The Twattering Classes

meglycinessnipSterilising the Labour Party, smearing Jeremy Corbyn, immunising the élites against the Rule of Law, pensioning off John Ralfe, and Barack Obama jacking off. Situation normal, full speed ahead.

It’s always an advantage to be neutral in sterile ideological debates. I’m not and never have been a member of the Labour Party, although I still admire the astonishing achievements of the 1945-51 Attlee government.

Now – as the crew of the Mayflower put the finishing touches to the demolition job begun by Thatcher and then continued by Blair and Cameron – Labour has chosen this of all moments to do what it’s never done before in its history: try and unseat an elected leader.

You can almost hear the chant:

“Why do we want it?”  >>> “Cos we never did it before!”

“When will we do it?” >>> “When it’s more inappropriate than ever before!”

The Party could’ve done this to Sunny Jim in 1977 – or Mr Donkey Jacket, or Brown or Miliband – and the Nation would’ve cheered. But no, the Campbell-Blair-Smith tendency choose to do it at the very moment when everyone from junior NHS doctors to senior Waspi pension victims needs Labour’s undivided attention.

The PR suit below tweeted this last night. He is a Brussels man through and through, and a Blairite from tip to toe. You can tell this by the irrational smear at Corbyn’s expense:


My Uni thesis was largely to do with Nazi syntax and propaganda. If Whitehouse can see Hitlerian rhetoric in this, I’d like to borrow his glasses; but his own tweet is pure Goebbels: ‘Everyone hates Jews, let’s accuse him of being a Jew’. (For Labour activists about to point out that ‘Jew’ is absent from the smear above, try and see the parallel. Please.)

When the Rule of Law turns into a pool of wee, it’s funny how rarely the activist Left notices it. It’s probably a case of either blindness to the principle, or people in glass houses with stones to hand; but either way, it is far more often the tolerant, well-educated level heads who first spot that other heads are over heels on the issue.

I’ve been following Fred Walton now for over two years, and while I can agree or disagree with him in roughly equal measure, it’s hard to accuse the bloke of tribalism. Whatever the topic, his Benthamesque sense of fair play is always to the fore. In the two retweets from Fred below, he supports two entirely different tweeps for the same reason: they’re about people being above the law….and in a genuine liberal democracy, nobody is above the law.


The arrogance of the Clinton Club and the immunity of bankers makes me feel at times that so numerous are the people above the law, there’s nobody left to uphold it from below. All the Diamonds and Dimons and Blankfeins and Camerons and Osbornes and Campbells levitating happily above the law flutter about and smile as officials, cops and legislators ask them ever so politely, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble, to please come down so we can ask you some pertinent questions about drug barons, and you can tell us we’re actually being impertinent.

But they ignore the politesse. This could be a clue as to how pigeon shooting got off the ground. So to speak.

Meanwhile, over in the Infant School playground, John Ralfe has been at work again. Mr Ralfe is ‘a Pensions Consultant: Helping company and trustee boards to address their pension issues in a clear, focused and practical way’ it says here in the script. I’m not really sure what that entails, but it certainly doesn’t involve any adult attitudes or interest in the wellbeing of Waspi women deprived of their State pensions. Here Smiley John offers a gratuitous insult about a recent Slogpost, copying FT hack Josephine Combo on the tweet in order to wind her up:


Anyway, the post attracted eighteen 5-star votes and 2,165 views – the highest this week. Mr Ralfe is frequently wrong, usually about the case for absolute State Pension rights. But then, being a corporate pension consultant, perhaps it suits him to be deliberately obtuse.

And finally, as he winds down to say goodbye to eight utterly wasted years, President Egobama is still desperately in search of something – anything – that might justify the most banal election claim in history, “Yes we can”.

As usual, Barack’s rhetorical gets tangled up in his grammatical:


It kind of has to be said that way, otherwise it comes out as ‘it is acceptable for me to pass on the ocean I grew up with to my kids’. This sounds like something of a non-event, but is of course impossible. Otherwise you’d have to believe that this complete Canute really does think he can order the waves about (whereas the original was more humble).

Or maybe – you never know – Uncle Tombama meant to say, “Leave the ocean I grew up with to my kids? I’ll pass on that one”.

What is totally (sorry, todalleee) unacceptable is for Obama to claim he is passing on a Pacific Ocean in the same state as he found it.

Make an anagram out of the following: Fukushima Canute.

First prize for the best effort will be wealth beyond the dreams of Avarice. (Sponsor: J Ralfe)

 Yesterday at The Slog: Another SPA lie uncovered

22 thoughts on “The Twattering Classes

  1. 3 corkers in there … thanks for the smile on my face this moring.

    I can ensure nobody, ever, ever is left behind ever again … I would issue everybody with a printing press and the QE ability. Money turns to rat sh%t and everbody is left behind even the bankers … it is all it takes and you wouldn’t need to change the leader neither.

    Above the law? Well we all know that one “ceding sovereignty” – Mr UK lawmaker. Today should be a good day if the EU declares the EU army. After that any attempt to BREMAIN when we were never in it will be to cede sovereignty mind you throw that out of the window I am wondering if Russia employs people in countries where they have attempted this. Got to be takers even on the minimum wage. If you going to cede sovereignty you can remove the POS in parlimanent not needed … go get a proper job you idle f%^kers.

    As for the pacific ocean … don’t give them ideas JW they will bomb the f%^ker to ensure it complies to their ideals. You can just see it, regime change on the fishes! Then all Greenpeace can shout it is not fair, protest, etc. nobody gives a flying f%ck on people though like the list of failed states they create. Oh what a life to be a fish blowng bubbles, attempting the ultimate flip out of the water … ows that 10,10,10 a perfect olympian fish out of water that one.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Forgot a blinder for the millenials and younger that EU army will be.

    National conscription, keeps you all off the unemployment register, will be minimum wage too … ain’t that good such a bright future for you all. Although they make call it an aprrenticeship and half the minimum wage.


  3. If I’m not mistaken, the ‘patsy’ given immunity in the HC email case is required to testify, the 5th amendment copout is null and void, they cannot use it.

    Someone’s about to feel very exposed and vulnerable. ……..suicide or accident.


  4. Western lawmakers jumped the shark when they allowed the concept of ‘hate speech’. I hate to quote Ayn Rand, but a stopped clock is right twice a day…

    “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.”

    The selective enforcement of the ever-expanding compendium of law in Western societies is one of the principle means by which the TPTB maintain their fleecing of the citizenry. Major crimes by the elite are left unprosecuted while non-crimes, or thought crimes committed by the the little man result in incarceration.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. If I hate crime, is that a ‘hate crime’?

    Kentucky raises an excellent point here, viz, the pc cadres often getting confused with their ‘ists’.

    So for example, if all racists hate Islamists, all Islamists hate misandrists, but all racists are misogynists, then racists and Islamists have an enemy in common: radical feminists.

    As Harry Hill would say, “There’s only one way to solve this….FIIIIGGGHHHT!”

    But for the Leftist, a nationalist must by definition be a racist, and thus hates all races and all nations. Except that of course he doesn’t because he likes his own nation and his own race.


    Liked by 2 people

  6. @Canexpat:
    “A force spokesman said…“A hate crime is simply any incident, which may or may not be deemed as a criminal offence…”

    So a crime may not be a criminal offence, says a police spokesman. Priceless.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Well JW, have you heard the new ‘Conspiracy Whisper’ that Hillary Clinton is using a body-double? Not sure one could find a body-double for Trump though.


  8. A very good post, particularly regarding the Wells Fargo fiasco ! But I do feel you are being slightly unfair in relation to President Obama. Whereas I hated the fact that he went over to the UK (no doubt at the behest of Cameron) to try to sway British opinion towards ‘Bremain’, with his “back of the queue” BS, I feel there have been worse US Presidents. When he first gained office, he was relatively idealistic, and wanted to achieve many things – such as a kind of universal healthcare – but, after a while, he realised that, without control of both houses, and with an unbelievably obstructive and dogmatic Republican opposition, there was relatively little he could get passed, at least in anywhere near the form that it was originally envisaged. In
    stead of extending Medicare, the Republicans insisted that there be an internal market, and that created the relative mess that exists today. I think Obama has had a lesson in the limits of presidential power without a both houses majority. I am sure he is more cynical and jaded, these days, than when he first took office, and will be glad to get his now much greyer hair out of the White House, and back into civilian life. Just sayin’


  9. Just in case you thought democracy was dead, the French regime in Paris has underlined the fact:

    ‘Paris ignoring violent protests, ramming through labor reform without parliament vote’

    Not that the French population are in agreement, they’re rioting. In the way the British always say they will, but somehow never quite get around to.

    Harold Rosario, the double for Trump would have been one of the puppets from Spitting Image. ;-)

    Liked by 1 person

  10. The rule of law will be tested in a Clinton presidency I can’t even imagine what Trump will do if elected. But back to Hillary she and her husband are the closest thing the US has produced that will bring back Nixonian democracy. The enemy list is ready! This should be an interesting Presidency. Obama and his executive order avalanche will just be the start of what Hillary or Trump will produce. The rule of law is finished.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. @Ex PAT – Do you really believe at this stage that the introduction/passage of policies in the US depends on either or both houses agreeing, i.e. that power resides with the politicians? Can you be unaware that the politicians are in the pockets of the various vested interests/major corporations/globalists who are actually the ones dictating policy, making Congress, Senate and the House of Commons a puppet show.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Sadly I feel that Corbyn’s aim is to lose the next election with the most left-wing manifesto possible.

    I agree with everything said about Corbyn’s opponents in the PLP. They may have grounds to criticise Corbyn for the lack of policies and leadership. However, the challenge to his leadership was futile and damaging to the Labour Party. May, I presume, has deduced that an election victory in 2020 is certain, given that Labour will be riven with disputes over deselection in 2018 and 2019, many of which will probably be fought through the courts as we go to the polls.


  13. Labour is supposed to provide some sort of opposition to the Tory party. Sadly they are no longer capable of fighting their way out of a paper bag. Is this dissent within their ranks purely hostage to fortune or something else?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. @Alexei. You underestimate me greatly, my friend. Of course I am aware of the fact that the bankers and major corporations, and their lobbyists, are the grey eminences pulling all the strings. An example of that would be the gun lobby managing to completely negate all of Obama’s attempts to initiate some form of gun control, after the latest mass shooting. In my opinion, Bernie Sanders is the only guy out there who is telling it like it is…and the only one for whom I would bother to get off my ass for, to go and vote. Though they were never going to allow him to become president, and would almost certainly have had him assassinated, if he did. I just thought Mr Ward was being a little harsh on Obama, whose heart initially, I felt, was in the right place. The sheeple over here are being mis-directed into thinking the major voting issues are: 1. Who is allowed to use what public rest room facilities / 2. Abortion. / 3. How easy it is to acquire guns and concealed carry them. Thus they can carry on f***ing people up the ass by denying them proper, affordable healthcare, stealing their pensions and allowing bankers to be unregulated, so they can make fortunes for themselves, whilst simultaneously ruining the whole world’s economy (and, somehow, avoiding prison). One law for the rich? Jeez…don’t get me started !


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s