by Hannes Wessels

I’m no fan of English politicians, having been on the receiving end of their deceit and moral cowardice when they deemed it expedient to abandon principle and promises simply because times and attitudes had changed. But watching the shambles unfold at Westminster is not something I celebrate. If the English got nothing else right, they were the absolute masters of good governance. Thanks, in no small way to them, the structures of government and law they introduced to countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand, to name only a few, provided the bedrock for the success of some of the most stable and prosperous nations in history. But they seem to have lost the capacity to do what they once did so masterfully, and a once great power seems well on the way to self-inflicted anarchy.

Part of the problem may lie in the lamentable arrival of the age of the professional politicians who now dominate the country’s political space. Jeremy Corbyn, a Trotskyite, who is in with a good chance of forming the next government is a charmless party hack who has never had a proper job and doesn’t seem to like his country much. John Bercow, the influential Speaker and former right-winger, who has added to the parliamentary chaos with his arbitrariness has spent most of his adult life in politics. Diane Abbot, who seems possessed of the same mathematical acumen as Jacob Zuma is another brain-dead political-pro who may be the next Home Secretary guarding the country’s borders and keeping the citizenry safe. The most recent vote in the Commons, which flies in the face of the will of the majority, has been passed thanks to the support of the motion from MP Fiona Onasanya, who did so wearing the electronic ankle tag with which she was fitted on leaving HMP Bronzefield in Surrey. She was doing time there for lying to the police.  The British ruling class is awash with like people who have devoted most of their lives to climbing the party ladder as an end in itself and in the process, have lost touch with the ordinary people that elevated them in the naïve hope that their MP’s cared about them.

Looking at the country’s political leadership, one is struck by an overwhelming sense of weakness and mediocrity. But maybe this is democracy, in action, reflective of an aimless, docile electorate that has lost confidence in itself. This loss of self-belief and pride in country has its roots in a school system that enforces a history curriculum designed to induce a sense of shame. As Lenin, famously and accurately said, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” Since the end of WW II Britons have been exposed to a relentless barrage of guilt-inducing propaganda aimed at convincing them that they should be ashamed of themselves because they once ran a great empire based on pride in their systems, their military-might and their economic success. This has all been snuffed out and this is why the sudden rise of Donald Trump was greeted with a profound sense of dismay by so many Brits.

Trump is cut from a different cloth from most of them. He is not a professional politician, but a determined pragmatist who has worked and prospered in business in some tough neighbourhoods. He shook the political stage because he understands the plight of his people better than the intellectuals, the media and politicians in their ivory towers, comfortably distanced from the real world on the streets. Thus, he paved his path to power with the votes of a middle-class, weary of being ignored by the professional politicians that have taken over the Democratic Party. Once he had got their attention his masterstroke was to excite his supporters with his pugnacious patriotism, loudly proclaimed pride in his country and its history and his strident call to ‘Make America Great Again’.

Trump’s campaign horrified millions of cowed Brits and triggered outrage from the press, and the politicians who have done such a thoroughly good job of whipping the electorate into submission. They were and remain terrified of the prospect of the British working class being roused into the same sort of sweeping response to a similar message. Such was the fury of the leadership, some of their politicians, including Corbyn and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, have considered refusing the leader of the country’s most powerful and loyal ally entry into the UK. One cannot help but think it is the messenger not the message that has enraged these people. Why else would a man be so loathed because he wants to secure his borders, cut the best trade deals for his country, grow the economy, cut taxes, reduce unemployment, make peace with North Korea and withdraw from senseless wars.

It struck me the British attitude to Trump is comparable to their treatment of Ian Smith and the government and people he led. Prime Minister Harold Wilson was essentially a communist, one of the early architects of the nanny-state and an intellectual (in his eyes anyway) whose heart seemed to be in the Soviet Union rather than with the people and country he was elected to lead. He was ashamed of Britain’s colonial past, it’s tenure as one of the great world powers and all associated with it. When confronted by a rugged individualist, farmer and former fighter pilot, a product of this era, who projected unabashed pride in his heritage, his homeland and his ability to govern honestly and effectively this was utterly repugnant to Wilson. Smith, his government and the people he led had to be destroyed regardless of the merits of the case. The British succeeded. Luckily for President Trump, he’s got a lot more firepower at his disposal than Ian Smith had.




28 thoughts on “The Breaking of Britain.”
  1. Very much to the point Hannes.

    I also noted your comment “I think Britain is an enchanting place of matchless beauty and home to millions of the kindest, most decent people who I believe are poorly led. My contempt is reserved for the politicians who have done so damage to this once great power”.

    You could apply that to many countries around the world today. And perhaps specifically to Zimbabwe where I still manage to live a good life with good people of all races.

  2. Great article Hannes and right on the money.
    Your Trump/Smith comparison is, in my opinion, fair and correctly stated in the context of the article and nothing more needs to be said on that score.
    However the side issue of the “global warming” raised as a point of order to again denigrate Trump by his pulling out of the Paris Accords has clearly raised hackles by some of your readers and perpetuates the false narrative we are constantly bombarded with.
    Let me clarify.
    About 70km’s north of Cape Town lies one of southern Africa’s fossil “hot-spots”. A brand new museum has been built there and one can take guided tours of the site and actually chat to the paleontologists working it.
    Microscopic analysis of the site’s deposits have determined this area was once covered by the sea (today its about 15 km’s inland); was once a hot humid tropical swamp; was once an inland river delta area and today is an arid semi-desert wasteland. They discovered scientifically that this area was exposed over millennia to vastly different climatic conditions with each change mostly catastrophic to inhabitants of the region.
    I naturally asked the question about climate change today and are humans the cause?
    The answer was an emphatic no; “climate is definitely cyclical and continually dynamic”. “However”, the professor explained to me “mankind’s sheer population explosion is exacerbating this particular cycle”. By the Professor’s estimation we need to populate the planet with no more than 3.5 billion souls! Some of us have to go and soon, but I digress.
    Trump is then 100% correct that climate change is not just caused by human activity, as we are led to believe. So now just taking his approach as an aside; (perhaps as idiotic rubbish), lets take a closer look at his consequent withdrawal from the Paris Accords.
    What the Paris Accords actually mean is that the developed world will pay the underdeveloped world trillions and trillions of dollars in developmental costs so that they (the undeveloped world) can catch up to the developed world in infrastructure technology and therefore by default, to higher (western) standards of living.
    Only once we are all equal, is the theory, can climate change be beaten. That’s the thrust of it and its nonsensical.
    To make matters worse all this transfer of wealth is to be done with no concrete action plan and no accountability or milestones by the underdeveloped nations. Third World leaders must be salivating at the thought of free access to the biggest till the world will ever see. But I digress.
    Is it then any wonder Trump has said no?
    I reckon Ian Smith would have as well.

  3. The problem in UK was highlghted by a long serving Scots politician Tam Dyell when he said the
    “When I entered Parliament there was about 3 Parliamentarians who had not worked for a living before
    being elected. Now I would be lucky to find 3 such people in Parliament. That says it all. Selfseekeing syncophants and all for the Party and not the people. Mr Wessels has the truth of it.

  4. In response to John Cowper’s rather strongly worded comments, I have a question. In his opinion, Ian Smith and Donald Trump are polar opposites, or words to that effect, ie, one a good guy and the other one a wretch. Why then was Ian Smith treated with as much contempt by the political world then as Trump is treated now? Doesn’t add up does it? Could it possibly be that because both are/were strong individualists and had/have an abiding love for their countries this is anathema to those in the high echelons of power because such strong willed and minded people are a threat to their aspirations for global control? We live in a world of smoke and mirrors and it is difficult to see through the layers of deception, but not impossible. Cowper tells us how much Brits hate Trump and no doubt many do but many, many thousands do like him but of course the good old lying MSM would never allow such sentiments to be aired would they? And to end off, anthropogenic global warming (ie, global warming caused by man) is the biggest con inflicted on the human race in the last 150 years. It’s all about control. All the information refuting this is out there, all one has to do is look for it. Over and over again we are told, ‘the science is settled’ and anyone who questions this narrative is considered a heretic by the green priesthood. If you disagree with them you stand a very good chance of losing your job if you are in that line of work. It is not a level playing field. This is most definitely not how science is supposed to work.

    1. I was for a brief time Ian Smith’s Close Security. His behaviour towards me was that of a perfect gentleman. He was not an egoist or a narcissist the likes of Donald Trump. He was well read, he was a good listener. He was kind and generous with a quiet sense of humour. When I met him years later in Johannesburg after his exit, he remembered me. He greeted me. We had a quiet conversation. He was everything that Donald Trump is not. But then I don’t know Donald Trump like I knew Ian Smith. I only know what the press tells me about DT and that, as we know today, may not all be the truth.

  5. Having lived another long period in England I cannot recognise the country you describe in your piece; over and above that I protest your aligning as comparable the principled, front-line combatant and giant of a man, Ian Smith, with the simplistic, draft-dodging Donald Trump, who the English despise for his narcissism, arbitrary rule by impulse and his total lack of any intellect whatsoever. By his own admission the American President doesn’t read at all and Brits, who are very educated, perceive him as ridiculous and vile.

    Cowed by this idiot they are not.

    Indeed, they consider him dangerous, but for different reasons than you contend.

    The most capable American president was Richard Nixon – a master strategist in the realpolitik sense, but also someone who oversaw a thriving home economy and who was minded to create the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (more about that in a moment).

    Back to the Brits – many of them sunning on the beaches of Cornwall in February, congnisant of the increasingly warmer winters of the last five years, having just uneasily enjoyed the hottest summer on record, read of rainfall in the middle of the long winter night in Greenland and hear that Mike Bailey’s golf course in the Chimanimanis was washed away by a cyclone. With Sir David Attenborough warning of the frightening scenario ahead due to climate change they stare aghast at this lunatic in the White House, who once again doesn’t read anything, proclaiming it’s all a liberal plot and reneging on America’s deals (Paris Accord, etc)(shades of that swine Jimmy Carter reneging on the Kissinger Agreement) and going all out to destroy the EPA. His minions have repealed over 80 laws protecting natural habitats so as to enable Exxon and the like.

    Why would he do something so appalling stupid and amoral? It’s to get votes. It’s about the money, the American Religion. The USA’s economy cannot afford for climate change to be real so they actively deny it. The billionaire Koch brothers are at the forefront of this, owning between them +6,000 smelting plants. Koch Industries turns over +$100billion annually generating in the process 24million metric tons of greenhouse gases a year. The two brothers are worth $50billion each. They finance the ‘climate change is a hoax’ argument to the tune of $nx100millions a year. They control the Republican party behind the scenes with colossal donations and are the only people the Donald doesn’t mess with.

    You can talk of him stopping ‘senseless wars’ but his three top Generals (Kelly, McMaster and Mattis) have all quit because he doesn’t read, he doesn’t listen to anybody and he’s a loose cannon imperiling the world our kids will inherit. His economic policies – particularly banking deregulation – have created a massive short term boom but it just sets everything up for the next crash. He will have been long gone by then but our children will reap these catastrophes.

    They may be a shadow of their former glory but the Brits, not nearly as docile as you make out and per capita way more intellectual than their American counterparts (and that isn’t hard), don’t like Trump at all and are weary of him for good reason. I do concede he has done some very good things and I applaud his confronting the armies of the politically correct, but I’m with the Brits all the way on their condemnation of him. The only reason you don’t want him out before his time is that the sycophantic Pence would take over … people like this getting into power demonstrate the weakness of ‘democracy’ as a system, which is why the Chinese will win one day.

    Once again, you cannot compare Mr Smith in anyway whatsoever with him – if he was in charge of the USA America would truly become great again.

    1. Actually I didn’t describe the country as you allege; I think Britain is an enchanting place of matchless beauty and home to millions of the kindest, most decent people who I believe are poorly led. I wish the best for them and sincerely hope they can turn their country around. My contempt is reserved for the politicians who have done so damage to this once great power.
      On ‘global warming’ and damage to the environment I am poorly qualified to argue but I see the population explosions in Africa and Asia as the primary problem, not Donald Trump and his supporters.

  6. For those interested I have just today found out about the existence of a cult many British politicians are involved in called Common Purpose. Apparently it is similar to Freemasonry and as one site said, “Common Purpose is Sinister and Evil. The Proof” See –
    Also –

    Could this ‘brotherhood’ perhaps give us a partial, or full explanation as to the mess the British government is in today?

  7. Well said Hannes. Our values are honed on the axe of survival and battle-scarred history, based on the principles of Christianity which others can only copy if they want to thrive, there is no precedent, we lead, they follow. Deus Vult! God Wills IT. Only socialism (disguised communist marxism) would wish to destroy it because it threatens their misguided ascension. They will use Islam in spite of themselves, this is not a good thing. Thank you for articulating the many things that I feel and have felt for a very long time. Mike

    1. Thanks Mike. I’m repeating myself but I do think we are watching the first civilisations in history that have actually funded and organised their own destruction.

  8. Great journalism Hannes, I can see it in action living as I do here in the UK, I am a reluctant ex Rhodie but could not let my family continually live with the uncertainty of Zimbabwe, I to watch about four different channels trying to arrive at what’s really going on and its frightening the bullshit they try and feed us here!

  9. As ever Hannes, an excellent article. To the point, 100 % correct, and a pleasure to read from someone who seems to know how to express the feelings of some many of us with such ease. And do not agree at ALL with Judy Dixons comments re Trump.

    1. Thanks Geoff we live in hope that someone will turn this around but it look likes a long shot!?

  10. In the 1920s, Lenin and the Comintern decreed that European nations must divest of their colonies. Some were divested through the world wars, but in the post world war 2 (for which Armistice was never declared )- they had to divest. The Winds of Change was the code word for the stand down. The Owners of the Communist Revolution are in the West – not the East. The US government, for example, an asset of their Money Trust and banking cartel built the military industrial complex of the USSR. As a Sickle power of the Revolution, the US pursued a China policy that was identical to its policy on Rhodesia. Under Mao ZeDong, The Hammer of The Revolution was in full play against the legitimate Chinese government and its people – an ally of the Allies in WWII. Mao was conducting the usual Communist massacres and atrocities – but the victorious Chinese government under Chiang was mopping them up. Chiang was winning.. The Owners of the Revolution can’t have that. They jerked Truman’s chain and he promptly dispatched General Marshall with the order for Chiang to desist or all US aid would be cut. And there was worse in the dregs – Mao and the Communists had to have a seats in the government. They should be guaranteed the right to stand their Communist candidates for ‘elections’. So naturally, Mao and his guerrillas set about the electoral redistribution and they assassinated other candidates. I think we saw this bad movie again in both Rhodesia and SA. Rhodesia may have been done over in the attempt to settle with The Sickle powers of The Revolution on the basis of their military victory. But nothing takes away from them that they won their war of independence against the Communist Revolution in Africa – and on two fronts. They won. This fact alone would have been enough to put major operators of The Revolution : Waldeim, Young, Carrington and Carter on the can for a week. And as this thing rolls into the endgame with the Americans vs their ZOG (Third War of Independence ) and the British vs their ZOG, Rhodesia and British SA – Albion’s youngest and most rugged nations still have their role to play. Rhodesia , especially is dear in our memory. In the mass demonstrations held in Australia against the Long March Through the Institutions and the communisation of Australia – the Green and White flies with the Australian flags, St George and Old Glory on the front line right up against the police line protecting the Soros payroll’s right to criminally assault lawfully assembled Australians. Love to all the Rhodies worldwide and much respect.

  11. Absolutely bang on once again Hannes. I must say, what I find quite disturbing about people’s opinion of Trump is almost without exception his detractors seem to zero in his personal character traits and personality rather than what the man has, and is, actually achieving on the ground for the betterment of his people and his country and he has achieved plenty. Most clear thinking people in these times know how much the mainstream media lie to us. As someone involved in the safari industry, I meet many Americans and others from all walks of life and unfortunately for us, many of them are of the liberal persuasion and most of them when giving a political opinion simply parrot mainstream media garbage. We are so bombarded with lies from every direction in this day and age it is folly to form an opinion based on news outlets that have been caught lying to us for decades, thus the reason I spend much time sifting through alternative, conservative news sites which as I write are the focus of rabid and unfair censorship from YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and many others, and if for no other reason, this in itself should convince any thinking person there is an agenda afoot. It takes very little intelligence to work out what is going on here once one looks beyond CNN, BBC, Washington Post and the rest of the lying bunch. But back to Trump, who is an imperfect President, but nevertheless a true patriot who wants his country to prosper and wants to keep the legacy of Americas founding fathers intact. He is the very anti-thesis of the previous presidents and administrations who were nothing more than globalist stooges conforming to an incredibly evil agenda. As long as the mainstream media is owned lock, stock, and barrell by the advocates of globalism and the new world order, one will never hear a single good thing about Donald Trump. Same deal with Ian Smith and Rhodesia.

    1. Yes Alistair, unfortunately very few people bother to find out the facts and just go with the media flow. I find it very irritating how lazy people are and how quickly they jump to convenient conclusions. As a matter of interest I have good friends who know Trump well and they like him enormously as a person. Unfortunately, he’s inclined to mangle his words and this his critics leap upon. But he talks from the heart; Obama needed a teleprompter to speak to children at a kindergarten!

  12. Wonderful article,Hannes,absolutely spot on.In all my days I never saw such incisive
    analysis,adeptly linking the current UK
    Government shambles with Rhodesia’s
    ‘Paradise Lost’.

    As a boy,we lived in beautiful Cape Town
    briefly, fleeing African savagery in ‘God’s
    Own Country’,where our new Afrikaner neighbors were kindness personified even after Mom and Dad got back on their feet.

    Your description of global leftist bias found
    amongst those once known for good solid
    governance is so apparent here in chaotic
    Britain.I firmly believe English “deceit and moral cowardice” in Parliament was the underlying cause of Rhodesia’s demise
    – but also England’s.

    1. Thanks Roderick, I actually don’t like being so critical and gloomy but it’s just the way I see it. I’d love to be proved wrong!

  13. Hannes, I have been introduced to your column by an ex Rhodesian farmer now exiled to be a neighbour of mine here in England !

    You write very well. Thank you for your comments on the reality of contemporary South Africa. Honest unbiased journalism in the UK is becoming a rarity. Would you believe some are now having to tune into RT the Russian TV service to get an impartial perspective on things ! so low has the trust in the BBC and msm generally now got.

    Your words on The Breaking of Britain are unfortunately painfully near the truth. But please be assured we the people are not rolling over. In fact 17,410,742 of us, at least, are rising up right here right now.

    Jeff Wyatt
    UKIP Parliamentary Candidate

    1. Hi Jeff, thanks for the compliment. Actually I’m one of those looking to RT for some honest reporting and I find it occasionally. While our numbers are dwindling here we are rooting for you and I so hope you chaps can turn this around. Can’t someone get Jeremy Clarkson to enter the political fray? I think he’d give the present bunch a hell of a fright!? Best of luck Jeff.

  14. Hello Hannes, thank you for your blog. While I agree with your take on British politicians I can not agree with your comparison of Trump and Smith. Trump is a bloated self-serving, rather stupid egotist and the American people are mere sheep to his skewed rhetoric. Smith, on the other hand, was a somewhat naive, intelligent man who was totally bullied by the many sly underhand protagonists involved in our Rhodesian scenario.

    1. Two very different personalities I agree, but I do think Trump is in politics for the country and not for personal gain. I am amazed the man manages to get anything done at all while under such severe and sustained attack from the media and his political opponents. While the Clintons appear to be above the law I believe they are excellent examples of the type of professional politicians who have used high office for personal financial gain. I don’t believe you can accuse President Trump of this.

Comments are closed.