Britain Is A Madhouse

Why Britain is turning into a lunatic asylum

When I say that Britain is a nuthouse, I do not mean it in the sense of Heath Ledger’s Joker’s nihilistic chic insanity, but more a Kafkaesque or Lovecraftian madness. Britain’s madness is one in which truth and reality are dangled before the natives on a piece of string attached to a rod and forever being snatched away by the ruling class with the words “Oh no, you almost had it!” In contrast, at other times, the rod is used as a lash to scour the backs of unruly plebs who speak out of turn.

Every social situation runs against one’s intuition and common sense. Lies are heaped upon lies to create an infinitely flexible, ever-shifting morass of bewilderment and incomprehension.

After a week of unrest following the murder of three young girls by the son of Rwandan refugees, Keir Starmer took to the podium at Number 10 Downing Street to address the nation. Hearing Starmer speak, you could have been forgiven for thinking that the three young girls had been swept away by a large wave while paddling or that perhaps a roof had collapsed on them or they’d been sucked up by a hurricane. In actual fact, they’d been stabbed to death in a targeted and premeditated act of savagery for reasons as yet unknown. But the nudge units and applied psychology specialists do not like talk of the perpetrator’s identity or motivations; they have long since discovered that in such delicate matters, the focus should be squarely on the families and victims… just in case.

However, a jaded, alienated, and cynical population has become accustomed to such technocratic sleight of hand. As soon as the outrage became known, questions were asked about who had done it and why.

To return to a comparison I’ve made before, imagine a pre-DEI hire aviation industry after a plane had flown into a mountain. A jumbo jet has 6 million parts, and every one of those parts has been through quality control checks, cleaning, and testing. Planes do not fly into mountains very often, and there is a reason for that: every time, they have the aviation industry meticulously and painstakingly accounted for every single vector of hazard and reported their findings intending to decrease the chances of a repeat disaster in the future. Was the pilot depressed or going through a messy divorce? Was he a drunk? Had somebody cut costs or outsourced key equipment to a shady cut-price merchant?

In Britain, the multicultural plane hasn’t just flown into the mountain on multiple occasions; the government will call you an extremist if you point out the oil belching from the fuselage or the duct tape holding the chassis together.

When news began to trickle onto social media that an atrocity had taken place in Southport, there was, inevitably, a lot of half-truths and scampering to find the correct narrative frame. The liberals picked up on the fact that the perpetrator was born in Cardiff to Rwandan parents. Therefore, he wasn’t an immigrant but a Welshman. Yet, allowing somebody to claim they’re “as British as you” via bureaucratic mandate is only to fall back on a previously established lie that the native population had no say in or control over. Furthermore, once the passport and paperwork have been filed, it is quite literally a crime to argue that an in-group and an out-group exist unless it is to the benefit of the minority group, such as recognising that they face discrimination.

Needless to say, in this process, the concept of Welsh as an identity and distinct people has been scraped clean of all meaning and coherence. Religion, history, and ethnicity are merely distant add-ons to the form that matters: bureaucratic procedure. Within such a flimsy construction, the multicultural project takes to the air, and we swiftly run into the next dollop of delusion. Having established that everyone from everywhere is the same if the paperwork is in order, the liberal intelligentsia and their water carriers can relativise any unpleasantness: a crime is simply a crime. To suggest that inter-ethnic crime is worse or that racial animosity may be a motive is to suggest difference and is therefore racist - unless the victim is a protected class, such as Stephen Lawrence, in which case it will become seared into the national consciousness and politicised for decades. If three young white girls are knifed to death, no such questions may be asked because it undermines the regime's formula: a crime is just a crime.

Having clipped the treetops of the most outrageous double standards and hypocrisy, we now hurtle into the dense fog of pattern recognition, which, too, is an egregious sin and borderline illegal faux pas. Three dead little girls, butchered, naturally elicit a weary and exhausted response of “here we go again” or a more cautious eye-roll. The implication is that the increase in barbarism is a predictable result of mass immigration and decades into the project, we’re attuned to the approximate background of the perpetrator.

However, the multitude of lies and false assumptions already baked into society presuppose a great mass of mere individuals, some good, some bad, but recognising patterns across groups is absolutely forbidden. Here, the liberalistic assumptions are that society ticks over just fine except for a sporadic explosion of horror, that we mainly live at level 1 peace and calm but then descend straight into level 10 mass murder. The actual lived reality of a multi-ethnic society hovers around a level 5/6, that is to say, a state of simmering distrust, tension, and the expectation that “something could happen” at any moment. Naturally, this can’t be easily quantified, but that doesn’t matter anyway because, once again, recognising groups in a negative light is forbidden. To say that you “feel” uncomfortable surrounded by The Other (who you are forbidden from describing as such) is to designate yourself as the outlier and the problem.

It may be taboo for native Brits to see groups and patterns, but the British Government has no such qualms. The Equality Act of 2010 established nine “protected characteristics”, which was essentially a carve-out for the state’s client groups, a blatant snub to core liberal principles.

Eight-year-old white girls dancing at a Taylor Swift day do not have protected characteristics; a black seventeen-year-old with parents from Rwanda does. As we understand them, the Welsh people do not have protected characteristics, but this particular “Welshman”, despite being as Welsh as Owain Glyndŵr, does.

The Government and institutions demand that we simultaneously see no difference and no groups while codifying into law that not only do groups exist, but some are more equal than others. Working-class white people from places such as Hartlepool intuitively feel that something is profoundly sinister and simply wrong about all of this, but intuition is merely written off as prejudice. The police intuitively understand that dealing with a protected group carries with it a vastly increased risk of work-out sessions at the HR department and their mortgage being placed in jeopardy, and it shows in their policing.

On the day after the Southport murders, I spent an hour scrolling through the news stories floating down my timeline, as I noted:

My timeline is an endless flow of multiculturalism destroying Britain.

17 stabbings in 48 hours

Migrant throws postman onto rail track

Rwandan butchers 3 English girls

Machete gangs in Southend

Some other foreigner attacking a bus

The country is a fucking nuthouse

In the pre-multicultural Britain of 1993, two young boys, Robert Thompson and John Venables, horribly murdered a toddler named James Bulger after abducting him from New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, where his mother was shopping. The case struck the nation like an axe, cleaving into soft flesh as if the soul of England was torn and sundered by its barbarism, made worse by the extreme youth of all involved. As a news story, it ran for months and months while more contemplative minds asked what had happened in Britain writ large that such an atrocity could occur. It would be inaccurate to say the Bulger Killing was not politicised. It was.

Then Prime Minister John Major took aim at “touchy feely” liberal mores regarding child rearing and psychology.

Society needs to condemn a little more, and understand a little less.

Then Shadow Home Secretary Tony Blair said:

We hear of crimes so horrific they provoke anger and disbelief in equal proportions ... These are the ugly manifestations of a society that is becoming unworthy of that name.

You will notice that both men assume that Britain is a “society” and, in 1993, they were correct. An event such as the Bulger Killing shocked the nation because there was no external element, and if answers were to be found, they would have to be found internally, within ourselves and the country we lived in. In other words, there were common bonds and assumptions, an empathetic glue binding everyone because there was only us. Multiculturalism is a solvent to that glue, which is now disintegrated.

A society is defined as “a voluntary association of individuals for common ends”. Modern Britain is neither a voluntary association nor merely individuals and, as such, has no common ends. What common end do you or I have with Axel Rudakubana, the Southport murderer? None. Modern Britain doesn’t even meet the definition of a society, and because of this, life has become cheap, or at least certain types of life. In the post-society, what would usually be regarded as the most precious group within traditional society becomes mere grist to the mill. It is an embarrassing headline to be displaced as swiftly as possible.

In the aftermath, the Guardian carried this headline as if to deliberately humiliate the native population still further.

In a healthy society, the editors would have dropped such an “offensive” headline and article; in ours, it would merely result in regurgitating the aforementioned lies and half-truths on the nature of citizenship and identity.

The Kafkaesque nature of the country the British natives now find themselves in demands a resolution; there’s an incessant need to “do something” accompanying the cry “what is to be done?” Sporadic and usually ill-informed riots and protests merely serve as a conduit that energises the system into “clamping down harder” on wrong thinkers, but to do nothing equates to simply living with conditions that are steadily driving people mad.

It’s a madhouse, a complete lunatic asylum.

In his speech addressing the unrest and “tragedy”, Keir Starmer spoke at great length on the new laws and surveillance tactics that would be deployed to combat the “far right”. There was not one word of assurance that the policies of the government that led to the murders of three little girls would be reconsidered. Then again, how is the government even to blame if everyone on Earth is the same and seeing groups with intrinsic differences is heretical? To admit to the essence of the problem would be to concede that the core beliefs of the system are maliciously incoherent and nonsensical.

The message Starmer sent out to the client groups was “Don’t worry, we’ve got your back!” while the implicit message to the natives was tantamount to “More of your children will die!” A legitimate question arises, which is so unhinged as to beggar belief, yet it exists: Is it possible to protest against children being murdered without being labeled “far right”? And the answer is no. In the act of blaming the government for the deaths of children, it is implicitly signalled that the government is responsible. Yet, was the government responsible for the Bulger Killing or Soham Murders? No. So why, then, is the government responsible for the Southport murders? It’s because he was foreign, isn’t it? Because his parents were allowed here as an active policy. In other words, mass immigration is to blame. Of course, this is objectively true, but it transgresses the politically correct diktats of the age and will remain unsayable.

Britain or the U-Kay has become a meme country, a country that is synonymous with an oppressive, tyrannical, and bloated civil society class that exists for no other reason than to torment the natives while flagrantly engaging in institutional bias and two-tier policing. We have become the land of managerial spivs rocking up to grieving parents and saying the equivalent of “so your son/daughter/husband/wife has just been murdered, here’s a list of things to say and not say”.

The truth of such memes hits hard because we recognise that they contain more than a passing element of truth. Burning police cars and smashing up residential areas may be counterproductive and stupid, but it isn’t murdering little girls in cold blood! The line of the establishment and the liberals is akin to watching Jaws, but without the shark and only worrying about the marine pollution the explosives created.

The entire monolithic structure rests on a giant balloon propped up by dry, pointed little sticks on a lake of thin ice. Don’t look down; you may not like what you see, and if a few little white girls fall over the side, don’t worry about it; keep looking ahead and blaming the officially designated, safe group to hate: working-class white people.

The questions going forward are not so much about how to win but how not to go completely mad while doing what we can to survive.

As an addendum, I would advise people not to attend any further protests, which are now merely serving only to formalise a police state.