The difference between the contempt many Britons feel towards Prime Minister Keir Starmer for flooding Britain with illegal Stone Age theocrats and rapists while locking up people who complain about it, and what many Australians feel about their own Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, for embarking on similar policies, is so small that, as my dear late friend cartoonist Bill Leak used to say, “there’s only a bee’s dick in it”.
Starmer and Albanese have many things in common: they are both low-IQ leaders who rose through the ranks of pseudo-socialist globalist-puppet parties and found themselves at the top just as their respective opposing parties were being rendered dysfunctional by woke impostors, and are now emboldened by large parliamentary majorities that are disproportionate to the share of the vote that won them office, which for both of them is in the low 30s.
A humbler politician would be constantly aware of the 60-plus per cent of voters who preferred he wasn’t running the country, and adopt a more consensual approach. But not these two. They seized power like a couple of babies grabbing a chocolate bar.
“You voted for it, and now it has arrived. Change begins now,” Starmer said in his triumphant victory speech a year ago.
Albanese was even worse. The first thing he did upon being re-elected in March was to cast doubt over the legitimacy of the very country that had just elected him its leader: “I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we stand. And I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging today and every day.”
Not only was he saying Australia’s sovereignty was dubious, but the opinion of the 60 per cent of voters who only two years earlier had rejected his referendum to create a separate Aboriginal advisory panel to parliament — in other words, they don’t want Australians’ democratic or sovereign rights defined by race — was now also illegitimate. In Albanese’s democracy, power is absolute, at least until the next election.
But there is one fundamental difference between these two men. Starmer can claim that the society he is trying to create has never been tried before. Should enough people who fail to share his vision form into a mob, descend on Number 10 and march him towards a guillotine, he will be able to plead, however unconvincingly, that he never knew that the fighting-age male Third World peasants he allowed into the country would turn out to behave like fighting-age male Third World peasants, or that draconian state censorship would eventually force people to express their reasonable concerns with scaffolding and a heavy blade instead of posts and memes on social media.
Starmer is forging ahead with a fundamentally transformative social and cultural experiment. It’s possible, albeit highly unlikely, that it will lead to an Islamic utopia with a variety of unforeseen benefits, like men finally being allowed to have as many underage wives as they please, as per iconoclastic French author Michel Houellebecq’s fantastical sugar-coating novel, Submission.
Should Albanese find himself in a similarly historic situation at the hands of an angry mob of patriots brandishing the crude tools of decapitation (I’m legally obliged to add that I don’t for a second advocate for anyone to commit such a gruesome act, even though other leaders have had their heads chopped off for much less in the past), he will have no such caveat.
The evidence that Starmer’s experiment will end in violent upheaval is, of course, already there for everybody to see, not least in the alarming number of British towns and cities that have been colonised by Muslims, where hundreds of thousands of young girls have been systematically raped, tortured and even murdered, and the Muslim communities have covered it up. This is possibly the largest collective act of rape in history. Starmer says the Conservative politicians who failed to demand an inquiry into it while their own party was in government but are demanding one now are “jumping on a bandwagon of the far right”. Ordinary Britons think the issue is less about politics than it is about justice and culture.
Australia hasn’t reached that point yet, as far as we know, but Albanese is doing his best to enable us to do so.
As Adam Creighton says in The Australian today: “The government promised to cut net immigration back to sustainable, pre-Covid levels before the election, which would imply around 250,000 a year, where it had hovered for years. For this calendar year, it’s on track to exceed 550,000, putting immense pressure on housing, infrastructure and social cohesion.”
These are not carefully selected skilled and wealthy people eager to integrate and contribute, but low-skilled families and other economic migrants to whom the most disadvantaged conditions in Australia are relatively idyllic, and have little incentive to climb the economic ladder, especially if cheap housing and welfare discourage them from even trying.
As for British-style censorship, Albanese’s government has already successfully passed a law that requires a digital ID to use social media (the potential misuse of which is frighteningly obvious); and has tried but narrowly failed to pass legislation empowering government apparatchiks to define the truth and jail people for posting anything to the contrary. There is a good chance the government will try it again this term.
Albanese, who is governing a country that has been mercifully spared a lot of the social upheavals of other liberal democracies lately, has nevertheless looked at the social breakdown in Britain and the ensuing discontent among patriotic natives, rubbed his soft little hands together and said, “Blimey, I’ll be ’aving a bit of that, guv.”
Clearly, both he and Starmer are receiving instructions not from their respective electorates but from the same shadowy globalist cabal that is also pulling the strings in Europe, Canada and elsewhere.
Which of them is more reprehensible — Starmer, who is recklessly transforming Britain into something unknown; or Albanese, who is following Starmer fully aware of the destruction it will cause?
Like Bill used to say, there’s only a bee’s dick in it.
