web analytics


By Pete Moore On June 24th, 2019

Conservative grandee Ken Clarke has said he would vote to bring down the next Prime Minister rather than allow a no-deal Brexit to go ahead – as a Government minister claimed “a dozen” Tory MPs could do the same.

The former Chancellor said he would not be willing to back a Tory leader pushing a policy that is “totally incompatible with everything the Conservative party has stood for” over decades.

Mr Clarke also made clear that he would be willing to usher in a government led by Jeremy Corbyn in order to thwart a no-deal Brexit.

Translation: The Father of the House, the former Tory Chancellor (and senior Bilderberger) would rather a pro-terrorist, anti-semitic Marxist as Prime Minister than see democracy upheld and his country again becoming sovereign, independent and self-governing. This is the very definition of “extremist”.

These people are literal fanatics.


  1. Mr Clarke also made clear that he would be willing to usher in a government led by Jeremy Corbyn in order to thwart a no-deal Brexit

    Wouldn’t that be for the Brit electorate to decide?

  2. Several Tories would back him in that kind of scenario, but several Labour MPs would in turn vote for the government to stop an attempt to prevent a hard Brexit.

    It would be interesting to see how it plays out.

  3. The former Chancellor said he would not be willing to back a Tory leader pushing a policy that is “totally incompatible with everything the Conservative party has stood for” over decades.

    Can anyone name one thing that the Tories have “stood for for decades.”

    He seems to echo Goldwater’s quote “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice…”

  4. It depends which decades we are referring to, Charles, and pretty much the same thing goes for the GOP in the USA: If we’re talking about the decades up to about the mid-late 1980s, the conservatives stood for small government, libertarian law, low taxation, you know the kind of thing.
    If we’re talking about roughly 1990 onwards, then strangely (and I’m sure you’ll recognise the same trend at home) they’ve stood for big government, higher taxation and spending, lax/zero immigration laws, etc etc, to the point where they now denounce any traditional conservative (eg Trump) as a “Nazi extremist”.

  5. Brexi, indeed. It’s like what happened to fiscal conservatives? There are none left!

  6. The stance on Brexit by nutters like Clarke, who represents the great majority of the political class is extreme without any consideration of the interests of the British people. But Brexit is just one example, for there are the interests of others who are paramount:


    BRITAIN will consider joining its “strongest ally” the United States in attacking Iran, Jeremy Hunt said.

    The Foreign Secretary, who is battling to be the UK’s next Prime Minister, said the country would consider requests for military support “on a case-by-case basis.”

    This is lunacy, but where’s Boris Johnson in all this insanity?


    Johnson is every bit as much part of the jewish swamp as Trump: they are hell-bent on attacking Iran for something, anything.

  7. Yorkshire voted Leave, heavily so. The Brexit nutters whom have perverted the world of art are giving Yorkshire a punishment beating:


    Total, absolute degeneracy

  8. Allan@, I take grave exception to your irrational Jew-hatred. It’s reminiscent (as is all Jew-hatred) of the actual far-left Nazis of Germany in decades past. Blame “The Jews” for everything, they’re an easy target. It’s sickening.
    I read you as an intelligent person, except for this Jew-hatred, and I wish you could step back and look at yourself…but it’s a form of mental illness, I’m convinced of it. I’m not a Jew (although I have certain affinities for them) but these days, I would proudly wrap a Star of David flag around myself, rather than be affilliated with the verninous far-left Nazi groups who seek Israel’s destruction.

  9. Well done Ken Clarke and co. True patriots in the best meaning of that term.

  10. Brex – you need to get your emotions under control. Although they project themselves (through their ownership of media) as the eternal victims, they have done rather well for themselves. As for wrapping yourself in the flag of the star of David, feel free for nobody that I know of wishes to destroy Israel – but why are jews everywhere throughout the institutions of every single white western country? Unbelievably, one of jewry’s shills spilled the beans………

    It’s when (around the 25-minute mark) Katie Hopkins talks to a Jew about the Jews leaving France for Israel. She asks why not do this?


    We don’t recommend that. We think – and this is the discourse we have with the Israeli government. Israel needs a diaspora to survive. Israel must keep a diaspora in the US, in Europe. Unfortunately the return of most Jews on Israeli ground will be a real challenge for the future of Israel if we don’t have a diaspora any more, this is why I’m fighting to have a Jewish diaspora, so they can stay in Europe, live in Europe.

    So Jews have no real commitment to the countries they live in. They stay only so they can parasitize the power and resources of those countries to help the one country they do care about, Israel. Take a look now at the US and its actions in the Middle East – who controls what the lumbering beast is doing? And yet, its own borders are unprotected and Africans from the lands of Ebola are crossing freely.

  11. This comes as no surprise. To me they are similar to the British Union of Fascist in the 30’s or the Communists throughout most of the 20th Century – Serving another master, even against the interest of their mother country is justifiable, for whatever reason. People like, Clarke are, in my view, in good company.

  12. This is Sheldon Adelson. Sheldon Adelson is a jewish billionaire and he owns Donald Trump. As to why President Trump does what he does and wants to start war with Iran…..


    Sheldon Adelson regrets having worn an American uniform rather than an Israeli one

    It’s 1 min 16 secs long and it explains everything.

  13. The actual far-left Nazis of Germany in decades past

    Brexi, I’ve had this out with you before. I don’t know if you’ve forgotten or that you just want to keep repeating the myth:

    brexitannia, on April 14th, 2018 at 12:23 AM Said:

    Hitler’s political party was called the ‘National Socialists’ and as far as I’m aware from what I have read, their economic policies were intended to be socialist in some form.
    I wasn’t aware that the Nazis privatised any (previously) national industries, I thought that they did the opposite, or at least campaigned to do so. Might be wrong, maybe I need to read up some more on this.
    I know that these days, we have so-called ‘conservative’ parties which are in fact no such thing at all, but (again, I could be wrong but) back in the 1930s, against the backdrop of the failed Weimar Republic and the national mood of distrust of ‘the rich/elite’, I’m not sure that Hitler would have put the word ‘socialists’ in his party’s name unless he wanted his party to be socialist?

    Paul McMahon, on April 14th, 2018 at 12:48 AM Said:

    Here you are Brex:

    It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947).1



    As I said, the Democratic Republic of North Korea isn’t all that democratic and there are no shepherds in shepherd’s pie.

  14. Paul, I recall our previous conversation on this point. You seem to think that because you made an argument, that settles it. I simply didn’t (and don’t) quite accept your point (I can’t recall if I expressed this or not at the time, and I can’t be bothered to trawl back through previous comments to find out what I said).
    Yes, AH banned trades unions and handed over power to Nazi Party members. That isn’t quite the same thing as a free-marketeeer allowing free-market principles to flourish. He simply did what every power-hungry thug has done throughout history: take power away from his perceived opponents and put it in the hands of his Party loyalists. At the time of the Nazis’ rise to power, there were many Russia-supporting communist factions in Germany and these had a degree of control over trades unions, and Hitler saw these as opponents and thus moved against them.
    Now of course we’re talking of events many decades ago and it’s difficult to pinpoint all the complexities of the situation, but the more I read about those times, the more I become convinced that it wasn’t so much a question of the Nazis and the Communists being “ideologically opposed” to each other, but more that they were simply two separate groups of far-left power-hungry thugs both after the same thing (total power).
    Perhaps it’s misleading of me to differentiate between “far left” and “far right” in this context. Both labels appear to be simply the names that one faction calls the other, these days. I’m not sure and I have a lot to learn, I admit, but I am coming to the idea that Stalin and Hitler were both merely thugs who both wanted total power, and that there was little ideological divide between them.

  15. Of course you don’t accept it Brexi. You don’t accept it because it doesn’t agree with your narrative that the Nazis were socialists because they had the word socialist in their name.

    However, actions speak louder than words and the Nazi actions above certainly weren’t ‘socialist’.

    As I say above, North Korea isn’t all that democratic and there aren’t any real shepherds in shepherd’s pie.

  16. Paul, again I disgree at the most basic level.
    Nowadays it is conceivable that a “populist” party might call itself “socialist” (while actually being at heart the complete opposite) merely to attract the popular vote, perhaps in the same vein as Tony Blair restyled Labour as “New Labour”, but back then if you called yourself Socialist, you were socialist, at least as far as that goes on the surface (I say that because many socialists often claim that “real socialism has never been tried”, and actually they’re right in a sense, because “real socialism” would require its leaders to be totally unselfish and not out for personal or party gain, but instead to truly only want “the common good” or whatever, and no human being is truly like that).

  17. The National Socialist German Workers Party, led by AH, identified certain “capitalists” as the enemy of Germany (specifically Jewish industrialists) and sought, at least superficially, to take away power from those groups and put it in the hands of (ahem) “the people” (translation: The Nazi Party).

  18. I know you disagree Brexi but you disagreeing doesn’t change the premise not the facts above.

  19. LOL, Paul, nor does my disagreeing make my interpretation any less true than yours. I’m willing to accept that most (if not all) governments calling themselves “socialist” weren’t (or aren’t) really socialist at all. They’re just power-hungry thugs. My real beef is that the power-hungry have somehow managed to label free-market, small-government advocates as “far-right” as if that is a bad thing, and that they have somehow managed to twist things to make it look as if the Nazis were of this “far-right” faction. It’s a nonsense. The Nazis were the ultimate in Total Statists, whether one calls them Left or Right. So these left/right labels are pure misdirection.

  20. Brexi, you’ve made the assertion that the Nazis were socialist because they had the word socialist in their name. I’ve showed how their actions weren’t socialist and your rebuttal to this has been to say ‘I disagree’ which you’re entitled to do but it still doesn’t change the premise that the base of your argument is terminology hence my reference to the Democratic Republic of North Korea and shepherd’s pie.

  21. Dacist, Socialist, Nazi,…… call it what you want when the government controls speech they’re commie pinko bastards that need to dealt with.

    I have not forgot my post, just enjoying a week of wonderful obligations.