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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – What we really saw at the Portsmouth migrant boat protest What we witnessed in Portsmouth was a public explosion of the deepest fissure in British society right now. On one side stands a state that has abdicated its prime responsibility, which is to defend Britain’s territory and Britain’s people from external forces. And on the other stand everyday citizens enraged by this managed suicide of British statehood, by the sacrifice of our sovereignty at the altar of a phoney globalist virtue that says borders are bigotry and migration is splendid.
A Home Office whistleblower has said what many of us have suspected for some time: that the vast majority of “asylum seeker” claims are false. In fact, he says, only around one per cent are genuine. For the state to keep foisting strong, fit, aggy men onto communities that don’t want them, while barking “They’re asylum seekers, you racists”, is wicked and preposterous. If the state wants to put a stop to the kind of vigilantism we saw in Portsmouth, then it just needs to do one simple thing: its job.
– Brendan O’Neill
|
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.
|
I think Reform should have, as part of its policy, that should they get into power they will pass legislation deporting everyone who has arrived in the last five years, and back it up with the money and people to do the job. Make this widely known as a disincentive to coming. Then add another law that says if you are not a British citizen and hold a foreign passport, if you commit any crime at all, after serving your punishment you are immediately deported and permanently excluded.
As to asylum seekers, perhaps there are some valid claims, so they can wait out their asylum claim on a remote uninhabited, Scottish Island, St. Kilda perhaps, until their claim can be adjudicated. Of course we will provide them with tents and enough food to live, and medical care if they need it. It won’t be especially comfortable, but surely if they are fleeing some terrible thing in their country of origin, this will be a massive step forward, so we should not hear too many complaints, amirite?
And perhaps, as a condition of asylum they must demonstrate a high level of competence with the English language and understanding of British culture, law and history, perhaps even learning a useful skill. There seem to be lots of teachers whose heats bleed for immigrants, so perhaps over their summer holidays they can fly up to St. Kilda and teach these earnest new Britons the skills they need to succeed in their new adopted home.
We could put a ferry right down there near Portsmouth, load the asylum seekers on the boat until it is full and ship them up to St Kilda, then sail back to collect the next batch.
And if St Kilda doesn’t work, we could always try Surbiton instead.
1) Due to the corruption of the political system, TINVOWOOT.
2) i expect the invocation of what the Royal Army used to call “rendering aid to the civil authorities”.
Subotai Bahadur
Seems to me that Farage has already completely shut down that proposal as being uncivilized.
It seems to me (from the wrong side of the ocean) that he has been doing everything lately to buy back Tory support, and to differentiate himself from Lowe, and Reform from Restore.
Tories must be amused.
bobby b – Mr Farage faced a choice some time ago, and he choose to reject Rupert Lowe and everyone who is really against “Diversity” in the modern sense – it is NOT just about an individual, it is about a political position. Mr Farage said that if we alienate Islam we lose, he does not grasp that Islam has been “alienated” since a least the Medina verses of the Koran – which abrogate the seemingly more tolerate Mecca verses which Muhammed presented before he had his own army – when he got his own army the “revelations” he (supposedly) got from God, changed. Since the death of Muhammed (perhaps partly due to the lingering effects of being poisoned by a Jewish women he had enslaved and whose family he had killed) no one has the authority to change to change Islam – indeed anyone who claims to have a new revelation from God (contradicting the revelations that Muhammed claimed to have received) has, by this claim, committed a capital offense under Islamic law.
As for Conservatives – Conservatives are caught in the same trap, to oppose Islam is not socially acceptable in Britain (the establishment, including the King himself, teach that Islam is a religion of peace), and to oppose “Diversity” in the modern sense of that word, is to, in the eyes of the British establishment, to be a “racist” – which is a criminal offense in Britain.
Restore Party? No chance – for example their recent effort to define who a British person was, their definition was that a British person must have both parents born in Britain, would have excluded Winston Churchill and King Charles (both of whom had a foreign born parent) – but would have included much the new population of Birmingham and other cities who, this generation, now tend to have two “British born” parents.
As for the NON Islamic migration into Britain – it is mostly people seeking government benefits and public services, as Daniel Hannan recently pointed out – Britain is driving away wealth creators, and eagerly encouraging people to come here who will be a net drain on public finances – and will be criminal in their conduct.
Lastly a word of warning about anti immigrant groups – all of them will be infiltrated by undercover police officers, and agents of the the Security Service.
They will encourage people to say stupid things (such as “a British person needs to have both parents born in Britain”) and to DO stupid, indeed criminal, things.
The Home Office and other sections of government are very experienced in subverting, discrediting, “right wing” groups – and work hand-in-hand with leftist activist groups. “Well you would know the Home Office Paul” – yes, I admit that (although it was not quite so bad in “my day”).
Marius objected to me saying the situation in Britain is without hope (indeed said that my comments should be “skipped over” which was an utterly vile thing to say – and was designed to provoke me, which-it-did) – very well it is theoretically possible that Britain might be saved, but the odds against it are astronomical.
Yes British survival is theoretically possible – but incredibly unlikely, as the entire establishment are dedicated to ending this nation. They regard nation states as “Nazi” (National Socialist) – their thinking is stuck in the early 1940s, and they have a wildly distorted view of even this period of history.
And their view of, for example, Islam is counter factual – indeed the reverse of the truth.
Easy way to stop the “invasion” is not to provide any accomodation or benifits to any arrivals
Do not provide any assistance at all.
The British army is tiny and ill-suited to dealing with civil contingencies like that.
Also, there is the Royal Navy (the senior service), the Royal Air Force, but there is no such thing as the Royal Army, it is just called the British Army.
That is not why Rupert Lowe was canned, it was very much about an individual and his neurotic inability to play well with others & his insistence on trying to turn Reform into a shitshow that would be UKIP all over again
I don’t disagree, but the traditional way to stop invasion also still works.
I agree, Marius, a combination of both approaches will be required.
A major part of Drumpfs success in reducing the numbers of illegals in USA is reducing the pull factors.
Less to no benefits are available- this has encouraged substantial numbers to self deport.
The same pull factors are at play here & a large reduction in those destined to be a net drain on the public purse would improve our economic outlook immensely.
Marius, I hope what you mean by the traditional way is to sink the boats, round up the invaders already landed and put them in POW camps until they can be shipped back to where they came from.
Denying benefits and public services to migrants does not deal with the natural increase of the populations that are already here – Enoch Powell warned long ago that the time would come when immigration was no longer the issue – that natural increase (births) would, eventually, take over – and that day has come.
However, YES try and deny migrants benefits and public services – although when the voters of California tried this in 1994 and the judges overruled the people.
Perry – Nigel Farage did not break with Rupert Lowe just over personality, it was over basic policy – on whether the new Britain should be opposed or not.
Mr Farage reasoned that such a position (opposing the transformation of Britain into something else) would not be tolerated – and he is correct, the establishment would never tolerate such a total rejection of their agenda.
As for Mr Lowe and his associates – no offense meant to them, but they have no chance of winning an election.
To become Prime Minister a person must go along with the establishment agenda – that is why Alexander Boris Johnson rubber stamped a whole series of things he had written articles (rightly) mocking. He continued to, privately, express contempt for new policies he was ordered to follow, such as the Covid lockdowns – but he rubber stamped the policies he despised (because he wanted to stay Prime Minister).
It is not optional – if you want to become Prime Minister and stay Prime Minister you must carry out the agenda, although you may be allowed to tweak it a little – and to introduce some small ideas of your own.
Turning to local (county) politics – the black (general waste) bins will soon only be collected once every three weeks – and the (utterly useless) little plastic boxes for “food waste” are already out.
I know the Reform Party Councillors – none of them thought up these stupid policies, but they have to do what they are told to do.
The idea that a Reform Party national government would retake the British cities and towns that are now gradually falling, is wrong – they would not be able to do so. That is NOT their fault – it is just our system of governance.
Even rural areas are now starting to fall.
The French whinge that, once the songbird are in the water, they can’t stop them because of safety reasons and against maritime law. However, they operate a different approach to those sailing from Comoro to enter the French colony of Mayotte. Nudging the boats to force them to turn around, or even ramming them, in breach of maritime law, seems to be the daily practice. The difference is that, in the Channel, they are leaving France and so will no longer be their problem, while It is the opposite in Mayotte waters. Perhaps Border Farce should copy the French tactics, not that that will happen, but one can wish we had politicians putting their own citizens first.
Nessie:
——————
hahahahaha I love it… can’t bring yourself to respect the guy who got results….
The only thing I regret is that the brunt of this situation will fall on the silent majority of normal people… The effete elites deserve to be “culturally enriched” – good and hard.
Open fire on the boats the moment they enter British waters. All else is gas.
Old Jack Tar: I was taking the phrase from an older quote. Whatever they do will be in the name of HM government. I grant the minuscule size of the British armed forces, but at the point of contact they will have definite superiority of firepower. And it can be easily anticipated that if things reach that stage that the government will employ irregular units drawn from the invaders. Remember that the least civil of wars are “civil wars”.
Paul Marks: “Lastly a word of warning about anti immigrant groups – all of them will be infiltrated by undercover police officers, and agents of the the Security Service.
They will encourage people to say stupid things (such as “a British person needs to have both parents born in Britain”) and to DO stupid, indeed criminal, things.”
This, this, a thousand times this. Britain is a totalitarian, surveillance state. Indeed, even though I am on the other side of the Atlantic, I am curious if this post/thread is not made to disappear. If there is to be a Clausewitzian resolution of matters, certain things are necessary. First, intelligence about all functional members and allies of the coercive organs of state power . . . and their families. Remember what I said about the nature of civil wars. Second, logistics. The British people are disarmed. Even if weapons are seized from the government, what do you do when the clip is empty? You need chains of logistics for everything including weaponry. Third, you need to develop a basic consensus as to what you are fighting for. One thing is sure is that there will not be a return to the placid parliamentary doctrines that prevailed before. If for no other reason that there will be a large percentage of the population that will be willing and eager to take up arms again to restore totalitarian government. Y’all are going to have to develop an entirely new Social Contract, because the old one is already dead.
Subotai Bahadur
Something I don’t quite understand, whether it’s the US-Mexico border, the English Channel, or the Spanish-Morrocco border…or any of 100 other “migration paths” and that is: does the country the migrants are leaving have any responsibility? If England has been invaded from France, doesn’t France have to be held to account? Even if the migrants didn’t originally start out from France. Ditto Mexico where Central and South American illegals pass through. But “passing through” is hardly a passive thing, something the country being passed through has no control over.
The legal beagles will say, but border crossings are the purview of the country being entered. Well, ok, that works when “migration” is legal, limited, and sane. Not sure what to do with this observation but it seems a point of strong push back that has not been much used. Trump has pressured Mexico but mostly he just closed the border. Has France faced any pressure?
A UK friend jokingly (I think) asked if I wanted to go in on a weapons-smuggling effort to the UK. Each put up money and expertise . . . . profit!
I told him that we are going to need all of those items here in the US. He then agreed.
Joking aside, I suspect I was correct. This is a world-wide effort we’re fighting, and I doubt they let us vote it gone.
GregWA – the government of France is committed to the same international agenda as the government of Britain, mass migration and now-more-importantly the natural increase (births) of the hostile populations, is a vital part of that agenda (another vital part of the agenda is to reduce the fertility of the historic Western populations) – so it does “have a responsibility” a responsibility to ensure that the destruction of historic Western nations, including France, continues – and that people who dissent are punished. Remember “Hate Speech is not Free Speech” – with “Hate Speech” being defined as opposing the agenda.
bobby b – my point about the little plastic boxes (for “food waste”) being delivered to every house, and the main bins being (in the future) only being emptied every three weeks, was a small, but important, example.
The Reform Party Councillors around here did NOT think of this policy (it is not their fault) – they are just doing what they are told.
According to the theory of democracy – elected people create policy and officials carry it out, but that is not what Britain is like.
The idea that people who can not stop small (and utterly useless) plastic boxes being delivered to all the houses, and can not stop the collection of the main bins getting to be once-in-a-blue-Moon can, for example, recapture the city of Birmingham from the forces of Islam – is delusional.
Mr Farage knows this (he is an intelligent man) – so he is not even going to try to reverse the “transformation” (destruction) of Britain – because he knows he can not do so. So it is all theatre (play acting) – stuff like “stop the boats” when he knows very well that the main matter now is births-not-boats.
“Controlled Opposition” – but, again, it is NOT their fault, it is the British (indeed international) system-of-governance.
Lastly – again warning about “patriotic groups” – all of them will contain infiltrators who will encourage them to say silly things and to do criminal things.
The police and security services (under the Home Office) are past masters at this – and work with leftist “non government” groups who also infiltrate the “right wing” groups.
None of the above should be taken to mean that the death threats against Mr Farage are not real – they are very real, and he is not the only one who gets very serious death threats.
For example, I was talking only last night to a Reform Councillor who is getting death threats – the police are (of course) not interested, and the lady is having to take steps to fortify her home.
The thing is that leftists on the ground actually believe (because the education system and the media tell them so – endlessly) that Reform is a powerful “right wing” organization that is going make Britain into Nazi Germany (the same leftist activists also want to get rid of Jews – but they see no contradiction in their position – they are “anti Nazis” who want to wipe out Jews).
bobby b is correct – exactly the same endless lies (from the education system and “mainstream” media) are world-wide – and are a deliberate effort to incite violence (including murder).
The fact that Reform Party politicians (or other politicians) can not, in office, do anything to change basic policies, is not known (or not considered relevant) by grass roots leftists – who will try to kill them for…. well for no real reason at all.
By the way – there are leftist “Jews” (both in Britain and the United States) who buy into all this (the Reform Party is “Nazi” – dissent about the destruction of Western nations is “Hate Speech”, “right wingers” must-be-destroyed – and all the rest of it), including wanting to wipe out other Jews.
A son of the Marxist Ralph Miliband springs to mind – very much a servant of the International Community and its agenda – just as much a foe of Britain as he is of Israel (a nation-state – exactly the sort of thing the International Community is dedicated to the destruction of).
It is worth noting that several governments (Canada, France….) announced identical attacks on Israel – on the same day. The idea that this was an elected British government decision is about as plausible as the claim of Mr Johnson that “Build Back Better” was “our slogan” – it was, of course, the slogan of the International Community and their agenda of using Covid as an excuse for their totalitarian agenda.
Politicians, at least under the British system of governance, generally (generally) do as they are directed (all the information presented to them says they have to) – some reluctantly, some eagerly.
Although, of course, they may add or subtract some details – and even put into practice some of their own ideas.
For example, Mr Michael Gove was BOTH a cheerleader for the despicable lockdowns, AND was responsible for some real improvements in English education.
Schools in England (not Scotland or Wales) are better because of him (I was reminded of that walking past a school today – I delivered some milk there, then did not have a newspaper today) – although, as one would expect, his reforms are now going to be undone.
This is what politicians tell themselves – “I have to go along with the The Agenda, because, otherwise, I will be out of office – and will not be allowed to do the few good things I would otherwise be allowed to do”.
I am sure Mr Farage thinks the same way – he thinks he can do some good things (such as “Stop the Boats”, whilst the births continue), as long as he does not go against the fundamental agenda.
Kemi Badenoch most likely thinks the same way.
It is reasonable – considering this system of governance.
A system of governance which is horrible.
The problem with any “Britishness” test is exactly the same as the driving test. Just because you can pass the test is absolutely zero proof that you are a competent driver/are really British.
@jgh
The problem with any “Britishness” test is exactly the same as the driving test. Just because you can pass the test is absolutely zero proof that you are a competent driver/are really British.
Huh? How does the driving test not prove you are a competent driver? Are you concerned because it is inadequately difficult? Perhaps (it’s been a long time since I took the British driving test) but my memory is that is was at least a little bit of a test. Compared to the driving test where I live currently, it is PhD level. One of my kids took the test during Covid when it was even more limited because they didn’t want to expose the examiners to Covid cooties. He basically had to drive around the block a few times. I just wonder how many truly dreadful drivers Covid released onto the road. However, it is plainly possible to conduct a driving test to determine if a driver is competent, or at least able to be competent. FWIW, in my experience, the vastly easier driver’s test in the USA means that American drivers are much worse than British ones, though having said that in compensation, driving in the USA is considerably easier than driving in the UK. Just as a for instance, “hill start” is a big part of the British test, but is meaningless in the USA where nearly all cars are automatics and so you don’t need to control the clutch.
As to a test for Britishness — I find that idea pretty unpleasant TBH. I’m not sure there is such a thing as Britishness — after all a Geordie is culturally pretty different than someone from Wimbledon, and someone from Glasgow is quite different than someone from Kyle of Lochalsh. I was born in Glasgow and for a while worked in a pretty little town across the Forth Road bridge from Edinburgh called Dalgety Bay, which is in the Kindgom of Fife. When I talked to the locals, although they were definitely speaking English, I often could barely understand a word they were saying, even though they were born less than a hundred miles from where I was.
What I think is reasonable for new immigrants is to have a test as to their preparedness to function in British society. And what does that look like? They have a reasonable competence in the English language, and know and understand the laws, practices and customs of the place they wish to live. And those things are pretty straightforward to test quite objectively.
jgh – Robert Jenrick was asked by a journalist to define “British values”.
I like Robert Jenrick – but he was unable to answer the question, because it can not be answered.
What are you supposed to say? The right to keep and bear arms? That was a central British principle when the British National Rifle Association was much bigger than the American one (and it was bigger than the American one) and there was a network of Constitutional Clubs in this country (and so on) – but it would be a joke to say it now, the British people are not only disarmed – most of them now believe that a disarmed citizenry has always been the British way (they have been indoctrinated to believe that firearms are evil-American things, apart from when the government police have them – they can have lots and lots of firearms, or any sort).
Freedom of Speech? With tens of thousands of people arrested for expressing their opinions? And it is tens-of-thousands. Freedom of Speech was indeed a part of being British – but not-any-more.
The Restore Party suggests that the test of being British is to have two parents born in Britain.
I pass that test – but King Charles and Winston Churchill do not.
Much (most?) of the Islamic population now pass that test – as this generation often has both parents born in Britain.
So the whole thing is a mess.
It can not be an ethnic test – as that would be “racism” which is a criminal offense under British law (and “British” as opposed to ENGLISH has never been defined in racial terms anyway).
And it can not be a test of believing in certain principles – because, what principles?
Hispanics coming to the United States can become Americans if (if) they truly believe in the principles summed up in the Bill of Rights – as Margaret Thatcher often said – being American is about believing in certain principles, not being part of an ethnic group.
But how does someone become British, what is “British”?
A small example, each day I go through the gardens around the war memorial on my way to do some work.
And each day the small area is filled with litter, including endless bottles and cans – some still with the booze in them (because the morons were too drunk to drink it all – indeed sometimes the damn things are not even opened, they have forgotten them) and drug stuff.
I put as much as I can in the bins – there are plenty of bins.
What are the people who throw all their rubbish around the war memorial area – are they British?
They are white and born here – but what the bleep are they?
What is British? Well of course to be British you have to love joining queues and be enraged if someone skips or cuts the queue.
And you have to bottle up your upset in the name of being polite and not making a fuss.
I watched this TV show where a guy was in a museum and the guard came up to him and said “I’m going to have to ask you to leave”. That struck me as about the most British thing a person could say. “I’m going to have to”, he wasn’t asking him to leave, he was just warning him that at some point in the future he would have to. And so, to avoid any embarrassment and awkwardness that might result from such a direct question, perhaps he could leave ahead of time and avoid all the fuss?
Very British.
Fraser, I wonder if Trump and the DHS might get some mileage with illegals by copying that British formulation, “I’m going to have to ask you to leave.”?
Don’t get me wrong, I love the American version: “you’re leaving, one way or another. You can self deport and we’ll pay you. Or you can wait for us to get around to your tier of the problem and we’ll find you and deport you with prejudice!”
But such operations are always multi-tiered: the easy way, the hard way and ways in between. If any one method gets you some more deportations, whoo hoo! So, by all means, let’s try polite!
Fraser Orr and GregWA
That version of the United Kingdom may not be quite dead – but it is certainly dying.
Try saying to the legion of drunks, drug addicts and mentally ill people “I am going to have to ask you to leave” – and it is not just them.
In the 1930s even the poorest person would not mess up a war memorial with litter – now this is considered normal behaviour, not just in the cities – but in the ordinary (average) town in which I live.
And it is not just litter.
As for violence – it happens every day, and it is going to get a lot worse.
A lot of people do not even bother to report violent attacks any more – as the police are unlikely to do anything.
The joke “all they are interested in is arresting you for social media posts” is not a joke anymore.
Their training is about “Diversity and Inclusion” in the Frankfurt School of Marxism “Critical Theory” sense – it really is, although they normally do not know the source of these doctrines.
And it is not just the police – it is every institution, including the elite private schools (not just the government schools – the elite private schools are at least as bad, if not WORSE in this respect) and the armed forces.
The monarchy itself parrots this stuff – and His Majesty sincerely believes it (although the Gentleman does not know the source of these doctrines), as do the rest of the establishment.
On the Sky News show the other day the hosts interviewed an asylum lobbyist who stated as fact that the people coming are asylum seekers. The comment from the whistleblower clearly undermine that assertion: but the journalists made no mention of the counterclaims. This is just lazy.
Jonathan Pearce – it is more than lazy, it is complicit.
Just as much as the BBC, Sky News is complicit with the establishment agenda (“Diversity and Inclusion” in the Critical Theory Frankfurt School sense – even though the average journalist has no idea where this stuff comes from, they push the agenda without truly understanding what the agenda leads to) – they are establishment media, not worth watching.
“I don’t disagree, but the traditional way to stop invasion also still works.”
Either way, it’s better to stop the invasion before it occurs.
“This is just lazy.”
If they didn’t know about the counterclaims they wouldn’t have mentioned them.
If they did know about the counterclaims they wouldn’t have mentioned them.
There is no way to differentiate between incompetence and maliciousness.
“As for Mr Lowe and his associates – no offense meant to them, but they have no chance of winning an election.”
Even before the immigration problem, it has been apparent, at least in the US, and at least for 25 years, that we were not going to vote ourselves out of this mess. We may even be past the point where massive civil disobedience can make a dent.
SteveD
Do not give the establishment what they want, do not play into their hands.
I know you mean peaceful civil disobedience – but infiltrators will try and turn the peaceful civil disobedience violent (in order to give an excuse for a crackdown – for the destruction of what liberty we have left), the police and security services (and the leftist organizations they work with) are past masters at such infiltration and subversion.
I’ve no idea if this is the case with the group that organised the Dover/Portsmouth protests, Patriot Platform, however, there are red flags about the group and its founder, Daniel Thomas aka Danny Tommo:
1. Tommo was sentenced for 2 years in prison for a bungled armed kidnapping attempt .
2. After prison, Tommo became an associate of Tommy Robinson and was able to obtain funding from a pro-Israel American think tank, the MEF, to organise demonstrations to support Tommy. Tommo proceeded to have an affair with an MEF staffer supporting the efforts. There were allegations regarding how the MEF money was used and cocaine use, all sounds a lot of ridiculous drama. Don’t really know what MEF expected supporting two guys who had both previously served time for violent crime (TR was jailed in 2005 for assault, years before he founded the EDL), but they ended up disavowing TR in 2020: ”On December 23, 2020, MEF publicly stated that it regretted its involvement with Tommy Robinson and had cut all relations with him.”
3. Tommo seems to still be a cop magnet.
4. Despite the Patriot Platform protesters largely wearing balaclavas for anonymity, the Patriot Platform website requests rather a lot of information if you want to join online: Name, DOB, email, phone number, post code, town etc. Now I suppose some will give fake names and post codes, but will they have given fake emails/phone number? To add to this despite the site asking you to confirm you’ve read the privacy notice, there doesn’t appear to be any such privacy policy.
5. Tommo now has a feud with the Daily Mail for apparently doxxing his mother’s address, although apparently Tommo had registered one of his businesses there so the address was visible on the public website Companies House.
At best Danny Tommo has a very chequered past and appears to be pretty clumsy with protecting his own data/privacy let alone his supporters. He seems like a perfect leader if you want loads of drama and (mostly hostile) media and law enforcement attention but likely will achieve little more than that.
There is a perhaps inevitable desire for people to get behind protests and direct action, especially as electoral alternatives are flawed at best. There’s a feeling of ‘something must be done’. I would posit getting behind the likes of Patriot Platform is worse than doing nothing unless you’re as keen to have law enforcement in your life as much as they are currently in Danny Tommo’s.
Martin – yes it is disturbing.
Although someone can be very “dodgy” and still be sincere.
Tommo I know little about – but TR, who, as you point out, is also dodgy, has done some good work – and certainly has courage.
The sort of man who “may not live well – but tends to die well”.
I would expect infiltrators to be one run down the ladder from leader in these organizations – encouraging the worse aspects in the character of the leaders, and the members, but staying fairly quiet, and out of the public eye, themselves.
I’d note that the American Revolution was headed by a bunch of lawbreakers and rapscallions. Sometimes the law-conforming normies are just too law-conforming to be the ones leading rebellion.
Their lawbreaking was political. Unless you have access to some secret histories I’m unaware that Ben Franklin or George Washington served time in prison for drug disputes that developed into botched kidnapping attempts or drunkenly assaulting off duty police?
The leaders of the American revolution were largely colonial elites – landowners, merchants, lawyers, printers etc. They were already a significant section of the pre-war colonial ruling class. They had access to significant resources and successfully negotiated to get massive military and economic assistance from two powerful empires. They successfully won their independence and established a new country. Danny Tommo and Tommy Robinson are not in the elite. The modest support they got off the MEF think tank 2018-2020 suggests at best some section of the American foreign policy establishment fancied they may be useful assets but the fact MEF eventually regretted their involvement suggest they botched that up. They won’t be leading any great rebellion akin to 1776. Robinson’s own admissions in court suggest he can’t manage his own resources well, let alone any movement.
I suspect that were the American revolution happening in a context where the British government had immense modern electronic surveillance, counter-terrorism laws, and financial controls including the powers to debank rebels at their disposal, then things may have gone differently.
The American War of Independence was fought by men, both rich and poor, who were pro private property rights – and the private property basis of the Common Law, they rejected the doctrine of Sir William Blackstone (mid 18th century legal thinker) that Parliament could do what-ever-it-liked (say pass a “law” that all people with blue eyes be executed – or have their property confiscated), they stuck to the older tradition of Chief Justice Coke and Chief Justice Holt – that the power of Parliament was limited by the principles of natural justice in the Common Law (today judges who believe the power of Parliament is limited are on the LEFT – but in the past they were on the right).
Many of the leaders of the American struggle for independence lost their property in the war – and knew, in advance, that they would. And some (some) of the leaders were not wealthy men to start with.
And Martin is CORRECT – the American situation in 1776 is utterly different from ours in Britain in 2026.
We are disarmed, and face a government with all the means of electronic (and other) control.
People who say “fight back – fight!” are totally wrong, they do not grasp the facts of the situation we face.
Winning a General Election and passing a Great Repeal Act getting rid of much of the modern state is a slim hope (sometimes, in one of my dark moods, I think there-is-no-hope at all – people around here are only too well aware of what I am like when one of my dark moods takes over) – but it is the only hope we have.
“Fight back” plays into the hands of the establishment, “win an election – and dismiss them all via a Great Repeal Act” is the only way forward.
Much like what happened in 1660-1661 – when all the statutes and structures of the Cromwell government were declared VOID.
We must, at the very least, get rid of the “reforms” since 1997 – the “Blair Revolution” carried on by Prime Minister Brown (and so on) after him, although Prime Minister Blair himself only had a vague idea of what he was being used to “achieve”.