Article Starmer must find workable plan to ‘stop the boats’ or Farage becomes prime minister

[Yazata]

Estimates by friendly sources are ranging from one to three million. The former seems possible, the latter might be an exaggeration.

And there are reports of disorder breaking out. What video there is shows lines of outnumbered police in riot gear trying to push back the crowd with little success. Apparently the growing crowd is filling all of the streets around the British government quarter at Whitehall, and might be intruding into an area set aside for leftwing counterdemonstrators. And the map below suggests they might have strayed off streets that were set aside for them and are blocking traffic on other streets, from Westminster bridge to Trafalgar square. I have seen no reports of looting, arson, property damage or any attacks on government buildings. But I'd guess that the sheer size of this is putting a big scare into the government.

[Image: G0vfBRaWYAAp4Dm?format=jpg&name=small]

[stryder]

As I write this an absolutely huge peaceful demonstration is taking place in London in favor of British nationalism, and in opposition to mass-migration. Many are holding signs remembering Charlie Kirk and chanting 'Charlie, Charlie'. The demonstration's scale is visible in the video in the X post below:

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1966836475804410120

The terminally-woke London Metropolitan Police are low-balling it, claiming that it's 'only' 110,000 people, but I've seen mass demonstrations and this is more than that, several hundred thousand at the very least, perhaps half a million or more. Again, watch the video.

I'm pretty sure the Charlie stuff is just planted to get more "likes" on their feeds. Without Charlie having been killed, would he even have been mentioned?

I have seen no reports of looting, arson, property damage or any attacks on government buildings. But I'd guess that the sheer size of this is putting a big scare into the government.

It's not the same as the student riots back when Liberal Democrats formed a Coalition with Conservatives and undermined what they had hoped for. That being said I would of expected a higher level of crime in other areas from county lines gangs and migrants raiding places while the police were tied up.

[Syne]

When there's that many people, I don't know where you're hoping to push them back to.

---

Without Charlie having been killed, would he even have been mentioned?

Oh, you mean like your criticisms of him here? @_@
I didn't see anyone here talking about Charlie Kirk before this.

[stryder]

Without Charlie having been killed, would he even have been mentioned?

Oh, you mean like your criticisms of him here? @_@
I didn't see anyone here talking about Charlie Kirk before this.

[Syne]

As I write this an absolutely huge peaceful demonstration is taking place in London in favor of British nationalism, and in opposition to mass-migration. Many are holding signs remembering Charlie Kirk and chanting 'Charlie, Charlie'. The demonstration's scale is visible in the video in the X post below:

Brits protesting for, among other things, free speech, and hailing a free speech martyr.

[stryder]

As I write this an absolutely huge peaceful demonstration is taking place in London in favor of British nationalism, and in opposition to mass-migration. Many are holding signs remembering Charlie Kirk and chanting 'Charlie, Charlie'. The demonstration's scale is visible in the video in the X post below:

Brits protesting for, among other things, free speech, and hailing a free speech martyr.

Less than 0.2% of the population flinging their wang about. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them have criminal records (Including 'Tommy Robinson')

Lets consider for a second that Graffiti is a like Free Speech.

It's potentially a statement that some people free place anywhere and everywhere. The problem is that it can lead to a place looking unsightly, it can be hijacked to mark gang territories (a bit like having a bunch of yobs claim they are marching for free speech) and increases the likelihood that nearby areas will have an increase in crime. By law it can be defined as vandalism and illegal, therefore graffiti is often painted over to make sure that it's not tolerated (Which is the equivalent of censorship.)

Personally I prefer a well orientated graffiti piece that expresses the satyr of the debacle over a bunch of yobs oi-ting.

[Syne]

Graffiti (vandalism) is generally against the law. Like threats, incitement, etc., it's not protected free speech.
But just look at the lengths you have to go through to quell the cognitive dissonance of such a massive protest in your country. Even though there's no vandalism, looting, rioting, etc., you have to presume them largely criminals. And for what, because you like the immigrants and censorship?

[C C]

Estimates by friendly sources are ranging from one to three million. The former seems possible, the latter might be an exaggeration...

How things turn around over time. Even the Labour-voting proles in the video at bottom feel that the left has cast them aside to be the paladin of marginalized population groups (in this particular case, unauthorized migrants). But there is no choice, since the "less-educated" working class is deemed by the intelligentsia to be the primary source of all forms of bigotry. This historical-laden irony of bidding adieu to the proletariat was inevitable.

And Tommy Robinson... Akin to populist Trump across the pond, it seems to be an era where the "hoi polloi" have switched to investing in imperfect leaders that are effective. Rather than the usual "color-within-the-lines" moral icons of the past, who accordingly weren't aggressive and tactical enough to prevent the establishment from suppressing or thwarting them. With Trump, of course, it's in the context of winning elections rather than just activist rallies (and the latter is arguably more of a thing in the UK than the US, as far as populist street demonstrations go).

Is Tommy Robinson just a populist, period, instead of far-right? ... https://youtu.be/JFilbWaTO3k

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/JFilbWaTO3k

[Yazata]

Isn't it the whole point of democracy that the people themselves decide what kind of society they want to live in? Then they vote for representatives who will champion their vision in the halls of power?

What we've seen in recent years on both sides of the Atlantic are various self-appointed elites appointing themselves Plato's Republic-style Philosopher Kings, with the power to decide for themselves what the people should want if they were only less bigoted and more educated. Then they present various elite visions to the people to choose among at election time. So in Britain both the Conservatives and Labour offer the people variations on the same theme (the end of British nationalism, unrestricted third world migration etc.) In Germany, it's the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats offering the people variations on the same thing. It's the vision that's captured the unelected EU bureaucracy in Brussels as well. Here in the United States, it's the Democratic party and establishment Wall Street Journal style Bushite Republicanism.

Ultimately it's the philosophy of China (not just communist but imperial as well) which helps explain the fondness of Western elites for China, that many see as their model of a well-run top-down state.

So that being the case, more and more of the "common people" both in Europe and the United States become convinced that the elite-captured established political parties no longer listen to them or represent them.

Which, while vestiges of democracy still remain, creates an obvious opportunity for candidates who actually do represent the things that the people want. Candidates who speak to the actual concerns of the voters, not the concerns of lobbyists, celebrities and faculty clubs. It was the brilliance of Donald Trump to perceive that opening here in the United States.

So you get candidates and parties which are more nationalist than the globalist elites can accept. That are more resistant to the erasure of historic peoples and traditional cultures, and hence are hostile to globalist open borders. We are seeing it everywhere as older parties are transformed (like MAGA seizing hold of the American Republicans) or new insurgent parties appear in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and many other places. And we are seeing that same process playing out in the United Kingdom too. It's what powered Sunday's huge demonstration.

Of course it alarms and is inevitably condemned by the establishment outlets: offering the people what they want is dismissed as "populism", which is supposedly a bad thing (when it's actually the essence of democracy).

The idea that underlies the dismissal of the whole democratic vision of the people deciding for themselves (instead of those on top deciding for them) is contempt (driven ultimately by fear) for what is perceived as the common herd. The people of each country are perceived from on-high as ignorant, violent bigots, the last people who you would want setting the vision for the country. These atavistic "deplorables" (to steal Hillary's memorable phrase) clinging tightly to "their religion and their guns" (Obama's) need to be educated until they agree with their enlightened leaders, and kept silenced and suppressed until they do.

[confused2]

Isn't it the whole point of democracy that the people themselves decide what kind of society they want to live in? Then they vote for representatives who will champion their vision in the halls of power?

What we've seen in recent years on both sides of the Atlantic are various self-appointed elites appointing themselves Plato's Republic-style Philosopher Kings, with the power to decide for themselves what the people should want if they were only less bigoted and more educated. Then they present various elite visions to the people to choose among at election time. So in Britain both the Conservatives and Labour offer the people variations on the same theme (the end of British nationalism, unrestricted third world migration etc.) In Germany, it's the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats offering the people variations on the same thing. It's the vision that's captured the unelected EU bureaucracy in Brussels as well. Here in the United States, it's the Democratic party and establishment Wall Street Journal style Bushite Republicanism.

Ultimately it's the philosophy of China (not just communist but imperial as well) which helps explain the fondness of Western elites for China, that many see as their model of a well-run top-down state.

So that being the case, more and more of the "common people" both in Europe and the United States become convinced that the elite-captured established political parties no longer listen to them or represent them.

Which, while vestiges of democracy still remain, creates an obvious opportunity for candidates who actually do represent the things that the people want. Candidates who speak to the actual concerns of the voters, not the concerns of lobbyists, celebrities and faculty clubs. It was the brilliance of Donald Trump to perceive that opening here in the United States.

So you get candidates and parties which are more nationalist than the globalist elites can accept. That are more resistant to the erasure of historic peoples and traditional cultures, and hence are hostile to globalist open borders. We are seeing it everywhere as older parties are transformed (like MAGA seizing hold of the American Republicans) or new insurgent parties appear in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and many other places. And we are seeing that same process playing out in the United Kingdom too. It's what powered Sunday's huge demonstration.

Of course it alarms and is inevitably condemned by the establishment outlets: offering the people what they want is dismissed as "populism", which is supposedly a bad thing (when it's actually the essence of democracy).

The idea that underlies the dismissal of the whole democratic vision of the people deciding for themselves (instead of those on top deciding for them) is contempt (driven ultimately by fear) for what is perceived as the common herd. The people of each country are perceived from on-high as ignorant, violent bigots, the last people who you would want setting the vision for the country. These atavistic "deplorables" (to steal Hillary's memorable phrase) clinging tightly to "their religion and their guns" (Obama's) need to be educated until they agree with their enlightened leaders, and kept silenced and suppressed until they do.

Brilliant post. Leaving aside my own gut reaction .. do you see direct democracy, anarchy or something else on the horizon?