Let me be clear...

They are at it again. They? You know who I mean, the grey men, the blob, those who decide, without any permissions, what is considered acceptable speech, behaviour, news, information for the hoi polloi. That’s us, the lowly classes who toil away and pay for everything though our taxes. We tolerate governance because we believe that there must be rules, there must be standards. But time and again we discover that there is not a single standard to which we are all held accountable.

Much fun has been has with the Prime Minister’s name which, it turns out can be used as a rhyme for all manner of unsavoury attributes, but the two-tier Keir monicker has taken hold because of his unerring inability to shake it off. Every time he opens his mouth that droning monotone, occasionally punctuated by failed attempts to inject human emotion, he demonstrates that he simply does not understand people. No matter how many times he tells us that he does. (His speechwriters really need to work harder.)

So, yesterday he told us all off for daring to have opinions. He berated those who had demanded more information about the Southport kid killer, Axel Rudakubana. And across social media and the press the split was as clear as day. Nigel Farage came in for abuse as seasoned lefty commentators lined up to printsplain what they had only just learned. And once again it was ‘the rule of law’. As an MP you should know this. Parliamentary privilege must not be abused. On and on it went with all the sanctimony they could muster.

Starmer went on to say that the UK faces a ‘new’ terror threat - ‘loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom accessing all manner of material online’ as if he had only just discovered the existence of the internet. Of course, islamic-inspired terrorism was played down. We must not jump to assumptions about motive, about ideology, etc. Yet he was quick out of the blocks to slate every man-jack of the frustrated demonstrators as ‘far-right’ and equally quick to bring them to ‘justice’ and promised to change terrorism laws to recognise this ‘new and dangerous threat’ if needed.

And there was that word – justice – a word which changes its definition depending on who is using it and to what purpose. The outpourings of emotion, descending into violence (although not a single person was beheaded, raped, blown up, run down, thrown from a tall building or hanged, as it happens) was a result of years of impotent frustration coming to a head over what was clearly an islamic-style attack. But, unlike the incessant violence-for-Palestine movement, those moved to protest in Southport were met with swift ‘justice’.

Now, months later, the story is that it had to be quelled because as we all know now the ‘far right’ (which has never had much success) is a far bigger threat than jihad (which has had success after bloody success) and most important of all is that we must not prejudice the legal process which demands a fair trial for the ‘alleged’ terrorist.

Can he not see why people are angry? Can he not see the clear difference between the way the criminal was dealt with, using the full protection of the law, and the way the protesters were punished with the full force of the law? And as for all these newly aware legal experts trying to slap down Farage, here’s a bit of legal advice from me; you are the problem, you are the reason this country is so fucked up right now.

Then you have idiocies like the risible Good Law project where Jolyon Maugham and his merry band of misfits repeatedly tout for the kind of legislation that makes most people sick to their stomach. There doesn’t seem to be a left-wing cause that these miserable specimens won’t advocate for. But in reality, no matter your devotion to ‘the rule of law’ we undeniably have some very bad law. You don’t get spontaneous rioting in the streets (except by the professional, organised rioters of the left) unless something is very badly wrong.

The law as it stands does not protect the free-speech and action rights of those whose speech and action do not conform to whatever ‘they’ deem acceptable. Of course I’m no legal expert, but the cautionary words of the legal professionals has done nothing to reassure a now volatile population afraid of losing everything. In fact it has done the opposite. What to do? The balance has swung too far towards the law as policy maker, which is wrong. What can we do? Get tough with the lawyers, and get tough now. And stop electing legal robots like Starmer into positions where they can ply their treacherous idiocy.

Where do we go from here?

 Is there anything in this country which isn’t broken? And is it any better anywhere else in the west? Education appears to be churning out malfunctioning clones with despair as their default setting; will they ever get a job, be able to afford a place to live, have a meaningful life? If they observe what is going on and develop opinions which run counter to their peers, will they be labelled as extremists?

And what of learning from your mistakes, especially as today mistakes may well land one in jail. The world has become divided, bitter, antagonistic and downright dangerous. The phenomena of ‘quiet quitting’ and demanding workers rights before ever doing a day’s work have eroded the social contract between employers and their staff. The ever-increasing demand for some nebulous meaning is a drag anchor on ever arriving at true meaning.

Keir Starmer is about to introduce legislation to further prevent people from developing as rounded human beings, enshrining in law that employers must not make demands on their workers that fall outside some poorly understood framework of acceptability, to be decided, presumably, by politicians such as himself and the deranged Angela Rayner.

He cites productivity as his incentive, yet has no experience whatsoever in producing anything of tangible value, claiming that working from home – the skiver’s nirvana – is every worker’s right and that actually turning up to work (presenteeism) is a driver of poor productivity. In the new fantasy, Angela in Labour Land, it is indeed achievable to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

The ideas of earning respect, rather than deserving it without question has been abandoned. The idea of work as its own reward has been left in the dust, presumably because to learn this, one needs to actually apply oneself to work, and lots of it. The gradual acquisition of skills, likewise, appears to have landed in the ‘too difficult’ in-tray; if gratification isn’t instant it isn’t gratifying any more.

No, everybody under the age of 40 (and some old fools, too) wants to be seen, to be lauded, to be desired, to be the envy of the rest. Travel, once the broadener of the mind, has become narrow, egocentric and a mere vehicle for the expression of individuality with every individual posting the exact same message on social media and all following the latest fads. (“Yes, we are all individuals!”) And what on earth is a social media influencer, anyway? What is the point of them?

I genuinely worry for the future of the west when the fewer children who are brought into being will be the product of narcissists and serial failures, the flotsam of a society adrift on an ocean of mediocrity and instant fulfillment of the shallowest of urges. Where is the pride in a job well done; where is the reward for hard work and persistence? And when everything stops working completely, to whom do we turn to fix it? Stop the world, I want to get off.

Starmtroopers

 It begins with a lie: There is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet. But, just as with the fairy tales of the Christian bible, uneducated people believe the lies, and line up to bow before an altar, a robe, a holy relic, or just an idea. One such unholy idea is politics, a belief which inflicts on its followers all manner of ailments, including the notions of right and wrong, all aligned with whichever political deity before which you choose to genuflect.

The problem with politics is that politics, as a concept, is almost entirely a thing of the left. Most people are happy to rub along, get along, make do and do unto others, etc. Despite humans being a social animal, we still have individual ambitions and seek a sense of achievement, and even within team events, achievement is often most highly prized when it is individual. Individualism is a trait of the right, and anathema to those who prize legalised authority over others.

The formation of organised groups to lobby for desired outcomes is a leftist, herd instinct, which does not come easily to high achievers, but does, very much, appeal to those who, for whatever reason, feel discontent with their lot yet helpless to change it. So, in politics, the left always has the advantage of numbers and whenever right-of-centre groups try to play the game they often attract some of the worst sorts of people; individuals looking to exploit a group for their own ends.

But this does not mean the left is somehow morally superior; they just have a better chance of assembling a crowd which will protest to order, or by appealing to tribal instincts getting the vote out, or influencing young minds to engage in groupthink. Whereas the right really doesn’t have anything like the dog whistle the left persuades itself they blow. If there is a call to heel it is from the left.

So the endless tirades of the media and poor politicians against the ‘far right’ is only heard by those who already believe in this largely fictitious political leaning. The protesters are frustrated individuals, united by a sense of helplessness. When their children were being raped, their soldiers beheaded, and their numbers being mowed down by islamic jihadis there was no such concerted action against the perpetrators. Yet islam’s avowed intention is to subjugate the entire world to the non-existent allah’s imaginary will.

Where is the manifesto of the far right? Who are its leaders? When have they ever been the cause of violence and cultural destruction, rather than just reacting to it? And seeing the establishment trying to point the finger of blame and shame at them what do you imaging the instincts of the rioters will be? The left are accusing the individuals of behaving as the left and their partners in islam do when trying to intimidate their targets.

So, by all means, Mister Starmer (Interesting how many Marxists love a knighthood, isn’t it?) open the courts 24-7, free up some jail cells and prosecute people whose main crimes are political helplessness, poverty and despair. But don’t forget that others are watching you. Do you imagine for one minute that when their time comes to rule this country the imams will seek to persuade by thoughtful argument and nuance? No. You are showing them exactly how to suppress their detractors and they will thank you for it.