Originally published April 28, 2025 for our End-of-Month Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor. Subscribe to get semi-monthly issues.
By Paul Gordon Collier, Editor
“For in prosperity a man is often puffed up with pride, whereas tribulations chasten and humble him through suffering and sorrow. In the midst of prosperity, the mind is elated, and in prosperity a man forgets himself; in hardship, he is forced to reflect on himself, even though he be unwilling. In prosperity, a man often destroys the good he has done; amidst difficulties he often repairs what he long since did in the way of wickedness.” –Alfred the Great
Where once the sun never set on the British Empire, we find an island-nation struggling to exist as a people borne from the same core ideal that formed our own United States of America. As a matter of fact, it is not an overstatement to say that this same British Empire is the mother of the American experiment where this ideal was allowed to be more fully and materially expressed.
That ideal is this: the individual is imbued with an innate right to define and pursue their own happiness so long as they respect the rights of others to do the same.
That spirit, the spirit of “individual liberty,” was itself borne from centuries of bloodshed on British soil spent fighting to possess the state authority to impose one another’s definitions of happiness and pursuit of that happiness on others.
The culmination of those wars was seen in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the so-called bloodless revolution that usurped a King who was imposing his definition of happiness and pursuit on others.
The end result of the war was a government more accountable to lower ranks of power than it had ever before been, at least in any sustainable state.
The parallels between the events that led up to the Glorious Revolution and the imposition of the definition of happiness and pursuit by the current UK parties in power are, in this writer’s estimation, striking.
Both the King, as an advocate of Catholicism, and the British parties in power, representing varying degrees of socialist-presuppositionally-framed ideologies, possess ideologies that assume state authority rights to rigidly define both happiness and the method of pursuit of that happiness.
In the case of the Glorious Revolution, the Protestants had access to one thing the British lack today: arms. It is the disarming of Britain that allowed the authoritarian virus sent from America (which received it from France, mostly) to more rapidly entrench itself in critical institutes of power, including the courts and the police.
Yet, there is no reason to lose hope, for once the spirit of England that became the spirit of Britain that became the spirit of America, the spirit of individual liberty, was almost snuffed out before it ever had a chance to flourish. That flourishing has benefited humanity as a whole.
That seed lay in the furrowed brow of Alfred the Great, who hid in the marshes, nearly alone, after being brutalized by the new power in the land, the Danes.
From the single light of a night camp mired in mud, the heart of America would rise, against all odds, with little more than a hope, a circumstance similar to what the British find themselves facing today.
May God restore the spirit of Britain to Albion.
It is difficult to say whether the spirit of individual liberty was already dead when the British chose “security” over “liberty,” but, nonetheless, the erosion of individual liberty assumptions in Britain since gun ownership rights effectively ended in 1997 has been exponential.
In less than 30 years, it has already reached the point where the British people have little (if any) representation by their political parties in defense of “dangerous” free speech (more on that later). But how did we get here?
Perhaps the most significant change was a requirement that anyone wanting to possess firearms should have a “good reason” for owning a firearm.
The Hungerford Massacre claimed 16 lives. A lone gunman with legally owned firearms killed 16 people. The response from the British public was not just to support gun restrictions, but to demand them. Prosperity with fear led them to believe a monopolization of violence was safer than allowing human beings to defend themselves, possibly against their own tyrannical government.
The Firearms Act of 1988 (which was an amendment of the 1968 Act) banned ALL semi-automatic rifles, effectively ending rifle defense in Britain among non-government entities.
Just nine years later, another tragedy, the Dunblane School Massacre of 1996, where 17 people, one teacher, and 16 children, were murdered by one attacker, led to the Firearms Act of 1997, which effectively ended pistol defense in Britain for non-government entities. This now means Britain has effectively no real self-defense rights.
One revolution led to the rise of the spirit of individual liberty; another has led, so far, to its death. BOTH revolutions began with same appeal, an appeal to tolerance and justice. The first revolution was the Glorious Revolution.
King James II of England reigned for only three years, from 1685 until 1688. He was deposed through a bloodless coup when the Protestants William of Orange and Mary Stuart landed with an armed retinue to no resistance.
What followed later involved bloodshed and failed attempts by James to retake the crown, but James was never again able to mount a serious challenge to William and Mary.
The culmination of the Glorious Revolution, the actual revolution itself, is not as significant to this report as the events that led up to this revolution. This is what I will focus on here.
Like the UK authoritarians in power today, James began his reign appealing to tolerance, even diversity (though he would not have used that term, yet, effectively, that’s what he was seeking, diversity in government, religiously).
Initially, his efforts were to circumvent the Test Act of 1673 without outright opposing it. The act made government office effectively only open to members of the Church of England. James appointed Catholics in defiance of the act.
James justified these appointments, stating, “We have thought fit to provide that men of all religions shall now serve us, according to their abilities, without any distinction of sect or opinion.” (from his Speech to the Privy Council, 1686).
Father Edward Petre, an advisor to the King, claimed, “The King’s appointments reflect his commitment to justice, not favoritism.”
In other words, the King’s appointment of Catholics represented justice, not discrimination against Protestants. If you add the word “social,” you can see the parallels to the ideologies of the UK parties in power in the appeals being made in defense of the “outcast” Catholic Church.
Some, however, saw this appeal to “tolerance” as the opening salvo in a war intended to end with Catholic hegemony.
William Sancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, told a confidante in a private missive, “The King’s actions are a clear design to overthrow the Protestant religion and place papists in every corner of power.”
Perhaps John Hampden, a politician during the time, most resonates with the voice of resistance against today’s version of the same authoritarianism.
Hampden said, “This is not tolerance but tyranny, cloaked in the guise of liberty.”
This is because, at this time, the Catholic Church was still intolerant of any public expression of belief not in keeping with the official church narrative. Had the Catholic church not held such a position, perhaps the resistance to allowing Catholics into government would not have existed at all.
It should be noted, however, that up to this point, various Protestant political factions had taken their turns in being as intolerant of individually stewarded belief as the Catholic church was at that time.
The arrest of the seven bishops, however, was, in this writer’s analysis, the culmination of the end of any real support James could hope to receive from rank-and-file Britain. Perhaps this action can be compared to the current efforts in Britain to jail and imprison people for expressing beliefs not in keeping with the official party position.
In America, it may have been the day Donald Trump came within a whisper to being assassinated, then rose in defiance and shouted, “Fight, fight, fight!”
In May of 1688, James mandated that every church read the Declaration of Indulgence from 1687. It was a proclamation for tolerance of public worship. He declared, “We cannot but heartily wish, as it will easily be believed, that all the people of our dominions were members of the Catholic Church; yet we humbly thank Almighty God it is, and has of long time been, our constant sense and opinion… that conscience ought not to be constrained, nor people forced in matters of mere religion”
As you can imagine, not all non-Catholics were keen to read this declaration. Seven Bishops of note stood out after publishing a petition to the King that read, “We are bound to fear that your Majesty’s Declaration is founded upon such a dispensing power as has often been declared illegal in Parliament.” (from the Petition of the Seven Bishops, 1688).
In June of 1688, James had the seven bishops arrested, jailed, and charged with seditious libel. The trial was shared in pamphlets across Britian, with very few people not being aware of the drama unfolding, thanks to the now-accomplished rise of the pamphleteers, the progenitors of “modern” news publishing (expect a report on that in future issues of MIA).
The printing press was still causing narrative-control problems for the party in power as surely as social media continues to do today for our current brand of authoritarians.
The trial went badly for the King, ending with the bishops becoming national heroes and the King losing all legitimacy. The mask was now off; the King fully intended to force Catholicism on a people who were fundamentally now Protestant.
So far, the trials for those arrested for posting “hate” on social media have ended badly for the British, but perhaps the culmination of arrests will reach the critical threat level that seven bishops being arrested and jailed once did for these same people.
In the Glorious Revolution, I covered the events that would culminate in the actual revolution. In examining the UNGlorious Revolution, I merely wish to cover the fruit of that now-completed revolution, the political state of reality in Britain today.
The rise of their power, however, though over a significantly longer period of time, was also driven by appeals for “tolerance” and “justice.”
Britain effectively had a two-party dominant political system that, in recent years, has become three, with the rise of Reform UK. There are really five major political parties in Britain: Labour, Reform UK, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party.
Labour still leads in the poll of polls at 26%, with Reform UK still rising and closing in at 24%. Conservatives continue their fall, now down to 22%, with Liberal Democrats holding at 14% and the Green Party representing 8%.
On the surface, Britain seems like it has a lot of political diversity, but in areas that touch individual liberty, the British public have little to no representation in ANY of the current parties, including Reform UK.
The British people themselves are not aware of just how much liberty they have already lost (the right to defend oneself using effective tools like guns) and how that loss of liberty has created in them a mindset not fit for the danger of being individually free and “allowing” your neighbor to do the same.
“Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, but it must not be used to incite hatred or violence. We will strengthen laws to protect vulnerable communities while safeguarding legitimate debate.” – Keir Starmer, Labour
“Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy. We must protect it, even when it offends, and resist the creeping authoritarianism of hate speech laws.” – Nigel Farage, Reform UK
ED.NOTE: Unless it’s a dissenting member of the party, Rupert Lowe, then you turn him in to the police for using bullying language.
“We must defend free speech vigorously, but there is no place for hatred or incitement in our society. Our laws must strike the right balance.” – Kemi Badenoch, Conservatives
“Free speech is a fundamental liberal value, but it must not be a license to spread hate. We will ensure laws protect both rights and vulnerable groups.” – Sir Ed Davey, Liberal Democrats
“We must defend free expression, but hate speech has no place in a just society. We will strengthen laws to protect marginalized communities.” – Adrian Ramsay, Green Party
This shift happened less than 30 years ago after they effectively lost all gun rights.
As I already stated, it is difficult to say whether the banning of firearms caused the British people to lose their sense of individual liberty or whether that spirit was lost before the gun bans, with the passage and support of the bills then being the fruit of the death of the spirit of individual liberty.
But one thing is certain: first, gun rights fell, and now the British people are already becoming accustomed to living in a world in which “common sense” thought control is considered a default presupposition.
Here are their quotes:
“Labour remains committed to keeping our communities safe through stringent gun control measures.” – A “party spokesperson,” Labour
“The UK’s gun laws are among the strictest, but we should consider the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves in extreme circumstances.” – Nigel Farage, Reform UK
“Our gun laws are essential for public safety, and we have no intention of changing them.” – A “party spokesperson,” Conservatives
“Gun violence is rare in the UK because of our laws, and we will keep it that way.” – A “party spokesperson,” Liberal Democrats
“We must go further to prevent gun violence, including banning all handguns and restricting access to firearms.” – A “party spokesperson,” Green Party
The approach every major political party takes to addressing the obvious, deliberate Planvasion of Britian reveals that the loss of individual agency (individual liberty) has led to a loss of national agency (national liberty) as well.
THE PLANVASION IS THIS: Non-British “migrants are being shipped and flown in, then funded by British tax dollars once they get here, then given near-free license to rape and murder British (preferably white) children in a DELIBERATE effort to shatter the nation from within until it dissolves into a UN province.
Here are quotes from the major party leaders on Immigration (See for yourself if ANY, including Reform, are talking about sending anyone back who has already been imported):
“Mark my words, a future Labour Government will bring down net migration.” – Keir Starmer, Labour
“We would freeze non-essential immigration… this should be the immigration election.” – Nigel Farage, Reform UK
“We will introduce a binding, legal cap on migration to protect our public services and ensure the skills we need.” – Former PM Rishi Sunak, Conservatives
“We’ll replace the current salary threshold (for immigrants) with a flexible merit-based system to ensure fairness and meet economic needs.” – Sir Ed Davey, Liberal Democrats
“We’ll abolish the hostile environment and ensure migrants have rights, not barriers – migration enriches our society.” – Carla Denyer, Green Party
Nigel Farage was the man who led the charge that saw the British public vote to leave the European Union. Now, he finds himself the so-called Messianic head of what is effectively a one-man party that appears unfit to build broad-based, merit-awarding networks of support that are critical for political parties to be able to govern.
Could his latest venture, Reform UK, be the last hurrah of individual liberty, or could his party’s internecine wars be a symbol of the low point the British people must come to before they rise from marshes, shattered but determined, like Aelfred the Great, to restore the lost realm?
Yet, the rising star dared publicly challenge Nigel Farage’s version of Reform UK, citing Farage’s inability to build the party beyond his personal brand, even calling him the messianic figurehead of the party.
What’s worse, as revealed earlier in this report, Farage reported Lowe to the police for using “hateful language.”
Lowe’s crime was in pushing too hard against immigration, even daring to call for deportations, even daring to identify Islam as a threat to the British people, though his greater crimes may have been to potentially become a bigger star than Farage himself is now.
Lowe spoke of the efforts to smear him with charges he was a bully in the office, pointing out it was a claim denied by everyone in his office save for two women who leveled those accusations, and numerous others, only AFTER they were disciplined for inappropriate conduct.
Lowe said, “This is a political assassination. I’ve called for a properly structured party, not a one-man show, and they’ve smeared me for it.”
It doesn’t help that Reform UK is doubling down with a new report based on the same questionable sources, two women who were FIRST reprimanded, then AFTERWARDS started filing complaints against the whole office.
It also doesn’t help that Rupert Lowe is now reporting Reform UK to the police for illegally releasing two members of Rupert Lowe’s office to the public.
The net result is the last bastion for individual liberty made it clear it is no respecter of diversity of thought, the cornerstone of an individual liberty-based ideology. Britain is effectively without a true British party.
To look forward, perhaps we must first look back, back to what may be the real beginning of our current American story, the reign of Aelfred the Great, the King of Wessex. He ruled from 871 to 899 and laid the groundwork for what would become an English identity that culminated with the reign of his grandson, King Aethelstan, who reigned from 924 to 939 over the full territory of England.
Even if the myth isn’t true, the creation and preservation of the myth suggests the values it reflects are those the creators and preservers of the myth wish to share.
The myth began with the peasant woman telling Aelfred to watch her cakes while she did other work.
Aelfred was not so good at cake watching, having left the cakes burn because he was pondering the state of his ruined kingdom. The old woman returned and gave Aelfred a tongue lashing that left him humiliated, but all the wiser because of the lessons he learned.
He didn’t punish the woman; he learned from her. The King learned a lesson from one of his poor subjects.
For one, he learned that no matter your station in life you must attend to the prosaic needs in front of you. He learned that being a person of integrity, demonstrating true “character” is something that should be expected of anyone, no matter their station in life, be they a King or a pauper.
He also learned that no matter how big your problems, if you can’t deal with the small ones in front of you, you’ll be ill equipped to deal with the bigger ones.
For this writer, this myth is also a parable of the principle of Popular Sovereignty, where sovereignty is through the consent of the people.
You can deduct from that axiomatic principle, Popular Sovereignty, a daily application principle I call the Sovereignty of the Task at Hand. This sovereignty trumps (at least generally) the ranks of the individuals within an association.
Even in the U.S. military, there are instances where Generals can be beholden to privates if the private is the one directing the task at hand (though, of course, Generals can trump that popular sovereignty as well).
To put it simply, thought Aelfred was the King of the realm, within the task at hand, minding the cakes in a peasant’s cottage, the King should defer to the popular sovereignty of the task at hand, which would be possessed by the one directing that task.
He is even credited with creating the first Navy for what would become the English people, but some historians believe rather than creating the first navy, he laid the seeds for that eventuality.
The culmination of his return came in May of 878 with the battle of Edington. Aelfred’s newly trained and equipped military was able to easily crush Guthram’s forces, leading to the Treaty of Wedmore. This created a clear division between the Angles and the Danes, with the Danes’ portion coming to be known as the Danelaw.
The spirit of England was not only saved by Aelfred, but he was also the seed that created it. He created it in the face of utter hopelessness, and this writer predicts that this “rising from the marshes” moment is coming when the British people will rise up and reassert their individual-liberty-rooted identity once again.
Even as we speak, this writer has little doubt that many Aelfreds have learned their lessons in defeat and humility, that adversity has prepared them to be excellent, skilled, and thorough in planning and executing the plan that restores the British spirit to the land.
This is the season to come, and Reform UK will NOT be a part of that new reality.
“In prosperity, a man often destroys the good he has done; amidst difficulties he often repairs what he long since did in the way of wickedness.” –Aelfred the Great
The time for the repair of wickedness has come.
Alfred the Great – Justin Pollard
Alfred the Great: The Man Who Made England – Richard Abels
Aelfred’s Britain: War and Peace in the Viking Age – Max Adams
Originally published February 28, 2025 for our End-of-Month Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor. Subscribe to get semi-monthly issues.
By Paul Gordon Collier, Editor
“All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing as they must if they believe they can do nothing. There is nothing worse because the council of despair is declaration of irresponsibility; it is Pilate washing his hands.” – Edmund Burke
Keir Starmer, the current openly Marxist, Britain-hating Prime Minister of the UK, is proving to be an existential threat to the children of Britain and to the fate of the country itself. His participation in the enabling of child rape gangs, gangs of Islamists using rape and murder as a form of political manipulation, is clear and, at this point, beyond dispute.
His continued hatred for the British people and their way of life can be seen in how he jumps to protect Islamists from bad opinions while he continues to slander and defame the British people.
In past reports, we have exposed this man’s Marxist roots and his anti-British agenda to turn Britain into a cesspit of Islamist Marxism devoid of the white devil he imagines his own people are (despite the fact that he, too, is a white British man, but not in spirit).
The Free Press has an excellent summary of the albatross continuing to drag this man’s dystopian fantasy down:
The scandal is already reshaping British politics. It’s not just about the heinous nature of the crimes. It’s that every level of the British system is implicated in the cover-up.
Social workers were intimidated into silence. Local police ignored, excused, and even abetted pedophile rapists across dozens of cities. Senior police and Home Office officials deliberately avoided action in the name of maintaining what they called “community relations.” Local councilors and Members of Parliament rejected pleas for help from the parents of raped children. Charities, NGOs, and Labour MPs accused those who discussed the scandal of racism and Islamophobia. The media mostly ignored or downplayed the biggest story of their lifetimes. Zealous in their incuriosity, much of Britain’s media elite remained barnacled to the bubble of Westminster politics and its self-serving priorities.
They did this to defend a failed model of multiculturalism, and to avoid asking hard questions about failures of immigration policy and assimilation. They did this because they were afraid of being called racist or Islamophobic. They did this because Britain’s traditional class snobbery had fused with the new snobbery of political correctness….
What we do know is that the epicenter was the postindustrial mill towns of England’s north and Midlands, where immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh settled in the 1960s. White locals say the grooming and rapes began soon after…
The details are established beyond doubt in the small number of prosecutions that eventually made it to court. The suffering described in the court papers is sickening to read: The girls were drugged, beaten, sodomized, gang-raped, trafficked, and tortured.
Keir Starmer is the current front-face of the grooming assault on Britain in the name of Marxism, or globalism, or whatever you want to call it. The problems existed before him and are present in both the Conservative AND Labour Parties, but he is the perpetuator of this violent assault.
From UnHerd:
The statistics behind the rape gang scandal – let’s banish the wholly inadequate word “grooming” – are staggering. For over 25 years, networks of men, predominantly from Pakistani Muslim backgrounds, abused young white girls from Yeovil to London to Glasgow. The victims’ accounts are beyond depravity, unthinkable in a supposedly advanced Western democracy.
That, of course, immediately raises a simple, shocking question: why did British police services turn a blind eye to the gang rape of tens of thousands of young girls?…
The answer, in the end, is simple. Racism, for police services from Chester to Penzance, remains the original sin. From the Scarman Report to the Macpherson Inquiry, the police have long served as Britain’s sin-eaters, devouring social problems on our behalf. As former Met Commissioner Sir Robert Mark famously wrote: “The police are the anvil on which society beats out the problems and abrasions of social inequality, racial prejudice, weak laws and ineffective legislation.”
Compared to the intentional assault on the British people by its own racist, anti-liberty government (under Conservatives OR Labour), the Normans of 1066 were tolerant, peace-loving, freedom-respecting invaders.
What happened during those three years before these men were finally prosecuted? One can only believe that they continued to do what they were doing before they got caught, grooming and raping white English children as a form of jihad against the country that paid their way there and continues to pay to sustain them.
Professor Alexis Jay’s 2022 report on grooming gangs states that the only serious prosecutions of grooming gangs under Starmer were a result of a massive public pushback. Wherever cases were not publicly covered, Starmer’s child-rape-enabling prosecutors continued to sit on their hands.
Starmer’s creation of a pedo-enabling culture and his refusal to change led to the rape of hundreds more children, children Starmer probably views not as victims but as criminals being rightly punished.
In order to rid the world of the white devil’s institutions, it’s not enough to change the laws, the old institutions must die. Children, for instance, must be encouraged to question their sexuality and gender, to BREAK the heteronormative frame and the gender binary construct. This is essential to their worldview, which is that the white devil led humanity astray, led humanity away from its real good, and the only way to return to the real good is to eliminate every institution the white devil created.
The Marxist left doesn’t merely encourage sexual grooming, they practically demand it. Their claim is that children who fit outside the sexual and gender norm will kill themselves unless government agents FORCE CHILDREN to question their sexuality and gender, and the white devil will win, because he uses heteronormativity and the sexual binary to oppress minorities.
In this cultural reality, sacrificing the children of the white devils on the altar of sexual assault is hardly offensive to an ideology that DEMANDS child sex grooming, never mind the fact that the key “founders” of the current iteration of Marxism were open advocates of pedophilia (which we covered in an earlier MIA report).
Destroying the majority for the good of the minority is the far nobler goal. Sure, there may be suffering here or there, and SOME children might be innocent, but overall, society as a whole will only grow closer to human perfection if we destroy the constructs the white devil created and replace them with our own (never mind what they are, to question them is to affirm you’re part of the oppressive majority, the white devil).
Starmer is as guilty of the child rapes and murders as the Islamist grooming gangs his office protected (and his current administration is still importing and subsidizing), whenever and wherever it could. The fact that CPS destroyed many records from his reign shows the actions of a guilty man and a guilty department.
Starmer’s defense would be that under his watch, between 2010 and 2011, there was a rise in child sex abuse cases prosecuted, but that was the result of reluctant prosecutions of cases that went public. The proof that this is true is in the fact that the number rose significantly once Starmer left. For instance, in 2016-17, the same CPS office prosecuted nearly twice as many cases as were prosecuted under Starmer’s peak prosecution year.
In other words, the insertion of child rape culture into Britain through state-sponsored “immigration” created a massive spike in child sex assault cases that Starmer’s office couldn’t completely ignore (though they would have if the public hadn’t forced their hand).
Keir Starmer reveals his guilt by his best defense, a defense that seeks to lay the groundwork to criminalize any effort to call Islamists what they are: pedophile murderer-rapists running rampant across the UK on the taxpayer dime.
Elon Musk and others that claimed that Starmer knew about the rape gangs and protected them for two reasons: to curry votes with the England-hating subsidized Muslim community and to punish the English for having a world empire that, according to these deranged lunatics, did nothing but rape the lands, as well as the noble people of those lands.
In answering these accusations, Starmer said, “Those that are spreading lies and misinformation as far and wide as possible are not interested in victims, they’re interested in themselves. They are cheerleading Tommy Robinson, a man who went to prison for nearly collapsing a grooming case, a gang grooming case. These people are trying to get some kind of vicarious thrill from street violence, that people like Tommy Robinson promote.”
“Those attacking Jess Phillips, who I’m proud to call a colleague and a friend, are not protecting victims. Jess Phillips has done a thousand times more than they’ve even dreamt about when it comes to protecting victims of sexual abuse throughout her entire career. When the poison of the far right leads to serious threats to Jess Phillips and others, that, in my book, means a line has been crossed. I enjoy the cut and thrust of politics. The robust debate that we must have. But that’s got to be based on facts and truth. Not on lies.”
“Those who are so desperate for attention that they’re prepared to debase themselves and their country. So this government will get on with the job of protecting victims, including victims of sexual abuse. What I won’t tolerate is a debate based on lies and politicians jumping on the bandwagon simply to get attention. When those politicians were in government for 14 long years.”
When the British rioted in response to their own government protecting Muslim child rapists and arresting British citizens for calling the Islamists out for who they are, psychotic terrorist insurrectionists seeking to destroy Britian, Starmer called the British people “racist thugs.”
He chortled that he would “never accept the argument…that millions of people concerned about immigration are one and the same thing as people who smashed up businesses, targeted mosques, attempted to burn refugees, scrawled racist graffiti over walls, Nazi salutes at the Cenotaph, attacked NHS nurses and told people with different coloured skin, people who contribute here, people who grew up here, that they should ‘go home.’”
Never mind that the Nazi salute accusation was an intentional lie intended to stir up more violence against the British people by fellow leftist Brits and the Islamist psychopaths the left uses in its fight against human liberty.
He concluded in his racist, terrorist speech, “I will never let a minority of violent, racist thugs terrorise our communities.” He said that sentence despite the fact that he continues to allow that very thing, only it’s not the British citizen that is guilty of this charge, it’s his Islamist allies, the brown shirt thugs of the left, who are guilty, along with him (because he aids and abets them).
In November, during a PM question time, Starmer said, “November marks Islamophobia Awareness Month – last year, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning the desecration of religious texts, including the Koran. Despite opposition from the previous Government, acts of such mindless desecration only serve to fuel division and hatred within our society.”
The follow-up question to him was, “Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?”
He answered by refusing to rule out blasphemy laws, then added, “Desecration is awful, and I think it should be condemned across the House. We are committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia in all its forms.”
BBC, a British-hating, and U.S. taxpayer funded, Labour-Party-run, far left agit prop information terror machine, covered the chilling arrests in as positive a light as possible:
In the first case of a person going to jail for posting on social media during the disorder, Jordan Parlour, 28, of Seacroft, Leeds, received a 20-month sentence for inciting others to target a Leeds building which housed asylum seekers.
At least two others also received jail sentences for social media posts that stirred up racial hatred.
Suspended Labour councillor Ricky Jones appeared in court charged with encouraging violent disorder after he was filmed apparently telling a crowd that far-right demonstrators should have their throats cut.
6000 officers with specialist training in public order are “prepared and ready” to deal with any potential unrest over the weekend.
About 600 people have been arrested this week, with hundreds more expected in the coming days and weeks, police say, with the use of facial recognition technology fast tracking the process…
This was in response to the riots in August that happened after the government tried to protect the Islamist murderers of British children.
It should be noted that the so-called “Conservative” party arrested over 3,000 people JUST for posting online (under Theresa May), so the anti-British, pro-Islamist actions of Starmer and Labour are not exclusive to them. This might explain why Reform currently leads Labour as the Conservative Party continues to fade into oblivion (since they’ve devolved into being an extension of Labour).
The current breakdown of Britain’s parliament shows that Labour currently holds 404 out of 649 seats, meaning the chances of a no-confidence vote against Starmer to trigger an early snap election are slim to none. Labour won 34 percent of the vote to the Conservatives’ 24 percent and Reform’s 14 percent, meaning they won an almost insurmountable majority with only 1/3 of voting British citizens choosing them.
There is no minimum time for a PM to serve before the next general election. A general election is called by the Prime Minister or a No-Confidence vote. His recent actions suggest that he might not offer another election again, if his party has his way.
Seeing how badly they were doing in the polls, apparently it is legal for Labour to cancel local elections until 2026, possibly 2027, which they did ostensibly to protect local voters (or so they claimed).
The British people, what’s left of them, are facing at least four more years of complete tyranny as the Labour Party continues its efforts, with the help of the Conservative Party, to fully dismantle a liberty-bounded government and replace it with a Marxist one. Elections are not a recourse. Protests will now get you thrown in jail.
This “experiment” will end either with Britian being converted to a leftist third world hellhole or an event will occur, maybe a major terror assault the government tries to conceal, that will trigger a wholesale collapse of the government through nationwide non-compliance followed by a mass assault of 10 Downing Street in the style of the 1381 Peasant’s Revolt (only the boy king Starmer won’t be able to invoke God to save him like Richard II did).
The course for Britain is death or violent overthrow because all the non-violent bullets have been removed, in part by the Conservative Party, in full by the Labour Party.
In short, outside of a dramatic act of resistance by the liberty-minded British (what’s left of them), the UK will be successfully groomed into Marxism.
As a parting shot, let me point out that this report would land me in jail if I were subject to Starmer’s tyrannical rule.
The Spirit of Pedophilia: Part Two – From Marx to Current Year – Paul Gordon Collier
Towards a Gay Communism – Elements of a Homosexual Critique – Mario Mieli
