The Night Is Always Darkest Before the Dawn
It’s easy to misunderstand what happened in Britain on Thursday. I’m talking about the general election, of course, which saw the election of a new Labour government, under Keir Starmer.
If you look at the number of seats alone, you’ll be apt to think Starmer must be a pretty popular guy. Labour now has 412 seats in the House of Commons, with a majority of 174. The Conservatives, by contrast, have just 121 seats, their worst result in history.
Peer a little closer, though, and things are not quite as they seem. The kinks of Britain’s first-past-the-post system soon reveal themselves. For 34% of the vote share, Labour got 63% of the seats. The Conservatives, meanwhile, on 24% of the vote, got 19%. The surging Reform party, led by Nigel Farage, got 14% of the vote. And do you know how many seats they got? Five, or less than 1% of the total. The Liberal Democrats, traditionally Britain’s “third party” got 12% of the vote—-and 11% of the seats.
Hardly seems fair, does it?
“The Electoral Reform Society says this was the most disproportional election in British history,” Tweeted Nigel Farage this morning. They’re right, and so is he.
The truth is, when you look at the actual numbers, Keir Starmer is about as popular as Tony Blair at the nadir of his premiership, in 2005, and significantly less popular than virtually every other Labour leader in the party’s history, except the truly dismal Michael Foot, in 1983—a man about as charismatic as the festering three-week-old contents of a teenage boy’s gym bag—and the anthropomorphic nightmare that was Ed Miliband, in 2010. Miliband couldn’t even eat a sandwich without looking like an eldritch horror spawned from the deepest recesses of the mind of HP Lovecraft.
The comparison with Starmer’s predecessor as leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, is particularly stark. With his 9,660,394 votes, Starmer became Prime Minister with 3.2 million less votes than Corbyn won when he lost the 2017 election against Theresa May, and 600,000 less than when Corbyn was hammered by Boris Johnson in 2019. The average seat majority has shrunk by almost half, from 11,300 in 2019, to 6,600.
Starmer’s “landslide” was actually nothing of the sort. If the election result was anything, it wasn’t a vote for Starmer—somebody you’d struggle to pick out of a police lineup even if he was the only one in it—but a vote against the Conservatives. This was punishment. The British public, rightly, wanted to hurt the Tories for doing absolutely nothing to make Britain a better place to live over the last 14 years. These included not just swing voters in the north and former industrial areas of the country, mainly white working-class people, whom Boris Johnson had managed to wrestle away from their traditional Labour allegiance, mere decades after Labour had abandoned them for right-thinking middle classes and new imported demographics, but also traditional Tory voters in the English heartlands who had simply had enough of being lied to, especially about the crucial issue of immigration.
Britain, for want of a better word, has become a sh*thole, and it’s the Conservative Party’s fault. Everybody knows this.
The real success story of the election, even if it didn’t translate directly into seats in Parliament, obviously lies with Reform. In a period of just over a month, Nigel Farage has pretty much turned British politics on its head. The return of the most charismatic man in British politics, the closest thing we have to a populist superstar—the closest thing, dare I say it?, we have to Trump—has made Reform Britain’s second party in waiting.
Faced with the prospect of another disastrous Labour government, many traditional Conservatives will have struggled to vote against their party. But I suspect that in four years’ time they won’t be so hesitant to vote for Farage, when it becomes clear just how terrible Labour are and that the Conservatives haven’t learned a damn thing from last week’s result. In the immediate aftermath, as commentators rejoiced, barely a single Conservative MP could identify mass immigration as the driving issue behind their historic defeat.
“Zero seats” became a popular slogan of right-wing disaffection with the Conservatives during this election, and it could well become a reality in 2029. The Conservatives will deserve it.
Reform didn’t win this election, but they’ve set themselves on the path to win the next. What’s more, they’ve revealed that Britain is not isolated from the resurgence of the right wing that’s taking place across Europe. Britain is still an island, yes, and it may not be in the EU anymore, but it’s a part of something much bigger, something that threatens to upend the liberal order across the continent and allow the peoples of Europe a fresh chance at self-determination and self-governance.
Before the return of Nigel Farage, such a possibility seemed a very distant one indeed. Now, on a clear day, it’s visible, like the shores of France from the cliffs of Dover.
But regardless of whether or not Keir Starmer and the Labour Party have a mandate from the British people, they have power, and that means Britain will suffer. Starmer is a “reasonable revolutionary” in the Tony Blair mould, a man whose unprepossessing exterior and awkward-dad mannerisms disguise the beating heart of a gay race communist: a man who wants to continue the dismantling of Britain and make it permanent—forever. Tony Blair was the leader of the most revolutionary government in Britain’s modern history, a government that transformed Britain in just 13 years, and did so from the moment it took office, for ideological reasons.
We all know the remarks made by Andrew Neather, sometime around 2010: the New Labour policy of mass immigration was specifically designed to “rub the right’s nose in diversity” and make it impossible for a truly conservative government ever to take power again. New Labour succeeded mightily, so mightily in fact, that when the Conservatives finally came to power in 2010, they didn’t know what to do except continue the policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Starmer will intensify mass immigration and spread the benefits of diversity to rural as well as urban communities. He will intensify the politicization of the bureaucracy and justice system. He has already committed himself to the introduction of new “hate-speech laws,” and will set the police and intelligence services on right-wingers. He will commit the nation to retarded green-energy policies that destroy productivity and blight the nation’s landscape. We know all of this not just because he is a Blairite, but because he is a leftist, and this is what leftists are doing across the length and breadth of Europe.
The next four years will not be a good time to be British, but things will be even worse if you’re British and on the real right. But as they say, the night is always darkest before the dawn. Have cheer and be of good faith.
Epstein Files Come At A Bad Time For The Elite
100% of Tampons Contain Toxic Heavy Metals like Lead and Arsenic
One-hundred percent of tampons tested by scientists as part of a new study contained toxic heavy metals such as lead and arsenic.
Heavy metals are highly toxic and can even cause death in sufficient concentration. At lower concentrations, they can cause profound health effects by binding to vital cellular components such as proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids. Long-term exposure can have carcinogenic, neurotoxic and circulatory effects.
Researchers tested 60 tampons representing 14 different brands from the US, UK and EU. These included name brands and also store-brand products, and organic and non-organic products.
The samples were analyzed using a process called inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) to identify metals present.
The researchers founded lead and cadmium in 100% of samples. Arsenic was found in 95% of samples. The highest concentrations were for zinc and calcium, which are not considered to be toxic.
UK and EU tampons generally had lower concentrations of metals than US tampons.
While organic products had lower levels of lead, they had higher levels of arsenic.
It’s unclear what the effects of this contamination are at present, and the researchers behind the new study believe further research is urgently needed. Vaginal tissue is among the most absorbent tissue in the body and provides a direct route into the bloodstream without undergoing first-pass metabolism in the digestive system. Vaginal delivery is known to lead to higher uterine concentrations of drugs than oral delivery.
It’s therefore likely that regular use of shop-bought tampons is a source of significant exposure to toxic heavy metals.
The average woman will may use as many as 11,000 tampons in her lifetime, amounting to 1,800 days or five full years of intimate exposure to whatever substances are on those tampons.
As well as heavy metals, endocrine-disrupting and carcinogenic chemicals are persistent contaminants of women’s sanitary products, including tampons and pads. Many of these chemicals are used as fragrances or for their antimicrobial or non-stick properties. Others may be present due to the manufacturing process. Dioxins, known carcinogens, are a byproduct of chlorine bleaching, which is often used on sanitary products.
Epstein Files Come At A Bad Time For The Elite
Le Pen Pledges to Block Troop Deployment to Ukraine
France’s right-wing National Rally (RN) party will block potential troop deployments to Ukraine and bar Kiev from using French-supplied weaponry to strike Russian soil should it emerge victorious in the parliamentary elections and secure the office of prime minister of the country, Marine Le Pen, the former long-time leader of the party, has said.
She made the remarks on Thursday in an interview with CNN ahead of the second round of voting scheduled for Sunday. The final say on the potential deployment of French troops to Ukraine belongs to the prime minister, and the stance of President Emmanuel Macron does not actually matter in such cases, she suggested. Over the past few months, Macron has repeatedly mulled the idea, using increasingly belligerent rhetoric on the Ukrainian conflict.
“If Emmanuel Macron wants to send troops to Ukraine and the prime minister is against it, then there are no troops sent to Ukraine. The prime minister has the final say,” Le Pen stated.
Her party in power would also bar Kiev from using French-supplied weapons to conduct strikes on Russian soil, Le Pen said, arguing that the permission to do so makes Paris “co-belligerent” in the conflict.
National Rally’s stance sharply differs from the take of most Western leaders, who had allowed their weaponry to be used for such strikes, repeatedly claiming that it had not made their countries a party to the hostilities. Moscow has repeatedly warned the collective West against supplying increasingly sophisticated weapons to Kiev, stating that Ukraine’s backers have for long been involved in the hostilities, which it sees as a “proxy war” on Russia.
Le Pen’s rhetoric appeared to be rather reserved, given the fears that her party could take drastic measures, including ceasing all support for Ukraine or even taking France out of the US-led NATO bloc altogether. Such concerns have been mounting in the EU lately, Euractiv has reported, citing several anonymous diplomats.
The RN party came out on top in the first round of France’s snap election, securing 33% of the vote. The election was called by Macron after his party suffered a crushing defeat to the RN in the European Parliament elections last month.
Macron’s centrist Ensemble bloc also fared poorly in the first round of domestic polls, coming only third, with 20%, while the second place was taken by a left-wing coalition hastily assembled ahead of the polls. In the second round, the RN is projected to win up to 280 seats of the 577-seat National Assembly.
Top Pedophile Hunter Censored For Exposing Democrat Party Child Predators
States Struggling to Battle Biden Border Invasion
The goal of the Biden administration is to bring in millions of illegal aliens and settle them on U.S. soil. It’s been working and thus, from the perspective of the administration, it’s a successful policy.
The states, of course, have to deal with the problems caused by this agenda. And they are, with distinctly different approaches and varying levels of success.
Let’s look at a few states and how they are doing:
TEXAS
The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long. Of that total, the Texas portion is 1,254 miles. That’s a lot of ground to cover.
For several years, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has been taking action to secure his state’s border.
It hasn’t been as successful as we would like, but Texas has a presence on the border and a legal argument to be there.
Recent reports (see here and here) indicate that the Texas National Guard is having some success in actually pushing illegal crossers back into Mexico. (This strategy was suggested in a prior article by yours truly.)
The great advantage of this tactic is you don’t have to worry about what to do with the detainees, just push them back into Mexico.
OKLAHOMA
The Oklahoma legislature recently passed a law establishing the crime of impermissible occupation, allowing for the removal of illegal aliens.
However, Oklahoma’s Governor Kevin Stitt (contact him here) is tolerant of illegal foreign labor and is confused about how the state’s government should work.
Stitt thinks that the Mexican diplomatic corps is the fourth branch of Oklahoma government and appointed the Mexican Consul to a task force set up to facilitate foreign labor.
But not to worry, Governor Stitt – the law was to take effect July 1, but on June 28, Federal Judge Bernard M. Jones put a hold on it. His Honor said that Oklahoma can’t undermine federal law.
With all due respect, Judge Jones has it backwards. It’s the federal government that’s undermining federal immigration law.
IOWA
In the state of Iowa, the “illegal reentry” law was signed in April but it has also been blocked in court.
MASSACHUSETTS
This is a bizarre one.
In June, Maura Healey, governor of the “sanctuary” state of Massachusetts, dispatched messengers to the border to warn illegal invaders that the Massachusetts system of shelters is full and can’t take any more illegals.
Why not just ask the federal government to control the border?
FLORIDA
Last year, the state of Florida passed a law designed to deal with the illegal alien influx into that state. It took effect July 1 (see here and here).
It includes mandatory E-Verify, a prohibition of granting IDs to illegal aliens, and other measures.
Another stipulation of the law is that hospitals administering Medicaid have to inquire about the immigration status of their patients.
Guess what? Not even a year later, this stipulation has reportedly decreased government spending.
“Florida’s Emergency Medical Assistance program for undocumented immigrants has seen a 54 percent drop in expenditures billed to Medicaid this year — with less than two months remaining in the fiscal year — since the state immigration law took effect,” Arek Sarkissian reported last month in Politico.
There’s a lesson there. Cracking down on illegal immigration reduces government spending in the long term.
There are naysayers.
Thomas Kennedy of the Florida Immigrant Coalition says that it can’t be proven the decrease is a result of the law.
However, he does admit that, “Obviously, there’s been somewhat of an exodus of migrants in Florida. When this was all going through — we had warned about the exacerbated work[force] shortages and the distressed industries — we said this would be a bad idea.”
Of course.
According to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, “We made sure when you have people show up at the hospital that we’re asking about immigration status, and that’s caused the Medicaid expenditures to plummet by 50%.”
CONCLUSION
It’s difficult, but states can make a difference.
Meanwhile, the presidential election is four months away…
Jack Posobiec joins Alex Jones live in-studio to give his expert analysis of the state of the union.
Democratic Donors Urge Biden to Step Aside – WaPo
A group of 168 Democratic Party supporters, including major donors and academics, sent a letter to US President Joe Biden on Friday, urging him to drop his bid for reelection, the Washington Post has reported, citing anonymous sources.
Over the past week, several other media outlets have claimed that pressure on Biden is mounting from within the party, but the incumbent is digging in his heels.
Doubts over whether the 81-year-old is mentally and physically capable of leading the country for another four years have grown since his halting performance in a televised debate against Republican rival Donald Trump last week. Biden appeared frail and confused throughout the encounter – something he and his campaign have put down to a cold and travel-related fatigue.
In its article on Friday, the Post quoted the letter as “respectfully” calling on Biden to “withdraw from being a candidate for reelection for the sake of our democracy and the future of our nation.”
The plea cited “threats posed by a second term of Donald Trump” and advised Biden to “cement your legacy by passing the torch – just as George Washington did.”
According to the paper, the 168 signatories include Christy Walton, the billionaire daughter-in-law of Walmart’s founder, as well as billionaire investor Mike Novogratz and Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, among many other top-level business executives and academics.
Speaking to the New York Times on Wednesday, Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings argued that “Biden needs to step aside to allow a vigorous Democratic leader to beat Trump and keep us safe and prosperous.”
The article noted that while Hastings was one of the first major Democratic donors to publicly vent his frustration, many of his peers are privately expressing similar concerns.
On the same day, another major Democratic Party donor, Charles Myers, the chair of Signum Global Advisors, told Bloomberg Surveillance that Biden has “four to five days” to prove he is fit to continue the race for reelection.
The president has, however, brushed off all suggestions he should step aside.
“Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can, as simply and straightforward as I can: I am running… no one’s pushing me out. I’m not leaving,” the politician insisted during a call with campaign staffers on Wednesday.
Top Pedophile Hunter Censored For Exposing Democrat Party Child Predators
Biden Was Barely Able to Speak Before Debate With Trump – Reports
US President Joe Biden could hardly speak two days before the unsuccessful debate with former US leader Donald Trump due to a strong cold and exhaustion, Politico has reported, citing sources familiar with the situation.
On Friday, Biden said in an interview with ABC News that he was sick and felt terrible during the debate.
On June 25, Biden woke up with a cold, held a brief rehearsal of the debate with his staff, and then rested all day, Politico reported on Friday, citing five sources.
His COVID-19 tests reportedly came back negative. The next day, aides tried to catch up with the debate, with preparations continuing into Thursday morning, the report read. Some aides believe the increased rehearsals further exhausted Biden, the sources told the news website.
Freudian slip or candid confession? Biden dazzles with wit at campaign event
“By the way, I couldn’t ponder! Ugh, I guess I shouldn’t say it. By the way, I couldn’t be prouder!”
Well, at least he’s fair. pic.twitter.com/iPlkIO2T4o— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) July 6, 2024
Biden appeared confused and incoherent throughout his first debate with Republican frontrunner Trump last Thursday, reinforcing rather than refuting ongoing concerns about his cognitive abilities at age 81. His poor performance has led some Democratic politicians, donors, and other supporters to call for his removal as candidate.
The US presidential election is slated for November. The main contenders expected on the ballot are Biden and Trump, who have both won enough delegates’ votes to be their respective Democratic and Republican parties’ presumptive nominees. Trump and Biden are set to debate again on September 10.
Top Pedophile Hunter Censored For Exposing Democrat Party Child Predators