Many of us have long suspected that Jayda Fransen, unlike her cowardly Master, Paul Golding, has deliberately courted legal proceedings as part of her leadership bid. It’s well known that her brief failure of confidence in Dudley lost her Dowson’s support, effectively destroying her hopes of the Britain First Fuhrership, at least for a while. After Dudley’s failed demonstration Jayda disappeared for several weeks, presumably licking her wounds and nursing her injured pride but then she returned with a vengeance. Since then she’s clearly and deliberately baited the police and the courts, refused to answer Bail (whilst her brave Master consistently turned up like the puppy he is) and even now posts videos of Luton Muslims on line in contravention of a court order. She’s even risking prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice by proclaiming her biased version of events online prior to the trial date.
It may not immediately be obvious to all EBF readers just what Fransen might be trying to achieve with all this conspicuous law-breaking. To us it’s clear – she’s copying her ideological predecessor just as she does in so many other of her policies and behaviours. Jayda has borrowed many speeches and key phrases from Hitler, Goering and Streicher in the past. Now she’s trying to recreate Hitler’s famous show-trial of 1924.
She’s even promised to “Give them Hell in court”, clearly planning to imitate former corporal Hitler who used his three-day trial to unite the fractured German right under Nazism.
We’re always sorry to disillusion people, especially when they’ve staked their entire career on flawed logic but we think it’s important for Jayda’s own sake that she has a clear idea both of the judicial and the political reality before she carries out her ill-advised attempt to give anybody Hell. Presumably she won’t want to add contempt of court to the three charges she’s already facing. Far from making her a nationally recognised political martyr the result is likely to make her an even bigger joke and loser than she is already.
Here’s why Jayda’s appearance before the beak will be nothing like Hitler’s ideological triumph after the failed November Putsch…
Hitler was already well-known
Adolf Hitler had been working away at uniting the far right for many years by the time he appeared in court. Starting as an unknown speaker in Munich’s beer halls his personal charisma and compelling prowess as an impassioned public-speaker had been drawing huge crowds for years. He had the support of at least two major paramilitary groups, (the Brown shirts and the Steel helmets) and was a regular guest of Berlin’s political and financial high society. This ability to mix with people from all backgrounds, together with his oratory skill made him a household name.
Fransen is a little-known wannabe fascist who can’t manage more than a hundred or so listeners at rallies, even when they’ve been planned and advertised for months. Britain First’s recent national conference in London involved only 25 people from the whole of the UK. Hitler’s offence, The Beer Hall Putsch involved several hundred of his followers, hastily organised and sufficiently dedicated to drop everything at their leader’s beck and call. Fransen has no such network of willing footsoldiers, no senior political contacts and no sympathy within the judiciary. The context for Jayda’s hearing in Luton is very different from Hitler’s.
Hitler had senior contacts
By the time of his trial in 1924 Adolf Hitler had wormed his way into the drawing rooms and private clubs of some of the Weimar republic’s most influential ‘movers and shakers’. The best Fransen has been able to manage is to act as ‘marketing totty’ for terrorist-sympathiser, Jim Dowson to make a fast few quid out of gullible British fash.
The judges were sympathetic to Nazism from the outset
Following the almost impossibly hard terms of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 the German people struggled with starvation, unbelievably rapid inflation and almost impossible conditions of life. Extreme politics were commonplace and both the far left and the far right had formed violent militia, sometimes hundreds of thousands strong, resulting in genuine running battles on German streets. Centrist politics were being squeezed out and most citizens found themselves having to choose between one extreme or the other, if only because everyone else was becoming increasingly impotent.
In modern UK no such polarisation applies. There are no armed, uniformed militia terrorising UK streets and our judges and magistrates don’t need to favour any extremes at all.
Hitler was a charismatic speaker
The few televised clips regularly trotted out on popular TV documentaries don’t really do justice to Hitler’s oratory. He was more than just the shouty man so regularly portrayed on our TV screens. Eyewitness accounts make clear the immense preparation that went into Hitler’s versatility as a speaker. He would build in cadence and volume, gradually becoming more and more flamboyant as his oratory rose to crescendo after crescendo, each one punctuating a speech that itself built relentlessly in tempo and passion until he almost hypnotized the audience be it one thousand or one hundred thousand strong.
Fransen by comparison appears hesitant, nervous and occasionally apologetic whenever she takes to the stage. Even her video rants on ‘Jayda’s soapbox’ are amateurish by comparison. She’s no orator and she’s no potential leader of a new British Reich. If Jayda tries to eulogise for some bygone Britain the way that Hitler used his trial to mourn a lost Germany, she’ll very quickly either shut up or be done for contempt of court. This is to be a court appearance – not a political rally.
Hitler’s crime mattered to the average man in the street
Adolf Hitler had assembled several hundred armed veterans and surrounded a Munich beer hall. They had taken hostage members of the political and aristocratic elite (including nationally respected war hero, General Erich Ludendorff) and genuinely planned to overthrow the German government. That’s a serious crime attracting serious media coverage.
Jayda Fransen is rude, bigoted and brazen but she really hasn’t done anything to come close to her uncle Adolf’s attempted Putsch.
Basically the Deputy Fuhrer of Britain first might believe she’s being clever by taking on the establishment in the political show-trial of the century but actually she’s just going to be one more ‘business as usual’ prosecution in a minor Magistrates’ court that really doesn’t give two hoots about her plans. The magistrates are just there to uphold the law, whether Fransen likes it or not.