Fast-Track to Crap

You'll know your society has begun to go to bleep when, on the anniversary of one of the worst terror attacks in history, people line the streets in support of such attacks, completely ignorant of the damage done two years on. I'd hazard that even twenty years ago, this type of stuff wouldn't be happening. But as is the wont of Big Government, performing fundamental tasks, like protecting citizens, becomes impossible:

"At least two Jewish worshippers were killed and three others seriously injured in a car ramming and stabbing attack outside a synagogue in the English city of Manchester on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism."

According to the BBC, and I quote:

"The head of Counter Terrorism Policing says they believe the attacker, Jihad Al-Shamie may have been 'influenced by extreme Islamist ideology'.

The guy with a first name of "Jihad" "may have been influenced by extreme Islamist ideology". You don't say! You don't need a "Counter Terrorism Policing" unit to establish the motive. Look no further than the name in the 2006 issued British passport. Or the tweets praising October 7th.

As I said a short while ago, "instead of fighting them on the beaches, we’re fighting them in our streets." While I stand by the mantra, "fighting" implies that we are mounting some sort of resistance, which obviously isn't happening. The best kind of resistance Keir Starmer can muster is a "celebrate the diversity of the next victim of diversity day".

Apparently, Starmer's parents' family are Jewish - as is his wife and children. Considering the popularity of his government right now and the ever-growing rise in anti-semitism across the UK, I'd be careful if I was one of the pm's progeny et al.

As for his appearance at the Synagogue following the vile attack, one can't help but feel at odds with his decision, not least due to the security concerns. Starmer's attendance at synagogues isn't regular, so the above was an obvious ploy to "show solidarity" with the community that has been attacked.

So then, say, if a trans-woman, with all the accoutrement of a (regular) guy, strolled through a women's bathroom in a dress claiming she/he can shower in there "because that's how she/he identifies" and proceeds to show-off said accoutrement, but won't leave because that would be deemed "discriminatory" against a bepenised Woman - how would Sir Keir react? Would he dress-up in the same gear - in solidarity with the discriminated bepenised Woman? Or, would he "man-up"; "transition" to become a "real woman", and show solidarity with the other non-bepenised-women in the bathroom?

Identity politics is scourging fundamental principles in "civilised", contemporary "British" society.

~Oh, on, "civilised" for a minute:

The UK is on the bleeding edge of innovation when it comes to turning once-great empires into bleepholes. Unsurprisingly, when you import people from countries which engage in all the sorts of behaviour you'd expect out of a Tarantino flick, the "rape rate" is only gonna go one way. Unfortunately, like George W. Bush, Britain's political class don't see it like that. They think that all cultures, although they may have different food and traditions, are basically the same, because, as the 43rd U.S president said, "We know that the desire for freedom is not confined to, or owned by, any culture; it is the inborn hope of our humanity."

Not true. The Manchester attack along with all the pro-Palestine marches is clear evidence that the so-called "desire for freedom" is very much confined to certain cultures. Unfortunately, those cultures aren't the sorts that Britain has been importing. There's no point talking about "Assimilation" when a country's population growth is almost entirely reliant on immigration.

Broad racial homogeneity is, quite literally, what makes a country a country, and whatever people say, that's not a "racist" philosophy. China is China because its population is made up of mostly Chinese people. Sudan is Sudan because mostly Sudanese people live there. If Sudan, with a population of around 50 million people, welcomed, say, (for the purposes of the exercise, let's make it extreme) 25 million Brits, would Sudan still be classed as "Sudan"? The short answer is no: a country has to be made up of a majority of the people who are born there. Because you either have borders and have a country - or don't have borders and don't have a country.

Britain has a de-facto non-border policy, and as I've said before, that's gonna mean more violence and, case in point, more rapes. Right now though, the Labour Party are more worried about locking people up for non-crime hate-incidents over tweets than locking up actual criminals. "Things can only get worse" should be their new theme song, "a lot worse".

©2025 Tom Large