Will rising anger over energy, economic and immigration chaos prevent UK and EU suicide?
Paul Driessen
“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop,” economist Herb Stein often observed.
“Come MPs and prime ministers, Please heed the call,” Bob Dylan might sing about Europe. “Don’t stand in the doorway. Don’t block up the hall…. For the times they are a-changin’.”
Or at least may be changing – not only in Europe but across the globe.
Europe’s ruling elites opened their countries’ borders to millions of unvetted, largely Third World, often Islamist migrants with little interest in assimilating – and gave them free lodging, food and medical care (paid with other people’s money), and an official blind eye to rising crime and molestation of women.
In 2023, except in Luxembourg and Slovakia, the number of immigrants coming from outside the Union exceeded the number of immigrants from other EU countries, some by nearly 100 percent. European societies, cultures, economies and civilization could face existential transformation.
In Britain, Union Jack flags were outlawed, while Palestinian flags were applauded. UK “subjects” were arrested for expressing outrage, while immigrant criminals went free.
Politicians have been too afraid of being labeled racist to address the migrant crimes and disruptions – or too reliant on expected new or future voters to challenge them, even as native populations are assaulted, robbed, raped, stabbed and murdered (as elites could be amid Europe’s Reconquista). But recent events have brought things closer to the boiling point.
A disabled man was nearly decapitated. A young man was stabbed, then handcuffed and allowed to bleed to death because his assailant falsely claimed the victim had used racist slurs. Police arrested a girl for brandishing an axe to protect her 12-year-old sister from a would-be migrant rapist.
A little boy “landed in” a crocodile pit, where he was mauled. Police and media refused to say he’d been thrown into the pit or provide the attacker’s name or ethnicity.
The recent Rape Gang Inquiry Report finally reveals horrors that politicians, media, police and hospitals had suppressed for decades. Perhaps 250,000 working class British girls (as young as eleven) were systematically befriended, “groomed,” sexually assaulted, raped, and trafficked to the Middle East. Many were raped by scores, perhaps even hundreds, of mostly Pakistani men.
“Mostly peaceful,” but sometimes incendiary, protests have become the language of citizens whose voices have too long been ignored. “The battle outside is raging.”
As Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer released more than 13,000 accused Muslim rapists with warning letters and no jail time. Just 23 months after his landslide victory as Prime Minister, he was forced to resign.
Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage wants to take Starmer’s place and has called for immediate general elections, but ultra-progressive wealth-redistributionist Andy Burnham wants to be ordained the next PM.
The Spanish government intends to legalize 500,000 illegal migrants (applications for legal status already exceed 1,000,000), on top of 7,300,000 foreigners already living in Spain. Not only will this deliberately overwhelm conservatives in future elections. It also opens the door for all of them, including radical Islamists, to travel throughout the visas-not-needed Europe-wide Schengen Zone.
Sweden responded to its growing rape and organized crime crisis by adopting “sustainable immigration” policies that reduce the number of undocumented and low-skill immigrants, make it harder for family members to join immigrants already in Sweden, and offer $34,000 voluntary return-to-home-country grants. In Denmark refugee residence permits now last only 1-2 years, and refugees must wait eight years before applying for permanent status, show they are fluent in Danish and have held a full-time job for several years. Alternative fűr Deutschland is challenging groupthink and policies in Germany. Other countries are also implementing reforms.
Of course, immigration is hardly the only source of unrest, even though more immigrants mean more travel, more energy and food consumption, and building more housing – all of which contribute to the alleged “climate crisis” … and to rising prices for all these necessities.
However, the real problem is that energy policies based on eliminating fossil fuel (and nuclear) power have made heating and electricity prices the highest on earth, crippled Europe’s economy, cost millions of jobs, exported entire industries to nations with cheap energy and labor, killed thousands who couldn’t afford to heat or cool their homes properly, and simply don’t work. Indeed, 47 million people – more than 10% of Europe’s population – cannot afford to heat their homes.
EU policies have also resulted in millions of acres being blanketed with habitat-smothering solar panels, bird-and-bat-butchering wind turbines, and endless transmission lines.
Recognizing what’s happening across the pond, President Trump pulled the United States out of UN climate organizations, the Paris climate agreement, annual climate conferences, net zero policies, and the Obama Era Endangerment Finding.
Most European leaders remain obstinately dedicated to battling climate change, making the calamitous transition to expensive, heavily subsidized, weather-dependent wind and solar power, and “leading by example” to “save the planet” – regardless of how that impacts their constituents, how angry and mutinous they’ve become or how meaningless their “example” is.
In emerging economies and developing countries across the globe, the only noticeable energy transition is from wood and dung to oil, gas, coal and (small modular) nuclear power plants. These countries want abundant, reliable, affordable electricity, and the homes, cars, living standards, schools, factories, clean water, nutritious food, air conditioning, stoves and ovens that we enjoy in the USA.
They want to end the squalor, disease and early death that still afflict their people.
They know China is building new coal-fired power plants every week, and China and India together now account for one-third of all “carbon” (carbon dioxide plant food) emissions worldwide.
Those attending the just-ended SB64 climate meeting and upcoming COP31 event have no interest in translating “clear, measurable targets” into “immediate action” through “shared responsibility, strong cooperation and determined implementation” via “investments” in the new “global green economy.”
They’re attending to advance their demands for trillion$ in “reparations” for “climate damages” allegedly inflicted by developed nations – and the right to develop as they see fit, not as the UN and EU tell them. They’re unlikely to get more than a pittance in reparations, but they will chart their own destinies.
Despite EU and UK efforts to block access to all but “approved” and “accurate” information, Europe’s native poor and still-working classes are increasingly aware of all this. Immigrant costs and crimes may be the most immediate and obvious flash points. But destructive energy policies are also roiling things.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change can host COP gabfests until the cows come home. But the events, the UN and EU themselves, and the endless junk science and fearmongering they spew have become increasingly irrelevant.
The natives are increasingly restless, un-subservient, outraged at their ruling classes, and ready to replace the current authoritarian system. The status quo cannot go on forever.
The order is rapidly fading. The first one now Will later be last. For the times may be a-changin’.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.
“Politicians have been too afraid of being labeled racist to address the migrant crimes and disruptions”
That’s because voters have been dumb enough to do so. Had the voting populations been wise, and demanded that their elected leaders do what’s right, then this wouldn’t be an issue.
“The order is rapidly fading. The first one now Will later be last. For the times may be a-changin’.”
Let’s hope so.
They still are afraid. The British state is riddled with cowardice.
Politicians and bureaucrats test the winds before any decision as what they want is not what you want. They want lifetime wealth and power, a decision that was wrong can and does derail what they want.
One would think, but remember that they steal and defraud so much that I see little derailment, sad to say. They all should be audited, then locked up, and then, depending, shot.
This video gives a historical perspective and hope that change can make Britain great again.
That voting population is the problem. Half are under 100 IQ, they can barely tie their shoelaces. The half over 100 IQ is not much better, most are only concerned with themselves and their view. Few research any public problem to get facts preferring emotional response instead, a factor all politicians use and most bosses of any wisdom. The one thing which makes democracies preferred is it limits war making by the leaders.
The curse of democracy is that mean intelligence and integrity of the voters becomes reflected in their choice of leaders. The party system further exacerbates this through policy bribery and manipulation. The result is what you have.
If, instead, the voters would vote for the very best independent candidates, then the leadership would be far above average. The best decisions could be made for their intrinsic value rather than political advantage. Elected bodies could function as a democracy rather than a rubber stamp.
These are the needed changes that can only be brought by the voters.
Never happen, sadly.
That’s what they said about heavier than air flying machines. When it does happen it will be rapid. I think.
God, I hope so-and the sooner the better.
But you’re assuming that voters are invested enough in the outcome to become informed and weigh the options. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to match reality. More likely is that voters are manipulated by clever campaigning tactics and vote on “feelings”.
Of course they are manipulated now by a party system they are told is essential for a healthy democracy. In reality the opposite is true. Everything changes except the truth.
They are not ‘manipulated by a party system’. On Net Zero and AGW in a specific country, the UK, they were not. A ‘party system’ (what is that anyway?) is not the sort of thing that can manipulate. People can manipulate each other – though I don’t think you know what you mean by the term, or how it differs from the simple expression of points of view and arguing for them. But systems cannot.
The party system in the UK arose gradually after the Revolution of 1688. The reason was the way the British Constitution works. There had to be a government, and after the Revolution that was no longer the Monarchy but Parliament. The Monarch had to appoint a Prime Minister in order to have a responsible point of management. They appointed someone who could ‘form a government’, that is, command a majority in the Commons.
This was (and is) the prerequisite to having a government that could get anything done, manage finances, pass legislation etc.
The corollary was that the Prime Minister and group of those he appointed as ministers had to have some certainty about who was generally going to vote with them on measures. This, under Walpole, gave rise to the early stages of the modern party system.
There may be other ways of doing things in democracies. If so, give some examples of places where they are being done. Specify exactly how its supposed to work.
Our present system is certainly not perfect, but what you have to accept is that its the result of several hundred years of evolution under the selective pressure of balancing democratic accountability with the need to have effective government. Maybe there are other better ways, but you need to explain what they are. Just saying, every time something is less than perfect, that its all the fault of something you call the ‘party system’ is not thought and diagnosis and prescription, its their exact opposite. Its like saying if we could only abolish global warming everything would be so much better.
Right.
You seem to be working very hard to not understand what I am saying. It does require a little thinking. Do try and heave your mind out of its rut.
You know very well that a party system is where groups form to push selfish agenda and preselect vassal candidates. As you point out this has been how it’s been done for a very long time. It doesn’t make it right. As the horrors of history can attest.
If you will read what I am saying with an open and inquiring mind you see that I am Saying what is wrong, why it is wrong and how to fix it.
You keep saying this, but
(a) You cannot point to a single democracy which runs without political parties
(b) You give no indication of how specifically you would ban them – what exactly it is you would ban.
(c) Your account of how it would work without parties is so vague as to be meaningless. ‘Vote for very best independent candidates’. What does that mean? What is ‘independent’? You want to see decisions made ‘for their intrinsic merit’. What is that and how specifically do you think the abolition of political parties (whatever that would consist of) would lead to this?
When you offer such vague prescriptions with no idea of any specifics its actually a sort of resigned shrug, rather than serious thought about what the problem is and what to do about it.
Parties in your remarks are a bit like global warming – they are the cause of all evils and ….. ? If you can’t think concretely about how to implement some solution you are just using your vague prescriptions as a method of refusing to think anything through concretely.
You keep saying this, but
IMO, ev is either unaware of or denies human nature.
I am very aware of human nature. However there is a big difference in human nature of a group versus individual human nature. It is the much less pleasant group nature that drives party politics. One of the points of having independent representatives is that the individuals personal qualities must play a dominant role in being selected by the voters.
Also members of the elected body may vote freely according to their conscience rather than party dictate. In short, better people making better decisions.
If you really are aware of human nature, then you would know that your idealistic ideas are pure fantasy.
I don’t necessarily disagree, I just realize that it’s not going to happen. People are naturally tribal. In order to achieve what you want you would have to fundamentally change how people think and act at a massive scale.
Individuals can have ideas and beliefs in common and still be individuals. Yes. People will have to change how they think on a massive scale. Its been done before — the earth is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe, slavery is ok, woman should not vote etc. All gone because the truth is stronger.
Unfortunately, Political parties do dominate democracies. This has lead to many laws and devises to make it difficult for independents to be elected. As you clearly demonstrate independents are much feared by the groupthink left.
I have repeatedly said that parties could not and should not be banned and yet you keep implying that I want them banned. Yes. I want them gone but by starvation.
What does ‘independent’ mean? It means free or unowned.
Decisions made for their ‘intrinsic merit’ means made on the basis of moral value rather than political expediency.
Do try harder. It may hurt a little but it will be worth it.
One solution would be to restrict voting to those who are net taxpayers.
Those who are living off taxes paid by others, should have no say in how the government is to be run.
Voting per the original US constitution consisted of only stake holders.
Is crime actually rising?
UK crime statistics generally show falling crime: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2025#sexual-offences
EU crime shows fewer murders but more rapes, though that may reflect a greater percentage of rape victims coming forward: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Crime_statistics
I haven’t found any solid statistics to back up the claim that immigrants and/or non-EU immigrants and/or Muslims commit crimes at a higher rater than anyone else, and some sources say there’s no link: https://www.dw.com/en/immigration-has-not-raised-german-crime-rate/a-71691228
The author here recalls a series of terrible crimes, but that by itself doesn’t count as statistical evidence. And we like statistics on this website, don’t we? We wouldn’t want someone to claim Climate Change was a menace just because of a few cherry-picked anecdotes about heat waves; we want to see the overall trends.
The UK has a strange attitude to reporting crime, where it’s not the ethnic minorities who are committing violent crimes it’s the police who are arresting more ethnic minorities unnecessarily.
The UK began reporting violent crime statistics by ethnicity in 2012. This marked the start of a systematic approach to collect and analyze data on violent crime in relation to different ethnic groups.Since 2012, the collection and analysis of this data have continued, allowing for a better understanding of how violent crime affects various communities across the UK. This ongoing effort aims to provide insights into trends and disparities in crime experiences among different ethnic groups.
The systematic recording of ethnicity allows for a better understanding of crime patterns and the representation of different ethnic groups within the criminal justice system. This data is crucial for addressing issues of racial disparity and ensuring fair treatment across all communities.
As of the year ending March 2023, people from Black, Asian, and Mixed backgrounds were over-represented in violent crime statistics in the UK, with Black individuals being 2.2 times more likely to be arrested than white individuals. This trend reflects broader disparities in the criminal justice system, where ethnic minorities face higher rates of arrest and prosecution compared to their white counterparts.
over-represented in violent crime statistics
Not all cultures are equal…
They are over represented in arrest statistics because they are over represented in crime statistics.
The same statistic exist in the USA for Blacks and south Americans in the USA. They as a group commit more crime and get arrested more.
Yours is a reversal of the correlation-causation relationship. Ethnic minorities are not arrested more because they are targeted by police. They are arrested more because they are the ones who are committing more of the crimes. The crimes are the causation, and therefore arrest rates correlate to that causation. While I might not have data to back up my next statement, I believe that top down public policy pressure is suppressing enforcement of minority crimes and suppressing the reporting and prosecution of minority crimes. The UK minority crime problem is probably far worse than the statistics suggest. It is very easy for government bureaucrats to tweak the criteria and fudge the data. Also, the police department leadership can change policies to discourage policeman on the street from aggressively, identifying and enforcing compliance in certain communities such as minorities and immigrants. Also as we have seen in America, radical, left wing prosecutors and judges often turn around and release or fail to prosecute many offenders, or reduce the charges and/or sentences. This sends a clear message to the policeman on the beat, “don’t bother, wasting your time arresting certain people, because it will go nowhere.”
I hope you’ll understand if I’m skeptical of your data-less statement.
The ONS is hopelessly compromised.
An independent review of performance and culture at the Office for National Statistics has found “deep seated issues” that require a restructuring of the organisation’s top leadership.
Like the Met Office not fit for purpose.
And crime is way up, not down.
The Met Office’s UK Climate Projections Report (UKCP18) is based totally on RCP8.5 and despite the IPCC now admitting the latter is completely unrealistic the Met Office seems to have no intention of abandoning UKCP18
Unfortunately for you, the real figures for offending in Europe by ethnicity do not support your assertions. In Britain, convictions for rape and sexual assault are 23 times higher per capita for Afghan nationals than for indigenous citizens.
Would you care to back up that assertion with a link?
Available from the UK ONS (Office of National Statistics) website on gov.uk.
well thats funny because recently on Zerohedge theres been PLENTY of uk German frenchswedish italian and spanish even swiss crime rates listed and for the majority? 50% or more have been illegals or got citizenship -and should NOT have- imports
Just like the climate record, you can’t trust “official” crime data.
From what I have read, most rapes aren’t even recorded, much less charged.
The police either pretend it didn’t happen or blame the victim.
or blame the victim.
As demonstrated by the recent trial where they arrested the guy who got stabbed and didn’t bother to get him medical help.
Another similar incident happened in Birmingham earlier this week – white guy being beat by three minorities, police rushed in and cuffed the white guy.
Do you have some other data that’s more trustworthy?
Where did you read these things? I appear to be the only person in this discussion with any interest in citing sources.
Message 1 / 2 (I made it long, sorry) :
Homicides have declined largely thanks to advances in medicine. Getting stabbed is no longer necessarily a death sentence. It remains an attempted homicide.
Some time ago, I spoke with a friend who was deeply committed to third-wave feminism and the pro-LGBT, anti-racist left. She eventually told me that the people who catcalled and insulted her in the street were, overwhelmingly, “Arabs, or white people who thought they were Arabs.” I didn’t coax this out of her; in fact, I took every rhetorical precaution necessary to avoid sounding like some racist fool. She volunteered this herself, and frankly, you couldn’t ask for someone further to the left than this woman. People will say that personal anecdotes prove nothing, but one anecdote, plus another anecdote, plus yet another anecdote, begins to constitute a body of evidence upon which a competent sociologist can draw dispassionate conclusions.
It is fashionable on the right to say that sociology is worthless; I understand that irritation and contempt perfectly well. But sociology can be fascinating. The way it has been instrumentalized by far-left activists is in no way representative of the possibilities inherent in the discipline.
Nowadays, the expression “right-wing sociologist” is regarded as a laughable oxymoron—so much so that the phrase “left-wing sociologist” has become virtually pleonastic. I dislike the terms “hard science” and “soft science.” If sociology and psychology have become so “soft,” it is above all because of a broader cultural and intellectual decline that has eventually contaminated the natural sciences themselves—biology, physics, chemistry—and, of course, the discipline that brings all these fields together: climatology. In this regard, there is (to oversimplify) “left-wing” science—the science that has “spoken,” that is “settled,” and whose conclusions are supposedly to be accepted as definitive and damning with respect to industrial society (this terminology sounds more like a courtroom than a scientific endeavor!)—and “right-wing” science—supposedly hostile to consensus, opposed to reality itself, pro-fossil fuel, pro-pollution, in short, anti-human, just as “right-wing people” are imagined to be: stupid, stubborn, hateful toward others, and unwilling to entertain any viewpoint but their own. This dichotomy is entirely and utterly absurd. There is not “the” science, nor are there “the sciences”; there are individuals who strive to follow the scientific method, as formalized by Aristotle, Ibn al-Haytham, or Francis Bacon, for whom only the evidence mattered, regardless of anyone’s opinions.
Against reality, nothing can be done, but it is always possible to influence the way people perceive it. If a guru succeeds in convincing people that they can restore themselves by “looking at the sun” (this belief, absurdly dangerous though it may seem, genuinely exists), his followers will begin staring at the sun, and they may even feel comforted and rejuvenated, even though their retinas have been severely damaged by its light and their skin has begun peeling after being badly burned by ultraviolet radiation.
2 / 2 :
… In the field of climate science, I see model outputs predicting immense upheavals, even though the accuracy of those models has repeatedly been called into question. I see the ostracism of voices that dissent from the “consensus,” careers destroyed, psychological harassment, and even physical threats against those who put forward opinions that depart from orthodoxy. I see that, for roughly the past forty years, scientific research has depended upon whatever funding researchers are willing to grant, provided scientists dutifully beg for the meager sums they are prepared to offer for certain lines of research rather than others. I see self-censorship, groupthink, and a pack mentality whenever a voice dares to stand apart, if only to qualify the prevailing opinion.
In the field of sociology, I see a growing brutalization of Western society, a hatred of “white people,” of the “colonialist and slave-owning Westerner,” and a terrifying indulgence toward murderers and terrorists, provided they are considered “racialized.” I see the media consensus according to which everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and Westerners are merely suffering from a “feeling of insecurity,” supposedly stemming from latent paranoia and racism.
That is what I see; that is the world I live in—a world in which we are expected to embrace energy degrowth and “happy sobriety” (voluntary poverty), because models contradicted time and again insist that the world is on the verge of collapse (what a lazily perpetual imminence! Or, as Paul Valéry wrote in stanza 21 of The Graveyard by the Sea: “Zeno, Zeno, cruel philosopher Zeno / Have you then pierced me with your feathered arrow / That hums and flies, yet does not fly! The sounding / Shaft gives me life, the arrow kills. Oh, sun! — / Oh, what a tortoise-shadow to outrun / My soul, Achilles’ giant stride left standing!) In this world, cartoonists are machine-gunned within their editorial staff (Charlie Hebdo), people shot down in cold blood in a performance hall (Le Bataclan), a priest’s throat is slit in his church (Father Hamel), a history-geography teacher is beheaded in the street (Samuel Paty), a modern literature teacher is murdered in a school (Dominique Bernard), for the glory of Allah, of whom Mohammed is the Prophet. No amalgams, I know… But how many corpses must pile up before the altar of the Republic and Right Thought before we realize that there are times when correlation means causation?…
I would like to hear from a competent sociologist. Can you link me to someone like that?
islamists have turned up on the southern coast and have openly bragged “we’re not taking part, we’re taking over.” They have not only been allowed to do that with their islamic ghetti, the two tier justice system has leukophobia baked-in hard.
It’s through the looking glass, now…
West Midlands Police have been accused of carrying out two-tier justice after a white man was arrested after being assaulted by several black men.
Responding to the incident online, Robert Jenrick, the Reform UK MP, said it was “baffling” that the force had decided to arrest the “young white man being attacked” and not those who attacked him. – AOL
I would argue that the UK is far worse than mainland Europe, worse even than the Middle East. We still haven’t banned the IRGC and the muslim brotherhood. Even the Gulf states won’t send their young people to university here.
The UAE has restricted government funding for students studying in the UK, citing concerns over radicalisation and tensions linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. – Business Standard
Now we have the prospect of Comrade Burnham, and when the nation is literally falling apart his chief concern is devolution; opening a second No 10 in the North (Manchester).
Got that? Another expensive and duplicative operation That’s his, er, vision thus far.
Andy Burnham confirms he will set up ‘No 10 North’ in Manchester in major policy speech – Gushing Grauniad
What we don’t know and what will make all the difference is where mad Ed Miliband ends up. Energy(lack of) or the Treasury (money, lack of).
We’re kind of doomed, either way with this lot of cultural marxists in charge.
just a little note on the kid in the alligator pit? later news said he was Uninterviewable and he was released..why? because it appears he was seriously mentally deficient prob shouldnt BE out in public ..but was. the blame falls on whoever took him OUT on public if he wasnt doped enough to behave or really even BE out.
This is a carbon copy of the little French boy who was thrown by a loony out with two carers at the Tate museum in 2019:
The unnamed French child, then aged just six, was hurled from the tenth floor of the South London art gallery by disturbed teen Jonty Bravery in 2019.
He suffered life-changing injuries including bleeding on the brain and broken bones, but miraculously survived the fall. Daily Mail
The carers have not been in any way disciplined or sanctioned. The media portrayed them as victims. And in this case? They let him go and worse…
Carers accompanying a disabled man on a trip to a Cambridgeshire zoo were ‘on their phones’ and ‘ten metres behind him’ before he allegedly hurled a three-year-old boy into a crocodile enclosure.
England is sinking in progressive mire.
As often happens when foreigners write about the UK, Paul Driessen’s rant contains a few nuggets of truth buried in an awful lot of ignorant, unsubstantiated claims and sensationalist supposition. The UK media have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever reported that 11-years-old girls were trafficked abroad by the grooming gangs as Mr Driessen implies; I don’t know where he got that from.
And, before anyone accuses me of being on the side of the grooming gangs, let me state categorically that I abhor what they do / have done. But exaggeration on this scale does not reinforce Mr Driessen’s point, as he seems to think, it weakens it.
This sort of rabble-rousing reminds me of the US TV reporter some while ago who claimed that muslim gangs ruled the streets of Birmingham and that it was unsafe to go there. Total rubbish, of course, but the more-stupid who dwell amongst us tend to believe it.
I’m sorry that WUWT has let itself be used as a vehicle to spread such racist fictions. Where has the moderator gone?
Birmingham
“”During a live broadcast in Birmingham on Monday, 5 August, Sky News’ communities correspondent Becky Johnson was surrounded by thugs wearing masks.
People appeared on the streets after word had spread among Birmingham’s muslim community that the far right were planning a rally in the city.
After speaking live from Birmingham, the Sky crew were then followed by a man wearing a balaclava and holding a knife.
The man stabbed the tyre of their Sky broadcast van but did not damage the vehicle so the crew was able to drive away.””
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/uk-riots-birmingham-sky-news-reporter-thugs-b2591654.html
I wouldn’t go to Sparkford if I were you, the islamists are claiming their territory.
Have you heard of the Islamic Pakistani rape gangs?
According to some, if the BBC didn’t cover it, it didn’t happen.
The woke media make it a point to avoid printing things that might put minorities in a bad light.
One can read the Rape Gang Report for oneself and form one’s own conclusions rather than accepting the unsupported rationalizations of “atticman” at face value.
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2066873370239537189
Evidence for the kidnap and removal of English girls to Pakistan is solid and corroborated by several sources.
Read Rupert Lowe’s report on the Pakistani R@pe Gangs and hang your head in shame. Your accusation of racism is a disgraceful smear.
Here’s a You Tube of a presentation from Katherine Birbalsingh who says much the same things that Paul Driessen says and probably more.
Katherine Birbalsingh is a national treasure who dares to tell inconvenient and unpleasant truths. No wonder the educational establishment and likely the entire British elite hate her.
The fall of Rome took centuries, the fall of western countries seems to take a lot less maybe due to social media, blame Bell for inventing the phone and the guys who invented the mobile phone. All those folks glued to their phones sure look like Bison herds. If civilization is to be saved a whole lot of things needs to change.
It seems the author plays loose with facts, as others allude to. Then there is this regarding solar panels:
“ EU policies have also resulted in millions of acres …”
The hot link goes to a page with regard to France and says millions of solar panels, not acres — While France uses hectares.
As many as 1,500 panels can be fit to an acre. A million acres is about the size of Rhode Island. How many Rhode Islands are we to assume? Exaggeration and hyperbole are methods used by activists with an agenda. Skeptics and realists ought to avoid such tactics.
Current estimates are that almost 500,000 ha (> 1 million acres) of otherwise productive agricultural land in the EU is covered by solar panels. Of course, this does not entirely prevent the use of the land beneath the panels for some purposes, and even this large number represents only about 0.5% of the EU’s arable land. This total excludes rooftop solar and solar construction on Brownfield/disturbed land.
Not to mention that solar farms and wind farms along with their transmission linesare b*** ugly. Of course, if you are one of the majority who lives in the city, you don’t have to put up with the visual pollution and habitat disruption, so you have no reason to care if your whole life revolves around your urban bubble.
It’s only a small percentage of available crop land, on the other hand it’s also only a small percentage of the EU’s power supply.
How much land will be covered once all other sources of power are eliminated and everything electrified.
Remember, the best land has already been taken, as the need for more power grows, the new installations will have to start progressing north, which means less power per panel, which means more panels are needed to provide the same amount of power.
Don’t forget all the land that will be needed for batteries so that those weeks with heavy clouds and no wind can be bridged over. PS, can’t put those batteries too close together so when one catches fire, the rest don’t go up as well.
I’ll believe the natives are restless when the natives start acting like their restless. Until the natives start voting for politicians who will enact change, I won’t believe they are restless.
Top down, bottom up, squeeze out the middle class. And Not A Shot Is Fired.