patrick.net

The Left Turns Right

What are we to make of the Anglosphere political leadership’s abrupt narrative reversal towards immigration restrictionism and rhetorical nativism? ...

So has Dark Starmer had a change of heart? Did he see the black light of the sonnenrad after being getting radicalized by frog memes in a parliamentary group chat? Is he, dare I say it fam, /ourguy/?

No, he obviously is not. Before entering politics Starmer worked as a barrister, with extensive involvement in immigration and asylum cases. He literally wrote the book on how to leverage European human rights law in order to prevent the deportation of asylum seekers and ensure that they received the full menu of government benefits. His career is inseparably intertwined with the emotional manipulation of white empathy and the leveraging of European human rights law in order to facilitate the replacement of European peoples with illiterate chancers from the third world. When the natives got restless after one of the Yookaydians butchered a room full of little British girls, a Yookaydian who Starmer’s ilk had helped shield from consequences for previous danger signs no less, Starmer’s first instinct as the man wielding the whip hand of the state was to turn it on the natives. It is extremely difficult to believe that this man has turned over a new leaf.

Carney strikes me as an equally unlikely nationalist. The man has spent most of his career as a central banker. He is a Davos man through and through, a self-described globalist and elitist. It is extremely unlikely that he has any genuine, deep feeling for the Canadian nations.

So what is happening, here?

One theory is that the Trans-Atlantic Anglo elite has quietly concluded that mass immigration has not, in fact, yielded the economic benefits that they had hoped it would bring, and furthermore that the immense social friction that it has engendered is not worth the hassle of staying the course. They just watched a populist insurgency claim the throne of the imperial capital, succeeding despite everything the elite threw at the upstarts – legal warfare, media warfare, election rigging, it all failed. For now, the left-liberal globalist establishment holds onto power in Canada and Britain, but Carney’s victory in the recent Canadian election risks Alberta quitting confederation in disgust, while in Great Britain the populist, anti-immmigration Reform party – which has only four seats in parliament – swept the recent local council elections, annihilating the Conservative Party (whom they took 8 councils from), and even infringing on Labour territory (who lost 2 councils to Reform).

Meanwhile, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been quietly sounding the alarm about the growing disillusion of Canada’s youth with the established order, and the resultant potential for radicalization and possibly even violent revolt. In the UK, war studies professor David Betz has been making the rounds with his warnings that Britain – and Western countries more generally, but especially Britain – has ticked so many of the boxes for ‘imminent civil war’ with such gormless enthusiasm that elites ought to be responding to the giant blinking red alarm sirens.

So, it might be that the political elites of the Anglosphere have determined that continued mass immigration is a clear and present threat to their power: it is alienating their citizens, who increasingly regard their elites as a hostile foreign tribe at best and as the foulest species of rank traitor at worst; it is not yielding the promised economic growth, but to the contrary is placing an unsustainable strain on social welfare systems which, should they break, will put the already restive natives in an even worse mood; it is motivating the rise of a homegrown rival elite in the form of populist political leaders; and it is leading to the rise of an imported rival elite, primarily in the form of relatively unprincipled subcontinentals whose clannishness and cunning makes them more formidable competitors for the top layers of the compost pile than had been originally suspected. Since our political elites don’t really have any principle other than hanging onto power at any cost, they’ve stuck their fingers in the wind and decided to tack in a new direction. ...

Another possibility – and I think this is actually more likely – is that the Anglo-American elite have simply realized that the old message, that if you oppose immigration you’re an awful racist, isn’t working anymore. White people have stopped responding to that. So instead, out of pure political necessity, they’re presenting themselves as immigration hardliners, hoping that the rubes are so easily fooled by cheap verbiage that they won’t notice what’s actually happening.

The American uniparty did the same thing for years, by the way: endless promises to control the border, which somehow never translated to action. Well, that’s not quite true: immigrating to the US legally is an extremely difficult process. The uniparty strategy was essentially to make legal immigration as painful and Byzantine as possible, in order to distract attention from the porous border and the rampant abuse of the H1-B system. The result was that people continued pouring into the country, while the average American was reassured that the government wasn’t just letting people pour into the country. It worked really well until Trump kicked over the game board, and actually did something about border control. Now that America’s southern border is locked down and deportations are proceeding (albeit in the face of intense resistance from activist judges), the political conversation is moving on to the question of legal immigration. ...

Oh, you are saying that immigration is too high? Well let us debate how low it should be, now that you have admitted there are no economic benefits. And what of those people who were let in - who were given residency and citizenship - while you insisted that immigration was good for us? Something which you now tacitly admit was a betrayal? What precisely is your argument for letting them stay?




By adopting the rhetoric of nativism and nationalism, they’ve implicitly accepted the moral frame that the ‘far right’ has been advocating for years ... a frame that they’ve spent their careers doing everything in their power to malign and suppress. Now they are trying to pass themselves off as the very monsters they fought against. We’ve successfully jerked the Overton window well to the right of where it was only a few short years ago, and they’re having to fight on our turf now. So press that home field advantage.

New mayor of English city stuns crowd by revealing she doesn't speak English at inauguration
May 22, 202523

DThe recent appointment of Rukhsana Ismail as mayor of Rotherham, England, has sparked public outrage after it was revealed that she does not speak English – a basic skill that most people would consider essential for someone to be mayor of an English city.
Despite her inability to understand the national language, Pakistani-born Ismail stated through her interpreter that she will represent all voters, not just the Pakistani community, writes Baxter Dmitry .

Her appointment is also controversial because she did not receive a single vote from voters. Instead, she was appointed by a local council vote rather than a general election, highlighting systemic problems with representation, inclusion and transparency in British politics.

Who am I?
My name is Montgomery Toms. At just fourteen, I saw lockdowns for what they were: one of the most outrageous and brutal attacks on young people in modern history. Since then, I have relentlessly fought against global authoritarianism, centralisation, Agenda 2030, and undemocratic government overreach through grassroots campaigns and a tireless mission to awaken young people to what is really happening in the UK - the erosion of freedom, democracy, and common sense.

Principles
Freedom First – Defend free speech, bodily autonomy, and the movement against authoritarian overreach and digital surveillance.
Power to the People – Decentralise decision-making, restore real democracy, and hold governments and unelected institutions accountable.
Protect Our Future – Reform education, strengthen families, and create a society that empowers the next generation.
Truth Over Tyranny – Expose corruption, challenge media manipulation, and reject fear-based control.
Defend British Values – Uphold national sovereignty, preserve cultural identity, and resist ideological indoctrination.

In a move that reads more like Orwell than Westminster, the British government has officially labeled nearly half of its own population as extremists.

However, the aggressive label was not for plotting violence, but for holding the audacious belief that Western civilization is worth preserving.

The UK’s Prevent anti-terrorism program now classifies “cultural nationalism,” the idea that mass migration and lack of cultural integration are threatening British identity, as a gateway to terrorism.

Perhaps is a girl can pose topless on Page 3 at 16 she is qualified to vote.

https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1949231889539379352

[Nick Timothy MP] I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about freedom of expression in relation to religion or belief systems; and for connected purposes.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that Mohammed was a Prophet sent by God. I do not accept the instructions he said he received from the Archangel Gabriel. I do not accept that the Sunna, or body of Islamic laws, has any relevance to me.

I respect the religious beliefs of others, but I do not mind if Mohammed is satirised, criticised or mocked. I am not a Muslim, and I choose not to live by the moral codes set out by Islam. I am a Christian, and I should make it clear that I don’t think anybody should be prosecuted for satirising, criticising or mocking Jesus either.

England and Wales abolished blasphemy laws in 2008, and Scotland abolished them in 2021. But even then, those laws had not been used for decades. The last blasphemy trial took place in 1977, and the state has not brought a public prosecution for blasphemy in more than a century. But now, blasphemy laws are back.

I have been advised not to refer to two high-profile cases of people being arrested, charged and prosecuted for causing harassment, alarm or distress to Muslims or even, nonsensically, to Islam itself. So while I will keep my speech to the conceptual, I invite the House to recall that there are real examples of what I raise in the criminal justice system right now.

The issue is the way that sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are being used — far beyond the intent of Parliament — to police what we can and cannot say about Islam. I will come to the details of sections 4 and 5, but first I want to say something about the intent of the Public Order Act.

The long title of the Act makes clear that its purpose was to abolish some common law and statutory offences to make way for new offences relating to public order. Nowhere in the Second Reading debate from 1986 did anybody raise the need to protect religions or followers of religions from offence. The context of the Act was football hooliganism and the riots in Brixton and Broadwater Farm.

It’s true that part III of the Act created new offences relating to racial hatred; and this was amended to include religious hatred by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. But in part III, in section 29J, to which we will return, the Public Order Act says:

“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents.”

We can therefore be confident that the Public Order Act, even as amended, was never intended to become a blasphemy law. This obvious conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the controversies regarding blasphemy and Islam in this country began two years after its introduction, in 1988, with the publication of The Satanic Verses.

Since that year, and the protests and fatwa against Sir Salman Rushdie, our public conversation about Islam has been limited through a mixture of self-censorship and more official restrictions, such as the definition of Islamophobia accepted by many public bodies. These restrictions are motivated not by a desire to avoid offence — consider the criticism and mockery made of other religions — but fear of a violent response by those who are offended.

Some say public order offences are not the same as a blasphemy law, and that it can be legitimate to prosecute somebody for saying something that might cause wider disorder. Perhaps in some circumstances this may be so, but we should interrogate this line of thinking.

First, the Crown Prosecution Service gave the game away by charging one man with causing “distress” to the “religious institution of Islam”, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of blasphemy.

Second, twisting the law to make a protestor responsible for the violent reaction of those who will not tolerate the opinions of others is wrong; it destroys our freedom of speech. Some argue that while this may be regrettable, it’s now an unavoidable consequence of the multicultural society in which we live today.

By this logic, the state must police the boundaries between different ethnic and religious groups to avoid disorder. But we should be clear that that means state intrusion and a loss of liberty on some occasions, and mob rule on others. This is the very essence of the two-tier policing row we have seen recently: rough justice for those belonging to identity groups that play by the rules, and freedom from justice for those belonging to groups willing to take to the streets and threaten violence.

This is the logic of using the Public Order Act to prohibit us from saying what we like about a religion. A person may be found guilty because of the violent reaction of those offended by their actions. From Sir Salman Rushdie to the Batley teacher still in hiding with his family, the threat of violence is what lies behind these new blasphemy laws.

Perhaps we should not be surprised. There are at least 14 Muslim-majority countries where the penalty for blasphemy or apostasy is death, and we have significant diaspora populations from many of them. With the number of people… here who came from those countries growing, and the increasing assertiveness of organised political Islam in Britain, this is a problem that seems likely to only get more severe. But the answer is not to surrender to the mob; it is to hold the line, and that is why today I bring forward this Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I said earlier that section 29J of the Public Order Act protects “criticism”, “insult” and even “abuse” of “religions and the beliefs or practices of their adherents”. But this only applies to part III of the legislation, because part III introduced offences relating to racial hatred, later amended to include religious hatred. Nobody thought sections 4 and 5, which in part I of the Act make it an offence to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” by using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” would be used to criminalise the expression of opinions about religious belief.

This Bill therefore extends the scope of [section] 29J to the whole Public Order Act, thus preventing the use of sections 4 and 5 as a de facto blasphemy law, and applies section 29 also to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

In doing so, this Bill would restore free speech as it applies to religion in England and Wales. It would stop the police, prosecutors and judges from creating a blasphemy law from legislation that was never passed for that purpose. It would send the strongest powerful message from this place, where political power legitimately and democratically resides, that this country will not tolerate intimidation, violence or censorship, that there will be no special treatment here for Islam, and that there will be no surrender to the thugs who want to impose their beliefs and culture on the rest of us.