Wednesday, 15 July 2020

How Can Organised Stalkers Afford to Do It?

The simple answer to a question which has perplexed victims and investigators of organised stalking for years is easily answered by the video below:

They can afford to stalk because they use someone else's money, and if you own shares in a big dotcom company, that money could well be yours!

The video also leaves those psychiatrists and policemen who argue that organised stalking never actually happens and that all the victims are deluded, with no place to hide except behind their own wall of baseless denial. 

However, the conspiracy theorists who claim that the involvement of big corporations in organised stalking is proof of a massive super-conspiracy may also be missing the point: 

There was a conspiracy in this case, between a fairly high-ranking executive who instigated it all because he felt the victims had affronted him personally by criticising E-bay, and other employees who appear to have enjoyed being ordered to persecute the victims, but who probably had no easy choice but to comply with the executive in any case. The stalking was not company policy and it definitely was not in the interests of the company or the shareholders, who may yet lose substantial monies from this. 

The explanation for this and probably most organised stalking that takes place in the world (no explanation ever covers every case!) is that the sort of sociopath who is moved to sadistically persecute and destroy innocent people for some perceived slight (which is rarely substantial), tends to seek positions of power that he can abuse. Just as paedophiles seek positions where they have control of children, such as in social services or residential education. In fact the mentalities are so similar that Medawar is confident that a fair proportion of the people directing organised stalking will also be paedophiles because that's the sort of personality that will be involved.

And because it is so important to them to occupy a position of power, they incline to extreme reactions whenever they, in that prestigious position, encounter opposition, criticism, or just unwelcome facts.

If the case in the video is what can happen when a sociopath has a position in an organisation with as little involvement in covert operations as E-Bay (it wasn't even the notorious Facebook or YouTube!) what do readers suppose might happen if the same sort of sociopath has a senior position in the police, or the FBI, or the CIA, or even your local hospital? Do the senior positions at the local Masonic Lodge actually go to the most upright and trustworthy men, which is what is supposed to happen, or to those driven to attain such positions by their own vanity, who are the ones most likely to turn the collective resources of the Lodge against those who, wittingly or unwittingly, prick their vanity?  

The other characteristic of organised stalking very clearly seen in this case is that the immediate reaction to possible discovery was not flight or denial, but a coordinated effort to frame other people for the crime.

One afterthought is this: given the reasoning laid out above, wouldn't it make a lot of sense if the Chinese Communist Party had been colonised by all the sociopaths in China? Officials being terrified of having to tell the truth, critics being suppressed with ridiculous levels of force, an institutionalised refusal to admit any fault or error whatsoever in any circumstances! Medawar has read a novel which advances just this theory.

Wednesday, 3 June 2020

Learning the Wrong Lessons from the Murder of George Floyd

With regard to the murder of George Floyd: many people are determined to learn the wrong lessons.
Recently Medawar saw an answer on Quora which suggested, probably factually, that in a single month at the beginning of this year, American police managed to kill more people than British police had killed between 1900 and 2019.
Other answers had highlighted the apparent fear which American police had of American citizens and vice versa.
There is no way that American police have been running up such a huge body-count solely by killing black Americans who do not pose an imminent threat to the police or anybody else. They have to be killing white, brown and yellow Americans who do not pose an imminent threat to the police or anybody else as well.

There is something wrong, somewhere, in either the culture or training of American law enforcement officers which biases them towards killing people to a quite incredible extent compared to other countries. Whether this is paranoia, arrogance or just a conditioned reflex arising out of training procedures, or a combination of these, is unclear. But there is something badly wrong in the way that American police and citizens are reacting to each other and it is not solely about race.
If anyone wants to make comparisons between America and Apartheid South Africa, well: Medawar was in South Africa when J.W. Vorster was president and America currently seems to be worse. In most provinces of South Africa, the right of self-defence extends to shooting policemen invading property without a warrant, and police tend to talk to you, loudly and generally from behind a brick wall, before taking any action. Taking proper cover enables the police to communicate without shooting someone out of panic. American police seem to expose themselves to the "suspect" and confront them at gunpoint whilst establishing threat rather than communication: this escalates most situations very effectively.

When Arab policemen suspected Medawar of being a burglar (he had a door open in a factory unit and they had never seen him before) they were nervous, but they came and talked, said they were concerned about the door, and accepted Medawar's assurance that the door was open in the middle of the night to let members of their own armed forces into the factory without being too visible and alarming anyone. He would NEVER have been able to explain that one to American law enforcement without getting thoroughly drilled through the head. They would have given him no real opportunity to explain himself at the scene. The act of explaining, by itself, is to a psyched-up American policeman a challenge and a threat.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but they are MUCH more likely to be shot by police than in almost any other democratic country (Medawar's non-lethal interaction with the Arab police did not even happen in an actual democracy), and in most cases there will be no legal remedy and the officer responsible will stay out of jail and generally keep his job.

The officer charged with the murder of George Floyd reportedly did something (kneeling on the neck to restrain George for a prolonged period) that was more or less guaranteed to kill him (this would count as murder under English law without needing any proof of premeditated intent, because you can be convicted of murder if, without a reasonable excuse, you perform an action which any reasonable person would expect to cause death.) BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT ALL OFFICERS IN HIS DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN TRAINED TO DO. (Which will be why his colleagues did not stop him and why he may be acquitted when tried.) There is something wrong with the whole premise and philosophy of the training programme and the culture behind it. A sudden outbreak of anti-racism will not cure this, because nearly as many people will go on being killed by police on some non-racist trigger.

Monday, 9 July 2018

Repeating Grenfell All Over China: Why the BBC is missing the point about Chinese CFC11 production.

NB: this image shows the Grenfell Tower as it was, burning in effective isolation by the standards of modern Chinese cities, where such towers are built in dense packs. See below.


This is a link to a BBC article about continuing illegal production of CFC11 refrigerant and "foam blowing" gas in China and the implications of this for the infamous hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. For anyone concerned about this issue, and really everybody should be, this is quite worrying enough. But there's another problem inherent to article, which no-one at the BBC seems able to see:

The usage of the CFC11s, illegally produced and used on a huge scale in China, as the report uncovers, is pretty well entirely to "blow" (that is, expand into a foam) polyurethane plastic used as insulation. Investigations after the Grenfell fire in London and the two fires at the "Torch" building in Dubai, have identified insulating cladding and internal panels incorporating plastic foam as just about the worst fire risk possible, and of all the plastics to use, polyurethane is the worst of the worst, because not only does it burn vigorously and persistently, the choking black smoke that it evolves when burning contains significant amounts of hydrogen cyanide gas, which, when inhaled, stops a person's blood from transporting oxygen around the body, which is a very efficient way of causing death.

The implication of so much CFC11s being used by the Chinese construction industry that the natural healing of the ozone hole has all but stopped, despite a worldwide ban on CFCs, is that nearly every residential property built in China's enormous residential property boom, incorporates highly flammable and grossly toxic CFC11-blown polyurethane foam. Grenfell-like tower blocks are being built, not by ones or twos, or even by the dozen, but with literally scores of identical towers being built next to each other in high-density developments, duplicated on hundreds of sites across the country. The risk is not just of a fire spreading rapidly up and down a tower block, but of it spreading from tower to tower across a forest of densely-packed towers in a metropolitan area.

The last time any Western City matched the level of fire-risk inherent in this, was when practically the whole of London was burnt to the ground in September 1666. The saving grace in China is, bizarrely, that hardly any of the millions of homes represented by these tower blocks and other mass-built buildings, appear to be currently occupied. But that being so, there are so many foam-insulated buildings being built, stacked up next to each other, that there's a real possibility of a multi-building conflagration big enough to produce sufficient toxic smoke to poison the whole of one of the megacities which China's Communist Government wants to build, with up to a hundred million citizens in each. 

This isn't going to be like the existing Chinese pollution problems, where everybody coughs a lot and has to wear filter masks. There will be copious cyanide in the smoke and people will die together in extreme numbers. Outside the megacity, the effect of such a fire would be like a nuclear winter without the nuclear war. The massive use of polyurethane foam in China is not just a Western Liberal environmental worry about the ozone layer: it's potentially very much worse than that.

Thursday, 15 March 2018

An Inconvenient Death: New Book by Miles Goslet

This is a link to a new book (available from the 5th of April onwards) about the death of Dr David Kelly and the surrounding circumstances. (Hardback price £16.99)

It is published at a very appropriate moment, when Great Britain is learning afresh that we need the scientists and technicians of Porton Down far more than we need messianic pathological liars. 

The Kindle edition of the book may be ordered here. (Kindle Price £7.19)

Long before he was embroiled in controversy over Iraq, Dr Kelly was quietly exposing efforts by the Soviet state and post-Soviet Russian Federation to cheat on chemical and biological weapons limitation treaties (especially over the weaponisation of Smallpox), and that's never been more pertinent than it is today. It will be interesting to see whether the new book touches on this.

Thursday, 11 January 2018

Gaslighting Article

This is a link to a feature article on the BBC website, which describes the stalking tactic of "gaslighting" from the stalker's point of view. It's not the complete story: the BBC isn't interested in the concept that whole groups of people get together to do this kind of thing, but it's a useful introduction to what is done, and it's proof positive that this kind of thing really happens and is not just in the minds of the victims.

Monday, 18 December 2017

Kill Books and Organised Stalking: a Spin-Off from the Bundy Case

This article is not about the Bundy case itself: it is about something else, not unrelated, of course, which is pointed up by some of the evidence which has emerged from independent investigations of the Bundy case. There are other respected bloggers who have specialised on this subject and Medawar doesn't intend to duplicate their hard work or get into pointless arguments: readers can go to them directly.

That being said, anyone remotely interested in the Bundy case should view or read the source material referred to immediately below.

This is a link to a (slightly shakey, but bear with it) YouTube video of Washington State Representative Matt Shea reading from a document of "17-18" pages, which is based on an e-mail sent by Special Agent Larry Wooten to Andrew D. Goldsmith, Associate Deputy Attorney General. 

In it, (at roughly time index 13:00 onwards) Mr Shea recounts Special Agent Wooten's claims that Former Special Agent in Charge Dan Love had  a "Kill Book": a sort of trophy, containing details of cases where Love proudly claimed to have caused three people in Utah to commit suicide.

Here is a link to Mr Shea's source material, the communication from Special Agent Wooten.  (It's a .pdf document). Medawar recommends that readers not only carefully read, but download this. (In this form the document is 16 pages, starting with page 2.) In the first paragraph on page 8 (according to the document's own numbering, page 7 as far as a .pdf reader is concerned), the "Kill Book" is mentioned.

Medawar would like readers to note that this document is not uncritical of Cliven Bundy and cannot fairly be represented as political propaganda in his cause, or an endorsement of his actions, which Special Agent Wooten believes probably broke several laws and risked an armed engagement which might well have cost innocent lives. It is implicit in Wooten's view, that Mr Bundy stubbornly acted in a way which actually completely played into the hands of SAC Dan Love and others shown by the document to be highly prejudiced, biased and unprofessional. Special Agent Wooten also implies that, given the grotesque and at times almost unbelievable bias and misconduct within the BLM's Office of Law Enforcement and Security, that had Mr Bundy recognised the Federal Government and legal system and used them properly, he would have been in a very strong position, because his opponents had mishandled and concealed evidence at every turn -and apparently continue to do so.

What actually matters most here:

The three people in Utah whom SAC Dan Love boasted of having driven to suicide, using (or misusing) his powers and position and the indulgent tolerance of his superiors for misconduct on his part. We know little about them, other than that Dan Love boasted of having caused their deaths in the course of his "work". There's no evidence for any of them being a confrontation artist who might be said to have engineered his own doom. They were US citizens, who for one reason or another came to the attention of Dan Love and the BLM, and they are dead.

It is apparent from the context that Dan Love hounded these people in precisely the way that the "targeted individual" community has long claimed that gang-stalkers or "organised stalkers" do. In doing this, from within a Federal Law Enforcement agency, Dan Love must have engaged in a conspiracy with his colleagues, both supervisors and subordinates, to deny these individuals their constitutional, civil and other rights. This is a Federal Felony: "Denial of Rights" under USC 18 Section 241. See also the single-most read article on this blog.
There should be a prompt and thorough criminal Federal investigation into Dan Love and his colleagues for at least three counts of this felony.

If one has the sense and the detachment to put the Bundy case itself to one side, for just a moment, it can be seen that Larry Wooten's document is exactly the organised stalking smoking gun that skeptics (including many active stalkers) have constantly claimed that stalking victims cannot produce. It is very, very important.

Readers who are still stalking skeptics should also read this article, and especially the update at the end giving details of two major official reports on failings on policing and prosecution of stalking cases in the UK. The reports, which are linked to, show numerous police forces and Crown Prosecutors effectively and wrongly adopting the positions and probably the arguments, too, of the skeptics, which, in Medawar's observation and experience, are largely (and generally unwittingly) informed by social media propaganda on the part of those taking part in stalking activity. That's before we even get into the issue of stalking being organised by law enforcement officers themselves, such as SAC Dan Love. 

In the UK there is a term for low to middle-ranking officials abusing their power over ordinary people: "Little Hitler Syndrome". (High-ranking officials abusing their power is now generally known as "Blairism".) What Dan Love appears to have done is take Little Hitler Syndrome to its ultimate extreme.

Wednesday, 1 November 2017

"Peter Sweden", Hate Crimes and "British Police"

First point to make is that there is no such thing, yet, as "British police." There is such a thing as "Police Scotland" and also "The Police Service of Northern Ireland" but there is no police force for the whole UK, because the England and Welsh electorates wouldn't buy such an idea. The Scottish electorate is apparently beginning to regret doing so, as much local accountability (and operational efficiency) has been lost. 

Guernsey Police, for example, are smaller than a typical English County Constabulary and this is so for all the Crown dependencies.

Europeans use the term "British Police" usually, but not always, in a derogatory way. They really need to specify what actual police force they are talking about, if anyone is to help them, perhaps by writing to the relevant Chief Constable and the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Anyway, in a recent video, the You Tuber "Peter Sweden" states that, while he is in Norway, his family in the UK have been repeatedly harassed by "British Police" from the "Hate Crimes Unit" ostensibly seeking to protect him because of an intelligence tip off, but actually seeking to locate him on behalf of the Swedish government, so that he can be arrested and prevented from posting videos. Having reviewed Mr Sweden's work on You Tube, some of which has been demonetized (this happens, at the behest of an automated algorithm and apparently at random, to nearly everyone at times, so is no indicator of guilt), it is clear that he has not actually breached You Tube standards (his videos are still published), much less the criminal law. Certainly, none of his output would be seen as criminal by an English or Welsh court -and probably not in Scotland or Northern Ireland either. Some of the viewer comments on his videos are pro-Nazi, but this is an indicator of how widely neo-Nazi groups spread their comments rather than on the nature of Mr Sweden's videos. You see similar extreme remarks, probably from the same people, on most historical educational videos on You-Tube.

This means that the police, if he can identify which force he is talking about, and if they are acting as Mr Sweden says, are almost certainly acting in breach of the Constitutional Settlement of 1688, which some European laws may require them to do. This is an argument for proceeding with Brexit in a timely and concession-free manner so far as repressive EU attitudes to free speech are concerned.

The video of his that Medawar thinks has triggered these ham-fisted attempts at repression, is this one. In it, Mr Sweden documents seven bomb attacks in Sweden in twelve days, of which the Swedish media and authorities have admitted only one. If the Swedish government was forced to admit to the true number of bomb attacks occurring in Sweden, which is more than for a fortnightly period in the UK at the height of the IRA mainland bombing campaign of the seventies, then the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office would have no option but to alter its official advice on traveling to Sweden, and they would have to advise Britons not to make any non-essential trips to Sweden. The EU would throw a tantrum if the FCO actually did this, so it's probably seen as more acceptable to extinguish Mr Sweden's right of free speech than admit to the truth, which appears to be that bomb and grenade attacks in Sweden are a part of everyday life and that the Swedish government has rendered itself powerless to deal with this, because it values image over substance.

British readers should consider writing or e-mailing to their MP at the House of Commons, asking that Foreign and Commonwealth advice on the safety of travel to Sweden should be based on the number and frequency of bomb and grenade attacks that British intelligence knows to be actually happening in Sweden, rather than the much smaller number which the Swedish authorities are willing to admit to.

See link for interactive list of contact details for local constituency MPs. This blog has a large number of American readers, too, and they might write to Senators or Congressmen asking that State Department advice on travel to Sweden should be based on intelligence estimates of the danger rather than by taking official Swedish statements purely at face value. Citing Mr Sweden's video about the seven bombs in twelve days as appropriate.

Update 3/11/17  The wave of bombings continues, and Mr Sweden has posted another video. One of these attacks, which he says was a "big firework" actually sounds like a big display shell in a confined space that did structural damage to the entrance area of an apartment block. He uses the British term "banger" but this normally means a small firecracker, incapable of the sort of damage that he describes. However, there clearly is an ongoing stream of attacks, using both improvised explosives and commercially-made military ones, such as grenades.

This appears to be a "turf war" between rival gangs, and the Swedish government and media are unwilling to admit that this is what is happening. Police officers and their families are being targeted for gun attacks at their homes and even kidnaps, and still the Swedish government is trying to address the problem with jackbooted censorship and denial, rather than action against the bombers, shooters and kidnappers.  As things stand, it seems more likely that a blogger or You Tuber such as Mr Sweden will go to jail for speaking out, than that an actual bomber will go to jail for destroying property and endangering life. It definitely is not safe for foreigners to visit Sweden and do business there!

Update 16/3/18  Mr Sweden hasn't said so in as many words, but Medawar believes that Mr Sweden's parents live in the North Yorkshire Police area. This is not a highly politicised force like the Metropolitan Police Service. He should try communicating with the Chief Constable instead of posting videos on You Tube: the police cannot react to the latter, they always respond to the former.

Friday, 4 August 2017

Second Fire At The Torch Building in Dubai: Lessons Re Grenfell Tower

There has been a second fire in the cladding of the "Torch" residential building in Dubai. The good news is that, once, again, staff and the the Dubai Civil Defence force was able to evacuate the building without loss of life.

Although it is clear that the exterior cladding material used on this building (as an afterthought to the original design) hopelessly compromises any fire-containment policy, it appears that the basic structure, layout and evacuation scheme for the building are all very sound: nobody was told to stay in their apartment for an hour or more during the fire, and the policy of evacuating residents immediately was carried out without compromising access to the building by fire crews. (Ie: the architect's access scheme is good enough to allow this.)

The second fire is proof that the cladding is a bad thing and should be removed from buildings on a global basis, and also proof that the policy adopted by the emergency services at Grenfell Tower, of keeping people in their flats, was heavily misguided and lacked all common sense, the product of a "public service" mentality which treats the public like sheep. There needs to be a criminal investigation into the conduct of the Metropolitan Police and the London Fire Brigade on the night: not all of the liability lies with the Borough Council, Property Management Company and the firms that peddled the death-trap cladding around the United Kingdom and far beyond!

As regards all future buildings: the Torch building should be looked at carefully: not because it caught fire twice, but because everyone got out, twice, which implies that the evacuation policy expressed in the design is sound, and that what the emergency services did on the night, was sensible and sound.

Additionally, it seems that in two fires, fire and smoke from burning cladding didn't penetrate into the building and especially stairwells, anything like as badly at the Torch as it did at Grenfell Tower, and the most likely explanation is that the windows and especially window-frames, were better quality and more fire-resistant.

Monday, 31 July 2017

Update to Blog About Soviet (and US Criminal) Harassment Using Short Waves and Microwaves

The blog author of "Victims of Organized Crime In Central Texas", mentioned in the post on this blog "Bringing the Dirty Tricks Home From Moscow" has been diagnosed with and treated for Lymphoma as of earlier this year (2017). Exactly like the former US Ambassador to Moscow, Walter J. Stroessel Jr, mentioned in the post.

Update: 1st of August 2017 Since she posted an article (originally authored by Medawar) detailing one of the ways in which she and her daughter are being harassed, VOCCT has experienced an upsurge in stalking harassment of all kinds, including extremely aggressive driving on her way to work. This may be due to her footnote revealing that, following RF harassment in previous years, she has lymphoma.

Since the harassment won't let up, neither will the publicity for the misdeeds of the harassers.

Everyone who takes part in such harassment is committing a Federal Offence, see link.

Monday, 24 July 2017

Harassment Via WLAN/Wi-Fi

Who does it?
Nutters, extremists who disagree with your right to have opinions that differ from theirs, property developers who want to force you to sell your house at below the market price, nerds who just think doing this sort of thing is "cool."

What Happens?
Especially when you are trying to work on the computer rather than just use it recreationally, the internet connection becomes slow or even stops altogether. This always happens at the most frustrating times possible, and calls to the ISP, helplines etc. never resolve the problem. (Although this is achieved using the WLAN, it still slows the router itself down to a crawl, so will affect you even if using an ethernet cable connection to the router.)

How is it done?
Somebody has studied your habits at length and by various means, including monitoring activity on your WLAN, so they know when you are likely to be doing something vital to your work or living your life. This is the basic method behind all forms of stalking, and it is generally something which the stalker greatly enjoys doing. Sometimes there is no other motive than the fact that the stalker gets off on doing this sort of thing.

They fit a surplus desktop computer that has a WLAN card, with a "directional aerial" aka "high-gain antennae" (often looks like a black Pringles tube) and they position this somewhere with a line of sight to your house, and preferably to wherever your router is, within your house. Using "net-stumbler" and the high gain antennae can help them to establish exactly where all your wireless devices are, so aiming the thing directly at your router is no real problem.

They use a progamme (which they can write themselves or buy online and download for a few pounds, dollars or small fragments of a bitcoin) to repeatedly poll your router, through the WLAN network(s) (you may have more than one from the same router, they will poll them all) for access. They don't need to have the password: the router's MPU still has to pay the attempted poll attention to determine that the supplied password or key is bogus. That's the point: the MPU works in "timeslices", and every timeslice it devotes to an attempt to handshake with it over the WLAN, is a timeslice that it cannot use for communicating with your device over the same WLAN, or via the Ethernet. It can't use that stolen timeslice for transmitting and receiving data over the actual internet connection, either.

Since the stalker's computer does nothing else except repeatedly make failed handshakes with your router, the router's MPU ends up with few, if any, timeslices with which to process your legitimate activity and your connection stops working. 

Remember: a violent or hysterical reaction to this is one of the payoffs for the stalker, and he will have taken steps to mislead you, so that any violence by you is directed against an innocent party, and the stalker will be quick to call the police and spin them a tale, designed to get you arrested or shot. This leads into another form of stalking: "SWAT stalking" whereby repeated false emergency calls are made to get the victim arrested by armed police.

The stalker is probably breaking several laws: fitting a high-gain antennae to a source of radio interference is illegal in most jurisdictions, as is creating a public nuisance, and it is misuse of a computer and harassment.

Sunday, 16 July 2017

Destabilisation Campaign

This is a link to a BBC article about campaigns of trolling, intimidation, vandalism and actual violence directed at MPs and election candidates in the UK. This has been an issue for quite some time, and the BBC has studiously avoided reporting it up till now, possibly because they wanted to have a victim on the hard left first. The BBC article doesn't report the half of what has been going on, for that see the Daily Mail, which has been on the case for much longer.

The point that most commentators on this issue have been missing, is that people can make money by trolling, by intimidation and by vandalism and violence. This means that a nerd who trolls Conservative candidates on behalf of the hard left, can double his income by having a second set of online profiles and trolling Black and hard left candidates on behalf of the extreme right. Vladimir Putin may have led the way with his army of paid trolls, but now others who have his sort of money are doing it too. What gives the game away, is that some of the abusive comments directed at Conservative candidates have been intensely racist in nature, which really ought to have been taboo for anyone of a socialist disposition. All this means that there are probably rather fewer people carrying out these campaigns of abuse and intimidation than it might seem at first: they use multiple personas and the money they get paid for it allows them to act like complete and utter bastards the whole time (doubtless a major attraction for them.) But it also means that somebody is investing a lot of money in abuse and intimidation: who and to what end?

Well, because it's all clearly designed to set left and right at each other's throats in the United Kingdom, rather than to allow either side a clear victory over the other, it is either somebody with no stake in the future of the UK, who simply wants the UK to dissolve into violence and chaos to the benefit of another country or multi-national conglomerate (or even currency speculators), or it's somebody in the UK who intends to launch a new political vehicle that will power through the centre of politics to "rescue and unify" a country torn apart by the destabilisation campaign that they are funding. We've already seen something like this happen in France, where a supposedly moderate candidate was voted in by people who didn't really like or trust him, in order to deny power to left and right-wing forces which were portrayed in the media as offering nothing but chaos.

The actual reality of the Macron government, is, as some feared, utterly fanatical Euro-socialism, which very few French voters actually wanted, and a nakedly Anglophobic foreign policy intended to do the UK as much damage as possible, even if France derives no actual benefit from this. French voters didn't vote for Anglophobia for its own sake, but some of them might possibly have voted for judicious Anglophobia if that yielded good profits for France. Despite being officially "centerist" there is nothing truly moderate about the Macron government.

There won't be anything moderate or genuinely democratic about the new "Centerist" party and leader which suddenly emerges to "save" the UK from the escalating battle of the trolls and thugs between left and right, either. And some of its leading "elder statesmen" backers may be very, very familiar, even if they have the low cunning to put up a somewhat less toxic "leader" as figurehead.