BREXIT AND THE JUDGEMENT OF SOLOMON

The First Book of Kings in the Old Testament recounts the story known as the "Judgement of Solomon". It allegedly demonstrates the wisdom of the Jewish king and reinforces the notion of the wise Jew. It is a very convenient story, for what would have happened if both women had refused to give up their claims? The Judaic tradition has a more complicated story, whereby the woman who falsely claims the child is the child's own sister-in-law and does so to avoid being forced to wait to marry her brother-in-law when he comes of age due to the death of her husband - such are the peculiarities of Hebraic law. The woman therefore actually wanted the child dead. In light of this additional background information, does this not then rather show the perversity of Jewish culture and law and those who enforce it? Let us now turn our attention to the contemporary Soloman, who has acquired Solomon's powers over White European Gentiles: John Bercow, the current Speaker of the House of Commons.

 

 

Bercow was instumental in the cover-up of the MPs' expenses scandal, is the first Jewish Speaker, and never before has a Speaker of the House overstepped his authority to such a degree. The Speaker's job is as independent arbiter of debates and non-partisan upholder of British constitutional law, but it was quite clear from the outset that Bercow had an agenda:

 

I wanted it because I felt that there was a task to be undertaken and that's about strengthening backbench involvement and opportunity in parliament, and helping parliament get off its knees and recognise that it isn't just there as a rubber-stamping operation for the government of the day, and as necessary and appropriate to contradict and expose the government of the day.

 

His agendas have extended to the current legal wranglings over Brexit. And here we can see how one-sided he is as surely as we see him constantly speaking out of the left side of his mouth. Last week, we saw him refuse Theresa May's tabling of a Brexit deal that he deemed too similar to the previous one that was rejected by parliament. Here, he brought up an obscure piece of legislation from 1604 later collected in the parliamentary rule book Erskine May. However, on 10th March 2019, Bercow made rulings rejecting amendments being tabled that would decide on whether Article 50 would be revoked outright or not and allowing amendments being tabled that called for a second referendum, which has been propagandised as "the people's vote". Surely the first vote was the people's vote, wasn't it? In any case, why are some things allowed multiple votes on and why are others not? Is it not just a case of which side the referee is playing for, especially if you are playing an international game and that referee's decision helps his own nation?

 

 

So is Brexit necessarily a good thing if the likes of Bercow are obviously against it? Enter Dennis Skinner, a man I regard as a fool in his politics. I do, however, regard him as an honest fool. He generally says what he means, and what he says about the progress of the European Union is interesting: 

 

 

Skinner is afraid of the Rightist movements that are growing and slowly advancing from East to West. He is right to be. His ilk has sown the wind and now will reap the whirlwind. Note what that he acknowledges between the lines: that the Rightist movements grew out of the shadow of Soviet tyranny, the same tyranny he always supported. When the Iron Curtain fell and state repression ended, the European peoples reverted back to what they naturally are: Rightists.

 

What does all this mean for nationalists? I stand by what I have always said on the matter: that Brexit is a pointless distraction which British nationalists seem to view as a magic wand that will solve all their problems. It will not. Mass immigration will continue through agreements with Commonwealth countries and the asylum racket. Identical policies will be carried out in Westminster in parallel to the ones carried out in Brussels, for as long as we have the same dispensation of governance and bureaucracy and the same morality that underpins the system, nothing will change.