Your penetrating assessment of Starmer is compelling. On reflection, when one considers all of Schwab's place men and women, they all share that icy ruthless determination to plow through any inconvenient hindrance to their goals. Starmer is also a vain man like Blair - notice his frequent change of hairstyle, one day the "quiff" points left, the next right, thick with brylcreem, and the new thick black spectacle frames to give him more gravitas, etc...
Yes, those surface details are telling. The constant tiny but unimaginative alterations, the shallowness of it but also the predictability. In many ways Starmer is close to how Spitting Image and the media used to portray John Major. That kind of bone deep, DNA deep nasal accountant personality, or lack of personality. There’s just nothing there, and so of cours3 a nothing is prepared to do anything he is told to do.
1. Starmer has stated publicly that he doesn't read books, + other statements suggesting he has no inner life. That and his open, endless mendacity suggests sociopathy.
2. Corbyn, also a reprobrate, is one with principles. Yes, they stink. But he doesn't change them. Starmer has none.
Peter Hitchens spot on when he stated that Starmer is far more dangerous than Corbyn, who Starmer supported for and as leader. Then booted out.
I don't think it's true that Corbyn doesn't change his principles. He was a longtime advocate of leaving the EU (a rarity in the Labour party) and then suddenly switched sides.
That’s true and a good additional point. But his essence (the love of anyone other than his own people and country, the pathetic Marxist ideas regarding colonial guilt, the support for terrorist organisations so long as they could be fitted into that Marxist struggle category all remained unchanging. He abandoned the only position where he was right. Still, compared to Starmer, that’s at least a set of sincere moral postures, even if they are all effectively evil.
I profess complete ignorance of UK politics but all I have read (Spectator is the usual source) the election of Starmer was mindless. Oh I guess you’ll do…
Do you think it was like our mindless and idiotic support of US politicians because of melanin content or genitalia (and what they do with same?) I don’t understand the appeal but as you can see we are very susceptible to the “first” fill in the blank candidate.
I think we in the US have dodged a bullet, is there any hope for the UK to be the country of Winston Churchill?
We don’t have a Churchill, sadly. But people didn’t go for Labour at the election-their vote was actually down. Our system massively favoured them though. It’s weighted towards the 2 main parties. The Tories were hit with a massive protest vote, and half their vote went to Reform. Reform got millions of votes but lots of 2nd place finishes that don’t translate as seats. Labour got 9.7 million votes and I think it was 412 seats. Tories 6 million votes and 100 or so seats, Reform 4.5 million votes and only FIVE seats. That’s how weighted it is in favour of the main parties.
Starmer sounds like a successful graduate of the MkUltra program, maybe they have a program in the UK. Someone mentioned they thought Kamala showed signs of being in it. I wonder what the possibility of there being very many western leaders who were in it. It would explain their bizarre choices
I’ve no doubt that there were British equivalents. Really though we should think of it as much more than this (CIA or intel community specific brainwashing projects) and more as an entire social class adopting the logic and behaviours of a cult. That’s been and is deliberately guided by psy-ops but it also becomes self fulfilling because adherence to it is the key to social and financial advancement and because the whole class constantly reinforce the messages the6 receive as a a way of distinguishing themselves as the elite.
Your penetrating assessment of Starmer is compelling. On reflection, when one considers all of Schwab's place men and women, they all share that icy ruthless determination to plow through any inconvenient hindrance to their goals. Starmer is also a vain man like Blair - notice his frequent change of hairstyle, one day the "quiff" points left, the next right, thick with brylcreem, and the new thick black spectacle frames to give him more gravitas, etc...
Yes, those surface details are telling. The constant tiny but unimaginative alterations, the shallowness of it but also the predictability. In many ways Starmer is close to how Spitting Image and the media used to portray John Major. That kind of bone deep, DNA deep nasal accountant personality, or lack of personality. There’s just nothing there, and so of cours3 a nothing is prepared to do anything he is told to do.
1. Starmer has stated publicly that he doesn't read books, + other statements suggesting he has no inner life. That and his open, endless mendacity suggests sociopathy.
2. Corbyn, also a reprobrate, is one with principles. Yes, they stink. But he doesn't change them. Starmer has none.
Peter Hitchens spot on when he stated that Starmer is far more dangerous than Corbyn, who Starmer supported for and as leader. Then booted out.
Starmer frightens me.
I don't think it's true that Corbyn doesn't change his principles. He was a longtime advocate of leaving the EU (a rarity in the Labour party) and then suddenly switched sides.
That’s true and a good additional point. But his essence (the love of anyone other than his own people and country, the pathetic Marxist ideas regarding colonial guilt, the support for terrorist organisations so long as they could be fitted into that Marxist struggle category all remained unchanging. He abandoned the only position where he was right. Still, compared to Starmer, that’s at least a set of sincere moral postures, even if they are all effectively evil.
True. Regardless, compared to Starmer... this was the only time this happened and he did sèem slightly embarrassed by it.
Embarrasment is not an emotion Starmer recognises. In fact, I am not sure he know emotion. One of a number of reasons I believe him to be a sociopath
Yea that’s a very accurate assessment.
Perfectly put, Daniel.
The only thing I will add. Starmer is a despicable POS.
Thanks Ivor. It’s a very accurate addition.
I profess complete ignorance of UK politics but all I have read (Spectator is the usual source) the election of Starmer was mindless. Oh I guess you’ll do…
Do you think it was like our mindless and idiotic support of US politicians because of melanin content or genitalia (and what they do with same?) I don’t understand the appeal but as you can see we are very susceptible to the “first” fill in the blank candidate.
I think we in the US have dodged a bullet, is there any hope for the UK to be the country of Winston Churchill?
We don’t have a Churchill, sadly. But people didn’t go for Labour at the election-their vote was actually down. Our system massively favoured them though. It’s weighted towards the 2 main parties. The Tories were hit with a massive protest vote, and half their vote went to Reform. Reform got millions of votes but lots of 2nd place finishes that don’t translate as seats. Labour got 9.7 million votes and I think it was 412 seats. Tories 6 million votes and 100 or so seats, Reform 4.5 million votes and only FIVE seats. That’s how weighted it is in favour of the main parties.
Starmer sounds like a successful graduate of the MkUltra program, maybe they have a program in the UK. Someone mentioned they thought Kamala showed signs of being in it. I wonder what the possibility of there being very many western leaders who were in it. It would explain their bizarre choices
I’ve no doubt that there were British equivalents. Really though we should think of it as much more than this (CIA or intel community specific brainwashing projects) and more as an entire social class adopting the logic and behaviours of a cult. That’s been and is deliberately guided by psy-ops but it also becomes self fulfilling because adherence to it is the key to social and financial advancement and because the whole class constantly reinforce the messages the6 receive as a a way of distinguishing themselves as the elite.
Well done.
Thanks. 😀
Brilliant.
Thanks Michael. 😀