Here’s the problem. The liberal political class wants us to treat atrocities like Belfast as single, random, isolated incidents. “Yes, it’s horrific, but don’t overreact,” they say. “Let the police do their job. Justice will be delivered. Let’s remain united,” and so on.
But the public can see that such incidents *aren’t* random or isolated. They are, in fact, all the consequence of massive state failure in the area of asylum and immigration. All roads lead back there.
That’s why people are angry.. They are sick of the platitudes that get trotted out after each fresh incident. They don’t want to hear them anymore. They know that the decisions of establishment politicians have brought us to this current pass, and they don’t trust those same politicians to fix things, especially when some of them refuse to even recognise that the public’s anger is justified.
There has been a huge vibe shift in recent years. Imagine - God forbid - there were another 7/7. Does anyone think the public response would be anything like as restrained as it was then? We are in really dangerous territory.
The public don’t want flowers and candles and “Don’t let them divide us.” They want someone who says, “I recognise that the state has failed abjectly. We have allowed far too many people to settle in the country without knowing who they truly are. It has disrupted your communities. Your anger is justified. And I will do everything in my power to put things right.”
Any politician unwilling to articulate that message, fully and sincerely, is effectively sanctioning more years of growing social disharmony and discord. Things cannot heal until those in power recognise the extent of the problem and what it will take to fix it. And, on both counts, most of them don’t.
That’s why the next few years are going to be very, very turbulent.
Lo ocurrido en Belfast es otra prueba gráfica más de lo que ocurre en toda Europa, un somalí cortándole el cuello en plena calle a una persona como si fuera un cordero.
Algunos creen que estos seres de luz pueden tener cabida en nuestras sociedades.
To the Metropolitan Police,
You were the gold standard. The model every nation copied. When Scotland Yard spoke, criminals listened. That badge meant integrity. It meant courage. It meant the law applied equally, without fear or favour.
Look at you now.
You are a punchline. A cautionary tale. A force that clears up fewer than one in ten burglaries while your officers film TikTok videos in uniform. You arrested a man in Lancashire at dawn for a Facebook post in 2024 while grooming gangs operated in Rochdale for years with barely a raised eyebrow. You invented non-crime hate incidents so you could harass pensioners for wrongthink while real victims wait on hold.
You kneeled for mobs in 2020 while statues fell and businesses burned. You stood aside while extremists marched with impunity, then raided homes over memes. You have turned the oldest police force in the world into a politicised enforcement squad for the narrative, not the public.
You chose diversity dashboards over clear-up rates. You chose community engagement over enforcement. You chose the approval of NGOs and Twitter mobs over the safety of the people who pay your wages. You chose feelings over facts, and political safety over actual policing.
You did not lose your way. You sold it. Slowly, deliberately, one diversity training course at a time, one apology tweet at a time, one decision to stand down while crime happened in front of you.
The British people see you now. We see the double standards. We see the collapse in basic standards. We see a force that looks more like political commissars than police officers. We see officers who remember their oath sidelined while the ideologues get promoted.
You wanted to be political enforcers. Congratulations. You got your wish. Now you get treated like political operatives. No more benefit of the doubt. No more automatic respect. You burned that.
The mask is off. The receipts are published. The record is being kept.
We are watching.
The thing about the journey away from the left is that, it begins with you thinking, "actually, I'm not sure a lot of this really adds up or makes sense," then you move into "I've looked into this and my instincts were right, the logic just doesn't stack up," then you go into "I think I need to leave this cult, it's making me feel unclean," then you go into "I actually can't believe how I was ever a part of the left, it's ridiculous, flimsy, and kinda pathetic," then you go into "Christ, those people are insufferable, they use lies, bad faith, and manipulation endlessly, and they're so detached from reality and truth it's maddening," and then you go into "I don't just disagree with them, I can show categorically how they're fundamentally and objectively wrong about everything, all the time," then you go into "it's not just that they're wrong, it's that they're cruel, hostile, nasty, and deeply unpleasant," then you go into "they're not even human, they're fucking demonic and evil and it's fucking gross."
... in total I'd say that whole process takes about ten to fifteen years to fully mature.
I gave my son a summer job last year because he couldn't find one otherwise. I kept him on in case he needs work this year
Now I have to file monthly returns to HMRC saying I'm not paying him at the moment
They set debt collectors on me because they assumed with zero evidence I would pay him the same every month. I ignored the debt collectors as they'd never get a court order to enforce a debt that didn't exist
Now the pensions regulator is demanding I prove he doesn't need me to start a pension for him. How did they know I had employed him? Probably from HMRC.... So why don't they also know he didn't earn enough to pass the threshold
These people are out of control
It's hard not to see the state as my actual enemy these days rather than an inconvenience to be navigated
Imagine spending your whole life becoming an academic expert. Then a random guy online tells you that you are wrong about your own field. And he's right. But you can never admit that. Because it would mean admitting that your life was a lie. That is the dilemma of many academics.
Je me suis longtemps passionné pour la psychologie, et une période m'obsède plus que toutes les autres.
L'après-guerre.
Le moment où des chercheurs se sont posé la question la plus dérangeante du siècle: comment l'Allemagne nazie avait-elle transformé des pères de famille ordinaires en bourreaux de camp?
La réponse, ils ne l'ont pas trouvée chez des monstres. Ils l'ont trouvée chez des hommes parfaitement banals.
Hannah Arendt a appelé ça la banalité du mal. L'historien Christopher Browning, en étudiant le bataillon de réserve 101 (des policiers d'âge mûr, des pères, des commerçants), a montré que ce ne sont pas des fanatiques qui ont fusillé des civils, mais des hommes normaux incapables de désobéir au cadre dominant.
Puis vint Milgram. À Yale, environ deux tiers de gens ordinaires ont infligé ce qu'ils croyaient être des décharges mortelles, simplement parce qu'une autorité en blouse blanche le leur ordonnait. L'expérience de la prison de Stanford a montré la même chose sous un autre angle: donnez à quelqu'un un rôle et un cadre, et il s'y conformera jusqu'à l'inhumain.
La leçon n'est pas allemande. Elle est humaine.
Le mécanisme s'active dès qu'un cadre moral dominant fait craindre la sanction sociale plus que ne compte le témoignage de ses propres yeux. L'individu cesse de voir ce qu'il voit. Il voit ce que le cadre l'autorise à voir.
Maintenant, regardez Southampton.
Henry Nowak, 18 ans, poignardé, allongé au sol, répète aux policiers « j'ai été poignardé », « je ne peux plus respirer ».
Réponse de l'officier: « I don't think you have, mate. »
Pendant ce temps, son meurtrier retourne la situation d'une phrase: il aurait été victime d'une agression raciste. Quatre mots ont suffi pour déplacer le soupçon de l'agresseur vers la victime.
Et l'officier a obéi. Pas à un ordre. À un cadre.
Un cadre qui lui a appris, pendant des années, qu'une plainte pour racisme est l'accusation la plus dangereuse de sa carrière. Plus dangereuse, dans son réflexe conditionné, qu'un corps qui se vide de son sang devant lui.
Exactement le mécanisme de Milgram, de Browning. Un homme normal qui cesse de croire ses propres yeux parce qu'un cadre moral lui a appris ce qu'il devait craindre.
C'est précisément ça qui me terrifie.
Souvenez-vous: le monde entier s'est agenouillé pour quatre mots, « I can't breathe ». Des entreprises, des gouvernements, des stades entiers.
Henry a prononcé les mêmes mots, en train de mourir. Il n'y aura ni genou à terre, ni hashtag, ni minute de silence.
Parce que sa mort ne sert pas le cadre. Elle le contredit.
Et un système qui apprend à une société entière à faire passer l'accusation de racisme avant les faits, avant le corps, avant la vie, n'est pas une posture morale inoffensive.
C'est une machine à fabriquer des hommes qui, face à un enfant en train de mourir, choisissent les menottes.
The West has created an utterly evil state religion where an accusation of “racism” is the gravest offense that can be committed, even worse than rape or murder!
So if police show up at a crime scene and a British boy is bleeding out and an immigrant says the British boy is racist the cops will cuff the dying British boy.