A Boris Party?

If you’re anything like me in this, you’re so thoroughly sick of these jerks who purport to rule us – if they were even slightly good I’d not mind so much this lot are a shower of tossers here, across the pond and dowununder.  They seem to do better in eastern Europe.

Yawn. For a start, the young lady is metro bubble, she speaks with that sort of lefty person the whole time, she thinks the world revolves around Londonistan.

We do, however, need to recognize some key realities.  First is that the cultural marxists and economic globalists have well and truly taken over, end of.  Cameron completed the job over here with his parachuting in, exploiting the preselection [or automtic election process by tribalists].

We’re stuck with a parliamentary system because no one’s going to vote it out unless in a total disaster – so if these horse’s backsides have that in mind, methinks it will backfire this time, except it might get their desired Muslimicide going.

So, stuck with the realisation that we can only do it for now through a majority party, what chance for us,given that the previously unsplit UKIP is now in fragments?  I’d say not a chance in Hades – at our best, we number about 30-35% in terms of voting, not just sympathies, although there seems a lot of silent support [using anecdotal evidence for this].

It just stands to reason that the only way we can come to power is through a coalition of the willing, i.e. no one roughly on our side stands against another of the same views within a constituency.  But look at constituencies – the safe Tory seats, the safe Labour seats or Lib Dem further north – then come the ones parties have their eyes on.

Now in these, AMW’s party would want to be represented but so would UKIP and every other little party and independent.  So to the nub – how to get either AMW or Gerard Batten to back off when there’s a chance to take that seat?  And the Tories would eye it too, for themselves.

You see where this is.

Plus, even though Boris and JRM are certainly Brexiteers, they don’t particularly like the Deplorable riff-raff like us.  They are still basically Tory first, country second.  when it really comes down to it, eyeball to eyeball.  UKIP will cooperate, the Leave Tories want it all their own way – we saw that in the referendum.

So, what about this Boris for PM thing?  Can’t see it really – those parachuted Remoaners are still in there, doing their worst and frankly, I’m not sure the argument that the Tories could lose to Corbyn moves them at all – they are nutters and would only feel Leavers should back off, not them.  When the Tories go down, they’ll blame the Brexiteers, won’t they?

A connected issue is how much this attitude is their EU and multinational troughing or is it far more sinister?  I’ve quoted many times key globalists in power over the last few decades who have been working feverishly on the Great Work of Ages – globalism, followed by the satanism which then rules.  You guffaw all you want but you won’t be guffawing if you live through to that era.  Read Svali for a foretaste.

So the question is – is Boris a true maverick or is he a Them shill in Deplorable clothing?

And the next question is – would a Boris PMship be the least worst option at this time?  Frankly, I don’t know.

11 comments for “A Boris Party?

  1. john in cheshire
    August 11, 2018 at 3:12 pm

    I think Mrs May is, metaphorically, a dead woman walking and no doubt she and her collectivist/commie mates know it too.

    The question is when will she be defenestrated, before, at or after the party conference?

  2. Errol
    August 11, 2018 at 4:34 pm

    Boris is saying these things so he has popular support for when May is ousted. It’s a cynical ploy.

    Frankly, the Burqa should be banned. It’s a divisive, racist two fingers up to this country.

    • Pcar
      August 11, 2018 at 11:30 pm

      A biker backlash against “Remove Helmet” would be nice – Biker & Helmet are my relegion, law says I must wear helmet.

    • ScotchedEarth
      August 13, 2018 at 12:01 am

      Banning the burqa would not even require a new law, the existing Public Order Act 1936 (enacted to hamper Mosley’s BUF) being adequate. Section 1 states: ‘… any person who in any public place or at any public meeting wears uniform signifying his association with any political organisation or with the promotion of any political object shall be guilty of an offence …’ All that is required is a competent CPS barrister to rope in some Islamic scholars (and a cleric or two if pos.) and argue how the Koran counsels only modest dress, and anything more (chador, niqab, burqa) is political and so prohibited by POA 1936.
      (Btw, ask any objecting to banning the burqa what they’re doing to repeal POA 1936.)

      We should also remove the religious exemption from animal slaughter regulations (as Denmark and Belgium’s Walloon region have done); and to this end, should welcome as allies anyone sympathetic to animal rights, and condemn as hypocrites any animal rights types refusing to get on board. (The tiniest of baby steps: ‘Halal meat row as Lancashire council becomes first to ban unstunned meat from all school meals’, Daily Telegraph, 26 Oct. 2017.

      We have already outlawed FGM (Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003) and should extend that prohibition to males. No justification for it in CURRENT YEAR, all sorts of risks, etc. This would be an opportunity to obtain MRA support.

      As regards foreign-born undesirables, re-enacting the Aliens Act 1905 together with reviving the common law offence of Sedition (by repealing Section 73 of the Coroners & Justice Act 2009), would allow us to quickly remove them from our shores. Interestingly, the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 remains law; its section 3.1 states: ‘If any alien attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause sedition or disaffection amongst any of His Majesty’s Forces or the forces of His Majesty’s allies, or amongst the civilian population, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to penal servitude for a term not exceeding ten years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.’ Start jailing foreign troublemakers for months to years at a time, they’ll disappear fast enough (most before the trial even starts).

      These measures are fairly moderate by themselves, have both historical and international precedent, and are amply justifiable without being overtly anti-muslim; but they accumulate to make life uncongenial to extreme muslims, encouraging them to self-deport—important if they’re British-born and not easily deportable.

  3. Pcar
    August 11, 2018 at 11:22 pm


    Boris party? No

    Boris usurping May? Yes, he does respect vote. Even our black lab would be better than May – he does sense and bark at bad humans.

    I want a Conservative & Unionist party, not the Left hijacked renamed Blairbore Party masqueading as Conservatives.

    Passing of and imitation of a brand is breach of copyright/trademark law – crowdfund legal challenge?

    No doubt it would lose, but the publicity would be great and maybe kick/wake-up the local branches.

    btw I see nothing wrong in Isabel’s tweet – what words gripe you?

    • Pcar
      August 11, 2018 at 11:26 pm

      masqueading = masquerading

      @James Why have Edit Post and Save Details been removed?

    • August 12, 2018 at 5:20 am

      The key is in “something has gone”, suggesting recently. Only a metro bubble maiden, establishment or left-liberal would say that, as if it’s only gone wrong now. She should step outside of the bubble and read some history, e.g. the formation of the Club of Rome or Ted Heath or Heseltine/Major, which the rest of us know about. It went wrong decades ago.

      • ScotchedEarth
        August 12, 2018 at 11:16 pm

        Longer ago than decades, I think. Robert Lewis Dabney wrote the following over a century ago but his words might have been written yesterday:

        [C]onservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. … [C]onservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. … It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle.

        (Dabney, Robert L. Discussions. Vol. IV. Mexico, MO: 1897. 496.)

        As Mark Steyn put it in 2010:

        In most of the rest of the Western world, there are still nominally “conservative” parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect … The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.

        Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever-expanding number of government jobs will be statists—sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily “compassionate” statists, but always statists. The short history of the post-war welfare state is that you don’t need a president-for-life if you’ve got a bureaucracy-for-life: The people can elect “conservatives,” as the Germans have done and the British are about to do, and the Left is mostly relaxed about it because, in all but exceptional cases (Thatcher), they fulfil the same function in the system as the first-year boys at wintry English boarding schools who, for tuppence-ha’penny or some such, would agree to go and warm the seat in the unheated lavatories until the prefects strolled in and took their rightful place.

        (Steyn, Mark. “Obamacare worth the price to Democrats.” Orange County Register. 5 Mar. 2010.)

        • Pcar
          August 13, 2018 at 10:14 pm



  4. James Higham
    August 12, 2018 at 5:04 am

    Still there. Have posted this comment now logged out and it gives five minutes editing time. That’s the normal limit for site security reasons. You may have forgotten our recent issues with comments breaking the site.

    Have just re-edited this comment two minutes later – works fine.

  5. August 13, 2018 at 5:47 am

    Monday morning.

    Just need to thank those that add such researched pieces in comments. I’ve been saying for a long time that blog authors such as myself are not fonts of wisdom, we just present the skeleton of a case and it’s the readers who put the meat on that. On some blogs, the readers are just traffic, here it’s fairly obvious that we look for knowlege in comments to add to what’s in the post.

    The post then becomes an archive, should anyone wish to come back for quotes to use.

Comments are closed.