I suggest that anyone who can spare a few pounds buys from other places (Amazon and Abe Books are infested and will not usually sell it, but you can google for “Judenfrei” suppliers) a copy of The Protocols of Zion. Then send it either to any prison library (in UK, newpaperbacks only are accepted), or to the school or college library of whatever institutes of learning that they may have attended in the past.
Freedom of expression on social, political and historical topics must be protected. The Jewish-Zionist lobby is trying, in various ways, to restrict that freedom for its own tribal ends and purposes.
The Protocols of Zion, often misdescribed as “a forgery”, is in fact literary fantasy which, however, describes the outline of a true situation. I suggest that it be disseminated and read as widely as possible.
System desperation
Both BBC News and Sky News featured an opinion poll claiming that most UK people think that the government of Boris-idiot is handling Coronavirus well. This must be “fake news”. Admittedly, I have spoken directly to few people about this, but so far no-one at all thinks that this complacent excuse for a government is behaving well or efficiently. Social media, again, is a poor guide to full public opinion, but Twitter is largely scathing.
It seems to me that the System is desperate to maintain a narrative to the effect that it “has control”, when in reality it has lost control. It does not take much of a leap of imagination to envisage what might happen in an even worse situation.
Say what you like about Blair (and I am and always have been totally opposed to him), but he is or was a pretty good public speaker. (Shame, though, about the deliberate importation of untold millions of blacks, browns, Roma gypsies and low-pay labour units, war on behalf of the NWO and Israel in Iraq, “mega-casino” plans, and most of his other policies…).
Coronavirus latest
NEW: Britons should get ready for “changes to our way of life and what our country looks like”
— ministers say measures will be extended for months rather than weeks — lasting from the end of March until at least the summer and “perhaps a lot longer”https://t.co/9LZP2YDVT0
I was and still am sceptical about some of the conspiracy theories that have been emerging, but I am now wondering where this is going (whether by design or opportunism): “Ministers are urging Boris Johnson to pass legislation that will radically extend the government’s emergency powers capabilities beyond the current 30 day time-limit.” [BuzzFeed News]
Profiteering
It is rare that I agree with “antifa” cheerleader Mike Stuchbery, but I do on the very rare occasions when he tweets the truth:
Some countries imprisoned people for this stuff during wartime. A few even issued the death penalty. https://t.co/UTQq99CJBs
After years of mixed reviews, the truth has hit: the NHS is now basically incapable of dealing at all with the most serious public health danger for decades, possibly since 1918.
the number of hospital beds per thousand of population is lower by far than in other “advanced” countries; below that of even the USA, and less than half of the number per capita available in France;
the number of intensive care beds is only 4,500 in the whole of the UK, about 1 for every 16,000 people. The number of beds actually operational is nearer to 1,500, so about 1 for every 45,000 inhabitants;
if people contract the illness, they are asked not even to call the NHS advice line (111) for over a week! We may as well be in black Africa!
people with the virus or who think that they may have it are asked to “self-isolate”, i.e. protect others and society as a whole by staying in their homes (so far, no red crosses are to be painted on their doors…), but for the sufferers themselves, for those that live with them (and the UK has a huge amount of shared occupancy and crowded housing) there is no help, not from the NHS, not from the medical profession, not from the State itself.
The British State has shown itself unable and in essence unwilling to help its people.
In the now almost-mythical past (pre-2010), when I myself owned Rolex watches, it only peripherally occurred to me that I might be attacked and robbed for one or another watch. I lived in almost-Central London; also in Almaty, Kazakhstan and elsewhere. I never had a problem (well, not one that could not be handled). Now? London has become a zoo with golden bars.
As to the victims in the report above, some seem very young to be sporting Rolex watches worth £6,000-£7,000. Only 18 and 19! They have wealthy and indulgent fathers? They are Lotto winners? Video game designers? “Rolex robbers” themselves? Well, there it is.
The “Great Replacement”: are the worms starting to turn?
In the parallel universe of Twitter, “#BorisOut” is trending, and not unjustly, after Boris-idiot’s pathetic attempt to play the statesman yesterday, and now that more people understand what people like me have been saying for years:
Boris Johnson is no good in a crisis;
Boris Johnson has no real ideas or ideals;
Boris Johnson is merely posing as Prime Minister;
Boris Johnson is incompetent
Twitter is far from the real political world at ground level, though. The irony is that most of the mortalities from Coronavirus are likely to be people over 70 who voted Conservative in 2019 and so are directly responsible for this government of fools even being in place. “If you listen very carefully, you can hear the Gods, laughing” [Commodus, allegedly]
More seriously:
'You must must learn from Italy's mistakes', health expert warns Europe https://t.co/SiLGSTt79k
“You say tomayto and I say tomato, you say shoes and I hear…JEWS”! (apparently, and if a paranoid Jew-Zionist nut…)
Tweet without comment
This article is very much important to each and every one of us. Please read and retweet it. COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US. https://t.co/LPanIo40MR
I have noticed in the past couple of years that quite a few of those who have engaged in persecuting me, denouncing me to various authorities and snooping on me, as well as insulting me on Twitter, have died or are fast declining by reason of terminal medical conditions. Not a few are also mentally disturbed.
I have just seen today that yet another one has apparently shuffled off the mortal coil.
Well, Andrew Sabisky, of whom I had never heard until he joined Dominic Cummings’ “weirdos and misfits”, has resigned, thus pre-empting his probable sacking.
What is the reality behind all of this? If you believe that Sabisky was ruled completely unsuitable because of his allegedly “horrific” views or behaviour, then you are not aware of the mountains looming behind the immediate view.
Were Sabisky’s views so terrible? It is said that he got some statistics wrong, some of “the science” wrong etc. Well, that would worry No.10, which even in the past decade has pushed ahead with policies (and with ministers and advisors proposing those policies) in the face of the preponderance of the known facts: examples would include the HS2 high-speed rail vanity project, the gigantic mess of a so-called “reform” of the “welfare”/social security system launched by Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, the whole nonsense “austerity” policy of David-Cameron-Levita and George Osborne etc.
Forget the small details. Look at the reality: IQ is lower on average in black countries, as compared to Northern Europe. There may be various reasons why that is so, from testing methodology to diet to education to whatever, but the facts are indisputable, really. Anyone who has visited other countries (outside Europe…in fact even in parts of Southern Europe, such as Bulgaria and Romania) knows that a good proportion of their populations is as thick as two short planks by Northern European standards. Not a judgment buttressed here by a ton of pointless statistics and contrived reasons, just the plain truth. And that is why this Sabisky person was sacked— because he spoke the plain truth.
Yes, there are exceptional individuals from the IQ point of view among the blacks and browns. Yes, there are mentally-weak individuals in the “white” Northern European countries or populations. We must make fair overall assessment. For example, I happened to be watching University Challenge yesterday. One team was dominated by an exceptionally well-informed black (really, mixed race) American, whom I had seen on a previous programme, and whose impressive knowledge was rendered even more impressive by the fact that he was from Jamaica, Queens (New York, not the Caribbean island of Jamaica), which is a pretty poor area not far from Kennedy Airport. It is not a place from where many international scholarship students emerge (I myself once went through that area, when my first wife took a wrong turn in leaving the airport). Yes, but that is one exceptionally able individual, an anomaly.
The Twittersphere went mad about Sabisky, though Twitter is really not very important. Most of those commenting now are merely “useful idiots” for the System or the Jewish lobby. More significantly, the msm went mad, the System political drones too. Why? They were willing to say “so what?” about such matters as Michael Gove snorting cocaine and/or being filmed drunk as a skunk in the Chamber of the House of Commons, or pathetic Jewish lobby puppet Stephen Crabb repeatedly and despairingly “sexting” teenage girls, or Priti Patel acting as an Israeli agent.
As for Sabisky himself, his origins and education are not so easy to discover, despite his sudden notoriety. He was apparently “home-schooled” by his own mother, though he also spent two brief periods at independent schools (unnamed; presumably not famous ones):
Obviously, with a name like Sabisky, the “superforecaster” is at least partly of non-UK origin. Looking at him, I would not be surprised to discover a part-Jew origin. I may be mistaken, I suppose. If anyone has anything (informational) to add, use the comments section below.
Sabisky’s father is Finance Director for the trade union Unite.
The Independent has published a piece by “antifa” person “Dr” Louise Raw; though she does possess a doctorate of sorts (from a “university” or other institution which she is very coy about identifying), she is not an academic; neither is she an historian in the usually-accepted sense (her “doctorate” was on one particular industrial dispute of 1888). Her main activity (apart from tweeting) seems to be occasionally talking on BBC Radio London and doing a (monthly, I believe) column for the Morning Star. She is, of course, not a scientist in any sense, so her “warning” about Eugenics carries no weight whatsoever.
Perhaps people should be asking, not “is Eugenics valid?” but “what in the Eugenics canon is valid?” (cf. “holocaust”).
Reverting as to why such a fuss about Sabisky, I think that the answer lies in the so-called Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, sometimes called “the Great Replacement”:
The international conspiracy (or “consensus”, if you like), also called by such names as “The Wise Men of the West” and, in a certain mode following their project, “the New World Order”, has decided that the future lies in North America and that, therefore, Europe is to be weakened and destroyed as a hub of world power, but kept as an economic building block of the NWO. How? By mixing the Europeans ethnically with Arabs, blacks etc. Particularly the Northern Europeans are to be wiped out as a distinct collection of peoples. The Great Replacement.
Thus it is that we see TV ads, soaps, films which show, increasingly, mixed-race couples, families, children etc. The plan has been carried out so blatantly in the UK that millions of British people are starting to ask “why is it that every family showm in ads has a mixed black-white couple (etc)?” Even a couple of Labour MPs asked that.
The idea is to make normal the idea of mixed relationships, marriages, children. The better future for Britain and Europe will thus be replaced by a worse future. The same idea lies behind all the fake “race relations”, “hate speech” and other stuff of that kind. The idiots applaud, of course, not even realizing that they are being used.
The ideas espoused by Sabisky, apparently mostly a few years ago, but brought out now by those hostile to them, stand in opposition to the plans of the international conspiracy. They had to be removed from proximity to government. Sabisky therefore also had to go. No dissent from the dictatorial and evil Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan will be allowed.
The midnight hour approaches…
Well, here we are, with no time to discuss other issues. In that case, just some music:
“The British military risks becoming irrelevant if it continues to focus on “missiles and tanks” as the main threats to the UK, the head of the Army has warned.”
“The army must “update and change the rules of war” according to the Chief of the General Staff, to be able to tackle new threats like cyber attacks, whilst also deterring countries that rely on heavy firepower.”
“General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said a focus on high-tech weapons that are no use against low-level threats like fake news and subversion “leaves us close to a position of dominant irrelevance”.”
“The main threat is not missiles and tanks, it is the weaponisation of globalisation, and those elements of globalization that have hitherto made us prosperous and secure: the mobility of goods, people, data and ideas.”
“Secure borders, or living on an island, are no guarantees against the corrosive and intrusive effect of disinformation, subversion and cyber.”
“The Army head suggested that traditional concepts of warfare were “increasingly redundant”.”
General Carleton-Smith fails to mention, at least specifically, mass immigration (and the subsequent and consequent births) as a factor impacting the very survival of the UK as a state, a country, a society.
Of course, if he did mention it in that context, he would be sacked.
At one time, the UK was a fairly cohesive society. Now it is not. It is a seething volcanic caldera, disguised only by a thin and disintegrating crust.
Look at what happened just today (4 June 2019):
A Trump supporter is milkshaked by a hostile crowd in Parliament Square.
A baying mob of anti-Trump “protesters” bait and then attack what seems to be a lone middleaged man. A porcine woman leads the abusive and violent multi-ethnic pack, shouting “nazi scum!” repeatedly into his face. I suppose that he was brought up not to punch a woman in the face, even one like her.
Look at the policewoman (or PCSO) who not only does not attempt to arrest the milkshake-thrower but looks terrified, before she is pushed aside by the crowd as an irrelevance. The police are just useless these days. That “officer” made no attempt to protect a citizen standing in the street outside Parliament itself. Well, in the end, she is just one woman in a clown outfit.
Incidentally, I am not exactly a Trump fan myself; that is another issue.
We often think that the UK is becoming a police state. How is that reconciled with the imminent social breakdown I am predicting? In fact, the two go together, and both are linked to the now-fragmented UK society.
As society becomes fragmented, the easy-going policing of the past has to change to try to contain the chaos just below the surface. In addition, anything which disturbs the surface calm, or relative calm, has to be criminalized. So we see that, as the foreign invading hordes and their offspring have multiplied in number, so have the penalties increased for anyone who suggests that they should not be in the UK, or should be removed one way or another.
This started in the 1960s with the first Race Relations Act (1965), and became increasingly more oppressive with subsequent Acts (1968, 1976, 1985, 2000, 2003). It is clear why: the threat of public order upheaval, as more and more “blacks and browns” (and others) arrived in the UK and started to breed.
Free speech, freedom of expression generally, freedom of choice (eg in offering employment, or housing or whatever) “had” to be curtailed for reasons of “preserving the Peace” and in order to keep up the pretence that the multi-ethnic/multicultural society can work, albeit at the expense of a certain loss of civic freedom.
There was also the realization that, as the non-British and indeed non-European populations expanded in size, they had to be pandered to, not “offended” etc, not because the reverse would be impolite or undiplomatic, but because those increasingly huge populations might rise up against the white British people who “allowed” them to come to the UK (though most of the British opposed mass immigration; it was always the System and its politicians etc that caused the influx and its problems).
It was and still is the Jewish Zionist element that was and still is behind much of the legal repression and the “ethnic” influx itself (“The Great Replacement”).
Over the years, the censorship of speech and restriction of actions has expanded from races and “ethnicities” to other parts of the general population: religions, sexual orientations etc.
You can now say, or post online, relatively innocuous views, only to find that you are not only faced with a virtual (online) mob baying for your blood, but also quite likely with a policeman at your door or on the telephone. My own experiences include this:
If you say something that offends the general orthodoxy, you may lose your job, your professional status, your liberty.
The satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz lost her job —singing for a cruise line— simply because her views supposedly offended some Jews, even though her views had nothing to do with that job. Later, she sang satirical songs about some of the hundreds (if not thousands) of “holocaust” fake stories. That resulted in a farcical cycle of police persecution, prosecutions, eventual trial, conviction, sentence, appeal and now (at time of writing) further appeal.
Jez Turner set up the London Forum discussion group. He also made a speech in Whitehall in 2015, recalling how the Jews had been expelled from England more than once (and hoping that they might yet be removed again). Put on trial in 2018. Convicted. His punishment? A year in prison (he served 6 months).
I too was subject to action (by the same Jew-Zionist element): see above, and also
The Zionist campaign against free speech and free historical enquiry is being resisted, but the mere fact that such repression of free speech exists is very significant.
In the last few years, the privatization of public space has led to the abuse of power by the main online platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc), and even the organizations behind or around such platforms: paypal, patreon, and so on.
When Twitter started to remove “unwanted” opinion from its pages, many turned to GAB, only to find that there was a strong and focussed attempt by the ZOG powers to destroy GAB. So far, it has survived. However, the campaign against free speech continues, and shows no sign of abating:
Indeed, even a joke made (and posted online) about a Guy Fawkes event in a suburban garden can result in a police raid, evidence “bagged up” as for a murder case etc. Am I making this up to prove my point? No.
Measures against free speech and freedom of expression are just, overall, a symptom of what is happening. By that I mean the fragility of civil society generally. We see that, as the police “crack down” on social media posts or stickers put up on university campuses (incredibly, some young people got 4 years in prison for the latter, quite recently), comments made in blogs etc, in the real world of the UK, crime and especially violent crime is getting out of control: London infested by mainly black and brown “moped raiders” and “scooter raiders” and muggers, “road rage” incidents, brawls etc. The courts are far more lenient, usually, on those real crimes than they are on the fake crimes or notional crimes of pretended offence.
I have seen over the years how thin the veneer of society is in the UK. As long ago as the petrol protests of 2000, I noticed that that veneer was already very very thin indeed. Fights breaking out over the fuel pumps etc.
The police cover has been reduced, and while the police seem to be enthusiastically noting and acting upon reports of anyone seriously (or even unseriously, thinking of the dog taught to do a “Hitler” salute! The owner got a heavy fine…) criticizing the failing multikulti society (or the Jews that are mainly behind it), they seem far less interested in the traditional role of the police, i.e. investigating real crime and keeping safe the citizenry.
As for the armed services, they seem to be going the same way. Reduced in numbers, and with their focus on the approved shibboleths of the “multi-everything” society: multi-ethnic, multicultural, LGBT-whatever friendly, with confused aims, ever-lowering standards and little ability to counter either conventional threats or new dangers.
There again, what are the armed forces actually defending? We are now at the 75th anniversary of the Normandy Landings. There may be disputes about whether the Second World War ever need have happened, about whether an honourable armistice between the British Empire and the German Reich might have been concluded in 1940, but leaving all that aside, the British servicemen and civilians of that era (albeit bamboozled by Churchill and his cabal, so be it…) knew, at least in their own minds, what their own society was! Something like the picture given in the popular song There’ll Always Be An England:
Is there a British society at all now? There are bits and pieces still operative, but the society as a whole is now a jigsaw. There are fissures and rifts and splits everywhere. Racial, ethnic, religious, ideological, sexual, economic etc. Some always existed, but not to this extent.
So we see a situation where, at the very time when the society itself is not a coherent whole, the forces which might compel civic obedience and discipline are not numerous or powerful enough to do so, despite theoretically strict laws relating to various areas.
What will happen in a situation (which might come sooner than many imagine) in which the population is without luxuries or even necessities? Who will control those seething and uncontrolled masses? Not the depleted Army. Not the very depleted police.
A social national movement does not exist in the UK. It may be that the only way for one to exist will be for its existence to become the only way for the whole society to exist.
I was just reading the blog of some Mancunian of whom I was unaware until today. I found his blog interesting despite his (to my mind, rather silly) pro-EU and (evident from his Twitter output) pro-immigration views.
His blog tells of how he and his family were immune from the mass hysteria all around after the death of Princess Diana. I found that interesting, partly because it echoes what I heard from people who were in London when it happened, in 1997 (the actual death was on 31 August 1997). I heard tales of pubs full of blubbing drinkers (days after the actual death), people who did not smile or even look normal in the streets, crowds treating Harrods department store (owned by Mohammed Fayed, the father of the last of Diana’s known lovers, Dodi Fayed) as if it were a shrine, taking flowers there etc.
In fact, I had seen the evidence of that last, because I had been to Harrods to buy a raincoat. I myself was not in England at the time of what I call the Diana Death Hysteria. I was then living in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Only about 70 English/British people lived in Almaty in 1997 (I know that because I had quite close contact with the small British Embassy and in fact visited the Embassy fairly frequently).
I did not have satellite TV and was unaware of the fact that Diana had died until 2 days later, when a colleague told me about it on Monday morning (the death having occurred on the weekend). I was later told that I was pretty much the only British person who had not gone to the Embassy to sign a book of condolence opened by the staff there.
On my return to London a few weeks later, I needed to buy a raincoat (it scarcely ever rains heavily in Almaty), so headed to Harrods in a taxi. When we approached the store, I noticed what seemed to be piles of trash outside Harrods, piled against crowd barriers. I asked the driver what that rubbish was doing there (to me it was reminiscent of the scenes seen during the 1979 “Winter of Discontent”, when rubbish went uncollected) but the driver replied, “that isn’t rubbish, Sir, it’s flower tributes for Princess Diana”. Well…
The phenomenon of mass hysteria or collective grief and/or jubilation has tended to pass me by. I also missed the mass celebrations for the Queen’s Silver Jubilee in 1977 because, again, I was at the time overseas and incommunicado (in Rhodesia). Those who experienced either or both have found it hard to explain what exactly happened to (other) people (I can only assume that my own connections and associates are a hard-bitten lot!).
I am no psychologist (or psychiatrist) but have some tentative theories, revolving around emotional triggers in the population. I have wondered whether such mass emotionalism could be harnessed for the public good in future. In the past, a usually more restrained type of emotionalism bound the British people together. In the 20th Century, that involved devices such as the Union flag, shared “experiences” (even if in reality never actually experienced by many of those emotionally affected), such as the two World Wars, the Poppy Day commemorations, noted historical events and people (such as Nelson, Trafalgar, Wellington and Waterloo, Richard the Lionheart, Florence Nightingale, Robin Hood), music such as “For those in peril on the sea“, the National Anthem, “There’ll Always Be An England” etc. A patriotic and historical pastiche, certainly, neither comprehensive nor even particularly accurate in parts, but true enough and simple enough to bind a people together.
Today, the UK population is so fragmented in terms of race, ethnicity, language, age, (what passes for) “ideology”, culture, even sexual orientation or display, that it is hard to imagine them coming together in collective grief (false or otherwise) or jubilation today. I suppose that some would point to football or cricket games, the Olympics etc, but these are minority interests, despite the large number interested.
If one talks to people, or watches the often incredibly ignorant TV quiz contestants, it is realized that many (and by no means always the “blacks and browns”) know next to nothing of British history, literature, music, or even basic geography. Their world is not even a post-1945 one, but a post-2000 one of X-Factor persons, “soaps”, “celebrities” of whom I at least have never heard, music which is either banal or simply noise.
It may be that the Diana mood of 1997 was an elegiac lament for a Britain —or more accurately an England— which was on the point of disappearing (and now has disappeared).
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…
Today outside Parliament I and others were accosted by people shouting f****** traitor as we tried to get in to vote. Our staff were advised to leave the building for their own safety. There were armed police everywhere. This is not normal
No idea how demonstrators today behaved because I wasn’t there. But if they were cross to have been denied Brexit tonight after being told it would be on 29/4/19 for 2 long years, it’s not surprising is it? Sometimes civil disorder is the rational response to the abuse of power.
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.
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.
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?
I have thought for a week or so before writing this. As one would expect, there has been an outpouring of virtue-signalling (accompanied by State repression or threats thereof) not seen since the Anders Breivik event in Norway eight years ago. I wanted to write not only about the Christchurch shooting itself, and about the perpetrator, but also about surrounding events and the overall context. I also want to examine the moral and ethical aspects.
Firearms
There are many mass shootings in the world. The USA alone seems to have one on a weekly if not daily basis (and those are only the ones which are reported heavily). The anti-gun lobby focusses on ease of access in the USA, New Zealand etc. Obviously, if a disturbed (or other) person cannot acquire firearms, then he cannot shoot people; he can, however, stab them, blow them up, drive at them etc.
Firearms events have more victims, usually. Having said that, one could say “ban cars, because some people misuse them”, to which the answer would no doubt come, “people need cars, they don’t need guns”. Well, true, though still arguable. It all depends on where society decides to draw the line. In the UK, since the late 1990s, it has been almost impossible to own lawfully-held firearms (except shotguns and, in some cases, certain types of hunting rifle). That was not always the case.
“Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 with the exception of Northern Ireland. Dunblane was the UK’s first and only school shooting. There has been one spree killing since Dunblane, the Cumbria shootings in June 2010, which involved a shotgun and a .22 calibre rifle, both legally-held. Prior to Dunblane though, there had only been one mass shooting carried out by a civilian in the entire history of Great Britain, which took place in Hungerford on 19 August 1987.” [Wikipedia]
Note that. In the entire history of Great Britain there have only been three mass shootings, yet the government took the opportunity to ban most firearms (at which time there had only been two such events in British history), and did so with the apparent agreement of a majority, probably high, of the general public, most of whom know nothing about firearms, have never so much as seen one (other than on TV), and who were stampeded by the publicity around the 1996 Dunblane school murders.
At one time, there was little regulation of firearms in the UK:
“Following the assassination of William of Orange in 1584 with a concealed wheellock pistol, Queen Elizabeth I, fearing assassination by Roman Catholics, banned possession of wheellock pistols in England near a royal palace in 1594.[73] There were growing concerns in the 16th century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use in England and Wales.[74]
The Bill of Rights restated the ancient rights of the people to bear arms by reinstating the right of Protestants to have arms after they had been illegally disarmed by James II. It follows closely the Declaration of Rights made in Parliament in February 1689.[75] The Bill of Rights text declares that “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law”.” [Wikipedia]
“British common law applied to the UK and Australia, and until 1791 to the colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of common law.”
Starting in 1903, there were restrictions placed on purchase of certain firearms (mainly pistols), subsequent Acts of 1920, 1937, 1968 and 1988 tightening the law in other respects too.
It is worth noting that, following the two 1997 Acts, which effectively banned private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) and required surrender of thus-affected weapons, 57,000 people (0.1% of the population) handed in 162,000 weapons and 700 tons of ammunition! In other words, one maniac with a few weapons became the trigger (so to speak) for a law which affected at least 57,000 people all of whom had held and used their weapons peacefully until then!
I personally was not affected by the ban, though I was at one time (mid 1970s/mid 1980s) a member of the Kensington Rifle and Pistol Club in London. In the UK and/or other countries, I have fired a variety of weapons, including the 7.62 R-1 automatic/semi-auto rifle (there was a switch on the side), semi-automatic pistols including the 9mm Browning Hi-Power and numerous others in .32 and .22 calibre, and also revolvers such as the Colt .32, .38 and .357 Magnum, and have handled (overseas and mostly long ago, again in the 1970s and 1980s) others, such as the famous Uzi submachinegun and some Warsaw Pact automatic weapons. Despite that, I am not in fact particularly interested in firearms (or any weapons) and, even in the unlikely event of the 1997 Acts being repealed, would probably not bother to join a gun club. As far as shotguns are concerned, I have used them in Ireland and in England (in England only for clay pigeon, because I disapprove of shooting birds and animals for sport or “fun”). I myself have never privately owned any firearm.
I doubt that many people now even know that there used to be public ranges in England, where for a small fee, people could take their own weapons and fire them. I went once (in 1976) to the one at Dartford (Kent), quite near what was then a (disused?) mental hospital. Now the area is probably either a housing development or perhaps might be the present Dartford Clay Shooting Club, which (I just saw on Google) seems to be at or near the same location (it is not an area that I know, though).
Most British people have never fired nor even seen a firearm and that does tend to colour their reaction.
In the USA, things are of course very different. The old English Common Law right to bear arms is written into the U.S. Constitution, though muddied by the famous words about “a well-regulated militia” etc. Leaving aside the legal and quasi-theological arguments revolving around that Amendment, it always seemed to me when I lived there (in New Jersey) that it was odd for many American states to require people to have a licence to own or at least drive a car, but not a pistol, shotgun or something even more dangerous.
In the UK, people tend to say, “look at the USA: easy ownership of guns and a massacre every week!”, but that has to be set against the fact that tens and probably hundreds of millions of Americans own firearms. Probably the vast majority have never received even the most basic training. True, there are huge numbers of crimes committed with firearms in the USA, but simply banning guns (as in some other countries) is a simplistic solution which might leave American citizens helpless. Societies differ. I met an American lady, a blonde with startlingly blue eyes, in the Caribbean. She said that she had a large silver-plated semi-automatic pistol (I forget the marque), which she kept under her pillow. I never got to see it, by the way!
As far as New Zealand is concerned, its gun ownership laws were lax compared to the UK or even Australia, but huge numbers of New Zealanders (about 5% of the population, 250,000 out of 5 million) own at least one weapon. New Zealand is a country about 10% larger than the UK but with only about 5 million inhabitants. Much of the country is rural. There had never been a massacre there such as the one recently perpetrated in Christchurch by Brenton Tarrant.
First impressions, Muslims in the UK and NZ, the history, the demographics
When the Christchurch attack happened and the news organizations started to report, my first surprise was to hear that New Zealand has 50,000 Muslims living there! That figure may seem small, but is still 1% of the whole population.
In the UK, there were at one time effectively no Muslims, though trade with Muslim lands, evidenced by coins, goes back at least as far as the time of King Offa in the 8th Century. All the same, there were only a few Muslims in England, mostly diplomats, traders etc, for centuries, e.g. in the Tudor and Stuart periods (15th-17thC), until sailors from British India (mostly Bengal) known as lascars started to spend time in ports such as London, Bristol, Liverpool etc in the 19thC. There may have been 10,000 at any one time, but few were permanent residents. The Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle occasionally mention lascars, not infrequently preceded by words such as “rascally”.
The first small mosque in England was built in Woking (Surrey) in 1889 (it’s still there, quite near the railway station), having been built there adjunct to an Islamic burial ground. The first mosque in London only appeared in 1924. By 2007, there had been established 1,500 mosques in the UK! Now, in 2019, the figure is even greater: 1,750 [BBC statistic]. 250 more mosques in little more than a decade…
[please see addendum at foot of this blog post]
As to the population figures, England and Wales had 50,000 Muslims in 1961. That was then around 0.1% of the whole population. A decade later, in 1971, there were 226,000, a quadrupling, then by 1981, 553,000; 1991, 950,000. Doubling every decade at that point. Then 1.6 million in 2001; 2.7 million by 2011 and, a mere three years later in 2014, well over 3 million.
The present number of UK-based Muslims is not officially known but is around 3.5 million.
So in the UK, 50,000 Muslims became (via immigration and births) 3.5 million within little more than half a century. New Zealand has 50,000 now. New Zealand has different immigration and other factors as compared to the UK, but will New Zealand, a land of only 5 million people now, have a population of Muslims alone of 3.5 million by, say, 2075 or 2100? It cannot be dismissed out of hand. At that point, the Muslims would be already dominant even if the general NZ population will by then have grown to, say, 10 million (twice its present level). Yes, that projected third of the population could in fact be the dominant bloc. A laser is powerful because its light is concentrated and disciplined, not diffuse.
The intention of the shooter
It seems that the perpetrator of the massacre had been travelling, perhaps using inherited monies, for 7 years. Information given out by the msm indicates that Tarrant was “radicalized” not while a member of some group or party, but by events witnessed while travelling around Europe and, finally, in New Zealand itself.
The manifesto of Brenton Tarrant, The Great Replacement, will not be reproduced here. It is found with ease on the Internet, via Google or the like. I do not want to give anyone hostile the excuse to say that, by posting it on here, I am somehow “encouraging” terrorism or political violence. It does seem very repressive that major Internet platforms have been pressured to remove his manifesto, and have acquiesced.
Reading that manifesto, the motivation of Brenton Tarrant seems to be almost impersonal on the face of it. It has elements of sacrifice and self-sacrifice. It shows determination (he has that in common with Breivik). As to education or erudition, I do not think that he lays claim to much, but there is intelligence manifest in the document. He has learned (whatever might be said about that) from his travels.
Politically, Brenton Tarrant describes himself as an “ethno-nationalist”. He also says (the manifesto is mostly written in Q & A format):
“Were/are you a nazi?
No, actual nazis do not exist.They haven’t been a political or social force anywhere in the world for more than 60 years.”
That is a good point. As Hitler said, “National Socialism is not for export.” Hitler also remarked to his last secretary, Traudl Junge, and others, in 1945, that German National Socialism was finished, but that something with the same essential core might emerge “in a “hundred years” and then “take hold of the world with the force of a religion”. Well, here we are in 2019, 100 years after the founding of the NSDAP, though of course we are only 74 years from the end of the Reich.
Tarrant also describes himself as an “eco-fascist” as well as writing that he is at one with many of the policies expounded by Oswald Mosley. A word of explanation might be useful here. I knew someone who was at one time quite well acquainted with Mosley. She always said that he was basically an intellectual who saw himself as a “man of action” (“Action” was also the name of Mosley’s newspaper). Mosley of course was also a “man of action”, who had flown in the First World War (where he was a fellow-officer of the aforesaid lady’s husband in the Royal Flying Corps), but he, arguably, made too much of sports, fencing, physical fitness generally, as a politician. That was the Zeitgeist of the 1930s though, not only in Germany and Italy but in the UK, where lidos and indoor public swimming pools etc proliferated.
Mosley was once described as someone who could have been a great prime minister of the UK, for either [System] party. He was unwilling to accept mass unemployment, so resigned from the Labour Party (under which he was a government minister).
Mosley is now remembered, in the public mind, in the “cartoon” version put out by a largely Jewish mass media: the sneering Fascist demagogue in his black uniform. As with all important lies, of course, there was a kernel of truth in that.
As to Tarrant’s “eco-fascism”, there has always been linkage between “green” politics, environmentalism etc, and social nationalism. See:
In fact, the author Henry Williamson, who wrote Tarka the Otter, combined Englishness, support for Mosley and support for German National Socialism with being an early environmentalist and, in essence, “green” activist:
Tarrant declares in his manifesto that he will not kill NZ police. He kept to that and allowed himself to be captured. He also makes the following point:
“Were/are you a supporter of Brexit?
Yes, though not for an official policy made. The truth is that eventually people must face the fact that it wasn’t a damn thing to do with the economy.That it was the British people firing back at mass immigration, cultural displacement and globalism, and that’s a great and wonderful thing.”
Amen to that.
He adds, re. Marine le Pen’s party in France:
“Were/are you a supporter of Front National?
No,they’re a party of milquetoast civic nationalist boomers, completely incapable of creating real change and with no actual viable plan to save their nation.“
Rather oddly, Tarrant says that one Candace Owens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens#Political_views was a major influence. I had to look up her details. I myself see nothing of any real interest there, but this blog post is about the New Zealand attack and its author, not me.
As to the psychology of Brenton Tarrant, hard to say. True, he shares some characteristics with other “rampage killers”, being marginalized by society, not having a solid career or place in society, not having a solid marriage or other relationship either. He seems to be sane and in fact makes some very good if obvious points in his manifesto. No doubt the New Zealand state’s psychiatrists will find suitable labels to attach…
The reaction of the New Zealand state, msm and public
Once the initial shock of the massacre ebbed, there was a wave of sympathy for the victims, especially in New Zealand itself. Looking at the TV news, one can see how warm-hearted the New Zealanders are, though it is all too easy to see a crowd of a few hundred and assume that it represents a whole country. The New Zealanders have proven that they have a heart. It is far more doubtful as to whether they have a head. Like Australia, New Zealand has gone from being an entirely white European society (albeit grafted onto an existing “native” one) to a developing multikulti mess, but the extent of that is probably slight enough in terms of numbers and percentages (so far) that most New Zealanders are unaware of it. I cannot say.
The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, immediately started virtue-signalling on an epic scale, wearing Arab dress and insisting that even women police officers did the same. It was rather chilling to see an armed policewoman carrying her automatic rifle and wearing the Arab hijab. Reminiscent of the ISIS barbarians.
Stray thoughts
Many of those who virtue-signalled like mad about the people shot in New Zealand scarcely noticed, I think, the many killed recently by American or British bombers when the ISIS barbarians were under attack. The ISIS fighters had to take their chances, perhaps their camp-followers too, but what about uninvolved civilians? What about small children also killed by the assaults on towns such as Raqqa?
Then take another example: the Second World War bombings (on both sides, though the Allied bombing was far worse, in Germany, both in terms of numbers killed and in terms of intensity). In Japan, the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have supported the war effort, may also have been related to soldiers or whatever, but were themselves not combatants. Their children even less so.
[above, Dresden 1945]
To attribute blame becomes difficult. That is why human beings cling to the conventional. Many will have seen The Night of the Generals, which is based around questions like that: in the midst of a massive war, where thousands are being killed monthly or weekly, and where the Wehrmacht resistance to Hitler is in the background (with its premise that Hitler must die for the greater good…), an investigation is launched into the murder of a prostitute.
If conventional morality says that it is justified for a state to kill civilians and even civilian children for some larger end result, then perhaps the same argument could be used by an individual who massacres civilians whom he regards as either “the enemy” or “collateral damage” to achieve some larger end? The moral question which looked so clear superficially becomes opaque.
For me, the NZ shooting was unpleasant, unnecessary and possibly counter-productive. Tarrant obviously disagrees with that conclusion. All one can say is that the large-scale movements of population will continue until someone says or enough people say NO.
Nature's sublime experience with its terrifying beauty of incomprehensible power threatens our human finiteness with the infinitude of spaces. Human speech fails to fully describe its vast power likewise it cannot be defined ethically [good or evil]. pic.twitter.com/Ng5NB1nkOB
“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).
One sometimes hears contestants on quiz shows asked “which BBC radio drama series was started in order to inform farmers about what they should be doing?” Answer: The Archers. What is less well-known is that the same method is now used across the mass media and especially on TV to push the “multiracial society”.
I am not an avid or regular watcher of TV soaps such as Emmerdale. However, I have noticed on odd occasions over the years that such serial dramas or melodramas are being used to push the multiracial/multicultural society which has been a major part of the System gameplan for many decades.
Gradually, black and brown characters are introduced, to the extent that these rural communities (such as that portrayed in Emmerdale) have to have blacks, Asians (as well as gays, lesbians, drug-abusers, mixed-race relationships etc) to a far greater extent than exist in any real country village. A few years ago, “activists” complained that there were no blacks and browns in Midsomer Murders. Guess what? There now are…
The above nonsense is not confined to TV soaps, either…
The wish to virtue-signal the usual rubbish about “inclusivity” etc reaches a high level (I hesitate to say “apotheosis”) in the period dramas such as Inspector George Gently, Grantchester, Endeavour etc. I was born in 1956 (in Reading, Berkshire), was living in those years right on the Berkshire/Oxfordshire border and the only black person I can remember even seeing in the early 1960s was the NHS ear, nose and throat consultant whom I attended a few times aged about 7, at the Royal Berkshire Hospital (he was from the Caribbean). Yet if you were to watch, say, Grantchester, there are blacks and South Asians etc (not to mention gays) aplenty in that little Cambridgeshire village c.1950! The same is true of, say, Endeavour, the prequel to Inspector Morse.
Why is all this important? Because people who were not around in this or that year of the past get at least some of their ideas of that past time from such dramas shown on TV, or in the cinema. Why else would Hollywood Jews such as Spielberg continually make films showing a basically untrue picture of the Second World War? They want to imbue the public with certain (fake) “facts” and so affect and influence socio-political thoughts, words and actions today. Those who live in the British countryside today know that the real percentage of black and brown residents there is small; the number of inter-racial relationships or marriages even smaller, perhaps vanishingly so. Yet day after day, the British TV audience is washed over with waves of falsity in this regard. Brainwashing in slow time.
Then there are the TV ads. The brainwashing here has become so blatant that quite a number of people on social media, and who are the opposite of social-national in political attitude, have protested; even a couple of (Labour) MPs have said that it is absurd that pretty much every ad now seems to show a mixed-race family or an inter-racial one (usually with a black man as “father figure” or “husband”, and an English —i.e. white— woman, often blonde, as “mother”/”wife”). Sainsbury’s, Halifax, you name it. There are dozens of examples, so many that it cannot be mere co-incidence…
Why? Well, we have to start with the fact that media studies courses at universities and colleges, particularly in the large cities, attract rather many Jewish students, who are usually actively “anti-racist” (except in terms of their own arrogant Jewish-Zionist “racism”, which is often ingrained). Those students go on to join TV companies, ad agencies etc. Also, less obviously, there are secret or occult forces working behind the scenes to push what is sometimes termed the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan or agenda [see Notes, below]. When the whole advertising industry comes up with almost identical ads, something is going on.
Take a look at the Halifax ad at the foot of this blog post: black “father”/”husband”, white “wife”, in an advanced state of pregnancy.
It must be emphasized that these ads (and soaps etc) do not just reflect UK society but are designed to create a new —multiracial, “multicultural”— society. Multiracial families of the sort shown in countless ads do exist but are relatively rare. The aim of the ads and the soaps and other presentations is to normalize inter-racial relations, mixed-race offspring and, ultimately, to destroy the white Northern European race or ethnicity; in the UK, in mainland Europe, throughout the world.
The infected areas of our society have to be purged or cleansed; this type of evil propaganda must be rooted out wherever found.
The evil must be stopped in its tracks.
Finally, it probably has to be pointed out that the aim of social-nationalism is not to promote “hate” (as the Zionists and their mindless “antifa” dupes tend to aver) but to create the conditions necessary for a quantum leap of the advanced part of the human species. This could never be accomplished out of a mixed-race or non-European population. There has to be the right ethnic foundation. That is why the forces of Evil oppose us.
A Nigerian working in advertising in the UK actually admits that I am right, in effect:
“Greater diversity
This year, amidst the discussion in the industry about whether “Buster the boxer” orWes Anderson won Christmas, one important aspect of the seasonal campaigns has been largely overlooked – their diversity.
There wasn’t much variation to the themes, which typically revolved around traditional subjects such as family gatherings, celebrations, and (surprise, surprise) the joy of giving. However the diversity of people featured in the ads themselves stood out. For example, this year’s John Lewis campaign wasn’t just a departure for the brand because it was funnier than usual; it featured a black family for the first time. Currys PC World also cast a black family for its ad. Sainsbury’s animated tale featured a family of mixed ethnicities. Boots showcased a diverse array of women who work on Christmas day. Not to be outdone, Amazon portrayed the charming friendship of a Christian priest and a Muslim imam.
The John Lewis Christmas ad featured a black family for the first time
That wasn’t all. This year’s House of Fraser’s Christmas ad looked more like a Beyoncé video and M&S made Mrs Claus the star of its campaign. Meanwhile Pret A Manger produced a no-frills spot to highlight their apprenticeship scheme for the homeless, featuring a woman from an ethnic minority background who was forced out onto the streets by her own community because of her sexuality.
Step in the right direction
While it is easy to get cynical about these things, I see it as welcome progress. Diversity has been one of the hottest topics in advertising over the last year, with increasing calls for a more representative industry. Initiatives such as the Great British Diversity Experiment sought to prove that greater diversity leads to better creativity. If these Christmas campaigns are anything to go by, it seems that the message is getting through…
In post-Brexit Britain these ads also send out a covertly political message. Much of the marketing communications industry was in shock after the vote to leave the EU, with many wondering if more could have been done to counteract the negative sentiment that emerged during the referendum campaign.”
In other words, the people behind these ads promoting “diversity” (black-brown monoculture and the trashing of our European society, in reality) have a distinct socio-political agenda and their output is only incidentally selling this or that bank, supermarket etc; the ads are poisonous socio-political propaganda using “commercial cover”. More than that, these traitors to Europe’s peoples and future are acting in concert. Consensus. Conspiracy.
One “Matthew Chapman” on the same subject:
“The festive ad offerings from John Lewis, M&S and Morrisons all feature multi-ethnic families, while Sainsbury’s and Tesco show a wide range of people from different races and religions. Debenhams, meanwhile, created a film that reimagines the Cinderella love story and stars a black man and white woman.“
(He seems to like the fact that a traditional European tale has been trashed).
I want to know why on practicality every British TV advert we have a Mixed race family ? What is all this propaganda about ITV Channel 4 Channel 5. This is pure anti whiteism against the British population and insults intelligence. This is NOT a racist tweet just a question?
A reader of my blog who lives in Argentina writes recently by way of comment:
“Yes, Ian, I remember reading it [the article above]. Very good, as usual.
Strangely enough, Mark Collett made a video showing that some of the biggest retailers in the UK modified their diversity-driven Christmas’ ads last December as a consequence of negative comments they got from customers over the 2018 Christmas campaign that was full of blacks and browns.
Having said that, the majority of whites in the UK, like those in Australia or the US, are brainwashed idiots unwilling to react. I think it is a sign of the times.
Regarding that English Civil War memorial [in Worcester] vandalized by the BLM crowd, I agree with you. The brainless morons must have believed that it was about the US Civil War, showing their colossal ignorance, but what can you expect from riff-raff like that? That is “progressive” (Marxist) education for you.“
Update, 14 January 2026
Hey @Grok is this real ad from Denmark? What is he saying in this video. Translate in full to English please.
First of all, semblance. The msm have been attacking Labour and especially Corbyn-Labour ever since his election as Labour leader. Corbyn himself is said to be “a friend of terrorists” (from the IRA to HAMAS and Black September), a paid tool of Iran, as well as (not very crypto-) Communist and “anti-Semite”. In fact, the attacks on Corbyn have come, ultimately, from only one source, the UK Jewish-Zionist lobby. You see it on Twitter. Pretty much all of the Zionist Jews on Twitter say the same things or raise a little storm at the same time. Like a shoal of fish.
The Jewish-Zionist lobby controls the anti-Corbyn MPs in Labour. Slowly, they are being removed or are resigning. John Woodcock has resigned from Labour (though not as MP! He wants to keep getting his pay and very inflated expenses for as long as possible!); Michael Dugher resigned as MP too (and was found a suitably-lucrative job outside politics…); Simon Danczuk (like Woodcock) was mired in sex scandal –apart from anything else– and tried to get re-elected as Independent, only to be humiliated; Luciana Berger tried to get a better-paid job as Mayor of Liverpool, but failed. Others are jumping ship or being shunted toward deselection.
So there we have the semblance: the manufactured storms in the msm about “anti-Semitism” and the other stormlets re. Corbyn as IRA collaborator in the 1970s or 1980s. These mean something to an older generation, perhaps, and of course the “anti-Semite” label means something to the approximately quarter of a million Jews in the UK (hardly any of whom vote Labour now anyway).
However, the anti-Corbyn propaganda is not reaching most people under 40 and, still less, those under 30. They are mostly not much interested by the fact that Jews and/or pro-Israel persons hate Corbyn; as for the “Corbyn was pro-IRA” stuff, even if there is some truth in it, that was mostly about 40 years ago, before they were even born. The under 40s are likely to vote on the basis of reality, meaning their reality.
What do I mean by “reality”? One person’s reality is another person’s “unimportant detail” or “cloud cuckoo land”. That is what most of the msm and the “Remain” whiners failed to understand about the pro-Brexit Leave vote in the EU Referendum: for an affluent family in London or the Home Counties, what mattered was (the perception) that the UK’s economy might be depressed by Brexit, that their daughter might be prevented from taking up that unpaid intern position at a Milan fashion house, that their son might not be able to get a lucrative job as a lawyer or accountant with a transnational enterprise in Brussels, Berlin or wherever; that their holiday home in Provence might lose value; that they might not get cheap Eastern European labour to help in the house or garden; that it might take longer to drive off the ferry during holidays etc.
On the other side, a man in the North of England was asked during the Referendum campaign whether he was worried that UK GDP might suffer if the UK exited the EU. His reply: “not really, it’s only me and the dog anyway…”! Easy to scoff, but that was his reality and arguably as “real” as the paper figures for economic performance are to the staff of the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme. What matters to the soldier in the battle? That the battle was won (or lost), or that he lost his life?
Reality for huge numbers of people (potential voters) in the UK means incredibly expensive and often now basically unaffordable housing (whether rented or bought), expensive and overcrowded transport and roads, an NHS which has declined perceptibly for many years, poor pay, fewer real civil rights, a largely-destroyed social security system, a continuing migration-invasion (though perception re. that is blunted because of the huge, pervasive race-mixing propaganda everywhere, eg in TV ads).
Now when those voters vote, most are going to vote on the basis of that reality, not on the basis that Jews (who are in any case not much liked or trusted, on the whole, by most British people) dislike Corbyn or his supporters, or because Corbyn’s connections with the IRA in the 1970s were very doubtful.
The above musings explain why I think that Labour’s vote is likely to be higher than most commentators in the msm expect. In their reality, what matters is whether Labour is “anti-Semitic”, or anti-EU, or anti the (supposedly) free market, or whether “the economy” might be damaged by Brexit or by a Labour government. Those commentators inevitably think as conditioned by their own circumstances and peer group. They make £100,000 or even (in some cases) £500,000+ a year, and certainly not less than £50,000, whereas the “average” (not median) salary in the UK is only around £28,000 and many many people (either employed or not) are actually surviving on as little as half of that.
The msm commentators own their own homes, often outright; they do not have to spend a third or even half their income on rent; au contraire! Many are actually buy to let parasites themselves! They do not have to live in shared houses, or on decaying council estates.
I am willing to accept that about 25% of the voters will vote Conservative at the next general election whatever the defaults of the governments since 2010, either out of self-interest or because of an ingrained dislike of Labour (or because they see a photo of Diane Abbott on Election Day!). That percentage might even be 35%. The other 65% to 75% is in the hazard. Everything depends, in the crazy UK First Past The Post electoral system, on what happens in the 50-150 more marginal constituencies. In our electoral system, a party needs a concentration of support, a Schwerpunkt. Thus it is that the Green Party, which has about 2% support, has an MP (in Brighton…) yet UKIP, which had a nearly 12% overall vote in 2015, has no MPs.
Though no psephologist, I should say that Labour has every chance of becoming the largest party in the House of Commons after the next general election, even if falling short of a majority. Because voters will vote on their reality, not on newspaper semblance.
Final thoughts
Thinking about blocs of support, Labour has, in broad brush terms, the under-40s, maybe even the under-50s; also the ethnic minorities (except Jews); also almost anyone earning the average salary or less. I cannot see the Conservative Party winning a Commons majority.
Update, 11 December 2020
Looking at the above article more than two years after it was written, my conclusion was wrong even though my reasoning was correct. Ironic.
I underestimated the suggestive power of the mass media and overestimated the common sense of the average voter.
Having said that, only a small number of 2017 Labour Party voters moved to be Conservative Party voters in 2019. The Conservatives increased their vote over that of 2017 by only about 1 point, but Labour’s vote declined by 8 points, and nearly half of that was 2017 Labour voters refusing to vote at all in 2019.
Ian Robert Millard 