It’s time to ask if the surprise outcome of the 2024 US Presidential Election reflects a growing rift between different factions within the technocratic elite or if it’s only a psyop to engineer a low-level civil war between rednecks and cosmopolitan Americans. Many still believe Trump, with Robert F Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard in his team, will rein in the Deep State and put the interests of ordinary Americans first before the grandiose nation-destroying plans of the woke illiberal intelligentsia. Others, especially on this side of the big pond, believe Elon Musk bought the election and will use the second Trump Presidency to abolish democracy. This is odd because both Elon Musk and RFK claimed that if the Harris / Walz ticket won, this could be the end of American democracy as we knew it. Authoritarians have a habit of always accusing their adversaries of the same crimes they commit themselves. Senior figures behind Kamala’s ill-fated campaign, from John Kerry to Bill Gates himself, talked openly about overturning the first amendment to ward off the omnipresent danger of malinformation. What we are witnessing are the death throes of the American Dream of freedom and democracy, with both concepts reduced to little more than commodities.
I once believed electoral outcomes could change the balance of power. Alas we witness a mere pantomime of engineered outcomes. In 1979 many disgruntled leftwingers wondered how Maggie Thatcher could appeal to the aspiring working classes. The next year Ronald Reagan captured the imagination of the American middle classes. By the time the pendulum swung the other way and Tony Blair entered 10 Downing Street with a whopping majority, it became obvious to me he only did so because he had big business on his side. Indeed, since 1974 Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has backed the winning horse. After backing the Tories from 2010 to 2019, the Sun newspaper flipped again to back the uncharismatic Sir Keir Starmer.
Before the results of the recent 2024 US Presidential race rolled in, one thing was certain in my mind. The multi-trillion-dollar Military-Biotech Industrial Complex would not relinquish power without a fight. If the winner posed a threat to the big banks and corporations, the Deep State would move heaven and earth to prevent him or her from entering office. With Queen Kamala, they had their perfect puppet, who judging by her performance over the last four years, would do nothing to hold her string-pullers to account.
Yet despite his rhetoric about draining the swamp and his promises to clamp down on corruption in the 3-letter agencies, Donald Trump appointed Susie Wiles, a longstanding political lobbyist whose former clients included Pfizer and Big Tobacco. The self-obsessed orange man may have cold-shouldered his former neocon Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and UN ambassador, Nicki Haley, but judging by his choice of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, and Christian Zionist, Mike Huckabee, as US Ambassador to Israel, the US Deep State looks set to pivot away from direct confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and to support Israel in an all-out war with Iran. Will this make World War Three more likely as most key Middle East countries, such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt too, are now aligning in the BRICs bloc. We may well be witnessing a rift in the Western Military Industrial Complex between the neoconservative Israel-First faction and the neoliberal anti-Russian faction. Just as the US manoeuvres its way out of the Ukrainian quagmire and Vice President elect, JD Vance, threatens to stop subsidising the defence of its European NATO allies because they fail to uphold American values of free speech. Meanwhile former Dutch PM and new NATO Secretary, Mark Rutte, has threatened to expel the US from NATO if they agree a compromise with Russia to end the war over Eastern Ukraine. This may mark a shift from a US-centred world to a multipolar world with European elites now more belligerent than their American counterparts, but with only 7 weeks of his tenure to go, Biden authorised airstrikes over Russia with the UK ready to deploy its Storm Shadow missiles in an escalation that could further drain NATO’s resources.
Some pinned their hopes on Matt Gaetz, an outspoken social conservative able to speak truth to power over Mossad’s potential involvement in the mysterious death of Jeffrey Epstein, but had to stand down amid sexual misconduct allegations.
Another sign of the times is the hysterical reaction to the appointment of Robert F Kennedy Jnr as Secretary of Health and Human Services. This seemed to annoy some faux-progressive commentators much more than Trump’s electoral success. Carole Cadwalladr took to X (formerly Twitter) to call RFK not only a vaccine-denier, but a fluoride-denier (rather ironic as fluoridation is not common in continental Europe). By the Guardian journalist’s warped logic, if you demand transparency, accountability and above all, liability from multibillion-dollar corporations, you are somehow denying people the benefits of the last century of scientific advances. It turns out RFK has never opposed vaccination if it has passed the strictest safety trials. Every debate about the safety and effectiveness of the coercively administered covid shots with Fauci fans always ends with references to the polio outbreak of the mid 20th century and the dramatic decline since the late 1950s. Yet by far the biggest factor is rapid decline in infant mortality over the last 70 years has been better sanitation. Children born in the 1960s and 70s were among the healthiest in history. Lifelong disabilities or chronic illnesses reached historic lows after post-war slum clearances and urban renewal, until a curious reversal of fortunes since the late 1980s when the incidence of neurological disorders and allergies started to increase. This happened to coincide with a massive expansion in the childhood vaccine schedule, most notably for MMR, and legislation to give vaccine manufacturers blanket immunity for any injuries or deaths that can be attributed to vaccines. In most Western nations, it is up to governments to pay damages. Of course, there are many other potential causes of rising health conditions such as processed foods, additives and, possibly, exposure to electronic gadgets and radiation. While people are living longer, most adults over 30 are now on one form of regular medication or another (that’s most over 50s on statins, beta blockers and/or diabetes drugs and a growing number of middle-aged adults on psychoactive meds). However, RFK would not only have to contend with the combined might of BigTech and BigPharma, but also with Trump’s choice of Surgeon General, Dr Janette Nesheiwat, a covid vaccine evangelist. I fear other global events or manufactured scandals may prevent RFK from having much influence.
The next administration may well have to deal the collapse of the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency. All it takes is for China and Saudi Arabia to sell off US T-Bonds (treasury bonds) if the US continues to support Israeli aggression or bombs Iran on its behalf. The US Deep State can then blame the ensuing economic meltdown on Trump and let vulture funds asset-strip the nation.
Cognitive dissonance in an era of high-tech surveillance
In the ongoing debate on the sustainability of high levels of rapid migration in terms of infrastructure and social cohesion, one trend just caught my eye. All of a sudden and from some quite unexpected quarters, we hear talk of deportation, something almost unthinkable outside the fringe ethno-nationalist right until recently. In a radical departure from the old consensus that immigration has to be managed and, when economic and environmental circumstances allow, openly welcomed, mainstream opinion leaders have now started to publicly advocate reversing the last twenty odd years of rapid de-acculturation by sending home unassimilated newcomers in their midst. Bastions of social democracy and global convergence like Sweden and Denmark have changed their tune and begun to deport criminals and long-term welfare claimants with an immigrant background. My main concern has always been with destabilisation or any policy that can undermine the hard-won freedoms and way of life of settled communities to advance agendas that mainly benefit global corporations to the detriment of the little people.
By and large the concept of free movement is a good thing, but like all good things has its limitations. Should the homeless be free to set up camp in your garden or squat in your house while you’re away? Should holidaymakers be free to park their caravans in wildlife reserves or on cultivated fields? Should grown men be free to wander into women’s changing rooms? Should property developers be free to build on parks or green spaces for profit or to accommodate growing demand for affordable housing? There are obvious limits in complex societies on the extent to which we can encroach on other people’s spaces and undermine their self-determination and traditions. Most disputes over land affect less than 1% of the Earth’s total landmass where over half of the global population dwell and most of the other half live in the approximately 12.5% of land considered arable with only a tiny fraction inhabiting remote settlements scattered around the next 30% of resource-exploitable land. That leaves around 56% of the remaining terrain mostly uninhabitable or unused due to extreme conditions such as deserts, tundra or high mountains. Yet that 1% assigned to the urbanosphere is nearly as large as the combined area of France, Germany, Poland and Italy.
The same progressive opinion leaders who hailed the wonders of our interconnected humanosphere, made possible by automotive, aeronautical and cybernetic technology, now want us to scale back to a more sustainable lifestyle, but sustainable for whom? How can they simultaneously promote mass migration to the most highly developed regions of the world and greater restrictions of our freedom to travel around our own neck of the woods? The same big businesses that sold us the dream of carefree motoring, suburban houses and regular holidays abroad, are now selling us smart green technology as millions of middle-class Westerners adapt to a minimalist lifestyle. Historically people have emigrated to find a better quality of life, but with the civilisational decline of the once affluent West that may no longer be the case. Sooner or later, something has to give in the clash between autochthons and international commuters. The mercantile classes behind the 18th and 19th century expansion of European empires have evolved into a network of global technocrats who owe no allegiance to their home countries. They have already pivoted from favouring the Western middle classes in the era of mass consumption to exploiting a vast pool of aspirational migrant labour in the shift from a mixed high-wage and high-skill economy to controlled subsistence micromanaged by tech multinationals. However, if they can pivot once for strategic reasons, they can pivot again and abandon new groups of commoners.
Just as the business elites have betrayed the Western working classes, they can easily ditch their army of globetrotting contingent workers to favour only a much smaller coterie of top-tier engineers and social governance analysts. However, at the dawn of the AI revolution with the transfer of power to a handful of tech giants, we are also witnessing the demise of the global superpower that has dominated the world’s cultural landscape for the best part of a century and reached its pinnacle in the early 1990s after the fall of the former Soviet Union.
The recent Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine marked a turning point in the balance power between G7-centred international community and the now expanded BRICS bloc, which is in the process of setting up a rival international banking system. Before 2020 the world seemed set on a trajectory of convergence with Africa, China, India and South America all falling within orbit of US-founded tech giants and banking cartels. While the Western middle classes would lose their relative privileges, the emerging technocracy would remain unipolar. Indeed, many critics of a one-world government saw the tech censorship of the lockdown years as a shift towards a more Chinese style of global governance. While the big nations of the Global East and South may have many authoritarian traits, they have not succumbed to woke ideology. The transgender craze with its assault on natural procreation has failed to make inroads in most of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. White guilt has only infected countries with a recent history of colonialism or racial segregation. On current trends, we may soon wonder how long Africans will want to move to Europe or North America.
The whole progressive rationale for mass migration hinged on the challenges of an ageing population with a low birth rate as a means to increase the tax base and allegedly to pay for our pensions. Alas with net migration running at 750,000 a year, the establishment has stopped pretending most newcomers are high-income professionals. The cost of accommodating asylum seekers alone amounted to a staggering 5.4 billion in 2023, while new projections show the average newcomer to the UK will cost the treasury much more in their lifetime than they pay in taxes. If the AI revolution displaces most lower and medium-skilled workers leaving only core competency workers (an upper crust of well-remunerated engineers, scientists, doctors, policy consultants and administrators) as essential workers outside the UBI control grid, there will no longer be any need to import cheap labour or boost the economy artificially through greater aggregate consumer demand.
As we shift from a skills-based consumer economy, affording ordinary workers greater personal freedoms, to a more eco-compliance-driven economy, local governance teams will want to restrict people’s freedom of movement by limiting access to cars, long-distance trains and aeroplanes as we saw in the covid-scare years. The trick is to get everyone within the same control grid, which is much more pervasive in the more developed regions of the world.
We are at a critical juncture in human civilisation. A major geopolitical shift away from the US-centred world order is coinciding with the growing concentration of power in billionaire technotarians who advocate high-tech eugenics and view the masses as little more than zoo animals. Alas I see a split in our technocratic masters. Some are still hedging their bets on the survival of American exceptionalism and mass consumerism. Others are content to adopt the Chinese model of epistocracy with a vanguard group of social scientists manufacturing consent among a pacified populace. Both groups exploit our conflicting desires for free movement and social cohesion to continue to divide and rule. They can pose on the left or on the right. They can advocate open borders or mass deportations, but the end game is still total surveillance.
How the progressive elites want to eliminate the undesirables and that might include you
Is it just me or does anyone else think the more politicians and celebrity influencers pretend to care about the disadvantaged, the more they justify measures that will quietly phase out the plebeianmisfits they want to exclude from their vision of a greener, brighter and fairer world?
By greener the progressive elites mean with fewer useless eaters. Brighter and fairer may also imply the eradication of the unenlightened.
In little more than a hundred days, the new Labour administration in the UK has not only clamped down on dissent, released murderers and rapists to free up space in prisons and denied cash-strapped pensioners winter fuel payments; it is now letting MPs debate the Assisted Dying Bill on a slippery slope to eugenics.
It’s been sold to us as medically assisted life termination for the chronically ill and especially for the growing numbers of dementia patients in care homes, who would not survive without the wonders of modern medicine. To put things into context, the Alzheimer's Society’s Dementia 2019 report showed an increase from 75,000 people with dementia in care homes in 2001 to over 180,000 in 2019. Longer life expectancy, an ageing population and greater reliance on residential care can only account for part of that dramatic rise. While the total number of care home residents in England rose by around 23% between 2001 and 2017, the proportion of residents with dementia grew by nearly 150%, according to a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2020.
The BBC has long softened public opposition to mercy killing with many heart-wrenching documentaries about sufferers of debilitating conditions such as motor neurone disease who want to say their last goodbyes to friends and family before doctors help them transition peacefully to another world. While euthanasia is still, at the time of writing, against the law in all parts of the UK, some affluent citizens have travelled to the Swiss Dignitas centre to end their lives. During the second lockdown of late 2020, the former health secretary, Matt Hancock, announced severe restrictions on travel abroad, except for the purposes of assisted dying, prompted by his colleague, Andrew Mitchell, who argued perversely that new coronavirus regulations could deter people from travelling to Switzerland for an assisted death. This is the same MP who ushered Labour and Tory MPs out of the chamber before former MP Andrew Bridgen began his speech on covid-19 vaccine deaths and injuries and, as a mere coincidence, has had no qualms about being photographed alongside the WHO's largest corporate sponsor, Bill Gates.
If we look further afield to other Western countries like the Netherlands and Canada that have already legalised euthanasia, we see a clear trend. Once the public accepts the need to help the very old and frail die with dignity, well-funded charities lobby the government to expand the service to younger and younger adults with agonizing and seemingly untreatable physical and mental health conditions. In Canada, a woman with a history of depression and self-harm was offered Medical Assistance in Dying, or MAiD for short, instead of better social care. Meanwhile in the Netherlands, 29-year-old Zaraya ter Beek, allegedly on the autistic spectrum, became the youngest healthy adult to be granted the right to seek euthanasia, despite having a boyfriend and appearing in several awareness-raising documentaries.
What worries me most is the toxic influence of disheartening mainstream media narratives about apocalyptic climate change and online cults that prey on the vulnerable without real-life friends, but who identify with one or more existential psychological categories that separate them from general natural humanity. Establishment media outlets have taken great care to disown the wilder advocates of self-harm. Indeed, they often exploit the spectre of online disinformation and radicalisation to justify more censorship and thus to cover up inconvenient truths. The same laws that empower the state to block access to child porn can also deny access to truthful reports of heinous war crimes or corporate malfeasance. While Facebook and Tiktok censored posts about covid-19 vaccine injuries, they have allowed countless groups promoting self-mutilation, extreme fasting and assisted dying. All you need is for an online influencer with a large following to announce that he and she is seeking help to transition to the next world.
End-of-life technology is fast evolving from rudimentary suicide pods to brain-computer interfaces that could soon do away with the need for a physical human body or, in a manner of speaking, upload someone’s consciousness to the cloud leaving only a brain in a jar hooked up to a network of computers. If you lack a sense of purpose and self-worth in your terrestrial life, the prospect of transitioning to a virtual existence is very tempting, even if you could easily vanish into thin air in the event of a random network fault or power outage.
The covid scare, with its widespread statistical manipulation and medical malpractice, set the stage for the normalisation of medically assisted homicide by highlighting the distinction between essential and non-essential workers. If you are deemed non-essential, then you may either comply or die. Concepts that would have, prior to 2020, been considered unconscionable have now become thinkable for the greater good of future generations.
Weasel words about cultural alignment and community values often serve to exclude anyone who cannot or will not conform with the emerging woke technocracy. Those who cannot adapt to this progressive Brave New World are being marginalised and guilt-tripped about their personal failings, leading inevitably to the proliferation of mental ill-health among the newly disenfranchised. This is what’s happening to millions of atomised young adults across the Western world dealing with job insecurity and volatile relationships, succumbing to drug addiction and comfort eating. Only this week we learned the government’s solution is to offer the unemployed obese weight loss injections, effectively making further social welfare contingent on their participation in clinical trials for Ozempic or Mounjaro, despite kidney dysfunction, hair loss and suicidal ideation being among their many side effects. The irony is that many long-term unemployed benefits claimants are on antipsychotics known to boost appetite and trigger rapid weight gain.
For decades, millions of us have had to contend with emotional conflicts between our natural bodily and psychological imperfections and media portrayals of shiny happy people performing at the top of their game. Soap operas can have in a similar effect to porn. They both provide grossly unrealistic representations of experiences we desire. We may crave exciting social lives, large villas with swimming pools and superlative bodies as much as the euphoria of erotic performances, but back in the real world few of us will ever approach the exuberance we see on TV or online. By attempting to achieve the unachievable, people can easily fall into despondency and fail to find partners who can live up to their fanciful expectations.
Despite all the technological advances of the last century, we have never been more dissatisfied with our lot in life. In the old world, we treated each new day of life as a blessing and coped with bodily imperfections with great humility. Today even minor disfigurements, without the emotional support of loved ones, can cause severe depression.
With the expansion of artificial intelligence and robotics, growing portions of the once essential workforce will become non-essential without a sense of purpose in life. The introduction of universal basic income will empower the state to link social credits with behavioural and ideological conformity. The scary part is that once you are locked into the corporate control grid with no bargaining power, the managerial classes can control every aspect of your private life and if you are, as George Bernard Shaw put it, more trouble than you are worth to the system, they can coerce you to agree to assisted early life termination. You may be excluded from mainstream society not because you have committed any crimes, but because of your lack of cultural alignment. Once excluded, your house arrest could be so unbearable that you opt for an easy way out.
Dying your own way
Some would argue that we need medically assisted suicide because of the immense success of modern medicine that has kept the chronically ill and mentally infirm on life support. In essence, we intervene to keep people artificially alive and also to facilitate a good death, but at all times medical experts stay in control. Yet many of us prefer to be masters of our own destiny, to live life to the full and then when our bodies or minds fail we let nature take its course.
When my mother retired to a small bungalow after her divorce, she told me repeatedly she wanted to stay there to the end of her days and never fancied ending up in a care home with no privacy or sense of dignity. Alas her mild dementia worsened considerably over the lockdowns and support workers advised us to transfer her to a specialist dementia care home at great expense. We need to ask serious questions about the rise in dementia patients. Indeed, at 88 my mother is among the oldest in her care home, the youngest being in her mid 60s. She is no longer able to make rational decisions about her life. Before moving in late 2022, she told me she didn’t want to bother anyone else and would much prefer just walking the streets alone and dying her own way and I understood her. In times of despair, I have myself considered seeking a way out by travelling to the nearest beach, undressing, swimming out to sea and leaving myself at the mercy of the elements. I never succeeded in this endeavour, because I usually changed my mind long before reaching the destination of my suicide attempt and despite periods of solitude would always encounter another human being giving me a reason to live. On one occasion I reached the River Thames at 3am and decided against diving in because I wanted to see how the spectacle of life would play out. But what if I had chosen instead to see a psychologist who, rather than persuade me to give life another chance, affirmed my despondency? I might not be here today. Once we empower a legal guardian to agree to assisted death with the best of intentions for all concerned, we have opened the floodgates to the extension of euthanasia to other target groups deemed unfit to inhabit the earth.
Addendum
I wrote a letter to my local MP, Graeme Downie, based on a template from Right To Life UK. After initially sending me a stock reply with platitudes about safeguards, I cited the Canadian and Dutch examples above. It later transpired he had blocked me on X. NewLabour do not debate, they only attempt to inculcate ideological conformity. My message:
I'm contacting you as a concerned constituent of Dunfermline and Dollar to ask you to speak and vote in opposition to Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill.
This is not the same as turning off life support machines or end-of-life care with strong sedatives for the terminally ill in cases where the choice might be between artificially extending someone's life for a few days or relieving excruciating pain.
Judging by developments in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands, the legalisation of assisted dying will set us on a slippery slope to eugenics, open to wide-scale abuse especially with regard to the growing numbers of marginalised people with mentally health issues caused by atomisation. A 29-year old Dutch woman, Zoraya ter Beek, apparently on the autistic spectrum, has already chosen to end her life ( https://www.thefp.com/p/zoraya-ter-beek-dead-assisted-suicide ). Online peer pressure can easily affect vulnerable young people's sense of self-worth and may lead them to believe they\'re superfluous to requirements.
The risks of assisted suicide were movingly explored in the actor and disability rights campaigner Liz Carr’s recent BBC One documentary ‘Better Off Dead’ (https://youtu.be/gEysXRLTG5M?si=g3KFx2umghZyFOnq), which I would encourage you to watch.
The documentary warns of the dangers of assisted suicide legislation for people with disabilities and living in poverty. As observed in this article (https://labourlist.org/2024/01/euthanasia-assisted-dying-suicide-prue-leith-esther-rantzen/) by Sir Stephen Timms MP, we have seen such dangers sadly become reality in other countries despite the supposedly strict safeguards that were in place when ‘assisted dying’ was first legalised.
And Graeme Downie MP's brief reply:
Thank you for getting in touch with me about this matter. I will only make a final decision on my vote on this issue once I see the text of any proposed legislation but I want to be honest from the outset that, having been very heavily involved in campaigns on this issue in Scotland, I am minded to support a change in the law.
Successive governments, of both parties, have taken the position that the law on assisted suicide is a matter of conscience for individual MPs. The Prime Minister has confirmed that any change in the law on assisted dying will not happen via a Government Bill. A change can only be made via a Private Members’ Bill (PMB); that is a Bill introduced by a backbench MP or Peer.
In my view, if the law does change, it is vital that it also includes strong and proper safeguards. Furthermore, any reform should recognise the concerns that many people have, including those who support reform in principle, to try to achieve the widest possible consensus.
As your elected representative in Parliament, I will monitor developments in this area closely and bear in mind the points you have raised as it is important to generate a wide degree of viewpoints and knowledge ahead of debating such sensitive matters.
The implication here is that our learned MPs know best. Judging by the last 5 years of utter betrayal over health matter, with Labour taking even more extreme stances on medical mandates than the Tories, I have my sincere doubts on their integrity to hold powerful lobbies to account. My final reply remains unanswered.
Did you read my email? We are not talking about edge cases where someone is on a life support machine or is terminally ill experiencing excruciating pain with days to live. We are talking about developments across the Western World to normalise assisted suicide for the marginalised long before the onset of extreme old age or frailty, making people feel superfluous to requirements because they are not socially integrated with a sense of purpose.
What’s going on? Are we seeing a divisive split among global technocrats that cuts into the heart of Western administrations? Only a few months ago, Sir Keir Starmer was the darling of the progressive mainstream media. The BBC salivated over him as he entered 10 Downing Street and laid down the new law of the land targeting far-right thuggery and outdoor smoking, while touring Europe and North America to pledge full alignment with the EU and NATO in the fight against Putin, climate change and the enemies of woke progressivism. However, on the Levantine conflict, Sir Keir had to tread a tricky path between the conflicting demands of Labour activists and the Zionist wing of the Military Industrial Complex, by backtracking on his earlier unconditional support for Israeli military incursions in Gaza. At the Labour Party Conference, Sir Keir showed signs of fatigue by calling both for a ceasefire and the release of the sausages (which rhymes with hostages in southern British English).
All of a sudden, media reports of sleaze and outright corruption within Labour's upper echelons are rife. The same media outlets that ousted Boris Johnson over two and a half years after his electoral success over Party-gate, because he did not comply with absurd covid regulations, are now gunning for Starmer and his cronies over Lord Alli’s lavish donations. To be honest, Lord Alli’s involvement with the new New Labour project was off my radar. My focus was on Sir Keir’s close ties to the Tony Blair Institute, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and World Economic Forum and on his earlier actions as Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales between 2008 and 2013. He had obviously been groomed as a young global leader who could appeal to a key section of the wider managerial classes while somehow placating the working classes with promises of economic stability and progressive patriotism. The cracks in Labour’s happy family were all too apparent long before the General Election. While the red-tinted party may have regained votes in Scotland from the SNP and from some disaffected Tories in the English shires, it lost votes in many of its former strongholds.
Some alternative media influencers have intimated Sir Keir may have had a gay relationship with Lord Alli. That may have been a scandal 30 years ago, but why should anyone except Sir Keir’s wife care in a society that embraces all expressions of consensual sexuality? To top it all, many of the same pundits have highlighted Lord Alli’s meetings and apparent friendship with Syrian President, Bashar Al Assad, a prime target for US-led regime-change since at least 2010. Things have not always been that way. The Assad family have close links with the UK. Not only did Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, grow up in London, Bashar did postgraduate studies at the city’s Western Eye Hospital in the early 1990s. Later the US and UK courted the new leader when he succeeded his father in 2000 as they attempted to build an alliance of pro-Western Arab leaders in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Alas Assad chose to build stronger ties with Lebanon and Iran to support the Palestinian cause against Israeli repression. That’s when Islamic fundamentalist sects started a six-year long civil war, with the covert support of Western agencies and mercenaries. In 2014 Russia surprised the world by intervening militarily in their first foreign mission since the fall of the Soviet Union to defeat ISIS and its allies and support Assad’s secular government, helping it to recapture most of Syria. The Western media framed Assad as a brutal dictator who gassed his own people with countless claims of war crimes inevitably discovered by Western-funded White Helmets intermingling with rebel Islamic militants. The same self-proclaimed liberal media outlets who would later lie to us about covid, entertained the gullible with their poster child, Bana, whose well-written blog fit the anti-Assad narrative to a T. Yet the BBC had been caught red-handed staging a documentary with crisis actors to implicate Assad in a gas attack. Four years later OPCW inspectors failed to find evidence to blame the Syrian government for the alleged 2017 Douma chemical attack and, unsurprisingly, the Mafia media has gone quiet on the specifics of its blanket accusations ever since, shifting its focus to Vladimir Putin.
Why does all this matter now, you may wonder? Starmer has staked his reputation on ideological conformity, sticking to the dominant fake-progressive narrative, while distancing himself from his more radical policy advisors and Deep State actors. While he could channel his efforts against the spectres of Putin, far-right thugs, smokers and climate change, he could still command the support of most Guardian-reading Labour loyalists and the wider bien-pensant upper-middle classes. Now the US Deep State has pivoted to the Middle East in support of Israel, aiding and abetting an undeniably large scale of death and destruction, Starmer can no longer play the good guy.
Far be it from me to come to Starmer’s defence, but his holier-than-thou demeanour may not be able to stave off the inevitable opposition to direct UK involvement in a war between Israel’s allies and Iran supported logistically by Russia and China. Alliances may shift fast too. GB News talking heads, except for Neil Oliver, and the Reform Party leadership are unashamedly pro-Israel as is the Trump team. The rumours about Keir Starmer’s private life have all the hallmarks of a hatchet job, inspired by the brain behind the Blair project, Peter Mandelson. We may be seeing a split between the one-world-love and Zionist wings of the global techno-cabal. Sir Keir has served his purpose, but there are few charismatic leaders available who will follow the orders of an increasingly unstable and disunited ruling class as the US Empire crumbles?
On almost the same day as Israeli military forces attacked Lebanon and destroyed the 14th century Great Mosque of Khan Younis in Gaza, a knifeman attacked 14 young revellers, killing at least 3, at a Christian festival, celebrating ethnic diversity, in the West German town of Solingen. Within 24 hours it emerged the perpetrator was a 17-year-old asylum seeker who pledged allegiance to ISIS and sought revenge for the German government’s complicity in Israeli war crimes.
The total civilian death toll since 7th October 2023 now exceeds 40,000 and some estimates show that collateral damage to essential infrastructure may have caused 160,000 more deaths. In a parallel timeline, Hamas fighters broke through Israeli defences and killed 1139 military personnel and civilians and took over 100 hostages. Ever since there have been regular protests across the Western world against Israeli war crimes, with reports of attacks against Jewish communities such as the recent firebombing of a synagogue in the Southern French seaside town of La Grande Motte.
This comes only three weeks after riots following the stabbing of 11 young girls, with 3 fatalities, in Southport. Online rumours, labelled misinformation, circulated that the perpetrator was a Muslim asylum seeker, leading some angry local residents to protest outside the nearest mosque. It turns out the perpetrator grew up in Cardiff with Rwandan parents. The official narrative suggests he suffered from a mental illness. Sir Keir Starmer’s administration reacted by clamping down on the alleged far-right with a special focus on social media posts that may incite hatred. It turns out rumours about the Southport killer being a Muslim asylum seeker that spread from the Channel3Now network did not emanate, as initially reported on the BBC and Sky TV, from Russian sources or far-right organisations. The claim actually came from a Pakistani Web developer, Farhan Asi, whose motives may well have been to trigger revenge attacks in the full knowledge that the police would blame anti-Islam protesters. It’s not inconceivable that said operative could have been working for the British secret services, as I doubt normal Pakistanis, many with relatives in the UK, would want to see internecine warfare or more police repression. Western governments are quite happy to play a game of bait and switch between rival ethno-religious groups. The German government has recently arrested the publisher of the right-leaning Compact magazine for publishing official crime statistics as it may incite hatred against new ethnic minorities, while also apprehending leftwing activists, with many from new immigrant communities, for protesting peacefully against Israeli war crimes, under the pretext of antisemitism.
We now have four parallel narratives to explain the breakdown in peaceful coexistence:
Extreme right-wingers are spreading misinformation to destabilise society.
Radical Islamists want to eradicate infidels and destroy Judeo-Christianity.
Israel, along with the Western ruling elites, wants to eradicate Palestinians and subjugate Muslims worldwide.
We have an urgent mental health crisis among young males.
All narratives lead us in the same direction, towards a more tightly controlled and militarised society with more advanced surveillance, social engineering and censorship. Of course, the mainstream media is the prime source of fake news and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is much more nuanced than just a straight battle between good and evil and must be viewed in the wider context of the growing concentration of power in Big Tech.
The last narrative may often seem a convenient cover for more sinister motives, but may also empower the state to expand its surveillance grid to every aspect of your private life. We could soon be required to carry a digital health app on our mobile device. Such a device may be as small as wristwatch or even just an embedded microchip. It could contain data not only of genuine medical conditions or vaccines, but also of any mental health conditions and required treatment. Ingestible sensor technology already exists to track your compliance with medication regimes. The spectre of kitchen-knife-wielding maniacs approaching children’s playgrounds could justify the installation of embedded microchip access control (EMAC) systems around all public spaces, either denying access to non-compliant individuals or immediately alerting the police of their presence. While many may welcome such measures to protect children against predators, administrations can abuse such innovations not only to limit medical freedom and privacy, but to track dissidents. Imagine not being allowed to enter your local pub or café because you have not taken your neuroleptic meds to suppress politically incorrect thoughts. This is no longer science fiction.
It hardly matters if some groups fear far-right racists, while others fear Muslim fundamentalists, Zionists, rabid antisemites or psychiatric patients on the loose. Whichever version of reality you choose to believe, more technocracy will be the solution. Once you’re trapped in the digital surveillance grid, your personal worldview is inconsequential to the powers-that-be, a mere character trait that may need medical attention.
Could the spectre of the elusive far-right be the new covid?
These days left and right-wing refer more to your cultural outlook than your class allegiance. If anything, the richer you are in Western Europe, the more likely you are to identify with the progressive left and the poorer you are the more likely you are to harbour politically incorrect views.
By any fair historical standards, the indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles have never been more tolerant of racial and sexual diversity, if these are the new metrics of progress, and probably more tolerant than the peoples of most other countries. Millions of native Britons of all political persuasions have close friends or relatives who are black, Asian, mixed-race and/or gay. Many leading figures in the so-called alternative right, such as David Kurten or Ben Habib, are non-white and many others, like David Starkey or Peter Whittle, are openly gay. Yet we’re supposed to believe gay-bashing Neo-Nazis have whipped up racial tensions by spreading fake news. Countless polls have shown that while most voters want to live peacefully with their neighbours from different ethnic backgrounds, most believe current levels of net immigration are too high. Many other common concerns such as unaffordable housing, overburdened public services and social cohesion are all linked to migratory pressures. Very few would advocate mass deportations of anyone but hardened criminals, but millions, including many Labour voters, would like to see net annual immigration levels brought down to under 100,000 a year. Even with zero-net-migration (e.g. 200,000 in either direction), we would still need to build more houses and infrastructure as well as invest in better community relations, ensuring that the much-maligned white working classes are not left behind. White working class boys are now the least likely to graduate from university, falling behind their British-Afro-Caribbean peers.
As I write, rising food prices have reignited sectarian violence in Bangladesh with mobsters burning down the homes of the country’s Hindu minority. As bad as recent riots in English towns may have appeared, they led to relatively few casualties, if we exclude the murders of three young girls that triggered angry protests in the first place.
Controlled Opposition
So why is the mainstream media obsessed with the mythical far-right, personified by Tommy Robinson also known as Stephen Yaxley Lennon? It turns out Tommy’s main beef is not with people of other races or sexual orientations at all, but with Islam. His hometown of Luton has experienced a rapid demographic shift from mostly white British in the 1970s to a white-minority town today as confirmed by the 2021 census. The growing Muslim community, mainly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent, dominate the town’s inner and western districts. Anyone growing up there since the 1980s would have had a hard time at school as a white supremacist. My mother taught in a primary school in the Bury Park district that went from around 50% Muslim in 1980 to 95% Muslim by the end of the 1980s. Over the next three decades this trend spread to other schools, prompting an exodus of other Lutonians to the outer suburbs and surrounding market towns.
In his infinite wisdom, Mr Yaxley Lennon chose to collaborate with the well-funded Israel lobby via the deceptively labelled and allegedly socially conservative Canadian outfit, Rebel Media. They’ve bankrolled many of Tommy’s court cases over allegations of grievous bodily harm or contempt of court. Mr Yaxley Lennon started the now disbanded English Defence League as a reaction to local protesters shouting “burn in hell” during a home-coming parade for soldiers who had served in Iraq around 2009. Does that mean he supported the invasion of Iraq and failed to understand the close ties between the Military Industrial Complex, the Israel lobby and proponents of mass migration? As much as the establishment media vilify him, I think the Tommy Robinson ™️ brand is controlled opposition, a safety valve for the pent-up anger of the settled working classes, yearning for a bygone interlude of post-imperial Cool Britannia with its iconic mix of rock and reggae bands superimposed on a landscape of industrial decline, creeping Americanisation, half-hearted urban renewal and quirky insular customs.
On the sidelines, genuine ethnonationalists and racial segregationists do exist. Their positions vary from those who advocate monoculturalism within stable nation states to those who want to restore monoracial societies in Western Europe. Britain First, which is not exclusively white, may come close to the first tendency, while only fringe outfits like Patriotic Alternative support the latter. Both tendencies may advocate some form of repatriation or population exchange, although historically such exchanges have seldom been peaceful. However, none of the fringe right-wing groups openly supported the riots or urged their followers to burn asylum seeker hotels. Those calls came from hasty social media posts. In the recent past, many virtue-signallers have wished death on the unjabbed and a journalist by the name of David Aaronovitch called for the murder of Donald Trump, two weeks before an attempted assassination on the former President. This is the same towering intellect who not only supported all of Tony Blair’s wars, calling opponents pro-Saddam fascists, but also wrote a book attacking conspiracy theorists, Voodoo Histories. If you scour social media sites, you’ll see plenty of death wishes directed at undesirables or the perceived enemies of progress. Any violence attributed to the far-right came from feral gangs of disillusioned and largely apolitical youngsters as well as a few agitators who egged on small groups of hotheads on the margins of otherwise peaceful protests. The only examples of online incitement to mindless violence came from some unexpected sources, such as the wife of a Tory councillor, Lucy Connelly, who wrote on X/Twitter “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******* for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it” in the immediate aftermath of the Southport stabbings. These are not the musings of a hard-headed activist of any political persuasion, but outpourings of anger and emotional turmoil. Of the over one thousand people arrested and fast-tracked for sentencing, are many with long-term psychological traumas. A 69-year-old alcoholic was condemned to 32 months in jail for violent disorder and possessing a truncheon, while a 22-year-old young man with learning difficulties got a 26 months jail sentence for smashing windows of nearby residential properties. Meanwhile rapists, muggers and murderers have been released early after only 6 or 12 months in jail for much more serious crimes.
Intellectual Diversity
In the not-too-distant past, we could more easily respect a wider diversity of opinions on the key ethical, scientific and economic issues of the day, as long as we adhered to common social etiquette. I know for a fact many of my Church-going neighbours in the 1970s considered homosexuality a sin, opposed abortion and had not yet embraced colour-blind multi-racialism, largely because most people were, outside of London and a few other urban districts, still boringly pale-skinned, especially in leafy suburbs and small market towns.
I grew up in a staunch Labour household. My father believed he stood up for ordinary working people of all creeds and colours. He campaigned against Britain’s membership of the European Economic Union and supported greater public ownership. We would discuss politics at the dinner table. For a while my elder brother would try to outdo my father’s newfound radicalism. He joined the Young Socialists, supported unilateral nuclear disarmament, opposed US imperialism and took a stand against the racism of the anti-immigration National Front, which had started to pick up protest votes from the disillusioned working classes, although seldom more than 5%. A large map of Palestine showing the expansion of Israel into the occupied territories bedecked his bedroom wall. Apart from occasionally trying to point out their hypocrisy on some matters, I didn’t really engage in meaningful political debate until the age of fourteen when my brother dragged me along to the large Rock against Racism concerts in London and later introduced me to the National Union of School Students with its campaigns for school councils, getting rid of school uniform, banning corporal punishment, ending religious education and providing more explicit sex education. Two of my brother’s comrades persuaded me to attend the union’s small conference. One belonged to the tiny Communist Party (of Great Britain) and the other hung out with the trendier Socialist Workers’ crowd. I may have been the youngest attendee. Indeed, most were either radical organisers in their 20s or sixth-formers (aged 16 to 18) eager to enjoy the free gig and disco laid on that evening. Later in 1978, I would get expelled from high school for distributing NUSS magazines with articles on the joys of masturbation and homoeroticism, both taboo subjects among many Catholic families. I still recall my head teacher’s words: “You’re not mature enough to understand the consequences of this propaganda. You’re being used. You’ll have your say when you’re older.”.
Anti-racism was one of many rebellious causes that sought to break ranks with Britain’s imperial past and its new role as junior partner of US imperialism, with its covert support for racially segregated South Africa and its proxy wars in Angola, Mozambique and elsewhere. The establishment had not yet fully rebranded itself. Then in 1979, the Southern English working classes rejected Labour as Maggie Thatcher wrapped herself in the Union Jack and promised council house tenants could buy their homes. The new government let failing industries go bust, privatised many state-owned businesses and presided over soaring unemployment. To this day, millions in Scotland, Wales and Northern England hate Thatcher for destroying the country’s industrial heartlands. Labour took a turn to the old radical left, calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament and leaving the EU. For a short while, Labour was ahead in the polls. Then in April 1982, Argentina, under General Leopoldo Galtieri’s military junta, invaded the Falkland Islands. Within a week, Margaret Thatcher’s government sent a task force to recapture the sparsely populated islands 300 miles east of Patagonia. The mass media cheered on the war effort, with dissent confined to a few columns in the Guardian or radical leftwing press. Although Michael Foot supported the war effort, because it highlighted the importance of a strong navy and conventional weapons, the Tories rose in the polls and won a landslide victory in 1983 on the back of jingoism. The suppressed truth is that successive British governments had neglected the Falkland Islands, with only 1600 permanent inhabitants in 1982. In the late 1970s, amid IMF-imposed budgetary constraints, British diplomats had considered transferring sovereignty to Argentina and leasing the islands back to keep alive their outpost around Port Stanley. The Falklands war represented the last gasp of Rule Britannia just as most of British industry came under multinational control. While the UK government spent countless billions to defend the self-determination and customs of a couple of thousand Islanders, it neglected the plight of once proud working-class communities back home unable to adapt to the fast-paced gig economy and often trapped in a vicious cycle of welfare dependence and family breakdowns with a steady brain drain of the best and brightest. Whole neighbourhoods lay mainly empty with boarded-up terraced houses, only to be resettled by new culturally diverse communities, sowing the seeds of future internecine conflict in the event of economic meltdown on a comparable scale to that seen before the breakup of Yugoslavia.
End goal of Surveillance
Some may rejoice at the new government’s focus on far-right thugs as retribution for past colonial crimes, but once the precedent has been set to police private communications for hints of racism that may, in theory, incite violence, it can be applied to any type of dissent. Lincolnshire Police gave the game away by charging 40 year-old Wayne O’Rourke with “anti-establishment rhetoric” in the wake of anti-mass-migration protests. Everyone from the Prince of Wales to the Archbishop of Canterbury has joined a chorus of condemnation not only against reactionary plebs, but against the one tech billionaire, Elon Musk, who still allows free speech on his X/Twitter platform. When the likes of Alastair Campbell, whose dodgy dossier on WMDs persuaded MPs to back UK involvement in the invasion of Iraq, join forces with woke broadcaster, Carol Vorderman, to call on the government to censor social media, you know something is wrong. By now, it must be crystal clear the establishment no longer hides behind the garb of Britishness, except when commemorating the world wars of the last century or celebrating sporting achievements. It has fully embraced global technocracy and sees angry free-thinking plebs as obstacles in their plans to reengineer society.
As recent experience with the demonisation of covid sceptics and anti-Gaza-genocide protesters has shown, it will not stop there. Public health, antisemitism, women’s rights and/or transphobia can be easily invoked to silence critics of mandatory vaccination, Israeli war crimes, abortion, puberty blockers or gender self-identification. All these positions are essentially anti-establishment. The establishment wants medical mandates, an expansion of the war machine (and not just in support of Israel), easier abortion and moves towards transhumanism without natural procreation. However, different cultural groups may stand against these policies. Opposition to abortion and LGBTQ education comes both from devout Christians and Muslims. On current trends, opposition to assisted dying services may also be deemed far-right, a new synonym for heretical.
Just like covid, the symptoms of far-right thinking keep changing and the bug itself is almost impossible to detect without magnifying its strands. It may mean anything from football hooliganism and drunken thuggery to social conservatism or principled opposition to a one-world government. You could test positive for far-rightness by criticising any of the establishment's 2030 Agenda goals for sustainable development.
How the managerial classes exploit social tensions to expand surveillance and censorship
In just four weeks, Sir Keir Starmer’s new administration has revealed, in case there was any doubt, its true authoritarian intents as it seizes the opportunities provided by a series of angry protests and riots to clamp down on what it likes to call the far right. If you get your news from the likes of BBC, ITV, or Sky News, you may be forgiven for thinking that the violence only kicked off among feral white youths and hard-right activists exploiting internet rumours about the origin of a 17-year-old accused of stabbing 11 girls, leading to the tragic deaths of three girls. Yet only two weeks ago, the same progressive opinion leaders failed to criticise the police force’s lack of action regarding arson, looting, and rioting among non-indigenous ethnic communities in Harehills, Leeds, and Whitechapel, London. The police stood back from both outbreaks of communal violence, only arresting a few suspected troublemakers after the events. In Leeds, the trigger for civil unrest was the removal of a child from a Roma family accused of neglect. The other disturbance occurred within Tower Hamlets’ Bangladeshi community over ongoing civil unrest between pro- and anti-government factions in Bangladesh. Yet millions of ordinary people on social media have noticed the application of two-tier policing.
Establishment politicians, whether they play for the red, blue, yellow, or green teams, want to blame rogue elements within the settled working classes for the adverse effects of their own social engineering policies. Intriguingly, they also target social media outlets for allowing the open dissemination of video footage, often taken with pervasive smartphones, or rumours based on conflicting reports from citizen journalists. They want to regain tight control of the flow of information, just like they did during the 2020 virus scare. In some ways, the far right is the new covid; any measures are justified to stop the spread. Technocrats will redefine politically incorrect opinions as mind viruses that should be treated in the same way as pathogens that target other body parts.
Yet we’d be wrong to conclude that our rulers have sided with any of the rival ethno-religious communities or care more about refugees than they do about older age pensioners struggling to keep warm in winter. They do not. They may temporarily appease an identity group to achieve a medium-term goal, but once that group has outlived its usefulness, they will happily scapegoat any of its uncooperative members who are unhappy with the next phase of social engineering.
Over the weekend, we saw many rival protests across UK towns and cities. In Belfast, Irish republicans and British Unionists united to express their opposition to rapid mass migration. The infantile left, often manipulated by the SWP (Socialist Workers’ Party) and various Soros-funded open-borders organizations, were also out, chanting "refugees welcome" while waving both Palestinian and LGBTQ++ flags. Oddly, I can sympathise with both sides, who share the same enemies. Paradoxically, many of the same forces that support the US-centred Military-Industrial Complex’s collusion with Israeli war crimes also support mass migration as well as the endless promotion of transgenderism. Alas, we also saw marches by the newly formed Muslim Defence League, allegedly defending Muslim communities from the so-called far right, who protested outside mosques after the fatal stabbing of three young girls in Southport, based on rumors that the assailant was a Muslim asylum seeker. It turns out he grew up in Cardiff with Rwandan parents. Some black-clad masked MDL marchers carried weapons, which the police asked them to deposit in the nearby mosque. They resembled brownshirts from the 1930s in everything but median skin tone and symbology. While some MDL marchers may have protested against Israeli attacks on Gaza, none would share the Western progressive position on LGBTQ++ rights, and many would gladly roll back women’s rights. Nuance is something the infantile left of my youth struggles to understand. They categorise people into oppressors and the oppressed. If you are female, gay, transgender, black, a refugee, and/or Muslim, then you are oppressed. If you oppose radical feminism, access to puberty blockers, mass migration, or the building of more mosques, then you must be an oppressor. It doesn’t occur to them that most Africans and Middle Easterners hold traditional family values and have greater in-group loyalty than most of the British patriots they label as far right. Neither does it occur to them that members within their beloved victim groups may hold different opinions. Why should all black people succumb to the same kind of groupthink that often afflicts affluent white progressives? Why should all lesbians embrace Islam or want to sleep with trans-identifying biological males? The regressive left hates the likes of Candace Owens or Dominique Samuels, both proud Christians more in tune with traditional African-American or Caribbean values than your average BLM activist.
I fear things could soon turn nastier as the government is forced to impose unpopular tax rises and cutbacks in core services in order not only to pay off the spiralling £2.7 trillion debt, including over £400 billion for the covid lockdowns alone, to fund ongoing wars with Russia and in the Middle East. The settled working classes will not take kindly to the spectre of brand-new subsidised homes built in their neighbourhoods to facilitate the ongoing process of ethnic erasure through mass migration, making everyone more dependent on the technocratic master class. We must have the common sense to understand the trap that has been set for us. Our enemies are not the pawns of a global chess game, but those who manipulate us. They want to see Muslim Defence League ruffians fight it out with Britain First crusaders to justify more censorship and surveillance that will, perversely, empower global technocrats to commit unspeakable crimes against humanity with impunity.
What a big surprise. The blob has engineered another colour revolution. Nominally the leader of the blue team, Rishi Sunak, conceded defeat to the leader of the Red Team, the charmless Sir Keir Starmer of Davos. If you only watched the BBC, ITV or Sky News you might be forgiven for thinking Starmer had been swept into 10 Downing Street by a whirlwind of popular discontent with fourteen years of Tory mismanagement. Now at long last, we’d have a caring government in power that would reverse the austerity the nasty Tories imposed on us. Once again Britain would welcome newcomers from around the globe with open arms, as the country realigns itself with the European Union, builds a high-tech green utopia and joins NATO’s progressive forces in their battle to spread the joys of drag queen story time to Eastern Ukraine. No sooner had Sir Keir settled into his prime-ministerial home than he elevated lockdown king and former head of research at GlaxoSmithKline, Sir Patrick Vallance, to the House of Lords and then gave him a cabinet post as Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology. By sheer coincidence, last year Sir Paddy Vallance had accepted a role with the Tony Blair Institute.
Yet despite favourable media coverage and a massive online advertising campaign, Labour failed to win over many hearts and minds, except as fallout from widespread disillusionment with the SNP in Scotland and with the Tories in England. Only a couple of months ago, Sir Keir Starmer’s Party was riding as high as 46% in the opinion polls. Yet in the event, only 59.9% could be bothered to vote, including postal votes, and only 33.7% of those supported an official Labour candidate. Indeed under Sir Keir Starmer, Labour got fewer votes than it did in 2019 under Corbyn and yet it won more than twice as many seats owing to the distortions of the First Past the Post system.
Year
Popular votes
% of voters
% turnout
% of electors
Seats
1997
13,518,167
43.2
71.3
30.8
418
2001
10,724,953
40.7
59.4
24.2
412
2005
9,552,376
35.2
61.4
21.6
355
2010
8,609,517
29.0
65.1
18.9
258
2015
9,347,324
30.4
66.4
20.2
232
2017
12,877,918
40.0
68.8
27.5
262
2019
10,269,051
32.1
67.3
21.6
202
2024
9,704,655
33.7
59.9
20.2
411
If we drill down, a different picture emerges. Labour only gained in two areas. In Scotland as former Labour voters return to the fold after lending their votes to the SNP over the last decade. Central belt voters have distrusted the Tories since the Thatcher era. The Scottish protest vote went largely to Reform despite its association with British Unionism. The SNP got only 9 seats with 30% of the vote, while Labour won 37 out of 57 seats with only 35.3% of the vote. In the southern English shires Labour’s share increased marginally helping it to unseat many Tory MPs with as little as 26.48% of the vote as the remainder was so even split among the Conservatives, Reform and independents. Labour only regained its traditional Red Wall seats because many who lent their votes temporarily to the Tories to get Brexit done either stayed at home or voted Reform. Indeed, Reform did best in some of the most economically deprived areas of Eastern and Northern England.
One of the biggest surprises came from the cosmopolitan urban constituencies with large Muslim populations. This is where Labour did best under Jeremy Corbyn. Although George Galloway lost in Rochdale, five independent candidates won on a Pro-Palestine ticket. In Luton South, Labour’s share declined from 51.8% to 35.4% shedding votes to an independent and a Workers’ Party candidate with 14 and 8.1% respectively and both standing on a pro-Palestine ticket. Sir Keir Starmer himself lost around 18.9% to Andrew Feinstein and the former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, won as an independent.
If we had proportional representation or even a French-style two round contest, the outcome would have been very different. Labour won with 40% or less in 122 constituencies and in 175 constituencies the combined Conservative and Reform vote share would have beaten the winner, but to be fair we may have to add the LibDem votes to Labour’s.
However, this assumes the traditional left-right paradigm that places Reform on right and the Worker’s Party on the left. A more honest appraisal would be rank parties by the social class of their supporters. The Conservatives may still have a bedrock of support from affluent boomers in their 60s and Labour still do better in urban areas among the managerial classes, but the Greens and LibDems did best either in posh neighbourhoods or places with large student or post-graduate populations. A top-to-bottom spectrum might look more like this:
LibDems and Greens
Trendy upper middle classes, students and business leaders
Labour
Billionaire bankers, media moguls, conformist managerial classes, social workers and some welfare-dependents often via postal votes
Conservatives
Conformist suburban, rural middle classes and property traders
Workers’ Party & Independents
Rebellious working classes and some small business owners
Reform
Rebellious working classes and some maverick business leaders
When it comes to transferring more power to remote technocrats at the World Health Organisation, rejoining the EU, transgenderism in primary schools, clamping down on free speech, raising green taxes on the lower middle classes or going to war with Russia, another pattern emerges. Upper middle-class Labour, LibDem and Green supporters are much more likely to support these policies, while Reform and Workers’ Party supporters are more likely to oppose them. Only on Israel and mass migration do we see distinctive tribal loyalties come to the fore among Britain’s disparate lower classes and only on Israeli war crimes do the Greens still take a firm stance against the Military Industrial Complex.
By now it should be crystal clear that there is no grassroots support for extreme centralisers who have embedded themselves in the UK government with the full blessing of the Tony Blair Institute.
Why do we call extreme advocates of centralisation moderates and proponents of greater self-determination extremists?
Have you noticed that political actors posing in the middle ground tend to favour more regime change wars, surveillance, censorship, top-down social engineering and biotechnical tyranny, while opposition to these policies comes from activists labelled far-left or far-right? That’s because the politicians that the mainstream media call moderate serve the interests of large global corporations, while their opponents want to redress the balance of power to compact nation states, local communities or trade unions accountable to their members. The radical left and patriotic right may differ on religion, traditional family values, public ownership and immigration controls, but they both oppose the transfer of more power to the global military, biotech and banking industrial complex. Progressive politicians appeal most to the affluent professional classes, while the lower classes of all ethnic backgrounds are now more likely to rebel against global centralisers. Nowhere is this divide clearer than in France. Macron has lost his earlier appeal as a liberal antifascist who could win over trendy young professionals. Alas Macron’s administration has always sided with the interests of big corporations over those of the French rural and urban working classes. One minute he accuses the patriotic right of xenophobia, the next he supports bombing mainly brown people to assert the hegemony of Western bankers. One minute he champions LGBTQ+ rights in the name of bodily freedom, the next he wants to isolate jab refuseniks. Macron once courted the Muslim vote with his pro-migration stance, but on most social issues French Muslims are closer to Le Pen than either Macron or Mélanchon of the green-left La France Insoumise grouping.
Meanwhile, the British establishment wants to install Sir Keir Starmer as the next Prime Minister. The Labour Left hate him because he supports the Israeli and Ukrainian regimes, wants to keep nuclear weapons, boost military spending and build more prisons. Social conservatives hate him because he favours open-door immigration, tried to stop Brexit, struggles to define a woman, wanted to lock down harder and panders to climate alarmism. On the left Starmer faces challenges from George Galloway’s Workers’ Party and independents like former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn or deselected candidate Faiza Shaheen. On the populist right, the BBC’s favourite Trilateral Commission member may lose votes to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK grouping and a few other independent candidates like Andrew Bridgen, expelled from the Conservative Party for daring to challenge the safe-and-effective covid jab narrative. Labour may well have scuppered its hopes of winning back hearts and minds among its traditional Northern working-class base. At best Labour can appeal to condescending groupthink on our NHS and mental healthcare with only vague talk of creating new green jobs to replace the country’s shrunken manufacturing base. They’ve certainly invested heavily in social media advertising. One of their Scottish ads on Youtube portrays a nurse preparing an injection for an elderly lady. I doubt this will win over many undecided voters. The ad foreshadows the kind of future Sir Keir’s handlers have in mind for the humble little people, one of complete dependence on the nanny state.
Owing to the dynamics of politics within the first-past-the-post electoral system and a mainstream media that sidelines outsiders, Labour still seem set to win a sweeping majority of seats as the Tory vote collapses and others parties fail to fill void. They may well gain over 200 seats with as little as 30% of the vote in some constituencies. In Scotland the SNP stand to lose the most seats. The only question is: who will be the official opposition? With nothing left to lose many traditional conservative voters may switch to Reform in the English provinces, while in some metropolitan areas with large Muslim communities Labour may lose to anti-war candidates.
Statistically in Western Europe, the richer you are the more likely you are to believe the greatest challenges of our times are climate change, infectious diseases, transphobia and misinformation as defined by official fact-checkers. You only need to listen speeches by the likes of Ursula von der Leyen or Tony Blair himself to understand these narratives come from the very top. The commonfolk on the ground do not want to shut down farms to reduce carbon emissions or eradicate bird flu. They don’t want their children exposed to drag queen story time and gender ideology. They just want children to be children, girls to be girls and boys to be boys. There is nothing hateful or extreme about such attitudes, just as there is nothing immoral about pride in your cultural heritage. Yet in our perverse upside-down world, free speech advocates are called fascists and anyone who doubts the official narrative is smeared as a loony leftie or right-wing conspiracy theorist.
If Rishi Sunak cared about his parliamentary career, he could not have picked a worse time for a General Election. The main opposition party, Labour, is hardly united. Its former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is standing as an independent. Its activists are in open rebellion against the party's failure to condemn Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Then on every issue that really matters to ordinary working people, such as affordable housing, job security and unsustainable migratory flows, NewNew Labour have only promised more of the same, albeit dressed up in empty Obama-style rhetoric about change and green new deals. The current Tory chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, could have written Labour's manifesto.
Yet just one week into the campaign, Rishi announces an epic vote loser, the introduction of National Service for 18 year olds, with a choice of military or community service. Unsurprisingly, community service means helping to deliver prescriptions. Great, young adults will have a choice of serving the Military Industrial Complex in proxy wars with Russia and/or China, or serving the Biotech Industrial Complex by handing out happy pills and, probably, helping with the next jabbathon. The pundits claim Rishi was trying to appeal to patriotic Reform voters, who tend to respect the armed forces, but the most fervant supporters of war with Russia call themselves liberal progressives.
I suspect when Sir Keir enters 10 Downing Street, as the polls would suggest he will with the full blessing of big business and the BBC, on 5th July, he will wait a few weeks to announce the outcome of some Royal Commission on youth employment and roll out Rishi's plan just before admitting we are indeed at war with the Great Eastern Bear. Will there be some false flag event ascribed to Russia in a NATO country that will draw what's left of the UK armed forces into a hot war?
Meanwhile artificial intelligence and outsourcing have hit the once affluent middle classes, at least judging by the IT contract market.
Why do so many seemingly intelligent young professionals still believe the mainstream parties offer any choice? Labour's only selling point is that they're not Tories. I think they're all working for the same team. We saw that over the covid scam. Stage-managed general elections are a great way to bury unpopular decisions such as agreeing to the WHO's controversial Pandemic Treaty. While Rishi and Keir tour the British Isles in front of TV cameras, the Civil Service carry on the business of actually running the country.
