Hollow Men and Real Men

The Keir Starmer and Peter Lynch Contrast

On October 30th Millenial Woes published a powerful essay on the death of Peter Lynch and the nature of Keir Starmer titled The Evil of Banality. I don’t normally include very many links in my articles but this is an important one, so here it is:

The Evil of Banality

It’s an incredibly important piece for a number of reasons. First, I think it gives one of the most accurate assessments of Keir Starmer we have ever seen. Second, it unflinchingly describes not just Starmer but the class of person he represents and the kind of ‘leadership’ the western world is burdened with. And finally it is one of the most searing and honest assessments of the effective State murder of an innocent man which provides a grim tribute not just to Peter Lynch as an individual, but to all of those who suffer the most when uncaring, ambitious, ruthless and ideologically robotic progressive globalists are in charge of a nation.

The main thrust of the article is that there is a howling emptiness called Keir Starmer, that Starmer only peripherally and superficially possesses the qualifying characteristics of a human being. This might be considered demonization and hyperbole, but the article is not a rant or a mere hatchet piece. The tone is controlled and the point is made through a calm (but all the more devastating for it) psychological assessment based on the evidence of Starmer’s actions. The key summation of Starmer’s character is this one:

“Ideology in itself does not matter to Keir Starmer, any more than human emotions matter to him. In a Nazi society, he would own a pristine copy of Mein Kampf. In a Communist society, he would own a pristine copy of Das Kapital. He wouldn’t necessarily have read the book, but it would be vital for him that it be displayed in his home. In our age, this man is not a Nazi or a Communist but a frequenter of Davos. He is attracted to that because the globalist stage is where true power resides today, not in national governments. He admires power. He desires it, too, but not as much as he admires it. He is a willing servant to it because he has no ego; like Angela Merkel, he acts not in self-interest but in robotic obedience. The more human part of him might regard this obedience as “duty”, but it will never morally evaluate it; there isn’t enough human there for such a task.”

There are some very important points raised here, above and beyond the devastatingly accurate assessment of Starmer’s own hollowness and inhumanity. We exist in an era of cognitive dissonance and bizarre contradictions, and this point about Starmer’s lack of ideology reflects that. On the one hand Starmer is the ultimate example of a crazed zealot so far as progressive globalist positions go. He is prepared to destroy his nation on orders from abroad because of his apparent devotion to a whole set of globalist assumptions, and he will do things that are utterly heartless as part of this ‘loyalty to the cause’.

But it is also clearly the case that as Millennial Woes points out, Starmer’s first and perhaps only real love is Power. He serves the Power and at the moment, that is globalist progressivism and the various inverted morals favored by the Islington dinner party set (and their masters) which forms his social circle.

So we have this innate contradiction here. The very thing that allows Starmer to be such a perfect and seemingly fanatical servant of progressive attitudes at their most insane is his lack of ideology. He bonds to whatever is there and seems Powerful when he emerges mewling from whatever hideous slime coated cocoon produces ‘men’ like this. It’s absolutely right to note that he would be equally comfortable as a Nazi or a Communist, as a Globalist or a Nationalist. To apply gay dating terminology, whatever was on top, Starmer would be a happy ‘bottom’.

I’ve spoken about this hollowness in Starmer myself on innumerable occasions and in several of my prior Substack pieces. It’s a trait that is also very discernible in more successful mimics of humanity like Tony Blair. These are not men of any kind of conscience, even an evil one. There are no principles to be found in such creatures, even distorted or malign ones. There is only a howling void, an emptiness in the facsimile of a man. With Blair that void was an ever hungry personal greed that made Starmer’s displays of that particular failing as mediocre as everything else about him.

A Blair works like a locust, and consumes with an unending hunger. A Starmer though is even more horrifying in a way, because he will sell himself and his nation for a lot less. We have discovered for instance that he can be bought and owned for just £6,000 pounds a year, enough for a very modest (by elite standards) yearly clothing allowance. He manages to be even more of a void than Blair was, because we knew that Blair was Vanity and Greed and Self-Enrichment. These traits do not make a man, but they get a little closer to one than whatever Starmer is.

Is there anything more pathetic than a grown man who can be purchased for the cost of a Taylor Swift ticket? Even wanting such a ticket is a manifestation of having no tastes, likes or interests of his own. He can be purchased in that way because he can’t even be imaginative about his vices. He wants what the Powerful want, what the Powerful say is desirable with a complete absence of an intervening personality of his own.

The only thing worse than a zealot who will destroy his country out of insane belief, or a charlatan who will sell out his country from pure greed, is a Starmer. A man who will do the same out of the purest form of mediocrity imaginable, out of a lack of beingness, and more cheaply than anyone else because even his fanaticisms and even his greeds are third or fourth rate.

This is not a Machiavelli or even a Judas. This is a middle ranking midwit, an innate follower of orders, a man of the crowd who like Poe’s flaneur observes humanity because there is nothing individually human in him, a quintessential bureaucrat of the sort who would efficiently type the minutes and accounts of a concentration camp without any of it impinging on his day. He is exactly the type the NPC meme was invented to represent, the purest form of drone imaginable. He is a sleepwalker incapable of awareness or self-reflection, guilt or regret, shame or even genuine anger. He might as well wear bland pyjamas to every event because if there is anything human there, its sleeping more deeply than Cthulhu.

And this is the Hollow Man who has used his position and the power of the State to, at of course a polite and cowardly remove, murder Peter Lynch. Starmer will feel no guilt for this. His sleep will not be disturbed by what he has done. He could consign a thousand, ten thousand, a million more to death with no impact on his soul (he lacks the thing entirely), and no particular glee either. You might as well ask Mr Magoo or Mr Bean to notice the destruction they leave in their wake. He is blind to it entirely. If it is brought to his attention, there might be a small reflex of irritation at the injustice of it all, that questioning, that unnecessary criticism, perhaps a sense that others are being cruel or mean to him.

When such points are raised, people will of course say that this is simply me (or Millennial Woes) doing what the mainstream media do to Trump. They will pretend its the same. But the thing that makes it different is Peter Lynch. It’s the death of Peter Lynch, the persecution of Tommy Robinson, the imprisonment of thousands of people for thought crimes and speech crimes. It’s the active application of tyranny, and the real and culpable guilt for innocent deaths, that makes the difference.

There was no Peter Lynch for whose death Trump is directly responsible.

At this point we should share the words that sent Peter Lynch to prison. We should share the supposedly vile, racist and horrific words that saw Keir Starmer demand ‘swift justice’ and harsh sentencing. Let us see what Starmer and the equally despicable woke Judge Jeremy Richardson felt justified the imprisonment of a man with no prior criminal record for two and a half years, an imprisonment which drove this man to suicide. It was this:

“You police are protecting people who are killing our kids, raping them and they have got protection from your shit. We’re on the streets now to protect them from them and you. Your family live on our streets.

You police are Muslim raping protectors, child killing protectors.

I’m not doing anything illegal. I’m praying for our children. I pray for my children.”

Peter Lynch lived in Rotherham. Rotherham was one of the most notorious centers of the Muslim grooming gangs. These gangs raped (at a very low estimate) 1,400 girls in Rotherham. Reports of child rape involving Muslim gangs circulated from at least the early 1990s. Reports were passed between 1997-2013 to the police, to Rotherham Council and to local authorities and politicians. These reports were ignored. Victims who came forward were ignored and described as troublemakers. Authorities worried about being called racist if they investigated, and the police warned about community relations being impacted.

For a considerable portion of the time in which the grooming gangs were ignored, Keir Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Blair government, the man with ultimate responsibility for deciding which cases went to court. He issued instructions that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Muslim child rape gangs.

In other words, everything Peter Lynch said and was sent to prison for was objectively true. Keir Starmer, the police and the justice system had effectively aided and abetted Muslim rape gangs, with an official lack of interest and a refusal to investigate and prosecute allowing these gangs to operate for years raping children again and again. Many victims were raped for years by several gangs. Their abusers traded them as sex slaves. These were nearly all white children. Even after the reports started to be confirmed and finally some prosecutions took place, Labour figures like the MP Naz Shah shared tweets and posts laughing at the victims. Shah shared and liked one (from a parody account she took seriously) which said “those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.”

The British Justice system being thoroughly corrupt, Naz Shah was able to subsequently sue the Brexit Leave campaign in 2020 when it referred to her as a “grooming gangs apologist”, despite this being perhaps a mild description for a serving MP who shared posts telling grooming gang victims to shut up. Shah claimed that the like and share was an “accident” and the court decided that Leave should pay damages and apologize.

Keir Starmer and his Labour Party repeatedly gave Shah posts almost designed to rub the noses of grooming gang victims in the fact that the Labour Party and its supporters do not care about their suffering. Shah served as Shadow Women and Equalities Minister between 2018-2020. Then Community Cohesion Minister between 2020-2021. Then Crime Reduction Minister between 2021-2023.

Does this all sound rather like Peter Lynch was telling the truth?

When Muslim gangs were raping thousands of white children, Keir Starmer refused to prosecute cases against them. Afterwards, he promoted an MP who liked a truly vile post about the victims and put her in charge of portfolios related to the crimes. When months of rioting took place in the US causing billions of damage and resulting in more than 20 deaths, Keir Starmer signalled his support for those riots by kneeling for Black Lives Matter. When a Labour MP has a past of social media posts sharing the hate-filled narrative (linked to assassination attempts) that Trump is a Nazi, Starmer selects that person as his Foreign Secretary in charge of Britain’s diplomacy.

But when a British grandfather accurately talks about those grooming gangs and the corruption that let them flourish for years, Starmer puts pressure on the judges and the police to round him up, put him in a prison (that is controlled by Muslim gangs) and make his life so unbearable that he kills himself.

This was a grandfather who did not encourage violence, did not riot, did not break anything, did not hit anyone, did not have a weapon, did not set anything on fire, did not cause any property damage. He did not attack any Muslims. He did not attack any members of the police. He did not as he said himself actually do anything illegal. There is no legitimate British law that sends people to prison for being ‘in the vicinity of an alleged riot’ or that sends people to prison for ‘voicing an opinion Keir Starmer doesn’t like’.

But Keir Starmer and Judge Jeffrey Richardson sent this man to prison anyway. No prior record. A loving father and grandfather. 61 years old, with angina and health issues. “What a disgraceful example of a grandfather you are. Not a man of good character” Judge Richardson opined, having previously released actual child abusers without prison sentences.

They sent him to a prison where God knows what could be done to him by Muslim gangs in there. Who knows what he suffered in those two months before he killed himself? Perhaps it is best not to know.

They did that to him, they made it happen.

There are things that the Millenial Woes article gets wrong. It ludicrously suggests that Jeremy Corbyn would have treated Peter Lynch more humanely, when the real difference would have been that Corbyn would believe the ideological reasons for his cruel treatment, rather than just enacting them through devotion to Power.

It also rather absurdly describes Starmer as a man having some ability and talent, when really he is as mediocre there as he is soulless elsewhere. Most unfairly, it describes Peter Lynch as a man without ability, when Peter Lynch showed the abilities that really matter the most of all. Starmer’s success (becoming a Prime Minister) and Lynch’s lack of success (he was unemployed at the time of his arrest) are not reflective of differing innate abilities, but of class background.

The Corbyn admiration and a very dodgy reference to Starmer marrying into a ‘tribe’ are jarringly bum notes in an article that is otherwise a terrible but beautiful symphony of reasons to reject globalist politicians.

But the thing it gets resoundingly right is their difference as men when comparing Starmer with his victim Lynch. Starmer is an absence of manhood, of virtue, of humanity, of care for your place and people. He has no interests other than Power. Lynch by contrast had a real life because he was a real man. He loved his town, his home, his family in ways a Starmer cannot comprehend. He was ready to pray for them because he believed in something. He was ready to fight injustice in a real way rather than in the virtue signalling false causes artificially adopted way that sees a middle class white man in Britain kneeling for a criminal class black thug in the US just because blackness is now sacred to the Powerful. Lynch was defending and protecting real people he actually knew. He was praying for his children and the town they lived in.

Peter Lynch’s sister in law said this:

“Peter wasn’t a violent person. There’s no free speech anymore, is there. He’s not a criminal. He was a working father and grandfather. A fantastic brother-in-law. The last place he should have been [was] in a prison cell.”

Peter Lynch’s neighbor said this:

“He wasn’t a criminal - he wasn’t a bad person at all. I would say he was a kind man actually. It’s unthinkable that someone in his health was put in prison for the first time. He was a victim of politics. He should never have been put in there.”

Millennial Woes begins his article with these quotes. I end mine with the same, because these words must be heard again and again. Peter Lynch must be heard, in death as he never was in life. The worth of his life and the guilt for its ending must be heard. These should not be the final words on this matter, although they are probably the truest.

The final word will only come when it is the Hollow Men like Starmer who have to face judgement for their crimes, rather than poor men like Peter Lynch facing judgement for the truth. That judgement may come from no human court at all, but I hope and pray that it will come from a better Judge on a better Day.