Category Archives: Reminiscences and Musings

The Right Attitude to Race and Culture

Race and culture are among the hottest topics of the moment. From the migration-invasion of Europe to the American wave of the alt-right, to the elections in European states, there is a ferment which will not calm. As social-nationalists, standing first and foremost on the racial-cultural front line, we must be clear where we stand in terms of attitude.

It disturbs me when I see unpleasant and too-general remarks made even about the basest of race-types. We must never forget that, as Adolf Hitler himself said in another context, “there is the individual, but beyond the individual is the race.” The individual comes out of a race; he is made by it, formed by it, is in most cases brought up and educated by it and by the nation which is part of the race. However, the individual can transcend the race-group (equally, can descend from it). German National Socialism itself recognized this reality when it granted a relatively small number of persons, who were not Aryan, the status of “honorary Aryan” or Ehrenarierhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan

We today, even those of us who are social-national in political orientation, are yet not  National Socialists in the same sense as those who fought for European humanity in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. We today have our own path forward. At the same time, to put it in Biblical language, we “honour our father and our mother” and that means that we honour National Socialism as the ground from which we sprang.

Leon Degrelle, the political leader, front-line fighter and thinker, had this to say on the subject after National Socialism in its original phase had passed into history:

becwoaeccaazenq

There is no need for social nationalists to utter insults at blacks, Jews or members of other groups, except where that is justified and/or where it makes a political or social point. I do not want to concentrate on the American socio-political situation. I am not American, have not lived or worked there for many years and am focussed on Europe and Russia. However, we have to recognize that American society is very different from our European society. American society has had a relatively recent history of slavery, of genocide (the American Indians, aka Native Americans), of a civil war in which 3% of the population died, of the resistance to the social consequences of that war in the South, that resistance being, in part, the Ku Klux Klan, and so on.

American politics has become far more bitter, far more polarized, particularly in language, than is generally the case in Europe. There is also the point that there is a far wider spectrum of education and culture in the USA than pertains in most parts of Europe, or even Russia.

For me, it is natural to regard the non-European races as distinct and as having their own paths to the future, while equally recognizing the necessity (for all races) for the leading role of European humanity. For some Americans, this is perhaps less obvious and those other races seen as purely enemy contingents.

Social nationalists must take every opportunity to refute the lie (often though not always made by Jewish Zionists) that we base our political philosophy on “hate”. We ourselves know that that is not so, but often the public is bamboozled by the Jewish Zionists into believing the lie. For example, we wish not to be ruled or owned or influenced by the Jewish Zionist element, but that is, if you like, “defensive” in nature.

Our attitude to race and culture is one of recognition of evolution and involution. Our European race is generally still evolving, as is the “Russian”, “Slavonic” or “Slavic” race which (important point) will not come into its plenitude for another 1,500 years. Other races in this world are stagnant or are degenerating. The prime motive force behind social nationalism is to evolve the race and nation to higher levels and to destroy any threats to that evolution. This is a positive, not a negative, political world-view.

In the future, European and Euro-Slavic humanity will have powers of soul, of mind, which today would be regarded as magical. This is the point to which we as a people have been striving.

When we see the sacred Swastika, we must understand it to be a symbol of evolution, of our evolution.

TorchSwastika

Advertisements

Stray Thoughts about Transport in the UK

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a country house in a heavily wooded part of Southern England. Even using a map, I nearly failed to find the way. A modern version of Parzival, –in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s great work–, who gets lost in the trackless forests around the Castle of the Grail. The “B”-road was left behind as I took a quite narrow lane at an acute angle. A few miles further on and an easily-missed small sign almost at ground-level told me to turn off onto a lane so narrow that it was more like a track, tarmacked long ago (probably in the 1960s) and never repaired. Uneven, with large potholes. The forest pressed in on all sides. A stag with magnificent antlers ran across  and into the dense wood as the car approached at a slow 5-10 mph. Squirrels were there aplenty, as were many birds. After what seemed miles, the destination was suddenly there.

That experience made me wonder what roads would be like in a future of automated cars, buses, passenger drones controlled by computers, lighter than air craft akin to Zeppelins, automated trains etc.

One could imagine a future where the roads are scarcely used and so not funded or perhaps only the motorways or major highways funded. A network of automated rail, light rail, branch lines, narrow gauge, ultralight trains, Thames river services etc. Commuters (if they still exist) travelling easily by those means, such as airships docking on top of high towers or buildings, ultralight trains going to almost every street or road. Conventional roads might become a thing of the past, especially if commuting and travelling regularly by car become uncommon.

It is not necessary to travel far back in time (say, 1800) to find a Britain in which roads were in most cases almost unusable most of the time. It may happen again. Society moves on. Until the Beeching cuts of the 1960s (and the others in the 1950s and even prior to that), there were many railway lines in existence which, today, are all but forgotten.

The alternative vision is that roads will still be necessary even if vehicles become computer-controlled. We wait to see. In the meantime, we speculate.

“Thank You For Your Service!…Have A Nice Day!”

One of the many minor but telling irritations of the present day is the extent to which American phrases and linguistic usage has infiltrated everyday English English. I say that despite having lived and worked in the United States and (in the USA and elsewhere) alongside American people. In fact, I am still (despite the best efforts of parts of the Jewish Zionist lobby, including the crazed scribbler Louise Mensch) still a member of the New York Bar, at least on paper (I never practised there).

It was back in the early 1990s when I first heard someone (a West Indian woman) use the term “train station” to designate what everyone I knew until then had called a “railway station” or sometimes “rail station”. When I questioned the term, she replied that she had never heard such places called anything but “train stations”. My theory was that that was the influence of latter-day American films, particularly those shown on Sky. Maybe. Since then, “train station” has become ubiquitous, even on the BBC.

One might say, “what does it matter?” whether railway stations are called “railway stations” or “train stations”. However, language does matter. Whole treatises have been written on the power of transformative vocabulary. The American military machine and its political masters used to be expert at that (far more so than the British). “Operation Desert Shield” conveyed a message; “Operation Desert Storm” a different one, a changed one. Sometimes it became awkward if pushed too far, as in the phrases used in the Vietnam War: “bodycount”, “free fire zone”, “friendly fire” and many others became notorious; some are still in use today.

Such manipulative use of language is common elsewhere. The linked worlds of special operations and espionage have given us “plausible deniability” etc, and that is before we even look at the sleazy swamp of the political milieu. I do not want to go off-track too far and lose my point in the morass of “hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “helping people back to work” (indeed the ghastly “world of work” itself) etc.

Words create a mental landscape, they shape a society as surely as the architecture of our cities and, to be rather topical, public statuary.

It matters whether the influx of millions of non-Europeans into Europe and other European-inhabited lands is described as a “desperate” “movement” of “refugees” or as a “flood” of “migrant-invaders”, indeed as a “migration-invasion” (my favourite) or simply as an “invasion”.

It matters if “social security” (in the British use of the term), meaning a “safety net” or system available to those who need it (and, importantly, into which most if not all of those using it have paid, one way or another) is then changed to “welfare”, a term which gives the impression of money or food thrown at (probably undeserving and probably useless) eaters, who are, again, “probably” taking money from “the taxpayer” (not even “the State”).

It matters if “free speech” is in many cases re-designated as “hate speech” and/or “hate crime”.

So we return to “thank you for your service”…one of the least meaningful phrases around. An American affectation, which seems to say, “this person served in ‘the military’ in some capacity and so we regard him –or her– as heroic.” It of course bears little relationship to reality. Most service personnel, even in a war, are not anywhere near the “front-line” or active fighting areas. Indeed, many American service personnel never even leave the shores of the USA. In Britain, that idea crept in during the Falklands campaign, when anyone who had been to the Falklands in uniform became, ipso facto, a “Falklands hero”, courtesy of the Sun “newspaper”.

No-one disputes that a modern military system requires large numbers of accountants, lawyers, dentists, administrative people, pension experts etc, as well as cooks, drivers and the more obviously martial occupations of fighter pilot, tank commander, infantry soldier and commando. They all “do their bit”, in the English phrase of yesteryear. However, it seems strained to say “thank you for your service” to people who spent their entire service researching legal cases in Washington D.C., or fixing the plumbing on an Air Force base in Texas.

One notices that some scribblers who are very adherent to the Atlanticist or “New World Order” viewpoint are among the worst offenders (people such as Louise Mensch). In fact, it could be said that “thank you for your service” goes beyond affectation and constitutes an attempt to further Americanize the mentality of the British.

So it is that I plead for people to avoid the use of “thank you for your service”, even when addressing those who should be in that sense respected.

How the Bar of England and Wales Became a Dustbin

I recognize, in writing about the Bar and having been myself disbarred for political reasons last year, that I shall probably be accused of some species of sour grapes. Not so. My disbarment in late 2016 at the instigation of a pack of Jewish Zionists had no practical effect on me beyond a couple of days of newspaper and Twitter nonsense. I ceased practice at the English Bar in 2008 and last appeared in court (Central London County Court, a three-day construction case) in December 2007. The views I am about to express were mine, in essence, then too.

What is “the Bar”, what is its purpose or role and what prompts me to call it “a dustbin”?

There is no point in going into long history or explanation. It is enough to say that the English Bar grew organically out of British history and society intimately connected with the struggle for free speech against the tyrannical tendency inherent in monarchical rule. I suppose that, today, a figure such as John Hampden is less well known by, e.g. schoolchildren than, say, Nelson Mandela, just as the founder of modern nursing, Florence Nightingale, has been eclipsed by the minor figure of Mary Seacole (who set up a tea-room in the Crimean War). “They established brainwashing and called it education.”

At any rate, it can be said that the institution of the Bar, meaning the independent Bar, the Bar independent of the State, grew at least partly out of that struggle for the rights of the individual as against the power of the State. Free speech was part of it, as were the rights of property (set against the mediaeval feudal system of royal and baronial –etc– patronage).

It is this very independence of the Bar which has now largely been destroyed, though remnants remain. The Bar has become entangled with the State. Civil and criminal legal aid, in many ways very useful for society and individual persons (criminal defendants, and those making or defending a civil claim), yet has had the effect of making the Bar dependent on State patronage. The proliferation of quangos requiring chairpersons and/or legal advisers has made many barristers further dependent, financially, on the State, in effect at least. Finally, the adoption of a Zionist-drafted and/or influenced “Code of Conduct”, increasingly draconian in its enforcement and enforced by an increasingly-active regulatory body (the Bar Standards Board) has made many at the Bar afraid of their own shadows.

When I was a student of law, I graduated (aged 30) in 1987. At that time, there was only one place to take the then “Bar Finals course” (a one-year course for most students)– the Inns of Court School of Law, located in Gray’s Inn. That was inconvenient for those whose usual residence was far from London, but it had the merit that barristers emerged from the same institution, often acquainted to some extent with each other. Though there were over a thousand students, many were foreign citizens almost all of whom would return to practice law in their home countries (many eventually to lead those countries politically or even to found states, as did Gandhi and Jinnah).

During the 1990s, the Bar Finals course, sub nom Bar Vocational Course, was changed to be less academic, more practical. There were benefits to that in terms of the confidence of young barristers, but the drawback was that, bluntly, it became easier to become a barrister.

The Inns of Court School lost its monopoly under the influence of globalism and ensuing legislation, the Bar being regarded as just another “business” offering “legal services” to “consumers”. Soon a multitude of “service providers” (universities, former polytechnics etc) offered “Bar” courses. That remains the case today. A barrister now is simply someone who has acquired two pieces of paper: a “degree” of some sort and a certificate that the requisite Bar course has been completed (few fail these days…).

The only thing preventing untold thousands more practising at the Bar is the pupillage bottleneck, but many are now allowed to “complete pupillage” in places like government departments, so it is perfectly possible to have substandard barristers (practising in court and advising people) who have a degree from a place which is little more than a degree mill, a Bar qualification which is given to almost all who take the course and a pupillage as an office bod in, say, a provincial government department building.

There has always been a space and vacancy problem at the Bar, both for practising barristers and pupil-barristers: until recent years, barristers were often squashed into inadequate rooms in the Inns, four or more to a room in some chambers. That is less acute now because chambers are able to exist, even in London, outside the Inns. However, that too has led to problems. Sets of barristers were established outside the Inns of Court. Some were good, others less good. One example in the 1990s called itself “Brick Lane Chambers” and was composed largely of Bangladeshis and others unable to work elsewhere. It was given a subsidy by the notorious  Tower Hamlets Council, based on numbers of “legal service providers” available, the idea being to increase “legal service provision” in an area supposedly without much.

I knew a barrister (still in practice today) whose name was fraudulently added to their list in order for those chambers to get extra money. She was not alone. She complained and her name was taken off the list, but no action was taken by the council or the Bar itself in respect of a deliberate and egregious fraud. At that time, the Bar had already embarked on its “let’s not annoy the ethnic minorities” journey.

As a Bar student, I proposed (but not officially) a different idea, which would have safeguarded the Bar’s integrity: to found a fifth Inn of Court. That, however, would have involved huge cost, for one thing. It also would have required the clearance of a large site in Central London. Instead, sets of poor barristers started above laundromats and in shopfront premises (as well as some in better circumstances).

Now we come to the regulation of the Bar. The Code of Conduct, once a slim volume, perfectly workable and focussed on trust and integrity, became a thick sheaf of papers packed with the politically-correct shibboleths of the day. It has, in its application, destroyed the independence of mind of the Bar. I refer the reader to my own experience:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

As to recruits to the Bar, many now are brainwashed into a politically-correct mindset and (bearing in mind the pressure on pupillages and tenancies) few are willing to do anything but condemn those (like me) who are thought to have controversial views. They fail to see that their doormatting to the Jewish-Zionist element will not help most of them much. When I was at school in the 1970s, there were about 5,000 practising barristers; when I was Called to the Bar (1991) there were about 10,000 or so, I believe. Now that figure is something like 18,000! Meanwhile, criminal and other legal aid has been slashed and “solicitor-advocates” appear in court too. The result has been that the prestige of the Bar has plummeted. I do not regret that I no longer practise.

For the public, for society, the result of the Bar’s fall has been that the service available is more limited, poorer and that that independent voice of an independent barrister is muted. Just as, in the journalistic milieu, “journalists” of today (particularly online) are often twenty-somethings with no real training or education, their heads full of politically-correct nonsense, the Bar is now full of “barristers” who are really just barristers on paper, men of straw (women too), without real substance. The “journalists” thus cravenly welcome censorship and the “barristers” are unwilling to be seen as even listening to contrary views, let alone standing up for freedom of expression.

Fame is Often Fleeting

[preliminary note: this is a personal rather than a political or social blog post, though it does touch on both of those aspects of life]

It is hardly original to say that fame often tends to be fleeting, but indulge me. I was thinking about this matter recently in the context of hearing about a number of persons and their life-trajectories. In particular, in the past 6-7 years I have observed the meteoric rise of a Jewish Zionist lawyer (solicitor) to fame; he rose to public prominence (after years of provincial obscurity and a slide into near-madness) on the basis of one type of notorious case, only to slowly deflate ever since. That person’s fate, still unfolding (or should that be “unravelling”?) gave rise to other, connected, thoughts.

I was on holiday in Hammamet, Tunisia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammamet] in 1994 when my then girlfriend and I met with a young Englishman and his girlfriend. They were both struggling or at least very junior young journalists, twenty-somethings. The young man explained that they had been in a not very pleasant hotel and so had upgraded to the one in which I was staying, the Phoenicia, one of the best in the resort, all marble and staff wearing white uniforms topped by a fez.

The young journalist said that his name was Jasper Gerard (the girlfriend’s name I forget). We had lunch and the odd drink in the succeeding days and they were in the grounds of the hotel when they noticed someone nearly get killed when his parascending canopy collapsed at altitude. Yes, that was me (I pulled too hard on one side to descend) and apparently Gerard cried out “isn’t that Ian?!” as I appeared to be about to fall, mortally wounded, to the beach. However, I survived with nothing worse than a minor story to tell.

I kept in touch with Jasper. I invited him, not long after, to dinner at Lincoln’s Inn (of which I was then a member). He attended not with the Tunisia holiday girlfriend but with a pleasant, very quiet young lady who (judging by more recent Press photos) was probably his later wife. A week or two later, in the English way, he invited me to dinner at his club, a members-only but non-traditional place in Mayfair called Green Street. The sort of place full of young or youngish people who were probably pop stars whom I would not have and did not recognize. At dinner, the next table was occupied by a lady and her two guests. She was, Gerard whispered, the journalist Marie Colvin, already noted but who became rather famous later on, after she lost an eye and took to wearing a dashing eye-patch. She was killed in Homs, Syria, in 2012, making Gerard’s dinner comment to the effect that connections had helped her seem in retrospect even more envious than it did at the time.

After that, I did not see Jasper Gerard for nearly three years, during which time he had become the head of the Diary column in The Times. After I finished a year working in Kazakhstan, I called him and suggested a drink. He suggested lunch at El Vino, not the original wine bar, but the branch at the foot of Ludgate Hill. He failed to turn up and when I called to ask whether a problem had arisen, did not even apologize but got some underling to say that “something had come up”. That was discourteous, but personal loyalty is important to me, so I agreed to a second lunch date. This time, Gerard did turn up, but the pleasant, rather hesitant young man had become a blase, vain fellow obviously very much spoiled by his career uplift and hugely full of himself. He scarcely bothered to talk, obviously found me not famous enough to waste even the lunch break on, then did not offer to pay or even pay half the bill, but waited until I did before saying “do you mind if I take the cash and pay, so that I can claim it back”! With such a brazen attitude, it is not surprising that the bastard later tried to be elected as an MP!

I did not meet with Jasper Gerard after that, though I noticed that he was later to be found in the Sunday Times as chief interviewer. He lasted for some years before being removed. He then became restaurant critic in The Observer for a year or two, until 2008. He was even mentioned once in celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay’s memoirs.

Gerard fell into obscurity after that, though he came second in the Maidstone and The Weald constituency in 2015, standing as a LibDem (well, after all, the LibDems are now the last resort of the scoundrel!).

The last I heard of Jasper Gerard, in 2016, he had become the Head of Press for the LibDems. Whether he still is, I have no idea.; and his last tweet to the public was in 2015…

The above is just one reminiscence about, mainly, one person. I suppose that the moral of my brief story is that some people really cannot handle fame or even minor celebrity and that obscurity often beckons.

Encounter with Two Labour Ladies

I thought to blog about an encounter, on Twitter, with two ladies of seemingly similar views, both basically pro-Corbyn Labour Party supporters.

I happened to see that a Jew-Zionist lawyer and prolific tweeter was arguing with and, as the ladies tweeted (not inaccurately), “bullying” them because they opposed Israel. I myself block the Jew in question but started to talk to both ladies.

I could see that they had become aware of abusive tweets by one or two Jewish Zionist persons, notably minor academic Ben Gidley, who works at Birkbeck and Goldsmiths colleges of London University when not tweeting malicious pro-Zionism and supposed “antifascism” and who, while having his more “respectable” academic-oriented account, @bengidley, also runs @bobfrombrockley and did run the Zionist troll account @inthesoupagain (which was permanently suspended by Twitter for its abusive character). @inthesoupagain has in fact been resurrected as @antinazisunited, in which the same garbage pumped out by “Soup” is poorly-camouflaged behind tweets about US politics and other subjects. Other Zionist accounts are now connected with these, among them @gnasherjew (which “monitors” and denounces anti-Zionist Labour members).

At that stage, it seemed clear that both ladies were unaware of my own socio-political views (even in the cartoon form in which they are usually characterized by the Zionist element).

So it was that our Twitter conversation developed. Both ladies seemed well-meaning, wanting a better Britain in a better world etc. Not unlike some of my own views in many ways. They were becoming aware of the Zionist cabal on Twitter and of its methods (trolling those opposed to Zionist control).  They opposed Israel, possibly as much or more than I do myself. However, the amiable atmosphere was clouded when the discussion turned to Jews as distinct from Zionists.

Now the Zionists usually claim that up to 97% of Jews in the UK support Israel. The devil here is in the detail. What does “support” mean in this context? General sympathy? Allegiance right or wrong? Donating money? Serving in the Israeli army? More?

In the instant case, the Jew (and Zionist) lawyer wanted effectively all Jews to be regarded as Zionists. An attack on Zionists and their behaviour was therefore “anti-Semitic”. The two Labour ladies demurred.

As for myself, though I accept that there are some Jews who are ambivalent toward or even hostile toward Israel and/or Zionist activity in the UK or elsewhere, for me this is a sterile argument. I oppose Israel while recognizing that it is no worse as a society than most if not all of the states and peoples around it. I oppose Israel because it is the centre, or a major hub at least, of a world-wide web or network. My interests lie mainly in the UK, Europe generally and in the Russophone world.

My conversation with these two ladies started to take on the character of a debate akin to the debate which once existed between the mediaeval Scholastic school of philosophers (mostly priests and monks of the Roman Catholic Church and whose views devolved largely from Aristotle) and their Platonic-oriented peers. In other words, the Group as against the Individual. Which is the more important or determinative? The two ladies would only recognize individuals, individuals who may, for instance, be Jews, but who were not to be in any way labelled or analyzed by reference to their membership of the (race, culture, religion) group of Jews generally.

My own view is that I recognize the group first, but accept that an individual may not be a typical member of that group. So a Jew can have views and behaviours which deviate from the group of Jews (or Zionist Jews) generally. In other words, I think that I give weight to both the group identity and the individual identity.

While the two Labour ladies could not agree with me completely on the above points (and, while not wishing to characterize either of them as “thick”, they did seem to struggle with the discussion and indeed with logic at times), the conversation was still on a calm level until they realized (from reading about my politically-motivated disbarment, to which I myself had directed them) that my political views are social-national, not System or near-System “Labourist”.

In other words, the two ladies’ early and continuing brainwashing (by “holocaust” propaganda, other System programming at school, on TV, in the msm generally) kicked in. They became outraged (or, more accurately, were becoming or about to become outraged) that my views were slightly or rather out of their normal ballpark.

At that point, not wishing to engage in a fruitless discussion of the Third Reich or National Socialism with people whose views on the subject(s) came from The World At War (at best) or other (even more biased) Jewish/Zionist outpourings, I decided to politely mute these ladies before they became angry or hysterical.

All the same, I found the experience interesting. Their brainwashing or indoctrination may have prevented them from straying too far from what had been pumped into them at an early age (and I doubt that a latter-day “supporter” of Stalin would have outraged them…), but they at least were able to see that there is, on Twitter and elsewhere, a Jewish-Zionist cabal which is, inter alia, determined to trash anti-Zionist Corbyn. They and a million like them are not really ideologically awake, but it’s a start.

[the graphic is rather American, but still pretty good]

CponI2UUEAArtdyUpdate or Postscriptum

One of the “Labour Ladies” blocked me as soon as she understood (or, more accurately, misunderstood) my socio-political views. The other did not but left it for a day or so before tweeting the usual uneducated nonsense about how “Nazis” were (she apparently believes) “dying out”, that I should “rethink” my views and “love everybody”. I do not think that I need do more now than to close her curtains and tiptoe away…(actually, I politely replied and included a few suitable photographs with quotations to make my point; I was then blocked). Both ladies remain merely muted by me.

As for the dispute between the ladies and the Zionist, it seems that that rumbles on and may continue so to do.

 

The Academic Dead-End

No doubt there will be many who might say that I am unqualified to write about academia. My post-graduate qualifications, after all, are or were of a basically vocational nature (the Bar of England and Wales; the Bar of the State of New York). Further, I have never taught any subject at any level. However, it really is time that “time is called” on the dummy intellectuality being passed off as scholarship in the tertiary educational sector.

I do not intend to give specific examples, glaring though many are, of what I have called “dummy intellectuality” in academia. Anyone interested can find it easily for himself, by looking at the list of publications by university faculty members, or at their social media outpourings. I am of course confining my comment mainly to what are often termed the softer areas of study, such as sociology, literature and linguistics, “migration” (yes, this too is now an academic “discipline”!) and the like.

In the past, in the 19th century and most of the 20th, non-scientific academic works could usually be understood perfectly well by the ordinary educated person. That is no longer the case. A whole farrago of nonsense has been imported into academic life, involving narrow jargon, ever-narrower fields of study, cliques of “experts” in the foregoing and careers built on these insubstantial foundations.

I suppose that the pseudo-intellectual egg from which the above-noted chick was hatched was probably the area of the study of Marx, Lenin and Engels, firstly in the Soviet Union, then in the socialist world more generally, which then seeped out into the universities and other tertiary institutions of the Western world. Marxism was itself once called a result of “Jewish Talmudic theorizing and argument” and in the dummy intellectuality now rife in the universities of the UK and elsewhere, there is certainly a powerful Jewish element.

Read any papers by academics in fields such as sociology, “gender studies”, “migration studies” etc and you will see that the language employed is so specialized that it amounts to an exclusionary jargon.

One of the effects of the narrowing of language into jargon is that only those indoctrinated into the jargon can discuss the subjects concerned; others are not to be included in the discussion because they are not “educated” (in the narrow sense) enough to do so. Only the “specialists” (the Jewish or sometimes non-Jewish “experts”) can say anything, it is thought. This way of thinking has also contaminated areas such as economics, which are thought of as “harder” or more scientific than, say, sociology.

Thus it is that, before the financial crash usually dated as 2007-2008, the “experts” were mostly sure that such a crash would not happen. Afterwards, the “experts” split into at least two camps (pro”austerity” being the main one in the UK). These “experts” made predictions, got jobs paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in the Bank of England, the City of London financial district, in the BBC and elsewhere. The fact that most of them got their predictions wrong most of the time  (and still do) means little, because they cannot be challenged by non-experts on their own terms. The average critic does not even have a common language with the average “expert”. The fact that some kind of Mystic Meg or the spin of a coin is as accurate as the “experts” is thought irrelevant.

Likewise, it is hard to challenge the idea, put forward (in nuanced form, so be it) by a few well-known academics and then trumpeted (in simplistic forms) by a horde of “me-too” politically-correct imbeciles and one-world plotters, that the Romans were non-European or even sometimes “blacks”. Who are you, ordinary educated citizen, to challenge “the experts”? Yes, all Roman art, currency, literature, shows a European (Aryan) heritage, but what of that? That has no weight, because Professor Somebody of SuchAndSuch University has suggested that a few non-Europeans served (perhaps) as legionaries for short periods in Britain. From that tentative suggestion by an academic, not only do the “me-too” politically-correct hordes draw sweeping and wrong conclusions as to Roman Britain, but (even more wrongly) go further, to say that modern British people have African or other non-European ancestry. This despite the scientific evidence that does exist:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Returning to our main theme, it is clear that academia must be reclaimed from the “experts” in that narrow sense, from those who are only talking to each other and (((of course))) making a good living doing so.

Whole subjects may have to be either done away with or subjected to a purge. True academics must be able to exist again (they still do, in fact, alongside the jargonists) and thus be able to inform the non-academic population properly as to both their own subjects and public policy. Clarity is king.