movement must exist. It is the sine qua non. In a year, it would achieve nothing, but in ten years it could achieve everything.
September the 9th, 2018. 79 years and 8 days since the famous German attack on the Polish radio station at then Gleiwitz; 79 years and 6 days since Britain (and so the entire British Empire) and France declared war on Germany; about 78 and a bit years since the German defeat of France, since the British retreat from Dunkirk; 78 years since the air Battle of Britain.
What weakens the usual System-history narrative about the history of those times is the a priori assumption or, if you like, a Grundnorm [basic underlying concept or belief, often unquestioned or deliberately made impossible to question], that the declaration of war by Britain and France was unquestionably both “the right thing to do” and unavoidable.
The typical, conventional System view, as displayed above, is of course grounded on an even deeper-held belief or Grundnorm, that is that the German government of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP was so evil that it had to be destroyed. That view (at the time and really until the 1970s at least –talking about British attitudes–) was based on the opinion that Germany was again trying, for the second or third time in memory, and as a continental power, to take over mainland Europe. More recently, the more Jewish-influenced attitude has held sway, because of the Jewish control or veto over the worlds of publishing, academia, politics, msm etc in the West: that Germany had to be confronted and defeated because of its policy re. Jews.
The whole “Germany had to be defeated because of the ‘holocaust'” nonsense is of quite recent date. Not often (i.e. never) mentioned to the brainwashed masses or to their equally brainwashed offspring in British schools, is the fact that not one of the world leaders or the most important military leaders (e.g. Churchill) made any mention of “extermination programmes” or “gas chambers” in their spoken remarks or post-war written memoirs. The Jewish-Zionist element has taken control of the historical narrative and completely twisted it. That is why “they” hate any historical revisionism. They present a weight of mutually-quoting fakery as if it were a weight of evidence. In any case, even the Zionist propagandists do not claim any German “extermination plan” or programme for the Jews until 1941.
Returning to war and peace in 1939-40, we see that the big picture shows a world far more than today split between European empires. The British Empire ruled between a quarter and a third of the world. Most of the rest (leaving aside the Soviet Union, the USA and China) was ruled by other Europeans: empires of the French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Belgians. The depredations of the early imperial days had begun to give way to the idea of stewardship. The native peoples were beginning to be looked after, the wildlife the same. All that (which became so positive in the 1950s) was ruined by the Second World War and its aftermath. Decolonization, globalist finance-capitalism etc have been disastrous for the peoples and environment of Africa, South America, Asia.
In Europe too, we see how disastrous was the decision to go to war in 1939. Immense destruction, huge loss of life (some estimates say 80 million), cruelties, hardship etc. Also massive economic dislocation.
We often hear half-baked nonsense about how “the war” stimulated inventions and technological progress. Most of this is either not true or is at best half-true. In both Europe and USA, huge strides were being made in the 1930s. What the war did was to change priorities: planes built for speed rather than comfort, housing built on a utilitarian rather than an aesthetic basis etc.
In the UK, much nonsense is talked about the Welfare State in this regard. In fact, social housing (which had existed in limited forms for centuries) was being created on quite a large scale in the UK of the 1930s, particularly in and around London. As for the NHS etc, that was already being prepared in studies etc, though the war may have concentrated minds and so on.
The Phoney War
The Phoney War, also called the Bore War and (in Germany) Sitzkrieg, lasted from September 1939 to April 1940. At that point, few people, even in the armed services of either side (meaning UK/Germany) had been killed. Any bitterness or venom (mainly on the British side and stirred up by relentless propaganda) was small compared to what existed later. There could, after Dunkirk, have been an honourable peace, an armistice. Germany could then have turned its full attention to destroying Stalin’s regime the following year. The Russian people would eventually have come to a concordat with the German Reich. Only the Jewish commissars etc would ultimately have lost out.
Conclusion
Britain lost out hugely by going along with Churchill’s ridiculous adventurism. Terrible loss and turmoil during the years of war, 10 years of “austerity” after the war ended. The perceived “need” (in fact a conspiracy) to import blacks and browns in the 1950s and thereafter in order to make up for those killed and injured in that wholly unnecessary war. Slow poisoning of the folk.
Britain and France declared war on Germany, ostensibly, to protect the independence of Poland. It never happened. Poland was split between the German Reich and the Soviet Union at first, later taken entirely by the Reich, then later still taken entirely by the Soviet Union. Instead of one or two weeks of war, Poland was strafed by 6 years of it. Only since 1989 has Poland regained anything like full political sovereignty. When I myself visited Poland on several occasions in the late 1980s, one still met older Poles who might mention those worthless guarantees of 1939.
Had an honourable peace been found in 1939 or 1940, the British Empire would have wound down more gradually, as would the other European empires. There would not have been so much war and misery across the world, the American cultural death-impulse would not have been so powerful and destructive; also, the environment would not have suffered anything like as badly. Above all, Europe would be fully European and have a fully-European future.
A woman journalist or opinion-writer of whom I had not previously heard, one Clare Foges, has suggested in an article in The Times that the leaders of the UK and Western Europe might learn from political “strongmen” (she cites an eclectic mixture: Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Duterte).
About the Writer
Having not previously heard of the writer, I did a quick Internet search. The surname suggests a Jewish origin, and someone of the same name posted this online in 2000:
It seems that Clare Foges wrote speeches for David Cameron-Levita and others prior to the 2010 election and immediately after it. She has also written at least one book for small children.
Having now read a little about her, I should say that she seems to have some intelligence, though perhaps not enough, or not enough knowledge, for the matters she discusses in print. Her understanding of society and politics seems shallow. She gave an interview to the Evening Standard in 2015. In it, she proposes, inter alia, better pay (!) for MPs, who “give up well-paid careers” etc. Ha ha! She really should take a look at the collection of misfits, also-rans and chancers who comprise many (not all, admittedly) of the more recent MPs!
Indeed, in 2017 she herself wanted to become an MP, for the fairly safe Conservative seat of the Isle of Wight, but withdrew after having been shortlisted:
In fact, the then-incumbent MP had hardly “given up a well-paid career”, having been a geography teacher in comprehensive schools for most of his life:
In short, my provisional view is that the writer of the article is, at 37 or 38, someone who for whatever reason has fallen between the cracks, who might have become something in the political realm, even perhaps an MP (and after all, her background as pr/”comms” “intern”, sometime children’s book writer, “Conservative” speechwriter, amateur poetess and (?) professional scribbler on politico-social issues is no worse than that of many “Conservative” or “Labour” MPs, and better than some) but has not.
The Issues Raised
What are we to make of this article suggesting that the UK needs leadership informed by “strongmen”? Duterte is the Philippines leader who has presided over a campaign of extra-judicial killing of drug gangsters etc. Erdogan is the political-Muslim Turkish dictator (by any other name) who is dismantling the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. Putin and Trump are too well-known to need any introduction even to those who take little interest in politics.
The main issue, surely, is that government must govern. It must be effective. Ideally, there will be checks and balances: law, due process, civil rights, property rights (within reason); however, in the end, a useless government has no right to exist.
Political leaders (including dictators) emerge for reasons. In broad brush terms, Putin emerged because Russia under Yeltsin had become a chaotic mess. Pensioners and other poor people were starving or dying from cold or lack of food, by the million. Public sector workers were being paid almost nothing. Jew carpetbaggers had flocked to Russia like a cloud of locusts (or vultures) and were stealing and cheating everything, pretty much. “Russian” Jew “oligarchs” ruled from “behind the throne” and had tricked their way into “ownership” of vast oilfields, diamond and gold mines, heavy industries. Putin began to claw back some of that. Pensioners who had been getting (USD) $5 a month under Yeltsin, now (2018) get $400. People are at least paid for work. Chechen and other gangsters have been stamped on and many killed or imprisoned. Russia has flourished compared to the 1990s.
Erdogan is someone for whom I myself have little sympathy, not least because I value the legacy of Kemal Ataturk. However, Erdogan has improved the lot of the poor, we read, while the economy has improved under his rule.
Trump likewise seems an egregious person generally, and even more egregious as a leader of a government and as a head of state. However, his rise (fuelled by his own huge fortune, of course) was not based on nothing. Many people in the USA are living in poverty. I read that 40% of Americans now require US governmental foodstamps! Many jobs (as, increasingly, in the UK and elsewhere) are “McJobs”, precarious and badly-paid. The drug epidemic is out of control. Illegal immigration had run wild since the 1980s. Whether Trump can deal with these problems and others, with the “separation of powers” American system, is doubtful, but the dispossessed and marginalized, among others, voted for him to try.
The Missing Leaders
Clare Foges cited Trump, Putin etc, but not the controversial leaders of the 20th Century: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao etc. They all took harsh measures but also did a huge amount that was positive. Hitler in particular saved Germany from degradation, removed Jew exploiters from the economy, the professions, the mass media; built autobahns (the first in the world); created air and airship travel routes; vastly improved animal welfare; planned new and better cities and national parks; put Germany to work and (for the first time) gave workers rights such as decent breaks at work, Baltic and other holidays in Germany, and also foreign holidays including cruises. Decent homes were built on a huge scale.
Britain could do worse than follow Hitler’s lead, introducing some updated and English/British form of social nationalism.
Stalin was far harsher as a leader and as an individual than Hitler or Mussolini, though Mao might be considered far worse (but of course he was non-European). Stalin however (like Hitler) was put back domestically by war. Stalin did recreate the industrial sector, which was booming before the First World War but which Bolshevism all but wiped out as a thriving economic sector. Stalin’s major mistake (apart from his cruelties and brutalities etc) was to allow the agricultural sector to be ruined via Collectivization, the legacy of which is only now being very slowly erased.
Mussolini did a huge amount for Italy. His posturing on balconies etc is what people now think of when his name is mentioned, but he eliminated the Mafia (until the Americans caused its revival after 1943, releasing the imprisoned leaders and followers), started to get rid of the terrible urban slums (unfortunately more were created as a result of the Anglo-American invasion of 1943); Mussolini also created an advanced scientific and industrial sector, mainly in the North. Famously, he also greatly improved the railways, and “made the trains run on time” (both truth and metaphor). Now, the wartime propaganda of the Western Allies and Stalin is all that most people outside Italy know– Mussolini as clown. Ironic that a real clown (the leader of the Five Star Movement) is now a major political figure in Italy!
The UK has been pretty much left to rot since 2010. The Blair government, though repressive and in the pocket of the Jewish-Zionist lobby, tried to modernize infrastructure generally. New buildings were constructed: hospitals, libraries, schools. Credit where due.
The David Cameron-Levita-Schlumberger government of idiots was not only the most pro-Jewish/Zionist government Britain has ever had, (until Theresa May became Prime Minister), but also the least-effective of modern times (again, until that of Theresa May?). It not only failed to do anything new and decent, but also failed to maintain that which already existed, in every sector, from libraries and schools to the air force and navy.
The lesson surely is that government must be effective. If it is not, the State stands in peril. The people eventually demand action. They are beginning to demand it now.
The article by Clare Foges is, it seems to me, a sign of the times, or a straw in the wind. The political times in Britain are a changin’…
Another Clare Foges article. She seems to be very much of her time, meaning 2010-2015, as in this Cameroonesque piece of sort-of social Darwinism. I think that Clare Foges can be written off as a serious commentator.
According to the Daily Mail, Clare Foges is “a devout Christian”. She may still be of part-Jewish ancestry (see above). My other query about the “devout Christian” bit is how does a “devout Christian” want to put IVF couples ahead of people needing NHS treatment for serious conditions just because they drink, smoke etc? Is that “Christian”? Even evil Iain Dunce Duncan Smith is said to be “devoutly Christian”…Yeah, right!
In the end, I suppose that it scarcely matters whether Clare Foges is this or that…and I just noticed that her Daily Mail bio was written by the egregious Andrew Pierce, so we can probably discount it…
She has certainly written columns in The Times [of London] several times, but is not on that newspaper’s list of its 29 “key” columnists. I have just taken a look on the Internet, and not seen anything online written by her as Times columnist in the past months (since August 2018), though her Linked-In profile avers that she is still a Times columnist. I did see a piece from November 2018 published in The Sun “newspaper”.
I have just seen that Clare Foges has been writing a column for The Times about once per week in recent months. I had not noticed, never now reading that newspaper (does anyone?I suppose some still do).
Ian Robert Millard 