In case you didn’t think it could get any worse…
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
The police were in on itJuly 2nd, 2025 |
 19 comments to The police were in on itLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
If the CPS was to show one tenth of the enthusiasm for holding police officers accountable for their actions as it does for armed forces veterans from Northern Ireland then I for one would be astonished. Those floodgates are not going to be opened – any more that Pascal Robinson-Foster is going to get banged up for his hate speech which was viewed and heard by half a million people courtesy of Tim Davie.
Comments by law enforcement within the last year such as “We’re definitely not going to arrest any of you so why don’t you just park your weapons in the Mosque” give zero cause for optimism that anything has chsnged.
I am increasingly convinced that the left is nothing more than an inversion of the right. If the right is concerned about immigration, then there must be more of it. If the right is opposed to surgical mutilation of children, then it should continue. If the right is against men in frocks, let’s have them in schools. If the right is outraged by child rapists then cover it up and turn a bling eye. I’m not seeing any consistent ideology here, merely a galvanic response to those on the right.
It’s not just the left though.
The conservative party voted in lockstep to oppose Rachel’s admittedly too little too late welfare bill. Two cheeks of the same arse. The interests of the country take a poor second place to those of the party.
@Roue le Jour
That’s a very interesting point which like most things is largely true to a certain extent.
However there is a key driver to the Left that everyone needs to understand.
They are still revolutionaries, they are now just wearing suits and the modern language of management and supposed kindness that sounds anything but if you cross them.
As revolutionaries it is incumbent on them to try to destroy society as it exists right now. There fore they will automatically choose a policy that is designed to do so but will disguise it so it looks like something else.
Trans rights? It’s all about denying the reality that you see in front of you that you know to be true. This is a key prop to any authoritarian regime where clear failures or moral repugnancy of the actions of the regime can be spun into the opposite.
Islamophobia. The same thing. A belief system that in every place it is in power rules with amazing brutality, whereby non believers do not exist any more, women and gay people (among many others) are persecuted and subjected to violence and control. Except this belief system is peaceful, and to question it is both racist and illegal. Deny reality.
Immigration. The Left do not want national borders. They are now in charge of dismantling them via immigration.
Sex changes in children/trans rights: there is no reality. There is no right or wrong. Also, Chinese revolutionaries sought to inject wedge issues into the populace in order to foster disagreement and resentment between older age groups who were tethered in reality and the younger and more pliable minds if teens/kids.
And so on and so on. There is method to the madness. Thinking it is just because the Tories/anyone else are against it lacks the understanding of what the Left are really trying to achieve.
Of course they were. I’ve suspected that from the beginning. Nothing is going to change under the current “democracy”
Tim,
Thanks for your comment. I wouldn’t disagree with anything you have said. My point was, to what extent are these people actually “left”, in the sense of “seize the means of production” etc? To what extent do they resemble North Korea, Cuba, the USSR? It doesn’t look to me like they are trying to create a socialist utopia, it looks to me like they are simply trying to destroy western civilization, and of course succeeding.
They are indeed against western civilisation Not only against civilisation Socialism is the desire to destroy civilisation It is a desire for death Read Socialism by Igor Chafaveritch A very clever russian mathematician going mad
@Roue de Jour
It depends on who you’re talking about. Those who are active in political circles-the Starmers/Rayners etc know exactly what they want in terms of seizing production etc (or gaining total power of which seizing the means of production is a key part).
It’s very interesting that Starmer went to the Czech dictatorship as a politically active teen to ‘help build a war memorial.’ If Farage, as an active political teen had gone to an ethno fascist state with other politically active teens to do the same thing, with no records of what transpired then I’m sure people might make some connections. He then took key roles in the judiciary, became head of the CPS, was part of the sentencing council and has played a key role in destabilising society. All whilst claiming to be politically neutral!
Let alone what Blair and his cohorts started, bypassing national laws and sovereignty using the ECHR and other EU/global mechanisms. Starting the Supreme Court that can rule over the elected HofC. Cramming the judiciary with like minded zealots.
These people know what they’re doing all right.
Then there’s people like Naz Shah/Lammy/Rayner etc who have an intrinsic of the West/white European culture and all that it entails. And they want to tear it apart. Are they to the Left? Kind of. But probably not like the key tactical players.
I have to say that on reflection it’s true to say that many may just want to tear society down and that the Left simply shares the same desire and so they are allied in all policy. The Islamic partnership with the Left certainly seems to point towards this.
Of course if you’re tearing society down then you have to replace it with something. Even those who don’t think about it too deeply will still be envisaging something that looks to us like a classic Left wing totalitarian state.
Islamists of course want to set up a totalitarian state of their own.
I would also warn against falling into the classic trap of the Left which is what I call academic pedantic semantics. It is how they argue everything. The Nazis were not left wing because they differed on some pedantic/semantic points so hey they must be right wing. Despite fascism being started by the Head of the Italian socialists etcetc.
And in this case, the pedantic semantic thing is-are they aware? Do they know? Do they understand? To what level do they understand? Are they really on the Left?
My answer would be-does it matter that much? If they tell you that they are then why think too much about it?
Left, right, or plod – they are all bureaucrats. And bureaucrats would rather prosecute a dozen soft targets like teenage girls than hard targets like armed Muslims, all of whose friends are prone to violent riot. And instead of prosecuting a dozen teenage girls, bureaucrats would prefer to do absolutely nothing useful.
If they can’t escape doing something, there’s a good chance they’ll prosecute the victim instead of the perpetrator. Soft target versus hard.
I heard all this, including the police involvement, years ago – from Mark Steyn (and others) on GB News.
Yes (YES) the news is what is important – not this young man Mr Peters taking the credit for the work of other people, but it is still irritating.
Still, again, not as irritating as police forces, and just about every other institution, being in collusion with the Islamic (or “Islamist”) rape gangs.
Ronald Reagan said you can achieve a lot – if you do not mind other people taking the credit for it.
If the world wants to give Mr Peters the credit – fair enough, if that is what it takes to clear-out the corrupt (“institutionally” corrupt) state.
Give him a Dukedom – and any other honour. What is important is clearing out this corrupt state – a state that has become the foe of the British people.
Tim,
We are in agreement. The left, as we experience it, is a coalition of groups with a grudge against the status quo, not a consistent ideology.
Paul,
Unless an inquiry starts by asking who at the home office said what to senior police officers and social workers, they are wasting everyone’s time. I think the whole lot of them should be dragged off to the Hague to account for themselves, not that there is the remotest chance of that happening.
Roue le Jour.
Sadly so about criminally negligent officials – including in police forces.
And even if they were dragged off to the Hague – they would face judges who shared their “Diversity” “Inclusion” “Equality” (or “Equity”) world view – and so the horror would continue.
Is the left consistent?
In a way they are clearly not consistent – for example the “Red/Green” efforts to combine Islam with “Woke” (Critical Theory) Marxism, are illogical – one can not, for example, combine “kill the one who does it, and kill the one to whom it is done” with “Gay Rights” – the positions are incompatible, ditto feminism and so on. A view that sees women as man-hating “we do not need no-man” types, is not compatible with a view that sees women as the property first of their fathers and then husbands – and their role being to give birth to future warriors for expansion.
However, if one assumes the objective of the left is to destroy Western Civilization, rather than build something new of their own, then (as you say) everything they do makes sense.
By the way ….. they DO want to take the “means of production” – for example the Democrat candidate for Mayor of New York City has been recording saying this (“seize the means of production”).
But I think they now know that this would NOT lead to a better society – indeed that everything would fall apart.
But if, as we both think it is, the goal of the enemy is not power (power being just the means to an end), but rather DESTRUCTION, then (again) everything they do makes sense.
“Why did Mao push Collectivism – did he know not know how much of a disaster this had been when Wang Mang did it thousands of years before?”
I suspect that Mao, who had a Classical Chinese (as well as a Western) education, knew this very well.
Perhaps the error people make is to assume that Mao did not want tens of millions of people to die horribly – perhaps this was precisely his objective. In which case, from his perspective, his policies were not a “failure” – they were a great success.
And Mao is not an isolated example – “they are Legion”.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/notes/division/4/1/18/2?view=plain
I think if you read the original or reformed police attestation, there is an obvious failure to execute duties. What penalty is there for such failure?
Stuart Noyes – Mr Ed could tell you more about the penalties for Misconduct in a Public Office than I can.
However, I can tell you that first we would have to have prosecution system, and judges, that were not dominated by leftist doctrine – and they are (in the United Kingdom) dominated by leftist doctrine.
For example, put up a “racist” sticker (even something that says “small hats, big problems” – directed at people of my ancestry, but certainly not an “incitement to violence”) and you get TWO YEARS IN PRISON – but put up big Revolutionary Communist Party posters, with the mass murderer “Lenin” face upon it – and you do not get ONE DAY in prison.
As I have said on another thread – this country is buggered. To save it you would have to have the power to clear out the entire establishment from top-to-bottom.
And I do not believe that such a total clear out is likely.
By the way – look how Mr Peters has quietly, and with great cleverness, changed the story as reported by Mark Steyn and others some years ago.
The story used to be about the doctrines of Islam and the appeasement policy of the British state and establishment – but that is now NOT the story, Mr Peters has cleverly dropped all direct attack upon Islam.
That may well be why he has got the awards – and the people who originally reported the rape gangs, and the police being “in on it”, did not get awards – indeed were condemned.
I do NOT blame Mr Peters for this – he is merely responding to the country he lives in.
If a man wishes to prosper, rather than live in poverty and disgrace, he does what Mr Peters has done.
At this point the only judicial institution that could have any credibility to investigate this situation would be to ask the FBI under Kash Patel to investigate.
Paul,
The state institutions and apparatus of any country will become corrupt if the people have little or no power to hold it to account.
Given your belief and I agree with you, the British people don’t have the power to maintain their states health and subservience. Personally, I believe several aspects of history have brought us here. Not sure when it happened but we got a monarchy that believes it has the divine right to rule. That was curtailed by the next layer down but more numerous. Power was taken by parliament. Parliament now believes it has a divine right to govern.
I disagree with Owen Jones on virtually everything but one small piece of his work I agree with. He said the establishment exists to protect the interests of wealth and power when every adult has a right to vote.
Having a single vote every five years isn’t enough to keep our state in line. Having no guard rails to restrict what our elite can do to us as was posted here a while back means they can do what they want.
Have a read of the Harrogate Agenda maybe?
But Parliament doesn’t rule, Blair made sure of that.
By govern, i suppose you can replace with “do what it likes”. It always retains the power to recover delegated competences, but that doesn’t help the electorate when powers have been handed over through treaties or acts of parliament that reversing is something they don’t want to do. When there is consensus between the mainstream parties.
I agree with Northern Variant. Restoring back to pre Blair is pointless. What Blair did was atrocious but he shouldn’t have had the power to do any of it. Same goes for Heath and Major.
We need to limit the power of parliament and government in the realms of constitutional change. We need a codified constitution. We need a bill of political rights. Said constitution needs protection from governments changing it.
Stuart Noyes – I missed your comments, I apologize for that.
No I have not read the “Harrogate Agenda”.
I agree with you, and Perry, that the establishment is rotten.
Dr David Starkey said we should appeal to Parliament – the last institution that was not “Woke”.
But then came the July 2024 election – and the election of the most “Woke” House of Commons in the history of this nation.
Abortion up to birth (and, unofficially, after birth as well), “assisted dying” for the old and sick, censorship and persecution of dissent, ever higher taxes, ever more regulations, ever more government spending, and the end of Britain – especially England.
This is what the new House of Commons wants – it is no longer the case of an evil leftist establishment and a House of Commons failing to do much about it.
Now the House of Commons is part of that evil leftist establishment.