Freedom is ancient, despotism is modern.
Mme de Staël
The United Kingdom’s new Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has wasted no time in revealing his authoritarian nature. His first month in power has, to be sure, featured the worst spate of civil disorder to take place in the U.K. in many years, and, whatever the underlying causes, this undoubtedly required a police response. But the Prime Minister’s approach to this mini-crisis has been highly illustrative of his character. Almost his first meaningful action when the recent riots broke out was to give carte blanche – through executive fiat – to police forces throughout the country to use live facial recognition technology (which has just effectively been banned by the EU Parliament due to its intrusiveness) to engage in “preventative action” in restricting people’s movements. Now, we learn that Sir Keir has also set in train a review of the law regulating social media so as to permit the micromanagement of ‘legal but harmful’ speech online, which will likely see social media companies being required to remove content that apparatchiks deem to be ‘misinformation’. His instincts have as a result been revealed to point not towards understanding, or the solution of problems, but merely towards control. Faced with the first opportunity to exercise power, in other words, Starmer has found his knee uncontrollably jerking. And it has jerked in the direction of China.
Starmer, it is plain, is one of those socialists for whom the appeal of socialism lies not so much in its amelioration of poverty, but rather in its provision of a rationale for the imposition of a perfect order on society – the construction of a “great social machine”, as Sydney Webb once put it, within which every individual must be made to fit. There is the touch of the Javert about him; he is one of those men who, all things considered, prefers the stars, who “know [their] place in the sky”, to people, who have an irritating tendency to exhibit free will. There is also in the air around him a quality that C.S. Lewis called “Saturnocentric”, which Michael Ward summarised as a combination of the “astringent, stern, tough, unmerry, uncomfortable, unconciliatory, and serious”. It is no surprise at all that Starmer should once have made his living as England and Wales’s Director of Public Prosecutions: this is a man who would take to the political task of steering public policy regarding criminal prosecutions like a duck to water.
It should also be no surprise that Starmer was once a human rights lawyer. Some have found it difficult to square these two aspects of his character. Silkie Carlo, the prominent civil liberties campaigner, for instance, remarked in a recent interview concerning the use of live facial recognition how strange she found it that Sir Keir, who purportedly is a human rights advocate, would embrace a technology that seems almost designed to usher a Chinese total surveillance system into the U.K.
But this confusion is based on a complete misunderstanding of what human rights are all about. Human rights law long ago abandoned any residual loyalty it might have had to anything so laughably quaint as civil liberties. What human rights promises, indeed, is the exact opposite of civil liberties – namely, the most complete form of tyranny that can be imagined, achieved not in the form of anything so dramatic as individual dictatorship, but in the form of a system of total and continuous regulation of each and every human interaction in the name of perfect autonomy and equality. Most people do not have anything like an adequate conceptual framework, or even the terminology, to understand this – which is why people like Carlo go so badly wrong in their interpretation of the actions of the Keir Starmers of this world. But I will do my best to elucidate it for you here.
The first thing is to understand what is really meant by ‘liberalism’: that is, the ideology that holds that the purpose of political power, in the form of the State, is to liberate. Here, the important point to emphasise is that, while many people still have a vague notion in their heads that this means that the State should be small, it is of course a recipe for the biggest State that there could possibly be. The essence of liberalism is the construction of a relationship between the autonomous individual and the State which guarantees, and fosters, that autonomy, and this means that the State must intervene in society in literally every single point to ensure that all individuals maximally enjoy the exercising of their autonomy at any given moment. Any social institution, whether concrete or abstract, which might constrain individual autonomy – family, church, community, employer, business, social norm, cultural taboo – must be broken down insofar as it provides a constraint, with the result being that there is prima facie no barrier that may be permitted to exist anywhere against State action.
The important corollary of this is that since the State must maximise individual autonomy it must also maximise individual equality – in the sense that all individuals must at all times be made to enjoy perfect equilibrium of both opportunities and outcome. Liberation always gestures towards the absolute abolition and prohibition of hierarchy of any kind, because where hierarchies are found to exist, individual autonomy is in some sense or other inhibited for those who are lower in that hierarchy than higher in it. Liberal government must then always work to ensure that nobody can find himself in a position of superior status to anybody else. And liberalism, therefore, in its relentless drive to liberate, also constructs a relationship between the individual and the State in which the latter guarantees to the former that, in perpetuity, it will instantiate itself as a great moderating force in society to ensure that nobody is ever able to occupy a position of ‘privilege’ vis-à-vis anybody else.
The inconsistencies and self-contradictions in all of this are evident to anybody with two brain cells to rub together; it is definitionally impossible to reconcile autonomy and equality in practice, because, since everybody is different and has different sets of abilities, as soon as anybody exerts their autonomy in any meaningful sense it will inevitably produce inequalities. The fact that a free market necessarily produces big differentials in wealth is an obvious example of this.
But this irreconcilability is, as the kids say these days, a feature of liberalism, rather than a bug – it is the reason why there needs to be a liberal State at all. Communists (and this is one of the admittedly good things one can say about Marx and Engels) at least had a notion, as harebrained as it may have been, that there would one day not need to be a State, and that it would “wither away” once scarcity was in effect abolished. Liberalism has no such notion, because it posits the complete regulation by the State of all human interactions in perpetuity. And it needs to do this because it has to always make a plausible claim to be creating the conditions in which the irreconcilable imperatives of autonomy and equality can be somehow reconciled.
Liberals are therefore perfectly happy to accept trade-offs in this regard, because the making of trade-offs itself justifies the ongoing existence of liberal government. There must be somebody (John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Thomas Piketty, etc.) to declare to what extent inequalities in wealth are to be tolerated and on what basis, and to what extent redistribution should occur so as to optimise the relationship between autonomy and equality – and, naturally, a vast administrative State to fine tune that calibration from year to year, day to day, moment to moment. And this, of course, indicates the extent to which socialism and liberalism are tied together – and are really to be thought of as features of the same phenomenon, since liberalism will necessarily entail some degree of socialist redistribution and socialist redistribution will always necessarily take place on the basis of attempts to liberate the weak from economic dominance.
This all means that liberalism is to be understood to be quintessentially adjudicative in nature. The liberal State posits itself as a kind of omniscient and omnipotent referee, constantly umpiring a vast game conducted between millions upon millions of autonomous and equal individuals. It is a permanent, pervasive, and potent third party, always present in any given circumstance to interject so as to make one person a little more equal vis-à-vis some other person or persons, or to make one person a little more autonomous. One cannot escape from it, because escape is what it cannot permit – that would ruin the perfect system of optimisation which is always and everywhere to take place. And it has no principled limit, precisely because liberation itself has no logical limit – liberalism never has anywhere to go but onwards, downwards, and further in.
The result of this is a liberal authoritarianism which people do not really have the vocabulary to describe even as they sense that it is in motion and relentlessly advancing all the time. It has long gone past the point at which it could be rationally justified (there were formal inequalities that needed to be torn down; there were people in our societies who were living in de jure or de facto bondage) and has now shifted into fifth gear, such that we can properly begin to discern its pathologies and disastrous consequences. But the important point to re-emphasise is that ‘liberal authoritarianism’ is not an oxymoron; it is the inevitable playing out of the main predicate of liberalism itself, which is, to repeat, the repudiation of inequality, since equality is the necessary corollary of liberation conceived as the very purpose of government.
This makes human rights the perfect technology of liberal government, and of liberal political reason, because human rights law postulates the existence of a vast network of rights that drape themselves like a blanket over every feature of human existence and thereby always provide the justification for adjudication on the part of the State at any given moment. Everybody has the rights to freedom of association, to health, to education, to non-discrimination, to life, to freedom of expression, to privacy, to food, to housing, and so on and so forth – and the fact that these things cannot be made perfectly reconcilable with one another, and that anybody’s rights have to end where other peoples’ rights begin, allows there to spring into being an entire modulating framework designed to administer the necessary adjustments and compromise between competing rights claims – and it is in this practice that liberal government finds its justification and complete expression.
This happens judicially through the absurd conceit of ‘proportionality’ (whereby courts exercise purported oversight over the trade-offs authorities make between the protection of rights and the ‘public interest’). But ideally it happens internally within the institutions of government themselves (and also, of course, within private institutions), because the very existence of the permanent third party and its known motivations causes people to modulate their own conduct accordingly. Human rights therefore set in train, and legitimate, a total system of government based on the reconciliation and modulation of rights claims that could be made by anyone, against anyone else, at any time. It is the constitutionalisation, as it were, of Alexandre Kojève’s “‘instinct’ or ‘program’ regulating all individuals completely and finally” (as described by Kojève’s biographer, Jeff Love).
This connection between human rights and liberal authoritarianism is not widely understood, but is obvious when one thinks about the way human rights typically feature in our legal landscape – not as a way to restrain State power in general (think about how human rights activists completely vacated the scene during the Covid lockdown era) but as a way to determine who gets what from the State at a given point in time. Human rights do not limit State power per se, but only as a means of shaping the scope of executive decision-making so as to guide it towards liberation and equality – or to help decision-makers in an individual case find an appropriate reconciliation between those two imperatives, or between competing claims.
The appeal of this to somebody like Starmer, who likes everyone to fit nicely together into a grand, intricate and orderly social machine, is obvious – as is the idea that he might be the one who ultimately gets to press the buttons and pull the levers so as to fine-tune that machine to its absolutely perfect modulation. So, the fact that he had a career as a human rights lawyer before entering into politics is absolutely fitting, and there is nothing unexpected or self-contradictory about his apparent lurch towards authoritarianism when in office. Authoritarianism is entirely in keeping with the zealous adherence to human rights – it is just that we do not really not have a way of conceptualising the phenomenon of liberal authoritarianism as such, and therefore imagine the two things to be somehow contradictory when they are in fact closely linked.
In closing, it is worth mentioning something about how democracy fits into this picture. Starmer, like any good liberal authoritarian, does not like democracy. He does not like it in the narrow sense of people voting for things which government puts into effect (overseas readers may not know that he was one of the doughtiest champions of the attempt to overturn the 2016 EU referendum result), and he does not like it in the broad sense of public participation in politics. What he likes is operationalised bossiness, and that is really the stock-in-trade of liberal authoritarian practice at ground level: a supercilious demand for participation in the liberal project which also always imbues the subject with a vague feeling of shame for having failed to realise in advance what was expected of him.
This is why Starmer has taken to the task of suppression of ‘legal but harmful’ speech with such alacrity, and it is this that is likely to set the tone for his period in office. We are going to have to participate in realising the particular vision of autonomy and equality which Starmer’s government have in mind for us, and we are going to have to get used to being chided, in the manner of a bad dog who has made a mess in the kitchen, when we fall short of what is expected of us. We may be allowed to exert our right to freedom of expression in response – but only in the sense that it is modulated by the State-as-umpire, and reconciled with all of the other rights with which it might potentially conflict, and only therefore in such a way that the power of the liberal State over society will be extended, rather than curtailed. The State will get bigger in the economic sense (it always does under a Labour government). But it will also get bigger conceptually, and in its role with respect to the constant supervision of society. It will become both more liberal and more authoritarian – and my strong suspicion is that in five years’ time we will therefore have a much better handle on what liberal authoritarianism entails than we do at present.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Legal but harmful”————Harmful to who? This will almost always mean harmful to government policy. So eg. Harmful to multicultural dogma, Harmful to Net Zero Socialism, Harmful to gender ideology, Harmful to mass immigration clutter, Harmful to pandemic policy, Harmful to tick box diversity targets etc etc etc. ——If it isn’t “harmful” to any of that you should be fine to speak freely.
Substitute ‘hurty’ for ‘harmful’ and it makes more sense in their clown world.
They don’t like it up them!
It is a source of great sadness to me that the idea of liberalism is so badly misunderstood and has been so completely corrupted.
Liberalism is essentially the safeguarding of individual freedom by upholding and defending the principle of private property.
That’s basically it.
What this author and so many others now refer to as liberalism is a corruption of the idea or a departure so radical as to make it unrecognisable.
The idea of classical liberalism is essential to individual freedom in a complex, modern society. Perhaps it needs a name so that people can easily refer to it.
I agree. Can we find another name for the modern form of liberalism? Since “liberalism” now means the endless increase in state micro-management of society, can we change its name to marxo-fascism?
Fascism. It got rebranded as Liberalism post-war for obvious reasons, by statist authoritarians.
Wholly agree.
Dr McGrogan writes some interesting articles but this appears to be an attempt to fit the language to the Starmer narrative. Surrendering the language is the first stage in losing the argument.
Starmer has no links whatsoever to any notion of liberalism but seeking to justify his vocabulary is a crude inversion. Why can we not be honest and state that we reject Starmer’s purloining of liberalism for his own nefarious ends?
Starmer is currently an apprentice Technocrat Totalitarian. End of.
Yup, Davos is his favourite place in his own words.
You’re right. But the current widespread (mis)understanding of the term is so well established, especially on the far side of the pond, that we are stuck with it. Dr Mcgrogan’s explanation enabled me to understand this modern usage, which I could not previously reconcile with my observations.
I use the term libertarian, which combines classic liberalism with, I think, the moral ethics of ‘be good to everyone, take nothing from anyone, and be responsible for your own life/actions/health etc (delete as appropriate).
And private property comes into that somewhere.
Liberalism is – properly – a disinterest in what others are or do within law.
Liberalism is also about the laws, specifically having the minimum amount necessary to protect and enforce property rights and allow humans to organise themselves through free exchange.
Both Republican and Democrat parties regard themselves as Liberals which basically is related to their commitment to uphold the constitution. They don’t talk of classical liberalism but liberalism and it may be that this is the reason that that authors/journalists no longer distinguish correctly between liberalism and classical liberalism. The Americans tend to use Conservative to describe someone who believes in free speech, small goverment, the traditional family, self help etc.
Any social institution, whether concrete or abstract, which might constrain individual autonomy – family, church, community, employer, business, social norm, cultural taboo – must be broken down
This sounds familiar. 2Tier Starmer’s system of “liberalism” is identical in principle to the system of coordination which was at the heart of the great tyrannies of the 20th century: the regimes of Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao. Their coordination was a system for ‘synchronising’ society by reducing all spontaneously-arising institutions and social formations to subordinate agencies of the state. It permitted the replacement of spontaneously-arising social formations, and allowed the detailed imposition on society of a uniform state-party system of total control.
From this point of view it becomes clearer what 2Tier is aiming at: the anti-white total-control state, which is a necessary component of the Great Replacement.
Hear, hear.
Only a blatant authoritarian would put more emphasis on going after people for posting inane things online, wasting police resources and time on tracking and arresting people for exercising their right to free speech and expression, sending people to prison for merely being present as an onlooker at a riot, than looking at where the real and present dangers are and dealing with those accordingly. It seems like knife crime has just faded into the background, becoming part and parcel of ‘city living’ these days, the trend increasing but nobody giving a damn about prevention. It’s these dangerous scum that deserve to be taken off the streets and sent down, not somebody sharing memes or throwing eggs. What actual physical damage does that do to anyone?
Imagine if they put the police manpower that they use for going after people for posting things which *may* cause offense online, or all the police they regularly use when there’s protests in London, into ‘stop and search’, how many stabbings they might prevent. Of course, Khant bears a great deal of responsibility here too. The stats are worsening under their noses but they’d rather trawl and police Facebook. Aside from the young girl, all of these were ”no arrests have been made”;
”A grim weekend across London has seen 11 people stabbed including an 11-year-old girl as one of the victims.
This only includes incidents that Newsquest London is aware of and has reported on.
The incidents unfolded between August 10 and 12 in Forest Gate, Hither Green, Leicester Square, Newham and Barnet.
Information about each incident is from the Metropolitan Police.”
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24513836.young-girl-among-11-stabbed-london-weekend/
We can see the trend is on the up here. Presumably the dips in knife crime in years 2020-2022 were due to the impact of lockdowns, so less people running around outside with machetes. Who in their right mind would go to London, let alone live there, but don’t residents and tourists deserve better than this? It’s not being tackled, it’s being normalized;
”The number of knife or sharp instrument offences recorded by the police in London rose to approximately 15,016 in 2023/24, compared with 12,786 in the previous year. This was the highest number of knife crime offences reported in London since 2019/20, when there were 15,928 offences.”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/864736/knife-crime-in-london/
Mogs on the Ball as usual
it’s been said & I’ve wished for years to see a politician declare war on something, particularly knife crime in the manner that Labour just have on ordinary citizens for just being normal ! Starmer has gone full on “furious vengeance” as Samuel L Jackson’s character did before shooting the kid even though you thought he wouldn’t !! Well he did shoot him & Sir kneel would also have pulled the trigger !!
Pulp Fiction btw
Ta Freddo.
As described by Dr McGrogan, the liberal authoritarian state is a pantheism of force. The sole agency that moves everything in the world. This is how some theologies, both Christian and Islamic, have thought God to be.
God is certainly not dead. Instead of being incarnated in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the deity now has clothed itself with the body of the state.
The biggest opponent of the liberal authoritarian state would not be the ‘organised’ ‘far-Right’, those demonstrators who regard themselves as a class, or who are collectively opposed to immigration. It would be the looters.
The looters who raided a store selling soap had no purpose or objective external to the satisfaction of the Self. The Self having no reference to anything or anyone other than itself. The Self that acts without oversight by the state.
Shoplifting can be permissible within certain parameters set by the state. Small businesses in Middlesborough that are regularly pillaged are given crime numbers so that the owners can claim off the insurance but otherwise the police as representatives of the state are uninterested.
In the Unherd podcast, Ms Carlo doesn’t appear to be aware that her organisation’s desire to restrict surveillance, even to within what is lawful, makes the liberal authoritarian state a player in the game, not a referee.
Time for a Nietzsche quote:
Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful
“Human rights”
As the great US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his gay marriage case dissent, something like “liberty has long been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits”. Extend government benefits to “equal or desirable life outcomes” and it applies here.
Great quote!
Brother Clarence is full of them. The lefties despise him.
Another fine piece from David. He moves on from contrasting the PRINCE and the REPUBLIC form of government to tell us how current princes are attempting to rule. Unfortunately he fails to make the key distinction of ‘where do you draw the line’; of course governments are meant to intervene and adjudicate, and so dispense justice.
David describes our current princes as doing liberal authoritarianism because they must constantly justify their rule. As a result liberal mindedness and the golden rule is transformed into the adjudication of the liberation of the individual from any form of oppressor/ oppressed dynamic. Because of the nature of reality this is an eternal justification for their meddling, because the work can never be done – it is one of those endless wars from 1984. In essence this instinct is to try to equalise all diversity and in fact diversity is only accepted and respected as an opportunity to say that all such difference is the same…. Diversity is equality. Multiculturalism only respects culture in as far as its all in a museum, while a living culture requires common lived values.
David needs to more clearly think through the distinction of the line which brings us/government action back to liberal mindedness, the golden rule and freedom. Basic common equality (and key cultural values) enforced by government, with diversity and freedom supported by that common equality and a clear distinction between what are equality issues and what are diversity ones.
It also needs a fairly accurate name which create a non hysterical insult and which we all start using (unlike the current promiscuous use of far right); but ‘liberal authoritarianism’ has too many syllables and far left is boring.
I am having trouble thinking of one…..Interventionism?…….Regalism?
I have to say that for me personally the Covid “pandemic” was a massive eye-opener.
Until then I had some residual naive belief that perhaps the “human rights” legislation, with its plethora of lawyers, ready to pounce on every case to stop convicted criminals from being deported just because he had “established links with Britain” or whatever feeble excuse was indeed in some ways about human rights. OK, maybe there were some abuses of the system, but still…
But the illusion shattered as soon as I realized that during the Covid crises, where the most extreme totalitarian control was imposed on the population, not one of these “human rights” lawyers even questioned the legal validity of all this. Nothing. They were off the scene.
So I readily admit, my brothers and sisters, I was naive and blind. So from that point of view, the scamdemic was a great eye opener and a positive thing. The scales fell off my eyes.
Welcome aboard
Thanks Freddy
Again the so called human rights lawyers are silent not questioning the rapid trials following the recent troubles and whether the accused could get proper legal advice in the time, the level of sentences, or the trawling of the internet to try and find offences there.
Why not Major Major Major. Don’t stop at just 2.
Methinks Milo Minderbinder really is now in charge.
The State as referee where the referee has written all the rules and prescribed all the actions.
This is not individual autonomy but a pantheism of force.
And then conducts its own ‘enquiry’ in the faux democracy.
Today we live in a world where everything is opposite to what it claims to be, therefore freedom, human rights, liberalism = authoritarianism/fascism. What Starmer has chosen to ignore is for most of us more mature Brits who were born in post war Britain we still carry the FU gene!
Note to DS editors – I heartily approve of the choice of picture for Starmer. This should alternate with the kneeling picture as the photos of choice whenever the article is about Starmer.
The purpose of Parliament as it evolved was, not primarily to be a legislature, but to protect the citizenry from the State ensuring that no legislation which did not meet the letter or spirit of the Common law or which would confounded it, would be enacted by the King.
Parliament has morphed from being a shield for the People, into a weapon of the State to protect it from the citizenry.
Rights under Common Law are passive, and cannot be exercised at the expense of another’s. There is no obligation to guarantee these Rights, but a strict prohibition on denying them.
Today’s so-called Human Rights are positive Rights, and it is incumbent on Government to uphold them even at the expense of the Rights of others. Legislation that awards Rights to favoured groups, must by its nature deny Rights to other groups or the majority. The so-called Hate Speech Law, for example.
John Locke the radical liberal (in its classic sense) said (I precis) Government should not do anything to limit the citizen’s Right to Life, Liberty and enjoyment of his property. In fact he said Government should do everything it could to uphold those Rights.
Starmer and his cronies in the international nexus of intersecting and interdependent interests desiring World Government, are in my view more Benito Mussolini than Karl Marx: everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. Mussolini did develop his political ideology out of International Socialism.
We live in perilous times.
“. Human rights law long ago abandoned any residual loyalty it might have had to anything so laughably quaint as civil liberties”
Ain’t that the cold hard truth, just look at the Lockdowns & mandates. HR as your defence, don’t bother and make your way to Jail!
Saw an episode of Abandoned Engineering this morning, they had a section on the now many derelict palaces of Saddam Hussein. “Bush Junior went to finish the job that his farther didn’t finish”……They could’ve added under false pretences with the WMDs lie. Apart from the usual pandering to the Globalist narrative whether that be War, or climate, it is a good documentary series.
Nothing demonstrated the utter waste of time that so called Human Rights Lawyers and bodies were like Covid measures. In Australia our Human Rights Commission pursued a case against a cartoonist so some supposed slight. Then when the government locked people in their houses, restricted their movement, left the sick and elderly to die alone and introduced vaccine passports they couldn’t care less.
He’s not my Prime Minister. 20% of the electorate does not make him anybody’s Prime Minister.
Two-Tier seems to have gone into full-on Erich Honeker mode: suppression of speech; State monitoring of communications; a record on every citizen and a British Stasi to enforce conformity.
I doubt if they called it Human Rights in East Germany.
Excellent essay, but what is the solution? It certainly doesn’t match the present 2 tier situation, which cannot be the Starmer view either. It leaves the question “What is Starmer really trying to do”? unanswered. I think he is lost in cloud cuckoo land, possibly too much Kool-ade.
I can sum this up in one line “Socialists and Liberals are all completely and utterly insane”.
The stupidity of the man, and his party, is shown very starkly in the phrase “Legal but harmful”. Bacon and egg sandwich, coffee, milk, beer, loud music, cycling, driving, walking in snow – almost everything in life is legal but harmful. Where do these lunatics stop? Free speech is free speech and has to be open to anyone saying anything.
It seems that Human Rights as currently used, is increasingly against my Human Rights.
Liberalism is in fact now Illiberalism. I have a new acronym we could use for them, MWOTH – my way or the highway
I am reposting below a post I made to another DS article today.
This is because what we need to see is Starmer’s ‘full force of the law’ to be brought to bear against all of the muslim grooming gang child rapists.
Only a very small selected number were prosecuted. The details of their offences and trials were subjected to reporting restrictions so the British public never got to hear of the full horror of what was done to thousands of British white girls typically aged 12 and 13.
The scandal is much greater than anyone in public knows.
The disgusting Starmer needs to be put on the spot and challenged from the top of his head right down to his socks.
_______________________________________
Multiculturalism has been successful over centuries of immigration into Britain.
But it has failed now.
Why?
Watch and listen to this extraordinary interview – not only is it well worth it I hate long bloody podcasts but this one is compelling and I watched and listened to the very end:
Why the Establishment Hates This Man | Tommy Robinson | EP 462
The Dr. Jordan B. Peterson Podcast – 8.17M subscribers
3,405,943 views 8 Jul 2024
This is a truly remarkable – and shocking – how the British establishment has been covering up massive abuse of British children by grooming gangs.
Watch this and discover Tommy Robinson is not Far Right at all.
Part of the cover up was to label Robinson as a Right Wing extremist when judging from his account of his history and actions his purpose was to save young white girls as young as 12 and 13 from the drug dealing grooming gangs.
The problem is much much bigger than any of the legacy media have reported and they kept quiet about it for at least a decade and much more.
It tells the story from the beginning and his upbringing in Luton UK and why he became involved.
He has just been exposing what our political establishment and media have been covering up for two decades.
He deserves recognition and acclaim for his courage and tenacity to keep going against all the odds.
And it is not just drug dealing grooming gangs. Robinson identified and tied specific terrorist attacks and events to specific named people and how these attacks and events in and beyond the UK were planned in the UK and specifically in his home town of Luton, Bedfordshire, UK.
Luton had been identified by the CIA as an international terrorism centre.
What we need to see is Starmer’s ‘full force of the law’ to be brought to bear against all of the muslim grooming gang child rapists only a very small number of whom were prosecuted when Robinson instead was able to identify hundreds of them in towns across the UK.
And we need them all deported asap.
This is about protecting British communities from criminals and terrorists and nothing more.