There seem to be widespread protests (and some riots) against the UK’s government’s mass importation of unassimilated immigration into the country going on right now, which are, predictably, being spun by the media as “far right.”
British Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer has vowed that police have his full support in taking on “extremists” as anti-mass migration protests and riots have broken out across the United Kingdom following the mass stabbing at a children’s dance party in Southport earlier this week.
Facing a full-blown crisis less than one month into office, recently elected leftist Prime Minister Starmer gathered top cabinet ministers on Saturday as unrest erupted in dozens of towns and cities throughout the UK, in many cases in typical Labour Party strongholds in the north of England, in response to the slaying of three young girls and the stabbing of eight others, including children, allegedly by a 17-year-old Rwandan-heritage second-generation immigrant on Monday.
The Guardian, citing the far-left Hope Not Hate organisation, reported that an estimated 35 locations had been scheduled to see protests on Saturday, some of which saw violent clashes between participants and the police, as well as attacks on businesses, particularly in Belfast, Hull, Liverpool, and Manchester. According to The Telegraph, at least 90 arrests were made throughout the country on Sunday.
Snip.
The prime minister’s response to his first crisis of his expected five-year term has been heavily criticised by the Reform UK party of Nigel Farage, who accused Starmer of failing to address the root cause of the anger, which is mass migration.
On Friday, Farage’s deputy, Boston and Skegness MP Richard Tice, said: “Many millions of concerned British citizens are furious at lawless Britain. Children being slaughtered. Machete mobs abound. Soldiers being stabbed. Police violently attacked in airport.
“Instead of empathy, Keir Starmer labelled folk as “far-right”. Out of touch, clueless.”
As Farage put it a month ago, “Something is going very, very wrong with the country.”
He rails against the social justice push to paint the history of the UK as a merely a long story of oppression (sound familiar?), and the radical increase in crime that recent immigration policies (including those under ostensible “conservative” governments) have brought to the UK, and notes that crime used to be concern of the middle class and elderly, but now is a worry of the young as well, who get assaulted when going out to concerts and events at night. “The answer, of course, to that is a completely different, less woke approach to policing.”
We’ve accepted absolutely, since the late 1940s, that immigration into Britain can be a good thing. Certainly the choice of food in most of our towns is rather better as a result of it. But what has happened over the course of the last 25 years is something entirely different. It is mass migration on a level that in fact begins not just to divide and damage communities, and potentially to set people apart from each other, which is dangerous. But also, I think, a feeling that perhaps something about our culture is directly under threat. That sense of who we are. and that this is a problem. Just think about the numbers. You know Tony Blair came to power…Teddy Blair comes to power and opens the door, and bear in mind for the previous 50 years, net migration had been 30—40,000 a year, that’s what it had been for 50 years. Tony Blair comes to power and opens the door, and net over his premiership 2.7 million people come. And the conservatives accelerate it, because now nearly 4 and a half million have come since they came to power.
Just as in the United States, UK residents have been subjected to boiling the frog, using high immigration levels to change the character of the country.
Much like our froggy friends, the British people are being gradually induced into a dangerous “new normal”, in which criminality, disorder, and personal tragedy are part and parcel of life in this country. As a result of our failed policies on crime, immigration, and integration over the past thirty years, we have gradually transitioned from one of the world’s safest societies to a country in which criminality is the norm. There is a risk that the public becomes used to this new reality, and stops expecting politicians to address the root causes of disorder.
Rather than reacting to the slow drip-feed of news stories on an individual basis, it can be informative to step back and take a holistic view. In just the past few weeks, the headlines have been dominated by events which, in the aggregate, point to a precipitous decline in public order.
On July 11th, the new Labour government announced that 5,000 prisoners would be released early, in order to ease prison overcrowding. On July 15th, reports emerged that London’s once-great Metropolitan Police had failed to solve a single burglary, phone theft, or car theft in 166 London neighbourhoods over the past three years. On July 17th, a Jordanian refugee who attacked a female police officer in Bournemouth was spared community service on the grounds that he could not speak English — and on July 18th, two asylum seekers from Egypt who stole a watch worth £25,000 in London’s West End were spared jail.
That same day saw two separate cases of rioting. In the Harehills area of Leeds, police were attacked and a double-decker bus was set on fire by local residents after four Romani children were taken into care by social services. In East London’s plurality-Bangladeshi borough of Tower Hamlets, rioting broke out in response to political unrest in Bangladesh.
Let me stress this again — all of these incidents took place within the space of a single week. In years gone by, each of these high-profile incidents would have dominated national attention, and provoked a conversation about the state of law and order in this country. Today, they’re little more than fodder for the 24-hour news cycle, as fleeting as stories about vapid celebrity drama or tiresome political rigmarole.
The list goes on. July 23rd, Anjem Choudhary is charged with directing an Islamic terrorist group. July 24th, British cadets at an Army Barracks in Gillingham are told not to wear uniforms in public after an officer is targeted and stabbed. July 26th, protests break out after police in Greater Manchester are recorded restraining two brothers seen fighting passengers at Manchester Airport. July 27th, six people arrested after a drive-by shooting in Watford. July 29th, one man dead and two others injured after a knife fight in East London. July 30th, a machete fight breaks out in Southend and protestors take to the streets in Southport following a brutal knife attack at a ballet school, which killed three girls and injured eight others.
As anybody familiar with the sorry decline of South Africa will be able to attest, decline is a process, not a moment. It consists of thousands of individual incidents, system failures, and personal tragedies. When ordinary citizens become accustomed to high levels of violence and criminality, it becomes harder to address the underlying causes of those issues. Adaptation, rather than prevention, becomes the name of the game — gated communities and private security for those who can afford it, atrophying police capacity for those who can’t.
Restoring the kind of high-trust, stable society that we once enjoyed will be a slow, long process — but it is a process which begins with a restoration of law and order. El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele demonstrates that, even while implementing misguided policies such as price controls, a country can still achieve stability and growth if it can maintain law and order. This simple principle gives businesses the confidence to prosper, ensures a harmonious public realm, and gives ordinary citizens — particularly women — peace of mind as they walk the streets.
The Muslim child rape gangs in Rotherham and Oxfordshire should have been huge warnings to how unlimited, unassimilated Muslim immigration into the UK was dangerously destroying the rule of law and social cohesion, but evidently not.
America may not (yet) have Muslim rape ranges, but we certainly have high levels of unassimilated immigration destroying law and order and social cohesion. A course correction to secure the border is badly needed.
(Hat tip: Director Blue.)
Tags: Border Controls, Conservatives, Crime, Illegal Aliens, immigration, Keir Starmer, Labour, Nigel Farage, riot, Social Justice Warriors, UK, video
It would be a bold move and require a lot of guts. Farage should embrace Tommy Robinson.
Personal opinion, but I think that Britain is lost. They have neither the will nor the political or kinetic means to fix things.
The interesting thing will be what happens when Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or formerly British “Asians” [Indians, Chinese from all over south Asia, Burmese, etc.] try to come here from former Britain as refugees. I rather expect that the current government here will deploy the military with deadly force authorization to stop them while leaving the southern border wide open.
Subotai Bahadur
The word “race” doesn’t appear in any part of the post. The British government, like so many Western governments, has effectively declared war on White people and White civilization (note: they’re not importing White people for the most part).
I know this makes me sound like a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad, racist. I no longer care. Apparently all races matter except the White ones. If the pendulum ever swings back, there’s going to be a very ugly war, and one’s skin color will become one’s uniform.
Not really looking forward to that.
Rather than say unassimilated perhaps the proper term is unassimilable The cultural divide between Islam and all that British culture entails is too broad to be bridged in such a short period of time
Certainly securing the border is needed.
But also the expulsion of illegal immigrants. No need to ship them back to their home countries (many of them discarded their IDs on the way in so their home countries are unknown or misrepresented in any event). Just push them back over the border they crossed on the way in.
i say deport them to another country at random.
… you’re from Venezuela? Have fun in Egypt.
… you’re from Haiti? I hope you enjoy Bangladesh.
… you’re from Bangladesh? Off to Haiti.
… you’re from China? Hope you like Uruguay.
… you’re from Nicaragua? Good luck in Burkina Faso.
The destination countries won’t like it, so probably some form of extraordinary rendition is in order.
Regarding deportation of the illegal aliens, if they can’t be sent back to wherever they came from then just sell them to China. The ChiComs can always use more slave labor and organ farms.
“We’ve accepted absolutely, since the late 1940s, that immigration into Britain can be a good thing. Certainly the choice of food in most of our towns is rather better as a result of it.”
Selling your English birthright for a bowl of Persian Stew with Goat and Omani seems like a bad trade.
The thing that strikes me about all of this is how the “elites” just decided to make it happen, without consultation or consent from their constituents. How does that work, pray tell?
BREXIT happened precisely because nobody ever put it up to a vote, the question of sacrificing sovereignty to the bureaucrats in Brussels. What the hell do the idiots behind that think is going to happen, when they take the side of the invaders against the natives?
My guess is that the Crown is going to go bye-bye, when the whole thing is over with. If you look at the demographics, the odds are absolutely excellent for decades of unrest and animosity. The native Britons are not going away quietly, and their ruling elites are not going to get away with this, and should the King and Crown authorities choose to side with the usurpers…? Bye-bye to the King. They should chose carefully, as I see no future for the King in a “multi-culti Britain”.
The people behind all this are a bunch of idiots, thinking that they can somehow come out on top of it all. The reality is, that since they’ve betrayed their original constituents, the “new people” aren’t likely to trust them at all, in any way. No doubt, they’ll go to the block bleating all about how they love the “colored man”, but the end will be the same: Death to whitey.
Latitudinarian (adjective): not insisting on strict conformity to a particular doctrine or standard; TOLERANT, specifically tolerant of variations in religious opinion or doctrine
When Cromwell had Charles I beheaded for his obstinate refusal to accommodate the reasonable demands of Parliament, he lopped off the head of England’s Church, as well. At the time, there was widespread agreement among the regicides that the old High Church arrangement would be replaced with a Low Church model of ecclesiastical governance.
However, no consensus could be reached as to whether this should be expressed through a Presbyterian or Congregational polity because no one could agree on the definition of “church”. As a consequence, English religious practice began to reflect a broad accommodation of the many different sects that came into being after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Deference was even given to religious expression that was openly hostile Anglican doctrine, such as the antiCalvinistic teachings of Methodism.
As the rationalism of Darwin, Marx and Freud began to take hold on British society, the church’s former role of Truth Mediator was surrendered and the Church of England assumed mere ceremonial value. The King/Queen, in their formal role as head of the Anglican Church became a rubber stamp for the official Acts of Parliament.
In the absence of a Truth Mediator, factional disputes become increasingly strident and we now find ourselves on the lawless fringe of Hobbes’ jungle: a war of all against each.
This fate can best be avoided if the Church of England were once more to become intolerant of error and banish heretics from civil society. Would this ultimately lead back to the capriciousness of Kings and the disregard of Parliament? Unless human nature has changed for the better since the time of Charles I, kings will always gravitate toward authoritarianism.
Church and Crown can not provide good governance in the absence of ethical subjects but this offers a temporary palliative until such time as the present troubles have subsided.
Latitudinarianism has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. It has bred a rationalistic intolerance of religious dogma and left us without a moral compass. Islam has already assumed the discarded mantle of religious intolerance. Given a choice between Judeo-Christian intolerance and the type offered by Mohamed, I am convinced that the English will chose the former and begin the long hard task of rebuilding their Christian culture.
“I see no future for the King in a ‘multi-culti Britain’.”
The King embodies English culture. The Crown cannot tolerate a culture antagonistic to to its highest ideal. Even Mohamed was not always wrong: the King must fight or submit.
Mohamedism cannot be accommodated or assimilated without the loss of English identity. Is the English Crown and head of the Anglican Church equal to the task of defeating Mohamed’s acolytes?
The English have a bad habit of appeasing their enemies. You would think that Neville Chamberlain’s unfortunate example would have left a lasting impression on them but perhaps this is expecting too much and we must resign ourselves to the loss of English liberties.
Our turn will then follow soon enough.
I don’t know if I go so far as saying it is all racist, because the UK government has no problem defending white transexuals. The reality is it they made right wing ideology a crime, as has Nancy Pelosi and Merrick Garland in the US. Except, what is right wing keeps being redefined rapidly to the left.
The arrest and trial of Mark Meechan was enough to get my attention. If a comedian can’t mock Nazi’s by showing even his dog can salute under the command “Heil Hitler”, then something is wrong. They attempted to portray him as neo-Nazi, but he was clearly mocking Nazi’s rather than supporting them. Now you can’t mock male rapist that claim to be women.
The Islamic angle is just another part of it that is taking good advantage of this situation. Besides the sexual assault rings, there is also the Manchester bombing of the Ariana Grande concert by Muslims which has nearly been forgotten, as has the London City bombings a decade prior. They have been forgotten, because the same legal systems that says you can’t mention Nazis says you can mention any identity in a bad way such as calling trans-women rapists or members of Islam rapists, terrorists, or immigrants. It is absurd.
While some in the US suggest because the UK gave up their guns, it really is because they gave up free speech. Now the UK is fully living the warning of Norm McDonald that soon terrorists would create horrid atrocities, and the concern would be about the backlash against them. The people of the UK aren’t finding this humorous, but their detached elite don’t care. I’m not sure if the boiling anger of this misplaced loyalty is now spilling over, but certainly the tea kettle is whistling.