UK Riots: Notes on freedom

Breaking UK speech laws

With this article, I am likely ‘breaking UK speech laws’ about online posts they claim are ‘inaccurate’ or ‘fueling racial hatred’, even though nothing in this article can be construed as depicting any error as ‘fact’, nor as attacking any racial group. Will that matter? In the current climate, it won’t, as the aim of the government is not the public safety, as they claim, but a naked power grab.

We have all seen the images coming from British cities, with burning cars, armed gangs, riot police, and the stern speeches by the new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, from the social democratic Labour party. We are warned about the rise of extreme right-wing, fascist violence, and draconian measures are taken to protect the democratic institutions and the migrant communities in the UK against that hostile threat.

Starmer said: ““People in this country have a right to be safe, and yet we’ve seen Muslim communities targeted, attacks on mosques, other minority communities singled out, Nazi salutes in the street, attacks on the police, wanton violence alongside racist rhetoric, so no, I won’t shy away from calling it what it is: far-right thuggery.”

The spark that set off the riots and unrest was the fatal stabbing of 3 young girls: Alice Dasilva Aguiar, 9, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Bebe King, 6. Another eight children and 2 adults were wounded in his attack, and some remain in critical condition.

A report by Yahoo News UK stated, when describing ‘what we know’, that “armed police detained a man and seized a knife. They subsequently said the crime was not being treated as terror-related.” At the end of the article, they reported that “police earlier confirmed that there was no clear indication of any motive.”

Very quickly, unrest started, which was very quickly condemned in very harsh wording. As many news outlets in the UK reported “after the attack, false claims circulated online that the attacker was a Muslim asylum seeker, which has led to unrest.”

The Independent wrote a fact-check report, titled “The false far-right claims that sparked riots in Southport and across UK.” In equally strong words, they added this subtitle: “Misinformation is at the source of far-right riots across the country, but although those inaccuracies have been corrected, the demonstrations are still ongoing.”

It is true that the attacked was not a Muslim, nor an ‘asylum seeker’. The person arrested for the attack is Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, born in the UK from Rwandan parents. He was a minor during the attack on July 29, but turned 18 on August 7.
The picture most news media will show, is this one:

That was when he was young, and this is him now:

This is a media tactic to conjure up sympathy, to show how he really is a ‘good boy’, who participated in a West End musical, looking for friends after they moved several years ago. The rioters, on the other hand, are thugs and ‘far-right extremists’, who acted based on misinformation!

As the fact-check continued: “But the source of anger driving these protesters - beyond their longstanding frustration with a system they believe is wrongly allowing migrants and Muslims into the United Kingdom - appears to be based on inaccurate information and conspiracy.”

The media acknowledges that there is frustration about the UK migration policies, but that is not the real source of the protests! Misinformation is the source of anger! Beyond any frustration that people might have about the wave of unbridled immigration! Misinformation...

More about the ‘source of anger driving the protests’ later.

This now allows the state apparatus to crack down mercilessly.

“I guarantee you will regret taking part in this disorder, whether directly or those whipping up this action online and then running away themselves,” Starmer said, as quoted by AP. “This is not a protest, it is organized, violent thuggery and it has no place on our streets or online.”

The British Prime Minister wants to streamline police forces, with fast response units that can operate nationwide, ‘following the criminals who are mobile, moving from community to community’, and to share ‘intelligence’. This intelligence would come from, among other sources, ‘facial recognition programs’ (meaning installing camera’s everywhere, and tracking all their own citizens). He calls the protesters, his own citizens, ‘thugs’ with a ‘violent disorder’: they are sick, and need to be ‘healed’.

The aim of the police forces would shift to ‘preventative action’ and ‘criminal behavior orders’, to restrict the movement of people. In the same breath, he threatens social media companies, as ‘violent disorder clearly went up online’, on ‘their premises’.

We all have seen the videos of police breaking into people’s houses, to arrest them for what they posted on Facebook or X.

“Authorities have arrested a 55-year-old woman From Near Chester for an “Inaccurate” Post on Social Media.” As Skynews reported, “on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred and false communications.” Skynews then quotes Chief Superintendent Alison Ross: “We have all seen the violent disorder that has taken place across the UK over the past week, much of which has been fueled by malicious and inaccurate communications online.”

Communications such as this:

But whether or not this news is false, we don’t know. Does this fuel the unrest? Probably. Why, though? Is it hatred? Or the result of unanswered concerns and problems? Definitely anger…

This is what the media and politicians (and the police) are missing:

The unrest is indeed based on anger, but NOT because of the stabbing, nor the ‘misinformation’ that was posted around it. That was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back. The anger is not aimed at Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, but at the massive and ever faster growing group of immigrants in the UK, legal and illegal, and the negative impact that has on the country, and at the government, for allowing this and even encouraging it.

Any protest about this has been smothered for years now, and dismissed out of hand as ‘racist’, ‘bigotry’ and ‘racial hatred’. Even when people complain about the sudden influx of Poles or recently of Ukrainians, as white, or even whiter, than the British themselves.

I came across a very interesting video of a Rwandan talk show, by Louise Uwacu. She is Rwandan, just like the Rudakubana family, and she has her finger on the pulse of the Rwandan community.

From sources that contacted her, she got several pieces of information that she wanted to confirm. What she is certain of, from what I can tell, is that Alex’ father, Joseph, was in the Rwandan army under dictator Kagame, and came to the UK not as a refugee, but as an immigrant. For her, that immediately raises several questions. She knows Kagame, and she knows his army: they call themselves ‘killing machines’, and act more like a mafia than a regular army. Upon entering service, they swear an oath to serve Kagame forever.

Joseph apparently was let go from the army, which she claims never happens: they never let one of their own go. Was it because he entered service while under age, which makes him a child soldier? Or because he was given a mission within the UK? That much is speculation on her part, but based on real knowledge of the brutal ‘Kagamistan’ army and ideology. She asks out loud: “This tragedy calls for some self reflection time - Particularly in the Rwandan community. Are white people in danger ? We must denounce and expose the Kagamistan killing machines culture and social condition that could explain this tragedy?” She concluded: “A Rwandan child who was born in the UK killed THREE girls - it's horrible - Let us condemn and fight the culture of murder and the format of killing machines from Kagamistan.”

Anyone in the UK who reposts that, would be jailed. If she posts that in the UK, she would be jailed. Even her, as a fellow Rwandan, speaking out from within the same community as the attacker... I have incredible respect for this woman, who dares to ask tough questions, not for others, but for herself.

She points at something incredible, that explains the visceral reaction of so many Britons. And no, not by crying ‘racism’ or ‘racial hatred’ or ‘fascism’. Let’s listen in her own words (timestamp in her video: 28”30 to  33”30):

Are white people in danger? Short answer: yes.

And how are they in danger? So what if you receive people in your own society, and then they commit crimes against you or against your children. And the issue that I have observed, that I have seen, I am in Canada, this, this, are white people in danger, is like white people going through the same issue, even in Canada, the same thing as in the UK, because of immigration, and they also have the same fears. [...] Whenever they are victims and they’re facing something that is tragic in their own community, and then they cry. Oh these people who are doing this, they may be Africans, they may be black, they may be from Islam, these people who are doing this. Whenever it's white people who are the victims and then they cry and they denounce whatever Injustice is getting committed against them, what does the society tell them? Their own Society tells them ‘oh, you are racist!’ They shut them up by telling them that they are racist! They shut them up by they telling them that they have islamophobia!

So then by shutting them up and not allowing them to express their fears and whatever it is that they feel that is dangerous in their society, they actually make it worse in their society. They make it worse so, because when you cannot talk about problems and issues and dangers that you are facing, you also cannot find a solution to those issues, to those problems.

Now what is the danger that the white people are into, that is grave, that is facing their society? The danger in the UK that, as we're speaking about the UK, for example, is they already have demographic issues, population issues. They already do not have enough children.

[...]

Not enough population, not enough children. And the leaders, the politicians, they decide to import in new immigrants, so that they can come and be your population. Be your children, because white people have not created enough children. So one of the solutions would be for white people to create more children, which, as we come back to this tragedy that we are facing, makes this tragedy even more sour! Because here even those who created their children, now you have people who come into their society, and then your children are in danger! And then your children get killed! And then these children are women, women! Your white women are the ones who were supposed to create these children for you! So, why would it be so hard to understand that white people may be outraged and they may be facing dangers and may be facing fears and may they may react a certain way when their children are killed! Because they are already facing all those issues, of not even having enough children! Now even the small children, the little children that they have, somebody's going to come in and and kill them?! So tragic, so tragic!

Yes, posting or reposting this in the UK would most likely land you in jail.

This shows the utter hypocrisy and failure of this power grab by the elites in the Uk. The aim of the government is not the public safety, as they claim, but a naked power grab. Why? In part because Starmer feels the need to consolidate his power. In the July 4 parliamentary elections, his party, the social democratic Labour party, won 34% of the votes, but 64% of the seats. Reform UK, the part of Nigel Farage, outspoken critic of the ruling classes in the UK, and of the disastrous immigration policies, won a stunning 14% of the votes, but that translated into only 1% of the seats (5). This is due to an ages old system, that can summarized as ‘first past the post’ (FPTP), or ‘winner takes all’.

A 2019 report by the British think tank The Constitution Society, written by David Klemerer, analyzed the problems with the current electoral system in the UK. “Rather than ensuring stable, cohesive politics, first past the post simply prevents parliament from reflecting the social and political divides of Britain today.” Why that is, they explain:
“Because under FPTP election occurs in single-member districts in which there can be only one winner, parties achieve representation in parliament only when they win the most votes in particular constituencies, no matter how much support they command across the country at large.” The irony is that the current pro-migration parties (both top parties, Labour and the Conservatives) profit from a system that does not offer a good representation of those minorities they import: “numerous studies have indicated that FPTP is less likely than other electoral systems to generate a parliament that is demographically reflective of the country at large.”

That is the electoral background, at least in part explaining this very aggressive and repressive response by the brand-new Prime Minister, Kier Starmer.

Another explanation is that the massive immigration is planned, and willed, by those elites he represents and is part of. Where in 1992 immigration into the UK totaled about 175,000 people, this was 610,000 in 2020, 783,000 in 2021, 1,169,000 in 2022, and 1,157,000 in 2023! And those are estimates, likely underestimates, as controlling for illegal immigration is not easy. The 2022 estimate was adjusted upwards by 26%, or 158,000 immigrants. For a country of 66.97 million people (2022 numbers), an influx of at least 4,436,000 immigrants in the last 5 years is an increase of over 7%!

I could cite studies that talk about the impact of large-scale immigration, such as this 1989 study called “Social effects of group migration between developing countries”. Their abstract cites:

“Migrants eventually induce social, economic, and political problems in receiving countries, including

1) increases in the population, with adverse effects on existing social institutions;

2) increases in demand for goods and services;

3) displacement of nationals from occupations in the countryside and in the cities;

4) increases in the size of the informal sector of the national economy;

5) deterioration in the salary structures of the informal, rural, and urban sectors of the economy;

6) transculturation;

7) occasional loss of customs and traditions by the local population; and

8) the introduction of diseases and social problems.”

It even warned about “possible moral deformation of some migrants and their deviant behavior.”

More modern scholarship is much more careful in their wording. A 2020 web publication on the IMF blog was touting the positives, as it titled “Migration to Advanced Economies Can Raise Growth.”

In this report, the researchers, working with estimates and simulations, write: “We find that immigrants in advanced economies increase output and productivity both in the short and medium term. [...] However, the positive impact of productivity is not visible for refugee immigration to emerging market and developing economies.” Knowing that about 75% of the immigration into the UK is comprised of refugees, based on numbers by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the impact on the UK and their citizens is clearly not the positive boon that some try to make it out to be.

There are cultural problems: how far must a host country go in accommodating for the sensitivities of the guest populations, for example? The current demographic information (2022) tells us that there are about 14.8% immigrants in the UK, about 30% born elsewhere in the European Union, and 65% were born outside the UK. This does not factor in people born in the UK from immigrant parents.

Some of the cultural problems we cannot talk about: look at the Rotherham rape scandal. From 1997 through 2013 an estimated 1400 girls have been groomed and (gang) raped, predominantly by Pakistani men. As part of the aftermath, the Rotherham Council commissioned the Jay Report, an independent inquiry by Prof. Alexis Jay, a former chief social worker, visiting professor at the University of Strathclyde and the independent chair of the Centre for Excellence for Children's Care and Protection. She was very clear about the identity of the perpetrators: “The issue of race, regardless of ethnic group, should be tackled as an absolute priority if it is known to be a significant factor in the criminal activity of organized abuse in any local community.”

All throughout this incredible case of child abuse a main red thread was that the abuse was known, but it was all hushed away, for good part because of fear of being labeled a ‘racist’. This allowed the abuse to go on for so long, and with so many girls, in a town of 257,300 people, and a small community of less than 3,000 people from Pakistan. In 1997 the Rotherham Council had created a watchdog group, Risky Business, to work with young girls and women (11 to 25 years old) who might be at risk of sexual exploitation. Already in 2001 they found evidence of a local grooming network, with very harrowing stories of rape, abuse, violence and threats. The local police simply sidelined the information, without looking at it, without sharing it.

In 2010 five Pakistani men were finally convicted (with rather light prison sentences, given the scale of abuse and violence), and the next year Risky Business was shut down, apparently because it was seen as a ‘nuisance’ by the Council.

This did not end the problem. Subsequent expositions by Andrew Folk of The Times, making it public that this was an ongoing and widespread problem the police and the council had known about for over ten years. In 2012 the Rochdale child sex abuse ring got busted up, and a trial started, reigniting the importance of Rotherham. Rochdale courts convicted 9 men, again British Pakistanis, of a series of crimes, including rape, trafficking for sex, conspiracy and sex with minors. This went on, at least, from 2004 until 2013. A 2024 report found that there was compelling evidence of widespread abuse, which was subsequently ignored by police and elected council, just as in Rotherham.

By 2024, a total of 42 men have been convicted, and given jail time for a combined 423 years, showing that this was a lot bigger than the initial 9 men case indicated. Many think the same was/is the case in Rotherham, that many more than just the 5 convicted Pakistani men were involved, but never convicted. Telford, Oxford, Newcastle, Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford, Derby, Manchester, all cases of organized gangs that groomed, trafficked, raped and abused mostly white children, and where the perpetrators were in each of the gangs predominantly ‘Asian’ (read: Pakistani, even though other nationalities were also involved, such as Romanians in the Manchester abuse ring). And no one outside the UK knows about any of those cases, some involving hundreds of men. At least some of these cases were high-profile, and the nature of the cases left an indelible mark. Hearing about such abuse cannot but move you.

In each case, the abuse was known through widespread and compelling evidence, but was ignored for years by a law enforcement and political elite that was mortified to speak up about such crimes committed by ‘Asians’. The fear to ‘stoke racism’, or to be seen as ‘racist’ themselves, was bigger than their obedience to the oath they swore to fulfill their duties, and to their humanity in the face of such absolutely horrendous violence against the most vulnerable in our society.

Now, this is NOT to talk about how ‘foreigners’ or ‘immigrants’ and ‘non-whites’ are more prone to sexual predator behaviors, or some kind of monstruous sub-humans. The UK statistics seem to dispel that notion. A quick Wiki search on sex abuse in the UK based on race, reveals that “A 2020 report by the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse stated that "In the records of defendants prosecuted for child sexual abuse offences" among those in which ethnic background was recorded "the vast majority were white (89%); 6% were Asian, 3% were Black, 1% were from mixed ethnic backgrounds and 1% were from "other" ethnic backgrounds."[8] The 2021 Census shows whites make up 81.7% of the general population in England and Wales, 9.3% identify as Asian, 4% identify as black, 2.2% identify as mixed race and 1% identify as 'other'.” So there is that.

The point is how such abuse by those gangs could go on for so long, because of the specter of ‘racism’. THIS is what made people’s blood boil. Rotherham serves as an indictment of ‘anti-racism’ gone too far, neutering the British law enforcement agencies and political leadership, causing extreme negligence and dereliction of their sworn duties. This wave of cases came and passed, most broke around 2010-2015,

But even now, a 2020 report published by the Home Office, suggests the inherent bias is still present within law enforcement circles: “[The impossibility to draw conclusions regarding ethnicity and group-based Child Sexual Exploitation] is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.” They also admit, however, that “[s]ome studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the ethnicity of offenders as existing research is limited and data collection is poor.”

A lot of the reasons given why any such data is not reliable, talk about bias within the police force, lack of routine or consistent recording of race/ethnicity, etc. Again, as we saw in those high profile cases, such as Rotherham: is there a fear to record ethnicity? Is there a wider refusal/hesitance to accept reality and record certain details of the crimes and criminals when the perpetrators are not white?

Again, THIS is what maddens people: the attitude that non-whites can do no wrong, the idea that even justified complaints could and would be seen or interpreted as racism, and that their own well-being and that of their own daughters and children is made subservient to the utopia of immigration.

Whites can be cruel and deviant as well, they are not ‘inherently better’ than any other group. Look up the Westminster Pedophile Dossier, a 1980-1984 report on pedophiles linked to the British government, hiding behind MI6 and parliamentary privilege and immunity to link up with global pedophile networks. All white men, at the highest level. And conveniently, and ‘surprisingly’, completely botched, misplaced, lost. No one knows where it is, or what action was taken based on it. Or even what evidence and names it contained. Color me surprised.

 It is not just about these sexual abuse and rape cases. The massive influx in the last 5 years (4.5 million immigrants in 5 years, until 2022, with every indication that the numbers are even higher for 2023 and 2024) allows for very little flexibility within an already strained country. 4.5 million extra immigrants means houses for that many new families, social security and medical access for that many new people (British socialized medicine is not known for its speed of service, now you know in part why), jobs and education for that many people, all at once.

Is it fair to say that the struggles of the ‘native English population’ are 100% due to immigration? Of course not. But can anyone say that immigration, especially in such huge numbers, has no impact on labor, social security, housing, education, overall quality of life?

Let’s even accept, for the sake of argument, that there is NO such negative impact of the massive immigration. The main problem is still the absolute omerta that is imposed on this topic. It is impossible to debate any concern that relates to immigrants or non-English or non-Christian groups or people, at the risk of being accused (and cancelled or now incarcerated) for being ‘racist’ or ‘creating an atmosphere where racism and extremism can grow and thrive’.

Rotherham is the example: one cannot even muster the courage to talk about child rape (!!!!), for fear of being called a racist, or for increasing racism! Talking about the economy, housing, wages, education, culture, religion, in relation to the immigrants, is so much less important and pressing than bringing child rape to light and ending it. Make the calculation yourself, how much more the specter of racism prevents any meaningful conversation on those other topics.

The fact that Nigel Farage managed to grow his voter base, remain relevant, and now even got elected to Parliament, when people in 2015 had predicted he would disappear into irrelevance by 2020, is proof of just how much such strategy to silence every problem that even slightly touches upon ethnicity and immigration and other-than-Christian-religion has backfired.

If you keep telling people that bringing up a reasonable (even if not correct) concern is ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’, at some point they will crack. “Fine! Screw it, fascist and racist I’ll be, then!” Are the current protesters really all fascists, extremists and racists? I am sure that such people are present in the turmoil, seeing their chance (I’ve seen pictures, and video’s: there are indeed stupid neo-Nazis among the rioters). I have also seen left-wing extremists take advantage, seeing this rioting as an opportunity to usher in a Marxist revolution! Look at one of the main pictures used about the protests, showing the Saint George flag, with anarchist symbols scribbled on them, carrying along in the protests. That is 100% a communist group attempting to co-opt the violence to create their own ‘revolution’.

Anyone who silenced people who came with good faith concerns lost the right to disagree with the above post. You can’t have it both ways.

But most people are simple folk. Normal people, not right, not left, not extreme, not fascist, but simply tired and done. Done with the oppression of their speech and thought, for fear of being labeled ‘racist’ and subsequently being cancelled. Done with the dereliction of sworn duty by police and elected officials when it comes to taking care for their own people, instead giving all attention and advantage to the newcomers (even if that is only a perceived and not real advantage!). Puzzled about how love for country could ever become a negative.

They see their old English towns and villages transform, whole neighborhoods being taken over by non-English people, bringing non-English culture, religion and habits with them. Nothing wrong with that, this has been present in England for quite a while. But now they are being told that any preference of their own ‘English’ ways is wrong, racist, bigoted... They don’t understand how they have to respect every other culture, except their own, even in their own country! Makes zero sense to them.

Nowhere are those cultural, economical and political changes more visible than in London itself, the capital city of the United Kingdom. A city where Englishmen are no longer home. White British people are only 36.8% of the population, in their own capital. There are about 17% other white people, 20% Asians, 13% Black, and about 6% mixed, with another 6% ‘other’. Most of the white British live on the outskirts, in the less affluent parts of the city.

It is hard to see the symbol of your nation, your capital city, where the native people have been a minority for over 10 years now, transform into something ‘non-British’, and believe the media and the government that ‘all is ok, this is enrichment’. There IS a feeling of loss, that ‘their capital’ is no longer ‘theirs’. This has an impact on a people, on a nation, even if a subliminal one, subconsciously.

Christopher Rufo wrote a great article on his recent trip to London. He starts off with recounting this exchange: “I haven’t been to London since I was a student,” I told a group of British journalists. “What the hell happened?” “The fact that you would ask such a question,” one responded, “is an act of racism.” The others laughed.”

He continued, but then asks a very poignant question:

“A question lies buried under these events: What makes a nation? And what is the relationship between its content and its form?”

Exploring this idea further, he writes: “The structure of a civilization is a delicate thing. Changing its citizens will, over time, change its form. This process is underway in London. The buildings, avenues, and palaces look the same as before; there is still a parliament, a king, and the pound. But the central city feels hollowed out. The old connection between citizen and nation has been altered. The old bonds of culture have been frayed.”

This is fundamental: the old bonds of culture have been frayed. What is holding the United Kingdom together? The King? The Union Jack? The pound, perhaps, and their strong economy and the welfare that feeds? But that economy is not as strong as it used to be, and the whole substrate that makes a civilization thrive is under severe pressure, through that influx of people that do not share that substrate.

As Mr. Rufo concludes: “England without the Englishman would no longer be England. The form—parliamentary democracy, economic growth, liberal culture—might hold for a time, but eventually, it would give way, too.” We so rarely think about nations, or civilizations, and have no longer any inkling about what is needed for a country to be healthy. It is so much more than a strong economy: there must be, at the very least, a shared project, which requires a shared vision and understanding. This is what Rufo points out. If you replace the Englishmen with a amalgam of immigrants, however good those people are, you inevitably will end up with something decidedly un-English. And the United Kingdom, as we know it, will cease to exist.

Some might cheer that on, but many do not. Is it wrong to value a nation? To want to keep and preserve it? As Gustav Mahler put it so succinctly, “tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the transmission of fire.” One could argue that wanting to preserve a nation out of worship of the ashes is not good, but can one really argue against the desire to preserve the fire that has been transmitted by one’s parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents?

Even if you disagree with any anti-immigration sentiment as expressed by the protesters, and think that immigration is a benefit to society: can you answer why English culture must disappear, that any defense or attempt to protect such English culture is met with scorn, derision and accusation of racism? Can you really defend the rights of native people all over the world, only to muzzle and silence the native people in England?

Do I think the violence is justified, you might ask?

Hard question. How much can you push a people, attempt to silence and intimidate them, before they take matters in their own hands? I think any people has that right to stand up against injustice. [Now don’t misquote me and stop with that previous period: keep reading, as my answer isn’t finished yet!]

But when I see attacks aimed at individual immigrants, or people who look like immigrants? No, that is wrong. I do not support such violence. The real culprit is the government, after all, and not the immigrants themselves. Even if a particular immigrant willingly abused the system, lied perhaps, and stole funds through handouts he received illegitimately, a court needs to assess that, not mob rule. I hate, and fear, mobs. They are mindless, and destructive, well beyond their intended and initial goals, however understandable those initial goals were. A mob will go too far, if left unchecked, by either police or their own leaders.

Should a people, with a rich and amazing heritage and culture such as the English, quietly allow themselves to be led to the sacrificial altar of ‘multiculturalism’? Subject without a word of protest to surrendering Shakespeare, the legacy of the Industrial Revolution and the ingenuity and struggle required to pull that off, the Magna Carta, their religion and morality that led them to eradicate slavery across the whole world (well, try to dismiss that as an example of evil ‘colonialism’), Newton’s physics, the digital programmable computer by Charles Babbage, some of the most beautiful polyphonic music in the middle ages advancing music well into our time, Tolkien, Chaucer, Keats, Dickens,...?

Such heritage in art, language, and science does not come forth in a vacuum, but requires a specific framework, with a specific culture, rooted in a specific religion, to foster minds that would go on to such heights of ingenuity and creativity of that particular flavor.

Are they the ‘best’ in the world? Of course not. But the more you push back against that heritage, the more the English people will resort to a knee-jerk defensive position, more and more sounding like ‘we ARE the best!’ To make it abundantly clear: I am not English, and have not a shred of English heritage among my forefathers. But I recognize the patterns here.

The biggest threat is NOT the ‘fascist and racist English white protesters’. It is the government that created the policy of massive immigration, and the atmosphere of repression insulting that policy, making it ‘taboo’. This could only happen with the collaboration of a willing media, of course. The media ceased to be a ‘4^th power’, and instead of speaking truth to power, holding the elites accountable, they turned their pens against the English people.

Monitoring of social media, ushering in widespread facial recognition, limiting the mobility of people deemed ‘threats’, that is what a totalitarian police state does. It is thought police, and nothing else.

That is not an empty threat, either...

This brings me to a last point: the accusation of a two-tier policing response. Kier Starmer strongly denies this, of course, but let’s look closer.

Kier Starmer was full of understanding when the BLM riots and burnings came to the UK, or whenever migrants rioted. They have been oppressed, you see, and we need to be caring and listening! But not when the English had enough, obviously, as they are fascists. When pro-Palestinian groups protest, they are met with velvet gloves. “They call for jihad? Well, that word as ‘a number of meanings’, you know, nothing to worry about!” But if you dare to hold a sign ‘Hamas is terrorist’, you get arrested immediately. For your own safety, of course.

Or remember when police shot Mark Duggan, a young black man, in August 2011 in Tottenham? Protests become violent that very evening, leading to a 5 day rampage that left 5 people killed (including a 68-year old man who tried to put out a dumpster fire), and left roughly 900 million dollars in damage in its wake. Ken Livingston, Labour’s former mayor of London, made a statement, with the obligatory “People have had their homes and businesses damaged and destroyed – there can be no justification for that.” But then he followed with a series of accusations of the Tories, the conservative Party, and the call to look at inequality to explain the social unrest: “The economic stagnation and cuts being imposed by the Tory government inevitably create social division.”

I am not alone with these sentiments and assessments. Look at this excellent article by The Telegraph from 2 days ago: “Two-Tier Keir showed his true colours years ago. We should have seen the warning signs

I won’t repost the whole article here (behind a paywall for most), but let me lift out his opening, in full.

“Sir Keir Starmer is quite right to condemn the violence against police officers during the appalling riots that have played out on our streets over the past week. “Our police deserve our support,” the Prime Minister has said. “Whatever the apparent cause or motivation, we make no distinction. Crime is crime.”

I totally agree. There is, however, one thing that puzzles me.

On June 6, 2020, 14 police officers were injured in London after a Black Lives Matter protest turned violent. One female officer suffered a broken collar bone, broken ribs and a collapsed lung after a protester threw a bicycle at her horse, causing it to bolt. The next day, at another Black Lives Matter protest in London, a further eight officers were injured. One was pictured with blood pouring down his face.

Then, two days after that, Sir Keir Starmer chose to publish a photo of himself, solemnly taking the knee.

Given all the injuries to police in the preceding days, did it not occur to Sir Keir that this gesture might look just a touch crass? If he believes there’s no excuse for violence, “whatever the apparent cause or motivation”, shouldn’t he have avoided this photo op? Or are violent protests after the killing of a man in the US somehow more excusable than after the killing of three girls in Britain?”

When dealing with some of the immigrant counter-protests, where men armed with machetes and other weapons (very forbidden to have knives in the UK!) swarmed around the streets, attacking every white person in sight, the police was nowhere to be seen. According to a local police officer, they ‘had conversations with community leaders beforehand’, so the police could ‘understand the style of policing they needed to deliver.’ All is ok, he assured the Sky News reporter who had just been threatened by protesters, mimicking a gunshot to her face. ‘The communities are trying to make sure that the counter-protest was policed within themselves as well!’ That really makes you feel better about it, right?

Contrast that with Kier Starmer’s response to the English protesters. Hundreds have been arrested, anyone who was even an onlooker but did nothing to stop any violence is just as guilty, and will be found (Police videotaped protests everywhere). Such people can await a knock on the door! The British Home Secretary agrees with her boss: “It's a total disgrace, and there has to be a reckoning. Those individuals who were involved in the disorder need to know that they will pay a price.”

The Telegraph concluded their article with a warning: “Language like that is bound to undermine faith in the way this unrest is being handled. And if Sir Keir fails to convince the public that it isn’t “two-tier”, we’ll be in even graver trouble than we are now.”

People see that the government bears a huge responsibility here, that the government and many in the media are refusing to accept or even acknowledge. Instead, Starmer doubles down, and insists that the riots are "clearly driven by far-right hatred!" That is easy, as it absolves him and the government of any responsibility! Blame the common people for ignorance, hatred and bigotry, repress them as hard as you can, beat them into submission! While you yourself bend the knee for those who violently attack police officers, but do so in name of ‘anti-racism’ and ‘equality’. Make it make sense.

Again, I don’t care where you stand, politically, but one cannot ignore this double standard. If you think that the common English citizen is wrong in their critique of immigration, why not listen to their concerns, and explain how things actually are in reality, taking away their unfounded fears and curing their ignorance? Why insisting on silencing them, leaving them no outlet for their growing concerns, thus making them vulnerable for such outburst when 3 innocent little girls were murdered in cold blood by the son of an immigrant?

Should the rioters target immigrants? No. I need to make that very clear, again. That is a mistake of the highest order, failing to see the real target, the real culprit. It is not Mohamed or Umumbwe who needs a beating with fists, or see their homes torched. It is the politicians who need a huge beating at the ballot boxes, and sent packing. They allowed this situation to arise, and then putrefy, made so much worse by a double standard treatment between immigrant and ‘native’.

Bloomberg agrees: “Keir Starmer needs to address the deeper causes of the unrest as well as punish the thugs doing the rioting.” No one wants violence (media, remember that the next time BLM or some other Antifa group starts rioting again!), but well-thinking people realize that there is more to this protest than the one-dimensional and dangerously simplistic rhetoric of Starmer.

The other day, an elected Labour member, Ricky Jones, was speaking to a rally of counter-protesters. He railed against the protesters, following the cues of his Prime Minister, Keir Starmer: “They are disgustingly, Nazi, fascists, and we need to cut their throats and get rid of them all!”

As the government was calling for curbing violent speech, they had no choice but to arrest Ricky Jones, and he was suspended by his party. The upper echelons, Starmer the first of them, are not mincing words, and are going all in condemning all the protests and all the protestors as ‘extremists’ and ‘fascists’. Is it really a surprise if others take it a step further? Will Keir Starmer acknowledge his own role in inciting violence through his own ‘misinformation’? Not all protesters are fascists, after all, and the main cause is not racial hatred, either... Jail time for the Prime Minister?

Allow me to end with an actual hero. John Hayes was in the building where the stabbing took place, and confronted the murderer. Lamenting, afterwards, that he could not go more Bruce Willis on the guy, he did manage to grab the arm holding the knife, but when he felt a bolt of pain, realizing he had been stabbed in his leg, he fell backwards. The stab, 5 inches deep, just barely missed his femoral artery. His courageous act likely helped prevent the attacker from doing more harm.

When interviewed, he praised the response in his community: “The vigil last night, which was attended by a large group; the cleanup, which we heard about – all the local tradesmen rallying around, helping the local mosque that was damaged, rebuilding walls, etc. Those are the positives to take out of this, and people will come to terms with it.”

But he knows what is going on: “There appears to be a strong undercurrent of discontent for some time about the levels of immigration, and this is just a catalyst or a trigger but I don’t think it’s the root cause.”

What really sets him apart was this assessment:
“I’m not particularly politically motivated, but I do get dismayed when I hear Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper talking about how the police are going to come down with the full force of the law, etc, on these people. But they’re not actually talking about the root cause, and they need to start listening and understanding that they need to address the cause rather than the symptoms. Putting these guys in prison isn’t going to deal with the sort of core issues.”

Praises people who rallied, helped the local mosque that was damaged, rebuilding, because he understands the local reality.

Acknowledges the discontent with the levels of primary, because he understands the national reality.

Excoriates the prime minister, as he understands the total lack of leadership in his country.

A respectable Englishman.

There is hope yet, for Albion.

---

Quick thought:

Violence is the voice of the unheard, said Martin Luther King, as repeated so often during the BLM violence spree. Why would that be any different now, and why is no one calling to listen to the protesters?