Monday, 31 December 2018

Nation Revisited # 147 January 2019

Books and Authors.

Oswald Mosley's 1961 book 'Mosley: Right or Wrong' covered almost everything but he couldn't know that the Soviet Union would collapse, or that the Whites would desert Africa so quickly. 

All movements have their books. We had Mosley's many works, the National Front had John Tyndall's 'Six Principles of British Nationalism', and the National Socialist Movement had 'The Protocols of the Learned Elder of Zion', which first appeared in Russia in 1903. It's supposed to be the minutes of a meeting held by the Jews to plan their conquest of the world. Henry Ford was so impressed by it that he had thousands of copies distributed, but most historians dismiss it as a Tsarist forgery.

Many books and authors are misunderstood. Oswald Spengler's gloomy forecasts are based on culture. This put him at odds with the Nazis who were obsessed with 'racial purity'. In fact, he was in the same camp as Nietzsche, Evola, Mosley, Yockey and Dugin, who all rejected strictly biological racism.

Those who dream of a Golden Age with knights in shining armour defended fair damsels, often gravitate to Tolkien with his dwarves and Hobbits. Tolkien once subscribed to 'Candour' but that doesn't prove anything. His strange world of fantasy has got nothing to do with the economic forces driving the modern world. Those who are opposed to plutocracy cannot seek refuge in fantasy.

The 'Wizard of Oz' was a landmark film released in 1939, based on the book by Lyman Frank Baum published in 1900. It tells the story of Dorothy and her friends, the Lion, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man. They follow the Yellow Brick Road to the Emerald City in search of the Wizard of Oz. On their way, they encounter the terrible Witch of the West. At first sight, this is just a children's story, but Dorothy and her friends were really pilgrims in search of the truth, the Yellow Brick Road was life itself, the Wizard represented Good and the wicked witch Evil. And in the end, they discovered that: "There's No Place Like Home".

The Bible can be used to endorse all sorts of things. The Afrikaners used to quote passages from the Bible in support of apartheid, and so did the Southern Baptists. I am not familiar with the holy books of other religions but I imagine that they are also open to interpretation. 

Apart from the Jews, who cling to the ridiculous idea that they are God's Chosen People, all religions preach equality. But that doesn't stop Christians from disrespecting blacks, and it doesn't stop Muslim Arabs from trading in black slaves, or Buddhist Myanmar soldiers from butchering Rohingya refugees.

Humanity is united by cruelty and hypocrisy. Britain lectures the world on human rights but we presided over the Irish Famine and the Bengal Famine. We used starvation as a weapon of war and we prosecuted the Germans at Nuremberg for doing the same. 

Books impart knowledge which motivates civilisation. We have the resources and technology to feed the world but we rely on political systems that belong to the past. Only by studying history and economics can we hope to achieve our potential,

The Parliamentary Oath

Newly elected m
embers of the UK Parliament are required to take the Oath of Allegiance to the monarch. This is supposed to date back to Magna Carta when the Barons swore allegiance to King John. In fact, the Promissory Oath Act was passed in 1868.

God-fearing members promise: I (name of member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Non-believers say: I (name of member) do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.

The oath can be said in Welsh, Cornish or Scottish Gaelic and it can be sworn on the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah. 

Note that there is no mention of the country or the constituents who voted for the new MP. He, or she, promises to be loyal to the monarch but they make no such promise to the mugs who elected them.

Many Members of Parliament have no intention of keeping their promise. Over the years we have had self-confessed republicans, enemy agents and saboteurs representing us, but this meaningless oath of loyalty to the monarch prevents elected members of Sinn Fein from taking their seats.

Traditionalists will cry "treason" because they are pathologically opposed to change, but it would make sense to scrap this medieval nonsense and replace it with a promise for MPs to serve their constituents. We may not agree with Sinn Fein but if they have been duly elected they deserve to take their place in Parliament.

My old friend Terry Savage wrote an article in the BNP magazine 'Identity' in 2006 about Charles Bradlaugh (1883-1891), the social reformer and founder of the National Secular Society who was elected to Parliament as the Liberal MP for Northampton in 1880. He was denied his seat because he refused to swear on the Bible. After being repeatedly thrown out, fined and arrested, he eventually made his affirmation and took his seat in 1886. There were 3,000 mourners at his funeral.

A republican atheist like Charles Bradlaugh (pictured) may seem an unlikely hero for a BNP man but Terry Savage believed in free speech.

The law was changed and it could be changed again. If a meteor struck Buckingham Palace at tea time it could wipe out most of the Royal Family and leave us with an 'heir and successor' that we have never heard of. We might end up with the Duke of Hackney on the throne. He might be a cross-dresser, a raving lunatic or a hopeless drug addict but our MPs would have to bow down to him. Let's make an effort to join the 21st century by scrapping the loyal oath.

Accepting Reality

The United States is a superpower with massive armed forces and enough nuclear missiles to destroy the planet. The US economy is based on defence spending and their foreign policy supports it. That is the reality.

The UK is America's loyal ally and we follow them blindly, but we simply can't afford it. We now have two aircraft carriers and a fleet of nuclear missile submarines. We would be better off with more frigates and destroyers to defend the homeland, but we maintain a high seas fleet to promote the fantasy that 'Britannia Rules the Waves'.

Given our government's addiction to fantasy it's not surprising that so many people believe in expanding our armed forces, deporting all the immigrants, bringing back national service, reintroducing the death penalty, and asserting our independence. Of course, none of these things will happen. We should settle for armed forces capable of defending the homeland, an immigration policy that favours skilled workers, an educational system that teaches respect, a criminal code that protects the public, and our status as a European power.

Nostalgia is a powerful thing. There used to be a famous whitewashed slogan on the approach to Paddington Station which said: "Far away is near at hand in dreams of long ago." Peter Simple, in the Daily Telegraph, called its author 'The Master of Paddington." 

If people are
seriously interested in politics they should stop dreaming of past glories and start campaigning for more houses, increased wages, improved working conditions, a better National Health Service, and a representative system of government. We are a modern European nation and a world leader in science and technology. We can do great things but we must know our limitations. Such is the acceptance of reality.


In the days of steam engines, they used to fit valves that would open to reduce the pressure and save the boiler from exploding. Global capitalism has a similar device to reduce pressure, it's called a recession. Goods and services are sold and money is generated at such a rate that the economy becomes overheated. At that point recession kicks in and the system returns to normal.

During this cycle businesses go broke, nations are ruined, people commit suicide, and the price of bananas rises. Politicians and journalists, who do not know what they are talking about, assure us that all will be well, but they have no influence on a system that is self-propelled.

The Communists tried to avoid the inner conflict of capitalism by building a centrally planned economy. The Soviet Union was big enough and productive enough for it to work but the experiment was wrecked by foreign interference, corruption, inefficiency, and massive spending on armaments. It was not systemic failure that brought down Communism but the Arms Race.

In the West, we rely on 'market forces' to regulate the system. Every time that the working man starts to feel comfortable he is hit with a recession. The last one was triggered by the sub-prime mortgage racket. We don't know what will cause the next financial disaster but pundits from Gordon Brown to Mark Carney are predicting another one. IMF director Christine Lagarde has warned that we must 'fix the roof while the sun is shining", by cutting deficits, improving banking capital, and maximising exchange rate flexibility.

It's not beyond the wit of man to devise a fair economic system. Global capitalism started with the East India Company when slavery was widespread and poverty was the natural condition for most of humanity. Today, we can feed the world, but first, we must abandon protectionism, embrace the latest scientific methods, and regulate capitalism.

President Trump is ruling the world, but some of his tactics have already gone wrong. He has slapped a punitive tax on Russian aluminium which the American drinks industry depends on for its cans. World trade is complex and he will discover that protectionist policies are a dangerous short-term measure that can go horribly wrong.  

The Commonwealth Myth

The parties of the far-right all follow the economic policies outlined in John Tyndall's 1966 book "Six Principles of British Nationalism." They want to resurrect the Commonwealth and turn it into a free trade area under British control.

Ramsay MacDonald had the same idea in 1932 when he convened the Ottowa Conference. He wanted the Dominions to buy British manufactured goods and sell us their raw materials. Naturally, the Canadians and the Australians wanted to expand their own industries and they refused to agree to such a proposition. After the Second World War Britain was bankrupt and in no position to dictate trade terms. We carried on as best we could under the Bretton Woods Agreement until the Nixon Shock of 1972 unpegged the pound from the dollar and cut us adrift. Reluctantly, we joined the old Common Market which kept us in relative prosperity for the next forty years. Now we are about to go it alone but what used to be British colonies are now fully fledged nations in their own right, with their own markets and alliances.

There will be no Commonwealth revival. We can trade with whoever we like, subject to American approval, but we will not be buying Australia's vast output of coal and iron ore because we don't have the manufacturing industry to use it. And we can't compete with the United States as a market for Canadian produce.

Brexit is bound to be disruptive. We can survive with a reduced economy but the dream of independence will not be realised. John Tyndall's policy was unrealistic when he wrote it but half a century later it's totally impossible. If we leave the EU the pound will almost certainly go down against the dollar making imported goods dearer in our shops.

Throughout the Brexit fiasco, the government insisted that we must gain control of immigration. But most of our immigrants come from the Commonwealth. The latest immigration statistics for June 2018 show that net migrants from the EU numbered 74,000 but non-EU net migrants came to 248.000.

The people of the White dominions have fond feelings for the 'Motherland' but they will not risk their economies by joining a revived Commonwealth. Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, and South Africans will always be close to our hearts, as will Americans because we are sprung from the same stock. We must maintain the closest possible contact with them and defend those traditions that unite us, but the closeness of Europe, and our common history, will dictate our future.

Patriotism and Nationalism

Many readers took exception to my article on Xenophobia. But my remarks were not aimed at sensible nationalists but at 'little Englanders'. You will remember that Nigel Farage was upset by hearing people on a train speaking a foreign language. Language and religion are of little importance. You can learn a different language and adopt a different religion, but you cannot change your heritage.

The campaign against the East Europeans, which formed an important part of the Brexit movement, was disgraceful. The Poles did not rape our young women on an industrial scale, they did not riot and burn down our town centres, and they did not expect to live on social security. The peoples of Europe are related and easily assimilated into our society. I don't retract a word of my article but I discriminate between genuine nationalists imbued with the culture of Europe and petty nationalists who can't tell a Nigerian from a Norwegian.

The British Isles were populated after the Ice Age by tribes from the European mainland who followed the reindeer across the land bridge. Subsequent invasions brought Celts, Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans. Before the 1948 Nationality Act and the subsequent mass migration from the Commonwealth, we were entirely a White country.

Ukip and the popular press were frightened to campaign against immigration for fear of prosecution under the Race Relations Act. So, they concentrated on the East Europeans and ignored the Afro-Asians. They deliberately obscured the fact that the Poles are our fellow Europeans. To deliberately stir up trouble between us was divisive and those responsible should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately, the political parties concerned with immigration did nothing to educate their members. Only Union Movement called for European solidarity. Mosley explained:

"To become a European you must extend your patriotism and also your understanding. Both are now necessary. It is a very natural process. Not long ago in terms of history, our ancestors were hating any man in the next village, even taking the opportunity any dark night to cut his throat. It is just a matter of growing up, a process which continues all the time in the advance of humanity."


This blog, and our sister blog 'European Outlook', have no connection with suspected terrorists who are currently being rounded up by the police. We advocate reform by lawful means and unreservedly condemn groups promoting hatred and violence. 

All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people.


Use the facility at the end of this blog to leave your comments and read what others have to say. 



Friday, 30 November 2018

Nation Revisited, # 146 December 2018

Five Questions Answered - Seth Tyrssen

We asked our readers the following questions; Who are you? What do you believe in? If you could direct government policy what would you do? What are you proud of and what do you regret? How would you like to be remembered?

So far we have heard from; John Bean, Robert Edwards, Bill Baillie, Michael Woodbridge, Eddy Morrison, Robert Best, Arlette Baldaccino, Alexander Morana, Rufus, Pete Williamson, Claire Khaw, Vic Sarson, Jez Turner, Michael Walsh, Seth Tryssen.

Please send you answers to: 

1) I'm Seth Tryssen. Long-time activists and former head of the American Fascist Party. And it's an old flattering picture; I don't look that good any more, if I ever really did. 

2) I have a wide variety of beliefs, generally based on experience. These days, I describe myself as a radical White Nationalist, fitting somewhere in between Sir Oswald Mosley and Dr Arnold Leese. Also a variety of esoteric beliefs as well, stemming from the Vril Society.

3) If I could direct government policy, I'd do everything I stated in my book, "The New Fascism: An Idea Whose Time Has Come" (, and so much for the free plug). The short form: I'd withdraw all troops from everywhere, because meddling in other peoples' countries is not what America should be doing. Maintain a strong national defense, but keep 'em at home. I'd use a lot of those now-returned troops to help set up the National Labor Front in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers, and rebuild our infrastructure - which is crumbling. NOW, not fifty years from now. I'd nationalize the economy and kick out the Rothschild world bankers. I'd deport all illegals, not give them money, rights and "sanctuary cities" as our LibTarded society currently does. I'd stop building still more weapons of mass destruction, and put those billions into alternative energy research; oil is a dinosaur, and is, ultimately, controlled by international banking systems. I'd institute socialized medicine and kick the lawyers and insurance companies out of the medical business. Congress, as it exists, would be dissolved and the "two major parties" would be on the outs.

4) I'm proud of the fact that I've been a mouthy activist all my life, always thinking "outside the box", and of the assistance I've been able to give my animal friends. I agree with Goering, where animals are concerned. Consequently I've gone vegetarian, and urge others to do the same. Regrets? Krikeys, where to begin? Probably that I was too self-centered early-on, and took a long time to learn the things I know now. Youth really is wasted on the young.

5) I'd like to be remembered as a gadfly, one that actually got people to think, whether they agreed with me or not. It's a bit late to go down in history as the Glorious Evil Dictator of America, so that'll have to do.

Brexit Chaos

Ever since the 1975 referendum the opponents of European unity have been campaigning to get us out. They said that the Common Market would rob us of our nationality, but more than forty years later we are still British. They said that we would be forced to adopt the Euro, but it never happened. And they said that we would be overrun by immigrants from the mainland - that did happen but most of them found work, adapted to our society, and made a positive contribution to our economy.

We see things according to our education, our prejudices, and our economic standing. A desperately poor man is not likely to agree with a rich man about the efficiency of the capitalist system. And someone who had a good education leading to a well-paid job will probably see thing differently to an unemployed labourer of no fixed abode.

Attitudes vary, which is why we have a selection of political parties. The main parties have lost their way but usually the Tories stand for the status quo, and the Labour Party stands for reform. The Liberal Democrats are somewhere in the middle and the non-parliamentary parties are handicapped by our unfair voting system.

Successive governments promoted immigration in response to a post-war labour shortage. People came here to work and generally speaking we were pleased to have them. Some MPs, like Enoch Powell, objected, and some actually believed in multi-culturalism but most of them just did as they were told.

And it's the same with Brexit. Two years ago they were nearly all Remainers but most of them have since jumped on the Brexit bandwagon. Theresa May's plan has been approved by the EU but it stands little chance of getting past Parliament. The agony continues.

Why is Wikipedia Censoring Me - James Bacque 

(From the Nationalist Week archive: 

In 1989, I published the first in a series of books about the Second World War and its aftermath. The first, Other Losses, showed the tremendous atrocities committed against enemy prisoners in the prison camps of the US and France after 1945. The next, Just Raoul, was a biography of a hero of the French Resistance who saved many refugees from Nazi death camps. The next, Crimes and Mercies, described the full extent of all allied crimes against Germans, plus the wonderful charity work of Canada and the USA in saving 800 million people, including Germans, Japanese and Italians, from starving to death in the hungry years after 1945. The next, Dear Enemy, illuminated the attitudes of the western allies to Germany from 1945 to now.

Wikipedia reviews and criticizes only Other Losses, and in such a biased way, that I finally tried to correct their many errors. Starting in March 2006, I tried repeatedly over many weeks to correct the errors but found that within a day at first, then within hours, and finally within minutes, some Wikipedian editor had expunged my corrections, replacing them with ever more hostile and denigrating allegations. Friends of mine tried also to correct the flawed Wikipedia article but found the same situation. Finally, we decided that Wikipedia was deliberately censoring my contributions and that it was pointless to continue trying to present the facts on Wikipedia. After Serendipity (already acquainted with censorship at Wikipedia) heard of this situation I was offered the chance to publish the real story, which appears below.

Wikipedia quotes Stephen E. Ambrose as saying that 'Other Losses' is "... spectacularly flawed ..." without saying that Ambrose also wrote that "You have made a major historical discovery which will ... span the oceans and have reverberations for decades, yea centuries to come. You have the goods on these guys ..."

Wikipedia does not say that Ambrose changed his mind only after he was retained by the US Army to lecture at the War College in Pennsylvania. Nor does Wikipedia mention that in his attack on me in the New York Times, he admitted that he had not done the necessary research to reach the conclusions that he published in that same article. Wikipedia fails to mention that the Ambrose it cites as an authority admitted that he had plagiarized several other authors. Wikipedia does not concern itself with the accusations that Ambrose stole work from a graduate student, which he published as his own.

Wikipedia ignores my book, Crimes and Mercies, which goes far towards balancing the record of western actions after World War Two. The book shows the great charity extended by the western allies, chiefly Canada and the USA, towards the starving around the world after WW2, including the Japanese and Germans. Saying that the overwhelming majority of professional historians reject my work, and citing as an authority one historian who has never worked in this field,

Wikipedia ignores the support given me by the eminent US Army military historian Col. Dr Ernest F. Fisher, a former Senior Historian of the US Army Centre for Military History, Washington. Fisher, a professional historian for decades, wrote the official US Army history of the campaign in Italy. He assisted me for months in researching documents in the US National Archives, wrote the Introduction to my book Other Losses, and has supported me with public statements for the seventeen years since its first publication. He helped me for many months researching in the archives.

Wikipedia does not mention the expert editing, research help and public support given me by the eminent epidemiologist and biostatistician, Dr Anthony B. Miller, former head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of Toronto.

Wikipedia also casts aside the support given my work by Richard Overy, King's College, University of London; Otto Kimminich, University of Regensburg; Dr Alfred De Zayas, author of many books on postwar German history; Prof. Dr. Peter Hoffmann, McGill University, author of the most expert books on the German resistance; Prof. J. K. Johnson, Carleton University, Ottawa; Professor Ralph Raico, University of Buffalo; Prof. Ed Peterson, University of Wisconsin; Prof Ralph Scott, University of Iowa; Prof. Pierre Van Den Berghe, University of Seattle; Prof. Dr Richard Mueller, former head, Department of English, University of Aachen; Prof. Hans Koch, University of York and many others.

Among writers who have approved my work and supported me are Julian Barnes; Nikolai Tolstoy; John Fraser, Master of Massey College, Toronto; John Bemrose of Toronto; Robert Kroetsch, Winnipeg; and many others. My work has been published around in the world in ten languages by Macmillan, Little, Brown, Prima, Ullstein, Editions Sand, McClelland and Stewart, New Press, and many many others.

Finally, the most glaring omission is that the massive and detailed KGB Archives in Moscow have millions of documents whose evidence completely confirms the statistical work in Other Losses. The math is simple: about 1.5 million German prisoners alive in allied prison camps at the end of the war never came home, nor were their deaths reported to the German government, their families, the International Red Cross or the UN. The figure was determined by the Adenauer government in Germany, submitted to the UN, and has never been disputed by anyone. Thus when Other Losses came out in 1989, alleging deaths of about one million in French and American camps that left about 500,000 to be accounted for. They could have died only in the KGB camps because there were not half a million prisoners in any other camps in the world. Thus, in effect, Other Losses was predicting that when the communists opened the KGB archives, they would show deaths of about 500,000. And lo and behold, when Gorbachev brought down the communist rule, and the archives were opened, I went there and found the Bulanov Report which showed that 356,687 Germans died in Soviet captivity, plus another 93,900 civilians taken as substitutes for dead or escaped prisoners for a total of 450,587.

This astonishing discovery is not mentioned in Wikipedia, nor by any other of the "professional historians." Except one, Stefan Karner, who went to the KGB archives, saw the evidence piled up in enormous quantities, and said he did not believe it. Instead, he preferred to publish his own "estimates," which confirm the conventional view.

Their World and Ours - Jeffrey Hamm

Those of us who opposed Britain's involvement in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were accused of treason by people who claim to be patriots. But they were the ones wasting British lives and treasure on pointless military adventures. Dropping bombs on innocent civilians is nothing to be proud of, and destroying countries that have never done us any harm is not patriotism but jingoism.

Jeffrey Hamm wrote the following article in 'Action' in March 1991, when British forces were backing the American invasion of Iraq. But nothing much has changed since then. We are still involved in the Middle East and our politicians are still talking nonsense about 'freedom and democracy'.

Free Speech and the War

If in war, truth is the first casualty, freedom of speech comes a close second.

An extraordinary letter appeared in the 'Evening Standard' of January 30, under the banner headline: Time to Silence the Opposition at Home.

The letter recalled the operation of Defence Regulation 18B during the Second World War and argued that "this measure was implemented in order to stifle any movement that might undermine the cohesion on the home front."

The writer appeared to have second thoughts about locking up anyone who opposed war in the Gulf and lamely commented: "It will not be entirely inappropriate to consider asking certain organisations and individuals (in the nicest possible way) to keep very quiet until Saddam is defeated."

The 'Evening Standard' of February 4 published several letters in reply, headed by one from me, under the headline (in very large bold type): Britain's Prisoners of Conscience.

I pointed out that I had been one of some 800 British subjects interned (without any charge or trial) "simply and solely for opposing a war which we believed was not in British interests."

My letter continued: "I am expressing similar opposition to war in the Gulf, for the same reason."

In conclusion, I asked if the writer of the original letter really wanted to see me interned again.

In a personal letter to me, he assured me that he had no such wish. We remain good friends. 

'Action' stands for absolute freedom of speech in peace and war and will defend the right for such political opponents as Tony Benn and Bruce Kent.

In our previous issue I recorded my lifelong conviction (while respecting the views of the sincere pacifists) that a man should fight if his country, or the real interest of its people, were attacked, but for no other reason.

This attitude may be criticised as narrow and selfish, ignoring the rules of international law and morality, which might invite war against international tyranny or acts of aggression against a neighbour.

One objection to this is that its impartial application would involve Britain in perpetual war.

When the principle is applied arbitrarily, humbug and hypocrisy reign supreme.

A month after the outbreak of the Second World War Oswald Mosley addressed a packed and enthusiastic meeting at which he reminded his audience that Germany had been accused of three acts of aggression: against Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. In the same period, Russia had invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Mosley commented: "Apparently three acts of aggression equal a declaration of war and five acts of aggression equal one trade pact !" Why has there been no war against Russia, America or Israel, or any other aggressor? We would oppose such a war, but may we ask for a little less humbug?

Death by Dior

By Terry Cooper, Dynasty Press 2013

Terry Cooper was a precautious Dagenham schoolboy who had been seduced by a neighbour known as 'Old Mother Acid'. Soon afterwards, in 1965, he joined Colin Jordan’s National Socialist Movement. At that time, Francoise Dior (1932-1993), the French heiress, jilted John Tyndall in order to marry Colin Jordan.

Terry was not impressed with his fellow neo-nazis, he thought the Hitler-worshipping mystic Savitri Devi, looked and smelled like a gipsy. He recalls that when she met the Polish aristocrat Count Potocki they were both wearing flowing robes. The count said: "I am the rightful King of Poland" and she replied: "I am a Hindu goddess."

Following a prison sentence on a trumped-up charge of Synagogue burning Francoise eloped to Normandy with Terry, her teenage lover. He spent his time writing a never-to-be-published book which revealed the secrets of creation, and she embarked on a series of affairs with both sexes, including an incestuous lesbian relationship with her own daughter.
According to Terry, Francoise tricked her daughter Christine into committing suicide in a bizarre magical ritual. He states that he could tell even more blood-curdling tales but they would land him in prison.

This book is funny, horrifying, and tragic but it's well-written and worth reading. Some of the people surrounding Francoise were clearly deranged. But a friend of mine who is involved in local government tells me that the established political parties are just as full of weirdos. Who knows what attracts them?

‘Death by Dior’ is available from Amazon.


All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people.