Category Archives: Reminiscences and Musings

Barristers, Solicitors and Fees (and a few other things that irritate me)


As some of my readers will know, I was from 1991 to 2008 a working barrister (sometimes in practice in England, sometimes employed by international law firms); I was also nominally a barrister, but neither practising nor employed, from 2008-2016. In 2016, I was disbarred by reason of a malicious Jew-Zionist complaint against me by a pro-Israel lobby group known as “UK Lawyers for Israel” (see the Notes at the foot of this blog post).

232323232fp93232)uqcshlukaxroqdfv975(=ot)3;8 =73(=33(=XROQDF)26 (8;953824;ot1lsi

[photo: me as newly-minted pupil-barrister in or about 1992, aged however about 35]

As matters now stand, I have no personal interest in the Bar or the legal professions (the Bar, the solicitors’ profession etc); I do have a general socio-political interest, however, as well as a liking –perhaps excessive– for walking down Memory Lane (my natal chart has Saturn in Scorpio, for those with interest in such things).

I was impelled to write today having seen the Twitter output of someone calling himself “Abused Lawyer”:


I start from the premise that a society of any complexity requires law, a legal system, legal rights and duties etc. By way of example, as long ago as the Babylonian Empire (c.600 BC), there existed laws dealing with the ongoing liability of builders to purchasers of houses (English law only caught up with this in, I think, the 1970s). At any rate, any complex society requires correspondingly-detailed laws.

Legal complexity is a sign of a complex society, just as the existence of “celebrity chefs” and “celebrity” sportsmen (etc) is a sign of a decadent society (as in the latter days of the Roman Empire: discuss).

Laws alone, however, are only the start. In order to have effect, laws need pillars of support: (equitable) enforcement, at the very least. Stalin’s Russia had laws on paper, but was very arbitrary and unjust in enforcement. English law has always said that “where there is a right, there is a remedy” and that that remedy will consist in, at root, enforcement of criminal law by a criminal penalty, or in civil law a civil ruling providing for compensation or a mandatory compulsion or prohibition.

There is a further point. In order to get from right to remedy, you need a mechanism with which to do that. In an ideal society, every citizen would be educated enough, have sufficient will or resolve (and the means necessary) to be his/her own lawyer. In reality, there is a need, in every society beyond the smallest and most primitive, for a group of lawyers, so that citizens can be advised, protected, fought for, defended, and also so that society functions with relative smoothness.

As societies progress, they go from having no lawyers, to having a few who are supposedly unpaid amateurs or monied gentlemen who receive only gifts (honorarii) from the grateful, then on to having lawyers who are paid freelancers (or, in some countries, salaried employees of the State).

The question arises as to how to remunerate lawyers. In England, there were at one time several kinds of lawyer: barristers, “attorneys”, “sergeants”, “notaries” etc. These categories were whittled down (for most purposes) to only two by the late 19th Century: barristers (in four “Inns of Court” in London) and solicitors. The barristers, when paid, were paid by the solicitors, who in turn were paid by their lay clients (the term “lay” coming, like much else, from the ecclesiastical vocabulary of the late Middle Ages).

The first State-paid legal aid scheme (criminal) in England dated from the 1890s and covered only the most serious offences (particularly murder, then a capital offence). After WW2, it became gradually clear that both justice and convenience required State funding for at least the more serious criminal offences dealt with at the Assizes and Quarter Sessions (from 1971, the Crown Courts). Civil legal aid dates from 1949 and expanded greatly until 2010, when it started to be drastically cut back, along with criminal legal aid.

When I started at the Bar in 1993 as a real working barrister and not a mere “first six” pupil (spectator and dogsbody), I did quite a lot of publicly-funded work: criminal “rubbish” (in the charming Bar term) in the magistrates’ courts and (far less commonly) the Crown Courts; Legal Aid-funded and also privately-funded civil work in the County Courts (housing, landlord and tenant, contract, various tortious disputes) and in the High Court: judicial reviews (mostly housing and immigration-related), which were via Legal Aid; also contractual problems, libels etc, which were privately-paid.

Even in 1993, criminal legal aid was not too generous (I was in the wrong sort of chambers to get lucrative frauds or other really serious criminal cases), though I still recall the unexpected pleasure at getting a £5,000 fee for 5 days at City of London Magistrates’ Court, an “old-style” committal in a cheque fraud case which later went to the Old Bailey for trial. A Nigerian solicitor and another Nigerian, a recently-Called barrister, cheated me out of that trial, but that’s another story….

I do recall that I did go to court from time to time for “Mentions”, a nuisance involving going somewhere, dressing up, then appearing for (usually) 5 minutes before a judge, all for £45, if memory serves (I was told about 10 years ago that the fee for that was still below £50, 15+ years later!).

On the other hand, I knew several people who, having gone to the Bar in 1988 or 1989 with relatively modest academic qualifications, had started to get lucrative and legally-aided criminal work by 1993. One was making around £100,000 p.a. by being led (i.e. by a Q.C.) in large-scale frauds. The average salary in the UK at the time would have been around £15,000 to £20,000, I suppose.

It is a question of where the line is drawn. The general public read of the few barristers making millions (some from legal aid) and are unaware of the fact that many barristers (solicitors too) make almost joke money, such as (in 2018) £20,000 a year, £30,000 a year etc. That applies especially to criminal barristers (and solicitors). The barrister has many expenses to pay, too, from Chambers fees and rent (which work out at as much as 20% of gross fees received) to parking, fuel etc (in the 2002-2008 period I myself travelled all over the UK, and also to mainland Europe and beyond by car, ferry and plane).

Lawyers must be paid, but how well? Unfortunately, this cannot be left to public sentiment. Just as, per Bill Clinton, “you can’t go too far on welfare” (because the public love to see the non-working poor screwed down on), it seems that the public have, understandably but ignorantly, no sympathy for lawyers! The newspapers make sure of it. On the other hand, read what “Abused Lawyer” has to say…

Further Thoughts

My first thoughts are that the governments since 2010 and perhaps before have had no real interest in the law as a major pillar of society. The court buildings themselves are often not much to look at. Many of the newer (post 1945) Crown Courts are in the “monstrous carbuncle” region, though there are a few modern courts that are better, such as Truro and Exeter, both of which I visited often when practising at the Bar out of Exeter in the years 2002-2007.

Some County Courts are appalling to look at: I once had to appear at Brighton County Court, which is or was like a public loo in almost every respect. Again, I was once only at Walsall County Court: I saw a magnificent 18thC building in the neoclassic style (pillared frontage etc) with the legend “Walsall County Court” on it. However, it turned out that that building had been sold and that the real County Court was now situated nearby in what had obviously been a shop, possibly a furniture emporium. Now, about 14 years later, I have just read that the original building is a Wetherspoon’s pub! Britain 2018…

If you visit courts in the United States, you often find that they embody “the majesty of the law”: pillars, atria, broad stone steps etc. Not all, but most. Even the modern courts make an effort to seem imposing. Not so in the UK! You might ask “so what?”, but image and impression are important. The same is true of the Bar. It is infuriating to see barristers hugely overpaid, particularly at public expense, but at the same time the law is diminished if the Bar is reduced to penury.

The question is not simple: the Bar has become overcrowded. Even now, we see that every other (or so it sometimes seems) black or brown young person (and quite a few English people –so-called “whites”– too) want to become barristers. When I was at school and vaguely thinking about the idea (c.1974, the year I in fact dropped out of school!), the Bar had about 4,000-5,000 members (in practice in chambers), whereas now, in 2018, there are 16,000 (but the official definition now includes some —perhaps 3,000— employed barristers). In very broad terms, you could say that the number of practising barristers has tripled in 40 years. However, it seems that in 2017 and 2016, the number exceeded 30,000! Has there been a cull in the past year or so? I do not have the information with which I might answer my own question.

Looking at the situation from my present eyrie of objectivity, it seems to me clear that the Bar (and also the solicitor profession) as a career for many is going to disappear. Britain is getting poorer and the plan of the international conspiracy is to manage that. How? By importing millions of unwanted immigrants (who breed); by getting the masses used to the idea that Britain is getting poorer and/or “cannot afford” [fill in whatever: the Bar, the law, the police, the Welfare State, defence, decency…]. Also, by labelling the few non-sheep standing up against it all as “extremists”, “neo-Nazis”, “racists” etc.

The fees for the criminal Bar and the lower end of the civil Bar will only become more modest. Large numbers of mostly rubbish barristers will compete for the badly-paid cases going (and some more affluent young barristers, with family money supporting them, will willingly work for peanuts anyway). There is also the point that, when I was at the Inns of Court School of Law in 1987-88, you had to go there for a year in order to take, eventually, the (then) three days of the Bar Examination. Now, all sorts of poor places offer a “Bar Finals course” [now, I believe, called the Bar Vocational Course or BVC]. Thus the supply of (often poor) barristers has increased.

A final word on fees. Traditionally, barristers were not supposed to care about fees. They could not sue for their fees. These attitudes still exist, though in very modified form, today. At the same time, some solicitors take advantage. I suppose that my critics will call me biased etc, but I found that the non-paying solicitors were mostly smaller, often Jewish or other “ethnic” firms who, almost invariably, were also very lax on ethics (i.e. were crooks, in blunt language). I suppose that some will ask why I accepted instructions from such firms. Well, there are ways to get out of things, but the “cab rank” rule limits what you can say and do, and the joke “Code of Conduct” would make it impossible to say “no Jews, no blacks, no browns” (etc)…

Looking further ahead, the legal profession is likely to be hard-hit by AI (artificial intelligence).


Update, 1 December 2010

A tweet about a Crown Court trial by the author of a recent high-selling book on the broken justice system of the UK continues the theme:

As to why (criminal) barristers are now working for peanuts in many cases, see above blog post, and also:

  • most criminal barristers cannot do anything else and are by no means always of much interest to those who might pay more, i.e. employers of whatever type;
  •  most criminal barristers are “me too” pseudo-liberals with the backbone of a jellyfish, as witness their lack of (public) support for me when a Jew-Zionist cabal (“UK Lawyers for Israel”) made malicious and politically-motivated complaint against me to the Bar Standards Board in 2014 (hearing 2016);
  • following above theme, most barristers (not only criminal ones) are scared of the (absurd) BSB, the Bar Council, their instructing solicitors, their own shadows (etc);



Fragments of Memory…#From Pupillage: Neil’s Party


Some reading this may also have read my previous blog posts [see Notes, below] about my rather untraditional Bar pupillage in 1992-93, and also about my early post-pupillage days in Bar practice. I thought to write about a few other stray incidents from those times. Humour was rarely entirely absent, though sometimes in the context of events which were, especially for the people advised or represented, taxing and upsetting. I was, of course, in the first six months of my pupillage not allowed to advise or represent, and so was basically a spectator and supernumerary.

Anyway, here is one event that has stuck in my recollection. It is not directly “legal”, but connected to some lawyers I knew.

Neil’s Party

At the time, in 1992, I was very friendly with a young barrister called Neil M. and his charming wife, Helen. Both had been in the same small “Practical Exercises” group at “Bar School” (the Inns of Court School of Law in Gray’s Inn, at the time the only place where aspiring barristers could study and be examined) in 1987-88. Our surnames all started with “M” (Neil and Helen had different surnames at that time, being unmarried; in fact they first met in that little group of 7 or 8 people).

I had gone to the USA (initially in 1989, but somewhat commuted UK/USA in the following few years) and had married a US citizen; I also qualified by exam (and pretty tough it was) at the New York Bar. Neil M. had started pupillage in London and, by 1992, was already a rising barrister at the criminal Bar. Helen, his wife by that time, had left the Bar for the solicitors’ profession. In 1992, when I returned to the UK after one of my sojourns in New Jersey, the country was just going to hold the General Election of that year.

I was not actively political at the time, though I of course despised the System parties. Neil M., on the other hand, was a Labour Party stalwart, a political position which originated from his upbringing in the North West of England: he was the son of an amiable “tankie” Communist (literally so, a member of the C.P.G.B.), whom I met a couple of times in later years.

Neil M. was, I suppose, somewhere in the middle of the Labour Party, ideologically, close to the outlook of John Smith, the Scottish advocate who led Labour for about 20 months until his death in 1994. I should characterize Neil’s outlook as “tribal Labour”; to me that had no greater weight than that of someone who supports this or that football team, or Oxford/Cambridge in the Boat Race. In fact, Neil M. concurred with my view up to a point, saying that I could not understand why people like him were so partisan in favour of a System party; for him it indeed was like “…supporting a football or rugby team; you don’t understand that either!”

I was invited to attend the special election night dinner at the beautifully-refurbished National Liberal Club, once the haunt of Gladstone, Lloyd George and Asquith, later (in the 1970s) the decayed and dilapidated place where the likes of Cyril Smith and Jeremy Thorpe had stayed and behaved badly. By 1992, most members were “non-political” (meaning not Liberal Democrats). Much later yet, in 2001-2002, I was myself a member.

Large TV screens had been set up in the Club dining room, in order to relay the election results from the BBC as they came in.

Older readers will recall that the opinion polls made Labour favourite to win the 1992 General Election. Neil Kinnock was widely expected to become Prime Minister, though later his triumphalist and arguably too-“Labourite” speech at Sheffield was blamed for putting off floating voters:

At any rate, Labour went into the final day and evening confident, a position echoed by many of those at the dinner I attended. In fact, I noted that many were not pro-Labour, but were quieter than the Labour partisans. At my table, I sat near Neil M. and his wife, as well as another barrister, a markedly iconoclastic (and amusing) Jew commercial barrister called Robert L. and his extremely engaging, attractive and articulate wife, a City of London banker, with whom I had an interesting and slightly barbed conversation.

All went well at the dinner until, after midnight, it started to become very obvious that Labour was not going to win the election. The scene in parts of the large Club dining room reminded me of a smarter and English (and far less sexualized) version of Don’s Party, the Australian film about a party which unravels when the expected victory of the Australian Labor Party (in 1969) fails to occur. I left the Club very late but still before most of the diners. I was told later that, after I left, scuffles and the like broke out between mocking “Conservatives” and angry, frustrated and drunken “Labour” partisans.

I myself was highly amused by the outcome of the election, mainly because, to me, it was obvious that most of the Labour MPs in the Shadow Cabinet were a bunch of fakes and/or hypocrites, led by Kinnock himself, a creeping crawling doormat for Zionists, and an apologist for mass immigration and finance-capitalism ameliorated slightly by a Welfare State already beginning to show signs of disappearance.

Neil M. was angry at me (and years later admitted to me that he had come close to hitting me! In the sacred precincts of the Club, at that!). He himself later became a local councillor in Islington and was informally offered the chance to become a Labour MP, but turned down the opportunity on the ground that as a barrister doing very good criminal work, he was making about twice an MP’s salary and needed the money. Years later he ruefully explained that he had thought that MPs lived off their salaries! He had no idea back then that not only did they have very generous expenses (and in many cases cheated badly on those!) as well as the really quite good salary (compared to most people), but also often had offers of lucrative “work” from all sorts of “consultancies” etc. Disguised near (or actual) corruption. Pity that Neil M. did not become a politician in the Westminster monkeyhouse. He would have been a good and conscientious constituency MP.

Final Word

In fact, Labour improved their position in the election, with an extra 42 MPs, though that still left the Conservatives under John Major with an overall majority of 21. It took 5 years before Labour under Tony Blair could sweep away the Conservatives and many of their MPs. Neil Kinnock ceded control of Labour to John Smith and then (after Smith died in office) to Tony Blair.

As for my friends Neil M. and Helen M. (I shall not say too much, to save them from embarrassment, now that the Zionist Jews label me in the msm and on social media as a “far right” “extremist”, “anti-Semite” and “neo-Nazi”), I maintained friendship for another 15 years, and in fact still regard them as quite close friends today, though I have not seen them now for a decade. I always send them a Christmas card (I’m like that, a bit like Jacob and the Angel: I will not let you go until you bless me…).,_1992


“Mark Lewis Lawyer” Tries to Have Part of the Case Against Him Thrown Out

The Jew-Zionist lawyer (solicitor) Mark Lewis, best known for the UK phonehacking cases of some years ago, is facing a disciplinary tribunal under the auspices of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, and is trying to have part of the case against him thrown out on the specious basis that he was “merely responding” to rude comments about him by “a Who’s Who of neo-Nazis” (as if that were a defence? Oh well, let’s leave that aside…he’s not my solicitor, thank God!). I post the link to the Law Society Gazette report below.

I should add that I am neither party nor witness in those disciplinary proceedings.

I shall be blogging further about this unpleasant individual, probably in considerable detail, at a later time. For the moment, I shall confine myself to saying that

  • Mark Lewis started to send me a small number of abusive tweets (unprompted by any tweets from me to him) in 2011 or 2012. I did not reply in kind and blocked him on Twitter;
  • Lewis’s then wife, one Caroline Feraday (a “Z List” would-be “celebrity” about 20 years ago) was in fact the first to abuse me on Twitter, having seen a tweet by me about the “WW2 Jewish looted art” “restitution” scam, reported on by the Radio 4 Today Programme. Lewis joined in her hysterical abuse against me. (The marriage failed after less than a year and after a few years she remarried in Southern California, to where she —and Lewis, for a while— had relocated);
  • I had to block both Caroline Feraday and Mark Lewis on Twitter because of their unpleasant abuse; I should add that, until they started to abuse me online, I had never heard of either of them;
  • After I blocked Mark Lewis on Twitter, I was informed (and saw evidence from his own online output) that he had tried to make complaint against me to the Metropolitan Police at some point around 2013. I know the name of the police officer who was (in Lewis’s words) “dealing with the case”, a woman who had previously served in the Royal Military Police. The complaint failed (in fact, I was not even contacted by the Metropolitan Police);
  • Mark Lewis is or was a leading member of, and office-holder in, two Jew-Zionist organizations, UK Lawyers for Israel [UKLFI] and the so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism [CAA]. The first cabal (UKLFI) made complaint against me to the Bar in 2014 (6-7 years after I ceased practice, a purely political and malicious complaint based on a small number of tweets, none of which were addressed to any individual but were general comments on society). I was disbarred in 2016 as a result of that complaint. The second cabal (the CAA) has tried on several occasions to have me prosecuted, via malicious complaint to Essex Police [see link below] and elsewhere (but now is itself under investigation by the police in relation to several matters);
  • Mark Lewis has from time to time posted other rude or abusive comments about me online, the last being about a year or two ago;
  • Mark Lewis is supposedly now relocating to Israel, and the London law firm which employed him for a couple of years, Seddons, parted company with him a while ago.

Unfortunately, I was unaware until recently that Lewis was being “tried” for abuse online against others, and was only aware today that Lewis had made preliminary application to throw out the case in part on the basis that he was merely “replying” to abuse by “neo-Nazis” (in which category he apparently places me). In my case, I was tweeted by Lewis; I was neither rude nor insulting, still less abusive to Lewis, yet he was –unprompted– horribly rude and abusive to me, as was his short-term and hysterical then wife, though she soon moved on and concentrated on (risibly) trying to convince her Twitter followers —mostly bought– that she was still, really, a “celebrity” (apparently a few people still remember her reporting on London traffic congestion etc);

  • It is important to underline that I was never even rude, still less abusive, to Lewis. His abuse was unprompted, unexpected both in itself and in its ferocity, and not the result of anything I tweeted to him (he addressed me “out of the blue”).

I await the results of the disciplinary proceedings with interest.



Debate about this on Twitter…

Update, 23 November 2018

It appears that the hearing has in fact now started and that Lewis failed to get part of the evidence (and so the case) thrown out:

Lewis apparently has given evidence that, at times, he “had no idea what he was doing” because of the drugs he was prescribed! Glad that he is not my solicitor!


Update 26 November 2018

Lewis was given a fairly lenient penalty by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for his sins: £2,500 fine plus £10,000 costs. Pity he was not struck off the solicitors’ roll. He admitted that he sometimes has no idea what he is doing because of prescription drugs. He’s on the way out.

On Twitter, the whole UK Twitter Jew Zionist cabal (many of them lawyers, several of them Jews with not obviously-Jewish names) is out in force, defending Lewis’s behaviour. Take a look on Twitter under “Mark Lewis” or “@mlewislawyer”.

Also, compare the lenient treatment given to Lewis (whose ferocious abuse was aimed at named individuals and addressed directly to them) to that meted out to me, disbarred for tweeting 7 (reduced to 5) tweets critical of or mocking Jew Zionism!

Update, 27 November 2018

Jews immediately set up crowdfunding pages for Lewis. Already, about £8,000 has been given (by Jews, presumably and judging from names of donors) and it seems likely that the SRA financial penalty and costs will all be paid that way. Lewis may even make a profit on it all! I cannot imagine that Lewis and his “carer”/”partner” Mandy Blumenthal (a property “investor”) are exactly short of money anyway.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, the debate continues:

The division is sharp: Jews and a few “useful idiot” non-Jews supporting Lewis (I dare say that most are unaware of the true facts of Lewis’s persistent and long-term abuse of people or have been misled by the story his Counsel put forward on his behalf); non-Jews mostly not supporting his position.

Here for example, we see Aisha Ali-Khan, an oddly pro-Lewis Muslim woman (and married to a one-time policeman, himself given a suspended sentence for a criminal offence as well as dismissed from the police), supporting him. She often calls on Twitter for the prosecution of supposed “anti-Semites” etc. Strange hypocrisy: she herself has been imprisoned two or three times for contempt of court, harassment and so on. Maybe she considers Lewis, as another abuser, to be a kindred spirit! I forgot to mention that, at one time, she was assistant to ex-Labour and Respect former MP George Galloway. I wonder what she was up to…

Pathetic minor academic Ben Gidley (another Jew-Zionist), here posing as one of his other Twitter faces, “Bob From Brockley” (yet another of his aliases is “@antinazisunited”; he was also “@TheSoupyOne” but was expelled from Twitter for –again!– harassment! Those Zionist Jews never seem to learn…), and here supports Lewis in reply to Katie Hopkins, dragging me into it all! Note that my featured tweet is not addressed to Lewis…In fact Gidley/BobFromBrockley is once again wrong: I have not been on Twitter for about 7 months now; I no longer have an account. Ben/Bob also falsely implies that I was part of “a concerted campaign” to harass Lewis. No…in fact I never tweeted to him except perhaps (and politely) once, when Lewis started his campaign against me (mostly from the shadows). That Twitter reply from me was in 2011 or 2012.

and it seems that Mandy Gargoyle is not very well thought of, either.

Here is some pseudonymous Jewess, “Anna”, attacking Katie Hopkins, and also persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz. I have seen tweets identifying “Anna” (and other accounts) as… Mandy Gargoyle, but I have no idea whether she is or not. Maybe not: probably straight from Tel Aviv, judging by the poor English (eg Alison Chabloz as someone’s “son“!). No matter. [note, 29 November 2018: the Twitter account “Anna” has now disclaimed being Mandy Blumenthal, though claiming that she is “honoured” that “one antisemite” “keeps on” making the association. No idea who that might be….I’m looking but not finding, today].

Here’s an amusing one. Jew (odds-on) who thinks that Lewis should not have been prosecuted by the SRA because tweeting in a personal and not professional capacity.

Well, I pleaded that (inter alia) when Jew-Zionists had the Bar Standards Board “prosecute” me (2014-2016). The tribunal decided (quite wrongly on the facts) against me. I never held myself out as barrister on my Twitter profile or in any of the 5 supposedly offending tweets (none of which was addressed to a named individual). Lewis has always (typical…) self-promoted as a “lawyer” (solicitor) on his Twitter profile. I shall be blogging about the so-called “top lawyer” in greater detail at a later date.

Anti-Zionist Jew, Gilad Atzmon, mentions Lewis and his behaviour here:

This is an amusing one, from Simon Myerson QC, who is part of the Jewish Zionist troll group called “@gnasherjew” on Twitter. My impression over the years is that he constantly tweets “as a Jew”, but here he claims not! In fact, his Twitter profile used to self-describe as “ocean-going Zionist QC”, a neat way of wearing his Jewishness on his sleeve while also bragging (about being both a QC and an ocean yachtie).

Update, 3 December 2018

The Jews continue to pile in for Lewis. Twitter is still full of Jews wishing Lewis well in his move to Israel (supposedly the day after tomorrow), and Legal Business magazine here quotes a lawyer saying things helpful to Lewis. Was the lawyer a Jew, one wonders?

and Legal Business continues:

“The partner added: ‘Is it the role of the SRA to intervene in Twitter rows? This is a case about boundaries, and it suggests that the SRA’s boundaries are in a different place to that of the public.’”

Well, how very supportive. Where were all these supporters of free speech when the Jew-Zionists had me disbarred for 5 tweets about society generally?

In fact not every tweeter has supported Lewis and his appalling behaviour:

Update, 4 December 2018

Another Jew lawyer weighs in on Lewis’s side, at the same time wishing him bon voyage to Israel…

A day or two premature, nicht wahr?

Update, 6 December 2018

Yes, the dog has indeed left!

Landing in Israel, Lewis said to TV reporters that Jews should clear out of Europe:

“In my opinion, Europe has ceased to be a place for Jews, we are a wandering people and it is time to wander again,” Lewis concludes”

Lewis says that “Europe is finished”, when what he means is “finished” in the sense of “no longer so easily exploited by Jew-Zionists”!

As for “finished”, he looks pretty finished himself, a shambling wreck in fact, as shown in this clip from RT News:

In fact, Lewis’s remarks seem to be almost incoherent. It is not clear whether that is because of disjointed RT News editing, the long flight to Israel, the effects of his medication on his brain (as mentioned in his recent “trial” before the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority) or some other cause (such as any degenerative effects on the brain caused by progressive MS). It has occurred to me several times over the past 6 years that Lewis’s brain might have been affected by some side-effect of his MS condition itself, but I do not know enough about MS or medicine generally to say whether that is possible (I read that it is, though) or likely. He often seems to me to leave rationality behind.

What would “Golda Meir” have said?


Anyway, here’s someone calling himself “Golden Anglo”, a tweeter who seems to be yet another critic of Lewis and his attitude etc…

Reminds me of this amusing ten-minute cartoon:

Update, 7 December 2018

Some (a random selection of) very recent tweets about Lewis and Blumenthal (funny though how RT News seems to have swallowed the same bs as the “British” msm about how Lewis is or was a “top lawyer”…)


Lewis denying that he has property in Israel:

Lewis may or may not have a house in Israel (yet), but he certainly has or had (I suspect still has) an apartment, as he admitted in this 2011 interview with the [London] Evening Standard:

“I was devastated,” he says. “I’d been turned down for so many jobs, I’m thinking to myself, I can’t go on any more, you can only get so many knockbacks. I’m giving in and going to my flat in Israel and retire in Eilat.”

Lewis, like Israel, prefers to get his “defence” in first…

In other words, Lewis (and Blumenthal) now exhibit their primary (in fact, really, only) loyalty, i.e. to the state of Israel and to their fellow-Jews. Yet Jews always say that it is “anti-Semitic” to say that Jews have (even) dual loyalty, let alone that they put Jewry and Israel first, before the host country (in this case, the UK). Here we have a typical case: while in the UK, Lewis and Blumenthal were “British” “patriots”, even putting themselves above real British people in that regard, but as soon as they have emigrated to Israel, Europe (not just the UK) is “finished”, “anti-Semitic”, “unsafe” and Britain is not a home for the Jews but just a “Hotel California” where they spent a few years, or a few generations…

The people I despise are the British ones who, out of naivety, or bribery, or fear of career repercussions etc, doormat for the Zionists. Most barristers, for example, are either such doormats or are silent through fear of being blackballed by the Jewish-Zionist lobby in the legal professions, and particularly by Jewish solicitors who might withhold work. The same applies in the world of entertainment and the msm in general.

Update, 8 December 2018

Tweeters are still commenting…

She made money out of a contrived Zionist stunt? It might not be on the “Ann Frank” scale but still, “not a bad little earner”…

…and Lewis’s ex-wife Caroline Feraday cannot stop herself from commenting! Well, why not? After all, he cannot slap her from Israel!


Meanwhile, Lewis answers one of hundreds of critical tweeters. Note that he —a Jew born and brought up in Manchester, UK— describes the Jews as “my people”: he’s left behind the fiction that he is “British” except in terms of one of his passports (he now proudly holds up his new (?) Israeli one). He’s an Israeli now even officially. I hope, though without much confidence, that he now shuts up about UK matters.

…and Mandy Gargoyle has now joined in, trying to intimidate a tweeter who is tweeting under a pseudonym. She is not very intelligent. Just as well. Malice and intelligence would be harder to laugh off.

Update, 10 December 2018, P.M.

Meanwhile, dirty little pro-Zionist propagandist Douglas Murray blogs in favour of Lewis. His brief piece made me laugh out loud, so credit where due! Lewis, says he, never sought limelight for himself! Hardy ha ha! “Modest” (ha ha!), “self-effacing” (ha ha ha!), “cerebral” (what on Earth is Murray on?!), “upholding…the principles of a free and fair society” (!). Ah, so that was what Lewis and his fellow Jew Zionists (of “UK Lawyers for Israel” and “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”) were doing when they had me disbarred for daring to tweet the truth, when they had Alison Chabloz prosecuted for singing songs, when they had Jez Turner imprisoned for speaking the truth in a public speech…

“Though he was near to limelight, he never sought it for himself. A modest, self-effacing and cerebral figure, his career was not about seeking personal notoriety, but of practising the law, representing his clients and upholding what he saw to be the principles of a free and fair society.”

Barbarians at the Gate, Facing Nothing but Decadent Plutocrats and Soft Plebs







Increasingly, it becomes hard to believe the news, not only because of the various kinds of “fake news” around, but because so much news now, though perhaps completely true, reflects the galloping madness of our society. Take the report I just saw from the [UK] Daily Express (see link in Notes, below), admittedly not the most accurate of newspapers, but there seems to be little doubt that the basics of the report are true. Extracts:

  • “University lecturers told DON’T USE CAPS as it frightens students”

  • “UNIVERSITY lecturers have been told not to use words in capital letters when setting assignments because it might frighten students into failure.”

  • “Generally, avoid using capital letters for emphasis and “the overuse of ‘do’, and, especially, ‘DON’T’.””

Reading the Express report led me to consider related ideas. We already see that almost every school student who is not actually retarded or absent now gets high marks and that the majority now get “A” grades (often in everything, usually triggering the Americanized phrase “straight-A-student”). The same is true at degree level. Only the drop-outs and mentally-disordered now fail or get Thirds. Even a lower Second (the norm of, say, 30 years ago, awarded to such as Tony Blair) is rare. Sweeties for all and Firsts for over half. No-one must be upset, or offended.

Then there is the calibre of recruits to the armed forces. It will be said that many recruits are fit, healthy, brave, resourceful etc; people will point to exceptional cases such as successful SAS candidates, individual heroic actions etc. The reality, though, is that the armed forces have been forced to lower their physical entry requirements, and not only because women now comprise a quite high proportion of the intake (about 9% across the armed forces).

It will be recalled that, when Iranian forces captured a dozen or so British naval and Marine personnel in 2007, one or two not only told the Iranians everything they knew, but in one case did so because the Iranians threatened to confiscate his iPod! Several of those held later sold their stories to the UK tabloid press (one, Faye Turney, a married naval rating aged 25, is said to have made £80,000-£100,000).

In case anyone thinks that I am criticizing without ever having been in such a situation, all that I can say is that in fact I have myself been in a few difficult situations overseas, albeit not exactly similar.

The point is that wars are not won by the few elite or heroic exceptions, but by the rank and file generality, by what Germans used to term the Feldgrau. That brings us onto numbers. The British Army now consists of 81,000 regular troops and 27,000 in The Reserves (formerly, Territorial Army). A number lower than at any time since the late 18th Century. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of the other armed services.

Now I hope that we shall never war against Russia, and I certainly do not regard the Russians as “barbarians”, but to some extent Russia does stand in the same relation to the “West” as the barbarians stood to Rome 1,500-2,000 years ago, as Amaury de Riencourt pointed out in his 1950s book, The Coming Caesars.

Russia can field, across all arms, over a million men (and women) in regular service and a further nearly three million in reserves. Four million

Then we have the other and more obvious “barbarians at the gate”, ranging from China (about 2.5 million service personnel), through Islamist forces and terrorists, to the migrant-invaders from Africa and elsewhere. We must also not ignore the fact that the barbarians are, in many cases today, already inside Fortress Europe.

In order to defend a society, one must have strength. Strength comes from both numbers and moral force (and, today, advanced weaponry, but that is, in reality, not quite the gamechanger many imagine). As Hitler said, “it’s not the weapon, it’s the man behind it.” History is replete with tales of how small forces have defeated larger ones, but those smaller ones were always in possession of superior spirit and tactical sense and, usually, superior (or at least more capable of further evolution) race and culture. Is that what we see when we look at the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Scandinavia today? Hardly!

Look at the seething urban masses of the UK, for example: a very high proportion of non-whites, for a start. Not that every “black or brown” is a “bad person” by any means, but few really share our culture; most (even those born in the UK) are in fact entirely ignorant of our culture and history, and few are ready to fight for it, and us.

Look too at the mass of white British. Can one really say that they are ready to fight for race and culture? I think not. In fact, they have proven the reverse over the past decades. Indeed, since 2010, they have proven themselves incapable even of fighting against their own reduction to near-serfs: pay reductions (in real terms), benefit cuts and oppressions, migration-invasion on a scale that not even Enoch Powell can have foreseen.

Brexit. The EU Referendum brought out the generational differences: about 70% of 16-24-y-o persons favoured Remain (if only out of ignorance, so be it), whereas over-70s were about 80% (maybe more) for Leave. There were many reasons why people favoured either Leave or Remain, but part of the Remain vote was certainly younger persons —and especially younger under-24s— who were scared of not having Big Brother EU to tell them what to do and what to think. The same applies to social media, where so many younger people just want to ban anything or anyone (they think) “offensive” (anything that challenges their spoonfed view of the world).

A good proportion of the white UK population is covered adequately by the pejorative term “plebs”. Culturally-weak, racially-insecure, with quite a number further weakened by drink and drugs. As for the “upper classes”, they are mainly socially and culturally decadent, interested only in selfish concerns and quite as mired in such vices as drug abuse as are those characterized as “plebs”.

I see no sign that the British population as it is can stand up to any of the threats to the present British state, population or way of life. The only solution or possible way out is for a very radical social nationalist movement to take power and impose its will on the unresponsive masses.



The Asia Bibi case surely shows “lack of moral fibre” in the UK “establishment”. I am not, of course, in favour of allowing in “refugee” hordes, but if ever there was a genuine individual “refugee” case, this was it. Refused asylum in advance because few UK politicians and civil servants want to take the risk of agitating the millions of Pakistani Muslims in the UK, many of whom want to turn the UK into a facsimile of their own native (hole of a) country.

Again, I do not much like Katie Hopkins, but is she wrong here?

This too. Again, is she wrong?

…and if you think that my blog post title (about the decadent wealthy and their equally drug-soaked and useless pleb contemporaries) is a harsh judgment, take a look at this:

Update, 4 December 2018

Update, 10 December 2018

Trawling through some of the “me too” idiots who joined the Jew-Zionists in attacking me at least once on Twitter in the past few years, I noticed this typical waste of space today (for the first time): one Peter, Twitter name “@_binbag”; 23+, gay, with a “degree” from somewhere or other, and “working for” an equally-worthless MA. Semi-literate, probably (judging from his tweets) deeply ignorant, and totally signed-up to the “rainbow” nonsense multikulti society of the doomed. Does someone like this add anything even to the present decadent society? Would such a person be “wanted on voyage” to a better society? I think not!

When Reality Becomes Subjective

It has always been accepted that, while subjective views of the world mean that reality may differ for different people, there exists, beyond the subjective reality, an objective reality, most of the time at least. Certain things were to be accepted, by all but the insane, as objectively true or real, and other things were regarded as untrue or unreal. Real included measurement of time, age, race, sex, and a million other things. Unreal did not have to be defined but would include direct “untruths” such as two men dressed up as a pantomime horse. These were “two men dressed up as a pantomime horse” (i.e. true), but were not “a horse” (i.e. false, or untrue).

It was never suggested that two men should not dress up as a pantomime horse and pretend to play the part of a horse on stage —or, indeed, in the street—, simply that two men dressed up as a horse are not a horse! That remains true even were the two men to sincerely believe (e.g. if insane) that they really were a horse.

Now it is true that there might be grey areas, particularly as to the future: it was true, in 1902, to say that people could not fly in heavier-than-air machines; by 1904, the same statement was untrue. There are other obvious examples. “Britain has a huge empire.” True in 1914, 1918, 1939 and even in 1945, but today (2018) not true.

Have we now moved (in the “West”, mainly) to a situation where objective reality is taking a back seat? Wishful thinking (eg the middle-aged woman who thinks that she still looks young) has always existed, but now it is sufficient merely to assert your wish for it to be superficially taken as representing fact: the male person or (far more rare) unfortunate freak of birth who “identifies” or “self-identifies” as female. Not only is such a wish-turned-“fact” to be taken seriously today (in, say, the UK) but anyone saying that a man who has had “gender re-assignment” surgery is still not, in reality, a woman, is accused of being “a bigot” uttering “hate speech”.

So it is that feministic women (with whose outlook I myself generally have little in common) and indeed many other women, and who object to women having to share exclusive facilities such as sport changing rooms, bathrooms etc with so-called “trans-women” (which might mean, eg, young girls having to undress and shower alongside middleaged –and even surgically unchanged– men posing as women, in effect), have been labelled “TERFS“, meaning “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists”; and all because the said “TERFS” are unwilling to accept as true an evident untruth.

In the Netherlands, a man of 69 wants to have his age “reclassified” officially as 49, apparently for reasons of vanity, though it has been suggested (see notes below) that in fact he is making a satirical “propaganda of the deed” attempt. All the same, how telling it is that some dimwits commenting actually support the idea that a citizen should be able simply to choose an age at whim. A moment’s thought can surely show that such an idea must lead to chaos in a developed society! Examples (scarcely necessary, surely? Perhaps they are, in an increasingly mad society…): someone of 50 wants to get the benefits available to pensioners, so “self-identifies” as a 70-y-o. Or someone aged 50 wants to be allowed to join an age-restricted-on-entry organization such as the Army, or the Boy Scouts. It’s all just so ridiculous.

Then we have the whole race question. Sometimes I can do nothing but shake my head at the mentality of those who believe or want to believe that, say, a Chinese born in the London is “English” or at least “British” rather than Chinese, or that a Jew born in Paris is “French”. Even the hardcore multikulti dimwits and maniacs find it hard to go along with the corollary, i.e. that an ethnically English person born in Peking or Calcutta is thereby a “Chinese” or “Indian”! But of course now the individual can “self-identify” anyway, so that we have cases such as the mentally-disturbed (?) and certainly very odd woman who, in the swamps of American politically-correct academia, simply cosmetically changed her appearance to look a little like a light-skinned “African-American”, then built a whole minor academic career on how bad whites are and how oppressed blacks are in the USA; not that there is not at least some truth in that, but that is a big and complex question, not something black and white (no pun intended). She was exposed in the end, mainly because she had claimed to be partly-black and was not. That was a few years ago. Today, I wonder whether her plea that she was simply “self-identifying” would save her from disgrace.

Another case. Barack Obama. Obama’s mother was white (mainly British –English, Welsh, Scottish– and Irish, with some German and Swiss aspects), his father black African. In his days of political prominence, no-one in the msm wanted to think or speak of him other than as “black”, because his superficial articulacy meant that it “proved” that a “black” man could be suitable (as it at first appeared) to be President of the United States. I do not recall one instance of Obama described accurately as “America’s mixed-race President”, but only as “America’s first black President”…

There is a whole academic milieu in which it is regarded as axiomatic that “race is a social construct”. Such people have effectively lost touch with reality, as have those who have apparently almost convinced themselves that the Romans were black!

It brings to mind the “Russian” Revolution which was partly-Russian in its first upsurge in Spring 1917, but simply a Jewish Bolshevik coup d’etat in October 1917 (old calendar). Updated to 2018: we still see in the UK and elsewhere the fiction that the Jew “oligarchs” who stole Russia in the early 1990s (Berezovsky, Abramovitch etc) are “Russians”!

In fact, there are numerous other examples of where people, including the highly –superficially– educated prefer implausible unreality to reality. One, widespread in the UK, is that the country (and Europe as a whole) can accept unlimited millions of immigrants without any diminution in employment, pay, State benefits, pensions, road and rail services, school accessibility, NHS service etc etc.

I have thought a little about where this strange and widespread distortion of reality might have originated. There is the shifting of the ground of reality caused by theoretical physics over the past century. Then there is, more concretely, the “black propaganda” of the two world wars: in WW1, the British atrocity stories (Belgian nuns raped, babies stuck on German bayonets, bodies rendered down to make soap etc). Most of those stories were “recycled” more cleverly in WW2, so that, even today, many of the simpler people in the UK still believe that Jews were made into soap, their hair used to stuff Wehrmacht greatcoats (oh, yes, the German Army loved to stuff its cold-weather clothing with unwashed and lice-ridden hair from Jews!), their skin made into lampshades or tanned into leather upholstery for armchairs… and that is before we even get to the fabled “gas chambers” or the Munchausen-like tales of Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and hundreds of other proven fakes. The cartoon below illustrates well the situation.


The story about the Emperor’s new clothes has become everyday reality in the UK and across the “West”: fail to at least pretend to believe that the “holocaust” narrative is true in all its details and numbers etc, fail to offer lip service to racial “equality” (eg IQ averages etc), fail to agree that a surgically-altered man is a woman, fail to praise the migration-invasion of Europe, fail to believe that Jews are a wonderful benefit to every nation, and you may well be in serious trouble, especially if you have or need a job or profession. You may even (like Alison Chabloz) find yourself convicted and sentenced accordingly.

Another example is the way in which the basically undemocratic and indeed tyrannical EU matrix is supported by and beloved of millions of deluded people (who often think themselves some kind of intellectual elite) and who regard the EU as a liberal bastion, despite its refusal to honour popular voting, despite its mediaeval-style “holocaust” “denial” laws and its other repressions.

No wonder that the msm is not believed, politicians are not believed, “fake news” becomes a major factor.

In any event, there is no doubt that unreality and the worship of falsity is in the ascendant. Lies are exalted and that means that Evil is exalted. This can have but one outcome.



The above does not purport to be a comprehensive listing of all the instances or situations where people prefer comforting lies (unreality) to the more bracing truth (reality). One might cite, though, to provide two connected examples, academic award inflation and UK university degrees. These are important topics.

Originally, England had but one University (Oxford, founded, in origo, 1096). Later, Cambridge (1209) and others were founded: St. Andrew’s (in Scotland, founded 1413) and (in Ireland), Trinity College, Dublin (1592). Further university expansion occurred in later centuries, particularly in the 19thC.

These expansions of university education were all driven by reality, the need to provide better-educated leaders and specialists in government, industry, science etc.

The next great university-education expansion occurred after WW2. The so-called “red brick” universities. Snobs or people concerned about standards (usually the former), such as Kingsley Amis, proclaimed that “more will mean worse”. There is still debate about that, but the old phrase “six of one and half a dozen of another” probably covers it.

Even at that stage, meaning the 1960s, university expansion in the UK was still partly driven by reality, the more complex post-WW2 society needing more persons with higher levels of education. In fact, standards were still fairly high. Anyone who looks at the old “O” and “A” Level papers (and “S” Levels, a fortiori) from the 1950s and 1960s, then compares them to today’s equivalent papers can see that most exams have, indisputably, become easier over the past 60 years.

The cracks in the university system which started to show in the 1960s widened thereafter. Tony Blair, the fount of so much badness in the UK, finally cracked the whole system open by allowing virtually any institution to call itself a “university” and to issue (mediaeval concept in any case) “degrees”. Now, pretty much any Tom, Dick or Sharon can get a “degree” at “uni” in some such subject as Hotels and Hospitality, Travel and Tourism, Gender Studies etc. Even more traditional subjects have been dumbed-down hugely, so that about half the students now (since about 1997) “achieve” a “First”, and hardly anyone gets less than an Upper Second. As for getting a Third or even failing the exams, short of absenteeism or mental breakdown— impossible. Result? Degrees are now almost worthless and you only have to look at some Oxbridge graduates to see that the problem is not confined to those attending less-prestigious institutions.

Still, most people like the unreality better than reality: students have an easier life and almost all “achieve” high marks, their teachers like the fact that they “achieve” such high numbers of high-achieving students, the institutions like the same, as does government. The statistics look great! Only thing is, this is largely unreality, a mirage.


Update, 23 November 2018

Below, a thread from Twitter which exposes the contemporary madness richly. For some of these lunatics (and I have seen nonsense of this sort on Twitter etc even from an NHS psychiatrist, one who espouses the “race is a social construct” garbage), reality does not exist except as a subjective wish-list. For them, if an African man of 70 wants to be a European woman of 30, then fine, that’s what he —sorry, “she”— is, and anyone dissenting is “guilty” of “hate speech” or “hate thought” (?) and must be punished. Even George Orwell could never have foreseen this!

Another aspect (again, see the thread…and read the whole thread by clicking on one of the tweets below) is that truth alone is not enough for many, but has to appeal to people via a kind of “support the self-styled victims” argument, as in “don’t discuss whether men can just decide that they are women, but discuss whether their doing that makes [real] women victims” (etc). 

Update, 27 November 2018

The depths of the socio-political madness can be gauged by a look at some of the tweets above, such as the one by tweeter “Anarchist Catgirl”. In the old joke, if she is interested, I believe that I can offer her London Bridge at a very reasonable price!

In fact, it is interesting that it is mostly the firmest feminists who have bridled at this whole “transpeople” nonsense and reality-distortion. Feminists may not know much (in some cases) but they do know what is a woman and what is not a woman:

What if Beria Had Succeeded Stalin?


I recently re-read Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness– A Soviet Spymaster, the autobiography of General Pavel Sudoplatov, who was, inter alia, the brains behind such complex secret operations as the acquisition, in the 1940s, of atomic and nuclear technology from the USA and UK; he also oversaw such sanguinary plots as –and most notoriously– the assassination of Trotsky in Mexico in 1940.

I last read Sudoplatov’s book in 1994, the year of its first hardback publication. On first reading, I did not, perhaps, pay enough attention to the part of the book near the end, dealing with Beria and the Politburo in general after the death of Stalin in 1953.

It might be said that to examine the beliefs and intent of Beria is otiose now that 65 years have passed since his death by summary execution. Also, unsurprisingly, few tears have been shed for him since his death. He was in many ways monstrous: this article is of course limited in scope by reason of, inter alia, lack of space. Beria’s crimes of a political nature were on a vast scale. His more personal crimes were also many and included the regular abduction and rape of women and girls, including some young schoolgirls. Having said that, his swift “trial” (in secret and without defence representation) and the immediately-following execution was a purely political action ordered by those with political records in many ways as bad (Khrushchev, for one).

I start from the following premises:

  • that Western and/or Westernizing conspirators funded and oversaw the Bolshevik coup d’etat in October 1917 (old calendar);
  • that the same cabals set up the Soviet system in the 1920s as a quasi-religious movement (in style) which was atheist (in content);
  • that the quasi-religious character of Bolshevism slowly started to dissipate after the death of Lenin in January 1924, replaced at first by a pseudo-intellectual Marxism-Leninism (incorporating a personality-cult), then by a revival of “Holy Russia” and nationalistic propaganda (mixed with the foregoing) during the war of 1941-45. Finally, there came a late efflorescence of the Stalin personality cult mixed with pan-Slavism between 1945 and Stalin’s death in 1953;
  • that in the (significant number) 33 years from 1956 (the year of Khrushchev’s Secret Speech denouncing Stalinism as a personality cult etc) to 1989, Sovietism continued to decay ideologically, until it finally collapsed into a pile of dust.

Beria, ideologically

Beria was born in Merkheuli, near Sukhumi, which latter was a prosperous resort in late-Tsarist times. His family was not poor. It may be important that (in contradistinction to Russia), the Black Sea littoral was part of the Alexandrine Greek polity and, later, the Eastern Roman Empire. A more cosmopolitan milieu than that of Russia and one which existed for more than a thousand years prior to the first foundation of Kievan Rus.

That area, Abkhazia (geographically a part of Georgia, though historically distinct), was the location of the legendary Golden Fleece and is said to have been the birthplace of wine.

In the Soviet era (from the mid-1930s), peasants were able to (in effect) own their own agricultural or horticultural plots of up to 0.5 hectare (about an acre or so). “Special districts” (particularly in Georgia) could have plots as large as 1 hectare (2.2 acres) officially and slightly more unofficially. By 1939, these small plots (only a few percent of the land area of the Soviet Union) produced at least 21% of all Soviet agricultural produce (and a far greater percentage of fruits etc). Some estimates from later times (the 1970s) put the real figure as high as 40%.

The “garden plots” or “household plots” had become important in Georgia/Abkhazia since the end of serfdom in 1865.

Beria (b.1899) thus grew up in a milieu quite different from his later Russian and Ukrainian colleagues.

Beria was, as a youth, involved, when a student in Baku (again, a very “capitalist” and cosmopolitan city which, after a long history, had boomed pre-1914 by reason of the oil finds), with both the Bolsheviks and the Azeri anti-Bolshevik Musavat movement, which had Muslim, Turkic and general reformist roots and ideology.

It has been alleged against Beria that he had been involved with British Intelligence in Baku in or around 1919. Not impossible. Baku was of huge strategic importance during the First World War.

Likewise, at his drumhead trial in 1953, it was alleged that Beria favoured soft relations with National Socialist Germany or was even a “traitor” who helped Germany militarily and diplomatically (see the Wikipedia article, below).

Anthroposophy and other Germanic cultural connections

Beria was friendly toward the writer Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, who was educated partly at Berlin University (graduating in 1918) and spent the war years in Germany and Switzerland as well as France. Gamsakhurdia may well have met Rudolf Steiner (d.1925) at that time, when Steiner was constructing the First Goetheanum (at Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland).

In the 1920s, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia was for 3-4 years a political prisoner in the Solovki concentration camp on the Solovetsky Islands. He would almost certainly not have survived the purges of the 1930s without Beria’s protection.

The son of Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, became President of Georgia in the first democratic elections following Soviet rule. He is generally considered to have been an Anthroposophist, and wrote, among other works, Goethe’s Weltanschauung from the Anthroposophic Point of View [pub. Tbilisi 1985].

Beria’s Preferred Policies

Beria was not an idealist, but a practitioner of Realpolitik, par excellence. This enabled him not only to implement Stalin’s repressions without conscience, but also to see the aspects of Soviet life that were not working.

Had Beria succeeded Stalin,

  • he would have brought back a large measure of private ownership, or at least operational ownership, into agriculture. That would have hugely improved Soviet agriculture, whereas Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands scheme was mainly an expensive and ecologically-negative failure;
  • because Beria was not an ideologue, he would have had no qualms in ending the Cold War early. He would have been, to cite Mrs Thatcher’s view of Gorbachev, someone “with whom the West could do business.” That might have meant no Vietnam War, no Soviet support for so-called “Liberation” movements in Africa, no Cuban Missile Crisis, no Berlin Wall;
  • while Beria would certainly have ruthlessly stamped down on domestic political opposition, he would not have repeated Stalin’s mistaken policy (implented partly by Beria himself) of arresting millions of people for effectively no reason;
  • Beria would have (as Sudoplatov notes) allowed the non-Russian republics a greater degree of independence, thus creating an earlier and more feasible “Commonwealth of Independent States” [CIS], albeit that they would not be “states” but autonomous or semi-autonomous republics.
  • Beria would have concentrated the KGB (its later name) and GRU on useful intelligence gathering and not on playing spy games and fomenting pseudo-Marxist revolts in Africa, Latin America etc.


While it might stick in the craw of many to conclude that Beria would have made a far better ruler of Russia than uneducated Khrushchev with his half-baked huge projects and his bang-shoe-on-table style of diplomacy, the facts speak for themselves.


Literary Note

A British scribbler, one Alex Marshall (formerly of The Guardian, now at time of writing apparently “Europe Culture Editor” for The New York Times) wrote a book called The Caucasus Under Soviet Rule, in which he wrote that “Personally propagating a bizarre Rudolph Steiner-inspired cult of anthroposophy, [Zviad] Gamsakhurdia…[etc]”.

Poorly written, for a start: “Anthroposophy” requires upper-case “A”, just like, say, “Roman Catholicism”. Marshall spells Rudolf Steiner, “Rudolph”, just as those who make fun of Hitler often write his name “Adolph” in petty denigration; also, “a bizarre” should be (if written at all) “the bizarre”.

Marshall’s words sound like a polemic against Anthroposophy, that movement which has achieved so much (though that fact is still not well-known to the masses in the Anglophone countries). To write off Anthroposophy as “a bizarre cult” is itself bizarre: think biodynamic agriculture, Waldorf [Rudolf Steiner] education etc.

I note that Marshall’s book, at least according to some reviewers, contains a number of other factual errors.

In fact, Shevardnadze, who overthrew Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was a ruthless “ex”-Soviet apparatchik who reintroduced large-scale repression into already-chaotic Georgian political life. He was the preferred candidate of the New World Order, completely under the “Western” thumb. I myself was slightly acquainted at one time (c.1995) with one of Shevardnadze’s advisers, who –like me– was on the Committee of the Central Asia and Transcaucasia Law Association [CATLA], a body active in the 1990s and which was supported by the British Government and large London-based law firms with interests in those regions.

Update, 24 November 2018

I have located my copy of the book Beria, by Sergio Beria (Lavrenty Beria’s son), so may add to this blog post when I have reread the book.

A New Director of Public Prosecutions Takes Up His Role as Head of the Crown Prosecution Service


Max Hill Q.C. is on the brink of taking up his role as D.P.P., in succession to Alison Saunders. It is too early to say what his official attitude will be in relation to political “crime”, “thought crime” and freedom of expression. While he has made some quite liberal remarks in the past in connection with Muslims, Islamists etc, he has also referred to “far right fanatics”, a meaningless phrase which is often used by Zionists and their msm doormats to label social nationalists and others.

Already, the unpleasant Zionist fanatics of the so-called “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” or “CAA” (themselves under police investigation for stalking, harassment and abuse of charitable status) have taken to Twitter etc in an attempt to put pressure on the new DPP. They want him to prosecute anyone criticizing Zionist individuals and groups under the UK’s draconian laws against so-called “hate speech” etc. Indeed, one of their doormats in the msm (himself apparently a Jew) has already publicized on Twitter and on the LBC (radio station) website a file relating to various “cases” where the police and/or CPS have not prosecuted mostly rather innocuous tweets and other online postings.

The Zionists of the CAA are using the entirely unrelated shooting event in Pittsburgh, USA to try to shut down legitimate freedom of expression in the UK…and are being aided and abetted by other Zionists in the decadent UK mass media milieu.

The new DPP, before he listens to any of the CAA’s nonsense, should bear in mind that, quite apart from the various alleged illegalities perpetrated by CAA persons (and which are currently under police investigation), the CAA has made a number of frivolous and indeed malicious complaints (to the police, to the CPS, to Twitter etc) against quite a large number of people, including David Icke, Al Jazeera TV, the Jewish anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon, and even against me. In fact, in its 4+ years of operation, the CAA has only scored two “victories” of any significance, to wit against Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) and against the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz (who is in any case presently appealing both conviction and sentence).

The CAA’s membership numbers are secret, but thought by many to number only a few hundred, certainly not many more if its Parliament Square and other demonstrations are anything to go by. Crowds numbering between 50 and 200 individuals.

In order to assist Max Hill Q.C. and his staff in any deliberations, I commend my own experience of victimization by these Jewish-Zionist and pro-Israel fanatics. The events described took place in January 2017, so nearly two years ago now, and the blog post dates from about 18 months ago.