Traitors, Mobs, Demagogues and Useful Idiots

Seneca III sends his latest essay from the royal throne of kings, the sceptred isle, the precious stone set in the silver sea — the soon-to-be-Brexited Britain.

Traitors, Mobs, Demagogues and Useful Idiots

by Seneca III

Since prorogation[1] was first mooted I’ve been trying to recall historic parallels with our current situation. Initially, as always, my mind swung back to the last days of the Roman Imperium — mainly, I think, because of the hallmark debauchery which came from moral and cultural decadence and which in turn gave birth to the same dangerous, unsavoury horde of false prophets, deviants, idiots and violent rabble that descend upon us now.

Both then and now cases of feverish mass derangement bereft of any logical foundations arose amongst peoples; all were aided and abetted by corrupt and power-hungry political demagogues. Both the Imperium and the UK were and are plagued with predatory alien tribes sinking their barbarian fangs into the body politic. In both, febrile mobs violent in act and rhetoric were and are on the streets daily and the descent into chaos accelerated. As Rome sank, so we are doing, but in this IT age much faster than in the past.

Blocking traffic by playing ‘Ring-a-Ring-a-Roses in the middle of the road — I kid you not!

And Caroline Russell, a rather chubby member of the London Assembly representing the left-liberal Green Party, decided to give the Police a mouthful when politely asked to move along.

And was promptly arrested.

But with this knowledge of how things happen, how civilisations collapse, we do not need to follow Rome’s course into oblivion. We, the original indigenous masses, must regain our sovereignty, our right to determine our own future, to retake our lands for ourselves and ourselves only, to govern according to our ways. And we must ensure that the proto-tyrants of the Left and the EU Marxist-Globalist Theocracy together with their seventh-century foot soldiers never succeed in ethnically cleansing and subjugating us.

As it was at Waterloo and the Battle of Britain, this battle is ours to win or lose. With 59 days left going down to the wire it will be a damn close-run thing, so from those times past I offer two quotations.

On the night before Waterloo the Duke of Wellington and one of his aides rode through the lines of his soldiery who, to a man, were drawn from the commonalty and often referred to as the dregs of society or the criminal scum of Britain. They were eating, drinking and brawling around their campfires, apparently without a care in the world. Wellington is reputed to have turned to his aide and said, “I don’t know what effect these men will have on the enemy, but by God, they terrify me.”

A hundred and twenty-five years later after the Battle of Britain Churchill addressed a weary, bomb-damaged, wounded nation with these words:

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” The war continued for another four years.

Obviously Hitler was not defeated by the Battle of Britain, only thwarted on one particular front; neither will Brexit be the defining victory for us — we will still have much to do, because the enemy is amongst us in vast numbers. So we must take heart and remember: ‘We the deplorables and the uneducated uninformed loony tunes as they choose to label us are legion. We carry in our genes thousands of years of memories, memories of war and peace, of settlement and of homogenous integration. We have abiding memories of how we have always stalwartly defended these islands from enemies within and without and those racial memories will serve to carry us onward and back into the light. We outnumber those of our new enemies within by a significant margin!’

Thus, even a completely clean Brexit will only create an interregnum, a hiatus in the battle between national democracy and Cultural Marxist-Globalists; that battle must continue all across the West until the latter are wiped from the face of the Earth and their memory consigned to some dusty pages in future history books.

Meanwhile, in uninformed quarters there is much talk of removing the malignant Speaker Bercow from office, but there is no formal procedure for removing a sitting Speaker of the House of Commons during the course of a parliament, and this is a deliberate constitutional omission.

The theory is that by making the Speaker effectively invulnerable to direct attack, the incumbent can oversee the debates of MPs without fear or favour, confident that no-one, especially the majority party, can remove him if they disagree with his rulings. The only moment when a speaker can face a formal challenge is immediately after a general election.

Speakers must stand for re-election after a general election. Traditionally, sitting speakers are not challenged, but the rules theoretically allow any MP to table an amendment to the motion of re-election. Assuming a speaker is successfully re-elected there is effectively no legal mechanism for his removal. That means the only option open to a Speaker’s critics is to force him to resign his post by persuading him that his position is untenable.

The least disruptive way of doing so would be through the “usual channels” of parliamentary business, an informal co-operation of Labour and Conservative whips to communicate the widespread feeling of MPs that the Speaker should go, but I doubt that would work in Bercow’s case as those that put him in (Labour MPs) and the Remainers for whom he is their useful idiot in a position of power would not permit it. Alternatively, more public measures could be employed to shame Bercow into quitting.

That means the only option open to Bercow’s critics is to force him to resign his post by advising him repeatedly that his position is untenable. That would see MPs tabling Commons motions formally calling for the him to resign. If he refused to stand down, that could force him to make formal rulings about whether such motions were in order.

And you can’t do that in the three days of parliamentary time left if Boris chooses to initiate the prorogation on 9th September, which option is provided for in the Royal Assent.

Concurrent with all of the above, I am quite disturbed by much of this talk[2] about the complete defenestration of the Monarchy. In the furore surrounding the latest revelations concerning Prince Andrew and Prince Henry (Harry) Charles Albert David Windsor-Markle, much is being said about the pros of doing away with our Constitutional Monarchy but nothing about the cons.

Such a drastic change would first entail finding an acceptable answer to the implicit questions, ‘What takes their place, a Republican system or a Dictatorship? Would we really want a Corbyn, an Obama, a Mugabe, a Soubry, a Hammond, an Abbott, a Khan or a Javid (either brother, or both) in such a position of power?’

Would it not be a better idea to somehow skip the half-witted “Defender of all the Faiths”, the Clown Prince who would be King Charles III, and go direct to a seriously downsized monarchy under King William V?

I have no idea how this could be accomplished, if at all, but that I could live with if it came about. Difficult decisions lie ahead for all of us, but I am of a mind that this sort of problem is better fixed by internal restructuring rather than by being destroyed out of hand in the hope that something better will come along.

Yet, even a much smaller monarchy would require a dignified physical and constitutional presence if for no other reasons than the value of the global perspective, the suitability of certain properties for State Occasions and also for the preservation of our pride in these icons of our history and the structure of our democracy.

I would suggest that such a monarchy should keep in its ownership, on behalf of the nation, Buckingham Palace, Balmoral, Windsor Castle, Sandringham and the Tower of London (for which the nation may soon have a need of in the traditional sense) and return the rest of the Royal Palaces — plus Frogmore — and its vast estates, including the Duchy of Cornwall, in trust back to the people, with all revenues derivable therefrom going to the public purse and the upkeep of the properties, all with the legally binding proviso that avaricious ‘developers’, including the State itself, or the sale of them to foreign interests may never be allowed, nor would it be permitted to change any aspect of these historic lands and buildings.

That’s just for starters — a lot of clever, patriotic management would be required thereafter, something the current incompetent crew in the Palace of Westminster are quite incapable of, so we would need a thorough clean-out and full restructuring there as well. That, however, is an achievable objective, and of benefit to all.

‘Shafting Democracy’ with green grapes, wine and tofu? You really couldn’t make it up!

— Seneca III, in Middle England awaiting the outcome of this debacle with a sense of profound morbid fascination on this second day of September 2019.


1.   Prorogation: noun — The action of discontinuing a session of a parliament or other legislative assembly without dissolving it. Currently at the request of a sitting government which then receives automatic Royal Assent to bring it into being.
2.   One comment on Twitter by Tom Harwood encapsulated this farce perfectly:

”A mob marching on the Palace under the flag of a foreign power to attempt to remove the Prime Minister and cancel the largest vote in our history.

”Remind me again which side is supposed to be the coup?”

For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.

18 thoughts on “Traitors, Mobs, Demagogues and Useful Idiots

  1. This country is closer to civil war that at any other time since 1642. I can’t see the SJW hordes standing their ground as the bullets and muck start to fly. Most of these treasonous idiots are Middle-Class trendies that have made a major error in ignoring and treating the working class with such contempt. They will remember, who and what is responsible. Angry mobs are a scary thing indeed. People say we do not have guns. We still have plenty of folk that can utilise whatever comes to hand, as they have in every other rebellion in the past. The arrogant condescending latte drinkers brought themselves to this fate. They never learn. God have mercy upon us-Hell is coming. A terrible utterly avoidable situation and the mass imports that they seek to replace the Working Class will not be capable of forming a defence-they are too divided by tribe, cult and hatred imported with them. When the benefits are gone and the opportunity to thieve evaporates….What then? I am glad I am old.

  2. ” … the sceptred isle, the precious stone set in the silver sea — the soon-to-be-Brexited Britain”.

    Really? Anybody believes in any Brexit-like denouement?

    Let’s see in 60 days. Or rather 120. Or a year …. or decade. The Brexit charade will eventually peter out.

    The country has had THREE years to do it. Nada happened … and nada shall happen.

  3. these communist politicians are bad but the people that elect them are worse. what would they do without their dole. the dole, living off the sweat of other people’s brow. a system created by politicians that supposedly are the advocates of working people.

  4. If I recall correctly, Churchill made his “end of the beginning” statement not after the 1940 end of the Battle of Britain, but after the British 1942 victory at El Alamein.

    • Actually, I think it was even later – the clearing of the Germans and Italians from the whole of North Africa, in May 1943

  5. An interesting essay, even though much of it went over my head. I am unfamiliar with the parliamentary background; the name Bercow is new to me. Who is this “King William V”; maybe he’s an alternate-universe monarch, possibly related to Queen Wallis. And who is that jug-eared kufi-capped imam in the photo?
    Another problem is figuring out the
    “table”, which “can mean to discuss a topic at a meeting, or to postpone discussion of a topic.”
    But worst is the the claim that “We have abiding memories of how we have always stalwartly defended these islands from enemies within and without and those racial memories will serve to carry us onward and back into the light.” “Racial” memories? Doesn’t the author know that race doesn’t exist but is only a social construct?

    • “Who is this “King William V””

      “And who is that jug-eared kufi-capped imam in the photo?”

      You’re being facetious, yes?

      • Partly. I recognize Imam Charles, the Defender of Faiths (both Sunni and Shia, but not Ahmadi). But I don’t know who this William is in the line of succession to the British caliphate.

      • Facetious or not, William would be next in line after Charles. The Queen recently made it plain she wants Charles to succeed, which seems odd as she also wishes the Monarchy to continue, and many, especially in Commonwealth countries such as Australia, find him unbearably pompous.

  6. Brexit will not solve anything in regards to the islamic and african invasion. Not one of the countries sending third world migrants are within the EU. The british government could have approved zero immigration laws from those parts of the world at any time. They didn’t.

    Isn’t there the possibility of Bercow’s constituents to call an election and replace him? I do know that the speakers constituency is usually not challenged, but can’t the constituents have a say regarding that?

  7. “race doesn’t exist but is only a social construct?” I left the question mark deliberately.

    Race is indeed a DNA construct and the umbras and penumbras of it determined by dominant and recessive genes. Racial memory in the sense of genetic inheritance may or may not actually exist but as a literary device – does nicely.

  8. A pic of HRH wearing respectful attire when visiting a British mosque—newsflash for republicans: he didn’t invite the muslims in, that was your democratically elected masters whom you voted for. HRH just has to deal with the mess you voted for.

    One thing to bear in mind with much royal reporting is that the lügenpresse little likes our Royals, especially HRH. The Times and Sun being owned by republican Rupert Murdoch seize every opportunity to blacken the Royals’ name; while rags like the Mail always print scandals before the proof of their falsity.

    E.g. there was the fuss over HRH Charles’ passing mention of Mohammed in his ‘Thought for the Day’ in December 2016—499 words, and they focus on 32 of them.
    Nevermind that he started off with the persecution of Syrian Christians (90 words); nevermind that he continued his remarks with drawing attention to the persecution of other faiths in the Middle East (66 words). Nevermind that he closed with, again, the persecution of Syrian Christians (44 words). Ignore all that to concentrate on 32 words, which in context are him essentially saying, ‘FFS, lads, get a grip, for the sake of your own prophet if nothing else.’

    Here is him again drawing attention to the persecution of Christians: Prince Charles launches emotional appeal on Christian persecution—‘Many are ATTACKED’ (Daily Express, 19 Apr 2019).

    If you look at what Charles actually says, as opposed to what republicans tell you he says, you find he is actually quite conservative and traditional—sure, he’s not advocating ‘free helicopter rides’ or ‘warming up the ovens’, but he does what he can given the nature of the 21st Century West and the fact that the democracy-cult stripped the monarchy of almost all their power to fix the mess they voted for. Maybe start off with this article: Prince Charles’ letters reveal a quirky, old-fashioned brand of conservatism (The Week, 19 May 2015).

    One of the first ‘red pills’ is realising that ‘democracy’ is not synonymous with ‘liberty’—it might even be antonymous (so argues Plato in his Republic, Book 8, that tyranny inevitably follows democracy).

    It was not kings who stripped Britons of our liberties, nor a parliament composed of social elites elected by a restricted and equally elite electorate. This was done by ‘people’s’ parliaments full of oiks elected by the enfranchised masses.

    E.g. far from banning arms, our kings once mandated the bearing of arms (e.g. England’s Henry II’s Assize of Arms of 1181 and Scotland’s James I’s Statute of 1424, cap. 18) as his subjects were expected to play an active part in the maintenance of the King’s Peace and defence of his Realm. (Not just our kings but even the supposedly despotic Tsars had a much more enlightened view of their subjects bearing arms: ‘How Russians lost their own 2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms’.)

    E.g. peers opposed the creation of police as ‘the most dangerous and effective engine of despotism’—and as a consequence, our police were divided into small, locally accountable, civilian forces emphasising ‘policing by consent’ instead of being a national, paramilitary body; and as our police progressively come under the central control of our ‘people’s’ parliaments, so they become ever more the ‘engine of despotism’ those elites warned against.

    E.g. While in 1604 Sir Edward Coke could declare that ‘the house of every one is to him as his Castle and Fortress’ and in 1763 Pitt the Elder say, ‘The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!’, now 266 powers allow entrance to our homes, introduced as our franchise expanded and, as commonly defined, we became more “““democratic”””—185 since 1970 alone.

    And as for Brexit, it was ‘democracy’ that got us into our current mess. No sovereign monarch would have assented to the European Communities Act 1972 and its Sections 2(1) and 2(4). A monarch might have signed up to the EEC free trade zone but they would never have assented to EEC/EU law having primacy over our own—not unless our fleet was at the bottom of the Channel and EEC tanks driving up the Strand.

    Better a subject than a citizen.

    • Counting up words is no way to compare texts (or passages). It is the meaning of the words which count. For instance the Bible has more passages about killing and war than the Koran. But a great proportion of those in the Koran are (apparently open-endedly) prescriptive whereas those in the Bible are largely either descriptive or no longer prescriptive since the instructions to annihilate the unfortunate tribes in the Israelites’ way were duly carried out.

      Regarding the 66 words regarding the persecution of other faiths in the Middle East, it is what Prince Charles doesn’t say that matters. He avoids telling us who it is persecuting Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Bahais etc (as well as Christians) and who are responsible for the even more insidious forms of extremism [ie ISIS] – in all cases Muslims.

      Regarding the 32 words about Mohammed, I assume you mean these:

      “And we might also remember that when the Prophet Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medina he did so because he too was seeking the freedom for himself and his followers to worship”

      They have nothing to with telling Muslims to get a grip. They are merely equating Mohammed’s flight to Medina with Jesus’ flight to Egypt. What he doesn’t mention is that within five years Mohammed had slaughtered, exiled or sold into slavery the three main Jewish tribes in the Medina area and within ten years his armies had imposed Islam on most of Arabia. On the other hand Jesus was taken to Egypt for temporary refuge from Herod and eventually returned to Judea and taught a message of peace.

      Here is a close examination of the text of Charles’ speech:

Comments are closed.