Widespread anger at Keir Starmer’s government remains intense, with much of it fastened on the Prime Minister’s manner or short-term polling rather than measurable outcomes.
They don’t call him Keir Stalin or Starmabot for nothing. He loves the state apparatus, and he uses it with the full force of the law to get things done. But are those things what British people want? If you have to tell people constantly what is good for them, then almost certainly, it isn’t. The man is a monster.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with any of this. Where Starmer has been weakest is his roboticism, namely his ability to understand and react to public mood. In policy, he's been no different to any other regime apparatchik, and slightly better than his recent Tory comparators.
It is, in part, his tone-deaf public relations that draws so much ire, but it's also simply the part of the cycle of the Nuremberg Consensus regime that we're at now. Any government that takes office now and isn't revolutionary in its approach to the regime will draw the hate of the masses, with public relations being the only real moderating factor. Things are systemically so dire now, and public memory so short, that whoever is in office has to 'own' the past 80 years of immiseration and failure.
Indeed, even our preferred Restore would be likelier to be a Gorbachev figure to the current regime than any genuine rescuer. There's a good reason why the regime in its current state tamps down on any open acknowledgement of the issues it has caused: if the average white person is forced to look some of the worst horrors of the last 80 years in the eye, then what should one expect the reaction to be?
The problem is that as hard as I can try to see anything positive about Starmer, I just can't, I'm sorry. He is the prime executor of a system whose the underlying purpose seems to be not only the complete and utter eradication of British national identity, but everything that historically constituted British civilization, like for example lawful punishment of heinous crime. Starmer always gave me the impression as a perfect embodiment of a dystopian British science fiction trope of a faceless, mechanistic, institution bugman whose purpose in the plot was to impede or irritate the protagonists of the story - perfectly evinced in That Hideous Strength and 1984.
So this discussion boils down to whether Grishnakh is really better than Gorbag. Well Gorbag wants to eat the hobbits now whereas Grishnakh wants to roast them later
.
The grooming gang scandal has exposed the essentially insufferable nature of the British establishment, where all tiers of government and media were implicated in attempting to sweep he issue under the rug, silence and threaten the victims and shield the perpetrators from legal consequences, all in the name of preventing "racism". And of course Starmer was not left out of this process, but eagerly partook in it during his judiciary tenure.
Indeed. I take a certain rather disturbing view that it would be better for Starmer to remain in office than be replaced by another funko politician such as Angela Davis or Andy Burnham. At the very least Starmer fits the character role he's supposed to play in this political theatre. Watching an endless merry-go-round of different bobble-heads every year or so just isn't as amusing. Personally I hope that if Labour is set to win anyway, it would be better for Starmer to consolidate his term with for another while, not because there's anything good about it, but because he's a familiar face associated with everything Labour represents.
Kier is awful, but we shouldn't be treating that as if it's something particularly worth pointing out. All our leaders are awful. Should we not be taking this for granted by now?
Hate to flog a dead horse but the porn ban was ushered in for more digital ID/surveillance reasons and the immigration stat, while encouraging, is also flawed in that the British state counts people who have expired visas as having self deported but admits doesn’t actually know. So shoddy at best.
If Burnham replaces Starmer in the next month or two, he will have almost no room for manoeuver on economic policy between his backbenchers on one side and the bond markets on the other. Starmers main problem is optics, at which Blair was so good and he is so bad and it will probably be fatal.
In terms of Makerfield, the result suggests too many people in suburban Britain are still comfortable and are not ready for the radical, even brutal change than Restore seem to offer.
I honestly don't think that there will be much difference between Burnham and Starmer in reality. I don't think that Burnham will increase immigration, it's true much of a political and economic headache now for any government. Burnham will probably try to spend more on infrastructure and the treasury will just slap him down. He may try to reform the tax system which can't be a bad thing at this point.
Well written article especially the point about exporting slop as a form of transatlantic cope. An effective centrist party could easily collapse the right. The issues are staring everybody of all camps in the face now.
Don't forget Starmer also sanitised the Labour party which I don't think he gets enough credit for.
Immigration is the problem. Not NET migration. We are still importing about a million / year including the illegals. Who do you think the people are who are leaving, to make the net figure look better?
Also, adults are being coerced into digitally identifying themselves. And what they look at
Thank you all for sharing that too Neema. Please also share the updated information from Tatjana Romig, Dr. Neumann, Oliver Larkin, Uaifo Ojo, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Manuel Garcia, Нація підприємців, Dr. Hare, Audrey Hatfield, Professor Tony Martin, Eugene Earnshaw and others.
Any thoughts on why the Dark Lord Tony Blair has not gotten rid of Mad Ed Miliband? AA expressed deep concern a while back about the economic damage that net zero zealotry is causing. Starmer seems to take his cue from Miliband and would probably fall in line with a more reasonable position on climate change
Points well made but overall from a distance the Brits seem more submissive than the Yanks.
America still has somewhat of a fighting spirit even though as you pointed out that does not seem to translate to tangible outcomes the Right is so focused on.
All those guns and absolutely nothing done such that the white population is now at sub-60%, such that there was a near open coup (Biden) and basically nothing was done, such that there was an open hi-jacking of the Trump agenda and still absolutely nothing was done. I do not understand where this "fighting spirit" assessment comes from. The disorganised mass in the USA has been as asleep as every other disorganised mass across the west since 1945. Your assessment massively flatters the Americans for no obvious reason. Let us not forget that compared to the US, the UK is in about 1970 in demographic terms.
As I said, no tangible outcomes have been achieved; and like you said it is a disorganized mass, but in my opinion it does have something different, it is more resistant.
I've seen working class men in the US use language you would never hear in Canada. Here is the thing, I don't think it counts for much, like you said in your article if you want change then your time is much better spent contemplating the nature of the system and build new institutions to replace it.
Still, spend some time with blue collar working men in the US and then tell me they are not a different breed. And I say this as someone born in Europe and then living in Canada.
You also omitted all talk of online censorship happening in the UK which would seem to support my point.
As an individual, Starmer isn’t likeable, but the antagonism reflects his policy missteps: Winter fuel allowance, Chagos Islands, Net Zero zealotry, Northern Ireland veterans, devotion to foreign policy issues etc.
Still, the biggest issue is economic mismanagement. His tax policies are driving up costs for U.K. business to fund his welfare programs, driving down employment growth, while driving up welfare dependence and driving out wealthy people from the country. The icing on the cake is a closer alignment with Europe!
If you’re suggesting that Burnham will be worse, you’re probably right, but the public have a tendency to focus on what they don’t like, rather than is there a better alternative!
I feel like you've already said all of this 6 different ways.
Still not convinced we should just bow down to total regime digital control just bc Elon would otherwise benefit from the narrative.
They don’t call him Keir Stalin or Starmabot for nothing. He loves the state apparatus, and he uses it with the full force of the law to get things done. But are those things what British people want? If you have to tell people constantly what is good for them, then almost certainly, it isn’t. The man is a monster.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with any of this. Where Starmer has been weakest is his roboticism, namely his ability to understand and react to public mood. In policy, he's been no different to any other regime apparatchik, and slightly better than his recent Tory comparators.
It is, in part, his tone-deaf public relations that draws so much ire, but it's also simply the part of the cycle of the Nuremberg Consensus regime that we're at now. Any government that takes office now and isn't revolutionary in its approach to the regime will draw the hate of the masses, with public relations being the only real moderating factor. Things are systemically so dire now, and public memory so short, that whoever is in office has to 'own' the past 80 years of immiseration and failure.
Indeed, even our preferred Restore would be likelier to be a Gorbachev figure to the current regime than any genuine rescuer. There's a good reason why the regime in its current state tamps down on any open acknowledgement of the issues it has caused: if the average white person is forced to look some of the worst horrors of the last 80 years in the eye, then what should one expect the reaction to be?
The problem is that as hard as I can try to see anything positive about Starmer, I just can't, I'm sorry. He is the prime executor of a system whose the underlying purpose seems to be not only the complete and utter eradication of British national identity, but everything that historically constituted British civilization, like for example lawful punishment of heinous crime. Starmer always gave me the impression as a perfect embodiment of a dystopian British science fiction trope of a faceless, mechanistic, institution bugman whose purpose in the plot was to impede or irritate the protagonists of the story - perfectly evinced in That Hideous Strength and 1984.
So this discussion boils down to whether Grishnakh is really better than Gorbag. Well Gorbag wants to eat the hobbits now whereas Grishnakh wants to roast them later
.
The grooming gang scandal has exposed the essentially insufferable nature of the British establishment, where all tiers of government and media were implicated in attempting to sweep he issue under the rug, silence and threaten the victims and shield the perpetrators from legal consequences, all in the name of preventing "racism". And of course Starmer was not left out of this process, but eagerly partook in it during his judiciary tenure.
If he disappeared tomorrow it would make not one jot of difference
Indeed. I take a certain rather disturbing view that it would be better for Starmer to remain in office than be replaced by another funko politician such as Angela Davis or Andy Burnham. At the very least Starmer fits the character role he's supposed to play in this political theatre. Watching an endless merry-go-round of different bobble-heads every year or so just isn't as amusing. Personally I hope that if Labour is set to win anyway, it would be better for Starmer to consolidate his term with for another while, not because there's anything good about it, but because he's a familiar face associated with everything Labour represents.
Kier is awful, but we shouldn't be treating that as if it's something particularly worth pointing out. All our leaders are awful. Should we not be taking this for granted by now?
Hate to flog a dead horse but the porn ban was ushered in for more digital ID/surveillance reasons and the immigration stat, while encouraging, is also flawed in that the British state counts people who have expired visas as having self deported but admits doesn’t actually know. So shoddy at best.
Who cares about this nobody? What kind of name is 'Keir' anyway? Shove him in a locker and forget about him.
If Burnham replaces Starmer in the next month or two, he will have almost no room for manoeuver on economic policy between his backbenchers on one side and the bond markets on the other. Starmers main problem is optics, at which Blair was so good and he is so bad and it will probably be fatal.
In terms of Makerfield, the result suggests too many people in suburban Britain are still comfortable and are not ready for the radical, even brutal change than Restore seem to offer.
I honestly don't think that there will be much difference between Burnham and Starmer in reality. I don't think that Burnham will increase immigration, it's true much of a political and economic headache now for any government. Burnham will probably try to spend more on infrastructure and the treasury will just slap him down. He may try to reform the tax system which can't be a bad thing at this point.
Well written article especially the point about exporting slop as a form of transatlantic cope. An effective centrist party could easily collapse the right. The issues are staring everybody of all camps in the face now.
Don't forget Starmer also sanitised the Labour party which I don't think he gets enough credit for.
Immigration is the problem. Not NET migration. We are still importing about a million / year including the illegals. Who do you think the people are who are leaving, to make the net figure look better?
Also, adults are being coerced into digitally identifying themselves. And what they look at
Thank you all for sharing that too Neema. Please also share the updated information from Tatjana Romig, Dr. Neumann, Oliver Larkin, Uaifo Ojo, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Manuel Garcia, Нація підприємців, Dr. Hare, Audrey Hatfield, Professor Tony Martin, Eugene Earnshaw and others.
🐈 https://old.bitchute.com/video/jsHTV8JdIlAt
🦋 alt https://abbriv.co/jwmj
🦈
🦖 https://odysee.com/@tidbitsfortruth:2?view=content
💫 alt https://abrv.in/cTnY
🦃
🌈 https://old.bitchute.com/channel/NBu3vOs8kXFY/
🦌 alt https://abrv.in/jyme
🍂
🦎 It's all a science thing.
🐪
🐘 Thank you.
🪐 https://michaelatkinson.substack.com/
🌌 alt https://abrv.in/fMnT
🌍 👀
Any thoughts on why the Dark Lord Tony Blair has not gotten rid of Mad Ed Miliband? AA expressed deep concern a while back about the economic damage that net zero zealotry is causing. Starmer seems to take his cue from Miliband and would probably fall in line with a more reasonable position on climate change
Miliband is leveraging popularity on the left against Starmer and Blair seems to have largely given up on Labour as per his last intervention
Points well made but overall from a distance the Brits seem more submissive than the Yanks.
America still has somewhat of a fighting spirit even though as you pointed out that does not seem to translate to tangible outcomes the Right is so focused on.
All those guns and absolutely nothing done such that the white population is now at sub-60%, such that there was a near open coup (Biden) and basically nothing was done, such that there was an open hi-jacking of the Trump agenda and still absolutely nothing was done. I do not understand where this "fighting spirit" assessment comes from. The disorganised mass in the USA has been as asleep as every other disorganised mass across the west since 1945. Your assessment massively flatters the Americans for no obvious reason. Let us not forget that compared to the US, the UK is in about 1970 in demographic terms.
As I said, no tangible outcomes have been achieved; and like you said it is a disorganized mass, but in my opinion it does have something different, it is more resistant.
I've seen working class men in the US use language you would never hear in Canada. Here is the thing, I don't think it counts for much, like you said in your article if you want change then your time is much better spent contemplating the nature of the system and build new institutions to replace it.
Still, spend some time with blue collar working men in the US and then tell me they are not a different breed. And I say this as someone born in Europe and then living in Canada.
You also omitted all talk of online censorship happening in the UK which would seem to support my point.
As an individual, Starmer isn’t likeable, but the antagonism reflects his policy missteps: Winter fuel allowance, Chagos Islands, Net Zero zealotry, Northern Ireland veterans, devotion to foreign policy issues etc.
Still, the biggest issue is economic mismanagement. His tax policies are driving up costs for U.K. business to fund his welfare programs, driving down employment growth, while driving up welfare dependence and driving out wealthy people from the country. The icing on the cake is a closer alignment with Europe!
If you’re suggesting that Burnham will be worse, you’re probably right, but the public have a tendency to focus on what they don’t like, rather than is there a better alternative!
This is the same Saville defender and Benefits for migrants gulag comrade we are talking about!!!