Category Archives: society

Europe Will Soon Be In Chaos– We Can Create A New Civilization From That

First Postulate: Collapse

Many reading this may ask how Europe is going to be in chaos soon. After all, for all its problems, Europe is still one of the best places in the world to live, which is precisely why so many non-Europeans are invading the continent as immigrants of various sorts, so how could it soon be in chaos?

One factor is that very migration-invasion, though it alone, on the scale so far seen, is not quite enough to tip Europe as a whole into chaos. Likewise, the “invasion by birth” to the non-Europeans presently resident in Europe, though it is starting to have a very negative effect on societies across Europe, is a slow and gradual degradation of the racial stock and society, and not something that has an immediate determinative effect.

Another factor is that of social or societal breakdown, the result of alcohol and drug abuse, crime and the loosening bonds of traditional or institutional morality. Again, this does not have an immediate effect on the large scale, but weakens the society gradually. Thus we see, for example, that the wish of individuals to (in the American phrase) “pursue happiness”, or to not be “offended” (even when offence is actually and actively sought in a kind of masochistic game) now often trumps the needs of the society as a whole.

Marriage as an institution (eg in the UK) has been weakened by various “reforms” over the past few decades: the equivalence given to “civil partnership”; the creation of the “gay marriage” which now has exactly the same rights (in the UK) as actual, real or traditional marriage; the financial impossibility for most (heterosexual) married couples to decide that the mother of children should actually look after those children full-time.

Again, freedom of expression on social, political, historical and religious topics, a key pillar of the modern “Western” (racially and culturally European) tradition, is being weakened. Speaking in very general terms, Jews (certainly Zionist Jews) want to prevent free speech where it examines the “holocaust” fakery etc, or where it criticizes the (increasing) Jewish stranglehold over the mass media, publishing, System politics, the financial sector, the legal professions. The Muslims, though less active in repressing free speech than the Jews, wish to prevent criticism of Islam. A multitude of “doormats” in Parliament, the police, central and local government work away trying to repress free speech in the ostensible interest of a “community cohesion” which now scarcely exists.

All of the above are factors to be taken into account, alongside financial and/or economic collapse (which even the mainstream media are now reporting on as a serious short-to medium term likelihood). However, the primary key factor in any general collapse of society in Europe in the near future is likely to be a major war. We have seen an acceleration of rhetoric against Russia by the System political parties and msm in recent years. Any major war in Europe will be between NATO (in reality the New World Order conspiracy or NWO) and Russia.

Russia has been for several years improving its armed forces and still has huge numbers of personnel which it can place in the field. It is no longer weak. Many commentators note the economic weakness of Russia, but that did not stop Stalin from conquering half of Europe. As to who would “want” a war (the other argument often heard), who “wanted” a war in 1914, a war which started or at least was triggered because an Austrian archduke was shot by a semi-literate anarchist youth in one of the least civilized parts of Europe?  For that matter, despite the build-up of tension in the 1930s, war was by no means “inevitable” in 1939. It could have happened in 1938, in 1936, or even in 1934. The worthless “guarantees” extended to Poland by Britain and France primed the gunpowder, but it was the decision by, fundamentally, the British Government (ruled largely by Jews and freemasons) that lit the fuse. War did not have to happen between the German Reich and Britain in 1939. It did happen, though, nicht wahr?

We have become used to the idea that nuclear weapons will never be used, certainly not in Europe. A major conflict in Europe, once triggered, will see everything being used in the end, even if the start of that conflict is conventional. Every UK and US staff college modelling exercise that tried to think about what another major war would be like ended up with the use of conventional forces at first, followed by “tactical” and finally “strategic” nuclear weapons.

What Could Europe Look Like After a Major War?

That depends on how long any conflict lasts, on whether indeed nuclear weapons are used (and on what scale), and on how the war goes. The Chinese position would be crucial, both in terms of the war and in terms of whatever follows the war. Would China wait until NATO –meaning mainly the USA– is devastated, and until Russia too is devastated, and then pick up the pieces? In those circumstances, China could end up ruling most of the present-day Russian Federation as well as states such as Kazakhstan (where I myself spent a year in 1996-97).

In any event, war on any but a small scale would leave Europe’s major cities either destroyed or in a state of chaotic anarchy. The economic dislocation would lead to mass rioting, civil war(s), huge criminality. Then what? Europe is not Haiti, not black Africa. Chaos in Europe is only the harbinger of a new order.

Second Postulate: A New Order Based on European Race and Culture

At time of writing, the non-European racial/ethnic elements in Europe are said to comprise about 3% to 5% of the entire population of the continent (including European Russia). However, this percentage is rapidly increasing via both migration-invasion and invasion-by-birth. There is time to save Europe, but not unlimited time.

In a situation where the formerly-existing power-structures have collapsed and where there is chaos, more or less, a radical and “extreme” solution will find favour. A social-national movement could take power in the various parts of Europe, because the power-structures opposing us will have been weakened or even destroyed. Likewise, the stranglehold of the Jewish-Zionist element over msm, corrupt System politics etc, finance and the rest will be as good as ended. In short, we can do this!

Europe after a major conflict will be without direct help (and direct interference) from a possibly-largely-destroyed United States. It will have to find its own way back and its own way forward. Racial-cultural communities, safe zones, citizens’ militias etc… and from all that, a new order and a new Europe!

Advertisements

Twittering To The Birds

It has now been about three months since I was expelled from Twitter. Am I chafing under the restriction? No.

Most Twitter users regard removal from Twitter as akin to being cast into outer darkness, a phenomenon to be feared (if it happens to them), to be protested against (if it happens to those whom they regard as ideological friends), to be laughed at and celebrated (if it happens to those they dislike, hate, or oppose ideologically).

Twitter is in fact a habit akin to having a piece of chocolate with your morning coffee. I used to love posting my views and comments on the affairs of the day, as well as posting favoured music and art. Self-expression. I used to think also that I was, at least in a small way, influencing the national and even international debate. That might have been so, but only to a very limited degree.

My Twitter account had just under 3,000 followers when it was eliminated by the Twitter organization. The absurdity of imagining that you are much influencing society is shown when it is considered that –to take just one example and one which comes into my mind— a mentally-disturbed Jewess whose Twitter account is replete with long complaints about her illnesses, alcohol consumption, problems with the DWP, and those she dislikes politically (including me!), as well as pictures of her dogs and photographs of owls, actually has 500 more Twitter followers than had my account, with its –as I would like to believe, anyway!– intelligent, pithy views and comment on politics, strategy and society. The present Prime Minister, Theresa May, has 598,000 Twitter followers, while Jeremy Corbyn has no less than 1.84 million.  To extend the idea to absurdity, take the One Direction pop group: they have 31 million Twitter followers.

A superficial view might be to imagine that someone with many thousands (or, a fortiori, millions) of Twitter followers has huge influence or impact upon society, upon political views etc. A moment’s thought shows that even if that be true, the influence and impact comes out of what the tweeter does offline, certainly off Twitter, not what he or she posts on Twitter. Theresa May’s Twitter influence is a mere adjunct to her position as Prime Minister. As to such as “One Direction”, were they not well known as entertainers, their influence (whatever it may be) would be close to a zero point.

I keep in touch with comment on Twitter, read about this and that, largely out of habit, but am no longer fooled by the idea that those tweeting are influencing many outside their own existing circle (or “echo chamber”). I sometimes look at the tweets of the Jew-Zionist cabal on UK Twitter. The same few dozen idiots, mostly concentrated in part of North London, still tweeting pretty much what they were tweeting five years ago— to as little effect.

Another example, that of the “Alt-Right”: “Prison Planet” Watson, meaning Paul Joseph Watson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson, a young-ish (about 38-y-o) blogger and vlogger (and who does not accept the “alt-Right” label now), tweets to his 904,000 Twitter followers from (as I read somewhere) a basement flat in the Battersea area. Consider that: 904,000 followers, when the Prime Minister of the country only has 598,000… On the other hand, who of the two has more real influence, let alone real political power? That is not even a question.

Another point is that many “celebrity” or would-be celebrity tweeters buy huge numbers of followers, in an attempt to “big up” (in the inelegant phrase of the day) their Twitter profile and so (they hope) their real-world profile. To take one example, not entirely at random: a certain well-known Jew-Zionist solicitor, very vocal about “anti-Semitism” etc, (and who is or was wont to scream imprecations to me and others about how we should die and how he looks forward to our deaths) had about 5,000 Twitter followers when I became aware of the bastard’s existence (around 2012). That follower count increased to about 80,000 within one week! I wonder how much those “followers” cost him and whether the fake total helped him to pose as a hot-shot lawyer and almost a “public figure”? At any rate, he now has about 20,000 “followers”. His fakery does not stand alone, there are many whose “follower count” is hugely inflated, but I seriously doubt the utility of doing things like that.

There is another point. Many Twitter users follow literally thousands of accounts, so the influence of any one account on the follower is likely to be very small.

It might be asked why I am now on GAB if I think that being on Twitter is a waste of time. GAB has only 500,000 users, against Twitter’s 400 million. I am on GAB mainly because it is possible to communicate with others of similar views easily, either publicly or privately (as on Twitter). In addition, I want to support a genuine free-speech platform.

Mao opined (later printed in the “Little Red Books”) that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_grows_out_of_the_barrel_of_a_gun

That may not be the whole truth, but political power certainly does not grow out of tweets on Twitter.

Further thoughts [22 August 2018]

I just saw that privileged, superannuated schoolgirl-type and politico-social one-trick-pony Caroline Criado-Perez has no less than 46, 200 Twitter followers! There are innumerable similar examples on Twitter.

See also: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-pseuds/

 

 

Where Are The Limits Of Religious Freedom?

One of the pillars of a future “Threefold Social Order” society will be religious freedom. Such freedom is also said to be a pillar of our existing “Western” model of society.

“We” supposedly all agree with that ideal, meaning of course “we” white Northern Europeans. Of course, once one gets away from Northern Europe and its wider offshoots in North America, Australasia etc, that consensus ends. In the Middle East, much of Africa, South Asia etc, freedom of religion either does not exist, or exists only as a fragile plant.

In Europe, we see that the migration-invasion, and the societal takeover via a high birth rate of, in particular, Muslims, is threatening our fond belief that we have and always will have religious freedom. The pendulum is swinging. Whereas in the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic Christians repressed other religious communities and launched crusades to conquer Muslim lands (a simplification, of course, but let’s leave that aside), today the Muslims are invading Europe, not as armies (as happened several times in the past) but as migrant-invaders (immigrants, “refugees”, “asylum-seekers”, and as babies born in Europe…). If this continues unabated, we can expect to see more attempts to shut down religious freedom for non-Muslims, as shown in this cartoon:

CX9ZsZOWEAAky2e

This process can be seen in the UK. There have in fact been Muslims in the UK for a long time, at least in small numbers. An Islamic centre and cemetery was established on the edge of Woking, Surrey, in the 19thC (it can be seen just before trains enter Woking Station, on the Southern or lefthand side as the train travels from London). However, the political or societal strength has grown in more recent years, along with the numbers.

In the 1970s, the Muslim element rarely displayed itself politically. I myself recall that posters on the Underground in 1976 or 1977, advertizing the Libyan-funded film “Mohammed, Messenger of God” were often defaced, always with the same words: “Islam forbids representations”. That vandalism, along with “community” representation to the UK authorities and the film distributors, resulted in the film being renamed “The Message”.

Now, 40 or so years later, times have moved on. Despite the Muslim population of the UK only being between 5% and 6% (officially), there has been a gradual infiltration (I do not say that it has been particularly organized) into mainstream political parties, in areas where Muslim numbers are significant: parts of the North of England, the Midlands, smaller areas within London and elsewhere. The influence of Sharia law and courts has grown; the Church of England has shown itself craven (as indeed it is when confronted by the aggressive Jewish-Zionist element). In some cases, Christians wishing to display their faith, e.g. by wearing crosses etc, have been given the choice of not doing so or being dismissed.

I repeat, officially the Muslim population of the UK stands at little more than 5% (about 5.1%) so far, but a high birth rate may propel that to 10% in the short term and later to…who knows? What will then be its influence and power?

As to the Jews, in numbers they are small, somewhere between 250,000 to 280,000, though there are also very large numbers of part-Jews, many of whom have little or no day to day connection with Jewish religious practices. Their influence and power comes not from crude numbers, but from concentration in and control of key strategic areas: finance, law, politics, mainstream media and, now, large Internet organizations.

Christians and Muslims accept persons of any race into their communities, at least in principle. Both Christians and Muslims have traditionally accepted it as an article of faith that persons of other religions should be “converted”, whereas Jews do not seek converts (though some modern branches do accept small numbers, e.g. after marriage to Jews). Judaism, therefore, has never launched “crusades” or the like. The Jews do not aim to make the world Jewish, only to be the major influencing, controlling and profiting element in or over the world.

The modern Christian world of the post-Enlightenment has, in principle, accepted that people can be Christian, Muslim or Jew (or whatever else) freely. That is easy enough when it comes to beliefs, ideas, even public worship in particular buildings, though (as mentioned above) it took Europe a long time even to accept those aspects. Much of the world does not go that far.

Where things become more difficult is when the religious practice of a community contravenes the law or morality of the society as a whole. Halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, which revolt the sensibilities of thinking non-Muslims and non-Jews. Male and female genital mutilation by Muslims and Jews. The cries (now electrically amplified) of the muezzin from the minaret of the mosque. These are cases where, in my view, the demands of the society to prevent cruelty, the wish of Europeans not to hear constant mosque noise in their neighbourhood must prevail over the practices of both the Jews and the Muslims.

To take an extreme case: there were societies in the past, Aztecs, Incas, even Europeans of ancient Europe, who engaged in ritual sacrifice of humans. Would we accept such practices today just because “it is part of their religion”? I think not.

There have been problems in the recent past in relation to other religions: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their unwillingness to save the lives of their children via blood transfusion; the mental and sometimes physical cruelty to children of some small “Christian” sects such as the Plymouth Brethren; the contrived scam that is Scientology (the British government of the 1960s fought a long battle to suppress Scientology, because of its perceived cultic and controlling behaviour). There could be other examples given.

It might be said that even mainstream Christian religions have done very evil things, e.g. the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, though those involved acts not sanctioned or encouraged by the religion as such.

In the end, society, meaning the political element, must draw the line between the zone where religion holds sway and the zone where group or community religious practice must give way before the general secular law which should protect people and animals.

Could A New Party Triumph?

We are now hearing speculation about part of the UK Labour Party splitting off and forming a new so-called “centrist” party: pro-Israel, pro-Jewish lobby, Blairite. Washed-up ex-Labour MP (still clinging on as “independent” MP for the salary, expenses, pension and gratuity rights, and freebies) John Woodcock made a doomed-to-fail plea for such a party recently.

The fact is that only those expelled from Labour or about to be will join Woodcock. Electoral reality is that Corbyn and his supporters retain and will retain the name “Labour” and all its worldly goods, including name-recognition. True, Labour has in recent decades done some very bad things, such as importing millions of blacks and browns with the deliberate aim of destroying white British (there is no other British) society. However, Labour is still living, electorally, off the hump of the creation of the NHS, and other more positive policies of the increasingly remote past.

In other words, Corbyn and his people will stand at the next general election as “Labour” and will be elected or otherwise on that basis. Even if the rebels can organize themselves into “Labour Centre” or some such in the years or, probably, months before that next general election, few if any will be elected in a contest where huge numbers of voters just look at the label: “Labour”, “Conservative” etc, even though the real or original Labour and Conservative parties disappeared decades ago.

What about some other and completely new party? In France, Macron started “his” own party, En Marche, but Macron is merely a figurehead for ZOG and the New World Order [NWO]. Rothschilds bankrolled Macron. His “pop-up” party was not a grassroots upsurge but as manufactured and marketed as sliced bread. Still, the success of En Marche in getting elected was a pointer to the fading popularity of the old System parties.

In the UK, the same frustration and anger fuelled, first, the BNP in the decade up to 2010 and then, up to 2015, the “nationalism-lite” UKIP. Only the semi-rigged British FPTP electoral system saved Labour and Conservative from a devastating UKIP upsurge. On a proportional voting basis, UKIP would not have had 1 MP in 2015 but, at minimum, 70 MPs. In fact, because voters would know that their UKIP votes were not wasted under a pr voting system, UKIP might well have received twice the number of votes that it actually did (nearly 4 million) and so would have ended up with as many as 150 MPs.

All that is water under the bridge now, but there was a recent opinion poll which indicated (though in other words) that about 38% of UK voters would be willing to vote for a generally nationalist pro-Brexit new party and that 24% would, right now, be willing to vote for an “anti-immigration” and “far right” party. I have always fought the use of the misleading “far right”, “right”, “centre”, “left”, “far left” spectrum terminology, but there it is.

It is clear to me that there is a possibility for a truly social-national party to succeed in the UK and particularly in England (and Wales too, probably). It would have to be set up on a very strict and disciplined basis, with power centralized, though an organizational structure of regions might also work. Anything too “democratic” just lets in the forces of opposition: well-funded Jewish Zionist attacks etc, leading to splits. We have seen that in the National Front, British National Party and UKIP.

The party I envisage must be financially secure through its own members, simply and clearly organized, and ideologically clear. Such a party would, in the chaotic conditions ahead, be able to position itself for a bid at national leadership.

First, Steal A Chicken

This post is one in the line of reminiscences of my life at the English Bar. More exactly, it is another story of my days of pupillage (“on the job training”) as a newly-minted barrister in 1992-93, still under the control of a “pupilmaster” (though, as explained in other posts, my “pupilmaster” was in fact the same age as me, a consequence of my “rolling stone” or “wander-bird” youth). It tells the story of a fairly minor series of thefts, but at the same time says something about UK and even European society generally.

A timeworn joke says that the first line of an old Hungarian recipe for chicken goulash starts, “First, steal a chicken”…Well, in this story there was no chicken but what there was was an Arab Gypsy woman in East London who was expecting a baby. Well, a baby needs all kinds of things and especially clothing, so the family of that woman– a man, a boy of 14, the pregnant woman, our defendant (an exceptionally beautiful girl aged about 18 who was a cousin of the pregnant woman), and another woman– set out one fine morning to steal the requisites. Their chosen emporium was British Home Stores, Ilford, part of East London.

The aforesaid shopping expedition was initially successful, but came to an abrupt end when the “shoppers” were arrested by police as they were getting into their car, laden with their “acquisitions”. A woman store detective had noticed them and had alerted her colleagues and the police.

It is at this point that the story becomes interesting from the “crime and punishment” point of view. The man arrested was not charged, on the basis that he had not entered the store, not handled the goods and had not admitted knowing anything of the thefts. The 14 year old boy, having admitted acting as a look-out (a pretty poor one, as it turned out), received a police caution. The other women admitted theft in the magistrates’ court and were fined £50 each. So that left our defendant, who was called something like Maroush or Marousha.

Now it transpired that Maroush was also going to be sentenced for being part of a gang which had visited places like towns in Dorset and Somerset and had stolen quite large amounts from shops by distracting the cashiers while the tills were open (in fact, they could somehow get them open, silently and in seconds, even when the tills were closed). Maroush was a minor player in that game but would be sentenced with several others, they like her having pleaded to those offences, after the conclusion of her shoplifting trial.

Now the point was that theft is an either-way offence and Maroush could have pleaded guilty in the “mags”, in which case she would no doubt have received a £50 fine like the others. Why she had decided to elect Crown Court trial, God knows. We only got her case at the Crown Court stage.

So it was that we all appeared at Snaresbrook Crown Court one day. Snaresbrook is a large rambling building near the end of the Central Line in Essex, and which even then had, I believe, 26 courtrooms (Wikipedia says 20, but that was in 1988; trial was in 1992; it’s pretty big, anyway…). One thing that struck me was when pupilmaster and I were provided (by the Crown Counsel) with a copy of a short Home Office report marked “Restricted”, all about Maroush’s clan origins.

It seems that Maroush came out of a clan of Arab Gypsies who lived (no doubt in poverty and on the margins of Arab society) in pre-WW2 Libya. The Second World War dislocated the states and colonies around the Mediterranean. The clan took the opportunity, after the war finished, somehow to get to Italy. They were eventually granted residency, and some, citizenship. The EEC/EC/EU arrived, with its “free movement” provisions. The clan then moved to somewhere where they could live off the host population more easily– the UK. The Home Office report was fairly direct, which perhaps was why it was “Restricted”: one would not want the British people or Press to see the truth…In fact, the report made it clear that few if any of the 5,000 Arab Gypsies of that clan then living in and around London had remunerative work. They all lived from theft, begging and State benefits.

The trial itself should have taken a day, but in fact took three, to the irritation of the judge. Pupilmaster was usually extremely long-winded, almost absurdly so. In fact, because the trial only ended late on the third day, sentence had to be put off to a fourth, because the other “£50 note trick” defs would be sentenced alongside Maroush. In the event, she was –almost inevitably– convicted of the Ilford shoplifting, and was sentenced to, if memory serves, 22 months’ imprisonment, though most of that was for the Dorset/Somerset offences. Still, she would have been better off pleading to the shoplifting, in the mags. She cried in the dock. I felt sad (I was younger and perhaps more sensitive then).

Not sure why that trial has stuck in my mind: the Home Office report? The youth and beauty of the defendant? The manifest silliness of her decision both to fight the shoplifting charge and, far worse, to do so in the Crown Court? All was put to one side over a few beers in the nearby Spread Eagle pub (if I recall the name aright) not long after. Life went on.

Note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snaresbrook_Crown_Court

 

To Topple A King

In chess, the King is rarely attacked directly. The usual method is to remove his guard, the pieces which surround him [see, for example, The Art of the Middle Game by Keres and Kotov, first published 1964]. In politics, the same sometimes happens. The figure attacked is not easily dislodged directly, so is subjected to indirect attack.

The Jew-Zionists want to remove Jeremy Corbyn, mainly because they say that they see his leadership of the Labour Party as facilitating “anti-Semitism” in Labour and beyond. The reality is more that the Zionists have influenced all major System parties in the UK since the late 1940s (and to some extent since the 1930s), and have had a stranglehold over British political life and parties since, at latest, 1989. They have become accustomed to having most MPs as their doormats. They want to, once again, fully control both major System parties.

Corbyn was never expected to win the Labour leadership and only got on the ballot via the “Hand of God”, meaning that MPs who did not support him and did not later vote for him yet nominated him! I still find that extraordinary. He needed 35 nominations and got 35 (36 including his own vote):

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/who-nominated-who-2015-labour-leadership-election

Corbyn’s position is unassailable if he stands firm against the almost hysterical Jew-Zionist “claque” noise now being howled at him and Labour. The Labour members and supporters mostly support him. Against him is the Jewish lobby: msm (Press, radio, TV), and the pro-Zionist anti-Corbyn MPs in Labour (maybe as many as 200 out of 258). So the “lobby” tries a different tactic, one that they have tried several times since Corbyn was elected Labour leader: to remove his guard, to checkmate him.

Thus we see attempts to rig Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) against Corbyn, to place on it pro-Israel persons, whether those who make a living from being pro-Israel (eg Luke Akehurst) to freak Eddie Izzard.

Now “they” have, in poker language, “upped the ante” by prevailing upon quite pro-Jewish John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor, “suited thug”, ex(?)-IRA supporter and sinister “antifascist” idiot, to pressure Corbyn. McDonnell is ambitious, sees himself as Corbyn’s successor and may want to stab Corbyn in the back. Labour is quite high in the polls. Any early general election (this year or in 2019) might well see Labour as the largest party and at least able to form a minority government. McDonnell may see himself as the next Prime Minister, incredibly.

Corbyn himself is prone to offering the Jews weasel words. That is because his risible old-style socialist worldview (including belief in the “holocaust” narrative fakery, “antifascism”, “The Battle of Cable Street” semi-history, “!No Pasaran” etc) is a huge part of the ideological baggage that he cannot jettison. Cognitive dissonance etc.  He should, ideally, just stand up to the Jewish lobby and appeal to the wider public, but in fact is now –again– cringing before the Jewish Zionists and “apologizing” to the bastards even as they try to get him removed! I see that as partly a tactic, however. If Corbyn retreats like the tide before the attacks, seems to give in at least verbally, then the Jews have nothing to press against. Judo? Sun-Tzu?

I never thought much of Corbyn, who had a very poor academic background, no real work background, no profession, as well as derivative and quite dull ideas. However, he is somehow likeable and is a recognizable English type, the radical socialist/anarchistic, cap-wearing Labourite of the last century, to be found in local Labour parties, on allotments, at steam fairs and heritage railway stations. More importantly, for me, Corbyn is not actually in the pocket of the Jewish Zionists, and (trump card) is laying the ground for social nationalism by just being there and being attacked by the Zionist cabal(s). If Corbyn can hang on in there as Labour leader, he stands a good chance of becoming Prime Minister within a year, even if only as head of a minority government.

Corbyn-Labour can lay the ground for social-nationalism. Many of his own supporters are, albeit unwittingly, halfway there. That is why the enemy are trying to topple him. I hope that they fail.

The Latest Turn of the Screw

Today, a collection of System MPs in a Select Committee of the House of Commons decided that the Internet in the UK is too free, despite the increasing censorship seen (I myself having fairly recently been expelled from Twitter). They want new laws to force the platforms such as Twitter, Facebook etc to somehow prevent “fake news” and the “wrong” kind of opinions being seen or heard. They are animated by the election of Donald Trump and by the Leave vote in the EU Referendum which occurred in the UK. Oh, and they want to stop “interference by foreign countries” in UK politics…

I can see why one Californian film mogul referred to a similar delegation of British MPs that he met (about 15 years ago) as “yawningly dull Little Englanders”. These MPs seem to think that they can pass laws in their little Parliament of fools which will control the Internet. In reality, the USA will not pass such laws, most of them anyway, because of a thing called the US Constitution. The EU might, in its little Parliaments or in its completely undemocratic Brussels version, or by Commission decree, pass such laws, but I doubt it.

As for “foreign interference”, they mean Russia, mainly, but not a word is said about the pervading and continuing Israeli interference in UK politics. Only one documentary (on Channel 4, about 8 years ago) examined the Jewish Israel lobby in the UK. Al Jazeera TV did another recently, only for paid Israel drones in Westminster to laugh it off.

We do not have a “fake news problem” (unless is meant by that the msm). We have another problem, which might be called a “Zionists in the woodwork” problem.

The System MPs would love the Internet to be (even more) muzzled. They love it when honest people cannot put forward social-national views. They are mostly now enemies of the British people.

Notes